50 years ago.............

[Lord Horn 0]

Sorry that this is a bit OT but 45 years to the day this Saturday was my first match at Carrow Road (a 2-0 home win against Leyton Orient).  45 years and 3 days later who are we playing.....yes, good old Orient....what goes around comes around (albeit in a division one lower than it was first time around).

[fleggy 0]

Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Delia Out"]

The point made is fully factual - there are two (& a half) divisions above us and our financial situation is on a par with that faced by the club in that 1956/57 season.

[/quote]

But the point being made by the OP and others - the comparison with the 1956/57 season - is not factual at all.

Now there are two and a half divisions above us and a whole division below us. Then we were equal 91st out of 92 clubs (so there were effectively four divisions above us) and there was no division below us and non-League football.[/quote]

It''s not fair to point that out. They are using dramatic licence to spin the facts. You are spoiling it. Now Purple, like Mister before you, wake up and smell the Conference[C]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

 

[/quote]

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.[/quote]Wrong! The top teames in Div 3(S) and Div 3(N) formed the new Div 3 with the rest forming Div 4.

The original members in 1958-59 were:

• From Third Division North: Accrington Stanley, Bradford City, Bury, Chesterfield, Halifax Town, Hull City, Mansfield Town, Rochdale, Stockport County, Tranmere Rovers, Wrexham

• From Third Division South: Bournemouth, Brentford, Colchester United, Newport County, Norwich City, Plymouth Argyle, Queens Park Rangers, Reading, Southampton, Southend United, Swindon Town

• Relegated from Second Division: Doncaster Rovers, Notts County.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.[/quote]Er, no. Of course there was a Third Division North. But of equal status. That year Crewe finished bottom of it. We finished bottom of the Third Division South. So we were, as I said, effectively equal 91st out of 92. We were not 65th out of 66. We can not have been anything out of 66 since there were 92 clubs in the League. And that year 90 of them were above us. And if we had been relegated (in those days not re-elected) then we would have been relegated to non-League football. If we are relegated this season we will still be in the League.And the Third Division North did not become the Fourth Division. The two Third Divisions were, I repeat, equal in status. What happened was that the next Season (1957/58) the top 12 clubs in the two divisions went into Division Three and the bottom 12 into Division Four. We finished 8th.So, apart from being incorrect in pretty much every detail, absolutely spot on, fleggy.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

 - As things stand, there are two and a half

divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games

ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the

4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with

Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of

49.

[/quote]Incorrect.  You cannot half "half a division" above you in terms of structure.There are two divisions above us in the league structure, and we are mid-table in the third division.  This is NOT like being in the old 3rd Division South.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.[/quote]Wrong! The top teames in Div 3(S) and Div 3(N) formed the new Div 3 with the rest forming Div 4.

The original members in 1958-59 were:

• From Third Division North: Accrington Stanley, Bradford City, Bury, Chesterfield, Halifax Town, Hull City, Mansfield Town, Rochdale, Stockport County, Tranmere Rovers, Wrexham

• From Third Division South: Bournemouth, Brentford, Colchester United, Newport County, Norwich City, Plymouth Argyle, Queens Park Rangers, Reading, Southampton, Southend United, Swindon Town

• Relegated from Second Division: Doncaster Rovers, Notts County.

[/quote]

I think inadvertantly you may well have aided the original posters argument.

Had that action have been taken in 56/57 we would have been bottom of  Div 4 give or take a point or two.

I don''t think it is being negative or pessemistic to look truthfully at our position now.

I hope we have now gone down as far as we are going and the lifebelt of Lambert and McNally will counter the iceberg that has been Delia''s tenancy.

I don''t think anybody in their right mind could say the last years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster.

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="The Butler"]

I don''t think anybody in their right mind could say the last years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster.

[/quote]I entirely agree with you.  Equally, I don''t think anybody in their right mind can say that it is all exclusively Delia Smith''s fault.It may well turn out to be that the board''s biggest collective mistake was bottling it and giving in to the demands to sack Worthington.  It has certainly been downhill all the way since then.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Our finances, (from our current CEO) are still dire......and even if we do gain promotion.....our finances, will still be dire.

Unless of course, we acquire a rich owner/benefactor.....

But someone refuses to release the apron strings - and I don''t care if folk are convinced that those at the helm are willing to stand aside if the right people/person comes along.....It will only be on their terms.....and on their terms, alone. Not what the rest of the Directioneers may suggest would be good - for the football club.

50 years ago we could have given them a blanket full of coins - and they''d have probably done one.....

It''ll take more than a blanket now though.....a blanket the size of the pitch might interest them.....maybe?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="The Butler"] I don''t think anybody in their right mind could say the last years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster. [/quote]

I entirely agree with you.  Equally, I don''t think anybody in their right mind can say that it is all exclusively Delia Smith''s fault.

It may well turn out to be that the board''s biggest collective mistake was bottling it and giving in to the demands to sack Worthington.  It has certainly been downhill all the way since then.


[/quote]

You are not related to Nutty are you[:D]

[Dronny Canary 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

[/quote]

Incorrect.  You cannot half "half a division" above you in terms of structure.

There are two divisions above us in the league structure, and we are mid-table in the third division.  This is NOT like being in the old 3rd Division South.

[/quote]

I might be wrong but haven''t we got a load of teams below us with an even worse points to games ratio than us who are slightly more likely than us to go down?  The point about the comparison with the old Division 3 South just doesn''t stack up, but let''s not let that stop us from talking ourselves deeper into the mire.  I have the horrible feeling that there are people on here who deep down are actually wanting the club to fall further down the divisions just so they can keep up this negative tirade.     

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

I don''t think anybody in their right mind could say the last years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster.

[/quote]

I think you have inadvertently stumbled across the main thing that annoys posters about threads such as this. Nobody could realisticly argue that the last few years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster without being laughed off this message board. But nobody is trying to make out that these years of failure have been a success. Posters like DEB thrive on the myth that there are a large number of fans who are somehow happy with third tier football and then try and paint themselves as better fans by pointing out how outraged they are about how far we have fallen. I can understand why posters like Nutty who follow the team around the country get p*ssed off by being slagged of by the likes of the OP. Especially as the only difference between the two of them seems to be the level of faux outrage they exhibit on this forum.

But then I went to a match once under Delia''s stewardship which we lost but I still really enjoyed the game. So I''m obviously the type of ovine, lily livered, happy clappy liberal that just proves the OP right [;)]

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

[/quote]

Smith&Jones didn''t own the club in the 50''s. If they had have done and had invested to the extent they have now we''d have been one of the richest  clubs in the land. There would have been no need for the blanket to go round. In those days rich people didn''t invest in football clubs. The maximum wage for a footballer was £20 whoever they played for and in whatever division they were playing. There was no need for clubs to be subsidised by millionaires and players stayed at clubs for footballing reasons. Promotion wasn''t won by the size of the player budget, it was won by the ability of the team to play and the manager to manage. This individual both recognises and understands that our national game was better for it. But you (and your like) take umbrage when presented with factual comparisons about the current state of football compared to it''s condition throughout the 50''s. Why?

The point that we are struggling to do well in the third tier of English football under the stewardship of Smith&Jones is an undeniable fact. Your constant spinning of the present and past for dramatic effect is unnecessary. If we are 14th on Saturday evening why is it necessary to post that we are 18th at 3:30 when fans at the game, and hopefully those on here, are willing us on to win the game. At 3:30 we were playing well and didn''t deserve to be losing 0-2 but that will be lost on you and your like.  Why do you refuse to recognise anything good that''s happened in the last 10 years? Where were you with your bile in 2004. Show me the posts where your key knowledge of the state of the club foresaw our impending doom.

You get no argument from me about the mistakes that have been made since 2006. There is enough there without trying to compare things that have no relevance. I often wonder why you and your ilk don''t recognise this?

I have left out all the idiot jibes so that this post isn''t deleted like earlier ones but feel free to imagine them every little while. You are without a doubt the most humourless and objectionable poster I have ever come across on this board.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.[/quote]

Er, no. Of course there was a Third Division North. But of equal status. That year Crewe finished bottom of it. We finished bottom of the Third Division South. So we were, as I said, effectively equal 91st out of 92.

We were not 65th out of 66. We can not have been anything out of 66 since there were 92 clubs in the League. And that year 90 of them were above us.

And if we had been relegated (in those days not re-elected) then we would have been relegated to non-League football. If we are relegated this season we will still be in the League.

And the Third Division North did not become the Fourth Division. The two Third Divisions were, I repeat, equal in status. What happened was that the next Season (1957/58) the top 12 clubs in the two divisions went into Division Three and the bottom 12 into Division Four. We finished 8th.

So, apart from being incorrect in pretty much every detail, absolutely spot on, fleggy.[/quote]

So what are the rules of this spinning of irrelevant facts for dramatic effect? The points totals I see have been used. Even to transfer them into the current 3 points for a win format. That being the case we finished that season 90th with 39 points while Tranmere finished 91st on 34 and Crewe 92nd on 27.

 

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

[/quote]

Smith&Jones didn''t own the club in the 50''s. If they had have done and had invested to the extent they have now we''d have been one of the richest  clubs in the land. There would have been no need for the blanket to go round. In those days rich people didn''t invest in football clubs. The maximum wage for a footballer was £20 whoever they played for and in whatever division they were playing. There was no need for clubs to be subsidised by millionaires and players stayed at clubs for footballing reasons. Promotion wasn''t won by the size of the player budget, it was won by the ability of the team to play and the manager to manage. This individual both recognises and understands that our national game was better for it. But you (and your like) take umbrage when presented with factual comparisons about the current state of football compared to it''s condition throughout the 50''s. Why?

The point that we are struggling to do well in the third tier of English football under the stewardship of Smith&Jones is an undeniable fact. Your constant spinning of the present and past for dramatic effect is unnecessary. If we are 14th on Saturday evening why is it necessary to post that we are 18th at 3:30 when fans at the game, and hopefully those on here, are willing us on to win the game. At 3:30 we were playing well and didn''t deserve to be losing 0-2 but that will be lost on you and your like.  Why do you refuse to recognise anything good that''s happened in the last 10 years? Where were you with your bile in 2004. Show me the posts where your key knowledge of the state of the club foresaw our impending doom.

You get no argument from me about the mistakes that have been made since 2006. There is enough there without trying to compare things that have no relevance. I often wonder why you and your ilk don''t recognise this?

I have left out all the idiot jibes so that this post isn''t deleted like earlier ones but feel free to imagine them every little while. You are without a doubt the most humourless and objectionable poster I have ever come across on this board.

 

[/quote]

And for many players in the North and South lower divisions (and I played in this division not very long after the period that has been mentioned) that Halycon £20 (which eventually went up to £25) was cut in half during the Summer "non playing months" - not all did it, but most small clubs (including Reading) certainly did.  And that left the stars of the day - and they were stars in their own way if more local than today - turning their hand to all sorts of jobs, coach driving, builders labourer to supplement their income in the Summer. 

Oddly enough no one asked at the time whose fault it was that we were in the Third Division (South).  We just assumed that our football was just not good enough to get us out of it.

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

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

[quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary is not correct. There ws a 3rd South but also a 3rd North. We were not 91st out of 92 more like 65th out of 66. The 3rd North became the 4th Div when the change was made - thus the OP is more right than Purple Canary is.[/quote]Wrong! The top teames in Div 3(S) and Div 3(N) formed the new Div 3 with the rest forming Div 4.

The original members in 1958-59 were:

• From Third Division North: Accrington Stanley, Bradford City, Bury, Chesterfield, Halifax Town, Hull City, Mansfield Town, Rochdale, Stockport County, Tranmere Rovers, Wrexham

• From Third Division South: Bournemouth, Brentford, Colchester United, Newport County, Norwich City, Plymouth Argyle, Queens Park Rangers, Reading, Southampton, Southend United, Swindon Town

• Relegated from Second Division: Doncaster Rovers, Notts County.

[/quote]

I think inadvertantly you may well have aided the original posters argument.

Had that action have been taken in 56/57 we would have been bottom of  Div 4 give or take a point or two.

I don''t think it is being negative or pessemistic to look truthfully at our position now.

I hope we have now gone down as far as we are going and the lifebelt of Lambert and McNally will counter the iceberg that has been Delia''s tenancy.

I don''t think anybody in their right mind could say the last years have been anything but an unmitigated disaster.

 

[/quote]

Spot on.

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

Why do you refuse to recognise anything good that''s happened in the last 10 years? Where were you with your bile in 2004?

I have left out all the idiot jibes so that this post isn''t deleted like earlier ones but feel free to imagine them every little while. I am without a doubt the most humourless and objectionable poster to have ever posted on this board. Nutty. 9/09

 

Dear Nutty,

You suggest that you think it pointless to take stock of how far our club has fallen under the ownership on Smith, and of its precarious current position, both on and off the pitch. Indeed, you attempt to persuade readers that Smiths tenure of failure is almost solely down to changes within the game and its associated finances.

The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since, clearly doesn''t register with ''fans'' such as yourself, and others of the ''happy clappy'' type. Naturally, this is further confirmation (although not needed) that you are either unable or unwilling to recognise reality, and live in constant denial - wholly consumed by years of rhetoric & spin fed by Smith to the ''new breed'' supporter.

You clearly enjoy your football - much in the same way as Smith does - and continue to do so throughout the dreadful demise of our club.

I confirm that I thoroughly enjoyed the one successful season of Smiths reign, and (to some extent) it was pay back for the £1,500 of my hard earned cash used to purchase shares. Again, many thanks Darren.

Perhaps you are a little ill. Your obvious obsession with this message board (as confirmed via your post count), and the general content of such posts, more than indicate this to be the case.

By the way, may I congratulate you on being in an occupation which clearly affords you such an extensive level of time to waste on this message board. Perhaps you are unemployed (or more likely, unemployable!), or maybe retired.

Overall,, I feel a little sorry for you Nutty, and genuinely wish you continual happy times at Carrow Road.

Sincerest best wishes,

DEB

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

[/quote]

Smith&Jones didn''t own the club in the 50''s. If they had have done and had invested to the extent they have now we''d have been one of the richest  clubs in the land. There would have been no need for the blanket to go round. In those days rich people didn''t invest in football clubs. The maximum wage for a footballer was £20 whoever they played for and in whatever division they were playing. There was no need for clubs to be subsidised by millionaires and players stayed at clubs for footballing reasons. Promotion wasn''t won by the size of the player budget, it was won by the ability of the team to play and the manager to manage. This individual both recognises and understands that our national game was better for it. But you (and your like) take umbrage when presented with factual comparisons about the current state of football compared to it''s condition throughout the 50''s. Why?

The point that we are struggling to do well in the third tier of English football under the stewardship of Smith&Jones is an undeniable fact. Your constant spinning of the present and past for dramatic effect is unnecessary. If we are 14th on Saturday evening why is it necessary to post that we are 18th at 3:30 when fans at the game, and hopefully those on here, are willing us on to win the game. At 3:30 we were playing well and didn''t deserve to be losing 0-2 but that will be lost on you and your like.  Why do you refuse to recognise anything good that''s happened in the last 10 years? Where were you with your bile in 2004. Show me the posts where your key knowledge of the state of the club foresaw our impending doom.

You get no argument from me about the mistakes that have been made since 2006. There is enough there without trying to compare things that have no relevance. I often wonder why you and your ilk don''t recognise this?

I have left out all the idiot jibes so that this post isn''t deleted like earlier ones but feel free to imagine them every little while. You are without a doubt the most humourless and objectionable poster I have ever come across on this board.

 

[/quote]

And for many players in the North and South lower divisions (and I played in this division not very long after the period that has been mentioned) that Halycon £20 (which eventually went up to £25) was cut in half during the Summer "non playing months" - not all did it, but most small clubs (including Reading) certainly did.  And that left the stars of the day - and they were stars in their own way if more local than today - turning their hand to all sorts of jobs, coach driving, builders labourer to supplement their income in the Summer. 

Oddly enough no one asked at the time whose fault it was that we were in the Third Division (South).  We just assumed that our football was just not good enough to get us out of it.

[/quote]

And then some ambitious teams like Norwich, Coventry and Southampton decided not to settle for the status quo, unlike the Colchesters etc, and decided to put the right kind of people in charge who then searched for and found the formula for success. They climbed steadily up and enjoyed over 40 years of relative success - you know, long unbroken stretches in the top tier, FA Cups, League Cups, European campaigns and so on.

They were ambitious so they sought out the right type of leaders. They embraced continuity - in Norwich''s case they sought out and secured the leadership of Arthur South who handed over to Geoffrey Watling who handed over to Robert Chase. And, of course; on the managerial side Archie Macaulay set the standard to be followed after a couple of hiccups by the likes of Ron Saunders, John Bond, Ken Brown, Dave Stringer and Mike Walker. None of these men embraced the concept of smallness - of poor little Norwich. Most of them came from ''smallness'', used their talent to climb in the world and took Norwich City with them. The stories of Southampton and Coventry are similar.

No Cam, they didn''t just sit on their hands and bemoan the fact that their ''football was just not good enough to get us out of it''. No, they discovered ambition and found the right people to lead.

We don''t need chips on our shoulders to bolster lame excuses.

No. Norwich City need the right people making the right decisions - but we also need to be both ambitious and brave. And tackle the world with confidence.

OTBC

    

 

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Camuldonum"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

This individual is either devoid of key knowledge as to the current state of our club, either through an inability to recognise and understand it, or by a refusal to do so.

Nutty (& his like) take umbrage when presented with a factual comparison of the current state of our football club with its condition throughout the 1950''s. Why?

The excellent side of the early part of that decade were certainly very unfortunate to miss out on promotion to the 2nd tier of English football, when finishing in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places having achieved equivalent totals of 89, 87 & 85 points. In those days, only the league winners were promoted. By the end of the decade, City won promotion to Division 2 (old), where they were to go on to finish 4th in the following 1960/61 season.

However, our club experienced perhaps the lowest point in its history in 1956/57 when ending the season bottom of the table, and literally begging the community of Norwich & Norfolk to save it from going under.

Smith is custodian of a club that finds itself closer (both on and off the field of play) to the ''dark'' days'' of 56/57 than it has in any of the 53 years since - fact.

Again, certain ''supporters'' seem unable to grasp the reality of our current plight.

Perhaps we can set it out as follows:

 - As things stand, there are two and a half divisions of the league structure above us. Our current points to games ratio may just about be sufficient to help us avoid relegation to the 4th tier. We are on course to achieve a total of 52 points, with Northampton being relegated from League One last season with a total of 49.

 - We are currently behind Peterborough, Ipswich, MK Dons, Colchester & Southend in the pecking order of East Anglian football.

 - We are around £20m in debt.

 - Our average placing within the English league structure over the 12 full seasons of Smith''s reign is 31st. During the previous 12 seasons it was 15th. Each 12 year spell included promotion/relegation.

 

Smiths record as custodian of our club is one of failure. It is wholly indefensible, especially given the resources at her disposal - aptly covered in many previous message board posts. Even the achievements of the 03/04 season were as a result of a substantial share capital injection made by supporters & were also further aided by the generosity of Mr Moore, and his Huckerby wages contribution.

I am sick of what has happened to our club during Smith''s reign, and of idiots who seem to revel in it. 

[/quote]

Smith&Jones didn''t own the club in the 50''s. If they had have done and had invested to the extent they have now we''d have been one of the richest  clubs in the land. There would have been no need for the blanket to go round. In those days rich people didn''t invest in football clubs. The maximum wage for a footballer was £20 whoever they played for and in whatever division they were playing. There was no need for clubs to be subsidised by millionaires and players stayed at clubs for footballing reasons. Promotion wasn''t won by the size of the player budget, it was won by the ability of the team to play and the manager to manage. This individual both recognises and understands that our national game was better for it. But you (and your like) take umbrage when presented with factual comparisons about the current state of football compared to it''s condition throughout the 50''s. Why?

The point that we are struggling to do well in the third tier of English football under the stewardship of Smith&Jones is an undeniable fact. Your constant spinning of the present and past for dramatic effect is unnecessary. If we are 14th on Saturday evening why is it necessary to post that we are 18th at 3:30 when fans at the game, and hopefully those on here, are willing us on to win the game. At 3:30 we were playing well and didn''t deserve to be losing 0-2 but that will be lost on you and your like.  Why do you refuse to recognise anything good that''s happened in the last 10 years? Where were you with your bile in 2004. Show me the posts where your key knowledge of the state of the club foresaw our impending doom.

You get no argument from me about the mistakes that have been made since 2006. There is enough there without trying to compare things that have no relevance. I often wonder why you and your ilk don''t recognise this?

I have left out all the idiot jibes so that this post isn''t deleted like earlier ones but feel free to imagine them every little while. You are without a doubt the most humourless and objectionable poster I have ever come across on this board.

 

[/quote]

And for many players in the North and South lower divisions (and I played in this division not very long after the period that has been mentioned) that Halycon £20 (which eventually went up to £25) was cut in half during the Summer "non playing months" - not all did it, but most small clubs (including Reading) certainly did.  And that left the stars of the day - and they were stars in their own way if more local than today - turning their hand to all sorts of jobs, coach driving, builders labourer to supplement their income in the Summer. 

Oddly enough no one asked at the time whose fault it was that we were in the Third Division (South).  We just assumed that our football was just not good enough to get us out of it.

[/quote]

And then some ambitious teams like Norwich, Coventry and Southampton decided not to settle for the status quo, unlike the Colchesters etc, and decided to put the right kind of people in charge who then searched for and found the formula for success. They climbed steadily up and enjoyed over 40 years of relative success - you know, long unbroken stretches in the top tier, FA Cups, League Cups, European campaigns and so on.

They were ambitious so they sought out the right type of leaders. They embraced continuity - in Norwich''s case they sought out and secured the leadership of Arthur South who handed over to Geoffrey Watling who handed over to Robert Chase. And, of course; on the managerial side Archie Macaulay set the standard to be followed after a couple of hiccups by the likes of Ron Saunders, John Bond, Ken Brown, Dave Stringer and Mike Walker. None of these men embraced the concept of smallness - of poor little Norwich. Most of them came from ''smallness'', used their talent to climb in the world and took Norwich City with them. The stories of Southampton and Coventry are similar.

No Cam, they didn''t just sit on their hands and bemoan the fact that their ''football was just not good enough to get us out of it''. No, they discovered ambition and found the right people to lead.

We don''t need chips on our shoulders to bolster lame excuses.

No. Norwich City need the right people making the right decisions - but we also need to be both ambitious and brave. And tackle the world with confidence.

OTBC

    

 

[/quote]

You have hit the nail with this one Bly! - excellent.

[Boot 0]

Hit the nail eh? Bring on Karen Brady then we''ll all feel better! Oh and speaking of hitting the nail what about Mr Bly''s earlier classic "The truth is often boring, that''s why people ignore it at their peril"..fantastic! Sir Humphry take a bow; this means absolutely nothing, I suggest you don''t try to analyse this statement too closely or your brain will implode.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Boot"]Hit the nail eh? Bring on Karen Brady then we''ll all feel better! Oh and speaking of hitting the nail what about Mr Bly''s earlier classic "The truth is often boring, that''s why people ignore it at their peril"..fantastic! Sir Humphry take a bow; this means absolutely nothing, I suggest you don''t try to analyse this statement too closely or your brain will implode.[/quote]

But, only if you went to Secondary Modern.

OTBC

 

[fleggy 0]

Purple Canary - Don''t think your assumption that we were joint 91st of 92 is any more correct than mine. There were 22 teams in DIVs 1&2 and 24 in Div 3 S& N. Therefore top teams in Div 3& 4 were joint 45th 2nd joint 46th down to us at joint 67 of 68.

Nice try but no cigar.

[Delia Out! 0]

Dear Nutty,

You suggest that you think it pointless to take stock of how far our club has fallen under the ownership on Smith, and of its precarious current position, both on and off the pitch. Indeed, you attempt to persuade readers that Smiths tenure of failure is almost solely down to changes within the game and its associated finances.

The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since, clearly doesn''t register with ''fans'' such as yourself, and others of the ''happy clappy'' type. Naturally, this is further confirmation (although not needed) that you are either unable or unwilling to recognise reality, and live in constant denial - wholly consumed by years of rhetoric & spin fed by Smith to the ''new breed'' supporter.

You clearly enjoy your football - much in the same way as Smith does - and continue to do so throughout the dreadful demise of our club.

I confirm that I thoroughly enjoyed the one successful season of Smiths reign, and (to some extent) it was pay back for the £1,500 of my hard earned cash used to purchase shares. Again, many thanks Darren.

Perhaps you are a little ill. Your obvious obsession with this message board (as confirmed via your post count), and the general content of such posts, more than indicate this to be the case.

By the way, may I congratulate you on being in an occupation which clearly affords you such an extensive level of time to waste on this message board. Perhaps you are unemployed (or more likely, unemployable!), or maybe retired.

Overall,, I feel a little sorry for you Nutty, and genuinely wish you continual happy times at Carrow Road.

Sincerest best wishes,

DEB

 

 

HAHAHAHAHA................Excellent!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Delia Out"]

Dear Nutty,

You suggest that you think it pointless to take stock of how far our club has fallen under the ownership on Smith, and of its precarious current position, both on and off the pitch. Indeed, you attempt to persuade readers that Smiths tenure of failure is almost solely down to changes within the game and its associated finances.

The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since, clearly doesn''t register with ''fans'' such as yourself, and others of the ''happy clappy'' type. Naturally, this is further confirmation (although not needed) that you are either unable or unwilling to recognise reality, and live in constant denial - wholly consumed by years of rhetoric & spin fed by Smith to the ''new breed'' supporter.

You clearly enjoy your football - much in the same way as Smith does - and continue to do so throughout the dreadful demise of our club.

I confirm that I thoroughly enjoyed the one successful season of Smiths reign, and (to some extent) it was pay back for the £1,500 of my hard earned cash used to purchase shares. Again, many thanks Darren.

Perhaps you are a little ill. Your obvious obsession with this message board (as confirmed via your post count), and the general content of such posts, more than indicate this to be the case.

By the way, may I congratulate you on being in an occupation which clearly affords you such an extensive level of time to waste on this message board. Perhaps you are unemployed (or more likely, unemployable!), or maybe retired.

Overall,, I feel a little sorry for you Nutty, and genuinely wish you continual happy times at Carrow Road.

Sincerest best wishes,

DEB

HAHAHAHAHA................Excellent!

[/quote]

Oh, come on now DEB don''t you know that nutty just types very fast.

OTBC

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary - Don''t think your assumption that we were joint 91st of 92 is any more correct than mine. There were 22 teams in DIVs 1&2 and 24 in Div 3 S& N. Therefore top teams in Div 3& 4 were joint 45th 2nd joint 46th down to us at joint 67 of 68.

Nice try but no cigar.[/quote]

Ah, the poster who still apparently thinks the Third Division (North) was dragged, kicking and screaming, lock, stock and barrel, down to create the new Fourth Division! No wonder they say there is a north/south divide...For the very last time, neither we nor any other club can have been anything out of 68, since there were 92 clubs in the League.It really is very simple. There were 44 clubs in the two top divisions. Plainly those 44 were above us. Agreed? Fine. There were 23 teams above us in Division Three (South). Plainly they get added on to the 44. Agreed? Fine. That makes 67.Meanwhile in Division Three (North), also with 24 teams, and with equal status to our division, the clubs that finish above bottom place (which is where we finished) have to be added on to the 67. Only an idiot would argue that teams in a division of the same number of clubs and of equal status that finished above us are somehow only level with us. And, of course, you are not an idiot.So that is 67 plus 23, which comes to 90. Clubs above us, that is. Which only leave these possibilities - we either finished 91st, or 92nd, or equal 91st. Frankly, I doubt it matters which.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="DEB Never knowingly undersold"]

Dear Nutty,

You suggest that you think it pointless to take stock of how far our club has fallen under the ownership on Smith, and of its precarious current position, both on and off the pitch. Indeed, you attempt to persuade readers that Smiths tenure of failure is almost solely down to changes within the game and its associated finances.

The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since, clearly doesn''t register with ''fans'' such as yourself, and others of the ''happy clappy'' type. Naturally, this is further confirmation (although not needed) that you are either unable or unwilling to recognise reality, and live in constant denial - wholly consumed by years of rhetoric & spin fed by Smith to the ''new breed'' supporter.

You clearly enjoy your football - much in the same way as Smith does - and continue to do so throughout the dreadful demise of our club.

I confirm that I thoroughly enjoyed the one successful season of Smiths reign, and (to some extent) it was pay back for the £1,500 of my hard earned cash used to purchase shares. Again, many thanks Darren.

Perhaps you are a little ill. Your obvious obsession with this message board (as confirmed via your post count), and the general content of such posts, more than indicate this to be the case.

By the way, may I congratulate you on being in an occupation which clearly affords you such an extensive level of time to waste on this message board. Perhaps you are unemployed (or more likely, unemployable!), or maybe retired.

Overall,, I feel a little sorry for you Nutty, and genuinely wish you continual happy times at Carrow Road.

Sincerest best wishes,

DEB

 [/quote]

I hate to butt in while there''s still spleen being waved around, but:a) I like the way you credit "Smith''s one good season" to Darren Huckerby (I assume) - so when things were good it wasn''t because of Delia Smith, but when things are bad it was all because of Delia Smith - hmm, objective!b) NN would not suggest everything is rosy at Fortress Carrow Road, nor that the board of directors at the club, under Smith & MWJ''s majority ownership, has not made many and significant mistakes.  His point is, I think, that it is not solely down to those mistakes and people who blame everything on the majority shareholders are misguided.  The footballing economic landscape has changed massively since the 1960s and you simply cannot compare the eras or suggest that where the club lies now is down to the decisions and actions of one individual.c) "The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since" is not true.  Saturday August 8, 2009, we were bottom of League One after Colchester beat us 7-1.  As a result of this game, and other factors specified by McNally, Gunn was given the sack and a young, more capable manager was brought in to replace the old club servant.  Are you behind Lambert, or do you think he''s just another puppet?  If you are behind him, then maybe you should try looking forwards and getting behind his team.  Nobody would deny there have been serious and frequent errors made by the board of directors under Smith/MWJ''s tenure as majority shareholders, but how long do you want to keep banging on about how doomed we are?  Posting threads based on a "live league table" suggests a secondary agenda at work, frankly.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary - Don''t think your assumption that we were joint 91st of 92 is any more correct than mine. There were 22 teams in DIVs 1&2 and 24 in Div 3 S& N. Therefore top teams in Div 3& 4 were joint 45th 2nd joint 46th down to us at joint 67 of 68. Nice try but no cigar.[/quote]


Ah, the poster who still apparently thinks the Third Division (North) was dragged, kicking and screaming, lock, stock and barrel, down to create the new Fourth Division! No wonder they say there is a north/south divide...

For the very last time, neither we nor any other club can have been anything out of 68, since there were 92 clubs in the League.

It really is very simple. There were 44 clubs in the two top divisions. Plainly those 44 were above us. Agreed? Fine. There were 23 teams above us in Division Three (South). Plainly they get added on to the 44. Agreed? Fine. That makes 67.

Meanwhile in Division Three (North), also with 24 teams, and with equal status to our division, the clubs that finish above bottom place (which is where we finished) have to be added on to the 67. Only an idiot would argue that teams in a division of the same number of clubs and of equal status that finished above us are somehow only level with us. And, of course, you are not an idiot.

So that is 67 plus 23, which comes to 90. Clubs above us, that is. Which only leave these possibilities - we either finished 91st, or 92nd, or equal 91st. Frankly, I doubt it matters which.[/quote]

Anyway, we''re still in the ''old money'' 3rd Division "England".....(Now branded the 1st Division to make everyone feel better).

And it''s 5 decades since we graced the equivalent.

So, I suppose we haven''t done badly - as we''ve managed to keep our ''heads above slaughter'' up until now.

I wonder where we''ll be financially next season.....Because, even if we get promoted, we will hopefully/maybe/probably? Still court the similar attendance - but we''re informed that the supporter income alone - doesn''t fund the club, so what do we do? 

To attract quality.... quality pay packets must be offered.

Will we ever satisfy the debt? Not in the foreseeable future....at least, not until investment and new ownership is established.

We''ve got £20+ million to find.....and Mr Mac admitted our finances are dire....I don''t think he''s bluffing. 

So whether it''s 50 years ago or today and now....I cannot see any improvement in the finances, and unless there is improvement.....good results will count for nothing - as it doesn''t reduce debt......but it may stop the troops revolting.....

Any solutions - other than new ownership and investment?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="fleggy"]Purple Canary - Don''t think your assumption that we were joint 91st of 92 is any more correct than mine. There were 22 teams in DIVs 1&2 and 24 in Div 3 S& N. Therefore top teams in Div 3& 4 were joint 45th 2nd joint 46th down to us at joint 67 of 68. Nice try but no cigar.[/quote]


Ah, the poster who still apparently thinks the Third Division (North) was dragged, kicking and screaming, lock, stock and barrel, down to create the new Fourth Division! No wonder they say there is a north/south divide...

For the very last time, neither we nor any other club can have been anything out of 68, since there were 92 clubs in the League.

It really is very simple. There were 44 clubs in the two top divisions. Plainly those 44 were above us. Agreed? Fine. There were 23 teams above us in Division Three (South). Plainly they get added on to the 44. Agreed? Fine. That makes 67.

Meanwhile in Division Three (North), also with 24 teams, and with equal status to our division, the clubs that finish above bottom place (which is where we finished) have to be added on to the 67. Only an idiot would argue that teams in a division of the same number of clubs and of equal status that finished above us are somehow only level with us. And, of course, you are not an idiot.

So that is 67 plus 23, which comes to 90. Clubs above us, that is. Which only leave these possibilities - we either finished 91st, or 92nd, or equal 91st. Frankly, I doubt it matters which.[/quote]

Anyway, we''re still in the ''old money'' 3rd Division "England".....(Now branded the 1st Division to make everyone feel better).

And it''s 5 decades since we graced the equivalent.

So, I suppose we haven''t done badly - as we''ve managed to keep our ''heads above slaughter'' up until now.

I wonder where we''ll be financially next season.....Because, even if we get promoted, we will hopefully/maybe/probably? Still court the similar attendance - but we''re informed that the supporter income alone - doesn''t fund the club, so what do we do? 

To attract quality.... quality pay packets must be offered.

Will we ever satisfy the debt? Not in the foreseeable future....at least, not until investment and new ownership is established.

We''ve got £20+ million to find.....and Mr Mac admitted our finances are dire....I don''t think he''s bluffing. 

So whether it''s 50 years ago or today and now....I cannot see any improvement in the finances, and unless there is improvement.....good results will count for nothing - as it doesn''t reduce debt......but it may stop the troops revolting.....

Any solutions - other than new ownership and investment?

[/quote]

I''ll be surprised if you get a proper answer to that.

OTBC

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="DEB Never knowingly undersold"]

Dear Nutty,

You suggest that you think it pointless to take stock of how far our club has fallen under the ownership on Smith, and of its precarious current position, both on and off the pitch. Indeed, you attempt to persuade readers that Smiths tenure of failure is almost solely down to changes within the game and its associated finances.

The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since, clearly doesn''t register with ''fans'' such as yourself, and others of the ''happy clappy'' type. Naturally, this is further confirmation (although not needed) that you are either unable or unwilling to recognise reality, and live in constant denial - wholly consumed by years of rhetoric & spin fed by Smith to the ''new breed'' supporter.

You clearly enjoy your football - much in the same way as Smith does - and continue to do so throughout the dreadful demise of our club.

I confirm that I thoroughly enjoyed the one successful season of Smiths reign, and (to some extent) it was pay back for the £1,500 of my hard earned cash used to purchase shares. Again, many thanks Darren.

Perhaps you are a little ill. Your obvious obsession with this message board (as confirmed via your post count), and the general content of such posts, more than indicate this to be the case.

By the way, may I congratulate you on being in an occupation which clearly affords you such an extensive level of time to waste on this message board. Perhaps you are unemployed (or more likely, unemployable!), or maybe retired.

Overall,, I feel a little sorry for you Nutty, and genuinely wish you continual happy times at Carrow Road.

Sincerest best wishes,

DEB

 [/quote]

I hate to butt in while there''s still spleen being waved around, but:

a) I like the way you credit "Smith''s one good season" to Darren Huckerby (I assume) - so when things were good it wasn''t because of Delia Smith, but when things are bad it was all because of Delia Smith - hmm, objective!

b) NN would not suggest everything is rosy at Fortress Carrow Road, nor that the board of directors at the club, under Smith & MWJ''s majority ownership, has not made many and significant mistakes.  His point is, I think, that it is not solely down to those mistakes and people who blame everything on the majority shareholders are misguided.  The footballing economic landscape has changed massively since the 1960s and you simply cannot compare the eras or suggest that where the club lies now is down to the decisions and actions of one individual.

c) "The fact that we are closer to where we were in 56/57 than at any time since" is not true.  Saturday August 8, 2009, we were bottom of League One after Colchester beat us 7-1.  As a result of this game, and other factors specified by McNally, Gunn was given the sack and a young, more capable manager was brought in to replace the old club servant.  Are you behind Lambert, or do you think he''s just another puppet?  If you are behind him, then maybe you should try looking forwards and getting behind his team.  Nobody would deny there have been serious and frequent errors made by the board of directors under Smith/MWJ''s tenure as majority shareholders, but how long do you want to keep banging on about how doomed we are?  Posting threads based on a "live league table" suggests a secondary agenda at work, frankly.

[/quote]

Nobody is suggesting that our current plight is all down to DS and MWJ as far as I know. It is more a constuct of nutty''s that he loves to erect and knock down from time to time for reasons best known to himself.

And remember -  people who forget their own history are destined to repeat their mistakes. No, Mr Chops, the pressure must be maintained until the solution is achieved (see Mello above)

OTBC

P.S. Did DS back her Worthy, dig in her pocket and buy Huckerby? No, the club made a share offer so that the Norfolk public could buy Darren.- I know, I helped. Worthy deserves the credit for this one by putting together a half-decent team and then overtly pressuring the Board (not for the first or last time, by the way) to get in Darren and the other loanees/signings that season.