Crisis

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy"]By selling their top assets each year to balance the books, strange that as Chase had to sell to balance the books too! Full circle?

I''m certainly happy with the new structure, even though it''s done on the cheap due to hanging onto a failing pub manager a season too long and hiring a real gem in Moxey!

I love the new structure Lakey, just time for new fresh owners to come in, time to move forward not stick with the stale.....my view.[/quote]

Accept your opinion, but the take on it I have is that the trust that is going to be in place will protect the club and mean that who owns it will be largely irrelevant - ie anyone who owns the club will not be able to ruin it or running it into the ground (like Chase did). That is something imo we should all be applauding.

[Indy 3,297]

But how can we be sure this current owner and their nephew can keep up with the Finances? Championship wages are on the increase and if we end up three or four seasons down here selling our prised players, at what point do we end up with no assets to sell, then what?

If we started each season knowing we are in a relegation fight in the championship is that protecting our club?

There''s a happy medium to be had but there''s no guarantee we will continue to get hold of the likes of Maddison if we slide down this league, other clubs will be looked at more favourable by agents and players alike.

If we struggle financially how long before Cat 1 is downgraded?

It''s all well and good saying protecting the club but there are issues with this too.

Lakey I''m of the opinion times have changed and our ownership should too. Others are happy with our board and that''s great.

We have nothing that can be done, so like it or limp it is the option.

We all love this club but it''s Norwich City and should be about the best for our city.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy"]But how can we be sure this current owner and their nephew can keep up with the Finances? Championship wages are on the increase and if we end up three or four seasons down here selling our prised players, at what point do we end up with no assets to sell, then what?

If we started each season knowing we are in a relegation fight in the championship is that protecting our club?

There''s a happy medium to be had but there''s no guarantee we will continue to get hold of the likes of Maddison if we slide down this league, other clubs will be looked at more favourable by agents and players alike.

If we struggle financially how long before Cat 1 is downgraded?

It''s all well and good saying protecting the club but there are issues with this too.

Lakey I''m of the opinion times have changed and our ownership should too. Others are happy with our board and that''s great.

We have nothing that can be done, so like it or limp it is the option.

We all love this club but it''s Norwich City and should be about the best for our city.[/quote]

If we get to the stage where every other football club in the championship has super rich owners, which is the way it is heading, then we will be no better off if we get super rich owners too - you will have 24 super rich clubs all vying for three promotion places.  It will be ridiculous - we will have sold out just to try and stay in the mix, with no guarantee of success.  I would say the best for the city is to let everyone else get carried along with the ridiculously artificial finances that are occuring in our football, with sooner or later every club owned by some rich Chinese or Amercan or Indian rich bod, and lets keep it real by living within our means and competing at whatever level we can.  If that means struggling to stay mid-table and occasional flourishes into the top six and the occasional promotion, so be it. However, I don''t think that will happen because imo there are not enough players to warrant big wages and transfer fees to so many clubs - the more rich clubs there are, the lesser the quality of players there will be to go round - and the level of quality will drop overall.  We will still be able to compete because of that.  This is not just conjecture - we are seeing it already with big money clubs in the championship buying in players at stupid prices - and they are not guaranteed success, by any means - in fact it is impossible that they can all succeed because of their money. We are better off out of it and concentrate on being what we always have been - a club with lesser resources than many others, but a club that historically succeeds by punching above it''s weight through it''s innate heart and character.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Is a beautiful theory LDC, but it''s just fantasy stuff. With the way football is going, it''s just not going to work if you want any form of success on the pitch

[Indy 3,297]

No it''s a fair point Lakey, given none of us has a crystal ball, so yep, respect matey.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Indy"]But how can we be sure this current owner and their nephew can keep up with the Finances? Championship wages are on the increase and if we end up three or four seasons down here selling our prised players, at what point do we end up with no assets to sell, then what?

If we started each season knowing we are in a relegation fight in the championship is that protecting our club?

There''s a happy medium to be had but there''s no guarantee we will continue to get hold of the likes of Maddison if we slide down this league, other clubs will be looked at more favourable by agents and players alike.

If we struggle financially how long before Cat 1 is downgraded?

It''s all well and good saying protecting the club but there are issues with this too.

Lakey I''m of the opinion times have changed and our ownership should too. Others are happy with our board and that''s great.

We have nothing that can be done, so like it or limp it is the option.

We all love this club but it''s Norwich City and should be about the best for our city.[/quote]I will give up pointing out that when you make a comparison, which is what you keep on doing by comparing the Chase and Smith and Jones eras, you are making a comparison. As to the highlighted stuff in red, when has anyone official ever said the current owners or the planned future owner have a chance of keeping up with the finances of comparable clubs, let alone be sure of doing so? Especially since NCFC will almost certainly stick to FFP (not that it will have much choice) while others will not. The likelihood is that financially the current and planned ownership model will disadvantage the club. I''d assumed this was understood. But only in a purely neo-liberal ("know the price of everything and the value of nothing/there is no such thing as society") way. Which no true fan would embrace or wish for.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]Jim, a comparison with the Chase era is not valid, because of the way football has changed.. And it is really stretching a point to throw in cup competitions.I do not have the time to do the research for about three dozen or more comparable clubs but I know from looking at this in the past that in terms of league performance Norwich City have outperformed many more clubs than the handful you list. Taking two you missed out. Wolves, historically a bigger club, have had four seasons in the top flight, 15 in the second tier and one in the third.. Against our better 5-14-1 record.Or Nottingham Forest. Former European champions and also historically a bigger club. Their record is 1-16-3. And just to take one club that has reached a final, and so by your reckoning has been more successful than us, I doubt Cardiff City fans think that final appearance makes up for two decades in which they have spent just one season in the Premier League, 16 in the second tier, and 3 in the third.n

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]

While football finances have changed markedly that''s not all that''s wrong with your comparisons which our purposely designed to show our club in a bad light. Why no mention or comparison with the other clubs we played in the top flight in those 10 seasons? Wimbledon, Luton, Forest, QPR, Oxford, Charlton, Oldham, Notts Co., Swindon to name some? Why no mention of two play off finals and a Wembley win? Why no mention of capacity crowds and regularly selling out Carrow Road? Why no mention of the club''s out reach in the community, specifically the partnership with the CSF? I can guess why, but it can''t be that those things are irrelevant because they''re as relevant as yours. Sometimes I read your posts Jimbo and draw the conclusion that although you undoubtedly support Norwich you feckin'' hate the club you support.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Football has changed and we have had opportunities to benefit from that change Purple but have not taken them. Indeed, our forays into the prem under the current ownership have given us more opportunity than ever really existed during our time their under Chase.

I will give you Forest, I forgot them but my point really is that I do not think we have been particularly successful over the last 20 years and your point re Wolves rather bears that out. They (with a virtually identical 20 year record) would not be regarded as a club that has had a successful 20 years.

I was not equating a single cup final to success but merely pointing out how pathetic our record has been throughout the entire 20 year period whilst other, often smaller clubs, have been able to reach finals.

All in all therefore we have certainly not "punched above our weight" under Delia and MWJ despite being given several golden opportunities to do so.

Portsmouth have actually spent 7 of those 20 years in the top flight, won the FA Cup and got to another final. They are often held up as the doomsday scenario on here due to their recent woes but it has certainly not been dull for their fans who have seen their team win the FA Cup at Wembley which is something i suspect I may never see. The fact is clubs like that don''t ever go to the wall and I suspect they will overtake us again within the next 5 years.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Football has changed and we have had opportunities to benefit from that change Purple but have not taken them. Indeed, our forays into the prem under the current ownership have given us more opportunity than ever really existed during our time their under Chase.

I will give you Forest, I forgot them but my point really is that I do not think we have been particularly successful over the last 20 years and your point re Wolves rather bears that out. They (with a virtually identical 20 year record) would not be regarded as a club that has had a successful 20 years.

I was not equating a single cup final to success but merely pointing out how pathetic our record has been throughout the entire 20 year period whilst other, often smaller clubs, have been able to reach finals.

All in all therefore we have certainly not "punched above our weight" under Delia and MWJ despite being given several golden opportunities to do so.

Portsmouth have actually spent 7 of those 20 years in the top flight, won the FA Cup and got to another final. They are often held up as the doomsday scenario on here due to their recent woes but it has certainly not been dull for their fans who have seen their team win the FA Cup at Wembley which is something i suspect I may never see. The fact is clubs like that don''t ever go to the wall and I suspect they will overtake us again within the next 5 years.[/quote]Jim, you are changing the argument, which had been that a great many other clubs had done better. Not some highly qustionable notion of success but a direct comparison. And Wolves''s record is worse than ours. And if I could be bothered to do the research the list of comparable clubs that have done worse than us over the past two decades would be much more numerous than your handful.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]

While football finances have changed markedly that''s not all that''s wrong with your comparisons which our purposely designed to show our club in a bad light. Why no mention or comparison with the other clubs we played in the top flight in those 10 seasons? Wimbledon, Luton, Forest, QPR, Oxford, Charlton, Oldham, Notts Co., Swindon to name some? Why no mention of two play off finals and a Wembley win? Why no mention of capacity crowds and regularly selling out Carrow Road? Why no mention of the club''s out reach in the community, specifically the partnership with the CSF? I can guess why, but it can''t be that those things are irrelevant because they''re as relevant as yours. Sometimes I read your posts Jimbo and draw the conclusion that although you undoubtedly support Norwich you feckin'' hate the club you support.

[/quote]

I was referring to comparable clubs. Maybe QPR at a push but Swindon, Oxford, Luton, Charlton, Oldham these are all smaller clubs than us Nutty.

A playoff final is a promotion so is counted in the figures. If you want to throw stuff like that in the mix then we could include the UEFA Cup qualification which I didn''t reference.

Laudable though they are matters such as the CSF (started in 1992 incidentally) are I am talking here about what will always be the key measure of a football club which is success on the pitch. Its ironic actually because Chase was criticised a lot for spending too much money on off pitch matters rather than the team!

I love our club. I am just not brainwashed by the cult into thinking that everything our owners and board do (or more pertinently do not do) is beyond question and that all other alternatives out there are necessarily worse.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]

While football finances have changed markedly that''s not all that''s wrong with your comparisons which our purposely designed to show our club in a bad light. Why no mention or comparison with the other clubs we played in the top flight in those 10 seasons? Wimbledon, Luton, Forest, QPR, Oxford, Charlton, Oldham, Notts Co., Swindon to name some? Why no mention of two play off finals and a Wembley win? Why no mention of capacity crowds and regularly selling out Carrow Road? Why no mention of the club''s out reach in the community, specifically the partnership with the CSF? I can guess why, but it can''t be that those things are irrelevant because they''re as relevant as yours. Sometimes I read your posts Jimbo and draw the conclusion that although you undoubtedly support Norwich you feckin'' hate the club you support.

[/quote]

I was referring to comparable clubs. Maybe QPR at a push but Swindon, Oxford, Luton, Charlton, Oldham these are all smaller clubs than us Nutty.

A playoff final is a promotion so is counted in the figures. If you want to throw stuff like that in the mix then we could include the UEFA Cup qualification which I didn''t reference.

Laudable though they are matters such as the CSF (started in 1992 incidentally) are I am talking here about what will always be the key measure of a football club which is success on the pitch. Its ironic actually because Chase was criticised a lot for spending too much money on off pitch matters rather than the team!

I love our club. I am just not brainwashed by the cult into thinking that everything our owners and board do (or more pertinently do not do) is beyond question and that all other alternatives out there are necessarily worse.[/quote]

So are you now comparing 1992 Football In The Community with thee present CSF? Or am I misunderstanding you Jimbo?

And don''t ever again compare current PL clubs with us if you decide past top flight clubs are not comparable. You really can''t change the rules to suit each era. Its either all or nothing. There is no difference between Watford and Luton, Huddersfield and Swindon or Bournemouth and Oldham. The whole comparison thing is ridiculous but you take it to another level by biasedly arbitrating what''s acceptable and what''s not.

Other alternatives are not neccessarily worse but again cherry picking those that have been successful and those that haven''t is no yardstick. They would all have to be compared alongside all aspects of club ownership.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Football has changed and we have had opportunities to benefit from that change Purple but have not taken them. Indeed, our forays into the prem under the current ownership have given us more opportunity than ever really existed during our time their under Chase.

I will give you Forest, I forgot them but my point really is that I do not think we have been particularly successful over the last 20 years and your point re Wolves rather bears that out. They (with a virtually identical 20 year record) would not be regarded as a club that has had a successful 20 years.

I was not equating a single cup final to success but merely pointing out how pathetic our record has been throughout the entire 20 year period whilst other, often smaller clubs, have been able to reach finals.

All in all therefore we have certainly not "punched above our weight" under Delia and MWJ despite being given several golden opportunities to do so.

Portsmouth have actually spent 7 of those 20 years in the top flight, won the FA Cup and got to another final. They are often held up as the doomsday scenario on here due to their recent woes but it has certainly not been dull for their fans who have seen their team win the FA Cup at Wembley which is something i suspect I may never see. The fact is clubs like that don''t ever go to the wall and I suspect they will overtake us again within the next 5 years.[/quote]Jim, you are changing the argument, which had been that a great many other clubs had done better. Not some highly qustionable notion of success but a direct comparison. And Wolves''s record is worse than ours. And if I could be bothered to do the research the list of comparable clubs that have done worse than us over the past two decades would be much more numerous than your handful.[/quote]

No what I said was:

"In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997."

I will also give you Forest and am sure you will come up with a couple of others. The point being its not actually a huge list as is sometimes implied and whilst we have been "better run" than many other similar sized clubs that will count for very little if we slide into oblivion again once the sky monies run out.

Wolves on a par really when you look at those records. Ditto I suspect Brum although they have won a cup and played in Europe during that period.

meanwhile there are quite a few such as Leicester, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Southampton, Palace, West Brom, Stoke who I would say are similar sized clubs yet have had more success over that period.

I simply don''t accept that we have outperformed very many comparable sized clubs during the current owner''s reign.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]

While football finances have changed markedly that''s not all that''s wrong with your comparisons which our purposely designed to show our club in a bad light. Why no mention or comparison with the other clubs we played in the top flight in those 10 seasons? Wimbledon, Luton, Forest, QPR, Oxford, Charlton, Oldham, Notts Co., Swindon to name some? Why no mention of two play off finals and a Wembley win? Why no mention of capacity crowds and regularly selling out Carrow Road? Why no mention of the club''s out reach in the community, specifically the partnership with the CSF? I can guess why, but it can''t be that those things are irrelevant because they''re as relevant as yours. Sometimes I read your posts Jimbo and draw the conclusion that although you undoubtedly support Norwich you feckin'' hate the club you support.

[/quote]

I was referring to comparable clubs. Maybe QPR at a push but Swindon, Oxford, Luton, Charlton, Oldham these are all smaller clubs than us Nutty.

A playoff final is a promotion so is counted in the figures. If you want to throw stuff like that in the mix then we could include the UEFA Cup qualification which I didn''t reference.

Laudable though they are matters such as the CSF (started in 1992 incidentally) are I am talking here about what will always be the key measure of a football club which is success on the pitch. Its ironic actually because Chase was criticised a lot for spending too much money on off pitch matters rather than the team!

I love our club. I am just not brainwashed by the cult into thinking that everything our owners and board do (or more pertinently do not do) is beyond question and that all other alternatives out there are necessarily worse.[/quote]

So are you now comparing 1992 Football In The Community with thee present CSF? Or am I misunderstanding you Jimbo?

And don''t ever again compare current PL clubs with us if you decide past top flight clubs are not comparable. You really can''t change the rules to suit each era. Its either all or nothing. There is no difference between Watford and Luton, Huddersfield and Swindon or Bournemouth and Oldham. The whole comparison thing is ridiculous but you take it to another level by biasedly arbitrating what''s acceptable and what''s not.

Other alternatives are not neccessarily worse but again cherry picking those that have been successful and those that haven''t is no yardstick. They would all have to be compared alongside all aspects of club ownership.

[/quote]

Size wise you are right Nutty, there is no difference between those clubs. I would put them all in a bracket down from us in terms of the "size" of clubs.

Our relevant comparables are the likes of Sc*m, Derby, Coventry, Southampton, Portsmouth, Leicester, Forest, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Palace, West Brom, Birmingham, Cardiff, Sheffield United and at a push Shef Wednesday and West Ham.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m interested in the comparison although I do accept that football finances have changed markedly over the period in question. Just so everyone has the facts here they are. I am no fan of Chase BTW but it is clearly irrefutable that we were more successful under him and I would also say that it is questionable as to whether the last 20 years have really been successful as has been claimed elsewhere,:

Chase 1985-1996

League Championships - 1 (Div 2 1985-86)

Promotions - 1

Relegations -1

Average league position (all divisions) - 14th

Highest League Position - 3rd

Lowest league position -36th

% of seasons in top flight - 82%

Best FA Cup Performance - Semi Final x 2

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final x 3

Smith & Jones - 1997-present

League Championships - 2 (Div 1 2003/2004 & League 1 2009/2010)

Promotions - 4

Relegations - 4

Average league position (all divisions) - 27th

Highest League Position - 11th

Lowest league position -45th

% of seasons in top flight - 25%

Best FA Cup Performance - 5th round

Best League Cup Performance - Quarter Final

There you go. For me the lack of Cup success in the current era is also a trend. In the last 20 years Leicester, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Swansea, Tranmere, Bolton, Wigan, Villa, Cardiff, Bradford, Sunderland, Southampton, Portsmouth, Millwall, West Ham, Stoke, Hull and Palace have all reached at least one major cup final.

In terms of clubs of a similar stature you could argue that its only really Coventry, the two Shef Clubs, Derby and the Scum who have been less successful than us since 1997.[/quote]

While football finances have changed markedly that''s not all that''s wrong with your comparisons which our purposely designed to show our club in a bad light. Why no mention or comparison with the other clubs we played in the top flight in those 10 seasons? Wimbledon, Luton, Forest, QPR, Oxford, Charlton, Oldham, Notts Co., Swindon to name some? Why no mention of two play off finals and a Wembley win? Why no mention of capacity crowds and regularly selling out Carrow Road? Why no mention of the club''s out reach in the community, specifically the partnership with the CSF? I can guess why, but it can''t be that those things are irrelevant because they''re as relevant as yours. Sometimes I read your posts Jimbo and draw the conclusion that although you undoubtedly support Norwich you feckin'' hate the club you support.

[/quote]

I was referring to comparable clubs. Maybe QPR at a push but Swindon, Oxford, Luton, Charlton, Oldham these are all smaller clubs than us Nutty.

A playoff final is a promotion so is counted in the figures. If you want to throw stuff like that in the mix then we could include the UEFA Cup qualification which I didn''t reference.

Laudable though they are matters such as the CSF (started in 1992 incidentally) are I am talking here about what will always be the key measure of a football club which is success on the pitch. Its ironic actually because Chase was criticised a lot for spending too much money on off pitch matters rather than the team!

I love our club. I am just not brainwashed by the cult into thinking that everything our owners and board do (or more pertinently do not do) is beyond question and that all other alternatives out there are necessarily worse.[/quote]

So are you now comparing 1992 Football In The Community with thee present CSF? Or am I misunderstanding you Jimbo?

And don''t ever again compare current PL clubs with us if you decide past top flight clubs are not comparable. You really can''t change the rules to suit each era. Its either all or nothing. There is no difference between Watford and Luton, Huddersfield and Swindon or Bournemouth and Oldham. The whole comparison thing is ridiculous but you take it to another level by biasedly arbitrating what''s acceptable and what''s not.

Other alternatives are not neccessarily worse but again cherry picking those that have been successful and those that haven''t is no yardstick. They would all have to be compared alongside all aspects of club ownership.

[/quote]

Size wise you are right Nutty, there is no difference between those clubs. I would put them all in a bracket down from us in terms of the "size" of clubs.

Our relevant comparables are the likes of Sc*m, Derby, Coventry, Southampton, Portsmouth, Leicester, Forest, Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Palace, West Brom, Birmingham, Cardiff, Sheffield United and at a push Shef Wednesday and West Ham.[/quote]

So wouldn''t it be fairer to compare the recent record of those clubs against ours? There are others but you seem to want to make the rules.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

That''s exactly what i''m doing Nutty and i''m deliberately not including the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea and Watford as a consequence. They are all currently significantly outperforming us but at the outset of the 20 year period were well behind us and I would again regard them as a notch down in terms of the genuine "size of the clubs."

If you take the clubs I have listed in the various posts above as direct comparables I would say:

Done better:

Stoke, Southampton, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Palace, West Ham, West Brom, Sunderland, Birmingham

Done worse:

Coventry, Ipswich, Shef Wednesday, Shef United

Arguable/On a par: Wolves, Portsmouth, Derby (actually now note they have had 5 prem seasons like us)

Most of the "done worse" clubs would be perceived to have had a relatively poor run of things I would say and certainly those I would say we have been on a par with have had a significant level of upheaval with multiple changes of ownership

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Over what period of time and what rules are you making for done better or worse? Does it matter about any of the club values? Does it matter if they''ve been in administration and ripped off their communities? Does it matter if they regularly sell out their grounds? Do you really care about any of those things because the custodians of a football club should care about them.

It takes all sorts but I''m glad I''m not you Jimbo[:)]

[ROBFLECK 132]

Look, size doesn''t really matter that much anymore: money matters eg. Hoffenheim , RB Leipzig in Germany, you read about PSG''s exploits before the Qatari owner, etc...

I presume you all agree with me that there is one main thing that matters in football nowadays...which is dissapointing and makes us feel two-minded about the current ownership ... or how shall I put it...

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"]Look, size doesn''t really matter that much anymore: money matters eg. Hoffenheim , RB Leipzig in Germany, you read about PSG''s exploits before the Qatari owner, etc...

I presume you all agree with me that there is one main thing that matters in football nowadays...which is dissapointing and makes us feel two-minded about the current ownership ... or how shall I put it...[/quote]

I don''t agree buddy. It doesn''t buy happiness and never will.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Over what period of time and what rules are you making for done better or worse? Does it matter about any of the club values? Does it matter if they''ve been in administration and ripped off their communities? Does it matter if they regularly sell out their grounds? Do you really care about any of those things because the custodians of a football club should care about them.

It takes all sorts but I''m glad I''m not you Jimbo[:)]

[/quote]

Over the period when Delia and MWJ have owned our club - 20 years.

[ROBFLECK 132]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ROBFLECK"]Look, size doesn''t really matter that much anymore: money matters eg. Hoffenheim , RB Leipzig in Germany, you read about PSG''s exploits before the Qatari owner, etc...

I presume you all agree with me that there is one main thing that matters in football nowadays...which is dissapointing and makes us feel two-minded about the current ownership ... or how shall I put it...[/quote]

I don''t agree buddy. It doesn''t buy happiness and never will.

[/quote] Well Nutty , I am just making the point that this is what rules football nowadays, Iam not saying it will make one happy. I certainly am not happy about it! But if you want to be a steady PL team ... you need the cash to do so ...

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]That''s exactly what i''m doing Nutty and i''m deliberately not including the likes of Bournemouth, Swansea and Watford as a consequence. They are all currently significantly outperforming us but at the outset of the 20 year period were well behind us and I would again regard them as a notch down in terms of the genuine "size of the clubs."

If you take the clubs I have listed in the various posts above as direct comparables I would say:

Done better:

Stoke, Southampton, Leicester, Middlesbrough, Palace, West Ham, West Brom, Sunderland, Birmingham

Done worse:

Coventry, Ipswich, Shef Wednesday, Shef United

Arguable/On a par: Wolves, Portsmouth, Derby (actually now note they have had 5 prem seasons like us)

Most of the "done worse" clubs would be perceived to have had a relatively poor run of things I would say and certainly those I would say we have been on a par with have had a significant level of upheaval with multiple changes of ownership[/quote]Jim, it is absurd to regard Norwich City as ever having been comparable to Leicester, West Ham and Sunderland. They were and are markedly bigger clubs. And Stoke, West Brom, Southampton and Middlesbrough are all arguably bigger, albeit not by so much. The only clubs in your list of doing-better that I would regard as closely comparable are Birmingham, at a pinch, and Palace. And I notice you have left Nottingham Forest out again.I grant you it is not an exact science, given how fortunes ebb and flow in football, but - bearing in mind history and footballing status at the start of the era we are talking about - then this is a fair list of comparable clubs:Coventry, Nottingham Forest, Charlton, Portsmouth, Blackburn Rovers, West Brom, Watford, Southampton, Burnley, Stoke, Swansea, Brighton, Crystal Palace, Cardiff, Ipswich, Wolves, QPR, Derby, Middlesbrough, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Hull, Birmingham, Reading, Fulham.That generously includes the likes of Southampton but omits Leicester, Leeds, West Ham and Sunderland at the top end, and Preston, Huddersfield, Wigan and Bournemouth at the other.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Don''t see why Purple. I don''t think Leicester is an unreasonable comparable nor indeed Sunderland. West Ham I said was "at a push."

Lump us in with Charlton, Blackburn, Hull, Reading and Fulham if you like but they are not in my mind of the same stature in terms of their fanbase or in Hulls case their rise has been a very recent thing.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="ROBFLECK"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ROBFLECK"]Look, size doesn''t really matter that much anymore: money matters eg. Hoffenheim , RB Leipzig in Germany, you read about PSG''s exploits before the Qatari owner, etc...

I presume you all agree with me that there is one main thing that matters in football nowadays...which is dissapointing and makes us feel two-minded about the current ownership ... or how shall I put it...[/quote]

I don''t agree buddy. It doesn''t buy happiness and never will.

[/quote] Well Nutty , I am just making the point that this is what rules football nowadays, Iam not saying it will make one happy. I certainly am not happy about it! But if you want to be a steady PL team ... you need the cash to do so ...[/quote]

The problem is Flecky that this steady PL team doesn''t really exist. If you take out the seven clubs who are established then only Stoke in the current PL have equaled our ten year period which is being used as a comparison. But what we get is a snapshot of one or two seasons and comparisons made. Jimbo happily wants Leicester but not Fulham/Charlton. Yet when Leicester were League One and Fulham PL it would have been the other way around. Anyway, this is the current make up of the PL with the successive seasons the clubs have been there. With 3 clubs relegated each season how many of them do you expect to be there in five years time?

Arsenal 92

Everton 64

Liverpool 56

Man Utd 43

Tottenham 40

Chelsea 29

Man City 16

--------------------

Stoke 10

WBA 8

Swansea 7

Southampton 6

West Ham 6

Palace 5

Leicester 4

Bournemouth 3

Watford 3

Burnley 2

Newcastle 1

Brighton 1

Huddersfield 1

[JF 694]

Adding Fulham would not be beneficial to your argument as they have also out performed us and even reached a Europa league final along the way

[nutty nigel 7,528]

What argument JF?

[JF 694]

Jimbo happily wants Leicester but not Fulham/Charlton.

This one?

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Ok. I was pointing out that Jimbo considers Leicester to be a comparable club to us but not Fulham or Charlton.

Bottom line is that I have said repeatedly I don''t think we can reasonably compare the two era''s. Jimbo says we can and then wants to arbitrate which clubs are used for the comparison. And rule out anything from which we''ve had success and done better at.

What argument were you referring to IF?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I''m not comparing the two eras here I''m comparing similar clubs over the same era.