• 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

Daniel Levy - Chairman

ricky2tricky4city said:
Id actually give Poch the majority of the credit for that 4 year period.
Yes, DL was off doing good work on all things stadium BUT Poch navigated us on the pitch and had to very much cut his cloth accordingly.

Poch was a godsend. It's ironic we had our best recent period during the eye of the stadium build, you'd usually expect that to be difficult times. Helped massively with the finances too.

It did feel like we parted ways at the right time though (not just results but Poch looked broken/exhausted), I'd have given him the rest of the season tbh.
Click to expand...
I give him the credit because ultimately he was the one who hired whethger he was the first choice or not
Muttley said:
People always hate knocking Harry but he wasn't good for a lot of the clubs he managed. Always blaming his chairmen even though they gave him the earth. He left many with financial strife, and he also left us in an absolute mess. He has some of the slopiest shoulders in football.

Ultimately he joined us in 2008 and we hadn't rationalised his squad down to 22/23 senior pro's plus U21's in the time you're talking about, 2 years later. It has just proliferated. We never made the transition to having a football philosophy and sticking to accepting only players that fit it. Harry would just accept any available player, any age and always had his little public narratives where he subtly blamed others. We were completely hamstrung in getting players in because Harry was carrying 35 players. Levy was being stubborn as well because he just wouldn't accept lower prices for players to get the churn going we needed.

Levy and Harry also put too much trust in guys like Pleat and Sherwood. The old boys network. Levy should have backed Hoddle who kicked Sherwood out of our club a few years earlier. He shouldn't have been allowed back in but once again his niceness and naivety kicked in allowing Harry to have his mate around him. We had to learn the hard way the second time with that toxic character.

It's a great case study to see how badly football operations was run in the past. Alternatively, we can perhaps see how well it is now being run now that we have the right people in the right boxes.
Click to expand...
The whole Harry fudging clubs up narrative is a myth. Harry did not have final financial control at any of the clubs he was manager at and there was always someone who had the final say in any dealings. I don't agree he would take any player, Harry had a decent eye for a player having mostly worked at lower status clubs he could see a player. He was very used to wheeling and dealing, where it didn't work with Spurs is the very slow pace of Levy's dealing, it meant we didn't get the churn of players that Harry was used to working with. How you can blame Harry for the squad not being refreshed quickly is a bit confusing for me. Look at any club he managed before and look at how quickly and often the squad changed then look at Spurs and notice the pattern...the consistent thing isn't Harry Redknapp.
 
Bishop said:
I give him the credit because ultimately he was the one who hired whethger he was the first choice or not

The whole Harry fudging clubs up narrative is a myth. Harry did not have final financial control at any of the clubs he was manager at and there was always someone who had the final say in any dealings. I don't agree he would take any player, Harry had a decent eye for a player having mostly worked at lower status clubs he could see a player. He was very used to wheeling and dealing, where it didn't work with Spurs is the very slow pace of Levy's dealing, it meant we didn't get the churn of players that Harry was used to working with. How you can blame Harry for the squad not being refreshed quickly is a bit confusing for me. Look at any club he managed before and look at how quickly and often the squad changed then look at Spurs and notice the pattern...the consistent thing isn't Harry Redknapp.
Click to expand...

Look closely and you'll notice I didn't. I blamed the combination of Harry AND Levy as a 2-in-the-box football operations system, it was a mess. They brought out the worst in each other and yet another cleanup operation followed.

Harry definitely struggled with those strikers though. We were on fire with Berbs, Keane and Defoe in their pomp. We never got back to that with Crouchy, Pav, Campbell etc being poor replacements, plus old father time catching up with Keane and Defoe. Such a shame that Bellamy chose City in Harry's first Jan window. He would have added some fire into that team.

Not sure exactly what year it was, but we also sent a delegation to Holland to watch Suarez. Wasn't he deemed by Spurs a wrong fit?
 
I do remember Spurs looking at Suarez and also Aguero.
I had no clue who they were.
I was told they were small and foreign, so I assumed they wouldn't cut it in the Prem.
 
Muttley said:
Look closely and you'll notice I didn't. I blamed the combination of Harry AND Levy as a 2-in-the-box football operations system, it was a mess. They brought out the worst in each other and yet another cleanup operation followed.

Harry definitely struggled with those strikers though. We were on fire with Berbs, Keane and Defoe in their pomp. We never got back to that with Crouchy, Pav, Campbell etc being poor replacements, plus old father time catching up with Keane and Defoe. Such a shame that Bellamy chose City in Harry's first Jan window. He would have added some fire into that team.

Not sure exactly what year it was, but we also sent a delegation to Holland to watch Suarez. Wasn't he deemed by Spurs a wrong fit?
Click to expand...
Yeah fair enough regarding the combi not being ideal. It was just after Levy had gotten rid of Commoli so he probably felt that doing the job himself was a better prospect. Again sacking Commoli wasn't so much the issue, the issue was the jumping from one system ie a DoF to another. Given how hands on Levy became at that time I have to weight the blame more so to the man in charge.

Supposedly YTS told Harry that Suarez was too similar to Defoe FFS. Clown brick. That's why I'm always complaining about the missed opportunities, we've scouted so many quality players over the years that various reasons we've never followed up on and our scouts often get the blame but they really weren't the problem.
 
Suarez was being pushed by the club but Redknapp thought he was too similar to another player already in our team, or so was the rumour, forget the finer details
 
Grays_1890 said:
Where is that though? I don't know a single poster on this forum who believes that
Click to expand...

Often gets said that Levy can only control so much being the chairman as he’s not out there on the pitch nor does he pick the team which is true but the head of any company is ultimately responsible for the success and the failures as Bishop points out.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Often gets said that Levy can only control so much being the chairman as he’s not out there on the pitch nor does he pick the team which is true but the head of any company is ultimately responsible for the success and the failures as Bishop points out.
Click to expand...

I think in fairness to this forum most people accept he has failings just won't attribute every wrong at his door. Maybe blind to it but don't think I have seen anyone make it seem he is Teflon. Having watched football for 30+ years (many have years on me for sure) and having seen everything there is to see in terms of outcomes and shocks, some by us, some against us, some in other games, I just can't solely lay blame for failures to convert at one mans door, I think its nonsensical to do so IMO. Thats not to say Levy gets a pass on his mistakes, I just think the games far more complex and also random for that to be true
 
I think the conflict here is that when things go wrong the fanbase tends to micro analyse anything & everything and then look to dish out blame for each and every decision, whereas when things are going well it's judged as a period of time rather than the many small things which contributed to it being so.
 
Last edited:
billyiddo said:
I think the conflict here is that when things go wrong the fanbase tends to micro analyse anything & everything and then look to dish out blame for each and every decision, whereas when things are going well it's judged as a period of time rather than all the small things which contributed to it being so.
Click to expand...

Yeh and look we are all guilty of it as football fans, we look for underlining reasons and theories on nearly everything that impacts a football club, Levy is a victim of that as much as say a player who is having a bad time of it, we look for reasons for it and sometimes we come up with reasons that don't even exist. People build a picture in their head, built on a few facts and hundred of assumptions and guesses, thats the game I suppose
 
Jurgen the German said:
Often gets said that Levy can only control so much being the chairman as he’s not out there on the pitch nor does he pick the team which is true but the head of any company is ultimately responsible for the success and the failures as Bishop points out.
Click to expand...
He is the owner too
People talk like he is an employee but it’s much more than that
And that why he remains closer to things imo
I do think if he was like some other owners with fingers in other pies we may have seen a. Different levy, but that’s not the case
 
billyiddo said:
I think the conflict here is that when things go wrong the fanbase tends to micro analyse anything & everything and then look to dish out blame for each and every decision, whereas when things are going well it's judged as a period of time rather than the many small things which contributed to it being so.
Click to expand...

I think that might just be a reflection that some have memories that go back much further than others
 
glorygloryeze said:
I think that might just be a reflection that some have memories that go back much further than others
Click to expand...
No it's a reflection of how people react to positive & negative scenarios. I would absolutely guarantee that comparable situations, one being positive and the other negative that it would be the negative one that has more (much much more) discussion on it, both in the short term & the long term
 
Grays_1890 said:
I think in fairness to this forum most people accept he has failings just won't attribute every wrong at his door. Maybe blind to it but don't think I have seen anyone make it seem he is Teflon. Having watched football for 30+ years (many have years on me for sure) and having seen everything there is to see in terms of outcomes and shocks, some by us, some against us, some in other games, I just can't solely lay blame for failures to convert at one mans door, I think its nonsensical to do so IMO. Thats not to say Levy gets a pass on his mistakes, I just think the games far more complex and also random for that to be true
Click to expand...

He’s not solely responsible either way, the manager and the players also share the responsibility. But ultimately he’s in charge so the buck stops with him. I’ve seen people credit him for appointing managers, getting infrastructure in place etc but when things go wrong people say ah he doesn’t manage the team so we can’t really hold him to account which is having your cake and eating it. I praise him when it’s deserved and hold him responsible when it goes badly.

I’ve said many times I feel it is time for a change purely for the length of time he has been at the club (18 months shy of 25 years!) but it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere anytime soon so I just have to hope he gets it right more than he gets it wrong.
 
billyiddo said:
No it's a reflection of how people react to positive & negative scenarios. I would absolutely guarantee that comparable situations, one being positive and the other negative that it would be the negative one that has more (much much more) discussion on it, both in the short term & the long term
Click to expand...

I disagree - look at how positive this forum was during the Poch years, whilst also having balanced discussion on some of the same negatives that funnily enough still get spoken about now.

But am happy for someone who as time to prove otherwise. This place is quite a beacon of ongoing detailed discussion, both on the "good" things and the "bad" things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back