Aston Villa’s former managing director Monchi, has made a very interesting revelation about his dealings with Tottenham Hotspur and Daniel Levy.
While Tottenham Hotspur said in their initial announcement that Levy had stepped down from his role as executive chairman, that was not the case if reports are to be believed.
Many outlets have said that Levy was asked to resign rather than stepping down of his own accord following an internal review headed by Tavistock Group, who are the majority shareholders of ENIC.
According to some sources, Levy was only informed of his sacking just hours before Tottenham made the announcement, with the 63-year-old being completely blindsided by the development.
Director reveals how difficult it was to deal with Tottenham and Daniel Levy
One of the things that left Spurs fans frustrated about their former chairman is his insistence on winning every negotiation.
While that worked in Tottenham’s favour on some occasions, it also meant that negotiations were often dragged out and relationships with clubs were damaged.
Monchi, who has been the sporting director at Sevilla and Roma, before serving two years as Villa’s managing director, has now confirmed that it was not pleasant to deal with the former Tottenham chairman.
MORE SPURS STORIES
When asked who the toughest negotiator he dealt with was, the 57-year-old, who left Villa last month, told FlashScore: “Many. I always say Daniel Levy, possibly one of the hardest to negotiate with. Tottenham has always been a difficult club, but generally speaking, you find very capable people, with a lot of arguments, and they are complicated.”
Several clubs refused to deal with Levy towards the end
Monchi is not the only one to make this remark about the former Tottenham chairman, with Southampton CEO Martin Semmens also admitting that he hated dealing with Levy.
In fact, The Independent’s Miguel Delaney reported last month that several Premier League clubs had refused to deal with Spurs due to Levy’s exhaustive negotiating tactics.
The journalist claimed that ENIC’s decision to get rid of the 63-year-old was partly influenced by his worsening relationships with other clubs in the division.