Hucks Meets Nigel Worthington on www.dh6.co.uk

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote] All Worthington has said, which I think we knew already, is that he wasn''t given as much as he would have liked. As to why the money wasn''t there, there is no evidence at all from that interview to back up your notion that it had been wasted on off-field stuff.[/quote]This leads me to the old process of elimination argument PC.  If Worthington didn''t have it, and Sky gave it to the club, who had it ?  If it wasn''t spent on the pitch, where could it have been spent ?  I''m guessing it wasn''t spent on the new stand because that was paid for by loans.  In the summer that we only brought in one player, Lee Croft, we had parachute payments - where did they go ?I cannot prove the money was spent off the pitch, but Worthingtons assertion is certainly that it wasn''t spent on the pitch.[/quote]

We''ll never know where the money went.......Donny''s black-hole though, would have certainly taken some fillin''....

 

The extension on the rear of the Barclay.....Who/what funded that - over a decade ago?

[/quote]Criag bellamy gets sold, Then the Barcvlay gets extended.. not that the 2 are linked...

[T 190]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="T"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[/quote]

What''s igorance?  Oh, and how or why, were we allowed to accrue a £24+ million quid debt if the then board and Mr Doncaster weren''t ignorant of finance ? Does the income from your Aunty Delia''s catering activities really generate 50% revenue on top of ticket sales? 

Should we rename the Top of the Terrace "The Black Hole"?.....

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="T"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[/quote]

What''s igorance?  Oh, and how or why, were we allowed to accrue a £24+ million quid debt if the then board and Mr Doncaster weren''t ignorant of finance ? Does the income from your Aunty Delia''s catering activities really generate 50% revenue on top of ticket sales? 

Should we rename the Top of the Terrace "The Black Hole"?.....

[/quote]

 

---

 

Yes. Roughly speaking. It''s actually MORE than 50 per cent.

 

Turnover from gate receipts and ticket sales was £6,989,000.

 

Turnover from catering was £3,757,000.

 

And T is right about another thing The loudest sound on this message board over the last few years has been that of the Fag Packets barking up one wrong tree after another.

 

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="T"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[/quote]

What''s igorance?  Oh, and how or why, were we allowed to accrue a £24+ million quid debt if the then board and Mr Doncaster weren''t ignorant of finance ? Does the income from your Aunty Delia''s catering activities really generate 50% revenue on top of ticket sales? 

Should we rename the Top of the Terrace "The Black Hole"?.....

[/quote]

 

---

 

Yes. Roughly speaking. It''s actually MORE than 50 per cent.

 

Turnover from gate receipts and ticket sales was £6,989,000.

 

Turnover from catering was £3,757,000.

 

And T is right about another thing The loudest sound on this message board over the last few years has been that of the Fag Packets barking up one wrong tree after another.

[/quote]

So are you then, some kind of  qualified ''back of a carton of 200 fags, amateur accountant?''

 

Do you tip-toe along the corridors of power at Carra - and sneakily place your ear against the boardroom door for snippets of juicy info?

 

Do you know who/what funded the extension on the Barclay over a decade ago?...(Just after Bellers was sold)...

 

What about Donny''s ''Black Hole''.....?

 

Is the catering turnover pumped back into the playing squad - or into other off the field interests.....like the catering?

 

Do you hitch a ride on the golf-buggy from the car-park to the City Stand on match-days?

 

What makes your (and T''s) opinions and stats, more relevant, credible and correct, than any other of the FPAs ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="T"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[/quote]

What''s igorance?  Oh, and how or why, were we allowed to accrue a £24+ million quid debt if the then board and Mr Doncaster weren''t ignorant of finance ? Does the income from your Aunty Delia''s catering activities really generate 50% revenue on top of ticket sales? 

Should we rename the Top of the Terrace "The Black Hole"?.....

[/quote]

 

---

 

Yes. Roughly speaking. It''s actually MORE than 50 per cent.

 

Turnover from gate receipts and ticket sales was £6,989,000.

 

Turnover from catering was £3,757,000.

 

And T is right about another thing The loudest sound on this message board over the last few years has been that of the Fag Packets barking up one wrong tree after another.

[/quote]

So are you then, some kind of  qualified ''back of a carton of 200 fags, amateur accountant?''

 

Do you tip-toe along the corridors of power at Carra - and sneakily place your ear against the boardroom door for snippets of juicy info?

 

Do you know who/what funded the extension on the Barclay over a decade ago?...(Just after Bellers was sold)...

 

What about Donny''s ''Black Hole''.....?

 

Is the catering turnover pumped back into the playing squad - or into other off the field interests.....like the catering?

 

Do you hitch a ride on the golf-buggy from the car-park to the City Stand on match-days?

 

What makes your (and T''s) opinions and stats, more relevant, credible and correct, than any other of the FPAs ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You asked if it was true that the off-field catering provided turnover equivalent to 50 per cent of the on-field ticket sales turnover. I quoted the latest accounts to show that was true.

 

I rather think that makes them the club''s statistics rather than mine.

 

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="T"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]

[quote user="hucks dh6 co uk"]Time to put this to bed now, Worthington has! We''ve all got to learn from what happened back then, as a club i think we have, it''s should always a results business,look at Hughton! expectation is always a problem, but what if the money isn''t there to match expectation? lets hope Lambert is never put in that position. Nigel is a good manager who lost his way, but we''ll never know how lack of funds and the protests contributed to our downfall, i can tell you for sure it didn''t help![/quote]

 

Perhaps the discussion about Worthington and the protests has reached its course but another burning issue seems to have been overlooked, and one that both Worthy and Hucks have mentioned and no one has picked up on it.

Quote "we''ll never know how lack of funds ... contributed to our downfall"

Going back a couple of seasons, the Pinkun messageboard was hot with accusation and counter-accusation that too much money was being diverted into off-field investments and not enough into building up a good squad. If there is one clear message from the Worthy interview (and the previous Dean Ashton interview), it is that the Pinkun FPA''s were right (Tangie; BucketHead; Mr. Carrow), and those so-called professional financial experts (T, Bobert) were wrong.

The club had no intention of keeping Dean Ashton once they smelled seven million quid, but Ashton was made to look like the villan of the piece. They did not provide funds to the manager at a time when they were investing in spine roads and new clocks. They tied up money into land they they couldn''t sell, when bringing Ashton in at the begining of the season would have ensured our Premiership survival and another 30 million quid in revenue.

Let''s not get side-tracked into arguements about whether the protests against Worthy were disgraceful or not, when there is a much bigger elephant in the room. A beast that a few intelligent posters could see but the Board apologists were blind too. Thanks to Huck''s interviews it''s now much clearer how badly managed the club was back then - a point re-iterated by Bowkett announcing this years financial report where he said that a major policy shift would be to get everybody focussed on on-field activities.

Well done to Tangie, BucketHead, Mr. Carrow and others.

[/quote]

All the FPA''s did was demonstrate was an embarrassing igorance of finance. These are the people who claimed that the likes of Portsmouth; Hull and Preston had found some magic formula when in fact there were merely spending money they could not afford. 8m ticket revenue is not enough to fund a competitive team and therefore money needs to be generated from other off-field sources. These off-field activities have been financed by loans which would not be available to spend on players. It is very simple if spending money on off-field activities generates extra cash for on field activities it is good for the club. The catering activities generates another 50% revenue on top of ticket sales without which we could not competitive. The FPAs own figures showed that the off-field activitiess generated extra cash for the club. Bowkett said we had the same playing budget as Wolves when they got promoted and we got relegated. If it was down to the FPA then we would not be in a position to compete as we are now. Fortunately, the Board understand this and have one again invested in fixed assets to generate extra cash to try and make the club more competitive. Frankly, anyone who thinks differently is either ignorant or delusional.

[/quote]

What''s igorance?  Oh, and how or why, were we allowed to accrue a £24+ million quid debt if the then board and Mr Doncaster weren''t ignorant of finance ? Does the income from your Aunty Delia''s catering activities really generate 50% revenue on top of ticket sales? 

Should we rename the Top of the Terrace "The Black Hole"?.....

[/quote]

 

---

 

Yes. Roughly speaking. It''s actually MORE than 50 per cent.

 

Turnover from gate receipts and ticket sales was £6,989,000.

 

Turnover from catering was £3,757,000.

 

And T is right about another thing The loudest sound on this message board over the last few years has been that of the Fag Packets barking up one wrong tree after another.

[/quote]

So are you then, some kind of  qualified ''back of a carton of 200 fags, amateur accountant?''

 

Do you tip-toe along the corridors of power at Carra - and sneakily place your ear against the boardroom door for snippets of juicy info?

 

Do you know who/what funded the extension on the Barclay over a decade ago?...(Just after Bellers was sold)...

 

What about Donny''s ''Black Hole''.....?

 

Is the catering turnover pumped back into the playing squad - or into other off the field interests.....like the catering?

 

Do you hitch a ride on the golf-buggy from the car-park to the City Stand on match-days?

 

What makes your (and T''s) opinions and stats, more relevant, credible and correct, than any other of the FPAs ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

You asked if it was true that the off-field catering provided turnover equivalent to 50 per cent of the on-field ticket sales turnover. I quoted the latest accounts to show that was true.

 

I rather think that makes them the club''s statistics rather than mine.

 

[/quote]

And as you well know, turnover means jack-all. It''s the return on investment that matters.

You can spend the money we have on nice catering and, if you''re lucky, bring in a few quid extra. Or you invest in Dean Ashton at the beginning of the season, which is what everybody except the board wanted, and you bring in 20-30 million quid by staying up in the premiership.

So what do you want to do? Spend our little resources on posh food for the few, or spend it on bringing in a much needed centre forward for everybody?

The arguement was never about spending money we didn''t have, although seeing how debt has spiralled, they certainly managed that; the arguement was all about directing what we did have into improving the quality of the squad.

Instead the quality took a nose dive, a good manager lost his job, we ended up in the Third division and to round it off their off-field investments

failed spectacularly.

The FPA''s pointed out at the time what was going wrong, Worthington has merely confirmed they were right,

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]

 And as you well know, turnover means jack-all. It''s the return on investment that matters. You can spend the money we have on nice catering and, if you''re lucky, bring in a few quid extra. Or you invest in Dean Ashton at the beginning of the season, which is what everybody except the board wanted, and you bring in 20-30 million quid by staying up in the premiership. So what do you want to do? Spend our little resources on posh food for the few, or spend it on bringing in a much needed centre forward for everybody? The arguement was never about spending money we didn''t have, although seeing how debt has spiralled, they certainly managed that; the arguement was all about directing what we did have into improving the quality of the squad. Instead the quality took a nose dive, a good manager lost his job, we ended up in the Third division and to round it off their off-field investments failed spectacularly. The FPA''s pointed out at the time what was going wrong, Worthington has merely confirmed they were right,[/quote]

 

There''s two issues here. What Worthington put to bed here was the myth that he didn''t try to sign a striker (Dean Ashton) until January. As I have always maintained he did got to the board for Ashton in the summer but was turned down.

 

The second issue is why the board turned him down. Was it because the money was spent on other things or was it because the money wasn''t there? I have always maintained it wasn''t there whilst your hero FPA''s maintained it was spent on other things. The FPA''s never take into account the fact that the Premiership millions are not available to spend before the season starts. It''s not. It comes in dribs and drabs. That''s why it''s not just Norwich who have to wait until January to sign a goalscorer like Ashton. I remember Stoke did the same signing Beattie in the January.

 

The FPA''s pointed out nothing "at the time". They made their assumptions after the event. A long time after the event as they tried to manipulate history to fit their agenda of the day.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,760]

Call me an old cynic but after 15 days,17 pages and 247 posts my old pal Nutty is back in his quest to have the final word finishing with one of his old yawn,yawn,yawn digs about certain people trying to re-write history.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Poof!!! (not an insult just an unfortunate coincidence) Just like magic I post and one of you appears[8-|]

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Poo f!!! (not an insult just an unfortunate coincidence) Just like magic I post and one of you appears[8-|]

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]

 And as you well know, turnover means jack-all. It''s the return on investment that matters. You can spend the money we have on nice catering and, if you''re lucky, bring in a few quid extra. Or you invest in Dean Ashton at the beginning of the season, which is what everybody except the board wanted, and you bring in 20-30 million quid by staying up in the premiership. So what do you want to do? Spend our little resources on posh food for the few, or spend it on bringing in a much needed centre forward for everybody? The arguement was never about spending money we didn''t have, although seeing how debt has spiralled, they certainly managed that; the arguement was all about directing what we did have into improving the quality of the squad. Instead the quality took a nose dive, a good manager lost his job, we ended up in the Third division and to round it off their off-field investments failed spectacularly. The FPA''s pointed out at the time what was going wrong, Worthington has merely confirmed they were right,[/quote]

 

There''s two issues here. What Worthington put to bed here was the myth that he didn''t try to sign a striker (Dean Ashton) until January. As I have always maintained he did got to the board for Ashton in the summer but was turned down.

 

The second issue is why the board turned him down. Was it because the money was spent on other things or was it because the money wasn''t there? I have always maintained it wasn''t there whilst your hero FPA''s maintained it was spent on other things. The FPA''s never take into account the fact that the Premiership millions are not available to spend before the season starts. It''s not. It comes in dribs and drabs. That''s why it''s not just Norwich who have to wait until January to sign a goalscorer like Ashton. I remember Stoke did the same signing Beattie in the January.

 

The FPA''s pointed out nothing "at the time". They made their assumptions after the event. A long time after the event as they tried to manipulate history to fit their agenda of the day.

 

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

What the Fag Packets also never take into account, because it cuts the ground from under their argument, is the money spent by the board during the promotion season. We were, from memory, in the top two (ie, in one of the automatic slots) in December. The board could, with a fair bit of justification, have decided the squad was good enough to get promotion as it was.


Instead it made sure by showing real ambition, splashing out on Huckerby, Svensson and Mackenzie. Worthington then in the summer asking for even more money for yet another striker has to be seen in that context. I don''t blame Worthington for asking, but he''d already been given two strikers and an attacker, and bought another attacker, in Jonson, plus a fourth, in Bentley, on loan. We are not Chelsea. There has to be a limit to how much the desires of our managers are indulged.

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

There were also promotion bonuses to be paid to these players. MWJ had plenty to say about all this at the time. Not, like the FPAs, years afterwards.

 

[lappinitup 629]

Amazingly, anything the FPA''s didn''t understand or couldn''t explain was consigned to "the black hole". Yet you only have to scroll back a few posts on this thread to see people really believe "the black hole" actually existed.

[The Butler 0]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Poo f!! Another one[8-|]

The fact the £1m City paid to Leeds for Jon Newsome back in June 1994 remains the club''s record signing has surprised some people, but Wynn Jones said speculation about a massive spending spree during the summer was always likely to be wide of the mark.

"I''ve seen a lot of stories about how promotion to the Premiership is worth £20m," he said. "The truth is that clubs like us don''t get that much, it''s probably nearer £14m, and you get it in dribs and drabs, not all at the same time. You''ve only got a chance of getting the higher amount if you are on television all the time and finish near the top of the league.

"From what we get we''ve got all sorts of costs to cover - the repayment of preference shares, promotion bonuses to the players and additional amounts on salaries, the new pitch at Carrow Road to mention just a few. After everything has been taken into account there''s not as much money floating about as some people seem to think."

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,760]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nutty.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Poo f!! Another one[8-|]

The fact the £1m City paid to Leeds for Jon Newsome back in June 1994 remains the club''s record signing has surprised some people, but Wynn Jones said speculation about a massive spending spree during the summer was always likely to be wide of the mark.

"I''ve seen a lot of stories about how promotion to the Premiership is worth £20m," he said. "The truth is that clubs like us don''t get that much, it''s probably nearer £14m, and you get it in dribs and drabs, not all at the same time. You''ve only got a chance of getting the higher amount if you are on television all the time and finish near the top of the league.

"From what we get we''ve got all sorts of costs to cover - the repayment of preference shares, promotion bonuses to the players and additional amounts on salaries, the new pitch at Carrow Road to mention just a few. After everything has been taken into account there''s not as much money floating about as some people seem to think."

 

 

[/quote]

Not sure what you are getting at with his one.

Perhaps that Chase spent more on players in his day than they did up to that point.

That 14m is a small amount compared to a 23m debt.

Not sure what Nutty can you elaborate.

By the way stop calling lapp Poo  f will you , he will get a complex.[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

---

---

The admirable Carl Moore (who also helped out with Leroy Lita''s loan) paid at least part of Huckerby''s wages during his loan spell. I don''t think he paid the transfer fee for the permanent deal, which is the issue here, TB.

 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nutty.

[/quote]

Why is that bumped for me?

As far as I remember there was a share issue in December 04.

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="The Butler"]

By the way stop calling lapp Poo  f will you , he will get a complex.[;)]

 

 

[/quote]Nutty was replying to Tilly, not me Buttles, so I take it you are suggesting fannies are not the only things that are attracted to Tilly''s magnet? [^o)]

[The Butler 0]

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

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

---

---

The admirable Carl Moore (who also helped out with Leroy Lita''s loan) paid at least part of Huckerby''s wages during his loan spell. I don''t think he paid the transfer fee for the permanent deal, which is the issue here, TB.

 

[/quote]

Thanks PC it''s just I find the FPH''s more worrying than the FPA''s

Then history is as much opinion as accountancy, both subject to "creativity"[;)]

[TIL 1010 4,760]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nutty.

[/quote][;)]

Why is that bumped for me?

As far as I remember there was a share issue in December 04.

 

 

[/quote]

Absolutely correct Nutty and as far as i remember a certain pressure group purchased £1,000 in Preference B shares and a couple of hundred quids worth of ordinary voting shares.Word has it that they still have them as well.

However as that in itself was a positive step taken by this certain pressure group it will not conform to your agenda and may well have become distorted as it is now history.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="The Butler"]

Don''t wish to spoil the love in but was not Huckerby funded by someone else?

Or is that another piece of history distortion.

[/quote]

Bumped for Nutty.

[/quote][;)]

Why is that bumped for me?

As far as I remember there was a share issue in December 04.

 

 

[/quote]

Absolutely correct Nutty and as far as i remember a certain pressure group purchased £1,000 in Preference B shares and a couple of hundred quids worth of ordinary voting shares.Word has it that they still have them as well.

However as that in itself was a positive step taken by this certain pressure group it will not conform to your agenda and may well have become distorted as it is now history.

[/quote]

Damn!! And I was right on paypal doing the deed. Nevermind.. maybe in time things will change......

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Talking of distorting facts I''d be interested to know if NCISA asked the view of their members before deciding that they weren''t actually fully behind the Worthy Out campaign, or was it purely a committee decision....

[/quote]

I''ve gotten so dizzy this thread has me wondering if "Tilly Out" was a "Worthy" campaign, or was it the butler that did it?

[TIL 1010 4,760]

Come on Nutty you can do it........this thread has nearly made it to Page 19.Come on you know you want to.

[hucks@dh6.co.uk 0]

Has anyone seen Hucks Meets Nigel Worthinghton on www.dh6.co.uk? just Kidding!

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Amazingly, anything the FPA''s didn''t understand or couldn''t explain was consigned to "the black hole". Yet you only have to scroll back a few posts on this thread to see people really believe "the black hole" actually existed.[/quote]

and not only did the black hole exist, it was often sneeringly suggested that it was in DS or MWJ back pockets.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="hucksdh6couk"]Has anyone seen Hucks Meets Nigel Worthinghton on www.dh6.co.uk? just Kidding![/quote]

I remember that! Good interview as I remember.

 

Hucks meets Commander Tilson of nCIsA... now there''s a thought......

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Amazingly, anything the FPA''s didn''t understand or couldn''t explain was consigned to "the black hole". Yet you only have to scroll back a few posts on this thread to see people really believe "the black hole" actually existed.[/quote]

The Black Hole never existed?.....Why ever did Mr Doncaster mention it then?

 

He eventually owned up to the fact that a local businessman had more to do with Huckerby coming to Carra....than what was initially thought by the fans.....