Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Jim Smith

Members
  • Content Count

    7,560
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Jim Smith

  1. Nobody is saying that money makes you "exempt" from relegation. But it certainly improves your chances and in our case I am far from convinced we would have needed to spend that much given the technically good and talented young players we have at our disposal. Unfortunately, defeats and loss of confidence is now getting to those players but it may not have been that way had we given ourselves that bit more of a chance to compete.
  2. Jim Smith

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    I don't think there would be a problem borrowing money short term either but they clearly are not prepared to do it other than to cover what they absolutely have to (e.g. the bridging loan/overdraft we took out this summer which has already been repaid). Re the second point I accept that there is an element of risk to taking into account the value of your assets in terms of determining spending but for example, we have Pukki, Arrons, Lewis, Buendia, Godfrey who collectively, even with our/their current drop in form and ignoring the other players we have, must be worth £60m plus (and that's being conservative). Its inconceivable that all will have career ending injuries or be rendered worthless by a poor season for us in the premier league. Given this, I would regard spending an extra £20-£30m or so in the summer as pretty low risk should he worst happen and we get relegated as they are all saleable assets as, indeed, would any signings we made also be. Webber is big on "being honest" with the fans. If he explained that to people (i.e. if you want us to spend a bit then we would have to sell someone if we got relegated) then I will bet good money most fans would prefer us to try that rather than go down with a pathetic whimper as it looks like we may do. Fundamentally though what the recent financial figures have shown is that we have owners who cannot afford to own a sustainable premier league club or indeed championship club without parachute payments and who are undoubtedly holding us back through their stance of not even considering new ownership.
  3. Jim Smith

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    To be fair King its all in the accounts as to why we did not have that much money to spend but accounts of course only tell half the story and 2 points really occur I suppose: 1. Uber caution over spending in advance against the promised receipts and going into debt or I suppose even spending on the basis that we have playing assets worth millions we can see if the worst happens and we go down. We are taking a route whereby we only borrow if we absolutely have to and I think in respect of the latter would regard it as too high risk. They did take out an overdraft this summer of around £19m but it appears that we really just to cover the promotion bonuses and extra payments due on promotion. It certainly did not leave a lot to spend on transfers etc. 2. Cashflow - the question has often been asked what benefits would having wealthier owners and again I would say its linked to her above and our uber cautious approach. If you have wealthy backers then what that of course gives you is flexibility on cashflow. i'm not really talking about them personally funding signings etc but if they are able to loan the club some money here, underwrite a loan there, cover some of the capital costs we had to incur etc then that gives more flex to spend money sooner on players. With us, we don't get the first prem tv money payment until the season is underway I believe. We therefore have a cash flow issue in the summer until those monies start to come in.
  4. And there, right there, is the little window into why this club will never again succeed at the top level under them. Some might categorise it as selfishness, others as a sort of blinkered, utopian, naivity but the fact is that if all the others have money and we don't then we are destined to relegation every time we get up. We are not some kind of social experiment for champagne socialists.
  5. Jim Smith

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Because it absolutely would happen if they let it.
  6. It’s not really his fault but his flaws are being badly exposed. The level of coaching of our defence and how utterly pathetic we are at both attacking she defending set pieces are things a coach at this level could and should address if you want to give yourself a genuine chance as a smaller club.
  7. Jim Smith

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    For me a flaw in “the model” is also that it takes away hope and ambition and without that I’m not sure you have the same club. I certainly can’t be the only one who finds myself questioning “what is the point” walking away from Carrow Road after last night? I think there is a real risk of the whole club collectively feeling the same next season if our “target” is to get up just for another season of misery. let’s be honest, the model is in reality nothing more than necessity. It’s the only way our owners can keep hold of a club they cannot really afford to run. It’s not the best chance we have of success. im also nervous about the performance of our older academy sides this season if we are reliant on kids coming through for this model. We were lucky to have 4 come through at once last season. Aside from Idah I’m not sure who else is waiting in the wings and our academy results have got worse under Webber. I know our focus now is not on results at that level but.....
  8. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    I simply don't believe that i'm afraid. They don't make offers for us and probably many don't make an approach because they know we are "not for sale" or the conditions put who can buy us are so restrictive as to be impossible to fulfil but I refuse to believe that there have not been a multitude of potential buyers for us, especially during our spells in the premier league. Debt free, sell out every week, own enough land around the ground to expand it, decent cat 1 academy and owners who have said they are not in it for the money and so presumably would not be quoting a stupid price were they ever to be convinced to do so. What we do, however, is (more recently at least after they were forced to following the times interview) say we are open to "investment" which appears to be code for "give us your money but you won't own or control the club" an unsurprisingly does not have a string of people bashing the door down! If they publically announced the club was available for purchase at a reasonable price then I think there would be a lot of interest (from both good and bad potential new owners).
  9. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Well our “highest paid director” got £472k and appears to have been the only director paid so it would appear that must be Stone. It’s a bit weird though as in the previous year our highest paid director only got £100k so assuming that was also him, £472k is a big sum for this year given he was only with us for 3 months of this financial year.
  10. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Just to be clear Indy by “you” I meant “ones” as in any particular fans views on our ownership model will depend on whether the ceiling, clearly illustrated by these accounts, is enough for them. For many it is. I also would like to see us have the opportunity to push on but I do also accept that within the current confines the club is doing (almost) as well as it can. I say almost as I think they could have perhaps found enough for one more key signing in the summer.
  11. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Yes so I suppose your take on all things ownership wise depends on how you feel about that being our "ceiling."
  12. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    We are certainly not mismanaging things although the amount it appears was paid to Stone when he left is somewhat galling and its clear from Note 28 that certain other "key staff" have seen a bumper payday with our rise to the prem. That said, you can argue that they possibly deserve a decent bonus. Rather than mismanagement, I think all these figures do is lay bare: 1. That as someone else has pointed out, we will never really be able to push the boat out in the top division without new ownership/investment as we will always have to ensure that we can cut our wage bill down to circa £20m-24m within 3 years should relegation happen. 2. That under this model, to avid having to sell players for financial reasons we need to be either in the premier league or receiving parachute payments. 3. That should we find ourselves back in the championship and with the parachute payments run out then we will make a fairly significant loss every season which would need to be covered by player sales and most probably the sale of players we have produced ourselves or picked up cheaply. Clearly the risk scenario would be if we are not producing enough of such players for a period of time as in terms of operating income and expenditure the model is not sustainable long term in the absence of parachute payments.
  13. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    I think its pushing it a touch to say that our academy has produced Aarons, Godfrey and Lewis to be honest, or indeed Maddison. We pinched them from other clubs once they were well progressed through their academies. I take the fundamental point about the academy though but Palace are about to spend £20m on their, all the prem clubs have done or are doing it as well. We are not unique in that respect and indeed are spending relatively small amounts in comparison. I suppose though that what these figures do show is how important bringing players through the academy or poaching them when they hit the Aarons age bracket is going to be for us if we become a championship club as we will need to churn out at least one a season to make the first team and then sell. Webber may therefore ultimately be judged long term on the success of the recent academy recruits brought into the academy more than the first team recruits! Lets hope there are a few good ones. The results of the older academy teams do not appear to have been great of late but there are lots out on loan at the U23 age group.
  14. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Sorry Purple, that was a typo and should have said if we remain in the championship!
  15. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Fair point. We will wait and see but if they are going to employ this strategy then there is no justification for selling players and/or not spending decent money on transfers if we come down and are receiving parachute payments so if they start coming out with that sort of claim then it will get short shrift from the fans.
  16. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    No he's not a director. I can only assume it must be Stone's salary and payoff.
  17. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    we will still get told we have to sell/don't have any money when we come down again though. Its a wonderfully circular argument. Don't spend when we go up because we need to save money in case we get relegated (thus making relegation almost inevitable) and then when we come down we will be told we have players on "premier league wages" so need to sell!
  18. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Yes, player wage budget was down to £24m and yet still looking at a £10m-£15m loss.
  19. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    PS Highest paid director £472,000. I assume this must be Stone who was only in post for 3 months of this financial year. Ridiculous.
  20. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    We will still get told we have to sell when we come down though. Its a wonderfully circular argument. Don't spend when you go up in case you need it when you get relegated (thus making relegation more or less inevitable) then say you have to sell when you come down as you have players on a "premier league wage bill."
  21. Jim Smith

    £34 million loss

    Its a bit misleading as those figures include somewhere between £15m and £20m of promotion bonuses and extra transfer fees triggered by promotion but do not include any extra premier league tv or commercial revenues. That said, it does lay bare how hard the "self funding" model is and what would lay in store for us if we remain in the premier league. they already had the player wage bill down at £24m and it would seem likely it would need to drop a bit further still if we stayed there for any great length of time.
  22. Jim Smith

    Patrick Roberts

    didn't prove me wrong over a season, I always said he is a good coach even if at a point after the Leeds home game I will admit I doubted whether the style of play would work in English football. Questioning one decision does not mean you don't support the coach. He needs to be asked why he is snubbing this player and to provide fans with an explanation.
  23. Jim Smith

    Interesting Comments By DF

    I have no idea of his wealth Nutty not that I think its really relevant yet (may be more so when he is our owner). Its simply a tongue in cheek reference to the fact he is Delia's young nephew. No doubt photographers earn a decent crust these days if they are in demand.
  24. Jim Smith

    Patrick Roberts

    Surely we should at least play him first to see? I simply refuse to believe that his training performances are that bad that he is not worthy of a single decent run out, even off the bench? We have been bringing Dennis Srbenny on in the premier league for goodness sake and all 3 of those who regularly play in those attacking midfield roles have been underwhelming of late. Farke really deserves to be called into question on this unless he can provide some sort of explanation for it.
  25. I wouldn't have Mclean in the side (does nothing in 3 out of 4 games) but other than that I do agree.
×