komakino

Not a chance. It absolutely stinks. I''m in business and I wouldn''t touch it with a bargepole. Anyone who had the misfortune of working at Carrow Road will know that finances are not their strong suit. There are better places to earn 5%. The bottom line as this is - If owners will not invest that is their prerogative, but then sell the shares to somebody that will instead of Delia''s self promotion.

Remember that Webbers wife works at the club in a somewhat non essential legal role.

Paul Lambert played whatever football it took to get the club promoted. Farke is one dimensional and rigid. That won''t cut it.

Michael Bailey said that he would probably be offered half his wage he is on now, but I wouldn''t be surprised if it was even less than that. The reality is we will be paying low wages going forward, which will mean it will harder to keep even reasonable players like Tettey because at the end of the day, footballers go for the £££''s.

In Laymen''s terms, Norwich City are solid, yet ineffective. I can''t see anything better than that in the horizon because the system is flawed. Farke would be highly unlikely to hold down a job at any other club in the football league, because unless you have top class personnel, you play a system that suits the squad. And we don''t. Lambert would of still been in League One if he had have employed Farke''s style of tedium. Transition? To what? To where? It''s all a mirage.

I suppose success on the pitch is what matters. Owners get an easier time when things are good, not so when things are bad (Chase being the obvious one). Delia & Michael have had a very easy ride IMO - A love in I never understood. A foreign owner would probably not have such an easy ride if things were how they are now. They would have to get things moving pretty fast. Ultimately I don''t car who owns NCFC as long as they either invest or attract investment to it to move the club forward. That isn''t happening.

[quote user="Indy"]One serious question, if we had been taken over in 1996 by a rich foreign owner who to this point only decided to buy 8 million worth of shares with a loan repaid, taken us through 16 seasons in the championship five in the premiership and on in the third tier, now decides to run the club on an even keel, would everyone be defending them for lacking investment or be thankful for saving our club back in 96?[/quote] Delia did not ''save'' Norwich City. The nearest to anyone ''saving'' the club is Geoffrey Watling. It is the biggest falsehood that has ever been associated with the club.

It''s the system, which borderlines on negating a striker completely. Darren Eadie recently alluded to the point where any of our previous successful strikers would have a problem scoring many goals in our team. That won''t change under this manager, which is why there is more pressure than usual to take our chances as there won''t be many of them.

The club wants to be self-suffient, so the cost cutting stops when that happens. The owners will not put any money in and the will not sell, so it''s all about consolidation. Webber placed a wage cap on all new signings as he (quite rightly) couldn''t believe what some players were on when he joined. However, the cap is believed to be around £7/8K, which is why you end up with German imports as that is good money for them in a country that pays a lot less on average. I''m sure that figure will have to be higher once the finances are sorted out, but my beef is that footballers go for the £££''s and if a Norwich player makes a bit of a name for himself, he will move on as there will be many clubs in the Championship who will pay a bit more, so that does not equate to getting promoted. I''d love Gunn to stay, but he''s an ambitious lad and could do a lot better next season. Loyalty goes out the window once their agents start blowing in their ear.

Yes, but but much of it boils down to what Norwich can offer financially (which I cannot imagine being too much) though the sale of Maddison could be used for higher wages, though I suspect that would be modest at best as the recent past of the club paying big salaries have gone.

Around 9th/10th.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.[/quote]No we won''t. You were wrong. The "sources" you claimed to have, if they existed, were wrong. Admit all that and I will happily agree with you. But not otherwise. Not being bullied by you! If any posters have sources or others they should be respected. You are fully entitled not to believe them, but abuse is not acceptable on this platform or anywhere else. [/quote][/quote]Abuse? What abuse? Bullying? What bullying? I have been perfectly polite in explaining in what ways you have been wrong. I will happily respect posters who have reliable sources. Equally I will point out where posters and/or their sources are wrong. If you seriously equate being politely told you are in error with bullying and abuse then you must have led a very sheltered existence.[/quote] You are bullying because you are not respecting the other persons point of view. You don''t have to agree with it as is your right and as I''ve said, we''ll agree to disagree, but you come back with ''you were wrong'' as you simply cannot accept something which you do not believe is true.

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t suppose that those ''in the know'' could explain why Mr Bowkett really left?......[/quote] Bowkett is much missed in my opinion and the only board member at the time who I could trust what he was saying. It would appear he became marginalised and had kind of served his purpose after restructuring the finances. He would stand up against the board and bemoaned that McNally always sided in with Delia - which is ironic as she was hardly upset at his ''resignation''. Nobody leaves shortly after being re-elected at an AGM, so clearly there was some sort of disagreement or knew that his time was up, but we''ll probably never know.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.[/quote]No we won''t. You were wrong. The "sources" you claimed to have, if they existed, were wrong. Admit all that and I will happily agree with you. But not otherwise. Not being bullied by you! If any posters have sources or others they should be respected. You are fully entitled not to believe them, but abuse is not acceptable on this platform or anywhere else. [/quote]

Times have changed. The West Brom model was the one that the club were basing themselves on, but that has long since been abandoned. While I do not disagree with some of the things they are doing, fiootball is moving so fast that the club cannot compete, so the club is downsizing and consolidating. I don''t expect Delia to pour two or three millions as that is nothing in the overall scheme of things, but if the majority shareholders do not sell, I cannot see a return to a league where they are not particularly comfortable with. It''s austerity on and off the pitch.

We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.

Ironic that you mention lawyers... You are correct - in theory - that she cannot have a veto because she is not a majority shareholder, but the reality is very different. As a previous poster mentioned, this is far worse than Chase, who didn''t get his way all the time. I would have thought after the Smith''s Times arctile that would of be made my position clearer that they do not want promotion. Neil''s non-sacking at Xmas 16 is a case point. To achieve promotion without investment either from board level or an outside source is highly unlikely. The best this club can look forward to is staying in this division, which some fans are quite happy with., but the majority want us to be back in the EPL and that will not happen with the status quo.

Yes, whether in a pure or de facto form.

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood). Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.[/quote]Prior to their involvement in the football club, MWJ was a successful businessman and Delia was a TV personality. I do think his role in the club is ignored due to his wife''s public persona. I really don''t think if he and the other board members make a decision his wife can overrule them. It makes no sense.[/quote] I agree totally. It does make no sense.

[quote user="FenwayFrank"]So what you’re saying is it’s not Delia veto it’s hers and mwj’s. Then you say you haven’t got anything concrete, or in other words, you don’t know.[/quote] It''s still a dictatorship whichever way you lookout it.

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]fact is Delia has a veto, so it doesn''t ultimately matter what the board votes, because if she doesn''t want it to happen, it doesn''t......[/quote]Are you seriously suggesting that if MWJ and the rest of the board agree on something, Delia can overrule them all if she doesn''t? Was this written into an agreement when Watling sold her his shares or was it agreed at an AGM. It had to originate from somewhere.[/quote] Absolutely. In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood). Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16. I''ll post more if/when I have something more concrete, but it is very easy to see why it is friends and family on the board, which is business is never a good thing. You need objective outsiders and NCFC doesn''t have any.

@lappinitup All my sources on this, including a very high profile figure said the same thing - "The board" voted to have Neil sacked (which was around Xmas 2016), ''but Delia would not have it''. Not mention of MWJ, but that fact is Delia has a veto, so it doesn''t ultimately matter what the board votes, because if she doesn''t want it to happen, it doesn''t. It cannot be understated what a sad state of affairs this is. How are you going to get outside investment for the club if one individual has total control? Answer - you don''t. My hunch is that had Delia not got round the rules set up Watling so not one individual could own more than (I think 30%), we wouldn''t be having this conversation as she would not be here.

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked)[/quote]Is that a fact or an assumption?[/quote] Fact. Sadly. I thought it was common knowledge as it was a while ago now, but those who know, know the veto does exist.

[quote user="Stone"]The intent is clear to see - building the play with a possession-based short passing game that will work the opposition over. My hope is that it''s still a work in progress because we fall short of creating the necessary opportunities... - Movement seems to be lacking for much of the time. Players rarely seem to run ahead of the ball and overlap. It''s one of the issues of playing wing-backs, and our midfielders only rarely take the chance to make runs ahead of the striker. - Individually too many players seem slow to move the ball, not helped by the lack of movement. - As soon as an opposition team sits deep and shows a lack of forward momentum we struggle to break them down. Looking too positionally rigid and predictable. - Nelson Oliveira is not ideally suited to the system - but has for some time been our only decent striking option. Cameron Jerome was even less well-suited on a technical level. I think Farke needs a team of his own design, likely to take clearer shape after the next transfer window, before we can truly judge the effectiveness of his tactics. They''re so specific and rarely implanted at this level of English football.[/quote] Farke should play to the squad, not the system. It''s a bit like employing people to do the things their least good at. I see the theory of it, but the reality - especially in the Championship - is non promotion football that is largely uninspiring.

[quote user="Jack Flash"]Good points, well made Badger. There are some short memories on here about the Chase era - just ask Martin O''Neil what it was like and why he couldn''t wait to get away.[/quote] Chase didn''t want O''Neill from the start, which was his downfall. Chase needed support from his Number 2 (Barry Lockwood I think) to get things through the board (i.e over 50% share) However, when it came to O''Neill, Chase couldn''t rely on his number 2 who voted for O''Neill, so Chase was isolated. (This is always worth mentioning on this site, because this couldn''t happen now. Delia has a veto, used at the end of 2016 for example when the board voted for Neil to be sacked) I digress. Chase got his own back by making O''Neill position unworkable, so he upped and went to Leicester. Megson was called on by Chase two weeks before O''Neill left... His football wasn''t great, but had every chance of getting us back up to the PL. Chase never recovered and the rest as they say is history.