Will it happen.

[Mr Sausage 0]

[quote user="morty"]Can anyone put their finger on why there is less fan outrage at games than when we went down under Hughton / Adams?[/quote]

Hughton is obvious it was because he was black. The football is far worse now and we are doing far worse. The outage about Hughton was always about skin colour rather than football

[morty 0]

[:|]

[Herman 9,779]

[quote user="City 2nd"]You and the OP deserve some medals for your long service records. Well done.Yes [Y] How you are still alive with all that anger is another matter.

Anyway,it''s not bloody hard if you''d bothered to concentratefor your miraculous 60 years. (Do you want a medal?)

And there we have it again. Morty''s right hand man has to speak too! They really can''t help themselves. Up will pop the third one soon! Anger mate, no, but you and your sidekicks are so hilarious one can only wonder at the relationships you have![/quote]So you are basically fishing then. So whatever you write we have to remember it is intentional bollox. At least I now know where you a coming from then[Y]

[norfolkngood 1,087]

it is strange because if we won a couple in this bad run but ended up on the same points it doesnt look so bad

its the long run without a win that does it highlights the poor form

W W W L L L L L L L L Looks worse than

W L L L W L L L L W L same points but you have to give some hope where the next win will come

[JF 694]

Personally speaking I thought that Hughton was backed well in the summer transfer window and being the third season up expectations were higher than this season under Neil

[hogesar 9,676]

I think with Hughton it had got to the point where it was clear he had no idea what to change and often simply wouldn''t change. I remember the fans screaming for 4-4-2 and Hughton actually done it! Bizarre.

My problem is AN has been criticised for fiddling with the team but whenever he keeps pretty much the same team twice in a row we get completely different performances. In fact most things AN gets criticised for I actually think a lot of it comes down to our players themselves.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Whose job is it to manage, motivate, coach, ensure that the players understand their role and the tactics both before and during the game?

Which of our players have progressed under Neil et al? What we see is a lot of individual errors, inconsistent performances, poor performances, lapses in concentration etc. In fact never mind players progressing it can quite easily be argued that quite a few have regressed under Neil et al.

But, is any of this Neil et al''s fault? Are the players to blame for all of this? Yet, if you are of the opinion that the players are to blame, then surely by now, Neil being the manager, should have addressed? If not, then what is he getting paid for, what is he ''managing''?

Can you put such a woeful run of form down to bad luck, which some seem to be doing? If you believe that, how long can you keep having such bad luck before you actually think, no there is a problrm somewhere?

[Peanuts 150]

[quote user="hogesar"]My problem is AN has been criticised for fiddling with the team but whenever he keeps pretty much the same team twice in a row we get completely different performances. In fact most things AN gets criticised for I actually think a lot of it comes down to our players themselves.[/quote]

I think it''s definitely a case of damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don''t a lot of the time. After every game on here you''ve got people calling for changes while others criticise the manager for tinkering too much. For example, five at the back worked well against Leicester but looked ineffective against Chelsea and people ask why did the manager play that way when Chelsea only play one up front? Yet if he''d reverted to a back four and we''d lost, those same posters would complain why change a system that worked well the previous game?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Peanuts"][quote user="hogesar"]My problem is AN has been criticised for fiddling with the team but whenever he keeps pretty much the same team twice in a row we get completely different performances. In fact most things AN gets criticised for I actually think a lot of it comes down to our players themselves.[/quote]

I think it''s definitely a case of damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don''t a lot of the time. After every game on here you''ve got people calling for changes while others criticise the manager for tinkering too much. For example, five at the back worked well against Leicester but looked ineffective against Chelsea and people ask why did the manager play that way when Chelsea only play one up front? Yet if he''d reverted to a back four and we''d lost, those same posters would complain why change a system that worked well the previous game?

[/quote]I don''t think it looked ineffective against Chelsea.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user=" Green and Yellow"]I cannot see where the next win is coming from this season. And before the happy clappers try and shoot me down I''ve followed city for forty years now. I can honestly say I''ve seen some bad times but the current situation is the most dire I''ve seen. The team is a shambles. AN has lost the plot and as for the board the less said the better. The current situation is more dire than the end of the CH era. At least CH was able to grind out a result. AN is way out of his depth. I have many friends in and around Glasgow who all say Scottish football is dire and no bench mark for how good a manager/player that you are. The board should sack AN now and get in Rogers or Moyes until the end of the season. Cash talks can with the right financial package they could be tempted. Will the board do it, no they won''t.[/quote]I suspect we''d differ in our diagnoses of the problem, but I''d agree about the situation being more dire than when Hughton departed. Hughton was a poor choice in terms of quality of football, but his appointment also marked a change in terms of transfer strategy.Since Lambert left, the transfer market mantra of ''Young & Hungry'' has been discarded in favour of ''We don''t need to sell''. Fans once sneered at the notion of buying older ''hired hand'' types of player, through fear they would be too comfortable and less motivated, only interested in the fat paycheck used to lure them to a club. Far better to buy the cream of the lower leagues who''d have a point to prove and hence be willing to put the effort in.We have in fact gone much further towards what we once sneered at. Now we can''t buy young and hungry because they''re too young and not good enough. We need experience and we have to pay as much as we can afford, no matter whether they''re a loanee or a has-been with a questionable injury record.When Hughton arrived the massive legacy debt built up under our present owners was finally repaid, and together with the expectation that we''d be in the Premier League regularly, the club felt we could compete in transfer market without an eye to using transfers to build for the long term. The latter point is a similar (but not identical) idea which failed so spectacularly under Roeder and led us to the brink of administration.We didn’t have nearly the same emphasis on spenting relatively low sums and developing promising players (eg Ruddy, Howson). Overall we’ve not seen much in the way of transfer fees, with lots of players leaving on frees or cut price deals (a few of whom are now worth more than we paid) and quite a few hardly featuring. There''s also a reluctance to sell our more prized assets with a view to reinvesting, something that we last did well under Chase.What we''ve found out is that the absence of a heavy debt burden isn''t the same thing as being rich, at least when compared to others in the top division. This false sense of being rich made us feel able to try and spend our way out of the Championship last season instead of pre-emptively address the structural problem of an aging squad.As an aside, the 200% jump in transfer prices since Lambert took us up hasn’t helped either. It seems to have distorted perceptions of money received and spent, probably creating a false sense of wealth and value. Consider that £9m might sound a lot today, but it''s only equivalent to about £3m at 2011 prices. I suspect that some of our transfer profits wouldn’t look quite so large if they were inflation-adjusted.In the post-Lambert era we''ve felt rich enough to buy more ready-made, ''finished article'' type players. The problem is that they generally cost more in fees and wages, and need to be replaced more often than younger players. You generally don''t make as much of a profit when you sell them, in fact they''re more prone to depreciate in value as injuries accumulate and age takes its toll.A vicious circle has been created. We have a greater need to buy experienced players because we''ve not bought enough players in their early to mid twenties who are able to act as squad players and progress to become regulars. Only recently have we bought a few younger players, but they''re more youth players than ones able to fill in off the bench in the Premier League or Championship.With less transfer profit and a greater need to spend on replacing older players, quality has been one of the first casualties. This has been highlighted upon promotion by our reliance on loans and obscure foreign signings, some of which were surely known to other Premier League clubs but rejected as not good enough or too risky.Due to our club''s small size we’ll always need to bargain hunt. But our form of bargain hunting is very different to, for example, buying Afobe for £2m, as we''re typically trying to acquire a ready-made, experienced, typically older player. With Afobe it’s about trying to get raw quality while compromising on experience, but with a lot of our signings it’s about trying to get experience while compromising on quality.At the low prices we''re willing to pay the supply isn''t plentiful, so it shouldn''t have been a big surprise when the ultimate failure occured, ie more than one potential signing fell through and we were left high and dry when the transfer window slammed shut.The change in transfer strategy since Lambert left, something which has been overseen and approved by McNally (and the owners), is one of the biggest underlying reasons why we''re struggling to compete this season. The strategy has had a pernicious negative effect which has accumulated over the last few years.The notion of needing a rich owner or outside investment is a bit of a red herring I''m afraid. I’m not saying a cash injection wouldn’t help, but all things remaining equal we''re not presently firing on all cylinders and the underlying problem of having a flawed transfer strategy would remain.The failure to recruit the recruitment team is similarly another red herring. Yes it was a problem, and pointed to a lack of organisation, but the lack of cash and lack of pre-existing squad depth were a far bigger ones. The manager lacked experience, but that''s yet another red-coloured fish, and changing manager for the umpteenth time won''t solve the bigger problems which I''ve highlighted.What we''ve seen over the last year is the club having to cut corners, buy cheap inferior quality, and generally search through the damaged goods and bargain bins in an effort to compete. The root cause, similar to under Roeder, is going for too many short term options in the transfer market and hence not getting enough value.The question now is whether the club will identify the problems above and make the required changes. Will they ever learn?

[Peanuts 150]

[quote user="93vintage"]Stuff[/quote]

I think that''s an interesting and fair assessment of the situation. My own view is that barring a money bags investor if we want to continue to punch above our weight we need to re-focus on developing talent and extracting the most value from our transfer activity.

Despite the criticism of Alex Neil on this board, ironically as a manager he represents the type of player we should be targeting - young, ambitious and talented but unproven.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Peanuts"][quote user="93vintage"]Stuff[/quote]

I think that''s an interesting and fair assessment of the situation. My own view is that barring a money bags investor if we want to continue to punch above our weight we need to re-focus on developing talent and extracting the most value from our transfer activity.

Despite the criticism of Alex Neil on this board, ironically as a manager he represents the type of player we should be targeting - young, ambitious and talented but unproven.

[/quote]I think we are doing that pretty well just now.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="morty"]Can anyone put their finger on why there is less fan outrage at games than when we went down under Hughton / Adams?[/quote]I suspect many are still reveling in the day out at Wembley. I think Alex Neil has been cut some slack for giving us that.As glorious as that was, it wont count for a lot if we are relegated come May. This is not the season to be relegated.

[morty 0]

[quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="morty"]Can anyone put their finger on why there is less fan outrage at games than when we went down under Hughton / Adams?[/quote]I suspect many are still reveling in the day out at Wembley. I think Alex Neil has been cut some slack for giving us that.As glorious as that was, it wont count for a lot if we are relegated come May. This is not the season to be relegated.[/quote]It never is the season to be relegated though.This new money deal won''t actually net us any more money.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

[quote user="morty"]This new money deal won''t actually net us any more money.[/quote]Is that why clubs such as Middlesbro , Derby and Sheff Wed have been spending an absolute fortune to try and get out of the Championship this season ?

[TIL 1010 4,750]

May i just add your assumption that the new money deal will not net us any more money rather goes against God McNally and his assertion that relegation would be '' worse than death '' comment uttered the last time we were relegated and that was before this new deal.

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]This new money deal won''t actually net us any more money.[/quote]Is that why clubs such as Middlesbro , Derby and Sheff Wed have been spending an absolute fortune to try and get out of the Championship this season ? [/quote]No idea, is it?Middlesboro spent a load last season too, as did Derby.Not sure of the point you are making.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Does the wealth of a club''s owners correlate directly to the wealth of the club they own?

[TIL 1010 4,750]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]This new money deal won''t actually net us any more money.[/quote]Is that why clubs such as Middlesbro , Derby and Sheff Wed have been spending an absolute fortune to try and get out of the Championship this season ? [/quote]No idea, is it?Middlesboro spent a load last season too, as did Derby.Not sure of the point you are making.[/quote]The point i am making is that they obviously see the Premiership as some form of Promised land but somehow you don''t is that right ? If that is the case maybe i should content myself next season with watching Burton Albion.

[morty 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]This new money deal won''t actually net us any more money.[/quote]Is that why clubs such as Middlesbro , Derby and Sheff Wed have been spending an absolute fortune to try and get out of the Championship this season ? [/quote]No idea, is it?Middlesboro spent a load last season too, as did Derby.Not sure of the point you are making.[/quote]The point i am making is that they obviously see the Premiership as some form of Promised land but somehow you don''t is that right ? If that is the case maybe i should content myself next season with watching Burton Albion. [/quote]So haven''t Championship clubs always seen the Premiership as a "promised land" then?Where did I say I didn''t want us to stay in the Premiership exactly? I stated that relegation would never be a good thing, but the fact the money goes up next season doesn''t really bear any relevance. Knocking 90 million or 130 million off our turnover ( Figures completely made up) amounts to pretty much the same thing.

[TIL 1010 4,750]

It is the acceptance of the situation and the big picture that sticks in my throat. We never ever learn from top to bottom at this club. my club, our club. A short time ago we gained Category One status for Colney which everybody i am sure saw as a flagship of excellent facilities and now McNally tells us it is a hinderence to signing top drawer players that needs upgrading. Well now if that is the case how the hell did it get Cat One ?The boardroom is like a revolving door .....in come the Turners who we all saw as just the kind of people we wanted, rich, locally based and fans. They left with no explanation as quick as they came. In comes Stephen Fry out goes Stephen Fry but who replaces him.....Delia''s nephew who plainly has no more business nous than a corner shop keeper. What the hell happened to Bowkett? The man who charmed the banks back in 2009 not McNally. If it is not right at the top and mistakes are not learned it seeps right down to the bottom and out onto the pitch. Jeeesus i could write a blog [:D] but enough for now.

[93vintage 16]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]It is the acceptance of the situation and the big picture that sticks in my throat. We never ever learn from top to bottom at this club. my club, our club. A short time ago we gained Category One status for Colney which everybody i am sure saw as a flagship of excellent facilities and now McNally tells us it is a hinderence to signing top drawer players that needs upgrading. Well now if that is the case how the hell did it get Cat One ?The boardroom is like a revolving door .....in come the Turners who we all saw as just the kind of people we wanted, rich, locally based and fans. They left with no explanation as quick as they came. In comes Stephen Fry out goes Stephen Fry but who replaces him.....Delia''s nephew who plainly has no more business nous than a corner shop keeper. What the hell happened to Bowkett? The man who charmed the banks back in 2009 not McNally. If it is not right at the top and mistakes are not learned it seeps right down to the bottom and out onto the pitch. Jeeesus i could write a blog [:D] but enough for now.[/quote]I think you''re in the right area when you criticise the owners/board. Part of the problem is that Delia and Michael don''t seem to have it in them on their own to run the show and get to grips with understanding the points in my earlier post regarding transfer strategy.Following on from this is the fact that our owners seem to leave general transfer/football strategy wholly up to one person, ie McNally. There''s not much evidence that Bowkett or anyone else on the board have provided much in the way of footballing input, it''s largely one person calling the shots.It would be fine if McNally got things largely right and we were sat in Bournmouth''s position thinking about who we''re going buy next season. But this hasn''t happened.All of the above people have done a lot right. But it''s the things they''ve done poorly, in some cases very poorly, which is what''s frustrating many fans.

[morty 0]

[quote user="93vintage"][quote user="TIL 1010"]It is the acceptance of the situation and the big picture that sticks in my throat. We never ever learn from top to bottom at this club. my club, our club. A short time ago we gained Category One status for Colney which everybody i am sure saw as a flagship of excellent facilities and now McNally tells us it is a hinderence to signing top drawer players that needs upgrading. Well now if that is the case how the hell did it get Cat One ?The boardroom is like a revolving door .....in come the Turners who we all saw as just the kind of people we wanted, rich, locally based and fans. They left with no explanation as quick as they came. In comes Stephen Fry out goes Stephen Fry but who replaces him.....Delia''s nephew who plainly has no more business nous than a corner shop keeper. What the hell happened to Bowkett? The man who charmed the banks back in 2009 not McNally. If it is not right at the top and mistakes are not learned it seeps right down to the bottom and out onto the pitch. Jeeesus i could write a blog [:D] but enough for now.[/quote]I think you''re in the right area when you criticise the owners/board. Part of the problem is that Delia and Michael don''t seem to have it in them on their own to run the show and get to grips with understanding the points in my earlier post regarding transfer strategy.Following on from this is the fact that our owners seem to leave general transfer/football strategy wholly up to one person, ie McNally. There''s not much evidence that Bowkett or anyone else on the board have provided much in the way of footballing input, it''s largely one person calling the shots.It would be fine if McNally got things largely right and we were sat in Bournmouth''s position thinking about who we''re going buy next season. But this hasn''t happened.All of the above people have done a lot right. But it''s the things they''ve done poorly, in some cases very poorly, which is what''s frustrating many fans.[/quote]So 4 seasons in the Premiership in the last 5 couldn''t be considered that we / the board / the club have got a fair few things right?As far as I am aware, McNally picked Lambert and Alex Neil, he was over ruled and the rest of the board picked Neil Adams.I''m not calling him some sort of God, like a few dafties imply he is treated by some fans, but I would say that he has got a fair few things right.Delia and Michael pretty much admitted they didn''t have the nous to run this properly, which is why they employed McNally. And I would venture that since he has been at the club, could be viewed as a fairly successful period,

[whoareyou? 0]

As i said before, of those 4 seasons in 5 we have been in the Premier League we have struggled and been uncompetitive in three of them.That''s why i believe the current Board will never make City a competitive consistent Premier League club.

[Van wink 2,994]

Morty

" this new money deal won''t actually net us any more money"

How did you calculate that?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Vanwink"]Morty

" this new money deal won''t actually net us any more money"

How did you calculate that?[/quote]The general consensus is that all that will happen is that wages will increase and transfer fees inflate.And, all said and done, we will still be the cash poorest club in the Premiership.

[morty 0]

[quote user="whoareyou"]As i said before, of those 4 seasons in 5 we have been in the Premier League we have struggled and been uncompetitive in three of them.That''s why i believe the current Board will never make City a competitive consistent Premier League club.[/quote]Are we still going round and round in circles with this?The answer is "we need more money" and so far, there ain''t anyone willing to give it to us.

[Tumbleweed 106]

I''m not sure we need that much more money.

What I would like though is:

1. Players being played in their correct and preferred positions

2. A settled first choice side which looks to have some semblance of understanding between them

3. A team running out prepared to compete rather than only having a go when 1 or 2 nil down.

4. A squad where everyone is made to feel welcome and pulling together with no one being seemingly frozen out

5. A focus more on our own strengths rather than consistently changing tactics to address the opposition.

These things don''t cost money. Seems to me that if we had got some of this stuff a bit better sorted we may well be with B''mouth and Watford now and not the dysfunctioning north easterners.

The measure for me of a good manager is whether we look better than the sum of our parts. Sadly at the moment we look a long way below.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Morty, the reason for all of our issues is a lack of money and more money will cure all of these issues?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Tumbleweed"]I''m not sure we need that much more money.

What I would like though is:

1. Players being played in their correct and preferred positions

2. A settled first choice side which looks to have some semblance of understanding between them

3. A team running out prepared to compete rather than only having a go when 1 or 2 nil down.

4. A squad where everyone is made to feel welcome and pulling together with no one being seemingly frozen out

5. A focus more on our own strengths rather than consistently changing tactics to address the opposition.

These things don''t cost money. Seems to me that if we had got some of this stuff a bit better sorted we may well be with B''mouth and Watford now and not the dysfunctioning north easterners.

The measure for me of a good manager is whether we look better than the sum of our parts. Sadly at the moment we look a long way below.[/quote]The thing is though, however you look at it, we do need money.If you look at pretty much every single player in our squad, they are flawed in some way, the statement "He is really good at this, but I wish he could just do that" could be said about virtually anyone. We have very few totally consistent, reliable performers.And the reason for that is that we shop in the bargain basement. We simply cannot afford to buy the quality of players that we can rely on.Take the game on Saturday, Klose looked very much the part, but Naismith really didn''t. And if you were to really look at it logically, if Naismith really was still the player that we think he is, he would have been starting a lot more for Everton. I''m not writing him off, by all means, but he illustrates an example of a player that we are very much relying on, that, certainly on Saturday, didn''t deliver.