Lambert, finances, and ambition

[blahblahblah 2]

We''re in a great position now, a position none of us would have dreamt of in August.  But at this moment in time we''ve won nothing this season.  Lambert has never managed above league one level, and while it is plain to see that he can organise and motivate players at this level, there are no guarantees that he would find managing in the Championship to be the cake-walk that League 1 has been so far.  In his shoes, I''d be looking to get at least one season of championship football under my belt here before I moved on, whether to Celtic, or any other team.  Mowbray has won the Championship with West Brom, twice I think ?  So if you were the Celtic board, and were looking to replace Mowbray and Grant, why would you pick a man who has never managed outside of league one ?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

This comes back - inevitably - to the old question of

ambition versus prudence, and whether it''s wise to spend money you

don''t have. A subject touched on in Panic''s thread about Man Utd and

Portsmouth in particular.Burnley, for example, haven''t. And

there is little doubt that prudence played a major part in Coyle''s

decision to jump ship. What do Burnley do now? Trust Laws with loads of

money they don''t have that he might waste or that might not keep them

up anyway even if used well? Not forgetting that Burnley already want to buy back their ground, having sold it only four years ago, but cannot afford to.Let''s assume (which I don''t) we are

in the Championship next season. Plainly Lambert is someone the board

can trust to spend money wisely. And more ambition might help keep him

here. For a while. But the longer-term cost has to weighed. We are not

in a position now where we can afford to spend any more money we don''t have.However,

since everyone else seems unusually optimistic, perhaps we are about to

benefit from a virtuous circle of success (and the hope of further

success) under Lambert bringing in some investment (on the basis that

the benefactors believe it will be well spent).Now I need to go a lie down for a while. All this hope is making me feel faint.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]This comes back - inevitably - to the old question of

ambition versus prudence, and whether it''s wise to spend money you

don''t have. A subject touched on in Panic''s thread about Man Utd and

Portsmouth in particular.Burnley, for example, haven''t. And

there is little doubt that prudence played a major part in Coyle''s

decision to jump ship. What do Burnley do now? Trust Laws with loads of

money they don''t have that he might waste or that might not keep them

up anyway even if used well? Not forgetting that Burnley already want to buy back their ground, having sold it only four years ago, but cannot afford to.Let''s assume (which I don''t) we are

in the Championship next season. Plainly Lambert is someone the board

can trust to spend money wisely. And more ambition might help keep him

here. For a while. But the longer-term cost has to weighed. We are not

in a position now where we can afford to spend any more money we don''t have.However,

since everyone else seems unusually optimistic, perhaps we are about to

benefit from a virtuous circle of success (and the hope of further

success) under Lambert bringing in some investment (on the basis that

the benefactors believe it will be well spent).Now I need to go a lie down for a while. All this hope is making me feel faint.[/quote]All fair enough - and as ever, it''s a question of striking the right balance, and not going too far one way or the other. Lambert, of course, is essentially allied to McNally''s way, which leaves Smith and Jones looking outmanoeuvred, unlikely to have the same day-to-day power as they once did. If we sold a key player between now and the end of the window - which is perfectly possible, might even be financially imperative, but none of us want it - how Lambert reacts will be instructive. For the club to be as successful as we all want, everyone has to be on the same page, and it may be a question of him having to accept certain constraints, as long as we back him in other areas as far as is possible. I''ve been thinking the same about how a cycle of success can lead to new investment too, incidentally: real ambition (as long as it doesn''t mean gambling our whole future away) pays in all sorts of ways. Success breeds success.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I''ve been thinking the same about how a cycle of success can lead to

new investment too, incidentally: real ambition (as long as it doesn''t

mean gambling our whole future away) pays in all sorts of ways. Success

breeds success.[/quote]Does it ?  If that''s the case, then why are Man Utd £700 million in debt, and considering (if you believe the papers) selling Rooney to buy time with their lenders ?  Why are Premier League and recent FA cup winners Portsmouth unable to pay their players'' wages ?  Why do recently promoted Hull have a couple of months to find £18 million or go under ?  Why did the owners of recent champions league winners Liverpool issue this statement in December ?  [quote]Owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett were warned that there is

''significant doubt on the group''s and parent company''s ability to

continue as a going concern'' because of the club''s debts.- Mail [/quote]

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all for new investment, I just can''t see how anyone can see any football club these days as anything more than a massive money pit.  Look at Real Madrid for example - if the bank called in their massive debts and liquidated the club, then the banks'' Madrid supporting customers might pull their accounts and cause a run on the bank, which is said to be the only reason Madrid still has a club.Success certainly creates a greater hunger for success, but only 1 club can win the title of any division.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Does it ?  If that''s the case, then why are Man Utd £700 million in debt, and considering (if you believe the papers) selling Rooney to buy time with their lenders ?  Why are Premier League and recent FA cup winners Portsmouth unable to pay their players'' wages ?  Why do recently promoted Hull have a couple of months to find £18 million or go under ?  Why did the owners of recent champions league winners Liverpool issue this statement in December ?  [quote]Owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett were warned that there is

''significant doubt on the group''s and parent company''s ability to

continue as a going concern'' because of the club''s debts.- Mail [/quote]

Don''t get me wrong, I''m all for new investment, I just can''t see how anyone can see any football club these days as anything more than a massive money pit.  Look at Real Madrid for example - if the bank called in their massive debts and liquidated the club, then the banks'' Madrid supporting customers might pull their accounts and cause a run on the bank, which is said to be the only reason Madrid still has a club.Success certainly creates a greater hunger for success, but only 1 club can win the title of any division.[/quote]Success within your means breeds success. Plenty of clubs have managed it over the years: if they''ve then screwed up through poor decisions, over-expenditure, foolish punts on property or whatever, they''ve no-one to blame but themselves. That isn''t to say it''s easy: of course it isn''t! But poor (at times, beyond belief) footballing and non-footballing decisions led to our debt being so high; and because of our gates, good decisions can help us recover. Man Utd and Liverpool are victims of the football boom and the leveraged takeover; Portsmouth and Hull have been monstrously irresponsible. Pompey, if you recall, paid Sol Campbell £105,000/week, and all with attendances lower than ours! And we wonder why they''re in such a state? But there''s no reason at all why we couldn''t be where, say, West Brom are; and if we''d got our decisions right since 2005, we probably would be too. Now Lambert''s given us the opportunity to get back to that sort of level: it must not be spurned.

[blahblahblah 2]

I''d agree that we can / should be back to West Brom are - truth be told that''s probably where we belong in the long term pecking order.  McNally certainly seems to know his way around a club, keeping hold of him could be as important as keeping hold of Lambert.  I reckon you''re worrying about nothing when it comes to Celtic at the moment though.  At least this season anyway - if Lambert delivers us into the top 6 in the championship by next Xmas ?  well, that might be a different story...

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Smudger"]So if we are promoted or not come the end of the season you would be happy to see Lambert walk for nothing as long as it was to a bigger club because our board of directors had not sat down with him to offer him a new contract would you?Of course Lambert signing a new contract does not necessarily mean that he would stay with us any longer, but it at least puts a value on the clubs current biggest asset.[/quote]

No, that''s not what I said Smudger. Where did you see that in my post?

How is Lambert going to walk away for nothing if he''s on a one year rolling contract anyway?

Here''s something to think about. If in the future a club came in for him and it was a job Lambert really wanted then he would go. He would go whatever contract he was on and however much fuss our club kicked up. At the end of the day money doesn''t buy loyalty Smudger. There is more money going into footballers and managers pockets than ever before but if anything there''s less loyalty. So the prudent[W] thing to do would be to have a Plan B for if it happened. Have a shortlist or even a specific target for a replacement. And to keep evaluating it so that if the worst happens we just move in and get the new man like we did with Lambert himself.

 

[/quote]Where did I say anything about money buying loyalty Nutty?Yet again you miss my point totally.  You get both managers and players that you value highly to sign new (and possibly extended) contracts before their current deal expires.What happens if somebody comes in and turns Lambert''s head in May this year just as his current deal is about to expire and our favoured replacement has one year or two years to run on his current deal?  Do you think that we are financially in a position to then get our favoured replacement for Lambert in?It is called planning for the future Nutty.  Something that the Norwich City board of directors has failed miserably at for far too long!

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Smudger"]Where did I say anything about money buying loyalty Nutty?Yet again you miss my point totally.  You get both managers and players that you value highly to sign new (and possibly extended) contracts before their current deal expires.What happens if somebody comes in and turns Lambert''s head in May this year just as his current deal is about to expire and our favoured replacement has one year or two years to run on his current deal?  Do you think that we are financially in a position to then get our favoured replacement for Lambert in?It is called planning for the future Nutty.  Something that the Norwich City board of directors has failed miserably at for far too long![/quote]Smudger, it''s now been pointed out to you at least twice on this thread, and you still haven''t got it. What part of the term ''rolling contract'' don''t you understand? The thing about rolling contracts is, they never expire!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Why do you class the two Sheffield clubs, West Brom and Derby as bigger than us, with Bolton and Middlesborough a similar size, but Ipswich and Southampton smaller?I think that there is a little inconsistency there whther you are drawing those conclusions on number of fans, history or where certain teams currently are in the league.[/quote]There''s bound to be inconsistencies whenever assessing something like this: it''s impossible to find any hard and fast rule. In our case, what we gain with our fanbase, we lose with our lack of achievements, money and the way we''ve portrayed ourselves and been perceived within football for far too long. Not enough other observers within the game would consider us as a big club, largely because of how we''ve behaved and often patronised ourselves. It pisses me off enormously that Ipswich - who we''re unquestionably bigger than: look at our crowds, our stadium, that Norwich is the most important city in the east of England and Ipswich just a town - have achieved much more than us. Not just an FA Cup, UEFA Cup, and league title only a quarter of a century after joining the league, but many sustained title challenges, many European runs, and more recently, many more promotion challenges. Ipswich are an historically over-achieving club; Norwich are an historically under-achieving one: that we''ve really only been consistently stronger than them for one decade (1985-1995) is pathetic, frankly.The two Sheffield clubs and Bolton have much more of an illustrious history than us: Wednesday especially are a real sleeping giant. Derby have won two league titles and an FA Cup, and have a very good fanbase like ourselves. West Brom have won the title once, the FA Cup five times; Norwich haven''t even reached a single FA Cup Final. Middlesbrough are a complicated one, but their wealthy owner, excellent stadium and recent history of being in the top flight for a considerable period just puts them ahead of us, but only just. But in truth, there''s very little to choose between so many of us: and with the advantages we have, we should be looking to grow and become an established Premier League club instead of shrugging our shoulders about how unfair it all is.One other thing Smudge. As nutty has said, Lambert''s on a rolling contract: this means he cannot leave for nothing. We''ll always be entitled to one year''s compo; he''ll always be entitled to a one year pay-off. That''s how rolling contracts work: they never run out.[/quote]If this is the case then it is me not understanding the type of contract.  I was thinking that the new year on the rolling contract began once the first year had expired etc etc etc.If it is as you describe above then I agree with you that we just need to be doing absolutely everything we can to back Lambert in the transfer market and hope that the wonderful support our club enjoys plus a continual improvement in league position is enough to keep him here.It will be kind of strange because the more the board do to keep him here he could leave anyway.  I think if we were fairly successful and finished in the play-offs in the Championship next season but missed out on promotion for example, then we could have far more bigger and better clubs knocking on our door for Mr Lamberts services than if we struggle or finish mid-table in the Championship next season.Of course the most frustrating scenario would be being sat mid-table and losing him to a club of a similar size to us in the same league as us for choosing not to give him the backing he is asking for in terms of the transfer kitty... et la Martin O'' Neill and Leicester (although we were of course challenging when O''Neill quit, but I think more was expected of the club by it''s fans in that era than will be expected next season).

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Where did I say anything about money buying loyalty Nutty?Yet again you miss my point totally.  You get both managers and players that you value highly to sign new (and possibly extended) contracts before their current deal expires.What happens if somebody comes in and turns Lambert''s head in May this year just as his current deal is about to expire and our favoured replacement has one year or two years to run on his current deal?  Do you think that we are financially in a position to then get our favoured replacement for Lambert in?It is called planning for the future Nutty.  Something that the Norwich City board of directors has failed miserably at for far too long![/quote]Smudger, it''s now been pointed out to you at least twice on this thread, and you still haven''t got it. What part of the term ''rolling contract'' don''t you understand? The thing about rolling contracts is, they never expire![/quote]Just seen it mate ^^^^^^^ [;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

I perhaps should have made it clear I was thinking mainly about success attracting minority investment to ease our financial position, although plainly if we were back in the Championship we would be a more appealing proposition for a buyer.I agree that West Brom are a good example to follow and a decent benchmark. However it should be borne in mind that owner Jeremy Peace (listed at £40m on the footie rich list) put the club up for sale 18 months ago because, he said, he wasn''t wealthy enough to turn them from a club yo-yoing between the top two divisions into a long-term Premier League club.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I perhaps should have made it clear I was thinking mainly about success attracting minority investment to ease our financial position, although plainly if we were back in the Championship we would be a more appealing proposition for a buyer.I agree that West Brom are a good example to follow and a decent benchmark. However it should be borne in mind that owner Jeremy Peace (listed at £40m on the footie rich list) put the club up for sale 18 months ago because, he said, he wasn''t wealthy enough to turn them from a club yo-yoing between the top two divisions into a long-term Premier League club.[/quote]To be fair, I only meant in terms of minority investment too. As for Peace: well, sure, but football finances are changing, and as a number of clubs fall down the pecking order, so space may open for others to take their place. Circa 2007/8, I think the mad EPL gravy train reached its absolute zenith - but things are changing now, and many casualties seem likely.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Smudger"]Just seen it mate ^^^^^^^ [;)][/quote]Ah - no problem bud. Sorry for chiding you! [:P]

[Smudger 0]

Birmingham City seem to have broken the yo-yo this year... we will all have to wait and see if Carson Yeung has more success than Sullivan and Gold long term and whether the club is in a worse position than it was when he took over when he leaves.If he can keep them competing at the top end of the Premiership for a good few years without massively increasing the clubs debts then maybe Birmingham City would be a better model for success than WBA?

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Smudger"]If this is the case then it is me not understanding the type of contract.  I was thinking that the new year on the rolling contract began once the first year had expired etc etc etc.If it is as you describe above then I agree with you that we just need to be doing absolutely everything we can to back Lambert in the transfer market and hope that the wonderful support our club enjoys plus a continual improvement in league position is enough to keep him here.It will be kind of strange because the more the board do to keep him here he could leave anyway.  I think if we were fairly successful and finished in the play-offs in the Championship next season but missed out on promotion for example, then we could have far more bigger and better clubs knocking on our door for Mr Lamberts services than if we struggle or finish mid-table in the Championship next season.Of course the most frustrating scenario would be being sat mid-table and losing him to a club of a similar size to us in the same league as us for choosing not to give him the backing he is asking for in terms of the transfer kitty... et la Martin O'' Neill and Leicester (although we were of course challenging when O''Neill quit, but I think more was expected of the club by it''s fans in that era than will be expected next season).[/quote]I agree with all of that - though can''t for the life of me imagine him making a sideways move a la O''Neill. Something would have to go disastrously wrong for that to happen. You''re right though: the dichotomy between backing him, doing well, then effectively being punished for success by losing him is a strange one, but it''d be up to us to capitalise on where he''d got us by finding the right replacement.Football''s pecking order can be incredibly frustrating. If a club moves upwards, it often loses its manager, invariably to a big club which has been run badly: meaning the big club can recover, and the smaller club suffers. And this cycle perpetuates itself: big, successful clubs naturally produce more players who go into management, and dream of returning as boss, the situation we may find ourselves in relative to Celtic. I guess the dream scenario for a club like us is someone ex-Norwich, who wants to stay here a very long time, and is a brilliant manager too - but too many clubs make the mistake of prioritising ex-players over good managers, and get nowhere as a result. It all comes down to the calibre of people running things, and how wisely what money is there is spent: the good thing is thanks to McNally and Bowkett, we''re far better placed in that sense than we were.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Smudger"]Birmingham City seem to have broken the yo-yo this year... we will all have to wait and see if Carson Yeung has more success than Sullivan and Gold long term and whether the club is in a worse position than it was when he took over when he leaves.If he can keep them competing at the top end of the Premiership for a good few years without massively increasing the clubs debts then maybe Birmingham City would be a better model for success than WBA?[/quote]Only if we had a Yeung-style takeover too, which doesn''t seem likely. He''s effectively enabling them to punch at a higher financial weight than the previous regime could. Others might mention Stoke, but that example''s somewhat flawed too: Peter Coates is extremely wealthy, and making a huge difference there. So much so that while very few EPL clubs have any real money to spend this month, Stoke are almost certainly one of them.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Birmingham City seem to have broken the yo-yo this year... we will all have to wait and see if Carson Yeung has more success than Sullivan and Gold long term and whether the club is in a worse position than it was when he took over when he leaves.If he can keep them competing at the top end of the Premiership for a good few years without massively increasing the clubs debts then maybe Birmingham City would be a better model for success than WBA?[/quote]Only if we had a Yeung-style takeover too, which doesn''t seem likely. He''s effectively enabling them to punch at a higher financial weight than the previous regime could. Others might mention Stoke, but that example''s somewhat flawed too: Peter Coates is extremely wealthy, and making a huge difference there. So much so that while very few EPL clubs have any real money to spend this month, Stoke are almost certainly one of them.[/quote]Stoke certainly play to their strengths under Pulis and have spent a few quid since last January on ensuring they stay in the Premiership.  Yet again though how far can they realistically go under the current Coates & Co ownership?  Will success make the club and it''s fans strive for more success or will Coates pull the financial plug?Currently we have Portsmouth being slated for spending over the odds.  But at least they had a good manager in Redknapp and won the FA Cup while they were spending big.  That is something nobody can take away from Portsmouth.  Their fans will probably feel that even if they are relegated this season, if they are able to stabilise again in the Championship before building again then the fantastic journey that they had would of been worth it.Again we are back to how far does a club hungry for some success back a manager that they really believe in???

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Birmingham City seem to have broken the yo-yo this year... we will all have to wait and see if Carson Yeung has more success than Sullivan and Gold long term and whether the club is in a worse position than it was when he took over when he leaves.

If he can keep them competing at the top end of the Premiership for a good few years without massively increasing the clubs debts then maybe Birmingham City would be a better model for success than WBA?
[/quote]

Only if we had a Yeung-style takeover too, which doesn''t seem likely. He''s effectively enabling them to punch at a higher financial weight than the previous regime could. Others might mention Stoke, but that example''s somewhat flawed too: Peter Coates is extremely wealthy, and making a huge difference there. So much so that while very few EPL clubs have any real money to spend this month, Stoke are almost certainly one of them.
[/quote]

Stoke certainly play to their strengths under Pulis and have spent a few quid since last January on ensuring they stay in the Premiership.  Yet again though how far can they realistically go under the current Coates & Co ownership?  Will success make the club and it''s fans strive for more success or will Coates pull the financial plug?

Currently we have Portsmouth being slated for spending over the odds.  But at least they had a good manager in Redknapp and won the FA Cup while they were spending big.  That is something nobody can take away from Portsmouth.  Their fans will probably feel that even if they are relegated this season, if they are able to stabilise again in the Championship before building again then the fantastic journey that they had would of been worth it.

Again we are back to how far does a club hungry for some success back a manager that they really believe in???
[/quote]

Smudger....two points. Good for you in admitting that you did not understand the rolling contract concept. Secondly, regarding your final comment in the preceding post which while difficult for posters to answer with details,  any business/football club with shareholders should operate in a manner that, first and foremost, protects the ongoing interest of the business. Obviously, most businesses are required to take some risks but it''s necessary for decision makers to realise they cannot afford to take a risk that, if it fails, could result in the business failing. I realise this is stating the obvious but there are a lot of posters on this forum who appear to not want to understand the obvious. Ask any CEO what he regards as his greatest daily challenge and, usually, effectively managing risk is one of the first things identified. 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]
If this is the case then it is me not understanding the type of contract.  I was thinking that the new year on the rolling contract began once the first year had expired etc etc etc.

If it is as you describe above then I agree with you that we just need to be doing absolutely everything we can to back Lambert in the transfer market and hope that the wonderful support our club enjoys plus a continual improvement in league position is enough to keep him here.

It will be kind of strange because the more the board do to keep him here he could leave anyway.  I think if we were fairly successful and finished in the play-offs in the Championship next season but missed out on promotion for example, then we could have far more bigger and better clubs knocking on our door for Mr Lamberts services than if we struggle or finish mid-table in the Championship next season.

Of course the most frustrating scenario would be being sat mid-table and losing him to a club of a similar size to us in the same league as us for choosing not to give him the backing he is asking for in terms of the transfer kitty... et la Martin O'' Neill and Leicester (although we were of course challenging when O''Neill quit, but I think more was expected of the club by it''s fans in that era than will be expected next season).
[/quote]

I agree with all of that - though can''t for the life of me imagine him making a sideways move a la O''Neill. Something would have to go disastrously wrong for that to happen. You''re right though: the dichotomy between backing him, doing well, then effectively being punished for success by losing him is a strange one, but it''d be up to us to capitalise on where he''d got us by finding the right replacement.

Football''s pecking order can be incredibly frustrating. If a club moves upwards, it often loses its manager, invariably to a big club which has been run badly: meaning the big club can recover, and the smaller club suffers. And this cycle perpetuates itself: big, successful clubs naturally produce more players who go into management, and dream of returning as boss, the situation we may find ourselves in relative to Celtic. I guess the dream scenario for a club like us is someone ex-Norwich, who wants to stay here a very long time, and is a brilliant manager too - but too many clubs make the mistake of prioritising ex-players over good managers, and get nowhere as a result. It all comes down to the calibre of people running things, and how wisely what money is there is spent: the good thing is thanks to McNally and Bowkett, we''re far better placed in that sense than we were.
[/quote]

I think that many are also missing is the importance that two ex-Norwich players are making.

In Culverhouse and Crook we have two of the most outstanding players in our "successfull" period.

One an outstanding defender described by some "as the best sweeper in Europe" and a mid field player that could have rivaled Hoddle.

Their skills are now being brought very much to the for by a man (Lambert) who seemimgly lets them get on and not only train but teach the players the Norwich way. Lambert admits that they do most of the work.

People forget that it is a team that is bringing us our Success. As I said earlier that team stretches from fans to chairman. Each bringing and fullfilling a vital part.

Without each the overall is much weaker.

It is VITAL that we keep each piece of the jig saw in place for this run to continue.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Smudger"]Stoke certainly play to their strengths under Pulis and have spent a few quid since last January on ensuring they stay in the Premiership.  Yet again though how far can they realistically go under the current Coates & Co ownership?  Will success make the club and it''s fans strive for more success or will Coates pull the financial plug?Currently we have Portsmouth being slated for spending over the odds.  But at least they had a good manager in Redknapp and won the FA Cup while they were spending big.  That is something nobody can take away from Portsmouth.  Their fans will probably feel that even if they are relegated this season, if they are able to stabilise again in the Championship before building again then the fantastic journey that they had would of been worth it.Again we are back to how far does a club hungry for some success back a manager that they really believe in???[/quote]Stoke have certainly surprised me. But they spent significantly during the summer, and my best guess is they''ll spend more this coming summer. Coates'' wealth seems to be the key for them; and it may enable them to get rid of Pulis if they hit a bad spell, and appoint a more progressive manager. Of course, they''ve no reason to at all at the moment - but their wealth means they''re not just a smaller club over-achieving because of a fantastic manager (eg. Leicester under O''Neill, Charlton under Curbishley), likely to fall back the moment the manager leaves. They may well hang around in the Prem for years to come.As for Portsmouth: the problem is that they didn''t just spend big. They spent BIG! What they did was simply crazy, and the credit crunch ensured it was bound to all go horribly pear-shaped. Redknapp has an appalling habit of leaving club after club in a horrendous mess, much as Terry Venables did before him; and there is no justification for what Pompey have done. And the thing is Smudge, as things stand, there''s no chance on earth of them stabilising in the Champ: none whatsoever. I think points deductions will be likely once they''ve come down, and their very survival is at stake. Was it worth it? Depends on your viewpoint really. If they survive, then arguably yes: clearly, winning the FA Cup is as good as it can possibly get for any smaller club. But they have many years of misery and toil ahead, it seems to me; and that''s only if they survive at all.

[Smudger 0]

I agree BUTLER, I have been very, very, very impressed with what I have seen of Culverhouse in a coaching role... [Y]It has even been asked by some on here if he would wish to step in to the managerial seat at Carrow Road if/when Lambert chooses to leave.  I wonder if Culverhouse has any plans to be a manager one day and when would be the right time for us the fans to ask him such a question?  I wonder if he would stay at the club as a coach if we brought a  new manager in or if like many coaches he would continue to work with Lambert and follow him wherever he goes?Can''t blame him whatever he would choose to do and I for one would wish him the best of luck whatever decision he made!

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Stoke certainly play to their strengths under Pulis and have spent a few quid since last January on ensuring they stay in the Premiership.  Yet again though how far can they realistically go under the current Coates & Co ownership?  Will success make the club and it''s fans strive for more success or will Coates pull the financial plug?Currently we have Portsmouth being slated for spending over the odds.  But at least they had a good manager in Redknapp and won the FA Cup while they were spending big.  That is something nobody can take away from Portsmouth.  Their fans will probably feel that even if they are relegated this season, if they are able to stabilise again in the Championship before building again then the fantastic journey that they had would of been worth it.Again we are back to how far does a club hungry for some success back a manager that they really believe in???[/quote]Stoke have certainly surprised me. But they spent significantly during the summer, and my best guess is they''ll spend more this coming summer. Coates'' wealth seems to be the key for them; and it may enable them to get rid of Pulis if they hit a bad spell, and appoint a more progressive manager. Of course, they''ve no reason to at all at the moment - but their wealth means they''re not just a smaller club over-achieving because of a fantastic manager (eg. Leicester under O''Neill, Charlton under Curbishley), likely to fall back the moment the manager leaves. They may well hang around in the Prem for years to come.As for Portsmouth: the problem is that they didn''t just spend big. They spent BIG! What they did was simply crazy, and the credit crunch ensured it was bound to all go horribly pear-shaped. Redknapp has an appalling habit of leaving club after club in a horrendous mess, much as Terry Venables did before him; and there is no justification for what Pompey have done. And the thing is Smudge, as things stand, there''s no chance on earth of them stabilising in the Champ: none whatsoever. I think points deductions will be likely once they''ve come down, and their very survival is at stake. Was it worth it? Depends on your viewpoint really. If they survive, then arguably yes: clearly, winning the FA Cup is as good as it can possibly get for any smaller club. But they have many years of misery and toil ahead, it seems to me; and that''s only if they survive at all.[/quote]I agree with yer Big Fella. And you sum it up very well.For those interested (and I know it''s quite lame linking to a columnist, but it''s a good''un) : Gabriele Marcotti: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article6974596.ece

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="The Butler"]

I think that many are also missing is the importance that two ex-Norwich players are making.

In Culverhouse and Crook we have two of the most outstanding players in our "successfull" period.

One an outstanding defender described by some "as the best sweeper in Europe" and a mid field player that could have rivaled Hoddle.

Their skills are now being brought very much to the for by a man (Lambert) who seemimgly lets them get on and not only train but teach the players the Norwich way. Lambert admits that they do most of the work.

People forget that it is a team that is bringing us our Success. As I said earlier that team stretches from fans to chairman. Each bringing and fullfilling a vital part.

Without each the overall is much weaker.

It is VITAL that we keep each piece of the jig saw in place for this run to continue.

[/quote]Yes, very true. Both huge favourites of mine as players: Crook should''ve been an England regular if you ask me, Culverhouse was criminally underrated. I went mental when John Deehan treated him so stupidly and sold him for a pittance. That said though, I wouldn''t be at all comfortable with either becoming manager if Lambert left: it''d be a cheap option, and both are merely coaches. If either want to manage us, let them go and prove how good they are elsewhere first.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Ask any CEO what he regards as his greatest daily challenge and, usually, effectively managing risk is one of the first things identified. 

[/quote]

In NCFC''s case, its the risk that ambition may emerge! 

Lol!

 

Up Tangy''s Umbrella!

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]If either want to manage us, let them go and prove how good they are elsewhere first.[/quote]Like Mike Walker and Dave Stringer did you mean.  Oh...

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="Fellas"]I agree with yer Big Fella. And you sum it up very well.For those interested (and I know it''s quite lame linking to a columnist, but it''s a good''un) : Gabriele Marcotti: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article6974596.ece[/quote]As befits the best football analyst in the UK, Marcotti is absolutely right: about Pompey, at least. But there''s a flaw in his argument too. For one thing, so many clubs have been guilty of it, especially in the Prem. For another, there are different kinds of debt - and it all depends on how lucky your club is. Portsmouth were screwed the moment Gydamak hit financial problems; but Chelsea and Man City only ever owed ''soft debt'' to their benefactor, which has been converted into equity. Fulham and Wigan''s debt is also soft. Lucky them, basically. Meanwhile, Man Utd and Liverpool, through no fault of their own, were taken over through colossally leveraged buy-outs; Arsenal are hugely in debt, but only because of their new stadium, and should be fine. Then there are other clubs who have manageable long term debt; it''s just that it becomes distinctly unmanageable if they get relegated, and especially if they stay down.What sort of debt is acceptable, and what isn''t? I can''t answer that one really; and the real tragedy of the English game is, unlike abroad where clubs are publicly owned and fans vote in a new board, here it''s all pot luck.

[thebigfeller 200]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]If either want to manage us, let them go and prove how good they are elsewhere first.[/quote]Like Mike Walker and Dave Stringer did you mean.  Oh...[/quote]Football is very, very different nowadays. Far more ruthless, and the penalties for failure are massively higher. Therefore, far fewer established clubs are prepared to gamble - and while every appointment is a gamble to some extent, the key is to reduce your odds by choosing someone with a prior track record. In management, neither Culverhouse nor Crook have one (unless you count managing in Australia, which I don''t I''m afraid.Run down all the clubs in the Prem and Championship. How many are managed by someone with no prior experience? Hardly any. And sure: very occasionally, as with Keane at Sunderland, it works - but it''s very much odds against, and not a risk I''d be prepared to take.

[The Butler 0]

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

I think that many are also missing is the importance that two ex-Norwich players are making.

In Culverhouse and Crook we have two of the most outstanding players in our "successfull" period.

One an outstanding defender described by some "as the best sweeper in Europe" and a mid field player that could have rivaled Hoddle.

Their skills are now being brought very much to the for by a man (Lambert) who seemimgly lets them get on and not only train but teach the players the Norwich way. Lambert admits that they do most of the work.

People forget that it is a team that is bringing us our Success. As I said earlier that team stretches from fans to chairman. Each bringing and fullfilling a vital part.

Without each the overall is much weaker.

It is VITAL that we keep each piece of the jig saw in place for this run to continue.

[/quote]

Yes, very true. Both huge favourites of mine as players: Crook should''ve been an England regular if you ask me, Culverhouse was criminally underrated. I went mental when John Deehan treated him so stupidly and sold him for a pittance. That said though, I wouldn''t be at all comfortable with either becoming manager if Lambert left: it''d be a cheap option, and both are merely coaches. If either want to manage us, let them go and prove how good they are elsewhere first.
[/quote]

Wasn''t proposing either as a manager,but stressing that it''s a team performance. Lets keep the WHOLE team together because my feeling is that if one goes we would lose the lot!!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Smudger"]Stoke certainly play to their strengths under Pulis and have spent a few quid since last January on ensuring they stay in the Premiership.  Yet again though how far can they realistically go under the current Coates & Co ownership?  Will success make the club and it''s fans strive for more success or will Coates pull the financial plug?Currently we have Portsmouth being slated for spending over the odds.  But at least they had a good manager in Redknapp and won the FA Cup while they were spending big.  That is something nobody can take away from Portsmouth.  Their fans will probably feel that even if they are relegated this season, if they are able to stabilise again in the Championship before building again then the fantastic journey that they had would of been worth it.Again we are back to how far does a club hungry for some success back a manager that they really believe in???[/quote]Stoke have certainly surprised me. But they spent significantly during the summer, and my best guess is they''ll spend more this coming summer. Coates'' wealth seems to be the key for them; and it may enable them to get rid of Pulis if they hit a bad spell, and appoint a more progressive manager. Of course, they''ve no reason to at all at the moment - but their wealth means they''re not just a smaller club over-achieving because of a fantastic manager (eg. Leicester under O''Neill, Charlton under Curbishley), likely to fall back the moment the manager leaves. They may well hang around in the Prem for years to come.As for Portsmouth: the problem is that they didn''t just spend big. They spent BIG! What they did was simply crazy, and the credit crunch ensured it was bound to all go horribly pear-shaped. Redknapp has an appalling habit of leaving club after club in a horrendous mess, much as Terry Venables did before him; and there is no justification for what Pompey have done. And the thing is Smudge, as things stand, there''s no chance on earth of them stabilising in the Champ: none whatsoever. I think points deductions will be likely once they''ve come down, and their very survival is at stake. Was it worth it? Depends on your viewpoint really. If they survive, then arguably yes: clearly, winning the FA Cup is as good as it can possibly get for any smaller club. But they have many years of misery and toil ahead, it seems to me; and that''s only if they survive at all.[/quote]I am sure that Portsmouth, like Southampton will survive but they may well struggle for a number of years.  Where is their rightful place in the pecking order anyway?  Until the dodgy Mandaric got involved they were midtable Championship for many years putting in the odd failed promotion attempt and a couple of good cup runs from time to time.It is too early to say whether their overspending was worth it but it is also too early to say that it was a massive mistake.  Like I said if they can stay in the Championship next season and build progressively from there then in 5 years time then the massive gamble they took may well have been worth it in many fans eyes.Let''s not forget that we have never won the FA Cup and perhaps crazy overspending might be the only way we could ever achieve such success?  I am sure if we were relegated a couple of seasons after winning it and could find a buyer who could keep us afloat mid-table in the Championship then we would consider the gamble worth taking?Stoke''s spending is more under control currently but how far will they go in search of further success or silverware and 10 or 15 years from now will they regret going too far or not doing quite enough?If we had pushed the boat out a little bit more under Chase then it may have brought Silverware and many more years playing topflight football.  We had debts at the time and Chase started withold more and more funds from our transfer kitty resulting in relegation and then the well documented Martin O''Neill scenario leading to Delia & Co''s attempts to restablish ourselves as a top flight team resulting in one season in 14 is it back in the top flight?It will always be a gamble where tough decisions need to be made and hopefully with Lambert and McNally we now have the men to make those tough decisions.  The higher that we climb or the lower that we fall, then inevitably the decisions that these two guys will have to make become tougher and tougher.It is rare finding a manager who you trust to spend your money wisely and when you have one as somebody said before make hay while the sun shines.

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Fellas"]I agree with yer Big Fella. And you sum it up very well.For those interested (and I know it''s quite lame linking to a columnist, but it''s a good''un) : Gabriele Marcotti: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/gabriele_marcotti/article6974596.ece[/quote]As befits the best football analyst in the UK, Marcotti is absolutely right: about Pompey, at least. But there''s a flaw in his argument too. For one thing, so many clubs have been guilty of it, especially in the Prem. For another, there are different kinds of debt - and it all depends on how lucky your club is. Portsmouth were screwed the moment Gydamak hit financial problems; but Chelsea and Man City only ever owed ''soft debt'' to their benefactor, which has been converted into equity. Fulham and Wigan''s debt is also soft. Lucky them, basically. Meanwhile, Man Utd and Liverpool, through no fault of their own, were taken over through colossally leveraged buy-outs; Arsenal are hugely in debt, but only because of their new stadium, and should be fine. Then there are other clubs who have manageable long term debt; it''s just that it becomes distinctly unmanageable if they get relegated, and especially if they stay down.What sort of debt is acceptable, and what isn''t? I can''t answer that one really; and the real tragedy of the English game is, unlike abroad where clubs are publicly owned and fans vote in a new board, here it''s all pot luck.[/quote]Exactly, even teams like Burnley have spent beyond their means to be honest. It is a hard ask to find an investor willing to use common sense and yet be able to afford consistent large backing. Even the shrewdest owners have got it wrong (Birmingham, M''boro?). You call it pot luck, perhaps it is, but it''s about getting it right, getting the right people in. McNally and Lambert look like and are good choices, and I think we will reap the benefits. But we have to understand we will have to replace at some point, and that''s the key, we (and most clubs do at some point to) have got it wrong over the past 4 or 5 seasons. I have a lot of trust in McNally as a judge of talent, and if we can get sensible financial backing I believe we can make it back up.