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.

It was all going to be so straightforward. This article I mean. Been busy, in hospital tomorrow for another knee replacement, Tottenham On My Mind will limp into a new season all in good time, if you can hang on a bit.

But it’s Spurs. Nothing is ever straightforward.

Eze is on. Delays, but sorted. Palace canny – hang on until they get him for two important matches at the start of the season. Eze is happy to Join Spurs. Or not.

Hardly a JFK moment, but I can remember where I heard the news. 7.45pm, listening to a podcast recorded earlier that day where a well-connected, non-sensationalist AFC supporting pundit confirmed he had heard his club like Eze but not at that price and had long since moved on. 8pm – 62 Whatsapp messages.

A couple of years ago, I wrote about the myth that Levy is a master deal-maker. His approach rested on how he used his power – the power of being a PL club with funds available -to exploit clubs, usually lower down the pyramid, who needed the money. It can still work, witness Archie Gray’s deal when Spurs could move quickly to trump Brentford’s offer, with Leeds keen to take the cash.

But football has moved on, as it tends to do, without, apparently, Levy noticing. Like the low block, these tactics can work but are ineffective over time if you want to be consistently successful at the top level. Our indecision in the market has serious consequences. We are crying out for a creative, passing midfielder but it seems that our deal-making undermines the imperative to be successful on the pitch. Staggered payments, add-ons – I completely understand that few transfer fees, if any, are paid in full up front, but our approach leads to hesitancy and creates opportunities for others, just at the point where the team needs a decisive approach, committed to buying high quality footballers who can lift our squad from promising to being proper contenders.

We dodged a bullet with Saido Berahinho but I recall him saying subsequently, (I paraphrase) ‘we agreed £20m then Levy said, right, that’s £1.5m up front and rest in instalments.’ Willian, Petit, Grealish, all were on the way but never appeared. Nothing has significantly changed. Pre-season, Levy and new CEO Vinai Venkatesham indulged in a PR offensive. We’re going for the title and the Champions League, blah blah. To achieve this, fundamental change is required, and so far, I’m not seeing it.

But back to the Eze (non) deal. Thinking about this last night, this so-called late hi-jacking of the deal smelt a bit whiffy. There is no way that a complex multi-million pound deal could have been sorted in a couple of hours, as this version of the transfer suggests. In contrast to Spurs, AFC moved decisively when the time came but sure enough, this piece in the Independent by Miguel Delaney, a responsible journalist, confirms our neighbours, Eze and Palace were in on the deal. It was in all their interests. Palace hung on to get two more games plus the possibility of more cash, they got their man, the player is where he wants to be. Spurs have been utterly played, undone by complacency in the face of a labyrinthine plot concocted by the villains of the piece.

So this is how business is done. To be fair to Spurs, they have been lied to by all parties, consistently over a period of time and with intent, but if they had not prevaricated, this would have forced the hand of the poker faced conspirators. Also, mendacity is hardly unknown in business and finance.

One line in Delaney’s piece is worthy of note, that Steve Parish has a good relationship with an AFC board member. Conversely, Levy apparently makes little attempt to build such relationships. Indeed his tactics have hacked off many clubs. The powerful don’t have to worry unduly about how they get on with others when it comes to a deal. However, lose that power and there’s nothing left. Long-term, Levy’s approach creates unwelcome antipathy that is and always has been counter to the best interests of the club.

We’re left with more questions than answers. How much is our chairman prepared to delegate to his increasingly large and expensive recruitment team and senior club officers? This must change – the system is not running smoothly or effectively. How can we get a top class creative player in so short a time before the window closes? If we can, we’ll have to pay over the odds.

Also, how much money do we have to continue with this essential squad rebuild? We’re ok with PSR as I understand it. However, there were a couple of articles from football finance journos suggesting that we may have increased our income from the stadium and TV but are cash poor, that is, we don’t have as much cash available this season because of interest payments and in particular because several of the so-called canny instalment deals we’ve agreed in the past have to be paid up now.

There is one addition to my list of might-have-beens’ (you may have others, I’m relying on my increasingly unreliable memory). I recall that an exciting midfielder was on his way to the Lane, ready to step up from the Championship. The deal was done and goodbyes were said. He played for QPR and his name was Eberechi Eze. There’s something remarkable in such an achievement. These days it’s the only Double we’re capable of.

Anyway, the rest of the original piece, preserved for posterity:

• Thomas Frank a sound choice. Brings organisation without fundamental negativity
• It’s a step up for him, and we share his ambition for bigger and better things
• Decent motivator – history of getting the best from players, important for the fit as we develop players
• Looking forward to seeing what transpires, and let’s give him some time
• The board must invest in PL ready players to fill the squad gaps, specifically CB cover, centre forward and creativity in midfield
• Buy Eze

Maybe I should have left it at that. See you with a new knee. The morphine will dull the pain, handy right now, and sincere thanks to everyone who takes the time and trouble to comment, more frequently than I write.

Read sadness into what follows. Every word, comma and inflection. I take no pleasure in Ange’s dismissal. But there is reason.

In all honesty, since Bilbao I’ve been this way and that about his future. I readily concede that replacing him after that triumph will never sit completely comfortably with me, but Ange being a hero and Ange needing to go are two ideas that I can hold in my head at the same time. Both can be true. To me, I’ll always be grateful, delighted and moved by what he and his team ultimately achieved, a trophy after all these years and victory against all the odds. The outpouring of emotion from supporters around this win is deeply touching. These are lifelong memories and stories will be told down the generations about one night in Bilbao.

But in the past year, some of our football has been appalling. So: If nothing else, I try to be consistent, and if I change my mind on anything it is because there is evidence for change. That’s me and Ange. Delighted with his opening games, he deserved two years to see what he could make of the job. This is what I wrote in early April:

I can’t envisage any scenario where Ange holds his job into next season. ‘When not if’ seems inescapably to be the only question. I take no pleasure in saying this. I wanted this proud, motivated man to succeed. He was right for my club, so I hoped. I applauded his brave, attacking football and his value-base of teamwork and support for his players, plus his passion for the game, a beacon of authenticity in an increasingly dreary, cynical football world driven by greed. Except it hasn’t worked.

Of course injuries within a shallow squad have been a major factor in contributing to this unenviable record, but I suspect that if we had finished, say, 10th, I would be saying something similar, that while it is false to suggest his tactics have remained static, he failed to handle key problems such as constantly being caught on the ball, giving the all away (both caused by opposition pressing and high marking), poor penalty box defending and presenting opponents with far too much space, especially in front of our back four. You simply can’t play this way in the Prem. Latterly, the counter to this, that ‘we’ll score one more than you’, hasn’t been effective either in the league.

One unforgettable night in Bilbao triggered a cathartic reaction that was part celebration, part vindication, of the manager and especially of the loyalty of a fanbase starved of success. Nothing whatsoever that happens in the future can diminish that. I don’t agree with those who say this achievement has been diminished because of his sacking.

It was of the moment, and none the less magnificent for that. Ange set aside his principles for the sake of our club. Not only that, he convinced the players to buy into that too, ample evidence of his ability as coach and motivator. He believed, and made sure the players believed in themselves. Yet for much of the season, we played like a group of individuals with little connection or cohesion, and certainly the players’ confidence and ebullience of the early months had become a distant memory.

Ange belatedly but sublimely sorted that out, and there is undeniable risk in leaving that behind. Add this to the injury list as another what-might-have-been – we’ll never know, I don’t know, and it’s a question that will be debated whenever the history of Spurs during this period is discussed. I would add, though, that other managers can motivate players too.

Football is about those moments, and that’s what it was, a glorious moment, and that is its place in our heritage. Sometimes winning a trophy is culmination of a journey, building a resilient team over time who eventually become winners. Often, that proves to be a springboard for sustained success. This is different. Ange created a team for a specific time and place, essentially for three games, with little apparent connection to what had gone before. And what he created for our particular journey, building an attacking, front-foot team, did not work well enough in its particular context, namely the Premier League, where teams quickly learned how to exploit our weaknesses, where the strengths too infrequently failed to outweigh the positives and where the changes in tactics and personnel did not consistently make up for the deficiencies.

I understand fans’ disgust as expressed on social media that, for them, this indicates the board’s priority as league position, not winning trophies. However, this is nothing new. It’s not about Ange, it has been clear for many years, explicitly so in Pochettino’s era when he was told by Levy that the overriding target was a top four finish, and it is fallacious to assume this is the reason for his dismissal. I want Spurs to be contenders. I can deal with not winning stuff, goodness knows I’m used to that by now. But there’s a proviso, that we give it a right proper good go in every tournament. It’s not about either top four or a cup, it’s about building a team with squad depth to have a tilt at both. Until the board realise this and give the manager, any manager, the tools to achieve this, then we’re on the familiar journey towards disappointment.

We were talking about consistency. Here we are, back with the board again. Everything begins and ends with Levy. I have no faith in the board’s ability to make sound footballing decisions. Levy has created a culture devoid of sustained ambition to be consistently successful on the field. There’s no drive or purpose.

In another world, his decision to sack Ange despite winning a prized trophy could be interpreted as the act of a man ruthless in his dogged pursuit of success at the highest level. Applied to Levy, this has a hollow ring to it. Any manager needs full support in terms of a playing staff fit for purpose, good enough and deep enough. History suggests Levy won’t provide this and until this changes, the club is doomed to repeat the managerial churn that drastically inhibits progress in the long-term. The anointed successor, Thomas Frank, has spoken of how he works closely with his board at Brentford and the whole backroom staff. Get ready for a shock, mate.

However, and this comes back to evidence for change, Spurs are shaking up the hierarchy. The highly influential Donna Cullen has departed with the new chairman coming in with a record of being forward thinking, fan friendly and above all, understanding the modern game and what a club needs to complete at the top. We have a highly promising group of young players coming back to the club from various loans with invaluable league experience to add to the excellence of Gray and Bergvall. Plus, we have money to spend on a few good quality experienced players to make a big impact on the team.

Somewhere in another dimension, there is a cosy alternative reality where Ange carries on triumphantly buoyed by success and leading his highly motivated team to further glory. I wish that were real but reluctantly and with sadness conclude that its not part of our universe.

So let’s luxuriate in the glory of what Ange gave us. He can leave on a high, with a reputation that will open doors to many jobs in Europe and around the world. He will always be a legend in N17 and like us, he will have those precious, unforgettable moments of joy. Unlike us, he’ll have a £4 million pay-off to go with it.

The Europa League triumph brought home the personal dimension in a money obsessed, commodified game. Johnson’s smile, VDVs stunning individual moment, players united. And Ange hugging his kids. Thank you and all the best. We’ll always be mates.