In fairness, whilst I agree in the instance of RvW, he was an exciting signing full of potential and one I think everyone of us supported and were excited about. But I think a lot of people were unhappy at the signing of Naismith. The fact that his agent properly pulled our pants down on it too is the cherry on top. Our board should have the strength and a clear strategy to tell our managers that signing players over 28 will not be on long contracts and that every signing it is compulsory to have relegation clauses that mirror industry standards and or the income drop the club gets following relegation. Naismith was a monumental gamble that was stupid in the extreme. If it were a 22-26 year old maybe I could understand, but near 30 and no relegation clauses, is basically negligent and the manager should have been told as much. Bah!
Once again - a mistake with hindsight. McNally was a 24/7 CE with full control. Moxey had that control at Wolves but had it removed so he resigned - just like Webber at Huddersfield. In theory it was a like for like replacement when McNally left but after a couple of months his family refused to move meaning that Moxey couldn't do the job as required. In the end it was ' family or job ' and his family came first. That was yet another reason why the Board went for a completely new structure.
Again I cannot argue against the common sense of your views but is it practical? Aren't you placing restrictions on who your Manager can sign? How many other Clubs have such restrictions? Would many decent Managers refuse to work under such restrictions? Nobody can dispute that Naismith was a mistake but many a situation in football has been saved by a purchase of an experienced player. What if AN was right and Naismith made a strong contribution to us staying up? Both AN and the Board would have been acclaimed as saviours. Naismith was not looking for a move - he was happy where he was. He came because of the terms we offered. I repeat - If we had been relegated and AN left saying we could have stayed up if he had been allowed to sign Naismith the Board would have been slaughtered.
I don't think any manager ever would claim that not signing 28 year old Naismith ,a very ordinary Everton midfielder with a poor scoring record would have kept them in the Premiership .
For someone who tries to act more intelligent and above everyone, you don't half talk some rubbish, patronise and purposely twist every single point. You assume whatever you want, to whinge and try and wind people up. The last few pages you have been saying how worried you are with what the club are doing, because the money doesn't add up. If anyone else says they are worried with what the club are doing, you seem to not like it. Defend the people you have just been criticising for 2 or 3 pages.
Farke has confirmed Martin is training with the U23's with the expectation that he leaves on loan this season, not expected to play any part with the seniors http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/martin-city-future-latest-1-5610754
Shame his Norwich career is ending like this. I hope if we loan him out we don't have to pay a load of his wages like with Naismith.
As was mentioned by someone else recently, his contract extension was a "Webber contract", so I can't imagine he's on insane wages. Probably still around what we're paying our first teamers now admittedly.
Hope so, he would have had to take a pay cut for that new contract then. That's nice if he did. Shows love for the club.
Was that really necessary? My only negative comment was that if we could not reduce the size of the squad and payroll it would leave a financial hole following the loss of parachute payments and even with that I said I was certain SW would sort it out. I have said many times that I like the new management structure and the lack of Board involvement in decision making now. I have agreed that certain players have been bad buys and that, with hindsight, Moxey was not a good appointment although he seemed an adequate replacement for McNally at the time and some good came out of it in that the Board changed the Management structure. The only issue that has caused any dispute is whether responsibility for bad buys like Naismith, RvW and many others rests with the Managers who wanted them or the Board for financially supporting the Manager. If my opinion that it rests with the Managers is ' rubbish, patronise and twisting ' then what is the point of this forum. I come on here less and less because every time I do there usually is interesting discussion with most posters ending with you hurling personal insults at me. I'm afraid enough is enough!!
Ipswich just picked up an exciting young winger form Peterborough for £700,000. Splashing some cash. Don't often see them spending money.
Please don't go midway, it's good to have a sensible and knowledgeable poster to point out the folly of the negative posters that rant and rave about financial matters of which they have absolutely no idea. I understand what you said about financial worries and didn't think for one minute that you were criticising the club, you are one of the very few who understands our club's accounts and can put us all in the picture. I've really enjoyed seeing you back posting again please continue.
