Credit to the board

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Canary02 III"]

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]Do you actually believe this?

[Mr Brownstone 0]

[quote user="Canary02 III"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Points for bravery to be fair!

I think the credit really goes to the two players on this one as had they wanted to move they could simply have made themselves awkward like Bell and engineered the move regardless of the clubs wishes.

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]

I can''t afford to buy a new car outright, but i can manage the repayments on a loan. That doesn''t mean it''s my preferred method of getting a new car though. Do you honestly think Roeder wanted to get Lita on loan and not on a permanent transfer? The quantity of loans coming through the door has increased substantially over the last few years, whilst the transfer budget has shrunk. Is it a coincidence? I think not.

The last few managers have had no option but to use the loan market to bring in players as we can''t afford to sign any that command any sort of fee, although i will concede that Roeder made life tough on himself with the ammount of players culled over the summer.

I''m not looking for an argument but i think its a bit naieve to suggest that the amount of loans we have in the squad is down to the managers recommendations, in my opinion it can only be down to the board being unable to financially back their managers. I have no problems with adding a bit of quality to a squad like we did with Hucks & Crouch, but it becomes dangerous in the long term when we rely on them to make up a large part of the squad, we will be in a situation (if we stay up) where year after year we waste the first 10 to 15 games of the season whilst the new team gels, meaning we will always be at the wrong end of the table whilst the current board are in charge. I find it hard to believe that any manager would prefer this way of working.

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="Mr Brownstone"][quote user="Canary02 III"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Points for bravery to be fair!

I think the credit really goes to the two players on this one as had they wanted to move they could simply have made themselves awkward like Bell and engineered the move regardless of the clubs wishes.

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]

I can''t afford to buy a new car outright, but i can manage the repayments on a loan. That doesn''t mean it''s my preferred method of getting a new car though. Do you honestly think Roeder wanted to get Lita on loan and not on a permanent transfer? The quantity of loans coming through the door has increased substantially over the last few years, whilst the transfer budget has shrunk. Is it a coincidence? I think not.

The last few managers have had no option but to use the loan market to bring in players as we can''t afford to sign any that command any sort of fee, although i will concede that Roeder made life tough on himself with the ammount of players culled over the summer.

I''m not looking for an argument but i think its a bit naieve to suggest that the amount of loans we have in the squad is down to the managers recommendations, in my opinion it can only be down to the board being unable to financially back their managers. I have no problems with adding a bit of quality to a squad like we did with Hucks & Crouch, but it becomes dangerous in the long term when we rely on them to make up a large part of the squad, we will be in a situation (if we stay up) where year after year we waste the first 10 to 15 games of the season whilst the new team gels, meaning we will always be at the wrong end of the table whilst the current board are in charge. I find it hard to believe that any manager would prefer this way of working.

[/quote]

No argument Mr B, perfectly valid points.

Obviously Roeder would have loved to have bought Lita, but there was never the cash available to do this. However, I''m sure he had the option of buying someone with a smaller transfer fee and wages rather than loaning Lita. Take for example my favourite hobby-horse Danny Graham at Carlisle, reportedly available at around £350k. Would he have been as good in the short term? No. But could he have been an investment that would have benefitted us long term and been of far greater intrinsic value? Yes. And for every loan signing we''ve had the same decision to make. Short-term use of "Premiership" players or longer term planning for the squad.

Grant and Roeder both opted for short-term thinking that "Premiership" would equal instant results, and promptly pee''d away the transfer budget accordingly. I''m not saying that every loan could have equalled a permanent, but how many times have we loaned a succession of players in the same position? A lower league option or two that stays in place for 2 or 3 years rather than expensive three-month loan fees is more prudent in my book.

However, I don''t think the board made these decisions, and not one manager has ever suggested that they did. The choice of players has come from the managers who have been given a budget and made their choices accordingly, believing that Premiership loans were better than permanent transfers they could have afforded.

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="Canary02 III"]

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]

Do you actually believe this?

 

Naah, just wrote all that for a laugh...[:|]







[/quote]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

Most posters know how much I despise the board, however, in getting shot of Ratty and his team, signing a new backroom brigade, plus the odd loan signing coming in, I will say, that was a positive slant on their otherwise negative stewardship.

In that respect, ellis has a point.

[/quote]

?

What''s the solution? Wiz = Ellis you say? Well,........ 

OTBC

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Canary02 III"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"][quote user="Canary02 III"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]

I can''t afford to buy a new car outright, but i can manage the repayments on a loan. That doesn''t mean it''s my preferred method of getting a new car though. Do you honestly think Roeder wanted to get Lita on loan and not on a permanent transfer? The quantity of loans coming through the door has increased substantially over the last few years, whilst the transfer budget has shrunk. Is it a coincidence? I think not.

The last few managers have had no option but to use the loan market to bring in players as we can''t afford to sign any that command any sort of fee, although i will concede that Roeder made life tough on himself with the ammount of players culled over the summer.

I''m not looking for an argument but i think its a bit naieve to suggest that the amount of loans we have in the squad is down to the managers recommendations, in my opinion it can only be down to the board being unable to financially back their managers. I have no problems with adding a bit of quality to a squad like we did with Hucks & Crouch, but it becomes dangerous in the long term when we rely on them to make up a large part of the squad, we will be in a situation (if we stay up) where year after year we waste the first 10 to 15 games of the season whilst the new team gels, meaning we will always be at the wrong end of the table whilst the current board are in charge. I find it hard to believe that any manager would prefer this way of working.

[/quote]

Take for example my favourite hobby-horse Danny Graham at Carlisle, reportedly available at around £350k. [/quote]

I think Graham turns 24 about mid August this year so should be available on a Bosman free.  If NCFC are interested did you expect them to spend £350k for a player they can get for free in the summer?

 

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Canary02 III"][quote user="Mr Brownstone"][quote user="Canary02 III"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

However, in response to the argument that the board are responsible for our loan policy, I think we have to look at our managers as the source for this. Worthington, Grant, Roeder and now Gunn have all looked at the loan market as the crux of our recruitment policy and have advised the board accordingly. Hopefully Gunny is only doing this as a short-term measure in order to get through to the summer and reassess, but either way, it''s the manager that makes recommendations to the board, not some dastardly gang of scrooge-like directors putting the thumbscrews to a series of downtrodden managers that they can''t have any permanent signings, no matter how much more satisfying it is for those with a more dramatic bent to believe this fiction.

[/quote]

I can''t afford to buy a new car outright, but i can manage the repayments on a loan. That doesn''t mean it''s my preferred method of getting a new car though. Do you honestly think Roeder wanted to get Lita on loan and not on a permanent transfer? The quantity of loans coming through the door has increased substantially over the last few years, whilst the transfer budget has shrunk. Is it a coincidence? I think not.

The last few managers have had no option but to use the loan market to bring in players as we can''t afford to sign any that command any sort of fee, although i will concede that Roeder made life tough on himself with the ammount of players culled over the summer.

I''m not looking for an argument but i think its a bit naieve to suggest that the amount of loans we have in the squad is down to the managers recommendations, in my opinion it can only be down to the board being unable to financially back their managers. I have no problems with adding a bit of quality to a squad like we did with Hucks & Crouch, but it becomes dangerous in the long term when we rely on them to make up a large part of the squad, we will be in a situation (if we stay up) where year after year we waste the first 10 to 15 games of the season whilst the new team gels, meaning we will always be at the wrong end of the table whilst the current board are in charge. I find it hard to believe that any manager would prefer this way of working.

[/quote]

Take for example my favourite hobby-horse Danny Graham at Carlisle, reportedly available at around £350k. [/quote]

I think Graham turns 24 about mid August this year so should be available on a Bosman free.  If NCFC are interested did you expect them to spend £350k for a player they can get for free in the summer?

 

[/quote]

I didn''t know he was out of contract... fingers crossed heh...

A good point, well made, although I was using him for the purpose of illustrating lower league talent that we could afford as opposed to loaning players we never could afford permanently.

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

 If NCFC are interested did you expect them to spend £350k for a player they can get for free in the summer?

 

[/quote]pay now to avoid disappointment is the theory

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="IBA"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

 If NCFC are interested did you expect them to spend £350k for a player they can get for free in the summer?

 

[/quote]

pay now to avoid disappointment is the theory
[/quote]

I wish that was the way the season tickets worked...

[hogesar 9,618]

Let''s be absolutely honest. The board don''t deserve credit, but then again they don''t deserve criticism for their decision here, obviously.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]Let''s be absolutely honest. The board don''t deserve credit, but then again they don''t deserve criticism for their decision here, obviously.
[/quote]

Yes, they just "are".

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Well if its true that Bell''s player registration was sold for £750k and they paid £35k for McDonald''s registration  then

the board should be congratulated for achieving another profit from (perm.) transfers.  

 

 

[ellis206 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]So Ellis.If not selling good players is good business can you agree with me that selling Bell must have been bad business then?As our leading goal assist provider there''s no doubt he was a valuable player to us. He had 2 1/2 years of a 3 year contract left, he was being unsettled by Coventry whilst Roeder was here and we could easily have taken action against Coventry in the circumstances.  So we sold one of our best players at the very earliest opportunity, probably for little or no profit certainly nothing substantial was re-invested in the team.Davis Bell: Good business or bad business?Your pro Board argument clearly points to this being deemed bad business yet you omit this vital fact from your litttle transfer window summary.You need to remove the blinkers and look at the bigger picture son.Not selling Croft or Clingan is in no way proof we are not in financial trouble, I''d very much enjoy reading your explanation of how you think it might be though.[/quote]Do you attend many games? Because I saw David Bell a lot of times, home and away, and you can''t even mention him under the same breath as Clingan or Croft, he is no way near as good as either of them two, he had no pace, couldn''t take anyone on, and was totally dependant on his right foot, so to answer your question, yes it was good business to sell David Bell as I thought he was utter pants. And if we were so hard up, and on the brink of administration, then Clingan and Crofty would have been sold, no doubt about it, especially as Croft can walk free in a few months, the board wouldn''t be able to take that gamble and potentially losing half a million pound, hence why I don''t think we are near administration.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

the title of this, i thought we''d got new investment...... i''ll get my coat!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="ellis206"][quote user="Buckethead"]So Ellis.

If not selling good players is good business can you agree with me that selling Bell must have been bad business then?

As our leading goal assist provider there''s no doubt he was a valuable player to us. He had 2 1/2 years of a 3 year contract left, he was being unsettled by Coventry whilst Roeder was here and we could easily have taken action against Coventry in the circumstances.
 So we sold one of our best players at the very earliest opportunity, probably for little or no profit certainly nothing substantial was re-invested in the team.

Davis Bell: Good business or bad business?
Your pro Board argument clearly points to this being deemed bad business yet you omit this vital fact from your litttle transfer window summary.
You need to remove the blinkers and look at the bigger picture son.
Not selling Croft or Clingan is in no way proof we are not in financial trouble, I''d very much enjoy reading your explanation of how you think it might be though.
[/quote]

Do you attend many games? Because I saw David Bell a lot of times, home and away, and you can''t even mention him under the same breath as Clingan or Croft, he is no way near as good as either of them two, he had no pace, couldn''t take anyone on, and was totally dependant on his right foot, so to answer your question, yes it was good business to sell David Bell as I thought he was utter pants.
And if we were so hard up, and on the brink of administration, then Clingan and Crofty would have been sold, no doubt about it, especially as Croft can walk free in a few months, the board wouldn''t be able to take that gamble and potentially losing half a million pound, hence why I don''t think we are near administration.
[/quote]

D.Bell will probably finish this season with more assists for NCFC than Croft despite being on the pitch for about one fifth of the time (guess).  Of course he was pants......[8-)]

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[Syteanric 1]

Ellis, change your user name to "nero" and i will provide the fiddle.....

think about it.

jas :)

[ellis206 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!![/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[/quote]Sammy Clingan, Not Semmy. Your getting confused Arthur :) . I''m also intrigued to know how you seem to know all of our figures, you say we turned down 200k bid from Forest, but I thought it was nearer the 400k Bid, and the Bell and Cody transfers were undisclosed, and how do you know that Lupoli was the highest earner? And Croft might want to move in the summer, and that is exactly my point, he will go for free, so can you not give the board credit for not selling him now and risking losing him for nothing in the summer? does that not show that they do have our best intentions at heart? Because we are hell of a lot more likely to stay in this league with Crofty in the team, and it is common knowledge that we are in contract talks with Crofty and he has said himself he wants to stay, so we will just see whats happens. I don''t understand your argument because your basically agreeing with everything I''ve said, just shying away from giving the board credit though. x

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="ellis206"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[/quote]

Sammy Clingan, Not Semmy. Your getting confused Arthur :) . I''m also intrigued to know how you seem to know all of our figures, you say we turned down 200k bid from Forest, but I thought it was nearer the 400k Bid, and the Bell and Cody transfers were undisclosed, and how do you know that Lupoli was the highest earner? And Croft might want to move in the summer, and that is exactly my point, he will go for free, so can you not give the board credit for not selling him now and risking losing him for nothing in the summer? does that not show that they do have our best intentions at heart? Because we are hell of a lot more likely to stay in this league with Crofty in the team, and it is common knowledge that we are in contract talks with Crofty and he has said himself he wants to stay, so we will just see whats happens. I don''t understand your argument because your basically agreeing with everything I''ve said, just shying away from giving the board credit though. x
[/quote]

Credit for what Ellis? 20th & 2 pts off relegation - and all around with games in hand? Stop joking. How much did they spend this window on higher quality players to rescue the situation?

If you''re looking to credit them then look in the direction of Team Gunn - a big step up on Roeder & Grant in my view - particularly if they can reveal a hard edge when warranted.

Of course you realise that if Team Gunn is given no sensible transfer fund and things go further tits up the Carrow Road faithful are likely going to turn on your dear board rather than Gunny and Crooksy and Butters and Dixie! That in itself is a plus - although I doubt that you would agree.

OTBC 

 

 

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBlades"[quote]Credit for what Ellis? 20th & 2 pts off relegation - and all around with games in hand? Stop joking. How much did they spend this window on higher quality players to rescue the situation?

If you''re looking to credit them then look in the direction of Team Gunn - a big step up on Roeder & Grant in my view - particularly if they can reveal a hard edge when warranted.

Of course you realise that if Team Gunn is given no sensible transfer fund and things go further tits up the Carrow Road faithful are likely going to turn on your dear board rather than Gunny and Crooksy and Butters and Dixie! That in itself is a plus - although I doubt that you would agree.

OTBC 

 

 

[/quote]

Exactly Bly, if Gunny fails, even with us getting relegated, most fans will turn on her, thats the one thing the board didn''t consider...........Gunn is loved...........they aren''t

[ellis206 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="ellis206"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!![/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[/quote]Sammy Clingan, Not Semmy. Your getting confused Arthur :) . I''m also intrigued to know how you seem to know all of our figures, you say we turned down 200k bid from Forest, but I thought it was nearer the 400k Bid, and the Bell and Cody transfers were undisclosed, and how do you know that Lupoli was the highest earner? And Croft might want to move in the summer, and that is exactly my point, he will go for free, so can you not give the board credit for not selling him now and risking losing him for nothing in the summer? does that not show that they do have our best intentions at heart? Because we are hell of a lot more likely to stay in this league with Crofty in the team, and it is common knowledge that we are in contract talks with Crofty and he has said himself he wants to stay, so we will just see whats happens. I don''t understand your argument because your basically agreeing with everything I''ve said, just shying away from giving the board credit though. x [/quote]

Credit for what Ellis? 20th & 2 pts off relegation - and all around with games in hand? Stop joking. How much did they spend this window on higher quality players to rescue the situation?

If you''re looking to credit them then look in the direction of Team Gunn - a big step up on Roeder & Grant in my view - particularly if they can reveal a hard edge when warranted.

Of course you realise that if Team Gunn is given no sensible transfer fund and things go further tits up the Carrow Road faithful are likely going to turn on your dear board rather than Gunny and Crooksy and Butters and Dixie! That in itself is a plus - although I doubt that you would agree.

OTBC 

 

 

[/quote]ffs, read my post again, and tell me where I have credited the board for our league position, then get back to me. If you actually read my post again, you will see I have credited the board FOR NOT SELLING Clingan and Croft....................

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="ellis206"]Thank you Lappinitup, I think everyone just read the first line then decided to abuse me without actually reading my post haha.
And to the fool who thinks that selling Shackell for a million (easy money) then loaning him back probably for a pittance is bad business, then I''d love to see him on the apprentice as that would be comedy tv.
I think I have probably hit a nerve due to everyone on here saying we''re on the brink of administration, when we are clearly not, otherwise Crofty and Clingan would have been sold, that is a fact.
[/quote]

Selling Shackell for £1m would have been great business had the money been reinvested in the team. It wasnt. Good business for the board, not for the fans. [:''(]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="ellis206"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="ellis206"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[/quote]

Sammy Clingan, Not Semmy. Your getting confused Arthur :) . I''m also intrigued to know how you seem to know all of our figures, you say we turned down 200k bid from Forest, but I thought it was nearer the 400k Bid, and the Bell and Cody transfers were undisclosed, and how do you know that Lupoli was the highest earner? And Croft might want to move in the summer, and that is exactly my point, he will go for free, so can you not give the board credit for not selling him now and risking losing him for nothing in the summer? does that not show that they do have our best intentions at heart? Because we are hell of a lot more likely to stay in this league with Crofty in the team, and it is common knowledge that we are in contract talks with Crofty and he has said himself he wants to stay, so we will just see whats happens. I don''t understand your argument because your basically agreeing with everything I''ve said, just shying away from giving the board credit though. x
[/quote]

Credit for what Ellis? 20th & 2 pts off relegation - and all around with games in hand? Stop joking. How much did they spend this window on higher quality players to rescue the situation?

If you''re looking to credit them then look in the direction of Team Gunn - a big step up on Roeder & Grant in my view - particularly if they can reveal a hard edge when warranted.

Of course you realise that if Team Gunn is given no sensible transfer fund and things go further tits up the Carrow Road faithful are likely going to turn on your dear board rather than Gunny and Crooksy and Butters and Dixie! That in itself is a plus - although I doubt that you would agree.

OTBC 

[/quote]

ffs, read my post again, and tell me where I have credited the board for our league position, then get back to me. If you actually read my post again, you will see I have credited the board FOR NOT SELLING Clingan and Croft....................
[/quote]

So sorry Ellis.

I forgot you have a one track mind.

It''s a bit like playing against hoofball, I suppose.

Silly me.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"][quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]I am actually fuming reading this. They signed one player with no proffesional experience. Please think before you post. [:D][/quote]Try calming down and read it again. Ellis didn''t mention who we had or hadn''t signed, He simply pointed out that we didn''t sell two of our star players which we would have been forced to do if we were facing administration![/quote]

No he didnt, he stated the board deserved praise for their actions in the transfer window! And now that Gunn has come out and said he is willing to listen to offers for Clingan do they still deserve praise?

[? 20]

The £1 million from Shackell''s transfer was needed to plug the gap from when the Turners pulled out. It couldn''t have been used to help build the squad without putting us in fear of administration.

Think first, post later. But of course, that would stop us from all having a nice moan, wouldn''t it? Silly me.

I agree, Ellis. The board do deserve credit for keeping our best 2 players in the transfer window. A club in our position, both financially and in footballing terms, staving off Premiership interest for Clingan, is a job well done. Shame that all the numpties who a few weeks back were whining about how inevitable it was that him and Crofty were off don''t have the integrity to admit it.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

''?'' sez: The £1 million from Shackell''s transfer was needed to plug the gap from when the Turners pulled out. It couldn''t have been used to help build the squad without putting us in fear of administration.

Think first, post later. But of course, that would stop us from all having a nice moan, wouldn''t it? Silly me.

I agree, Ellis. The board do deserve credit for keeping our best 2 players in the transfer window. A club in our position, both financially and in footballing terms, staving off Premiership interest for Clingan, is a job well done. Shame that all the numpties who a few weeks back were whining about how inevitable it was that him and Crofty were off don''t have the integrity to admit it.

Me sez:

But we are nowhere near the fear of administration - ''Mr £180,000 salary a year Dronecaster,'' said so....[8-|]

Maybe you''re as much a ''numpty'' - as the supposed ''numpties'' you so belittle....Anyway, where did you get the ''to plug the gap for when the Turner''s pulled out'' quote? Did you make it up? Silly you.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user=""]

The £1 million from Shackell''s transfer was needed to plug the gap from when the Turners pulled out. It couldn''t have been used to help build the squad without putting us in fear of administration.

Think first, post later. But of course, that would stop us from all having a nice moan, wouldn''t it? Silly me.

I agree, Ellis. The board do deserve credit for keeping our best 2 players in the transfer window. A club in our position, both financially and in footballing terms, staving off Premiership interest for Clingan, is a job well done. Shame that all the numpties who a few weeks back were whining about how inevitable it was that him and Crofty were off don''t have the integrity to admit it.

[/quote]

And who put us in this position to begin wiith?

The board.

Numpty.

Dear oh dear, what won''t you people tug forelocks and apologise for?

OTBC

[? 20]

Actually, Mello, i engaged my braincells, something yourself, and a good few others on this messageboard would do well in trying out every now and then.

Hmm, let''s think about it, shall we?

Turners pull out, leaving us £2 million down, and everyone on here''s howling about how we''re inevitably heading into administration. Even the club aren''t pulling out the usual ''we''re fine on the money front'' headlines that they usually do when these ugly rumours rear their head. Worrying times! We then, very quickly and without the typical warning that generally preceeds these dealings, sell Shackell, and the money is never seen again. Administration never occurs.

Draw your own conclusions, as you, of course, will, Mello, but it doesn''t strike me as being akin to rocket science, with regards to working out where that money went.

And although i understand that your head must be hurting from all this logic by now, let''s just push on a bit. We ARE no where near administration. Keeping hold of your best players, y''know, the ones who can actually command reasonable transfer fees, is just about the surest sign of this that we could ask for.

But as i said, let''s not let the truth get in the way of a good old moan, now.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="question mark"]

The £1 million from Shackell''s transfer was needed to plug the gap from when the Turners pulled out. It couldn''t have been used to help build the squad without putting us in fear of administration.

[/quote]So you''re saying we are not much more than £1m away from administration then?Didn''t realise we were that close, still it explains a lot thats gone on with the team recently.

[? 20]

Excuse me if i''m wrong, Bly, but i can''t recall saying that the board haven''t made mistakes in the past. of course they have, it''s clearly the primary reason we''re in the position that we now find ourselves in. But it''s an entirely irrelevant point with regards to this forum post.

The board did well, and deserve credit, for their dealings in THIS transfer window.

Back to sleep, m''boy.