Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Voice of the Thorpe Area

Well it could be worse...

Recommended Posts

Spot on Thorpe.  That''s exactly what the likes of Cludger and Smuck, Mr Carrow and many others are trying to prevent, by flagging up the problems now.  It''s like standing by the railway track knowing that there''s a tree on the line round the next bend.  If we don''t try to warn the train driver then we are partly to blame.  I fear the driver is asleep however, or maybe his/her mind is elsewhere . . .

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read this today:-

The intoxicating wine of the Premiership went to Bradford''s heads, prompting what was, with the gift of hindsight, an ill-judged spending spree in the summer of 2000.

Bradford wanted to be more than mere survivors, and although manager Chris Hutchings was nominally the hand on the wheel, the steering was provided by chairman Geoffrey Richmond.

Bradford paid fees for Ashley Ward (£1.5m), Dan Petrescu (£1m), David Hopkin (£2.5m), and while Benito Carbone, Ian Nolan and Peter Atherton arrived on free transfers, and Stan Collymore on a loan, they all commanded big salaries.

And I read this about Leeds yesterday:-

I''ve seen quite a lot of them over the last decade or so , knowing supporters and people at the club, and the football they played at the beginning of O''Leary''s tenure was breathtaking at times-however, they wouldn''t live within their means, and I remember well a friend of mine saying, and he is Leeds mad, that, when they signed Ferdinand, on that very day, he said "...that''s it, we''re finished now..." -how prophetic was that? And I don''t think he was the only one who, deep down, felt that way.

Somewhere between these examples and the example of  Watford''s acceptance of relegation from day one is a middle ground where teams have a fighting chance of survival in the premiership without risking the future of the club. Sheffield United look to have done it this season and whatever people say we came close in our season.

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

 

Share this post


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

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Challenging at the top of the Championship would suit me fine.  Anyone disagree? 

 

Share this post


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

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

 

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

 

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

[/quote]

Good sentiments based on the reality of the situation.

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

[/quote]

And why?  Because NW thought replacing a big striker with a little one would be a good idea?  Or because the board had an eye on Earnie''s sell-on value?  As I recall Worthy had his eye on Rob Hulse in January and could have got him then for about £2m, but by the summer Sheff U were in the Prem so we lost out.  They didn''t learn though, and bypassed Steve Howard (£1m) in favour of the boy Cotterill (£1.5-2m) again because of his sell-on value. 

It was a financial not a footballing decision to buy Earnie imo.  He would have been sold in January if he hadn''t been injured, and there''s not a snowball''s chance in hell that he''ll still be here when the summer transfer window closes.  As usual we''ll hang on until the end of August when it will be too late to spend it on new signings.  What really stinks is that buying expensive players like Ashton and Earnshaw deceived the fans into thinking that the club was ambitious. 

When the board said that Worthy had a free hand, they didn''t finish the sentence: "A free hand. . . up to half a million pounds".   Has anything changed?  We have a different manager now but the same board.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters

deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is

a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going

to happen.[/quote]Oh well done cluck old pal, open up the good old "true supporters" chestnut, we haven''t had that conversation for a while.  Everyone has their own take on what it means to support the club, making out that some are "truer" than others, and doing so along the party line of optomist / pessimist is just another futile attempt at drawing a line in the sand, when what the club needs to move on is all the supporters getting behind the team.When you take away the us and them parts of your contributions, there''s not a lot left really.  We''re all supporters of the same team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mystic megson"]

Spot on Thorpe.  That''s exactly what the likes of Cludger and Smuck, Mr Carrow and many others are trying to prevent, by flagging up the problems now.  It''s like standing by the railway track knowing that there''s a tree on the line round the next bend.  If we don''t try to warn the train driver then we are partly to blame.  I fear the driver is asleep however, or maybe his/her mind is elsewhere . . .

[/quote]

Does she have a mind - or does she just cook while playing dolly-house with that nice, little old football club she has bought??

Sentimental, unfocussed and clueless if you ask me!

Time she threw her toys out of the window.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh..........for the six millionth time Cluck..... please name me one contributor to this board who refuses "to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007" - because I am certainly not one of those. I think that most people see the problem but don''t believe that the solution is as childishly simple as your endlessly regurgitated post implies.

(Actually, I apologise, you have two posts - I was forgetting about the one in which everyone who dares to disagree with your neanderthal views on women is a brainwashed sheep).   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

 

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

[/quote]

Good sentiments based on the reality of the situation.

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen.

 

[/quote]

Its easy to say we deserve much better.

The supporters of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford are probably saying the same thing. They lived the dream and spent money they didn''t have on big names and big wages.

I seem to recall you and Smudger advocating the same thing. Whats going to stop NCFC doing the same as the above mentioned.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

[/quote]

Good sentiments based on the reality of the situation.

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen.

 

[/quote]

Why do you have to describe anyone who doesn''t share the same opinion as you as "blind"?

Can you not accept that other people may have arrived at an alternative opinion and are not merely "sheep"?[^o)]

You would prefer 14,000 true supporters rather than 24,000 supporters? You sound like a sulking child!

Share this post


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

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen. [/quote]

 

I think there''s a lot more than 14000 true supporters Cluck.[:)]

There''s the 20,000 who will be purchasing a sseason ticket

There''s the old, young and the poorly supporters who still love the club but can''t for whatever reason get there on a Saturday

Then there''s the ones who live many miles away and just can''t get here.

Anyway, moving on what do you suggest ''us sheep'' do then, if no-one turns up there will be no club to support or for you to moan at will there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CJF - I would be a bit worried if a football manager didn''t automatically know what his target was, vis, finish as high in the table as possible.Its not like some other jobs which don''t have an obvious measure of preformance.  If you set a target for a football team you can end up like Charlton used to, getting 40 points by mid march and none for the rest of the season.I can see what you mean, they say to a manager "get xx many points this season or finish in xx position". But this can be problematic if a target of points is set misses it yet gains a higher league position or vice versa.

Share this post


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

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen. [/quote]

 

I think there''s a lot more than 14000 true supporters Cluck.[:)]

There''s the 20,000 who will be purchasing a sseason ticket

There''s the old, young and the poorly supporters who still love the club but can''t for whatever reason get there on a Saturday

Then there''s the ones who live many miles away and just can''t get here.

Anyway, moving on what do you suggest ''us sheep'' do then, if no-one turns up there will be no club to support or for you to moan at will there?

[/quote]

Slightly contentious to rattle the "true supporters" cage....but it hasn''t been said for a few days.

Firstly....not all of those who have purchased season tickets are what I call "die-hards".  There are all sorts of purchasers including company perk jobbies along with the many closet Man Utd/other club brigade who just like to go for a day out with the kiddies. I myself have a relative from London who owns four...which he duly lets out to pals on their weekend "jollies".....and he doesn''t even like football particularly.   So the 20,000 is exceedingly misleading....and dare we even mention those who dread losing their treasured seat, so renew "just in case"? It''s little more than blackmail in truth and the excessive season ticket allocation is the scam of the decade.

As for the those who can''t or aren''t able to attend....they don''t fit in with the 14000 figure mentioned as they don''t go anyway. If we applied that principle to Man Utd. we would be talking millions worldwide wouldn''t we?

As for the "sheep".....I''ll repeat that as long as season tickets sell and the stands are full, the board need do absolutely nothing but rub their hands.....which is precisely what they have been up to for years. They hold the "monopoly" card owning the only big club in Norfolk and simply rely on the loyalty of the fans to keep coming back....irrespective.  If no-one turns up?  That''s easy,  because they would then know the game was up and they would either have to seek serious investment....or go.

It doesn''t make nice reading.....but staying away is what City fan''s have got to do sooner or later to show strength.....and the sooner the better in my view before staying away becomes a pointless exercise....and we''re down and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

 

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

[/quote]

Good sentiments based on the reality of the situation.

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen.

 

[/quote]

Its easy to say we deserve much better.

The supporters of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford are probably saying the same thing. They lived the dream and spent money they didn''t have on big names and big wages.

I seem to recall you and Smudger advocating the same thing. Whats going to stop NCFC doing the same as the above mentioned.?

[/quote]

So I guess this means you''re happy with "prudence" and a future languishing in the doldrums?

This Board got us into this mess. This Board got us into £20 million debt. This Board has sold what decent talent we had...and this Board did not re-invest the money in the squad. This Board is taking the p*ss out of the loyalty of the fans....and this Board will take us nowhere except backwards. What part of that catalogue of facts do you have difficulty with?

Fine if that''s ok with you....but a look at how much better Birmingham...Sunderland...Southampton...Wast Brom have done shows that in order to prosper you need to be brave.  "Cast your bread onto the water" and all that. We''re only "broke" because this Board let it happen.....and I''m stunned at how dopey some of you are to believe that it "just happened" like a magicians trick.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that don''t go aren''t true fans, yet  those that do are sheep (not true fans) since they don''t have the best intrests of the club at heart and are proping up this malicious/incompetant/hand-rubbing board.This means there are a grand total of 0 true fans.  Damn!  We are therefore a smaller club than Gorleston Town FC, so the monopoly card clearly doesn''t hold!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it could be worse, but that is not the point.

I could say .......  it could be worse, you could be a Leeds supporter, League One football next season, and possibly a 10 point deduction straightaway for going into administration.  So all the moaners on this board, be happy with a lowly Championship finish and often poor football..... but I wouldn''t say that. 

Comparing one underachievement (Norwich), with a big underachievment (Leeds, Bradford, whoever), to try to nullify the effect of the original underachievement (Norwich), is pointless.  What does it show?  It is neither constructive nor beneficial to Norwich.

Its only purpose is to soften the blow to some on this board, perhaps?

Irrelevant of Sunderland going up and Leeds going down, you have to look at Norwich City Football Club in isolation when reviewing their performance this season.

For me the season was disappointing. However, with the change in management I will reserve judgment on Grant, for now. I feel that that the end of November (07) is a fair enough length of time for Grant''s summer signings to bed in and our league position will give an insight into what to expect from the rest of the season. 

If, by then we are still performing poorly and down at the foot of the table, I will be saying Grant should go.  This will have given Grant a 13 month probation (if you like), which is a lot more than you would get in most other jobs.[:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Challenging at the top of the Championship would suit me fine.  Anyone disagree? 

 

[/quote]

It would suit me fine too Mystic. By that I mean being at least where Colchester are now, going into the final game with something to play for. If you mean the same then it''s just possible that we have found some common ground between you, me and the board.

It''s disappointing that we have fallen well short of that this season. That''s probably more common ground. So you see - we can all be on the same side. [;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Cluck "][It''s little more than blackmail in truth and the excessive season ticket allocation is the scam of the decade.

[/quote]

It''s no secret that I am not a fan of the excessive season ticket allocation. I really don''t understand how this club can sell around 20,000 season tickets during a period of decline and unrest. And yet in season 92/93 we spent week after week at the top of the premiership in what is regarded as our most succesful league season and had 10 home league gates of less than 15,000. It may be a scam but if so I don''t understand how it works. Maybe you could explain it to me cluck?

 

Share this post


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

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen. [/quote]

 

I think there''s a lot more than 14000 true supporters Cluck.[:)]

There''s the 20,000 who will be purchasing a sseason ticket

There''s the old, young and the poorly supporters who still love the club but can''t for whatever reason get there on a Saturday

Then there''s the ones who live many miles away and just can''t get here.

Anyway, moving on what do you suggest ''us sheep'' do then, if no-one turns up there will be no club to support or for you to moan at will there?

[/quote]

Slightly contentious to rattle the "true supporters" cage....but it hasn''t been said for a few days.

Firstly....not all of those who have purchased season tickets are what I call "die-hards".  There are all sorts of purchasers including company perk jobbies along with the many closet Man Utd/other club brigade who just like to go for a day out with the kiddies. I myself have a relative from London who owns four...which he duly lets out to pals on their weekend "jollies".....and he doesn''t even like football particularly.   So the 20,000 is exceedingly misleading....and dare we even mention those who dread losing their treasured seat, so renew "just in case"? It''s little more than blackmail in truth and the excessive season ticket allocation is the scam of the decade.

As for the those who can''t or aren''t able to attend....they don''t fit in with the 14000 figure mentioned as they don''t go anyway. If we applied that principle to Man Utd. we would be talking millions worldwide wouldn''t we?

As for the "sheep".....I''ll repeat that as long as season tickets sell and the stands are full, the board need do absolutely nothing but rub their hands.....which is precisely what they have been up to for years. They hold the "monopoly" card owning the only big club in Norfolk and simply rely on the loyalty of the fans to keep coming back....irrespective.  If no-one turns up?  That''s easy,  because they would then know the game was up and they would either have to seek serious investment....or go.

It doesn''t make nice reading.....but staying away is what City fan''s have got to do sooner or later to show strength.....and the sooner the better in my view before staying away becomes a pointless exercise....and we''re down and out.

[/quote]

Spot on mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="7rew"]CJF - I would be a bit worried if a football manager didn''t automatically know what his target was, vis, finish as high in the table as possible.

Its not like some other jobs which don''t have an obvious measure of preformance.  If you set a target for a football team you can end up like Charlton used to, getting 40 points by mid march and none for the rest of the season.

I can see what you mean, they say to a manager "get xx many points this season or finish in xx position". But this can be problematic if a target of points is set misses it yet gains a higher league position or vice versa.
[/quote]

Clearly the manager will want to finish as high as possible, but with respect you''re missing the point.  Setting a target also involves a commitment by the board to provide the resources necessary to have a realistic chance of reaching it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Some fans really do need to wake up to the changes in football since the days when we could challenge at the very top end of the league. It''s the old prudence or ambition chestnut but we have to recognise both both can come with a high price.

[/quote]

Now that the parachute money has gone,  my expectation level for the team has finally fallen to the level our board have set us all along - lower mid table championship.  An injury to Huckerby and we are no better than the worst 6 sides in the table.

As a club we have no ambition at all, and in earnshaw, a sum of money that a good manager could use to propel a team towards the top 6 was spent on a single player, whom we had direct alternatives too in the side, but no partner for.

Noone is talking of the bank busting spends of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford...  Or teams like Leicester who suffered due to their elongated stay in the premiership and a lack of good players to sell on relegation..

 

Then again our board don''t set the manager targets - what a bunch of losers. [N]

[/quote]

Good sentiments based on the reality of the situation.

I''m afraid I have no sympathy for the sheep that turn up to games and blindly refuse to accept any major problem with the club as it is in 2007....but for those like yourself and other posters who regularly attend games and yet still dare to criticise, I feel very different. That hardcore of 14000 true club supporters deserve much better...but I seriously fear that until there is a dramatic overhaul of all things Norwich City....nothing much is going to happen.

 

[/quote]

Its easy to say we deserve much better.

The supporters of Leeds, Ipswich and Bradford are probably saying the same thing. They lived the dream and spent money they didn''t have on big names and big wages.

I seem to recall you and Smudger advocating the same thing. Whats going to stop NCFC doing the same as the above mentioned.?

[/quote]

So I guess this means you''re happy with "prudence" and a future languishing in the doldrums?

This Board got us into this mess. This Board got us into £20 million debt. This Board has sold what decent talent we had...and this Board did not re-invest the money in the squad. This Board is taking the p*ss out of the loyalty of the fans....and this Board will take us nowhere except backwards. What part of that catalogue of facts do you have difficulty with?

Fine if that''s ok with you....but a look at how much better Birmingham...Sunderland...Southampton...Wast Brom have done shows that in order to prosper you need to be brave.  "Cast your bread onto the water" and all that. We''re only "broke" because this Board let it happen.....and I''m stunned at how dopey some of you are to believe that it "just happened" like a magicians trick.

 

[/quote]

Sorry for being so dopey.

And there was I imagining that the Jarrold stand, the Barclay stand and the re-financing of the club after the collapse of the B Sky B contract all just happened like a magicians trick. Oh silly me!

Sack the board! elect Cluck and Smudger!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CJF - re targets - I don''t often listen to Simon Jordon, but he was moaning in his weekly Guardian column that the whole football industry doesn''t set achievement targets for their staff especially their managers. Jordon wanted to do this, but with no other club doing it he couldn''t find a manager who would sign up to such a contract. Targets are used in business as a way of dismissing unproductive staff, with the money in football management contracts this is a large amount of money (as we saw with Worthy''s pay-off). So it isn''t just Norwich who don''t provide these targets, its everyone.

Mystic - I agree that *probably* the board look at big player investments, and decide whether or not to release funds based partly on the players investment potential. Ashton, Earnshaw (and Cotterill) are players who we will / could have made money on. I don''t see the problem with this! Surely it is sensible to invest in a player (all purchases on players are an investment) in whom you have a good chance of making money on? If you think the board forced Worthy to buy Earnie based purley on the investment potential, where is the evidence? I think it is a big jump in logic to make.

Bradford are just another example of where teams can end up when they gamble with the club''s money. They over-spent HUGELY in the Premiership and now they are paying the price. Mystic, Cluck and Smudger and friends are certainly not trying to prevent this. They are repeatedly saying we should be spending MORE on the team, and that our current board is not spending enough and thus proving their lack of ambition. Bradford are a reminder of what can happen all to easily when boards get too ''ambitious''.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Putney Canary"]

CJF - re targets - I don''t often listen to Simon Jordon, but he was moaning in his weekly Guardian column that the whole football industry doesn''t set achievement targets for their staff especially their managers. Jordon wanted to do this, but with no other club doing it he couldn''t find a manager who would sign up to such a contract. Targets are used in business as a way of dismissing unproductive staff, with the money in football management contracts this is a large amount of money (as we saw with Worthy''s pay-off). So it isn''t just Norwich who don''t provide these targets, its everyone.

Mystic - I agree that *probably* the board look at big player investments, and decide whether or not to release funds based partly on the players investment potential. Ashton, Earnshaw (and Cotterill) are players who we will / could have made money on. I don''t see the problem with this! Surely it is sensible to invest in a player (all purchases on players are an investment) in whom you have a good chance of making money on? If you think the board forced Worthy to buy Earnie based purley on the investment potential, where is the evidence? I think it is a big jump in logic to make.

Bradford are just another example of where teams can end up when they gamble with the club''s money. They over-spent HUGELY in the Premiership and now they are paying the price. Mystic, Cluck and Smudger and friends are certainly not trying to prevent this. They are repeatedly saying we should be spending MORE on the team, and that our current board is not spending enough and thus proving their lack of ambition. Bradford are a reminder of what can happen all to easily when boards get too ''ambitious''.

[/quote]

The other side of the coin Birmingham and sunderland have spent and gone straight back up, brum in fact with some very good loan signings. Nobody wants us to go ott, just show a little bit of bottle, come on our january signings were a joke and you can gloss it over however you like, Lappin being the best of a bad bunch but no world beater and a mighty 75 grand, blimey even conference teams pay that and more for players nowadays.

Share this post


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

Mystic - I agree that *probably* the board look at big player investments, and decide whether or not to release funds based partly on the players investment potential. Ashton, Earnshaw (and Cotterill) are players who we will / could have made money on. I don''t see the problem with this! Surely it is sensible to invest in a player (all purchases on players are an investment) in whom you have a good chance of making money on? If you think the board forced Worthy to buy Earnie based purley on the investment potential, where is the evidence? I think it is a big jump in logic to make.

[/quote]

Interesting Putney that you actually accept that this goes on.  It is a problem for several reasons, including:

i)  It destroys team-building if a player is bought primarily for financial not footballing reasons - as others have pointed out, while Earnie is a quality player, what we really needed at that time was a big striker to replace Ashton. 

ii)  It destroys team-building if the player knows and his teammates also know from day 1 that he is not going to be around for any length of time - and that, as in Earnie''s case, they have to completely change the way they''ve been playing to accommodate him while he is here.

iii)  If £3 million is spent on a player (Earnshaw) who was not an ideal replacement for Ashton, when a more suitable replacement (Hulse) could have been available for £2 million, how does that make any sense whatever in either financial or footballing terms?

No one is suggesting that Worthy was "forced" to buy Earnie, just that it was outside his control.  Does anyone really imagine that the board simply hands over £X million to the manager and says "go on, spend it as you wish"?  Given that the board weren''t going to support a bid for Hulse, I expect he was only too delighted to have Earnie instead.  He was understandably less happy last summer when we bypassed Howard for Cotterill and ended up with neither.

iv)  The simple fact is that we made far more money from a single season in the Prem than from buying and selling players.

PS.  I''m sick of saying that all I''m asking is for the club to spend enough for us to be challenging for promotion from the Championship. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystic - I have no problem with it *IF*

1. The player is bough primarily for football reasons. EG if two player names are on the table, one aged 22 and one 32, we should obviously chose the younger as it is also a good investment. If the board *suggested* to Worthy that Earnie would be a good target as they felt his value could only increase, I would be angry. If Worthy said "I want to buy Earnie" and the board said yes, because they believed him to be a good footballing choice by Worthy AND they thought his value would go up, thats fine with me.

2. Clubs in our position will get used as a career stepping stone by players. I was pleased when we got Ashton, I would have been very pleased with Cotterill. If we can regularly get lower league uncut diamonds and turn them into expensive gems, I would be really happy.

Didn''t Worthy want Earnie as he thought he would partner really well with Thorne, as they had done previously? Why are you convinced Earnie was a purely financial choice? I don''t see where the evidence is for that... I think it has been well documented that all purchases are put to the board by the manager, the board look at the purchase from all angles including finances, and then make the call.

Ricky - Birmingham have several Premiership years worth of money, and big backing from personal investment from the board. Their board are just richer than ours. However, many Brum fans are unhappy (yes despite promotion! My girlfriends and all her family are blue noses) because of 1. Steve Bruce (they think he is tactically inept) but mainly 2. how much it costs to see their team. Their gates have been terrible this season, they are still paying Premiership prices (one major downside of large outside investment into any club).

I''m sure Sunderland fans are happy, their investers have the club first and foremost (like our investers) but their investers are just richer than ours. We just don''t have the money to compete with them. If a previous player of Norwich wanted to invest 20million into our club I would be ecstatic, and I''m sure Delia wouldn''t say no either. But as it stands we just don''t have the money to spend like either Brum or Sunderland.

Nobody likes the idea of being a poor club, unfortunately the millions that Worthy had to spend resulted in us being 17th in the league. We are losing parachute payments, we just won''t have the same levels of money to spend. Thats where we are. I personally will look at how Grant spends his money with great interest over the summer, as I am sure you will. Lappin has turned into a great buy, Marshall as a loan signing was a great move until his injury, and Brown was bought to partner Earnie, lets see what he can do next season. Fotheringham hasn''t been great but then we needed bodies and he was cheap. I think I like Grant more than you do...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putney, whether you realise it or not, the thrust of what you say is regurgitated spin from the boardroom, eg. "well documented that all purchases are put to the board by the manager".  The key word is "all".  There''s no evidence whatever that this is what ALWAYS happens, and indeed the board have never said so.  I''m not suggesting you''re thick as you clearly aren''t, but they are very very clever (and I don''t mean that as a compliment).  It''s what they DON''T say that is really significant. 

If you''re referring to Howard and Cotterill, Earnie needed a partner, an experienced target man.   Howard (aged 30) fitted the bill.  Cotterill (aged 22) didn''t.  He was inexperienced and is developing as a striker/wide player not a classic target man.  Howard cost less but was unlikely ever to be worth more than the asking price.  That''s a financially driven decision rather than a footballing one in my book.  I agree there are situations where this kind of investment is worthwhile, but ONLY once your basic squad is fit for purpose (ie. to challenge for a top six finish) which ours certainly wasn''t. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our Board will have had a large input as to who came to the club...and as they know next to nothing about "football" it would all boil down to "business" reasons as to who they would sign.

Rather like sending a fishmonger to the fruit market.  He knows tomatoes are red....but might just buy apples by mistake. In the case of our Board they are like to turn up with bananas....purely because they were cheap.    [N]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...