Chairman's message

[CrazyHeart]

I agree David, though 'misconduct' may be a bit strong. Forced by an 'impossible situation' may be closer to the mark. A scenario where goals are needed, AVB feels he cannot use the likeliest goalscorer, Ade, because of a perceived misdemeanour that the manager cannot get past without feeling his own (brittle, insecure) authority will be undermined (and there is the point of principle too). An impasse that 'forces' someone such as Levy to step in and move the immoveable object, since goals must at least be scored given the lack of effective options from elsewhere in the squad. If we had had a striker who was used to to the PL and could have come in, AVB could have maintained his authority without cutting off his nose to spite his face. Ade's absence would have been less of an issue and more attractive, dynamic, incisive football might have been played to boot. But alas, as we know, no such alternative existed. And that should be a salutary lesson when fans are asking for another raft of new-bling signings. The PL experience I believe is key. You can carry one or two without this but not 7 (or whatever it was), if you want to see 'results' in the ensuing season.

Who's to say that Ade would put in any kind of effort knowing that he'd have to fight for a place in a system he didn't like by a manager he didn't like? We've seen the bipolar performances of Ade, and probably the main reason he played well initially was because he called the shots and exerted some serious influence over Sherwood.

 

[greaves]

Who's to say that Ade would put in any kind of effort knowing that he'd have to fight for a place in a system he didn't like by a manager he didn't like? We've seen the bipolar performances of Ade, and probably the main reason he played well initially was because he called the shots and exerted some serious influence over Sherwood.

Yep. You are right - that is un-knowable of course. Psychology is part of the coach's armoury and there's plainly a lot of egos involved.

 

[kaz Hirai]

'Forced'

Forced into managerial change. That's an interesting phrase.

You aren't ever forced to sack someone unless they've broken some major rule. I've always thought Andre just walked, now I'm certain of it

 

[ralvy]

The force of denial is big on some of you, I see. Levy wasn't forced to sack AVB any more than he was forced to back him. In the end its always a matter of choice, and we all know what his (knee-jerk) choice was.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

'Forced'

Forced into managerial change. That's an interesting phrase.

You aren't ever forced to sack someone unless they've broken some major rule. I've always thought Andre just walked, now I'm certain of it

That's certainly another explanation for the wording. If he did resign, it will have been under some pressure. Things were clearly coming to a head and the power-struggles were audible from some distance away.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

The force of denial is big on some of you, I see. Levy wasn't forced to sack AVB any more than he was forced to back him. In the end its always a matter of choice, and we all know what his (knee-jerk) choice was.

That's a bit alongside the point we're discussing, which is not whether Levy was genuinely 'forced' to sack AVB, but rather why he has chosen that wording for his statement.

 

[ralvy]

That's a bit alongside the point we're discussing, which is not whether Levy was genuinely 'forced' to sack AVB, but rather why he has chosen that wording for his statement.

I think you're just looking a bit too much into it TBH. How else could he have addressed the managerial change without actually doing so? Everything both AVB and the club have said about the incident has been so vague, I don't think either of them wants to let us know what actually went wrong. All I know is that it was Levy's choice in the end (no way AVB would have just quitted with so much money on the table).

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't think we'll ever find out exactly what happened between AVB and DL...I'd like it to stay that way as well, we don't want any of that nonsense to be dragged up before we appoint a new manager.

 

[davidmatzdorf]

I think you're just looking a bit too much into it TBH. How else could he have addressed the managerial change without actually doing so? Everything both AVB and the club have said about the incident has been so vague, I don't think either of them wants to let us know what actually went wrong.

You've sort of eluded my point again. Levy generally writes very carefully. He's chosen that phrase for a purpose, but the overall effect illuminates and obscures in equal measure. Why did he write that? Why does he now, after months of near-silence, want to imply that something AVB did forced his hand?

All I know is that it was Levy's choice in the end (no way AVB would have just quit with so much money on the table).

It was noticeable at the time that the club statement did not in any way imply that AVB had been dismissed or sacked. The press immediately described it that way, but the club used very different language.

Here's a fanciful theory: as Levy outlined what AVB would have to do and change to keep his job, AVB became more and more obstinate and was finally given an ultimatum, which he refused, thus enabling Levy to tell himself that AVB had chosen not to stay. Then, perhaps, launching a claim for constructive dismissal wasn't on AVB's mind, once he contemplated all that money he was going to get for the years of work he wouldn't have to do .

 

[Norse]

People are critizing Levy for sacking managers and while I generally agree that sacking managers har become a problem, if you take Redknapp, Villas Boas and Sherwood, they all acted selfishly and were not professional, in my book.

Redknapp, remember, lost focus after the England job and courted it publicly, after the trial. The team collapsed, though I suspect the City defeat also played a part. He was always blabbering in the media, especially during the Modric negotiations. I dare not think how he would have handled Bale. Also he kept using a small rotation, invested in older, expensive players and not in youth, as is the club's policy.

AVB - what a boring way to play football. Also - so immature. Think Tromsø in the Europa league. Worst team in the competion and he played the first team. Or his handling of Adebayor... I cancelled my Premier League subscribtion because it was so boring to watch the team.

And Sherwood. Well - the article in the Daily Mail sums it up. Also see "what Christian Eriksen thinks of Sherwood" or read Sandro's latest comments on team management.

I think Levy has made the right calls.

 

[Norse]

The phrase that struck me was "forced to make managerial changes". The wording is plainly carefully chosen. .

Whilst English is not my first language, to me this statements says that the club was left in a situation it did not want to be in.

While Levy does not state what caused it or how it took place, he later goes on to describe his disappointment with what took place on the pitch.

PS! I tend to follow your comments David. The only time I really disagreed was with regards to the temination of AVB's contract. I think you described the flaws in his football very clearly, yet you seemed to want to keep him. I would have though the first bit (performance, product) was the most important, not stability for stabilty's sake.