Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
1982

Stuck with RVW = lack of money = No transfers

Recommended Posts

The unfortunate RVW saga means we are saddled with a player on very high wages, who is not good enough for the Premiership and due to his own high wage demands is never going to move on until his contract runs out.

 

If he had have gone to Sporting Lisbon I am positive we would have had a striker through the door. I hope I am wrong and that there is money in the pot to strengthen where needed, but I am concerned that our transfer activity will be dependant on who moves on.

 

Michael Turner is another one, out on loan last Season, I wouldn’t have imagined that if AN didn’t see him as good enough in the Championship last year why he would be in the plans for the Prem this season. Again are we just waiting for the right offer for him before we go for an upgrade?

 

Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread, but I don’t get the opportunity to come on here much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="1982"]

The unfortunate RVW saga means we are saddled with a player on very high wages, who is not good enough for the Premiership and due to his own high wage demands is never going to move on until his contract runs out.

 

If he had have gone to Sporting Lisbon I am positive we would have had a striker through the door. I hope I am wrong and that there is money in the pot to strengthen where needed, but I am concerned that our transfer activity will be dependant on who moves on.

 

Michael Turner is another one, out on loan last Season, I wouldn’t have imagined that if AN didn’t see him as good enough in the Championship last year why he would be in the plans for the Prem this season. Again are we just waiting for the right offer for him before we go for an upgrade?

 

Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread, but I don’t get the opportunity to come on here much.

[/quote]
RVW won''t be here come the end of the window...
i doubt very much our new signings all hinge on unloading him for a fraction of what we signed him for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think we are in a position where we need to sell in order to bring anyone in. We have no debt so any money we earned can be spent on players.

The club clearly would have liked the RvW transfer to have gone through, but that''s up to him, I do not think it''ll affect our transfer dealings.

As with Turner, he''s still Prem experience, and whilst he might not be in a position to be starting every game, it''s a long ol'' season and I''m sure at some point we will call upon him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the case is closer to as 1982 says. RvW is on £40k a week (as mentioned by a director at Sporting) - until Norwich can offload such a sum they can''t commit to other large contracts.

Whilst the club may receive minimal transfer fee for him, he is a drain on resources. This is of course true for every club that has players on the books they intend to sell - but for Norwich Ricky represents a very significant chunk of spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by Neils comments where he said a lot of it is out of our hands, it''s clear that the selling clubs are more than likely bringing in replacements before selling their players to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I think the case is closer to as 1982 says. RvW is on £40k a week (as mentioned by a director at Sporting) - until Norwich can offload such a sum they can''t commit to other large contracts.

Whilst the club may receive minimal transfer fee for him, he is a drain on resources. This is of course true for every club that has players on the books they intend to sell - but for Norwich Ricky represents a very significant chunk of spending.[/quote]
do we risk paying him off and releasing him then?
large initial outlay on the contract but at least it frees up, to borrow an NFL term, "Cap room" down the line so we know what we have to work with for new signings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His contract is worth over £4m in basic, before his loyalty bonus and other bonuses. Would potentially cost up to £5m to pay him off - far too much for Norwich to write off. Also, despite how bad Ricky was the other season he is worth more than minus £5m.

I still think Sporting will sign him, but will wait until the end of August when Norwich are a little more desperate and might agree to cover a portion of the player''s wages and Ricky might agree to a larger wage cut. A loan deal somewhere might pop up unexpectedly, but I''m not holding my breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RvW is on 40k per week, yes, but how much would a player like, errr, Whittaker be on?

likely at least 20k/week.

So, RvW occupies around 2 "ordinary player" wages. Hardly something which will rock our boat too much given the recent influx of TV money.

Still, 40k/week is around 2 mill per year.

Assuming these players can leave if someone come in for them:

RvW

Lafferty

Turner

O''Neil (?)

In transfer value, maybe 4-5 mill at most combined.

In weekly wages, I''d say 80-90k per week combined, so, if these 4 were gone, it would save us around 4,5 mill annually in wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don''t think there is much room in the Norwich budget, even with promotion. Nearly all the Norwich players were on Premier League contracts, and after the cut in wages due to relegation they will all be back on their bigger terms.

The TV money isn''t larger than when Norwich were last in the Prem so I don''t see why the club would suddenly have lots of extra money to spend.

Not saying there is nothing available, there is of course a decent amount, but the club can''t go on adding players on big wages without shifting some of their existing larger owners. I imagine Turner is on a hefty sum considering he was an established Premier League player for several years. It has turned out that Stuart Downing was on £70k a week at West Ham - average players can earn surprisingly large sums of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to agree and been saying the same.....one in one out pretty much from here on in.

If RVW had signed for sporting then I''m sure we would have another player in by now.

Still lots of time till September.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bethnel, I think part of the problem is that some fans have this magical £120m figure in their mind. Of course, this figure is made up of c.£60/70m TV money for the forthcoming season, plus parachute payment money if we are relegated making the total c.£120m.And payments are made throughout the season and NOT just one payment before the season starts. £120m is very misleading but many can''t see beyond this figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is very true Lappin, I also think fans see Bournemouth and Watford spending lots and think Norwich are getting left behind, the reality being those clubs are trying to catch Norwich up.

By keeping most of the squad together last season it always meant the club wouldn''t be able to spend big this season. That was the gamble they took, as they felt it would be the best way to achieve promotion. Bringing in Jerome, an establish Premier League player would have also been a significant expenditure on wages.

There are other factors as well, Ricky''s loan not working out and the club receiving less from Hull and QPR for Snodgrass and Fer respectively due to their relegations. I doubt it is as extreme as "one in one out" but Norwich have a large squad, it must be trimmed - not just for the sake of the 25 man rule, but the ongoing costs are problematic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we stay up this season, the season after we shall seriously be rolling in it because of the TV deal, the PL will be the strongest its ever been due to world class foreign players coming in...makes me wonder why we''ve appointed a guy of head of recruitment who focuses on the domestic market - perhaps its just for the immediate future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Guy Burgess"]How much longer must we suffer this buffoonery[/quote]

Good question. Unfortunately though, I can''t see Pete deleting you anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I think that is very true Lappin, I also think fans see Bournemouth and Watford spending lots and think Norwich are getting left behind, the reality being those clubs are trying to catch Norwich up.

By keeping most of the squad together last season it always meant the club wouldn''t be able to spend big this season. That was the gamble they took, as they felt it would be the best way to achieve promotion. Bringing in Jerome, an establish Premier League player would have also been a significant expenditure on wages.

There are other factors as well, Ricky''s loan not working out and the club receiving less from Hull and QPR for Snodgrass and Fer respectively due to their relegations. I doubt it is as extreme as "one in one out" but Norwich have a large squad, it must be trimmed - not just for the sake of the 25 man rule, but the ongoing costs are problematic.[/quote]

Bournemouth and Watford trying to catch Norwich up?!!! Can I remind you dear clapper that both of those clubs went up automatically - scoring more and conceding less than NCFC! Delusional is too kind a word for some of you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The squad that Norwich got promoted with is good enough to be lower mid table with a more adventurous tactical approach. That said with the revenue stream we should be able to add £20m worth of players at least and wages. RVW is a problem the fee is almost like Greek Debt now so we can forget much more than £3m or so the wages need to be got off the books and it may well be we need to subsidize those too to get him off the books , a very costly failure and as such we probably need to concentrate on known players in the British leagues until we can have any confidence in overseas talent spotting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Thetford Yellow"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I think that is very true Lappin, I also think fans see Bournemouth and Watford spending lots and think Norwich are getting left behind, the reality being those clubs are trying to catch Norwich up.

By keeping most of the squad together last season it always meant the club wouldn''t be able to spend big this season. That was the gamble they took, as they felt it would be the best way to achieve promotion. Bringing in Jerome, an establish Premier League player would have also been a significant expenditure on wages.

There are other factors as well, Ricky''s loan not working out and the club receiving less from Hull and QPR for Snodgrass and Fer respectively due to their relegations. I doubt it is as extreme as "one in one out" but Norwich have a large squad, it must be trimmed - not just for the sake of the 25 man rule, but the ongoing costs are problematic.[/quote]

Bournemouth and Watford trying to catch Norwich up?!!! Can I remind you dear clapper that both of those clubs went up automatically - scoring more and conceding less than NCFC! Delusional is too kind a word for some of you[/quote]
Too right Thetford Yellow!
After all, whoever finishes 1st always does better than second, who of course, always does better than those who finishes third. For example, remember when we first got promoted to the Prem under Lambert? And QPR won the league ,we came second. QPR completely out-performed us in the Premiersh....oh, hang on. No, they didn''t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dear troll, I was actually referring to Watford and Bournemouth trying to catch up Norwich''s level of wage spending.

I imagine come the end of the season, it will come out that Bournemouth had the smallest budget and then Norwich and Watford fighting it out for 17th/18th.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...