Levy / ENIC

[John Thomas]

You think the club would have telegraphed to Nuno that he was a stop-gap? Come on now...

That's what I asked you? And, no, of course I don't.

So you think it was all underhand and Nuno the fool just fell for it? You're the one suggesting some kind of conspiracy. Not me mate!

I think it was was it was. A shite managerial appointment that failed spectacularly

 

[Shadydan]

Nope, just like top four finishes are not all on the owners.

Indeed so bringing up the trophy haul under ENIC needs context.

It's the board's job to create the infrastructure and the culture for the club to be successful so whilst you can argue that the culture that ENIC have set has been questionable and inconsistent, if we are regularly getting to latter stages of competitions and getting into the top 4 that tells you that the infrastructure has been more than good for the most part and more than acceptable to pick up 1 measly trophy in 22 years.

 

[MVP]

Indeed so bringing up the trophy haul under ENIC needs context.

It's the board's job to create the infrastructure and the culture for the club to be successful so whilst you can argue that the culture that ENIC have set has been questionable and inconsistent, if we are regularly getting to latter stages of competitions and getting into the top 4 that tells you that the infrastructure has been more than good for the most part and more than acceptable to pick up 1 measly trophy in 22 years.

OK...so if the infrastructure has been more than good that means in the 80's it was brilliant.

 

[Shadydan]

OK...so if the infrastructure has been more than good that means in the 80's it was brilliant.

 

[MVP]

Better than now according to your argument, because we won 3 trophies.

 

[Shadydan]

Better than now according to your argument, because we won 3 trophies.

The comparison should be what/who our competition was back then not comparing our infrastructure from them to now.

That's not how it works mate.

I'm sure if there were clubs in the 80s who were Sportswashing and who were backed by regimes to purely launder their cash then I very much doubt we would have been successful then.

And even then we had a whole new ownership after Scholar who didn't progress the club the way they should thus being left behind, the reason why we are competing again now is because of ENIC, that's undeniable.

 

[MVP]

The comparison should be what/who our competition was back then not comparing our infrastructure from them to now.

That's not how it works mate.

I'm sure if there were clubs in the 80s who were Sportswashing and who were backed by regimes to purely launder their cash then I very much doubt we would have been successful then.

And even then we had a whole new ownership after Scholar who didn't progress the club the way they should thus being left behind, the reason why we are competing again now is because of ENIC, that's undeniable.

You brought up the infrastructure, it's fair enough that I compare.
Today players are fitter, clubs have much more financial power than that time. However that shouldn't diminish what we achieved back then, clubs like Aston Villa, Everton, Southampton, Forest, QPR had good sides back then add to that United, Liverpool and Woolwich it was extremely competitive. Southampton finished 2nd in 83-84, QPR finished 5th, we finished 8th.

No one denies that we are competing because of ENIC, they are the owners, anything good or bad they are partly responsible for.

 

[Shadydan]

You brought up the infrastructure, it's fair enough that I compare.
Today players are fitter, clubs have much more financial power than that time. However that shouldn't diminish what we achieved back then, clubs like Aston Villa, Everton, Southampton, Forest, QPR had good sides back then add to that United, Liverpool and Woolwich it was extremely competitive. Southampton finished 2nd in 83-84, QPR finished 5th, we finished 8th.

No one denies that we are competing because of ENIC, they are the owners, anything good or bad they are partly responsible for.

What's the purpose of comparing infrastructure from then until now other than to be disingenuous? I mean I'm sure all the Nottingham Forest and Villa fans look at their current infrastructure now compared to then and think it's better than when they both picked up the European Cup...not sure what that is meant to prove...?

You've just kinda proved my point by saying that clubs have more financial power than before, that IS literally the point - that's just not us that's our rivals as well and we are living in times where it's apparently okay for Billionaires backed by entire Sovereign states to come into football and pump money into a football club without questioning any sort or legal obligations of it compared to clubs who are trying to run self sustainably.

So yeah our entire infrastructure is a lot better than it was back then, we receive more commercial revenue, higher match receipts, TV money, prize money etc...we pay a lot more in wages but everyone else has this 'advantage' as well, it's not just us, then when you add the teams who are directly benefiting from all this state money on top, it kinda makes things a bit more difficult.

I mean I'm pretty sure that if Chelsea or City didn't win the lottery we'd be sitting here with more than 1 trophy in 22 years, don't you think?

 

[Furball man]

In that case just stick with Mason, the whole procedure and then the hiring of Nuno made us look like a clown shoe club.

I also don’t think clubs have stop gaps that cost us £12m to get rid of

 

[Furball man]

And regarding infrastructure, yes it’s great but it would be a lot different if we’d have been accepted to get the Olympic Stadium . Thankfully that idiotic idea didn’t happen

I’m happy with the direction the board are finally going in , leave the football side to the experts

 

[Zomb]

I still have that niggly feeling that Nuno was a stop-gap and Conte was the target all along. If you're going to hire someone that you're planning on firing soon, you get a meh manager on a cheap contract. I mean, think about the managers we were linked with outside of Conte. They were all meh options. We could have gone after Potter or someone of a high profile rather than Nuno, Gattuso, or that other Portuguese bloke, but we didn't, because Conte was the prize all along.

That's my guess, anyway.

The bald prick cost £16M. Expensive (and useless) stop gap

 

[Zomb]

we dont win anything with this manager, i may always just assume we are cursed forever


fa cup and top 4 would be a good step, both doable with this squad

CL is more likely than a domestic cup. Bigger chance of Man City exiting the CL earlier on than the FA/LC

 

[MVP]

What's the purpose of comparing infrastructure from then until now other than to be disingenuous? I mean I'm sure all the Nottingham Forest and Villa fans look at their current infrastructure now compared to then and think it's better than when they both picked up the European Cup...not sure what that is meant to prove...?

Not disingenuous, if one trophy means that the infrastructure has been more than good, then it's fair and logical to look back at a time when we 3 trophies

You've just kinda proved my point by saying that clubs have more financial power than before, that IS literally the point - that's just not us that's our rivals as well and we are living in times where it's apparently okay for Billionaires backed by entire Sovereign states to come into football and pump money into a football club without questioning any sort or legal obligations of it compared to clubs who are trying to run self sustainably.

So yeah our entire infrastructure is a lot better than it was back then, we receive more commercial revenue, higher match receipts, TV money, prize money etc...we pay a lot more in wages but everyone else has this 'advantage' as well, it's not just us, then when you add the teams who are directly benefiting from all this state money on top, it kinda makes things a bit more difficult.

But I shown that back in the 80's it was just as competitive in that era. In that era we won 3 trophies, over 2 decades we won one but yet that is more than good enough. Winning less trophies than Leicester is good enough?

I mean I'm pretty sure that if Chelsea or City didn't win the lottery we'd be sitting here with more than 1 trophy in 22 years, don't you think?

Lol you should know better than that, it's far too painful for me to go over opposition that we could have beaten, should have beaten, but got our arse whooped instead.
So the answer is no I'm not sure that would have happened.
"It's the board's job to create the infrastructure and the culture for the club to be successful" and the culture of the club has not been one of success as far as winning trophies is concerned and that starts with the board-to the coach/manager, to the players. Conte is here to change all that

 

[Get in!]

The bald prick cost £16M. Expensive (and useless) stop gap

£7 million. There was a break clause in his contract. Not that expensive.

 

[Zomb]

£7 million. There was a break clause in his contract. Not that expensive.

I take it back. A fine choice in that case

 

[Ionman34]

This is it.....If in another 22 years time we were still failing to land silverware but had elevated ourselves to the Wealthiest, most profitable sporting establishment on earth some fans would still be happy with the way the club was being run.

It's almost like they've overlooked the football ️ part in the football club

They really wouldn't.

What a ridiculous accusation.

 

[LeParisien]

John Thomas Matt1882

Little pop quiz for you.

We were 2nd biggest spenders on transfers and 3rd biggest net spenders on transfers in which decade?

80s
or
00s

?

 

[Shadydan]

Not disingenuous, if one trophy means that the infrastructure has been more than good, then it's fair and logical to look back at a time when we 3 trophies

But I shown that back in the 80's it was just as competitive in that era. In that era we won 3 trophies, over 2 decades we won one but yet that is more than good enough. Winning less trophies than Leicester is good enough?

Lol you should know better than that, it's far too painful for me to go over opposition that we could have beaten, should have beaten, but got our arse whooped instead.
So the answer is no I'm not sure that would have happened.
"It's the board's job to create the infrastructure and the culture for the club to be successful" and the culture of the club has not been one of success as far as winning trophies is concerned and that starts with the board-to the coach/manager, to the players. Conte is here to change all that

Yeah I think we're gonna leave this debate here, I think you know full well that we would have pushed on had it not been for those clubs, oh well I'm not in the mood for dishonest debates these days so enjoy

Had a giggle at your last sentence regarding Conte though, acknowledging the fact that Conte is here but seemingly ignoring that the very same board you're pointing finger at actually hired him and put the club in a position to attract him in the first place, one isn't happening without the other.

 

[MVP]

Yeah I think we're gonna leave this debate here, I think you know full well that we would have pushed on had it not been for those clubs, oh well I'm not in the mood for dishonest debates these days so enjoy

It's not dishonest, the fact is even if City and Chelsea are removed, we still have to get over the line. If you want an example in the 2002 league cup semi final Chelsea beat us 2-1 in the first leg, in the 2nd leg we beat their arse 5-1.

We then go on to the final to lose to Blackburn 3-1...

Had a giggle at your last sentence regarding Conte though, acknowledging the fact that Conte is here but seemingly ignoring that the very same board you're pointing finger at actually hired him and put the club in a position to attract him in the first place, one isn't happening without the other.

I haven't ignored it , I said multiple times that they deserve credit, but they can't get credit with out having any blame for mistakes.

 

[Shadydan]

It's not dishonest, the fact is even if City and Chelsea are removed, we still have to get over the line. If you want an example in the 2002 league cup semi final Chelsea beat us 2-1 in the first leg, in the 2nd leg we beat their arse 5-1.

We then go on to the final to lose to Blackburn 3-1...

I haven't ignored it , I said multiple times that they deserve credit, but they can't get credit with out having any blame for mistakes.

Ah yes of course what a brilliant example when ENIC hadn't even been in charge of Spurs for a year.

I think someone is out here being a little dishonest...