Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by Chunky!

  1. Its on the BBC as well, I can''t say I agree paying £750k (if the rumours are true) for a 31 year old striker is a good move, but time will tell!  Lets just hope we get Marshall and a decent midfielder.OTBC!Chunky
  2. [quote user="Smudger"]What this thread seems to be proving is what myself and Cluck have stated for many months now... The naivety of a very large number of City fans is due to the fact that they have never been out of Norfolk in there entire lives!!!   [/quote]There seems to be a number of fans who aren''t even from Norfolk!  In fact for a group of fans its seem to be quite a good bunch. You really are a quality bunch of Trolls though Smudger, 1st Wiz and Cluck!OTBC!Chunky
  3. [quote user="alex_ncfc"][quote user="Chunky"][quote user="alex_ncfc"] Agreed Wizard, this is just pathetic now. The club trying to quietly dampen down our expectations. It''s all gone quiet on Marshall. It''s all gone quiet on Sharp. It''s even gone quiet on Cureton! Just WHEN are we going to get the bloody checkbook out and take a f*cking gamble? I despair of the people who run this club. [/quote]WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT THE CLUB TO DO?  Start tying people to the pitch when they come for the your of the facilities?  If Sharp wants to move to Sheffield we can''t stop him!? OTBC!Chunky[/quote] Err, it''s simple, and I answered that question in my post. But for your benefit I shall repeat: I want them to show some bloody ambition, make US want the player more than anyone else, not moping around saying "Well we tried, we failed, we''ll look for someone else" Christ, this is just the basics! When will some of you wake up? [/quote]How can they want the player any more than offering a the most money and giving an acceptable wage.  If Sharp wants to play for Sheff Wed, he wants to play for Sheff Wed, we made the first acceptable bid and we''ve (probably) offered him a good wage, how much more can we want him!?  Do you want to see Delia, MWJ and PG sat outside the south stand kissing his backside?OTBC!Chunky
  4. [quote user="alex_ncfc"]Agreed Wizard, this is just pathetic now. The club trying to quietly dampen down our expectations. It''s all gone quiet on Marshall. It''s all gone quiet on Sharp. It''s even gone quiet on Cureton! Just WHEN are we going to get the bloody checkbook out and take a f*cking gamble? I despair of the people who run this club. [/quote]They''ve had a bid accepted for Sharp, we''re bidding more than anyone else for Marshall (but its still not enough admittantly) and Cureton (I hope) is a last resort since nobody else is interested.  We''ve also bid more than anyone else for Eastwood, but its not enough!WHAT THE HELL DO YOU WANT THE CLUB TO DO?  Start tying people to the pitch when they come for the your of the facilities?  If Sharp wants to move to Sheffield we can''t stop him!? OTBC!Chunky
  5. If we''ve had a bid accepted and he''s been to talk to us, I suspect its down to his personal choice.  The wages we offered were probably acceptable but from the sounds of it he wants to be somewhere else.OTBC!Chunky
  6. Roose County Primary SchoolParkview Secondary School (now a college of technology)Barrow Sixth Form CollegeNow at Lancaster UniLong Distance fan! Family is all from Flitcham, Dersingham, West Newton and ReephamOTBC!Chunky
  7. I''m not sure how you can hold the club responsible if Sharp signs for Sheff Wed, we stumped up the money to get a bid accepted by Scunthorpe, and he came to the clubs for talks, but if he wants to go to Sheff Wed then there isn''t much we can do?  You could offer him more money I guess, but then is it worth it?OTBC!Chunky
  8. I think we''ll get Marshall (although I think we''ll have to spend big to get him) since Grant wants him and its pretty clear we need a new keeper we can rely on.  I also think we''ll get Sharp but without selling Earnshaw, since we couldn''t place a bid circa £3 million without some of the money up front and there haven''t even been any rumours about a confirmed bid for Earnshaw.  These two signings, together with Otsemboor will improve the defence and attack, but I still believe that maybe of our problems are in the midfield and as such we need to buy a decent midfielder to give us some depth and some competition since it was clear last year that Safri and Etuhu just aren''t performing.OTBC!Chunky
  9. Seems official, looks like we have got some money to spend, I''d say if we got Sharp, we''d be better off investing in the midfield and defence rather than buying Cureton.OTBC!Chunky
  10. I agree, I saw him a couple of times before he was dropped and I thought he was pretty good, seemed to get forward and come past Croft well.  I''m not sure what changed though to lead to his dropping.  Hopefully he''ll be given a chance to regain his spot in the pre-season.  At centre-half, the dillema all season seemed to be whether to play Dion Dublin there (not conceed as many goals but don''t score) or have Dion up front (conceed goals but score), 6 of one, half a dozen of the other!  The problem with the Doherty and Shackell partnership is that neither of them is a leader and whenever one of them plays with Dublin things are alot better, however this is only half the problem, as I beleive that alot of our defensive troubles starts in the midfield.OTBC!Chunky
  11. I''m in complete agreement with you to be honest, I don''t see what all the fuss is about, for a free or £100k, maybe, but £750k is far too much.OTBC!Chunky
  12. [quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="blahblahblah"]I would imagine that if Cureton comes here, then Brown will be his principal strike partner, [/quote] The horrible though of Brown as a principle strike partner gives me a headache...........nurse!. [/quote]Brown looked pretty good in the games I saw him he had good feet and a nice first touch,  I thought for £300k he wasn''t a bad buy really, though as usual whenever we make a purchase and they start to do ok, the injury curse struck.  I''d be very disappointed if we bought Cureton, whatever the circumstances, £750k for a 32 year old want-away striker at this level is a complete waste of money.OTBC!Chunky
  13. [quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]a good start...but we really DO need to hear about some others soon. If its Rae and two or three similar we must prepare for more frustrating lower mid table rubbish If we could get a Sharp and two or three other promising signings it could be exciting Oh and why NO news regarding centre backs we DESPERATELY need at least one in my book   I predict...Otsemobor, Rae, Marshall (touted as our ambitious one) and two or three also rans [/quote]Would Rae be such a terrible signing?  A consistant midfielder may well be what we need to keep Etuhu and Safri on their toes and give us some depth we can rely on.  Its my belief that many of our problems in defence are caused by a weak midfield (though I''m not trying to deny a replacemnt for Doherty would help us enourmously).OTBC!Chunky
  14. Other would include stewards, caterers, toilet cleaners, etc, most of which are short-term contracts.  I guess we could reduce the amount of matchday food and let the toilets rot though, then we''d have an extra £1 million for transfers per season.....OTBC!Chunky
  15. [quote user="Smudger"]Anybody from outside of Norfolk with SERIOUS MONEY and SERIOUS AMBITION unlike the bunch of clowns we currently have in office!!![/quote]Yes, because they''ll have the best interests of the club at had and won''t be a business person who wants to make serious money from the club.  There are quicker and easier ways to make money from a club than promotion to the premiership, all of which aren''t in the clubs best interest.OTBC!Chunky
  16. [quote user="Old Shuck"] "THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE SHOULD OF NOT PUT IN SUCH A LAUGHABLE OFFER FOR MARSHALL IN THE FIRST PLACE..." Got to agree with you there Smudger. Everything seemed to be in place, Marshall said he wanted to come here, his dreaded agent said he wanted to join us and the scene was set... Seems we dithered, then offered a "silly" (in Celtic''s mind) valuation and have now dithered some more. In the meantime, Marshall has seen the club that he wanted to go to seem to cool their interest, "...well, how much do they really want and value me?.." & is probably now going to play down the link to us, as is Willie McKay. I think we have lost him, or look as though we are going to, simply because we have prevaricated on this one and missed the best opportunity over what might only be something like £250''000 extra, or even less? Hibs are waiting to talk to him and they may well get him now. [/quote] Sorry to say this guys, but £500k is not a laughable offer for Marshall and if anything, it put Hibs at the time.  Bit of reality please!  Any larger initial offer would have been stupid, though I feel that we probably ended up offering more.  Whether it was enough, or our bid was just a hand bit of posturing for Marshall to get an improved contract we''ll never know.   OTBC! Chunky
  17. [quote user="Arthur Whittle"]Sorry guys but this site is so one sided. Its not a forem about the  issues of NCFC  but more about the way ''''good ole norwich folk'''' are happy to plod along thinking we''re a great club under Delia. So far ive been told to F@?k  off and create my own site just for ....being anti Delia and...im a i must be a binner/wind up. Had enough. [/quote]I''d say that while you''re free to express your opinions that the board has failed the club on this board, if you wish to plan protests against the board it would be best done on your own site, which would show that you''re serious and give a better idea of the number of people who are actually in agreement with you.OTBC!Chunky
  18. Arthur,Did you read the thread "Billionaire Investor Myth" in which I posted my views on what I believe is the wrong and naive attitude of a number of (particularly vociferous) fans that the current board is someone flawed in their belief that strong off-field activities will support the club''s ambition in the long term.  I will not try to deny that some mistakes have been made and we have suffered from a premiership hangover that lasted far too long.However what really irks me is the belief that somehow you are so sure that the board won''t be making funds available for Grant to use this summer?  It appears we have been fairly active in the transfer market and have been linked with a number of players already, which is an improvement on last season''s performance.  This is Grants first full off-season to invest in new players and fans such as yourself aren''t giving him or the board a chance to show whether things have changed.Do you believe that the appointment of Grant was, in itself, an unambitious event?  Who would you rather have had the board appoint at the time?  We were never seriously linked with any "big name" - and to attract such a name to a club in our situation would require a salary which we cannot afford.The myth that somehow Norwich are better placed than a number of clubs when it comes to takeovers is mis-placed and I believe that in the championship we are stuck in the middle, between the clubs such as Blackpool which are much cheaper to buy than clubs higher in the league structure, and the more prestigious clubs in the premiership.  Premiership clubs are much more attractive entities for investment than championship clubs due to the larger guaranteed TV income and particularly with London clubs, the ability to attract players and fans.Anyone, I''m not really sure I''ve asked all that many question or whether I just rewrote a section of my previous post but my main point would be whether you really believe we''d be better having an "ambitious" board, i.e. Leeds? Bradford? Notts Forest?  Since their ambitious attitudes not only ended in double relegation but almost the extinction of the clubs themselves.OTBC!Chris
  19. [quote user="mystic megson"]Chunky! wrote: "£3 million isn''t an awful lot of profit". £3 million is a very substantial profit for a Championship club.  Birmingham only made £3 million profit in their last Prem season, compared with our £9 million plus.  Football is not like an ordinary business.  The primary aim is not the maximisation of profit. God only knows what''s happened to it.  We certainly didn''t invest our "profits from player trading" back into the squad last summer.  We didn''t even spend the proceeds of the sales of Green and McKenzie, and the outcome was entirely predictable.   [/quote]Was it set aside for transfer fees and not used though?  I doubt it was redistributed as dividends though since some of the fans associations are shareholders and hence would know about it.  I''d have said beforehand that £3 million for a company with a turnover like Norwich''s was a small one, but you leanr something new...
  20. [quote user="mystic megson"]I''m not aware that the Annual Report is available for download Chris. The above figures are the final amounts after everything has been added and subtracted, including player transfers and interest payments on the loan.  The breakdown for 2005/6 is as follows: Operating profit excluding player trading   £1,566,286 Profit from player trading                             £3,046,666 Total profit                                                       £4,612,952 Plus interest receivable      £105,564            Minus interest payable      £1,653,702 Gross profit                      £3,064,814    (net profit and tax as above) Hope this helps.     [/quote]£3 million isn''t an awful lot of profit, the question then becomes whether or not that is passed back as a dividend or made available for player transfers?  I guess its no conindence that the final profit isn''t almost the same as the profit from player trading.  If Norwich is a PLC then the accounts should be available from company house, whether its as easy as just going to the website is another matter entirely thought.OTBC!Chunky
  21. [quote user="Putney Canary"] I''m not sure I am suggesting a director of football, but a director who knows the sport inside out. I don''t think anyone on our board really understands the game except as fans, and as a result the words of the manager have been relied on too much. They involved Stringer in chosing PG, why not utilise him day to day? Would Stringer have let the scouting situation slide, as it appears to have done?[/quote]Does scouting come into the realm of the first team manager?  I''d think it would since you are scouting for "his" team.  The use of Stringer to consult during the appointment of a new manager is a good idea, but I''d hope that the board handle the business operations leaving the Manager to manage the football team and associated activities.  If you have a member of the board who advises about football affairs it''s very easy to slide into a situation where you have the board against the manager because Stringer believes one approach works and the manager wants another.  This would follow most of the examples I''m aware, very few (english) clubs have made this type of setup work and traditional business practice would be that a person involved in more than one level of a business (management and directors) is not a good situation and leds to conflict.On the Stringer consultancy, it doesn''t really seem to have helped the board, they''re still taking flack from fans who believe that Peter Grant isn''t a good appointment due to his lack of experience.  However, I think that at this level, you struggle to get big names such as Curbs, O''Neil and the other dream names people wanted, since they all want to manage in the premiership, you have to either take a gamble on a young manager and give him a chance (which, even though Roy Keane is a big name, he was an inexperienced manager) or you have to settle for someone who is a lesser name.  Similar to the situation in the transfer market, we''re going to struggle to attract big names and we, as fans, have to accept that players such as Green and Ashton, will move on as soon as they''ve become big names.  Earnshaw is a lesser player, we know that, but he''s still damn good for this level.OTBC!Chunky
  22. [quote user="mystic megson"]"Running a football club is generally not a profitable business". Except for Norwich City in the past two dismal seasons.  I make no apology for restating the figures in the 2006 Annual Report because they speak for themselves, this is about facts not opinions: 2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979         Net profit £7,618,979          Tax £1,500,000*  2005/6                            Gross profit £3,064,814         Net profit £2,484,222            Tax £580,592 * (perhaps someone with an accounting background could explain how we arrived at a tax bill of exactly £1,500,000) There''s precious little to show for it imo.  We''ve underachieved on the field and are still carrying a debt of nearly £20m.  Prudence?  Ambition?  No and no.     [/quote]I''m not entirely sure those figures on their own show alot, those are most likely profits after day to day running costs, but do they include investment in the team and facilities?  Is the annual report easily available on the web?Chris
  23. [quote user="Putney Canary"]Nobody has actual figures except the board. We are all presuming a lot, and some of us presume positive things about the board and some chose to presume negative things about the board.As for the scouting, it seems the manager has taken this in hand, but I feel it is something the Board should have stepped in about long ago. This is one reason why I think we should open up a new board member with football experience, someone like Stringer. The previous manager was (with hindsight) allowed to build a badly balanced squad, and seemes to have let certain things like Scouting drift. The board shouldn''t have let this happen, but didn''t understand the issues enough to step in.[/quote]I''m not sure about this, I''d always go with the position of a strong manager, as a weak manager and a "director of football" type character isn''t a particularly good situation to be in, it''s also much harder to get rid of a board member than a manager.  My opinion would be that a manager must be chosen and supported correctly, otherwise you may as well have the board member running the team and just coaches.OTBC!Chunky
  24. Mark, My opinion would be that the scouting setup is linked to the manager more than the board, but you''re completely right, investment in a scouting and youth setup is important at this level, because in effect all clubs below the top ten in the country must be able to produce their own talent to reduce their dependance on expensive signings.  However, don''t we already have a good youth setup, and hasn''t Hunter improved our scouting and awareness of young players? If I had more time and the inclination (of which I have neither) I''d investigate how much has been spent on the off-field activites and the team, but my gut feeling is that a substantial chunk of the £35 million thats bandied about on this board has been spent on players wages and the south stand (which doesn''t count as an off-field activity imo), and the actual investment in off-field activities is well below £10 million.  However, I''m willing to be corrected and if anyone has the actual figures I''d be interested to see them! I''m not even sure who our scouts are?  I feel that things have improved with Grant bringing some of his own people in, because in the end, he and his assistant tell the scouts what kind of player they want and decide if a player recommended by a scout is worth the investment. OTBC! Chunky
  25. Yellow, I think that is the problem, people such as Abrahovich and the Taksin Shinawatr are looking for Premiership clubs so they can get the prestige, Norwich naturally aren''t going to be targets for investors such as these, and hence the only people who are likely to be interested in Norwich are either local (hence a lesser investment is possible) or looking to make money, which although possible in the premiership, is certainly not a prospect in the short to middle term for a club such as Norwich which would require a long term investment.Mark, Although I compared the football club to a business, it operates in very unusal conditions and I think a more fair comparison is to other clubs in our league, in a comparison such as this I think that our club is on a "stable" financial position (note, I didn''t say good!) and, yes, without some changes we could well stagnate.  However, I would defend the boards investment in off-field activities mainly because I believe that these investments will help to support the club now that the paracute payments have dried up, yes an investment may have cost £1million from our paracute payments, but that investment pay now provide a yearly income of £500k for the next 5 years?  Which is preferable?  Could you truely say that a £1 million investment in players would have changed our season?OTBC!Chunky
  • Create New...