thebigfeller

[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.

[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.

[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.

Chase''s average league finish was 14.5. Almost exactly half that of his successors. All hail, Big Bob...[:P]

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[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"?

[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.

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Here''s the thing Shaun. You''ve been feeding this habit with rumour and heresay for far too long. Let''s just take one for now. The summer of 2009. After Munby and Doncaster resigned Gunn was appointed manager. Most of us didn''t want that. A lot of you wanted Delia to go too. (It''s always Delia btw). So there we were, relegated, players and agents wanting out, and most people wanted absolutely no one to remain and get us ready for the next season. How was that going to work? Imagine a club with nobody in charge. The owners stuck around. Thank goodness. They appointed Gunn, not on a three year deal or anything so risky, just on a one year to make sure we had a team for the coming season. They then went about finding a CE and Chairman. We should be forever grateful to Gunny for what he did that summer. Not just for signing Grant Holt but for managing to keep Wes and Chris Martin at the club. No Holt, Wes or Martin then ten Paul Lamberts would not have got us promoted. Sometimes you have to credit people you don''t like you know.[/quote]I''ll never forget that hilarious funereal press conference when they announced Gunn was staying.But awfully sorry. On my planet, when an organisation appoints a new Chairman and Chief Executive and gives them the power to make football-related decisions, it is usually advisable to recruit them before maintaining the employment of a failed manager. We effectively set in motion the shambolic events of the first week or so of that season by doing it in such a typically back-to-front way. The people we appointed then spent a bunch of dosh in assembling a squad designed for promotion. I''d suggest that was what persuaded Wes and Martin to hang around. Their ambition. Ditto the signing of Holt.

[quote user="nutty nigel"]It''s pointless going any further Shaun. If we achieve Delia was against it. If we fail Delia caused it. That''s childish buddy.[/quote]It''s the very opposite of childish. It''s factual.In her time at the club, Delia has:- Sacked Mike Walker prematurely, shortly after his wife died of cancer- Manoeuvred behind Bruce Rioch''s back to have him removed (again prematurely), and replaced by Bryan Hamilton. Whose recruitment of a bunch of total nobodies on transfer deadline day was hailed by her as proof of our ''ambition''- Blamed the local media - that''s the most docile local media in the whole country - for Hamilton going (when in fact, the players had, thank heavens, wanted him to go)- Referred to Nigel Worthington "our Wenger" in Summer 2004- Hailed 19th place and relegation as a "success"- Disastrously kept Worthington in place a year past his sell-by date, setting in motion the events which would relegate us to League 1- Been so gutless that rather than sack him, she issued the infamous two-game statement instead- Appointed Peter Grant, with no previous managerial experience, when Roy Hodgson was interested in the job- Appointed Glenn Roeder, despite his history of failure more or less everywhere, after wasting an entire month - despite Roeder being out of work at the time- Supported Roeder when he treated Darren Huckerby disgustingly badly- Appointed Bryan Gunn because "he bleeds green and yellow"- Blamed money in football, not her own never-ending terrible decisions, for relegation to League 1- With the club on the brink of administration, a catastrophe scenario, went cap in hand to bring in proper people with actual expertise of football and business- Still wanted Gunn to stay, but thank God, was overruled by people with a clue- Those people then got tough: poaching Lambert away from another club. Not something Delia would ever have considered doing- Meteoric success followed under the leadership of, eureka, tough, ruthless, ambitious people, with Delia fading into the background- When Lambert left, we ruthlessly poached Hughton from another club: a club which, until very recently, had been bigger than us- The whole board was culpable for the neither back nor sack dithering and paralysis of 2013/14. The whole board was culpable for the absurd, suicidal timing of Hughton''s dismissal- The whole board was culpable for the ridiculous, laughable appointment of Neil Adams - but I have an incredibly hard time imagining it was McNally''s choice. Adams was just another Gunn scenario; been there, tried that, failed totally.- McNally acted, bringing in his chosen target Alex Neil, again from another club- Success followed... but so did relegation, as our yo-yo existence continued- A week after Brighton thrashed us 5-0 under a manager her board had got rid of, Delia declared to the national press that she hoped Alex Neil would stay for ten years, complained that the fans wanted him out, and stated that she would "never sell" to a foreign owner: thereby putting her family''s interests ahead of those of the club- Incomprehensibly, wasted almost all of our first season back down when it was obvious from early November that we were going nowhere unless we changed manager- Then changed the whole club''s long term strategy.... precisely as a result of her and her husband''s own lack of means. And almost certainly, brought in the wrong people to oversee said strategy: which would be highly unlikely to succeed under almost anyone (certainly anyone within the compass of a club with such poor owners).Delia Smith has been heavily involved at this club for 22 years. In that entire time, almost all the success we''ve had on the pitch has been when others, who actually know their business, have made the key decisions and provided real leadership. In so many ways, we''re Delia''s little Norwich again now. She openly celebrates that; others, quite rightly, laugh at us. PS. Before anyone says it: yes, I''m grateful to her and her husband for keeping us afloat; for transforming us commercially; for presiding over much bigger attendances than we''d enjoyed in living memory; and for giving us a reasonable national profile. But sorry. Time''s up. Time runs out for any other owner of any other football club. For some reason, we think we''re different. We''re not.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Not sure the owner of a club that lost £65m over its last two Championship seasons (which is probably more than Norwich City has lost in its entire history) is best placed to lecture us.[/quote]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. What do we as fans do? We point to our owners and say "oh, they''re so lovely, they''ll never take any risks, they do things the right way!" And we slide further and further downwards. Their ''loveliness'' was what landed us on the verge of administration to begin with.There''s one other frustration I have with you PC, and it''s this. For want of a better phrase, huge numbers of your posts are either constant apologia for the board, or too green-and-yellow tinted by half. On The Guardian, after a summer in which we''d sold our best players and recruited utter mediocrity, there you were, extolling our virtues and tipping us to contend. There was zero reasoning behind this other than your own blind faith.We''ve won four games in 20. We can''t defend for toffee. The players who kept us afloat last season have all gone. The manager, who has had no previous success at senior level, doesn''t even know what his best system is. Do you still think we''ll contend now?

[quote user="nutty nigel"]It''s this churn that makes the Championship a decent league where everyone has a chance to get top the so-called promised land. Also, as you can see rather than going to hell in a handcart over the next 10 years we more than held our own in this merry go round.[/quote]There''s certainly plenty of churn in the Championship. However: why did we more than hold our own during the period you mention? Because we got brilliant people in: three of them, to be precise. Delia, by contrast, wanted to keep Gunn at the helm. She wanted to keep as manager someone who''d just relegated us, then lost 7-1 at home on opening day in League 1, and couldn''t motivate his way out of a wet paper bag.With more and more wealthy owners, most of them from overseas, in this league now, it stands to reason that it''s harder than ever before to get promoted. And what''s happened to us since those three individuals departed? We''ve gone back into decline. Slowly at first (because parachute payments insulated us), increasingly rapidly now. The gulf in class yesterday between an ambitious, go-ahead club under a great manager and a stagnating, soft club under a near-novice of a manager was massive. There are no signs this can be closed. Our own lack of means as a club is most of the reason why.

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user=" Badger"]The ones that really struggle are those that have "gone for it" and failed.[/quote]And yet despite this - despite all the horror stories we''re always told, the "be careful what you wish for" view which lies behind that - how many ''big clubs'' are currently operating well below where they naturally should be? One. Sunderland, two levels below their natural level, and extremely likely to bounce back into the Championship at the first time of asking. The only other club below the Championship who naturally belong at this level are Portsmouth: who are also turning it around and likely to return either this season or next. And these are both extreme cases. Even Leeds have finally got it together.Meaning that even the scare stories so often trotted out really don''t hold much water. It''s rather like someone staying in an increasingly bland, unsatisfying relationship for fear of meeting an axe murderer if they move on. Fear of worst case scenarios is not a sensible way of living life. [/quote]Portsmouth, Sunderland and Coventry in League One.Leeds, only showing signs of recovery MORE THAN 15 YEARS since their financial crisis - and I beleieve, without having spent a huge amount of money for their recent upswing.Forest have been in th Championship for about 20 years despite years of over-spending leading to transfer embargoes etc.Ipswich - still paying the price for over spending in their last period in the Premier League. They went into administration once, got bought up be Evans, who also "went for it" under Keene and now they seem to exist as some sort of Zombee club.Sheffield Wednesday, over spent trying to get back into th premiership. Were relegated to league one, promoted back again, sold for a pound because of financial difficulties. Rumoured to be up agaist FFP atm.QPR and Birmingham, are worse off as a result of their big spending; Derby have spent loads over the years and seem no better off, desperate to offload players no longer required as a drag on the club goings forwards.I could go on... I''m a bit surprised that you don''t seem to know about some of these.[/quote]I know about all of them, thanks. Of the above group, only Derby, Sheff Wed and Forest could be argued to be ''natural'' top flight clubs; and in Forest''s case, really only because of a freakishly successful period in their history under a total one-off of a manager. Birmingham, like Portsmouth, won a major trophy. Neither are natural top division clubs. I assume their fans are supposed to regret winning something, then? Coventry are not a big club; last season, when they went up, they had gates of less than 10,000. This season, so far, their attendances have been similar to well-known massive club, Barnsley. Derby''s prospects look good this season, infinitely better than ours... despite Derby not having played in the Prem since 2008. So why is that? Oh, I know - it''s because they''re ambitious and their owners aren''t the poorest in the league. QPR''s stadium, a millstone round their necks, cannot sustain anything much more than a struggle at this level. Neither can Ipswich''s gates.How many of the above are ''nightmare scenarios''? Portsmouth were, but no longer. Sunderland, but they''re under new ownership now too. QPR, because they have an idiot in charge - yet they have much less potential as a club than we do. And that''s more or less it, especially given Birmingham''s history is not exactly a glorious, success or top flight-filled one. Arguing that "x had money, yet they didn''t succeed long term, so we shouldn''t want money" is, in an environment in which only some clubs can succeed at any point, a pretty ludicrous premise. Leeds appointed Bielsa; Derby appointed Lampard. It''s inconceivable either would''ve been remotely interested in us. You should ask yourself why that is.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="thebigfeller"]It probably needs re-emphasising just what a miraculous job Messrs Lambert, McNally and Bowkett did in getting us out of this league and, however briefly, establishing us in the Prem on such a low wage bill. In 2010/11, along with Derby, we were one of only two clubs in the whole division who maintained a wages/turnover ratio of below 60%. Most others were at a minimum 90%; many were well into three figures. [/quote]I don''t argue with the basic point, that we  got promotion that season on a tight wage budget. However the generally accepted measure, the one used by the national press et al, is that of overall staff costs, since it is very hard to work out what went specifically on player wages.for all clubs. On that basis our overall staff cost bill of £18.445m was 80 per cent of our turnover of £23m. The club''s own more specific figure for player wages was 47 per cent.[/quote]Fully 4m of which was bonuses for promotion. Which only became liable, in other words, after we''d beaten the odds so much to begin with.

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]it is this section: In a world in which little Barnsley can be bought by foreign owners, it is not even in the realms of plausibility that nobody with the means required is interested in Norwich. 25,000 gates each home game; an incredibly loyal support built up since the Centenary Season; passionate, yet understanding, remarkably so at times; just two hours from London in a city which has come up in the world over the last 20 years; spent four years out of five in the Premier League this decade... and no-one''s interested? Do me a favour. The problem is the owners have no interest in selling us. They''re hamstringing us; more than that, they''re overseeing close to inevitable decline. English football isn''t going to suddenly become less competitive: it''s uniquely popular globally, and more and more plutocrats and consortia want a piece of that action. The bubble isn''t going to burst - but the way things are going, NCFC will. It’s full of assumptions. Someone bought Barnsley so somebody must want to buy Norwich? Right. Implausible to think otherwise? Right. The bubble won’t burst but Norwich City will. Given that we live within our means, surely we’re the least likely club to “burst”? But in truth that’s probably me being thick. It seems like the post is advocating spending beyond our means as the other clubs mentioned have in order to try and succeed. Yet the post also points out that English football is going to become more competitive, if that’s the case then surely spending beyond your means carries increased risk because you’re less likely to be one of “the twenty” at any given time? While we’re putting such emphasis on money, spending money we don’t generate and well, looking for somebody else’s money to spend on our club for our benefit... Shouldn’t we take a moment to praise the current board and majority shareholders for our current league position as we are clearly punching above our financial capabilities and as such we should be delighted with the existing state of play. 👍 Nah, didn’t think so. Me being thick again.[/quote]A few things:1. In natural club size, Norwich are somewhere between 21st and 25th in England. Being bottom half in the Championship (and getting not better, but worse) means we''re punching well below our natural weight - if only we had owners with the resources matching that weight, that is. 2. Why would Norwich City ''burst''? We''ll burst if we end up in League 1 for any sustained period of time - because it''s at that point that the gates will fall and TV revenues shrivel up to almost nothing. We''re more dependent than most on attendances as it is. If you think Norwich fans will put up with a sustained period in the third tier, you''re fooling yourself. 3. Are you seriously telling me that club after club after club after club - dozens upon dozens upon dozens of them - have changed ownership in the past 10-20 years, but by some miracle of circumstance, Norwich City are the only club in English football''s top two flights with no-one interested in us? Are you also telling me that this miracle of circumstance has occurred at the same time as our owner has gone on record stating she will "never sell to a foreign owner"? This is quite the coincidence, to put it mildly.The majority shareholders have not sold the club because they don''t want to sell the club. It is and has always been that simple. Other than when on the cusp of administration in 2009, we''ve never been desperate, so we''ve never had owners who''ve looked or publicised properly for alternatives. Their mentality is precisely why Brighton''s owner recently lampooned them to another poster on here. No change doesn''t just equal no chance; it guarantees continued decline.4. And no, the OP doesn''t advocate ''spending beyond our means''. It advocates the necessity of new owners. Whether they choose to spend beyond their means or not is a matter for them - and constrained by Financial Fair Play rules in any case.

[quote user=" Badger"]The ones that really struggle are those that have "gone for it" and failed.[/quote]And yet despite this - despite all the horror stories we''re always told, the "be careful what you wish for" view which lies behind that - how many ''big clubs'' are currently operating well below where they naturally should be? One. Sunderland, two levels below their natural level, and extremely likely to bounce back into the Championship at the first time of asking. The only other club below the Championship who naturally belong at this level are Portsmouth: who are also turning it around and likely to return either this season or next. And these are both extreme cases. Even Leeds have finally got it together.Meaning that even the scare stories so often trotted out really don''t hold much water. It''s rather like someone staying in an increasingly bland, unsatisfying relationship for fear of meeting an axe murderer if they move on. Fear of worst case scenarios is not a sensible way of living life.

[quote user="JF"]Don’t forget number 4. The Numbskull fans[/quote]Ahem. The ''numbskull fans''. [:O]The fans, of course, keep the club in existence. The fans'' loyalty has been extraordinary. We have some of the best fans anywhere. However:1. Most of the time, we as a fanbase are nowhere near demanding enough, and a huge number have been effectively brainwashed into believing NCFC is some little club which can''t ever hope to seriously compete. We''re a fanbase in Delia''s image in that sense. But making matters worse...2. The one time in recent years when we (myself included) were too demanding was under Hughton. When clubs go up to the Prem, many of them survive via hugely unappetising football for years and years. For some reason, our fans seem to think we''re different. That we can get by on one of the lowest wage bills AND play great football. And that''s just nonsense.At Brighton, Hughton''s still failing away from home all the time. Yet he''s their best manager in living memory, and their fans love him. He''s a hero to them, deservedly so. It going so wrong for him at Norwich was precisely what convinced our board that we needed to play ''the Norwich City way''. But the Norwich City way has achieved more or less the square root of eff all throughout our existence. It''s the hardest style of football to succeed with in the game; and it invariably leaves us an utter joke at the back, with no steel in the middle, and no dig, no spine, no balls throughout the side. Even the greatest season of our history featured a whole bunch of absolute drubbings.Paul Lambert and Ron Saunders were rare exceptions among our many managers. Playing the way so many other clubs do, under horses for courses managers like Pulis or Warnock, is to very many Norwich fans, "just not us". Many fear new owners for precisely that reason too. But that means we get the football club we deserve. It''s next to impossible in today''s world for us to succeed with such poor owners AND play passing, innovative football - in fact, the latter can realistically only ever result from new, rich owners.

(In ascending order of importance):3. The manager. He''s never convinced; he doesn''t know his best team or best formation. What was the point of going three at the back to tighten things up last season, only to throw this straight out and go back to being so soft it''s unbelievable, with a defence like a sieve? That means the entirety of last season was wasted. It must confuse the players hugely. It certainly baffles me.2. The players. When football fans search around for someone easy to blame, it suits them to overrate the playing squad, because it gives them hope of better things under a different manager. I don''t share that hope. This squad is the epitome of mediocrity. I look at much of it and think "who are these people?" Without Maddison, we''d have been in massive trouble last season. Well, we''re without him now... and sliding. Pritchard, Murphy and Gunn have gone too, and none of them have been replaced with better or equivalent players. That''s a comment on Webber''s poor recruitment - but it''s not all his fault either. Webber, the squad, and Farke are all symptoms of a much more fundamental problem:1. The board. The poorest owners in the Championship. A league which continues to change rapidly. Unlike in the past - think of the late 90s, when clubs like Swindon, Grimsby, Port Vale, Tranmere, Stockport, Crewe or Bury could all do perfectly fine at this level on gates of much less than 10,000 - there''s really only one club in this season''s Championship which doesn''t naturally ''belong'' here: Rotherham. And they have backing: like Barnsley in the division below.It probably needs re-emphasising just what a miraculous job Messrs Lambert, McNally and Bowkett did in getting us out of this league and, however briefly, establishing us in the Prem on such a low wage bill. In 2010/11, along with Derby, we were one of only two clubs in the whole division who maintained a wages/turnover ratio of below 60%. Most others were at a minimum 90%; many were well into three figures. But miracles don''t happen twice. Huddersfield, who many will point to, will almost certainly go back down this season and slide back into anonymity - but even they, built sustainably, have had substantial cash injections from their owner along the way. Burnley, a real model club at present, might struggle this year... and actually sailed very close to the wind before going back up and staying there. Almost everyone else are funded beyond their natural means.But our owners can''t do that. So we start each season, or under any new manager, with one hand tied behind our backs. It''s precisely those constraints which led Lambert to leave; he knew we couldn''t sustain it forever. At Brighton, meanwhile, Hughton prospers because he has real backing - from an owner with deep pockets who knows that the only way to profit in English football is, one day, to sell the club on having dramatically improved it through his investment.Yet are Brighton not a community-oriented club? Are Watford? Are Crystal Palace? Have any of them ''sold their soul'' - or just got real amid the most competitive football club structure in the world? But getting real is what our old, patrician owners steadfastly refuse to do. In a world in which little Barnsley can be bought by foreign owners, it is not even in the realms of plausibility that nobody with the means required is interested in Norwich. 25,000 gates each home game; an incredibly loyal support built up since the Centenary Season; passionate, yet understanding, remarkably so at times; just two hours from London in a city which has come up in the world over the last 20 years; spent four years out of five in the Premier League this decade... and no-one''s interested? Do me a favour.The problem is the owners have no interest in selling us. They''re hamstringing us; more than that, they''re overseeing close to inevitable decline. English football isn''t going to suddenly become less competitive: it''s uniquely popular globally, and more and more plutocrats and consortia want a piece of that action. The bubble isn''t going to burst - but the way things are going, NCFC will. Personally, I don''t think we''ll go down this season. I think we have a better squad than at least eight other clubs. But we''re heading inexorably downwards. On the pitch, we may be in crisis in a matter of weeks: there''s major shades of Peter Grant''s final month or so here in how things are looking. But off the pitch is where the real problems lie. This ''model'' isn''t working and was never likely to work; and in many ways, all it amounts to is an arse-covering exercise. For a pair of joint majority shareholders who cannot compete in a footballing world which has changed out of all recognition since they first became involved.They have to sell the club. And they have to go. If they don''t, we''ll be back in League 1 in no time... and highly unlikely to get as lucky again.

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]Another good call from Shaun all the way from deepest Uruguay. Singing the praises for Board and Manager. Thankfully he seems to have sorted out his underwear problem.....[/quote]Haha! However...1. It was never an underwear problem to begin with. As I''ve finally realised, it was and is a microphone problem. My mic is taking my voice one octave up! Meaning that next time I call in, hopefully it''ll sound like my balls have dropped and dogs all over the world will stop barking at the moon.2. "Um..." "Um..." "Um..." WTF was all that about?! Rob should''ve channeled his inner Nicholas Parsons and cut me off for hesitation... Thanks for the mention though! And what a difference 7 weeks make. Football is bloody brilliant. :) :) :) 

Naysayers, of course, will say there''s a fine line between bravery and madness; some naysayers will now simply start waiting for things to go wrong. But I don''t have that feeling at all. I''m excited. And to those naysayers, I have one simple question: Name me another club in the whole of Europe which is punching above its weight more than Hamilton Academical have under Alex Neil? Because you see, I can''t think of one. There isn''t one. Hamilton''s natural level is that of a Scottish Championship or even at times League 1 club. Until only recent years, if they ever got into the Scottish Premier, they were found horribly, embarrassingly wanting: 21 points in 1987. 14 points in 1989. And that stood to reason - for they''re a tiny club with next to no resources and only a small fanbase. That is the backdrop against what Hamilton have achieved under Neil. What Billy Reid started, Neil has continued and improved; and he''s done it playing proper, positive, enterprising, exciting football. 3rd in the league, only 3 points behind Celtic in January? That''s incredible. Is this an enormous step up for him? Sure, of course it is. Could it go wrong? Yes, absolutely. Any managerial appointment can go wrong at any club, because there''s so many intangibles involved. How do the players respond to him? What''s his relationship like with them, and with other key figures at the club? Do egos and personalities clash? Is everyone on the same page? How many bad apples are there in the squad? What''s the situation like off the pitch? How lucky or unlucky are you with injuries? Etc etc etc. But does he have a chance - a major chance actually - of being successful? Yes, he does. It''s not that he talks a good game; it''s how he talks it. Articulate, balanced, focused, clear-headed, likeable, and cliche-free. Someone who won''t take any nonsense and has that vital quality, perspicacity, essential to almost all successful managers in the modern age. Peter Grant, to draw a parallel, so rarely thought through the impact of anything that he said; he just wore his heart on his sleeve at all times, burning vital bridges all over the place. He did that because he had no managerial experience. Well, Neil does; he won''t make the same mistakes, and his comments overnight showed just how well he knows his own mind too. Do I expect him to get us into the top 6 now? I certainly hope he does and believe he can - but no. What I''m looking for are clear signs of progress, a real plan coming together in how we play and where we are headed as a football club. That may take time. If there are bad apples in the changing room, they''ll need to be shipped out; if he has completely new ideas, it''ll take time for those to be implemented. But we have a chance now. We really do. He may well be here for the long term too. Last weekend, I pleaded on air for this club to finally think outside the box; well, we have. With bells on. Big, big credit to the board for that: thankyou for putting a little spring back in my step, and that of thousands of other Norwich City fans. We have something and someone to believe in now. Finally, memo to the players. Fame costs, and right here''s where you start paying... in sweat. Good luck Alex Neil - all the best mate. And above all... OTBC!

Mods, please ignore the above post. I''ve just discovered that I can, at least, paragraph in Chrome - it''s only quoting others I can''t do, and not to worry about that really. Sorry!

I have no doubt whatsoever over Alex Neil''s abilities. Pound for pound, no club in Europe is punching more above its weight than Hamilton Academical - and Neil is a huge (though not the only) reason why. Some of the posts earlier in the thread about some "little Jock" playing "hoofball" are ignorant, arrogant, clueless, and based on pure prejudice. The post which should be read and read and read again by everyone on this forum, however, was by the great Andy Larkin. Unhappily, while not doubting Neil in any way, I do harbour very grave doubts over how our over-paid, mercenary "show us yer medals!" players will react to a 33-year-old they''ve never heard of; and equally grave doubts over our much trumpeted ''football board''. Neil appears to have the very same doubts: hence his latest comments, which provide a reminder that he''s exactly the sort of clear thinking, strong character that this club desperately needs - but will McNally give him what he wants? If he doesn''t, we''ll be right up the creek, and we''ll know exactly who''ll be to blame for that. No pressure, David.

Incidentally, just to update this: when I tried to use the Firefox codeswitcher recommended above for a second time, the moment I clicked on it, my excellent AVS (F-Secure) found and blocked a trojan. I repeat: a trojan: the first one I''ve ever had. So I''m not using that any longer. The website still immediately crashes Firefox, and has the same total non-functionality in both Chrome and IE. In fact, very regularly, it even freezes my browser in Chrome. This is the only website that does that: I use Chrome and Firefox with no trouble with everything else. The problem, very obviously, is the ridiculous pink chat circle in the corner - which is so invasive it can''t even be minimised. I would love to know what utter clown at Archant thought that would be a good idea. So sorry to the poster above: but I cannot use this forum. A pity. Goodness knows how many others have been similarly affected - but I repeat, it''s kind of a joke.