We got no Cash

[Herman 9,765]

[quote user="whoareyou"]Like Butterfield?[/quote]As I said they''re a risk, but so are all transfers. And to be fair to Butterfield, like Becchio, he barely got a chance.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Just when we thought this had died down.....

Can someone please tell me a club that has got every transfer right, hang on I''ll answer that question for myself, none.

Let''s get real guys, not every signing is going to walk straight in to the first 11, other than McGrandles and Miquel all of the others have played their part as some stage, excluding the lad at Swindon who for this season doesn''t count.

Take Wilf Zaha as an example, he was bought by Man Utd for a ridiculous amount and cost them something like £400k per min of play (if the journos) can be believed and they have therefore lost a shed load on him, the players you guys are quoting wouldn''t have cost a fortune in the scheme of things and therefore worth a punt to see how they develop, which is maybe the same basis why Sir AF bought Zaha. I did say maybe Newton before you blame me for telling everyone that he did.

What amazes me even further is that it was only a couple of weeks ago that a certain person on here was moaning about how much money we wasted and then wants us to spend even more in January with no guarantees that any players coming in would do a job for us.

Sometimes I wonder if that''s the hope so he has something else to moan about!!!

[whoareyou? 0]

Probably because he wasn''t good enough for the level we were at.

[Newton 0]

Another way of assessing our summer signings is not to look at them individually but consider out of the 10 how many have been good enough to start on a regular basis ?

We can only play one of the 3 forwards at any time(combinations of Jerone / Grabbam / Lafferty ) have not worked and O''Neil is the only midfield player we have seen regularly

The C/Halves have made bit part appearances but to be honest none of the 3 are good enough

The bottom line is out of the 10 only 2 could be classed as starters the other 8 have just added to the wages bill by swelling the squad

To only regularly play 2 out of the 10 signings is an appalling statistic and one of the reasons why we did not push the boat out in Jan

[whoareyou? 0]

It just all comes back to the same thing in what a monumental cock up it was appointing Adams last summer.I didn''t understand (or like) it then and its now costing us dearly in what is our best chance at a swift return to the Premier League.And just to add to the stupidity of the situation, Adams himself didn''t think he was up to it in the end.

Anyways lets just hope AN can sort the current squad into something that will produce the right results on a regular basis.

[mrs miggins 0]

So Dorrans will be coming next week by the sounds of it. Hopefully we''ll still be keeping Olsson

[TIL 1010 4,746]

Having just read all 7 pages of this thread there is little wonder that Mick Dennis and his sidekicks are all over social media ridiculing Pink Un posters. Over the last few days I have seen the expressions brainless and moronic used to describe certain fans.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Has Mick Dennis been slating us again?

[morty 0]

Uh-oh......

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Another way of assessing our summer signings is not to look at them individually but consider out of the 10 how many have been good enough to start on a regular basis ?[/quote]Ok.

[quote user="Newton"]We can only play one of the 3 forwards at any time(combinations of Jerone / Grabbam / Lafferty ) have not worked and O''Neil is the only midfield player we have seen regularly

The C/Halves have made bit part appearances but to be honest none of the 3 are good enough

The bottom line is out of the 10 only 2 could be classed as starters the other 8 have just added to the wages bill by swelling the squad

To only regularly play 2 out of the 10 signings is an appalling statistic and one of the reasons why we did not push the boat out in Jan[/quote]So basically, we''ll just ignore the first bit you said then?Shall we have a look at some of the appearances to see if that helps?Hooiveld - 7R. Bennett - 5Garrido - 7Martin - 28Olsson - 24Turner - 23Whittaker - 24Cuellar - 9Miquel - 2Bassong - 1That''s appearances. So going on what you have said, Bennett and Garrido are also wastes of space and are just as much failures as the likes of Hooiveld and Cuellar? Shall we look at midfield?Howson - 18Johnson - 26Josh Murphey - 16Vadis - 4O''Neil - 20Redmond - 27Tettey - 24E.Bennett - 9McGrandles - 1So going on that, O''Neil is fourth on the appearance list. And only four behind Tettey, two more than Howson. I''d say that represents a level of success - especially when you consider how many of Johnsons have been wide rather than central.Strikers/AMBecchio - 1Grabban - 26Hoolahan - 20Hooper - 16Jerome - 25Lafferty - 20Loza - 3So going on appearances Grabban and Jerome are the biggest two appearers as strikers. Defenitely forced their way into the side. Lafferty for being so useless still has 20 appearances.That is out of 28 league games plus the cup games played so far. It basically backs up my comparison and view basically. That''s ignoring the fact that you said we should do this and then contradicted that in the following sentence. You then said we only played two out of the ten regularly. O''Neil (20), Grabban (26), Jerome (25) and Lafferty (20) can all be considered first team regulars. That is four out of ten. Which is exactly 100% more than you said. The ten signings you speak of also include Louis Thompson who has just turned 20 and is on a season long loan at Swindon in addition to McGrandles who was said to have been signed for the future at 19. I know that Miquel is a sticking point with you so I wll not go there. That still means that the number is 4 from 8 rather than 10. Vadis has been injured, which again - could mean he could still turn into a good solid signing. If you know anything about the sort of injury that he''s had you''ll know that reactions are possible, and he has been unlucky. So, you can write him off as a crap signing if you want - but that is with the benefit of hindsight, which in another 6 months may yet change again to be a lot more positive.However, the one thing that is forgotten here, is that some players may well have been signed to be back up rather than first team regulars. I very much doubt that Cuellar was brought here to be starting every week.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="whoareyou"]It just all comes back to the same thing in what a monumental cock up it was appointing Adams last summer. [/quote]So let me get this straight - I want to understand this - on a scale of 1 - 10 where one is good and 10 is bad where does ''monumental cock up'' fall''? Just so I am sure I know what I am reading and how to respond.

[TIL 1010 4,746]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Has Mick Dennis been slating us again?[/quote]

Yep.

[Maccys Back 0]

Stuff d1ck Dennis he''s the journalistic version of the ultimate delia lovey happy clappy. Here''s hoping he get a happy slappy while he''s being a happy clappy!! Might wake him up a tad.

[Newton 0]

TIL 1010 wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 8:04 PM:

Having just read all 7 pages of this thread there is little wonder that Mick Dennis and his sidekicks are all over social media ridiculing Pink Un posters. Over the last few days I have seen the expressions brainless and moronic used to describe certain fans.

Til right up your street then - what kept u

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Well I''m happy and would rather be supportive in the ground so if that''s the criteria then I''m a happy clapper and proud to be so.

 

But I''m also happy to post on this forum and find the vast majority of posters a joy to be around. This is where I have been at loggerheads with Mick Dennis in the past. This is easily the busiest Norwich City forum. The forum has many positive aspects. But Mick Dennis and his ilk concentrate on the negatives and then tar every poster with the same brush. Strangely, although these people haven''t a good word to say about the forum, they must spend time reading it to make the comments they do...

 

 

[Newton 0]

Chicken please do not ignore any aspect of my post I stand by it - why are you now including existing squad players my beef was with the quality & mix of the summer 10

Defence - your stats highlight exactly what I was saying, none of the 3 signings are good enough to be regular starters

Midfield - O''Neil is the only signing to play on a regular basis

Forwards - I believe most of Lafferty''s appearances have been left midfield, he only lasts for 60 mins & has contributed 1 goal against 8 bookings. Indeed he has been so disappointing he has been farmed out to some Turkish side which is 4th from bottom in there league (basically anyone who we could get to take him) - the fact that he has gone - massive flop

Grabbam & Jerone - goals & appearances u are right, the problem is they don''t work as a pair and so we only start with one with the other coming on as a sub ( I accept that as Hooper cant play on his own upfront to sign both these 2 was needed)

Your stats prove perfectly that out of the 10 summer madness signings we rarely start with more than 2 (with a third coming on as a sub) - this confirms what I was saying - thanks for all the hard work

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="whoareyou"]It just all comes back to the same thing in what a monumental cock up it was appointing Adams last summer. [/quote]So let me get this straight - I want to understand this - on a scale of 1 - 10 where one is good and 10 is bad where does ''monumental cock up'' fall''? Just so I am sure I know what I am reading and how to respond.

[/quote]I''d give him about a 8.From what i have seen of this division this season, with the right managerial appointment we would have been in the top two most of the season. Even Ipshite have managed better than us in that respect.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

We can''t be that skint......We could afford to give our CE a £350,000 bonus......Even after we were relegated.....

[chicken 0]

[quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="whoareyou"]It just all comes back to the same thing in what a monumental cock up it was appointing Adams last summer. [/quote]So let me get this straight - I want to understand this - on a scale of 1 - 10 where one is good and 10 is bad where does ''monumental cock up'' fall''? Just so I am sure I know what I am reading and how to respond.

[/quote]I''d give him about a 8.From what i have seen of this division this season, with the right managerial appointment we would have been in the top two most of the season. Even Ipshite have managed better than us in that respect.[/quote]First of all, thanks for giving me a respectful answer - some twonks on here wouldn''t.I asked you to scale it because it then helps me to show you why I don''t place him as being that badly.In my scale of 1 to 10, I''d put Adams as being a 5 or 6 at worse. This is the scale of things as I see them in my memory - from around 1990 onwards (I was 8 then so some of that may be a bit hazy).10 - Roeder. He sold the soul of the club from under us. Only one player he signed ever ended up giving us anything back - Hoolahan. Other than that he almost gutted the club.9 - Gunn. He''s not a bad person, and at least built a half decent squad. Will always be a club legend, just not as a manager.Hamilton shall also be thrown in here, again, doesn''t hit 10 because I don''t think he was destructive, just poor.8 - Grant. Not his fault entirely, he just isn''t a manager and didn''t have an eye for a player.7 - Megson/Deehan. Less said the better really. Hughton, but only for the second season and the lack of really improving our squad the summer before it. The first season was more likely a 4.6 - Adams - because what he needed really, was time. Time he didn''t have. And for a rookie manager, with the task he was given, I feel did very well. 5 - Rioch. Did reasonably well with the little he had to play around with. Probably the best manager we''ve had not to really kick on and succeed in many ways. I wonder what he would have achieved if he had some of the money more recent managers have had?4 - 3 - Worthington.2 - Walker (1st time). Lambert.1 - Stringer.I hope that goes some way to helping you see why I wouldn''t see Adams as being as poor as others are.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Newton"]Chicken please do not ignore any aspect of my post I stand by it - why are you now including existing squad players my beef was with the quality & mix of the summer 10. [/quote]That sort of was my point. You response included several inconsistencies and contradictions. You stated that a better way of comparing the players was on their impact as regular first team players. Regular would suggest that they have played a part in the majority of matches available for them to be involved in. You can''t do that without comparing their appearances with other players.You could say a player is rubbish because he has only made 15 appearances this season. But then there could be only two more players in that position that have made more appearances. That hardly makes him rubbish.[quote user="Newton"]Defence - your stats highlight exactly what I was saying, none of the 3 signings are good enough to be regular starters. [/quote]Actually, what the stats highlight is that we''ve had an extremely unsettled defense this season. Considering Hooiveld, Cuellar and R.Bennett have been mainly used as back up for players out of form, between them they have amassed 21 appearances. Also consider that not many of those will have been from the bench and it goes further to suggest that. The actual problem has been that our previous regular starters have also inexplicably been unreliable which is why on 21 occasions, or most of, a different combination has been chosen to one of either Martin and/or Turner.[quote user="Newton"]Midfield - O''Neil is the only signing to play on a regular basis

Forwards - I believe most of Lafferty''s appearances have been left midfield, he only lasts for 60 mins & has contributed 1 goal against 8 bookings.[/quote]Contradiction - your argument is about being a first team regular. I assume that you would conclude Hooper is a first team regular? And yet how many games does he complete the full 90mins? I gave you the grace to include Miquel, mainly to appease you, but I see you are still banging on about McGrandles who is 19. Nice one. So in terms of appearances both Lafferty and O''Neil are up there inside the top 11 most regular in appearances players for us this season. That is through the peaks and the troughs.[quote user="Newton"]Indeed he has been so disappointing he has been farmed out to some Turkish side which is 4th from bottom in there league (basically anyone who we could get to take him) - the fact that he has gone - massive flop[/quote]A strange thing to say really. Alex Neil played him. My guess is that he may not be happy to be 4th choice striker at this point in time. Perhaps even 5th if Wes is seen as he has been as a sort of number 10.[quote user="Newton"]Grabbam & Jerone - goals & appearances u are right, the problem is they don''t work as a pair and so we only start with one with the other coming on as a sub[/quote]There are no stats here to prove that. You need to show how many times they have played together and then what sort of points it has helped us to, eg 12 out of a possible 21. This isn''t my job, you throw a statement out there like that you need to look up the stats that lend weight to your argument. Personally, I don''t think we have seen enough of this combination for my liking - I''d want to see more before I draw a solid opinion on whether the two can or cannot play together. [quote user="Newton"]( I accept that as Hooper cant play on his own upfront to sign both these 2 was needed)

Your stats prove perfectly that out of the 10 summer madness signings we rarely start with more than 2 (with a third coming on as a sub) - this confirms what I was saying - thanks for all the hard work[/quote]This is where not comparing them to the outgoings falls apart. In my humble opinion, in an ideal world, your squad is made up of two players for every position - 22. Plus, an extra keeper so you have three and an extra striker so you have 5. Preferably a striker that is flexible and able to play another role. Like Huckerby, and to a lesser extent McVeigh.  That takes you to 24. That''s ''ideal'' in my mind.Obviously, in most cases you are not going to be able to have five top class strikers, because a decent top class striker is not going to want to stick around not getting games.My point is that in the summer, the only striker we were left with from our previous season was Hooper. We needed 3 strikers. Three strikers were signed. For competition, to cover injuries or just for rotation. They were needed.Grabban and Jerome have already proven they were needed. Grabban scored 7 whilst Jerome came into the side and Hooper was out injured. Grabban got an injury and Jerome started to fire on all cylinders and in came Hooper to join in. Hooper has dried up a bit of late so maybe it is time for Grabban again? Either way there is no way anyone could say we didn''t need them - the stats perfectly well say that. Anyone that tries to cook them any other way, well, needs to eat their own words for a start - "needs to get their head checked".As for the last bit. O''Neil, Lafferty, Jerome and Grabban have all been ''regular'' for us. Your suggestion of them all having to play at the same time is rather here nor there. The point is they were needed and have been regular members of the first team. Apart from anything else it does not take into account injuries / dips in form / tactical changes - and just rather assumes that they haven''t played a lot of games together because they are rubbish.

[Newton 0]

Chicken no matter how u dress it up the only 3 who can be considered to be any where near a success are O''Neil, Grabbam & Jerone

The rest just added to the wage bill - for Adams to sign Lafferty for £3/4M ? was absolute folly He has mainly played left midfield because Adams sold the others who played there & failed to sign replacements(there was no one else) - ridiculous waste of money-that''s why he has been farmed out to Turkey. Effort yes but cant beat a man, only lasts 60 mins and scored once but rec;d 8 bookings - a liability - not needed

My point about Jerone & Grabbam is highlighted by the fact that the latters goals dried up when he was partnered by Jerone - however he is good backup

The Swindon lad yes - the rest would not give you 50p for them (and nor would any other club)

I doubt very much that we will spend £15M plus next summer on 10 players and only 2 enhance the squad - what a disaster

[Newton 0]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 5:09 PM:

Newton wrote:

Herman wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 4:39 PM: FFS how many times. Miquel, McGrandles and Thompson are players for the future. How hard is it to get the concept of building a team for the long term into people''s heads Herman how can San Miquel who will be 23 this summer be classed as one for the future

Very easily. Because at 22 he is the youngest of all our first-team squad centre-backs. Cuellar is 33, Martin is 29, Turner is 31, Ryan Bennett is 24 and Bassong is 28. And the chances are Cuellar and Turner will have disappeared from that list by this time next year.

Purple defenders may well reach there peak when they are 27 but consider this

Bennett played in the Prem when he was 21 and did not look out of place

San Miquel played against Preston (L1) and looked completely out of place - cant see that 5 years will do anything to him = what a complete waste of money

On what basis was he signed - utter joke, needs to get shipped out asap

[Herman 9,765]

"(San)(sic) Miquel played against Preston (L1) and looked completely out of place" Newtown.That''s because he was.

[TCCANARY 263]

 

Gary Gowers thinks we''re still OK for a few quid.

"Yes Dorrans would have been useful and yes, Noone would have been a good addition, but such is life on Deadline Day. When deals are being forced through in such ridiculously short and needless timescales that’s often the outcome.

But they didn’t not happen because City are trying to ‘do in on the cheap’ or because ‘the money has dried up’. They collapsed because the deals were not right for everybody concerned. And nothing more."

 

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2015/02/03/andreu-in-and-lafferty-out-but-the-talking-outweighs-the-walking-on-jims-deadline-day/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

I think most of us are aware that there is money in the coffers TC, I think this whole post has an agenda attached to it.

It''s always been logical, we spent money in the summer but what we brought in due to sales outweighed what we spent so therefore there must be money to spend.

Spending it wisely is the issue not that the statement that we got no cash.

Although to be fair to Newton and every respect to him for sticking to his guns....at least he''s moved on from that and is now focusing his attention on why what we spent was a waste of money, which wiol always be about opinion!

[Newton 0]

Rich T, TC & Gowers need to keep up with things

It looks as tho AN is desperate to get Dorans on board and we are now going for a loan deal (see various threads & reports in national Papers)

Its just a shame we were not prepared to back AN with cash on Monday, when Dorans was at Norwich, past a medical & terms agreed

Lets hope we dont lose him through reluctance to splash the cash - dont forget we would have already agreed a swap valuation and WBA made it very clear they did not want Dorams as they had already signed a replacement - Fletcher from Man U

As time goes on it is very clear that our whole transfer policy appears to have been built around selling Olsson - it didnt go thro and we were not prepared to back AN with readies

All that McNally bothered about is the cash & his bonus & Delia - next wine delivery

If we dont improve squad we stuck in the champs - sad day for Norwich as we appear to have run out of cash within 9 mths of being relegated

Thank u Board - we def a well managed club

 

We must be the laughing stock of the championship - signed 10 in the summer for £MMMM''s - most incapable of strating for us and all we now say is squad too large & we got no cash - it dont take a genius to work out why ?

[BigFish 1,987]

Its true to say the club didn''t cover themselves in glory during the Summer. We have a bunch of strikers who can''t work in tandem, the lack of a LM and have looked soft in Central Defence.

But that is hindsight, many thought we had a squad to walk this League and were more worried about players going out - which as it turned out wasn''t on the cards because no one wanted our players.

[Newton 0]

BigFish wrote the following post at 04/02/2015 10:19 AM:

Its true to say the club didn''t cover themselves in glory during the Summer. We have a bunch of strikers who can''t work in tandem, the lack of a LM and have looked soft in Central Defence.

But that is hindsight, many thought we had a squad to walk this League and were more worried about players going out - which as it turned out wasn''t on the cards because no one wanted our players.

 

Big Fish - you summed it up perfectly in 2 x short paragraphs - agree 200%

[BroadstairsR 2,166]

I would be more sympathetic with your views on this matter Newton if you had stared the thread without the blatently inaccurate "We got no cash" heading.Instead it is surely more accurate to deduce that the club is tightening the reins slightly due to all the money wasted in the Summer and our wages bill which is clearly quite big despite relegation clauses.Neil has said our squad is too big, and his is right. Thank goodness Lafferty has gone at least as I think everything about this signing is squandered maney. I just hope that the Turks are paying all his wages.If we continue in the same vein then this time next year there might be more accuracy in your assertion (may be two years.)The parachutes are our lifeline and they also mean that we do not have to plan according to FFP rulings. Full-houses are also vital.I am not going to repeat the fag packet calculations I made in an earlier post as I feel that what I have said is blatently obvious.

[Newton 0]

Broadstairs rather a long subject dont u think ?

 

Can we deduce that the club is tightening the reins slightly due to all the money wasted in the Summer and our wages bill which is clearly quite big despite relegation clauses.

 

I think we both sayiing the same think me in 4 words & u in 32 words