2012 ACCOUNTS

[T 190]

PC - I see you highlighted earlier that the catering income has gone down since Delia stepped down from her catering role. Perhaps some on here should start a Delia in campaign as they seem to have plenty of time on their hands. Obviously, while Delia, has never claimed to be an expert on football she does know a thing or two about cooking and entrepreneurship.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="T"]PC - I see you highlighted earlier that the catering income has gone down since Delia stepped down from her catering role. Perhaps some on here should start a Delia in campaign as they seem to have plenty of time on their hands. Obviously, while Delia, has never claimed to be an expert on football she does know a thing or two about cooking and entrepreneurship.[/quote]

 

T, I know, I know. From 2008 to 2011, at which point Delia stepped down from that role, catering income rose from £3m to £4.31m. That is a whopping increase of 45.6 per cent. McNally takes over and income slumps dramatically straight away, based on an over-estimate of the fans'' desire for Irn-Bru and deep-fried Mars Bars. And yet who get the near-£1m bonus?

[lappinitup 629]

Not your fault Purple but the annual accounts are really boring these days. No mention of the LSE land, the spine road or the Joe Lewis Diner for that matter. No more do we get page after page of say this, say that, assumed figure, reported in the Sun, and spreadsheets that went off my computer screen. No-one asking how much Delia has siphoned off.With the club due to run out of money with two months of the season left, why haven''t we got threads demanding to know where all the TV money has gone and furthermore, why is there a black hole? Has the C.G.F.P.A''s gone into administration? [^o)]

[Tim Allman 1]

PC - On the assumption that match day catering gives us the biggest income, we do have 4 less of these per season in the prem. And quite a few kick offs last season were at times more suitable for TV than dining, so it may be the dip in revenue may not all be attributable to Delia stepping down from her catering role.

 

[Bury Yellow 2]

More tea anyone?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Tilson,

 

Thank you for that rant.

 

The reason for mentioning that meeting with Mr.Bowkett was to answer two questions that other posters wanted answering. 

 

Only you claim:’…that any shareholder with the knowledge to have such a meeting  could have done so.’  I haven’t claimed this with respect to meeting the Chairman and it just shows that you don’t read posts properly.

 

With respect to Mr. McNallys bonus it is certainly NOT my business to divulge the contents of his contract and it shows who out of the two of us is the unprofessional individual.

 

Finally its obvious to anyone who has read this forum over the last two years  that you and your associates have been engaging in a vendetta with me (and others) because I was one of the NCISA. Committee members that accepted your resignation as Chairman when you thought that we all would plead with you to stay. This thread is another example of your goading as your associate Lappinitup had the answers to your question(s).

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]

More tea anyone?

[/quote]

 

Yes please Bury.

 

OTBC

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Tilson,

 

Thank you for that rant.

 

The reason for mentioning that meeting with Mr.Bowkett was to answer two questions that other posters wanted answering. 

 

Only you claim:’…that any shareholder with the knowledge to have such a meeting  could have done so.’  I haven’t claimed this with respect to meeting the Chairman and it just shows that you don’t read posts properly.

 

With respect to Mr. McNallys bonus it is certainly NOT my business to divulge the contents of his contract and it shows who out of the two of us is the unprofessional individual.

 

Finally its obvious to anyone who has read this forum over the last two years  that you and your associates have been engaging in a vendetta with me (and others) because I was one of the NCISA. Committee members that accepted your resignation as Chairman when you thought that we all would plead with you to stay. This thread is another example of your goading as your associate Lappinitup had the answers to your question(s).

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, I have no idea whether any of that is true, or a load of tosh. And I don''t much care. Actually I don''t care at all. But it certainly doesn''t explain why you won''t answer my questions, which are not John Tilson''s questions, or anyone else''s, and have not a hint of unprofessionalism about them, and are, at the risk of immodesty, of some interest.

Unless, of course, I am also part of this alleged vendetta. Actually, that sounds terribly thrilling. Blood feuds and all that. Very Jacobean tragedy. But I think I would have remembered if I''d been involved. So, for the very last time (I really won''t bother again)  any chance of an answer to the following?


Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.

[Bury Yellow 2]

Here we are Bly. I warmed the pot before adding the herb leaves and hot water.

Help yourself to milk, sugar and biscuits. I would try the HobNobs, very apt for this thread don''t ya know:-)

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Here we are Bly. I warmed the pot before adding the herb leaves and hot water. Help yourself to milk, sugar and biscuits. I would try the HobNobs, very apt for this thread don''t ya know:-)[/quote]

 

Crackers too..........

 

OTBC

 

 

[Gingerpele 0]

The real question is, can we afford Messi?

He will be back up mind, could he get in ahead of Hoolahan or Holt? I don''t think so...

[nutty nigel 7,606]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Tilson,

 

Thank you for that rant.

 

The reason for mentioning that meeting with Mr.Bowkett was to answer two questions that other posters wanted answering. 

 

Only you claim:’…that any shareholder with the knowledge to have such a meeting  could have done so.’  I haven’t claimed this with respect to meeting the Chairman and it just shows that you don’t read posts properly.

 

With respect to Mr. McNallys bonus it is certainly NOT my business to divulge the contents of his contract and it shows who out of the two of us is the unprofessional individual.

 

Finally its obvious to anyone who has read this forum over the last two years  that you and your associates have been engaging in a vendetta with me (and others) because I was one of the NCISA. Committee members that accepted your resignation as Chairman when you thought that we all would plead with you to stay. This thread is another example of your goading as your associate Lappinitup had the answers to your question(s).

 

[/quote]

 

Tangible, I have no idea whether any of that is true, or a load of tosh. And I don''t much care. Actually I don''t care at all. But it certainly doesn''t explain why you won''t answer my questions, which are not John Tilson''s questions, or anyone else''s, and have not a hint of unprofessionalism about them, and are, at the risk of immodesty, of some interest.

Unless, of course, I am also part of this alleged vendetta. Actually, that sounds terribly thrilling. Blood feuds and all that. Very Jacobean tragedy. But I think I would have remembered if I''d been involved. So, for the very last time (I really won''t bother again)  any chance of an answer to the following?


Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.

[/quote]

 

Bumped for Tangie because I''m interested too.

 

 

[Crafty Canary 497]

Lappinitup has already answered this and could have given the rest of you this information ages ago. However keeping it quiet offered you all the opportunity to keep up your attacks on Tangy. No wonder he ignores you and has a good laugh at the angst expressed by you all as he continues to do so.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="crafty canary"]Lappinitup has already answered this and could have given the rest of you this information ages ago. However keeping it quiet offered you all the opportunity to keep up your attacks on Tangy. No wonder he ignores you and has a good laugh at the angst expressed by you all as he continues to do so.[/quote]You''ve lost me there Crafty. How could I have answered it but kept it quiet at the same time?

[TIL 1010 4,789]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

Tangible the victim still protesting his innocence whilst throwing in the odd insult along the way i see. Give it up old boy as i said earlier you gave it the Billy Big Bollox on the thread YOU started which was about your meeting with Bowkett over McNally''s contract.This thread turned into a discussion about that contract and bonuses to which YOU AND YOU ONLY hold the answers and despite repeated requests all you can respond with is this goading nonsense.

[/quote]

 

Ahhh Tilson, where''ve you been? Conducting inquiries or practicing your swerves?

 

Now, if you really want to know the answers to those questions why don''t you pick up the phone, call Alan Bowkett and ask for a meeting in your capacity as an NCFC shareholder? Simple.  Unless, of course you are not really a qualifying shareholder..............

 

You could then let us know what penalties exist in the CE''s contract for not meeting targets - unless, of course, these can only be revealed after the fact like the substantial performance bonuses he''s received based  on the club''s sensational performance over the past 3+ years.

 

But. there again you might get turned down as not having the knowledge or capacity to bring anything to the table..........

 

I''ll put on the kettle again Bury. I got out the big teapot this time with those tin mugs...............

 

OTBC

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Ahhh Bly,for the information of yourself as Tangibles associate i was out for the evening indulging myself in good food,wine and conversation with friends at Blackfriars Hall.

Now i think my 100 ordinary shares give me the right to attend and vote at NCFC AGMs and to ask any questions should i so desire and be given the opportunity don''t you ? Therefore no need to pick up the phone and request a meeting with Mr Bowkett as us shareholders find him a most approachable chap at or after AGMs. Had Tangible bothered to attend last year he could have asked his questions from the floor.

Now there''s a good chap would you please refrain from attempting to goad me ?

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,789]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Leaving aside the meeting with Bowkett, which I am not in itself bothered about, what was the basis of you being allowed to see McNally''s contract? Was it juat as a result of a normal request from you as a shareholder? If so then I don''t see why the details, and particularly the bonus targets etc, cannot be sent to all shareholders. Or is it a question of shareholders having to make a request to see the contract, and be able to visit Carrow Road? Or was it part of the meeting Bowkett granted you, but it was just that it wasn''t Bowkett who showed you the contract?

Obviously I ask as a fellow shareholder. If the access you have been granted to McNally''s contract has come about simply because you had the gumption to ask, and all shareholders could do that, then that is fine. But was it a favour granted as part of the one-to-one Bowkett meeting that would not apply to others? Because, as you say, it is up to Bowkett whom he meets.[/quote]

 

This apparently in the eyes of our very own Corporate Law expert is goading.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

[IMG]http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae55/Nuff_Said/Handbags-1.jpg[/IMG]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][IMG]http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae55/Nuff_Said/Handbags-1.jpg[/IMG][/quote]this.

[nutty nigel 7,606]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Nuff Said"][IMG]http://i957.photobucket.com/albums/ae55/Nuff_Said/Handbags-1.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

this.
[/quote]

 

Seems strange that two posters with apparently no interest or inpit in the thread should want to disrupt it. But each to their own...

 

However, if you really have a penchant to interfere you could invest in my Forum Manager 2012 computer game now just £11.99 or my new Forum Mother In Law game at just £7.99. Both available from all reputable gaming stores.....

 

 

[Crafty Canary 497]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

Tangible the victim still protesting his innocence whilst throwing in the odd insult along the way i see. Give it up old boy as i said earlier you gave it the Billy Big Bollox on the thread YOU started which was about your meeting with Bowkett over McNally''s contract.This thread turned into a discussion about that contract and bonuses to which YOU AND YOU ONLY hold the answers and despite repeated requests all you can respond with is this goading nonsense.

[/quote]

 

Ahhh Tilson, where''ve you been? Conducting inquiries or practicing your swerves?

 

Now, if you really want to know the answers to those questions why don''t you pick up the phone, call Alan Bowkett and ask for a meeting in your capacity as an NCFC shareholder? Simple.  Unless, of course you are not really a qualifying shareholder..............

 

You could then let us know what penalties exist in the CE''s contract for not meeting targets - unless, of course, these can only be revealed after the fact like the substantial performance bonuses he''s received based  on the club''s sensational performance over the past 3+ years.

 

But. there again you might get turned down as not having the knowledge or capacity to bring anything to the table..........

 

I''ll put on the kettle again Bury. I got out the big teapot this time with those tin mugs...............

 

OTBC

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Ahhh Bly,for the information of yourself as Tangibles associate i was out for the evening indulging myself in good food,wine and conversation with friends at Blackfriars Hall.

Now i think my 100 ordinary shares give me the right to attend and vote at NCFC AGMs and to ask any questions should i so desire and be given the opportunity don''t you ? Therefore no need to pick up the phone and request a meeting with Mr Bowkett as us shareholders find him a most approachable chap at or after AGMs. Had Tangible bothered to attend last year he could have asked his questions from the floor.

Now there''s a good chap would you please refrain from attempting to goad me ?

 

 

[/quote]

So why don''t you ask Mr Bowkett at the AGM? I look forward to you reporting on his response to your searching questions after the AGM.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

From a comedy interlude back to the boring stuff. What do these accounts tell us about the management ethos up until now, and whether that will change? The two characteristics up until now have been ruthlessness and short-termism. The former was partly motivated by a desire to be the polar opposite of the previous administration, and partly through necessity, although there are strong indications that ruthlessness is in Bowkett and McNally’s DNA, and they will act that way under all circumstances, whether justified or not. Think 17-year-old nerds. As to short-termism, that can mainly be put down to necessity.

Job cuts, for example. Ruthless and short-term. Non-football staff were slashed in two years by a massive 22 per cent. It is hard to believe that nearly one person in four at Carrow Road was dispensable. But cutting costs this way was effectively forced on the club as part of the financial restructuring. Such projects almost invariably involve job losses. The club having been stabilised, the numbers went back slightly last season, to cope with the extra demands of the Premier League.

Take ticketing policy, particularly for non-season ticket holders. The club has blatantly used the reservoir of goodwill and support built up by the old regime to maximise revenue. The pre-adult category was scrapped, meaning 16-year-olds pay adult prices. And the grading system is a fraud in footballing terms. Last season ten As, eight Bs and a token C. So far this season three A*s (all reasonable choices) and three As, of which only West Ham might just about qualify.

In the short-term the policy makes sense. But this is a regime that still talks (albeit for now less bullishly) about the desire for a 34,000- or 35,000-seat stadium. If the board believes in two or three years’ time it can just flick its fingers and 8,000 extra fans will appear out of nowhere it is almost certainly seriously mistaken. Those fans have to start being attracted in now.

The big question is whether there will come a time when the board (assuming continued membership of the PL) can afford to think longer term. Will there be a golden age with money to burn? Not this coming year, I would wager. Revenue will be modestly up, based on increased season ticket prices and the continued fleecing of casuals. But TV income will be about the same, and catering and commercial probably little changed. Meanwhile we have (various figures but...) at least £10m of hard debt to pay off, compared with the no more than £5m we zapped last season, while – barring an outbreak of altruism by footballers - our wage bill is likely to be significantly higher. Tempting fate, but I would be surprised if we equal last year’s profit of £13.4m.

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[nutty nigel 7,606]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[/quote]

 

That''s the whole point I was trying to make to Kingsway on the stadium expansion thread. If we want to make every effort to stay in this league we won''t have a cash surplus. Take money away from the team and we will be even bigger Premier Paupers. Those millions next season are the bare minimum that all clubs will have. Most will have more on top.

 

But I believe the gap is closing.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

From a comedy interlude back to the boring stuff. What do these accounts tell us about the management ethos up until now, and whether that will change? The two characteristics up until now have been ruthlessness and short-termism. The former was partly motivated by a desire to be the polar opposite of the previous administration, and partly through necessity, although there are strong indications that ruthlessness is in Bowkett and McNally’s DNA, and they will act that way under all circumstances, whether justified or not. Think 17-year-old nerds. As to short-termism, that can mainly be put down to necessity.

Job cuts, for example. Ruthless and short-term. Non-football staff were slashed in two years by a massive 22 per cent. It is hard to believe that nearly one person in four at Carrow Road was dispensable. But cutting costs this way was effectively forced on the club as part of the financial restructuring. Such projects almost invariably involve job losses. The club having been stabilised, the numbers went back slightly last season, to cope with the extra demands of the Premier League.

Take ticketing policy, particularly for non-season ticket holders. The club has blatantly used the reservoir of goodwill and support built up by the old regime to maximise revenue. The pre-adult category was scrapped, meaning 16-year-olds pay adult prices. And the grading system is a fraud in footballing terms. Last season ten As, eight Bs and a token C. So far this season three A*s (all reasonable choices) and three As, of which only West Ham might just about qualify.

In the short-term the policy makes sense. But this is a regime that still talks (albeit for now less bullishly) about the desire for a 34,000- or 35,000-seat stadium. If the board believes in two or three years’ time it can just flick its fingers and 8,000 extra fans will appear out of nowhere it is almost certainly seriously mistaken. Those fans have to start being attracted in now.

The big question is whether there will come a time when the board (assuming continued membership of the PL) can afford to think longer term. Will there be a golden age with money to burn? Not this coming year, I would wager. Revenue will be modestly up, based on increased season ticket prices and the continued fleecing of casuals. But TV income will be about the same, and catering and commercial probably little changed. Meanwhile we have (various figures but...) at least £10m of hard debt to pay off, compared with the no more than £5m we zapped last season, while – barring an outbreak of altruism by footballers - our wage bill is likely to be significantly higher. Tempting fate, but I would be surprised if we equal last year’s profit of £13.4m.

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[/quote]

 

Seems you hanker after the old management ethos of Munby & Doncaster supported by Grant, Roeder and Gunn.......and a bloated workforce.......and goodies for all.............

 

OTBC

 

 

 

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

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

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[/quote]

 

That''s the whole point I was trying to make to Kingsway on the stadium expansion thread. If we want to make every effort to stay in this league we won''t have a cash surplus. Take money away from the team and we will be even bigger Premier Paupers. Those millions next season are the bare minimum that all clubs will have. Most will have more on top.

 

But I believe the gap is closing.

 

[/quote]

 

Indeed it may be and it''s a question of walking between the raindrops until that time comes.

 

Chase did it for the best part of 10 years until it fell apart at that last hurdle before that first tipping point.

 

Now can BowkettMcNallyHughton hold it together until this second Prem tipping point?

 

Hmmm.......let''s cross our fingers; and enjoy this ride.

 

OTBC

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,606]

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

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[/quote]

 

That''s the whole point I was trying to make to Kingsway on the stadium expansion thread. If we want to make every effort to stay in this league we won''t have a cash surplus. Take money away from the team and we will be even bigger Premier Paupers. Those millions next season are the bare minimum that all clubs will have. Most will have more on top.

 

But I believe the gap is closing.

 

[/quote]

 

Indeed it may be and it''s a question of walking between the raindrops until that time comes.

 

Chase did it for the best part of 10 years until it fell apart at that last hurdle before that first tipping point.

 

Now can BowkettMcNallyHughton hold it together until this second Prem tipping point?

 

Hmmm.......let''s cross our fingers; and enjoy this ride.

 

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

 

It was different in Chase''s time. Although what many consider to be our best ever season was the first Premier League season. We went downhill at an even faster rate than the Premier League went up hill! By the time we were relegated we were nowhere near a Premiership team and Chase never even hinted that he had what it takes to survive in this league.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

From a comedy interlude back to the boring stuff. What do these accounts tell us about the management ethos up until now, and whether that will change? The two characteristics up until now have been ruthlessness and short-termism. The former was partly motivated by a desire to be the polar opposite of the previous administration, and partly through necessity, although there are strong indications that ruthlessness is in Bowkett and McNally’s DNA, and they will act that way under all circumstances, whether justified or not. Think 17-year-old nerds. As to short-termism, that can mainly be put down to necessity.

Job cuts, for example. Ruthless and short-term. Non-football staff were slashed in two years by a massive 22 per cent. It is hard to believe that nearly one person in four at Carrow Road was dispensable. But cutting costs this way was effectively forced on the club as part of the financial restructuring. Such projects almost invariably involve job losses. The club having been stabilised, the numbers went back slightly last season, to cope with the extra demands of the Premier League.

Take ticketing policy, particularly for non-season ticket holders. The club has blatantly used the reservoir of goodwill and support built up by the old regime to maximise revenue. The pre-adult category was scrapped, meaning 16-year-olds pay adult prices. And the grading system is a fraud in footballing terms. Last season ten As, eight Bs and a token C. So far this season three A*s (all reasonable choices) and three As, of which only West Ham might just about qualify.

In the short-term the policy makes sense. But this is a regime that still talks (albeit for now less bullishly) about the desire for a 34,000- or 35,000-seat stadium. If the board believes in two or three years’ time it can just flick its fingers and 8,000 extra fans will appear out of nowhere it is almost certainly seriously mistaken. Those fans have to start being attracted in now.

The big question is whether there will come a time when the board (assuming continued membership of the PL) can afford to think longer term. Will there be a golden age with money to burn? Not this coming year, I would wager. Revenue will be modestly up, based on increased season ticket prices and the continued fleecing of casuals. But TV income will be about the same, and catering and commercial probably little changed. Meanwhile we have (various figures but...) at least £10m of hard debt to pay off, compared with the no more than £5m we zapped last season, while – barring an outbreak of altruism by footballers - our wage bill is likely to be significantly higher. Tempting fate, but I would be surprised if we equal last year’s profit of £13.4m.

Ah, but what about the stupendous riches that (fingers crossed) await us next season? Transitory. Illusory. Take your pick of adjectives. The reality of being in the PL (as demonstrated by Lerner’s £200m at Villa) is that you have to run bloody hard – and spend a shedload of money -just to stay in the same place. In other words, even if the board would like to think and act more strategically, short-termism may be a permanent necessity.

[/quote]

 

Seems you hanker after the old management ethos of Munby & Doncaster supported by Grant, Roeder and Gunn.......and a bloated workforce.......and goodies for all.............

 

 

[/quote]

 

That is a remarkably infantile thing to say. I have sharp criticisms of some aspects of the new regime. Its knee-jerk ruthlessness has led it into embarrassing error. Colchestergate, Look Eastgate and Nerdgate. None of which, I suspect, would have happened under Munby and Doncaster. And I do worry that this is inherent and likely to recur. But to acknowledge the virtues of the old regime and perceive the failings of the new is not to wish the former to replace the latter.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

PC. If you coud expand on ''Look Eastgate'' and ''Nerdgate'' (and any other gates for that matter)  for us - without  activating the censors blue pencil! - it may help those of us who are not ''apparent insiders'' to understand your views on the management ethos of our club rather better..........

 

[C]

 

OTBC

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

PC. If you coud expand on ''Look Eastgate'' and ''Nerdgate'' (and any other gates for that matter)  for us - without  activating the censors blue pencil! - it may help those of us who are not ''apparent insiders'' to understand your views on the management ethos of our club rather better..........

 

[C]

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

Nerdgate was this:

A 17-year-old Norwich City fan has angered the club by leaking pictures of its new kit 12 hours before the official launch.Norfolk Police were called in after IT student Chris Brown published images of the 2012-13 strip on the internet. Chris has apologised to the club, which said it would protect its intellectual property at all times.

Soon afterwards, in the wake of some pretty awful publicity, McNally also issued an admirably honest apology, effectively admitting the club had over-reacted by calling in the police. The point was that it must have become clear to the club that this nerd had not hacked into anything sensitive, such as fans'' financial details. He had supposedly taken advantage of (and I don''t pretend to understand this stuff) a piece of lax cyberwork by the club. That is not to exonerate him; he shouldn''t have done what he did.

LookEastgate was this:

BBC Look East has been banned from normal editorial access to Norwich City FC because of a long-running dispute [over an alleged multi-million pound transfer the club was, according to them, about to complete with Peterborough United for their then striker Craig Mackail-Smith].

Apparently the aim of the ban was to force Look East to cough up the name of its source, on the basis that Look East was some tinpot little station that could be easily cowed. If that is true, then the club was labouring under a complete misconception as to how the BBC operates. Any problem like that would be referred up the management of command. And no part of the BBC, however small, would give up the name of a source unless forced to by a court order (and even then possibly not) because it would harm the BBC''s journalism worldwide. Sources would refuse to talk off the record for fear of being outed.

And indeed when the club, after several months of increasingly bad publicity, announced it had dropped the ban, that was all it said. Nothing about the situation having been resolved to its satisfaction, or words to that effect. It read very much like a tacit admission that the ban had achieved nothing.

If that is right then in both cases you have ruthless initial action that doesn''t seem to have been thought through. That is my point about the ethos of the new executive management. It has needed to be ruthless in some areas (such as costs) but seems to think it is the best answer to all situations. When it isn''t.