• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

ENIC

Raziel said:
May be true but like a lot of these reflections, it doesn't stand scrutiny, we lost the PL to a Ranieri Leicester side, are we going to pretend they had more depth than us? better manager? better striker?



You can and should criticise ENIC but it isn't as simple as people like to make it

- It was depth of squad, it was big players not showing up in the right games, it was mentality (how many Spurs sides would have won that game yesterday in it's circumstance 4-0?), it was poor manager decisions/tactics, it was weird distractions (Harry with England, Poch with his "if I win this" brick, Jose meltdown) it was playing in a league of cheaters, it's not one of those things, it's all of those things why we haven't won brick in 17 years ...

Edit .. I'm going to change my opinion/last conclusion
Click to expand...
Leicester didn't have a deep squad either. Them winning with a shallow squad doesn't change the fact that yes we also have never had a deep squad.

If you want to debate whether a deep squad is necessary then cool, but that's a different debate to what was claimed in this thread earlier.
 
Last edited:
Finney Is Back said:
We had a deep squad for a while uunder Redknapp but not really since then until now.

IMO there were two big issues.

1. The fact that our first team recruitment structure went to brick (Hitchen was a disaster)

2. Our youth scouting/structure also went to brick, both in terms of considering progression but also in terms of budget.

Paratici was superb in fixing both in a relatively short space of time.
Click to expand...
Meh, I don't think we even had a deep squad then. I take the deep squad to be a squad of talent and quality we really didn't with Harry. It was deeper than the Poch era but was filled with crap. No good quality strikers (I know you were a big fan of Defoe, but he was not the level required).

Poor CBs beyond King, Woodgate (and for one season Kaboul). Midfield had some depth but again the depth of quality was Modric, Hudd and Sandro the rest mediocre. No depth on the wings, just Bale and Lennon so for me I don't see the depth. We had a great first 11 minus the lack of a top striker but not a deep squad.
 
Jurgen the German said:
Right. But if you actually bothered to read the rest of what I wrote instead of selectively picking one particular sentence I don’t think what I said was that unreasonable. Obviously there’s many reasons why we haven’t got over the line; players not turning up in crunch games, poor team selections, bad luck, injuries. But the lack of a deep squad definitely hurt Poch, again he didn’t always help himself with his substitutions taking so long before making any changes but in hindsight maybe that was partly down to a lack of options on the bench.
Click to expand...
I did bother thank you, and your words are in the main observational and reasonable.

Sorry, but such a condescending comment (the one I selected) is a giveaway to your real thoughts
 
Bishop said:
We've never had a deep squad.
Click to expand...

I think we did under Arnesen and uo to around Redknapp, just that it was a deep squad with the overall quality capped at around 4th-6th, bit higher under HR - under Poch we built a top team but due to budgetary constraints and our 'smart buys' not working out the depth was severely lacking. Only now are we really in a position, financially, to properly build a proper squad that can compete at the highest level- but it's early days.
 
billyiddo said:
I thought it was the other way, that they rules were supposed to be heading towards an even lower % but the PL has capped it at 85 (tather than moving towards 75/65 over coming years)
Click to expand...

If it's down on turnover the top 4, plus us and Chelsea will have much more spending power than others

I guess it's a middle ground as clubs are so badly run at the moment most the league would be facing a points deduction

Chelsea are benefitting from it massively when it comes in, means they can flog anyone rather than just HGP to meet targets?
 
hmm if the premier league clubs have voted for it it probably means the rules have been relaxed? Guessing it would just need to be a majority vote like 15 out of 20, so the clubs struggling to meet the current rules.

Just when it looked like the game might finally have been getting under control..
 
PSR says you can only lose £105m over 3 years, an average of £35m per year.
It beggars belief that these companies lose money, given the truckloads of cash sent to them by the TV companies, but apparently it is fine to lose £35m/yr.

What I didn't realise is this, from SkySports:
"Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.

The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club."

So on average, a club can lose £5m of their own money, and the owner can throw in £30m. I hadn't realised that, to be honest.



Now, with these new rules....it will limit how much (perhaps 85%) of their revenue they can spend on transfers and wages.
And that it comes more into line with UEFA's FSR which will head towards 70%. So does that mean that clubs playing in Europe (all the big big clubs) will have to adhere to the 70% anyway, so the big big clubs would like the level to be set at 70% rather than 85%?



Either way, Spurs are in a strong position, whether it is PSR or FSR. Due to Daniel Levy's masterplan to increase revenue.
 
Bishop said:
Leicester didn't have a deep squad either. Them winning with a shallow squad doesn't change the fact that yes we also have never had a deep squad.

If you want to debate whether a deep squad is necessary then cool, but that's a different debate to what was claimed in this thread earlier.
Click to expand...

They didn’t have a deep squad, but had no Europe and were out of the cups fairly early.
 
Finney Is Back said:
We had a deep squad for a while uunder Redknapp but not really since then until now.

IMO there were two big issues.

1. The fact that our first team recruitment structure went to brick (Hitchen was a disaster)

2. Our youth scouting/structure also went to brick, both in terms of considering progression but also in terms of budget.

Paratici was superb in fixing both in a relatively short space of time.
Click to expand...
Experts doing experts jobs
strangely there is still a weird view that we shouldn’t let him near the club because he did bad things at Juve
when you consider the history of many clubs and how many have cheated many systems in many ways I’m fine with using Paratici on the right basis that keeps the club and him protected. He has done marvels in reality and added double to the value spent under him with instant effect. That’s bloody rare
 
Bishop said:
Meh, I don't think we even had a deep squad then. I take the deep squad to be a squad of talent and quality we really didn't with Harry. It was deeper than the Poch era but was filled with crap. No good quality strikers (I know you were a big fan of Defoe, but he was not the level required).

Poor CBs beyond King, Woodgate (and for one season Kaboul). Midfield had some depth but again the depth of quality was Modric, Hudd and Sandro the rest mediocre. No depth on the wings, just Bale and Lennon so for me I don't see the depth. We had a great first 11 minus the lack of a top striker but not a deep squad.
Click to expand...
No teams had squads of quality with quantity then, even united
now it’s a different game even in that short a period of time
 
Legohamster said:
If it's down on turnover the top 4, plus us and Chelsea will have much more spending power than others

I guess it's a middle ground as clubs are so badly run at the moment most the league would be facing a points deduction

Chelsea are benefitting from it massively when it comes in, means they can flog anyone rather than just HGP to meet targets?
Click to expand...

No it won't change the book value of players or their amortisation costs.
 
Bullet said:
PSR says you can only lose £105m over 3 years, an average of £35m per year.
It beggars belief that these companies lose money, given the truckloads of cash sent to them by the TV companies, but apparently it is fine to lose £35m/yr.

What I didn't realise is this, from SkySports:
"Clubs can only lose £15m of their own money across those three years. So that's no more than £15m extra on outgoings like transfer fees, player wages and, in a lot of clubs' cases, paying off former managers compared to their income from TV payments, season tickets, selling players and so on.

The other £90m of any £105m must be guaranteed by their owners buying up shares, known as 'secure funding', and essentially means bankrolling the club."

So on average, a club can lose £5m of their own money, and the owner can throw in £30m. I hadn't realised that, to be honest.



Now, with these new rules....it will limit how much (perhaps 85%) of their revenue they can spend on transfers and wages.
And that it comes more into line with UEFA's FSR which will head towards 70%. So does that mean that clubs playing in Europe (all the big big clubs) will have to adhere to the 70% anyway, so the big big clubs would like the level to be set at 70% rather than 85%?



Either way, Spurs are in a strong position, whether it is PSR or FSR. Due to Daniel Levy's masterplan to increase revenue.
Click to expand...

Yes. You will have go abide by both sets of rules if in europe.
 
Jurgen the German said:
The overall point is it’s not ridiculous to believe ENIC have done many good things but also made some missteps, particularly in the last 4-5 years. Looks like things are going in the right direction now. Just the overall tone on here sometimes is almost like how dare anyone criticise them which is why I was responding to. Contrary to what you may think I am actually quite reasonable and measured, I’m not demanding they sell up or attend marches to try and get them out. But the last time I checked this was a message board and their reign is worth debating just like any other person or group at the club.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's the way you're reading the posts on this topic rather than what people are actually saying?

This last batch of disagreement resulted from a "beggars belief" comment, but do you actually know if that was in regards to criticism of Levy/ENIC, or in regards to ENIC out protests?

A lot of posts in this thread point out missteps, things Levy has gotten wrong. Several of the people you're discussing with point this out with some regularity while also adding other factors to why we haven't won a trophy in just about forever.

I get the feeling you're not looking for criticism to be accepted, because it already clearly is by the vast majority of people on here. It seems to me that you're looking for criticism not to be tempered by also talking about other factors, by also talking with understanding of the missteps/errors made by Levy. I'm not saying that's what you're actually looking for, but that this is the impression I get from your posts. That not winning a trophy since 2008 is just a failure that should be seen as just that and nothing else instead of being seen from several perspectives.

I appreciate you taking the time to reiterate that you also think Levy has done a lot of good things, but I don't understand why others doing the same about what Levy has gotten wrong doesn't give you the impression that criticism is accepted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back