I didn't say that - but sticking to the facts as we know them, Spurs were a heavily broken club under the various forms of ownership stretching back to the 70s, from a point of financial stability and competent ownership. I would say that it is disrespectful to what has (in reality) been achieved to brush it away as if it was an inevitability.
You say "under which Spurs do not remain a large, rich, and well-supported Premier League club" - the fact is we weren't 'rich' when the club was taken over. We weren't rich when Venables and Sugar went for it. We weren't rich when Scholar acquired it (hence why he battled to float it). The fact we're, as often quoted, the nth richest club in whatever isn't something that pre-existed, nor has it just happened in spit of anything. A big club, and a well supported one - yes. But Sugar sold the club as a miserable shell of what it in the past, as a football club, despite the support it had. I remember us playing Kaiserslauten (sp?) with Leonhardsen in a baggy yellow kit and we got battered. Kaiserslauten. The idea of beating a european team seemed like a pipe dream then, with teams full of aging rejects.
Tottenham Hotspur are a big club with amazing fans, but we aren't unique in that. So assuming the reliability and predictability that, to paraphrase, 'someone else would have done it', I find that hard to believe. I can't name a single other club in the league who has. Woolwich have a ton of weird fans and they were broke all the way through the whole period ENIC have been here. Take away Chelsea and Man City, who have artificially cooked up their 'revenue', and I think this club is pretty much standing alone in terms of its stability, on and off the pitch.
