how far have we slumped???

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

I too was part of the "Chase out" movement and a proud man when we finally got him out. However.....We now have someone in overall control at the club who stated at the time that no one would ever have that much power at the club again. Maybe she exempted herself from that statement? We have a chairman who was initially joined the club under Chase and who`s main business interest is PR-and people wonder at the carefully phrased "spin"that comes out of the club? And we have an inexperienced Chief Executive who in my opinion is more negative than Chase ever was and has about as much drive and ambition as my neighbours poodle.

I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.

"Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities"- Bearing in mind that the "Huckerby"push for promotion was paid for by the fans through the share issues (as,indirectly, was half Ashtons fee), and that any subsequent money spent on the team has amounted to a mere fraction of the money recieved/owed on players we have sold, can you give me a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom at Carrow Rd.?

[/quote]

Robert Chase had total control of the club. Everything revolved around him and he made the decisions about everything himself. He made a pretty good fist of it too until it all went wrong for him in our relegation season. We had some good times under his leadership and these should be remembered too. The current board recognised this and tried to build a team. The decisions now are made by that team and not just one person. You can''t honestly believe that Delia Smith makes all the decisions in the same way Robert Chase did.

I don''t understand what your problem is with spending the money put in by the fans on Huckerby and Ashton. Surely that''s what the fans would have wanted it spent on? Incidentally, have you any idea which fans put in the most money to make this happen?

 

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

I too was part of the "Chase out" movement and a proud man when we finally got him out. However.....We now have someone in overall control at the club who stated at the time that no one would ever have that much power at the club again. Maybe she exempted herself from that statement? We have a chairman who was initially joined the club under Chase and who`s main business interest is PR-and people wonder at the carefully phrased "spin"that comes out of the club? And we have an inexperienced Chief Executive who in my opinion is more negative than Chase ever was and has about as much drive and ambition as my neighbours poodle.

I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.

"Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities"- Bearing in mind that the "Huckerby"push for promotion was paid for by the fans through the share issues (as,indirectly, was half Ashtons fee), and that any subsequent money spent on the team has amounted to a mere fraction of the money recieved/owed on players we have sold, can you give me a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom at Carrow Rd.?

[/quote]

Superb contribution Mr. Carrow....and equally telling points by Mystic (as one would expect [Y]).

Strange how cityangel thinks Smudger and me are the only ones set on reviving the club by the removal of Smith and Jones.  Maybe you don''t socialise enough with the "everyday" fan out there....because I can assure you that the candy floss "cosiness" shown on here in no way reflects the reality of general opinion.

This is a "virtual" forum "virtually"supporting a "virtual" club. A large percentage don''t even go near the ground...yet they know all the answers...A fair few others spend far too much time playing "virtual football" on their Xbox instead of studying the true state of the club....where they can''t simply switch off and start from the beginning again. Once we''re broke...we''re broke. There is no easy electronic way out.

Having squandered so much money as Mystic so rightly points out....how can anyone on here realistically anticipate any degree of success now the big bucks are gone?  I''m just staggered that Smith and Co. can continue to "spin" the facts and keep so many sheep on board. Is the rest of the country right then in saying that we are just thicko country bumpkins? I fought against it for many years...but even I''m beginning to wonder now!.......

[blahblahblah 2]

Mr. Carrow :[quote]I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.[/quote]If it hadn''t been for the last minute pull out of Cotterill from a 2 million pound plus transfer, we would have avoided having that profit, and paying that tax.[quote]a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom[/quote]Hmm, let''s see.  Welsh fella, short but quick, what''s his name ?  Robert Earnshaw ?  Yep, that''s him.  If anything, I''d argue that we''ve gambled too much on name players (within the context of the Championship), rather than building a larger and less well known squad along the lines of Colchester.We''ve also recruited a manager who as a coach and assistant has got West Ham promoted.  So he probably knows a thing or two about how to recover from relegation to bounce back.Mystic : [quote] Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City[/quote]With hindsight, we can see that we''ve had bad value for money for the wages over the last 2 seasons.  18 million of your 24 million will have gone on wages for our small squad.  Some of the players who came here have been paid very well and didn''t do enough for their money.The summer will be a crunch time for the club - can we hold onto the name players with the big wages (Huckerby and Earnshaw are worth the money in my opinion) ?  Who can we afford to lose ?  What standard will their replacements be ?  It should be an interesting 3 months which will determine the immediate future of our club.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

I too was part of the "Chase out" movement and a proud man when we finally got him out. However.....We now have someone in overall control at the club who stated at the time that no one would ever have that much power at the club again. Maybe she exempted herself from that statement? We have a chairman who was initially joined the club under Chase and who`s main business interest is PR-and people wonder at the carefully phrased "spin"that comes out of the club? And we have an inexperienced Chief Executive who in my opinion is more negative than Chase ever was and has about as much drive and ambition as my neighbours poodle.

I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.

"Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities"- Bearing in mind that the "Huckerby"push for promotion was paid for by the fans through the share issues (as,indirectly, was half Ashtons fee), and that any subsequent money spent on the team has amounted to a mere fraction of the money recieved/owed on players we have sold, can you give me a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom at Carrow Rd.?

[/quote]

Superb contribution Mr. Carrow....and equally telling points by Mystic (as one would expect [Y]).

Strange how cityangel thinks Smudger and me are the only ones set on reviving the club by the removal of Smith and Jones.  Maybe you don''t socialise enough with the "everyday" fan out there....because I can assure you that the candy floss "cosiness" shown on here in no way reflects the reality of general opinion.

This is a "virtual" forum "virtually"supporting a "virtual" club. A large percentage don''t even go near the ground...yet they know all the answers...A fair few others spend far too much time playing "virtual football" on their Xbox instead of studying the true state of the club....where they can''t simply switch off and start from the beginning again. Once we''re broke...we''re broke. There is no easy electronic way out.

Having squandered so much money as Mystic so rightly points out....how can anyone on here realistically anticipate any degree of success now the big bucks are gone?  I''m just staggered that Smith and Co. can continue to "spin" the facts and keep so many sheep on board. Is the rest of the country right then in saying that we are just thicko country bumpkins? I fought against it for many years...but even I''m beginning to wonder now!.......

[/quote]

hehehe spot on Cluck....

and I am sure with a bit of help from a few fellow disgruntled fans then we can organise a demo with a considerable number of hardcore fans if things haven''t drastically improved by the end of September.

Like me and your good self have stated for a number of months now... any postponement of such a demo is just prolonging the inevitable...

All of us with any sense have realised that since January (at the latest) that nothing will change at Carrow Road until there is a MASSIVE SHAKE UP in the boardroom!!!

[ricky knight 0]

Grant may have helped Westham get promoted but getting this job saved him from the sack with Pardew and being a good coach does not make you a good manager, Brian Kidd, Mclaren spring to mind. On your arguement Worthy got us promoted so we might as well kept him.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

I too was part of the "Chase out" movement and a proud man when we finally got him out. However.....We now have someone in overall control at the club who stated at the time that no one would ever have that much power at the club again. Maybe she exempted herself from that statement? We have a chairman who was initially joined the club under Chase and who`s main business interest is PR-and people wonder at the carefully phrased "spin"that comes out of the club? And we have an inexperienced Chief Executive who in my opinion is more negative than Chase ever was and has about as much drive and ambition as my neighbours poodle.

I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.

"Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities"- Bearing in mind that the "Huckerby"push for promotion was paid for by the fans through the share issues (as,indirectly, was half Ashtons fee), and that any subsequent money spent on the team has amounted to a mere fraction of the money recieved/owed on players we have sold, can you give me a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom at Carrow Rd.?

[/quote]

Robert Chase had total control of the club. Everything revolved around him and he made the decisions about everything himself. He made a pretty good fist of it too until it all went wrong for him in our relegation season. We had some good times under his leadership and these should be remembered too. The current board recognised this and tried to build a team. The decisions now are made by that team and not just one person. You can''t honestly believe that Delia Smith makes all the decisions in the same way Robert Chase did.

I don''t understand what your problem is with spending the money put in by the fans on Huckerby and Ashton. Surely that''s what the fans would have wanted it spent on? Incidentally, have you any idea which fans put in the most money to make this happen?

 

 

[/quote]

The last time i looked Delia had about the same percentage of shares that Chase had ie.over 50% and therefore complete control of the club. Of course i have no problem with the board spending the share issue money on players-but i do have a problem with them and their supporters using this as evidence of the boards supposed ambition when the fact is that there would not have been Huckerby/Mckenzie/Svensson and subsequent promotion unless it had been directly bankrolled by the fans. The board had an opportunity to show everyone the colour of their ambition a few months later when Crouch was available for £2.5million but decided that spending £500k on a central defender to play upfront was a more prudent course of action......Even Ashton was only signed (too late) because of the £1.5million budget surplus from the "B" shares. This in a period when the club has raked in £35million in tv money alone. Subsequent events have proved beyond doubt to me that this board will always see investment in the playing side as an occasional irritating distraction from the real business of restaraunts,land deals,subsiduary companies,hotels etc.etc.....

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Mr. Carrow :

[quote]I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.[/quote]

If it hadn''t been for the last minute pull out of Cotterill from a 2 million pound plus transfer, we would have avoided having that profit, and paying that tax.

[quote]a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom[/quote]

Hmm, let''s see.  Welsh fella, short but quick, what''s his name ?  Robert Earnshaw ?  Yep, that''s him.  If anything, I''d argue that we''ve gambled too much on name players (within the context of the Championship), rather than building a larger and less well known squad along the lines of Colchester.

We''ve also recruited a manager who as a coach and assistant has got West Ham promoted.  So he probably knows a thing or two about how to recover from relegation to bounce back.

Mystic :

[quote] Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City[/quote]

With hindsight, we can see that we''ve had bad value for money for the wages over the last 2 seasons.  18 million of your 24 million will have gone on wages for our small squad.  Some of the players who came here have been paid very well and didn''t do enough for their money.

The summer will be a crunch time for the club - can we hold onto the name players with the big wages (Huckerby and Earnshaw are worth the money in my opinion) ?  Who can we afford to lose ?  What standard will their replacements be ?  It should be an interesting 3 months which will determine the immediate future of our club.

[/quote]

If the hapless Mr.Doncaster hadn`t left it to the very last minute and put all his eggs in one basket.....

If you read my post carefully i did make the point that the board had only spent money either laid on a plate by the fans or a small percentage of fees recieved for players sold. A few weeks before we signed Earnshaw for £2.9million we had sold a player for £7.5million, remember? And the remainder of the fee went......? Something to do with the £4million "infrastructure costs" hidden away in the accounts perhaps?

I think you have misunderstood MysticMegsons point. The declared profits stated are AFTER wage costs, not before.

[Putney Canary 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Mr. Carrow :

[quote]I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.[/quote]

If it hadn''t been for the last minute pull out of Cotterill from a 2 million pound plus transfer, we would have avoided having that profit, and paying that tax.

[quote]a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom[/quote]

Hmm, let''s see.  Welsh fella, short but quick, what''s his name ?  Robert Earnshaw ?  Yep, that''s him.  If anything, I''d argue that we''ve gambled too much on name players (within the context of the Championship), rather than building a larger and less well known squad along the lines of Colchester.

We''ve also recruited a manager who as a coach and assistant has got West Ham promoted.  So he probably knows a thing or two about how to recover from relegation to bounce back.

Mystic :

[quote] Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City[/quote]

With hindsight, we can see that we''ve had bad value for money for the wages over the last 2 seasons.  18 million of your 24 million will have gone on wages for our small squad.  Some of the players who came here have been paid very well and didn''t do enough for their money.

The summer will be a crunch time for the club - can we hold onto the name players with the big wages (Huckerby and Earnshaw are worth the money in my opinion) ?  Who can we afford to lose ?  What standard will their replacements be ?  It should be an interesting 3 months which will determine the immediate future of our club.

[/quote]

Well said Blah. Why is it that all the people calling for the board''s heads don''t account for;

1. The high wages of the squad over the last two years. Huge amounts of money have been paid in wages (and add-ons, agents fees etc) yet people only count the base transfer fee paid.

2. We are in our current position because Worthy gambled on having a small, highly paid squad, in which too large a proportion of our highly paid players have done nothing.  Worthy rightly paid the price for this by being sacked, Grant must be given time to turn this situation around. Without the parachute payments we can''t buy our way out of trouble, so rebuilding will take time.

3. We can''t just sack the board (what with some of them being majority shareholders). Whilst I would welcome additional investment, I''m not in that dreamland which believes any money from anywhere can only be good. There are many investers chasing the Premiership jackpot, not all will succeed, we will see clubs facing serious financial troubles as a result of failing to buy their way out of this league. You can''t really think that there is enough earning potential to satisfy these investers in the Championship? What happens when they pull the plug on their money, leaving us unable to pay a wage bill? When they double our debt and call it in? When they sell our ground to cover the money they have lost? When tickets rise by 50% to fund the new investors profits?

4. You say we need more money coming into the club, but scorn the off-field activities despite the fact they are profit making. The vast majority of clubs in the top two divisions have catering / restaurants / corporate entertainment (go on name clubs that don''t) because nobody can run a club at this level purely from gate receipts. We have a nationally aclaimed chef to run our restaurant and catering/corporate facilities, isn''t this a good thing?

Our board are far from perfect, but whilst they are there we will have a club to follow. They HAVE proved their ambition, by backing Worthy with millions. That failed, Worthy has gone, we are where we are. Grant will show us over the summer and next season if he has the skills to take us where we ALL want to go.

Please feel free to debate the above, but don''t just call me a blind sheep (I''m addressing this obviously to Cluck and Smudger), that line is getting really old and is not covering the fact that you can''t debate your position effectively without resorting to personal insults because you just haven''t thought it all through.

[August 64 0]

"we can organise a demo with a considerable number of hardcore fans"  

Good old Smudger living in fantasy land with Cluck and the La Las, barely watch a game, moan continuously, too busy playing on his computer.  The "hardcore" fans are in the ground not moping about on the pavement outside.  The hardcore fans are forming their opinions on what they see not on the reports of the Flock of Four.  Organise your demo and we''ll book a taxi to take the assembled masses home afterwards - just the one will do.  The "hardcore" will not heed the half-baked ramblings of Chase apologists and re-writers of history.  What next from Cluck?  "Lol Morgan was the best manger we ever had, but only me and Smudgelet realise it". Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

[TheMarshmallowMan 0]

Good to see the return of good old fashioned common sense. People like Alex, Smudger and Ricky seem to expect instant success from Grant in just under eight months in charge. In the circumstances, I think this if hugely unfair.

As already detailed, Worthington built a squad based on high, expensive wages - and that''s where alot of our cash was sunk. In addition to this, our agent fees were the fourth highest in the Division last season (thankfully drastically reduced this season) and the huge number of loanees also meant a drain on money. What more do you expect the board to do? It''s clear the money is avaliable - it''s not their fault the previous manager squandered this sum on poor signings with high wages, loans and agents.

Comparison with Southampton is unfair; just a few months ago they were in the position we are. Broke, attempting to mount a promotion challenge on pennies, they were bought out and George Burley was given the largest transfer budget in the Championship. They should be up there; they''ve spent the money to bring in quality players.

Having said that, I don''t think next year will bring us success either. I think until Grant is given substantial funds to change a squad in obvious need of a major rehaul, I think it''ll have to be done over a number of seasons, slowly. Next season will be a better one, but I think we should expect another season of mid-table mediocrity (around 12th-13th IMO).

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="August 64"]

"we can organise a demo with a considerable number of hardcore fans"  

Good old Smudger living in fantasy land with Cluck and the La Las, barely watch a game, moan continuously, too busy playing on his computer.  The "hardcore" fans are in the ground not moping about on the pavement outside.  The hardcore fans are forming their opinions on what they see not on the reports of the Flock of Four.  Organise your demo and we''ll book a taxi to take the assembled masses home afterwards - just the one will do.  The "hardcore" will not heed the half-baked ramblings of Chase apologists and re-writers of history.  What next from Cluck?  "Lol Morgan was the best manger we ever had, but only me and Smudgelet realise it". Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

[/quote]

Hey August. Are you Cluck in disguise, trying to play both sides of the argument?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="August 64"]

"we can organise a demo with a considerable number of hardcore fans"  

Good old Smudger living in fantasy land with Cluck and the La Las, barely watch a game, moan continuously, too busy playing on his computer.  The "hardcore" fans are in the ground not moping about on the pavement outside.  The hardcore fans are forming their opinions on what they see not on the reports of the Flock of Four.  Organise your demo and we''ll book a taxi to take the assembled masses home afterwards - just the one will do.  The "hardcore" will not heed the half-baked ramblings of Chase apologists and re-writers of history.  What next from Cluck?  "Lol Morgan was the best manger we ever had, but only me and Smudgelet realise it". Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

[/quote]

I notice that you ignore the serious points and questions posed by myself and MysticMegson and resort to petty sniping instead. Hmmm, deflecting attention from the real issues by focussing on the weakest argument.....Ever thought of becoming a politician?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

We do not have to spend ourselves into bankruptcy to be challenging for promotion from the Championship.  That''s the limit of my ambition at the present time.  Is that ambitious and realistic enough for you? 

In the past two dismal seasons we''ve had £24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds) in parachute payments and profits, that most other clubs in this division can only dream of, and where are we now?  In terms of profits we are a BIG club.  Football-wise we are in crisis.  That''s quite an achievement.  Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City.  Discuss.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

I respectfully suggest that you re-read the balance sheet Mystic.

The Sky money (Prem and Parachute payments) are an integral part of the the profit and loss account and not additional to it.

What you have done is count the money twice. A bit like that Scotts bloke, err whats his name............Gordon Brown.

[whoareyou? 0]

If any one whats to either protest or go out and find the hidden gold that is just waiting to flood into the club then go out and do both or either instead of just sitting their endlessly typing out the same stuff.

Criticism is easy especially in this day of faceless internet forums..its the people who actually do, that others will listen too.

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]

Good to see the return of good old fashioned common sense. People like Alex, Smudger and Ricky seem to expect instant success from Grant in just under eight months in charge. In the circumstances, I think this if hugely unfair.

As already detailed, Worthington built a squad based on high, expensive wages - and that''s where alot of our cash was sunk. In addition to this, our agent fees were the fourth highest in the Division last season (thankfully drastically reduced this season) and the huge number of loanees also meant a drain on money. What more do you expect the board to do? It''s clear the money is avaliable - it''s not their fault the previous manager squandered this sum on poor signings with high wages, loans and agents.

Comparison with Southampton is unfair; just a few months ago they were in the position we are. Broke, attempting to mount a promotion challenge on pennies, they were bought out and George Burley was given the largest transfer budget in the Championship. They should be up there; they''ve spent the money to bring in quality players.

Having said that, I don''t think next year will bring us success either. I think until Grant is given substantial funds to change a squad in obvious need of a major rehaul, I think it''ll have to be done over a number of seasons, slowly. Next season will be a better one, but I think we should expect another season of mid-table mediocrity (around 12th-13th IMO).

[/quote]

hey read my posts again, i dont expect instant succes but i sure as hell expect improvement and Grant has done nothing to improve us imo.i would have accepted a top 8 finish as improvement but we are still way off the pace. His signings have been totally average, just a shade of ambition might have seen us make a playoff position with all the teams there making a hard job of it, blimey even brum have lost 12 games.

The way you are talking we might as well have kept Worthy because whoever we appoint according to you we are doomed to seasons of mediocrity. We needed a manager with a bit of charisma, confidence and backbone to give the place a lift, thats their job, this guy seems to lack all three imo.

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="August 64"]

"we can organise a demo with a considerable number of hardcore fans"  

Good old Smudger living in fantasy land with Cluck and the La Las, barely watch a game, moan continuously, too busy playing on his computer.  The "hardcore" fans are in the ground not moping about on the pavement outside.  The hardcore fans are forming their opinions on what they see not on the reports of the Flock of Four.  Organise your demo and we''ll book a taxi to take the assembled masses home afterwards - just the one will do.  The "hardcore" will not heed the half-baked ramblings of Chase apologists and re-writers of history.  What next from Cluck?  "Lol Morgan was the best manger we ever had, but only me and Smudgelet realise it". Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa 

[/quote]

Oh dear....your "cold mountain" location climate must have frozen the last living brain cell you owned.

Classic apologist nonsense from someone who clearly has no legs left to stand on....so is sliding downhill fast on his backside. It would appear that this part of your body is the only thing left touching the ground....because sure as hell you are not talking for the majority of "paying" fans out there. Xbox regular are you?

I suggest it might help if you take the blind man''s specs off your avatar...then you might see the see the light a tad more clearly instead of relying on your backside speaking for you.

Bilge my "friend"...utter bilge....and rather embarrassing bilge at that.

[alex_ncfc 662]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]

Good to see the return of good old fashioned common sense. People like Alex, Smudger and Ricky seem to expect instant success from Grant in just under eight months in charge. In the circumstances, I think this if hugely unfair.

As already detailed, Worthington built a squad based on high, expensive wages - and that''s where alot of our cash was sunk. In addition to this, our agent fees were the fourth highest in the Division last season (thankfully drastically reduced this season) and the huge number of loanees also meant a drain on money. What more do you expect the board to do? It''s clear the money is avaliable - it''s not their fault the previous manager squandered this sum on poor signings with high wages, loans and agents.

Comparison with Southampton is unfair; just a few months ago they were in the position we are. Broke, attempting to mount a promotion challenge on pennies, they were bought out and George Burley was given the largest transfer budget in the Championship. They should be up there; they''ve spent the money to bring in quality players.

Having said that, I don''t think next year will bring us success either. I think until Grant is given substantial funds to change a squad in obvious need of a major rehaul, I think it''ll have to be done over a number of seasons, slowly. Next season will be a better one, but I think we should expect another season of mid-table mediocrity (around 12th-13th IMO).

[/quote]

*Just* 8 months in charge? He has had the majority of the season. And have we seen any improvement? No. We go ino the last game of this dismal season with the prospect of a maximum finish of 14th, 5 down on last season. Or we could just take the easy option, lose again, and sit in 16th and tell ourselves that next season we will "mount a real promotion challenge" - it ain''t gonna happen, and that''s the only part of your post I agree with.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

Life is a gamble bottom line.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

You wonder why the hell you didn''t sack the failing manager and put an experienced man in charge pre season.... and then blame hindsight...

 

Inepty bunch of losers we have in charge at our club.  You can always tell the clubs with awful Boards, their influence runs right through the club.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="ricky knight"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

Life is a gamble bottom line.

[/quote]

Yeah Ricky, I''m happy with a gamble, its fun but I''ve learned through bitter experience not to bet more than I can afford to lose.

Having had plenty of experience at gambling (on both sides of the book) I''ve always found that when you really need to win you don''t.

I wonder how many Leeds fans are happy with the bet their directors made for them.

[Magicmol 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]This is a "virtual" forum "virtually"supporting a "virtual" club. A large percentage don''t even go near the ground...yet they know all the answers...A fair few others spend far too much time playing "virtual football" on their Xbox instead of studying the true state of the club....where they can''t simply switch off and start from the beginning again. Once we''re broke...we''re broke. There is no easy electronic way out.

[/quote]Coming from the person with over 2000 posts since the end of September last year!

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

I too was part of the "Chase out" movement and a proud man when we finally got him out. However.....We now have someone in overall control at the club who stated at the time that no one would ever have that much power at the club again. Maybe she exempted herself from that statement? We have a chairman who was initially joined the club under Chase and who`s main business interest is PR-and people wonder at the carefully phrased "spin"that comes out of the club? And we have an inexperienced Chief Executive who in my opinion is more negative than Chase ever was and has about as much drive and ambition as my neighbours poodle.

I think the crowd who seem to prefer celebrating a nice, big profit at the end of each financial year (and subsequent large tax donation to the treasury) to success on the pitch are more likely to be the ones who supported the status quo when the Chase protests were going on.

"Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities"- Bearing in mind that the "Huckerby"push for promotion was paid for by the fans through the share issues (as,indirectly, was half Ashtons fee), and that any subsequent money spent on the team has amounted to a mere fraction of the money recieved/owed on players we have sold, can you give me a shred of evidence to show there is ambition in the boardroom at Carrow Rd.?

[/quote]

Robert Chase had total control of the club. Everything revolved around him and he made the decisions about everything himself. He made a pretty good fist of it too until it all went wrong for him in our relegation season. We had some good times under his leadership and these should be remembered too. The current board recognised this and tried to build a team. The decisions now are made by that team and not just one person. You can''t honestly believe that Delia Smith makes all the decisions in the same way Robert Chase did.

I don''t understand what your problem is with spending the money put in by the fans on Huckerby and Ashton. Surely that''s what the fans would have wanted it spent on? Incidentally, have you any idea which fans put in the most money to make this happen?

 

 

[/quote]

The last time i looked Delia had about the same percentage of shares that Chase had ie.over 50% and therefore complete control of the club. Of course i have no problem with the board spending the share issue money on players-but i do have a problem with them and their supporters using this as evidence of the boards supposed ambition when the fact is that there would not have been Huckerby/Mckenzie/Svensson and subsequent promotion unless it had been directly bankrolled by the fans. The board had an opportunity to show everyone the colour of their ambition a few months later when Crouch was available for £2.5million but decided that spending £500k on a central defender to play upfront was a more prudent course of action......Even Ashton was only signed (too late) because of the £1.5million budget surplus from the "B" shares. This in a period when the club has raked in £35million in tv money alone. Subsequent events have proved beyond doubt to me that this board will always see investment in the playing side as an occasional irritating distraction from the real business of restaraunts,land deals,subsiduary companies,hotels etc.etc.....

[/quote]

You are right Delia and MWJ are majority shareholders of the club. That wasn''t the issue and I don''t believe that Delia ever did state that no one should ever be majority shareholders at the club again. I will be happy to admit I am wrong if you can tell me when she did say it. What I believe she did say was "Robert Chase was the all- singing, all-dancing man, and everything revolved around him. What this board has tried to do is build a team."

I think the share issue is evidence that Delia, MWJ and the fans ambitions are the same. Did they not match the money the fans put in?  Despite what some posters on here would have you believe they are fans just like you and me.

To be honest,  while I agree that the board shouldn''t gamble big time I do believe they have been far too prudent since our promotion to the Premiership. Nigel Worthington criticised them last summer saying we have to become more proactive rather than reactive and citing the signing of Dean Ashton in January instead of pre season as an example we should have learned from. But at the time people were too interested in using everything he said against him to listen.

Somewhere between recklessness and prudence is a balance that this board has yet to find.

 

[ricky knight 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="ricky knight"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

Life is a gamble bottom line.

[/quote]

Yeah Ricky, I''m happy with a gamble, its fun but I''ve learned through bitter experience not to bet more than I can afford to lose.

Having had plenty of experience at gambling (on both sides of the book) I''ve always found that when you really need to win you don''t.

I wonder how many Leeds fans are happy with the bet their directors made for them.

[/quote]

there is betting and there is being stupid, city can afford an each way bet. to do nothing and to die is criminal, to die having a go is more honourable imo. If city dont spend we will only go down in the end, we have to give it a go, Delia must go if she cant provide simple as, i dont care who takes over even if its a martian as long as they are ready to invest, i dont go with this must be local, city supporter stuff.

[Syteanric 1]

Mr Carrow Makes Some excellent points!

what explanation do we have of Delia and her husband owning the majority share of the football club?

The fans signed Huckerby and Ashton. not the board. and for those who blame worthington for the high wages, he was told his wage budget, the board (and the cheif exec) set the players wages in discussion with the player and his agent. Nigel Worthington had to "hard sell" the club, once a player was here the board decided what he would be paid. so the high wage situation is their fault, not the fault of worthington.

it was a waste of money for the club to put Dean ashton on a new contract.. we all knew he''d be off in flash.

 As for the hotel etc.. will they make the club money? Leeds have everything we have got and more and look at them. Ok so we have a chef on the board... what input does she have into the catering, the club has a catering and a head chef. neither of these people are Ms D. Smith, the menu may be chosen by delia but thats about it.

the club have even come out and said they are focussing all their efforts into "off the field" activites, what will this acheive for the club? a bigger payout to the tax man, more money in the coffers.. but what state will the playing side be in by then.

 these business interests could be good for the club but are long term investments. who would want a conference side earning millions when they could have a premiership side struggling to make ends meet?

 we wont have TV revenue next season we wil lhave a poor side which wont get promoted. if Grant is backed he can rebuild.. if he isnt then we are down.

jas :)

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Magicmol"][quote user="Cluck "]

This is a "virtual" forum "virtually"supporting a "virtual" club. A large percentage don''t even go near the ground...yet they know all the answers...A fair few others spend far too much time playing "virtual football" on their Xbox instead of studying the true state of the club....where they can''t simply switch off and start from the beginning again. Once we''re broke...we''re broke. There is no easy electronic way out.

[/quote]

Coming from the person with over 2000 posts since the end of September last year!
[/quote]

Just because you''ve not been able to think up more than 24 posts since August 2005.   [:P]  .....on this particular user name anyway.........     

[7rew 0]

alex_ncfc: It was "just under 8 months in charge" (meaning slightly less than 8 months) rather than "*Just* 8 months in charge" (meaning 8 months isn''t sufficient time to judge results).

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="ricky knight"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="ricky knight"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

Life is a gamble bottom line.

[/quote]

Yeah Ricky, I''m happy with a gamble, its fun but I''ve learned through bitter experience not to bet more than I can afford to lose.

Having had plenty of experience at gambling (on both sides of the book) I''ve always found that when you really need to win you don''t.

I wonder how many Leeds fans are happy with the bet their directors made for them.

[/quote]

there is betting and there is being stupid, city can afford an each way bet. to do nothing and to die is criminal, to die having a go is more honourable imo. If city dont spend we will only go down in the end, we have to give it a go, Delia must go if she cant provide simple as, i dont care who takes over even if its a martian as long as they are ready to invest, i dont go with this must be local, city supporter stuff.

[/quote]

O.K. Ricky. In that case I''m with you and would be prepared to sanction a sensible each way bet.

What I wouldn''t do and what I don''t think the board have any right to do is mortgage the future of my club. in some sort of s**t or bust bet.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Just because you''ve not been able to think up more than 24 posts since August 2005.     .....on this particular user name anyway.........      [/quote]

That''s 22 more than you''ve managed to think up mate, he''s just not repeated his 1000 times [;)]