What's new

ENIC - The Poll

Do you want ENIC in or out?


  • Total voters
    762
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Karol

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2014
721
2,881
The one glaring thing missing from ENIC’s ownership is a bloody trophy. Yes we’ve got a new stadium, gigantic fanbase, high worth team, etc etc…but NO BLOODY TROPHY. One trophy, just one…please! That would do so much for the fanbase.

Did you sleep through 2008?
 

Sophos151

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2016
792
2,559
It’s more a testament of having one of the best goalscorers/footballers in world football handed to us on a plate, for NOTHING

Our squad ability,strength in depth, lack of planning, micromanagement of our Chairman (in regards to the football) is a joke

God help us when/if Harry leaves.

Also, investing in world class coaches only gets you so far when you don’t invest in the squad/back the coach properly
Okay, sure, except for a few things:

1. ENIC bought the club in 2001, and Kane broke onto the scene in 2014 - so he’s been around for roughly a third of ENIC’s tenure. By 2014, we’d already established ourselves as European regulars - 6th, 5th, 4th, 5th, and 4th in the five seasons leading up to Kane’s breakthrough.

2. ENIC overhauled the club’s youth recruitment, academy, and training facilities. Kane is, to a degree, a result of that decision - yes, of course there’s luck involved, but I don’t think it’s everything.

3. We’ve managed to retain Kane throughout almost a decade of his career. That in itself is credit to ENIC, who’ve created a club that’s good enough, rich enough, and competitive enough to keep a player of his quality for so long.
 

spursfan1991

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
1,747
4,058
So we make a loan signing near the end of the window and we are about to sign a highly rated right back near the end of the window despite knowing that we needed someone of quality for that position since February 2022 and this has resulted in some to defend ENIC ?. You can see why they take the fans for mugs.
 

SirNiNyHotspur

23 Years of Property, Concerts, Karts & Losing
Apr 27, 2004
3,132
6,771
So we make a loan signing near the end of the window and we are about to sign a highly rated right back near the end of the window despite knowing that we needed someone of quality for that position since February 2022 and this has resulted in some to defend ENIC ?. You can see why they take the fans for mugs.
ENIC throw the bones to keep the dogs at bay, but their intentions or rather lack thereof are clear.
 

coy-spurs1882

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
4,015
10,537
So we make a loan signing near the end of the window and we are about to sign a highly rated right back near the end of the window despite knowing that we needed someone of quality for that position since February 2022 and this has resulted in some to defend ENIC ?. You can see why they take the fans for mugs.
I would say since we sold Walker
 

Ribble

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2011
3,530
4,818
It would be interesting to know at what point ENIC started thinking about replacing the stadium - it will have been before we heard anything about it in circa 2007(?). That would give a clear indication of when they started thinking about trying to compete with the big clubs financially. It could be that the "British Dortmund/Ajax" approach was only ever a short/medium-term strategy as the first step in a bigger long-term strategy, or they could have upped their ambitions after exceeding short-term goals / seeing significant increases in PL broadcasting revenue.

I expect they started planning it as soon as they took over tbh, the capacity at WHL was always going to be a limiting factor on growth. For me the Sanchez deal is an indicator of the club changing strategy, even though it was followed by a massive gap of not signing anyone lol. On top of that we stopped selling players at peak points of their value like Dier and Alli, arguably Son as well. It's possible that we'll see Conte's tenure being the end of that period, but then again Chelsea just paid and fortune for a kid who would surely have been a speculative deal for someone in the past, so that market may just be dead at this point.
 

synththfc

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2017
3,740
26,716
i’m far more levy out than enic out. however, between the two, enic out gets levy out, so that HAS to be the choice.
 

southlondonyiddo

My eyes have seen some of the glory..
Nov 8, 2004
12,657
15,222
Okay, sure, except for a few things:

1. ENIC bought the club in 2001, and Kane broke onto the scene in 2014 - so he’s been around for roughly a third of ENIC’s tenure. By 2014, we’d already established ourselves as European regulars - 6th, 5th, 4th, 5th, and 4th in the five seasons leading up to Kane’s breakthrough.

2. ENIC overhauled the club’s youth recruitment, academy, and training facilities. Kane is, to a degree, a result of that decision - yes, of course there’s luck involved, but I don’t think it’s everything.

3. We’ve managed to retain Kane throughout almost a decade of his career. That in itself is credit to ENIC, who’ve created a club that’s good enough, rich enough, and competitive enough to keep a player of his quality for so long.
The club/Levy has taken for granted the fact that we were gifted a homegrown world class footballer and hasn’t built on it. They have taken advantage of their good fortune and his loyalty as a Spurs lad

Also the club were fortunate that his brother is his agent and because of his value both to us and others no one was able to stump up enough money to buy him

Obviously he would have gone to Man City 18months ago had they offered enough
 

vegassd

The ghost of Johnny Cash
Aug 5, 2006
3,360
3,340
It is fascinating that in the last few years fans anger seems to be falling more and more on the owners over the managers. Manager was always the go to person to blame when things went south but I think as manager terms have become shorter and that position has become more and more disposable it is no longer as satisfying for fans to scream manager out.

I think peoples right to protest and voice concern is important but it does lead into a general toxicity around the game and makes the experience less enjoyable.....We are 3 points off 3rd, playing AC Milan in a couple of weeks in the last 16 of CL, FA CUP, signed some cracking players over the last couple of windows, have a world class manager, great stadium but you would swear the sky is falling in.

I think it has very real implications as well....it surely makes things a lot harder for the players and manager....it gives the impression of a club in turmoil and for Conte and Kane it must make it less appealing to stick around...there is also the other side of getting on players backs.....I think Trippier is a good example...a lot of our players now look low on confidence and I think a lot of it feeds from the crowd. I'm not saying this is just Spurs fans our that professionals who are paid a lot of money to do their job don't deserve their portion of blame but I do feel there is a negativity creeping more and more into football that is generally unpleasant and detrimental.
I heard a quote just this week from the comedian John Robins which I thought was a fairly cutting summary:

"Most football fans dislike football most of the time. They dislike everything about it; the wages, the manager, the ticket prices, the board, the owner, the players not putting the effort in, the new ground, the old ground, renaming the ground, the time the match starts... it's a swamp of endless bile."

He isn't a Spurs fan (to my knowledge) and wasn't talking about Spurs. He was making a general comment about how unenjoyable the world of football was becoming, and this quote was made back in 2018! It struck a chord with me and seems pretty accurate - at least about a large portion of football fans.

There are obviously certain concerns around ENIC and Levy, but I do think that our fans (and fans in general) are becoming so wound up about their clubs that they are tending to miss the positives and focus only on the negatives. I think many fans are then driven further down these negative paths by feeding into the echo chambers of forums, Talksport and social media.

For me, I think it would be more productive to seek ways in which we want the club to act, rather than simply wanting to replace the owners and hope it all works out. I would say that the THST would be perfectly positioned to organise something like that, but unfortunately it feels (to me anyway) that the toxicity exists there as well, and their questions to the club amount to very thinly veiled pot shots.

I suppose there isn't much to be done about it. If we are in an situation where Liverpool fans want their owners gone and City fans are booing their team off at half time, it shows how fickle some fans have become. I would imagine there are still United fans who want the Glazers out but those protests have gone mighty quiet recently, and you would be hard pushed to find an Arsenal fan begging for board level changes at the moment either.

I'm not saying that anti-ENIC posts are across the board knee jerk before anyone assumes that. My point is that the level of negativity and lack of balance is rife. And given this is happening across plenty of clubs, I think it's important to remember that it's not as bad as it might seem... we aren't living in a bubble... and whilst the grass might be greener at the moment, it doesn't take long for it to turn to shit.
 

Albertbarich

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2020
5,284
20,051
The money is clearly an issue but the biggest concern and gripe I have is the lack of plan and communication.

The managerial hirings have been getting progressively stranger and seemingly ill suited to how Levy wants to run the club which when you add the complete lack of communication leads to this feeling of unrest and anger.

We should and could be spending more but first and foremost we need a far better understanding of what Levy is trying to achieve here. Getting moody f**kers in like Jose and Conte to semi back them and then wonder why they throw tantrums is madness and that's only topped by the ridiculous Nuno appointment, one that if you take into account the lead up is the most insane thing I've ever seen from a club.

Looking forward to this post window speech
 

SirNiNyHotspur

23 Years of Property, Concerts, Karts & Losing
Apr 27, 2004
3,132
6,771
Our net spend since coming to new stadium is 4th biggest in world. Pretending it didn't help us on transfer market is just completely wrong

Let's break that down as for some reason you're still eager to defend ENIC, can't be for football success, maybe you have financial gain from them, I don't know, anyway there are lots of articles comparing last 5 years expenditure so let's use that to simplify things, not including our frugal January but including the famous 0 spend summer in preparation for the opening of the game changing stadium, I'm sure you'd like to forget about that one! But there's no reason why we couldn't have spent that summer with projected income if indeed the stadium was the great game changer we were promised, indeed our net spend was so low consistently before the stadium playing catch up meant some major investment was needed then new stadium or not!

1st Man Utd 340m spent more than us (70m more PA)

2nd Chelsea 330m more no Abramovich to blame for that! (65m more PA and not counting Jan!)

3rd Arsenal over 200m (40m more PA)

4th West Ham over 50m (10m more PA)

5th Us (with years of frugality and playing catch up after being out spent by small clubs for many years)

6th Newcastle 10m less (2m less PA 3 years with Ashley)

7th Aston Villa 50m less (10m less PA)

8th Wolves 50m less (10m less PA)

9th Liverpool 60m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

10th Man City 100m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

11th Fulham 120 less (25 less PA)

12th Leeds 140m less (30 less PA)

13th Notts Forest 150m less (30m less PA)

14th Everton 150m less (30m less PA)

15th Southampton 200m less (40m less PA)

Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Palace and Leicester all very low net spenders.

Above are all rough estimates, not even factoring wages etc for the bigger clubs. But our new game changing stadium that we waited 20 years for patiently whilst we won nothing now gets us spending 10m a year more than Wolves and Villa on players! I hear you, but you're comparing 5 years not 4! I get it, you want to be favorable with ENIC and say they were afraid to spend Summer 18 as the stadium was delayed blah blah So let's do what you want and include what Wolves have spent 20m this January, Villa 12m, which with your 4 years comparison still puts us the around same as Villa spending! and a bit better from Wolves.

But we don't need all these figures to tell us, we know that ENIC aren't ambitious to win things, they spend what they can get away with before the stadium and now it's the same, they spend what they can get away with after the stadium (obviously they could no longer have us at Palace levels of spending with the new stadium, not to mention our squads dire need as even then the BSoDL would revolt! you probably wouldn't though...)
 

Albertbarich

Well-Known Member
Jul 4, 2020
5,284
20,051
Let's break that down as for some reason you're still eager to defend ENIC, can't be for football success, maybe you have financial gain from them, I don't know, anyway there are lots of articles comparing last 5 years expenditure so let's use that to simplify things, not including our frugal January but including the famous 0 spend summer in preparation for the opening of the game changing stadium, I'm sure you'd like to forget about that one! But there's no reason why we couldn't have spent that summer with projected income if indeed the stadium was the great game changer we were promised, indeed our net spend was so low consistently before the stadium playing catch up meant some major investment was needed then new stadium or not!

1st Man Utd 340m spent more than us (70m more PA)

2nd Chelsea 330m more no Abramovich to blame for that! (65m more PA and not counting Jan!)

3rd Arsenal over 200m (40m more PA)

4th West Ham over 50m (10m more PA)

5th Us (with years of frugality and playing catch up after being out spent by small clubs for many years)

6th Newcastle 10m less (2m less PA 3 years with Ashley)

7th Aston Villa 50m less (10m less PA)

8th Wolves 50m less (10m less PA)

9th Liverpool 60m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

10th Man City 100m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

11th Fulham 120 less (25 less PA)

12th Leeds 140m less (30 less PA)

13th Notts Forest 150m less (30m less PA)

14th Everton 150m less (30m less PA)

15th Southampton 200m less (40m less PA)

Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Palace and Leicester all very low net spenders.

Above are all rough estimates, not even factoring wages etc for the bigger clubs. But our new game changing stadium that we waited 20 years for patiently whilst we won nothing now gets us spending 10m a year more than Wolves and Villa on players! I hear you, but you're comparing 5 years not 4! I get it, you want to be favorable with ENIC and say they were afraid to spend Summer 18 as the stadium was delayed blah blah so let's do what you want and include what Wolves have spent 20m this January, Villa 12m, which with your 4 years comparison still puts us the same around as Villa spending! and bit better from Wolves.

But we don't need all these figures to tell us, we know that ENIC aren't ambitious to win things, they spend what they can get away with before the stadium and now it's the same, they spend what they can get away with after the stadium (obviously they could no longer have us at Palace levels of spending with the new stadium, not to mention our squads dire need as even then the BSoDL would revolt! you probably wouldn't though...)
Oh man is he going to come back with some spreadsheets and stats for you.

You're a brave man! ?
 

DiVaio

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2020
4,188
17,459
Let's break that down as for some reason you're still eager to defend ENIC, can't be for football success, maybe you have financial gain from them, I don't know, anyway there are lots of articles comparing last 5 years expenditure so let's use that to simplify things, not including our frugal January but including the famous 0 spend summer in preparation for the opening of the game changing stadium, I'm sure you'd like to forget about that one! But there's no reason why we couldn't have spent that summer with projected income if indeed the stadium was the great game changer we were promised, indeed our net spend was so low consistently before the stadium playing catch up meant some major investment was needed then new stadium or not!

1st Man Utd 340m spent more than us (70m more PA)

2nd Chelsea 330m more no Abramovich to blame for that! (65m more PA and not counting Jan!)

3rd Arsenal over 200m (40m more PA)

4th West Ham over 50m (10m more PA)

5th Us (with years of frugality and playing catch up after being out spent by small clubs for many years)

6th Newcastle 10m less (2m less PA 3 years with Ashley)

7th Aston Villa 50m less (10m less PA)

8th Wolves 50m less (10m less PA)

9th Liverpool 60m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

10th Man City 100m less (built majority of their squad whilst we were frugal)

11th Fulham 120 less (25 less PA)

12th Leeds 140m less (30 less PA)

13th Notts Forest 150m less (30m less PA)

14th Everton 150m less (30m less PA)

15th Southampton 200m less (40m less PA)

Bournemouth, Brentford, Brighton, Palace and Leicester all very low net spenders.

Above are all rough estimates, not even factoring wages etc for the bigger clubs. But our new game changing stadium that we waited 20 years for patiently whilst we won nothing now gets us spending 10m a year more than Wolves and Villa on players! I hear you, but you're comparing 5 years not 4! I get it, you want to be favorable with ENIC and say they were afraid to spend Summer 18 as the stadium was delayed blah blah So let's do what you want and include what Wolves have spent 20m this January, Villa 12m, which with your 4 years comparison still puts us the around same as Villa spending! and a bit better from Wolves.

But we don't need all these figures to tell us, we know that ENIC aren't ambitious to win things, they spend what they can get away with before the stadium and now it's the same, they spend what they can get away with after the stadium (obviously they could no longer have us at Palace levels of spending with the new stadium, not to mention our squads dire need as even then the BSoDL would revolt! you probably wouldn't though...)
Yeah I really have no idea what's that trying to prove against what I said. So 4 years when we actually move into new stadium our net spend is 4th biggest in the world, 4 years before when stadium was building we were 55th, between 11/12 to 14/15 we even had positive net spend. By official financial accounts in last 5 years we had biggest growth of revenue and biggest growth of wages in big6. Please explain again how new stadium is not helping us on the transfer market.

PS. You will find out soon that most of these clubs(Villa and Wolves are very good examples) are spending a lot of money basically only in two scenarios: when they got promoted to not be relegated in 1st season or again when they are threatened by relegation.
 

Dazzazzad

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,240
4,393
Yeah I really have no idea what's that trying to prove against what I said. So 4 years when we actually move into new stadium our net spend is 4th biggest in the world, 4 years before when stadium was building we were 55th, between 11/12 to 14/15 we even had positive net spend. By official financial accounts in last 5 years we had biggest growth of revenue and biggest growth of wages in big6. Please explain again how new stadium is not helping us on the transfer market.

PS. You will find out soon that most of these clubs(Villa and Wolves are very good examples) are spending a lot of money basically only in two scenarios: when they got promoted to not be relegated in 1st season or again when they are threatened by relegation.
I can't understand how people are arguing against this.

There has been a demonstrably clear shift in willingness to spend post Covid and stadium.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,697
93,521
The Levysexuals are slowly creeping it up
Its a simple question, Enic in or Enic out.
More than a couple of posters have stated 'I want Enic out but chose Enic In because sports washing dictators blah blah' which completely misses the point of the poll and skews the result slightly.

The other poll about QSI investment was where you get to voice such opinions...for this poll the question of potential alternative owners shouldn't even be a factor.

It's still an absolute bloodbath regardless... the fans want change at the top.
 

McArchibald

Well-Known Member
Jun 6, 2010
1,298
5,663
I can't understand how people are arguing against this.

There has been a demonstrably clear shift in willingness to spend post Covid and stadium.
...But total neglect in building up a scouting and recruitment apparatus to ensure that money is spent wisely. Nor a willingness on Levy's part to let the football professionals get on with their jobs without his meddling and interference.

Give it up. ENIC have in the past 22 years proven beyond all reasonable doubt that they don't have a clue how to achieve on-field success. The move to the new stadium has only highlighted that fact. Whatever they might have done before, they are obviously incapable of getting the club to make the next step. Time is up. Clear off ENIC.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top