REWIND nine months. Tottenham Hotspur were winning accolades for their bright, aggressive football. They had closed to within two points of Leicester City, who were sure to crumble. Mauricio Pochettino was the hottest managerial property in the Premier League. So much so that in the summer, with the complicity – perhaps unwitting, perhaps not – of Sir Alex Ferguson (who was happily photographed alongside him emerging from a London restaurant favoured by the paparazzi), he inked a monster five-year contract.

And now?

Now we are at the point where things could take a turn for the worse. Spurs never did catch Leicester, of course, and in fact were pipped to second place by Arsenal, the north London rivals they face today at noon.

The summer saw the sudden departure of Paul Mitchell, the much-hyped recruitment guru who had worked with Pochettino at Southampton and whom Spurs had secured with much effort (and expense) the year before.

It also saw the club record their biggest net spend since 2008 with the arrival of four newcomers, each hand-picked by Pochettino: Victor Wanyama, Vincent Janssen, Moussa Sissoko and Georges-Kevin Nkoudou. Of that quartet, only Wanyama is proving to be value for money thus far and, indeed, the last-minute signing for a whopping £30 million of Sissoko smacked of just the kind of panic move you expect from a manager who has been handed power over recruitment at the expense of specialists.

Going into the weekend, Spurs’ league position was by no means poor. They were fifth, true, but just three points off the top.

But the trend is far from positive. They haven’t won since their impressive victory over Manchester City on October 2. Since then, it has been four draws and two defeats in all competitions. During the run, they also slipped to third in their Champ-ions League group, two points behind Bayer Leverkusen and four adrift of Monaco.

November looms large in determining what kind of season it will be for Pochettino. They have three consecutive London derbies – Arsenal and Chelsea away, with West Ham at home and a trip to Monaco, who beat them at Wembley in matchday one of the Champions League.

By the end of the month, they could well be not just out of the title race, but adrift of the top four, as well as looking forward to a bunch of Europa League Thursdays in the new year. To make matters worse, Sissoko is suspended today, while Erik Lamela and Toby Alderweireld are injured. Harry Kane, out since mid-September, could return, but is unlikely to be match fit.

Simply put, this is where Pochettino earns his bacon. It may not be right – and it certainly isn’t rational – but manager reputations come and go very quickly (just ask David Moyes). A group stage exit in Europe, a finish outside the top four and he will no longer be flavour of the month. And you get the sense that this matters to an ambitious manager such as Pochettino.

Certainly far more than it matters to his opposite number, Arsene Wenger. The “comfort zone” which envelops him at Arsenal has been a double-edged sword over the years. On the one hand, it has allowed him to work undisturbed, secure in his icon status. On the other, from the club’s perspective, it has meant a lot of treading water and mockery for the “top four trophy”. In fact, at 67, he knows this will be his last job and he knows he will likely be the one to call time on it.

That’s a luxury Pochettino – despite his enormous contract – does not have. It’s a classic tale of two men at different stages of their careers and with entirely different priorities and pressures.

THE “poppy debate” which has engulfed the Scottish FA and their counterparts south of the border might be easier to swallow if not for the ancillary back story to both positions.

The pro-poppy brigade point to a discredited organisation, one whose recent history of corruption and hypocrisy is well chronicled. And one which, five years ago, compromised their own rules on this very point, allowing England to wear black armbands adorned with a poppy. All they are asking for is that Fifa apply the same standards they applied back then.

The anti-poppy brigade point out that if this wasn’t a political symbol before (and many feel it was) it certainly is one now, when you have a prime minister taking time out from insignificant issues like Brexit to weigh in. And they lament the fact that matters like these seem to be decided at Daily Mail editorial meetings, when football clubs seemed to be able to survive for decades since the Second World War without ever wearing the poppy during matches. They say the poppy has become a symbol of conformity, that wearing it as a matter of course robs it of meaning, a bit like rushing through your prayers before bedtime when you were a kid.

It really would be simpler if we just stripped these layers away and focused on the basic essence of the matter. Fifa don’t want to decide what any symbol – other than an FA crest or, at most, a simple black armband – means and whether or not it is political. And with good reason. They don’t want to be the moral arbiters of what is acceptable and what is not. And so they simply bar anything not directly connected to football (or sponsors because, heck, it’s Fifa after all).

The reason is obvious. When it comes to mourning the dead – unless you specifically mourn all dead, on all sides – you open cans of worms. Somebody is guaranteed to be upset. And if you say “yes” on this occasion it becomes harder to say “no” on other occasions, which might be that little bit more controversial.

It is legitimate to expect our courts of law, aided by historians, to make such decisions. But we are way better off, given their track record, if Fifa aren’t asked to weigh in on such matters.

This is a sporting event, not a remembrance event. And it’s Fifa’s sporting event.

If you want to stage a non-Fifa sanctioned match with England and Scotland players covered in poppies, you are free to do so. If you want them to lay a wreath, sing the anthem, parade with veterans before and after, you are free to do so.

But once the game starts, it’s about playing football. Not about symbols, be they commemorative or political.