Are the investor scared of success?

[curb]

A 10 year plan in football is nonsense. How do we recruit anyone with our current ethos?

"there's exciting times at the club, we are 3 years in to a 10 year plan. You're 26 so by the time we have anything to cheer about you'll be 33 and probably miss it. We can, however, offer year on year improvement, apart from last year when we finished 19th which was lower than the year before. On the plus side though we only have to finish 18th this year for most of the fans to be happy we're improving. Now I know you're a central midfielder, but I'll probably play you on the wing, or full back or basically a lot of positions you've never played before. With that in mind you'll probably expect a bit of understanding from me, however you wont get it. If you fail to do what I say I'll probably public criticise you, drop you to the reserves, loan you out and then let you go for free and it will be your loss when we are all celebrating in 7 years time."

Even our youth players will be getting on a bit when this 10 year plan is reaching its pinnacle. What is the goal for the 10 year plan anyway? They may say they have a plan but a plan to do what? In 10 years will they expect promotion? Security in the Prem? Europe? It's alright telling people there's a 10 year plan but then at least say what the goal of that plan is.

Sounds good to me, where do I sign?

All I've got to do is play crap for a couple of games, refuse to hoof the ball at the corner flag, and I'm sitting at home with my feet up for 3 years counting my money.

[GboroRam]

However like Norwich have done, by investing smartly can bring rich rewards, they have built on a good crowd base and with that has seen them return to the PL with a team that will not go down this year.

Quoting rangers is an extreme, and I can only assume that the investors are not scared to put money in, but are unwilling, we quote the foxes owners as getting bored and leaving them up the creek, but what is the difference between them and our owners?

The difference, potentially, is being where Forest are right now.

[Guest]

But did forests owner not want out, are you saying derbys do? Or that we owe them 70m? Or that the investment made in derby was a loan? Y would we be like forest?

[GboroRam]

But did forests owner not want out, are you saying derbys do? Or that we owe them 70m? Or that the investment made in derby was a loan? Y would we be like forest?

You're saying that Norwich "invested" and went up and look solid. I'm saying Forest "invested" (gambled) and didn't, and now look like they're going to have to cut costs and go through the process we've been through in order to right the ship.

[nfb]

However like Norwich have done, by investing smartly can bring rich rewards, they have built on a good crowd base and with that has seen them return to the PL with a team that will not go down this year.

Quoting rangers is an extreme, and I can only assume that the investors are not scared to put money in, but are unwilling, we quote the foxes owners as getting bored and leaving them up the creek, but what is the difference between them and our owners?

It was extreme, i was using them to illustrate that the people in control often dont use their own money. In their tenure our board dont appear to be doing annything harmful for the club in financial terms at least,some would argue they have impoved it.

We could all argue about what they've done 'on the pitch'.....