Broken_hearted_canary
-
Content Count
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Broken_hearted_canary
-
-
We are hopeless, and have been since the last game of our premiership season. We are going down, will lose our saleable assets for naff all n stay down there. -
Nort a blady charnce matey -
No, just someone whose very disilusioned about the quality of fans on this board. People just seem to expect a magic investor to turn up and put things right, Even to the point that chase has positive posts! -
Well it look like our fabulos board are having a hard time of it, with all the nasty fans being mean about them with no need for it.
Lets hope ipswich make a go of it so there''s one anglian team in the top divisions. Unless fans can get on board with the board then thats the only way.
-
lets face it, were buggered -
Beatties not done so bad tho has he, scored 3 (i think) including the winner Vs man city - thats 3 point that could be very very important. -
Basically what we''d get from staying up in the premiership, only in a smaller measure.
daft post imho
-
Pardon me for the 3 posts. -
[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"]You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players?
Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place.
[/quote]
Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries?
why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question.
[/quote]
You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem.
[/quote]
Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement.
Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like.
Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.
-
[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"]You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players?
Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place.
[/quote]
Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries?
why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question.
[/quote]
You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem.
[/quote]
Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement.
Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like.
Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.
-
[quote user="crafty canary"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"][quote user="crafty canary"]You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players?
Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place.
[/quote]
Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries?
why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question.
[/quote]
You seem confused. Either you agree that we should stop paying salaries that don''t reflect performance or you don''t. To disagree then agree within the same post is an extreme case of fence-sitting it would seem.
[/quote]
Not really, If we cut player wages we wont attract quality players - I''d call that a fair statement.
Second statement is a seperate one - having over paid, valueless players such as carl robinson, andy Hughes, D Ward & P Gallagher and to an extent J Curo is what i dont like.
Sorry can''t see how these two statements contradict each other.
-
we''ll struggle with or without them -
[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"]Another delia smith? Another celeb whose brand brings in a significant amount of cash through her brand?
don''t get me wrong i think there is many things wrong with the current management system at CR but if there was any sensible business guys out there surely they would want to invest in addition to keeping delia on board - she is a strong national brand in her own right.
[/quote]
And thats why, with that logic, we could well be non league in two seasons, won ''t happen? ask Oxford!.
[/quote]
I''m sorry - where exactly have i said we will never be relegated under smith?
-
[quote user="crafty canary"]You cut your costs to a level commensurate with your income. You stop speculating in land, pay player salaries that match their abilities and the results they achieve and you cut back on the plethora of off-field employees. For example why the need for a club secretary and a chief executive? Why are we paying more for off-field salaries than we are for the players?
Ousting the trout would not bring the pack of cards crashing down around our ears. If the club was as well run as she likes to make out she wouldn''t need to put money in in the first place.
[/quote]
Cut player wages then we will not attract championship quality players, perhaps we will find a natural environment where we are financially stable in league 2? Are we paying more for off-field salaries than on field? As far as i understand our playing wage bill s 40% of turnover (correct me if im wrong please) so that means at least 80% of our costs are salaries?
why the need for over paid, under performing, valueless players is more the question.
-
Another delia smith? Another celeb whose brand brings in a significant amount of cash through her brand?
don''t get me wrong i think there is many things wrong with the current management system at CR but if there was any sensible business guys out there surely they would want to invest in addition to keeping delia on board - she is a strong national brand in her own right.
-
[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Broken_hearted_canary"]Im sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing ever.
assuming the board want to leave who is going to put the money up to encourage them to go as this will cost (i think) £36m divided up into
£16m to buy delia & MWJ out,
£20m to pay of the clubs debt - delia has stated that this is one of the aims that must occur for her to sell against her will.
[/quote]
The appointed Administrator will find a buyer
[/quote]
How far will we have fallen for administration to occur - we''ve always sold players to balance the books, especially during the last few years and this will continue
-
Im sorry, this is the most ridiculous thing ever.
assuming the board want to leave who is going to put the money up to encourage them to go as this will cost (i think) £36m divided up into
£16m to buy delia & MWJ out,
£20m to pay of the clubs debt - delia has stated that this is one of the aims that must occur for her to sell against her will.
so £36 mill will result in the club changing ownership, not additional investment, which we all know we need.
And as for delia leaving for just the promise of say £20m investment in the squad (a la Peter C) i doubt that would happen, the old girl isn''t that rich that she can just write off over £10 million.
-
[quote user="kdncfc"]The club deserves to go down with the way it has been run for the last few years, yet another weekend soured by yet another defeat. Burnley is now a must win game but a game we could so easily lose, credit to Delia and co for leading the club into such a perilous position,[/quote]
Sorry if this is rude but, dont be a tosspot. We, the fans, are the club & no way do we deserve to see our club go down the crapper.
-
Wouldn''t quite call it pointless, the point being that hendo scored. Of course you could argue that in a ncfc context it is pointless, but then as he''s an ex player you could argue against that pointless point. -
Its good to see we will actually have some cover for our defence, especially now the doc has his red card appealed against. Perhaps we''ll try and play a settled back four that seems to have evaded us all season long.
As for playing guys like Russell or Clingan at CB it may have worked for 1 half against bristol but look at the results of playing russell up front - hes just not tall enough.
-
What happens if crofty gets injured at any point - can gow play on the right?
Seems to me we are well stocked for the left wing but not too many options on the right.
-
perhaps because hoolys an attacking player who doesnt really do defending. and as we''re going to top of the table wolves playing someone whose going to defend is better common sense? -
Gives us balance in the side, new guys have only just joined us & to play an attacking player like hooly at wolves is a bit optimistic. -
Ginger Pele!!!! 15 goals easily.
Lets just give up
in Main Discussion - Norwich City
Posted