You agree that Levy and ENIC would never sign those players I take it?
-
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...
Management ENIC
- Thread starter The Fighting Cock
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
And why do you think they might have more "revenue" free to do so.
(clue: it's related to 'the pitch')
Because you are looking at numbers that suit what you want to see.
We are near the very top clubs in transfer spending and wage spending.
The reason why our wages to revenue is low is partly because our revenue is high, which is absolutely because of the stadium, which is also a factor in why "revenue" is also not what we have available to spend.
Honestly, it's like some of these arguments actually believe the club is just a magic money tree that ENIC inherited that has just achieved everything in spite of them. Like we didn't spent literally forever, prior to 2001, as a club constantly on the brink of administration.
Right. As Perryman pointed out, our spending habits in the late 80s and 90s were not wise financially, and were instead a large reason why we were only worth 50m quid in 2001.
Well let’s agree on some other things.
We are a less successful and attractive club than Man Utd, Woolwich and Liverpool and that has been true for the time nearly everyone has supported the club.
Chelsea and City have drawn on resources we never can and this created a big barrier to entry for every other club in competing.
We are very obviously the smallest of the big six clubs.
There are two ways forward.
Continue to grow the denominator so we can stay in the big six and capitalise on the mistakes of the rest of the big six periodically.
Go the City and Chelsea route.
Most fans don’t want to be city and Chelsea because we’ve spent decades calling them scum and don’t appreciate their approach.
We have in fact been extremely competitive with the other three big clubs. We’ve been better than two out of three of them over the past decade.
So we have done really well to be where we are and performance has been good. There are a lot of entitled people claiming otherwise but they’re factually wrong. I’d be happy if we continued like this if we added a trophy or two more. We haven’t had the breaks in many of the key moments.
Most clubs don’t get anywhere near the stability and top quality player that we do.
TBF the £50m is somewhat inaccurate, as ENIC paid around £22m for 27% at first. The next 12% in 2007 cost £25m. So £81.5m would be that approximate 2001 valuation, and £208m in 2007.
Basically show you how inept sugar was from the club's value point of view in that in 4 years-ish of ENIC we were finishing in the top 5 and were worth 2.5x as much.
I agree - you will never, ever get your head around it. Because a). my cat has a better undertanding of financial matters than you. And I don't even have a cat. And b). because you have demonstrated on numerous occasions that you hate ENIC & Levy far more than you love Spurs, so will always be in a position where you want us to fail, and will only ever see numbers that support that view, utterly incapable of looking at such numbers with any appreciation of context or any factors that might spoil what you want to believe.I will never, ever get my head around how any fan can defend this. It's absolutely shameful.
Then they wonder why some of us consider them ENIC fans first, and Spurs fans second
100%. Might not have won as much as we should have done, but always signed top players and played with style and aspired to be the best
Bill Nic would be turning in his grave at the way the current bastards are using the club.
'To dare is to do' my arse
The financial explosion of the Premier League, and of London to a degree, makes that in some sense quite literally true.
Pure, uncut, 180 proof fiction. Up is down, night is day. We've been rich forever and at every mismanaged moment for the club's books there were wealthy suitors lining up to take the reins.
Blah blah blah, don't mind Villa and Newcastle rocketing past us
The fact you so passionately support owners who preside over such stats that prove we invest less of our revenue in the team than every other club, every year.....suggests that it's actually you that want us to fail.
It's inexcusable. You know it. Yet you defend it.
Weird logic for a so called Spurs fan, pal.
I do hope you're not talking about the Sugar regime here.
And the sick thing is, Levy and ENIC have developed the infrastructure of the club not to where we could dream of being the club we once were, but to where there could be a glorious future far beyond anything we've ever done.
We could be the best team in the world in five years under new leadership. Wouldn't be easy, no guarantees, but there are very few clubs on the planet that can say that with a straight face, fewer than 10 probably, and we are now one of them.
To Dare Is To Do
Pre Sugar….he was clueless but at least he had some fight.
Which was?
You're missing the point.
Waddle, Gascoigne and Lineker were the finished article at the point Spurs signed them.
Other big clubs wanted all three but they signed for Spurs.
As good as some of the players you mention were; none of them were anywhere near the finished article, at the point Spurs signed them, with the exception of Van Der Vaart.
Hutton was an ENIC signing by the way.
Rebrov was sold by ENIC.
I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that strategy didn't get us that much success. We won the FA Cup in 1991. That's it.
Well gosh, that's definitely something which matters a great deal. Should we have bankrupted ourselves to try and get Mbappe?
You're missing the point. We signed a lot of crap too, back before ENIC, and that's probably why we didn't have much sustained success in the 80s and especially 90s.
I enjoyed signing Jurgen as much as anyone. Didn't really do much for us in the long run though, did it?
By contrast, ENIC's approach drove us up the table, made the world take us seriously and reached the CL final. I know which one I prefer...
Don't tell me what I know about the financials, I know what I do and don't know thank you. Again, you're looking at numbers without understanding their context. It has been explained to you literally hundreds of times but either you genuinely just don't understand, or you choose not to understand because you are blinded by your hatred of ENIC.
I have named many times various things that I'm critical of Levy & ENIC for, and I coudn't give a toss if they left tomorrow as long as they were replaced by something better, or at least not something worse. So I certainly don't "passionately support" them at all - I just don't have the irrational and all-consuming hatred of them that you have. I'm primarily a Spurs fan. You are primarily an ENIC-hater and a Spurs fan second. I'm sure it wasn't always like that for you, but it is now, and has been for a very long time.
Last edited:
None of the players he lists were at the apex careerwise when we got them. Dele a punt Lennon Bale ditto. Good youth prospects like Sarr or Bregvall. Walker was a zero Naughton was the rated of the two Kyle's. Modric could be the one but he certainly was not Lineker. It's a very poor list of names to make the point he seems to be making. That ENIC signed quality as opposed to the past. Some of the names became elite, with huge slices of luck to boot. Sherwood resisting Kanes sale an injury to Assou Ekotto with Birmingham about to pick up the jinx. The repositioning of Demble by one coach. Much of the revisionist make the strategic vision look way better than it was.
Last edited:
Sorry, I’m unsure where you are going.