MrBunce

I voted for Sargent. He might not have been the best player or played the most games. But he's been by far the most important. Record when Sargent starts: P21 W14 D4 L3 pts 46 ppg 2.19 Record when Sargent doesn't start: P22 W7 D4 L11 pts 25 ppg 1.14 Extrapolated over 43 games: When Sargent starts: 94 points, 1st Actual: 71 points, 6th When Sargent doesn't start: 49 points, 17th

I broadly agree. I'd 100% take Farke over Wagner. I'd very likely take McKenna, Corberan and Robins. I haven't seen enough of Maresca and Rosenior. I'm unconvinced on Martin.

Hogesar: I know Idah/SvH is your pet topic but stepping back has it really made any difference. Looking at the results, I can't see how any of them would have been different with Idah. The team were well beaten against Leicester and Boro. The draws away at QPR and Blackburn are decent points on the road where leads were let slip. Besides, Idah hadn't scored in nearly two months by the time he left and only twice in five months - despite a lot of game time. I'm willing to trust Knapper's and Wagner's strategic judgement on this, even if short-term it doesn't seem to have 'paid off'. All: Back to the topic at hand, a hypothetical question: looking at the other teams at the top of the table, which of those would you take over Wagner? (i.e. Maresca, Farke, McKenna, Martin, Corberan, Robins and Rosenior)

Yesterday Mark Attanasio was at the FT Business of Football Summit. He was a panel member discussing: "Panel of Investors: Building a long-term strategy to make money from football". (Unfortunately very expensively paywalled)

My view regarding EFL approval is from reading the regulations. Helpfully, the EFL provide a Q&A on the Owners and Directors Test. On control they write: "The Regulations also allow the League to consider shareholders holding less than 25% if they are acting “in concert” with others and together they go over 25%, and the definition of ‘control’ also applies to persons who have been given the authority to give directions or instructions which the Club’s management are accustomed to act in accordance with." Leaving that aside, I completely agree with you that it is odd regarding the FFI which is an obligation. Perhaps 1+1=2 didn't twig for the EFL or the Club didn't fully meet it's requirements. I don't know. However, I feel safe in saying that something doesn't seem right. Taking a hypothetical and say it turned out Mr Attanasio is a loan shark (he's a distressed debt investor after all!). Joking aside, Norwich miss their budget end of last season, they default on the loans to Mr Attanasio. An inability to refinance could lead him to putting the club into administration. I do not think for one moment that ever would or will happen. Maybe you think I'm crazy. However, it happened to Wigan - their new owner put the club into administration the day he took control of the club. That this saga is still rumbling on, with no resolution from the EFL in sight, seems like a loophole that could allow unscrupulous owners to cause severe damage to a football club. (I've now removed my tin foil hat)

Leaving aside that it's Norwich and Attanasio, it's remarkable that an individual who has not passed the EFL's Owners and Directors test can reportedly (via his apparent involvement in football affairs) and actually (via his financing of the club) have such significant influence on a football club. I absolutely don't think that Attanasio is a wrong'un, but it's concerning that there could be a football club out there who could get unlucky with an unscrupulous owner and 'fall through the cracks' like Norwich seemingly are at the moment. P.S. I'm still of the view that Attanasio should have been required to pass the Owners and Directors Test (not just the Directors Test) in September 2022 when the Shareholders' Agreement was entered into.

Something to bear in mind, those sums spent on wages and transfers were for a team that were relegated. Those would have been substantially higher if Norwich had stayed up. Both player bonuses as well as transfer add-ons would have been due.

I think you should be able to sign up for a free trial to Swiss Ramble's substack and cancel (if you choose to) before the first payment. @PurpleCanary is correct r.e. directors (Zoe Webber's) remuneration. A few things jumped out at me (among others): The highest ever wage bill for a relegated club in history (and as I mentioned last year, spending on wages being similar to many 'established' premier league sides. Kieran Maguire mentioned on a recent Price of Football podcast that only Man United did worse on a £wage per goal than Norwich. The club spent more on wages and transfers than Brentford (recall the narrative pushed around that). That last years' revenue was the second highest in Championship history. That last years' wage bill was the the fourth highest to not achieve promotion behind Villa x 2 and Bournemouth (both clubs, if I recall, effectively broke FFP in getting promoted). It would have been even higher if the club had been promoted due to bonuses.

I think that's right @PurpleCanary and @GMF. With the Owners' and Directors' Test you've got effectively a list of conditions that disqualify you from becoming a director of a football club. Those are really quite a low bar to pass. The other part relates to acquisition of control, i.e. becoming an owner. That part principally requires you to provide a substantial amount of financial, corporate, legal and personal information to the EFL. The EFL then checks this information and decide whether to approve the acquisition. The non-exhaustive list of information is set out here (Appendix 3A) : https://www.efl.com/governance/regulations/#heading-pursuant-to-appendix-3-the-acquisition-materials-are One of those bits is (among others): "List of registered holders (together with details of the current and proposed ultimate beneficial owners (“UBO”), if different) of the shares of each entity within the Group (including name and address), with details of the shares held (or owned) and copies of any share certificates" Presuming that the new director is one of the investors in Norfolk or a director of that company, then their details would be disclosed as part of that exercise.

Is there a sherry tap on the beer wall?

Thanks to @Mutley and @vos for the reference - it'd passed me by. I can't recall how the bonds worked now. But it was probably along the lines of needing to fill out a form to get your principal back and those individuals not requesting repayment for whatever reason (forgetfulness, generosity, who knows). Either way, that money is interest free for the club.

Is there an echo in here? Haha

That's right. Given the player sales in the summer, plus some more belt tightening the club will likely have the cash to cover all the debt. Though it may have chosen to use that money to invest off the pitch and to enhance the squad this summer (as mad as it might seem right now). It will mean, however, that the club will have a limited player transfer budget (as seen this summer). The main issue is that, all told, the club will have shelled out some £10 to £15m in interest expenses over the past few seasons. With a tight budget, that's a lot of money to be missing out on when, it's fair to say, the returns from spending that borrowing have been disappointing.

Yes the club has around £96m of debt, this is broken down as follows: £31m short term loan secured on parachute payments, due to be repaid in full by March 2024, interest rate of 5.75%. £14m short term loan secured on transfer instalments, due to be repaid in full by September 2024, interest rate of 5.6%. £37m loans from Mark Attanasio (Norfolk FB Holdings LLC), due to be repaid at various dates (likely) between June 2023 and February 2024, interest rates not fully disclosed, but predominately at 11%. £900k loans from Delia, no terms disclosed. £10m C Preference Shares, held by Attanasio (Norfolk FB Holdings LLC), interest rate of 7%. £1.4m B Preference Shares, interest rate of 4.5%. £2.2m of Canary Bonds outstanding and not redeemed, no interest payable. The majority of these debts are due to be repaid (and likely will be) by the end of this season: All £31m of the loans secured on parachute payments. £8.6m of the £14m of the loans secured on transfer fees. At least, £27m of the loans from Attanasio (£21m line of credit due for repayment on 30 June 2023, the convertible loan (£4.7m) and a loan for £1.6m due for repayment on 1 September 2023. Some loans may be refinanced or the terms extended (for example, the line of credit). The club incurred £3.2m in interest in 2022, £5.4m last season on some/all of these loans. I estimate a further £1.9m to £5.4m dependant on the repayment timing of these loans. How did the club get in this debt? Principally, because the club has made operating losses of £82m over the past three seasons. After accounting for player trading, the club has made a loss of £19m. This figure is £41m over the past two seasons, after a significant reduction in player trading profits, £3.6m. Over the last two seasons the club has spent £72m cash on player transfers and received £46m (a deficit of £26m). The main reason for this is that the club loses money when it is promoted to the Premier League due to reduced broadcast income and player wages plus larger promotion bonuses. This is usually made up with large profits in Premier League seasons, however last time out the club lost money due to spending a very large amount on player wages (£118m vs £134m revenue). This has been compounded by relegation to the Championship (thus lower revenue) resulting in operating losses plus a reduction in player sales.

I would imagine the club continually assess their foreign currency exposure and risks. I've heard before that some clubs do engage in hedging - for transfer fees payable and receivable, foreign currency borrowing, international/European football money. It may be the case that Norwich are hedging but it might be a partial hedge (you aren't forced to disclose under FRS102). They may not be hedging at all. I'm not sure how accessible and affordable hedge facilities would be for an entity like Norwich (it's outside my area of expertise).