Rock The Boat

Looks likely he''ll be gone before the end of the season. But he was running out of steam here towards the end.

And Wiz hasn''t seen Norwich lose at home in the past ten years!

1-0 Chelsea

This is obviously in readiness for Villa''s Championship season.

There does seem to be a pattern - great first half, poor second half - all the way through sunderland, swansea, aston villa, wigan,, and now wba. What''s the reason?

would anything make it worth paying for?

If the pinkun messageboard became a subscription site, would you still post here?

[quote user="percy varco"]Bunn is the future when Ruddy goes to Arsenal in Jan.[/quote] You''re a fruit cake

Yes it was an awesome goal. He had the confidence to bring the ball forward when there was space in front of him,run at the Swansea defense, make a neat one-two with Snodgrass, continue his forward run and then make a sublime check to cut inside the defenders and whack the ball in at the near post. A good goal from a forward but totally awesome from a right-back,imo. Think it shows the levels of confidence within the team that players are prepared to play so positively.  

[quote user="Phillip J Fry"]Well, that was interesting!The second half was... phew!Did we miss Tettey? To a degree, I think we missed the aggression he brings to the midfield. Because he is so fast and agile he is a lot more comfortable getting tighter to his man, and trying to tackle as he knows that, more often than not, his speed will bail him out of trouble.I don''t think he could''ve done much in that second half though. Our problem was an inability to control the ball and the tempo of the game. In the first half our defensive tactics slowed the game down when Swansea had the ball and we sped the game up to a very high level when we were attacking. The constant switches in tempo confused Swansea and was why we looked good both offensively and defensively IMO. In the second half Swansea really dominated possession and dictated the tempo of the game. All the fans on here saying we needed to push up have to realise that in the system we play SHAPE is more important than PRESSURE. We allow Swansea the ball in their half and then press them when they get within, say, 30 yards of the goal. I feel that fans need to realize this or they will be constantly disappointed. Anyway back to Tettey. Having identified our major weakness in that second half (an inability to control the ball) does anyone think Tettey could''ve done better than what we had out there (Johnson, maybe). Tettey has been very good this season, but what has impressed me is his energy, aggression and sheer presence in that midfield. Howson, Surman, Fox, Wes etc. are all far more composed on the ball than Tettey and if we were crying out for anything in that second half it was someone to step up and demand the ball in dangerous areas to say to his teammates "I''m open, I''m available lets keep possession". No one did unfortunately and the result was that Norwich won by the skin of their teeth. Despite this, I hope Tettey is back soon as he has been massively important so far and I think we''re a better side with him than without him. Howson''s composure and general play in the first half really impressed me and I''d like to see both Howson and Tettey start the next game. [/quote] Are you sure about this because we had exactly the same situation in the Sunderland game where Tetty was playing?

Today he was sublime

We could throw the game to an Asian betting syndicate and trouser a few million to finance a striker in January. Either that or expand the stadium.

If we ground shared the Olympic Stadium with West Ham then Norfolk CC would be forced to improve road links with the capital. Kill two birds with one stone.

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Gingerpele"]I wasn''t just talking about this thread. Some are dead against even talking about the suggestion of Bennett or Morison starting a game. I assumed this OP was sarcastic, because anyone blaming Bunn for the goal is out of their mind.[/quote] Well I''m certainly gainst making changes to a team thats on an 8 game unbeaten run. What''s the argument in favour of making these changes? [/quote] One good argument is that only QPR have scored fewer goals in the league. That suggests we owe our league position to our defense and that we could improve our attack. I''m sure that while Chris Hughton and his staff are happy with our current form, they will be looking at ways to improve the team and I don''t see that GingerP is suggesting nothing more than CH is thinking - how to make good become better.

when the going gets tough.... some just do a runner...

Dump the kids on their Dad and let him bring them up. Never understood why a guy would want to bring up someone else''s kids.

How many league points do you get per mention on MOTD?

Insolvent clubs need to be allowed to go bankrupt and then have their league status replaced by other clubs. The current situation allows clubs to hang on, even though technically insolvent, because they know that non-footballing creditors have no priority and that the FA allows them to continue even though insolvent. There will be a lot of short term pain but in the long term clubs will be better run knowing they must be solvent if they want to continue as a league club. It is not necessary to have FFP rules, which won''t work anyway, because existing insolvency laws are already in place to disallow insolvent businesses to continue trading.

[quote user="City1st"]Do young people and parents see a lesser game. Should someone be entitled to a cheaper ticket because they have a child(ren) than someone whose children are no longer dependant upon them ie over 21 ? What preference in price for an adult with children in a well paid job over a single adult working for Bernard Mathews on the production line ? If they are too be cheaper then there are being subsidised. The price for season tickets next year will be based on what price the club thinks enough fans will pay. Fans will in response pay what they think is an acceptable price. Speculating, I think demand is beginning to cool. We came up very sudden and I''m sure there was a sense of don''t miss out, in case it doesn''t last. That novelty may be wearing thin now as fans see that games against the likes of Stoke, Wigan, Fulham are not any better than games against Leeds, Leicester and Ipswich. Games can easily be seen in pubs and on the internet as well. In general the club has pretty much got the pricing fairly accurate, in as far as keeping the ground full and still generating as much income as possible - and with there being a possible massive boost the funds with more TV there is an argument to take the squeeze off fans in some areas. Food/drink, programmes, booking fees etc. The problem is what happens if that TV money goes. Could the club reinstate those higher charges in the Championship ? [/quote] No where in your argument do you state where you think this extra TV money should be spent. You don''t want to see cheaper tickets, you don''t want extra seating so that more fans can see live games, so where do you want the spending to be made? You want it to go into higher wages for footballers and their agents, or do you want to stick the money in the bank and then see the taxman get his hands on it? So just to what area of the club would you allocate this increased income - once the debt is paid off?

The way City1st spends so much time and so many posts on ridiculing Norwich fans on this board makes me wonder if he isn''t a binner himself?

[quote user="City1st"]I met a few at another march somewhile ago - it was after their march and they were having a curry at the next table to us and despite all four of them downing quite a few lagers they seemed to have a fair case to put about defending the English way of life, though I didn''t meet the others who had gone off to get a kebab, so maybe I just met some of the polite ones [/quote] curry,kebabs and lager??? so they''re not so racist when it comes to eating and drinking, lol!!

If, and only if, we have successfully navigated three full seasons in the Premiership then where will we be as a Club? Firstly, we will debt-free. Secondly, I expect we will have improved the quality of the playing squad over that time to ensure our continuing survival. No doubt we will have invested in the youth scheme and extended our scouting system. But I wouldn''t be surprised that, even after all of this activity, we are still showing a healthy surplus of income over expenditure. So what do we do with this surplus? Let the tax man have? Allow the playing squad to up their wage demands, knowing that we have the cash sitting in the bank? Or do we invest the surplus into increasing capacity and improving fans facilities. Of course, the surplus wouldnot be big enough to finance the building of a new stand outright, but it would contribute to financing the debt we''d incur to build the stand. I agree with Nutty''s arguements that the likely scenario is that many ST holders will not renew on the basis that casual seats will become available and that as a result ticket prices may fall around the whole of the ground as a result. But then why is that neccessarily a bad thing that the supporters are the one''s benefitting from the TV income, through cheaper entry, rather than this surplus ending up in the pockets of greedy players and their agents. And with cheaper seats for fans, you will see bigger gates as football becomes more affordable. So far, this thread has looked at what is good for the club. But let''s not forget the fans in this, too. If it means the proportion of revenue from ticket receipts falls in relation to TV revenue then ithas to be a good thing for the supporter.   Of course as I said at the beginning,this applies only if we havebeen in the Premiership for a few seasons are are looking at an income surplus. If we are relegated then we would be better off keeping the ground capacity as it is now because we''d unlikely to be  enjoying revenue surpluses.

[quote user="City1st"]"A good example of the new policy is over stadium expansion. It won''t go ahead until everything is stable on the footballing front, even if it means sacrificing some current income through delaying expansion" eh ! ! ! When on earth is anything stable on the footballing front ? It never is, bar for the top five or six clubs. In the real world any stadium expansion will be a drain on current income, in not only the loss of the income from 4000 seats during construction, but also the losses in subsidising it after construction. There is not another 8000 ''fans'' out there, with there needing to be the same waiting list (season and casual) level to put pressure on demand and keep the prices as they are presently. On current ticket income this will generate around £2.5m extra - presuming 100% seat occupation and current prices being maintained. A figure that may well struggle to cover interest payments, presuming NO rise in construction costs. It is not financially feasible and that is why it has been put on the back burner. The upcoming game against Spurs will point you towards the real demand for tickets and how price sensitive that demand is. [/quote] The comment on stability is with reference to McNally''s interview with the EDP on 20th September where he says: "Once we have become an established Premier League team then we may consider it viable to invest in the development of Carrow Road" He also said at the same time: “Currently, every spare penny is reinvested in the first team squad and this is something that the board wishes to continue in the short term.” This is a different policy to that carried out by the board under Doncaster who wanted to divert money into off-field investments to provide future revenue streams. It is not the policy to which the board currently subscribes. It is a definite change and a different policy between the two boards. The details of McNally''s statements are well covered by Mr. Purple Canary in his thread on the 2012 accounts so no need for me to repeat them here.

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"] Indeed. But have you ever heard anyone in football be critical of our owners? The criticism and dogs abuse only ever seems to come from a section of our own fans. [/quote] The open letter written by Bertram and Bowkett on behalf of the associate directors back in May 2009 was a savage attack on Smith and Jones. That it never mentioned them was irrelevant. They were its real and obvious target. But then, since at that time Bertram and Bowkett had never had anything to do with the real world of football, as opposed to the pretend world of an associate director, nutty''s point may still hold good. Or not, depending on how one views Bowkett''s comment, once he had become chairman in the real football world, to the effect that Smith and Jones''s best decision had been to allow him and McNally to run the club. Myself I have problems with Bowkett''s comments on a factual and analytical basis, but they would still qualify as criticisms of our owners. [/quote] In my view Bowkett''s not so savage attack on Smith & Jones came when he was part of a section of our own fans. Since he''s been on the board of directors he''s no more "in football" than Smith & Jones themselves. That letter, which so many of the anti club fans at the time treated like the holy grail, makes interesting reading now. Because the policies of the current board are not much different to the policies of the former board. The difference has been on the football side. Gunn''s signing of Holt and McNally''s appointment of Lambert. Hopefully McNally''s appointment of Hughton will carry this on. But if today''s anti club fans are right Hughton will fail. Then who''s fault will it be? I wonder if any current associate directors will be writing to savagely attack their former colleague? [/quote] Can''t agree with that statement that the board''s policies have not much changed, Nutty. IMO, the policies have changed enormously. Under the old board, the mantra was ''prudence with ambition''. Remember that? The policy was to generate non-football income in order to invest in squad purchase over the long-term. The result of those policies gave us a hotel, offices for rent, plans for multi-storey car parks and spine roads. Remember the great debates that used to rage on this forum during the old board''s regime? When McNally and Bowkett joined, we never heard that phrase ''prudence with ambition''. Instead, those two gentlemen realised, rightly, that all the investment you could dream of was available by getting to and remaining in the Premiership. You didn''t need to rely on a few quid from office rentals if you could get your hands on Premiership millions. And so the policy changed to ''putting football first''. It''s McNally''s mantra and he says it oftentimes. It''s definitely a change of policy of the board and it''s this policy that has brought us success over the past three years. A good example of the new policy is over stadium expansion. It won''t go ahead until everything is stable on the footballing front, even if it means sacrificing some current income through delaying expansion. It''s why I support McNally and Bowkett, they know that football must have top priority in their decision making. It wasn''t always like that under the previous board.

Nice story