Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jim Smith

Canaries Trust minutes of meeting with Steve Stone

Recommended Posts

What a depressingly bleak read those make!

Basically says we will have to sell any high earners if we don''t go up and that it''s good that we have a young squad full of high value for if we need to sell next summer.

There is certainly no longer any pretence from the powers that be at the club. Slowly drip feeding expectation lowering propaganda to the fan base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]What a depressingly bleak read those make!

Basically says we will have to sell any high earners if we don''t go up and that it''s good that we have a young squad full of high value for if we need to sell next summer.

There is certainly no longer any pretence from the powers that be at the club. Slowly drip feeding expectation lowering propaganda to the fan base.[/quote]

Are they available to Joe Public ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]Slowly drip feeding expectation lowering propaganda to the fan base.[/quote]You mean stating the facts how they are, and hoping that fans will appreciate the brevity and honesty being offered, rather than giving us nothing (or a load of tosh) instead...yeah, can see how you''d be unhappy with that choice...sigh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a bit depressing to read but it''s a fair reflection of where we find ourselves.

Expectation lowering seems to be a well rehearsed PR message.

It''s a challenge to ensure that the message is not interpreted as lack of hambition!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that most of us will have already worked out the gist of that message in any case.

However the fact that it assumes a future under the present regime will concern some, if not most, at this moment in time.

The balance could well shift, sooner rather than later.

As PC pointed out, public opinion is a powerful weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is already nothing we hadn''t clearly been told following relegation from the Prem ages ago. If we didn''t get back up within two seasons (one, preferably for limited financial impact) then we would be in the poo. To avoid being in the poo we would have to sell and shrink our wages and budget. That is what we''ve already seen a little of this season to safeguard the clubs future. In terms of active transfer business from a financial and business point of view they have actually done OK considering the bodies that have come and gone when we''ve spent next to nothing I guess. Whether that''ll translate to success on the pitch is a different matter though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]What a depressingly bleak read those make!

Basically says we will have to sell any high earners if we don''t go up and that it''s good that we have a young squad full of high value for if we need to sell next summer.

There is certainly no longer any pretence from the powers that be at the club. Slowly drip feeding expectation lowering propaganda to the fan base.[/quote]There''s no ''drip feeding'' this situation was made perfectly clear and reported in the local press at the last AGM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean the two primary concerns for me out of what he says is..

1) We will be looking to sell some of our young talent in the summer if we dont get promoted, despite the fact we have sold some players at very good fees in the last year and also released a load of high earners. I thought not spending much of the income this season was to protect us from having to sell our best players next season.

2) It required the Millwall debacle for those in power to decide we could do with an experienced CB. Surely the other games plus colney should have revealed that? It did to most on here for crying out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]I mean the two primary concerns for me out of what he says is.
1) We will be looking to sell some of our young talent in the summer if we dont get promoted, despite the fact we have sold some players at very good fees in the last year and also released a load of high earners. I thought not spending much of the income this season was to protect us from having to sell our best players next season.

2.[/quote]
This ^^.
Very concerned at the apparent financial mismanagement at the club over the past few seasons, all the Premier League riches and we''ve come to this!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worrying thing for me is we released high earners to reduce the wages and sold some players for good money

BUT as we well know high earners like Jarvis and Naismith are not easy to move on if at all

so to subsidize that we have to sell and release more to pay for the likes of Naismith and Jarvis

So next summer if we do not go up and we can not sell Naismith and Jarvis and get them off the wage bill we may have to sell a murphy or maddison to pay their wages thats a terrible waste

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"][quote user="hogesar"]I mean the two primary concerns for me out of what he says is.
1) We will be looking to sell some of our young talent in the summer if we dont get promoted, despite the fact we have sold some players at very good fees in the last year and also released a load of high earners. I thought not spending much of the income this season was to protect us from having to sell our best players next season.

2.[/quote]
This ^^.
Very concerned at the apparent financial mismanagement at the club over the past few seasons, all the Premier League riches and we''ve come to this!
[/quote]

That''s not really the point, sadly it is just clear evidence of the gulf in finances between the Premier League and Football League...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkngood"]The worrying thing for me is we released high earners to reduce the wages and sold some players for good money

BUT as we well know high earners like Jarvis and Naismith are not easy to move on if at all

so to subsidize that we have to sell and release more to pay for the likes of Naismith and Jarvis

So next summer if we do not go up and we can not sell Naismith and Jarvis and get them off the wage bill we may have to sell a murphy or maddison to pay their wages thats a terrible waste[/quote]Entirely agree with this.Players like Naismith have been a millstone round our neck pretty much since the day he arrived although that''s with hindsight. If we''re honest most of us were in favour of him coming to Carrow Rd and it''s just unfortunate it''s turned out to be a colossal mistake.It would be crying shame if we have to sacrifice young talent to service deadwood on long juicy contracts but what alternative is there ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah most were happy with Naismith including myself but I remember there was one particular poster who was adamant we would end up in this position. Think his name was ''Six pack".

I argued it with him at the time but he got it spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With Naismith and Jarvis our highest earners with little return i think the only way we could get rid is on free transfers hoping another club would take on the wages

we are unlikely to get a fee for either it is a must to get rid of high earners that give little back on the playing side as we have to sell in form players to pay for their wages if we do not go up

with so little money next season every player being paid has to give us a return for the money

Naismith alone would pay for 2 to 3 players weekly wage

and jarvis another 2 at least thats roughly 5 players wages for no return

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why then were these two players given such lucrative contracts?

Being a bit of a gambler myself I understood the signing of Stephen Naismith at the time because the manager at the time (Neil) had pinpointed him as the piece of the jigsaw likely to help the team to avoid relegation.

With another year in the Premier League being so lucrative it seem a risk worth taking for the gambler that was McNally. The problem was that AN''s judgement proved to be suspect as Naismith made little difference to our battle for survival and we were relegated.

As for the Jarvis signing and contract. Inexplicable.

Who to blame then? I really think "blame" is the operative word for these two signings have had, and will continue to do so, extremely negative repercussions on the future fortunes of our club. Back to the contracts then.

One thing is certain and that is that NO BLAME WHATSOEVER should be attached to the players involved even though SN apparently declined a move to Sunderland due to finances (who wouldn''t?)

McNally was always fast and loose. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn''t and we now suffer from his legacy because it finally didn''t.

He pocketed a few million in the process.

NCFC are short because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"][quote user="hogesar"]I mean the two primary concerns for me out of what he says is.
1) We will be looking to sell some of our young talent in the summer if we dont get promoted, despite the fact we have sold some players at very good fees in the last year and also released a load of high earners. I thought not spending much of the income this season was to protect us from having to sell our best players next season.

2.[/quote]
This ^^.
Very concerned at the apparent financial mismanagement at the club over the past few seasons, all the Premier League riches and we''ve come to this!
[/quote]

Absolutely. Owners who have a net investment of zero, who have mismanaged the massive opportunities given to them by Lamberts successive promotions. But hey they turn up at the pub.... sigh.

Nothing will change with the Stowmarket two in charge... time for a change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Naismith myself like others were quite happy at the time if he played the way he did for Everton we may have stayed up or at least when we went down in the championship he would have been one of the best players

but he looks a busted flush totally different player like many others as soon as they signed here Hooper RVW the last few years

as for Jarvis this is one of these never sign a injured player

hindsight is wonderful thing but if you have any doubts unless it was a small wage of 10 k a week you would not of took that gamble

thats what is annoying more than anything if you took those two players who give the club next to nothing in return for big wages out the club wouldn''t have to sell or release a player who gives back to the club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="norfolkngood"]as for Jarvis this is one of these never sign a injured player

hindsight is wonderful thing but if you have any doubts unless it was a small wage of 10 k a week you would not of took that gamble[/quote]FFS, the guy had averaged over 30 games a season for nearly as decade before we signed him with an injury niggle, it''s not like he was a permanent sick note whereby we knew he was likely to miss 3/4 of each season!Yes, the Jarvis situation is frustrating, but this is just one of those $hitty injury situations that happen from time to time, much like it did with us and Peter Thorne, who had also averaged about 30 games a season for years before he signed for us, then BANG, he only plays about 7 full matches for us (and only about 15-20 apps a season regardless of time) due to injury issues. Then the next two years after leaving us, he averages 30+ games again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It boils down to there being a real and dire consequence to the lack of investment and shoddy recruitment shown by the board on the last two occasions we managed promotion.

Put bluntly there are clubs who would give their eye teeth for the opportunities we had in the last decade to establish ourselves. We blew them. And the one consistent is not the manager or players but the board.

So I repeat the very obvious fact that our board has taken this club as far as they can and are out of answers. They roll the dice and hope for fortune but offer no solid plans for the future. They are falling behind in the global era- and so will the club. It is time to say thank you and good bye, in my opinion. The air is very stale indeed in that boardroom and nephew Tom offers zero confidence going forward...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@indy

Signing a player who was injured, following a season where he''d only made 13 appearances due to injuries is still fairly unwise, especially when you give him a 3 1/2 year deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="norfolkngood"]as for Jarvis this is one of these never sign a injured player

hindsight is wonderful thing but if you have any doubts unless it was a small wage of 10 k a week you would not of took that gamble[/quote]FFS, the guy had averaged over 30 games a season for nearly as decade before we signed him with an injury niggle, it''s not like he was a permanent sick note whereby we knew he was likely to miss 3/4 of each season!Yes, the Jarvis situation is frustrating, but this is just one of those $hitty injury situations that happen from time to time, much like it did with us and Peter Thorne, who had also averaged about 30 games a season for years before he signed for us, then BANG, he only plays about 7 full matches for us (and only about 15-20 apps a season regardless of time) due to injury issues. Then the next two years after leaving us, he averages 30+ games again...[/quote]

I''m surprised at those stars because certainly I viewed him as a bit of a sick note when we got him on loan (I think he''d had a bad injury at West Ham?. More inexcusable though wasus signing him permanently whilst he was injured.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkngood"]With Naismith and Jarvis our highest earners with little return i think the only way we could get rid is on free transfers hoping another club would take on the wages

we are unlikely to get a fee for either it is a must to get rid of high earners that give little back on the playing side as we have to sell in form players to pay for their wages if we do not go up

with so little money next season every player being paid has to give us a return for the money

Naismith alone would pay for 2 to 3 players weekly wage

and jarvis another 2 at least thats roughly 5 players wages for no return[/quote]

The flip side to this is that you''d probably all go for the ''experienced pro'' versus an unknown ''4th division'' German or young inexperienced Raggett type player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]I''m surprised at those stats because certainly I viewed him as a bit of a sick note when we got him on loan (I think he''d had a bad injury at West Ham?. More inexcusable though was us signing him permanently whilst he was injured.[/quote]Why is it inexcusable???Unless our medical experts said that his injury was likely to be a recurring and problematic situation and the manager/board decided "f**k it, let''s do it anyway", then we quite rightly assessed the player based on his medical at the time, as well as his historical injury record and saw little to no issue with a longer term signing of a proven PL level player.If you''re interested in the stats, you can find an overview here:[url=https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/matt-jarvis/leistungsdatendetails/spieler/15921]Jarvis Stats[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...