It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.
So many ways to take that comment for example
1. From 2016 through to 2020 possibly the best player we signed was Sanchez (although Sessegnon may still come good) ..... and he's still considered a back up despite a decent price paid.
2 The remark may coincide with the realisation that despite paying circa £110m for Ndomebele and Lo Celso , two of the biggest £ transfers Spurs have ever signed , ..... both are pretty much right offs and difficult to sell or loan due to high wages. Probably a £100m write off for just these 2 players.
3 On the bright side, Romero, Bentancur and Kulusevski (signed 2020 or 2021) will cost about £100m between them ..... and possibly worth double that amount. Absolute bargains.
So if we can sign more of these type of quality players for 'bargain' prices ....... we can build a very decent squad
Trophies won since 1980 by English clubs. I’ve ignored the intertoto cup, one off games, and the fifa competitions.
It’s also a time span which is friendly to Spurs because we won the FA cup in 81 and 82. If you literally rewind the clock exactly 40 years then we’ve been less successful than Everton and the same as Villa.
21 - Manchester United, Liverpool
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12 - Manchester City
11 - Chelsea
10
9 - Woolwich
8
7
6 - Tottenham, Everton
5 -
4 - Aston Villa
3 - Leicester
2 - Blackburn, Nottingham Forest
1 - Birmingham, Swansea, Portsmouth, Wigan, Leeds, Wimbledon’s, Coventry City, West Ham, Norwich City, Luton Town, Sheffield Wednesday, Oxford United , Ipswich Town
So two clubs are so far ahead it’s not even funny. 2 clubs are sports washing cunts. We’re in the next band of clubs about the same as Woolwich, Everton and Villa.
We’re a big club but historically not elite. Under ENIC we’ve leapfrogged the 3 clubs that were around our level historically, including Woolwich who were a LOT better than us when ENIC took over and have now finished below us 6 seasons in a row.
This makes me realise how uncompetitive the premier league really is.
Two clubs have won 7 out of the past 9 PLs.
Three clubs have won 24 out of 30 PLs ever.
Only 6 teams have ever won the premier league. Same as the bundesliga in that timeframe.
Only 4 teams have won it more than once. Same as the bundesliga in that timeframe.
I know football didn’t start with the PL but those are grim stats. Money talks.
Chavs, City & Newcastle..... I just can't think what these 3 clubs have in common.
Fuck the selective ignorance at play here.... and the obvious few that will continue in a similar fashion.
Last edited:
Long story short.... If it wasn't for sports-washing petro doping we'd still be the 4th most successful team, have spent a lot lot more time in the CL and most likley have a few more pots under our belt.
Imagine preferring to insult the intelligence of our younger & overseas fans instead of viewing the above quoted data "honestly".
As for league title wins: Frauds still is insist on pretending that our 60 year title drought started 20 years ago...... Only to then question the intelligence of others.
Last edited:
To me he's clearly saying we cannot continue repeating mistakes of the past. Conte is a winner, and wants to keep that record intact
No more missing our targets for the sake of saving a few quid.
No more buy cheap buy twice shenanigans
No more self imposed transfer embargo to set us back 5 years
Act like a big club with a big manager, we'll be rewarded like a big club with a big manager
Still far more competitive than every other top league in Europe. Italy when Juventus won 8 in a row (it’s a lot more balanced now), PSG has been walking over France, La Liga has been a 2 team race for 20 years besides one Athletico win…
Then there is the disgrace know as the Bundesliga.
One of the few bright sides of a super league is there’d be more variation of winners and the domestic leagues would be more balanced.
Yep you’re making the point brilliantly.
It’s almost like money plus historic reputation of super clubs concentrates trophies into the hands of a very few teams.
3 teams have won série A in the past 20 years.
If there is a difference it’s that’s 1992-2002 was genuinely competitive in Germany (5 winners) and France (8 winners) because there was less money. The PL has never been genuinely competitive because more money = more inequality. With the exception of Blackburn and Leicester, it’s nearly always been possible to pick the winner from 2 teams.
Absolutely.
It really isn't a genuine bright side.
"Post-superleague"would immediately become the glaring caveat for any domestic league from the moment the new era kicked off.
Winning an EPL with no big six teams in it would be akin to winning a gassed-up champo.
Thats because you've chosen to start it around the time we started to decline. Some of that wasn't our fault either as Liverpool got us all kicked out of Europe. That probably contributed to us losing a tone of money and players abroad.
The fact is, until the 90s we wons stuff. Pretty regularly. More regularly than most teams.
Even under Sugar we never went 14 years without winning anything and he was a prat.
More money in the Premier league for more than 1 team has made it more competitive until recently.
If Chelsea hadn't won the lotto, I've no doubt United would have at least 10 more titles and be the Bayern of England. They just took their rivals best players year after year.
Then City came along.
Then teams started getting a massive slice of the TV pie.
It does feel at the moment like it's one sided with City, but all the money in the world won't keep them there every single year because other teams have money. And limited squad sizes mean City can't have all the players either.
What you are doing is FAR worse.
You and the obvious suspects are attributing our lack of trophies over 38 year to our current owners who have only been here for the last 20 and most notably you're completely ignoring that petro-doping alone has kicked us down the "most successful" standings from 4th to 6th.
Funny you're prepared to condemn Liverpool as it furthers your claim, but:
a) That effected all clubs so it's moot in terms of who's won the most pots.
b) ......Unless we'd won something or been top 4 in that era we wouldn't have been in Europe anyway.
c) That's nowhere near as detrimental to our trophy count as Chavs & City's doping have been.
It's almost as if you're trying to reinforce a false narrative. :roll:
1984 was the beginning of the end of the glory glory days.......
38 years since.
THREE owners
1 FACup
2 LCup.
You and the fake news crew want to frame that as "20 years of failure" and the fault of one owner.
Absolutely bogus.
Lying and fake-newsing the genuinely creditable aspects of our history only serves to smear the genuine good.
Jeeeeez.... Imaging bullshitting in order to make us look bad.
Last edited:
So your argument is we haven’t been a massive club in the past 42 years?
We were a successful club 1960-1984. In those 24 years we won 11 trophies - a trophy every two and a bit years. In the 38 years since we’ve one an FA cup and 2 league cups.
It’s nice for us but it’s not reputation we can trade off. Nottingham forest won 7 trophies in 13 years (1977-1990) including two European cups (which we’ve never won). That’s not much good to them now because reputation fades.
Using trophies won 20+ years ago as proof of anything is useless because that reputation cannot be cashed in today.
