Simon Jordon on Talk Sport

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

20 minutes ago, astro said:

If you look below us in the league structure you will see plenty of clubs who have, or who have had, supposedly richer owners than our present owners. So how then do you define ‘fit for purpose in the modern era’?

And you will see plenty of richer owners doing much better... is minus 36 goal difference and zero goals scored in December fit for purpose? Or maybe you don't think the performance of the 1st team is relevant to our owners...

[Big Vince 318]

12 hours ago, crab man said:

If you can't pay premier league wages, you unfortunately get peanuts as has shown last time and this time. Delia must go.

Agreed. People on here and on Canary Call keep barking up the wrong tree.

It is not the amount spent on transfer fees, it is the wage structure that is the issue. Norwich City may have spent £60 million on transfers, but they are nowhere near paying the going rate for wages in this league. For that, you need to be at £80-100,000 a week. Norwich don't pay more than £40,000 per week.

For that reason, Norwich City are a Championship club in the Premier League.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Well, I’ve always thought Jordan was a total **** and don’t think I’ll be changing that opinion soon. 

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

I think you'll find that Watford and Burnley have a very low average net spend over a long period of time, and yet don't end up the leagues whipping boys. You can't look at one year in isolation, better to look at average net spend over 5 years or something, and there are quite a few teams who don't really spend more than they receive.

The difference is that we have to keep flogging players to fill black holes because our owners can't tide us over for a year every now and again, and we waste money on vanity projects like Soccer Bots and corporate rebranding. 

That seems about right to me. I am sure there are other clubs who spend what they earn. Equally I am sure they take out short term loans when necessary and don't  have a problem with the money they do get burning a hole in their pocket.

NCFC puts itself in a straight jacket.

[komakino 272]

30 minutes ago, astro said:

If you look below us in the league structure you will see plenty of clubs who have, or who have had, supposedly richer owners than our present owners. So how then do you define ‘fit for purpose in the modern era’?

Having owners/majority shareholders that will not invest or attract outside investment is not and has not been acceptable for long time and not sustainable. They serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever to any club. 

Money doesn't necessarily equal success, but any business that is starved of investment will suffer and we are suffering now and will continue to do so in my opinion. 

Our majority shareholders parochial view of football is shared with some fans and I'm sure some on these boards, but ignoring how football is in the modern era and what is required is simply unacceptable for everyone involved in the club and of course, the hard paying fan. 

I've never been so pessimistic about our future, as our ship is sinking fast with some happy to go out with the tide. 

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

13 minutes ago, komakino said:

Having owners/majority shareholders that will not invest or attract outside investment is not and has not been acceptable for long time and not sustainable. They serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever to any club. 

Money doesn't necessarily equal success, but any business that is starved of investment will suffer and we are suffering now and will continue to do so in my opinion. 

Exactly, Norwich fans don't need to get this.

"invest" = a loan in reality.

But surely better to get relegated and have an owner loan the club £15m - £20m to keep the playing squad together, rather than desperately looking to flog a playing asset to plug a black hole. The loan can then be repaid in the top tier. Or written off if the owner is benevolent. We can't come back up stronger if consistently flogging our best young players, a bridging loan to cover a season in the Championship would mean less pressure to sell your best players. Sell fewer of your best players = better chance of staying in the superior league. Not complex is it. 

A loan from a director is one way of generating necessary revenue, and so is flogging off playing assets. I don't understand how Delia and Co have managed to brainwash so much of our fan base into believing the latter is in some way preferable, when Robert Chase got bricks through windows and death threats for doing similar.

Flogging players and failing to stay in the top tier finished off Robert Chase, the exact same sees Delia lauded. 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Big Vince 318]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Exactly, Norwich fans don't need to get this.

"invest" = a loan in reality.

But surely better to get relegated and have an owner loan the club £15m - £20m to keep the playing squad together, rather than desperately looking to flog a playing asset to plug a black hole. The loan can then be repaid in the top tier. Or written off if the owner is benevolent. We can't come back up stronger if consistently flogging our best young players, a bridging loan to cover a season in the Championship would mean less pressure to sell your best players. Sell fewer of your best players = better chance of staying in the superior league. Not complex is it. 

A loan from a director is one way of generating necessary revenue, and so is flogging off playing assets. I don't understand how Delia and Co have managed to brainwash so much of our fan base into believing the latter is in some way preferable, when Robert Chase got bricks through windows and death threats for doing similar.

Flogging players and failing to stay in the top tier finished off Robert Chase, the exact same sees Delia lauded. 

 

My violin is waxing lyrical over this post.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Big Vince said:

My violin is waxing lyrical over this post.

That's because you're a massive binner, I understand how top tier problems seem trivial to you barely professional sides that sit just below non-league. 

[Mengo 822]

At the end of the day the only thing you can do about it is laugh at it because it’s so embarrassing.  

“This is twice they have been in the Premier League and not really had a go. This time they’ve had a go with some money – Stuart Webber gets lauded for being this wonderful director of football. This is a really poor Norwich side. It’s not reflective of what Norwich have been over the years and I do think it’s embarrassing.

SW GETS LAUDED FOR (BEING THIS) WONDERFUL DOF. 

Being this . Exactly he's trying to tell you the man is not up to the task. Guess what he's 100 + % correct. The man the myth the legend. My ar*e.  Take a good hard look at yourself Mr genius. You have fu**ed up big time.

 

 

 

“There’s nothing worse than pity and they’ve got pity for themselves now. The only way to get through it is to laugh at themselves.” 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I think because the owners don't scout players - and when owners get involved with transfers directly you know it's based on ego rather than football knowledge. I think being well run and making mistakes in the transfer window aren't mutually exclusive. Also with noting that our £60 million of bad signings equates to like, one bad signing for a top 4 club. 

The owners are the ones' that employ the staff. If Webber, as is plain for everyone to see, is failing with his signings, it's their job to replace him or look for improvements. Webber currently has no chairman to report to and has carte blanche to do what he feels is right with no come back whatsoever... unless you expect his wife to give him the boot.

The owners set the wage structure and as in any industry, if you don't provide sufficient funds to be competitive your business will fail. Also, no business can work without a decent working capital or investment, it's their job as owners to provide that.

The owners laughing and joking last night whilst we failed to score again sets the whole tone for the club. It doesn't matter that we lost to them last night, they were enjoying their night out being wined & dined.

They are out of touch and failing our potential.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

13 hours ago, Mullet said:

Simon Jordon says it how it is. He likes our club and manager but we are crap and an embarrassment to the PL.

 

We have had two back to back promotions and absolutely fcuked this up. Webber took massive respect for finding Pukki but judging by the majority of signings since Webber must have just got lucky. The recruitment team cannot identify what players are needed at this level.

 

lets also not forget Webber stated that Pukki wasnt his original first choice.  Yes it has worked out wonderfully but if the "first choice" striker had been available (a mix of Drmic/Srbeny/Sargent I believe!) Webber would have been long gone.  Lightning struck once but since his Pukki lottery ticket it has been downhill all the way in terms of recruitment

[Big Vince 318]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That's because you're a massive binner, I understand how top tier problems seem trivial to you barely professional sides that sit just below non-league. 

During the period 1986-1994 Robert Chase oversaw the most glittering period in the club's history.

Fact not opinion.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

47 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well, I’ve always thought Jordan was a total **** and don’t think I’ll be changing that opinion soon. 

The truth always hurts unfortunately.  We are an embarrassment, it is significantly due to Webber's recruitment failures and it is naive to expect fans to sit through 6 matches without a goal and perform the happy clapper routine, so on balance Jordan is pretty much on the money

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

During the period 1986-1994 Robert Chase oversaw the most glittering period in the club's history.

Fact not opinion.

Yes, but what on earth does that have to do with my post.

I'm saying that Chase was driven out for flogging off our best players and taking us down a level.... but Delia has brainwashed fans into lauding her ownership when she's doing exactly the same thing. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[hogesar 9,665]

Just now, Kenny Foggo said:

The owners are the ones' that employ the staff. If Webber, as is plain for everyone to see, is failing with his signings, it's their job to replace him or look for improvements. Webber currently has no chairman to report to and has carte blanche to do what he feels is right with no come back whatsoever... unless you expect his wife to give him the boot.

The owners set the wage structure and as in any industry, if you don't provide sufficient funds to be competitive your business will fail. Also, no business can work without a decent working capital or investment, it's their job as owners to provide that.

The owners laughing and joking last night whilst we failed to score again sets the whole tone for the club. It doesn't matter that we lost to them last night, they were enjoying their night out being wined & dined.

They are out of touch and failing our potential.

I don't know any club in the world who get's promoted, looks like their signings aren't good enough and sacks their sporting director half-way throughout a season. So if you were expecting that to happen you're looking for a world's first, not some problem with our owners.

Our owners are the one's that employed Webber who employed Farke and oversaw two Championship titles - so it's hardly surprising they've both had additional time 'in the bank' so to speak.

The owners don't se the wage structure but their lack of wealth does. Of course it's a limitation. We all knew that coming into this season. Whilst they're still the owners there is no other option. IF someone wants to come in and genuinely invest then great. The argument Delia tells them to go do one doesn't wash with me, it defies all logic. Any half-decent billionaire doesn't go away quietly if they're interested in something. They'd go public. Or, if they move onto another club, they'd happily try and disrupt a rival by then saying we were an option who weren't interested.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

sacks their sporting director half-way throughout a season.

Ed Woodward leaving on 1st February to be fair, and Jex Moxey left us on 6th February.

So perhaps just after the transfer window closes is when they get the chop.

Webber flogs Aarons for a paltry £15m at the end of January so he can take the blame instead of Delia and the board but they'll give him a cheeky £1.5m commission as a golden goodbye so he can sail off into the sun and open a wine bar like David McNally? 

Stranger things have happened. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I don't know any club in the world who get's promoted, looks like their signings aren't good enough and sacks their sporting director half-way throughout a season. So if you were expecting that to happen you're looking for a world's first, not some problem with our owners.

Our owners are the one's that employed Webber who employed Farke and oversaw two Championship titles - so it's hardly surprising they've both had additional time 'in the bank' so to speak.

The owners don't se the wage structure but their lack of wealth does. Of course it's a limitation. We all knew that coming into this season. Whilst they're still the owners there is no other option. IF someone wants to come in and genuinely invest then great. The argument Delia tells them to go do one doesn't wash with me, it defies all logic. Any half-decent billionaire doesn't go away quietly if they're interested in something. They'd go public. Or, if they move onto another club, they'd happily try and disrupt a rival by then saying we were an option who weren't interested.

No camels or sheiks wanted down Carrow Road thank you very much. When they talk about future investment it’s quite offensive and very limited in who’d be welcome. 

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I think because the owners don't scout players - and when owners get involved with transfers directly you know it's based on ego rather than football knowledge. I think being well run and making mistakes in the transfer window aren't mutually exclusive. Also with noting that our £60 million of bad signings equates to like, one bad signing for a top 4 club. 

All true, though £60 million of bad signings for a top 4 player might be one position. For Norwich that would be five positions in the team! We simply have no wiggle room in our budget for making mistakes in our signings. One couldn't really fault the effort that we put into the West Ham game, the sad fact is we can't afford the real quality to compete at this level. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Also with noting that our £60 million of bad signings equates to like, one bad signing for a top 4 club. 

We're not expecting top 4 though are we, we'd take top 17, so makes more sense to compare our net spend with the likes of Brentford, Watford, Leeds, Crystal Palace, Burnley, Southampton, and other bottom half / bottom end of mid-table dwellers. 

[sgncfc 1,227]

I see the Turkish equivalent of Simon Cowell has just snapped up Hull City for £30m and is telling the world about their push for the Premier League, cups and titles. He's worth £100m tops. Will be very interesting to see how he seeks to invest in Hull City with such a limited amount available. I rather suspect he's bitten off more than he can chew, but we'll see. Interestingly he also says he looked at 4 other clubs - wonder who they were? (Not us, obviously, as even little old Norwich are worth more than he has).

[rock bus 851]

57 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Agreed. People on here and on Canary Call keep barking up the wrong tree.

It is not the amount spent on transfer fees, it is the wage structure that is the issue. Norwich City may have spent £60 million on transfers, but they are nowhere near paying the going rate for wages in this league. For that, you need to be at £80-100,000 a week. Norwich don't pay more than £40,000 per week.

For that reason, Norwich City are a Championship club in the Premier League.

This is a really good point.

Must admit I've been very quick to blame Webber (and still think this years signings have broadly been a waste of what resources we have) but he is totally hamstrung by the wages. We are in position where we can pay the transfer fee to persuade clubs at our level to sell their better assets. BUT we will never attract the type of player we need to secure premier league survival as we wont meet their wage demands.

We are therefore reliant on effectively striking lucky with a player who is quickly able to fulfill his potential  - this worked out amazingly with Pukki, Buendia and Maddison but sadly has failed far more times - Leitner, Oliveira, Duda, Placheta, Gibson and sadly all the signings this year at the moment.

[komakino 272]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Ed Woodward leaving on 1st February to be fair, and Jex Moxey left us on 6th February.

So perhaps just after the transfer window closes is when they get the chop.

Webber flogs Aarons for a paltry £15m at the end of January so he can take the blame instead of Delia and the board but they'll give him a cheeky £1.5m commission as a golden goodbye so he can sail off into the sun and open a wine bar like David McNally? 

Stranger things have happened. 

It is well known that The Stowmarket Two were not disappointed to see McNally go. 

Webber has been on too many self belief courses, thought that facts of his recruitment are staring him in the face. I'm now thinking Adams would be a much better option as I'm sure he knows a load of crap when he sees it. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

No camels or sheiks wanted down Carrow Road thank you very much. When they talk about future investment it’s quite offensive and very limited in who’d be welcome. 

No Russians, Arabs or Chinese they've said.

Although they've not been afraid to take a bit of dodgy Russian money in the past... 

independent.co.uk/incoming/potatoes-and-then-some-delia-takes-on-russian-cuisine-304426.html

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, komakino said:

It is well known that The Stowmarket Two were not disappointed to see McNally go. 

Webber has been on too many self belief courses, thought that facts of his recruitment are staring him in the face. I'm now thinking Adams would be a much better option as I'm sure he knows a load of crap when he sees it. 

Didn't we sign a load of sh*t under Neil Adams, including Kyle Lafferty? 

[Big Vince 318]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Yes, but what on earth does that have to do with my post.

I'm saying that Chase was driven out for flogging off our best players and taking us down a level.... but Delia has brainwashed fans into lauding her ownership when she's doing exactly the same thing. 

Unfortunately, people are too easily taken in by image and appearance rather than FACTS.

Mr Chase was portrayed as the panto villain who was no good for this club even though the FACT was it had unprecedented success under his stewardship whereas Delia is portrayed as the celebrity cook in whose mouth butter would never melt because she is a very, very nice person and gazumped the credit for "saving" the club even though the FACT was that Geoffrey Watling and Martin Armstrong saved it.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Unfortunately, people are too easily taken in by image and appearance rather than FACTS.

Mr Chase was portrayed as the panto villain who was no good for this club even though the FACT was it had unprecedented success under his stewardship whereas Delia is portrayed as the celebrity cook in whose mouth butter would never melt because she is a very, very nice person and gazumped the credit for "saving" the club even though the FACT was that Geoffrey Watling and Martin Armstrong saved it.

He was a bit dodgy though weren't he, the club had a maintenance contract with a company that he owned, bet that never went out for competitive tender. He wanted to make the club as lean as possible before an IPO so he could enrich himself, and it backfired when he flogged a few too many and took us down. It was fashionable for football clubs to float on the stock market back then, Chase was writing to shareholders offering to buy their shares at a price which was well below what the rumoured IPO valuation would be. 

Wouldn't trust  him as far as I could throw him, which at his 1995 weight is about 2 inches. 

Edited January 13, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well, I’ve always thought Jordan was a total **** and don’t think I’ll be changing that opinion soon. 

The truth hurts. 

[sgncfc 1,227]

It's a very valid point that football fans fixate on transfer fees when Soccernomics evidenced years ago that wages were a more accurate indication of success.

It's very difficult to get any accurate comparisons of wages being paid but whichever sites you compare, it seems that our wages are higher than Brentford's and comparable to Watford but everyone else pays a lot more. To attract even fringe players from another PL team would blow our budget.

Brentford have consistently been better than us at the moneyball game, apart from our one unexpected PL sojourn in 2019-20 they have outperformed us in most years in terms of value/results for what they spend. Their current levels are not that surprising.

For what we pay, it is hard to be too critical given what we are up against in every game. Competing in one game in 6 is about all we should really expect.

[chicken 2,624]

13 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Only because he blew it all in the summer and produced a weaker team than we had last season.

I don't 100% agree with this.

On paper, we were/are stronger in many areas.

But the expectation that we could replace Skipp and Buendia easily is perhaps a source of the most frustration. The two now would cost you £55-70m to sign. £33m+ for Buendia and at least £25m+ for Skipp I would say.

Folks will say we spent £50-60m last summer, but realistically, £15m was already spent on Giannoulis and Gibson. People can say that was money wasted, but realistically, we wouldn't have signed them without that agreement in place and arguably, wouldn't have gained promotion so wouldn't be competing in the Premier League. At times last season, Gibson and Hanley were the only fully fit senior CB's - just to prove a point.

Realistically, of the players that were allowed to leave, who could we have kept that would genuinely have pushed for a regular starting position or who would have genuinely offered something at all? The only three that are even debatable are Vrancic, Trybull and Stiepermann. Of those, Vrancic and Stiepermann would possibly have made the biggest impression on this side. That said, neither were particularly successful last time out and we know that Stiepermann wanted to return 'home' to be closer to family after a nightmare season with Covid and an illness believed to have been caused by it.

Not being able to see loved ones when they or you are very poorly is really hard. Especially if you are suffering with something you know could take your life. Many of us would opt to be closer to home, and our loved ones.

Then there is Hugill and Hernandez. Of the two I would rather have Hernandez. I think there is somewhat of a weird thing around Hugill where people think bringing him back would save us because he is supposedly better than Idah and Sargent. I think Hugill is a canny championship operator in the right team. He isn't particularly quick or mobile. He holds the ball up ok, but it's not like his strike rate at championship level has ever been prolific. He has 1 in 20appearances for a successful team this season. Sargent has 2 goals against Bournemouth to his name. People feel that Idah could do with a loan to the Championship to find his legs. Hugill just isn't cutting it at the moment, and last season played 2nd fiddle to Pukki.

The point of all this? In the summer we were a team in transition.

We lost long term players like Tettey who was committed to the club and the cause and I am sure his positive outlook was an important part of that "bounce-back-ability" that often kept positive play going in runs of games despite the end result not always being good.

The likes of Vrancic, Stiepermann and Klose, to a historic degree, were also part of successful sides for us. The former two being part of the early "German Revolution" in terms of early Farke signings. Leitner, Klose and Trybull hadn't really been part of the side for some time though.

I'm not sure we could do a lot else with the money we had. £8m, the cost of Sargent, these days, gets you a Championship striker. You need £15-20m to get a proven Championship striker who "might" make the step up - see Adam Armstrong.

It's not just that, it's not just the purchasing money, it's what we can afford in wages. We could put more aside for wages, but then we'd be losing purchasing power. If we need 4-6 players across the squad, then we can't focus that money on one or two players.

That's not excusing anything. Like I say, I think we have improved in many areas. I believe what cost us is going into this season with a complete change of tactical approach and formation without a decent enough pre-season to have prepared for it. I still think it was naive, and that we would have been better off sticking with the 4-2-3-1 which we were so used to for at least the first 5 games which we knew were going to be tough. They were not the place to test a new formation with new tactics which meant starting from the ground up with even established players.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

11 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Unfortunately, people are too easily taken in by image and appearance rather than FACTS.

Mr Chase was portrayed as the panto villain who was no good for this club even though the FACT was it had unprecedented success under his stewardship whereas Delia is portrayed as the celebrity cook in whose mouth butter would never melt because she is a very, very nice person and gazumped the credit for "saving" the club even though the FACT was that Geoffrey Watling and Martin Armstrong saved it.

That makes no sense at all Vinny. Like many of your posts when we have a proper gander  beyond your  propaganda. FACT was Geoffrey Watling and Martin Armstrong were the reason Chase was out. So I guess you would say they saved the club from themselves.