GrantsMoustache

Just went on their official site and looks like they consider it a Nice vs Norwich friendly, doesn''t say anything about being an invitational side. They played two games in two days though, Brentford and then us, so probably didn''t play a full strength team in either, or were knackered.

We are in the same division as Ipswich now, lets see how the league table looks after 10 games before we laugh at them. We may have a far superior team on paper, better fans, bigger attendances, but we also have a big wage bill in a league where plenty of relegated teams struggle, could easily end up in a sticky situation ourselves if we don''t get promoted within two years.

Thanks for the heads up bor bor bor, just put them in a multiple.

It was ten days ago that somebody posted about this on here, they had 8 then and still have 8 now, mental.

They have a league fixture to fulfill in 13 days time and not enough players to name an 11, yet alone an 18. What on earth is going on there? Have never seen anything like it, even clubs that go into administration manage to hold together a squad of some sort.

Sure you wouldn''t have Lansbury Smeg? Is being linked with Burnley and been excellent for Forest, has scored goals for them also.

I''d have Lansbury and Martin back.

Jonathan Grounds

A few more former Canaries signed to Championship clubs.... Rhoys Wiggins Alex Pearce Andy Hughes Chris Brown Joe Lewis

Do you need me to show you where Southampton is on a map?

What a complete muppet you are City1st. Anybody but the most clueless of idiots, such as yourself, can see that Southampton are completing ripping out the nucleus of their squad. Shaw, Lallana, Lambert, Lovren already gone. Chambers, Schneiderlin, and Clyne likely to leave yet. They will be losing 6 or 7 of their 8 or 9 key players from last season. Apparently I don''t know how football works, I can''t remember a single other time that a Premier League club has done that after staying up. As Morty pointed out, Robert Chase between 1994 and 1995 may be the only similar example. Preaching that others don''t understand football is inadvisable when you are obviously utterly clueless yourself.

So do the bookies judging by the odds I got. Better teams have gone down though.

They didn''t have to sell those players, they chose to, and have given every indication that they were open for business. They decided to cash in whilst those players stock was high. As soon as a couple leave you start an exodus, those players are ambitious and don''t want to be at a selling club. I''ve got money on Southampton going down this season, 8/1, their squad currently looks very poor and even if they spend big now they risk the squad not integrating.

Every player given a clean slate under Adams, including Hoolahan. It appears that Bassong has rejected the opportunity, and Hoolahan has welcomed it. Look at the players at Man Utd who didn''t want to be playing under Moyes who are now happy to be playing under Van Gaal, including Van Persie who was rumoured to want to return to Arsenal if Moyes stayed. Should Man Utd fans turn their backs on Van Persie and drive him out? Or accept that perhaps Moyes was the problem. Maybe Hoolahan is only interested again because Villa interest subdued, maybe he likes playing under Adams, who knows - but some bridges appear to have been rebuilt because he isn''t training with the development squad like Bassong. If Adams gives everybody a clean slate then so should the fans. Welcome back Hoolahan.

They have got some very good players in their squad Morty, look a strong team on paper. Djibbril Cisse, Sebastien Squillaci, Francois Modeste, all getting on a bit but quality players.

True Yelloow Since 72, got no problem with 4-2-3-1 anyway, just a formation....

But nice to see that we will go into the season with some tactical diversity. Hughton''s problem wasn''t his system, but his unwillingness to ever change it when it wasn''t working. I''d be happy if we alternated between the diamond and the 4-2-3-1 next season.

4-2-3-1 is basically what we played under Hughton. Could split hairs all day about whether Hughton played 4-5-1 or 4-2-3-1, they are basically the same thing. I am looking forward to seeing more of that diamond though with two up front - Lambert style, with Surman competing for the left side of it.

Could that be a diamond with Hoolahan left, Bennett right, and Redmond tip of the diamond? Interesting if it is.

And it would be a loan from a director, not a loan from a shareholder (OK they may be both), but in accounting it would be considered a loan from a director, and in bookkeeping repayments would be credited against the directors loan account. Never heard of the phrase ''shareholders loan account'', pretty sure that if I lent the club money (I have a few shares) I would be considered an external debt. The place on the board is the crucial aspect here. The individual takes a directorship, lends the club money, the club can then make zero interest repayments to that director and the director faces no tax penalty for the money returned.

"It would only count as internal debt if it was a loan (rather than a gift or a purchase of shares) and if it came from an existing shareholder. I think the implication from the OP was that this rich person (real or imaginary) with £5m floating around (ditto) is not one of the current seven" Eh? The individual becomes a director, lends the club £5m, that is a loan from a director and therefore an internal debt.

He works as a motivational speaker now.

You don''t understand how investment works Private Frazer, it is not donating. Donating is what happens when people die childless and lonely.

Nobody will just gift the club £5m. It would either be money loan to the club, so would become an internal debt (and we have just cleared that), or be the purchase of newly issued shares which would dilute the shareholding of all other directors, or more likely a bit of both. If we are talking about a loan of £5m, then whether we should take it very much depends on whether we need it. If we are talking about the issue of new shares, then what is in it for the current shareholders to see their equity diluted? And I thought our board are put up to vote every year at the AGM, so shareholders would need to vote on the new individual? Why would shareholders vote to have their shares diluted unless the club had a very good reason why they should... If the club needed £5m that much then perhaps it would be better to sacrifice a player, like Ruddy or Fer for £8m to £10m, spend a couple of million on a replacement and we have that £5m without borrowing it or without diluting shareholders. People seem to think that investment is a gift, it isn''t, either the shareholders are diluting shares or the club is borrowing money. With a budget of £5m the man may as well just go and buy a League Two team outright.

"Any - over the past five years where is this"flogged off for a quick profit" you mention? Only Snodgrass has been sold for profit over recent years" Not supporting Wiz''s argument at all, because he''s an idiot and just wrong. But we also sold Cody McDonald, Sammy Clingan, Andrew Crofts and Grant Holt for more than we signed them - if we consider only transfer fees. Of course, we should only consider the overall net transfer spend, and can''t remember the last time we spent less than we received on transfer fees. This summer may be the first for some time, but if the club needs some money then so be it.