Oh goody another ENIC debate.
Well 25 years spanning ENIC's ownership and conflating it all together is pointless, like for example comparing first 5 years
Despite all this I don't get your point if you're referencing the fact that they didn't buy a striker last year because they were being cheap is nonsense because a) There was strikers on the market well within their price range that we could have bought but we didn't bite - that's nothing to do with price or being 'cheap', that's down to strategy.
What strategy is that then? Having one average injury prone striker.
I can see why other posters are like they are with you, you pick petty arguments and keep moving the goalposts

Have a good evening
