• 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

Wot??? You're only over 40 years out with our first promotion to the top division.
Ah yes apologies. I see that we spent 16 years in total in the top flight between our formation in 1882 and our promotion in 1950. I had thought we'd won the 1921 FA Cup while in the second division but see we got promoted the season before (and then relegated again in 1928).
 
It is mad that everyone is comparing the modern era to the 50s-90s.

There are so many clubs now who are so much better than every other club due to one or both of PL/CL money (United, Arsenal, Liverpool) and financial doping (City, Chelsea).

You only have to look at the distribution of trophies between clubs over the years to see that they are being shared by a narrower and narrower set of teams. Money has hugely stratified the league and created a gulf between clubs.

And its only getting worse. A lot of people use Swansea, Wigan, Portsmouth etc. as a stick to beat Levy with. But when is the last time that sort of club won a trophy? Leicester are the only ones. Otherwise you have to go back to Wigan/Swansea in 2013. Every single other trophy has been shared between the 5 clubs mentioned above. Frankly its a miracle that we've even been this close.

The same can obviously be said for us being the only European regular outside the elite: we have also benefited from this stratification of the league. But to get to that point was a miracle from where we were in the 90s, whether we won a League Cup in 1999 or not. We could have easily been left in the doldrums like Everton, Leeds, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Villa.

Now we have comparable income streams to those other 5 clubs, which is a testament to Levy's management. He always said that CL under Poch came earlier than planned. The plan was to build the stadium and use that as a base. We now have that base. We have the stadium/revenue streams, the training ground, and the behind the scenes operation in place. We are finally ready to have a crack at the big boys.

Of course, having had the best team in the country and almost winning several trophies, there is a strong argument to say we should have just said 'fudge it' and invested at the top, like Arsenal are doing now.

The flipside is that the margins are fine and, if it backfired, we could have easily squandered all that good work and slipped down the league. We may well have not been in as strong a position on PSR/squad quality now if we'd been overspending like our rivals.

It remains to be seen what happens to (for example) Arsenal or Villa. It is 'brick or get off the pot' time for both of them with regards to finances. A couple of bad years, the top players leave, and its back down the snake to square 1 on the board. (Albeit Arsenal have very strong revenues to fall back on.) That is the risk they have taken, and one we chose not to take when we didn't sign anyone, didn't back Poch, and let that project go stale.

If you deem that risk to be unacceptable within our finances, as the club did, then you are left with 2 options: unheard of largesse from Lewis, or oil money. Neither of these was ever realistic.

I can't be sure whether that under-investment was the right approach or not, but we are in a strong position now to build from. We can (and have) invested in the squad and are making real progress on the pitch.

As is abundantly clear from this post, more money from Qatari investment would have course help. But changing the leadership who have delivered such success in such an unprecedented climate is complete lunacy IMO - regardless of their risk appetite in the Poch years.

Even if it was uncalled for, we are now in a position where the same risk appetite will yield much more investment. If we can get even more investment from selling off a bit of the club, great, but for me it can't mean getting rid of Levy. He built this club to where it is now, including laying the foundations of a footballing operation that is designed to take us to the next level.

In any case, he's staying. He wants to win the league with us and I don't expect him to quit until we do. Of course he has made mistakes but it is a punishing environment and overall I wouldn't want anyone else at the helm. His dedication and knowledge of the club are second to none and, in the long run, he has always managed to reach new heights. He is here to stay and for me has earned my backing over the past 20+ years.

I am hugely proud of what the club has done over my lifetime with all of the odds stacked against us. We have managed to muscle in on one of the most competitive and - frankly - rigged cartels in world sport.

I really do think that we are approaching a period of real promise for this club and I wish everyone would just quit moaning and get behind the fudging boys.

COYS

Absolutely this and this again
 
It does bring up the debate as to what is the objective metric to use to judge the success of a club. Major trophies seem to be that objective measurement. And we all want success right?

So by that measure we were a more successful club in the 90s than we have been in the last decade. However I don’t think many of us would want to go back to the relative player quality we had back then. Mediocrity in the dictionary wouldn’t be words it would be the spurs logo.

Wigan have also been a more successful club than us in the last decade. Not sure many would want us bouncing around the lower leagues though. The thing about the 90s and noughties is that those trophies were major achievements because our stature meant we weren’t expected to win them. Just getting into Europe was a success.

So why are we now expecting to win trophies. Probably because the club has been grown to a size where we’re now expected to dine with the big boys. Yet somehow that growth isn’t appreciated and seen as a success story. The irony is that Levy would have been more “successful” keeping the club mediocre and achieving Europe against the run of play.

I guess ultimately it comes down to what you want from the club. For me I enjoy the kinship of being a spurs fan, I enjoy having a connection with the players and managers and I enjoy watching entertaining football. That’s why I wouldn’t swap the Poch years for the Ramos years. The lack of trophies isn’t a big frustration for me, particularly in this league environment.

Editing the post: The lack of trophies isn’t a huge frustration for me. I’m in it for the ride and entertainment. I’m not in favour of oil funding for success
Re: this comment.... Wigan ARE a lower league club. That is their natural place. Wigan's FA Cup win was a massive over achievement for them. Wigan even being in the premier league was a huge achievement for them, that alone was probably a bigger achievement for them than it would be for us to win the Premier League title. Wigan winning the FA Cup wasn't something that their fans could ever feasibly even imagine.
 
No, and not even arguing success here, this is your (and other's) utter failure to understand business

- 23+ years of profit (Levy & ENIC's money) re-invested into the club (no dividends taken)
- His money, not yours (or mine), you don't argue how the CEO of Starbucks or McDonald's spends money as your money because you bought a coffee/burger
- If you are bothered to do the work (I'm too fudging lazy for a conversation that has been done to death), it will be over a billion of "their" money invested into club (funny how that narrative doesn't look the same)
- In that time, Tottenham's facilities, global brand, income, players have all improved drastically in a way no other club in the league that wasn't supported by a nation state has

Historically bad? another statement that is at best stretching

- 17 Major honors in 142 years, that's Spurs amazing output ..
- If (yes, big IF), Spurs won two trophies in next 5 years, we would be right back on track with "history"
- For what it's worth, this is the best league sequence and European participation sequence in our history (so historically good?)
- Yes, conversion of 2nd/3rd place, QF, SF & Final appearance to a wins has been poor (that should be a conversation, but is a separate thing)

Said it too many times

- Levy/ENIC have done arguably as good as anyone else in club football in the total time period staying within a financially viable model (as example, Chelsea lost 1M/week for 13 years under RA leadership, that's what we competed against). And if you disagree, show me the 2 or 3 clubs that have done better (i.e. improved their position more in the same timeline and kept it there) without money doping/sportswashing

Now if that isn't enough for you, and you want a Middle East/Oligarch/insert dubious source of money here type of investment to just come in and throw money at the problem until eventually we win more stuff, great, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion, but to say Levy/ENIC have done a bad job/wasted money simply doesn't stand up ..

Nice post

We have had glory glory nights, the 80s were class but I will say it again one of my earliest memories for Spurs was the 87 capitulation and my old man saying "this is Spurs".

Yes the years recently have been lean but 15 odd SFs and Finals and the responsibility not being on the players to get over the line for me is a joke of an excuse, there has to be collective blame on not crossing the line, its not all on Levy and Enic as some would have you believe. I am sure someone will trot out the "ohhh but we were underdogs" like underdogs never win cup finals (90/91 & 07/08 anyone).

Ultimately yes trophies are what clubs are judged on, has our drop off been one of dynasty of the Uniteds to nothing, absolutely not, as you say success was sporadic AND lets be really honest, the 90s really sucked for us so turning that tide of nearly relegated laughing stocks into what we are now whilst contending with oil money and criminal investment, you can't deny they have done well for us.
 
Ah yes apologies. I see that we spent 16 years in total in the top flight between our formation in 1882 and our promotion in 1950. I had thought we'd won the 1921 FA Cup while in the second division but see we got promoted the season before (and then relegated again in 1928).
Or 16 years between 1909, when first promoted, and 1950, so roughly 50% of the time when you take out the breaks for the world wars.
But continue picking time ranges to suit your arguement.
 
Or 16 years between 1909, when first promoted, and 1950, so roughly 50% of the time when you take out the breaks for the world wars.
But continue picking time ranges to suit your arguement.
Not sure that is fair to be honest. I apologised for my error and then posted how many seasons we spent in the top flight in that period?
 
Last edited:
1950s - 1 trophy
1960s - 5 trophies
1970s - 4 trophies
1980s - 3 trophies
1990s - 2 trophies
2000s - 1 trophy
2010s - 0 trophies
2020s - ??
 
Fair enough, but you're cutting off a big chunk of the time we've existed to bring up the average trophies per decade we've won.
I was really just trying to point out that I didn't think it was particularly fair to compare our trophies now with the entire period of our history considering we weren't really one of the big boys for a fair chunk of that history.

Maybe some think it is fine for a club of our prestige to win less than half a trophy per decade and that is what our level should be and therefore we're doing just fine? Now I know we've never been a Man Utd or Liverpool or even a (dare I say it) Arsenal level club. However I don't think we should consider a trophy return of under 1 pot per decade as anything other than not good enough.
 
I was really just trying to point out that I didn't think it was particularly fair to compare our trophies now with the entire period of our history considering we weren't really one of the big boys for a fair chunk of that history.

Maybe some think it is fine for a club of our prestige to win less than half a trophy per decade and that is what our level should be and therefore we're doing just fine? Now I know we've never been a Man Utd or Liverpool or even a (dare I say it) Arsenal level club. However I don't think we should consider a trophy return of under 1 pot per decade as anything other than not good enough.
Agree 100% that it's not good enough. But it could've easily been a couple of trophies in the last 10 years with a little bit of luck.
One off games not going our way.
 
Agree 100% that it's not good enough. But it could've easily been a couple of trophies in the last 10 years with a little bit of luck.
One off games not going our way.
The two that hurt the most were probably the Blackburn League Cup final and the Portsmouth FA Cup semi final. Obviously we've lost higher profile semis and finals than those two, as well as losing semis and finals to more hated teams. However, these were the two games where I felt that overall we had the better squad and really should've won. The others were all against teams who were operating much higher transfer spends and wage bills.
 
It is mad that everyone is comparing the modern era to the 50s-90s.

There are so many clubs now who are so much better than every other club due to one or both of PL/CL money (United, Arsenal, Liverpool) and financial doping (City, Chelsea).

You only have to look at the distribution of trophies between clubs over the years to see that they are being shared by a narrower and narrower set of teams. Money has hugely stratified the league and created a gulf between clubs.

And its only getting worse. A lot of people use Swansea, Wigan, Portsmouth etc. as a stick to beat Levy with. But when is the last time that sort of club won a trophy? Leicester are the only ones. Otherwise you have to go back to Wigan/Swansea in 2013. Every single other trophy has been shared between the 5 clubs mentioned above. Frankly its a miracle that we've even been this close.

The same can obviously be said for us being the only European regular outside the elite: we have also benefited from this stratification of the league. But to get to that point was a miracle from where we were in the 90s, whether we won a League Cup in 1999 or not. We could have easily been left in the doldrums like Everton, Leeds, Saudi Sportswashing Machine, Villa.

Now we have comparable income streams to those other 5 clubs, which is a testament to Levy's management. He always said that CL under Poch came earlier than planned. The plan was to build the stadium and use that as a base. We now have that base. We have the stadium/revenue streams, the training ground, and the behind the scenes operation in place. We are finally ready to have a crack at the big boys.

Of course, having had the best team in the country and almost winning several trophies, there is a strong argument to say we should have just said 'fudge it' and invested at the top, like Arsenal are doing now.

The flipside is that the margins are fine and, if it backfired, we could have easily squandered all that good work and slipped down the league. We may well have not been in as strong a position on PSR/squad quality now if we'd been overspending like our rivals.

It remains to be seen what happens to (for example) Arsenal or Villa. It is 'brick or get off the pot' time for both of them with regards to finances. A couple of bad years, the top players leave, and its back down the snake to square 1 on the board. (Albeit Arsenal have very strong revenues to fall back on.) That is the risk they have taken, and one we chose not to take when we didn't sign anyone, didn't back Poch, and let that project go stale.

If you deem that risk to be unacceptable within our finances, as the club did, then you are left with 2 options: unheard of largesse from Lewis, or oil money. Neither of these was ever realistic.

I can't be sure whether that under-investment was the right approach or not, but we are in a strong position now to build from. We can (and have) invested in the squad and are making real progress on the pitch.

As is abundantly clear from this post, more money from Qatari investment would have course help. But changing the leadership who have delivered such success in such an unprecedented climate is complete lunacy IMO - regardless of their risk appetite in the Poch years.

Even if it was uncalled for, we are now in a position where the same risk appetite will yield much more investment. If we can get even more investment from selling off a bit of the club, great, but for me it can't mean getting rid of Levy. He built this club to where it is now, including laying the foundations of a footballing operation that is designed to take us to the next level.

In any case, he's staying. He wants to win the league with us and I don't expect him to quit until we do. Of course he has made mistakes but it is a punishing environment and overall I wouldn't want anyone else at the helm. His dedication and knowledge of the club are second to none and, in the long run, he has always managed to reach new heights. He is here to stay and for me has earned my backing over the past 20+ years.

I am hugely proud of what the club has done over my lifetime with all of the odds stacked against us. We have managed to muscle in on one of the most competitive and - frankly - rigged cartels in world sport.

I really do think that we are approaching a period of real promise for this club and I wish everyone would just quit moaning and get behind the fudging boys.

COYS

I could not have put it better myself, great post.
 
1950s - 1 trophy
1960s - 5 trophies
1970s - 4 trophies
1980s - 3 trophies
1990s - 2 trophies
2000s - 1 trophy
2010s - 0 trophies
2020s - ??

So interesting view

1882-1950's? 1 trophy?
Also so shows the decade prior to ENIC wasn't overflowing with success either
And fudge that 80's team underachieved
 
So interesting view

1882-1950's? 1 trophy?
Also so shows the decade prior to ENIC wasn't overflowing with success either
And fudge that 80's team underachieved
FA Cups in 1901 (only non league team to win it since football league was created) and again 1921 (year after winning the second division).... I did some reading up on the history since @DubSpur called me out earlier in the thread :)
 
So interesting view

1882-1950's? 1 trophy?
Also so shows the decade prior to ENIC wasn't overflowing with success either
And fudge that 80's team underachieved
Also, 2001 the Champions League begins. Anyone who missed that gravy train (thanks Sugar!) is fuct for the foreseeable, and any club as big as us (Everton, Aston Villa, etc.) has a similar story to us. If fact the only clubs who have challenged the original CL clubs are City (cheat mode) and....er...us!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Looking at football history as a whole to try and plot trends is a bit of a folly imv due to the CL/PL/Sky TV led shift - really should be looked at pre/post PL era or more accurate still, to when the CL places were extended to 4 in the PL.
 
- Levy/ENIC have done arguably as good as anyone else in club football in the total time period staying within a financially viable model (as example, Chelsea lost 1M/week for 13 years under RA leadership, that's what we competed against). And if you disagree, show me the 2 or 3 clubs that have done better (i.e. improved their position more in the same timeline and kept it there) without money doping/sportswashing

Now if that isn't enough for you, and you want a Middle East/Oligarch/insert dubious source of money here type of investment to just come in and throw money at the problem until eventually we win more stuff, great, you are absolutely entitled to that opinion, but to say Levy/ENIC have done a bad job/wasted money simply doesn't stand up ..

The footballing landscape has changed dramatically in my lifetime. In my youth, Spurs were regarded as one of the league's big spenders and it was not uncommon for the club to break the British transfer record.

The Greaves (AC Milan) transfer was a bit before my time but at £99,999 19s 11d it must have been a record, if only because Bill Nick insisted the fee would be less than £100k to reduce the pressure on Greaves.

Off the top of my head, I can remember big Chiv being bought for £125,000 from Southampton, which I think was a record at the time, while that man Greaves again was involved in what I think was another record transfer, namely Martin Peters coming in (a fee of £240k rings a bell).

I can also remember us tinkling away £110,000 on Roger Morgan but that's another story and was only a "record" in terms of being a N'dombele style waste of money, although at least the lad tried hard and he looked a bit like George Best (and played with his shirt outside of his shorts - this was a BIG BIG bone of contention way back when with the Daily Mail crowd).

Er ... what was my point?

Mainly to agree with Raziel that ENIC have been competing in a particularly tough era in terms of level playing fields (and I'm not talking about Yeovil's pitch, here). That being said, Arsenal and Liverpool are the clubs I can think of who have probably done better than THFC over ENIC's timeline without (too much) financial doping but whether they have, in Raziel's words, "improved their position more in the same timeline and kept it there" (both clubs were both previously massively successful) is arguable.

As you can tell from my Grandpa Simpson references, I can remember a time when Leeds were the top club in the country for around a decade or so. Sometimes risking all to restore the glory days does not come off.

1729612320856.png
Roger Morgan - not to be confused with his twin Ian
 
Back