Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

11/05/2008, 4:59 PM Mello Yello Joined on 03/01/2004 Norwich Posts 3,321 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone? Personally, just because an individual person, or a group of folk are successful in their particular forte - or their specific line of business, doesn't actually mean that they make good Directors of a Football Club, or that they will 9 times out of 10 make the correct decisions concerning crucial football matters....Does it?         "Give 'em enough rope"......    Report

11/05/2008, 5:09 PM YankeeCanary Joined on 23/12/2003 New Jersey, USA Posts 2,211 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone?  gazzathegreat wrote: The club is not unattactive to any investor on face value; what's unattactive is the major shareholders have such a large stake in it and have a very exacting shortlist which any applicants have to comply with. Ask yourself this, if you wanted to invest say 10m, would you also not want a say in the way the club is run? At present Delia and Michael call the shots and until that changes the prospect of any new investment remains unlikely. I agree 100% with that gazza. I also agree with what Mello says. However, that's not my point. We can all feel disappointment that Norwich City are not where we want them to be, however, with respect to the majority owners, when it comes to managing their finances ( given the perils that almost all football club owners face ), to virtually accuse them of being financially stupid ( which is the argument that Fat Prophet essentially puts forward ) just does not stand up.      Report

11/05/2008, 5:09 PM Fat Prophet Joined on 05/10/2005 attleborough Posts 2,037 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone?  gazzathegreat wrote: The club is not unattactive to any investor on face value; what's unattactive is the major shareholders have such a large stake in it and have a very exacting shortlist which any applicants have to comply with. Ask yourself this, if you wanted to invest say 10m, would you also not want a say in the way the club is run? At present Delia and Michael call the shots and until that changes the prospect of any new investment remains unlikely. I agree that's part of the problem gazza.  But the poster who started the "Are you too asset rich?" thread is of the opinion that the high asset value in itself makes us unattractive to investors in comparison with clubs whose asset value is lower.  If he's correct it would help to explain why we've spent so much on infrastructure, which has drastically increased the asset value, and the increasingly large stake of the majority shareholders tends to confirm that this how they think.  Between 2003 and 2005 the asset value increased by over 60% from £19,319,620 in 2003 to £31,374,373 in 2005.    "anti-board" DOES NOT MEAN "anti-club"    Report

11/05/2008, 5:28 PM Fat Prophet Joined on 05/10/2005 attleborough Posts 2,037 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone?  YankeeCanary wrote:  Fat Prophet wrote:  Mello Yello wrote: We cannot afford to downsize or accept average additions......I think that next season is going to be an entirely different 'Ball-Game' to our 3rd under-achieving season in the Championship. Totally different to the 'anyone can beat anyone' and few points between mid, bottom and top of the league positions.  I agree.  This season will prove to be a tipping point imo.  The Champ will soon become like the Prem, with a gap between the clubs with new investment and those without.  If the present trend continues we can forget the top six.  Mid-table security will be the most we can achieve, if we're lucky.   Which was what was wanted as far as the board are concerned . . . Having invested so much in protecting themselves against takeover could backfire horribly on our club.  If the finances get so desperate that we need new investment to avoid going out of business, they may bitterly regret that they've made the club so unattractive to potential investors. Your argument continues to fail to sustain logic Fat Prophet. Your reasoning asks that logic be suspended. Why would people who have clearly demonstrated their ability to manage their lives successfully in a financial manner operate in such a foolish way, i.e. to make their business unatttractive to others while it perches on the edge of going out of business?   You are obviously so keen to pursue your personal agenda Yankee that you have misread or misunderstood my point.  My point is based on the argument that enriching the club's assets deters potential investors (see "Are we too asset rich" thread).  That I would argue is the main reason for the board's "obsession" (their word) with infrastructure.  They appear to believe that with lashings of prudence and zero ambition they can avoid a situation where we find ourselves in desperate financial trouble.  But if they're wrong and we desperately need new investment, they could find themselves hoist with their own petard.   "anti-board" DOES NOT MEAN "anti-club"    Report

11/05/2008, 6:17 PM YankeeCanary Joined on 23/12/2003 New Jersey, USA Posts 2,211 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone?  Fat Prophet wrote:  YankeeCanary wrote:  Fat Prophet wrote:  Mello Yello wrote: We cannot afford to downsize or accept average additions......I think that next season is going to be an entirely different 'Ball-Game' to our 3rd under-achieving season in the Championship. Totally different to the 'anyone can beat anyone' and few points between mid, bottom and top of the league positions.  I agree.  This season will prove to be a tipping point imo.  The Champ will soon become like the Prem, with a gap between the clubs with new investment and those without.  If the present trend continues we can forget the top six.  Mid-table security will be the most we can achieve, if we're lucky.   Which was what was wanted as far as the board are concerned . . . Having invested so much in protecting themselves against takeover could backfire horribly on our club.  If the finances get so desperate that we need new investment to avoid going out of business, they may bitterly regret that they've made the club so unattractive to potential investors. Your argument continues to fail to sustain logic Fat Prophet. Your reasoning asks that logic be suspended. Why would people who have clearly demonstrated their ability to manage their lives successfully in a financial manner operate in such a foolish way, i.e. to make their business unatttractive to others while it perches on the edge of going out of business?   You are obviously so keen to pursue your personal agenda Yankee that you have misread or misunderstood my point.  My point is based on the argument that enriching the club's assets deters potential investors (see "Are we too asset rich" thread).  That I would argue is the main reason for the board's "obsession" (their word) with infrastructure.  They appear to believe that with lashings of prudence and zero ambition they can avoid a situation where we find ourselves in desperate financial trouble.  But if they're wrong and we desperately need new investment, they could find themselves hoist with their own petard. As I've told you previously Fat Prophet, it's not personal. We have a fundamental disagreement regarding what we believe as far as the majority owners are concerned. I believe it's tough to be an owner of a football club period and get the kind of results that match your investment objectives. The stock market is a far, far better choice. I believe that Delia and Michael are not as weathy as they would like to be given their love of the club ( and the success they would hope for the club ) but that they have managed their financial affairs within a range they can live with. Your premise ( and that of many others ) is that greater investment in on pitch activities would have yielded the right results. In football, operating with that belief always comes with considerable risk. It's easy for those of us that don't have the responsibility of consequences to argue what those that actually have the responsibility should or should not do. To the point that they are attempting to dissuade other investors in stepping forward to acquire NCFC, I don't buy it. If the right offer was available I think they'd go for it.. If I were in their position I would be reluctant to engage in anything that shares that control. I think the Liverpool experience  provides a glaring example of what dangers lie in that direction.     It is easy for me to understand why those who have to decide to invest in more or better quality football players in today's world in the hope that it will yield the required results is a tough call. Football players always say the right words about comittment when being interviewed. The reality is often quite different. Take the Manchester City players and their supposed commitment to Sven in interviews as it became apparent his job was in jeopardy. Where was that commitment today?  When I feel like criticising owners ( and I do ) I try to put myself in the position of being such an owner and how I would both feel and operate when pondering the amount of funds I'd be prepared to release to acquire the talent that I would hope could take us forward, and what commitment I could expect for that money.           Report

11/05/2008, 8:26 PM Fat Prophet Joined on 05/10/2005 attleborough Posts 2,037 Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone? Your last point is interesting Yankee.  I consider "commitment" to be a two-way process.  In return for a player being prepared to pull his weight, is the club showing the same commitment in return to enable the team and its players to fulfil their potential?  Contrary to popular belief, most players are not solely interested in money but want to be at a healthily competitive club.  If a player could obtain the same salary at an ambitious (though not necessarily wealthy) club as at an underachieving one, which do you think he would choose?  If we want the right calibre of players to come to CR it's not just a question of money. Over the past three years we have consistently underachieved.  Every club is allowed a nightmare season occasionally but we have entered a slow but definite spiral of decline which will not be easy to reverse.  We are inert, the only thing that's prodded us into action in the past three seasons is the threat of relegation.  If the people who own and run our club really want to "take us forward" there's been precious little sign of it.  Plenty of talk, very little action.    Meanwhile football is moving forward apace, and if they are unwilling or unable to be part of it they owe it to the fans to step aside.  I hope it goes without saying that new ownership would not guarantee anything, but if we carry on as we are it is only a matter of time before we end up in League 1.  And if that happens I cannot see any evidence, based on recent experience, that we would be able to rouse ourselves out of our torpor, and it could be a very long time indeed before Championship, let alone Premiership football returns to Carrow Road.  I happen to care more about our club than whoever happens to be running it.  Why is it that the manager always gets the push and the CEO never does?   "anti-board" DOES NOT MEAN "anti-club"    Report

Page 5 of 5 (66 items) < 1 2 3 4 5

pink'un » Have Your Say » Main Discussion... » Re: Who cares if Huckerby has gone?

(Quick links) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Have Your Say |- Announcement |- Main Discussion - Norwich City |-- Transfer Talk |- Other football |-- World Cup 2006 |- King's Lynn and Local Leagues |- It's just not football! |- User Polls Football Community |- Looking for a club or player? |- Noticeboard |- Football Chants |- Team-mates