Sell-outs...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="nutty nigel"] Only those clubs with rich benefactors have succeeded. [/quote] Its highly likely that your beloved Mr Worthington would have succeeded if the club had delayed the construction of the Community stand and bought Ashton at the start of the last Prem. season. Its about timing and balance as to when you spend money on players or on other things. BTW. WBA and Wolves are in The Prem and have stayed for more than one season and they are not exactly in the Billionaire owner class either.[/quote]

 

It''s about luck also Tangie. I''m sure West Ham were feeling quite positive about signing Ashton when it happened but may not have done if crystal balls were a reality.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Can you explain to me how it`s blind faith nutty? It`s faith based on evidence.

[Shack Attack 0]

Just because is is only clubs with rich benefactors who tend to stay up for three seasons or more doesn''t mean that it cannot be done without a billionaire owner. The problem as I see it is that clubs (and fans in particular) lose the run of themselves when they stay up in that first season and get infected by the rampant short termism that infects the Premier League. How many times have you seen decent and hard working sides whose success has been built on a strong team ethic (remind you of anyone) screwed up by a manager/owner desparate to show ''ambition'' to the fans by signing some big time Charlie (or Finidi [;)]) who subsequently upsets the balance of the team. There is no logical reason why a promoted team cannot gradually improve season upon season so they finish above both those teams coming up and those ''established'' teams who are starting to get a little stale or are in crisis (Blackburn and Wigan look pretty good candidates for that role this season. The likes of West Ham and Newcastle have done this previously).

 

Bigger teams will undoubtedly come sniffing around your better players after that first season but provided you can replace them with similar players (ignoring the cries of the fans to show some ambition and sign some high earning wastrel from Tottenham reserves to show ''ambition'') and maybe supplement that team with a couple of little known gems from abroad then you should improve the squad. Keep gradually improving and that three year survival goal should not be beyond us providing nothing catastrophic happens which is beyond our control. Having said that I''m still not convinced by the need for a 35,000 capacity stadium and I would instead be looking to plough any spare cash not earmarked for the playing staff into our scouting budget and our academy. It has been a while since we had any real and consistent success with overseas players but there is no doubt that is where the value is in terms of transfer fees.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Surely the fact that only clubs with rich benefactors have survived is based on evidence?

 

I have faith in the board too. You had faith in the old board until the results changed. That''s based on evidence too.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Shack, I see your point and it''s logical. But unfortunately since the big bucks have come into the Prem only clubs with rich benefactors have actually done it.

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

The footnote on the bottom of each of the statements I receive from my brokerage companies state:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

I try to be mindful of this when setting my expectations on most things.

 

[T 190]

Shack you have only served to prove Nutty''s point as the clubs you mention as progressing have benefitted from rich benefactors. Newcastle, at least €140m and West Ham at least €70m. And you can go on. Villa 206m, Blackburn 104m, Man City 493m, Stoke 43m, Sunderland 115m, Bolton 85m, Chelsea 739m, Fulham, 187m, Liverpool 144m,Wigan 52m, wolves 30m.

That is why it is so tough to stay up

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="T"]Shack you have only served to prove Nutty''s point as the clubs you mention as progressing have benefitted from rich benefactors. Newcastle, at least €140m and West Ham at least €70m. [/quote]

 

I was using West Ham and Newcastle as teams who had previously been established but then got relegated as there seem to be at least one, and sometimes more, of these in the relegation mix each season. You can add Portsmouth and Middlesboro to those two as well. Of the other clubs you have mentioned I would fancy us to finish above Bolton, Wigan, Wolves, Blackburn and Sunderland right now despite their rich benefactors. I think we have got promoted at a very good time for a club of our size with many of these ''established'' sides looking a little wobbly and with the UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations supposedly making it more difficult for clubs to rely on a single rich benefactor. There is no reason whatsoever why we cannot become more succesful than the likes of Villa, Stoke, Bolton and Wigan eventually provided we make the right decisions and stick to a sensible plan. A plan that, whilst ambitious, doesn''t risk the whole future of the club on staying. There has to be a middle ground surely?

[T 190]

There is a very good reason why we can''t be more successful than Villa, Stoke, Bolton and Wigan. They all benefit from rich benefactors and there is a very strong correlation coeffecient between the wage bill you are able to pay and your final laegue position. The money may ahve dried up fro Bolton and Wigan which may help.

I''m afraid the FFP is unlikely to help too much as it still allows 11m of subsidies each year and funding of capex and still only applies to UEFA competitionas understand it. In this context Nutty is right to point out the risks and realities and that Lambert needs as much as cash as possible to remain up on an ongoing basis

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

The footnote on the bottom of each of the statements I receive from my brokerage companies state:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

I try to be mindful of this when setting my expectations on most things.

 

[/quote]

Shrewd as ever Yankee. And you''re right. There are no certainties in football which is what makes it the game it is. Us PUPs especially know that. Alloa were sitting second in the league on Saturday. East Stirling were bottom having lost all their away games. I selected Alloa and they were selected in the final six only to let us down.

 

Similarly establishing Norwich as a self-financing premier team is not impossible just because it''s not been done before. Each time is a different set of cicumstances and this time it could be a different result. My point is just that every extra million in Lamberts player budget must increase his chances of working miracles.

 

The Premier League is unlike any other league from the past. It has always been possible to buy success but only the top has been worth buying. Now each position is worth big money and is effectively up for sale. Without a rich benefactor there''s not much we can afford. But in Lambert we have the chance to get more for our money than some others, even some with benefactors, because in football money isn''t everything and a great manager can achieve more with less. So the more money he has the better surely?

 

 

[Duncan Edwards 0]

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

The footnote on the bottom of each of the statements I receive from my brokerage companies state:

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

I try to be mindful of this when setting my expectations on most things.

 

[/quote]

Shrewd as ever Yankee. And you''re right. There are no certainties in football which is what makes it the game it is. Us PUPs especially know that. Alloa were sitting second in the league on Saturday. East Stirling were bottom having lost all their away games. I selected Alloa and they were selected in the final six only to let us down.

 

Similarly establishing Norwich as a self-financing premier team is not impossible just because it''s not been done before. Each time is a different set of cicumstances and this time it could be a different result. My point is just that every extra million in Lamberts player budget must increase his chances of working miracles.

 

The Premier League is unlike any other league from the past. It has always been possible to buy success but only the top has been worth buying. Now each position is worth big money and is effectively up for sale. Without a rich benefactor there''s not much we can afford. But in Lambert we have the chance to get more for our money than some others, even some with benefactors, because in football money isn''t everything and a great manager can achieve more with less. So the more money he has the better surely?

 

 

[/quote]

 

Robert Chase managed to turn us into a top 4 side with 50p and a tangerine, football is still football. Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988....it can be done.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]Absolutely fine if you ignore the fact that the market is closed for risky debt. [/quote]

However somebody is buying the new sovereign debt of countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain etc.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]There is a very good reason why we can''t be more successful than Villa, Stoke, Bolton and Wigan. They all benefit from rich benefactors and there is a very strong correlation coeffecient between the wage bill you are able to pay and your final laegue position.

[/quote]

Agreed.

However I thought Villa and Stoke are relatively restrained in their finances and are not going over the top re. wages etc. There seems to be a limit to what their owners are prepared to finance.

Furthermore I was surprised to find out recently that Boltons debts seems to have gone up from a rough £50m to £100m+ !!! So I dont see Bolton or Wigan competing with us resource wise.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

Robert Chase managed to turn us into a top 4 side with 50p and a tangerine, football is still football. Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988....it can be done.

[/quote]

Well he certainly gave me the pip[;)]

 

It can be done, especially on the short term. But can it be sustained? And sustained long enough to fill a 35,000 seater stadium in say 4 years time?

 

The euphoria about mixing it with the best with players from division three will soon be replaced by squeals about lack of ambition if we begin to struggle. You can nearly write their script now! How it was futile to go into battle with no established premier league goal scorer or defender. How this was McNally''s fault for holding back money to build a new stand.

 

[T 190]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="T"]Absolutely fine if you ignore the fact that the market is closed for risky debt. [/quote]

However somebody is buying the new sovereign debt of countries such as Greece, Italy, Spain etc.[/quote]

true but the market for risky corporate debt is closed as the banks are looking to recapitalise their balance sheets

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988....it can be done.

[/quote]

 

OHMIGOD!!!!! Are we still in the 1980s?[:''(]

 

 

I thought today''s economic policies looked familiar...[8o|]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

In attempting to keep this conversation constructive, could a prospective new tier be financed with "long term season tickets" ? I believe Wembley was paid for partly by 10 year tickets, maybe 3 or 5 year tickets would be more achievable for the fanbase, and might give the club the leverage it would need to build the tier ?

Would they even need the money up front, if say a few thousand fans committed to paying for 3 years by direct debit ?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]In attempting to keep this conversation constructive, could a prospective new tier be financed with "long term season tickets" ? I believe Wembley was paid for partly by 10 year tickets, maybe 3 or 5 year tickets would be more achievable for the fanbase, and might give the club the leverage it would need to build the tier ? Would they even need the money up front, if say a few thousand fans committed to paying for 3 years by direct debit ?[/quote]

 

blah, it is an idea, but bear in mind that it would require a reversal of policy. We had pay-in-advance season tickets, until they were scrapped this year.


My own guess is that any £20m financing would be a package, with a combination of - say - cash in hand, debt, possibly more gifts from directors, naming rights, corporate deals etc etc etc. And yes, perhaps, long-term tickets.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]In attempting to keep this conversation constructive, could a prospective new tier be financed with "long term season tickets" ? I believe Wembley was paid for partly by 10 year tickets, maybe 3 or 5 year tickets would be more achievable for the fanbase, and might give the club the leverage it would need to build the tier ? Would they even need the money up front, if say a few thousand fans committed to paying for 3 years by direct debit ?[/quote]

As Purple has said one of the first things to get the chop under the new pricing regime was 3 and 5 year season tickets Blah x3.Long term season tickets helped bring about the demise of Bradford City a few years ago when they reached the Premiership.It bought quick cash to the table but relegation that followed saw them have hundreds of long term season tickets holders who for want of a better expression had free football.

[blahblahblah 2]

Fair doos then, bad idea :).

8000 season tickets at £500 would bring in 4 million a year. So it would pay for itself in 5 years if it were filled.

I''m just left with this nagging memory of Sheepshanks and Ipswich - didn''t they embark on a ground expansion while in the Prem, only to get relegated shortly after ? I guess that''s what McNally gets paid the big bucks for - to do it anyway without worrying about it.

[Alf Stewart 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988....it can be done.

[/quote]

 

OHMIGOD!!!!! Are we still in the 1980s?[:''(]

 

 

I thought today''s economic policies looked familiar...[8o|]

 

[/quote]

 

Good morning Purple, what a lovely summer’s day! I’m very much looking forward to Geoffrey’s Budget next week. Now where was I…….

 

Ahh yes! Purple, how nice of you to still remember me!

 

You would do well to remember that your club is in very good hands. Like me Delia Smith is a woman. And like me she will go on and on and on….

 

She has a woman''s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when everyone else walks off and leaves it. No wishy washy Mr Carrow type support from her. No withdrawing support when the going gets tough. You see it may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs. Any woman who understands the problems of running a kitchen will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a football club. I was always taught that if you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.

 

I say to the likes of Mr Carrow that I was brought up by a Victorian grandmother and we were taught to work jolly hard! We should back the workers, not the shirkers! And Delia is of the same mold. So Nutty, you have nothing to worry about. Delia will back Paul Lambert and not let a mere man spend the money on tangible fixed assets.

　

Many of your troubles are due to the fact that your fans turn to the club for everything. There''s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation. It''s not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but love of money for it''s own sake. So stop all this namby pamby bleating over cheap season tickets. Let me give you my vision: A manager''s right to manage as he will, to spend what he earns, to own players, to have the board as servant and not as master.

　

I usually make my mind up about a man in ten seconds and I very rarely change it. I believe that Carrow chap changes his mind as often as I change my M&S knickers. My message to him is “You turn if you want to, the ladies are not for turning!”

　

　

　

　

　

[Bill 1,788]

"Fair doos then, bad idea :).

8000 season tickets at £500 would bring in 4 million a year. So it would pay for itself in 5 years if it were filled. "

Not necessarily as there is no guarantee that those 8000 would be new season ticket holders. Many would simply be those wanting a ''better stand'' to sit in or the chance to get a larger group sat together etc

"didn''t they embark on a ground expansion while in the Prem, only to get relegated shortly after"

Yes, but that was after years and years of underinvestment. The ground was ramshackle and needed massive upgrading if they were to stay in the Premier League.

It should also be borne in mind that Sheepshanks had run up a nearly £10m debt getting the paupers promoted. A very large sum (in proportion) back then. Part of that £25m was used to repay those debts. The one lesson though is that (as many wiser heads on here are pointing out) no club our size is ever immune from relegation.

Lets test the water first. That has been done elsewhere with increased food/drink prices, tightening up of concession tickets, squeezing in extra seats. All of which can be easily relaxed were they not to be working to the benefit of all. I suspect this will happen with the rise in ticket prices for next season. As with corporate packages etc.

Only then, and certainly only then, will the club factor in a large scale building project as ONE of the means of maximising revenue. McNally has stated openly that ''media revenue'' is not guaranteed and can reduce very quickly (remember ITV Digital) so the club will be aware that it has to be in a position where outgoings can be accordingly adjusted ie relegation clauses in contract/ And I should not doubt certain clauses that relate to what percentage of the clubs income come from the media.

To think the club would recklessly embark on something that will only generate the same income that can be had elsewhere without the longterm risk and burden is idiocy of the highest level.

It is not about lack of ambition (we are in the Premier League if some of the simpletons on here haven''t noticed) but a lack of any form of sense whenever this subject comes up.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Margaret Thatcher"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duncan Edwards"]

Wimbledon won the FA Cup in 1988....it can be done.

[/quote]

 

OHMIGOD!!!!! Are we still in the 1980s?[:''(]

 

 

I thought today''s economic policies looked familiar...[8o|]

 

[/quote]

 

Good morning Purple, what a lovely summer’s day! I’m very much looking forward to Geoffrey’s Budget next week. Now where was I…….

 

Ahh yes! Purple, how nice of you to still remember me!

 

You would do well to remember that your club is in very good hands. Like me Delia Smith is a woman. And like me she will go on and on and on….

 

She has a woman''s ability to stick to a job and get on with it when everyone else walks off and leaves it. No wishy washy Mr Carrow type support from her. No withdrawing support when the going gets tough. You see it may be the cock that crows, but it is the hen that lays the eggs. Any woman who understands the problems of running a kitchen will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a football club. I was always taught that if you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.

 

I say to the likes of Mr Carrow that I was brought up by a Victorian grandmother and we were taught to work jolly hard! We should back the workers, not the shirkers! And Delia is of the same mold. So Nutty, you have nothing to worry about. Delia will back Paul Lambert and not let a mere man spend the money on tangible fixed assets.

　

Many of your troubles are due to the fact that your fans turn to the club for everything. There''s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation. It''s not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but love of money for it''s own sake. So stop all this namby pamby bleating over cheap season tickets. Let me give you my vision: A manager''s right to manage as he will, to spend what he earns, to own players, to have the board as servant and not as master.

　

I usually make my mind up about a man in ten seconds and I very rarely change it. I believe that Carrow chap changes his mind as often as I change my M&S knickers. My message to him is “You turn if you want to, the ladies are not for turning!”

　

　

　

　

　

[/quote]

 

---

 

Of course, I remember, Margaret. How could I forget our first fumbling embraces behind your uncle''s wet fish shop ("Straight off the Grimsby trawlers") in Grantham high street? And delighted to see that old homespun Lincolnshire codswallop "wisdom" is still sustaining you, but there was one gem you missed out:

 

"Pennies do not come from Sky. They have to be earned here on earth."

 

How true that is. Afraid I''m not familiar with these characters you mention - Mr.Carrow and, er, Nutty is it? Unless that is your nickname for Michael Heseltine. You remember him, surely? Tall, thin chap? Did your flouncing out in a huff with a handbag bit, only without the handbag. Anyway, the one you need to watch out for is that John Major. He may seem like the Bert Millichip of politics but he''ll do for you in the end, mark my words. Pip pip!

 

>

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Nutty, i daresay all the petty little jibes you`ve aimed at me on this thread could be aimed at our current Chairman after his open letter blew you out of the water. Wasn`t it a bit anti-club? Or was that the moment you saw the light and did your u-turn? Suffice to say thank goodness we`ve got someone at the club with the guts to look problems in the eye and tell it like it is, rather than your lot who very nearly happy-clapped the previous board, and the club, into oblivion. I sincerely hope you feel good about that.....

And i guess by your logic anyone currently supporting Paul Lambert is exhibiting "blind faith" too? I have more faith in the current board and manager than i ever had in the previous board or Worthy. What you think of that is utterly irrelevant. It does bring back fond memories watching you get your knickers in a twist though i must say :-)

[QHcanary 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"You can warn us all of the dangers of expanding the ground all you like."

Blimey, up pops another one. Even dimmer than the last it appears.

This one claims taht because he spouts unrealistic nonsense anyone who doesn''t subscribe to this ill thought out idiocy wants the club to stagnate, so

even slower

If ''wanting more for the club''

is generating more money

then that can be done by adjusting the ticket price

that is easier and cheaper

and achieves the same financial gain

there, even a three year old could grasp that

City have attracted higher gates through having lower than average ticket prices. Comments on hee acknowledge that an increase will affect crowd number - so by that logic prices are affected both ways.

What I have stated is that the club will wait a season or two, not only to see which league we are in but how well the demand stacked up one the ticket prices become more realistic. If they were certain of these tens of thousands then they would simply go ahead now.

So QH, instead of squeaking out in self righteous imdignation and trying to claim some mystical higher moral ground, more of a fan than you are'' take a read of my post, the one prior to your bleat.

I would dearly love Carrow Road to have a capacity of 35/40,000 ... and be full every home game. But, as more recent posters have pointed out, reality is a bit of a harsher master than empty headed dreaming. It might also be worth reflecting on the fact that the club is in the position it is in now through that hard headed approach rather than your cloud cuckoo land fantasies.

ps as to where I sit then I can assure you it is certainly not behind you, that I am certain of[/quote]

Where did I say say increased revenue was what I wanted to see? It will certainly be a by product of what the board are planning, but as long as we can realise this plan in a manner that doesn''t expose the club to unnecessarily high risk while still allowing on field progression, I couldn''t give a flying f*** what our actual increase in revenue is.

What I just can''t get my head around is why you keep trotting out the same line about increasing ticket prices. You say you''re not advocating this course, so again, why bother?To make me look simple? You just make yourself look like an overly aggressive, patronising a**e.

we''ve had a large hike in ticket prices this season; presumbly to a level that the board thinks the market can stand. I''m 100% sure we''ll see further rises, but a further 25% increase is further detached from reality than showingsupport for plans that have already been outlined by men far more shrewd and intelligent than you or i. So, accuse me of empty headed dreaming if you will, but I trust that in doing so you''ll also be directing a strongly worded email to Messrs McNally and Bowkett warning of the potential disasters of their best laid plans.

Of course, if you do I would expect a reply in much the same mould as in the case of Arkell vs Pressdram (1971), and a good job too as it would save me the trouble of telling you myself.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Nutty, i daresay all the petty little jibes you`ve aimed at me on this thread could be aimed at our current Chairman after his open letter blew you out of the water. Wasn`t it a bit anti-club? Or was that the moment you saw the light and did your u-turn? Suffice to say thank goodness we`ve got someone at the club with the guts to look problems in the eye and tell it like it is, rather than your lot who very nearly happy-clapped the previous board, and the club, into oblivion. I sincerely hope you feel good about that..... And i guess by your logic anyone currently supporting Paul Lambert is exhibiting "blind faith" too? I have more faith in the current board and manager than i ever had in the previous board or Worthy. What you think of that is utterly irrelevant. It does bring back fond memories watching you get your knickers in a twist though i must say :-)[/quote]

Petty Jibes?

 

Looks like you and Tangie are made of the same stuff.

 

Why not make a comment on the points of the thread? Have you no views at all until the time comes when you want to "know best"?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

And just one more thing Mr Carrow. Our current Chairman never withdrew his support from the club. Quite the opposite in fact. So he''s hardly in "your gang".

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

And neither did i withdraw my support nutty. His open letter did echo a viewpoint which you branded anti-club though. And he even mentioned "unrest on internet message boards"- i wonder what he could have been refering too hey? I have clearly and concisely expressed my "views" on the subject of ground expansion on this thread.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]And neither did i withdraw my support nutty. His open letter did echo a viewpoint which you branded anti-club though. And he even mentioned "unrest on internet message boards"- i wonder what he could have been refering too hey? I have clearly and concisely expressed my "views" on the subject of ground expansion on this thread.[/quote]

Indeed he did Mr Carrow. But if you really want to go over old ground he didn''t refuse to buy his tickets and only go when it was a freebie.

 

As for your views. If I understand it correctly they are to agree with any decisioin the club may make. That''s fine. So there''s really nothing left for you to discuss. But haven''t we been here before?

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Have you proof of that nutty? Where have i even hinted that i will agree with "any" decision the club make? And no, we haven`t been here before.