chicken

Ahah! Time for a brief sum up of the agenda here. Clubs targeting forrena's over those hardworking fans that get free season tickets and kick up a stink about someone getting the free season ticket that wasn't theirs and who wasn't interested in kicking up a stink who didn't get the ticket the first person felt they should get despite it clearly not being hereditary. There. We have got to the "blame it on Jonny foreigner" part of this story, albeit about 15-20years late on this one. I'd love to say it's hunting for a new stick but it's more a case of trying to reskin the old one.

Ahem... let me change it... blithering idiot memory! The irony. The embarrassment. The... who cares! 😂

You can, but it's still wrong as it has been proven to be correct. It'd be lovely if you could point to a thread by Essex that doesn't turn out to be an attempt to stick the knife into the club no matter how loosely it isn't related at all.

It's part of the result of several years ago, it being shared that the big clubs (this was pre-pandemic too) did not need to sell tickets to run. As in, the TV money by far outweighed ticket sales. Ultimately this is why the big clubs around Europe were talking about a European Super League, again, pre-pandemic. The reason being is that a hard core of fans would still go to away games, and away games would attract a world wide audience as some of them might be more accessible to other parts of the world (cheaper flights, direct flights, Man Utd fans in France etc etc etc). And generally about growing the global fan base. The writing was really there when Beckham was sold to Real Madrid for what was quickly realised to be a pittance as it is said that international shirt sales pretty much overnight made Real their money back Ethics is turning into this forums version of the way back machine.

Sorry, that came across as harsh. It was in response to these. You suggested that people were missing the point - they weren't, they just don't see the fuss. As someone else pointed out, teams that play on a Tuesday after a Saturday tend to be more jaded and get adverse results more frequently. If the powers that be don't care about that, or that Norwich have played more Tuesdays after a Saturday (according to that poster) than any other team in the league, they sure as hell won't care about Man City and all of the money they have. I am really not taking pity on a club who's owners have apparently flaunted more rules than Ivan Toney has placed dodgy bets. There's also an obvious answer as to 'why'. TV money. Again, Pep can moan, but that money contributes towards paying his players wages. Do I care? No. Do I get the point? Yes. There are situations like this every season and have been since the likes of Sky have been able to dictate when football fixtures are played. It's a far bigger problem than just one fixture for poor old cheating Man City. Sorry, I have no time for clubs that have broken FFP etc multiple times and have had to have new rules written after they have circumvented the spirit of the game in the existing rules. Pep is no doubt a great manager, does he need excuses? No. He likes mind-games and I suspect that this is all this is. If this was Mark Robins, Wagner, Manning, I can guarantee you it would be a footnote in the post match interview and people on here would probably be going on about it being a weak excuse (see response to Shef Weds game) etc etc etc. It wouldn't get the attention and yet look at the championship, most teams could buy their squad again on £20m. As Abba sing "Money, money, money..."

No one cares about the point you are making. It's not that they are missing the point. Man City have spent as much money on one or two players that you could probably buy ownership of Coventry. Just mind games from Pep is all.

They are both in no loss territory. Both can max out at 75points. Being equal on points with us will not be enough to guarantee it, especially for Hull. A draw between them would be ideal. Their mox totals would drop to 73pts.

Yup, that point, from what I can work out, means Coventry and Hull cannot lose a game. Coventry are on 63, two games behind us, on 72. In other words they have 4 games left to play, and 12 points to play for. Win all 4 and it's 75pts. Hull have a game in hand on 66pts. So essentially are exactly the same as Cov in terms of max points. That point means they need to win all of their games to be sure. And they play each other. A draw at this point, would pretty much end any hope for either of them.

No one is missing the point, no one cares.

One of the reason they have such a deep, quality squad is because they finish at the top end of the premier league and in champions league places. That money is supposed to help support a squad that can be rotated with quality players coming in. I have zero sympathy. It adds to the challenge, yes, but he can rotate players and not pile it all on the same ones.

Very few players are nailed on to "hack it" even Gunn. He has already played in the premier league, didn't make the grade at Man City, though a top grade so not much of a measure. He also struggled to really get going at Southampton. I'm not suggesting he isn't "looking" capable, but then I would throw down a list... Stacey, Sainz, Sara, Rowe, Sargent and Gunn. Add to that Kenny and probably Nunez as others who stand a half decent chance. I think we have a better squad now than we did last time out in the premier league bar central defence where it's more or less the same but older. I believe we're not a million miles off the Pukki, Cantwell, Buendia premier league season either. We don't have an outright Buendia, but I think the way we play is less dependent on an individual like that, and with Rowe, Sara and Sainz we arguably have three creative players at least as good as Cantwell. Barnes is as good as Stiepermann for my money, and we are slightly better stocked in the central midfield department. It's interersting. Today was iffy, but I would be inclined to agree with Wagner's comments in that we have a small squad in many ways, carrying a few injuries - though the return of Sorensen and Rowe is much needed with the injury to Gibbs and Hernandez.

I don't get this VH love in at this point. It wasn't attacking we had overall problem with, but ball retention and use. People have gone on about how Sorensen is the defensive midfielder (DM, again, NOT CDM, you don't deploy defensive midfielders anywhere other than in a central position, please don't go by FIFA...which appears to use US soccer terminology) and yet, he's brought on to push one of our most creative players further forward, and to win the ball so we can get it to said creative player and that's a negative move. I think the real issue is who to bring off for a forward player. The choice today was Nunez which meant dropping Sara back into one of the two deeper midfield positions to accommodate Rowe. If it had been Barnes and Sara simply moved inside, I wonder if anyone would have queried it? Yet essentially, that's what happened a little while after. So, if it had been Barnes for Rowe, with Sara switching inside, and then later on, Sorensen for Nunez - would those who are questioning it, be so confused/angry that a striker wasn't brought on?

They missed off keeping opponents physios in work by trampling over their prized defensive assets.

Bradford. Almost twice the population of Norwich. They had an 8 season stretch in the top two tiers peaking with two seasons in the prem in 98-99 and 99-00. Relegation in the last season of the old Division One in 04-05 has seen them bobble around the 3rd and 4th tier ever since. Their highest finish in that time was 5th in League One. In 22/23 they had the highest average attendances in league two with over 18,000. To put that into perspective, only three clubs in League One can boast as good or better attendances this season according to https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/league-one/besucherzahlen/wettbewerb/GB3/saison_id/2023. Even nine teams in the championship are the same or worse. Other than the two seasons in the prem, there really isn't much to write about before that. Until the '85-86 season they'd never been higher than the 3rd tier.

It's not a 'take-over' though... just sayin.

It hasn't taken four years though... especially as there is yet to be a takeover... which is rather the point. May as well say, 'Nice to see someone complete a marathon, the statue of liberty has still not completed one in nearly 140yrs!'

And they only did well in the prem with dodgy checkbook Harry at the helm... Overspent, crashed and burned. Not the fans fault but like Bournemouth, bought their way there in a bit of a shady way.

He's played two seasons at this level for Coventry and QPR... including with us it's 75-80appearances.

Any relation to home/away there? Just Alf? Grumpy old geeza!

This is rather untrue. Idah turned 23 in February. He is still a young player. Sargent turned 24 in the same month, also young. Hugill essentially didn't play for Norwich much since the 2020-21 season. Idah was 18-19 that season. Very young to be suggesting he had been told he would be starting ahead of a seasoned pro. He wasn't getting ahead of Pukki either. And this is exactly why some folks have suggested, myself included, that a loan then could have served him better. However, every season since the 2020-21 season he has made more appearances than Hugill. Both at Norwich and after Hugill left. Sargent is his direct competition, but even Sargent has had to bide his time to play up front. Idah, like Sargent, spent much of the last premier league season, as well as much of last season, as a wide option with Pukki being impossible to dislodge. However, when one of them had the opportunity to start as a forward, the last two head coaches at least, have preferred Sargent there, and his stats are undeniable. Barnes is a different sort of player and is played for different reasons. He plays for us, much in the same way he did for Burnley. Behind the main striker, coming from deep. What he brings is experience, leadership, physicality and almost as importantly, gamesmanship and game management. A head to head with Idah and Barnes is interesting. In all competitions for us, Idah has made 34 appearances, scored 7 goals and created one assist. Barnes has made 37 appearances, has scored 7 goals and created 5 assists. Idah has 1,567 minutes to his name, Barnes has 2,557. I do agree though, Barnes is not a like for like replacement for Sargent, but then are we really arguing that Idah is? A lot of people on here would suggest that Idah is not the same player starting a game Vs the one that comes off the bench. It could be a psychological thing, or it could be something that backs up the rumour that Wagner felt he wasn't applying himself enough in training etc. Hwang made 18 appearances for us in the same time that Idah made those 34. Hwang started 8 times, Idah 14. I would suggest that Idah has been given the opportunity. In fact many said it at the time, the position was his to take with both hands and make it very difficult for Sargent to take back off him. I do agree it is quite possible that this season has impacted upon his desire to find football somewhere else, but I don't think it is for being messed around. It's quite possibly because it just hasn't clicked for him here yet. And at 23, he still has plenty of time, just ask Holt and Pukki.

If the two main rumours/suggestions are true he wanted to go due to a possible falling out with Wagner or lack of playing time or both. Easy to criticise with maybe half the information. VH might still be half decent, but again, a player coming from abroad to hit the ground running in his first 6months is unusual. Which again, may well be why we brought him in now. We may never know all of the reasons, but at the start of the season and over the summer, there were some folks on here very vocal about how they thought he was a donkey that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from 10yrds. There are always those that will deny that. I suggested he needed a loan to get regular first team footy and ideally starts. Even folks now are still saying he was the best player off the bench in the Champs and not denying he was better coming off the bench. Was he happy with that? Either way, despite his 8 goal involvements in 9 appearances, he's completed 90mins twice. Gone past 60mins a further two times and completed under 45mins for the remaining games, averaging about 25mins. Also, I was right about Sargent, but you know...

He wasn't fully fit barely a week ago, ran his socks off on Saturday too. In fact, people on this very forum were questioning whether he had 90 in him after Saturday. And it was a draw. A draw where bar two set pieces, we played well and Wednesday barely threatened in open play for 85mins+ and even then, only because they got dirty and the ref did nothing.

'The guy from Forest' had an impending court case didn't he? And he was injured.

I don't think it was tombola, but just because people don't know all of the information and we didn't win apparently he's all kinds of wrong and the usual suspects on here all think they are Knapper... or his successor.

Despite the fact that after doing that, we still could have scored a 3rd. Somehow playing Barnes up front alone meant that Sargent wasn't able to stop two goals from set pieces?