The supposed lack of atmosphere at White Hart Lane has become ingrained into the story of Spurs’ season. As each home game passes without a victory, so early season passivity turned to audible dismay and moments of outright hostility, most notably the raucous booing of Vicario after his howler last Saturday.

Driving the narrative is the assertion that this is all the fault of supporters. Although Frank subsequently attempted to recant his ‘not real fans’ line, and to be fair English is not his first language, this wasn’t the first time he has criticised Tottenham fans. The players are also feeling hard done by. They had a post-match meeting to discuss it, apparently, then Frank says this was not a meeting, they just talked about it. At half-time against Fulham, captain Van der Ven gathered his men in the centre circle before they went into the dressing room. Rather than the pep-talk I assumed, supposedly this is a display of solidarity in defence of the abuse from the stands. Perhaps if they applied themselves to the defence of our goal with similar dedication and initiative, they would face less of a problem. 

Blaming the fans is superficial and derogatory, a calculated insult to the loyalty and commitment of Spurs fans across the generations. Here’s another part of the story, one which the manager, players and especially the board would do well to hear and digest. Spurs fans have filled that stadium since it was built, week after week, regardless of the quality of football, and some of it has been awful, while paying the some of the highest prices in the country. Away fans – you can’t get a ticket for love nor money. Newcastle on a work night, 8.15 kick-off to suit Sky, Spurs songs loud and clear. 

This commitment dates way back, but just taking this century – the old Lane permanently full and huge crowds at Wembley including British record attendances, in a context where the board conspicuously failed to match the fans’ ambitions, and that’s putting it politely. Part of the narrative picked up by sections of the media is that Spurs fans possess some overweening sense of entitlement. This is ludicrous. There are no glory-hunters at Spurs because there has been precious little glory. 

The current anti-fan narrative conveniently excuses the team, manager and the club from taking responsibility for the problems at Spurs, many of which run deep-seated within a club without a coherent strategy to ensure a consistent challenge for honours. If I were a cynical soul, I might go so far as to suggest this was a deliberate ploy. I want to focus on the actions of the club itself, where a series of decisions stretching back many seasons has soured the relationship with supporters and caused much of the frustration, dissatisfaction and alienation many long-standing fans experience. These decisions directly hamper the team’s efforts to succeed because they create the disgruntlement underlying the lack of vocal support at home.

Spurs, like all clubs, constantly express their gratitude to supporters. They have many ways of interacting, including the Supporters Trust and FAB, but I’m always left believing that they don’t completely understand us. They fundamentally misconceive the relationship as one-way. Crudely expressed, we essentially give to them, giving our time, money, vocal support and undying, lifetime loyalty and the club take this for granted.

In reality, there is a degree of reciprocity in the relationship. It remains unequal and unbalanced, for the reasons I’ve just listed. There’s a power dimension here too. There are 13 other league clubs in London but I’m not going to support them, and Spurs know that. But that’s not an excuse. Fans want something back. Not much, we’ll tolerate a lot, we have to, but if Spurs fans do have a sense of entitlement, it is that we wish to be treated fairly by the club and understood as individuals, rather than as consumers or customer reference numbers. It is not asking a lot, but it seems beyond the comprehension of the club, judging by many of their choices. 

Over the past few years, I’ve researched the relationship between fans and the club via a series of in-depth interviews with supporters. The biggest source of dissatisfaction was the price of tickets. I make no apology for repeating a familiar refrain that Spurs’ prices are unnecessarily and, for an increasing number of fans, prohibitively high. In these straitened times, families cannot afford to come, or if they do, it’s a once or twice a season treat rather than regular attendance. With the income from television, sponsorship and merchandise, the club can generate the money it needs to compete and consider a price cut. Or, cheaper tickets might earn as much by filling the empty spaces currently visible on the ticketing site for upcoming matches.  

Supporters can see this. We understand that the club has a choice here, and the choice impacts negatively on us. The club has made other choices too, such as the price banding for games and the way senior and youth concessions are limited. Also, the ramifications of choices made during the seat allocation process before the new stadium was occupied are still being felt. Long-standing groups of supporters who had become friends were broken up. We sat with the same people for the best part of twenty years and saw our children grow up, but it was not possible to transfer that to the new ground. Prime viewing spots on the Shelf became premium seating. The south stand, trumpeted as the wall of noise, was pockmarked with more areas of premium seating. Many fans I spoke to missed their familiar stewards – the experienced stewards were apparently transferred to the upmarket areas of the ground and replaced by temporary staff.

For some of you, this may not sound significant. However, the single most important factor for fans coming to games is their relationship with the family and friends they come with and also meet at the ground, more significant for their attendance and expenditure than how the team is performing. This isn’t about entitlement at all, therefore. It’s about how fans are treated and how these needs are respected by the club. To labour the point, I’ve advisedly emphasised that the club had choices about these and many other elements of their relationship with fans, and the consequences of many of these decisions made several years ago create this underlying dissatisfaction that comes to ahead when the team are not giving their all.

Coming back up to date, Tottenham’s ticketing policy deprives large numbers of supporters of their chance to go to a game and contributes towards a poor atmosphere because seats are left unoccupied. This is not just about price. There are two significant factors here. Before the start of this season, the club removed the right of season ticket holders to transfer their seat to a member of their network, basically any fan they nominated who held a Customer Reference Number (CRN), which was free and easily available from the club after filling in a simple form. Instead, season ticket holders must now put their ticket on the exchange if they are unable to go, whereas until now, this was merely one option. The club told me that if I do not use my ticket and do not put it on the exchange (for medical reasons I knew I would miss a few games in the autumn), it was now their policy to reconsider my future use of the ticket come the end of the season. They might take it away from me, in other words.

This decision reeks of their short sighted approach when considering their relationship with supporters. While it potentially increased the number of tickets available for members – to use the exchange you must hold a membership – it meant the ticket could not be used by family and friends. However, to use business language, the language most familiar to the board, this method of securing lucrative lifetime brand loyalty, available free to the club, has been seriously undermined. My son and now my granddaughter are loyal Spurs fans (and season ticket holders) because they followed in my footsteps, a story repeated in countless families down the generations. Spurs are family and family are Spurs. To repeat, this is the most important reason fans keep supporting the club and keep coming to games. It would be a simple matter to find a compromise here, for instance before the season starts, season ticket holders nominate a limited number of fans who could use their ticket occasionally.

The other element is that at the moment, it seems you must hold a membership to buy a ticket. I’m not sure when this changed or indeed if it was ever announced – I certainly missed it if was – but in the past, tickets went on general sale if there were any left after the members’ window closed, i.e. were available to anyone with a CRN. Now, for all upcoming games, click on the ‘non-members’ info button on the ticketing site and it takes you to the page where memberships are on sale, minimum cost £45. In other words, to buy a ticket in one of the most expensive grounds in the country, you have to give the club more money. If a few family members want to go, we’re easily into three figures for a membership that you may not use more than once or twice a season.

This is a screenshot of ticket availability in my section of the south stand, taken the day before the Fulham game, available seats in colour. The combination of the team’s form, the kick-off time, being close to Christmas and price (back row of the stand is the cheapest at £62.50) meant fans had had enough. The unavoidable conclusion is that Spurs would rather those seats remained empty. Bearing in mind that season ticket holders have already paid for their seat, their revenue is more important than creating the best possible atmosphere to back the side or to give other fans, including families and the fans of the future, a precious chance to see the game. 

One argument in favour of the members only policy is that it prevents opposition fans from buying tickets in home areas, and that the club are responding to complaints about this. I suspect the club’s safety officers may be involved, which is fair enough. Also, ticket touts have gone online but it remains a problem, and other clubs like Newcastle and Brighton have taken action on this. However, surely there is a way round this that does not justify keeping seats empty. If we want fans to get behind the team, give supporters, especially young fans, the chance to come to the Lane, and the fans will do the rest. 

I don’t agree with the way Vicario was targeted last Saturday, and in fact stood up to remonstrate with fans who were booing, not that it did any good. However, I understand where this comes from, which apparently the club, manager and players do not. In particular, and I wrote about this at the time, the club’s ticketing policy and associated measures cause a simmering tension. Fans I spoke to felt the club perceived them as faceless consumers – the club don’t care who sits in the seat as long as somebody does, regardless of a lifetime of loyalty. Or, this recent iteration where the club don’t care if anyone sits in the seat as long as it has been paid for.  Blaming the fans is a handy cover for the club, who should take their fair share of responsibility to look after supporters who, we are told repeatedly, are the life blood of the game, except it feels all too frequently that we are at the bottom of a long list of club priorities.

On a more positive note, longtime friend of Tottenham On My Mind Harvey Burgess has written a memoir of his time as a fan. It’s a rattling good read, and Christmas is coming! More Trauma Than Triumph is available now here.

December’s only just begun, and Spurs fans are already deep into the crushingly familiar manager doom cycle.

It begins with hope and expectation as the new man comes in, tinged with either relief or anger depending on your assessment of the last guy. There follows optimism, usually, as results pick up or at least there’s a glimmer of progress. Maybe there’s a period where results are good without being spectacular, but the TOMM mantra is always enjoy the good times, so looking back we can remember these times fondly.

Then, characteristically Spurs plateau or regress, and fans enter the phases of questioning and tolerance (although many skip this one completely), which turns to doubt, then disillusion and finally despondency. Frank has gone through the cycle at a record rate, rivalling Nuno. It’s an achievement in itself.

Struggling to string some words together to sum up Saturday’s defeat, I’m left with just this: what the f**k are they doing? Regular readers have come to expect more from me but that does the job, I think. I’ve watched football for 60 odd years, and I see a performance like this and wonder what on earth is going on. I feel for fellow Spurs podcasters and writers. How can you analyse something so bad it was virtually beyond rational consideration.

We are the drunks of the PL, staggering around, incoherent and incomprehensible, all the while believing that we just need a little air and we’ll be fine. On Saturday, Spurs failed in every department, save for a 10 minute flourish after Kudus’s goal lead to the revelation that if we could pass and move, we might score another goal. That soon faded, though, and instead of going eyeballs out for an equaliser, we were stuck in the far corner after a series of throw-ins where only one player, Sarr, appeared willing to receive the ball.  

Thomas Frank brings with him the reputation of a focussed, tactically aware manager able to motivate his players and find the formation that gets the best from them. Unhappily, on Saturday there was no evidence that any of this was true. In possession we had no discernible plan or patterns to progress the ball, unless you count Muani and Richie running upfield and waiting for a long ball which the Fulham defence dutifully intercepted. Or belatedly get some crosses in, heading practice for centrebacks. This week alone we’ve conceded, I don’t intend to make myself feel even worse by checking, four or five goals from shots at the edge of the box. Two minutes gone and there’s another one, preceded by missed tackles and an absence of defence cover.

If your keeper is shaky, it spreads like a virus. More than a cock-up for the ages, Vic’s howler betrays a deeper uncertainty and indecision within the whole team. At Brentford, Frank was renowned for getting the best from his players and being tactically astute and adaptable. With all due respect to the Bees, coming to Spurs is different. Expectations are higher and so, I hope, is the quality of many of the players. Plus, to repeat myself, Frank has to carry the burden of decades of frustrated ambition and failings by the board. So far, it’s not working for him.

Frank began the season with his policy of two defending midfielders and three up front with two wide men. Lately, he’s altered this to do away first with no wide players (PSG) then one on Saturday and try to enable us to pass better out of defence. I get this but the problem is that the manager is not getting through to his players. In fact, they seem confused and unsure as to what to do and where to be. This is compounded by the suspicion that Frank doesn’t know what to do with our summer signings. Muani is easier for defenders to handle if his basic role is chasing the ball and Frank can’t fit Simons in at all. What a waste.

We’ve reached the place where everyone is confused and uncertain, one thing players and supporters have in common. Modern footballers expect to be coached. They express their skills and individuality within the coach’s pattern. Our players aren’t sure about what they are supposed to be doing. This is not an excuse for their lack of effort and application or their apparent inability to problem-solve on the field, but it is obvious that Frank is not getting through to them. The arch motivator is demotivating, the wily tactician is being outmanoeuvred by his opponents.

At Brentford, Frank built his team and tactics over several seasons. Working closely with the recruitment staff, he bought players that suited his systems. Players could adapt to tweaks based on his assessment of opponents. The owners valued progress over the long-term, and they and fans alike tolerated the blips that are only to be expected.

Like I said, it’s different here. Our squad was recruited under six managers, including Frank, with contrasting styles and preferences. There’s no long-term strategy, and that’s down to a board incapable of grasping the realities of the modern game. The players have adjusted from Angeball to Frank’s more conservative approach, and now Frank has gone to three differing approaches in the space of a few weeks. The players have not dealt with this at all well. To repeat myself, most definitely not an excuse but it has left them confused and is a reason why Frank’s tinkering is ineffective.

I missed out a phase in the manager doom cycle – having a go at the fans. I detest the booing of individual players. I am an inveterate mutterer – it does me some good to express myself and my swearing doesn’t offend because it’s inaudible. Like many around me, I stood up and told those booing Vic to shut up. Not that it had any impact, but still.

Then Frank comes out with the ‘not real fans’ line. This after criticizing the atmosphere earlier in the season. The people booing, like those cheering and singing, are real fans. I don’t agree with what they did but I feel their deep pent-up frustration. They turn up every week. They pay some of the highest prices in the country to see Spurs lose 10 home games in 2025, one home league win this season. They want to see good football, with coach and players committed and they know when they don’t get that. They were there long before Frank arrived and will be here long after he’s gone.

The club’s history of disappointment and unrealised expectations is not Frank’s fault but he’s made no effort to put himself in our shoes. How about, “Booing an individual doesn’t help him or the team. I don’t like it but I understand it comes from supporters’ frustrations. We’re just as frustrated. We didn’t play well, we’re working as hard as we can to put things right and I thank fans for coming home and away to support us.” Not hard, is it?

There’s an underlying long-term problem here where the club does not fully understand supporters, and I have more thoughts on this for later in the week. For now, Saturday was awful, last Sunday was dire and we’re in a mess. The worst thing? To quote an increasing number of opposition fans, we were battered and it’s happened. Tottenham Hotspur are a club incapable of getting it right.

On Sunday at 2, I watched my grandson’s under 12s side. They lost 7-1. They have done fairly well over the past couple of seasons, then for reasons known only to the manager, they joined a different league, the top one in the county, where they have been outclassed. Teams are faster and more athletic. They consistently pass their way through our shapeless defence. Constantly being caught on the ball and conceding possession. We can’t play out and are forced into a series of mistakes. The manager shouts tactical instructions without explaining to the boys what they are supposed to do. 

Then at 4.30 I watched the same thing all over again, only with adults. 

The NLD was certain to get me going. I’ve taken a short break from TOMM. Can’t say in all honesty it was a planned way of refreshing my creativity. Living gets in the way of football, a pitfall I’ve avoided for most of my life, so when it did, I just rolled with it.

And to be truthful, I wasn’t feeling it. Being a Spurs fan is more than just watching the games, it’s about being part of something fundamental to who I am. It’s about my life history, family and friendships. It’s essential to how I define myself. So it’s disconcerting when, if I am true to my emotional response to the game, I experience a sense of distance and alienation. 

It’s ok. Maybe this is a healthier response. Less wound up. Less frantic about getting there. I missed a few games and the world kept turning. I was more even tempered. But it’s not me. The scanners outside the turnstiles sometimes pick up my two metal knees and the stewards stop me. Or they could just be doing me a favour. But now I can leg it up to row 48 in the South Stand faster than the away end at the Emirates emptied after their fourth.

Plus there’s the inescapable feeling that after writing TOMM since 2009, I’m trapped into repeating myself as round and round we go. Same hopes, same mistakes, same outcome. No learning. 

Things don’t work out, so change is demanded, whereas at Spurs change is the problem, not the solution. The managerial and player churn undermines progress rather than assisting it. The board glibly invoke the Spurs DNA, yet the outcome as it stands is that we are a club with no distinct identity. We want to be a leading player, yet refuse to invest in players and salaries that bring success. We appoint, then dismiss, a series of managers with differing styles, who value different characteristics in the players they want to buy. The next guy inherits the mess, a squad composed of players he didn’t choose and from several different eras, different styles, competing philosophies.

The last couple of paragraphs should be the equivalent of a pinned post, prefacing any analysis of what is happening at Spurs on and off the field. Frank is that guy, fighting against the forces of history and decades of underachievement at Spurs. It’s not his fault or responsibility, but there’s nothing like the NLD to stir my emotions or to reveal to the manager the weight of the burden he carries. 

On Sunday, Spurs weren’t so much defeated as utterly outclassed by a team vastly superior in every facet of the game. Let’s be brutally honest here, in keeping with AFC’s brutal demolition of our feeble attempts to compete, theirs is the model of high level success that puts our efforts into perspective as the desperate, purposeless chaos they have been, with its flagrant disregard of the reality of the contemporary Premier League. Their board has come in for sustained criticism at times from their fans. However, they stuck by their man, stood by while he underachieved and made mistakes, spent an absolute fortune, but look at them now. They invested heavily on top class players and created a system that suits them. 

I don’t go in for a heavy dose of tactical analysis on TOMM (the Extra Inch are good on this if you are interested). But it’s fair to ask – if we’re playing a back five plus two essentially defensive minded holding midfielders, how on earth did we consistently give them so much time and space on the edge of our box? One answer here lies in our opponents’ tactical sophistication – their movement and interchanging through the middle to move our players out of position and outnumber them in decisive areas. When we have the ball, we are being caught in possession all the time (another comment I have made so often over the years). We shift the ball out wide, only for our wide men to be smothered, or else fashion a cross that forms heading practice for defenders, when we don’t have an centre forward able to make much impact. 

These are all tactical failings that are down to the manager. We try to play through the middle more when Simons starts, but he has become the face of the current Spurs side – worried, bewildered and anxious. More than taking time to adjust to PL pace, he looks up and there’s no one to pass to. Teamwork again, or lack of it. 

Coming to Spurs is a big step up for Frank. I thought (hoped?) he was ready for it but the signs so far are not promising. There’s the wide player thing from Brentford, and a mindset that concentrates on the opponent to the detriment of our own abilities. Again, the Derby was a perfect example, forcing players into an unfamiliar formation and a team selection that conceded the initiative from the moment the teamsheets were handed in. I appreciate organisation but we are justified in excepting more at Tottenham. He has some real creative talent at his disposal but I can’t avoid the feeling that he’s struggling to know exactly what to do with it. 

The most surprising aspect is his failure to instil the high level of intensity fundamental to his style. It’s a term used frequently these days to the point of cliche, but it is an essential quality in order to compete in this league. The derbies, including the CFC game in this, showed we could not match their application but it’s been apparent in other matches too. 

Lots of debate about the Paulinha/Bentancur axis not being able to pass forward. I like both players for their contrasting qualities. Bentacur looks smooth and easy when it’s going well, circulating the ball and moving it on. Except this isn’t good enough in a PL where most other teams are adept at pressing and cutting out time on the ball. The point I’m straining to make is that these are good players but they aren’t good enough for what we require them to do. And then we return to transfer policy. AFC and CFC have invested in better players in this key position.

Let’s name these feelings. Anger. Frustration. Disillusion. But changing the manager isn’t the solution to these feelings. The Derby ruthlessly exposed our faults. In the league we now have two home matches to begin a process of translating learning from mistakes into progress. Frank has to see this as an opportunity to adapt his approach, rather than a threat. He’s hampered by the loss of Maddison, Deki and Solanke, the latter a big loss in my view as he could form a figurehead around which the attacking play could coalesce. However, he has Simons, Bergvall and Muani available – they must be effectively integrated into the starting line-up. If things don’t work in these games, Frank will really find out how heavy lies the burden of anger, frustration and disillusion.

In evaluating the career of Daniel Levy as Tottenham Hotspur chairman, only one thing can be said with any degree of certainty. If someone reaches a straightforward conclusion, they’re wrong.

Although he took his time, he has undoubtedly transformed the club. White Hart Lane is one of the eternal loves of my life, but it couldn’t cope with Spurs’ popularity, the paint was peeling, the tea undrinkable to the point where I swear it took off a layer of sink enamel when you chucked it away and as often as not, our pre-game ritual included clearing the caked pigeon crap from our seats. Now, we’re amongst the highest earning clubs in the world with a global profile, the stadium is packed for every league game and, finally, we have a European trophy.  

Yet the majority of his time as chairman has seen consistent, albeit not universal, disquiet within the fanbase about the quality of his leadership and the direction in which he appeared to be steering the club. This has taken many forms, from grumbling into our beers in the Antwerp to social media whinging and protests inside and outside the ground. Spurs fans have a long and my view proud history of active protest, dating back to complaints in the early 1960s about ticket allocation led by women fans, through to Left On the Shelf, TISA and the AGM protests. Since 2001, as well as ‘Levy Out’ protests with varying degrees of support, we have We Are N17, the superleague, Save Our Seniors, Stop Exploiting Loyalty and last season’s marches, banners and chanting in the ground. For a leader who in some quarters is currently being held up as an exemplary football club chair, that’s some achievement.

These positions appear inconsistent. In fact, they expose the fundamentally contradictory essence of Levy’s time as Spurs chair. If there is anything exemplary about his reign, it is as a model of the nature of contemporary football. Spurs are inextricably involved in a game increasingly dominated by the imperative to generate the level of income required to compete, both on a national and global level. As fans, we can’t avoid engaging in this, but for all the benefits, there are costs too. Levy’s financial acumen placed Spurs in an enviable position competitively but at one and the same time was the chief reason behind both our failure to achieve consistent success on the field and to understand the full impact for loyal supporters.

In the early 1980s, Irving Scholar took over as Spurs chairman, a man on a mission to drag the club kicking and screaming into the modern era by maximising income not only from ticket sales but also from other commercial activities. We had to wait another 30 years before that vision translated into reality. Under Levy’s stewardship, commercial growth improved from £13.6m in 1999-00 to £244.7m in 23-24 (source: the Athletic). Today, the ground is full every week and each matchday generates an estimated £5m. This doesn’t include TV revenue. There is a substantial income stream from boxing, NFL and concerts.

The new stadium, financed within our means, is a fine place to watch football, with stands close to the pitch and excellent sightlines. The seating encourages fans to lean in, be a part of the game, even if like me you’re towards the back of the stands. Also, and the designers don’t get sufficient praise for this, it’s convivial through the simple expedient of being able to walk round the concourse to most parts of the ground, impossible in the old Lane, to meet friends.

Frankly, it is unlikely that the ground will be named the Daniel Levy Stadium, but he deserves full credit for all this. The question remains, though, what was the purpose? Many years ago, I wrote a piece asking the question, what is a football club for? Pretty basic, but seldom made explicit. My answer would be something about aiming for success on the field and at the same time paying due respect to the club’s supporters. I have intentionally chosen the word ‘aiming’. I don’t carry an entitlement to success. What I want is for us to be contenders, to be clear-minded about what it takes to build and sustain club challenging for honours.  

Finding the answer was beyond Daniel Levy’s capabilities. Perhaps he never understood the question. Having established a solid, essential foundation in terms of financial stability, he was largely incapable of building upon it. If there is a phrase to characterise his tenure, it’s ‘opportunities missed’. There are many examples. Creating a coach/director of football structure then continually changing manager, then not supporting managers in the market. Doing well in the table, on the up, need a striker, so it’s Frazer Campbell on loan, or Saha on a free, or successive windows without buying anyone. While I realise Pochettino was resistant to change in the squad, not reinforcing the team at that point was an era-defining error. More recently, the low income to salaries ratio and the apparent reluctance to free up money for the wages to snag top quality players.

More than just about the money, it is failure of organisation. Any football at any level revolves around the interaction between three elements, namely coaching, recruitment and finance. The chair’s primary responsibility is to make that interaction functions smoothly and with purpose, that is to do well on the pitch. That’s what CEOs, MDs whatever you call them, do in the commercial world. They take the decisions that enable other people, specialists in their field, to do their job to the best of their ability and Levy was largely unable to achieve this.

This has unfortunately been a consistent feature of his time in charge. Coaches not being given the players they needed. Recruitment at odds with the coach (‘a club signing’) or being marginalised, such as Paul Mitchell being head hunted then leaving. There’s a long list here that could take a blog piece in itself so I won’t go on, except to say that in the last 18 months Levy made efforts to sort this out yet again. It remains to be seen if that forms part of his legacy.

What has always puzzled me is that the opportunities I describe as being missed were themselves created by Levy’s decisions. At successive points, say, under Redknapp or Poch, a couple of judicious purchases could have elevated the team into real contenders. I’m not talking about chucking money at the problem. I’m talking about, for instance, a classy midfielder and striker that we had the means to pay for. After all, in Levy’s terms as a businessman, such purchases become an investment to be repaid through CL and PL revenue.

As fans, we saw this all too clearly, and I’ve never grasped why he or the rest of the board could not. I can only conclude that he is cautious man, and there’s nothing wrong with that, who does not fully understand the game even after 25 years in charge. He never quite understood how to achieve success on the pitch. The appointment of two managers, Mourinho and Conte, unsuited to the club’s needs, to the organization and financial situation that he created, because they had the reputation of being winners, is another example.

Which leaves the question that has dogged his regime. The ‘I’ in ENIC stands for investment, and a club they bought for around £25m is now worth £3 or 4 billon. Nice work if you can get it. Undoubtedly, increasing the return on their investment is a core aim and buying players or indeed lowering ticket prices can be seen as detracting from that. Again though, given the sums of money involved, I’ve never fully understood why they could not find a compromise, that is earn vast profits while still freeing up relatively small sums to buy more players or limit ticket prices. I’m deliberately expressing this in straightforward terms – this isn’t about nuance, it’s about basic questions on how to run a football club.

I don’t believe it is naïve to suggest a better set of decisions in this respect were available and the board opted to go in a different direction. All this exposes the flaw of Levy’s lack of ambition. He seems to be content to participate in tournaments rather than go out to win them, the superleague being another example. Lloris’s story of Levy presenting the players with watches, paid for not by the club but by a sponsor, to congratulate players for reaching the CL says so much. Levy wanted to be at the top table but was at pains not to offend his hosts, by the effrontery of actually winning something.

And what is a club for if not for the fans? Unequivocally, the stadium in N17 is major and lasting achievement. But that’s not the whole story. I do not want to forget, as many media articles this week have, how we got there, with Daniel Levy leading on advanced plans to move the club to Stratford and in the process demolish an Olympic Stadium that for a couple of years at least was a symbol of something that brought the nation warmth and happiness. He speaks of the club’s heritage, yet at that point was prepared to jettison that for the economic benefits of moving to east London.

Neither do I forget that ticket prices are among the highest in Europe. It’s up to me and you if we wish to pay them, but being a fan is about something fundamental to our identity and sense of self. It is about who we are. This is why we keep coming back. Two trophies in 25 years, there are no gloryhunters at Spurs yet up to 250,000 people come into the streets on  a working day to celebrate.

The club do not fully appreciate what Spurs mean to their fans. Worse, they think they do but they don’t. I don’t believe they look after us as well as they could. The prices deter many longstanding fans from coming and exclude many others altogether. Our football wins two trophies in 25 years. We hear about the Spurs family, which excludes many young fans, prevents season ticket holders from using spares to introduce family members to our great club and limits the amount of senior tickets available, pricing out fans who have been going for decades. Our chairman was paid £6m in a year when we won nothing and the stadium was 18 months late.

My own research shows that many supporters, while remaining loyal, are becoming disaffected. In particular they feel the club has a poor relationship with the fans. They treat fans in an impersonal way – we are not individuals but are customer numbers, whose needs could be easily accommodated but the club chooses to look away.  For example, the allocation of tickets in the new ground gave insufficient value to longstanding supporters and split up long established family and friends groups. High prices mean fans feel their loyalty is a commodity, to be exploited. Premium seating blocks exclude many fans and do not contribute to the best possible atmosphere.

The impact on supporters of these aspects of being a Spurs fan is given insufficient weight. These things matter. They also result from decisions taken by the club. Other options were available, are available, but discounted. These things are the way the board wanted them to be. Plus, on top of which we contend with other parts of the modern game, such as TV dominated fixture schedules, late changes to fixtures and policing in the ground.

In my view, and I’ve never met the man although I know many who have, Levy is a genuine supporter and wants the best for Spurs. However, he was never able to be sure about what that means, and that has held us back. So much promise, so many opportunities, some successes, so many unfulfilled. Rather than entering into interaction and dialogue, he and the board retreated and put up barriers. They fell into a form of groupthink without taking advice from outside. I doubt he has the emotional intelligence to be confident in himself, see how he presented to others and to take on board constructive criticism.

History will continue to explore these contradictions but without, I suspect, ever fully resolving them, because these are the contradictions of the modern game and being a fan. Generate income, find success on the field, but why should that be at the expense of loyalty? The questions remain and in that sense truly, Daniel Levy is a chair of our times.