Fair Criticism in the press

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

Saw this on a Facebook thread. Not sure which paper it’s from but some good points made - sadly. The bit about out top signing cost versus what is needed stood out 

 

[TheBaldOne66 681]

Eggsellent article(see what I did there 😜), and very true but very damning of our leaders who allegedly hate all that the Premier League stands for, yet still take the money 😎

[chicken 2,604]

Which paper is that? It's a shocking article.

"...it will be the fourth time they have gone straight back down after coming up."

So I take it they are talking about the promotion and premier league season under Worthington? Nothing like using something that happened 15+ years ago to bash a club.

At the same time there is no mention of the three seasons we spent in the premier league under Lambert and Hughton. Just because it chimes with some aspects you may agree with, it doesn't make it a good article.

In fact, this is clearly a poorly thought out hack piece. No mention of Fulham who are a season further progressed. Or West Brom who have done so as many times if not more. Just another idiot that wants certain teams in the PL and then to get rid of promotion relegation when they have the teams they fancy in it.

Horrible, horrible piece IMHO, full of absolute rubbish and a clear lack of knowledge of the club.

The real story all of these hacks are seemingly choosing not to consider isn't whether the parachute payment system is 'broken' but why so few clubs manage to stay up in the PL and how, despite all of the supposed safeguards that were intended to keep the top division a competitive playing field is actually becoming less so with each passing transfer window.

Many teams struggle to stay up at the first time of asking, even the 2nd. Of the teams that manage that, how many go down the next season? Very few really manage to do so. If they do, they tend to stick around for a while. Brighton, Palace, Villa, Leeds have managed it, but not without great expense.

Watford, like us, Fulham, WBA should also be considered "yo-yo".

Edited April 10, 2022 by chicken

[alex_ncfc 648]

Spot on.

We take up a spot in a league which we don't deserve to be in, because we don't even show that we want to be there, so what's the point?

All fans of other Prem clubs hate us and call us pointless, soon it'll be Championship clubs too because we end up taking a promotion spot and waste it. 

[Scot-e-dog 34]

What a load of old Bo**ocks.  All slashing parachute payments will donis end up with a succession of different underfunded clubs getting promoted for one season.  It seems that all the pundits really want is a premiership set up as an exclusive rich owners club - god forbid if you actually try to do it the old fashioned way.

[cambridgeshire canary 6,675]

I mean.. I would try and argue but sadly they have a point and I really cant be bothered having to try and defend us for the 1000th time

[Ian 1,129]

Just now, alex_ncfc said:

We take up a spot in a league which we don't deserve to be in, because we don't even show that we want to be there, so what's the point?

Nothing says "we don't deserve promotion" like winning the league at a canter.

[Scot-e-dog 34]

1 minute ago, alex_ncfc said:

Spot on.

We take up a spot in a league which we don't deserve to be in, because we don't even show that we want to be there, so what's the point?

All fans of other Prem clubs hate us and call us pointless, soon it'll be Championship clubs too because we end up taking a promotion spot and waste it. 

Why don't we deserve it?

[alex_ncfc 648]

1 minute ago, Scot-e-dog said:

Why don't we deserve it?

Because we don't take it seriously unlike literally any other club that gets promoted from the Championship. We don't look to build anything, if we did, we wouldn't be looking even worse with every attempt - 2019-20 was worse than 2015-16, and 2021-22 is worse than 2019-20. We're "just happy to be there" 🙄

Edited April 10, 2022 by alex_ncfc

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

Sadly, that article is spot on 

[chicken 2,604]

3 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

Because we don't take it seriously unlike literally any other club that gets promoted from the Championship. We don't look to build anything, if we did, we wouldn't be looking even worse with every attempt - 2019-20 was worse than 2015-16, and 2021-22 is worse than 2019-20. We're "just happy to be there" 🙄

Rubbish.

Should Webber be sacked for poor recruitment or did we not look to build something? The two cannot be the same when the club has just spent £40-50m?

Sorry, but this article is idiotic, as is the entire concept we don't deserve to be in this league (in terms of approach).

Edited April 10, 2022 by chicken

[Herman 9,715]

3 minutes ago, alex_ncfc said:

Spot on.

We take up a spot in a league which we don't deserve to be in, because we don't even show that we want to be there, so what's the point?

All fans of other Prem clubs hate us and call us pointless, soon it'll be Championship clubs too because we end up taking a promotion spot and waste it. 

Not spot on.

We deserve to be here, as pointed out. We're just not good enough to stay in.

Most fans that I talk to like Norwich and fully understand what we trying to do and how hard it.

Other than that, a great post.🤨

[Herman 9,715]

It's the S*n.

[chicken 2,604]

6 minutes ago, Scot-e-dog said:

What a load of old Bo**ocks.  All slashing parachute payments will donis end up with a succession of different underfunded clubs getting promoted for one season.  It seems that all the pundits really want is a premiership set up as an exclusive rich owners club - god forbid if you actually try to do it the old fashioned way.

It'd be worse than that. This idiot of a hack clearly wants the clubs they like more promoted not the ones he doesn't. It's that simple. He's not mentioned Fulham, WBA, Watford... all similar to us in terms of ups and downs... Fulham actually more so in recent years. No mention of them.

Why would that be? Oh probably because they threw £100m at it and failed, and have a wealthy owner. I don't see that Watford, Burnley, Leeds or even Brentford did anything that suggests they "wanted" it more in terms of signings, outlay or intent.

[chicken 2,604]

1 minute ago, Herman said:

It's the S*n.

FFS - why does any football fan even give that piece of bottom paper the light of day. Absolute scum paper. Filthy phone hacking unapologetic shy sters. Never apologised for their part in misleading the British public about Hillsborough.

Embarrassing that a football fan would touch it IMHO. Let alone anyone. Sooner supposed "journalism" in that kind of rag is dead, the better. 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

15 minutes ago, chicken said:

Rubbish.

Should Webber be sacked for poor recruitment or did we not look to build something? The two cannot be the same when the club has just spent £40-50m?

Sorry, but this article is idiotic, as is the entire concept we don't deserve to be in this league (in terms of approach).

We spent £40-50m but only after selling our best player - so make that £20 odd on lots of average players. As the article states - a record purchase of less than £10 million is not ambitious when prices start around £15m

[chicken 2,604]

10 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

We spent £40-50m but only after selling our best player - so make that £20 odd on lots of average players. As the article states - a record purchase of less than £10 million is not ambitious when prices start around £15m

This rubbish again. Sorry, but the above has been proven wrong already - several times. If only player trading was in a vacuum where other club costs could be accounted for independently.

The reality is that we had losses last season, like the season before, due to lockdowns and fans not being permitted to attend games.

As for record purchases... we had to sign several players. We signed, say, Armstrong - who we were in for, for the rumoured £15m we offered, what difference would that make?

Again, it just highlights the total lack of understanding of some football fans and how the cheap low-life press (meaning Sun, Daily Heil, etc) will take advantage of that naivety and lure you in with sweet smelling BS.

We have been here before. You need to look at the break down of Premier League money. It's worth up to £140m if you remain relegated for 2-3 seasons after dropping out of the PL. In reality though, the wage bill for the club for a season in the PL is around £55-65m. That typically doesn't leave much from the money for a PL season to spend. The rest is received as parachute payments that are spread over two to three seasons after. If promoted in that time, it cuts short the parachute payments.

When you consider that, you consider the challenge Norwich face and how they buck the trend of clubs that Yo-yo. Our club battles for every penny it can make to spend on players. Rather than be some sort of blot, we're the club that can give other clubs that hope they can do the same and against the odds gain promotion rather than cash rich clubs with wealthy owners who can retain talents like Mitrovich against all odds. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by chicken

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Pathetic article but what do you expect from a pathetic paper.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Personally I think parachute payments are wrong. I understand one of the reasons for them but overall I never agree with rewarding failure.  Its very hard on many of the clubs in the Championship who won't earn that in ten seasons. 

But to single out us is just bully boy tactics from someone who is selective in his research.

[hogesar 9,618]

Absolutely pathetic article but no where near as pathetic as some on here agreeing with it. You'd be much better down the road at Ipswich, after all you're the same posters who bemoaned how ambitious Marcus Evans would be when he came into their club.

[chicken 2,604]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Personally I think parachute payments are wrong. I understand one of the reasons for them but overall I never agree with rewarding failure.  Its very hard on many of the clubs in the Championship who won't earn that in ten seasons. 

But to single out us is just bully boy tactics from someone who is selective in his research.

It's not rewarding failure. The entire reason for their existence was the understanding of the gulf between the Championship and the Premier League and that teams HAD to try and be competitive and offer PL wages and that being relegated could leave them with a PL wage bill without the means to pay it.

Look at the likes of Leeds and Southampton. Even selling players can do little to help. Especially if teams gamble future PL seasons income on staying up (Leeds and Southampton again).

Stricter rules on the money? Possibly. But without them, you will see teams simply not gamble money at all and go up, more likely to become relegated and then lose larger chunks of their squad as they are unable to offer even close to competitive wages.

[hogesar 9,618]

3 minutes ago, chicken said:

It's not rewarding failure. The entire reason for their existence was the understanding of the gulf between the Championship and the Premier League and that teams HAD to try and be competitive and offer PL wages and that being relegated could leave them with a PL wage bill without the means to pay it.

Look at the likes of Leeds and Southampton. Even selling players can do little to help. Especially if teams gamble future PL seasons income on staying up (Leeds and Southampton again).

Stricter rules on the money? Possibly. But without them, you will see teams simply not gamble money at all and go up, more likely to become relegated and then lose larger chunks of their squad as they are unable to offer even close to competitive wages.

Take your silly facts and shove them up your ar*e.

This thread is for ripping into your own club for daring to get promoted.

[Robert N. LiM 4,242]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

Which paper is that? It's a shocking article.

"...it will be the fourth time they have gone straight back down after coming up."

So I take it they are talking about the promotion and premier league season under Worthington? Nothing like using something that happened 15+ years ago to bash a club.

At the same time there is no mention of the three seasons we spent in the premier league under Lambert and Hughton. Just because it chimes with some aspects you may agree with, it doesn't make it a good article.

In fact, this is clearly a poorly thought out hack piece. No mention of Fulham who are a season further progressed. Or West Brom who have done so as many times if not more. Just another idiot that wants certain teams in the PL and then to get rid of promotion relegation when they have the teams they fancy in it.

Horrible, horrible piece IMHO, full of absolute rubbish and a clear lack of knowledge of the club.

The real story all of these hacks are seemingly choosing not to consider isn't whether the parachute payment system is 'broken' but why so few clubs manage to stay up in the PL and how, despite all of the supposed safeguards that were intended to keep the top division a competitive playing field is actually becoming less so with each passing transfer window.

Many teams struggle to stay up at the first time of asking, even the 2nd. Of the teams that manage that, how many go down the next season? Very few really manage to do so. If they do, they tend to stick around for a while. Brighton, Palace, Villa, Leeds have managed it, but not without great expense.

Watford, like us, Fulham, WBA should also be considered "yo-yo".

This. It's a dreadful piece and people would be far better off reading chicken's reply instead.

There's a really interesting article to be written about why it's so hard for non-billionaire clubs to stay up. But this isn't it.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Robert N. LiM
typo

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

The article is a shoddy hack piece masquerading as deep analysis to fool the more gullible when the problem is money in the whole sport, not the parachute payments. Primary example - it looks at income from sales and transfer fees spent, and doesn't even hint at looking at player wages/contract deals.

By definition, if you get promoted from the division below, you have earned a chance to play in the top flight. Furthermore, if it weren't for what is best described as cooking the financial books, far more clubs would be in the merde.

Sloppy article, based on a lousy premise, pretending to be "gritty".

Edited April 10, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[chicken 2,604]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Take your silly facts and shove them up your ar*e.

This thread is for ripping into your own club for daring to get promoted.

I'm sorry.

WHY CAN'T WE BE LIKE BARNSLEY OR COVENTRY!!!! 

[canarybubbles 1,915]

I can't believe some of the posters on here who seem happy to agree that we don't deserve to get promoted or to have parachute payments etc etc. 

We deserved to get promoted because we got 94 and 97 points in our latest two promotion seasons and pissed the Championship both times. The best team goes up, simple as that. And we deserve parachute payments because that's the rules.

There are serious arguments to be had about parachute payments, especially their negative effects on competition within the Championship, but this piece of journalistic fluff is not about that - it's about denigrating our club for a few cheap clicks and we should treat it with the contempt it deserves.

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

1 minute ago, canarybubbles said:

I can't believe some of the posters on here who seem happy to agree that we don't deserve to get promoted or to have parachute payments etc etc. 

We deserved to get promoted because we got 94 and 97 points in our latest two promotion seasons and pissed the Championship both times. The best team goes up, simple as that. And we deserve parachute payments because that's the rules.

There are serious arguments to be had about parachute payments, especially their negative effects on competition within the Championship, but this piece of journalistic fluff is not about that - it's about denigrating our club for a few cheap clicks and we should treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Parachute payments were introduced so clubs can increase their wage bills on promotion to attract players of higher ability to make sure the Premier league keeps its competitiveness, we just do not do that, so why should we get the "buffer" money when we never increase the buffer? 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Title of thread needs changing. This is to "fair criticism" what masturbation is to sex. Sorta related to the matter in hand, but actually totally different.

[Robert N. LiM 4,242]

It doesn't even make sense on its own terms. We spent a limited amount on players because that's what we can afford without bankrupting the club if we go down. And that's with the parachute payments. Without them we'd be able to gamble even less. The parachute payments are a necessary evil in a game whose finances are completely out of control.

The S*n knows this of course, but they're completely implicated in hyping up the 'best league in the world' nonsense. You're never going to get an article critical of financial inequality in football in that disgusting paper, just as you're not going to get an article critical of financial inequality in society. Owned by a billionaire in the interests of billionaires. 

 

[priceyrice 123]

Just an on trend argument which really has not had any consideration. 

The fundamental point they are trying to make is that parachute payments should be scrapped so teams give the prem a proper go on promotion. This is fundamentally incorrect, if the payments on relegation were to reduce then clubs like us would spend even less followong promotion,  especially on wages, due to the greater risk associated with relegation. 

Numerous other issues with this article as well.