City board answers the fans questions in the Pink'un

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

I''d also like to know why we didn''t make an offer for £1m for Steve Howard - as it seems Worthy wanted - if we could afford £1.5m-£2m for David Cotteril. Who made the decision not to persue the former?...

[/quote]

I think the answer to that one is fairly simple.  We were prepared to pay the money for Cotteril for the same reasons we spent it on Ashton and Earnshaw, they are highly unlikely to devalue and all in possibility the club will make money from selling them in the future.  It was an investment they thought could make them a good profit. 

Howard being 30 offered no prospect at being sold on at a profit thus the board deemed it unwise to spend £1m on him.  This is fair enough as it makes economic sense.  However football is not just about the simple economics of making a quick profit.  Howard represented the type of player we needed as a partner for Earnshaw and was exactly what we were missing early on the season when Croft and Hux were putting crosses in the box.  He also would have been able to hold the ball up in games like Southend away where we just couldn''t keep it and in the end let in a late goal.  There is there possibility that had Howard or a similar player been here from the start of the season we could be better placed for promotion and the estimated £30-£50m that entails. 

The board were simply not  prepared to risk £1m for a potential £30 but were prepared to risk more for less than 1% of the Premiership money.  I understand that you can''t risk the future of the club to spend over your limits but by the clubs own admission - they wouldn''t have been.

[mat gore 0]

Pathetic answers.

We **should** be one of the richer clubs in this division.  We have the parachute payments this year and have sold £10millions pounds plus worth of players in the last 12 months.  We have spent about 3.5 million on players transfer fees maybe 4.  I know there are signing on fees etc etc but frankly we''ve made a large net gain and our wage bill should be falling as highearners leave.

A relatively poor/middling team in this division like Coventry can spend 600k-£1million on the fee for Leon McKenzie matching all of our transfer window signings put together just on the up front section of his fee.

Are the board really trying to claim that loaning a pimply schoolboy from everton for 4 games blew the transfer budget ?  Everton should have been paying us.

They sound like new labour spinning out lies and false statistics to defend the indefensible,

As other posters have pointed out the ommissions are so obvious as to make their answers not just wrong but infuriating.  If they think this will placate anyone they''re insane.  Reading their answers made my blood boil they''d have been better off saying nothing.

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="mbncfc"]

I''d also like to know why we didn''t make an offer for £1m for Steve Howard - as it seems Worthy wanted - if we could afford £1.5m-£2m for David Cotteril. Who made the decision not to persue the former?...

[/quote]

I think the answer to that one is fairly simple.  We were prepared to pay the money for Cotteril for the same reasons we spent it on Ashton and Earnshaw, they are highly unlikely to devalue and all in possibility the club will make money from selling them in the future.  It was an investment they thought could make them a good profit. 

Howard being 30 offered no prospect at being sold on at a profit thus the board deemed it unwise to spend £1m on him.  This is fair enough as it makes economic sense.  However football is not just about the simple economics of making a quick profit.  Howard represented the type of player we needed as a partner for Earnshaw and was exactly what we were missing early on the season when Croft and Hux were putting crosses in the box.  He also would have been able to hold the ball up in games like Southend away where we just couldn''t keep it and in the end let in a late goal.  There is there possibility that had Howard or a similar player been here from the start of the season we could be better placed for promotion and the estimated £30-£50m that entails. 

The board were simply not  prepared to risk £1m for a potential £30 but were prepared to risk more for less than 1% of the Premiership money.  I understand that you can''t risk the future of the club to spend over your limits but by the clubs own admission - they wouldn''t have been.

[/quote]

I agree with all of that Saint. But who made the final decision?

Did Worthy agree that he should switch his sights to another target and that Howard wouldn''t be the signing which we needed?

Or did the board decide, against the football manager''s wishes, that the money would not represent value - this despite the manager requiring a target man and NW being soley responsible for results on the pitch? And then, how do you sanction them agreeing to Dion''s wages?

To me, that is the crux.

It is very difficult to learn if you are in denial.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

The explanations and answers from the club - were pure and to the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"In their eyes, that is". 

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

I agree with all of that Saint. But who made the final decision?

Did Worthy agree that he should switch his sights to another target and that Howard wouldn''t be the signing which we needed?

Or did the board decide, against the football manager''s wishes, that the money would not represent value - this despite the manager requiring a target man and NW being soley responsible for results on the pitch? And then, how do you sanction them agreeing to Dion''s wages?

To me, that is the crux.

It is very difficult to learn if you are in denial.

[/quote]

It certainly is difficult to learn if you are in denial and that''s our biggest problem at the moment.  The board don''t seem to acknowledge their mistakes.

I think in answer to your question, Worthy made it known he was unhappy he did not get to speak to Howard.  That says it all for me.

[Yellow Rages 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

I''d like to know how the loss of parachute payments will affect the squad next season, considering it is still lacking in quality. Will we have to sell anyone? Could we bring in more players?

I''d also like to know why we didn''t make an offer for £1m for Steve Howard - as it seems Worthy wanted - if we could afford £1.5m-£2m for David Cotteril. Who made the decision not to persue the former?...

And I''d like them to discribe our scouting performance over the past 2 seasons in five words, and ask them how they''d improve it...

[/quote]

Hang tight on the first two. I''m trying to get something more substantial on those. Read up the thread mate.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="-.-. .-.. ..- -.-. -.-"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="-.-. .-.. ..- -.-. -.-"]

Why am I not surprised by such a limp wristed Q and A session....although I understand that the Pinkun journalist would need to necessarily tread carefully to preserve the cosy club/archant bond.

The questions themselves allowed the PR machine to duck down various alleyways....rather than have to be up front....and has been said already...what have we actually learned? Sod all except that they are in control and we had better understand that fact.........

More of the same bilge I''m afraid amid the cynical adjectives galore aimed at the club''s "wonderful" and "fantastic" supporters who throw money at them to spend. They''ll get no more out of me after this season....and don''t come the usual "you''re not a true supporter" crap. Only by letting them know through the turnstiles that we will no longer swallow this stuff are they going to act.....but that is of course the choice of each individual.

It''s more of the same versus something potentially much better.........and no.....it couldn''t get much worse than being relegated or becoming just another Grimsby Town or Lincoln City.......

 

[/quote]

So what questions would you have asked?

 

[/quote]

I''d have asked....

(a) Why my Yorkshire puddings don''t rise properly before getting burnt around the edge?

(b) What cut of beef does she recommend for a casserole?

(c) Is Imported New Zealand lamb better than the locally produced sheep?

(d) When are you going to bugger off and give us our club back?

That''s about it....but not necessarily in that order..........[:)]

[/quote]

OK, I''ll play nicely for awhile too.

Would we get our club back whoever was majority shareholder? Have Liverpool fans got their club back today? Did Man. U. get their club back when Glazer came to town?

Now go easy on me because you know I am "a fish out of water" on this type of thread.

 

[/quote]

You know I like playing with you really Nutty....[:)]

Now...as I see it, Norwich City are an entirely different animal to either Man U or Liverpool. They are large "companies" or "franchises" on an entirely different level to NCFC. To these clubs...(along with Chelsea and Arsenal)....everything revolves around being top of the Premiership....and their fans don''t just look for a degree of success....they demand to be amongst the very best clubs in the World..............

NCFC is (or was) a community club representing a great city in a great County. We will never compete with the likes of the above.....and I doubt many of us would want to. You ask if Liverpool or Man Utd have "got their club back".....and the answer is no....BUT they don''t care just as long as the cash coming in buys them success. With that mentality they really aren''t bothered who owns what....as long as they bring success along with them.

My gripe (yes I have one [;)] ).....is that NCFC has lost it''s way.....and Delia Smith is now as symbolic of the club as the yellow canary on the badge. How rare it is to read "Canaries" this or that in the national press these days...it''s always Delia''s Norwich blahdeblahdeblah.. Now that might not bother you....but it p***es me off big time. Unlike the big clubs...we just want some ambition shown and to be as good as we can be.....but under this shower we are treading water at best....and sliding into obscurity at worst.

So no....(health issues apart).....I don''t give a monkey''s about Delia Smith or what happens to her. She has manipulated this club into a "nice" little team in keeping with her "nice" little image....and it''s time now to get "our" club back on the rails and competing again. I''ve said before that other clubs now see us as a "soft touch"....and results on the pitch prove this. Why are our players so blatantly lacklustre and easily turned over these days?....Almost certainly the same issues are affecting them.....and it won''t take long for the new boys to become infected either.

Contary to all of the irrational fear shown on this forum....there would be life after Delia Smith, just as there was before she stepped in and flashed her little purse....and given a new Board with a fresh dynamic approach....even the supporters might not be so divided. There will be suitors out there when the club becomes available (don''t believe the spin on that one either)....but Delia will cling on as long as she can (Worthington style)....because it is her bread and butter now the tv companies have moved onto more modern styles of cooking programmes.

I can''t believe anyone can disagree with that...............[;)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I agree with many things you say here Cluck.

Manchester United fans were angry when their club was taken over. Season tickets were torn up and even a new club was formed, FC United of Manchester if I remember correctly. Not sure how many of their fans are still unhappy now though and quite probably some have changed their mind as they are top of the Premier League again.

However many Norwich fans would be the same if we were top of this league. If Grant turns things round and we are challenging at the top of this league next season you will be a lone voice shouting for Delia to go because in the main football fans are fickle. Remember last time when her critics ended up wanting to erect a statue in her honour!!!

Your gripe with Norwich would be understandable if you were an exiled fan who only has access to how the national media portray the club. Delia has nothing like the amount of influence that the national media would have us believe. You never mention MWJ and yet he is also the majority shareholder and he is, in my opinion, the driving force of the partnership.

Of course there will be life after these two have left. I am not even posting on here to support or defend the current owners of the club. There is no alternative in front of me so I have nothing to choose between.

Who owns the club has never interested me as much as who plays for it. Maybe you are so obsessed with Delia Smith that you can''t focus on anything else.

When I read your posts they remind me of one of my grandads favourite Churchill quotes:-

A fanatic is one who can''t change his mind and won''t change the subject.

 

[Moanin Riverender 0]

25 July 2006
City could have afforded striker

Norwich City could have afforded to buy new Derby County striker Steve Howard - but in the end decided he was not worth the money.

The 30-year-old front man moved to the Canaries'' Coca-Cola Championship rivals for £1m from Luton Town at the weekend, after City boss Nigel Worthington signalled his interest in the player and made a bid of his own.

But after disappointment for the manager and fans in seeing another top transfer target slip through the net, club chairman Roger Munby revealed that City could have forked out a seven-figure sum to entice Howard to Carrow Road.

However, after admitting it was “reasonably frustrating” to see Howard make the switch to Pride Park, Munby declared that he did not think the big target man was worth his big price tag.

“It is reasonably frustrating because we''d looked at him quite carefully, although he''s not the only one,” City''s chairman said. “The only saving grace is that he''s gone for an amount of money well beyond his worth, in our view.

“As with every target, there are limits to what we can spend, but we could have afforded him.”

Munby''s admission that Worthington could have splashed out £1m is the first clue to the amount of money the City boss has in his back pocket to spend, with a big target man the first priority.

Up until now other City officials and Munby himself have remained fairly tight-lipped on the manager''s transfer kitty.

But after seeing a move for Howard fall by the wayside, the Canaries face going into their first league game at Leeds, in less than a fortnight, with no new signings in the squad.

A month ago, Munby urged fans not to fret about the absence of new signings as Worthington''s men prepared to report for pre-season training.

Four weeks on, Munby is still not worried about the lack of transfer activity and said he was confident things would happen - even though fans could have to wait until near the close of the transfer window at the end of August for any movement.

His message to fans, the manager, and players like Darren Huckerby, who have voiced concerns about the lack of new men, was to stay calm.

“I am still confident we''ll get players in,” he said. “We want to push as hard as we can to secure the best deals, but we have the basis of a very good squad.

“Our search for players and scouting has been going on since March and April. Now we''ve got five more weeks - that''s the bargaining period.

“It would be good to have key players in by the start of pre-season and before the start of the season.

“But we''ve played four pre-season games and won three of them. Things are going quite well and that''s a good basis.”

24 July 2006
Worthy so sad to miss out again

Norwich City manager Nigel Worthington could not hide his acute disappointment at missing out on one of his top transfer targets at the weekend - after Luton Town striker Steve Howard made a £1million switch to Coca-Cola Championship rivals Derby County.

News of 30-year-old Howard''s move to the Midlands cast a shadow over the final day of the Canaries'' trip to Scotland, where their 100 per cent pre-season record was halted by a 1-1 draw at Falkirk.

Worthington has yet to make his first new signing of the summer - 12 weeks after the end of last season and less than a fortnight away from the opening Coca-Cola Championship fixture at Leeds on August 5.

And he admitted that City''s own offer for Howard had fallen way short of the eventual price paid by new Rams boss Billy Davies for the former Hartlepool man, his first signing since arriving at Pride Park.

“I''m hugely disappointed with that because there was a lot of time and effort spent trying to make that one happen,” said Worthington.

“I lost target number one in Rob Hulse. We''ve now lost Howard. People say what''s plan C? It depends how far down the leagues we go and exactly what quality we want to bring in, so we''ll have a look, but one thing I will say is if it''s not right to help us and take us forward, then I won''t do it.”

Both City chairman Roger Munby and chief executive Neil Doncaster have publicly reassured supporters that new signings will be made, but while maintaining a diplomatic stance in public, Worthington clearly feels he lacks the financial muscle to get the players he really wants.

Asked whether City were close to matching the eventual price for Howard, he said: “The deal that finished up? No.”

But as to whether he feared he was running out of time to bring in new faces with the Championship season a fortnight away, he added: “I''m not worried at all. What I mean by that is that we''re trying for players and we''re not getting them through the finances. So if that''s the case then I and the staff will work with the players that we''ve got, make sure we get the best out of them and do the best we can.”

I think the answer re.Howard is in here.Worthy wanted him,but the board wouldn''t pay for him,even though they could have afforded him.Now,where are Derby again ?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]She has manipulated this club into a "nice" little team in keeping with her "nice" little image....and it''s time now to get "our" club back on the rails and competing again.[/quote]Peter Grant has stated a number of times that he wants this club in the Premiership, and that he is ambitious.  The board of the club appointed him, and have backed him to bring in 5 capable players so far, one of which was the Man of the Match against Leeds.  On that basis, how can you claim that the board don''t want to be competitive ?[quote]There will be suitors out there when the club becomes available (don''t believe the spin on that one either)[/quote]Who is to say that it will become available ?  As Delia stated at the AGM, buying the current board out wouldmake her rich but wouldn''t help the club.  It would be a waste of money that could otherwise be spent on players.  Unless new investors have a lot of money to spend on buying shares aswell as in players, I would expect any them to work with the board to provide a war-chest for transfer funds.You are suggesting terminal decline when recent performances and the buzz surrounding our transfer activity suggest a turnaround in fortunes waiting to happen.  I have to wait for results to prove this, as you have to wait for our end of season position to prove you right.  However, I suggest to you that we have had our lowest ebb, that the most disinterested / least capable players have been moved on or loaned out, and the new players (and those to arrive on loan) are more than capable of re-establishing a top 10 position this season, with a view to a play-off place or better next season.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]She has manipulated this club into a "nice" little team in keeping with her "nice" little image....and it''s time now to get "our" club back on the rails and competing again.[/quote]

Peter Grant has stated a number of times that he wants this club in the Premiership, and that he is ambitious.  The board of the club appointed him, and have backed him to bring in 5 capable players so far, one of which was the Man of the Match against Leeds.  On that basis, how can you claim that the board don''t want to be competitive ?

[quote]There will be suitors out there when the club becomes available (don''t believe the spin on that one either)[/quote]

Who is to say that it will become available ?  As Delia stated at the AGM, buying the current board out wouldmake her rich but wouldn''t help the club.  It would be a waste of money that could otherwise be spent on players.  Unless new investors have a lot of money to spend on buying shares aswell as in players, I would expect any them to work with the board to provide a war-chest for transfer funds.

You are suggesting terminal decline when recent performances and the buzz surrounding our transfer activity suggest a turnaround in fortunes waiting to happen.  I have to wait for results to prove this, as you have to wait for our end of season position to prove you right.  However, I suggest to you that we have had our lowest ebb, that the most disinterested / least capable players have been moved on or loaned out, and the new players (and those to arrive on loan) are more than capable of re-establishing a top 10 position this season, with a view to a play-off place or better next season.

[/quote]

Blah...I''m not waiting to be "proved right" at all. The last thing I want as a lifelong City supporter is for this club to slide into obscurity...but one win over Leeds....and some unproven "bargain basement" signings replacing other failed "bargain basement" signings means nothing.  All of the other clubs around us have made new signings too....so don''t you think they will expect a new impetus over the remainder of their season? Do our "5 new capable" players outweigh the signings made by the other club''s around us? Other better placed teams will seek to obtain loan players too....so that is not something we alone can do. With regards to Grant''s "Premiership battle cry".....don''t you think every manager says the same thing?  

Regarding Delia''s comment about her departure "not helping the club". Slightly conceited don''t you think? That makes it sound as if she believes her and MWJ could not be improved upon by anyone else who may come along....and that is total fantasy.....if not "dictatorial".  So in effect she will smugly cling on to her "investment"...despite the state of the team....because she thinks this position is as good as it could ever be then? Does she actually love the club as she claims....or just the total control over events that she and MWJ worryingly have? She can of course do what she likes in the position of majority shareholder.....but let''s not forget how we swore never to allow that again after the Chase rumpus. The two scenarios are blending more as time goes by.

I admire your optimism....but question your realism.

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I agree with many things you say here Cluck.

Manchester United fans were angry when their club was taken over. Season tickets were torn up and even a new club was formed, FC United of Manchester if I remember correctly. Not sure how many of their fans are still unhappy now though and quite probably some have changed their mind as they are top of the Premier League again.

However many Norwich fans would be the same if we were top of this league. If Grant turns things round and we are challenging at the top of this league next season you will be a lone voice shouting for Delia to go because in the main football fans are fickle. Remember last time when her critics ended up wanting to erect a statue in her honour!!!

Your gripe with Norwich would be understandable if you were an exiled fan who only has access to how the national media portray the club. Delia has nothing like the amount of influence that the national media would have us believe. You never mention MWJ and yet he is also the majority shareholder and he is, in my opinion, the driving force of the partnership.

Of course there will be life after these two have left. I am not even posting on here to support or defend the current owners of the club. There is no alternative in front of me so I have nothing to choose between.

Who owns the club has never interested me as much as who plays for it. Maybe you are so obsessed with Delia Smith that you can''t focus on anything else.

When I read your posts they remind me of one of my grandads favourite Churchill quotes:-

A fanatic is one who can''t change his mind and won''t change the subject.

 

[/quote]

Maybe it''s actually you who has the obsession Nutty...because I couldn''t care less what happens to her after she''s gone. The owner of any club dictates the direction it moves in....whereas players merely earn their pay on matchdays.

I suspect by the way you yearn to cling on to her apron strings, you are rather frightened of life generally. I''ve found that when one door closes...another one opens....and therefore hope the door to the Boardroom opens soon and she and her cronies clear off.

I''m sure counselling will be made available to those who may be left in trauma by it all.......but if you get that statue organised, I guess a few candle lit vigils could be arranged........

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Cluck

Did you read my post. This is why I should have known better than to get involved in this thread. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. At least I gave you the courtesy of trying to address the points you made in yours.

Maybe it''s time you went to that phonebox again.. this thread needs another dose of  Supersmudge patting you on the back! [;)]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Regarding Delia''s comment about her departure "not helping the club". Slightly conceited don''t you think? That makes it sound as if she believes her and MWJ could not be improved upon by anyone else who may come along....and that is total fantasy.....if not "dictatorial".  [/quote]Actually, I consider her statement to be a simple truth.  If I have 25 beans, and I give 10 beans to Delia and Michael, and 8 beans to Roger and his friends, I only have 7 beans left to spend on players.  Surely it''s better to work with Delia and Michael and Roger than to give them most of my beans ?What Delia has done has put the mockers on any small-time businessman trying to drum up anger against them in an attempt to get the club on the cheap.  But a small-time businessman can always offer to put money in to help the club buy players and work with the people currently in charge.  If an oligarch or tycoon comes in with money to burn, I''m sure that they will do the best thing for the club in that eventuality.

[Stevie Wonder 0]

One point that does also occur is why when the squad was so obviously thin was Worthy (and the board) so happy to blow our budget on one unproven young player? The £2 million should have been used to bring in 3 or 4 players.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="mbncfc"]

I''d also like to know why we didn''t make an offer for £1m for Steve Howard - as it seems Worthy wanted - if we could afford £1.5m-£2m for David Cotteril. Who made the decision not to persue the former?...

[/quote]

I think the answer to that one is fairly simple.  We were prepared to pay the money for Cotteril for the same reasons we spent it on Ashton and Earnshaw, they are highly unlikely to devalue and all in possibility the club will make money from selling them in the future.  It was an investment they thought could make them a good profit. 

Howard being 30 offered no prospect at being sold on at a profit thus the board deemed it unwise to spend £1m on him.  This is fair enough as it makes economic sense.  However football is not just about the simple economics of making a quick profit.  Howard represented the type of player we needed as a partner for Earnshaw and was exactly what we were missing early on the season when Croft and Hux were putting crosses in the box.  He also would have been able to hold the ball up in games like Southend away where we just couldn''t keep it and in the end let in a late goal.  There is there possibility that had Howard or a similar player been here from the start of the season we could be better placed for promotion and the estimated £30-£50m that entails. 

The board were simply not  prepared to risk £1m for a potential £30 but were prepared to risk more for less than 1% of the Premiership money.  I understand that you can''t risk the future of the club to spend over your limits but by the clubs own admission - they wouldn''t have been.

[/quote]

Thank you Saint, you''ve hit the nail on the head.  The board and the manager have different agendas.  The manager wants players that will add to the squad.  The board wants players that they can sell on at a profit.  Now we know what they mean by "prudence".   

The really, really brainless part of all this is that a little bit of footballing success has made us far more money than selling on players.  A single season in the Prem made us over £7 million net profit plus £14.2 million in parachute payments.  Prudence my arse.

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Cluck

Did you read my post. This is why I should have known better than to get involved in this thread. Your reply has nothing to do with my post. At least I gave you the courtesy of trying to address the points you made in yours.

Maybe it''s time you went to that phonebox again.. this thread needs another dose of  Supersmudge patting you on the back! [;)]

 

[/quote]

Blimey Nigel...Did you work for the Civil Service by any chance?

I thought I had dealt with the main thrust of your post......but that''s perhaps why you and I completely disagree on the Delia issue. You read one thing (wrongly) and I read the other (correctly).......so we''ll always be on opposite sides on the matter.

Perhaps we could ask Mello to adjudicate here and bring some sense to things.........[;)]