|
|
|
. . |
.. |
|
29th June 2009 - Quiet please Rather than go over last season, about which there is little more to be said that hasn’t already been covered by other columnists, I thought I’d get my look ahead in early. It’s not my predictions for the season. If last season taught as anything it is that, aside from a dodgy decision at Old Trafford and Tottenham Hotspur’s ability to generate self-inflicted wounds, it’s impossible to be certain about anything. It’s a state of affairs summed up by an email exchange after the fixtures came out, when someone complained that we were playing three of the top four right at the beginning of the season. A tough prospect without doubt, but as someone pointed out, we don’t need the help of the fixture list to make things difficult, we can do a perfectly good job ourselves. Last year six of our first seven games were against supposed cannon fodder, and we completed the sequence with only two points. Which brings us neatly to Harry “two points when I arrived” Redknapp. I confess I wasn’t much of a fan when he arrived, but I was impressed almost from day one. He finally put an end to the unworkable division of responsibilities at the top of the club that only added to the politicking at this most political of clubs by establishing the proven successful principle that the manager is in charge. Credit must go to Daniel Levy for junking a system that he had heavily aligned himself with, although one wonders just how much room he had for manoeuvre when persuading Harry to take over the mess moulded by Ramos. Harry’s team has also produced some decent football. I’ve heard some grumblings about the pretty functional nature of the succession of 1-0 wins towards the end of the campaign, but I think Harry’s team has been prettily functional in a manner that nods to the finest of Spurs traditions. And all this with essentially the same squad his predecessor had. The constant referencing of the “two points” may have become a bit of a running gag, but Harry has a sharp eye for presentation, and you can see the sense in emphasising the fact that he made more of what he was given than a so-called “world class” manager. Our progress under Harry makes it clear to me that we have a very good squad. A squad that doesn’t need lots of changing, which makes me nervous. One of my worries about Harry was his tendency to do more deals than a Vegas croupier on overtime, and this, coupled with what I characterised as Tottenham’s metamorphosis into a player trading exchange, leaves me hoping rather than expecting that changes are kept to a minimum. The embarrassing buybacks of players only recently sold surely underlines what a farce the transfer policy was under the previous regime. The returns of Defoe and Keane were vital – did they really “have” to be sold? – and the acquisition of Palacios meant we finally got the type of player everyone knew we needed. Everyone, that is, except the people who were in charge of transfers. And why we got Chimbonda back and then never played him is almost as much of a mystery as why we sold him in the first place. Of course, much of the transfer gossip is just that – unattributable spacefiller for the close season football pages, so it’s pointless commenting on speculation. (I sound like the club’s press office, don’t I?) But I did want to mention two areas of concern. One is borne of cynicism, which is not a very nice quality but I’m afraid 37 years of following Spurs does make it run deep. So when the club announced Aaron Lennon had signed a lucrative new deal, my first reaction was to think he’d be sold this summer. I really hope I’m wrong, but we’ve made a habit of selling our best players in the close season recently, and we do like to turn a profit. Whether or not we hang on to Lennon will be a major test – of whether we finally understand that short term profit doesn’t buy long term success, and of whether we are willing or able to retain the quality we need to move on. But I’m sure if Lennon goes it will be his decision – not ours ;-) The other area of concern is over our strikeforce. The sheer weight of stories that Darren Bent is on his way suggest there may be some truth here. But I think it would be a mistake. Bent has delivered goals and hard work, and has kept his focus despite all the slating. He’s not the most silkily-skilled of players, and his natural game was at odds with the football we like to think we should play. But he’s stuck with it in a very professional way, and he scores goals – which is the point of a striker. Top-scorer last season, second highest scorer currently on our books, an apparently very quiet life off the pitch. Why do we want rid of him again? Those who say there are better out there struggle to identify who, realistically, these people are. And I’d hang on to Bent for another reason too. In today’s squad game, our current four strikers need to be interchangeable. Bent can work with Defoe, Keane and Pavlyuchenko, while picking any two from the other three doesn’t inspire confidence. Why do we want rid of him again? As far as our strikers go, I may even venture to be a little controversial. Defoe is the most natural goalscorer we have, and an exciting player who has much left to give. Bent I’ve already covered. Robbie Keane divides opinion, something else I don’t understand. I think he’s rightfully a club legend, and his link-up play on his return showed how vital this previously missing link was. Big Pav I’m not sure about – is he an out-an-out striker or someone who can play off a target man? One season in a strange league when he’s knackered isn’t the best basis on which to judge. So there’s a difficult choice. One of the four needs to go – if, and the if is vital – we can bring in better. Who that is will affect the balance I’ve sketched out above, but if I were manager – a frightening prospect I agree – I’d be wondering whether to sell Pav or The Legend. I have a feeling Keane may be the first out – he was a panic buy after Defoe got injured, and rumour has it he lowered his stock significantly in the dressing room after all the badge-kissing nonsense when he left for Liverpool. Certainly there has been a hint of a tendency to sulk when tings aren’t to his liking and to switch off when he decides it doesn’t matter – and I can’t see Harry liking that. There are other difficult choices. Wilson Palacios was superb when he signed for us, and would be the second name on my team sheet – Lennon obviously the first. But who could blame him if he walks away from football after the awful family tragedy he endured at the end of last season? Whatever he decides, he’ll always be valued by Spurs everywhere, but his place in the team, should he decide to go, will be very difficult to fill. And the Ledley King situation needs a hard look and very probably an admission that we need another centre back. There should still be a place for Ledley, but he may not want to play second fiddle after so long as the front man. It’s a tricky situation, but hopefully the club will deal with it in a proper manner. But overall, I’m not looking for a host of new names. Too much change has been one of the many things which has contributed to our problems recently, and I’d like to see us go into next season with a settled team, augmented perhaps by the left-sider we’ve been missing and a fourth striker who offers more options and a better balance. We don’t need most of the names that have been bandied about, and certainly not the ageing stars looking for a last payday that have been mentioned in some quarters. In Assou-Ekkoto, Corluka, Dawson, Woodgate, Palacios, Modric, Lennon, Keane and Defoe we have excellent first choice players. When King’s added into the equation it’s an even stronger mix, and I’ve already said my piece about Bent. I’ll admit Gomes still doesn’t fill me with confidence, but until someone better is available and wants to come I’d rather we didn’t continue the goalkeeping merry-go-round. I’d hang on to rumoured sales Huddlestone and Jenas, and I think it’s too soon to let Gunter, Bale or Hutton go – although of course I don’t have the day-to-day contact with them the coaching staff do. Of course, the squad needs strengthening to give us greater options, but looking at who we’ve got on the books doesn’t suggest the need for wholesale changes. I hope Harry’s liking for keeping things simple helps him persuade the club not to get too clever again. I’m hoping for a quiet summer and plenty of noise when the season starts.
Read all of Martin’s work at his blog: http://martincloake.wordpress.com/ |
. . |
. .
TOPSPURS COLUMNISTS
|
The index
and archive page of the TOPSPURS columnists |
||||||||||
|
25th June 2009 – Go Go Power Rangers I've let the regular contributions slip, partly
because I'm really busy and partly because I've nothing to add to what
TopSpur's roster of columnists have had to say about last season. I promise
(or should that be threaten?) to contribute more regularly in future, with a
look ahead currently in the pipeline. But the new kit launch, and subsequent
debate, prompts a short comment. 15th April 2009 – Hillsborough I can remember exactly where I was on 15 April 1989. I was standing on the away terrace at Wimbledon FC's Plough Lane ground, one of a capacity crowd of 12,000. I remember bright sunshine and a positive mood among the Spurs contingent which dominated the old ground, borne of a run of only one defeat in 11 games and growing faith in the management of Terry Venables, then in his first full season at Spurs. And I remember the tannoy
announcement at half time. It told us that the FA Cup semi-final at
Hillsborough had been cancelled due to rioting by Liverpool supporters which had
caused fatalities. Shock rippled through the crowd. Within minutes, the
entire ground took up a chant which rang clear across the skies on that
bright spring day. "We hate Scousers and we hate Scousers." In retrospect it was
shameful. But at the time it seemed justified. It was rooted in a deep-seated
resentment many football fans had of what we saw as the myth which surrounded
Liverpool's support, a media construct of "the best fans in the
land", witty and loyal and knowledgeable – when in fact many of us had
seen a different side, a side which was as violent and nasty as could be
found in any set of supporters, but which seemed to be overlooked by the
media and its Liverpool-tinted specs. That night, I was
visiting some friends in East Ham. I arrived at their house at about 6.30pm.
Lesley was a Liverpool fan, and as she opened the door I said: "I hear
your lot have been at it again." She looked at me and said: "You
haven't seen the news, have you?" We sat in her front room
and watched the rolling news reports. The full enormity of what had actually
happened began to dawn. I sat with Lesley's boyfriend Steve trying to make
sense of what we were seeing and hearing as Lesley made and took numerous
phone calls from her family in Liverpool. They were trying to find out
what had happened to her brother, a Liverpool fan who was at the game. I've been thinking about
that day a lot in the run-up to the 20th anniversary. Football has been a
major part of my life since I listened to Spurs lose the UEFA Cup Final in
1974 on the radio under my bedsheets, and the major change in that major part
of my life came about because of what happened in Sheffield on 15 April 1989.
I am lucky not to have been touched closely by the 96 deaths that rippled out
through family and friends and acquaintances and communities. Lesley's
brother returned from the game unharmed physically, although he didn't go to
a match again for years because of what he had seen. But, like so many of my
generation of fans, Hillsborough has had a major influence on shaping what I
think about football, and about politics and society and life in general. And
it's certainly had a major influence on me as a spectator. As soon as any football
fan who had been to a game in those pre-Premier, pre-Sky, pre-hype and
megabucks days saw the pictures from Hillsborough, we knew what had happened.
And we knew that it could just as easily have been us. Many Spurs fans
remembered being caught in a similar crush in the entrance tunnel to the
notorious Leppings Lane terrace eight years before at the semi-final against
Wolves. And anyone who had been to a game knew about the crushes, the neglect
and the contempt of the police. We didn't even question it, that was just how
it was. You went to football and you were scum. So we knew why, when fans
began to scale the fences to escape the deadly crush, the police and many
others assumed it was a pitch invasion, that there was fighting on the
terraces. Because that's what happened at football matches. Fans fought, so
they had to be caged. When people begged to be let out, they really needed to
be kept in. Because it was their choice to be there. If you went to football
and stood on the terraces, you knew what you were getting yourself into. What
did you expect? And we knew why that
tannoy announcement had been made. Because what was expected was what was
reported. We knew too, despite our empathy and our outrage, why 12,000 people
in a decrepit suburban stadium in south west London were prepared to believe
what was at first reported. That violent football fans had caused the deaths.
Even those of us who weren't involved in football violence, who were –
through the then still fledgling fanzines and supporters' organisations –
attempting to present a different view of football fans, made the assumption
at first that it must be the fans' fault. Football fans were among the many
folk devils of the 1980s. This does not mean that
we can look back and say that the police were not to blame. It was their job
to ensure the safety of the people attending the match, to understand the
movements of the crowd and to judge the situation and respond accordingly.
The process of crowd control is complex but not sophisticated, and is
something now taken for granted. Investment and equipment may make it easier,
but the bottom line is attitude. So whether or not there is a multimillion
pound monitoring system being operated by intensively trained officers, it
should be a sufficient expectation of basic humanity to expect a police
officer to believe people when they shout, from behind a steel gate and
in the midst of a crowd, that they are being crushed to death. Or for a father, trying
to alert an officer to what looked like a serious problem in the section of
terrace where his daughters were stood, not to have been told to "shut
your fucking prattle". This happened to Trevor Hicks, whose daughters
were among the 96 who lost their lives because of what happened that day.
Trevor Hicks, by his own description an establishment man, a successful businessman
and father far removed from the stereotype of the football hooligan. But he
was a football fan, he had chosen to be there, so he was demonised along with
every other fan. In recent years, some
have raised the question of whether it is right to pursue the issue of police
culpability at Hillsborough, of whether this simply amounts to a search for
"revenge". Much has changed, and lessons have been learned. Perhaps
most importantly, football fans are no longer automatically "scum". But, as an Evertonian
colleague said to me this week: "All societies have means of drawing a
line under a life through funerals or memorial services, and there’s a reason
for that. Too many of the 96 are undead in the minds of too many for
that to happen." Because no one has been found to be responsible for
what happened that day, there can be – to use that fashionable term – no
closure for so many touched by the events. Trevor Hicks said recently that if
96 police officers had been killed you can be sure some people would have
gone to prison. Lord Justice Taylor's report established police mismanagement
as the cause of the disaster. And yet no individual has
officially been made responsible. In fact, police officers present
on the day have been compensated. This week, David Conn published an excellent article in The Guardian which
posed eight key questions which remain unanswered, as well as detailing how
the police and establishment smeared the fans and tried to cover up their own
culpability. I recommend taking the time to read an excellent piece of
journalism. Although, as I said, I am
lucky enough not to have been as deeply personally affected by Hillsborough
as the families and communities of those who died, what happened on that day
and since still makes me angry. Some of that anger comes from a sense of
identity with other football fans, that feeling of "it could have been
us" – a feeling which, I remember, led members of the supporters'
organisations at Spurs to present Everton fans with a commemorative wreath
when we hosted them in the next league game after Hillsborough. It makes me angry too,
when I see attempts to introduce false notions of equivalence, to question
the veracity of moves to commemorate the 96 and the continuation of the
campaign for justice. I've seen the question asked: "Will they have a
similar memorial for the Heysel victims?" Heysel was caused by
hooliganism and bad crowd management, Hillsborough by bad crowd management.
Fourteen Liverpool fans were convicted of manslaughter after Heysel. No one
has been made responsible for Hillsborough. And anyway – what's the point
here? Do the 96 not deserve justice because other people did something
different in a different place? In that 1974 UEFA Cup Final I remember
listening to as a boy, Spurs fans were responsible for some of the worst
rioting then seen in a European stadium. If it had been Spurs fans
killed at Hillsborough in the 1981 crush, would it have been OK not to find
who was responsible because of the actions of other Spurs fans seven years
before? I'm angry because of the
smug self-congratulation in football over "the lessons learned".
Those who ran the game and the clubs presided for years over crumbling
stadiums, treated fans as at best an inconvenience and made lots of money in
the process. People had died at football matches, in crowd crushes caused by
poor planning and management, in fires in unsafe stadiums and in the battlegrounds
that football stadiums were allowed to become. Hillsborough was different
because it was on TV and everybody saw it. The authorities acted not because
they wanted to but because they had to. And they acted by avoiding blame and
by latching on to the one thing that the supporters who now "had to be
listened too" expressed the most reservations about. This measure also
happened to be the thing that would make those who ran the game and the clubs
the most money. All-seater stadiums. Of all the measures that
Lord Justice Taylor recommended, this was the one football embraced most
warmly, ignoring his proviso that prices should not be forced up so far as to
price fans out. Prices have since rocketed. Stadiums were fitted out with
seats with the aid of money provided by the Government and pools companies. A
company called Pel Seating made millions out of putting the seats in,
achieving a dominant market position and, by 1999, an annual turnover of
£75m. On its board sat a director of West Bromwich Albion, a former
Secretary of the FA, and the former Secretary's son-in-law. A former FA
chairman was employed as an advisor. Years later, Graham
Kelly, the chief executive of the FA on the day of Hillsborough, said that
"six hundred million pounds was spent upgrading football grounds"
in the ten years after the disaster. "It provided the opportunity for
English football to launch a World Cup bid for 2006." The BBC's Football Confidential programme examined the story. In the bookScams, Scandals and
Screw-ups the programme
makers point out that, while Pel never broke any rules, there were legitimate
questions to be raised about "the morality of the very people so roundly
criticised in the Taylor Report for having overseen the neglect of grounds
that led to the disaster then making money out of the stadium rebuilding
programme it instigated." When Graham Kelly was asked if he had any view
on this, his reply was: "No". The Football Supporters'
Association's Sheila Spiers, who was at Hillsborough on the day, was more forthcoming.
She described it as "quite sickening". in 1999, Nick Varley
closed the moving and eloquent chapter on Hillsborough which formed part of
his book Parklife with the words: "Ten years after
Hillsborough, the real truth about football is that everything has changed
and nothing has changed." Substitute 20 for ten. The great myth that
football learned its lesson because of Hillsborough still continues. The
changes were driven by the opportunity to make more profit, not because of
some rediscovered humanity or acknowledgement of past mistakes. Football
supporters are now "part of the football family" but, like an
embarrassing older relative, are ignored when they don't say what the
authorities want to hear on issues of real substance. Did the football authorities
really learn the lessons that needed to be learned? Or did they seize the
opportunity that presented itself? And have the police learned that people in
a crowd are still individuals? Do they still give people "what they
deserve" for being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Football fans
might say not any more, people demonstrating in the City of London may beg to
differ. The difference, I suppose, is that football fans pay good money to be
in the places they are. It's the economy, stupid. So much from what is
"only" a game. The details and the implications and the conclusions
drawn from that Spring afternoon 20 years ago ripple ever outwards. The
struggle for justice continues for many reasons. For those most closely
affected, because closure is needed, and because basic notions of right and
wrong mean people must be held to account. For many more of us, because what
happened that day and how we reacted to it tells us much about the people we
are and the society we live in. Cup Final PreviewIt's a Cup Final, and it is, for the first time in any competition, contested between English football's two most historically glamorous teams. Even this season, with Tottenham a sad shadow of its former self under the blundering leadership of Daniel Levy, the league game between the two at White Hart Lane was as absorbing a game as you could wish to see. And yet… Where's the excitement, the sense of expectation? Is it because of lingering embarrassment over the sheer awfulness of our performance for most of the semi-final ties? Is it because of Redknapp's regular moaning about almost every game being an inconvenience, about the squad not being up to it, about how he is not responsible for anything but success? Is it because of the shameful surrender at Old Trafford in the FA Cup? Or is it because, like the players seem to be, us fans can scarcely be bothered to do more than go through a cursory impression of the motions? It's a very sad state of affairs. Come the day, my bunch of match day stalwarts will repeat last season's matchday breakfast at our mate's house in Kilburn, head off to Wembley and put the effort in. If the players do, and I've simply taken at face value Harry's canny mind games in the run-up to the big day, I'll be delighted. Because even as good as United are, and they are very good indeed, Spurs have the players capable of beating them in a one-off. Despite his own fixture pile-up, you can be sure Fergie will be wanting to win another trophy with every inch of his being. I don't believe either Harry or our players want anything less than a win – they're professionals too. Who gets the result will be down to nous, hunger and the application of ability. Spurs are capable of winning the trophy, Spurs fans are capable of matching United's in what will surely be a special atmosphere. A win would sweep away the criticisms of the players, of the mental state of the club, and of Redknapp. And in the process it would show that our 'Arry really can walk as well as talk. As Danny Blanchflower once said, You've Got To Believe. 3rd February 2009 - Harry’s game In 1901 we became the first non-league team to win the FA Cup, in 1961 the first to win the modern double, in 1963 the first British team to win a European trophy. In 2009 we became the first team to buy back 25% of the team it had sold in the last 12 months. It seems we can never – and believe me, regular readers, I am trying – avoid confronting the utter, witless stupidity of Levy and co’s transfer policy. What a laughable, disorganised, shambolic, clueless carry-on. The positive side of it all is that at least we are now welcoming back the players we should never have sold in the first place. Who knows where we’d be if we’d held on to them. I’m particularly pleased to see Robbie Keane back, despite
his silly ‘boyhood heroes’ comments when he left. Levy should’ve had more
gumption in hanging on to him when A club’s key player is publically pursued by a rival club. The club doesn’t want to sell, but end up selling, only for the player to find that his new club’s manager didn’t want to buy him. The player’s former club doesn’t adequately replace him, taking refuge in the story that the player ‘let us down’. To get out of this mess, the player’s former club buys back another striker who they sold when he didn’t want to leave. This striker then gets injured, prompting the club which didn’t want to sell to buy the player they sold back from the club that didn’t want to buy him in the first place! Of course, the club will try to convince us that this is all part of a plan – but it’s blatantly obvious that the club’s recruitment policy is not too much of a step up from the Navy pressgangs of old. It’s organised chaos without the organisation. Continuing the Navy theme just a bit longer, there is another rum observation to be made. In the summer, the club paired two strikers before it knew if they could play together. This winter, we’ve bought two strikers we KNOW can’t play together. Although to be fair, the pairings of Pavlyuchenko and Keane and, possibly, Defoe and Bent could both be improvements on what we’ve seen so far. Which brings us to what happens next. Ramos has been busy telling everyone why Berbatov’s departure was why he couldn’t get the team going, despite the fact that Berbatov was playing for most of the time Ramos couldn’t get us going. Comolli has been busy telling everyone why his scouting expertise was squandered by a succession of idiot managers. And Harry Redknapp has been at great pains to point out that it’s very difficult to work with the rubbish he’s been landed with. So the new Spurs motto of ‘Not me, guv’ appears to be in rude health. At this point it’s worth carrying out a little comparison, a comparison between what can be seen as Martin Jol’s first-choice team at the end of a season in which we finished fifth, and Harry Redknapp’s first choice team now. Jol’s Spurs Redknapp’s Spurs Robinson Cudicini Chimbonda Corluka King Woodgate Lee Assou-Ekotto Malbranque Lennon Jenas Palacios Tainio Modric Lennon Bentley Keane Keane Berbatov Pavlyuchenko Player for player, that’s pretty much an improvement in every position, except for Berbatov. Consider also that Jol’s squad contained Cerny, Murphy, Ghaly, Stalteri, YP Lee, Gardner, Routledge and Ziegler; while Redknapp’s contains Gomes, Bale, Hutton, King, Bent, Gunter, O’Hara and Taarabt and it’s hard to understand why 2009 Spurs are doing so much worse than 2007 Spurs. Doubtless Harry would say my failure to understand why a better squad performs worse is indication that, to use one of his many favourite media soundbites, I know nothing about football. And I’ll accept it’s not just a matter of assembling good players, but of building a team – something the ‘not me, guv’ culture of Spurs is singularly unequipped to do. But to paraphrase the great Keith Hill, I’m not a man who likes hearing excuses. Harry’s made his point, and most of us agree that the club’s board are football’s equivalent of Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder in The Producers. (Although I hesitate to give the current board credit for deliberately screwing things up, I’m sure it all comes naturally). Now we have the squad we have, and it’s a damn sight better than most, so the players have to play and the manager has to manage. No dealing, no clever-cleverness – just good old fashioned coaching and playing. We’ll only know the truth at the end of the season. If we win the Carling Cup – that’s providing our ongoing deal to sell United our best players, test out their reserves and take it easy in Cup ties isn’t still in force – and we stay up, then this will be Harry’s squad. If not, it’ll be some other mug’s. 23rd January 2009 - The
last word "This is a football club that has been put together by I don't know who and I don't know how. It's a mish-mash of players with people playing where they want to play.” With that statement after what was surely the most inglorious progress to any cup final ever, Harry Redknapp once again stuck it to the Levy regime. How these people, who could have been invented to illustrate the phrase ‘they don’t know what they don’t know’, must detest the man they had to get in to dig them out of their own hole. I’ve said before that I take a rather juvenile pleasure in hearing the self-appointed masters of the Spurs universe exposed as the self-regarding bunglers they really are – clearly, I don’t tolerate excuses – but I think the point has been made now. We know Levy and co have bungled through seven years, we know they will never admit, or perhaps do not have the self-awareness to realise, how wrong they’ve been. We know they have built not a club but a collection of players. Think of how many of the current “squad” have been here longer than three seasons and then reflect on why there’s no team spirit, for example. But Harry’s made his point, and I’ve surely made mine. Now, with our manager fully signed up to the “not me, guv” club charter, it’s surely time to move on. So the squad’s a mish-mash, but we’ve got what we’ve got. It’s time for the manager to do what football coaches used to do and make the materials he has better. Coaching, I believe it’s called. This is required because we aren’t going to be able to buy every player we allegedly “need”. And even if we could, the only way to have any chance of them playing as a team would be to, er, coach those players. So there’s no getting around it. Harry has so far blamed the players, the squad, the transfer policy and the number of games for the problems he’s having. On all except the number of games he has a point, but he’s made that point. He has a difficult job, but it’s the job he has. And is no doubt handsomely rewarded for. So let’s go to work, as they say in the movies. I’ll bet, by the way, that Alex Ferguson won’t be complaining about the distraction of having a Champions League tie either side of the League Cup Final. Playing more games is a sign of success, surely? So enough complaints already. Just the ticket I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the club’s two-year season ticket deal. Of course, much of it is about getting money up front before the recession gets worse, demonstrating demand for the new stadium and possibly even future-proofing us against relegation. But it would’ve been no surprise had they put the prices up again, accompanied by the usual old pony about financing our move to ‘the next level’. Unfortunately for the club, the years of spin and greed make most of us naturally suspicious, so it’s inevitable that any initiative is scrutinised for the sting in the tail. But this time, and I will accept the judgment is made against a less than glowing track record, the club seem to have got it more right than wrong. Two years is a lot to commit to, but pegging prices to a real level of less than last year for the next two is an improvement on an increase. I don’t disagree with Jim Duggan that this has to be seen in the context of the vast greed exhibited by hefty year-on-year rises for so long, but a freeze is better than a rise. Combine this with the fact that the tickets can be paid for on interest-free credit via Barclaycard or Spurs MBNA card – what would Gordon Brown say? – and the deal looks more attractive still. And if two years is too much, one year renewals still benefit from the freeze. There are a few points to tweak – the unfair discrimination against silver ST holders when it comes to applying for tickets being the most obvious – but the package as a whole isn’t bad. And if I understand the sequence of events correctly, the fact that the club’s promised ‘consultation’ with the Supporters’ Trust consisted of telling them what would be in the announcement a few hours before it was made doesn’t demonstrate an adequate understanding of the definition of consultation. One issue I do genuinely feel sorry for club officials about is the ticking bomb that is the Loyalty Points system. The time when there’s a massive clash between a new generation of fans resentful of the stranglehold exerted on the best tickets by long-time ST holders and the determination grizzled of old gits (myself included) to cling on to that advantage surely draws closer. Choosing to test the claims made about the level of demand for tickets is perhaps a brave move, especially when the plans for the new stadium – encouraging as they are – don’t contain any indication of where the money is actually going to come from. I’d like a bigger house, but I don’t now where the money is coming from. Perhaps Levy has a cunning plan – in which case we should all worry. But despite the negatives – inevitable at Spurs – there are positives to celebrate. We’re in another Cup Final, albeit undeservedly on the strength of the semi-final showing, and the club is not being a greedy as it could be. Relative progress, but progress nonetheless. 17th January 2009 - A bit of a character I have to admit to enjoying one aspect of the so-called
Redknapp Revolution immensely. And that’s his comments on the stewardship of
the club during the seven initial years of Levy’s five-year plan. He’s
described the transfer policy as “a shambles”, the squad as “unbalanced” and
the decision to sign two strikers before we knew if they could play together
as “stupid”. It’s all quite ironic when you remember Martin Jol
incurred the wrath of the brain surgeons (© Alan Sugar) on the board by
suggesting that the club may not be equipped to make the top four. (For
younger readers I should point out he was referring to the top four places in
the top division, not the top four divisions. Times have changed since Jol
steered us to the heights). I’ve found myself imagining the conversation when
Harry met wally, as Levy desperately tried to sort out another bungle.
“Listen Danny boy, I’ll come for a price I’ll decide and only if you ditch
all this director of football, buy young and sell on rubbish. If you want a
manager, I’m your man but that means I’m in charge. And I don’t want you and
yer fancy mates sticking their oar in either. In charge means in charge, and
I’m in charge.” Levy, of course, was left with no alternative but to
agree, largely because of the utter disaster the Ramos era ended up being.
Which was the fault of, er, Levy. I will never really understand quite how,
even with all the transfer bungling and interference from the brain surgeons,
Ramos turned out to be quite so inept, so perhaps some sympathy is in order
for Clever Danny. But on the other hand, maybe not. A friend of mine who has
proven himself a canny operator in business remarked that Danny and the BSs
didn’t carry out “due diligence” on Ramos. It’s a familiar accusation in
business when everything goes tits up. But the Spurs board pursued Ramos for
a full year before making their (exceptionally clumsy) move. Anyone can make
a mistake, and Levy has proved the truth of this on numerous occasions, but
to make a mistake of such proportions after taking so long to weigh it up
indicates stratospheric levels of incompetence. So as far as the Ramos
debacle was concerned, we can conclude either that Levy was incompetent, or
totally incompetent. So despite my concerns about the amount of transfer
dealing that Harry’s tended to do, I’ve been quite pleased to observe that,
now that Levy’s been put in his box, we’ve got someone who knows about
football in charge of running the football club. We’re reviving such
long-lost traditions as playing players in their correct positions, seeking
to fill positional gaps, and trying to build a team. And should Levy be
tempted to bungle his way into the action, Harry has only to threaten to walk
away and leave him to face the music to get him to back off. But a mess that took seven years to create takes longer
than a few weeks to clear up. And if you think that’s a harsh judgement, take
a look at the facts. After seven years and what must be a world record number
of transfers in and out we are left with an unbalanced squad and few players
who have been on the books longer than a couple of seasons. There’s little
homegrown talent, and the ‘talent’ we bought has ended up either being sent
back as faulty goods or sold to Manchester United and At least signing Defoe back (another humiliating moment
for Levy when Harry asked for that one) went some small way towards
addressing the disastrous dismantling of one of the best selections of strikers
in the country. I don’t intend to go over the folly of the Berbatov and Keane
sales again in detail, but the Keane affair in particular exposes yet further
the Tottenham board’s incompetence. But “you can’t keep a player who doesn’t
want to stay” say Danny and the BSs. To which I would reply, “No, YOU can’t
keep a player who doesn’t want to stay”. Aston Villa were pressed to sell
their key player, just as we were, by the very same club who eventually
bought our key man. Last time I looked, Gareth Barry was one of the main
reasons why Aston Villa were significantly higher up the league than us. And
then there’s Stewart Downing (there’s always Stewart Downing, like a transfer
window Groundhog Day). He “didn’t want to stay” at Boro, but Steve Gibson,
like Randy Lerner, appears able to keep his man, despite him “not wanting to
stay” and even though he “wanted to” go to us when we asked. It must be something about Danny and the BSs. Although I’ve enjoyed Harry’s cut-the-crap approach [insert
dropped players name joke of your choice here] I didn’t enjoy his comments
after the defeat to But we shouldn’t be surprised at the absence of a
willingness to stand together, win or lose. Danny and the BSs have replaced
what was once a football club with a player trading exchange. If a player
does well, he knows he’ll be sold on. If he doesn’t, he can look for a payday
elsewhere. No fighting for the team, standing with your teammates or trying
to build for future battles. Just a stint of paid freelancing before moving
on while the people in charge watch the value of their (preferential) shares
rise. It smells most unlike team spirit. To be fair to Harry, he’s just taking precautions by
taking a leaf out of Levy’s book. The new club motto is, after all, “not me,
guv”. He needs to preserve his reputation and he did walk into a mess. I
don’t have strong feelings either way for our manager. I like the no-nonsense
approach and the fact that he knows his football, but I worry about the fact
that he’s never won more than 39% of his games at any club he’s managed
despite that great reputation. If he keeps us up, and let’s make no mistake
that that is the only target this season, I will be pleased for him and us. But what happens next? If we go down you don’t see this
lot coming straight back up – that’s always supposing they stick around long
enough to try. If we stay up, will we be able to convince anyone we are a
serious enough proposition for success? And will Harry be the man to lead us?
Most importantly, what happens with our Danny? It would be easy to conclude all this with a stirring Levy Out call. I won’t be sad to see the back of a chairman whose credibility is now totally shot to pieces – that satirical letter in the Guardian really was the final nail in the coffin for the man who saw ‘too clever by half’ as a compliment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2008/dec/30/tottenham-hotspur-premier-league-daniel-levy But who comes next? Remember, Levy was the rich
businessman with money who was going to save us after the last rich
businessman with money who owned the club walked away with heavy pockets
while leaving us with heavy hearts. We were warned at the time that ENIC was
not necessarily all good news, and so it has proved. As fans, we are to
willing to fool ourselves that the bloke with the wonga will make us stronger
for longer. It would be nice to wave farewell to Levy and wish him
luck in ordering trousers with the correct number of legs should he return to
the textiles business. But nicer still to say hello to someone who recognises
the unchallengeable fact that the football clubs that succeed are the ones
who get the football right. Is there anybody out there who fits the bill? •••• However depressing events on the pitch are, I can always
rely on my old mate and fellow season ticket holder Bruce to come up with
something to cheer me up. Watching David Bentley labouring unsuccessfully up
and down the wing recently, Bruce drily observed “You do get the impression
that last time he beat a man was in a specialist nightclub”. 22nd December 2008 – Aubrey Morris A little piece of the club’s history went on 18 December when Aubrey Morris died aged 89 after a short illness. Aubrey was a truly remarkable man who lived life to the full, and his story is also a story of the 20th Century and an inspirational generation. Aubrey was the man who first flew English football fans to
matches, an adventure which began on March 4th 1961 and continued
through the glory years of Bill Nicholson’s Spurs as Morris’s firm, Riviera
Holidays, took ever-increasing numbers of ordinary fans to far-flung parts of
His involvement in the travel industry, and in particular his pioneering of affordable package holidays, was an integral part of Morris’s socialism, and his ideals never dimmed, largely due to his experiences growing up in the 1920s and 30s. Morris was born on After the war, he learnt the knowledge and soon became a
‘mush’ – the owner of his own cab. At the same time, his political commitment
led him to stand as a candidate for the Communist Party, and his contemporaries
from the time remained lifelong friends. One, the famous Communist
councillor, tenants’ rights activist, artist and polemicist Solly Kaye, he
credits with putting the words to the Spurs anthem “Glory, Glory Halelluiah”.
The cab business led to his involvement in the travel business after Morris
got permission from the Carriage Office to drive his black cab to These trips gave Morris the travel bug and, typically, he
set about opening up the delights of travel to ordinary people. He formed
Riviera Holidays and began selling trips to As Morris went on to fly In 1965, After he left Thomsons he maintained a connection with the travel business, always pushing for the right of ordinary people to experience the world, and taking the opportunity to further his love of travel, art and of course, politics as the world changed rapidly. I met Morris late in his life in 2000, when I was
researching my first book ‘We Are Tottenham’. The full story of the Rotterdam
Airlift is contained in that book, and I spent a wonderful evening with
Aubrey talking about those times, and then more hours when we discovered a
mutual political connection. We stayed in touch, and I was honoured to be
asked to address the Anjou Luncheon Club, the group of irascible old comrades
who Morris had helped draw together for monthly debates at the Gay Hussar
restaurant in My favourite Aubrey story was one of his own favourites, and it illustrates perfectly a charming, engaging but fiercely committed man’s take on life. Having a drink and a conversation in the pub after a Spurs game, Morris was interrupted by a slightly pissed younger man who said: “The trouble with your generation is that you’re behind the times. You didn’t have jet travel, the internet, mobile phones and all that stuff, and you don’t understand how the world works.” Aubrey replied: “You know what, you’re right. We didn’t have all hat stuff – so we went out and invented it. What’s your contribution going to be, you arrogant little shit!” Aubrey is one of a special generation who did so much to shape the world we live in. His connection with Spurs in noteworthy, but impossible to appreciate without appreciating the man as a whole. It’s very hard to find words to do justice to the man, but what’s certain is that his eyes – in more ways than one, really did see the glory. Aubrey – you were and remain an inspiration. 4th November 2008 - The Levy effect The great football philosopher Paul Gascoigne once said “I
don’t make predictions and I never will”, and the events of this season so
far have proved the folly of attempting to look ahead, especially where Spurs
are concerned. Absolutely nothing that has happened this season, apart
from the club racking up the prices for the first off-season-ticket cup game,
can have been foreseen by anyone who didn’t want to be checked into an
asylum. But here we are, having gone from Champions League hopeful to
Championship-fearful and, possibly, out the other side via the trashing of
the management structure masterplan and the unlikeliest appointment since
Gordon Brown rang Peter Mandelson and asked if he was busy. So, what to make of it all. I’ll confess I vacillated as I
watched the utter hopelessness of our early season efforts. Increasingly unconvinced
by Ramos, a feeling rooted in the waste of the second half of last season, I
was nonetheless conscious of how we’ve chopped and changed too much, and of
how the shambles was not solely of Ramos’s making. Most of all, I could not
see anyone out there who would be barmy enough to take on the manager’s role. But in the week leading up to the sacking it became clear
that Ramos had lost the dressing room, and so some credit must go to chairman
Daniel Levy for deciding to act, and for persuading Harry Redknapp to step
in. Redknapp is one of the few, possibly the only, managers who would’ve come
at that stage and the Redknapp effect has already been seen in the three
games since he’s been in charge. Games in which we have seen our pride in
Spurs restored. And all without a milkshake in sight. Redknapp isn’t everyone’s cup of rosie, for reasons which
we’d best not discuss here, but he has proved to be direct and inspirational.
Personally, I also took great pleasure in imagining the look on Alan Sugar’s
face when ‘Arry and his gang, including possibly Teddy Sheringham it seems,
waltz into the lounge post-match. Ironically, there’s something very
Sugar-like about the way Redknapp has brushed aside all the management
structure BS introduced by Levy and insisted on a proper role – ie one where
the manager is in charge of the team and of transfer policy. On the playing side, we’ve benefited from such
revolutionary measures as playing players in the correct positions and using
all the squad members. Bentley looks to be the player he once was, Lennon is
being used to run with the ball and try his luck centrally too, King seems
suddenly to be fitter and Pavlyuchenko doesn’t look like a misfit. There is
confidence throughout the team, a team which – although still unbalanced –
should be able to achieve more than the world’s most highly-paid club manager
managed to coax out of them. Ramos will forever remain a mystery, and he has stayed
fairly dignified after his exit. We’ll never really know how much he was
undermined by the disastrous management structure he worked under, or by the
toxic internal politics of Which takes us back
to Daniel Levy. I’ve given credit for him acting when he did, and for
acknowledging that the structure he spent years attempting to convince
everyone was the way forward was in fact taking us backwards. But there is
much criticism to be laid at the door of Levy and his boardroom colleagues.
Not just to prove a point or to select a scapegoat – something they have
themselves demonstrated an appetite for– but to try and ensure that we don’t
repeat the same mistakes again. Levy’s tortuous contortions as he attempts to explain
that, even though he was wrong, he was in fact right and everything is really
someone else’s fault may be quite amusing. The way his increasingly ridiculous
statements are reported in the press show how seriously he is taken. His
attempts to blame everyone else – “If it wasn’t for those pesky kids…” – may
be hilarious, or just a little disturbing. Genuine criticism can be advanced on a number of fronts.
Levy is very keen to claim the credit for success, but either goes missing or
deflects the blame when things go wrong. Witness the willingness to take the
credit for a great business deal in securing megabucks for Berbatov, before
rapidly saying the decision was in fact Ramos’s when it became clear this
deal was not so good, and finally blaming Berbatov himself. If you’re going
to delegate blame, you should at least be consistent. But does all this matter, beyond some arguable moral point
about those who lead taking responsibility, about the buck stopping at the
top, about taking the rough with the smooth? I believe it does, for reasons
which more directly affect the future of Tottenham Hotspur. The mistakes of history cannot be learned if they are not
acknowledged, and Levy and the Spurs board have some serious self-analysis to
do. Of the seven managers they have employed, the most successful has been
the only one they didn’t chose – Martin Jol stepping in after Santini left
them high and dry. Making the wrong decision – and there’s a whole list of
wrong decisions – could be put down to misfortune. After all, we all make
mistakes. But it takes a special kind of management expertise to accidentally
fall on your feet, and then knock yourself over again. Jol had led Spurs to two 5th place finishes.
He’d done so despite having the key player in his side, Michael Carrick, sold
against his wishes, and despite the board not securing the transfer targets
he wanted. But instead of recognizing that they’d stumbled onto a good thing,
the Spurs board set about a sustained campaign of undermining him. Jol wasn’t
perfect, who is?, but he deserved boardroom support. Instead, rumours were
propagated, and the word that Jol was, heaven forbid, “too close to the players”
was put about. And in public, another of the ‘top businessmen’ on the board
let it be known that modern Spurs would tolerate “no excuses”. I wonder what
he thinks of Levy’s excusefest now. There’s more than a hint that Jol’s sacking was related to
the board’s collective ego – it just couldn’t deal with someone being
successful that it couldn’t claim the credit for. So the man who was “too
close to the players” was replaced by a man who couldn’t get close to the
players; the man who took us to our best Premiership finishes ever replaced
by a man who led us to our worst start ever in League history. If this were
an episode of The Apprentice, what would Alan Sugar say to the plonkers who
pulled that off? Levy also seems sensitive to criticism that he has put the
balance sheet before the team sheet. All, that’s ALL, the decisions he’s
taken have been for football reasons he says. Well, if selling Defoe, Keane,
Berbatov, Malbranque, Chimbonda and Tainio were football decisions rather
than financial ones, Levy is a bigger idiot than anyone gave him credit for. Maybe everything was just a big mistake, maybe Levy is not
a serial bungler – although the evidence of successive transfer windows,
backing down over Lasagnagate after being called a liar by Scudamore, and
backing down over the Keane and Berbatov transfers after initially
threatening action may be seen as just a few pieces of evidence to the
contrary. If Levy cannot acknowledge what was wrong with these
decisions, how can we be sure he won’t repeat them again in future? Rob
Easom, speaking on The Spurs Show podcast, gave an eloquent criticism of Levy
that also gave the man some credit. Rob accepted that Levy may have been
badly advised as he claims, but asked why it should be acceptable that a man
who runs a business should not know that business. It’s a good question. Levy has been known to complain that we “don’t understand”
what it’s like doing his job. He’s right. We don’t. But we don’t get paid to
be the chairman of a football club. Levy, on the other hand, gets paid very
handsomely. We don’t know how much he got paid last year – his salary has yet
to appear in the accounts published under the transparent regime of plc
status – but we do know that Spurs paid a dividend of £3.7m last year. At
least that’s some money for the dear old shareholders you might think – until
you recognize that the vast, vast majority of shares are held by – Daniel
Levy and the board. So despite a series of mistakes culminating in a
relegation battle and the frittering of any transfer market surplus on paying
off expensively-employed staff they recruited, Levy and co still get a fat
reward. Even the City has stopped paying failure on such a scale, but Levy
smugly boasts that the dividend payment is “the sign of a mature company”.
This at a time of unprecedented global recession and hefty rises in season
ticket prices. A truly Marie Antoinette moment. But even if you are happy with helping to subsidise the
cost of failure, indeed the cost of rewarding failure, what of the football?
If Harry is successful, can we be sure that the board won’t decide that, once
again, they have been bounced into a decision and that the common oik
Redknapp is getting too big for his boots? Or, God forbid, too close to the
players? Will he be undermined and forced out as yet another wizard wheeze is
developed? If not, will he stay for long enough to really move Spurs on? He’s
61, and he’s said he doesn’t want to do this forever – a time period which
may be slightly shy of the one Spurs need to become genuine title contenders?
Or will it become apparent that, while Harry looks great – so far – at
getting us out of the poo, he is not able to take us into the top four? I’m
not knocking Harry, but the book’s still open on his ability to compete at
the very top. So have we recruited a
manager for the long-term, or merely put off facing the real problems at the
club for a little longer? It may be that Harry becomes our greatest manager. As I
said at the start, it’s best to steer clear of making predictions, so let’s
just hope. But amid all the justified optimism about the Redknapp
effect, there is still cause in the
longer term to remain worried about the Levy effect. 9th September 2008 – Martin puts Stephen Fry
straight on “sick as a parrot” Click the link: www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00d8p82 [...and unless you have more time on your hands than most of
us or enjoy listening to posh people discussing whether something is slang or
a cliché, move the cursor up to 6.m 40 seconds to hear the great man in
action – Ed ] 3rd September 2008 - Doing the business Several weeks ago a character called Garry Cook, the CEO of
Manchester City, caused some ripples when he outlined his vision of
football’s future. In a feature memorably described in the Daily Mail as
“containing more bad ideas in one article than Sepp Blatter usually has in a
year,” Cook called for an end to promotion and relegation among a host of
other issues, and had a moan about the City Masters veterans team trading on
the club’s “intellectual property” without permission. I can’t have been the only person to think that it was
more a case of the current City team trading on the intellectual property
created by the masters. The interview was further depressing evidence of a
trend that is communicated in the first football cliché grounded entirely in
the modern era - “you’ve got to understand that football is now a business.” Most fans understand all too clearly that football today
is a business. How could we not when clubs are deducted points for bad
business practices (but only if they are small enough to be bullied) and when
all but the most deluded fanatic must see that our passion is encouraged only
in as much as it allows us to offer ourselves up for increased exploitation.
The problem is not that we don’t understand that football is a business, the
problem is that too many in positions of power don’t understand that football
is also a sport. Which brings us to THFC, the Tottenham Hotspur Footballers
Collection. Make no mistake, this transfer window has put an end to any idea
that Spurs are building a team as we understand it. THFC is a player trading
exchange, holding on temporarily to a collection of footballers who the
incumbent manager is charged with shaping into a workable unit. How else do you explain the enormous player turnover of
the last few seasons? The selling of pivotal players at the end of seasons
which have provided evidence of progress? The failure to recruit players for
positions we need filling or covering? The failure to persuade players to
stay to help move us on? Let’s take just one player as an example. Younes Kaboul.
Bought last year apparently against the wishes of the manager, he was a young
player plunged in too soon and then rapidly bombed out. The same could be
said of Kevin Prince-Boateng. If our Director of Football is so good, why
don’t we trust his recommendations for longer than a few games? Could we just
be interested in keeping the money turning over? Making money at the expense of team building can be the
only explanation for last January’s sale of Jermaine Defoe. Which brings us
rather neatly to the subject of our strike force. There is absolutely no way
at all, by any stretch even of the imagination needed to truly believe Spurs
can ever make the step to the next level under this regime, that it is
possible to argue that we now have a better strike force than we did nine
months ago. Where once we had Berbatov, Keane, Defoe and Bent, we now have
Bent, Pavlyuchenko and Campbell. (And The Russian fella may well be the business, Apologists for Daniel Levy and the board will say that
there’s nothing we can do when players want to go. It’s true that Berbatov
looks to have behaved pretty disgracefully and, to be frank, quite
pathetically with his tearful press conferences about ‘his dream’. But isn’t
it an amazing coincidence how every player we’ve cashed the chips on has been
revealed to have a bad attitude or generally a wrong ‘un by the rivers of
innuendo and wink-wink that surround Spurs and the way we do business. I said publically that I supported Levy’s public statement
over the attempts to sign Berbatov and Keane. I should have known better, and
I’ve certainly learnt my lesson. I’ve been among those who have criticized
Levy for being The Invisible Man, for never speaking up when he should. But
now I know I’d rather he said nothing. All he does is make himself and the
club look stupid. His ‘principled stand’ proved very quickly to be yet
another money-making ruse – one thing Spurs could win a World Championship at
– and he has demonstrated beyond any doubt that Spurs with him at the helm
will always – always – look to make the money whatever the consequences. We have signalled that we will sell anyone if the price is
right, even if they act as disgracefully as Manchester United did. Berbatov’s
behaviour cannot be excused, but a club negotiating with and giving a medical
to a player without any agreement from that players’ employer could not go
unpunished in any game that was run according to proper principles and
practices. And as the FA are the guardians of the game, I’m sure we can look
forward to the kind of severe punishment being inflicted on United as Luton
and Bournemouth have had imposed for lesser offences. Even in the Anyone But
United days I had some respect for them. No more. If I were Isn’t it just possible the failure to convince players to
stay is because the players know this is not a team but a player exchange?
Isn’t it just possible that finally people will recognize some responsibility
rests with people at the top? Because let’s make no mistake – this transfer
window was a cock-up if it’s looked at in football terms. Yes, we’ve signed
some decent players, but have we improved the squad? Is it more balanced?
Most of all, why have we failed to realize yet again that the season begins
when the football starts, not when the transfer window closes. This is the
second season on the trot that has seen us make a mess of the first few
games, and there’s every chance we’ll spend the rest of this season playing
catch up just as we did last. We didn’t sign the players we were led to believe were
Ramos’s top targets, Milito and Arshavin. We had all summer to plan for what
already looked like our main striker’s departure, and we recruited deep lying
forwards and midfielders. Then it seems we went to the wire on Arshavin and
blew it because one of clever Mr Levy’s wizard wheezes (“How about a quid now
and the other £20m when we win the Champions League?”) wrecked the deal.
After working through a whole list of forwards we were reduced to considering
– it is alleged – Emile Heskey and Carlton Cole. Yes, the Carlton Cole who
supposedly demonstrated why Jol was a muppet when he was alleged to be
interested. The spin machine which has worked so tirelessly to present
a picture of everything going smoothly for so long had been strangely quiet,
as if there was a realization that this time they’d really gone and done it.
But this evening it creaked back into life. First, Radio Five’s Brian
Alexander said that, 40 minutes before midnight on deadline day, Daniel Levy
actually wanted to block the Berbatov move but, and you’ll like this, they
gave Ramos the final decision. And when he said he wanted to move on, poor
old Danny reluctantly conceded that he’d just have to bank loads of wonga and
give his star asset up. Then we had the laughable, ridiculous, patronizing even by
Tottenham’s standards excuse for a statement on the club website. It’s a bit
of a masterpiece to be sure, and already the subject of a well-constructed
spoof on one of the message boards. To try and be balanced, it should be
observed that the mere fact of posting such a statement gives some indication
that the club realize there’s some explaining to do. But you have to admire
the total lack of self-awareness as they airily dismiss the fact that two
significant signings are cup-tied for Most interestingly of all, the statement continues to push
the line propagated by Brian Alexander by placing the responsibility for
deciding Keane and Berbatov should go with Ramos. Just as Jol was made a scapegoat for the board’s failure
to build a team, so Ramos is being set up as the next fall guy - the man who
is responsible for failure while the board are responsible only for success.
Ramos is clever enough to have already started to cover his back, saying in
last weekend’s press “'The person who has the capacity and the wherewithal to
control the club is the chairman. That's what he's there for and that's what
he does.” Presumably Keith ‘no excuses’ Mills has had him in for a stiff
talking to. Personally, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Ramos walk before long.
I hate what has happened to the club I support, but looking at it from the
professional’s point of view, I don’t see much reason to show any loyalty or
commitment. Don’t get me wrong, things could be much, much worse. We
could be run by a dodgy oligarch, or by some dubious Royal family or dynasty.
We could be suffering a 30 point deduction, on the verge of bankruptcy, or
followers of the team that finished bottom of the pyramid. Hell, we could
even be Newcastle United fans. But we now know that Spurs is not a football
club, it is a business, and nothing more. So we can hope that in the course
of the business we get to see some good players and some good results.
Although any really good players will be sold, almost certainly to Postscript To prove it really is business as usual, what did the PR
geniuses at Spurs post up on the website on the day the disappointment of the
transfer window was revealed in such stark terms? Details of the VIP trip to
the Arsenal game, no loyalty points required, just wave yer wonga and we’ll
get you in. Priceless. And classless. 11th August 2008 – Season Preview Last season I said "I don't go along with the current wisdom which says we
can't win this and that because the top places are a closed shop, it's all
about money etc etc. We have a very good squad, some exciting talents, and we
can be good to watch as well as effective. We play the same teams as everyone
else, on the same pitches, and use the same number of players. And if you
really want to talk about money, we've spent quite a lot this summer. So, it's in our hands. Win a Cup?
Win the League? Why not? I never go to a game or approach a competition
thinking we should lose, so why should anyone else at the club?" I could say pretty much the same this
season, despite the enormous changes that have been implemented since
then. The fact that we could line up for our first game with just two or
three of the players who started last year could work either way. It could
give us the surprise factor of fielding a team opponents are unsure of how to
play against. Or it could mean we suffer from lack of familiarity and team
spirit. We can at least say it's unlikely we'll get shot of the manager this
season - although you can never say never as far as the old shotgun/foot
interface is concerned at Spurs. One area of concern as I write is
our forward line. Darren Bent has been in great form pre-season, and the
rumoured 4-2-3-1 formation will play more to his strengths than we did last
year. Berbatov may well remain, but it's pretty clear neither he nor the club
sees a long-term relationship. And we've sold Keane at a vast profit, after
trying to hang onto him via the clever tactic of asking him to put in a
transfer request. Despite banking a £13m profit on a player who also had a
former club paying a significant proportion of his wages for a significant
part of his time with us, and despite those hefty season ticket price rises
being justified because of the need to make new signings, we apparently can't
afford the player Ramos has identified as Keane's replacement, Andrei
Arshavin. All may be resolved by the time
the season starts, or at least by the date we seem to think is the real start
of the season - the end of August, three games and nine points into the campaign.
But as ever, it's the suspicion of the board's spin, clever-dickery and focus
on shareholder dividend (ie their own) at the expense of team-building that
remains the major worry. Football-wise, I'm looking forward to watching Modric And
Gio regularly, the return of Bale, and the quality of Hutton, Woodgate, King
(when fit), Bentley and Lennon. All of those players are capable of competing
at the top, and if you add in Jenas, How they all work together is down to Juande Ramos and his tactics. If the tactically astute, proactive, offensive and motivational Ramos who took us away from the drop zone and to a Wembley victory is in evidence, than last season's assessment that we've got as good a chance as anyone still applies. But if the bystanding Ramos who was unable to get the players to switch back on after the League Cup Final and who failed to experiment with players and formations even when we had little to lose as last season petered out is still around, we could face problems. What's encouraging is that the board seem to be letting the manager decide on players and the playing side - at least in relative terms. I'm broadly confident in him, even though there are those question marks. I will confess to a slight suspicion that he's also lined up plenty of excuses if things don't go well - new team, transitional season, dominance of big four cash blah blah blah – but to be honest if I was working for Levy and co I'd cover my back too My expectations are that Spurs play entertaining football
and everyone connected with the club gives their all. A cup, or two? still
looks more likely than the league title, but I still refuse to concede the
idea of the big four closed shop. 29th July 2008 - Not Keane So Robbie Keane has gone to Before any comment from me, let’s look at the words of
some of the principal players in this very modern football tale. 2 March 08: “I think with the squad we have now and the new staff coming in it's set up nicely for the next few years. The new manager has come in and given us a lot of belief. Regardless of whether we're playing a top team he wants us to go out and win and hopefully you can see that in the performances. He is focused on winning all the time. Every manager has that but I think he has it down to a tee. His man-management is unbelievable.” Robbie Keane 3 May 08: “He is a magnificent player and we rely on him a lot.” Juande Ramos on Robbie Keane 29 May 08: "I'm very content with my life and my time at Spurs. I want to play there as long as I'm happy and as long as I'm wanted. Over the last three of four years there has always been speculation that I'm going here, there and everywhere. I'm having a summer off without people ringing saying 'Are you going here, are you going there?' So I'm looking forward to a nice break and then going back to Spurs next season." Robbie Keane 28 July: “I would like to place on record my thanks to the
board, players and fans of Tottenham for the past six years, which were the
best and most enjoyable of my career to date. I will never forget them. I
would specifically like to thank chairman Daniel Levy for understanding,
that, as a fan, joining What does all this tell us? That it’s best for footballers
to say nothing. Look at the words. They are direct quotes. Try to trace a logical
line through them. It is not possible. This is a prime example of why it is
very difficult to have respect for footballers. They tell us what they think
we want to hear when it suits them. And they change their opinions when it
suits them. Robbie Keane has every right to play for whom he wants. Just cut
the old cobblers about dedication and commitment and boyhood clubs and all
that badge-kissing, outdated, insulting rubbish. We are stupid to believe a
single word of any of it, but the mock-loyalty of today’s footballers still
hooks us, serving only to twist the knife further by reminding us of a time
when players stuck with the job and tried to create success, rather than wait
to be bought into it. Better then, Robbie, if you hadn’t said you’d be avoiding
those calls this summer. That you were very content here. That you thought we
were going places. Instead we would have been left just with the memory of
some great goals and linking play – the football, the stuff that those of us
too old-fashioned to realise that we should really be asking for a look at
the books rather than the pitch still fork out to watch. And at our boyhood club, too. We may also have wondered if those strange substitutions
at the end of last season had anything to do with your evident conclusion
that you weren’t, in fact, very content here. Many of us wondered at the
wisdom of Juande as you were repeatedly hauled off for no apparent reason.
But we’ll see how Rafa the Gaffer’s rotation policy suits you. I guess if you
don’t like it you can always rediscover your boyhood love of Celtic. I won’t be booing Robbie Keane when he comes back to WHL –
rotation policy permitting of course. But I won’t be cheering either. I may reserve some applause for Teemu Tainio though, when
he returns. Apparently a Spurs fan, though note the caveat above, the hero of
the 5-1 rout of the Arse was unceremoniously shoved out after having been
given few chances to impress. Although to be fair, his injury record wasn’t
great. Whatever [imagine my palm circling up towards you as I say that] –
it’s a reminder the loyalty thing cuts both ways for players too. But there are wider questions to answer, for which we must
return to the words actually spoken by the protagonists. 19 July 08: “The behaviour of both clubs has been disgraceful. We told both clubs very early on that we had no interest in selling Robbie or Dimitar, respectively, and that they should refrain from pursuing the player. Both clubs arrogantly chose to ignore this request and we now have evidence that both clubs have systematically been working to prise the players away from us, outside of PL rules of conduct.” Daniel Levy 28 July 08: “I was incredibly disappointed when I first heard, not only that Liverpool had been working behind the scenes to bring Robbie to Anfield, but that Robbie himself wanted to go and he submitted a transfer request to this effect. I have already made my opinion clear on the nature of this transaction. I don't regard it as a transfer deal - that is something which happens between two clubs when they both agree to trade - this is very much an enforced sale, for which we have agreed a sum of £19m as compensation plus a potential further £1.3m in additional compensation. “Liverpool FC has also acknowledged that the way its
website reported comments of its manager, which were widely covered by the
media, was inappropriate and in light of that acknowledgement has apologised
and agreed to make a donation to our Club's main charity, the Tottenham
Hotspur Foundation. Tottenham Hotspur has therefore agreed not to pursue its
official complaint to the Premier League.” I’ve already complimented Daniel Levy on his forceful
statement in defence of the club’s interest (see last column). But once again
we are left wondering how sincere words are. If it’s a point of principle
that “disgraceful behaviour” that is “outside of PL rules of conduct” should
be reported so that the rules are enforced, then it’s a point of principle.
But THFC plc has clearly signalled that its principles have a price. In this
case, £19m, plus £1.3m, plus an undisclosed donation to the club’s charidee.
So next time anyone wants to tap up, lure way or otherwise entice one of our
players, or even contravene any other rules to our detriment, just bring a big
bag of money and you can stick your size 12s all over our upturned faces. Let’s be clear here. I’m not criticising the club for not
doing what I THOUGHT they should do. I’m criticising them for not doing WHAT
THEY SAID THEY’D DO. Once again, if you don’t mean it, don’t say it. There is a further question mark over the whole business.
For months, We will move on from all this, and eventually even the
small-scale warfare between tiny groups of Spurs fans which serves as such an
effective distraction from the bigger questions to be asked of more prominent
figures will die down. We have some exciting prospects to watch next season,
and rumours – for there are always rumours – of even better to come. We can
but cling to two hopes. One, that people only say what they mean. And two,
that Spurs will one day manage to build a team rather than run a profitable
player exchange agency. They say it’s the hope that gets you. |
|
Disclaimer:
Please note the words on this page are the opinion of the topspurs columnist
and are just that, opinions, not facts and are nothing to do with Tottenham
Hotspur Football club PLC. Just a supporter having his say nothing more
nothing less. Any commentary on betting is meant for discussion purposes only
and does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation. |