Arthur Whittle has made the EEN

gazzathegreat · July 13, 2007

I can''t see what all the fuss is about frankly. Arthur wrote a letter to the local paper, I just happened to buy it that day and saw it. I don''t agree with most of his points, but he has every right to make them, and guess what, his reason for writing was to air his views to a wider audience, which he has done. I have no idea how many city fans who attend matches or who live in the area and can''t attend for one reason and another post on here, but it''s more than likely far more read the local papers, so all Arthur has done is put his opinons across to more people.

No doubt Archant will publish other letters opposing those views in the coming days and weeks.

Arthur has done nothing wrong writing to the paper, we might not agree with his views, but he''s entitled to make them. As is anyone who doesn''t cross the boundaries of decency or go into libelous waters.

Note to Arthur: expect some letters in the EN contradicting your points.

renegade tootsie · July 13, 2007

Well I for one am happy that we replaced Earnie with what could well be the top scoring partnership in the league next season, the Czechs love Dave and Cureton proved himself last season, so after pondering this over I am more than happy. We have also brought in a midfielder on a free who is proven to have the guts we have been missing.

The money does not just come and go in big wads, some of our deals include installments over long periods. As Grant himself has said, he has brought in 6 players and wants to get a look at the squad (and no doubt see if Safri leaves) and that another dip in the market is possible. Even if he decides he is strong enough, he still has a loan option, and I would suggest a kitty of around 2-3million in January should he need it.

Some of you lot moan for the sake of it. If your wives have not already left you, I would make sure you hide the suitcases in the loft....

Mr.Carrow · July 13, 2007

[quote user="blahblahblah"][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.

[/quote]

Ok so we`re back on the old "risk" argument......

Almost every decision a football club takes is a risk. There might have been a structural fault in the new stand. There is a risk infrastructure projects will run well over budget-which seems to have happened. It`s a "risk" pumping money into an academy-what if it doesn`t produce any decent young talent? Is there any guarantee the non-football activities will make money?

It`s also a risk taking the cheap option and signing poor and ageing players when past experience shows that spending a bit on hungry young players tends to pay off big-time. Lack of ambition on the pitch "risks" a spiral of decline, player and fan acrimony, your better players wanting to leave, and the club becoming unattractive to ambitious players. Witness the last two seasons. Of course this can lead to reduced income and possible relegation.

Once again, no-one is demanding a Leeds-style massive splurge in a desperate stab at success, but we have made a large profit in the transfer market whilst receiving the Prem millions and the team has spiralled into decline and, as Grant recently stated, at times "had to put injured boys on the bench" because the squad was so weak. This is unacceptable and must change or the spiral of decline will continue.

chicken · July 13, 2007

[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]

Events:

Earnshaw sold and on the same day Cureton bought. £3.5million in and lets say £800k out.

Then Marshall comes in for lets say £1million which now leaves £1.7million left of the Earnshaw money.

And then there is Strihavka who cost lets say £900k which leaves you with £600k.

Now thats only relevent if all of the money for Earnshaw came in one lump sum - it may be that we get paid £3.5million on installments, say £3.5million over 2 seasons. In which case you then may see that we have recieved £1.75million so far in which case we have spent more than we have so far recieved.

As for us paying out in installments, considering the amount of money that we have signed players for I think it is unlikely, it is possible that Marshall will cost us more if we are promoted etc.

I have to say I think its another case of double standards. When you want to say how much money has been wasted on players you don''t like you mention signing on fees and "hidden" costs but when we sell a player etc you fail to raise the same issues.

Sorry but this argument is entirely flawed.

And yes Smudge this post does have a point - struggle to find it and you are the one with tinted glasses.

Old Shuck · July 13, 2007

Absolutely-I have no problem with Arthur, Smudger etc expressing their views, as I have written before, everyone has the right to have their say, and, at the end of the day, we''re all Norwich and are acting in what we believe to be in the clubs best interests, even though our views might be different!

I''d happily buy a beer and have an NCFC mardle with anyone on here, lets not get too worked up over our differing views!!

Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB · July 13, 2007

I think it is good to have this sort of debate, rather than castigate somebody for having a different view merely because we do not agree with it. If you take a step back and look at how people react to posts on this message board it kind of goes like this - "I think that Dave Strika will be a crap player.......", cue the hoards of people castigating the poster for basing his/her opinion on somebody they have yet to see play, then you get "I think that Dave Strika will be brilliant and score loads of goals...", you will get lots of posts in agreement but the fact of the matter is this opinion is still based on a player that posters have yet to see play!! The point is Dave Strika could be a good, bad or indifferent signing, none of us will know untill he has a few games under his belt!!, so why are negative posts on the subject any less valid than positive ones given that at this stage both opinions are based on hearsay to a certain extent?

Turning to the subject of this post, as I have said I do not agree with the views of Arthur Whittle in terms of protests, the need to spend all of our transfer kitty now, the ability/wisdom of the six signings made by Norwich City thus far but I can understand where his frustration is coming from and I do not think that some of the assumptions that he is making in terms of our transfer kitty are that unreasonable, certainly no less reasonable than some of the more positive posts.

We must get away from this "positive post = truth", "negative post = stuff being made up" thing that is going on at the moment, have a proper debate on the subjects posted without allowing our personal feelings towards posters getting in the way and recognise that 99% of what is posted on here is merely opinion based on what the papers say, what we have heard, what we have discussed with our friends fellow fans etc, unless of course PG, ND, DS. MWJ etc post on here[:D]

Smudger · July 13, 2007

[quote user="JC"]

Well I for one am happy that we replaced Earnie with what could well be the top scoring partnership in the league next season, the Czechs love Dave and Cureton proved himself last season, so after pondering this over I am more than happy. We have also brought in a midfielder on a free who is proven to have the guts we have been missing.

The money does not just come and go in big wads, some of our deals include installments over long periods. As Grant himself has said, he has brought in 6 players and wants to get a look at the squad (and no doubt see if Safri leaves) and that another dip in the market is possible. Even if he decides he is strong enough, he still has a loan option, and I would suggest a kitty of around 2-3million in January should he need it.

Some of you lot moan for the sake of it. If your wives have not already left you, I would make sure you hide the suitcases in the loft....

[/quote]

To the contrary my dear JC...

My girlfriend leaves her suitcases with me after she has visited in the hope that I will invite her to stay on a more permanent basis!!! [:P]

Arthur Whittle · July 14, 2007

[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]

Ohh ohh look Arthurs made the paper oh oh look everyone! and your point is? Prove to me that the board hasnt lied to us,i bet my figures add up compared to yours. This site is getting silly and its silly remarks like ''''Arthurs made the paper'''' [chidish voice] that really makes me see the mentality of some posters on here

Smudger · July 14, 2007

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