So is it the boards fault...

[Here We Go 0]

 

That we drew with Preston.

 

Iam not a board lover or a delia supporter ima just wondering because it wasn''t the board that got sent off, or the board that had a moment of insanity, in the first minute.

 

You all say its the boards fault that we always win that they should do better. But On saturday the person who''s at fault is Rusty, he has been a good player for us, and a very loyal one at that but he will have to take the blame for reacting to the preston player.

Also i think that peole can be to harsh on the loan players saying that they show no heart but i disagree, there are a few that are playing there socks off for the club. Kenedy, Bertrand they both play well for us. And lita i think is playing amazing for us (this could be so he gets picked up by a bigger club) but i he is scoring goals for us, and hopefully we make his stay perminant(Spelling)

Tin hat on and ready for the abuse.

[kdncfc 0]

In a roundabout way it is the boards fault, if they had made more of the money they have made from selling our best players avaliable for replacements we would have a far better team than we currently have. Truth is the players we have aren''t good enough to win sufficient games to be successful in this division and that won''t change much without significant investment in the team and we all know that won''t happen with auntie Delia in charge.

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"]In a roundabout way it is the boards fault, if they had made more of the money they have made from selling our best players avaliable for replacements we would have a far better team than we currently have. Truth is the players we have aren''t good enough to win sufficient games to be successful in this division and that won''t change much without significant investment in the team and we all know that won''t happen with auntie Delia in charge.[/quote]

Bump

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="kdncfc"]In a roundabout way it is the boards fault, if they had made more of the money they have made from selling our best players avaliable for replacements we would have a far better team than we currently have. Truth is the players we have aren''t good enough to win sufficient games to be successful in this division and that won''t change much without significant investment in the team and we all know that won''t happen with auntie Delia in charge.[/quote]nail-head

[seat124 0]

12 years of selling your best assets and gradually replacing them with cheaper and inferior replacements, spending to much on "off field activities and assets", squandering one years premiership money plus two years parachute payments, whilst getting deeper and deeper in debt in front of sell out crowds (practically) over the last six years, empoying managers who failed (hamilton and grant in particular), the faults are more than these as we all know.

i would say that the board has one hell of a lot to answer for

[Beauseant 0]

Yes, if you consider the following;

1.Roeder is the board''s appointment.I was a Roeder supporter, but have become increasingly disillusioned with his attitude,his selections and, particularly, his increasingly bizarre substitutions.

2.The lack of funds for players, although the manager''s choice of signings is looking pretty suspect (refers back to point 1).

3. The air of uncertainty which is crippling the club.Are there other investors or are we stuck with the current regime? Are they in negotiations with Cullum, or not? If so, do the players and Roeder know more than us?A possible change of ownership hardly creates a stable working environment.Delia''s comments at the Norfolk Show have fuelled much of this,and I would also criticise Cullum for using the media to cause mischief.

[PhatCanary 0]

[quote user="seat124"]

12 years of selling your best assets and gradually replacing them with cheaper and inferior replacements, spending to much on "off field activities and assets", squandering one years premiership money plus two years parachute payments, whilst getting deeper and deeper in debt in front of sell out crowds (practically) over the last six years, empoying managers who failed (hamilton and grant in particular), the faults are more than these as we all know.

i would say that the board has one hell of a lot to answer for

[/quote]

SPOT ON!!!

[NCFC_Thain 0]

Completly off topic but Belaugh Yellow you wouldn''t happen to be a Bennet would you?

[Jim Smith 2,339]

To be honest the result against preston is entriely irrelevant in terms of my current concerns about the club. Had we beaten Preston i would still harbour the same worries I have had for quite some time about the current state of the club.

someone said on a thread recently that the future of the board will be dictated by results and whilst the reality is that may be right as it seems to take us being rooted to the foot of the table before half our fans will actually get worked up the truth is that results are not that relevant - its the state of the club post january that really concerns me.

[Here We Go 0]

[quote user="NCFC_Thain"]Completly off topic but Belaugh Yellow you wouldn''t happen to be a Bennet would you?
[/quote]

 

What the Hells a Bennet???????????

 

 

[Here We Go 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

To be honest the result against preston is entriely irrelevant in terms of my current concerns about the club. Had we beaten Preston i would still harbour the same worries I have had for quite some time about the current state of the club.

someone said on a thread recently that the future of the board will be dictated by results and whilst the reality is that may be right as it seems to take us being rooted to the foot of the table before half our fans will actually get worked up the truth is that results are not that relevant - its the state of the club post january that really concerns me.

[/quote]

What i am trying to say is that we can''t blame them for the results on teh pitch they arn''t out there week in week out playing are they, there sitting in the stands like us the fans.

 

What we can blame them for is the lack of ambition and being poor as hell.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="seat124"]

12 years of selling your best assets and gradually replacing them with cheaper and inferior replacements, spending to much on "off field activities and assets", squandering one years premiership money plus two years parachute payments, whilst getting deeper and deeper in debt in front of sell out crowds (practically) over the last six years, empoying managers who failed (hamilton and grant in particular), the faults are more than these as we all know.

i would say that the board has one hell of a lot to answer for

[/quote]

Sorry but this is utter crap.  We sell our best assets because we have to to remain solvent.  Investing in off field activities was a gamble taken so that the club could create additional revenue meaning that we didnt have to sell so many of our best players.  I doubt we squandered the premiership money, I will agree that we were wrong not to go for broke first season down with parachute payments.

You cant blame the board for employing managers who failed, because you simply dont know that they were going to fail when you hired them.  Hamilton was an ex internation boss with a decent track record, Grant was (and still is) a great number 2 and looked like a decent bet to make the step up.  Or do we blame the board for not having psychic powers now!!

I have said before that the only thing this board is guilty of is not being rich enough to bank roll the manager.  Simple as.  When they came to the club football was still realistic, last 12 years has seen the game go silly.  Average journeymen footballers now cost £2.5m + at least, decent footballers cost over £4m.  No club in the Championship generate enough revenue to be able to buy this sort of talent on their own.  Every team that does has a chairman with deep pockets or a brave accountant playing the serious debt game.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Carlos Valderrama"][quote user="seat124"]

12 years of selling your best assets and gradually replacing them with cheaper and inferior replacements, spending to much on "off field activities and assets", squandering one years premiership money plus two years parachute payments, whilst getting deeper and deeper in debt in front of sell out crowds (practically) over the last six years, empoying managers who failed (hamilton and grant in particular), the faults are more than these as we all know.

i would say that the board has one hell of a lot to answer for

[/quote]

Sorry but this is utter crap.  We sell our best assets because we have to to remain solvent.  Investing in off field activities was a gamble taken so that the club could create additional revenue meaning that we didnt have to sell so many of our best players.  I doubt we squandered the premiership money, I will agree that we were wrong not to go for broke first season down with parachute payments.

You cant blame the board for employing managers who failed, because you simply dont know that they were going to fail when you hired them.  Hamilton was an ex internation boss with a decent track record, Grant was (and still is) a great number 2 and looked like a decent bet to make the step up.  Or do we blame the board for not having psychic powers now!!

I have said before that the only thing this board is guilty of is not being rich enough to bank roll the manager.  Simple as.  When they came to the club football was still realistic, last 12 years has seen the game go silly.  Average journeymen footballers now cost £2.5m + at least, decent footballers cost over £4m.  No club in the Championship generate enough revenue to be able to buy this sort of talent on their own.  Every team that does has a chairman with deep pockets or a brave accountant playing the serious debt game.

[/quote]

It could also be argued that had we not have sold our best players or at least when we did made spent more of the proceeds on players we would have been far more likely to have had another season or two in the prem or made more money from longer cup runs. West Brom were a comparable club to us 5 or 6 years ago but unlike us when they have sold good players they have gone out and spent a fair proportion of the proceeds on replacements, as a result they are now light years ahead of us. We simply haven''t speculated enough to give us a chance to accumulate. Prudence without ambition has got us nowhere.

When you employ a manager you are correct in saying that you never know how they will turn out but you have a better chance of success if you employ a manager with a decent track record, Grant was always going to be a bigger risk than we should have taken at the time because he had no track record as a manager. The jury is still out on Roeder but again it has to be said that he wasn''t on the top of many peoples wish list as a manager and there are still doubts in many peoples minds as to whether he was the right choice.

The board have known for some time that they weren''t rich enough to take us back up to the prem but it still beggars belief that in spite of that they seemingly told someone with the necessary funds to take us forward that they didn''t want his money. I have been told by a source that told me the club had been in talks with Cullum before it was in the press that he didn''t pursue the matter because Delia made it clear to him that she wasn''t interested in selling, that is fair enough but I hope she has someone better lined up because we''re only going one way under her leadership.

 

.

[Boot 0]

I agree completely with your view on Peter Grant but, as a service to the community you understand, feel I should help translate as follows:

"I have been told by a source" = "Something I have just made up on the spot"

If Peter Cullum had wanted to buy the club he could have made an offer for the shares - not too difficult for the "King Of Deals" you would have thought!  Given his propensity for using the media to unsettle the club to further his own ambitions, does it seem remotely credible that he would have made an offer and not reported it in full to the EDP?

I suspect sir that your "source" is on the "sauce"

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Boot"]

I agree completely with your view on Peter Grant but, as a service to the community you understand, feel I should help translate as follows:

"I have been told by a source" = "Something I have just made up on the spot"

If Peter Cullum had wanted to buy the club he could have made an offer for the shares - not too difficult for the "King Of Deals" you would have thought!  Given his propensity for using the media to unsettle the club to further his own ambitions, does it seem remotely credible that he would have made an offer and not reported it in full to the EDP?

I suspect sir that your "source" is on the "sauce"

[/quote]

What is the point in making an offer for something that is not for sale?