Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

Naismith Plays 60 Mins for U23's.

Recommended Posts

They won by the way....

Matt Gill was delighted his Under-23s maintained their winning feeling with victory over Middlesbrough at Colney on Sunday afternoon.

Pierre Fonkeu’s first half strike was the difference between the two sides and Gill was particularly pleased with how his team combined being solid at the back and a threat going forward.

“We’re really pleased with the three points but ultimately really pleased with the performance and the individuals within that,” he said.

“We’d come off the back of a poor run as far as results are concerned so to go back-to-back 1-0 wins is great.

“I think was built on a solid foundation, being really organised out of possession, and that allowed us to show what we’re good at in possession and in our attacking play.

“We had to show lots of different qualities today in shocking conditions but the lads dug in and showed real discipline, heart and determination.”

Gill was full of praise for a number of individuals in his squad.

“Pierre was excellent. We had lots of help from the senior boys [Russell Martin, Marcel Franke and Steven Naismith] and I also think Jamal [Lewis] getting 90 minutes under his belt is excellent,” he added.

“His fitness levels are outstanding, to think he’s been out for that long, he was still charging into their box in the last five minutes.

“Todd [Cantwell] showed some moments, Didi [Emmerson Sambu] did well at right-back seeing as he doesn’t play there much. Adam [Phillips] and Dev [Aransibia] in the middle of pitch were great and Tristan [Abrahams] worked his socks off all game and was unlucky not to get a goal.

“It was a great team performance and they got the reward they deserved.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tettey should also be back on Saturday for selection so looks like most of our injury woes are over for now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good that he''s coming back, a decent option to have on the bench imo and has worked well with Pritchard before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the victory, I thought Saturday was one of Marco Stiepermann''s worst games for us and with Husband, whilst improved from his appalling start, not really impressing at left-back, the door could soon open for Jamal Lewis to stake a serious claim as our starting left-back. Farke gave him a lot of game time in pre-season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I am in the camp that believes Naismith still has something to offer. Sometimes players play better with better players around them.

He hasn''t had a glittering career with us so far and may well be moved on because of the wages he receives.

But he would add to our bench when fit and maybe a run in the team would help, although I am not sure of his best position for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canarydan23"]Despite the victory, I thought Saturday was one of Marco Stiepermann''s worst games for us and with Husband, whilst improved from his appalling start, not really impressing at left-back, the door could soon open for Jamal Lewis to stake a serious claim as our starting left-back. Farke gave him a lot of game time in pre-season.[/quote]Agree with all that. Is Husband still injured, by the way? With Trybull, Tettey, Naismith, Pritchard and Lewis all on the way back, our squad is beginning to look pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I Think he will do well if given the chance because he will want to attract a bid from a Northern based club

he will not do that sitting in the under 23''s and would be best for both parties if he was to move on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB"]Given our financial position and a looming £25M hole in our finances should we not get promoted this season I would suggest his best position is us receiving a small fee for him and removal of a large overhead........[/quote]so all that cost cutting... high wage earners off the books, sales of playershas done nothing to fill in that hole ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="keelansgrandad"]I am in the camp that believes Naismith still has something to offer. Sometimes players play better with better players around them.

He hasn''t had a glittering career with us so far and may well be moved on because of the wages he receives.

But he would add to our bench when fit and maybe a run in the team would help, although I am not sure of his best position for us.[/quote]Naismith has his fans still although they seem to be very much in the minority. I think he''s had his chances but has failed miserably to live up to his big money ( for us ) move here.Much as most would like him to be moved on unfortunately that''s unlikely to happen given the fantastic wage he''s on at Carrow Rd.Hindsight is a wonderful thing but in cash terms the Naismith signing has proved to be even more expensive than the sorry mess of the RVW period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]No, that filled the hole from the first drop in parachute payments.[/quote]eh ?do explain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The parachute payments for this year are smaller than last year so any cost cutting in terms of wages and fees bought it has covered that gap (hence the small profit).

Next season we will face a 21% drop in revenue, so we''re going to have to make significant further savings (mainly through a sizable reduction of wages) or cover that revenue gap through player sales.

I believe I''m right in saying a sustainable wage budget will be between £20-25m. So while I don''t know if a £25m black hole is accurate, the cost cutting needed this summer will probably be worse than last season and we don''t have the benefit of big earners being out of contract.

What we did this summer was a start but it gets worse if we don''t go up this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]The parachute payments for this year are smaller than last year so any cost cutting in terms of wages and fees bought it has covered that gap (hence the small profit).

Next season we will face a 21% drop in revenue, so we''re going to have to make significant further savings (mainly through a sizable reduction of wages) or cover that revenue gap through player sales.

I believe I''m right in saying a sustainable wage budget will be between £20-25m. So while I don''t know if a £25m black hole is accurate, the cost cutting needed this summer will probably be worse than last season and we don''t have the benefit of big earners being out of contract.

What we did this summer was a start but it gets worse if we don''t go up this year.[/quote]As I thought, just a guess (and a very inaccurate one at that)as is this one

''Next season we will face a 21% drop in revenue,''I think we are all aware that there will not be a £32m (?)  parachute payment next season. This is not a a 21% drop in revenue, or any where near it.I would suggest you check up on stuff first before posting up totally inaccurate stuff, try here for startershttps://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2016/october/city-release-2015-16-accounts/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A classic of the City1st genre- needlessly aggressive and wrong at the same time.

From the AGM

"Stone forecast a 21pc year-on-year drop in revenue for 2017/18"

So, yeah, check up on stuff first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]A classic of the City1st genre- needlessly aggressive and wrong at the same time.

From the AGM

"Stone forecast a 21pc year-on-year drop in revenue for 2017/18"

So, yeah, check up on stuff first.[/quote]oh dearthe 21% is a forecast whereby the loss of parachute money is already factored into that drop income (projected) goes from £75.9m to £57.9mhowever on the same projections we will still make a trading profit as the outgoings are suggested to be £56.6m, so your claim " so we''re going to have to make significant further savings (mainly

through a sizable reduction of wages) or cover that revenue gap through

player sales."
is incorrect as those figures have already been ''balancedAlso your words were "Next season we will face a 21% drop in revenue"  is a statement of fact not a projection as in reality" the cost cutting needed this summer

will probably be worse than last season and we don''t have the benefit

of big earners being out of contract"
As shown above this is untrue and Tettey/Hoolahan might suggest there are "big earners being out of contract"So it is not a case me being wrong, but more of you not understanding what you were posting up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, you''re right the 21% drop applies to 17/18, so this current season, so I''m wrong on that one.

So next season our parachute payments stop and TV revenue will fall from £32m to £7m, a drop of....£25m! So it is actually more than a 21% drop.

The idea that cost cutting won''t be needed and won''t be severe is laughable- yes we cut the budgets but not by remotely enough to cover the lack of any parachute payments next year. Tettey and Wes are just a drop in the ocean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like i am not the only one KC who reads City1st''s posts another way to what he actually means , well i mean what he says he means. [:D]Be careful or you will be accused next of being a liar and making stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be more newsworthy if it was Louis Jean Jarvis who had played 60 minutes. Mind you he would probably have ricked his neck reading the team list.

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...