komakino

[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.

[quote user="hogesar"]I quite enjoy watching this style of football. Also, it''s hard to take you seriously Komakino with all your Delia based lies in the past.As for ''lucky'' 1-0''s... I''m not sure.We don''t score enough but that''s not just down to tactics. Our main striker spent weeks sulking, presumably hoping for a move, occasionally showing up or the cameras but not much else. Since then he''s knuckled down but hideously out of form and has missed a few sitters, and a penalty. Thats equally responsible for the lack of goals.Ipswich have scored more goals than us but at the start of their season they scored 4 goals in 7 shots across 3 games to get wins. NO simply hasn''t shown anywhere near that form.Also working the stats out without Maddison would be pointless. Because it wouldn''t take into account whoever was potentially playing in his position.[/quote] You''re obviously more easily pleased than me. It isn''t good to watch as a whole, though that is purely subjective of course. I prefer football that is entertaining, has a purpose and of course, we all want results. Farke''s p*ssing about to get the top of the Stats league is not endearing. At least he hasn''t got the pressure of trying to get the club promoted. "Steady as she gets Daniel, steady as she goes..."

It most certainly was two points dropped, but Farke''s tactics get a far too easy ride. I want to be entertained, not bored to death by his uninspiring style brand of football. ''Farkelife'' is boring. Where we would be without Maddison I dread to think, though I''m sure somebody on here has worked the stats out.

Many fans bang on about next season, but there is nothing to suggest it will be anything other than more of the same. Farke''s type of football is boring and ineffective at home, but better away. He''s too methodical for me, we just haven''t got the personnel to play his type of football to the level of promotion standard.

I was right last season. The club did not budget for promotion because there was no intention of ever getting promoted. And they didn''t! Ever wonder why Neil was sacked so late...? The club screwed up badly when they were last in the EPL and we are still feeling the cost of that. That is one of the reasons why Delia wants nothing to do with it. The ''West Brom'' model that was planned has been abandoned. Permanently. So NCFC fans have to accept that there will not be a push towards the EPL because the majority shareholders do not want to be there.

I don''t think you can accept that you support a club that has no will or intention of getting promoted. It will sink in and when it does, you''ll know I''m right. As for the Delia Veto, that''s common knowledge, so I''m surprised you dissing that one. She can veto any decision made if she so wishes. As was Delia''s over-rule in the Xmas period of 2016 regarding Neil''s sacking. Even Archant''s Michale Bailey knows the score and has ''hinted'' that the club ethos isn''t about promotion in his own ''around about reporting'' but clearly cannot say outright. Consolidation, not promotion is the future and that is a very, very sad thing for all NCFC supporters.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]Correct. Balls has absolutely no influence. It''s common knowledge that Balls wanted the club to sack Neil after relegation, but Delia would not entertain it. Then the board voted to sack Neil between Xmas and New Year and Delia played her veto to overrule. Speak to anyone who works there, one person rules the club and one person only.[/quote]The last time you said something was "common knowledge" within the club it was plain wrong. Far from the directors having budgeted last season not to get promoted, as you kept on claiming ("As I have stated before, the club has not budgeted for and does not expect to get promoted this year. It''s common knowledge inside the club and of course, I''m not revealing my sources. Let''s just say they''ve always come up with the goods so far."), the accounts showed that if anything the directors erred towards the side of financial recklessness in trying to get straight back up. Thereby increasing the need for cut-backs this season. I would find some new sources if I were you, assuming any existed in the first place.[/quote] My previous comment is 100% correct. I''m fully aware of the financial situation, but Delia has abandoned the West Brom model. It is all about consolidation and cutting costs. EPL has been written off whether either of us like it or not. I will say it until I''m blue in the face, Delia does not want promotion.

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Ed Balls is only a figurehead and chair at meetings anyway. Everyone knows Delia is a little Hitler running the club as a dictatorship.[/quote] Correct. Balls has absolutely no influence. It''s common knowledge that Balls wanted the club to sack Neil after relegation, but Delia would not entertain it. Then the board voted to sack Neil between Xmas and New Year and Delia played her veto to overrule. Speak to anyone who works there, one person rules the club and one person only.

[quote user="paddycanary"]wcorkcanary Despite the up & down results and erratic form, I''m also on board with the Webber & Farke project. Time will tell. But I also think that English soccer (there''s the ''paddy'' bit!) is now completely driven by ridiculous amounts of money and the club is looking like it will be left behind. As someone else on this forum mentioned, this is a ''top 30'' club and at the moment, we''re not even achieving that level. W & F are being asked to attain and consolidate top tier status utilising a vibrant and productive academy combined with cheap signings on low wages relative to other clubs in direct competition. Not impossible but very little margin for errors & bad judgements (see Franke & Watkins)[/quote] Close. Webber & Farke are being asked to consolidate Championship status. You can forget all about the EPL - Delia has.

No he is not, is the simple answer. I can see what he is trying to do, but it stinks - most of the time. However, he is a consolidatiry manager as our majority shareholders have absolutely no interest in getting promoted whatsoever, so the only pressure he is under is pressure he places on himself.

[quote user="king canary"]@Komaniko The issue there then is not with Webber but with our owners.[/quote] Absolutely. The majority shareholders do this club no favours. However, some fans are getting excited about what is in reality a severe downsizing project, but that fact has yet to sink in. When it does, things won''t be pretty.

My concern about the ''Webberlution'' (sic) is that players coming in and through will be on very low wages and there is a rumoured £7K wage cap in force for all new players. Some of the new German players were/are on as little as £3K How are you going to promoted on this model? The better players will easily get picked off. It''s a non promotional model.