Tudor Out! Board Out!

Levy was, during his lengthy tenure, all over the shop, appointment-wise. He was constantly chopping and changing - not only in gaffers, but DoFs, and other footy-related staff - with varying degrees of success. The pieces of the puzzle at the time of his ouster were, in the sum of those parts, almost surely among his worst. It was as close to any point in his tenure where he deserved the sack ... and ergo, the worst time for him to get it. Because that's what his successors were left with, and without the wherewithal to address it.

Levy's fingerprints are all over this mess, there's no getting around that. But if there's one reasonable thing to presume, it is that he would have, were he still in charge, dealt with the last six months differently than his successors. Based upon 25 years of precedent, it's almost inconceivable that he would have left Frank in place as long as was done. And if Harry's claims are true, its fair to say the direction Levy would have taken would have been rather different than going with Igor Tudor.

Now, that doesn't mean we'd be better off than we are now - we'd still have more-or-less the same players on the pitch. But the downward trajectory we've been on since Levy's exit are at least as attributable to the executive decisions made since as they are to what was in place on 4 September.

Should we go down, Levy will not have got us relegated. We were in 4th when he 'stepped down' and he'll've been nine months gone. But Levy will certainly have put in place those that did. So how much blame to heap upon him is a parlor game that can't be won. But one thing is certain: the more folks blame Levy, the less Venkatesham is accountable - and it's been his baby for six months now.

 

We can't know the answers to either of those, of course. Like Jum, I'm just presuming Frank would've gone much earlier based upon 20+ years of trigger-happiness. Ange does offer a glaring (and recent) exception, to be fair, though one suspects that he was left in situ pursuant to the obtainable (and obtained) Europa League, and of course, was in fact sacked after. Still, one could similarly speculate that Frank might've been left in so long as the Champions League campaign was moving along, too, so ... ok.

As to whether or not he would have brought back Harry, I am definitely not assuming that. I was simply suggesting that such thinking represents a rather different approach than Igor Tudor.

As to the 2012 sacking of Harry Redknapp, well, I'm 100% on board with your opinion of that decision. I was livid about it then ... and having just been reminded, now I'm a bit pissed about it all over again.

 

I've guessed at it in the post above. Rightly or wrongly? Who knows?

The only other thing I'll throw in is the threat of relegation. It was never a factor last season, not because we weren't shite, but because the three relegated sides were never a threat to get out of it. Which begs the question, at what point in this season would Levy have perceived the threat of relegation to be real?

While virtually all of this discussion is pure speculation, I do think it's fair to presume that Levy would have been very pro-active in trying to avoid that potential catastrophe - for fiscal, if not footy, reasons. I won't waste anyone's time trying to guess when. But a level of patience with Frank anywhere near his successors' is tough to envision.

 

That's one of the things that I found so -worthy about Venkatesham's statement. He thumps his chest about eliminating Levy's confining wage structure and then follows it up with "but don't expect us to spend. Levy's not left us as financially sound as you thought."

"Levy's too tight" and "there's no money to spend" can't both be right.

 

Naturally.

Back when I was managing with Barnes & Noble, whenever a manager would quit or move on for any reason, whenever anything would go wrong over the ensuing week or two, the response would always be "blame ________ ". Of course, we would just say it jokingly ... Vinai applies it in earnest.

 

Same conversation. Different blokes.

"LOT OF NONSENSE!" Alex Crook EXPLAINS why Spurs' CEO was WRONG to Blame Daniel Levy for CRISIS!

 

I'm sympathetic toward this point, as i would have to include myself among those quite late to the 'Frank out' party, for more-or-less the reasons stated.

I felt the project needed time, and as I would tell my very Frank out (very early) mate Tyler, as long as the players dont down tools, I want to stay with it. Based upon what we are hearing now, the players appear to have bought out of this manager long before I recognized evidence thereof.

Of course, it's equally frustrating how quick and often our players seem to 'buy out'. And that, perhaps, is a contributor to Levy's frustrating inability to stick with his gaffers. The players always appeared to have his ear ... the oft-lamented 'leadership group' that seemed to undermine our managers. Mildly ironic then that the absence of this element, that frustrated so many (me included), might end up being crucial in the end.

I mean, if that is one's perspective. Probably not worth treading too far down that path, though. I mean, the whole 'who's to blame?' exercise is sooo exhausting. The players? The managers? The chairmen? The more you look at any of 'em, the more culprits you find.

Effing Spurs.