'Prudence with ambition'

[Baldyboy 0]

Purple, problem is that we have had several poor managerial appointments along with several poor transfer windows which is the main reason we are in this predicament now, and because of a stubborn refusal to seek external investment by the owners!

I love all the optimism on here that Farke could be the new Lambert, I truly hope he is too, but the reality is that we have a board who are sadly only just realising the mistakes they have made recently so they have to try and do something different really otherwise it''s all going to end in more tears and none of us truly want that even those who people accuse of being Binners!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]It''s not just about what has worked in the past though but what will be competitive in the future.

It''s absolutely 100% right that we should be looking to improve the quality of our coaching (been sub standard for a while now in my view), bring through our own academy boys and see more improvement in the players we have and look to pick up young and oversees talent for better value. I.e. Operate on a more sustainable level. I therefore agree with the current exercise being undertaken albeit I think it''s a late reaction to last seasons shambles.

However when you look at the championship it is becoming (and will become more so) increasingly hard for teams without very rich owners to compete and my concern is that once we no longer have parachute payments, our current ownership model means that a club like ours operating on a truly sustainable level is just going to find it massively hard to challenge for promotion because the curcumstances will always be that we get beaten to players in wages or if we get anyone decent they will be bought within 18 months by more wealthy clubs or alternatively we will not be able to sustain the infrastructure we need to stay competitive. The sc*m may well be the subject of much mirth but they have a rich owner who enables them to run at a loss and remain vaguely competitive. We won''t even have that so really if the owners are going to maintain their current stance then we need to get back up again as a matter of urgency. This is why last season was such a frustrating, almighty waste.[/quote]A lot to agree with there, with one caveat. Assuming our pauper owners carry on, I think there are two separate points to make. What Jim and others have said about how we are now poor relations even in the Championship is true. With the danger that we will get stuck there, bearing in mind that would still mean we would be somewhere around what has historically (over the last 50 or so years) been our natural level.What I question is the "...if only..." argument. If only we had stayed up that year under Chase, or that Worthington season, or the Hughton season. Or the Neil season. If only we had gone back up this last season, with the new TV deal coming on stream. As if that would have made a big difference. That we could have solidified our position in the Premier League.The reality is that the TV money is a bit of a mirage. Everyone gets it, and we have always got less than most. And it disappears, particularly on higher wages. It does not guarantee anything beyond the short-term. The recent questions about why we are not better off financially because of four years out of six in the Premier League are based on a misapprehension.Because of our financial position we will always be at risk from one poor managerial choice, or one badly-handled transfer window, in the way richer clubs are not. And this has applied - and will again - to most of the similarly-sized clubs with which we are unfavourably compared at any time. Yes, we could have stayed up one time, or gone straight back up another, but we would have fallen back down again, sooner or later, and probably sooner.So the "solidify" arguement is also a mirage. The only time Norwich City can be said to have solidified its place in the top flight was from the mid-70s to the early ''90s. And that was because of a fundamental - and to us beneficial - change in the economics of English football. The creation of the Premier League and then, crucially, the arrival of the mega-rich owner replaced that beneficial environment with one much less amenable to us.[/quote]

Purple my point about last season was really the failure to take timely action coupled with them effectively writing off the season by not appointing a replacement.

We are where we are now but I still firmly believe that with early, proactive decision making last season we could and should have at least made the playoffs and to be honest the teams in the playoffs were so poor I would have fancied our chances had we done so.

[Badger 2,405]

Jim Smith - "What''s the problem with someone wanting something in return provided its

mutually beneficial? Course we don''t want an asset stripper but by the

same token if someone benefits financially from bankrolling us back to

the prem then I wouldn''t have a problem with that either."The mutual benefit, win-win scenario is the ideal - yes, I''d like that. Asset stripper is potentially the opposite side of the coin. If we got someone like Steve Gibson at Middlesborough who seems to genuinely care for the club, it would be great. But how likely is that? I''m not sure how many there are left now - and he probably hasn''t got enough money to sustain it if Middlesborough don''t get promoted on their parachute payments.A better chance of getting a foreign owner with no real feeling for the area or the club fancying a dip at the premier league and the glory and prestige that goes with it. If s/he fails, they know that they can recover the majority of the costs through selling assets.Tell me Jim, how do we ensure that we get an owner that is prepared to put in the tens/ hundreds of millions spoken about but one who won''t sell everything including ground and training ground if the gamble goes belly up?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Purple, problem is that we have had several poor managerial appointments along with several poor transfer windows which is the main reason we are in this predicament now, and because of a stubborn refusal to seek external investment by the owners!

I love all the optimism on here that Farke could be the new Lambert, I truly hope he is too, but the reality is that we have a board who are sadly only just realising the mistakes they have made recently so they have to try and do something different really otherwise it''s all going to end in more tears and none of us truly want that even those who people accuse of being Binners![/quote]No. In the last eight or nine seasons most of the transfer windows have been well-handled, either improving the squad or - if we have been relegated - limiting the damage by selling a couple of assets and spending all the incoming cash on replacements. You will have all those details so I don''t need to itemise them.Van Wolfswinkel was a very expensive howler, singlehandedly undermining what was otherwise a very solid summer window. Just the kind of mistake I said a club of our limited resources cannot afford to make. And Naismith certainly didn''t work out in terms of keeping us up. There is a strong argument that we have suffered by having several different scouting set-ups, so that there has not been a long-term vision, but overall, despite that, most of the individual windows have worked well, given our financial constraints.As for managers over the same period, Gunn was a mistake (and that is not hindsight). And Adams as well. But Lambert, Hughton and Neil were all good choices for a club of our size. That two of them had a relegation does not mean they were bad choices. Whether either was kept on too long is a question, but not relevant to the initial decision to hire them.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Oh well Kingo, it looks like we can''t get away from trading Leicester with the binners or Southampton with Portsmouth. And we will never widen the debate from the simplistic if we had a richer owner we''d do better.

For me it''s not about richer being better. It''s about appreciating the good things about our club and weighing up if risking those things would be a worthwhile gamble. For me the odds aren''t great. We are better placed than many clubs with different owner models both in league position and in the community values that surround the club.

If you look back 7 years on this message board you will see the same debate raging and some of the same people saying we can''no longer compete without rich owners. If you look at clubs who have rich owners but aren''t competing where their fans think they should then those fans are saying they can''t compete without different rich owners. And so it goes on.

For me the ownership model we have is fantastic. The outreach into the community is something i cherish. Ordinary fans have never been more welcome to air their views to the people who run the club. Of course being established in the PL would also be something to cherish and I guess overall it would trump what we have because we are primarily a football club. But what are the chances....

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"] Purple my point about last season was really the failure to take timely action coupled with them effectively writing off the season by not appointing a replacement.

We are where we are now but I still firmly believe that with early, proactive decision making last season we could and should have at least made the playoffs and to be honest the teams in the playoffs were so poor I would have fancied our chances had we done so.[/quote]Jim, I understand that. My point, and this was by no means just directed at you, was that I don''t think getting straight back up would have made much difference apart from in the short-term. We still would have struggled to survive and been relegated, probably sooner rather than later. Despite what some posters have been saying (and to an extent what Stone seemed to be suggesting at that fans'' forum) we would not have solidified our position in the Premier League or secured financial stability.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Badger - you cant ensure you get the right type of owner. All you can do is vet potential purchasers and hope your judgment leads you to a good one. I don''t think anyone would want them to sell up regardless of who the buyer was.

What I do think is remiss though is to block or "not even listen to offers" which I believe has been their stance for longer than they would ever admit (whether through simply refusing to talk or making the criteria for any investor impossibly difficult to satisfy).

I guess though it all depends on whether you think the alternative (i.e. Likely lack of competitiveness after this season) justifies taking the chance.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Badger - you cant ensure you get the right type of owner. All you can do is vet potential purchasers and hope your judgment leads you to a good one. I don''t think anyone would want them to sell up regardless of who the buyer was.

What I do think is remiss though is to block or "not even listen to offers" which I believe has been their stance for longer than they would ever admit (whether through simply refusing to talk or making the criteria for any investor impossibly difficult to satisfy).

I guess though it all depends on whether you think the alternative (i.e. Likely lack of competitiveness after this season) justifies taking the chance.[/quote]There was a stage when they said that they were looking for foreign investment - I know that some say that this was pretence, but they know no more than I do I presume - who knows for sure?The simple fact is that if you are letting someone invest tens of millions into your club or buying it outright, you can''t dictate what they do with it, so the vetting of prospective buyers is about as reliable as the F.A.''s!The other thing is that I have grave suspicions that the TV football deal is turning into a bit of a bubble and is unsustainable. It is driven up by competition between BT and Sky, but I fear that it is approaching its limit. BT made profits of £2.7bn last year on all of its operations. It pays over £700 million p.a. for EPL and Champion''s League rights in the UK - which it looses massively on but puts up with in an effort to gain market share.Sky has an operating profit of £700 million. The sums of money they pay for broadcasting rights are so massive, that it affects their whole company profitability. At some stage relatively soon, the exponential growth in TV revenues will slow or stop - what will happen to the speculative buyers then?

[Baldyboy 0]

Sorry purple if you think failure to sign decent defenders in several windows is good then you are a bit strange! How long was everyone saying we needed defenders but how long was it before we signed any? Unbelievable.

[westcoastcanary 173]

"I have grave suspicions that the TV football deal is turning into a bit of a bubble and is unsustainable."

Bravo Badger. How can these debates about the club''s prospects be taken seriously when they all simply assume that nothing is ever going to change as regards the EPL and the riches currently pouring into its coffers. The more successful it becomes, the greater the outside efforts to undermine it and ensure others get a larger share of the football cake. Personally I think the EPL''s denouement is a lot closer than anyone who even contemplates it imagines.

[Midlands Yellow 3,946]

Can''t stand my hometown club but (Leicester) but from an ownership view point you can''t fault them. Free coach travel to a fair few games, subsidised tickets when Norwich ripped them off at £40 a head and free bacon baps before boarding coaches to away games. Forgot to mention the free beers they give out on regular occasions too .

My point is a caring conscientious owners model is not unique to old school style we have at Norwich .

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Despite their owners riches the current model is built on a mountain of debt. The way i look at it is clubs like the binners are built on shifting sands of a flood plain whereas our club is on solid rock. When the weather breaks....

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Indeed it''s not midlands. And this is my point. What are the chances?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Sorry purple if you think failure to sign decent defenders in several windows is good then you are a bit strange! How long was everyone saying we needed defenders but how long was it before we signed any? Unbelievable.[/quote]Too much exaggeration. There was one obvious failure, which was not getting a class central defender in the 2015 summer window. Almost certainly, based on his own account, McNally''s fault, and I suspect a factor in his departure.That seemed to have been rectified with Klose coming in the winter, although I certainly wouldn''t disagree that by then the damage had been done. And Klose turned out to be good but not to be that good, and injured, and then not to be that suited to the Championship. And by then we were not financially in a position to splurge out.If you want to argue that Neil was incapable as a coach of getting the players he had to defend properly as a team I would not disagree with that. That Irvine seemed to make a difference as far as that was concerned suggests that last season it was not so much the players as bad coaching.

[Indy 3,286]

None if the owners won''t listen to anyone!

I do think too many think we e got the only caring owners because they watch every game!

There comes a point which football for me has moved on, I''m bored with it, that 9 season stint in the 80''s of top flight football is a distant past and we could easily be the next binners with 15 seasons of championship football at best, by trying to balance the books each year with player sales, after all it''s not so long ago we spent 9 consecutive seasons down here.

Just because some people would welcome new owners doesn''t make them binners or anti City, just without change you end up being left behind.

It''s a gamble but so is sticking with owners who can''t and won''t plough any further money into the club. The football bible could burst who knows but it''s not looking likely any time soon and as others say, teams have more spending power, building better facilities all the time and we are stagnant! Even Stones remarks mirror this.

It''s OK to take the piss and say why aren''t we Bournemouth, Watford, Leicester, Southampton, Swansea, but the real question should be why aren''t we?

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

It''s OK to take the piss and say why aren''t we Bournemouth, Watford, Leicester, Southampton, Swansea, but the real question should be why aren''t we?

It could be said that long term we are the same as them, aren''t all those yo yo clubs the same as us ? How many years have Bournemouth and Watford spent in the top division in the last 30 years ?

[king canary 7,580]

@westcoast

What evidence is there for a bubble bursting in football? Prices have gone up steadily, TV deals have increased and new foreign markets keep taking an interest. People have been saying the bubble will burst since the days of Trevor Francis and the first £1m transfer.

[Badger 2,405]

Indy - Just because some people would welcome new owners doesn''t make them

binners or anti City, just without change you end up being left behind.I''m not accusing you of being anti City or a binner but I still don''t think that you have produced a compelling case for risking everything on an unknown foreign owner that has no links or interests with the club in the hope that it might bring short-term benefit.

[king canary 7,580]

@purple

Sorry but I can''t agree with the idea that we''ve had good transfers windows of late.

Under Neil Adams we bought in a large number of players but only Grabban, Jerome and O''Neil were successes. We wasted lots on Miquel, Lafferty, VOO along with some other poor but cheap signings.

The season after we spent heavily on a number of players but only Brady and Pinto have been out and out successes- Naismith, Jarvis, Mulumbu have all not come close to justifying their fees and wages, Klose has been inconsistent and injury prone and out our three loanee only Mbokani was good.

This most recent season Pritchard has proven to be a success along with Nelson. Wildschut has been poor, Canos has been sold without a sniff of first team football, McGovern is at best bang average...

We''ve missed more than we''ve hit these last few years and a number of those misses (Jarvis, Mulumbu, Naismith, Lafferty) have been costly in terms of wages.

Add this to the fact our strategy has been lacking (barely any investment in defence, a bizzare obsession with attacking midfielders/wingers) and no we''ve not done well in recent windows.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="king canary"]@purple

Sorry but I can''t agree with the idea that we''ve had good transfers windows of late.

Under Neil Adams we bought in a large number of players but only Grabban, Jerome and O''Neil were successes. We wasted lots on Miquel, Lafferty, VOO along with some other poor but cheap signings.

The season after we spent heavily on a number of players but only Brady and Pinto have been out and out successes- Naismith, Jarvis, Mulumbu have all not come close to justifying their fees and wages, Klose has been inconsistent and injury prone and out our three loanee only Mbokani was good.

This most recent season Pritchard has proven to be a success along with Nelson. Wildschut has been poor, Canos has been sold without a sniff of first team football, McGovern is at best bang average...

We''ve missed more than we''ve hit these last few years and a number of those misses (Jarvis, Mulumbu, Naismith, Lafferty) have been costly in terms of wages.

Add this to the fact our strategy has been lacking (barely any investment in defence, a bizzare obsession with attacking midfielders/wingers) and no we''ve not done well in recent windows.[/quote]The argument, based on Stone''s comments about having had four of the last six years in the Premier League, has to start with our 2011 summer window, with Lambert as manager. You are looking only at the last three of those seasons. I may find some time tomorrow to go through all those windows in detail. You may want to reassess in the meantime, given the longer time span at issue.

[king canary 7,580]

The windows under Lambert and the first one under Hughton were good. Since then, consistently poor.

[Baldyboy 0]

Indy you are 100% spot on with your assessment and especially the final statement asking the question, why aren''t we like the likes of Bournemouth or Swansea.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Well Kingo, it looks like it''s not possible to move on from simply throwing in different clubs so why can''t the real question be why aren''t we Portsmouth or the binners.

[Badger 2,405]

BB - Indy you are 100% spot on with your assessment and especially the final

statement asking the question, why aren''t we like the likes of

Bournemouth or Swansea.

I''m sorry but you are thinking in a very short term time-frame. At the moment, I would rather be in their league position than ours - but things change.In 2010 you might have said, why can''t we be like Birmingham (9th); Blackburn (10th); Fulham (12th); Sunderland (13th) Bolton (14th). Teams have their years in the sun and then years of shade. The better run ones have more of the former and less of the latter. Bolton currently have debts of over £170 million and have just avoided a winding up order; Blackburn''s woes are well-documented; Sunderland have debts of around £130 million etc

[nutty nigel 7,513]

The why can''t we be argument works best with very short memories...

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user=" Badger"]Indy - Just because some people would welcome new owners doesn''t make them

binners or anti City, just without change you end up being left behind.I''m not accusing you of being anti City or a binner but I still don''t think that you have produced a compelling case for risking everything on an unknown foreign owner that has no links or interests with the club in the hope that it might bring short-term benefit.[/quote]

When you say risking everything though how many ckubsbof a similar stature to us have actually got into financial difficulties and remain in a worse position than us? Not many to be honest. Even Pompey are now only a league behind us. In our own league maybe Scum and Forest spring to mind. Leeds, Wednesday etc have all had their struggles but will start next season on pretty similar odds to us I would say for promotion.

People keep citing disastrous takeovers but the fact is clubs of our stature don''t tend to go to the wall because they are too big a part of football and their local community and generally get saved somehow. This notion that all foreign owners are evil is not true and frankly is a bit xenophobic.

[hogesar 9,618]

I don''t think we are in a position where we need to take a risk on a foreign investor with no previous interest in NCFC.

That could soon change in a couple seasons.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

WOW!!! That''s a huge jump Jimbo. An extreme of baldyboy proportions. Where did you see the xenophobic notion that all foreign owners are evil?

[king canary 7,580]

@nutty

There are quite a few dark warnings on this forum where it''s specifically ''foreign takeovers'' that are considered to be awful.

Even MWJ himself said they didn''t want foreigners owning the club.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Where are they Kingo? And where did MWJ say he didn''t want foreigners owning the club.

It seems impossible to have this debate on here because nobody can get away from stupid extremes. That comment from Jim came out of nowhere.

I really think a lot of coveting what other clubs have is superficial and has no depth whatsoever.

Tell me something, what is it you like about our ownership model?