Arthur Whittle has made the EEN

[ca 1]

Here''s Arthur''s letter for those of you who don''t get the local newspaper.

I''m not going to be fooled by the Board''s lies. At the start of the close season (apparently) we put in bids of £2m for Sharpe and £500k for Marshall before selling Earnshaw for £3.5m. If my calculations are correct, we have a transfer kitty of £6m, so why is the money not being spent on proven talent?

Instead we go for former Norwich Reserves, unheard of foreigns and freebees from the lower leagues and Scotland and this board wants us to believe they are ambitious. Maybe Neil Doncaster would care to explain why Delia is not leeting Grant dip into her handbag and is having to wheel and deal on 3rd choice benchwarmers?

If things dont change I believe the board will find themselves even more unpopular and we could find ourselves staging a chase out protest all over again

Shame you didn''t go into specifics of the lies you think the board have told us backed up by  specific facts. Also presume you''re refering to Cureton as a former Norwich reserve but that was 11 years ago, why not judge him on what he''s done in the past couple of seasons, he was the Championship leading scorer last season.

Also you say we should have gone for proven talent, which players would you have bid for Arthur?

With regards to your £6m transfer kitty if you add up what we''ve spent on Cureton £800k, Marshall £1m, Dave the Striker £800k that adds up to£2.6m on top of that you have to add on signing on fees, agents fees and wages. Lets assume that the 6 players are all on the average championship wage of £5k thats another £30k pw which over a year is £1.5m.

We''ll be lucky if there is £1.5m left now but thats just my guess.

 

[Stevo 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Also presume you''re refering to Cureton as a former Norwich reserve but that was 11 years ago, why not judge him on what he''s done in the past couple of seasons, he was the Championship leading scorer last season.

[/quote]

Exactly!

Other "former Norwich Reserves" include Chris Martin, Jason Shackell........Robert Green, Craig Bellamy, Chris Sutton yada yada yada

 

[Shack Attack 0]

My favourite bit is "we could find ourselves staging a chase out protest all over again".

I know that Fat Bob''s got a few fans on here but I didn''t realise they''d managed to sneak him back into the boardroom again!

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Here''s Arthur''s letter for those of you who don''t get the local newspaper.

I''m not going to be fooled by the Board''s lies. At the start of the close season (apparently) we put in bids of £2m for Sharpe and £500k for Marshall before selling Earnshaw for £3.5m. If my calculations are correct, we have a transfer kitty of £6m, so why is the money not being spent on proven talent?

Instead we go for former Norwich Reserves, unheard of foreigns and freebees from the lower leagues and Scotland and this board wants us to believe they are ambitious. Maybe Neil Doncaster would care to explain why Delia is not leeting Grant dip into her handbag and is having to wheel and deal on 3rd choice benchwarmers?

If things dont change I believe the board will find themselves even more unpopular and we could find ourselves staging a chase out protest all over again

Shame you didn''t go into specifics of the lies you think the board have told us backed up by  specific facts. Also presume you''re refering to Cureton as a former Norwich reserve but that was 11 years ago, why not judge him on what he''s done in the past couple of seasons, he was the Championship leading scorer last season.

Also you say we should have gone for proven talent, which players would you have bid for Arthur?

With regards to your £6m transfer kitty if you add up what we''ve spent on Cureton £800k, Marshall £1m, Dave the Striker £800k that adds up to£2.6m on top of that you have to add on signing on fees, agents fees and wages. Lets assume that the 6 players are all on the average championship wage of £5k thats another £30k pw which over a year is £1.5m.

We''ll be lucky if there is £1.5m left now but thats just my guess.

 

[/quote]

We were prepared to spend 2m and 500.000 outright for Sharp and Marshall not including fees,wages ect ect,so your arguement doesnt really stand up. In my eyes we still have at least the Earnshaw money.

[renegade tootsie 0]

How has Arthur Whittle got two ID''s, one with 170 posts and one with 2???????

This Arthur Whittle joke is getting ludicrous and archant are not embracing it in the paper!!!

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="cityangel"]

Here''s Arthur''s letter for those of you who don''t get the local newspaper.

I''m not going to be fooled by the Board''s lies. At the start of the close season (apparently) we put in bids of £2m for Sharpe and £500k for Marshall before selling Earnshaw for £3.5m. If my calculations are correct, we have a transfer kitty of £6m, so why is the money not being spent on proven talent?

Instead we go for former Norwich Reserves, unheard of foreigns and freebees from the lower leagues and Scotland and this board wants us to believe they are ambitious. Maybe Neil Doncaster would care to explain why Delia is not leeting Grant dip into her handbag and is having to wheel and deal on 3rd choice benchwarmers?

If things dont change I believe the board will find themselves even more unpopular and we could find ourselves staging a chase out protest all over again

Shame you didn''t go into specifics of the lies you think the board have told us backed up by  specific facts. Also presume you''re refering to Cureton as a former Norwich reserve but that was 11 years ago, why not judge him on what he''s done in the past couple of seasons, he was the Championship leading scorer last season.

Also you say we should have gone for proven talent, which players would you have bid for Arthur?

With regards to your £6m transfer kitty if you add up what we''ve spent on Cureton £800k, Marshall £1m, Dave the Striker £800k that adds up to£2.6m on top of that you have to add on signing on fees, agents fees and wages. Lets assume that the 6 players are all on the average championship wage of £5k thats another £30k pw which over a year is £1.5m.

We''ll be lucky if there is £1.5m left now but thats just my guess.

 

[/quote]

We were prepared to spend 2m and 500.000 outright for Sharp and Marshall not including fees,wages ect ect,so your arguement doesnt really stand up. In my eyes we still have at least the Earnshaw money.

[/quote]

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

arthur, you ask why is the money not being spent on proven talent. Ever thought that nearly all the proven talent ends up in the premiership? Anyone with mega-hype surrounding them will be snapped up by the prem teams asap. We simply have to do the hard work and look for the players who show potential. Granted Eastwood is proven and was bought by another champ side, but he had his heart set on wolves for weeks so he was never coming here.

I''d love to have big names and big players here but how does a championship club like ourselves expect to complete against top flight teams for the best talent?

[gissing canary 2]

In fairness to cureton:

 

Jags was an everton reserve reject, and alan shearer was rejected by Newcastle.  Ask there fans, both seem pretty happy to have their "failures" back!

 

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="gissing canary"]

In fairness to cureton:

 

Jags was an everton reserve reject, and alan shearer was rejected by Newcastle.  Ask there fans, both seem pretty happy to have their "failures" back!

 

[/quote]

And of corse the great man Dion Dublin was released by our very own club!

[Smudger 0]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Smudger"]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

If you read the other thread on Arthur''s letter, you''ll realise plenty of people are picking on the many holes in his arguement (as it is a minority viewpoint).

And Smudge, please sit down, take a breath, and read what PG says in the story - and I mean read it. Stop spinning it and getting yourself in a het up muddle, because 2+2=74 at the moment.

 

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

whatever smudger

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

If you read the other thread on Arthur''s letter, you''ll realise plenty of people are picking on the many holes in his arguement (as it is a minority viewpoint).

And Smudge, please sit down, take a breath, and read what PG says in the story - and I mean read it. Stop spinning it and getting yourself in a het up muddle, because 2+2=74 at the moment.

 

[/quote]

It may equal 74 to you confused individuals mbncfc...

It is quite clear what it says to me... ie - another couple of freebies or loanees may be brought in once the season has got under way and prior to the transfer window closing.

I think you will find that is the infamous CR Spin machine telling us in no uncertain terms that there is no money there (and that we are not even likely to see the rest of the money that they have recieved for the Earnshaw transfer let alone anything else).

Of course I may be wrong... I am still waiting for the board to put PGTA''s £3million to £4million in to the transfer kitty (as suggested only a few weeks ago) hohoho!!!

I told you that we had NO MONEY TO SPEND then... and it is looking increasingly likely that I have ben proved right... yet only one person (RICARDO) seems to have acknowledged this.

Are you satisfied if no more money is spent and we do not even spend what we received for Earnshaw mbncfc?

oh I must say that loan players do not count as far as I am concerned... Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee!!!

If the board want to bring loan players in then this must come out of their own pockets!!!

 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Here''s Arthur''s letter for those of you who don''t get the local newspaper.

I''m not going to be fooled by the Board''s lies. At the start of the close season (apparently) we put in bids of £2m for Sharpe and £500k for Marshall before selling Earnshaw for £3.5m. If my calculations are correct, we have a transfer kitty of £6m, so why is the money not being spent on proven talent?

Instead we go for former Norwich Reserves, unheard of foreigns and freebees from the lower leagues and Scotland and this board wants us to believe they are ambitious. Maybe Neil Doncaster would care to explain why Delia is not leeting Grant dip into her handbag and is having to wheel and deal on 3rd choice benchwarmers?

If things dont change I believe the board will find themselves even more unpopular and we could find ourselves staging a chase out protest all over again

Shame you didn''t go into specifics of the lies you think the board have told us backed up by  specific facts. Also presume you''re refering to Cureton as a former Norwich reserve but that was 11 years ago, why not judge him on what he''s done in the past couple of seasons, he was the Championship leading scorer last season.

Also you say we should have gone for proven talent, which players would you have bid for Arthur?

With regards to your £6m transfer kitty if you add up what we''ve spent on Cureton £800k, Marshall £1m, Dave the Striker £800k that adds up to£2.6m on top of that you have to add on signing on fees, agents fees and wages. Lets assume that the 6 players are all on the average championship wage of £5k thats another £30k pw which over a year is £1.5m.

We''ll be lucky if there is £1.5m left now but thats just my guess.

 

[/quote]

We have lost Earnshaw`s very large wage and six (i think) others. The players brought in are REPLACING the ones that have gone and i would bet my house and savings that we have saved a large sum on wages ie. the total wage of the players brought in would be lower than those who have left. So if anything the pot should be larger than we think.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

Now CA is quoting figures for what were "undisclosed fees", eveybody is an expert (if they post postively) but are making things up (if they post negatively). Whilst I do not share the views of Mr Whittle I think people on this message board have very short memories, we were bidding for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie so I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that you add the fee for Earnie (£3.5m) to the alleged value of the bids for Sharp and Marshall (£2.5) and that comes to.......let me see now........£6m!!, unless of course the club knew all along that their transfer kitty was in fact going to be made up entirely of the fee we got for Earnie......would that be an entirely unreasonable assumption to make? 

[blahblahblah 2]

Have you spent all your wages yet SMUDGER ?  What do you mean, it''s only the 12th of the month ?  WHERE''S YOUR AMBITION  MAN ?!?!?!Surely, if you had even the slightest ounce of AMBITION, you''d have spent all your wages on a deposit for that BRAND NEW PORSCHE.  You might not be able to keep up with the repayments, but the BAILIFFS would know that they were dealing with one AMBITIOUS feller when they come to RECLAIM it in a months'' time.I also heard that BOB DOWN THE ROAD is going to pay you back that TENNER he owes you.  SO WHY AREN''T YOU DOWN THE ROAD HAVING A PINT ?!?!?!  The money''s as good as yours after all !There is one word for the way your personal finances are being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

If you read the other thread on Arthur''s letter, you''ll realise plenty of people are picking on the many holes in his arguement (as it is a minority viewpoint).

And Smudge, please sit down, take a breath, and read what PG says in the story - and I mean read it. Stop spinning it and getting yourself in a het up muddle, because 2+2=74 at the moment.

 

[/quote]

It may equal 74 to you confused individuals mbncfc...

It is quite clear what it says to me... ie - another couple of freebies or loanees may be brought in once the season has got under way and prior to the transfer window closing.

I think you will find that is the infamous CR Spin machine telling us in no uncertain terms that there is no money there (and that we are not even likely to see the rest of the money that they have recieved for the Earnshaw transfer let alone anything else).

Of course I may be wrong... I am still waiting for the board to put PGTA''s £3million to £4million in to the transfer kitty (as suggested only a few weeks ago) hohoho!!!

I told you that we had NO MONEY TO SPEND then... and it is looking increasingly likely that I have ben proved right... yet only one person (RICARDO) seems to have acknowledged this.

Are you satisfied if no more money is spent and we do not even spend what we received for Earnshaw mbncfc?

oh I must say that loan players do not count as far as I am concerned... Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee!!!

If the board want to bring loan players in then this must come out of their own pockets!!!

 

[/quote]

No confusion here. It seems we''ve had around £6m in total to spend after the transfers in so far, and I believe we''ve already spent £3m of it.

So, I think that leaves £3m still to spend (all made up of course, because no one on this site knows). Peter Grant has openly stated he will be looking to strengthen our midfield and defence before the transfer window shuts. (It is what the article actually states from PG''s mouth, rather than the headline which was written by the sub editor.)

I don''t expect that money to be spent for the sake of it, or to appeasing a few fans on here.

Ricardo sees your side, but then I disagree with both of you. The proof/fact/whatever you like to call it will be in the results and no-one will be right or wrong until then.

I will be satisfied if we bring in another centre back, and then anyone else who leaves is replaced. To me it is more about the players who come in than the money we spend. Kevin Doyle - a monkey presumably of you only pay £75,000 in peanuts.

And correct. Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee.

The ''We have no money to spend'' is something you''ve assumed from a story which actually says something completely different. It''s good to be skeptical. But this is a little bit like a groom who gets jilted at the alter when he''s 18 and spends the next 45 years running scared of every girl that moves.

[7rew 0]

Be carefull Mr.Carrow - Earnshaw may have been highly paid - but Fisk and Henderson won''t have been.- especially Fisk.  I''d bet that Marshall is on quite alot (for a goalie) also Ostemobor, Gilks and Brellier are probably on slightly higer wages than if we''d paid a fee for them.I doubt that we''ve saved anything significant, certainly not a whole set of wages for one player, it may even be just the other way -  I agree that CA''s estimate for wages is off here - unless the wage savings of the 6 that weren''t Earnshaw were included in the transfer budget to start with, which is certainly possible.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Have you spent all your wages yet SMUDGER ? 

What do you mean, it''s only the 12th of the month ?  WHERE''S YOUR AMBITION  MAN ?!?!?!

Surely, if you had even the slightest ounce of AMBITION, you''d have spent all your wages on a deposit for that BRAND NEW PORSCHE.  You might not be able to keep up with the repayments, but the BAILIFFS would know that they were dealing with one AMBITIOUS feller when they come to RECLAIM it in a months'' time.

I also heard that BOB DOWN THE ROAD is going to pay you back that TENNER he owes you.  SO WHY AREN''T YOU DOWN THE ROAD HAVING A PINT ?!?!?!  The money''s as good as yours after all !

There is one word for the way your personal finances are being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

I would suggest a better analogy would be to equate Smudger`s wages with the normal income the club receives from season-ticket sales,merchandise,sponsorship etc., and the Prem/Ashton/Francis/Green/ Earnshaw millions being equated to Smudger having a sizeable win on the national lottery.

Of course the question is does Smudger invest the money in something which has proved highly lucrative in the past (success on the pitch, and big profits from buying young talent), or fritter most of it away on projects which don`t really fit with his knowledge/lifestyle which might,possibly, pay an unspecified return at some unspecified point in the future (the off-pitch projects).

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I would suggest a better analogy would be to equate Smudger`s wages

with the normal income the club receives from season-ticket

sales,merchandise,sponsorship etc., and the Prem/Ashton/Francis/Green/

Earnshaw millions being equated to Smudger having a sizeable win on the

national lottery.[/quote]Hmm.  Let''s see - season ticket sales, let''s keep the numbers straightforward - say 600 pounds per ticket ?  20,000 season tickets ?  I make that 12 million per season (but with my shaky maths, it could be 4.36, or anything) - Now, the Sky money.  20 million for Prem season, 8 million per season thereafter.  Over 3 seasons, I make the season tickets out at 36 million, and the Sky money at, er, 36 million.  Add the money you like to talk about from transfers, a lot of which has been shaved off with successive agents fees, cost of replacements (and Earnshaw was Ashtons'' replacement, like what you did there...), let''s say another 10 million ?So let''s call it a 60 : 40 split of "extra" money to "normal" money then ?  That sound fair ?  So a better analogy would not be a lottery win, but Smudger hooking up with a girl who makes more money than he does, but has a lavish lifestyle - in the end, they still spend what they earn.[quote]Of course the question is does Smudger invest the money in something

which has proved highly lucrative in the past (success on the pitch,

and big profits from buying young talent), or fritter most of it away

on projects which don`t really fit with his knowledge/lifestyle which

might,possibly, pay an unspecified return at some unspecified point in

the future (the off-pitch projects).[/quote]Well, when you put it like that Mr. Carrow, it''s all so risk-free, and reasonable.  Expensive talented players never sustain career-thretening injuries, after all.  They never experience problems in their personal life which impact their ability to perform either.  It''s not a hedge-fund you''re dealing with here, it''s people.  And people, by their nature, are unpredictable.  The very expensive and apparently "risk-free and reasonable investment" Dean Ashton went to West Ham, and then missed a large part of last season with an injury, for example.If Brellier had, say, 3 years left on a contract, and we''d signed him for 1 or 2 million, would you be happy ?  The false economy in the game as I see it these days is paying millions for players that have long contracts when you can pick up just as capable players on Bosmans.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Now CA is quoting figures for what were "undisclosed fees", eveybody is an expert (if they post postively) but are making things up (if they post negatively). Whilst I do not share the views of Mr Whittle I think people on this message board have very short memories, we were bidding for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie so I would suggest that it is reasonable to assume that you add the fee for Earnie (£3.5m) to the alleged value of the bids for Sharp and Marshall (£2.5) and that comes to.......let me see now........£6m!!, unless of course the club knew all along that their transfer kitty was in fact going to be made up entirely of the fee we got for Earnie......would that be an entirely unreasonable assumption to make? [/quote]

haha another one see''s the light of day!!!

Honestly SOB... I think that the wind whistles between more than a few peoples ears on here if you know what I mean???  [:D]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

If you read the other thread on Arthur''s letter, you''ll realise plenty of people are picking on the many holes in his arguement (as it is a minority viewpoint).

And Smudge, please sit down, take a breath, and read what PG says in the story - and I mean read it. Stop spinning it and getting yourself in a het up muddle, because 2+2=74 at the moment.

 

[/quote]

It may equal 74 to you confused individuals mbncfc...

It is quite clear what it says to me... ie - another couple of freebies or loanees may be brought in once the season has got under way and prior to the transfer window closing.

I think you will find that is the infamous CR Spin machine telling us in no uncertain terms that there is no money there (and that we are not even likely to see the rest of the money that they have recieved for the Earnshaw transfer let alone anything else).

Of course I may be wrong... I am still waiting for the board to put PGTA''s £3million to £4million in to the transfer kitty (as suggested only a few weeks ago) hohoho!!!

I told you that we had NO MONEY TO SPEND then... and it is looking increasingly likely that I have ben proved right... yet only one person (RICARDO) seems to have acknowledged this.

Are you satisfied if no more money is spent and we do not even spend what we received for Earnshaw mbncfc?

oh I must say that loan players do not count as far as I am concerned... Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee!!!

If the board want to bring loan players in then this must come out of their own pockets!!!

 

[/quote]

No confusion here. It seems we''ve had around £6m in total to spend after the transfers in so far, and I believe we''ve already spent £3m of it.

So, I think that leaves £3m still to spend (all made up of course, because no one on this site knows). Peter Grant has openly stated he will be looking to strengthen our midfield and defence before the transfer window shuts. (It is what the article actually states from PG''s mouth, rather than the headline which was written by the sub editor.)

I don''t expect that money to be spent for the sake of it, or to appeasing a few fans on here.

Ricardo sees your side, but then I disagree with both of you. The proof/fact/whatever you like to call it will be in the results and no-one will be right or wrong until then.

I will be satisfied if we bring in another centre back, and then anyone else who leaves is replaced. To me it is more about the players who come in than the money we spend. Kevin Doyle - a monkey presumably of you only pay £75,000 in peanuts.

And correct. Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee.

The ''We have no money to spend'' is something you''ve assumed from a story which actually says something completely different. It''s good to be skeptical. But this is a little bit like a groom who gets jilted at the alter when he''s 18 and spends the next 45 years running scared of every girl that moves.

[/quote]

Very true... although I will be right when the results do occur!!!  [;)]

As for the little boy at the alter... I am a little confused  [*-)]

 

[Iwan=legend 0]

We HAVE saved a few squillion on wages - no more Peter ''I''ve wasted two years'' Thorne

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"]

The fact that they pick on the way you have worded your article speaks volumes Arthur...

They realise that they are now standing in the corner of a a dumb chef who is clinging to the ropes.

Grant''s artcile in the papers today about us "keeping our pwder dry" speaks volumes about where this club is heading under the current directors... we have not even spent the Earnshaw money yet for gods sake!!!

It is an utter disgrace and thoroughly embarrassing that so many have fallen for it yet again.

Safri will be on his way next week and yet another £1.5million or so will disappear down the mysterious black hole that exists within the corridors of Carrow Road.

There is one word for the way our club is being run and that is DISGUSTING!!!!

[/quote]

If you read the other thread on Arthur''s letter, you''ll realise plenty of people are picking on the many holes in his arguement (as it is a minority viewpoint).

And Smudge, please sit down, take a breath, and read what PG says in the story - and I mean read it. Stop spinning it and getting yourself in a het up muddle, because 2+2=74 at the moment.

 

[/quote]

It may equal 74 to you confused individuals mbncfc...

It is quite clear what it says to me... ie - another couple of freebies or loanees may be brought in once the season has got under way and prior to the transfer window closing.

I think you will find that is the infamous CR Spin machine telling us in no uncertain terms that there is no money there (and that we are not even likely to see the rest of the money that they have recieved for the Earnshaw transfer let alone anything else).

Of course I may be wrong... I am still waiting for the board to put PGTA''s £3million to £4million in to the transfer kitty (as suggested only a few weeks ago) hohoho!!!

I told you that we had NO MONEY TO SPEND then... and it is looking increasingly likely that I have ben proved right... yet only one person (RICARDO) seems to have acknowledged this.

Are you satisfied if no more money is spent and we do not even spend what we received for Earnshaw mbncfc?

oh I must say that loan players do not count as far as I am concerned... Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee!!!

If the board want to bring loan players in then this must come out of their own pockets!!!

 

[/quote]

No confusion here. It seems we''ve had around £6m in total to spend after the transfers in so far, and I believe we''ve already spent £3m of it.

So, I think that leaves £3m still to spend (all made up of course, because no one on this site knows). Peter Grant has openly stated he will be looking to strengthen our midfield and defence before the transfer window shuts. (It is what the article actually states from PG''s mouth, rather than the headline which was written by the sub editor.)

I don''t expect that money to be spent for the sake of it, or to appeasing a few fans on here.

Ricardo sees your side, but then I disagree with both of you. The proof/fact/whatever you like to call it will be in the results and no-one will be right or wrong until then.

I will be satisfied if we bring in another centre back, and then anyone else who leaves is replaced. To me it is more about the players who come in than the money we spend. Kevin Doyle - a monkey presumably of you only pay £75,000 in peanuts.

And correct. Robert Earnshaw was not a loanee.

The ''We have no money to spend'' is something you''ve assumed from a story which actually says something completely different. It''s good to be skeptical. But this is a little bit like a groom who gets jilted at the alter when he''s 18 and spends the next 45 years running scared of every girl that moves.

[/quote]

Very true... although I will be right when the results do occur!!!  [;)]

As for the little boy at the alter... I am a little confused  [*-)]

 

[/quote]

I think a few people have been so burnt by our last manager''s antics and some recent mistakes at board level, that they fail to realise when the new people in charge are making visible changes which could lead to an improvement.

Instead, they just act as if nothing has changed. As if the stories they read say something completely different to what is actually written, all fuelled by what they experienced before.

But then, I''m not a Psychologist. [:D]

[Old Shuck 188]

So lets get this right-if we have "£6 Million to spend" (calculated one way or another) then we have to spend all £6 Million now, every penny.

And it has to be on "proven" players, not reserves or fringe players from other clubs.

Or we''re "not ambitious" and "its disgusting".

In the meantime, those of us not born with the wisdom of Soloman, Arthur or Smudger are still meekly accepting everything that the club says, ye Gods, aren''t we all fools?

Meantime, the anti-NCFC faction rise up and decry anyone who dares to examine Arthur''s letter in more detail ("...the way that they pick on the way you worded your article...") which is then followed by the same poster picking on the ways other people have voiced their own opinion! Mmmm, glasshouses, stones etc etc?

What about spending some money on reducing debt? Does anyone want to see the clubs debts lowered? Or is it somehow OK for us to keep on spending every penny we''ve got? I know its boring but we cannot sustain a debt forever, its (whisper) somewhat frowned upon by the people who the money is owed to! I thnik they''d get a little bit snippy at us if we said we didn''t have any money to meet our committments and then spent it all on a footballer!

It seems that Arthur, Smudger, you have your views and opinions and good luck to you, as the saying goes -paraphrased- I might not agree with you, but you have every right to say them...but stop dragging down anyone who disagrees by trying to prove your point when you so obviously so despise anyone who tries to do the same with yours!

Someone posted this earlier-

"I don''t expect that money to be spent for the sake of it, or to appeasing a few fans on here."

Too bloody right!!

[Boogle 0]

[quote user="Old Shuck"]

So lets get this right-if we have "£6 Million to spend" (calculated one way or another) then we have to spend all £6 Million now, every penny.

And it has to be on "proven" players, not reserves or fringe players from other clubs.

Or we''re "not ambitious" and "its disgusting".

In the meantime, those of us not born with the wisdom of Soloman, Arthur or Smudger are still meekly accepting everything that the club says, ye Gods, aren''t we all fools?

Meantime, the anti-NCFC faction rise up and decry anyone who dares to examine Arthur''s letter in more detail ("...the way that they pick on the way you worded your article...") which is then followed by the same poster picking on the ways other people have voiced their own opinion! Mmmm, glasshouses, stones etc etc?

What about spending some money on reducing debt? Does anyone want to see the clubs debts lowered? Or is it somehow OK for us to keep on spending every penny we''ve got? I know its boring but we cannot sustain a debt forever, its (whisper) somewhat frowned upon by the people who the money is owed to! I thnik they''d get a little bit snippy at us if we said we didn''t have any money to meet our committments and then spent it all on a footballer!

It seems that Arthur, Smudger, you have your views and opinions and good luck to you, as the saying goes -paraphrased- I might not agree with you, but you have every right to say them...but stop dragging down anyone who disagrees by trying to prove your point when you so obviously so despise anyone who tries to do the same with yours!

Someone posted this earlier-

"I don''t expect that money to be spent for the sake of it, or to appeasing a few fans on here."

Too bloody right!!

[/quote]

You seem to have missed the main point, the transfer kitty.

You hint that some of the money would have been spent on reducing debt yet explain how it is we made bids of 2m+ and 500,000+  then sold a player and were told all this money would be added to the transfer kitty.

Even in Artthurs enemys eyes that makes around 6m. I would say between 2.5 and 3m has been spent, that leaves 3m in the coffers.

Now, my question is if and when safri and colin leave {maybe ethuhu also} does that moiney go into the pot? Grant has said he may bring in another defender and midfielder, this would replace safri and colin, so people have a point when they say we are only replacing players who have left and not strenghtening the team.

[Old Shuck 188]

Fair point Millo, the transfer kitty...

It may not be as simple as we all think re. the Earnshaw money-did we get the lot up front or are Derby paying in instalments-which is how transfers are done the great majority of the time these days? We may have been paid no more than a million up front tops-so that amount cannot just be "added" to the transfer -or whatever-budget as it was probably not the amount we have received. Are we going to treat it as ''virtual'' money (ie) we''re going to get it, so lets spend it anyway-well, hope not, not sound financial practice at all, and how a lot of clubs suffered through the ITV Digital fiasco, spending money they hadn''t yet got.

Of course, this also means that, when buying Cureton or Dave Striker, we probably haven''t paid the full amount up top either.

Surely it makes sense for PG to hold some money back-who knows how circumstances might have changed by the end of August or who might be available then who isn''t now?

I would certainly hope that a proportion of any money raised by pending sales is made available for the manager, but, at the same time, would hope some would also be pointed at bad debt.

The overall point is, of course, that none of us are right and none of us are wrong, this is all just opinion, and certainly not worth getting so wound up about!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]You seem to have missed the main point, the transfer kitty.[/quote]And you have missed Shucks'' point, and the point of most people here - namely that we might still have it, but that doesn''t mean we have to spend it right now.If we had bought Sharp, we wouldn''t have bought Cureton and Strihavka.  This makes me suspect that they were bought with the "Sharp money", which was in all likelihood an advance on a very likely release fee for Earnshaw.To refresh peoples'' memories, we were looking at a deficit of £2 million this season before the Turners stepped aboard, due to the loss of parachute payments.  Unless they have offered further money, I would be surprised if we have any more than the sum of the Earnshaw fee to spend.If we have more, we shouldn''t broadcast it, we''re not Wolves after all.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

I agree, but only if the squad was strong enough, that some money from player sales/ would be wisely used to reduce debt or alternatively invest in youth.

However, in respect of the ''transfer kitty'', however big or small, what does it actually allow for?

Transfer fees, agents fees, other fees and costs associated with the initial transfer, signing bonuses?  Does it actually include wages?  Personally I dont''t think it does and if it does include wages, certainly don''t think it should.  If wages are included, how long are they allowed for?

If a club announces a £5m transfer fund, which includes wages, and then signs 3 players on frees and 2 for, say a combined price of £1m, the fans will still believe there is £4m left, but if the players wages were budgeted into the £5m transfer kitty, the wages and fees for the players could easily swallow up the £4m left over the course of a year, hence there being no money left. 

Personally I don''t have a clue what is included or should be allowed for, but if players are brought in to replace others who have left feel wages certainly should not be included.

 

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]You seem to have missed the main point, the transfer kitty.[/quote]

And you have missed Shucks'' point, and the point of most people here - namely that we might still have it, but that doesn''t mean we have to spend it right now.

If we had bought Sharp, we wouldn''t have bought Cureton and Strihavka.  This makes me suspect that they were bought with the "Sharp money", which was in all likelihood an advance on a very likely release fee for Earnshaw.

To refresh peoples'' memories, we were looking at a deficit of £2 million this season before the Turners stepped aboard, due to the loss of parachute payments.  Unless they have offered further money, I would be surprised if we have any more than the sum of the Earnshaw fee to spend.

If we have more, we shouldn''t broadcast it, we''re not Wolves after all.
[/quote]

Yes and I am sure that it will go in to that little black hole... ''to infinity and beyond!!!''

Just as the Cotteril money seems to have done...

Now that we are talking about transfer kitty''s everybody on both sides of the debate seems to of conveiniantly forgoten about that don''t they?

[Mr.Carrow 378]

I think i should remind people that we didn`t spend all the Francis and Jonsson money, or the Ashton money, or the Green and Mckenzie money. In fact we didn`t even come close, and the last accounts show a £3million profit on transfers. And that was whilst we were recieving £7.1million parachute payments for two seasons.

Why should we expect things to be so different now?