Mcsncfcmcs

I suppose that this is why greeno has just signed a new 3 yr contract with us then!

Definitely the sort of player to go for, but I doubt Unsworth is an option. No real details have come out over why the deal fell through, but the fact he couldn''t agree a deal with Bolton suggests we woud struggle to offer him an attractive enough deal. Also, I remember when he signed for Villa, but then his wife complained about it,so that he went to Everton almost immediately. Perhaps she would be a big stumbling block!

I would say definitely not! I''ve come to the complete opposite conclusion as you Texas1 over Camara''s comments! To me, he sounds exactly the sort of mercenary player we don''t need. Fine, all players should have personal goals. But it seems as though he is more interested in winning awards for himself than being part of a team. Its going to be a long, tough season, and to stand a chance of staying up we need to have all our players together to continue the great team spirit which has enabled us to reach the Premier league. Admittedly this is only one interview, but he comes across as a very selfish type, especially when he states that he is prepared to sit and wait in Senegal until Wolves sell him. We certainly need another striker, but I don''t think he sounds the sort of character Worthy would put up with.

I think the club might just be helping him along. He has been terribly unlucky with injuries, and by all accounts he is a decent bloke. With him being out of contract this summer, what chance does he have of getting another club when he has been out all season (especially with so many players out of contract)? So maybe they are signing him to a fairly minimal 3 month contract so that he can be part of pre-season training, and then get a few pre-season friendlies under his belt, perhaps a few reserve games, and so that he has a chance of getting his career back on track with another club. Admitedly this is due to injuries, but he hasn''t proved himself a regular first division scorer in all honesty, and I cannot say I''ve seen the extra potential in him needed to make the step-up to Premier level. So I''m not confident he is really in our plans, despite this contract offer. But having said that, Worthy has proved a decent judge of players. If Zema works hard in pre-season and Worthy thinks he has potential then it might be worth giving him a go. At least this way we keep our options open and it won''t cost us much. One things for sure, if Zema gets a chance and takes it we will all be happy (that would be a fairy tale wouldn''t it?! Coming back from injury and making it in the Prem with us next season!).

Whilst ideally we would like more seats, in the long term the hotel is a much better option. Its all very well wanting another load of seats, but another 1800 infill would cost another £2.5-3m. Our budget for this season is already limited, and lets face it, one of the biggest criticisms we had about Chase was the way he spent all the money on buildings rather than players. A temporary bit (especially for this coming season) is a good idea in principle, but like has been mentioned, that area has to provide emergency vehicle access, which is something you could build into plans for a permanent structure, but probably not so easily with a temporary stand. The Hotel option is very attractive for the club. We all know Norwich is crying out for a few quality hotels, and Carrow Rd is a great site for one (close to the train station, near the Riverside area, not far from the City centre etc). The biggest bonus for the club is that this option would not require us having to put money into the project (and more specifically, money we haven''t really got) as all we supply is the land (also this means that our liabilty if the hotel doesn''t do well is minimal to none). We wouldn''t get income in terms of a percentage of profits for the Hotel, but we would get a significant amount from the tie-up with the catering at Carrow Rd, and it would also encourage larger firms/businesses to use the conference facilities. These might be boring points but they bring in crucial money for the running of our club, and the more money we get from them, the better. Where the hotel really comes into its own is apparently 8 years down the line, when the developers and operators sell the premises onto another group (which I believe is standard practice, although I''m no expert!). According to Delia and Doncaster at the NCISA meeting, we would stand to take a considerable percentage of this sale (the figure of 50% comes to my mind but I''m not 100% sure that is what they said). Therefore the hotel option is practicle in the short term (in not needing money from us) and potentially very lucrative in the long term, and its this sort of long-term thinking that has enabled us to build to our current place, and will help secure the future of the club we love for years to come. By adding another 1800 seats, we probably wouldn''t gain that much money from it, because like with the other in-fill the additional revenue it brings in would only go towards paying off the cost of building it. So the club would only start to see additional income from it in 5-6 years time (and thats if we sell out each game during the period) once the extra stand is paid for (obvioulsy extra money is raised from matchday food and drink etc, but not massive amounts). So whilst we could accomodate more fans, it doesn''t really bring a great benefit at the moment. I think the only reason we would build another in-fill is because we wanted a shorter term fix, and that isn''t really financially viable. Building piece by piece is the best way. Our capacity will be 26,000 when the other in-fill is complete, with the potential to put another tier on the Jarrold stand of 4,000 (increasing capacity to 30,000) as well as the potential to put another tier on the City stand. The moving of the pitch this summer shows that the club are thinking this way in the long term and I would guess that another tier would bring about 5,000 extra seats if it stretched all the way along and above the infills, possibly 6,000. So even without having seats in between the Barclay and Jarrold Stand, we have the potential capacity at Carrow Rd of 35-36,000, something we are unlikely to out grow for years, if ever. That is why I see another infill as just a quick fix, and like I said, a quick fix we cannot afford. So it is going to be frustrating knowing we have a greater demand for tickets than we can meet (in the Premier at least, whether we woud consistantly get over 26,000 in

Worthy just had a phone call with Hucks and was then on the radio with Roy Waller. Last nights statement was by Huck''s agent, and apparently he is devastated by it. He is going to Man City without his agent and is trying to sort things out.

We tried to sign a new deal with Macca last season. We opened talks with his agent as he isn''t on that much, and so we wanted to give him a longer contract on better pay to tie him to the club. But his agent turned around and wanted much more than what we were offering, so we broke off negotiations. I think he will just play out his contract and then test the free market, with an offer on the table from us. It could go either way. Could be like Kenton, or it could be like Mullers.

I see you point. But the whole problem we have got is that we cannot currently generate the revenue to pay the wages etc of those extra quality players we need. Last season showed that. Selling out the home section in more or less every game still did not bring in enough money. That is why the new stand is essential, especially to the playing side. A posible 4,000 extra tickets at each home game is a lot of money. And of course you have to take into account this includes 10 Exec. boxes and the additional 312 executive seating which brings in a hell of a lot of money. Its a chicken and egg situation over which comes first I suppose. But if you don''t have the money to pay wages/transfer fees now then you cannot fufill your commitments without going even further into debt. Lets face it, having the extra capacity to fill gives the board a real incentive to spend a bit more on players as at least if you then fill the stand you are getting some financial reward on your investment if you don''t gain promotion. (On a side note, its worth considering that the board still sanctioned the loans of Crouch, Hucks and Harper knowing that during those 3 months they would see no real financial benefit in terms of extra ticket sales). Now, due to the money we are losing this season, we won''t truly see the benefits of extra revenue until part way into next season. So I''m not confident there will be much investment in players this January, but from next summer we will always have that option (buying players in the knowledge we will raise extra revenue). On top of that is the general argument that the stand simply had to be rebuilt, and now is the best time as there is clearly a demand for tickets that we cannot currently supply. And don''t forget how the stand will eventually be funded: the sale of the residential land. We do not hold a great amount of assets which we can sell, and that piece of land is the most lucrative. Once we spend the money then its gone, we cannot just go and sell another piece of land in 5 years time. So spending this money on players would be a terrible decision for the future of NCFC. By spending it on the stand you have the option to generate much more revenue for years and years, as opposed to the lottery that is spending money on players. Any player can get injured or lose form, so thats not a reason not to sign someone. But it is a reason not to risk the profits from the sale of one of the very few sellable assets we have. So I don''t feel this is a case of "Buildings not team strenghening" as you put it, because no one with any common sense or financial knowlegde would have risked that money on players. I''m just as frustrated about the situation, because like you say we seem so close to success. But I really believe building the stand was completely the right decision. There is some money there for more loan deals, and as we were able to bring in the likes of Crouch and Hucks, maybe we will be able to bring in similar quality again. I don''t see the point in just giving up as there are many other players out there. I don''t care if they are not "name" players, or not Premier league loanees. Whoever they are and wherever they come from they will desrve our support, and if they do the job then we will all be happy.

Its an interesting point. I suppose first off while you are correct that we were selling 5000 "casual tickets" that was largley because we had the cap on season tickets. We have sold just over 2500 of the 8 game tickets I believe, but you would have to imagine that a very large propotion of these are the same people who were having to buy tickets on a casual basis last season. Another key part in this is the situation regarding the away section. In the old South Stand, we had no option (due to seperation of fans at turnstiles, in the gantries etc) but to section off a large part of the normal away allocation area however few away fans turned up. The new stand will allow us to tailor the away section to the amount of away fans. For example, if a team only brings 1300 fans, we will now be able to fill up quite a large part of the rest of the normal away section with NCFC fans.

I suppose the main problem with the share issue is whether enough people simply have the money to keep buying shares. The last issue wasn''t that long ago, and I''m not convinced that many would be prepared to keep putting money in. Only fans would want to buy shares really, and we already spend a lot of money each year supporting the team (be it season tickets, merchandise etc) so I think its a bit much to ask the fans to keep putting extra money in every other year or so. Unless the club could guarantee getting "x" amount back then they simply could not go ahead and spend the money with the faint hope that another share issue would cover it. I would be very surprised if this were to happen. Clearly the only way the club could afford to keep these players is if they found some additional sources of revenue. But I don''t think another share issue would really work I''m afraid.

Selling out our home section brought in 18,500 last season because our capapcity was down to 20,500 due to restrictions on the old South Stand. So I think outside the Premier league 24,000 (I''ve heard when you include exec boxes and corporate stuff it will be more like 24,500) is adequate. It all comes down to money though. Due to the archaeological dig etc we have had to put on hold plans for 1500 seats above the disabled part. So if we couldn''t afford that then we certainly could not afford a bigger stand. Considering everyone is crying out for us to spend money on Hucks etc then you can see we they took that decision. If they built the larger stand right fromthe off we would not have had the money to bring the likes of Hucks and Crouch in even on loan, and we certainly would not even sell out a 24,500 stadium if we were not in contention for promotion. To be honest I''ve not heard anyone else raise this issue as I think 24,500 is more than adequate. Its still 4000 more seats to fill. As for the stand, obviously it would cause disruption later on if we made it bigger. But it is being built so that the other tier could be put in place with the least amount of time/disruption/money possible.

I appreciate your point on getting players of the wage bill Barclay Boy. However, you do have to take into account that a number of the players you mentioned did not leave the club just like that (eg Emblem, Hecky, Izzy). We did have to pay up some of their existing contracts so that they would go.

The 15 million secrutisation financial package was necessary for a number of reasons. Firstly the land near the ground is worth around £6million and that is being used to pay for the majority of the building of the South Stand. However, the land has not been sold yet and therefore around £8million of the £15 million is being used to pay for the stand now with the knowledge that we will be able to sell the land later to pay most of it back. The rest of the money is being used to consolidate all of our other debts and to cover past and immediate trading losses. So effectively we are now £15 million in debt. But over a third of this will be paid when the land is sold for housing development (and while its not signed and complete, the deal is apparently as good as agreed). The rest will be a debt that we have to pay off over a course of many years (and we will have to run the club financially so that these payments can be met as our first objective). However, the financial deal has been set up so that NCFC will be able to meet this repayment relatively comfortably. But it still means we have heavy financial constraints. Its very easy for us to say the board should "push the boat out" or "be ambitious" and buy Huckerby and/or Crouch etc. But the simple truth is that the board will not put this clubs future in jeopardy just for the chance of promotion (and whether we miss out by ten points or on penalties -again- in the play-off final will make absolutely no difference, if we miss out then that promsed £20million from promotion will not be there). If Man City/Villa and Huckerby/Crouch will only agree to a deal which would be too risky then the board simply cannot buy either player. Its not lacking ambition, its running the club effectively. The boards number one priority is to make sure that the people of Norwich and Norfolk (plus exiled fans) have a club to support.