Investment

[morty 0]

Thats fair enough, I didn''t know that[Y]

[nutty nigel 7,532]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]No. Only McNally. The rest get

nothing.[/quote]

 

Now that''s quite something. You answered me while i was typing before I posted[:O]

 

 

[morty 0]

I''m definitely not implying that directors are milking our club dry.And I completely "get" the reasons we have to be prudent.But remember the season we tried to do it on the cheap, and bought Ashton in the January, and it was too little, too late.Pretty much that.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

[quote user="morty"]I''m definitely not implying that directors are milking our club dry.And I completely "get" the reasons we have to be prudent.But remember the season we tried to do it on the cheap, and bought Ashton in the January, and it was too little, too late.Pretty much that.[/quote]

 

Well that rankled with me and Worthy but, again Purple will know, we didn''t have the money at the start of the season. I don''t think they held it back...

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,532]

I guess it''s only "not prudent" if we spend money we don''t have. I hate that description because it suggests we choose not to spend. A look at the accounts will show that''s not the case.

 

 

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="morty"]I''m definitely not implying that directors are milking our club dry.And I completely "get" the reasons we have to be prudent.But remember the season we tried to do it on the cheap, and bought Ashton in the January, and it was too little, too late.Pretty much that.[/quote]

 

Well that rankled with me and Worthy but, again Purple will know, we didn''t have the money at the start of the season. I don''t think they held it back...

 

 

[/quote]All the more reason not to make the same mistake again. Maybe a slight purse string loosening in the summer would have landed one or two of those targets who got away. And we wouldn''t even be having this conversation right now.We own our ground, we own our training ground, we are well run and debt free. I don''t want the board to be looking back with regret thinking "You know what, if we had just spent a few million more, the season could have been a lot different"I''m not down on how the club is run, I get it, and I get the reasons why. But I don''t want us repeating the same mistakes.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="morty"]I''m definitely not implying that directors are milking our club dry.And I completely "get" the reasons we have to be prudent.But remember the season we tried to do it on the cheap, and bought Ashton in the January, and it was too little, too late.Pretty much that.[/quote]

 

Well that rankled with me and Worthy but, again Purple will know, we didn''t have the money at the start of the season. I don''t think they held it back...

 

 

[/quote]Nutty, I don''t KNOW, because I don''t have the accounts going that far back. But we certainly didn''t try to do that season on the cheap. We spent a great deal of money on the squad. What is not realised - or gets conveniently forgotten by some anti-S&J fans - is that we shelled out a good proportion of it the previous winter, when we were already in the top two. Despite that we bought Svensson, Mackenzie and Huckerby. That inevitably meant we had less to spend in the summer. As to holding some money back for the PL winter, I''m sure we did. Almost all clubs do, because it is very sensible. You never know what positions you might need to fill because of injuries, loss of form and the like.It is true that Worthington much later on whinged about only getting Ashton in the PL winter, but in the same breath destroyed his credibility by saying we should have done a Hull and risked administration by spending millions more than we could afford.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Indeed you can''t spend the same money twice Purple. And having done what we did that winter coupled with the fact that the PL millions actually arrive in competitive dribs and drabs obviously had an effect on the summer window.

If you intend spending the entire contents of the purse what use is there in loosening the strings...

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Comparative!!

[morty 0]

Its about having the judgement as to what to spend, and when, and why.Yes, there are variables out of your control, but you really can''t ignore if you are weak in certain positions, and are about to embark on a season in the toughest league in the world, hoping you get lucky.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Is that what you think Morty? Our board just ''wing it'' and tom dick and harry on the street know better?

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Is that what you think Morty? Our board just ''wing it'' and tom dick and harry on the street know better?[/quote]Not in the slightest, and I hope you aren''t trying to twist this into me being somehow "anti board" because I really am not.Were you happy with our summer transfer dealings? Do you wish we had maybe strengthened in some areas?

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Woah there! I''m not twisting anything buddy. It was you who brought up 2004 for whatever purpose.

Football fans are never happy. I suppose the closest this place has ever been to happy at the end of a window was summer 2013. That went well...

I personally would have liked a couple .more players in. But only if they improved what we had. If for whatever reason our main targets didnt sign then I''d hate to spunk the money just for the sake of it. As I previously said it can only be spent once.

How do you know the board were reluctant to spend?9

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Woah there! I''m not twisting anything buddy. It was you who brought up 2004 for whatever purpose.

Football fans are never happy. I suppose the closest this place has ever been to happy at the end of a window was summer 2013. That went well...

I personally would have liked a couple .more players in. But only if they improved what we had. If for whatever reason our main targets didnt sign then I''d hate to spunk the money just for the sake of it. As I previously said it can only be spent once.

How do you know the board were reluctant to spend?9[/quote]Aha, the "answer a question with a question tactic" [;)]I brought up 2004 as an example of where the money could have been better spent at the beginning of the season. Obviously I understand its easy in hindsight. But the point was that if it happens again, then we have learned nothing from it, repeating earlier mistakes isn''t particularly clever.Why didn''t those targets sign though? We know what the answer is, don''t we?And we know full well you will get a lot less for your money in January....

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Have you been drinking Morty? What''s all this tactic nonsense. You ended with a question. I answered it and asked one of my own. If that''s tactics for whatever reason then I just copied yours.

The thing is we don''t know the reason. You think you do. And when the reason is known we most likely won''t believe it. Just like we didn''t in 2004.

I would never want to own a football club. Us football supporters are like kids from hell. Never grateful, always want more and always know best.

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Have you been drinking Morty? What''s all this tactic nonsense. You ended with a question. I answered it and asked one of my own. If that''s tactics for whatever reason then I just copied yours.

The thing is we don''t know the reason. You think you do. And when the reason is known we most likely won''t believe it. Just like we didn''t in 2004.

I would never want to own a football club. Us football supporters are like kids from hell. Never grateful, always want more and always know best.[/quote]We do know the answer though, don''t we? Why do good players go to shart clubs like Stoke?The answer is money. Nothing else. Players we targeted in the summer went elsewhere for more money.I would put it to you that we are in a much, much better financial state than we were in 2004. I fully understand the reasons we have to be prudent, but I would also like to think that a penny would drop in the boardroom and someone would say "Hang on a minute, we have been here before"You know full well we were short at centre back, and that a bit of money spent in that department could have made a real difference.You can''t tell me that with our turnover and great financial position, we couldn''t have pushed just a bit more ( and I''m talking a few million, not stupid money that we can''t afford) to make our odds of survival just a bit better.

[Van wink 2,994]

It takes a long time for the penny to drop sometimes.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Morty, we don''t know the answer is money. Or at least I don''t. If you do then please share.

If we don''t pay enough to attract decent players then how have we so many international footballers on our books? Are they just happy to sign and play for us because they couldn''t get another club? It''s a ridiculous assumption to make and totally unfair on our players.

Or is it that we deliberately held money back that could have been used for fees? That''s pretty unlikely but if so it will definitely come out. It won''t stay a secret for long.

I would suggest there''s different reasons why we missed out on our targets. There are many other reasons that a player would choose elsewhere. If you look at the top players we have attracted then there''s usually at least one other factor in our favour. It will be a bitter pill for some but Chris Hughton was instrumental in the signings of some players. Notably Bassong and Redmond. But we would still have had to match the offers of other clubs.

In the case of Brady and Mulumbu we certainly wouldn''t have signed them if we didn''t meet the conditions of clubs and players. So unless you believe no other clubs were in for them our club stumped up whatever it took to get them here. Same as Mbakani.

The clubs finances are quite open. The account are complicated for a simple bog cleaner like me but you can rest assured that some very sharp minds will always study them. Any holding back of funds or broken promises will come to light.

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Winky, sometimes the penny never drops. That 2004 penny still seems to be stuck in the slot...

[Jacko 0]

I''ve got to agree with Morty sentiments here Nutty.

I''ve got no problem with the board running the club sensibly and prudently. I also don''t want us to sign players for the sake of it on big money who don''t improve us.

When you look at their track record compared to some of our contemporaries like Forest, Leeds, Ipswich, Cardiff, Derby etc. The board have done very well in the last 6 years. However, I think we entitled to scrutinise and ask questions. Otherwise, how as a club do you improve?

As Morty says, there are just one or two positions we''ve looked glaringly short in at times this season (namely defensive ones). That isn''t using hindsight either, these were things everyone was saying at the time.

I am not calling for a silly Watford still overhaul but you don''t want to be looking back in May and saying - ''if only''. I think 2004 is a good example because Ashton arriving in the summer (with a complete pre season under his belt) could have made all the difference.

Are we going to be saying that about the centre back and right back areas at the end of this season? I hope not, because otherwise as Morty says its history repeating itself and we''ve not learned our lessons from a decade ago.

I accept there are wage increases in the current squad, I accept that Mulumbu would have trousered a decent signing on fee and I accept there are other unforeseen expenses associated with promotion.

But if we are relegated with a total net spend of around £3-4 million this season then serious questions will be asked.

As QPR have shown, chucking money at it isn''t guaranteed to be the answer. But spending money wisely at the right times, in he right areas and boxing clever doesn''t half give you a chance.

[morty 0]

Match up how many times we have lost out on players, to how many times we have publically outbid another club for a player that they genuinely want.Of course its money. I doubt many clubs are shaking in their boots at the financial might of Norwich City.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jacko"]I''ve got to agree with Morty sentiments here Nutty.

I''ve got no problem with the board running the club sensibly and prudently. I also don''t want us to sign players for the sake of it on big money who don''t improve us.

When you look at their track record compared to some of our contemporaries like Forest, Leeds, Ipswich, Cardiff, Derby etc. The board have done very well in the last 6 years. However, I think we entitled to scrutinise and ask questions. Otherwise, how as a club do you improve?

As Morty says, there are just one or two positions we''ve looked glaringly short in at times this season (namely defensive ones). That isn''t using hindsight either, these were things everyone was saying at the time.

I am not calling for a silly Watford still overhaul but you don''t want to be looking back in May and saying - ''if only''. I think 2004 is a good example because Ashton arriving in the summer (with a complete pre season under his belt) could have made all the difference.

Are we going to be saying that about the centre back and right back areas at the end of this season? I hope not, because otherwise as Morty says its history repeating itself and we''ve not learned our lessons from a decade ago.

I accept there are wage increases in the current squad, I accept that Mulumbu would have trousered a decent signing on fee and I accept there are other unforeseen expenses associated with promotion.

But if we are relegated with a total net spend of around £3-4 million this season then serious questions will be asked.

As QPR have shown, chucking money at it isn''t guaranteed to be the answer. But spending money wisely at the right times, in he right areas and boxing clever doesn''t half give you a chance.[/quote]Which is what I said a few posts ago.The right time was in the summer, and the right area was "centre back".

[Jacko 0]

I agree entirely, Morty. January is not the time to be doing your shopping as clubs who hope to achieve something will not let good players go at reasonable prices.

Another area we were clearly short in the summer was in the left wing area. People raised their eyebrows when we spent that kind of money on Brady, but how invaluable an asset is he now? I couldn''t imagine us starting a game without him now.

Surely another similar type of signing at either centre or right back could have been achievable without the fear of us going to administration or suffering financial meltdown?

I don''t think anyone is asking for the earth here or for us to be going out and signing Shaqiri, Afellay and Bojan but there are certain key areas we having to make do and mend with so far this season and it''s cost us a few times already this year

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Have you been drinking Morty? What''s all this tactic nonsense. You ended with a question. I answered it and asked one of my own. If that''s tactics for whatever reason then I just copied yours.

The thing is we don''t know the reason. You think you do. And when the reason is known we most likely won''t believe it. Just like we didn''t in 2004.

I would never want to own a football club. Us football supporters are like kids from hell. Never grateful, always want more and always know best.[/quote]We do know the answer though, don''t we? Why do good players go to shart clubs like Stoke?The answer is money. Nothing else. Players we targeted in the summer went elsewhere for more money.I would put it to you that we are in a much, much better financial state than we were in 2004. I fully understand the reasons we have to be prudent, but I would also like to think that a penny would drop in the boardroom and someone would say "Hang on a minute, we have been here before"You know full well we were short at centre back, and that a bit of money spent in that department could have made a real difference.You can''t tell me that with our turnover and great financial position, we couldn''t have pushed just a bit more ( and I''m talking a few million, not stupid money that we can''t afford) to make our odds of survival just a bit better.[/quote]As explained earlier, the Ashton case is a false example. We could have afforded Ashton that summer if we hadn''t already in the winter ditched prudence and ambitiously spent the money ensuring we actually got to the Premier League.Based on the bits highlighted in red, I am confused by the argument. Is it that players go to Stoke rather than us because we don''t pay enough in wages, or - as the second quote seems to suggest, by talking about spending a few million more - that we don''t offer enough in transfer fees?As far as the latter is concerned I don''t think there is much doubt that in the summer we offered record-breaking sums to Wolves for Afobe, to Celtic for van Dijk and to Napoli for Koulibaly. We probably could have prised Afobe away from Wolves if we had upped our offer, but going by comments here since we would have been paying well over the odds for someone just not worth it. With the two centre-backs all the reports suggest we offered the asking price or close enough to it, but the two players just didn''t want to join us.Why not? We are just not that much of a draw as a club. Why would van Dijk come to us when he could go to Southampton, and why would Koulibaly not want to stay with Napoli and European football? Offering their clubs more money wouldn''t have made a difference.Offering the players more in wages might, but it is paying more in wages than you can afford, with a knock-on effect on the rest of the squad, that kills you. And it is not as if we pay less than we can afford. The latest relevant figures, unfortunately, are for the 2013-14 season but they are very instructive.What clubs can afford is shown not by the position in the basic wage figure league table but by how much they pay in wages as a percentage of turnover. And for that season we were 12th= with Everton. We were only just (two percentage points) below Chelsea, Southampton, Man City and Aston Villa, and below us were Liverpool, West Ham, Spurs, Arsenal, Hull, Crystal Palace and Man Utd. So that season at least we certainly didn''t stint on wages, measured by how much we could afford.

[lake district canary 4,531]

The "if only we had spent a bit more" sentiment, while understandable, is not the whole picture.   It is quite likely that the board did want to spend more money on strengthening in the Summer, but you cannot buy what isn''t there to be bought and if players we wanted and were able to stump up enough money for, didn''t want to come to Norwich, then you cannot then say the board hadn''t wanted to spend a bit more - simply that the players went elsewhere or stayed where they were, as happened in a few cases.  The only alternatives then, were to either spend the money on others just for the sake of it, or save the money until the right players are available. 

[morty 0]

Yes Purple, our strict wage structure was what I was talking about.Which I get the reasons for.But as pointed out previously, its all very well and good ploughing this moral crusade for financial good housekeeping, but this game has long since been a level playing field.I had high hopes for FFP, I really did, but it looks like clubs have made a nonsense of it.If we''re not careful our reward for taking a stand and being well run, could be relegation.And just to point out, I am 100% behind the board, players and management, this isn''t dissent. But its concern.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="lappinitup"]Are you now saying it was a mistake to get him out Wiz? Do you think he would have turned it round? [/quote] Who knows Lapps, the general opinion at protest meetings I went to suggested no.[/quote]That was never going to happen Wiz as Barclays Bank were about to claim the keys to Carrow Road due to short term unsecured loans being called in. That was when Geoffrey Watling stepped in and bought Chase out and thereby saving the club from such action. You may ask how i know and what i know is that Barclays had put plod on notice of what was about to happen in order to have a presence available should Watling have not been able to prevent it happening.[/quote]Forgot to mention those protest meetings you claim to have attended Wiz. Having been involved in the old NCISA from day one i recall the very first meeting at my old Pub on Silver Road,a meeting at Lakenham Leisure on Cricket Ground Road, one organised by Mike Lloyds City First at The Waterfront who subsequently came on board with NCISA and of course the meeting at St Andrews Hall. Can you refresh my memory as to which one you were at as i only remember one disabled fan in a wheelchair and that was dear old Keith Roads at any of these ''protest meetings'' ?[/quote]

St Andrews Hall Til and I used a walking stick for that meet, plus at a Labour Party hall? in the City when Mr Jones attended....I was interviewed on Anglia TV for that one!

[Van wink 2,994]

lake district canary wrote the following post at 14/11/2015 10:53 AM:

The "if only we had spent a bit more" sentiment, while understandable, is not the whole picture. It is quite likely that the board did want to spend more money on strengthening in the Summer, but you cannot buy what isn''t there to be bought and if players we wanted and were able to stump up enough money for, didn''t want to come to Norwich, then you cannot then say the board hadn''t wanted to spend a bit more - simply that the players went elsewhere or stayed where they were, as happened in a few cases. The only alternatives then, were to either spend the money on others just for the sake of it, or save the money until the right players are available.

I might have some sympathy with this if the way the window unfolded indicated a strategy for success was in place and being followed.

However the apparent shambles, particularly as we approached the end of the window indicated that we really had no realistic strategy at all.

Ok I''m sure we do plan our finances very well and have sound financial strategies in place, but there is more than that to successfully running a football club.

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="lappinitup"]Are you now saying it was a mistake to get him out Wiz? Do you think he would have turned it round? [/quote] Who knows Lapps, the general opinion at protest meetings I went to suggested no.[/quote]That was never going to happen Wiz as Barclays Bank were about to claim the keys to Carrow Road due to short term unsecured loans being called in. That was when Geoffrey Watling stepped in and bought Chase out and thereby saving the club from such action. You may ask how i know and what i know is that Barclays had put plod on notice of what was about to happen in order to have a presence available should Watling have not been able to prevent it happening.[/quote]Forgot to mention those protest meetings you claim to have attended Wiz. Having been involved in the old NCISA from day one i recall the very first meeting at my old Pub on Silver Road,a meeting at Lakenham Leisure on Cricket Ground Road, one organised by Mike Lloyds City First at The Waterfront who subsequently came on board with NCISA and of course the meeting at St Andrews Hall. Can you refresh my memory as to which one you were at as i only remember one disabled fan in a wheelchair and that was dear old Keith Roads at any of these ''protest meetings'' ?[/quote]

St Andrews Hall Til and I used a walking stick for that meet, plus at a Labour Party hall? in the City when Mr Jones attended....I was interviewed on Anglia TV for that one![/quote]

PS. Blowers chaired St Andrews Hall, Harry S .........was two sheets to the west ............and it was muted that'' Mike Walker could return......lardy Cambridge spoke .

Didn''t see you though!

[nutty nigel 7,532]

Yes Jacko, I fully understand what you and Morty are saying. But where is the evidence that supports this? As Purple says our boards policy of running the club "as a mutual" puts our spending in real terms above many other clubs. The intention tospend everything available is proved in the accounts. The only alternative is to spend money we don''t have. Is that what you are aspiring to?