Southampton Compared To Norwich

[YankeeCanary 0]

I always think of Southampton and Norwich as two teams coming of age together dating back to the late 1950''s. Since that time whatever the current fortunes of the two clubs I always find myself drawn to compare how the clubs are performing in all areas. For the right or the wrong of it, I also see the clubs as roughly the same size/potential and, over the years, found myself observing the progress achieved by the two organisations.

The two clubs were promoted to the second level together at the completion of the 1959-60 season. There were lots of little links between the clubs in those days. For example, Ted Bates was the manager of the Saints who, as a young player was the property of Norwich City. One of the best strikers ever to wear a Norwich City shirt, Ron Davies, went on to play for Southampton as they enjoyed success in the 1960''s.

Most importantly, was the ability of the two clubs to attain and hold on to top level football. For the first six seasons after the clubs reached the second level in 1960 they remained at that level. Southampton then achieved promotion to the top level with the completion of the 1965-66 season. It took Norwich a further six seasons before being promoted to the top level. However, in the 40 seasons since 1965-66 season, Southampton have played 35 of those seasons at the highest level. Norwich, on the other hand, have only competed at the top level for 21 of those seasons. Don''t misunderstand me....that is no small achievement, but I find it intriguing as to why Southampton has performed significantly better since the two clubs pushed their way up from the third level. There is no reason I can think of why this should be the case. Perhaps others who have observed over the years have some insights.

Last season was the first time Southampton has been out of the top level for 27 seasons. Now, with Rupert Lowe stepping down and changing share of ownership and a new board, it is clear that Southampton will not let the dust gather around their feet as they figure out the way forward. I see on other threads the exchange of views with respect to Delia''s reign at Norwich, and whether or not we have an ambitious board. I don''t know what the answer is to that one but the facts on the long term are clear. Over the past 40 seasons Southampton did a far better job of providing its fans with top level football. I can think of no reason why investors should have found Southampton to be a more attractive proposition than Norwich City, unless the presence of Roman walls in Norwich convey a subconscious desire to regard fast progress as an American invention and "not required in Norfolk, thank you very much".   

[ncfc0405 0]

It''s a good question, and a comparison you could equally apply to other similar sized clubs.I''m not sure about previous decades, but success now is clearly dependent on money to a large extent. Investors in football clubs are rarely dispassionate independents, they are usually wealthy individuals with emotional ties to the club.I''ve often wondered how many millionaires Norfolk produces compared to Hampshire. Or Yorkshire or Leicestershire for that matter. My hunch is significantly fewer.

[Carrow89 0]

Might help to check out the relative populations  2001 census

So''ton 221.000

Norwich 121.00

how does that compare with others who have a far bigger population ?

St Alban''s 129.000

Basildon 165.000

Rochdale 205.00

Rotherham 248.000

Bradford 467.000

Perhaps you could explain why those places with afr higher populations are not doing so well, in fact not even achieving league status in some cases.

Or is it all Worthington and Delia''s fault ?

[YankeeCanary 0]

As usual Ralph, you fail to even think through your own posts before you submit. This is what "blind defense" of our club can do to a man''s reasoning.

I ask the question regarding the two clubs in an entirely open manner. You begin your response by implying that Southampton''s greater population is a factor. You then go on to defeat your own point by by citing other locations that have a greater population than Norwich but fare far worse than we do in terms of football achievement.

[Mariner 0]

You ought really to look at urban area populations rather than the population of a local government unit.  Norwich boundaries are very tightly drawn and say nothing about what I would call the real population of the city or indeed the club''s catchment area.  Since 1974 some places, e.g. Colchester, have enjoyed very much enlarged boundaries, the district includes great swathes of countryside.  Try that at Norwich and the locals come out in spots.  You are not comparing like with like.

[Carrow89 0]

" You are not comparing like with like "

yep, but I didn''t wish to trawl through endless websites to determine what the local catchment area was

It was merely a means of giving a rough idea about how you could not say certain clubs were of a same size nor could you use population sizes as a value either as there are so many other variables that a simplistic comparison as the topic suggested is pretty pointless.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Ralph, why are you so negative with your input relative to other posters when you claim to be so positive as it relates to our football club? You use terms like "pretty pointless thread" and "you cannot use population size as an a value either". My points at least were based upon the facts of history and asked open-ended questions as to the point of view of others as to why there has been such a different top-level participation by Southampton. Your response offers no answers or insights but just put-downs, innuendo that another crack at Delia and Worthington is behind the post. You then raise the population issue in a very contradictory manner and tell others it cannot be used as it''s too simplistic. Why then did you raise it in the first instance if you believe it to be irrelevant? Do you behave like this at home? 

[Yellow Rages 0]

That was the point of his thread Yankee, don''t you see?

What he says is right. You can''t use this type of simplistic analysis to make a point. What he''s done here is offered additional stats that contradict each other for a reason. The point is that these types of demograophic instances don''t carry any weight. The factors are more complex than you estimate and mean very little to any argument.

Your pound of feathers will never weigh more than a pond of anything else.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Yellow Rages, you make the same mistake as Ralph makes. I was not citing demographics in the original post. Ralph raised this thought. My point was that Southampton and Norwich evolved from a similar place and time with the clubs being roughly the same size ( neither being an Manchester United, Liverpool etc. ). The question I asked is what factors do we think contributed to more investment being at hand to support Southampton''s club versus Norwich over the years. If you or Ralph have no answer to that....fine, but please stop telling me things are more complex than I suggest when I have not suggested anything of the kind. I simply asked others for input as to why. Do you have any thoughts?  You know, in dealing effectively with communication, first one needs to read, then to think and then, if inclined to do so, finally respond. Many seem to have difficulty doing those things in the correct sequence.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

That was the point of his thread Yankee, don''t you see?

What he says is right. You can''t use this type of simplistic analysis to make a point. What he''s done here is offered additional stats that contradict each other for a reason. The point is that these types of demograophic instances don''t carry any weight. The factors are more complex than you estimate and mean very little to any argument.

Your pound of feathers will never weigh more than a pond of anything else.

[/quote]

If we are going to take exception to people asking questions as to what the club could do to move forward, maybe they should be throwing meaningless population statistics at Delia, Doncaster or Worthington every time they mention following the "Charlton Model"? 

[Yellow Rages 0]

I''m aware that you are not citing demographics and have not suggested that you were. Your imagination has taken over again and masked what you see before your very eyes.

I''ll copy your own point down for you so you can read it back to yourself a few times, with the hope that you will perform to the standards that you request we all perform to.

"You know, in dealing effectively with communication, first one needs to read, then to think and then, if inclined to do so, finally respond. Many seem to have difficulty doing those things in the correct sequence."

My reference to the complexity of the question still remains and yes demographics need to be accounted for. Volume, age and status of the local population mean a great deal. They impact on everything from filling the ground on a Saturday, the quality of young players being scouted and even the likelyhood of finding a major investor with emotive ties to the club. Unfortunately, a football club is unique in that like no other business you don''t assess it''s viability before startup. You don''t look at your catchment area and locate accordingly. Historically, those clubs that were based in the best catchment areasgrew and those that weren''t, didn''t and in most cases still haven''t because what we have now is a saturated market place. One in whch the likes of MK Dons are trying to exploit with their relocation.

Have Southampton received more investment over the years? I don''t know if they have. Do you have figures to back this up? If they have then that will obviously contribute towards their average higher status level over the years but that''s just the tip of the iceberg. So we can''t say investment is the primary factor here. If you could firstly find some evidence to suggest that Southampton have been exposed to greater investment then we can start to build a profile for you. We can then add in the hundreds of other important factors at play to tell you how those factors effect investment.

[beelsie 0]

Ralph others may not think so but I found your presentation of the contributory factors relating to what a larger population may have to do with success or failure rather refreshing, in the sense that you gave us answers and again posed a question at the same time by producing a set of figures that contradicted the theory.  Why refreshing? IMHO it says that you are looking for an answer rather than a victory.  This is a way forward in debate and could be used in the WO, KTF, pointless sagas. 

This pathetic red herring crops up regularly and the information on what to form a decision is largely short on factual input. If''s, maybes, and perhapses crop up because we the fans are not privy to why certain football decisions are made, nor are we expected to have factual information on the relationship between Worthy and the Board.  How can fair minded people make such rash decisions on what should become the fate of whoever occupies a powerful position at NCFC when the three quarters of the relevant information is not forthcoming.  You tell me. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

I despair at the inability of people to have sensible conversations without getting all wound up on what side of the "issue" you are on. Yellow Rages/Ralph.....try this one instead.

At a point in time in my town apple streudel enjoyed about the same level of popularity in my town as did lemon meringue pie. With the passing decades, however, apple streudel achieved a far greater level of success and sales volume than the lemon meringue pie. Does anyone have an opinion on why this was the case? ( simple opinion would be satisfactory )

Type of answer expected from Ralph/Yellow Rages:

"This is a complex question and cannot be looked at simplistically. Demographics do play a role although they can be totally misleading. We could give you a rough idea but we won''t because the question is pointless. We really don''t wish to respond because we are not prepared to offer an opinion on this complex subject. On the other hand, we suppose that really is our response.....we think. Incidentally, are you taking potshots at Delia''s lemon meringue pies?"

[Yellow Rages 0]

What side of the issue?  You''ve lost me. I''m not a side as you put it. I''m telling you how is. If you don''t like it then don''t ask peoples opinions

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

Perhaps you should ask Paul Rankin, he''s from Southampton.

I went to apple streudel once, couldn''t think of a raison to go back though!

 

[beelsie 0]

YC, a good question, and like you, the research shown on this post does not give me an answer either.  I think there may be an answer if someone can dig up information about cash injections into Southampton''s coffers plus any info that relates to them being wealthier than Norwich in those terms.  Both you and I know that we in Norfolk are parochial in our outlook and the barriers to outside investment would as usual be raised.  The suspicion that there may be ulterior motives and those who feel endangered will be careful to reinforce the bastions that protect the Norfolk status-quo.  It is also the economic madness that will protect and prevent the possibility of an East Anglican amalgamation of the area clubs, dare''nt mention any names, it''s the same disease inherent in every farmer that forces them each to invest in a combine harvester instead of forming a machine CO-op, so that each machine can be used to it''s full potential economically and to the benefit of the users in general.  In short we are masters of cutting off our noses to spite our faces.   I feel that more than anything our our insular parochial outlook will prevent any substantial changes being made for the betterment of NCFC, and I believe it is this outlook that will see us become even more little Norwich to our cost. Thoughts.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Yellow Rages, ( taking a deep breath ) I will try one more time. My input on the original post made no analysis or estimate or reasons why what has transpired in terms of the level of a football played by Southampton and Norwich over the past 40 years has been the case. I simply stated the fact of what has transpired and asked others opinions on why they think this might be so.

Ralph responded with a whole lot of demographic information, but suggested it was irrelevant. His irrelevance, not mine. He clearly feels that a snide comment at the end is called for ( it wasn''t ) asking, "Is it all Worthington and Delia''s fault?" Among other things, let me repeat what you have written to me ( and please, just think about it for a moment ). You said, quote: " You can''t use this type of simplistic analysis to make a point", and " The factors are more complex than you estimate."  Well, in response to these statements from you I say I did no analysis and I did not estimate any factors. Read what I wrote. All I did was ask for opinions as to why others think Southampton had so many more years of top level football compared to Norwich. The only person who took a stab at answering my question was ncfc0405, whereas you and Ralph did circles around circles without adressing the question at all. I agree that I assumed there has been more investment by Southampton than Norwich over the years. Personally, I did not think this to be rocket science. A club participating at the higher level of football over so many years surely has to invest at a higher level to maintain that status. But put that point to one side and see if you can be a good soul and try offering an opinion on the question I highlighted. If you have no opinion, that''s fine. Just leave it at that.

[Evil Monkey 52]

I''ve only just read this thread, but am more than a little confused over how the debate between YC and Ralph began...

My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that YC was pondering the

similarities between our club and that of Southampton''s club, citing

facts about our league positions over the past 50 years or so.  He

then goes on to mention that Southampton, in response to their recent

"disasters" have seen fit to have a shake-up of the board as well as

changing management, be it enforced.

Ralph then states that the two clubs cannot be compared because local

demographics mean little when it comes to football clubs, highlighting

that cities far bigger than Norwich have worse footballing

fortunes.  This is where I get lost - what is the relevance of

this fact to the questions YC ponders?  The tone of Ralph''s reply,

with the "or maybe this is the fault of Delia and the board" quip at

the end suggests a negative tone towards YC''s post which seems, to me,

out of context.

Silliness then ensues.

That''s my neutral viewpoint on the whole thing... my suggestion? Stop

bickering or I''ll bang your bloody heads together... The Grim Tweater

has spoken... [:)]

As a reply to the thread as a whole, however, I''d personally say that,

currently, Norwich and Southampton''s fortunes seem to have followed a

similar path for the last two seasons.  The difference now is in

how the two clubs are choosing to deal with it.  I guess only time

will tell which is wrong and which is right...

[YankeeCanary 0]

You know, of course beelsie, that you and I have long been on the same wavelength as it relates to your input. It''s almost three years since I first posted input on this message board that, in my opinion,  the long-term future of Norwich City ( and Ipswich for that matter ) would find it increasingly difficult to gain and maintain presence in the Premiership in the coming decades compared to the quarter of century experienced prior to the turn of the century. Unless there is a more open and aggressive posture taken between owners/investors, along with more honest open participation with the fans in the region, then I fear we will have little more than an occasional flirtation with the higher level at best.

I listened this evening to Niall Quinn speaking on behalf of the new consortium at Sunderland and, I must say, it was refreshing to hear his input. There is clearly a desire to put passion back into the club and while he obviously would say the group has some very clear ideas on how to achieve that, he sounded very forthright in saying if their ideas don''t work then they will need to step aside and let someone else have a go because the club and the fans deserve no less.  

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

What he''s done here is offered additional stats that contradict each other for a reason. The point is that these types of demograophic instances don''t carry any weight. The factors are more complex than you estimate and mean very little to any argument.

[/quote]

[quote user="Yellow Rages"]

My reference to the complexity of the question still remains and yes demographics need to be accounted for. Volume, age and status of the local population mean a great deal. They impact on everything from filling the ground on a Saturday

[/quote]

Make your mind up man, which is it?  If demographic instances carry no weight as you suggest then why do you say later that local population levels mean a great deal and demographics need to be accounted for?  [:p]

In answer to the original question - I agree with Yellow Rages that there are so many factors to take into account that it really is an impossible question to answer.  So many staff members, managers, players and board members will go through clubs in those years it is impossible to pinpoint where things differ. 

I will say though that for last few years the Southampton Board Room and share holders has had an entirely different make-up to that of Norwich.  If you look at City over a number of years then you will find that at some point one party (and I’m including Delia and Micheal as being one party) has had a controlling majority in shares.  In recent years there has been no controlling share holder in Southampton with Rupert Lowe holding close to 7% and Leon Crouch 10%.  It is only in the last few months with Michael Wilde buying a 25% stake that anyone has had a large amount of voting power.  He is still relying support from other board members / shareholders though.  Obviously with City we have not had a shareholder who needed "approval" from others to make the major decisions concerning the club.

Whether or not that makes a difference I do not know, you would think there was safety in numbers but then for Delia this is as much a labour of love as an investment.

For the differences in the last 40 years you would have to say that it matters very little.  No-one at Southampton cares how long they were in the top league - only how and when they will get back there.  It''s a shame that no-one wants to acknowledge all that Lowe and now-resigned board have done for that club but the saying is true - you are only as good as your last result.

Can City take any valuable lessons from the achievements of Southampton in the last 40 years?  I don''t know but what is clear is that the manager merry-go-round seen at Saints has contributed to their downfall.

 

[Yellow Rages 0]

What I mean by that saint is that to look specifically at population is pointless whereas to look at the bigger picture you may get an answer to YC''s question.

But as it transpired he doesn''t want an answer unless it''s the one he wants to hear so it doesn''t really matter either way.

[beelsie 0]

Yes!! YC,we have a fan base that want the best for NCFC as long as it''s not on a realistic business basis. We have said so many times that it''s not possible to have quality on the cheap.  We must have on the board people with robust vision and an ability to attract to our club people who have more than a wish to stand at the tiller of a sailing vessel and reading the chart in the upside down position, but who still can''t work out why we do not arrive at the destination.   I have mentioned Mr Richard Branson before and am sure that there is a starting point,  is it possible to offer a consultancy chairmanship to such a well known business entrepreneur who would have a more refreshing outlook and approach to what is in the best interests of NCFC, rather than what is in the best interests of the present entourage.  RB would have to gain in some way, and it could be more to his and our benefit if we could move upward into the prem giving him for his pains a much better platform from which to advertise freely from.  With his hand on the Tiller and the chart the right way up there is a possibility that he could see a benefit there that might just be attractive, considering all the millions he spends on advertising, money which may I add he could spend on acquiring better players for NCFC.  The price is IMHO, that he be offered the honorary post of chairman for his pains and free advertising at the prime end of the ground.  The greatest assumption is, that would the present status quo on the board, also offer him the chance to take advantage of a preference share issue allowing him to buy 40 % of a new real estate issue of NCFC.  Would they really be prepared to recognise the needs of NCFC as opposed to the self interest of individuals who at present occupy what is no more than rubber stamp control of a directionless ship.  Like may I say "The boys who stood on the burning deck"  I would however like to retain in his present post the incumbent excellent secretary who I believe has much to offer our would be great club.

[mystic megson 0]

IMO Southampton''s greater longevity in the top flight has nothing to do with demographics.

It is due to the fact that they put off spending money on infrastructure for as long as they possibly could. They enjoyed top flight football in a shabby stadium.  Their fans didn''t mind, and The Dell was a graveyard for visiting sides, especially the likes of Man U.

Then they went to the other extreme with Rupert''s vanity project.  We know what happened next . . . 

[GJD 0]

I hold up one glaring example of a club success built on a philosophy that is not a road I would like to see us tread, but did wonders for them for ten years.

Yes Wimbledon. No fans, no money and great success. Crap football, but it worked at the time for them and it was just eleven men and their dog.

It was a state of mind they had with various tough managers that gave them success. Might not work today with the new money in the Prem, but just adding them to a equation of this thread.

When they got money and spent it and tried to change they went down and down.

What Norwich need to do, which after all has a huge catchments area and great support right now is find the style that suits our team and build up the porous walls of FCR.

Is Worthy the man to do this again, well that’s another thread and just to thrilled after seeing that World cup semi  to go there.