megson

This is one of the reasons he was let go originally, he couldn''t apply himself and the drinking was a symptom of that. Jamie was always a nice lad, but he was plucked from his family at a young age to an area where he had few connections outside the club and struggled to find ways to pass his time and spend his money when not training/playing. As happens with so many players they need the wake up call of being released to finally realise they haven''t ''made it'' yet and get their backsides in gear. I''m very good friends with someone who spent a lot of time with Jamie when he was here, and with him being a bit of a hero while he was here I was always keen to chat about him and the sort of person he was, and it was interesting to here about the lad behind the headlines. However to suggest Delia would be personally blocking this move stretches belief for me and is far to convenient. As others have mentioned we took on Brown and Hucks has had plenty of rumours surrounding him for years as well (which i''m sure you''ve all heard). Nothing in this one for me, shame it had to be posted as it will now be ''gospel'' for a lot of people (as seen in this thread).

[quote user="1st Wizard"] [quote user="UEA Graduate Canary"] So wiz? you still willing to stand by your earlier post of the club isn''t making any effort for Sharp and that it was all just a ruse to "con" more supporters! [/quote] If UEA, and its a mighty big if, we do manage to sign Sharpe, and somehow keep Earnshaw, then I and a few others will owe several people at the club an engraved apology and we will have to eat a huge slice of humble pie!. Or even if Earnie goes and we replace him with Cureton (and Sharpe is here too!) then I would say the same still applies. However, this IS Norwich we''re talking about here. So for now I''m keeping quiet.[;)] [/quote] Fair play to you Wiz, Kudos for have the guts to post on this and admint you may have to say sorry. I say ''may'' as you are of course correct, this IS norwich we are talking about so expect a few more twists as yet!

Good news, gives us plenty of time to think of our questions. It''s not going to satisfy some on here, but maybe ND could be given some questions on idepth things such as the accounts early, or to take away? Also would he be prepared to pass questions/comments onto other memebers of the board?

[quote user="jas the barclay king"] [quote user="a1canary"]Jas, how do you conclude that the infil WOULD have made money when it would have cost £2-3m to build in the first place? It''s like me saying i WOULD make money if i bought a house and did it up to sell on. All well and good but I still gotta find the cash to buy it and to do it up! Glad you like BBFF''s post but like yours it''s deeply flawed. He conveniently avoids the small matter of the cash required to build the infil, the resultant debt we''d have to take on to find that cash, and the fact that 700 is 2.6% of current ground capacity. It would represent a cost per seat of over £3,500 (vs £813 for the south stand) and putting it on a par with the new Wembley. If the whole stadium was built on that basis, it would have cost £92 million to build. The Reebok cost £32m (and has a hotel), St Mary''s Southampton £35m. It''s just really BAD business, simple as that. And whatever anyone says and however many yellow and green tubs they may thump, the basic rules of business still apply to a football club. Plenty of people think they don''t, even those running football clubs, and the result is what you have at Bradford, Ipswich, Leeds... I really don''t understand your logic - you go on about football first and even put it in your user names, yet you are in favour of spending 2-3mil on seats, that add just 2.6% to overall capacity, instead of being given a lump some in excess of a million pounds, for a small square of land, that can go towards PLAYERS. It''s not like we''re selling our chances of future expansion down the Wensum as the existing stands allow for this when the time and the finances are right. P.S. That''s brilliant by the way BBFF, your calculation. Tell you what, lets just build the infil, wait 150 years, and then we''ll have £48m to build a whole new stadium! [/quote] even better still lets just wait 150 years and we can sell the shell of the hotel to make a profit! it will all go round in Circles... Your right Megson, but bear in mid that the extra 700 seats would be tacked onto the Barclay which always sells out regardless how badly we are doing then money would of drifted in from it. Supposing the hotel does lose money, what will happen then??? the club is likely to bleed more money this way than it would from the seats. If the hotel doesn''t make money then the club loses millions. as we dont owe the land and only hold part of a stake what then? It could really harm the club financially. The clubs with hotels are all established Premiership clubs, Bolton, Chelsea, Reading,... the one difference between us and them is that they own, manage and run their hotels... we are relying on a 3rd party.... Where as if Chelsea or Readings hotel is losing money then their board of directors and hotel management (the staff of those clubs..on the pay roll), If Holiday Inn make changes to the hotel and the hotel starts losing money then the club is powerless...  Id of been a lot happier if were actually managing the hotel themselves. not hoping things come good... theres an old saying "if u want anything done properly do it urself".. in that sense why are we relying on others to do it for us? Given the team is piss poor and we are a mediocre championship side then why the hell have we even considered a hotel? if we do get relegated then we will look stupid with our empty stadium and prawn sandwich brigade for the visit of shrewsbury town. jas :) [/quote] Jas, take your point letting the hotle be run by third parties does limit our influence in its success. However to run it ourselves we''d of had to build it ourselves........................ If the hotel underperforms we don''t lose, the club won''t "bleed millions" as a result of it, we just won''t make an income from it. And yes the seats may of sold as they are next to the barclay but would they have been 700 ''new'' fans or 700 people from the South Stand/River end? I thhink it would of been the latter, so therefore no extra income for the club.

[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="BB FOOTBALL FIRST"][quote user="a1canary"]Why do we keep revisiting the same subjects? We''ve been over this. The cost of the infill was going to be 2-3 million. The number of seats was going to be 700. Does that really have a serious impact on our capacity? But lets just suppose we fill every one of those seats every fortnight. Then take a very generous average price per seat of £20. That makes 560,000 a season. Based on those fag packet calculations, it''s going to take 3.5 years to pay an initial £2m outlay. Then bare in mind that we won''t fill every seat, that with concessions, season tickets etc it won''t be anything like £20 a seat, then bare in mind the interest charges on the loan to raise the initial £2m capital outlay, and we''re talking more  like 5 years to pay it off. And that''s also assuming that every penny of revenue raised from the infill goes on paying back the loan. For FIVE years. No doubt most of you lot would expect the infill to pay for a new striker after a year. In reality of course, some kind of finance package would be arranged, and the repayment arranged over 15 years or something, making the total amount payable many times what we originally paid, plunging us further into debt, directing more resources into loan repayments and all for the sake of 700 seats. We''d end up like them down the road, in a position where revenues will never be sufficient to match debt repayments, let alone run the club and buy and pay players. Is that what we want? Now consider the hotel option. Firstly, there''s no capital outlay. We RECEIVE £1.5 million (around that - can''t recall exact figuret. Then, we get a 30% stake in the business. A permanent revenue stream and £1.5 million. I would congratulate the board but it''s such a total NO BRAINER of a decision to make, that a 5 year-old could have made it. But not, it appears, some of you lot!!! [/quote] It was £1.1mil for 150 years lease that''s £7330 a year or 700 seats at £20, say 23 games a year over 150 years......that''s about £48mil. We don''t get a penny from the every day running of the hotel, just a dividend on the shares we hold, a third of the total. NCPLC said the real income will be when the hotel is sold in the future, but remember after that we have no control of the infill what so ever, well not for 150 years anyway! Apart from seeing the back of an hotel every single home game when there should be a bank of yellow and green singing "on the ball city" its again the perception of yet another none FOOTBALL enterprise pushing FOOTBALL for the real true supporter to the back of the list of must haves at Carrow Rd. When supports see the quality of teams the club are putting out and the dismal performance they produce, we have the right to ask the decision makes at the club (NCPLC) where their priority''s lie?   FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST   [/quote] Fantastic post BB! I have been opposed to the idear of a hotel from day 1. and seeing these figures is just more proof of what a gaffe the board have made. A1 Canary says about the 30% stake.. im sure he realises that there is a chance we can lose money on a stake just as likely we can make money.. what gaurentee do we all have the the hotel will succeed apart from a whim and a prayer by the club.  if its losing money a company like Holiday Inn wont give 2 hoots and will happily close down at a moments notice.. leaving the club with an empty shell tacked onto the ground.. Holiday Inn can afford to lose 1 hotel in a sleepy backwater, this isn''t central london.  Terracing would of made money from Tickets as BB mentioned, yet there would also of been programme sales, Alcohol sales, food Sales, soft drinks etc that would of made the club even more money... 700 extra shirts bought in the club shop at £50 each is an extra £35,000. so the hotel is there and "COULD" make money.. well i "COULD" win the lottery, i "COULD" get hit by a buss, i "COULD" wake up next to Kate Beckinsale tommorow. none of these are guarenteed to happen... but they "could". An infil "WOULD" of made money for the club.. different to could isnt it? jas :) [/quote] That''s a poor one from you Jas. The infill COULD of made money if we sold all 700 tickets every week. Which is fully dependant on us challenging for promotion this year, which is by no means certain. Those 700 fans COULD all buy shirts to raise that £35,000 and they COULD buy programs, soft drinks etc etc. That''s a lot different from WOULD as well isn''t it? The fact is neither way is guranteed, but the option taken is safer, and finacially much more vialbe at the time the decsion was made, and gave the club an income boost on £1.2 million straight off, rather than a capital outlay on 3 times that. An outlay that, without doubt, would of been much better spent on the playing side. Whether it was or not is another matter, but you can''t start assuming we''d sell all these tivkets every week and that every fan who went would buy a shirt!

Good summary, and not one of my better threads either..............

BB, agree entirely. Either we need to phrase good questions between us, or Archant need to pick the bones out of the issues discussed and form good questions around them. Its no good them going into an interview with either bile loaded questions, or lovingly worded safe ones either!

Seeing as there are a number of issues on the way the club is run raised on this board, many of which we may not know the full pitcture on, couldn''t the web team/Archant do something around this? I''m thiking of someone from Archant going through this board and pulling the big issues to raise with the club. We could then get some answers to some of the key issues. Now I realise this wouldn''t change the minds of some people (its all spin) but it could shed a lot of light for those sitting somewhere in between. This would be beneficially to the Club as it could clear up some contentious issues (or not!) and clear the air before the start of next season. If Archant can get the club to agree to do this we could use a thread (or this one) to post the questions we would like answered. Can it be done?

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] I have alot of problems with the way our club has been run in the last few years but i actually think the hotel decision was a good one. I would MUCH rather have seen an infill there but at a cost of £3million+ i don`t think the club will be in a position to build it for a long time yet-at least without neglecting the team even more than they have been. At least with the hotel once the land deal was complete the building/running of it was taken out of the clubs hands. All the other non-football ventures instigated by the board take up time,money and effort which should be focussed on improving the deteriorating situation on the pitch. Incidently the infill at the other end of the South stand holds 1500 i believe, so i don`t know where the 700 figure comes from?   [/quote] The 700 figure comes from the fact that the club needs to keep pitch access for emergency vehicles and the like which is done from that corner. This means any infil would of had to keep this access underneath meaning a large chunk of it would of been a tunnel onto the pitch, thus restricting the seat numbers.

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="megson"] lets not forget non players wages include: Manager, Assistant manager, First team Coach, Reserve coach, physio (and team), Academy/Youth coaches, scouts, Chairman, Press Officers, Kit man, Secretaries (and other necessary office staff) sponsorship and sales team, Ticket office staff. The largest chunk of that £6.4m is going to be going on those directly linked to the playing side so lets no kid ourselves we are spending £6.4m on tea ladies for delia either or things that don''t exist at every football club in the country. [/quote] You are mistaken megson.  The staff underlined above are all included on the playing side, probably the manager''s secretary too, unless you imagine that we have 70+ players on the books.   [/quote] Dammit. I''ll admit the number of playing staff passed me by in the OP and that''s a fair point, that number would seem to include the coaching staff. However we don''t know exactly who comes under what so its hard to quantify that figure in either a positive or negative light. We also need to remember that the staffling levels include those at colney not just at the ground, and a training centre of that size would need a decent number of ''admin'' staff would these be ''playing'' staff or not?

Interesting. I''d be more than happy to have him involved. Clearly got a good business sense and will have some money to invest. Promising if it happens.

Really? I''d snap him up with little hesitation. Would depend on the fee of course, but I do think he''d be a short term asset. Good leader as well.

Hmm i''ll hold my hand up there. He''s scored more than I was giving him credit for, mainly at a lower level but that''s still a decent return. Age isn''t on his side but after that i''m a lot more open to seeing him back here than I was. Thanks for correcting me on that one Foghorn!

I would agree with Hairy Canary here. While I think its easy to get over excited about what these figures actually mean, it WOULD be interesting to see them accounted on their own.

[quote user="allways travelling"]Why is this lad not signed for us yet he has already stated the affection he has for norwich top goalscorer at this level seems to score for fun.What more do we need he is not even going to be that expensive 500 to 750 k would surely capture him.I think the money offered for sharpe is a big gamble as he is not proven at this level not saying he is not very usefull but the big question is can he do it at this level.To expensive for my liking would sooner have cureton and buy a decent centre back with whats left over.[/quote] He scored for fun for one season at this level, and has harldy been prolific throughout his career. He''s the sort of player that if it clicks he''ll get you goals, if not he won''t. Just ask a Swindon fan.

lets not forget non players wages include: Manager, Assistant manager, First team Coach, Reserve coach, physio (and team), Academy/Youth coaches, scouts, Chairman, Press Officers, Kit man, Secretaries (and other necessary office staff) sponsorship and sales team, Ticket office staff. The largest chunk of that £6.4m is going to be going on those directly linked to the playing side so lets no kid ourselves we are spending £6.4m on tea ladies for delia either or things that don''t exist at every football club in the country.  

I agree with this. Someone on another post said they didn''t want to put up with mid table dross again. That''s a sentiment I agree with, but at the back of my mind I know if we get up and survive we''ll just be swapping one lot of mid table dross for another. There are so many ''pointless'' teams in the premiership now. Teams that might jsut possible get very lucky and win the Carling cup, or sneak a euro place via the inter toto but that''s where their ''sucess'' ends. Teams like Fulham, Manc City, Pompey (to a degree) you could probably lump bolton, everton, Newcastle in there too. For the fans of some of these teams life must be really really dull, and in some places that''s being reflected in attendances. The premiership is the place to be as the finances keep you alive, but if you want to be in a competitive league then, for me, we are in problably the best in england.

Seriously guys, over a 4 year period we took on 38 more people. 38. Over 4 years. 9 or 10 a year. This needs a seperate note in the accounts? I think we have bigger things to worry about.

I don''t know How many non-footballing staff do we really need? (this feels like a "how many X does it take to change a lightbulb joke to me..............)  

[quote user="Smudger"] [quote user="Temp the Revelator"]Exactly my point - and apparently we were in for Varney.  I wouldn''t have wanted Iwelumo, and 3.5m is over the odds for Halford, IMHO.[/quote] Think that Iwelumo would of been a fantastic signing for us on a FREE but hey ho we would rather throw £350k away on the useless Chris Brown wouldn''t we??? [/quote] I''d love to know what your base your opinion of brown on as he''s hardly played for us yet due to injury. Also when we bought brown Iwelumo wasn''t available on a free was he? Are the club supposed to be able to see into the future now? Having said that I would of liked to have seen Iwelumo here, would be interesting to know if we had any contact with him. He went to Charlton though, a club who will be a bigger draw than us in the division this year i''m sad to say.

Its interesting how no one can answer this. Its easy to shout ''sack the board'' harder to come up with realisitic replacements. I''m sure some believe that replacing the board is just a case of firing them as with a normal job. Regardless of how we feel if no one comes in to buy into the club then we are stuck with the current board, they can''t just walk away.

[quote user="Putney Canary"][quote user="1st Wizard"] [quote user="Putney Canary"] Wiz, do you honestly think that Cureton would be a suitable replacement for Earnie? Er, I think I would rather have our potty woman than a potty Wizard... [/quote] His 23/24 Championship goals last season would seem to back me up Putney, yes?. [/quote] Cureton is 32, and has had one good season and 2 or 3 decent seasons under his belt in League 1 and Championship. Earnie is 26 and consistently bangs in the goals at this level and higher. Earnie is being touted as a 5m striker, Cureton wouldn''t fetch more than a few hundred thousand at most, surely. I love him for the hair stunt vs Ipswich, but as a replacement for Earnie? No way! [/quote] I agree with Putney. If it was any other player with the same record (but without the prior connection) we wouldn''t be so keen to bring him here.

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"] [quote user="Indy_Bones"]Smudger, Do you really have such blind hatred for the club at the minute, that you''re now suggesting that potential signings are actually going to the press to spout lies about having a desire to join us??? The comments from David Marshall in my opinion (and many other fans) were great to hear. We know we''ve got top facilities, what we''ve sometimes questioned is where the club is going and their ambition. For a good quality young keeper to come out and categorically state that he wants to sign for us, has to be taken as a sign that despite our poor performance last year, the work being done by Grant et al, is such that we can attract these sorts of players again. Why shouldn''t we be haggling over the price of a player? Even if we have more than enough cash available to pay ''x'' amount more, why should we pay over the odds for a player, particularly one who''s actually made it clear that he sees his future with us, as against his current club? Only the likes of Abramovich can afford to simply get their blank cheque book out and pay whatever money, to get a player regardless. There is no smokescreen or spin from the board regarding signings, as many others have already stated, it hasn''t been our board telling everyone about potential signings, it''s been the players/agents/clubs that we''ve approached with bids that didn''t keep their mouths shut. As for these signings being unrealistic because we know they won''t join - what a ridiculous statement that is. If we''d said we were looking at signing Drogba or Henry, then I''d understand the sentiment, but making offers on players like Sharp to me is not only very viable, but highly sensible. If the player does choose not to come to us, at least we made the attempt. If we weren''t trying to get players like Sharp, then people such as yourself and Wiz would be ranting on here about the boards lack of ambition, their refusal to sign players - or that they''re signing unheard of nobody''s or old journeymen. Please can you be honest and advise what it would take for you to be positive about potential signings? Who do you feel we should be looking to sign at the minute, that does fall into this magic category you seem to have, whereby the player is not out of our league, too old, too young, too expensive, too cheap, too crap or too Scottish??? I personally find it interesting that a professional footballer, currently playing for the top club in Scotland who was on loan here last season can see us pushing for promotion, whereas a fan who has admitted not even attending a game for two years who posts nothing but negativity -  can''t. I''m not trying to haev a go at you over this, as we are all entitled to our opinions, but even the most neutral viewer on this situation would have to question your reasoning. Can you give a constructive and factual response as to why you think the overall situation is so bad, what the board should be doing to change this, how the manager can change this (I presume by signing players you recommend?), why the vast majority of fans who don''t want the board out are simply mindless sheep, and most importantly for me - why you haven''t been to a game in years, yet profess far more knowledge about current players and tactics, than fans who go every week - and even Peter Grant himself? Regards Indy [/quote] No way in hell you are going to get a reasonable reply to this very well constructed post. Be interesting to see which few words he decides to pick out to prove you "wrong" though. [/quote] The moon is made of cheese and has nice knobbly holes in it!!!  [;)] [/quote] lol, that did actually make me laugh!

[quote user="ncfc1"]I doubt he would go to Wolves just because his old strike partner is there . Anyway Wolves have bid £1 million for Freddy Eastwood today which might just indicate they think Sharp is going elsewhere.[/quote] Why not? If you were offered a chance of changing jobs and a good mate of yours worked their would it not make a difference? Especially if you were having to move to a new area? Possibly not a huge factor, but it is a factor. They know each otehrs game, know they work well and thats a big thing for a footballer, especially a striker.

What the one season wonder?    I''m not convinced about him at all. He clearly needs a good target man to play with and I''m just not sure dublin will be upfront for enough games next season due to age and being required at the back. If we can get another good CB in, then he might be worth it. Cureton was good last season, has had 2/3 good seasons lower down but he''s not been scoring goals for fun ever since he left us, and at his age he''s hardly one for the future. Not saying I''d hate to see us sign him, but i do feel there are better options.