Self-sustaining model

[nutty nigel 7,509]

On 09/12/2019 at 08:27, Canary Wundaboy said:

Enough of the fans will swallow and defend the model as long as there’s some success. The odd promotion, a half-hearted attempt at PL survival etc. Let’s see if the model survives a few years being stuck in the Champs when the fans are fed up with mediocrity and we finally lose to Ipswich.

The same posters have been trotting this out for ten years. It's always been about what will happen, it never happens, but the first run of bad results this soothsaying starts again.

Itstarted off in 2009 with under "the cook and her cohorts" we will end up in administration. When this didn't happen they got lucky with McNally & Bowkett. Then they got lucky with Lambert. Then they got lucky with Alex Neil. Then they got lucky with Webber and Farke. The prophets of doom always return and never give any credit to the owners for any of these successes.

Ever since 2014 the same prophets of doom forecast losing to Ipswich. When it doesn't happen they appear disappointed. Especially after the game at Portaloo last season. If you think I'm wrong read the threads of that game.

I suppose eventually, through the logic of the stopped clock, they'll be right and some ipswich type of stagnation will happen to us. And one day we will lose to Ipswich. 

But our current owners would probably still be the best bet to get us back on track because it seems no amount of money can compete with their luck.....

Edited December 10, 2019 by nutty nigel

[Duncan Edwards 2,217]

Threads like these can be found littering this site for as long as I care to remember.

 

The same things are trotted out time and again; lack of ambition, the concept of fans accepting 'mediocrity', an apparent lack of focus on becoming 'established' and a notion that whichever model the club is following at a given time having only been implemented to protect the current ownership and their perceived reluctance to relinquish the reins.

 

Generally, these criticisms are followed by given examples of clubs 'doing it the right way'; always those at each given time that are considered similar or inferior in size that are spending wantonly and that those citing their achievements are envious of.

 

It's not so long ago that selling Pritchard to Huddersfield was regarded as embarrassing. A prized asset; off to the latest nouveau-riche club plying their trade in the top flight. What had happened to Norwich? Nearly a century after their Herbert Heyday, they were feeding on our club as a vulture might pick over a carcass. Embarrassing indeed. Of course, that's just one example, not carefully selected but one that sprang to mind. Why can't we compete with blinking Huddersfield? Why are we a feeder club for the likes of them?

 

The point has already been done to death that these threads are cyclical. Promotion inevitably leads to increased expectation. Nobody is expecting us to win the league but we could at least have a 'real go' at establishing ourselves in the top flight. 

 

Every time that is listed as a realistic goal, a list of perceived 'established' clubs are listed. At the moment, I'd guess that they'd be the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Wolves and Palace. Fair enough. Clubs of a similar historic stature or even of a perceived lower level are enjoying a period of relative success. Thing is, in previous discussions, we might have been talking of Stoke. Or Sunderland and Poyet, or Cardiff, or Bolton, or Boro, or Fulham or (choose any one of umpteen clubs we considered 'established' at a given time). 

 

It's a mythical existence though. History shows that, but for an occasional miracle, the status of ESTABLISHED is reserved for a small minority. The current exception would look to be Leicester City. Who wouldn't be envious of the ride they've been on recently? A propulsion to levels previously considered impossible. It's a fairytale. But are they established? Right now, you'd think so but while there appears no apparent reason they should hit the buffers, the guy who financed their ascent is dead. It was tragic and while it doesn't appear that the rug will be withdrawn in the near future, the family's priorities might change. Southampton were held up as a bastion of what we could be; buying promising players, selling at huge profits, competitive for a few years but now look anything BUT established. Stoke punched hard for a few years and, again, were regarded as a 'what we could dream of' side; they've now seemingly steadied a ship that looked set for a rapid sinking to the third tier. 

 

The point I'm probably not making very well is that 'established' doesn't exist for a club like ours. History shows it. It's even less likely now than it was when we first won promotion in 1972. The alleged riches of the Premier League are a commonly misinterpreted benefit. Yes, money comes in, but the consequential outlay is magnified. The higher you finish in the Premier League, the more money you get. Usually, that means that the only truly established clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Chelsea are the main beneficiaries. There are a finite amount of 'top players' willing to ply their trade in this country and they will ALWAYS be in pole position to sign them. They'll even sign them and loan them out abroad so that others can't have them. Occasionally, something will click and a lightning strike might see somebody else gatecrash; Leicester and rarely the only other club that somehow clings to 'established' status, Everton, being the best examples. The rest of us scrap around, doing our best. Some get a run of a few years, some might make it to 7,8 or 9 seasons, but they're never established and to try and maintain that mythical status they're forced to spend more and more each year until it finally hits the fan. 

 

At that point, owners are nearly always faced with mammoth wage bills and continuing commitments that their income no longer covers and also the elephant in the room that is Financial Fair Play or whatever it has been rebranded to. These relegated clubs aren't coming down with a warchest thanks to their time in the billionaires playground; they're skint. And for what? 

 

We experienced it ourselves. Back to back promotions, comfortable under Hughton, Ricky, Hooper and Fer...we know the rest. Then there was Naism...

 

You get the picture.

 

Ultimately, there's no guarantee that we're worse off for not spending a shedload of cash this summer. What is for sure is that IF, and it is still an IF, we get relegated, we'll be better placed to have another go than if we'd not played the percentages. It's a long-term methodology and, as such, shouldn't be judged on short-term results.

 

It's not easy to take, none of us like losing but what we're actually doing is building a legacy that should serve us well for years to come. 

 

These threads will always return though. There'll always be a list of clubs that we should aspire to be at a given time by those that demand immediacy and continued success. Likewise, there'll always be a bigger list of clubs that have tried their boon or bust approach and failed. As sure as eggs is eggs, the next time this type of thread comes around, the teams on their list will have changed and the teams on my list will contain some of those that they listed the time before. 

 

Vote tactically on Thursday. 😉

[curious yellow 184]

We have never had any success by spending money.

Recently it nearly finished the club.

If you are happy for your club to buy success with a completely new team, go and support Manchester City.

[Indy 3,283]

2 hours ago, curious yellow said:

We have never had any success by spending money.

Recently it nearly finished the club.

If you are happy for your club to buy success with a completely new team, go and support Manchester City.

Remember when Man City were ****e and in the third division not so long ago! 
 

Money doesn’t guarantee success, but enough of it sure helps 😂👍.

 

As above football changed, we had our best shot to develop and build in the first few seasons of the premiership, unfortunately at that time thanks to mismanagement and financial obligations through Chase years we were bought over a period of time by the current owners who like it or not have had their best interests for this club, running it the way they have, with changes in staff through the years with some success and some failures, a couple of financial close shaves to where we are now.

I won’t say do support another club as others do, I can see why a lot of supporters crave success and premiership football, the goal for every club should be to strive for achievements.

In today’s world not one of you have raised the point of the greedy arsed footballers and their over paid requirements killing football clubs development, something the FFP in the lower leagues being addressed to ensure more stability for finances.

We will no doubt get relegated and those footballers who aren’t prepared to take a cut and battle on here will be sold and I’d be very happy for our club to do so, as previous seasons players who don’t want to be here cause more grief then they are worth.

As Nutty above rightly points out, we achieve promotion and we get relegated, the same as most clubs, we went into this season off the back of an exciting year which lead some delusional views of top ten this season, never going to happen on a squad built around young quality players and second division Germans.

Enjoy the ride, enjoy the games, make the most of a very good manager while we have him and stop bemoaning of not investing, the club are investing in the future, the next generation to come through and get us back here for another go!

This is our club, this is our City.

[king canary 7,577]

6 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Threads like these can be found littering this site for as long as I care to remember.

 

The same things are trotted out time and again; lack of ambition, the concept of fans accepting 'mediocrity', an apparent lack of focus on becoming 'established' and a notion that whichever model the club is following at a given time having only been implemented to protect the current ownership and their perceived reluctance to relinquish the reins.

 

Generally, these criticisms are followed by given examples of clubs 'doing it the right way'; always those at each given time that are considered similar or inferior in size that are spending wantonly and that those citing their achievements are envious of.

 

It's not so long ago that selling Pritchard to Huddersfield was regarded as embarrassing. A prized asset; off to the latest nouveau-riche club plying their trade in the top flight. What had happened to Norwich? Nearly a century after their Herbert Heyday, they were feeding on our club as a vulture might pick over a carcass. Embarrassing indeed. Of course, that's just one example, not carefully selected but one that sprang to mind. Why can't we compete with blinking Huddersfield? Why are we a feeder club for the likes of them?

 

The point has already been done to death that these threads are cyclical. Promotion inevitably leads to increased expectation. Nobody is expecting us to win the league but we could at least have a 'real go' at establishing ourselves in the top flight. 

 

Every time that is listed as a realistic goal, a list of perceived 'established' clubs are listed. At the moment, I'd guess that they'd be the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Wolves and Palace. Fair enough. Clubs of a similar historic stature or even of a perceived lower level are enjoying a period of relative success. Thing is, in previous discussions, we might have been talking of Stoke. Or Sunderland and Poyet, or Cardiff, or Bolton, or Boro, or Fulham or (choose any one of umpteen clubs we considered 'established' at a given time). 

 

It's a mythical existence though. History shows that, but for an occasional miracle, the status of ESTABLISHED is reserved for a small minority. The current exception would look to be Leicester City. Who wouldn't be envious of the ride they've been on recently? A propulsion to levels previously considered impossible. It's a fairytale. But are they established? Right now, you'd think so but while there appears no apparent reason they should hit the buffers, the guy who financed their ascent is dead. It was tragic and while it doesn't appear that the rug will be withdrawn in the near future, the family's priorities might change. Southampton were held up as a bastion of what we could be; buying promising players, selling at huge profits, competitive for a few years but now look anything BUT established. Stoke punched hard for a few years and, again, were regarded as a 'what we could dream of' side; they've now seemingly steadied a ship that looked set for a rapid sinking to the third tier. 

 

The point I'm probably not making very well is that 'established' doesn't exist for a club like ours. History shows it. It's even less likely now than it was when we first won promotion in 1972. The alleged riches of the Premier League are a commonly misinterpreted benefit. Yes, money comes in, but the consequential outlay is magnified. The higher you finish in the Premier League, the more money you get. Usually, that means that the only truly established clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Chelsea are the main beneficiaries. There are a finite amount of 'top players' willing to ply their trade in this country and they will ALWAYS be in pole position to sign them. They'll even sign them and loan them out abroad so that others can't have them. Occasionally, something will click and a lightning strike might see somebody else gatecrash; Leicester and rarely the only other club that somehow clings to 'established' status, Everton, being the best examples. The rest of us scrap around, doing our best. Some get a run of a few years, some might make it to 7,8 or 9 seasons, but they're never established and to try and maintain that mythical status they're forced to spend more and more each year until it finally hits the fan. 

 

At that point, owners are nearly always faced with mammoth wage bills and continuing commitments that their income no longer covers and also the elephant in the room that is Financial Fair Play or whatever it has been rebranded to. These relegated clubs aren't coming down with a warchest thanks to their time in the billionaires playground; they're skint. And for what? 

 

We experienced it ourselves. Back to back promotions, comfortable under Hughton, Ricky, Hooper and Fer...we know the rest. Then there was Naism...

 

You get the picture.

 

Ultimately, there's no guarantee that we're worse off for not spending a shedload of cash this summer. What is for sure is that IF, and it is still an IF, we get relegated, we'll be better placed to have another go than if we'd not played the percentages. It's a long-term methodology and, as such, shouldn't be judged on short-term results.

 

It's not easy to take, none of us like losing but what we're actually doing is building a legacy that should serve us well for years to come. 

 

These threads will always return though. There'll always be a list of clubs that we should aspire to be at a given time by those that demand immediacy and continued success. Likewise, there'll always be a bigger list of clubs that have tried their boon or bust approach and failed. As sure as eggs is eggs, the next time this type of thread comes around, the teams on their list will have changed and the teams on my list will contain some of those that they listed the time before. 

 

Vote tactically on Thursday. 😉

I do, in part, agree that the idea of an established Premier League club is a bit of a myth. Any club of our size is only one bad season away from relegation. 

However, once you get promoted the obvious aim has to become to stay there for as long as possible. And in comparison to clubs I would consider peers we've not been great at that.

Work is a bit slow this morning so I had a quick look at how we stack up against a few other randomly selected (but in my mind similar/smaller clubs to us) in terms of getting to the top league and sticking power in the time period since our current owners took over...

	Total	Longest Run
NCFC	6	3
STK	10	10
WGN	8	8
CHA	8	7
BHAM	7	4
SWAN	7	7
CAR	2	1
BORO	13	11
IPS	2	2
BHA	3	3
CPA	9	6
WBA	12	8
FUL	14	13
QPR	3	2
READ	3	2

As you can see our longest run in the top flight in that period is easily beaten by several teams I'd consider us to be 'bigger' than- Wigan, Fulham, Swansea, Charlton for example. So the question is, why can a team like Wigan stick in out in the top division for 8 years in a row (and also win the FA Cup) when we can't? What did Birmingham or Swansea do in their runs (also containing cup wins) that we didn't in our three-year stay? 

[king canary 7,577]

4 hours ago, curious yellow said:

We have never had any success by spending money.

Recently it nearly finished the club.

If you are happy for your club to buy success with a completely new team, go and support Manchester City.

I, too, enjoy strawman arguments.

Nobody wants us to buy a completely new team.

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I do, in part, agree that the idea of an established Premier League club is a bit of a myth. Any club of our size is only one bad season away from relegation. 

However, once you get promoted the obvious aim has to become to stay there for as long as possible. And in comparison to clubs I would consider peers we've not been great at that.

Work is a bit slow this morning so I had a quick look at how we stack up against a few other randomly selected (but in my mind similar/smaller clubs to us) in terms of getting to the top league and sticking power in the time period since our current owners took over...

	Total	Longest Run
NCFC	6	3
STK	10	10
WGN	8	8
CHA	8	7
BHAM	7	4
SWAN	7	7
CAR	2	1
BORO	13	11
IPS	2	2
BHA	3	3
CPA	9	6
WBA	12	8
FUL	14	13
QPR	3	2
READ	3	2

As you can see our longest run in the top flight in that period is easily beaten by several teams I'd consider us to be 'bigger' than- Wigan, Fulham, Swansea, Charlton for example. So the question is, why can a team like Wigan stick in out in the top division for 8 years in a row (and also win the FA Cup) when we can't? What did Birmingham or Swansea do in their runs (also containing cup wins) that we didn't in our three-year stay? 

But then we have been in the Premier League five years in the last ten, a record of success that is something most of the clubs in your list could not get anywhere near matching.  Three great promotion years, rebuilds, exciting football, five years at the top level with days like beating Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Man City at CR as well as sometimes away.......

It makes for a roller coaster existence and while it would be good to stay around in the PL sometimes - we were there for three years in a row.

 

[king canary 7,577]

51 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

But then we have been in the Premier League five years in the last ten, a record of success that is something most of the clubs in your list could not get anywhere near matching.  Three great promotion years, rebuilds, exciting football, five years at the top level with days like beating Man Utd, Arsenal, Tottenham, Man City at CR as well as sometimes away.......

It makes for a roller coaster existence and while it would be good to stay around in the PL sometimes - we were there for three years in a row.

 

This is, of course, all true. And there is certainly an argument that 5 out of 10 spread across 3 spells is more exciting than 5 straight years in the Premier League. 

My point was simply that while being an 'established' club at the top level is a thing that doesn't truly exist, it is interesting that other clubs have made a better fist of it than we have, even if they may be worse off now.

I wonder, for instance, would a dedicated fan of Wigan swap their last 25 years with us? I don't know.

[JF 694]

There is always viable arguments for and against our ownership and so called model. At the end of the day the real issue this season has been our apparent reluctance to spend money that the current model would have had the budget to spend, and fit in with. There was no reason why we couldn’t have bought in three or four £5 million players with the potential of turning them into £30 million players at the end of the season. I thought that was what this model was about, developing talent and then selling on for profit. We’ve come up and done the opposite for the current first team. Loan signings that haven’t paid off that cost a small fortune and have no future assets for the club. 

Edited December 11, 2019 by JF

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I do, in part, agree that the idea of an established Premier League club is a bit of a myth. Any club of our size is only one bad season away from relegation. 

However, once you get promoted the obvious aim has to become to stay there for as long as possible. And in comparison to clubs I would consider peers we've not been great at that.

Work is a bit slow this morning so I had a quick look at how we stack up against a few other randomly selected (but in my mind similar/smaller clubs to us) in terms of getting to the top league and sticking power in the time period since our current owners took over...

 

	Total	Longest Run
NCFC	6	3
STK	10	10
WGN	8	8
CHA	8	7
BHAM	7	4
SWAN	7	7
CAR	2	1
BORO	13	11
IPS	2	2
BHA	3	3
CPA	9	6
WBA	12	8
FUL	14	13
QPR	3	2
READ	3	2

As you can see our longest run in the top flight in that period is easily beaten by several teams I'd consider us to be 'bigger' than- Wigan, Fulham, Swansea, Charlton for example. So the question is, why can a team like Wigan stick in out in the top division for 8 years in a row (and also win the FA Cup) when we can't? What did Birmingham or Swansea do in their runs (also containing cup wins) that we didn't in our three-year stay? 

My point is, as always, those that do better than us are a minority. While there are more similar clubs trying to emulate us, with the type of owner (sometimes more than once) we would supposedly thrive under, why change?

I guess that's why it's always about some impending doom and not our owners record.

[king canary 7,577]

Work isn't slow enough to spend time working out if those above us in that specific period are a minority but there is a helpful wiki page about seasons since the Premier League began, which isn't too far off when our owners took over.

49 teams have played in the Premier League since it was founded.

Our 8 seasons in the top flight total since then places us firmly in midtable for total seasons- joint 23rd out of 49.

Our longest spell of 3 years though would be the joint 34th longest out of those 49. So a majority of clubs who have played in the Premier League have managed longer spells in the top flight than we have.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Work isn't slow enough to spend time working out if those above us in that specific period are a minority but there is a helpful wiki page about seasons since the Premier League began, which isn't too far off when our owners took over.

49 teams have played in the Premier League since it was founded.

Our 8 seasons in the top flight total since then places us firmly in midtable for total seasons- joint 23rd out of 49.

Our longest spell of 3 years though would be the joint 34th longest out of those 49. So a majority of clubs who have played in the Premier League have managed longer spells in the top flight than we have.

But the majority of our seasons have been since this continual call for more wealthy owners began. Strangely the years where our record was rubbish those demanding other people's money didn't really exist.

That's why I always say it's blind faith in other people's money that's the catalyst for a lot of these criticisms.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,423]

10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Threads like these can be found littering this site for as long as I care to remember.

 

The same things are trotted out time and again; lack of ambition, the concept of fans accepting 'mediocrity', an apparent lack of focus on becoming 'established' and a notion that whichever model the club is following at a given time having only been implemented to protect the current ownership and their perceived reluctance to relinquish the reins.

 

Generally, these criticisms are followed by given examples of clubs 'doing it the right way'; always those at each given time that are considered similar or inferior in size that are spending wantonly and that those citing their achievements are envious of.

 

It's not so long ago that selling Pritchard to Huddersfield was regarded as embarrassing. A prized asset; off to the latest nouveau-riche club plying their trade in the top flight. What had happened to Norwich? Nearly a century after their Herbert Heyday, they were feeding on our club as a vulture might pick over a carcass. Embarrassing indeed. Of course, that's just one example, not carefully selected but one that sprang to mind. Why can't we compete with blinking Huddersfield? Why are we a feeder club for the likes of them?

 

The point has already been done to death that these threads are cyclical. Promotion inevitably leads to increased expectation. Nobody is expecting us to win the league but we could at least have a 'real go' at establishing ourselves in the top flight. 

 

Every time that is listed as a realistic goal, a list of perceived 'established' clubs are listed. At the moment, I'd guess that they'd be the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Wolves and Palace. Fair enough. Clubs of a similar historic stature or even of a perceived lower level are enjoying a period of relative success. Thing is, in previous discussions, we might have been talking of Stoke. Or Sunderland and Poyet, or Cardiff, or Bolton, or Boro, or Fulham or (choose any one of umpteen clubs we considered 'established' at a given time). 

 

It's a mythical existence though. History shows that, but for an occasional miracle, the status of ESTABLISHED is reserved for a small minority. The current exception would look to be Leicester City. Who wouldn't be envious of the ride they've been on recently? A propulsion to levels previously considered impossible. It's a fairytale. But are they established? Right now, you'd think so but while there appears no apparent reason they should hit the buffers, the guy who financed their ascent is dead. It was tragic and while it doesn't appear that the rug will be withdrawn in the near future, the family's priorities might change. Southampton were held up as a bastion of what we could be; buying promising players, selling at huge profits, competitive for a few years but now look anything BUT established. Stoke punched hard for a few years and, again, were regarded as a 'what we could dream of' side; they've now seemingly steadied a ship that looked set for a rapid sinking to the third tier. 

 

The point I'm probably not making very well is that 'established' doesn't exist for a club like ours. History shows it. It's even less likely now than it was when we first won promotion in 1972. The alleged riches of the Premier League are a commonly misinterpreted benefit. Yes, money comes in, but the consequential outlay is magnified. The higher you finish in the Premier League, the more money you get. Usually, that means that the only truly established clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Chelsea are the main beneficiaries. There are a finite amount of 'top players' willing to ply their trade in this country and they will ALWAYS be in pole position to sign them. They'll even sign them and loan them out abroad so that others can't have them. Occasionally, something will click and a lightning strike might see somebody else gatecrash; Leicester and rarely the only other club that somehow clings to 'established' status, Everton, being the best examples. The rest of us scrap around, doing our best. Some get a run of a few years, some might make it to 7,8 or 9 seasons, but they're never established and to try and maintain that mythical status they're forced to spend more and more each year until it finally hits the fan. 

 

At that point, owners are nearly always faced with mammoth wage bills and continuing commitments that their income no longer covers and also the elephant in the room that is Financial Fair Play or whatever it has been rebranded to. These relegated clubs aren't coming down with a warchest thanks to their time in the billionaires playground; they're skint. And for what? 

 

We experienced it ourselves. Back to back promotions, comfortable under Hughton, Ricky, Hooper and Fer...we know the rest. Then there was Naism...

 

You get the picture.

 

Ultimately, there's no guarantee that we're worse off for not spending a shedload of cash this summer. What is for sure is that IF, and it is still an IF, we get relegated, we'll be better placed to have another go than if we'd not played the percentages. It's a long-term methodology and, as such, shouldn't be judged on short-term results.

 

It's not easy to take, none of us like losing but what we're actually doing is building a legacy that should serve us well for years to come. 

 

These threads will always return though. There'll always be a list of clubs that we should aspire to be at a given time by those that demand immediacy and continued success. Likewise, there'll always be a bigger list of clubs that have tried their boon or bust approach and failed. As sure as eggs is eggs, the next time this type of thread comes around, the teams on their list will have changed and the teams on my list will contain some of those that they listed the time before. 

 

Vote tactically on Thursday. 😉

Duncan - a well written but never the less slightly sniffy piece.  We mustn’t forget that this is a football message board. We come in here to glean info but also to express and vent . A football fan like me , and you, are not sensible down to earth folk when it comes to NCFC . We are irrational. We react .

Nothing else makes me hyper ventilate , become ludicrously superstitious , and generally get in a good / bad mood like NCFC. So why wouldn’t all of this be reflected on a football message board?

if we lose (I am a bad loser by the way) why wouldn’t folk trawl around looking for things to talk about . That some themes re emerge ( or litter as you put it ) is no surprise. The Self Funding Model will re emerge - in the same way that we continue to revisit poor refereeing decisions or wonderful goals from 35 years. 
 

If football is cyclical then the topics discussed will be too. People are allowed to talk about what they like . People still bang on about St Andrews Hall for goodness sake (whatever that was and no I don’t want to know) .

 

Why shouldn’t we aspire to be an established premier league club? why wouldn’t we be disappointed in the fact that we have lost so many games this year . Why does the bloke behind me dig his knees into my back WHEN WE ARE LOSING ? 
 

Even my lucky hat has stopped working . It was brilliant last year . What the hell is that all about ?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

IOf course it's ok to post any POV on here. If folk didn't then others couldn't reply. That's how it works. Otherwise we would just have a series of blogs.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

12 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Threads like these can be found littering this site for as long as I care to remember.

 

The same things are trotted out time and again; lack of ambition, the concept of fans accepting 'mediocrity', an apparent lack of focus on becoming 'established' and a notion that whichever model the club is following at a given time having only been implemented to protect the current ownership and their perceived reluctance to relinquish the reins.

 

Generally, these criticisms are followed by given examples of clubs 'doing it the right way'; always those at each given time that are considered similar or inferior in size that are spending wantonly and that those citing their achievements are envious of.

 

It's not so long ago that selling Pritchard to Huddersfield was regarded as embarrassing. A prized asset; off to the latest nouveau-riche club plying their trade in the top flight. What had happened to Norwich? Nearly a century after their Herbert Heyday, they were feeding on our club as a vulture might pick over a carcass. Embarrassing indeed. Of course, that's just one example, not carefully selected but one that sprang to mind. Why can't we compete with blinking Huddersfield? Why are we a feeder club for the likes of them?

 

The point has already been done to death that these threads are cyclical. Promotion inevitably leads to increased expectation. Nobody is expecting us to win the league but we could at least have a 'real go' at establishing ourselves in the top flight. 

 

Every time that is listed as a realistic goal, a list of perceived 'established' clubs are listed. At the moment, I'd guess that they'd be the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Wolves and Palace. Fair enough. Clubs of a similar historic stature or even of a perceived lower level are enjoying a period of relative success. Thing is, in previous discussions, we might have been talking of Stoke. Or Sunderland and Poyet, or Cardiff, or Bolton, or Boro, or Fulham or (choose any one of umpteen clubs we considered 'established' at a given time). 

 

It's a mythical existence though. History shows that, but for an occasional miracle, the status of ESTABLISHED is reserved for a small minority. The current exception would look to be Leicester City. Who wouldn't be envious of the ride they've been on recently? A propulsion to levels previously considered impossible. It's a fairytale. But are they established? Right now, you'd think so but while there appears no apparent reason they should hit the buffers, the guy who financed their ascent is dead. It was tragic and while it doesn't appear that the rug will be withdrawn in the near future, the family's priorities might change. Southampton were held up as a bastion of what we could be; buying promising players, selling at huge profits, competitive for a few years but now look anything BUT established. Stoke punched hard for a few years and, again, were regarded as a 'what we could dream of' side; they've now seemingly steadied a ship that looked set for a rapid sinking to the third tier. 

 

The point I'm probably not making very well is that 'established' doesn't exist for a club like ours. History shows it. It's even less likely now than it was when we first won promotion in 1972. The alleged riches of the Premier League are a commonly misinterpreted benefit. Yes, money comes in, but the consequential outlay is magnified. The higher you finish in the Premier League, the more money you get. Usually, that means that the only truly established clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Chelsea are the main beneficiaries. There are a finite amount of 'top players' willing to ply their trade in this country and they will ALWAYS be in pole position to sign them. They'll even sign them and loan them out abroad so that others can't have them. Occasionally, something will click and a lightning strike might see somebody else gatecrash; Leicester and rarely the only other club that somehow clings to 'established' status, Everton, being the best examples. The rest of us scrap around, doing our best. Some get a run of a few years, some might make it to 7,8 or 9 seasons, but they're never established and to try and maintain that mythical status they're forced to spend more and more each year until it finally hits the fan. 

 

At that point, owners are nearly always faced with mammoth wage bills and continuing commitments that their income no longer covers and also the elephant in the room that is Financial Fair Play or whatever it has been rebranded to. These relegated clubs aren't coming down with a warchest thanks to their time in the billionaires playground; they're skint. And for what? 

 

We experienced it ourselves. Back to back promotions, comfortable under Hughton, Ricky, Hooper and Fer...we know the rest. Then there was Naism...

 

You get the picture.

 

Ultimately, there's no guarantee that we're worse off for not spending a shedload of cash this summer. What is for sure is that IF, and it is still an IF, we get relegated, we'll be better placed to have another go than if we'd not played the percentages. It's a long-term methodology and, as such, shouldn't be judged on short-term results.

 

It's not easy to take, none of us like losing but what we're actually doing is building a legacy that should serve us well for years to come. 

 

These threads will always return though. There'll always be a list of clubs that we should aspire to be at a given time by those that demand immediacy and continued success. Likewise, there'll always be a bigger list of clubs that have tried their boon or bust approach and failed. As sure as eggs is eggs, the next time this type of thread comes around, the teams on their list will have changed and the teams on my list will contain some of those that they listed the time before. 

 

Vote tactically on Thursday. 😉

A good post. I have no objection per se to a rich owner. Certainly very useful  for infrastructure projects - updating the training ground or increasing stadium capacity.

Not that it would make any difference but where I would draw the line would be against any owner who would  use their money to break FFP rules, or try to get round them with dodges such as buying the training ground or the stadium from the club. Better to be poor but honest.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

There is nothing to say that a super rich owner wouldn't be here long term or do us any harm. Just the same there is nothing to say their money would give us any more success than we currently enjoy. And of course, despite the thoughts to the contrary, to deny we are having success is not justified.

The fact is, the current owners do not have to sell to anyone. They are entitled to say, we are the majority and we want it done this way. I doubt they are stubborn or daft enough to run the club down for the sake of it. Self preservation of their  money says so.

I am sure that if the right offer came along, the rest of the board would be able to convince them that in the best interests of the club, a change is necessary and warranted.

But you have to be sure you aren't dealing with a Ridsdale or Carson Yeung. 

At one moment, money is the most important thing, then it changes to success is the most important. The latter is achievable for all as we have proved. Both are achievable but not for the many, only the very lucky.

[curious yellow 184]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

I, too, enjoy strawman arguments.

Nobody wants us to buy a completely new team.

I didn't say anybody did.

But a new investor will want change and we could end up with a team of Naismiths

[king canary 7,577]

8 minutes ago, curious yellow said:

I didn't say anybody did.

But a new investor will want change and we could end up with a team of Naismiths

Oh well. Best never sign anyone then, they could be Naismith's.

[curious yellow 184]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

Oh well. Best never sign anyone then, they could be Naismith's.

Yes or an RVW, we can't compete for the expensive signings.

At the other end of the market we do very well as last night's Under18s shows.

[king canary 7,577]

7 minutes ago, curious yellow said:

Yes or an RVW, we can't compete for the expensive signings.

At the other end of the market we do very well as last night's Under18s shows.

Or they could be Buendia's- he ended up costing about £5m but turned out to be pretty good.

If you've got any faith in Webber and Farke then why would you think they'll bring in Naismith's or RVW's over Buendia's?

[curious yellow 184]

5 hours ago, king canary said:

Or they could be Buendia's- he ended up costing about £5m but turned out to be pretty good.

If you've got any faith in Webber and Farke then why would you think they'll bring in Naismith's or RVW's over Buendia's?

I trust Webber and Farke's policy of careful spending and youth development.

We have had to develop and sell £70 million worth of talent to rectify big money signings that the fans were pressuring.

That in itself was a greater achievement than promotion, which was a fantastic bonus.

We have had some bad setbacks this season, we shouldn't be turning on ourselves in hindsight.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

On 08/12/2019 at 21:24, Jim Smith said:

I just don’t accept that. There have been times, including this season where I think we would have been extremely attractive to potential purchasers. Really all they need to do infrastructure wise is find a new stand. 
 

That is if our owners are not looking to make a big profit out of selling the club!

 

It's just reality I'm afraid. Areas like the midlands, south coast, London suburbs ect are very attractive to potential investors, Norfolk and Norwich aren't. 

 

If any of them had been fortunate enough to grow up in Norwich they would see and understand what an amazing place it is to live filled with brilliant people and with near unlimited potential. But you have to live or have lived here to know that. It's why so many of our staff and players grow attached to the place but we sometimes have to literally throw money at players (ie Naismith) to uproot and come here if they're not familiar with the place. 

 

To a foreign billionaire, we're just like the Nebraska or Minnesota of England. a backwards nowheresville with no money, little potential and no global exposure. The only kinds of owners who would be interested in us are marcus Evans type shysters just looking for a quick profit or fans like Delia and MWJ, that's just how it is atm.

 

If this model succeeds however and we become a well known conveyor belt for globally recognised talent that always makes money this could change  and we could become investable. But this model is in it's infancy, we're not all that well known for producing talent apart from Maddison (Who was developed at Coventry) yet so as it stands no one wants to invest. But if we sell a few players for 20/30/40 Million over the next few years they'll soon be callers. My advice for these tough times is just to support and know that if we succeed it will give us a chance to get lucrative investment in the future. But yes, we're 99% likely to go down this year, which sucks, but we are where we are and we have no other choice atm. 

Edited December 12, 2019 by Christoph Stiepermann

[Van wink 2,994]

Maybe worth a read

Championship 'bubble waiting to burst' with clubs posting record losses in Premier League 'gamble'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50674331

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Maybe worth a read

Championship 'bubble waiting to burst' with clubs posting record losses in Premier League 'gamble'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50674331

Some really stupid owners there... Like any business smart investment will always help achieve your goals.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Some really stupid owners there... Like any business smart investment will always help achieve your goals.

Many of the people who've bought football clubs were very successful in their proper business. Fernandes with his airline is just one example. What some take a long time to understand is that football is a very different kind of business.

And, added to that, that many - especially in the Championship - think if they just throw money at the club that will guarantee success, being defined as promotion.

And that altthough there are FFP penalties they will never apply to them because they will indeed get promoted, and in no longer than  two seasons, and then will not be dropping back.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Quart, pint pot come to mind. 24 teams in the Championship and only three places up for grabs.

How the hell we have managed to keep doing it is quite amazing although obviously some will still say we could have done better. How many supporters of the clubs who do not make it yet are in debt will blame themselves for thinking that their club should be buying £10-15M players in the Championship.

Surely there has to come a time when football is capped so that the players and their agents realise their industry and livelihoods cannot sustain their greed. When there is nowhere for them to go they might wake up.

Maybe Brexit will make some changes to the influx of unwanted foreign and probably less talented players. Their has been an emergence of English players who are equally talented, as team players, as their foreign counterparts.

[TCCANARY 263]

8 hours ago, Van wink said:

Maybe worth a read

Championship 'bubble waiting to burst' with clubs posting record losses in Premier League 'gamble'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50674331

Sharpe said the "only reason" the Whelan family sold Wigan to the Hong Kong-based company International Entertainment Corporation was because they did not see the "scary" financial situation improving.

"The Championship is not financially sustainable, it's a bubble waiting to burst," he said.

"It can't continue if the model is just having enough billionaire owners to keep funding it - that's a strange, crazy model because there are only so many people you can attract."

Sharpe, who took over Wigan from grandfather Dave Whelan in 2015, said the family were putting in "nearly £1m a month just to keep it going" despite having the fourth-lowest wage bill in the Championship.

That's an interesting 'only reason', I'm sure that wasn't said at the time.

[Hillhead 114]

23 hours ago, king canary said:

Or they could be Buendia's- he ended up costing about £5m but turned out to be pretty good.

If you've got any faith in Webber and Farke then why would you think they'll bring in Naismith's or RVW's over Buendia's?

Maybe thats why we didn't spend too much in the summer. Maybe if we had obliged Webber to spend 10million on someone perhaps that would have been the next RVW or Naismith. I trust Webber to get it right most of the time. 

When I look at some of the signings, Joelington for £40m, Mcburnie for £20m. I'm not sure who we should have gone for and how successful they'd have been for us. In hindsight we should have added an extra CB, just about any actual natural centre back would have been an improvement on Tettey and would have allowed him back in the position he's proved to play so well for us.

But thats just the thing, it's hindsight. I didn't see clammer back in August for an extra centre back any more than I did for another goalkeeper, fullback, winger or striker. We already had Fahrmann, Hernandez and Drimic out injured. What if instead of injuries to Hanley and further time out for Zimmerman we instead lost Krul, Buendia/Cantwell or Pukki. Being forced to play more of McGovern or Srbeny - suddenly that extra CB signing could easily be 4 or 5 extra players all over the pitch costing up to £50m at £10m each. How much of an improvement would any of them have been over what we have and how easily would they have fit into our 25.

I think criticism of the model when things are not going well is more than OK and this board is a good place to share them. But we should try and stay consistent and not revise history too much. I won't bump threads but when looking back I don't see much that foreshadows what people are posting today.  Instead of finding posts criticising our owners/business in the window I actually found some  from the most unlikely - Jobsworth included -  of people generally happy with our business and some people (yourself included KC) acknowledging what a tough task we have ahead of ourselves.

https://trainingground.guru/articles/delia-smith-why-guy-rouxs-auxerre-is-norwich-inspiration

Finances aside I think Delia is as good an owner as you can get for a football club. 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Spot on hillo, the fact that we're trying a different way  makes the wins/ points/ successes/ whatever  all the sweeter   for me, sure if over time the club feels  a bit richer then maybe  be a little more adventurous in the transfer market.  

[City 2nd 191]

On 11/12/2019 at 01:47, Duncan Edwards said:

Threads like these can be found littering this site for as long as I care to remember.

 

The same things are trotted out time and again; lack of ambition, the concept of fans accepting 'mediocrity', an apparent lack of focus on becoming 'established' and a notion that whichever model the club is following at a given time having only been implemented to protect the current ownership and their perceived reluctance to relinquish the reins.

 

Generally, these criticisms are followed by given examples of clubs 'doing it the right way'; always those at each given time that are considered similar or inferior in size that are spending wantonly and that those citing their achievements are envious of.

 

It's not so long ago that selling Pritchard to Huddersfield was regarded as embarrassing. A prized asset; off to the latest nouveau-riche club plying their trade in the top flight. What had happened to Norwich? Nearly a century after their Herbert Heyday, they were feeding on our club as a vulture might pick over a carcass. Embarrassing indeed. Of course, that's just one example, not carefully selected but one that sprang to mind. Why can't we compete with blinking Huddersfield? Why are we a feeder club for the likes of them?

 

The point has already been done to death that these threads are cyclical. Promotion inevitably leads to increased expectation. Nobody is expecting us to win the league but we could at least have a 'real go' at establishing ourselves in the top flight. 

 

Every time that is listed as a realistic goal, a list of perceived 'established' clubs are listed. At the moment, I'd guess that they'd be the likes of Brighton, Bournemouth, Wolves and Palace. Fair enough. Clubs of a similar historic stature or even of a perceived lower level are enjoying a period of relative success. Thing is, in previous discussions, we might have been talking of Stoke. Or Sunderland and Poyet, or Cardiff, or Bolton, or Boro, or Fulham or (choose any one of umpteen clubs we considered 'established' at a given time). 

 

It's a mythical existence though. History shows that, but for an occasional miracle, the status of ESTABLISHED is reserved for a small minority. The current exception would look to be Leicester City. Who wouldn't be envious of the ride they've been on recently? A propulsion to levels previously considered impossible. It's a fairytale. But are they established? Right now, you'd think so but while there appears no apparent reason they should hit the buffers, the guy who financed their ascent is dead. It was tragic and while it doesn't appear that the rug will be withdrawn in the near future, the family's priorities might change. Southampton were held up as a bastion of what we could be; buying promising players, selling at huge profits, competitive for a few years but now look anything BUT established. Stoke punched hard for a few years and, again, were regarded as a 'what we could dream of' side; they've now seemingly steadied a ship that looked set for a rapid sinking to the third tier. 

 

The point I'm probably not making very well is that 'established' doesn't exist for a club like ours. History shows it. It's even less likely now than it was when we first won promotion in 1972. The alleged riches of the Premier League are a commonly misinterpreted benefit. Yes, money comes in, but the consequential outlay is magnified. The higher you finish in the Premier League, the more money you get. Usually, that means that the only truly established clubs, Manchester United, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester City and Chelsea are the main beneficiaries. There are a finite amount of 'top players' willing to ply their trade in this country and they will ALWAYS be in pole position to sign them. They'll even sign them and loan them out abroad so that others can't have them. Occasionally, something will click and a lightning strike might see somebody else gatecrash; Leicester and rarely the only other club that somehow clings to 'established' status, Everton, being the best examples. The rest of us scrap around, doing our best. Some get a run of a few years, some might make it to 7,8 or 9 seasons, but they're never established and to try and maintain that mythical status they're forced to spend more and more each year until it finally hits the fan. 

 

At that point, owners are nearly always faced with mammoth wage bills and continuing commitments that their income no longer covers and also the elephant in the room that is Financial Fair Play or whatever it has been rebranded to. These relegated clubs aren't coming down with a warchest thanks to their time in the billionaires playground; they're skint. And for what? 

 

We experienced it ourselves. Back to back promotions, comfortable under Hughton, Ricky, Hooper and Fer...we know the rest. Then there was Naism...

 

You get the picture.

 

Ultimately, there's no guarantee that we're worse off for not spending a shedload of cash this summer. What is for sure is that IF, and it is still an IF, we get relegated, we'll be better placed to have another go than if we'd not played the percentages. It's a long-term methodology and, as such, shouldn't be judged on short-term results.

 

It's not easy to take, none of us like losing but what we're actually doing is building a legacy that should serve us well for years to come. 

 

These threads will always return though. There'll always be a list of clubs that we should aspire to be at a given time by those that demand immediacy and continued success. Likewise, there'll always be a bigger list of clubs that have tried their boon or bust approach and failed. As sure as eggs is eggs, the next time this type of thread comes around, the teams on their list will have changed and the teams on my list will contain some of those that they listed the time before. 

 

Vote tactically on Thursday. 😉

I can  well remember Delia trotting our we were following the ‘Swansea’ model, which I believe came after the ‘Charlton’ model, (and where are both now) and there has been many more models followed. Supporters jump on that bandwagon and comment. Can it be denied that the ‘self sustaining’ model is not anything to do with the Smith family!