Ivor Know

Purple, thanks for your response. Two things, like you, expect most of the increase in expenditure to be down to wages, although I''d also be surprised if no costs relating to Colney weren''t included within the budget, at least in part, otherwise, why mention it? Second, I made no reference to Stephen Fry in my previous post and, in fact, hold similar views to you.

Thanks for the excellent report Ricardo. A couple of things stand out for me. First, the budgeted turnover of £102m was higher than I expected, given that we were around £95m last time and there''s been no significant changes on the TV side yet. Second, the projected loss also came as a surprise too, given how the club prides itself on only spending what it receives. Sure, last time we only made a profit and ended up with £6m in the bank because bonuses weren''t payable due to relegation. If this is just down to the required spend at Colney, why not come out and say so?

Just over a third of the season gone, and 12 points suggests a final total of 36, which would certainly be tight for survival. The beauty of football, it''s far from that predictable. Actually spoke to a couple of Chelsea fans after today''s game and they were complimentary about our overall approach, even if pointing out the obvious, our lack of cutting edge in the final third today. Cautiously optimistic will do for me too.

No offense intended Tilly, but "dangerous" really is a poor selection of a word on your part this time on this particular occasion. It''s no more than information put out there by others. How you chose to interpret it really is down to you.

So you did cityangel. I really should pay more attention. Although, woe be tired anyone who wants to right about it, allegedly!

The really observant social media types may have picked up that a few fans were, apparently, emailed by the club on Monday, inviting them to apply for a ballot, to attend a consultation meeting about season tickets for next season, scheduled for early Wednesday evening.

Tilly - wow, that was one hell of a first post, wasn''t it? Maybe it was a bit mischievous on my part, but you had been asked by several others whether you''d been to the game and hadn''t answered. Two wrongs don''t make a right, and, vjust as one swallow doesn''t make a summer, surely one mischievous post doesn''t make a troll? Nutty - it clearly bugs you that you don''t know who I am. Repeat the question as often as you like, the answer will still be the same. And, as I''ve explained before, it wasn''t a case "joined", more a case of rejoining and I''ve posted since, trying to contribute to posts that interest me and that''s how I''ll continue. This board clearly means different things to different posters. Personally, I think you''re overstating it''s worth, but that''s just my opinion. Purple - I''ve explained why I rejoined elsewhere. I won''t bore you with the details. Some will accept that for what it was, others seemingly won''t. Impossible to prove either way unfortunately. This is the only user ID I have. Bor - lol, yes, it was bad, but surely not that bad? Now, what was this topic about???

Nutty - to answer your question, no I won''t and why should I? The vast majority of posters here are anonymous and known by just their user name. Being anonymous doesn''t automatically make anyone who is a troll. A few posters are open about who they are, either directly on here, or in person. That''s their personal choice. Again, knowing who someone is in real life doesn''t make anyone a troll. A troll is someone who sows discord on the internet by starting arguments or upsetting people by posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages with deliberate intent of provoking readers into a response or disrupting on-topic discussions. Now, if you want to compare and contrast our respective postings, either on this thread or any others for that matter, having regard to the above, feel free. You don''t own this site, you''re not the forum police, so just bear this in mind before banding around the word troll in future. In the meantime, I''ll carry on posting to this, or any other thread that takes my interest, just as I am. If you have a problem with that, so be it, I honestly couldn''t care less.

Only took a couple of pages to venture "off topic", and a good one at that, into to a typical, "us versus them" debate. Well done lads.

I''m with Nutty, that analysis is too harsh! Let''s be honest, the academy was probably relatively (compared to other clubs) under funded prior to our getting back to the Premier League under Lambert. Our financial situation dictated this. In saying this, I''m not knocking our previous efforts. They were clearly well intentioned and commendable in difficult circumstances. Getting Category One status was a huge achievement in itself, given our relatively modest investment at the time. However, the recent restructuring of the academy has changed the emphasis, with all age groups training together. The aim is to make progression seamless, so it doesn''t matter what age you are, if you''re good enough, you''ll be fast tracked. Surely, that can only be a step in the right direction?

It may be worth reflecting upon the fact that there are currently 24 Catagory One acadamies, split into two leagues of twelve. City are in the top division, so, although they''re currently struggling, they are completing against the best teams in the country. Many of the top tier teams are spending considerably more on their academy than City. A bit like the Premier League but no mean achievement nevertheless.

Tilly - "I stopped using Twitter when I kept reading a Norwich fan putting down his fellow supporters whom he considered to be lacking in football intelligence ..... " That''s pure comedy gold from you JT, given your "one man and his dog" comment earlier in this thread. #PotAndKettle Nutty - yes they can be. Other times completely unnecessary, especially when either they, or their mates, broadcast PinkUn ID''s whilst stood in the middle of a crowded boozer. Seen it and heard it done many times and not just within the four walls of the Numpties favoured watering hole.

Tilly - I have these wonderful three apps on my phone, called Google, Facebook and Twitter. You really should try them. It''s amazing what you can discover on them ;-)

Tilly - it''s where the Leicester fan groups are gathering before going to Carrow Road to meet up with one man and his dog.

No idea. Perhaps they fear being reported to the RSPCA if they try and split the dog into parts? ;-)

Purple - yes, I mean owners providing additional cash in order to service excessive expenditure to clubs living beyond their means.

Here''s another thought Lappin. Let''s get the Leicester boys to do a quick detour when they leave the Compleat Angler, via the Nelson so they can get prior endorsement to their plans from the Nelson Numpties? All jokes aside - do you really think the club would allow such a protest on their land?

Nutty - there''s so much irony in your final paragraph to me me, it beggars belief. I''ve posted numerous replies to this thread before I responded to your comment, "you might know old two dots but you don''t know me." This from one of the most publicly known peeps on this site., was, in itself laughable. OK, the way I responded with the names was a tad childish, I admit. But let''s not forget that "permissions" in social media are actually set individually by the user themselves. If they chose to be totally open, or their friends let it be known through association, who they are, that''s their choice. And in the context of what else has gone on in this thread, it''s hardly crime of the century. The "discuss" comment was preceded by 17 paragraphs, in case you missed them, setting out exactly why I believe that a wider price reduction will never happen. The clubs will never allow it. And, to answer your specifics, yet again, no, the prime driving force isnt a competitive playing squad, it''s the combination of mega rich owners who don''t operate their teams on a sustainable basis - maybe Arsenal excepted - they spend considerably more than they earn. This, combined with a completely opaque transfer market, with the virtual non disclosure on transfer fees just means it''s not a level playing field. Never has been, never will, irrespective of whether Twenty is plenty procedes or not. Yes, NCFC are unique, however, unless we significantly increase our capacity - 35,000 being the previously stated requirement, the price of casual and season tickets alike is only going one way, up. Now, please drop your lectures about all this "personal" stuff, it''s getting very tedious, and let''s focus on the discussion.

Lappin - I only post on this site and if you think we''re one and the same, trust me, you''re completely wrong. To cross posting from one MB to another is usually frowned upon. So, no, i can''t answer your question and, as i see you also post on there, perhaps you should ask him on that forum? And, a polite request, just in case your thinking about it, please don''t post my comments on there.

Trying to move this having regards to the issues raised by the "be fair to home supporters" line of reasoning. First, if you''re talking about casual prices only, a consequence of that line of thinking would be that you''re actually seeking to end the policy of grading games. That may find favour with the fans from the top six or seven clubs who whinge about always being charged Grade A prices, but would that necessarily find favour with the other thirteen or fourteen clubs? I suspect not. Second, concessions. At the moment the club has four grades in standard seats (with adults prices only in premium seats) adults, 65+, under 17 and under 12. Whilst you would probably be able to have this flexible approach maintaied in the family areas, within standard areas you''d have to go with £15 for all, as you can''t charge away fans more than the equivalent home area. From a fan perspective, there would be winners and losers with this approach. 65+ tickets currently range from £20 - £40. All winners. Under 17''s - prices range from £15 to £30 currently. Again, all winners. Under 12''s - prices range from £10 to £20. Probably more winners than losers, simply because there are more grade A & B games than C & D. So, if there are more winners, from a fan perspective, the club is a loser, as it''s been income is reduced. And then the argument about the club being financially disadvantaged if the Twenty is Plenty is accepted is intensified two fold in the basis that there''s as many home causal ticket fans as there are away fans. So, what options would the club have, bearing in mind that they would almost certainly seek to recoup some of the lost income? Charge more for the casual prices for premium seats is clearly one option. Not sure how much additional income that would actually generate? Another option would be to increase the prices of season tickets within standard and premium areas. Ah, don''t you all want to be charged the same as the away fans? Yes, OK, let''s do it. Hang on one minute, if the argument goes that we''re financially disadvantaged by giving concessions to away fans then we sure as hell are significantly more disadvantaged by extending it to home season ticket holders. So, that would just leave increasing prices to premium season ticket holders? Not sure that would find much favour either. And that''s why, in my opinion, a focussed campaign, as unpopular as it will be with some home fans, at least has a partial chance of succeeding. Widening it to all fans will never work because the clubs simply won''t allow it. Discuss.

Morty - the point you make is absolutely valid from a financial perspective. All clubs are different and all are capable of generating different income levels. That''s surely never going to change whether Twenty is Plenty happens or not? Also, in the current Premier League, I think it''s correct to say that NCFC are unique in terms of not having external funding. We have to be self funding. This tends to lead to one conclusion, if you follow the "we''re financially disadvantaged" argument, and that''s that NCFC should never partake in such campaigns. Which is logical to a point, but, then, what happens when we go away. Do our fans suddenly become excluded? Whatever route you chose, this isn''t an easy argument as they''re pros and cons on both sides.

Wrong again, Nutty. Many on here are already known to each other, or chose to disclose who they are of their own free will. That''s their choice. Others have a completely open social media presence and it takes very little to work out who they actually are. Again that may be down to choice or ignorance on social media issues. Others, like me, chose not to so open. That doesn''t prevent them from having an opinion does it? Now, this has gone completely off topic. If you have anything else to say about Twenty is Plenty, feel free to contribute Otherwise, I have nothing further to add. OTBC

It''s a message board, Nutty. You don''t have to be on first name terms with everyone to post an opinion.

Part of me thinks I must be mad re-engaging again, but, hay ho, a few points have been made worthy of future comments. Purple - no one is suggesting that any club should take unilateral action. This is a football wide issue and the new TV deals makes this an opportune moment to try and engage with the clubs to try to get a consensus on ticket prices. One thing is for sure, if no agreement is reached, they almost certainly will spend every additional penny. Nutty - lol at you going on about trolling and me single handedly causing problems for the forthcoming protests. This is a message board and the words of a few on here are highly unlikely to influence the outcome of the campaign one way or the other. Tilly - I know it was you who used that phrase but I''m really struggling to see where I inferred you were anything whatever to do with NCFSC? I asked Cityangel early on if they were doing a bit for the fund raising - which I wholeheartedly agree with - and she said yes. That''s where that particular reply ended. Like you, I know some of those involved. I have no idea if there is an FSF local contact. Their website has a link to getting in touch, which, presumably, the BEprojekt, or their dog has done on their behalf, have done. Lappin - thanks for the lecture on renaming etiquette - I''ll bear it in mind if I ever have to rename again. Not that you really deserve further explaining, but, it was an old account from the early 2000''s with a hotmail.com email attached. And it had less than 200 posts to it. Whilst there was probably nothing untoward to it there''s absolutely nothing to be gained by making reference to it with the new sign up. Frankly, I couldn''t care less what others think, this is the one I''m going with now. On a more general point, the club has today announced its £10 an adult for Newcastle away. This surely has to be applauded as a step in the right direction?

David "Few people call me Dave" Canterbury, sorry for the error. No one is suggesting that the clubs suddenly give all the £35m windfall about to come their way back to the fans. That would be like turkey''s voting for Christmas. They could however do far more than they are, even if we disagree about how it''s done. Lappin "mad dog" Jacobs crackers - the away fans aren''t suggesting they have a sense of entitlement to a subsidy. It''s about trying to convince the clubs to give something back. Stoke and Swansea already are and I don''t see their home fans getting all beefy because the away fans are getting something they''re not. Do you? Nutty Eddie The Eagle - there was a distinct feel of "toys out of the pram" from your posts of yesterday, with accusations of things being made personal. Notwithstanding, the economic argument is fine whilst the status quo is maintained. However, if clubs suddenly get a £35m windfall it then becomes a budget issue. They surely don''t have to spend every single penny of that on transfer fees and wages in order to remain competitive. There''s a common theme developing here, suggesting that the various organisations should do this or that. Some good, some not so. However, the underlying issue is that group policy won''t be determined via message boards like this. It''s determined by individuals actually getting involved. Being there doesn''t mean you 100% support the cause. However, not being there gives you little chance of influencing views and opinions on such issues. Oh, and before Canterbury Chatham gets his knickers in a twist again about my new login, like he I hadn''t been on here for ages until recently. However, unlike him, a complete password failure on my part and reminder to an email address to which i no longer have access, left no choice but you start again. Now, i feel my work here is done and bid you all farewell Protest, or not to protest, that''s the £35m question! OTBC