• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

I wonder if Vinai is happy with all the changes. I know there’s little sentimentality when it comes to C-Suite roles, but he would have had certain expectations when joining as to how things were going to operate and that’s potentially all changed post Levy being ousted.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I wonder if Vinai is happy with all the changes. I know there’s little sentimentality when it comes to C-Suite roles, but he would have had certain expectations when joining as to how things were going to operate and that’s potentially all changed post Levy being ousted.
Click to expand...
Conversely he is now the king, he needs to lead and set up in his own vision if he has that about him. If the Lewis kids won't allow that then he would be best off walking IMO.
 
Its fairly obvious to all but the truly mindless that Levy wasn't the sole perpetrator of anything, be that good or bad. There was an awful lot of "Paratici did good" but then "Levy wouldn't stump up the cash" or "moved too slow" - literally all three cases are identical in terms of the process and sign off, it was just that it suited the narrative of the Levy Out phalanx to only highlight the negatives. Bit like trump really.

I wonder if the decision to sack Ange might have been part of the issue for the owners, as Levy's itchy trigger finger had never fired a manager who won something (unless you count George Graham and let's be honest that was a weird chapter all round!) and it might have been his decision went against the owners opinions.

What I do know is that the club doesn't feel as impregnable or stable as it did, it's absolutely not communicating any better and for now the new board isn't really showing any marked improvements in the last autocracy.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
I wonder if Vinai is happy with all the changes. I know there’s little sentimentality when it comes to C-Suite roles, but he would have had certain expectations when joining as to how things were going to operate and that’s potentially all changed post Levy being ousted.
Click to expand...
He mentioned in one of his interviews when first joining that he had known the Lewis' for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they had mentioned to him pre joining that they would be looking to get rid of Levy and him being the main man....
 
Surfless said:
Its fairly obvious to all but the truly mindless that Levy wasn't the sole perpetrator of anything, be that good or bad. There was an awful lot of "Paratici did good" but then "Levy wouldn't stump up the cash" or "moved too slow" - literally all three cases are identical in terms of the process and sign off, it was just that it suited the narrative of the Levy Out phalanx to only highlight the negatives. Bit like trump really.

I wonder if the decision to sack Ange might have been part of the issue for the owners, as Levy's itchy trigger finger had never fired a manager who won something (unless you count George Graham and let's be honest that was a weird chapter all round!) and it might have been his decision went against the owners opinions.

What I do know is that the club doesn't feel as impregnable or stable as it did, it's absolutely not communicating any better and for now the new board isn't really showing any marked improvements in the last autocracy.
Click to expand...

Really interesting the idea that Levy sacked Ange. But are you saying the board would have kept? I think the whole Lange relationship, the fact that seemingly every time we’ve had a vacancy except for Ange since the Paratici era started we’ve gone for a similar style of manager. I think it was always likely to be curtains for Ange but I think it’s really interesting what’s happened since. Why would Paratici sign up again only to entertain other offers? Was it because Lange has too much sway? Just that he was Levy’s man? Something there…

Massively agree on comms. Not good enough to just do a puff piece at the start of the year and claim everything is going to be more transparent. Especially if we are at the start of a long term project, where we have the conviction to stick through hard periods, the fans need more of an explanation. Especially when the football style isn’t obvious or in line with our tradition, it’s too toxic. And it’s not fair on any of the staff.

I wonder if outbidding Villa for Gallagher is an example of the new board being more aggressive? Was it just due to Bentancur’s injury? Even still, that they’ve gone for it I think is a good sign. It seems like they are insistent that this time around the coach has the tools and the bodies (similar to the RKM signing), which is something I didn’t always feel with Levy if the finances weren’t right. Maybe this is what Romero was alluding to and demanding more of?
 
harr1984 said:
He mentioned in one of his interviews when first joining that he had known the Lewis' for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they had mentioned to him pre joining that they would be looking to get rid of Levy and him being the main man....
Click to expand...

It’s a lovely bit of boardroom back stabbing this. I remember when Vinai was announced I asked the question on here, because I just couldn’t understand why he would accept the job if Levy was still around. I couldn’t understand the delineation of the roles and why someone with his experience would be happy being part of that pair. It didn’t surprise me in a sense that soon after Levy was gone. It would mean Vinai knew, kept it secret and also put on a hilariously big smile in the joint interview with Levy. But maybe that’s exactly what happened.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
Really interesting the idea that Levy sacked Ange. But are you saying the board would have kept? I think the whole Lange relationship, the fact that seemingly every time we’ve had a vacancy except for Ange since the Paratici era started we’ve gone for a similar style of manager. I think it was always likely to be curtains for Ange but I think it’s really interesting what’s happened since. Why would Paratici sign up again only to entertain other offers? Was it because Lange has too much sway? Just that he was Levy’s man? Something there…

Massively agree on comms. Not good enough to just do a puff piece at the start of the year and claim everything is going to be more transparent. Especially if we are at the start of a long term project, where we have the conviction to stick through hard periods, the fans need more of an explanation. Especially when the football style isn’t obvious or in line with our tradition, it’s too toxic. And it’s not fair on any of the staff.

I wonder if outbidding Villa for Gallagher is an example of the new board being more aggressive? Was it just due to Bentancur’s injury? Even still, that they’ve gone for it I think is a good sign. It seems like they are insistent that this time around the coach has the tools and the bodies (similar to the RKM signing), which is something I didn’t always feel with Levy if the finances weren’t right. Maybe this is what Romero was alluding to and demanding more of?
Click to expand...
Gallagher's value to us is that he's association trained also which, while not as good as homegrown is a benefit. He's a good footballer who captained cheatski at a young age, so there's something in there. It's also true that most English players who go abroad improve but miss out on the national team, which results in them coming home.

He's got more of a chance of playing for us than villa I'd say, whether the board are being more aggressive or the media have the "competition" story just to sell papers is up for debate, but if Frank wants him we need to do it. We need to back the guy in charge for as long as he is there.
 
harr1984 said:
He mentioned in one of his interviews when first joining that he had known the Lewis' for years. I wouldn't be surprised if they had mentioned to him pre joining that they would be looking to get rid of Levy and him being the main man....
Click to expand...
I either missed or had forgotten that he already knew the Lewis family. So it might have been a bit of a stitch-up, or he’s happy with the new set up even if unexpected.
It just feels that something is a bit “off” right now.
 
Raziel said:
Everyone has their opinions, my perspective (and I've been told Levy was my guy)

- Spurs was a life project for Levy, he cared, and he cared beyond the dollar value
- His biggest issue (think most people would agree) was he'd push to keep the club at a minimum bar (the ruthless firing) but wouldn't push/risk financially (excuse it as long term/game thinking) to take the last step
- The plan was always to increase commercial revenue -> increase squad spending -> should translate into on field success
- Ange was given more money than any previous Spurs manager (Conte got a decent investment as well)
- He also gatekept quite a few offers for sale (kind of funny as he was usually accused of waiting for the quick flip)

Based on the very short term "post Levy" era

- There hasn't been any freeing up of money/investment, nor any rush to do quicker/earlier business
- Quite a real possibility we will walk out of this Jan window with a profit (so we aren't even matching previous spend)
- No accountability for the poor performance, club is not responding to being in bottom half of league table for 2nd year running.
- A bit of noise that the club is actually for sale

So it may fudging hilariously be that the guy fighting for the club was the guy everyone thought was at fault the whole time ..

Or it maybe not ..
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty obvious that Levy was working to a budget and couldn't push the finances. He had to wring every penny out of that budget, which he did. It was up to ENIC and Lewis to increase that budget but they rarely put anything into the club. Can't see anything changing with the new set up either. Levy was always the easy target and took the hits that should've been more aimed at Lewis. That's not saying Levy didn't make mistakes.
 
Surfless said:
Gallagher's value to us is that he's association trained also which, while not as good as homegrown is a benefit. He's a good footballer who captained cheatski at a young age, so there's something in there. It's also true that most English players who go abroad improve but miss out on the national team, which results in them coming home.

He's got more of a chance of playing for us than villa I'd say, whether the board are being more aggressive or the media have the "competition" story just to sell papers is up for debate, but if Frank wants him we need to do it. We need to back the guy in charge for as long as he is there.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a positive that we’ve beaten Villa for him it seems, even if it just means we have the muscle or the flexibility to do it.

We have routinely had done to us by Chelsea what we’re doing to Villa now. There’s a hierarchy, and it takes massive investment / long term foresight to change that hierarchy or muscle in.

That’s before we get to whether he’s a good signing. I think he is. And I think it’s a good sign that we are making sure the manager has bodies, which he hasn’t always had. Also we seemed to have been interested in him for a long time.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
I think it’s a positive that we’ve beaten Villa for him it seems, even if it just means we have the muscle or the flexibility to do it.

We have routinely had done to us by Chelsea what we’re doing to Villa now. There’s a hierarchy, and it takes massive investment / long term foresight to change that hierarchy or muscle in.

That’s before we get to whether he’s a good signing. I think he is. And I think it’s a good sign that we are making sure the manager has bodies, which he hasn’t always had. Also we seemed to have been interested in him for a long time.
Click to expand...
Not really showing any muscle. It's a relatively cheap deal. Villa only want him on a loan and don't have much wiggle room with PSR. They most likely will have to sell to buy.
 
I am not saying that Gallagher thinks Tottenham is currently a better footballing side than Villa, and so chose us because he was so excited about the project. I am saying that in spite of our current form there is a hierarchy that we continue to benefit from due to our financial muscle and PSR flexibility. This speaks well to get back to our station in the not too distant future.
 
SissokoWasGood (BoL) said:
The PSR thing is my exact point. The fact that they are hamstrung by that is the exact muscle / flexibility I am talking about.
Click to expand...
Bit different to your comment about Chelsea doing it to us. When they did it to us it was due to them being bankrolled, nothing to do with PSR. We've always had room on that front, just not owners willing to invest like that and nothing has changed there
 
DubSpur said:
Bit different to your comment about Chelsea doing it to us. When they did it to us it was due to them being bankrolled, nothing to do with PSR. We've always had room on that front, just not owners willing to invest like that and nothing has changed there
Click to expand...

I give up mate.

When Chelsea did it to us, they had more firepower and flexibility. The circumstances are slightly different but we’re doing a similar thing to Villa.

I wasn’t expecting to have to defend an innocuous comment that paints Spurs and our board in a positive light so much. I don’t think this is massive news. I don’t think it heralds the dawn of a new era. I do think it demonstrates that even though Villa are currently a better side than us, there is still a hierarchy that allows us to compete for players they want, and to win. It’s nice to be reminded of that, and it wasn’t certain given we have a new board and this is our first window being in utterly dreadful form. It’s pleasing to see how we are acting, thats all. By all means surface the other nuances as to why this situation is completely different, but I was really making an innocuous comment expressing how pleased I was that our club has competed for a player with a club doing far better than us, and got it done fairly decisively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back