There mebbe trouble ahead................

[Canary in the Forest 0]

The bids for Eastwood and Sharp were made b4 Earny left , However that doesn''t mean that you can add £2m or£3m to our transfer kitty as the board presumably knew that they were going to sell Earny given the clause in his contract.

Given the existing debt and the absence of the equivalent of the Derby 5 (5 new directors of Derby alledgedly injected £25m at start of last season, supposedly parking the accumulated debts with agreement from bankers) and the propensity not to play a high risk strategy by our current board we will inevitably buy unknowns and unprovens (Reading and Steve Coppell, AIdy Boothroyd and Watford both gained promotion in that business model) . Success is still possible with the right management team and motivation with an above average squad.Have we got the right mangt team and squad? We don''t know.They are certainly working hard by all accounts

So why not wait and see what happens in the real world from 11 August ?-after all Grant''s future mebbe on the line after 10 matches? He is a hard worker but inputs don''t necessarily result in successful outputs(=top 6).

[Polar 0]

for crying out loud we''ve only lost the first pre season friendly! it doesnt mean we are destined to religation

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Fair points made in this post, but for me there are two issues 1) The board are making noises about ambition again, which leads to point 2) It would be a real shame if all of our transfer money was predicated on the sale of Earnshaw, given point 1 and the fact we were told that when the Turners were on board it meant we were able to add to the sqaud without selling anybody. This leads me to believe there was a transfer kitty in place and the Earnie money is a bonus.

[arrdee 2]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Fair points made in this post, but for me there are two issues 1) The board are making noises about ambition again, which leads to point 2) It would be a real shame if all of our transfer money was predicated on the sale of Earnshaw, given point 1 and the fact we were told that when the Turners were on board it meant we were able to add to the sqaud without selling anybody. This leads me to believe there was a transfer kitty in place and the Earnie money is a bonus.[/quote]

There maybe trouble ahead but [:)] lets face the promation and dance [:D].arrdee.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Fair points made in this post, but for me there are two issues 1) The board are making noises about ambition again, which leads to point 2) It would be a real shame if all of our transfer money was predicated on the sale of Earnshaw, given point 1 and the fact we were told that when the Turners were on board it meant we were able to add to the sqaud without selling anybody. This leads me to believe there was a transfer kitty in place and the Earnie money is a bonus.[/quote]

It may of led you to believe that SOB along with many thousands of supporters...

I however claimed that whatever money that we received for Earnshaw ''WAS THE TRANSFER KITTY'' ages ago and that our fantastic board of directors would put diddly squat in... but did anybody listen to me???

No... people were more willing to beleive PGTA & Co with their "I have it from a good source that we have £3million to £4million in the transfer kitty, excluding any money brought in from the sale of Earnshaw"

I have said for ages that nobody in the current Carrow Road set up can be trusted!!!

 

[Canary in the Forest 0]

I think the quote at the time of the Turners injection of dosh was that we wouldn''t be forced to sell any player. I don''t think it was ever implied that there was extra buying power. I think Smudgey is spot on, unfortunately.

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

[quote user="Smudger"]

It may of led you to believe that SOB along with many thousands of supporters...

I however claimed that whatever money that we received for Earnshaw ''WAS THE TRANSFER KITTY'' ages ago and that our fantastic board of directors would put diddly squat in... but did anybody listen to me???

No... people were more willing to beleive PGTA & Co with their "I have it from a good source that we have £3million to £4million in the transfer kitty, excluding any money brought in from the sale of Earnshaw"

I have said for ages that nobody in the current Carrow Road set up can be trusted!!!

[/quote]

There is nothing to suggest that you are right yet, though!  I''m not sure if anyone really expected the £5m+ kitty that was being expressed by some, given that we will have a £6m (or whatever) cut in funds from Sky to cope with, but nor can I accept that we had nothing - we''ll just have to wait and see at the end of August. 

The problem is that whatever business we do from now, I''m pretty sure we''ll all have different opinions on what we''ve spent and what was or wasn''t there prior to Earnie leaving: for example, if we get a couple of decent Prem players in on loan we know they cost close to £1m for the season (this is something PG has said which mirrors what Worthy had said before, suggesting it to be true), and of course any such funds would clearly have to come from the transfer pot, as would any short-term loans during the season.  But would we all agree on this?!

IMO we have so far spent £3m, + or - a bit, when we include signing on fees for the ''frees''.  But of course it could be lower or higher.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="arrdee"]

There maybe trouble ahead but [:)] lets face the promation and dance [:D].arrdee.

[/quote]

There may be trouble ahead [st]

But while there''s Dickson and Safri [Y]

And Hucks and The Fans [*]

Let''s play some football and dance [<:o)]

 

Before The Fans have all fled [Z][O]

Before they sell to pay the bill [li][N]

And while we still [*-)]

Have a chance [8-)]

Lets play some football and dance [<:o)]

 

Soon [O]

We''ll be without the doom [:(]

Sun shining through the gloom [st] [H]

And then [:^)]

 

There''s no more teardrops to shed [:''(]

So while there''s Dickson and Safri [Y]

And Hucks and The Fans [*]

Let''s play some football and dance [<:o)]

Dance [8]

Let''s get promotion and dance [<:o)] [B] [8] [ip] [D] [:D] [Y] [<:o)]

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

That has got to be post of th week, Nutty, a classic, might have to print it out and put it on my wall.  Wonderful.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Very good Nutty.

I assume that the central hypothesis for your thesis is twofold

1)  Dickson and Safri are our only two players worth more than diddly-squad on the transfer market, and

2)  Only Hucks can stir the fans

And your conclusion is that if we don''t perform by Xmas Dickson and Safri will be out the window in January and we''ll all be up ---- street.

On the other hand...........

OTBC

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Smudger"]

It may of led you to believe that SOB along with many thousands of supporters...

I however claimed that whatever money that we received for Earnshaw ''WAS THE TRANSFER KITTY'' ages ago and that our fantastic board of directors would put diddly squat in... but did anybody listen to me???

No... people were more willing to beleive PGTA & Co with their "I have it from a good source that we have £3million to £4million in the transfer kitty, excluding any money brought in from the sale of Earnshaw"

I have said for ages that nobody in the current Carrow Road set up can be trusted!!!

[/quote]

There is nothing to suggest that you are right yet, though!  I''m not sure if anyone really expected the £5m+ kitty that was being expressed by some, given that we will have a £6m (or whatever) cut in funds from Sky to cope with, but nor can I accept that we had nothing - we''ll just have to wait and see at the end of August. 

The problem is that whatever business we do from now, I''m pretty sure we''ll all have different opinions on what we''ve spent and what was or wasn''t there prior to Earnie leaving: for example, if we get a couple of decent Prem players in on loan we know they cost close to £1m for the season (this is something PG has said which mirrors what Worthy had said before, suggesting it to be true), and of course any such funds would clearly have to come from the transfer pot, as would any short-term loans during the season.  But would we all agree on this?!

IMO we have so far spent £3m, + or - a bit, when we include signing on fees for the ''frees''.  But of course it could be lower or higher.

 

[/quote]

So a couple of loanees are going to cost us £1million are they?  Rubbish!!!

Loanee''s cost us nothing but wages (wages that we would still have to pay on any other player that we were to sign).  Yes these wages may be a litle bit more than Huckerby''s or Jamie Cureton''s but don''t lets start confusing a loanee with a permanent signing... my god you would belive anything they told you wouldn''t you???

Wages, fees for agents, excuses, excuses, excuses... never hear any other team coming out with all this c**p do you???

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Smudger"]Loanee''s cost us nothing but wages [/quote]A blanket suggestion that Loanee''s cost nothing but wages is really not quite right in today''s market Smudger, most clubs are now asking for fees for their ''better'' players. Grant was put off two signings last season because clubs were asking for over £250k per player as a loan fee on top of us paying their wages, and Grant refused to be held to ransom over it.Also, being fair if their wages are more than Hucks, that puts them on a very respectable wage of at least over £13k per week, so in wage costs alone, a loan player could cost us £150k+ fpr a 3 month loan. If we got someone in on wages of approx £20k that would be nearly £250k in wages for that same loan period.Not arguing the point, simply clarifying an area.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Indy_Bones"][quote user="Smudger"]Loanee''s cost us nothing but wages [/quote]
A blanket suggestion that Loanee''s cost nothing but wages is really not quite right in today''s market Smudger, most clubs are now asking for fees for their ''better'' players. Grant was put off two signings last season because clubs were asking for over £250k per player as a loan fee on top of us paying their wages, and Grant refused to be held to ransom over it.

Also, being fair if their wages are more than Hucks, that puts them on a very respectable wage of at least over £13k per week, so in wage costs alone, a loan player could cost us £150k+ fpr a 3 month loan. If we got someone in on wages of approx £20k that would be nearly £250k in wages for that same loan period.

Not arguing the point, simply clarifying an area.
[/quote]

Can see where you are coming from INDY.

Still similar money to what they would be paying any half-decent player in wages, signing on and agent fees though isn''t it?

imo what is in the transfer kitty is money to actually be paid to another club for us securing a deal for a particular players services, not money paid in the way of signing on fee''s agent fee''s and wages etc

I know that today''s market has changed a little and the fact that Norwich City FC have refused to change with it is another clear indicator of why we find ourselves where we do today.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Very good Nutty.

I assume that the central hypothesis for your thesis is twofold

1)  Dickson and Safri are our only two players worth more than diddly-squad on the transfer market, and

2)  Only Hucks can stir the fans

And your conclusion is that if we don''t perform by Xmas Dickson and Safri will be out the window in January and we''ll all be up ---- street.

On the other hand...........

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Xmas appears to have come slightly too soon for NCFC.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

NN - Read the headlines, it is alleged that Dickson is off to Sunderland, Safri looks to be on his way out and Mr Huckerby is not happy......cue Smudger!!