Shifty Sid

Lets not forget Worthington had a fall-out with the Board when Aidy left the Academy for another club (Leeds, I think).  He said at the time it was a big mistake letting such a talented coach leave, simply because they wouldn''t offer any extra cash to try and keep him.  With that in mind, I think it''s unlikely Aidy Boothroyd would be brought back to NCFC (not unless Delia is baking a humble pie...)

As well as being completely erratic in his decision-making, he is also contradictory.  In his post-match interview, he made the following comments:"We haven''t got the type of player where you can just launch balls in behind.  Turn them round I think the saying is and chase after the ball like headless chickens - we can''t do that. And we won''t do that. I wouldn''t want the team to do that and, as I say, we haven''t got the type of players who would do that in any case."On bringing on Cort, he said:"I wasn''t particularly tempted, I have to say.  I wanted us - as the game was stretching in that later period - to keep the ball on the floor and if you''d have put Carl on I think it would have been too easy just to start knocking long balls up to Carl. And he would have been palying against two central defenders that were very strong in the air.  I felt we had to try and keep the ball on the floor - and that was the reason that Bell came on rather than Carl."Toward the end of the game, he still refused to bring on Cort, instead pushing Doc up front - and launching long-balls up to him.He''s managed to contradict himself three times in one afternoon!

I have one that I took on the day. Pm me with your email address and I will send it on.

<yawn>

Rick Waghorn is a personal friend of Delia.  I read his articles with interest as D&M no doubt use him as an outlet to voice their own opinions ''unofficially'', ie: get their own side of events out without being controversial or unprofessional.  That''s also why Waghorn can offer a subscrition website, with ''exclusive'' news before most other sources get to know about it...

Sums Cullum up perfectly...http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=4400

Yep... Chase falling out with O''Neill was the single biggest mistake this club ever made. He promised him £6M to spend and in reality we didn''t have 6 pence!

The stats include all of Worthington''s games in-charge. Comparing Roeder to Worthy wasn''t really the point, I just put the other manager''s NCFC stats there for comparison. The real point of the post was to highlight that Roeder''s win ratio is worse than Grants. In fact, his defeats ratio is even worse than Hamiltons.

DOH!!!!!!

I''ll try and tidy it up... Manager Won Drawn Lost O''Neill 46% 35% 19% Worthington 41% 37% 22% Grant 36% 24% 40% Roeder 33% 24% 43% Hamster 29% 29% 42%

Sorry... that table didn''t come out as it did in the ''preview''. Don''t you just hate HTML...

If you take the number of games played and convert the wins, draws and defeats to percentages, this makes interesting reading: Manager %Won %Drawn %Lost Martin O''Neill 46 35 19 Nigel Worthington 41 37 22 Peter Grant 36 24 40 Glenn Roeder 33 24 43 Bryan Hamilton 29 29 42 Source: Wikipedia. Stats only inclusive of each manager''s respective ''tenure'' at Norwich City. On this basis, GR is statistically worse than PG and getting damn close to stealing Hammy''s crown as worst ever manager. It could be argued GR is still sorting out PG''s mess, but a year is a year and he''s turned around more players in two transfer windows than most managers would do in 4 or 5. Wolves (H) proved the team is capable. Charlton (H) and Forest (H) (to name a few) proves the manager is incompetent. He''s lost our respect (treatment of Huckerby, the AGM and recent criticism of fans), he''s quite possibly lost the dressing room and personally, I think he''s losing the plot.

Because... football managers sign fixed term contracts (eg: 3 years) and if they are not honoured, the employer (the club) has to pay up the wages to the end of the contract. You will find various jobs in Industry work the same way. Regarding Keegan - he is in dispute with Newcastle because he claims he was forced to walk out (constructive dismissal). Ie: he claims the club sold players without his consent, knowing it would pi$$ him off and he''d walk because they wanted him gone. By resigning, they would owe him nothing. Not saying I agree with golden hand-shakes for failure - but there''s your explanation.

Why the obsession with Bowen or Dublin - they have NO experience and would be another Grant in the making.

You''re trying to make something out of nothing. This board is mainly full of immature juveniles that are ignorant of business (and quite possibly football as well).

It''s not like a house, you don''t put a board up outside the ground! Read this link and listen to ND''s audio clip. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/7725135.stm

(a) if this is true, and given the gates we pull in relative to other clubs, every other club in the Championship bar 2 or 3 is unlikely to survive without huge financial backing Correct. (b) if this is true, football must be heading for a huge crash at some point in which clubs start going to the wall more frequently than high street stores Correct. (c) How do Burnley, Barnsley, Plymouth, Preston, Swansea, Bristol City, Coventry and Blackpool manage to stay afloat with smaller gates than ours? They all have millionaires (wealthier than Delia at the helm) (d) Are we paying our players far more than their market rate? No - but if we were paying less, people on here would be spouting ''lack of ambition''. (e) Are we paying other people''s players far more than we can afford? No. With loan players we pay all or a percentage of their salaries whilst they are on loan here. There is an overall budget for transfers and wages, loan salaries come from that budget - so we''re not paying more than we can afford but we are relying on the Board to top up that fund as mentioned by ND. (f) Most worrying of all - Doncaster views Norwich City as a League One side without other people''s money. I feel expectations have been lowered sufficiently all round from the point where we were a Premiership side to the point where we''re "lucky" to be in the Championship. It''s 50 years since City came from the Third Division South on a heroic FA Cup run. Perhaps the anniversary will be marked in another way come the end of the season. Quite possibly. The root of all evil is Sky TV and the billions they pump into the Premiership. Ok, it did good to start with, enabling clubs to build nice new stadia but it''s now got to the point where they''re funding the Premiership the same way Ambramovic funds Chelsea... and the same way the banks funded bad mortgages and we all know where that ended up. Football needs to be run like a business, cloths cut accordingly across the board. Unfortunately it will never be fair while some clubs continue to be bankrolled - so we either have to get ourselves a sugar daddy and join the party or take it on the chin and make the best of a bad job, as we are at the moment.

Ask Keith Harris - he''s the guy being paid to find a buyer. Perhaps you''d like to make an offer?

NO! What is it with you people who think just because they were good players (the likes of Huckerby, Dublin, Roberts etc) they would make good managers? They may well do in time, but let them screw up some League Two club before trying their luck here otherwise we''ll end up with another Grant situation. You''re also deluded if you think Roeder is going anywhere anytime soon. Our board have a track record of not sacking someone until at least a year after they should have done. And before anyone else pipes up, yes we could afford to sack him if that is what they wanted to do. I asked ND the question when Grant was in-charge and his reply was something along the lines of ''there comes a point when you can''t afford to NOT sack the Manager, if that point is reached, action will be taken'' Personally, all things considered I think it''s a little soon to be calling for the Manager''s head. Let him wheel and deal in January and see whether our league position improves or worsens. If it gets better, stick with him. If we continue to stutter along around the drop-zone then it may be time to get rid.

I feel the same way (if that cheers you up at all?).  Season ticket holder and shareholder since 1992, missed only three home games (league or cup) in that time and I really feel like chucking it all in.  I''m sick of the predictability of it...Drive through heavy traffic, watch the clock run down at the game (cos the match is so bloody boring), leave 5 mins before the end because (a) we''re losing and (b) so I don''t sit in traffic jams for hours on end to add insult to injury.  One decent game to build up false hope, followed by 3 or 4 dodgy results.  In fact our results sequence is so predictable I might start making a few bets - might as well make some money out of the predicament!Charlton (H) - given we''ve just lost two on the spin, down for a City win.  (Cue the false hope...)Palace (A) - foregone conclusion - defeat (just give them the points now and avoid any more injuries/suspensions)Forest (H) - everyone expecting a win, shocking game, end of Forest''s losing streak - 3 points for Forest.And so it continues.....

Swapping one player for another is not strictly ''selling'' someone.The debt and where the money has gone are well publicised if you care to do some reading.

I''m sure Neil & Co have it covered.  It''s obviously in the budget, just because we have "no money" doesn''t literally mean we have none at all, it just means we have none spare for player purchases.  I doubt a bill for £2.5M has simply slipped his mind.  I wouldn''t lose any sleep over it.Besides... I''m sure Mr "£2.7Bn but wants the Club for free" Cullum would ride to our rescue if it came to it...

Well there''s your answer then.  If it''s not in the report, the loan must have been repaid or consolidated.  Why is it so important anyway?

As far as I am aware, all debts are either owed to individual directors (interest free loans, with no monthly repayments) or one long-term securitisation loan, owed to AXA.  I would suspect the loan you refer to has been amalgamated into that.  I''ve chucked my Annual Report, so I can''t say for sure...

Anyone remember O J Koroma?