Buncey

I''m not a negative poster. I would like to think that over the years I have been one of the more positive on here. But I found today really taxing. In fact, I''ve felt the whole season difficult. There is no doubt for me that we have matured as a team under Hughton. We are more professional and defend far better. I also think we will comfortably stay up. But the way we are doing it is just now too much for me. We were poor today. Thankfully QPR were worse. However,wWe still needed some fortune to hold on to a (really unnecessarily hard) point today. Lambert''s football certainly spoilt us. But surely there is an alternative to the ponderous, slow and negative football we are playing now. Johnson was fantastic today (I am often a, probably harsh, detractor) but he still only made 63% of his passing. His team-mates gave the ball away even more. The excitement of city attacks has ebbed away to a frustration in our inability to pass the ball more than 5 yards. I am sure some of the lovely older bors have gone through this melancholy before. Plenty of times. But after 12 years of being a season ticket holder, I just don''t have the inclination any more. I can barely afford the ludicrously high prices (although I''m sure there are many willing replacements). And I can''t bare the fortnightly torture (financially) of our rail services knowing the dross at the other end of the line.Sure we didn''t lose today, but what''s the point? We''ll go into another game next week trying not to lose. And then the week after. Ad infinitum. For what? So we can end the season as not one of the worst three teams (deliberate phrasing). So we can be not quite as shite as QPR''s mercenary misfits? 

[quote user="Jules"]I''d have to agree. Fox was poor  - though perhaps only as poor as everyone else today. Where was his incisive passing? We completely lacked creativity. I imagined that these 2nd string players would have been bursting to show how they should be in the 1st team but I was wrong. [/quote]Apart from the reverse pass to Kane that set up a great chance for Martin to score... or the perfect ball in that Barnett should have converted... Not mention the only player who put any speed into our passing and the only one able to make a cross field pass. Can''t blame him if the wingers and the strikers don''t do anything. That''s not his job.

[quote user="QHcanary"]"yes there are always the exceptions that prove the rule, some stunning exceptions of british clubs in european competitions seeming to win games they were outclassed in, manure, chelsea and liverpool in recent CL victories spring to mind #bulldogspirit" Did you even read the whole sentence? The bit where I said it was a pointless stat and that I agreed?[/quote]Not to mention QH and Zipper that the league is a whole different game to a Cup. You simply can''t do that style week in week out. It will physically drain your players. This is something we saw over Christmas with us and Villa. We have both looked lethargic. That high energy style can only work whilst you have the legs to do it.

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Im a bit puzzled by your post ron obvious- Fox was fantastic against Peterborough. I was there+Posh couldn`t get near him and funnily enough my old man watched it online and said exactly the same thing next time i saw him before i had a chance to.[/quote]Exactly Mr Carrow. Posh chased shadows all game. There was a period in the first half where we kept the ball for nearly 7 minutes. I have said it so many times it is frankly silly, but without Hoolahan or Fox in the team we have nobody to keep the ball. We almost always end up getting mauled as we get exhausted giving the possession away and chasing the game.Fox is a smart player and great on the ball. I think he gets a bad rep off the ball. I see a player who continually works to get goalside of the opposition and deny them territory. He isn''t the best tackler. But very few players get round him as get cuts them off before they start. He was the perfect foil to BJ/Howson''s run and gun game. Without him (and Hoolahan) we really miss the pressure we can build on teams by holding the ball and slowing the game down. This was something which Tettey was doing well until recently. He is also very good at organising the midfield in setting up our shape and by dictating the direction of our possession. For all of BJ''s virtues, he is not an orchestrator like Hoolahan or Fox.I should also mention that he is a fantastic crosser. The stats are well versed. He would be great to have in tandem with Snodgrass as we could have a solid left-right combination at set pieces.My big worry is that he goes to a rival at Wigan or perhaps Swansea who will utilise that possession style he gives.

This strikes me very much as a Cortese move with little regard for the consequences. I maybe would go as far to say that Pochettino is "his man". Certainly I am very uninspired by this appointment. Pochettino has a pretty dismal record, and has looked to have set up Espanyol for the drop. He is also not know for being diplomatic with his players, effectively booting the Espanyol legend Tamudo from the club. On the other side of the equation. Adkins is a good manager. He has worked his way up to the top after doing fantastic jobs at both Scunthorpe and Southampton. He is knowledgeable about the game and he has developed a Southampton side capable of many styles of play. I have absolutely no doubt he will continue to be successful in the future. I am also very much sick and tired of hearing the old "he''s lost the dressing room" nonsense. I think that there are very few managers that haven''t lost the dressing room full of self-indulgent and petulant children (not to mention the ones who reside in the boardrooms these days). It really is a thankless task. I also take task at some of the flak he has received about his transfer this season. Partciuarly with the goalkeepers. Let''s remember, he signed Artur Boruc on a free. One of the top keepers in Serie A last year (14 clean sheets), who only made way really for a native Fiorentini. On top of that we can add Gaston Ramirez who has been very good this season. Mayuka and Rodriguez may not have paid off so handsomely. But they are very talented young footballers and the polar opposite of QPR''s geriatrics club. The defence is another area where he has been pilloried. We must remember that many rate Nathanial Clyne as one of the most promising full backs in country. Yoshida is another promising footballer, who we may not have seen the best out of yet either. But the main missing piece has been Jack Cork. It is no coincidence that, since his return as the lynch-pin in Southampton''s midfield they have been far better. He is a good player who makes Southampton far better defensively. I am sure he was a main part of Adkins plans this season. His loss was sorely felt early on. (Not to forget he was another of Adkins good buys).

Feel sorry for the people who had to go through this. Regularly happens on trains back to London when there is (always) engineering works. Unfortunately, nothing will change as this has been the status quo for some five years.

Bunn is not fully fit. He has been sluggish in the past two games and his kicking has been impaired. He is kicking with a stiff right leg and slicing through the ball. By the end of the Chelsea and Man City games he was barely able to make the halfway lines. The question is whether he should still be playing when we have other options.

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]In my day job I''m a tax lawyer so FWIW here''s my take on the headlines that Rangers has won the tax case that led to it going into administration.  To be clear I have no personal involvement and the following is based entirely on public infomation.  Non-geeks should probably look away now...   To say Rangers has won is a bit of an overstatement - this was a hearing at the First Tier Tax Tribunal.  HMRC can appeal (and probably will) to the Upper Tier, then if necessary to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.  My guess is that eventually HMRC will win higher up - the Lawro prediction would be for a narrow win for HMRC in the end, if you like.  And it will be a few years before the final decision.   The relevance to us is that happily (as far as I can tell) City haven''t done any of this sort of tax avoidance, whereas I suspect many long-established Prem teams have done - it only became public for Rangers when it went into administration.  The others teams haven''t so their details are not public, but if they lose, they''ll have big tax bills to pay.   The tax scheme was done for them by a guy called Baxendale-Walker who as well as being a tax adviser is now the publisher of Loaded magazine so not your typical tax adviser : http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/29/loaded-magazine-men-baxendale-walk . Amusingly the tribunal''s published decision is anonymised - a la Reservoir Dogs people are referred to as Mr Purple, Mrs Crimson etc, which is a bit surreal.   The scheme was actually pretty simple - the company setup an employee benefit trust (EBT) which would make loans to employees (players) and the company would pay a reduced salary.  Now this was about 10 years ago so if you had a salary of say £100,000 you''d pay income tax at 40% (ignoring the lower-rate tax band and national insurance).  Whereas if you had an interest-free loan from your employer, you would only pay income tax on the value of the interest-free benefit, which would translate into a tax charge of about 2% of the loan value.  This would be an annual charge so if the loan was left outstanding for 3 years, the total charge would be 6%.  But after the employee had left the company, the EBT would (in practice) waive the loan, which was thought to be tax-free for a former employee, so he''d get the £100k outright having paid 6% tax after 3 years'' service, rather than 40%.  You can see why it was an ideal scheme for football clubs.   The HMRC challenge is basically to say that really the £100k was understood to be salary, everyone knew the players would get the full amount in the end, even though technically it was discretionary for the EBT, so it should be taxed on that basis not as a loan. In the jargon this is known as a "purposive construction" of the tax statute, i.e. never mind what the law actually says, look at what it is trying to achieve. Personally I didn''t advise my clients to do schemes of this sort back then (they have since been blocked by changes in the law which make it clear they don''t work although some people are still doing similar types of scheme) partly because I don''t like this sort of aggressive tax avoidance, also because it''s highly likely to lead to a fight with HMRC - which most most clients aren''t keen on when the risks are spelled out. And I think the chances are that this scheme will fail in the end.   Back to work now ! [/quote]Thank you "It''s Character Forming". A very good summary. I have followed the case closely as I am a Financial Consultant and work on cases involving disputes. There is little I can add to your comments, however I noted a few things.Firstly, the decision that was reached by the tribunal was a majority one (not unanimous) by the three person panel. Of note, the dissenting voice was by Dr Heidi Poon, who was the sole charted tax adviser and accountant. Her appendix deals much more heavily in quantum (numbers), which as an accountant I certainly feel more comfortable with!! Secondly, decisions at the first tribunal do not set a legal precedent (i.e. that it was found that the trust money "loaned" to players were in most cases actually loans), however, decisions above this level do. If HMRC were to appeal, and to win, the ruling would result in similar schemes being punished and a liability to the taxman. On the face of it, the body of evidence against Rangers appears to be quite strong (from a first glance professional point of view). HMRC would certainly have a good chance of winning an appeal. Another factor to consider will be the costs to both sides; the financial reward for either side going to the courts again is small.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="shefcanary"] Ah ha, well worth waiting for Purple.    In answer to Nutty''s question, the compensation paid to Birmingham is probably part of "recruitment costs" rather than a separable transaction.  You would have expected it would have been quoted in the PBSE note, but presumably given the level of bonuses probably now payable to players if we continue to remain in the PL the auditors consider it not being material for separate disclosure.  The club may also account for it as with player registrations and are capitalising it and amortising it over the length of Hughton''s contract, thus reducing again the hit on any one year on the p&l account.  All smoke and mirrors but in line with the accountants great love of the "matching concept"!   A recent thread on here about share sales indeed showed the Club confirming the current price to be £100.    You seem to have missed one more interesting point though Purple, and that is the old Going Concern concept and the weakness that still remains within the Club''s caashflow.   The notes about this in the accounts are quite illuminating.  Although one initially would think we were competely out of the financial mire now, the repayment of the Axa loan notes in May 2013 will mean the club run out of cash (albeit for a short time until cashflow from 2013-14 season starts to kick in) - the club estimate they will need to find £2 million if we remain in the PL, considerably more if we get relegated.  The club states that it has already secured the promise of overdraft facilites secured against future income if we stay in the PL, but says that if we get relegated the overdraft will be secured against PL parachute payments, so the auditors are happy that the club remains a going concern. I guess the projections on which this conclusion was also drawn also assumes a fair amount of expenditure in the January transfer market but of course gives no clue as to how much.    This shows that just because we are in the PL our club''s monetary woes do not disappear overnight; timing of cash receipts and payments remain critical, and that if we do get relegated some of the parachute payments we receive will actually be used to pay off the current Axa loan notes and thus will not wholly be available for getting us re-promoted.  So caution advisable! [/quote]   Shef, I had seen that, and was going to put it on the end of the last section, but the whole thing was getting so long! That and the assurance from the club (which of course I would always believe...)[;)] that they would have no trouble covering the shortfall. But I was very surprised to see, as you say, that if we stayed in the PL there would be a shortfall at all. And I agree entirely with your overall point about the to an extent illusory nature of PL money. This ties in with what I may post later on about stadium expansion. [/quote]I have not had a chance to read the accounts (as they are sent to my Norfolk home and not my London one), so I rely on what is posted on here. So I give a big thank you to Purple, Shef and others who have been kind enough to post about the accounts on here.Anyway, I suspect that the discussed cashflow problem (which I remember, Purple, myself and other talking about last year) will be solved by a combination of early season ticket receipts and an overdraft secured on the receipts (if necessary). I was wondering last season why the board were so quiet about season ticket sales and details last year and maybe that has something to do with plans afoot this year. Then again I may be putting two and two together and get around 22,000.

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]A couple of questions for you, Ricardo: Was the starting line up our strongest. I think it is if Turner plays as he did today. When did you last see such a disciplined and well organised defensive display from Norwich? I don''t think we played that way under PL and before that we were poor. It might be back in Worthy''s promotion season but I don''t know when. If we can organise and be solid like this going forward we have a chance to survive IMO.[/quote]Yes RH, it was a highly disciplined performance. I''m not a lover of 451 or 4411 but against teams of the calibre of Arsenal you have to play that way to stay in the game. Obviously the big advantage last night was scoring the first goal so we didn''t need to change things and chase the game (Liverpool).I thought we kept our shape throughout and restricted Arsenal to very few chances. For me, every City player did their job simply and effectively and didn''t try anything they are not capable of. In short it was a perfect team performance. No doubt CH will play this formation against the big boys but I think he might take a different approach against the lesser lights of this league.[/quote]Ricky, the formation was the same but the setup and tempo was a world apart yesterday. We had a belief that we could win yesterday and we pressed Arsenal high and hard and harried them all game. Our goal originated from us winning the ball in their half and all game long Arsenal were having great difficulty building from the back. That positivity got us that first goal, and for once we were chasing in a game for the right reasons. Us, the fans, knew this too and the atmosphere was the best in a long time. I have no doubt that it gave the players a second wind at the end.

[quote user="Mister Chops"]So I like this post a lot, apart from the conclusion.  Those forwards were "decent" enough last season, after all.The problem looks to me like players who aren''t sure, or comfortable, with the roles they are being asked to play and/or playing in positions that don''t suit them.  The best example would be Howson, who looked a quality attacking midfielder under Lambert but is now shackled as part of a central two and has lost the attacking edge to his game.Also, does Hughton really think Turner is our 3rd best centre back?[/quote]Spot on Chops. These forwards combined for us to be the 7th highest scorers last season. The team look unconfortable with the way we are set up, not too mention certain players not starting.

[quote user="ricardo"]Turner should have been aware of Suarez''s presence but allowed himself to be mugged by dwelling on the ball too long. He had time to clear so it''s no use trying to deflect the blame to Garrido.[/quote]That''s being kind on Turner Ricky. Turner somehow managed to miscontrol a 5 yard pass by some yard and a half, straight towards the other teams striker only to get easily muscled off the ball. Not to mention that he had completely lost track of that striker, more remarkable after playing him onside for the golden chance he missed seconds earlier and all that after giving the ball away in the first place to start the attack.

When Holt made his debut for us, pre-season against man u before league 1, I saw this overweight sluggish forward and thought we''d got another Peter Thorne. Then when we had the start of our championship season Holt turned up unfit, overweight and off the pace. I thought he''d lost it and that he would never cut it above league 1. Last year he was slow to start, and I was concerned that the premier league was maybe a step too far. I know better this time.

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"] Did you enjoy the game though Rickyyyyyyyy? I had to watch it on TV whilst looking after 4 of the grandkids and thought it was quite a good game. But I didn''t think either side looked like scoring a goal so it was hard to be disappointed with a point. In the bigger picture we will be disappointed with 3 points from what didn''t look a difficult first four games. On paper anyway! But football is strange we could easily win the next two. It does seem to me that we are building from the back. Where as last season we defended from the front. Two different managers and two different approaches. I wouldn''t be surprised to see one up front again next week. [/quote] I think you are right, the managers approach makes a big difference. I think had Lambert been here he would have tried to get more creativity out of the midfield. In other words I am confident the subs would have been Wes and Fox. Morison and Kane were fresh faces but in truth the game went backwards for 10-15 minutes after they came on. Kane looked as though he could be decent in time but that fluffed effort was costly. Had that been Holt it would have been odds on a goal. No I didn''t enjoy the game that much. The passing was awful and we didn''t look half the team we did against QPR and Spurs. [/quote] It''s early days I know but I am concerned that we''re not creating much. Shots on goal don''t equate to chances. It seems the approach is more about having a solid midfield and keeping the shape than being creative. It was what many advocated last season though. Unfortunately, unless you can afford the very best players, you can''t have it both ways. [/quote] Exactly Eddie. Houghton has clipped our wings when going forward. Sure, we will be a more solid defensive unit, but we are going to have to get used to being frustrated by poor sides like West Ham and QPR. The days of going all out in search of a win left the door with Lambert. I can''t help but feel disappointed, just like I was after the QPR game and even more so that Hoolahan and Fox continue to warm the bench despite being our continued inability to create sufficient chances.[/quote] Yes I think that sums up my feelings in a nutshell Leon. My frear is that you have to see out three draws to get the same amount of points as a single win. But it''s early days ands a solid side that wins is even better than what Lambert gave us last season. But (again) I think to win more games with this seasons approach we will need a pacey clinical finisher. And it doesn''t look like we have one unless Jackson can add that string to his bow. Still miss you on Rays Funds. 2 wins from 2 weeks.. can I tempt you back?[;)] [/quote] All true, and it makes the moves with Vaughan and Kane look bizarre. I followed the win today as I was consigned to London for the weekend. It''s a good start to the season the PUPs are doing better without me! If I get time I might drop in.

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"] Did you enjoy the game though Rickyyyyyyyy? I had to watch it on TV whilst looking after 4 of the grandkids and thought it was quite a good game. But I didn''t think either side looked like scoring a goal so it was hard to be disappointed with a point. In the bigger picture we will be disappointed with 3 points from what didn''t look a difficult first four games. On paper anyway! But football is strange we could easily win the next two. It does seem to me that we are building from the back. Where as last season we defended from the front. Two different managers and two different approaches. I wouldn''t be surprised to see one up front again next week. [/quote] I think you are right, the managers approach makes a big difference. I think had Lambert been here he would have tried to get more creativity out of the midfield. In other words I am confident the subs would have been Wes and Fox. Morison and Kane were fresh faces but in truth the game went backwards for 10-15 minutes after they came on. Kane looked as though he could be decent in time but that fluffed effort was costly. Had that been Holt it would have been odds on a goal. No I didn''t enjoy the game that much. The passing was awful and we didn''t look half the team we did against QPR and Spurs. [/quote] It''s early days I know but I am concerned that we''re not creating much. Shots on goal don''t equate to chances. It seems the approach is more about having a solid midfield and keeping the shape than being creative. It was what many advocated last season though. Unfortunately, unless you can afford the very best players, you can''t have it both ways. [/quote] Exactly Eddie. Houghton has clipped our wings when going forward. Sure, we will be a more solid defensive unit, but we are going to have to get used to being frustrated by poor sides like West Ham and QPR. The days of going all out in search of a win left the door with Lambert. I can''t help but feel disappointed, just like I was after the QPR game and even more so that Hoolahan and Fox continue to warm the bench despite being our continued inability to create sufficient chances.

I certainly am Ricky. On reflection I agree with everything you have said there. Maybe I was being a wet fish after getting stuck on the M11 for 2 hours last night. I also wonder when the criminally bad decisions against us will end.

Strange that I was positive after the Fulham game but feel overwhelmingly negative after today. We played well but couldn''t convert that into 3 points and we just didn''t have that win at all costs mentality that was so pervasive under Lambert. Houghton didn''t make the changes and the players, at times, lacked the whirlwind movement that caused every single opposition team trouble last year. I hope that perhaps it''s just a one off but I fear that the days of last minute goals and going all out to win have gone.

We have Hoolahan, Fox, Garrido and Whittaker to come into the team.

Hopefully this will remind people how vital Fox and Hoolahan are to our team.

[quote user="Indy"] I give up, they are at best a good German side, that performed to an average standard, not once did I call them an average team, but hey they are in an good to average league! They are on par to Genoa, Sampdoria, Mallorca, etc. etc. not a European powerhouse and as such we should be able to give them a game! [/quote] This being the Genoa team that were almost relegated this season and played so poorly that their fans invaded the team dressing room demanding the players relinquish their jerseys...

Sorry for the typos. This site is a pain on a mobile.

Spot on Shack. Chris'' trouble is that he is very good at a lot of things. He can play with both feet, score inside and outside the area and on the ground and in the air. He can pass, cross and a take a mean free-kick. He can hold the ball up and run the channels. Trouble is, where do you play him? He''s not quite quick or strong enough to play on his lonesome upfront. He also doesn''t quite have the dribbling skills of a winger or the understand of the nous of the game to be a playmaker. He doesn''t quite fit into any of our systems (bar the old school diamond of league 1) and he has let himself down by not being able to take his game on another in the past 4 or so years. Regardless, he is a fantastically talented footballer and if he can get his head in the right place, get some gametime and a manager/coach who can develop his understanding of the game then he will have a terrific career. I''m afraid that that is probably going to be at somewhere other than Norwich.

[quote user="Rootin FerHooten"]Green is a man who thought he''d bought a crock of gold at well under market value but who has subsequently found out that what he got was a crock of well.......something completely different.[/quote]Considering one of the directors of Sevco claimed "On a bad day the club is worth £50 million." Maybe they didn''t get a bad deal after all... That said I don''t think the creditors will be happy if that''s the case and a few copies of the Insolvency Act 1986 might start flying around.

As I have made clear several times, the players are legally allowed to join new clubs. If you don''t believe me then read this:http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/green-well-fight-for-compensation-for-players-who-didnt-join-sevco-rangers-and-lose/The SFA should be wary, if they screw around then the courts will crash down on them like a ton of bricks, ala Bosman, ala Webster.

I would argue that a player who had scored in double figures for 4 seasons in a row (in January), 3 of which in the second tier and had scored several goals at both u19 and u21 level is about as proven as well get at Norwich.