Chairman's Message

[Greaves357_bestever]

Serious question time here for a second, not really worth starting a whole new thread....

in a simple answer, of A,B or C..

In your personal opinion, has the Levy Enic reign been

A: A success.
B: Neither progress nor regress
C: Failure.

I would go for B as nearest to the truth.

There has been some slight progress, but it's been far from a success.
When ENIC took over we were about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. Guess what, today we're about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. However the situation is much worse in one respect. Namely that one of our chief rivals, Chelsea, has become much bigger than us. It is very galling to be only the 3rd club in London, especially for those of us who remember when we could argue we were the biggest club in London. Even if Woolwich were still bigger than us in the 60s, we were easily the second biggest club in the capital. Now we've slipped to third which is very sad.

Our average league position has improved under ENIC compared to the Sugar era. Though whether it's improved compared to the Scholar era, I'm not sure.

However, our trophy return is poorer than both under Scholar and Sugar. Indeed one League Cup in 13 years is poor by our historical standards, which prior to ENIC was about one major trophy every 6/7 years, and that included far more prestigious titles such as the FA Cup and being champions of England.

We've had CL under ENIC which is very good and some great players. Though we had great players under Sugar too. In my all-time XI I have one from each, Bale and Klinsmann, with King spanning both eras.

During Scholar's time there was two, Hoddle and Gascoigne.

 

[Millbanks]

I'm not unhappy with what he has said here but it's what he hasn't said is what's irking me. I know we're unlikely to see it in the official end g season statement but I think we are all dying to know:

The exact reasons why AvB left and we were 'forced to change manager.'

I think our performances (not results) were an obvious factor for anyone to see. The 2 hammerings didn't help. Maybe there was more, but I don't think we are entitled to know the ins and outs of everything. No club is that transparent.

Who exactly is deciding on which players to buy and why, after countless windows, are they not buying the ones the manager wants. (Or are they? We don't know because no one tells us)

Again, I don't feel we need this transparent. What I care about is how they do on the pitch, and if they fail, those who signed him are held accountable, as well as the player. Duff players/signings are part and parcel, no one club gets them all right.

Why, after saying bale was not for sale, did we go ahead and sell him anyway? I actually would have understood this more if we hadn't reinvested the money in worse players and they'd said that we desperately need the funds for the stadium.

Simple - his value would have decreased had we said he was for sale.

Unfortunately we don't get to have an AGM any more so these questions rarely get asked in an officials capacity.

I sometimes feel like the chairman and his board think that the club is all theirs and we, the fans, are just a cash producing bunch of morons with no valid claim to an opinion.
We're like the child whose parents only let them play with their favourite toy of they've been a really good boy.

Our individual opinions don't matter. Not one bit. As a collective (THST for example) they do, but not any one person. Opinions differ too much, everyone knows everything all the time. We are there to support the club, and that is by choice. If you want more of a say, you need to be part of an organisation, not post your thoughts and feelings on TFC.

The hardest part for me to accept is that this is the the man that has taken us from VDV, Modric and Bale to Chadli , Naughton and Rose but goes on to reflect on a season that might have been

That is a ludicrous comparison of completely unfair proportions that you could do at any club, any time. Real Madrid have gone from Figo, Raul and Zidane to Morata, Carvajal & Jese.

As CJJ says -

Anyone else in a different topic would point out the severe cherry picking there.

You can easily say we've gone from VDV, Modric and Bale to Lloris, Eriksen and Adebayor, or any other 3 players. Modric didn't replace what we missed in Carrick instantly, nor did VDV in Berbatov. The key is in the players who have been settling in this season, and the players who haven't had the same chances (Lamela & Capoue).

Bear in mind we've gone from line-ups such as:

Gomes, Hutton, Corluka, Woodgate, Zokora, Chimbonda, O'Hara, Jenas, Palacios, Bentley, Bent

to

Lloris, Chiriches, Vertonghen, Capoue, Dembélé, Chadli, Sigurdsson, Paulinho, Eriksen, Lamela, Adebayor
(I guess that you left those lot out of your list)

Serious question time here for a second, not really worth starting a whole new thread....

in a simple answer, of A,B or C..

In your personal opinion, has the Levy Enic reign been

A: A success.
B: Neither progress nor regress
C: Failure.

A. Success being an improvement on when they took over the club. A vast improvement in my eyes. A shit season, plagued by injuries, managerial changes, and piss poor performances, we come 6th (above Man Utd), and we're fucked off.

That in itself just shows how far we've come.

The argument being that had he spent that little bit extra for that needed push (Moutinho, a striker etc...) we'd more than have covered it with the CL money we'd have gotten. We weren't exactly a million miles away from getting CL in a number of seasons where he failed to splash the cash in January to make it happen.

Furthermore with the relegated club next season earning the same as last season's champions in prize money (£68m I believe) there's certainly money coming from somewhere!

The second Monaco showed an interest, Moutinho was no longer viable for us. Same with Willian and Chelsea. The wages alone would have put us out of the running, let alone signing on fees, bonuses and a tax haven!

And have you seen the boy this season for Monaco? Hardly lit up Ligue 1. 31 games, 1 goal, 8 assists. Hardly a magical return given what they paid. We wouldn't be happy with that return. Paulinho scored 5 goals in a deep role and we're pissed off with him!!

I would go for B as nearest to the truth.

There has been some slight progress, but it's been far from a success.
When ENIC took over we were about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. Guess what, today we're about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. However the situation is much worse in one respect. Namely that one of our chief rivals, Chelsea, has become much bigger than us. It is very galling to be only the 3rd club in London, especially for those of us who remember when we could argue we were the biggest club in London. Even if Woolwich were still bigger than us in the 60s, we were easily the second biggest club in the capital. Now we've slipped to third which is very sad.

But when ENIC took over, we didn't have 2 clubs in the league owned by 2 of the richest men on Earth, so considering that, along with Man Utd's continued reign (until this season) and Liverpool being owned by wealthy Yanks, I'd say ENIC have done extremely well to push us on and keep us competitive amongst the vast riches now in the game.

It was a very different league back then. We have been extremely lucky to keep pace with the big boys. Look at Villa, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton, Leicester, Blackburn, Bolton - they would of all claimed at one point to be Premier League mid-table contenders, and there's some big clubs there. Look at them now. Look at us.

I think we may have crossed this bridge before, but please answer this. Would you be happier if -

A) We finished 3rd behind Chelsea and Woolwich.
B) We finished 15th above Chelsea and Woolwich, none of us getting relegated.

You cannot measure a teams success based on the success of its rivals. It simply isn't relevant. If we win the Europa League and Woolwich win the Champions League in the same season, that doesn't lessen our achievement in any way. Not in my eyes anyway. We are Tottenham. I worry about Tottenham. I couldn't give a flying fuck what those rich Russian cunts are doing, nor those jumped-up border-crossing fuckers nearby.

 

[Spursidol]

I would go for B as nearest to the truth.

There has been some slight progress, but it's been far from a success.
When ENIC took over we were about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. Guess what, today we're about the 6th/7th biggest club in the country. However the situation is much worse in one respect. Namely that one of our chief rivals, Chelsea, has become much bigger than us. It is very galling to be only the 3rd club in London, especially for those of us who remember when we could argue we were the biggest club in London. Even if Woolwich were still bigger than us in the 60s, we were easily the second biggest club in the capital. Now we've slipped to third which is very sad.

Our average league position has improved under ENIC compared to the Sugar era. Though whether it's improved compared to the Scholar era, I'm not sure.

However, our trophy return is poorer than both under Scholar and Sugar. Indeed one League Cup in 13 years is poor by our historical standards, which prior to ENIC was about one major trophy every 6/7 years, and that included far more prestigious titles such as the FA Cup and being champions of England.

We've had CL under ENIC which is very good and some great players. Though we had great players under Sugar too. In my all-time XI I have one from each, Bale and Klinsmann, with King spanning both eras.

During Scholar's time there was two, Hoddle and Gascoigne.

The big problem not in your analysis is that Scholar sent us almost bancrupt with Hoddle and Gascoigne gone.
We may have had a decent income (possibly 6th/7th) but Sugar taking over had to clear the debts of the SColar era and cut costs to do so - and to be fair he did that job well. Just a big shame about the effects on the football in that period.

So when ENIC took over, they took over a team who were in the bottom half of the table and lots of building to do.- whether you talk about rebuilding a tiny first team pool, an almost defunct youth system or virtually every aspect of the club.

The big breakthrough was Levy backing Aaarnesen to totally rebuild the squad (think it was 20+ players for first team and developoment squiad) which Jol shaped into a half decent team (even with the likes of Mido as striker) which then got 5th place in 2 successive seasons, the first time in over a decade.

The squad's continued to improve since then, although its fair to say that we've stayed as 3rd-6th type position since then with wobbles along the way such as Ramos as manager, but recovered by Redknapp.

I'd argue still that Spurs were a lot better off than a decade or even 20 years ago - but Chelsea and ManCity have won the lottery and jumped above us (nothing Levy could really do about that), and if they had not done that Spurs would be probably be competing with Man United, Liverpool and Woolwich (all of whom have improved or maintained their place compared with Spurs) for the top places.

So lots of progress, just not enough given the lottery winners

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

I agree that we're better off financially with ENIC than under Scholar (or indeed Sugar) and they have done very well, in improving our finances.

However this has not translated to where it matters, on the pitch. I stand by all that I said previously.

Re the lottery winners IF it is true that ENIC turned down a bid by Abramovich or even if they completely discouraged him so as he didn't bid, then of course there's plenty that ENIC could have done differently. Namely they could have stepped aside and then the anaswer would easily be A, as we would have made massive progress. Instead it was Chelsea who did that, not us.

Even IF Abramovich wasn't interested. the fact is the lottery winners have jumped above us, and so have effectively stopped our progress, which is why the answer is B. Whether ENIC could have done us a massive favour by selling out to another set of billionaire benefactors during the last ten years or so, I don't know. Fact is, they've stayed put, and now Chelsea are above us in the trophy table, City will be closing in in a few years I suspect.

We were fourth in the trophy table when ENIC took over, we're now fifth, and far more likely to go sixth than fourth again.

 

[jimmyriggle]

I think our performances (not results) were an obvious factor for anyone to see. The 2 hammerings didn't help. Maybe there was more, but I don't think we are entitled to know the ins and outs of everything. No club is that transparent.


Again, I don't feel we need this transparent. What I care about is how they do on the pitch, and if they fail, those who signed him are held accountable, as well as the player. Duff players/signings are part and parcel, no one club gets them all right.


Simple - his value would have decreased had we said he was for sale.


Our individual opinions don't matter. Not one bit. As a collective (THST for example) they do, but not any one person. Opinions differ too much, everyone knows everything all the time. We are there to support the club, and that is by choice. If you want more of a say, you need to be part of an organisation, not post your thoughts and feelings on TFC.


That is a ludicrous comparison of completely unfair proportions that you could do at any club, any time. Real Madrid have gone from Figo, Raul and Zidane to Morata, Carvajal & Jese.

As CJJ says -




A. Success being an improvement on when they took over the club. A vast improvement in my eyes. A shit season, plagued by injuries, managerial changes, and piss poor performances, we come 6th (above Man Utd), and we're fucked off.

That in itself just shows how far we've come.


The second Monaco showed an interest, Moutinho was no longer viable for us. Same with Willian and Chelsea. The wages alone would have put us out of the running, let alone signing on fees, bonuses and a tax haven!

And have you seen the boy this season for Monaco? Hardly lit up Ligue 1. 31 games, 1 goal, 8 assists. Hardly a magical return given what they paid. We wouldn't be happy with that return. Paulinho scored 5 goals in a deep role and we're pissed off with him!!


But when ENIC took over, we didn't have 2 clubs in the league owned by 2 of the richest men on Earth, so considering that, along with Man Utd's continued reign (until this season) and Liverpool being owned by wealthy Yanks, I'd say ENIC have done extremely well to push us on and keep us competitive amongst the vast riches now in the game.

It was a very different league back then. We have been extremely lucky to keep pace with the big boys. Look at Villa, Leeds, Newcastle, Sunderland, Southampton, Leicester, Blackburn, Bolton - they would of all claimed at one point to be Premier League mid-table contenders, and there's some big clubs there. Look at them now. Look at us.

I think we may have crossed this bridge before, but please answer this. Would you be happier if -

A) We finished 3rd behind Chelsea and Woolwich.
B) We finished 15th above Chelsea and Woolwich, none of us getting relegated.

You cannot measure a teams success based on the success of its rivals. It simply isn't relevant. If we win the Europa League and Woolwich win the Champions League in the same season, that doesn't lessen our achievement in any way. Not in my eyes anyway. We are Tottenham. I worry about Tottenham. I couldn't give a flying fuck what those rich Russian cunts are doing, nor those jumped-up border-crossing fuckers nearby.

Good post. I think most of your rebukes are fair but regarding te first one about transparency I feel that for y £800 a year I do deserve some form of honesty about what is going on behind the scenes with matters that affect my willingness to keep paying that money. I always argue that just by paying the entrance fee you are guaranteed nothing except a seat. Not a win. Not even a good Performance.

However, I'm a bit fed up of all these statements saying what a great direction the club is going with manager x in charge and essentially trying to convince us to keep pouring our time and money into the club, only for the wool to be pulled every time. Daniel needs to work on managing expectations before the fact, not in the post mortem stage of another season where we failed to make the next step up.

 

[palmers_green_yid]

I don't trust Levy after the Stratford debacle. For me this matters more than what we have done on the pitch. I can't see that he was bluffing with it, when he was hiring people to spy on West Ham's bid. Even if he was bluffing, no true Spurs fan would allow us to think for one minute that we might move out of North London.

Even I must admit we have done well on the pitch under ENIC. Still, there's a lot they have done wrong. If there was literally no money to spend on transfers in those successive January windows then I suggest Joe Lewis should have put some cash in...and I hope Levy was begging him for it, telling him it would be an investment, but I can't see it. The man comes across as stubbornly obsessed with getting value for money players above all else.

I can't understand Levy's obsession with a director of football system either. I suppose you could say it has had mixed results, with Arnesen doing well in the post, Commoli a mixed bag (v. poor at first but then some signings who came good after he had gone), and Baldini starting very poorly. But surely the best managers will want to have control over who they buy, which means we won't attract them, particularly considering Levy's record of sacking managers. My suspicion is that Levy doesn't have a good understanding of football and yet wants a lot of control over who we sign- not a good combination.

In a way it's hard to judge Levy as we don't know to what extent his hands are tied in regards to him being effectively an employee of Joe Lewis, but after Stratford I would classify him as a money man not a Spurs fan in any true sense.

Yes he's a lot better than Tan and the like but then again Cameron's a better head of state than Hitler, Stalin and Kim-Jung-Il but I still think he's a cunt.

 

[Millbanks]

Good post. I think most of your rebukes are fair but regarding te first one about transparency I feel that for y £800 a year I do deserve some form of honesty about what is going on behind the scenes with matters that affect my willingness to keep paying that money. I always argue that just by paying the entrance fee you are guaranteed nothing except a seat. Not a win. Not even a good Performance.

However, I'm a bit fed up of all these statements saying what a great direction the club is going with manager x in charge and essentially trying to convince us to keep pouring our time and money into the club, only for the wool to be pulled every time. Daniel needs to work on managing expectations before the fact, not in the post mortem stage of another season where we failed to make the next step up.

Thanks.

I think it is difficult to judge how transparent to be, to be honest. I understand you want answers, and many wish Daniel Levy was more publicly available and happy to carry out a Q&A every Tuesday evening at the local snooker hall, but I personally feel that the inner working of a club should be behind closed doors, and that by being 'honest and open', you leave yourself open for criticism and exposure (Gillett and Hicks, Glazers, Usmanov & co.).

I like that he stays out of the limelight and doesn't try to be too involved publicly. He gets on with business and I genuinely feel tries to do what's best for the club. He explains his decisions when he feels necessary (not very often!!) but keeps quiet most of the time. I for one am happy with that. It is not for us to know what he said to AVB and vice-versa. We aren't obliged to a transcript. I don't want the media knowing the ins and outs of our club. I feel that would be a bigger negative than being liked a closed book.

I can understand those wanting some more communication from up top, but I do sometimes feel that can lead to just more questions and frustration than appeasing those asking the questions. Look at Tan at Cardiff and the public affair with Mackay and Moody. West Brom and Pepe Mel, not sure if he is staying on, does he have a 6 month contact, 18 month contact? Who knows!? (We know now!!)

I'm pretty happy with the way Daniel chooses to deal with situations, and I don't feel obliged for an explanation as to why Doris the Tea Lady's contract has been reduced by 4 hours a week, or why AVB was sacked. If he does, great, but I'd prefer he puts his efforts into appointing the next bloke and getting us back on track. The same situation with Sherwood now.

 

[Tottenham Sean]

I don't want Levy out.In certain areas he has been good for the club(He played a blinder over the NPD imho).I just wish he would let the manager(who ever that is) manage the club properly.We have had a situation where the club has bought players the manager(AVB) obviously didn't want.Until this ends, i don't think we will ever be push on to the next level.We are at the same place we were 6 or 7 years ago, a top 2 side in the "best of the rest".Don't get me wrong, it could be worse.unfortunatly ,it could also have been a whole lot better.

 

[Spursidol]

I agree that we're better off financially with ENIC than under Scholar (or indeed Sugar) and they have done very well, in improving our finances.

However this has not translated to where it matters, on the pitch. I stand by all that I said previously.
.

Its not just the financial position that's got better since ENIC took over, compare the squad at the end of Sugar's reign with the one today.

No resemblance - the squad today is vastly better all over the pitch, and that has translated into the result of being 3rd - 6th place rather than a lower mid table team.

Our prospects are much better with a youth set up likely to churn out decent players, some just for the squad but a few stars too. That way we can also spend our money on stars rather than buying squad players/

We may not be permanantly in the top 4 as we might alll wish, but we are vaslly better off than the years under Sugar - and being almost bancrupted by Scoular.

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

ENIC have had 13 and a half years in June. We are not vastly better off than we were in the previous 13 and a half years.

In terms of trophies we are worse off. One League Cup under ENIC, one FA Cup and a League Cup under Sugar&Scholar. That's significantly worse. In terms of league positions we've done better, but our highest lge position in the last 27 years, 3rd, came under Scholar, not ENIC. Furthermore the comparisons are likely to worsen for ENIC, because in December 2014, ENIC will have been in charge for 14 years, and in the previous 14 years there were two 3rd place finishes, 87 and 90, both under Scholar.

Re punching above our weight, we are not punching significantly above our weight this season. We're about the 6/7th biggest club, and we finished 6th and did 'not well' in the Cups.

Re the stadium size, that's one of ENIC's biggest failings, it's precisely their fault that some 'smaller' clubs now have bigger capacities than ours. They've messed up on the stadium issue big-time. They could expanded the current stadium a long time ago, but chose not to.

Incidentally I don't think for one moment ENIC were bluffing over Stratford, indeed I agree with them and Sugar, that going to the OS site and building a stadium there was a 'no-brainer' and how I wish we would have won the tender to do so. But of course our plan to demolish the stadium turned out to be a 'non-runner', so effectively we wasted a lot of time and some money backing the wrong option. So again ENIC got it wrong, though I think it was worth a try, initially at least. But maybe we should have got more feedback from the authorities, because to a certain extent we were played for mugs, it seems. Though you could argue the concessions we got from the NPD were a quid (and a half pro quo, for the OS fiasco.

 

[BushHillSpurs]

ENIC have had 13 and a half years in June. We are not vastly better off than we were in the previous 13 and a half years.

You fail to factor in that Manchester City and Chelsea won the lottery and Woolwich moved into a new 60,000 capacity stadium in this time period. They are completely incomparable.

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

You fail to factor in that Manchester City and Chelsea won the lottery and Woolwich moved into a new 60,000 capacity stadium in this time period. They are completely incomparable.

I've not failed to factor in any of that. They are completely comparable because they all play in the same league as us. The Prem don't place us above City and Chelsea because we're not lottery winners. In fact the Prem love them, because they stopped Utd, Woolwich and Pool dominating proceedings.

Similarly UEFA didn't give us Chelsea's place in the CL when we finished 4t, by declaring their CL triumph invalid.

Our rivals are our rivals, we've got ahead of some of them like Leeds and Toon, we've fallen disastrously behind Chelsea, and City weren't even a rival but are now way in front of us.

Incidentally when 'Tim's team' lost to City, Woolwich and Chelsea, I didn't see many Spurs fans saying that don't matter, not Tim's fault, they're bigger than us. So what's sauce for the manager is ...?

 

[Fidel Castro]

ENIC/Levy , financial stability ,
ENIC /Levy , self implosion .
ENIC/Levy , fan divide
ENIC/Levy, No success
ENIC/Levy buy to sell,
ENIC/Levy - Sainsbury,s

Not really the dream of the young poets.
The revolution will not be televised.

 

[LarryCatt]

ENIC have had 13 and a half years in June. We are not vastly better off than we were in the previous 13 and a half years.

In terms of trophies we are worse off. One League Cup under ENIC, one FA Cup and a League Cup under Sugar&Scholar. That's significantly worse. In terms of league positions we've done better, but our highest lge position in the last 27 years, 3rd, came under Scholar, not ENIC. Furthermore the comparisons are likely to worsen for ENIC, because in December 2014, ENIC will have been in charge for 14 years, and in the previous 14 years there were two 3rd place finishes, 87 and 90, both under Scholar.

Re punching above our weight, we are not punching significantly above our weight this season. We're about the 6/7th biggest club, and we finished 6th and did 'not well' in the Cups.

Re the stadium size, that's one of ENIC's biggest failings, it's precisely their fault that some 'smaller' clubs now have bigger capacities than ours. They've messed up on the stadium issue big-time. They could expanded the current stadium a long time ago, but chose not to.

Incidentally I don't think for one moment ENIC were bluffing over Stratford, indeed I agree with them and Sugar, that going to the OS site and building a stadium there was a 'no-brainer' and how I wish we would have won the tender to do so. But of course our plan to demolish the stadium turned out to be a 'non-runner', so effectively we wasted a lot of time and some money backing the wrong option. So again ENIC got it wrong, though I think it was worth a try, initially at least. But maybe we should have got more feedback from the authorities, because to a certain extent we were played for mugs, it seems. Though you could argue the concessions we got from the NPD were a quid (and a half pro quo, for the OS fiasco.

Even Sugar baulked at expanding the stadium. Even only the East Stand. The finances didn't (and still don't) stack up.

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

Even Sugar baulked at expanding the stadium. Even only the East Stand. The finances didn't (and still don't) stack up.

Fair enough, but other clubs have expanded their stadiums or built new ones during the past 13/14 years. We haven't, so to say we're punching above our weight because of our small stadium, hmmmmm.

Also, it's not just about money (I know I know, don't tell that to ENIC and Sir Alan .

A bigger stadium might have a better atmosphere, IF handled correctly.

 

[Fidel Castro]

Woolwich built a new stadium, their old one only held 4,000 more than our present.
Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough etc some with less revenue than us.
Enic on all fronts are rigid, frugal, not ambitious look at the clubs they have ran
and bullsed up , It would be foolish to think we are any different to their
financial masterplan. Also arguably the least attractive duo in football .

 

[Greaves357_bestever]

Again some good points Fidel. Woolwich had a similar capacity to ours, they found it worthwhile to expand, we didn't for a long time. Now so far all we've managed is a Sainsbury's. As you say, plenty of other clubs have expanded.

 

[Tomo]

Again some good points Fidel. Woolwich had a similar capacity to ours, they found it worthwhile to expand, we didn't for a long time. Now so far all we've managed is a Sainsbury's. As you say, plenty of other clubs have expanded.

Yeh what the fuck is it with the sainsburys when ever progress at the club is discussed it all comes back to sainsburys. Shit season, stadium stalled, managers falling like lemons, don't worry guys and girls we have a new sainsburys is the message I am getting.

I don't dislike sainsburys, but unless we can pick up lukaku from there I don't give a fuck.

 

[LarryCatt]

Woolwich built a new stadium, their old one only held 4,000 more than our present.
Sunderland, Newcastle, Middlesbrough etc some with less revenue than us.
Enic on all fronts are rigid, frugal, not ambitious look at the clubs they have ran
and bullsed up , It would be foolish to think we are any different to their
financial masterplan. Also arguably the least attractive duo in football .

Relegated, relegated, relegated with one trophy between them since 1973.

See also Southampton, Derby, Reading and Cardiff

 

[LarryCatt]

Again some good points Fidel. Woolwich had a similar capacity to ours, they found it worthwhile to expand, we didn't for a long time. Now so far all we've managed is a Sainsbury's. As you say, plenty of other clubs have expanded.

They didn't expand. They built a new ground - essentially they did what we are doing now. At the time, they were winning trophies and had huge demand. Under Sugar, we didn't. They had a helpful council and helpful GLA. We have a local council near enough holding us to ransom over Section 106 commitments and a GLA making sure we right all the social ills that have decimated Tottenham and Edmonton since the late 70's.