Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. [quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="norfolkngood"]The club tried to tell Hughton that his style was not working i heard many times Mcnally told him this and to Attack more [/quote]This was always the problem - trying to change the manager rather than let him get on with his job.  Hughton was/is a good manager and without the pressure of being more attacking, we might have been more successful in the second season - after all, the move to be more attacking didn''t really work, did it?   The same way Alex Neil tried to attack in the PL didn''t really work........[/quote]Correct. Norfolkngood''s comment, if in any way accurate, shows that the club, like many of the fans, thought it somehow knew better than a good manager about football. About what works, and what doesn''t - and that it completely deluded itself about the quality of our squad too.You''re absolutely right about the pressure Hughton came under. I think Farke''s probably been put under similar pressure. I doubt there are many boards or fanbases anywhere in England with a more one-dimensional view of ''good football'' than we have. So Farke''s thrown out three at the back and possession football, meaning the entirety of last season was a total waste of time. And Hughton tried to be more positive too - meaning instead of at least drawing on our travels, we were too open and just caved in instead.Meanwhile, if you ever wanted the perfect example of the breathtaking levels of apologia some Norwich fans can produce, look no further than PurpleCanary''s post above. Apparently, with one point from 15 (a game we had to win, but didn''t even try to), Adams'' "out-performed expectations". I don''t know whether to laugh or cry. He "out-performed expectations" despite Hughton having beaten Man Utd, beaten Arsenal, beaten Tottenham, held Man City and won at Man City. Amazing.The board''s ''thinking'' was, in the wealthiest, highest profile league in the world, full of top, top managers, it could game the system by hoping for a dead cat bounce. That''s it. That was the level of its football knowledge. "Many teams briefly get better when changing manager - so let''s do it, regardless of the man we choose". It was a suicide note: compounded beyond all reason when we unbelievably gave Adams the job on a permanent basis, after one point from 15.Norwich City fans will always completely bewilder me:- We remained hostile to Robert Chase more or less throughout his entire time at the club, and started trying to get him out before we''d even gone down from the Prem- We''ve remained loyal to Delia Smith throughout her more than two decades at the club, despite it having been colossally less successful than under Chase. In fact, large swathes of the support appear oblivious that "little Norwich" ever finished 3rd, 4th and 5th or played in Europe to begin with. Under Delia, 5 years out of 22 (and counting) in the top division apparently constitutes glorious success; under Chase, selling players while spending 9 years out of 11 in the top flight was a Mark of Cain. Weird.- We, as a fanbase, have been infinitely angrier towards Nigel Worthington and Chris Hughton than we''ve ever been towards the board. In Hughton''s case, we had the sheer arrogance to think we could both get by with little investment and play exciting football. Why do people think we''ve never appointed the likes of Warnock, Pulis or Allardyce? The fans wouldn''t tolerate it. And at the same time as Hughton''s Norwich ground their way along, so did a whole bunch of other clubs in the Prem. Apparently, we thought we were different. - And right now? No no, we musn''t have new owners. That would be "selling our soul". That everyone else changes ownership is neither here nor there; we''re different. Long live the Norwich City way; brickbats to all those who point out that the only time it ever achieved a single damn thing was under an owner we demonised and ran out of town.
  2. [quote user="westcoastcanary"]No mention of "nast furriners" from me; nor did I say anything about "poor Man City fans". I invited people to reflect on what the point of it actually is. You want bragging rights, to be able to say "We are the best"? Being able to say "Ooh look at us, we have the best manager in the world!"? Anybody can watch the best players in the world by buying a subscription to Sky etc. But that has very little to do with what supporting a club means for all but a tiny percentage of football fans.[/quote]Football is about, among other things:- Community- Pride- Passion- History- Memories- Moments - Excitement- Entertainment- GloryIt''s not and has never been all about winning. But it''s also about the right to dream... and above all, being the best you can be. That''s the essence of competition. When Manchester City were bought by their current owners, they effectively won the lottery. And given what their fans had gone through for decades on end - not just their own club''s never-ending black comedy and failure, but their rivals'' never-ending success - I''d say they''d earned it.Now they''re a club completely transformed: one of the biggest, wealthiest and most exciting in the world. Yet their owners haven''t neglected the local community at all. If there are any City fans who miss what they used to be, they''ll be in a very small minority.
  3. [quote user="westcoastcanary"] Really? My question is: "What is the point of Man City et. al. under their owners?" [/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAOh wait, you''re serious. [^o)] [8-)] [:$]
  4. [quote user="nutty nigel"]Shaun, you''re making a lot of assumptions the main one being that our recent history would have been better if the club was sold. You have only attempted to back this up by putting forward clubs whose recent history is better. Why are you so convinced of this?[/quote]Very obviously, our recent history *could* have been better if the club had been sold. Could have been worse too. We''ll never know either way.Equally obviously, our owners'' lack of means were precisely what prevented us from establishing ourselves in the Prem. That was our glass ceiling. In all probability, said glass ceiling is now lower, given how quickly football and this division in particular is changing. Which rather begs the question: what is the point of Norwich City under these owners?
  5. [quote user="nutty nigel"]You may have noticed mine too Shaun.This is what you said in 2009...[quote user="thebigfeller"] if one group of people are to blame above all else for the decline of this football club, it''s Delia Smith and her board. And - perhaps worst of all - I don''t think they''ve learned a thing throughout the entire journey.[/quote] Now it''s the following success that you put down to footballing expertise and somehow separated from Delia. I wonder how Bowkett and mcNally had more football expertise than Balls and Webber. I expect someone will find a way to spin that[:P] [/quote]Oh dear Nutty, Oh dear oh dear. On the very same thread as that epic post, I wrote these as suggestions/demands:[quote user="thebigfeller"] 1. Doncaster is sacked, and replaced by a CEO of demonstrable footballing expertise; 2. A manager with experience at League One level and preferably a successful record is appointed; 3. The board acknowledge full, unfettered responsibility for relegation; 4. Every conceivable effort is made to attract new investors, and the joint majority shareholders climb down from their requirement that only a bona fide Norwich fan with £20m to plough into the team will be considered? [/quote]Note: I didn''t demand they go. Only that they searched high and low for new investment. The rest of what I wanted happened. Something else too. Something I''m hugely struck by, and is a perfect symptom of the brainwashing I referred to. What is success for Norwich City? Sustaining ourselves on a long term basis in the Premier League: the goal of the famous Seven Year Plan, in other words. Remarkably, you regard us having hung around there for a bit - but never convincingly after Lambert left just one season in - as glorious success... don''t you?And why? Because the limitations of our owners mean we can''t do any better than that. QED. We''ve been in slow decline since Lambert exited; a decline cushioned by parachute payments, but we''re now into our fourth straight year of it. And what do you do? You keep pointing to the past - 2009-12 - and hail the owners as having been ''successful''. Bizarre. But at the same time, very very telling,We needed investment ten years ago. We need it even more now. Desperately.
  6. [quote user="nutty nigel"]Once we don''t care about the value of the club to the community or the community to the club I wonder how long it will be before a franchise would be preferable if the money was right.[/quote]Do you think Watford, now owned and run absolutely brilliantly by an Italian family with zero emotional connection to the club, have somehow ceased to be of value to their community? The opposite. They''re of much more value now, because they''re a successful, family football club.Earlier, I described our view of ourselves as delusional. I stand by that absolutely. The sheer arrogance in thinking we''re somehow unique - we are the true community club, while all others somehow aren''t - sums the whole thing up. Moxey came out with this self-congratulatory gibberish shortly before he left.It''s magnificent, Nutty... but it''s not war.
  7. [quote user="Jim Smith"]Not just no foreigners the club is not for sale and I don’t believe it ever has been. They are interested in people who may be prepared to invest without gaining control but no idiot is going to put significant money in on that basis.[/quote]That''s exactly as I see it too. And it''s precisely why they''re passing it on to their nephew. Keeping it in the family, because they think this club is theirs. Irony of ironies: after everyone agreeing that no individual should ever become too powerful after the mess Chase left, two individuals promptly obtained precisely that power themselves. Their very peculiar, quaint ideas of how football clubs should be run inevitably rule out more or less anyone but themselves and their nephew.I''d love to know the reasons why Bowkett and McNally resigned. We never will, though.
  8. [quote user="nutty nigel"]This is the one-eyed stuff that your biannual rants are made up of Shaun. You got away with it in 2009 but to be fair you were totally wrong in everything you said then. And coming back everytime things get a bit tough only works with those who don''t remember.[:P][/quote]You may have noticed the [:P] I put in my post. Don''t take it too seriously!But on the contrary. I was right in everything I said in 2009. Something you posted on here yesterday got me thinking: did I ever actually call for the owners to go? No. I was desperate for the owners to get proper footballing expertise onto the board, and leave those experts to appoint a manager with a proper track record. Among the many things which motivated that lengthy post I wrote - and my going to the NCISA event with you, and my phone-in calls, and all the rest of it - was my passionate belief in the huge potential of our football club. Belief which was then dramatically vindicated. This is different now. This is the first time I''ve ever wanted them out. And why? Because they''re old, they''re tired, they have no new ideas, the squad is a shambles... and sorry, but lightning isn''t going to strike twice. Not given how rapidly this league''s moved on.
  9. Chase''s average league finish was 14.5. Almost exactly half that of his successors. All hail, Big Bob...[:P]
  10. [quote user="JF"]king canary wrote the following post at 27/08/2018 6:28 PM: I did once crunch the numbers and our average position under this current ownership is lower than this 22.5 average. Any idea on what it was?[/quote]If my mental maths are correct, it''s just short of 28th.
  11. [quote user="PurpleCanary"]Damned right I point to losses "off the park". I love the way you are trying to marginalise and so diminish massive losses, as if they have no effect on how a club can perform, especially in the context of your desire for Norwich City to be taken over by someone whose modus operandi would almost certainly similarly be to flood the accounts with red ink.[/quote]So Brighton are going bust then? RIP Seagulls, thoughts with the friends and family? I must remember to warn their fans - who were last seen delirious with excitement at their team just having beaten Manchester United. It''s surely only a matter of time before their club dies... right? If not, then what is your point?
  12. One other thing on all this. There''s no more competitive club structure anywhere in world football than in England - and it''s not close either. The pyramid works beautifully, wondrously: punishing failure, rewarding success, providing a route back for fallen giants, providing real hope for all sorts of smaller clubs.Amidst this structure, each and every season becomes more ruthlessly cutthroat. Guess what? Some clubs fail. Other clubs succeed. Apparently, we''re meant to look at the failures and think "oh noooo, we shouldn''t even try!" It''s laughable, myopic and quite miserably pathetic. Our entire attitude is the very opposite of what professional, competitive sport is supposed to involve.Most other clubs embrace the challenge, equip themselves (through funding) as best they can, and get on with it. We, by contrast, take the most perverse satisfaction in doing it ''differently''. And in behaving in such a way, we create a self-fulfilling prophecy: in which we can never truly grow, never properly enhance our profile or stature, and thus do not matter to onlookers everywhere.
  13. [quote user=" Badger"]You say that you know but then demonstrate pretty comprehensively that you don''t. It seems that you do ot see the dangers becauseyour understanding of the histories of these lubs is so limited and youare therefore unable to recognise how they have been negatively affected by over-spending.Leeds not a big club really?Coventry? Well they had 32 consecutive years in the top flight and a stadium that is significantly bigger than ours.They were doing fine until they over-extended themselves. The reason that they struggle now is precisely because they did what you want to do, pile on debt. They along with the others that I have mentioned are good examplesof the difficulties, which you seem unable to recognise.Leeds, Ipswich and Forest were all more successful clubs than Norwich and probably would have been again before now if not forthe very financial mismanagement that you want to encourage.The evidence of the potential difficulties that we would face with "investors" rather than patrons is here for all to see if they have some understading of finance and a knowledge of the history of the game.Your inability to recognise the dangers can only be due to a deliberate failure to recognie that which does not suit your case, or because you fail to understand the realities offinance.[/quote]Goodness me.The reason I left Leeds out of your group is because they''re going up. Leeds fans are in dreamland right now. Very soon, they''ll be right back where they should be. You reckon their supporters give the remotest damn about the past right now? You reckon their fans are unhappy about being owned by an Italian? Or are they doing cartwheels, rubbing their eyes in disbelief and looking forward to the future with huge excitement?No, Coventry are not a big club. Their long period in the top flight was something of a freak, featuring all manner of crazy and, as we all know as Norwich fans, dubious escapes. That had to end at some point. Their real size is some sort of mezzanine level between the second and third tiers. Amid all the scare stories, all your doomsaying about the apparent horror of debt, how many professional clubs have gone bust? Zero. None at all. Plenty, including us, have either flirted with or actually been in administration... and what happened? They all survived, and were invariably reborn under new ownership. Well that''s strange. I thought debt was supposed to mean the end of clubs our size? Apparently not. Unlike you Badger, I''m not much interested in the past. I''m not going to sit here and console myself with "oh, but we run ourselves the right way" or "oh, but we finished 11th and 12th in the Prem not so long ago". What I''m concerned with is the present and the future. A present and future in which zero, none, of Watford, Bournemouth (notice how both have stayed up for longer than we did? Now why is that, please?), Leicester (good job they didn''t let evil foreign owners buy them, huh? Oh. Now tell me how Leicester''s potential when they were bought was in any way greater than our own - because it wasn''t), Palace, Fulham (remember them? Assumed to be in chaos a couple of years back? Now look at them), Brighton (boo hiss debt who do they think they are?), Wolves (look at them now - and they can only get better from here), Burnley or Huddersfield are in anything other than dreamland.And in the league below, where Leeds are flying, a whole bunch of clubs are accumulating manageable levels of debt in order to compete. Those clubs won''t go bust; they''re doing what they have to do, but we can''t do (and even if we could, we''d refuse to). Even Villa, facing calamity in the summer, found new owners just like that. What happens when some of those clubs come down? They''ll reorganise, restructure and start again... many of them under new owners again. What happened when we came down? Despite running ourselves "the right way", oh look: the exact same thing (minus the new owners, that is). So in sum: we penalise ourselves by not looking for new owners or new investment; our best achievements are, in consequence, less than those of many of our contemporaries; and then we fall, while they start anew. Exactly what do we get for this approach? Next to nothing. Exactly what do others get when they push the boat out? In many cases, a heck of a lot more than nothing. But y''know, go us. We''re different. Everyone else should be learning from us... as opposed to, quite rightly, laughing at our unbelievable levels of self-regard and self-delusion.
  14. [quote user="Inch High aka Inchy.."]Current board,they have the best interests of the club in mind. [/quote]You think the club''s "best interests" are served by publicly ruling out foreign ownership (despite almost all successful clubs in English football having foreign ownership) and instead passing it down to the joint majority shareholders'' nephew?What is your idea of the club''s "best interests"? Failure, but failing "the right way"?
  15. [quote user="Duncan Edwards"]Actually, I''d say he is. Are they in danger? No. He speculated to accumulate; he''s not in this to make money, but to succeed with his club. Which he''s doing. What do you do? You point to their losses off the park under someone who is nobody''s idea of a shyster instead of their success on it! Amazing. So, just to clarify, you are advocating that we live beyond our means, or, “speculate to accumulate”. Now, Daniel Farke (like every manager that’s ever had a bad run while at the helm of Norwich City - Neil, Hughton, Adams etc) is often accused of not having a plan B. What would yours be, you know, should we speculate and fail to accumulate?[/quote]No, I am advocating that we look for new ownership. It''s precisely the attitude of sneering at successful owners like Tony Bloom which is why we''re in this mess. Pro tip: looking for new ownership does not mean proudly declaring in the national press that we will "never sell to a foreign owner". Looking for new ownership does not mean treating a football club like a family heirloom and passing it down to Delia''s nephew. Looking for new ownership means doing precisely that - not closing ourselves off to possible alternatives, not cutting our noses off to spite our face.Out of interest, why do you think a certain amount of losses per season are permissible under Financial Fair Play rules? Surely it couldn''t be, could it, that those who agreed those rules live in the real world: a world in which many businesses only grow through investment, often lots of it? Heck: we speculated to accumulate ourselves in 2009/10 and 2014/15 given the squad costs involved.And on your earlier post: yes Duncan, I''m sure fans of Watford, Palace, Burnley, Huddersfield, you name it are asking themselves what the point of it all is, rather than having the time of their lives. And I''m sure Watford fans, in particular, are devastated they didn''t maintain their old model which had no chance of delivering sustained Premier League football, and almost in tears that they''re owned by a foreign family instead. Likewise, Bournemouth fans must be desperate to return to the halcyon days of being fan-owned and barely staying in the Football League at all - because what''s the point of their success, huh?And yes: times now are different. Very different. We''ll never finish 3rd in the top flight again (or 4th, or 5th)... barring something Leicester-esque under (cough, spit, boo, hiss, where''s their emotional connection? They must only be in it for themselves! I wouldn''t like to be in Leicester''s shoes) rich foreign owners. There''s never been more money in the English game; especially not in its second tier. If you think our owners'' lack of resources makes it easier to succeed, rather than handicaps us from the outset, I''d like to hope you''re in a small minority of one.
  • Create New...