McNasty At All Times

[TIL 1010 4,717]

[quote user="Newton"]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 16/06/2015 10:25 AM:

 

Oh and by the way Newton how many more feckin times have you got to be told that the vast majority of the debt was caused by the necessity to demolish and rebuild the South Stand. Totally unavoidable and not down to Delia''s mismanagement of money but then again that does not fit your agenda.

 

 

Till this is not correct - the long term loan re the stand rebuild was not the problem as this was being paid down by reciord season ticket sales even when we were in L1

It was the short term debt built up over the years by poor management of the club that was the problem

Dont try and cloud the issue

[/quote]

Newton you really do not have a clue do you ? The short term unsecured debt was the £6/7 million that Delia inherited from Robert Chase. She appointed Gordon Bennett as acting CEO and he had to go cap in hand to the bank to re-negotiate these loans and if you think season ticket  sales took care of the Jarrold Stand payments you are deluded.

Now maybe you could explain the Dean Ashton tosh you printed ?

[lappinitup 629]

The standard of fag packet accountancy on here has declined shockingly since the C.G.F.P.A''s went into liquidation.At least you used to get a break down of their guesstimates so they could be debated, rather than the new generation who just pull figures out of the sky and then disappear when they''re proved to be incorrect.I blame the teachers.......

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Newton"]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 16/06/2015 10:25 AM:

 

Oh and by the way Newton how many more feckin times have you got to be told that the vast majority of the debt was caused by the necessity to demolish and rebuild the South Stand. Totally unavoidable and not down to Delia''s mismanagement of money but then again that does not fit your agenda.

 

 

Till this is not correct - the long term loan re the stand rebuild was not the problem as this was being paid down by reciord season ticket sales even when we were in L1

It was the short term debt built up over the years by poor management of the club that was the problem

Dont try and cloud the issue

[/quote]

As much as Big Vince would like to heap all the blame on Delia and Wynnie, let Big Vince set out the facts clearly and fairly regarding the club''s former debt.

When Mr Chase left the club in 1996, the debt position was approximately £6 million. Delia and Wynnie inherited this. The New South Stand (not Jarrold) cost £8.5 million. In the mid-2000s the club entered into two securitisation loan agreements worth £7.5 million each in order to restructure the debt, which included the cost of the new stand and the legacy debt referred to above. By the autumn of 2009 the £15 million debt had increased to over £21 million as a result of all the mistakes Delia and Wynnie made by failing to sack Worthy after the 6-0 shambles in Western London, plus the Grant, Roeder and Gunn shambleses that followed. Throw in Messrs Munby and Doomcaster and you have all the ingredients for an Omni-Shambles that culminated in The Valley.

The seeds of renaissance were sown when the boy Foulger put up £500K to buy the boy Holt. Then McNasty came riding down Carrow Hill in shining armour (but not on a donkey.) Then came Lambert.............

Conclusion: Delia and Wynnie can fairly be blamed for £6 million of the debt, but not the other £15 million.

Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I will happily take the long-term debt figures on trust. They look roughly right. Whether it is fair to attribute an extra £6m to boardroom mistake is more questionable. I am not saying there were no mistakes - there were, but show me a club that has not made them. And more costly than those at Norwich City. As the Swiss Ramble pointed out in his survey of our finances about four years ago:"It is very tough for Championship clubs to break even from operations, especially if they are carrying a wage bill that will enable them to challenge for promotion, which means that most Football League clubs almost inevitably make large losses."This is borne out by the figures for the 2012-13 season in the Championship, where the collective net debt of the 24 clubs was around £800m, on turnover of around £430m, and the losses totalled £327m. An average of £13.6m per club. Hardly surprising when, to back up the point about wages, 13 of the 24 clubs paid in wages at least 100 per cent of their turnover...If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.[/quote]Would I be right in saying that of that debt, over £2m was actually owed to themselves and another £1m to Michael Foulger?If so, I would suggest it''s money they would be happy to write off anyway or at least, be prepared to wait for indefinitely.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.[/quote]Would I be right in saying that of that debt, over £2m was actually owed to themselves and another £1m to Michael Foulger?If so, I would suggest it''s money they would be happy to write off anyway or at least, be prepared to wait for indefinitely.[/quote]Lapps, I don''t have the accounts before 2008, so I can''t say what loans (as opposed to share issue purchases) there may have been from directors until that point. But in 2008 there was in essence no money owing to Smith and Jones or Foulger, although there was £2m owing to the departing Turners.But that summer it must have been obvious we were in difficulties, because S&J £2.1m) and Foulger (£0.7m) between them coughed up £2.75m. Plus, if I read the accounts right, another £0.5m from the Turners. And a year later Foulger added another £0.7m. That was all interest-free and only started being repaid once we had Premier League money flowing in. The Turners were, I think, then paid pretty much straight away, but the last accounts showed £2m of that eventual £3.5m owed to S&J and Foulger was still outstanding.The point, though, I would re-emphasise is that our debt and our losses pale into insignificance compared to those of many other clubs, which have been worse-run but saved from their mistakes and their idiocies by the wealth of mega-rich owners.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Newton"]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 16/06/2015 10:25 AM:

 

Oh and by the way Newton how many more feckin times have you got to be told that the vast majority of the debt was caused by the necessity to demolish and rebuild the South Stand. Totally unavoidable and not down to Delia''s mismanagement of money but then again that does not fit your agenda.

 

 

Till this is not correct - the long term loan re the stand rebuild was not the problem as this was being paid down by reciord season ticket sales even when we were in L1

It was the short term debt built up over the years by poor management of the club that was the problem

Dont try and cloud the issue

[/quote]

As much as Big Vince would like to heap all the blame on Delia and Wynnie, let Big Vince set out the facts clearly and fairly regarding the club''s former debt.

When Mr Chase left the club in 1996, the debt position was approximately £6 million. Delia and Wynnie inherited this. The New South Stand (not Jarrold) cost £8.5 million. In the mid-2000s the club entered into two securitisation loan agreements worth £7.5 million each in order to restructure the debt, which included the cost of the new stand and the legacy debt referred to above. By the autumn of 2009 the £15 million debt had increased to over £21 million as a result of all the mistakes Delia and Wynnie made by failing to sack Worthy after the 6-0 shambles in Western London, plus the Grant, Roeder and Gunn shambleses that followed. Throw in Messrs Munby and Doomcaster and you have all the ingredients for an Omni-Shambles that culminated in The Valley.

The seeds of renaissance were sown when the boy Foulger put up £500K to buy the boy Holt. Then McNasty came riding down Carrow Hill in shining armour (but not on a donkey.) Then came Lambert.............

Conclusion: Delia and Wynnie can fairly be blamed for £6 million of the debt, but not the other £15 million.

Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I will happily take the long-term debt figures on trust. They look roughly right. Whether it is fair to attribute an extra £6m to boardroom mistake is more questionable. I am not saying there were no mistakes - there were, but show me a club that has not made them. And more costly than those at Norwich City. As the Swiss Ramble pointed out in his survey of our finances about four years ago:"It is very tough for Championship clubs to break even from operations, especially if they are carrying a wage bill that will enable them to challenge for promotion, which means that most Football League clubs almost inevitably make large losses."This is borne out by the figures for the 2012-13 season in the Championship, where the collective net debt of the 24 clubs was around £800m, on turnover of around £430m, and the losses totalled £327m. An average of £13.6m per club. Hardly surprising when, to back up the point about wages, 13 of the 24 clubs paid in wages at least 100 per cent of their turnover...If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.

[/quote]

The Purple Canary is correct that it is extremely difficult to break even outside the EPL, especially without any parachute payments. However, McNasty has stated on record that it can be done. Whether he could deliver is another matter.

A club such as Norwich City need to be punching above their weight at all times, hence the requirement for McNasty At All Times. Delia and Wynnie need to stay out of it altogether as they do not have the attributes to maintain EPL status; and lack of EPL status will lead to financial losses. There are a number of astute owners in the EPL such as Gold/Sullivan, Coates, Jenkins, Peace, etc. Only McNasty can match their attributes currently.

It should also be remembered that the debt position was made to look somewhat better as a result of the money that the club got for developing the land at the River End (the Dale Gordon car park) (land purchased by Mr Chase with the proceeds from the sale of he to Glasgow Rangers.) The club received £4 million net from this development. So you could argue that Delia and Wynnie''s mistakes cost the club £10 million gross; reduced to £6 million net through Barry Skipper''s efforts to get that land developed.

Big Vince has spoken.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Newton"]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 16/06/2015 10:25 AM:

 

Oh and by the way Newton how many more feckin times have you got to be told that the vast majority of the debt was caused by the necessity to demolish and rebuild the South Stand. Totally unavoidable and not down to Delia''s mismanagement of money but then again that does not fit your agenda.

 

 

Till this is not correct - the long term loan re the stand rebuild was not the problem as this was being paid down by reciord season ticket sales even when we were in L1

It was the short term debt built up over the years by poor management of the club that was the problem

Dont try and cloud the issue

[/quote] As much as Big Vince would like to heap all the blame on Delia and Wynnie, let Big Vince set out the facts clearly and fairly regarding the club''s former debt. When Mr Chase left the club in 1996, the debt position was approximately £6 million. Delia and Wynnie inherited this. The New South Stand (not Jarrold) cost £8.5 million. In the mid-2000s the club entered into two securitisation loan agreements worth £7.5 million each in order to restructure the debt, which included the cost of the new stand and the legacy debt referred to above. By the autumn of 2009 the £15 million debt had increased to over £21 million as a result of all the mistakes Delia and Wynnie made by failing to sack Worthy after the 6-0 shambles in Western London, plus the Grant, Roeder and Gunn shambleses that followed. Throw in Messrs Munby and Doomcaster and you have all the ingredients for an Omni-Shambles that culminated in The Valley. The seeds of renaissance were sown when the boy Foulger put up £500K to buy the boy Holt. Then McNasty came riding down Carrow Hill in shining armour (but not on a donkey.) Then came Lambert............. Conclusion: Delia and Wynnie can fairly be blamed for £6 million of the debt, but not the other £15 million. Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I will happily take the long-term debt figures on trust. They look roughly right. Whether it is fair to attribute an extra £6m to boardroom mistake is more questionable. I am not saying there were no mistakes - there were, but show me a club that has not made them. And more costly than those at Norwich City. As the Swiss Ramble pointed out in his survey of our finances about four years ago:

"It is very tough for Championship clubs to break even from operations, especially if they are carrying a wage bill that will enable them to challenge for promotion, which means that most Football League clubs almost inevitably make large losses."

This is borne out by the figures for the 2012-13 season in the Championship, where the collective net debt of the 24 clubs was around £800m, on turnover of around £430m, and the losses totalled £327m. An average of £13.6m per club. Hardly surprising when, to back up the point about wages, 13 of the 24 clubs paid in wages at least 100 per cent of their turnover...

If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.

[/quote] The Purple Canary is correct that it is extremely difficult to break even outside the EPL, especially without any parachute payments. However, McNasty has stated on record that it can be done. Whether he could deliver is another matter. A club such as Norwich City need to be punching above their weight at all times, hence the requirement for McNasty At All Times. Delia and Wynnie need to stay out of it altogether as they do not have the attributes to maintain EPL status; and lack of EPL status will lead to financial losses. There are a number of astute owners in the EPL such as Gold/Sullivan, Coates, Jenkins, Peace, etc. Only McNasty can match their attributes currently. It should also be remembered that the debt position was made to look somewhat better as a result of the money that the club got for developing the land at the River End (the Dale Gordon car park) (land purchased by Mr Chase with the proceeds from the sale of he to Glasgow Rangers.) The club received £4 million net from this development. So you could argue that Delia and Wynnie''s mistakes cost the club £10 million gross; reduced to £6 million net through Barry Skipper''s efforts to get that land developed. Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

 

Big Vince has spoken , but has done so with a lack of logic.

Surely every club has a "desire" to punch above their weight. It therefore follows, logically, that not all of them can all of the time because, otherwise, who would be available to punch only their weight, or below their weight. Do you see the lack of logic in your thinking Vince?

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.[/quote]Would I be right in saying that of that debt, over £2m was actually owed to themselves and another £1m to Michael Foulger?If so, I would suggest it''s money they would be happy to write off anyway or at least, be prepared to wait for indefinitely.[/quote]

No. That was internal debt and separate from the £21 million external debt. The last accounts show that some of that internal debt is still owing to the Wynn Joneses and the boy Foulger.

Big Vince has spoken.

[Daz Sparks 1,140]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.[/quote]Would I be right in saying that of that debt, over £2m was actually owed to themselves and another £1m to Michael Foulger?If so, I would suggest it''s money they would be happy to write off anyway or at least, be prepared to wait for indefinitely.[/quote]

No. That was internal debt and separate from the £21 million external debt. The last accounts show that some of that internal debt is still owing to the Wynn Joneses and the boy Foulger.

Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I''m getting a mental picture here...yup, here it is.

https://coginthewheel.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/oz.jpg

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="Newton"]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 16/06/2015 10:25 AM:

 

Oh and by the way Newton how many more feckin times have you got to be told that the vast majority of the debt was caused by the necessity to demolish and rebuild the South Stand. Totally unavoidable and not down to Delia''s mismanagement of money but then again that does not fit your agenda.

 

 

Till this is not correct - the long term loan re the stand rebuild was not the problem as this was being paid down by reciord season ticket sales even when we were in L1

It was the short term debt built up over the years by poor management of the club that was the problem

Dont try and cloud the issue

[/quote] As much as Big Vince would like to heap all the blame on Delia and Wynnie, let Big Vince set out the facts clearly and fairly regarding the club''s former debt. When Mr Chase left the club in 1996, the debt position was approximately £6 million. Delia and Wynnie inherited this. The New South Stand (not Jarrold) cost £8.5 million. In the mid-2000s the club entered into two securitisation loan agreements worth £7.5 million each in order to restructure the debt, which included the cost of the new stand and the legacy debt referred to above. By the autumn of 2009 the £15 million debt had increased to over £21 million as a result of all the mistakes Delia and Wynnie made by failing to sack Worthy after the 6-0 shambles in Western London, plus the Grant, Roeder and Gunn shambleses that followed. Throw in Messrs Munby and Doomcaster and you have all the ingredients for an Omni-Shambles that culminated in The Valley. The seeds of renaissance were sown when the boy Foulger put up £500K to buy the boy Holt. Then McNasty came riding down Carrow Hill in shining armour (but not on a donkey.) Then came Lambert............. Conclusion: Delia and Wynnie can fairly be blamed for £6 million of the debt, but not the other £15 million. Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I will happily take the long-term debt figures on trust. They look roughly right. Whether it is fair to attribute an extra £6m to boardroom mistake is more questionable. I am not saying there were no mistakes - there were, but show me a club that has not made them. And more costly than those at Norwich City. As the Swiss Ramble pointed out in his survey of our finances about four years ago:"It is very tough for Championship clubs to break even from operations, especially if they are carrying a wage bill that will enable them to challenge for promotion, which means that most Football League clubs almost inevitably make large losses."This is borne out by the figures for the 2012-13 season in the Championship, where the collective net debt of the 24 clubs was around £800m, on turnover of around £430m, and the losses totalled £327m. An average of £13.6m per club. Hardly surprising when, to back up the point about wages, 13 of the 24 clubs paid in wages at least 100 per cent of their turnover...If Big Vince is right that from 1997 to 2009 Smith and Jones only added £6m to our debt by way of mistakes then, compared with our clubs, that starts to look like pretty good going.

[/quote] The Purple Canary is correct that it is extremely difficult to break even outside the EPL, especially without any parachute payments. However, McNasty has stated on record that it can be done. Whether he could deliver is another matter. A club such as Norwich City need to be punching above their weight at all times, hence the requirement for McNasty At All Times. Delia and Wynnie need to stay out of it altogether as they do not have the attributes to maintain EPL status; and lack of EPL status will lead to financial losses. There are a number of astute owners in the EPL such as Gold/Sullivan, Coates, Jenkins, Peace, etc. Only McNasty can match their attributes currently. It should also be remembered that the debt position was made to look somewhat better as a result of the money that the club got for developing the land at the River End (the Dale Gordon car park) (land purchased by Mr Chase with the proceeds from the sale of he to Glasgow Rangers.) The club received £4 million net from this development. So you could argue that Delia and Wynnie''s mistakes cost the club £10 million gross; reduced to £6 million net through Barry Skipper''s efforts to get that land developed. Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

 

Big Vince has spoken , but has done so with a lack of logic.

Surely every club has a "desire" to punch above their weight. It therefore follows, logically, that not all of them can all of the time because, otherwise, who would be available to punch only their weight, or below their weight. Do you see the lack of logic in your thinking Vince?

[/quote]Yankee, if you are going to point out all the logical flaws in Big Vince''s "thinking" you are going to be kept pretty busy! I particularly liked the one-eyed accounting technique that counted any supposed mistakes from Smith and Jones as adding to the external debt but failed to mention that by getting major decisions right, leading to three promotions to the Premier League, they have wiped out all that external debt. Not just the minor debt that a critic such as Big Vince might try to ascribe to them but the major debt caused by the forced rebuilding of the South Stand.To put that in context, the latest figures for the Premier League (2013-14) show the clubs we will be playing in the forthcoming season with a combined debt of more than £2bn. With only Swansea and Spurs debt-free.

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Purple wrote ''''To put that in context, the latest figures for the Premier League (2013-14) show the clubs we will be playing in the forthcoming season with a combined debt of more than £2bn. With only Swansea and Spurs debt-free."

Surely big Vince will be finished speaking, if want to focus on clubs with debt owing to owners he just needs to look at his own club at Poorman Road ?

[Newton 0]

Big Vince thank you for clarifying the Debt position

 

What you have done is highlight the fact that there are 2 seperate views here, I agree with you Delia & Co do not have the financial nounce to run a Prem League club and need to butt out of football decisions (particularly financial)

 

Remain as a figure head yes but not much else (walk round the wembley pitch with her hand bag waving to us all, yes as well)

All I have said from the start is that we will sink faster than the Titanic if David Mc jumps ship and our fortunes are left in the owners hands

 

What is particularly important here is that wether Delia is responsible for £6 or £10M of debt is not the point - the key point is that debt was escalating at the time we were relegated to L1, Lambert & David McN saved us

 

Can the idiots who keep calling for Davids head move off to the Ipswich board please - they dont have a clue as to where we would be if the owners were still at the helm - it sends shivers up my spine just thinking about it

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Newton"]Lambert & David McN saved us

[/quote]They were employed to do exactly that. And who employed them?Why, the best owners in the business, that''s who. [<:o)]

 

[Crabbycanary3 994]

And between them (Lambert and McNally) we have had quite a few years of successful employees

[Newton 0]

Crabbycanary3 wrote the following post at 18/06/2015 12:41 PM:

And between them (Lambert and McNally) we have had quite a few years of successful employees

 

Could not agree more - common ground at last

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Newton"]

Crabbycanary3 wrote the following post at 18/06/2015 12:41 PM:

And between them (Lambert and McNally) we have had quite a few years of successful employees

 

Could not agree more - common ground at last

[/quote]

 

Yes, it seems that were all agreed that the employers of these people who have had successful employees are doing a great job.

 

 

[Newton 0]

TCC you are correct where would we be without Lambert & McN  - whats the league below the conference ?

 

Can Delias mum do the teas ?

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Yes, without someone having a personal relationship with the person who recommended McNally we wouldn''t have McNally and we wouldn''t have had Lambert and we wouldn''t be successful now so we must credit the person who had the initial personal relationship that recommended McNally. Congratulations go to Delia.

 

 

[Newton 0]

TCC u r a fool  -

We were on a downward spiral when we were releagated to L1,

The owners were having to plough money in to keep us afloat,

 

They were on a hatrick of no hoper managers, which they had appointed

 

The owners allowed Roder to sell all of our senior players and waste the money on aged loan players

 

Gunn was appointed, he had no coaching qualifications but enjoyed having drinking sessions with the players

 

We had just lost 7-1 at home to Colchester - Gunn said on national tv he was not sure why (it could have had something to do with the dwarf we had in goal)

 

The Club were considering changing the opening music to bright eyes as they aptly descrided the Board & Management at the time (dazzled rabbits)

 

Delias last throw of the dice (a black hole was opening below her) was to ask David McN (who she knew from social events) if he would take over as CEO and save the club

 

He named his price (7 times more than the previous encumbent, but she was desperate given the shambles of the last 3 years), he poached Lambert and we were saved the rest is history

 

The worrying thing is he may not be around forever - the current owners will be

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Newton"]

 

 

The worrying thing is he may not be around forever - the current owners will be

[/quote]

 

And you called me a fool!

 

 

[Newton 0]

TCCANARY wrote the following post at 18/06/2015 3:34 PM:

Newton wrote:

The worrying thing is he may not be around forever - the current owners will be

 

And you called me a fool!

 

 

TCC you have at last got it - yes you are a fool, enjoy the moment, we all are but lets plan long term now for the future of our club

 

With only one man on that Board (and he is a paid employee thats it) with any Football accumen it is a concern

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Newton"]

TCCANARY wrote the following post at 18/06/2015 3:34 PM:

Newton wrote:

The worrying thing is he may not be around forever - the current owners will be

 

And you called me a fool!

 

 

TCC you have at last got it - yes you are a fool, enjoy the moment, we all are but lets plan long term now for the future of our club

 

With only one man on that Board (and he is a paid employee thats it) with any Football accumen it is a concern

[/quote]

 

Obviously your planning long term as you think the current owners have discovered eternal life.

 

 

[Mr Apples 1,315]

So, what long-term plans would you implement then Newton (I''m even staying on topic)? [;)]

 

Apples

[Crabbycanary3 994]

Er Newton, it looks like you missed my point, and TCC explained it to you

[Big Vince 318]

The Purple Canary is at least two-thirds incorrect.

The major decisions that led to the last two promotions to the EPL were taken by McNasty, not Delia and Wynnie. After the latter pair messed up with Adams; and the failure to sack Hughton earlier, McNasty was given a clear mandate by the Board to go and get Alexei Neil. Similarly, there can be no doubt that Lambert was McNally''s appointment too. The Purple Canary conveniently overlooks the fact that McNasty repeatedly makes Delia and Wynnie look good, but we all know, left to their own devices, they are proven failures in professional football club ownership. The period 1996 to 2009 proved that, except for the one season that the Purple Canary is desperately trying to hold up as a beacon of success in an otherwise barren desert of failure. A success ratio of 1:13 falls into the category "Got Lucky".

Now Big Vince has spoken.

[A Load of Squit 5,108]

[quote user="Big Vince"]The Purple Canary is at least two-thirds incorrect.

The major decisions that led to the last two promotions to the EPL were taken by McNasty, not Delia and Wynnie. After the latter pair messed up with Adams; and the failure to sack Hughton earlier, McNasty was given a clear mandate by the Board to go and get Alexei Neil. Similarly, there can be no doubt that Lambert was McNally''s appointment too. The Purple Canary conveniently overlooks the fact that McNasty repeatedly makes Delia and Wynnie look good, but we all know, left to their own devices, they are proven failures in professional football club ownership. The period 1996 to 2009 proved that, except for the one season that the Purple Canary is desperately trying to hold up as a beacon of success in an otherwise barren desert of failure. A success ratio of 1:13 falls into the category "Got Lucky".

Now Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

I think Big Vince should write a history of the club, it seems that he was there when all the big decisions were made.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

[quote user="Newton"]

Delias last throw of the dice (a black hole was opening below her) was to ask David McN (who she knew from social events) if he would take over as CEO and save the club

[/quote]

I thought the story went as follows....Delia is friends with Roy Hodgson, He knew McNally from their days working together at Fulham and he then pointed Delia in his direction.

[R Mellie 0]

"Now Big Vince has spoken"...well, hasn''t he just. Unfortunately, and like a lot of the tripe on this thread, it''s drivel. Thinly veiled jealousy I suspect.

That said, all of this talking in the third person nonsense really does make the tone of the posts far more authoritative...

Back on topic, I disagree with the point about Delia & Jones are proven failures in professional football club ownership. Certainly not a stewardship that hasn''t made a few mistakes along the way, but as (The) Purple Canary rightly points out, what club/owners haven''t. If they are proven failures, and given where we''ve been and where we are, then what does that say about numerous other clubs, some of which are complete basket cases in comparison.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Big Vince"]The Purple Canary is at least two-thirds incorrect.

The major decisions that led to the last two promotions to the EPL were taken by McNasty, not Delia and Wynnie. After the latter pair messed up with Adams; and the failure to sack Hughton earlier, McNasty was given a clear mandate by the Board to go and get Alexei Neil. Similarly, there can be no doubt that Lambert was McNally''s appointment too. The Purple Canary conveniently overlooks the fact that McNasty repeatedly makes Delia and Wynnie look good, but we all know, left to their own devices, they are proven failures in professional football club ownership. The period 1996 to 2009 proved that, except for the one season that the Purple Canary is desperately trying to hold up as a beacon of success in an otherwise barren desert of failure. A success ratio of 1:13 falls into the category "Got Lucky".

Now Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

Ah, the old argument, particularly beloved of a couple of posters from south of the border, that all the good decisions are made when Smith and Jones just fiddle with their knitting and all the bad ones when they get involved.There are any number of problems with it, including what one might called the Doncaster Conundrum, which has been set out here before but never answered, let alone answered to anyone''s satisfaction.Smith and Jones joined the board in November 1996 but didn''t become owners of the club until a year later, making 1998-99 their first full season in total control. So their reign has encompassed 17 seasons, with the latest providing a return to the Premier League.Now a fair- and independent-minded analyst would divide that reign up into three eras. The first seven seasons from 1998-99 to 2004-5 were successful, with the club well-run. The financial crisis left by Chase was very competently dealt with, an eminently wise decision was taken on the size of the rebuild of the South Stand, and on the field there were solid seasons in the Championship, then a play-off final, winning the league by eight points on the back of an unprecedentedly ambitious transfer spending programme (Huckerby et al et al et al), and a narrow failure to stay in the Premier League. (There were also none of the obviously avoidable mistakes that characterised the early years of the third era).By contrast the second era of four season up to and including 2008-09 was as unsuccessful as the  first era had been successful, with  some (not all) dubious managerial choices, culminating in the indefensible re-appointment of Gunn. The result - limp on-field performances that culminated in relegation to the third tier (not in itself a crime. but in this case largely self-inflicted).Taking us to the third era, of six seasons from 2009-10 of almost unalloyed success. An overdue boardroom shake-up bringing in high-quality (though not infallible) directors. A financial crisis again dealt with competently. Generally good managerial choices leading to vastly-improved on-field performances, albeit with - again - one self-inflicted relegation.The problem, of course, is that Bowkett and McNally were not around in the first era. So those years of solid success had to be due to the wise hands-on governance of Smith and Jones. Unless they were just fiddling with their knitting back then, in which Neil Doncaster has to take the credit.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"]The Purple Canary is at least two-thirds incorrect.

The major decisions that led to the last two promotions to the EPL were taken by McNasty, not Delia and Wynnie. After the latter pair messed up with Adams; and the failure to sack Hughton earlier, McNasty was given a clear mandate by the Board to go and get Alexei Neil. Similarly, there can be no doubt that Lambert was McNally''s appointment too. The Purple Canary conveniently overlooks the fact that McNasty repeatedly makes Delia and Wynnie look good, but we all know, left to their own devices, they are proven failures in professional football club ownership. The period 1996 to 2009 proved that, except for the one season that the Purple Canary is desperately trying to hold up as a beacon of success in an otherwise barren desert of failure. A success ratio of 1:13 falls into the category "Got Lucky".

Now Big Vince has spoken.[/quote]

Ah, the old argument, particularly beloved of a couple of posters from south of the border, that all the good decisions are made when Smith and Jones just fiddle with their knitting and all the bad ones when they get involved.There are any number of problems with it, including what one might called the Doncaster Conundrum, which has been set out here before but never answered, let alone answered to anyone''s satisfaction.Smith and Jones joined the board in November 1996 but didn''t become owners of the club until a year later, making 1998-99 their first full season in total control. So their reign has encompassed 17 seasons, with the latest providing a return to the Premier League.Now a fair- and independent-minded analyst would divide that reign up into three eras. The first seven seasons from 1998-99 to 2004-5 were successful, with the club well-run. The financial crisis left by Chase was very competently dealt with, an eminently wise decision was taken on the size of the rebuild of the South Stand, and on the field there were solid seasons in the Championship, then a play-off final, winning the league by eight points on the back of an unprecedentedly ambitious transfer spending programme (Huckerby et al et al et al), and a narrow failure to stay in the Premier League. (There were also none of the obviously avoidable mistakes that characterised the early years of the third era).By contrast the second era of four season up to and including 2008-09 was as unsuccessful as the  first era had been successful, with  some (not all) dubious managerial choices, culminating in the indefensible re-appointment of Gunn. The result - limp on-field performances that culminated in relegation to the third tier (not in itself a crime. but in this case largely self-inflicted).Taking us to the third era, of six seasons from 2009-10 of almost unalloyed success. An overdue boardroom shake-up bringing in high-quality (though not infallible) directors. A financial crisis again dealt with competently. Generally good managerial choices leading to vastly-improved on-field performances, albeit with - again - one self-inflicted relegation.The problem, of course, is that Bowkett and McNally were not around in the first era. So those years of solid success had to be due to the wise hands-on governance of Smith and Jones. Unless they were just fiddling with their knitting back then, in which Neil Doncaster has to take the credit.

[/quote]

 

I see striking parallels between the thinking of Big Vin and little newt compared to that of the binners.

 

Big Vin and little newt are stuck in a timewarp of the worst Smith & Jones years while the binners are stuck in a timewarp of when they were a half decent side. Big Vin and little newt are in denial about the present state of our club. The binners are in denial about the present state of theirs. If they could bring themselves to be honest Big Vin and little newt would admit that overall we are a successful club and have been for the vast majority of the last 17 years. If the binners could bring themselves to be honest they would admit they are total garbage and a basket case of a club and have been for the vast majority of the last 17 years.

 

Maybe there''s another connection?