Daniel Levy - Former Chairman

[MartyFunkhouser]

Far too much conjecture in there to be fair...I'm just adding some factual timeline events.

The point that could be argued, is if the Lewis's knew Levy was out the door imminently, then it's bad management (from them) right out the gate to allow the dead man walking to have final sign off on such critical decisions.

But besides, everyone appeared happy (within the camp) of the Frank appointment. Furthermore, equally happy with Lange continuing and then Paratici joing him in a joint roll.

"Here Daniel, have the summer, for old times sake like"

Its terrible ownership if its to be believed

 

[Bishop]

I’d lay good money that Levy didn't voluntarily let them take away his responsibilities.

If that was the case he would’ve resigned instead of getting fired.

Levy officially resigned and was not sacked.

 

[Bishop]

"Here Daniel, have the summer, for old times sake like"

Its terrible ownership if its to be believed

We know Daniel was involved in the appointment of Frank and the move for Gibbs-White and iirc the negotiations for Savio so it's not like he knew his time was up and wasn't involved. It does make sense that the Lewis' had an inclination as to what they were going to do, but I don't believe Levy was in on that plan. Vinai himself may not have known the ultimate plan was to remove Levy as soon as they did, it's very possible that he believes he was hired for a gradual handover, but the Lewis' based on their investigation / thinking they could do better without Levy hastened the move.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

We know Daniel was involved in the appointment of Frank and the move for Gibbs-White and iirc the negotiations for Savio so it's not like he knew his time was up and wasn't involved. It does make sense that the Lewis' had an inclination as to what they were going to do, but I don't believe Levy was in on that plan. Vinai himself may not have known the ultimate plan was to remove Levy as soon as they did, it's very possible that he believes he was hired for a gradual handover, but the Lewis' based on their investigation / thinking they could do better without Levy hastened the move.

You dont just remove someone who has had 26 years at a whim though, if you plan to get rid you dont give someone that much control. However its framed its terrible IMO, utterly ridiculous really

 

[Bishop]

You dont just remove someone who has had 26 years at a whim though, if you plan to get rid you dont give someone that much control. However its framed its terrible IMO, utterly ridiculous really

It all felt very ENICish for me. When don't we make reactive decisions?

To elaborate for any normal organisation I think your critique would be correct, a well run ordered organisation wouldn't let Levy run the window and then immediately ask him to leave as soon as it's finished (or maybe a very ruthless corporation would do this?). However this is ENIC we are talking about and we have nearly 2 decades of similar decisions on the football side, so acting in this way should be of no surprise to anyone who have ever really paid attention to their actions in totality.

ENIC's corporate culture and Levy as a clear component of it has been clear for us all to see.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

It all felt very ENICish for me. When don't we make reactive decisions?

Well this is it, I just feel like the cool aid has been consumed with some

 

[Bishop]

Well this is it, I just feel like the cool aid has been consumed with some

I edited my post and added more but yes essentially this. I've never been Levy or ENI. For me they were always one and the same and their behaviours match.

 

[SirPercyHotspur]

Have a read up on discretionary trusts and how they work , "certain members of his family", so is Josh a potential beneficiary of any sale. Josh sits alongside Beucher as co-CEO at Tavistock Group they must have interesting board meetings if Josh is happy to allow unwelcome buyers into a share of ENIC.

 

[Mikey10]

The Ange point wasn't valid in the greater conversation of having an aligned club structure because it wasn't aligned with Ange anymore than it was aligned with Conte or Jose or the dreaded Frank.

Yes I understand you wanted the club to align with Ange's ethos but it was never going to happen under Levy because we spoke the talk constantly but never actually walked the walk.

If the new lot are into basketball then their ethos should be a good match for Ange’s tactics. They might get him back.

 

[Finney Is Back]

After the way he was treated, by the ownership and the fans, he could be forgiven for selling to whoever had the money.

Like he was ever going to do anything else.

 

[Ace Face]

Vinai himself may not have known the ultimate plan was to remove Levy as soon as they did, it's very possible that he believes he was hired for a gradual handover, but the Lewis' based on their investigation / thinking they could do better without Levy hastened the move.

If they allowed DL to remain so involved that he was in charge of transfer negotiations during last summer’s window, as has been widely reported, I believe there was very probably an incident which triggered his resignation/firing.

Pure conjecture but it fits the history better than the alternatives.

 

[Yiddo]

Why they couldn’t have left him in place and just said, you are in charge of the sponsorship, the running of the club off of the pitch and all the other money making strategies that doesn’t involve transfers is beyond me. Would have worked well for him.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

If they allowed DL to remain so involved that he was in charge of transfer negotiations during last summer’s window, as has been widely reported, I believe there was very probably an incident which triggered his resignation/firing.

Pure conjecture but it fits the history better than the alternatives.

True. But given the itemized list of all DL ills that VV keeps reading off it seems unlikely, although that could just be a justification tactic

 

[LutonSpurs]

Not sure if it's clear but is the rumour he sold all his stake or 25% of his 25%?

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

True. But given the itemized list of all DL ills that VV keeps reading off it seems unlikely, although that could just be a justification tactic

surely not…

 

[Gazza Dazzla]

If they allowed DL to remain so involved that he was in charge of transfer negotiations during last summer’s window, as has been widely reported, I believe there was very probably an incident which triggered his resignation/firing.

Pure conjecture but it fits the history better than the alternatives.

Widely reported by who?

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

If they allowed DL to remain so involved that he was in charge of transfer negotiations during last summer’s window, as has been widely reported, I believe there was very probably an incident which triggered his resignation/firing.

Pure conjecture but it fits the history better than the alternatives.

I think that would have the potential to make more sense.

On transfers ....pre window they probably looked at VV and Lange and thought 'maybe we still need DL for negotiation' ...thinking about it who else was going to do it? ....(Paratici ?)

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

Not sure if it's clear but is the rumour he sold all his stake or 25% of his 25%?

You sound like Boss Hogg and Rosco!

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I think that would have the potential to make more sense.

On transfers ....pre window they probably looked at VV and Lange and thought 'maybe we still need DL for negotiation' ...thinking about it who else was going to do it? ....(Paratici ?)

If thats the truth it hardly bodes well for now hahahah

 

[thfcsteff]

The Ange point wasn't valid in the greater conversation of having an aligned club structure because it wasn't aligned with Ange anymore than it was aligned with Conte or Jose or the dreaded Frank.

Yes I understand you wanted the club to align with Ange's ethos but it was never going to happen under Levy because we spoke the talk constantly but never actually walked the walk.

It was.
All levels of playing staff applied the same philosophy, the idea being it would bed in as an actualised identity reflecting To Dare Is To Do on the pitch.
You raise Jose and Conte. THAT'S the problem, hiring 'instant' managers and not giving them the tools they need, trying to continue a 'youth/DoF driven' recruitment, and ending up shatting on both.
The whole idea of Ange was he would set the tone whilst Munn and Lange developed this 'strategy'. Munn fell out hard with the rest of the board during his last year and it cost Ange even more than he was already paying. To cap it all, we then shat on our 'model' despite having got closer to bedding one in than before.

There is an argument that if you believed in 'the model', having won a trophy it deserved the chance to manifest further via the league and (hopefully learnt) experiences. That we decided to change managers is only half the issue; in truth, the single biggest failure was to once again go BACK to a whole different style of play and manager. Nothing new. We managed to blow what I believe was the greatest opportunity we might see for years with Pochettino.

We are essentially in agreement.

I am not sure why you insist on trying to argue a point which was clearly stated at the time.