Expectations

[JF 694]

That''s irrelevant isn''t it. The point is as a professional football club our aim should be the continued improvement and investment in the playing squad. There seems to be a mentality on here and possibly in the boardroom that we''ve had our fingers burnt once so let''s not go there again. With that attitude we may as well pack up and go home as we won''t be competitive at this level or the top end of the championship either.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="JF"]cause there isn''t but that''s professional football isn''t it? Or shall we just pack up and go home because we got our fingers burnt once?[/quote]Then why use a successful example and ignore the unsuccessful ones?We''d all like to buy low and sell high but life is not like that.

[JF 694]

And let''s also put some perspective on this. We got stung for 8.5 million plus wages on RVW, that is relatively small in the modern game. If reports are to be believed then Chapionship Middlesborough want to spend more on a 29 year old Jerome. Rhodes went for more in the championship as did McCormack and Gray. Hardly the financial disaster many make it out to be and shouldn''t influence future spending

[JF 694]

Um I didn''t Ricardo! I was questioning why Herman saw the Fer gamble as a failure when we nearly doubled our money in a season.

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

My expectations are quite simple I expect the Board to provide the Manager with a decent squad (after all handsome bonuses were paid).

Once on the pitch I expect every player to bust a gut for the period that they are on the pitch unfortunately there are times when some of our players can''t be arsed. I can accept a defeat if we play to our strengths and lose but won''t accept second best.

There can only ever be one winner but not to try is inexcusable.

[Highland Canary 76]

It was not an ''unreasonable'' expectation that the board would have invested in the Summer transfer window to both upgrade the defence, which was woeful in the championship, and upgrade the striking department so important in the premier league. That the cash flows from the broadcasters are paid monthly or quarterly is of little relevance, any short term cash needs could have been addressed by bank overdraft. What is painfully obvious is that the Summer transfer window was a disaster. We never had a chance. What is equally obvious is our so-called ''mutual'' approach to running a football club is fundamentally incompatible with the ambition of running an established PL football club. Only a change in ownership fans can secure this.

[Hairy Kenneth 0]

Trouble is its not an exact science of spending loads of money and you will stay up-QPR are a prime example of that. There are so many other factors involved.

The team that Lambert had in the PL was a mixture of league one and championship players.

I was so optimistic the season we went down as on paper that was the best team we had in years.

I don''t know what the answer is unfortunately-of course we need new players in January but it''s not as simple as spending as much money as possible and ending up with the type of mercenaries QPR recruited.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="JF"]Um I didn''t Ricardo! I was questioning why Herman saw the Fer gamble as a failure when we nearly doubled our money in a season.[/quote]It was a failure to the extent that we didn''t stay up I would guess that all things considered we came out of the deal about even. If you look at the figures over time you will see that transfers in and transfers out are roughly in balance and that''s the way it has to be without a big financial owner who is happy to take on the debt.

[FCC 76]

I believe Newcastle spent more than us - spending is no guarantee of success. The inconvenient fact is that if every club spent billions, three would still be relegated.

What is happening to Bolton will happen to other clubs in the future. Rich investors decide to walk away and new investors can''t be found.

We all want the club to stay up, but perhaps see what is an acceptable financial gamble differently. The biggest illusion is the increased Premier League money. So the money is more next season - but again three clubs will go down every year.

Without wealthy Sugar Daddies would Watford and Bournemouth be in the top flight whilst clubs like Leeds, Wolves, and Sheffield Wednesday are in the Championship? Clubs such as Bolton, Charlton and Coventry were once seen as solid top flight teams but despite years of big money have fallen away dramatically once they had a bad season and slipped into the bottom three.

Forget the money, I believe standing together with our team and manager presents our best chance of staying up.

[gitto 0]

Lets be straight here. The players at Norwich City are good enough to stay up and be mid table at least. As an extremely good troubleshooting soccer tactician i can categorically say Norwich City with the right system to suit the goalscorers available, ( which is where Hughton and Adams and to some extent Neil this year all went wrong) have more than enough quality to stay up. City just need to go a little more direct and provide the right service for the strikers to score and to be solid in defense. FACT Norwich City havr more than enough to thrive in the premiership. The players just need to be used correctly and the capable Alex Neil needs to keep his nerve and be more positive and keep his nerve, which I feel since Newcastle he has lost his nerve.

[gitto 0]

Have I emphasised that Alex Neil needs to keep his nerve

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="JF"]cause there isn''t but that''s professional football isn''t it? Or shall we just pack up and go home because we got our fingers burnt once?[/quote]Then why use a successful example and ignore the unsuccessful ones?We''d all like to buy low and sell high but life is not like that.[/quote]We''re going to have to make more money on our transfers if we want to be more than a yo-yo club. At the moment we''re paying a lot out in terms of buying experienced players in their late 20s, several of which will leave for far less than we paid or (more likely) next to nothing in order to avoid paying their wages.I can understand not wanting to risk spending £6M+ on a single player, but the balance in buying the finished article vs a younger and cheaper player needs shifting the other way.The argument against the above is that younger players aren''t as good and we won''t be as successful. But we''re not exactly successful now, having largely gone for experience in recent seasons.Instead of ending up with a better squad through reinvesting transfer profit we''ve spent as little as possible on producing a squad full of cheap and average older players.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]It was not an ''unreasonable'' expectation that the board would have invested in the Summer transfer window to both upgrade the defence, which was woeful in the championship, and upgrade the striking department so important in the premier league. That the cash flows from the broadcasters are paid monthly or quarterly is of little relevance, any short term cash needs could have been addressed by bank overdraft. What is painfully obvious is that the Summer transfer window was a disaster. We never had a chance. What is equally obvious is our so-called ''mutual'' approach to running a football club is fundamentally incompatible with the ambition of running an established PL football club. Only a change in ownership fans can secure this.[/quote]There is no "mutual" approach to running Norwich City. That was a load of nonsensical PR guff. The club is run as an ordinary business on straight-forward capitalist lines with majority owners in control. There is nothing mutual or co-operative about it.

[Cobain18 0]

It''s notoriously harder to ''invest money'' in good players in your first season in the PL as the club won''t be as attractive to good players as the other 17 clubs in the division. The board have spent responsibly and the manager has brought in good quality where he can. I really don''t understand who people were expecting us to sign this summer.

[Highland Canary 76]

Couldn''t agree more Purple. Fundamentally, it is external capital which is needed.

[JF 694]

The only quality we''ve added is Brady.

[lake district canary 4,531]

What right do we have to expect success?  Because that is what we want?   But there is a difference between wanting success and expecting it. There are all sorts of expectations, expectations of success, expectations of failure, expectations that we will be ok, but not that great and not that bad.   So what are the best expectations?  Imo the best expectations are that the players try their hardest and  do their best for the team.  If they do that, we can have no complaints, win lose or draw.  Any other expectations are false, as they are just wishful thinking or doom mongering.   

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Cobain18"]It''s notoriously harder to ''invest money'' in good players in your first season in the PL as the club won''t be as attractive to good players as the other 17 clubs in the division. The board have spent responsibly and the manager has brought in good quality where he can. I really don''t understand who people were expecting us to sign this summer.[/quote]The last two windows haven''t seen the club buy anyone for the future, ie players aged around 25 or under. The longer we postpone investing in the future, the further we''re going to fall behind.We''re going to need to start investing before all these 28+ players leave the first team squad ie Martin, Whittaker, Jerome, Hoolahan, Dorrans, Mulumbu, Tettey, O''Neill, Andreu.

[93vintage 16]

* nobody 25 or under apart from Brady.

[Herman 9,756]

We are investing in the future. That''s why our academy is getting a good sized allowance. (Which some still complain as a waste of cash.)

[gitto 0]

I don''t know what you lot are going on about. The players are good enough. It''s the way they are being used. They were playing teams off the park start of the season. Alex Neil has lost his nerve and keeps persevering with out of form players. Howson and Grabban.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Highland Canary"]It was not an ''unreasonable'' expectation that the board would have invested in the Summer transfer window to both upgrade the defence, which was woeful in the championship, and upgrade the striking department so important in the premier league. That the cash flows from the broadcasters are paid monthly or quarterly is of little relevance, any short term cash needs could have been addressed by bank overdraft. What is painfully obvious is that the Summer transfer window was a disaster. We never had a chance. What is equally obvious is our so-called ''mutual'' approach to running a football club is fundamentally incompatible with the ambition of running an established PL football club. Only a change in ownership fans can secure this.[/quote]There is no "mutual" approach to running Norwich City. That was a load of nonsensical PR guff. The club is run as an ordinary business on straight-forward capitalist lines with majority owners in control. There is nothing mutual or co-operative about it.[/quote]

Don''t "ordinary straight-forward capitalist businesses" pay dividends to shareholders? The "mutual" element surely is that profits are ploughed back into the club''s raison d''être -- football rather than being siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders? 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Highland Canary"]It was not an ''unreasonable'' expectation that the board would have invested in the Summer transfer window to both upgrade the defence, which was woeful in the championship, and upgrade the striking department so important in the premier league. That the cash flows from the broadcasters are paid monthly or quarterly is of little relevance, any short term cash needs could have been addressed by bank overdraft. What is painfully obvious is that the Summer transfer window was a disaster. We never had a chance. What is equally obvious is our so-called ''mutual'' approach to running a football club is fundamentally incompatible with the ambition of running an established PL football club. Only a change in ownership fans can secure this.[/quote]There is no "mutual" approach to running Norwich City. That was a load of nonsensical PR guff. The club is run as an ordinary business on straight-forward capitalist lines with majority owners in control. There is nothing mutual or co-operative about it.[/quote]

Don''t "ordinary straight-forward capitalist businesses" pay dividends to shareholders? The "mutual" element surely is that profits are ploughed back into the club''s raison d''être -- football rather than being siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders? 

[/quote]Actually we do - at least in theory - pay dividends to some classes of shareholders - just not those holding the ordinaries that control ownership. But we are still run on classic capitalist lines with outside shareholder control (by outside I mean not controlled by a shareholding workforce).That we plough the profits back into the main business doesn''t make us a mutual. All businesses do that, to a greater or lesser extent. It is true that companies paying real dividends have to set aside part of the profits for that, but essentially there is no difference. A mutual is where the employees get a share of the profits and - I think usually if not always - form the government of the company. That is not the case with us at all.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="Herman "]We are investing in the future. That''s why our academy is getting a good sized allowance. (Which some still complain as a waste of cash.)[/quote]That''s a big plus point, but not all will come up to scratch, so we ought to be buying some midway players eg like when we got Howson. At the moment we''re too reliant on buying players aged 28+, with little in between them and our raw youth products.Another weak point is letting some of our better youth players go too early/too cheaply, eg Chris Martin, Adeyemi and McGeehan. As I''ve said before we ought to be giving them more of a chance and using the loan system more effectively to increase their value. They''re not getting enough of a go here, so they opt to leave in order to gain experience.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="gitto"]I don''t know what you lot are going on about. The players are good enough. It''s the way they are being used. They were playing teams off the park start of the season. Alex Neil has lost his nerve and keeps persevering with out of form players. Howson and Grabban.[/quote]

Er, which teams did we "play off the park start of the season"? Are you thinking of the first 30 mins against West Ham - a game which ended in a draw? Or the first game against Palace -- which we lost. Or maybe the Saints game -- 0-3? While AN was "holding his nerve" over the first 10 games of the season, we recorded two wins (Sunderland, Bournemouth). In the five games since he "lost his nerve" we have recorded one win, picked up a good point against Arsenal, and performed creditably against Man City. Fact is we have been undone by individual errors more than managerial shortcomings, You''re talking nonsense.

[gitto 0]

Players are not playing with any belief or confidence Westcoast. Witness Brady''s poor attempt on goal when he was through and his delivery from free kicks yesterday. A few weeks ago he would''ve been spot on.

[Herman 9,756]

"Players are not playing with any belief or confidence Westcoast.

Witness Brady''s poor attempt on goal when he was through and his

delivery from free kicks yesterday. A few weeks ago he would''ve been

spot on."

On Sunday he was spot on.Unless something extremely bad happened you don''t lose confidence and belief within a week.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Purple

What you are saying is perfectly correct, but the point about dividends is relevant and was basically what McNally''s talk of the club being run along mutual lines was referring to as I understood it.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Good OP Cobain, it is indeed the fundamental issue for fans to consider for themselves, before tactics, transfers, line ups, players, academies and football philosophies.

The job of a manager, coach or club is to maximise their odds with the resources they have available. In extreme cases This might mean a 0-1 defeat instead of a 0-5 defeat, which in the eyes of fans is very hard to accept. As a coach there might be a huge amounts of positives to be gleaned from such a scenario, typically when approaches and patterns are established that will likely lead to future success over a period.

The club will do extremely well to stay up this season. I predicted and hoped for Norwich to finish 17th, just surviving. I would consider this great success. Much like the 0-1 analogy, falling a fraction short can be perceived as disastrous, though all should note how fine the margins are.

We don''t pay a lot, we haven''t got a lot of money, we have experienced better-than-the-championship though questions. Marks over whether they are just-good-enough-to-stay-in-the-Premier-League. The club must develop int is way, protecting the future for either outcome. To do otherwise is reckless.

93 has made some good points, though I Think we can see a pattern in Alex Neil''s signings. Brady is the template, though such players are hard to attract year 1. Mulumbu, Dorrans are good, solid additions and Mbokani a reasonable punt.

Alex Neil wanted notably-better-than-current additions for centre back and forward positions, but they couldn''t be obtained. Better not to spend than buy stocking fillers and it is to Alex Neil''s credit that he didn''t go this way as many a manager is tempted for selfish "take a punt and increase my chances of staying in a job a bit longer"''reasons.

Alex Neil is getting better, though it is not an unfair observation bathrooms of the "safe"''players in the squad are not. It is a bigger year for them than some of them realise.

Norwich bankrolled an expensive Championship year to get back and give them a renewed chance at the Premiership. They will take it this year or a bigger change will occur and some may not have the chance at this level again.

Parma

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@Purple

What you are saying is perfectly correct, but the point about dividends is relevant and was basically what McNally''s talk of the club being run along mutual lines was referring to as I understood it.[/quote]

Yes, but the vast majority (I cannot be bothered to check exactly) of the 92 club in England are, like us, unlisted and so do not pay dividends to shareholders in the way listed companies do. Some may still hand out dividends but - as with our example of infrequent payments to a very small number of shareholders - it is not likely to be a significant amount of money. I wasn''t at the meeting (an AGM?) where McNally (I think it was) first said this but if the intention was (and I suspect it was) to give the impression, by talking about mutuality, that we were running the club in a different and better way to most of our rivals then that just doesn''t bear scrutiny. The likelihood is that those others are just as niggardly with dividends as we are and plough just as big a percentage of any profit back into the football side as we do.