Eder linked to City move

[Katie Borkins 1]

Poor Iwan''s Big Toe. Since the Archant moderator saved him a law suit by deleting the libel he posted, the wheels really have come off.

With that much general anger, he''s on his way to a career as a print farmer.

[Herman 9,717]

Maybe he may realise that any rumour heard should be taken with a large dose of salt no matter what person it comes from. Some may have more truth to them than others, but unless you have a direct link to the inner workings of CR you''ll never know for sure.

[Herman 9,717]

[quote user="STAN"]People getting excited over a fancy foreign name and an "international" brand.. he made his international debut in March of this year at the grand old age of 28 for huck sake!

To add Sampdoria sit just above the Serie A relegation zone, it''s not as if were trying to pinch somebody from Inter Milan!

11 million for an average 29 year old striker who doesn''t want to play for Norwich, no thanks.[/quote]Probably agree with this. It''s a price to ward off potential suitors and we should take the hint.

[Old Shuck 183]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="STAN"]People getting excited over a fancy foreign name and an "international" brand.. he made his international debut in March of this year at the grand old age of 28 for huck sake!

To add Sampdoria sit just above the Serie A relegation zone, it''s not as if were trying to pinch somebody from Inter Milan!

11 million for an average 29 year old striker who doesn''t want to play for Norwich, no thanks.[/quote]Probably agree with this. It''s a price to ward off potential suitors and we should take the hint.[/quote]

Concur 100%. Spend but spend wisely and ideally on players (as we will have done with Brady) who will increase in value whilst they are with us.

Clearly that can''t be guaranteed (RVW) but its good when it does (Fer, Snoddy, BJ).

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Song for Eder[8] Eder, you with the stars in your eyes....... [8]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Getting all moody with me won''t right the inaccuracies of what was posted Toe. And if one part is so clearly inaccurate then I doubt the rest. But that''s just me. Others believe it regardless and that''s their call.

I do wish Archant wouldn''t remove posts or ban posters. People should remain responsible for what they post.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="Bor"]Poor Iwan''s Big Toe. Since the Archant moderator saved him a law suit by deleting the libel he posted, the wheels really have come off.

With that much general anger, he''s on his way to a career as a print farmer.[/quote]Thanks for you concern Bor. I do think though that you are confusing being frustrated with being angry. It frustrates me deeply that despite the bleeding obvious certain persons (yes I mean you, among others) seem blinded to what is sitting in front of their face because the glasses they wear taint everything in their world green and yellow. The fact is that the club have had huge problems attracting the standard of player that would be helpful in our quest to stay in the Premier League this season. This is not up for debate. What is up for debate is why have the club struggled? Is it that Norwich just isn''t an attractive proposition for players? Then why do Swansea (considered by some a back-water hole populated by those who apparently have an affinity for fornicating with animals) seemingly have no problems attracting high quality players, such as Michu, Routledge, Bony, Gomis, Naughton etc, yet we can''t? Is it we can''t compete on transfer fees and wages? Then how can teams who have spent, at best, only a season or two more in the top flight than us over the last few years, such as Bournemouth, Watford, West Brom and Swansea (again)? This argument of we don''t get the TV money upfront in one lump sum does not hold water. Surely you understand that most transfer fees and all wages are not paid in one lump sum at the start of the season and that the TV money is paid in "GUARANTEED" installments over the season. It is not like the Premier League decide randomly to pay one club £500K one week, then another club £2.5M the next  and if they wish the following month or so pay out nothing as their mood suits. The club knows when and how much is coming in from TV rights meaning they can budget accordingly.Is it the owners aren''t rich enough? I don''t think that is as particularly a big an issue as some would make out. With the TV money available and the FFP rules in place, owners personal wealth has less and less of an impact than it did 10 years ago. Look at Cardiff, Villa, Newcastle, Fulham, Hull, QPR, Wigan, Sunderland and now, to an extent, Chelsea, all of who have owners that are considerably wealthier than the Jones'' yet all have either been or have flirted with relegation over the last few years. And if it does have an impact, why aren''t the ''staunch'' supporters on the board doing everything they can to find this investment, rather than restricting the club financially? Is it that they can''t find the right type of investor? Then what constitutes the "right type of investor" in their book? Is it someone who will give them millions to spend in the football club, yet ask for no more involvement in the day to day running of the club than Stephen Fry? If so, no wonder we haven''t had a fresh injection of cash and have failed to announce a new chairman at the club yet.Last weekend, after much deliberation, I posted something that attempted to address these issues. Now could I and should I have neglected to include some of the more personal accusations from it. Yes, I probably should, whether they are true or not, and with hindsight that is something that I am man enough to admit I got wrong, a quality that you seem to lack Bor. However, the information given was from someone I trust, even though I have only known them for a short time. This is because we see and chat to to each other about a great many things mostly not football related, on a fairly regular basis. They are not someone who once bought me a pint at a social event put on by the club, or someone who has only talked to me about football related issues in a quasi-NCFC controlled environment. And as such I trust them more than certain people currently employed by the club who, for one example, not too long ago indicated that they searched the whole of Europe looking for the best man to take the helm at the club, just to find out that we already had the "best man" at the club already in the form of the academy director. For me this is one tiny stop short of "If Chris Sutton is not here at the start of the season, neither will I be".So, Bor, could you try and answer the questions I''ve posed in this post. Or should I expect one of your standard caustic and pithy responses because you don''t have any answers?And on another note, good luck at Old Trafford this afternoon boys.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Well now. Isn''t that a lot better Toe. If archant had left the post up you could have come back to it. Apologised to the people you libeled. And then debated the reasonable points you make.

But even now you can''t help yourself. Yes I did recently go to a social event at the club. But the rest of your post is inaccurate. Just stuff made up in your head added to a bit of truth.

If your true motive is debate then you should welcome those with an alternative view.

[Ray 111]

IBT,

Intersting. Did you receive my email?

Cheers

Ray

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

Check your email Ray.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"]Thanks for you concern Bor. I do think though that you are confusing being frustrated with being angry. It frustrates me deeply that despite the bleeding obvious certain persons (yes I mean you, among others) seem blinded to what is sitting in front of their face because the glasses they wear taint everything in their world green and yellow. The fact is that the club have had huge problems attracting the standard of player that would be helpful in our quest to stay in the Premier League this season. This is not up for debate. What is up for debate is why have the club struggled? [/quote]

It''s because of our wage ceiling, which is set by our reluctance to gamble long term financial security on short term gain, which in turn is set by our board''s strategy of "prudence with ambition", which stems from our dire financial situation of our Championship/League One season only a few years ago, and a desire to never, ever, go there again.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="Bor"]Poor Iwan''s Big Toe. Since the Archant moderator saved him a law suit by deleting the libel he posted, the wheels really have come off.

With that much general anger, he''s on his way to a career as a print farmer.[/quote]Thanks for you concern Bor. I do think though that you are confusing being frustrated with being angry. It frustrates me deeply that despite the bleeding obvious certain persons (yes I mean you, among others) seem blinded to what is sitting in front of their face because the glasses they wear taint everything in their world green and yellow. The fact is that the club have had huge problems attracting the standard of player that would be helpful in our quest to stay in the Premier League this season. This is not up for debate. What is up for debate is why have the club struggled? Is it that Norwich just isn''t an attractive proposition for players? Then why do Swansea (considered by some a back-water hole populated by those who apparently have an affinity for fornicating with animals) seemingly have no problems attracting high quality players, such as Michu, Routledge, Bony, Gomis, Naughton etc, yet we can''t? Is it we can''t compete on transfer fees and wages? Then how can teams who have spent, at best, only a season or two more in the top flight than us over the last few years, such as Bournemouth, Watford, West Brom and Swansea (again)? This argument of we don''t get the TV money upfront in one lump sum does not hold water. Surely you understand that most transfer fees and all wages are not paid in one lump sum at the start of the season and that the TV money is paid in "GUARANTEED" installments over the season. It is not like the Premier League decide randomly to pay one club £500K one week, then another club £2.5M the next  and if they wish the following month or so pay out nothing as their mood suits. The club knows when and how much is coming in from TV rights meaning they can budget accordingly.Is it the owners aren''t rich enough? I don''t think that is as particularly a big an issue as some would make out. With the TV money available and the FFP rules in place, owners personal wealth has less and less of an impact than it did 10 years ago. Look at Cardiff, Villa, Newcastle, Fulham, Hull, QPR, Wigan, Sunderland and now, to an extent, Chelsea, all of who have owners that are considerably wealthier than the Jones'' yet all have either been or have flirted with relegation over the last few years. And if it does have an impact, why aren''t the ''staunch'' supporters on the board doing everything they can to find this investment, rather than restricting the club financially? Is it that they can''t find the right type of investor? Then what constitutes the "right type of investor" in their book? Is it someone who will give them millions to spend in the football club, yet ask for no more involvement in the day to day running of the club than Stephen Fry? If so, no wonder we haven''t had a fresh injection of cash and have failed to announce a new chairman at the club yet.Last weekend, after much deliberation, I posted something that attempted to address these issues. Now could I and should I have neglected to include some of the more personal accusations from it. Yes, I probably should, whether they are true or not, and with hindsight that is something that I am man enough to admit I got wrong, a quality that you seem to lack Bor. However, the information given was from someone I trust, even though I have only known them for a short time. This is because we see and chat to to each other about a great many things mostly not football related, on a fairly regular basis. They are not someone who once bought me a pint at a social event put on by the club, or someone who has only talked to me about football related issues in a quasi-NCFC controlled environment. And as such I trust them more than certain people currently employed by the club who, for one example, not too long ago indicated that they searched the whole of Europe looking for the best man to take the helm at the club, just to find out that we already had the "best man" at the club already in the form of the academy director. For me this is one tiny stop short of "If Chris Sutton is not here at the start of the season, neither will I be".So, Bor, could you try and answer the questions I''ve posed in this post. Or should I expect one of your standard caustic and pithy responses because you don''t have any answers?And on another note, good luck at Old Trafford this afternoon boys.

[/quote]Curses, this post that got deleted sounds great fun. I wish I''d seen it...On wages and transfers, there is no evidence yet that Watford and Bournemouth are paying higher wages than us (I doubt they are by much) and/or have made more more money available for transfers. If we had spent all we intended to in the summer I doubt there would be much difference at all as far as the latter is concerned.As to us versus West Brom and Swansea in wages, in our three seasons in the PL our wages went from £37m to £47m to £54m. And that last season we would have only broken even if it hadn''t been for relegation meaning we didn''t have to pay out various bonuses. In other words, that wage bill was exactly tailored to only just living within our means.Swansea''s went from £35m to £49m to £63m, but playing in the Europa League undoutedly helped with that, and with attracting players. I remember Bethnal Y&G saying Bony only joined because of that. West Brom''s wages went from £50m to £54m to £65m. Swansea and West Brom both have financial advantages that have enabled them to pay higher wages. And that also applies to Southampton. I understand why but you are downplaying the benefit (even in this era of supposed FFP) of having a rich owner but it is still a huge advantage.As to trying to find investment, we have done. The new regime hired Deloitte''s, but as Bowkett (hard-nosed Bowkett, note - not Smith and Jones) said:“We have had some expressions of interest. But every time when I asked the question ‘Could you please verify you have funding?’ no one passed the test. We have searched throughout the world with the toughest advisers, but there is no one out there with real money in their pockets. I [note the "I" - again this is Bowkett saying he was not satisfied] like to see the colour of someone’s money before we do any deals and no one has shown us any.”

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

The gist of the deleted post was:

McNally is bad at his job

Ricky Martin is very bad at his job

[norfolkngood 1,086]

I think a lot has to do with the manager if he was a big name ex player or manager he would have far more contacts for players and more players would want to sign at this level

now just say ryan giggs got a job as a manager in the PL the wealth of knowledge of players in this league and every manager in the world would know him etc

also I am sure more players would want to sign for giggs than AN this has nothing to do with coaching ability its just the pulling power of a bigger name