Norwich & Luton - Poles Apart, Or Not?

[YankeeCanary 0]

There are some posters on this message board who choose to draw parallels between Norwich and Luton as far as lack of ambition is concerned. My personal opinion is that those who choose to do so lack, at the least, good judgement and, at worst, any degree of common sense. I don''t think the ambition level at Norwich, actions by our board or any statements they make, as well as the type of managers we hire ( including Nigel Worthington ) resemble the shortsightedness of either the Luton board or the Mike Newell''s of this world. We are not going where Luton are probably headed and the futures of the two clubs will not bear any resemblance of similarity.

Let''s take a look at what has transpired this past week between Mike Newell and the Luton Board. Newell comes out with his statement to the media questioning Luton''s board, among other things, as to where the 9 million pounds has gone. Some posters on this site commended Newell for his honesty. He may be honest, but he''s also very foolish and certainly not loyal. His foolishness is not related to the fact that he made the statement. He obviously did that deliberately knowing full well he was giving Luton no option but to fire him. His foolishness relates to the fact that he''s a young man who has put out a warning flag to any other club that might have considered hiring him that any doubts remaining that he is a loose cannon have now long been put to bed. If I were a club owner I would not hire him period, and I doubt any progressive good-sized club would either.

Now, let''s take a look at the initial statement from the Luton board;

"As a board, we have been questioned over the disbursement of transfer income since we took the club out of receivership,'' read a statement from chairman Bill Tomlins and the directors in the matchday programme.

''We understand how emotive a subject like this can be with our committed supporters.

''Therefore the board members are of the opinion that we have an obligation to publish summary details of our football business and this will be summarised on our website on Monday.

''At no time have the board ever instructed the club''s manager to sell a player. **( We take care of those sales at the board level ) Equally, we have never refused the manager when it came to buying players. ( We told him right up front never to come and ask for funds for any player in excess of 50,000 pounds, so there was never a need to refuse him. ) 

''Until we relocate to a new stadium, ( although this will not happen in the foreseeable future ) we will always have problems attracting or holding onto players, as our revenue base simply cannot compete with most of the clubs in this league (the Coca-Cola Championship).

''Our football operating costs alone will this season exceed our total income (excluding transfers) and that is before we take into account all the other operating costs of the business.

''These are the harsh facts of where the club is at present, and highlight the priority we are giving to achieving relocation in order to compete on a real footing."

** The comments in parentheses are mine, reflecting what I believe the situation probably is.

The media reaction suggests the statement from the Luton board seemed to have cut little ice with a section of the home support, who directed their anger at Tomlins during the first half of today''s Championship match with Ipswich, as well as chanting ''sack the board'' and ''where''s the money gone?'' Well, that section of the home support sounds like Cluck and Smudger, and perhaps a few others. Looking at the words from the Luton board, it is not only blatant spin, it is foolish spin to any reader with a brain ( and there is a difference between spin and foolish spin ).

[7rew 0]

I think he made the statement as a way out, without getting the blame for Luton being relegated (and still getting fired) or the stick for walking way from a club in trouble.  Being fired for his honesty probably seemed the best option.I agree it will still harm his job prospects however.

[Rabbit 0]

Sorry Yankee   but theres only one Rabbit in the hutch

[Smudger 0]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

I have a couple of friends who are Luton Town supporters and they reckon the current board is one of the worst they have had for many a year, however they acknowledge that you cannot keep slagging your employer off and remain employed. Whilst they have every sympathy with Mike Newell over the sale of key players they do question one or two of the signings he made as replacements. They temper this by saying that they do not believe that Newell had a lot of choice in the sale of players and that you would hardly expect the board to say anything else under the circumstances.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

Wrong again Smudger. Every manager should be honest and demanding, when appropriate, in their dealings with their respective boards. They may even pick their spots to fire their "cannons" across the bow of those that control a clubs finances, particularly if they feel they have been misled versus prior commitments. A "loose cannon" is someone who does not know when to keep his mouth shut on certain issues, particularly so when dealing with the media. That is Newell''s problem and why his next job will be at a lower rather than a higher level. To compare Newell in the same breath with Brian Clough ( who was one of a kind ) or Martin O''Neill is just another demonstration of your poor judgement.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

Wrong again Smudger. Every manager should be honest and demanding, when appropriate, in their dealings with their respective boards. They may even pick their spots to fire their "cannons" across the bow of those that control a clubs finances, particularly if they feel they have been misled versus prior commitments. A "loose cannon" is someone who does not know when to keep his mouth shut on certain issues, particularly so when dealing with the media. That is Newell''s problem and why his next job will be at a lower rather than a higher level. To compare Newell in the same breath with Brian Clough ( who was one of a kind ) or Martin O''Neill is just another demonstration of your poor judgement.

[/quote]

mmm and what was Leeds opinion on Brian Clough prior to events happening at Nottingham Forest???

Also the FA ran scared of Cloughie for years... because they knew if they gave him the England job that he would of taken over at the FA and gave them that damn good kick up the @rse that they still need (they still haven''t admitted that they made an error in not giving Cloughie the England job).

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Smudger"]

Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation...

[/quote]Earnie cost us up to £3.5 million - that''s one hell of a number to take out of the equation... Almost like saying "if you take the goals the opposition scored out of the equation, we won that game" after a 3-2 defeat...

[Alex Harvey-Jones 0]

14 points apart!!!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Smudger"]

Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation...

[/quote]

Earnie cost us up to £3.5 million - that''s one hell of a number to take out of the equation... Almost like saying "if you take the goals the opposition scored out of the equation, we won that game" after a 3-2 defeat...
[/quote]

It''s like the thread earlier in the season that said if you take away Earnshaws goals we would be relegated! I am waiting for somebody to post that if it wasn''t for Huckerby''s goals after earnshaw was injured we would be relegated.

The same argument could be used to say that if we hadn''t have invested in players like Huckerby and Earnshaw we would be relegated. (Oh no, you got me at it now!) [;)]

 

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

As someone else has mentioned - taking out Earnshaw is an incredibly bad way of arguing this point - infact I will go as far as saying it is infact rediculous. Yes I realise that could be termed abusive Smudger but please note that I am not threatening to pound your head in!

Lets address it like this for arguments sake - lets ignore the summer and look totaly at the January transfer window:

Luton:

In
Besian Idrizaj	Liverpool
Clarke Carlisle	Watford
Bjorn Runstrom	Fulham
Andrew Talbot	Sheffield Wednesday
Matthew Spring	Watford
Out
Peter Holmes	Chesterfield
Rowan Vine	Birmingham City
Michael Leary	Brentford
Carlos Edwards	Sunderland

Personaly I think that would be like loosing Earnshaw in the way of goal scoring ability and then Huckerby as one of your most creative and dangerous players. Remember these guys did not go on the cheap. Out of their signings you would have to say that Carlisle and Spring are their most experienced, yes we could have done with Spring and in some ways Carlisle but the latter is a veteran journeyman who found it hard to get into the Watford team ahead of Malky et al.

So out of the players they signed I would say only Spring is one that I would be tempted to snap up.

In
Tony Warner	Fulham
Mark Fotheringham	FC Aarau
Simon Lappin	St Mirren
David Marshall	Celtic
Chris Brown	Sunderland
Luke Chadwick	Stoke City
Out
Rossi Jarvis	Rotherham United
Ryan Jarvis	Leyton Orient
Carl Robinson	Toronto FC
Craig Fleming	Rotherham United
Craig Fleming	Wolverhampton Wanderers
Ian Henderson	Rotherham United

If you take the loans out of it I think you can see that we have come out on top. Chadwick and Brown come to around £500-600k then you have the loan of Marshall which must have been costly in wages considering. Then you have Lappin and Fotheringham. I would say when all is said and done you are looking at at least £1million for the ins. I am not sure you could argue the same for Luton. And we have BUILT not REPLACED.

We are in a totally different boat to Luton. If you can''t see that then I am afraid that you will be unable to see the truth in very much at all.

However I would also add that I do not deny that our board is not the most outwardly ambitious in this league but then when you look at Birmingham, West Brom and the like you can not help but notice the amount of money their boards own and contribute. This is no disrespect to our board because not all clubs can have cash rich sugar daddies/mummies.

I just think that you (Smudger) have become so engrossed in your own opinion and attitude that you seem to gloss over the major facts surrounding these arguments just to suit your own perspective which was probably accurate this time last season but is now out of date and based upon theories based then and not now.

[Smudger 0]

Seeing as Yankee, EM and Chicken have not answered my questions in the original thread about this matter then maybe they would like to try and answer them here?

I only left certain players out originally in error... below are the facts...

As people have rightly pointed out, how could I miss out Earnie???  Croft & Robinson should also of been in the figures too (but Jarret and Colin shouldn''t)...  I do say what we have spent and money coming in from transfers in the past 18months).

Working on that basis then I have reposted my figures using the info left out...

How exactly does it put Doncasters efforts in the shade WIZ???

I would say that you could quite easily make an equal comparison between ourselves and Luton....

In the last 18 months Luton have sold.... Rowan Vine £2.5million (rising to £3million), Kevin Nicholls £700,000  Carlos Edwards £1.5million, Steve Howard £1million...  So that is a total of £5,700,000  (they sold Curtis Davies for £3million prior to playing a game in this league didn''t they?  So even taking that in to account £8,750,000)

They have spent £340,000 on Sam Parkin, £250,000 on Drew Talbot, £200,000 on Matthew Spring, £500,000 on Adam Boyd, Markus Heikkenen (undisclosed/free).... Total spent = £1,290,000

Money left for board to spend on off-field activities = £4,410,000 (£7,410,000 if you take in to account the money from Curtis Davies sale).

Compared to Norwich...

Players sold last 18 months... Leon, Greeno and Ashton £10million plus...  Other numerous players have gone from the wage bill (not brought in much in terms of transfer fees but have not been adequately replaced).

What have we spent?  Just under approx £4,545,000 on Lappin, Fotheringham, Chris Brown, Chadwick, Croft, Etuhu, Robinson and Earnie during that same period of time.

Money left for Delia, Doncaster & Co to spend on off-field activities = £5,455,000

Those figures are hardly too dissimilar are they?  So lets not go painting the picture that Luton''s board of directors are any worse than our own shall we?

If anything I would say our lot are far worse considering Luton are probably going to have to invest somewhat in their new stadium that is planned (even if they are getting some handouts from their local economy).  We are made to look far worse still by the fact that we have more than 3 times as many fans as they do week in week out and have had two years of parachute money to play with.

Lets make no mistake about it OUR BOARD ARE AN UTTER DISGRACE!!!!

There still is no major difference between what the Luton Board have done in terms of income V''s expenditure when it comes down to the playing squad and what NCFC''s board has done is there???

At the far end of the scale the Luton board have made £2million more than the Norwich board for off-field activities, while at the other end of the scale (leaving Curtis Davies out of the equation - as he was sold prior to Luton playing a game in the Championship) Delia and Co have just over £1million more than Luton do in their off-field kitty.

Those are the facts so try picking holes in that!!!

Fact remains.... Majority of Norwich fans are happy with whatever c**p is served up to them while Luton fans have some backbone.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Reading the original post on this thread again it is clear the subject not about comparisons between Luton and Norwich but a another (thinly veiled) attack on Smudger and Cluck by YC.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Smudger, are you aware that your input often resembles that of a Chihuahua attending a dog fight of Alsatians....up for the fight but not equipped for the occasion? Your barking about what has transpired over transfer ins and outs misses the thrust of what I stated at the outset of this thread ( you too SOB need to take your helmet off and re-read the first paragraph of the original post ). The main point is that the way our club conducts itself in financial management, integrity of personnel  and the type of people we hire to manage along with the results that we have achieved, and likely will in the future, bear no resemblance to what is taking place at Luton. Among other things, we have upgraded the ground to accommodate a seating capacity of 25,000 and re-laid the pitch such that many visitors are impressed with what they see at Carrow Road.

With respect to the big picture Smudger, i.e. performance in league ranking, let''s compare Norwich and Luton for the past six seasons. Luton have toiled in the fourth level in 2001-02 having to content themselves with visiting the likes of Halifax, Exeter and Kidderminster Harriers. They then spent three seasons in the third level. Their best performance in the past six years was last season when they finished 10th in the Championship, one position below us, although the doom and gloom merchants can only focus on how terrible we were. Now, it appears Luton are headed back to the third level and, when their manager left, it was not with dignity attached between club and manager, and there''s still nothing but vagueness in alluding to WHEN they will have an improved ground. If you were a complaining Luton fan Smudger you''d be well equipped for the fight because their whole scenario seems to be filled with Chihuahuas.

Norwich, on the other hand, finished in the Championship play-offs in 2001-02, just missing out getting to the Premiership by a whisker. The following season we were competitive, just missing out on the play-offs by 5 points. The following season we won the Championship title by 8 points clear. Yes, we were disappointed in the Premiership but we only missed surviving by 2 points. Last season we probably could have done with a change in manager sooner rather than later but we still finished in 9th place. This season we are now seeing improvements starting to take hold. The only resemblance between Norwich and Luton is that they both have football clubs, much like an Alsation and Chihuahua are both dogs. With respect to the football club and the dog, I know which one is better up for the fight. Do you? 

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

YC - You seem to have a "thing" about my helmet!![:$]

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]YC - You seem to have a "thing" about my helmet!![:$][/quote]

Only when I think it''s obscuring your vision.

[7rew 0]

Another one to the taking out of the equation senario:If you take out the assassination, The President and Mrs Kennedy enjoyed their trip from Dallas airport.Taking all incoming players out of the equation, the board had ~£10 million come in in transfer fees, and only £1.1 million go out (Ashton sell on fee) thats £8.9 million profit, call the fraud squad.Using the same logic as Mr. Smudger we can say that taking the Ashton gransfer out of the eqaution the board have put in about £2.2mill in transfer fees in the last 18 months.By the way the transfers of  Lappin (0.075), Fotheringham (0), Chris Brown (0.325), Chadwick(0.22), Croft(.6), Etuhu(0.45),

Robinson(.05) and Earnie(3.5) come to £5.22 mill not £4.545 mill.So actually we have in the last 18 months: in:~£10m in transfer feesout:~£6.3 on permanent tranfers/sell on feesloans fees for Boyle, Camp, Ashdown, Marshall, Warner (and the others last season that I can''t remember - Davenport?)singing on fees for 8 players£600k to Nigel WorthingtonAgent''s fees for (at least) 8 transfers in, 5 transfers out, 5 loans in, 6 loans out and a new managerCompensation to West Ham for taking Peter Grant mid contract.Thats going to be much closer to parity. And if you taking into account staggered payments no transfers over £1mill (that seems to be standard now) it is even closer.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

YC - I did read your post and I do not disagree with what you said in your first paragraph, hence me thinking your post was about drawing comparisons between Luton and Norwich. I then responded to your post, after talking to a couple of people who had something to say on the subject, but no response from yourself.

In the final part of your post you made reference to Cluck and Smudger, which suggested you wanted a response from them, Smudger took the bait and a spat between yourself and Smudger ensued, which leads me to believe that was the real purpose of your post.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

As someone else has mentioned - taking out Earnshaw is an incredibly bad way of arguing this point - infact I will go as far as saying it is infact rediculous. Yes I realise that could be termed abusive Smudger but please note that I am not threatening to pound your head in!

Lets address it like this for arguments sake - lets ignore the summer and look totaly at the January transfer window:

Luton:

In
Besian Idrizaj	Liverpool
Clarke Carlisle	Watford
Bjorn Runstrom	Fulham
Andrew Talbot	Sheffield Wednesday
Matthew Spring	Watford
Out
Peter Holmes	Chesterfield
Rowan Vine	Birmingham City
Michael Leary	Brentford
Carlos Edwards	Sunderland

Personaly I think that would be like loosing Earnshaw in the way of goal scoring ability and then Huckerby as one of your most creative and dangerous players. Remember these guys did not go on the cheap. Out of their signings you would have to say that Carlisle and Spring are their most experienced, yes we could have done with Spring and in some ways Carlisle but the latter is a veteran journeyman who found it hard to get into the Watford team ahead of Malky et al.

So out of the players they signed I would say only Spring is one that I would be tempted to snap up.

In
Tony Warner	Fulham
Mark Fotheringham	FC Aarau
Simon Lappin	St Mirren
David Marshall	Celtic
Chris Brown	Sunderland
Luke Chadwick	Stoke City
Out
Rossi Jarvis	Rotherham United
Ryan Jarvis	Leyton Orient
Carl Robinson	Toronto FC
Craig Fleming	Rotherham United
Craig Fleming	Wolverhampton Wanderers
Ian Henderson	Rotherham United

If you take the loans out of it I think you can see that we have come out on top. Chadwick and Brown come to around £500-600k then you have the loan of Marshall which must have been costly in wages considering. Then you have Lappin and Fotheringham. I would say when all is said and done you are looking at at least £1million for the ins. I am not sure you could argue the same for Luton. And we have BUILT not REPLACED.

We are in a totally different boat to Luton. If you can''t see that then I am afraid that you will be unable to see the truth in very much at all.

However I would also add that I do not deny that our board is not the most outwardly ambitious in this league but then when you look at Birmingham, West Brom and the like you can not help but notice the amount of money their boards own and contribute. This is no disrespect to our board because not all clubs can have cash rich sugar daddies/mummies.

I just think that you (Smudger) have become so engrossed in your own opinion and attitude that you seem to gloss over the major facts surrounding these arguments just to suit your own perspective which was probably accurate this time last season but is now out of date and based upon theories based then and not now.

[/quote]

Chicken,i notice that you have a go at smudger for leaving out the Earnshaw fee and yet neglect to mention that some of the January transfer signings where direct (and dirt cheap) replacements for Green and Mckenzie who left for a combined £3million not so long ago.

Yes we are in a totally different boat to Luton-we have vastly bigger crowds,£8million in tv revenue last season and this (£7million parachute+£1million championship tv rights), our ground is largely finished and paid for and we are not facing relegation. Yet both clubs have made vast profits in the transfer market and only re-invested a fraction back into the team. Just do a quick tally of the numbers since relegation, its not rocket science. I`m afraid its pretty obvious that the "major facts" in this argument back Smudger and not you.

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="7rew"]Another one to the taking out of the equation senario:
If you take out the assassination, The President and Mrs Kennedy enjoyed their trip from Dallas airport.

Taking all incoming players out of the equation, the board had ~£10 million come in in transfer fees, and only £1.1 million go out (Ashton sell on fee) thats £8.9 million profit, call the fraud squad.

Using the same logic as Mr. Smudger we can say that taking the Ashton gransfer out of the eqaution the board have put in about £2.2mill in transfer fees in the last 18 months.

By the way the transfers of  Lappin (0.075), Fotheringham (0), Chris Brown (0.325), Chadwick(0.22), Croft(.6), Etuhu(0.45), Robinson(.05) and Earnie(3.5) come to £5.22 mill not £4.545 mill.

So actually we have in the last 18 months:
in:
~£10m in transfer fees
out:
~£6.3 on permanent tranfers/sell on fees
loans fees for Boyle, Camp, Ashdown, Marshall, Warner (and the others last season that I can''t remember - Davenport?)
singing on fees for 8 players
£600k to Nigel Worthington
Agent''s fees for (at least) 8 transfers in, 5 transfers out, 5 loans in, 6 loans out and a new manager
Compensation to West Ham for taking Peter Grant mid contract.

Thats going to be much closer to parity. And if you taking into account staggered payments no transfers over £1mill (that seems to be standard now) it is even closer.
[/quote]

You are wasting your time 7rew. Smudger has his own set of accounts which bear no relationship to the ones that I recieve as a shareholder. It is thus pointless to try and make an argument over the figures.

It would be nice if we could actually talk about the facts in the financial report for the year ending 31st May 2006. These are freely available to whoever wants to see them. Instead we have Smudgers figures that have an arbitary start and end date and transfer sums that have been gleaned from the sports pages of Sunday newspapers.

I suggest when Gordon Brown gives up the Chancelorship that he appoints Smudger. The National Debt will no doubt decline dramatically.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Ricardo wrote "I suggest when Gordon Brown gives up the Chancelorship that he appoints Smudger. The National Debt will no doubt decline dramatically."

Classic post Ricardo, lol!! [:D]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

As someone else has mentioned - taking out Earnshaw is an incredibly bad way of arguing this point - infact I will go as far as saying it is infact rediculous. Yes I realise that could be termed abusive Smudger but please note that I am not threatening to pound your head in!

Lets address it like this for arguments sake - lets ignore the summer and look totaly at the January transfer window:

Luton:

In
Besian Idrizaj	Liverpool
Clarke Carlisle	Watford
Bjorn Runstrom	Fulham
Andrew Talbot	Sheffield Wednesday
Matthew Spring	Watford
Out
Peter Holmes	Chesterfield
Rowan Vine	Birmingham City
Michael Leary	Brentford
Carlos Edwards	Sunderland

Personaly I think that would be like loosing Earnshaw in the way of goal scoring ability and then Huckerby as one of your most creative and dangerous players. Remember these guys did not go on the cheap. Out of their signings you would have to say that Carlisle and Spring are their most experienced, yes we could have done with Spring and in some ways Carlisle but the latter is a veteran journeyman who found it hard to get into the Watford team ahead of Malky et al.

So out of the players they signed I would say only Spring is one that I would be tempted to snap up.

In
Tony Warner	Fulham
Mark Fotheringham	FC Aarau
Simon Lappin	St Mirren
David Marshall	Celtic
Chris Brown	Sunderland
Luke Chadwick	Stoke City
Out
Rossi Jarvis	Rotherham United
Ryan Jarvis	Leyton Orient
Carl Robinson	Toronto FC
Craig Fleming	Rotherham United
Craig Fleming	Wolverhampton Wanderers
Ian Henderson	Rotherham United

If you take the loans out of it I think you can see that we have come out on top. Chadwick and Brown come to around £500-600k then you have the loan of Marshall which must have been costly in wages considering. Then you have Lappin and Fotheringham. I would say when all is said and done you are looking at at least £1million for the ins. I am not sure you could argue the same for Luton. And we have BUILT not REPLACED.

We are in a totally different boat to Luton. If you can''t see that then I am afraid that you will be unable to see the truth in very much at all.

However I would also add that I do not deny that our board is not the most outwardly ambitious in this league but then when you look at Birmingham, West Brom and the like you can not help but notice the amount of money their boards own and contribute. This is no disrespect to our board because not all clubs can have cash rich sugar daddies/mummies.

I just think that you (Smudger) have become so engrossed in your own opinion and attitude that you seem to gloss over the major facts surrounding these arguments just to suit your own perspective which was probably accurate this time last season but is now out of date and based upon theories based then and not now.

[/quote]

Chicken,i notice that you have a go at smudger for leaving out the Earnshaw fee and yet neglect to mention that some of the January transfer signings where direct (and dirt cheap) replacements for Green and Mckenzie who left for a combined £3million not so long ago.

Yes we are in a totally different boat to Luton-we have vastly bigger crowds,£8million in tv revenue last season and this (£7million parachute+£1million championship tv rights), our ground is largely finished and paid for and we are not facing relegation. Yet both clubs have made vast profits in the transfer market and only re-invested a fraction back into the team. Just do a quick tally of the numbers since relegation, its not rocket science. I`m afraid its pretty obvious that the "major facts" in this argument back Smudger and not you.

[/quote]

Thanks for that MR CARROW...

As for YANKEE was I the one to start this comparison between ourselves and Luton Town?  I think that you will find that I didn''t.... once again I pont you back to the original thread on this matter...  http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1/901008/ShowPost.aspx#901008

The fact that some of our fans are exclaiming that it shows our board in a better light because we may of invested a little more than Luton Town says it all don''t you think?  That is like Man Utd or Liverpool telling their fans to cheer up if they were relegated because they have spent £1million more than Norwich City.

The fact that so many of our fans are happy with this scenario sums up everything that is curently wrong at Carrow Road.

[chicken 0]

Mr Carrow:

"Chicken,i notice that you have a go at smudger for leaving out the Earnshaw fee and yet neglect to mention that some of the January transfer signings where direct (and dirt cheap) replacements for Green and Mckenzie who left for a combined £3million not so long ago.

Yes we are in a totally different boat to Luton-we have vastly bigger crowds,£8million in tv revenue last season and this (£7million parachute+£1million championship tv rights), our ground is largely finished and paid for and we are not facing relegation. Yet both clubs have made vast profits in the transfer market and only re-invested a fraction back into the team. Just do a quick tally of the numbers since relegation, its not rocket science. I`m afraid its pretty obvious that the "major facts" in this argument back Smudger and not you."

Smudger:

"Thanks for that MR CARROW...

As for YANKEE was I the one to start this comparison between ourselves and Luton Town?  I think that you will find that I didn''t.... once again I pont you back to the original thread on this matter...  http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1/901008/ShowPost.aspx#901008

The fact that some of our fans are exclaiming that it shows our board in a better light because we may of invested a little more than Luton Town says it all don''t you think?  That is like Man Utd or Liverpool telling their fans to cheer up if they were relegated because they have spent £1million more than Norwich City.

The fact that so many of our fans are happy with this scenario sums up everything that is curently wrong at Carrow Road."

Please both pay attention - go back to my post and look at this again. But because I know you won''t I will spell it out here again:

"Lets address it like this for arguments sake - lets ignore the summer and look totaly at the January transfer window:"

Then try reading the sentance before and realise that what I was trying to do was to look at things from a perspective that suits Smudgers perspective on things. If you are going to ignore the signing of Earnshaw then you have to take things from a fair point of comparison.

The point I used was the current transfer window. If you take it back as far as the summer - yes we lost Green and McKenzie. In all honesty I think we have missed Green more. But then Luton lost their captain and Howard also. So you are looking at four players to our two all of whom are key. You have their two most prolific strikers, their central midfield linchpin and captain and Carlos Edwards one of the best providers in this league.

If you are trying to tell me that is the same as loosing Green and McKenzie then you can join "team Smudger".

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Reading the original post on this thread again it is clear the subject not about comparisons between Luton and Norwich but a another (thinly veiled) attack on Smudger and Cluck by YC.

 

[/quote]

People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread).

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

Reading the original post on this thread again it is clear the subject not about comparisons between Luton and Norwich but a another (thinly veiled) attack on Smudger and Cluck by YC.

 

[/quote]

People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread).

[/quote]

Since you choose your own arbitary start and finish dates and quote unsubstantiated transfer figures it is impossible for anyone to refute your conclusions.

Therefore, by what you state are the clear facts you are clearly correct.

[GMF 735]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[chicken 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[/quote]

Yes Luton are "smaller in every sense" Chicken, which is why it is inexcusable that we have made a similar huge profit on players despite vastly bigger crowds,parachute payments and no looming relegation to deal with. I asked if you could do a quick tally of ins and outs since relegation-have you? If not i`ll do it for you. I`ve always found that to form a strong opinion on something it is better to accept and understand the reality of the situation first.

I do however agree with your response to GazzaTCC-every club has to deal with agent/league fees and it is generally about the same percentage per deal, and if the "headline figure" for an outgoing transfer includes money payable over time/appearances then the same applies to incoming transfers-again the percentages will be similar. So as we have not received the full headline figures for Green/Mckenzie yet,we have not paid out the full headline figures for Brown/Chadwick/Lappin either.

"For whatever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad". Quite. Check the figures and then tell me where the difference is between the approaches of the Luton and Norwich boards.