Investment

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Morty, that''s not what you were saying earlier. You were specifically citing a long held policy of prudence. Nobody knows what happened in the summer. It can only be guesswork and apart from making a guess, mine is that we missed out on a centre back we were confident of getting, there''s nothing to debate.

 

Are you now saying the boards past policy wasn''t too prudent?

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Jacko"]Nutty, if you are referring to the Ashton example that was just being done to illustrate a point. I wouldn''t get too wedded to it for the purposes of this debate.

What the example shows was that it was the area in which we were blatantly weak in 2004 (we were playing Gary Doherty there) and it was the main reason that we went down.

We didn''t have the money to buy Ashton in that summer window. That''s fair enough, we can''t spend what we haven''t got and I wouldn''t criticise the board for that decision we made.

What we can learn from that though (now we do have money available) is that sometimes you identify critical moments where exceptional expenditure is necessary - if you have the money, which I believe we do now.

We face an almost analgaous situation in which there is one area of the squad which is a clear weakness - namely central defence/right back. Only this time we do have the finance and we don''t necessary have to make do and mend.

Is it unreasonable to ask whether we could push the boat out to sign that one player (effectively the Robbie Brady of centre backs) who could make all the difference to us? If that player doesn''t exist then fair enough but it''s perfectly reasonable to ask the question.[/quote]

 

Central defence is the issue for me buddy. I think we''re quite well covered at fullback and the last few weeks have shown we have the personnel to play a variety of different formations of those full backs. But we are woefully short at CB. Whatever people may believe we are one quality centreback short. Ancouple of injuries/suspensions would bring that home for any doubters. But we were short there last season too even though we had centrebacks coming out of our ears. This just goes to show that numbers won''t mean improvement.

 

My only issue here is the belief that the reason we didn''t sign anyone was prudence and that we''re not competitive with wages. The facts that are available do not support this view.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Slightly odd post this, I am not asking for a battlion of centre halves. We want that one player who improves us and makes the difference (he will cost big money hence why it is a one off purchase). I know just how short we are at centre back. Hence why I have spent the last 4 pages of this thread saying that it would have been fantastic to push the boat out to get that player who could really give the shot in the arm we need to survive.

There is evidence to suggest that we tried for a number of centre backs in the summer and they didn''t want to come. Koulibaly being just one of a number of the names mentioned.

The Premier League is a very attractive commodity. A player like Fernandez (who has been capped 30 times for Argentina) was prepared to leave Napoli and join Swansea, despite there being no European football on the table. Why else is going to pitch up Swansea other than for the wages and hopefully an eventual hop up the ladder to a bigger club?

Again if these players are turning us down for other reasons then I respect that. But on the balance of probabilities it comes down to one simple issue - wages. Like I will say again I just hope we''re not saying at the end of the season that that one quality addition to the defence could have made all the difference in the final reckoning.

I don''t know what other facts or figures you are expecting. You aren''t going to find them on balance sheets or accounts from 2 or 3 seasons ago.

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

Firstly this is a great thread full of interesting arguments and for once hasn''t descended into pointless name calling ( that must be true as the only thing to come close to that is the normally squeaky-clean Purple Canary pulling someone up for a " stupid comment '''' [:D] )I do side with Morty and others that we are a bit too reluctant to take risks but to redress the balance a little it was interesting to hear what David McNally had to say about our summer dealings when he, Delia and MWJ came to London for the Capital Canaries 40th Anniversary meal in September. DM accepted that supporters had perceived concerns at the lack of transfer activity, in particular regarding the centre half issue, but went on to say that we had had a very substantial bid accepted for such a player " with Champions League experience " playing at a European club. Whether or not this was Koulibaly at Napoli he didn''t say but he did say that the player was keen to come to Norwich and the move broke down only because the selling club couldn''t get a replacement.If we are to believe what we''re told - I do on this occasion - then perhaps we don''t always put prudence above ambition ?

[morty 0]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]Firstly this is a great thread full of interesting arguments and for once hasn''t descended into pointless name calling ( that must be true as the only thing to come close to that is the normally squeaky-clean Purple Canary pulling someone up for a " stupid comment '''' [:D] )I do side with Morty and others that we are a bit too reluctant to take risks but to redress the balance a little it was interesting to hear what David McNally had to say about our summer dealings when he, Delia and MWJ came to London for the Capital Canaries 40th Anniversary meal in September. DM accepted that supporters had perceived concerns at the lack of transfer activity, in particular regarding the centre half issue, but went on to say that we had had a very substantial bid accepted for such a player " with Champions League experience " playing at a European club. Whether or not this was Koulibaly at Napoli he didn''t say but he did say that the player was keen to come to Norwich and the move broke down only because the selling club couldn''t get a replacement.If we are to believe what we''re told - I do on this occasion - then perhaps we don''t always put prudence above ambition ?

[/quote]I have no reason to disbelieve DM either, but it still adds up to the same thing, doesn''t it?

[morty 0]

Unfortunately, the Robbie Brady transfer sage probably illustrates how we did business this summer.

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]Firstly this is a great thread full of interesting arguments and for once hasn''t descended into pointless name calling ( that must be true as the only thing to come close to that is the normally squeaky-clean Purple Canary pulling someone up for a " stupid comment '''' [:D] )I do side with Morty and others that we are a bit too reluctant to take risks but to redress the balance a little it was interesting to hear what David McNally had to say about our summer dealings when he, Delia and MWJ came to London for the Capital Canaries 40th Anniversary meal in September. DM accepted that supporters had perceived concerns at the lack of transfer activity, in particular regarding the centre half issue, but went on to say that we had had a very substantial bid accepted for such a player " with Champions League experience " playing at a European club. Whether or not this was Koulibaly at Napoli he didn''t say but he did say that the player was keen to come to Norwich and the move broke down only because the selling club couldn''t get a replacement.If we are to believe what we''re told - I do on this occasion - then perhaps we don''t always put prudence above ambition ?

[/quote]I have no reason to disbelieve DM either, but it still adds up to the same thing, doesn''t it?[/quote]

I don''t see how it does Morty. DM said that we''d done all we could to secure the player for what I can only think was quite comfortably an eight figure sum but through no fault of our own the move didn''t go through.As I said I tend to agree with you that the Board often do give the impression of being too cautious but sometimes they do surprise us too.I don''t see how it does

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

Ooops !One '' I don''t see how it does '' too many there.....

[Jacko 0]

If that is the case Smithy (and I have no reason to doubt you) then all you can do is hold your hands up and say - ''fair play they tried''

[Jacko 0]

Because what you have just described there is everything I was imploring them to do in the last couple of pages of the thread.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Well to me the Brady transfer shows how we attracted a player wanted by others. We couldn''t have a wider gap in views if we tried Morty.

[morty 0]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="morty"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]Firstly this is a great thread full of interesting arguments and for once hasn''t descended into pointless name calling ( that must be true as the only thing to come close to that is the normally squeaky-clean Purple Canary pulling someone up for a " stupid comment '''' [:D] )I do side with Morty and others that we are a bit too reluctant to take risks but to redress the balance a little it was interesting to hear what David McNally had to say about our summer dealings when he, Delia and MWJ came to London for the Capital Canaries 40th Anniversary meal in September. DM accepted that supporters had perceived concerns at the lack of transfer activity, in particular regarding the centre half issue, but went on to say that we had had a very substantial bid accepted for such a player " with Champions League experience " playing at a European club. Whether or not this was Koulibaly at Napoli he didn''t say but he did say that the player was keen to come to Norwich and the move broke down only because the selling club couldn''t get a replacement.If we are to believe what we''re told - I do on this occasion - then perhaps we don''t always put prudence above ambition ?

[/quote]I have no reason to disbelieve DM either, but it still adds up to the same thing, doesn''t it?[/quote]

I don''t see how it does Morty. DM said that we''d done all we could to secure the player for what I can only think was quite comfortably an eight figure sum but through no fault of our own the move didn''t go through.As I said I tend to agree with you that the Board often do give the impression of being too cautious but sometimes they do surprise us too.I don''t see how it does[/quote]It still adds up to no player?Do I think DM is lying, no I don''t.Do I think they did all they could? Well we''ll never know, we don''t even know who the alleged player is.Do I think DM would tell fans every itty bitty detail about how the club does business? No, I don''t think he would.See my comment above about the Robbie Brady transfer saga, that gave us a pretty public insight into how we went about our business this summer.

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well to me the Brady transfer shows how we attracted a player wanted by others. We couldn''t have a wider gap in views if we tried Morty.[/quote]You know fine well that wasn''t the point I was making.The way we fannied around with derisory bids was pretty cringeworthy.

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

What point?

[/quote]

I assume you are trying to imply we should have had Tony Fernandes here.

Yes, he is rich, but I would hardly point to his stewardship of QPR as some kind of success story....
[/quote]

 

Oh, you mean like a role reversal? Y''know, like that chap Paul Lambert was a success here at Carra but a failure at Villa.....and Torres was a goal machine at Liverpool and a meandering ballboy at Chelski.....etc.....etc.....

 

Yeah, in hindsight Mr Air Asia and his dosh could have destroyed this club - so just maybe - we are most fortunate that he preferred to go to Laaaandaaaan and pump his Wonga into a lego-size stadium......We may be playing them again next season if we aren''t too careful.......Mind you, it''s well documented that Mr Mac was certainly keen to have him on board at the time when Mr F was at Hethersett and in the ''Lotus position''.....Maybe some people at the top of Carra.......weren''t so keen?......Wonder why? I guess we''ll never know.....

[/quote]

Well, yes we do know.

He wanted majority ownership and 100% control. Looked like that was a pretty good call in the end, eh?
[/quote]

So, what''s the problem with wanting 100% control and majority ownership if he was prepared to put in money that will far exceed what our majority shareholders and members of the current board have contributed. Why was it and why do you think it was ''a pretty good call in the end'' eh? Were those at the Carra helm fearful of his wealth or were there other agendas?  From Carrow Road to the ''Air Asia Arena'' possibly? He''s not that Michael Knighton bloke who wanted to take over Man U, who was just a charlatan and not a real multi-millionaire...... Mr Tony F hasn''t re-branded Loftus Road since his takeover there.....has he? Why the reluctance? QPR are struggling and aren''t currently setting the football world alight - but he hasn''t banged out and taken his money with him.......I reiterate, our CEO was keen to attract him to NCFC, so maybe Mr Mac''s judgement should be taken into question and account.....?  

Delia and MWJ are going to have to relinquish their control as majority shareholders sometime, who exactly are they going to hand their reins to? Micky Foulger? Stevey Fry? Neil Doncaster? Galton Blackiston?

Maybe Roy''s of Wroxham......?

When actually was the last time we had serious outside investment.......? What''s g''orn on?

 

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Well to me the Brady transfer shows how we attracted a player wanted by others. We couldn''t have a wider gap in views if we tried Morty.[/quote]

How does that in any way show that other clubs were interested in him? Given the very public way in which they deal was carried out, we''d have known if another club was in for him. In fact, they had all the chances in the world to gazump had they wanted to.

Basically what happened was that we started out with a low offer and eventually paid Hull the asking price that they wanted all along. Ultimately, Brady has been magnificent so far and looks worth every penny (and more) but there''s no hiding the fact Hull very publicly got exactly what they wanted from us. That is all the saga tells us.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

To be honest Morty I don''t know full well about anything you meant. Throughout this thread I''ve tried to debate with you using any facts that are known from Directors drawing a salary or dividends to the information on a link you provided which you later implied was irrelevant.

Like I''ve said, if you''re stance is that the board have always been too prudent because you say so then there''s nothing to debate. But if you want to discuss the facts as presented in the accounts and your link together with statements publicly made then there''s still plenty to debate.

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="morty"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]Firstly this is a great thread full of interesting arguments and for once hasn''t descended into pointless name calling ( that must be true as the only thing to come close to that is the normally squeaky-clean Purple Canary pulling someone up for a " stupid comment '''' [:D] )I do side with Morty and others that we are a bit too reluctant to take risks but to redress the balance a little it was interesting to hear what David McNally had to say about our summer dealings when he, Delia and MWJ came to London for the Capital Canaries 40th Anniversary meal in September. DM accepted that supporters had perceived concerns at the lack of transfer activity, in particular regarding the centre half issue, but went on to say that we had had a very substantial bid accepted for such a player " with Champions League experience " playing at a European club. Whether or not this was Koulibaly at Napoli he didn''t say but he did say that the player was keen to come to Norwich and the move broke down only because the selling club couldn''t get a replacement.If we are to believe what we''re told - I do on this occasion - then perhaps we don''t always put prudence above ambition ?

[/quote]I have no reason to disbelieve DM either, but it still adds up to the same thing, doesn''t it?[/quote]

I don''t see how it does Morty. DM said that we''d done all we could to secure the player for what I can only think was quite comfortably an eight figure sum but through no fault of our own the move didn''t go through.As I said I tend to agree with you that the Board often do give the impression of being too cautious but sometimes they do surprise us too.I don''t see how it does[/quote]It still adds up to no player?Do I think DM is lying, no I don''t.Do I think they did all they could? Well we''ll never know, we don''t even know who the alleged player is.Do I think DM would tell fans every itty bitty detail about how the club does business? No, I don''t think he would.See my comment above about the Robbie Brady transfer saga, that gave us a pretty public insight into how we went about our business this summer.[/quote]MortyI agree it still adds up to no player but it''s not for the want of trying. I think we do leave things late and this leaves the Board wide open to accusations that they drag their feet but at the end of the day the fact that this transfer didn''t go through appears to be no fault of NCFC.If you don''t think DM was lying then they did do all they could.Of course I don''t think DM tells fans how the Club does business. It would be insane if any Club did. I would agree that the Brady saga made us look pretty '' two-bit ''. To be honest it was embarrassing.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Sell surely not as ''two bit'' or as embarrassing as the clubs we beat to his signature....

Smithy, you''re such an old misery guts sometimes. But I applaud you for finding a negative in us signing Robbie Brady. :)

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Well!! Lol

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]I would agree that the Brady saga made us look pretty '' two-bit ''. To be honest it was embarrassing.[/quote]Why?Any fool can pay over the odds.The game is about getting what you want for what you are prepared to pay.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don''t think we did spend all our money. I don''t think anybody does. I would imagine we missed our targets. So the alternative would have been to spend the money on just anybody so long as its spent. But I don''t know this. If we held back the money for other reasons rest assured it will come out.

 

The interesting evidence of the boards policy is in the link Morty provided which shows the percentage of urnover our wages were. That kind of disproves his purpose for the link but hey ho...

 

Purple - If we''d stayed up and those bonuses we allowed for were paid would that have increased the 57%?

 

 

[/quote]That is an excellent point, nutty! Supposedly it was about £6m-worth. That would have pushed the overall wage bill to £60m, which would have been close to 64 per cent of the turnover of £94m.Unless I am overlooking consequent factors that would have altered the picture the other way then we would have been an unexpectedly high 4th= in the wages-to-turnover table.Of course these figures are two years out of date, but they are the best we have, and their usefulness is in showing that in terms of the prudence versus ambition balance our policy has veered more to the latter than is the common perception.

[morty 0]

Lol Eddie, we shall leave it there, you really should have considered a career in politics😃

Twistier and turnier than a twisty turny thing😉

[Hairy Kenneth 0]

If what DM said was true (and I''ve got no reason to disbelieve him) then I don''t see that as a lack of ambition at all. It''s not the clubs fault that the team we were buying from couldn''t get a replacement for the player. Similar situation at Palace when we were going to buy Gayle (I think ) but Wickham got injured and the deal fell through. It''s a bit like a property chain-you have to complete all the sales or the chain falls apart.

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Sell surely not as ''two bit'' or as embarrassing as the clubs we beat to his signature....

Smithy, you''re such an old misery guts sometimes. But I applaud you for finding a negative in us signing Robbie Brady. :)[/quote]You know me Nutty......glass bone dry !! [:D]Seriously though weren''t you wincing just a teeny bit when Steve Bruce ridiculed us about our stupidly low opening bids for his player ?Premier League ? You''re having a laugh.....

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]I would agree that the Brady saga made us look pretty '' two-bit ''. To be honest it was embarrassing.[/quote]Why?Any fool can pay over the odds.The game is about getting what you want for what you are prepared to pay.[/quote]

Which is why we probably miss out on many of our targets leaving you and others to bemoan our lack of activity in the transfer market. [;)]

[TIL 1010 4,765]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]You know me Nutty......glass bone dry !! [:D]

[/quote]The next time i see your glass bone dry will be the first ! [:P]

[nutty nigel 7,554]

Morty, well done leaving it there with a little dig. My points have remained constant throughout.

Smithy, seriously, embarrassed? Have some pride man! I''m not embarrassed 1bit. However if your 2bit stuff is right then those we beat to his signature should be...

Purple, 64%! How informative Morty''s link has been...

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]I would agree that the Brady saga made us look pretty '' two-bit ''. To be honest it was embarrassing.[/quote]Why?Any fool can pay over the odds.The game is about getting what you want for what you are prepared to pay.[/quote]

Which is why we probably miss out on many of our targets leaving you and others to bemoan our lack of activity in the transfer market. [;)][/quote] I am sure that there was plenty of activity but that doesn''t mean we should be prepared to pay any price to get what we want. I would have liked to see another central defender brought in but if we couldn''t land our targets I wouldn''t be happy with a second rater just for the sake of signing somebody.We have had a few bargains and a few duds and thats about par for the course for most teams when it comes to transfers.

[lake district canary 4,540]

Agree this has been an interesting thread, on many levels..... On the footballing front it shows how difficult it is for the board to get the balance right. They make decisions, some of them good some of them not so good.  No one can get it right all the time.  What I will always believe is that having got us on a path which sees us debt free and in the top league, that keeping us debt free is more important than being in the top league.  It would have to be such a huge amount of money that would make a difference to keep us in the top league, that imo - it ain''t gonna happen.  Better to be what we are and make the best of it rather than hanker for a dreamworld where we have money to spend we haven''t got. That would only end in ruin - and having got close to that before, I don''t think anyone would want that.  

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="......and Smith must score."]I would agree that the Brady saga made us look pretty '' two-bit ''. To be honest it was embarrassing.[/quote]Why?Any fool can pay over the odds.The game is about getting what you want for what you are prepared to pay.[/quote]

Which is why we probably miss out on many of our targets leaving you and others to bemoan our lack of activity in the transfer market. [;)][/quote] I am sure that there was plenty of activity but that doesn''t mean we should be prepared to pay any price to get what we want. I would have liked to see another central defender brought in but if we couldn''t land our targets I wouldn''t be happy with a second rater just for the sake of signing somebody.We have had a few bargains and a few duds and thats about par for the course for most teams when it comes to transfers.[/quote]By activity I meant that to mean completed transfers of course.Unless someone comes in on loan there''s no way of knowing what a '' second rater '' is until you''ve parted with the dosh but happily over the years I''ve supported Norwich they''ve made tens of millions surplus on player sales. The RVW fiasco was unfortunate and must go down in history as one of the duds but I would hope that hasn''t made the Board too cautious. This is a good time for NCFC. We have a good manager and a good squad that does need strengthening and I only hope we make this opportunity count.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]By activity I meant that to mean completed transfers of course.Unless someone comes in on loan there''s no way of knowing what a '' second rater '' is until you''ve parted with the dosh but happily over the years I''ve supported Norwich they''ve made tens of millions surplus on player sales. The RVW fiasco was unfortunate and must go down in history as one of the duds but I would hope that hasn''t made the Board too cautious. This is a good time for NCFC. We have a good manager and a good squad that does need strengthening and I only hope we make this opportunity count.

[/quote]Well unless they''ve been fibbing for years, this is not what the annual accounts reveal. Outgoing transfer fees are pretty much balanced by incoming fees. I agree however that this is indeed a good time and without evidence to the contrary I believe McNally when he says that all spare cash will be spent on football. In they end you have to trust that they are doing the best for the club.