Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Getting off the fence

Where do you see Norwich in the hierarchy of clubs?

Recommended Posts

We have had some great times in our relatively recent history, with several top 10 finishes and one glorious 3rd. However, we have to recognize that we are not Manchester United and these peaks will be few and far between (which is not to say that I don''t hope to see another peak). Of course, these things are not permanent, Man U, for example were relegated 20 odd years ago and Villa went down to the old third division as did Newcastle etc. But, we never really expected them to remain there.

We have a reasonably easy to recognise top 4, with other clubs, like Everton and Newcastle, in a second tier etc etc.

Where do we see NCFC in this hierarchy? I''d say about 12th to 26/27th. Above this and we are over-perfoming, below and we are under-performing. In other words, I would view our natural position as bottom half of Prem to top half of Championship. I aspire to higher, but don''t think we have a right to expect it.

What are others views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with that.  Trouble is at the moment we are not fulfilling our potential - with average home gates of 25,000 we could and should be doing a hell of a lot more in realising that potential.  The Board have failed to respond to the rise of expectation amongst the fan base that has occured during the last 4-5 years.  They''re stuck in the past and need to push the club forward more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe (although I don''t know for sure due to my age) that we only established ourselves in the top flight in the mid-eighties.

This therefore means that of our 100 year history, only 10% was played at the top level.

I see us as around the 20th biggest club in the country in terms of history, fan base, ground, catchment area and marketing possibilities.

We are underacheiving, but not by much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21st to 31st historically

over the last 3 years or so?  18-22nd.  We have underacheived.

The squad we have determines a lot - are Forest, Huddersfield or Notts County historically only clubs ranked 47+?  No but are they currently underachieving?   Probably not.  Our squad in the two previous seasons in parcular has underperformed.  All three are in the leagues they deserve to be in.

Our current squad probably has a range of 26-36 as it is simply too thin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mook"]

I believe (although I don''t know for sure due to my age) that we only established ourselves in the top flight in the mid-eighties.

This therefore means that of our 100 year history, only 10% was played at the top level.

I see us as around the 20th biggest club in the country in terms of history, fan base, ground, catchment area and marketing possibilities.

We are underacheiving, but not by much.

[/quote]

Mook, between 1972 and 1995 we were in the top flight for 20 out of 23 seasons.  In terms of hierarchy, if you measure that by what a club achieves with the resources at its disposal, we were top of the league or not far off.

We consistently punched above our weight, and that''s all I ask.  For Norwich City in 2006 that means being serious about promotion and finishing 17th if we get there.  The only thing that is unacceptable is settling for the comfort zone.

You''re right Mook, it wouldn''t take much for us to stop underachieving.  That''s why it''s so frustrating.  It could be done if only the desire was there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MM, thanks for the history update, it certainly throws a more succesful light on the situation than I had realised. But you do say: "We consistently punched above our weight, and that''s all I ask"

You''re asking for us to consistently over-achieve against the odds?! That''s a bit harsh. We all know that English football is very, very different to how it was even 10 years ago. But I agree completely about the comfort zone - a lot of players come here and fall into the comfort zone, and this has happened under too many managers for it to be Worthington''s fault.

I think a big problem is this: To achieve promotion from the Championship you need a settled side with only a couple of quality players. This tends to be built up over two/three seasons.

To stay in the prem you need 80% prem quality players, which disrupts your side, increases the wage bill and the likelihood is that they will not "bed in".

Then of course your back in the championship with half the side you had two years previously, sold most of your "premiership additions" and back to square one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Mook, between 1972 and 1995 we were in the top flight for 20 out of 23 seasons.[/quote]

...And around about that time, the sky money came rolling in, and we dropped out of the big league at the wrong time.  We''ve been playing catch-up ever since, and it takes a long time to turn around the financial deficit that missing out on that money created.  Whether any of us like it or not, nobodys'' going to roll up with a pot of 10 million for new players, so the business has to make money to spend money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I shouldn''t ask this and I know it''s a bit mischievious, but I can''t help it... so... where do we see Worthy in the current hierarchy of football managers, is he underachieving with us given the present circumstances that the club are in? I guess he certainly isn''t over achieving and we can probably only judge on last season''s finish for now.

It''s not as straightforward a question as you first think, Martin Jol and Paul Jewell amongst others definately over achieved last season so does that then raise the bar to a point where they are likely to under achieve this time round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Mook, between 1972 and 1995 we were in the top flight for 20 out of 23 seasons.[/quote]

...And around about that time, the sky money came rolling in, and we dropped out of the big league at the wrong time.  We''ve been playing catch-up ever since, and it takes a long time to turn around the financial deficit that missing out on that money created.  Whether any of us like it or not, nobodys'' going to roll up with a pot of 10 million for new players, so the business has to make money to spend money.

[/quote]sure, thats the prudence with ambition policy - trouble is it looks like failing.  we gained promotion by getting additional money to buy hucks, svennson & mckenzie raised from supporters/investors via the share releases.  this was the successful model - delia & co could surely have looked for new investors to join the city board upon our return to the top flight when they were in a position of relative strength, but they didn''t - their call, but as stated the prudence with ambition policy doesn''t look up to it.  even warnock got sheffield promoted when new investors pumped cash into the club.  so no, i don''t agree with your view that nobody is going to roll up with a pot of 10m.  loadsa clubs are doing it, why not city? only yesterday, b.fry is stepping aside as new investors are putting the money into peterborough. it can be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The third tier. Robert Chase said exactly this over 15 years and got severly critized for it by many who should have known better.

You have the first tier of clubs, such as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc. Then you have the second tier of so called ''feeder clubs'', such as West Ham, Charlton etc. Their location is crucial in that they can supply the largest clubs with future stars, while receiving a few cast offs who do not fancy moving.

Norwich come in the third tier - I would put them similar to Coventry, Leicester and the now improving Nottingham Forest. The biggest problem for Norwich is location - it is very difficult to attract players to this area - always has and always will be...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="komakino"]The third tier. Robert Chase said exactly this over 15 years and got severly critized for it by many who should have known better. You have the first tier of clubs, such as Man Utd, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc. Then you have the second tier of so called ''feeder clubs'', such as West Ham, Charlton etc. Their location is crucial in that they can supply the largest clubs with future stars, while receiving a few cast offs who do not fancy moving. Norwich come in the third tier - I would put them similar to Coventry, Leicester and the now improving Nottingham Forest. The biggest problem for Norwich is location - it is very difficult to attract players to this area - always has and always will be...[/quote]

thats rubbish mate, a player will go anywhere if he thinks the club is ambitious or going places, look at middlesboro for gods sake, a real dump at the end of the universe, they have attracted players, we need to show more ambition and lose our small club syndrome, we are not a small club, we are now bigger than the ones you mention imo, the problem is we need to act like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC - why did you have to ask this? I was hoping for some interesting, rational conversation which so far we have got.

Mischievous possibly but it could open the floodgates, so I''ll avoid commenting on this one.

Where do you see us in the hierarchy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry GOTF, although it was a little relevent.

Where are we in the hierarchy now? In my opinion somewhere around where we finshed in the league every full season  since Worthy took over as manager. But the structure has changed and the Premier League enables the clubs to consolidate there positions to such an extent that unless they are poorly managed they should be able to keep their relative positions in the hierarchy. The top four clubs have the most money to spend so should remain the top four clubs. The second tier if managed correctly should have enough money to stay second tier but not get to first tier. Third tier would be us along with at least 20 others who will have varying degrees of success but never really break into the top two tiers. Only when a Chelsea come along where the backers have so much money that they can buy their way into the top tier will this change. Then one of the top clubs has to make way for them, unless of course the the benefits are increased to be split an extra way. Thats why Chelsea will find it difficult to get in the G14, which is something I was talking about on another thread..

Hope this makes sense cuz it''s very late, I just got back from Rotherham, but thought having been mischievous on your thread earlier you deserve a proper reply [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...