Fantastic postI think this feeling is the same as many have about the last few years, and personally I think it's missing a slice of the picture. When Poch was under heavy media scrutiny last Jan he said that when he joined Spurs he signed a 5-year deal with the instruction to manage the team on a budget whilst the stadium was built and then get the team into the CL once the stadium was open. That was his task.
He massively over-achieved during his time when measured against that goal. He took us on a rollercoaster that was far beyond anything the owners or us fans could have imagined. But does the rollercoaster ride mean that the club should change the long-term plan that had been put in place; to budget ourselves around the stadium build then look to kick on once it's open? I don't think it should, and unfortunately I think Poch was a victim of his own success.
Anyone who runs their own business, has a mortgage, or is working on an average salary can appreciate the importance of financial planning and being careful about making big purchases. When it comes to talking about Spurs I feel some people don't apply those same balances, when in reality the financial decisions Levy is making will be far more complicated than most of us are ever aware.
We had some info this window about the finances and how the money we borrowed comes with certain restrictions on further expenditure... a bit like if you lent a friend £100 to help make the rent you wouldn't like to see them out on the lash that weekend! Another thing I think gets missed is future-proofing our wage bill. For example, if we want to get Toby and Eriksen to sign new contracts we would need to ring-fence that expected wage before making decisions about which other players we can fit on the wage bill. That would appear sensible to me at least!
So here's my point... considering that none of us know the full in's and out's of what these transfer decisions look like I think it's too simplistic to say things like "his on-pitch strategy has not worked" and "he chose not to back him appropriately". That would be my point of view at all times, but especially in a scenario where the target was top 4 after the stadium opened but the reality became reaching the CL final.
I'm not saying that everything Levy does is golden btw. The Grealish transfer and a seeming lack of perks to ST holders after the stadium delays would be 2 recent things that spring to mind which left a bad taste in the mouth. But to start throwing around "failing", "embarrassing" and "criminal" is an over-reaction in my view, and is where any debate like this falls into madness.
Creative points for "a vampire when it comes to the romance of football" though.
And this summarises the futility of this argument. You are saying that we have a great stadium, training facilities and manager but that Levy's ambition is limited to 2nd-4th which doesn't match up to those things. But it has been Levy who has overseen those things. It doesn't make sense... the man either has sporting ambition or he doesn't.
I've made this point before to another poster some time ago - Levy and Lewis are smart men who are very wealthy and do not need to run a football club to make more money. If they were more interested in buying property than winning stuff then they should have spent the last 20 years focused on their property business and luxury hotels. If they were only interested in profit they could have put their energy into more traditional businesses geared towards dividends and salary bonuses that don't come with a footy fan base or media scrutiny.
Imagine if ENIC had bought Aston Villa instead of us. We have no idea what Spurs might have won in that time but let's call it 4 FA Cups whilst staying at WHL and hovering around mid-table. In that time Villa only win 1 trophy but build some of the best facilities in the world, appoint Mourinho as manager and played in the CL final last season. We wouldn't be talking about the transfer targets they missed out on and how they should have won more trophies - we would be talking about adopting the "Aston Villa model".
I have no doubt in my mind that if ENIC were running a different club that the people who so often berate them on here would be full of praise for them. I'm not saying it's wrong to criticise them... but so much of the criticism banded about on here is based on a "grass is greener" philosophy.
You quoted Leicester, Southampton, Chelsea, Brighton and Liverpool as having better owners than us. Can you honestly say that if ENIC owned Aston Villa and had achieved all the same things there that you wouldn't include them in that list? I really think you would.
So what I would ask is that the next time you are thinking about Levy being incompetent, constant failings, criminal negligence or an abusive home consider this; is it because what Levy specifically did warrants those comparisons... or is it because any chairman of the club you love could never live up to your ideals? If it's the latter I don't see how it's useful.