Daniel Levy - Chairman

[braineclipse]

I think it is very significatn, because essentially, transfers/deals are conducted in the same way they always have been, which means Daniel reverts to his favoured 'let's see if I can squeeze a bit more from this one' and sometimes plays the game too tight to the margins.

Ange had to fight very very hard for VdV. Everyone else wanted Tapsoba (as I understand it). Ange was insistant on VdV.
Take Dragusin. I believe Daniel was instrumental in getting that deal over the line, actually flying to get the paperwork done, but only because he had engaged in usual operations and gone close to losing the deal altogether.

You seem very defensive of him.
I am not about to launch into a defense of all the great things he's done for the club/brand, because we see them everywhere.
The stadium.
Incredible.
But equally, it is undeniable that he has a way of operating which is absolutely rooted in cold finance. And for all the players he has signed, there is a list of key, key players he did not get across the line (or even approach getting across the line).

Perhaps I am defensive of him. I have no issues pointing out mistakes and weaknesses with him. There have been many. He does take long with some signings, that has downsides. But paying more to get deals done quickly would also have downsides. Do that regularly and it would easily cost us a Bergvall or Yang type signing... As long as player and talent identification is good if we get the right player two weeks earlier or two weeks later is not a big deal imo and on the whole a bit of a wash from where I'm seeing things.

I think he's overall good, better than most. A replacement will always be a crap shoot. Rather have someone competent than an unknown.

I would like to undersand the point you're making better mate.

What I am getting from your comment, is that he is damned is he does and damned if he doesn't?

Let's face it, for a variety of reasons debated many many times here, he failed to give Poch the proper lift at key moments.
When he did, it was too late and he sacked him a few months later.
He then hired managers -in Mourinho and Conte- who require large instant injections to deliver immediate results. He didn't give either manager that which they openly require, each hung in for the pay-off, and it was an experiment which failed despite having the most prolific pair of forwards possibly in Premier League history (I known - a bit hyperbolic maybe!).

He has now gone back to 'project' mode, and I am happy with that as long as Ange gets project time and the sort of investment he wants in key areas when he needs it. Gallagher was one of those players. Whether we rate him or not, Ange really wanted him. We didn't get the deal done and it was there to be done. Eze similarly. Solanke? Let's face it, if he hadn't got that done, Ange would likely have quit it was that important to the club. Essentially (IMO) we are back in the early Poch days, and we cannot make the mistakes we made back then (i.e. n ot getting Mane when the manager really wanted him).
If Daniel is prepared to give Ange this season and next, with backing, fantastic and well played. Because I think Ange can do it for us, I really do. Let's see...

In a way yes, damned either way unless we get trophies/real success.

It's really hard for us to succeed, toughest league in the world, financially second best compared to several bigger teams. Most strategies will fail way more often than succeed in those circumstances and unless there's the success we crave he'll get criticism - both fair and unfair.

I was ambivalent to the Mourinho and Conte experiments. And I think Covid hampered our execution of those experiments. But they were long shots, like other strategies more likely to fail than succeed. With Kane and Son I can understand not going into project mode and probably lose Kane earlier than we did... But it didn't work out and I prefer project mode for us by some distance.

He failed to give Pochettino a lift, but the football decisions at the time with regards to transfers also let us down.

From where I'm seeing things we're mostly spending whatever money we can sustainably spend. I think we mostly did so under Pochettino too. I'm not expecting cash injections and do not want oil state money owners.

100%
And in the modern game, if we want to win the major major prizes, top 4 is going to be vital financially.

As for being good enough to be in the CL regularly increasing our chances, that only works IF at that point we invest to actually WIN them, as opposed to simply maintaining a top 4 push.

You might find our pod discussion this week interesting FYI

Again, from where I'm seeing things we do invest, we do spend. Whenever we have money to spend. There was a period with the stadium build we didn't, I think that's in part because we couldn't and in part because the transfer committee at the time let us down.

I don't like the "we should have signed X player" argument. In part because that's an argument that can be made about every other club, including those richer than us, and vastly richer than us pre stadium completion. Partly also because the transfer committee shold be able to identify multiple suitable (ranked) targets.

Tapsoba and VdV... Listen to the manager, but if the first choice isn't gettable, get the next guy.

I think we wanted Doue this summer. We seemed to want Nusa. Those didn't happen, in part couldn't happen. So we got Odobert. I like that. I don't like "Manager wanted X". You have to have a structure in place with multiple good targets being identified for any role.

Which spins an excellent question.
What do we consider moving in a positive direction, and how do we measure it? By ourselves? By those around us?
I'm going to think about it myself.

People will differ.

For me a lot if talent in the squad. Issues in the squad being sorted. A sustainable financial model and a good playing style to attract and develop young players into a team that can succeed over time. Mixed with shorter term fixes for key positions.

But I don't think we had the option of signing both Solanke and Eze without leaving us way too short in other areas. And without adding younger players who will hopefully be really important for us in years to come. I think going for Solanke was a footballing decision, not a Levy decision.

 

[braineclipse]

looking back at the last transfer window, we secured exciting young talents but only solanke as an established quality addition.

its an improvement to when there was no budget for poch to improve the team, but really if levy wanted to win something it was obvious we needed a quality backup/improvement in at least a couple of positions.

if levy wanted to win something it wasn't this season with ange

We needed all the players we signed. We'd be fudged at full back if not for what Gray has offered us. We needed another midfielder like Bergvall even though he hasn't stepped up so far. We needed a dribbly both sided winger like Odobert. And these last couple of months have shown quite clearly why we needed another wide option in Werner.

If there was a way to sign that number of players and getting 2-3 established quality options as a part of that while still getting a similar number of players in I think that would have been a decent option.

If that was done it would probably have been at the expense of Gray and Odobert, two really talented players I like. And probably signing a couple of less talented option players instead.

At some point we would have needed those players, they probably would have been a bit meh. Levy would be blamed for not backing the manager and in 18 months those meh players would be sold at a loss making people question the decision making of this summer's transfer window.

I like this approach because even if it hurts us somewhat short term at least we have Gray, Bergvall, Yang and Odobert and hopefully at least a couple of them will step up over time. We've seen repeatedly how the process of signing for the here and now can also hurt us, both short and long term.

Our failure to sign top talented young players over years stretching back through the Pochettino end times and Mourinho, until Paratici came in is imo the main reason our squad was in such a mess when Ange took over.

The younger players we did start signing when Paratici came in like Udogie and Sarr have been key in somewhat fixing those issues. The last thing we should do is stop with those signings. Not saying you want us to stop, but I think it makes sense to prioritise those signings in a window like this summer. We needed a lot of players being back in Europe.

 

[thfcsteff]

As ever some great discussion points.

Perhaps I am defensive of him. I have no issues pointing out mistakes and weaknesses with him. There have been many. He does take long with some signings, that has downsides. But paying more to get deals done quickly would also have downsides. Do that regularly and it would easily cost us a Bergvall or Yang type signing... As long as player and talent identification is good if we get the right player two weeks earlier or two weeks later is not a big deal imo and on the whole a bit of a wash from where I'm seeing things.

I think waiting a close season to get key targets hurts us. Get that business done fast. There was no reason for Solanke to take as long as it did if the price was set. The manager and player lose several weeks of important integration. No-one is asking for this on a regular basis, just the key signings we've known we needed.

I think he's overall good, better than most. A replacement will always be a crap shoot. Rather have someone competent than an unknown.

He is most certainly much better than many for sure. I have not once asked for him to be ousted. I am simply pointing out where I believe his methods cost us.

In a way yes, damned either way unless we get trophies/real success.

It's really hard for us to succeed, toughest league in the world, financially second best compared to several bigger teams. Most strategies will fail way more often than succeed in those circumstances and unless there's the success we crave he'll get criticism - both fair and unfair.

This is true. Again, nothing in discussing Levy is binary.

I was ambivalent to the Mourinho and Conte experiments. And I think Covid hampered our execution of those experiments. But they were long shots, like other strategies more likely to fail than succeed. With Kane and Son I can understand not going into project mode and probably lose Kane earlier than we did... But it didn't work out and I prefer project mode for us by some distance.

Covid did not help, that is a very good point. I wish I could claim your ambivalence to both. Sadly I cannot. They were appts which deeply troubled me as I knew neither would work. I of course swallowed it and supported the team/club.

He failed to give Pochettino a lift, but the football decisions at the time with regards to transfers also let us down.

Are you talking about Ndombele and Lo Celso? That's been discussed so many times. I think one thing everyone can agree on is that having given him the signings, don't sack him before he gets to properly work with them. Or else, don't give him the signings!

From where I'm seeing things we're mostly spending whatever money we can sustainably spend. I think we mostly did so under Pochettino too. I'm not expecting cash injections and do not want oil state money owners.

Agree on oil state owners. And yes, it is 'sustainable spend' based on getting us top 4 competitive. Nothing else. Poch still does not get recognized fully for what he achieved IMO.

Again, from where I'm seeing things we do invest, we do spend. Whenever we have money to spend. There was a period with the stadium build we didn't, I think that's in part because we couldn't and in part because the transfer committee at the time let us down.

There will always be several contributing factors to a situation, I agree.

I don't like the "we should have signed X player" argument. In part because that's an argument that can be made about every other club, including those richer than us, and vastly richer than us pre stadium completion. Partly also because the transfer committee shold be able to identify multiple suitable (ranked) targets.

OK. But if the manager and his trusted team identify specific players, then (within the reason of numbers) we should sign them. Mane (and Winaldjum) not coming saw Mitchell quitting. Levy's answer to not getting Mane was signing Sissoko for 30 mil on deadline day. Now I loved him, but he is not a 'Mane' and it took Poch some time to figure out how he could use him. We also got NJie and NKoudou in successive windows; clearly our recruitment was not finding great alternatives.

Tapsoba and VdV... Listen to the manager, but if the first choice isn't gettable, get the next guy.

And this is the crux of the discussion/argument. How many times might the first choice have been gettable but we chose the next option for a wider series of reasons? I think it's a fair question to ask.

I think we wanted Doue this summer. We seemed to want Nusa. Those didn't happen, in part couldn't happen. So we got Odobert. I like that. I don't like "Manager wanted X". You have to have a structure in place with multiple good targets being identified for any role.

I understand the 'options' model, but ask yourself why we seem (more often than not) to have taken the wrong option in the last 10-12 years? Paratici sorted a lot of stuff out it must be said, albeit we might not want to know how always!!!!

People will differ.

For me a lot if talent in the squad. Issues in the squad being sorted. A sustainable financial model and a good playing style to attract and develop young players into a team that can succeed over time. Mixed with shorter term fixes for key positions.

But I don't think we had the option of signing both Solanke and Eze without leaving us way too short in other areas. And without adding younger players who will hopefully be really important for us in years to come. I think going for Solanke was a footballing decision, not a Levy decision.

Mate. I did not say Solanke was a Levy decision? It was the one signing we needed above anything. I still cannot figure out why it took so long to make given that.
I respectfully disagree re: Eze. I believe we could've signed both. We would not have signed either Odobert or resigned Werner had we done so. IMO we took the easy option with Werner and the 'punt' option with Odobert. I really hope I am wrong, but I do not think Odobert will ever be a regular for us (print and frame it for when he scores the CL Final winner in 2027 LOL)...

 

[billyiddo]

Its what Jol used to say. If you aim for 4th, but are competing against 4 teams aiming for 1st, you'll never get 4th

Even more true these days with a really strong group of clubs, numbering close to 8 (?) compared to back then when there was a top 4 then a chasing pack

 

[Jurgen the German]

I think the comparisons to CEOs of "normal" companies, presidents or a manager seem more relevant to you than to me.

The only thing that would change your mind is success on the pitch. The only thing that would change my mind would be if we're no longer seemingly moving in a positive direction.

But we’ve had periods when we most definitely were not moving in the right direction and yet people still seemed happy for Levy to continue running the club, most recently when Jose was let go and Mason took over. Essentially the entire period in between Jose and Conte was a mess. And the end of Conte’s reign when Stellini took over. Seems like Levy is given a lot more leeway than any manager or players get.

 

[Jurgen the German]

We have had the most success under his ownership. He’s increased my love and passion for the club.

Most success compared to what?

 

[billyiddo]

looking back at the last transfer window, we secured exciting young talents but only solanke as an established quality addition.

its an improvement to when there was no budget for poch to improve the team, but really if levy wanted to win something it was obvious we needed a quality backup/improvement in at least a couple of positions.

if levy wanted to win something it wasn't this season with ange

A couple *more* positions...

We strengthened starting CF as you say and then went down the young with high ceiling route to add depth in 3 (?) other positions. Not every position we needed depth in was hit, but some/most(?) were.

I think we missed out on Neto and the LB from the French league, if those two signings had been made then we'd have probably covered every part of the squad that needed attention.

 

[billyiddo]

But we’ve had periods when we most definitely were not moving in the right direction and yet people still seemed happy for Levy to continue running the club, most recently when Jose was let go and Mason took over. Essentially the entire period in between Jose and Conte was a mess. And the end of Conte’s reign when Stellini took over. Seems like Levy is given a lot more leeway than any manager or players get.

Owners are long term positions and so the periods on which you judge them are longer by default. Unless you think it's realistic to be demanding new owners every time you have set back of a few seasons? (A set back which amounted to a season or two out of Europe?)

 

[glorygloryeze]

We have had the most success under his ownership. He’s increased my love and passion for the club.

Is that a very, erm, calculated post?

 

[Jurgen the German]

Owners are long term positions and so the periods on which you judge them are longer by default. Unless you think it's realistic to be demanding new owners every time you have set back of a few seasons? (A set back which amounted to a season or two out of Europe?)

I get they are longer term but they have been in charge 20+ years. I am just surprised/baffled by the patience some have with them that’s all.

 

[billyiddo]

I get they are longer term but they have been in charge 20+ years. I am just surprised/baffled by the patience some have with them that’s all.

My response was mostly to this sentence :

But we’ve had periods when we most definitely were not moving in the right direction and yet people still seemed happy for Levy to continue running the club


If you actually 'got that they are longer term' then I don't think you'd be questioning why people had patience in those periods when we were not moving in the right direction.

 

[Muttley]

Which spins an excellent question.
What do we consider moving in a positive direction, and how do we measure it? By ourselves? By those around us?
I'm going to think about it myself.

I've thought about this one a lot. I've made this quite easy for myself.

Firstly, I just want to get back to 2016/17 levels and....secondly, I want to stay there and.....thirdly, go beyond in the next phase.

Right now, how would you feel if I said that Spurs could finish 2nd in the league with 86 points, only conceding 26 goals and scoring 86 goals? Putting the game of chance that is cup competitions to one side, if I said that we now had that as our PL baseline. However, this time it won't start to immediately fall apart with a summer of zero net spending and gradual decline down to 60 points over 2-3 years.

For me, 16/17 was my favourite season under Poch and I genuinely believed we had arrived. Then I watched in disbelief at the next set of transfer activities and knew that it was going to be our pinnacle for a long time. By the way, that includes the CL final season where the players only turned up for their manager on midweeks and collected their CL bonuses. The only agenda through those next few years was the stadium and unfortunately COVID. Tough years, and bad decisions by Levy on the footbal ops side.

It's also because I believe that if we can get to 16/167 levels again, this time we can sustain them based on the financial model we now operate under. I also know that if we sustain those levels, we will win cups as a consequence of being at that level. We won't be in the lap of the footballing gods (and dodgy referees) as much as we've been recently in the semi-finals and finals.

My big question is whether Ange has the managerial smarts to get us back to 86 points? Poch did with way less resources. Poch's 16/17 would be Ange's 25/26 season so we just have to be patient. However, if this time next season we can see that we're not going to have the 16/17 season again I'm not against making the manager switch in the new year of 2026. Ange has had the most expensively assembled squad of my lifetime. It started in before his tenure in 21/22 and has just continued now for 3 years. He's a luckier man than any manager before him.

 

[braineclipse]

As ever some great discussion points.



I think waiting a close season to get key targets hurts us. Get that business done fast. There was no reason for Solanke to take as long as it did if the price was set. The manager and player lose several weeks of important integration. No-one is asking for this on a regular basis, just the key signings we've known we needed.




He is most certainly much better than many for sure. I have not once asked for him to be ousted. I am simply pointing out where I believe his methods cost us.




This is true. Again, nothing in discussing Levy is binary.




Covid did not help, that is a very good point. I wish I could claim your ambivalence to both. Sadly I cannot. They were appts which deeply troubled me as I knew neither would work. I of course swallowed it and supported the team/club.




Are you talking about Ndombele and Lo Celso? That's been discussed so many times. I think one thing everyone can agree on is that having given him the signings, don't sack him before he gets to properly work with them. Or else, don't give him the signings!



Agree on oil state owners. And yes, it is 'sustainable spend' based on getting us top 4 competitive. Nothing else. Poch still does not get recognized fully for what he achieved IMO.





There will always be several contributing factors to a situation, I agree.




OK. But if the manager and his trusted team identify specific players, then (within the reason of numbers) we should sign them. Mane (and Winaldjum) not coming saw Mitchell quitting. Levy's answer to not getting Mane was signing Sissoko for 30 mil on deadline day. Now I loved him, but he is not a 'Mane' and it took Poch some time to figure out how he could use him. We also got NJie and NKoudou in successive windows; clearly our recruitment was not finding great alternatives.



And this is the crux of the discussion/argument. How many times might the first choice have been gettable but we chose the next option for a wider series of reasons? I think it's a fair question to ask.



I understand the 'options' model, but ask yourself why we seem (more often than not) to have taken the wrong option in the last 10-12 years? Paratici sorted a lot of stuff out it must be said, albeit we might not want to know how always!!!!




Mate. I did not say Solanke was a Levy decision? It was the one signing we needed above anything. I still cannot figure out why it took so long to make given that.
I respectfully disagree re: Eze. I believe we could've signed both. We would not have signed either Odobert or resigned Werner had we done so. IMO we took the easy option with Werner and the 'punt' option with Odobert. I really hope I am wrong, but I do not think Odobert will ever be a regular for us (print and frame it for when he scores the CL Final winner in 2027 LOL)...

Always great conversing with you too. Trying to condense my answers somewhat, not succeeding. If I missed important points you made feel free to bring them back up.

I can accept that Mourinho and Conte were just mistakes. Partly I can understand why those gambles were taken, but it was a real long shot. And I really think we needed a better structure more than trusting Mourinho at that time.

On timing for signings I mostly agree. Some we should be doing quicker. But it's difficult to know the reasons for them taking time most of the time. I think overall we're moving a bit quicker now than before. Again, no doubts there have been situations where Levy could and should have done more.

Honestly I think the transfer committee should be able to identify multiple targets for any one position. If they make themselves clear and there is consensus on one specific player being a clear stand out that should be the priority. Without knowing what goes on behind closed doors I find it difficult to be very critical of Levy on these things.

We have taken the wrong option too many times imo because of a lack of clarity on what we need. I think this was a bigger problem under Poch and the structure in place then. It's gotten quite a bit better imo. Again I think that clarity must come from the footballing people.

Sorry about the Solanke wording. I just meant that as an example where we know that signing was a bit controversial, where I think Levy has been "blamed" by some. Wasn't an accusation your way.

On transfers under Pochettino, that's a hornets nest of a discussion... After signing Wanyama (who was really good, unfortunately got injured) we signed: Janssen, Pau Lopez, N'Koudou, Sissoko, Sanchez, Gazzaniga, Foyth, Llorrente, Aurier and Moura. Then the summer of no signings, then the infamous final window.

Quick, not even back of the envelope, estimate £120m+ at least (not including the final window). Not a single clear cut success story. Not one player who ever even got close to being wanted by a better team willing to pay more than we did for them. Most leaving for way less than we paid for them. Not one player ending up as an upgrade on what we had, or that would be that now. And those were players who had time under Poch, when we were good.

Some perfectly adequate signings in there. A couple of cheaper talents, a couple of good squad players. But no real successes. Simply no way good enough.

The summer of no transfers was obviously not a good thing. Made much worse thing by not doing good enough business for a while before that.

I think part of that was down to a lack of clarity on the footballing side. And I think (bigger hornets nest) Pochettino was part of the problem with that. At least football side decision making lacking quite a bit. But again I think Levy trusted those in charge on that side. And they should have done better.

And on this "Pochettino wanted Wijnaldum" doesn't cut it as an argument for me. If Pochettino wanted such a different profile to Sissoko the transfer team should be able to identify a handful of players that fit that profile. So that if we can't get Wijnaldum, get the next one. Get a teenager if a proven player isn't available, but make sure you get a profile fit.

That's part of what I like about this summer. We couldn't afford established players for that number of roles. So we went young instead, but got players that seemingly fit the profile. That's so much better than signing a good, established player that doesn't fit the system. It's not going to be a quick fix, but it may actually in time solve some problems instead of creating new one's.

In hindsight Levy should have insisted on that along with a strong enough and good enough DoF. Even if that meant Pochettino walked.

 

[braineclipse]

I've thought about this one a lot. I've made this quite easy for myself.

Firstly, I just want to get back to 2016/17 levels and....secondly, I want to stay there and.....thirdly, go beyond in the next phase.

Right now, how would you feel if I said that Spurs could finish 2nd in the league with 86 points, only conceding 26 goals and scoring 86 goals? Putting the game of chance that is cup competitions to one side, if I said that we now had that as our PL baseline. However, this time it won't start to immediately fall apart with a summer of zero net spending and gradual decline down to 60 points over 2-3 years.

For me, 16/17 was my favourite season under Poch and I genuinely believed we had arrived. Then I watched in disbelief at the next set of transfer activities and knew that it was going to be our pinnacle for a long time. By the way, that includes the CL final season where the players only turned up for their manager on midweeks and collected their CL bonuses. The only agenda through those next few years was the stadium and unfortunately COVID. Tough years, and bad decisions by Levy on the footbal ops side.

It's also because I believe that if we can get to 16/167 levels again, this time we can sustain them based on the financial model we now operate under. I also know that if we sustain those levels, we will win cups as a consequence of being at that level. We won't be in the lap of the footballing gods (and dodgy referees) as much as we've been recently in the semi-finals and finals.

My big question is whether Ange has the managerial smarts to get us back to 86 points? Poch did with way less resources. Poch's 16/17 would be Ange's 25/26 season so we just have to be patient. However, if this time next season we can see that we're not going to have the 16/17 season again I'm not against making the manager switch in the new year of 2026. Ange has had the most expensively assembled squad of my lifetime. It started in before his tenure in 21/22 and has just continued now for 3 years. He's a luckier man than any manager before him.

Fully agreed. And getting back there to me means that the longer term is more important then short term fixes. Because if you go short term and fail you're mostly back to square one. If you go longer term with younger players you're more likely to still be heading in a good direction even if it doesn't work out short term. And some of them may end up better than players we otherwise could have signed even if successful short term.

Ange has been lucky in some ways for sure. And luckier than Poch on the financial point no doubt.

But he will also have to deal with the reality of our overall strategy and financial limitations. Even if that's what gets him sacked. But we should be patient with him given the circumstances.

 

[metalgear]

Levy's money is invested with spurs. Who have massive debt. He hasn't got his own funds to invest. He can't.

Not sure why people don't understand that.

that makes him less attractive as an owner/chairman

 

[Lilbaz]

that makes him less attractive as an owner/chairman

Which is fine. But don't hate him for it.

 

[Muttley]

On timing for signings I mostly agree. Some we should be doing quicker. But it's difficult to know the reasons for them taking time most of the time. I think overall we're moving a bit quicker now than before. Again, no doubts there have been situations where Levy could and should have done more.

It has been documented in both Modric and now Lloris autobiographies that it is Levy's stupid games that has procrastinated deals. We probably should have never had Lloris in a Spurs shirt based on the way Levy messed the deal up. He ultimately had to pay the transfer fee anyway after losing the negotiation, he stopped the player from having a pre-season with AVB, and he created a scenario where Aulas had to save the day. Hugo admitted himself that Aulas told him it was completely up to him if he didn't want to head to Spurs. Aulas had schooled Levy and told the player he would happily keep him, implying that he'd find other ways to cover the money he was expecting, and needed.

I personally don't think that there is anything special about Levy's negotiation skills. In fact, guys like Modric and Lloris have been clear that Levy goes back on his word. He breaks promises, which breaks relationships. That is a big no, no in sales.

I think we do have to realise that the pattern of late deals in our club did unfortunately come from the top. It was a choice, and not necessarily to do with other parties or admin processes.

I will state again, in Levy's head he was and is always working in our best interests.

 

[Jurgen the German]

My response was mostly to this sentence :

But we’ve had periods when we most definitely were not moving in the right direction and yet people still seemed happy for Levy to continue running the club


If you actually 'got that they are longer term' then I don't think you'd be questioning why people had patience in those periods when we were not moving in the right direction.

Longer term for some seems to be indefinite. And it’s not like there haven’t been other periods where we have gone backwards, those periods I highlighted were just the most recent.

 

[Muttley]

In hindsight Levy should have insisted on that along with a strong enough and good enough DoF. Even if that meant Pochettino walked.

The other manager that needed it the most was Redknapp.

I've always said that the 2 in the box model is not good for Spurs, especially if one of them is Levy. A meeting today with Ange, Levy, Munn and Lange in it has to be way more balanced.

 

[billyiddo]

Longer term for some seems to be indefinite. And it’s not like there haven’t been other periods where we have gone backwards, those periods I highlighted were just the most recent.

Do you think we have been in an indefinite period of moving in the wrong direction for 20 years or something?

IMV the set backs have generally been short lived and are bookended by periods of improvement, that's why patience/leeway/whatever you want to call it, for the owners is there.