Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlyBlyBabes

When they next explain away 1992-93....

Recommended Posts

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

BF, he`s shown all the populist nonsense up for exactly what it is- and i`m not going to repeat the quotes because you know exactly what i`m talking about.  The fact that some people can`t take being proved wrong doesn`t change it i`m afraid.

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

......why do you think that is Cullum?

[/quote]

I can quote you plenty of examples of various members of our board being less than honest.  Can you provide any from Cullum please?

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a vote on Cullum coming aboard spending £9.6m paying Delia off with £10.4m going on the team, him coming aboard via a new share issue diluting Delias holding but providing £20m for the team, or keeping the status quo, which would you choose?  Question is obviously open to anyone else to answer.

[/quote]

No philanthropic venture is ever short-term.  Cullum would have to continue to fund the club as the current incumbents have done in their own way.  You can argue over whether they should get something back for it, whether they''ve done enough, or even whether they''ve done it out of self-interest, but the fact is that the current board do support the club financially, it couldn''t run without their regular top-ups.

That said, the best answer for the club would be whatever the current board would accept, as having Cullums potential buying power has to be better than not.  That said, just watch them land 2 decent strikers now [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

That''s the thing though Mr.C, it''s not your club or mine, any more than some blokes who come from the same country and who win gold in Beijing are "our athletes", the people involved do it for themselves, and we just watch from the sidelines.

[/quote]

That`s exactly what Chase supporters used to say.....

[/quote]

Ah, that''s ok then, you don''t actually have an answer to what I said, such as "yep, it''s out of our hands all right", you resorted to a stock insult.

Just checking. [;)]

 

[/quote]

Blah, you are one of the posters from "the other side of the fence" that i have respect for but this is by far your weakest argument.  The fans got Chase out with help from more influential bandwagon jumpers like Jimmy Jones (see Chase`s quote about it being time to call it a day when the protests affected his family) and there are plenty of examples of fan pressure forcing change at clubs (Wrexham, Bournemouth.....One of my best mates is a Cambridge fan- he could tell you a thing or two.).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote] The fans got Chase out with help from more influential bandwagon jumpers like Jimmy Jones (see Chase`s quote about it being time to call it a day when the protests affected his family) and there are plenty of examples of fan pressure forcing change at clubs (Wrexham, Bournemouth.....One of my best mates is a Cambridge fan- he could tell you a thing or two.).[/quote]

How far would you go to force a change, Mr. C ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

BF, he`s shown all the populist nonsense up for exactly what it is- and i`m not going to repeat the quotes because you know exactly what i`m talking about.  The fact that some people can`t take being proved wrong doesn`t change it i`m afraid.

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

......why do you think that is Cullum?

[/quote]

I can quote you plenty of examples of various members of our board being less than honest.  Can you provide any from Cullum please?

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a vote on Cullum coming aboard spending £9.6m paying Delia off with £10.4m going on the team, him coming aboard via a new share issue diluting Delias holding but providing £20m for the team, or keeping the status quo, which would you choose?  Question is obviously open to anyone else to answer.

[/quote]

No philanthropic venture is ever short-term.  Cullum would have to continue to fund the club as the current incumbents have done in their own way.  You can argue over whether they should get something back for it, whether they''ve done enough, or even whether they''ve done it out of self-interest, but the fact is that the current board do support the club financially, it couldn''t run without their regular top-ups.

That said, the best answer for the club would be whatever the current board would accept, as having Cullums potential buying power has to be better than not.  That said, just watch them land 2 decent strikers now [:)]

[/quote]

Blah, no-one can possibly know what Cullums long-term plans are, just as no-one knew what Delias long-term plans were (right now they look a tad more mercenary than many believed when she took over).  The "whats the long-term plan" argument is ridiculous because we all know the media stuff we will get when any new owner takes over, but there is no way we can know 100% whether they will stick to it.  But Cullums credentials don`t look half bad do they?

It is possible that the board are not prepared to compromise and won`t accept a reasonable offer.  Are you honestly saying that if that is the case, we just have to accept it and pressure from supporters will make no difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, Cullums credentials look to be as good as they can be.  And it is possible that the board are not prepared to compromise, just as it is possible that Cullum didn''t make an offer that was acceptable ( I find it hard to believe that he would be unfamiliar with the City Code though). 

As for pressure from the supporters, if people start staying away / not renewing, then there may be problems, as the cash-flow would diminish.  I think that any small protest would be dismissed as the same old trouble-makers, and to be honest I don''t think your average fan could stomach that kind of protest again.  For the majority of fans to want to put pressure on the board, there would have to be some very bad results this season.  When you consider that we were bottom of the table for a long time last season and Smudger was the only protestor, I think you have an idea of what anyone attempting to create supporter pressure is up against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with almost all of that Blah, but the big thing which is different to last season is that the "no-one wants to invest....." line has been made to look very silly.

The club will just dismiss the "same old trouble-makers", but i`ve posted before that they will start listening when more moderate supporters start suggesting that their time may be up and i think that is starting to happen. 

I`ve got this nightmare scenario nagging at me that Cullum puts in a formal, fair offer giving Delia back what she has put in, which is then put to a shareholder/season-ticket holder vote and the fans turn it down and back Delia.  "little norwich" from here to eternity.....[:S].  Probably a daft notion but so many people seem more worried about the good of Delia over the good of the club that i don`t think it`s totally far-fetched.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cullum''s credentials are neither here nor there. Long term plan is not really an issue, we don''t know what his short term plan is!!! [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BigFish"]Cullum''s credentials are neither here nor there. Long term plan is not really an issue, we don''t know what his short term plan is!!! [:D][/quote]

You must admit BigFish, that he meets all of Delias'' requirements of an investor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote user="BigFish"]Cullum''s credentials are neither here nor there. Long term plan is not really an issue, we don''t know what his short term plan is!!! [:D][/quote]

You must admit BigFish, that he meets all of Delias'' requirements of an investor.

[/quote]

On the face of it he would be fantastic.

But there is always a but. It didn''t seem like it took much to discourage him. Some on here think he is playing a long game in order to reduce the price. This doesn''t seem to me to be in the best interest of the club or particularly likely to succeed unless it all blows up which most supporters wouldn''t want to happen. I don''t understand why he doesn''t buy himself a significant stake in the club and negotiate from that position, Sure legally it ties his hands in terms of a takeover price but if he does have £1.7b  a couple of million here or there is not going to make much difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]

On the face of it he would be fantastic.

But there is always a but. It didn''t seem like it took much to discourage him. Some on here think he is playing a long game in order to reduce the price. This doesn''t seem to me to be in the best interest of the club or particularly likely to succeed unless it all blows up which most supporters wouldn''t want to happen. I don''t understand why he doesn''t buy himself a significant stake in the club and negotiate from that position, Sure legally it ties his hands in terms of a takeover price but if he does have £1.7b  a couple of million here or there is not going to make much difference.

[/quote]

He likes to get a good deal for his money, that''s how he made his money, I agree with you that he didn''t do the club any favours with the timing of his press release and interview with the EDP.  I guess there are some pretty large egos involved with all this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

All wrong so far.

Why were the clubs that nutty picked out successful in that same time as City (1992-93) compared with the many other ''small'' teams that were unsucessful at that  same time?

Try again - and be honest with yourselves.

[A]

OTBC

[/quote]

Little Old Norwich back then were we Babes [:^)]

Surely not [:O]

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Crystal Palace, Everton, Leeds United, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Norwich City, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Southampton, Tottenham Hotspur, Watford and West Ham all finished in the top four in the 13 years up to 1995.

Only Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Leeds United, Liverpool, Manchester United and Newcastle United have finished in the top 4 in the 13 years since 1995.

Now why do you think those unexpected clubs are never succesful anymore?

Be honest with yourself now...

And why did you brand me an apologist for the conversation I was having with Cam about how football had changed on that original thread...

Don''t you agree it''s changed?

[/quote]

Why do you think I put ''small'' in quotation marks? For no reason? Do better than that.

Of course ''it''s changed'' - but that''s not the point of this thread.

There is a reason that City, QPR, Sheff Wed, Coventry, Sheff Utd, Wimbledon, Ipswich, Southampton and Oldham were in the Prem in 1992-93 and not the 10 current Prem clubs I named which were then in the 2nd & 3rd tiers.

It was not ''size'' and it was not ''money'' - so what was it????

I have a pretty good idea. But let''s see what you and ellis and badger and ncfcstar and beausomething etc come up with.

But do try and stick to the point folks, otherwise I shall have to mark you all down again. A key factor in passing exams is to read the question carefully and understand it - then answer it. It''s surprising how many people fail to read questions properly and then proceed to ''answer that which was not asked''.

[:)]

OTBC

[/quote]

Don''t preach to me about sticking to the point Babes. The reason I''m involved in this thread is because you were taking comments I made on a different thread out of context. But now you bring it to my attention, I think if you were setting an exam it would help if you fully understood the reference books and knew a little more about the subject. So when you admit that I didn''t try to ''explain away 1992-3'' I may sit your Eleven Plus but until then I will carry on posting whatever I see fit wherever I see fit.

42 different clubs have competed in the Premiership  since it was formed in 1992. Only 7 clubs (Arsenal, Aston Villa, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham) have held onto Premier status throughout that time. That leaves 13 places for the other 35 clubs and 35 into 13 doesn''t go.

But we have fared better than some because of the 29 different clubs that have been relegated from the Premiership 12 (Barnsley, Bradford, Coventry, Leeds, Oldham, QPR, Reading, Sheffield Wednesday, Southampton, Swindon, Wimbledon and Wolves) have yet to return.

We are in a group of clubs who HAVE made real efforts to fight for one of those 13 places. Birmingham, Blackburn, Bolton, Charlton, Derby, Crystal Palace, Ipswich, Leicester,  Manchester City, Middlesboro, Norwich City, Nottingham Forest, Sheffield United, Sunderland, Watford, WBA, and West Ham have all had the ambition to fight back and return at least once after relegation.

Our time will come again but until football at the highest level changes we will never hit those heights of the late 80''s and early 90''s.

[/quote]

Par for the course.

Get knickers in a twist about banter.

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

Answer own question.

You like the taking part, but dislike ambition, drive and benchmarking.

Amateurs don''t make it in the professional world. And the presentf NCFC ownwers and board are no exception.

As for me ''preaching''................ Wow! That takes the cake.

One love.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ellis206"]Didn''t realise any of those teams had finished 3rd in the premiership mate....... oh and don''t most of those teams have extremely rich owners? Which is the point we''re trying to make, football is all about money now, and nobody will break into that top 4 for years to come as the gap is just getting bigger and bigger.
[/quote]

yep football is all about money these days, which makes it all the more stupid that our Board wouldn''t even talk to someone who actually has a lot of it and is a City fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Unlucky Fried Kitten"]

[quote user="DonnysDoom"]So what you Percys are all saying is that to be a Premiership team nowadays you need  major investment , so why do you all want the penniless cook to stay in charge when we had a billionaire supporter wanting to take over ?. Answer you like Delia and Doomcaster are delighted to be a bottom half Championship club with not one ounce of ambition .Anybody wanting success for this club knows it can only be achieved by getting rid of the cook , she has nothing to offer apart from a few poor loans and free transfers.[/quote]

Spot on, mate. I''d prefer a Russian crook to a penniless cook any day of the week! Stick with Delia and co and watch us plummet to the dark and distant depths of the league. The Fulhams, Boltons, Hulls, Portsmouths and Stokes of this world are all smaller clubs than City, but show far more ambition when it comes to trying to achieve and maintain their Premiership status. If they can attract wealthy owners and investors, why can''t we??

[/quote]

we can attract wealthy investors, we just them away, refuse to speak to them and pretend to the fans that no one would be stupid enough to invest in us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Fellas"]What about that team called Wimbledon FC? Anybody remember those guys? They don''t even exist anymore!
[/quote]

Are you going to answer my question smudgeface or bly?
[/quote]

Wimbledon don''t exist anymore because they were averaging gates of approx 3 - 4 thousand and couldn''t sustain a club on that turnover. There is an up and coming club called the MK Dons however, who are getting pretty good gates and seem to be doing quite well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

BF, he`s shown all the populist nonsense up for exactly what it is- and i`m not going to repeat the quotes because you know exactly what i`m talking about.  The fact that some people can`t take being proved wrong doesn`t change it i`m afraid.

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

......why do you think that is Cullum?

[/quote]

I can quote you plenty of examples of various members of our board being less than honest.  Can you provide any from Cullum please?

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a vote on Cullum coming aboard spending £9.6m paying Delia off with £10.4m going on the team, him coming aboard via a new share issue diluting Delias holding but providing £20m for the team, or keeping the status quo, which would you choose?  Question is obviously open to anyone else to answer.

[/quote]

Should be a no-brainer and obviously 20 mill for the team, however Auntie D is going to become so unpopular the more this drags on that the option to pay her off entirely may become the better one. A classic case of  staying on past your sell by date. If last October a deal had been done with Cullum and the initial 5 mill had been invested, we could just be where Stoke and Hull are now, backed up with at least another 15 mill to keep us there. Delia''s status would have been legendary for putting the club first and we would be into an exciting new era. Instead we have all the appearance of an embattled club going nowhere, with cheap options and short term loans, and approaching civil war between the best supporters in the land. Could all have been avoided if the best interests of the club had been put first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

BF, he`s shown all the populist nonsense up for exactly what it is- and i`m not going to repeat the quotes because you know exactly what i`m talking about.  The fact that some people can`t take being proved wrong doesn`t change it i`m afraid.

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

......why do you think that is Cullum?

[/quote]

I can quote you plenty of examples of various members of our board being less than honest.  Can you provide any from Cullum please?

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a vote on Cullum coming aboard spending £9.6m paying Delia off with £10.4m going on the team, him coming aboard via a new share issue diluting Delias holding but providing £20m for the team, or keeping the status quo, which would you choose?  Question is obviously open to anyone else to answer.

[/quote]

Should be a no-brainer and obviously 20 mill for the team, however Auntie D is going to become so unpopular the more this drags on that the option to pay her off entirely may become the better one. A classic case of  staying on past your sell by date. If last October a deal had been done with Cullum and the initial 5 mill had been invested, we could just be where Stoke and Hull are now, backed up with at least another 15 mill to keep us there. Delia''s status would have been legendary for putting the club first and we would be into an exciting new era. Instead we have all the appearance of an embattled club going nowhere, with cheap options and short term loans, and approaching civil war between the best supporters in the land. Could all have been avoided if the best interests of the club had been put first.

[/quote]

If the deal had been done last October

Or it might''ve been said that she took us to the bottom of the division and buggered off.

Delia''s status would have been legendary for putting the club first and we would be into an exciting new era.

That might be happening now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

BF, he`s shown all the populist nonsense up for exactly what it is- and i`m not going to repeat the quotes because you know exactly what i`m talking about.  The fact that some people can`t take being proved wrong doesn`t change it i`m afraid.

I want someone with honesty and integrity running my club.

[/quote]

......why do you think that is Cullum?

[/quote]

I can quote you plenty of examples of various members of our board being less than honest.  Can you provide any from Cullum please?

Hypothetically speaking, if you had a vote on Cullum coming aboard spending £9.6m paying Delia off with £10.4m going on the team, him coming aboard via a new share issue diluting Delias holding but providing £20m for the team, or keeping the status quo, which would you choose?  Question is obviously open to anyone else to answer.

[/quote]

Should be a no-brainer and obviously 20 mill for the team, however Auntie D is going to become so unpopular the more this drags on that the option to pay her off entirely may become the better one. A classic case of  staying on past your sell by date. If last October a deal had been done with Cullum and the initial 5 mill had been invested, we could just be where Stoke and Hull are now, backed up with at least another 15 mill to keep us there. Delia''s status would have been legendary for putting the club first and we would be into an exciting new era. Instead we have all the appearance of an embattled club going nowhere, with cheap options and short term loans, and approaching civil war between the best supporters in the land. Could all have been avoided if the best interests of the club had been put first.

[/quote]

........and it would have snowed at Christmas & there would be peace on Earth.

Talk about stretching a weak hypothesis

[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

[/quote]

Correction: used previous posts of yours.

Anyone who is familiar with your output knows that you have presented the same or similar information more than once in various contexts.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.[|-)]

Let me re-phrase it: Why were the current Prem clubs I quoted as being in the 2nd/3rd tier in 1992-93 not in the Prem in 1992-93 when City and the other clubs quoted by you were there?

C''mon now nigel, those who know everything shouldn''t be ducking a challenge like this.

One love.

OTBC  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

[/quote]

Correction: used previous posts of yours.

Anyone who is familiar with your output knows that you have presented the same or similar information more than once in various contexts.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.[|-)]

Let me re-phrase it: Why were the current Prem clubs I quoted as being in the 2nd/3rd tier in 1992-93 not in the Prem in 1992-93 when City and the other clubs quoted by you were there?

C''mon now nigel, those who know everything shouldn''t be ducking a challenge like this.

One love.

OTBC  

 

[/quote]

Pot, Kettle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="1st Wazzock"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

[/quote]

Correction: used previous posts of yours.

Anyone who is familiar with your output knows that you have presented the same or similar information more than once in various contexts.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.[|-)]

Let me re-phrase it: Why were the current Prem clubs I quoted as being in the 2nd/3rd tier in 1992-93 not in the Prem in 1992-93 when City and the other clubs quoted by you were there?

C''mon now nigel, those who know everything shouldn''t be ducking a challenge like this.

One love.

OTBC  

[/quote]

Pot, Kettle

[/quote]

Now that''s a clever Wazzy.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

[/quote]

Correction: used previous posts of yours.

Anyone who is familiar with your output knows that you have presented the same or similar information more than once in various contexts.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.[|-)]

Let me re-phrase it: Why were the current Prem clubs I quoted as being in the 2nd/3rd tier in 1992-93 not in the Prem in 1992-93 when City and the other clubs quoted by you were there?

C''mon now nigel, those who know everything shouldn''t be ducking a challenge like this.

One love.

OTBC  

 

[/quote]

The answer to your question is in my post further up the page.

I''ll give you a clue No. 42 and No.20 aren''t blue buses in Gorleston.

But why aren''t we one of the ''Magnificent Seven'' when we were ''Top 3'' at the beginning[:^)]

You tell me [:O]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Ignore question posed by thread originator.

[/quote]

The thread originator used a previous post of mine out of context on the original post. This was what I responded to. If it hadn''t been for that the original post, just blike most of your drivel, wouldn''t have warranted a response [:|]

[/quote]

Correction: used previous posts of yours.

Anyone who is familiar with your output knows that you have presented the same or similar information more than once in various contexts.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.[|-)]

Let me re-phrase it: Why were the current Prem clubs I quoted as being in the 2nd/3rd tier in 1992-93 not in the Prem in 1992-93 when City and the other clubs quoted by you were there?

C''mon now nigel, those who know everything shouldn''t be ducking a challenge like this.

One love.

OTBC  

[/quote]

The answer to your question is in my post further up the page.

I''ll give you a clue No. 42 and No.20 aren''t blue buses in Gorleston.

But why aren''t we one of the ''Magnificent Seven'' when we were ''Top 3'' at the beginning[:^)]

You tell me [:O]

[/quote]

 Tumbleweed gets it.

The question is then and then - not then and now.

You are shirking an interesting debate for some unknown reason.

Perhaps I know why, but I''ll give you a chance first before jumping to conclusions.

One love.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tell you what, Bly, why don''t you tell us what you think, rather than persisting with this patronising nonsense? Then some people might start taking you seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Tumbleweed gets it.

The question is then and then - not then and now.

You are shirking an interesting debate for some unknown reason.

Perhaps I know why, but I''ll give you a chance first before jumping to conclusions.

One love.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Then have your debate with Tumbleweed then.

If you hadn''t taken my post out of context in the original post I wouldn''t be involved at all. If you read my post that you took out of context you would realise that I don''t think it''s fair to compare then with now.

If you really want to make something meaningful out of all of this then maybe it would be a good start to understand why, even though we were third in the first Premiership, the magnificent seven have always been out of our reach. But we do at least try, which is more than could be said of some clubs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Tumbleweed gets it.

The question is then and then - not then and now.

You are shirking an interesting debate for some unknown reason.

Perhaps I know why, but I''ll give you a chance first before jumping to conclusions.

One love.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Then have your debate with Tumbleweed then.

If you hadn''t taken my post out of context in the original post I wouldn''t be involved at all. If you read my post that you took out of context you would realise that I don''t think it''s fair to compare then with now.

If you really want to make something meaningful out of all of this then maybe it would be a good start to understand why, even though we were third in the first Premiership, the magnificent seven have always been out of our reach. But we do at least try, which is more than could be said of some clubs.

[/quote]

Why don''t you stop pouting and engage?

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]Tell you what, Bly, why don''t you tell us what you think, rather than persisting with this patronising nonsense? Then some people might start taking you seriously.
[/quote]

If you think that I am patronising then what is your characterisation of nutty''s reactions on this thread, or.....?

When power of money was not such a dominant factor (e.g. 1992-93) the quality of a board''s decision-making over time was a far greater factor in the fates of clubs.

In general terms we had a superior quality board over much of the period from late-50s to early 90s than most of our competitors. Hence, our comparative success.

These days the power of money can over-ride many deficient board decisions.

It seems to me that these days a board which consistently fails to attract money/investment or rejects honest money/investment is making poor fundamental decisions.

There days we seem to have an inferior quality board with no money - and, worst of all, little real appetite for success. And by success I mean being generally competitive in the Championship and challenging for promotion on a fairly consistent basis.

How many times since the new owners took over have we even finished in the top 6? Three seasons out of what? 10, 11.....? Pretty pathetic by most measures one would think.

Even if they got in significant investment/money (e.g. recent Prem season) I doubt they would know how to optimise and handle it - certainly not with the current owners, chairman and a solicitor in charge. The proof is quite evidently in the pudding, onr would have thought.

Poor us.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright then Bly, I''ll engage with you. I suspect you wanted us to give all the credit to Super Robert Chase - but in fairness, I agree in large part with your belated answer above. Norwich finished 3rd in 1992/3 because of the stability and gradual improvement at the club over many decades, overseen by Geoffrey Watling, Sir Arthur South, and latterly, the Fat Controller; and especially, an unusually gifted crop of young players developed by Kit Carson (you want a reason for us doing so well back then? He''s the biggest one). These players could be sold on, with some of the money reinvested if not in the team, then at least in further youth development - but the trouble was, football was changing, and increasingly, a stable board and good management became less important than having money to burn.At the very least, it meant the club''s margin for error was tiny - but failing to properly replace Chris Sutton, Ruel Fox or Mike Walker were bad, bad decisions, leading to relegation at the worst possible time. Because, especially after the Bosman ruling of 1995, it was suddenly all but impossible for provincial clubs to develop talented young sides without quickly losing their best players; and with the gap to the Premier League growing by the year, it became harder and harder to bridge this without a sugardaddy coming on board.Look at our fellow founders of the Premier League. Coventry, Southampton and Wimbledon were all established members of the top flight, just like us - but all eventually went down, and have struggled badly since. The first two have both been incredibly close to administration; and Wimbledon actually disappeared altogether. QPR, Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest, the latter two bigger clubs than ourselves, all ended up in the third flight, and the only one appearing likely to progress now are the West Londoners: because of the wealth of their new owners. Leeds? Nuff said! Ipswich finished up in administration, and only the money of Marcus Evans has given them a chance to return; Oldham, where Joe Royle had been in charge for almost a decade, disappeared into the third flight; Crystal Palace have found themselves unable at any point to re-establish themselves in the top tier; and Sheffield United have only started to challenge again in recent years, mainly because of the money their owner is able to provide.Please don''t misunderstand me here. It''s very, very obvious to me that we need much more money if we are ever to recover, and I''m on record as saying that I think Delia and Michael have run out of ideas, that their footballing record is nowhere near good enough, and was appalled by their treatment of Cullum. If I''m honest, I think Peter Cullum is our only real hope. But you only have to look at the Premier League now to see how crucial either a massively rich benefactor or consortium is to even genuinely big clubs: it''s the only way Middlesbrough have been able to establish themselves as a mid-table top flight side, the only way Sunderland are presently doing so, the only way Blackburn have managed it (meaning, now the money from Jack Walker''s trustees has apparently run out, big trouble ahead), and the only way Portsmouth have prospered so much too. It''s also the only way Fulham and Wigan, much smaller clubs than ourselves, have kept their heads above water. Meanwhile, although Bolton are widely cited as an example we should follow, they''re actually massively in debt, and will be in deep doo-doo the moment they go down.And with it being a case of "enjoy it while it lasts, boys" in the cases of Stoke and Hull, I''d say the only club we can really take any lessons from here are West Brom. A similar-sized club to ourselves, with no sugardaddy, who earlier in the decade, were locked in a very tight battle with us to scramble into the top flight and stay there. Sadly, thanks to poor decisions by the board and manager, we lost an eminently winnable contest - and after almost an entire decade of hard graft, they seem on the point of finally cracking it. Their margin for error was also very slight: they only just survived at our expense in 2005, and had they failed to go up last season, they''d have been right back at square one with no parachute payments. But assuming they do stay up this season, they''ve shown it can be done: albeit that it''s an incredibly long haul, and there are very fine margins. In general though, the rule is clearly that clubs run a la Norwich in the early 1990s just cannot succeed nowadays - which is precisely why I believe the present board''s time has run out, and new ideas, new hunger and especially a lot of new money are now imperative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Tumbleweed gets it.

The question is then and then - not then and now.

You are shirking an interesting debate for some unknown reason.

Perhaps I know why, but I''ll give you a chance first before jumping to conclusions.

One love.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Then have your debate with Tumbleweed then.

If you hadn''t taken my post out of context in the original post I wouldn''t be involved at all. If you read my post that you took out of context you would realise that I don''t think it''s fair to compare then with now.

If you really want to make something meaningful out of all of this then maybe it would be a good start to understand why, even though we were third in the first Premiership, the magnificent seven have always been out of our reach. But we do at least try, which is more than could be said of some clubs.

[/quote]

Why don''t you stop pouting and engage?

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

As your eyesight appears to be failing I''ll point it out to you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="1st Wazzock"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Tumbleweed gets it.

The question is then and then - not then and now.

You are shirking an interesting debate for some unknown reason.

Perhaps I know why, but I''ll give you a chance first before jumping to conclusions.

One love.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Then have your debate with Tumbleweed then.

If you hadn''t taken my post out of context in the original post I wouldn''t be involved at all. If you read my post that you took out of context you would realise that I don''t think it''s fair to compare then with now.

If you really want to make something meaningful out of all of this then maybe it would be a good start to understand why, even though we were third in the first Premiership, the magnificent seven have always been out of our reach. But we do at least try, which is more than could be said of some clubs.

[/quote]

Why don''t you stop pouting and engage?

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

As your eyesight appears to be failing I''ll point it out to you.

[/quote]

As your brain seems to be failing you Wazzy, let me point out to you that what you are seeing is just a big cop out.

I started the thread.

Nutty has quoted this information several times over the years, not just this once. As a prosecutor may op[ne - this leads to motive yu''ranner!!!

One love. Including all Wazzocks.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...