Yellow Rider

[quote user="City1st"] "2. we stood off them too much like frightened rabbits"   sums it up perfectly     [/quote] Agreed - too much of the ....''little old Norwich'' syndrome creeping in again I''m afraid. Came across with boring regularity on Rodeo Norfolk commentary! Seems CH has reverted to a Worthy type mentality when it comes to playing the top sides (although Spurs was a throw back to last season and proves we can compete with those top teams if our mindset is right). Expect much of the same v Arsenal and almost certainly a three or four goal defeat. Sorry, but unless we discover the fire of last season why should it be any different?    

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Resident Canary Stig"]I do enjoy your reports Ricardo, but what were your overall feelings? Were you convinced by them? Or would you rather be convinced by actions?[/quote] I have said before that I have been impressed with Bowkett and McNally. Those of us who have been to many AGM''s over the years will remember the amateur stuff from previous Chairmen and CE''s. I firmly believe we are in good hands with those two.  Bowkett said something that surprised me tonight about Delia and MWJ. He said that in proportion to their wealth they had backed the club to a far greater extent than any other owners in the Premier League. As to CH, he strikes me as a thoughtful and genuine guy. He is also a much better speaker than Paul Lambert ever was. I believe he will be a success at this club even if things are a bit hairy at the moment.  [/quote] Yeah - but that''s not exactly difficult is it! You thought Kenny Dalglish was impossible to understand until you heard PL open his mouth. Or should I say ....''mumble through pretty much closed lips'' becuase that''s what he does! 

[quote user="Karl Pilkington"] http://bluelagosontour.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/23-years-ago.html Not sure if this has already been posted, but this is a blog by an Ipswich fan who was there on the day. It does bring home how awful it must have been and how much things have changed for football fans since the 1980''s.   [/quote] Just scanned through it Karl - Wow, that must be the most emotional account of Hillsborough  I''ve ever heard. Frightening, terrifying, words can''t describe it. When I arrived home from Villa Park and the death toll was up to about 90 I remember sitting down on the settee with head in hands and wept. I feel the bloody same writing this at work 23 years on so what those who were as involved as that guy must have felt down the years just can''t be imagined.  I''ll print the thing off and keep it. Why? To make sure I never, ever forget that day. Even though I wasn''t there I have always said that Hillsborough was the worst day of my life. 23 years on that remains the case.       

[quote user="Infidel Castro"][quote user="Mungo Bumpkin"]1. What exactly waas going on outside the ground at the Leppings Lane end in the minutes leading upto the gates being opened? 2. What caused the crush - was it sheer weight of numbers spilling over from the turnstile queues or was it some fans trying to force their way inside ?  [/quote] This is covered in the report, p94-98. I''m not going to quote it all but its there if you want to read it. [quote]It has to be said that in the football world, the scousers have had a reputation (at big games) for some of their fans trying to............''bunk in''  (their expression). Even as recently as 2007, there was a serious (yet pretty much unreported) incident at Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi final. Then in the final at Athens it went a stage further with reports of fans stealing tickets off others with others actually forcing their way past ticket entrances. Inside the ground there was some serious incidents of fans getting crushed in concourses trying to get on to the actual viewing areas. Now, because (thankfully) no one was seriously injured or killed the papers and mainstream media did''nt run the story. Talk Sport did though and they gave it saturation coverage the next morning.[/quote] Regardless of these other events (that you provide no evidence for), two inquiries have found no evidence of significant numbers of ticketless Liverpool fans being a contributing factor to the disasters. [quote]Now just because ''bunking in'' happened in 2007 it sure as hell does not automatically mean that it was attempted in 1989.  Truth is we can''t be sure it didn''t happen. [/quote] Two inquiries have found no evidence that it happened, what more do you want? [quote]Camerons words have been twisted by scousers and others hell bent on blaming everyone other than the fans. What he actuallly said is very revealing:-   ''There was no evidence of EXCEPTIONAL levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness, arriving late'' etc. So some of this did hapen then.[/quote] Exceptional may be the word Cameron used, but in the report it is discussed in terms of significance. That is, whether or not drunkeness, ticketlessness, and lateness were contributing factors to the disaster, no evidence was found that suggested they were. Again, what more do you want?  [quote]My point to all this is that IF some fans were trying to force those gates down then they should take a share of the blame. Not ''all'' the blame,not ''most'' of the blame but ''part'' of the blame.  I retain an open mind on this until I can (if I ever do) research the whole report. Ijust have an uneasy feeling that as with other incidents it was all ....''their fault, nothing to do with the Liverpool fans or people''. Make no mistake this perception of the massive chip on the shoulder that scousers love to portray is widespread in the UK. If you were at the match at Carow Road late last season you will have heard what many City fans think about that"[/quote] If your aunt had balls she''d be your uncle, I don''t see how baseless conjecture trumps a 389 page comprehensive report with quotes and sources. [/quote] I will ignore that last comment Infidel but, seriously, you have clearly spent a lot of time on your research which I had not (at time of writing the post). You make (and quote) very good points. I will read those pages. Thank you for directing me to them. All I would say about 2007 is just because there was no ''enquiry'' does not automativcally mean those events were pure ''conjecture'' as you put it. Ask Talk Sport for a copy of their programmes that morning. It was rivetting lisening.   Anyway, I''m now off to find those pages, cheers.  

[quote user="Mungo Bumpkin"] Yellow Rider posted this very eloquent and insightful post on the other thread. Those jumping on this hysterical bandwaggon would be well served to read it. "I can understand your annoyance at the previous post but I must admit to being a tad disturbed at now being told that Liverpool fans were ...''entirely without blame'' ''totally exonerated'' etc.  Now let me get this straight, the findings released yeterday were shocking and you''re spot on in saying that those responsible for the cover up must be pursued and criminal proceedings (if necessary) brought against them. However, the pivotal moment of the whole day was the decision by Chief Supt. Dukinfield to open the gates. I have not yet read anything that (and to be fair it''s probably within the 400k pages somewhere!) specifically deals with that. Now notwithstanding the bungling, poor attitude and subsequent cover up by Mr. Plod, the fact  is that Dukinfield was placed in an invidious position. Open the gates and let everyone in with /without tickets or stand firm and quite possibly watch as fans got seriously injured  or died in the crush outside. What I really want to understand before I join this nationwide emotional bandwagon of unswerving support for the fans is:- 1. What exactly waas going on outside the ground at the Leppings Lane end in the minutes leading upto the gates being opened?   2. What caused the crush - was it sheer weight of numbers spilling over from the turnstile queues or was it some fans trying to force their way inside ? It has to be said that in the football world, the scousers have had a reputation (at big games) for some of their fans trying to............''bunk in''  (their expression). Even as recently as 2007, there was a serious (yet pretty much unreported) incident at Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi final. Then in the final at Athens it went a stage further with reports of fans stealing tickets off others with others actually forcing their way past ticket entrances. Inside the ground there was some serious incidents of fans getting crushed in concourses trying to get on to the actual viewing areas. Now, because (thankfully) no one was seriously injured or killed the papers and mainstream media did''nt run the story. Talk Sport did though and they gave it saturation coverage the next morning. Typically the main reaction from scousers was to blame - UEFA, the local police, the stadium, lack of tickets, in short everything and everyone apart from themselves. HOWEVER, there was one or two objective, sensible and realistic scousers who rang in with their side of the story. They confirmed the reports and one said pointedly.......''have our fans learned nothing since Hillsborough''    Now just because ''bunking in'' happened in 2007 it sure as hell does not automatically mean that it was attempted in 1989.  Truth is we can''t be sure it didn''t happen. Camerons words have been twisted by scousers and others hell bent on blaming everyone other than the fans. What he actuallly said is very revealing:-   ''There was no evidence of EXCEPTIONAL levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness, arriving late'' etc. So some of this did hapen then. My point to all this is that IF some fans were trying to force those gates down then they should take a share of the blame. Not ''all'' the blame,not ''most'' of the blame but ''part'' of the blame.  I retain an open mind on this until I can (if I ever do) research the whole report. Ijust have an uneasy feeling that as with other incidents it was all ....''their fault, nothing to do with the Liverpool fans or people''. Make no mistake this perception of the massive chip on the shoulder that scousers love to portray is widespread in the UK. If you were at the match at Carow Road late last season you will have heard what many City fans think about that" Very well put, sir. [/quote] Thank you for your comments Mungo. Unfortunately Hillsborough stirs very passionate arguments with balance and objectivity going out of the window. Ricky is right when he mentions the attitude of the Plod in the 70''s and 80''s. EVERY football fan was a potential thug in their eyes and I''ll never forget the worst memory of Hillsborough which was of a numbskull copper standing feet away from the front fence staring in defiance as poor souls slowly fainted and then died in sheer terror just in front of him whilst he did nothing to help! Most stories have two sides though. I have absolutely nothing against Scousers whatsoever but IF some were trying to force their way in then they MUST take part of the overall accountability surely?  If not then that gives an open door for any thugs to do just as they like and to hell with the consequences. Unfortunately we live in a society where everyone knows ''their rights'' but steadfastly refuse to accept any responsibility. It''s always someone elses fault.    

[quote user="ricky knight"]have you actually been watching the news, you sir are a prize xxxx.[/quote] Ricky, I can understand your annoyance at the previous post but I must admit to being a tad disturbed at now being told that Liverpool fans were ...''entirely without blame'' ''totally exonerated'' etc.  Now let me get this straight, the findings released yeterday were shocking and you''re spot on in saying that those responsible for the cover up must be pursued and criminal proceedings (if necessary) brought against them. However, the pivotal moment of the whole day was the decision by Chief Supt. Dukinfield to open the gates. I have not yet read anything that (and to be fair it''s probably within the 400k pages somewhere!) specifically deals with that. Now notwithstanding the bungling, poor attitude and subsequent cover up by Mr. Plod, the fact  is that Dukinfield was placed in an invidious position. Open the gates and let everyone in with /without tickets or stand firm and quite possibly watch as fans got seriously injured  or died in the crush outside. What I really want to understand before I join this nationwide emotional bandwagon of unswerving support for the fans is:- 1. What exactly waas going on outside the ground at the Leppings Lane end in the minutes leading upto the gates being opened?   2. What caused the crush - was it sheer weight of numbers spilling over from the turnstile queues or was it some fans trying to force their way inside ? It has to be said that in the football world, the scousers have had a reputation (at big games) for some of their fans trying to............''bunk in''  (their expression). Even as recently as 2007, there was a serious (yet pretty much unreported) incident at Stamford Bridge in the Champions League semi final. Then in the final at Athens it went a stage further with reports of fans stealing tickets off others with others actually forcing their way past ticket entrances. Inside the ground there was some serious incidents of fans getting crushed in concourses trying to get on to the actual viewing areas. Now, because (thankfully) no one was seriously injured or killed the papers and mainstream media did''nt run the story. Talk Sport did though and they gave it saturation coverage the next morning. Typically the main reaction from scousers was to blame - UEFA, the local police, the stadium, lack of tickets, in short everything and everyone apart from themselves. HOWEVER, there was one or two objective, sensible and realistic scousers who rang in with their side of the story. They confirmed the reports and one said pointedly.......''have our fans learned nothing since Hillsborough''    Now just because ''bunking in'' happened in 2007 it sure as hell does not automatically mean that it was attempted in 1989.  Truth is we can''t be sure it didn''t happen. Camerons words have been twisted by scousers and others hell bent on blaming everyone other than the fans. What he actuallly said is very revealing:-   ''There was no evidence of EXCEPTIONAL levels of drunkenness, ticketlessness, arriving late'' etc. So some of this did hapen then. My point to all this is that IF some fans were trying to force those gates down then they should take a share of the blame. Not ''all'' the blame,not ''most'' of the blame but ''part'' of the blame.  I retain an open mind on this until I can (if I ever do) research the whole report. Ijust have an uneasy feeling that as with other incidents it was all ....''their fault, nothing to do with the Liverpool fans or people''. Make no mistake this perception of the massive chip on the shoulder that scousers love to portray is widespread in the UK. If you were at the match at Carow Road late last season you will have heard what many City fans think about that.   

I went to The Cottage but (typically) missed today! For me the whole season was going to revolve round our approach to WHL. We all know how positive our play was (very largely) in away games last season and we finished with 5 wins and 5 draws. Compare that to the dross Worthy served up on the road (Southampton match excepted) in 2004-2005. We have never been a club who can successfully shut up shop and grind out a series of 0-0 draws away from home. In any event the travelling fans will not tolerate that  negativity and it would only lead to a truly dreadful away record and almost certain relegation. That was why the approach to the game and the performance was far, far more important than the result. From what I heard on the radio the performance was a throw back to last season in many respects and IF that is the basic philosophy and strategy that CH will adopt this season then we''ll be fine. Even after the late equaliser, the boys were still going for it apparently and that must surely put to rest the argument that many fans were spouting after the Fulham collapse as evidence that CH was a ''dreary'', ''negative'', ''boring'' manager.     I still have concerns about the strikers we have but if CH could not find the player he wanted without paying absurd amounts in transfer fees and wages then so be it. What is in no doubt is the improvements to defence and the additional quality, flexibility and competitiveness in midfield / wide areas.  

[quote user="Robert Parsons"][quote user="Hasslehound"]I would like to see Bassong straight in alongside Turner, who can hopefully put the Fulham game behind him. Garrido in for Tierney. Two up front as it''s clear Holt as the lone frontman still isn''t working. Vaughan makes sense partnering him but rumours persist there''s a move away lined up. Snodgrass switched to the right where he was so successful for Leeds. I imagine Hughton will stick with Howson and Johnson in the middle.[/quote] Snodgrass cannot be "switched to the right" as that is where he played (not very well) at Fulham. RP[/quote] Snodgrass is a left footed player so should play left wing!! Play him right side and you simply lose attacking width and crosses from the goal line as all he will do is hold the ball up and cut inside and run into trouble. I did''nt see him play much for Leeds I agree but I went to Elland Road in that pulsating league game in the Championship season and early on he was turning Rusell Martin inside out by playing left wing. Likewise Pilkington (essentially right footed) should play right wing, failing that in attacking role just off the striker. The guy is NOT a left winger for christs sake.    

[quote user="Chunky Norwich"] I think the only real benefit of getting a spanking on the opening day is that Hughton knows we have to change it and change it fast. Also hopefully he''ll give the players a bit of a rocket. Had we lost 1-0 or 2-0 yet still played the same formation and players acting sluggishly, we might have been able to brush it under the carpet and carry on for the next couple of games in exactly the same kind of vain, getting beaten again and again and again.   Fingers crossed that it was a wake-up call to the players and management as much as it was to the fans. Definitely more so with the transfer window looming - it may even convince the board to stump up a bit more cash. [/quote] Was saying exactly same thing to myself earlier - spot on. Saturday will have been just as much a wake up call to CH as to the players. IF (and I don''t support this theory) he is this ''negative, defensive, boring, rigid'' manager that the new critcics are saying then a 5-0 thrashing (+ the woeful (generally) performance) SHOULD be the slap in the face with a wet fish he needs. We will only tell that not from QPR when CH was always going to be more positive anyway but from the next couple of very difficult away games. If we see more passionate and bold style at WHL and St.James Park then that''s all we realistically want and can expect.   

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Since everyone else seems to have started a thread on the same subject...[;)] The new-broom effect of the new regime has obscured (for some at least) he uncomfortable truth that we because we are not top of the football food chain we are still subject to some harsh realities. 1. If we find a talented manager he WILL leave. The top six in my watching time, in alphabetical order, are Bond, Lambert, Macaulay, Saunders, Stringer and Walker. Saunders was sacked and Stringer effectively retired, burned out. The other four all walked out to join bigger clubs. There is no public evidence at all that we could have held on to Lambert, let alone anything to support the recent rather lonely thesis that the directors wanted him gone and may even have helped engineer his departure. 2. Apart from half a dozen or so world-renowned super-managers - whom we could never hope to attract - there is no guarantee that a new manager will do well. If I had a case of decent champagne for every post here expressing "total faith" or "total certainty" that McNally would choose the right successor to Lambert when the time came I would be very happy. And a bit tipsy. For starters, it was never going to be McNally''s decision, his major role in Lambert''s arrival notwithstanding. But more to the point, it is still laregly a lottery. As shown by the lack of consensus here when Lambert left. 3. We are still owned by paupers. The supposed riches of the Premier League are to an extent illusory. With the extra money comes extra expenditure. And we do have to pay off our hard debt by October 2013. Unless I am very much mistaken we are not going to arrange some new form of debt to pay off the existing debt. But what is hamstringing us in terms of attracting in players is not so much the debt - which is a short-term consideration - as our wage ceiling. Which is a much longer-term consideration. This is a guess, but I strongly suspect that all three promoted sides have a higher wage ceiling than ours, despite our squillions of pound in revenue from last season. That should be absurd. That shouldn''t be the case. But probably is. And we simply cannot take the risk of following the example of quite a few clubs we could all mention.[/quote] Top post Purple - nice to see some measured response to the mob who simply follow the herd based on each Saturday''s results. Win next week (especially if it''s with any conviction) and they will disappear, lose and they will be getting the noose ready for CH''s neck and the stands for the baying public will be erected in front of Norwich Castle!   I have had experience of hiring staff and no matter what process you go through, I totally agree that the end result remains (largely) down to luck. What is (or was) encouraging with the appointment of CH was the overwhelming goodwill and positive vibes from those in football and fans of Newcastle and Birmingham who spoke universally of admiration for the guy. Yet with one bad result the canary fanatics are ignoring all that and holding CH in same contempt as a certain Mr Roeder! Provided he plays two up front (and we need to get someone with real pace in there) and also plays wide men on their correct flank instead of on the wrong side (like yesterday!) then I''m sure we''ll do ok. CH deserves our whole hearted backing whilst not being immune to constructive criticism when required.       

[quote user="Robert Parsons"]I thought Snodgrass had a real nightmare debut. He looked slow, hesitant and uncomfortable in a wide right position. This meant that Martin was constantly exposed. Pilkington was not a lot better and Tierney faced the same defensive problems. I was amazed that Snodgrass did not play in a more advanced central position and this left Holt completely isolated chasing shadows. Bennett looked much more influential on the right once he came on. If he watched all the recordings of last seasons games CH must know that Holt cannot play up front alone and I certainly hope that there is a Plan B other than the Morro and Holt pairing with long balls knocked in that we had early in the 2nd half today. A really poor performance today. I just hope that important lessons have been learned early. RP[/quote] Points above are quite right. To jump on CH''s back after just one result (albeit dire performance for 70 mins.) is stupidity - look back at the posts when CH was appointed. It was universally applauded  by 99% of fans. Those criticising him now should take a long hard look in the mirror!  Having said that, though, the manager MUST do two things: 1. We do NOT have the players to play 4-5-1, 4-4-1-1 or any other kind of fancy (sorry, ''flexible'' system). Holt or Morro as the single striker is doomed to failure. We need two up front to stand any chance of causing defenders problems. That was proved time and time last season. For other systems to work you need at least two ''midfielders'' who you absolutely KNOW will get you 10 goals + (minimum). We do not have them - simple. 2. Snodgrass is a LEFT footed player so why the hell is he wide right!! Same goes for Pilkington who is esentially RIGHT footed but plays left side! Yes, by playing them on the other flank they can cut in and get the ball on their ''favoured'' foot but this at the expense of losing natural width and losing the ability to go down the outside of the full back, getting to the byeline and whipping in traditional, quality crosses that forwards love and defenders hate Its'' simple -''square pegs in square holes''! Address these two items and you''ll see a different team with more pace, natural width and two strikers with crosses to feed off.   

I certainly have mixed views on this. Sure - the boys need first team experience to harden and sharpen them up but the flip side of that is do we honestly want to be spending £1/2M + on someone who has ....''a long standing hip injury''??. No idea whether the reported fee is accurate of course but it could certainly be better spent I''m sure. My mind goes back to 2004-2005 when Worthy was obsessed with various aspects of the Premier League as he prepared for it that summer. Suddenly, never having had three first team keepers before we went out and signed two as back up to Green. The third was Ward who we splashed out £600k on. Neither he nor Gallagher played a single PL match for us that season so the money on the third keeper was a waste -  pure and simple. Our priority remains as I''ve said for some months now - another decent striker. Ther are serious question marks against three of the five current incumbents so if we end the transfer window with only Holt and Morrison then I fear a long, barren spell for the goals scored column.     

[quote user="thegovernor1"]just a heads up, a player from our club will be heading to Sunderland I believe it will be Wes Hoolahan. I''m sure I will get slated and someone will want to know the source but I cannot divulge on that info. The person is pretty reliable too. Many thanks[/quote] Not sure Wes is a Martin O''Neill type player so hopefully this rumour is untrue. Every player has his day though but I would be seriously jarred off if he was sold - the boy is one of the finest ever to pull on canary yellow. We''ve seen it before, fact is that when Wes is injured or left out we often look a shadow in terms of spark and creativity. If he is sold I fear we could regret that piece of business big style!. 

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"]We have 2 senior RB''s in Martin and Whittaker, and we also have Georgie Francomb coming through. I don''t know what sort of figure the Mail are quoting (they''ve probably made it up anyway) but I''d guess it will be £4m+ and frankly it would be mental to spend that (which would be a club record transfer) on a position we already have covered. [/quote]Martin wasn''t very good at right-back last season, but was a lot better as a central defender. Whittaker isn''t even renown for great defending in the SPL. Framcombe has very little experience of first-team football even in Leagues 1 & 2.[/quote] But didn''t every player who has ever played the game start off like Francomb, i.e. with absolutely zero experience? NCFC have''nt brought through one of our own youth players to become an established first teamer (certainly at this level) since Shackell and Green. We have to get away from this short sighted policy of spend, spend, spend.

[quote user="Row D Seat 7"]This season is so so vital. We all know that. I''m confident we can stay up and think that if we bought a decent striker it would just give us more potency in front of goal. Right now I feel like we just have an average looking front line. Holt isn''t going to score 15 goals again. Morison only performed for half the season last year so that doesn''t fill me with confidence. Jackson has frightening pace but massively lacks quality at Prem level. Vaughan is too injury prone to rely on. Chris Martin isn''t good enough.[/quote] Totally agree with this assessment - a quality striker (''quality'' at our level mind, we''re not talking about £30M on a Champions League level). The midfield looks good, potentially very good in fact. Up front is weak though on any objective analysis.

[quote user="City1st"]Oh dear, I do appear to have upset a couple of the former anti club brigade who have recently crawledc out of the woodwork.   Odd how they always seem to get upset when any pee taking of our impoverished neighbours is posted up. Why might that be you ask ?   If you think their stupidity is limited to not being able to read the local rag then fear not. Up comes one of the farmhands with this priceless piece of stupidity, when challenged about his dimwitted believe that our club will sell Howson and Pilks  " Why? Cos they would bring in some serious cash that''s why! "   And what would we do with that cash ? Buy a couple of players perhaps ?   Still, it''s nice to know that bin finding hasn''t grown any harder. A few rattles of the cage (pee  takes of their club) and up they pop, pitchforks a wavin''.   ps a suggestion my deluded rustics, try reading your local rag (Eadt) it''s on the net and you will find all you need to know about how skint your grubby little club is [/quote] Try answering my question about why you have such a total obsession with all things Ipswich please? Then, please justify how my posts can in anyway be deemed ''anti club''. I await your ''reasoned'' reply!!  

[quote user="City1st"]i wondered what the whingers and whiners would come up with next   Last season''s continual bleat that we would be doomed because we were not signing expreienced Premier League players was well and truly blown out of the water   This summer''s bleat about us not having any monrey to spend or not signing players has already been blown out of the water,so we now have   We have signed too many midfield players ! ! !   Of course the danger of scrabbling around for something to attack the club with is you can''t be too choosy about how stupid your squeak is   This one assumes that no players will be out injured or suspended, we will play four midfield players but have no midfield substitutes. We will not want the option of playing two wide players or flooding the midfield.   What i don''t hear is the squeaking about keepers .. yet. we have three players there for every place     [/quote] My word Walphy you certainly are a truly irritable and tunnel visioned City fan aren''t you! We all know about your perverted obsession with all things Ipswich, recently that perversion has extended to all things Leeds indeed anything other than a totally blinkered following of NCFC seems to provoke a stream of abuse from you. Before I bring you back to looking at my post again, perhaps you could explain why someone who hates Ipswich so much then reveals a more detailed knowledge of their history, their annual accounts, each players contract and indeed anything connected with the club than the most ardent Town fan?? That seems mighty strange to me.  Now back to my post - I am not (and never have) ''scrabbled around for something to attack the club with''. Nothing in my post gives any credence to that hysterical accusation. I am merely speculating that we appear to be overloaded with midfield players and believe that this COULD herald the departure of possibly one of last years established midfield members. I am perfectly aware thank you of the need for cover, competition, flexibility in tactics and formations and styles. Next time you post perhaps you might find it within yourself to exhibit some objectivity and modesty to the proceedings. More chance of the sun not rising in the morning though!  

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"]I''d argue that we''re going to play 5 in midfield a lot this season with various creative & dynamic midfield players crucial behind a lone striker. I''d also argue we need another midfield anchor, Johnson for me is limited in possession although there are few better at harrying opposition. Fox, Johnson, Howson & possibly another holding players if we''re using 2 central. Butterfield, Hoolahan & Surman as well if we''re using 3. Pilkington, Bennett & Snodgrass out-wide as well as Surman, Hoolahan & Butterfield in different systems. Crofts & Lappin will probably go, Smith/Adeyemi out on loan. Its a squad game & the key to our success is flexibility & rotation.[/quote] You seriously think we need ANOTHER midfielder!!

[quote user="Norfolk Mustard"]I wonder whether some of us have had rather too much sun today?! As expected, we appear to be making some positive moves in the transfer market - which will enable the club to allow some players out on loan or perhaps sell certain others. How on earth would that herald the departure of Howson or Pilks though? Mind you, if it were megabucks being offered... Lets remember, it wasn''t that long ago we had few (if any) players any other team wanted to buy! How things change eh? [/quote] My point exactly - pity others don''t follow the same logic.

[quote user="nu_matik"]WHAT ON EARTH ARE YOU ON ABOUT???!!! I love how some fans view things. we''ve been told we have a big budget for the year, and that includes wages. why do we need to see the back of Howson, one of our best players with a massive future and Pilkington who is also showing signs of a very bright future. There futures could well be here, so why does bringing in a player such as Snodgrass mean we are going to ship the top players out? surely its more likely we will sell off players such as Crofts and Korey as within those midfiles players we have versatile players such as Lappin who I think we may see more in a left back berth this year. There will definitely be players on the way out but why would we sell big performers such as howson and Pilks?[/quote] Why? Cos they would bring in some serious cash that''s why! I don''t want it to happen (particularly Howson), just saying I think it could be on the cards. Maybe Hoolahan then and not Howson - either way someone as well as Crofts will be gone by the deadline. We''re top heavy with midfielders but weak upfront. Not rocket science is it?     

Imminent arrival of Snodgrass means we will have *10* ''midfield'' players in the squad and that excludes Korey and the King of Spain! Of those here at end of last seaason I think most would agree that all bar Crofts acquited themselves to varying degress of Premiership competence with Howson looking a nailed on class player. Now of course we need cover and competition but 10 players to (logically) cover 4 positions? Sorry that doesn''t stand up. Unfortunately that can only lead to one thing and I fear ''big money'' sales of Pilkington and (more worringly) Howson. Even if they all stay, how on earth will we keep all 10 (or 9 if Crofts is shipped out) happy? Maybe, just maybe if we could raise some serious cash for, say, Pilkington and re-invest that in a decent striker then it might work. Holt and possibly Morrison apart, we are seriously weak and unreliable upfront.

Mixed views on this TBH - fact is Holt DID want to leave (and confirmed his intention after negotiations). He and his agent handled this badly from a PR perspective. Yes it would have cost us a shedload to sign at least one new striker but if we could have landed £4M+ (possibly up to £6M) I would have snapped that up for a 31 year old. Many fans will now demand Holt steps up to justify all this stuff (to say nothing of his new £20k + per week deal!). There will be no ''easy ride'' as he is the ''talisman'', ''old hero'' etc. If he struggles for form I can see fans quickly losing the faith with him. That would NOT happen had Holt and his agent shown more common sense and patience. On the plus side, Holt has proved himself in the Premier League and can do it again assuming he stays fit and motivated.    

[quote user="Dibs"]Getting these two with a 3 year deal would be a massive boost for the club and players alike as Hughton''s first signings. Just to see this announced "Culverhouse and Karsa sign new 3 year deal" would be fantastic. Please make this happen McNally & Hughton. [/quote] Why? They are unnecessary now (well certainly Karsa anyway). We have a new manager with his own assistant and first team coach. If CH alone was coming in then your point would be valid. They will only take away funds that could be put towards the higher priority of the playing budget! 

[quote user="SnakepitCanary"]Hell no, terrible manager. You say he has an eye for a good player, but most of his signings have been tripe. I know a few Leeds fans and they didn''t rate him at all plus they leaked goals. If he becomes our manager it could be Roeder number two.[/quote] Yeah? Bet they do now after the drift down the table under the clown Warnock. Bates always has been a fool when it comes to football and Grayson had done a damn good job at Leeds. All managers can make duff signings from time to time but I would certainly take him. We had some great matches against Leeds with Grayson in charge and he was always very complimentary about Norwich. Those who say...''awful manager'' are talking rubbish - ask Wes for a professional opinion.

[quote user="Lammy"]Yes Lambert certainly was not the cheap option when we first took him on. He should have been rewarded with a better contract by now however. Lee Clark currently has no job as he was unable to deliver success at one of the richest clubs in League 1 for over 3 years. We will be getting compensation if Lambert does go and should be spending every penny of this and more in recruiting a new management team unless we would like all of the hard work that has gone in over the last 3 seasons to be undone in next to no time. [/quote] Now I do agree with that strategy Lammy. Gone are the days (IMO) when we simply look for the cheap option. Equally though names like Benitez and the like are just plain stupidity. If it takes £2M+ to get a Chris Hughton or Gus Poyet then (if that is McNally''s choice) that is exactly what we will have to do.