QHcanary

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="QHcanary"][quote]I know how much all the first team squad are paid, as well as Lambert and the coaching staff, including bonus structures, basic wages, etc.I can''t post any of it here as it''s too confidential for the likes of y''all, but just wanted to let you know that I know. [Y]  To prove it, several of the figures are in the thousands of pounds region.[/quote]Nothing like hedging your bets when you''re telling porkies, eh?[/quote]Green''s not your best colour, boys.  I know something you don''t know, and you need to man up and deal with it.[/quote]I think you''re confusing jealousy and indifference.

[quote]I know how much all the first team squad are paid, as well as Lambert and the coaching staff, including bonus structures, basic wages, etc.I can''t post any of it here as it''s too confidential for the likes of y''all, but just wanted to let you know that I know. [Y]  To prove it, several of the figures are in the thousands of pounds region.[/quote]Nothing like hedging your bets when you''re telling porkies, eh?

[quote] Someone has just begrudgingly given Holt praise for today but says in so many words he hasn''t been up to it, even last year ffs!! [/quote]You''re probably referring to me. I never said he wasn''t up to it last year. His goals got us where we are. What I did say was his fitness wasn''t up to it. He often looked spent after 60-70 minutes, which for a pro footballer isn''t acceptable IMO. Just look at the posters around the ground. Holt''s gut sticks through his shirt very noticeably. Yes, this was pre-season but it shouldn''t happen. It just means he''s playing catch up come August. He now seems to have gotten his act together with his fitness and the difference is huge.I''m pretty sure Holt''s fitness was a factor is him losing out to Morison for the lone striker''s spot.I''m well aware that my opinions on Holt will stir up the proverbial hornet''s nest, but don''t put words in my mouth. I''m happy he''s doing well.

[quote]premisership[/quote]That is just about the most perfect typo I''ve ever seen, given your miserly attitude towards a player who was excellent today.You may be right. He may well not be in the team come August, but team selection 9 months from now isn''t exactly a pressing issue, is it? As I intimated above he is far from the perfect holding midfielder. He does deserve praise for his performance today. Always available, good use of the ball, barely lost it all day, calming influence on the defence and midfield. We look a better footballing side when he''s on the pitch.

[quote]Worked his socks off yes, good enough, no.[/quote]What game were you watching? Do you think it was coincidence that we kept the ball better today, played less long balls up to the front 2 and looked generally more assured in possession? Fox does a great job of knitting the play together, making himself available as an outlet for the CBs and other midfielders. Needing him in the team is part of the reason we can''t play a diamond against better teams. He hasn''t got the physical side to his game that he would need to offer the necessary protection to the back 4.

I''ll admit I''m one of the people that have given Holt a hard time, but I make no apology for that. Everything I said he was guilty of was true. However, I''ll also admit that on today''s performance he has turned himself around.He looked much fitter and more mobile. He didn''t seem to flag after 60-70 mins like he would have done last season. His work rate was as high as ever, and he didn''t seem to burn out.He played the ball much better when he had his back to goal. Too often in the past he''s wrestled with his marker and ended up not winning the ball with us losing possession as a result. He seems to have learnt something from Morison, who has been excellent with his back to goal ever since he came into the team.He also won a lot more in the air. He''s always scored goals with his head, but flicking the ball on or nodding it down to other players never seemed to be his strong point. This was also much improved today; possibly as a result of his improved fitness and mobility.I hope it continues. We won''t play 2 up front all season, but for the times when we play a lone striker it''s great that we may now have two strikers actively competing for the place. The diamond can work, but against teams with a better midfield we''ll have to still play 4231 or 451 to give our shaky defence some cover.

[quote]"Where did I say say increased revenue was what I wanted to see? " I didn''t state that you did. The preposition ''if'' was used in that context.[/quote]Stepping back into the playground here, aren''t we? If only it were as simple in life to able to retract a statement by crowing "I said IF". Your meaning was clear. [quote]Perhaps you could point us all towrds them. Board discussions/agreements, etc. Achitects designs, Planning applications .... . Anything tangible that would be considered a plan will do. [/quote][quote] Mr Bowkett said the main focus of that work would be redeveloping the City Stand from 4,400 to 10,000 seats. Mr McNally said the 35,000 figure would “produce a self-sustainable Premier League football club”, but the current capacity of 27,000 would not. He added: “We’re absolutely convinced that there’s a market for this, but we need some certainty about Premier League football. There were plans put together some years ago that we will dust down. But we will look at it afresh. We will thoroughly complete our research, looking at population change forecasts over 10 years.”[/quote][quote]I should have added that the club has put a cost - £20m - on this plan, so it must have done some recent calculations to arrive at that figure.[/quote] Oops. Tangible enough? I shouldn''t have to point you in the direction of this, but in light of your tendency to only reply to points that you find malleable enough to meet your own needs, it is perhaps prudent. [quote] Which I stated would be a 15% price increase NOT 25%. [/quote]15, 25, it matters not. The issue wasn''t the maths and basic market dynamics you seem to think are too much for others to handle. You reacted with indignation to me questioning the suggestion of further ticket price increases. I have never questioned the logic of higher prices resulting in higher revenue while demand is high. My reaction may have been knee jerk, but surely it''s understandable when you look at your comments from the "average" fan''s view? Maybe it would have been sensible to coherently assert the fact that your views on this were not your want before you got the inevitable response? [quote]The irony of you quoting Arkell v Pressdram appears to be lost on you.[/quote]Ironic indeed, if we''re first assuming that every opinion you proffer is to be taken as gospel. Given that you''re ignoring the posts where I made my position on the subject quite clear, I can''t help seeing the irony in accusing me of being the one who''s lost. Or maybe you really do do it deliberately?

[quote user="City1st"]"You can warn us all of the dangers of expanding the ground all you like." Blimey, up pops another one. Even dimmer than the last it appears. This one claims taht because he spouts unrealistic nonsense anyone who doesn''t subscribe to this ill thought out idiocy wants the club to stagnate, so even slower If ''wanting more for the club'' is generating more money then that can be done by adjusting the ticket price that is easier and cheaper and achieves the same financial gain there, even a three year old could grasp that City have attracted higher gates through having lower than average ticket prices. Comments on hee acknowledge that an increase will affect crowd number - so by that logic prices are affected both ways. What I have stated is that the club will wait a season or two, not only to see which league we are in but how well the demand stacked up one the ticket prices become more realistic. If they were certain of these tens of thousands then they would simply go ahead now. So QH, instead of squeaking out in self righteous imdignation and trying to claim some mystical higher moral ground, more of a fan than you are'' take a read of my post, the one prior to your bleat. I would dearly love Carrow Road to have a capacity of 35/40,000 ... and be full every home game. But, as more recent posters have pointed out, reality is a bit of a harsher master than empty headed dreaming. It might also be worth reflecting on the fact that the club is in the position it is in now through that hard headed approach rather than your cloud cuckoo land fantasies. ps as to where I sit then I can assure you it is certainly not behind you, that I am certain of[/quote] Where did I say say increased revenue was what I wanted to see? It will certainly be a by product of what the board are planning, but as long as we can realise this plan in a manner that doesn''t expose the club to unnecessarily high risk while still allowing on field progression, I couldn''t give a flying f*** what our actual increase in revenue is. What I just can''t get my head around is why you keep trotting out the same line about increasing ticket prices. You say you''re not advocating this course, so again, why bother?To make me look simple? You just make yourself look like an overly aggressive, patronising a**e. we''ve had a large hike in ticket prices this season; presumbly to a level that the board thinks the market can stand. I''m 100% sure we''ll see further rises, but a further 25% increase is further detached from reality than showingsupport for plans that have already been outlined by men far more shrewd and intelligent than you or i. So, accuse me of empty headed dreaming if you will, but I trust that in doing so you''ll also be directing a strongly worded email to Messrs McNally and Bowkett warning of the potential disasters of their best laid plans. Of course, if you do I would expect a reply in much the same mould as in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram (1971), and a good job too as it would save me the trouble of telling you myself.

There really is no hope if you can''t make the connection between conceding sloppy goals and goal difference come the end of the season. I''m not suggestin that a clean sheet is the be all and end all, but had we not given away sloppy goals in the games I mentioned we would have more points and better goal difference, all by virtue of keeping a clean sheet.

[quote user="City1st"]some tripe from business for dummies[/quote] Look mate, I dont need a lesson in supply and demand. 5 year olds understand the stuff you''re trotting out. You can warn us all of the dangers of expanding the ground all you like. We all know the risk. But why shouldn''t we want more for The club? The board do and so do the majority of fans. If you''re happy for the club to stagnate and fall further behind the larger clubs then by all means keep kicking and stamping your feet. if you''d also be happy to pay even more inflated prices then lucky old you that you can afford it. I dare say I could afford it too. However, there are plenty of "put upon" fans who couldn''t, and why shouldn''t that viewpoint be represented here. A lot of those fans are the ones who continued to attend games when we weren''t sure we''d get out of league 1, and now you want the club to say "thanks, but no thanks". If you''re not advocating the approach you''re so aggressively putting across, then I have to ask why you''d bother posting it at all? And if you''re not, then how do we build a premier league club capable of operating on a financially stable footing? If you''ve got master plan all to yourself then be a love and share with us all. I''m sure the powers that be at Carrow Rd would love to hear what they''re doing wrong. More than anything your vitriolic rhetoric marks you out as exactly the type of "fan" that any normal person avoids like the plague. A joy sponge, sucking the life out of people who enjoy watching their team and want to see the team and the club improve, get bigger and succeed. Come to think of it you''re probably that tool who sits behind me.

[quote user="City1st"]"If we manage to stay in the Premiership then capacity increase is a neccessity to enable the club to fulfill potential" very, very slowly If we increase the capacity by another 25% we willroughly get another 25% increase in income - minus repayment of loan on that redevelopment If we increase the tickets by 25% we will achieve the same result .... without any risk of not making the 35,000 capacity. As 25% may be seen as high then the club simply deducts the amount of the loan repayments (as above)plus lose of income from closing the Main Stand for some while. That gives the same increase in revenue without the same risks and the same risk of keeping up payments were we to be relegated. Not that difficult, is it ?[/quote]So what you''re essentially advocating is pricing even more people out of going to football matches, while showing no ambition as a football club.Ambition comes hand in hand with risk, but it''s a risk worth taking if we want to grow as a club, with the obvious caveat that we must first stabilise our position in the prem.

The man''s a tool. Always has been, always will be.

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="QHcanary"][quote] Spot on Beaus[Y]   Clean sheets are overated. They aren''t even on the radar for league position. It goes points, goal difference, goals scored and finally alphabetical order!     [/quote]You''re not serious, are you? Can''t be? Have another think about that and then tell me why clean sheets are or aren''t important.I''ll give you a clue...it''s got something to do with goal difference. It''ll be tight at the bottom come May, and if we''re in the mix then the goals we gift teams, even when we''re winning could cost us dearly.Why do you think you see managers saying they''re disappointed they didn''t keep a clean sheet when they''ve won 3-1?[/quote]   I was serious but I think you''re ''avin'' a laugh buddy. You have gotta be joking and here''s the punchline....   Norwich City Clean Sheets 0 Goal Difference -2 QPR CS 3 GD -10 Stoke CS 4 GD -10 WBA CS 3 GD -8 Swansea CS 5 GD -4 Wolves CS 2 GD -10 Bolton CS 2 GD -12 Wigan CS 2 GD -12   Now I don''t think Babes was being obtuse. He is perfectly correct. a 6-5 win is more likely to improves your league position than a 1-0. There is absolutely no provision for clean sheets in the league table. Of course "back in my day young man" 1-0 wins were much sought after. In the days of goal average 1-0 was infinite where as 6-5 was only 1.2. But back then footballs had laces to avoid when you headed them[;)]   It''s true that managers don''t like the goals that soil clean sheets. But not any more than they dislike a second goal conceded in a win. Posters on here like clean sheets them because they are something we don''t have!       [/quote]I''ve already conceded that a 6-5 win is better than 1-0, so you can get off that particular soap box.What you don''t seem to be getting is how conceding the odd goal when we win can hurt us. Take the Sunderland game. We''re 2-0 up and it''s looking like we''re going to win, but we start to sit back and allow Sunderland back into the game with a goal. We still win, but but the goal has been conceded none the less. Now...fast forward to May. We finish level on points but go down on goal difference. What if we hadn''t conceded that goal against Sunderland, or more to the point that goal against Stoke, or the one against Bolton, or the one against West Brom. All examples of where bad goals or defensive mistakes have cost us a goal, and in a couple of cases points. Now you can keep banging on about how clean sheets don''t matter, and you can throw me lists of stats all day long, but what matters is the league table come May, and if we go down on GD I''m sure you won''t be saying "Oh well, we got some good wins". No, instead you''ll be bemoaning our defensive naivety, because in that situation it won''t matter how many games we won 13-12, or whatever. It''ll be games like the ones against Sunderland or Bolton where we conceded in wins that have sent us down.Don''t take this to mean I''m not happy with the way things have been going. I''m immensely proud of what we''re doing, and we''ve exceed expectation so far. However, our defending is clearly our weak point and needs improvement. Anyone that says different is " ''avin a laugh ".

[quote]   There''s more advantage for end of season league position in winning a match 3-1 rather than 1-0 or even 2-0   OTBC [/quote]Deliberately obtuse, or do you just not understand?We were 2-0 up a couple of times this season and went on to win 2-1. Stoke would be disappointed to have lost a goal today, and so they should be. That goal could cost them league position.

[quote]Spot on Beaus[Y]   Clean sheets are overated. They aren''t even on the radar for league position. It goes points, goal difference, goals scored and finally alphabetical order!     [/quote]You''re not serious, are you? Can''t be? Have another think about that and then tell me why clean sheets are or aren''t important.I''ll give you a clue...it''s got something to do with goal difference. It''ll be tight at the bottom come May, and if we''re in the mix then the goals we gift teams, even when we''re winning could cost us dearly.Why do you think you see managers saying they''re disappointed they didn''t keep a clean sheet when they''ve won 3-1?

[quote]Do you hate everyone City1st?[/quote]It''d be easy to think that, wouldn''t it?My two penn''orth.Football comes first, No question, but if we maintain our prem status and look like we''re going to hang around for a few years then why wouldn''t we want to expand?Assuming we''re debt free in the future, then expansion can only have a positive effect IMO. How much more intimidating for away teams are big grounds full of home fans? Old Trafford, The Emirates, The Bernabeu. These are all places that have huge crowds week in week out, and that plays a part in the results you see there. I''m not making comparisons here, but the effect of huge home support is not hard to see.If we really want to push on and achieve something as a football club then expanding the ground is a logical part of that transition, after building the squad and getting ourselves financially secure. Yes, we''d probably be in debt if we built a new stand, but as long as we maintain prem status the cost of servicing that debt wouldn''t be prohibitive.

[quote]One of the few good things about the ''big 6'' clubs have stretched away from the rest is that I think it''s less likely that they will look at managers like PL to take over. [/quote]I''m not so sure. PL is exactly the type of manager I can see Man Utd being interested in when SAF retires. Moyes has been touted as his replacement for ages, and it''s easy to draw comparisons between all 3 of them. I''m pretty sure SAF will have a big say in who Utd replace him with, and it''d be hard for him not to admire PL for what he''s done. All he needs is a couple of years experience at the top level and he''d be great there, I reckon.Whether he could manage a club that big with the figures involved is another matter. Some managers do better on smaller budgets with less expectation. Hodgson, for example.

[quote]  Firstly, I would say the finger should be pointed at Ruddy and Tierney before it''s pointed at Barnett in terms of who is to blame for the goal.   Secondly, I would agree that Pilks had a poor game today but he also had a poor game out last time against Arsenal. Both games he''s lacked the "energy". He''s top player though so he''ll put it right.   Thirdly, I have to say I thought Jackson played very well today. He was very mobile and did a great job of linking up the play all over the pitch. I think the manager will be very pleased with his performance. [/quote]Tierney should have dealt with the header when the long ball came in, or left it for Ruddy.Barnett should then have dealt with the clearance properly.Surman should have pressured the QPR player who picked up the clearance (Mackie?), instead of turning the wrong way and losing his man.Tierney shouldn''t have switched off and allowed Young to get into the box unchecked. You could see it as well. His body language was very telling when he realised Young was there.The only way the goal was even partly Ruddy''s fault was if he didn''t give Tierney a shout as the long ball came in, but that''s being harsh. It should have been dealt with, and was in honesty, a comedy of bad defending errors.Jackson wasn''t good. For every nice bit of play there was a horrendous first touch that gave the ball away. He''s supposed to be a goal threat, and he didn''t manage it.

Morison is a better all round footballer. He holds the ball up better and brings the midfield into the attack. Holt always seems to struggle to play the ball and the man, and is IMO surprisingly weak in the air. Morison on the other hand wins a lot of headers for the midfield to run on to.It looks to me that Holt can be effective in the role he''s played against Liverpool and Blackburn. He can put himself about like a maniac for half an hour. Winning free kicks, hassling tired defenders and popping up with the odd goal. A good impact player. He can''t do this for 90 minutes. He just hasn''t got the stamina. I know the majority of NCFC fans love Holt, and I admire his passion and work rate, as well as all the goals that got us where we are, but the Premier league is no place for sentimentality. We were woefully exposed at the back on Saturday. Our better performances have been with 5 in midfield and one up front, and in this system I think Morison is simply a more effective player.

England''s ''keepers shouldn''t be selected on how many goals they concede. It''s not reasonable to do so unless the goals they''re conceding are down to their mistakes. The best ''keepers in the world would ship boat loads with an awful defence in front of them.You want several things between the sticks...off the top of my head:Shot stoppingConfident handling and claiming of crossesCommunication with the back 4Good distributionRuddy''s problem at the moment is the question marks on his handling. I''m pretty sure it''s a mental thing. I doubt you see the handling errors he makes on match days when he''s at Colney.Rob Green conceded plenty at West Ham, but was still No. 1 for the World Cup. What happened next is history, of course, but it reinforces my point.

The reason he got beaten at his near post on Saturday was the fact that he wasn''t set in time. If you watch closely, he hasn''t sorted out his feet by the time the shot comes in, meaning he didn''t have the stable base he needed to get a strong hand to the ball. His shot stopping is clearly his strong point, and Yakubu''s goal isn''t something I''d expect to see repeated regularly. His handling is definitely the more worrying issue.

Did the post match analysis mention it anywhere? Or PL for that matter. I guess given the chances they didn''t score, we''ll take one offside goal, but I''m just surprised I''ve not seen it mentioned anywhere.

I thought so. Might not have touched the ball, but he caused the defender to go to ground, who knocked the ball into Bellamy''s path. Definitely interfering with play IMO.Thoughts?