Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Yeah - because millionaires/billionaires got what they are by slinking away the first time they hit an obstacle. 

That's a sweeping generalisation and no excuse to keep the status quo. The club has to be open minded about investment as the game is running away from them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Before we kicked a ball this season I stated my firm belief that we hadn’t learnt any lessons. Our midfield still lacked physicality, we were signing small young players with an eye on future sales rather than making a proper fist of it, and we lacked proven goal scorers beyond an ageing Pukki at this level. I was loudly attacked for being a moaner. 
 

fast forward and everything I predicted has come to pass. But instead of saying / fair enough you had a point / I STILL get attacked for being a moaner/negative!! 
 

So my question is - am I meant to cheer our worst ever start to a season and rejoice in it? Am I meant to delight in having spent a fortune on new players who don’t even get picked come October because they don’t fit the system we are playing.  Or is there a point where criticism of the board is reasonable and, if so, when is that? 

Why have you titled your thread the way you have?............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think quite a few can answer that question. Mine would include swear words though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, komakino said:

More likely C. Millionaire/billionaire doesn't bother making an offer that they would do otherwise as they know it will get rebuffed due to Delia & MWJ's previous comments. 

I dont know how many millionaires you know but if they want something they don't tend to just go away quietly. There's a reason they're so wealthy in the first place.

Share this post


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

We desperately needed another thread revelling in our "worst ever start".

Have you considered therapy? 

It is his therapy,  might need to try something  else  other than repeating negative  mantras if he wants a positive outcome though. 

Just sayin🧘‍♂️🕉 Ommmmm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Possibly some truth in those statements  @Son Ova Gunn but maybe there is another category - who is a realist?

Most on here wouldn't want a dodgy ownership but want to belong to a real community club with the kind of values associated with it yet also realise it's more complicated and difficult to attain a seat at the top table with such a set up. You either support the attempt at doing so (not necessarily whole heartedly but at least you 'support') or become embittered.

Ultimately it all boils down to results as to our short term views. But there are many other pleasures in supporting a club like ours over a lifetime. Taking a much longer term view there has been so much value in being a Norwich City supporter these last 50 years. Maybe even a top ten ride of all clubs that are in the top two divisions? We've had a lot to feel grateful for.

As ever, it's about perspective I think.

A pessimist complains about the wind

A optimist expects it to change

A realist adjusts the sails

 

maybe both camps could do with a few more realists 🙂 . I do agree that following NCFC is far more interesting than 90% of other clubs over a longer term

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Before we kicked a ball this season I stated my firm belief that we hadn’t learnt any lessons. Our midfield still lacked physicality, we were signing small young players with an eye on future sales rather than making a proper fist of it, and we lacked proven goal scorers beyond an ageing Pukki at this level. I was loudly attacked for being a moaner. 
 

fast forward and everything I predicted has come to pass. But instead of saying / fair enough you had a point / I STILL get attacked for being a moaner/negative!! 
 

So my question is - am I meant to cheer our worst ever start to a season and rejoice in it? Am I meant to delight in having spent a fortune on new players who don’t even get picked come October because they don’t fit the system we are playing.  Or is there a point where criticism of the board is reasonable and, if so, when is that? 

I think you're allowed an opinion like anyone else is, and you've raised some good points before. I was a "clapper" before but as you've rightly pointed out, we've learned the lessons far too late into this season. Which is a bit bizarre given the pasting Farke received when we got relegated last time. 

Share this post


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

Nobody fought to get Robert Chase out to get relegated and nobody was happy being in the second tier. We no longer - for some no longer - have the aspiration for the top tier and it is of no co-incidence that the majority shareholders are less than savoury for it. I'm not a yo-yo-ist and the EPL will cut the strings sooner or later. 

The EPL has got richer, but it was always going to. That's why it was created. I never wanted Chase replaced by amateurs, I wanted the club to be taken to the next level or at least to keep up with the EPL. But it didn't happen. 

Chase was so professional in the way he ran the club it got far closer to administration than ever it has under the supposed amateurs Smith and Jones.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Oh come on - of course we would have known!  Some mega rich millionaire/billionaire who really wants to buy the club approaches Delia and Michael. Delia and Michael knock them back.

What to do you think happens next?

A. Millionaire/billionaire disappears without a sound.

B. Millionaire/billionaire lets every media outlet and Norwich City fan group they have made an offer for the club and been rebuffed.

 

Of course that is true in terms of approaches that don't turn into formal offers. No one who was serious about buying the club and had a good proposal would be put off by a rebuff from the owners. They would go public and if it really was a good proposal they would win out. Smith and Jones would not be able to stand in the way. And as a matter of hard fact there have been no formal offers since the company became a PLC in around 2000,.

Share this post


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

Chase was so professional in the way he ran the club it got far closer to administration than ever it has under the supposed amateurs Smith and Jones.

They both sailed close to the wind to be fair. However, Smith & Jones were like turning up to a party without a bottle. 

Circumnavigating the rules to claim over 50% ownership always grates with me a bit and I often wonder what would have happened if had her requested second seat been knocked back? 

It's nothing personal to them, but purely from a Norwich City perspective I've always found them totally superfluous. 

Share this post


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

Of course that is true in terms of approaches that don't turn into formal offers. No one who was serious about buying the club and had a good proposal would be put off by a rebuff from the owners. They would go public and if it really was a good proposal they would win out. Smith and Jones would not be able to stand in the way. And as a matter of hard fact there have been no formal offers since the company became a PLC in around 2000,.

A quarter of a century under the same owners and just one half hearted approach is odd thought isn’t it? Especially when you consider the highs and lows over that period, one bad Maddison injury away from administration, league one, both opportunities for buyers to get a good price, amazing fan base, debt free. It’s like standing against the wall at a school disco while the girls dance with all the other boys wondering why not me…. apparently, I wouldn’t know about that.

Share this post


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

They both sailed close to the wind to be fair. However, Smith & Jones were like turning up to a party without a bottle. 

Circumnavigating the rules to claim over 50% ownership always grates with me a bit and I often wonder what would have happened if had her requested second seat been knocked back? 

It's nothing personal to them, but purely from a Norwich City perspective I've always found them totally superfluous. 

The second seat did not take them to more than 50 per cent. That happened quite later on when they took up the slack from share offers that were not fully subscribed.

Share this post


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

That's a sweeping generalisation and no excuse to keep the status quo. The club has to be open minded about investment as the game is running away from them. 

I don't disagree that the club should be open minded about investment, but you've got the status quo until somebody comes along who is prepared to buy their shares from them - that's just a fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

A quarter of a century under the same owners and just one half hearted approach is odd thought isn’t it? Especially when you consider the highs and lows over that period, one bad Maddison injury away from administration, league one, both opportunities for buyers to get a good price, amazing fan base, debt free. It’s like standing against the wall at a school disco while the girls dance with all the other boys wondering why not me…. apparently, I wouldn’t know about that.

It is odd. I suspect offers never got to the 'formal' stage because the owner didn't have grey hair and wore a white cape, or such like. They've made it clear they will 'never sell', which is an ignorant and selfish act.

Football today is about money and has always been about results - we currently have neither. 

Share this post


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

I don't disagree that the club should be open minded about investment, but you've got the status quo until somebody comes along who is prepared to buy their shares from them - that's just a fact!

But why would somebody try to buy NCFC when the majority shareholders have made it very clear that it is not for sale? Surely they would use their energy to buy a club that was a little less hostile? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

A quarter of a century under the same owners and just one half hearted approach is odd thought isn’t it? Especially when you consider the highs and lows over that period, one bad Maddison injury away from administration, league one, both opportunities for buyers to get a good price, amazing fan base, debt free. It’s like standing against the wall at a school disco while the girls dance with all the other boys wondering why not me…. apparently, I wouldn’t know about that.

The trouble is that you're just eyeing up the gorgeous girls who are out of your league sunshine. If you asked some of the girls who are as visually challenged as you to dance you'd probably get a fumble for your troubles. (Think of it as the school disco equivalent of winning the Championship 😉 ) 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, komakino said:

But why would somebody try to buy NCFC when the majority shareholders have made it very clear that it is not for sale? Surely they would use their energy to buy a club that was a little less hostile? 

If a billionaire really wanted  to buy Norwich City they would - simple as. 

Share this post


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

If a billionaire really wanted  to buy Norwich City they would - simple as. 

That isn't how business works. You sound out the business first - either directly or indirectly - but our majority shareholders don't want to sell. It is not as though they are playing hardball to get a better price - a common tactic - Delia & MWJ will 'never sell' and they are passing the club to Tom. It's so depressing it's laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

The trouble is that you're just eyeing up the gorgeous girls who are out of your league sunshine. If you asked some of the girls who are as visually challenged as you to dance you'd probably get a fumble for your troubles. (Think of it as the school disco equivalent of winning the Championship 😉 ) 

🤣, thanks

what about however, if reasonably unattractive boy then goes and gets his braces off, bulks up and manages a six pack, maybe does away with the bowl cut and gets himself a brand new hair do. When the next disco comes around does he not have the right to wish for more than a fumble in the dark with the girl with bad teeth? Should I, sorry, he not desire a dance with someone a bit better?… ok this analogy has probably gone far enough.

Share this post


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

It's nothing personal to them, but purely from a Norwich City perspective I've always found them totally superfluous. 

She is the figurehead of the good ship  Canary  and he is the old buffer wandering around  telling people to  tidy up that rope. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

If a billionaire really wanted  to buy Norwich City they would - simple as. 

If they really wanted Norwich - yes. But if they were looking to buy any team with a reasonable fan base etc…we would miss out to, say, a Newcastle etc…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comparing supporters now to supporters in the 90s is real hypocritical nonsense. The protests were in the ground back then. There was no doubt how the supporters felt. Now the hypocritical Keyboard Kates give it the biggun on here whilst happy clapping in the stadium. 

Practice what you 'preach' oh spineless ones...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back to the ownership issue.....

For what must be the four millionth time of pointing this out; FFP means you cannot just spend your way to success, even with a billionaire owner who fits all the tests and prejudices of the fanbase. The vote today is designed to stop Newcastle bigging up their income with a connected sponsorship deal so even that avenue (used by Man City) is closed (at least temporarily but probably permanently).

If S & J were to sell, our income would still be limited by the ground size and our profile/geographical location. So our transfer outlay and - more pertinently - our salary outlay would still be limited. As long as the current FFP rules are in place the ONLY way we can big up our turnover is by player sales; even if we stay in the EPL our income would struggle to ever reach £200m, most of which goes in salaries - and we still have no chance of paying the Buendia's and Godfrey's of this world the £75k a week that their talent demands. Most other clubs also have big debts to service. If the potential ban on gambling advertising comes in, sponsorship deals will also fall through the floor, so get prepared for the EPL to lobby hard against that.

Our fanbase, and the wider football media simply don't understand FFP. An average loss of £35m (or so) over any 3 year period is all that is allowed. FFP is the reason why clubs like Everton, Villa, Wolves etc spent almost nothing net this year. West Ham will be in the same boat next season - they could sell Rice for £100m like Villa sold Grealish, to give them some leeway. Even Palace had to lose several high earners. Burnley's new owners haven't spent much because they can't yet - Tarkowski to Newcastle for £50m will help them, but they might have to lose McNeill too if they really want to evolve.

Even if we assume that a new owner gives us a net £100m a season to spend, where is the guarantee that will work? Arsenal just spent £170m and have a worse team than they had before they spent anything.

A new owner could spend on a new ground - other teams have done that of course. Think Sunderland, Derby, Bolton, Reading....even Ipswich expanded their ground to a level which they foresaw as realistic - how stupid do they all look now, rattling around in their decaying stadia?

Where we are now (as in, 2 points from 8 games but still in the Premier League last time I looked) is nothing to do with ownership - we brought in too many new players who are not yet good enough when we should have bought 3 or 4 who already were; everyone knew that. But we couldn't afford them (even if we could have persuaded them to sign for us, which is unlikely) and of the ones we could afford one or two will end up being £40m players, even after another relegation season. I don't know if those players will become good enough in time - no one does, not even Webber/Farke. But all this talk of record low points and lowest ever goals etc after less than a quarter of the season has gone is a bit mind numbing.

Farke has been hammered for apparently not having a plan B. Now he gets hammered for not only having one which seems to work, but for moving away from Plan A in the first place.

That crowd on Saturday at the final whistle didn't seem to be too despondent - why are we so negative on here?

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Oh come on - of course we would have known!  Some mega rich millionaire/billionaire who really wants to buy the club approaches Delia and Michael. Delia and Michael knock them back.

What to do you think happens next?

A. Millionaire/billionaire disappears without a sound.

B. Millionaire/billionaire lets every media outlet and Norwich City fan group they have made an offer for the club and been rebuffed.

 

Exactly this. That's how we know there haven't been any decent ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

🤣, thanks

what about however, if reasonably unattractive boy then goes and gets his braces off, bulks up and manages a six pack, maybe does away with the bowl cut and gets himself a brand new hair do. When the next disco comes around does he not have the right to wish for more than a fumble in the dark with the girl with bad teeth? Should I, sorry, he not desire a dance with someone a bit better?… ok this analogy has probably gone far enough.

It’s too late, the girl ended up preggers after the last disco so no more nights out for you-I mean him-until the sprog grows up 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Before we kicked a ball this season I stated my firm belief that we hadn’t learnt any lessons. Our midfield still lacked physicality, we were signing small young players with an eye on future sales rather than making a proper fist of it, and we lacked proven goal scorers beyond an ageing Pukki at this level. I was loudly attacked for being a moaner. 
 

fast forward and everything I predicted has come to pass. But instead of saying / fair enough you had a point / I STILL get attacked for being a moaner/negative!! 
 

So my question is - am I meant to cheer our worst ever start to a season and rejoice in it? Am I meant to delight in having spent a fortune on new players who don’t even get picked come October because they don’t fit the system we are playing.  Or is there a point where criticism of the board is reasonable and, if so, when is that? 

Go grab yourself a medal from the medal draw.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Self sustaining sounds virtuous in a world of shady owners.

Self sustaining  IS virtuous in a world of shady owners.

Just cos the fella down the road has 3 holidays a year and flash car cos he works and signs on, should we all do it too? Is league position  all that matters to you ? I for one am extremely pleased that we are trying to buck the trend,  it is good to know that  given survival or relegation,  the club is not in hock to anyone.  If it works, what an achievement,  but I fail to see the attraction of an icarus like attempt at matching the big boys spending, and given the slow steady growth of all areas of the club the last four years, I can easily wait another four years to see the fruit of the last four.  

I have  planted quite a few trees in the last  40 years, some  good shoite takes time. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

If they really wanted Norwich - yes. But if they were looking to buy any team with a reasonable fan base etc…we would miss out to, say, a Newcastle etc…

If the shares are still worth £100 each it would only take £66 million to buy the club outright with all the shareholders accepting the offer. The new owner would then effectively hold AGMs with himself as the only shareholder in attendance - apart from any other directors appointed who would hold the minimum number of shares in order to serve. Purple is correct. The Suffolk Socialists could not stop a hostile takeover. Given that the value of the club is pretty paltry by today's standards and that it ought to be an attractive proposition given the fan base and being debt-free, the big question therefore remains - why has no such takeover ever been attempted?

I can only assume it revolves around the issue of consent. Other clubs have wanted to find a buyer whereas this one doesn't.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

A pessimist complains about the wind

A optimist expects it to change

A realist adjusts the sails

  1. A realist recognises that most newly promoted clubs to the EPL get relegated. The main exception (but not the only one) are clubs, like Newcastle/ Villa who should never really have been in the Championship (but for financial mismanagement). 
  2. A realist would recognise that Norwich are performing slightly above their historical average.
  3. A realist would acknowledge that "investor owners" who "go for it" fail far more often than they succeed and that the best way to improve is through sustainable growth.
  4. A realist would recognise that there are very few multi-billionaires ready to gift Norwich money and that the current model is probably the best we are likely to have.


 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Self sustaining  IS virtuous in a world of shady owners.

Just cos the fella down the road has 3 holidays a year and flash car cos he works and signs on, should we all do it too? Is league position  all that matters to you ? I for one am extremely pleased that we are trying to buck the trend,  it is good to know that  given survival or relegation,  the club is not in hock to anyone.  If it works, what an achievement,  but I fail to see the attraction of an icarus like attempt at matching the big boys spending, and given the slow steady growth of all areas of the club the last four years, I can easily wait another four years to see the fruit of the last four.  

I have  planted quite a few trees in the last  40 years, some  good shoite takes time. 

But Norwich City are not reaping that fruit - it is exported to other clubs in return for cash to sow more seeds which will grow into fruit to be exported ad infinitum. In other words, the self-funding model. It is good for the Suffolk Socialists retaining control, but doesn't get the club any further up the league ladder and competing for major silverware.

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

×
×
  • Create New...