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.
That simply isn't true. The players, the squad, the training facilities, the results, the league positions have all
VASTLY improved since ENIC took over. That is fact, not open for debate. Whether you like ENIC or not, it is simply not possible to deny we are a far better and more attractive club than we were 14 years ago.
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.
One trophy is not significantly worse. It's one trophy worse. The English leagues are infinitely more competitive now than they were in the 90's, they are not even comparable. Plus, you've compared 2 owners against ENIC in order to prove your point. How does that work?
We finished 3rd in '87 and '90 - then slowly slipped into lower mid table obscurity, which ENIC have pulled us out of, despite 2 top teams now being owned by billionaires that are willing to spend at will in order to achieve success amongst Man Utd's and Woolwhich's sustained success.
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.
We're in the middle of North London, surrounded by properties. It's hardly a simple task to expand your stadium. You act like we could've just whacked an extra tier on The Lane at will.
Since ENIC took over, only one stadium has increased capacity - The Stadium of Light (which was already bigger than WHL and they are not our competition regardless).
The Emirates and Etihad have been built. Oil billions paying for one - lack of funds and success for almost a decade paying for the other.
No "smaller clubs" have surpassed our capacity under ENIC's reign, so far as I can see. Complete fabrication on your part.
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.
So you agree with their decision to pursue that avenue, but attack them for it being wrong? You can't have it both ways. Any club in our position would look for and pursue the easiest option - demolish and rebuild. There isn't much land going in London these days, particularly enough to build a modern football stadia on. Common sense tells you we would try to push this through., as you agree. But still hate them for it.
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.
Bollocks. Valenciennes aren't comparable to PSG just because they are in the same league. Nor are Elche and Real Madrid. Being in the same league does mean you judge them equally. Every team has different ambitions, targets and aspirations. If you want to have unrealistic ones and then blame ENIC for us not competing with Mansour and Abramovich, so be it - but we are so far apart financially, we're not comparable from a business sense.
It's like running a water company from your local spring and wondering why your sales are worse than Coca Cola's.
Similarly UEFA didn't give us Chelsea's place in the CL when we finished 4t, by declaring their CL triumph invalid.
Not sure what this point is? The rules are clearly stated, we were unlucky, but not cheated out of a place.
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.
As is the nature of football. We have got ahead of Leeds and Toon despite them throwing money at it, and fallen behind the others due to their owners.
ENIC/Levy , financial stability , Great. FFP now makes that more important than ever.
ENIC /Levy , self implosion . That'd be the managers and the players. Levy isn't our striker.
ENIC/Levy , fan divide I'm sure every club could claim this.
ENIC/Levy, No success Open to interpretation, but most clubs are worse off than us.
ENIC/Levy buy to sell, Levy didn't buy Modric and Bale with their future transfer fees in mind. No one could have forseen their impact for us. We are Spurs - Real Madrid can buy any player of us they want.
ENIC/Levy - Sainsbury,s Ridiculous point.
Not really the dream of the young poets.
The revolution will not be televised.
