thebigfeller

Me. Don''t know why. Just do. Charlton Athletic 0-1 Norwich City Plymouth Argyle 2-0 Barnsley Of course, this''ll mean it''ll just hit me all the more if we don''t make it - but I''ve this weird feeling we will...

[quote user="canary cherub "] It wasn''t bad as far as it goes.  But by his own admission he leaves out some fairly vital bits of the story "so as not to break confidences" or some such guff.  I  also don''t believe that he has a more complete picture than anyone else except those directly involved.  There are probably things he doesn''t even know he doesn''t know. He also seems to think it''s perfectly reasonable for D&M to insist on long term investment in the club before they will sell.  Either it''s a deliberate ploy to deter prospective buyers or they''re living in a dreamworld.  It is not up to them to set conditions relating to the running of the club after they''re no longer here and no investor in their right mind would dream of agreeing to it.      [/quote] He left out the bit about Cullum being rejected even before the July ''talks'', of course. But his argument about Cullum''s changed circumstances rings extremely true - and I completely disagree with you on the "setting conditions" point. Because of their own incompetence, and that the securitisation can hardly be got out of, we do need subsidising every year. On that basis, it stands to reason they''d want assurances as to long term investment: as fans of the club, they''d be doing it even more of a disservice if they didn''t seek such guarantees, I''d say; and Cullum''s public comments hardly suggest anything beyond £20m would''ve gone into the club, be it to create new shares, pay off debts, or for team strengthening. Do I think DS and MWJ handled the thing well? Hardly. But I don''t think he was our saviour either. It was never, ever black and white where he was concerned - no matter what a Horlicks the current board have made of things in their time.

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] It`s not meant as a criticism bigfeller.  A tactic often used to shout down criticisms of the board on here is to try to take each "mistake" in isolation and throw some kind of doubt on it to excuse the board.  If 99 things show that the board made a cock-up, some will always focus on the one thing which throws a spanner in the works.  I think what your post has done is chronologically present the boards mistakes in such a clear and damning way that it is irrefutable- people who haven`t wanted to look at the bigger picture have had it thrust in front of them and it seems there are no comebacks.  I also think you have shown that the seeds for our demise were sown well before the last few appalling years. However, my focus has always been on the finances available to managers rather than the managers themselves so i`ll throw in a few more: Nearly looking a gift-horse in the mouth with Hucks- let`s face it, had it not been for C.Moore stepping in it would not have happened. Not signing Crouch or Ashton when we went up-  I honestly thought signing Crouch was a given (he even publically stated he wanted to join us), i was gobsmacked when Worthy came out and said we couldn`t afford him.  It wasn`t even a risk as we`d had him on loan and he`d been a huge success, it was just another case of our board regarding money spent on players as money wasted. The wilful capitulation when we came back down- we sold £10m of players in the first season back down and received a £7.1m parachute payment on top of sell-out crowds etc.  We spent £4m on players and £9m on player wages.  All this stuff has been done to death but if anyone thinks we made any serious attempt to bounce straight back up they need their heads testing.  When Worthy had money to spend he spent it well, but even with parachute payments and big player sales he was having to rely on the bargain bin.  Basically he was totally hung out to dry by a board which didn`t want to sack him, but refused to back him. The board refusing to sign Steve Howard- see above. The board talking about investment in players being "risky", then tying £6m up in land and associated costs at the top of the market..... Millions spent on non-vital things such as the infill, new ticket office, facilities at Colney, stand refit, new offices, Yellows refurb, club 101 refurb etc., etc. whilst the team spiralled downwards.  Non-player costs rising from £9m in `02 to £17m in `08,  whilst the "affordable" amount (ie. for the club to break even) available to be invested in the team has fallen from £5.2m to £1.9m. Maybe someone could compile a list of their successes and achievements?  Shouldn`t take long...... [/quote] Hey, don''t worry: I certainly didn''t take it as one! I was aware of some of the figures you''ve mentioned above, but not all: it''s very illumimating and highly alarming stuff. In retrospect, I do feel sorry for NW: through no fault of his own, he was having the rug pulled from under his feet in 05/6, as our appalling cashflow situation in January of that season showed. I assume, incidentally, that they didn''t sack him because they couldn''t afford to? All very interesting stuff though. Incidentally, on the Guardian blogs, I''ve suggested David Conn do a piece looking at our financial (mis)management. I''ll email him too. In general, the financial background at NCFC has been largely ignored because we haven''t "done a Leeds", and don''t have a rogue owner - but that doesn''t make it any less important. It''s critical to where we now find ourselves. And yes, it''s highly illuminating the way there''s been no comeback at all to what I wrote - and that says it all.

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Bigfeller, I have contributed, but it took ages and is just a repeat of what I say on here really, still it''s interesting to read comments from fans of other teams. Keep up the good work![/quote] Yep, I saw that. Like a tag team, aren''t we?! It''s very frustrating how long it can take the comments to load: you often need to keep hitting refresh for some reason. Thanks though. On the blog, I''ve just suggested David Conn investigate our financial background: dunno if he''ll see it, but I may email him anyway. He''s brilliant - one of the best journalists around - and I''d like to think he''d be interested in doing something.

Ah, Darel Russell. I''ll always remember reading a post on the old official messageboard when he first broke into the team many years ago: the poster insisted he''d play for England one day! No question, he had potential - but I''ve never understood what people see in him, and am not sure it''s a total coincidence that he''s generally played for awful City teams, and left before we had that resurgence earlier in the decade under Worthington. Remember the League Cup game at Man City last season? At one point, Rusty carelessly gave the ball away - then instead of getting back to help his defence, just stood there hands on hips, yelling at his teammates. That summed him up for me. He''s probably one of our better players - but has always talked a much better game than he plays, unfortunately.

[quote user="sgncfc"] The scary thing is that the article indicates yet again that the players still think they will get out of it. I am convinced that at no point so far have they truly believed they were going to be relegated, and they still don''t. When bookies have you as 1/12 to go down it''s time you started thinking it was more than a possibility, but just like at Fulham 4 years ago, the team will turn up thinking all will be well. I have little hope..... [/quote] Did you see Doherty''s comments after we won three out of four in March? "That''s promotion form", he beamed. No Gary: promotion form is when you do it over 46 games, not four! I almost chucked my computer through the window when I read it.

Bump - before the blog disappears from the front page of the website...

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] It`s interesting that bigfellers superb explanation of the boards litany of failures hasn`t even really been argued against (and i actually think he left some of the biggest ones out!).  I think that the argument is done and dusted on here and even the usual suspects know the board have failed and for the good of the club should go.  But...... ......Will we get a chorus of "delias barmy army" tomorrow even if we lose and she comes out to applaud our support?  I wouldn`t bet against it [:S]  [+o(]. [/quote] Bigger failures, Mr C? Please tell! I assume you''re referring to Cullumgate? I restricted myself to remarking that the board had "made a complete mess of his approach" because I never felt it was clear-cut in one direction or another. Thanks to it being mentioned on this thread, I''ve also just read PurpleCanary''s superb account of what happened - which I have to say I found extremely plausible, and hard to differ from.

[quote user="Camuldonum"] The answer to the Lincoln question is amazing, I''m afraid, and completely skewes all our arguments.  We were sent out of the FL (first club to be relegated to the Conference) by the delightfully eccentric Colin Murphy then managing Stockport - Colin had been our Manager for seven years, one of our best ever. Only the Graham Taylor in pre-turnip days matches him.  His programme notes are now worldwide collector''s items - surreal is the closest I can get to it.  Good amateur, never played pro as a player.  One of his signings was some bloke called John Fashanu.  That season he then quit Stockport so we rehired him as Blue Square manager and he got us back up first time, although it was so much easier in those days and stayed for a couple more seasons after that: a major contender in the "funny old game" competitions.  Whether or not Gunny hangs on I do not know - he said today it was his "destiny" to be your Manager - but whoever gets it, if not him, I think everyone also has to hope whoever it is can stick around for a while. [/quote] I remember Lincoln''s relegation well, Cam. All the media focus was on Burnley, who unbelievably seemed all set to disappear out of the league; meanwhile, Torquay only stayed up thanks to a dog running on to the pitch and biting an opposing player, leading to several minutes of injury time in which they scored! No-one seemed to notice what happened to the Imps: it must''ve been awful. Lincoln''s one season in the Conference was also Wealdstone''s last: the Stones being the local non-league club I followed as a kid. Tim Allman still does now. Wealdstone won the non-league double in 1985; so I was at Wembley in 1992, cheering on Witton Albion in the vain hope they stopped Colchester emulating them! Lincoln also had a hooligan element attaching themselves to the club back then, didn''t they?

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]The shame of it all is that reasoned, practical arguments like the many on this thread have been washed away by wave after wave of bitter vitriol in the past. I''ve found myself - despite disagreeing with the board''s actions - defending Delia in the light of ''old trout'' etc comments because it''s just so unnecessary - however, all it''s done is to muddy the debate we should have been having, sensibly, years ago. Now all we''re left with is the question, ''why didn''t we do something sooner''? The best response would be to take the responsibility of finding new investors out of the board''s hands - or at least make it very difficult for them to say no. I have hoped, time and again, that they would learn by their mistakes but they haven''t. They''ve got Keith Harris looking for investors but while they still hold the final decision, it may as well be keith Chegwin.[/quote] It''s funny. In my dreams, I literally imagine the fans taking responsibility for finding a new owner out of the current lot''s hands as you''ve described. God knows how we''d go about it though!

[quote user="nutty nigel"] Thanks for reminding me of that game bigfeller! Had a bad journey up there and nearly missed the kick off. We started the game like world beaters and finished the game well beaten. But we missed enough chances to have won the game comfortably. The pitch was crap but in the first 15 mins McKenzie missed a couple and we hit the bar and tore them to shreds. Then, as often happens when we start like that, they scored with their first attack after about 20 mins and then we allowed ourselves to be bullied out of it. We had good players back then but we had lost the war-horses that we''d had in 2004 and that''s why we lost games like that after our relegation. However for all those short comings we''d die for that team now. Our bench that day included Earnshaw, Safri and Etuhu! I usually go to Burnley, I guess mainly because it''s often not a saturday so I can. The one time we won there, in our promotion season, I couldn''t go!     [/quote] Even in 2006/7, I looked at our team and wondered what the hell we were doing struggling so badly. Earnie, Safri, Etuhu, Hucks, Dublin, Crofty and an emerging Chris Martin: at the very least, we still had players we could connect and identify with. Steve Claridge commentated on our FA Cup game at Chelsea and couldn''t understand how we could be so low down in the table; but in retrospect, the warning signs were already there. If a side with that ability, and still in our second year of parachute payments could flirt with the drop, what would happen when we lost £7m the year later? Unfortunately, we have our answer.

[quote user="nutty nigel"] The way I see it the good players didn''t want away until Peter Grant was in the building MDP. While there was undoubtedly a split in the dressing room at the end of Worthy''s tenure, the good players still pulled out the stops for him.   [/quote] 24/3/06 Burnley 2-0 Norwich City If that constitutes the "good players pulling out the stops for him", nutty, I''d hate to have seen what didn''t!

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]BigFeller, have you seen The Damned United? There''s a scene in there where the chairman of Derby spells it out to Clough exactly how the hierarchy in the club works. It reminds me so much of NCFC, the only difference being thirty years later we still have that mentality - still run by small-minded business people with more concern about their standing in the local community than how modern football actually works. I was at the first AGM after relegation in 2005, and when I stated to the board that - after our poor start to the season and less than inspiring signings - the January 2006 transfer window was going to be one of the most important in the club''s history, as it would determine our intentions to both players and fans, Munby and Doncaster laughed at me. What happened? Two months later we sold Ashton, panic-bought Earnshaw and failed to strengthen the squad around him, resulting in the rest of our good players wanting away. The rest is history. Who''s laughing now?[/quote] They''re so myopic and pleased with themselves that, frighteningly, they probably still are laughing to an extent. If they just give Gunn the job and Doncaster gives us the usual spiel after the board''s "period of reflection", it''d be ample proof of that. It''s no exaggeration to say that I think many posters on here could''ve done a better job of making key football decisions than Doomy and the board have. In his autobiography, Len Shackleton famously entitled a chapter "The average director''s knowledge of football", before leaving several pages blank. That''s more true of the Norwich City board now than ever.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/may/01/norwich-city-championship-relegation-league-one I''m fighting almost a lone battle at the moment!

[quote user="Camuldonum"] There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course. Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view. Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work. And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is! Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion.    [/quote] I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room. It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important. You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us.

[quote user="Match Day Pie"]These are all very valid, well put but obvious points from BigFeller - meaning obvious not in that he hasn''t written them extremely well (which he has) but more that we''ve all known this stuff for years and done NOTHING about it. The biggest crime is the amount of AGMs shareholders have turned up to and done absolutely nothing to change things. Last year''s was the perfect example - we all knew we were on the brink of what is now becoming reality, yet chose to spend most of the session berating Roeder about Huckerby. The board must have been delighted. The shareholders at this club (small and large) are as responsible for the problems at this club as much as the board, players and management.[/quote] MDP - I completely agree, mate. I had a letter published in the EDP in October 2007 making exactly the same points as I did the other night: something was clearly afoot behind the scenes at the time, Doncaster seemed very stressed whenever commenting on anything, and we later discovered Cullum had offered £5m for team strengthening at this point. And shortly before Peter Grant left, I also wrote this post on here: http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/2/1040583/ShowPost.aspx#1040583 The whole thing is very, very bizarre. Walker, who it''s correct to say wasn''t appointed by Smith and Wynn Jones (they didn''t join the board until Nov ''96, and didn''t play a leading role on it for a good year or so more), actually did us an enormous favour by returning to the club at all. He was very reluctant, as he knew it''d be impossible to recreate his previous success, and realised what a horribly difficult job it was bound to be - and only the fact that season ticket sales were in three figures because Megson seemed to be remaining persuaded him to come back (in short, the club would''ve been at death''s door if he hadn''t). Then, an at times encouraging first season in charge was followed by a disappointing second - but we spent 97/8 ravaged by injuries, with no money to spend, and really, were just paying the price for the shambles Chase had left us in. Whether MW could''ve taken us back to success, I''m not too sure; but at the very least, he deserved until Xmas of the following season to turn it around. Then, if we were still struggling, a calm, fair judgement could''ve been reached - but to sack him when we did, especially after what he''d gone through all season following the death of his poor wife, was absolutely despicable. Following that appallingly shoddy episode, we at least appointed a proven manager in Bruce Rioch - but he too was utterly hamstrung by lack of funds, and also by the shameful plotting behind his back which went on between Hamilton and the two majority shareholders. As a result, for my money our best manager since O''Neill was effectively the victim of constructive dismissal, and following his departure, was notoriously described as a "square peg in a round hole" by Ms Smith. To prove to the world our marvellous ambition, Hamilton then immediately signed a bunch of nomarks, who were paraded by a beaming board. How come Hamilon had been immediately granted resources denied to Rioch? And to make matters worse, Smith and Jones became so close to the Blarneymeister that he still enjoyed their full confidence even when he left. He only quit because he''d asked his players whether they still had faith in him, and praise be, very few raised their hands. But that the club would not sack arguably the worst manager in its entire history beggared belief; and still more ludicrous was their pathetic blaming of probably the most docile local media in the whole country for his downfall. There was, at least, a spell under Worthington where we finally had the right balance. Unlike his lamentable predecessor, he wasn''t too close to the board - and was extremely shrewd in challenging them and facing them down: first when demanding they either made him permanent manager, or chose somebody else, in early January ''01; then in calling for funds for real quality while being courted by Crystal Palace in Summer ''03. The underlying threat was clear - and the board had been so burned by the Blarneymeister episode that they had little choice other than to give in. Sadly though, following promotion, they started blindly backing him whatever (Delia telling the Guardian that our Nigel was the "next Wenger"), all the while Worthington began losing the drive, desire and refusal to stand for the complacency which had previously characterised the club which he demonstrated in spades when first taking over. As he went stale, so the board''s myopia became ever more ludicrous: all it would''ve taken was a "thanks for the memories Nigel, but things change, and it''s time to move on" - instead, they dug their heels in more and more. And now, unbelievably, it may be happening with Grant too. A board so utterly devoid of real footballing expertise that they sack good managers prematurely, and maintain failing ones seemingly until kingdom come, might well continue to back him even if we lose at Loftus Road: otherwise, why are we suddenly back in the loan market for a centre back? Previously, they claimed we were being priced out: now, our interest in Andrew Davies suggests dismissing PG isn''t even on the board''s radar. I''ll be absolutely explicit here: lose on Monday, and he must go: failure to dismiss someone so clearly in over his head would be tantamount to pure negligence. The international break provides the perfect chance to scout around for someone new and proven (can you believe Rioch a full nine years ago was the last time we appointed someone with a successful track record? Incredible!) - but if they sit on their hands, then we''ll have to put up with this nonsense for at least another month, by which point heaven only knows what our league position will be. I''m sick of the excuses, which our beloved Chief Executive will doubtless provide yet more of in his much-trailed column later this morning; I''m sick of the negativity; I''m sick of the absolutely shocking myopia. Action is needed now if a calamitous drop into League One isn''t to become a frightening reality; and if the board fail to act, then their time, too, is very clearly up. It''s not rocket science - but the club failed to heed the warnings of 06/7 and 07/8, and here we are now.

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]The population of Norfolk and North Suffolk is over a million people.  Norwich is a great City and very much the cultural centre of the region, and if people are brought up with Norwich as the nearest exciting City for a day out/shopping/cinema/museum etc then their loyalties will generally lie with that City.  Couple that with improved transport links, improved disposable income and a complete lack of other top-class sports to compete with, the club has amazing potential.[/quote] Shush! Don''t tell the club that! We''re small and can''t compete, remember? ;)

Hunter and Duffy''s inclusions are, of course, daft. I do hope they make it ten - except everything we know about them should tell us they''ll just get it wrong. Again. A lot of nonsense is talked about continuity or its lack of being key to whether a club succeeds or fails. Of course we want continuity - but only if you appoint the right manager in the first place! Do we think Arsenal would''ve persisted with Wenger had he failed in his first two or three seasons? Do we think with football the way it is now, Man Utd would persist with a manager who endured Ferguson''s first four years of mediocrity? No, on both counts. They''ve persisted with them because (albeit belatedly in Fergie''s case) they''ve been successful. The continuity excuse is trotted out by those who seem to think any manager, no matter how poor or ill qualified, should be maintained regardless - yet if they''re poor and ill qualified, chances are they''ll just take you ever further downwards. Meanwhile, the powers that aren''t at NCFC sacked Walker prematurely, treated Rioch disgracefully, made four ludicrous appointments in Hamilton, Grant, Roeder and Gunn, and left the one man who enjoyed success under them for a time in charge miles too long. Can you believe we''ve not appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998?! And people wonder why we are where we are. That''s the Norwich City board I''m afraid. Whenever faced with a decision which should be glaringly obvious, they do the opposite. Or to put it another way: they never miss an opportunity...  to miss an opportunity.

[quote user="TIL 1010"] Oh i see Smudger 4758 posts and you have no questions.What a surprise! Just shout and scream at everyone in sight telling them "i told you so". No questions and no answers,looks to me like you just like the sound of your own voice. [/quote] Um - the thing is Tilly, I don''t have anything to ask Gunny either. Why would anyone? I know this is only because of a last minute request at the last meeting - but it''s pretty obvious to me how Wednesday will go. No-one wants to criticise Gunny, and it wouldn''t be fair to do so - so if we stay up, it''ll just be cheers, thumps on the back, with anyone not happy at the prospect of him getting the job permanently either drowned out or afraid to say so. And if we go down, his presence will probably calm and almost tranquilise the mood of those present: how does one go about criticising and lambasting the board (because that is what they deserve) and seeking answers when they won''t be present, but a City legend, their appointment and someone who''s worked for the club for many years will be? I''ll be frank about this. If we go down, or even if we don''t, he''s about the worst possible person you could have at the meeting: he''s a lame duck. I should''ve been aware of the previous meeting, and it''s entirely my fault that I wasn''t; and I do want to get involved with NCISA in some way. But the people I want to question are Doncaster, Delia, Munby (who I still quite like) and MWJ. But Gunny? What''s the point?

Andrew Cullen. At least he''s still here, eh? Oh.

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]If Gunn is still in charge thats another season you can write off before it even starts. [/quote] I agree. I don''t, though, regard the recent player releases and announcement of the pre-season tour as any sort of sign he''ll definitely be kept on. These things have to be done regardless - and Norwich often tour Scotland pre-season! God knows, this board has surprised me in the wrong direction time and rime again; but at this point, I have a degree of hope they won''t be so stupid as to give him the permanent gig.

[quote user="Shack Attack"] Sorry but I find that attitude absolutely ridiculous. I appreciate that if you look at the bigger picture it''s fairly clear where the overall responsibility lies but the number of people who seem to want to absolve Gunny of any blame is staggering. He''s had sixteen games to keep us out of the relegation zone, let''s not forget we were outside the bottom three when Roeder left. As much as we like to blame the board I very much doubt Delia has been telling Bryan to play David Carney on the right wing or moving Gow back from the withdrawn striker role which he excelled in against Cardiff. Gunny''s tactical naivety will see us relegated on Sunday and as much as I still love the bloke you can''t escape that. [/quote] I don''t hold Gunn as manager responsible in the slightest for where we are: he''s done his best, but has zero experience. I do, though, hold him partially responsible given his prior role as Head of Player Recruitment, something which is often overlooked.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]Remember it well. A look at the league for that season shows just how football has changed. Coventry, Ipswich, Leeds, Norwich, Oldham, QPR, Sheff Utd, Sheff Wed, Southampton, Swindon and Wimbledon all in the Premier League. The vast majority of those clubs have suffered from ''financial issues'' at some stage since that season. Were they all poorly run or is there more to it than that? [/quote] Oldham and Swindon: small clubs punching miles above their weight. A correction was bound to happen soon enough. Wimbledon: in deep trouble as soon as they were relegated, because their tiny fanbase couldn''t sustain a club at that level. Coventry: not very big, bound to go down at some point, have generally struggled since but avoided the very worst of it, and found a buyer when it was needed. Southampton: not very big, bound to go down at some point, but overreaching themselves even before they were relegated, then run in quite disgraceful fashion afterwards. QPR: not very big, bound to go down at some point, a complete shambles for much of the time since. Norwich: not very big, bound to go down at some point, overreacking ourselves prior to the drop (off the field, not on it), invested in the wrong things and made shocking managerial appointments for the most part since. Leeds: say no more! Sheff Wed: two disgraceful Chairmen, one of whom ended up on the FA International Committee; but at last under new ownership and with a bright future. If we go down, they''re a club which can give us real cause for hope. Sheff Utd: generally run OK for the most part, starting to go places now. Ipswich: something of a model in how to be run until one summer of madness messed them up for many years before Evans arrived on the scene.

[quote user="canari francais"] Nice try Big feller,but not the same thing at all. Norwich needed a WIN to be sure of safety at Fulham,but a draw will do for Barnsley. That''s what they''ll get. Trust me. Old pals act or no. That''s what''ll be pre ordained. [/quote] We''ll see. ;)

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"] or until we found ourselves a buyer? [/quote] But the fans can''t afford to buy the owners out - so it isn''t even an option right now! When ideas such as these are mooted, it''s invariably forgotten that as well as expecting 25000 fans to contribute money towards something which isn''t tangible, and only an idea, then you need more money for signings, and somehow have to keep finding it year on year. Ebbsfleet seemed like a fantastic idea - yet just one year down the line, and with the FA Trophy in the bank, the vast majority of those who signed up are bored and have lost interest, meaning MyFootballClub will probably have to find a buyer or risk the club folding. Barcelona and the Green Bay Packers are glorious exceptions, built up over many decades: Barca - "more than a club" - especially. But British football being what it is, it''s wholly unfeasible here I''m afraid.