NewNestCarrow

Chelsea being in the Club World Cup led to two of their fixtures being re-arranged: @ Brighton (Tues 8th) and vs Arsenal (Sat 12th) Leicester are still in Europe and so are struggling to fit in the four games they need to have rescheduled (including ours) There are fewer than 38 Saturdays in the normal season, so midweek fixtures are required.

@FeedthewolfThe additional detail is appreciated. It is an interesting time when football is clamping down on "discriminatory" behaviour while, at the same time, reintroducing standing primarily because a vocal minority refuse to abide by ground regs and sit at games.

The Fans Charter does nothing to clarify what is (and what isn't) acceptable. I would guess that shouting "F...Off Ipswich" during a match is deemed unacceptable, yet I can bet you £10,000 that not a single fan has ever been santioned for such "discriminatory" behaviour. I maintain that the person (or persons) that signed off the BK8 deal did far more damage to the club's reputation than any individual seen mocking fans of another club.

I know lots of fans who felt that the 2018 fund-raising for Colney was handled very, very well. And I only know of one who constantly complains about that scheme. Could it be that some folk are just never happy?

"SH explained that a person does not have to have committed a criminal act for the club to issue a ban if the behaviour of the fan goes against club values." I think the club needs to be especially careful in this area. Example, someone (or more) clearly went against club values (please show me wheree these values are formally codified?) by making a commercial partnership with BK8, yet we are unaware of any sanction taken against those who were responsible. Meanwhile, apparently, supporters that mock other football fans are subject to sanction.

Ha ha ha. So you genuinely think that paying off Chelsea and the German club, and then replacing Gilmour & Kabak with two other *better* loan players would cost just a couple of million? Good luck with that!

If it really were that simple (winning is more valuable than failing) then you should rush out & buy £10,000 worth of lottery tickets, because winning £5,000,000 is the "potential windfall"! I have no idea of how much your plan would cost, but as 40-50% of next season's parachute money is *already* committed to repaying a loan then there really isn't anything left to spend.

No-one is shutting down the debate. I am asking a very simple question. How much - roughly - would the OP expect to spend on this "cheap roll of the dice"?

So how much would this "cheap roll of the dice" cost? Please include the penalty payments to Chelsea & Stuttgart, plus the costs of any new players you think would make a difference.

We are not in a desperate position, but we would be if we borrowed another £10m and the player(s) failed to prevent relegation. It is almost guaranteed that sending Gilmour & Kabak back early - as you suggest - would come with financial penalties

The club do not avoid debt or financing. There is a pretty hefty loan currently on the books, repayable by September 2022.

Not sure your sources are correct. Hull (1952) Forest (1947) and WBA (1939) all won at OT as lower division clubs.

Are you sure this is correct?

There is not a "zero debt policy". The club currently carries external debt and does so quite regualrly.

There are numerous reasons, including: the items not infringing any trade marks or copyright the items being sold on private land a lack of enforcement capacity IMO it would be a poor use of the OSP's time adding this Q to the agenda, as Essex is perfectly capable of contacting the club himself and getting a reply directly.

So you want Home fans to subsidise making CR a better venue for away clubs and their fans? And you are also happy to lessen the advantage of playing at home, thus making it more difficult for NCFC to be successful? I'm out.

So you propose spending £50,000,000 on extending the capacity and you think we should also be cutting ticket income by at least 30%?

Chris Woods.

I was highlighting a pretty big flaw in the club's reasoning for the changes. Scaling up & down, being easier to reproduce in smaller sizes, fewer colours, better-looking lion - these are all good reasons. Preventing inconsistent use - nope, won't really make any difference. Maybe they should have said something like "In the past, our use and reproduction of the club crest has been muddled & poorly-executed, but this new version will go hand-in-hand with a determination to maintain brand-consistency, both in-house and by third-parties."

The kit manufacturers would have been supplied artwork for the crest by Norwich City, and Norwich City would have approved samples submiited by the manufacturers. If the club have been approving inconsistent versions of the crest then why will a new version make any difference?

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but why do you feel Monty should he be in the NORWICH CITY Hall of Fame? Beyond his 35 appearances & 0 goals feel free to list his achievements for Norwich City (e.g. Captaincy, promotions, representative appearances), in any order you like.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but why do you feel Monty should he be in the NORWICH CITY Hall of Fame? Beyond his 35 appearances & 0 goals feel free to list his achievements for Norwich City (e.g. Captaincy, promotions, representative appearances), in any order you like.

A Hall of Fame should be only for those with exceptional records, either in success or service. Megson was included solely on the back of the 92/93 era, for which maybe a Team Award should have been created.

The problem is that the Hall of Fame is chosen subjectively, and therefore almost anyone can have a case made for inclusion. Ideally there should have been fixed critera for selection, back when the Hall was founded (goals scored, games played, length of tenure etc etc) Examples of those who really should not be in the Hall: Hartford, Norman, Bone, Megson & Kenton. Examples of those who really should be in the Hall: Pompey Martin (337 apps) & Ken Burditt (61 gls)

No, this is not correct. PL cash is made up of five elements: Domestic, Overseas, Commercial, Facility & Merit. The first three are fixed and split equally among all clubs while Facility & Merit are apportioned according to frequency of broadcast & position in the final table. Parachute payments are a fixed percentage of just the Domestic & Overseas elements, and are currently c. £41.5m for the first season. [As some overseas broadcast deals have gone T*ts Up recently even that £41m figure may be on the high side. We will see when the next accounts drop.] Mr Mather conveniently ignores that the EFL operates an identical system of 'soft-landing' payments, for clubs dropping from D2 to D3, from D3 to D4, and even from D4 to the Conference.