• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ange in or out?

Ange in or out?

  • In

    Votes: 88 70.4%

  • Out

    Votes: 37 29.6%
  • Total voters
    125
Jurgen the German said:
The board, surely he must be answerable to someone? I asked the question the other day how much more time does he deserve in terms of x number of years or managerial appointments. If the fans make things uncomfortable for him then eventually the pressure will get to him.
Click to expand...

Answerable to what? Again mate, not being a clam

The club value, financial results, infrastructure and average league results (over 20 years) have never been better. The board won't give a fudge if we fire Ange, the board isn't going to fire a Chairman because a club that has won 17 trophies in 142 years hasn't won one in the last 13 years.

Yes, the fans aren't happy, but I said it 10 years ago, local fans have as little input as they ever have.
 
Baleforce said:
I mean the fancy attacking football that Levy wanted to bring back to appease the fan base.

I just want to win, we could play ultra violent hoofball but if it worked I’d love it.
Click to expand...
Well that's not what I was talking about. Both of those managers were incompatible due to the financial status of the club and our relatively conservative spending nature. So yes we do need to rule men like them out CV wise.
 
Raziel said:
Answerable to what? Again mate, not being a clam

The club value, financial results, infrastructure and average league results (over 20 years) have never been better. The board won't give a fudge if we fire Ange, the board isn't going to fire a Chairman because a club that has won 17 trophies in 142 years hasn't won one in the last 13 years.

Yes, the fans aren't happy, but I said it 10 years ago, local fans have as little input as they ever have.
Click to expand...

Answerable for a lack of success and progress on the pitch. Successful companies often change who is in charge every so often. So basically the board only care about money and don’t care if we win. That’s cool.
 
Baleforce said:
I mean the fancy attacking football that Levy wanted to bring back to appease the fan base.

I just want to win, we could play ultra violent hoofball but if it worked I’d love it.
Click to expand...

Its not even that anymore though which is the issue. The compromise on defence v attack is not there where we can even choose. Not one shot on target 2nd half.

The only danger we look it to ourselves at the minute
 
Jurgen the German said:
Answerable for a lack of success and progress on the pitch. Successful companies often change who is in charge every so often. So basically the board only care about money and don’t care if we win. That’s cool.
Click to expand...

The boards job is the long term viability of the business, and Spurs is probably the best run club in the league from that perspective. It's a long conversation that most people don't have the patience or nuance for.

Everyone wants the club to spend another 100M/200M/pick a number, ok, with that, are we going to outspend Chelsea or City? no .. how much would that outspend Liverpool or Arsenal by, understanding they have a better squad? So what risk are you taking on for what potential reward? Or is it smarter to keep improving the spend, making longer term investments supplemented by the odd expensive acquisition and in time, perhaps with outside investment make that risk when better placed?

That's the answer no one wants to hear, I get it, but again the idea that it makes no sense or the owners don't care about football is just typical fan stuff.
 
Not helped by having a player who is frankly not good enough to wear our number 10 shirt, or a Captain who looks foocked, and of course none of the preferred back 3.
That said, unless we win a home game soon, I just think a reboot with a new manager is needed, to ginger up the players and ensure we get the 40 points.
 
Baleforce said:
I’m surprised at how little the numbers are moving in this poll.
Click to expand...

My vote is set to "in", but I'm beyond thinking he could save this, tbh. I'm wanting it to get better and for things to change, but I don't think a few players returning from injury will change anything in the long term. We havent been consistently good for well over a year now, only in flashes here and there, and we always have a long injury list - looks like it might have something to do with the way we play, to me. I'm just not sure I would want Mason, Sherwood, Stellini or similar to take over as some sort of interim, which is why I've been leaning towards giving him more time - but if we have someone lined up or are nearing relegation, we need to act, in my opinion.
 
Raziel said:
The boards job is the long term viability of the business, and Spurs is probably the best run club in the league from that perspective. It's a long conversation that most people don't have the patience or nuance for.

Everyone wants the club to spend another 100M/200M/pick a number, ok, with that, are we going to outspend Chelsea or City? no .. how much would that outspend Liverpool or Arsenal by, understanding they have a better squad? So what risk are you taking on for what potential reward? Or is it smarter to keep improving the spend, making longer term investments supplemented by the odd expensive acquisition and in time, perhaps with outside investment make that risk when better placed?

That's the answer no one wants to hear, I get it, but again the idea that it makes no sense or the owners don't care about football is just typical fan stuff.
Click to expand...
You say this all the time but spending more isn't actually the answer, spending better is. An easy example and not one I criticise the club for but we bought Johnson for £47m the very same summer that Cole Palmer left City for £40m. That's a smarter buy and for less money. We bought Richarlison for £60m as our first attempt at a Kane replacement but instead could have bought Duran for £17m.

So yes I know you find it easy to dismiss all criticism by claiming people just want to spunk money, when spending better is actually the answer and the request.
 
Raziel said:
The boards job is the long term viability of the business, and Spurs is probably the best run club in the league from that perspective. It's a long conversation that most people don't have the patience or nuance for.

Everyone wants the club to spend another 100M/200M/pick a number, ok, with that, are we going to outspend Chelsea or City? no .. how much would that outspend Liverpool or Arsenal by, understanding they have a better squad? So what risk are you taking on for what potential reward? Or is it smarter to keep improving the spend, making longer term investments supplemented by the odd expensive acquisition and in time, perhaps with outside investment make that risk when better placed?

That's the answer no one wants to hear, I get it, but again the idea that it makes no sense or the owners don't care about football is just typical fan stuff.
Click to expand...

Can I just ask though, what is left for Levy to build/achieve now that the stadium has been built? It’s a fantastic stadium, but it’s a fair question to ask if he is the man to deliver success in this part of the journey.

In answer to your questions, I would like us to spend more on wages so we can attract the real top tier players or even just the up and coming next big thing type player. Instead, we go for players like Solanke which is pretty much our ceiling. And for the record, I do like Solanke, but is he the type of player to take us to the next level? He could well be, but we need higher quality than the likes of him and Johnson IMO.
 
it's been a downhill slope since those first 10 games last season.

if he had any clue what to do, he'd have done it by now, or at the very least we'd be seeing a clear improvement. current injuries accepted, but they've not all been injured for the last 12 months.

he's got to go I'm afraid, we need a manager with tactical nous, someone who can set a team up properly without looking like we will concede as soo as the other team cross halfway.
 
I voted in. But the more games that go by, unfortunately, the more I think he is out of his depth. He usually turns things around in his second season. That’s not happening any time soon though. If our players are knackered by Christmas, it’s only going to get worse as the season progresses. I think he needs to go sooner rather than later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back