reply to bigfella

(we need to synchronise a debate schedule)

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.
I suspect you have fallen for the Munby-laid 'fan-trap'; City's 31 per cent ratio cleverly relates to 'playing staff'. D&T base their stats on ALL wages, not just players. Second, does City's definition include non-playing staff, stiffs & kids?

The business of NCFC is a football club and every single penny spent on stewards, catering staff, telesales & Capt Canary affects our cash flow.

We get 18 mill p.a. income. That is PLENTY for us to be avverage in the Champ and, with a good manager & a bit of luck, good.

Of course I would love us to be good every year, but not at the risk of being crap & broke - which is, beyond argument, what we have been for the last 2 years.



Sorry - but this is tosh. The Toilet and Douche review of football finance put us 12th in the division in terms of wages in 2005/6. You think 12th in the division = "gambling"? In 2006/7, the football wage bill fell to ?7.4m: the problem was our insanely large non-football expenditure, leaving the total wage bill at ?14m. In 06/7, football wages constituted an unbelievably meagre 31% of turnover, which is practically unheard of. And people wonder why Grant struggled so much?

You think 31% of turnover = "gambling"? Ridiculous! As for Charlton: hilariously, they spent two years' worth of money in Summer 2006, immediately after Curbishley left. When Dowie started badly, they panicked, brought in the execrable Les Reed, and it was downhill all the way afterwards. Charlton massively over-spent, then made a bunch of idiotic football decisions. Norwich UNDER-spent on football, then made our own bunch of idiotic football decisions. But "gambled"? Pfft.

Posted By: jayson blair, Jan 9, 08:21:11