Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bradwell canary

Has anyone worked out.......

Recommended Posts

What has been our net spend in the summer, and winter windows.

My guess is that as it stands we are the lowest spenders in the PL.

My bet is that some of the maths experts out there

will already know.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only people who will know are McNally and Ed Balls.

Apart from then no one knows how much Norwich actually paid and received for players. The football leaks website that has been gaining so much press recently shows just how far off the mark the figure reported in the press tend to be.

Stop obsessing about spend or net spend and just look at who has been signed and sold and whether it improves the team or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bradwell canary"]What has been our net spend in the summer, and winter windows.

My guess is that as it stands we are the lowest spenders in the PL.

My bet is that some of the maths experts out there

will already know.......[/quote]Or if you want to look at it positively, we may have done the best business. Anyway, just read Bethnal''s answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bradwell you must not ask these type of questions. I posted a similar one and got told off by the forum police.

We are only trying to cause problems by raising these sensitive issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I presume people only ask these questions to be trouble makers. The information isn''t hard to find out at all if they really wanted to know. Presuming they can handle doing a few plus and minus sums that is...

What does it matter anyway? Does the fact Southampton spent £4m (allegedly) on Austin when Grabban cost Bouremouth £8m (allegedly) mean Grabban is twice the player? Does it mean Bouremouth are twice as ambitious?

You might as well ask how many more throw-ins Norwich had on the left hand side of the pitch compared to the right hand side. It would provide as much, if not a little more, information about the club. At least the numbers could be accurately collected - unlike transfer fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Bradwell canary"]What has been our net spend in the summer, and winter windows. My guess is that as it stands we are the lowest spenders in the PL. My bet is that some of the maths experts out there will already know.......[/quote]

 

In the current window we''ve spent more than all of the teams above us in the table (as it stands).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ve been told our net spend has been zero this season as last year McNally invested in washable and reusable nets which are washed in house by Doris at Colney and hung up to dry at Carrow Road before matchday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this question comes up a lot because it looks as if we are the lowest net spenders in the league, however whats important is simply the players who we''ve brought in and who''ve gone.

Have we improved the team? - yes

Have we done enough in this window to stay up? - ummm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''ll make the same point on this thread as I did on the other one.

Surely the relevance about our transfers is the fact that we have removed 3 from the wage bill that wouldn''t have played much and replaced them with players that will play and want to be here.

In my book that has bugger all relevance on net spend or even nett spend and is good business sense.

IF the point is do we have money available for more as we haven''t spent much more than we have received, then surely the answer to that question has to be yes. IF indeed that is the point to people keep asking about net/nett spend.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s certainly of interest to me as it:

Gives an indication of how much more we can invest in the market this window without accumulating any debt.

Good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Broadstairs -

We would only know how much more there is to invest if we knew all the information regarding wage commitments and current wage budget, as well as knowing how much has been spent on transfers, broken down by all the clauses and repayment schedules etc etc and how much the club have received for players, also broken down into the finer details.

We would also need to know how much existing liability is remaining player purchase (which could go back 3 or 4 seasons) and how much Norwich are due from previous player sales.

There is no way of knowing all these details - so all we could ever end up with is a guess, a guess made by people who know next to nothing about the financial ins and outs of Norwich City.

(For what it is worth, these purchases will have almost certainly have put Norwich into ''debt'' but this will be covered by the Prem League payments the club will receive for the rest of the season and then future guaranteed income, whether that is parachute payments or more lovely Prem money).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such good point from Rich T, many guys ideas of how good a window is on who we sign, but of course a window is all about ins and outs to. One could try and figure out the signings on fees of in / out guys but the wage side it is just as relevant. Seeing E. Benno, Hooper and Grabban go has been good business, for the reasons Rich said. If we could shift Whittaker to this window it would be  good business. I suspect, despite it seeming as if we splashed out on Klose and Naismith, taking into account wages to, Mr. McNally has done his usual canny business dealings behind the scenes to have given City, financially speaking, a sound window

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly Essjayess, agree re Whittaker especially as we now have Pinto.

Add in that Jarvis has signed on permanently we actually have now 4 that want to and will play (although you can argue he was already here).

As far as I''m concerned any money we can get for deadwood is a bonus and bringing in ones that will play is always the priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]It''s certainly of interest to me as it:

Gives an indication of how much more we can invest in the market this window without accumulating any debt.

Good question.[/quote]Why is there this pre-occupation with debt ?No one is suggesting we pawn all the family silver to try to stay in this League but we musn''t cut our nose off to spite our face. To stay even reasonably competitive requires spending a reasonable amount of money.It will be a shame if we''re starting next season in the Championship because the Board were paranoid about balancing the books all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I''m concerned, net spending doesn''t mean much. We''ve got rid of Grabban, Hooper, E Bennett-have I missed anyone else? Players who weren''t getting a game for us. Yes we needed to get players in, but offloading the superfluous was just as important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Broadstairs -

We would only know how much more there is to invest if we knew all the information regarding wage commitments and current wage budget, as well as knowing how much has been spent on transfers, broken down by all the clauses and repayment schedules etc etc and how much the club have received for players, also broken down into the finer details.

We would also need to know how much existing liability is remaining player purchase (which could go back 3 or 4 seasons) and how much Norwich are due from previous player sales.

There is no way of knowing all these details - so all we could ever end up with is a guess, a guess made by people who know next to nothing about the financial ins and outs of Norwich City.

(For what it is worth, these purchases will have almost certainly have put Norwich into ''debt'' but this will be covered by the Prem League payments the club will receive for the rest of the season and then future guaranteed income, whether that is parachute payments or more lovely Prem money).[/quote]Bethnal, all of that is true. But even though the net spend figures (such as the one I have been updating on the transfer window thread) are crude in the extreme, and I have happily acknowledged as much, they do indicate in broad terms whether the club has spent less than it has received, as much, or more. The accounts give global figures for the summer but not the winter window.And given the long-running debate here about prudence versus ambition, with frequent allegations that the board have not adequately backed whoever the manager is financially, that is a very useful indication. The loudest sound on this message-board this window has been of that particular fox being shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parma made a good post about this the other day. Cant remember what thread it was on. He pointed out the whole value of each player and how much it costs to replace players from the bottom of the squad pecking order to the top.

 

When we improve the quality of the squad the difference in cost would be far greater than the net spend in fees. As in all walks of life a football club can only spend it''s income once.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BroadstairsR wrote:

It''s certainly of interest to me as it: Gives an indication of how much more we can invest in the market this window without accumulating any debt. Good question.

"Why is there this pre-occupation with debt ?

No one is suggesting we pawn all the family silver to try to stay in this League but we musn''t cut our nose off to spite our face. To stay even reasonably competitive requires spending a reasonable amount of money.

It will be a shame if we''re starting next season in the Championship because the Board were paranoid about balancing the books all the time"

No pre-occupation with debt, especially as we have Sky money coming in. I just get the impression that the Board are not willing to stretch expenditure too far above income(s) and thus my mention that net spend could well have a relevance to any further major outlay this window.

We are this leagues poorest club and the Chumps is littered with teams with huge debts. I would not wish us to become another.

Hence ins and outs have to balance to a certain extent (I said ''certain'') Of course we can spend more than we get in due to tv money, but income from sales is important too.

I realise all the reasons why net spend cannot ever be assessed accurately, but if we do land Gayle then it will be partly accounted for by the Grabban windfall surely? Otherwise we could just be another club living on borrowed time.

The rewards of staying up justify risk, but ''risk'' works both ways. The sheet anchor that is RVW (£11m and rising?) proves this.

The need to take into account ''outs'' is vital to a Club in our current position when considering spending vast amounts on ''ins.''

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...