Morph

To follow up on a post earlier in this thread about running the club. In the Barcelona scheme of things the members/shareholders don''t run the club. I think the ownership allows them to elect the clubs governing body - they elect the club president for example.This is lifted from a Guardian article written about the Barcelona club ownership in 2006:[quote]"The fans truly own this club," Ferran Seriano, one of the club''s vicepresidents, says. "They control its destiny and can decide how it will be managed. This is totally different from Arsenal [two-thirds owned by ITV, businessmen Danny Fiszman and David Dein, and Lady Nina and Sir Charles Bracewell-Smith] or Chelsea, owned by one guy who could one day withdraw his investment."...The Camp Nou way 142,000 Barcelona members or socios 4 Major shareholders in Arsenal £69 Cheapest adult season ticket at the Camp Nou £885 Cheapest at the Emirates Stadium £579 Most expensive adult season ticket at the Camp Nou £1,825 Most expensive at the Emirates Stadium £84m Barça''s income in 2002-03, before Joan Laporta took over £163m Barça''s income in 2005-6 2 Maximum number of four-year terms a Barça president may serve [/quote]And this lifted from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:[quote]At Barca, the directors are elected to the board on four-year terms because of their vision, not because they''re the mates of a rich chairman. At Barca, vision requires football knowledge and understanding to convince the football-savvy socios that the club will maintain and improve on its guiding principles and direction. Thus the membership decides what are the overriding imperatives. The members, of course, have also forged the Barca spirit - and a pride in the club''s badge - that has resisted having a sponsor''s name or logo placed on their shirt. Their symbol is considered too important to be soiled with such base commercial motives. Indeed, last season Barca paid UNICEF for the right to use its name. [/quote]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]this is a good post! unfortunately it shows why fan ownership wont ever take place anywhere else... Barca are a 1 off... the club are not sponsored by anyone, the fans vote on everything from Ticket prices to who the next manager is going to be... i''d love to see it in the english game but Barca have been fan run since their inception... its too late for an established club to do this i feel. jas :) [/quote]jas:), why do you think it''s too late for this to happen at City?A follow up question for all. What''s the fan base, worldwide for City? 30,000? 40,000? 100,000 even?The calculations other posters have done on the £56M valuation have been based on 20,000. That''s your normal home crowd. But surely the fan base is broader than that. XXXL, YankeeCanary, newyorkcanary, all give the impression that they''re Canary supporters outside of the fan base that regularly attend City home games.A further follow up question, which perhaps somebody can look up in their copy of the club accounts. What''s the number of shares out there? Remember there are ''A'' shares and ''B'' shares (I know ''cos I have some of each). Delia and MWJs 61% holding is made up of what? All A? All B? Or a mix?Here''s another thought. What about a share issue to season ticket holders only? All proceeds go directly into the transfer kitty. And don''t say that your season ticket payments should be going there already. Perhaps they should, but chances are that a good portion of season ticket revenues go towards paying for existing playing staff - another reason to moan when the players don''t perform.

[quote user="one-pint"]whilst a good idea, doing the maths, if for example we got 20,000 supporters to buy into this....with delias quoted 56 million buyout price, every supporter would need to chip in 2,800 quid each, which i cant really see happening [/quote]Didn''t that £56M price tag include paying off the £20M debt?

Radical suggestion but why don''t the fans buy out Delia? Set up a club ownership along the lines of Barcelona.This is lifted from another site but it would be interesting to know what the actual details of club ownership are.[quote]FC Barcelona''s ownership structure is revered across the world and regarded as a model of the ideal football club. A group of Liverpool supporters plan to buy the troubled Anfield club from its American owners and run it using a system similar to that of the Catalan giants. Barca is owned by its ever-growing membership of 156,366 ''socis'' (members), who pay 150euros each year and are represented by a randomly-selected group who meet with the board and vote on major decisions. These representatives have a major say on significant issues such as sponsorship, finances and sporting affairs, while the president of the club is elected in four-yearly polls. The achievements of the illustrious club since its founding in 1899 are testament to the ongoing success of the structure, as is the fact many clubs have attempted to copy the model over the years. So why does Barca''s system work so well? All adult members are eligible to vote in the presidential elections every four years. Club members selected randomly by computer and age, and 25 chosen by the board, join the directors, former presidents and other officials at the annual delegates assembly to discuss key issues, approve the annual report and forthcoming projects. Only members can buy season tickets, with membership fees contributing to the overall price of the ticket. Fiscal rewards for membership include discounted tickets for the club''s various sports teams including football, basketball, handball and hockey as well as club magazines, e-mail updates, sporting and cultural activities and free entry to the Nou Camp tour and museum. Ultimately, though, it is not the material rewards which make the Barca membership structure so prestigious. In a modern game spoiled by disaffected supporters and unaccountable owners, it is FC Barcelona''s utopian democracy which justifies its famous slogan ''More than a Club''.[/quote]And please don''t rathole on what the Liverpool supporters are trying to do.Could it work at City?If so, how and what''s the investment needed to replace the current ownership with the Barcelona style ownership?

Bingo, you''re dead right. If we go a restaurant and pay money for crap service and food, we sure as hell won''t go back. By the same token if the restaurant manager has complaints about his staff or his staff don''t fit in it''s easier for him to get rid of them. Plus it''s not such a financial risk to bring in replacements.As football supporters we don''t follow the restaurant scenario. We stick with the club through thick and thin. But should we really expect our directors to keep digging into their pockets to put money into the club? yellow hammer clearly thinks we should.However, if there is no more money to be had, and the vitriol begins to spew forth what happens then if MWJ and DS want to get out but want something back for what they''ve put in? Do we as fans have the right to give them abuse for their lack of investment?It''s like a kid that gets the flashy remote control car for Christmas. Mum & Dad got all the flashy bits on the outside but the engines a bit naff. Couldn''t you pay just a little more? Sorry kid, we didn''t have a little more.

yellow hammer, are you of the opinion then that if said directors no longer have the financial clout to continue to back the club, said directors should step aside to let others who do?I think this is where the "prudence with ambition" came from. The directors have given as much as they financially want to give to the club and maybe want to see something for it. So the "ambition" has gone and it''s now simply "prudence".The fans want "ambition" and to hell with the prudence. As YCs thread title intimated, there''s a large segment of fans that want to see somebody paying for their toy.Even Cullum wanted something for the money he wanted to put in. He did not appear to be putting in money to buy an expensive toy to play with. Perhaps other posters on here think he was.

So LGT and others on this thread, should the directors continue to throw their own money into the pot in the pursuit of attaining the Premiership?How much? At what point do they consider the money you want them to put in, a bad investment?There seems to be an undercurrent of feeling that somebody with deep pockets has to underwrite the pursuit of success. Why do people feel that? If it was a venture capitalist they would want some percentage of the company and some hope of seeing a return on their investment. Why do people think that people investing in a football club are any different?If any of you had £20M to throw into the pot would you simply hand it over to City without any hope of some return?The club is £20M in debt - how much is that costing the club per year to maintain?. Up to 50% of the club''s turnover goes into funding the playing and non-playing staff at the club. See: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_norwich.htm. Or: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/

Well there''s one managerial possibility out of the way.http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11688_2794402,00.htmlSky Sports is reporting that Warnock has joined Palace.

There''s always:Byron Glasgow (currently a trainee at Reading)Rob Paris (from Aylesbury)Salvatore Monaco (currently at Catania)I''m sure there''s loads more. Just search on soccerbase.com under players to get some hints.

Best post that I''ve taken the time to read for ages Rossi.It''s a completely uninteresting place to visit these days - the Pink''Un message board. It''s the same old arguments getting rehashed again and again, followed up by the same old vitriol from WO''s a KTFers, alike.This board was once a place for reasoned discussion. Not any more. Just a place for bitter people to air the same views that they''ve aired over the past 12 months or dig out more dodgy rumours or speculation about what''s going on down at Carrow Road.Everyone one of us would do the team more of a favour if we put all our verbal efforts into supporting the team.

Can somebody explain something to me - why do City need a target man? There''s an implication in this that the expected ball to the front man is in the air with a smaller striker acting to feed off the knock downs/ons. Why do City have to play that way? What''s wrong with the ball to strikers on the deck or balls through the defense for strikers to run on to (Earnshaw is a supposed to be quick). Or, God forbid, balls crossed by the wide players from a position beyond the opposition full-back. How many times does Worthy ask his wide men to go past the full back and get to the byline before crossing the ball in? How many strikers do City have on the books? Thorne, Earnshaw, McKenzie, Jarvis, Henderson, Huckerby, McVeigh? Why do they need another one?

Why not play a system that employs wing-backs? Have a central defensive trio of Docherty, Shackell and AN Other (probably Fleming). Then have Drury as LWB, plus AN Other as RWB (Colin, Hughes, Louis-Jean, Spillane). Play three in midfield. Safri being one. Then pick two from Etuhu, Robinson and Hughes. If you want a more attacking midfield choose a roaming third from Huckerby, McVeigh, Henderson or Jarvis. Select two up front from the vast choices that City have for strikers from Earnshaw, McKenzie, McVeigh, Thorne, Huckerby, Henderson and Jarvis. From what little you can gain from a friendly, I think the partnership of McKenzie and Earnshaw looks good, BUT it does require a particular type of service from midfield. That''s either crosses into the box from beyond the opposition full backs or balls ON THE DECK through the oppositions back four. The "hump" doesn''t work with that pairing.

blahblahblah, you make a comment about the starting 11 for Leeds well here''s my comeback. We can''t use any of the pre-season friendlies to guage much at all. However, if they were being used as a way for players to stake claims to places then only the following would make my starting line-up. GK: Gallacher (didn''t see Lewis although he was there) LB: Drury CB: Docherty CB: Shackell RB: ?? LM: ?? - Huckerby is currently favourite but I remain unconvinced on last nights showing, he simply goes missing for too much of the game CM: Safri CM: Robinson - sorry but Etuhu doesn''t do it for me - a big lump of a player whose first touch was awful RM: ?? ST: McKenzie ST: Earnshaw That would leave three positions to fill, although one is likely to be filled by Huckerby. Huckerby and Drury work well together. I''d like to see them acquire two midfield players. One, a decent attacking central midfield player, Etuhu isn''t it. Two, a right sided midfield player. Safri is a Makele type player who is good on the ball but he''s not going to be making those lung busting runs forward. Robinson is a Carrick type of player, always looking for the cutting pass, but again not making those lung busting runs forward like a Gerrard/Lampard style player. The alternative is to play three across the middle with Safri, Robinson and Etuhu. Then play Hucks just in behind the front two but give him license to roam. With McKenzie and Earnshaw up front you need to either play the ball into feet and run off them or you need wide midfield men who are prepared to run in behind the fullbacks. Huckerby does that, but City don''t have a corresponding right side player who does that. Jarvis came on for Huckerby last night and looks a decent player - more convincing than Henderson on last nights showing. If Worthy has to insist on playing strikers wide then why not give Jarvis a go on the right?

Not much of a match to be honest - and yes I was there!!. A first half strike force of Thorne and McVeigh did little to conjure up anything magical - McVeigh seemed to have picked up someone else''s boots because he didn''t look at all comfortable when he did have the ball. Closest to scoring was Shackell who attempted to bundle the ball in from a corner but only managed to get the goalkeeper in the net and the ball over the bar. A lightweight midfield, IMO, with Safri and Etuhu in the middle with Henderson and Huckerby on the flanks. Major difference between the flanks being the support from the fullback. Drury makes good runs past Huckerby creating space for him to run into, whilst Colin made no runs at all beyond Henderson. Changes made at half time saw McKenzie and Earnshaw on as front pairing, with Hughes replacing Henderson and Robinson replacing Safri. A much better front pairing with both causing the defenders havoc with their chasing of the ball. Earnshaws first came from a McKenzie layoff on the edge of the box with Earnie curling the ball adroitly into the top corner. Second goal was a penalty area melee with Earnshaw finding a way to pop the ball in the back of the net. Earnie nearly had a third with a Huckerby run down the left wing and cross only to see Earnie sliding in on his backside unable to get the merest of touches to put it in. Overall, solid at the back - questions still remain over right back position. Midfield is still an area of concern on this showing. Safri is OK, but Etuhu doesn''t have a first touch worth anything and ends up diving in after losing control with the obvious results. Robinson looks a decent enough player with an eye to play a decent ball rather than giving away possession. Out wide, the players on show don''t offer a solution to the right side of midfield. A decent attacking right back may help solve the problem, but Henderson was timid - only once did he actually attempt to go past the left back. Hope it gets better than this in the real matches because the opposition aren''t going to be as poor as Livingston.

I haven''t posted in this forum for months because it''s such a depressing place to come and visit. That said, I felt I had to post just to crow as "Fife Fire" lead the Norwich Hopefuls segment of the premierleague.com fantasy World Cup. Yep, that''s Morph up there looking down at the rest of you (for once).

A slightly different tack on the issue of whether there is something wrong at Carrow Road at the moment. To all the supporters out there that are reading this, ask yourselves this question. Are you getting value for money from your entry money at the moment? And if you are explain why. I realise for many simply seeing the team is enough irrespective of what is happening on the pitch. For others, the entertainment value they are getting for shelling out their hard earned cash is very poor indeed. Where do you stand?

KC, have to agree with your sentiments. I visit the forum less and less these days simply because there is no discussion and I stress discussion. I even have to think twice about trying to start a discussion, there are other boards where you actually get reasoned debate - sadly this is no longer one of them. This message board has become indicative of the club in it''s current state - stale. I would classify myself on the Worthy doubting side of the fence, but when you try to generate discussion on what needs to happen at the club to fix matters there is no reasoned debate. Even the KTFer''s don''t post anymore and I can understand why. The WOer''s that we have have become so vociferous and unreasoned that they leave themselves no room to manoevre and cannot see how anybody can have an opposing view. It''s sad but true.....

Kathy, I think your article is spot on. The big difference between the two sides on Sunday was simple. One team came to do the job they were employed to do, the other team (for the most part) came to make up the numbers. I think in some circles it''s called football. I always thought the general idea behind football was that you passed the ball between you and your team mates trying your damndest to make sure the opposition didn''t get it, with the intention of eventually popping it in the goal that your opponent is defending. I''d like to point out to those City players on Sunday who couldn''t quite work out which was which - your team mates are the ones who were wearing yellow jerseys. And when the players in the blue jerseys have the ball you''re supposed to try and get it back. "load of" since you seem to be happy to knock the words that Kathy had written, would you be prepared to give us your view of what you saw on Sunday please. And perhaps a little insight into why you think this whole thing can be turned around. Perhaps I''ll get out of the shower in the morning and realise it''s all been one horrendously long dream.

Would we seriously have to get somebody in if he were removed? Why not simply appoint a caretaker until the end of the season? If Worthy is forced to leave or resigns, why not let David Williams take the helm and see if he can at least get them playing again.

I have to say that I watched the debacle Sunday, well 90% of it - the 10% I lost to doing the household ironing was more enjoyable. Ignoring that I wanted to post the major observation that I had of the game. Posters have maligned the defense for many of our defeats this season and also maligned the attack for not putting away what few chances they have, but what Sunday''s game really exposed was the lack of quality and effort in midfield. You can''t have a four man midfield where only one of the four turns up to play. I was always under the impression that the midfield is the engine room of your football team - it was when I played there. But what do we see from the current Canaries? 1. When in possession the maxim "pass and move" seems to work well. Just watch the Ipswich youngsters on Saturday and you''ll see what I mean. On the other hand when City had the ball it was very much a case of get rid of it to the front blokes as quick as you can even if it''s an appalling pass forward. What happened to the short pass to one of your team-mates and then move into space to receive the return pass? 2. When NOT in possession, press the opposition. How many times did you see Ipswich with the ball and City players dropping off them and gving them space? One classic example for one of Curries shots, when both Safri and Etuhu (I think) ended up in the six yard box when the Ipswich guy was outside the 18 yard box. Both of these aspects game much from the much vaunted work ethic that Worthy prizes so highly but where were they on Sunday? The engine room needs a major look at with players prepared to work their balls off and players who have the wherewithall to use the ball when they''ve got it. Of those on show only Safri fits the bill and on Sunday even he was a pale imitation of the player on show in the Premiership. If the pros can''t cut it in the side, which they don''t appear to, then drop them and bring in the youngsters who have the hunger to get the job done. Too many journeymen pros in there at the moment who aren''t prepared to do a "hard days work"!!

CityAngel, I don''t want to drive your thread off at a tangent but the fact that lowly Crewe have knocked in three against Reading today just sums up a lot about City''s season. Clearly your experience at the open forum at Sheringham the other night suggest that the board believe that Worthington should be here at least until the end of the season. The big question is would a defeat against Ipswich persuade the fans to voice their discontent in a more forthright manner?

Forget a cease-fire..... How about season long, honest and reasoned debate rather than the pathetic and perpetual mud-slinging that we have had on here for the last 6 months.

If he is available on a free then I would say pick him up. Every time I''ve seen them play up here he''s been a useful right sided player to have in the team. The downside is that he''s 30. So he''s not exactly a young, up and coming prospect. More like another journeyman footballer with a slightly better pedigree. From: http://www.4thegame.com/club/glasgow-celtic-fc/player-profile/3488/didieragathe.html Didier Agathe is the kind of midfielder who likes to get forward, but can also drop back and play a deeper role if required. Since arriving at Parkhead in September 2000, Agathe has played an important part in Celtic''s successes. He played in all of the Champions League matches during the 2001/02 campaign, helped the club win the League on more than one occasion and played a crucial part in getting the Hoops to the UEFA Cup final in 2003. Martin O''Neill opted to play Agathe in an unfamiliar right-back role, which ultimately improved his performances during the 2003/04 campaign.

a1, wasn''t there also a sell-on clause the Crewe put in when we bought him? That would knock the actual money we see from the Ashton sale down a little bit more. From the BBC site: " Norwich have completed the signing of Crewe striker Dean Ashton for a club-record £3m. The England Under-21 striker signed a three-and-a-half-year deal with an option of one further year after passing a medical on Monday. The cost could rise by £500,000 and there is a 20% sell-on fee." So that''s £1.4M of the £7M paid out of the calculations.

I''m sorry but I''m really tired of all the vitriole directed at Ashton. Football is his job. If he wants to take a job that is what he considers to be a better prospect for him personally, what''s wrong with that. Don''t tell me that everyone of those noters who are calling him a judas, wouldn''t jack in their own jobs if somebody came after them with a better deal. Give me a break! Ashton wants the big time and I would suggest that he does not believe that he is going to get the big time at the club in it''s current state. I don''t blame him. He wants to get on. He wants to get into the England setup and staying where he is doesn''t seem like that will happen. None of us had any complaints when he was knocking those goals in against Man U and Newcastle last season. Deano I wish you the best.