Yep, I can see all of that being a legitimate point of view - but it's not the only legitimate point of view, that's my point.
Presumably if we boil it down to the basics:
ENIC / LEVY OUT:
- ENIC / Levy have done lots of bad things in the last 20 years
- Failure to win any trophies
- Some poor / unsuitable manager appointments, many poor player transfers
- Too much focus on non-football revenue-increasing activities
- Failed to back Poch when it looked like we might be able to achieve 'next level'
- Higher expectations - believe we should be seriously challenging for title / regularly winning trophies
ENIC / LEVY IN:
- ENIC / Levy have done lots of good things in the last 20 years
- Average league position better now than 20 years ago
- Unfortunate not to win any trophies having lost several finals / finished 2nd in league
- Some successful manager appointments, many good player transfers
- Appreciate the benefits of non-football revenue-increasing activities
- Lower expectations - believe finishing in or around top 4 each year is over-achieving when considering the various characteristics of the other big clubs
Those are just rough and off the top of my head - I'm sure both ends would want to add some bullets, change the precise wording etc, but presumably the above is roughly how each 'side' sees it. And for me, both are perfectly legitimate interpretations of the facts, depending how you look at it. Most individuals will align with (or at least be closer to) one of the above more than the other, and in 90% of cases that means they are incapable of even recognising that the other is a legitimate point of view, which is the problem we so often have on here -
people disagree with me so they must be stupid or not really Spurs fans etc. But we're better than that (well, some are - admittedly some aren't bright enough to discuss any of it meaningfully, but many certainly are, on both sides).
That being the case, neither side of the debate deserves the baiting, goading and derision that is often seen on here (and often from those capable of intelligent discussion, which is a shame) - not least because it doesn't achieve anything. We need to get away from the notion that there can only be one opinion, as the likelihood is that not a single one of us is fully 'right', and every single one of us can learn something from others if we just try to put our own interpretations aside for a minute and try to understand where they are coming from (even if we disagree with them).
EDIT:
- By the way, for anyone who 'disagrees' on the basis of any of the bullet points, I've tried (admittedly quickly) to imagine what each 'side' would say, but if I've misrepresented any of them
for someone who supports that side, please shout and I will happily amend.
- However for anyone who 'disagrees' on the basis that they don't believe other people can hold different opinions to them, then I give up, you can't have a meaningful conversation with people like that.
- I'd be happy to discuss by PM in a friendly 'come in peace' conversation with anyone who 'disagrees' and would be interested in discussing privately so we can understand each other better.