Full credit to Glenn, his staff and the players

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

One thing is for certain is that if the board have woken up to the flawed approach of the last few years it will more down to the pressure applied by the "anti`s" than the apologists who have tried to intimidate, shout down and shut them up. They should be ashamed.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow, time and time again you produce excellent, well reasoned arguments that I find myself nodding in agreement to only to ruin it at the end with nonsense such as this. There is no ''How To Be A True Fan'' manual out there, we''re all just muddling along and sharing our opinions with fellow fans. Please stop taking yourself so seriously, you''re just alienating people who agree with the majority of your argument.

[/quote]

Shack, there is a line of thinking among some City fans that to question or criticise anything to do with the club is being disloyal. Therefore any problems or issues around the club are to be swept under the carpet and any dissenters are to be rounded upon. This has been my experience on here and around the ground on matchdays and friends have encountered such attitudes at the AGMs. My point is that blind support is never a good thing. How can problems be solved if no-one acknowledges they exist?

[albyella 0]

[quote user="25overpar"][quote user="albyella"]

Just being Devil''s Advocate here, but how do we KNOW what funds are available for GR (and PG previously??). Taylor looks as though he may be available to sign, we know GR is going to talk to him this week and he wouldnt be doing that if there was nothing in the kitty. Come January, we will have a clearer picture about this. Ok, the "prudence" thing stuck in the throat a bit, especially at a time when things were decidedly shaky, but actually that is business - no-one can assume inverstors will be queueing up to put their money in.

Up until that fateful day against Fulham, we had experienced a few decent years (getting to play-off at Cardiff, then promotion as champions) and the board was never really under scrutiny. For me their failing was keeping Worthy too long and appointing PG, who turned out to be a disaster - but possibly they have redeemed themselves in the GR appointment, AND allowing him to pick his back-room staff.

I was very disenchanted by the board''s perceived lack of ambition, but for me they have shown that they can be ambitious (maybe the feelings of the supporters got the nessage accross, and if they have learnt from that, then all well and good) - and if they carry on with putting their faith in GR and they do allow him some funds to build on, then let''s not disrupt the club at a time of re-surgency.

I was so upbeat after the Shef U game, and if we continue to play "football" and show the same spirit to play, then the board can do no more (and nor could any other board)....

[/quote]

I agree 100% with everything you have said Albyella.

No doubt there will be attempts made by GR to bring in players during the Jan transfer window that will fall through because the player will not want to come, not because the board are unwilling to pay the price.  However, because the board cannot make such details public, they will undoubtedly have to silently endure the accusations that it was their fault.

We all know, including the board that they have made a number of mistakes, but if they provide the money in January to fully support GR, what else can they do to make amends?

If this is what transpires, then I for one would, in the interests of fairness be happy to see them stay.

I suspect I will now be accused of being a board member and it is likely I will incur the wrath of Arthur too.      

[/quote]

You and me both 25OP, but compared to the wrath of my wife, that''s nothing.....

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

What it illustrates is that if you show a bit of ambition then it is often rewarded. A lot of us will be looking very closely at what happens in January, because past experience shows that, a couple of more wins and  the board will leave Roeder high and dry as they will believe we are safely on course for 17th or 18th and they, unlike us, will be quite happy with that.

 [/quote]

Leeds, Wolves, .......... you really cant see it?Would you please detail the "past experience" that shows Roeder will be left high and dry? I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld available funds. If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the coaching staff for that.So which is it? They are sitting on money they wont let the manager use or they''ve tossed it on dross like Hughes and Doherty

[benjamin james 0]

Ooooh Albyella... you look fantastic, can we meet?

Well done to the board for choosing Glen Roeder as manager. We are not out of the woods until we hit the magic 55 points, but the board hired someone who can and already has made a difference.

The tide is turning and I like this forums new found positivity... hooray!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="T07"]........and the board.
[/quote]

You mean ............and Andrew Turner.

Roeder was appointed at his insistence.

And you know it.

OTBC

[/quote]

You have evidence for this? Or is it just your opinion.

[/quote]

Obviously Ron, mate, obviously!

[:)]

OTBC

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contributef not dont waste my time.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="ellis206"]What are you on about, lets have a look at some of the facts and figures,
Huckerby 750k
Svensson 750k if i remember rightly
Mckenzie 200k??
Jonsson 500k
Ashton 3m
Doherty 1m
Charlton i can''t remember how much
David Marshall 1m
Lappin and fotheringham i think was about 200k in total
Earnshaw 3.5m
Russel 500k
Cureton 750k
And thats to name but a few of the signings in the last 5 years, oh and at one point we were commanding the highest wages budget in the league, oh and we have a nice new lovely stand, so how haven''t the board put there money where there mouth is? those players above have totalled just over 12million pounds between them, i`m sure you''ll be hard pushed to find other championship clubs that have spent more than that. You lot are muppets why can''t you understand that we don''t have a lot of money, but at least we are stable unlike a lot of other clubs, do you really want us to "Show ambition" and spend 10 million on players who then might not even get us up, and then Norwich city Football club goes into administration??? you want us to do a Leeds?
[/quote]

12 million, well lets take the Ashton and Earnshaw Receipts - 7.5 + 3.5 = 11 million, add an Etuhu, thats 12.5 million.  And forget every other player sold over the last 5 years.

 

What is doing a leeds by the way?  They certainly seem to be still around playing football, doing fairly well this year.  They still seem to be signing players.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"][quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

What it illustrates is that if you show a bit of ambition then it is often rewarded. A lot of us will be looking very closely at what happens in January, because past experience shows that, a couple of more wins and  the board will leave Roeder high and dry as they will believe we are safely on course for 17th or 18th and they, unlike us, will be quite happy with that.

 [/quote]

Leeds, Wolves, .......... you really cant see it?

Would you please detail the "past experience" that shows Roeder will be left high and dry? I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld available funds. If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the coaching staff for that.

So which is it? They are sitting on money they wont let the manager use or they''ve tossed it on dross like Hughes and Doherty
[/quote]

Attack - Try Bruce Rioch as evidence. He left the club when we were doing reasonably well, citing ''lack of ambition'' as his reason. It later transpired that the board wanted to cash in on Bellamy rather than build up a team around the kid. That, I suggest is an example of leaving the manager ''high & dry''.

They''ve done it before, the meaningful question is, will they do it again?

YH

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

One thing is for certain is that if the board have woken up to the flawed approach of the last few years it will more down to the pressure applied by the "anti`s" than the apologists who have tried to intimidate, shout down and shut them up. They should be ashamed.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow, time and time again you produce excellent, well reasoned arguments that I find myself nodding in agreement to only to ruin it at the end with nonsense such as this. There is no ''How To Be A True Fan'' manual out there, we''re all just muddling along and sharing our opinions with fellow fans. Please stop taking yourself so seriously, you''re just alienating people who agree with the majority of your argument.

[/quote]

Shack, there is a line of thinking among some City fans that to question or criticise anything to do with the club is being disloyal. Therefore any problems or issues around the club are to be swept under the carpet and any dissenters are to be rounded upon. This has been my experience on here and around the ground on matchdays and friends have encountered such attitudes at the AGMs. My point is that blind support is never a good thing. How can problems be solved if no-one acknowledges they exist?

[/quote]

Agree 100% with Mr. Carrow. Rural folk tend to be far too deferential to authority figures. So much that at the AGM, Doncaster, I think it was, said they could hold the AGM in London if they so wanted to. I don''t know why they treat supporters in such a patronising manner.

The board have been pushed onto the defensive because of the amount of criticism levelled at them; starting with well-argued posts on this and other message boards, which in turn galvanised other fans to write letters to the local newspapers and send emails to the CEO.

It was fans on message boards who made all the running in the Peter Cullum affair who flushed out a response to the press while the board sat on their hands.

And the groundswell of opinion even provoked local MPs to comment on the dire situation at Carrow Road. In the end the bord were forced into action as a result of fan pressure. So yes, we can make a difference if we try.

BTW, congratulations to Glen, the players, and the fans for doing their part in getting us out of the bottom three. Will the board now do their part in backing the manager over building the squad? Only time will tell, but thank goodness their are people like Mr. Carrow and others who are prepared to speak out.

[T 190]

and who appointed Roeder, and who has contributed finance to funding the loans?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="T"]and who appointed Roeder, and who has contributed finance to funding the loans?[/quote]

Andrew Turner.

And you know it.

Thanks Andrew & wifey.

OTBC

 

 

[ron obvious 0]

[quote user="T"]and who appointed Roeder, and who has contributed finance to funding the loans?[/quote]

The Turners.

According to Bly. Who apparently has inside information. I believe it''s from a giant talking rabbit, name of Frank  ...

[7rew 0]

Reply to Arthur above.Pot and Kettle in racist incident shock!   As to a serious comment, surely if the board are to be criticised for their mistakes they must be allowed to recieve praise when they do something right.  They appointed Roeder (good) and backed him with loan signings (good), they also appointed Grant (bad), gave him money to make 9 signings of variable quality (good) accepted some silly contract clauses in deals made by Worthington (bad) and kept Worthy too long (bad). etc etc....They do deserve the credit for making the good choices as well as the blame for the bad ones.  It isn''t, as some seem to believe, that they only make bad choices and good things happen inspite of them.  The blame for what has gone wrong can only be entirely theirs if the credit is as well.  Similarly if they were not to be blamed for the state of the club, then they would not be to credit for the turnaround in fortunes that we have seen recently.

[Bigmarkcanary 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]

since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!

(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)
[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contributef not dont waste my time.

[/quote]

That''s just so typical of you Arthur, that really is. All 7rew did was merely point out a basic error that you made with regards to figures. We''ve all made errors like that from time to time, but why do you always feel the need to come out and just slag other posters off when it''s actually you that''s made a mistake in the first place, by calling their posts pointless and pathetic and accusing them of being childish as well as being up their own @rse?

7rew does have a good point. If you''re gonna argue on figures, then do it properly. Otherwise, you risk losing any credibility that you have on this forum.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]

since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!

(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)
[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contributef not dont waste my time.

[/quote]

That''s just so typical of you Arthur, that really is. All 7rew did was merely point out a basic error that you made with regards to figures. We''ve all made errors like that from time to time, but why do you always feel the need to come out and just slag other posters off when it''s actually you that''s made a mistake in the first place, by calling their posts pointless and pathetic and accusing them of being childish as well as being up their own @rse?

7rew does have a good point. If you''re gonna argue on figures, then do it properly. Otherwise, you risk losing any credibility that you have on this forum.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to preach to me? Rather a hypercitical comment coming from you eh?

As for 7rew i found his responce cleared the matter up hence why i felt no need to reply till you had to stick your oar in yet again.

[T 190]

BBB - suspect you are right but that is just speculation. Ron Obvious - :-), 7rew sums up my views well

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Attack Barclay"] I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity

to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld

available funds.  If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals

that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the

coaching staff for that.[/quote]Although it was quite a while back, Roger Munby said that he thought that Luton were asking too much for ( a then 30 year old ) Steve Howard when Worthington wanted him.  He said that we could have afforded him, but the board chose not to authorise the deal.  I think it was because he was deemed to be too old.Steve Howard went on to be Derbys'' player of the year last season, and Derby got promoted.  Whether he would have made for a good striker partner for Earnshaw we won''t know, oddly they''re both at Derby now, and Earnshaw isn''t getting a look in despite being their record signing.  Earnshaws'' replacement was 32 year old Jamie Cureton.Last season, we also spent about 1.5 million less than the average for the league on player wages.  Was that the coaching staffs'' fault too ?

[T 190]

BBB - suspect you are right but that is just speculation. Ron Obvious - :-), 7rew sums up my views well

[Bigmarkcanary 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]

since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!

(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)
[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contributef not dont waste my time.

[/quote]

That''s just so typical of you Arthur, that really is. All 7rew did was merely point out a basic error that you made with regards to figures. We''ve all made errors like that from time to time, but why do you always feel the need to come out and just slag other posters off when it''s actually you that''s made a mistake in the first place, by calling their posts pointless and pathetic and accusing them of being childish as well as being up their own @rse?

7rew does have a good point. If you''re gonna argue on figures, then do it properly. Otherwise, you risk losing any credibility that you have on this forum.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to preach to me? Rather a hypercitical comment coming from you eh?

As for 7rew i found his responce cleared the matter up hence why i felt no need to reply till you had to stick your oar in yet again.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to hurl insults at other people on here when you''ve been proved wrong on something?

As for a hypocritical comment, I don''t think so otherwise I wouldn''t have posted it.

Yes, I notice you haven''t replied to 7rew - is it because you can''t argue and hurl another insult with his response??

[Mello Yello 2,298]

[quote user="T"]and who appointed Roeder, and who has contributed finance to funding the loans?[/quote]

Roeder was only appointed (fortunately) from a cast of ''many quality applicants'' as our managerial replacement, because the board appointed Mr Grant and, ''in hindsight'' he just wasn''t up to the job.

The 20,000+ regular supporters who ''regularly'' contribute major finance (as a major majority) in season tickets, membership, merchandise, refreshments etc, also assist in funding the loans.......Now, which minority group, spends all this luvverly finance - on what they perceive is best for the club - and yet what the regular major majority financing fans would prefer being spent on an improvement in playing staff. 

In relation to what my income was/is.......and what my (and many other die-hard fans) personal sacrifice and financial contributions to NCFC have been, in those many years of our regular and personal attendance. I just think, we may have contributed and personally sacrificed just as much in relation, to what the folk who reside on the NCFC board - and whose incomes, personal finance and assets - greatly exceed ours.

The club can''t live by ''board'' or fans alone........even if they do chuck a few million in. But then again, I''m not entirely responsible for creating 18 million of ''manageable'' debt....am I?

  

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]

since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!

(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)
[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contribute not don''t waste my time.

[/quote]

That''s just so typical of you Arthur, that really is. All 7rew did was merely point out a basic error that you made with regards to figures. We''ve all made errors like that from time to time, but why do you always feel the need to come out and just slag other posters off when it''s actually you that''s made a mistake in the first place, by calling their posts pointless and pathetic and accusing them of being childish as well as being up their own @rse?

7rew does have a good point. If you''re gonna argue on figures, then do it properly. Otherwise, you risk losing any credibility that you have on this forum.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to preach to me? Rather a hypercitical comment coming from you eh?

As for 7rew i found his responce cleared the matter up hence why i felt no need to reply till you had to stick your oar in yet again.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to hurl insults at other people on here when you''ve been proved wrong on something?

As for a hypocritical comment, I don''t think so otherwise I wouldn''t have posted it.

Yes, I notice you haven''t replied to 7rew - is it because you can''t argue and hurl another insult with his response??

[/quote]

Hurling insults?? If you had to put up with some of the pathetic insults about grammar and spelling i ve had to, you would get peed off. All 7rew and yourself had to do is mention about the mistake and than carry on the debate in hand. The fact neither of you did in your original replies suggests to me you are making mischief, please don''t try and say otherwise because its pretty plain to see where im standing. Now back to the debating if you please.

[Infamy, Infamy 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Hurling insults?? If you had to put up with some of the pathetic insults about grammar and spelling i ve had to, you would get peed off. All 7rew and yourself had to do is mention about the mistake and than carry on the debate in hand. The fact neither of you did in your original replies suggests to me you are making mischief, please don''t try and say otherwise because its pretty plain to see where im standing. Now back to the debating if you please.

[/quote]

That''s I''ve, Arthur[:)]

[First Jedi 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]The fact neither of you did in your original replies suggests to me you are making mischief, please don''t try and say otherwise because its pretty plain to see where im standing. [/quote]

You were the one throwing insults around, simply because they pointed out a mistake you made - which they did, more than politely - he then responded to your name calling and insult throwing, which isn''t suprising, because of the tirade you aimed at him - you might be old, Arthur, but you obviously still need to grow up.

[Bigmarkcanary 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ashton 7.5 million to west ham

Earnshaw 3.5 million to Derby

Im sure its not been lost on you that two players have been sold for 12 million

[/quote]

since when is 7.5+3.5=12 exactly?  if you are going to argue on figures, at least do it properly!

(sorry everyone else but this is my pet hate of the spelling/grammar variety)
[/quote]

What a pointless and pathetic post. I bet your weekends are fun? Now if you can manage to crawl out of your backside and maybe understand the point im making and comment on the thread for what it is instead of making a childish attempt to poke fun.Why such silly posts get through the Mods is beyond me, i can only imagine they missed this? So 7rew please feel free to contribute not don''t waste my time.

[/quote]

That''s just so typical of you Arthur, that really is. All 7rew did was merely point out a basic error that you made with regards to figures. We''ve all made errors like that from time to time, but why do you always feel the need to come out and just slag other posters off when it''s actually you that''s made a mistake in the first place, by calling their posts pointless and pathetic and accusing them of being childish as well as being up their own @rse?

7rew does have a good point. If you''re gonna argue on figures, then do it properly. Otherwise, you risk losing any credibility that you have on this forum.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to preach to me? Rather a hypercitical comment coming from you eh?

As for 7rew i found his responce cleared the matter up hence why i felt no need to reply till you had to stick your oar in yet again.

[/quote]

And what gives you the right to hurl insults at other people on here when you''ve been proved wrong on something?

As for a hypocritical comment, I don''t think so otherwise I wouldn''t have posted it.

Yes, I notice you haven''t replied to 7rew - is it because you can''t argue and hurl another insult with his response??

[/quote]

Hurling insults?? If you had to put up with some of the pathetic insults about grammar and spelling i ve had to, you would get peed off. All 7rew and yourself had to do is mention about the mistake and than carry on the debate in hand. The fact neither of you did in your original replies suggests to me you are making mischief, please don''t try and say otherwise because its pretty plain to see where im standing. Now back to the debating if you please.

[/quote]

Sorry Arthur, you''ve confused me, what debate would you like to debate? The actual topic, as in Full credit to Glenn, his staff and the players? Yet another one about the board? Figures, or player sales maybe? [*-)]

Feel free to pick any one of those, as the thread has gone so far off-topic now anyway that I''m not sure it really matters.

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Attack Barclay"] I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity

to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld

available funds.  If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals

that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the

coaching staff for that.[/quote]Although it was quite a while back, Roger Munby said that he thought that Luton were asking too much for ( a then 30 year old ) Steve Howard when Worthington wanted him.  He said that we could have afforded him, but the board chose not to authorise the deal.  I think it was because he was deemed to be too old.Steve Howard went on to be Derbys'' player of the year last season, and Derby got promoted.  Whether he would have made for a good striker partner for Earnshaw we won''t know, oddly they''re both at Derby now, and Earnshaw isn''t getting a look in despite being their record signing.  Earnshaws'' replacement was 32 year old Jamie Cureton.Last season, we also spent about 1.5 million less than the average for the league on player wages.  Was that the coaching staffs'' fault too ?[/quote] As with any transfer the Board, IN CONJUCTION WITH THE PLAYING STAFF, will ''value'' a player. If the player cannot be obtained for the agreed price we walk away. This is good business.I''d say at the time the signing of Cureton was smart move, £600k rising to £750 (unlikely now!) for the leagues leading scorer.....Good BusinessI dont have any wage figures to hand, but are you suggesting if we''d paid our players more they would have played better? LOL. Or maybe you are suggesting we should have signed players who were demanding bigger wages? Or just signed more players? If your figures are correct then I think the board did well telling the agents where to get off and keeping our money instead of throwing it at players wallets. Good business, thanks for pointing it out....

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Attack Barclay"] I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld available funds.  If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the coaching staff for that.[/quote]

Although it was quite a while back, Roger Munby said that he thought that Luton were asking too much for ( a then 30 year old ) Steve Howard when Worthington wanted him.  He said that we could have afforded him, but the board chose not to authorise the deal.  I think it was because he was deemed to be too old.

Steve Howard went on to be Derbys'' player of the year last season, and Derby got promoted.  Whether he would have made for a good striker partner for Earnshaw we won''t know, oddly they''re both at Derby now, and Earnshaw isn''t getting a look in despite being their record signing.  Earnshaws'' replacement was 32 year old Jamie Cureton.

Last season, we also spent about 1.5 million less than the average for the league on player wages.  Was that the coaching staffs'' fault too ?
[/quote]

 As with any transfer the Board, IN CONJUCTION WITH THE PLAYING STAFF, will ''value'' a player. If the player cannot be obtained for the agreed price we walk away. This is good business.

I''d say at the time the signing of Cureton was smart move, £600k rising to £750 (unlikely now!) for the leagues leading scorer.....Good Business

I dont have any wage figures to hand, but are you suggesting if we''d paid our players more they would have played better? LOL. Or maybe you are suggesting we should have signed players who were demanding bigger wages? Or just signed more players? If your figures are correct then I think the board did well telling the agents where to get off and keeping our money instead of throwing it at players wallets. Good business, thanks for pointing it out....
[/quote]

The playing staff FFS............? Wow, I mean, FFS.

You have the inside track then do you FFS?

Do they vote FFS- or proceed by consensus FFS?

And who has the final word FFS?

One love.

OTBC

 

 

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="T"]and who is getting us out of it? If it is reasonable to criticise the board for mistakes then it is only reasonable by the same token to give them credit for appointing Roeder, an appointment for which the majority of us on here were not that excited about to say the least. Likewise whilst Roeder, got the loans in, the directors have made the funds available. Still a very long way to go but any balanced and objective view should cut both ways.[/quote]

I have to agree with you here T. It seems it''s very easy for some people on here to only notice the mistakes the board makes, yet as soon as they do something worthy of credit and a thumbs up, it convieniently goes unnoticed. I like reading everyones opinions on here, pro board and anti board, but credit where credits due...The board have done good recently imho. And if Glenn Roeder is having a go at attracting Tiny here permanantly then that suggests to me that the board are willing to splash some cash come January, as just the Taylor transfer for a start wouldn''t be completed for less than £1million surely? (IF he decides to come here).

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]

I dont have any wage figures to hand, but are you suggesting if we''d paid our players more they would have played better? LOL.
[/quote]

I''d suggest that a significant bonus for winning games miht have motivated the players a little bit more over the past few seasons. If it was hurting them in their pockets perhaps they would have tried a little harder?

I think it was Dave Stringer who recently said that the Ron Saunder''s teams were on good win bonuses, way-back-when. Like to see this policy re-instated.

YH

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Attack Barclay"] I fail to see any evidence where the board have had the opportunity to make a siging that would have made a difference and witheld available funds.  If anythrying they have been guilty of trying TOO hard, approving deals that proved to be a total waste of money, you have to blame the coaching staff for that.[/quote]

Although it was quite a while back, Roger Munby said that he thought that Luton were asking too much for ( a then 30 year old ) Steve Howard when Worthington wanted him.  He said that we could have afforded him, but the board chose not to authorise the deal.  I think it was because he was deemed to be too old.

Steve Howard went on to be Derbys'' player of the year last season, and Derby got promoted.  Whether he would have made for a good striker partner for Earnshaw we won''t know, oddly they''re both at Derby now, and Earnshaw isn''t getting a look in despite being their record signing.  Earnshaws'' replacement was 32 year old Jamie Cureton.

Last season, we also spent about 1.5 million less than the average for the league on player wages.  Was that the coaching staffs'' fault too ?
[/quote]

 As with any transfer the Board, IN CONJUCTION WITH THE PLAYING STAFF, will ''value'' a player. If the player cannot be obtained for the agreed price we walk away. This is good business.

I''d say at the time the signing of Cureton was smart move, £600k rising to £750 (unlikely now!) for the leagues leading scorer.....Good Business

I dont have any wage figures to hand, but are you suggesting if we''d paid our players more they would have played better? LOL. Or maybe you are suggesting we should have signed players who were demanding bigger wages? Or just signed more players? If your figures are correct then I think the board did well telling the agents where to get off and keeping our money instead of throwing it at players wallets. Good business, thanks for pointing it out....
[/quote]

Sorry but I cannot agree with that at all.  It was not good business to walk away from the Howard transfer.  He was the player our manager wanted and was top of his list.  From all the qoutes at the time it was clear that Worthington would have paid the money had it been his choice.  Howard scored 16 league goals last year and would most probably have made an excellent partner for Earnshaw.  I don''t think he was worth £1m but I would have paid it because even if he had got us to the play-offs it would have been worth it.  The only reason we wouldn''t pay the money is for non-football reasons in that the board were worried we could not make our money back on him if we needed.  What''s worth more though, a year in the Prem or making a few 100k on Earnshaw.

Secondly Cureton was not a smart move, it was a tactic of placation.  Earnshaw was sold and a few hours later a well liked former player is signed.  Does that not seem odd to you.  I''m not saying I didn''t want him but the way he was signed was so see through and we paid too much because we were desperate.  If Howard was too expensive at £1m at the age of 30, then Cureton at 31 with only one good season in this league was too expensive.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="FFS"]I dont have any wage figures to hand, but are you suggesting if we''d paid our players more they would have played better? LOL. [/quote]

Not at all, I''m suggesting that the clubs with the higher wage bills tend to sit at the top of this league.  The Deloitte reports would no doubt back me up in this assertion.  They buy the best available talent in, or they hold onto their best players, or they bring more players of quality in than other squads can, giving them the strength in depth to cope with injuries.  Until somebody does a Billy Beane / Moneyball trick in football, using underlying stats to understand the game in a scientific manner to buck the money trend, I''d expect the trend to continue, with the occasional exception of teams like Bristol City.  Scunthorpe are already feeling the pull of gravity towards the bottom of the league, for example.

I would suggest that over the last 3 seasons we haven''t had the strength in depth neccesary to compete at the top level in this league.  The business / football balance has been pushed too far in favour of business, and this, coupled with the risky appointment (with hindsight) of Peter grant, has bitten the club in the bum.  At the risk of sounding like Mr. Carrow, to not attempt to spend competitively in this league, when the rewards for promotion are as stupidly high as they are, and when our turnover was in the top 5 of this league, was bad business. 

I respect the boards'' attempts to create independence from TV money.  Sadly, TV money inflation is in danger of making their efforts meaningless.

In the games I''ve been to this season, we''ve attacked the Barclay in the 2nd half.  I hope this pleases you [:)]