Crisis

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Which era Jimbo?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Just to show even more how radio rental this all really is in 1992 we finished 18th in the PL 6 points behind Oldham. So for comparison purposes we were relegated.

[Baldyboy 0]

1992 we finished behind Oldham in PL? Must have missed that season like Chase bankrupting us as PL first season was 92/93 when we finished 3rd!

Never let the facts get in the way of your agenda hey bog man!

[TIL 1010 4,738]

Of course no agenda from you is there ?

[nutty nigel 7,531]

That makes it even more devastating Baldy. Depending of course what you choose to allow/rule out when making this ridiculous comparison.

I like Baldy''s agenda Tilly. He''s a little angry bald man who''d he great in a sitcom. He sends me angry foul mouthed pms and wants to meet me tonight for a chat. I''d love to oblige but I don''t really want his sort around my grandkids.

Maybe the Brum game Baldy?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Which era Jimbo?

[/quote]

What the hell are you going on about Nutty?

There are two points in this thread. The first, made by the original poster and which I am backing up is that it is an undisputable fact that we were more successful during the Chase era than we have been under the ownership of Smith & Jones. I absolutely accept that there are mitigating factors for this (the most significant being the way that football finances have been transformed during the latter period meaning money (and whether or not your club has "moved with the times") has more influence than it did in previous eras). However, as a basic point of fact I think it is indisputable that the club was more successful during the period between 1985 and 1996 than it has been since.

The second point which I was making (which is a distinct point from whether we were more successful in the Chase era than the Smith and Jones era) is whether, when judged against what would be considered to be "comparable" clubs (in terms of fan base, potential, expectations etc) over the period of their ownership (i.e. since 1997) we have actually been particularly "successful" under Smith & Jones as was claimed in another thread. I am simply stating that if you look at the most comparable clubs I think the list of those who have performed worse than us over that period is actually much smaller than the list of those who have performed better than us which to me does not mean we have been particularly successful. I am therefore not seeking to compare different eras but performance over the same era. I am aware that you are suggesting that "success" should not just be judged in terms of league position or winning things on the pitch but ultimately I would submit that the latter is the main concern of most football fans.

There are differences of opinion as to which clubs are genuine comparables and its clear, for example, that I regard certain clubs as a notch down from ourselves in terms of size and potential that you and Purple think should be on the list. Whilst, therefore clubs like Oldham, Notts County and Luton may have been in the top division with us at some point I do not regard them as genuine comparables with us because they are smaller clubs (often from smaller towns) with smaller fanbases. For the same reason I have not included clubs like Watford and Bournemouth who are currently doing better than us but again I would regard as "smaller" clubs in the grand scheme of things.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

That''s all very well Jim. But you state the eras are comparable but it turns out only if you can arbitrate what is used in the comparison.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

This "second point" makes little sense to me Jimbo. The top division is always made up of different sized clubs. If you look at the list I posted on the previous page you will see that. Now if you want to arbitrate which of the current clubs are in the same group as us please do so. And then list all the clubs who aren''t there but you arbitrate as being in the same group as us. And then, to borrow a phrase, how the hell are you going to fit them all in.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]That''s all very well Jim. But you state the eras are comparable but it turns out only if you can arbitrate what is used in the comparison.[/quote]

No - you can use whatever comparables you like. I am giving my opinion which includes making comparisons with the clubs I think are suitable comparables.

If your list differs then that may be why your opinion differs as to how successful we have been.

We are both entitled to take the view we do. I said it "could" be argued. I am aware that you might argue differently.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Well of course we can jim. But theres no point in posting them on here if they are not to be discussed.

Whatever comparables are used the PL only has 20 places. Unless for the sake of comparison we arbitrate 40 which I guess we''d both be entitled to do 😞

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][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.[/quote]My glamorous assistants have returned from their annual Buddhist retreat, so I have the necessary research now. Of those 25 teams, 12 have a better record than NCFC, purely measured by seasons in the PL against our 5 (for the 21 seasons up to and including this one):Charlton (8 seasons); Portsmouth (7); Blackburn Rover (13); WBA (12); Southampton (14); Swansea (7); Derby (6); Middlesbrough (12); Crystal Palace (7); Birmingham (7); Fulham (13); Stoke (10).Two - Watford and Hull - are level with us, having also had five PL seasons, while the other 11 have had fewer. However you cannot measure success and failure purely by membership of the top flight. Staying out - or not - of the third and fourth tiers has to be taken into account.So If you award five points for every PL season, and deduct 5 points for every season in the third tier, and 10 points for every season in the fourth tier then Charlton, Portsmouth and Swansea all disappear from the "better" list to the "worse" list and Hull from the "equal'' list, making only nine clubs better, one level, and 15 worse.As to the question of whether it is valid to compare the Smith and Jones era to the Chase era, it is as valid as comparing the Smith and Jones era to the Watling era. In other words, not valid at all. Football has changed financially/economically in the last five or six decades, first to our benefit and then not.Whether we can go on as we are is a question, but the debate is not helped by trying to compare us (and always to our detriment, in a one-sided way) with teams that in pretty much every way are bigger then us, or by seeming to acknowledge the question of finance but then cheerfully ignoring it.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Basically, we are bang average when it comes to looking at teams better or worse than us in the PL era!

Although I agree, its irrelevant looking at what happened last season, let alone 25 seasons ago. what matters is this season, and the next few after after that at the minute

[nutty nigel 7,531]

But only bang average if you choose comparisons that support that view.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Was basing it on Purples research that has us 13th out or 25 teams. Bang in the middle. It could have been better, and it could have been worse, which is pretty much what the investment argument comes down to every time

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Was basing it on Purples research that has us 13th out or 25 teams. Bang in the middle. It could have been better, and it could have been worse, which is pretty much what the investment argument comes down to every time[/quote]

Agree. If we were 19th out of those 25 teams (as an example) I think most people would be desperate for the investment. But because things haven''t actually been that bad (we got to enjoy the League One season in the end rather than dread it & worry about the future of the club), for a large section of our fans it''s not a risk worth taking.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I don''t think it says that at all. And certainly does nothing to suggest the club would have done better in different hands.

[Greavsy 2,413]

Or worse either!

That''s surely the point of football, we all want our team to succeed, and have different measures of what success is.

Some would take just beating our neighbours twice, and be satisfied, others will only settle for winning the title and getting promoted.

Throwing extra money at it only becomes the solution when you don''t acheive your targets, as that''s perceived as the option that guarantees results, although as proven by so many teams that''s not the case, is it?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

My glamorous assistants have returned from their annual Buddhist retreat, so I have the necessary research now. Of those 25 teams, 12 have a better record than NCFC, purely measured by seasons in the PL against our 5 (for the 21 seasons up to and including this one):Charlton (8 seasons); Portsmouth (7); Blackburn Rover (13); WBA (12); Southampton (14); Swansea (7); Derby (6); Middlesbrough (12); Crystal Palace (7); Birmingham (7); Fulham (13); Stoke (10).Two - Watford and Hull - are level with us, having also had five PL seasons, while the other 11 have had fewer. However you cannot measure success and failure purely by membership of the top flight. Staying out - or not - of the third and fourth tiers has to be taken into account.So If you award five points for every PL season, and deduct 5 points for every season in the third tier, and 10 points for every season in the fourth tier then Charlton, Portsmouth and Swansea all disappear from the "better" list to the "worse" list and Hull from the "equal'' list, making only nine clubs better, one level, and 15 worse.As to the question of whether it is valid to compare the Smith and Jones era to the Chase era, it is as valid as comparing the Smith and Jones era to the Watling era. In other words, not valid at all. Football has changed financially/economically in the last five or six decades, first to our benefit and then not.Whether we can go on as we are is a question, but the debate is not helped by trying to compare us (and always to our detriment, in a one-sided way) with teams that in pretty much every way are bigger then us, or by seeming to acknowledge the question of finance but then cheerfully ignoring it.[/quote]One or two posters are reading this as placing us right in the middle. Not so. The valid table is that which has us equal tenth out of 26. You cannot measure success purely by counting the number of seasons in the Premier League.You have to balance that out by taking account of seasons below the Championship and regarding them as signs of failure - as many posters here have frequently done in terms of our one season below when assessing the Smith and Jones era. If that was a failure then so are all these seasons otyer clubs have endured in the lower depths.So, for example, Portsmouth''s two extra seasons in the PL are greatly outweighed by their two seasons in the third tier and 4 in the fourth, and mean they have been less succesful than us. Take Stoke - their 10 seasons in the PL looks impressive, but you have to subtract four seasons down in the third tier to get a proper view of their success and failure. Still better than us, but not by so much.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

The "valid" table eh? And I was the one being accused of dictating which teams are comparable or not!

;-)

[JF 694]

You forget to mention Portsmouth''s FA Cup win so I''d say that puts them back ahead

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]The "valid" table eh? And I was the one being accused of dictating which teams are comparable or not!

;-)[/quote]Jim, I meant valid out of the two I drew up, but I would certainly stand by my list of comparable clubs as being the most valid I have seen on this thread...[;)]

[paul moy 235]

As Jim Callaghan once exclaimed during the 1978  ''Winter of  Discontent'' :'' Crisis, what Crisis ???!!! ''