Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thebigfeller

There's three main problems at Norwich City

Recommended Posts

Agree Ricardo.
There''s a tendency in all walks of life to misunderstand a natural variation from the mean and to "over-interpret" factors to account for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That’s The link that was posted. I didn’t choose it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="thebigfeller"]
The majority shareholders have not sold the club because they don''t want to sell the club. It is and has always been that simple. Other than when on the cusp of administration in 2009, we''ve never been desperate, so we''ve never had owners who''ve looked or publicised properly for alternatives. Their mentality is precisely why Brighton''s owner recently lampooned them to another poster on here. No change doesn''t just equal no chance; it guarantees continued decline.
4. And no, the OP doesn''t advocate ''spending beyond our means''. It advocates the necessity of new owners. Whether they choose to spend beyond their means or not is a matter for them - and constrained by Financial Fair Play rules in any case.
[/quote]
Not sure the owner of a club that lost £65m over its last two Championship seasons (which is probably more than Norwich City has lost in its entire history) is best placed to lecture us. That aside, Duncan Edwards posted cogently on these two issues, and on another thread I made the point that the owners'' apparent unwillingness to sell is nowhere near an insupperable obstacle to someone who really wants to buy Norwich City, as opposed to just fancying any old club as a trophy. Arguably it is even a useful test of an applicant''s suitability or otherwise.
And it is disingenuous to pretend that a new rich owner will not be tempted to spend beyond their means, or indeed that they will be constrained by FFP. The logic of such an owner is that they will gamble, up to and including breaking FFP. A panellist on the latest Guardian Football Weekly podcast called the Championship "the gamblers'' division" or some similar phrase for that very reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Duncan Edwards"][quote user="Indy"]We’re not punching above our weight we’re at our level, 17th in the championship and falling further down each season!

As for the spending, as discussed on other threads, deep pockets can use a 13 million a season debt without any penalty, as a lot of clubs are doing, running ant some level of debt.

So we are at a disadvantage with other clubs wealth.

That’s just how it is, why praise the owners of a failing club?[/quote]

How many 13s do you reckon is acceptable? Serious question. How many would be able to prop up against Carrow or Colney? Oh but you’re saying that we should “get” someone else..👍 Fair enough. What shall we do in the meantime? Nobody has offered me anything for my shares. Maybe we should bang a For Sale board up or something?

And as you say Indy, we’re in our rightful place. As you and Bigfeller and Tilly and everyone else point out, more and more clubs are being financed by these megabucks owners, it’s obvious we’re going to slip further down each season, isn’t it? So why all the gnashing and gnarling and stamping and wailing? You lot all saw this coming, understand the intricacies of why we are where we are and yet you seem to be up in arms? If we are where we deserve to be and where we rightfully belong, we should be moderately satisfied, shouldn’t we? It’s nice to punch above our station as we have many times in recent years (well done the owners and board) but at least we aren’t sinking to depths like Ipswich with their billions and living beyond their means each season as suggested. Phew. Eh?[/quote]
I''ll give you 20 quid for them. I''d make a decision quick though, because the way things are going on the pitch my offer is only likely to decrease as we plummet down the leagues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user=" Badger"]The ones that really struggle are those that have "gone for it" and failed.
[/quote]
And yet despite this - despite all the horror stories we''re always told, the "be careful what you wish for" view which lies behind that - how many ''big clubs'' are currently operating well below where they naturally should be? One. Sunderland, two levels below their natural level, and extremely likely to bounce back into the Championship at the first time of asking.
The only other club below the Championship who naturally belong at this level are Portsmouth: who are also turning it around and likely to return either this season or next. And these are both extreme cases. Even Leeds have finally got it together.
Meaning that even the scare stories so often trotted out really don''t hold much water. It''s rather like someone staying in an increasingly bland, unsatisfying relationship for fear of meeting an axe murderer if they move on. Fear of worst case scenarios is not a sensible way of living life.
[/quote]
How are you Shaun?
As Norwich fans we only notice the clubs who are enjoying temporary success above us and forget about the ones that drop by the way side. We met in 2009 you said we were going to hell in a handcart under the current owners. The bottom half of the PL at that time was Wigan, Stoke, Bolton, Portsmouth, Blackburn, Sunderland, Hull, Middlesboro, Newcastle, WBA.
Since then the following clubs have been promoted to the PL - Birmingham, Burnley, Wolves, Newcastle, WBA, Blackpool, QPR, Norwich, Swansea, Reading, Southampton, West Ham, Cardiff, Hull, Palace, Leicester, Burnley again, QPR again, Bournemouth, Watford, Norwich again, Middlesboro, Burnley again, Hull again, Newcastle again, Brighton, Huddersfield, Wolves again, Cardiff again and Fulham.
It''s this churn that makes the Championship a decent league where everyone has a chance to get top the so-called promised land. Also, as you can see rather than going to hell in a handcart over the next 10 years we more than held our own in this merry go round.
Add to that Derby County, Sheffield Utd, Ipswich, Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest and Coventry who didn''t even get one season on the merry go round it becomes obvious that claims of where clubs should be based on any historical parameters are a load of old bunkum.
We will probably spend time away from the PL now. But I have no doubt we will return at some point. Just as all those others whose fans feel just as entitled. Some even more so. Unfortunately only 17 of them remain in the PL each and every season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user=" Badger"]The ones that really struggle are those that have "gone for it" and failed.
[/quote]
And yet despite this - despite all the horror stories we''re always told, the "be careful what you wish for" view which lies behind that - how many ''big clubs'' are currently operating well below where they naturally should be? One. Sunderland, two levels below their natural level, and extremely likely to bounce back into the Championship at the first time of asking.
The only other club below the Championship who naturally belong at this level are Portsmouth: who are also turning it around and likely to return either this season or next. And these are both extreme cases. Even Leeds have finally got it together.
Meaning that even the scare stories so often trotted out really don''t hold much water. It''s rather like someone staying in an increasingly bland, unsatisfying relationship for fear of meeting an axe murderer if they move on. Fear of worst case scenarios is not a sensible way of living life.
[/quote]
Portsmouth, Sunderland and Coventry in League One.
Leeds, only showing signs of recovery MORE THAN 15 YEARS since their financial crisis - and I beleieve, without having spent a huge amount of money for their recent upswing.
Forest have been in th Championship for about 20 years despite years of over-spending leading to transfer embargoes etc.
Ipswich - still paying the price for over spending in their last period in the Premier League. They went into administration once, got bought up be Evans, who also "went for it" under Keene and now they seem to exist as some sort of Zombee club.
Sheffield Wednesday, over spent trying to get back into th premiership. Were relegated to league one, promoted back again, sold for a pound because of financial difficulties. Rumoured to be up agaist FFP atm.
QPR and Birmingham, are worse off as a result of their big spending; Derby have spent loads over the years and seem no better off, desperate to offload players no longer required as a drag on the club goings forwards.
I could go on... I''m a bit surprised that you don''t seem to know about some of these.
[/quote]
I know about all of them, thanks. Of the above group, only Derby, Sheff Wed and Forest could be argued to be ''natural'' top flight clubs; and in Forest''s case, really only because of a freakishly successful period in their history under a total one-off of a manager.
Birmingham, like Portsmouth, won a major trophy. Neither are natural top division clubs. I assume their fans are supposed to regret winning something, then? Coventry are not a big club; last season, when they went up, they had gates of less than 10,000. This season, so far, their attendances have been similar to well-known massive club, Barnsley. Derby''s prospects look good this season, infinitely better than ours... despite Derby not having played in the Prem since 2008. So why is that? Oh, I know - it''s because they''re ambitious and their owners aren''t the poorest in the league.
QPR''s stadium, a millstone round their necks, cannot sustain anything much more than a struggle at this level. Neither can Ipswich''s gates.
How many of the above are ''nightmare scenarios''? Portsmouth were, but no longer. Sunderland, but they''re under new ownership now too. QPR, because they have an idiot in charge - yet they have much less potential as a club than we do. And that''s more or less it, especially given Birmingham''s history is not exactly a glorious, success or top flight-filled one.
Arguing that "x had money, yet they didn''t succeed long term, so we shouldn''t want money" is, in an environment in which only some clubs can succeed at any point, a pretty ludicrous premise. Leeds appointed Bielsa; Derby appointed Lampard. It''s inconceivable either would''ve been remotely interested in us. You should ask yourself why that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There have been five games.

Won one, drawn one, lost two - the two lost against two of who are reckoned to be top teams this season.

Five games.

We just need a few results to settle down into the season and hopefully this grass is always greener stuff will disappear for a while. The argument will always be there about getting owners with more money, but the better way imo is to try and see beyond that and accept what is on the present - a team trying to compete in a tough league and adopting a style that will stand the test of time.

It may need changing if improvement isn''t forthcoming over the course of this season, but fundamentally the club is healthy - and there is a lot to be said for that.

The problem is that those who are dissatisfied with the ownership and running of the club do not have anything to offer to solve it - only angst and wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]
It''s this churn that makes the Championship a decent league where everyone has a chance to get top the so-called promised land. Also, as you can see rather than going to hell in a handcart over the next 10 years we more than held our own in this merry go round.
[/quote]
There''s certainly plenty of churn in the Championship. However: why did we more than hold our own during the period you mention? Because we got brilliant people in: three of them, to be precise. Delia, by contrast, wanted to keep Gunn at the helm. She wanted to keep as manager someone who''d just relegated us, then lost 7-1 at home on opening day in League 1, and couldn''t motivate his way out of a wet paper bag.
With more and more wealthy owners, most of them from overseas, in this league now, it stands to reason that it''s harder than ever before to get promoted. And what''s happened to us since those three individuals departed? We''ve gone back into decline. Slowly at first (because parachute payments insulated us), increasingly rapidly now.
The gulf in class yesterday between an ambitious, go-ahead club under a great manager and a stagnating, soft club under a near-novice of a manager was massive. There are no signs this can be closed. Our own lack of means as a club is most of the reason why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="nutty nigel"]
It''s this churn that makes the Championship a decent league where everyone has a chance to get top the so-called promised land. Also, as you can see rather than going to hell in a handcart over the next 10 years we more than held our own in this merry go round.
[/quote]
There''s certainly plenty of churn in the Championship. However: why did we more than hold our own during the period you mention? Because we got brilliant people in: three of them, to be precise. Delia, by contrast, wanted to keep Gunn at the helm. She wanted to keep as manager someone who''d just relegated us, then lost 7-1 at home on opening day in League 1, and couldn''t motivate his way out of a wet paper bag.
With more and more wealthy owners, most of them from overseas, in this league now, it stands to reason that it''s harder than ever before to get promoted. And what''s happened to us since those three individuals departed? We''ve gone back into decline. Slowly at first (because parachute payments insulated us), increasingly rapidly now.
The gulf in class yesterday between an ambitious, go-ahead club under a great manager and a stagnating, soft club under a near-novice of a manager was massive. There are no signs this can be closed. Our own lack of means as a club is most of the reason why.
[/quote]
It''s pointless going any further Shaun. If we achieve Delia was against it. If we fail Delia caused it. That''s childish buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’m not convinced that Leeds are a club that we should look on enviously at. They have been a car crash for years and only now after all this time look like they may be getting their act together, but it’s still early days even though they have looked very good so far

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Not sure the owner of a club that lost £65m over its last two Championship seasons (which is probably more than Norwich City has lost in its entire history) is best placed to lecture us.[/quote]
Actually, I''d say he is. Are they in danger? No. He speculated to accumulate; he''s not in this to make money, but to succeed with his club. Which he''s doing. What do you do? You point to their losses off the park under someone who is nobody''s idea of a shyster instead of their success on it! Amazing.
What do we as fans do? We point to our owners and say "oh, they''re so lovely, they''ll never take any risks, they do things the right way!" And we slide further and further downwards. Their ''loveliness'' was what landed us on the verge of administration to begin with.
There''s one other frustration I have with you PC, and it''s this. For want of a better phrase, huge numbers of your posts are either constant apologia for the board, or too green-and-yellow tinted by half. On The Guardian, after a summer in which we''d sold our best players and recruited utter mediocrity, there you were, extolling our virtues and tipping us to contend. There was zero reasoning behind this other than your own blind faith.
We''ve won four games in 20. We can''t defend for toffee. The players who kept us afloat last season have all gone. The manager, who has had no previous success at senior level, doesn''t even know what his best system is. Do you still think we''ll contend now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]There have been five games.

Won one, drawn one, lost two - the two lost against two of who are reckoned to be top teams this season.

Five games. [/quote]
Jesus, with so called happy clappers like LDC is it any wonder that we are in the sh*te when they can''t even count.
I make it -
5 games, lost 3, drawn 1, won 1.
You do the maths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lake district canary wrote the following post at 26/08/2018 7:25 PM:

There have been five games.

Won one, drawn one, lost two - the two lost against two of who are reckoned to be top teams this season.

Five games.
I fear you may have lost one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]
It''s pointless going any further Shaun. If we achieve Delia was against it. If we fail Delia caused it. That''s childish buddy.
[/quote]
It''s the very opposite of childish. It''s factual.
In her time at the club, Delia has:
- Sacked Mike Walker prematurely, shortly after his wife died of cancer
- Manoeuvred behind Bruce Rioch''s back to have him removed (again prematurely), and replaced by Bryan Hamilton. Whose recruitment of a bunch of total nobodies on transfer deadline day was hailed by her as proof of our ''ambition''
- Blamed the local media - that''s the most docile local media in the whole country - for Hamilton going (when in fact, the players had, thank heavens, wanted him to go)
- Referred to Nigel Worthington "our Wenger" in Summer 2004
- Hailed 19th place and relegation as a "success"
- Disastrously kept Worthington in place a year past his sell-by date, setting in motion the events which would relegate us to League 1
- Been so gutless that rather than sack him, she issued the infamous two-game statement instead
- Appointed Peter Grant, with no previous managerial experience, when Roy Hodgson was interested in the job
- Appointed Glenn Roeder, despite his history of failure more or less everywhere, after wasting an entire month - despite Roeder being out of work at the time
- Supported Roeder when he treated Darren Huckerby disgustingly badly
- Appointed Bryan Gunn because "he bleeds green and yellow"
- Blamed money in football, not her own never-ending terrible decisions, for relegation to League 1
- With the club on the brink of administration, a catastrophe scenario, went cap in hand to bring in proper people with actual expertise of football and business
- Still wanted Gunn to stay, but thank God, was overruled by people with a clue
- Those people then got tough: poaching Lambert away from another club. Not something Delia would ever have considered doing
- Meteoric success followed under the leadership of, eureka, tough, ruthless, ambitious people, with Delia fading into the background
- When Lambert left, we ruthlessly poached Hughton from another club: a club which, until very recently, had been bigger than us
- The whole board was culpable for the neither back nor sack dithering and paralysis of 2013/14. The whole board was culpable for the absurd, suicidal timing of Hughton''s dismissal
- The whole board was culpable for the ridiculous, laughable appointment of Neil Adams - but I have an incredibly hard time imagining it was McNally''s choice. Adams was just another Gunn scenario; been there, tried that, failed totally.
- McNally acted, bringing in his chosen target Alex Neil, again from another club
- Success followed... but so did relegation, as our yo-yo existence continued
- A week after Brighton thrashed us 5-0 under a manager her board had got rid of, Delia declared to the national press that she hoped Alex Neil would stay for ten years, complained that the fans wanted him out, and stated that she would "never sell" to a foreign owner: thereby putting her family''s interests ahead of those of the club
- Incomprehensibly, wasted almost all of our first season back down when it was obvious from early November that we were going nowhere unless we changed manager
- Then changed the whole club''s long term strategy.... precisely as a result of her and her husband''s own lack of means. And almost certainly, brought in the wrong people to oversee said strategy: which would be highly unlikely to succeed under almost anyone (certainly anyone within the compass of a club with such poor owners).
Delia Smith has been heavily involved at this club for 22 years. In that entire time, almost all the success we''ve had on the pitch has been when others, who actually know their business, have made the key decisions and provided real leadership. In so many ways, we''re Delia''s little Norwich again now. She openly celebrates that; others, quite rightly, laugh at us.
PS. Before anyone says it: yes, I''m grateful to her and her husband for keeping us afloat; for transforming us commercially; for presiding over much bigger attendances than we''d enjoyed in living memory; and for giving us a reasonable national profile.
But sorry. Time''s up. Time runs out for any other owner of any other football club. For some reason, we think we''re different. We''re not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, I''d say he is. Are they in danger? No. He speculated to accumulate; he''s not in this to make money, but to succeed with his club. Which he''s doing. What do you do? You point to their losses off the park under someone who is nobody''s idea of a shyster instead of their success on it! Amazing.

So, just to clarify, you are advocating that we live beyond our means, or, “speculate to accumulate”.

Now, Daniel Farke (like every manager that’s ever had a bad run while at the helm of Norwich City - Neil, Hughton, Adams etc) is often accused of not having a plan B. What would yours be, you know, should we speculate and fail to accumulate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That last reply to Nutty Nigel is wonderful.

Delia is an omnipotent, oppressive dictatorial type unless something goes right and then these characteristics temporarily disappear while she is overruled by an employee.

😂🙈 Brilliant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do we as fans do? We point to our owners and say "oh, they''re so lovely, they''ll never take any risks, they do things the right way!" And we slide further and further downwards. Their ''loveliness'' was what landed us on the verge of administration to begin with.

Lovely isn’t a word I’ve ever heard used....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here''s the thing Shaun. You''ve been feeding this habit with rumour and heresay for far too long. Let''s just take one for now. The summer of 2009. After Munby and Doncaster resigned Gunn was appointed manager. Most of us didn''t want that. A lot of you wanted Delia to go too. (It''s always Delia btw). So there we were, relegated, players and agents wanting out, and most people wanted absolutely no one to remain and get us ready for the next season. How was that going to work? Imagine a club with nobody in charge. The owners stuck around. Thank goodness. They appointed Gunn, not on a three year deal or anything so risky, just on a one year to make sure we had a team for the coming season. They then went about finding a CE and Chairman. We should be forever grateful to Gunny for what he did that summer. Not just for signing Grant Holt but for managing to keep Wes and Chris Martin at the club. No Holt, Wes or Martin then ten Paul Lamberts would not have got us promoted. Sometimes you have to credit people you don''t like you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should be forever grateful to Gunny for what he did that summer. Not just for signing Grant Holt but for managing to keep Wes and Chris Martin at the club. No Holt, Wes or Martin then ten Paul Lamberts would not have got us promoted.

Spot on that. Club legend and his all be it disastrous short managerial career pretty much laid the foundations to what was about to be built

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]Here''s the thing Shaun. You''ve been feeding this habit with rumour and heresay for far too long. Let''s just take one for now. The summer of 2009. After Munby and Doncaster resigned Gunn was appointed manager. Most of us didn''t want that. A lot of you wanted Delia to go too. (It''s always Delia btw). So there we were, relegated, players and agents wanting out, and most people wanted absolutely no one to remain and get us ready for the next season. How was that going to work? Imagine a club with nobody in charge. The owners stuck around. Thank goodness. They appointed Gunn, not on a three year deal or anything so risky, just on a one year to make sure we had a team for the coming season. They then went about finding a CE and Chairman. We should be forever grateful to Gunny for what he did that summer. Not just for signing Grant Holt but for managing to keep Wes and Chris Martin at the club. No Holt, Wes or Martin then ten Paul Lamberts would not have got us promoted. Sometimes you have to credit people you don''t like you know.[/quote]
I''ll never forget that hilarious funereal press conference when they announced Gunn was staying.
But awfully sorry. On my planet, when an organisation appoints a new Chairman and Chief Executive and gives them the power to make football-related decisions, it is usually advisable to recruit them before maintaining the employment of a failed manager. We effectively set in motion the shambolic events of the first week or so of that season by doing it in such a typically back-to-front way.
The people we appointed then spent a bunch of dosh in assembling a squad designed for promotion. I''d suggest that was what persuaded Wes and Martin to hang around. Their ambition. Ditto the signing of Holt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Having read through this entire thread I''ve concluded that that there is an equal quantity of fantasists,pant wetters,and realists.

The winner for best spin has to go to Lakey for his(it''s not as bad as you think) missing game.

Best level heads shared by Nutty and purple.

Best pant wetter has to be the original poster.

My personal view of our manager has never really changed since he arrived,out of his depth.

Director of football,a one trip pony(that being at his last club).

Current board,they have the best interests of the club in mind. The one thing i''d change is the chairman,Ed Balls is nothing but a figure head and not a very good one. Get another ballsy chairman and CEO duo in asap and dump Webber and Farke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="thebigfeller"]
[quote user="nutty nigel"]Here''s the thing Shaun. You''ve been feeding this habit with rumour and heresay for far too long. Let''s just take one for now. The summer of 2009. After Munby and Doncaster resigned Gunn was appointed manager. Most of us didn''t want that. A lot of you wanted Delia to go too. (It''s always Delia btw). So there we were, relegated, players and agents wanting out, and most people wanted absolutely no one to remain and get us ready for the next season. How was that going to work? Imagine a club with nobody in charge. The owners stuck around. Thank goodness. They appointed Gunn, not on a three year deal or anything so risky, just on a one year to make sure we had a team for the coming season. They then went about finding a CE and Chairman. We should be forever grateful to Gunny for what he did that summer. Not just for signing Grant Holt but for managing to keep Wes and Chris Martin at the club. No Holt, Wes or Martin then ten Paul Lamberts would not have got us promoted. Sometimes you have to credit people you don''t like you know.[/quote]
I''ll never forget that hilarious funereal press conference when they announced Gunn was staying.
But awfully sorry. On my planet, when an organisation appoints a new Chairman and Chief Executive and gives them the power to make football-related decisions, it is usually advisable to recruit them before maintaining the employment of a failed manager. We effectively set in motion the shambolic events of the first week or so of that season by doing it in such a typically back-to-front way.
The people we appointed then spent a bunch of dosh in assembling a squad designed for promotion. I''d suggest that was what persuaded Wes and Martin to hang around. Their ambition. Ditto the signing of Holt.
[/quote]
Hallelujah! We at last agree Shaun. That is absolutely spot on. And that''s why they didn''t put the cart before the horse. The problem with your apparent view that nobody should have been appointed is who would then have assembled the squad for the new season? In the end Gunn''s appointment cost us £600,000. Cheap at three times the price as it turned out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]Actually, I''d say he is. Are they in danger? No. He speculated to accumulate; he''s not in this to make money, but to succeed with his club. Which he''s doing. What do you do? You point to their losses off the park under someone who is nobody''s idea of a shyster instead of their success on it! Amazing.

So, just to clarify, you are advocating that we live beyond our means, or, “speculate to accumulate”.

Now, Daniel Farke (like every manager that’s ever had a bad run while at the helm of Norwich City - Neil, Hughton, Adams etc) is often accused of not having a plan B. What would yours be, you know, should we speculate and fail to accumulate?[/quote]
No, I am advocating that we look for new ownership. It''s precisely the attitude of sneering at successful owners like Tony Bloom which is why we''re in this mess.
Pro tip: looking for new ownership does not mean proudly declaring in the national press that we will "never sell to a foreign owner". Looking for new ownership does not mean treating a football club like a family heirloom and passing it down to Delia''s nephew. Looking for new ownership means doing precisely that - not closing ourselves off to possible alternatives, not cutting our noses off to spite our face.
Out of interest, why do you think a certain amount of losses per season are permissible under Financial Fair Play rules? Surely it couldn''t be, could it, that those who agreed those rules live in the real world: a world in which many businesses only grow through investment, often lots of it? Heck: we speculated to accumulate ourselves in 2009/10 and 2014/15 given the squad costs involved.
And on your earlier post: yes Duncan, I''m sure fans of Watford, Palace, Burnley, Huddersfield, you name it are asking themselves what the point of it all is, rather than having the time of their lives. And I''m sure Watford fans, in particular, are devastated they didn''t maintain their old model which had no chance of delivering sustained Premier League football, and almost in tears that they''re owned by a foreign family instead. Likewise, Bournemouth fans must be desperate to return to the halcyon days of being fan-owned and barely staying in the Football League at all - because what''s the point of their success, huh?
And yes: times now are different. Very different. We''ll never finish 3rd in the top flight again (or 4th, or 5th)... barring something Leicester-esque under (cough, spit, boo, hiss, where''s their emotional connection? They must only be in it for themselves! I wouldn''t like to be in Leicester''s shoes) rich foreign owners. There''s never been more money in the English game; especially not in its second tier. If you think our owners'' lack of resources makes it easier to succeed, rather than handicaps us from the outset, I''d like to hope you''re in a small minority of one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Inch High aka Inchy.."]Current board,they have the best interests of the club in mind. [/quote]
You think the club''s "best interests" are served by publicly ruling out foreign ownership (despite almost all successful clubs in English football having foreign ownership) and instead passing it down to the joint majority shareholders'' nephew?
What is your idea of the club''s "best interests"? Failure, but failing "the right way"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In five years time fans of Watford, palace Burnley and Huddersfield will likely be ranting on their message boards about the fans of the clubs that replaced them at the top table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Inch High aka Inchy.."]Having read through this entire thread I''ve concluded that that there is an equal quantity of fantasists,pant wetters,and realists.

The winner for best spin has to go to Lakey for his(it''s not as bad as you think) missing game.

Best level heads shared by Nutty and purple.

Best pant wetter has to be the original poster.

My personal view of our manager has never really changed since he arrived,out of his depth.

Director of football,a one trip pony(that being at his last club).

Current board,they have the best interests of the club in mind. The one thing i''d change is the chairman,Ed Balls is nothing but a figure head and not a very good one. Get another ballsy chairman and CEO duo in asap and dump Webber and Farke.[/quote]

Best interests, lol! I think you rival LDC for spin!

Isn’t Ed a ballsy chairman anyway?

But your right, we need more steel and better decision making. Exactly like we had with McNally and Bowkett. But Delia doesn’t want that again, she didn’t like it before.

So I fail see how you rationale that Delia and co have the clubs best interest at heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear me, I think you need some deep breaths my man.

Where to start...

I honestly thought the whole newspaper interview thing had been put to bed long ago; they have since clarified their position after all.

As for treating it like a “family heirloom”, well, it’s a decent comparison because NCFC IS precious. It’s precious to them and it is to us. Therefore, with nobody appearing on the horizon to buy Delia and Michaels shares and given their age, they’ve looked to put a succession plan in place for the time that they cannot it don’t want to carry on. Who they decide to pass their shares on to is entirely up to them. just as I’m sure you won’t leave your house and worldly goods to an angry pack on an Internet forum, I’m sure they considered their options and have - at this juncture - elected to pass them to a family member and someone that they trust implicitly. Who would you like them to pass them on to?

As for FFP.... I’ve no idea why they allow the 13mpa averaged over three seasons. I’d hazard a guess it’s to protect clubs relegated with players on big contracts to allow them to get their house in order as opposed to being a licence for owners to sling as much money as possible at promotion and to Hell with the consequences. Essentially it’s a licence to cheat because once promoted the penalties aren’t due until relegated.

As for Watford, Palace blah blah blah, well, this list was another set of clubs a couple of years ago and it will be a different set in a couple more, because (this may come as a bit of a shock) three clubs get relegated every year from the Prem. Nobody is established barring the big 7. While we’re on that paragraph though, did you have the time of your life when we were in the Premier League?

Lastly, at no point have I suggested that it is easier with our owners and in our financial position. What surely can’t be argued with is the fact that given our recent forays into the Premier League, having done it “properly” mud represent an incredible achievement and one that must be the envy of lots of clubs that have the investment you covet. You know, like Ipswich. Or Derby. Or Forest. Or Sheff Wed. Or Leeds. Just thought I’d show that I can list clubs too. 👍
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry I got it wrong earlier. Point still stands, a couple of results and we will be back on track - and then all this grass is greener stuff will go on the back burner.

All it takes is a bit of success on the pitch. Over to Farke and the players........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watford , Huddersfield , Burnley and Brighton etc etc spend and are able to spend more on players than we in comparison ever did or will be able to do . Wouldn’t it be nice to sign players like Maddison at their current level instead of always selling them ?

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...