Ricardo's report v Reading.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]

Norwich City''s problems start at Board level. They got lucky; they gambled on paying up debt and not investing sufficiently and they lurched and continue to do so from one self-satisfied calamity to another and their ineptitude is visible to us on the football pitch.[/quote]They had no choice over paying off the debt. It was a consequence of promotion to the Premier League and out of their hands. So if you think we haven''t invested sufficiently on the playing side for that reason then that is a mistaken view. If, alternatively, you think there has been a lack of playing investment because we have been hoarding money then that also is a mistaken view. The policy of the directors has not been to make large profits but to spend what we have. But equally the policy has very much not been to spend money we haven''t had.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

You clearly know more than I do, Purple and I''m not arguing with you but this is the difficulty I have.

We were in our third season in the Premier League, that''s three big TV revenue incomes and an upgraded squad. We were in a strong position to maintain our place in that league but we couldn''t borrow to ensure it? Not even in the January window?

By this logic no one would ever buy to let for example. You speculate to accumulate. Yes, it''s a gamble but a calculated one.

The Board appeared to me to have set themselves the target of paying off external debt.

I expect you will say the lender had insisted on this deadline, but was no effort made to re-negotiate? Look at the position we were in. And who was the debt owed to? Did this include Board members or are they still waiting?

As it was we did spend significantly. But having done so why were the Board so slow to deal with the playing decline.

I just feel they gambled and lost over a trivial amount set against the revenues lost.

[Sussexyellow 55]

[quote user="Molly Windley"][quote user="Scot-e-dog"]Worryingly as well, what I read into Adam''s post match comments is that he is trying to blame the players without shouldering any responsibility himself.

Poor all round.[/quote]Has anyone else noticed that when we do well Adams says "I"  a lot and when we do poorly he always says "they or we"?[/quote]

I used to work for a boss like that. His sayings were Didn´t I do well and how did you let that happen. Needless to say the Didn´t I do well occasions were down to somebody else´s efforts and the how did you let that happens down to him. I hated him with a passion.

Strangely enough my performance picked up once he was gone. Now who said managers do not make a difference?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]You clearly know more than I do, Purple and I''m not arguing with you but this is the difficulty I have.

We were in our third season in the Premier League, that''s three big TV revenue incomes and an upgraded squad. We were in a strong position to maintain our place in that league but we couldn''t borrow to ensure it? Not even in the January window?

By this logic no one would ever buy to let for example. You speculate to accumulate. Yes, it''s a gamble but a calculated one.

The Board appeared to me to have set themselves the target of paying off external debt.

I expect you will say the lender had insisted on this deadline, but was no effort made to re-negotiate? Look at the position we were in. And who was the debt owed to? Did this include Board members or are they still waiting?

As it was we did spend significantly. But having done so why were the Board so slow to deal with the playing decline.

I just feel they gambled and lost over a trivial amount set against the revenues lost.[/quote]Rudolph, it depends on what time you take it from but the debt was well over £10m, it was all external (we still owe Smith and Jones and Foulger some) and we really didn''t have a choice. Lenders now want to get out of football debt as soon as they can.As to our spending, at the risk of immodesty, my long piece a couple of weeks ago did go into that in some detail. "Coma-inducing" was one description...But, in brief,.we have spent increasing amounts on players, we haven''t hoarded money, and our wage bill (which is what kills you if you let it) has increased year on year, but - quite properly - within reason.Finance is not the reason we got relegated. Nor is it the reason we are slip-sliding down the Championship.Trust me, it really isn''t.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Interesting comments, Purple.

I missed your piece as I haven''t visited this site much lately.

What is your overall impression of the competence of the Board. If it''s favourable, who do you blame for our decline?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Interesting comments, Purple.

I missed your piece as I haven''t visited this site much lately.

What is your overall impression of the competence of the Board. If it''s favourable, who do you blame for our decline?[/quote]That is slumming it on Page 2 now! What do I think of the board? I am afraid that would need a long answer. Very briefly, my view is probably more favourable than that of many posters here but far from starry-eyed.

[star_manic 0]

I do not want Adams to be sacked, but for his own good he should tender his resignation so that he can leave with some dignity.