The ousting of Daniel (COYS)

[longtimespur]

It might not have been but it certainly seemed he was 3rd or 4th choice after Tuchel(?), Nagelsmann and Slot. I still think we need to give it a bit more time before we can call Ange a success, he has started well but it is still early.

Wouldn’t surprise me if it was that Munn chaps recommendation.

 

[Japhet]

Not sure I can give him credit for appointing Ange. It seemed that he initially wanted Tuchel, then once Bayern moved for him Nagelsmann and then Slot. Ange felt like plan D, and at the moment it feels like he lucked out. But, I will give him credit for not going for Poch

Levy appointed Munn, who in turn most likely advocated for Ange. He probably tried for Nagelsmann and Slot but I don't really buy it that we 'lucked out' on Ange. I think Munn spoke and Levy listened.

 

[jimbo]

This is how it’s going to work isnt it?

If he fails, Levy gets the blame .

If he succeeds, well, he was only 4th choice, so no credit there.

There’s enough to question levy on, very seriously indeed. But this particular line that some are taking seems like desperation to me.

I don't disagree at all that there's a lot of confirmation bias at work, but it's at work on both sides of the debate. If somebody posts a negative view of Levy based on what they think, they'll be criticised by the positive camp for not having any evidence - of having made up a scenario. Then there will be posts from those people about what they believe Levy has done that puts him in a positive light... so there's a degree of cognitive dissonance in a lot of the to-and-fro as well.

I think Levy getting the blame for mistakes is natural - it would happen to most of us if we made serious mistakes in our work. Where we might disagree is in praising him, I think he's in Gillian Keegan territory at the moment, where it seems we should praise him for doing his job. Again, I doubt many of us receive plaudits for doing a decent job at work within the parameters of what's expected of us. The exception would be if we go above and beyond expectations - does appointing Ange fall into that category? Not for me, but it might for you and others - and that's fine, just subjectivity.

The other thing that should be considered is the number of people who have changed their minds on Levy - that hardly shows irrationality, rather a willingness to revise views based on evidence presented. It seems to me that most change has happened among those who once had a positive view of Levy and now have negitive one (I'm one of those). I haven't seen many if any posters going the other way, and that tells us something too.

I say Levy, but it's as much about the board for me - our board seems to have more in common with a parish council than a multi-billion dollar corporation. Jobs for the boys and girls, sopping with sycophancy. Again, that's a subjective view formed from the information we've gathered over the years. Others no doubt feel differently, and that's fine too.

 

[danielneeds]

I do want Levy gone, but I think that there is a whole iceberg of uncertainty beneath the surface of the footballing industry at the moment. The Premier League thinks it's untouchable, but a lot of the TV deals may shrink with the tumult historical media companies are facing at the moment. Yes, Apple and Amazon will have resources and step in, but if the market is weak they could also try and force down the price.

 

[Dazzazzad]

This logic really confuses me. It is his job to get the appointment right, so he deserves a well done on doing his job. He has got it wrong the last 3 times. If i fucked up the key part of my job 3 times I would probably get sacked. When I do my job properly I might get a thank you, well done from the Board but mainly I would get my salary and I accept that.
Seems many people hold him to a different standard.

It's more the standard of the league that he needs to be compared against. On average managers last about a year. Compared to other teams in the league we actually have very low manager turnover rate.

 

[dontcallme]

I think the job of the chairman is much more complex than simply choosing the right manager.

We’ve had good and bad managers and all stagnated at some point due to the way the club was run.

If Ange does a great job then I’ve no issue with Levy getting some credit but that’s only a small part of the process.

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

I don't disagree at all that there's a lot of confirmation bias at work, but it's at work on both sides of the debate. If somebody posts a negative view of Levy based on what they think, they'll be criticised by the positive camp for not having any evidence - of having made up a scenario. Then there will be posts from those people about what they believe Levy has done that puts him in a positive light... so there's a degree of cognitive dissonance in a lot of the to-and-fro as well.

I think Levy getting the blame for mistakes is natural - it would happen to most of us if we made serious mistakes in our work. Where we might disagree is in praising him, I think he's in Gillian Keegan territory at the moment, where it seems we should praise him for doing his job. Again, I doubt many of us receive plaudits for doing a decent job at work within the parameters of what's expected of us. The exception would be if we go above and beyond expectations - does appointing Ange fall into that category? Not for me, but it might for you and others - and that's fine, just subjectivity.

The other thing that should be considered is the number of people who have changed their minds on Levy - that hardly shows irrationality, rather a willingness to revise views based on evidence presented. It seems to me that most change has happened among those who once had a positive view of Levy and now have negitive one (I'm one of those). I haven't seen many if any posters going the other way, and that tells us something too.

I say Levy, but it's as much about the board for me - our board seems to have more in common with a parish council than a multi-billion dollar corporation. Jobs for the boys and girls, sopping with sycophancy. Again, that's a subjective view formed from the information we've gathered over the years. Others no doubt feel differently, and that's fine too.

I also think we have a very weak board...good at some things but not nearly enough.

And there are reasons why we have a weak board, and this is my biggest single criticism of DL.

As some here know, and I've said before, I know him and have worked with him, though never employed by him. I think I know his strengths and weaknesses, and one of them is that he finds it very difficult to place his wholehearted trust in people. So once someone has earned his trust he generally stays very loyal to them, and this, not deliberately but very effectively and sadly, can create a barrier to new people and to new ideas. (And of course there are people who are unscrupulous enough to set out to earn trust for their own purposes!)

He is not, as many believe sincerely and wholeheartedly, mean and scared to spend money. He is, however, wary of people peddling their own agenda and of course in football there is no shortage of this sort of person. And he has been stung before and doesn't like it.

I wish he would employ more people who know how to run a business and who have a genuine passion for Spurs, and who he trusts enough to allow to take important decisions. But again sadly, his track record of trying to employ such people, going way back to people like David Buchler, has not been blessed with success, and he retrenches at each unsuccessful experiment.

Which is why I so wholeheartedly welcome Ange Postecoglou's appointment. It is so crucially important for a brave and slightly unexpected and in some quarters mistrusted appointment to be successful.

 

[vegassd]

I don't disagree at all that there's a lot of confirmation bias at work, but it's at work on both sides of the debate. If somebody posts a negative view of Levy based on what they think, they'll be criticised by the positive camp for not having any evidence - of having made up a scenario. Then there will be posts from those people about what they believe Levy has done that puts him in a positive light... so there's a degree of cognitive dissonance in a lot of the to-and-fro as well.

I think Levy getting the blame for mistakes is natural - it would happen to most of us if we made serious mistakes in our work. Where we might disagree is in praising him, I think he's in Gillian Keegan territory at the moment, where it seems we should praise him for doing his job. Again, I doubt many of us receive plaudits for doing a decent job at work within the parameters of what's expected of us. The exception would be if we go above and beyond expectations - does appointing Ange fall into that category? Not for me, but it might for you and others - and that's fine, just subjectivity.

The other thing that should be considered is the number of people who have changed their minds on Levy - that hardly shows irrationality, rather a willingness to revise views based on evidence presented. It seems to me that most change has happened among those who once had a positive view of Levy and now have negitive one (I'm one of those). I haven't seen many if any posters going the other way, and that tells us something too.

I say Levy, but it's as much about the board for me - our board seems to have more in common with a parish council than a multi-billion dollar corporation. Jobs for the boys and girls, sopping with sycophancy. Again, that's a subjective view formed from the information we've gathered over the years. Others no doubt feel differently, and that's fine too.

Really good points. There is a huge amount of "mental gymnastics" or whatever people want to call it happening with some posts/opinions around Levy... on both sides on the fence of course.

I find the "just doing his job" idea to be a bit harsh. It feels like we are setting the bar pretty damned high - maybe that's reasonable - which essentially means Levy will only be able to fail. If good decisions are par, that's setting us all up to be constantly disappointed. That's cool if people want to do that, but I think it might explain why some get so exasperated. It should be OK to say "that was a good decision" without feeling dirty.

For me, it's all about trying to be as level-headed and "realistic" as possible. I know all of us consider ourselves to be "realists" (hilariously), but I think comparing Levy's job to the job you and I do is something I would call unrealistic. His job is being judged against a very different set of criteria and a different timescale to most of us, and I think it's easy to miss that. This probably feeds in to some of the expectations about what he should be doing.

I agree with you that there is more discontent about Levy than say 5 years ago, and I think that's totally natural given the last few years on the pitch. I would count myself as one of those who's a bit more vocal on the negative side these days. However, it's not like one day I decided to be anti-Levy. I don't think we have those binary states.

So it's that realism thing again. Being able to accept that there are pros and cons, so when we win the league we don't petition for a Levy statue outside the ground, but also when we don't sign a CB it's not the coming of apocalypse. Lots of people do slot into that bracket. Some don't.

 

[alfie103]

Really good points. There is a huge amount of "mental gymnastics" or whatever people want to call it happening with some posts/opinions around Levy... on both sides on the fence of course.

I find the "just doing his job" idea to be a bit harsh. It feels like we are setting the bar pretty damned high - maybe that's reasonable - which essentially means Levy will only be able to fail. If good decisions are par, that's setting us all up to be constantly disappointed. That's cool if people want to do that, but I think it might explain why some get so exasperated. It should be OK to say "that was a good decision" without feeling dirty.

For me, it's all about trying to be as level-headed and "realistic" as possible. I know all of us consider ourselves to be "realists" (hilariously), but I think comparing Levy's job to the job you and I do is something I would call unrealistic. His job is being judged against a very different set of criteria and a different timescale to most of us, and I think it's easy to miss that. This probably feeds in to some of the expectations about what he should be doing.

I agree with you that there is more discontent about Levy than say 5 years ago, and I think that's totally natural given the last few years on the pitch. I would count myself as one of those who's a bit more vocal on the negative side these days. However, it's not like one day I decided to be anti-Levy. I don't think we have those binary states.

So it's that realism thing again. Being able to accept that there are pros and cons, so when we win the league we don't petition for a Levy statue outside the ground, but also when we don't sign a CB it's not the coming of apocalypse. Lots of people do slot into that bracket. Some don't.

A very good post. I don't have a problem with Levy making mistakes as everyone does and some decisions are very difficult. My problem with Levy is the footballing success isn't the main priority at Tottenham, the financial success of ENIC is. Therefore, all other decisions are based on this and ENIC's interests, not Tottenham's.

 

[Japhet]

I also think we have a very weak board...good at some things but not nearly enough.

And there are reasons why we have a weak board, and this is my biggest single criticism of DL.

As some here know, and I've said before, I know him and have worked with him, though never employed by him. I think I know his strengths and weaknesses, and one of them is that he finds it very difficult to place his wholehearted trust in people. So once someone has earned his trust he generally stays very loyal to them, and this, not deliberately but very effectively and sadly, can create a barrier to new people and to new ideas. (And of course there are people who are unscrupulous enough to set out to earn trust for their own purposes!)

He is not, as many believe sincerely and wholeheartedly, mean and scared to spend money. He is, however, wary of people peddling their own agenda and of course in football there is no shortage of this sort of person. And he has been stung before and doesn't like it.

I wish he would employ more people who know how to run a business and who have a genuine passion for Spurs, and who he trusts enough to allow to take important decisions. But again sadly, his track record of trying to employ such people, going way back to people like David Buchler, has not been blessed with success, and he retrenches at each unsuccessful experiment.

Which is why I so wholeheartedly welcome Ange Postecoglou's appointment. It is so crucially important for a brave and slightly unexpected and in some quarters mistrusted appointment to be successful.

I think he knows how to run a business. It's running a competitive club in the cauldron of the EPL where he struggles. I'm sure he's acutely aware of our lack of success, but overriding this is his view of the eye-watering amounts of money it will take to push us to the next level. Todd Boehly has just spent a billion and they're a complete mess. MC and NUFC only have problems relating to how can they filter even more unearned income into their operations, but FFP is a lame duck so they'll persist. Liverpool and MU have always had stronger income streams than us. Where he has failed is in failing to get the best sponsorship deals and bringing in managers who were worth investing in. Hopefully he recognizes that Ange is well worth his trust.

 

[Albertbarich]

This is how it’s going to work isnt it?

If he fails, Levy gets the blame .

If he succeeds, well, he was only 4th choice, so no credit there.

There’s enough to question levy on, very seriously indeed. But this particular line that some are taking seems like desperation to me.

I could just as easily post something like

This is how I will go...

If Ange fails it's on the players or the training methods.

If he succeeds it because Levy was right all along and picked the right manager.

And it's everybit as true as what you posted.

The reality is for some he is out of chances whilst others still defend him to the hilt, the argument has become so circular it's almost pointless as I think the two sides are pretty much imbedded in their views now.

 

[alfie103]

He’s not that stupid though. He does know that the biggest uplift in value will come from football success.

ENIC and Spurs are not in conflict. Their success in integrally linked, and ENIC is totally dependent on Spurs.

The problems are not due to a lack of interest in football success. They are due to the risk-taking approach, individual decisions, personnel, and a number of other things that affect all clubs, some more positively and some more negatively. And luck. And yes, mistakes.

Well I would argue the club hasn't really been that successful in footballing terms of the last 22 years and the club has seen a huge increase in value despite that. I agree ENIC are very reliant on Spurs but I feel they have used this to their advantage and they see it as great business as you have a very loyal customer base where the purchase of the services/goods sold isn't generally too reliant on its quality or price.

The lack of risk taking is a consequence of having ENIC's financial interests at heart as they don't want to risk spending more money if they aren't going to get that back in another way. For me, I think they have found the sweet spot where they want to remain for as long as possible.

 

[easley91]

I could just as easily post something like

This is how I will go...

If Ange fails it's on the players or the training methods.

If he succeeds it because Levy was right all along and picked the right manager.

And it's everybit as true as what you posted.

The reality is for some he is out of chances whilst others still defend him to the hilt, the argument has become so circular it's almost pointless as I think the two sides are pretty much imbedded in their views now.

Do they? Or is it more a case of Levy isn't at fault for everything and so only placing blame when it is warranted?

 

[Led's Zeppelin]

I could just as easily post something like

This is how I will go...

If Ange fails it's on the players or the training methods.

If he succeeds it because Levy was right all along and picked the right manager.

And it's everybit as true as what you posted.

The reality is for some he is out of chances whilst others still defend him to the hilt, the argument has become so circular it's almost pointless as I think the two sides are pretty much imbedded in their views now.

No, because I’m saying that Levy is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I’d argue with anyone who says he’s always right or always wrong.

What you’re suggesting is something different.

I can’t believe anybody thinks Levy gets everything right. Plenty think he gets it all wrong though.

 

[SirNiNyHotspur]

Well I would argue the club hasn't really been that successful in footballing terms of the last 22 years and the club has seen a huge increase in value despite that. I agree ENIC are very reliant on Spurs but I feel they have used this to their advantage and they see it as great business as you have a very loyal customer base where the purchase of the services/goods sold isn't generally too reliant on its quality or price.

The lack of risk taking is a consequence of having ENIC's financial interests at heart as they don't want to risk spending more money if they aren't going to get that back in another way. For me, I think they have found the sweet spot where they want to remain for as long as possible.

Exactly, bit of a coincidence ENIC have been so successful yet Tottenham, hmm not so much, also Levy said himself sometimes profit and success don’t go together, bit of a naive viewpoint to say they’re not in conflict, and certainly not what we’ve witnessed last 23 years…

 

[Albertbarich]

No, because I’m saying that Levy is sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

I’d argue with anyone who says he’s always right or always wrong.

What you’re suggesting is something different.

I can’t believe anybody thinks Levy gets everything right. Plenty think he gets it all wrong though.

This and the other bloke who quoted me is exactly what I'm getting at.

Who has said he gets everything wrong. People have asked in this thread if Ange is a success will be be given credit and they have been told yes and even John who one side fixated on his likes has liked my post saying he has played a blinder in getting Ange but for some reason the need to be seen as the balanced one overides the fact that you're being no more balanced than anyone else.

You either want him out or you don't. You can argue small details if you want but you're either happy with him leading the way through various reasons or you like me think he is out of chances and don't trust or like him.

 

[vegassd]

A very good post. I don't have a problem with Levy making mistakes as everyone does and some decisions are very difficult. My problem with Levy is the footballing success isn't the main priority at Tottenham, the financial success of ENIC is. Therefore, all other decisions are based on this and ENIC's interests, not Tottenham's.

The financial success of ENIC is certainly a priority, and I think that's why Levy takes the self-sustaining approach. They don't want to put their own money in if they don't need to, and the stability of the club is probably the main yardstick against which Levy's performance is measured by ENIC and Joe.

I personally don't have much of a problem with the philosophy of being a financially sustainable club. It's how I run my own business, and how I try to run my own life I guess. So for a long time (pre-stadium build) I was all for that approach.

However, since the stadium opened I think we have been struggling... and bizarrely enough I think it has been down to trying to win something and messing up the process. I think it's pretty hard to argue that appointing Mourinho and then Conte is anything other than an attempt to win. Personally I would say that Levy was perhaps naive when making those appointments, and thought they would win regardless with appreciating how they would fit in within a spending spree.

With the PL being such a financially bloated monster these days, I think that financial success isn't something to be scoffed at too much. It's not the same as trophies of course, but at the same time we don't want to miss the boat completely. If we were still in WHL now I'm not sure how we would feel about our chances against City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal & Newcastle for example.

So for me it's hard to accept the idea of financial success being the only goal. I think football success these days requires financial success - the two things are intertwined. I would say that Levy has moved too slowly with the sustainable strategy and the football landscape has overtaken him somewhat. I also think he made mistakes appointing managers who didn't fit with financial sustainability. But personally, I still like the sustainable approach itself, even though it will see ENIC made a shit tonne of money.

 

[longtimespur]

The financial success of ENIC is certainly a priority, and I think that's why Levy takes the self-sustaining approach. They don't want to put their own money in if they don't need to, and the stability of the club is probably the main yardstick against which Levy's performance is measured by ENIC and Joe.

I personally don't have much of a problem with the philosophy of being a financially sustainable club. It's how I run my own business, and how I try to run my own life I guess. So for a long time (pre-stadium build) I was all for that approach.

However, since the stadium opened I think we have been struggling... and bizarrely enough I think it has been down to trying to win something and messing up the process. I think it's pretty hard to argue that appointing Mourinho and then Conte is anything other than an attempt to win. Personally I would say that Levy was perhaps naive when making those appointments, and thought they would win regardless with appreciating how they would fit in within a spending spree.

With the PL being such a financially bloated monster these days, I think that financial success isn't something to be scoffed at too much. It's not the same as trophies of course, but at the same time we don't want to miss the boat completely. If we were still in WHL now I'm not sure how we would feel about our chances against City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal & Newcastle for example.

So for me it's hard to accept the idea of financial success being the only goal. I think football success these days requires financial success - the two things are intertwined. I would say that Levy has moved too slowly with the sustainable strategy and the football landscape has overtaken him somewhat. I also think he made mistakes appointing managers who didn't fit with financial sustainability. But personally, I still like the sustainable approach itself, even though it will see ENIC made a shit tonne of money

I wouldn't mind the emboldened if we won trophies whilst they do so.
ATM it seems more like that is the only target.

 

[southlondonyiddo]

The financial success of ENIC is certainly a priority, and I think that's why Levy takes the self-sustaining approach. They don't want to put their own money in if they don't need to, and the stability of the club is probably the main yardstick against which Levy's performance is measured by ENIC and Joe.

I personally don't have much of a problem with the philosophy of being a financially sustainable club. It's how I run my own business, and how I try to run my own life I guess. So for a long time (pre-stadium build) I was all for that approach.

However, since the stadium opened I think we have been struggling... and bizarrely enough I think it has been down to trying to win something and messing up the process. I think it's pretty hard to argue that appointing Mourinho and then Conte is anything other than an attempt to win. Personally I would say that Levy was perhaps naive when making those appointments, and thought they would win regardless with appreciating how they would fit in within a spending spree.

With the PL being such a financially bloated monster these days, I think that financial success isn't something to be scoffed at too much. It's not the same as trophies of course, but at the same time we don't want to miss the boat completely. If we were still in WHL now I'm not sure how we would feel about our chances against City, Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal & Newcastle for example.

So for me it's hard to accept the idea of financial success being the only goal. I think football success these days requires financial success - the two things are intertwined. I would say that Levy has moved too slowly with the sustainable strategy and the football landscape has overtaken him somewhat. I also think he made mistakes appointing managers who didn't fit with financial sustainability. But personally, I still like the sustainable approach itself, even though it will see ENIC made a shit tonne of money.

It’s pretty hard to argue the appointments of Jose & Conte were made with trophies in mind until you realise they weren’t given the players they wanted and one of them was sacked a week before a cup final and a boy was put in charge

 

[JUSTINSIGNAL]

I could just as easily post something like

This is how I will go...

If Ange fails it's on the players or the training methods.

If he succeeds it because Levy was right all along and picked the right manager.

And it's everybit as true as what you posted.

The reality is for some he is out of chances whilst others still defend him to the hilt, the argument has become so circular it's almost pointless as I think the two sides are pretty much imbedded in their views now.

Good point.

I think the issue is that online debate typically provoke people to post with hyperbole and extremes. This ends up triggering people on both sides of the debate so they end up making counterpoints using hyperbole and extremes, either to present a totally alternative perspective, or as some kind of onemanupship. As you say this just means any 'debate', in this case about Levy, just becomes a circular shouting match with a total lack of nuance and balance.

When the facts are - and everyone knows it as much as fans are entrenched in their views - Levy makes both good decisions and bad decisions, like every other chairman. He deserves as much praise as he deserves criticism. If you asked every fan of each club, bar the financially doped ones, you'll find they will be split on their opinions of their ownership - especially those owners that have been at the helm of their club for an extended period of time and have taken in the natural highs and lows of club ownership.