THE BOARD !

[BBFF 0]

Players and managers are only as good as their last game, boards are only as good as last season, now look at our last three seasons.........think it says it all.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "]

The big difference between this Board and that of the 50''s and 60''s is inheritance. Prior to the arrival of Watling the club was a sleepy little backwater...but with endeavour and ambition by the time Chase eventually got hounded out we were amongst the elite in the country with a string of exciting seasons and success behind us.

Smith however inherited a club with a good recent history and has miraculously taken it backwards...soon to return to the sleepy backwater of old. Insufficient funds pumped in to ensure continuity and an unhealthy obsession with "off the field activities" such as catering have seen to that. Championship football suits her personal career needs nicely....and so she remains a "big fish in a small pond"....a place where losers feel comfortable.

If that''s progress then rub me down with a damp flannel.........  

[/quote]

Emm yes, you are sort of right here Cluck, except the inheritance was that the club was stoney broke, had sold every player that anyone else could possibly want and going down the toilet faster than you could say "Leeds United".

[/quote]

Having lived through the Chase debacle and being in business myself I can assure you that the realities of doing a "Leeds" is far wide of the mark. There were financial difficulties which had they been addressed professionally at the time would not have impeded progress. In the hands of a novice Board however the panic button was pressed and so the "legend" of  "Delia the Saviour" was born.

Every business from Sainsbury''s to ICI have blips in their progress...but they don''t capitulate and run away. This is why we are where we are because "fear" ruled the roost and ambition was reduced to mere "survival".

 

[/quote]

Sainsburys & ICI have buildings, plant, machinary and other assets. NCFC had sold everything it could bar the ground. What was this famous legacy? Shirt buttons? Are you really saying that businesses don''t go bust? Would you want NCFC to go the way of Rover for example or into a voluntary arrangement like that Ipswich went into? Don''t really see them pulling up any trees next season.

Please apply your business experience to thought of how this ambition could be funded and share it with us all (and before you start don''t say with the transfer profits because you know and I know that money isn''t there).

[/quote]

With respect...there were plenty of assets (not to mention a certain Mr. Waltling''s considerable legacy) both off the field and on it to see us in the clear....much of it being flogged off/manipulated by the current encumbents for various  "off the field" activities. Where do you think all of this land etc. has come from?  Who had the foresight to establish Colney as a "state of the art" training centre? Not the Madonna I''m afraid.

This whole "Delia the Saviour" mullarky which you have apparently bought into was a well constructed piece of PR.....and while this may have fooled the foolish....it doesn''t wash with those of us who know how business works. Clever...but very cynical and long past it''s sell by date.

Time to drop this classic Leeds United-Norwich City comparison...because it is total bunkum put about by those who are simply satified with being small time losers.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "]

The big difference between this Board and that of the 50''s and 60''s is inheritance. Prior to the arrival of Watling the club was a sleepy little backwater...but with endeavour and ambition by the time Chase eventually got hounded out we were amongst the elite in the country with a string of exciting seasons and success behind us.

Smith however inherited a club with a good recent history and has miraculously taken it backwards...soon to return to the sleepy backwater of old. Insufficient funds pumped in to ensure continuity and an unhealthy obsession with "off the field activities" such as catering have seen to that. Championship football suits her personal career needs nicely....and so she remains a "big fish in a small pond"....a place where losers feel comfortable.

If that''s progress then rub me down with a damp flannel.........  

[/quote]

Emm yes, you are sort of right here Cluck, except the inheritance was that the club was stoney broke, had sold every player that anyone else could possibly want and going down the toilet faster than you could say "Leeds United".

[/quote]

Having lived through the Chase debacle and being in business myself I can assure you that the realities of doing a "Leeds" is far wide of the mark. There were financial difficulties which had they been addressed professionally at the time would not have impeded progress. In the hands of a novice Board however the panic button was pressed and so the "legend" of  "Delia the Saviour" was born.

Every business from Sainsbury''s to ICI have blips in their progress...but they don''t capitulate and run away. This is why we are where we are because "fear" ruled the roost and ambition was reduced to mere "survival".

 

[/quote]

Sainsburys & ICI have buildings, plant, machinary and other assets. NCFC had sold everything it could bar the ground. What was this famous legacy? Shirt buttons? Are you really saying that businesses don''t go bust? Would you want NCFC to go the way of Rover for example or into a voluntary arrangement like that Ipswich went into? Don''t really see them pulling up any trees next season.

Please apply your business experience to thought of how this ambition could be funded and share it with us all (and before you start don''t say with the transfer profits because you know and I know that money isn''t there).

[/quote]

With respect...there were plenty of assets (not to mention a certain Mr. Waltling''s considerable legacy) both off the field and on it to see us in the clear....much of it being flogged off/manipulated by the current encumbents for various  "off the field" activities. Where do you think all of this land etc. has come from?  Who had the foresight to establish Colney as a "state of the art" training centre? Not the Madonna I''m afraid.

This whole "Delia the Saviour" mullarky which you have apparently bought into was a well constructed piece of PR.....and while this may have fooled the foolish....it doesn''t wash with those of us who know how business works. Clever...but very cynical and long past it''s sell by date.

Time to drop this classic Leeds United-Norwich City comparison...because it is total bunkum put about by those who are simply satified with being small time losers.

[/quote]

So, according to you Cluck, Chase had enough assets as well as foresight but couldn''t think of a way to avoid being run out of office. You want it both ways but logic needs to be supported and you allow your emotional distaste for Delia ( or whatever other motive you may have ) to get in the way of thinking things through. Why don''t you try a factual answer to the very good question from Big Fish.  

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Big Fish, basically Cluck is right. The club did own plenty of land and the training ground which would have paid back a large proportion of the debts in the worst-case scenario. My opinion differs from Cluck in that i believe it was this obsession with pumping money into fixed assets which lead to the clubs decline from a very strong position after Europe. The land deals have made the club reasonable money but bearing in mind what has happened on the pitch, i don`t think the money, time and effort put into them has been repaid.

Time for the club to get back to concentrating on the football.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="BB FOOTBALL FIRST"]

Players and managers are only as good as their last game, boards are only as good as last season, now look at our last three seasons.........think it says it all.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[/quote]

Just stumbled upon this post BBFF. You are spot on! Thats why we had those disgraceful chants against Watling in the 60''s and the protests against South in the 80''s and the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of. If Grant is succesfull and we have a good season it will all be forgotten about until the next bad season. That''s why I am bored of it all, nothing ever changes. But what I never get bored of is going to games and talking about football, footballers, managers and fans.

 

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BB FOOTBALL FIRST"]

Players and managers are only as good as their last game, boards are only as good as last season, now look at our last three seasons.........think it says it all.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[/quote]

Just stumbled upon this post BBFF. You are spot on! Thats why we had those disgraceful chants against Watling in the 60''s and the protests against South in the 80''s and the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of. If Grant is succesfull and we have a good season it will all be forgotten about until the next bad season. That''s why I am bored of it all, nothing ever changes. But what I never get bored of is going to games and talking about football, footballers, managers and fans.

 

[/quote]

Too right & probably the point some have completely missed on this thread.

[ricardo 7,348]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="lappinitup"]

 If we had retained our premiership status then I think the smudgers and the arthur whittles of this world would never have materialised (apart from moaning about this or that player).

[/quote]

Not quite, Whittle & Smudger are the childeren of the Chase era protests when it became OK to knock and moan about the running of the club rather than what happened on the pitch. But you are so right in everything else on this thread. All this negativity around the board is so depressing & boring. Most supporters seem genuinely enthused about the prospects for this season, as supporters for any club with 11 new players would be. It may all turn sour by Christmas as it will for most clubs - but is what it is all about, the triumph of hope over experience.

[/quote]

Indeed Bigfish.

Unfortunately after 50+ years I''m left with lots of experience but very little hope.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "]

The big difference between this Board and that of the 50''s and 60''s is inheritance. Prior to the arrival of Watling the club was a sleepy little backwater...but with endeavour and ambition by the time Chase eventually got hounded out we were amongst the elite in the country with a string of exciting seasons and success behind us.

Smith however inherited a club with a good recent history and has miraculously taken it backwards...soon to return to the sleepy backwater of old. Insufficient funds pumped in to ensure continuity and an unhealthy obsession with "off the field activities" such as catering have seen to that. Championship football suits her personal career needs nicely....and so she remains a "big fish in a small pond"....a place where losers feel comfortable.

If that''s progress then rub me down with a damp flannel.........  

[/quote]

Emm yes, you are sort of right here Cluck, except the inheritance was that the club was stoney broke, had sold every player that anyone else could possibly want and going down the toilet faster than you could say "Leeds United".

[/quote]

and what is your point exactly BigFish???

Please explain to me what has changed at Carrow Road....

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are we still not selling every player that anybody else wants and going down the toilet in a fairly swift manner also?

The only difference between ourselves and Leeds is that we seem to of got stuck in the U-bend!!!

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "]

The big difference between this Board and that of the 50''s and 60''s is inheritance. Prior to the arrival of Watling the club was a sleepy little backwater...but with endeavour and ambition by the time Chase eventually got hounded out we were amongst the elite in the country with a string of exciting seasons and success behind us.

Smith however inherited a club with a good recent history and has miraculously taken it backwards...soon to return to the sleepy backwater of old. Insufficient funds pumped in to ensure continuity and an unhealthy obsession with "off the field activities" such as catering have seen to that. Championship football suits her personal career needs nicely....and so she remains a "big fish in a small pond"....a place where losers feel comfortable.

If that''s progress then rub me down with a damp flannel.........  

[/quote]

Emm yes, you are sort of right here Cluck, except the inheritance was that the club was stoney broke, had sold every player that anyone else could possibly want and going down the toilet faster than you could say "Leeds United".

[/quote]

and what is your point exactly BigFish???

Please explain to me what has changed at Carrow Road....

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are we still not selling every player that anybody else wants and going down the toilet in a fairly swift manner also?

The only difference between ourselves and Leeds is that we seem to of got stuck in the U-bend!!!

[/quote]

There''s the rub Smudger, 90% of the fans are looking forward optimistically to the season & seeing what the new guys will bring to the party. We are sure that next year will be better than last. The other 10% seem like they really want it all to blow up horribly. They will ignore the fact that it is unargueably a better mood than ten years ago. No one has been (or will be sold) unless they want to go and it is foolish to expect players to stay when they can treble their wages and play in the Premiership. Anyone with any sense who can remember the fire sale of Ward & Newsome just to avoid insolvency knows that. Without a sugar daddy that is as good a place as can be expected.

As NuttyNigel says this is so boring a conversation, it is time for football.

OTBC

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Cluck "]

The big difference between this Board and that of the 50''s and 60''s is inheritance. Prior to the arrival of Watling the club was a sleepy little backwater...but with endeavour and ambition by the time Chase eventually got hounded out we were amongst the elite in the country with a string of exciting seasons and success behind us.

Smith however inherited a club with a good recent history and has miraculously taken it backwards...soon to return to the sleepy backwater of old. Insufficient funds pumped in to ensure continuity and an unhealthy obsession with "off the field activities" such as catering have seen to that. Championship football suits her personal career needs nicely....and so she remains a "big fish in a small pond"....a place where losers feel comfortable.

If that''s progress then rub me down with a damp flannel.........  

[/quote]

Emm yes, you are sort of right here Cluck, except the inheritance was that the club was stoney broke, had sold every player that anyone else could possibly want and going down the toilet faster than you could say "Leeds United".

[/quote]

and what is your point exactly BigFish???

Please explain to me what has changed at Carrow Road....

Forgive me if I am wrong, but are we still not selling every player that anybody else wants and going down the toilet in a fairly swift manner also?

The only difference between ourselves and Leeds is that we seem to of got stuck in the U-bend!!!

[/quote]

There''s the rub Smudger, 90% of the fans are looking forward optimistically to the season & seeing what the new guys will bring to the party. We are sure that next year will be better than last. The other 10% seem like they really want it all to blow up horribly. They will ignore the fact that it is unargueably a better mood than ten years ago. No one has been (or will be sold) unless they want to go and it is foolish to expect players to stay when they can treble their wages and play in the Premiership. Anyone with any sense who can remember the fire sale of Ward & Newsome just to avoid insolvency knows that. Without a sugar daddy that is as good a place as can be expected.

As NuttyNigel says this is so boring a conversation, it is time for football.

OTBC

[/quote]

Wrong Bigfish......the swell of optimism stated is largely restricted to the "virtual supporters" on this and other club sites....many of whom haven''t seen the club play for years...if ever. Go down to the pub or club locally where less "fantasy fans" dwell and your 90% becomes laughable. It''s far more like 20%.

This forum is NOT a cross section of everyday City fans....it is a peculiar mix of often distant supporters who spend neither time nor money on the real club but like to be involved.  Nothing wrong with that...but don''t for one minute think it is anything other than "virtual"......

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Big Fish (happy in small pond?).

If you and Nutty are bored with this conversation, then why are you both participating and prolonging it?

I''ll tell you why. Both of you are determined to defend the indefensible - whether it be on assignment or through misplaced loyalty.

In all organisations the buck stops at the top. The NCFC board is at the apex of our pyramid.

Your loyalties are displaced, they should belong to our club not the board.

Simple really.

One love.

OTBC

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

More diversion from Cluck. Refusing to answer a good direct question posed by BigFish as it relates to the subject of the thread, Cluck then attacks the optimism that is shared by most Norwich fans I communicate with, whether on this forum or elsewhere. Incidentally Cluck, with respect to "virtual" fans, I would imagine you have to be right there at the top of the list if one was measuring the ratio of posts on this forum versus games attended.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"] Incidentally Cluck, with respect to "virtual" fans, I would imagine you have to be right there at the top of the list if one was measuring the ratio of posts on this forum versus games attended.[/quote]

That''d be 2196/1 then! Plymouth away 23rd September 2006 [;)]

Bly - I am not defending anything. I''m just trying to point out that the strategy of previous boards is no different to this one. The only time it was different, in my time, in my opinion, was when Robert Chase gambled with the future of the club. BUT if you were around at the time you would know that he was convinced we would retain our Premiership status at the first time of asking. Even when it was obvious to me, whilst wearing my thickest pair of green and yellow welding googles, that we weren''t good enough Chase wrote to shareholders stating that with with our remaining fixtures we could still make the play-offs. I have posted so many times that I believe we have been lucky in that Geoffrey Watling,  Arthur South, Robert Chase and Delia Smith were all Norwich fans.

In my earlier post on this thread I gave you the reasons why I believe there is no difference in the strategy of the boards at our club over the last 40 years. I would still welcome your comments on that and still would like to understand what you meant about Attack the Barclay 2nd Half. We have had loads of discussions on here over the last couple of months, I always answer your questions to me and address your points but you always ignore mine and start off again on another thread. Why is that?

 

[BigFish 1,986]

No defence for anything from me, either. The questions remain what the alternative is [:^)], whether this board is acting in any way differently from past/future/other club boards [:S] and why there is this level of poisonous debate around individuals who have the best interests of the club [A].

OTBC

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

As for teh current board, they are opaying teh price for ignoring the fans and not removing teh awful worthington of the last 3 years sooner.  Hiring a completely untried manager has not helped them in their cause.  Hopefully for our sake he will come good.  It hasnt happened yet I mean it looked from the match report that the awful Donkerty and Hooves played yet another 90 minutes - if this continues into the season I can see a  bottom half finish yet again.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Nutty & Big Fish.

If the strategies of previous boards were no different to this one, then how come the results are so different? Or do you posit a new theory of business or sport that delinks strategy from results?

If such a theory were to be presented to the Norwich Business School for examination, I suggest that the proposer would be quickly referred to the relevant unit of the Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital for examination.

The delinking of cause and effect. Wow. That would be more than Einsteinian in magnitude.

And I suppose those with small minds will try to categorise this post as poisonous.

Ah well. C''est la vie.

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

[/quote]

Chase was doing all those things when we were in the premiership CJF - the protests didn''t happen until we had been struggling in this league for nearly a season. They were results driven. As were the protests against South after we were relegated and as were the protests against Watling in the 60''s.

After we won promotion in 2004 some of the loudest critics of the current board now were advocating a statue of Delia. The strategy then was the same, it''s always been the same.

 

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Nutty & Big Fish.

If the strategies of previous boards were no different to this one, then how come the results are so different? Or do you posit a new theory of business or sport that delinks strategy from results?

If such a theory were to be presented to the Norwich Business School for examination, I suggest that the proposer would be quickly referred to the relevant unit of the Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital for examination.

The delinking of cause and effect. Wow. That would be more than Einsteinian in magnitude.

And I suppose those with small minds will try to categorise this post as poisonous.

Ah well. C''est la vie.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Thats football, business strategy means nothing once the team cross the white line. Many fans viewed the team of two years ago as the strongest in the division (they were certainly paid as if they were) but it didn''t perform to expectations.

Please help me, because I really don''t understand what you suggest would be an altenative [:S]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Nutty & Big Fish.

If the strategies of previous boards were no different to this one, then how come the results are so different? Or do you posit a new theory of business or sport that delinks strategy from results?

If such a theory were to be presented to the Norwich Business School for examination, I suggest that the proposer would be quickly referred to the relevant unit of the Norwich and Norfolk University Hospital for examination.

The delinking of cause and effect. Wow. That would be more than Einsteinian in magnitude.

And I suppose those with small minds will try to categorise this post as poisonous.

Ah well. C''est la vie.

OTBC

[/quote]

Now you know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so I''m hoping Big Fish can answer this because I don''t understand a word of it. [*-)][8-)][*-)][8-)]

 

[Stevo 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]

business strategy means nothing once the team cross the white line

[/quote]

No?

Well the ''strategy'' obviously determines which players actually step on to the pitch but perhaps it also has an impact on their mind-set too. When Hucks walks out of the tunnel this season, will he have the same belief that City are genuine promotion candidates? Will he think ''we''re good enough to batter this lot today'' or will he find himself frustrated and wonder ''what if''?

Who knows? Nobody - until the season begins and we find out whether the squad that has been assembled for this year is good enough to challenge and provides some form of return on the fans'' loyalty and financial outlay.

We can but hope

[beelsie 0]

With due respect to all contributors to this thread, IMHO the board that we have at present is managing our very small assets the best way they can. 

Why do you not get the fact that we are on the periphery of a very large pond of wealthy clubs that permeate the centre of football in this country they are wealthy and generally occupy the premiership, in the fact that they have ample funds or they have rich sponsors that are prepared to gamble their personal wealth whatever their losses may be, or would be investors are prepared to buy up a club for it''s asset stripping potential.  Whatever the funds are in NCFC, we remain in debt to the tune of over twenty million.  Some say this is manageable, yes so it maybe, it remains a fact that when in debt to that tune no bank will forward the amount of collateral to by players.  To buy a player that will produce the goods he will be of prem quality, will be ambitious, will want at least £20,000 + per week will cost at least 1.5 million and will demand and negotiate a get out clause in contract to be sold on for that figure ( no profit potential) should he not be in a team that gets promotion.

That is the position that any board coming to NCFC will face, and where policy and principle is decided by players and agents in their favour, so any board whoever they may be are hamstrung with little or no clout other than controlling what small resources are available to them.  There was a point made by YC in another post that we are in modern times with different values and have fans who want success at their price, in their time, and they want it now, but the players want the same things personally whatever the fans feel about it.  Get used to it and remain hopeful and ambitious, but mostly, get lucky.OTBC!!!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

[/quote]

Chase was doing all those things when we were in the premiership CJF - the protests didn''t happen until we had been struggling in this league for nearly a season. They were results driven. As were the protests against South after we were relegated and as were the protests against Watling in the 60''s.

After we won promotion in 2004 some of the loudest critics of the current board now were advocating a statue of Delia. The strategy then was the same, it''s always been the same.

 

[/quote]

I totally disagree Nutty. Until promotion the board barely put a foot wrong in my eyes and i would say that their approach was ambitious considering that in those days we genuinely were hard up as a club. I bought shares and bricks in the South stand for young relations.

Then upon promotion the club embarked on a new infill, new pitch etc. and we were told that, despite a guaranteed £35million over 3 seasons, we couldn`t afford Crouch or Ashton and signed Doherty to play upfront instead. And it has been much the same story ever since. I think that on promotion the board had a strategic decision to make-whether to invest most of the Prem. cash in the team in the hope of further lucrative success, or to take the "safe" option of investing in the infrastructure to create a solid base to build from in the future. They chose the latter, so i think the strategy did change.

I for one am not content to amble along as a nice club (or should that be diversified plc.?) with great facilities putting on a pleasant family spectacle every other week, watching clubs with drive, passion and ambition leave us standing. Even Colchester managed that last season.

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

[/quote]

Chase was doing all those things when we were in the premiership CJF - the protests didn''t happen until we had been struggling in this league for nearly a season. They were results driven. As were the protests against South after we were relegated and as were the protests against Watling in the 60''s.

After we won promotion in 2004 some of the loudest critics of the current board now were advocating a statue of Delia. The strategy then was the same, it''s always been the same.

 

[/quote]

I totally disagree Nutty. Until promotion the board barely put a foot wrong in my eyes and i would say that their approach was ambitious considering that in those days we genuinely were hard up as a club. I bought shares and bricks in the South stand for young relations.

Then upon promotion the club embarked on a new infill, new pitch etc. and we were told that, despite a guaranteed £35million over 3 seasons, we couldn`t afford Crouch or Ashton and signed Doherty to play upfront instead. And it has been much the same story ever since. I think that on promotion the board had a strategic decision to make-whether to invest most of the Prem. cash in the team in the hope of further lucrative success, or to take the "safe" option of investing in the infrastructure to create a solid base to build from in the future. They chose the latter, so i think the strategy did change.

I for one am not content to amble along as a nice club (or should that be diversified plc.?) with great facilities putting on a pleasant family spectacle every other week, watching clubs with drive, passion and ambition leave us standing. Even Colchester managed that last season.

[/quote]

Who are these clubs, Mr Carrow? Seems like most middling Championship clubs are broadly acting the same way. Southampton & West Brom are going through the trauma of selling their stars. Colchester have lost theirs. Palace, Watford, Sheff U & W, Wolves are all shopping in the same pool. Coventry & Lecester arn''t pulling up any trees, Preston sold Nugent........it goes on.

Remember it wasn''t so long ago that the board was getting crucified for not putting a second tier on the South Stand as a sign of lack of ambition. The root of this is we had players who on paper would do the job and didn''t and all the business strategy in the world couldn''t sort that.

Seeing as you brought up Colchester there is a good example of making a little go a long way and shows what is possible if a team is built (from the football side of a club) and if Grant can do that with NCFC''s greater resources we will be OK.

OTBC

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

[/quote]

Chase was doing all those things when we were in the premiership CJF - the protests didn''t happen until we had been struggling in this league for nearly a season. They were results driven. As were the protests against South after we were relegated and as were the protests against Watling in the 60''s.

After we won promotion in 2004 some of the loudest critics of the current board now were advocating a statue of Delia. The strategy then was the same, it''s always been the same.

 

[/quote]

I totally disagree Nutty. Until promotion the board barely put a foot wrong in my eyes and i would say that their approach was ambitious considering that in those days we genuinely were hard up as a club. I bought shares and bricks in the South stand for young relations.

Then upon promotion the club embarked on a new infill, new pitch etc. and we were told that, despite a guaranteed £35million over 3 seasons, we couldn`t afford Crouch or Ashton and signed Doherty to play upfront instead. And it has been much the same story ever since. I think that on promotion the board had a strategic decision to make-whether to invest most of the Prem. cash in the team in the hope of further lucrative success, or to take the "safe" option of investing in the infrastructure to create a solid base to build from in the future. They chose the latter, so i think the strategy did change.

I for one am not content to amble along as a nice club (or should that be diversified plc.?) with great facilities putting on a pleasant family spectacle every other week, watching clubs with drive, passion and ambition leave us standing. Even Colchester managed that last season.

[/quote]

Who are these clubs, Mr Carrow? Seems like most middling Championship clubs are broadly acting the same way. Southampton & West Brom are going through the trauma of selling their stars. Colchester have lost theirs. Palace, Watford, Sheff U & W, Wolves are all shopping in the same pool. Coventry & Lecester arn''t pulling up any trees, Preston sold Nugent........it goes on.

Remember it wasn''t so long ago that the board was getting crucified for not putting a second tier on the South Stand as a sign of lack of ambition. The root of this is we had players who on paper would do the job and didn''t and all the business strategy in the world couldn''t sort that.

Seeing as you brought up Colchester there is a good example of making a little go a long way and shows what is possible if a team is built (from the football side of a club) and if Grant can do that with NCFC''s greater resources we will be OK.

OTBC

[/quote]

 

Am i missing something? Wolves,leicester-takeover by ambitious forigen investors spending money, Preston beat off clubs for Nugent for 3 seasons before finally having no choice but to sell, watford, charlton,sheff utd all came down and spending money-something our board failed to do when we came down,coventry and sheff wed active in transfer market. Fair enough saints have sold a few but thats down to problems with there board, no different to those that we have. i dont get your point...sorry not being rude.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Most of those clubs have shown more drive and ambition than us in recent years and have been more successful as a result. If things continue as they are we will see more of the same.

"The root of this is we had players who on paper would do the job and didn`t". If you seriously believe this then there is little point in debating. Since relegation we have had a handful of very good players (Hucks, Ashton, Earnie, Green) and lots who were average Championship players at very best (Jarrett, Hughes, Doherty, Colin, Thorne, Robinson) with virtually no cover for the inevitable injuries you pick up in this tough league.

It`s why Huckerby has criticised the clubs ambition several times and the team captain called the squad "ridiculously small",remember?

[ricardo 7,348]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

 the protests against Chase in the 90''s. It''s all results driven. Poor results/league position = protest, end of.

[/quote]

But surely the protests against Chase were deserved, as it was found he had wasted so much money and almost sent the club to the wall??

[/quote]

Chase was doing all those things when we were in the premiership CJF - the protests didn''t happen until we had been struggling in this league for nearly a season. They were results driven. As were the protests against South after we were relegated and as were the protests against Watling in the 60''s.

After we won promotion in 2004 some of the loudest critics of the current board now were advocating a statue of Delia. The strategy then was the same, it''s always been the same.

 

[/quote]

I totally disagree Nutty. Until promotion the board barely put a foot wrong in my eyes and i would say that their approach was ambitious considering that in those days we genuinely were hard up as a club. I bought shares and bricks in the South stand for young relations.

Then upon promotion the club embarked on a new infill, new pitch etc. and we were told that, despite a guaranteed £35million over 3 seasons, we couldn`t afford Crouch or Ashton and signed Doherty to play upfront instead. And it has been much the same story ever since. I think that on promotion the board had a strategic decision to make-whether to invest most of the Prem. cash in the team in the hope of further lucrative success, or to take the "safe" option of investing in the infrastructure to create a solid base to build from in the future. They chose the latter, so i think the strategy did change.

I for one am not content to amble along as a nice club (or should that be diversified plc.?) with great facilities putting on a pleasant family spectacle every other week, watching clubs with drive, passion and ambition leave us standing. Even Colchester managed that last season.

[/quote]

I don''t think the strategy changed, Mr. Carrow. The strategy all along was to emulate Charlton Athletic. They were catious during their first season in the Prem and got relegated but came back stronger the next year.

Where it all came unstuck for us was the inability to use the parachute payments as a springboard for an immediate return. Therefore the whole strategy that they had relied on was blown out of the water.

The situation has progessively become more difficult and will continue to deteriorate with time. The only workable strategy that I can see is "Find someone with deep pockets".

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Yes, i think you are largely right Ricardo. It may suprise some on here but i was a staunch supporter of the boards strategy even after we inexplicably failed to replace Iwan when Crouch and Ashton were available for bargain fees. I was absolutely sure we would follow the Charlton model and most of the parachute money would be spent on the team- and that it was a given that any money recieved in transfers would be re-invested. When we sold Jonsson and Francis for £3million i was sure a bid for Sidwell was imminent. We spent £500k on Hughes and Jarrett. I was sure that when Ashton went for £7.5million the gaping holes in the side would be filled using the remainder after the £3million on Earnshaw. Nope.

I don`t think Charlton ever got into the situation where they spent so much off the pitch that they couldn`t afford to run a competitive team on it, so somewhere along the line the board got it very,very wrong.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][

I totally disagree Nutty. Until promotion the board barely put a foot wrong in my eyes and i would say that their approach was ambitious considering that in those days we genuinely were hard up as a club. I bought shares and bricks in the South stand for young relations.

Then upon promotion the club embarked on a new infill, new pitch etc. and we were told that, despite a guaranteed £35million over 3 seasons, we couldn`t afford Crouch or Ashton and signed Doherty to play upfront instead. And it has been much the same story ever since. I think that on promotion the board had a strategic decision to make-whether to invest most of the Prem. cash in the team in the hope of further lucrative success, or to take the "safe" option of investing in the infrastructure to create a solid base to build from in the future. They chose the latter, so i think the strategy did change.

I for one am not content to amble along as a nice club (or should that be diversified plc.?) with great facilities putting on a pleasant family spectacle every other week, watching clubs with drive, passion and ambition leave us standing. Even Colchester managed that last season.

[/quote]

Nice one! [Y]Mr Carrow''s in the house, my favourite accounts expert [8-|][*] Respect sir! Now I could be tempted to talk about the bored[|-)] for a little longer [O]

Yes there have been times over the last 40 years when the various boards have appeared to show a bit more ambition, like the current lot making things happen in 2003, but they are always short lived. In the end we always sell our players and never spend as much replacing them. Now you and I have discussed at length the performance of the board in the various transfer windows since promotion in 2004 and our views are not a million miles apart. I agree that in each window it appeared Worthy never got the backing to sign his A list targets. Now where I always blamed the board for this I now find myself rethinking my position. Having digested what Sam Allardyce had to say about transfer windows and witnessing what has happened here in the two windows since Grant has been manager I now view the previous windows differently. I still believe the board didnt make enough funds available to have any chance of getting Worthy''s A list, but Worthy and Livermore didn''t make enough effort to bombard the board with alternatives in the same way it appears Grant and Gunn have. Consequently we eneded up with panic type buys with stupid clauses in their contracts or nothing at all. Last summer only Croft?!?!

Mr. Carrow, you know I agree that we should have signed Dean Ashton in the summer rather than the January and I also believe that if we had we would have turned enough of those early season draws into wins to have stayed up comfortably. Those with longer memories than just Fulham will remember early season games where we could have won if we had already signed Ashton. Palace(H), Spurs(A), Villa(H), WBA(A), Blackburn(H) readily spring to mind.

But the board did at least make some effort that summer to invest in players upon promotion to the top tier and thats more than happened in those benchmarking days in the 70''s. And that''s the whole point I was trying to make in this thread. Upon promotion to the top tier in 1972 we spent nothing, nada, zilch, zip, diddlysquat, sweet fanny adams, cluck all. We really did go with what we had! We didn''t sign a player until nearly the March when we hadn''t won a game since mid Novemeber. Even then we sold Jim Bone in order to bring in Hockey, Mellor and Suggett. The point I was trying to make on this thread was not one in defence of the current board but more that using strategies of past boards would make no difference.

Nice to chat again Mr. Carrow [:-*][Y] Always a pleasure sir, never a chore![;)]

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Thanks for that Nutty. That was such a nice post that i`ve had to take a break from leafing through my vast stack of accounts to reply......[;)]

I hope it doesn`t disapoint you but i can`t really disagree with any of that. I probably misunderstood what you meant about the strategy staying much the same, and i take your point that if you look over a longer time-frame that is probably correct. I suppose the only point to make is that none of the previous regimes have had the amount of money pouring into the club that the current lot have. The club like to spin it that they haven`t been awash with cash, but the truth is turnover more than tripled in the Prem season and was about double the norm the season after. The costs of the football side did not rise by anywhere near the same factor and of course we have actually made a big profit on transfers since relegation. As i have said before, if the money had not been there the lack of ambition would have been perfectly understandable and reasonable. I think they have clearly had "other priorities" and i support Smudger, Cluck, Arthur Whittle etc. because i think the pressure on the board to pull their finger out can only be a good thing.

Worthington often said that he wouldn`t spend money on players who were no better than what we had, and i have to say that in hindsight i almost think that he had pretty much given up and was waiting for his pay-off. He certainly wasn`t blameless but at the end of the day there are only so many rabbits you can pull out of the hat for a few £100k apiece. When he was given decent money to spend he bought well. Most of the wastes of space were cheap or free but then what can you expect?

By the way, it could be that the board have scored a few points with the planning application success announced today. I might be wrong but i seem to remember an article a while back suggesting that the remaining land could be a good money-spinner for the club if the right planning permission was granted. I hope so, but i hope you`ll agree that we need to spend the money on the team-rather than more infrastructure projects for us to argue about!

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Thanks for that Nutty. That was such a nice post that i`ve had to take a break from leafing through my vast stack of accounts to reply......[;)]

I hope it doesn`t disapoint you but i can`t really disagree with any of that. I probably misunderstood what you meant about the strategy staying much the same, and i take your point that if you look over a longer time-frame that is probably correct. I suppose the only point to make is that none of the previous regimes have had the amount of money pouring into the club that the current lot have. The club like to spin it that they haven`t been awash with cash, but the truth is turnover more than tripled in the Prem season and was about double the norm the season after. The costs of the football side did not rise by anywhere near the same factor and of course we have actually made a big profit on transfers since relegation. As i have said before, if the money had not been there the lack of ambition would have been perfectly understandable and reasonable. I think they have clearly had "other priorities" and i support Smudger, Cluck, Arthur Whittle etc. because i think the pressure on the board to pull their finger out can only be a good thing.

Worthington often said that he wouldn`t spend money on players who were no better than what we had, and i have to say that in hindsight i almost think that he had pretty much given up and was waiting for his pay-off. He certainly wasn`t blameless but at the end of the day there are only so many rabbits you can pull out of the hat for a few £100k apiece. When he was given decent money to spend he bought well. Most of the wastes of space were cheap or free but then what can you expect?

By the way, it could be that the board have scored a few points with the planning application success announced today. I might be wrong but i seem to remember an article a while back suggesting that the remaining land could be a good money-spinner for the club if the right planning permission was granted. I hope so, but i hope you`ll agree that we need to spend the money on the team-rather than more infrastructure projects for us to argue about!

[/quote]

Ahhhh.....harmony ensues & another new(or second time around) player arrives.

Probably more agreement here than we deserve![:D]