Here's where I draw the distinction.
If the claim is that Spurs should have accomplished the things City and Chelsea have accomplished (11 PL titles, 2 European Cups, 2 Europa Leagues, 7 FA Cups and 9 League Cups between them), then that's totally unreasonable and fails to properly weigh the reality that those clubs have done what they've done using financial backing beyond what even the immensely wealthy ENIC is capable of.
If the claim is that City and Chelsea's emergence as super clubs forgives Spurs' TOTAL trophy drought when the clubs own failures have been manifest, the club de-emphasizes competing in the "lesser" cups while selling fans and media on its managerial hires as "trophy-winning", in objective and in-arguable terms spends less of its turnover on its squad than ANY peer club in Europe and for good measure CHOSE to join the breakaway ESL project alongside City and Chelsea rather than standing with the game and structure and competitions that petro-doping has poisoned, then, well, I'm afraid I can't agree.
In general, rich clubs win and winning clubs get rich. But in ABSOLUTELY EVERY INSTANCE WHATSOEVER that there has been tension between making money and winning football competitions, Daniel Levy has explicitly, unambiguously and aggressively chosen the latter, and on the very rare occasions during which any reflection on that is provided for public consumption we are fed lies and bullshit whose contempt glows white-hot on the surface.
Daniel Levy's values are as clear as day to anyone who cares to see them. That might be forgivable in the presence of a well-laid and zealously executed plan to bring the competitive success that is the reason a football club exists. We don't have that, and more and more people seem to be awakening to that reality. I suspect those ranks will swell much further in the next 18 months.
