Vinai Venkatesham - CEO

[MartyFunkhouser]

I've explained why I think this (know it's not a post directed to me but no doubt I'm in your thinking re Levy diehards)

Lewis's stepped in > appointed Charrington > internal review > RC and other team-Levy staff leaves > Vinai comes in > Vinai front & center of all the presentation of Thomas Frank talking up the process of his appointment > Levy is shuffled off once season is underway > Vinai sticks with manager despite long run of poor form

I think it's a fairly uncomplicated take on that run of events that the Lewis's wanted Levy gone and the summer was essentially a handover process from the old guy to the new guy (Levy to Vinai) and that if that was the plan that they would want their guy making the big calls vs the man they are moving on.

I mean alternative to me takes more suspension of belief/raises more concerns...

Internal review is conducted but they don't pin point Levy as a problem so allow him to carry on making the biggest decisions then after one summer window they pull a 180 and realise he's the problem? I mean how thorough was the review in that case and why should we believe that any plans made since are any more well thought through? If Vinai wasn't the main man in waiting upon appointment what makes him the man to do the job now?

The first scenario is surely the preferable reality, no? They conducted their review and moved quickly to make the changes at the top level that they wanted to

The most balanced take I've read. Beyond the fact that people are ignoring what Vinai readily admitted, logic dictates there was more than just Levy making the decisions last summer otherwise whats been said after makes a mockery of their own process. The Lewis family didnt come to the Levt exit conclusion at the end of the window, it was clearly planned, so why give someone you are going to oust so much control still? Thats no defence of Levy, just sound logic

 

[Gazza]

Na il on the head. Any club that changes managers/styles as often as we do over the last few years is always making it hard for themselves.

Worked alright for Chelsea for a long time as with Real Madrid etc … only difference is they actually have intent in the market

 

[glasgowspur]

Think you're making a lot of assumptions there that run contrary to what we know. You said it was Levy's decision. Vinai said:

"We ran a really, really thorough process at speed,” said former Arsenal chief executive Venkatesham.

"We defined 10 characteristics that we think are important to be a successful manager at Tottenham Hotspur. We analysed in real detail through our technical staff led by [technical director] Johan (Lange), more than 30 candidates."

“We had a shortlist, we spent a lot of time with the shortlist, and Thomas was absolutely the number one candidate. I could not be more excited to have him join the club."

No one said it was exclusively his decision. He had a hand in it, Levy had a hand in it, Lange had a hand in it. He's answerable for that decision and I'd love to know now why the style of football is important enough to mention but either wasn't part of his 10 characteristics or he was part of a decision where they got that bit spectacularly wrong.

I think it was a WE decision, and that's why it was so bad.
Everyone got what no one really wanted.
On the face of it it's difficult to find a negative with Frank, the reality was different.
I suspect the others interviewed all had at least one thing that cast a doubt with one of the WE.
Frank was the only one they could all agree on, no of the WE were willing to put their balls on the line for their choice, so we ended up with Frank.

 

[thfcsteff]

Yeah, on your last point, De Zerbi has fundamentally put to bed the idea that the style of play that we saw at the start of the season was down to the players not being good enough. It took him his until his second game to demonstrate how much improvement could be made, how much control we could demonstrate, and how much initiative we can take with the ball. And he did that with a squad far weaker than the one available at the start of the season.

The thing I don’t really understand about Frank, is that I think he genuinely thought that part of building the team was to really prove they could play defensively first, before ‘adding layers’. This ties in with the recent story that has come out of Spence and Dier talking after the Monaco game, Spence being frustrated with the performance, and Lange coming by and saying ‘finally! More like that hey!’ To Lange, he had just seen what he probably classed as a solid defensive performance, and a great building block on the way to whatever layers we would ultimately add. Meanwhile Spence saw it as being completely hamstrung by the style of play and knowing he could do better.

No, I don't think so, I suspect you might have the wrong end of that one. Here's the actual quote mate...it infuriated me when I read it that our DoF was saying this. HE should be instrumental in making sure our club is constantly doing this sort of thing where necessary.

"Tottenham had just drawn 0-0 away at AS Monaco in the Champions League on October 22, holding on for a point they hardly deserved. After full-time, in the corridors of the Stade Louis II, the players of both teams were making their way out when staff overheard Eric Dier, the former Tottenham defender, now of Monaco, deep in discussion with Djed Spence.
Dier had always looked out for Spence at Spurs, like a mentor of sorts, convinced he would thrive if he could just straighten out some of his habits. With Spence on the bench against Monaco, Dier seemed frustrated and was reminding him of that advice when Johan Lange, Tottenham’s sporting director, walked past and detected the tone of the conversation. “At last!” Lange said with a smile. “If only we had more of that.”

If I’m right in what I’m saying about Frank, this is the biggest thing that deserves criticism for me, because it’s the thing that destroys the confidence of the squad. They’re on a high after winning a trophy, and for two years they were told to be brave. Frank could have been flexible, he could have played to the level of his players. Instead it feels like he made a conscious decision to restrict their capacity, because of his belief that building a team starts from proving they can be solid, because that’s what worked at Brentford. And I don’t think I’m mis assuming something here because he frequently spoke of ‘adding layers’ as if it was something we should have to wait for. De Zerbi will add layers too next season I’m sure, but it took him two games to show that we could be a team that seized the initiative again.

No, I agree, I don't think you are and it shows what an utterly limited coach he actually is and that whilst within his station he is a very capable coach, he cannot go to bigger clubs and succeed (IMO).

 

[mudshark]

He's history now, but I think Frank is a decent coach with decent ideas, just altogether the wrong fit for our situation and, in the end, probably a victim of his own logic. My belief is that, having taken the job on, he discovered he didn't fancy the mix of players he had at his disposal here. I think he saw a bunch of guys who, for two seasons, had been told not to worry about defending, or how the opposition might play, and realised that, at the same time, and wih injuries piling up as well, they were well short up front of making the resulting equation add up to positive goal-differences. In other words, he thought he had to make them more resilient and defensively capable, or else they were just going to keep losing the ball every five minutes and conceding goals. Hence the painfully cautious and negative style we saw, which seemed so bafflingly at odds with the way he would talk about the game and how he liked it to be played. In the end, I think the negativity turned into a feedback loop, and his fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Bishop]

He's history now, but I think Frank is a decent coach with decent ideas, just altogether the wrong fit for our situation and, in the end, probably a victim of his own logic. My belief is that, having taken the job on, he discovered he didn't fancy the mix of players he had at his disposal here. I think he saw a bunch of guys who, for two seasons, had been told not to worry about defending, or how the opposition might play, and realised that, at the same time, and wih injuries piling up as well, they were well short up front of making the resulting equation add up to positive goal-differences. In other words, he thought he had to make them more resilient and defensively capable, or else they were just going to keep losing the ball every five minutes and conceding goals. Hence the painfully cautious and negative style we saw, which seemed so bafflingly at odds with the way he would talk about the game and how he liked it to be played. In the end, I think the negativity turned into a feedback loop, and his fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think it was exactly this. As everyone who keeps bemoaning the football doesn't seem to realise his Brentford team played better football than we did so it's not something intrinsic to his style. It was specific to the Tottenham side he inherited.

 

[harr1984]

I think it was exactly this. As everyone who keeps bemoaning the football doesn't seem to realise his Brentford team played better football than we did so it's not something intrinsic to his style. It was specific to the Tottenham side he inherited.

The Tottenham side he inherited could play better football than just rely on a set piece or hope Kudus comes up with something which was the crux of it under Frank.

De Zerbi showed without any sort of pre season we could play better football (no one is saying that football has been breathtaking), and that was without Romero Kudus and Simons for the most part - he had even less creativity available to him.

Yes we know we need better players in areas, but the players available were better than the football being produced under Frank and that's why he got the criticism he did regardless of what delights he served up at Brentford....

 

[SteveAWOL]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Finney Is Back]

Director of football is a position I've never been able to really understand. Are they the person who decides which style of game we play then select a manager who can meet that brief and identify and supplies them with the players and technical support to produce that.
If that is the case then Lange has failed, we don't have any style or identity on the field, which is due to selection of managers with different tactic, poor recruitment of senior players and medical staff.
My assumption are probably wrong and it's some collective group which sets the goals and they've got it wrong.
I just don't feel anyone in senior management are Spurs people, they may be football people but don't represent the heart and soul of the club.
There's not a simple answer to our problems and a radical change is needed in transfer strategy. We don't need potential or squad players we need players who can hit the ground running in the first team.
That not going to be easy, the only thing we can offer to top players is money, they will not be queuing up to join a club that finish 17th 2 years in a row. Every selling club will know we are desperate. I never bought into Levy is too tight story and I think we'll see in the summer how tough it will be to get the right players, at best I'd hope for 2.

Perhaps you're right. I don't think we fully know yet. Levy had a history of overruling the manager and DoF on football decisions (that is how we ended up with the useless Santini instead of the promising Martin Jol many years ago, despite the DoF at the time (Arnesen) wanting and recommending Jol for example.

The club have appointed two managers since Levy departed. Igor Tudor (terrible choice) and Roberto De Zerbi (perhaps a good choice and certainly did a great job in securing our safety, but we won't know for sure for a year or two) De Zerbi does at least seems the right type of manager to take us forward). Lange is therefore 1 and 1 in terms of good (so far) / bad decisions. Taking action to fix a mistake reasonably quicky is to be admired however.

If Lange sticks around and isn't moved on/sidelined then let's see how De Zerbi does and also see whether or not Lange gets him good players for his system, and then also see whether when De Zerbi eventiually departs we get a better continuation manager than we have done for our past umpteen managerial appointments. Then we'll know whether or not Lange is a good or bad DoF IMO.

 

[billyiddo]

The Tottenham side he inherited could play better football than just rely on a set piece or hope Kudus comes up with something which was the crux of it under Frank.

De Zerbi showed without any sort of pre season we could play better football (no one is saying that football has been breathtaking), and that was without Romero Kudus and Simons for the most part - he had even less creativity available to him.

Yes we know we need better players in areas, but the players available were better than the football being produced under Frank and that's why he got the criticism he did regardless of what delights he served up at Brentford....

Our football under RDZ has been more urgent & aggressive and more on the front foot for sure - in terms of chance creation and finishing it has been largely the same story of a lack of quality. This won't change until the available players improve - if there is no change on that front mid table beckons. If it does then the green shoots we have seen so far will be a good foundation for solid improvement

 

[parklane1]

Worked alright for Chelsea for a long time as with Real Madrid etc … only difference is they actually have intent in the market

Compering those two basket case clubs to Spurs is IMO like compering right and wrong. IMO.

 

[harr1984]

Compering those two basket case clubs to Spurs is IMO like compering right and wrong. IMO.

We are completely a basket case club ourselves, I'd say we are a Poundland Chelsea ....

 

[Robspur12]

The Tottenham side he inherited could play better football than just rely on a set piece or hope Kudus comes up with something which was the crux of it under Frank.

De Zerbi showed without any sort of pre season we could play better football (no one is saying that football has been breathtaking), and that was without Romero Kudus and Simons for the most part - he had even less creativity available to him.

Yes we know we need better players in areas, but the players available were better than the football being produced under Frank and that's why he got the criticism he did regardless of what delights he served up at Brentford....

De Zerbi’s situation was artificial. The team was well rested with long breaks between games. And yet we were still not brilliant, offensively. We were not blowing teams away. In fact, the Leeds game at home was reminiscent of Sunderland at home under Frank ( I was at both games). Score first and then concede a lateish goal due to lapses in concentration. Lots of huff and puff but once we got into the box we dithered and didn’t actually carve out good quality chances. The big difference in the later games was that we could press for longer and we played Kinsky and Danso which enabled us to be defensively sound. Plus RDZ could use the situation we were in to rally the team. Much better than Frank would have.

I think RDZ is a really good coach, better for Spurs than Frank but Frank is also a good coach and he will prove so elsewhere. The big difference for me is that Frank’s time was, as is described perfectly by @mudshark above, a negative feedback loop whilst RDZ was good at taking the negative and turning it into a positive. That among other things is why he is better suited for Spurs.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

We are completely a basket case club ourselves, I'd say we are a Poundland Chelsea ....

We are so mental that people are believing that the the Lewis family sat there doing nothing and now have woken up and understood that we neglected the footballing side................despite their radio silence for 26 years, not only that, but that despite planning to oust Levy they gave him the summer last year.........just for old times sake.

As a club, there are none as mental as ours, honestly, its ridiculously bonkers

 

[harr1984]

De Zerbi’s situation was artificial. The team was well rested with long breaks between games. And yet we were still not brilliant, offensively. We were not blowing teams away. In fact, the Leeds game at home was reminiscent of Sunderland at home under Frank ( I was at both games). Score first and then concede a lateish goal due to lapses in concentration. Lots of huff and puff but once we got into the box we dithered and didn’t actually carve out good quality chances. The big difference in the later games was that we could press for longer and we played Kinsky and Danso which enabled us to be defensively sound. Plus RDZ could use the situation we were in to rally the team. Much better than Frank would have.

I think RDZ is a really good coach, better for Spurs than Frank but Frank is also a good coach and he will prove so elsewhere. The big difference for me is that Frank’s time was, as is described perfectly by @mudshark above, a negative feedback loop whilst RDZ was good at taking the negative and turning it into a positive. That among other things is why he is better suited for Spurs.

Yeah, I don't think Frank is a bad coach - I just don't think he's going to be at home at the bigger clubs.

I just don't subscribe into the fact our football has to be what it was under Frank, he had players capable of producing better and there was no excuse for how bad some of our metrics were - and I totally agree with the lack of quality in the final third being a problem.

But he didn't help himself with some of his tactics and things he did, I think the job was just too big for him to be honest. It happens, I'm sure he will carve out a decent career going forward...

 

[parklane1]

We are completely a basket case club ourselves, I'd say we are a Poundland Chelsea ....

The difference between us and those two clubs is theyy throw money around like confetti and just stockpile players. We are not in the posistion to do that.

 

[Raziel]

De Zerbi’s situation was artificial. The team was well rested with long breaks between games. And yet we were still not brilliant, offensively. We were not blowing teams away. In fact, the Leeds game at home was reminiscent of Sunderland at home under Frank ( I was at both games). Score first and then concede a lateish goal due to lapses in concentration. Lots of huff and puff but once we got into the box we dithered and didn’t actually carve out good quality chances. The big difference in the later games was that we could press for longer and we played Kinsky and Danso which enabled us to be defensively sound. Plus RDZ could use the situation we were in to rally the team. Much better than Frank would have.

I think RDZ is a really good coach, better for Spurs than Frank but Frank is also a good coach and he will prove so elsewhere. The big difference for me is that Frank’s time was, as is described perfectly by @mudshark above, a negative feedback loop whilst RDZ was good at taking the negative and turning it into a positive. That among other things is why he is better suited for Spurs.

I think that is being very unkind to RDZ and way too kind to Frank

- RDZ inherited a broken squad, a confused squad, a fatigued squad, lots of injuries that only got worse (Xavi, Solanke, Romero). We struggled in the attack because we played with RKM (useless), Tel (Frank failed to develop) and mostly Richi (limited) up front. Every single statistic is wildly better under RDZ, Possession, Winning the ball back, Touches in opposition box, shots on goal, shots conceded, xG. Some of the stats go from us being bottom 3 in league to top 3 or 1st. So did our form.

- Frank is not a good coach, he fit into a system at Brentford that did a lot of things for him, nothing, nothing he did at Spurs shows that, the one thing we improved on (set pieces) was the work of another coach. Where to start, the brick stats? the losses? how bad Bentancur/Palhinha were under him vs. RDZ, the inability to get basic passing patterns, the inability to hold possession. Literally this guy's entire plan was get ball to Porro, have Porro pass to Kudus, have Kudus try to take on 3 players by himself, if not possible, pass back to Porro and have Porro cross to no runners in the box. And if we had got Robertson in Janaury, we were going to replicate that on left side, literally spam crosses with no runners was the plan. Lets not talk about the absolute fudgery of not closing down people who were going to shoot from the Zone outside box, and our players not being allowed to shoot either.

I genuinely don't believe he will succeed again at PL level, he's the equivalent of a manager who went into a very good team/system under very little pressure and others carried him. The minute it was on him, it all broke.

The fact that in the interview process that wasn't picked up is a huge red flag on the capabilities of people at the top of this club

 

[Raziel]

I've explained why I think this (know it's not a post directed to me but no doubt I'm in your thinking re Levy diehards)

Lewis's stepped in > appointed Charrington > internal review > RC and other team-Levy staff leaves > Vinai comes in > Vinai front & center of all the presentation of Thomas Frank talking up the process of his appointment > Levy is shuffled off once season is underway > Vinai sticks with manager despite long run of poor form

I think it's a fairly uncomplicated take on that run of events that the Lewis's wanted Levy gone and the summer was essentially a handover process from the old guy to the new guy (Levy to Vinai) and that if that was the plan that they would want their guy making the big calls vs the man they are moving on.

I mean alternative to me takes more suspension of belief/raises more concerns...

Internal review is conducted but they don't pin point Levy as a problem so allow him to carry on making the biggest decisions then after one summer window they pull a 180 and realise he's the problem? I mean how thorough was the review in that case and why should we believe that any plans made since are any more well thought through? If Vinai wasn't the main man in waiting upon appointment what makes him the man to do the job now?

The first scenario is surely the preferable reality, no? They conducted their review and moved quickly to make the changes at the top level that they wanted to

First of all, your assumptions are off as to why the Lewis family stepped in, as with some of the points

Charrington stepped in in March, the club had no huge problem from their perspective re on field success (we had just finished 5th with a manager seen as very attacking, were advancing in EL, had made CL football, previous manager had made a cup final, and previous to that 4th place. The decent from "normal" Spurs finishes were not yet landed)

Yes, Levy (by plan or pressure) had been shedding some of his duties and that included the CEO role. Vinai is 100% a Levy hire, go take a listen to Simon Jordan on it, he paints Vinai as a snake in the grass precisely because he was a Levy hired who instantly pivoted once the issues surfaced. Frank at best is a Lange/Levy/Vinai/Charrington hire, at worst a Lange mostly hire.

You gave two scenarios, so I will give two

- After 25 years of seeing an asset appreciate from 40M to 3B, a business become a top 10 club in the world, facilities and infrastructure become the best in Europe if not the world, all while you invest nothing, your father takes no action and implicitly trusts the CEO, you decide (the month after the club actually achieves on-field success) to fire said CEO because you believe the club hasn't has enough success?
- Or, after 25 years of success, you have decided now is the right time to sell, and said CEO has been a little too difficult to deal with in sale evaluations, price expectations (he's also a major shareholder) and more importantly, clauses post sale?

Which one is genuinely more believable? Joe Lewis daughter is her fudging 60s, now she wants football success? daddy could have given her Spurs as a plaything 20 years ago. Again, there is reasonably credible statements that the club received a bid in the 2.5B - 3B range that Levy closed down

No doubt there is some nepo baby delusions that "how hard could it be to run a football club" born out by their first year of stumbling, no doubt they may have to invest because selling a club that finished 17th twice is very different from selling a club in the champions league but the idea that a group of nepo babies in their 60s have suddenly become football fans and want success for Spurs is so laughable it worries me that people buy in to brick like this.

It make take 2-5 years, but they stepped into sell, and Vinai staying on in his role is classic, good to have a yes man there when the next bid comes in.

 

[glorygloryeze]

First of all, your assumptions are off as to why the Lewis family stepped in, as with some of the points

Charrington stepped in in March, the club had no huge problem from their perspective re on field success (we had just finished 5th with a manager seen as very attacking, were advancing in EL, had made CL football, previous manager had made a cup final, and previous to that 4th place. The decent from "normal" Spurs finishes were not yet landed)

Yes, Levy (by plan or pressure) had been shedding some of his duties and that included the CEO role. Vinai is 100% a Levy hire, go take a listen to Simon Jordan on it, he paints Vinai as a snake in the grass precisely because he was a Levy hired who instantly pivoted once the issues surfaced. Frank at best is a Lange/Levy/Vinai/Charrington hire, at worst a Lange mostly hire.

You gave two scenarios, so I will give two

- After 25 years of seeing an asset appreciate from 40M to 3B, a business become a top 10 club in the world, facilities and infrastructure become the best in Europe if not the world, all while you invest nothing, your father takes no action and implicitly trusts the CEO, you decide (the month after the club actually achieves on-field success) to fire said CEO because you believe the club hasn't has enough success?
- Or, after 25 years of success, you have decided now is the right time to sell, and said CEO has been a little too difficult to deal with in sale evaluations, price expectations (he's also a major shareholder) and more importantly, clauses post sale?

Which one is genuinely more believable? Joe Lewis daughter is her fudging 60s, now she wants football success? daddy could have given her Spurs as a plaything 20 years ago. Again, there is reasonably credible statements that the club received a bid in the 2.5B - 3B range that Levy closed down

No doubt there is some nepo baby delusions that "how hard could it be to run a football club" born out by their first year of stumbling, no doubt they may have to invest because selling a club that finished 17th twice is very different from selling a club in the champions league but the idea that a group of nepo babies in their 60s have suddenly become football fans and want success for Spurs is so laughable it worries me that people buy in to brick like this.

It make take 2-5 years, but they stepped into sell, and Vinai staying on in his role is classic, good to have a yes man there when the next bid comes in.

It is definitely scenario two...

 

[Gutter Boy]

First of all, your assumptions are off as to why the Lewis family stepped in, as with some of the points

Charrington stepped in in March, the club had no huge problem from their perspective re on field success (we had just finished 5th with a manager seen as very attacking, were advancing in EL, had made CL football, previous manager had made a cup final, and previous to that 4th place. The decent from "normal" Spurs finishes were not yet landed)

Yes, Levy (by plan or pressure) had been shedding some of his duties and that included the CEO role. Vinai is 100% a Levy hire, go take a listen to Simon Jordan on it, he paints Vinai as a snake in the grass precisely because he was a Levy hired who instantly pivoted once the issues surfaced. Frank at best is a Lange/Levy/Vinai/Charrington hire, at worst a Lange mostly hire.

You gave two scenarios, so I will give two

- After 25 years of seeing an asset appreciate from 40M to 3B, a business become a top 10 club in the world, facilities and infrastructure become the best in Europe if not the world, all while you invest nothing, your father takes no action and implicitly trusts the CEO, you decide (the month after the club actually achieves on-field success) to fire said CEO because you believe the club hasn't has enough success?
- Or, after 25 years of success, you have decided now is the right time to sell, and said CEO has been a little too difficult to deal with in sale evaluations, price expectations (he's also a major shareholder) and more importantly, clauses post sale?

Which one is genuinely more believable? Joe Lewis daughter is her fudging 60s, now she wants football success? daddy could have given her Spurs as a plaything 20 years ago. Again, there is reasonably credible statements that the club received a bid in the 2.5B - 3B range that Levy closed down

No doubt there is some nepo baby delusions that "how hard could it be to run a football club" born out by their first year of stumbling, no doubt they may have to invest because selling a club that finished 17th twice is very different from selling a club in the champions league but the idea that a group of nepo babies in their 60s have suddenly become football fans and want success for Spurs is so laughable it worries me that people buy in to brick like this.

It make take 2-5 years, but they stepped into sell, and Vinai staying on in his role is classic, good to have a yes man there when the next bid comes in.

That's a bit harsh on Silverton. She was a big Liverpool fan through the 80s when she was Craig Johnston's WAG. She supported him through writing the Anfield Rap and designing Predator boots. What more more credentials could you want?