1996 - ?.. Is it all down to the Wicked Cook?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

I have fully addressed and answered the question with my opinion as to why those clubs have underachieved, you ignore it because you don`t like it.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[/quote]

Eddie the KING!

 Which one for tonight?....Decisions.....decisions....

 

[T 190]

Well done to Mr C for identifying the clubs which typically have wealthier owners.

Our average attendance is premier league however because the fans pay low prices our fan revenue which is the more important factor is only top half championship. However, the more signifiacant driver these days is owner wealth where we our lower championship. However, the club has on average out-performed its lower half financial position for two reasons. Firstly, because the owners have given the club a greater proportion of their wealth than other owners and secondly because the club has sensibly invested in infrastructure like other progressive clubs to increase the fan base, increase other sources of revenue and make an unattractive geographic location more attractive to football players. Undoubtedly as the owners acknowledge,league one is below the clubs lower championship financial position which is due to poor choice of managers, which the owners have recognised and sought to rectify. In a business where the financial landscape has fundamentally changed, the club has actually on average outperformed rather than underperformed the financial reality of wealthier benefactors coming into the game but obviously that needs a basic understanding of finance to appreciate.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[/quote]

You`ve accused me of being blinkered yet you then admit you can`t tell me what i`m supposed to be seeing if i remove said blinkers.

What this boils down to is that you can`t accept the obvious mismanagement and crippling debts for infrastructure which have nobbled most of those clubs, as it would implicate D and M.  So you invent some supposed mysterious "other" explanation, admit you haven`t got a clue what it is, then label people "blinkered" for not acknowledging your non-existant explanation!  Classic nutty, i`m sure you`ve had your fun for the day [Y]

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[/quote]

You`ve accused me of being blinkered yet you then admit you can`t tell me what i`m supposed to be seeing if i remove said blinkers.

What this boils down to is that you can`t accept the obvious mismanagement and crippling debts for infrastructure which have nobbled most of those clubs, as it would implicate D and M.  So you invent some supposed mysterious "other" explanation, admit you haven`t got a clue what it is, then label people "blinkered" for not acknowledging your non-existant explanation!  Classic nutty, i`m sure you`ve had your fun for the day [Y]

[/quote]

Are you from Newcastle as well?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Well done to Mr C for identifying the clubs which typically have wealthier owners.

Our average attendance is premier league however because the fans pay low prices our fan revenue which is the more important factor is only top half championship. However, the more signifiacant driver these days is owner wealth where we our lower championship. However, the club has on average out-performed its lower half financial position for two reasons. Firstly, because the owners have given the club a greater proportion of their wealth than other owners and secondly because the club has sensibly invested in infrastructure like other progressive clubs to increase the fan base, increase other sources of revenue and make an unattractive geographic location more attractive to football players. Undoubtedly as the owners acknowledge,league one is below the clubs lower championship financial position which is due to poor choice of managers, which the owners have recognised and sought to rectify. In a business where the financial landscape has fundamentally changed, the club has actually on average outperformed rather than underperformed the financial reality of wealthier benefactors coming into the game but obviously that needs a basic understanding of finance to appreciate.

[/quote]

Let`s see some figures as to how much those clubs have had invested against our own.  Otherwise it`s just more of the usual platitudes and assumptions.

One thing that is fact is that debts for infrastructure sent Saints, Ipswich, Leicester, Darlington etc. into administration and could well do the same to us.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[/quote]

You`ve accused me of being blinkered yet you then admit you can`t tell me what i`m supposed to be seeing if i remove said blinkers.

What this boils down to is that you can`t accept the obvious mismanagement and crippling debts for infrastructure which have nobbled most of those clubs, as it would implicate D and M.  So you invent some supposed mysterious "other" explanation, admit you haven`t got a clue what it is, then label people "blinkered" for not acknowledging your non-existant explanation!  Classic nutty, i`m sure you`ve had your fun for the day [Y]

[/quote]

Are you from Newcastle as well?

[/quote]

Well if i answer "no", i`m sure nutty will come up with a waffling seven-paragrapher trying to persuade me that i really am......[;)]

Fu**ing YES! Just equalised!!

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I haven''t ignored anything. If you believe the underlying reason why those nine clubs, who used to regularly appear in the top 6 with us, now can''t regain their former status is because they have been mismanaged then that''s fair enough. I am not so sure. I think it''s a lot more complex than that. I think that at least a couple of them would still appear in the top six occasionally if that''s all there is to it.

Anyway, I''ve got to go to work now. Otherwise I''d be at gillingham instead of on here.

 

[/quote]

You`ve accused me of being blinkered yet you then admit you can`t tell me what i`m supposed to be seeing if i remove said blinkers.

What this boils down to is that you can`t accept the obvious mismanagement and crippling debts for infrastructure which have nobbled most of those clubs, as it would implicate D and M.  So you invent some supposed mysterious "other" explanation, admit you haven`t got a clue what it is, then label people "blinkered" for not acknowledging your non-existant explanation!  Classic nutty, i`m sure you`ve had your fun for the day [Y]

[/quote]

Are you from Newcastle as well?

[/quote]

Well if i answer "no", i`m sure nutty will come up with a waffling seven-paragrapher trying to persuade me that i really am......[;)]

Fu**ing YES! Just equalised!!

[/quote]

HA''WAY THE CANARIES!  [:D][Y]

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="T"]

Well done to Mr C for identifying the clubs which typically have wealthier owners.

Our average attendance is premier league however because the fans pay low prices our fan revenue which is the more important factor is only top half championship. However, the more signifiacant driver these days is owner wealth where we our lower championship. However, the club has on average out-performed its lower half financial position for two reasons. Firstly, because the owners have given the club a greater proportion of their wealth than other owners and secondly because the club has sensibly invested in infrastructure like other progressive clubs to increase the fan base, increase other sources of revenue and make an unattractive geographic location more attractive to football players. Undoubtedly as the owners acknowledge,league one is below the clubs lower championship financial position which is due to poor choice of managers, which the owners have recognised and sought to rectify. In a business where the financial landscape has fundamentally changed, the club has actually on average outperformed rather than underperformed the financial reality of wealthier benefactors coming into the game but obviously that needs a basic understanding of finance to appreciate.

[/quote]

Let`s see some figures as to how much those clubs have had invested against our own.  Otherwise it`s just more of the usual platitudes and assumptions.

One thing that is fact is that debts for infrastructure sent Saints, Ipswich, Leicester, Darlington etc. into administration and could well do the same to us.

[/quote]

You seem to be losing it Mr C - You yourself provided the figures for how much we have invested and the analysis demonstrating that the revenues from off-field activites exceeds the cost of servicing the loans has already been long since debated with the exception of the land which I still think will come good long-term. I''m willing to forgive your oversight though as you more importantly highlighted we had just equalised before I noticed it on the live text!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

T, i asked for a comparison between investment at our club and the investment you assume at the clubs i listed.  Where is it?

Given that in `08 we could afford to spend £1.9m out of £19m income on our football team, what do you think our affordable football budget would have been for that year without the contributions you seem so sure of (without any evidence)?  We would have been the only club in the country who literally couldn`t afford a football team at all (despite £10m ticket and tv income alone) wouldn`t we?

[T 190]

Which is Mr C have we spent too little or too much on infrastrucure - make you mind up. We spent 8.5 not 1.9 and you know it.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Hoorrraaayy!!

I shall die a happy man.

Why? Well, I have taught nutty something - the word benchmarking and the meaning thereof.

Now I bet not many others of you have a similar achievement to boast about.

Sighhhhh.....[8]

OTBC

 

 

[William Darby 0]

So how long is Nutty''s piece of string?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Hoorrraaayy!!

I shall die a happy man.

Why? Well, I have taught nutty something - the word benchmarking and the meaning thereof.

Now I bet not many others of you have a similar achievement to boast about.

[/quote]Benchmarking: The scuffs left behind on the subs bench by Jamie Cureton every Saturday afternoon.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

So many questions[*-)]

Mr Carrow - Not everyone knows the answer to everything. That''s why I threw this question open on here. Blah at least attempted an answer where as you and most others just used it as yet another platform to air your pet grievances. To join this group I would have to add that the reason all these clubs are unable to live up to their glorious benchmarking past is because they didn''t stick with decent football managers when they had them. But I am not so single minded. I think it''s naieve in the extreme to say the reason that all our contemporaries from the 80''s and early 90''s have been mismanaged while so many other clubs have come from nowhere and been well managed. I have a hunch that if those clubs drink from the poisoned chalice of the Premier league they will soon join your list of mis-managed clubs. It is possible to recognise that the majority shareholders have mis-managed the club and also look for underlying reasons why clubs can''t repeat their glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s. It''s just you are too blinkered to do so.

Mello - Last saturday of the month meant it was bingo and bogs. What''s your point pet[:^)]

Babes - Thanks for the education[Y] Now let''s see if I''ve understood the meaning and can use the new word in context[:-*] How about : "If Bly''s posts were the benchmark of the rest of this messageboard nobody would ever come here anymore".

The slow b*gger - The piece of string is endless just like my patience[;)]

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So many questions[*-)]

Mr Carrow - Not everyone knows the answer to everything. That''s why I threw this question open on here. Blah at least attempted an answer where as you and most others just used it as yet another platform to air your pet grievances. To join this group I would have to add that the reason all these clubs are unable to live up to their glorious benchmarking past is because they didn''t stick with decent football managers when they had them. But I am not so single minded. I think it''s naieve in the extreme to say the reason that all our contemporaries from the 80''s and early 90''s have been mismanaged while so many other clubs have come from nowhere and been well managed. I have a hunch that if those clubs drink from the poisoned chalice of the Premier league they will soon join your list of mis-managed clubs. It is possible to recognise that the majority shareholders have mis-managed the club and also look for underlying reasons why clubs can''t repeat their glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s. It''s just you are too blinkered to do so.

Mello - Last saturday of the month meant it was bingo and bogs. What''s your point pet[:^)]

Babes - Thanks for the education[Y] Now let''s see if I''ve understood the meaning and can use the new word in context[:-*] How about : "If Bly''s posts were the benchmark of the rest of this messageboard nobody would ever come here anymore".

The slow b*gger - The piece of string is endless just like my patience[;)]

 

[/quote]

Doncaster and Mandleson spring to mind when debating with you Nutty old mate.[;)]

[William Darby 0]

And some questions Nutty...

Did you just say ''they didn''t stick with decent managers when they had them''?  Forest stuck with Clough when he was a liability, so imo that is not the magic bullet answer.What is the criteria for being a contemporary?  Why do you put an apostrophe in 80s and 90s?What is the definition of  ''mismanaged''?If you realise not everybody knows the answers to everything, why do you dismiss the answers you get from your questions if you don''t like them?If the Nutty criteria for a benchmark is top 6 prem team ,  why can''t you find a single poster who thinks we should still be a top 6 prem team?If fans have generally lowered reasonable expectations for NCFC to ''decent champ looking to make playoffs'' (for the sake of argument) because they know football has moved on. Why do you use the 80s and 90s to base you arguments when any any level headed supporter knows even if we had a cheque for £100m it still wouldn''t guarantee a City rise to those heady days again?

[KenBrown 0]

Thanks nutty for trying to put the bigger picture of the game and the canaries into a context.

Whilst I do not think the Bosman rule etc was the issue but a symptom of the problem.

The game has gone through a massive change The game turned into a worldwide circus with money being the centre. Some had money (manure) some were lucky with investment ( Chelski) some gambled ( and failed - Leeds)

Success has only come to a few.

Many fans (and many messageboards) bemoan the performance of their board at their club It is difficult for fans to be objective as they just want to see their club at the top of the pile.

The Cooks biggest problem is that her pocket is deep enough to make a sizeable gamble. (She has made other mistakes especially over the managers) If she had more money and invested more the fans would be ecstatic with her . Or would they If the canaries were 14th in the PL then the same issues would come to light. More investment required to get into the top6 same criticism

The problem is that the owners would sell at the right price The right price for the owners is different from the the right price from the fans Ah get rid of the owner out and forget your money ! and let somebody else have ago is the usual cry The canaries of course. Actually no, that ''s Spurs currently 4th in the PL!

It doesnt mean that the fans should accept their lot but they should ask why somebody wont pay the asking price

Canaries real problem was to not re structure and adapt to life in the lower league (championship) when it happened but then the fans would let that happen. The team was not good enough to stay in the prem It should have got shot of all those it could and started again.

Contracts ere the biggest issue. Well players will have to reap what they sow and have reduced contracts if they fail Now just look at Hull the exalted as being a successful club early in the post and Pompey. It is vicious in the football world and you have to adapt every season and be a little lucky ( Hull again and Burnley) but get it wrong and it can take a very long time to get it right Leeds Charlton Southampton Sheff Wed etc And a great deal of money cos they lucky clubs or the clubs who do it just from good hard work a few and far between

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So many questions[*-)]

Mr Carrow - Not everyone knows the answer to everything. That''s why I threw this question open on here. Blah at least attempted an answer where as you and most others just used it as yet another platform to air your pet grievances. To join this group I would have to add that the reason all these clubs are unable to live up to their glorious benchmarking past is because they didn''t stick with decent football managers when they had them. But I am not so single minded. I think it''s naieve in the extreme to say the reason that all our contemporaries from the 80''s and early 90''s have been mismanaged while so many other clubs have come from nowhere and been well managed. I have a hunch that if those clubs drink from the poisoned chalice of the Premier league they will soon join your list of mis-managed clubs. It is possible to recognise that the majority shareholders have mis-managed the club and also look for underlying reasons why clubs can''t repeat their glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s. It''s just you are too blinkered to do so.

Mello - Last saturday of the month meant it was bingo and bogs. What''s your point pet[:^)]

Babes - Thanks for the education[Y] Now let''s see if I''ve understood the meaning and can use the new word in context[:-*] How about : "If Bly''s posts were the benchmark of the rest of this messageboard nobody would ever come here anymore".

The slow b*gger - The piece of string is endless just like my patience[;)]

 

[/quote]

....."OrrrrRoight!"..... "Eddie!"

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]Which is Mr C have we spent too little or too much on infrastrucure - make you mind up. We spent 8.5 not 1.9 and you know it.[/quote]

Haven`t got a clue what you`re on about T.  And you accuse me of losing it.....

If we can only afford £1.9m out of £19m income on football when gates and tv bring in £10m the expensive schemes put in place since `02 have obviously lessened the amount available to invest in team- particularly when you consider we could afford a much bigger football budget in `02 and little Preston could afford much more than us.

Debts for infrastructure have sent many of our contemporaries into administration.  Our new Chairman pointedly stated that we exist "to win football matches, not to build a property portfolio".  Our new CE stated that our financial situation was "dire" and that the debts (all for infrastructure) were the clubs biggest problem.  The evidence is clear and utterly obvious that our approach has been very wrong yet you, without the figures to back up your argument, keep spinning the same nonsense.

Also, the figures i am refering to relate to the `07-`08 season, the £8.5m figure was an unsubstantiated figure put out for LAST season by our discredited ex-CE.  I look forward to the day you actually get something right.....

[T 190]

Ideally we would only spend 1.5m but in practice we can and do spend a lot more as you well know.

If you bother you look at the preston cash flow statement you will see that they are reliant on player sales and cash injections from benefactors.

Anyone who understands anything about finance knows that providing that the returns exceed the cost of financing then it makes sense to take on debt.The accounts and the figures from TFA show that this is the case.  Sheff U and Burnley''s current position is based on property development. Think of taking a mortgage out on a house. The financial situation of nearly every football club is dire because too much is being spent on football. Hence the new rules proposed by UEFA.

I look forward to the day that you can grasp simple financial concepts like debt financing. I see that aviva sponsor some finance courses which perhaps you should consider so that you can rise above the ignorance displayed on this message board?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So many questions[*-)]

Mr Carrow - Not everyone knows the answer to everything. That''s why I threw this question open on here. Blah at least attempted an answer where as you and most others just used it as yet another platform to air your pet grievances. To join this group I would have to add that the reason all these clubs are unable to live up to their glorious benchmarking past is because they didn''t stick with decent football managers when they had them. But I am not so single minded. I think it''s naieve in the extreme to say the reason that all our contemporaries from the 80''s and early 90''s have been mismanaged while so many other clubs have come from nowhere and been well managed. I have a hunch that if those clubs drink from the poisoned chalice of the Premier league they will soon join your list of mis-managed clubs. It is possible to recognise that the majority shareholders have mis-managed the club and also look for underlying reasons why clubs can''t repeat their glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s. It''s just you are too blinkered to do so.

Mello - Last saturday of the month meant it was bingo and bogs. What''s your point pet[:^)]

Babes - Thanks for the education[Y] Now let''s see if I''ve understood the meaning and can use the new word in context[:-*] How about : "If Bly''s posts were the benchmark of the rest of this messageboard nobody would ever come here anymore".

The slow b*gger - The piece of string is endless just like my patience[;)]

[/quote]

Oh dear, that sin of pride.

I spoke too soon.

OTBC

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Ideally we would only spend 1.5m but in practice we can and do spend a lot more as you well know.

If you bother you look at the preston cash flow statement you will see that they are reliant on player sales and cash injections from benefactors.

Anyone who understands anything about finance knows that providing that the returns exceed the cost of financing then it makes sense to take on debt.The accounts and the figures from TFA show that this is the case.  Sheff U and Burnley''s current position is based on property development. Think of taking a mortgage out on a house. The financial situation of nearly every football club is dire because too much is being spent on football. Hence the new rules proposed by UEFA.

I look forward to the day that you can grasp simple financial concepts like debt financing. I see that aviva sponsor some finance courses which perhaps you should consider so that you can rise above the ignorance displayed on this message board?

[/quote]

Let`s see some evidence re. Sheff.Utd and Burnley please.  I know Charlton have invested in land and a fat lot of good that has done them.  Please don`t suggest i can`t grasp simple financial concepts when your whole argument is based on assumptions which you never back up with hard evidence.  Your comment in an earlier post in reference to clubs spending on infrasture that "They wouldn`t do it if it didn`t work" is one of the most stupid i have ever read on here.  Do you think businesses which go bust know that the decisions they take aren`t going to work?  Do you think the bankers knew their dubious deals would almost bring the financial system crashing down?  It only works if it works T, and for us and many of our contemporaries who have gone into administration due to debts for infrastructure it has proved an absolute nightmare.

 Our club has always had income from ticket sales, tv, sponsorship, merchandise etc., and the fact that we had much less left over to spend on our team in `08 than in `02 after non-football costs have been paid proves that the projects instigated since then are costing the club money overall.  This has pretty much been acknowledged by the new chairman and CE.  An affordable budget of 10% of income is shocking T and proves that too much money is being spent elsewhere.  But of course you could prove me wrong by finding a few similar clubs with similarly paltry affordable budgets.....??

Unless you can come up with some substance to back up your assumptions, generalisations, untruths and platitudes i`m going to have to conclude you`re a troll on a wind-up.

[William Darby 0]

Do you think the bankers knew their dubious deals would almost bring the financial system crashing down?   Well that actually is a big fat yes.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

And some answers Slow The B*gger....

 

I did just say that it was because they didn''t stick with managers when they had them. I was being ironic because a lot of posters know I was a huge fan of Worthy and I was making a comparison with others who are using this thread as a platform to air their "hobbyhorse" grievances.

 

I don''t know why I put am apostrophe in 80s and 90s, Thinking about it now I realise that it''s a plural rather than "belonging to" so it''s wrong. I, for various reasons, didn''t benefit from a great education and that frustrates me more than it does you because sometimes I can''t get my point across clearly without waffling. However, don''t confuse a lack of education with a lack of intelligence. Education teaches folk how to use the intelligence they were born with. No amount of education can put intelligence into a plank. Maybe I could take an English course alongside Mr Carrow''s accountancy lessons? I would then be able to express myself better while he could then know what he''s talking about.

 

Well I assume the definition of mismanaged is to manage poorly. I have seen it used on here a lot to describe the mistakes made by the majority shareholders by posters who refuse to address any points I make on this thread. Even though to do so would give them a chance to discuss wider issues than just finding local scapegoats to blame.

 

I don''t dismiss any answers if they are to the questions my posts asked. I know there''s loads of waffle but if you took the time to read what I am saying you would realise that I am asking what the underlying reason is for all those clubs who were successful back in the 80''s (sorry[;)] ) 80s and early 90s but have struggled to live up to their glorious benchmarking past since. Only a couple of posters have tried to debate the things that could have affected all those clubs.

 

The 80''s and early 90''s is a period in our history where we consistently competed at the top end of English football. In fact it''s the only period in our history where we have done so. It''s a period that''s used by many posters on here as a benchmark in comparison to where we are now. But it wasn''t just us. If you look I listed every club that finished in the top 6 during those 16 seasons and then isolated those who I felt were similar clubs to us. If you analyse those clubs you will find they have found the same pitfalls as us since those days.

 

I don''t think we should be a top 6 team. But I don''t like that we can''t be a top 6 team. We could in the late 80''s and early 90''s but we''ve had that taken away from us. As have Ipswich, QPR, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, Derby, Palace and so many more. I am lucky enough to have seen us play in the top flight and compete with the best. I have been lucky enough to go to Carrow Road at Easter time with a realistic chance of seeing my heroes win the double. I don''t have to like the fact that wanting that is now unrealistic and I shouldn''t be wrong for wanting to find out why.

 

If fans had generally lowered reasonable expectations for NCFC to ''decent champ looking to make playoffs''  because they know football had moved on they wouldn''t have been so unreasonable about the problems Nigel Worthington faced when we were exactly that 3 years ago. Maybe then the club wouldn''t have become so unstable and we would probably still be exactly where we were.

 

I doubt we will ever see City rise to those heady days again and if we did it would be because some obscenely rich tycoon decided he wanted our club. Now while that may be all well and good to most posters, to me it would never mean the same as it did in the 80s and 90s when we did it by our own volition.

 

Did you read Ken Brown''s post? (The very name is enough to warm the cockles of your heart). All good things come to those who wait so I''m well chuffed my patience is as long as my piece of string. He has managed to see through my waffle and has made some very good points about underlying reasons why us and other similar clubs have faced the same pitfalls. I think he makes interesting  points about players contracts. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

So many questions[*-)]

Mr Carrow - Not everyone knows the answer to everything. That''s why I threw this question open on here. Blah at least attempted an answer where as you and most others just used it as yet another platform to air your pet grievances. To join this group I would have to add that the reason all these clubs are unable to live up to their glorious benchmarking past is because they didn''t stick with decent football managers when they had them. But I am not so single minded. I think it''s naieve in the extreme to say the reason that all our contemporaries from the 80''s and early 90''s have been mismanaged while so many other clubs have come from nowhere and been well managed. I have a hunch that if those clubs drink from the poisoned chalice of the Premier league they will soon join your list of mis-managed clubs. It is possible to recognise that the majority shareholders have mis-managed the club and also look for underlying reasons why clubs can''t repeat their glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s. It''s just you are too blinkered to do so.

Mello - Last saturday of the month meant it was bingo and bogs. What''s your point pet[:^)]

Babes - Thanks for the education[Y] Now let''s see if I''ve understood the meaning and can use the new word in context[:-*] How about : "If Bly''s posts were the benchmark of the rest of this messageboard nobody would ever come here anymore".

The slow b*gger - The piece of string is endless just like my patience[;)]

[/quote]

Oh dear, that sin of pride.

I spoke too soon.

OTBC

[/quote]

Pride, me, NCFC and this message board [^o)]

OK.. I''m proud that I can still stand beside my 2 children and as they get older my 4 grandchildren at Carrow Road supporting the same club. I''m proud that I can facilitate the free bet thread which brings pleasure to many and helps our club along the way. I am proud to be part of a message board community that brings people together. I am proud to have the opportunity to write an opinion that can be read by others all over the world. Notice I said read and not agreed by.

Now what pride have you got in NCFC and this message board Bly?

Oh dear, that sin of arrogance.

It''s like a monkey on your back.

 

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

And some answers Slow The B*gger....

 

I did just say that it was because they didn''t stick with managers when they had them. I was being ironic because a lot of posters know I was a huge fan of Worthy and I was making a comparison with others who are using this thread as a platform to air their "hobbyhorse" grievances.

 

I don''t know why I put am apostrophe in 80s and 90s, Thinking about it now I realise that it''s a plural rather than "belonging to" so it''s wrong. I, for various reasons, didn''t benefit from a great education and that frustrates me more than it does you because sometimes I can''t get my point across clearly without waffling. However, don''t confuse a lack of education with a lack of intelligence. Education teaches folk how to use the intelligence they were born with. No amount of education can put intelligence into a plank. Maybe I could take an English course alongside Mr Carrow''s accountancy lessons? I would then be able to express myself better while he could then know what he''s talking about.

 

Well I assume the definition of mismanaged is to manage poorly. I have seen it used on here a lot to describe the mistakes made by the majority shareholders by posters who refuse to address any points I make on this thread. Even though to do so would give them a chance to discuss wider issues than just finding local scapegoats to blame.

 

I don''t dismiss any answers if they are to the questions my posts asked. I know there''s loads of waffle but if you took the time to read what I am saying you would realise that I am asking what the underlying reason is for all those clubs who were successful back in the 80''s (sorry[;)] ) 80s and early 90s but have struggled to live up to their glorious benchmarking past since. Only a couple of posters have tried to debate the things that could have affected all those clubs.

 

The 80''s and early 90''s is a period in our history where we consistently competed at the top end of English football. In fact it''s the only period in our history where we have done so. It''s a period that''s used by many posters on here as a benchmark in comparison to where we are now. But it wasn''t just us. If you look I listed every club that finished in the top 6 during those 16 seasons and then isolated those who I felt were similar clubs to us. If you analyse those clubs you will find they have found the same pitfalls as us since those days.

 

I don''t think we should be a top 6 team. But I don''t like that we can''t be a top 6 team. We could in the late 80''s and early 90''s but we''ve had that taken away from us. As have Ipswich, QPR, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, Derby, Palace and so many more. I am lucky enough to have seen us play in the top flight and compete with the best. I have been lucky enough to go to Carrow Road at Easter time with a realistic chance of seeing my heroes win the double. I don''t have to like the fact that wanting that is now unrealistic and I shouldn''t be wrong for wanting to find out why.

 

If fans had generally lowered reasonable expectations for NCFC to ''decent champ looking to make playoffs''  because they know football had moved on they wouldn''t have been so unreasonable about the problems Nigel Worthington faced when we were exactly that 3 years ago. Maybe then the club wouldn''t have become so unstable and we would probably still be exactly where we were.

 

I doubt we will ever see City rise to those heady days again and if we did it would be because some obscenely rich tycoon decided he wanted our club. Now while that may be all well and good to most posters, to me it would never mean the same as it did in the 80s and 90s when we did it by our own volition.

 

Did you read Ken Brown''s post? (The very name is enough to warm the cockles of your heart). All good things come to those who wait so I''m well chuffed my patience is as long as my piece of string. He has managed to see through my waffle and has made some very good points about underlying reasons why us and other similar clubs have faced the same pitfalls. I think he makes interesting  points about players contracts. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[/quote]

(Ken Brown''s not another of your pseudonym''s...is it?)

Anyway, if you''re happy with your lot at NCFC....what''s the actual problem, if some folk aren''t?

Because I don''t think you''re going to convert them.....and after all, we''re only a message-board minority....

Who in reality, spend more time point-scoring than discussing football....

Right, it''s time to mount my ''hobbyhorse'' again....."Hup! Hup! and Ha''way the Toon!"....

[ron obvious 1,498]

Nutty, I hope you didn''t think that, by remarking on the impact of Clough on Notts. Forest, I was postulating that the manager is the only determinant for the success of a football club? I just think that - in that particular place at that particular time - he was the ideal man for the job. I doubt if he, or anyone else, could replicate that amazing managerial feat nowadays.Nevertheless, he was the overriding factor at Forest & Derby. It was the closest we''ll ever get to a scientific test on the effect of a manager on a club. It''s quite obvious the main ingredient now is cold, hard cash. Can you imagine Chelsea - as long as Abramovich is there - failing for very long? But I would maintain that, within budgetary constraints & all other factors being equal (which they never are), getting the right manager is the most important thing.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

And some answers Slow The B*gger....

 

I did just say that it was because they didn''t stick with managers when they had them. I was being ironic because a lot of posters know I was a huge fan of Worthy and I was making a comparison with others who are using this thread as a platform to air their "hobbyhorse" grievances.

 

I don''t know why I put am apostrophe in 80s and 90s, Thinking about it now I realise that it''s a plural rather than "belonging to" so it''s wrong. I, for various reasons, didn''t benefit from a great education and that frustrates me more than it does you because sometimes I can''t get my point across clearly without waffling. However, don''t confuse a lack of education with a lack of intelligence. Education teaches folk how to use the intelligence they were born with. No amount of education can put intelligence into a plank. Maybe I could take an English course alongside Mr Carrow''s accountancy lessons? I would then be able to express myself better while he could then know what he''s talking about.

 

Well I assume the definition of mismanaged is to manage poorly. I have seen it used on here a lot to describe the mistakes made by the majority shareholders by posters who refuse to address any points I make on this thread. Even though to do so would give them a chance to discuss wider issues than just finding local scapegoats to blame.

 

I don''t dismiss any answers if they are to the questions my posts asked. I know there''s loads of waffle but if you took the time to read what I am saying you would realise that I am asking what the underlying reason is for all those clubs who were successful back in the 80''s (sorry[;)] ) 80s and early 90s but have struggled to live up to their glorious benchmarking past since. Only a couple of posters have tried to debate the things that could have affected all those clubs.

 

The 80''s and early 90''s is a period in our history where we consistently competed at the top end of English football. In fact it''s the only period in our history where we have done so. It''s a period that''s used by many posters on here as a benchmark in comparison to where we are now. But it wasn''t just us. If you look I listed every club that finished in the top 6 during those 16 seasons and then isolated those who I felt were similar clubs to us. If you analyse those clubs you will find they have found the same pitfalls as us since those days.

 

I don''t think we should be a top 6 team. But I don''t like that we can''t be a top 6 team. We could in the late 80''s and early 90''s but we''ve had that taken away from us. As have Ipswich, QPR, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Nottingham Forest, Derby, Palace and so many more. I am lucky enough to have seen us play in the top flight and compete with the best. I have been lucky enough to go to Carrow Road at Easter time with a realistic chance of seeing my heroes win the double. I don''t have to like the fact that wanting that is now unrealistic and I shouldn''t be wrong for wanting to find out why.

 

If fans had generally lowered reasonable expectations for NCFC to ''decent champ looking to make playoffs''  because they know football had moved on they wouldn''t have been so unreasonable about the problems Nigel Worthington faced when we were exactly that 3 years ago. Maybe then the club wouldn''t have become so unstable and we would probably still be exactly where we were.

 

I doubt we will ever see City rise to those heady days again and if we did it would be because some obscenely rich tycoon decided he wanted our club. Now while that may be all well and good to most posters, to me it would never mean the same as it did in the 80s and 90s when we did it by our own volition.

 

Did you read Ken Brown''s post? (The very name is enough to warm the cockles of your heart). All good things come to those who wait so I''m well chuffed my patience is as long as my piece of string. He has managed to see through my waffle and has made some very good points about underlying reasons why us and other similar clubs have faced the same pitfalls. I think he makes interesting  points about players contracts. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[/quote]This mismanage thing, I agree that is used at various to describe

everything including, missing money from ''fag packet accountants''. 

Delia concentrating on personal earnings than the club. Wandering on

the pitch at half time to rant. etc etc. I was trying to suggest, if

fans generally agree was was an act of mismanagement (with some kind of

evidence) and what was not.  We''d have a clearer picture. 

This dismissing thing, that was the impression I have, if another

poster believes their opinion answers your question, and you don''t

that''s just how it is.Benchmarking 80s... what was I..  Oh yeah,  benchmarking and what you/we consider our contemporaries during that period of time. The problem there is, did they consider us as their contemporaries at that time?    Forest were jam hot under Clough did they think they were underachieving then? Did they think we were over achieving?  Same as Ipswich, to this day they think they''re better than us because of the FA & European cups.  Again I suppose, do everybody agree who our contemporaries are?  Do we all agree on who the lesser teams are?  Take Burnley, are they a lesser team over achieving or a team benchmarking again from the 20s and 50s? (whenever it was)Personally I think fans generally have lower expectations,  during the Worthington debacle,  I believe fans would''ve been more tolerant if we were in the top 6, it was the act we were floundering around mid table.  If we''d have stuck with him, we probably wouldn''t''ve been relegated to div 3 but hind sight is wonderful and the atmosphere was pretty dire to continue with Worthington further.Fair point about would it be just as enjoyable in the top half of the Premier League with a sugar daddy and a blank cheque etc etc. I''d tend to agree it would feel better knowing we did it with home grown youth and others so called ''cast offs'', whom we got the best out of. Concerning the last bit,  I still think there''s a 1001 reasons why us and other clubs have took a down turn, but the most common reason is lack of cash.  Reasons why our board/majority shareholders failed.(definition of failed relegated to div 3)  Not having a bottomless pit of money and bad managerial appointments arising from a total lack of football expertise on the board.  The subject of handling the club''s finances as a whole (where Delia/board cops a lot of flak), I just can''t comment, I''m not an accountant and don''t quite grasp the full picture of them when you see the flippin'' things when they''re publish,  I suspect the majority of fans don''t either unless they are an accountant themselves or had them explained to them.  As an extra comment concerning the board. I''d rather not have a fan on the board, but some like Dave Stringer,  I''m sure others would have a different name but in principle someone like him.There you go, I don''t think you should burn the witch and blame her for everything, but it can only take one poor decision to mess it all up.  Maybe all our contemporaries have made only one bad decision and it''s gone bad.  Maybe the others have made just one good one, like fortunate to appoint the right manager and the right time.