10 years of Chase vs. 10 years of Smith

[Shaun Lawson 0]

[quote user="vos"]

OK Shaun let''s accept that after many successfull years under Chase we had hit a bad financial patch. But be fair, on balance he had given us many years of entertaining football and had shown a considerable amount of business acumen in his overall dealings. I do not accept we were more or less bust and where is the evidence that other clubs were being circulated about all our players being available for sale.By the way don''t forget the Bank had security of the ground then and his "flour mill" acquisition has got the present Board off the hook.

It is no use churning out the red herring that the present loan is Ok just because its long term. Most homeowners have a  long term house loan, but you will soon be in trouble if your earnings drop.I would also imagine a football ground is about the worst type of security a banker would want to hold. When was the last time a Bank foreclosed on a football ground !!! That''s why the main clearing banks will not touch football clubs with a bargepole.

Robert Chase was used to the rough and tumble of the business world. Our present Board I would suggest have in their own personal capacities not had the same experiences. They have surrounded themselves with many professionals who are both capable and proficient. But as employees do they carry the same ruthless streak??. For example have we been too easy in our transfer dealings, expenditure on the ground, development land etc.??? 

[/quote]

No Vos, he hadn''t shown a ''considerable amount of business acumen in his business dealings''. Again, you''re buying into a myth assumed at the time by Norwich fans, and indeed the media at large: most people assumed he was running a tight ship, but he wasn''t: we had to sell the players we did not to maintain this wonderfully profitable club we''d all figured he was presiding over, but simply to keep ourselves afloat.

When the fur hit the fan in early ''96, the man initially charged with cleaning up the mess was Gordon Bennet, who became our chief executive. Why do you suppose he made the comment that "we''d had the income of Southend, but the expenditure of Real Madrid"? Why do you reckon Geoffrey Watling, for the second time in his life, was forced to financially bail us out?

Do you think this stuff magically came out of nowhere? No, it didn''t: it was the direct and inevitable consequence of policies Chase had been following for many years. Policies which landed us, yes, in such a mess that he did fax all other clubs: how do you think he was able to sell Newsome and Ward so quickly, on the same day, for so little, and completely unbeknown to Megson, the manager? And if you don''t believe me, go to the local record office and dip into the EDP archive: this stuff was common knowledge within weeks.

As for the bank having security of the ground: great. So we''d have sold our one main asset, sold off most of the team too, and then what? How do you suppose we''d have survived? Magically built some brand spanking new ground despite having no money? How do you reckon we''d have operated commercially without our own gate receipts? What do you think would''ve happened to attendances had we ended up groundsharing somewhere? It''s not exactly difficult to work out, frankly.

On the current loan: sorry, but no. To draw a comparison: Newcastle are heavily in debt, but they''re in no danger, because their overdrafts are long-term. That means that they don''t have to come up with a huge amount of money at any given point. Leeds, on the other hand, got themselves into so much trouble through a succession of short-term loans - and once they''d failed to reach the Champions League two years in a row, the writing was on the wall. Our scenario is actually far healthier than a decade ago not only because of the land the club now owns: but because our overdrafts are sensible and long-term now, having been short-term and based on whether we stayed in the Prem under Chase.

[Shaun Lawson 0]

Me either: apparently, ''prosperity'' equals leaving a club/organisation/institution at death''s door; and refusing to risk such dire consequences mean you must be a failed socialist! Right. Remind me not to go to BBB for financial advice any time soon... ;-)

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="FramCanary"]Thankyou Shaun. I get it now - the success enjoyed during the Chase years should receive no credit, as it was achieved the ''wrong way''. However, Smith desreves our support & praise for achieving failure the ''right way''!. We understand now. Presumably Blair & his mob can still be justified in blaming all their problems on the previous regime also?. In this country we seem to have to destroy anything successful rather than celebrate it.[/quote]

I''m thinking of MEWing myself up to the eyeballs - got a fair bit of equity in the house - then spend it all on having a great time - big parties to impress all my mates, loose women, fast cars, guinea pigs, you know the sort of thing. And when the cash runs out & the baliffs call, well I''ll just go bankrupt.

Wodjer reckon Fram? Good idea? Would I be a success? Or just a great big tosser?

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]This is all getting out of hand people calling chase a legend and being sorry to see him go??? what is wrong with you people do you not remember what he did to our club?

Fram Canary - if your going to add to this debate i suggest you re-read shaun lawson''s posts think about what he''s saying and come back with a reasonable balanced arguement if you can not do this i would suggest you have lost the arguement. One line insults don''t convince anyone.
[/quote]

Good point - let''s get back to the subject in hand, & I apologise for allowing myself to become so frustrated with Shawn (who I must say is obviously as passionate as the rest of us - but draws his conclusions on the issue from an opposite viewpoint). I guess we are all feeling the strain at the moment!.

Let''s continue.........

Robert ''Mr Lucky'' Chase.

One of the luckiest men alive. Lucky that he was able to re-mortgage his property and sink as much as he could into the club to ease our financial woes. Lucky that he sacked Brown in time for his fortunate appointment of Stringer (best Manager in the Club''s history by the way) to pay dividends. Lucky that club record signing Fleck was so successful. Lucky that he developed a fantastic youth production line. Lucky that no investors put money into the club to deflect credit away from himself. Lucky that he offered a jobless Walker the opportunity to manage the reserves & then first team. Lucky that he managed to negotiate high prices when selling & low prices when aquiring players. Lucky that Deehan (despite repeated requests from the board) came forward with only one transfer target (Bob Taylor - WBA) when fighting relegation, after all he was going to cost us £1.3m but got injured just a few days before the deal. Lucky that he persuaded the relegated squad to stay - all on re-negotiated & improved contracts. Lucky that he he managed to bring a most sought-after O''Neill in as manager & that he took the job with a transfer budget of only £1.5m. And how lucky he was that he left the club (with much good young talent) to be taken on by a wealthy investor such as Smith.

Delia ''Born under a bad sign'' Smith.

Poor lady - she has had nothing but bad luck over the past 10 years. Bad luck in the transfer market - how was she to know that Mills & Akinbiyi could have brought several millions of pounds into the club, it was Walker who wanted rid of them (& others) as they were not up to standard. Bad luck in reaping in £3.7m rather than £11m for Eadie & O''Neill. Bad luck that only £4.8m was raised from the share issues, indeed some of this was put in by herself - thereby putting a huge dent in her personal wealth. Bad luck that the cost of the new South Stand was not fully covered by the land value inherited from the Chase era. Bad luck that she failed to back the ambition of an excellent manager in Rioch - and that he got upset when she sold Eadie without his knowledge. Bad luck that providing Hamilton with very much more support than shown to Rioch backfired to the extent it did. Bad luck that dear old Geoffrey Whatling left a pitiful £1.5m legacy. Bad luck that our excellent promotion season to the top flight resulted in premiership income of £36m as opposed to the very much higher sums now on offer. Bad luck that (although the past 2 years have seen combined profit achieved of around £12m) the club debt stands at over £20m. Bad luck that we gave Worthy another year & had to pay him 600k to go. Bad luck that the most impressive candidate for the vacant managers job turned out to have no managerial experience (& no idea!) and that we inadvertantly put him on the longest managerial contract in the clubs history (three & half years). Bad luck that by paying a small squad of limited abilty such excellent salaries, that they have performed so poorly. Bad luck that her tenure is confirmed as being a failure both on and off the pitch. Bad luck that her board of Directors have let her down to such an extent.

If Smith had enjoyed the sort of luck that Chase did then things would have been so much different.!.

FramCanary.

 

[Cluck 0]

Chase  = exciting.

DS and Co. = awful.

Thousands of words about everything except the excitement on the pitch.....and that''s what I pay to see when I go along to watch Norwich City play........

Chase made errors of judgement, but was not the ogre he was painted....and if indeed his "mistakes" are to be taken so seriously.....why then is the current Board to be sheltered under such a coat of protection? Could it be the "fat old bloke" versus "celebrity persona" syndrome?

 

[FramCanary 0]

It is remarkable that Shawn & other brain-washed members of the Smith worship brigade actually beleive that the football club''s very existance was under threat 10 years ago. He has flogged this ''48 hours from the end'' & ''market forces'' rubbish to death. The £6.9m debt was short term, and we were testing the Bank''s resolve. Even if Shawn''s ''market forces would have driven down player values'' assumption is valid, then Eadie &(or) O''Neill could have been moved on (at perhaps £3m each) to solve the immediate problem. Re-structure to medium/long term debt could also have taken place, although this incures far greater amounts of interest expenditure - albeit over a longer period. As it happens, the new board saw the value of these players drastically reduce after having turned down £11m of bids in an attempt to prove that their methods would could bring back success back to the field of play whilst ignoring the value of keeping player contracts updated. How many times has this failing cost us der over recent years?. A catalogue of endless errors then unsued.

The outcome of the debate is very easy to establish. Chase: Unprecedented success on field of play (we all know the facts), who left the club in better shape than anyone who were to take it on now. Smith: Most unsuccessful period in our modern history on field of play, leaving us in a relegation battle & an very high level of long-term debt.

Shawn & other ''blinkered'' individuals have their opinions on this subject, and have added well to the debate - but this is where it ends for me. No more to be said. I would gladly read their thoughts (however) on where we are as a club at this point in time.

Many thanks.

FramCanary.

[Fluff 0]

[quote user="Shaun Lawson"]

When the fur hit the fan in early ''96, the man initially charged with cleaning up the mess was Gordon Bennet, who became our chief executive. Why do you suppose he made the comment that "we''d had the income of Southend, but the expenditure of Real Madrid"?

[/quote]Gordon Bennet was not only the man that starved off the vultures, but the man that Darren Eadie, Bellamy, Andy Johnson, Robert Green and (spit) Keith O''Neill all state as the main influence and guiding light behind the then city youth conveyor!  Is there any coincidence that the conveyor has dried up since? Hmmmm

[Branston Pickle 3,658]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

 The £6.9m debt was short term, and we were testing the Bank''s resolve.

[/quote]

I had decided to keep out of this, the amount of rose coloured spectacle wearing zbout the Chase era is quite astounding.  There are many facets to the whole thing, but for me the long and short of it is that it is entirely pointless and also impossible to compare. 

The facts are quite simple, we did have our best ever times under him but for whatever reason Chase did leave the club in a financial mess.  Whilst Fram Canary seems to think borrowing £6.9m via overdrafts is a good idea, but any sensible accountant would say otherwise. "Testing the banks resolve" indeed.  In such an instance there is only ever one winner, and it is certainly not the customer.  The bank can call in its overdraft at any time and demand payment...hence us selling anyone decent for any fee going in the latter days.  I''m sorry but in most financial respects Chase has to be regarded as a poor steward of the club. 

There''s no way he could have quite foreseen the Sky money kicking off as it did, but the fact is that we got relegated and in financial difficulties at completely the wrong time.  Given that, IMO Delia et al have not done so badly when compared to plenty of similar clubs to us, but not as well as others - that''s life, and to completely castigate them for this is plain stupid.   

.

.

[vos 155]

Shaun you did not understand my comments re ground as security. I made no mention of selling it etc. I was simply making the point that 10 years ago, just as now, the main lender had the security of the ground. As regards "tight ship" thats what the present regime keeps telling us but you only have to look behind the scenes to see they could have been more prudent. Do you seriously think Chase would have sold players on the terms that we were finally paid 2 years later. The Board shows a lack of  tough business negotiating skills and repeatedely talk of balancing the books by asset sales. This policy cannot survive much longer.

Lets settle the debate. At the end of this current financial year the Board will have received some £35 million from the Sky deal over 3 years. £4 million odd for the "flour mill" sale. Despite this,at the date of the last accounts they owed £26 million including normal creditors AND also owed around  £7 million for advanced ticket sales receipts.And what are we left with a squad which is not worth much more than £5 million Anyone who says the financial picture is now better must be joking..

I repeat the current Board are honourable people and Delia and hubby have invested considerable sums. They have done their best in difficult times for football but they cannot compare with the record of Robert Chase.

Just like Fram Canary I can see Shaun I will never convince you of the blindingly obvious and its time for bed. Having just returned from the AGM needless to say I am depressed. Plenty of spin but no substance.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="FramCanary"]

 The £6.9m debt was short term, and we were testing the Bank''s resolve.

[/quote]

I had decided to keep out of this, the amount of rose coloured spectacle wearing zbout the Chase era is quite astounding.  There are many facets to the whole thing, but for me the long and short of it is that it is entirely pointless and also impossible to compare. 

The facts are quite simple, we did have our best ever times under him but for whatever reason Chase did leave the club in a financial mess.  Whilst Fram Canary seems to think borrowing £6.9m via overdrafts is a good idea, but any sensible accountant would say otherwise. "Testing the banks resolve" indeed.  In such an instance there is only ever one winner, and it is certainly not the customer.  The bank can call in its overdraft at any time and demand payment...hence us selling anyone decent for any fee going in the latter days.  I''m sorry but in most financial respects Chase has to be regarded as a poor steward of the club. 

There''s no way he could have quite foreseen the Sky money kicking off as it did, but the fact is that we got relegated and in financial difficulties at completely the wrong time.  Given that, IMO Delia et al have not done so badly when compared to plenty of similar clubs to us, but not as well as others - that''s life, and to completely castigate them for this is plain stupid.   

.

.

[/quote]

The fact is....DS and Co took on the job willingly....and with a huge fanfare of publicity. They have not done it for "charitable" purposes and I get sick to the teeth that we should some how be grateful "for all of the hard work they have put into it". It''s their business and they bloody well should put alot of hard work into it.

It''s a commercial venture...full stop.  They intended to create media publicity for DS...which they have....and they intended to make money from their investment....which they have. The major part of this adventure should have been the team on the pitch....and that quite frankly is a disaster. You don''t buy a football club to build up a catering concern.....or do you?

No-one else put us where we are.....and they should hold their hands up to it.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Shaun Lawson"]Me either: apparently, ''prosperity'' equals leaving a club/organisation/institution at death''s door; and refusing to risk such dire consequences mean you must be a failed socialist! Right. Remind me not to go to BBB for financial advice any time soon... ;-)[/quote]

No Shaun, I am in the business of football prosperity. We are a professional football club whose mission should be to achieve optimum success on the football field for its supporters on a reasonably sustained and entertaining basis. Looking at the longer sweep of history between 1958-1995, NCFC was pretty successful in achieving this mission over the period - and  particularly over the latter 10 year period. The years 1995-2006 bear no comparison and, in truth, show the prosperity graph trending downwards rather alarmingly. 

As to financial advice, there is one thing I would say.

6.9m debt with 10-11m of pretty liquid player assets equates to 48 hours to bankruptcy?  B*llocks. The bank would have been crazy to foreclose and immediately drive the value of those assets way down. As to the PR effects on their N&N customer base etc etc etc. City blinked first.

''Death''s door'', my foot!

You see, once one subtracts all the anger and private agendas from analyses of the 1995 situation, reality bites and stares us all plainly in the face.

Robert Chase dared to dare for 10 years and provided a rollocking good time for the City faithful. He applied a capitalist approach and achieved what must be the real mission of any football club - success on the field.

The dreary lot in charge now utilise the blame game whilst applying socialist principles of community, deception, and the big bad wolf. 20m in debt with almost zero player assets, 17th in the Chumpionship and sinking fast. And this is the result of the prudent approach? 

But, nevertheless, the bottom line for me is that nothing, but nothing, would give me more pleasure than for Smith & Co to prove me wrong! And the sooner the better.

OTBC..........but we''d better mind the danger!

 

 

 

 

 

  

[In Dubious Battle 0]

The fact that we had £11 million worth of players to sell to stop us going bankrupt is not really the point, we should not have gotten into a posistion where we needed to sell our best two players just to survive. Also i don''t recall very many people moaning at the time when we kept hold of our 2 star players. Yes their value decreased but how were the board supposed to predict that? What if Earnshaw''s value drops dramatically? will you all say why didn''t we sell him in Jan 07 when we could have got £5 Million?

[Plastic Scouser 0]

It''s interesting to read through these comments and actually remember the Chase era for what it was...And to be honest, although at the time I never thought I''d say it, Chase did actually preside over a pretty successful period for the club.   I think what grates with most people who were actually there is the thought that the club would have been even greater if we hadn''t sold the likes of Sutton etc...Delia Smith plc is a businesswoman first, a City supporter second.   She''s not ploughed all this cash into the club as a hobby.   Unfortunately she''s not THAT rich.    Once people realise that her investment isn''t an open chequebook (and to be honest, we all should have realised this by now) we''ll see her for what she is - an investor, simply that - no different from the likes of the Glaziers at Man Utd - for all her on the pitch bletherings...!One of the most consistent points that has been raised on this thread is the lack of youth coming through - which you have to admit was a major success of the Chase era - where would we have been without the likes of Sutton, Gordon, Fox etc...?So yes, in retrospect, Chaseworld wasn''t quite so bad - not when you put it up against the current period that we''re going through...

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]The fact that we had £11 million worth of players to sell to stop us going bankrupt is not really the point, we should not have gotten into a posistion where we needed to sell our best two players just to survive.

Also i don''t recall very many people moaning at the time when we kept hold of our 2 star players. Yes their value decreased but how were the board supposed to predict that? What if Earnshaw''s value drops dramatically? will you all say why didn''t we sell him in Jan 07 when we could have got £5 Million?
[/quote]

We must always cash in on players when their value is at a peak - and ensure that a good portion of the proceeds are spent on younger players of obvious potential. A tried & tested method of self-sufficiency for clubs like ours. Ordinarily we would be tempted to sell Earnie & re-invest maybe £3m to £4m on squad improvement. But with the £7m parachute monies this is not necessary but may still have been the better of the options given how thin & sub-standard the majority of our squad is. Earnie was sure to be worth more in 1/07 than at the end of the season.

[mbncfc 1]

Chicken....

Egg...

Hinuism...

Islam...

 

RRRaaaaaaggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!

[Jim Smith 2,317]

In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]

Thankyou Tony!

UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]Also the regulations have changed so we can only recruit from a 100 mile radius rather than from the whole country. Because of where we are half our area is the north sea.

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]

Also the regulations have changed so we can only recruit from a 100 mile radius rather than from the whole country. Because of where we are half our area is the north sea.
[/quote]

Well, that explains everything then. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.

No further debate required - the conlusion is obvious to all.

Please don''t waste any more of our time with excuses.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]

Also the regulations have changed so we can only recruit from a 100 mile radius rather than from the whole country. Because of where we are half our area is the north sea.
[/quote]

Please list the apparently endless reams of excuses for this club and send it to your local land fill site....

WAKE UP........It isn''t a conspiracy.....and the owners of this club for the past 10 awful years have blindly allowed it to happen. It''s not a hate thing as you try to ''spin'' it.....it''s fact.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I must admit I am slightly unclear from your reply but i assume you are sarcastically suggesting i am spinning a la Tony Blair?

If you read my post further up you will see that I actually stated that on balance I was critical of the current regime and conclused we were perhaps better off under chase. however the above statement is a fact and in the interests of fairness you have to accept Chase messed things up towards the end otherwise your argument loses all credibility. We missed out on a lot of players to ipswich over a period of 4 or 5 years as we had no academy scouts following the cutbacks. That has been rectified now and we are beating Ipswich to players but these kids we are signing up are 13,14,15 and it will take a few years for them to filter through to contention. If you look at the results of our younger academy teams then they are generally very good!

 

Regarding the finances comparisaons are difficult to make as the world of football finance has moved on. Borrowingh facilities such as the £15m securitaisation the club has taken out simply weren''t available to football clubs in those days and the land that chase acquired did not have the potential value it has now therefore Chase was working under much tighter constraints.

 

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]Also the regulations have changed so we can only recruit from a 100 mile radius rather than from the whole country. Because of where we are half our area is the north sea. [/quote]

Well, that explains everything then. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.

No further debate required - the conlusion is obvious to all.

Please don''t waste any more of our time with excuses.

[/quote]Who are you to decide the conclusion is obvious to all? there are plenty of people on here who would disagree with that statement. The point being made was why is our youth set up not working? and a couple of possible explanations were suggested if these are just excuses perhaps you would care to suggest the real reason our academy is not producing quality players?

[Mokey76 0]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

We must always cash in on players when their value is at a peak - and ensure that a good portion of the proceeds are spent on younger players of obvious potential. A tried & tested method of self-sufficiency for clubs like ours. Ordinarily we would be tempted to sell Earnie & re-invest maybe £3m to £4m on squad improvement. But with the £7m parachute monies this is not necessary but may still have been the better of the options given how thin & sub-standard the majority of our squad is. Earnie was sure to be worth more in 1/07 than at the end of the season.

[/quote]

 

Are you suggesting that we should sell Earnie?  And any other player just because they''re are worth something?  Surely the better footballing idea would not to sell off your best players and to try and build a succesful team around them and make your money that way?

 

And before you have a go, I am not a Delia fan, but I see her as the lesser of two evils.

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="FramCanary"]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Jim Smith"]In defence of the current regime re the youth one of the reasons we have not produced so many good youth players in the last few years is due to the fact that Chase dramatically cut all expenditure on the academy in the latter stages of his reighn and we are only really starting to recover from that now.[/quote]

Also the regulations have changed so we can only recruit from a 100 mile radius rather than from the whole country. Because of where we are half our area is the north sea.
[/quote]

Well, that explains everything then. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.

No further debate required - the conlusion is obvious to all.

Please don''t waste any more of our time with excuses.

[/quote]

Who are you to decide the conclusion is obvious to all? there are plenty of people on here who would disagree with that statement.

The point being made was why is our youth set up not working? and a couple of possible explanations were suggested if these are just excuses perhaps you would care to suggest the real reason our academy is not producing quality players?
[/quote]

I would suggest that a considerable number of young lads with talent will usually opt to join a club that encourages the promotion of players through to first team, whilst giving them every chance of establishing a career for themselves on a ''fair'' basis. Unlike NCFC which (Shackell aside) would far rather pay outrageous salaries to players enjoying the comfort zone, than bring through young/hungry players from it''s production line.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

I have not seen enough of our current academy players to form a fair opinion of their abilities, once we are safe from relegation i would very much like to see them getting opportunities in the first team. I actually agree with your post although i still believe the previous points made by myself and Jim Smith are valid factors as well. Our youth set up was our biggest strength 10 years ago not only producing some of the best players we''ve ever seen in a city shirt sutton, eadie, bellamy etc but also  generating income in transfer fees. For me this is one of the priority for the club right now even above new transfers we need investment and we need as you say to show that we are prepared to give youth a chance.neither chase or delia picked the team though so neither can really be criticised for this

[FramCanary 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]I have not seen enough of our current academy players to form a fair opinion of their abilities, once we are safe from relegation i would very much like to see them getting opportunities in the first team.

I actually agree with your post although i still believe the previous points made by myself and Jim Smith are valid factors as well. Our youth set up was our biggest strength 10 years ago not only producing some of the best players we''ve ever seen in a city shirt sutton, eadie, bellamy etc but also  generating income in transfer fees. For me this is one of the priority for the club right now even above new transfers we need investment and we need as you say to show that we are prepared to give youth a chance.

neither chase or delia picked the team though so neither can really be criticised for this
[/quote]

We agree!

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="FramCanary"]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]I have not seen enough of our current academy players to form a fair opinion of their abilities, once we are safe from relegation i would very much like to see them getting opportunities in the first team. I actually agree with your post although i still believe the previous points made by myself and Jim Smith are valid factors as well. Our youth set up was our biggest strength 10 years ago not only producing some of the best players we''ve ever seen in a city shirt sutton, eadie, bellamy etc but also  generating income in transfer fees. For me this is one of the priority for the club right now even above new transfers we need investment and we need as you say to show that we are prepared to give youth a chance.neither chase or delia picked the team though so neither can really be criticised for this [/quote]

We agree!

[/quote]On the youth issue yes we agree, i would like to stress although it may not always come across in my posts i am not a big delia fan and am certainly not happy with a number of things at the club at present. I do feel though that some things that are said on this message board are unfair and if i think so i''ll say so, I would argue just as strongly against somebody who said that everything was fine and delia was god.

[FramCanary 0]

After Smith''s ''invitation'' for possible buyers/investors to step forward - will Davey show serious intent and once again approach the board?. As a City fan, if he can prove his wealth and confirm his plans for the club to Smith & her directors then he might be just the guy we are looking for. I don''t recall such an air of suspicion & distain for a Surrey born, ITFC scarf wearing celebrity chef ten years ago. I''m sure that whoever were to come forward (someone like Manderic - if the Leicester deal fell through - for example) would receive an unwelcome response from the dwindling numbers of Smith worship brigade. Heads out of sand, blinkers off & please join us in the real world. We all must realise that what has happened over Smith''s tenure cannot continue, and that the club needs new stewardship & new direction.

[macdougalls perm 0]

FramCanary,

If you think that people who happen to have a different opinion to you are the ''smith worship brigade'' then it is you that needs to take your head out of the sand, blinkers off and join the real world. That is such a wilful misreading of what people are saying, it is unbelievable. I can''t speak for anybody else, obviously, but I don''t worship DS, I simply think she has done nothing to deserve some of the peurile vitriol spewed in her direction by some people on this message board. Stop, I repeat STOP, putting words in peoples'' mouth and suggesting that because they don''t agree with you they are Delia worshipping sheep. It is so irritating!!

Rant over! I feel better now.    

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

The truth will always out.

This story has come to bump.

OTBC