lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 I know we would all like the club to have lots of money to spend to buy ready made players, but it doesn''t look likely. In the past, in the good old days before the Premier League, we were a club that generally bought players cheaply and sold them on for a profit. We look as if that may well be the way we help balance the books in the future. So far from being without resources, we should - if we maintain our position as a club seriously competing for the PL - be able to attract good young players to come to such a good club as we have - and if they do well will eventually be old on for big kahunas. That money can be used again to buy in more young players. Its a far cry from buying big to try and compete, but we can''t do that - we''ve tried and it hasn''t worked - and all it would do to us if we try that again is give us a few players who don''t really cut the mustard enough to make it worthwhile - and risk putting us in debt again. It may seem a backward step to those who want us to spend £xx millions on players - but it is a sustainable approach and with a manager who is good with youngsters (depending on who you talk to), should be the way forwards - and should help us maintain our position challenging for the PL, season after season and sometimes getting in there. Is that a recipe for mediocrity? I don''t think so, to me it looks a progressive approach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted January 24, 2017 This has already been discussed, all day, here.http://services.pinkun.com/forums/pinkun-forums/cs/forums/3474287/ShowPost.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted January 24, 2017 The reality is that players will always look to find (or be shown) their level. It has nothing to do with buying cheap selling dear.For everyone of those, there are the expensive flops.Players will expect to climb their way to the top, or as high as they can go. I doubt any of them would have joined us if we had said that they could not move on if they were offered better terms elsewhere.That will always be so. It is not some policy, just the way it is. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 Really, how interesting. I didn''t look at it after the first few pages, got a bit bored with it tbh. 73 posts, 56 of them yours. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
morty 0 Posted January 24, 2017 Jesus Christ, here we go again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Van wink 2,994 Posted January 24, 2017 It is a sustainable way forward LDC and fair play, despite all the recent criticism of the way the club is run, this is the right policy for us and will pay dividends in the future.Is Neil Adams still involved with the monitoring our lads out on loan? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,232 Posted January 24, 2017 Goes back to my ideal football fair play system, equal each league put by having a wage & bonus cap, limit each club to a roster of 30 players each season, all other senior players to be sold or released. Only each clubs own youth system for player under 21 to be used to supliment the squad during each season.Salary cap the same for all clubs. This should even things out and give all clubs a better chance of being competitive, can you imagine the greed of players and those clubs who have it easy by rich owners agreeing to this? Never..........So if you want silverware in the future yes you need a rich investor, if your happy where we are and occasionally getting up then no. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted January 24, 2017 Always assuming little old England manage to keep the gravy train in our country. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantiaci Canary 556 Posted January 24, 2017 Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!All that glitters is not gold.Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!All that glitters is not gold.Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in?[/quote]I keep asking if anyone has a comprehensive list. We always get a current success like Bournemouth traded against a basket case like Ipswich. A comprehensive list would be interesting..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JF 694 Posted January 24, 2017 I do wish people would stop saying ask Blackburn fans about having a rich owner. Blackburn won the premier league by being the first club to benefit from having such an owner! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,352 Posted January 24, 2017 Maybe that was chicken feed compared to their current rich investors. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted January 24, 2017 I discussed this exact same topic in a much better thread earlier.It had been a decent day on the forum with good debate and friendly banter until LDC turned up. A troll of the highest order. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cantiaci Canary 556 Posted January 24, 2017 Precisely ... it isn''t just having rich owners that is desirable - they have to be the right sort.Some will feel that the risk isn''t worth it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!All that glitters is not gold.Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in?[/quote]I would question whether these billions will continue to be there.The pace of technology is such that it is almost becoming impossible to stop stuff being accessed ''illegally''.Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,232 Posted January 24, 2017 The exact scenario is the club is not for sale, it doesn''t matter, we have a set budget, set goal and we will trim our cloth to suite.Ask Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal and Man City fans, are they happy to have rich owners brand new state of the art facilities and new grounds.Now look at the up and coming clubs, Brighton, great example of a club on its knees, no ground, no players ask their fans!It''s no point though, we will all have different expectations and requirements and as such will differ on what we would like for this club.As said this has been done to death, and I pretty sure if Red Bull take over here invest 300 million on the squad, get a top world class manager here and move us to a 60k stadium, not many people would be upset! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JF 694 Posted January 24, 2017 As said this has been done to death, and I pretty sure if Red Bull take over here invest 300 million on the squad, get a top world class manager here and move us to a 60k stadium, not many people would be upset! Exactly. The sad thing is though that this is the type of owner that they are so set against Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports. I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples. The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them. Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage. For instance, I would probably pay £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards 2,190 Posted January 24, 2017 Of course people would be upset!! The Sky generation would probably lap it up but anyone that cares about the heritage, history, values and community standing of a 115-year old football club would be bothered. RB Norwich? No thanks. My attachment to my football club runs deeper than just winning, however much cash they threw at it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted January 24, 2017 I''m more than happy to pay more than 6.99 to see my team play live. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bill 1,788 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports. I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples. The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them. Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage. For instance, I would probably pay £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit. [/quote]That totally misses the point.You can watch all this for nothing. An ever increasing number do... via websites or ''kodi'' boxes.Why would anyone pay for something that is freely available ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,660 Posted January 24, 2017 Maybe a silly question for an old technophobe like me but how do you buy a daily subscription from Sky for £6.99p as my Sky Sports is a monthly subscription within my overall package ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 3,826 Posted January 24, 2017 I don''t care tonight , my home town club are 1 game from Wembley . PUSB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="Billy Banter"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports. I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples. The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them. Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage. For instance, I would probably pay £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit. [/quote]That totally misses the point.You can watch all this for nothing. An ever increasing number do... via websites or ''kodi'' boxes.Why would anyone pay for something that is freely available ?[/quote]To avoid the risk of getting virus''s, trojan horses, dubious links etc etc. You''ll probably tell me that kodi avoids all that, but not everyone has the wherewithal or the time to set things like kodi up anyway. If the sky ''pay as you watch'' is packaged well and fits the brief of showing a live game, it will sell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="TIL 1010"]Maybe a silly question for an old technophobe like me but how do you buy a daily subscription from Sky for £6.99p as my Sky Sports is a monthly subscription within my overall package ?[/quote]I do it with a NOW TV box, cost about £15. You can then buy a daily pass, a weeks pass for £10.99, or a month pass. If you don''t want to buy the box, you can access it on a PC or laptop, same cost for the passes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted January 24, 2017 Til, you need Now Tv, it''s a sky based non subscription service that requires a box or smart tv, console etc. It''s basically streaming Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 Oh, and it''s dead easy to set up, comes with a remote control and a whole load of extra channels, films to buy pay as you go, catch up tv etc etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lake district canary 4,520 Posted January 24, 2017 [quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Til, you need Now Tv, it''s a sky based non subscription service that requires a box or smart tv, console etc. It''s basically streaming[/quote]It''s way better than streaming. Doesn''t even compare. The picture equality is very good, not HD, but very good - and whenever I''ve used it, totally reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoola Han Solo 448 Posted January 24, 2017 Yeah but it''s actually steaming though. Any video watched on an internet service is called streaming. Like Netflix, amazon et al. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Crabbycanary3 994 Posted January 24, 2017 Does a daily/weekly/monthly pass, let you access all/some Sky Channels? Does it cover BT Sport as well? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites