Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Hardhouse44

What is it you realistically want, expect, and demand from your club

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Yes please to all that.

The AGM clique get their way every year and it’s so blatant to see who it is, even on a forum of people I have never met. I cannot understand why a kid who has never had any running of a football club and has no money, should be given control over Norwich!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

The AGM clique get their way every year and it’s so blatant to see who it is, even on a forum of people I have never met. I cannot understand why a kid who has never had any running of a football club and has no money, should be given control over Norwich!

It’s like the league of gentlemen. A lot of people want to keep it local. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

The AGM clique get their way every year and it’s so blatant to see who it is, even on a forum of people I have never met. I cannot understand why a kid who has never had any running of a football club and has no money, should be given control over Norwich!

It's easy to understand; it's because he's the next of kin of the current majority shareholders. Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty straightforward.

I've said this on many other threads, but as soon as Tom takes charge, he will not get the goodwill that Delia and Michael have accrued over the last 23 years. Delia and Michael must know that, and I would hope that someone is at least looking for investment.

If not, and we end up stuck in the Championship or worse, the tide will soon turn against young Tom. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

The AGM clique get their way every year and it’s so blatant to see who it is, even on a forum of people I have never met. I cannot understand why a kid who has never had any running of a football club and has no money, should be given control over Norwich!

If the club is being in run in the right way, then continuation of that is a sensible strategy.  I accept that some people don't think it is being run in the right way - but it is hard to argue that the club is not in the best state it has ever been financially and throughout the club in terms of footballing philosophy and practical development from youth to first team. The Academy (the loan for which was Tom Smith's idea btw)  is developing, the coaching staff are good, the Sporting director role instead of a CEO is progressive and there is scope for selling on young successful players and bringing through others already at the club, thus allowing for more money to be put into buying further talent and seeing the young talent we already have in the wings flourish as they make the first team.

So continuation is essential - and selling the club to whoever, would be a risk to that continuity. Tom Smith is on the board to learn the ropes and get experience - and that is good policy in terms of continuity........if you accept that the club is being run right. Money, on it's own, is not the answer.

Edited by lake district canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

It's easy to understand; it's because he's the next of kin of the current majority shareholders. Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty straightforward.

I've said this on many other threads, but as soon as Tom takes charge, he will not get the goodwill that Delia and Michael have accrued over the last 23 years. Delia and Michael must know that, and I would hope that someone is at least looking for investment.

If not, and we end up stuck in the Championship or worse, the tide will soon turn against young Tom. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I wouldn’t want to turn on anyone, especially someone who is a similar age to me, but there is no way on this planet that lad should be given reign of a football club!

I am not talking Chinese Billionaires or anything like that, I want an owner who can at least dip into their pockets when the going gets tough! Not ask the fan’s to dip into their pockets, we do that enough! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

I wouldn’t want to turn on anyone, especially someone who is a similar age to me, but there is no way on this planet that lad should be given reign of a football club!

I am not talking Chinese Billionaires or anything like that, I want an owner who can at least dip into their pockets when the going gets tough! Not ask the fan’s to dip into their pockets, we do that enough! 

No "stinking rich Chinese investors"? Where's your ambition? 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

If the club is being in run in the right way, then continuation of that is a sensible strategy.  I accept that some people don't think it is being run in the right way - but it is hard to argue that the club is not in the best state it has ever been financially and throughout the club in terms of footballing philosophy and practical development from youth to first team. The Academy (the loan for which was Tom Smith's idea btw)  is developing, the coaching staff are good, the Sporting director role instead of a CEO is progressive and there is scope for selling on young successful players and bringing through others already at the club, thus allowing for more money to be put into buying further talent and seeing the young talent we already have in the wings flourish as they make the first team.

So continuation is essential - and selling the club to whoever, would be a risk to that continuity. Tom Smith is on the board to learn the ropes and get experience - and that is good policy in terms of continuity........if you accept that the club is being run right. Money, on it's own, is not the answer.

It was only for Maddison that the club didn’t get into big financial trouble last season. I hardly see that as being ran properly! I don’t want to hear about the over spending in the prem either, as we also had player sales that year too. It seems the club is always on a shoestring and as soon as we are out of the prem, it’s fire sale time! 
 

I agree on Webber and co, they are the right people in the right places. But you need to ask why he really isn’t staying for more than a few years. I’d imagine a prem team who is established comes calling, he won’t be jetting abroad quite as quickly. 
 

good on the nephew for asking for fans to dip into their pockets, I’m still not impressed with it, I, like yourself, put more than enough of our hard earnt cash into the club as it is! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Feedthewolf said:

No "stinking rich Chinese investors"? Where's your ambition? 🙂

It can be done without them! I remember seeing an English gentleman purchasing a french club earlier in the season, as he saw them as a low risk gamble. Surely Norwich fall into that bracket? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Dr Greenthumb said:

It can be done without them! I remember seeing an English gentleman purchasing a french club earlier in the season, as he saw them as a low risk gamble. Surely Norwich fall into that bracket? 

I totally disagree with you on 'low-risk gamble'. The club is in the Premier League, playing to a packed stadium, is debt-free with loads of saleable assets and a thriving Academy... there's an awful lot more to lose than to gain.

If I was looking to buy a football club, I'd be looking for a club with tons of potential that's fallen on hard times and needs a 'knight in shining armour' to revive their fortunes. I'm talking about clubs like Bradford, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Coventry or... nah, not Ipswich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

It was only for Maddison that the club didn’t get into big financial trouble last season. I hardly see that as being ran properly! I don’t want to hear about the over spending in the prem either, as we also had player sales that year too. It seems the club is always on a shoestring and as soon as we are out of the prem, it’s fire sale time!

The sale of Maddison was very important, but you have to take into account the sale of Pritchard and the Murphy twins as well, all young players being sold on for significant amounts. Imagine if the finances of the club had been in good state before we sold them, the net income from their sales (over £50m) would have been available for developing further.  That is the position we are in today - a healthy club with assets we can sell for big money to attract new young players to the club and bring them through.

As for things being bad in the past, yes, I would agree that club policies over the years have been flawed - but we all accepted McNally's idea of every penny going into buying players - and that got us into the financial mess in the first place. I agree that Worthy was kept too long, I agree that the Hughton appointment was not a good one as it meant complete change rather than trying to build on Lambert's philosophy (although of course I supported Hughton while here). I even agree in hindsight that the Gunn experiment was not good, although I think the idea was a good one with a group of Norwich ex-players in charge to develop a Norwich way of playing. So yes, mistakes have been made, but if you look at the present, what is actually happening now at the club, we are in the best place we have ever been in terms of saleable assets and in overall stability. 

I know we are struggling in the top league and lack of big finance is a factor, but overall the club is in a very, very healthy situation for developing itself, over a number of years. Even now, if we sold just four players and netted £120m plus, add the parachute payment if we are relegated, whatever that is - £60m? - we then have a pool of £180m+ that does not need to be spent on paying debts or non-sensical big contracts - it can be put into developing the squad, helping buy in other young talent to develop, even developing the stadium. We have a good thing going for us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The sale of Maddison was very important, but you have to take into account the sale of Pritchard and the Murphy twins as well, all young players being sold on for significant amounts. Imagine if the finances of the club had been in good state before we sold them, the net income from their sales (over £50m) would have been available for developing further.  That is the position we are in today - a healthy club with assets we can sell for big money to attract new young players to the club and bring them through.

As for things being bad in the past, yes, I would agree that club policies over the years have been flawed - but we all accepted McNally's idea of every penny going into buying players - and that got us into the financial mess in the first place. I agree that Worthy was kept too long, I agree that the Hughton appointment was not a good one as it meant complete change rather than trying to build on Lambert's philosophy (although of course I supported Hughton while here). I even agree in hindsight that the Gunn experiment was not good, although I think the idea was a good one with a group of Norwich ex-players in charge to develop a Norwich way of playing. So yes, mistakes have been made, but if you look at the present, what is actually happening now at the club, we are in the best place we have ever been in terms of saleable assets and in overall stability. 

I know we are struggling in the top league and lack of big finance is a factor, but overall the club is in a very, very healthy situation for developing itself, over a number of years. Even now, if we sold just four players and netted £120m plus, add the parachute payment if we are relegated, whatever that is - £60m? - we then have a pool of £180m+ that does not need to be spent on paying debts or non-sensical big contracts - it can be put into developing the squad, helping buy in other young talent to develop, even developing the stadium. We have a good thing going for us.

There's a lot of sense in the post, although I would point out that investing in the squad would have been the right thing to do before this season started. No silly signings ,but you have to "risk it" or maybe gamble (as we did with RvW )  if you are going to stay in the PL. Sometimes it will pay off, sometimes it won't... A so-called "non-sensical big contract" for a good player might be the key to succes...ie staying in the division. I am no advocate for splashing out TOO much money, but investing in the squad was what had to happen imho.

Edited by ROBFLECK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a club that strives to be as succesful as it can be on the pitch. It would be nice if that could be achieved by playing sublimely skilful attacking football, but if replicating 1-0 to the Arsenal under George Graham won us the Premier League title I would settle for that.

But not success on the field by any means.. Not at the cost of selling the club's soul. Not for example if it meant breaking or even just playing fast and loose with financial fair play rules. And not if it meant destroying the club's heritage. That specialness that sets it apart from other clubs, so it is not just another identikit corporate entity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, ROBFLECK said:

There's a lot of sense in the post, although I would point out that investing in the squad would have been the right thing to do before this season started. No silly signings ,but you have to "risk it" or maybe gamble (as we did with RvW )  if you are going to stay in the PL. Sometimes it will pay off, sometimes it won't... A so-called "non-sensical big contract" for a good player might be the key to succes...ie staying in the division. I am no advocate for splashing out TOO much money, but investing in the squad was what had to happen imho.

I don't think signing one 'key' player on a big contract would have been the right way to go; it might well have upset the harmony in a squad that was - and is, I believe - very galvanised.

I still think we could have found a couple of players over the summer who would have been able to strengthen the starting XI rather than just the squad without breaking the bank or messing up the squad's harmony and wage structure, but that's history now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

I totally disagree with you on 'low-risk gamble'. The club is in the Premier League, playing to a packed stadium, is debt-free with loads of saleable assets and a thriving Academy... there's an awful lot more to lose than to gain.

If I was looking to buy a football club, I'd be looking for a club with tons of potential that's fallen on hard times and needs a 'knight in shining armour' to revive their fortunes. I'm talking about clubs like Bradford, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Coventry or... nah, not Ipswich.

Quite. To cut a long story very short, it is now 10 years ago that a Joe Kosich, a middleman/analyst touting for business, suggested rich Americans should look below the PL to Norwich City, as a club in financial difficulties (lots of debt) but with potential. Kosich got roundly rubbished by McNally in full-on hairdryer mode, but it is hard to say that his analysis was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This obsession with wanting someone who uses "their" money to help out when we need it is baffling me. No-one has ever suggested who that might be. No-one has ever suggested how wealthy they have to be. No-one has ever suggested how much they have to donate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

but that's history now.

Yes, it is Wolfo,  but do you think the fact that its history will stop  it being  dragged up over and over again....... As if it'll  change anything .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

It's easy to understand; it's because he's the next of kin of the current majority shareholders. Whether you agree with it or not, it's pretty straightforward.

I've said this on many other threads, but as soon as Tom takes charge, he will not get the goodwill that Delia and Michael have accrued over the last 23 years. Delia and Michael must know that, and I would hope that someone is at least looking for investment.

If not, and we end up stuck in the Championship or worse, the tide will soon turn against young Tom. I hope it doesn't come to that.

Don't forget that certainly Webber and quite possibly Farke will not be around if that happens to act as a shield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Quite. To cut a long story very short, it is now 10 years ago that a Joe Kosich, a middleman/analyst touting for business, suggested rich Americans should look below the PL to Norwich City, as a club in financial difficulties (lots of debt) but with potential. Kosich got roundly rubbished by McNally in full-on hairdryer mode, but it is hard to say that his analysis was wrong.

Ha, bang on Purpleo! If I put my revisionist head on, I can see similarities  between  McNally  and  Boris' style....tell em what they want to hear, lots of outrageous  claims....' fate worse than death' reminds me of  ' dead In  a ditch' etc. Style over substance.  Etc etc. Then boom! Gone! Without a backward glance...I hope the country  gets a Webber type  next to sort out the mess that will inevitably be Boris' legacy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Don't forget that certainly Webber and quite possibly Farke will not be around if that happens to act as a shield.

Absolutely... I have posted exactly that on another thread in the last couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect us to aspire to be the best we can be. This season I feel we have fallen short of that through an ultra conservative approach even with the constraints we have. I feel we have lacked ambition and desire to truly seize a great opportunity to re-establish ourselves at the top level (probably not permanently as nobody outside the top 7 or 8 does) with a vibrant young team who could keep us there for a few years. That said, I would accept that we are achieving close to or at what is our ceiling under the current owners hence my desire for them to step aside and find us owners/investors who can help us to raise that ceiling.

To be honest, if we go down then there is no urgency to this in the sense that we have seen that we can compete and challenge at championship level but I would want them to put the necessary groundwork in place so that if we were to be promoted again we can actually be competitive and have the resources to give us a fair crack at it.

I love many things about my club but I also feel frustrated that i don;t think any club (except maybe WBA) has squandered as many good opportunities to establish themselves at the top table as we have in recent times and this one is particular;y hard to take because of the players I think we will lose when we go down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Loans have to be (and in this case already have been) repaid plus a good interest rate and a very generous bonus, so you can cut it any way you like but the club invested multi-millions into Colney, and as it happens the fans that took up the bond did very nicely out of it as well.

Another good example of the community minded and innovative approach of this board who are planning for long term success rather than the short term gratification that you are so keen on.

 

Paid for by the fans and the premier league tv monies really though wasn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Don't forget that certainly Webber and quite possibly Farke will not be around if that happens to act as a shield.

Let's hope that  Tom is picking up experience and cultivating  a thicker skin In  the meantime,  he will have had a few years in and around the Club to gain that, just because he's  Delia's  nephew,  doesn't mean he cant ( or can) do a good job, with the right professionals  in place  . I'll  reserve  judgement  until I have something of substance to judge. I wish him well as I do the club....only someone with an agenda wouldn't,  no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Ha, bang on Purpleo! If I put my revisionist head on, I can see similarities  between  McNally  and  Boris' style....tell em what they want to hear, lots of outrageous  claims....' fate worse than death' reminds me of  ' dead In  a ditch' etc. Style over substance.  Etc etc. Then boom! Gone! Without a backward glance...I hope the country  gets a Webber type  next to sort out the mess that will inevitably be Boris' legacy. 

I think that is harsh on McNally- he lost his way towards the end of his time here but to say he was 'style over substance' ignores him taking us from a club in real financial difficulties in League One to the Premier League. 

If we hadn't bought him in, would we have had the guts to fire Gunn and hire Lambert? Would we have had an extended spell in League One? Difficult to know but unfair to ignore the very substantive achievements he had here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

I think that is harsh on McNally- he lost his way towards the end of his time here but to say he was 'style over substance' ignores him taking us from a club in real financial difficulties in League One to the Premier League. 

If we hadn't bought him in, would we have had the guts to fire Gunn and hire Lambert? Would we have had an extended spell in League One? Difficult to know but unfair to ignore the very substantive achievements he had here.

True, but the result  was we ended up dropping   out if the Prem AND having severe financial  difficulties,  there was an initial upsurge,  yes, but then his unsound fiscal policies caught up with us ....and left us needing a root and branch overhaul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Paid for by the fans and the premier league tv monies really though wasn't it.

Definitely not by the fans, they lent the money in the first place but have been repaid handsomely so have made money out of it.

Not by Premier TV money either, though that obviously helps, but the club clearly had a commitment to pay the bonds and the interest on them whether we got promoted or not - that we did get promoted was just a bonus, for the club and the fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

This obsession with wanting someone who uses "their" money to help out when we need it is baffling me. No-one has ever suggested who that might be. No-one has ever suggested how wealthy they have to be. No-one has ever suggested how much they have to donate.

Apparently there are lots of them hiding behind Delia's bins but she won't let them in the kitchen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Apparently there are lots of them hiding behind Delia's bins but she won't let them in the kitchen.

Are they  paying rent?....marginal gains you know. Did the first one there have premium membership or were the places behind  the bins on general  sale.? Could we loan the bins out and get them back , emptied at the end of the season? 

So many questions,  so few answers . Probably caused by a lack of investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Paid for by the fans and the premier league tv monies really though wasn't it.

Dear dim Jim, when will you accept that  the bond offer was a good thing all round, Colney got revamped, the bondholders got their  money back plus interest and the Club was, at no point at financial risk due to this. Maybe you could explain to us all, coherently,  what exactly is your gripe about this scheme? Could you not purchase bonds? Did you have plans to turn Colney into a housing estate?  What is the problem? We're  all ears ( well, eyes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

I totally disagree with you on 'low-risk gamble'. The club is in the Premier League, playing to a packed stadium, is debt-free with loads of saleable assets and a thriving Academy... there's an awful lot more to lose than to gain.

If I was looking to buy a football club, I'd be looking for a club with tons of potential that's fallen on hard times and needs a 'knight in shining armour' to revive their fortunes. I'm talking about clubs like Bradford, Portsmouth, Sunderland, Coventry or... nah, not Ipswich.

But the club is debt free and the clubs you have quoted will be in millions of pounds worth of debt. They must be aiming high to purchase a top division french club!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wcorkcanary said:

Dear dim Jim, when will you accept that  the bond offer was a good thing all round, Colney got revamped, the bondholders got their  money back plus interest and the Club was, at no point at financial risk due to this. Maybe you could explain to us all, coherently,  what exactly is your gripe about this scheme? Could you not purchase bonds? Did you have plans to turn Colney into a housing estate?  What is the problem? We're  all ears ( well, eyes).

I think the initial issue in this thread was it seemed to be highlighted as an example of our owners investing- which it clearly wasn't. In fact the scheme was there because of their unwillingness to invest.

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

×