Which administration do you think has been the best?

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Sort by date Sort by reaction score

Kid Chameleon

This is something I've been thinking about lately and I'm not sure there has been a specific thread comparing the various pros and cons of the three boards we've had since 1984. They've all done good things for the club and they've all done bad things and they all had different approaches.

Irving Scholar

Scholar was a devoted Spurs fan with a reputedly encyclopedic knowledge of the club's history. He had a very ambitious transfer policy and we made top tier signings like Paul Gascoigne which would have been the equivalent of us signing Jude Bellingham in today's market. The problem with Scholar is that, much like ENIC, he diversified the club's business interests and, unlike ENIC, these ventures weren't successful and that, in conjunction with an under-estimation of the re-development costs of the East Stand, led to financial meltdown. There were also under-the-table loans both given and received that got us into a lot of trouble with the FA.

Alan Sugar

Sugar's main strength is that he sorted out the mess that Scholar left behind and brought legendary players like Teddy Sheringham, Jurgen Klinsmann and David Ginola to the club. Despite this, lack of investment in the team was a persistent criticism and led to the departure of talents like Jurgen Klinsmann and Teddy Sheringham as well as missed opportunities to sign top tier players. The ultimate indictment of the Sugar era was the departure of Sol Campbell to Woolwich.

One thing I will say for Sugar is that there was never a lack of transparency on his watch. He was never shy to make his opinions known and there was none of the cloak and dagger stuff we get under ENIC. As it says in the title of his autobiography, what you saw was what you got.

Daniel Levy

On balance, I have to say that this is the best administration of the three in that we're not spending beyond our means and the team hasn't been mid-table fodder for many years. I still want more investment in the team and better judgement in player, coach, manager and director recruitment. I don't care if it comes from ENIC or another owner. I just want it to happen.

What do you guys think? I would particularly welcome insights into the Scholar era as a lot of it was before my time. Do you think there was any way he could have succeeded?
 
Kid Chameleon said:
This is something I've been thinking about lately and I'm not sure there has been a specific thread comparing the various pros and cons of the three boards we've had since 1984. They've all done good things for the club and they've all done bad things and they all had different approaches.

Irving Scholar

Scholar was a devoted Spurs fan with a reputedly encyclopedic knowledge of the club's history. He had a very ambitious transfer policy and we made top tier signings like Paul Gascoigne which would have been the equivalent of us signing Jude Bellingham in today's market. The problem with Scholar is that, much like ENIC, he diversified the club's business interests and, unlike ENIC, these ventures weren't successful and that, in conjunction with an under-estimation of the re-development costs of the East Stand, led to financial meltdown. There were also under-the-table loans both given and received that got us into a lot of trouble with the FA.

Alan Sugar

Sugar's main strength is that he sorted out the mess that Scholar left behind and brought legendary players like Teddy Sheringham, Jurgen Klinsmann and David Ginola to the club. Despite this, lack of investment in the team was a persistent criticism and led to the departure of talents like Jurgen Klinsmann and Teddy Sheringham as well as missed opportunities to sign top tier players. The ultimate indictment of the Sugar era was the departure of Sol Campbell to Woolwich.

One thing I will say for Sugar is that there was never a lack of transparency on his watch. He was never shy to make his opinions known and there was none of the cloak and dagger stuff we get under ENIC. As it says in the title of his autobiography, what you saw was what you got.

Daniel Levy

On balance, I have to say that this is the best administration of the three in that we're not spending beyond our means and the team hasn't been mid-table fodder for many years. I still want more investment in the team and better judgement in player, coach, manager and director recruitment. I don't care if it comes from ENIC or another owner. I just want it to happen.

What do you guys think? I would particularly welcome insights into the Scholar era as a lot of it was before my time. Do you think there was any way he could have succeeded?
Click to expand...
I thought it was the West stand development?

We didn't have the internet during Scholar's tenure, so the reasons behind our eventual bankruptcy under him are possibly a bit sketchy, but my understanding was that he diverted club money into his other ventures, which included a textile business that went under and dragged the club with it.
 
Ionman34 said:
I thought it was the West stand development?

We didn't have the internet during Scholar's tenure, so the reasons behind our eventual bankruptcy under him are possibly a bit sketchy, but my understanding was that he diverted club money into his other ventures, which included a textile business that went under and dragged the club with it.
Click to expand...
No, the the West Stand was what caught out Arthur Richardson. Scholar anticipated their under-estimation of the West Stand development and used that as an opportunity to worm his way into the board. 10 years later, he made the same mistake on the opposite side of the stadium.

My information is from Julie Welch's history.
 
What a choice. All dreadful in their own way. One that got Tottenham and football but fucked up business wise, one mouthy grotesque who seemed to hate everything about us and wanted us to be more like Wimbledon and a slimey bean counter who isnt that fussed about winning things.

As a fan I enjoyed Scholars time most as it was still Tottenham style. Levy has improved the status overall but has been taking us back down for a few years. Sugar will always be the worst for everything. No redeeming features whatsoever.
 
Shadydan said:
People won't say ENIC and that's fine but I'd love to hear the arguments for Scholar and Sugar in that case.
Click to expand...
I've tried to give a balanced perspective for each one in my opening post. Certainly, Scholar is very much the voice of the fans in terms of his transfer policy and desire for on-field success. Some people even feel that he was a commercial visionary who had ideas ahead of his time. The marketing guru he brought in (Edward Freedman) went on to help establish Manchester United's global brand. He was working for us after the Sugar/Venables takeover, but Sugar didn't trust him because of his association with Venables and he left us for a club more open to his ideas.

There isn't much to say for Sugar other than his candour in public relations and his resolution of the points deduction and FA Cup ban in the summer of 94. He also coughed up the money to save us from going under. He basically sorted out the mess Scholar left behind. A thankless task but an important one in our history all the same.
 
As a business? ENIC. No question. They’ve raised our global profile and kept financial matters under tight control. No threat of an Everton under their watch. They have opened their wallet in recent times, so the idea that they don’t splash cash is false, and I think they try hard to work out ways to keep in the mix with the plastic clubs. Go gadget Go-Kart.

Sadly, they are run by Daniel Levy who is fucking clueless when it comes to the football side of things and has made mistake after mistake, cock-up after cock-up. I wish he’d fuck off having anything to do with it and kept to the things he genuinely is brilliant at.

Under his 23 years of control, we have one cup. Which is absolutely shit.

Under Scholar we had two trophies, one UEFA, in under half the time of ENIC’s reign. Considerably more successful here, if only he hadn’t spaffed things up on the business side.

Sugar was absolute poo. He saved us then sort of kept us in purgatory.
 
Last edited:
Kid Chameleon said:
I've tried to give a balanced perspective for each one in my opening post. Certainly, Scholar is very much the voice of the fans in terms of his transfer policy and desire for on-field success. Some people even feel that he was a commercial visionary who had ideas ahead of his time. The marketing guru he brought in (Edward Freedman) went on to help establish Manchester United's global brand. He was working for us after the Sugar/Venables takeover, but Sugar didn't trust him because of his association with Venables and he left us for a club more open to his ideas.

There isn't much to say for Sugar other than his candour in public relations and his resolution of the points deduction and FA Cup ban in the summer of 94. He also coughed up the money to save us from going under. He basically sorted out the mess Scholar left behind. A thankless task but an important one in our history all the same.
Click to expand...

Didn't Scholar nearly run us into the ground? I seem to remember that we nearly went bust and were up for sale for £50m at the time before Sugar came along?
 
Another thing to note is that Scholar and Sugar combined are 6 years short of Levys 23 years in charge. Its crazy to be in control that long. Its impossible to stay fresh with ideas and not get detached from reality, particulaly if you surround yourself with nodding dogs in the boardroom.
 
Shadydan said:
Didn't Scholar nearly run us into the ground? I seem to remember that we nearly went bust and were up for sale for £50m at the time before Sugar came along?
Click to expand...
Yes, he did. I was just presenting the flip side of the coin to show why some people might prefer Scholar to Levy as you requested in your previous post.
 
Irving Scholar was a visionary and probably too ahead of his time.
Sugar was a reluctant owner and, as a result, we fell back just as the Premier League was exploding. His tenure, although it saved us, put us in a ten year hole.
ENIC are ENIC. They’re better than Sugar but have been helped by a rising tide.
If Scholar’s execution had equaled his vision, we’d be Madrid now.
 
Kid Chameleon said:
Yes, he did. I was just presenting the flip side of the coin to show why some people might prefer Scholar to Levy as you requested in your previous post.
Click to expand...

That's fair.

I reckon that's a massive blight in his tenure, so huge in fact that it's impossible to ignore when evaluating the 3, Levy comes out victorious for me for that reason 💪
 
Sir Archibald Crooks said:
Another thing to note is that Scholar and Sugar combined are 6 years short of Levys 23 years in charge. Its crazy to be in control that long. Its impossible to stay fresh with ideas and not get detached from reality, particulaly if you surround yourself with nodding dogs in the boardroom.
Click to expand...

longest serving chairman in the league?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom