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

Badger

Members
  • Content Count

    3,595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Badger

  1.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    OK - how about our second biggest purchase - Ricky Van Woolfswinkel? Or the £7 million for Yanic Wildshut. £6 million for Gary Hooper. £5 million for Nelson Olivera etc. None of them were easily re-sellable assets. They were liabilities that didn't really work as players and drained resources for years as we couldn't sell them. We lost the transfer fee (at least the vast part of it) + we paid their wages for years on top. The idea that we are buying assets with a reliable resale value is deeply floored. Buying players is a multi-million pound gamble not an investment in reliable assets. That is not to say that we buy nobody, but it that we shouldn't go into debt with such gambles.
  2.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    But the trouble is that players often don't retain their value - particularly those for whom you pay "a few million" and then want them to make a big contribution in the premier league. Players are not just assets, they are liabilities as well - you don't have to look much further than Steven Naismith to see this. I biggest ever purchase at £9.1 million according to Wiki and we couldn't sell him; we couldn't even give him away - we just had to pay his huge wages for the next three years, sucking money out of the club. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Norwich_City_F.C._records#Transfers
  3.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Re Palace - yes this is a point in case where the owners charge interest on the loans and presumably at some stage will want the capital back. The rate of interest is hard to calculate as the there was extra money loaned to palace during the year, but fag packet calculations suggest it is over 5% pa. Their ownership is largely American but nobody knows exactly who owns the holding company that owns over two thirds of the club as Delaware companies do not have to reveal their owners. Palace have already been in administration twice but as a London club remains attractive to investors. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Palace_F.C.) I know little of Maxim Denim's interest - I don't think anybody does. Sky Sports says "Beyond that, his business background remains a mystery…" (https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11743/9827260/who-is-afc-bournemouths-russian-owner-maxim-demin) My guess, and it is only that, is that he is a benefactor. Tony Bloom, Brighton owner, would be a dream owner. Local lad, fan and has a big charitable foundation that gives away millions. Clearly a benefactor, not sure that there is a Norwich equivalent - if one cropped up, I would happily accept them, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In the meantime, given a choice between Palaces' owners and our own, I think that I would have more faith in our owners than the ones who seem to have gone to some length to hide their identity which is the case with Palace.
  4.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Of course it is still borrowing - most owners charge interest to the club to whom they have lent money. Others secure it against the clubs assets - e.g. the ground or the training ground. You either get an investor who is seeking to take money out of the club in the long term or a donor - someone who is prepared to give tens of millions for nothing. Great if you can find a generous benefactor - I wouldn't turn it down - do you know of anyone? Unless you can find someone to gift the club money, you are left with two alternatives - live within your means or borrow. The latter is in essence gambling with your future to meet present needs and would be particularly worrying if we had an "investor" as an owner - someone whose interest in Norwich is to make money for themselves or their company - they would have little compunction in liquidating assets, like the ground or training ground to recover losses on a failed gamble.
  5.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    1. We cannot know without the figures but as I have said before, I suspect that we could have afforded £20-30 million in purchases + wages if the right players became available. The fact that we did not spend this money suggests that they did not. 2. We have, sensibly imo, relied quite heavily on the loan market. If we had purchased Amadou, Farhmann, Roberts it would have taken more than the £20-30 million that you refer to. Would that have made them better players? 3. Indeed, it is quite possible that Amadou and Fahrmann, in particular, would have been unlikely to have come on a permanent deal at this stage, given the dangers of moving to newly promoted clubs and a desire to re-establish themselves where they are currently playing. To have bought permanent replacements to them would have been buying players with a greater degree of risk and adding more untested players to our own untested ones. 4. I thought that the five players we bought/ loaned in the summer looked to be good signings and filled the main gaps that needed filling. How many extra players do you think that we should have bought? Three, four, five - the more you add, the more you disrupt the side that got us here in the first place and deny them the chance to prove themselves at a higher level. A big part of the model is developing our own players. 5. "I personally think an unwillingness of Farke to experiment tactically or rotate in areas where we've had some alternative options" - this is not a failure of the model (as per the thread title), but a belief on your part that the manager has failed in some areas. 6. In essence, "your model" such as it is, is to borrow money and hope for the best - to gamble on the future/ "take a punt" and hope. There are so many examples of this failing. 7. Despite all the moans at present, it must make sense to build progressively and steadily rather than have a sh1t or bust gamble which could leave us in the doldrums for years. 8. Despite the lack of confidence of some on here - I believe that returning players will make us stronger and I suspect that we will buy/ loan extra cover at centre back in January - it is not the number of injuries that has damaged us, but their concentration in particular places. Unlike some on here, I am not ready to give up on the season yet - but if we do go down, I would prefer to see us in a stronger position that we were in Sept 2018 rather than one where it will take us years to recover.
  6.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    I don't think that the cashflow issue rings true. Given the guaranteed income from the PL, there would be no problem in borrowing short-term money. With regards your first point, you are in essence suggesting taking on debt as a gamble that it might make things better. We, and other clubs, have been down this road before - the more you gamble, the harder it is to recover.
  7.  Badger

    A club without ambition

    The OP's view of "ambition" seems to be something akin to blowing your wage packet on scratchcards or in a casino. Such "get rich quick schemes" may work in a very tiny proportion of cases but are far more likely to result in ruin. Real ambition for most people in their lives or at work, is the result of prolonged hard work over many years with resilience to overcome setbacks that will inevitably arise and let's admit it, a fair smattering of luck. It requires the strength to ignore the "dead cert tip" and the "cannot fail" investment. The football league is littered with clubs that have "had a punt" in the belief that there is an alternative to building steadily upon solid foundations. Don't confuse "ambition" with the "hot air" of easy solutions and one-way bets.
  8.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Without having access to current financial information it is possible to know for certain but I tend to agree with Hogesar in that I think that we could have spent more but chose not to. Assuming that I am correct in this, I imagine that Webber felt that the players available to us were not a significant upgrade on what we have at present and chose not to spend money for the sake of it "as a punt." The current status of the players we did bring in illustrate the difficulty of bringing in new players. To my mind, the calibre and history of Fahrmann, Amadou and Drmic, looked pretty good and Byram and Roberts looked promising. However, as yet, and we are only a third of the way through the season, none has established themselves. There is no reason to suppose that spending money on "extra bodies" would have been any more successful. Again, I ask you, what is the alternative model that you propose - gamble the future by taking on debt; becoming an investment vehicle for someone to profit in a rising market confident that asset sales could recover losses or finding a donor prepared to give up loads of their own money to subsidise us?
  9.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Another thing that I have noticed is the lack of an alternative model - unless you include risking the future by spending more than we can afford or finding a rich donor prepared to give us tens of millions ... What is the alternative model?
  10.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    Any evidence to support this hypothesis?
  11.  Badger

    Ricardo's report v Watford

    Quite a lot of boos and moans in the snakepit and one rather over-heated chap threw his scarf on the pitch. There were last year as well before the good run.
  12.  Badger

    Ricardo's report v Watford

    Thanks Ricardo. I console myself with the the thought that it is the hard times that make the good times so sweet! I'm also not as negative as some as to the potential to some of our players but recognise that they are going to have to learn fast - it is stupid individual errors in both defence and attack that is costing us so dearly. Certainly far to early to give up!
  13.  Badger

    Is 'The Model' flawed?

    Don't disagree that benefits wear off after parachute payments but would point out that by investing in the infrastructure (e.g. training ground) we are stronger in a football sense) and by reducing/ eliminating debt, we are stronger financially. Being debt-free, with a good academy and training set-up puts us in a far stronger position to be competitive in the future than being laden with debt with inadequate training facilities which discourage young talent from joining us. With two thirds of the season remaining and injured players returning, I am a long way from being ready to give on this season. However, if the worst happens, we will be in a stronger position in August 2020 than we have been following previous relegations.
  14. http://carrowroad.net/index.php?post=former-norwich-captain-russell-martin-appointed-manager-of-mk-dons
  15.  Badger

    Russel Martin manager

    Yes - just seen it on a previous page! I had missed the news - sorry. Good luck to him - by all accounts, this was an expected move at some stage.
  16.  Badger

    £34 million loss

    The same old debate again, this time with new clubs being the example of who we should emulate. Gone are Middlesborough, Bolton, Stoke as examples of how we could/ should be and now replaced by Brighton and Crystal Palace. The trouble is, in the real world, you can't just blow all the money and then start fresh again with a new model. The reality is that an investor puts money into the club in an effort to take more out. In the long term, less money would go to the club than under a self-financed, self-sufficient model. What people are really calling for when they ask for "external investment" is for someone to come along and give the club tens and probably hundreds of millions of pounds. Such people might exist, Tony Bloom at Brighton, for example, seems to me that he might be one - his charity the Bloom Foundation has given away millions and Brighton born and bred, his affection for his home town club seems to genuine. However, such examples are few and far between. In many cases apparently "benevolent investors", secure their money against the clubs assets, often the ground, and charge above market rates of interest for loans that they have generously given to the club. I would welcome a Bloom or a Mansoor but recognise the reality that we are more likely to get someone who is either hopelessly naive about football finances or someone trying to milk the club for profit. At the moment too many external investors see football as a one way bet. TV revenue is increasing consistently, playing assets are increasing hugely in value which provides them with the comfort that if it goes "belly up" they can re-sell the club in a growing market or sell assets to get their money back. It has all the characteristics of "a bubble:" history suggests that at some stage it will burst. In the meantime, despite all the money being spent, there is quite a remarkable consistency around the league tables. The big 6 largely remain the big 6, the yoyo clubs remain yoyo and every so often a new smaller club comes along and has a few years in the sun - just as always has been the case. The only ones that have substantially changed their long term position tend to be those that have "chased the dream" and blown it - Leeds and Ipswich being examples.
  17.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    Yes - she had a very small majority in 2017 (sorry for the poor cut and paste job). However, I confidently predict that the Lib Dems will campaign hard in a seat that they have no hope of winning to increase the chances that Johnson's hard Brexit will go through. Political advantage will outweigh the national interest just as it did in 2010. Conservative Chloe Smith 21, 900 47.7 Labour Christopher Jones 21,393 46.6 +13.1 Liberal Democrat Hugh Lanham 1,480 3.2 -1.1 Green Adrian Holmes[17] 782 1.7 -2.7 Pirate Liam Matthews 340 0.7 +0.7 Majority 507 1.1 -9.0 Turnout 45,977 68.7 +1.8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwich_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_2010s
  18.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    Clive Lewis has made mistakes at times and can "shoot from the lip" but he has also imo shown himself to be a person of substance. He was one of only 52 Labour MPs to vote against the idiot decision to trigger article 50 right at the start of the process, a decision which cost him his shadow cabinet post (later restored). Quite a brave decision for a relatively new MP. “When I became the MP for Norwich South, I promised my constituents I would be Norwich’s voice in Westminster, not Westminster’s voice in Norwich,” Lewis said. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/08/clive-lewis-quits-shadow-cabinet-over-brexit-bill
  19.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    The Lib Dems may not be the enemy but they have to take their share of blame for the damaging austerity and the referendum vote that imo was influenced by it. Certainly they betrayed many of their supporters and frankly, I don't think that I could vote for them again (I have in the past - they were more far radical than the Labour Party at times). I will vote tactically. I live in Norwich South and the tactical voting site, I found recommends voting Labour, which I shall do. However, I will do so "holding my nose" because of the issue of antisemitism within the party. I didn't vote labour in the Euro elections but want to do my bit to prevent a Johnson majority. The irony is, that as a Remain voter, I accepted the referendum as lost and thought that we should leave with a sensible deal. I feel deeply conflicted by the whole sphere of politics atm and find it even harder than usual to have any belief in any of the major parties.
  20.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    Quite probably - but if it's not sourced there isn't any real point in reading it as a source of information - it could be complete garbage.
  21.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    In all fairness, the size of the sample is irrelevant: it is how representative it is of the population as a whole. Newspaper surveys are notoriously unrepresentative and frankly the survey means nothing. I don't know the source of RTB/ Jools' survey, so it is difficult to know how seriously to take it.
  22.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    The Lib Dems chance of winning are zero. If people fail to vote tactically, all the Lib Dems will do is to ensure that Johnson and the Tories are returned. Internal Lib Dem politics got us in this mess in the first place (Clegg supporting a euro-sceptic party into govt, against the wishes of many who voted for it) - it is ironic that they are prepared to sacrifice our continuing membership of the EU in order to regain the votes that they lost as a consequence of this betrayal.
  23.  Badger

    The Brexit Party

    You are just denying the will of the British people Paul. You can't fool us - it's not that you don't want this deal, it because you don't want ANY deal - you're just a remainiac, using the terms of any deal as an excuse!
×