So what's with Naismith

[Tumbleweed 106]

The RVW comparison is interesting but one bad experience should not cloud a whole recruitment strategy. I don''t think I would have regarded him as a "marquee" signing in that he was proven at the highest level on a regular basis in the PL or something of equivalent standard. So in my list in a previous post I would have him at Tier 4 not 5. The standard for those marquee and inevitably expensive signings has to be high- the risk with a Naismith is minimal- but we also have to acknowledge that sometimes they will not work out and we just have to be prepared to deal with that like any other club in the PL.

Sounds like it is wages then stopping this deal which is disappointing. Like buying that Merc but forgetting it probably costs twice as much to insure and run as the Mondeo. Pretty obvious that a guy like Naismith at Everton would be on a good whack, if you can''t afford it you shouldn''t look.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

No indication that this has anything to do with wages - the fact he looks set to stay at Everton suggest it ISN''T wages. He is a wanted man, by more than just Norwich, so if he was looking for a pay day he''d probably be winging his wage to Newcastle right now.

Staying put at Everton would suggest either he has been given the assurances he needed by Martinez that he''ll play more, or a personal matter is keeping him there. His wife being pregnant would certain provide a personal reason.

What does it really matter to Naismith to say to himself "now isn''t a great time to up-heave my family, I''ll wait until the season is over and do it then"?

Of course if a club gives him a never to be repeated offer he might go now, but I imagine anything Norwich, Newcastle, Swansea et al is offering is pretty commensurate with his current deal.

[JF 694]

Some people on here talking about breaking our wage ceiling, well we certainly won''t be signing Mbokani on a permanent deal, he is on a ridiculous 80k a week and we are paying 1/3rd of that

[Essjayess 307]

Dont care if its stalled because of his family or because of his wage demands. Imo we have wasted way to much time on this attacking midfielder.Would he have been a good addition to our squad?...maybe, possibly.Was he absolutely essential to be brought in to our squad?....not at all.Alex should pull the plug on this  now, and put all staff and resources into finding CB quality additions to the squad. That is the absolutely essential need  for our squad if anything.We dont need links or rumours of midfielders, strikers, forwards, just get us some CB cover please City, then after do what u like, if theres time left in the window.

[Norfolk Mustard 94]

When I had a job offer for a role based in Manchester I moved to the NW with my wife who was 36 weeks pregnant. If you want something badly enough you go for it. If you don’t, you stay…

Hardly rocket science is it?

[Katie Borkins 1]

Maybe Norwich has less homeless to feed.

[Evesham Canary 0]

[quote user="Norfolk Mustard "]When I had a job offer for a role based in Manchester I moved to the NW with my wife who was 36 weeks pregnant. If you want something badly enough you go for it. If you don’t, you stay…

Hardly rocket science is it?[/quote]

👍

Couldn''t agree more with this. Moved to Midlands with wife (lived in Norwich all her life) & 2 kids under 4 for promotion at work. All of our family support network is in Norwich so 180 miles away. Norwich isn''t quite as remote as it was 10yrs ago with a better airport & improving rail & road links.

This may be one of these deals that looks dead & is suddenly resurrected in the last couple of days of the window.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="nutty nigel"]OK. It''s kind of your version of having a realistic opinion. Truth is none of us know what''s happening. Bournemouth have got players in early. If we''d made those signings this place would be in an even worse frenzy. But the fact that Bournemouth see our reserves as a step up shows the quality we already have. We are not competing with Bournemouth for players. We are competing with more established clubs if we are to improve the quality of our squad. If we can''t get those players I''m not of the opinion that we should reduce the quality in order to spend money.[/quote]No, it is my opinion, sorry if it doesn''t fit in with yours.There is actually a sensible middle ground between "slavering keyboard bashing moron" and "The board can do no wrong"Overall, I am a fan of our board, they get most things right, but not everything. I understand the constraints a club of our resources has to operate under. I also understand that we have to get the right players in to improve the group, and there is no point in signing just for the sake of it. I wouldn''t even be that disappointed if we didn''t sign anyone else and went with what we have, but I feel we would be taking a big, big risk.We were fortunate last season that it worked out how it did, had Alex Neil not worked out as well as he had then things could be a lot different.The board failed to back Hughton in the January transfer window ( and yes, I can understand why) and we saw what happened. They rolled the dice hoping we would have enough to stay up, and they got it wrong.I understand the whole thing is hugely complex and full of risk, and I understand throwing money at it doesn''t guarantee success, but all I ask of the board is that if they do make a mistake, they learn from it.And, as I said, if we get to the end of January and the line of "We bid on players and they didn''t want to come" appears again, then I don''t think it would be unfair to ask why?Last year set our development back, if we can have a sustained run in the Premier league we can take our great club to the next level. We can do the work that needs done at Colney, and who knows, maybe even think seriously about that stadium expansion. I recognise there will always be a ceiling of what we can achieve, but if you''re not moving forward, you''re standing still. And before you know it, you''re in your fifteenth season in the Championship.[/quote]

 

Very true.  With Hughton by January they''d decided they were getting rid of him at the end of the season so didn''t give him any more money (presumably thinking it would be wasted) but didn''t change the manager either.  Which was a mistake in hindsight (and plenty said so at the time), they should have done one or the other.  Now we have a manager that looks to be settling in to the Prem and we need to back him.  It''s a couple of weeks into the window and we have plenty of time to play with but the club need to be working sensibly on transfers and we have at least one key position to fill (CB) and a nice-to-have (up front in some shape or form) IMO, we should be able to land credible players for both.

 

From the last transfer window it sounds like we were close to signing Walters from Stoke for a fee which didn''t break the bank, but came up just a little bit short.  If it turns out something similar is going on with Naismith and we don''t have a good alternative we can turn to, then it will be very disappointing.

 

As for the idea that Bournemouth view our reserves as a step up, that''s ridiculous - he''s a player who came from them and clearly their manager feels he can get more out of him than he''s been showing recently for us, nothing unusual there.

[/quote]

 

I can''t agree with any of this guys.

 

Morty, if you''re suggesting that I am of the opinion the board can do no wrong you are mistaken. But I am of the opinion that the board don''t lie or misuse funds.The board backed Hughton with all the available money. If you look at the accounts at the end of that year you will see that we made a profit because we didn''t pay out bonuses for staying up. So Hughton had every available penny. In fact after he kept us up that first season we backed Hughton with some massive transfers. RVW, Hooper and Fer were the attacking intent that everyone wanted. But unfortunately they weren''t the players everyone thought they would be. Now where we differ fron the QPR''s of this world is that we cant write off a wasted budget and spend it again in January. Mind you that doesn''t work too often either. If we didn''t back Hughton then what did we do with the money? Because I can''t see it anywhere.

 

As with Bournemouth signing our reserves, it''s factual, they have. Not only that but they believe that whilst Lewis Grabban was a squad player here he''d miraculously doubled in value so they happily paid that new price. If that had been our board this place would have melted. I can understand Eddie Howe getting in players he knows. especially as he''s taken a big gamble with Afobe who may take a while to settle in which is a big problem with January signings. But surely Grabban hasn''t improved that much since he came here. It''s like saying here''s what you paid for him and his a few more million for his food and lodgings while he was there.

 

We were fortunate last season? Really?? Is that what our success is down to?  I think that''s an outrageous statement to make. We handled a difficult relegation very well. We were never out of contention for promotion. And when needed we identified a new manager and went and got him. Alex Neil himself has said how there was so much right about the team he inherited. All this best team in the Championship and walk away with it bollox, was just that, bollox. However good a relegated team are the are still relegated and to turn that around into a Championship winning team is difficult. Don''t take my word for it, just look at the Championship every year.

 

I love debating this but you guys are going to have to give me something more. Preferably what we have done with the money we held back from Hughton and seemingly you believe we are holding back from Neil?

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Bury Yellow"]Ha Ha Absolutely brilliant Nutty.

Totally agree with Morty[/quote]

 

I was really worried about you so glad to see you are ok.

 

As you totally agree with Morty maybe you''d like to have a stab at saying what the board did with the money they held back from Hughton?

 

 

[NCFC198 2]

[quote user="JF"]Some people on here talking about breaking our wage ceiling, well we certainly won''t be signing Mbokani on a permanent deal, he is on a ridiculous 80k a week and we are paying 1/3rd of that[/quote]

Is this correct? Wow. That''s why AN dismissed talk of us signing him permanently at this stage

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

To NN - if you want to debate it helps if you answer the point made rather than setup straw men to knock down. I can see anyone else suggest the board have misused funds so there''s no point in you thinking it somehow supports your position to say it. Frankly I''m not going to respond to the rest of your last post because you just seem to be arguing against points that only you have raised. If you want a sensible discussion you''d have to come up with actual replies to the point people have made.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

"Can''t see" obviously.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I was replying to the points made, specifically the point about the board not backing Hughton. And specifically to your point that they held money back (presumably thinking that it would be wasted). My point was that there was no sign of that money in May 2014.

[morty 0]

Its an opinion NN. Based of various articles about the time, one quoting as to how the board were going to support Hughton with a January war chest of "up to 10 million" and the fact we ended up with 2 loans, Yobo and Guittierrez. No, I have no proof whatsoever.

[morty 0]

Oh and, nobody said anything about the board "lying or misusing funds" did they?If the board decided not to spend the money that was entirely up to them, I wouldn''t call it "lying or misusing funds".

[birchfest 397]

With regard to Mbokani two points, firstly we negotiated a buy clause... Very bizzare to do that with a player if we knew how much they would cost/what their wages were at that point.

But secondly, last time I checked footballers aren''t garunteed to keep their exact same wage everytime they make a move. If we negotiate a deal I see it likely he will get less, largely he will probably except that as he will no longer be in a champions league team. Will he? Well he was frozen out of the team over there and if it was about the money he could have kept playing for their reserves and picking up the pay check... Hardly doubt he''s come here to boat on the Norfolk boards, he''s here because he wants to be!

[AJ 1,218]

I''d like to think, as with Dorrans and Jarvis, we add in buy clauses in all our loans. What''s the point of borrowing a player who, if they had the impact like Jarvis and Dorrans had in their original loans, we would miss once the loan is over. I''d imagine we got Jarvis cheaper this way too as he was dead wood for West Ham, his good performances during the loan might have raised his price a bit otherwise. As for Mbokani, if we stay up he''s worth signing as we would have the money to afford him and let''s be honest here he''s the best option we have up top at the moment.

The only exception to this atm is Wisdom who Liverpool insist is not for sale, they tried to recall him but we declined which is why they ended up with Caulker. Pretty funny really.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Then how would you explain that 10m not being anywhere to be seen in May 2014 Morty. What did they do with the money you reckon "they decided not to spend"? If they syphoned it off for some purpose that is not given in the accounts then that''s what I mean by misusing. Maybe that''s the wrong word but I don''t know a better one.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="morty"]Its an opinion NN. Based of various articles about the time, one quoting as to how the board were going to support Hughton with a January war chest of "up to 10 million" and the fact we ended up with 2 loans, Yobo and Guittierrez. No, I have no proof whatsoever.[/quote]The facts are that in the summer of 2013 Hughton was given a record (by a very wide margin) amount of money to spend on players. In came Garrido (permanently) van Wolfswinkel, Nash, Redmond, Olsson, Fer, and Hooper (all permanent signings) and Elmander (year-long loan). The initial cost of those signings (minus the acquisition of Garrido - whatever we paid for him has to be added on) was £20.1m, with a potential extra £8m in adds-on and the like.At the end of the year we made a profit of £6m, but only because relegation meant we were spared having to pay bonuses for which we had accounted. If we had stayed up we would have broken even and there would have been no money sloshing around, let alone £10m.Unless the reports of a £10m winter transfer fund came from a direct quote from Carrow Road (and Hell would freeze over before they did anything as stupid as that) they can happily have been ignored as worthless. Apart from Charlie Wyett very occasionally there is no-one in the national press who seems to have the faintest idea what is going on at Carrow Road, and even with Charlie (as with his recent Naismith comment) the information looks often to have come from whatever the other club involved is and not from us. And if the EDP ever knows anything exclusively it keeps quiet about what it knows.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

It''s the difference between cash flow and profit Purple, which I''m pretty sure you''re well aware of from previous threads. 

 

There''s no debate that in the summer of 2013 with Hughton as manager we spent a record sum on those signings.  It was also clear by December that several of them were not working out and that the team as a whole was struggling, especially up front.  Despite this, in the January window, our transfer activity was minimal with just some loan signings who were at best sticking plasters for the problem. 

 

Clearly, the Board made the decision to keep Hughton as manager at that point, but not make available any real sums to strengthen the team.  That might have involved a small level of borrowing - in which case that would clearly have been a gamble but equally, not spending was a gamble which we ended up losing by being relegated.  What was our income loss for the following season due to relegation, even allowing for parachute payments ? 

 

This is what I mean by saying that the club didn''t back Hughton in that transfer window.  With hindsight, the club should have done one thing or the other - sack him or strengthen the squad.  It fell between two stools.  We ended up getting relegated and the margins were pretty narrow eg if we''d have beaten WBA at home, we''d have stayed up.  IMO we should have got rid of the manager in December.  But it''s easy to be wise with hindsight.

 

I''m fully aware that as fans we don''t have to deal with the club''s finances and it''s great that the club is now in the Prem and is debt-free.  But we''re now in the situation where AN is doing well in the Prem but there is an obvious weakness at CB in our squad (which was also clear last summer and wasn''t dealt with), and more attacking firepower is always welcome.  So it''s reasonable and sensible for us fans to express the concern that it''s important the Board backs the manager in this transfer window to strengthen these areas.

 

I can understand the shadow of the money wasted on RVW hangs over our transfer dealings now. But I worry that the Board have taken things too far in the other direction.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

It''s the difference between cash flow and profit Purple, which I''m pretty sure you''re well aware of from previous threads. 

 

There''s no debate that in the summer of 2013 with Hughton as manager we spent a record sum on those signings.  It was also clear by December that several of them were not working out and that the team as a whole was struggling, especially up front.  Despite this, in the January window, our transfer activity was minimal with just some loan signings who were at best sticking plasters for the problem. 

 

Clearly, the Board made the decision to keep Hughton as manager at that point, but not make available any real sums to strengthen the team.  That might have involved a small level of borrowing - in which case that would clearly have been a gamble but equally, not spending was a gamble which we ended up losing by being relegated.  What was our income loss for the following season due to relegation, even allowing for parachute payments ? 

 

This is what I mean by saying that the club didn''t back Hughton in that transfer window.  With hindsight, the club should have done one thing or the other - sack him or strengthen the squad.  It fell between two stools.  We ended up getting relegated and the margins were pretty narrow eg if we''d have beaten WBA at home, we''d have stayed up.  IMO we should have got rid of the manager in December.  But it''s easy to be wise with hindsight.

 

I''m fully aware that as fans we don''t have to deal with the club''s finances and it''s great that the club is now in the Prem and is debt-free.  But we''re now in the situation where AN is doing well in the Prem but there is an obvious weakness at CB in our squad (which was also clear last summer and wasn''t dealt with), and more attacking firepower is always welcome.  So it''s reasonable and sensible for us fans to express the concern that it''s important the Board backs the manager in this transfer window to strengthen these areas.

 

I can understand the shadow of the money wasted on RVW hangs over our transfer dealings now. But I worry that the Board have taken things too far in the other direction.

[/quote]Indeed I am, ICF. You cannot draw a definite link between transfer fees and profit and loss, although you can use such fees to take a general view on a club''s finances and what it can afford, or not! And the question of cash flow in football is very complicated. Or at least too complicated for my amateur brain. That said, any transfers in that winter would have increased our wage bill, and that also would have been a factor in our thinking, and our profit and loss.This is going over old ground and, as you say, it is impossible to avoid a certain amount of hindsight. But having given Hughton, with add-ons, around £30m to spend in the summer I cannot see that he was going to be allowed much more that winter, no matter what position we were in.As to now, I do not see a parallel with that winter, for various reasons. I don''t think there is too much doubt we underspent last summer. By that I mean we didn''t spend all we expected to. Secondly, we almost certainly trust Neil more than Hughton to spend money wisely (and Neil will probbaly be our manager next season, no matter what, which was not the case with Hughton). Thirdly, there are two obvious areas (central defence and up front) where the money should be spent. From this point on only two such two players coming in would probbaly be enough, and as much as even the most hard-hearted fan could expect.Fourthly, although I believe this gets overstated because the number dazzle fans, the advent of the next mega-mega-TV deal means clubs will be more than ever keen to stay in the Premier League, and act accordingly.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

There''s a huge difference between having 10m to spend and borrowing 10m to spend even if that''s possible which I doubt it without putting the club in an unstable position. If we''d borrowed 10m and still been relegated I doubt we''d have got back last year. Hughton was backed to an unprecedented level and unfortunately the money was wasted. We are not in a position to be able to spend our budget twice.

As for this season, its an unknown for me. I like others am assuming we have money for this window. I''m not so sure about what the ongoing rise in TV money will mean to us. I''m rather like VOS in that I believe it will mostly result in players earning and costing more. As with the reported miraculous doubling of Grabbans value. But I guess it will make better players from abroad more available to us. This is probably why the board invested in our scouting network abroad.

[whoareyou? 0]

There is something seriously wrong within the club if we don''t have money to spend this window.

We sold Grabban and Johnson for approx £13 million and the only major expenditure has been on Brady, Pinto and Jarvis. We should still have received more than we have spent this season to date ( or at least have broken even) without dipping into this season''s budget.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Purple - I hope you''re right, although my concern is more about the summer window just gone than that January when we were relegated.  In the summer it seemed we were pursuing some optimistic targets and ended up chasing some more realistic ones at the last minute - and it sounds like this was too late.  I appreciate we only get limited information about what actually happened, but with Gayle there was the statement from Palace that we made an opening offer on deadline day which was too late to even be taken seriously, and with Walters a fee was mentioned which didn''t look silly (can''t remember exactly how much) but we didn''t reach agreement on it, again it sounds like the discussions started very late on in the window.  I hope we don''t end up missing out on targets this time because of this sort of approach.

 

So I am very much hoping the club is in discussions in the background with various targets and we''re now aiming at "realistic" signings, not Italian internationals (unless they make it very clear the player is willing to move to City !).  We know City as a club is generally good at keeping schtum on transfer dealings until the deal is done and leaks normally come from the other end, so if they''re also tight-lipped we don''t hear about it until it''s pretty much agreed.  And that''s a good thing.  But I can''t deny I am worried at the moment.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="whoareyou"]There is something seriously wrong within the club if we don''t have money to spend this window.

We sold Grabban and Johnson for approx £13 million and the only major expenditure has been on Brady, Pinto and Jarvis. We should still have received more than we have spent this season to date ( or at least have broken even) without dipping into this season''s budget.[/quote]And Dorrans (£3m-plus). And whatever (£1m)? we are paying for Mbokani for a season. Roughly speaking, going on headline figures, those five players have cost us £15m-plus, which is more than the £13m-£14m we have received for Johnson and Grabban.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

Purple - I hope you''re right, although my concern is more about the summer window just gone than that January when we were relegated.  In the summer it seemed we were pursuing some optimistic targets and ended up chasing some more realistic ones at the last minute - and it sounds like this was too late.  I appreciate we only get limited information about what actually happened, but with Gayle there was the statement from Palace that we made an opening offer on deadline day which was too late to even be taken seriously, and with Walters a fee was mentioned which didn''t look silly (can''t remember exactly how much) but we didn''t reach agreement on it, again it sounds like the discussions started very late on in the window.  I hope we don''t end up missing out on targets this time because of this sort of approach.

 

So I am very much hoping the club is in discussions in the background with various targets and we''re now aiming at "realistic" signings, not Italian internationals (unless they make it very clear the player is willing to move to City !).  We know City as a club is generally good at keeping schtum on transfer dealings until the deal is done and leaks normally come from the other end, so if they''re also tight-lipped we don''t hear about it until it''s pretty much agreed.  And that''s a good thing.  But I can''t deny I am worried at the moment.

[/quote]ICF, there was a quote from Neil the other day which I can''t find offhand but it was to the effect that negotiations were going well for their primary objectives and there was no need YET [my emphasis] to switch to alternatives. Which very much suggested he understood it was vital not to repeat the mistake (if that is what happened before, as I think it was) of continuing to chase impossible targets until it was too late. For example, I suspect we may now give up (or even have given up) on Naismith.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Trying to do these sums can be fun but we don''t really know what we are adding up. I would guess that the miraculous increase in Grabbans value would be at least partly down to a sell on clause we had with Bournemouth. Having said that we surely still must have some budget to spend.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Trying to do these sums can be fun but we don''t really know what we are adding up. I would guess that the miraculous increase in Grabbans value would be at least partly down to a sell on clause we had with Bournemouth. Having said that we surely still must have some budget to spend.[/quote]

What sell on clause?

We activated his min fee release clause when we bought him.

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="whoareyou"]There is something seriously wrong within the club if we don''t have money to spend this window.

We sold Grabban and Johnson for approx £13 million and the only major expenditure has been on Brady, Pinto and Jarvis. We should still have received more than we have spent this season to date ( or at least have broken even) without dipping into this season''s budget.[/quote]And Dorrans (£3m-plus). And whatever (£1m)? we are paying for Mbokani for a season. Roughly speaking, going on headline figures, those five players have cost us £15m-plus, which is more than the £13m-£14m we have received for Johnson and Grabban.[/quote]And a little bit received for Elliott Bennett, plus presumably loan fees (albeit modest) received for Hooper, Turner and RVW. If our net spend is in the red rather than the black, it''s negligible.Assuming that our transfer activity thus far this season balances out to zero, how much do you think the board will be willing to invest (net figure, factoring in anything else received this window for Lafferty/Hooper/Whittaker/anyone else who leaves?). Just interested to know if you have a figure in mind.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Tetteys Jig"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Trying to do these sums can be fun but we don''t really know what we are adding up. I would guess that the miraculous increase in Grabbans value would be at least partly down to a sell on clause we had with Bournemouth. Having said that we surely still must have some budget to spend.[/quote] What sell on clause? We activated his min fee release clause when we bought him.[/quote]

Yes, I think the miraculous increase in Grabban''s value is not because we got him cheap - we paid a pretty sensible price for him (Jerome was cheaper and is far better IMO).  It comes down to the old supply and demand.  We would only sell at a high price and B''mth, with their wealthy backer, clearly have money to burn.  Hopefully they will find they have not spent the money wisely...

 

And Purple - I agree, he''s making the right noises.  I hope we see some progress on a CB signing over the next week.  I will continue to worry though.  But that''s life as a City fan, if anyone wants it to be like fantasy football you''re not supporting the right club.

 

Having said that, you look back at the state of the club and the sort of strikers we''ve been playing with for much of the past 20 years, and realise it''s a great time to be a City fan.  Keith Scott was a low point for me.