A few simple sums...

[Barclay Boy 0]

Amidst the euphoria and praise for the NCFC board for having - apparently - finally ''pushed the boat out'' and made some inspired signings, please consider this: Does a leopard change its spots? Does our commercially cautious board throw its admirable principles of sound corporate governance overboard in order to sign Huckerby, Crouch and Harper on loan? Does it cast aside its historically wise approach to the financial management of this great club? I would suggest the only possible answer is: No. More importantly, please consider this: the following players have parted company with the club during the past few months, for various reasons: Russell, Libbra, Llewellyn, Heckingbottom, Kenton, Nielson, Emblen, Nedergaard, McGovern, Sutch. Ten players, all senior, not a junior (i.e. lower paid player) among them. On the ''in'' side we have purchased Edworthy, Francis and Brennan. That leaves seven wages unaccounted for on the payroll. So is the signing of Messrs. Crouch, Huckerby and Harper on loan the major financial sacrifice we are being led to believe? I think not. The total wages of the remaining seven players who have left the club will adequately cover the NCFC additional temporary (i.e. on-loan) wage bill. The real credit must go to the man who succeeded in bringing these three players to the club in the first place: our manager. Without him, they would not have signed NCFC forms. Make no mistake: our board is here to do one thing and one thing alone: to assure the continued financial existence of the club. The money is available to ensure the continued payment of our loan players'' wages beyond December 2003 and for the rest of the season. The true test of the board''s ambitions and seriousness with regard to achieving promotion rests in its ability and creativity in finding sufficient cash to pay any likely transfer fees to the clubs currently holding the loanees'' registrations. Let us hope that this initiative and creativity are not lacking.

[Bomber 48]

Yeah totally agree with you Barclay Boy. The board would not have done anything that would compromise their prudent approach to running the club. The wages they have saved must be immense as I know for a fact that Russell was on 5000.00 a week [reason supplied - Forum Moderator]. What the other were on I dont know but Neilson must have been on a good packet and add all the others together and you can see where the wages are coming from for the loanees. Like you said and I have said on my posting December Dilema the time will come when the ball is truly in our court with regard the signing of any particular player. I believe December will prove to be a very big month for NCFC and could well be the time when it is do or die as it is no good us having these players getting us into a great position if it is all going to go down hill when they leave. Harper will probably be gone well before then as Rivers comes back into the team. Still cant get my hear around the fact of why Mcveigh is not playing. He is superb on the left and his goals last season were vital. Obviously something going on there that the fans are not being told about.

[Alan 0]

Of the players mentioned Mcgovern and Libbra went ages ago so they are not relevant and there were big pay offs for Heckinbottom Llewellyn and Emblen so the amount saved is not a hugh sum. The club will still have a big deficit at the end of the year unless they have a very good cup run which is not likely given passed performance and they are already out of the league cup.

[chicken 0]

I may have the answer to the McVeigh question, although as yet it is a theory in the making.

The facts;

McVeigh is right-footed, prefers to play up front, doesnt really offer the qualities of a wide man when he plays wide on the left and scored 11 goals upfront last season before the end of November when he was switched to the left due to injuries etc. He is a playmaker and move creator, not many of these players play out wide as they only really have one direction inwhich to be creative which is to the right and in this case with the left foot most of the time.

Easton is a natural left-footed player and has proven from the start of the season that he is capable of scoring and providing. Being left footed he is able to wip the ball in first time reliably if needed. He is also slightly more able defencively. Plus he is playing well.

I would therefore ask why change it if it is working and if McVeigh is happier on the bench and coming on upfront than wasting his tallent out on the left. I seem to remember that we didnt have the balance last season when we had Rivers an out and out winger on the right and McVeigh out on the left away from the majority of the action and out of his favourite position.

I think playing McVeigh out on the left should only be done when other players are not forfilling that role properlly or injury forces it. McVeigh is much better towards the middle of the pitch where he is able to get more touches and influence the game more, and where he has players on either side of him to get the ball of and to help him out. The same could be said about Mulryne, who is better off in the centre as his strengths are lost out on the right.

[Tumbleweed 106]

I think one hang over which may have haunted McV is that he got his big chance when llewellyn got injured playing wide left. McVeigh came on and looked superb after the unfortunate Chris. After that showing he seemed to get labelled a wide left man who likes to drift in. I have seen him put in some cracking performances in both the centre and the middle but unlike previous England managers I do prefer specialist wingers to part timers and if McV is happier in the centre so be it. maybe he can learn from Huckerby and be an even better player when he will almost certainly be back as a first choice frontman.

All in all its seems a while since we had some genuine choices and tactical options. Good to see an away point today, I don''t have Sky and couldn''t get to Stoke so I don''t know how the game went, but we are nicely tucked in just behind the leading pack.

[Dr. Downs 0]

 hi

[mongooseboyisback 0]

1+1=2 is pretty simple