Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tom cavendish

The Most Unpopular Post of the Year - My View

Recommended Posts

The Board have backed managers with as much money as possible and then some. It is just a shame for everyone that the managers were not very good. The Board even got Dave Stringer to help them make a choice. Even so, Roeder did save the club from relegation when it looked like relegation certs, so even he was a very good choice at the time.

Regardless, many clubs make the same managerial mistakes as the average job time for a football manager is about 18 months. It is obviously very hard to get a good manager - which is why Worthy was given as long as possible before he was driven out by fans.

I find it laughable that fans accuse the Board of spending too much money on players wages whilst others say the club lacks ambition. Which is it to be?

 It is up to a manager to spend his budget wisely - and that obviously hasn''t happened.

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential.

What''s next? drive out Delia and Co without a wealthy replacement and then see the club become the next Luton, Notts County, or Oxford Utd? Is that what you guys want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]You might be right Tom. I just pray you''re not serious.[/quote]

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich. The Norwich Board have made managerial mistakes but most Boards do hence why managers tend not to last very long in the job.

I think that some people need to put emotions to one side, take a step back, and take stock to see that Norwich City is a very good club that is STILL the envy of many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Tom and I agree with you. The Board''s only real mistake in my view is to pick managers who have been unsuccessful, but that''s the luck of the draw and it''s easy to be judgemental using hindsight. They have backed each manager''s judgement and provided a supportive environment as far as possible.

Unfortunately, a combination of poor footballing decisions / leadership by successive managers and the harsh economics of football in this country (in which Premier league clubs get an obscene amount of money while Football League clubs get a pittance) has meant we''ve beeen on a slippery slope and unable to compete successfully, despite our great supporter base.

The Board are fans too and there is no doubt relegation hurts them as much as it does the rest of us. There is also no doubt relegation is a disaster for this club, but it''s happened and it''s imperative we stop the rot and get promoted as soon as possible. I am not particularly optimistic we can bounce back straight away, but I do feel that if we are in the top half and challenging for promotion, we will have a better chance than most of our rivals because of our fanbase.

On the football side, I believe that Bryan Gunn and his coaching team should be given the chance to turn things around. They will be totally committed and busting a gut to make this club successful. At Board level, I''d like to see the current board stay, but to be supplemented by new blood - someone with a financial background and someone with a footballing background.

Sooner of later, Norwich City will rise again - and that time will be all the sweeter for the hardships and difficulties we are in now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire your attempts to defend the board and there is a certain amount of logic behind what you say but you seem to be ignoring some glaringly important facts.

You suggest that the boards only mistake has been to appoint bad managers.  If this had happened once or maybe twice then i might agree with you but the truth is that this board has a horrendous record when it comes to picking managers.  Their choices range from bad (Gunn, Grant) to outright disasters (Hamilton, Roeder).  Far from being unlucky it strikes me that there is something fundamentally wrong in the decision making process.  You only have to compare our protracted searches for managers to other clubs who identify their man and go and get him.  In my opinion the board got lucky with Worthington and have been found massively wanting on the other occasions.

You also suggest that we are the envy of many clubs.  I find it hard to believe that clubs such as Barnsley, Burnley, Blackpool, Preston, Swansea, Doncaster, Peterborough etc would want to swap places with us at the current time. Many of these clubs have similar sized or smaller fanbases to ourselves and yet seem to be capable of producing some level of  success on the pitch.  Nobody is saying we should be competing for a Champions League place but I don''t think expecting to be a competitive championship team is asking too much.  This board has lost sight of the number one goal of a football club-to produce results on the pitch.  Too much emphasis has been placed on non-footballing matters with inevitable results.  If we were in a sound financial position then maybe you could excuse them.  However all evidence suggest that we don''t have a pot to wee in and we are left to approach League 1 football with a threadbare squad made up largely of journeymen and untried youngsters.  You are very much mistaken if you think that the board is not ultimately responsible for this desperate situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree about the fan base catchment area issue determining if you are a big club or not. In the North West competition for fans is huge in the M62 corridor - yet the smaller clubs like Preston, Burnley etc still survive and to a certain extent flourish on much smaller gates and fan base than us - in the old days it was true as primary income was from gate receipts - in todays world gate receipts dont even cover wages let alone team strengthening - so the only options are extremely good and well utilised youth systems, a sugar Mum or Dad with a bottomless pockets, sustained periods in the PL to gain the fortunes from TV money (but this means riduculous wage bills), but the key is a strong nucleus of OWN players with mixture of old heads and young talent who are all pulling in the same direction lead by a talented and motivated management team- with this we can be sure to make reasonable progress in the Championship with the odd flutter in the PL - but to have a sustained period in the PL the rich sugar Dad or Mum is required.

Share this post


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

[quote user="TheCanaryFan"]You might be right Tom. I just pray you''re not serious.[/quote]

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich. The Norwich Board have made managerial mistakes but most Boards do hence why managers tend not to last very long in the job.

I think that some people need to put emotions to one side, take a step back, and take stock to see that Norwich City is a very good club that is STILL the envy of many.

[/quote]

Can we hear your personal assessment of our local population and Bristol`s please?  Ie., what actual figures you are basing it on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom

I take it you have recently graduated from the Neil Doncaster College of Spin.

The board have backed managers with as much money as possible, and then some. So why, after actually making profits, just a few years ago, after having two years'' parachute payments, having sell out crowds and associated sponsorship, corporate funding etc, have we gone from players such as Ashton to loan players upfront? Why have we not got a team of permanently contracted players, a decent squad? Answer, the money invested in the team (not as much as possible) has gone on agent fees, loan player fees (in some instances paying for players who didn''t even get on the pitch) and contracting very average players (Cureton) on a long contract.

Most of the club''s income goes on servicing the debts (which the board have built up to incredible levels), investing on crazy property investment schemes, a huge non-playing staff budget, including FIVE full time press officers, and then there''s Mr Doncaster on £180,00 a year, plus £12,000 pension contributions.

We have had considerable money in, but not enough spent on the team, and the managers.....

Paying off all those managers eh? Just bad luck, or bad judgement. We can decide, but the facts speak for themselves. We are now in the third division of football. Some achievement for a board who has built their entire policy on the slogan of prudence with ambition and of course the current one, following the Charlton model.

Paying too much on players'' wages - just because we pay a player a ridiculous sum of money doesn''t mean to say he''s going to be any good. It just points to bad judgement - and who is responsible for that, well the manager and the Chief Executive for negotiating the deals in the first place.

Managers spending their budget wisely - okay, but is the manager wise in the first place? And if he is what constraints is he working under. Our last half decent manager Nigel Worthington fought for a decent budget with the board, and even he told the press that no one did business in the summer, while all around us were recruiting we were merely issuing sound bites to the local press (or excuses if you are being harsh).

Potential - this is huge, but sadly unrealised. We have a huge catchment area and few clubs within 100 miles. We are not situated in London or the Midlands where there are many clubs, we are in rural Norfolk. Added to that the city is growing, and it''s a largely young population moving in. We have the ground already, where other clubs have had to rebuild to their cost (Southampton). We have a very loyal season ticket base, far greater than most clubs outside the Premiership, and bigger than some in it. The one thing holding us back is the policy of the board. Small time thinking, again and again missing opportunities and not doing enough to attract investment and therefore building the club, not only in stature, but size too. For too long Delia and co have stuck to their mantra of community club instead of winning club. This has deterred potential investment, and the investment she has attracted (Turners, Cullum) she has managed to alienate with policy decisions and farcical share prices.

Drive Delia out? No, but change her thinking yes. Her and her board are totally responsible for where we are today, they appointed the managers who have taken us to this point. They have sought investment (where is it?), they have appointed the staff at the top who are wholly incompetent and not up to the job, they have built up massive debt while building up their own share portfolio, they have taken a once proud and successful club and turned it into a shambles, a sorry shadow of what it once was.

Guilty, guilty and guilty again as charged. All of them out and the sooner the better. And yes, there will be people willing to take over the reins, but you don''t find if you don''t look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Curly Yellow"]

Good post Tom and I agree with you. The Board''s only real mistake in my view is to pick managers who have been unsuccessful, but that''s the luck of the draw and it''s easy to be judgemental using hindsight. They have backed each manager''s judgement and provided a supportive environment as far as possible.

[/quote]Have you heard of due diligence, robust interview techniques and a comprehensive selection policy? All reasons why many clubs do NOT change manager as often as we do - they have processes in place and knowledgeable people around them which help them make good decisions. From Hamilton to Gunn, every decision bar Worthy was a shocker... Peter Grant, best man for the job?  Really?  On what criteria?  Experience?  "Prudence with ambition" and then we give the keys to the club to a completely unproven liability?  Show me the prudence there.And Tom, you just got served by Gazza''s post. Pick the bones out of that.

Share this post


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

I take it you have recently graduated from the Neil Doncaster College of Spin.

The board have backed managers with as much money as possible, and then some. So why, after actually making profits, just a few years ago, after having two years'' parachute payments, having sell out crowds and associated sponsorship, corporate funding etc, have we gone from players such as Ashton to loan players upfront? Why have we not got a team of permanently contracted players, a decent squad? Answer, the money invested in the team (not as much as possible) has gone on agent fees, loan player fees (in some instances paying for players who didn''t even get on the pitch) and contracting very average players (Cureton) on a long contract.

Most of the club''s income goes on servicing the debts (which the board have built up to incredible levels), investing on crazy property investment schemes, a huge non-playing staff budget, including FIVE full time press officers, and then there''s Mr Doncaster on £180,00 a year, plus £12,000 pension contributions.

We have had considerable money in, but not enough spent on the team, and the managers.....

Paying off all those managers eh? Just bad luck, or bad judgement. We can decide, but the facts speak for themselves. We are now in the third division of football. Some achievement for a board who has built their entire policy on the slogan of prudence with ambition and of course the current one, following the Charlton model.

Paying too much on players'' wages - just because we pay a player a ridiculous sum of money doesn''t mean to say he''s going to be any good. It just points to bad judgement - and who is responsible for that, well the manager and the Chief Executive for negotiating the deals in the first place.

Managers spending their budget wisely - okay, but is the manager wise in the first place? And if he is what constraints is he working under. Our last half decent manager Nigel Worthington fought for a decent budget with the board, and even he told the press that no one did business in the summer, while all around us were recruiting we were merely issuing sound bites to the local press (or excuses if you are being harsh).

Potential - this is huge, but sadly unrealised. We have a huge catchment area and few clubs within 100 miles. We are not situated in London or the Midlands where there are many clubs, we are in rural Norfolk. Added to that the city is growing, and it''s a largely young population moving in. We have the ground already, where other clubs have had to rebuild to their cost (Southampton). We have a very loyal season ticket base, far greater than most clubs outside the Premiership, and bigger than some in it. The one thing holding us back is the policy of the board. Small time thinking, again and again missing opportunities and not doing enough to attract investment and therefore building the club, not only in stature, but size too. For too long Delia and co have stuck to their mantra of community club instead of winning club. This has deterred potential investment, and the investment she has attracted (Turners, Cullum) she has managed to alienate with policy decisions and farcical share prices.

Drive Delia out? No, but change her thinking yes. Her and her board are totally responsible for where we are today, they appointed the managers who have taken us to this point. They have sought investment (where is it?), they have appointed the staff at the top who are wholly incompetent and not up to the job, they have built up massive debt while building up their own share portfolio, they have taken a once proud and successful club and turned it into a shambles, a sorry shadow of what it once was.

Guilty, guilty and guilty again as charged. All of them out and the sooner the better. And yes, there will be people willing to take over the reins, but you don''t find if you don''t look.[/quote]

I agree with everything Gazza says above. The board is supposed to lead and live or die by those choices. They have screwed up royally on a number of occasions now; Worthy was pure luck as they went for the cheapest option again.

Their decisions have been shocking; doubly so as when we did get to the Prem, they promised us they knew the risks and had budgeted accordingly, prudence with ambition was banded about; we believed them.

And they messed up, and now we''re in a worse position than before we got there; how is that?

We must start holding the board to account; we the shareholders and fans have a duty to later generations of supporters.

I hope that next season we can do what Leicester did this season and take League 1, Division 3, by storm; but right now I have my doubts.

We need experience in charge, not rookies. Sorry Gunny, et al, but we cannot afford to take risks, no matter what the cost.

Share this post


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

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

Share this post


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

The Board have backed managers with as much money as possible and then some. It is just a shame for everyone that the managers were not very good. The Board even got Dave Stringer to help them make a choice. Even so, Roeder did save the club from relegation when it looked like relegation certs, so even he was a very good choice at the time.

Regardless, many clubs make the same managerial mistakes as the average job time for a football manager is about 18 months. It is obviously very hard to get a good manager - which is why Worthy was given as long as possible before he was driven out by fans.

I find it laughable that fans accuse the Board of spending too much money on players wages whilst others say the club lacks ambition. Which is it to be?

 It is up to a manager to spend his budget wisely - and that obviously hasn''t happened.

Some fans talk of the potential of Norwich City, but Norwich can only support a medium sized club as Norwich does not have a huge local population. The stadium is nearly full for most games so Norwich City is not far from its potential off the pitch. Therefore, off the pitch the Board have done a good job to help reach the potential.

Take Bristol for example, Norwich City get higher crowds than Bristol City & Bristol Rovers added together, and Bristol has a massive local population many, many times bigger than Norwich. Go talk to those clubs about the meaning of potential.

What''s next? drive out Delia and Co without a wealthy replacement and then see the club become the next Luton, Notts County, or Oxford Utd? Is that what you guys want?

[/quote]

Yep...I''d take uncertainty over incessant failure any day.

Just another "fan" scared of standing on his own two feet without their "saviour" to protect them. There was life long before Smith came along and there will be again when she''s gone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points in the Opening Post, and it''s good to see someone trying to think about what has happened to our great club rather than screaming for the head of Mr Doncaster / the Board / the players / the tea lady or whatever without having an alternative.

However, I can''t agree that we can''t expect better. The fact that we are in our lowest league position for half a century would seem to indicate that League One isn''t our natural level. The fact that our attendances, and season ticket sales, were (and still would be) among the best in the Championship would seem to confirm that we ought to expect to be a competitive Championship Club with premiership aspirations.

Getting back to where we ought to be should start with an analysis of what went wrong, and move from that to what is needed to put it right. And that means looking at what went wrong in a longer term, strategic sense, not in the sense of "Was it right to put Shackell at left back against Charlton? (answer: "No". But we''ve been in decline for four years, it''s not the occasional tactical errors that all managers make that got us there). If "putting it right" (a) means the removal of Mr Doncaster / the Board / the players / the tea lady and (b) there is an alternative available, then, yes, they should go. If their removal wouldn''t help, or there is no alternative, then, no, they shouldn''t.

Everyone will have different views as to what exactly when wrong, but I''m guessing there might be broad consensus around some if not all of the following:

- Too many loan players, not enough of whom cared and who, even when they did care, were here today, gone tomorrow, and therefore undermined any chance of building a settled and competitive team. Probably one of the biggest causes for our downfall. Who''s to blame? There have been other loanees, but it was Roeder who made this the central plank of his strategy, deluding himself that his "premiership contacts" would enable him to build a premiership side on the cheap. What needs to be done? Probably, on this point, not a lot. I think the lesson has been well and truly learned - see comments from Gunn and Munby.

- Signing the wrong type of player. To get out of the Championship, and even more, to get out of League One, a team needs a particular kind of balance. This probably amounts to having eight or nine strong, fit, physical and large players who will compete physically, plus one or two "flair" or "quality" players to provide creativity. Which isn''t to say that the strong, fit, physical players aren''t "quality" too, just that what they bring to the table is in part their physical presence. One couldn''t play eleven Hoolahans, or even eleven Huckerbys. Who''s to blame? Successive managers, starting with Worthington who got rid of the physical presence of Malky and Roberts and replaced them with smaller, less physical players. Grant carried on the trend (e.g., Lappin, whose conduct I hugely admire, and who may yet have a role, but whose greatest admirer wouldn''t call him physical). Roeder spotted the problem, talked about buying bigger players, and then went out and bought or loaned Sammy Clinghan, Wes Hoolahan, Arturo Lupoli, Antoine Falloverski, etc etc. I''m not saying that some of these weren''t good signings, but as the answer to an acknowledged need to bulk up the team it was a simply bizarre transfer policy. Gunn, actually, and to his credit, did do a bit better here, bringing in the robust Lee, and bringing Shackell back. What needs to be done? Well, get the transfer policy right - it will be even more important now, given that we are going to be relying in large part on our youth team who, almost by definition, are not large. Again, it''s not clear to me that this is, in itself, a reason for parting company with Gunn, who seems to have done more to put this right than his predecessors.

-Not having enough leaders on the pitch. Worthington let Malky and Roberts go, Roeder shamefully got rid of Huckerby, Dion retired, and we never replaced them. Who''s to blame? Worthington, Grant and Roeder. Gunn, again, seems to have the point on board.

-Living beyond our means in terms of our squad. Our expenses are more than income. Plainly we''ve spent too much on players and players'' wages. I went to all but two of last season''s home matches, and bought a program most times. I can only recall one occasion when the list of our squad on the back page was not bigger than the opposition''s squad. Mostly by three or four, sometimes by double that. Who''s to blame? Presumably the Board or the CEO ought to have addressed that. What needs to be done? Well, this would be one instance that points to parting company with either the Board or the CEO, though I don''t have enough information to know which is to blame.

-Living beyond our means off the pitch. I don''t know if the various catering ventures have been a financial drain. One often reads (see Waghorn''s site) that they actually contribute income to the playing side. If so, the criticism aimed at them is unfair, and short sighted, but I can''t know if that''s right. What''s to be done? Clearly staff costs are going to have to be cut. If it''s true that Mr Doncaster is paid £180,000 per annum then that can''t be sustainable for a League One club. If there''s a way for Mr Doncaster to stay, it has to be in cutting staff costs, starting with a large cut in his own salary.

-Tactical naivety. One shouldn''t focus on individual mistakes in particular games, the malaise is bigger than that. A fan''s perspective, never the less, is that our managers seem to make more than their fair share of gaffes. Gunn has often betrayed inexperience e.g. failing to close down the Southampton at home game, or the team for Charlton. There again, an "experienced" manager is no guarantee of success; the blindness of Roeder to our need for a target man seems to me a much bigger cause. What''s to be done? Easy to say "Pick the right manager" but, as Roeder showed, even the "experienced" make mistakes. There''s an argument for saying the one thing we haven''t had is a manager experienced at a lower level. Our delusions of grandeur have led us to appoint people either with no experience (Gunn, Grant) or with experience at a higher level e.g., Roeder but not someone with experience at the level we''re at. Which would point to someone like Boothroyd. There is an argument for going with Gunn, though, namely….

-Too much chopping and changing. We’ve had four managers in three years. Which can''t help. And besides constant upheaval, it''s expensive. At some point, we''re going to have to back our man and give him time. Even Sir Alex Ferguson needed Board support and patience at the outset.

-Not enough investors. The argument about what happened when Mr Cullum did or didn''t make his offer is now sterile: if Cullum has the money now, he''ll come forward. If he hasn''t, then unless someone has an alternative, wishing for the current Board to go is just wishful thinking.

If all that’s right, and in the absence of a big investor appearing, we''re best to stick with a policy of developing our own players and building a team, signing players who can do the job in the division we''re in, not the one we''d like to be in, cutting expenses on and off the pitch including the CEO''s salary, and either sticking with Gunn or going for someone like Boothroyd but then giving it time. A young team with a few old heads isn''t going to gel immediately, it may take a couple of seasons (see Forest). But we''ll get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good attempt to provide a reasoned perspective.  All the clubs quoted as doing better than us, Preston and Burnley for example, are enjoying success now. But over the years they have also had lean periods.  Look at the number of clubs that have been in the top league and are now struggling.  Oxford, Luton, Bradford could all have been quoted as examples of success at one time.  Enjoy success when you get it but be prepared for the hard times.  Having a wealthy backer and throwing money at a club does not guarantee success either.  Man City and Newcastle spring to mind  in this category.  QPR haven''t set the world alight yet either and they now have very wealthy backers.  The board have made mistakes in appointing managers but what club hasn''t?  Can anyone realistically draw up a specification for the next manager to guarantee success?  Same with the board.  What are the criteria for their replacement?  We have been assured that we are not in danger of folding and going into administreation.  As long as this remains true then the board have had some success and may be seen to be more realistic than many give them credit for.  Should this change then the board really will have lost all credibility.  They may have made poor decisions on the managemer side but I believe they have backed their appointments as best they could.  Hindsight is wonderful but constructive support is much harder.  So......

Give me  specifications for successful board and manager and then match candidates to that spec. Or carry on ranting without responsibility.  It may be good for the soul but the time for anger and hurt is over.  We now all need to work together for the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Curly Yellow"]

Good post Tom and I agree with you. The Board''s only real mistake in my view is to pick managers who have been unsuccessful, but that''s the luck of the draw and it''s easy to be judgemental using hindsight. They have backed each manager''s judgement and provided a supportive environment as far as possible.

[/quote]

Have you heard of due diligence, robust interview techniques and a comprehensive selection policy? All reasons why many clubs do NOT change manager as often as we do - they have processes in place and knowledgeable people around them which help them make good decisions. From Hamilton to Gunn, every decision bar Worthy was a shocker... Peter Grant, best man for the job?  Really?  On what criteria?  Experience?  "Prudence with ambition" and then we give the keys to the club to a completely unproven liability?  Show me the prudence there.

[/quote]

Clubs often change managers until they find a good one. On average, Managers don''t last long in the job which says that the vast majority of clubs struggle to find a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

Census data:

Luton 184,000
Oxford 134,248
Nottingham 266,988
Norwich 121,550
Bristol 380,615

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

Census data:

Luton 184,000
Oxford 134,248
Nottingham 266,988
Norwich 121,550
Bristol 380,615

[/quote]

You can add another 70k on to the figure for Norwich, parts of Norwich like Costessey, Thorpe and Hellesdon among others are classed as South Norfolk and Broadland even though they are part of Norwich and aren''t included in the population figures for the city.  The population of Norwich City is currently around 128k but if you ake the greater Norwich are which includes the suburbs it is nearer to 200k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

According to a survey about a year ago, City is the 15th most popular team in the country.  Aside from local factors, just look at this Board or ask around in the ground to see how widespread our fanbase is.  This Club has a huge following and huge potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

Census data:

Luton 184,000Oxford 134,248Nottingham 266,988Norwich 121,550Bristol 380,615

[/quote]Oh dear no wonder we have a ''small town'' mentality.[img]http://www.norwich.gov.uk/local_plan/images/oview.jpg[/img]
  • The population of the Norwich Travel to Work Area i.e. the

    area of Norwich in which most people both live and work, is 367,035 and

    the 1991 figure was 351,340
  • 121,600 people live in the Norwich City Council area.
So people living in parts of Hellesdon or any further out aren''t local to Norwich then, good argument Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would also add that Norfolk has a population of 750,000 - 800,000 which can easily be included in Norwich''s catchment area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

Census data:

Luton 184,000Oxford 134,248Nottingham 266,988Norwich 121,550Bristol 380,615

[/quote]"368,000 people live in Greater Norwich and the Norwich policy area has

a population of 230,000, which is predicted to grow to 280,000 by 2025

comparable to the present size of Nottingham. About 123,000 people work

in the Norwich area, which makes it the largest labour market in the

East of England and it is the fifth most popular retail centre in

England. Greater Norwich has a challenging growth agenda; the regional

spatial strategy proposes growth of 33,000 dwellings and 35,000

additional jobs by 2021."[url]http://www.eastofengland.uk.com/res/265.asp[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Tom. It''s nice to see a thread started which is different from the usual norm of three lined opinions about certain matters about the club, i.e "we''re doomed!" and so on. (Obviously they are usually right, but they don''t exactly form interesting debates right from the off).

My theory is this, the board are absolutely responsible for their managerial appoiontments. I believe this basically started with Peter Grant. After Worthington''s dismissal we needed to make sure we brought in a manager of reasonable quality in order to avoid slipping down the Championship pecking order and Grant, an unproven no #2 at West Ham, was simply not the correct choice. It was a thoughtless appointment which screamed mediocrity and no ambition. I know finances were probably a bit tight but they damn sure weren''t as bad as they are now. Roeder in the short term was actually a decent move in my opinion as he very nearly gave us a chance at the playoffs. But even towards the end of that season he seemed to lose his way and his arrogance and attention seeking nature came to light. Then there was the summer clearout and the loan fiasco which has since ruined the club. I will at least give credit to the board for getting shot of him after the Charlton game.

Then comes the Gunn appointment. The general opinion now is that Gunn was the wrong choice for the position. If I was in charge what I would have done differently is keep Gunn in the managerial role on a caretaker basis until the funds could be raised to bring in a suitable replacement. Surely the likes of Carl Moore would be able to help raise funds for this scenario if need be? He''s been helpful in the past.

Generally, the boards inability to save money is also accountable. The money we have made from the transfers seems to have just gone to a black hole somewhere. When such players as Etuhu were sold we needed to make sure they were replaced with players of similar quality. This just hasn''t been the case and look where we are now.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

According to a survey about a year ago, City is the 15th most popular team in the country.  Aside from local factors, just look at this Board or ask around in the ground to see how widespread our fanbase is.  This Club has a huge following and huge potential.

[/quote]

Indeed the club has become one of the most popular which suggests that despite results on the pitch, the Board have been getting it right off the pitch to attract fans to the club - and so the club is reaching its potential in that respect.

Regarding population, if you want to add areas further afield to Norwich then you must also do the same with other clubs to make a fair comparison.

For example, Bristol has nearly 1 million people within a short distance when including towns such as Bath, Weston-super-mare, and South Glos council areas that are within Bristol postcodes.

Norfolk is sparsely populated over a greater distance. It can take an hour travelling from North Norfolk to Norwich.

Share this post


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

Regarding population, if you want to add areas further afield to Norwich then you must also do the same with other clubs to make a fair comparison.

For example, Bristol has nearly 1 million people within a short distance when including towns such as Bath, Weston-super-mare, and South Glos council areas that are within Bristol postcodes.

Norfolk is sparsely populated over a greater distance. It can take an hour travelling from North Norfolk to Norwich.

[/quote]Well I bet those Fakenham Furriners are chuffed to bits now that Peterborough gained promotion to the Championship. Costessey to Coventry has been a bit of a drag for the loyal Sky Blues fans, shame there isn''t another club a lot closer to home to support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

Regarding population, if you want to add areas further afield to Norwich then you must also do the same with other clubs to make a fair comparison.

For example, Bristol has nearly 1 million people within a short distance when including towns such as Bath, Weston-super-mare, and South Glos council areas that are within Bristol postcodes.

Norfolk is sparsely populated over a greater distance. It can take an hour travelling from North Norfolk to Norwich.

[/quote]

Well I bet those Fakenham Furriners are chuffed to bits now that Peterborough gained promotion to the Championship. Costessey to Coventry has been a bit of a drag for the loyal Sky Blues fans, shame there isn''t another club a lot closer to home to support.


[/quote]

There is, and despite results on the pitch the Norwich City board have done very well to attract so many local people to games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Apathy FC"][quote user="tom cavendish"]

 

I''m very serious. Luton, Notts County, Oxford Utd etc. have a far higher number of local people so have a greater potential than Norwich.

[/quote]

 

You might want to check your figures, as that statement is nonsense.

[/quote]

According to a survey about a year ago, City is the 15th most popular team in the country.  Aside from local factors, just look at this Board or ask around in the ground to see how widespread our fanbase is.  This Club has a huge following and huge potential.

[/quote]

Indeed the club has become one of the most popular which suggests that despite results on the pitch, the Board have been getting it right off the pitch to attract fans to the club - and so the club is reaching its potential in that respect.

Regarding population, if you want to add areas further afield to Norwich then you must also do the same with other clubs to make a fair comparison.

For example, Bristol has nearly 1 million people within a short distance when including towns such as Bath, Weston-super-mare, and South Glos council areas that are within Bristol postcodes.

Norfolk is sparsely populated over a greater distance. It can take an hour travelling from North Norfolk to Norwich.

[/quote]

I really would stop digging if i were you tom.  I notice you don`t comment on Apathy fc`s figure for greater Norwich above....a tad inconvenient perhaps?  You are correct about Bristol having a population of over 1 million to draw from, but they also have two well-supported football clubs and a very obvious liking for the oval ball in those parts.

Norfolks population is 830,000 people, the Waveney area of Suffolk about 200,000.  We actually attract support from much further afield than those areas but even so over a million people to draw from for ONE football club with no competition from any other major sports isn`t all bad is it?  You can comfortably get to our fine City in 30-40 minutes from almost any part of this area- a City which incidently has the biggest economy in the Eastern region and is a top ten retail centre in the entire country.  Not really the insignificant little country City you portray is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sure the playing with numbers attempted by Buckethead and Apathy could also be applied to the other areas.  We do have a good support base though, 15thbiggest sounds about right.  This could increase when Yarmouth becomes a route into Europe, with the inevitable increase in trade and population that will arise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]I''m sure the playing with numbers attempted by Buckethead and Apathy could also be applied to the other areas.  We do have a good support base though, 15thbiggest sounds about right.  This could increase when Yarmouth becomes a route into Europe, with the inevitable increase in trade and population that will arise.[/quote]Please Blah the numbers I quoted came straight from the Norwich City Council website and have not been altered or played with in any way the quotes being verbatim.If there''s anyone here from Hellesdon, Drayton, Taverham, Catton, Costessey etc. etc who feels that Norwich is a little bit far to go for a local team when Peterborough, Hull, Coventry and Leicester are ''just up the road'' I''d love to hear from them, maybe I really have got it wrong in assuming that Norwich is the local team if you live in Norfolk but outside the ring road.[8-)]

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...