Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
we beat munich in munich

back to the board again

Recommended Posts

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether we stay in this league or not we have to hope that someone buys the club and puts some money in to give us a chance next season, I have no faith in our board whatsoever and it''s difficult to see how things will improve while their still here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

club doesnt have the money.. hence the loans... make the most of these players, its extremely unlikely we will see them in Norwich shirts again....

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

Talk about a one track mind. Great result, good performance and all you can do is twist it into a new way to call board members muppets. Good result for you boys at Reading by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

Completely agree. If we manage to survive this season, the club MUST buy Gow, Mooney and get Shackell back. If we don''t we will find ourselves in a similar situation next season. If the club don''t have the money to finance these deals, the board should resign and walk away with ANY offer they receive. Lets face it, we need to buy players anyway instead of getting loan after loan. Now we can see that Gow and Mooney play really well together, we HAVE to buy them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="colneycanary"][quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

Completely agree. If we manage to survive this season, the club MUST buy Gow, Mooney and get Shackell back. If we don''t we will find ourselves in a similar situation next season. If the club don''t have the money to finance these deals, the board should resign and walk away with ANY offer they receive. Lets face it, we need to buy players anyway instead of getting loan after loan. Now we can see that Gow and Mooney play really well together, we HAVE to buy them!

[/quote]And if their clubs WON''T sell them? And they don''t WANT to come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="colneycanary"][quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

Completely agree. If we manage to survive this season, the club MUST buy Gow, Mooney and get Shackell back. If we don''t we will find ourselves in a similar situation next season. If the club don''t have the money to finance these deals, the board should resign and walk away with ANY offer they receive. Lets face it, we need to buy players anyway instead of getting loan after loan. Now we can see that Gow and Mooney play really well together, we HAVE to buy them!

[/quote]

And if their clubs WON''T sell them? And they don''t WANT to come?


[/quote]Well if they want to play first team football they will want to sign for us. If they are happy playing in the reserves for their revellent clubs, then they won''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Canary02 III"]

Talk about a one track mind. Great result, good performance and all you can do is twist it into a new way to call board members muppets. Good result for you boys at Reading by the way.

[/quote]I think its an attempt to win new friends with what he perceives will be a ''popular'' post. Its easy to jump on the ''blame someone'' bandwagon, not so easy to dig in and stay loyal when times are hard. Had the Germans got this far i think we know who the collaborators might have been LOLIf the money aint there, there''s not much they can do. Doubt I''ll be buying a new Aston Martin this year, but it isn''t anyones ''fault'', its circumstanceUnless of course YOU''D like to fund a player like Mr Carrow is going to do ..... a better investment than land apparently.......he says LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

Share this post


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

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="IBA"] Had the Germans got this far i think we know who the collaborators might have been LOL[/quote]LOL Quality analogy IBA, I feel on the otherhand that the reason the Germans didn''t get this far was because rather than just standing around anticipating the inevitability of an Axis invasion the nation stood up and took preventative action. I think if jerry had attempted a mass landing on the Norfolk coast he would have been repulsed but I''m sure you are correct in your assumption that somewhere in Norfolk there would have been the odd old boy mawdling with his hands in his pockets muttering ''We''re doomed, doomed I tell ye we might as well jst accept it and see if we can kick jerry out next year, or the year after or the year after that'' and I think we all know who would have been doing the standing round LOL.q)How many board supporters does it take to change a lightbulb?a)143:140 to stand around doing nothing watching and three to try and convince them that we''d be better off not replacing it for a year or two so we can save some money and that living in darkness isn''t such a bad thing after all in fact it''s what we should be used to since hundreds of years ago we didn''t have electric lighting.

Share this post


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

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACTThe land did sell for £6.2m FACTMr Watlings loan of approx £1.5m was written off. FACTWe actually declared £1.6m for the hotel in 2007-2008 A/C''s I think it was but £1.1m was the figure quoted by the Club originally. FACTWe did receive 1X £20m and 2 X £7m from the Premier League during ''05, ''06, ''07. FACT.(We also received approx £36m from ticket sales during this period). FACTI struggle to see where there is an issue with the figures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Top quality, well-informed responses, Buckethead.  The fact that we are discussing trying to avoid relegation (again) when we should be one of the top teams in this division says loads about the Board of do-nothings.  If they don''t have the money to finance the club properly so we can be where we really belong, then get some people in there who have the funds and are willing to use them on the team instead of always on infrastructure.

  Every trade window, we are told there will be money available, and nothing gets done for most of it.  The concerned fans make noise while the sheep baa acceptingly that, "there is still plenty of time". We usually get one player from a lower league team, and after the window closes, some more loans. If we have to settle for loan players, at least have the gumption to sign permanently the ones who obviously want to be here and are good.  We let Evans go without making much or any effort, and he was our only striker willing to take shots or be able to get in position to do so, it seemed. Taylor made our defense solid, and we tried to go cheap on him despite the fact he wanted to be here so much so he rejected a move to QPR for the asking price.  THAT is the kind of player we need more of, good and dedicated. Dropping Huckerby after he played great post-injury was cheap and stupid, too.  Imagine if we''d had Taylor on defense, Huckerby bringing the ball up field an drawing opponents away from the box, and Evans in there to recieve his passes.

  Of course, none of that would have happened with Roeder because he has to try to reshape every player he brings in into something they are not.  Such egoism cost us a lot of games.  If Hoolahan was great at Blackpool playying his style, why change that?  Use what you''ve got.  With the players we had and let go, we would be competing for a playoff spot.  The underfunded Board  let them go, and the idiot Roeder tried to reinvent the wheel and came up with a flat tire.

  Gunn at least seems to have the sense to let the players do what they are best at, and maybe he has now found the best formula as far as lineup goes, so hopefully we can stave off relegation and make a challenge next year IF WE CAN SIGN THE PLAYERS WHO MADE IT POSSIBLE instead of coming up with more excuses.   Losses to Charlton and Forest and Blackpool and other crap teams, piles of red xards and penalties, all that happened pre-Gunn (except for the very late red vs Plymouth). We seem to have found enthusiasm and better discipline, so Board, DON''T F##K WITH IT if it works out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So very simply without a new Board we will be in this position indefinately!

Share this post


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

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]more mind games i see...welcome back yc!!!given the turners have jumped since the start of the season,,,imo the first priority of this board (whether in league 1 or the champs) will be to balance the books as usual and return to profitability...unless new investment can be found to fill the turners black-hole,,,its likely the playing side budget will be much reduced for next season, and possibly the one after that...therefore,,,expect the legends to be working on a shoestring (or bootlace[:D]) for a good while yet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

more mind games i see...welcome back yc!!!

given the turners have jumped since the start of the season,,,imo the first priority of this board (whether in league 1 or the champs) will be to balance the books as usual and return to profitability...

unless new investment can be found to fill the turners black-hole,,,its likely the playing side budget will be much reduced for next season, and possibly the one after that...therefore,,,expect the legends to be working on a shoestring (or bootlace[:D]) for a good while yet...


[/quote] And with the wages budget being reduced from 8 million down to 5 million we will most likely be in the same situation or worse next year at this time, for that reason even if we do survive pressure must be applied to the board to offer their shares at a rate that will attract a buyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]more mind games i see...welcome back yc!!!given the turners have jumped since the start of the season,,,imo the first priority of this board (whether in league 1 or the champs) will be to balance the books as usual and return to profitability...unless new investment can be found to fill the turners black-hole,,,its likely the playing side budget will be much reduced for next season, and possibly the one after that...therefore,,,expect the legends to be working on a shoestring (or bootlace[:D]) for a good while yet...

[/quote] And with the wages budget being reduced from 8 million down to 5 million we will most likely be in the same situation or worse next year at this time, for that reason even if we do survive pressure must be applied to the board to offer their shares at a rate that will attract a buyer.[/quote]they will sit tight and tough it out imo...however bad it gets[:''(],,,mind you - crooky offers some hope for the future - i''m hoping we''ve found a winner there...[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

more mind games i see...welcome back yc!!!

given the turners have jumped since the start of the season,,,imo the first priority of this board (whether in league 1 or the champs) will be to balance the books as usual and return to profitability...

unless new investment can be found to fill the turners black-hole,,,its likely the playing side budget will be much reduced for next season, and possibly the one after that...therefore,,,expect the legends to be working on a shoestring (or bootlace[:D]) for a good while yet...


[/quote] And with the wages budget being reduced from 8 million down to 5 million we will most likely be in the same situation or worse next year at this time, for that reason even if we do survive pressure must be applied to the board to offer their shares at a rate that will attract a buyer.[/quote]

they will sit tight and tough it out imo...however bad it gets[:''(],,,mind you - crooky offers some hope for the future - i''m hoping we''ve found a winner there...[:D]
[/quote]

You know LGT, that is exactly what the board is thinking right now.... For years they''ve been hoping that they''ll get lucky and do it all on the cheap only it hasn''t really worked for them. They went with the cheap options in the Premiership and it cost us our place in the top flight. They brought in the Turner''s on a ridiculously cheap buy-in of a two-million quid loan and saw them walk away. They''ve down-sold on all the better players, replacing them with lower quality and brought us to the brink of relegation. And now they probably think that Gun and Co. will save their bacon at the last hurdle, just as Roeder did last year. And next year...?

To be honest I can''t get excited about us staying up this year because come the start of next season it will be the same old story. Same old spin. Same old sorry excuses. "Players need to to gel, There''s not a lot of quality out there, We have no money, No one wants to invest". Watch Gunny get hung out to dry and made the next scapegoat when it all goes t*ts up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Doubt I''ll be buying a new Aston Martin this year, but it isn''t anyones ''fault'', its circumstance[/quote]

Not quite the same. In this instance Delia and Hubby already own their Aston Martin (i.e The club) but can''t afford to run it. They''re clinging to hope that nothing goes wrong with it before someone comes along to buy it off them. 

Not only that but in the time they''ve owned the Aston, rather than spending the cash on fuel, parts, servicing etc they''ve decided to spend money on the garage it sits in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that would dis-appoint me if we didn''t sign Gow, Mooney and Shacks on permanents is the fact i think you''d be able to get all 3 relatively cheap, Gow would be about 250k and if both Reading and Wolves go up which is more than likely i don''t see why Shacks (depending on clauses when he left us) and Mooney would be much more than £750k - £1 million.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote][quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT[/quote]You said it yourself!  YC was complaining about MC representing a c.16m Profit as a c. 20m Income.The second figure is more impressive for the arguement, but much less relevant.  This is the key point of spinning / twisting the truth / lying with statistics / misrepresenting the facts whatever you want to call it.Learning to spot these occasions is one of the most important life skills going.  If you do spot one then the credibility of the entire statement is called into question.  Either the preson doing it is doing it deliberately, in which case he is being dishonest, or he is not doing it deliberately, which makes him incompetant.  Niether of these options is good.  Especially when the point of view is supportted well without having to use these tactics.

Share this post


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

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesa. Player wages/agent''s fees/transfer feesb. Infrastructurec. Gone in the board''s pocketI think it''s gone on a and b. The spending on infrastructure is an attempt to ensure long-term financial stability without TV money. Personally I''d not put as much into it (new pitch etc) but it''s a calculated gamble. We have spent a lot on a. and much of it has been clearly wasted. That is the fault of managers and our CEO, not the board. If we have made a profit as you continually reiterate do you think it''s gone on c?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?

We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT
The land did sell for £6.2m FACT
Mr Watlings loan of approx £1.5m was written off. FACT
We actually declared £1.6m for the hotel in 2007-2008 A/C''s I think it was but £1.1m was the figure quoted by the Club originally. FACT
We did receive 1X £20m and 2 X £7m from the Premier League during ''05, ''06, ''07. FACT.
(We also received approx £36m from ticket sales during this period). FACT

I struggle to see where there is an issue with the figures.


[/quote]

We await Yankee Canary''s response, unless he''s run away..........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="7rew"][quote][quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?

We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT
[/quote]

You said it yourself!  YC was complaining about MC representing a c.16m Profit as a c. 20m Income.

The second figure is more impressive for the arguement, but much less relevant.  This is the key point of spinning / twisting the truth / lying with statistics / misrepresenting the facts whatever you want to call it.

Learning to spot these occasions is one of the most important life skills going.  If you do spot one then the credibility of the entire statement is called into question.  Either the preson doing it is doing it deliberately, in which case he is being dishonest, or he is not doing it deliberately, which makes him incompetant.  Niether of these options is good.  Especially when the point of view is supportted well without having to use these tactics.
[/quote]

Please read my post.  I said we`d "sold £20m worth of players", which is accurate.  Trying to portray that statement as something it is not is blatant twisting and spin.

Share this post


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

It`s funny IBA that one of the stock responses to my posts is "We`ve always sold players at a profit to survive so accept it".  This, of course is true, isn`t it?  And, of course, it is totally understandable when a club has 16,000 crowds, is struggling in the 2nd division and hasn`t had a whole lot of extra income for years.

When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie.

In terms of "staying loyal",  I am far more loyal than your wonderful board who gave up on the idea of having a competitive team several years ago.

[/quote]

So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilities
a. Player wages/agent''s fees/transfer fees
b. Infrastructure
c. Gone in the board''s pocket

I think it''s gone on a and b. The spending on infrastructure is an attempt to ensure long-term financial stability without TV money. Personally I''d not put as much into it (new pitch etc) but it''s a calculated gamble. We have spent a lot on a. and much of it has been clearly wasted. That is the fault of managers and our CEO, not the board. If we have made a profit as you continually reiterate do you think it''s gone on c?  
[/quote]

I`ve been through all that several dozen times before.  As a percentage of income player wages have been much lower since relegation than before it so that argument is highly dubious.  Infrastructure was a "calculated gamble"- i agree, but several years ago i was arguing with people on here who were telling me that spending money on players is too much of a gamble and that the board had chosen the safe route.  Has it paid off?  I honestly think that some people cannot grasp that not being ambitious enough on the pitch is just as much of a gamble as being too ambitious and quite possibly more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="7rew"][quote][quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT[/quote]You said it yourself!  YC was complaining about MC representing a c.16m Profit as a c. 20m Income.The second figure is more impressive for the arguement, but much less relevant.  This is the key point of spinning / twisting the truth / lying with statistics / misrepresenting the facts whatever you want to call it.Learning to spot these occasions is one of the most important life skills going.  If you do spot one then the credibility of the entire statement is called into question.  Either the preson doing it is doing it deliberately, in which case he is being dishonest, or he is not doing it deliberately, which makes him incompetant.  Niether of these options is good.  Especially when the point of view is supportted well without having to use these tactics.[/quote]He quite clearly said we''d sold £20m worth of players, not that we''d made £20m profit. I see that I was not alone in recognising this but if you think he was trying to spin the facts I guess that''s fair enough.Thanks for the advice about being able to spot spin though could be handy someday. Reminds me of the time I was in Milton Keynes train station. Must have been roundabout May 1997. I wasn''t actually after a train, just a can of coke and 20 Embassy no1. I noticed whilst walking to the station a number of ford galaxies and some dodgy looking geezers, as I walked through the door of the Station I  accidentally bumped into a man coming out folowed by a film crew. immediately I was grabbed by a bloke in a leather jacket, and two more piled on top. After a short exchange I was allowed to get up and in front of three or four machine gun toting plain clothes SO16 was able to explain that I had accidentally bumped into somebody. Confused and really pissed off I asked what the heck was happening and was told that the new PM a certain Tony Blair ( the aforementioned ''somebody'') had been trying to walk out the station so the BBC could film him entering (again) and they had suspected an assasination attempt.  Bona fides established SO16 were fairly apologetic and allowed me to spectate the pantomime of TB getting out the Galaxy (peoples car) walking into Milton keynes train station (for the second time that day but for the benefit of the BBC) and then purchasing a train ticket (sham) before waiting on the platform (sham) before boarding the train with commuters (sham since all the commuters had been taken off the train 1/2 hour before for a bomb sweep and were waiting at one end of the station for the next train), and then being filmed by the BBC travelling with the comon man (sham) on the common mans transport (sham) for the news at six. Headline news ''TB man of the people travels on train'' real news TB gets everybody off train, does tv op before getting on swept train and travelling with plain clothes MI6 etc posing as members of public.

I watched the news that day and saw it all unfold.Don''t ever talk to me about not being able to recognise spin, I''ve a pretty goood idea thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesa. Player wages/agent''s fees/transfer fees

[/quote]Covered pretty well by ticket sales alone.[quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesb. Infrastructure[/quote]getting warmer, very warm, hot, boiling hot![quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesc. Gone in the board''s pocket[/quote]I hate the current board but do not believe for one minute they have had the money away themselves. I put it down to incompetence.

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...