So if we had won you wouldn't have give them any credit for 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...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Of course I would
But you're using an example of the 1st year in which ENIC had just come into the club in a discussion regarding ENIC's overall time, somehow you think that would be a repeated pattern under this ownership despite acknowledging that we clearly got much better since they've been in charge.
Context.
They can't credit if they win and no blame if they lose, that's not fair.
I didn't see any blame in that post towards ENIC all you did was make an excuse for them.Sorry you seem to be struggling a little here...I can't see anywhere where I said they were blameless, can you? If you can please point me to where you seem a little confused about.
You said you weren't trying to be dishonest but I refuse to believe you're this slow
Classic, was waiting for this.
"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..."
Yeah looks like you're giving them some blame.
If I said they were blameless I would have said they were blameless.
All I've done there is expose your argument based on your weak evidence of 1 year out of 22, if that's the kind of depths you need to reach to just hang onto a point then that tells me everything
You've got to the point where you're debating the semantics of my argument for the sake of one-upmanship, was pretty obvious where this was going after your initial disingenuous posts
2 x games in and none of our new signings have started a game. We won the window they say. Chelsea had 3 new signings in that team. And all look very good. That’s the difference.
So you do give them some blame or not?If I said they were blameless I would have said they were blameless.
I was refuting your point that we would have won more trophies if not for Chelsea and City, I was saying not necessarily and bought up the league cup example, it doesn't matter that it's year one, it's still under ENIC's reign.All I've done there is expose your argument based on your weak evidence of 1 year out of 22, if that's the kind of depths you need to reach to just hang onto a point then that tells me everything
You've got to the point where you're debating the semantics of my argument for the sake of one-upmanship, was pretty obvious where this was going after your initial disingenuous posts
Give me net spend or go home.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
?
Selling Carrick, Berbatov, Modric, Bale, Walker have given us cash to spend. That's reinvested money. Different to outright investment.
Chelsea lost a lot of starting 11 players.
We haven't lost a single one.
Can you read?
I said 2nd biggest spenders AND 3rd biggest net spenders.
The answer…….
Both the 80s and the 00s.
DING DING DING
Embarrassment for you.
Where's your figures from?
And to point out what I previously did, we were good in the 80s. We were regarded as a big club that spent money.
2 FA Cups, a Uefa Cup, a last ditch loss in a title race, an FA Cup final. Signed huge players over the likes of Man United.
And yet the same big spending occurred in the 00s and didn’t yield the same results. Mostly because of widening inequality (Man Utd we’re bigger relative to the average club than eg Liverpool we’re in the 80s) but also because of Chelsea being dirty sports washers.
Biggest net spenders in the 00s? Man City and Chelsea.
My figures are from here: Premier League - Transfer income and expenditures
That should give you the 00s. You can click on the expenditure column to give you total cost of players bought and the balance column twice to give total net spend.
Change the dates at the top to 80/81 to 89/90 to see for the 80s.
That tells you that the same actions that brought success in the 80s WOULD NOT WORK in the 00s. It’s so perfect it blows my mind.
Who did the loose?