ENIC

[DubaiSpur]

I agree with City and Chelsea zooming past us but let not pretend that after 10 years of 12th, 14th, 16th finishes and real relegation threats that they did not also work hard to close the gap on limited resources that the club had at the time because they did. Man United were an absolute juggernaut, Arsenal were midway through a legacy under Wenger and we closed the gaps.

I'm not ignoring it - I factored it into my assessment, which is why they have been above-average and not godawful. But above average doesn't cut it anymore. Every club around understands that competing requires sustained, significant investment in the playing squad, year-on-year. Even Arsenal, who are theoretically behind us in income but move swiftly and aggressively to back their man (to the tune of what, 500m net spend over the past few windows?).

That is lacking at Spurs - that keeps us behind and always will do.

For all the money Man United and Chelsea are spending and have spent, in the Chelsea example of this season on 500m spending and Man United 1bn in 5 years they have severely underachieved, more so than us based on wasted revenue on players like Lukaku and Pogba etc. In 6 years United have finished 2nd, 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 6th with no trophy on a billion quid, Chelsea are 10th on 500m investment ontop of their existing squad based on spending....if Levy did that he would also get his arse kicked by fans, but fans give those others a pass because of the green eyed monster in them and give them a pass for being ambitious because they plough money in but people ignore the failing years because they themselves are calling for a sugar daddy....I mean if we are really going to talk success, people want money into Spurs by any means possible, they don't care about the whys, where and what, Qatar have flashed their cash garter and fans have already started to drop their pants calling for full on unprotected cash penetration

Yes, fans want investment, even if it doesn't work all the time - because that's being ambitious, that's trying to succeed and accepting that not every investment will work out. And the upside (their titles, their Champions Leagues, their Europa Leagues, their FA Cups, their success, their endless moments of happiness any of us would fudging kill for) outweighs the off-years.

And before anyone says, I know they have won things previously but if you think their fans are sat there now happy because of cup wins a few years back and are not baying for their boards for success you would be wrong, but we have fans that have become absolute Chelsea cucks who can't see past the money spent and actually be real about things that also don't work in their situation

I'm not sure I get your point, mate. Chelsea fans have enjoyed an incredible two decades beyond anything Tottenham Hotspur has experienced in its 140-year history, under an owner who gave them 20 years of happiness at no cost to them.
They are everything we could have been with different owners. Everything Chelsea do sticks in Spurs' fans craws because they are what we could have been, once - not even hypothetically, because both Abramovich and Boehly approached ENIC to buy us but were told to sod off by owners who couldn't hold a candle to either in terms of what they could give Spurs fans.

So, are Spurs fans supposed to feel grateful for ENIC because of the years Chelsea don't win anything, while ignoring the truckload of silverware they *do* regularly, continuously win, compared to our...nothing?

The reason I take balanced view because although, yes money clubs will have an advantage I don't believe its the only way as many seasons have proven and also after years of watching Sinton, Calderwood and Austin I can reflect on the progression without the nouveau crew views of "what have Enic ever done" (Not you BTW just the young crowd I see at games howling at the moon)

It is the only way, mate. That is how the game is. I spent years watching the crap of the early 2000s too - I don't hold what we were 20 years ago as a reason to want to hang on to the owners now, because we have evolved, football has evolved, but ENIC have stayed in 2001.

 

[DubaiSpur]

This reframing of our years under ENIC as a 23 year long grind is pure BS @DubaiSpur - granted it has been poor since we have moved in to the stadium but prior to that and the few years leading up to the Arnesen DoF restructuring it has for the most part been some of the best years to be following Spurs wrt consistent top end football - the Redknapp & Poch years in particular being in the top 4 spells for league performance in our history (early 60s and late 80s (iirc) being the other two) the Jol years up there not far behind i would imagine (someone over on TFC done a post showing the above to be factually correct btw) and there's no way over those years anyone following Spurs found it a drag or a grind

2010 to 2020 marked the first decade since the 1940s where we won nothing at all - even in the dreadful 1990s, we started the decade with an FA Cup and ended it with a League Cup.

'Consistent top end football' is great, but failing at the death all the time isn't memorable apart from its painful nature. The happiest moment in my entire Spurs-supporting tenure was running down the streets in joy after we won the piddling Carling Cup in 2008.

That is the only time,in the history of these 23 years, that this ownership model has truly worked out. Once, in 23 years. Apart from that, it has absolutely been a long grind of missed opportunities, roads not taken, failures at the death, and always being the bridesmaid to someone else's glory, from City to Chelsea to United to Liverpool to sodding Leicester City.

Of course, there are those who think it's fine as long as we compete in and around 4th to 6th place, and while I heavily disagree, it's valid. But I stand by my view that it's been grinding, because football is in the end about winning things - especially if you grew up believing that you were indeed, a club that once used to win things.

 

[Grays_1890]

I'm not sure I get your point, mate. Chelsea fans have enjoyed an incredible two decades beyond anything Tottenham Hotspur has experienced in its 140-year history, under an owner who gave them 20 years of happiness at no cost to them.



They are everything we could have been with different owners. Everything Chelsea do sticks in Spurs' fans craws because they are what we could have been, once - not even hypothetically, because both Abramovich and Boehly approached ENIC to buy us but were told to sod off by owners who couldn't hold a candle to either in terms of what they could give Spurs fans.







So, are Spurs fans supposed to feel grateful for ENIC because of the years Chelsea don't win anything, while ignoring the truckload of silverware they *do* regularly, continuously win, compared to our...nothing?







.

My point is on this, that if people are being truly objective they would also look at say Chelsea this year and say that what Boehly has done so far from good. spent a shed load of money, sacked a manager who won them the CL and is signing a load of players the manager clearly does not want, but in the Boehly situation people can't see past the money he is spending, which I get but frankly his handling of Chelsea is far from impressive if people really want to be honest about analysing things. But people don't care about where and who the money comes from anymore. people want the money regardless, thats what drives peoples judgements, not actually objective views.







And as I have said, when I look back at SF and Finals I have been to, we were better than Blackburn in Cardiff and lost, Redknapp got out hustled by Pompey in an inexplicable SF, We were better in the CL final bar a handball in the opening minutes, for all my love of Poch his Pepesq changes in lineups etc. If people are being honestly, truly honest, Enic put us in more coin flip games, SFs and Finals than many before them and the failure is collective on them, managers and players, without a doubt in my mind.

 

[billyiddo]

3 clubs have out spent us in terms of net spend since we started seeing revenue from the stadium, Arsenal, United, Chelsea - is that not the start of significant sustained spending? You're right to say that investing in the team is what people want to see and is, barring a huge amount of luck, what is most likely to lead to improvement for a football club so with that in mind why is it not a case of let's see where this new new found financial footing takes us? Because from where I'm sitting the time that we have started spending is awfully short in the grand scheme of things so we should perhaps consider seeing how it plays out from here.

 

[DubaiSpur]

My point is on this, that if people are being truly objective they would also look at say Chelsea this year and say that what Boehly has done so far from good. spent a shed load of money, sacked a manager who won them the CL and is signing a load of players the manager clearly does not want, but in the Boehly situation people can't see past the money he is spending, which I get but frankly his handling of Chelsea is far from impressive if people really want to be honest about analysing things. But people don't care about where and who the money comes from anymore. people want the money regardless, thats what drives peoples judgements, not actually objective views.

It's because most of those players are going to be useful to any manager, Potter or another, nearly all of them being top-end players or top talents.

Boehly's building a gigantic all-star squad and then letting the manager make it all work - while it isn't necessarily backing the manager, it's the ambitious decisiveness of it that shocks a lot of us. And I'd wager Conte would probably prefer Boehly's approach to whatever brick we've pulled so far in his tenure.

We have spent 25 days haggling over 50p for Pedro Porro - Chelsea have signed 500 players with consummate ease. Yet people still trot out the 'it's hard to sign players in Jan' argument (or just generally 'it's hard to sign players' ) to defend our owners.

It isn't hard to sign players in general, just hard for *ENIC* to sign players. And the difference is what people notice. I think it's pretty valid.

 

[billyiddo]

2010 to 2020 marked the first decade since the 1940s where we won nothing at all - even in the dreadful 1990s, we started the decade with an FA Cup and ended it with a League Cup.

'Consistent top end football' is great, but failing at the death all the time isn't memorable apart from its painful nature. The happiest moment in my entire Spurs-supporting tenure was running down the streets in joy after we won the piddling Carling Cup in 2008.

That is the only time,in the history of these 23 years, that this ownership model has truly worked out. Once, in 23 years. Apart from that, it has absolutely been a long grind of missed opportunities, roads not taken, failures at the death, and always being the bridesmaid to someone else's glory, from City to Chelsea to United to Liverpool to sodding Leicester City.

Of course, there are those who think it's fine as long as we compete in and around 4th to 6th place, and while I heavily disagree, it's valid. But I stand by my view that it's been grinding, because football is in the end about winning things - especially if you grew up believing that you were indeed, a club that once used to win things.

Not winning trophies in not a 'grind' grind refers to an overall direction/plateau in performance in my mind, seems to me what you're actually trying to do is dress moaning about a lack of trophies up as something more, maybe because the truth can be answered by our financial position for the majority of that time and the changing football landscape post Sky/CL money, we all know the trophy situation is poor and is certainly a failing of the club, but context is important and it's unlikely going forward that it won't be addressed because as my other post highlights we're actually able to invest and in fact are investing at a comparable rate to the top sides now - you and others are just not prepared to give the club the time to see where the spending takes us. 3-4 years, no instant return = throw in the towel basically.

 

[Grays_1890]

It's because most of those players are going to be useful to any manager, Potter or another, nearly all of them being top-end players or top talents.

Boehly's building a gigantic all-star squad and then letting the manager make it all work - while it isn't necessarily backing the manager, it's the ambitious decisiveness of it that shocks a lot of us. And I'd wager Conte would probably prefer Boehly's approach to whatever brick we've pulled so far in his tenure.

We have spent 25 days haggling over 50p for Pedro Porro - Chelsea have signed 500 players with consummate ease. Yet people still trot out the 'it's hard to sign players in Jan' argument (or just generally 'it's hard to sign players' ) to defend our owners.

It isn't hard to sign players in general, just hard for *ENIC* to sign players. And the difference is what people notice. I think it's pretty valid.

But Boehly also sacked a manager and gave this manager an 8 year contract I think so its all abit throwing darts at the moment. There is no doubt they will kick on but the idea that some chairmen are above the same criticisms, or in my mind worse because spending 500m and being 10th is a sin based on the theory money buys it all...

I will agree on the length of singing players and as I have said on here, if we want to talk about the money wasted and poor signings to level at the club I will till the cows come home because I agree, but I honestly believe there are more aspects to this than just that and I am not saying winning things means nothing because it does, but as I say, based on my entire experience as a guy in his mid 40s, supporting Spurs, I take 100% a more balanced view and can see, without a doubt how far we have come as an entire entity.

My other groan would be the cost of going, but then again I also take a view of you touch yourself you makes your choice these days

 

[DubaiSpur]

3 clubs have out spent us in terms of net spend since we started seeing revenue from the stadium, Arsenal, United, Chelsea - is that not the start of significant sustained spending? You're right to say that investing in the team is what people want to see and is, barring a huge amount of luck, what is most likely to lead to improvement for a football club so with that in mind why is it not a case of let's see where this new new found financial footing takes us? Because from where I'm sitting the time that we have started spending is awfully short in the grand scheme of things so we should perhaps consider seeing how it plays out from here.

Because of what we're seeing, both in the summer and now in Jan. We are the last out of the traditional top six to make a signing, any signing - and a position Antonio Conte has identified as a weakness basically since he's been here, right wing back, remains unaddressed 25 days into this window while we're haggling for 50p for Porro.

Like I said, I've seen this behaviour before, all too often, for 23 years now - I know where it comes from. And this Porro nonsense is a sequel to the same nonsense from the summer, where we signed Conte a player he didn't want and had zero intention of ever playing in Djed Spence because he was a cheap and young kid with potential upside - this model is one we were supposed to be leaving behind, not doubling down on. That Levy persists with it is enough proof that he hasn't changed enough to take us where we need to go.

 

[billyiddo]

Because of what we're seeing, both in the summer and now in Jan. We are the last out of the traditional top six to make a signing, any signing - and a position Antonio Conte has identified as a weakness basically since he's been here, right wing back, remains unaddressed 25 days into this window while we're haggling for 50p for Porro.

Like I said, I've seen this behaviour before, all too often, for 23 years now - I know where it comes from. And this Porro nonsense is a sequel to the same nonsense from the summer, where we signed Conte a player he didn't want and had zero intention of ever playing in Djed Spence because he was a cheap and young kid with potential upside - this model is one we were supposed to be leaving behind, not doubling down on. That Levy persists with it is enough proof that he hasn't changed enough to take us where we need to go.

Hold on why is Porro a player Conte doesn't want?

Edit : if you're refering to Spence then really this is just taking a comment and running with the negative spin - Conte said quite clearly he gave the transfer the green light which is all that really matters, the club has to continue buying for the medium to long term whilst also balancing the here and now - every club buys players of this sort and in all likelihood Dohert & Royal will be moved on come the summer, leaving Porro & Spence as options - 2 good young attacking wingbacks for the squad

 

[90291Spur]

Because of what we're seeing, both in the summer and now in Jan. We are the last out of the traditional top six to make a signing, any signing - and a position Antonio Conte has identified as a weakness basically since he's been here, right wing back, remains unaddressed 25 days into this window while we're haggling for 50p for Porro.

Like I said, I've seen this behaviour before, all too often, for 23 years now - I know where it comes from. And this Porro nonsense is a sequel to the same nonsense from the summer, where we signed Conte a player he didn't want and had zero intention of ever playing in Djed Spence because he was a cheap and young kid with potential upside - this model is one we were supposed to be leaving behind, not doubling down on. That Levy persists with it is enough proof that he hasn't changed enough to take us where we need to go.

This next couple of weeks will be key. And I'm not confident that Levy will change his modus operandi. Paratici being in trouble with the law doesn't help. The clear signal of Conte support would have been to splash the case big time EARLY in the window - we all know what a tough January we had in store. But here we are Jan 24 stealing a loan deal from Everton and haggling over Porro.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Not winning trophies in not a 'grind' grind refers to an overall direction/plateau in performance in my mind, seems to me what you're actually trying to do is dress moaning about a lack of trophies up as something more, maybe because the truth can be answered by our financial position for the majority of that time and the changing football landscape post Sky/CL money, we all know the trophy situation is poor and is certainly a failing of the club, but context is important and it's unlikely going forward that it won't be addressed because as my other post highlights we're actually able to invest and in fact are investing at a comparable rate to the top sides now - you and others are just not prepared to give the club the time to see where the spending takes us. 3-4 years, no instant return = throw in the towel basically.

We're talking past each other on that, because I fully agree with you - it is down to our financial circumstances preventing us from challenging for trophies.

And the owners are 100% the ones responsible for that - more ambitious owners probably would have had us challenging a lot quicker. Hence, get them out and get owners in who are capable of backing a sustained push for trophies.

As for the definition of 'grind' itself, like I said, it's valid if you disassociate our general hovering in 4th-6th from our utter trophylessness, and prefer the former/are okay with the former being the priority. I don't, and I can't - to me, the trophies we win,as much for Kane, Son and Lloris as for ourselves, are what I'll tell my grandchildren about (barring some miraculous exceptions like City away in 2010 or Ajax in 2019). And every year where we fail at winning anything is one more indictment of ENIC, because it almost always comes down to a lack of quality relative to our opponents.

Not all the times we comfortably finished 4th-5th.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Hold on why is Porro a player Conte doesn't want?

Didn't say that? I dunno if he does or doesn't want him, but I 100% guarantee that he wants nothing to do with Djed Spence, and it's him I was referring to.

The problem with Porro is we are 25 days into begging Sporting to lower their demands and being told to just pay the clause each time, and we will continue haggling like this until deadline day.

If Boehly was our chairman, he'd be in on 1st Jan. That's the difference.

 

[DubSpur]

Because of what we're seeing, both in the summer and now in Jan. We are the last out of the traditional top six to make a signing, any signing - and a position Antonio Conte has identified as a weakness basically since he's been here, right wing back, remains unaddressed 25 days into this window while we're haggling for 50p for Porro.

Like I said, I've seen this behaviour before, all too often, for 23 years now - I know where it comes from. And this Porro nonsense is a sequel to the same nonsense from the summer, where we signed Conte a player he didn't want and had zero intention of ever playing in Djed Spence because he was a cheap and young kid with potential upside - this model is one we were supposed to be leaving behind, not doubling down on. That Levy persists with it is enough proof that he hasn't changed enough to take us where we need to go.

Except that we got most of our dealings done early in the summer and there's zero evidence that Conte doesn't want Porro.

 

[DubSpur]

Didn't say that? I dunno if he does or doesn't want him, but I 100% guarantee that he wants nothing to do with Djed Spence, and it's him I was referring to.

The problem with Porro is we are 25 days into begging Sporting to lower their demands and being told to just pay the clause each time, and we will continue haggling like this until deadline day.

If Boehly was our chairman, he'd be in on 1st Jan. That's the difference.

How many times does it have to be repeated that Conte has said he agreed with the signing and he is one for the future?

 

[Grays_1890]

Except that we got most of our dealings done early in the summer and there's zero evidence that Conte doesn't want Porro.

And no club generally pays a release clause that was written into a contract 2 years ago and has no bearing on his current ability

 

[Robspur12]

How many times does it have to be repeated that Conte has said he agreed with the signing and he is one for the future?

How does that make sense though? Spence will be 23 this year, he should be starting to play regularly by now, or at least more regularly than he has been. At least starting cup games. I think Conte was just trying to play a bit of a PR game there with his comments about the lad. You can see why people are drawing these conclusions (perhaps wrongly) about Conte and Spence.

 

[DubSpur]

How does that make sense though? Spence will be 23 this year, he should be starting to play regularly by now, or at least more regularly than he has been. At least starting cup games. I think Conte was just trying to play a bit of a PR game there with his comments about the lad.

So he is 22? Conte obviously doesn't think he is ready yet but can see the talent. I'd say it's around the defensive discipline that he is not ready.

 

[Robspur12]

So he is 22? Conte obviously doesn't think he is ready yet but can see the talent. I'd say it's around the defensive discipline that he is not ready.

That doesn’t make sense either. Neither Doherty nor Perisic are particularly good on defensive discipline from what I’ve seen. And yes he is 22, 23 in August. Not 18, 19 or 20. By his age you should have a fair idea of how he will fit in to your team if you wanted him.

 

[Lilbaz]

That doesn’t make sense either. Neither Doherty nor Perisic are particularly good on defensive discipline from what I’ve seen. And yes he is 22, 23 in August. Not 18, 19 or 20. By his age you should have a fair idea of how he will fit in to your team if you wanted him.

How old were perisic and eriksen when conte left them out, till they learned how to play in his system?

 

[billyiddo]

We're talking past each other on that, because I fully agree with you - it is down to our financial circumstances preventing us from challenging for trophies.

And the owners are 100% the ones responsible for that - more ambitious owners probably would have had us challenging a lot quicker. Hence, get them out and get owners in who are capable of backing a sustained push for trophies.

As for the definition of 'grind' itself, like I said, it's valid if you disassociate our general hovering in 4th-6th from our utter trophylessness, and prefer the former/are okay with the former being the priority. I don't, and I can't - to me, the trophies we win,as much for Kane, Son and Lloris as for ourselves, are what I'll tell my grandchildren about (barring some miraculous exceptions like City away in 2010 or Ajax in 2019). And every year where we fail at winning anything is one more indictment of ENIC, because it almost always comes down to a lack of quality relative to our opponents.

Not all the times we comfortably finished 4th-5th.

2nd - 6th for the most part, there's that negative reframing to push the agenda again.

This boils down to being upset at the lack of trophies - it doesn't upset me much because i don't need XI guys I've never met lifting one to validate my support of the club or enjoyment following the team. You don't need to brick on the good years we've had to make that point, it shows you up to be disingenuous tbqh becasue as previously stated you and everyone else who bangs the 23 years of failure enjoyed those years as much as me - I'm dissapointed we haven't yet taken the final step and fell short at the final hurdle but c'est la vie - that's the icing on the cake, not a condition of enjoyment.

We're talking past each other on that, because I fully agree with you - it is down to our financial circumstances preventing us from challenging for trophies.

And the owners are 100% the ones responsible for that - more ambitious owners probably would have had us challenging a lot quicker. Hence, get them out and get owners in who are capable of backing a sustained push for trophies.

That's a position i can't really hold against you, if your position is you want/wanted an owner to pump in the finance to have us circumvent the years we took to catch up the big clubs then that's your right - i judge them on the club being run in a self sustaining manner, I don't see the point in resenting them for not being an Abramovich or Mansour. That said we are now able to and are investing in the team at the levels most people want to see - so why does it matter wrt our future progress that they didn't pump that personal money in previously? We now can spend competitively so why not see where it takes us?