ABC (A Basingstoke Canary)

It''s on Ranelagh Road - making it one of the most up-market areas in the town. Apparently property prices have already started to sky rocket, with several cases of gazumping being reported.....

westcoastcanary - I don''t recall Huddersfield selling off all their assets - I don''t even recall if they had any "prized" assets. Also remember, they were strong contenders, if not favourites for relegation last season. So for them to virtually replace the entire team wasn''t seen as a fire sale. So no, not a con trick! My post was about when enough becomes enough and for the club to not be so fixated on selling our prized assets (remember it was the board who held the purse strings ). I for one have been really impressed with the dealings so far - I just want to have the confidence that the club realises that we are a FOOTBALL club - and not a financial institution and when they intend putting the shutters up. There are certain players (like the Murphy''s) who we have been nurturing over the years - with a new structure being implemented, it is only reasonable to expect the supporters to want to see the club reap the rewards on the field (and also for us to enjoy seeing them in full flight in Canary colours).

CDMullins wrote: "Now assuming Toffolo will be sticking around to be back up to Husband - That scares me. " Alternatively, it could be that Husband is the back up - to either Lewis or Toffolo (although I doubt it) - but good competition in that area has to be good news - especially when all 3 players are young enough and keen enough to be moulded into the "Farke way"

At what stage is enough, enough???? If everyone has their price, at what stage does football start becoming the overriding principle (after all we are registered as a FOOTBALL club!) With rumours of £12m for Jacob, maybe £10m - £12m for Nelson, and possibly a combined £30m+ for Josh, Alex P, James M, Wes, Timm & Ivo - that could add up to over £50m in the coffers - very healthy financial situation. What then - with most decent players gone, the speed with which we would then plummet down the leagues (plural on purpose) would make the club toxic - no player would want to join, no fan would want to renew season tickets, fans coming through the turnstiles would drop to a trickle - and worst of all, that lot down the road - no, I can''t even bring myself to say it! I don''t understand the whys and wherefores as to how our financial position became so parlous. However, one can''t blame it all on Alex Neil - he did not hold the purse strings! He told the "money men" the players he wanted and they dutifully obliged. But what about the fiduciary duty of the board? What happened to all the income from player sales, TV revenue, Premiership windfall / relegation windfall (we''ve had a couple of them)? AN may have recruited unwisely (although I didn''t really hear much complaint about those he bought in - just complaints about those he didn''t), or he may have been unable to get those recruits to perform (and I think some of the exits may give a clue as to who those could have been). Nevertheless, the lengths of the players contracts, their wages, sign on fees, sell on clauses etc. would have been under the purview of the board and determined by them and not AN. However, whilst acknowledging that we are where we are, at what stage will the enthusiasm of those same "money men" be reined in and persuaded that enough is enough? So far the fans have been generally supportive of the restructuring, however, taking their acceptance for granted would be a definite own goal, which brings me nicely round to my opening position - we are not just a club, we are Norwich City FOOTBALL Club! Oh and BTW, I won''t be able to attend on Thursday, perhaps somebody could pose the fiduciary question to Mr Stone?

Comment from DF: “I was a little bit angry with the goal we conceded because I don’t like to concede goals, especially on such an annoying thing but all in all I’m pretty content with the work and the game today.” If conceding a goal in a testimonial makes him "a little bit angry" - he would probably have been apoplectic after seeing videos of all the goals we conceded last season! Woe betide anyone responsible for conceding a goal this season (and no, I''m not pointing any fingers at any of the captains). I like the open and honest way he seems to be treating the fans - and going on the evidence so far (I know it''s early days yet) I applaud his approach and more power to his elbow!

westcoastcanary wrote: "Alternatively Howson objected to the spin being put out by the club and the club backtracked. I''m not aware of any statement by the player himself to the effect that he wanted to leave." Not sure I understand your 1st sentence, - the only spin I saw being put out by the club was Farke''s effusive "love" of JH. However, the second sentence sums up my confusion - I couldn''t understand why a player who had been POTS would say that he wanted to leave the club (instead of why he wanted to move to the north). Hence my suggestion that maybe his agent was paraphrasing what JH was saying

The bit I didn''t like was this comment on the official site: "On Howson’s departure, Sporting Director Stuart Webber told canaries.co.uk: "Jonny, via his agent, made it very clear during my first week in the job he didn’t want to be here and wanted to move back to the north." My question is what would have prompted him to say that he didn’t want to be here - instead of just saying that for family reasons he wanted to move back to the north? Not sure why he (unless his agent was paraphrasing him) would say something like that about the club where he was named POTS a year ago. Not the best way to leave a club from whence there was no acrimony. (It appears the club didn''t take too kindly to his comments as within an hour of the announcement, they took his details off the site)

Boris Might wrote: "I doubt Rangers will be able to take on his current wages with us - so who makes up the difference" I sincerely doubt that we would sell any player - especially with the privilege of being able to pay half their wages for the next 2 years. If, and it is a big if, that was the situation and say Sheff Weds came in for him, and say he scored a winning goal against us. Do you think the management, let alone the fans, would sanction that? BTW If he so desperately wants to play for Rangers, and wages are an issue, then he will have to cut his cloth accordingly. He / his agent doesn''t hold all the cards on this one - he is at a stage of life where he will need to be playing regularly - we have a few cards of our own that we could play if necessary.

Boris Might wrote: "now the shorts socks, anyone slapheads could have a logo sprayed on their bonce" I kinda think that "shreddies" is an appropriate sponsorship name for the shorts - given that back in the dim & distant past of my army years, shreddies referred to the "regulation undergarment"

I don''t think it is a matter of 7 bad, 1 average and 2 good players. I think it was more of an attitude problem and now the new management set up is letting it become known that you either "shape up or ship out" - no matter how self important you think you are. Hopefully, this attitude change will be reflected on the field of play. So I agree with 7rew''s comment that 6 average players - with the right attitude - in exchange for the 10 mentioned above, will make us better as a team.

If westcoastcanary is right, then it''s £800k - full stop (and hopefully someone is ensuring the cheque is not made of rubber) - forget about getting any further instalments - that will never happen!

Conflicting reports tonight - according to Paddy Davitt it was for £800k (after rejecting a derisory offer of £500k??!). However there have been other reports ranging from £1.3m to £1.5m. Can anyone shed some light on it - and will it be cash up front? (If not, I fear it might end up being for free!)

.... well on the back of the shirt anyway. With their reputation in the glazing industry, here''s hoping the opposition won''t be able to see through our defence - OK, I''ll get my coat.....

Indy_Bones wrote: "If this topic was such a big concern for the top brass, why would they even accept the deal to begin with..." Maybe because they didn''t imagine that the fall out would be so negative? Gambling is addictive - and trying to promote an addiction on the front of a team''s football jersey does not represent a responsible approach to a "family" club. But then again, that is only my opinion........

hogesar wrote: I''m confused why people think the club should suffer because they as individuals have addictions due to a lack of self-control? Maybe if they hadn''t gambled all their money away they could have stumped up the cash to sponsor us themselves.... Some may respond by saying that if the club hadn''t gambled all their money away on various players and their contracts we wouldn''t have to be knocking on the doors of gambling sponsors ;-) just saying...... However, to try and appease the self righteous, I am not advocating that people should not be responsible for their own actions and the consequences thereof. I have tried to point out that an insidious by-product of gambling is that the innocent often suffer. There are those in our society who are easily influenced (some to a larger extent than others) by the views and actions of celebrities and their sporting heroes. As I said in earlier posts, I am not comfortable with having a gambling company as a sponsor and have given my reasons for my discomfort. I have not sought to attack the morals or detract from the pleasures of anyone who does enjoy a flutter. BTW it appears that the majority of supporters are against the principle of this sponsorship - if this topic wasn''t such a big concern, why would the club''s top brass be assuring the public that they will be working closely with leading charity GambleAware throughout the course of the sponsorship?

Without doubt, once the 1st 15 mins or so were over, Germany were the superior team and deserved to win. 1) High pressing - fantastic, the English reverted to type and defended en masse giving the Germans the freedom to play around with the ball. 2) Harassing the English players, not giving them time to play their game. 3) Crisp tight passing. 4) Worked as a team - not as individuals - seamless transition from Selke to Platte was a joy to watch (even if it was the Germans) 5) The Germans didn''t kick the ball aimlessly away from their penalty area - they always had someone top pass to. There was more to marvel at - just hope that Farke and Stefan Kuntz are cut from the same cloth - and if so, the future is looking very bright. As a byword, I thought that Jacob was ineffectual and didn''t really enhance his reputation - fortunately!

From the list presented: Blow all your money on gambling - kids go hungry Blow all your money on alcohol - kids go hungry Blow all your money on hookers - kids go hungry Blow all your money on fancy clothes - kids go hungry Blow all your money on whatever - kids go hungry It''s only the 1st 2 items which are addictions, and if you include smoking, those three do have regulations surrounding them regarding what is and isn''t permitted. If it was all so innocent, why have any regulations at all? There is a responsibility on society to try and provide a safe and decent environment for children and the vulnerable to be brought up in. Where do we stop, gambling adverts on (or even inside) school buses? Bonga wonga type cash lending sponsoring school outings? ....and the list could go on. I have spent many a happy hour in the pursuit of a bit of gambling fun, whether it be in a bookies for a punt on the Grand National or in the more plush surroundings of a casino. However, I''m not comfortable with the way that these adverts / sponsorships have become so ubiquitous within football. However, I respect everyone''s right to have their own opinion. There are a number of valid points on both sides of the argument that have been raised, so far be it for me to judge. It is purely my humble opinion.

Indy_Bones: Whilst I accept that people have to take responsibility for their own actions, and make their own mind up, instead of blaming it on video games, adverts, tv/movies or whatever??? However, there is also the effect that it has on the innocent - and when you see kids go hungry, dressed in "hand-me downs" from other kids, and their embarrassment of not being able to "join in" with their peers, whether it be for a McD, cinema or anything else, all because one (or even both) parents are addicted to gambling. There is no obvious or immediate stigma to the gambler - they don''t slur their words, don''t stagger about in some kind of drunken or even drug crazed stupor, and in the most part, they look and dress respectably enough not to draw attention to themselves. So, yes I agree, there is too much of a nanny state about us today and PC has gone mad. But, as much as I liked the Hamlet adverts, and the "sophistication" surrounding a Rothman''s International or even the thrill of seeing the black and gold JPS livery on a sleek F1 Lotus, I believe that common sense has prevailed by no longer glamourising tobacco products. Unfortunately, as I said, it''s not about the individual''s actions, but the knock on effect it has on their families. Gambling is an addiction and like Alcoholics Anonymous is there for Alcoholics, so Gamblers Anonymous is there for Gamblers.

I''m kinda with Herman on this one Don''t really like the idea of promoting gambling. However, one major relief is that it isn''t one of those bonga wonga cash merchants!

BroadstairsR Keep going with the kippers! A well reasoned analysis and response to some of the tripe spouted on here. Thank you

....and Smith must score - I didn''t realise my stutter (for for) was transferable to the written word! Note to self: must control excitement for upcoming season - have a lie down if symptoms persist!

paddycanary - well written piece - realistic whilst still being optimistic - good combination mix of the new and the old. I think you have set a new benchmark for for the voice of reason!

As reported in the Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-4630826/Leicester-set-land-Norwich-striker-Benny-Ashley-Seal.html (Sorry, can''t seem to do the links with Chrome) Is there any verity in this? Was he on the cusp? Has someone from the "new order" screwed up? Would like someone ITK to verify (or not) if possible

Jean Moulin 👍

[quote user="GJP"]Why wouldn''t he go to clubs like Palace or WBA? Realistically he''s not a top 6/7 Prem player so that makes those types of clubs "likely" destinations.[/quote] Incomprehensible! The reason he wouldn''t go for clubs like that is because he knows Norwich is FAR better than any of those mentioned! And, he has the opportunity to be one of the cornerstones of the "new" Norwich project - why would he want to move to mediocrity?