Vinai Venkatesham - CEO

[Bishop]

Nope.
I'll explain...I have an increasingly massive issue with the use of that word 'hypocrisy. Especially as you've deployed it here.
You said...
"
This is rich coming from you considering all the excuses you made and continue to make about the terrible football we played under Ange.

Either accept that there can be mitigation for the quality of the football and the results or be like me and accept no excuses. You can't decide to makes excuses for one guy and not the other. That's hypocrisy."

I'm sorry, what you've said there is rubbish. You really think YOUR definition of the 'rules of opinion' get to define hypocrisy? What you're essentially saying is that we accept mitigation for poor results/football across the board or we don't.
Nope.
I said from early in the season I had little time being patient for a manager who to my eye was only interested in perfecting the art of Frankball/horseshoe creation. I was repeatedly told I should be patient and give Frank time. Why? I did NOT like the style of football and I did NOT see any desire from him to take even a small risk (this was during times when he was only missing Maddison and Deki, players who would've found his system a bit limiting IMO).
I enjoyed the intent Ange showed with his football. I also enjoyed watching him actually practice pragmatism to get us across the line and win a European trophy.
I liked his intended direction of traffic from the start. I disliked Frank's.
That absolutely does NOT make someone (or me) a 'hypocrite'.

I am more than ready to admit to hypocrisy on other levels and in other areas. Everyone should. Listen to the podcast (genuinely interesting as a philosophical/behavioral conversation).

The fact that you look at through the lens of what you like and what you don't like, is an emotional response rather than an objective one, is why its a hypocritical take. I also preferred the football Ange intended to play, but I saw many of the same limitations he suffered also suffered by Frank. I can acknowledge that because I like to look at things in as an objective a manner as possible (nobody is perfect). But intent doesn't change what actually happened, it doesn't change the poor football both managers ended up producing. Frank also intended on a better standard of football than we saw but he failed at achieving that.

You don't have to look at things objectively, by all means be driven by your biases as much as you want to be, but a hypocritical take is still simply that; a hypocritical take.

I wanted a manager who plays balanced football. De Zerbi has already demonstrated that, yet i'm not claiming the football is already brilliant because it clearly isn't. This is where i'm not being a hypocrite. Just because we have the type of manager and a philosophy I desired i'm not now pretending everything is perfect, that the football (whilst significantly improved) was awesome. My emotional response doesn't stop me from being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite.

I just like balance, if a set of conditions and mitigations apply for one person if you are a moral and honest person you should really apply them for all, but thats just me.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

I'm more interested in who who are their next victims and whether they can rebuild their reputations after crashing and burning at a big club.

Yep, RDZ needs backing.........thats all that matters now

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Like the transfer deadline.....

maybe the forum needs a 'discussion deadline', when Ange and Frank are banned from any further discussion?

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

 

[Muttley]

All I would argue with is that they're crap manager 3 and 4, with Jose and conte being 1 and 2, at least in the context of spurs managers.
Giving nuno and tudor passes.

It's a very good point

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

The fact that you look at through the lens of what you like and what you don't like, is an emotional response rather than an objective one, is why its a hypocritical take. I also preferred the football Ange intended to play, but I saw many of the same limitations he suffered also suffered by Frank. I can acknowledge that because I like to look at things in as an objective a manner as possible (nobody is perfect). But intent doesn't change what actually happened, it doesn't change the poor football both managers ended up producing. Frank also intended on a better standard of football than we saw but he failed at achieving that.

You don't have to look at things objectively, by all means be driven by your biases as much as you want to be, but a hypocritical take is still simply that; a hypocritical take.

I wanted a manager who plays balanced football. De Zerbi has already demonstrated that, yet i'm not claiming the football is already brilliant because it clearly isn't. This is where i'm not being a hypocrite. Just because we have the type of manager and a philosophy I desired i'm not now pretending everything is perfect, that the football (whilst significantly improved) was awesome. My emotional response doesn't stop me from being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite.

I just like balance, if a set of conditions and mitigations apply for one person if you are a moral and honest person you should really apply them for all, but thats just me.

Honestly this just seems like you’re saying you have an objectively more balanced and morally superior way to analyse football. I just don’t agree, you’re applying your own biases to the whole thing just like you’re accusing me of doing. It’s not balance to lump everyone in as ‘all as bad as each other’ and it just means that you give a heck of a lot more weighting to your idea that it is the players that are at fault. That is completely your opinion, and your bias, but it’s the thing that makes your whole worldview here work.

I’ve said Ange struggled because of injuries and of course Frank did too. The difference is Ange actually achieved some level of success and performance. I can accept Ange’s weaknesses meant that our league form suffered because he refused to adapt, but I also think it’s fair to say that Ange’s human make up was a big part of the reason they never lost confidence and believed they could win a final.

I think Frank actually struggled because as well as injuries, his human make up meant that he felt he needed to reduce our team back to a Brentford way of doing things. He either made the entirely wrong analysis of the situation, or he was paralysed by fear of stepping up and retreating into his comfort zone. Note that I am not saying he is an idiot, or a fraud, or unable to make a living in this game ever again. I am saying that because of the bad decisions he made, I think he destroyed the confidence of the players to the point that he actually nearly relegated us. I also believe that RDZ showed that Frank’s analysis of what he needed to do at Spurs to get us solid and playing again was wrong. We didn’t need to go through a 2-3 cycle of adding layers to get to that point, because RDZ did it in 2 games.

To me that’s a pretty balanced analysis. You think it is player quality and injuries. I do too to some extent. But all I have been trying to get at with this whole thing is that it’s not ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ but rather Frank was uniquely bad, specifically for us, and almost disastrously so. And I want to know how our decision makers came to think it was the right move to hire him and persist with him, because it still hasn’t been sufficiently explained and I think it’s the weakest part of all of Vinai’s comms since the season ended.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

And I want to know how our decision makers came to think it was the right move to hire him and persist with him, because it still hasn’t been sufficiently explained and I think it’s the weakest part of all of Vinai’s comms since the season ended.

You are not going to find it on here, no one on here regardless if we all agreed can answer something that specifically aimed at and can only be answered by the club.

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

You are not going to find it on here, no one on here regardless if we all agreed can answer something that specifically aimed at and can only be answered by the club.

Yes mate, but I a few pages ago thought it was at least interesting to debate how and why it was able to happen. Clearly you don’t agree, so I’ll move on.

 

[Baleforce]

Yes mate, but I a few pages ago thought it was at least interesting to debate how and why it was able to happen. Clearly you don’t agree, so I’ll move on.

It was a group that plucked Ange from obscurity, of course they were capable of hiring a manager already in the PL.

Also, we didn't persist with him, he was gone in 6 months, the only manager we have removed more quickly is Nuno.

 

[MartyFunkhouser]

Yes mate, but I a few pages ago thought it was at least interesting to debate how and why it was able to happen. Clearly you don’t agree, so I’ll move on.

I just dont think you are going to get the answers you seek on here, nothing personal

 

[SissokoWasGood (BoL)]

I just dont think you are going to get the answers you seek on here, nothing personal

I actually find I learn a lot from the different perspectives I read on here if it can make me consider something I’d never thought before. It doesn’t need to absolutely be the ITK official answer, but I’m very interested in how the conflation of circumstances put us in that position, or what the decision making framework was. I specifically thought Vinai’s worries about not wanting to make a change in January to be completely weird and as yet unexamined. Why would players prefer to join a failing club with a team completely low on confidence who don’t trust the manager, rather than one that could turn it around?

This is what I’m interested in. If anyone thinks I’m trying to instigate personal hatred of one man then they have me all wrong. I defended Frank plenty when he was our manager and my conscience is clear there. But I do think that only by recognising exactly how bad a decision was, can we then debate how it came to be, and what the consequences of that might be going forward.

 

[thfcsteff]

Business is business, it doesn’t matter what the widget is, the same principles apply.

I’m not comparing the two men no, I was responding to the question on business leaders being honest about their product and situation, it was suggested they are never are, which I believe to be false and provided a well known example.

Thomas Frank is not a businessman. He is a coach. Apparently.

 

[thfcsteff]

The fact that you look at through the lens of what you like and what you don't like, is an emotional response rather than an objective one, is why its a hypocritical take. I also preferred the football Ange intended to play, but I saw many of the same limitations he suffered also suffered by Frank. I can acknowledge that because I like to look at things in as an objective a manner as possible (nobody is perfect). But intent doesn't change what actually happened, it doesn't change the poor football both managers ended up producing. Frank also intended on a better standard of football than we saw but he failed at achieving that.

That is a pure assumption on your part unsupported by facts. Further, define 'better'. I saw a manager whose idea of
'better' was to perfect a style of football which I did not care for and which was not IMV attractive.

You don't have to look at things objectively, by all means be driven by your biases as much as you want to be, but a hypocritical take is still simply that; a hypocritical take.

Just to be clear, are you saying that having a subjective opinion makes all other counter opinions hypocritical? Let's say we're talking about hate speech. I despise hate speech and think it has no place being allowed in public spaces. Am I a hypocrite to you in the greater realm of free-speech, or am I someone who simply has an opinion? Genuine question.

I wanted a manager who plays balanced football. De Zerbi has already demonstrated that, yet i'm not claiming the football is already brilliant because it clearly isn't. This is where i'm not being a hypocrite.

You're very, very hung up on how everyone views you aren't you? It seems exceptionally important to you that you are not seen as a 'hypocrite' (sadly, I can tell you that when you reach a certain age, hypocrisy in life is inevitable - it's important not to confuse 'changing' with the 'H' word BTW). It's OK. I'll speak for myself. I am personally not bothered whether you are or not. As I've said, I think it's a gloriously misused word.

Just because we have the type of manager and a philosophy I desired i'm not now pretending everything is perfect, that the football (whilst significantly improved) was awesome. My emotional response doesn't stop me from being fair and balanced and not a hypocrite.

And there you are again. Mate. Relax. We get it.

I just like balance, if a set of conditions and mitigations apply for one person if you are a moral and honest person you should really apply them for all, but thats just me.

You really, really need to listen to that podcast.

With regards to 'morality' and 'honesty', no, sorry to say it isn't just you. I think most people here work hard to stick to their principles and live their life.
From where I am, you cherry pick points to raise and launch the 'H' word with a certain degree of frustration it must be said.

I am VERY comfortable with EVERYTHING I've said about both what Thomas Frank did, and how he was also unfortunate. If you consider that hypocritical, fantastic, and there's little point getting into this any further because if there's one thing I've learned about you, when you are bolted-on with an opinion/perspective/view, you are a proud and obdurate force of nature. Good on you!

p.s. you REALLY should listen to the podcast, that is if you're interested in human behaviour, etc.

 

[thfcsteff]

Honestly this just seems like you’re saying you have an objectively more balanced and morally superior way to analyse football. I just don’t agree, you’re applying your own biases to the whole thing just like you’re accusing me of doing. It’s not balance to lump everyone in as ‘all as bad as each other’ and it just means that you give a heck of a lot more weighting to your idea that it is the players that are at fault. That is completely your opinion, and your bias, but it’s the thing that makes your whole worldview here work.

Careful LOL!!!

I’ve said Ange struggled because of injuries and of course Frank did too. The difference is Ange actually achieved some level of success and performance. I can accept Ange’s weaknesses meant that our league form suffered because he refused to adapt, but I also think it’s fair to say that Ange’s human make up was a big part of the reason they never lost confidence and believed they could win a final.

I think Frank actually struggled because as well as injuries, his human make up meant that he felt he needed to reduce our team back to a Brentford way of doing things. He either made the entirely wrong analysis of the situation, or he was paralysed by fear of stepping up and retreating into his comfort zone. Note that I am not saying he is an idiot, or a fraud, or unable to make a living in this game ever again. I am saying that because of the bad decisions he made, I think he destroyed the confidence of the players to the point that he actually nearly relegated us. I also believe that RDZ showed that Frank’s analysis of what he needed to do at Spurs to get us solid and playing again was wrong. We didn’t need to go through a 2-3 cycle of adding layers to get to that point, because RDZ did it in 2 games.

To me that’s a pretty balanced analysis. You think it is player quality and injuries. I do too to some extent. But all I have been trying to get at with this whole thing is that it’s not ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ but rather Frank was uniquely bad, specifically for us, and almost disastrously so. And I want to know how our decision makers came to think it was the right move to hire him and persist with him, because it still hasn’t been sufficiently explained and I think it’s the weakest part of all of Vinai’s comms since the season ended.

IMO you have absolutely no need WHATSOEVER to further justify yourself and your perspective. Sadly, today I've seen two powerful words thrown into the mix alongside 'hypocrisy' (I've given my perspective on the use of that word earlier). We've now seen 'moral' and 'honest' drafted in. I personally think that's very dangerous when it comes to open discussion. Because what we now have is the implication that a counter perspective/opinion is not just 'hypocritical', it is somehow also not 'moral' or 'honest'. Dan.Ger.Ous. All three are big words which require responsibility for use IMO. Each to their own I suppose eh?...

 

[thfcsteff]

Anyway, back to Venkatesham...I am very interested to know if he feels we are at the halfway point of background dept restructuring. I know/heard it was a very hard and defined reset in how we operate, and I am interested to know if we are one year into a two year project, one year into an 18 month one, etc. I personally think that perhaps we'll benefit from taking the repeated shots to the ribs this past 10 months? @Finney Is Back would you have a perspective on this? I know we both hear whispers but I suspect yours are closer to the centre of this situation.

 

[Bishop]

Honestly this just seems like you’re saying you have an objectively more balanced and morally superior way to analyse football. I just don’t agree, you’re applying your own biases to the whole thing just like you’re accusing me of doing. It’s not balance to lump everyone in as ‘all as bad as each other’ and it just means that you give a heck of a lot more weighting to your idea that it is the players that are at fault. That is completely your opinion, and your bias, but it’s the thing that makes your whole worldview here work.

I’ve said Ange struggled because of injuries and of course Frank did too. The difference is Ange actually achieved some level of success and performance. I can accept Ange’s weaknesses meant that our league form suffered because he refused to adapt, but I also think it’s fair to say that Ange’s human make up was a big part of the reason they never lost confidence and believed they could win a final.

I think Frank actually struggled because as well as injuries, his human make up meant that he felt he needed to reduce our team back to a Brentford way of doing things. He either made the entirely wrong analysis of the situation, or he was paralysed by fear of stepping up and retreating into his comfort zone. Note that I am not saying he is an idiot, or a fraud, or unable to make a living in this game ever again. I am saying that because of the bad decisions he made, I think he destroyed the confidence of the players to the point that he actually nearly relegated us. I also believe that RDZ showed that Frank’s analysis of what he needed to do at Spurs to get us solid and playing again was wrong. We didn’t need to go through a 2-3 cycle of adding layers to get to that point, because RDZ did it in 2 games.

To me that’s a pretty balanced analysis. You think it is player quality and injuries. I do too to some extent. But all I have been trying to get at with this whole thing is that it’s not ‘they’re all as bad as each other’ but rather Frank was uniquely bad, specifically for us, and almost disastrously so. And I want to know how our decision makers came to think it was the right move to hire him and persist with him, because it still hasn’t been sufficiently explained and I think it’s the weakest part of all of Vinai’s comms since the season ended.

I really enjoyed this post and I thought your made your points well.


I probably wasn't clear in my post, but no I do not think i'm free of bias but I do address them and therefore try to be as objective as possible. It's an academic approach and part of my training and learning. I'm quite well versed in doing this, as when you get to certain levels you do need to address your biases at the onset in your positionality statement.

My issue with your hypocrisy is simply that for Ange you were accepting of the failure and make excuses for those failures, whereas with Frank you were and still are quite vehement. The negativity isn't actually the issue, like you will see Raziel is very negative towards Frank, he gives him even less leeway than you do, but I'll never call him hypocrite because he is consistent with his approach. He hasn't made allowances for one person because of a personal preference for that manager. Anyhoo we can go on forever because you won't see it and that's fine you don't have to.

 

[Bishop]

That is a pure assumption on your part unsupported by facts. Further, define 'better'. I saw a manager whose idea of
'better' was to perfect a style of football which I did not care for and which was not IMV attractive.

I mean c'mon he said himself what he wanted to play, we saw what his Brentford side were capable of. Is it really your contention that he wanted to offer little offensive threat and be on the back foot constantly? Again as I said earlier in this thread, if that is the case how come if that was actually his grand plan he failed so miserably doing the same at Brentford? He had 7 years to implement that plan.

Just to be clear, are you saying that having a subjective opinion makes all other counter opinions hypocritical? Let's say we're talking about hate speech. I despise hate speech and think it has no place being allowed in public spaces. Am I a hypocrite to you in the greater realm of free-speech, or am I someone who simply has an opinion? Genuine question.

No a subjective opinion does not remove objectivity, objectivity is an incredibly hard thing to achieve in the first place. What I am saying though is that consistency is the enemy of hypocrisy. I'll mention @Raziel again. He is consistent, there is no hypocrisy in his Frank and Ange arguments.

If you believe in true freedom of speech as a concept then you can not then restrict the speech you feel uncomfortable with. However freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

You're very, very hung up on how everyone views you aren't you? It seems exceptionally important to you that you are not seen as a 'hypocrite' (sadly, I can tell you that when you reach a certain age, hypocrisy in life is inevitable - it's important not to confuse 'changing' with the 'H' word BTW). It's OK. I'll speak for myself. I am personally not bothered whether you are or not. As I've said, I think it's a gloriously misused word.

Im not hung up on how people view, quite the opposite tbh. Im just using myself as an example because ik not trying to claim myself a bastion of impartiality. I don't think we are that different age honestly and age is no excuse for hypocrisy. Someone either has ideals and standards that they stick to, not when it suits, not when it's comfortable and not just when it matches your preferences.

And there you are again. Mate. Relax. We get it.



You really, really need to listen to that podcast.

With regards to 'morality' and 'honesty', no, sorry to say it isn't just you. I think most people here work hard to stick to their principles and live their life.
From where I am, you cherry pick points to raise and launch the 'H' word with a certain degree of frustration it must be said.

I am VERY comfortable with EVERYTHING I've said about both what Thomas Frank did, and how he was also unfortunate. If you consider that hypocritical, fantastic, and there's little point getting into this any further because if there's one thing I've learned about you, when you are bolted-on with an opinion/perspective/view, you are a proud and obdurate force of nature. Good on you!

p.s. you REALLY should listen to the podcast, that is if you're interested in human behaviour, etc.