I agree that the board are the problem. And yes, Daniel Levy was chairman. I'm just suggesting that:
1. during his 20 years, he built Spurs into a formidable financial force, and
2. with Levy gone, the problem remains.
Perhaps the Lewis heirs will make everything OK.
"Financial mismanagement" is a deceptive term.
Daniel Levy built us into a financial powerhouse. We are among the top 10 worldwide in revenue and in valuation.
He didn't manage the sporting side very adeptly. But financially he barely put a foot wrong.
In order:
1. Krazy Kat
2. Pogo
3. Far Side (not a strip, really)
4. Calvin and Hobbes
For me, please commit to attacking, possession-oriented football.
*Then* hire the best director of football available.
…but you think this isn't a regular day, right?
I concur.
But we do know where the buck stops.
But…but…if Lange's orders were to recruit a manager who represents the opposite of Ange (stable-predictable-boring vs dynamic-risky-entertaining), you can see how Frank (at that time) would look perfectly suited.
It was a bad strategy, but was it Lange's strategy? Or Vinai's? Or the Lewis kids'?
Gotta be the Lewis kids.
We haven't been building a possession-oriented attacking side; that can only be because directions from the top don't direct that.
(Doesn't mean Vinai & Lange are the right people but, if they aren't, their presence points to the same issue—Kim has that right.)
I confess I've enjoyed watching Man Utd's floundering incompetence this last decade.
So now, as a Spurs supporter and connoisseur of floundering incompetence, I should be perfectly positioned to savor the coming weeks. Or months. Or years.
Lange might be competent.
If he were instructed to recruit for a possession-oriented attacking side, he might be able to follow instructions.
Of course, appointing Frank doesn't represent that plan, but we don't know what direction Lange received—maybe he was told to build a stodgy defensive side.
If Spurs intend to field a proactive attacking XI—The Game Is About Glory—we need to recruit personnel (including manager) who understand that intent. That's why Ange's appointment seemed such a hopeful sign.
Vinai might be capable if he had direction from the top. The Lewis heirs must direct.
Yes, this.
It's crazy to feel hope—or even relief—while the Lewis heirs and the board remain unchanged.
We have an intellectual capacity. We can perceive:
1. Some people of color *really do* commit crimes, but we don't infer that it's OK to violate the human rights of all people of color.
2. Some boomers are racists, but we don't infer that they're *the same boomers* who support(ed) civil rights.
Half of his 4 red cards have come in 22 games with Thomas Frank.
Is that because we don't attack, allowing opponents to run at our defense for 90 minutes?
When we set up to defend for 90 minutes, then losing our best defender with 60 minutes remaining, is unlucky.
Anyone can be unlucky, and I can't blame Frank for being unlucky.
But not everyone sets up to defend for 90 minutes. That's been our principal tactical approach since Frank arrived.
Hm. I'm inclined to count the adoption of a consistent philosophy as "the start of the rebuild."
Or perhaps the appointment if Vinai's successor (tomato/potato).
Either way, I don't think we've seen the "start" yet.
Match day revenue could soften if supporters don't buy season tickets—which would be analogous, in a way, to the way the club approach transfers.
God bless him, he deserves a better organization.
Also, our rebuild is likely to be a 3-4 year project, which makes Vuskovic a more likely candidate, just in terms of age.
Thomas Frank is a symptom. So is Lange.
The problem is Vinai.
The Lewis kids have to address the problem, but they don't seem likely to notice. Till spring, when season tickets go on sale.
Lange chose Frank.
If, as I suspect, that choice was directed by the vision of the club, as expressed to him by the board, then the problem is less about Lange and more about Vinai.
If, on the other hand, that choice flew in the face of the club's vision, then I agree with you.
In Lange's defense, it's his job to assemble personnel pursuant to the board's plan. If the board don't have a plan, Lange shouldn't be held (entirely) responsible.
Yeah, I think that's compatible with my take.
Yes. Your dream is about the board, and its leadership of the club.
I, too, wish for this.
Also, I wish I had a pony.
What would "going in the right direction" look like?
To me, it would mean the board decide on an attacking style & direct the DoF to sign suitable personnel, including a manager whose tactics suit that style.
It wouldn't be instant success, but you could see evidence of that approach.
We need signings in January. But the signings we need—players who want to play attacking football—won't come to Spurs with Frank in charge.
Tel wants out, and it's a fair guess that some others feel similarly.
Frank should go.
Ange earned a chance to continue the rebuild.
Of course it's pretty easy to see, in retrospect, that Frank wasn't the right choice.
Looking forward, it's hard to imagine how an interim manager can succeed over the next 4 months. What would success even look like?
I wish this bloke was available.
I agree, it starts with the board.
If they can't clearly state the objective, then Frank must substitute his vision for (what should be) the club's vision.
And yes, this season must have taught them something. I wonder what?
We need 4 things:
1. The board determine what kinds of tactics our squad will be built for (the game is about glory),
2. The board appoint a DoF to build such a squad over a period of 3 years,
3. New Dof appoints a manager to coach that squad in those tactics,
4. Be patient while they build.
