Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Just looked at Norwich City Facebook

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

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 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? 

Interesting. Makes me wonder why Keane was kicking off about the 90 minute rule when he was at Sunderland too. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find too many clubs that didn't have at least part of their catchment area in the sea, even those with a significant advantage of being situated in highly densely populated areas such as the North West and London. How many clubs managed to circumnavigate the rules like this? If this dispensation was available then it surely makes the rule pointless? 

I'll take your word on the Bristol centre being closed for financial reasons then although your assertion that it was less valuable than the Hertfordshire one because of other clubs circling is rather negated by your example of Southampton who with their Bath satellite would have been operating in exactly the same pool that we were. In terms of picking up players, the percentage call would be to be positioned close to a footballing hotbed, I suppose, London or the North West although, as you say, there will be increased competition for players, there will be more of them to compete over. I guess we would have to analyse how many top players from the West Country have come through at Southampton before we can really make a call on whether it was the wrong call. Definitely a shame to have missed out on Bale though. 

As for the catchment argument, you were on about Premier League standard players, Jordan Rhodes has never played there has he? And as his Dad was on the Ipswich books it's a bit harsh to criticise Norwich for not signing him. Connor Wickham has come up pretty short and been loaned back to the Championship. Upson did well for himself and Bent scored plenty of goals though I've no idea where he was born or lived as a kid; even if he was within the 90, you've rustled up a massive 3 names we missed out on in the 15-20 year period you're being critical of; that rather supports my point, doesn't it?

Having looked at the Southampton-Bath thing, it seems it was regarded as cheating by some (Bristol City were vocal but then it's directly on their patch), I just can't for the life of me see if this was open to all why, Liverpool for example, wouldn't have placed a hub in London (I'm assuming they didn't).

So, thanks for the info on the Bristol thing - as I've said, I've no idea as to the reasoning, I'd presumed it was due to the travel restrictions, but from what you've said that rule doesn't seem to have been a thing - I mean, surely if people saw Southampton doing this then everyone would have? Mad. 

So it seems that we could have had a more effective satellite centre AND we were massively hamstrung by the travel rule that wasn't really a rule.  

Still, I'm not really seeing any serious evidence of her defunding the academy, strategical restructure and then serious investment resulting in success seems to be the order of things, doesn't it? 

Edited by Duncan Edwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who funded the ' serious investment ' in the academy Duncan ?

Share this post


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

Interesting. Makes me wonder why Keane was kicking off about the 90 minute rule when he was at Sunderland too. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find too many clubs that didn't have at least part of their catchment area in the sea, even those with a significant advantage of being situated in highly densely populated areas such as the North West and London. How many clubs managed to circumnavigate the rules like this? If this dispensation was available then it surely makes the rule pointless? 

I'll take your word on the Bristol centre being closed for financial reasons then although your assertion that it was less valuable than the Hertfordshire one because of other clubs circling is rather negated by your example of Southampton who with their Bath satellite would have been operating in exactly the same pool that they were. In terms of picking up players, the percentage call would be to be positioned close to a footballing hotbed, I suppose, London or the North West although, as you say, there will be increased competition for players, there will be more of them to compete over. I guess we would have to analyse how many top players from the West Country have come through at Southampton before we can really make a call on whether it was the wrong call. Definitely a shame to have missed out on Bale though. 

As for the catchment argument, you were on about Premier League standard players, Jordan Rhodes has never played there has he? And as his Dad was on the Ipswich books it's a bit harsh to criticise Norwich for not signing him. Connor Wickham has come up pretty short and been loaned back to the Championship. Upson did well for himself and Bent scored plenty of goals though I've no idea where he was born or lived as a kid; even if he was within the 90, you've rustled up a massive 3 names we missed out on in the 15-20 year period you're being critical of; that rather supports my point, doesn't it?

Having looked at the Southampton-Bath thing, it seems it was regarded as cheating by some (Bristol City were vocal but then it's directly on their patch), I just can't for the life of me see if this was open to all why, Liverpool for example, wouldn't have placed a hub in London (I'm assuming they didn't).

So, thanks for the info on the Bristol thing - as I've said, I've no idea as to the reasoning, I'd presumed it was due to the travel restrictions, but from what you've said that rule doesn't seem to have been a thing - I mean, surely if people saw Southampton doing this then everyone would have? Mad. 

So it seems that we could have had a more effective satellite centre AND we were massively hamstrung by the travel rule that wasn't really a rule.  

Still, I'm not really seeing any serious evidence of her defunding the academy, strategical restructure and then serious investment resulting in success seems to be the order of things, doesn't it? 

This is a good discussion, but I'm really busy this evening - I will reply in time though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIL 1010 said:

Who funded the ' serious investment ' in the academy Duncan ?

Why is that relevant?

You want external investment one minute and then when there is some you criticise it...🙄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Duncan Edwards said:

Why is that relevant?

You want external investment one minute and then when there is some you criticise it...🙄

External investment is one thing but going cap in hand to the fans for a few quid is another.

Share this post


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

Why is that relevant?

You want external investment one minute and then when there is some you criticise it...🙄

Dodging the question, Duncan?

Your dad would be proud! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIL 1010 said:

External investment is one thing but going cap in hand to the fans for a few quid is another.

That's not what they did though, is it? They offered an investment opportunity to fund infrastructure development. Mutually beneficial and quite lucrative by all accounts, what's not to like? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was that or lose cat1i suppose but does make you wonder how we got to that position as after all we are a well run club so i read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

That's not what they did though, is it? They offered an investment opportunity to fund infrastructure development. Mutually beneficial and quite lucrative by all accounts, what's not to like? 

Never happy are they?

External investment and more fan involvement. That's what they wanted and still grumble about it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was that or lose cat1i suppose but does make you wonder how we got to that position as after all we are a well run club so i read.

You believed it last season. 

Was that the case? I thought it was to ensure that we didn't have to divert funds from the playing budget to pay for infrastructure? 

Either way, serious investment was put into the Academy, the investors received a handy little dividend, too. All on Delia's watch. 👍

Share this post


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

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.

That's not the point I was making.

The rules never said we couldn't have a satellite in Bristol. They never said Southampton couldn't have one I Bath.

So what did your special dispensation allow Southampton to do?

Share this post


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

Who funded the ' serious investment ' in the academy Duncan ?

£500 quid of it was from me. There's a thread somewhere on here discussing the pros and cons....

Share this post


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

You believed it last season. 

Was that the case? I thought it was to ensure that we didn't have to divert funds from the playing budget to pay for infrastructure? 

Either way, serious investment was put into the Academy, the investors received a handy little dividend, too. All on Delia's watch. 👍

It was a literal win-win for everyone involved, and the great thing is it was totally optional yet apparently could have easily took 2x or 3x the money being asked for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was a literal win-win for everyone involved, and the great thing is it was totally optional yet apparently could have easily took 2x or 3x the money being asked for.

I can’t work out why some people still want to pick holes in this 🙄

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hogesar said:

It was a literal win-win for everyone involved, and the great thing is it was totally optional yet apparently could have easily took 2x or 3x the money being asked for.

Indeed. People delighted to play a small part in bright new chapter for the club and get a little tummy tickle for the privilege. Every time a player comes off that production line, everyone involved can take some pride in knowing that they played a part in their graduation. I imagine that must give those people a warm fuzz. 
 

Weird though, the bond was an undisputed success, yet it is still viewed negatively. 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It was a literal win-win for everyone involved, and the great thing is it was totally optional yet apparently could have easily took 2x or 3x the money being asked for.

No, no, no, we're getting relegated after a poor season, so that means a viable investment opportunity that was offered and benefitted all is now looked back upon as the owners going cap in hands and if the fans hadn't bailed the board out, we've have lost cateogry 1 status / got relegated / gone into administration (delete as necessary to the point that is trying to be made) ... Get with the times.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours 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. 

Although naturally your taken on this situation is more negative than mine, in essence most of what you say is true; it's just framed with despondency rather than optimism. I know it's the hope that kills you, and all that, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe we're doing a great job considering our means.

Take a quick look at this article from October 2017: https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/listed-owners-every-championship-club-13778193. There is not a single owner of a Championship club with a lower listed net worth than NCFC. Of the few without a listed net worth, only Burton Albion and Bolton might possibly have less wealthy owners than ours. Even Barnsley were taken over by a huge consortium shortly after this was published.

So, we've established that we're cash poor. However, even with a wealthier owner to underwrite those difficult periods, how much financial clout would that realistically give us? There are probably only about 15 or 20 clubs in the world that have the sheer size and money to insulate themselves against having to cash in on their best assets. Of course there's a food chain, and they can prey on clubs further down that chain, but almost all clubs are selling clubs.

Even clubs with billionaire owners - such as QPR, West Brom, Fulham and Stoke - have to mitigate against FFP, and ensure they don't overcommit in an effort to reach the big time. We've been over the permutations of new investment over and over again, and that's not what I wish to discuss here. What I want to discuss is how we're doing based on what we actually have, rather than what we feel we should or could have.

I am often perceived as some sort of 'happy clapper' on here, but the reality is that I have been very critical of Delia and Michael in the past (2006 to 2009 being particularly awful), and I have reservations about the long-term prosperity of the club under Tom Smith. What Tom does not - and will not - have is the huge amount of goodwill afforded to Delia and Michael for what they've done for our club over almost a quarter of a century. I know there are some people who don't rate them, and even some who actively dislike them; but, ultimately, the majority of our fans are at least appreciative of their long service.

Bringing in the club's first ever foreign manager and first ever two-tier management structure was a bold move on their part. Considering our position in the financial food chain, do you not think that we've overperformed against our means over the last three years? For the entirety of that first season under Farke, there was an awful lot of negativity (some of which was justified) about the style of football, and the overall direction of the club under owners with such limited finances.

Relegation sucks. Relegation by finishing bottom by a mile with what appears to be a limp surrender sucks even harder. Nobody likes it, and I don't think even the most partisan advocates of the Webber/Farke axis could tell us that they believed we did the best we could in terms of both recruitment and performance this season.

But what do we do? There's no investment incoming, other than the parachute payments and player sales. Is there really a better option than allowing our management duo to continue with what they've started and unearthing more good Championship players? The plan was always to try to establish ourselves as a Premier League club without overstretching ourselves financially; that doesn't happen overnight even with a ton of money (unless you're Wolves).

Well done if you're still reading, Teemu; this is where I start to weave everything back into your previous post. You said that with this plan we "essentially accept our existing average level". I would argue that given our financial position, our average level of being a yo-yo club (average league position 20.8 over the last ten seasons) is pretty good. I can't think of any other clubs with similarly limited means who are anywhere near that level.

So, what I'm saying is that of course there's a plan. There are many aspects of this plan that we've not discussed here, but it exists, and I believe it's going relatively well considering our means. Therefore, I think your main issue is not with the plan, or even with Webber and Farke (despite their shortcomings), but with the ownership of the club.

I'm not going to start backing Delia and Michael to the hilt and accuse you of being an apostate; I share your concerns. In particular, I have grave concerns of what could happen in two or three years if all of these variables come to pass:

1) Delia and Michael pass on their majority shareholding to Tom;
2) There is no further external investment;
3) Webber and Farke both leave;
4) We fail to return to the Premier League;
5) The Academy does not continue to produce saleable assets of the same quality/at the same rate.

If, in three years' time, all of those five variables are true, the club could be in a genuinely parlous state (and that's before we even consider the general state of football post-coronavirus).

The main point that I wish to make is that I believe the 'project' - if you are prepared to acknowledge its existence 🙂 - is designed to adequately insulate the club as far as possible against the worst consequences of the variables presented above. The dangers of overstretching the finances are even starker when you consider the current global situation. You could say that this is the reason we need new investment, but when we consider potential investors in the current climate, whose stock is genuinely rising, and who is on the brink of collapse?

It's a vital crossroads in the future of our club, and to be genuinely financially sustainable is more valuable to us now than it's ever been. That's why I believe in this project, and why I think fans in general should try to get behind it. That doesn't mean it should be followed blithely like some kind of personality cult. It doesn't mean that those at the helm shouldn't be questioned. But it does mean that, as fans, we should appreciate more than ever that we still have a club to support and it doesn't have a long list of debtors waiting at the door.

OTBC.

Edited by Feedthewolf
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Icecream Snow said:

Probably because most of your posts are either complaining about the scampi portions in the Gunn club, or requesting that a stinking rich Chinese investor buys the club.

Do you realise that Chinese investors are probably very partial to prawns, so there is a consistency of thought here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Do you realise that Chinese investors are probably very partial to prawns, so there is a consistency of thought here.

Farmed prawns are as destructive  to environment  and to the people that lived where the farms are situated as slash and burn policy in the rainforest...not nice and not pretty. But you are what you eat ...eh Freddo.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Bill's mind , I was just replying to myself. 

I'm not as bright as him so I hadn't realised me = VW = RTB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, All the Germans said:

No, no, no, we're getting relegated after a poor season, so that means a viable investment opportunity that was offered and benefitted all is now looked back upon as the owners going cap in hands and if the fans hadn't bailed the board out, we've have lost cateogry 1 status / got relegated / gone into administration (delete as necessary to the point that is trying to be made) ... Get with the times.

Damn I forgot! How silly of me!

I dont get how "certain" posters are determined to make everything a negative when it quite clearly isnt. Also, if you're one of the "certain" posters that doesnt cope well without having something to moan about, you've got enough to play with re recruitment this season, defending etc that you dont need to make up other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have a full house on this thread and i cannot think of anybody who has failed to turn up.

Share this post


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

1) Delia and Michael pass on their majority shareholding to Tom;
2) There is no further external investment;
3) Webber and Farke both leave;
4) We fail to return to the Premier League;
5) The Academy does not continue to produce saleable assets of the same quality/at the same rate.

If, in three years' time, all of those five variables are true, the club could be in a genuinely parlous state (and that's before we even consider the general state of football post-coronavirus).

So that is the supposed doomesday scenario where everything goes wrong. 

But then the opposites are just as likely -

1) Tom takes over and things carry on doing well, then that is a good thing.

2)  There is no external development and yet we still carry on playing attractive football that defies the "we must have money"logic - then that is a good thing 

3)  Webber and Farke leave and we get in like minded souls that  adhere to the same ideas, ethos and style of football - also a good thing

4)  We stay in the championship for five years, but are are known for our attractive football, always competitive and challenging near the top.

5) We are an attractive club that young players look at as a good career move and if we carry on the same policies as being pursued now, then there should be no issue here either.

Parlous? Naahhhh - it all depends on how you look at it.  You gave both sides of the picture in your post, I know, but the bottom line is that people will draw their own negative conclusions based on what they think now and there doesn't seem much that will change their minds.  Delia has no money to invest, Tom will have no money to invest, so for those people the club is being held back.

But I would ask them so how did we get to the PL in the first place? Was it a fluke, was Farke lucky?  Was Pukki a lucky buy?  was Leitner a lucky buy?  Was Vrancic a lucky buy?  Is it lucky Maddison, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell, Godfrey, Idah, all made it to the first team nder Farke?  Of course not - it was a joint effort from all the people in place at the club - and that is how it will contnue. The plan is clear, all that has to be done is to make sure it keeps to it's path, whoever comes in on the management side or playing side.

I cannot understand one iota why some fans that are so "anti" and how they hanker after money.  What is their gripe?  What is it in their make up that makes them unable to see something as plain as the nose on their faces - that the plan in place is the best one for the club.  Yes, there are risks, football is a risky venture and there are no guarantees - so why would getting loads a money in from a new owner be any better than what we've got - it would still be risky, there would still be no guarantees - and there would be the risk of not having any more success at getting out of the championship and the waste of millions of pounds on expensive players and not get anywhere. There are plenty of clubs with money sloshing around that can't get near the PL, yet we continue to get there on several different occasions now.

Waah! I hear...."we want to get there and stay there".......ok.......Fulham and Villa........how much money spent, how much success at staying there - and unfortunately for the antis, whose only message is "get more money"...........well the news is..........

........it don't work like that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Although naturally your taken on this situation is more negative than mine, in essence most of what you say is true; it's just framed with despondency rather than optimism. I know it's the hope that kills you, and all that, but I think the point I'm trying to make is that I believe we're doing a great job considering our means.

Take a quick look at this article from October 2017: https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/listed-owners-every-championship-club-13778193. There is not a single owner of a Championship club with a lower listed net worth than NCFC. Of the few without a listed net worth, only Burton Albion and Bolton might possibly have less wealthy owners than ours. Even Barnsley were taken over by a huge consortium shortly after this was published.

So, we've established that we're cash poor. However, even with a wealthier owner to underwrite those difficult periods, how much financial clout would that realistically give us? There are probably only about 15 or 20 clubs in the world that have the sheer size and money to insulate themselves against having to cash in on their best assets. Of course there's a food chain, and they can prey on clubs further down that chain, but almost all clubs are selling clubs.

Even clubs with billionaire owners - such as QPR, West Brom, Fulham and Stoke - have to mitigate against FFP, and ensure they don't overcommit in an effort to reach the big time. We've been over the permutations of new investment over and over again, and that's not what I wish to discuss here. What I want to discuss is how we're doing based on what we actually have, rather than what we feel we should or could have.

I am often perceived as some sort of 'happy clapper' on here, but the reality is that I have been very critical of Delia and Michael in the past (2006 to 2009 being particularly awful), and I have reservations about the long-term prosperity of the club under Tom Smith. What Tom does not - and will not - have is the huge amount of goodwill afforded to Delia and Michael for what they've done for our club over almost a quarter of a century. I know there are some people who don't rate them, and even some who actively dislike them; but, ultimately, the majority of our fans are at least appreciative of their long service.

Bringing in the club's first ever foreign manager and first ever two-tier management structure was a bold move on their part. Considering our position in the financial food chain, do you not think that we've overperformed against our means over the last three years? For the entirety of that first season under Farke, there was an awful lot of negativity (some of which was justified) about the style of football, and the overall direction of the club under owners with such limited finances.

Relegation sucks. Relegation by finishing bottom by a mile with what appears to be a limp surrender sucks even harder. Nobody likes it, and I don't think even the most partisan advocates of the Webber/Farke axis could tell us that they believed we did the best we could in terms of both recruitment and performance this season.

But what do we do? There's no investment incoming, other than the parachute payments and player sales. Is there really a better option than allowing our management duo to continue with what they've started and unearthing more good Championship players? The plan was always to try to establish ourselves as a Premier League club without overstretching ourselves financially; that doesn't happen overnight even with a ton of money (unless you're Wolves).

Well done if you're still reading, Teemu; this is where I start to weave everything back into your previous post. You said that with this plan we "essentially accept our existing average level". I would argue that given our financial position, our average level of being a yo-yo club (average league position 20.8 over the last ten seasons) is pretty good. I can't think of any other clubs with similarly limited means who are anywhere near that level.

So, what I'm saying is that of course there's a plan. There are many aspects of this plan that we've not discussed here, but it exists, and I believe it's going relatively well considering our means. Therefore, I think your main issue is not with the plan, or even with Webber and Farke (despite their shortcomings), but with the ownership of the club.

I'm not going to start backing Delia and Michael to the hilt and accuse you of being an apostate; I share your concerns. In particular, I have grave concerns of what could happen in two or three years if all of these variables come to pass:

1) Delia and Michael pass on their majority shareholding to Tom;
2) There is no further external investment;
3) Webber and Farke both leave;
4) We fail to return to the Premier League;
5) The Academy does not continue to produce saleable assets of the same quality/at the same rate.

If, in three years' time, all of those five variables are true, the club could be in a genuinely parlous state (and that's before we even consider the general state of football post-coronavirus).

The main point that I wish to make is that I believe the 'project' - if you are prepared to acknowledge its existence 🙂 - is designed to adequately insulate the club as far as possible against the worst consequences of the variables presented above. The dangers of overstretching the finances are even starker when you consider the current global situation. You could say that this is the reason we need new investment, but when we consider potential investors in the current climate, whose stock is genuinely rising, and who is on the brink of collapse?

It's a vital crossroads in the future of our club, and to be genuinely financially sustainable is more valuable to us now than it's ever been. That's why I believe in this project, and why I think fans in general should try to get behind it. That doesn't mean it should be followed blithely like some kind of personality cult. It doesn't mean that those at the helm shouldn't be questioned. But it does mean that, as fans, we should appreciate more than ever that we still have a club to support and it doesn't have a long list of debtors waiting at the door.

OTBC.

Brilliant article there. Hit the nail on the head. I share them exact concerns in a few years time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think we have a full house on this thread and i cannot think of anybody who has failed to turn up.

What a good original post, eh 🤣🤔😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

So that is the supposed doomesday scenario where everything goes wrong. 

But then the opposites are just as likely -

1) Tom takes over and things carry on doing well, then that is a good thing.

2)  There is no external development and yet we still carry on playing attractive football that defies the "we must have money"logic - then that is a good thing 

3)  Webber and Farke leave and we get in like minded souls that  adhere to the same ideas, ethos and style of football - also a good thing

4)  We stay in the championship for five years, but are are known for our attractive football, always competitive and challenging near the top.

5) We are an attractive club that young players look at as a good career move and if we carry on the same policies as being pursued now, then there should be no issue here either.

Parlous? Naahhhh - it all depends on how you look at it.  You gave both sides of the picture in your post, I know, but the bottom line is that people will draw their own negative conclusions based on what they think now and there doesn't seem much that will change their minds.  Delia has no money to invest, Tom will have no money to invest, so for those people the club is being held back.

But I would ask them so how did we get to the PL in the first place? Was it a fluke, was Farke lucky?  Was Pukki a lucky buy?  was Leitner a lucky buy?  Was Vrancic a lucky buy?  Is it lucky Maddison, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell, Godfrey, Idah, all made it to the first team nder Farke?  Of course not - it was a joint effort from all the people in place at the club - and that is how it will contnue. The plan is clear, all that has to be done is to make sure it keeps to it's path, whoever comes in on the management side or playing side.

I cannot understand one iota why some fans that are so "anti" and how they hanker after money.  What is their gripe?  What is it in their make up that makes them unable to see something as plain as the nose on their faces - that the plan in place is the best one for the club.  Yes, there are risks, football is a risky venture and there are no guarantees - so why would getting loads a money in from a new owner be any better than what we've got - it would still be risky, there would still be no guarantees - and there would be the risk of not having any more success at getting out of the championship and the waste of millions of pounds on expensive players and not get anywhere. There are plenty of clubs with money sloshing around that can't get near the PL, yet we continue to get there on several different occasions now.

Waah! I hear...."we want to get there and stay there".......ok.......Fulham and Villa........how much money spent, how much success at staying there - and unfortunately for the antis, whose only message is "get more money"...........well the news is..........

........it don't work like that.

Fulham and Villa didn’t work it well, but Wolves and Sheffield Utd most certainly did. Wouldn’t you like to see our current team given a chance to spend some money?

Share this post


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

I think we have a full house on this thread and i cannot think of anybody who has failed to turn up.

Including yourself obviously 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Including yourself obviously 

Just need a shout for the banned one to return. 

Share this post


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

So that is the supposed doomesday scenario where everything goes wrong. 

But then the opposites are just as likely -

1) Tom takes over and things carry on doing well, then that is a good thing.

2)  There is no external development and yet we still carry on playing attractive football that defies the "we must have money"logic - then that is a good thing 

3)  Webber and Farke leave and we get in like minded souls that  adhere to the same ideas, ethos and style of football - also a good thing

4)  We stay in the championship for five years, but are are known for our attractive football, always competitive and challenging near the top.

5) We are an attractive club that young players look at as a good career move and if we carry on the same policies as being pursued now, then there should be no issue here either.

Parlous? Naahhhh - it all depends on how you look at it.  You gave both sides of the picture in your post, I know, but the bottom line is that people will draw their own negative conclusions based on what they think now and there doesn't seem much that will change their minds.  Delia has no money to invest, Tom will have no money to invest, so for those people the club is being held back.

But I would ask them so how did we get to the PL in the first place? Was it a fluke, was Farke lucky?  Was Pukki a lucky buy?  was Leitner a lucky buy?  Was Vrancic a lucky buy?  Is it lucky Maddison, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell, Godfrey, Idah, all made it to the first team nder Farke?  Of course not - it was a joint effort from all the people in place at the club - and that is how it will contnue. The plan is clear, all that has to be done is to make sure it keeps to it's path, whoever comes in on the management side or playing side.

I cannot understand one iota why some fans that are so "anti" and how they hanker after money.  What is their gripe?  What is it in their make up that makes them unable to see something as plain as the nose on their faces - that the plan in place is the best one for the club.  Yes, there are risks, football is a risky venture and there are no guarantees - so why would getting loads a money in from a new owner be any better than what we've got - it would still be risky, there would still be no guarantees - and there would be the risk of not having any more success at getting out of the championship and the waste of millions of pounds on expensive players and not get anywhere. There are plenty of clubs with money sloshing around that can't get near the PL, yet we continue to get there on several different occasions now.

Waah! I hear...."we want to get there and stay there".......ok.......Fulham and Villa........how much money spent, how much success at staying there - and unfortunately for the antis, whose only message is "get more money"...........well the news is..........

........it don't work like that.

Sorry to just pick one single sentence of your response, but I'm sure there are plenty of fans who can't see why you are so ceaselessly positive about absolutely everything! I'm much closer to your perspective than theirs, but it is worth considering how things could go wrong, precisely to mitigate against them.

We're doing things absolutely the right way, but we must still accept that there really isn't much margin for error for this to be successful. And investment could actually be more damaging than no investment if we back the wrong horse.

I am still confident that Webber/Farke's track record with finding bargains who are good enough for the Championship, and elevating talented youngsters into the first team, will see us being successful next season. But it's precisely because I place so much stock in that duo that I have concerns about what the landscape might look like after they leave - particularly if Tom is our majority shareholder. Who knows, Tom might turn out to be brilliant - but he certainly won't have as much 'wiggle room' as auntie and uncle have been afforded.

Being guardedly positive about the future doesn't mean we should blind ourselves to potential pitfalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Including yourself obviously 

You always have to have your say don’t you Spidy 

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...