Jump to content

Empty Mirror

Members
  • Content Count

    240
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Empty Mirror

  1. Cowling said that he asked for £400,000 for Lambert. The Tribunal claim was for compensation for Lambert plus Culverhouse plus Karsa plus the fact that we took them all at the same time which made it more inconvenient plus a points deduction. The Tribunal figure was more than we offered.  And less than Cowling asked for.  No big surprise there. And Cowling didn''t get the points deduction. I suggest it might be time for all concerned to move on.
  2. The Defence was good.   Forster was out of this world. 
  3. Hoolahan, clearly.  MacNamee has a role as a squad player, and can be a useful Plan B if things are going wrong after 60 minutes, but as the past couple of games have shown, Hoolahan makes the team tick.   Last year his injury at the end of the season may have been the difference between staying up and relegation, and I hope his injury this year isn''t the difference between winning this league and missing out on automatic promotion.
  4. The hearing is NOT 23rd April, it is NOT a matter of our word against theirs, and a £300,000 fine is NOT a likely outcome.
  5. I don''t think it was a case of dropping Martin because he was out of form.  As has been said, it looked like the game plan was to use Elliot''s pace to get in behind two old and slow centre backs.   Martin doesn''t have the pace for that plan.   Holty seemed to spend most of his time out on the wing, presumably to try to drag one of the centre backs with him to give Eliot a one on one with the other.     It didn''t work.   Leeds crowded the central area, so our diamond was crowded out, Wes never got any time on the ball, and the balls we kept trying to play to Elliot were having to be hurried and hit in the air, and kept being cut out, and coming straight back, which meant we were never able to clear our lines and push up, hence the fact that we were under pressure for most of the first half (not that Leeds ever looked like doing much with the pressure).    The first stage to rectifying that game plan gone wrong, was to swop Elliot for Martin, who is better at holding it up, which made a difference, because with Martin on and Holty coming more central again we were able to hold the ball up and give our defence time to push out and hold a higher line.  The second stage was to take Wes off and revert to 4-4-2, which was the key.  With Leeds flooding the centre with bodies to match our diamond there was space on the wings, and both MacNamee and Drury had good raids down the wings before Hughes'' run set up Martin. Less a case of Elliot being thought better than Martin, and then deciding that Martin was better than Eliot, more a case of our manager trying what seemed like a reasonable plan, seeing it wasn''t working, and thinking of a plan that did work, and adapting his personnel accordingly.   Which has been a feature this season, and not something we''ve been used to in previous years.
  6. Whatever the views about the merits of Colchester''s claim, the fact is that they are seeking a points deduction, and the rules allow up to ten points to be deducted, so we can''t say we are mathematically certain until that claim has been ruled upon, or until no more than one club can get within ten points of us.
  7. I was quite close and thought the challenge was late and clumsy rather than malicious or dangerous.    The Leeds player probably helped Holt by overdoing his reaction.    All in all I thought the ref had an excellent game today.
  8. And it won''t be mathematically done until Colchester''s claim for a points deduction is dealt with (which will be before the season ends).    A deduction may be unlikely, but if you''re talking about what is mathematically certain, it''s won''t be certain until after the hearing (or until no two teams can get within ten points of us).
  9. Anyone who is polite and offers an outside perspective on NCFC is welcome as far as I''m concerned.  It would be a shame if there couldn''t be friendly chat / banter between rival fans.  
  10. I am sure all Norwich fans hope Becchio is ok.    It looked very worrying.I thought it was a dire game, but then "must win top of the table" games at the end of the season often are.    You were unlucky today: we were unlucky at Elland Road.   You may still go up - Milwall are on a great run but the wheels will come off somewhere before the end of the season.
  11. Jumping the gun rather. All that had happened is that Fernandes had a seat in the directors'' box.   Along with about 50 other people.   And was apparently then shown round after the match by McNally.   This tells us two things: 1.   The current Board are not hostile to new investment, or at least not all new investment. 2.   The "process", if there is to be such a thing, has not got off the ground yet.  When you buy a house (i)  you go to have a look around (ii) you decide if you want it (iii) if so, you put in an offer (iv) there is haggling, and your offer may or may not be accepted (v) you instruct your solicitors to do the equivalent of due diligence, get a survey etc (vi) there''s often haggling to adjust the price based on the "due diligence " i.e., the conveyancing checks and the survey (vii) the lawyers draw up a contract and (viii) you exchange contracts (or not).    The process for a corporate acquisition or investment is not a million miles off.  The fact that McNally was apparently showing Fernandes round tells us that the "process" is at stage (i) and that it''s not clear yet whether it will go any further.     Nobody would decide they want to invest / buy, put in an offer, haggle over the price, do the due diligence, get the legal paperwork drawn up and then say "You know what, I''d actually like to look around the place".    In effect the fact that McNally was apparently showing Fernandes round on Tuesday tells us that any "process" is less far advanced than press and rumours have suggested.
  12. The Football League just wants the clubs to settle it between themselves.   So, I suspect, do the fans of both clubs - we''ve got a common enemy down the A140 / up the A12 and it would be good if we could get back to hating them.   There''s normally some sort of tariff for this sort of thing, so it''s time Delia and Robbie sat down and agreed it.
  13. They will apologise. That''s what our legal team is for. The club''s solicitors, Leathes Prior, said in their letter that if no apology was published in seven days they would issue proceedings. No apology has been received. Seven days are now up. Neither McNally nor Leathes Prior appear to be in the habit of making idle threats. Proceedings will therefore be issued on Monday.
  14. We can only sue for compensation for loss.   Damages in the civil courts are not supposed to be a penalty imposed on the offender or a windfall for the person defamed, sorry.     Any sum we sue for will simply reflect what we have lost.    In defamation cases one does see awards for "injury to reputation" but again, these are supposed to be compensation for damage already done.   An award of damages is unlikely to leave us with a windfall and better off; indeed the fact that it might make us better off would be a defence for the NOTW.
  15. We can sue in the English courts as the defamation was published here, and any loss will be sustained here.But we can only sue for compensation for loss.   Damages in the civil courts are not supposed to be a penalty imposed on the offender or a windfall for the person defamed, sorry.     Any sum we sue for will simply reflect what we have lost.  Since this defamatory article was published during the transfer window, when it could undermine deals, and just as we announce our new season ticket and sponsorship deals, this could hurt us financially, and if we can prove the link between any loss and the article (not easy) we may be able to claim that loss.    In defamation cases one does see awards for "injury to reputation" but again, these are supposed to be compensation for damage already done.   An award of damages is unlikely to leave us with a windfall and better off; indeed the fact that it might make us better off would be a defence for the NOTW.Hopefully the club''s prompt action will persuade the NOTW to review its shoddy journalism, publish a retraction and get the offending article off the website.  In which case if that happens by Monday morning it may not do any actual damage, as opposed to giving people on chat forums a bit of a laugh, and that really would be the best result for the club: no actual damage and thus not much in the way of damages.   That outcome depends on NOTW displaying some sense, of course.
  16. Clearly, any side that loses a cup game to Carlisle can be written off for the rest of the season.
  17. The press conference has nothing to do with this, and Lambert will leave us, but not now.  He is ambitious, but also is smart enough to know that jumping ship again, after only half a season, would look terrible on his CV, and make him nearly unemployable if Burnley were to be relegated and he got the chop there.
  18. I wonder if Mr Cowling''s standing in Essex will take a dive if the truth about his handling of the dispute emerges at the forthcoming Tribunal.
  19. Hmmm.  Let''s see.On the one hand we could concentrate on winning promotion, thereby taking our great club back closer to where we belong, and probably securing our financial future into the bargain.Or ,we could concentrate on a meaningless cup competition, that qualifies us for precisely nothing, and that was won  by the mighty Luton last year (see how much good it did them).Tricky decision. 
  20. It''s the kind of game that we''ve lost over the last few seasons.   We get a good (or, at least, decent) result or two, everyone starts to get their hopes up, a team we really "should" beat comes to Carrow Road, we start off full of confidence but the first couple of chances don''t go in, they play with ten or even eleven men behind the ball, we start to lose confidence, the crowd goes quiet, we start to play a lot of square and backward passes before hitting it long and high to their centre backs, they get a break away goal, and we lose 1-0. In some ways this is as much of a test of Lambert''s new regime as the more difficult games to come against MK Dons and Charlton.    Can we do a professional job on teams that we ought to be beating at Carrow Road?  I want to believe that we can.
  21. There is, actually,  a "Norwich side to the story" which is being aired in the Tribunal and, if it were accepted, we would escape without liability.  In any cases where there''s a conflict of fact, there''s a risk, of course, that the other party''s account will be believed, hence the offer that City have made.  Though having said that, it''s not clear yet that Colchester have any evidence of their own (as opposed to a spade loads of indignation) to rebut the Norwich version (inevitably, these cases turn on what passed between Lambert and NCFC) and, either way, the money Colchester are seeking at present has no basis in reality. 
  22. Well, good luck to him and Col U. A good appointment for us, too.  As he is out of work they won''t have paid any compensation to get him.  Which means their compensation claim against us suddenly looks a lot smaller, if not non existant.   One can only be "compensated" for what one has actually lost or had to spend.
  23. Don''t get your hopes up.   He won''t be back.
  24. The reason for poor Gunny''s dismissal was a mix of seven months of poor results, one atrocious one, the fact that he was appointed without the approval of much of the current board (and, indeed, much of the previous board) and a shift in the balance of power on the Board.   There was a "trigger" event, but it was not what was suggested on this thread.  And at the end of the day, it was just a trigger.
  25. It''s too late for Lambert to talk to Stevanovic.   Our central defence partnership will have to be made without him.
×
×
  • Create New...