Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Canary fun and games

Little ole Norwich is alive and kicking

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Feedthewolf"]That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.

[/quote]But isn''t that the reality of life for all (and I mean all) teams outside the PL, feed thewolf  ?  As long as it remains the undisputed land of milk and honey across Europe, the PL , even teams like Hull, WBA etc, will be a huge draw for not just the top players, but those of RS''s moderate ability.This was a deal that was always going to happen. Nothing the board could have realistically done about it. One of our better players makes it known that he''d like to be off, and some PL team comes in with a large offer for him, at least matching the asking price. With only one year on his contract it was a no- brainer, and absolutely nothing to do with ''little old Norwich''  . I''m not sure , however the board spun this out,  things were going to be perceived any differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on Reggie. The Club had to sell in the end because, as with Ashton after relegation, they were offered far more than each was worth. It''s good business, not ''Little Norwich''. Snods himself summed it up very well in his farewell to the club:

“Getting relegated was hard to take,” he said. “Last year, I believe that I couldn’t have given any more from a personal point of view. I was struggling with a few niggling injuries but I went out there and put my body on the line to try to save the club from relegation. Obviously, that wasn’t to be. I had a great two years there. I made some great friends and met some great people. I had one year left of my contract and they didn’t offer me anything else when we went down to the Championship. There’s no bad blood at all. I believe I did as well as I possibly could towards the end of last season.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Reggie Strayshun"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.

[/quote]But isn''t that the reality of life for all (and I mean all) teams outside the PL, feed thewolf  ?  As long as it remains the undisputed land of milk and honey across Europe, the PL , even teams like Hull, WBA etc, will be a huge draw for not just the top players, but those of RS''s moderate ability.This was a deal that was always going to happen. Nothing the board could have realistically done about it. One of our better players makes it known that he''d like to be off, and some PL team comes in with a large offer for him, at least matching the asking price. With only one year on his contract it was a no- brainer, and absolutely nothing to do with ''little old Norwich''  . I''m not sure , however the board spun this out,  things were going to be perceived any differently.[/quote]Yeah, I hear you – I''m not saying for a minute we shouldn''t have sold him. It was just the wording of it that concerned me – "the financial

figures involved have made it a deal which we had to do". The board have been quite bullish in saying we''re debt free, under no pressure to sell, we have money to strengthen the squad – of course they know that our best players will be subject to interest from top-flight clubs, and many of them may wish to jump ship straight away to get back to the promised land. But there''s a difference between saying "we felt this was a great piece of business for a player with one year left on his contract", and saying what can be paraphrased as "we had to sell him because we need the money".My only problem is with the use of imperative – we "had" to sell – rather than emphasising that we chose to because we thought it was an excellent piece of business (which it clearly is, in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 Million for a limited Championship winger in the last year of his contract that in reality is probably only worth 5 Million....Yea little old Norwich sure got fleeced and had the p1ss taken out of it by the mighty Hull Tigers.....

Not thinking we could do better than Hughton was small time for sure and so has the anything above 18th mentality that kept him in a job so long, the board have been guilty of being very unambitious and small time recently but this is possibly the best outgoing deal the club has ever done, no way in hell is Snodgrass worth 8 Million!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Feedthewolf"]I don''t think Adams'' wording has done us any favours with regards to the ''little old Norwich'' theory."He’s one that we would have liked to have stayed to be part of our squad

in the Championship as we aim to get promoted, but the financial

figures involved have made it a deal which we had to do."That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.If we did get the £8m figure that''s been touted, it''s an excellent deal. I would expect the board/media team to now reassure us that all this money will be given to Neil to directly reinvest in the first team squad... if they don''t, maybe we are reverting to the dreaded ''prudence with ambition''.[/quote]"The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t

mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but

it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is

available."Prudence with ambition it is, then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]I don''t think Adams'' wording has done us any favours with regards to the ''little old Norwich'' theory.

"He’s one that we would have liked to have stayed to be part of our squad in the Championship as we aim to get promoted, but the financial figures involved have made it a deal which we had to do."

That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.

If we did get the £8m figure that''s been touted, it''s an excellent deal. I would expect the board/media team to now reassure us that all this money will be given to Neil to directly reinvest in the first team squad... if they don''t, maybe we are reverting to the dreaded ''prudence with ambition''.
[/quote]
"The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available."

Prudence with ambition it is, then...
[/quote]

 

Full quote from NA

“We have money to spend and people will assume we have pots and pots. We haven’t,” he said. “The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available.

“We have to take it into account moving forward, along with other things like salaries when it comes to recruiting players, but I hope there are more dealings in the transfer market between now and the end. It isn’t quite as straightforward as saying the club has an endless pit but we are definitely looking to bring in players.”

See how much fairer it is when you don''t cherry pick bits of the quote, I could say that your post contained "ambition it is" showing how positive you were but that wouldn''t be fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]I don''t think Adams'' wording has done us any favours with regards to the ''little old Norwich'' theory."He’s one that we would have liked to have stayed to be part of our squad in the Championship as we aim to get promoted, but the financial figures involved have made it a deal which we had to do."That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.If we did get the £8m figure that''s been touted, it''s an excellent deal. I would expect the board/media team to now reassure us that all this money will be given to Neil to directly reinvest in the first team squad... if they don''t, maybe we are reverting to the dreaded ''prudence with ambition''.[/quote]"The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available."Prudence with ambition it is, then...[/quote]

 

Full quote from NA

“We have money to spend and people will assume we have pots and pots. We haven’t,” he said. “The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available.

“We have to take it into account moving forward, along with other things like salaries when it comes to recruiting players, but I hope there are more dealings in the transfer market between now and the end. It isn’t quite as straightforward as saying the club has an endless pit but we are definitely looking to bring in players.”

See how much fairer it is when you don''t cherry pick bits of the quote, I could say that your post contained "ambition it is" showing how positive you were but that wouldn''t be fair.[/quote]

Yeah okay, valid point. Just after I posted that, I saw someone post on another thread that this could equally equate to saying "just because we''ve received £7m for Snodgrass doesn''t mean that clubs can inflate their prices". Pleading poverty is a sensible move, but whether we are pleading poverty or actually poor will be shown between now and the end of August. Happy to bite my tongue until then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

[quote user="Feedthewolf"][quote user="Feedthewolf"]I don''t think Adams'' wording has done us any favours with regards to the ''little old Norwich'' theory."He’s one that we would have liked to have stayed to be part of our squad in the Championship as we aim to get promoted, but the financial figures involved have made it a deal which we had to do."That implies that if people come in with good money, we''ll sell our best players, which directly contradicts what the board said in the wake of relegation. It might have been wiser from a PR perspective to say that the offer of Premiership football was too good for Robert to refuse, and with only a year left on his contract it was a very lucrative offer that will enable us to further strengthen our squad.If we did get the £8m figure that''s been touted, it''s an excellent deal. I would expect the board/media team to now reassure us that all this money will be given to Neil to directly reinvest in the first team squad... if they don''t, maybe we are reverting to the dreaded ''prudence with ambition''.[/quote]"The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available."Prudence with ambition it is, then...[/quote]

 

Full quote from NA

“We have money to spend and people will assume we have pots and pots. We haven’t,” he said. “The reality is we were relegated last season and of course that doesn’t mean you go out and splash silly money about. We have let Robert go but it doesn’t automatically mean the money we have received for Robert is available.

“We have to take it into account moving forward, along with other things like salaries when it comes to recruiting players, but I hope there are more dealings in the transfer market between now and the end. It isn’t quite as straightforward as saying the club has an endless pit but we are definitely looking to bring in players.”

See how much fairer it is when you don''t cherry pick bits of the quote, I could say that your post contained "ambition it is" showing how positive you were but that wouldn''t be fair.[/quote]

Yeah okay, valid point. Just after I posted that, I saw someone post on another thread that this could equally equate to saying "just because we''ve received £7m for Snodgrass doesn''t mean that clubs can inflate their prices". Pleading poverty is a sensible move, but whether we are pleading poverty or actually poor will be shown between now and the end of August. Happy to bite my tongue until then.

[/quote]But you know full well that we are in a financially sound position, this has been well documented.So why assume otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]But you know full well that we are in a financially sound position, this has been well documented.So why assume otherwise?[/quote]That''s why I backtracked on my original statement. I''m sure I''m not the only person on here who is prone to making spur-of-the-moment posts that later seem less wise... [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am still waiting to see some sign of us NOT reverting back to little ole Norwich.

Cheap manager and backroom staff, sign a Bournemouth player and sell our POT to a big club Hull!

It stinks of days gone by. When will we start to see a statement of intent from the board. In fact I see the opposite over the coming weeks Ollson going, ruddy going, hooper going Redmond going.

It is a familiar path that we longer in the tooth have

Trodden before and it all looks depressingly familiar.

Adams out. Lambert back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]I am starting to think that this " septic " is just another " nom de plume " of Waveney . I am claiming my ten pounds It took you long enough, Barfly Seat 48.[/quote]

 

No, I don''t think it is, the syntax is all wrong for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary fun and games "]Who is this Waveney fella I am being accused of being?

He seems to be some kind of bogeyman that all posters who are not part of the inner circle seem to morph into[/quote]To be blunt CFG, I really do not know whether you are the same person as Waveney, Mike Hunt etc, and I honestly do not care. If you write good , thoughtful stuff, then , frankly you can call yourself what you like.Your point about the inner circle is a fair one. This phenomenon is by no means peculiar to this forum. Most fora seem to have their self appointed ''intellegentsia'' who like to feel that they run the show. Usually their views are presented as fact, and those of others that do not fit in with their narrow mantra/agenda are ridiculed and insulted. Best to ignore it, is my advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Canary fun and games "]Who is this Waveney fella I am being accused of being?[/quote]http://www.lowestoftlivingarchive.co.uk/media/places/15_main.jpgMarvin Fairlady ‏@Sparky46153529 2hBanned again from the pinkun I have retired the waveney'' rec, Thorpe end and canary from the waveney valley brands and have unleashed a new1Waveney Canary / Canary from the Waveney Valley / Thorpe End Canary / River End Canary / Marvin Fairlady / Mike Hunt / Lowestoft Canary / Norwich4life / Herr Flick / Humpty the canary / Newton / Wizard of Waveney / Canary fun and games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well if that''s the criteria you could be an inner circle all on your own reggie...[/quote]Fair point Nige.......or at least it would be if you''re prepared to overlook the fact that I do not kid myself that I''m running the show, only present things as opinion (as opposed to fact), and do not tend to go in for kindergarten style insults.But apart from that, I fit the IC criteria perfectly, as you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Herman "]Are the inner circle the same as the usual suspects?[/quote]I''m in them both Herman, along with the Lunatic Tendency, the Bully Boys and the Silent Majority...

Allegedly.........[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Herman "]That must cost a lot in membership fees.[/quote]I was co-opted Herman, an honourary member. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...