Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thecanaryfan

A new low for the club

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else noticed that the club has recently sold one of our better players and loaned him back? A sad situation indeed, made worse by the fact the Shackell money, along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. Oh the joys of supporting a club with absolutley no ambition! I think we will go down this season and it will be truly deserved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Us fans deserve better, but what can we do?

The board hasn''t backed managers with enough money in the past, and unless there are investors waiting in the wings, or a multi millionaire/billionaire waiting to take over the club, which AFAIK there isn''t then we have to ride out the storm.

I as a NCFC supporter have had high emotions and low emotions following this club, but regardless of what league we are destined for I will fight along with the fans, the manager and the players to try and keep the club safe in the fizzy drinks league.

What you do is up to you, but until I hear NCFC are relegated I am going to try and remain positive for the players.

Whatever will be, will be, and all the carping on about it wont change the situation we now find ourselves in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]Has anyone else noticed that the club has recently sold one of our better players and loaned him back? A sad situation indeed, made worse by the fact the Shackell money, along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. Oh the joys of supporting a club with absolutley no ambition! I think we will go down this season and it will be truly deserved.[/quote]We''re doomed I tell ye, doomed, DOOMED! [:''(] [:''(] [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt we sell Shacks for around £1m?

Good money that for us, and loaning him back makes sense.

Its sort of a reverse Archibald-Henville maneouvre!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

Come come now, why the name calling?  I think most of us on here are mature enough and have enough about us to not resort to playground tactics and name calling. [:)]

An opinion was posted, if you don''t like the replies then don''t start a thread.

[/quote]

There is no anger about how our board opperates anymore. We never question and as a result they do whatever they like. All I want do do is canvas some passionate opinions but there dont appear to be any. Most posters on here nowadays seem almost brain dead. The club has deteriated so badly over the last three seasons they simply dont care anymore. It is really sad to see.

And if I am going to be fed rubbish responses like a Shackell/Spurs comparison to a perfectly valid statement I am well within my right to get a bit tetchy. The answer is not for me to stop posting.

Share this post


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

Didnt we sell Shacks for around £1m?

Good money that for us, and loaning him back makes sense.

Its sort of a reverse Archibald-Henville maneouvre!

[/quote]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to have yet another loanee and one less City player on the clubs books. Its not like we dont have enough loanees already. What the heck, the more the merrier if you ask me. In fact, why dont we sell all our players and loan them all back. That way we wont actually own a football club, we will own segments of other football clubs. We can change our name to ''Every Football Club Football Club''. True, the team will always be a makeshift one but that doesnt matter. Its not like were going to get relegated this season is it?

Share this post


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

[quote user="sturgeon220"]  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please[/quote]

Had we had sold Shackell for £19m and bought him back for £12m I wouldnt need cheering up would I you simple minded toss pot. Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]  I did not call you names and i can see no reson for you to talk to me in that way , I am sorry if you did not like my post, but within certain rules this is free country. (down right rudeness is i feel against the rules) I agree Taking a player on loan that we sold a few months ago is not the best,but, i feel shacks is quite able to do a job for the team,(My Opinion)  Sorry if my opinion offended you.That was a quite unnecessary post, and only adds to the deteriorating state on these forums (or so some believe).Please keep your posts clean in the future, remember children do read these forums too.[/quote]  Thanks for that mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"][quote user="Largey"]

Didnt we sell Shacks for around £1m?

Good money that for us, and loaning him back makes sense.

Its sort of a reverse Archibald-Henville maneouvre!

[/quote]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to have yet another loanee and one less City player on the clubs books. Its not like we dont have enough loanees already. What the heck, the more the merrier if you ask me. In fact, why dont we sell all our players and loan them all back. That way we wont actually own a football club, we will own segments of other football clubs. We can change our name to ''Every Football Club Football Club''. True, the team will always be a makeshift one but that doesnt matter. Its not like were going to get relegated this season is it?

[/quote]

I think we can only play 5 loanees at a time, so we''d need some rule changes to make your dream of an all-loan squad come true.  [:D]

The Canary Fan telling the other guy he is "metally challenged" is hilarious.  I always love a spelling mistake made by someone accusing another of stupidity.

Share this post


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

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).
[/quote]

I understand this but loan fees are dead money. It isnt investment. We have nothing to show for it when all is over. We need valuation in our club. Instead we are selling long term assets and replacing them with short term solutions. It is a symtom of a club with no ambition and a club that is slowly sliding backwards. This constant rummaging in the bins of the loan market is destroying the club yet all seems ok. We sign only one non league player with absolutley no professional experience in the transfer window yet everyone appears to be over the moon. The board need to make more money avaliable for long term solutions so we can build for the future or else we will perrish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Houston Canary"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"][quote user="Largey"]

Didnt we sell Shacks for around £1m?

Good money that for us, and loaning him back makes sense.

Its sort of a reverse Archibald-Henville maneouvre!

[/quote]

Yes, it makes perfect sense to have yet another loanee and one less City player on the clubs books. Its not like we dont have enough loanees already. What the heck, the more the merrier if you ask me. In fact, why dont we sell all our players and loan them all back. That way we wont actually own a football club, we will own segments of other football clubs. We can change our name to ''Every Football Club Football Club''. True, the team will always be a makeshift one but that doesnt matter. Its not like were going to get relegated this season is it?

[/quote]

I think we can only play 5 loanees at a time, so we''d need some rule changes to make your dream of an all-loan squad come true.  [:D]

The Canary Fan telling the other guy he is "metally challenged" is hilarious.  I always love a spelling mistake made by someone accusing another of stupidity.

[/quote]

Thats rich coming from a yank. [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TheCanaryFan"] along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. .[/quote]Eh??  Seen the wage bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="IBA"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"] along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. .[/quote]

Eh??  Seen the wage bill?
[/quote]

No, have you?

Share this post


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

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).
[/quote]

What working deficit on wages v ticket sales?  Ticket sales have comfortably covered player wages in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, just maybe, Wolves still owe City some money for the Shacks transfer. Maybe again, things are being worked out and adjusted behind the scenes, which will result in his loan being made permanent in the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"]

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Had we had sold Shackell for £19m and bought him back for £12m I wouldnt need cheering up would I you simple minded toss pot. Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Come come now, why the name calling?  I think most of us on here are mature enough and have enough about us to not resort to playground tactics and name calling. [:)]

An opinion was posted, if you don''t like the replies then don''t start a thread.

[/quote]

There is no anger about how our board opperates anymore. We never question and as a result they do whatever they like. All I want do do is canvas some passionate opinions but there dont appear to be any. Most posters on here nowadays seem almost brain dead. The club has deteriated so badly over the last three seasons they simply dont care anymore. It is really sad to see.

And if I am going to be fed rubbish responses like a Shackell/Spurs comparison to a perfectly valid statement I am well within my right to get a bit tetchy. The answer is not for me to stop posting.

[/quote]

I understand about anger as I too am still angry at what the board is doing and has done to our club.  However, until there is a new owner come in we as fans can''t do anything sadly.  If we drive them out now, who will be guaranteed to step into the void?  No one I know or can think of.  PC hasn''t shown any interest, and whilst I don''t like the board they are keeping us afloat ATM.

I think you underestimate the passion and feeling of the NC fans, and, I have to say far from being brain dead most are very intelligent people, rational people and people who care just as much about the club as you or I.  The club hasn''t deteriorated over just 3 seasons, it goes way way back.

When you start a thread I kind of think you ought accept that there will be those who have opinions that are not the same as yours, it''s the way of life i''m afraid. 

But, we all have one common goal that is to see the club survive in this league and we are all NCFC supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i hope so wiz he is a better player than people give him credit they say he makes mistakes so does rio ferdinand its the rest of the team you pay with as well mate

Share this post


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

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).
[/quote]

What working deficit on wages v ticket sales?  Ticket sales have comfortably covered player wages in recent years.

[/quote]

Marvellous [:)][:D][:O][:P]! So player wages are the money we spend on the team!

Share this post


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

[quote user="sturgeon220"]  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).[/quote]

What working deficit on wages v ticket sales?  Ticket sales have comfortably covered player wages in recent years.

[/quote]Mr Carrow - I was referring to Neil Doncaster''s remarks at the end of last year - which I take at face value - and for laziness I have lifted the following from a quote on this board from one of the more reliable posters (Mr Chops) about Doncaster comments :"We are often asked why it is that we lose money when we have sell-out crowds and 20,000 season ticket holders. The

answer is simple - on these sorts of crowds, a break-even player wage

bill would be around £4m. And we are currently running at more than

twice that amount.Delia and Michael, Andrew and Sharon Turner,

and the Foulger family have all been using their own personal wealth to

match the investment of our loyal supporters. And it is that joint

investment that pays for a Championship football club. Take out the

money put in by directors and Norfolk would simply not have a

Championship football club to enjoy.
Like most other clubs, we continue

to rely hugely on the generosity of wealthy benefactors to survive."Mmm.So

despite 23,000 season ticket sales and crowds regularly in excess of

24,000, Norwich would not be a Championship football club without even

more money pumped in from benefactors.
"Although we get good gates do not forget that many are on the basis of family of "kids for £1" deals. A good policy but must hit income. Even if you believe Doncaster mmakes statements like this for fun and is lying through his teeth (I do not) - income does not seem to match wages. Croft''s contract is up for discussion right now - wage shave to be met and hence I do not go along with Canaryfan''s beligerent stance. "The Board must make more money available". Easily said. Personally I think every poster on here should be made to sell all their assets - and spouses to the slavers - and donate all proceeds to NCFC. (But even if we did, a large chunk would still go on the players wages).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also the fact that he was sold in the first place. Deemed not good enough and then to loan him back. Where is the players motivation? He left to start afresh and has now come back with the club in a worst position. We are planning for league 1. Norwich and ambition don''t go together but then again they never have so i''m not suprised. ( A NICE FAMILY CLUB) Ahhhh thats nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most worrying thing is how the hell have we got such a huge wage pill with such a piss poor squad? What the hell are we paying these chumps?

 

[quote user="Binky"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"]

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).
[/quote]

What working deficit on wages v ticket sales?  Ticket sales have comfortably covered player wages in recent years.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow - I was referring to Neil Doncaster''s remarks at the end of last year - which I take at face value - and for laziness I have lifted the following from a quote on this board from one of the more reliable posters (Mr Chops) about Doncaster comments :

"We are often asked why it is that we lose money when we have sell-out crowds and 20,000 season ticket holders. The answer is simple - on these sorts of crowds, a break-even player wage bill would be around £4m. And we are currently running at more than twice that amount.

Delia and Michael, Andrew and Sharon Turner, and the Foulger family have all been using their own personal wealth to match the investment of our loyal supporters. And it is that joint investment that pays for a Championship football club. Take out the money put in by directors and Norfolk would simply not have a Championship football club to enjoy. Like most other clubs, we continue to rely hugely on the generosity of wealthy benefactors to survive."

Mmm.

So despite 23,000 season ticket sales and crowds regularly in excess of 24,000, Norwich would not be a Championship football club without even more money pumped in from benefactors.
"

Although we get good gates do not forget that many are on the basis of family of "kids for £1" deals. A good policy but must hit income. Even if you believe Doncaster mmakes statements like this for fun and is lying through his teeth (I do not) - income does not seem to match wages. Croft''s contract is up for discussion right now - wage shave to be met and hence I do not go along with Canaryfan''s beligerent stance. "The Board must make more money available". Easily said. Personally I think every poster on here should be made to sell all their assets - and spouses to the slavers - and donate all proceeds to NCFC. (But even if we did, a large chunk would still go on the players wages).[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Binky"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Binky"][quote user="TheCanaryFan"]

[quote user="sturgeon220"]
  If by disapeared into thin air you mean creative accountancy then please pass your evidence onto the police. If not then it has not "disapeared" it has all been accounted for. Also, it might have escaped your notice but spurs have spent money to bring back three players the previous management sold.. all we have done is borrowed one!!  Do cheer up, please
[/quote]

Money that is not invested into a team we can call our own might as well dissapear into thin air imo because that is the only way we will progress as a club. Norwich City FC appear to be the only club in League football who fail to realise this. And as for ''creative accountancy'' -  If you believe the control of the club accounts is creative you must be either metally challenged or just not have the ability to grasp simple mathermatics. Either way your attitude stinks.

[/quote]

Given that we have a current working deficit on wages v ticket sales, money has to be found for- and spent on - paying wages. All those loan players were not cheap as the next set of accounts should show. Think about the wages say Bell was on or Croft will be on. Or do you not consider that "invested into a team". (Very easy to keep criticising the Board - try criticising Sky and all the money that''s gone into the premiership and inflated wages to a level most Championship sides cannot afford).
[/quote]

What working deficit on wages v ticket sales?  Ticket sales have comfortably covered player wages in recent years.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow - I was referring to Neil Doncaster''s remarks at the end of last year - which I take at face value - and for laziness I have lifted the following from a quote on this board from one of the more reliable posters (Mr Chops) about Doncaster comments :

"We are often asked why it is that we lose money when we have sell-out crowds and 20,000 season ticket holders. The answer is simple - on these sorts of crowds, a break-even player wage bill would be around £4m. And we are currently running at more than twice that amount.

Delia and Michael, Andrew and Sharon Turner, and the Foulger family have all been using their own personal wealth to match the investment of our loyal supporters. And it is that joint investment that pays for a Championship football club. Take out the money put in by directors and Norfolk would simply not have a Championship football club to enjoy. Like most other clubs, we continue to rely hugely on the generosity of wealthy benefactors to survive."

Mmm.

So despite 23,000 season ticket sales and crowds regularly in excess of 24,000, Norwich would not be a Championship football club without even more money pumped in from benefactors.
"

Although we get good gates do not forget that many are on the basis of family of "kids for £1" deals. A good policy but must hit income. Even if you believe Doncaster mmakes statements like this for fun and is lying through his teeth (I do not) - income does not seem to match wages. Croft''s contract is up for discussion right now - wage shave to be met and hence I do not go along with Canaryfan''s beligerent stance. "The Board must make more money available". Easily said. Personally I think every poster on here should be made to sell all their assets - and spouses to the slavers - and donate all proceeds to NCFC. (But even if we did, a large chunk would still go on the players wages).[/quote]

Have you ever wondered with ticket and tv income of £10m per season WHY we can only afford to spend £4m on the team, when in `02 we could afford £5.2m and still make a profit?  The club as a whole is leaking cash like a sieve and the "other income streams" the board harp on about have clearly backfired- and suffice to say it`s the football team which takes the hit.  If the board came out and admitted honestly that their policy hasn`t worked out they`d get far more sympathy but i believe they are in denial- Munby at the AGM: "....Continue the policies which have been so successful for the last twelve years".

The £1 tickets have only really come up again this season and once you strip out season-ticket holders and away fans there are only a couple of thousand tickets up for grabs anyway.

Ask yourself this.  Just imagine that our season-ticket sales had (as was probably expected) dropped to 12k odd.  Still more than most of our competitors but nearly half the current level.  What do you think the player budget would be then?  We`d virtually have to go part-time yet smaller clubs like Burnley, Preston, Cardiff, Bristol, Stoke, Hull, Plymouth spend far more than £4m on their team and reap the rewards.  Why are we so different?  IMO it`s the "infrastructure at the expense of the team" policy which is clearly to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]Has anyone else noticed that the club has recently sold one of our better players and loaned him back? A sad situation indeed, made worse by the fact the Shackell money, along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. Oh the joys of supporting a club with absolutley no ambition! I think we will go down this season and it will be truly deserved.[/quote]

 

To be honest we were offered silly money for Shacks more than hes worth when he wasn''t playing in the team - It made sense!

 

Just a shame that we allegedly spent the money on a misfit like Sibierski!

 

In hindsight we''d of not sold Shacks, and not got Kennedy and Sibierski on loan!

 

Bringing him back is a good move in my opinion and it will improve our defence no end!

 

I hope we don''t go down but if we do it will be a disaster caused by keeping Worthy a year to long and appointing 2 inept managers after him!

Share this post


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

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]Has anyone else noticed that the club has recently sold one of our better players and loaned him back? A sad situation indeed, made worse by the fact the Shackell money, along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. Oh the joys of supporting a club with absolutley no ambition! I think we will go down this season and it will be truly deserved.[/quote]

 

To be honest we were offered silly money for Shacks more than hes worth when he wasn''t playing in the team - It made sense!

 

Just a shame that we allegedly spent the money on a misfit like Sibierski!

 

In hindsight we''d of not sold Shacks, and not got Kennedy and Sibierski on loan!

 

Bringing him back is a good move in my opinion and it will improve our defence no end!

 

I hope we don''t go down but if we do it will be a disaster caused by keeping Worthy a year to long and appointing 2 inept managers after him!

[/quote]

Yeah you''re right. The money we got for Shacks was a good deal. Is a shame the money wasnt invested back into the team with a much needed striker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]Has anyone else noticed that the club has recently sold one of our better players and loaned him back? A sad situation indeed, made worse by the fact the Shackell money, along with all the other money we have recieved through transfers, yet again disappears into thin air. Oh the joys of supporting a club with absolutley no ambition! I think we will go down this season and it will be truly deserved.[/quote]

Yes, I expect most people noticed that we had taken Shackell on loan. It''s interesting that you think the money has disappeared ''into thin air''. So many people direct all their frustration at the board, and very little at the players. No one thinks that players getting ten times the average wage even in the Championship is obscene. But many people think that the fact Delia won''t empty her bank account to pay for it is a lack of ambition.

The fact is, the players we have are costing a wage bill of 8.5m this season, against a net income of 5m. So how do the board ''show ambition'' without taking the club further into debt? For my part, I think that players need to take a steer from the wider economy. If they were all paid half what they are now they sould still be comparatively wealthy... but clubs generally - and ours specifically - wouldn''t operate at such a loss.

So the money hasn''t ''disappeared'' - its gone into the players'' pockets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...