Hi KoL, because I want us to compete with the new 'Big 3'. First of all, I'll state that IMO ENIC have done an okay to good job, so I don't think they've done badly. However, if ENIC don't want to spend their money that's their prerogative, but then I want them to stand aside and get in owners who will back the club. BTW, during the 'rubbish 90s' we won two trophies including the FA Cup - so that's one trophy every 5 years. Under ENIC we've won one Lge Cup in 13 years. So if winning one trophy every 5 years is 'rubbish', what is winning one trophy every 13 years? Doesn't look like you've done ENIC any favours with that comparison Furthermore, while our lge form has been better under ENIC than in the 90s, in that 'rubbish' decade we managed to finish 3rd. So how many times have we finished top 3 under the 'superior' ENIC - that's right you got it- NEVER Incidentally we'll never win the Lge by staying in the 'black' IMHO with our current stadium and capacity. Which brings me to another point, under the much maligned Sugar we upped our capacity to 36,000 which is where it stood when ENIC took over. Thirteen long years later we're still playing to 36,000 (and a bit) fans. The failure to increase our capacity to any significant during ENIC's tenure has been one of the worst aspects of their reign, IMHO.
Hi Roo, I'm sorry but Caulker isn't a different matter, IMHO. When we sold Caulker that left us with one fit CB, that should not have been happening. I don't know why Caulker left, but either we should have kept him till JV recovered or until we bought another CB, or even better we should have bought another CB very quickly after JV's injury so Caulker leaving wasn't the problem it's become. As to spending money we've earned, that's fine, but it won't be enough to challenge the 'Big 3' IMO. So far I don't think it's been a good window, it started off well, but since Caulker was sold it's just become a typical 'ok' window. ATM, we're in a worse position than we were at the end of last season, so to me that's not a good window. Some of it is 'bad luck', the injuries and the Bale 'situation', but better planning and more spending would have us in a better position, and indeed had we bought the striker we needed last winter, we would probably have got top 4, and the Bale 'situation' might not be so 'tense'. But as I say I admire your optimism, and it may be your view of the situation is a more accurate one than mine.
GH10, I'm afraid Caulker is a different matter. There's more to it than us just shooting ourselves in the foot by selling a player we needed. The deal happened for more reasons than us bagging £9mill. So unfortunately, whether we like it or not, there were other factors involved and we have to move on. The club will have a replacement lined up, I'm convinced of it. Just be patient As for challenging the big 3, yeah, you're right, it'll be tough. They're power houses, we're not. However, we've solved a massive striker issue, we've got winger cover, and we've got a top up and coming brazilian midfielder in, who is different to anything we have. - That's an improvement. We've got shot of Dempsey for what we paid for him. (arguably Chadli has replaced him, who's much more of the type of player we need for AVB's style). IMO that's good business! the only slight worry is the CB situation, but that's the only thing that's making us weaker right now. anything we add will make us stronger, and any dead wood we sell will also make us stronger financially. - it might even get reinvested? The only think that could make us weaker now, is selling the likes of Lloris, Verts, Kaboul, Sandro, Bale etc. - and that won't happen. (well Bale might) So, in summary, as it stands we just need a CB... as Bale still plays for Tottenham! If he leaves, we have a different discussion on our hands!
Okay Roo, I won't argue the Caulker point, as it makes no difference to my overall point that IMO we haven't strengthened this window. For me, we're in a worse situation than we were when we finished last season. Because then Bale was the best player in Britain and one of the best in the world, and we had three fit CBs including our captain and leader, Daws. Bringing in Soldado and Paulinho doesn't compensate for the fact we have no CBs and that Bale is currently not performing for us, for whatever reason. It may all look better by next week, it may not. But ATM, for me, it's hasn't been a good window so far. It's been okay, typical Spurs, one step forward, one back, etc.
But we weren't competing in Europe during the 90s, whereas now it's every year. And our average league position is much better under Enic than it was prior to them, speaking of consistency rather than one high or low. Especially as now, there are far more clubs that can compete than there were before. City and Chelsea have become super powers that we weren't competing with before. And the stadium is set up for development, with what must be a decent amount of funding set aside (but that's a complete guess just looking at the amount of time they've been preparing and an assumption that given our lack of transfer spending we must have some set aside). Besides, I don't think there are that many offers from billionaire owners for the club that they can just step aside otherwise I suspect given they bought in order to sell on at a profit they would have.
sorry GH10, I still don't understand how we haven't strengthened? we have a new striker and haven't lost any. a new winger, to replace average Dempsey a new box to box midfielder, who looks like he's better than most of the midfielders we have. And despite the CB issues, we still have a stronger squad overall I repeat, Bale is still with us. how have we made a step back? If you're referring to the individual CB issue, surely it's more of a case of just not making the "step forward" yet? 1 issue doesn't mean the squad has gone backwards. Overall we're stronger. Or am I in complete La La land?
With a fit daws, verts and kab we are undoubtedly stronger. At this exact moment in time the zero fit centre backs negates the signings. Week and a half to go though! Maybe daws isn't too bad?
The one big thing Daws lack's is pace,and his passing leaves a lot to be desired,if all 3 are fit,i still think we need 1 more,squads need 4 C/B's ,imo
The lack of CB cover has been known for some time. Spurs even said last season they wouldn't replace Gallas when he left at the end of the season, in spite of having Kaboul seriously injured, and Dawson being injury prone. And now Caulker has gone (unexpected) but still, the lack of defensive cover should surely have been high up on the agenda at the start of the transfer window and we are just over a week to go for the start of the new season. Even if a new signing is imminent, there will be no time for the new CB signing(s) to gel with his team mates. We know how critical it is to have a team of defenders who can play together as a unit and that takes time. What ruined Spurs season last year was the fact that Spurs had a poor first month, and due to the lack of defensive cover, this is getting to be a serious concern to me!
Hi KoL, for a while in the 90s few English clubs were competing in Europe because of the restricted entry we had at the start of that decade. But I repeat, you said we were 'rubbish' in the 90s, yet we won more trophies then and more prestigious trophies overall, as it included one FA Cup than in 13 years under ENIC. So if one trophy every 5 years is 'rubbish' what is one trophy in 13 years, even with better Lge form and more European games. The truth is of course we weren't 'rubbish' in the 90s, Orient or Blackpool may have been 'rubbish', we certainly weren't. We had players like Ginola Sheringham Lineker Mabbutt Gazza playing for us then, hardly 'rubbish'. We might be doing better under ENIC than in the 90s, but while our trophy count is far inferior, then no way do I see us as doing vastly better. Regarding new owners, it's unlikely we'd know if others have made tentative enquiries. My belief though is that ENIC would want such a huge amount of money for us, many possible owners won't want to know. But that's guess work on my part, may be wrong. What I do know is that under ENIC Chelsea and Man City have overtaken us, which is isn't good. When they took over we were probably the 6/7th biggest club in the country, we're stil about that level. Maybe we've moved up one place, hardly again a quantum lead. Regarding the trophy table, we've actually moved down one place, with Chelsea overtaking us, definitely not a great leap forward.
Hi Roo, I don't think you're in La La Land, though the people in Spursdom who all summer had Kaboul and Sandro in their 'first XI', certainly were IMO. How people with long-term injuries like them can be seen as 'first XI' players at the current time is way beyond me. We just see things differently. I don't think Bale currently is anywhere near the player he was last season, he may return to that level for us, but he may not, we can't take it as a given IMO. The CB issue is currently a disaster zone. Put it like this, if the team that turned out v Sunderland in May played against the team that turned out against Monaco in August, in a competitive match (cloning permitting of identical players) last season's team would win, IMO. Now it may be if we get Capoue in, and with Soldado and Paulinho integrated, plus a new defender as well, perhaps the team v Palace will be stronger than the team v Sunderland, we'll see.
Well I think this debate really centres around the definitions of success. You've made some decent points most definitely but despite them I consider our time in the last 13 years to have been superior to those years prior (from my eyes only of course), despite fewer and less prestigious trophies if only for the reason that we are on a more even footing to the bigger clubs (esp arsenal) than we were before. And this year, with some more additions we could be a real force. Given we are lower rated than Liverpool for the title at this point... Outside chance underdogs. I'm hopeful. But seriously, not that hopeful
It's funny, for me it's about trophies and glory (as I've bleated about in the success thread) yet I would consider the ENIC years better than the 90s despite the trophy count. Maybe glory also includes our play for me? Or maybe it's just a totally subjective matter? I think the way we played under jol/Harry and to a lesser degree (so far) AVB was streets ahead of some of the stuff in the 90s. In terms of individual stand-out players its about equal, you've got your sheringham/klinsmann/ginola/etc vs your ledley/modders/berba/bale/etc Note -despite just about remembering the 91 final the first half of the 90s was kinda early for me to comment on as I didn't know much about football
There's no point to argue, this is the situation. Caulker has caught the club on the hop a bit, the spanner is next summer, Rio to be precise. Caulker feels if he plays every week, he has an outside chance of going. I call that desire and ambition and do not blame him either, I agree he has a chance. Caulker himself knows he's not ahead of a fit YK and JV, so has decided, unexpectedly, to seek football elsewhere and he didn't want to hang about. The club messing up his prep with his new club keeping him till the end of the window is not good is it, its not how things are done, it would be remiss of the club to stand in his way.
The 90's weren't really good for us. Flirted with relegation in a couple of seasons, usually finished table. Highest finish was 7th in 94/95. The 3rd place was in 89/90 season. The football we endured under Francis, Gross & Graham was poor to say the least. The football we've had since 04/05 season, Ramos aside, has been much better to watch. Ossie had us playing decent football but were awful at defending. Re the cups in the 90's, the FA Cup in 91 was at a time where anyone could of won, there were no dominant sides in the cup around then. Teams like Coventry & Wimbledon had won it a couple of years before. Qualified for Europe twice in the 90's whereas we've qualified 7 times in the last 8 seasons. Having watched around 70% of home games in the 90's and a ST holder since 97/98, I would defo say that we are far better now than the 90's.
Hi Spurm and KoL, I'm happy to agree that the ENIC years have been better than the 90s. What I don't get, and I've had this argument sooooooooooooooooooooooooo many times on various forums (as those that know me from before on here can probably guess) is that to me it's impossible that we're doing really well under ENIC and were rubbish/**** (that's the usual term i often argue with) in the 90s. The facts to me simply don't support such a gulf between the two eras.
1990 is part of the 90s, so 3rd was our highest place in the 90s, that's the way decades are measured here and most places. Hence Jan 1 2000 was the new millennium date not Jan 1 2001.
