Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Just looked at Norwich City Facebook

Recommended Posts

Good afternoon friends and foes. Who’s standing on the biggest pedestal in this jolly debate and how big’s your IQ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling I started some of this. Now I’m feeling a bit lost. One poster has said “get used to it “ but I’m not sure what I’ve got to get used to . 

And I’m certainly not waving my willy outside on a cold day like today Mr Wazzock ! 
 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Similar to the facebook ridicule people say all kinds of disparaging  things about this message board. Including many who post on it.

 

Share this post


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

The only project as I understand it is to achieve self-sufficiency in order to enable Tom Smith, man of little means, to own the club.

This will have to be achieved by achieving a steady stream of academy products to sell. 

Only, I can't get excited by that as the fans have bailed out the club 4 times under Delia and it would only take a baron spell / a year with no Lewis/Cantwell breakthrough to cause a cash crisis and require a bail out again. 

In terms of progress on the pitch, they were pretty much happy with where we were at... 28th we were. Top 26 the target. We essentially accept our existing average level. 

If that's the project then it doesn't excite me, and other than refunding an academy that Delia defunded.... I don't see what's special or unusual about it. I note that it isn't particular ambitious. 

I mean, it's good that our academy will be more productive. Would prefer a wealthier owner being able to underwrite difficult periods to ensure we don't have to constantly tear sides apart and never progress on the footballing side rather than have to cash in on those assets or pass the begging bowl whenever we have a cashflow crisis. 

The project feels very much just feels like leaving Tom Smith with a decent footballing structure to give him a fighting chance after the handover. 

I have no reactions left but this is exactly how I feel about "The Project".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lake district canary said:

EVERY  time I've looked on the facebook sites, they are full of absolute puerile nonsense. People might think this site is bad, but it is nothing compared to the facebook fan sites.  Any decent debate on facebook quickly becomes childish prattle - people should value this forum because it is the best place to discuss things properly, despite the occasional spats and bickering.

For the sake of civility, and even democracy Facebook should be shut down. It not a British company, has no basis in British culture, just a black hole sucking up advertising monies and a pimp for your data. Like its buddy company Cambridge Analytica, perfect to serve dictators. 
 

But it is “free”. Government could set up its own service to let the people speak and connect with each other and have done with this US made virus in society. Common, you can do it Boris.

Share this post


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

For the sake of civility, and even democracy Facebook should be shut down. It not a British company, has no basis in British culture, just a black hole sucking up advertising monies and a pimp for your data. Like its buddy company Cambridge Analytica, perfect to serve dictators. 
 

But it is “free”. Government could set up its own service to let the people speak and connect with each other and have done with this US made virus in society. Common, you can do it Boris.

Government owned and run social media definitely couldn't go wrong.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hogesar said:

were*

As in there as opposed to their. 😜

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like with everything else it's about how we use it. If you don't like some aspects of Facebook then don't use them. If you don't like some threads on this message board then don't read them.

If you want to be part of a community where everyone thinks like you then talking to a mirror is an option...

Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with family and friends. Rays Funds has group on Facebook. NCFSC has a page on Facebook. There are some great historical groups on Facebook. Really useful stuff for older people (or people living with dementia). Why get rid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Like with everything else it's about how we use it. If you don't like some aspects of Facebook then don't use them. If you don't like some threads on this message board then don't read them.

If you want to be part of a community where everyone thinks like you then talking to a mirror is an option...

Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with family and friends. Rays Funds has group on Facebook. NCFSC has a page on Facebook. There are some great historical groups on Facebook. Really useful stuff for older people (or people living with dementia). Why get rid?

Agree with this NN. It's useful to keep in touch with absent friends, those that have moved and F and F. But, for anything political it's shocking, quickly becoming your own echo chamber as you've noted. Yet the historical /  geographical place groups are full of well meaning folk, often positive in outlook. It's not great for football for sure! Twitter is better for football news and even rumours, but again you have to be selective in following.

Edited by sonyc
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Agree with this NN. It's useful to keep in touch with absent friends, those that have moved and F and F. But, for anything political it's shocking, quickly becoming your own echo chamber as you've noted. Yet the historical /  geographical place groups are full of well meaning folk, often positive in outlook. It's not great for football for sure! Twitter is better for football news and even rumours, but again you have to be selective in following.

Also your timeline represents your interests. So if your timeline is fulloshet then....

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Similar to the facebook ridicule people say all kinds of disparaging  things about this message board. Including many who post on it.

 

Indeed Nutty and a couple of them have plenty to say on another site not Facebook or twatter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hogesar said:

were*

just spotted exaggerate as opposed to exaggurate as well. 😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Like with everything else it's about how we use it. If you don't like some aspects of Facebook then don't use them. If you don't like some threads on this message board then don't read them.

If you want to be part of a community where everyone thinks like you then talking to a mirror is an option...

Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with family and friends. Rays Funds has group on Facebook. NCFSC has a page on Facebook. There are some great historical groups on Facebook. Really useful stuff for older people (or people living with dementia). Why get rid?

Totally agree Nutty and for those who have no time for much of what is posted on the various NCFC related Facebook pages you must wonder why they joined them in the first place and of course it is possible to remove yourself from those groups. Much the same as this messageboard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only project as I understand it is to achieve self-sufficiency in order to enable Tom Smith, man of little means, to own the club. Succession planning, Delia and Michel are old.

This will have to be achieved by achieving a steady stream of academy products to sell. That's why we have a Cat1 academy and have heavily invested on youth recruitment and revamped the coaching set up

Only, I can't get excited by that as the fans have bailed out the club 4 times under Delia and it would only take a baron spell / a year with no Lewis/Cantwell breakthrough to cause a cash crisis and require a bail out again. This is nonsense. It assumes we'll cash in on all our assets every season, that shouldn't be necessary. 

In terms of progress on the pitch, they were pretty much happy with where we were at... 28th we were. Top 26 the target. We essentially accept our existing average level. Again, nonsense. Later in this post you'll confirm your clamour for a richer owner. I'm going to make an assumption that you'd prefer our target to be an "established" Premier League side. They'd like that too. They also realise that the term established is mythical for anyone but the elite. The only sides that have managed to add themselves to that list are Chelsea and Manchester City; you might argue Leicester but we'd have to disagree on that at this point. For everyone else in the division, relegation is a distinct possibility - see Villa's relegation. What Top 26 says is that we accept that relegation is a possibility and that should we suffer that, we're immediately in a position to challenge for promotion. I don't think it's particularly unambitious to target always being in the Premier League or challenging to be so; Top 26 is the bare minimum.

If that's the project then it doesn't excite me, and other than refunding an academy that Delia defunded.... I don't see what's special or unusual about it. I note that it isn't particular ambitious. 

See above. Delia defunding the academy; hasn't done too bad in the interim. 

I mean, it's good that our academy will be more productive. Would prefer a wealthier owner being able to underwrite difficult periods to ensure we don't have to constantly tear sides apart and never progress on the footballing side rather than have to cash in on those assets or pass the begging bowl whenever we have a cashflow crisis. Of course it is good that the Academy is more productive, it needs to be because the cash-rich owner you want doesn't yet exist. So it needs to be. We need to produce valuable assets that can benefit us on the pitch, sustain our existence and fund the next generation too. As for passing the begging bowl, it always amuses me that folk feel somebody else should fund things to their satisfaction. The only reason that they have the shareholding that they do is because nobody else, the likes of us, bought the shares and so they had to. If we'd all dipped our hands in our pockets they might not seem like an immovable monolith and we'd have been able to sell our club to the first of these people that Delia is systematically slamming the door closed on. 

The project feels very much just feels like leaving Tom Smith with a decent footballing structure to give him a fighting chance after the handover. 

Isn't that sensible? As I've said, the cash-rich owner you want doesn't exist (yet), what they're doing is ensuring that when (if) they do materialise and rock up with their billions to fund our assault on the Champions League, that there is a club there for them to buy. Surely you can get behind that?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

The only project as I understand it is to achieve self-sufficiency in order to enable Tom Smith, man of little means, to own the club. Succession planning, Delia and Michel are old.

This will have to be achieved by achieving a steady stream of academy products to sell. That's why we have a Cat1 academy and have heavily invested on youth recruitment and revamped the coaching set up

Only, I can't get excited by that as the fans have bailed out the club 4 times under Delia and it would only take a baron spell / a year with no Lewis/Cantwell breakthrough to cause a cash crisis and require a bail out again. This is nonsense. It assumes we'll cash in on all our assets every season, that shouldn't be necessary. 

In terms of progress on the pitch, they were pretty much happy with where we were at... 28th we were. Top 26 the target. We essentially accept our existing average level. Again, nonsense. Later in this post you'll confirm your clamour for a richer owner. I'm going to make an assumption that you'd prefer our target to be an "established" Premier League side. They'd like that too. They also realise that the term established is mythical for anyone but the elite. The only sides that have managed to add themselves to that list are Chelsea and Manchester City; you might argue Leicester but we'd have to disagree on that at this point. For everyone else in the division, relegation is a distinct possibility - see Villa's relegation. What Top 26 says is that we accept that relegation is a possibility and that should we suffer that, we're immediately in a position to challenge for promotion. I don't think it's particularly unambitious to target always being in the Premier League or challenging to be so; Top 26 is the bare minimum.

If that's the project then it doesn't excite me, and other than refunding an academy that Delia defunded.... I don't see what's special or unusual about it. I note that it isn't particular ambitious. 

See above. Delia defunding the academy; hasn't done too bad in the interim. 

I mean, it's good that our academy will be more productive. Would prefer a wealthier owner being able to underwrite difficult periods to ensure we don't have to constantly tear sides apart and never progress on the footballing side rather than have to cash in on those assets or pass the begging bowl whenever we have a cashflow crisis. Of course it is good that the Academy is more productive, it needs to be because the cash-rich owner you want doesn't yet exist. So it needs to be. We need to produce valuable assets that can benefit us on the pitch, sustain our existence and fund the next generation too. As for passing the begging bowl, it always amuses me that folk feel somebody else should fund things to their satisfaction. The only reason that they have the shareholding that they do is because nobody else, the likes of us, bought the shares and so they had to. If we'd all dipped our hands in our pockets they might not seem like an immovable monolith and we'd have been able to sell our club to the first of these people that Delia is systematically slamming the door closed on. 

The project feels very much just feels like leaving Tom Smith with a decent footballing structure to give him a fighting chance after the handover. 

Isn't that sensible? As I've said, the cash-rich owner you want doesn't exist (yet), what they're doing is ensuring that when (if) they do materialise and rock up with their billions to fund our assault on the Champions League, that there is a club there for them to buy. Surely you can get behind that?

Out of likes ages ago, but great reply Duncs. Some reality 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, First Wazzock said:

Wow I just love a willy waving contest

Coming up later is King Dong versus Prince Stubby.

Edited by Herman
s c h l o n g is banned??
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Surfer said:

For the sake of civility, and even democracy Facebook should be shut down. It not a British company, has no basis in British culture, just a black hole sucking up advertising monies and a pimp for your data. Like its buddy company Cambridge Analytica, perfect to serve dictators. 
 

But it is “free”. Government could set up its own service to let the people speak and connect with each other and have done with this US made virus in society. Common, you can do it Boris.

The government is sh*t at doing tech. 

If Google couldn't succeed in challenging facebook with their $585 million attempt then what do you think the government will achieve.

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

See above. Delia defunding the academy; hasn't done too bad in the interim. 

I'll reply to the rest of your post in due course (tied up now).

But.... how long after Craig Bellamy/Robert Green was it that we produced another Premier League standard player? 

Prior to that we were churning them out, only many came through the satellite in the South West that Delia closed.

We had a good 15+ years of producing players that were Championship at best..... Chris Martin and Jason Shackell etc. 

That decline did coincide with Delia taking over. 

McNally set the ball rolling on reinvesting, Webber taking it to another level, but in terms of output.... its been 15-20 years of being woefully unproductive.

This is why I use the words 'defunding' and 'refunding'. 

Name other Premier League standard players to break through since Robert Green circa-2001? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I'll reply to the rest of your post in due course (tied up now).

But.... how long after Craig Bellamy/Robert Green was it that we produced another Premier League standard player? 

Prior to that we were churning them out, only many came through the satellite in the South West that Delia closed.

We had a good 15+ years of producing players that were Championship at best..... Chris Martin and Jason Shackell etc. 

That decline did coincide with Delia taking over. 

McNally set the ball rolling on reinvesting, Webber taking it to another level, but in terms of output.... its been 15-20 years of being woefully unproductive.

This is why I use the words 'defunding' and 'refunding'. 

Name other Premier League standard players to break through since Robert Green circa-2001? 

Now, you see, while there is little doubt that our production line certainly became juddery, was it to do with Delia Smith or was it due to the 90 minute rule (60 minutes for under 13s) that was introduced? All of a sudden we couldn't have satellite centres in the South West, whether you wanted it or not. 

I credit you with being aware of the ruling and being savvy enough to realise that travelling 90 minutes in the whole North-Eastern compass quarter (and beyond) from Norwich sees us scouting in the sea. You might blame Delia; I think that being positioned in a sparsely populated, rural area, 20 miles from the coast was probably more of an issue. 

Surely it isn't coincidence that since the rule was abolished in 2012 we've seen an upturn in player production?

It couldn't be that this defunding and refunding was actually about getting the most value from investment? If she'd put a billion pounds into the academy before 2012 SpongeBob Squarepants was never going to be a Premier League footballer, nor Sebastien the Cromer Crab or bloody Nemo. 

Now the investment is entirely worthwhile and we are reaping it's rewards. Credit where it is due. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The only project as I understand it is to achieve self-sufficiency in order to enable Tom Smith, man of little means, to own the club. Succession planning, Delia and Michel are old.

This will have to be achieved by achieving a steady stream of academy products to sell. That's why we have a Cat1 academy and have heavily invested on youth recruitment and revamped the coaching set up

Only, I can't get excited by that as the fans have bailed out the club 4 times under Delia and it would only take a baron spell / a year with no Lewis/Cantwell breakthrough to cause a cash crisis and require a bail out again. This is nonsense. It assumes we'll cash in on all our assets every season, that shouldn't be necessary. 

In terms of progress on the pitch, they were pretty much happy with where we were at... 28th we were. Top 26 the target. We essentially accept our existing average level. Again, nonsense. Later in this post you'll confirm your clamour for a richer owner. I'm going to make an assumption that you'd prefer our target to be an "established" Premier League side. They'd like that too. They also realise that the term established is mythical for anyone but the elite. The only sides that have managed to add themselves to that list are Chelsea and Manchester City; you might argue Leicester but we'd have to disagree on that at this point. For everyone else in the division, relegation is a distinct possibility - see Villa's relegation. What Top 26 says is that we accept that relegation is a possibility and that should we suffer that, we're immediately in a position to challenge for promotion. I don't think it's particularly unambitious to target always being in the Premier League or challenging to be so; Top 26 is the bare minimum.

If that's the project then it doesn't excite me, and other than refunding an academy that Delia defunded.... I don't see what's special or unusual about it. I note that it isn't particular ambitious. 

See above. Delia defunding the academy; hasn't done too bad in the interim. 

I mean, it's good that our academy will be more productive. Would prefer a wealthier owner being able to underwrite difficult periods to ensure we don't have to constantly tear sides apart and never progress on the footballing side rather than have to cash in on those assets or pass the begging bowl whenever we have a cashflow crisis. Of course it is good that the Academy is more productive, it needs to be because the cash-rich owner you want doesn't yet exist. So it needs to be. We need to produce valuable assets that can benefit us on the pitch, sustain our existence and fund the next generation too. As for passing the begging bowl, it always amuses me that folk feel somebody else should fund things to their satisfaction. The only reason that they have the shareholding that they do is because nobody else, the likes of us, bought the shares and so they had to. If we'd all dipped our hands in our pockets they might not seem like an immovable monolith and we'd have been able to sell our club to the first of these people that Delia is systematically slamming the door closed on. 

The project feels very much just feels like leaving Tom Smith with a decent footballing structure to give him a fighting chance after the handover. 

Isn't that sensible? As I've said, the cash-rich owner you want doesn't exist (yet), what they're doing is ensuring that when (if) they do materialise and rock up with their billions to fund our assault on the Champions League, that there is a club there for them to buy. Surely you can get behind that?

As ever, a balanced and well written response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Now, you see, while there is little doubt that our production line certainly became juddery, was it to do with Delia Smith or was it due to the 90 minute rule (60 minutes for under 13s) that was introduced? All of a sudden we couldn't have satellite centres in the South West, whether you wanted it or not. 

I credit you with being aware of the ruling and being savvy enough to realise that travelling 90 minutes in the whole North-Eastern compass quarter (and beyond) from Norwich sees us scouting in the sea. You might blame Delia; I think that being positioned in a sparsely populated, rural area, 20 miles from the coast was probably more of an issue. 

Surely it isn't coincidence that since the rule was abolished in 2012 we've seen an upturn in player production?

It couldn't be that this defunding and refunding was actually about getting the most value from investment? If she'd put a billion pounds into the academy before 2012 SpongeBob Squarepants was never going to be a Premier League footballer, nor Sebastien the Cromer Crab or bloody Nemo. 

Now the investment is entirely worthwhile and we are reaping it's rewards. Credit where it is due. 

Southampton CREATED their satellite development centres in Bath to GET AROUND the 90 minute rule and that academy brought them Gareth Bale.

They then CLOSED their Bath centre in 2013 or 2014, as it was no longer needed due to Category A academies no longer being subjected to the 1.5 hour travel rule.

You've got it the wrong way around and what we did by closing that centre is actually the opposite to what we should have done, as Southampton and their productivity over the years has shown.

Gareth Bale is from Cardiff, and trained at Bath until he was 16. 

Southampton were given dispensation to have a satellite academy because a significant proportion of their catchment area was in the sea. We were entitled to the same dispensation.

The decision to close Bristol, which produced Eadie and Bellamy, was a financial one not an enforced one made during Delia's tenure.

Instead we concentrated resources on a lower cost centre in Hertfordshire which was affiliated with a college, unfortunately increased competition for players and all the best players would be stolen by the big London clubs. Henri Lansbury was one of those players, pinched by Arsenal. It yielded Korey Smith and Jason Shackell.

Also, does the 'catchment area' argument really cut it when we know that Darren Bent, Jordan Rhodes, Connor Wickham, Matthew Upson, all grew up up within 90 minutes of Norwich? 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canarydan23 said:

Does that matter though? I act like a bit of a d!ck on here at times, just as I do away from the keyboard and I've gotten in a fair few spats on here with people I think are d!ckheads, but I've never felt the need to have to protect my identity. If you feel the need to hide who you are because of what you're posting, then you probably shouldn't be posting that sort of stuff in the first place. If you rung my employer and said, "Danny has been saying horrible things to me on a football message board because I voted Brexit/am a Tory/think Duda is really good/want Delia gone/want Farke sacked" then my boss or any of the company directors would say, "Yep, sounds about right, he's the same at work".

I'd happily meet with any of the people I've had a scrape with on here and I'm sure it would be an enjoyable experience. They probably wouldn't like me and I them, but who doesn't enjoy a good old debate about a football club we all love over a pint (you'll just have to get over the fact that mine will be a mass-produced, fizzy lager). 

Good for you. You'd be surprised at how many organisations look at people on facebook. I've heard of a few job applications for the company I work for being binned because they are a bit of a **** on FB.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, hogesar said:

As ever, a balanced and well written response.

Did you get your tenner on at 800/1 then Hoggo , if you did  , you probably lost  it. The Titles of the threads change, the content varies little. I might write a book called "How to say the same thing 100 times but under  a different heading each time".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

 

Too right we are.

Never mind the apostrophe.........it’s the lower case ‘ i ‘ and no full stop in the last sentence making us incandescant 😉

 

4 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

*incandescent

😛

Ha,ha........wondered if anyone would spot my deliberate error 🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not good at jografee but I think Bath is about 60 miles from Southampton where as Bristol's about 230 miles from Norwich.

Share this post


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

jografee

First glance  I thought it was a pay as go exercise app.

Share this post


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

First glance  I thought it was a pay as go exercise app.

Jog4free you don't even have to pay..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not good at jografee but I think Bath is about 60 miles from Southampton where as Bristol's about 230 miles from Norwich.

The development centre in Hertfordshire was more than 2 hours from Norwich, so this is irrelevant.

Bristol was not closed due to a rule change.

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

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...