Redknapp

[Armchair Expert]

Stoke when we switched to 3-5-2. City away when we were 2-0 down.

To be honest, I don't think he has managed to turn around many games. I don't think many managers do. I think it's a bit of a myth generally and it mainly comes down to the quality of players. But what I want is hard and fast evidence that the names being bandied around do it more than Redknapp, and with evidence.

Thats er, nonsense isnt it? There is no hard evidence as the names being banded around havent managed spurs yet?! And are currently at different clubs, with different cultures and budgets.

But to play the game hard evidence could be I suppose that AVB has been a manager for 2 seasons and has won three times as many trophies as Redknapp has in 30 years. Hows that? Thats an undeniable fact.

If appointing managers was a 100% science football would be the easiest game in the world.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Thats er, nonsense isnt it? There is no hard evidence as the names being banded around havent managed spurs yet?! And are currently at different clubs, with different cultures and budgets.

But to play the game hard evidence could be I suppose that AVB has been a manager for 2 seasons and has won three times as many trophies as Redknapp has in 30 years. Hows that? Thats an undeniable fact.

If appointing managers was a 100% science football would be the easiest game in the world.

Sorry, don't get what you are trying to say? Also achievements outside of England count for little in my eyes. Different cultures, levels and all that.

And listing a Manager's success isn't the point here surely? People are saying that Redknapp is tactically clueless and then giving alternative names of Managers who are better tactically and who Redknapp should be fired for. So what I am asking. Is in what way are they better tactically? Some real hard and fast examples of why they are better tactically?

 

[ArcspacE]

Also achievements outside of England count for little in my eyes. Different cultures, levels and all that.

But why do you find it so hard to accept why it might count for something in the eyes of others?


EDIT: and by the same logic we should have never went for Redknapp who's won close to nothing in 30 years in England. Or at the very least - nothing suggested he would be as successful.

So which one is it?

 

[elltrev]

For me, I think the people who want Harry sacked are underestimating the destabilising effect that it might have. As Moonlit said, how should Levy go about it? If he tries to look for a replacement secretly whilst Harry is still in charge, that could seriously backfire. If he's trying to talk to Premier League managers like Martinez, Rodgers, Moyes and Lambert behind Harry's back then it's very possible that the media are going to find out and cause a bit of a scandal. And if he sacks him before looking for a replacement, we might be in a worse position then we were before.

Which option would people take?

And for those who think Harry has taken us far as he can, what do you think about the fact that we were challenging for the title after 20 games or so? That was definitly 'overachieving'. Now I think the team should be judged over the course of a whole season, and of course in the end we went through a slump and finished 4th. But given that the slump coincided with the Harry-to-England rumours, I'm interested to see what Harry could achieve with this team with a distraction-free season...

 

[ArcspacE]

Look, there's no doubt that whether Redknapp ought to stay is a matter of opinion. It's like whether I ought to help the poor and needy - there's no matter of fact about it, BUT we still collectively classify doing so as something worthy of praise. Based on the opinion that someone holds, we extrapolate their character and values. In a non-moral sense, that is what we are doing here. If we all want the same thing, which presumably is success and greatness for our club, then there should be an objectively correct conclusion to come to here, and we can discover it using facts and statistics.

So, yes there's no matter of fact about whether Redknapp should stay. But based on the facts, I think it is pretty safe to say that IF you have ambition for our club and IF you don't want to remain in the shadow of Arsenal, Chelsea, United, and City but want to actually challenge these teams, that Redknapp needs to go for that to happen. Of course, if you don't want then you have no worries, but it is inconsistent, based on the FACTS and STATISTICS to say that Redknapp should stay but you still want to challenge the best teams. The stats support the opinion that we cannot do that under Redknapp.

For me it's also a matter of pride - 5-2 loss to Arsenal, 5-1 to City, 5-1 to Chelsea, 3-0 to United, 3-1 to United. Chelsea had to beat Barca, Bayern, Benfica, Napoli, and Valencia to secure their spot in the CL. We knew what we had to do - which was beat Aston Villa, and we didn't do it, and instead of going for it Redknapp brought on a defensive midfielder. He has a loser's mindset imo, backed up by a record of 30 years with only 1 trophy (another undeniable fact). Replacing him is a risk yes, but it is one worth taking if we ever want to move forward.

And I don't actually think he's a bad manager - I think he's a pretty good manager but I think he's reached a limit here, and it's no good for us to come all this way only to be content to stop and give up instead of FINALLY breaking through. Wait much longer and our chances will dwindle further when Liverpool finish rebuilding themselves.

Excellent post, agree with most points

 

[thfcsteff]

Stoke when we switched to 3-5-2. City away when we were 2-0 down.

To be honest, I don't think he has managed to turn around many games. I don't think many managers do. I think it's a bit of a myth generally and it mainly comes down to the quality of players. But what I want is hard and fast evidence that the names being bandied around do it more than Redknapp, and with evidence.

City's an interesting one...he certainly did gee it up at half-time, but I think we were all a bit alarmed at how cagey and slow-tempo we'd been for the first half (albeit it was like a massive boxing match and we were feeling each other out so-to-speak)...I agree with your last point, if Levy does act on his frustration and anger, the next appt must be more tactically aware in this respect...

 

[elltrev]

Look, there's no doubt that whether Redknapp ought to stay is a matter of opinion. It's like whether I ought to help the poor and needy - there's no matter of fact about it, BUT we still collectively classify doing so as something worthy of praise. Based on the opinion that someone holds, we extrapolate their character and values. In a non-moral sense, that is what we are doing here. If we all want the same thing, which presumably is success and greatness for our club, then there should be an objectively correct conclusion to come to here, and we can discover it using facts and statistics.

So, yes there's no matter of fact about whether Redknapp should stay. But based on the facts, I think it is pretty safe to say that IF you have ambition for our club and IF you don't want to remain in the shadow of Arsenal, Chelsea, United, and City but want to actually challenge these teams, that Redknapp needs to go for that to happen. Of course, if you don't want then you have no worries, but it is inconsistent, based on the FACTS and STATISTICS to say that Redknapp should stay but you still want to challenge the best teams. The stats support the opinion that we cannot do that under Redknapp.

For me it's also a matter of pride - 5-2 loss to Arsenal, 5-1 to City, 5-1 to Chelsea, 3-0 to United, 3-1 to United. Chelsea had to beat Barca, Bayern, Benfica, Napoli, and Valencia to secure their spot in the CL. We knew what we had to do - which was beat Aston Villa, and we didn't do it, and instead of going for it Redknapp brought on a defensive midfielder. He has a loser's mindset imo, backed up by a record of 30 years with only 1 trophy (another undeniable fact). Replacing him is a risk yes, but it is one worth taking if we ever want to move forward.

And I don't actually think he's a bad manager - I think he's a pretty good manager but I think he's reached a limit here, and it's no good for us to come all this way only to be content to stop and give up instead of FINALLY breaking through. Wait much longer and our chances will dwindle further when Liverpool finish rebuilding themselves.

Actually the facts show that we finished above Chelsea (and drew with them twice), that we were ahead of Arsenal for most of the season and finished just 1 point behind them (and beat them once and lost to them once), and were challenging City and United for over half the season. In the end we finished miles behind those two, but a) their teams and squads are better than ours, and b) it seems fair and logical to believe that the harry-to-England situation played a big part in our slump.

So the facts show that we have challenged Arsenal and Chelsea, and that we beat them (and City) to get to the Champions League for the first time ever 2 seasons ago, in which we then beat Inter Milan and AC Milan over 2 games - 2 more big teams.

It's great to have high aims, but to sack the manager because we're not challenging City and United for the title is deluded IMO.

 

[DHSF]

City's an interesting one...he certainly did gee it up at half-time, but I think we were all a bit alarmed at how cagey and slow-tempo we'd been for the first half (albeit it was like a massive boxing match and we were feeling each other out so-to-speak)...I agree with your last point, if Levy does act on his frustration and anger, the next appt must be more tactically aware in this respect...

If Levy acts on frustration and anger rather than actually properly assessing Harry's tenure then I think Levy himself should go. You dont act on frustration and anger.

I really do not think Levy will let go of Harry, not this season anyways. To bring in a replacement is expensive, you have to buy out Harrys contract, plus his staffs contract THEN find someone, have talks, negotiations, a new contract, compensation to the potential Managers club, then staff which could incur additional compensation.

I also think this process wil lhave started some time ago - you wouldnt wait till summer to do it if you know you are gonna fire a Manager. We know Levy has history in this regards

 

[thfcsteff]

Sorry, don't get what you are trying to say? Also achievements outside of England count for little in my eyes. Different cultures, levels and all that.

And listing a Manager's success isn't the point here surely? People are saying that Redknapp is tactically clueless and then giving alternative names of Managers who are better tactically and who Redknapp should be fired for. So what I am asking. Is in what way are they better tactically? Some real hard and fast examples of why they are better tactically?

It's worth pointing out that AVB on the Europa League/UEFA Cup at Porto whilst also winning the Portugese league by 20 points with 13 goals conceded and their cup too. Whatever your feelings on achievements outside England, you have to admit that here is a man who went for three trophies and won them all, including a European trophy. If Harry had been able to devote the time and energy to managing us through two competitions simultaneously and see one of them conclude in silverware, I'd be delighted. Hell, I'd be delighted if he even tried!

 

[Jordinho]

Thats er, nonsense isnt it? There is no hard evidence as the names being banded around havent managed spurs yet?! And are currently at different clubs, with different cultures and budgets.

But to play the game hard evidence could be I suppose that AVB has been a manager for 2 seasons and has won three times as many trophies as Redknapp has in 30 years. Hows that? Thats an undeniable fact.

If appointing managers was a 100% science football would be the easiest game in the world.

How many trophies have Porto won without AVB and how many have Redknapp's previous clubs won without him?

A manager's overall achievements are indicative of what we can expect at a similar club, what happens at a bigger club, with more money, is of course guess work. What he is able to do in a single match can be analysed further for evidence of tactical astuteness regardless of what club.

 

[Armchair Expert]

Sorry, don't get what you are trying to say? Also achievements outside of England count for little in my eyes. Different cultures, levels and all that.

And listing a Manager's success isn't the point here surely? People are saying that Redknapp is tactically clueless and then giving alternative names of Managers who are better tactically and who Redknapp should be fired for. So what I am asking. Is in what way are they better tactically? Some real hard and fast examples of why they are better tactically?

Sorry, the point I was trying to make (very badly looking back) is that I don't think anyone will be able to point you in the direction of a game where Paul Lambert changed tactics away against Stoke and saved the day, because were not Norwich fans and don't watch them week in week out. I think its a moot point anyway. As fans of other clubs, the only way we can judge other teams is by measuring their relative successes against their materials they have to work with.

Its unlikely that people on this board have watched other teams enough to give you specific instances of other managers tactical nouse. I certainly cant anyway.

But what I can say is that I have seen a lot of Spurs this year and am unhappy with Harry Redknapp as manager, for various reasons.

He never had a record of success before coming to us, much like the names being banded around, but in your eyes at least, has been a huge success. There's no reason why any manager with an average record who suddenly inherits a far superior squad couldn't achieve the same.

I'm not saying I would rush out and want to appoint any old manager, but someone with a bit of commitment and long term potential would certainly be a step in the right direction.

Someone who could refer to Spurs as 'we' rather than 'they' without almost being sick would certainly be a step in the right direction.

 

[thfcsteff]

If Levy acts on frustration and anger rather than actually properly assessing Harry's tenure then I think Levy himself should go. You dont act on frustration and anger.

I really do not think Levy will let go of Harry, not this season anyways. To bring in a replacement is expensive, you have to buy out Harrys contract, plus his staffs contract THEN find someone, have talks, negotiations, a new contract, compensation to the potential Managers club, then staff which could incur additional compensation.

I also think this process wil lhave started some time ago - you wouldnt wait till summer to do it if you know you are gonna fire a Manager. We know Levy has history in this regards

Why? If he DID act in the coming weeks, it wouldn't be without having engaged in careful assessment. Why isn't it possible to be angry and frustrated, sit back and evaluate all options and then act? What's wrong with doing that So long as he considers all the angles then it's absolutely acceptable in my opinion mate...I have to wonder, by the way, why a man who desperately has trouble keeping his mouth shut in the media has been silent since Saturday night. Not one word from Redders. Personally, I think it's suspicious given how beyond-his-usual-form it is...one thing's for sure. We are, by hook or crook, once again a summer story of bizarreness and oddity. I think all Spurs supporters should get t-shirt with WHY ALWAYS US? LOL...

 

[Armchair Expert]

How many trophies have Porto won without AVB and how many have Redknapp's previous clubs won without him?

A manager's overall achievements are indicative of what we can expect at a similar club, what happens at a bigger club, with more money, is of course guess work. What he is able to do in a single match can be analysed further for evidence of tactical astuteness regardless of what club.

To be fair then, to look at things in your context, he managed to relegate Southampton for the first time since 1977 and the fans hated him, and his decisions.

Portsmouth are on the verge of absolute ruin. He stabbed them in thew back and went to their bitter rivals. A high price to pay for a cup win.

 

[Jordinho]

For me, I think the people who want Harry sacked are underestimating the destabilising effect that it might have. As Moonlit said, how should Levy go about it? If he tries to look for a replacement secretly whilst Harry is still in charge, that could seriously backfire. If he's trying to talk to Premier League managers like Martinez, Rodgers, Moyes and Lambert behind Harry's back then it's very possible that the media are going to find out and cause a bit of a scandal. And if he sacks him before looking for a replacement, we might be in a worse position then we were before.

Which option would people take?

And for those who think Harry has taken us far as he can, what do you think about the fact that we were challenging for the title after 20 games or so? That was definitly 'overachieving'. Now I think the team should be judged over the course of a whole season, and of course in the end we went through a slump and finished 4th. But given that the slump coincided with the Harry-to-England rumours, I'm interested to see what Harry could achieve with this team with a distraction-free season...

As was mentioned in another post, any change in management is very likely to cause some lack of consistency in performances and results early on, especially if the new man has a lot of ideas to implement (AVB anyone?).

We can look at how they've got their current teams playing, but how much of that is out of necessity and how much is down to a fundamental football philosophy?

Any new manager needs to be researched thoroughly beyond mere league placings and trophies. He will need to understand what is expected at a club, not just from the board room, but from the fans as well.

I'm happy to let Redknapp carry on for now. I can't see any obvious replacement out there that I'm confident can take us further AND is available/attainable.

I am a little worried about what happens if a decision is made mid season to let Redknapp go. Fergie's retirement springs to mind.

 

[DHSF]

Why? If he DID act in the coming weeks, it wouldn't be without having engaged in careful assessment. Why isn't it possible to be angry and frustrated, sit back and evaluate all options and then act? What's wrong with doing that So long as he considers all the angles then it's absolutely acceptable in my opinion mate...I have to wonder, by the way, why a man who desperately has trouble keeping his mouth shut in the media has been silent since Saturday night. Not one word from Redders. Personally, I think it's suspicious given how beyond-his-usual-form it is...one thing's for sure. We are, by hook or crook, once again a summer story of bizarreness and oddity. I think all Spurs supporters should get t-shirt with WHY ALWAYS US? LOL...

Well he has kep "his mouth shut" because there are no press conferences, he is on 'holiday' and there is no football. Not because of any other reason. Why has Fergie kept his trap shut for the last couple of weeks? Mancini? Wenger? etc cos theyre all on holidays. Nothing sinister.

I think this summer will be fine, we will have some football to focus on and we will have obviously the Olympics etc (not that I give a brick abou tthe olympics - its actually the bane of my life at the moment)

 

[Jordinho]

To be fair then, to look at things in your context, he managed to relegate Southampton for the first time since 1977 and the fans hated him, and his decisions.

Portsmouth are on the verge of absolute ruin. He stabbed them in thew back and went to their bitter rivals. A high price to pay for a cup win.

I don't know what happened at Southampton, but Portsmouth and West Ham's financial meltdowns were just as much down to people running the club. I'm glad our chairman is strong enough to stand up for himself, so to speak.

 

[Pirate55]

Look, there's no doubt that whether Redknapp ought to stay is a matter of opinion. It's like whether I ought to help the poor and needy - there's no matter of fact about it, BUT we still collectively classify doing so as something worthy of praise. Based on the opinion that someone holds, we extrapolate their character and values. In a non-moral sense, that is what we are doing here. If we all want the same thing, which presumably is success and greatness for our club, then there should be an objectively correct conclusion to come to here, and we can discover it using facts and statistics.

So, yes there's no matter of fact about whether Redknapp should stay. But based on the facts, I think it is pretty safe to say that IF you have ambition for our club and IF you don't want to remain in the shadow of Arsenal, Chelsea, United, and City but want to actually challenge these teams, that Redknapp needs to go for that to happen. Of course, if you don't want then you have no worries, but it is inconsistent, based on the FACTS and STATISTICS to say that Redknapp should stay but you still want to challenge the best teams. The stats support the opinion that we cannot do that under Redknapp.

For me it's also a matter of pride - 5-2 loss to Arsenal, 5-1 to City, 5-1 to Chelsea, 3-0 to United, 3-1 to United. Chelsea had to beat Barca, Bayern, Benfica, Napoli, and Valencia to secure their spot in the CL. We knew what we had to do - which was beat Aston Villa, and we didn't do it, and instead of going for it Redknapp brought on a defensive midfielder. He has a loser's mindset imo, backed up by a record of 30 years with only 1 trophy (another undeniable fact). Replacing him is a risk yes, but it is one worth taking if we ever want to move forward.

And I don't actually think he's a bad manager - I think he's a pretty good manager but I think he's reached a limit here, and it's no good for us to come all this way only to be content to stop and give up instead of FINALLY breaking through. Wait much longer and our chances will dwindle further when Liverpool finish rebuilding themselves.

excellent post again DMac. Together with your earlier post, a cogent and well reasoned argument. thank heaven for someone who can clearly articulate views without a tirade from MC.

I would add that there are three further reasons why H isnt the man to take us to the next level.

1. Really poor results and performances. Arse a, Sunderland a, Everton a, Liverpool a, QPR a, Aston Villa a, Norwich h, Man C h, Man u h and a, Chelsea facup semi. In all those games we played really poorly and negatively. We only scored 4 outfield goals in these 11 games and conceded 25. Hardly freeflowing attractive football.

2. In the key games, we bottled it. First PL game of season v MU (0-3), first home PL game v MC (1-5), Arse a (2-5), when we were 10 points ahead of the scum and needed at least a draw, Chelsea FACup Semi Final (1-5) a SEMI FINAL FFS, Norwich (1-2) needed to win to keep alive 3rd, Aston Villa (1-1) A Must win to keep third in our hands. We failed miserably in all the really vitally important games.

3. As you say, we got wazzed on five times - man C h, man u h and a, arse a, chelsea facup semi. But who did we manage to wazz on. I think we only beat three teams by three or more goals all season. Liverpool (4-0) when they had two men sent off, Saudi Sportswashing Machine (5-0) when they were missing three key players and their manager admitted he played the wrong team and wrong tactics and Bolton a (4-1), against a team that were virtually relegated and had the better of the game for long periods especially after they equalised.

Sorry H, just too much pain.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Have you been a Spurs fan for the last 20 year? When have we lost good players and not gone through a "transition period?" You cannot simply lose 3 major players and say we will carry on as before. Imho Redknapps record in the transfer market has been generally hit and miss. Most of the players you mentioned either gone or going and why bring in Pienaar if you had no plan for fitting him in your side? Don't think youcan count VDV for reasons discussed many times previously and didn't sandro come from internacional in Brazil who we have established special links with? Oh and as for the shambles that was the Jan 2012 transfer window...

For the last 20 years?!?.... and the rest!... I have had a season ticket for almost that long and was a regular attendee at the lane since well before then (first game in 1978!)

I didn't say that we wouldn't go through a transition period. I was merely stating that I didn't think we would be back lower midtable again. I think Harry would bring in good players to replace the ones that we lost. We would be somewhere between about 4th and 8th. Besides I don't think we'll lose all 3 anyway. Yes I think Modric will go but I don't neccessarily feel that we need to be weakened by that as we can use the money we receive from him to secure other signings (i.e. the money from Modric would probably buy Remy, Dembele and Sigurdsson for example). Adebayor depends on wages, but I think we still have every chance of keeping him. Bale I think will stay.

In terms of Harry's signings - those that he signed for money have pretty much all been something of a success. They either came in a played a big part in what we have achieved over the past few years and were sold on at a decent fee (for example Crouch, Defoe, Palacios), they contributed and will probably sold on for a decent fee this summer (Kranjcar, Corluka), or they are still here and doing well (Walker, Kaboul, VDV, Sandro, Parker). His three mistakes were probably Keane, Bassong and Pienaar, but I could see the logic in Keane after Defoe got injured late in the transfer window and we were still in the relegation zone without a goal scorer and (as Harry said) a very quiet dressing room that was prone to feeling sorry for itself. Also Bassong played quite a big part in our first ever Champions League qualification campaign. Pienaar was a strange one. I think he was bought to cover across the whole midfield but it just didn't work out for him at Spurs. Clearly he is a good player and I bet we receive a bigger transfer fee for him than we paid for him! Every manager brings in a few players that don't make the grade. Redknapp is no worse than Wenger or Fergusson in this respect.

I think people also gloss over some of Harry's very good free signings - Gallas has been superb over all and likewise with Friedel. Both of those players had other good offers on the table, but Redknapp was able to persuade them to come to us and both of them improved us.

I think it's laughable when people try to discount VDV or Sandro as Harry signings. They were two players signed when Redknapp was manager, ergo he signed them. The Jan transfer window wasn't good at all but I very very much doubt that Redknapp's sole two targets were Nelsen and Saha. Redknapp had identified that we needed a wide player and Krasic was lined up only to pull out of a deal at the last minute (something Krasic later said he regretted). We also wanted Gary Cahill but he only had eyes for Chelsea. I think Redknapp taking two freebie/loan type signings and trying to get Krasic on loan showed that Levy hadn't loosened the purse strings for Harry at all so Harry was left doing the best he could with no money to work with. I thought that Nelsen ended up being a useful signing. Did ok in the games he played, filled in the job that he came in for, allowed us to cover King/Gallas/Dawson/Kaboul injuries without bringing in a long term signing so that we can go and pursue a strategic target (i.e. Vertonghen) this Summer. Saha seemed to start well but then showed why Everton were pleased to let him go. Jelavic and Cisse were obvious ones that we missed out on in January - but we don't know whether Levy had made any money available for Harry to spend.

I find it laughable that so many people don't want Harry managing our club despite the fact that he has taken us from bottom of the league to 3 successive finishes of 4th, 5th, 4th. At the start of the season if you had been offered 4th place in the league would you have taken it? I know that I would've. We were generally tipped to finish 5th or 6th by most pundits and journalists and even most of our own fans. Yes finishing 4th feels disappointing as we were mounting an outside challenge for the league up until Feb and were well clear in 3rd place even after that, but 4th was still a better than par finish for THFC and if we're sacking managers for better than par finishes then we are likely to end up with a new manager every season and not get anywhere.

Yes Harry made mistakes, but you know what?.... So did Fergusson, so did Wenger, so did Mancini. So does every single manager in the World. All I know is that this is the best Spurs team to watch for a long while. I go into every home game thinking we will probably win this and go into the away games thinking we could well win this. I cannot remember thinking that about Spurs. Not since I went to my first game back in 1978. I love the way we play football, I love the way we try to win games, I love the way our players are able to express themselves and we're actually doing that while at the right end of the table for a change.

Be careful what you wish for.... We could end up with 'percentage' manager like Lambert or Hodgson and you know what?.... They are unlikely to get us any higher than 4th - 6th with our current transfer and wage budget, the only difference being that we'll be a lot duller to watch while doing it.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

But why do you find it so hard to accept why it might count for something in the eyes of others?

EDIT: and by the same logic we should have never went for Redknapp who's won close to nothing in 30 years in England. Or at the very least - nothing suggested he would be as successful.

So which one is it?

It's surely about being consistent? Would you take a Manager who won the SPL 5 or 6 times with Rangers or Celtic?

And I didn't want Redknapp to join. I am happy to admit when I am proved wrong. I always thought he'd get us out of relegation and back into mid-table safety but I am delighted that he took us much further. Indeed I think he has taken us as far as we can be taken at the moment.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Why? If he DID act in the coming weeks, it wouldn't be without having engaged in careful assessment. Why isn't it possible to be angry and frustrated, sit back and evaluate all options and then act? What's wrong with doing that So long as he considers all the angles then it's absolutely acceptable in my opinion mate...I have to wonder, by the way, why a man who desperately has trouble keeping his mouth shut in the media has been silent since Saturday night. Not one word from Redders. Personally, I think it's suspicious given how beyond-his-usual-form it is...one thing's for sure. We are, by hook or crook, once again a summer story of bizarreness and oddity. I think all Spurs supporters should get t-shirt with WHY ALWAYS US? LOL...

Because it's unprofessional and if there is one role at a football club that needs to be completely logical and professional it's the chairman.