Juggy

[quote user="ReadingCanary"]The Premier League is massively different to how it was in 1993The Money means there is a MASSIVE gap between 7th / 8th place and "mid table"In our current standing we will not become a team like Arsenal.Right now I think we should be aiming for positions like Stoke / Fulham / EvertonConstant mid-table with the odd cup run and venture into Europe.To say we could become a top 5 side is laughable.[/quote]Newcastle managed it in 2012 having spent hardly any money, with an idiot in charge, after having been saved by the manager that we currently employ.... why couldn''t we? Football may be very different now than it was in 1993, but it''s not that all different now to 2012. It was, afterall, just last year.

[quote user="ricardo"]Don''t be so bleddy silly.[/quote]Would an FA Cup win really be beyond the realms of possibility? That would be one more trophy than Arsenal have won in 8 years. If Swansea and Wigan can win a trophy and get into Europe then..... 

[quote user="lake district canary"]While I appreciate where the op is coming from on this, I think the question has to  be more like could we become a Notts Forest or Derby County, or Norwich of the early nineties.   Arsenal we''re not and never will be simply because of resources and size of fanbase. Could we become Norwich of the early ninties? Yes, I believe so.Could we do a Notts Forest or Derby County?  In our dreams yes.  In this day and age it would be difficult to imagine a scenario where we could win the league (even at 5000-1 [;)] ) but third or fourth?  I don''t think its beyond the realms of possibility.[/quote]That would do, third place and a big scalp in Europe. An FA Cup win would be even better. Norwich have always been cyclical, one day we will end up in the second tier again. It would be nice to mark this period of success with something really memorable, just like the early Nineties is marked by our title challenge and trip to Europe, and just like the mid-Eighties was marked by our League Cup win.

[quote user="ReadingCanary"]So we are on our third year in the Prem and we are could become "Arsenal"Right......[/quote]Well there is no point in being in this league or signing young Dutch Internationals then is there. Let''s dream of beating our league position by one place again next year and improving our goal difference by at least 5, hooray.This is actually our seventh year in the Premier League and our 24th year in the top division of English football. By the way, we have the same number of League Cup wins as Arsenal and Wigan have won more silverware in the last four months than Arsenal have won in eight years. Yay, little old Norwich. How dare we dream of an FA Cup win and a trip into Europe. 

Not involved of course so my vote should perhaps not count, but some ideas would be:Darren Huckerby TrustHillside Animal Sanctuary Norwich FoodbankIf I did have a vote then a local charity such as these would make sense. 

[quote user="lappinitup"]Binner.[/quote]Ey? 

I''m serious here. What is the cap on our potential growth?It feels like Arsenal have been a top four club forever but that isn''t true, they were a boring mid-table team for most of the top division history before Wenger, save for a great back four and a knack of reaching cup finals. OK so they won the league a couple of times in the late Eighties / Early nineties, but we were grabbing top five finishes at that time too. It wasn''t really until Wenger arrived with some innovative ideas and a couple of stellar signings that they began the transition to ''big club'', prior to that they were a club which often punched above their weight.It is hard to envisage us becoming anything much else than an Everton in the long run, especially if Hughton proves to become our long-serving loyal manager in the Moyes mould, but could Van Wolsfwinkel be our Bergkamp? Fer our Vieira? Ruddy can be as good as Seamen? Perhaps I''m dreaming, perhaps even slightly nuts, but there is a good example of a team becoming a top four club without billionaire backers. Maybe a more realistic vision is for Fer to become our Fellaini, Ruddy to become our Howard, and Van Wolfswinkel to become..... well.... even Everton haven''t had a striker this good since they sold Rooney have they? Here''s the sticking point.... is the barrier to our growth our geographical location? Did Arsenal just become a fashionable London club? Or could we, like Arsenal, reach the heights of football through nothing other than shrewd financial management and by making investments in the right young players? 

[quote user="City1st"]dearie meare you mad, or simply completely deluded ?The US figures were not about how accurate your statement was in terms of amount, but in terms of comparison. You claimed "then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas". Whereas in reality NBC had bid THREE TIMES the amount previously bid and won."I didn''t place any date on those events". Then what is the purpose of comparison if there is no accepted benchmark ? Or did you just get caught out again and are trying to weasel out of it ? As with -"so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN." Which then morphed into ESPN global subsidaries. The truth is neither Sky or even NewsCorp own anything of ESPN.  However even by your own figures owning almost 40% of something does not give you control."In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story. " No it is not, it is absolute bo llox.  I suggest you look up ESPN''s sale of it''s share of ESPN Asia in 2012. And who it sold it to.In the mean ttime maybe you could get a grownup to explain to you the difference between cause and effect. Until then, as a grown up, I will briefly explain it.Broadcasters such as Sky and BT are able to sell subscriptions (the effect) in response to the demand by customers (the cause). As long as there is demand then there will be broadcasters seeking to have the rights. Much as with English cricket. As I should imagine what would be the same with Wimbledon.You seem to be disturbingly fixated with sky and this bizarre notion that on some strange whim they would suddenly stop broadcasting and it would all suddenly come to an end. Whereas all they and other broadcasters would do is respond according to demand. This is something they are well informed on as it is them who are selling the subscriptions.I don''t doubt either that most clubs will now have a built in mechanism to counter any sudden drop in TV income so the armageddon you predict is not going to happenNeither is another reply from me as you appear absolutely barking and will simply change the goalposts by telling me that I should not be replying to what you posted, but what you meant to post. Either way, on past record, it will still be wrong.[/quote]Oh bore off, can''t be bothered to read that.

Well aren''t you a condescending human male reproductive organ.  [quote] as to the US, the latest deal is worth $250m against the previous deal of $80m[/quote]So when I said "about £180m" I was out by less than 10%. Wow. [quote]  the stuff you talk about regarding China is out of date - there is a free to view service there [/quote] I didn''t place any date on those events, it was an example of precedent for the subscription model failing in many global markets, which is precisely why the domestic deal is still worth more than all overseas deals put together. [quote] ESPN is not 40% owned by sky, I suggest you check and come back and tell us the true story [/quote]If I replace the word ''sky'' with ''News Corporation'' then I wouldn''t be a million miles out. Nice effort googling ESPN and reading the wikipedia article on ESPN Inc. Now try again and look at each of the dozens of the global subsidiaries of ESPN, almost all of which own PL rights in their respective markets, then see how many of them are controlled by Fox International. In particular I suggest that you look at ESPN Asia which owns the PL rights for every country is Asia apart from China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Vietnam. News Corp. In fact Fox probably controls well over 40% of the ESPN global brand now. I suggest that you check and come back and tell us the true story. [quote] the reality is we all know that the money from the sale of TV rights has inflated PL incomes to an extreme;y high (and possibly) dangerous level [/quote]Yes, we do, but with ''possibly'' being ''probably''. [quote] likewise we all know that it is a bubble that could burst [/quote]Yes, we do.  [quote] unfortunately newsboy hasn''t quite grasped what is cause and what is effect [/quote]One monopolistic corporation owning the lions share of the global rights seems like reason enough to worry to me.  

Considering Rooney is on over two hundred grand a week, we would need to get Rooney on a free transfer to get him for £25m and that would be on a two and half year contract. I wish people would take wages into consideration when comparing transfer fees / values. If Benteke takes £50k a week, and Rooney wants £250k a week, and the transfer fee was £25m for each transfer then one of those transfers would have a true cost of somewhere in the region of £33m for a three year deal and the other would have a true value of somewhere in the region of £64m for a three year deal. We can only have a proper discussion if using figures which give a true indication of the likely cost of each of the players. My answer, if those wages proved accurate, would be 22 year old Benteke.

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote] It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football.[/quote]The domestic deal is worth £3bn. The US deal is worth about £180m for three years. BSkyB also own huge stakes or even controlling stakes in the rights owners in most of the other major economies including most of Asia, Australia, USA, Canada.... so the league really is reliant on Sky, and they own almost 40% of ESPN.If the US deal is worth £180m over three years then there can''t be a great deal of competition overseas. In China the rights were sold to a subscription service and the number of watchers of our league went from several hundred million people to a few tens of thousands of people. The overseas deals are individual pretty small, because people want to watch our football but not if they have to pay for it. What goes up must come down, and that should scare people. 

[quote user="City1st"][quote user="renegadecanary"]With wonga being the very crucible of the Premier League''s existence,just supposing Sky pulled the plug and decided to spend their unimaginable wealth elsewhere(2nd conditional).What sort of effect do you think it would it have from top to bottom?How would it effect overseas tv rights? Could it ever happen?.The Binners are having a bit of a whinge about the unfair advantage the likes of QPR ,Reading and Wigan have over them coming down from the Prem but then again we had to deal with the same problem when we got promoted.It''s great to be here but the situation at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us )does scare me a bit.I think that Sky has created a monster ..sorry situation where a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England team.I for one will be absolutely gutted if we miss out on what promises to be an epic World Cup in Brazil next year.[/quote]eh ?If sky dropped out at the next round of TV rights being sold then other providers would simply step in as BT has recently.It is the demand that drives sky, not the other way round.It would have absolutely NO effect on overseas TV rights. Those rights belong to the Premier League. ''foreigners'' are capable of transmitting football."at Coventry ( a team not dissimilar to us ) ! ! !I think not. Their squad is composed of lower league hopefuls and freebies.a lot of supporters all over the country are indifferent to the England teammuch a s alot of music fans at Glastonbury are indifferent to the Eurovision Song contest [/quote]When you sell a house at auction the winning bid is reached following a process by which multiple bidders will increase the amount that they are willing to pay in a series of small increments. The last one to bid wins the house. You may start the bidding at £50,000 - also the reserve - and Mr Smith may win the house for £100,000. There is one other bidder, his name is Mr Jones. His highest bid was £99,500. No other parties were interested in the house. If Mr Smith had decided not to place any bids on the house, how much would Mr Jones have paid for it? Not £99,500. He would have paid £50,000.This is not an attempt to patronise, but a clear and logical example of how football could lose a lot of money should a major party choose not to enter the bidding process. We already have a strong example of this happening in English football when Sentanta collapsed after having agreed a £150m deal to show FA Cup and England matches. They likely had to bid for that deal, but when it fell through the resulting deal saw the FA lose £60m.Would the second highest bid have been £90m initially? Or would it have been more likely something in the region of £145m? 

[quote user="John"]Interesting to get another layer of perspective regarding our dramatic turn in fortunes from the business domain. I''m not aware of the catalyst that provided him with the forsight of such an upward curve before any city fan dared dream of such lofty heights that would attract investment, but intriguing nonetheless.[/quote]I wonder whether the same catalyst provided him with the foresight to foresee Tranmere''s meteoric rise through the football pyramid.... oh. We were also well on the way to promotion in February 2010, not like he has an amazing gift. "Oh look, a big club playing at their lowest level since the 60''s who will probably get promoted in three months time and are still getting 23000 people a week. I predict that they will be in a better position a year from now".

[quote user="Downloads"]I don''t need an education, I plain think you are wrong and think you think you are clever just by saying its nothing new.   I know its nothing new and I never said it was, you said that, so maybe you are trying to teach yourself something.   Its a fact that people use more adaptable systems nowadays, if you can''t see that then there''s no point discussing further as you are blinkered in what you see. [/quote]The fact that football is a little more ''fluid'' with wide players who cut in a bit and attacking midfielders who revert to defensive players to suit a situation does not negate the fact that we have only one quality striker at the club, exactly the same situation that we had last season when Holt was our only realistic option. This tactical talk is irrelevant. Most Norwich fans just want us to sign a couple of bloody strikers, and I am one of them. Wow Snodgrass and Pilkington can mix it up a bit, like any other attacking midfielders or winger, now get us some goalscorers. Enough said. 

"The 4–3–3 was a development of the 4–2–4, and was played by the Brazilian national team in the 1962 World Cup."Like I said, none of the stuff we see in the modern game is innovative or ''genius''. 

[quote user="Downloads"]Amen.   One more outstanding striker at least please. [/quote]We can agree to agree there then :)

Give this a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_(association_football)

[quote user="Downloads"]If you say so. Not gonna agree with you though. Its just becoming a circular argument and thus very dull - Agree to disagree. [/quote]Just because football manager gets pumped with new buzz words every year doesn''t mean that football has changed. If anything has changed in the Premier League it is the quality. Watch some full 90 minute Brazil and Holland games from the Seventies all the way through to the Nineties and then come back and tell me that football used to be boring and uncreative with 4-4-2 the norm. And remember.... in the fifties they played with five forwards.... 

[quote user="Lavanche"]Martin as a striker was ment to be a joke as he scored more than our second striker options for Holt. And yes this is premier league and that is reason why I say we should build our team wisely and stop thinking striker need to just poach front of goal. I agree that we need someone behind RvW who is profilic goalscorer, but after that there needs to be some flexibility. So thats it about this subject as we seem to agree with most part ^^[/quote]Well another excellent striker is desperately needed, so I''m sure we can all agree there. 

[quote user="Downloads"]Who said it was? You are aware that there is more flexibility than back then though? There have always been players who break the mould, but more teams use more flexible formations than in previous years. Once upon a time most teams played 4-4-2 in the top leagues, now that isn''t true. [/quote]Not really no. Snodgrass is a right midfielder. Ruel Fox was a right midfielder. Snodgrass will both get back and defend, and get forward and attack. Fox would both get back and defend and get forward and attack. The idea that we play 4-5-1 when the opposition have the ball and 4-3-3 when we have the ball is just silly. Wide players have always just been wide players. If anything the closest thing that we have had to a ''wide forward'' is Huckerby, because he really did stay up the pitch like a striker.But that was once known as an ''out and out winger''. This fluid changing formation mid-game rubbish is just that, rubbish. Football hasn''t changed all that much. For all the theories around formation and silly 4-1-3-1-1 things that people like Mourinho use to look clever, all that has really changed is that clubs drop an extra man back into midfield. So the ''Hoolahan'' role was created. But it isn''t exactly groundbreaking, Le Tissier was playing as a second striker in the Nineties. It''s just that teams put 10 men behind the ball now instead of nine, leave one man leading the line instead of two. You can create as many different combinations of 10 numbers as you want, that is all that has really changed. 

Anybody who believes ''fluid'' football is a new invention can''t remember Ruud Gullit who would walk onto the pitch and play on whatever part of it he fancied on the day. 

Matt Le Tissier scored 209 goals for Southamption playing in a role as an attacking midfielder. Football wasn''t invented in 2010. 

[quote user="Downloads"]I think you are one of these people who can only see 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 A front 3 because ''modern'' football isn''t played in fixed formations where players can''t move. 4-5-1 can easily be moved to a 4-3-3. If you see it as comedy gold I pity your faith in our players. Snodgrass and Pilkington have plenty of goals in them in the right formation - As proved already. 3 out and out strikers can be enough, but I suspect we will end up with 4 anyway which makes all this moot. [/quote]Football has never been played in fixed formations where players can''t move, a load of modern psuedo-intellectual nonsense. When you have just seen a year of football where we spent more time in our own half than the oppositions half, with Snodgrass and Pilkington behind the ball a few metres in front of the full back, it is hard to envisage a situation whereas they are considered ''wide strikers''.Three out and out strikers could well be enough, but that would be dependent on Becchio showing himself capable of scoring goals in this league. He needs further chances to play and the ball in the box, but the jury is still out! 

[quote user="Lunarcrash"]Price wise does that mean that Wanyama is 3x the player Fer is? Guess we''ll find out part way through the season 12.5m seems a little much though for someone who looks decent, no more.[/quote]He looks more than decent, he is quality. Perhaps Fer is a bargain and Wanyama is the market rate, you thought about that? Fer also failed a medical at Everton apparently, although nobody knows if that was genuine. If he did then a lower price will be commanded due to the risk involved. Fer won''t be worth a penny to us if he spends the next four years on the treatment table, would probably be worth Wanyama money if he plays week in week out. 

[quote user="Lavanche"]"If your point is that we should sign one striker and and then an attacking midfielder who can play up front if needed, then fine, I agree." That exactly is my point. We should be looking player whose primary position / education is somewhere else than a striker, but who can equally well go upfront if needed. [/quote]Fine then, I agree, but I said this from the start! [quote] And I have seen both Redmond and Pilkington play as a striker in youth level and they did just fine [/quote]Oh come off it, this the Premier League mate, we aren''t Doncaster Rovers seeing who we can shove up front. We did that with Darel Russell, it didn''t work out too well. He played as a striker in his youth as well. You even suggested we play Russell Martin up front. We aren''t playing Scunthorpe away any more. I''d be happy for us to sign one out and out striker and then a second striker who can play up front, like Michu for example, that''s fine. But we can''t find ourselves in a situation where we are short on strikers like last season. I would rather us blow £20k a week on signing somebody to keep the bench warm than find ourselves with no goal threat again. Norwich fans deserves some bloody goals for once.