Chelmsford Canary

I''ve read on various occasions that our record transfer is Bassong for £5.5m?! I think we have £5m. Last Jan we spent circa £5m on Howson and R.Bennett?

I still think if Clattenburg, or any other referee gives that pen, Holt should be claiming quite a few over the rest of season. I agree that it was a pen after watching again last night, but consistency is what is needed.

Just read on one site - that it''s not being shown in foreign countries...just the highlights like us in Blighty

Agree, thought he was not going to move Russell Martin - he has proved me wrong!

[quote user="City1st"]"an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed"   They are the club''s model. As to being wildly innaccuarte you are just being silly to cover an even sillier argument further down. Starting as things are now then trying to factor in known variables is fairly standard practice. We know that we recieve around £410,00 per thousand, that is not flawed. What is flawed is your absurd justfications for trying to square the circle. I used one example, the one currently being talked of at the club. If the 35,000 expansion is considered then we have a figure of £31m to repay, How much of that £3.3m will be taken up with interest payments ?   "highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals"   As of now (something you had previously dismissed). Future casual prices will not hold up anywhere near current prices, given the massive spare capacity. What is overlooked by people like yourself is that you believe ticket prices can be adjusted in isolation. They cannot. Examples like Wigan show there is certainly not the demand there no more. The club is restricted by how low it can drop prices over a number of games before it has a downward effect on season ticket prices. So it cannot simply slash prices to fill empty seats.  Any time the paupers (down the A140) introduce these price cuts season ticket holders howl out that they begin to negate their financial gain from buying a season ticket.     "I don''t know, but neither does anyone else unless they have done some pretty hefty market research and the club haven''t shown it to anyone if it is done."   The club does. The concept is known as ''cross price price elasticity'' which determines the return on sales based on price movement. Any major company will be number crunching on an almost minute by minute basis. Of course there are another 8000 fans out there, The question is at what price ?  The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet, As to your suggestion that "with ticket and confectionary sales" then I have to question what your other figures are based on. How much in the way of sweets do you think are sold at Carrow Road ?   At some point the club will have to upgrade the facilities in the Main Stand and accept that it will be a hefty charge on the club for a long, long while. Whether that is a good idea or the most pressing requirement is a moot point. But at least let us discuss this from a point of reality, not endless misunderstanding.     [/quote] Comparing us to Wigan is outrageous and absurd!

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="Chelmsford Canary"]One thing I''ve thought reading through these posts, is everyone is saying we don''t need stadium expansion, as we have the sky money. It''s likely to say (sorry to be down beat) that we will be relegated at some point. Maybe we should not take it for granted. When McNally came in he had a plan for getting promoted...surely we should have a plan for getting relegated - just in case. Obviously I would love us to progress and be a Fulham, who have had a taste of Europe, ensure mid table - possible cup run![/quote]   I''m not sure anyone is really saying that. What has been said is that ticket income is a far lower percentage of the overall ''take'' than before. It is not sky money either, they contribute only around a third - not a pedantic point, just a recognition how lower a percentage their money is also becoming. It is the overseas market that is the main player as far as  money is concerned.   As to relegation the cub has repeatedly addressed this question, with the point being that whilst we could subsidise the expansion(ie less money taken than the cost of building the stand) it could well cripple us were we out of the PL for a number of seasons.   Unfortunately we seem to have a number of fans who think that we don''t have to pay to buils a new stand and any money from extra seats is pure profit, As above, with ALL tickets sold, at CURRENT prices an 8000 new stand would generate around £1.64m.  Can we be certain that we could sell those extra 4000 seats for every game, and at PL prices if we were in the Championship ?     [/quote] I''ll agree with you being pedantic - Sky money / overseas money / the benefits (luxury of Premier League money) that you don''t obtain when being in Championship.

One thing I''ve thought reading through these posts, is everyone is saying we don''t need stadium expansion, as we have the sky money. It''s likely to say (sorry to be down beat) that we will be relegated at some point. Maybe we should not take it for granted. When McNally came in he had a plan for getting promoted...surely we should have a plan for getting relegated - just in case. Obviously I would love us to progress and be a Fulham, who have had a taste of Europe, ensure mid table - possible cup run!

Great post Purple Canary!

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Steady On..."]Find me the quite that Bowkett said that. Is it in a report of any kind? You seem to be very touchy about the main stand, maybe it has some deeper meanin behind it. You asked on another tread where the 4000 fans in the city stand would go if building work were to start Home, is the obvious answer to that question, or maybe into the city? I''m not going to tell them how to live their lives. You seem to think they have a lot of influence, have no idea why. Anyone of any importance would just go to the huckerby hospitality suite in the jarrold. Problem solved. You referred to people that would come into the main stand as "a lot of glory hunters who will soon melt away when the going gets rough again" I believe.[/quote] Just read my report. The figure come straight from Alan Bowkett''s mouth.Many logistical problems with putting a second tier on the City Stand. The best option would be demolish and rebuild. It costs 2.5k per seat these days and the Chairman says even if we could borrow the money and pay back over 20 yrs at 2.25 million a year it would require 92% capacity per match.The board are not stupid. If it was a viable option it would be going ahead now.But it isn''t.Sorry bit those are the facts. [/quote] No it does not cost £2.5k a seat - I mentioned this earlier in thread. It is £1.4k a seat. I suppose Bowkett and UoE are also cost consultants? Please sleepy people in Norfolk, wake up and listen to what I''m saying - these figures are incorrect!!

I''m sure they have Nutty...what i''m stating is actual construction costs are £16m. It is nearly double, once you add all the extras on. What does worry we is that the club employed Uni of East Anglia...I was not aware they had a Professional Quantity Surveying section!

I''ve just looked in Spon''s (a pricing book for construction) which details prices per unit (seat) We want to increase by roughly 8,000.00 to 35,000 seats. On top we increase that number by the amount we demolish (city stand - approximately 3,500) gives a total increase of 11,500 seats Spon''s details a football stadia plus extensive facilites a cost of £1,100 - £1,400. Take the highest amount 11,500 @ £1,400 = £16,100,000.00 A stand with basic facilities will cost in region of £760 - £1,040. 11,500 @ £1,040 = £11,960,000.00. These are feasibility costs, and don''t take into consideration of closing the roads, having any contingency, professional fees, or the biggest cost which will probably be the interest, and loss of ticket revenue from 3,500 from city stand. Anyone got £16,100,000 to lend the club interest free?

Personally - I think like most they should expand. However, I don''t want to cripple us into further debt after just about losing the previous debt. I work in construction, and currently prices are still relatively low, due to recession. We should be working up drawings, getting it through planning, so when we do decide to start (end of a season) we are ready to go. No brainer really. I also think - unlike other we should build/expand to a capacity that will ensure we have capacity for the long term future. We have sold out our stadium for last 5 years plus even in dark days of league 1. Directors say they want to go up to 35,000. I think we should look at going to 40,000, and I have worked out how this could work phasing the construction over years, and not go below our current capacity. What you don''t want to do is build up to 35k, and then find out we fill capacity at that level, and go through further work 5-6 years later...at a higher construction cost. No one will do or agree with this, as they will consider it as too much money!

Good - he gets in wrong most weeks! Draw!

I watched the game on ESPN. Apologises to those who will say I''m not a real fan. I also had BBC sport website up, as i''m a geek and like to look at stats. At one point in second half beeb had us as 52%! Not sure where you got 72-28! I sort of agree it''s not quite as entertaining as at times as last year...however i''m still sitting on edge of seat, we are winning a few games, and how many times in last few years have people on here been moaning we concede too many? We finally stop leaking so many goals, and the moaners come out for something else!!

Seems to works with Garrido...some people really are miserable!

Don''t feel sorry for me..i''m not the one with over a thousand posts on a Norwich City forum!

[quote user="Gingerpele"]We aren''t always last on MOTD, it''s not factual, it''s not funny. I don''t know why so many people keep saying that... MOTD is very easily organised. The big teams are on early, nearly always, even if not many goals because they are the big teams, they have the most fans, Man.U draw a lot more people to MOTD than us, the rest are organised on talking points. If nothing happens in our games, what do you expect? The show has a limited amount of time, and wants to get as many viewers as possible, it''s going to be one of the thugs BBC rely on to get viewing figures, which despite not having advertising they still need.[/quote] I usually argue, but your wrong. Not seen line up tonight - but I can gurantee will shall be last. Also agree it''s good to go under radar! However teams like Leeds will always get more publicity, I don''t care, it''s just the way I see it. Similar to how even if Holt was to score a hat-trick, and Ruddy makes three point blank saves, Rooney, RVP and Hart would probably still be in Garth "Most annoying man on TV" Crooks team of the week!

I read this the other day. Did make me laugh - we are like the unwanted team in PL. MOTD always show us last (a definite for tonight) Interested that only 3 teams have stayed up after not winning a game in first 10 games! QPR and Reading down? Think QPR will make it 4, second half of season they will come good. Lot of speculation that Hughes will get sacked. Possibly replaced by Harry?

I was thinking about this the other day, and forgot I was going to start a new thread. However as you have bumped this one - i''ll comment here. A couple of weeks / months they (the government) noted that the blame for Hillsborough is with the Police, and standing was not the cause of the accident. I''m not sure I agree with this, however that''s not the point I was going to make. Does this mean the Taylor Report is redundant and standing is safe? I believe as long as areas are policed correctly, and agreed with The FA etc then it should be allowed. I''m sure it will continue to cause debate...but it seems to me removing all standing areas because of that report is incorrect. It''s made very high quality football grounds though.

I don''t see what the problem is...he scores goals and definately hungry for success. Read the comment about why we let Vaughan go...WTF he was a crock last year, had a couple of goals in pre-season and people are creaming over him as if the next Messi. I''d rather get someone in who''s going to be fit 95% of season and still get in with some goals.

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"][quote user="Just Dan"] Don''t post to often, but have to admit that I think Rhodes would be a great signing. [/quote]   He certainly knows where the back of the net is, but he still represents a bit of a gamble for £8m as he''s untested at this level. [/quote] Pilks & Benno had only played League one last year and they proved that experience at a level is not needed. If your good enough, you will find your level, no player will ever improve if they are not given a chance

Johnson had a point to prove..he did well

This is not a reason for the poor performance, becuase Fulham had the conditions.. However at the time, it was very hot! I wonder whether they hydrated better, or had something e.g. fuel at HT? Not saying the heat was our problem, but its possible that Fulham had ways of getting over the heat in a different way, and gave them more energy. Two other things I noted - 1. Our passing last season was quite slick on most occasions. On Sat there was a lot of wayward passes, that we know we are better at. Fulham''s 4th goal, was a quality flick/pass into path of whoever. 2. Everyone looks at 5-0 and you immediately think that was a walk over. If it had been 2-0 I think some would think, "Fulham is a tough place, not many teams will win. Take away the 1/10 long range/deflected goal, the penalty which was stupid, and the 2nd goal which should have been cleared. It would still have been a defeat but people look at the score slightly different. Our attacking play was awful as noted in (1) poor passing, hoofs upfield to Holt/Morsion. Add to that new faces that are still gelling, and a (let''s be honest) quality attacking team, and we got done over. Got look at the 5-0 score line, and just see it as a defeat. At the weekend (incl Monday) there were three team that properly feel just as bad as we do, if not worse. Liverpool getting done by WBA, QPR at home to Swansea, and United against Everton.   Freak result, we''ll be ok!

I was sitting very close to you boys, and thought it was very good and catchy. Also nice to laugh at Leeds! Ironically Fulham seemed to turn Turner quite easily!! Good work lads - I like it even if no one else does

I''ll be very surprised to see us play the diamond again. Speaking to people before game at weekend, it was though to be 4411, so surprised to see Snodgrass on right. I also thought/wondered whether CH was looking to play different formation home and away, and we will see more attaking/two upfront this weekend. Definately need some pace in Jackson or Vaughan at weekend. We all know Holt can''t play up front by himself, he needs to feed off others. At weekend, I was thinking we need Wes on, his passing is usually very slick, and we missed that.