1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of 13 - and counting.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Where have we finished in relation to those clubs the last three seasons?

[/quote]

Read the thread title and read my replies and then tell me where that question is relevant Mr Carrow.

It''s a bit early to be ''on it'' already [B][B][B][:O]

[;)]

 

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Babes'' goalposts are on wheels as usual Maccy Dee! If the thread had been entitled 123 years and counting we may have found some common ground. As it is it''s just more drivel based on no fact whatsoever and may as well be called 123 O''Leary[8][:O]. Time and time again the same group of posters make up stuff to discredit various people at the club. Sometimes it''s the manager, sometimes it''s the board, and sometimes the players. Where as I agree anti-board does not mean anti-club, anti-everything most certainly does in my book. The sad thing is other posters then read this drivel and take it as fact so the whole thing escalates. The other day we had a thread where the whole purpose was to get people to believe we employ more staff than most other clubs. People believed it because they wanted to believe it. I found it crazy how many posters were prepared to believe that we employ more staff than Chelsea and yet they call me gullible. The only reason I respond to this nonsense is because in the long run it''s harmful to the club.

Opinions are fair enough and I respect posters opinions even when they are different to mine. Other posters have very different opinions to me and I respect them because they don''t make stuff up to try and prove a point. They could be right and I could be right. But as soon as posters resort to making up stuff to discredit any part of our great club they lose all credibility in my eyes.

 

 

[/quote]

The world and his wife should read this bit.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Nutty, the wages thread is a classic example of how you choose to "debate" and how it`s really not worth bothering.  Someone pointed out that the Chelsea, Man.U. and Villa figures did not cover the whole plc so you decided that was argument won, even though the vast majority of the figures for other clubs are total figures for the plc, including ours and so directly comparable.  Those figures show our staff numbers are comparitively very high, and the reasons for that are up for debate.

Please don`t put yourself forward as a paragon of fairness and clear-thinking.  You see what you want to see.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Someone pointed out that the Chelsea, Man.U. and Villa figures did not cover the whole plc so you decided that was argument won, even though the vast majority of the figures for other clubs are total figures for the plc, including ours and so directly comparable.[/quote]

The problem is, if the authors of football economy are picking and choosing what constitutes an employee, how can you possibly compare like for like with any of the other teams, when you don''t know the reasoning behind the claim ?  These could be figures plucked out of the air after all. Let''s assume for a moment that the figures aren''t just plucked out of the air, and even with our "multi-million pound" transfer profit over the period taken into consideration, employee / turnover ratio is still favourable when compared to most of the clubs in the championship.  It''s a shame that this point wasn''t debated because the employee figures were thrown into doubt.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Someone pointed out that the Chelsea, Man.U. and Villa figures did not cover the whole plc so you decided that was argument won, even though the vast majority of the figures for other clubs are total figures for the plc, including ours and so directly comparable.[/quote]

The problem is, if the authors of football economy are picking and choosing what constitutes an employee, how can you possibly compare like for like with any of the other teams, when you don''t know the reasoning behind the claim ?  These could be figures plucked out of the air after all. Let''s assume for a moment that the figures aren''t just plucked out of the air, and even with our "multi-million pound" transfer profit over the period taken into consideration, employee / turnover ratio is still favourable when compared to most of the clubs in the championship.  It''s a shame that this point wasn''t debated because the employee figures were thrown into doubt.

[/quote]

The employee/turnover figure is basically pointless because some clubs receive as much in parachute payments as other Champs clubs will have as overall turnover.  Also profits on players skews it.  Unless there is a detailed comparison between clubs not much can be proved by the figures, but you can get a general idea and in numbers terms we are high for a football club.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Unless there is a detailed comparison between clubs not much can be proved by the figures, but you can get a general idea and in numbers terms we are high for a football club.[/quote]

So the figures are good enough to get a general idea to prove your points, but aren''t detailed enough to prove mine ?

Gotcha [;)] [:)]

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Nutty, the wages thread is a classic example of how you choose to "debate" and how it`s really not worth bothering.  Someone pointed out that the Chelsea, Man.U. and Villa figures did not cover the whole plc so you decided that was argument won, even though the vast majority of the figures for other clubs are total figures for the plc, including ours and so directly comparable.  Those figures show our staff numbers are comparitively very high, and the reasons for that are up for debate.

Please don`t put yourself forward as a paragon of fairness and clear-thinking.  You see what you want to see.

[/quote]

I''m not putting myself forward as anything of the sort Mr Carrow. The truth about that thread is that it soon became very apparent that we were not comparing like for like. As you obviously still wish to debate it I have posted a reply to these points on that thread.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

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

And just how do you define being competitive in this league?

The world and his wife await.

OTBC

[/quote]

We are in a group of 17 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.

[/quote]

So.

Since we have returned ''at least once after relegation'' we will - by your definition - be forever deemed competitive in this league.[:^)]

Where''s the logic in that?

OTBC

[/quote]

That''s not what is implied at all, NN is using the time scale set out in your original ''argument''; i.e. he was looking at the club''s trajectory in relation to the past twelve years as YOU originally proposed. Perfectly clear.

I don''t think that anyone is in the slightest bit surprised that you have moved the goalposts again ... par for the course.   

[/quote]

I suggest you look back at my original post.

Last 12 years.

NN''s assertion would only be valid then if the clubs he mentioned had each been promoted to the Prem at least once over the past 12 years.

I stick to my point that 10 finishes out of the top 6 in 13 successive seasons is pretty fair evidence that we have been consistently uncompetitive since relegation in 1995. 

And I hardly think that it''s the supporters fault, do you?

Its the fault of leadership - any way you try to twist and turn it.

The world and his wife are still waiting.

OTBC

[/quote]

But surely that''s what has happened. Since the advent of the Premiership in 1992 all those clubs I have mentioned have been relegated and managed to fight back and regain their place at least once. Norwich City included.

[/quote]

2008 minus 1992  =  16

2008 minus 1995 =   13

Check thread title. as you told Mr Carrow.

Moving goalposts?

Like for like?

Then and then?

Criterion/a for competitiveness?

The discerning can figure the truth.

One love. Still.

To the world!

OTBC

 

 

[macdougalls perm 0]

Are you a politician by any chance, BBB?

Because if not, you should be.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

Are you a politician by any chance, BBB?

Because if not, you should be.

[/quote]

I assume you''re thinking along the lines of a Boris Johnson ?

Albeit without the sense of humour...

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]

Are you a politician by any chance, BBB?

Because if not, you should be.

[/quote]

I assume you''re thinking along the lines of a Boris Johnson ?

Albeit without the sense of humour...

[/quote]

Sort of ... a kind of Boris Johnson/Michael Howard hybrid. [:D]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Sort of ... a kind of Boris Johnson/Michael Howard hybrid.[/quote]

Christ on a bike !  I''ll get me crucifix.  Garlic, anyone ?

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

2008 minus 1992  =  16

2008 minus 1995 =   13

Check thread title. as you told Mr Carrow.

Moving goalposts?

Like for like?

Then and then?

Criterion/a for competitiveness?

The discerning can figure the truth.

One love. Still.

To the world!

OTBC

 

[/quote]

The discerning would get their facts straight and not make up stuff to prove a point.

2008 minus 1998 = 10

1998 minus 1993 =   5

5 = The biggest decline in fortunes I ever witnessed for our club.

Like I told Mr Carrow - If you have a poor memory check back in the record books.

Nobody can figure the truth from the stuff you make up and post on here.

 

 

2 sets to love[:|]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Unless there is a detailed comparison between clubs not much can be proved by the figures, but you can get a general idea and in numbers terms we are high for a football club.[/quote]

So the figures are good enough to get a general idea to prove your points, but aren''t detailed enough to prove mine ?

Gotcha [;)] [:)]

[/quote]

Well i think the latest figures for Brums staff on that thread were about 140 and ours was 210ish.  Brum this season will have a £12m turnover headstart on us because of parachute payments, so if we say the figures remain the same their staff will be at least twice as productive as ours financially.......Not much of an argument really is it?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Nutty, the wages thread is a classic example of how you choose to "debate" and how it`s really not worth bothering.  Someone pointed out that the Chelsea, Man.U. and Villa figures did not cover the whole plc so you decided that was argument won, even though the vast majority of the figures for other clubs are total figures for the plc, including ours and so directly comparable.  Those figures show our staff numbers are comparitively very high, and the reasons for that are up for debate.

Please don`t put yourself forward as a paragon of fairness and clear-thinking.  You see what you want to see.

[/quote]

I''m not putting myself forward as anything of the sort Mr Carrow. The truth about that thread is that it soon became very apparent that we were not comparing like for like. As you obviously still wish to debate it I have posted a reply to these points on that thread.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, three of the figures were shown not to be comparing like with like and you decided that that discredited all the other figures.  It`s really too childish to even bother with.

[blahblahblah 2]

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

[quote]Unless there is a detailed comparison between clubs not much can be proved by the figures, but you can get a general idea and in numbers terms we are high for a football club.[/quote]

So the figures are good enough to get a general idea to prove your points, but aren''t detailed enough to prove mine ?

Gotcha [;)] [:)]

[/quote]

Well i think the latest figures for Brums staff on that thread were about 140 and ours was 210ish.  Brum this season will have a £12m turnover headstart on us because of parachute payments, so if we say the figures remain the same their staff will be at least twice as productive as ours financially.......Not much of an argument really is it?

[/quote]

...and what about the other 12 or so clubs on that list ?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

I can`t remember which clubs they were blah, but you were basing your figures on a year when we had a £7.1m parachute payment and profit on players so our "turnover per member of staff" would obviously be alot higher than any club in our league which didn`t have that extra income.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, three of the figures were shown not to be comparing like with like and you decided that that discredited all the other figures.  It`s really too childish to even bother with.

[/quote]

No, the other figures discredit themselves. No comparisons can be made because, as you yourself finally admitted, we haven''t got the foggiest what we are comparing to what. What''s childish about it?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

2008 minus 1992  =  16

2008 minus 1995 =   13

Check thread title. as you told Mr Carrow.

Moving goalposts?

Like for like?

Then and then?

Criterion/a for competitiveness?

The discerning can figure the truth.

One love. Still.

To the world!

OTBC

 

[/quote]

The discerning would get their facts straight and not make up stuff to prove a point.

2008 minus 1998 = 10

1998 minus 1993 =   5

5 = The biggest decline in fortunes I ever witnessed for our club.

Like I told Mr Carrow - If you have a poor memory check back in the record books.

Nobody can figure the truth from the stuff you make up and post on here.

2 sets to love[:|]

[/quote]

Quantitatively challenged - to say the least.

Qualitatively addicted to polite smear campaigns.

Often proceeds on the basis that many contributors have neither the time nor inclination to follow a complete thread from the beginning.

Boringly negative and self-satisfied.

But, he''s part of the family, so.......

One love.

OTBC 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Quantitatively challenged - to say the least.

Qualitatively addicted to polite smear campaigns.

Often proceeds on the basis that many contributors have neither the time nor inclination to follow a complete thread from the beginning.

Boringly negative and self-satisfied.

But, he''s part of the family, so.......

One love.

OTBC 

[/quote]

Post a load of drivel based on no facts whatsoever.

Defend said drivel until it becomes indefensible.

Lose the argument but pretend there''s no time to continue it.

Insult the posters who challenge you.

Then be patronising toward them.

Claim some kind of moral high ground.

Then leave and post the same drivel somewhere else.

And so we go on...

 

 

 

Never getting to the tie-break.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]I can`t remember which clubs they were blah, but you were basing your figures on a year when we had a £7.1m parachute payment and profit on players so our "turnover per member of staff" would obviously be alot higher than any club in our league which didn`t have that extra income.[/quote]

Fair enough then Mr. C.  Who''d have thought that we have more employees than Chelsea though ?   Amazing... [;)]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

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

Quantitatively challenged - to say the least.

Qualitatively addicted to polite smear campaigns.

Often proceeds on the basis that many contributors have neither the time nor inclination to follow a complete thread from the beginning.

Boringly negative and self-satisfied.

But, he''s part of the family, so.......

One love.

OTBC 

[/quote]

Post a load of drivel based on no facts whatsoever.

Defend said drivel until it becomes indefensible.

Lose the argument but pretend there''s no time to continue it.

Insult the posters who challenge you.

Then be patronising toward them.

Claim some kind of moral high ground.

Then leave and post the same drivel somewhere else.

And so we go on...

Never getting to the tie-break.

[/quote]

See what I mean?

The world and his wife were watching and have made up their minds - and gone home.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of 13 not in the top 6 - and counting. Fact.

Poor leadership. Nothing else. Fact.

One love.

To the world!

OTBC

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

If you base every season we have finished lower than 6th under this board as poor leadership then :-

4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of 13 - and counting are the facts.

But you include Chases final season where he completed the decline from 3rd in the Prem to the bottom half of this league in just 3 seasons.

And the two seasons of further decline as we nearly got relegated until Watling sold out to Smith & Jones.

So what is it to be Babes? Because from where I''m sitting the club has had better leadership for much the last 10 years than the previous 3.

In keeping with your timescale of course.

 

 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,320]

I wouldn''t bother, Nutty. Everyone knows you''re right on this and BBB is wrong. It''s totally bizarre, because there is a debate to be had on where the club has gone wrong since the most recent relegation from the Premiership (or promotion to it, depending on your view point). But BBB seems hell-bent on suggesting that the board did a bad job between taking over from Watling and getting promotion, which is patent nonsense. And it undermines any sane point he wants to make.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

If you base every season we have finished lower than 6th under this board as poor leadership then :-

4,5,6,7,8,9,10 of 13 - and counting are the facts.

But you include Chases final season where he completed the decline from 3rd in the Prem to the bottom half of this league in just 3 seasons.

And the two seasons of further decline as we nearly got relegated until Watling sold out to Smith & Jones.

So what is it to be Babes? Because from where I''m sitting the club has had better leadership for much the last 10 years than the previous 3.

In keeping with your timescale of course.

[/quote]

From Wikipedia.

English television cook Delia Smith and husband Michael Wynn-Jones took over the majority of Norwich City''s shares from Watling in 1996,^[33] .........

From the Telegraph:

UK News	Electronic Telegraph
	Friday 29 November 1996	Issue 555

	Ooh, aah, Delia By William Greaves
	NORWICH City have added an extra ingredient to their board of directors in their search for a return to the top flight - Delia Smith.

The main players on the board have been in place since 1996.

Humble pie time, methinks.

Game, set and match.

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Well of course if you are right Babes then you are going to have to join the "Our Deals Saved The Club Brigade" [:O]

But of course you are not right. Following the club through newspaper results and archives is no substitute for being a fan and going to games, oh and having a good memory.

Now maybe you could get someone from Archant to check their records but I remember it like this - At the end of 95/96 and with the club in total disarray Geoffrey Watling bought "Yer Mate Bob''s" shares and Barry Lockwood became chairman, Gordon Bennett became C/E and Martin Armstrong of N&P fame joined the board. Together they set about saving the club for Geoffrey Watling. (And us of course!) One of the things they did was invite Smith & Jones onto the board in return for about half a million quid each I think. So by the 1996/97 season the new board was roughly this : Lockwood, Munby, Armstrong, Paterson, Foulger, Skipper, Smith & Jones. Now from what I remember it wasn''t until well into the 1997/8 season that Geoffrey Watling decided that Smith & Jones would be "proper persons" and it was then that he sold them his majority shareholding when alongside a new rights issue they became over 50% owners of the club.

I suggest you find someone who knows the history of our great club, check my account with them, wind ya neck back into your own humble pie and find that pointed had with the ''D'' you kept from Gorleston Secondary Modern [:|]

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Oh and Babes...

It wasn''t you feeding disinformation into Wikipedia...

Was it[:O]

Hope not [:|]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Oh and Babes...

It wasn''t you feeding disinformation into Wikipedia...

Was it[:O]

Hope not [:|]

 

[/quote]

 

Ooh ''eck ! Somewhere in the world there will be a bloke in an arran sweater, scratching his beard, supping from his real ale, and plotting revenge...

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well of course if you are right Babes then you are going to have to join the "Our Deals Saved The Club Brigade" [:O]

But of course you are not right. Following the club through newspaper results and archives is no substitute for being a fan and going to games, oh and having a good memory.

Now maybe you could get someone from Archant to check their records but I remember it like this - At the end of 95/96 and with the club in total disarray Geoffrey Watling bought "Yer Mate Bob''s" shares and Barry Lockwood became chairman, Gordon Bennett became C/E and Martin Armstrong of N&P fame joined the board. Together they set about saving the club for Geoffrey Watling. (And us of course!) One of the things they did was invite Smith & Jones onto the board in return for about half a million quid each I think. So by the 1996/97 season the new board was roughly this : Lockwood, Munby, Armstrong, Paterson, Foulger, Skipper, Smith & Jones. Now from what I remember it wasn''t until well into the 1997/8 season that Geoffrey Watling decided that Smith & Jones would be "proper persons" and it was then that he sold them his majority shareholding when alongside a new rights issue they became over 50% owners of the club.

I suggest you find someone who knows the history of our great club, check my account with them, wind ya neck back into your own humble pie and find that pointed had with the ''D'' you kept from Gorleston Secondary Modern [:|]

[/quote]

''Fraid unreferenced essays like yours above would score F in academia -  maybe even have you drummed out.

But then, your evident familiarity with secondary moderns would explain your plight.

Come up with references and maybe then we''ll be able to referee and assess your assertions.

One love.

To the world!

OTBC

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Oh and Babes...

It wasn''t you feeding disinformation into Wikipedia...

Was it[:O]

Hope not [:|]

[/quote]

Our resident expert at polite smear campaigns strikes again.

Any time he''s in difficulties.

Just check.

But we must forgive those who so openly admit that they''re not quite the full ticket.

One love.

To the world!

OTBC