Branston Pickle

[quote user="jas the barclay king"] [quote user="lfcman1"] ....even though I am a Liverpool supporter, I count Norwich as my second team and I think what the board have done to your team is ridiculous, Worthington should never have been sacked, [/quote]   yes he should.. and 12 months earlier than he was.... agreed with everything else u said though jas :) [/quote] ....except for the ''using club''s money for stupid pitchside hotels'' bit.  Whether it was right or wrong, it actually gained us £1.1m, with no cost.

[quote user="yoda"]problem is the board balls it up by giving  a 3 year contract to an unproven manager , while the scum were sensible and only gave madge a 1 year rolling contact .[/quote] ....hang on a minute, that would be a 1-year rolling contract similar to that which they gave Worthy, and which they were slagged off big time for!  The saying "damned if they do, damned if they don''t", springs to mind!!  You''d imagine that it is better for the club financially if PG walks rather than getting sacked, but who really knows the nuances of the contracts - you imagine he will leave by ''mutual consent'' and with a tidy sum.  One thing''s for sure, we sure as hell can''t keep paying up these managers'' notice periods, we are going to have to make damn sure we get the right guy this next time!  

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="cityangel"] So are all the people who are willing QPR to win on Monday going to support the Scum in November too?? [/quote] Not a bloody hope in hell of me backing the London overspill they call Ipswich, or any other team for that matter but i think your missing the point in other posters reasoning for wanting us to lose. I personally wouldnt want us to get beat by any club but i can at least understand why they see it such way. I actually would go as far as saying they are some of our biggest supporters. [/quote] Jeez, I''ll have to pretend (as it is something I''d not do) not to go to games, moan about anything and everything ad nauseum - and sometimes suggest that I want the opposition to win - then, perhaps, I will be classed as a ''big'' supporter.  At least we now know what we have to do! Clearly the ''000''s who go week in week out and travel the length of the country are missing something!! As far as I''m concerned your ''big'' supporter tag means absolutely nothing: you are either a supporter or you aren''t.  Period.  Whether or not you go to games is irrelevant, as is whether you spout off - for or against - on a message board.  I would say that there are those whose opinion I consider to be more ''valid'' on certain aspects - such as commenting on players/performance based on actually having been to games - but that is just plain common sense.   I would hope, at the end of the day, that we (presumably) all want to be as successful as we can, though may well have different opinions on how that can be achieved.  How ''big'' a supporter we are doesn''t come into it.

Not sure what you are suggesting about these odds - surprise? We are away from home, on a losing goalless streak, have scored one away goal so far, and still have a load of injury problems; they are at home for the first time under their new manager (ok, a caretaker, but he is probably after the position(?)) and have signed some new loaness in the meantime.  If it was us in those circumstances I would certainly expect a win.

It is almost a given that a side who is struggling will turn over their derby opponents, we''ve surely all seen it plenty of times - though I for one hope we have turned the corner well before then (ie tomorrow).  The first ever game I went to was a prime example - Easter 77/78 at Portaloo Road (''old'' Div 1) - the Binners were struggling in the bottom three, we were mid table.  We got stuffed 4-0 and they went on to safety and their FA Cup win.

QPR will probably put in a decent performance - first home game since they sacked the manager, and they''ve brought in several players on loan; no doubt Jarrett will score the winner - I''ll go for 2-1 QPR, the small bit of solace being that we at least end our drought! 

[quote user="Mark .Y."] I find it very difficult to believe that So''ton, in their current financial state, have agreed a £1M move for this defender. Did anybody really know much about him before he was linked to us ? Mark .Y. [/quote] I doubt any of us had heard of him, but he''s a Prem reserve so you''d imagine has something to offer most Championship clubs.  But that isn''t really the point: it was (and is) always going to be the case from the usual suspects that if he came here he''d be rubbish, if he went elsewhere he''s a great prospect and it is disgusting that we couldn''t get him.  Surely you know that by now?! It is quite interesting about Saints - I seem to remember in the week before we played them that they had a bit of a defensive ''crisis''; they signed Wayne Thomas straight away, and have since signed Mettomo until the end of the season, Dailly and Ifil on loan, and now Davies (if it happens - is not on their site).  In that time, we''ve signed Murray - who imo has been good at c-b - but this hasn''t really addressed the clear weakness in numbers at the back if we get injuries.  It is certainly getting daft that we still seem to be unable to get anyone in whilst others can - particularly Saints, who are meant to be skint.  

[quote user="Indy_Bones"] Great comeback there, clearly we''re all going to listen to the insults and inane ramblings of someone who feels that a person''s performance in their job should directly relate to the amount and level of socialisng that they are entitled to participate in. Saying that it''s ok if we''re top of the league, but a disgrace if we are not, is hypocrisy of the highest order. As long as the players are following the guidelines set out by the manager and club regarding their behaviour, and are attending training sessions and matches on time and acting professionally whilst doing so, there is absolutely nothing wrong with their actions. If it was the night before a match then I''m sure that the manager would have issues, and we''d have been likely to agree with your viewpoint in that situation, but it''s not. Why not drop the club an e-mail advising that you think all the players should be confined to Colney unless we''re in a playoff place, and if they even attempt to participate in any social activity, they should receive a strong birching and possibly be sacked. Sounds like the sort of madcap plan the current board may even consider... [/quote] It is certainly the case that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is a rather daft notion to suggest to be said that players should all mope about and almost behave like monks if things aren''t going well.  We are talking about a group of young men, mostly in their early 20s; it is hardly breaking any rules, even ''moral'' ones - for them to be out 4 days before a game.  Having players'' nights out was is indeed one of the things that supposedly helped build and enhance the camaraderie within the squad during the title winning season.  I''m pretty sure the rules have always been pretty clear what is expected of players - one of my mates used to be a regular Youth team player and showed me the ''rule book'' they had to abide by with regard to alcohol and the like, rules which went through the entire playing staff: I''m pretty sure it said they weren''t allowed ''anywhere that served alcohol'' for 24hrs before a game - I always thought that was rather harsh (and am not sure how it can be policed).  

[quote user="Smudger"] [quote user="gazzathegreat"]Okay Branston, the questions are ambiguous, sure, but it''s all publicity and the club might just not like it very much. Something other than the spin doctor column by Doncaster and the manager''s bit every week - up to now we really had to rely on Richard Balls. Let''s see what the results are and how they are presented before any of decide whether or not it has the desired effects.[/quote] I agree Gazza... I think that Archant have done a pretty good job here. Only 250 or so eople surveyed... but I do feel that the results give a pretty clear indication of how City''s fanbase currently view the state of affairs at Carrow Road. hehehe 2% content with the clubs current position and content that the club is moving in the right direction. Speaks VOLUMES really... whichever way you wanna look at it!!! Try throwing some positives on those statistics Percy''s..... [:D]  [/quote] If you think this is a pretty good job then you are more daft than I thought.  If there is such a groundswell of opinion opposed to the club/board etc, those people should be itching to have their say.  Well, for me, 251 responses (if that is what it ends up being) doesn''t come remotely close to cutting it.  Those wanting change are much more likely to react to something like this (those ''accepting'' of the status quo don''t tend to bother), so the results are not particularly surprising (also considering we just dropped into the bottom 3) - but the number of respondents must be considered disappointing for anyone trying to suggest that the majority want change: it actually seems to suggest that apathy rules rather than anything else.  [Perhaps there is more to come when other respondents are taken into consideration?  If not, then it really is a case of ''oh dear'']. Before anyone goes off on one at me, I don''t doubt for a minute that a growing number of people are (quite genuinely) unhappy with various things - me included - but imo this doesn''t really shed any new light on it.  If EEN/Archant are going to do a ''survey'', they should do it (at least something approaching) properly.  It is not really that difficult (perish the thought, but they could even approach the club [ie use their supporter database] - they too must want to know what their fan/customer base is thinking), and it would give something ''real'' for people to actually get stuck into.  All that said, imo there is actually some interesting stuff in the ''survey'':  the comments about what is good/bad suggest that even those who are "dissatisfied/angry" (seemingly 98%, 243 people) still have a number of positive things to say about the club (unlike Smudger, lol), and the negative things seem to be generally calling for improvement rather than wholescale change which is much more ''upbeat'' than a lot of the stuff on here.

Er, this is not at all new news.  This is talking about something from 2003 - I recall several stories about it at the time, so we all knew about it and I don''t recall any complaints then.  But this seems to be "rake over any old news and slag the club off with it" week, so perhaps we shouldn''t be surprised.  The simple fact is that the loan was mostly used to pay for the new Jarrold stand (and presumably the infills).  If we hadn''t taken out a loan, how else would it have been built/paid for, exactly?  The old stand needed replacing, the alternative was a 3-sided ground holding c15000.  I am sure we''d have all been well happy that!!  

Yup, pretty shocking - Celtic will quite rightly be punished for the incident, but the keeper''s reaction was a joke: perhaps he realised that he could get Milan something out of the game after all, by cheating.  [incidentally, the defender keeping 2 celtic players onside looked decidedly uninterested about defending, ambling about in the middle of the penalty area!!]

...oooh deflected shot onto the post for Scunny - about time we had some luck, need to capitalise on it.

[quote user="kettering canary"]Don''t know but in the last few seasons we seem to score more towards the river end.[/quote] That''s because in recent seasons we ''had to earn the right to play'' in the first half (per Worthy), so tended to score more in the second (ie in the river end).   It does pee me off, being a Barclay season ticket holder (who couldn''t go today, 3 hrs each way driving with the ''flu was never going to happen)....I always thought sides preferred to kick towards their ''noisier'' fans in the second half, so why not us?

[quote user="macdougalls perm"] [quote user="blahblahblah"]Here''s a thought, maybe the main problem is not entirely anyone, maybe, just maybe, it''s a combination of many things over the last few seasons, such as the transfer window system, increased player-power due to legal rulings like Bosman, ridiculous money being thrown at the Premiership by Sky, Setanta, and Virgin, the draw against Crystal Palace in the first Premiership home game, the six-niller against Fulham,  Dean Ashton sulking instead of playing in the post-relegation season, Earnshaw being forced to live off the long-ball, Dave Cotterill signing for Wigan on the same day that Leon McKenzie vowed never to play for Norwich again, injuries to key players at the worst possible time this season and last, those new-fangled boots that seem to cause an infinite number of ankle ligament injuries, ridiculous money being quoted for loan signings for replacements to key players that get injured, the current manager being over-critical of players when they''ve been performing, the previous manager being over-protective of players when they haven''t been performing, both managers buying some duff players, and who doesn''t, the board of directors (not just the cook or her husband) failing to buy Derbys'' player of last season Steve Howard, the board of directors pushing 3 or 4 million more than was arguably sensible into long-term money earners to create cash-flow and getting caught out by player wage inflation, or a lack of confidence in the current players that we rely upon to pull the trigger in front of goal or make a killer pass.  Not to mention 101 million other things that either don''t make the public domain or that I couldn''t remember. Or we could just blame that cook or her husband - let''s do that then, it''s easier. It''s a team game Bly. [/quote] Exactly! [/quote] I''m with blah; can see where BBB is coming from, but I just don''t agree. 

Whilst this exercise might be worthwhile in theory, the questions and method of undertaking it certainly are not if anyone is meant to draw anything remotely useful from it.  A "Major survey" as the pinkun header calls it, is something it most certainly isn''t.  I spent several years studying surveys/polls, and the compilation of questionnaires, and for anyone to draw any conclusion from this one would be misleading in the extreme. The method of getting the information has so many holes in it it is laughable.  There is nothing stopping people from making multiple entries - I have 5 separate e-mail addresses, what is stopping me from using them to make my point?  Apparently nothing.  I could also seek out as many of the people taking notes at the game as I wanted.  Quite why I would is beyond me, but the point is that people can.  The data is therefore probably flawed.  It is also rather interesting that the results will be out Thursday - how does this allow those take part who do not have e-mail (c35% of the population, presumably more in many areas) or go to the games/don''t have time to answer? The questions are also full of ambiguity and many can be interpreted differently: for example, No 2 asks what you think of the current position of the club but what are we talking about?  - Its position in the League? [Angry] In financial terms? [Content] How we are performing generally? [dissatisfied] How the Board is performing? and so on.   The answer to any of these could quite reasonably be different to the previous, so how do we know what question is being answered.  We don''t, the question is ambiguous such that any data gained cannot be considered valid. Wiz says that the board won''t act on it as if this would be horrendous - but why on earth should it?  It is flawed before it starts and we all know exactly what it will say.

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Branston Pickle"] Yawn.  The same old brigade come out to support the most pointless tripe I think I have ever read on here....and that takes some doing.  You choose to skate over the fact that almost every club in the Championship is in debt, that NCFC had to rebuild large chunks of the stadium (or would we prefer a c13500 capacity that we''d have otherwise), that player wages have (something like) tripled since 1992 just for our level....and so on.    And the oldest chestnut of them all, Saint Chase - anyone would have thought we were mega-rich and riding high in the Prem when he was forced out, rather than sailing so close to the wind that we had to sell players to keep the banks off our backs....oh, and lying to O''Neill about the finances so much so that he walked out.... ...I expect the usual facile response from Cluck. [/quote] Yep...and the same old apologists brigade comes out to defend the indefencible.... Small mind...small ambition and the usual garbage to prop up your dated and already failed argument. I guess you won''t be protesting come Tuesday then? Too busy muffling your saviour''s ears no doubt?  No facile response Dickle....just honesty and fact as usual. Look them up on Wiki.......... [/quote] Predictable as always, you couldn''t fail to let me down. And with the usual unoriginal retorts to anyone that disagrees with your view, too. I wonder, should I feel honoured or something? The sad part is that if you actually bothered actually reading one of my posts you would know I am not an ''apologist'' in the derogatory way you mean.  I have little feeling either way for the board or its members and to a large extent I couldn''t care less who is on it.  But you just carry on, you seem to have decided otherwise. One fact is that Delia Smith''s buyout of shares/loans to the club did help it out when it was in trouble.  Unlike you (it seems) though, I''ve never met anyone who sees her as the club''s saviour; I''m sure it would have survived in the same way that others have. 

Yawn.  The same old brigade come out to support the most pointless tripe I think I have ever read on here....and that takes some doing.  You choose to skate over the fact that almost every club in the Championship is in debt, that NCFC had to rebuild large chunks of the stadium (or would we prefer a c13500 capacity that we''d have otherwise), that player wages have (something like) tripled since 1992 just for our level....and so on.    And the oldest chestnut of them all, Saint Chase - anyone would have thought we were mega-rich and riding high in the Prem when he was forced out, rather than sailing so close to the wind that we had to sell players to keep the banks off our backs....oh, and lying to O''Neill about the finances so much so that he walked out.... ...I expect the usual facile response from Cluck.

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="cityangel"] Whats the point in asking the question if you''re just going to rubbish any replies.   [/quote] Read the start of the friend ''Enlighten me'' In other words make me see different.......Nope yet to see it, Do you understand CA? [/quote] Why on earth should people attempt to ''enlighten'' you?  The only way any of your posts has ever ''enlightened'' me is to realise how grateful I am that I''m an optimist rather than a pessimist; given that you appear to be very much the latter, I can''t honestly see what anyone could say on here to change your view or why they should even try. I''m sure we can all form our own opinions on things, you should just accept that people will not always agree with your viewpoint.  This is surely what makes football so interesting.  As far as I''m concerned, there really isn''t a ''right'' or ''wrong'' in most of what is happening at the club, merely shades of each - not that you would think so if you believe the garbage put forward by some who have to look on the negative side of anything and everything.    

[quote user="Old Boy"][quote user="MK Canary"]Because he criticised Curo less than a month ago for "being greedy" in the box and taking a shot at goal when he could have, in Grant''s words, passed it [/quote] And he was right in that instance too, as it happens. It''s the difference between being too greedy and being too unselfish, do you see? Cureton''s effort deprived Strihavka of an almost certain goal, whereas Croft should have shot rather than passed. [/quote] Good grief -  we are getting into really scary territory if people are going to dredge up quotes from a month ago to have a go at PG.  As Old Boy says, both statements are fine: there are times when the better choice is to shoot, times when it is better to pass; Grant just wants the players to be making the right choices.  It is not rocket science.

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"] Totally agree megson. I would love Neil Doncaster to answer the paragraph above I have highlighted in bold, actually I don''t know if I would because imho he would not answer it honestly as it would make him look stupid if he did.  The club did say we had a wage structure to take into account relegation, therefore loss of parachute money should not have a bearing. [/quote] If it ''took relegation into consideration'' why should this mean anything other than that the players remuneration was scaled back, rather than reduced to the pre-Prem level?  We had a wage bill of >£9m last year (the club was criticised for it being this high) which backs up my possible explanation, and they have apparently reduced it by £1.5m this last year which has to be good. I think the problem of reducing revenues due to a loss of parachute money is a fact of life, Southampton have also lost their parachute money this season and had to sell several players and are meant to be in a bit of a mess.  It can be difficult to cut the expenditure back accordingly - we all get used to having more money when our salaries increase (to a level we would have thought we didn''t need a few years ago) and I''m sure most would struggle if we then lost a large portion of that money.  I think this, in general terms, was what the FD (in her comments in the pinkun article) was talking about.

If it is the case that there is a falling out, IMO there should only ever be one winner in a stand-off between a club and a player...and that is certainly NOT the player - unless you want complete anarchy. 

[quote user="mystic megson"] More cowardice from the board.  They talk about a £7m "black hole" without the parachute money, which is meant to make us think that it''s caused by the loss of the parachute money. The parachute money was effectively a bonus which most clubs don''t have.  Its original purpose was to meet the shortfall between Prem wages and Champ income, but we didn''t need most of it for that purpose because (or so they told us) they had a wage structure which took relegation into account.  Loss of the parachute money simply means we are back on a par with most other clubs in this division (but with higher gate receipts than most). There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing. Won''t they ever take responsibility for their actions? [/quote] I would imagine the ''taking into account'' of relegation merely reduced wages in line with the reduced tv money (ie the parachute payment), not that it wasn''t needed.  I don''t think any suggestion was ever made that the players went back to their old wages, merely that relegation was taken into consideration in ''realigning'' them - but I might be wrong.    I have to say that a lot of what has been written on this thread seems to be rising to the rather emotive (and incorrect) term ''black hole'' which was used in the pink un article regarding the club''s accounts.   All this refers to is what was already known by everyone: that there will be a £7m reduction in revenues in the 07/08 financial year due to the loss of the parachute money.  This is not ''new'' news, and I can''t see how it can be construed a ''black hole''.  Of course it needs to be covered, but it is/was known about and has been budgeted for (per Chairman''s comments earlier this summer), so is far from being a ''black hole''. As to whether we should be paying a CEO as much as Doomcaster is on (+ Bonus), is another thing altogether.  It does seem rather a lot for a business which is doing far from well, but in the big wide world is probably not all that much.

[quote user="Cluck "] There''s "spin" and there is "fact" Fellas......and it seems only some of us are able to differentiate one from the other. Totally over the top comments as usual from the apologists who have stood by (or sat comfy in their seats at home) as the club spiralled down the plug hole. If you sit at home in some far flung part of the UK or the wider world what does it really matter to you? You may not have pumped hundreds of pounds into the club over the past decade or so only to be dished up with crap....so what does a bit of failure matter to you? You may not have been alive/around/human (delete as app.) when this club actually meant something in football...so now that we''re the laughing stock you''ve become used to...what does it matter? You won''t accept the truth behind this "Delia the Saviour" myth and so continue to suck in the spin...so why does it matter that she is bleeding the paying public while lining her own celebrity nest? Open your eyes sunshine.....and you might just begin to see the light. [/quote] Where to start with this small minded garbage.... ....people''s opinions on this board are rarely fact, they are almost always opinion.  A fact is something that you can prove has happened.  As a result, any prediction, negative or positive, cannot possibly be considered fact.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is just wrong.  We are all entitled to our opinions, but there are some who seem to think theirs are more worthy than others - this is, quite simply, crap, whoever you are.  ....the idea that people who live somewhere other than Norwich can''t support Norwich and don''t care is just pathetic.  Indeed, it is almost the opposite.  I know dozens of long distance fans who put a huge effort to get to games week in week out, the idea that they don''t care is laughable.  To me their opinion of what happens is worth twice (or more) that of some jumped up person sat in/near Norwich pontificating about their club who they can''t even be bothered to go down the road to watch. ...I don''t think most people really care two hoots who is Chairman, ''owner'' or manager - it is about what happens on the pitch (which isn''t good at the moment).  There is a myth that the most negative posters seem to bandy about that ''positive'' supporters consider Delia to be a saint.  The fact is that we were in a financial mess when she took over, but she hasn''t ''given'' the club £millions, she has loaned it and bought shares.  This did help the club at the time, but if she decides to bail, we are screwed.  If you''d like to come up with an alternative and buy Delia out, feel free - but just harping on about her doesn''t really do a great deal of good. ..."You may not have been alive/around/human (delete as app.) when this club actually meant something in football".  When was this, exactly?  As much as I am loathe to say it, other than for a couple of seasons in the early 90s we have hardly set the footballing world alight; a side who until the 1970s spent its entire existence in Div 3(S)/Div 2 can hardly be considered ''something'' in the footballing world any more than the likes of Coventry (no disrespect to them). I could go on, but really can''t be bothered. 

Can''t see you getting too many backers for your optimism, but you are certainly right that there are 4 ''easier'' games coming up.  What seems so strange to me is that people really do seem to have forgotten that when the fixtures came out a few months ago there was general agreement that we had a really tough looking opening 6-7 games.  The overriding opinion at the time seemed to be that Grant and the side should be given time to bed-down/get it right, and not judged over this opening period.  You''d have to say that even the most positive person can''t think that the performances have been great so far, but it is interesting how so many people are willing to change their opinion now that the reality of the tough start has hit home; the idea of not judging on the opening games has gone well out of the window....

[quote user="Smudger"] I can guarantee it will when people like you who do not have the first clue about football move on over!!! [/quote] ...so speaketh the one who last season said "we will be relegated: FACT", and predicted no points from the first two games this season....thereby proving that you do have ''the first clue''?  Hmm....