ENIC

[Jurgen the German]

Yup. Was reported at the time at least that he wouldn't accept a 6 month head coach contract when he had 18 months to go on his technical director contract. Can't remember if it was ITK or newspaper reports (or both).

Seems a fairly safe assumption that Sherwood was appointed as a caretaker considering he got rather good results and was still let go after half a season. If there's a continuum between caretaker and proper appointment he might fall somewhere in between the two end points of that, but his appointment wasn't wasn't at all similar to the 5 jimmy mention in his post (Hoddle, Jol, Ramos, Redknapp and AVB) or Poch to me at least. More similar to the appointment(s) of David Pleat the way I see it.

Interesting. I could have sworn he was given 18 months as manager.

Still, the point stands that he's got most of his appointments wrong.

Do DoF's at other clubs pick their managers?

 

[braineclipse]

Interesting. I could have sworn he was given 18 months as manager.

Still, the point stands that he's got most of his appointments wrong.

Do DoF's at other clubs pick their managers?

He was given 18 months as head coach, although with some speculated fairly easy to activate get rid clauses if we didn't qualify for CL football. But he did also have 18 months left on his technical director contract and to me at least it makes a lot of sense that he wouldn't just accept a 6 month head coach job without also getting some of his 18 month tech director contract paid up.

Who gets most managerial appointments right? Who does that with our relative resources and ambitions? Not many.

I'm guessing DoF's are at least involved in the process at the majority of clubs. Depends on how involved the chairman and board are I suppose.

 

[Lost Mango]

This has been done to death but Levy's record with managers is approximately on the league average of 16 months or whatever it is (if you include all 9 - and as stated GG is borderline, the caretakers were just that and you could even argue a strong case that Redknapp made his own position so untenable in those last 4 months and that it wasn't Levy's fault that he had to go even if ultimately he made the final call).

This suggests (unsurprisingly) that some chairmen are worse than him and some are better.

Arguably the only stable current appointments have been Wenger & Pardew (who was all but dead and buried 2 weeks ago) and previous to that Fergie obviously so to try and make out that Levy is an outlier or the most trigger happy Chairman-villain going (popular in the media perception that it is) is just *******s.

We are a soft, middle of the road target so easy meat for the media who dine at the **** & Chelsea top table. We sell more newspapers as bad news than good so will not get a break from that side. We are a medium sized team now, successfully (recently) punching just above our weight, not able to attract the top players or to keep the top players as we can't pay enough. The chance to break into the top 4 depends on getting appointments right and the right signings - invariably a large proportion of this is taking a gamble on someone. Stability is great when you have the right person but maybe Levy and the Board know in some of these 'trigger-happy' situations that in fact it isn't going to work even if you give it 5 years and that cutting one's loses is the right way to go.

Levy has made mistakes but the agenda some have against him is highly questionable and to me based purely on the grass is greener syndrome rather than anything justifiable.

 

[milo]

This has been done to death but Levy's record with managers is approximately on the league average of 16 months or whatever it is (if you include all 9 - and as stated GG is borderline, the caretakers were just that and you could even argue a strong case that Redknapp made his own position so untenable in those last 4 months and that it wasn't Levy's fault that he had to go even if ultimately he made the final call).

This suggests (unsurprisingly) that some chairmen are worse than him and some are better.

Arguably the only stable current appointments have been Wenger & Pardew (who was all but dead and buried 2 weeks ago) and previous to that Fergie obviously so to try and make out that Levy is an outlier or the most trigger happy Chairman-villain going (popular in the media perception that it is) is just *******s.

We are a soft, middle of the road target so easy meat for the media who dine at the **** & Chelsea top table. We sell more newspapers as bad news than good so will not get a break from that side. We are a medium sized team now, successfully (recently) punching just above our weight, not able to attract the top players or to keep the top players as we can't pay enough. The chance to break into the top 4 depends on getting appointments right and the right signings - invariably a large proportion of this is taking a gamble on someone. Stability is great when you have the right person but maybe Levy and the Board know in some of these 'trigger-happy' situations that in fact it isn't going to work even if you give it 5 years and that cutting one's loses is the right way to go.

Levy has made mistakes but the agenda some have against him is highly questionable and to me based purely on the grass is greener syndrome rather than anything justifiable.

Top post

 

[Jurgen the German]

He was given 18 months as head coach, although with some speculated fairly easy to activate get rid clauses if we didn't qualify for CL football. But he did also have 18 months left on his technical director contract and to me at least it makes a lot of sense that he wouldn't just accept a 6 month head coach job without also getting some of his 18 month tech director contract paid up.

Who gets most managerial appointments right? Who does that with our relative resources and ambitions? Not many.

I'm guessing DoF's are at least involved in the process at the majority of clubs. Depends on how involved the chairman and board are I suppose.

Arsenal, Everton, Swansea, Southampton, Stoke. Those clubs have been successful relative to their budgets and size and have made the right choice of manager, for the most part.

All I am trying to say is, for all of the good work he has done, at some point surely the buck has to stop with him if he keeps hiring managers, deems them not good enough or falls out with them and lets them go.

 

[milo]

Arsenal, Everton, Swansea, Southampton, Stoke. Those clubs have been successful relative to their budgets and size and have made the right choice of manager, for the most part.

All I am trying to say is, for all of the good work he has done, at some point surely the buck has to stop with him if he keeps hiring managers, deems them not good enough or falls out with them and lets them go.

I'd argue that Arsenal and Everton generally finish where you would expect given their wage bill and if you measure by net transfer spend, Arsenal have under performed over the last few years. I am not sure what Stoke's finances are like now but they were massively in debt and with an unsustainable wage bill when Pullis left. Southampton have done well these last few years and they have a decent academy but I am not sure that they can be held up as being any more patient with managers than we are. Swansea are well run club but again they have not got every managerial appointment right.

 

[billyiddo]

Perenial relegation candidates prior to Moyes Everton?

Bruce Rioch anyone?

Laudrup?

What Buck exactly do you think should stop at Levy? Like all the clubs you mentioned we have been relatively successful in relation to our budget - so why for Levy is that a negative but for the others it's a reason to be envious?

 

[Baleforce]

finishing position relative to spending power is one thing (and should rightly be applauded when improved upon)

but, increasing spending power is at least 50% of the boards job

 

[Jurgen the German]

Perenial relegation candidates prior to Moyes Everton?

Bruce Rioch anyone?

Laudrup?

What Buck exactly do you think should stop at Levy? Like all the clubs you mentioned we have been relatively successful in relation to our budget - so why for Levy is that a negative but for the others it's a reason to be envious?

Erm, Moyes got them CL football (nearly ) and they kept him for over a decade. Consistent top 6 finishers. Martinez, got them 5th last season finishing above Spurs and United.

Arsenal, would have thought that one was obvious. Wenger, longest serving manager in the league. Won 3 premier league titles, CL finalist, top 4 finish every season he's been there.

Laudrup, won Swansea their first trophy in GHod knows how long.

What buck? Perhaps not stepping down as chairman, but some serious questions to be pointed in his direction, I really don't see what the harm is in this or why people are so defensive about questioning Levy. We have to be near the top of clubs who have had the most managers in the PL era, except Chelsea, I can't think of any club that has gone through more managers in the last 10 years. At what point do we say he's got too many managerial appointments wrong is the question am I asking I guess.

One more thing, it's hypocritial of people to say certain managers underachieved with the resources and players they had, saying we should have finished higher, but people defend Levy and say "where do you expect us to finish with our budget compared to our rivals?". So if people are going to extend this courtesy for him, shouldn't the same be done for managers? Just a thought.

 

[Baleforce]

Moyes/Martinez is interesting, moyes did it consistently whereas Martinez has done it once in a season when both Spurs and United shot themselves in the foot.

If Martinez can keep them there over the next 3/4 years then comparison with Moyes is much fairer.

 

[Lost Mango]

Erm, Moyes got them CL football (nearly ) and they kept him for over a decade. Consistent top 6 finishers. Martinez, got them 5th last season finishing above Spurs and United.

Arsenal, would have thought that one was obvious. Wenger, longest serving manager in the league. Won 3 premier league titles, CL finalist, top 4 finish every season he's been there.

Laudrup, won Swansea their first trophy in GHod knows how long.

What buck? Perhaps not stepping down as chairman, but some serious questions to be pointed in his direction, I really don't see what the harm is in this or why people are so defensive about questioning Levy. We have to be near the top of clubs who have had the most managers in the PL era, except Chelsea, I can't think of any club that has gone through more managers in the last 10 years. At what point do we say he's got too many managerial appointments wrong is the question am I asking I guess.

One more thing, it's hypocritial of people to say certain managers underachieved with the resources and players they had, saying we should have finished higher, but people defend Levy and say "where do you expect us to finish with our budget compared to our rivals?". So if people are going to extend this courtesy for him, shouldn't the same be done for managers? Just a thought.

In EPL history overall (not including caretakers) then Spurs have had 12 managers, Southampton 14, Saudi Sportswashing Machine 12, City 10, Liverpool & Fulham 8, Palace 9, Blackburn 10, Aston Villa 9 & Chelsea 15.

Some of those clubs have had relegations in there so perhaps expect less stability but these are managers in their times in the EPL so actually Saints have had 14 EPL managers despite being in the EPl for 5 less seasons, City the same (5), Saudi Sportswashing Machine 2 less, Blackburn 3 (?) fewer, Fulham 8, Palace 10+ less ?

Is Levy that irresponsible or trigger happy? Maybe in comparison to the other ever presents but not in comparison to the vast majority of EPL clubs.

 

[billyiddo]

Erm, Moyes got them CL football (nearly ) and they kept him for over a decade. Consistent top 6 finishers. Martinez, got them 5th last season finishing above Spurs and United.

Arsenal, would have thought that one was obvious. Wenger, longest serving manager in the league. Won 3 premier league titles, CL finalist, top 4 finish every season he's been there.

Laudrup, won Swansea their first trophy in GHod knows how long.

What buck? Perhaps not stepping down as chairman, but some serious questions to be pointed in his direction, I really don't see what the harm is in this or why people are so defensive about questioning Levy. We have to be near the top of clubs who have had the most managers in the PL era, except Chelsea, I can't think of any club that has gone through more managers in the last 10 years. At what point do we say he's got too many managerial appointments wrong is the question am I asking I guess.

One more thing, it's hypocritial of people to say certain managers underachieved with the resources and players they had, saying we should have finished higher, but people defend Levy and say "where do you expect us to finish with our budget compared to our rivals?". So if people are going to extend this courtesy for him, shouldn't the same be done for managers? Just a thought.

Urgh if you're intent on bringing 'former' managers in to it i have little to say as it's all been said before.... What i will say is that a chairman job is different to that of a manager and are judged on a different scale, imv. Long term V short term (decade v season by season) etc and besides i don't think i ever said i wanted a 'former' manager to be sacked because of league position - which makes your point redundant anyway.


the point with regards to the names mentioned was that when asked for some examples of clubs which consistently get appointments right, the clubs you put forward have got it wrong before. And you also seem to miss the point that Arsenal/Everton etc have done no better in relation to their worth than we have under Levy - sometimes we punch above ourselves and sometimes we are where we should be - for Arsenal it's a higher starting point than us and for Everton slightly lower but essentially it's the same - so when do I think we should be putting blame on Levy? When that is no longer the case and we consistently fail to reach the top 6 over a number of seasons.

I assume then that Ramos will no longer be on your flop list for Levy now you're using Laudrups league cup trophy as a point in your favor?

 

[NWND]

In EPL history overall (not including caretakers) then Spurs have had 12 managers, Southampton 14, Saudi Sportswashing Machine 12, City 10, Liverpool & Fulham 8, Palace 9, Blackburn 10, Aston Villa 9 & Chelsea 15.

Some of those clubs have had relegations in there so perhaps expect less stability but these are managers in their times in the EPL so actually Saints have had 14 EPL managers despite being in the EPl for 5 less seasons, City the same (5), Saudi Sportswashing Machine 2 less, Blackburn 3 (?) fewer, Fulham 8, Palace 10+ less ?

Is Levy that irresponsible or trigger happy? Maybe in comparison to the other ever presents but not in comparison to the vast majority of EPL clubs.

Yes and he only tends to fire when he feels he absolutely has to. The only quesitonable sacking in my view when you look at the results of the team, was Redknapp.

 

[Jurgen the German]

Urgh if you're intent on bringing 'former' managers in to it i have little to say as it's all been said before.... What i will say is that a chairman job is different to that of a manager and are judged on a different scale, imv. Long term V short term (decade v season by season) etc and besides i don't think i ever said i wanted a 'former' manager to be sacked because of league position - which makes your point redundant anyway.


the point with regards to the names mentioned was that when asked for some examples of clubs which consistently get appointments right, the clubs you put forward have got it wrong before. And you also seem to miss the point that Arsenal/Everton etc have done no better in relation to their worth than we have under Levy - sometimes we punch above ourselves and sometimes we are where we should be - for Arsenal it's a higher starting point than us and for Everton slightly lower but essentially it's the same - so when do I think we should be putting blame on Levy? When that is no longer the case and we consistently fail to reach the top 6 over a number of seasons.

I assume then that Ramos will no longer be on your flop list for Levy now you're using Laudrups league cup trophy as a point in your favor?

Because Ramos had one of the top 6 squads or so in the league in the bottom 3, that's why he is a flop. Laudrup didn't have anywhere near as much resources.

Look, I am not too stubborn to admit Levy has done some great things for this club, but why is there such a defensive response from the same posters whenever anyone points out something negative about him? This is just my opinion, but it really does come across like we can't question any negative aspects about his tenure.

Do I think he is a bad chairman? No.

Do I think there should come a point where he should answer for the number of managers he has gone through? Yes, don't see why this is such a problem for some.

Even though we have made good strides under him, do I think he can take us to the next level, consistently? Sadly I don't but that's a different discussion.

 

[braineclipse]

Arsenal, Everton, Swansea, Southampton, Stoke. Those clubs have been successful relative to their budgets and size and have made the right choice of manager, for the most part.

All I am trying to say is, for all of the good work he has done, at some point surely the buck has to stop with him if he keeps hiring managers, deems them not good enough or falls out with them and lets them go.

Arsenal got one appointment right. Everton did well with Moyes, Martinez has done well although they're currently a point behind us, Swansea have done really well over years and is one of the few clubs that seem truly well run. Similarly Cortese seemed to know his stuff at Southampton, but without him give their Koeman decision more than 10 games. Stoke spent significantly under Pulis and I really don't think their results have been out of the ordinary.

Most of these clubs (Swansea, Southampton, Stoke) are clubs that are arguably competing above their financial worth, but not all that far I would say.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

Most of the earning potential of mid table and lower half PL clubs seems to stem from being in the Premier League. There's not much of a difference financially even between Villa/Everton and teams like Southampton, Swansea and Stoke. Even just by chance some of the "rest of" clubs will be over performing, particularly when Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Villa are in more or less perpetual crisis mode. I think the difference between us and the top 4 is significantly larger and the obstacle we're trying to overcome by becoming a consistent top 4 finisher is much tougher than a decent sized well run promoted team becoming a mid table PL club.

Because Ramos had one of the top 6 squads or so in the league in the bottom 3, that's why he is a flop. Laudrup didn't have anywhere near as much resources.

Look, I am not too stubborn to admit Levy has done some great things for this club, but why is there such a defensive response from the same posters whenever anyone points out something negative about him? This is just my opinion, but it really does come across like we can't question any negative aspects about his tenure.

Do I think he is a bad chairman? No.

Do I think there should come a point where he should answer for the number of managers he has gone through? Yes, don't see why this is such a problem for some.

Even though we have made good strides under him, do I think he can take us to the next level, consistently? Sadly I don't but that's a different discussion.

Because a lot of people are not convinced by the arguments put forward. The reasoning behind that criticism seems inadequate. To me at least.

 

[billyiddo]

Because Ramos had one of the top 6 squads or so in the league in the bottom 3, that's why he is a flop. Laudrup didn't have anywhere near as much resources.

Look, I am not too stubborn to admit Levy has done some great things for this club, but why is there such a defensive response from the same posters whenever anyone points out something negative about him? This is just my opinion, but it really does come across like we can't question any negative aspects about his tenure.

Do I think he is a bad chairman? No.

Do I think there should come a point where he should answer for the number of managers he has gone through? Yes, don't see why this is such a problem for some.

Even though we have made good strides under him, do I think he can take us to the next level, consistently? Sadly I don't but that's a different discussion.

You might want to familiarize yourself with Laudrups league record and compare it with what the previous manager had achieved on the same budget (and what his successor has done since) - it couldn't be any more similar to the Ramos situation...there's a reason he was let go at the end of the day.

Im not sure why it comes across as though you can't question his tenure - afterall it is pretty much the single biggest topic that has been discussed on this and various other boards over many years - as much as i and others will 'always defend him' yourself and others are always questioning him, id rather stick to the points made than concern myself with the motives of others - ive answered the points you've made with my take on them, do you disagree with anything i have said in defense? If no, what don't you agree with and why?

 

[Jurgen the German]

Arsenal got one appointment right. Everton did well with Moyes, Martinez has done well although they're currently a point behind us, Swansea have done really well over years and is one of the few clubs that seem truly well run. Similarly Cortese seemed to know his stuff at Southampton, but without him give their Koeman decision more than 10 games. Stoke spent significantly under Pulis and I really don't think their results have been out of the ordinary.

Most of these clubs (Swansea, Southampton, Stoke) are clubs that are arguably competing above their financial worth, but not all that far I would say.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages

Most of the earning potential of mid table and lower half PL clubs seems to stem from being in the Premier League. There's not much of a difference financially even between Villa/Everton and teams like Southampton, Swansea and Stoke. Even just by chance some of the "rest of" clubs will be over performing, particularly when Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Villa are in more or less perpetual crisis mode. I think the difference between us and the top 4 is significantly larger and the obstacle we're trying to overcome by becoming a consistent top 4 finisher is much tougher than a decent sized well run promoted team becoming a mid table PL club.



Because a lot of people are not convinced by the arguments put forward. The reasoning behind that criticism seems inadequate. To me at least.

I acknowledge that Levy has done some very good, if not great things for Spurs. But I also feel he has made some pretty big errors (a lot of which have been covered) that are worthy of discussion and are valid criticisms. I don't feel all the good work he has done erases some of the mistakes, just as the bad things don't erase the positive aspects of his tenure.

 

[Jurgen the German]

You might want to familiarize yourself with Laudrups league record and compare it with what the previous manager had achieved on the same budget (and what his successor has done since) - it couldn't be any more similar to the Ramos situation...there's a reason he was let go at the end of the day.

Im not sure why it comes across as though you can't question his tenure - afterall it is pretty much the single biggest topic that has been discussed on this and various other boards over many years - as much as i and others will 'always defend him' yourself and others are always questioning him, id rather stick to the points made than concern myself with the motives of others - ive answered the points you've made with my take on them, do you disagree with anything i have said in defense? If no, what don't you agree with and why?

Well we've covered what I don't agree with mate, not just you I don't agree with. I really don't like creating "sides" but it does sometimes feel like we aren't allowed to be critical of him when he makes mistakes. Everyone at the club should be held accountable when things go wrong, that goes for managers, players, the chairman and the owner. I don't feel I'm particularly harsh or unfair towards him but I'm sure some wouldn't agree, it just gets a bit tiresome when when people say "would you rather do a Leeds" like there's just Levy/Enic's way of doing things, or we'll go under.

 

[billyiddo]

That'd make sense if people were saying that in this discussion but the only things being spoke about are the issues you have raised. In fact you have actually brought up clubs to compare his time here to in this very discussion so we'd be well within our rights to use examples to the contrary, so it makes that particular complaint all the more confusing. you can't have it both ways at the end of the day.

Im finding these discussions often follow a similar path - poster criticizes Levy, poster defends Levy, original poster then complains he isn't allowed to be negative.

 

[indianspur]

Levy runs a good financial ship, he is risk averse it seems. Even when we get a new stadium we will never spend more than what we make. Yes the figures will be larger but Levy will always maintain his principles.