Management ENIC

[Honest John]

8
2
1
3

Hardly prolific in a one hundred year timescale

Click to shrink...

For well over half of that time scale there was no League Cup and no European trophies.
Just the League title and FA Cup to play for.

Any excuse to demean and belittle the history of our great football club.

We're on our worst trophy drought for over 70 years and however you try and dress it up that's a shocking indictment of owners

 

[skywalker68]

8
2
1
3

Hardly prolific in a one hundred year timescale. We were successful early 60’s, early 70’s and early 80’s. Three periods of a few years each when we were challenging for anything. So 10-12 years of success in 100. I’d love us to have another couple of successful years, but I’d rather we showed some stability throughout the club and built for sustained success instead. Something we’ve never had.

And that means same owners, same manager, same structure. Giving it time to work.

Click to shrink...

Is 21 years not giving it time enough to work?

 

[Kosher Kid]

Is winning a cup being “the best”. I grew up with us being known as a cup team. But never challenging for the league.

These days “the best” also win the cups. The whole game has changed.
Due to money. Which others have more of.

Click to shrink...

Bernie my old eco Norfolk mate.
I think you are being slightly unfair chum.
Before the evil Fagin years of Sugar and Levy we certainly were the dandy Warhol cavaliers of England.
Winning the FA cup was nearly as good as the league. Every school boys dream . We were the Kings winning it more than anyone.
Signing fancy ball playing elite players that came to us over a Man utd.
First club to achieve many things, unbelievable football at times . Maybe, probably the most successful club in the swinging 60's.
Two league titles these were ground breaking "push and run" and the first double. These weren't your bland forgotten George Graham title wins.
Give me 1951 to 1991 anyday.
Under Enic we will achieve nothing of the same stature and remain in constant disharmony. The penny pinching no hopers we are regarded by our rivals .
There were many ups and downs such as relegation but there was always hope .

Click to shrink...

The 90's were when it went wrong.

I remember feeling as though Spurs were the equal of Man United and Woolwich in the early 90's and that we would inevitably keep winning trophies. We won the F.A. Cup in 91 but it meant more than just a cup win because we stopped the other lot doing the double with their boring shit football.

We then went through a period of rebuilding which showed promise but was the start of us losing semi finals. It was Forest in the League Cup in 92 and then Woolwich in the F.A. Cup in 93. Losing to Everton in 95 was the low point. Retaining our best players and being regarded as a credible club, in respect of winning trophies, became difficult. Ruddock, Klinsmann, Barmby and Sheringham showed subsequent players the now well trodden path. SJ Campbell dealt us a knockout blow.

The Venables and Sugar feud was the beginning of the decade of despair 94 - 04. We just didn't know it at the time.

United went into the stratosphere and when Wenger arrived at Highbury they were the only serious competition for them.

Sugar had to leave by the time he sold the club. He had become a hate figure.

Spurs won two cups in Sugar's ten years.

Spurs won one cup in ENIC's first ten years.

What you have to ask yourself is why was Sugar's time regarded as unacceptable but ENIC's time has divided opinion?

I have concluded it is that the majority of the current fan-base are satisfied with the jam tomorrow dream.

 

[Higgo]

ENIC out. Levy out.

Can't be arsed to elaborate further. I'm bored of the fekkers.

 

[Zomb]

Bernie my old eco Norfolk mate.
I think you are being slightly unfair chum.
Before the evil Fagin years of Sugar and Levy we certainly were the dandy Warhol cavaliers of England.
Winning the FA cup was nearly as good as the league. Every school boys dream . We were the Kings winning it more than anyone.
Signing fancy ball playing elite players that came to us over a Man utd.
First club to achieve many things, unbelievable football at times . Maybe, probably the most successful club in the swinging 60's.
Two league titles these were ground breaking "push and run" and the first double. These weren't your bland forgotten George Graham title wins.
Give me 1951 to 1991 anyday.
Under Enic we will achieve nothing of the same stature and remain in constant disharmony. The penny pinching no hopers we are regarded by our rivals .
There were many ups and downs such as relegation but there was always hope .

Click to shrink...

Louder

 

[AberdeenYid]

Is 21 years not giving it time enough to work?

Click to shrink...

Aye. If we operated in a vacuum, it certainly would be. But we don’t. Shit changes and we have to roll with the punches. No energy money directly means no Chelsea, City, Newcastle. Liverpool, United and Arse aren’t as strong. Nor is the rest of the league. We used to be able to buy players from weaker teams for not much cash, now it’s tens of millions for decent players from mid to lower table clubs.

We’ve now got one of the best stadiums in the world and wonderful training facilities. A top manager. More money than ever before. We are spending like a pissed up oil worker on beach leave. But often spending on shite. Didn’t have all of this before.

So yes, 21 years is plenty of time to ascertain if something is working or not, but not whilst change is so fluid. This window and the next will be Contes “four windows”, with cash from a full stadium. Let’s see how the next several months go. If there’s no obvious change in strategy, I’ll go ENIC out too.

 

[AberdeenYid]

For well over half of that time scale there was no League Cup and no European trophies.
Just the League title and FA Cup to play for.

Any excuse to demean and belittle the history of our great football club.

We're on our worst trophy drought for over 70 years and however you try and dress it up that's a shocking indictment of owners

Click to shrink...

Not belittling anything, you sneaky, insidious arsehole. Just pointing out that we aren’t the serial winners you and others paint us to be before ENIC arrived and pissed in your kettle.

 

[AberdeenYid]

That's 3 decades back to back where we won multiple cups and a title.
Not many times outside of the so called big 6 can say they have done that throughout their history.

Click to shrink...

10 trophies in those thirty years. Massively impressive, I agree. But we were hardly prolific. Maybe I’m now being the one that’s hard to please?

 

[Zomb]

10 trophies in those thirty years. Massively impressive, I agree. But we were hardly prolific. Maybe I’m now being the one that’s hard to please?

Click to shrink...

It’s more than just trophies, as Lenny posted above it was the intent…. To sign the best players, to play the best football, the Man U of the south. That’s long gone under these beige leaches

 

[AberdeenYid]

It’s more than just trophies, as Lenny posted above it was the intent…. To sign the best players, to play the best football, the Man U of the south. That’s long gone under these beige leaches

Click to shrink...

As I said, I’m maybe being hard to please about our past whilst you are being. The same about our present.

I can’t really recall too many times when we went out and bought the best players from the biggest teams. I’ve been a supporter since 81, but was only 8 then, so my real “knowledge” is from later.

We signed Gazza against stiff competition from ManU. Jurgen was a scalp. But were anyone else in for him? I can’t recall. Could be my memory is just letting me down. I recall we’ve always tried to sign the best players from not the best teams (Bale, Modric, Carrick, Ginola, etc) for decent money. Not sure what the plan is now to be honest.

Edit - forgot the bit about the best football. We are shite just now. Fucking awful. But I’m not sure sacking manager or selling the club changes that. Always the players at most fault for me.

 

[N17-Tommo]

8
2
1
3

Hardly prolific in a one hundred year timescale. We were successful early 60’s, early 70’s and early 80’s. Three periods of a few years each when we were challenging for anything. So 10-12 years of success in 100. I’d love us to have another couple of successful years, but I’d rather we showed some stability throughout the club and built for sustained success instead. Something we’ve never had.

And that means same owners, same manager, same structure. Giving it time to work.

Click to shrink...

We’ve won the league cup 4 times

 

[AberdeenYid]

We’ve won the league cup 4 times

Click to shrink...

I know. Not last century though.

 

[spids]

What you have to ask yourself is why was Sugar's time regarded as unacceptable but ENIC's time has divided opinion?

Click to shrink...

Probably because there has been a demonstrable improvement under Levy / ENIC compared to under Sugar, where the club went from one of the 'Big 5' to being a mid-table team:

Under Sugar (1991/1992 - 2000/2001) we finished:

15th
8th
15th
7th
8th
10th
14th
11th (won League Cup)
10th
12th

*Note that Sugar bought Spurs after the FA Cup win in 1991

Under Levy (2003 onwards) we finished:

14th*
9th
5th
5th
11th
8th* (won League Cup)
4th
5th
4th
5th
6th
5th
3rd
2nd
3rd
4th
6th
7th
4th

Note that Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and Sheikh Mansour bought Man City in 2008 - two events that made competition a lot harder with these financially doped clubs guaranteed to finish top 4. Newcastle now being added to that group makes things much, much harder.

 

[Kosher Kid]

Probably because there has been a demonstrable improvement under Levy / ENIC compared to under Sugar, where the club went from one of the 'Big 5' to being a mid-table team:

Under Sugar (1991/1992 - 2000/2001) we finished:

15th
8th
15th
7th
8th
10th
14th
11th (won League Cup)
10th
12th

*Note that Sugar bought Spurs after the FA Cup win in 1991

Under Levy (2003 onwards) we finished:

14th*
9th
5th
5th
11th
8th* (won League Cup)
4th
5th
4th
5th
6th
5th
3rd
2nd
3rd
4th
6th
7th
4th

Note that Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and Sheikh Mansour bought Man City in 2008 - two events that made competition a lot harder with these financially doped clubs guaranteed to finish top 4. Newcastle now being added to that group makes things much, much harder.

Click to shrink...

With respect.

You've begun ENIC's tenure two years late.

ENIC took over towards the end of the 00 / 01 season which you have credited to Sugar's regime.

00 /01 Spurs finished 12th and lost the F.A. Cup semi final after Levy sacked George Graham and appointed Glenn Hoddle.

01/02 Spurs finished 9th and lost the League Cup final to Blackburn.

02 / 03 Spurs finished 10th

03 / 04 Spurs finished 14th after sacking Glenn Hoddle and David Pleat taking over as caretaker

04 / 05 Spurs finish 9th after sacking Santini and promoting Jol.

I'm definitely not defending Sugar here but it is important to note that the first 5 seasons that ENIC were involved in at Spurs were similar in every way to the decline that occurred under Alan Sugar.

They came with a five year plan to increase the WHL capacity to at least 44,000 and to secure regular qualification to the Champions League.

5 years later; none of these things had been achieved.

I am no apologist for Sugar but I can spot an ENIC apologist from 400 yards.

My original point was based on the fact that Sugar's regime was perceived as unacceptable yet ENIC were tolerated even after they failed to live up to their own mission statement.

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

Is 21 years not giving it time enough to work?

Click to shrink...

60 year plan, I expect Levy’s grandchildren to take us to the promised land

 

[skywalker68]

60 year plan, I expect Levy’s grandchildren to take us to the promised land

Click to shrink...

I won't be here to see it

 

[Ed Vanderlay]

Probably because there has been a demonstrable improvement under Levy / ENIC compared to under Sugar, where the club went from one of the 'Big 5' to being a mid-table team:

Under Sugar (1991/1992 - 2000/2001) we finished:

15th
8th
15th
7th
8th
10th
14th
11th (won League Cup)
10th
12th

*Note that Sugar bought Spurs after the FA Cup win in 1991

Under Levy (2003 onwards) we finished:

14th*
9th
5th
5th
11th
8th* (won League Cup)
4th
5th
4th
5th
6th
5th
3rd
2nd
3rd
4th
6th
7th
4th

Note that Abramovich bought Chelsea in 2003 and Sheikh Mansour bought Man City in 2008 - two events that made competition a lot harder with these financially doped clubs guaranteed to finish top 4. Newcastle now being added to that group makes things much, much harder.

Click to shrink...

Then why the desire to stick with Levy and Lewis ?
We clearly need a lot more to even maintain the current lack of success, we need them to move aside , not that they will

 

[spids]

With respect.

You've begun ENIC's tenure two years late.

ENIC took over towards the end of the 00 / 01 season which you have credited to Sugar's regime.

00 /01 Spurs finished 12th and lost the F.A. Cup semi final after Levy sacked George Graham and appointed Glenn Hoddle.

01/02 Spurs finished 9th and lost the League Cup final to Blackburn.

02 / 03 Spurs finished 10th

03 / 04 Spurs finished 14th after sacking Glenn Hoddle and David Pleat taking over as caretaker

04 / 05 Spurs finish 9th after sacking Santini and promoting Jol.

I'm definitely not defending Sugar here but it is important to note that the first 5 seasons that ENIC were involved in at Spurs were similar in every way to the decline that occurred under Alan Sugar.

They came with a five year plan to increase the WHL capacity to at least 44,000 and to secure regular qualification to the Champions League.

5 years later; none of these things had been achieved.

I am no apologist for Sugar but I can spot an ENIC apologist from 400 yards.

My original point was based on the fact that Sugar's regime was perceived as unacceptable yet ENIC were tolerated even after they failed to live up to their own mission statement.

Click to shrink...

Not sure I like the tag ENIC apologist(!?)

You are right, ENIC took a controlling stake in 2001 ... I mistakingly thought they did not take full control with Levy in place until 2003. The league positions with those missing years still tell a consistent story of how the two regimes played out. When they first took over ENIC clearly did not really know what they were doing, and Levy certainly made a lot of mistakes and was maybe under estimating the task ahead of him. But when you look at those league finishes (and consider the number of finals and semi-finals), taking into account the difference in revenues of the top 4 clubs and us. Then factor in the fact we are now in arguably the world's best stadium which was built on the original site. And I think ENIC have done a much better job that Sugar. I do think that Levy now needs to be replaced with a chairman that is more suited to a big club mentality where the main focus is wining trophies, but I also think he has done a very good job and the stadium is his legacy that will prove to be the foundation for future success.

 

[spids]

Then why the desire to stick with Levy and Lewis ?

Click to shrink...

What desire is that then?

 

[spids]

1 FA Cup and 1 League cup in 9 years. Dug the club out of financial ruin, pushed for the creation of the PL and put Sky at the forefront to show it and monetize it.
Also spent considerable money on modernising the stadium to make use of the income of match days.
So he won 200% of the trophies of ENIC in les than 50% of the time and arguably "progressed" the club as much from a lower financial starting point.

Clearly he was not a great chairman. He obviously hated the game as much as the likes of Simon Jordan and thought he could make money whilst also making the club successful. He was wrong, lost interest and hung around too long. But let's not pretend the man did nothing. He stopped us going under and if not for that, we could be in the lower leagues if not broke and gone.

Click to shrink...

Sugar was not the owner when we won the FA Cup - he bought us in June after we won the cup in May.

He also saw the possibility of flogging satellite dishes to Sky (form Amstrad) but had no vision of how to take advantage as a football club owner and we became a second rate club under his stewardship. HE did stop us going under (selling Gazza was the main thing that saved us - we were only about £10M in debt), Venables and Sugar each put in £3M. I am grateful those two stopped us going bust and ceasing to exist, but am still angry about how he ran the club for the next 10 years.