Whats happened to Norwich City (an outsiders request)

[Downloads 35]

[quote]

Chase borrowed £2m from the bank to keep the squad together and provide some transfer funds for a promotion push. Unfortunately we signed Fleck back for £650k on a three year contract and he stopped scoring on a reasonable basis after half a season and we signed Rush from West Ham United for £300k. If I remember correctly Rush got injured.

[/quote]

Funny thing is i don''t understand why Chase ever needed to borrow any money to keep a squad together?

Does anyone remember a 2 page spread on Norwich City detailing player purchases under Robert Chase and player sales under Robert Chase? The article was in papers something like 15 years ago if my memry serves me right... they didn''t understand where the surpluss 20mil in transfer fees went? Sutton, Fox, Eadie, the list goes on. I personally feel we never recovered from that point as we sold players for lots of money, never spent huge amounts in purchases and yet still somehow ended up something like 10mil in debt when Chase left? Which Delia only has seemed to add to but at leasst she couldn''t say she wasted as much money as Chase? Remember him doubling his own income in the final season he was in charge as he knew he was going?

Not very factual i''m afraid as i didn''t write all the figures down at the time thinking i would post on a forum 15 yers later and taken from news articles i read at the time!

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Downloads"]

Funny thing is i don''t understand why Chase ever needed to borrow any money to keep a squad together?

Does anyone remember a 2 page spread on Norwich City detailing player purchases under Robert Chase and player sales under Robert Chase? The article was in papers something like 15 years ago if my memry serves me right... they didn''t understand where the surpluss 20mil in transfer fees went? Sutton, Fox, Eadie, the list goes on. I personally feel we never recovered from that point as we sold players for lots of money, never spent huge amounts in purchases and yet still somehow ended up something like 10mil in debt when Chase left? Which Delia only has seemed to add to but at leasst she couldn''t say she wasted as much money as Chase? Remember him doubling his own income in the final season he was in charge as he knew he was going?

Not very factual i''m afraid as i didn''t write all the figures down at the time thinking i would post on a forum 15 yers later and taken from news articles i read at the time!

[/quote]

The debt was £6m when Chase left. Doesn''t sound a lot by today''s standards - but it was disastrous for a club at our level back then! There was never any real explanation as to where the money had gone: apart from Gordon Bennett famously saying we''d had "the income of Southend, and the expenditure of Real Madrid", that was about it. But then, remember the club hiring a plane to take supporters to Oldham in 1992/3, or take themselves to the UEFA Cup draw, or crazy, delusional initiatives like Radio Canary? There was no doubt plenty more where that came from, and something was very wrong.

Of course, had the new board quickly sold Darren Eadie and Keith O''Neill when they were at their most valuable, the debt could quickly have been wiped out - but it wasn''t that simple. Terrifyingly, season ticket sales were only in three figures well into Summer 1996: the prospect of Gary Megson remaining in charge coupled with what was seen as pathological lack of ambition which had led to the sales of Sutton, Fox, and especially Newsome and Ward led to alarming numbers of fans vowing they''d never return unless Chase not only left, but we completely changed tack, re-appointed Mike Walker and vowed not to sell our best players. Walker would never have come back had he not received assurances in this regard; but with ST sales so horrifically low, if he hadn''t returned, the club could have folded. I''ve criticised much of what the board has done in their time: I would never criticise them for this though. I don''t think they had any choice.

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Downloads"]

Funny thing is i don''t understand why Chase ever needed to borrow any money to keep a squad together?

Does anyone remember a 2 page spread on Norwich City detailing player purchases under Robert Chase and player sales under Robert Chase? The article was in papers something like 15 years ago if my memry serves me right... they didn''t understand where the surpluss 20mil in transfer fees went? Sutton, Fox, Eadie, the list goes on. I personally feel we never recovered from that point as we sold players for lots of money, never spent huge amounts in purchases and yet still somehow ended up something like 10mil in debt when Chase left? Which Delia only has seemed to add to but at leasst she couldn''t say she wasted as much money as Chase? Remember him doubling his own income in the final season he was in charge as he knew he was going?

Not very factual i''m afraid as i didn''t write all the figures down at the time thinking i would post on a forum 15 yers later and taken from news articles i read at the time!

[/quote]

The debt was £6m when Chase left. Doesn''t sound a lot by today''s standards - but it was disastrous for a club at our level back then! There was never any real explanation as to where the money had gone: apart from Gordon Bennett famously saying we''d had "the income of Southend, and the expenditure of Real Madrid", that was about it. But then, remember the club hiring a plane to take supporters to Oldham in 1992/3, or take themselves to the UEFA Cup draw, or crazy, delusional initiatives like Radio Canary? There was no doubt plenty more where that came from, and something was very wrong.

Of course, had the new board quickly sold Darren Eadie and Keith O''Neill when they were at their most valuable, the debt could quickly have been wiped out - but it wasn''t that simple. Terrifyingly, season ticket sales were only in three figures well into Summer 1996: the prospect of Gary Megson remaining in charge coupled with what was seen as pathological lack of ambition which had led to the sales of Sutton, Fox, and especially Newsome and Ward led to alarming numbers of fans vowing they''d never return unless Chase not only left, but we completely changed tack, re-appointed Mike Walker and vowed not to sell our best players. Walker would never have come back had he not received assurances in this regard; but with ST sales so horrifically low, if he hadn''t returned, the club could have folded. I''ve criticised much of what the board has done in their time: I would never criticise them for this though. I don''t think they had any choice.

[/quote]

Yeah it''s why i stayed loyal to Delia for a while. For me looking back prior to Delia, it was hell, and i don''t hate her as much as i hate Chase. But i would agree with most people on here that the decision making is poor from the club. I know i will get shot down in flames for this, but i will say it anyway. I would rather have administration and 10 points deducted and have faith in the City youngsters making up 10 points than living with 20+mil of debt wondering where our future is going to lie as we won''t be able to invest anything for a long time to come in the playing side. It hurts to say that and i''m starting to get a feeling like i did when the Chase out chants came. Not good.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"]

@Norwich ''R'' Us: I unhappily agree. You see, I don''t think there was anything ground breaking about what I wrote at all. Most of it was common sense and common knowledge, and has been discussed on various messageboards for years. It bewilders me that so many can''t see what''s right in front of them (or alternatively, are scared of seeing it, because of what it''d mean about their beloved owner); and even more that they''re still sleepwalking on even as we head into the third flight by thinking the appointment of a novice as manager would be a good idea. If we go down, not much will happen: many will just shrug their shoulders, hope or assume for better next season, and on we will drift.

12 years ago, I watched City play abysmally and be humiliated in the League Cup by lowly Barnet. This was less than four years after Munich and Milan, and would''ve been unthinkable only a couple of years earlier. Yet was their fury on the terraces? Not really. A few cries of "sort it out, Walker!", and that was it. As I walked away from Underhill, one old chap turned to another and said "ah well - things can only get better!" I couldn''t help but laugh: what, I wondered, would it take to actually anger the fans of this club? Especially when you consider the opprobrium which was always aimed in Robert Chase''s direction even when we were flying high in the Premier League. It''s as though Delia and the club post-Chase can do no wrong in the eyes of many.

I just don''t understand it. In that sense, you could argue that the board understand their public perfectly - and attendances have remained so high (light years ahead of what they were when we were challenging for the Premier League title and in Europe) because there is a weird symbiosis between fans and board. It''s not true of many on here, but clearly is within the wider fanbase - and at some point, loyalty ceases to be loyalty and becomes, I''m afraid, delusion and stupidity.

[/quote]Two things.The current board have always had the excuse of debt created by the last chairman to fall back on as the altimate excuse and for the most part you can not deny the implications that debt has had. If it wasn''t for that debt we would be making proffit that could be spent solely on the playing staff etc. Chase did miss-manage this club and sacraficed our best players when it would have been more ibeneficial to keep them on and maintain the club in the top flight.Secondly - its not through delusion or stupidity it is through love, hope and belief in the club. Sometimes when you want something so much you miss the details. So you could say blindly - but in this case I don''t think it is such a negative thing to call the fans. Don''t forget many did attend protests to remove Worthington (even though I still believe that it was the board failing to back him more than anything else).

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="chicken"]Two things.

The current board have always had the excuse of debt created by the last chairman to fall back on as the altimate excuse and for the most part you can not deny the implications that debt has had. If it wasn''t for that debt we would be making proffit that could be spent solely on the playing staff etc. Chase did miss-manage this club and sacraficed our best players when it would have been more ibeneficial to keep them on and maintain the club in the top flight.

Secondly - its not through delusion or stupidity it is through love, hope and belief in the club. Sometimes when you want something so much you miss the details. So you could say blindly - but in this case I don''t think it is such a negative thing to call the fans. Don''t forget many did attend protests to remove Worthington (even though I still believe that it was the board failing to back him more than anything else).
[/quote]

But the last Chairman had nothing to do with the current board''s strategy to just renegotiate the debt as outlined by canary cherub elsewhere on this thread, nor to make punts on property which didn''t work out, nor to securistise the Jarrold Stand and lock the club in to interest and loan repayments for over a decade. These were their decisions: it''s their responsibility. Indeed, the level of the debt is a big factor putting off potential buyers - especially if £56m is regarded as a serious asking price.

Sorry - but blaming Chase for this is like blaming the last Tory government for where the country is now. It''s a factor of sorts; but also the ultimate get out for those in charge well over a decade now. And yes, the fans did protest against Worthington. What makes me chuckle is the tendency to protest against any manager, or blame the players, but never to hold accountable the one consistent factor in all of this: the board. Shouldn''t that hope and belief you mention lead not to Delia almost being serenaded after a defeat at Portman Road which pushed us nearer relegation, but to having the honesty and conviction to say what needs to be said? And above all, to feeling the club and the fans deserve so much better?

[Metatron 0]

"Indeed, the level of the debt is a big factor putting off potential buyers - especially if £56m is regarded as a serious asking price."

£56m was not the asking price though, was it? Didn''t you read the Purple Canary thesis?

The debt could be carried over by/to a new owner - £16m was the ''asking price'' and only then if the prospective purchaser agreed with the £30 a share valuation.

We all need to stop using this "£56m" figure as some kind of benchmark - there are still people out there who take this figure as a ''fact''.

(Enjoyed the ''summary'' post by the way)

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Metatron"]"Indeed, the level of the debt is a big factor putting off potential buyers - especially if £56m is regarded as a serious asking price." £56m was not the asking price though, was it? Didn''t you read the Purple Canary thesis? The debt could be carried over by/to a new owner - £16m was the ''asking price'' and only then if the prospective purchaser agreed with the £30 a share valuation. We all need to stop using this "£56m" figure as some kind of benchmark - there are still people out there who take this figure as a ''fact''. (Enjoyed the ''summary'' post by the way)[/quote]

I''ve read Purple Canary''s explanation: it was very good. But the price asked of Cullum was effectively £56m - just because it was broken down into different areas, and the club itself (without debt) was effectively valued at £16m doesn''t change this. Yes, the debt could be renegotiated - so why wasn''t this part of any attempt at brokering a deal between the board and any prospective buyer? If we go down, I''m not sure if £20m is a realistic figure to demand be pumped into the team either; and of course, the board''s valuation of the club has to fall.

It''s the nature of the loans and how they''ve been agreed with the banks which has put the asking price up so much. Delia et al may have to accept they won''t get what they''ve loaned to the club back; and frankly, if a buyer was out there and made themselves known, I''d say £20m total ought to be enough, depending on whether they could renegotiate the debt or not.

[......and Smith must score. 1,336]

Bit late in the day but.......

I''ve been away for a couple of days but would just like to say, " Well done " to the the original poster for setting this in motion but particularly Shaun for getting the debate going so eloquently. I wish I was such a wordsmith. For once we seem to have been able to debate the subject sensibly without the usual childishness and it really is something special when Ipswich fans can come on here and not be drowned out in a torrent of abuse!

Well done to everyone for their contributions.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"]

[quote user="chicken"]Two things.

The current board have always had the excuse of debt created by the last chairman to fall back on as the altimate excuse and for the most part you can not deny the implications that debt has had. If it wasn''t for that debt we would be making proffit that could be spent solely on the playing staff etc. Chase did miss-manage this club and sacraficed our best players when it would have been more ibeneficial to keep them on and maintain the club in the top flight.

Secondly - its not through delusion or stupidity it is through love, hope and belief in the club. Sometimes when you want something so much you miss the details. So you could say blindly - but in this case I don''t think it is such a negative thing to call the fans. Don''t forget many did attend protests to remove Worthington (even though I still believe that it was the board failing to back him more than anything else).
[/quote]

But the last Chairman had nothing to do with the current board''s strategy to just renegotiate the debt as outlined by canary cherub elsewhere on this thread, nor to make punts on property which didn''t work out, nor to securistise the Jarrold Stand and lock the club in to interest and loan repayments for over a decade. These were their decisions: it''s their responsibility. Indeed, the level of the debt is a big factor putting off potential buyers - especially if £56m is regarded as a serious asking price.

Sorry - but blaming Chase for this is like blaming the last Tory government for where the country is now. It''s a factor of sorts; but also the ultimate get out for those in charge well over a decade now. And yes, the fans did protest against Worthington. What makes me chuckle is the tendency to protest against any manager, or blame the players, but never to hold accountable the one consistent factor in all of this: the board. Shouldn''t that hope and belief you mention lead not to Delia almost being serenaded after a defeat at Portman Road which pushed us nearer relegation, but to having the honesty and conviction to say what needs to be said? And above all, to feeling the club and the fans deserve so much better?

[/quote]

A lot of your posts hold very true and detail basic points.

I am interested to know whether the detail is from a good memory or from notes.

You have a good background knowledge some of which, during the Chase, era was not readily available that seems , like me to have had a closer than nodding aquaintance with the club at the time.

I know it goes much against the general concensus and Chase did some stupid things, but the treatment he received went far beyond what you would normally expect (from Norfolk people that is). There was a background stirring of the pot that relied on lies and innuendo that too many were prepared to believe.

Sice that time, I like many others, have stood back and watched the club, in the football sense, decline.

There has always been a few that could not agree all the figures generally bandied about re debt etc, but only now are some truths coming to light.

To me the club has been torn apart by DS and company and finished well and truly, with their blessing by Roeder. The people who ,loved the club first and worked for its benefit can never be replaced.

[Downloads 35]

[quote user="thebigfeller"]

[quote user="chicken"]Two things.

The current board have always had the excuse of debt created by the last chairman to fall back on as the altimate excuse and for the most part you can not deny the implications that debt has had. If it wasn''t for that debt we would be making proffit that could be spent solely on the playing staff etc. Chase did miss-manage this club and sacraficed our best players when it would have been more ibeneficial to keep them on and maintain the club in the top flight.

Secondly - its not through delusion or stupidity it is through love, hope and belief in the club. Sometimes when you want something so much you miss the details. So you could say blindly - but in this case I don''t think it is such a negative thing to call the fans. Don''t forget many did attend protests to remove Worthington (even though I still believe that it was the board failing to back him more than anything else).
[/quote]

But the last Chairman had nothing to do with the current board''s strategy to just renegotiate the debt as outlined by canary cherub elsewhere on this thread, nor to make punts on property which didn''t work out, nor to securistise the Jarrold Stand and lock the club in to interest and loan repayments for over a decade. These were their decisions: it''s their responsibility. Indeed, the level of the debt is a big factor putting off potential buyers - especially if £56m is regarded as a serious asking price.

Sorry - but blaming Chase for this is like blaming the last Tory government for where the country is now. It''s a factor of sorts; but also the ultimate get out for those in charge well over a decade now. And yes, the fans did protest against Worthington. What makes me chuckle is the tendency to protest against any manager, or blame the players, but never to hold accountable the one consistent factor in all of this: the board. Shouldn''t that hope and belief you mention lead not to Delia almost being serenaded after a defeat at Portman Road which pushed us nearer relegation, but to having the honesty and conviction to say what needs to be said? And above all, to feeling the club and the fans deserve so much better?

[/quote]

I certainly wouldn''t blame Chase for the current demise i agree, for me that was the start of the demise long term, but i think the current board has had plenty of opportunity to turn it around. Getting promoted to the premiership must definitely count as a clean slate and it just went downhilll from there where for several clubs it is a positive thing.

Ahh well, going to log off before i start sawing at my wrists with a blunt ruler.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="The Butler"]

A lot of your posts hold very true and detail basic points.

I am interested to know whether the detail is from a good memory or from notes.

You have a good background knowledge some of which, during the Chase, era was not readily available that seems , like me to have had a closer than nodding aquaintance with the club at the time.

I know it goes much against the general concensus and Chase did some stupid things, but the treatment he received went far beyond what you would normally expect (from Norfolk people that is). There was a background stirring of the pot that relied on lies and innuendo that too many were prepared to believe.

Sice that time, I like many others, have stood back and watched the club, in the football sense, decline.

There has always been a few that could not agree all the figures generally bandied about re debt etc, but only now are some truths coming to light.

To me the club has been torn apart by DS and company and finished well and truly, with their blessing by Roeder. The people who ,loved the club first and worked for its benefit can never be replaced.

[/quote]

Believe it or not, it''s all from memory! I have a photographic memory which can be both blessing and curse at times; and have been a fan of the club since 1989 (Flecky''s winner at Millwall was the moment I fell in love with Norwich City: little did I know it''d prove a pain which never ends...). Regarding Chase: there was a shortlived fanzine called ''Scrimmage'' which only published one issue, around the start of 2000/1. The editor got in touch via the old official messageboard, asked me to come on board, and I ended up researching two pieces: one on where the money had gone under him, another on Rioch and Hamilton. Meaning I spoke to Rick Waghorn and Steve Greenall (who was particularly helpful), and someone else with close connections to the board during Chase''s time among others. Unfortunately, the second issue never saw the light of day, for reasons I never discovered: it was probably because many of the articles prepared were suddenly out of date when Hamilton quit (it was due to be released around that time).

If you read Kevin Baldwin''s wonderful Norfolk ''n'' Good, you can see how incredibly unpopular Chase was even during our greatest ever season. It''s very strange, and hard to understand: maybe his treatment of Ken Brown shortly after becoming Chairman had something to do with it? And it''s not as though his Conservative politics were at odds with much of Norfolk either! I would absolutely maintain that he ended up doing huge harm to this club though, just as the present board have, albeit in a different, less starkly obvious way. Looking back, I think Norwich were simply one of the first clubs (maybe the first?) to be all but destroyed by falling out of the top flight and not immediately recovering. We''d have been OK had we gone straight back up; but the moment it became clear we weren''t going to, the banks called in the debt. When a relegated club runs out of parachute payments nowadays, something similar can happen in their case: Southampton, for example, being screwed the moment they were knocked out of the play-offs in their second year of parachute payments two seasons ago.

[William Darby 0]

Eidetic memory is proved to be BS, you can have a memory that uses recall techniques.  And you can have a very good raw memory.  But anyone who reckons they have a raw photographic memory and reckons it can be a curse is talking ballocks.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I trust my memory at times too bigfeller. But if you post stuff on here that posters don''t agre with memory isn''t ever good enough. They want you to back it up! I still remember Chases shares being for sale in split up packages though. And, just to show our current debt in an even poorer light I remember the current board getting it down to around 4m not long after they took over. I also remember Bob The Grocer taking over as chairman from Barry Lockwood, who was (or so he said at the time) more than happy to stand down. He was the guy who had to publically defend the Chase era after all.

 

 

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="Downloads"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Downloads"]

Funny thing is i don''t understand why Chase ever needed to borrow any money to keep a squad together?

Does anyone remember a 2 page spread on Norwich City detailing player purchases under Robert Chase and player sales under Robert Chase? The article was in papers something like 15 years ago if my memry serves me right... they didn''t understand where the surpluss 20mil in transfer fees went? Sutton, Fox, Eadie, the list goes on. I personally feel we never recovered from that point as we sold players for lots of money, never spent huge amounts in purchases and yet still somehow ended up something like 10mil in debt when Chase left? Which Delia only has seemed to add to but at leasst she couldn''t say she wasted as much money as Chase? Remember him doubling his own income in the final season he was in charge as he knew he was going?

Not very factual i''m afraid as i didn''t write all the figures down at the time thinking i would post on a forum 15 yers later and taken from news articles i read at the time!

[/quote]

The debt was £6m when Chase left. Doesn''t sound a lot by today''s standards - but it was disastrous for a club at our level back then! There was never any real explanation as to where the money had gone: apart from Gordon Bennett famously saying we''d had "the income of Southend, and the expenditure of Real Madrid", that was about it. But then, remember the club hiring a plane to take supporters to Oldham in 1992/3, or take themselves to the UEFA Cup draw, or crazy, delusional initiatives like Radio Canary? There was no doubt plenty more where that came from, and something was very wrong.

Of course, had the new board quickly sold Darren Eadie and Keith O''Neill when they were at their most valuable, the debt could quickly have been wiped out - but it wasn''t that simple. Terrifyingly, season ticket sales were only in three figures well into Summer 1996: the prospect of Gary Megson remaining in charge coupled with what was seen as pathological lack of ambition which had led to the sales of Sutton, Fox, and especially Newsome and Ward led to alarming numbers of fans vowing they''d never return unless Chase not only left, but we completely changed tack, re-appointed Mike Walker and vowed not to sell our best players. Walker would never have come back had he not received assurances in this regard; but with ST sales so horrifically low, if he hadn''t returned, the club could have folded. I''ve criticised much of what the board has done in their time: I would never criticise them for this though. I don''t think they had any choice.

[/quote]

Yeah it''s why i stayed loyal to Delia for a while. For me looking back prior to Delia, it was hell, and i don''t hate her as much as i hate Chase. But i would agree with most people on here that the decision making is poor from the club. I know i will get shot down in flames for this, but i will say it anyway. I would rather have administration and 10 points deducted and have faith in the City youngsters making up 10 points than living with 20+mil of debt wondering where our future is going to lie as we won''t be able to invest anything for a long time to come in the playing side. It hurts to say that and i''m starting to get a feeling like i did when the Chase out chants came. Not good.

[/quote]Feel exactly the same way. A major part of my hatred of Chase at the time was the perception (whether true or not) that player after player was sold for huge profits and the money seemed to simply disappear, while the fat controller seemed to get richer and richer. Not sure about the administration bit though. I couldn''t much care about the big institutions that we own money to, but the livlihoods of small businesses, real people depend on the club honouring it''s debts.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I trust my memory at times too bigfeller. But if you post stuff on here that posters don''t agre with memory isn''t ever good enough. They want you to back it up! I still remember Chases shares being for sale in split up packages though. And, just to show our current debt in an even poorer light I remember the current board getting it down to around 4m not long after they took over. I also remember Bob The Grocer taking over as chairman from Barry Lockwood, who was (or so he said at the time) more than happy to stand down. He was the guy who had to publically defend the Chase era after all.

 

 

[/quote]

You can remember reading they were Nutty but strange that not one person bought any isn''t it!

Then hey presto Smith and Jones, out of the kindness of their hearts bought the lot at a reasonable price.

I wouldn''t argue with your memory on "on field" football matters Nutty [:)]

[Simon Lappin, King Of Spain 0]

Great post, I think you have to be this critical when you see that the club’s leadership for all it’s good intention has failed.I’d disagree with the point regarding the Jarrold''s stand, I think that needed to be done as the south stand was about to collapse and it was built with a view to the premiership sized gates we would attract. You have to take a few gambles in football and I don’t think that was in any way a bad or foolish one, as the article showed there have been more than enough of those to make the Jarrold''s stand seem inconsequential.

I think that whilst the boards approach has led us to becoming one of the best supported clubs in the league it has ultimately led us into financial and footballing ruin. Our only real hope is that we have youth players of enough calibre to stop us dropping down any further than we already have/will. Their recent successes in the FA Youth Cup and League suggest the possibility of this; I know they haven’t actually won anything yet but then again they’re playing with the big boys like Arsenal, Man City, Everton and if not coming out on top then at least matching them which is extremely promising (Additionally in Ricky Martin they have a potential future City manager? Also would lead to some great new chants wouldn’t it?). If we stay up on Saturday then we will have not deserved it in any way, however if we go down which is alas now almost certain then I do have hope that there are youth players of sufficient calibre ready enough to build a successful squad again. However this needs to be backed up by a competent board, they say the worst thing a general can do in battle is reinforce failure but this is exactly what the board have been doing for the past ten years and is what the club will be doing, if the board in its present composition is allowed to continue.

We need to look seriously for new investment and not just from a city fan (as nice as that would be), limit Delia’s influence and kick Doncaster out. As much as she has done for the club behind the scenes, and indeed there may have been an even swifter fall from grace without her presence, her and her board’s decisions have show a shocking naivety and lack of regard for other’s opinion, they have squandered the resources which could have led us if not into the premiership permanently then at least into stability at a top half of the championship level. Now we must pay the price for their profligacy and poor decision making. I’m not advocating a Chase Out! Scenario as we saw in the mid nineties, she’s done too much for the club, and did for a while pull us out of some sticky messes, however a quiet reshuffling is needed, get rid of those who support her on the board, leave her with some ceremonial title and let her have come onto the pitch occasionally when she’s pissed. Then a new board can get on with sorting the club out, if Hull, Stoke, Reading, Bristol City, Doncaster, Wigan, Bolton etc can lift themselves from obscurity then we can (again) as well.

The current loan players scheme can only maintain the status quo for so long, as much as it may have been necessary to maintain championship status, we can never really develop and progress under that kind of program. We’ve been trying to put out a forest fire by p*ssing on it for too long now, we need to let it burn and then rebuild from there. As grateful as I am to people like Bertrand, Gow, Lee, Grounds, Gibbs, Kennedy etc who have come in on loan over the past two seasons and appear to have really been giving it their all, we need players who are going to invest themselves in the club and stick with us for the long term (although it would be so good to be able to keep Betrand and Shackell in particular, I just can’t see it happening). I would suggest the first thing we do is try and recruit Mark Robins as Manager; he has turned Rotherham from a side on the brink of relegation to the conference and in deep financial trouble into a promotion chasing league two side. And has done so with young players. He is an ex City player with excellent potential and some good experience, he could prove to be the club’s saviour if properly supported. Gunn as much as I love him just does not cut the mustard at the moment, he needs more experience before he can take the job up permanently and we simply cannot afford to gamble our club’s future again. With Robins, Crook and Butterworth, plus Gunn as head of recruitment, where I think he has done a decent job and a healthy amount of investment then the club could be rebuilt along more sustainable lines.

I haven’t given up all hope for Sunday, all I’m saying is that if we go down maybe it’s what we need so we can cut out the dead wood and rebuild on more solid foundations.

God I hate football!!!!! Stupid bloody game!!!!!!

OTBC!

 

[Lord Horn 0]

Just something to cheer every one up!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKrGdY6VeAI

[chicken 0]

NXcanary - you are right but that is what confuses me. How can we be one of the biggest supported clubs and yet still not work within our means. Many things simply do not add up to me.We are told we are a profit making club. We have made more money in sales of players than we have spent on players coming in. Our debt has grown rather than shrunk and now we have one of the highest wage bills in this league and are told it is beyone our means to sustain.None of this makes a great deal of sense to me and where I have come to realise my anger is centered. It wasn''t until the the second half of the 2001/2002 season that we really started to pick up full houses on a regular basis and at that point we had a small squad that cost very little money. Iwan and Malky were our two most expencive players at around £800k a piece and neither of them had brilliant first seasons with us but had by that point been at the club for some time.We were told promotion would keep us financially stable for the forseable future.I think at that point had the board said we are going to spend next to nothing on the team but wipe our debts out for once and for all most people would have accepted it. But it does not seem, by the size of our debt, that much of the premiership money was thrown at it. Its almost like all they have paid off on it is the interest - and that to me is simply not good enough. That debt is like a ball and chain shackling this club down and preventing it from progress.

[Caramac 0]

Great thread and pretty much all the salient points documenting our demise are well covered.  What I haven''t seen anywhere, and I''m sure there are plenty who will correct me if I''m wrong, are the circumstances under which Huckerby, Crouch and Harper were signed on loan in our promotion season.  As I recall, rather than being a culmination of the board''s "prudence with ambition" masterplan, the board was rather backed into the corner as Zema Abbey''s knee-knack got the better of him and David Neilsen disappeared to Denmark for a very spurious reason.  As a result, Worthington forced the board''s hand in a League Cup tie against Northampton by playing Henderson and Jarvis up front and amply demonstrated the cupboard was bare.  A few days later Huckerby et al turned up and the rest was history - history that since has no doubt been distorted by the board and board apologists alike when it come''s to doubting the club''s ambition or competence and to their mind epitomises the benefits of their "prudence with ambition" approach. 

One final point, some are doubting many of the Big Feller''s more speculative points around the Hamilton/Cooper/Rioch fall-out.  But having heard the very same points made - around Cooper''s and Hamilton''s plotting - from many sources over the past 10 years, I''m sure there must be statistical signifcance attached to the allegations.  To my mind, Rioch was one of the most hard done by managers in our recent history - he had scraped together the nucleus of a decent team only to be denied the funds necessary to mount a promotion challenge.  No surprise when you know that Hamilton was the choice of Delia to succeed Walker and not Rioch.  Makes you wonder how Roeder''s atrocious CV got buried in the selection process following Grant''s demise?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I''ve always felt it was a shame Rioch left and that given time he would have done well for us. He knew how to sort a team out defensively thats for sure!

I agree re the loan signings. People forget that were it not for freak injuries and the Neilson episide we would have had Abbey and Neilson up front that season and probably never gone near Hucks and Crouch!

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="Caramac"]

Great thread and pretty much all the salient points documenting our demise are well covered.  What I haven''t seen anywhere, and I''m sure there are plenty who will correct me if I''m wrong, are the circumstances under which Huckerby, Crouch and Harper were signed on loan in our promotion season.  As I recall, rather than being a culmination of the board''s "prudence with ambition" masterplan, the board was rather backed into the corner as Zema Abbey''s knee-knack got the better of him and David Neilsen disappeared to Denmark for a very spurious reason.  As a result, Worthington forced the board''s hand in a League Cup tie against Northampton by playing Henderson and Jarvis up front and amply demonstrated the cupboard was bare.  A few days later Huckerby et al turned up and the rest was history - history that since has no doubt been distorted by the board and board apologists alike when it come''s to doubting the club''s ambition or competence and to their mind epitomises the benefits of their "prudence with ambition" approach. 

One final point, some are doubting many of the Big Feller''s more speculative points around the Hamilton/Cooper/Rioch fall-out.  But having heard the very same points made - around Cooper''s and Hamilton''s plotting - from many sources over the past 10 years, I''m sure there must be statistical signifcance attached to the allegations.  To my mind, Rioch was one of the most hard done by managers in our recent history - he had scraped together the nucleus of a decent team only to be denied the funds necessary to mount a promotion challenge.  No surprise when you know that Hamilton was the choice of Delia to succeed Walker and not Rioch.  Makes you wonder how Roeder''s atrocious CV got buried in the selection process following Grant''s demise?

[/quote]

At last! There are some at least who now believe what I have been saying about that episodoe for years! So many fans persist in bracketing Rioch and Hamilton as one and villifying both! One was an outstanding manager at Middlesborough and Bolton (in particular)who then got the Arsenal job for Christs sake! It was BR who bought Dennis Bergkamp to this country (not Wenger).

Hamilton, however, had a ''mediocre'' (polite description) track record in domestic football yet The Cook appointed him (twice!!).

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Caramac"]

One final point, some are doubting many of the Big Feller''s more speculative points around the Hamilton/Cooper/Rioch fall-out.  But having heard the very same points made - around Cooper''s and Hamilton''s plotting - from many sources over the past 10 years, I''m sure there must be statistical signifcance attached to the allegations.  To my mind, Rioch was one of the most hard done by managers in our recent history - he had scraped together the nucleus of a decent team only to be denied the funds necessary to mount a promotion challenge.  No surprise when you know that Hamilton was the choice of Delia to succeed Walker and not Rioch.  Makes you wonder how Roeder''s atrocious CV got buried in the selection process following Grant''s demise?

[/quote]

Exactly, Caramac. I remember Rioch''s second season well: it was a dispiriting time. Every one of our most important players was injured early on: Eadie, Jackson, Bellamy and Mulryne, the latter out for the whole campaign because of a disgraceful challenge by Christian Dailly. Rioch had already had to endure his first season going up in smoke because of that challenge by Kevin Muscat on Bellamy: this time round, we looked set for a season-long relegation battle. Somehow - I really don''t know how - he extracted enough results from a desperately average side (which IIRC, had fewer shots on goal and were caught offside more than any other team in the division) to have us comfortably placed, and only a late Barnsley equaliser from moving into the top six in early January - and this after selling Eadie to Leicester too! It couldn''t last, and our usual post-Xmas collapse followed; but it was a miracle he''d got us so high in the first place.

A board with real footballing expertise would have appreciated this - just as they''d have appreciated how hamstrung Mike Walker had been by an incredibly thin squad and tons of injuries in 1997/8, not to mention losing his wife to cancer during that season. But they didn''t: they sacked Walker, and Cooper and Hamilton started working for Rioch''s removal, confirmed to me when I spoke to a prominent, well known member of the NCFC staff some months afterwards. He called it "constructive dismissal". Amusingly, Archant saw fit to edit that bit of my post when they put it on the main website: I appreciate it''s conjecture, and can''t name the source I spoke to even nine years on. But still - we just musn''t upset the board now, must we?

Roger Munby acknowledged two mistakes at the forum a while back: Peter Grant and Glenn Roeder. Trouble is, there have been more. Far more.

[Caramac 0]

I can clearly remember my most recent source.  Let''s just say it''s impeccable and still with NCFC today. 

BTW how heartening was Doncaster''s latest column today?  I quote "whatever the fates have in store for us on Sunday, the future is bright next season."  Hopefully, with the debate you have kickstarted there are far fewer fans swallowing this condescending tripe from now on.

Personally, I think it''s about time that Delia and her husband were reminded that just because they are the majority owners of a club they don''t have to sit on the board of directors.  Owners ostensibly sit on boards to protect their financial interests, but as we''ve heard many times that they are not in it for financial reasons isn''t it about time that they stepped away from the board and let somebody else have a go?

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Caramac"]

I can clearly remember my most recent source.  Let''s just say it''s impeccable and still with NCFC today. 

BTW how heartening was Doncaster''s latest column today?  I quote "whatever the fates have in store for us on Sunday, the future is bright next season."  Hopefully, with the debate you have kickstarted there are far fewer fans swallowing this condescending tripe from now on.

Personally, I think it''s about time that Delia and her husband were reminded that just because they are the majority owners of a club they don''t have to sit on the board of directors.  Owners ostensibly sit on boards to protect their financial interests, but as we''ve heard many times that they are not in it for financial reasons isn''t it about time that they stepped away from the board and let somebody else have a go?

[/quote]

You''re absolutely right. I found Doncaster''s column both nauseating and cringeworthy: you could practically have scripted every word. Here''s an idea already suggested on WOTB: if we go down, and the club have the brass neck to plead poverty and make any ST holder who wants their rebate back feel guilty, how about all ST holders sign a petition agreeing to waive their rebates, on the conditions that:

1. Doncaster is sacked, and replaced by a CEO of demonstrable footballing expertise;

2. A manager with experience at League One level and preferably a successful record is appointed;

3. The board acknowledge full, unfettered responsibility for relegation;

4. Every conceivable effort is made to attract new investors, and the joint majority shareholders climb down from their requirement that only a bona fide Norwich fan with £20m to plough into the team will be considered?

Some will say you can''t tell the owners how to behave - except they''d be telling us how to behave by reneging on the rebate and piling on the guilt trip about it. How about it?

[Barry Brockes 145]

As I''ve posted elsewhere bigfella I suspect Doomcaster has written himself a watertight contract which will result in a giant sized payoff for him should it be decided his services are no longer required and alas I suspect it would take money that we just don''t have. It''s one thing getting Carl Moore to chip in with a few quid for a player but finding the cash to dispose of this irksome and quite frankly hapless individual is another. The only good thing about his morning''s article is that we used that page to line our puppy''s cage whilst we were out earlier and when we returned we found that he had done a large and smelly No. 2 all over Doomcaster. Seemed appropriate somehow. I think the decision to appoint the Club''s legal adviser to the position of CEO would have made an ideal additional paragraph to your excellent post that started this thread. Yet again I suppose it was the easy option. Why bother to go out and find someone who''s actually qualified to do the job when we have someone who''d like the job on our doorstep. Sound familiar?  

[Caramac 0]

Spot on.  Easy/cheap option has always been the club''s MO apart from when it''s funding peripheral infrastructure such as photographer pits and the like.  We''ve seen it time and time again - failure to sign Taylor for the want of £250k, appointment of Gunn and further back the replacement of the £2.25m Fox with the £250k Adams.  I reckon about the only people in football who''ve ever sussed the club out are MON and Robbie Earle when he turned down the chance to join us from Port Vale and opted for Wimbledon. 

[Caramac 0]

Also what are the chances of finding out about miniscule release fee clauses in the case of Clingan and Hoolahan etc. come next season?  This despite already telling us that the bulk of agents'' fees in the past year were for signing the pair. 

[Robert N. LiM 4,243]

[quote user="thebigfeller"] 

You''re absolutely right. I found Doncaster''s column both nauseating and cringeworthy: you could practically have scripted every word. Here''s an idea already suggested on WOTB: if we go down, and the club have the brass neck to plead poverty and make any ST holder who wants their rebate back feel guilty, how about all ST holders sign a petition agreeing to waive their rebates, on the conditions that:

1. Doncaster is sacked, and replaced by a CEO of demonstrable footballing expertise;

2. A manager with experience at League One level and preferably a successful record is appointed;

3. The board acknowledge full, unfettered responsibility for relegation;

4. Every conceivable effort is made to attract new investors, and the joint majority shareholders climb down from their requirement that only a bona fide Norwich fan with £20m to plough into the team will be considered?

Some will say you can''t tell the owners how to behave - except they''d be telling us how to behave by reneging on the rebate and piling on the guilt trip about it. How about it?

[/quote]I like that, but not as much as I like:1. The board resigns en masse, with a new owner in place for next season.

[5winger 0]

 

        How sad it is to see a fine Club brought low when it could so easily have been avoided.   The fault lies not with the fans, whose integrity has been flawless, nor even with the players, who gave their all but were simply overwhelmed.  Instead, the fault lies with a management whose naivety is breathtaking; they seem not to understand the simple mathematics of league football.

 

        First, there is a positive correlation between Goal Difference and position in the league.  Consequently every goal scored is of equal value to every goal stopped.  City''s attack has been pretty good (55 scored puts the side in the top half of the league, 11th. out of 24).  But the side has let in 66 goals and only two clubs, Charlton and Watford have had a worse defensive record.

        So this is at the heart of City''s position and it is entirely the fault of the management. 

 

        Second, the management should have learned from History and invested in good defenders which, if money is tight, are cheaper than strikers.  Was it Ian Butterworth who said that the best form of defence is attack?  Well, this is nonsense because the best form of defence is a strong efficient and well drilled defence. 

 

        Two pieces of football history show this point.  In 1986 an ailing Arsenal appointed former player George Graham as manager.  With little money Graham invested in defenders and the side ground out nil-all draws or 1-0 wins and Arsenal was seen as the most boring side in Division One.  But it paid off; success followed and he signed Adams, Dixon, Winterbourne. then David Seaman.   Hard to credit, but this powerful defensive array was at the heart of the Arsenal we see today. 

 

        The second concerns Man U.  In the 90''s the side was doing quite well but in truth was pretty ordinary.  Then in a stroke of genius Ferguson signed Jaap Stam from PSV.  This bald, gangling defender lumbered about the field snuffling out attack after attack and in the three years he was at Old Trafford the side won the Premier League three times, the FA Cup, the Inter Cup and the UEFA Champions League.   John Terry did much the same for Chelsea.

 

        Strikers are the glamorous heroes and all small boys and journalists focus on them.   But the best sides in the whole of football worldwide are the ones against whom it is hardest to score.

 

   But the board members are altogether too chummy and not football savvy.  NCFC will continue to go down unless Delia and her chums do the decent thing and depart.

 

       

 

   

[Aurelius 0]

Thank you for all the posters 4 this beautiful thread that has become a sort of Norwich Encyclopaedia.