Who actually bought Huckerby?

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

I wonder why it''s taken 5 years for the Chief Exec and NCFC to thank Mr Moore for his valued financial input? I don''t actually recall Mr Doncaster initially reporting, that the Huckerby purchase wouldn''t have happened - other than his mentioning ''that without the actual contribution of shareholder input and the board''s ambition - we wouldn''t have Darren.''  

Although the donation (was it a loan?) from a ''Non-Director'' benefactor, as the board were being congratulated - wasn''t immediately forthcoming - or actually publicised by the club. I found out slightly later from a source that a percentage of Huckerby''s wonga was ''from a local businessman''.....  

I can now only assume ''at that moment in time'' the Diss entrepreneur Mr Moore wished to remain anonymous - or was somewhat shy.

Or in my opinion and, being a closet conspiricist, maybe it *wouldn''t* have been adverse publicity for those on the NCFC board? 

[/quote]

*would*

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="blahblahblah"]

Yep, they had the ambition and the vision of a place in the Premiership, and went so far as finding a local businessman who was willing to contribute.

Which brings me back to the question - would not signing him, not asking Mr Moore to help, have been more ambitious, or less ? [*-)]

[/quote]

Blah, personally i`m happy to give the board credit for the share issues and for finding a businessman willing to contribute, but do you think it is fair that they try and take the credit for ambition using other peoples money?  And do you think it would have happened had that money not been forthcoming?  Or would it have been a case of looking a gifthorse in the mouth as they did a few months later with Crouch?  And before you come back with the "they didn`t have the money to spend" chestnut, i`m afraid B.Skipper blew that one out of the water when he stated that the club could restructure its finances to free up funds.

[/quote]

When Crouch''s loan finished, he made it perfectly clear that he wanted to stay in the Premiership and we were still six months away from promotion.

I don''t ever recall Worthy making a bid for Crouch after we were promoted, or, for that matter, say he was a transfer target for us. We certainly spent enough pre-season to have been able to buy Crouch, but the fact is we didn''t. If that''s because the Board "looked a gift hourse in the mouth", or because Worthy simply wasn''t interested, neither of us really know.

As for Barry Skippers views, yep, as I''ve said before, if they''d significantly increased the authorised share capital, someone else could have made a significant share purchase and new funds would have come into the club. They keep telling us there''s no-one out there, but the real test must surely be, "prove it to us?" double the authorised share capital and let''s see who bites?

Refinancing would have saved us some interest, but I have doubts that it would have raised sufficent cash to buy Crouch.

I''ve really think you''ve overstated Barry''s comments to suit your Board bashing tendancys!

[/quote]

Sorry but Crouch said publically at the end of that season "if i leave Aston Villa, i want to join Norwich".  Worthington expressed interest over a period of weeks before stating that "at this moment in time, the overall financial package for the player is too much for this club".  If you do a bit of searching you will find that that is pretty much word-for-word what was said.

My main point on B.Skipper is that he has blown the "we simply don`t have the money" line out of the water.  We now know that they can restructure things to free up money, so what it boils down to is whether the board actually want to spend the clubs` money on the team, or on their continuing off-pitch "obsession".  Choosing the team this summer will put the club back on the right path IMO.

[/quote]

I must have missed that then and, on the basis that player power is everything these days, if that''s what Crouch really wanted, that''s what he''d have got. Therefore, either Worthy didn''t really want him or Crouch didn''t really want to come here in the first place.

I simply don''t follow the logic of your comments on the financial front, as Skipper''s comments hardly blow the "we don''t have the money" quote out of the water. We''ve always known that there''s the option to refinance, this is nothing new. And, yes, we could (probably should) of refianced and saved some interest, but that in itself isn''t going to make us big players in the transfer market. Similarly, unless you actually increase you authorised share captial and someone then buys the shares, you don''t actually have the money in the first place.

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, i think you are deliberately missing the point.  Crouch wanted to come here, Worthy wanted to sign him, the board wouldn`t cough up the cash.  It`s hardly an unbelievable revelation is it?!  The club publically stated that we could only afford Ashton because of the £1.5m "B" shares budget surplus so that proves that the club were not prepared to spend big that season.

On Skipper, maybe you`ve missed the number of times the board have plead poverty in the last few years when it comes to spending money on the team (whilst splashing millions off the pitch), but Skippers` comments have proved those words to be misleading and hollow.  With a bit of restructuring, money can be freed up for the team- where there`s a will there`s a way, and we haven`t had the will in recent years.

You are obsessing over the unauthorised share capital but Skippers` comments covered several options, restructuring the clubs` short-term debt being one.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="blahblahblah"]

Yep, they had the ambition and the vision of a place in the Premiership, and went so far as finding a local businessman who was willing to contribute.

Which brings me back to the question - would not signing him, not asking Mr Moore to help, have been more ambitious, or less ? [*-)]

[/quote]

Blah, personally i`m happy to give the board credit for the share issues and for finding a businessman willing to contribute, but do you think it is fair that they try and take the credit for ambition using other peoples money?  And do you think it would have happened had that money not been forthcoming?  Or would it have been a case of looking a gifthorse in the mouth as they did a few months later with Crouch?  And before you come back with the "they didn`t have the money to spend" chestnut, i`m afraid B.Skipper blew that one out of the water when he stated that the club could restructure its finances to free up funds.

[/quote]

When Crouch''s loan finished, he made it perfectly clear that he wanted to stay in the Premiership and we were still six months away from promotion.

I don''t ever recall Worthy making a bid for Crouch after we were promoted, or, for that matter, say he was a transfer target for us. We certainly spent enough pre-season to have been able to buy Crouch, but the fact is we didn''t. If that''s because the Board "looked a gift hourse in the mouth", or because Worthy simply wasn''t interested, neither of us really know.

As for Barry Skippers views, yep, as I''ve said before, if they''d significantly increased the authorised share capital, someone else could have made a significant share purchase and new funds would have come into the club. They keep telling us there''s no-one out there, but the real test must surely be, "prove it to us?" double the authorised share capital and let''s see who bites?

Refinancing would have saved us some interest, but I have doubts that it would have raised sufficent cash to buy Crouch.

I''ve really think you''ve overstated Barry''s comments to suit your Board bashing tendancys!

[/quote]

Sorry but Crouch said publically at the end of that season "if i leave Aston Villa, i want to join Norwich".  Worthington expressed interest over a period of weeks before stating that "at this moment in time, the overall financial package for the player is too much for this club".  If you do a bit of searching you will find that that is pretty much word-for-word what was said.

My main point on B.Skipper is that he has blown the "we simply don`t have the money" line out of the water.  We now know that they can restructure things to free up money, so what it boils down to is whether the board actually want to spend the clubs` money on the team, or on their continuing off-pitch "obsession".  Choosing the team this summer will put the club back on the right path IMO.

[/quote]

I must have missed that then and, on the basis that player power is everything these days, if that''s what Crouch really wanted, that''s what he''d have got. Therefore, either Worthy didn''t really want him or Crouch didn''t really want to come here in the first place.

I simply don''t follow the logic of your comments on the financial front, as Skipper''s comments hardly blow the "we don''t have the money" quote out of the water. We''ve always known that there''s the option to refinance, this is nothing new. And, yes, we could (probably should) of refianced and saved some interest, but that in itself isn''t going to make us big players in the transfer market. Similarly, unless you actually increase you authorised share captial and someone then buys the shares, you don''t actually have the money in the first place.

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, i think you are deliberately missing the point.  Crouch wanted to come here, Worthy wanted to sign him, the board wouldn`t cough up the cash.  It`s hardly an unbelievable revelation is it?!  The club publically stated that we could only afford Ashton because of the £1.5m "B" shares budget surplus so that proves that the club were not prepared to spend big that season.

On Skipper, maybe you`ve missed the number of times the board have plead poverty in the last few years when it comes to spending money on the team (whilst splashing millions off the pitch), but Skippers` comments have proved those words to be misleading and hollow.  With a bit of restructuring, money can be freed up for the team- where there`s a will there`s a way, and we haven`t had the will in recent years.

You are obsessing over the unauthorised share capital but Skippers` comments covered several options, restructuring the clubs` short-term debt being one.

[/quote]

I don''t think I''m deliberately missing the point at all.

For the record (and you should have picked this up from other threads relating to Worthy''s signings) I always thought the number one priority, having been promoted to the Premiership, was a striker capable of scoring 15 to 20 goals. Bearing this in mind, I really think I would have picked up any potential interest we may of had in Crouch at the time. You seem absolutely certain if happened (and are putting the blame solely at the Board''s door for it not happening) whilst I''m saying I don''t actually recall it. (I''ve done some digging, but can''t find anything to support your suggestion. If you care to show me a source to confirm your suggestion, I''ll happily hold my hand up and say I''m wrong. Am I the only one who missed it?)

I''m also suggesting that the main reason why it may not have happened (assuming the interest was actually there in the first place) was because Crouch didn''t actually want to come here in the end. Anyone can say they''re interested in this club or that club, but, when it came to the crunch, he chose Southamption. Maybe that was because they''d actually been in the Premiership for a number of seasons and he thought they had more chance of surviving? However, the reality is, neither of us actually know, but you seem obsessed with it being purely down to the Board, whilst I''m suggesting it could be down to any one of a number of reasons.

I know that Skipper''s comments covered a number of issues, all I''m pointing out is that we''re currently severly limited on raising addtional captial through the issue of ordinary shares simply because we''re near the limit of authorised shares. Addtionally, given that they don''t pay any dividends, they would be far the cheapest way to raise new capital for the club and certainly preferable than increasing the loan side of the business.

I personally wish we never hear the phrase "prudance with ambition" again from our Board. I want to see the Board explore all avenues to raise additional capital and Delia''s rants about there being no-one there to buy there shares drive me nuts and begs the question, are they limiting the options for someone to inject new captial through the purchase of new shares, by not substaintially increasing the authorised share capital simply to increase the chances of someone being left with no alternative but to buy their shares in order to gain control of the club?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

GazzaTCC, to be fair i never get very far with the searching for articles thing either, but i watched the play-off final with two City fans who remember things as i have described them.

The Crouch thing has been debated on here several times and to be honest the counter-argument to mine is usually that Villa/Crouch were demanding ridiculous amounts of money, not that we were not interested.  This argument rings a bit hollow for me, considering he joined little Southampton a few weeks later for £2.5m........

Agree with the rest of your post and who knows, maybe there will be a nice suprise this summer?  I find it inconceivable that Roeder is going to be asked to rebuild what little remains of our squad with a couple of million, and i think things on the pitch have been allowed to get so weak (and given the financial clout of many of our competitors) that we simply have to spend decent money to ward off another relegation battle.  Which just highlights what a stupid policy it has been to treat the team as an afterthought for three seasons.......

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, to be fair i never get very far with the searching for articles thing either, but i watched the play-off final with two City fans who remember things as i have described them.

The Crouch thing has been debated on here several times and to be honest the counter-argument to mine is usually that Villa/Crouch were demanding ridiculous amounts of money, not that we were not interested.  This argument rings a bit hollow for me, considering he joined little Southampton a few weeks later for £2.5m........

Agree with the rest of your post and who knows, maybe there will be a nice suprise this summer?  I find it inconceivable that Roeder is going to be asked to rebuild what little remains of our squad with a couple of million, and i think things on the pitch have been allowed to get so weak (and given the financial clout of many of our competitors) that we simply have to spend decent money to ward off another relegation battle.  Which just highlights what a stupid policy it has been to treat the team as an afterthought for three seasons.......

[/quote]

The only thing I''ve subsequently found was the below, lifted directly from "Flown from the Nest". The only think that seems slightly odd is the suggestion that we''d agreed a fee of £400,000 for Crouch, bearing in mind Villa paid £5M and subsequently sold him for £2M. That would have been an absolute steal, if there was any truth in the rumour.

 

"Crouch returned to Villa Park on 7th December 2003. Whilst sad words were said by Crouch about how he wished he could stay at Carrow Road, days later he was expressing his desire to break into the Villa first-team.

At the beginning of June 2004, it was widely reported that Norwich had agreed a £400,000 fee with Villa for Crouch and that Norwich were hoping to make it a double-swoop by also adding Crouch''s teammate Rob Edwards. However Worthington stated that nothing was happening on the Crouch front. In the end, Peter returned to the South Coast joining Southampton for £2million on 9th July 2004."

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

This is the 1st ive heard of it. I know we were urged to buy shares and Delia paraded him as if she was behind the deal yet more spin to add to the bin.

[BlahBlahzzzzz 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]This is the 1st ive heard of it. I know we were urged to buy shares and Delia paraded him as if she was behind the deal yet more spin to add to the bin.[/quote]

Shut up you old buffoon.

Delia was behind the move so deserves full credit.

[canary cherub 1]

Here''s what it says in Iwan''s book about Hucks'' signing:

(24th December 2003): "The gaffer . . . tells us the big news - Hucks won''t be joining us.  Talks have broken down over money apparently, and later on there is a big piece in the Evening News in which Hucks is reported saying that he had been willing to take a pay cut, ''however it became clear, first last night and again this morning, that Norwich were expecting more manoeuvrability from myself and Manchester City than they were prepared to do themselves.  To the point where I have been forced to ask the question: just how much did Norwich want me in the first place?''."

(25th December): "I head into training for 6pm . . . The gaffer tells us the club is giving the fans the best Christmas present every: Darren Huckerby.  He''ll be here tomorrow.  The lads are all well pleased.  But [NW] warns us: ''Lads, the club aren''t paying all of his wages, some of it is coming from other sources.  I don''t want people coming knocking at my door saying they want X amount of money because it''s just not there''.  We''re like: ''Fucking hell gaffer, do we look silly?''  We haven''t got a bee in our bonnet that Hucks is on more money than us, we''re just delighted that he''s signed."

Barry Skipper''s version of events tends to suggest that Carl Moore came forward after that piece appeared in the Evening News on 24th December  It does not sound as though the club approached him, or anyone else for that matter.  

I find it unbelievable, and very worrying for the future of our club, that if it wasn''t for Mr Moore they wouldn''t have signed Hucks.   The nearest thing you''ll ever get in football to a guarantee of promotion to the Prem and the millions that go with it, and yet the club were prepared to  forego it all to avoid paying a fraction of Darren''s wages for half a season.  Why?? Especially since money appears to be no object when it comes to infrastructure. 

You could be forgiven for thinking that promotion to the Premiership wasn''t part of their plans.  I couldn''t possibly comment . . .

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

Here''s what it says in Iwan''s book about Hucks'' signing:

(24th December 2003): "The gaffer . . . tells us the big news - Hucks won''t be joining us.  Talks have broken down over money apparently, and later on there is a big piece in the Evening News in which Hucks is reported saying that he had been willing to take a pay cut, ''however it became clear, first last night and again this morning, that Norwich were expecting more manoeuvrability from myself and Manchester City than they were prepared to do themselves.  To the point where I have been forced to ask the question: just how much did Norwich want me in the first place?''."

(25th December): "I head into training for 6pm . . . The gaffer tells us the club is giving the fans the best Christmas present every: Darren Huckerby.  He''ll be here tomorrow.  The lads are all well pleased.  But [NW] warns us: ''Lads, the club aren''t paying all of his wages, some of it is coming from other sources.  I don''t want people coming knocking at my door saying they want X amount of money because it''s just not there''.  We''re like: ''Fucking hell gaffer, do we look silly?''  We haven''t got a bee in our bonnet that Hucks is on more money than us, we''re just delighted that he''s signed."

Barry Skipper''s version of events tends to suggest that Carl Moore came forward after that piece appeared in the Evening News on 24th December  It does not sound as though the club approached him, or anyone else for that matter.  

I find it unbelievable, and very worrying for the future of our club, that if it wasn''t for Mr Moore they wouldn''t have signed Hucks.   The nearest thing you''ll ever get in football to a guarantee of promotion to the Prem and the millions that go with it, and yet the club were prepared to  forego it all to avoid paying a fraction of Darren''s wages for half a season.  Why?? Especially since money appears to be no object when it comes to infrastructure. 

You could be forgiven for thinking that promotion to the Premiership wasn''t part of their plans.  I couldn''t possibly comment . . .

 

[/quote]

Superb post, absoloutly sums up the clowns running our club. Yet more "proof" for the percys to deny, but even they must admit they are in the minority now.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

So are we any closer to finding out who actually bought Huckerby [:^)]

Apparently Worthington had identified other targets and the bored[|-)] had nothing to do with it so my best guess is that CityAngel[U] identified Hucks as a target and went to Colney and told Terry Postle[Z] who set up the whole thing.

So there you have it - it was "The Kitman And Her"

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, to be fair i never get very far with the searching for articles thing either, but i watched the play-off final with two City fans who remember things as i have described them.

The Crouch thing has been debated on here several times and to be honest the counter-argument to mine is usually that Villa/Crouch were demanding ridiculous amounts of money, not that we were not interested.  This argument rings a bit hollow for me, considering he joined little Southampton a few weeks later for £2.5m........

Agree with the rest of your post and who knows, maybe there will be a nice suprise this summer?  I find it inconceivable that Roeder is going to be asked to rebuild what little remains of our squad with a couple of million, and i think things on the pitch have been allowed to get so weak (and given the financial clout of many of our competitors) that we simply have to spend decent money to ward off another relegation battle.  Which just highlights what a stupid policy it has been to treat the team as an afterthought for three seasons.......

[/quote]

The only thing I''ve subsequently found was the below, lifted directly from "Flown from the Nest". The only think that seems slightly odd is the suggestion that we''d agreed a fee of £400,000 for Crouch, bearing in mind Villa paid £5M and subsequently sold him for £2M. That would have been an absolute steal, if there was any truth in the rumour.

 

"Crouch returned to Villa Park on 7th December 2003. Whilst sad words were said by Crouch about how he wished he could stay at Carrow Road, days later he was expressing his desire to break into the Villa first-team.

At the beginning of June 2004, it was widely reported that Norwich had agreed a £400,000 fee with Villa for Crouch and that Norwich were hoping to make it a double-swoop by also adding Crouch''s teammate Rob Edwards. However Worthington stated that nothing was happening on the Crouch front. In the end, Peter returned to the South Coast joining Southampton for £2million on 9th July 2004."

 

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, i can`t do the link thing but found a bbc story on through google dated 29th April 2004 in which Crouch states "Things are going well for me at Villa at the moment, and obviously i hope that continues.  But you never know what`s round the corner.....and if i ever did decide to move on, Norwich City would be my number one choice."

Worthingtons` subsequent comments were in the local press and i can`t seem to search that far back using the edp24 search facility.  If anyone has more joy in clearing this up it would be appreciated.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=27+Dec+2003+07%3A05&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED26+Dec+2003+23%3A05%3A30%3A993

Looks like ''good guy turned bad'' Worthington and ''bad guy turned good'' Skipper may have had something to do with it afterall [*-)]

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=17+Dec+2003+08%3A35&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED17+Dec+2003+08%3A35%3A40%3A997

Where did the money come from?? I don''t believe at anytime it was suggested by anyone at the club that any part of the deal was funded by a local businessman but it was strongly rumoured at the time.

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=03+Jun+2004+08%3A00&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED02+Jun+2004+21%3A59%3A53%3A707

And Mr Carrow[8-|][*] ... this ones for you[Y]

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Whether it was mentioned by the board or not, I think most City fans (online or not) knew someone was funding Hucks'' signing in some way.

Going on their past history, I for one am not surprised the board haven''t mentioned this before. Maybe they have privately or to a few individuals, but stood up and shouted about it, no. Who can blame them? Issuing all those shares for us to buy and not let us think we were responsible for buying Hucks, loyal fans blah blah blah....

I have to admit I didn''t know the guy''s name but knew he came from Diss. How does a mere fan get to know that kind of stuff without a big PR statement, maybe because it happens to be true and the original benefactor wasn''t shy about his actions? Wonder if they consulted him before getting rid of his very generous investment for the club?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=27+Dec+2003+07%3A05&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED26+Dec+2003+23%3A05%3A30%3A993

Looks like ''good guy turned bad'' Worthington and ''bad guy turned good'' Skipper may have had something to do with it afterall [*-)]

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=17+Dec+2003+08%3A35&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED17+Dec+2003+08%3A35%3A40%3A997

Where did the money come from?? I don''t believe at anytime it was suggested by anyone at the club that any part of the deal was funded by a local businessman but it was strongly rumoured at the time.

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/sport/story.aspx?datetime=03+Jun+2004+08%3A00&tbrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=Sport&category=Sport&brand=EDPOnline&itemid=NOED02+Jun+2004+21%3A59%3A53%3A707

And Mr Carrow[8-|][*] ... this ones for you[Y]

 

[/quote]

Good work nutty, thanks alot.  All our previous disagreements are hereby forgotten.  Well, maybe not quite........[;)]

I think the last link proves what a tight budget Worthy had to work with when we went up, he`s basically saying he could afford one or two big transfer fees, but not the wages and vice versa.  I`m not sure he even had a budget at all when we came back down, considering we made a £3.5m transfer profit that season........

Worthy did a fantastic job in the circumstances, and on the rare occasions he had realistic amounts of money to spend, he spent it well. Perhaps the biggest criticism i`ve got of him is that he didn`t give the board both barrels when he left. Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

GazzaTCC, proof of my Crouch point is in the links kindly provided by nuttynigel.  In case you missed it........

[GMF 736]

Fair enough, Mr Carrow, I obviously missed it. Crouch was exactly the sort of player we should have been targeting.

It''s interesting that Worthy was implying that he would cost circa £5M and he subsequently went for much less. Doesn''t actually say we made a bid, just that he thought we couldn''t afford him.

Guess we''ll never know whether we did bid, or whether Crouch had a change of mind, hence the reason why he ended up at Southampton.

Worthy''s outline on his transfer policy proved pretty near the mark, but I still maintain that the quantity, rather than quality, approach was the wrong way to go.

[lappinitup 629]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

Fair enough, Mr Carrow, I obviously missed it. Crouch was exactly the sort of player we should have been targeting.

It''s interesting that Worthy was implying that he would cost circa £5M and he subsequently went for much less. Doesn''t actually say we made a bid, just that he thought we couldn''t afford him.

Guess we''ll never know whether we did bid, or whether Crouch had a change of mind, hence the reason why he ended up at Southampton.

Worthy''s outline on his transfer policy proved pretty near the mark, but I still maintain that the quantity, rather than quality, approach was the wrong way to go.

[/quote]

I`m sorry but it doesn`t take a genius to work out that as the club publically stated that they could only afford Ashton because of the £1.5m B shares surplus (halfway through the season) and using some of the following seasons money (for the second instalment presumably), that we simply were not at the races when the price for Crouch hit £2m+ early in the season.

On "quantity over quality" i think Worthy`s comments speak for themselves really. He says he had enough money to spend quite alot on one or two players (quality presumably) but that would leave the squad extremely short of numbers.  Even though he chose the "quantity" route he still had to resort to playing the likes of Jarvis in the Prem because of injuries.  This is the reality, we had released quite a few players and had to have a squad big enough to cope with inevitable injuries.  Or would you rather 11 quality players with youth teamers filling in when injuries kick in?

Blaming it all on Worthy is a total cop-out.  He was given an extremely poor hand to play when we went up and did very well with it.  When we came back down he barely had a hand to play at all.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

 

[/quote]

None of our previous boards have had £34m tv money, £19m transfer income and regular 25,000 crowds to play with.

Your last sentence is completely pointless.  Where was Delia until Chase was forced out?  Would G.Watling have stepped in to buy Chase out if there hadn`t been immense public pressure on him?  No chance.  Championship clubs are becoming an increasingly attractive commodity (although the lyers on our board state "nobody`s interested in Championship clubs") and i think there would be plenty of interest if Delia and MWJ genuinely wanted out.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

[/quote]

None of our previous boards have had £34m tv money, £19m transfer income and regular 25,000 crowds to play with.

Your last sentence is completely pointless.  Where was Delia until Chase was forced out?  Would G.Watling have stepped in to buy Chase out if there hadn`t been immense public pressure on him?  No chance.  Championship clubs are becoming an increasingly attractive commodity (although the lyers on our board state "nobody`s interested in Championship clubs") and i think there would be plenty of interest if Delia and MWJ genuinely wanted out.

[/quote]Mr Carrow. You stated that the board should be forced out and when I asked you ''how'' and ''by who'' you replied that my question was completely pointless and then proceeded to give me a short history lesson which in my opinion was completely pointless. Just so that you don''t line up alongside these thick Norfolk people that you so malign I shall ask you again....

How do you force this board out and who do you suggest will do it ? 

Also you have stated that a member of the board (or members) have told deliberate lies. Would you care to be more specific Mr Carrow ? 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Lappinitup, i am pointing out that people were using "there`s no-one to take over" as an excuse not to protest against Chase- and the same people seem to be using the same line now.  And i would expect protests to be much the same as back then.

Would you say that the boards` "no-one is interested in investing in Championship clubs" statement at the AGM only a few months ago was truthful?

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

Fair enough, Mr Carrow, I obviously missed it. Crouch was exactly the sort of player we should have been targeting.

It''s interesting that Worthy was implying that he would cost circa £5M and he subsequently went for much less. Doesn''t actually say we made a bid, just that he thought we couldn''t afford him.

Guess we''ll never know whether we did bid, or whether Crouch had a change of mind, hence the reason why he ended up at Southampton.

Worthy''s outline on his transfer policy proved pretty near the mark, but I still maintain that the quantity, rather than quality, approach was the wrong way to go.

[/quote]

I`m sorry but it doesn`t take a genius to work out that as the club publically stated that they could only afford Ashton because of the £1.5m B shares surplus (halfway through the season) and using some of the following seasons money (for the second instalment presumably), that we simply were not at the races when the price for Crouch hit £2m+ early in the season.

On "quantity over quality" i think Worthy`s comments speak for themselves really. He says he had enough money to spend quite alot on one or two players (quality presumably) but that would leave the squad extremely short of numbers.  Even though he chose the "quantity" route he still had to resort to playing the likes of Jarvis in the Prem because of injuries.  This is the reality, we had released quite a few players and had to have a squad big enough to cope with inevitable injuries.  Or would you rather 11 quality players with youth teamers filling in when injuries kick in?

Blaming it all on Worthy is a total cop-out.  He was given an extremely poor hand to play when we went up and did very well with it.  When we came back down he barely had a hand to play at all.

[/quote]

Just to remove any doubts from your mind, if you read my posts again, you''ll note that I''m not actually "blaming it all on Worthy". 

However, my beef with him, to use his quote, when referring to the budget, "it''s how I decide to use that", that I have an issue with.

Just because the budget was only £X M, didn''t mean he had to go and spend it on two reserve keepers, two full backs, a centre half, two wide midfield players and one centre midfield player, when the clear priority was a proven goal scorer. However, he decided to go down that route (I''ve read his comments, but, personally, I think he got the implementation of his plan seriously wrong) and that''s why he''s partly culpable for the mess we got in to. He could have gone for Crouch if he really wanted to, but didn''t. It''s as simple as that.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

 

[/quote]

None of our previous boards have had £34m tv money, £19m transfer income and regular 25,000 crowds to play with.

Your last sentence is completely pointless.  Where was Delia until Chase was forced out?  Would G.Watling have stepped in to buy Chase out if there hadn`t been immense public pressure on him?  No chance.  Championship clubs are becoming an increasingly attractive commodity (although the lyers on our board state "nobody`s interested in Championship clubs") and i think there would be plenty of interest if Delia and MWJ genuinely wanted out.

[/quote]

That''s a pretty strong accusation Mr Carrow. What evidence do you have to support it?

Clearly, there are investors interested in Clubs with distressed debt (Ipswich & Coventry) but I''d rather we didn''t go down that particular route if you don''t mind [;)]

Our issue is that we only have limited unallocated share captial for investors to tap into and, personally, I''d much rather someone had the chance to buy £XM of new shares than spend the same amount buying out Delia & Michael, which wouldn''t actually benefit the Club at all in terms of new capital.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

Fair enough, Mr Carrow, I obviously missed it. Crouch was exactly the sort of player we should have been targeting.

It''s interesting that Worthy was implying that he would cost circa £5M and he subsequently went for much less. Doesn''t actually say we made a bid, just that he thought we couldn''t afford him.

Guess we''ll never know whether we did bid, or whether Crouch had a change of mind, hence the reason why he ended up at Southampton.

Worthy''s outline on his transfer policy proved pretty near the mark, but I still maintain that the quantity, rather than quality, approach was the wrong way to go.

[/quote]

I`m sorry but it doesn`t take a genius to work out that as the club publically stated that they could only afford Ashton because of the £1.5m B shares surplus (halfway through the season) and using some of the following seasons money (for the second instalment presumably), that we simply were not at the races when the price for Crouch hit £2m+ early in the season.

On "quantity over quality" i think Worthy`s comments speak for themselves really. He says he had enough money to spend quite alot on one or two players (quality presumably) but that would leave the squad extremely short of numbers.  Even though he chose the "quantity" route he still had to resort to playing the likes of Jarvis in the Prem because of injuries.  This is the reality, we had released quite a few players and had to have a squad big enough to cope with inevitable injuries.  Or would you rather 11 quality players with youth teamers filling in when injuries kick in?

Blaming it all on Worthy is a total cop-out.  He was given an extremely poor hand to play when we went up and did very well with it.  When we came back down he barely had a hand to play at all.

[/quote]

Just to remove any doubts from your mind, if you read my posts again, you''ll note that I''m not actually "blaming it all on Worthy". 

However, my beef with him, to use his quote, when referring to the budget, "it''s how I decide to use that", that I have an issue with.

Just because the budget was only £X M, didn''t mean he had to go and spend it on two reserve keepers, two full backs, a centre half, two wide midfield players and one centre midfield player, when the clear priority was a proven goal scorer. However, he decided to go down that route (I''ve read his comments, but, personally, I think he got the implementation of his plan seriously wrong) and that''s why he''s partly culpable for the mess we got in to. He could have gone for Crouch if he really wanted to, but didn''t. It''s as simple as that.

[/quote]

Fair enough GazzaTCC, it`s pretty obvious he got things wrong but it would have taken unbelievable management skills to have built a successful team, particularly when we came back down.  People forget that when we went up we had built a squad over a number of years and the Crouch/Harper/Hucks loans and Svensson/Mckenzie/Hucks signings were add-ons to a solid base.  Since we came back down we have been losing decent players left,right and centre but still trying to replace them on the cheap. It`s a flawed policy.

As for the implementation of his plan being "seriously wrong", his plan took us within a point of safety and Ashton`s impact proved that he had built a solid team which lacked a quality goalscorer.  That goalscorer should have been Crouch or Ashton in the summer but obviously had Worthy blown his entire budget on a striker there wouldn`t have been the solid team to back him up.  The problem was the budget was ridiculously small until the B shares surplus. It`s as simple as that.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

 

[/quote]

None of our previous boards have had £34m tv money, £19m transfer income and regular 25,000 crowds to play with.

Your last sentence is completely pointless.  Where was Delia until Chase was forced out?  Would G.Watling have stepped in to buy Chase out if there hadn`t been immense public pressure on him?  No chance.  Championship clubs are becoming an increasingly attractive commodity (although the lyers on our board state "nobody`s interested in Championship clubs") and i think there would be plenty of interest if Delia and MWJ genuinely wanted out.

[/quote]

That''s a pretty strong accusation Mr Carrow. What evidence do you have to support it?

Clearly, there are investors interested in Clubs with distressed debt (Ipswich & Coventry) but I''d rather we didn''t go down that particular route if you don''t mind [;)]

Our issue is that we only have limited unallocated share captial for investors to tap into and, personally, I''d much rather someone had the chance to buy £XM of new shares than spend the same amount buying out Delia & Michael, which wouldn''t actually benefit the Club at all in terms of new capital.

[/quote]

I think that the "nobody`s interested in investing in Championship clubs" was a lie (and i don`t think Derby or Sunderlands investors were interested in distressed debt), i think the oft-repeated "all money received in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" statements are lies and i think Doncaster stating that a wage bill showing falling player wages and spiralling non-football wages proved the clubs ambition on the field (in the last accounts) was a lie.  Things like the Gretna comparison i would term as "deliberately misleading".

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Mr.Carrow wrote......

''''Our decline is 100% down to a board which thinks you can challenge for the play-offs by flogging your best players for millions and replacing them for a few £100k and if this attitude doesn`t change in the summer they should be forced out.''''

Surely ALL of our past boards have sold players and replaced cheaply, in fact most clubs have to do exactly the same thing. It''s a known fact that football clubs need income other than gate and TV money to survive so selling players at a profit is an obvious way to gain extra income.

Again you reiterate the board should be forced out. Can you explain exactly by WHO and HOW ?

 

[/quote]

None of our previous boards have had £34m tv money, £19m transfer income and regular 25,000 crowds to play with.

Your last sentence is completely pointless.  Where was Delia until Chase was forced out?  Would G.Watling have stepped in to buy Chase out if there hadn`t been immense public pressure on him?  No chance.  Championship clubs are becoming an increasingly attractive commodity (although the lyers on our board state "nobody`s interested in Championship clubs") and i think there would be plenty of interest if Delia and MWJ genuinely wanted out.

[/quote]

That''s a pretty strong accusation Mr Carrow. What evidence do you have to support it?

Clearly, there are investors interested in Clubs with distressed debt (Ipswich & Coventry) but I''d rather we didn''t go down that particular route if you don''t mind [;)]

Our issue is that we only have limited unallocated share captial for investors to tap into and, personally, I''d much rather someone had the chance to buy £XM of new shares than spend the same amount buying out Delia & Michael, which wouldn''t actually benefit the Club at all in terms of new capital.

[/quote]

I think that the "nobody`s interested in investing in Championship clubs" was a lie (and i don`t think Derby or Sunderlands investors were interested in distressed debt), i think the oft-repeated "all money received in transfers is available to be re-invested in the squad" statements are lies and i think Doncaster stating that a wage bill showing falling player wages and spiralling non-football wages proved the clubs ambition on the field (in the last accounts) was a lie.  Things like the Gretna comparison i would term as "deliberately misleading".

[/quote]

Boardering on "libellous comments about individuals or companies" perhaps?