My thoughts on the board

[Big Down Under 0]

I''ve been defending the board on some posts, before people accuse me of blindly supporting them I thought I would post this to show what I fully think. I originally posted it on WOTB, but have made a couple of changes. I think the board have made 4 big errors in the last few years;1. Employing Peter Grant. With the state of the squad at the time, we

needed an experienced head to re-build. It was not the time for

gambling on an unproven manager, and the gamble back-fired badly.

2. Mis-reading the future of football economics. I remember Delia

saying in our promotion year that she thought the bubble would soon

burst on football economics, how wrong was she. Since then we have had

even more foreign investment, a new TV rights deal that has almost

doubled the money going into the Premiership, and the Championship

starting to get speculative investment. The result being prices are way

higher than they anticipated for even journeymen players, and we are

enduring a relegation scrap.

3. Investing too much in the club infrastructure and not enough in the

team. I think they got the balance wrong, but its a more difficult

balance to get right than most realise. Given how close the club was to

bankruptcy, and how much money was wiped off from the ITV Digital

collapse, who can really blame them for investing in alternative

methods of generating income. Bear in mind that player prices have

risen considerably because of point 2, then the error is compounded. We

should also remember that a lot of the money HAD to be spent, we needed

a new pitch and press facilities for the Premiership (not through

choice, we had to spend the money), and the South Stand needed

replacing. Also, how many clubs DON''T invest in corporate

hospitality/restaurants/hotels these days? Did they get the balance

wrong? Yes. But the balance is much tougher than people realise, and

look at some other struggling clubs who put ambition before prudence

before saying this is the entire problem.

4. Not being tough enough on contract negotiations. However much they

wring their hands and say ''we had to put that clause in there, or else

the player wouldn''t have signed'' it was their responsibility to support

the manager and ensure that our best players who we wanted to keep

would not leave. Over the summer we lost our best players through holes

in contracts they negotiated. Not good enough.

If it was down to me, I would sack Doncaster and get in a CEO with a

football pedigree. I would also recruit a board member with a solid

football background, our board don''t understand the game fully and it

shows.

I have no time for those making personal attacks on our board, however.

Their main priority has been to ensure our club has a future, and

bearing in mind they witnessed first hand how close we came to

bankruptcy in the late 90s and the losing of the ITV Digital money, I

can''t blame them. Those picking specifically on Delia need to have a

word with themselves,  she took on the catering/hospitality side to

great success and has ploughed millions of her own money in with little

hope of a return. At the end of the day they are fans, and have the club''s long term future at heart. Getting Roeder in was a major achievement for them, he is the best manager we have had for ages and will take us places starting by taking us to mid-table this season.

Its time for the Turner''s to come to the party. If the 2m they

''invested'' over the summer was it, then they bought 2 seats at a great

club''s board very, very cheaply and we can add a 5th point to the

above. I can''t believe this is true though, the loan signings we have

made so far (which will have involved a large fee in all likelyhood) make me confident we have more to spend in January. Also I don''t believe Roeder is a cheap option, he must be on a much bigger package than Grant and this money probably came from the Turners. I don''t

want statements about how much we have to spend, that will push player

prices up further. We need to see proof through decent player

acquisitions because however much better we look now, we need to

strengthen further if League 1 isn''t to become a reality for us next

year.

OTBC

[T07 0]

1. Completely agree - as do they, hindsight eh?. We all make

mistakes. I dont remember too many calls for demonstrations when Grant arrived

(except maybe regarding his choice of music) so I think most people were

prepared to let him run for a while. However the boards bigger mistake was not identifying

the low calibre of the players he was targeting. There were a couple of

absolute Hughes type howlers. They also allowed Grant to go too far with

antagonising Hunter, Ryan Jarvis, Martin, Huckerby, and others, but especially

Safri. The clubs handling of Safrigate was disgraceful and the fact he was so

gracious about his treatment makes his loss all the harder to take. Great

player and a great man.

2. Do you not think the ITV Digital collapse kind of proved she was right

though I must admit I don’t recall her making the statement. Again though you counter

your own point, you mention "speculative investment" All investment

is speculative and by its nature, sometimes it goes tits up. The fact that, as

you point out, player prices have gone through the roof also means that a stand

has to be made and I fully support our board for ''keeping it real'' If that

means we play in a lower league then fine. Just look on any Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, Newcastle

forum at the bitching and moaning. Throwing money at average players wont make

you love the board I assure you.

3. As you say its a tough balance to make, you think they got it wrong, I don’t.

However its not an argument that has a finite end...... we''ll never know. It

wasn''t a Prem requirement to do the pitch by the way.

4. They are completely correct about those clauses. No clause, no Earnshaw. It

really was that simple as Saints had already agreed the clause and he would

have gone there in the blink of an eye.

Pretty much agree with your final paragraphs, though I will add that the

Turners like to do things very quietly. There is a lot of activity within the

club at the moment that I''m sure will keep the keyboard warriors very 

happy

[ron obvious 0]

Hallelujah! At last this message board seems to be returning to the level of intelligent debate, as it used to be, rather than the irrational name-calling claptrap that''s infected it lately. I can now log on & find threads containing information, logic & considered views - even better when I don''t agree with them, because they help me think about my own position, which can be as mistaken as anyone else''s.

So, really , this is just a thank you to posters like the above (first two - I ''m the 3rd). Please keep posting!

[gazzathegreat 0]

Big Down Under, a very well thought out post. You should do more on this board, never mind WOTB.

Your comments re the board are all valid, perhaps we could argue over a few of them, but I would like to add to your timeline of the last few years and go back a few more.

My main gripe with them (and not getting personal over certain members within) is the old chestnut prudence with ambition. Sadly, prudence has taken us on a zig zag path, flirting with the Premiership (we didn''t consolidate that position with enough investment in the team, so were duly relegated, and it''s as they say, been downhill ever since).

While sticking with prudence and sidelining ambition; they didn''t invest in players for that Premiership season at the right time. In fact by budgeting for an immediate return to the Championship, they spelt out the very small percentage ambition holds over the much larger prudence.

Nigel Worthington - they were not decisive enough over when to get rid of him; hanging on to him too long and having to weather the anti feeling which spread from manager to board. I don''t think they have recovered from that frankly, and need to do more to get the club back on the "togetherness" course.

The way football is going globally and the related money issues are, to be fair to them, out of their hands to a great extent. Their lack of football knowledge showed in their judgements over managerial appointments and some of the players brought in by the previous two managers who were quite frankly not up to scratch. Luckily for them they have somehow hit on a class act now. We can only hope they have learnt enough to keep him sweet.

The contracts thing re clauses is a classic own goal and for me points to evidence that Doncaster should not be negotiating these contracts. If the players don''t want to come here unless they have an escape clause, forget them.

I totally agree with your point on having someone on the board with a background in football.

The Turners, by all accounts, are replacements for Delia and Michael for when they have to retire from their Directorships due to age. That''s fair enough. Have they brought anything new to the club to warrant their 2m investment? I believe they have but evidence of that is probably not going to be immediately obvious aside from them keeping tabs on Doncaster and bringing in much needed business acumen to the board as a whole.

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

[quote]I will add that the Turners like to do things very quietly. There is a lot of activity within the club at the moment that I''m sure will keep the keyboard warriors very happy[/quote]

Well I hope so because I''m at a loss as to why they''re here.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"] The Turners, by all accounts, are replacements for Delia and Michael for when they have to retire from their Directorships due to age. That''s fair enough. Have they brought anything new to the club to warrant their 2m investment? I believe they have but evidence of that is probably not going to be immediately obvious aside from them keeping tabs on Doncaster and bringing in much needed business acumen to the board as a whole.[/quote]

Good post Gazza [Y]

The way I see it, if you are right and the Turners have brought somerthing new to the club then surely it must be the case that the board has changed. The other points become irrelevent, Worthington, Grant, investment in the premiership are all in the past. Roeder and the present board is the now and the future. Either that or the Turners are just there for a bit of glory and the board decision making remains the same.

Which is it [Y][N][^o)][:^)]............... you decide.

 

[ricky knight 0]

Ok there was no demos when Grant was given the job but alot of fans voiced their concerns but were shouted down by all the Percy''s. Put it nicely if you want but it all adds up the same this board are not up to it. Yesterday again proved how short we are on class and that cant be brought with shirt buttons.

[gazzathegreat 0]

I don''t claim to be right Nutty, all I know is the Turners have come onto the board and loaned (for want of a better word) some money and exchanged seats with Skipper.

From what I know of them, they bring some much needed business skills and are City fans, despite some views to the contrary. Are they there for glory? I suppose you could accuse anyone on the board if you wanted to make that point. Though what glory anyone has at present at NCFC is perhaps due to extreme subjectivity.

I have reflected on the past while answering the top post. What''s happened in the past does count towards everyone''s opinions on the board, current and past members alike.

Have they changed? I think signs are there to be honest. January is their first big test though isn''t it? Appointing Glenn Roeder was their first big step in the right direction since the the failure of Grant and the dithering over Worthington. What happens in the transfer window will show some indication as to their direction for the future.

I have been a critic of them all in the past, but am willing to hope they can change tack and invest in the playing side and football in general over the rest.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]The Turners, by all accounts, are replacements for Delia and Michael for when they have to retire from their Directorships due to age.[/quote]

Then God help us all Gazza!.

You now know full well my feelings on those two show ponies, they will only try and run City like a finance comany, they have zero knowledge of running a once proud football club.

And to be able to become board members for a paultry one million quid loan each, is a bloody joke and disgrace with their reported wealth.

Is it any wonder that we couldn''t sign Taylor!.

I give up!.   [:(]

[gazzathegreat 0]

Okay Wiz, then who on the board HAS got the relevant knowledge of running a football club....probably none of them on appointment, but they have had to learn. They are still learning. We all know they have made some mistakes, but times and policies are changing. Would the board have appointed someone of Glenn Roeder''s standing a few years back, when the policy was very much appoint from within the club?

IMO to get two people in who have made a real success of building up a finance company from scratch and one which is one of the most successful in that industry is to applauded. We have been crying out for someone on the board with real business acumen (not to mention cash) for years. So they take a place on the board and are questioned for their viability? Who do you think was instrumental in appointing Glenn Roeder, or financing the present and vital loan players? Who are now keeping tabs on the CE (and most people''s villain of the piece) and dealing with the day to day running of the club? The Turners.

As you know I am no great fan of the board (for the past policies and neglect of the playing side) but I can see that there is change in progress.

As to their reported wealth, most of that is tied up in their company (as would be common with most businesses). I am sure they will allocating more in the future.

As for Taylor....we still have a month to sort a deal out. IF we don''t land him by February and it''s clear we have made no attempt to secure him, then I will be asking questions along with I don''t doubt many other city fans.

But for now I am going to sit and wait to see what happens. None of us can do anything constructive anyway, unless the club decide to issue more shares to enable us all to help fund the purchases of new players, in which case I will do all I can to dig deep.

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''ve been defending the board on some posts, before people accuse me of blindly supporting them I thought I would post this to show what I fully think. I originally posted it on WOTB, but have made a couple of changes.


2. Mis-reading the future of football economics. I remember Delia saying in our promotion year that she thought the bubble would soon burst on football economics, how wrong was she. Since then we have had even more foreign investment, a new TV rights deal that has almost doubled the money going into the Premiership, and the Championship starting to get speculative investment. The result being prices are way higher than they anticipated for even journeymen players, and we are enduring a relegation scrap.

OTBC[/quote]

That single comment puts in a nutshell why we are in our present position.

Only the rich will survive, the rest will be swept away by events beyond their control.

If the "Poor Millionaires" who are our present owners can''t properly finance a Championship (let alone a Premiership) Club then they need to stand aside for someone who can.

Pleas of "nobody is daft enough" won''t cut it anymore. Events at Coventry and Ipswich have proved that.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Okay Wiz, then who on the board HAS got the relevant knowledge of running a football club....probably none of them on appointment, but they have had to learn. They are still learning. [/quote]

That much is self evident Gazza!.

As much as I have tremendous respect for your opinions on the Turners, I see no real evidence to back them up, sorry, but I don''t.[:|]

[ricky knight 0]

you can see what learning as you go along on football, Grant.

[YankeeCanary 0]

A good post by you Big Down Under. Clearly you are interested in intelligent debate by way of your assessment that, while containing criticism of the Board is, at the same time, balanced. As others have said, would like to see you posting more.

Others have already expressed some comments I concur with. Only added point I would make is with respect to contract negotiation clauses. I realise this may make the club appear weak on occasions. In today''s world, however, a contract does not mean what it once did in many decades past. Even if there were no escape clauses and a player feels there is interest from a club he prefers to be at, more often than not it becomes necessary to move a discontented player on. In the case of Earnshaw, for example, yet another Premiership opportunity emerges and he has a release clause. If there was not one, Earnshaw would have still likely become a problem and, in moving him on, there would be no guarantee that we would have received a bigger offer for him. His limitations were widely known, as is now being confirmed yet again when he hardly gets playing time in a Derby Premiership effort that may turn out to the worst on record. 

[Big Down Under 0]

My point about the contracts wasn''t to invite comment on individuals contracts, there can always be a reason/excuse, but really to point out the bigger picture that it is the board''s responsibility to ensure we can keep our best players, but over the summer we lost Etuhu and Earnshaw cheaply. Player power means they will always get their way, but if they have to go we should at least be getting top dollar for them, especially during a transfer window when prices seemed inflated.I''m no finance expert, but I would have thought that, ironically, because the club is so well run on a business level (I''m referring to the non-footballing side) we will find it tougher to get outside investment. Our debts whilst high are clearly manageable and under control, why would our creditors consider selling the debt cheaply, as was the case for Ipswich and many other clubs? There is a far higher chance of a quick (and dirty) profit from them down the road than from us, purely on that basis. Why anybody feels that kind of board member / owner would be an asset to the club beats me. Thanks for the kind words, and joining the debate and not turning it into an argument. I actually think these are exciting times for our club, we have an excellent manager who is rebuilding the squad with exciting young talent. He would have known his player budget before signing up, and so will have a suitable plan in place. So far its working, I see no reason why it won''t continue to work. Whatever has happened can''t be changed, so its time to move on and get behind the team. OTBC.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

"The club is so well run on a business level (I`m referring to the non-footballing side)"

How do you arrive at this conclusion? Evidence please. As i understand it the Turners` main role in coming on board was to peg back spiralling costs and "oversee" Doncaster. Why was this neccessary?

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Ok there was no demos when Grant was given the job but alot of fans voiced their concerns but were shouted down by all the Percy''s. Put it nicely if you want but it all adds up the same this board are not up to it. Yesterday again proved how short we are on class and that cant be brought with shirt buttons.[/quote]

The reason you were shouted down ricky is because you were guessing.  It wasn''t a football knowledge thing it was a heads or tails thing.

If you look at Grants CV he ticked all the right boxes.  Good player in his day, captained one of the most famous clubs in europe.  Good work experience as a coach, good record as an assistant in a team that did very well.  And he also talked a good game when he first joined, and no doubt did the same at interview.  Hindsight as they say, is a wonderful thing

I still maintain that we judge the board at the end of January.  They have a real opportunity to right a few wrongs next month.  If they can show real ambition then I am going to back them, for the time being anyway.

We were well short on class against Colchester and the match was dire.  But, it can be viewed as a good sign that when we play that badly we can still emerge with a point.  Maybe lady luck is giving us a break at long last.

[ricky knight 0]

sorry jimmy500 is was not a guess, he was a no2, they dont usually make good managers, he hasd no contacts needed at this level, Gunn was desperation, he may have been a decent player at Celtic was very ordinary down here, was always a cheap option, to me his appointment had disaster written all over it. As for hindsight i called it from day one. I say now before hindsight, if they dont go soon this board will be an even bigger disaster. If you are expecting some big things in january i can tell you now it aint going to happen. Just out of interest what will make you happy in january.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]sorry jimmy500 is was not a guess, he was a no2, they dont usually make good managers, he hasd no contacts needed at this level, Gunn was desperation, he may have been a decent player at Celtic was very ordinary down here, was always a cheap option, to me his appointment had disaster written all over it. As for hindsight i called it from day one. I say now before hindsight, if they dont go soon this board will be an even bigger disaster. If you are expecting some big things in january i can tell you now it aint going to happen. Just out of interest what will make you happy in january.[/quote]

I disagree that you called it right, but probably best not get into this again.  It was a total failure and that I am happy to concede.  The quote that No.2''s dont usually make good managers is pretty accurate, but there are exceptions - Jose Mourinho anyone!! (Terrible example I know).

What will make me happy in January.  Keeping David Marshall who I think is an excellent goal keeping prospect.  I want Martin Taylor, the bloke is a different class to what we have.  I am not interested in quantity I want quality.  If we can realistically only afford 1 then 1 it will have to be.  (I also wouldn''t mind seeing us get some cash for the nearly rans, Ian Murray, Dave Striker, Ryan Jarvis - Julian Brellier at a push).

I like Glenn Roeder, I think the bloke will do well here if he gets a bit of luck and decent backing.  I hope the boad recognise that too and do all they can to support him.

Of course if they dont give him the backing he deserves then they need to go.

[Bill 1,788]

" As i understand it the Turners` main role in coming on board was to peg

back spiralling costs and "oversee" Doncaster. Why was this neccessary?"Evidence of this is ?

[Big Down Under 0]

Mr Carrow - We are well known as being a well run club. Debt under control, good facilities, good profit from the catering etc, the question is has this been achieved at the expense of the footballing side? And if it has, is the long term viability of NCFC as a well run club and a respected member of the local community worth it?Of course the Turner''s job is to oversee the CEO, that is every board''s first priority. The board sets the direction, the CEO implements it on behalf of the board. As you will know from my initial comments, I am no fan of Doncaster either.Re Grant, It was his lack of experience as a manager that was key. Our team at the time was unbalanced, demotivated, and needed rebuilding at a time when parachute payments would come to an end. This needed an experienced manager, which Grant was not. I''m sure he did tick a lot of boxes, and I actually think that if he can learn man management skills, we will see him pop up elsewhere in a management role. It was just the wrong time for him to be here. Roeder is someone who really ticks all the right boxes!

[First Wazzock 902]

I still maintain that we judge the board at the end of January.  They have a real opportunity to right a few wrongs next month.  If they can show real ambition then I am going to back them, for the time being anyway.

I think nearly everyone thinks along these lines.

There was a rumour that the Turners wouldn''t put any more money into the club because they didn''t trust Grant''s judgement. I (being a glass half full person) think we could be about to see a busy transfer window, if we don''t cue mass unrest.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Regarding the player release clauses in contracts it may well be the case that these are now commonplace in football but for me the key issue with the earnshaw release clause was the reason why we had no choice but to agree it. That was because despite having known for weeks that Ashton was going and that we would have money to spen on a replacement we once again weer trying to signa  player on the last day of the transfer window with the board knowing that if they did not sign him the fans would go ballistic. We therefore had no bargaining position and had to agree to the clause. In other circumstances we probably could have either negotiated away the clause or at least nserted a figure that meant we got some decent profit for him.

 

It is symptomatic of our lack of forward planning and strategy when it comes to transfer deals. Ashton should not have been allowed to go until we had a replacement lined up. I just hope we have learnt from it.

As for the Turners I have to say i''ve been disappointed so far. Its very easy for people to speculate that there are "all sorts going on behind the scenes" but frankly I''ve seen nothing from them to convince me they are going to put the investment in that will mke us competititve as illustrated by the Taylor debacle. I''m not saying for one minute that we should expect them to put their own hard earned cash into the Club - how they spend their money is their perogative - but we are not going to get back to the premiership by running the club at a day to day proft which seems to be their main ambition!

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''ve been defending the board on some posts, before people accuse me of blindly supporting them I thought I would post this to show what I fully think. I originally posted it on WOTB, but have made a couple of changes.


2. Mis-reading the future of football economics. I remember Delia saying in our promotion year that she thought the bubble would soon burst on football economics, how wrong was she. Since then we have had even more foreign investment, a new TV rights deal that has almost doubled the money going into the Premiership, and the Championship starting to get speculative investment. The result being prices are way higher than they anticipated for even journeymen players, and we are enduring a relegation scrap.

OTBC[/quote]

That single comment puts in a nutshell why we are in our present position.

Only the rich will survive, the rest will be swept away by events beyond their control.

If the "Poor Millionaires" who are our present owners can''t properly finance a Championship (let alone a Premiership) Club then they need to stand aside for someone who can.

Pleas of "nobody is daft enough" won''t cut it anymore. Events at Coventry and Ipswich have proved that.

[/quote]

Exactly my point for how long now Ricardo???

How anybody who claims that Delia and her mob are acting in the best interests of the club by dragging it down to this level is beyond me.

It is quite simple... We will not start moving in the right direction again under the current boardroom set up.

Delia & Co have left it at least a year too late to start actively knocking on doors also.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Steve Burns"]

I still maintain that we judge the board at the end of January.  They have a real opportunity to right a few wrongs next month.  If they can show real ambition then I am going to back them, for the time being anyway.

I think nearly everyone thinks along these lines.

There was a rumour that the Turners wouldn''t put any more money into the club because they didn''t trust Grant''s judgement. I (being a glass half full person) think we could be about to see a busy transfer window, if we don''t cue mass unrest.

[/quote]

and what do you say would be a busy transfer window Steve?

The last transfer window was busy (according to the majority on this forum), as was the transfer window prior to that...

It is not a busy transfer window that we need...  We need to be pinpointing QUALITY and acting quickly on securing their services.

Unfortunately (as ever) the City board are already dithering when they have the opportunity to grasp the first option to sign a quality player.

Quite frankly, this board and many who support them will never learn.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''ve been defending the board on some posts, before people accuse me of blindly supporting them I thought I would post this to show what I fully think. I originally posted it on WOTB, but have made a couple of changes.

2. Mis-reading the future of football economics. I remember Delia saying in our promotion year that she thought the bubble would soon burst on football economics, how wrong was she. Since then we have had even more foreign investment, a new TV rights deal that has almost doubled the money going into the Premiership, and the Championship starting to get speculative investment. The result being prices are way higher than they anticipated for even journeymen players, and we are enduring a relegation scrap.OTBC[/quote]

That single comment puts in a nutshell why we are in our present position.

Only the rich will survive, the rest will be swept away by events beyond their control.

If the "Poor Millionaires" who are our present owners can''t properly finance a Championship (let alone a Premiership) Club then they need to stand aside for someone who can.

Pleas of "nobody is daft enough" won''t cut it anymore. Events at Coventry and Ipswich have proved that.

[/quote]

Exactly my point for how long now Ricardo???

How anybody who claims that Delia and her mob are acting in the best interests of the club by dragging it down to this level is beyond me.

It is quite simple... We will not start moving in the right direction again under the current boardroom set up.

Delia & Co have left it at least a year too late to start actively knocking on doors also.

[/quote]Stand aside for who exactly? We have two options;- Find investors who have the long term future of the club at heart. Like the Turners, or like at Derby or Sunderland. We don''t seem to have rich enough local business people willing to invest, and we don''t seem to have any extremely wealthy ex players willing to put together a consortium to buy us either. Who do you suggest?- Find investors such as Evens at Ipswich or that hedge fund mob at Coventry who are just after the profit. Only I doubt any investor could buy our loans out as cheaply as they could Ipswich''s or Coventrys, as it is obvious we have the ability to pay them off in full. The risks of these investors is obvious, they sell off our assets to line their own pockets, thats why they invest, to make huge profit (it has to be huge profit, its a risky game). Evens gets over half a mill dividend each year, has bought 32m debt for 8m, and has 3 seats on the board. He has said he will invest 12m in the club, which will have to cover the clubs day to day running losses, transfer fees, agents fees, player signing on fees and wages. Are you REALLY suggesting this is the right way forward?Delia and co aren''t rich enough to buy us out of this league, I doubt the Turners are either. Obviously Roeder believes the budgets he would have in writing before signing any contract are enough for him to turn around our fortunes, or he would be committing career suicide. So I presume we are rich enough for Roeder to get us challenging top 6 minimum. This is the way forward for us as a club, we have to be patient and supportive, we have to allow Glenn to go through a rebuilding process with our current board in place.

[First Wazzock 902]

It is not a busy transfer window that we need...  We need to be pinpointing QUALITY and acting quickly on securing their services.

I agree, the reason I think it may be a busy window is to remove some of the dross that Grant signed.

[ron obvious 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]
Delia and co aren''t rich enough to buy us out of this league, I doubt the Turners are either. Obviously Roeder believes the budgets he would have in writing before signing any contract are enough for him to turn around our fortunes, or he would be committing career suicide. So I presume we are rich enough for Roeder to get us challenging top 6 minimum. This is the way forward for us as a club, we have to be patient and supportive, we have to allow Glenn to go through a rebuilding process with our current board in place.
[/quote]

This is pretty well my take on the situation. I''ve said on another thread that promotion was, daft as it sounds, a bad thing, as it wasn''t part of the plan & the board didn''t know what to do; they wanted promotion, obviously, but only after several years of building a stronger squad - how many genuine premier quality players were in that team? 2 or 3 (maybe 4 tops). The only hope for a team like Norwich (otherly gifted benefactor with suitcase full of cash scenario notwithstanding) is to appoint a quality manager with experience, an eye for talent & good contacts in the game.. So far, Glenn looks to be that manager.

And isn''t it much more satisfying to do it like that? Rather than just buying success? Much more fun.

Mind you, a bit of success would be nice!

[ricardo 7,345]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

Stand aside for who exactly? We have two options;
- Find investors who have the long term future of the club at heart. Like the Turners, or like at Derby or Sunderland. We don''t seem to have rich enough local business people willing to invest, and we don''t seem to have any extremely wealthy ex players willing to put together a consortium to buy us either. Who do you suggest?
- Find investors such as Evens at Ipswich or that hedge fund mob at Coventry who are just after the profit. Only I doubt any investor could buy our loans out as cheaply as they could Ipswich''s or Coventrys, as it is obvious we have the ability to pay them off in full. The risks of these investors is obvious, they sell off our assets to line their own pockets, thats why they invest, to make huge profit (it has to be huge profit, its a risky game). Evens gets over half a mill dividend each year, has bought 32m debt for 8m, and has 3 seats on the board. He has said he will invest 12m in the club, which will have to cover the clubs day to day running losses, transfer fees, agents fees, player signing on fees and wages. Are you REALLY suggesting this is the right way forward?

[/quote]

We will never know until they do stand aside.

You don''t really believe all this guff about selling up do you? What ever happens to the club, our present owners can''t lose. They are sitting on a nice little earner at the moment. They have a guarenteed stream of income that is paying off the debt and their bricks and mortar investments are increasing the value of their shareholding. As long as they can keep the majority of supporters sweet they have no need to do anything else.

I don''t claim to know all the ins and outs of the Ipswich situation but if the guy is going to get his money back he is going to have to invest enough to get them in the Prem.

If we don''t find somebody with enough clout to do the job then we can look forward to 3rd tier football as our long term future.

 

[Tumbleweed 106]

We need less obsession with buying in talent and more obsession with developing players through the academy and youth system. If we spend a few million in Januray, whoppee-do, but we cannot do that window after window as the money needs to be generated from somewhere and there doesn''t seem to be enough profit from ordinary business activities to splah the cash very often. We have also had to pay off two managers in 14 months, money that could have gone into playing resources.

The lack of talent coming through is a real problem for us, why the likes of Jarvis*2, Henderson, Martin, Spillane are not quite getting there is something the Board need to look at. Shackell has done OK, but he''s not exactly a Chris Sutton is he? Where is another Eadie, Fox, Gordon, Bellamy, Green. I''d like some serious dosh spent on the youth system in stead of paying the likes of Brellier and Strihavka to sit around waiting to get on the bench. But no, its all about spend spend spend on imported "talent" which very often ends up being largely wasted.