sgncfc

He's a very, very good example of what we certainly must not do. That was desperation in the extreme. He moved solely for money - reputedly almost £100k a week for a 3 year deal at Huddersfield. After a few games, he then pretty much stopped trying once he realised he was surrounded by journeymen. They ended the season bottom on 16 points. Pritchard is Huddersfield's Naismith x 2. I wonder if Talksport consider that they "tried"?

When last season ended we all knew we needed those 4 positions filled. Webber came out and said publicly we would wait for Skipp until the end of the window - I thought at the time that was a very bad strategy and it has hampered our recruitment. We chased Billing for too long as well; plus Ajer and Armstrong, without putting adequate bids in. If we had landed Ajer (who I've been consistent about not rating very highly, but that's incidental), Billing, Armstrong and Skipp for our total of £50m, (£13m/£15m/£20m and a £2m loan fee) would we be in a better place now, and was that really plan A which Mr Webber was unable to achieve?

Good post, and pretty much agreed. But as I've said elsewhere today, we all knew we really needed 4 or 5 PL ready players. The problem was they weren't available at money we could afford and probably wouldn't have signed for us, even if we could have afforded their wages. We know we tried for Cahill; I'm sure we tried for others too. We all thought Kabak was one - still not sure he is. He has the turning ability of a fridge at the moment, but he might get better. Most people thought Rashica was a great signing - still not sure he is. He has the pace of Placheta - unfortunately he seems to have his brain too, but he might get better. Normann does look to be one. I think Farke will go back to his favoured 4231 a soon as he thinks his players are up to speed. Who plays alongside Normann in the 2 is the real conundrum still to be solved.

So, back to the ownership issue..... For what must be the four millionth time of pointing this out; FFP means you cannot just spend your way to success, even with a billionaire owner who fits all the tests and prejudices of the fanbase. The vote today is designed to stop Newcastle bigging up their income with a connected sponsorship deal so even that avenue (used by Man City) is closed (at least temporarily but probably permanently). If S & J were to sell, our income would still be limited by the ground size and our profile/geographical location. So our transfer outlay and - more pertinently - our salary outlay would still be limited. As long as the current FFP rules are in place the ONLY way we can big up our turnover is by player sales; even if we stay in the EPL our income would struggle to ever reach £200m, most of which goes in salaries - and we still have no chance of paying the Buendia's and Godfrey's of this world the £75k a week that their talent demands. Most other clubs also have big debts to service. If the potential ban on gambling advertising comes in, sponsorship deals will also fall through the floor, so get prepared for the EPL to lobby hard against that. Our fanbase, and the wider football media simply don't understand FFP. An average loss of £35m (or so) over any 3 year period is all that is allowed. FFP is the reason why clubs like Everton, Villa, Wolves etc spent almost nothing net this year. West Ham will be in the same boat next season - they could sell Rice for £100m like Villa sold Grealish, to give them some leeway. Even Palace had to lose several high earners. Burnley's new owners haven't spent much because they can't yet - Tarkowski to Newcastle for £50m will help them, but they might have to lose McNeill too if they really want to evolve. Even if we assume that a new owner gives us a net £100m a season to spend, where is the guarantee that will work? Arsenal just spent £170m and have a worse team than they had before they spent anything. A new owner could spend on a new ground - other teams have done that of course. Think Sunderland, Derby, Bolton, Reading....even Ipswich expanded their ground to a level which they foresaw as realistic - how stupid do they all look now, rattling around in their decaying stadia? Where we are now (as in, 2 points from 8 games but still in the Premier League last time I looked) is nothing to do with ownership - we brought in too many new players who are not yet good enough when we should have bought 3 or 4 who already were; everyone knew that. But we couldn't afford them (even if we could have persuaded them to sign for us, which is unlikely) and of the ones we could afford one or two will end up being £40m players, even after another relegation season. I don't know if those players will become good enough in time - no one does, not even Webber/Farke. But all this talk of record low points and lowest ever goals etc after less than a quarter of the season has gone is a bit mind numbing. Farke has been hammered for apparently not having a plan B. Now he gets hammered for not only having one which seems to work, but for moving away from Plan A in the first place. That crowd on Saturday at the final whistle didn't seem to be too despondent - why are we so negative on here?

38 and safety. Newcastle, Watford and Burnley for the chop. Newcastle because they won't be able to buy their way out of trouble in January due to today's vote. I so hope this comes true.

This may be a very controversial view, but Sargent reminds me a lot of a young Harry Kane. His movement, energy and positional awareness is extremely good. He is not yet a striker. His miss on Saturday was about as bad as several I saw Kane miss at a similar age (at least one in a Norwich shirt) but actually if you look at it again, it's not quite the open goal we all thought it was at the time. Those saying he could have taken a touch are completely wrong - he was as surprised as anyone at the error by Sanchez and was on the back foot - if he'd tried to move the ball forward Burn would have caught him and forced him wide. From his positioning when the ball squirmed loose he would have had to hit the ball very true to get it past the covering Duffy, which of course he didn't. It was a very good chance, but hardly a tap in. His earlier turn and shot (not even featured on the Sky highlights) was superb, and was on target before the deflection. Pukki's two misses (only one of which was shown) were at least equally as bad as Sargent's two, but no one seems to be mentioning that we should probably expect our most experienced goalscorer to get at least one of those. Sargent has the potential to be a real player. As an aside, I wonder if Brighton fans are equally hammering Maupay for missing the tap in at the end which would have won the game? That was the easiest chance of the match by far. On the media subject - we may well have a complex about this as Norwich fans but Sky's highlights are in no way representative of the game. They are edited to show every decent Brighton chance and only two of ours. Any neutral will conclude that we were not really in the game. Why? Is there an agenda or are we just being paranoid?

Yeah, they tore them apart to lose 1-0. We drew. I make that a more successful outcome.

Some of the brain research on the programme was staggering, in that it seemed to identify a genetic disposition to addiction, and in Merson's case to gambling in particular. His own phrase was 'It's in me'. Others just refer to an "addictive personality" to explain their dependence. Gambling, like alcohol, tobacco, pornography etc is a drug for some people and just as we don't allow certain advertising or sponsorship for those, we shouldn't allow the gambling companies to prey on the vulnerable or the young. The attachment to football over the last 30 years, rather than racing which by comparison is now low key, is particularly pernicious.

1 goal every 3 matches at international level is astonishing. His turn and poke for the first was quality.

Southgate is such a boring manager. Up there with Hughton in how to completely kill a game as a spectacle, but much worse because of what could be possible with the talent he has available. I much prefer watching Scotland to be honest - lots more guts and passion if not quite the ability, plus the added benefit of at least two Norwich players on the pitch.

Brighton have played a version of it in almost every game this season - they call it 3421 or 3412 but 3 of Duffy, Burn, Webster and Dunk tend to feature at the back.

I would love it if we turned down their money. Genuinely. It would be game changing. NB Someone on here said that the wealthiest owners get all the best players and win everything. The Eisner family own Portsmouth. A billionaire owns Sunderland, and we saw how Mr Evans did at 1p5wich. They don't unless they work out ways around FFP, which those 3 haven't yet managed to do.

In my days as a centre back, if we held a high line to leave opponents offside we were coached not to touch through balls in case we played them onside. Things were simpler then.......!

Surely most people go to Poundland because they can't afford M & S? Isn't that where we are?

I can answer that for him. Because the Premier League is a higher standard than playing international football for Scotland against Israel, Czech Republic etc, and so far he hasn't quite got to grips with that standard.

My point is that the contributors to this thread think that Idah should have a loan to a Championship side. We have no track record of that producing a positive result. I can't remember when we have loaned a player to the Championship, other than to get a contribution to wages (Oliveira, for instance). It's no criticism of the club but I'm puzzled as to why people think that would work for Idah in order to make him ready for our team. Personally I think an 11 ROI cap international striker probably has as big a case to get a few starts alongside Pukki as does a 16 USA cap striker, given that neither are prolific goalscorers at this level (yet).

Our loans don't actually work very well though, do they? Apart from Cantwell's in Holland, when he came back a different player, and Godfrey at Shrewsbury at a similar time, pretty much all the rest haven't worked - in terms of readying players for the first team. Assuming that Idah will waltz into a Championship team and score a hatful of goals is just ridiculous. And whilst we're talking about Cantwell, any possibility that he is being slightly frozen out because he won't sign a new contract?

It perhaps won't happen this season, but it will next. Newcastle will win the Premier League in 2022-23. That is inevitable. Or do you think an owner worth £320bn is getting involved not to spend much money? A few big sponsorship deals to increase turnover to the level needed and they will be able to spend £500m next summer, or £600m, or £700m - however much they need to. No one can compete with them. All of the players you mention will join whoever is prepared to pay them the most.

Newcastle or Spurs must be in the frame given their track record on recruitment.

This is different. This level of money does guarantee success. In fact, it could guarantee that Newcastle win absolutely everything. Technically, they could breach FFP by hundreds of millions, suck up the fines and points deductions and still win everything they enter. Suddenly the biggest clubs in Europe don't win stuff; unless they get bought by a Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk consortium. This one is a game changer. Liverpool/Man City and the rest cannot compete. They will get a little idea of how clubs like Norwich have been feeling for the last 25 years and they won't like it.

Some interesting but also some really ignorant statements on this thread - quite fun reading it all the way through and sifting through those posters who are actually aware of the world they live in and those who only really care about what happens in their postcode. Most Newcastle fans seem to belong to the postcode brigade and fail to see the irony of having to use a foodbank, not being able to afford to see them play, yet delighting in a £305m takeover by a £320bn organisation because "it's all about the football; the club is a part of the city" (because that clearly only applies in Newcastle). I can't deny them the happiness this has clearly brought them, even if it is based on misunderstood events and information. The hypocrisy of the the other billionaire clubs is unsurprising. Until we all stop paying Sky and BT to watch it, things will only get worse. Unfortunately there are enough worldwide supporters of billionaire clubs around the world who won't stop paying them. I suspect several tens of thousands of new Newcastle supporting subscribers are already signing up. In reality, Norwich have no chance of competing in this world. Our supporters are split between those who want to try, and those who don't because the moral cost of supporting your club in these circumstances is too high. It is quite a depressing thought that in only 30 years the Premier League and the other European Leagues have completely destroyed the fabric of the game and turned it into something that 99.99% of the world's population cannot relate to. This takeover moves the goalposts a bit further apart. The corporate ownership model of Man City, Man Utd and Liverpool moved on from the individual plaything model of Chelsea. Everton, West Ham, Leicester and others are stuck now. This one moves the State ownership model into play, (despite what the PL actually say, no "investment fund" really has £320bn to play with.) Newcastle will win the PL within two years and everyone on Talksport will be delighted with their ambition, completely failing to register that the "sport" they are talking about isn't really a sport anymore. The EFL should now be talking about breaking away themselves - rediscovering the game, divorcing from anything to do with EPL, UEFA and FIFA, introducing salary caps, streaming games for free etc. If they don't do that, they will completely disappear in a few more short years.

That's not strictly true. It has already impacted on the amount spent by Man City and Liverpool plus it was the main reason that Tuchel at Chelsea had only a limited amount to spend and they sold so many players this summer. It will take a while, but that will feed down eventually. The problem is it is quite easy to maintain turnover at a high level by entering into "friendly" contracts - especially sponsorships and "associations". To be fair, we have done that a lot over recent years too but at a much lower level. Newcastle think they will buy their way to success but it isn't that simple anymore. You can't just sign a £100m shirt sponsorship deal when your turnover is £152m. and your current deal is for £6.5m. Same problem for Norwich - even with a billionaire owner, FFP would severely limit our ability to pay high transfer fees and wages. All those out there demanding ownership change have never actually addressed this issue, but let's not let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating..

Those HUGE financial gains that we pay straight over to players and agents you mean?

The Newcastle fans don't seem to get FFP. Their 2020 accounts declared a loss of £54m on a turnover of £152m. They are already in trouble with the 3 year accounting allowing a £35m average loss, assuming that their 2021 figures are not a lot better. Their new owners will need to zoom up income by signing lots of lucrative contracts - so expect sponsorship deals galore with Saudia Arabian Airlines or someone similar within days; one for shirts; one for the academy; one for the canteen etc and all for really stupid money. But even that might not be enough to give them enough money to spend in the January window to buy themselves out of trouble. It would be hilarious to see Newcastle get relegated now.

A win would be great but another error-free performance is what we absolutely must get. We need to continue the progress of the last two games - not making it easy for them to score is the least we must achieve and being difficult to beat by being organised, disciplined and hard working is what we have to have as the starting block. Then maybe Farke can add the bells and whistles and we can start winning games. Scoring first would be nice.....