Shaun Lawson

[quote user="St.John Cooper"]He will never win any grand-slam, he has got no stamina or balls when push comes to shove, its what is needed in a champion. I must say I laughed when he went out today, I will not forget his sledging of the England football team. Ha ha ha Its us who are laughing now Andy OTBC St.John [/quote] I''m no great fan of Murray myself. But the ignorance you''ve just displayed is absolutely breathtaking. He has plenty of time ahead of him yet, but was overhyped before he was quite ready at this event. And unless you''re one of the best four protagonists in your chosen profession on the entire planet, I suggest you be quiet, and stop embarrassing yourself.

L 0-2D 1-1L 0-2(Exit Roeder)D 2-2W 1-0L 0-2Uh oh...

Norwich City''s managers in the modern era (1992 onwards, excluding caretakers - ranked by my personal opinion):1. Mike Walker (I)2. Martin O''Neill3. Nigel Worthington=4. Bruce Rioch=4. Glenn Roeder6. Mike Walker (II)7. John Deehan8. Gary Megson9. Peter Grant10. Bryan HamiltonMost of Grant''s points were gained by a squad still receiving parachute payments, including players like Huckerby, Earnshaw, Etuhu, Safri and Dublin, and which flirted with the drop, but was never in serious danger - after which a number of wins were accrued with us floating along to a mid-table finish. As soon as he had his own preseason and brought in many more of his own players, we were sunk.Roeder inherited a team in our worst position since the 1950s, which was absolutely dead and gone. There was almost no previous precedent for a club in such a dire predicament to survive in this league - the only one I could find, indeed, were Crewe Alexandra''s 1998/9 side. Yet survive we did, after grinding out result after result and extracting the absolute maximum from a desperately poor squad. To even compare the two managers is laughable - and while I''ve always been a sceptic regarding Roeder, and doubt he can lead us to real success, for me, that''d apply to almost any manager in the current regime. At the very least, for the job he did last season, he deserves our backing: if it wasn''t for him, we''d be in League One. No question about it.

Alright then Bly, I''ll engage with you. I suspect you wanted us to give all the credit to Super Robert Chase - but in fairness, I agree in large part with your belated answer above. Norwich finished 3rd in 1992/3 because of the stability and gradual improvement at the club over many decades, overseen by Geoffrey Watling, Sir Arthur South, and latterly, the Fat Controller; and especially, an unusually gifted crop of young players developed by Kit Carson (you want a reason for us doing so well back then? He''s the biggest one). These players could be sold on, with some of the money reinvested if not in the team, then at least in further youth development - but the trouble was, football was changing, and increasingly, a stable board and good management became less important than having money to burn.At the very least, it meant the club''s margin for error was tiny - but failing to properly replace Chris Sutton, Ruel Fox or Mike Walker were bad, bad decisions, leading to relegation at the worst possible time. Because, especially after the Bosman ruling of 1995, it was suddenly all but impossible for provincial clubs to develop talented young sides without quickly losing their best players; and with the gap to the Premier League growing by the year, it became harder and harder to bridge this without a sugardaddy coming on board.Look at our fellow founders of the Premier League. Coventry, Southampton and Wimbledon were all established members of the top flight, just like us - but all eventually went down, and have struggled badly since. The first two have both been incredibly close to administration; and Wimbledon actually disappeared altogether. QPR, Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest, the latter two bigger clubs than ourselves, all ended up in the third flight, and the only one appearing likely to progress now are the West Londoners: because of the wealth of their new owners. Leeds? Nuff said! Ipswich finished up in administration, and only the money of Marcus Evans has given them a chance to return; Oldham, where Joe Royle had been in charge for almost a decade, disappeared into the third flight; Crystal Palace have found themselves unable at any point to re-establish themselves in the top tier; and Sheffield United have only started to challenge again in recent years, mainly because of the money their owner is able to provide.Please don''t misunderstand me here. It''s very, very obvious to me that we need much more money if we are ever to recover, and I''m on record as saying that I think Delia and Michael have run out of ideas, that their footballing record is nowhere near good enough, and was appalled by their treatment of Cullum. If I''m honest, I think Peter Cullum is our only real hope. But you only have to look at the Premier League now to see how crucial either a massively rich benefactor or consortium is to even genuinely big clubs: it''s the only way Middlesbrough have been able to establish themselves as a mid-table top flight side, the only way Sunderland are presently doing so, the only way Blackburn have managed it (meaning, now the money from Jack Walker''s trustees has apparently run out, big trouble ahead), and the only way Portsmouth have prospered so much too. It''s also the only way Fulham and Wigan, much smaller clubs than ourselves, have kept their heads above water. Meanwhile, although Bolton are widely cited as an example we should follow, they''re actually massively in debt, and will be in deep doo-doo the moment they go down.And with it being a case of "enjoy it while it lasts, boys" in the cases of Stoke and Hull, I''d say the only club we can really take any lessons from here are West Brom. A similar-sized club to ourselves, with no sugardaddy, who earlier in the decade, were locked in a very tight battle with us to scramble into the top flight and stay there. Sadly, thanks to poor decisions by the board and manager, we lost an eminently winnable contest - and after almost an entire decade of hard graft, they seem on the point of finally cracking it. Their margin for error was also very slight: they only just survived at our expense in 2005, and had they failed to go up last season, they''d have been right back at square one with no parachute payments. But assuming they do stay up this season, they''ve shown it can be done: albeit that it''s an incredibly long haul, and there are very fine margins. In general though, the rule is clearly that clubs run a la Norwich in the early 1990s just cannot succeed nowadays - which is precisely why I believe the present board''s time has run out, and new ideas, new hunger and especially a lot of new money are now imperative.

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="alex_ncfc"]Fantastic post and thanks for sharing - but sadly nothing there that will make the apologists wake up and open their eyes, as much as it should, because it''s all there, in black and white, and it is actually beyond me how anyone can disagree with a single bit of it.[/quote] Not going to go through the whole thing - (and in any case I agree with quite a lot of it) but "the Jarrold Stand securitised against season ticket sales" - how do you think we should have paid for it? [/quote]I don''t know. I do know, though, that securitisations are generally disastrous in football: Newcastle ended up £100m in debt and close to administration partly because of one; and Manchester City went crawling on their hands and knees to Uncle Thaksin because they built Eastlands in conjunction with the local council by securitising it against 50 years of future season ticket sales, only to find that gates started falling, and they had no money with which to build a better team.Meanwhile, in our case, we ended up borrowing over £10m after Doncaster completely overestimated the ability of revenues generated by other property speculation on land in and around the stadium to finance the new stand and infill. It''s a moot point as to whether we''re better off with our bigger gates now, but with so much going on repaying the loans - but the fact remains that we have so little money to spend on the team because the board put a long-term financial millstone round our necks. And, given they still clearly have a very high (too high?) evaluation of the land, it''s also resulted in it being close to impossible for a sugardaddy to take over or by into the club: because the price demanded is just too great.

[quote user="Tim Allman"]For those with long memories, I’m sure I recall that Shaun Lawson also described this forum as a “car crash of a message board”. The sort of thing that you should drive past and ignore, but end up looking at it, because it is so gruesome. It may have posted it here, but I’m not certain Of course, apologies to Shaun if I am incorrect.   [/quote]I can''t remember using those exact words, Tim - but happily acknowledge that this forum has done my head in in the past, yes. Back in the moderated days, when it was just Cluck or Smudger trolling, or 1st Wizard performing his 357th sensational about turn that week, I found it incredibly frustrating - because the issues were invariably just drowned out by a great deal of shouting, and not a lot else. I do think it''s improving though, and things are being debated more calmly now - and in fairness to Cluck, for example, I think (s)he exaggerates their point in order to get a reaction, but at least provokes debate and opens people''s eyes. Plus, although I abhor anything personal aimed at any of the board, I''m afraid events seem to be slowly vindicating the three posters I''ve mentioned, and others too.Now, if I''m honest, it''s WotB that''s starting to annoy me! All I''ve ever wanted is a decent messageboard on which all the issues surrounding the club can be debated. Celebrity posters are OK as long as they at least entertain - but there''s only so much "what did you have for lunch today?" or "sorry, couldn''t be arsed to read more than a paragraph" I can take at times. Conclusion? I''m a grumpy old so-and-so, who would lap up any forum providing real, sensible analysis of Norwich City Football Club. If the PinkUn is starting to become such a forum, then hallelujah.

[quote user="1st Wizard"]I said before the season started that we would be relegated with our crap, weak and cheap, make and mend squad............I still stand by that.[/quote]Until such point, probably in only a couple of weeks, when you don''t. Then it''ll be "Glen''s taking up: City for the play-offs!" Cue much respect for you having the courage to change your tune. Until another couple of weeks later, when you''ll start a thread, insert crying smiley, and assert that it''s all doom and gloom again.It''ll continue like this for the rest of the season. Then, when we finish 14th, it''ll be "but we were only 12 points above relegation - wasn''t far wrong, was I?" And to those who point out what nonsense this would be, you''d respond with "oh - happy about the way Delia''s running things, are you?"There are three certainties where you are concerned, Wizard:1. Your point of view will be based on whichever way the wind happens to be blowing that day.2. At no point will you learn to spell our manager''s Christian name correctly.3. At no point will you grasp that in the English language, an exclamation mark ends a sentence, and is not to be followed by a full stop.So posts such as "Delia''s running this club into the ground!.[:@]", or "Glen might be doing a good job - but I still don''t like him!.[:|]" will not only be all wind and piss as usual, but will make no grammatical sense either.

1. England 4-1 Holland, Euro 962. Argentina 0-1 England, World Cup 023. Germany 1-5 England, World Cup 02 qualifying4. Italy 0-0 England, World Cup 98 qualifying5. West Germany 1-1 England, World Cup 906. Argentina 2-2 England, World Cup 987. England 1-1 Germany, Euro 968. Italy 0-2 England, Le Tournoi, 19979. Argentina 2-3 England, friendly, 200510. England 4-2 Croatia, Euro 2004

At this utterly premature time, and bearing in mind the incomings and outgoings, boardroom and possibly managerial changes still to happen at various clubs between now and early August, this is my current forecast for next season''s Championship: 1. Birmingham City 2. Sheffield United 3. Crystal Palace 4. Queens Park Rangers 5. Ipswich Town 6. Wolverhampton Wanderers 7. Cardiff City 8. Reading 9. Sheffield Wednesday 10. Coventry City 11. Burnley 12. Plymouth Argyle 13. Preston North End 14. Nottingham Forest 15. Bristol City 16. Charlton Athletic 17. Swansea City 18. Norwich City 19. Derby County 20. Watford 21. Blackpool 22. Southampton 23. Barnsley 24. Doncaster Rovers So I wouldn''t say the bookies are wrong, no. Of course, this league is essentially impossible to predict anyway - but bearing in mind very few others will have Derby, Watford or Charlton down to do so badly, and that among most other clubs'' fans, I seriously doubt any will expect us to be higher than around 14th, the chances are we''ll start next season as one of the five or six favourites for relegation. Which is depressing - but on the bright side, the last time I was this pessmistic before a new season was, um, 2001/2: and we all know what happened then...

Purely in my (inevitably subjective) opinion, taking into account fanbase, potential, money, history, trophies won etc, here''s a top 30 in terms of club size. People are, of course, entirely free to disagree! 1. Manchester United 2. Liverpool 3. Arsenal 4. Chelsea 5. Newcastle United 6. Tottenham Hotspur 7. Manchester City 8. Aston Villa 9. Everton 10. Leeds United 11. Wolverhampton Wanderers 12. Sunderland 13. Birmingham City 14. Sheffield Wednesday 15. West Ham United 16. Derby County 17. Middlesbrough 18. West Bromwich Albion 19. Nottingham Forest 20. Sheffield United 21. Portsmouth 22. Bolton Wanderers 23. Blackburn Rovers 24. Leicester City 25. Norwich City 26. Southampton 27. Ipswich Town 28. Burnley 29. Stoke City 30. Coventry City

Right, to expand on what I''ve mentioned above about Allen. A few of you may have noticed a rumour that spread on Saturday: supposedly, Matt McCann, Wigan''s Director of Communications, told the local radio station that he was almost certain Jewell was about to take the Norwich job. Given different people posted this at the same time, I figured it could well be credible, so emailed Mr McCann. He got back to me earlier today: and actually, what he told the station was he''d be very, very surprised if Jewell came here. Quite how this mutated into such nonsense, I have absolutely no idea. McCann is regularly in touch with Jewell - and spoke to him as recently as Saturday morning, while PJ was still in Dubai. Jewell mentioned nothing about any possible job. To my mind, this suggests very strongly that he isn''t looking to come back into football right now, has politely rebuffed our approaches, and is waiting for the right Premier League job to become vacant. Sorry guys: I''m sure the board have done their level best, but it ain''t going to be him. And given I''d concluded this morning that only him, Allen and Roeder were still in the running, my money is very, very strongly on Mad Dog being unveiled tomorrow: that''s what I''m hearing at the moment too. It''s possible Roeder might be a DoF above him - and as long as they want to work with each other, and embrace their different roles, I''d have no problem with such a setup. I also have no problem with Allen being appointed: his record is good, so good that a Championship club with an ambitious Chairman and lots of money to spend appointed him, before sacking him scandalously prematurely. Of course it''s a gamble - but he''s the best realistic candidate we''ve been able to secure, has passion and fight, and exactly the right kind of mindset to drag us kicking and screaming away from trouble. If it''s him, as I strongly believe it is, I''ll be giving him my full support: starting on Sunday against Ipswich, a game which - almost in spite of myself - I''m confident we''ll win.

[quote user="Yellow Rider"]Yes - a very good post although I don''t agree with all the observations such as........''blindingly obvious that the board will be handing over to the Turners in the summer'' (or words to that effact). I think they were taken on due to the urgent need for some short term cash and (maybe) to also add some business acumen to the tired, stale buch of existing directors. However, I can''t see Smith just quietly ''handing over'' to anyone, Turners or not. The Smiths are still top dogs and she ain''t going to give that prestige and power up without a struggle. Roeder - very good first season at West Ham (from memory I think they finished 7th) so his records hasn''t been totally ''miserable''. However, the fundamental points Shaun makes about the various managers who may or may not be on the list are absolutely right. Like him, I am no fan of the board at all but I do think this time they have genuinley aimed high at the likes of Coleman, Bruce and Jewell. Unless they pull a rabbit out of the hat in the form of Jewell, the bloke they do eventually appoint will probably be 4th or 5th choice (or worse). Magilton was nowhere near first choice for Ipswich last summer but now seems to be doing a damn good job (and he had no management experience from memory!). Whoever it is we MUST support them - unless of course The Mitchell Bros. get the nod! The board though are still in drastic need of overhaul and they must be open to those with new ideas and a fresh thought process. That does NOT necessarily mean Smith MUST sell her shares. IMO she and Mr Smith should step down immediately - what they then do with their shares is up to them. Jimmy Jones left the board yet retained his 19% shareholding for sometime.    [/quote] Thing is though YR, there''s more than a whiff of due diligence about what the Turners are up to. I agree they were brought in to provide much more business acumen, and suspect they''ve been assessing Doncaster''s performance more than anything else. Equally though, they fit Delia''s oft-stated desire for new owners who are local and have the club at heart - and haven''t you noticed how invariably either Doncaster or one of the Turners are wheeled out for press conferences, announcements, etc? MWJ and Delia - who''s certainly no shrinking violet - have faded into the background. If you then consider both Smith and Jones'' age, as well as the fact that, with our parachute payments gone, we had to start again from scratch even before results became so horrendous, I think it''s clear a transition is being planned. I also have to disagree on Roeder. Yes, he came 7th with West Ham in his first season; then they went down. This is exactly what happened at Watford too: 7th initially, then relegated. He also led Newcastle to their worst ever Premiership campaign; and Gillingham to 2nd bottom in the entire Football League. He''s a nice, decent man - but his record is simply appalling, and no way in the world is he the man to turn a club in so much trouble around. I wouldn''t be surprised if he''s appointed DoF above a young, hungry manager mind you: and I''m very confident given all I''ve heard tonight that that man will be Martin Allen.

[quote user="Salahuddin"]The problem is that most people credit Parkinson''s success at Colchester to Geraint Williams, the man now in charge, and if that is true it would be a disaster getting him in.[/quote] Yes - and I find this bizarre, to be honest. If you ask me, the biggest reason for Colchester''s success is their board: the transition from Parkinson to Williams was remarkably seemless, and given they''ve blocked approaches for Adams (cheers to the poster who pointed this out), that suggests they already have a plan for when Williams ultimately leaves: they''ll simply promote Adams, a very capable manager. But were Colchester fans putting their success in 05/6 down to Williams? No they weren''t: it''s Parkinson who''d acquired such an excellent reputation across the game, hence his move to Hull. Doesn''t matter though: Parkinson was ruled out over the weekend in any case.

Give me strength! Wizard, the board have been looking at plenty of candidates over the past three weeks: some in a job, and some not. And given MWJ couldn''t possibly know who the choice would ultimately be at the time of the meeting, he was dead right to mention ''other clubs'' - because that applied to some of the candidates. Moreover, as I''ve already said, the board will have spoken to Leicester, MK Dons, Brentford and Barnet in order to find out more about Allen... and hasn''t it even occurred to you that the delay could be down to him finalising his severance package with Mandaric. In any case, it''s him - as you''ll see when it''s announced tomorrow. Meanwhile, I can only ask this: were you born stupid, or was stupidity thrust upon you? [quote user="1st Wizard"]And I bet all the clouds are made of fluffy, white cotton wool, in the fairytale world that you live in Shaun!. Read Wynn Jones words again, they are not my words, their his. The guy City want is already employed, and hopefully its not a low mark bully like Allen!.[:@] [/quote]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]And add to that: Sack Allen!. Sack Parkinson! Sack Dowie......................just in case! And sack any other second rate manager as well!.[;)] [/quote] What an absolutely pathetic post. The first name above will be the new manager - and he ain''t going to be sacked any time soon. Now go away and play with the fairies...

[quote user="cityangel"]Great post Shaun, I think it will be one of your 4 realistic options too.[/quote] As of this morning, CA, it looks like Allen is the one who''s survived from those four. It looks awfully to me as though it''s a case of: Plan A: Paul Jewell Plan B: Martin Allen Plan C: Glenn Roeder I''ll be doing cartwheels if it''s Jewell, but would be perfectly ok if it''s Mad Dog. Roeder, though, is another thing entirely: making him manager would be the final straw as far as I''m concerned... unless he''s being considered as a DoF with Allen working underneath him?

Surprise, surprise: two of the posters who don''t want to help Ron Davies are also two of the posters who continually write the most hyperbolic, hysterical trash. Yes, many many people all over the world are just as deserving of help; yes, today''s footballers and especially the ridiculous PFA should certainly be doing more: a lot more. But the poverty of spirit both have displayed towards one of our own entirely sums them up. Was Davies playing at a time when footballers earned a decent wage? No: none of them did. So much so that George Cohen, World Cup hero and as dignified a gentleman as you could ever wish to meet, had to auction off all his medals a few years back! The way all footballers of Ron''s generation have suffered in the years following their retirement is a disgrace, as is the attitude displayed towards him by said two posters. Tell me Cluck: what''s it like to have nothing good to say about anybody, be devoid of generosity or compassion, and to quite plainly be full of hate for anything and everything?

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Nearly 3 bloody weeks to appoint him?. Also Wyn Jones said, and I quote: ''''We have to do things properly, and speak to the other clubs'''', that rather suggests that the chap they''re interested in is already employed. Martin Allen isn''t!.[:|] [/quote] No, Wizard. They''ve taken three weeks because they know how crucial this decision is, and have been doing everything possible to get a genuinely big name in. I know for a fact, for instance, that they offered the job to Chris Coleman, but naturally enough he turned it down. If they''d gone straight in and appointed someone like Allen, they''d have got dog''s abuse about having no ambition. But if all the best candidates - most of whom will want to manage in the Prem, and not below - turn us down, then they have no choice other than to turn to someone like Allen, Tilson, Grayson or Parkinson. And all the while, they will have been researching various candidates and asking as many people in the know as they can. MWJ specifically mentioned the importance of "due diligence": so in Allen''s case, they''ll have wanted to know why he got the boot from Leicester so quickly. Delia and Mandaric get on well - so the likelihood is Delia will have contacted Milan, been warned to avoid Mad Dog, and the board will then have got in touch with their counterparts at Barnet, Brentford and MK Dons in order to establish whether it was just something personal between Mandaric and Allen, or a deeper problem. And all this doesn''t take five minutes!

Sorry, but I just don''t get it. The way I see it, the clearly outstanding candidates are Jewell, Bruce and Hareide - and the board has probably spent the last few weeks doing everything in their power to get one of them. But Hareide won''t leave the Norway job with them on the verge of qualifying for Euro 2008, Bruce''s future is still up in the air (ideally, he wants to stay at Birmingham - and if Carson Yeung continues to stall, the deal will be off by Xmas and Bruce can carry on as normal), and Jewell... well, who knows? But if we don''t get him, blaming the board would be way off the mark: the chances of him joining any Championship club, let alone one in as much trouble as we are, have always been very slim. In my opinion, there''s then a second tier of candidates who should at least have been seriously considered: Paul Ince, Iain Dowie and Micky Adams. But two of these are already in a job: with Ince only likely to leave the Dons for a club challenging for promotion to the Prem, and surely reluctant to get himself a reputation as someone who bails out the moment he gets a better offer somewhere. Because Mandaric has plenty of dosh, I''d also imagine Dowie to be a lot more interested in that job than our one - and moreover, he might yet want to hang on at Cov and hope for change off the field. That leaves Adams, of whom little has been heard, and as I say, should have been considered. And then you have the realistic options: Martin Allen, Steve Tilson, Simon Grayson and Phil Parkinson. All four have succeeded at previous clubs; equally, all four would be a gamble. Allen, much as though I rate him, did well with Brentford and Franchise but didn''t actually take either up; Tilson and Grayson have both done well in their first job, but there''s no way of knowing how either will adapt to a new one; and Parkinson was extremely highly rated throughout the game after doing brilliantly at Colchester. According to the wisdom of this messageboard, because he then failed horribly at Hull, it''d be a disgrace if we now appoint him - eh? Tilson, Allen and Grayson aren''t proven at this level either - and the outstanding candidate, Jewell, did just as badly in his second job at Sheff Wed as Parkinson did at the KC. I''d be ok if any of these four get the nod: all have potential, all have been successful before, all would be a risk - albeit, they''re probably the best options available to us. Where I would have a fit of apoplexy is if the board are stupid enough to choose either Roeder or Staunton: both would be crazy recruitments, with Roeder especially having an absolutely miserable record pretty much wherever he''s been. But we have to accept the reality: although we want Jewell, Bruce, or even Ince, the chances are that none of them will join a club in such a dire position. Incidentally, before anyone accuses me of being an apologist for the board, I''m on record as wanting them out: both on this board and in a letter I had published in the Evening News on the day of the AGM. I consider them largely to be well-meaning amateurs, hugely out of their depth when it comes to operating in the ruthless environment that football now is; and would like them to hand over to the Turners as soon as possible. But here''s the thing, folks: it''s blindingly obvious this is already happening, with Sharon and Andrew spending this season examining all aspects of the way the club is run, before a formal handover sometime in the summer. So some of the more hysterical "Delia out!" posts on here completely miss the point - as does Smudger''s absurd trumpeting of Giovanni di Stefano. Not only is he surely the only man on this planet to have considered himself a friend of Saddam Hussein''s, and an enemy of Delia Smith''s - but he also played a large part in plunging Dundee FC into administration. Sorry, but I don''t want such a person anywhere near this club. Change is coming - but when a man such as di Stefano is actually lauded on here, it says everything about the mentality of those who do so.

[quote user="Canary Ben"] Acording to doncaster there is no truth in this rumour at all! Sorry guys. Not that he would tell us if there was though. Neil, Quick question, i wont go on about tonights dissapointment because i have made it perfectly clear in the past how i feel about current affairs. Please respond with a simple yes or no answer to the following question if possible Is the any truth in a rumour that a potential by over is either currently happening, attempiting to happen or likely to happen in the next couple of months? Thanks REPLY thanks for your email  -  no, there is no truth in such rumours as far as i am aware.  there is not a queue of people waiting patiently to gift their savings to the Club, however much people would like that to be the case.  the fact is that very few people (with the obvious exceptions of Delia and Michael, Sharon and Andrew, and Michael Foulger) are happy to put their money into the Club as fans   OTBC Neil   [/quote] What is Doncaster''s email address, Canary Ben? I''d quite like to email him some questions myself: cheers in advance for your help!

The whole thing is very, very bizarre. Walker, who it''s correct to say wasn''t appointed by Smith and Wynne Jones (they didn''t join the board until Nov ''96, and didn''t play a leading role on it for a good year or so more), actually did us an enormous favour by returning to the club at all. He was very reluctant, as he knew it''d be impossible to recreate his previous success, and realised what a horribly difficult job it was bound to be - and only the fact that season ticket sales were in three figures because Megson seemed to be remaining persuaded him to come back (in short, the club would''ve been at death''s door if he hadn''t). Then, an at times encouraging first season in charge was followed by a disappointing second - but we spent 97/8 ravaged by injuries, with no money to spend, and really, were just paying the price for the shambles Chase had left us in. Whether MW could''ve taken us back to success, I''m not too sure; but at the very least, he deserved until Xmas of the following season to turn it around. Then, if we were still struggling, a calm, fair judgement could''ve been reached - but to sack him when we did, especially after what he''d gone through all season following the death of his poor wife, was absolutely despicable. Following that appallingly shoddy episode, we at least appointed a proven manager in Bruce Rioch - but he too was utterly hamstrung by lack of funds, and also by the shameful plotting behind his back which went on between Hamilton and the two majority shareholders. As a result, for my money our best manager since O''Neill was effectively the victim of constructive dismissal, and following his departure, was notoriously described as a "square peg in a round hole" by Ms Smith. To prove to the world our marvellous ambition, Hamilton then immediately signed a bunch of nomarks, who were paraded by a beaming board. How come Hamilon had been immediately granted resources denied to Rioch? And to make matters worse, Smith and Jones became so close to the Blarneymeister that he still enjoyed their full confidence even when he left. He only quit because he''d asked his players whether they still had faith in him, and praise be, very few raised their hands. But that the club would not sack arguably the worst manager in its entire history beggared belief; and still more ludicrous was their pathetic blaming of probably the most docile local media in the whole country for his downfall. There was, at least, a spell under Worthington where we finally had the right balance. Unlike his lamentable predecessor, he wasn''t too close to the board - and was extremely shrewd in challenging them and facing them down: first when demanding they either made him permanent manager, or chose somebody else, in early January ''01; then in calling for funds for real quality while being courted by Crystal Palace in Summer ''03. The underlying threat was clear - and the board had been so burned by the Blarneymeister episode that they had little choice other than to give in. Sadly though, following promotion, they started blindly backing him whatever (Delia telling the Guardian that our Nigel was the "next Wenger"), all the while Worthington began losing the drive, desire and refusal to stand for the complacency which had previously characterised the club which he demonstrated in spades when first taking over. As he went stale, so the board''s myopia became ever more ludicrous: all it would''ve taken was a "thanks for the memories Nigel, but things change, and it''s time to move on" - instead, they dug their heels in more and more. And now, unbelievably, it may be happening with Grant too. A board so utterly devoid of real footballing expertise that they sack good managers prematurely, and maintain failing ones seemingly until kingdom come, might well continue to back him even if we lose at Loftus Road: otherwise, why are we suddenly back in the loan market for a centre back? Previously, they claimed we were being priced out: now, our interest in Andrew Davies suggests dismissing PG isn''t even on the board''s radar. I''ll be absolutely explicit here: lose on Monday, and he must go: failure to dismiss someone so clearly in over his head would be tantamount to pure negligence. The international break provides the perfect chance to scout around for someone new and proven (can you believe Rioch a full nine years ago was the last time we appointed someone with a successful track record? Incredible!) - but if they sit on their hands, then we''ll have to put up with this nonsense for at least another month, by which point heaven only knows what our league position will be. I''m sick of the excuses, which our beloved Chief Executive will doubtless provide yet more of in his much-trailed column later this morning; I''m sick of the negativity; I''m sick of the absolutely shocking myopia. Action is needed now if a calamitous drop into League One isn''t to become a frightening reality; and if the board fail to act, then their time, too, is very clearly up.

Has anyone got a link to a table of all the Championship clubs'' wage bills? I read somewhere on here that we ranked 12th according to Deloitte and Touche''s latest review, and would just like to see the figures, basically! Cheers in advance if anyone can help.

Dear all, I''ve studiously avoided this messageboard for much of the past year, finding the sensationalism of various posters, and especially, the extraordinary influence of three individuals who all seem to speak in as extreme terms as is humanly imaginable, to be incredibly frustrating. The bullying tactics employed when someone fails to agree with one of the Gang of Three are also deeply distasteful, to put it mildly. However, if we put aside the senastionalism for a moment, and look at the central points these posters are making (as well as more moderate ones such as Mystic Megson or Mr Carrow), there is no question that our club is in deep trouble: the most serious since at least 1996, and with arguably its worst team since Archie MacAulay, for my money City''s greatest ever manager, led us into the Second Division in 1960. First, the manager. To be honest, I feel sorry for him in many ways: he clearly has passion to burn, a genuine love for the club, and tremendous desire to succeed. But the truth is, he''s in over his head - random selections, square pegs in round holes, and fallings out with players such as Huckerby, Martin, and (before they departed) Safri and Colin all leaving the impression of a man who is simply not making the best of a bad job. Peter Grant has, I would suggest, two matches in which to save his job, in which he needs a minimum of four points from six to survive. If we lose on Tuesday, it could already be over: history repeating itself as a managerless City travel to Loftus Road one year on from the chaos of early last season. But in truth, it''s a damning indictment of the board that they gambled on a man with no record of success in management in the first place - and if he goes, then whether we replace him with an experienced campaigner such as Joe Royle or Paul Sturrock, someone who knows his way around this division like Micky Adams, or a young, up-and-coming boss such as Steve Tilson or Martin Allen, it still won''t change the reality that something very fundamental is wrong with how the club is being run. Last Monday, our Chief Executive told us bluntly that, with our parachute payments having run out, Norwich City face a "very challenging future". It''s easy for us to imagine that, with English football more cutthroat and fiscally ruthless than ever, a club such as ours just can''t compete - but it isn''t true. Actually, a big reason for our desperately poor fortunes on the pitch is our wage bill, which is slightly below average for our division. And why? Because at least 40% of season ticket sales every single year go towards non-footballing activities, such as land speculation, building roads and paying off interest on debt: money that the fans put into the club, but doesn''t go towards the team. It''s also necessary to point towards the likes of Scunthorpe, Blackpool and Colchester: all performing better than us despite much smaller budgets. But these three clubs are run within our means: and although our wage bill on players isn''t particularly remarkable, the charge against our current board is that we are not. By securitising the Jarrold Stand against future season ticket sales, the board committed exactly the same disastrous blunder as their counterparts at Manchester City did when working together with the local council in building their new stadium at Eastlands: it has left us with an enormous millstone around our necks for many, many years to come. As a result, the Blues could not afford the calibre of player commensurate with a club of their standing, attendances fell, and those fans who remained became more and more frustrated with their young, passionate, unproven manager. Sound familiar? Stuart Pearce was the cheap option, as was Peter Grant: neither City nor Norwich could afford more. In the end, the only way out for them was by way of takeover, hence their ecstatic response when Thasksin Shinawatra became interested in buying the club; and a takeover, in my view, is the only way out of this mess for the Canaries too. This is not - repeat not - a personal attack on Delia Smith, Michael Wynn Jones, Neil Doncaster or Roger Munby. That our club is as open and fan-friendly is a good thing, and I do not for one moment doubt the good intentions of any of them. I do, though, doubt their competence hugely: and in particular, can see no real plan or strategy to lead us out our present travails other than the sale of further players. It is also deeply disingenuous for any of them to claim, as they often do, that "little ole Norwich" just can''t compete with richer clubs: a club with our remarkable attendances damn well should be able to compete, and it is thanks to their blunders and continued purchases of land that we cannot. So, much as in the case of Nigel Worthington two years ago, my feeling is one of "thank you - but it''s time to move on". There is no point or justification in just yelling abuse at any of the board: they haven''t done this deliberately, and are probably as demoralised by all this as we are. But we must - repeat must - now begin campaigning for a change at the very top. We need to establish the Turners'' true intentions: are they biding their time, and waiting for a manager who they themselves have chosen before providing any further resources? Is their ultimate aim to take over, and have Delia and Michael lined them up in this regard? And moreover, how on earth can we not be looking further afield for an investor, be they British or foreign, to step forward? It''s what helped Portsmouth, a very comparable club to our own, to break out of continued relegation battles in this division and become an established Premier League club - and new investment is the only way we can get this massive financial burden off our backs. Although I realise this won''t be a popular suggestion, I think any campaign should be conducted soberly, and in conjunction with the NCISA. Kathy Blake herself said on these pages that questioing the off-field behaviour of the club is now right at the top of her priorities - it should be ours too. There''s no need for this to become poisonous or divisive - but League One now looms on the horizon as it has never done before in recent times, and a total clearout is now necessary for us to move forwards again. OTBC PS. Special thanks to Mystic Megson, whose reply to a post of mine the other day prompted this rethink: and apologies, mate!

[quote user="mystic megson"]Much is being made of the fact that the two teams we came down with are still in this Division.  ("Neil''s Bumper Book of Lame Excuses #568").  They are, but at least they made it look as though they were trying.  Both of them made the playoffs.  And Palace spent £12m buying the freehold of Selhurst Park.  Are they any worse off than we are?  I doubt it.   [/quote] Mystic, You''re an intelligent bloke: many of your posts on here are thought-provoking and well thought out. But Southampton, whose ''ambition'' was lauded to the skies last season by one of the three lunatics who''ve taken over this asylum, were *this* close to administration in the summer. Off the field, they are a complete and utter shambles - and this despite raking in enormous amounts of dosh by selling Walcott and Bale! Emulate them? No thankyou. Palace are in a similar position to ourselves: they basically have to start again now their parachute payments have run out, and Peter Taylor is likely to get the chop before long. Look at the current bottom six of the Championship. Five are former Premier League clubs; and even the sixth only just missed out, beaten twice in the play-off final. That is the penalty you get for being relegated: it''s frighteningly difficult to bounce back. And if you don''t do it immediately, you''re likely to be in the mire for many years to come. West Brom and Charlton, and Birmingham last season, have been in a strong enough position to keep much of their squads together; Watford have a genius of a manager (albeit they are also spending a dangerously high proportion of their turnover on wages too). But for many, many others, relegation is a nightmare: it''s not only us who are in this position. In many ways, as much as this point is bound to be ridiculed by the aforementioned lunatics, we are still trying to recover from a period in which we spent vast amounts of money we didn''t actually have under Mr Chase: this left us in debt, and given it is phenomenally difficult to run a profitable Championship club while still spending enough to challenge, it basically condemned us to a decade and more with a millstone round our necks. Comically, the board are chastised on here for being too prudent: actually, they''ve been way too ambitious. They had to spend more than we had coming in for us to have any chance at all: hence the debt has grown and grown. Likewise, when we went up (which followed a three year period of major, major overstretch), they had to spend virtually all they received just to ensure we had any chance at all of surviving - and that''s not their fault. Those are the financial realities of football nowadays. You try running a football club with no sugar daddy: it''s an almost impossible task. As a result, the side is basically where it was a decade ago - but given we got relegated and almost went bust at just about the worst possible time, that''s really only to be expected. Am I happy? No. Is it depressing? You bet! But it''s naive in the extreme to think the board have effectively led us to this: truth is, we''ve been swimming ever more frantically against the tide since 1995.

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Errrm. So? [6][6] [:)] OTBC   [/quote] So we don''t have the second best record in this competition! Give me strength...