Buncey

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="PurpleCanary"] This thread is perpetuating the myth that Worthington wasn''t backed financially for that Premier League season. Bearing in mind how much less money was available to clubs then, bearing in mind our own financial position, which was OK but no better than OK, and could turn nasty if we overspent, and bearing in mind that we''d had no choice but to rebuild the South Stand...the board backed Worthington as much as it could.What is always forgotten is that the winter before, when already in an automatic promotion slot, the board provided money to bring in Huckerby, Mackenzie and Svensson. That - putting ambition ahead of prudence - pretty much guaranteed promotion (we finished eight points clear of second) but reduced what was available in the summer. If we had, say, brought in Mackenzie that winter and just finished first, or second behind WBA, and then signed Huckerby and Svensson, in addition to the six other players who joined in the summer (Safri, Helveg etc) no-one would have accused the board of putting prudence before ambition. [/quote]I''m sorry but I can''t agree Purple. Despite the spending the season before, the board''s decision to not sanction Worthy signing Ashton in the summer was a critical mistake that ultimately led to us being relegated. The board should have trusted his judgement and have assessed the long term benefits of signing such a proven, quality young player. That decision was only exasperated by the u-turn in January and having to pay more for him then, whereby it was too late for him to help us stay up. That started the rot of selling our best players and not replacing them with adequate replacements. I am of the opinion that if we had signed Earnshaw at the start of the season, instead of as a stop-gap after selling Ashton, we would have gone straight back up. Whether that was an option at the time I do not know, however Doncaster was repeatedly guilty of short-selling our chances on the pitch.I firmly believe that the wrong man was shown the door and that it was Doncaster who should have gone and not Worthy. I think time has been kind to that opinion and we have seen that he was an incompetent CEO here and he is still one north of the border. [/quote]   I would agree, IF the money had been comfortably available, but no-one has ever demonstrated that it was. Bear in mind that it was Paul Lambert who said this time last year that only an idiot manager spends all their transfer money in the summer, because you don''t know what injuries you''ll get.  Even if we could have scraped the money together, that would have been it for the whole season. If Huckerby (or indeed Ashton) had done his knee five minutes into the first game we would have been screwed. There would have been nothing left for a replacement.The other point about trusting Worthington''s judgment is that I don''t, and the board would have been silly to. He is on record as saying that season we should have followed the example of Hull (yes, that Hull...) and spent an extra £10m - I''ll repeat that figure in case it looks like a typo - an extra £10m on players! Total fantasy. [/quote]Fair enough on both points Purple. We don''t know what the budget situation was in the summer, the question would be whether some of the players signed were in lieu of not signing Ashton (I''m thinking of the curious signing of Doherty as a forward...) or if Worthy''s signings would have changed if he knew that he would not be allowed to sign Ashton. It would have been a huge risk to spend that budget early, but I still contend that signing Ashton was never a risk. Signing young, talented (u-21 international) and consistently proven players is a wise strategy. If on the other hand we were blowing our budget on a series of overpaid, past the hill players who had no re-sale value then I would be concerned (I don''t need to name those players). Worthy was always curiously silent on which of the two types of player were his priority that summer. In such a case a good CEO should actively be planning with the manager so that they know exactly all the targets and the contingencies. I never got the impression that was the case with Doncaster.I guess the fact that Worthy has been out of a job as a manager for a long time is probably good evidence that not many in the game trust his judgement. However, he was our manager and either you believe in him or you don''t. It is a simple decision if you no longer believe he can take the club in the right decision and again the board were scared to do either and ended up doing both to the detriment of the club. I was always got the feeling that the board were stuck in two minds. This saw us spending extravagantly one moment and then pulling the rug the next. That is no way to build a team or a club. I think that the board learnt their lesson from the Worthy saga with their financial backing of Grant and Roeder but by then they had "blown it" and it was clear to all (except the board) that those two managers had absolutely no idea what they were doing. It is no surprise that since the appointment of McNally and Bowkett we have been both determined and ruthless in the transfer market. This has continued this season, even after Lambert has left. As a much wiser person than me once said, "it is better to do the wrong thing than to do nothing".

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]This thread is perpetuating the myth that Worthington wasn''t backed financially for that Premier League season. Bearing in mind how much less money was available to clubs then, bearing in mind our own financial position, which was OK but no better than OK, and could turn nasty if we overspent, and bearing in mind that we''d had no choice but to rebuild the South Stand...the board backed Worthington as much as it could.What is always forgotten is that the winter before, when already in an automatic promotion slot, the board provided money to bring in Huckerby, Mackenzie and Svensson. That - putting ambition ahead of prudence - pretty much guaranteed promotion (we finished eight points clear of second) but reduced what was available in the summer. If we had, say, brought in Mackenzie that winter and just finished first, or second behind WBA, and then signed Huckerby and Svensson, in addition to the six other players who joined in the summer (Safri, Helveg etc) no-one would have accused the board of putting prudence before ambition. [/quote]I''m sorry but I can''t agree Purple. Despite the spending the season before, the board''s decision to not sanction Worthy signing Ashton in the summer was a critical mistake that ultimately led to us being relegated. The board should have trusted his judgement and have assessed the long term benefits of signing such a proven, quality young player. That decision was only exasperated by the u-turn in January and having to pay more for him then, whereby it was too late for him to help us stay up. That started the rot of selling our best players and not replacing them with adequate replacements. I am of the opinion that if we had signed Earnshaw at the start of the season, instead of as a stop-gap after selling Ashton, we would have gone straight back up. Whether that was an option at the time I do not know, however Doncaster was repeatedly guilty of short-selling our chances on the pitch.I firmly believe that the wrong man was shown the door and that it was Doncaster who should have gone and not Worthy. I think time has been kind to that opinion and we have seen that he was an incompetent CEO here and he is still one north of the border.

Big money is usually not good money. This is not an exception.He was on a big wage at Man United (an informed friend told me he was on around 70,000 a year or two ago), and it is likely that QPR picked up the same bill. He''s aged badly over the past season and has not looked remotely the same player as a few seasons back, he has even given up his place in the international team "for younger players". This is a lot of money to spend on a player who''s best days are behind him and this not to mention Ferdinand, Green, Bothroyd, Zamora, Barton, SWP and Dyer who already are to blame for a bloated wage bill.Either way a black hole will form, be it in Fernandes'' wallet or one in which QPR will be sucked into.

[quote user="Larson E Whipsnade"]It may not be a done deal . The consortium that now owns Rangers assets claim he is not a free agent and may start a legal challenge against the move.[/quote]Don''t worry about that, Whittaker, and the other Rangers players, are by law allowed to leave the new Rangers club. This is under TUPE regulations that given protection to employees when the company they work for is transferred to another company. My partner, a solicitor who specialises in contract law, says that Rangers will have some serious egg on their face if they go court.

He''s a good player. Never quite been able to fulfil the potential he had when he first joined Rangers. However, he is still a good quality defender. He primarily plays rb these days although once upon a time he was primarily in the middle. He can play with both feet and can play football. I''m not that disappointed as I feel the money for naughton is a lot for a player who is not accomplished yet and had some work to do to improve his game. Steven is an experienced player who will make an impact from day one and barring injuries will play a significant role this season.

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]   Shack, players from all countries dive in today''s world but, in my opinion, many of the Latins take it to an art form. [/quote] So your issue is not so much with diving per se just the fact that they are better at it than us [:D][;)] In all seriousness I do agree up to a point. The diving in last nights game was (predictably) over the top and did start to annoy me after a while. It is so commonplace these days that I find that simply accepting it as part of the modern game is the only way of not getting so annoyed that you no longer enjoy games. But games between Barcelona and Real Madrid (or games like last night when there are a lot of their players on the pitch) are a bit of a struggle. [quote user="lake district canary"] What is the objective of a football match?    To beat the opponent.    You do that by scoring goals - more goals than the opposition.        The kind of football we are being served up by Spain is more like watching a game of chess - but without the checkmate.  In attack they don''t get enough scoring positions so all their skilful passing and team work is largely nullified.    Ok, they won the penalty shoot out.   The penalty shoot out is now like a fail safe mechanism.    "Its ok if we don''t score, because as long as we keep the ball and don''t let the other lot score we can always win on penalties." [/quote] That''s all well and good but the statistics show that Spain have averaged 17.4 shots per game at Euro 2012. That is more than Germany (15) who everybody will tell you are the most entertaining side. So the notion that they are boring because ''they don''t get enough scoring positions'' is clearly incorrect. You are also talking as if Spain regularly need penalties to get through in the knock out stages of major tournaments which does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny. If you find possession football boring then that is fine. There is no right or wrong way to play the game and the notion that the Spain/Barcelona way of playing is ''good football'' is what is, in my opinion, driving a lot of this backlash against the Spanish. But to argue that they don''t create enough chances to be entertaining looks as if you are trying to justify your own tastes with examples that simply cannot be backed up. [/quote] I agree with a lot of your post Shack however I have to point out that Spain managed 27 shots against Ireland who were clearly well below the standard of the other teams. One must remember that Germany had a much much stronger group where Portugal were considered the weakest or second weakest team and were close to a final appearance. Spain do indeed create a lot of chances though, however they are so very wasteful with them. I often find that there are better chances out there for them to take. There were many occassions when the risky ball out wide was there to take and they continued to shy away from that gamble until the last 30 minutes. Portugal on the other hand were the complete opposite and you could argue that if they slowed the ball down in the final third they might have made some better chances. The thing that disapoints is that this Spain team is clearly much better than the rest but they continue to play within themselves. History and casual fans are not kind on those teams and that is why teams like the old Hungary and Austria teams, that never had the same level of success as this Spanish team, are still remembered to this day.

T, sorry I''m not quoting but I think the major sticking point for building the new stand is that at least part of the city stand would have to be shut for at least part of the season. In that case the revenue for the extra seats would have to cover the lost season ticket revenue. given that the city stand has the most expensive seats that may explain the cautiousness of the business plan although I would hazard a guess that even still not all the tickets would have to be sold for every match.

I am surprised that you are concerned by his defensive shortcomings Smooth. From what I, the coaching staff at Norwich, the majority of City fans and many outside observers have seen, he is a player that has performed his team duties very well.In my opinion he defends very well given that he is not a very good tackler. Few players "beat" Fox as his defensive positioning is very good. It is a rare occasion that opposing players find themselves "goalside" of him on the edge of our penalty area. These are the little things that matter. Sometimes it might be frustrating if the pass out wide is not made as quickly as we and his teammates would like, but those passes are risky, and giving the ball away in those situations leaves the other teams players in acres of space as well. To find players who possess the above quality but can also make strong tackles and runs is incredibly difficult, and for good reason, expensive. Cabaye, Ramires and Tiote are example of those players, but we will struggle to have the funds and the clout to sign players of that quality. Instead we will have to take time and be cunning in finding those "gems", which is no easy feat given every top league team in Europe is doing the same thing. We must remember that we are not a team that sticks to one style of play like Swansea. Sometimes the occasion has called for two wingers and two deep lying midfielders, in such cases perhaps we need somebody who offers different abilities to Fox (and I must say Johnson was terrific towards the end of the season) but at times we have also played a narrow diamond where the value of having somebody with the passing ability (and the ability to always be an "outball") of Fox is vital. Improvements on Johnson and Fox will come at a high price, and given that their playing time will be dependent on the system we play, many would argue that the money is better spent elsewhere.As a club we are also very lucky that we have so many talented set-piece takers who all share the duties. Fox, Johnson, Pilkington, Bennett, Surman and Hoolahan (Lappin) are all good dead ball specialists and crossers (it was a long time ago when it was just Steeno Nedegaard who could cross a ball). Given that, it''s not surprising that our assists this season have been spread relatively evenly. Only Hoolahan with 7 assists stands out and I wouldn''t be one to criticise Fox''s tally of three given that  Johnson, Bennett and Pilkington have managed 5, 4 and 1 assist respectively.In all honesty, I think we would really struggle to find a player who can provide all the qualities that Fox can, and give a bit more defensively, for a fee that we would be able to afford. Further to that, these players often need time to get used to the players around them and the dynamic of the game they play. It is a testament to the qualities of Howson and Lambert that Johnny has so easily blended into the team, but even top players like Ramires and Macherano needed time at their respective clubs to fit into the team.

[quote user="Canaries Utd"]it''s the one goal in three seasons in three leagues that concerns me, also his lack of ambition to run with the ball and take players on and although he has a high percentage pass rate, I have witnessed a majority of which are sideways and backwards. [/quote]That''s not his role in the team. That is Hoolahan, Bennett and Pilkington''s role. The same goes for every deep lying ball playing midfielder.

Fox is statistically the best crosser in the premier league.http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thefootballtacticsblog/2012/05/you_will_probably_know_that.html

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I always find it interesting how Lappin is regarded as a bit of a hero for refusing a move away from the club when told he was surplus and basically ''doing a Bogarde''. It''s not like he wasn''t getting paid all that time and it''s not like he could have earned more anywhere else - he would have certainly had to take a pay cut if he left Norwich.   I don''t blame the guy, he is entitled to what is ever written into his contract - but I wouldn''t call sticking around picking up handsome wages as ''noble''. [/quote]... 10 appearances in 2 years ...[/quote]Or the actual 85 in 3 years...

[quote user="GJP"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"] I always find it interesting how Lappin is regarded as a bit of a hero for refusing a move away from the club when told he was surplus and basically ''doing a Bogarde''. It''s not like he wasn''t getting paid all that time and it''s not like he could have earned more anywhere else - he would have certainly had to take a pay cut if he left Norwich.   I don''t blame the guy, he is entitled to what is ever written into his contract - but I wouldn''t call sticking around picking up handsome wages as ''noble''. [/quote] I''ve said much the same thing. Lappin gets paid very nicely to do a bit of training in the morning and then he can go off to play some golf in the afternoon. I''d much rather have that than sitting at my desk all the day.   It''s funny how he is seen as a model pro for being happy to sit in the reserves and take his money when I''m sure a different player would have been criticised for it.   Again, I don''t blame the guy for it and he probably loves it here and knows he''ll never get a better club than Norwich but perhaps in years to come he might look back and wish he''d got out and played more first team football. [/quote]GJP and Bethnal, you are two of my favourite posters but I''m disapointed that you both appear to have such short memories.Sure, Lappin was frozen out by Roeder but we must not forget that he was only "sitting out" for two transfer windows (the second of which saw Roeder depart Norwich). Perhaps we could praise his forseight in his implied belief that Roeder would leave the club relatively quickly. Regardless, when Roeder left he was reaquiainted with first-team football rather quickly and more than that Lambert had the faith in him to play him in the remaining league one fixtures when he took over (you don''t need to guess which two league matches Lappin did not play in that season). Since then Lambert has made it clear that Lappin is part of the first-team plan at Norwich, he had plenty of playing time this season and has now played in several important matches this season. I can''t really see how he could have got "more" first team football at such a good level.For me, and I presume most other Norwich fans, Roeder was wrong with Lappin. It takes heart to turn around your career at a particular club from that low point but Lappin has done it. I for one will not forget the important contribution that he (and the other players and the coach staff) made in turning us around from rock bottom.

[quote user="The Gruffalo"][quote user="TIL 1010"] [quote user="The Gruffalo"] The author of Soccernomics,  Stefan Szymanski, talks out of his backside almost as much as you do [/quote] So what makes your take on it all stack up better than someone like Szymanski? To coin one of your favourite belittling comments....you really are an idiot Duffalo. [/quote] It is not just my analysis of it though is it Plod? The link I have provided is a critique of Szymanski''s work. This critique comes to similar conclusions as I do. Syzmanski fails to provide sufficient evdience for his belief that Wages offer a better correlation to a teams success than transfer fees do because the evidence that he needs is not available to him or anyone else, just as accurate evidence for exactly how much each and every club has received/spent in transfer revenue is not available to any one person or organisation. As I have said all along the correlation between both is extremely close and no matter how much you want to pretend you know better, you have no evidence that you or anyone else is able to provide which shows otherwise. [/quote] Can you please provide a peer reviewed paper on the critque then, Gruffalo. FYI. The original paper by Szymanski: http://jse.sagepub.com/content/3/2/149.abstract, in the Journal of Sports Economics.

Shouldn''t have wasted my time. Mr. chops et. al you should look into soccernomics and winners and losers if the economics of football interest you.

Gruffalo. You have mistaken money spent on transfers to wages. Wages and league position have a correlation. (For your information Mr. Chops, Stefan Szymanski.) Even still there were notable outliers in his research at the time (namely Man City and Newcastle).Another point that needs to be made is that Norwich had to improve a championship squad to a premierleague squad. Bolton, Wolves, Blackburn etc. did not have to make such investment. Despite this I''m still unconvinced we have significantly outspent them, Wolves for example spent some £8m on Roger Johnson and Jamie O''Hara alone this summer. A similar point must be made for our step from league 1 to the championship. It is too simplistic to point at transfer fees and just take the numbers and not explore the reasons underneath them.

This season we have lost by three goals or more in only three games:Man City    5 - 1 NorwichSunderland 3 - 0 NorwichNorwich     1 - 6 Man CityIn 2004/2005 we lost eight times by three goals or more:Norwich    1 - 4 ArsenalLiverpool   3 - 0 NorwichCharlton    4 - 0 NorwichChelsea     4 - 0 NorwichAston Villa 3 - 0 NorwichBlackburn  3 - 0 NorwichArsenal      4 - 1 Norwichand...Fulham      6 - 0 NorwichAs Norwich fans we are always going to have to take the rough with the smooth, but there is a lot less rough under Lambert now than in the past.

Monumental win. Faltering City next week, Blackburn and then a chance to dump over Liverpool. Very proud.

Mugged yet again.

Oh dear.Betting on Holt getting sent off and an imaginary throw in being given?

Anybody see the Young "penalty"? Just so disappointing (even though I''m not the biggest fan of QPR).

[quote user="Jimmy Bone - Superstar"]Didn''t see the incident where young Ryan Bennett supposedly caught Jelavic in the face but by the way he was rolling around in agony holding his face you would have thought he had been shot. If Bennett really didn''t touch him then Jelavic should have been at least yellow carded! Good striker but another continental play actor. [/quote]Jelavic booted the ball away to waste time. As Bennett rushed to retrieve the ball, Jelavic took a side step into him. No upper body contact. Jelavic falls to the ground and rolls onto the pitch still clutching his face. Ref sees all of this. Does not even card him. Should have been sent off.

You cant put a value on hard-work and determination. It was brilliant to see the how happy the players were for him yesterday. The other one was Howson, who put in a fantastic shift and when he scored you could see how ecstatic his team-mates were for him. It is brilliant to see these players getting their rewards!

[quote user="Beauseant"]While I wouldn''t try to defend Marriner, I wouldn''t blame Everton too much. Yes, Baines was lucky to stay on, but that was the ref''s fault. Yes, they didn''t retreat at free kicks, but neither do any teams. Jelavic was disgraceful but was it really different to Tierney at the Reebok? It''s a cynical, manipulative game and we use the same tricks as everyone else, so I don''t think there''s any moral high ground here.[/quote]I thought good on Tierney (and Perch last week). Says it all about where we stand now.I can still remember that brilliant goal by Holt at Yeovil. He smashed through their whole team like skittles. They tried to knock him down but he just kept going and then slammed the ball home. I can''t help but feel that he''d probably just take the freekick 40 yards out now.

[quote user="jamesg"]Certainly not the most cynical team I have ever seen, but I concurr that Pineaar was a disgrace all afternoon, I counted 5 dives and the Jelavic incident was extremely poor. Not sure about the handball you refer to, right at the end of the 1st half there was a stonewall handball on the D so not sure if it was in the area, I don''t think that was Hibbert.[/quote]You are probably right. Heat of the moment and all that.I would only add that it is a sad statement of football these days that a team that should have had two players sent off and committed nearly 20 fouls is not even one of those most cynical you have seen.

I have to be honest. I refrained from posting yesterday as I felt perhaps I had let my bitterness go to far, but I woke this morning still fuming over yesterdays events and utterly depressed that I simply could not enjoy another vintage Norwich performance.The Everton team we played yesterday was one of the most spine-less and cynical teams I have ever seen at Carrow Road. Like Paul Lambert, I have a huge amount of respect for David Moyes and the philosophy of football he has brought to Everton. It is also clear that much of his ideas have been used to form this fabulous Norwich team, one that has taken the Premierleague by storm. In short, I was very eager to see a footballing side built on ideals of team-play and respect for the opposition. In the end, as I have been almost throughout this season, I was disgusted by the tidal wave of gamesmanship our boys faced yesterday.How Everton managed to keep 11 players on the pitch is beyond me. Baines somehow contrived to commit at least 4 cynical fouls, one of which was the clearest attempt to play the player in the box I have seen at Carrow Road in a long time. Pienaar cheated his way to "Everton''s" second goal. Only to jeer the Norwich fans in the Barclay and then partake in one of the most disgusting dives to have "graced" football (he later on scythed Bennett down on the touchline and one again escaped punishment.)  It simply amazes me that Everton amassed only 3 bookings after a lengthy pursuit of gamesmanship and cynical fouling that resulted in them totting up 17 fouls; any spectator of yesterday''s game would be well inclined to believe that far more fouls went unpunished. In the end it took seven cynical fouls, by Everton players beaten by their man, before the referees hand was forced. How that hand had to be forced indeed. The worst of the bunch was Jelavic who proceed to punt the ball into the Snakepit to waste time (and somehow avoid punishment) and then sidestep into the rushing Bennett and cluch his face and roll in agony as if Milosevic had bombed his home. Instead of any punishment for the blatant cheat, Mr. Marriner looked on content as Jelavic crawled on the floor, a half-yard from the touch line, in bone-crushing pain from the chilly Norfolk air.Marriner can only blame himself for letting the game fall into such disrepute. One of the most stonewall handballs I have seen (where Hibbert dived arms first towards the on-coming shot) was nonchalantly waved away. The cynical fouling by the Everton players continually went unpunished and I won''t elaborate on the "second goal"; I will say that I am amazed that such an incompetent professional can still be holding a job in the morning.I simply felt sick leaving the ground, and mulling over the continued cheating, disrespect and incompetence that has infected our game. And call me a fool, but I spent the long train journey home reminiscing of those fun and enjoyable days in League 1 where football was actually played and not acted like an American soap opera. I didn''t have long to wallow in those glorious afternoons as I was brought straight back down to earth by the goings-on at Stamford Bridge. In a decision that may ultimately relegate Wigan, the officials once again made a horrendous foul-up and permitted a 2-and-a-half yard offside Ivanovic to find the net. I honestly find that I cannot enjoy "the best league in the world", where it seems that the sensationalism leaves the football a distant second.It appals me that Norwich and Swansea are continually praised for being a "breath of fresh air"; for playing exciting football and; playing as a team and not as ramble of bloated petulant individuals. It disgusts me when sour-faced cretins like Lawrenson can humourlessly dismiss Holt whilst their colleagues wax-lyrical over cheating scum-bags like Jelavic (not the exception, but the rule). All I can be proud of is that our players did not rise to the bait. They acted like professionals once again and played with a passion that has been devoid of the soulless Premierleague for sometime.