Player budget

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s player wages, not cost of acquisition, which is the material issue. They have the potential to cripple a relegated club, even allowing for relegation clauses, yet there is a strong, positive correlation between wage spend and league position. In other words, even if you out perform from a football perspective in a given year, iultimately, if you spend less on wages than your competitors you will be relegated. Therefore, if emaining in the PL is an objective, we must spend as much as possible up to the FFP maximum. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the current owners have the financial backing that would facilitate an extended stay in the PL. Therefore, the search for new equity investment should continue to be a primary objective for the board.[/quote]If money was the ONLY criteria, there would be no need to play the games, simply look at the accounts and finalise the League tables from them. I wouldn''t even have to buy a ST. Sorted. [:)]

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]It''s player wages, not cost of acquisition, which is the material issue. They have the potential to cripple a relegated club, even allowing for relegation clauses, yet there is a strong, positive correlation between wage spend and league position. In other words, even if you out perform from a football perspective in a given year, iultimately, if you spend less on wages than your competitors you will be relegated. Therefore, if emaining in the PL is an objective, we must spend as much as possible up to the FFP maximum. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the current owners have the financial backing that would facilitate an extended stay in the PL. Therefore, the search for new equity investment should continue to be a primary objective for the board.[/quote]The first point is generally true, although my research several months ago on how long a club can survive under those circumstances led me to a slightly more optimistic conclusion than I had expected.The second point is to an extent contradictory. If FFP continues to operate then the ability of rich owners to bankroll clubs is kept in check. It is interesting that in the 2013-14 season, with FFP operating, for the first time in 16 years Premier League clubs made a profit rather than a loss. A profit of £198m as against a previous loss of £291m.

[BroadstairsR 2,168]

"Actually the Nuremberg Rallies were oases of brotherly love and unity, with everybody, literally, singing from the same songsheet.."

 

[:)][:D]

 

Very true, but that event was a catalyst for dissension and fear, in both Germany it''s self and in most of the civilised World.

 

   

[Highland Canary 76]

An interesting observation Purple. I don''t have the figure to hand but I suspect what is relevant is the profitability of the half dozen or so mini-league relegation candidates rather than the league more generally.

[Newton 0]

TCCANARY wrote the following post at 08/06/2015 4:27 PM:

I''m a current shareholder and I resent you blaming me for poor management appointments and wasting the clubs funds, if you do not withdraw that statement I may be forced to consider legal avenues, I''m sure all the other current shareholders on this message board concur with me. Smile [:)]

I am a current shareholder and I agree with my view sorry

Tread carefully or you will wake the Trolls up

[Newton 0]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 08/06/2015 5:04 PM:

Highland Canary wrote:

It''s player wages, not cost of acquisition, which is the material issue. They have the potential to cripple a relegated club, even allowing for relegation clauses, yet there is a strong, positive correlation between wage spend and league position. In other words, even if you out perform from a football perspective in a given year, iultimately, if you spend less on wages than your competitors you will be relegated. Therefore, if emaining in the PL is an objective, we must spend as much as possible up to the FFP maximum. Unfortunately, it does not appear that the current owners have the financial backing that would facilitate an extended stay in the PL. Therefore, the search for new equity investment should continue to be a primary objective for the board.

The first point is generally true, although my research several months ago on how long a club can survive under those circumstances led me to a slightly more optimistic conclusion than I had expected.

Supurb post Purple, I could have saved you hours of research

How long a club can continue to fund wages excessive wages after relegation is based on 2 things :-

How deep owners pockets are

How much cash the club has

My 6 year old grandson told me - do you want me to ask him anything else for you before he goes to bed ?

[Herman 9,767]

You''ve got grandchildren? Seriously? :-o

[Newton 0]

Rich T The Biscuit wrote the following post at 08/06/2015 4:54 PM:

The problem is Broadstairs is that you get some in here that don''t want to contribute, they just want to spout all sort of rubbish and give their views in a way which makes them feel important.

Newton will never let drop the wasted £17m subject and every credit to him for sticking to his guns, but as was proved many times on that thread, he was the one that had no grasp of finances.

Anyway, it would have actually been nice had he come and commented on how much money he thought AN will spend in the summer or indeed needs to spend, although I suspect the answer will be none in case some of it is used on players that don''t quite make the grade!?!

The problem with most of the posters on this thread is that the majority (u included RTB) do not like it unless we all join your happy clappers club

This is a board for views & discussion - not cast iron facts & back slapping - sorry

Your first paragraph describes you all perfectly, you hit the nail right on the head - well done that man

[Newton 0]

Herman wrote the following post at 08/06/2015 5:44 PM:

You''ve got grandchildren? Seriously? :-o

Herman you have gone off thread - stop it or you confuse them all - they find it difficult to keep up as it is ?

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

There''s irony in there somewhere Newton you old grandad you when you say that this board is for views and discussions, I thought it was only your view that was correct when it comes to matters of which you wish to comment on and give us your pearls of factual wisdom.

So, I will bow to your greater knowledge of everything Norwich City and ask you to a) comment on who AN should spend money on and b) how much he should spend on each player.

Come on Newton, put your £17m where you mouth is and enlighten us all in a serious topic that isn''t Ipswich or pie related.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

I''m a current shareholder and I resent you blaming me for poor management appointments and wasting the clubs funds, if you do not withdraw that statement I may be forced to consider legal avenues, I''m sure all the other current shareholders on this message board concur with me. [:)]

 

[/quote][Y]

[A Load of Squit 5,164]

[quote user="Newton"]TCCANARY wrote the following post at 08/06/2015 4:27 PM:

I''m a current shareholder and I resent you blaming me for poor management appointments and wasting the clubs funds, if you do not withdraw that statement I may be forced to consider legal avenues, I''m sure all the other current shareholders on this message board concur with me. Smile [:)]

I am a current shareholder and I agree with my view sorry

Tread carefully or you will wake the Trolls up[/quote]

You''re a current shareholder and you think it''s the fault of current shareholders, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Good to know that he agrees with his own view though, for half a second there I thought he was going to disagree with himself?!?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]An interesting observation Purple. I don''t have the figure to hand but I suspect what is relevant is the profitability of the half dozen or so mini-league relegation candidates rather than the league more generally.[/quote]Highland, I have just looked at the bottom eight for that season. Four made a combined profit of £41m and four made a combined loss of £66m, so a net loss of £25m. But for the season before (bearing in mind some clubs were not in the PL then) only two made combined profit of £17m and the others made a combined loss of £127m. So a vastly greater net loss of £120m than the next season, suggesting FFP has been having an effect all though the division.As to the clubs that went down in 2013-14, we made a £9m pre-tax profit, while richly-owned Cardiff made a £12m loss and ditto Fulham the biggest loss of all the eight at £33m. Their wage bill was the 9th highest but it didn''t save them.I think it is far too early to draw firm conclusions about FFP in England, especially since the regime might get loosened or tightened, but so far there does seem to have been some small diminishment of the importance of the the depth of the owner''s pockets.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="Herman "]You''ve got grandchildren? Seriously? :-o[/quote]

Even more impressive, Newton''s only 37 himself.

Ipswich''s Got Talent.

[Highland Canary 76]

Thanks Purple, some encouragement in your initial findings. Of course, a rich owner would still be most helpful in funding infrastructure developments but that is a different point.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Newton having grandchildren is the scariest thing I''ve seen on here since I

read that Wazzy had taken a dump in Wiz''s satellite dish....

 

 

And to top it all I''m worried about Highland showing an interest in

investing. Imagine if he''d been advising Delia all these years. Alright we

wouldn''t have had Hamilton, Grant and Gunn. But we also wouldn''t have had

Worthy, Lambert, Adams or Neil. I fear we''d have been stuck with those he knew

of which would have been Rioch, Roeder, Hughton and Lennon. More scarey

stuff.......

 

 

Now you older shareholders are being a bit coy on here aren''t you. Either

that or you''re a bit wet behind the ears and you''ve only invested since the club

played in the top flight. Those of us who invested before 1972 have the old

shares where dividends are paid. Once we got to the promised land in 1972

Geoffrey Watling saw the writing on the wall and those who subsequently invested

never drew a dime. In these cash rich days us older shareholders make a killing.

especially when, like last season the club make a profit. Purple will have you

believe it''s corporation tax, probably because he doesn''t want to come clean,

but those millions were distributed amongst a very select few Shareholders who''d

managed to keep hold of their shares all those years. This was despite receiving

letters from Big Bad Bob saying things like "Are you dead yet?" or "Will we be

unable to trace you?" I found it prudent to transfer 2/3rds of my shares to my

children last year. Delia didn''t mind because we all love her and she can rely

on our vote.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Newton having grandchildren is the scariest thing I''ve seen on here since I

read that Wazzy had taken a dump in Wiz''s satellite dish....

 

 

And to top it all I''m worried about Highland showing an interest in

investing. Imagine if he''d been advising Delia all these years. Alright we

wouldn''t have had Hamilton, Grant and Gunn. But we also wouldn''t have had

Worthy, Lambert, Adams or Neil. I fear we''d have been stuck with those he knew

of which would have been Rioch, Roeder, Hughton and Lennon. More scarey

stuff.......

 

 

Now you older shareholders are being a bit coy on here aren''t you. Either

that or you''re a bit wet behind the ears and you''ve only invested since the club

played in the top flight. Those of us who invested before 1972 have the old

shares where dividends are paid. Once we got to the promised land in 1972

Geoffrey Watling saw the writing on the wall and those who subsequently invested

never drew a dime. In these cash rich days us older shareholders make a killing.

especially when, like last season the club make a profit. Purple will have you

believe it''s corporation tax, probably because he doesn''t want to come clean,

but those millions were distributed amongst a very select few Shareholders who''d

managed to keep hold of their shares all those years. This was despite receiving

letters from Big Bad Bob saying things like "Are you dead yet?" or "Will we be

unable to trace you?" I found it prudent to transfer 2/3rds of my shares to my

children last year. Delia didn''t mind because we all love her and she can rely

on our vote.

[/quote]Nutty, you know full well I cannot reveal the secrets of the Inner Inner Inner Circle. As to Chase, the only letter I ever got from him was one asking if I had heard anything about some hush-hush meeting involving the manager of Barclays Bank and a couple of fans from Stowmarket. Of course I had, since I had organised the get-together, but I could hardly tell Chase that...

[TIL 1010 4,748]

I always thought the meeting was a case of what The Butler saw.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I always thought the meeting was a case of what The Butler saw.

[/quote]

 

Even if he saw it he couldn''t spell it. [:D]

[king canary 7,607]

I would be surprised if we don''t break our transfer record this summer. The way prices are inflating we will need to make a smart mixture of free transfers, loan signings and those that cost a bit more than we''re used to spending.