Jump to content

Glutton for Punishment

Members
  • Content Count

    86
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by Glutton for Punishment

  1. [quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]there''s "just" 3 mid-lower table teams who are already on their holidays standing between us and the Premiership..........................we really cant blame anyone or anything if we dont do it from here!?![/quote] You can''t go around saying things like that! It just adds pressure! I''m a nervous wreck as it is.
  2. Putting to one side the odd suggestion of dropping Hoolahan and returning to the point of the original post, in my opinion Surman is off the pace at the moment does not not gel with the team. Surman was not terrible yesterday and he played his part in a successful team performance (especially 2nd half) but he was the weakest link. Too often yesterday our attacks lost momentum when the ball was with Surman and apart from dead balls did not get a cross in. Drury was the only one putting crosses in from the left. I think that there is a lot more to come from Surman but Lappin has more to offer at the moment. It is good to see competition for this place and Surman should use that to up the tempo in training.
  3. The word lightweight has been used a couple of times earlier in this thread and for me that is the term that summed up the first half last night. Crofts is the only one who is competitive in a tackle and it showed in a half where we were second to everything. Too often possession was lost and Watford broke forward at pace, exposing our pedestrian centre backs. As a result we defended deeper and deeper which isolated the front two even further. With no physical presence up front there was no outlet. The second half improved markedly with the midfield and defence much sharper, winning possession and breaking up attacks. Playing more to their offensive strengths Fox, Surman and Crofts got in to the game more. Fox needs to have more to his game to play at the base and is perhaps better suited to a 442 playing alongside a ball winner. Korey would be better in a diamond formation. I thought that Surman did not do enough and needs to work better with Drury and he could be replaced like-for-like with Lappin. The key to our success or otherwise this season lies with the centre backs and last nights performance is a cause for concern. Let''s hope that Whitbread can provide a solution but with his injury prone-ness and Askou not offering anything different to Nelson and Ward, I would really like to see a strong Martin Taylor type leader brought in.
  4. From Great Yarmouth. Now living in Nantwich, Cheshire and working on my two boys (6 and 9) to follow the green and yellow. Unfortunately had to buy one Liverpool and the other a Man U kit for xmas. NCFC only make ''second'' team status currently but they are only young yet. Plenty of time to see sense....
  5. That second half was so bad it has got be deliberate! I''m a big fan of Korey Smith but how he was not subbed tonight I don''t know. He looks like he needs a break.
  6. [quote user="SimonOTBC"]Glutton for punishment, what exactly did lambert do wrong?![/quote] Wrong choice of substitutes and wrong choice of first replacement when Hughes had to go off. Martin is not a left midfielder. Daley is not man enough for this league.
  7. [quote user="SimonOTBC"]Spot on. Our game plan would have worked perfectly without the injuries. We would have scored again I''m sure, and they wouldn''t have put us under so much pressure[/quote] And in an ideal world nothing would ever go wrong! The manager has an opportunity to triumph in the face of adversity on nights like tonight and Lambert didn''t. I don''t blame him for our loss as the injuries were pure bad luck but Lambert did not inspire confidence in me tonight.
  8. Sorry to be picky but that''s some of the worst spelling I have seen. I thought Cheltenham was posh! I agree about McVeigh but Martin was hopelessly out of position. He should have been up front with Horse instead of lightweight Daley. Martin took a good goal but undid it all with an awful tackle to give away the penalty, although he should never have been in that position in the first place.
  9. [quote user="SimonOTBC"]Mk dons were pretty average in my opinion, puncheon was decent, other than that. We simply gifted them two goals. The ref wasn''t great, but we can''t blame him. I have no doubt that had Hughes stayed on we''d have won that. We''re too weak in midfield, smith and adeyemi are ok/decent players, but without Hughes around to put his foot on the ball and use it we''re a bit poor. Gill and tudur-jones won''t help, they''re not good enough on the ball. Mcveigh was the only midfielder to show any creativity. Lambert has a lot to do, but, I''m encouraged (sadly) by how poor our opponents have been. A draw would have been fair tonight, mk dons created very little. I''m sure the moaners will come on here and say we''re useless etc. but fact is everything went against us tonight.[/quote] You were obviously watching a different game to me if you thought a draw was a fair result. We were hanging on for the last 70 minutes! I agree that not a lot went for us tonight and the three injuries really screwed us up. After the injury to Hughes you would be forgiven to think that we had gone down to 10 men. After saying that the injuries were a large part of our downfall, I was desperately disappointed with how we fell apart thereafter. Lambert certainly did not pull any master strokes and whilst he was not exactly responsible for our downfall tonight he did not help matters either. It was a pretty poor night all in all and more than anything it tells me that Lambert has a hell of a job to get us competing at the top of this league. Sorry if that''s too much of a moan for you but I believe in facing up to the realities of the task ahead rather than pretend that tonight was anything like acceptable for a Norwich City team.
  10. Rudd Semi Doc Askou Drury WLY Hughes Smith Lappin Holt Cureton Subs: Nelson, Steer, Adeyemi, Hoolahan, McDonald, Tudur Jones, Dumic Assumes that Alnwick won''t make it. Whaley doesn''t deserve to get on the coach after his display on Monday.
  11. [quote user="Bury Yellow"]Apologies if anyone else has said something similar but just got back via the Attleborough Indian (Very very nice). Quite simply Lambert selected a team with a few players that are going to be very doubtful in Lambert''s future team. His obvious philosophy was '' If I give em enough rope they will hang themselves. So stand up Doc, Tudor Jones and Whaley for starters!!! Due for a visit to the Manager''s office shortly I wager. Oh the joy in having a proper Manager running this club at last. That''s all folks. A very good night to you all.[/quote] Agree about the nature of Lambert''s selection and hopefully we shall never see Whaley in a city shirt again. Tudur Jones is young enoug to be shipped out again but whilst the Doc did not cover himself in glory tonight he still has a role to play at this level.
  12. [quote user="Dronny Canary"]As I''ve said somewhere else, its not just the back four at fault. We don''t defend as a team. Our midfield as also culpable. They simply don''t track back, they wonder out of shape and they don''t take responsibility for their man. Because of this our "defence" gets too exposed far too easily. This is partly because we don''t seem to have any real leaders in this area in the team to get stuck into the rest of them and sort it out. We need a "character" solid central defender and a similar player in the centre of midfield. [/quote] I have to agree with this. The defensive unit is not just the back four but the entire team. The blame for the shambolic first half defensive display can not just be conveniently placed at Doherty''s feet. The defence was horribly exposed by Whaley''s non-existence, Hoolahan''s tendency for showing off with no end product and a woefully inadequate central midfield partnership. I''m afraid that we need more than ''a character''. We need bite in midfield and most importantly some shape as a TEAM.
  13. [quote user="rjwc22"] And we will stay in the third tier at best if we continue to sell our top players and not replace them. Obviously Clingan has not been sold yet and we might replace them, just talking from experience. I like the way Leeds have shown some ambition by denying a much more saleable asset in Beckford the chance to leave even though he only has a year left.  It is really hard to keep players when they want to leave but do not think that is the case with Clingan, think it is more the club want his wages off the books.  Just hope they tell us why he is sold. [/quote] I agree with this entirely. The dumbing down of our team continues unabated. Clingan''s replacement is already here - see OTJ who cost nothing unless we get promoted. I know who I''d rather have even if it means losing him for nothing at the end of the season. Players will stay if the club refuses to sell. NCFC is a soft touch and this is yet another sign of the desperate financial straits the club is in. This move driven by financial necessity rather than a strategic move to build a team capable of promotion. Another season of toil and turgid football becons.
  14. Norfolk schools, Gorleston Youth, Anglian Comb, Sunday league, knackered ACL 6 years ago.
  15. [quote user="foggo7"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"] Surely posts such as this have the sole intention of widening the divide between fans? What are you trying to achieve Badger? Already you have attracted snide remarks such as the one above. I''m no great supporter of NCISA but surely if you do not agree with their recommendation all you need to do is ignore it. You have made your position clear about this issue umpteen times on other posts. I happen to agree with NCISA''s recommendation but I respect other fans'' choice to disagree. [/quote] I think to a point the NCISA achieve this themselves, they appear to only raise their heads to cause trouble for the club in melodramatic acts, meetings and statements, I feel it''s a shame they do not try harder to forge links with the club owners so sensible debate can take place, then we can all unite within that arena. Acts such as encouraging us to claim our rebates which obviously leaves the club with less money are not the acts of an organization that wishes to converse freely at board level. [/quote] NCISA are of course leaving themselves open to negative comments with such a bold statement but I guess they felt they had a mandate to do so from the meeting at St Andrews Hall. I''m sure that they would like to converse at board level but it takes two you know! The entrenched owners do not want to talk to anyone because they can''t take critism and can''t bear to have their decisions questioned.
  16. [quote user="USAcanary"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"] Surely posts such as this have the sole intention of widening the divide between fans? What are you trying to achieve Badger? Already you have attracted snide remarks such as the one above. I''m no great supporter of NCISA but surely if you do not agree with their recommendation all you need to do is ignore it. You have made your position clear about this issue umpteen times on other posts. I happen to agree with NCISA''s recommendation but I respect other fans'' choice to disagree. [/quote] So what you are saying is its OK for NCISA to show disent towards the club if they disagree but I cant show dissent towards NCISA if we disagree with them. Consider my mind blown.[/quote] I''m sure it isn''t difficult in your case. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from my post. Read it again, particularly the part that says "I respect other fans'' choice to disagree".
  17. Surely posts such as this have the sole intention of widening the divide between fans? What are you trying to achieve Badger? Already you have attracted snide remarks such as the one above. I''m no great supporter of NCISA but surely if you do not agree with their recommendation all you need to do is ignore it. You have made your position clear about this issue umpteen times on other posts. I happen to agree with NCISA''s recommendation but I respect other fans'' choice to disagree.
  18. [quote user="T"] GMP. I''ll leave the mud-slinging to you. You suggested that I have a modicum of financial knowledge- I was meanly pointing that I so happen to look at this stuff professionally and therefore I am qualified and experienced to know that a lot of the criticisms as Peter Cullum has pointed out are unfair and unkind and quite frankly utter nonsense as anyone with business and finance knowledge knows and is backed up by the support for the club from the associate directors.  People are free to post complete and utter abusive rubbish and I''m free to challenge it in the same provocative manner as the critics posts. What concerns me which was my challenge and point of my post which know one has addressed is that the abuse that benefactors receive could put off future benefactors. I have no problem with the criticism of decisions but the unconstructive abuse of benefactors of the club when they have put more time affort and money into the club then their critics has more to do with emotion, ignorance and jealousy then a real undertanding of the facts. It is pure hyprocrisy to expect the directors to hand control of their investments without recompense to a billionaire when people are not willing to forfeit their rebate let alone spend half their lifetime wealth on the club. I don''t see how the club not having additional funds because of people''s entrenched emotion, inadequacy, jealousy and ignorance of the facts will achieve anything either. Do you? [/quote] T - I think your post was aimed at me rather than GMP. Once again your trumpet sounds loud and clear. I have no doubt that you are the captain of industry and financial genius that you claim you are. I don''t know why you have introduced abuse of the owners. Critism from me yes, abuse certainly not. PC''s comment is of course laudible but I did not read that he thought DS & MWJ were beyond critism. From where I''m sitting the emotion and ignorance is clear from your posts, and no, I don''t think it achieves anything. The only measure of achievement for me is the success of NCFC on the football pitch. The current regime has presided over our downfall and caused financial difficulties for the club despite the tremendous loyalty of fans. I have no faith in DS & MWJ being able to reverse the trend and so look forward to their departure from the club as soon as possible. Buying shares will delay that. The fact that they have reduced their value of their investment is a shame for them but I can have no sympathy when it is entirely their own doing.
  19. [quote user="LQ"]G4P (that seems to be the accepted nickname?) the point is that I have absolutely no desire to prolong the agony. For me however, the agony is being in League One for any longer than is absolutely necessary and as I''ve said before, in this game money talks! Who ''owns'' the Club is neither here nor there for me - all I care about is that there is a club to support. It seems to me that far from posters like me who are constantly accused of being "in bed with the Board" or "celebrity lovers" etc (all very dull and rather silly) it''s the ones who are so fervent and vindictive who are the people obsessed with celebrity. We are where we are and I haven''t heard a clip clop of a glorious charger making its wa down Carrow Road yet! So let''s just get out of this mess asap is my motto and to do that we need money. Surely we stand more chance of this shining knight turning up if we''re on the up? And it will be hugely evident to anyone who was thinking of coming in that this is a club where the fans do get behind the team - in the good and the bad times. [/quote] LQ - I have no doubt that your agony is as great as any other City fan. Your thread is taken at face value and whilst I am aware that you have had disagreements with posters on other threads, none of the accusations that you find tedious have been mentioned until you brought them up. It is very easy to take comments personally on this forum and it seems that our difference of opinion has struck a raw nerve in this case. We will have to agree to disagree and live with it. My view is that there is plenty of finance in the club to do well in League 1. The problem lies with those tasked with spending it and therefore I do not agree with throwing good money after bad. Just because I do not support your suggestion does not mean that I am critisising your idea or make me a better or worse fan than any body else. We all want success for our club but I just happen to think that we will only get success when DS & MWJ have gone.
  20. [quote user="GMF"]G4P, does this mean, therefore, that you''re against any new share purchases that would increase the working capital of the Club?[/quote] That''s obviously a leading question and I''ll stand by for the bashing, but yes, on the basis that buying shares will bolster the position of the current owners, I do not support it. No amount of tinkering around the edges is going to help our cause. The club has sufficient resources to have a competitve edge over the majority of League 1 clubs (and the Championship for that matter) and therefore comfortably secure at least a play-off place. They should not need hand-outs when there are 18,000 season ticket holders, rebate or no rebate. The club is failing due to the board''s inability to utilise these resources efficiently. I will not support any move to give them yet more resources to squander. The only way to reverse our decline is to replace the board and culture created by DS & MWJ. The club is no doubt going through a painful process of cost (i.e. non-playing staff) reduction this summer and if done correctly this should provide much more than the potential from new share purchases. The fact that there is so much off-field overhead to cut is testamony to incompetent management to date.
  21. [quote user="GMF"][quote] Purchasing shares will achieve nothing more than support these policies. [/quote] And if those shares were being purchased by either the Supporters Trust, what then? [/quote] The same in my opinion. The only additional element with NCST is that they seek to get a fan on the board, which is not desirable because any board presence would not have any say, be bound to confidentialty and give the board the opportunity to promote themselves as listening to fans. We already have that in place - it''s called the SCG.
  22. [quote user="T"][quote user="Glutton for Punishment"][quote user="T"] [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="T"]My only concern is why should I spend my hard earned  money to susidise the weekend entertainment of others when those who have put money into the club receive a considerable of ignorant, ill-informed, obnoxious abuse from a numerous whingers which as PC said is unfair and unkind. [/quote] You would be subsidising nobody. Any money put into shares by yourself is an investment, the value of those shares could go up or down it is a gamble you take when you buy shares, if you want to subsidise the non shareholding fans then send your money as a donation. Maybe the real quandary is whether the shares are currently worth £30 each? 33,000 shares available for some time to purchase at that price and yet remaining unsold might seem to suggest they are not. [/quote] A minority interest is worth nothing.  The inherent underlying value of any share is the time discounted value of future dividends and  as football clubs generally never pay any dividends to its ordinary shareholder and no one has ever shown any interest in buying the small shareholders out then the small shares have no value. I would never be under any illusion that it was an investment with a return. Its a donation whether that ties in with preconcieved ideas or not. Accordingly. the response just supports my original assertion. [/quote] T - I am nearly able to agree with one of your posts! As usual you display a modicum of understanding of financial matters but you fall down when applying these principles to affairs at NCFC, which of course, being a small business, is at the opposite end of the spectrum of the city-type jargon you usually draw upon. I agree that minority shareholding is worthless but would go further to say that the method of valuation you quote equally applies to the club as a whole. Your assertion that the shares have no value due to lack dividends applies to all shareholders, be they minority or majority. Given that asset values on disposal are insufficient to return any value to shareholders after creditors are repaid, an asset based valuation would provide the same answer. Add to this the burden the majority shareholders carry to continually add funds to the coffers of the club in order to protect their investment and one could say that their shareholding is worse than worthless. If I was them I would be looking to give them away at the first opportunity. DS & MWJ should be camped outside Peter Cullum''s house 24-7 begging him to take the shares off them! I could almost feel sorry for them, but then remind myself of the purgatory they have put so many fans through with their incompetence and inability to learn from mistakes, a situation that looks set to continue indefinitely. So, I find myself agreeing again that buying shares in NCFC is effectively a donation. Where we no doubt differ is the principle of donating to an incompetent, wasteful regime and even worse giving the board yet another massive vote of confidence to carry on regardless. LQ - I admire your positive approach and attempt to bolster the dire financial position of the club but I can only see this prolonging the agony. The current regime is utterly clueless and will waste any funds at their disposal. [/quote] Fortunately for myself, my customers and the  market know that I''ve  perhaps a ltitle more than a modicum of understanding having  professionally  reviewed football and numerous other business transactions. However, I''m intrigued to know what makes you believe you are emminently more qualified to comment on thse matters. Of course you are right that the majority shareholding also has no cash flow value either, it has a negative cash value as I''ve argued many times. This is really basic stuff. However, the majority shareholding does have value in owning a rare desirable asset which is why do you see new owners pay millions to control a football club. So your analysis did show a modicum of understanding but unfortunately misses some crucial basic understanding of business valuation - i.e. the commensense it is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. [/quote] T - Thank you for confirming that your posts are merely a means to brag about your unquestionable financial skills and city (as in ''of London'') expertise. I''ll leave you to do the mud slinging. Anything is only worth what anyone is willing to pay for it.... and in NCFC''s case that is clearly bugger all (technical term). The problem is that the current owners don''t see it that way and we have the added complication of their catering interests that get in way. The result is the entrenched position that they have adopted and the inevitable continuity of previous failed policies. Purchasing shares will achieve nothing more than support these policies.
  23. [quote user="T"] [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="T"]My only concern is why should I spend my hard earned  money to susidise the weekend entertainment of others when those who have put money into the club receive a considerable of ignorant, ill-informed, obnoxious abuse from a numerous whingers which as PC said is unfair and unkind. [/quote] You would be subsidising nobody. Any money put into shares by yourself is an investment, the value of those shares could go up or down it is a gamble you take when you buy shares, if you want to subsidise the non shareholding fans then send your money as a donation. Maybe the real quandary is whether the shares are currently worth £30 each? 33,000 shares available for some time to purchase at that price and yet remaining unsold might seem to suggest they are not. [/quote] A minority interest is worth nothing.  The inherent underlying value of any share is the time discounted value of future dividends and  as football clubs generally never pay any dividends to its ordinary shareholder and no one has ever shown any interest in buying the small shareholders out then the small shares have no value. I would never be under any illusion that it was an investment with a return. Its a donation whether that ties in with preconcieved ideas or not. Accordingly. the response just supports my original assertion. [/quote] T - I am nearly able to agree with one of your posts! As usual you display a modicum of understanding of financial matters but you fall down when applying these principles to affairs at NCFC, which of course, being a small business, is at the opposite end of the spectrum of the city-type jargon you usually draw upon. I agree that minority shareholding is worthless but would go further to say that the method of valuation you quote equally applies to the club as a whole. Your assertion that the shares have no value due to lack dividends applies to all shareholders, be they minority or majority. Given that asset values on disposal are insufficient to return any value to shareholders after creditors are repaid, an asset based valuation would provide the same answer. Add to this the burden the majority shareholders carry to continually add funds to the coffers of the club in order to protect their investment and one could say that their shareholding is worse than worthless. If I was them I would be looking to give them away at the first opportunity. DS & MWJ should be camped outside Peter Cullum''s house 24-7 begging him to take the shares off them! I could almost feel sorry for them, but then remind myself of the purgatory they have put so many fans through with their incompetence and inability to learn from mistakes, a situation that looks set to continue indefinitely. So, I find myself agreeing again that buying shares in NCFC is effectively a donation. Where we no doubt differ is the principle of donating to an incompetent, wasteful regime and even worse giving the board yet another massive vote of confidence to carry on regardless. LQ - I admire your positive approach and attempt to bolster the dire financial position of the club but I can only see this prolonging the agony. The current regime is utterly clueless and will waste any funds at their disposal.
  24. For too long unethical wide-boy owners of clubs have invested in their teams at the expense of the taxpayer. This is great news for us as it will hinder many other clubs who were no doubt banking on non-payment of tax as a cheap overdraft facility. We could have done with this earlier but better late than never. Paying our dues is about the only thing the board have done right! From BBC Sport http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8060498.stm.  
×
×
  • Create New...