That's perfectly reasonable. I would argue that we overperformed under Poch and have underperformed since but both within normal expectations so not statistically significant.
Man Utd are probably the only team with a considerably worse record than us when spending big but they're such a global empire that it doesn't impact them anywhere near as badly as it does us. And with Utd, if you ask a lot of Utd fans, many blame Woodward for that extremely poor period where there was no legitimate plan when it came to spending. It was just a scattergun approach with little thought as to how they'd fit in the team and style of play which is exactly what we've been doing. I don't think any fan can accurately predict just what it is our club have been trying to do the last five years, we have no footballing plan or identity whatsoever any more, having usually prided ourselves on an entertaining and attacking style of play primarily achieved through high potential players.
As I said, Levy gave in to the sign a winning manager to win trophies brigade. So we've signed players suitable for Mourinho and Conte and played accordingly. Mourinho and Conte couldn't really prove they were actually good coaches when they didn't have a top level squad.
And the Poool. Their global supporter base has been historically solid, even when their on-pitch performances have been meh.
Levy doesn't give in to anything and you and I both know that. If he caved to any sort of fan pressure he'd reduce ticket prices and would've given Pochettino a call in recent weeks considering fans in (and out) of the stadium were chanting his name. He also didn't sign the players for Mourinho at all. Conte was decently backed but Jose was more or less left hung out to dry, he didn't help matters by any means but when Jose's asking for a striker and getting Bergwijn and asking for Skriniar/ Dias and getting Rodon then I don't see how anyone could reach the conclusion he got the players he wanted. Bale, for as much we fans loved having back, was also never a Jose signing.
I didn't mean it to be flippant but it was obviously hyperbolic. I meant it to demonstrate how illogical it is to assess or measure medium to short term results based on long term history when so many variables have changed, often irreversibly, in the interim. I find it especially surprising that PS often pursues this line of argument, sometimes even comparing us now to what we were 30 years ago under Sugar, when he himself is the first to point out (usually when talking about signings and managers) that a past record cannot be used as an indicator of future success. He cannot have it both ways.
The point is that historical records are only of interest when they are statistically significant. 14 years above average definitely is. That only happens once in 16,000 times by chance. Most claims people make about track records in recruitment and coaching are based on data which isn't sufficient to draw firm conclusions.
I reckon the pro ENIC & Levy brigade must have something to lose if Levy & Lewis ever left. Maybe free tickets are on the line, or free executive box days, or other benefits etc. There must be a reason why they are so opposed to change, either that or it is an unfortunate illness such as Stockholm Syndrome.
Terrible take IMO. You would rather not win a trophy to sack a manager. Any trophy having gone through a drought of X number of years. Surely it would be better to have won the trophy then sacked mourinho and paid his compensation. Many managers get sacked after winning a trophy if they aren't the right fit and no one at spurs who mattered would have been against it (similar to LVG when he went after winning the FA cup).
Don't be daft. I've explained why I support them many times. It's perfectly logical. And I pay for the most expensive seats in the ground so I have no need of handouts. Stockholm Syndrome doesn't exist by the way.
By which token it isn't fair to compare ENIC's 21 years with Sugar's 9 years and the latter should have been given more time to show progress as his track record wasn't statistically significant, especially as he took over a club in financial ruin whereas his successors took over at a time of financial stability. Where do you draw the line? Who arbitrates what is or isn't 'significant'?
There are tests which show whether track records are significant. I doubt Sugar's track record was statistically bad...however his strategy was clearly wrong. He thought the stadium was big enough. That in itself massively limits our growth. Altering history is impossible....the discussion is whether ENIC are doing well or not. The league position data says that they have done well. By the way...I am not against having a new owner or a new Chairman with more inclination to invest. But it is not in the least bit obvious who they might be, particularly when you see how the other new owners of the bigger clubs in the PL have performed. Liverpool are the only example of a possibly good outcome not financed by dodgy money.
I'd kill to see us win another trophy, don't care if we spent £200m just to end up with the league cup, will give the fans a high that very few other scenarios could match. Great pic by the way, bro.
Yea i don't understand why it would be a bad thing to win an actual trophy. Would have thought a fat version of frank would have been better but this will do.
Fat Frank pics are too common nowadays, I even posted one on the rival thread recently. RCL gave me the inspiration for the multiple Ls to represent his games in management, thankfully google had one made up for me as well so saved me Photoshopping anything, lol.
It's not a terrible take at all First, this "You'd rather sack somebody than win a trophy" is the terrible take, for the simple reason the consensus was we should've sacked him after the Dinamo Zagreb debacle regardless of the final being several weeks removed from that Secondly, anybody who doesn't believe he would have ****ed it in the final is ignoring the fact that he'd ****ed it in every competition in the several months between the semi final and the final, and the belief that he would have miraculously won is based in the same line of thinking as believing that Sam Allardyce keeps every club up - a belief that we proved to be fanciful a couple of days ago The only reason anyone is bringing up his sacking now is because the whiny little ****er was whining about us having the nerve to sack him in a press conference the other day, when the reality was that his football and the poor results his football was starting to see rack up considerably once teams started to figure out how predictable his tactics were becoming only lasted as long as they did as nobody was in the stands to express an opinion of it that season. If there were fans in the stands, he likely would have been gone after the NLD loss a few weeks earlier
Him needing to be sacked after Zagreb is probably correct call. I'm glad you are saying that Levy made a mistake not sacking him then. Your first argument for not having mourinho take the final is that he would get a bigger payoff for when he gets sacked, that is only a good argument if you want to save money by NOT winning the cup. This is your positive for sacking him. As for the final result, is the chance of winning the cup higher with a manager with 80%+ chance of cup final wins, one that has won plenty of trophies before, one that had only lost to a pep side once or rookie manager ryan mason with 2 games in charge. We will never know if Jose would have won but we 100% know that mason lost which suggests it was a terrible decision, as does employing fat sam (or if we go by your analogy leeds were 100% down if you look at their form so no difference so not fat sams fault when he should definitely be part of the blame). The decision to sack mourinho was after zagreb or after the league cup final. Certainly not the date that levy actually did it.
The issue isn't the payout if he won (although that "if" is doing far more legwork than anybody believes), the issue is he would have triggered a contract extension - that is why it would have cost more to sack him It also has to be said the other issue is, if there had been a sudden outbreak of cholera in the Mansour camp, then we would have had the other side of the problem: then the optics would have been we sacked somebody a month or so after they won us a trophy, which would have been ammunition to both pundits looking for any excuse to beat us over the head as it would be used by bloggers whose entire identity is based on shrieking incoherently about Levy and ENIC, so they were damned if we did or damned if we don't To take it a step further, it is worth asking if we'd be getting the same talking points even if we sacked him immediately after the Zagreb result (or the Everton FA Cup exit, for that matter) because, even though it would have been on a longer timeline, we still would have sacked him before a final. While we likely would have heard them significantly less from those pundits or bloggers, on the other hand I wouldn't put it past him or the MouAnon weirdos to dredge up how he qualified for a final but was given the boot beforehand