Nice and Peaceful

I''m glad you''re feeling better Gorgen. But I think your ailments must have been a different incident. The poor chap was having defibrilators on him, as well as constant CPR. the situation really did look poor.

Hi folks. Another great win today. But a sad event after the game. I was in Squares just after the final whistle, and just after I got my drinks a man in there collapsed. Several people rushed to help him, and I was on the phone to the emergency services. He was receiving CPR etc when I left - there were several paramedics on the scene by then. Is anyone aware of how the poor man is?

...for the first and only time. Then we would be able to obtain minutes of Board meetings, and find out who proposed and agreed the decision to appoint Bryan in May, and compare this with who proposed the decision to sack him. Must say I have a very mixed reaction to this decision: half of me feels (once again) let down by the club in the manner of the appointment/sacking after one game, especially as Bryan is an individual quite rightly revered by the fans of this club and many others. His Legend status will survive this blip. But I am also excited: it seems that the new Powers at the club have quickly recognised a potentially fateful flaw in the business plan and have acted swiftly to address this. I desperately hope that this signals the beginning of a new era when incompetence is not tolerated at this club. Generally speaking, in a PLC the manager is appointed by the Chief Exec. who sacks the manager if he performs poorly, and takes responsibility for appointing a successor. In turn, if a succession of managers fail, the Chief Exec is fired by the Board. There is no tolerance of failure, and sentiment plays no part in appointment or dismissal. Perhaps we were quaintly sentimental in our appointment of Bryan, and now we have been ruthlessly efficient in sacking him. Only time will tell.... But on the other hand, I am probably one of the 99% of Norwich fans who are idiots....

A detailed and easy to read report Jim, thanks. Perhaps the darkest hour has passed us?   MORNING SMUDGER

Interesting to read the views based on a few minutes of highlights. As I was working in Edinburgh on Tuesday, I went to the game with a colleague who is a die-hard Hibby. I''ll give you my views on the match (which I gave to Chris Goreham after the game) and then his. First and foremost it was a friendly, where we were introducing new players and giving trials to a few. These games are never realistic, but do give a feel about how the individual players are gelling and are likely to progress. For my money, a lot of our players looked okay. The young keeper looked okay, nothing spectacular to do. Drury looked like the Drury pre-2004: solid, calm, and unflappable. A fabulous last-ditch tackle as well. Spillane: solid and effective. Not an abundance of skill but a decent enough stopper. Nelson seems to do what it says on the tin: big and strong, dominant in the air, good talker, composed on the ball. Would be exposed against skillful, pacy strikers at the top end of the Championship, but that''s not relevant now... The other youngster, (Stevens) looked a real prospect at centre half. Pace, good in the air, knows when to stay on his feet. I wouldn''t be at all worried at the prospect of him coming into the first team when needed - far prefer him to the umpteem loan centre backs from seasons past. For the midfield, lets start with Semi. For me a player with a lot of natural ability and athleticism. It''s easy to see why Liverpool took him on, hoping he would progress. Sadly, he hasn''t. He looked as adept at right midfield/wing as at full back. I hate to say it, but I have to conclude he never will make the progress you would hope - there comes a point when potential is no longer enough. Matty P looked good in patches, but seemed to be struggling for fitness. Interestingly, he played the full game. I wondered if Gunny has offered the olive branch, told him to get his head right and fight for his place. I hope so: a fit Matty P (with a settled off-pitch life) would be a terrific player in league 1. Gill: energetic, closes down well, plays simple passes. Not a lot of real class, but chases, tackles, wins headers, gets forward. A decent League one midfielder. As for the big fella, boy he is big and menacing! it was nice to watch our height at the set pieces: several tall players. Just need some decent delivery. Again, not overblessed with talent, but we''re in League One now... Strikers: Maric looked tidy. Worked hard off the ball, certainly put himself about and ruffled up the opposition, and was a handful in the penalty area. If his attitude is right, he could be a TERRIFIC league one target man. I was impressed. Then to Jamie. Like Wiz, I have always had a soft spot for him. You know how much he wants it, how much he feels the clubs pain. So I am really sorry to give my opinion of him. He looked like me (aged 39) playing against my son (aged 14). Old, slow, unable to compete. I really cant see him troubling defences enough to warrant any more than a bit part. Sorry Wiz, just my assessment as another Jamie Fan. Subs: McVeigh looked class. As always, the fastest thinker on the pitch. Without doubt the classiest player on the pitch. Worth a contract for me. Craig looked okay, would need to see more of him. Far more positive signs than negative, given this game came so early in the season. Sure, gaps need filling, but encouraging signs. The glass is not half full yet, but the beer is starting to flow again. Maybe too slowly for some, but we were truly awful for most of last year. My mate the Hibby, who is a football anorak (and a grumpy Scot, not easily impressed) said "Aye, nae bad. Would gae the Hibs a game".   So there you have it

I was there on Tuesday. He does have a nice touch on the ball, and is a quick-footed player. A couple of really nice touches on the ball. Did well to get in a position to score but perhaps a lack of match sharpness cost him. A nice looking player, very much as Gunn suggested. Hope we have a good look at him.

A thought strikes me that the Board have acted wisely, in not making an appointment at all. In recent history the only 2 managers who can have been called successful were Mike Walker and Nigel Worthington - MW was an internal appointment, whereas we seemed to stumble across NW by accident, and regardless of what anyone says he was the best appointment since 1992. Since then we have tried a number of external appointments, and none have brought any lasting success or stability to the club. So we have looked inward for our new management team. For me history shows that this has been successful in the past - not every time, but it has.   One of the big criticisms of Gunny seems to be his lack of technical nous. Agreed, but this can also be said of Mike Walker - and he had John Deehan to help him out behind the scenes. Walker and Deehan worked fantastically in combination but awfully when they tried management on their own. Gunny will have Crook  and Deehan. None of the three are the egotistical type who will refuse to listen to sound advice. I think they are 3 experienced pros who will each bring a different dimension to the tactical decisions, and reach a sensible consensus on tactics, transfers, team selections etc.   I''ve always thought that the rules which work well at other clubs don''t always work well here. We''re special, we''re unique. We do things our way and stuff what the rest think. This could work. We work best when everyone pulls in the same direction, and these 3 will get everyone pulling the same way.   One more thing: for anyone who thinks that Bryan Gunn is a soft touch, read his book. He can lose it big time, and will have no problem at all getting his message across to any players he feels are not pulling their weight.    Bravo Win or Die

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Just what I said to my son when Crofty pinged it in. Then my son, aged 12, said "Yes Dad, that goal came on 60 minutes"

Baby Baby Baby you''re out of time...

Oh dear.   Mello, you''re one of the posters I always keep an eye out for. Your reasoned debate and amiable pessimism are a good barometer of how people are feeling. If you''re losing your cool, we''re all in the doo dah, but mostly the chef is...

That''s correct. The only difference is that it gives the charge holder the ability to have an element of control over the cashflow. in addition to taking poseession of capital assets. Football is obviously a slightly different case to many securitisation deals - the fixed assets of a business (EG the stands) are essential to the maintenance of the cashflow itself, and cannot be transferred to another trade.

.....and I would not expect them to make very comfortable reading for the Board... Or the stakeholder''s and ''proper'' shareholder''s. Probably.   Very true Mellow. I have feeling that the music will start again and the dance could resume....

Interesting read I agree, although I am not sure I agree that it answers the question of where all the money has gone. This question, I assume, can better be anwered from the accounts: the money arising from this securitisaion was spent on paying for the new stand and clearing the balance of the short-term loan deals, and this was presumably at a lower interest rate than had previously been charged to the club so represents good business on behalf of the club   As for the precise terms of the loan, beyond what will have been disclosed in the notes to the accounts I do not think that anyone who has not had the chance to view the loan agreement is in a position to comment. You could review the accounts from the previous 3 years and compare by how much long-term creditors have been reduced within the balance sheet, and also see how much interest has been charged in the profit and loss account. These would be the biggest indicators of the level of interest and capital repayments payable under the loan agreement and also, more crucially, how capable the club is of meeting these payments as the payments fall to be payable. Just because the cashflow of the club has been used as securitisation against the deal does not mean that the club is on a one-way street to bankruptcy, although it does explain why there is so little cah flow available to fund the immediate payments that most transfer deals require.   As for the 2nd paragraph, I am not aware of our club being run via a special purpose vehicle: if we were to be brought out by a serious investor I have no doubt that we would be as this makes perfect commercial sense to operate a business''s finances and control it''s debt in this way.   As an aside, are the clubs financial reports to be published in a few weeks time? I think these will give a much clearer view of the current position of the club, and I would not expect them to make very comfortable reading for the Board...

[quote user="Badger"][quote user="Nice and Peaceful"]  I agree completely. As a regular viewer (albeit irregular poster) 1st Wizard always polarizes opinion, but always has the guts to keep posting, and has admitted when he is wrong (my personal favourite was last August''s "Trust me, we will get promoted this season"). But his are some of the posts that I always read. One of the bastions of democracy in this country, Tony Benn, made a very pertinent comment regarding a certain Enoch Powell: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." [/quote] He might have said it but I''m sure he wasn''t the first. I''m sure someone will inform us.... [/quote] Voltaire I think, but Tony Benn''s was better!

 I agree completely. As a regular viewer (albeit irregular poster) 1st Wizard always polarizes opinion, but always has the guts to keep posting, and has admitted when he is wrong (my personal favourite was last August''s "Trust me, we will get promoted this season"). But his are some of the posts that I always read. One of the bastions of democracy in this country, Tony Benn, made a very pertinent comment regarding a certain Enoch Powell: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."