The decision to fire AVB

[thfcsteff]

Modric was an ANCELOTTI target. Mamic was so delighted to be tapped up that he tried desperately to force the move through, Levy was so furious at Chelsea (history relating to both the Arnesen-poaching days AND their own, initial, conversations pre-Chelski) that he steadfastly refused to sell him to Chelski (I seem to remember arguing with some people all of that summer when I said unequivocally that he would not be sold, despite 'Arry's late run in August!) by which point AVB (who was not getting Moutinho to Chelski had made it very very clear that he, too, wanted Modric). It is absolutely no coincidence that Modric is now flourishing at Madrid since Ancelotti took over.

As a side-question, one of the things we genuinely will never get a real answer on is why Levy capitulated on the Bale thing. It was signed and sealed for another season (thus the Times Sq billboard) yet when Madrid forced the issue right around Hong Kong, Levy looked vulnerable. He held his nerve until the end but sold. I think there's something untold there. I don't even care to speculate! Essentially, AVB was robbed of a player he had been told was not being sold for one more season. Anyway...

 

[DTA]

Modric was an ANCELOTTI target. Mamic was so delighted to be tapped up that he tried desperately to force the move through, Levy was so furious at Chelsea (history relating to both the Arnesen-poaching days AND their own, initial, conversations pre-Chelski) that he steadfastly refused to sell him to Chelski (I seem to remember arguing with some people all of that summer when I said unequivocally that he would not be sold, despite 'Arry's late run in August!) by which point AVB (who was not getting Moutinho to Chelski had made it very very clear that he, too, wanted Modric). It is absolutely no coincidence that Modric is now flourishing at Madrid since Ancelotti took over.

As a side-question, one of the things we genuinely will never get a real answer on is why Levy capitulated on the Bale thing. It was signed and sealed for another season (thus the Times Sq billboard) yet when Madrid forced the issue right around Hong Kong, Levy looked vulnerable. He held his nerve until the end but sold. I think there's something untold there. I don't even care to speculate! Essentially, AVB was robbed of a player he had been told was not being sold for one more season. Anyway...

As much as we got for him (bale), Im thinking even in terms of just money, not the footballing side, maybe it would have been better for us to keep him, ie keeping him would have earned us more money in the long term.... the kind of money and draw that you can only get from having a world superstar on your books... which he is.... But im sure Levy done the Calculations... right?

 

[milo]

A collection of journos including Neil Ashton present a negative version of events that paint AVB as a sulking child? Shock!

I think that the best chance that you have of getting close to the truth is to read from a variety of sources and weigh for bias.

If you read the Jason Burt and Neil Ashton (I think that you would agree that they are at the opposite ends of the supporting AVB spectrum) accounts of the end of AVB's time at Spurs, there is a lot that endorses each others' accounts.

I think that it is unlikely that AVB was either a saint or the devil incarnate, so the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

By refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts your preconceptions, you have a very one sided and unlikely view of what happened. It makes discussing football with you very difficult.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I think that the best chance that you have of getting close to the truth is to read from a variety of sources and weigh for bias.

If you read the Jason Burt and Neil Ashton (I think that you would agree that they are at the opposite ends of the supporting AVB spectrum) accounts of the end of AVB's time at Spurs, there is a lot that endorses each others' accounts.

I think that it is unlikely that AVB was either a saint or the devil incarnate, so the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

By refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts your preconceptions, you have a very one sided and unlikely view of what happened. It makes discussing football with you very difficult.

Not really.

I'm more than happy to hear the versions of someone that I will actually deem to be called a journalist (after Ashton's embarrassing show I don't consider him to be a journalist) and mix it with the other end of the spectrum (eg Castles) and summise that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm just not having that any sentence involving 'Ashton said....' and anything negative about a man he clearly had an agenda against should be taken that seriously.

 

[NWND]

I think that the best chance that you have of getting close to the truth is to read from a variety of sources and weigh for bias.

If you read the Jason Burt and Neil Ashton (I think that you would agree that they are at the opposite ends of the supporting AVB spectrum) accounts of the end of AVB's time at Spurs, there is a lot that endorses each others' accounts.

I think that it is unlikely that AVB was either a saint or the devil incarnate, so the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

By refusing to accept any evidence that contradicts your preconceptions, you have a very one sided and unlikely view of what happened. It makes discussing football with you very difficult.

This is it for me.

Did AVB have good qualities? Of course he did, a record points total in his first season shows that. His Porto team show that. Does he aslo have serious social-skill/people management/temperament problems when things aren't going so well? Again, of course he did, the evidence at Chelsea and Spurs in his second season show that.

Basically for me, when AVB is successful and doing well there's no problem. The issue with him IMO is that he doesn't appear to react well to questioning, so for example, when there is a bad result or a run of bad form and the players come to him with suggestions, or there is a bit of a heated atmosphere, he doesn't deal with it well. When he's called into a meeting room with his bosses to explain a bad performance or bad defeat, he doesn't deal with it well.

Basically, it seems to me that some of the players had started to question his methods this season, including his exclusion of Ade and BAE (Both of whom are apparently popular in the dressing room) and maybe some of his selections, then the medical team questioned his handling of the Lloris episode and by the point of the Liverpool defeat, he's got his back up and is starting to feel isolated and then he's called into a meeting with Baldini & Levy to explain what the hell is going on and he just flips and says "f-you all" and its game over.

That's how it seems to have gone down to me. He just doesn't handle pressure well. He has a lot of good ideas, but I don't think he's open to listening to other people's ideas and he gets a bit bristly and cuts himself off from people when things aren't going so well and he gets questioned.

I actually think the club recognised this side of him and had done their research when appointing him. Therefore while allowing him some of his own choices of back-room staff, they also brought in Freund and surrounded him with a team that would hopefully offer him a different point of view. Unfortunately, in the end I think this actually made matters worse.

 

[NWND]

Not really.

I'm more than happy to hear the versions of someone that I will actually deem to be called a journalist (after Ashton's embarrassing show I don't consider him to be a journalist) and mix it with the other end of the spectrum (eg Castles) and summise that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm just not having that any sentence involving 'Ashton said....' and anything negative about a man he clearly had an agenda against should be taken that seriously.

But why did he have an agenda against AVB? Why would he, unless AVB had done something to create that feeling?

I.e. isn't the fact that a journalist (and he is a journalist at one of the nation's leading publications, whatever you care to think or say - that much is undeniable) appears to have such bad feeling towards him actually represent a damning piece of evidence as to all that was wrong with AVB's people management/relationship management skills?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

But why did he have an agenda against AVB? Why would he, unless AVB had done something to create that feeling?

I.e. isn't the fact that a journalist (and he is a journalist at one of the nation's leading publications, whatever you care to think or say - that much is undeniable) appears to have such bad feeling towards him actually represent a damning piece of evidence as to all that was wrong with AVB's people management/relationship management skills?

I don't know why he had an agenda, but I'm pretty certain AVB never did anything to Ashton. Certainly nothing to deserve what he got from him. I mean can you imagine what AVB would have gotten written about him had he set even a tenth of what Sherwood has said in his time as manager?

 

[scaramanga]

But why did he have an agenda against AVB? Why would he, unless AVB had done something to create that feeling?

I.e. isn't the fact that a journalist (and he is a journalist at one of the nation's leading publications, whatever you care to think or say - that much is undeniable) appears to have such bad feeling towards him actually represent a damning piece of evidence as to all that was wrong with AVB's people management/relationship management skills?

I'm not sure how much you know about British sports "journalism" - or even if you're from the UK, so the following will either be enlightening or patronising. Hope it's the former.

For years British tabloid football journalists (and I know this because a friend of mine used to work at the Mirror and covered some weekends in the sport section) have spent their days taking their mates out to lunch/the pub and doing almost no work whatsoever. They all have their pet managers who let info slip to them as and when it suits both parties. It has been expense accounts and ****-ups for years (with the odd 'massage' thrown in here and there). Their columns have been little more than gossip columns for their whole careers and I've probably written longer reports in a day than you'd get if you put all the actual content of their career's work together in one piece.

AVB represents a new type of manager - he will talk all day about tactics to serious journalists doing serious pieces, but has no time for what the tabloids have been doing for all this time. If you want to talk about the team, you can come and spend the day at the training ground and learn about what we're doing. If you want to know who's been knobbing hookers in the team hotel, you can **** off. He represents a need for journalists to work for a living and to actually do what journalists are paid to do - investigate, analyse and report. He uses words that their lethargic, underused brains can no longer comprehend - that's if they ever could.

Add to that the fact that he and his generation are rapidly making the friends of these "journalists" look very outdated in their ways and are making them surplus to requirements at many clubs and you have a battle line drawn. It doesn't help that AVB was replacing one of the two or three worst offenders in the old ways of doing things.

 

[milo]

Not really.

I'm more than happy to hear the versions of someone that I will actually deem to be called a journalist (after Ashton's embarrassing show I don't consider him to be a journalist) and mix it with the other end of the spectrum (eg Castles) and summise that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm just not having that any sentence involving 'Ashton said....' and anything negative about a man he clearly had an agenda against should be taken that seriously.

How do you account for where Ashton and Burt corroborate each other's accounts? Why do you only choose to believe the one that is closest to your own view even?

Why do you ignore Greg Stobart's pieces even though he is widely considered to have good contacts at Spurs and could hardly be considered to be anti-AVB (although he did write more critical pieces in his second season).

 

[Kingdawson]

You can never debate me properly on this issue can you? Never do I ever accuse you of being a Levy fanboy, a Sherwood fanboy, a Harry fanboy or anything. I debate points. I look at what has happened and use that to back up my argument. Have I nailed my colours to the 'AVB was wronged and I blame Levy' mast? Absolutely. But I'm trying to use what we know has happened to make an argument that supports that belief.

You reduce your arguments against that very quickly to 'Oh you're just saying that because you're an AVB fanboy' and how am I supposed to compete against that? You were hostile towards AVB when he first arrived at Chelsea because you didn't like how the media were painting him as a tactical coach. I remember so many disparaging comments about the supposed 'tactical genius' being extremely over-rated. And this was years ago. You've never liked him. That's obvious. But I've never thrown that at you in debates about him the way you do the same to me.

And then I have no idea how to reconcile the fact you want Moyes to be our manager? I mean any excuses you think I make for AVB leaving us 8 points from the top of the league...you're going to have to make ten times more to justify any argument that Moyes should be our manager. And I actually like Moyes. I'm just using this point to show up your argument to be honest, the way you are always needling me in the same way.

You're either lying or have me mistaken for someone else.I didn't like him when he first arrived at Chelski? i didn't know him when he first arrived so i didn't make a judgement. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon because of what i've read....i need to see with my own eyes to pass judgement. Once i saw how he operated at Chelski i sure was not a fan but i didn't make that judgement prior to him arriving in England.

No i don't make excuses for Moyes at United...he failed and failed miserably. I leave the excuses and shift of blame for you to do but not me.

Btw you can't accuse me of being:

A) A sherwood fanboy as i've stated i want him gone and has many flaws
B) A Redknapp fanboy as i wanted him out when he started acting like a total **** and flirted with the England job continuously.
C) A levy fanboy as i've criticised him quite a bit over the years.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

You're either lying or have me mistaken for someone else.I didn't like him when he first arrived at Chelski? i didn't know him when he first arrived so i didn't make a judgement. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon because of what i've read....i need to see with my own eyes to pass judgement. Once i saw how he operated at Chelski i sure was not a fan but i didn't make that judgement prior to him arriving in England.

No i don't make excuses for Moyes at United...he failed and failed miserably. I leave the excuses and shift of blame for you to do but not me.

Btw you can't accuse me of being:

A) A sherwood fanboy as i've stated i want him gone and has many flaws
B) A Redknapp fanboy as i wanted him out when he started acting like a total **** and flirted with the England job continuously.
C) A levy fanboy as i've criticised him quite a bit over the years.

Whether it was before AVB arrived or during the initial months of him being there you were definitely on his case and it was no surprise to see which way you swayed when he became our manager. Virtually never giving him a chance.

If you think Moyes is a good choice for us you simply have to make excuses for what he has done at United. Or at the very least you have to offer defences of his actions, or explanations as to why he has done what he has done. Because otherwise there is no basis to say he should be our manager. Which is all I do with AVB. For some reason you are incredibly hostile about any defense of him though.

I don't accuse you of any of those things because you're not and because it's not really how I roll, it's very tiresome to paint people into camps.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

How do you account for where Ashton and Burt corroborate each other's accounts? Why do you only choose to believe the one that is closest to your own view even?

Why do you ignore Greg Stobart's pieces even though he is widely considered to have good contacts at Spurs and could hardly be considered to be anti-AVB (although he did write more critical pieces in his second season).

What exactly has been corroborated? Genuine question. I'm not denying that, for example, there were arguments or splits. What I am questioning is the painting of one of the characters in a negative light. It's spin. It wouldn't surprise me that Stobart for example is being tasked with making the club look better from a PR perspective when there's a chance they wouldn't be.

 

[scaramanga]

What exactly has been corroborated? Genuine question. I'm not denying that, for example, there were arguments or splits. What I am questioning is the painting of one of the characters in a negative light. It's spin. It wouldn't surprise me that Stobart for example is being tasked with making the club look better from a PR perspective when there's a chance they wouldn't be.

I think the corroboration was of the final split where AVB was apparently as happy about leaving as Levy was to see him leave.

 

[Kingdawson]

Whether it was before AVB arrived or during the initial months of him being there you were definitely on his case and it was no surprise to see which way you swayed when he became our manager. Virtually never giving him a chance.

If you think Moyes is a good choice for us you simply have to make excuses for what he has done at United. Or at the very least you have to offer defences of his actions, or explanations as to why he has done what he has done. Because otherwise there is no basis to say he should be our manager. Which is all I do with AVB. For some reason you are incredibly hostile about any defense of him though.

I don't accuse you of any of those things because you're not and because it's not really how I roll, it's very tiresome to paint people into camps.

It's tiresome painting people into camps when they are not, i agree. It's not tiresome when it is true and a person tries everything in his power to exempt blame for the manager he likes...that is really when it becomes tiresome.

I don't know what you mean "on his case". Once i witnessed his tactics with my own eyes, witnessed what he was trying to implement at Chelski despite not having the appropriate players and continuously sticking with a broken system then yes, i made a judgement and a negative one at that.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I think the corroboration was of the final split where AVB was apparently as happy about leaving as Levy was to see him leave.

Which I've never actually argued against!

This is what I mean though, journos sympathetic to the club will paint it as AVB being unreasonable or to go as far as to call him 'sulking' while journos sympathetic to AVB will put his arguments forward.

I've always argued that football is simply choices. Everyone is doing their best. Everyone makes choices rightly or wrongly. To me there's no universal right or wrong answer and I think any manager (even Sherwood, even Moyes) if backed enough and given enough time to shape the club as he wants it would get some relative level of success. I simply chose to defend AVB in these arguments because I think in him we had someone special, a forward thinker and someone we really needed. We should have made it work for him rather than expecting him to work within our restricting structures.

 

[scaramanga]

Which I've never actually argued against!

This is what I mean though, journos sympathetic to the club will paint it as AVB being unreasonable or to go as far as to call him 'sulking' while journos sympathetic to AVB will put his arguments forward.

I've always argued that football is simply choices. Everyone is doing their best. Everyone makes choices rightly or wrongly. To me there's no universal right or wrong answer and I think any manager (even Sherwood, even Moyes) if backed enough and given enough time to shape the club as he wants it would get some relative level of success. I simply chose to defend AVB in these arguments because I think in him we had someone special, a forward thinker and someone we really needed. We should have made it work for him rather than expecting him to work within our restricting structures.

I don't think we'll learn what really happened until his golden gag runs out - if it ever does.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

It's tiresome painting people into camps when they are not, i agree. It's not tiresome when it is true and a person tries everything in his power to exempt blame for the manager he likes...that is really when it becomes tiresome.

I don't know what you mean "on his case". Once i witnessed his tactics with my own eyes, witnessed what he was trying to implement at Chelski despite not having the appropriate players and continuously sticking with a broken system then yes, i made a judgement and a negative one at that.

Why does it have to be exempting blame and making excuses? To be honest I find it quite boring when people go out of their way to be overly balanced, it's fantastic entertainment watching Scara or GB put their arguments forward against Sherwood for example. And maybe it's less entertaining when I back AVB, but at the end of the day that's my choice, because it's my belief that he was special enough to be treated with a bit more patience to get things as he would need it.

I'm in no more of a camp than you are, but for some reason you always reduce it down to 'oh you're only saying this because AVB's your boy', which is extremely tiresome, and it's something I've never done with you.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I don't think we'll learn what really happened until his golden gag runs out - if it ever does.

And I reeeeeeeeeeally hope it does. Shows that the club's PR machine is working IMO that they get to shape his legacy after he has gone, which is a bit unfair, but at the end of the day I don't think he really cares. He'll move on and do well, and then go race bikes or whatever it is he wants to do.

 

[chancer]

I'm not sure how much you know about British sports "journalism" - or even if you're from the UK, so the following will either be enlightening or patronising. Hope it's the former.

For years British tabloid football journalists (and I know this because a friend of mine used to work at the Mirror and covered some weekends in the sport section) have spent their days taking their mates out to lunch/the pub and doing almost no work whatsoever. They all have their pet managers who let info slip to them as and when it suits both parties. It has been expense accounts and ****-ups for years (with the odd 'massage' thrown in here and there). Their columns have been little more than gossip columns for their whole careers and I've probably written longer reports in a day than you'd get if you put all the actual content of their career's work together in one piece.

AVB represents a new type of manager - he will talk all day about tactics to serious journalists doing serious pieces, but has no time for what the tabloids have been doing for all this time. If you want to talk about the team, you can come and spend the day at the training ground and learn about what we're doing. If you want to know who's been knobbing hookers in the team hotel, you can **** off. He represents a need for journalists to work for a living and to actually do what journalists are paid to do - investigate, analyse and report. He uses words that their lethargic, underused brains can no longer comprehend - that's if they ever could.

Add to that the fact that he and his generation are rapidly making the friends of these "journalists" look very outdated in their ways and are making them surplus to requirements at many clubs and you have a battle line drawn. It doesn't help that AVB was replacing one of the two or three worst offenders in the old ways of doing things.

Dealing with the media isn't contingent or optional. It's a key part of the job spec, like putting out the cones or handing in the team sheet.

You don't get to absent yourself from that just because you are a Portuguese Baron and consider yourself above the grubby fray.

You and I can argue till the cows come home about whether that's right, but it doesn't matter. It is what it is, and you either play the game (Sherwood, Redknapp, Rodgers) or you win so many trophies that you can say whatever the hell you like to the media (Jose, SAF). What you don't get to do is show up as a 35 year old and let it be known, in words and manner, that it's beneath you.

 

[Kingdawson]

Why does it have to be exempting blame and making excuses? To be honest I find it quite boring when people go out of their way to be overly balanced, it's fantastic entertainment watching Scara or GB put their arguments forward against Sherwood for example. And maybe it's less entertaining when I back AVB, but at the end of the day that's my choice, because it's my belief that he was special enough to be treated with a bit more patience to get things as he would need it.

I'm in no more of a camp than you are, but for some reason you always reduce it down to 'oh you're only saying this because AVB's your boy', which is extremely tiresome, and it's something I've never done with you.

That's where we differ. I don't find it entertaining at all when a poster has nothing to say but "Dim Tim" or "Anyone but Tim" or that "Tim's special"....Scaramanga at least tries to argue his case (although extremely biased imo) but what does GB offer when speaking about Sherwood? his one liners may entertain someone that isn't exactly neutral but to others it's boring and tiresome reading the same **** every day. I mean he openly admits he wants us to lose every game when Sherwood is in charge....that may be "entertaining" to you but it's not to me.