Why does Chase get such a bad time?

[Victor Segura 0]

[quote user="Colchester Canary"]

Chase also helped/influence the ground we have now, that everyone is very proud of!

[/quote]I remember one morning picking up the EDP and on the back page the"chase dome" was his dream, i nearly spat out my corn flakes.

[hurricane 0]

i remember the away fans in the upper barclay!! why oh why oh why!!!

[Time to go Delia 0]

Club was never so low under Chase as it is now under the leadership of an Ipswich supporter .

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

the day Ashley Ward and Jon Newsome were sold was my lowest ever point as a city supporter...this isn''t far off to be fair

[. 0]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]Bugger this lack of edit button.

In the interest of fairness, there would be those that said the days under Chase were great but didn''t match the days of the ''59ers… I don''t know, I wasn''t there, in the same way that people will rightly look back fondly on the Play Off final and winning the Championship under the stewardship of the incumbents…

… but the facts are he took the club to the brink and decided to fight fire with fire (the Met were invited remember) and oversaw some of the darkest days at this club.
[/quote]

The "59ers" were special because they came from nowhere. It was pure theatre for a small and struggling club...and my old father always swore that Luton were "allowed" to beat us to save face for the FA.

I see my club as "what happens on the pitch" and to some extent what goes on off it should not be an issue. Chase may well have been "bad egg" but by Christ didn''t he give us some fun....

Smith gave us one "Division 2" title and thats all... swiftly followed by a humiliation in the Premiership. Smith isn''t fit to wipe Chases'' backside I''m afraid.

[JJ 0]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

 

[/quote]Ironic really that ten years after he was pushed out we received £6m from him, which is far more than the amount Delia has ever spent on shares in the Club.I disagree wholeheartedly about the youth policy though, you are forgetting the likes of Bellamy, Kenton, Green, Rusty, Llewellyn and others all came from the youth team in the late ''90''s. Any failure in the youth policy (and IMO it has been a catastrophic failure responsible in no small part for our current predicament) has happened whilst Delia Smith has been in charge.

[king canary 7,600]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

 

[/quote]Ironic really that ten years after he was pushed out we received £6m from him, which is far more than the amount Delia has ever spent on shares in the Club.I disagree wholeheartedly about the youth policy though, you are forgetting the likes of Bellamy, Kenton, Green, Rusty, Llewellyn and others all came from the youth team in the late ''90''s. Any failure in the youth policy (and IMO it has been a catastrophic failure responsible in no small part for our current predicament) has happened whilst Delia Smith has been in charge.

[/quote]The youth system arguemtn hold no water as most if not all of those players listed could not have been in our youth system under the rules the current board have had to work under.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

[/quote]

What a load of twaddle you do talk.

Pity that we''re not successful despite Delia Smith.

Dear oh dear oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Do you call Canary Talk, by the way?

OTBC

 

[komakino 272]

Whether you like Chase or not, his tenure was the most successful period in the clubs history. I loved [almost] every minute of it. It seems everyone dwells on the end of his ''reign'', rather than the fact he moved the club forward from the South era.

I think he got carried away and relegation found him out to a degree, though not on the scale of say David Sheepshanks who was giving 20K a week contracts out like confetti and paid the price with relegation/administration.

I would love to know his view on the current situation, though we are never likely to find out.

[JJ 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

 

[/quote]

Ironic really that ten years after he was pushed out we received £6m from him, which is far more than the amount Delia has ever spent on shares in the Club.

I disagree wholeheartedly about the youth policy though, you are forgetting the likes of Bellamy, Kenton, Green, Rusty, Llewellyn and others all came from the youth team in the late ''90''s. Any failure in the youth policy (and IMO it has been a catastrophic failure responsible in no small part for our current predicament) has happened whilst Delia Smith has been in charge.


[/quote]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

 

[/quote]

Ironic really that ten years after he was pushed out we received £6m from him, which is far more than the amount Delia has ever spent on shares in the Club.

I disagree wholeheartedly about the youth policy though, you are forgetting the likes of Bellamy, Kenton, Green, Rusty, Llewellyn and others all came from the youth team in the late ''90''s. Any failure in the youth policy (and IMO it has been a catastrophic failure responsible in no small part for our current predicament) has happened whilst Delia Smith has been in charge.


[/quote]

The kids you mention came mostly from the 1996 crop who were already coming through towards the end of Chase''s reign.  The cuts came in afterwards.  I''m not defending our academy''s record in the last few years - its awful, but Chase''s legacy set us back for a while.

There seems to be a misunderstanding on this thread that I''m defending Delia Smith and the board at the expense of Chase.  I''m not.  The club has been run incredibly badly in both eras.

 

[blinded by the story 0]

Without his land deals this Board would have had nothing to sell.

They have asset stripped this Club more than Chase did

[JJ 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

[/quote]

What a load of twaddle you do talk.

Pity that we''re not successful despite Delia Smith.

Dear oh dear oh dear. Oh dear. Oh dear.

Do you call Canary Talk, by the way?

OTBC

 

[/quote]

No I don''t.  Neither do I support the current board.  Nor do I spout revisionist rubbish like people on this forum.

 

[The Butler 0]

I wonder if things would have been so bad for him if the Bank hadn''t put the pressure on and made him sell players.

That board backed the managers as far as the money (bank) would go.

Oneil wanted Windas, Chase wanted Windas, Barclays didn''t!

The best football and success came under that regime, poison off the field did for him. I wonder who stirred the pot!!

Chase OUT Delia In   3rd division here we come.Sounds realy good now.

[Syteanric 1]

Chases vision for the club was Bricks and Mortar... he neevr acehived this and left the club.

the current boards vision is exactly the same "off the field activities" and yet some still think the sun shines out of their rear ends....

there''s many similarities between the current board and the man they replaced... the lack of truth from the club, the neglect of the playing side, failure to back managers, statements that come back to bite them and aren''t true, investing in business rather than football.

its like Fat bob never left!

jas :)

[Plastic Scouser 0]

Purely from a footballing point of view, it was a case of "good times" during Chase''s reign.Yes, it was frustrating but no more frustrating than these current times - and in those days at least we knew that despite the loss of one player, we''d get another decent replacement sooner rather than later.I was NEVER as depressed about the club during Chase''s time as I am now.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="Andy Larkin"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="jelltex"]

My late Dad and I boycotted the club because of Chase. He said to me in a letter that I wasn''t a true fan; he used to read the letters page in the pink Un and sent me a clipping from the Torygraph or something say how well run the club was.

And then we went all bankrupt and all that.

Saying that, I was thinking the other day day Delia and Co are not that far from that now, and all has been sold. Where now.

There are no answers, only memories.

[/quote]

Just a small point:

We did not go bankrupt nor were we ever close. Assets far outweighed liabilities back then, Chase was put under tremendous cashflow pressure by the bank who wanted Delia in charge.

The original amount owed under Chase has NEVER been repaid and pretty well accounted for the first tranche of the securitisation deal.

When Delia leaves she will hand over the debt from the Chase years to the new owner on top of substantial debts incurred by her own board.

Delia has taken a £6m debt and tripled it. There never was a deal whereby Delia and co repaid the bank it was simply re-arranged as a loan not an overdraft and we''ve been paying interest on it ever since.

I struggle to think of any finance agreement we''ve repaid in full under Delia, she''s obviously a minimum monthly payment sort of girl.


[/quote]

Can I ask where you get your information from BH? That isn''t in a "I don''t believe you?" that''s in a "I would like to know more of that which you speak?
[/quote]

We should have a chat sometime Andy

[/quote]

I think we had a bank debt of at least £3m when we sold Sutton.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Oh and I forgot to say that under Chase we borrowed a further £2m to keep the squad together and give O''Neill some transfer money for the season following relegation.

Pity Martin O. spent £650k on Fleck (part 2) who stopped scoring regularly after half a season (but we had to keep paying for another two and half seasons - the club never learns does it! Just think of Cureton) and Rush for £300k. Windass for £400k would have been a good signing.

[komakino 272]

The Windass saga went like this: Hull wanted £800K, Chase wanted to pay £600K. This kept going round and round. Chase had had enough. Hull came back and said that they would accept £600K, by which time Chase reminded Hull that they were too late. Cue an unhappy O''Neill coupled with Leicester''s interest and the rest as they say, is history.

[K Lo 224]

[quote user="JJ"]

This is one of the most depressing threads I have read on here for some time.  I cannot believe that so many people thought Chase was a good thing (although seeing as he''s in the Hall of Fame perhaps I shouldn''t be surprised).

We were successful despite Chase not because of him.  He sold players behind the managers backs and he sold players behind their own backs (step foward Andy Linighan).  We didn''t push the boat out when we were on the verge of winning the titles in 89 and 93 and he forced the hands of Walker and O''Neill.  He constantly went back on his word and he patronised the supporters constantly.  By the end of his reign he had brought the club to the point of civil war which had seen police horses on the streets, protests outside the ground, a boycott inside the ground, and the finances into meltdown.  Lots of people walked away for a long time and some never came back.  It also destroyed our Youth policy for years because so many cuts had to be made.

Perhaps the only individual associated with Norwich that I can say I genuinely hated.  I can''t even say that about the current board.

[/quote]

I agree entirely. In the mid ''80s to early ''90s we were on the cusp of being really great. We had reached the semi final of the FA Cup in ''89, we were often in the top half of the top division and when Liverpool, Man U, Aresnal etc came to Carrow Road, there was every chance that we would beat them. Chelsea at home was a definate 3-pointer (for us). Agaisnt Tottenham, Villa, West Ham we would be dissapointed with a draw. That''s how good we were. Chase COULD have got us something, an FA Cup, a League title. Martin O''Neill was (and is) IMO the man who can produce results and he certainly had enough green and yellow blood in him to show loyalty.

Lets face it, what was a pifflinf additional 200k for Windass, even back then? Too many times, the question is "How much will it cost us to buy him", when, perhaps the question should be "How much will it cost us NOT to buy him". 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Mr Magoo"]Listen, I know that the Chase reign was not peaches and cream, however look at where we are now. I have read many posters who have reminisced about the Chase out campaigns and how badly people wanted him out. I understand why that happened, what I do not get is that he did leave us with some valuable physical assets that have come to the clubs financial rescue whilst under the poor stewardship that we are under now. Delia on the other hand has sold all of the assets, has stripped the playing staff to a point whereby we do not own a playing squad that can produce a starting 11 without help from loan signings. She has now been party to our darkest hours in 50 years, with us on the brink of relegation. Yet still she nor any of the current boad get anywhere near the hostility or impassioned pleas to go away that Chase was in receipt of.

I do not know why this is the case. I for one would prefer to see the return of Chase, at least he left us with something. Delia has stripped everything away.
[/quote]

Excellent post. Looking back it was Chases land Deals that paid for the stadiums redevlopment. Delia and co have left this squad thinner than chase ever would, at least if he sold a player we would sign a up coming replacement, where as now we sign a loan, or get Carl moore to fund a loan.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Mr Magoo"]Listen, I know that the Chase reign was not peaches and cream, however look at where we are now. I have read many posters who have reminisced about the Chase out campaigns and how badly people wanted him out. I understand why that happened, what I do not get is that he did leave us with some valuable physical assets that have come to the clubs financial rescue whilst under the poor stewardship that we are under now. Delia on the other hand has sold all of the assets, has stripped the playing staff to a point whereby we do not own a playing squad that can produce a starting 11 without help from loan signings. She has now been party to our darkest hours in 50 years, with us on the brink of relegation. Yet still she nor any of the current boad get anywhere near the hostility or impassioned pleas to go away that Chase was in receipt of. I do not know why this is the case. I for one would prefer to see the return of Chase, at least he left us with something. Delia has stripped everything away.[/quote]

Excellent post. Looking back it was Chases land Deals that paid for the stadiums redevlopment. Delia and co have left this squad thinner than chase ever would, at least if he sold a player we would sign a up coming replacement, where as now we sign a loan, or get Carl moore to fund a loan.

[/quote]Whittle this is the poorest argument that you have and yet you keep bringing it up. That land took a decade to "mature" in which time we struggled for cash and with a South Stand that was effectively staving off demolition every season. That''s a bit like ten years after Delia and Michael informing everyone they were better than what we may have then because this tea spoon they bought for 50p for the club from a carboot now happens to be worth a couple of million! Chase took a gamble with the land that he bought and yet in some ways it didn''t come off for him did it?!!In addition in the modern footballing climate the land deals have not net us that much money - would they even cover half the player wage bill? It may have helped back in 95 or even 96 if we had had that money then but not now when it pales into insignificance.It still does not excuse the mass exodus of players Sutton for an English reccord fee of £5million - that is right a world reccord fee and yet supposedly people on this thread are saying we were only in £3million debt? If that is the case then why did we continue to sell and where was the money for Windass and other players? There should have been a bountiful amount.If there is an argument to be had here it is that the mistakes Chase made were those that the current majority shareholders and a few of the current board members said they would strive to avoid. We have a club that IS making money by all accounts and yet we still run at a loss - that is bad buisiness management in my books, if they have been doing so for several years then that is even worse and they are at least starting to make the misstakes Chase made.Tiny may well be the modern Windass and may well have been the difference between a sound season and the one we are having.I would still say that we are probably one of the most unlucky teams in this devision - there are not many players in our starting line up that wouldn''t be taken on by a mid-table club in the Championship. The start of the season looked promising with Kennedy and Stefanovic - injury robbed us of  both and since we have seemed to be hit and miss in the defence department having some good days and some truly aweful days. Three goals should win you a game not draw one.

[The Butler 0]

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

[quote user="Mr Magoo"]Listen, I know that the Chase reign was not peaches and cream, however look at where we are now. I have read many posters who have reminisced about the Chase out campaigns and how badly people wanted him out. I understand why that happened, what I do not get is that he did leave us with some valuable physical assets that have come to the clubs financial rescue whilst under the poor stewardship that we are under now. Delia on the other hand has sold all of the assets, has stripped the playing staff to a point whereby we do not own a playing squad that can produce a starting 11 without help from loan signings. She has now been party to our darkest hours in 50 years, with us on the brink of relegation. Yet still she nor any of the current boad get anywhere near the hostility or impassioned pleas to go away that Chase was in receipt of.

I do not know why this is the case. I for one would prefer to see the return of Chase, at least he left us with something. Delia has stripped everything away.
[/quote]

Excellent post. Looking back it was Chases land Deals that paid for the stadiums redevlopment. Delia and co have left this squad thinner than chase ever would, at least if he sold a player we would sign a up coming replacement, where as now we sign a loan, or get Carl moore to fund a loan.

[/quote]

Whittle this is the poorest argument that you have and yet you keep bringing it up. That land took a decade to "mature" in which time we struggled for cash and with a South Stand that was effectively staving off demolition every season. That''s a bit like ten years after Delia and Michael informing everyone they were better than what we may have then because this tea spoon they bought for 50p for the club from a carboot now happens to be worth a couple of million! Chase took a gamble with the land that he bought and yet in some ways it didn''t come off for him did it?!!

In addition in the modern footballing climate the land deals have not net us that much money - would they even cover half the player wage bill? It may have helped back in 95 or even 96 if we had had that money then but not now when it pales into insignificance.

It still does not excuse the mass exodus of players Sutton for an English reccord fee of £5million - that is right a world reccord fee and yet supposedly people on this thread are saying we were only in £3million debt? If that is the case then why did we continue to sell and where was the money for Windass and other players? There should have been a bountiful amount.

If there is an argument to be had here it is that the mistakes Chase made were those that the current majority shareholders and a few of the current board members said they would strive to avoid. We have a club that IS making money by all accounts and yet we still run at a loss - that is bad buisiness management in my books, if they have been doing so for several years then that is even worse and they are at least starting to make the misstakes Chase made.

Tiny may well be the modern Windass and may well have been the difference between a sound season and the one we are having.

I would still say that we are probably one of the most unlucky teams in this devision - there are not many players in our starting line up that wouldn''t be taken on by a mid-table club in the Championship. The start of the season looked promising with Kennedy and Stefanovic - injury robbed us of  both and since we have seemed to be hit and miss in the defence department having some good days and some truly aweful days. Three goals should win you a game not draw one.
[/quote]

You conveniently forget Colney set up and paid for under the Chase Regime.

All the land sold for Millions yes millions by the present board arranged and paid for by the Chase regime.

Re-development paid for under the Chase Regime.

Debt (stupidly on overdraft) was a fraction of the LONG TERM DEBT cripling us now.

The best and most exciting football seen at Carrow road , UNDER the Chase regime.

He made many mistakes but not as bad as this lot.

Bad luck seems to have dogged the end of both boards but when you ride your luck so often one day she will let you down. Fate is a hard mistress.

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

All the land sold for Millions yes millions by the present board arranged and paid for by the Chase regime.

[/quote]The club pulled out of a £6m deal in 2003 only to sell it to the same company (effectively) one year later for the sum of £6m of which £800,000 was paid by the club in respect of planning obligations.TBH. They nearly even screwed that deal up as land and property prices were spiralling across the country we managed to achieve a whopping £18,000 per freehold plot for the Taylor Woodrow development. Somebody was laughing all the way to the proverbial bank and it wasn''t anyone at this club at that price.What happened to the receipts from this sale is anyones guess. It was paid in two instalments in 2004 and 2005. My guess is that we had already borrowed against the land and a repayment was due a creditor.[quote user="The Butler"]

Re-development paid for under the Chase Regime.

[/quote]There was a reason Chase was so keen to redevelop. The new legislation coming into force in 1994 made the developments compulsory, by pre-empting the other clubs and getting in early Chase was able to get a grant of £2m for the Barclay (total cost £2.8m) in 1992. Not bad business hey a new stand for £800K?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="The Butler"]

All the land sold for Millions yes millions by the present board arranged and paid for by the Chase regime.

[/quote]
The club pulled out of a £6m deal in 2003 only to sell it to the same company (effectively) one year later for the sum of £6m of which £800,000 was paid by the club in respect of planning obligations.
TBH. They nearly even screwed that deal up as land and property prices were spiralling across the country we managed to achieve a whopping £18,000 per freehold plot for the Taylor Woodrow development. Somebody was laughing all the way to the proverbial bank and it wasn''t anyone at this club at that price.

What happened to the receipts from this sale is anyones guess. It was paid in two instalments in 2004 and 2005. My guess is that we had already borrowed against the land and a repayment was due a creditor.

[quote user="The Butler"]

Re-development paid for under the Chase Regime.

[/quote]

There was a reason Chase was so keen to redevelop. The new legislation coming into force in 1994 made the developments compulsory, by pre-empting the other clubs and getting in early Chase was able to get a grant of £2m for the Barclay (total cost £2.8m) in 1992. Not bad business hey a new stand for £800K?
[/quote]

How very dare you Sir saying he pulled of some shrewd deals will not sit well with some on here.

But of course the club hasn''t benefited has it[;)]

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Mr Magoo"]Listen, I know that the Chase reign was not peaches and cream, however look at where we are now. I have read many posters who have reminisced about the Chase out campaigns and how badly people wanted him out. I understand why that happened, what I do not get is that he did leave us with some valuable physical assets that have come to the clubs financial rescue whilst under the poor stewardship that we are under now. Delia on the other hand has sold all of the assets, has stripped the playing staff to a point whereby we do not own a playing squad that can produce a starting 11 without help from loan signings. She has now been party to our darkest hours in 50 years, with us on the brink of relegation. Yet still she nor any of the current boad get anywhere near the hostility or impassioned pleas to go away that Chase was in receipt of.

I do not know why this is the case. I for one would prefer to see the return of Chase, at least he left us with something. Delia has stripped everything away.
[/quote]

Excellent post. Looking back it was Chases land Deals that paid for the stadiums redevlopment. Delia and co have left this squad thinner than chase ever would, at least if he sold a player we would sign a up coming replacement, where as now we sign a loan, or get Carl moore to fund a loan.

[/quote]

Whittle this is the poorest argument that you have and yet you keep bringing it up. That land took a decade to "mature" in which time we struggled for cash and with a South Stand that was effectively staving off demolition every season. That''s a bit like ten years after Delia and Michael informing everyone they were better than what we may have then because this tea spoon they bought for 50p for the club from a carboot now happens to be worth a couple of million! Chase took a gamble with the land that he bought and yet in some ways it didn''t come off for him did it?!!

In addition in the modern footballing climate the land deals have not net us that much money - would they even cover half the player wage bill? It may have helped back in 95 or even 96 if we had had that money then but not now when it pales into insignificance.

It still does not excuse the mass exodus of players Sutton for an English reccord fee of £5million - that is right a world reccord fee and yet supposedly people on this thread are saying we were only in £3million debt? If that is the case then why did we continue to sell and where was the money for Windass and other players? There should have been a bountiful amount.

If there is an argument to be had here it is that the mistakes Chase made were those that the current majority shareholders and a few of the current board members said they would strive to avoid. We have a club that IS making money by all accounts and yet we still run at a loss - that is bad buisiness management in my books, if they have been doing so for several years then that is even worse and they are at least starting to make the misstakes Chase made.

Tiny may well be the modern Windass and may well have been the difference between a sound season and the one we are having.

I would still say that we are probably one of the most unlucky teams in this devision - there are not many players in our starting line up that wouldn''t be taken on by a mid-table club in the Championship. The start of the season looked promising with Kennedy and Stefanovic - injury robbed us of  both and since we have seemed to be hit and miss in the defence department having some good days and some truly aweful days. Three goals should win you a game not draw one.
[/quote]

You conveniently forget Colney set up and paid for under the Chase Regime.

All the land sold for Millions yes millions by the present board arranged and paid for by the Chase regime.

Re-development paid for under the Chase Regime.

Debt (stupidly on overdraft) was a fraction of the LONG TERM DEBT cripling us now.

The best and most exciting football seen at Carrow road , UNDER the Chase regime.

He made many mistakes but not as bad as this lot.

Bad luck seems to have dogged the end of both boards but when you ride your luck so often one day she will let you down. Fate is a hard mistress.

 

[/quote]

There are a lot of similarities between Chase and the current board. Both appointed inexperienced and cheap managers, but Chase was fortunate that Stringer and Walker worked out the way they did, whereas Grant and Gunn have gone the other way. Also, the cheap signings made by Chase''s managers such as Crook, Butterworth, Gunn, Bowen etc all came off, whereas the cheap signings made by Grant and Roeder have almost all been turkeys. Those are the reasons we were more successful under Chase, but I think it''s fair to say the success was in spite of him rather than because of him.

Look at the reaction of departing managers. Walker and O''Neill made it clear that they left as a direct result of Chase himself, and Ken Brown attended demonstrations and meetings aimed at removing Chase. Worthington and Grant have both testified, post-dismissal as well as pre, as to how well treated they were by the current board. I''m not enamoured by their competence and decision-making, but I think their decisions are motivated by good intentions. Chase however, was a nasty piece of work.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Mr Magoo"]Listen, I know that the Chase reign was not peaches and cream, however look at where we are now. I have read many posters who have reminisced about the Chase out campaigns and how badly people wanted him out. I understand why that happened, what I do not get is that he did leave us with some valuable physical assets that have come to the clubs financial rescue whilst under the poor stewardship that we are under now. Delia on the other hand has sold all of the assets, has stripped the playing staff to a point whereby we do not own a playing squad that can produce a starting 11 without help from loan signings. She has now been party to our darkest hours in 50 years, with us on the brink of relegation. Yet still she nor any of the current boad get anywhere near the hostility or impassioned pleas to go away that Chase was in receipt of. I do not know why this is the case. I for one would prefer to see the return of Chase, at least he left us with something. Delia has stripped everything away.[/quote]

Excellent post. Looking back it was Chases land Deals that paid for the stadiums redevlopment. Delia and co have left this squad thinner than chase ever would, at least if he sold a player we would sign a up coming replacement, where as now we sign a loan, or get Carl moore to fund a loan.

[/quote]Whittle this is the poorest argument that you have and yet you keep bringing it up. That land took a decade to "mature" in which time we struggled for cash and with a South Stand that was effectively staving off demolition every season. That''s a bit like ten years after Delia and Michael informing everyone they were better than what we may have then because this tea spoon they bought for 50p for the club from a carboot now happens to be worth a couple of million! Chase took a gamble with the land that he bought and yet in some ways it didn''t come off for him did it?!!In addition in the modern footballing climate the land deals have not net us that much money - would they even cover half the player wage bill? It may have helped back in 95 or even 96 if we had had that money then but not now when it pales into insignificance.It still does not excuse the mass exodus of players Sutton for an English reccord fee of £5million - that is right a world reccord fee and yet supposedly people on this thread are saying we were only in £3million debt? If that is the case then why did we continue to sell and where was the money for Windass and other players? There should have been a bountiful amount.If there is an argument to be had here it is that the mistakes Chase made were those that the current majority shareholders and a few of the current board members said they would strive to avoid. We have a club that IS making money by all accounts and yet we still run at a loss - that is bad buisiness management in my books, if they have been doing so for several years then that is even worse and they are at least starting to make the misstakes Chase made.Tiny may well be the modern Windass and may well have been the difference between a sound season and the one we are having.I would still say that we are probably one of the most unlucky teams in this devision - there are not many players in our starting line up that wouldn''t be taken on by a mid-table club in the Championship. The start of the season looked promising with Kennedy and Stefanovic - injury robbed us of  both and since we have seemed to be hit and miss in the defence department having some good days and some truly aweful days. Three goals should win you a game not draw one.[/quote]

You conveniently forget Colney set up and paid for under the Chase Regime.

All the land sold for Millions yes millions by the present board arranged and paid for by the Chase regime.

Re-development paid for under the Chase Regime.

Debt (stupidly on overdraft) was a fraction of the LONG TERM DEBT cripling us now.

The best and most exciting football seen at Carrow road , UNDER the Chase regime.

He made many mistakes but not as bad as this lot.

Bad luck seems to have dogged the end of both boards but when you ride your luck so often one day she will let you down. Fate is a hard mistress.

[/quote]I shall try and re-state what I meant - using Chase as an argument in this way fails. Colney was bought but not entirely set up. It may have had pitches etc build but not the accademy side of it. And to be fair if you go out to Colney its not as if its a multi-million pound investment is it?!! Its a building with a cafe and changing fascilities along with other bits and bobs and I should imagine was funded more by the sales of Trowse than anything else - and that was down to fairly obvious expansion that was going to happen in that area.As for the millions, yes millions, you talk of - how many? I thought it was less than £5million which is just over half our wage bill for one season. More than a drop in the ocean but hardly a fantastic investment when he wouldn''t spend that money more than ten years ago on players.The best and most exciting football seen at Carrow Road was under Chase? I would argue that the rather well respected managers that we had back then and the unearthed gem of a one hit wonder in Mike Walker and the ability of our scouting network to find the likes of Bowen, Crook, Fox etc on the cheap had a lot more to do with it than Chase.We finished third but did that stop Chase running us like a third rate team?"Debt (stupidly on overdraft) was a fraction of the LONG TERM DEBT cripling us now."I believe we were around £15million in debt when he left - we are around £19-20million in debt now - throw in inflation for consideration.My point is there is no way that you can argue that Chase was in any way less awful than the situation we find ourselves in now - in someways I even prefer this because at least they have accepted blame, apologised for misstakes. To this day Chase still said he did all of the right things and to me that is dangerous. Yes it is still not a lot better and we need a change but that does not mean people should look back at chase as being better.If Nigel Worthington was a lucky find that gave this board its finest hour - Mike Walker was Chase''s, the difference is Walker gave us one or two really memorable seasons culminating in the European adventure, Worthington gave us season upon season of steady improvement which the board were able to reap the rewards of. It all fell appart in the premiership where the board failed to meet Worthington''s ambition with funds.But whatever you do don''t fool yourself into thinking that Chase made ALL of these decisions or even came up with them. There were other characters at the club back then in the boardroom who were just as capable if not more capable than he. And it was not nessisarily money that he made for the club that paid for the developments in his time as it is that not all money the current board have spent was all money they have generated for the club. Its not an argment that really stands up because you could keep going back and back and back through all of the chairmen. To say Colney was all him without tributing that Colney was funded by the club and not Chase and money from other areas such as the sale of other assets proivided for it is more than just the naivity I may show for the exact details.

[The Butler 0]

Walker left because he had a better offer from Everton. His statements about Chase and money were ....errr just say he had a thumping big win bonus.

O''neil''s argument was Windass bound up and was related to the lack of free  money to buy him. Toys out of pram gone.

Luck does play a big part but all good for Chase all bad for Delia no can''t go along with that. Shrewd maybe, Oh and Chase was not that bad a MASTER. Players and staff were very well paid ON PERFORMANCE. That''s what this lot could do with.

On a personal note he was a pain in the butt to do business with but he did keep it local. Unlike this lot!!

[The Butler 0]

Chicken, I keep saying the Chase regime. He did have some very able people with him but he was the one took the flack and everyone talks of Chase.

The Managers he had then were great guys and sometimes pulled rabbits from hats despite him. Remember Regime. Just as Delia gets the credit for what Cullun did etc.

No he was far from all good ,very far, but I prefered his methods to the current lot any day.

I don''t have the figures for the final debt of his reign but I don''t recall it being that high, no doubt one of our accountant friends can help (Tony are you reading this?)

[Canary02 III 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Walker left because he had a better offer from Everton. His statements about Chase and money were ....errr just say he had a thumping big win bonus.

O''neil''s argument was Windass bound up and was related to the lack of free  money to buy him. Toys out of pram gone.

Luck does play a big part but all good for Chase all bad for Delia no can''t go along with that. Shrewd maybe, Oh and Chase was not that bad a MASTER. Players and staff were very well paid ON PERFORMANCE. That''s what this lot could do with.

On a personal note he was a pain in the butt to do business with but he did keep it local. Unlike this lot!!

[/quote]

Didn''t know about the players performance-related aspect Butler (Sutton''s goal bonuses aside). Sounds like a plan! We''d have been able to repay our entire debt in what we''d have saved on these buffoons this season.

Unfortunately, in this pre-Bosman world, I think players hold too much power to allow themselves to buy into contracts that are too weighted in favour of them needing to put in a performance if they want good pay.

Not quite sure I follow r.e. Walker.