I think the Spurs comparison is a very bad one, but it's being used over and over again.
They spent a lot of money replacing their one world class player with several young, new to the league players. They hooked a manager who had alienated several players, had only been there a season and had failed in his last job, midway through the season - then replaced him with an inexperienced stop-gap who did a decent job but wasn't up to the job in the end.
The difference between losing their one and only world class player and replacing him with several new players during a disjointed, destabilising season was 3 points was it not?
Did Spurs, under the circumstances, really have such a bad season? Is there predicament for 2013/14 really comparable to Liverpool's of 2014/15? Not in my opinion.
IMO Spurs just spent in the wrong areas. It baffled me. They managed to have about 12 good midfielders and no decent centre halves or strikers.
It was a bizarre attempt at squad-building.