-
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
ENIC
- Thread starter mattls
- Start date
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
I might have missed it but don't see anything in the reports that you link to that Levy asked AVB to pick two up front and I do not recall reading anything along those lines at the time. All of them say that he and Baldini asked AVB to consider reintegrating Adebayor in the first team which seems reasonable.
Other factors would have been AVB falling out with Freund and the medical team. Baldini was reported to have been very concerned with what he saw on a visit to the training ground and AVB's behaviour towards Baldini and Levy.
I might have missed it but don't see anything in the reports that you link to that Levy asked AVB to pick two up front and I do not recall reading anything along those lines at the time. All of them say that he and Baldini asked AVB to consider reintegrating Adebayor in the first team which seems reasonable.
Other factors would have been AVB falling out with Freund and the medical team. Baldini was reported to have been very concerned with what he saw on a visit to the training ground and AVB's behaviour towards Baldini and Levy.
ALtottenham_hotspur
Jamie Redknapp
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
Well bloody said SUIYHA, you have restored my faith that not everyone on here lives in cloud ****hoo land
Well bloody said SUIYHA, you have restored my faith that not everyone on here lives in cloud ****hoo land
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
What a binary choice. Are we predestined to forever alternate between Sugar-types and ENIC-types? Plain incompetence or a rigid determination to put absolutely no money into the club while hoping to make a massive profit solely off the backs of the fans who are charged insanely high amounts of money only to see precious little in return?
I repeat: if Poch goes, after all the promises of ambition and backing for a long-term project, I would rather see ENIC go than watch another manager come in and get precious few of the players he wants, be told who to play by the chairman, have his best players sold out from under him and get third-rate replacements, all while being unfairly criticized by the long-suffering fans who for some reason still don't see the problem with being asked to pay out of their noses just to watch ENIC eventually sell us off for a massive profit with zero investment or input into the club on their part.
And raising the f*cking Sugar boogeyman won't change that view, since it's been used to scare the fans into submission time and again (along with the 'doing a Leeds' scenario whenever the fans start hesitantly questioning the way the club's run, and why they're paying the second-highest prices in the league to watch what they're watching now).
The only two good things ENIC seem to be capable of doing for us now is giving the manager time and getting the stadium built (entirely funded by the fans and commercial partners, of course, but that's for another day). If they don't succeed in even those two fairly straightforward things, there is absolutely no reason why they should stay around when their removal would have zero effect on the financial viability of this club anyway, seeing as they were never invested in it to begin with.
Yeah lets get rid of Levy and the rest of the top guys and bring back Sugar??? sounds good to me
What a binary choice. Are we predestined to forever alternate between Sugar-types and ENIC-types? Plain incompetence or a rigid determination to put absolutely no money into the club while hoping to make a massive profit solely off the backs of the fans who are charged insanely high amounts of money only to see precious little in return?
I repeat: if Poch goes, after all the promises of ambition and backing for a long-term project, I would rather see ENIC go than watch another manager come in and get precious few of the players he wants, be told who to play by the chairman, have his best players sold out from under him and get third-rate replacements, all while being unfairly criticized by the long-suffering fans who for some reason still don't see the problem with being asked to pay out of their noses just to watch ENIC eventually sell us off for a massive profit with zero investment or input into the club on their part.
And raising the f*cking Sugar boogeyman won't change that view, since it's been used to scare the fans into submission time and again (along with the 'doing a Leeds' scenario whenever the fans start hesitantly questioning the way the club's run, and why they're paying the second-highest prices in the league to watch what they're watching now).
The only two good things ENIC seem to be capable of doing for us now is giving the manager time and getting the stadium built (entirely funded by the fans and commercial partners, of course, but that's for another day). If they don't succeed in even those two fairly straightforward things, there is absolutely no reason why they should stay around when their removal would have zero effect on the financial viability of this club anyway, seeing as they were never invested in it to begin with.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
They are only going to sell up at the point that they can maximise the return on their investment. The only way that I can see a choice of manager having an impact on this is if they think that they are at a high point and performances on the pitch and balance sheet cannot improve further under them.
They are only going to sell up at the point that they can maximise the return on their investment. The only way that I can see a choice of manager having an impact on this is if they think that they are at a high point and performances on the pitch and balance sheet cannot improve further under them.
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
i tend to err more on the % of new owners which fail in English football than harking back to Sugar these days, personally that's without getting in to the finer points of your critique Dubai which are things generally experienced everywhere but a handful of clubs globally.
if there was a candidate interested we could weigh up the pro's and cons - but simply wishing for new owners is a roll of the dice at the end of the day and one which we're more likely to lose out on if we're basing it on an overall trend in this country, in recent times.
much like in the short term fans should be patient with managers over the long term patience is required with owners - we've seen a consistent rise in fortunes since they took over, we're now going through a decline - much like you shouldn't chuck your manager at the first sign of bad form i say the same is required for the owners - only over a long term stewardship the peaks and troughs will be longer than a run of bad games.
i tend to err more on the % of new owners which fail in English football than harking back to Sugar these days, personally
that's without getting in to the finer points of your critique Dubai which are things generally experienced everywhere but a handful of clubs globally. if there was a candidate interested we could weigh up the pro's and cons - but simply wishing for new owners is a roll of the dice at the end of the day and one which we're more likely to lose out on if we're basing it on an overall trend in this country, in recent times.
much like in the short term fans should be patient with managers over the long term patience is required with owners - we've seen a consistent rise in fortunes since they took over, we're now going through a decline - much like you shouldn't chuck your manager at the first sign of bad form i say the same is required for the owners - only over a long term stewardship the peaks and troughs will be longer than a run of bad games.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
I am aware that they probably will not leave until they've made the profit they originally set out to make. Hence why I said 'hope'.
The only way we can change that situation is if fan discontent reaches levels that preclude the possibility of either WHL or the new stadium being filled while ENIC are here, which would create a hit for the club that involves both lower ticket revenues and more hesitation from commercial partners when pondering ad deals. At that point, ENIC will either have to pony up their own cash just to keep the club at the level it's at now, or sell and take whatever profit they can make before they're forced to put their own money in (which is more likely).
In the end, I'm aware that the situation in football ownership these days is more about clubs being held hostage by their owners than anything else, and that we are a classic example of that (i.e, getting ENIC out will involve harming the very club we support). But I don't have to like what's going on now. And I don't have to like the way we toss out managers without giving them the tools they need to do their jobs, or the way ENIC deflects criticism that should be aimed at them onto the management structure.
I am aware that they probably will not leave until they've made the profit they originally set out to make. Hence why I said 'hope'.
The only way we can change that situation is if fan discontent reaches levels that preclude the possibility of either WHL or the new stadium being filled while ENIC are here, which would create a hit for the club that involves both lower ticket revenues and more hesitation from commercial partners when pondering ad deals. At that point, ENIC will either have to pony up their own cash just to keep the club at the level it's at now, or sell and take whatever profit they can make before they're forced to put their own money in (which is more likely).
In the end, I'm aware that the situation in football ownership these days is more about clubs being held hostage by their owners than anything else, and that we are a classic example of that (i.e, getting ENIC out will involve harming the very club we support). But I don't have to like what's going on now. And I don't have to like the way we toss out managers without giving them the tools they need to do their jobs, or the way ENIC deflects criticism that should be aimed at them onto the management structure.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
When managers hit bad periods, they work longer on the training ground, study their tactics more intensely, perk up the lads more passionately. Put in more effort, more commitment.
The problem with owners like ours is that their ownership model will remain the same regardless of whether we're in good or bad 'form'. There is no extra commitment, no extra backing given to our managers, no extra risks taken to ensure that we return to the heights we were at. No, it's the same as it was before: charge fans eye-watering prices even in periods of decline, keep the net spend at the low level it's currently at (second-lowest in the damn PL over the last five seasons), buy third-rate replacements with future 'value' over the ready-made players the manager wants, sack the managers when the team struggles and just keep charging fans the second-highest ticket prices in the league while keeping their own money safely locked away.
The owners will not change their models or approach in the same way managers will. And the problem with transactional, investment-averse owners like ours is that eventually, people will see them as a bad deal: after all, what do they offer beyond channeling the fans' own hard-earned money into the team in a somewhat competent manner? They offer nothing extra that the club couldn't easily replace in the event that they just weren't there. Take ENIC out of the equation and you'd see zero difference to the way the club is run.
Occasionally, fans do realise that they don't have to put up with this sort of behaviour from ENIC, and that's when you see the canards come out. '30 million pound deadline day bids' and such, publicity stunts from our owners to lull us into the impression that they're really prepared to back this club, this football club that they own (as opposed to just another asset in a bulging portfolio that requires no investment once acquired). Problem is, after windows like this summer's, it is becoming less and less easy to fool the fans. And ultimately, I think this will be what brings down ENIC: when fan discontent rises to the level where they have to make a binary choice between either putting their own money into the club (due to the loss of revenue caused by dwindling attendance/TV coverage/commercial backing) or cutting and running with whatever profits they can manage to acquire. If Poch goes, I hope that discontent won't be far behind.
i tend to err more on the % of new owners which fail in English football than harking back to Sugar these days, personally
if there was a candidate interested we could weigh up the pro's and cons - but simply wishing for new owners is a roll of the dice at the end of the day and one which we're more likely to lose out on if we're basing it on an overall trend in this country, in recent times.
much like in the short term fans should be patient with managers over the long term patience is required with owners - we've seen a consistent rise in fortunes since they took over, we're now going through a decline - much like you shouldn't chuck your manager at the first sign of bad form i say the same is required for the owners - only over a long term stewardship the peaks and troughs will be longer than a run of bad games.
When managers hit bad periods, they work longer on the training ground, study their tactics more intensely, perk up the lads more passionately. Put in more effort, more commitment.
The problem with owners like ours is that their ownership model will remain the same regardless of whether we're in good or bad 'form'. There is no extra commitment, no extra backing given to our managers, no extra risks taken to ensure that we return to the heights we were at. No, it's the same as it was before: charge fans eye-watering prices even in periods of decline, keep the net spend at the low level it's currently at (second-lowest in the damn PL over the last five seasons), buy third-rate replacements with future 'value' over the ready-made players the manager wants, sack the managers when the team struggles and just keep charging fans the second-highest ticket prices in the league while keeping their own money safely locked away.
The owners will not change their models or approach in the same way managers will. And the problem with transactional, investment-averse owners like ours is that eventually, people will see them as a bad deal: after all, what do they offer beyond channeling the fans' own hard-earned money into the team in a somewhat competent manner? They offer nothing extra that the club couldn't easily replace in the event that they just weren't there. Take ENIC out of the equation and you'd see zero difference to the way the club is run.
Occasionally, fans do realise that they don't have to put up with this sort of behaviour from ENIC, and that's when you see the canards come out. '30 million pound deadline day bids' and such, publicity stunts from our owners to lull us into the impression that they're really prepared to back this club, this football club that they own (as opposed to just another asset in a bulging portfolio that requires no investment once acquired). Problem is, after windows like this summer's, it is becoming less and less easy to fool the fans. And ultimately, I think this will be what brings down ENIC: when fan discontent rises to the level where they have to make a binary choice between either putting their own money into the club (due to the loss of revenue caused by dwindling attendance/TV coverage/commercial backing) or cutting and running with whatever profits they can manage to acquire. If Poch goes, I hope that discontent won't be far behind.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
I don't see a move by the fans to oust ENIC happening. There is not the discontent like there was under Sugar. I think that our fans are largely indifferent to them, they recognise that they have done some things well and some things less well but that we could very easily end up in worse hands than them should they sell.
I don't see a move by the fans to oust ENIC happening. There is not the discontent like there was under Sugar. I think that our fans are largely indifferent to them, they recognise that they have done some things well and some things less well but that we could very easily end up in worse hands than them should they sell.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
But isn't there more than one way of an owner showing commitment to a club? For example, I am sure that our owners would point to our training ground and the massive improvement in the academy as signs of their good handling of the club and commitment to improving it.
But isn't there more than one way of an owner showing commitment to a club? For example, I am sure that our owners would point to our training ground and the massive improvement in the academy as signs of their good handling of the club and commitment to improving it.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
The higher prices are, the more demanding the fans will be. At the moment, that basic equation is being directed at the manager and the management structure (DoF, coaches, etcetera), but at some point the fans have to recognise that their money (and the interest/desire for ad deals their presence creates among commercial partners and TV broadcasters) is pretty much the only thing the club runs on, and that ENIC are just an unnecessary part of the structure that asks for more and more money from them while offering less and less value for money as the years roll on.
There is an untapped well of potential power amongst our fans: they are more powerful in terms of deciding who owns the club than perhaps they themselves realize. The only problem is (and here I agree with you) that at present they get angry at the manager and the management structure when things go wrong, and largely absolve ENIC. But is it possible for that to change should Poch be sacked? Absolutely. And I hope that it does change.
The higher prices are, the more demanding the fans will be. At the moment, that basic equation is being directed at the manager and the management structure (DoF, coaches, etcetera), but at some point the fans have to recognise that their money (and the interest/desire for ad deals their presence creates among commercial partners and TV broadcasters) is pretty much the only thing the club runs on, and that ENIC are just an unnecessary part of the structure that asks for more and more money from them while offering less and less value for money as the years roll on.
There is an untapped well of potential power amongst our fans: they are more powerful in terms of deciding who owns the club than perhaps they themselves realize. The only problem is (and here I agree with you) that at present they get angry at the manager and the management structure when things go wrong, and largely absolve ENIC. But is it possible for that to change should Poch be sacked? Absolutely. And I hope that it does change.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
There is undoubtedly discontent about the price of going to games but I do not see that being directed at the boardroom. I think that fans see this as an overall issue with football rather than a problem just with our club.
There is undoubtedly discontent about the price of going to games but I do not see that being directed at the boardroom. I think that fans see this as an overall issue with football rather than a problem just with our club.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
The training ground and the academy are good decisions by our owners, albeit they've still mainly just funneled the fans' money into these club improvements. There have also been bad decisions galore. The difference between ENIC and other owners in these scenarios (Where a lot of bad decisions are made one after the other) is that other owners have personal stakes in their clubs, because they've put their own money into it when the club has needed said investment: in that regard, these owners are harder to blame for their bad decisions because they've put their own money into ensuring the success of the club.
This is where it is very, very easy to blame ENIC when thingsgo wrong, because the only thing they input into the club is decision-making: they can literally only provide that, since they refuse to put any actual money into it. Thus, when even their decision-making is questionable (as it will be should they choose to let Poch go), then they are reduced to having nothing at all to offer, and the potential for fans to turn on them is immense.
They recognise this, they're not stupid. Hence the ritual of sacking all our managers to stave off discontent that should be aimed at them: ditto the appointment of DoFs, as it ensures another level for blame absorption before the anger starts drifting up to the executive boxes. Ditto the stupid 30 million pound deadline-day farces, and the repeated rumors of large warchests being handed to our managers in respectable tabloids every single transfer window. But there is a limit to how long that can work, and I feel sacking Poch will expose them for the first time to a lot of our previously contented fans.
The training ground and the academy are good decisions by our owners, albeit they've still mainly just funneled the fans' money into these club improvements. There have also been bad decisions galore. The difference between ENIC and other owners in these scenarios (Where a lot of bad decisions are made one after the other) is that other owners have personal stakes in their clubs, because they've put their own money into it when the club has needed said investment: in that regard, these owners are harder to blame for their bad decisions because they've put their own money into ensuring the success of the club.
This is where it is very, very easy to blame ENIC when thingsgo wrong, because the only thing they input into the club is decision-making: they can literally only provide that, since they refuse to put any actual money into it. Thus, when even their decision-making is questionable (as it will be should they choose to let Poch go), then they are reduced to having nothing at all to offer, and the potential for fans to turn on them is immense.
They recognise this, they're not stupid. Hence the ritual of sacking all our managers to stave off discontent that should be aimed at them: ditto the appointment of DoFs, as it ensures another level for blame absorption before the anger starts drifting up to the executive boxes. Ditto the stupid 30 million pound deadline-day farces, and the repeated rumors of large warchests being handed to our managers in respectable tabloids every single transfer window. But there is a limit to how long that can work, and I feel sacking Poch will expose them for the first time to a lot of our previously contented fans.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
We've covered this countless times recently but the owners have put more money into the club in the form of share issues. It might not be as much as you like but it is not true to say that they haven't.
They have undoubtedly benefited massively from a rising football market and their investment would have increased in value several fold even if they had done nothing but they have done more than this. The club has benefited from them seeking to maximise the return on their investment.
I also don't see our managers sacking managers to avoid criticism any more than other owners do. I cannot think of a manager that they have dispensed with that sections of our fan base weren't calling for their head first. With regards to the DoF, most clubs of our size or bigger have them. Are they all employing one as a smokescreen or is it because the job is too big for an old fashioned manager now?
We've covered this countless times recently but the owners have put more money into the club in the form of share issues. It might not be as much as you like but it is not true to say that they haven't.
They have undoubtedly benefited massively from a rising football market and their investment would have increased in value several fold even if they had done nothing but they have done more than this. The club has benefited from them seeking to maximise the return on their investment.
I also don't see our managers sacking managers to avoid criticism any more than other owners do. I cannot think of a manager that they have dispensed with that sections of our fan base weren't calling for their head first. With regards to the DoF, most clubs of our size or bigger have them. Are they all employing one as a smokescreen or is it because the job is too big for an old fashioned manager now?
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
i wouldn't expect them to change a model that has proven successful - after all i believe the club is now experiencing it's most consistent run in the top 6 for many many years (think maybe i even read the most consistent run in the top 6) but unfortunately it is a model which has inherent risks and sometimes we will fall foul of them - which is where we currently find ourselves.
up until 2 seasons ago we were on an ever increasing upward curve, it just strikes me that now that it's gone on a bit of a decline people are ready to throw in the towel.
i wouldn't expect them to change a model that has proven successful - after all i believe the club is now experiencing it's most consistent run in the top 6 for many many years (think maybe i even read the most consistent run in the top 6) but unfortunately it is a model which has inherent risks and sometimes we will fall foul of them - which is where we currently find ourselves.
up until 2 seasons ago we were on an ever increasing upward curve, it just strikes me that now that it's gone on a bit of a decline people are ready to throw in the towel.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
It depends in the connotations of the discussion I suppose. Something neither of us can really be sure of.
The crux of my point is that at some point Levy has to stick by the person he has chosen for their understanding of football whenever the going gets tough. At some point he has to believe that his chosen one will take us through the tough times and out the other side to a better place whether he agrees with their opinions or not.
Otherwise, he might as well manage the team himself.
It depends in the connotations of the discussion I suppose. Something neither of us can really be sure of.
The crux of my point is that at some point Levy has to stick by the person he has chosen for their understanding of football whenever the going gets tough. At some point he has to believe that his chosen one will take us through the tough times and out the other side to a better place whether he agrees with their opinions or not.
Otherwise, he might as well manage the team himself.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
The original convo was about moving to 2 up front which AVB took as a request to re-integrate Ade.
I happen to think he should have integrated Ade, but to illustrate my point, if Levy really truly believed and had faith that AVB was they guy to move us forward he would have said 'OK Andre, you work with this guy on a daily basis, you feel he is a bad influence in the dressing room, your opinion is important to me and I respect it'
The same with the other stuff you mention.
Now DL obviously at this point realised that AVB was no longer the one to take us forward (and I happen to agree).
But, at some point, he is going to have to realise that in order to move the club forward, he may have to roll with the opinions of the manager he supposedly believes is absolutely 100% the guy to take us forward. Through both the good times and through the bad times.
The original convo was about moving to 2 up front which AVB took as a request to re-integrate Ade.
I happen to think he should have integrated Ade, but to illustrate my point, if Levy really truly believed and had faith that AVB was they guy to move us forward he would have said 'OK Andre, you work with this guy on a daily basis, you feel he is a bad influence in the dressing room, your opinion is important to me and I respect it'
The same with the other stuff you mention.
Now DL obviously at this point realised that AVB was no longer the one to take us forward (and I happen to agree).
But, at some point, he is going to have to realise that in order to move the club forward, he may have to roll with the opinions of the manager he supposedly believes is absolutely 100% the guy to take us forward. Through both the good times and through the bad times.
milo
Jack L. Jones
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
How do you know that? None of the articles that you linked to said anything about playing two up top.
How do you know that? None of the articles that you linked to said anything about playing two up top.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
? As far as I'm aware, they've also taken dividends out of the club that apparently comfortably cover a lot of whatever they put in. Where is this mighty infusion of fresh capital?
Also, praising our owners for doing 'something' instead of sitting still and profiting anyway isn't a great argument, imo. They made some good decisions. They made some bad decisions. As long as their only interest remains maximising the profit on their investment, they will have no real shield against criticism being levelled against them for the way they run this club and the way they extort money from the fans without any concurrent commitment on their part, relying entirely on the fans to keep their investment profitable.
Regarding manager's, I've already mentioned that the fans wrongly call for the manager's head too often and that this offers Levy an easy way out of having to deal with fan discontent aimed at the boardroom. It is a fault we have, and they've take advantage of it. I want that to change ,however. And as for the DoF, 'clubs our size' or bigger? Say it like it's supposed to be said: clubs with more money than we do have a DoF. With our zero external investment, we cannot afford to ignore the manager's targets in favour of signing third-choice (or sometimes evidently not even the manager's choice) 'value' players and expect him to fit them neatly into his system, which is what our DoFs do on a regular basis. There is dysfunction there, and our managers have been sacked for lesser offenses than the transfer windows the likes of Comolli and Baldini have overseen. And yet Comolli remained in his position until finally forced out by a manager who gave Levy an ultimatum: it was either the DoF or him. Baldini shows no signs of being under pressure from the board. If they don't aid the manager in doing his supposedly 'too large' job, then what are they still in place for if not to deflect blame?
I'm not saying all DoFs are conduits for fan anger as opposed to useful people to have. Ours, however, have question marks hovering over them.
? As far as I'm aware, they've also taken dividends out of the club that apparently comfortably cover a lot of whatever they put in. Where is this mighty infusion of fresh capital?
Also, praising our owners for doing 'something' instead of sitting still and profiting anyway isn't a great argument, imo. They made some good decisions. They made some bad decisions. As long as their only interest remains maximising the profit on their investment, they will have no real shield against criticism being levelled against them for the way they run this club and the way they extort money from the fans without any concurrent commitment on their part, relying entirely on the fans to keep their investment profitable.
Regarding manager's, I've already mentioned that the fans wrongly call for the manager's head too often and that this offers Levy an easy way out of having to deal with fan discontent aimed at the boardroom. It is a fault we have, and they've take advantage of it. I want that to change ,however. And as for the DoF, 'clubs our size' or bigger? Say it like it's supposed to be said: clubs with more money than we do have a DoF. With our zero external investment, we cannot afford to ignore the manager's targets in favour of signing third-choice (or sometimes evidently not even the manager's choice) 'value' players and expect him to fit them neatly into his system, which is what our DoFs do on a regular basis. There is dysfunction there, and our managers have been sacked for lesser offenses than the transfer windows the likes of Comolli and Baldini have overseen. And yet Comolli remained in his position until finally forced out by a manager who gave Levy an ultimatum: it was either the DoF or him. Baldini shows no signs of being under pressure from the board. If they don't aid the manager in doing his supposedly 'too large' job, then what are they still in place for if not to deflect blame?
I'm not saying all DoFs are conduits for fan anger as opposed to useful people to have. Ours, however, have question marks hovering over them.
Millsy_Yiddo
Naybet
Re: Daniel Levy isn't stupid...
From the first article I linked;
"The conversation turned to whether Spurs could employ two strikers," writes Jason Burt. "Villas-Boas interpreted this as a suggestion that he should play Emmanuel Adebayor who he wanted out of the club, who had been a source of friction and who has been a crushing disappointment, despite being the highest earner. The conversation was not constructive."
Same thing is in one of the others (can't remember off top of my head which one though).
As I said though, whether his reasons for sacking AVB were right or wrong is not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that at some point he is going to have to take the risk that the manager he had employed is right and he is wrong. No matter what the disagreement is (as long as it is about footballing matters)
From the first article I linked;
"The conversation turned to whether Spurs could employ two strikers," writes Jason Burt. "Villas-Boas interpreted this as a suggestion that he should play Emmanuel Adebayor who he wanted out of the club, who had been a source of friction and who has been a crushing disappointment, despite being the highest earner. The conversation was not constructive."
Same thing is in one of the others (can't remember off top of my head which one though).
As I said though, whether his reasons for sacking AVB were right or wrong is not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that at some point he is going to have to take the risk that the manager he had employed is right and he is wrong. No matter what the disagreement is (as long as it is about footballing matters)