Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yellow_belly

Just looked at Norwich City Facebook

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I do admire your fortitude Purple. But none of it will alter the basic facts that if we fail it's because of Delia and if we succeed it's inspite of Delia.

I don't think Teemu Van Jugster ever said but does anyone know when Delia defunded the academy?

1996 when she got Gordon Bennett to close it down thanks to Chase.

Share this post


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

1996 when she got Gordon Bennett to close it down thanks to Chase.

So it wasn't Geoffrey Watling who got Gordon Bennett to close it down and it really was Delia who saved the club in 1996?

Share this post


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

So it wasn't Geoffrey Watling who got Gordon Bennett to close it down and it really was Delia who saved the club in 1996?

Depends what you call saving the club i suppose. Surely not closing down our academy ?

Share this post


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

Do you really want them bugging your scampi ? 😀

I think if Waveney resorted to eating bugs it would do wonders for his physique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Depends what you call saving the club i suppose. Surely not closing down our academy ?

Yes that's the predicament. The negative has to be Delia. The positive mustn't be Delia.

Of course you're right, it was Geoffrey Watling who saved the club. But was at that same time that Gordon Bennett defunded the academy. It had already happened when Delia joined the board and the whole thing happened a good 18 months before Watling sold her his shares.

Edited by nutty nigel

Share this post


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

Yes that's the predicament. The negative has to be Delia. The positive mustn't be Delia.

Of course you're right, it was Geoffrey Watling who saved the club. But was at that same time that Gordon Bennett defunded the academy. It had already happened when Delia joined the board and the whole thing was another 18 months before Watling sold her his shares.

So much knowledge and yet you still cannot tell us how much Watling walleted. 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the real truth is Chase defunded the academy himself when he had no money left and the banks came calling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That summer FONCY came into being and was the first of many community initiatives that raised money for the academy. This has now been rebranded as a begging bowl. However FONCY were awesome and I was proud to be associated with them in such a small way. It's always good to give these guys a plug...

Norwich City writer David Cuffley looks back on the group’s work

Every penny counted in the grim days at Carrow Road that saw the formation of the Friends of Norwich City Youth.

In the summer of 1996, the Canaries were between £5m and £8m in debt. Less than three years after playing in Europe for the first time, famously beating Bayern Munich in the Olympic Stadium, City had come within a whisker of going out of business.

Departing chairman Robert Chase sold his 34 per cent shareholding in the club to president and former chairman Geoffrey Watling, and new chief executive Gordon Bennett began to get to grips with a financial crisis in which one club official said City “had the expenditure of Inter Milan and the income of Southend”.

Debt repayments were re-negotiated to enable City to keep trading and begin the slow process of recovery, but with the club’s youth set-up feeling the pinch, it was Bennett’s idea to tap into supporters’ goodwill to help the academy.

Foncy was born and raised nearly £12,000 in the first year. The £100,000 mark was passed in 2001 and the £250,000 barrier was smashed in 2006. The final figure topped £363,000.

Foncy chairman John Landamore summed up the support they received when he said: “I can’t praise the fans enough. Right from the word go, they took Foncy to their hearts. They knew how important the academy was to the football club and what we were trying to do. Delia Smith said they were the best football supporters in the world and she was 100 per cent right.

“Other supporters groups, like Capital Canaries, have backed us with big donations over the years. We even had two of our supporters who died and at the funeral the request was no flowers, but donations to Foncy. So you’re a supporter of the club all your life and beyond. It’s quite amazing.”

Share this post


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

That summer FONCY came into being and was the first of many community initiatives that raised money for the academy. This has now been rebranded as a begging bowl. However FONCY were awesome and I was proud to be associated with them in such a small way. It's always good to give these guys a plug...

Norwich City writer David Cuffley looks back on the group’s work

Every penny counted in the grim days at Carrow Road that saw the formation of the Friends of Norwich City Youth.

In the summer of 1996, the Canaries were between £5m and £8m in debt. Less than three years after playing in Europe for the first time, famously beating Bayern Munich in the Olympic Stadium, City had come within a whisker of going out of business.

Departing chairman Robert Chase sold his 34 per cent shareholding in the club to president and former chairman Geoffrey Watling, and new chief executive Gordon Bennett began to get to grips with a financial crisis in which one club official said City “had the expenditure of Inter Milan and the income of Southend”.

Debt repayments were re-negotiated to enable City to keep trading and begin the slow process of recovery, but with the club’s youth set-up feeling the pinch, it was Bennett’s idea to tap into supporters’ goodwill to help the academy.

Foncy was born and raised nearly £12,000 in the first year. The £100,000 mark was passed in 2001 and the £250,000 barrier was smashed in 2006. The final figure topped £363,000.

Foncy chairman John Landamore summed up the support they received when he said: “I can’t praise the fans enough. Right from the word go, they took Foncy to their hearts. They knew how important the academy was to the football club and what we were trying to do. Delia Smith said they were the best football supporters in the world and she was 100 per cent right.

“Other supporters groups, like Capital Canaries, have backed us with big donations over the years. We even had two of our supporters who died and at the funeral the request was no flowers, but donations to Foncy. So you’re a supporter of the club all your life and beyond. It’s quite amazing.”

Thanks for that, Eddie; good to know!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No mention there Nutty that NCISA handed over £50,000 during their years in sponsorship and donations to the Academy.

Share this post


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

No mention there Nutty that NCISA handed over £50,000 during their years in sponsorship and donations to the Academy.

Nutty in economical with the truth shocker! 😊 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

No mention there Nutty that NCISA handed over £50,000 during their years in sponsorship and donations to the Academy.

You'll have to take that up with David Cuffley. 

I'm sure Roy's NCISA would have been in with later "begging bowls" including the bond scheme.

I love that the community always rally round and have done ever since big fat Bob was chased out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW...

Is there anyone on here who'd like to show me where I've been economical with the truth?

This whole thread is full of such behaviour. Not on my posts. The truth is important to me on and off the internet.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Bumped for Teemu/Le Juge

23 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

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?

Here's a grab from the FA handbook as the rules existed pre-2012 or 2013 when it changed for Cat 1 academies. 

A club was permitted to apply to have a satellite academy if certain requirements were met. That's what made Southampton eligible for one, and that's what made Norwich eligible for one, and Newcastle had one too. Quite a few sides had one after being granted permission. 

aaaa.JPG.1af4f9a9df41c43b1f9fa258b151d436.JPG

So no, the rules never said we couldn't have a satellite in Bristol. And no, they never said Southampton couldn't have one in Bath. But it did say that each club would need to apply to have them (special dispensation), and in both cases justified because of the catchment area being affected by being largely in the sea. 

Not sure where you were really going with this post (which you were proud enough to bump), but I'd suggest its gone nowhere.

Your observation that Bath is 60 miles from Southampton is completely irrelevant, no mention of distance in the rules and Hatfield is not within 90 minutes of Norwich, if you want to anoint yourself the resident expert on academy football then perhaps you can attempt to explain the relevance of this with the regulations in mind? 

The regulations also meant that we could not have both Hatfield and Bristol simultaneously. Therefore, whether it was Watling or Smith who signed off on closing Bristol.... it remains the case that the decision was made at a later stage by somebody to base the one satellite academy that the FA agreed to grant us in Hatfield. Perhaps we could get a year on this opening, I'm not 100% sure on that. Hatfield could not have existed with Bristol open. 

It was an odd place to opt to place a satellite, in the catchment area of giants of the game like Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham and Tottenham. We found Lansbury, then Arsenal just pinched him. Cardiff, Bristol Rovers, and Bristol City would find it much more difficult to pinch any gems we found in Western-Super-Mare. That's how we ended up with talent like Eadie and Bellamy. 

We quite possibly swapped Gareth Bale for Korey Smith when we decided that our satellite academy should be located just north of London instead of in the South West, where it was really productive. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

Nutty in economical with the truth shocker! 😊 

How was he? He pasted an article - he didnt write the thing!

Share this post


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

Here's a grab from the FA handbook as the rules existed pre-2012 or 2013 when it changed for Cat 1 academies. 

A club was permitted to apply to have a satellite academy if certain requirements were met. That's what made Southampton eligible for one, and that's what made Norwich eligible for one, and Newcastle had one too. Quite a few sides had one after being granted permission. 

aaaa.JPG.1af4f9a9df41c43b1f9fa258b151d436.JPG

So no, the rules never said we couldn't have a satellite in Bristol. And no, they never said Southampton couldn't have one in Bath. But it did say that each club would need to apply to have them (special dispensation), and in both cases justified because of the catchment area being affected by being largely in the sea. 

Not sure where you were really going with this post (which you were proud enough to bump), but I'd suggest its gone nowhere.

Your observation that Bath is 60 miles from Southampton is completely irrelevant, no mention of distance in the rules and Hatfield is not within 90 minutes of Norwich, if you want to anoint yourself the resident expert on academy football then perhaps you can attempt to explain the relevance of this with the regulations in mind? 

The regulations also meant that we could not have both Hatfield and Bristol simultaneously. Therefore, whether it was Watling or Smith who signed off on closing Bristol.... it remains the case that the decision was made at a later stage by somebody to base the one satellite academy that the FA agreed to grant us in Hatfield. Perhaps we could get a year on this opening, I'm not 100% sure on that. Hatfield could not have existed with Bristol open. 

It was an odd place to opt to place a satellite, in the catchment area of giants of the game like Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal, West Ham and Tottenham. We found Lansbury, then Arsenal just pinched him. Cardiff, Bristol Rovers, and Bristol City would find it much more difficult to pinch any gems we found in Western-Super-Mare. That's how we ended up with talent like Eadie and Bellamy. 

We quite possibly swapped Gareth Bale for Korey Smith when we decided that our satellite academy should be located just north of London instead of in the South West, where it was really productive. 

I didn't say we couldn't have a satellite in Bristol. You're the one who seems to know about that. I just asked you what this special dispensation allowed Southampton to do. You still haven't really told me. Just seem to have copied and pasted some FA rules which you say were pre 2012. Maybe they were pre 1997 too? But I don't believe our youth development scheme was totally shut down in 1996 because of FA rules on travelling time.

I did ask you what the dispensation allowed Southampton to do and I'm still interested to find out. I'd also be interested to know the same about Newcastle and where their satellite was.

As for the partnership with with the University of Hertfordshire at Hatfield I don't remember much about it prior to the mid 2000s. But I do remember Potters Bar Centre of Excellence before that.

As for Watling or Smith I don't think you can blame either. It was Chase. And it happened before Martin Armstrong even asked Smith & Jones about a loan so obviously before they later joined the board and still some 18 months later brought the majority share.

Indeed, by the first week of May, Chase had gone. "Probably the only reason that the club is still in existence is the fact that Mr Watling bought those shares and put up seven-figure guarantees at the bank," added Bennett, as Geoffrey Watling's crucial purchase of Chase's shareholding kept the wolves from the door. A club that, in the words of one senior official "had the income of a Southend and the expenditure of Real Madrid" had been saved. Just.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2020 at 09:34, yellow_belly said:

It seems that a lot of fans agree with me (this is not good enough) and very few agree with happy clappers.

 

perhaps it is worth a read for the ‘blind’ 

 

The NCFC Facebook page is complete hell. 

Avoid, unless you wish to be staggered by the lack of brain power utilised by some. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BobLoz3 said:

The NCFC Facebook page is complete hell. 

Avoid, unless you wish to be staggered by the lack of brain power utilised by some. 

I take it you're a regular on there, then? 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2020 at 19:51, 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.

It worked out well yes and wasn't a bad idea in the circumstances but lets not pretend it was anything other than the owners finding a way for supporters to fund something needed (and which I would add has probably added significant value to their asset again) that they themselves could not afford or were not prepared to fund.

Its a complete red herring in terms of the wider debate around whether the ownership model enables the club to compete in the premier league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/07/2020 at 22:31, Feedthewolf said:

I'd be interested to know how the project came about. Was it the existing BOD who identified the need for that specific structure, or was it that they were in a right old pickle after the Moxey debacle, and Webber sold the structure to them? I guess nobody really knows, but it was an incredibly profound change of style from an obnoxious old boot like Moxey to a forward-thinking young firebrand like Webber.

Can you (or anyone else) remember what S&J said publicly after Moxey left and before Webber arrived? Did they talk about the need for a sporting director model, or did Webber sell it to them? It's an interesting turn of events - Moxey leaves in February, Neil is sacked in March (Smith/Jones/Balls being the executive board members, and who else?), Webber is appointed in April (with Irvine in temporary charge), then Farke arrives in June. I could do with a memory refresh concerning what we know about that period!

I've criticised him on here for some of the shambolic stuff around the appointment of Moxey and the tidy sum he pocketed for a couple of months work (some of which cost us quite a lot in compensation payments) but to give credit where its due I think the move to the sporting director model was Ed Balls idea in the wake of Neil's departure.

Other than that i'm not quite sure that the "project" or "5 year plan" that people refer to actually officially exists. We have implemented a model of working and it may take some time to be fully established but I am not sure that there is a "project" as such.

Share this post


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

It worked out well yes and wasn't a bad idea in the circumstances but lets not pretend it was anything other than the owners finding a way for supporters to fund something needed (and which I would add has probably added significant value to their asset again) that they themselves could not afford or were not prepared to fund.

Its a complete red herring in terms of the wider debate around whether the ownership model enables the club to compete in the premier league.

It was a fantastic idea. Where was the downside? IF there's not been a downside whatsoever then I tend to think it's a bit better than 'not a bad idea'.

Be fair.

Share this post


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

I've criticised him on here for some of the shambolic stuff around the appointment of Moxey and the tidy sum he pocketed for a couple of months work (some of which cost us quite a lot in compensation payments) but to give credit where its due I think the move to the sporting director model was Ed Balls idea in the wake of Neil's departure.

Other than that i'm not quite sure that the "project" or "5 year plan" that people refer to actually officially exists. We have implemented a model of working and it may take some time to be fully established but I am not sure that there is a "project" as such.

A bit of Googling led me to this thread from January, which is quite instructive: 

I think many people, myself included, may have conflated the "five year" aspect of the plan with the one McNally laid out prior to Webber's arrival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

A bit of Googling led me to this thread from January, which is quite instructive: 

I think many people, myself included, may have conflated the "five year" aspect of the plan with the one McNally laid out prior to Webber's arrival.

Indeed. The two are not the same. Apart from anything else Webber envisages himself being replaced by another sporting director (based on his recommendation) when he leaves, which by definition take the project (or plan - I don't see any difference) beyond five years.

The working assumption is that we will continue to have to exist self-sufficiently and so that we willl continue to have a sporting director and a head coach, because as I understand it that management system is seen not just as the best generally, but certainly the best to make self-sufficiency work.

It is more organic and less likely to result in expensive u-turns than the old system of having a manager whose departure will almost certainly mean yet another squad upheaval.

Of course if those many posters who rather than just whingeing here are already contacting wealthy potential owners manage to strike gold somewhere in Asia🇨🇳 then self-sufficiency would presumably be scrapped...🤓

Share this post


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

Indeed. The two are not the same. Apart from anything else Webber envisages himself being replaced by another sporting director (based on his recommendation) when he leaves, which by definition take the project (or plan - I don't see any difference) beyond five years.

The working assumption is that we will continue to have to exist self-sufficiently and so that we willl continue to have a sporting director and a head coach, because as I understand it that management system is seen not just as the best generally, but certainly the best to make self-sufficiency work.

It is more organic and less likely to result in expensive u-turns than the old system of having a manager whose departure will almost certainly mean yet another squad upheaval.

Of course if those many posters who rather than just whingeing here are already contacting wealthy potential owners manage to strike gold somewhere in Asia🇨🇳 then self-sufficiency would presumably be scrapped...🤓

Out of reactions for today, but a big old thumbs up to you, Purple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BobLoz3 said:

The NCFC Facebook page is complete hell. 

Avoid, unless you wish to be staggered by the lack of brain power utilised by some. 

ebay keep sending me reminders to say how happy I am with things I've bought. I seldom bother, because I'm happy with them.

People generally happy with the status quo tend to keep shtum. The rest complain, these days on social media.

It's why Carrow Road gets (used to get) sold out. And why the Tories win General Elections.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ron obvious said:

ebay keep sending me reminders to say how happy I am with things I've bought. I seldom bother, because I'm happy with them.

People generally happy with the status quo tend to keep shtum. The rest complain, these days on social media.

It's why Carrow Road gets (used to get) sold out. And why the Tories win General Elections.

Succinctly put Ronno, what advice do( or should)people give to their kids. . If you dont like something , whine on the internet? Or if you dont like something, do something about it?  

Its relatively free country  so , if people  can get themselves away from their screens they may achieve something.  Get a campaign  going , march, sing, cry, wail , petition. .anything. 

So kids, get active , its much more rewarding  than just complaining. Probably  less frustrating  too 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, ron obvious said:

ebay keep sending me reminders to say how happy I am with things I've bought. I seldom bother, because I'm happy with them.

People generally happy with the status quo tend to keep shtum. The rest complain, these days on social media.

It's why Carrow Road gets (used to get) sold out. And why the Tories win General Elections.

Agree with the sentiment about the complaners, but Tories winning general elections is more about sheep going baa than people being happy with them.

Share this post


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

Agree with the sentiment about the complaners, but Tories winning general elections is more about sheep going baa than people being happy with them.

It's being happy with the status quo rather than any alternative on offer.

And please don't assume the general population is as thick as sheep unlike me & my oh-so-clever mates.

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...