Undue critism of the board

[Loughborough Canary 0]

The board were right not to tell the fans about the sell on clause - if they had of done, then every manager in the country would also have known, and therefore would have bid that amount ages ago.  By keeping it quiet it gave the board a chance of getting a better price, for example if Derby put a first bid in of £5m then the board would have to accept, but would have been happier in doing so.  If Derby had bid £3m, the board could have said it was nowhere near the figure they were after, prompting them to come back with a bid far higher.  As Doncaster said "we received an offer at exactly the level of Robert''s buy-out clause, which is disappointing and somewhat ironic", which leads me to believe that somebody (probably Earnshaw or his agent) tipped Derby off about the clause.

 

I don''t blame Earnshaw for leaving; he doesn''t support the club, this was just another job to him.  Also the lure of Premiership football and more money for somebody in his position is too good to turn down.  Earnshaw would never have come to the club if that clause was not included, and at £3.5m we have £500''000 more than we paid (as we never got promoted so the final £3.5m figure we agreed with WBA never needed to be paid fully)  We have seen a quality footballer at Norwich for the past 2 seasons and now we have the £3.5m in the bank along with the £1.25m remaining from the turners'' £2m (Cureton''s fee of £750''000 taken off).  So in total we have around £4.75m to spend on the other targets, and we also have a more than capable replacement in Cureton.

 

Slagging off the board for this is totally inappropriate - we don''t need to sell, and there is money to spend.  I think it makes the summer much more interesting - waiting to see who that money will be spent on.  I would be happier with Eastwood and Cureton with a little bit of money left over than just Earnshaw!

[Hardhouse44 261]

Silliness. There would be no chance of ever getting more than the release clause. The players agent would have made the amount know to all interested parties. Paper talk may have said £5m but the truth is he was available to all for £3.5 and everybody who needed to know would have known.

[BBFF 0]

Who ever at the club agreed to set the walk away figure as low as £3.5mil wants to hold his or her head in shame and think about their future at Carrow Rd. Cureton moved here for about £750k, with the £2mil+ we had for Sharp and the £500k for Marshall turned down that''s makes £5.25mil still for Grant to spend.........I bet he only get half if he''s lucky. A very black day for NCFC and its fans.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Bacon Roll 0]

Wasn''t the Turners £2m to cover the shortfall from parachute payments not for transfer fund, ive been on holiday for a few weeks so pardon me if this changed in my absence

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Loughborough Canary"]

The board were right not to tell the fans about the sell on clause - if they had of done, then every manager in the country would also have known, and therefore would have bid that amount ages ago.  By keeping it quiet it gave the board a chance of getting a better price, for example if Derby put a first bid in of £5m then the board would have to accept, but would have been happier in doing so.  If Derby had bid £3m, the board could have said it was nowhere near the figure they were after, prompting them to come back with a bid far higher.  As Doncaster said "we received an offer at exactly the level of Robert''s buy-out clause, which is disappointing and somewhat ironic", which leads me to believe that somebody (probably Earnshaw or his agent) tipped Derby off about the clause.

 

I don''t blame Earnshaw for leaving; he doesn''t support the club, this was just another job to him.  Also the lure of Premiership football and more money for somebody in his position is too good to turn down.  Earnshaw would never have come to the club if that clause was not included, and at £3.5m we have £500''000 more than we paid (as we never got promoted so the final £3.5m figure we agreed with WBA never needed to be paid fully)  We have seen a quality footballer at Norwich for the past 2 seasons and now we have the £3.5m in the bank along with the £1.25m remaining from the turners'' £2m (Cureton''s fee of £750''000 taken off).  So in total we have around £4.75m to spend on the other targets, and we also have a more than capable replacement in Cureton.

 

Slagging off the board for this is totally inappropriate - we don''t need to sell, and there is money to spend.  I think it makes the summer much more interesting - waiting to see who that money will be spent on.  I would be happier with Eastwood and Cureton with a little bit of money left over than just Earnshaw!

[/quote]

You obviously haven''t got a bloody clue about real life outside of your closetted University cocoon...so stick to your global warming and recycling theories and leave the football stuff to the grown ups.

Lots of clever numbers...but not an ounce of fact. More apologist bilge.

[cartwheel 0]

what some people dont understand is that earnshaw would not have come to us if he did not have that clause set at an amount he and his agent thought was right. THATS FOOTBALL! and it is common place in the game today. hard luck that his agent leeked it out,but one day we to could benfit from a player comming to us in the same way. some people on these boards live in a world that does not exist. i for one am delighted to have jamie back and there will be more to follow!

[Dr Terrible 0]

[quote user="Loughborough Canary"]

The board were right not to tell the fans about the sell on clause - if they had of done, then every manager in the country would also have known, and therefore would have bid that amount ages ago.  By keeping it quiet it gave the board a chance of getting a better price, for example if Derby put a first bid in of £5m then the board would have to accept, but would have been happier in doing so.  If Derby had bid £3m, the board could have said it was nowhere near the figure they were after, prompting them to come back with a bid far higher.  As Doncaster said "we received an offer at exactly the level of Robert''s buy-out clause, which is disappointing and somewhat ironic", which leads me to believe that somebody (probably Earnshaw or his agent) tipped Derby off about the clause.

 

I don''t blame Earnshaw for leaving; he doesn''t support the club, this was just another job to him.  Also the lure of Premiership football and more money for somebody in his position is too good to turn down.  Earnshaw would never have come to the club if that clause was not included, and at £3.5m we have £500''000 more than we paid (as we never got promoted so the final £3.5m figure we agreed with WBA never needed to be paid fully)  We have seen a quality footballer at Norwich for the past 2 seasons and now we have the £3.5m in the bank along with the £1.25m remaining from the turners'' £2m (Cureton''s fee of £750''000 taken off).  So in total we have around £4.75m to spend on the other targets, and we also have a more than capable replacement in Cureton.

 

Slagging off the board for this is totally inappropriate - we don''t need to sell, and there is money to spend.  I think it makes the summer much more interesting - waiting to see who that money will be spent on.  I would be happier with Eastwood and Cureton with a little bit of money left over than just Earnshaw!

[/quote]

Sorry but if his agent knew of the clause its a good bet that clubs were aware of it anyway.

Why didnt they try to renegotiate and get rid of the clause at the end of last or this season?

The board deserve the stick they get for this one.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="cartwheel"]what some people dont understand is that earnshaw would not have come to us if he did not have that clause set at an amount he and his agent thought was right. THATS FOOTBALL! and it is common place in the game today. hard luck that his agent leeked it out,but one day we to could benfit from a player comming to us in the same way. some people on these boards live in a world that does not exist. i for one am delighted to have jamie back and there will be more to follow![/quote]

I have no problem with sell on clauses its just our totally incompetent board agreed to it being so low.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Loughborough Canary"]

The board were right not to tell the fans about the sell on clause - if they had of done, then every manager in the country would also have known, and therefore would have bid that amount ages ago.  By keeping it quiet it gave the board a chance of getting a better price, for example if Derby put a first bid in of £5m then the board would have to accept, but would have been happier in doing so.  If Derby had bid £3m, the board could have said it was nowhere near the figure they were after, prompting them to come back with a bid far higher.  As Doncaster said "we received an offer at exactly the level of Robert''s buy-out clause, which is disappointing and somewhat ironic", which leads me to believe that somebody (probably Earnshaw or his agent) tipped Derby off about the clause.

 

I don''t blame Earnshaw for leaving; he doesn''t support the club, this was just another job to him.  Also the lure of Premiership football and more money for somebody in his position is too good to turn down.  Earnshaw would never have come to the club if that clause was not included, and at £3.5m we have £500''000 more than we paid (as we never got promoted so the final £3.5m figure we agreed with WBA never needed to be paid fully)  We have seen a quality footballer at Norwich for the past 2 seasons and now we have the £3.5m in the bank along with the £1.25m remaining from the turners'' £2m (Cureton''s fee of £750''000 taken off).  So in total we have around £4.75m to spend on the other targets, and we also have a more than capable replacement in Cureton.

 

Slagging off the board for this is totally inappropriate - we don''t need to sell, and there is money to spend.  I think it makes the summer much more interesting - waiting to see who that money will be spent on.  I would be happier with Eastwood and Cureton with a little bit of money left over than just Earnshaw!

[/quote]

You obviously haven''t got a bloody clue about real life outside of your closetted University cocoon...so stick to your global warming and recycling theories and leave the football stuff to the grown ups.

Lots of clever numbers...but not an ounce of fact. More apologist bilge.

[/quote]

Are you going to join us for a pint and protest first home match of the season Cluck???

[claus 0]

I cant believe how negative people are being! Earnshaw was always going to leave, and we would not have had him if he''d not agreed the sell on clause with us, which we havnt lost money on. didnt we get him for 3million? Ok he may be worth a little more, sell on clauses are usually like that.

Look on the bright side, we signed cureton top scorer last season and will give his all.

 

 

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="Cluck "]

You obviously haven''t got a bloody clue about real life outside of your closetted University cocoon...so stick to your global warming and recycling theories and leave the football stuff to the grown ups.

Lots of clever numbers...but not an ounce of fact. More apologist bilge.

[/quote]Do you ever post anything constructive or useful, the only bilge on this board is the rubbish you spout.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I don''t think people on here have realised the good news of him being off our backs in terms of wages. Here''s a rundown of what i think happened:

Deadline day, half 11, all is sorted out with earnshaw apart from the fact he wants a £3m release fee non promotion thing put in (or rather his agent does, as it will be him, not earnshaw negociating his contract, with earnshaw deciding the wage he is looking for and if he''s fine moving to norwich in the first place and letting his agent take it from there. The board quickly negociate that fee up to £3.5m before midnight, and the deal is, rather panikingly sealed, as they HAD to replace deano with some quality firepower, and had run out of time to play hardball.

Now lets say he''s on £12k p/w, the board realise this clause is there, but realise that, to renew his contract and take the clause out/ higher the fee, they will need to give him £16k p/w and (key point) a new signing on fee, of probably half a million (so there goes any potential money we were gonna earn on top today anyway) also, this will have been before the new investment. The main gamble was to have another crack at it last summer, and not let him go for, say £5m then. (Perhaps his injury in january was really the worst thing possible, as the board was gonna wait till then to sell him, for say £5m.) All becomes clear of how unlucky we might have been. Also, we might have tried in vain to renew his deal this summer

With Cureton, I believe he will be on a lot less of a packet, given his lesser profile, and actual DESIRE to want to play for the club. If we get Eastwood, i''d be delighted, as i think he''s a cracking player, and will be available at a reasonable price given his contract circumstances. That''s just a matter of beating off competition from other clubs. If not, there are so many exciting young strikers around (not as proven as earnie, but with the potential) who we can have a look at. We have a few options now, go with chris martin as the main replacement, and maybe bring in some backup, get eastwood, or another player of similar calibre, look abroad, there are a few decent skillful players in hungary and poland..., or go to the prem and get someone on loan. The real test for grant is to find a goalie (seems hopeful on Marshall, and at least we have bought gilkes) and a centre back or 2. From what it seemed to me last season, we had a good tempo in midfield, we just lacked a bit of link up play through the middle, (maybe relying on earnie), but most of all, we seemed to crumble under the pressure, our defence was second rate last season and needs to be improved. Hoping shacks will play well around a stable defence, also hoping the midfeild can keep the tempo up, but play less one-dimensional.

<pause for breath>

sorry to badger on, hope it''s all relevant, not saying the earnie story did happen, just seems feasable.

Anyway don''t diss us students, we''ll be the ones running the show in a few years.

[ca 1]

[quote user="Smudger"]

 

Are you going to join us for a pint and protest first home match of the season Cluck???

[/quote]

 

Cluck has posted in another thread that he won''t be joining you Smudger.[:)]

Any chance you could get back to normal size font and writing, you don''t need that big bold writing to stand out!!!!!!

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Cartwheel. I do not doubt that there needed to be a buy out clause to get Earnie here but he was desperate to get in the shop window, a youngish player with a good goal scoring record on a three year deal that was banging in the goals would be worth more than £3.5m, so in my opinion (as a buyer/negotiator of 20 years standing) the clause was set too low and appears not to take account of the "on costs" (signing on fee, wages) and appreciation of the "asset" .

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="Loughborough Canary"]

The board were right not to tell the fans about the sell on clause - if they had of done, then every manager in the country would also have known, and therefore would have bid that amount ages ago.  By keeping it quiet it gave the board a chance of getting a better price, for example if Derby put a first bid in of £5m then the board would have to accept, but would have been happier in doing so.  If Derby had bid £3m, the board could have said it was nowhere near the figure they were after, prompting them to come back with a bid far higher.  As Doncaster said "we received an offer at exactly the level of Robert''s buy-out clause, which is disappointing and somewhat ironic", which leads me to believe that somebody (probably Earnshaw or his agent) tipped Derby off about the clause.

 

I don''t blame Earnshaw for leaving; he doesn''t support the club, this was just another job to him.  Also the lure of Premiership football and more money for somebody in his position is too good to turn down.  Earnshaw would never have come to the club if that clause was not included, and at £3.5m we have £500''000 more than we paid (as we never got promoted so the final £3.5m figure we agreed with WBA never needed to be paid fully)  We have seen a quality footballer at Norwich for the past 2 seasons and now we have the £3.5m in the bank along with the £1.25m remaining from the turners'' £2m (Cureton''s fee of £750''000 taken off).  So in total we have around £4.75m to spend on the other targets, and we also have a more than capable replacement in Cureton.

 

Slagging off the board for this is totally inappropriate - we don''t need to sell, and there is money to spend.  I think it makes the summer much more interesting - waiting to see who that money will be spent on.  I would be happier with Eastwood and Cureton with a little bit of money left over than just Earnshaw!

[/quote]

You obviously haven''t got a bloody clue about real life outside of your closetted University cocoon...so stick to your global warming and recycling theories and leave the football stuff to the grown ups.

Lots of clever numbers...but not an ounce of fact. More apologist bilge.

[/quote]

Irrespective of whether your opinion is correct or not, you are a singularly obnoxious person aren''t you, lol! [:D] 

[Dowp End 0]

Do us all a favour and meet for a drink somewhere out of town----you wont need a big venue.--- Smudger will be the one drinking Bailey''s and carrying a copy of the Economist under his arm waving a big flag and looking around disilusioned by the lack of support from his war cry sham on here today---For goodness sake gents we have''nt even started the season yet, transfer window is not closed, and already you are looking for reasons to complain and spit venom----This is football not revolution---If a few of you do decide to protest the majority  will be looking on and smiliing perhaps even uttering  a quiet ''bless them''''

[alex_ncfc 662]

[quote user="Dowp End"]Do us all a favour and meet for a drink somewhere out of town----you wont need a big venue.--- Smudger will be the one drinking Bailey''s and carrying a copy of the Economist under his arm waving a big flag and looking around disilusioned by the lack of support from his war cry sham on here today---For goodness sake gents we have''nt even started the season yet, transfer window is not closed, and already you are looking for reasons to complain and spit venom----This is football not revolution---If a few of you do decide to protest the majority  will be looking on and smiliing perhaps even uttering  a quiet ''bless them'''' [/quote]Which would sum up their knowlegde of football and their aspirations for the club...

[Mr_Chimp 0]

The arrogance is astonishing Alex.  People who love the club just as much as you have a differing opinion and you paint them as morons.  Get a grip.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="alex_ncfc"][quote user="Dowp End"]Do us all a favour and meet for a drink somewhere out of town----you wont need a big venue.--- Smudger will be the one drinking Bailey''s and carrying a copy of the Economist under his arm waving a big flag and looking around disilusioned by the lack of support from his war cry sham on here today---For goodness sake gents we have''nt even started the season yet, transfer window is not closed, and already you are looking for reasons to complain and spit venom----This is football not revolution---If a few of you do decide to protest the majority  will be looking on and smiliing perhaps even uttering  a quiet ''bless them''''
[/quote]

Which would sum up their knowlegde of football and their aspirations for the club...
[/quote]

Yep the others can do as they please...

As I have state many times before.... those who still sit in defence of this board of ours should feel ashamed in calling themselves City fans... in my eyes they are no better than them who follow the team in blue down the road... infact they are worse!!!

[Dowp End 0]

Scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one arent you  Smudger?-------uncalled for.----immature---and as ridiculous a response as I have seen for a long time on this board ( yourself excluded that is )  No kind of reasoned argument can compare any of us with them down the road where I''m sure you would be made very welcome------------

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Dowp End - You said "town", shame on you!!

[Dowp End 0]

Lol----I hang my head in shame and promise to contribute to your nice new shiny seat if there is a whip round on our first game back---