Support for Delia

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]

The 50% increase is over the period 1996 => 2008 ie the period which saw the last full year of the previous regime (to give us a baseline which is actually artificially low due torecent relegation and hatred of Chase if you remember)  and the period during which Delia has been at the Club; the period during which the OP alludes our attendances have increased because of Delia.
1996 average att. 11,855
2008 average att 17,023
17023/11855= 1.435
[/quote]

Average league attendance so far this season is 24,334 

[/quote]

Genuine question, and what percentage of those 24,334 actually physically were recorded through the gate?  It''s very misleading to say 24,334 as regardless of the bums on the seats the 20,000 season tickets are still recorded as attending, whether or not they turn up.

[/quote]

But I would imnagine it''s the same percentage as at other clubs around us.

The test will be for the Cup Replay. Charlton got 9,000 for Saturdays match.  Let''s see what we get next Tuesday.

 

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]

The 50% increase is over the period 1996 => 2008 ie the period which saw the last full year of the previous regime (to give us a baseline which is actually artificially low due torecent relegation and hatred of Chase if you remember)  and the period during which Delia has been at the Club; the period during which the OP alludes our attendances have increased because of Delia.
1996 average att. 11,855
2008 average att 17,023
17023/11855= 1.435
[/quote]

Average league attendance so far this season is 24,334 

[/quote]

Genuine question, and what percentage of those 24,334 actually physically were recorded through the gate?  It''s very misleading to say 24,334 as regardless of the bums on the seats the 20,000 season tickets are still recorded as attending, whether or not they turn up.

[/quote]

But I would imnagine it''s the same percentage as at other clubs around us.

The test will be for the Cup Replay. Charlton got 9,000 for Saturdays match.  Let''s see what we get next Tuesday.

 

[/quote]

I agree it will be interesting to see what the ticket take up is.

It would be interesting to see however what the percentage is of home match attendees, as opposed to the numbers announced. I''m genuinely interested.  It wasn''t so many years back when the % of fans was always announced.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]

The 50% increase is over the period 1996 => 2008 ie the period which saw the last full year of the previous regime (to give us a baseline which is actually artificially low due torecent relegation and hatred of Chase if you remember)  and the period during which Delia has been at the Club; the period during which the OP alludes our attendances have increased because of Delia.
1996 average att. 11,855
2008 average att 17,023
17023/11855= 1.435
[/quote]

Average league attendance so far this season is 24,334 

[/quote]

Genuine question, and what percentage of those 24,334 actually physically were recorded through the gate?  It''s very misleading to say 24,334 as regardless of the bums on the seats the 20,000 season tickets are still recorded as attending, whether or not they turn up.

[/quote]

But I would imnagine it''s the same percentage as at other clubs around us.

The test will be for the Cup Replay. Charlton got 9,000 for Saturdays match.  Let''s see what we get next Tuesday.

 

[/quote]

I agree it will be interesting to see what the ticket take up is.

It would be interesting to see however what the percentage is of home match attendees, as opposed to the numbers announced. I''m genuinely interested.  It wasn''t so many years back when the % of fans was always announced.

[/quote]

I don''t really see why. There may well be a few people who can afford to pay hundreds of pounds for something they don''t really want but most of us buy a season ticket because we want to go to the football. Like I said there will be a percentage of ticket non-attendees at other clubs too so it will have no bearing on the comparisons. The cup replay will allow us to make a direct comparison between us and a similar club in a similar position.

 

[One Flew Over... 33]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.Average league position 1997-present = 30thYour tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed. It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they? [/quote]So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.Average league position 1997-present = 30thYour tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed. It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they? [/quote]So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?[/quote]So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do

with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the

board''s fault?1) The increase in attendance stats show nothing more than a national trend a poster points out above that our attendances have increased slightly more than average which is quite correct I even acknowledge that with a capacity of 25k we shall never know what the peak level may have reached. My point is that Delias tenure coincided with the national increase so for the OP to credit Delia for 100% of the rise in ticket sales at our club is naive and incorrect.2) You imply that there is some relation between attendance levels and league position that I am overlooking. Try as I might I can find no pattern between the two for a number of years and neither can anyone else. We have maintained very high attendance levels despite our lowly league position. The league position stats accurately reflect our stature year upon year, and deny it all you like there is no getting away from the fact that under the tenure of Delia Smith this club has on average year upon year performed worse than at any other time in the preceding 30 years. I dont think this is a hard concept to understand it''s how a league system operates and a commonly used ranking method. That''s why the team who win the Premiership get a big cup and the team who finish 14th dont, the team who finish 9th in the Champs dont and neither do the 3rd from bottom in the second division. Barring the odd cup upset from time to time this is why we might say that the Prem winners were better than the other teams , they finished higher up the league. league positions are down to a number of factors but our lowest finishes for many years coincide perfectly with years of chronic underinvestment and (team) asset stripping under Delia Smith so yes the league position stats are in a very large part down to the Board in so far as the Board are responsible for settingbudgets and our Board have repeatedly used the team as a cash cow to milk for the benefit of other parts of the Club.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]
Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.

Average league position 1997-present = 30th

Your tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed.
It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.

This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they?
[/quote]

So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?
The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?
[/quote]

The increase in attendances was much to do with Andy Cullens marketing skills although it is down to the loyalty of the fans that we are still among the best supported club in the division

. The gulf between the prem and the Championship has no bearing at all on how badly we have done in this league for most of the boards time here, the buck stops with them and it is amazing how there are still those that seem to see no wrong in what they''ve done. We have had 10 bad years out of 12 since the board have been here, however you try and dress it up it isn''t good and that is what they should be judged on. Football is the most important thing at any club and that side of things has been badly neglected for far to long, that is why we are where we are.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]
Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.

Average league position 1997-present = 30th

Your tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed.
It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.

This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they?
[/quote]

So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?
The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?
[/quote]

The increase in attendances was much to do with Andy Cullens marketing skills although it is down to the loyalty of the fans that we are still among the best supported club in the division

. The gulf between the prem and the Championship has no bearing at all on how badly we have done in this league for most of the boards time here, the buck stops with them and it is amazing how there are still those that seem to see no wrong in what they''ve done. We have had 10 bad years out of 12 since the board have been here, however you try and dress it up it isn''t good and that is what they should be judged on. Football is the most important thing at any club and that side of things has been badly neglected for far to long, that is why we are where we are.

[/quote]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years. Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.

 

[kdncfc 0]

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

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]
Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.

Average league position 1997-present = 30th

Your tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed.
It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.

This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they?
[/quote]

So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?
The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?
[/quote]

The increase in attendances was much to do with Andy Cullens marketing skills although it is down to the loyalty of the fans that we are still among the best supported club in the division

. The gulf between the prem and the Championship has no bearing at all on how badly we have done in this league for most of the boards time here, the buck stops with them and it is amazing how there are still those that seem to see no wrong in what they''ve done. We have had 10 bad years out of 12 since the board have been here, however you try and dress it up it isn''t good and that is what they should be judged on. Football is the most important thing at any club and that side of things has been badly neglected for far to long, that is why we are where we are.

[/quote]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years. Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.

 

[/quote]

Whoever was in charge could hardly have done much worse than. I would measure their performance against what a club of our size should be capable of achieving and that should be a consistent top 8 finish in this division and actually reaching the play offs in at least half of the last 12 years. We have managed a total of 1 play off campaign and automatic promotion, that is a massive underachievement in my book as to what we should be capable of.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]
Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.

Average league position 1997-present = 30th

Your tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed.
It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.

This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they?
[/quote]

So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?
The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?
[/quote]

The increase in attendances was much to do with Andy Cullens marketing skills although it is down to the loyalty of the fans that we are still among the best supported club in the division

. The gulf between the prem and the Championship has no bearing at all on how badly we have done in this league for most of the boards time here, the buck stops with them and it is amazing how there are still those that seem to see no wrong in what they''ve done. We have had 10 bad years out of 12 since the board have been here, however you try and dress it up it isn''t good and that is what they should be judged on. Football is the most important thing at any club and that side of things has been badly neglected for far to long, that is why we are where we are.

[/quote]

If that is the case then praise should be given to Delia for appointing him in the same way that criticism is given over the decision to appoint Peter Grant!!

I really dont understand why people feel the need to attack and belittle everything Delia has done for the club.  We can all see that it has gone wrong and we are in a very precarious situation.  Unfortunately the only cure is money and  Delia hasn''t got anything left to give, if she had I am quite sure she would give it.  I love how all the haters jump up and say we should have done this and we should have done that, we shouldnt have done such and such.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it. 

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="kdncfc"][

 

Whoever was in charge could hardly have done much worse than. I would measure their performance against what a club of our size should be capable of achieving and that should be a consistent top 8 finish in this division and actually reaching the play offs in at least half of the last 12 years. We have managed a total of 1 play off campaign and automatic promotion, that is a massive underachievement in my book as to what we should be capable of.

[/quote]

That''s what they all said about Worthy.

Yes we are underachieving  when measured against the rest of our modern history. But we are not comparing like for like. It could be that we have over achieved compared to what another board may have done. We will never know. Worthy over achieved compared to every other manager in that 12 years but you had to hound him out to find that out.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years.

 

[/quote]Or it can be measured against the previous 12 years and an accurate relative assesment can be produced exactly as I did last night. When the previous 12 years performance didn''t paint a good picture of Delias tenure (15th to 30th) I was accused of being selective and asked for the previous 30 years. I obliged and it still doesn''t paint a good picture of the current boards achievments (19th to 30th). You can guess at the hypothetical or use facts. I chose the latter to illustrate something we all know anyway whether we admit it or not. Results have not been good for some time now, our league stature has diminished and we are on the verge of our worst league placing in 50 years.Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.I admit to being duped into holding Worthy more responsible than he actually was at the time. I am however still convinced he had gone as far as he could with us but can see past the smoke and mirrors far enough to realise that Worthys problems really started at exactly the same time as the "Sell, sell, sell" culture we adopted post relegation and since.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

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

 

Whoever was in charge could hardly have done much worse than. I would measure their performance against what a club of our size should be capable of achieving and that should be a consistent top 8 finish in this division and actually reaching the play offs in at least half of the last 12 years. We have managed a total of 1 play off campaign and automatic promotion, that is a massive underachievement in my book as to what we should be capable of.

[/quote]

That''s what they all said about Worthy.

Yes we are underachieving  when measured against the rest of our modern history. But we are not comparing like for like. It could be that we have over achieved compared to what another board may have done. We will never know. Worthy over achieved compared to every other manager in that 12 years but you had to hound him out to find that out.

 

[/quote]

A few of us were pointing the finger at the board when everyone was going OTT about Worthy, and a few of us still are in regards Roeder.  You love the word hindsight, but some people had the foresight to see what was coming, but unfortunately very few paid attention.  The time pressure should have been put on the board was when it became apparent that even when receiving parachute payments, the millions raised from the likes of Francis, Jonsson, Helveg, Ashton, Green etc. were not going to be re-invested in the team.  Fans who were too dim to see this are as culpable as the board for our demise.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Or it can be measured against the previous 12 years and an accurate

relative assesment can be produced exactly as I did last night.[/quote]Well no actually, it cant because doing that doesn''t take into account how drastically the playing field has changed, the sky money, the manner in which the club was left by Chase.  But then, you don''t need to jump through hoops to find wrong-doing, you just need to point to the appointment of Peter Grant.  That was the biggest mistake.  And yet he still has a better wins, draw, losses record overall for us than Glenn Roeder.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Fans who were too dim to see this are as culpable as the board for our demise.[/quote]Yep. You''re right. Us thicko''s fault again!

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But we are not comparing like for like. It could be that we have over achieved compared to what another board may have done. We will never know.

[/quote]

So you''re saying that the fairest comparison is actually between reality, and an entirely hypothetical parallel reality that never happened? You realise that makes absolutely no sense, right?

No, there are two fair benchmarks for comparison. One - club history. Two - against our peers, similar sized clubs or clubs with a similar history. Against either measure NCFC has failed dismally under the current board, and since you haven''t lost a key part of your brain, you know it as surely as I do.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]85-2086-2387-588-1489-490-1091-1592-1893-394-1295-2096-36In the 12 years prior to Delia being in charge of the club the average league finishing position of NCFC was 15th which probably explains why those of us who are ''of an age'' willalways feel we should be a 1st tier club.Note how your usage of 16th in the 2nd div 36th) for the year 1996 is completely unrepresentative of our true stature in those years.Now the 12 years under Delias tenure97-3398-3599-2900-3201-3502-2603-2804-2105-1906-2907-3608-37In the 12 years Delia has been at the club our average league finishing position has been 30th. Bloody 30th!![:@]I await your justification for this disgraceful lowering of our Clubs stature with much interest.[/quote]The figures are interesting in what they reveal. The 85 to 96 years were the most successful (so far?) in the clubs history and were marked by the Chairmanship of one Robert Chase. In the last couple of years of his regime we (and I was one) campaigned and chanted vigorously against him. Similarly, our most successful manager in recent years experienced similar disatissfaction expressed by fans and was driven out. I remember at the time the confident staements of Worthington''s incompetence and "things can only get better."I would have thought that facts like this might encourage a reasonable opponent of the current regime to behave with a little bit more humility about thier views. A few months ago, The Second Coming was quoted on this site. It contained a prophetic statement about "things falling apart:""The best lack all conviction, whilst the worst Are full of passionate intensity."Rings true to a degree?

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

Badger, thanks for

the kind thought on the other thread. The sad truth is, though, that when you

look back fondly on this message board in a few years time it probably won’t be

my sane, fact-based rationality you’ll remember but the scattergun idiocy of Sm*dg*r

(make so many doom-laden predictions that one MUST eventually come true and

then hope no-one remembers all the false ones) and Bly Bly B*b*s, who seems to

be auditioning for the part of the monosyllabic sage in some Star Wars movie

that will never get made.

However. I confess I haven’t ploughed my way through this thread, but I was

struck by this comparison between the Chase years and the Smith years. Without

coming down on one side or another the point I would make is that the economics

of football have changed a great deal for the worse as far as medium-sized

clubs like Norwich

are concerned. Put simply, Chase had it a lot easier then.

Look at the (22) founder members of the Premier League:

Four

are in League One (if you count MK Dons as Wimbledon)

Eight are in the Championship

Ten are in the Premier League

And of those 10 three have been relegated at some point. The only seven clubs

to have stayed in the top flight all the way through are giants of the game:

Arsenal

Aston Villa

Chelsea

Everton

Liverpool

Manchester

United

Tottenham Hotspur

Look at the (20) teams in the Premier League now. If you take into account

football history, size AND wealth of the owners, there no club there I would

class as being smaller than Norwich and probably not one I would even class as

being as small as ours. Clubs like Norwich

have been squeezed downwards. This is not to say we should not have done

better, but it is an increasingly hard world for the likes of us.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Clubs like Norwich have been squeezed downwards. This is not to say we should not have done better, but it is an increasingly hard world for the likes of us.
 [/quote]

Would you call a season of Premier League revenues, 2 years of multi-million pound parachute payments, and consistently unequalled gate receipts part of this "increasingly hard world"?

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Badger, thanks for

the kind thought on the other thread. The sad truth is, though, that when you

look back fondly on this message board in a few years time it probably won’t be

my sane, fact-based rationality you’ll remember but the scattergun idiocy of Sm*dg*r

(make so many doom-laden predictions that one MUST eventually come true and

then hope no-one remembers all the false ones) and Bly Bly B*b*s, who seems to

be auditioning for the part of the monosyllabic sage in some Star Wars movie

that will never get made.

However. I confess I haven’t ploughed my way through this thread, but I was

struck by this comparison between the Chase years and the Smith years. Without

coming down on one side or another the point I would make is that the economics

of football have changed a great deal for the worse as far as medium-sized

clubs like Norwich

are concerned. Put simply, Chase had it a lot easier then.

Look at the (22) founder members of the Premier League:

Four

are in League One (if you count MK Dons as Wimbledon)

Eight are in the Championship

Ten are in the Premier League

And of those 10 three have been relegated at some point. The only seven clubs

to have stayed in the top flight all the way through are giants of the game:

Arsenal

Aston Villa

Chelsea

Everton

Liverpool

Manchester

United

Tottenham Hotspur

Look at the (20) teams in the Premier League now. If you take into account

football history, size AND wealth of the owners, there no club there I would

class as being smaller than Norwich and probably not one I would even class as

being as small as ours. Clubs like Norwich

have been squeezed downwards. This is not to say we should not have done

better, but it is an increasingly hard world for the likes of us.

[/quote]its true the prem league is a completely different animal when compared to the old first division...like many clubs, ncfc had been owned and run by local businessmen, who had good use of their resources to make NCFC acquainted more with the first divsion, than any other league, for 20 years or so until our early exit from the newly established premier league...history shows us that the prem gave greater financial incomes than the old first division, and clearly - in an attempt to rejoin it - robert chase more or less bust NCFC...but as it turned out - other clubs have done the same since, especially in the late 90''s/early 00''s...so after chases exit, when smith and jones stepped into the breech - the prospect of multi-millionaires owning and running NCFC appeared to suggest that city would return back to the top flight and remain there...clearly, if you compare the 90''s to the 80''s, the days of local businessmen having enough financial clout to make NCFC (and clubs similar to ours) competitive were over...i would suggest the prem league (since the last tv deal in 2004) has moved onto yet another level - its worldwide appeal has generated unprecidated levels of income, enough to entice super rich millionaires and billionaires into owning football clubs...and its reasonable to suggest our multi-millionaire owners might struggle against such revenues,,,especially because in the champs equally there are benefactors running clubs who are prepared to invest speculatively to mount promotion challenges...yet,,,becuase of our recent prem chute payments - its reasonable to assume we should have enjoyed a distinct advantage over the majority of our champs rivals during these 2 seasons...its reasonable in my view to therefore view the clubs records between these two times (pre and post 2007) as periods where the club should have been competitive (and maybe enjoyed an advantage over its peers) and latterly where it should struggle to be comptitive, and maybe suffered a disadvantage when compared to our champs rivals...therefore,,,i would suggest from the period 1996-2006,,,we were successful during only 2 of those years...and from the period 2007 to the present day - clearly we have been unsuccessful,,,being closer to relegation than promotion by some margin...given the economic advantages we enjoyed during many of these years,,,the only proper and safe conclusion to be drawn, is that NCFC have chronically underperformed during most of smith and jones'' tenure as owners of NCFC...and latterly they are now unable to appoint a manager and field a team that has credible top 6 potential...put simply, chase was a local businessmen, who it can be argued overperformed...given our record,,,

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Peter Thorne"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Clubs like Norwich have been squeezed downwards. This is not to say we should not have done better, but it is an increasingly hard world for the likes of us. [/quote]

Would you call a season of Premier League revenues, 2 years of multi-million pound parachute payments, and consistently unequalled gate receipts part of this "increasingly hard world"?

[/quote]Yep approx £30 million just handed to us on top of existing revenues over a 3 year period. We will never know what Chase would have done given an extra £30m but my guess is he''d have done a lot better. The parachute payments were brought in to save clubs from having to selll their best/highest earning players upon relegation. We were much ''cleverer'' and still carried on to sell anyone who would command a fee at the earliest opportunity and just trousered the Prem payments. We made a vast profit one year and smaller profits in subsequent years but there appears to be no sign of any of this money now we desperately need it.I doubt one years worth of Prem payout plus the 2 years of para payments would be enough in itself to transform us into a competitive prem team but it should certainly have been enough to provide the backbone and infrastructure for a sustained attempt at competing in this division.I''d be interested to hear what exactly we have left to show for all that Premiership money, there''s less invested in the team now than prior to promotion so it''s certainly not there.

[Flinty 0]

reading this thread title just makes me want to cry....that there are still some people out there supporting Delia.Look - it''s nothing personal - i''ve said a few times before, than if she had the money i am sure she would invest....But she aint rich enough to move us forward, simple.We aint going to find a buyer in the current financial crisis, therefore the best thing to do is get rid of RoederWill boost the players, playing for a new manager and hopefully stop us getting relegated.Once the economic situation has improved, we then need to think about new owners!

Roeder out!!

[kdncfc 0]

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

[quote user="One Flew Over..."][quote user="The Prisoner"]
Continue for how long? Haven''t you noticed official attendance figures are noticably higher than attendances recently? Can you see us pushing 25k next year? How many out the 25k go to see Delia and how many for the match? The fact remains that football attendance in this division has seen a national average increase of approx 50% over this period. This is not the work of Delia Smith but a change in the demographic oif football supporters as Clubs became nicer and safer places to visit.

Average league position 1997-present = 30th

Your tenuous attempt at discrediting the facts has failed.
It appears our ''Golden Era'' lasted a lot longer than you thought only ending when Delia Smith took over.

This ''fact'' is of course proven by our placings following the 1974 relegation, and our 1981 relegation and our 1985 relegation aren''t they?
[/quote]

So the increase in attendances shown by your stats have nothing to do with the board, yet the league position statistics are entirely the board''s fault?
The gulf between the Premiership since its creation and the league below has nothing to do with it?
[/quote]

The increase in attendances was much to do with Andy Cullens marketing skills although it is down to the loyalty of the fans that we are still among the best supported club in the division

. The gulf between the prem and the Championship has no bearing at all on how badly we have done in this league for most of the boards time here, the buck stops with them and it is amazing how there are still those that seem to see no wrong in what they''ve done. We have had 10 bad years out of 12 since the board have been here, however you try and dress it up it isn''t good and that is what they should be judged on. Football is the most important thing at any club and that side of things has been badly neglected for far to long, that is why we are where we are.

[/quote]

If that is the case then praise should be given to Delia for appointing him in the same way that criticism is given over the decision to appoint Peter Grant!!

I really dont understand why people feel the need to attack and belittle everything Delia has done for the club.  We can all see that it has gone wrong and we are in a very precarious situation.  Unfortunately the only cure is money and  Delia hasn''t got anything left to give, if she had I am quite sure she would give it.  I love how all the haters jump up and say we should have done this and we should have done that, we shouldnt have done such and such.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing isnt it. 

[/quote]

Hindsight may be a wonderful thing but a few of us have been saying for at least 3 years that the path the club were taking would end in tears. And so it has proved.

[One Flew Over... 33]

While we may have had an advantage in the two years following relegation, we''ve had a disadvantage for all the other years. Teams in the Championship that have played in the Premiership since its creation:Southampton, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday, Charlton, Derby, Forest, Ipswich, QPR, Birmingham, Palace, Sheffield Utd, Reading, Watford, Barnsley, WolvesThat''s 15 of our rivals that have had an advantage at some point (did parachute payments start when the Premiership was created?). Teams that have played in the Premiership and really messed up...Leeds, Wimbledon, Leicester, Oldham, Bradford, Swindon

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="One Flew Over..."]While we may have had an advantage in the two years following relegation, we''ve had a disadvantage for all the other years. Teams in the Championship that have played in the Premiership since its creation:Southampton, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday, Charlton, Derby, Forest, Ipswich, QPR, Birmingham, Palace, Sheffield Utd, Reading, Watford, Barnsley, WolvesThat''s 15 of our rivals that have had an advantage at some point (did parachute payments start when the Premiership was created?). Teams that have played in the Premiership and really messed up...Leeds, Wimbledon, Leicester, Oldham, Bradford, Swindon[/quote]You''ve just named twenty teams who''ve been in the prem, add us and the twenty currently in that league and you''re up to 41 teams and several of those have been up more than once.Surely with at least that many teams getting a slice of the premiership pie it must be more of an open shop than you and purple would have us believe? It''s not exactly the same three teams getting promoted/relegated each year is it?

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="Arturo Whittlupoli"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"]

average crowds have nothing to do with Delia

[/quote]

Of course they do - her image and ideas has helped transform the club to be the heart of the community and be more family friendly - which has attracted an average of an extra 10,000 to games.

[quote]

now rated by many as a laughing stock, before she took over we were in the top flight and beating the likes of Arsenal etc, now we can''t compete with the likes of Burnley, Preston and Swansea.

[/quote]

NCFC was 16th in Division 2 when she took over. If you want to go back further in history then Burnley and Preston used to be a couple of the biggest clubs in the country.

[quote]

the club has business interests that fail to provide any kind of transfer kitty, we can''t even raise funds to buy our own players, we are a laughing stock.

[/quote]

That isn''t true. The profits from the business interests contribute to the playing budget.

[quote]

the stadium, although it has been redeveloped has still fallen way behind many of our rivals and it''s capacity would be way too small if we were a succesful club, the City stand would be more appropriate for a Div 1 club, mind you that''s where we are heading with complacent posters like you sticking up for the current regime.

[/quote]

The stadium can be increased further in capacity as and when required.

[quote]

Your point about playing budget is so pathetic and misguided to be hysterically funny if it were not so tragic.

I am sure she will have a say in what players are bought and sold, simply there are no funds to buy any players, and any that are regarded as being worth anything are quickly sold on.

[/quote]

Wrong again. Delia does not decide which players are bought and sold and she even insists that she has nothing to do with it because that is what the manager is paid to do.

[quote]

You are entitled to your opinion, but it is the opinion of a naive, deluded fool.

[/quote]

Keep telling yourself that...

[/quote]

I really cant be arsed to correct your points again as you clearly need to read the points that have been replied in detail again.

I''m sorry sir but you really are naive and deluded.

[/quote]

you really couldn''t believe it could you Arthur? What chance have we got with looines like Mr Cavendish running loose? Makes a mockery of all that "care in the community" stuff. Tom, you should be locked up in a comfy padded cell, preferably wearing a straightjacket for the protection of the rest of us, and as far away from a computer keyboard as possible.

[/quote]

Can you not debate without being abusive to a fellow fan, or is it that your points were so very weak and ill-informed that being abusive is the only answer you have?

[/quote]

ok then, I''ll try really hard, get stuffed you boring, tedious little twerp. Damn, failed again.

ps - Prisoner you are truly the coolest poster on here. Clash logo, stunning intelligent posts and a City fan who can expose the arguments that some of the Board lackies try to peddle on here. Please don''t stop!

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="One Flew Over..."]While we may have had an advantage in the two years following relegation, we''ve had a disadvantage for all the other years. Teams in the Championship that have played in the Premiership since its creation:Southampton, Coventry, Sheffield Wednesday, Charlton, Derby, Forest, Ipswich, QPR, Birmingham, Palace, Sheffield Utd, Reading, Watford, Barnsley, WolvesThat''s 15 of our rivals that have had an advantage at some point (did parachute payments start when the Premiership was created?). Teams that have played in the Premiership and really messed up...Leeds, Wimbledon, Leicester, Oldham, Bradford, Swindon[/quote]You''ve just named twenty teams who''ve been in the prem, add us and the twenty currently in that league and you''re up to 41 teams and several of those have been up more than once.Surely with at least that many teams getting a slice of the premiership pie it must be more of an open shop than you and purple would have us believe? It''s not exactly the same three teams getting promoted/relegated each year is it? [/quote]sure, there are variables - because teams can underperform and disappoint, while others can overperform and produce upsets...but - given we had multimillionaire owners on board, when other sides didn''t, and given the size of our gates, we should really have enjoyed an advantage over our rivals, than we did...the reason for our under-performance during the smith and jones tenure may be in part due to their choice of manager...walker was proven, but after a poor run - he was sacked,,,just as he seemed to get the team going with 2 five nil home wins...hamilton and rioch - undone by ''cleverer'' foreign free signings...worthy - unsuited to the prem and lost the plot soon after...grant - undone by ''cleverer'' scottish/foreign value signings...roedy - undone by ''cleverer'' loan gambles...the theme here, is that most managers have tried non-conventional routes to boost their squads - and therefore gambled...which suggests most have suffered from inadequate playing budgets...surely, if you have the money, you buy your own players on 3-4 contracts...and where reasonable,,,for transfer fees...why???cos players that attract transfer fees are generally performing well and therefore attract a fee in the marketplace...to an extent, players on free transfers that are signed in the teeth of competition with other rival clubs can also assumed to be of a reasonable standard...signing ''billy no mates'' by definition carries a risk...this method of squad building is tried, tested an credible...imo - you are more likely to get good''uns in rather than plums...simple as - so why don''t we do it???

[One Flew Over... 33]

[quote user="The Prisoner"]You''ve just named twenty teams who''ve been in the prem, add us and the twenty currently in that league and you''re up to 41 teams and several of those have been up more than once.Surely with at least that many teams getting a slice of the premiership pie it must be more of an open shop than you and purple would have us believe? It''s not exactly the same three teams getting promoted/relegated each year is it? [/quote]Every Premiership season bar one has seen a newly promoted team relegated. Even if a team manages to stay up how many are still there two years later? It is hardly going to greatly improve their 30 year average league position.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years.

 

[/quote]
Or it can be measured against the previous 12 years and an accurate relative assesment can be produced exactly as I did last night. When the previous 12 years performance didn''t paint a good picture of Delias tenure (15th to 30th) I was accused of being selective and asked for the previous 30 years. I obliged and it still doesn''t paint a good picture of the current boards achievments (19th to 30th). You can guess at the hypothetical or use facts. I chose the latter to illustrate something we all know anyway whether we admit it or not. Results have not been good for some time now, our league stature has diminished and we are on the verge of our worst league placing in 50 years.

Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.
I admit to being duped into holding Worthy more responsible than he actually was at the time. I am however still convinced he had gone as far as he could with us but can see past the smoke and mirrors far enough to realise that Worthys problems really started at exactly the same time as the "Sell, sell, sell" culture we adopted post relegation and since.
[/quote]

Duped? Duped by who?

Or did you later revisit the past and with the benefit of hindsight change your mind?

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years.

 

[/quote]Or it can be measured against the previous 12 years and an accurate relative assesment can be produced exactly as I did last night. When the previous 12 years performance didn''t paint a good picture of Delias tenure (15th to 30th) I was accused of being selective and asked for the previous 30 years. I obliged and it still doesn''t paint a good picture of the current boards achievments (19th to 30th). You can guess at the hypothetical or use facts. I chose the latter to illustrate something we all know anyway whether we admit it or not. Results have not been good for some time now, our league stature has diminished and we are on the verge of our worst league placing in 50 years.Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.I admit to being duped into holding Worthy more responsible than he actually was at the time. I am however still convinced he had gone as far as he could with us but can see past the smoke and mirrors far enough to realise that Worthys problems really started at exactly the same time as the "Sell, sell, sell" culture we adopted post relegation and since.[/quote]

Duped? Duped by who?

Or did you later revisit the past and with the benefit of hindsight change your mind?

 

[/quote]Duped by myself primarily as per part two of your post but with a little help from the Carrow rd spin machine too. The hindsight was a marvellous aide, for example I spent the last two years of Worthys reign believing that the Board had backed him on the signing of the hugely influential Darren Huckerby, turns out it was Carl Moore and despite a level of income we had never experienced our Board were happy to sit back , make a profit yet take the credit for somebody else''s investment/gamble. Gets difficult working out what has gone wrong and why when even the most simple of facts is obfuscated by those with most at stake.

[nutty nigel 7,630]

[quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Prisoner"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The 10 bad years out of 12 is measured against what? It can only be measured against the belief that someone else could have done better in those 12 years.

 

[/quote]
Or it can be measured against the previous 12 years and an accurate relative assesment can be produced exactly as I did last night. When the previous 12 years performance didn''t paint a good picture of Delias tenure (15th to 30th) I was accused of being selective and asked for the previous 30 years. I obliged and it still doesn''t paint a good picture of the current boards achievments (19th to 30th). You can guess at the hypothetical or use facts. I chose the latter to illustrate something we all know anyway whether we admit it or not. Results have not been good for some time now, our league stature has diminished and we are on the verge of our worst league placing in 50 years.

Rather like the belief that anyone would do better than Worthy which has been proved to be false.
I admit to being duped into holding Worthy more responsible than he actually was at the time. I am however still convinced he had gone as far as he could with us but can see past the smoke and mirrors far enough to realise that Worthys problems really started at exactly the same time as the "Sell, sell, sell" culture we adopted post relegation and since.
[/quote]

Duped? Duped by who?

Or did you later revisit the past and with the benefit of hindsight change your mind?

 

[/quote]

Duped by myself primarily as per part two of your post but with a little help from the Carrow rd spin machine too. The hindsight was a marvellous aide, for example I spent the last two years of Worthys reign believing that the Board had backed him on the signing of the hugely influential Darren Huckerby, turns out it was Carl Moore and despite a level of income we had never experienced our Board were happy to sit back , make a profit yet take the credit for somebody else''s investment/gamble. Gets difficult working out what has gone wrong and why when even the most simple of facts is obfuscated by those with most at stake.
[/quote]

So at what point did you decide you had been duped over Chase too?