Windass

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]CJF and jas.  There are people on here who would pick the example of a handful of similar-sized clubs who are below us and use that as an excuse to defend the self-inflicted failure of the last few years.  Of course the truth is that there are far more smaller and similar-sized clubs who are doing much better than us.  It`s a bit like the fat kid in the playground who only ever gets picked in goal feeling good about himself because there`s an even fatter kid who can`t even get on the pitch.  By their logic it will be fine if we get relegated as long as we finish above Notts. Forest or Leeds.[/quote]

This is just plain wrong Mr Carrow.

You have added nothing to the debate whatsoever. You are just trying to make it personal in a way that probably only you thinks is funny. We are not so thick as not to notice how sad you have become [:|]

[/quote]

But just how thick are you (plural, I see)

The royal we now. Whatever next?

Or have you been appointed spokesperson (look how politically correct I can get!) for the nuttywalphydeals combo?

OTBC

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[/quote]

This is ridiculous CJF. Nobody is saying we are not under achieving. Nobody is saying that we should be where we are and nobody is excusing it.  We can all refer to periods of history to try and score points or lay blame but the truth is no club has the right to be any where and what really matters is the here and now.

If we stay with Norwich and Leicester does anybody remember last August the author of this thread was more concerned with the other end of the table asking which of Leicester and Norwich had more chance of promotion? As it turned out neither got close. But, although Leicester are now more likely to be relegated than us, back in early November we looked certainties for the drop. I wonder who were the last team to stay in this league having not got reached double figure points total after 16 games? So we can either be Percy''s or Nancy''s in our outlook here and now. We can concentrate on where we are which is obviously not good enough or we can acknowledge the recovery we have made, which if we remain in this league is more than all of us expected in November. If we get the neccassary points to stay up, and I believe we will, it gives us something to build on next season. The important person at the club is not Delia Smith or Milan Manderic but it''s the football manager. Manderic has never out performed Smith without ''arry, so that''s another fact for you to chew over.

Now why have you not responded to what I said about Leicester and administration?

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

But just how thick are you (plural, I see)

The royal we now. Whatever next?

Or have you been appointed spokesperson (look how politically correct I can get!) for the nuttywalphydeals combo?

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Was just referring to Mr Carrow''s accusation that all Norfolk people are thick Bly. Do you still qualify like we do? Or aren''t you one of us anymore [:^)]

 

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[/quote]I agree with you CJF - the only thing that I would add to that is does that make our board the disgrace and failure everybody is saying they are?Crystal Palace is one example - Southampton is another, both have equal similarities to our fine club. Palace has one major boost in its location and proximity to London which you could argue is the reason why (love him or hate him) their chairman has money and saved them and now bankrolls them.Southampton whilst probably in a worse financial position to us but have had a more sustained run in the premiership, now facing another drop that is more threatening to them.Norwich are somewhere in between. But thats only a statement of our position not how well the board has done. And I think it is only fair to say that if anything they are victims of their own success. They did well on a small budget and what these opinions are really saying is why can they not do it again? They have put in more money in most seasons since relegation than they did prior to promotion.For example in the promotion season we signed Huckerby for £750k and Svensson for what would rise to £250k just two.In the season after relegation we brought in: Earnshaw -  £2.75 - £3.5million and Hughes - £600k.Why do I bring this up? Its an example that the board hasn''t stopped short of spending money on the squad - so again where does the blame lie? Does it lie in one place?So far as I am concerned the only thing you can blame the board on, and this is not a particularily strong case, is not keeping up with the money spent by the other promotion challenging sides / recently relegated sides. And then you have to look at these teams, the likes of Wolves, WBA, Charlton, Stoke etc.Then I think you also have to blame the managers and players that we have had. Worthington in the end gave us a good shot and did well in the first half of his time with us. For whatever reason he couldn''t turn things around even though he is one of the best backed managers of our recent history.Grant merely prolonged the issues and failed to retain the core of players that had at least maintained a mid to top Championship side.Roeder for my money is as of yet unproven. He has worked for the most part with what was left after sifting through it. Whether it has been enough or not we will be able to see more clearly on Saturday but I think you will find that this squad has a massive problem in depth and issue that was not entirely of his own making - gone are the days of mounting a play off push with a squad of 22 proffessional players.Am I defending the board - not really. I just think for what they are you can not argue they do not give it their best shot without accepting they have at least tried to compete. If you want to blame them and insult them for not having more money feel free to do so, but personaly I could not bring myself to do that to anyone especially the club I love.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]The problem is when you don''t have that person at the helm that can find those bargins. And 80% I would agree with in players but not in managers. Every other manager since Delia and MWJ arrived. Rioch: Not brilliant but at least started to work the team towards success, Hamilton: woops! Worthington: No one can doubt his initial success or the progress up until late on in the Premiership season when it was in our hands (Fulham being the highlight of what went wrong), Grant: Woops, Roeder: Is the jury still out? I still think that to get that run was amazing but I guess it all depends on where we finnish up.[/quote]For what it''s worth, the jury''s in as far as Roeder is concerned, and he''s a success.  Given what he inherited - players, morale, league position - he''s done a great job.  Rioch, Hamilton, Grant, Duffy (if the rumours are true), all poor managers.  Worthington was hardly vetted, more given the job for continuity purposes (a la Grant/Duffy) and told to prove himself, so you could easily argue he inherited the job through right place right time and proved himself.  Not an inspired appointment, in other words.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

But just how thick are you (plural, I see)

The royal we now. Whatever next?

Or have you been appointed spokesperson (look how politically correct I can get!) for the nuttywalphydeals combo?

OTBC

[/quote]

Was just referring to Mr Carrow''s accusation that all Norfolk people are thick Bly. Do you still qualify like we do? Or aren''t you one of us anymore [:^)]

[/quote]

So what is the qualification for being one of us? Living in Norfolk - unlike Delia or 1st Wiz, for example?

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

What I do know is that you are not a 1958-59er - and you''re jealous.

 

 

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]CJF and jas.  There are people on here who would pick the example of a handful of similar-sized clubs who are below us and use that as an excuse to defend the self-inflicted failure of the last few years.  Of course the truth is that there are far more smaller and similar-sized clubs who are doing much better than us.  It`s a bit like the fat kid in the playground who only ever gets picked in goal feeling good about himself because there`s an even fatter kid who can`t even get on the pitch.  By their logic it will be fine if we get relegated as long as we finish above Notts. Forest or Leeds.[/quote]

This is just plain wrong Mr Carrow.

You have added nothing to the debate whatsoever. You are just trying to make it personal in a way that probably only you thinks is funny. We are not so thick as not to notice how sad you have become [:|]

 

[/quote]

And the lenses on your yellowy tinty weldy goggles - have suddenly became a centimetre thicker, and over 15% tintier.....And you''ve also seem to have installed blinkers on the side of your weldy gogs, so that you can fully concentrate and really focus on those luvverly NCFC boardy butt-kissin'' and Delia''s our Savoury clubby things - without that irritating and annoying distraction - of those who I feel have a legitimate argument against the current Board of ''Loss of Direction-eer''s.''

There, I''ve not actually contributed or added anything to the mass-debate.....whatsoever.......But, I''m having fun![:D] 

 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

But just how thick are you (plural, I see)

The royal we now. Whatever next?

Or have you been appointed spokesperson (look how politically correct I can get!) for the nuttywalphydeals combo?

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Was just referring to Mr Carrow''s accusation that all Norfolk people are thick Bly. Do you still qualify like we do? Or aren''t you one of us anymore [:^)]

 

[/quote]

I''m not thick, I''m an interleckt and not actually from Naarfalk.......I''m from Suffaark!......*That''s according to Ralphus Binfinder General*......

NUTster, calm down my dear fellow.......You''re not thick......Your just plain NUTTY![8-|]

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

I''m not, YOU brought up Leicester. (I think...  [:D])  And I am not beating our great club, just stating the FACT that under Delia''s reign both Leicester and Ipswich have outperformed us.

 

[/quote]

But we can console ourselves with the thought that we haven''t shafted our shareholders and local small businesses.

Thats all well and good from a moral standpoint but I can''t say it will make me feel much better if I have to watch Crewe and Yeovil next season.

If Ipswich do make it to the Prem then I don''t suppose any of their supporters will give a toss about any of their past misdemeanours.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

OK.. have it the other way.. all Norfolk people are thick.. except me cuz I''m just nutty

.... it''s funny how it''s ok to call people thick as long as you''re anti board...

but is it ok that I think loads of you are thick even though I''m not anti board[:^)]...

funny how when I asked for the decline under Smith to be listed there was no answer..

and funny how it wasn''t actually me that stated Leicester was a step down from Norwich I just pointed out that it still was ...

funny how CJF and Smudger when trying to agree with eachother have ended up disagreeing...

and funny how Ricardo has lost his morals because they don''t fit his argument....

and funny how Mister can quote me as writing some pointless drivel (according to smudger)...

But still, as Mello rightly states, it''s fun to mass debate [8-|][:P][:$]

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Scored again last night to help take Hull 2nd.

13 goals from 27 starts from midfield this season.

And he''s been doing it year after year.

Yes, that Windass Moment with Chase and O''Neil was the tipping point in the recent history of Norwich City.

OTBC 

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

But just how thick are you (plural, I see)

The royal we now. Whatever next?

Or have you been appointed spokesperson (look how politically correct I can get!) for the nuttywalphydeals combo?

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Was just referring to Mr Carrow''s accusation that all Norfolk people are thick Bly. Do you still qualify like we do? Or aren''t you one of us anymore [:^)]

 

[/quote]

Nutty, i have already admitted that the comment was OTT on the other thread,  yet you choose to run and run with it.  And you accuse others of being selective in their arguments?  It smacks of desperation mate.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[/quote]

I agree with you CJF - the only thing that I would add to that is does that make our board the disgrace and failure everybody is saying they are?

Crystal Palace is one example - Southampton is another, both have equal similarities to our fine club. Palace has one major boost in its location and proximity to London which you could argue is the reason why (love him or hate him) their chairman has money and saved them and now bankrolls them.

Southampton whilst probably in a worse financial position to us but have had a more sustained run in the premiership, now facing another drop that is more threatening to them.

Norwich are somewhere in between. But thats only a statement of our position not how well the board has done. And I think it is only fair to say that if anything they are victims of their own success. They did well on a small budget and what these opinions are really saying is why can they not do it again? They have put in more money in most seasons since relegation than they did prior to promotion.

For example in the promotion season we signed Huckerby for £750k and Svensson for what would rise to £250k just two.

In the season after relegation we brought in: Earnshaw -  £2.75 - £3.5million and Hughes - £600k.

Why do I bring this up? Its an example that the board hasn''t stopped short of spending money on the squad - so again where does the blame lie? Does it lie in one place?

So far as I am concerned the only thing you can blame the board on, and this is not a particularily strong case, is not keeping up with the money spent by the other promotion challenging sides / recently relegated sides. And then you have to look at these teams, the likes of Wolves, WBA, Charlton, Stoke etc.

Then I think you also have to blame the managers and players that we have had. Worthington in the end gave us a good shot and did well in the first half of his time with us. For whatever reason he couldn''t turn things around even though he is one of the best backed managers of our recent history.

Grant merely prolonged the issues and failed to retain the core of players that had at least maintained a mid to top Championship side.

Roeder for my money is as of yet unproven. He has worked for the most part with what was left after sifting through it. Whether it has been enough or not we will be able to see more clearly on Saturday but I think you will find that this squad has a massive problem in depth and issue that was not entirely of his own making - gone are the days of mounting a play off push with a squad of 22 proffessional players.

Am I defending the board - not really. I just think for what they are you can not argue they do not give it their best shot without accepting they have at least tried to compete. If you want to blame them and insult them for not having more money feel free to do so, but personaly I could not bring myself to do that to anyone especially the club I love.


[/quote]

Chicken, the squad which started this season cost pretty much the same as those which got the club to the play-offs and promotion.  That`s after two seasons in which the club has raked in £14.2m in parachute payments and £18m in player sales.  Where does this fit with your assertion that "the board haven`t stopped short of spending money on the squad"?  And what does it make the boards` statements that "all money raised in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" look like?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

OK.. have it the other way.. all Norfolk people are thick.. except me cuz I''m just nutty

.... it''s funny how it''s ok to call people thick as long as you''re anti board...

but is it ok that I think loads of you are thick even though I''m not anti board[:^)]...

funny how when I asked for the decline under Smith to be listed there was no answer..

and funny how it wasn''t actually me that stated Leicester was a step down from Norwich I just pointed out that it still was ...

funny how CJF and Smudger when trying to agree with eachother have ended up disagreeing...

and funny how Ricardo has lost his morals because they don''t fit his argument....

and funny how Mister can quote me as writing some pointless drivel (according to smudger)...

But still, as Mello rightly states, it''s fun to mass debate [8-|][:P][:$]

[/quote]

FFS!!

Funny?

Come out of denial nigel.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[chicken 0]

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

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[/quote]I agree with you CJF - the only thing that I would add to that is does that make our board the disgrace and failure everybody is saying they are?Crystal Palace is one example - Southampton is another, both have equal similarities to our fine club. Palace has one major boost in its location and proximity to London which you could argue is the reason why (love him or hate him) their chairman has money and saved them and now bankrolls them.Southampton whilst probably in a worse financial position to us but have had a more sustained run in the premiership, now facing another drop that is more threatening to them.Norwich are somewhere in between. But thats only a statement of our position not how well the board has done. And I think it is only fair to say that if anything they are victims of their own success. They did well on a small budget and what these opinions are really saying is why can they not do it again? They have put in more money in most seasons since relegation than they did prior to promotion.For example in the promotion season we signed Huckerby for £750k and Svensson for what would rise to £250k just two.In the season after relegation we brought in: Earnshaw -  £2.75 - £3.5million and Hughes - £600k.Why do I bring this up? Its an example that the board hasn''t stopped short of spending money on the squad - so again where does the blame lie? Does it lie in one place?So far as I am concerned the only thing you can blame the board on, and this is not a particularily strong case, is not keeping up with the money spent by the other promotion challenging sides / recently relegated sides. And then you have to look at these teams, the likes of Wolves, WBA, Charlton, Stoke etc.Then I think you also have to blame the managers and players that we have had. Worthington in the end gave us a good shot and did well in the first half of his time with us. For whatever reason he couldn''t turn things around even though he is one of the best backed managers of our recent history.Grant merely prolonged the issues and failed to retain the core of players that had at least maintained a mid to top Championship side.Roeder for my money is as of yet unproven. He has worked for the most part with what was left after sifting through it. Whether it has been enough or not we will be able to see more clearly on Saturday but I think you will find that this squad has a massive problem in depth and issue that was not entirely of his own making - gone are the days of mounting a play off push with a squad of 22 proffessional players.Am I defending the board - not really. I just think for what they are you can not argue they do not give it their best shot without accepting they have at least tried to compete. If you want to blame them and insult them for not having more money feel free to do so, but personaly I could not bring myself to do that to anyone especially the club I love.

[/quote]

Chicken, the squad which started this season cost pretty much the same as those which got the club to the play-offs and promotion.  That`s after two seasons in which the club has raked in £14.2m in parachute payments and £18m in player sales.  Where does this fit with your assertion that "the board haven`t stopped short of spending money on the squad"?  And what does it make the boards` statements that "all money raised in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" look like?

[/quote]Now you are getting somewhere - Bly please pay attention as we are fleshing out your contempt for the board!It all comes down to the accounts. There are those that believe the accounts as published state where this money has gone and there are those that do not.The problem with the £18million in player sales is that it is a biased statistic. For example that is almost assured to include both sales of Ashton and Earnshaw when it was pretty clear that the latter was bought with money from the sale of the first.If you want to know where money went on that front you need to offset the selling fees against the buying fees. However even if only 30% of fees were being released from sales for purchases it would still indicate that the situation was not as it was when O''Neill left after the bust up with Chase - the origin of this debate.But as for the parachute payments - I don''t honestly know. Does anyone know if the club publishes them online? If not they should - simply handing out printouts to people who attend a certain meeting doesn''t really broadcast the transparency they want to be known for.But whatever you believe you can not but feel that the information made for the masses simply isn''t there, we are not all accountants, lawyers etc. It would be nice that they made these things a bit more accessible.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Chicken, the squad which started this season cost pretty much the same as those which got the club to the play-offs and promotion.  That`s after two seasons in which the club has raked in £14.2m in parachute payments and £18m in player sales.  Where does this fit with your assertion that "the board haven`t stopped short of spending money on the squad"?  And what does it make the boards` statements that "all money raised in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" look like?[/quote]

Don''t forget Ashton and Ernies wages/bonuses/signing fees of say 1 million a year.  Certainly an amount above what the club can afford in its annual takings - thus needing to come from somewhere (fees from selling players, parachute payments, and the like)

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

OK.. have it the other way.. all Norfolk people are thick.. except me cuz I''m just nutty

.... it''s funny how it''s ok to call people thick as long as you''re anti board...

but is it ok that I think loads of you are thick even though I''m not anti board[:^)]...

funny how when I asked for the decline under Smith to be listed there was no answer..

and funny how it wasn''t actually me that stated Leicester was a step down from Norwich I just pointed out that it still was ...

funny how CJF and Smudger when trying to agree with eachother have ended up disagreeing...

and funny how Ricardo has lost his morals because they don''t fit his argument....

and funny how Mister can quote me as writing some pointless drivel (according to smudger)...

But still, as Mello rightly states, it''s fun to mass debate [8-|][:P][:$]

 

[/quote]

Let that thought keep you warm on a cold night in Tranmere Nutty.

It''s all about money now. Nobody cares anymore that West Ham cheated last season or that Leeds waited until they were certain of relegation before going into administration.

The morality of it all will cut no ice on the terraces or in the record books.

Sad but thats modern life for you. The fact remains that supporting the current regieme is just supporting years of failure.

And back to the thread, I see old man Windass scored again last night.

What a fatefull decision we made all those years ago.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Let that thought keep you warm on a cold night in Tranmere Nutty.

It''s all about money now. Nobody cares anymore that West Ham cheated last season or that Leeds waited until they were certain of relegation before going into administration.

The morality of it all will cut no ice on the terraces or in the record books.

Sad but thats modern life for you. The fact remains that supporting the current regieme is just supporting years of failure.

And back to the thread, I see old man Windass scored again last night.

What a fatefull decision we made all those years ago.

[/quote]

Windass wasn''t the worst one that got away, Dublin was. Didn''t you just pick up the paper every Sunday and see he''d scored again. He seemed to score every week for Cambridge as he single handedly took them to the brink of the Premier League. He did come home in the end though. I doubt Windass will ever be here now though.

They were cold Friday nights in Tranmere Ricardo.

So do the sand pails matter now?

However much money is in the game cheating scum are still cheating scum.

 

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"]

Let that thought keep you warm on a cold night in Tranmere Nutty.

It''s all about money now. Nobody cares anymore that West Ham cheated last season or that Leeds waited until they were certain of relegation before going into administration.

The morality of it all will cut no ice on the terraces or in the record books.

Sad but thats modern life for you. The fact remains that supporting the current regieme is just supporting years of failure.

And back to the thread, I see old man Windass scored again last night.

What a fatefull decision we made all those years ago.

[/quote]

Windass wasn''t the worst one that got away, Dublin was. Didn''t you just pick up the paper every Sunday and see he''d scored again. He seemed to score every week for Cambridge as he single handedly took them to the brink of the Premier League. He did come home in the end though. I doubt Windass will ever be here now though.

They were cold Friday nights in Tranmere Ricardo.

So do the sand pails matter now?

However much money is in the game cheating scum are still cheating scum.

 

[/quote]

I don''t dispute that at all Nutty. What I am saying is that it will do us no good footballwise to harp on about what a principalled club we are. The teams you mentioned in an earlier post are indeed cheating scum but I''m afraid nobody is listening. Do you really believe cheats never prosper? Surely you are old enough now to realise we live in an unreasoning cosmos and things don''t come right just because you believe in fairness. Ipswich, Leicester and the like have got a few quid now and the fact that they are cheating scum matters not one iota to their future prospects.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the Leeds saga. They appear to be favourites to get some points back from their 15 point deduction. If it happens then what bigger example of cheats prospering do you need?

Back on the Windass point. I''m not agitating for him to come here now but I still feel missing out on him all those years ago was a turning point in our fortunes. We blew it just when the big money was coming into the game. The guy has had a great and lengthy career at mid to top level in would have made a big difference to us just at the time we needed it.

If Big Bob had made a different decision on Windass he might still have been in charge today and you would be visiting you cousin Delia without having to wear your yellow and green bobble hat.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[:P][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"]

Let that thought keep you warm on a cold night in Tranmere Nutty.

It''s all about money now. Nobody cares anymore that West Ham cheated last season or that Leeds waited until they were certain of relegation before going into administration.

The morality of it all will cut no ice on the terraces or in the record books.

Sad but thats modern life for you. The fact remains that supporting the current regieme is just supporting years of failure.

And back to the thread, I see old man Windass scored again last night.

What a fatefull decision we made all those years ago.

[/quote]

Windass wasn''t the worst one that got away, Dublin was. Didn''t you just pick up the paper every Sunday and see he''d scored again. He seemed to score every week for Cambridge as he single handedly took them to the brink of the Premier League. He did come home in the end though. I doubt Windass will ever be here now though.

They were cold Friday nights in Tranmere Ricardo.

So do the sand pails matter now?

However much money is in the game cheating scum are still cheating scum.

[/quote]

And I would imagine that cheating at cooking is championed by cheating cooks, wouldn''t you?[:)][;)] And this rather begs the question as to whether or not you would go as far as to say that a cheating cook is at the bottom just a poorer type of ''cheating crook''? [:)] People should really be careful about that which they ''ave a larf at!!! [:$]

By the way nigel, your avatar is ageing gracefully so far I must say. I would imagine that the latest version should be around sooner rather than later since you''re not a 1958-59er![:P]

One love.

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I don''t dispute that at all Nutty. What I am saying is that it will do us no good footballwise to harp on about what a principalled club we are. The teams you mentioned in an earlier post are indeed cheating scum but I''m afraid nobody is listening. Do you really believe cheats never prosper? Surely you are old enough now to realise we live in an unreasoning cosmos and things don''t come right just because you believe in fairness. Ipswich, Leicester and the like have got a few quid now and the fact that they are cheating scum matters not one iota to their future prospects.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the Leeds saga. They appear to be favourites to get some points back from their 15 point deduction. If it happens then what bigger example of cheats prospering do you need?

Back on the Windass point. I''m not agitating for him to come here now but I still feel missing out on him all those years ago was a turning point in our fortunes. We blew it just when the big money was coming into the game. The guy has had a great and lengthy career at mid to top level in would have made a big difference to us just at the time we needed it.

If Big Bob had made a different decision on Windass he might still have been in charge today and you would be visiting you cousin Delia without having to wear your yellow and green bobble hat.

 

 

[/quote]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride Ricardo. Who knows if signing Windass would have changed the world back then. Players work out at some clubs and not at others. It''s so easy to blame Chase to suit an agenda. I rather suspect his hands were tied anyway. I also think that O''Neill sort of knew there was no money after Robert Fleck returned.

Football wise, message board wise, real life wise honesty is the best policy. Cheats never really prosper. I think you are a badboy wannabe, using the internet forums to fantasise about being Ric Dastardly and join your trusty sidekick Mutbly in the cousin Delia jibes.

 

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"]

I don''t dispute that at all Nutty. What I am saying is that it will do us no good footballwise to harp on about what a principalled club we are. The teams you mentioned in an earlier post are indeed cheating scum but I''m afraid nobody is listening. Do you really believe cheats never prosper? Surely you are old enough now to realise we live in an unreasoning cosmos and things don''t come right just because you believe in fairness. Ipswich, Leicester and the like have got a few quid now and the fact that they are cheating scum matters not one iota to their future prospects.

I wonder what your thoughts are on the Leeds saga. They appear to be favourites to get some points back from their 15 point deduction. If it happens then what bigger example of cheats prospering do you need?

Back on the Windass point. I''m not agitating for him to come here now but I still feel missing out on him all those years ago was a turning point in our fortunes. We blew it just when the big money was coming into the game. The guy has had a great and lengthy career at mid to top level in would have made a big difference to us just at the time we needed it.

If Big Bob had made a different decision on Windass he might still have been in charge today and you would be visiting you cousin Delia without having to wear your yellow and green bobble hat.

 

 

[/quote]

If wishes were horses beggars would ride Ricardo. Who knows if signing Windass would have changed the world back then. Players work out at some clubs and not at others. It''s so easy to blame Chase to suit an agenda. I rather suspect his hands were tied anyway. I also think that O''Neill sort of knew there was no money after Robert Fleck returned.

Football wise, message board wise, real life wise honesty is the best policy. Cheats never really prosper. I think you are a badboy wannabe, using the internet forums to fantasise about being Ric Dastardly and join your trusty sidekick Mutbly in the cousin Delia jibes.

 

[/quote]

That''s a nice thought Nutty but it smacks more of wishful thinking than reality.

No offence meant in the cousin Delia remark. If she was my auntie I''d be round for tea every day.

I await your thoughts on the Leeds fight to regain their lost points, if you have any.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s unbelievable that you now use examples of disgracefully run clubs, and I''m specifically talking about the two you mention, Leicester and Ipswich, as yet another stick to beat our great club with.

[/quote]

Lets take the club that went up and came down with us, Crystal Palace.  they have managed a play off position and are challenging again this year, we have not challenged at all. 

[/quote]

I agree with you CJF - the only thing that I would add to that is does that make our board the disgrace and failure everybody is saying they are?

Crystal Palace is one example - Southampton is another, both have equal similarities to our fine club. Palace has one major boost in its location and proximity to London which you could argue is the reason why (love him or hate him) their chairman has money and saved them and now bankrolls them.

Southampton whilst probably in a worse financial position to us but have had a more sustained run in the premiership, now facing another drop that is more threatening to them.

Norwich are somewhere in between. But thats only a statement of our position not how well the board has done. And I think it is only fair to say that if anything they are victims of their own success. They did well on a small budget and what these opinions are really saying is why can they not do it again? They have put in more money in most seasons since relegation than they did prior to promotion.

For example in the promotion season we signed Huckerby for £750k and Svensson for what would rise to £250k just two.

In the season after relegation we brought in: Earnshaw -  £2.75 - £3.5million and Hughes - £600k.

Why do I bring this up? Its an example that the board hasn''t stopped short of spending money on the squad - so again where does the blame lie? Does it lie in one place?

So far as I am concerned the only thing you can blame the board on, and this is not a particularily strong case, is not keeping up with the money spent by the other promotion challenging sides / recently relegated sides. And then you have to look at these teams, the likes of Wolves, WBA, Charlton, Stoke etc.

Then I think you also have to blame the managers and players that we have had. Worthington in the end gave us a good shot and did well in the first half of his time with us. For whatever reason he couldn''t turn things around even though he is one of the best backed managers of our recent history.

Grant merely prolonged the issues and failed to retain the core of players that had at least maintained a mid to top Championship side.

Roeder for my money is as of yet unproven. He has worked for the most part with what was left after sifting through it. Whether it has been enough or not we will be able to see more clearly on Saturday but I think you will find that this squad has a massive problem in depth and issue that was not entirely of his own making - gone are the days of mounting a play off push with a squad of 22 proffessional players.

Am I defending the board - not really. I just think for what they are you can not argue they do not give it their best shot without accepting they have at least tried to compete. If you want to blame them and insult them for not having more money feel free to do so, but personaly I could not bring myself to do that to anyone especially the club I love.


[/quote]

Chicken, the squad which started this season cost pretty much the same as those which got the club to the play-offs and promotion.  That`s after two seasons in which the club has raked in £14.2m in parachute payments and £18m in player sales.  Where does this fit with your assertion that "the board haven`t stopped short of spending money on the squad"?  And what does it make the boards` statements that "all money raised in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" look like?

[/quote]

Now you are getting somewhere - Bly please pay attention as we are fleshing out your contempt for the board!

It all comes down to the accounts. There are those that believe the accounts as published state where this money has gone and there are those that do not.

The problem with the £18million in player sales is that it is a biased statistic. For example that is almost assured to include both sales of Ashton and Earnshaw when it was pretty clear that the latter was bought with money from the sale of the first.

If you want to know where money went on that front you need to offset the selling fees against the buying fees. However even if only 30% of fees were being released from sales for purchases it would still indicate that the situation was not as it was when O''Neill left after the bust up with Chase - the origin of this debate.

But as for the parachute payments - I don''t honestly know. Does anyone know if the club publishes them online? If not they should - simply handing out printouts to people who attend a certain meeting doesn''t really broadcast the transparency they want to be known for.

But whatever you believe you can not but feel that the information made for the masses simply isn''t there, we are not all accountants, lawyers etc. It would be nice that they made these things a bit more accessible.
[/quote]

Chicken, Ashton was bought in a season that the club received £20m in tv money and the initial £1.5m downpayment came from a budget surplus from the share issues.  We didn`t spend too much else that season and player wages have been much lower as a percentage of income since we were promoted than before. 

Whatever way you look at it the club made money all ends up after promotion- tv money, transfer money and sell-out crowd money, but most of it went on things other than the team and that is the main reason we are in the predicament we are in on the pitch.  People like me are simply suggesting we reverse the "infrastructure before team" policy to reverse the decline.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="ricardo"]

That''s a nice thought Nutty but it smacks more of wishful thinking than reality.

No offence meant in the cousin Delia remark. If she was my auntie I''d be round for tea every day.

I await your thoughts on the Leeds fight to regain their lost points, if you have any.

[/quote]

I don''t think I could ever take offence by anything posted on here Ricardo.

It''s a bit more than wishful thinking. I believe the Football League is much more honest than the Premiership. I believe that Brian Mawhinney is a good honest man. This is what he had to say about Leeds last appeal back in August after a meeting of the second, third and fourth division clubs had voted overwhelmingly in favour of the sanction.

"Overwhelmingly means...the vote was over 75 percent in support of the board, which means that Leeds United are starting the new season in League One as a valued member of the league''s football family, but with a penalty of 15 points," he said. "The matter is now over, done and concluded."

So now they go to an independent appeal and I don''t know much about those hearing it except that Sir Philip Otton was the guy who Sheffield United got little joy from over the Tevez affair and Peter Leaver is the guy who fell foul of Chelseas illegal approaches when he made loud noises about only fit and proper persons being involved in football administration. The other guy, Peter Cadman, I know nothing about at all.

My gut feeling is that they will uphold the punishment which could be bad news for Bournemouth and Luton. We should find out soon.

CJF, bless him, seems to think it''s easier to be honest than to be cheating scum. I believe it''s the other way around and I also believe that the rewards are worth more if gained honestly.

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

My gut feeling is that they will uphold the punishment which could be bad news for Bournemouth and Luton. We should find out soon.

 

[/quote]

Seems we won''t find out soon. It wouldn''t surprise me now if they wait and come to a decision that won''t affect any of the teams around them. But the decision they make could well affect other clubs next season.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/7354091.stm

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="ricardo"]

I wonder what your thoughts are on the Leeds saga. They appear to be favourites to get some points back from their 15 point deduction. If it happens then what bigger example of cheats prospering do you need?

[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/7375942.stm

Rickyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy [:''(]

Cheats don''t prosper everytime [Y]

 

[arrdee 2]

Now Dick you lovely old boy , you know cheats never prosper , I have documented this several times that the binners can''t get a Free Bet to save their lives from any local bookmaker to help their club or their Academy as us lovely Norwich City fans can .

Now Dick ,  Dixmar Racing believe in Norwich City , they believe in the dream , Now for next season Dick I am confident that perhaps I can secure the Free Bet for you lovely old city supporters and I know that the binners cant .

So Dick If I can secure the Free Bet for next season , can I expect to have a selection from you each week ? I know you want to help your beloved club , don''t you ? arrdee.

 

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="arrdee"]

Now Dick you lovely old boy , you know cheats never prosper , I have documented this several times that the binners can''t get a Free Bet to save their lives from any local bookmaker to help their club or their Academy as us lovely Norwich City fans can .

Now Dick ,  Dixmar Racing believe in Norwich City , they believe in the dream , Now for next season Dick I am confident that perhaps I can secure the Free Bet for you lovely old city supporters and I know that the binners cant .

So Dick If I can secure the Free Bet for next season , can I expect to have a selection from you each week ? I know you want to help your beloved club , don''t you ? arrdee.

 

[/quote]

 

Always happy to oblige with my opinion Ray should you need a selection. Although some would say it''s not worth much.

Although having worked in both sides of the book (dog tracks and horses) I am well aware there is only one winner in the long run.

[ricardo 7,381]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="ricardo"]

I wonder what your thoughts are on the Leeds saga. They appear to be favourites to get some points back from their 15 point deduction. If it happens then what bigger example of cheats prospering do you need?

[/quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/l/leeds_united/7375942.stm

Rickyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy [:''(]

Cheats don''t prosper everytime [Y]

 

[/quote]

Maybe not evertime Nutty, but those b******ds who made me redundant at 61 and a half without any proper payout after 44 years service don''t seem to be doing too badly.

Perhaps I''ll be lucky in love?

Oop''s, don''t let my missus read this.

LOL