My problems with the board-part 1

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Part 1

Grieviences with the club.

Nothing has changed under Delia whatsoever compared to the previous board-in fact we have gone backwards/sideways/backwards.

Lack of transfer investment, despite money from premiership payments, transfers, high attendences etc.

Why have certain clubs who have attendences of 20,000+ been able to invest yet we have failed to?

Why are the board only ready to sell to local investers, when the way forward in football is to attract any investment-forign or homegrown when everyone can see that is the way football is going.

Why should we settle for the board idea that we are "little old Norwich" when we have a catchment area of over 500,000?

Chase took a lot of flak for his style of selling players and replacing them on the cheap. Yet, this board get away with the same thing but larger gate income \[ during the Chase years we averaged 15,000 for home games}. E.g. Chase- Replace 2.1m Fleck with 1m Robins. Delia/Board-Ashton 7.5m with Earnshaw 3.5m

P.S. Where have the extra 10,000 supporters come from? I wouldnt say it was Delia i would say it is football is now a fashion, due to the likes of Skinner and Baddiel singing 30 years of hurt, prior to that i attended an England game a\t wembley against Luxemburg getting 18,000 and there certainly wasnt any women wearing short skirts and face paints in them days. Maybe this is just the way we are going and no-one actually has a clue about football passion anymore.

Regards, await part 2

A Whittle

[Boogle 0]

Points well made mate, but be prepared for an attack from the "Delia can do no wrong" fan club.

[Herb 0]

*yawn*

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Herb"]*yawn*[/quote]

quality reply.

[Stone Cold 0]

I doubt theres a club in the country where all the fans are happy with the board , sometimes its better the devil you know !

[Putney Canary 0]

Thing is Arthur it is very hard to compare effectively pre-Premiership Chase with post-Premiership Delia. The game has changed beyond all recognition. Chase got us relegated at precisely the wrong time, just as the Premiership millions were coming in and the League were missing out, and he did this by selling key players to cover the debt he was building up. He gambled and failed us. When the current board took over, invited by Watling, we were about to go under. Now the finances are in order, but they aren''t very good times on the pitch. And they have done this whilst holding on to our major assets, the ground and the training facilities. Our board did all they could to hang on to Ashton, probably too hard as

the last pay rise didn''t stop him going. I''m not sure the same could be

said of Chase/Fleck. They are prudent, I think this is a good thing, but I don''t think they have had the right balance between prudence and ambition. However, the downsides of too much ambition (perhaps I should say the downsides of gambling too much to fulfill ambition) are way worse than the downsides of too much prudence.There are huge dangers involved with any sort of investment into a club, whether it comes from abroad, other parts of the UK or even local fans. So many clubs have been in huge trouble through unscrupulous behaviour or just plain mis-management. The list of struggling clubs is HUGE, something life 50% of league clubs have been into administration. Look at what has happened at Cambridge, York, Barnet, Wimbledon, Leeds. How many clubs don''t even own their own ground? How many clubs can''t stay alive without asking for donations from the fans every game?We now have new investment from the Turners, who seem to have the long term future of our club as a priority, we just don''t know how much they are going to invest now. We will find out this summer, but surely you would agree it looks more positive now than a month ago? Its our board who have done this.Football is in a boom generally, hence the bigger gates at Carrow Road. Our board have also tried to make it attractive to come, ticket prices are still comparatively good value, the facilities are good, they should take credit for this. However, the whole game itself is I believe in trouble. Throughout the Premiership gates are down, and the average age of fans is getting older. A much larger proportion of tickets goes to corporates. This, tied with all seater stadiums, is why the passion is going out of the game. Its still hard to spot women in short skirts and face paint at England games today, there aren''t as many a Sky would have us believe. Whilst the FA allow the richest clubs to get richer at the expense of the poorer clubs, money will always be the number one issue in football. I think its disgraceful that you need a billionnaire backer to enable you to compete at the top of the Premiership. Whoever is in charge at Norwich, Chase, Delia or anyone, I don''t believe we will ever be in the top 4 of the Premiership again. This is the real disgrace, and it lies at the door of the FA.Having said all this we need to see improvement on the pitch next season. We need 5 new players minimum this summer. We need to see the board better balance prudence with ambition. They have done it before, now they need to do it again.

[Gingembre 0]

Good post Arthur but you know you''re gonna get pelters from the rose tinted (or is that Canary yellow tinted) we love Delia brigade.You maybe right, but like it or lump it buddy, things aint gonna change whilst the club think of themselves as lil'' ol'' Naarridge.I bang my head in frustration and dream of success again (milk cup, european runs, promotions)AND BEFORE YOU ALL START SHOUTING AT ME - I DEARLY WANT THE BEST FOR NORWICHNorfolk people (in the main) are afraid of change but then love to jump on the bandwagon after the event once somebody else has taken all the risks. -ie, southern bypass, riverside, chapelfield  - they all complain then use the facility regardless, the northern bypass will be the same mate they''ll all drive on it once it''s built.- Grrr, I hate Norfolk thinking sometimes

[Salopian 1]

There may be some truth in what you say, but I think that you have to add the ineptitude of the management, including scouting. They have spotted players, many Grant & Co have also spotted, "made enquiries" and failed to persuade them to Carrow Road. The policy of "nothing happens before July" made them miss some good Bosmans. Worthington was allocated very large budgets. something like £15m over his time here?

They recognised that the squad was too small and was lacking in particular areas, - hence the run of poor aquisitions who became famous as deadwood.

There was enough ambition to spend millions on ground and pitch improvement, not forgetting Colney. I would criticise the Board for being over-loyal to Worthington, and keeping him well after the date when it was obvious he was not up to it, but at times the over-loyalty resulted him in having too much money to squander.

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Part 1

Grieviences with the club.

1. Nothing has changed under Delia whatsoever compared to the previous board-in fact we have gone backwards/sideways/backwards.

2. Lack of transfer investment, despite money from premiership payments, transfers, high attendences etc.

3. Why have certain clubs who have attendences of 20,000+ been able to invest yet we have failed to?

4. Why are the board only ready to sell to local investers, when the way forward in football is to attract any investment-forign or homegrown when everyone can see that is the way football is going.

5. Why should we settle for the board idea that we are "little old Norwich" when we have a catchment area of over 500,000?

6. Chase took a lot of flak for his style of selling players and replacing them on the cheap. Yet, this board get away with the same thing but larger gate income \[ during the Chase years we averaged 15,000 for home games}. E.g. Chase- Replace 2.1m Fleck with 1m Robins. Delia/Board-Ashton 7.5m with Earnshaw 3.5m

P.S. Where have the extra 10,000 supporters come from? I wouldnt say it was Delia i would say it is football is now a fashion, due to the likes of Skinner and Baddiel singing 30 years of hurt, prior to that i attended an England game a\t wembley against Luxemburg getting 18,000 and there certainly wasnt any women wearing short skirts and face paints in them days. Maybe this is just the way we are going and no-one actually has a clue about football passion anymore.

Regards, await part 2

A Whittle

[/quote]

Cheers Arthur, you''ve already got further than your predecessor. I''ve numbered your points above and will give you my opinions in the same order.

1. On the pitch we certainly don''t seem to be any better off than we were under Chase. One season in the Prem, one as Championship winners and one as play off finalists isn''t a great return for 10 years. However, we''re told that we are a lot more stable financially off the pitch (I''ve no reason to suspect that this is a lie) and although this doesn''t make up for the lack of success on the pitch it is important. When people criticise the current board they seem to forget just how close we came to going bust under Chase. Also, you''re dealing with two completely different eras footballing wise. There''s never a good time to get relegated from the Premiership but when we went down under Chase it was just about the worst time possible.

2. The one area where I probably agree with you. As somebody has stated on another thread, that "prudence with ambition" statement sounds very good but if you stray too far towards prudence (as I feel we have) then it ends up looking as if you lack ambition. However, so far since the end of the season we appear to have made bids of around £2million for two players (Sharp & Varney) and £500,000 for one (Marshall), and it''s only the 1st June. Perhaps the board have learned their lesson from past mistakes and are now showing more ambition, I''m willing to give them that chance.

3. I''m not entirely sure what you mean, perhaps you could provide us with some examples.

4. You say attracting outside investment is the way forward, I''m not so sure. Sooner or later one of the big investors is going to lose a lot of money. There are only twenty places in the Premiership, if every team seeks outside investment that number remains the same. I think we''re seeing a trend and that at the first sign of one of these big investors losing money it may well begin to slow down. Reading have shown that you can get promotion to the Premiership and stay up by carefully selecting players from the lower leagues, along with the odd gamble, and having a long term plan. There''s nothing to suggest that we can''t do the same. Plus, we''ve already attracted some outside investment from the Turners, those who can''t see past the "£2million loan" are clearly lacking imagination!

5. The "little old Norwich" thing is a bit of a myth in my opinion, Delia mentioned it once on MOTD and probably regrets it. As for the catchment area, are you suggesting that we build a bigger ground to accommodate all of these people or does that count as one of those "off-field activities" that we''re supposed to be staying away from?

6. Again I think this has more to do with different eras the respective boards are operating in more than anything else. I haven''t got the figures but I would guess if you compare the wages of Fleck/Robins with the wages of Ashton/Earnshaw plus the agents fees for all four transfer deals you would probably see a huge difference. The one thing you''re right with though is that we were a selling club then and we''re a selling club now, but that''s not really the fault of either Chase or the current board.

You make an interesting point in your "P.S.". The average football fan has changed enormously since I first started going to Carrow Road and this has had an effect on the atmosphere at all football grounds. I think the influx of more families have meant that there''s less passion on show but, without wishing to make too much of a generalisation here, the flip side is that there are less of the unsavoury elements (e.g. hooliganism, racist chanting etc.) at football grounds. A previous poster on here (who appeared to make a brief comeback the other day!) used to claim that the influx of "new-age" fans at Carrow Road was the fault of Delia Smith, but it''s blatantly obvious to me that it''s a nationwide trend. It started after Italia ''90 and, as you point out, continued through Euro ''96 and on to the present day where corporate guests are more important to clubs than the traditional fan, it''s the price you pay for wanting to attract £100,000 a week players to the English league I guess. Hopefully one day we''ll see a new trend and football will be returned to the traditional fan, but I''m not holding my breath.

I look forward to Part 2 Arthur, perhaps with some solutions to our problems and an outline of what you plan to do?

[Boogle 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Part 1

Grieviences with the club.

1. Nothing has changed under Delia whatsoever compared to the previous board-in fact we have gone backwards/sideways/backwards.

2. Lack of transfer investment, despite money from premiership payments, transfers, high attendences etc.

3. Why have certain clubs who have attendences of 20,000+ been able to invest yet we have failed to?

4. Why are the board only ready to sell to local investers, when the way forward in football is to attract any investment-forign or homegrown when everyone can see that is the way football is going.

5. Why should we settle for the board idea that we are "little old Norwich" when we have a catchment area of over 500,000?

6. Chase took a lot of flak for his style of selling players and replacing them on the cheap. Yet, this board get away with the same thing but larger gate income \[ during the Chase years we averaged 15,000 for home games}. E.g. Chase- Replace 2.1m Fleck with 1m Robins. Delia/Board-Ashton 7.5m with Earnshaw 3.5m

P.S. Where have the extra 10,000 supporters come from? I wouldnt say it was Delia i would say it is football is now a fashion, due to the likes of Skinner and Baddiel singing 30 years of hurt, prior to that i attended an England game a\t wembley against Luxemburg getting 18,000 and there certainly wasnt any women wearing short skirts and face paints in them days. Maybe this is just the way we are going and no-one actually has a clue about football passion anymore.

Regards, await part 2

A Whittle

[/quote]

Cheers Arthur, you''ve already got further than your predecessor. I''ve numbered your points above and will give you my opinions in the same order.

1. On the pitch we certainly don''t seem to be any better off than we were under Chase. One season in the Prem, one as Championship winners and one as play off finalists isn''t a great return for 10 years. However, we''re told that we are a lot more stable financially off the pitch (I''ve no reason to suspect that this is a lie) and although this doesn''t make up for the lack of success on the pitch it is important. When people criticise the current board they seem to forget just how close we came to going bust under Chase. Also, you''re dealing with two completely different eras footballing wise. There''s never a good time to get relegated from the Premiership but when we went down under Chase it was just about the worst time possible.

2. The one area where I probably agree with you. As somebody has stated on another thread, that "prudence with ambition" statement sounds very good but if you stray too far towards prudence (as I feel we have) then it ends up looking as if you lack ambition. However, so far since the end of the season we appear to have made bids of around £2million for two players (Sharp & Varney) and £500,000 for one (Marshall), and it''s only the 1st June. Perhaps the board have learned their lesson from past mistakes and are now showing more ambition, I''m willing to give them that chance.

3. I''m not entirely sure what you mean, perhaps you could provide us with some examples.

4. You say attracting outside investment is the way forward, I''m not so sure. Sooner or later one of the big investors is going to lose a lot of money. There are only twenty places in the Premiership, if every team seeks outside investment that number remains the same. I think we''re seeing a trend and that at the first sign of one of these big investors losing money it may well begin to slow down. Reading have shown that you can get promotion to the Premiership and stay up by carefully selecting players from the lower leagues, along with the odd gamble, and having a long term plan. There''s nothing to suggest that we can''t do the same. Plus, we''ve already attracted some outside investment from the Turners, those who can''t see past the "£2million loan" are clearly lacking imagination!

5. The "little old Norwich" thing is a bit of a myth in my opinion, Delia mentioned it once on MOTD and probably regrets it. As for the catchment area, are you suggesting that we build a bigger ground to accommodate all of these people or does that count as one of those "off-field activities" that we''re supposed to be staying away from?

6. Again I think this has more to do with different eras the respective boards are operating in more than anything else. I haven''t got the figures but I would guess if you compare the wages of Fleck/Robins with the wages of Ashton/Earnshaw plus the agents fees for all four transfer deals you would probably see a huge difference. The one thing you''re right with though is that we were a selling club then and we''re a selling club now, but that''s not really the fault of either Chase or the current board.

You make an interesting point in your "P.S.". The average football fan has changed enormously since I first started going to Carrow Road and this has had an effect on the atmosphere at all football grounds. I think the influx of more families have meant that there''s less passion on show but, without wishing to make too much of a generalisation here, the flip side is that there are less of the unsavoury elements (e.g. hooliganism, racist chanting etc.) at football grounds. A previous poster on here (who appeared to make a brief comeback the other day!) used to claim that the influx of "new-age" fans at Carrow Road was the fault of Delia Smith, but it''s blatantly obvious to me that it''s a nationwide trend. It started after Italia ''90 and, as you point out, continued through Euro ''96 and on to the present day where corporate guests are more important to clubs than the traditional fan, it''s the price you pay for wanting to attract £100,000 a week players to the English league I guess. Hopefully one day we''ll see a new trend and football will be returned to the traditional fan, but I''m not holding my breath.

I look forward to Part 2 Arthur, perhaps with some solutions to our problems and an outline of what you plan to do?

[/quote]

Well done Shak.

You are the 1st person to give Arthur a constructive reply.

Posts like "yawn" are seriously pathetic, and show a lack of thought.

I await part 2 Mr Whittle! Very good work sir

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Millo"]

Well done Shak.

You are the 1st person to give Arthur a constructive reply.

Posts like "yawn" are seriously pathetic, and show a lack of thought.

I await part 2 Mr Whittle! Very good work sir

[/quote]

Cheers Millo.

I disagree with pretty much everything that Artur has said, but I think it''s important that we have a proper debate about this now so we can get on with the job of supporting our team when the new season begins.

[Old Shuck 183]

This is all developing very nicely now and, as has been pointed out, has got some well thought out and constructive points of view attached-nice one to Arthur & Shak, look forward to seeing how it develops and will offer my own, hopefully constructive, point of view soon...we can always disagree with each other but lets make it constructive!!

[Saint Canary 0]

Arthur, firstly I would say it is hard to take your post seriously when you read “GET THE BINNER OUT” at the bottom of it and I would run posts like this through a spell checker first.  In regards to the points you raised:

Nothing has changed under Delia whatsoever compared to the previous board-in fact we have gone backwards/sideways/backwards. - That is far from true, major work has been done to Carrow Road to both improve and extend the capacity.  Debts (despite being larger) are more manageable.  I don’t buy into the theory that we would have gone into administration but for Delia though.  On the pitch I think the league table shows that we have slipped back to where we were and I struggle to see much quality in our squad beyond our few key players.

Lack of transfer investment, despite money from premiership payments, transfers, high attendences etc. – I cannot disagree with this in any way.  Making profits while running very small squads just proves this point to me.

Why have certain clubs who have attendences of 20,000+ been able to invest yet we have failed to?  - I have no insight to the finances of other clubs and it may be shown later that some clubs may have over extended themselves.  Saying that, I feel we have under extended in the transfer market.

Why are the board only ready to sell to local investers, when the way forward in football is to attract any investment-forign or homegrown when everyone can see that is the way football is going. – No idea but it probably links to your next point.

Why should we settle for the board idea that we are "little old Norwich" when we have a catchment area of over 500,000? – I can never work out if they truly believe this or whether it is some sort of ploy for negotiating for transfers, wages etc.  I does get very annoying though, all through the PL season we were portrayed as the country cousins visiting the big city for a holiday but going home soon.  Where is the ambition with our prudence??

Chase took a lot of flak for his style of selling players and replacing them on the cheap. Yet, this board get away with the same thing but larger gate income \[ during the Chase years we averaged 15,000 for home games}. E.g. Chase- Replace 2.1m Fleck with 1m Robins. Delia/Board-Ashton 7.5m with Earnshaw 3.5m.  – As annoying as this is, it will always be this way for most clubs except an elite few.  It is not just something unique to City and it’s hard to see what we could do about it.  Even if we were in the PL it would still be the case but instead of selling to the bottom half of the league we would be selling to the top half.  It’s a fact of life in football I’m afraid.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

The only issue i would disagree on is the catchment area one. Norfolks population is 830,000 and if you include the Lowestoft/Waveney part of Suffolk which is largely Yellow and Green (i should know, i come from there...) the figure is up to 1 million. All that with no real competion from other clubs or even major sports. The "little Norwich" thing is a myth which exists in far too many peoples heads.

[Dr Terrible 0]

Apart from Herbs predictable and boring "yawn" comment this is by far the best potentially constructive thread on the board. Cheers Arthur, Shack etc for regaining my faith that not all norwich fans are strereotype fools.

I have to say both Arthur and Shack Attack make rfair points but im going with Arthur again on this one.

He makes a very good point that we shouldnt be little old Norwich with a catchment area of 500,000 although Shack argues very well against.

May this sort of debate continue.

Arthurs P.S. comments are very true and i bieve spot on. How many true fans on this board watched the games when we were a top flight team in the 80s/early 90s getting 12-18000 for home games?

Football HAS become a fashion.

[megson 0]

Wayne, regardless of everything else, you can''t can''t class a ''true fan'' as someone who watched the club in the late 80''s earlyu 90''s.

There are some ''true fans'' around that were not old enough to go then, regardless of the many other reasons.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]The only issue i would disagree on is the catchment area one. Norfolks population is 830,000 and if you include the Lowestoft/Waveney part of Suffolk which is largely Yellow and Green (i should know, i come from there...) the figure is up to 1 million. All that with no real competion from other clubs or even major sports. The "little Norwich" thing is a myth which exists in far too many peoples heads.[/quote]

The "little Norwich" or "Poor little Norwich" was started by NCPLC ( the board ) They would like all the fans to have it as their most used quote then NCPLS''s under achieving FOOTBALL can be justified.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Old Shuck 183]

Woof woof-here goes!!!

 

Nothing has changed under Delia whatsoever compared to the previous board-in fact we have gone backwards/sideways/backwards.

I think its easy to assume nothing has changed-I think it has, albeit in an imperceptible way that is maybe not as obvious as we would like to think, certainly in some aspects. Look at the ground-ye Gods, I first became a regular at Norwich in the 1980/81 season & you just can''t compare the facilities we had then to what we have now. Of course, its arguable that people weren''t as fussy and didn''t expect as much then, also, there was standing areas which created a great atmosphere-even in the River End, Ipswich, FA Cup 5th Round 1981 anyone?-but, if we were given that same ground and facilities etc back now, thousands of people would complain and the ground would probably be half closed by the FA! I think we have to acknowledge that the "reign" of Delia has co-incided with the ground being one of the best of its type in the country, admittedly, a lot of work was started under Chase, but there was also a lot to do as well. Maybe a good ground and facilities aren''t the priority for some and, given the choice of spending £4 Million on a stand or a player, a lot would choose the player. But bums on seats are essential and yes, there are "newbies" in the 25''000 we get every other week who weren'' there before, but I''d rather they were there than not-15''000 hard core Norwich or a mix of 25''000, you have to go for the latter surely, if only from a financial point of view?

A lot more has been done "surrounding" the club. Again, the emphasis on catering angers some, but every football club on the planet has to diversify, in general, in business, you either do that-or fail. It does look, at times, as if the club has triumphed this and other non-football activities at the expense of the football and maybe they need to be a little more circumspect in their PR sometimes, but we need the income from catering, hospitality, hotels etc. Importantly, it shows to outsiders that we are progressive, that we have diversification, and that we are a go ahead club in an area of the UK that is maybe not regarded as such. And, adding all of that to the excellent facilities we have for the players -yes, football again!-and it all adds up to an attractive overall package to a player-progressive club on and off the field, excellent facilities etc, it makes a difference. From all of this "stuff", the football can only benefit, surely, it takes time but we can''t have one, IMHO, without the other. So yes, I think the club has gone forward under Delia and co, maybe not in the ways we would like to see, the exciting ways of transfers and football-related publicity, but certainly the infrastructure as a whole and that is crucial. Are there signs now that the football asoect of things might be about to pick up? Perhaps. We''re all watching.

Lack of transfer investment, despite money from premiership payments, transfers, high attendences etc.

Well yes, I do wonder where the money has gone-we seem to be the only club that has come out of a season in the Premiership more hard up than when we went into it! I remember saying when we clinched promotion something along the lines of "...even if we come straight back down, all the debts will be paid off..." and I wonder how many more thought that as well? So, to be told things are even more desperate was a bit of a puzzle! All I can suppose is that the actual costs of promotion were enormous, and, perhaps some of them caught the club unawares or were more expensive than initially thought. I can''t help but think there have been some naive financial moves taken, as well as some good ones, the Ashtom signing, from a football perspective was too late, and the new South stand, maybe, could have come along a bit earlier and been done in stages-I don''t know. And, of course, a lot of money has been pumped into the projects mentioned above, as well as high wages, bonuses. It was a mistake to give Worthy a rolling contract and it was probably costly to pay him off as well as all the others who have left one way or another. It also exasperated me to see so many players "freed" -all would have had contracts paid up, you like to think that we don''t, or won''t, anymore, have the Dervalds, De Waards and Walshes?

Why have certain clubs who have attendences of 20,000+ been able to invest yet we have failed to?

Don''t know-but plenty with far higher attendances have invested and crashed and burnt-look at Leeds. Derby nearly went under, ditto Sheff Weds. Many clubs have hugely wealthy backers or directors, take a look at the 442 Football Rich List, there are numerous clubs with some of the wealthiest people in Europe on their boards, but it is invariably not a well known thought-Stoke are one, they have decent gates but haven''t managed to improve and progress as they have on those alone.

Why are the board only ready to sell to local investers, when the way forward in football is to attract any investment-forign or homegrown when everyone can see that is the way football is going.

I guess they don''t want us to get our fingers burnt, as so many clubs who have yielded to outside investment have-some people might see a club as an investment but purely for its asset value, look at the chap who took over Wrexham, he wanted to close them down and get rich on the proceeds of the sale of the ground. Its too easy for someone to come along and cast an hungry eye but not be interested at all in the football side of things. Hence the caution. Of course, it can be a good thing to welcome an outside investor-look at Mandaric and Portsmouth, however, even now, Redknapp is admitting that their "kitty" is small for the Premiership and that, after signing Muntari, they are dealing with, mainly frees and Bosmans now-like us on a slightly bigger scale, one decent signing "and the rest"? So even Mandaric hasn''t given Portsmouth a lasting legacy of wealth. I think the Turners are in it for the long haul and that, ultimately, they will buy Delia and Michael''s shares, if they can take us forward, then that can only be a good thing.

Why should we settle for the board idea that we are "little old Norwich" when we have a catchment area of over 500,000?

True-got to agree with you here. The minute we went up, it was "little old Norwich, we''ll have some fun" and we became eveyones favourite Uncle, a figure of fun, a club to admire, someone who was fun but not around for long. We wanted to be loved for who we were not respected for our football. When Reading went up, there was a bit of steely determination and an attitude that suggested success and progress, not "little old Reading". And it has showed.

Chase took a lot of flak for his style of selling players and replacing them on the cheap. Yet, this board get away with the same thing but larger gate income \[ during the Chase years we averaged 15,000 for home games}. E.g. Chase- Replace 2.1m Fleck with 1m Robins. Delia/Board-Ashton 7.5m with Earnshaw 3.5m.

Sell something, get a cheaper replacement, make a profit-guess thats what drives that sort of thing, its what we''d all like to do! After all, how were we going to sell Ashton for £7.5 Million and be "ambitious" and sign a replacement for, say, £9 Million? What footballer worth that is going to come here, could we now, for example, have signed Gareth Bale, however we tried to?

P.S. Where have the extra 10,000 supporters come from? I wouldnt say it was Delia i would say it is football is now a fashion, due to the likes of Skinner and Baddiel singing 30 years of hurt, prior to that i attended an England game a\t wembley against Luxemburg getting 18,000 and there certainly wasnt any women wearing short skirts and face paints in them days. Maybe this is just the way we are going and no-one actually has a clue about football passion anymore.

You''re right. Football is corporate and a big business, it is theatre on grass. Thats how it is portrayed now & whilst its sad that the grass roots aspect of the game has gone, I guess it was inevitable-and don''t think it will ever go back to how it was.

[broadie 0]

Whatever you think of the board it is important to remember that Chase screwed us over at a hugely crucial time in British football. Just as Leeds will pay for Ridsdale''s and then Bates'' mistakes because they are now so far away from the improved TV money in the Premiership. What we all seem to forget, or not recognise, is that every season we spend below the top level, we earn £20m-£30m less than the 20 teams in the Prem. The money we earn in the Champ is next to nothing, so when we go up for a season and come back down again, any cash we get is going to disappear fast. Why? Because it has to pay for the 10 years of trouble Chase put us in in the first place, let alone building a squad capable of staying in the Prem or attracting good enough players to get us back up.They seriously messed up by trusting Worthy too much in the Prem and the following season, but then again didn''t we all think we were in fairly safe hands after his superb signings the season before? However, to criticise the board before they''ve made any real moves this summer seems a little premature, and somewhat unfair on Grant. We''re only a couple of weeks into bargaining time and we''ve already been (quantifiably) linked with a number of players so it surely bodes well - particularly when compared to last season. And any moans about Wolves getting the likes of Sharp seem way wide of the mark - they''ve got £30 mil and we haven''t, just like Derby last year. If you were a young striker wanting some Prem action, who would you go to? (Besides, Wolves will mess it up again, you''ll see.) We should at least give it some time to see if Grant is being properly backed, and if the board have learned from their mistakes.I would rather have a board who trust the manager to get on with building the side (and the club) than someone like Freddy Shepherd who seems intent on stroking his ego to the detriment of a balanced squad. As for outside investors - well, all this talk about Delia being this, that or the other because she wants to keep it local is a little misguided. If there was a SERIOUS investor out there, we''d know about it. How? Because the first thing they''d do is try to get the fans on side. It''s deleuded to think they''re all lining up at our door. They aren''t. It''s true that we have huge potential as a fan base but until someone takes that seriously, it''s unfair to accuse the current board of rejecting potential investors, because those multi-millionaires are looking elsewhere.Besides, I''d rather have the Turners than the likes of ex Thai prime minister Shinawatra (about to buy Man City), whose human rights abuses while in power were appalling. Somehow all that seems to be forgotten when it comes to football though.I''m not a great supporter of the board but Whittle''s argument seems a bit tired so soon into the close season. This summer could be one of great change - a fresh start etc etc, with Grant really being allowed to impose his personality on the club. Great clubs are defined by their managers - no one else - and it may be that the board accept that. Worthy was the antidote to Hamilton, and he exceeded expectations. Now Grant has to build on the platform. If the board fail to allow him to invest shrewdly, then criticise them, but at least give it a few weeks...

[Old Shuck 183]

[quote user="broadie"]As for outside investors - well, all this talk about Delia being this, that or the other because she wants to keep it local is a little misguided. If there was a SERIOUS investor out there, we''d know about it. How? Because the first thing they''d do is try to get the fans on side. It''s deleuded to think they''re all lining up at our door. They aren''t. It''s true that we have huge potential as a fan base but until someone takes that seriously, it''s unfair to accuse the current board of rejecting potential investors, because those multi-millionaires are looking elsewhere.

Besides, I''d rather have the Turners than the likes of ex Thai prime minister Shinawatra (about to buy Man City), whose human rights abuses while in power were appalling. Somehow all that seems to be forgotten when it comes to football though.

[/quote]

 

Excellent point. Look at how all the consortiums looking to gain control at Leeds have done their work, all appealing and making their points to the fans, either directly or through the media. Leeds fans are now mostly behind the Duncan Revie bid and are fervently hoping that Bates will eventually yield to him and sell up, the name of Revie appeals to them, plus the prospect he has big money available. So yes, I think we can, as Broadie says, rest assured that there aren''t any sugar daddies out there, because they would as sure as hell make their interest known first and we''d know all about it. Look at what happened several years ago when that Italian lawyer, Giovanni di Stefano wanted to take over Norwich, he was boasting to the fans how he''d make Bryan Robson Manager, get in lots of international players from Croatia etc, it was all spin aimed at the fans, but, FFS, this man was a known friend and associate of Arkan, amongst others-would we welcome that sort of investment? Would we condemn Delia for knocking that sort of offer back? I think I''d be grateful that she would refuse that sort of character any sort of contact with our club what-so-ever. Anyway, his tactic reflected what any investor would look to do had he/she aims on buying the club, get the fans on your side and ride the wave of their support. No-one seems to have been interested in us since him, so, like it or not, we are most likely a club at the moment that isn''t going to attract outside interest, although that doesn''t also mean that it won''t come eventually-but we may hear of the intention way before the club even comments on it. 

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

Agree with virtually everything you say, except,  "supporters might not have any passion anymore". Come down to Upton Park and see it at first hand, it still exists. Surely Norwich has it too?

Unless you can find a multi millionaire, forget about the Premier League.

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

We never used to be until Eggy bought WHU. He is brilliant, obviously he will make vast sums available to Curbishly, but it is great to see such a passionate football supporter as him. He is amazed at the supporters following, home and away. Finally, we have somebody on the Board who the fans can relate to, YES! 

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

Just a thought, how many of those million people that you mention, walk around in Man Utd/Liverpool/Arsenal/Chelsea/etc shirts?

I would presume that you have the gloryhunter supporters up there as well as the young kids who want to be associated with a successful club. When I grew up, everybody supported their local team, irrespective of their position. Unfortunately, that is not the case now is it?

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

Arthur Whittle.

I think some very constructive views have been posted on this thread, and as I,ve said before, I am with most on here who have not been happy with the way things have evolved at carrow road over the last three years.

The problem I have is that as the self appointed leader of the BOARD OUT campaign, you are only expressing the same views of many posters on this board and not LEADING.

The title of this thread and the content of your first post on it is no different to many,many posters on here in other words, same ole, same ole, questions.

Arthur. Leaders of men don''t just ask questions they demand ANSWERS.

I asked you on another thread........

1. Detail all the grievences that you have with this board.

2. Provide proof of any wrongdoings.

3. Explain how you will remove this board.

4. Who you have in mind to replace them.

5. And how ?

So far Part 1 has just been about the grievences, (so far so good)

Part 2 is going to be interesting !!!!

p.s.  In my view, the scarfe and the GET THE BINNER OUT logo don''t go well with the image of the potential saviour of this club.

 

 

 

 

[Old Shuck 183]

Plenty of people walking around Norwich in shirts of the "big 4"-thats up to them, doesn''t worry me, we sell out anyway and have a season ticket waiting list.

Odds on most of them -as with the rest of the UK- know next to nothing about their teams but just think its "in" to wear the shirts.

I''ve heard of a so-called Liverpool fan go to a game where they were wearing their change kit and the afore mentioned "fan" was heard to say "...I thought we were playing today..." Says it all!

 

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Arthur Whittle.

I think some very constructive views have been posted on this thread, and as I,ve said before, I am with most on here who have not been happy with the way things have evolved at carrow road over the last three years.

The problem I have is that as the self appointed leader of the BOARD OUT campaign, you are only expressing the same views of many posters on this board and not LEADING.

The title of this thread and the content of your first post on it is no different to many,many posters on here in other words, same ole, same ole, questions.

Arthur. Leaders of men don''t just ask questions they demand ANSWERS.

I asked you on another thread........

1. Detail all the grievences that you have with this board.

2. Provide proof of any wrongdoings.

3. Explain how you will remove this board.

4. Who you have in mind to replace them.

5. And how ?

So far Part 1 has just been about the grievences, (so far so good)

Part 2 is going to be interesting !!!!

p.s.  In my view, the scarfe and the GET THE BINNER OUT logo don''t go well with the image of the potential saviour of this club.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

I would like to point out i am not a self appointed leader. Cheers for the post Lappinitup, and it is with regard to your questions that i am posting my thoughts in parts { part 2 along shortly}. Posts like yours are thought out and constructive and this is how the debate should be. Not pathetic drivel like "yawn" {how long did it take to think that one up?} Ive took your points on board and am changing my avator and slogan. Please dont label me as a potential saviour as it is ALL Norwich fans who save this club, i am merely trying to get people to understand where our{ anti board } supporters are coming from and why they are so rattled . The last 3 years have been a shambles and there is no escaping that, Yes Worthy was at fault for some but surely the board must be held accoountable for the last 36 months also-Worthy was merely a scapegoat.

[Dr Terrible 0]

[quote user="megson"]

Wayne, regardless of everything else, you can''t can''t class a ''true fan'' as someone who watched the club in the late 80''s earlyu 90''s.

There are some ''true fans'' around that were not old enough to go then, regardless of the many other reasons.

[/quote]

True not all norwich fans were alive during this era but thats not an explaination for why an extra 8-10,000 have popped up.

Arthurs reasons are valid. Before Skinner and Baddiel and fantasy football league and all that jargon gates were down. 

I recall going to old trafford and the gate was 28,000 and for the home game man u didnt even have the corner in the barclay opened up{ older fans will know what im on about}they just had the 1 away section{ to explain away fans had 2 sections and both were opened if the away support turned up in large numbers. Spurs and liverpool were the only ones that season to do so. 

Its not just norwich, its everywhere.Its all face paint and horns these days and the atmosphere has suffered.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Arthur Whittle.

I think some very constructive views have been posted on this thread, and as I,ve said before, I am with most on here who have not been happy with the way things have evolved at carrow road over the last three years.

The problem I have is that as the self appointed leader of the BOARD OUT campaign, you are only expressing the same views of many posters on this board and not LEADING.

The title of this thread and the content of your first post on it is no different to many,many posters on here in other words, same ole, same ole, questions.

Arthur. Leaders of men don''t just ask questions they demand ANSWERS.

I asked you on another thread........

1. Detail all the grievences that you have with this board.

2. Provide proof of any wrongdoings.

3. Explain how you will remove this board.

4. Who you have in mind to replace them.

5. And how ?

So far Part 1 has just been about the grievences, (so far so good)

Part 2 is going to be interesting !!!!

p.s.  In my view, the scarfe and the GET THE BINNER OUT logo don''t go well with the image of the potential saviour of this club.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

This is just a reply to some of your questions and not part 2 as some of your points have already been explained.

Question 1. I have answered most of my grieviences, and feel i would just be going over old ground.

Question 2. Please explain what you mean by wrongdoings? Is this meant as Illegal wrondoings? I feel if so i wont be drawn into a debate for legal reasons.

Question 3. Yet again i feel i have answered this question in previous threads and action will be taken WHEN the appropriate time arrises.

Question 4. Its not a case of having someone lined up to replace them. Its a case of opening more options, e.g. we currently are only prepared to let locals invest. By gaining attention to this matter its more than possible that investers from outside the county and maybe country would be aware we are seeking ambitious takeovers. As an ex\ample i remember recently that Delia using Derby as an example of where they had 5 investers invest 5m each and she said she was willing to follow this example but how is she going to do this through local investers only? How is this ever going to happen though yes the turners have come in but how many other locals ahve that much money, we need to open our options more.

Question 5. With active campaigning. Gain media attention, so people know we {the fans} are ambitious and want genuine football loving investers, e.g. Milan manderic, Eggert Magnusson etc.

Question 4.

[Boogle 0]

Good point Mr whittle.

What is proof of wrongdoings?

This suggests you have made libalous comments and i dont recall any such thing, accusing the board of something illegal.

Its clear for all to see that our board have failed us, thats proof of wrongdoings.

please clear this up.

[Dr Terrible 0]

Good points again Arthur, keep up the good work.