Jump to content

Monty13

Members
  • Content Count

    5,701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Monty13

  1. "I''m not sure we need to build a side around Hoolahan, or that he needs "special treatment" to be accommodated in the side. His work rate over the last two seasons has increased immensely to the point where he could possibly fill a similar role to Howson (who I would have replaced with Hoolahan after 65-70 minutes on Saturday). Yes there is the risk he''ll try the difficult pass and give the ball away, but equally he can see and make passes that nobody else in our midfield can and on his day he is a match winner. It felt to me on Saturday that we settled for the point and stopped pushing." This. People always hark on about Hoolahan losing the ball all the time, he can''t play central midfield, he can''t play on the left, he doesn''t tackle enough, he is too light weight etc. People need to look at the stats from last year and where he actually played when brought on in games (he wasn''t only used at the tip of the diamond) and find something to back up their opinions. To not bring on your most creative player from last season when you need him is a bit worrying for me. Especially when Howson and Surman were providing very little in the last 20 minutes and are either muscled powerhouses in comparison to Wes? How exactly would he have been that big a change to Surman in particular, his tackling and work rate was good last year.
  2. "Today we played badly and didn''t lose. Today we played badly and still had chances to win the game. Today we played badly and didn''t concede. Today is the day we came of age in this league." Do you know what, really good point, we put in a poor performance same time last year on Sky against a similarly poor West Brom side and lost.
  3. Yep definitely a big positive from today, looked very solid, and put bodies on the line when needed, deserve credit for their effort.
  4. Have to say thought the defence played really well again today, few errors and some really strong performances especially dealing with the set piece threat. Garrido and Martin played well again (Garrido is more and more looking like an absolute class acquisition to me) and Barnett and Bassong were always comfortable dealing with a pretty toothless attack. That definitely wasn''t the problem. I think as most have pointed out the midfield faded second half and nothing was done about it. It was a fairly good first half display by them especially a very lively Surman, but post 60 minutes he was pretty non existent. Snoddy probably played the best over the 90 but never hit the performance levels of Tottenham. I thought both Kane and Morison looked good when they came on but they had very little service. Yes Kane put in a pretty tame shot on the break but he has had very little first team experience and people wouldn''t have put so much weight on it if that chance was in the first half rather than near the 90 when we were desperate for a winner. Especially with all the other tame shots we got on goal in the 90.
  5. Don''t get me wrong technika, think your pretty much spot on with your prediction of the next few games. Its much tougher than the next few we had this time last year with only Man U and Liverpool in there from the bigger teams. I just wanted to make the point that are performance so far has been pretty akin to last year. Hughton as arguably got a much tougher job than Lambert had though to get more points and a win on the board over the same period. Even if we do ok in those fixtures Stoke at home is looking like a must win, otherwise we will seriously be left behind, although the run up to Xmas in Dec is much kinder. I think where we sit at Xmas will give us a much better indication of our season as the Southampton to West Brom games are all arguably winnable and ones to get points from.
  6. Watched on TV so can''t really comment on the second point but totally agree with the first, game was crying out for him.
  7. Before we all reach full on panic mode a little reminder that last year we didn''t win till are 5th game (Ok Newcastle away doesn''t seem likely to repeat that) but we also had one less point, scored the same number of goals and had just lost a fairly unconvincing home game to West Brom. I''m not saying that we are now definitely going to kick on like last year and beat Newcastle and then Liverpool at home, but I don''t think the indicators for our season are much different than when we all sat here post West Brom last year. The finishing needs to be better, we are still creating the chances.
  8. That was what I was thinking Broadstairs, is all very well changing the forwards but as the game has dragged on we are now screaming out for Hoolahan to get on and try to control the play as we have seen less and less of Howson and particularly Surman in the last 15.
  9. A quick look on the website and counting up LDC and there are 14 tickets available, none of which are anywhere near each other. For a game that''s already on Sky, not against one of the bigger teams and 45+ quid for a casual on your own, not selling 14 tickets doesn''t really worry me or prove there is no demand for a stadium increase. In fact to only have 14 tickets available is pretty bloody good in this situation. And I''m sorry but while the availability of games online is good, the quality is nowhere near that of Sky HD and while lots of fans are familiar with how to watch the games there will probably be a large proportion that aren''t and don''t, but do watch the games that are on Sky.
  10. It will probably be at odds with many views on here but I feel quite sad about society''s constant need to punish and apportion blame on individuals for disasters such as this. I work on the aviation side of the military and we run an almost no blame culture to enable us to both learn from experience and to hopefully stop accidents/disasters from happening, by all involved being honest and able to hold there hands up without fear of persecution. I have also done a lot of Human Factors training and it is nearly always the case that with any accident/disaster while one event may be the tipping point that causes it, nearly always there has to be a continuous chain of failures for events to unfold at there worst. If that chain is broken your disaster will not happen on many occasions where it might, however if there is that perfect storm where all events line up, disaster is almost inevitable. Reading the report from Hillsborough is almost to me like reading any accident investigation that I have read on aviation. There is an almost constant series of failures over a number of years from Government Policy and the FA down to SWFC and SYP, that lead to that moment of disaster. To blame an individual for his one action that tipped the balance seems grossly unfair to me, especially when we will never no what would have happened outside the ground had he done nothing. While the actions of SYP post the disaster to lay the blame squarely with LFC supporters is reprehensible and appears will probably (and rightly in my opinion) lead to prosecution, this does not really affect the event itself. I cannot blame the families of those who died and those individuals scarred mentally and physically from the events from wanting to seek their own personal justice, and they have my complete sympathy. However, what little comfort it may give them, this disaster has forever changed policy within football of policing, safety and attitude and has potentially stopped further loss of life from similar situations occurring.
  11. Having just read the 14 page summary of the report, and as others have pointed out this tells you all you really need to know, I''m struggling to see why further documents need to be released and what further insight or benefit they can provide. The report is clear on the causes of the disaster (and they are a chain of many, not a single persons actions). It is also clear that the actions of the management of South Yorkshire Police post the disaster, to apportion blame away from their force, was suspect at best, and most likely appears corrupt and worthy of prosecution of high level individuals within the organisation at the time. You have to wonder whether people feel, and maybe the media is partly to blame, that because all information isn''t disclosed that something important is being hidden from them. The report is comprehensive and appears to exonerate Liverpool supporters from any tangible blame in the events. It has already elicited and apology from both the current Government and current management of SYP. It seems almost inevitable that the actions of SYP''s management post the disaster will be further investigated and prosecutions may be made. I am at a loss what information people feel isn''t being disclosed which would have an outcome on the nearly 400 page reports findings.
  12. Pretty much agree with everything you have said lets be Let''s be ''aving you. Kingsway too, although I don''t think I am quite as enthusiastic as you!
  13. Two things: The 10/11 ticket revenue figure is therefore championship revenue, there has been two big increases in ticket price since then. An extra 8000 seats is an extra 30% of current capacity so your figures are wrong. More importantly once again whatever percentage of total revenue tickets count for the club should be doing everything to maximise all it''s revenue streams, not relying 100% on tv money. Ticket sales also effect sales of refreshments, programmes, shirts and memorabilia.
  14. "As said before, a couple or three places higher up the table and the prize money wipes away anything extra seating will generate" How do you achieve this without spending significantly on the squad? Your still spending to generate potential income, and then is this place increase guaranteed? Stoke have spent significantly every year since they entered the premier league. they finished 12th in their first year 11th the next then 13th and 14th. Did they have a good return on their investments? The odds are we wont finish 12th or better this year, in which case we would have not only not increased our revenue it would be down. Placing is an incredibly fickle source of revenue and much harder to predict than ticket sales. You accuse me of constant contradiction yet you simultaneously ask me what about relegation while sighting the significance of TV revenue and finishing position in the PL. As Purple says the board have in black and white stated their plan for sustainability is to increase capacity to 35,000. Whether they change their mind in light of new TV money, factor that into their expansion plans or abandon them altogether is something we will have to wait, probably till after this season ends, to find out. You keep stating about moving forward but what your actually advocating is complete stagnation. The same set of fans paying to watch city every year at the most they are possibly prepared to pay while every penny is repeatedly funnelled into the playing squad in the hope of increased place finishes. Can you please give me an example of what PL club has used that as a successful model? The club needs to grow to compete, it needs to generate a bigger fanbase and interest from its potential future followers to be a bigger PL club. That''s not my view, that is what the board members are talking about in that link you pointed us all to. We don''t have a benefactor and with the increase in FFP rules having one is looking increasingly like the past. We are fast heading towards times very different from the past 15 years where crazed finances are being brought under control and there is the potential for a more level playing field than there has been in years. A bigger club will be in a better position to compete.
  15. Since when has ticket demand been purely generated by PL football? we only got promoted last year. And McNally has been sticking extra seats anywhere they will fit since he got here. Your completely ignoring two points: Season tickets are already overpriced (Our''s are the 6th highest for cheapest ticket in the division) this is because the Board are squeezing as much money as people are prepared to pay while there is no way of providing extra seats. Our season tickets went up more than any other club who was in the division last year. By your own admission the club is balancing demand against cost, its charging as much as it possibly can while still filling seats, that is very sensible policy. Secondly where do you go now to increase future revenue? Keep increasing prices further and more people wont renew, eventually you can''t charge anymore as you wont fill capacity. The only way to generate extra ticket revenue is to provide extra seats. "try and grasp this - to generate enough season ticket sales to gaurantee a certainty of income the price would have to drop considerably (season ticket waiting list is not as high as some imagine), those price drops would have to be across the board, add in the fluctuation of casual ticket sales and you are looking at a neutral income level" And I''m not failing to grasp your point, what proof are you possibly basing it on? Suggesting as fact that any increase in ticket sales will be totally neutralised by reductions across the ticket sales is completely unsubstantiated, and makes little economic sense in any retail market. You have no idea how many people would come and fill carrow road, whether at the same prices or at slightly reduced rates, which would not as you say cause a neutral level income. I''m not burying my head in the sand you are, the only way to make extra revenue from ticket sales is to increase capacity as if you keep increasing prices massively eventually people wont come. Its not about making people cough up more its about making more people cough up. No one has to come see Norwich, they make a choice to and they will only continue to while they can afford to, reading this forum there are many who have already decided prices are too much. Thanks but i''m basing my "fantasy" on the comments made by the board which suggest that they are considering this as the only sustainable way ahead for the club.
  16. Purple I completely agree, the comments are old but the club have not doused the flames of stadium expansion, the fact that they would only consider it after 2 consecutive years in the premiership means unless we do that there is little point in them publicly continuing to talk about expansion until after that is secured. My take on it was from the comment "The trade-off is between capacity and price" I think that''s a public admission that price might fall to ensure they fill any new capacity, but I also agree the other comment is relative to where we are now and that they can''t put prices up much more. But both are pointing towards expansion as the only way to increase ticket revenue.
  17. City1st I totally understand the laws of diminishing returns, however you are choosing to completely disregard one of the factors which is demand. There is currently demand for extra tickets and no way to facilitate it, your scenario where the club makes no money would only apply if there was no demand for 1 extra ticket at current pricing. If there were 8000 extra seats all those on the season ticket waiting list could have a season ticket and those who wanted casuals and were unable to get them could have casual ticket tickets. Yes there is a suggestion that at current pricing for some games there may not be the demand to fill the stadium. This would mean that for those games pricing of casuals would have to drop to fill the stadium. But at the minute category A+ A and B price for adult tickets (which nearly all PL games are) are 43-58 pounds for members. Doing some very quick estimates, even if the tickets for casuals dropped from these prices significantly, lets say they averaged over the year 35 pounds (compared to 31 a game for a ST holder which remained the same) and that ncfc sold on average only 4000 (half of the extra tickets) that would mean that the club made an extra (35x4000x19 games) 2.66 million in casual sales a year purely on PL games. I have been uber conservative with figures here both assuming we come nowhere near filling the stadium and that we drop casuals by nearly half and yet we would still make enough money to cover the loan amount per year that Mcnally was suggesting when he said it would take 9 years to pay off. Of course we would drop revenue while being built and wouldn''t have that new revenue till it was, that is the hard part. But in the LONG TERM the Stand isn''t a subsidy for supporters its a money spinner. The board are businessmen they no this, thats why they are considering it but it is not a short term win, its about the clubs future. "The club has kept prices far lower than other comparative clubs in order to not so much fill the ground" really, well our cheapest season tickets are the 6th most expensive in the league and that covers by far the vast amount of ticketed seats in the ground. And its cheaper to go to casual game at Stoke, AV, Sunderland, Everton, West Brom and Wigan and almost exactly the same prices as casuals at old trafford. How exactly are we far lower? check the figures.
  18. "To increase the attendances, there has to be a price reduction" I''m not disputing this Bowkett has pretty much said it point blank in that article. "At present the price reduction to ensure 35,000 capacity would have to be so sever that it would wipe out almost all the ''extra'' income." I am disputing this, where do you possibly have conclusive proof of this?? That makes absolutely no sense by retail terms. If you sell a lot more of something but do not increase your profit margin you are a crap businessmen. Bowkett and McNally do not strike me as such and certainly wouldn''t build a new stand to lose money. "We are at almost maximum sales for the prices being charged." spot on, so the only way to make more money is to increase capacity. you can''t charge more, people wont pay it and you can only create more money by dropping prices and selling more, and you have to have the extra capacity to do so. 9 years is not a long time in football, your pointing us to quizes about 1970''s players (I wasn''t born sorry) so your all living proof of the fact that 9 years has flown by and the club is still here, it will still be here in 9 years time and could be here in 9 years time debt free with a stadium to match is support and ambition. The club only subsidises pensioners and children and still makes money from them, we buy shirts and other tat from the shop, match programmes, food and drink on the day and all of those paying for sky sports are pushing that TV deal up. But in terms of gates the only club that subsidises its fans is one that makes an overall loss on its ticket sales, last time I checked we don''t do that.
  19. City1st your taking Bowketts words and twisting them to your own view. his full quote in the article you have linked us all to read says this: Bowkett said City were confident there would be an extra 8,000 fans keen to see Premier League football. “We’ve done a lot of looking at the greater Norwich conurbation and the commuting population,” he said. “About 500,000 people are in commuting distance of Norwich, compared to what, a 150,000 population. There isn’t another club for 50 miles. There isn’t really another large scale sporting attraction like a rugby club or rugby league club, so we’ve got a captive market. We just have to make it accessible. The trade-off is between capacity and price. “I’ve had some private conversations this evening with people saying ‘It’s getting a bit expensive, Alan’. And I know it is. There is only so far we can put the price up. And in the current environment when people are paying higher taxes, high inflation, flat salaries, one has to be realistic. “ He is saying they are confident the extra fans are there and they have to make the club accessible, but he is conceding that ticket price will probably drop with an increase in capacity to achieve the numbers. The bit about it being expensive is what fans are telling him! and in return he concedes there is only so far they can put the price up. You have took two small bits of entire quotes and tried to use them to justify your own argument.
  20. What I actually said City1st was that extra TV money could HELP pay for the stand, look back through the earlier posts. When Nutty asked how I thought it could be paid for i said " a mixture of loans, sponsorship and club income and spread the costs as much as possible to avoid impact on the playing budget. Its the only viable way I would have thought." How can you expect a more detailed answer than that? of course i have no idea how good a finance package NCFC could get and over what term, and who would be prepared to sponsor the stand at what price. No one does, apart from maybe those at Carrow Road who may have been looking at the viability. By that same token you have absolutely no idea if capacity was to increase what our average attendance would be, neither do I, but for the Board of NCFC to even mention the possibility of an upgrade in capacity they must be pretty sure they can get bums on seats in sufficient numbers. And while season ticket numbers and waiting list numbers would be useful in working out perceived demand they only tell you who wants a season ticket not casuals. While were at it, cup games are irrelevant when looking at casuals. Whether your prepared or not to drive half way across the country and back on a Tuesday night (if you can get off work) to watch Norwich second 11 play Scunthorpe in the cup is not an indication for whether extra seats are needed or not for the PL. Oh and City1st in that article you refer us to the following quotes are also used from OUR board: “If there is no major investor we have to make the club self-sustainable and in the Premier League we would have to have35,000,”said McNally. "City would lose £1.4m in gate income from lost capacity while building work was in progress and it would take nine years to pay back the building cost, he said, adding that they would consider expanding the stadium only after two consecutive years in the Premier League.“ Only then would it be a viable proposition,” If their talking 9 years to repay back any loan at a 20 million cost plus interest your talking around 2.5 million a year to pay back the stand, thats 500k more a year than we are spending on the Academy. And I respect your views, but I don''t agree with them, that doesn''t make me a lunatic or a troll. And i''m sorry Nutty, but I don''t think anyone (even the biggest supporter of expansion) would agree that if Howson became an England regular and we sold him for 20mil that they would be happy with all that money paying for a new stand. If we had someone of that ability and sold them they would need replacing, it would be far more damaging not to than to lose 2 or 3 million a year from the potential player budget imo.
  21. Once again a twisting of words, I was not suggesting we use the extra revenue from TV money if we stay up to fund the project (Although if we do it could be paid for in 18 months, the amount of time your telling everyone it would take to build, would that make you happy?). I was saying that if broke costs down to roughly 4.5 mil per year over 5 years this would only equate to a third of the extra TV money, I wasn''t saying we should rely on that money to do it. I don''t know how the club would decide to finance it, how much we could get for stand sponsorship or how long a period the banks would lend us money. The threat of relegation will always hang over us, bigger clubs than us have gone down and some have never made it back. Constant scare mongering over the threat of relegation caused by any removal of potential funds from the playing budget does not make you right. The club has been paying back large chucks of debt since we got promoted yet we managed to survive the first year and surpass expectations and have spent heavily again this year. If we build a new stand and get relegated then many on here will point to it as the excuse for why whether it is or not. To be an unending cycle of pumping every penny into the playing squad with no hope of ever growing the club bigger is lunacy in my opinion.
  22. What a reasonable response nutty....yes lets sell Howson, Pilkington, Bassong and Elliot Bennett, that should about cover it and have the least impact on the team. 20 million spread across a number of years plus a sponsorship deal for the stand (how does that effect the playing budget again, remind me?) could easily be accommodated by say 4.5 million a year out of our total income over 5 years, but your right lets bite the bullet now and sell a load of players because using roughly a third of just the extra money we would receive from TV rights in the premiership from next year and putting that towards a stadium (not to mention that being reduced by any extra generated ticket income) would be madness......
  23. Nutty a mixture of loans, sponsorship and club income and spread the costs as much as possible to avoid impact on the playing budget. Its the only viable way I would have thought.
  24. "Brownonomics, where did that get us?" I don''t think NCFC is trying to stimulate growth through borrowing are we Ricardo. If anything Football economics is so far reserved from the real world a valid comparison can''t be made. As someone in the armed forces now paying for years of money being borrowed for projects we could never afford i can assure you I don''t buy into the stimulation of growth through borrowing! However when we get given vast swathes of TV money each year throwing every single penny of that at new signings in the gamble that you stay up is not a smart long term approach for me. Hence why i agree with the academy and want to see the stadium expanded. The club should grow, the current financial premiership thinking may keep us up but only to stagnate as a club.
×
×
  • Create New...