Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Coneys boots

Connection to bowkett?

Recommended Posts

Are there dots to be joined between the loss of Adam and the loss of Bowkett? Is this also linked to the arrival of Balls?

Cannot help but think there is much going on behind the scenes which we are not party to.

Has the board effectively split- with the old guard refusing to step aside and let things move forward- hence the bringing in of nephews and chums (balls) which made the footballing people jump ship? Or am I jumping to conclusions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a lot happened at board level in the six months following the play off final. Every change was heralded with the usual negative reactions on here and seen as a step back. yet it appears we also went into the January window with more financial freedom. Can that also be a step back and a negative thing?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m sorry, I only managed to get to "linked to the arrival of balls" and started laughing

Share this post


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

There was a lot happened at board level in the six months following the play off final. Every change was heralded with the usual negative reactions on here and seen as a step back. yet it appears we also went into the January window with more financial freedom. Can that also be a step back and a negative thing?

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Nutty, sorry but you were way off beam there - financial freedom? We only spent a net £3-4 million in January, after a break-even summer market! In my view we have continued to spend as a Championship club and that''s why we are going back there. Still, we will be a very rich championship club, for the next CEO to squander the lot in double quick time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your financial analysis is straight out of La La Land Shef Canary.

In the January window we brought Naismith for £8.5 million, Klose for £7.6 million Pinto for £2.2 million and Maddison for £2.5 million. Plus Adams and Godfrey for smaller sums, perhaps £100,000 down for the two. Total £20.9 million.

We sold Grabban for £7 million, Hooper for £3 million and Elliot Bennet for about £100,000. Total £10.1 million.

Net spend £10.8 million.

(All figures as reported at the time).

If you then add in signing on fees, agents fees and the increased wages of the players we''ve signed you get to a figure far far bigger than the net £10.8 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay Thirsty, accept that £11 million was closer to the mark, but for the whole season £11 Million is still way too low for a club with any Premiership ambition and the TV money to support the player budget. Given parachute payments next season if we don''t have net spend of £11 million to get out of the Championship and start preparation for the season after, again in my view that will be too little (check Middlesbrough and Rhodes £9m,, Burnley and Gray, £6M, for evidence of what it takes).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point I was making was that either these players relented to fit in with our shackles or those shackles were lifted to enable them to sign. In most of our realistic targets transfer fees aren''t the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]You''ve forgotten Bradley Johnson, thirsty liz.[/quote]When you factor that in we''ve a net spend of almost diddly-squat.With our Board''s obsession in balancing the books come hell or high water it''s no wonder we''ll be heading to Burton Albion next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]You''ve forgotten Bradley Johnson, thirsty liz.[/quote]When you factor that in we''ve a net spend of almost diddly-squat.With our Board''s obsession in balancing the books come hell or high water it''s no wonder we''ll be heading to Burton Albion next season.[/quote]No. We sold Johnson, Grabban and Hooper for a total of perhaps £18m (and in all cases those were players we were apparently very happy to sell).We bought Dorrans, Brady, Pinto, Jarvis (who has got left out of calculations), Klose and Naismith for around £32m, giving a net spend of £14m. And that leaves out however much some of the younger players, such as Maddison, cost, and the cost of getting Mbokani and (initially) Jarvis on loan.The board undoubtedly provided the money for McNally and Neil to spend. If the footballing board, headed by McNally, missed out on targets in the summer and had to play catch-up in the winter, and if some of those players brought in have not lived up to expectations, that was not the fault of the owners and the other unpaid directors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was the fault of someone that we entered the season with the same defence that wasn''t all that great in the Championship....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the same token something must have happened for the three players to sign in January. What changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]By the same token something must have happened for the three players to sign in January. What changed?[/quote]

We pulled our collective fingers out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it could be that King. But that would still have meant players like Naismith, Klose and Pinto suddenly liking those fingers. Very little changed at the club between the end of May and the end of August. Then between the two transfer windows there were lots of changes. I claim no inside knowledge of why those changes happened but those changes seemed to mean we could suddenly attract players like Naismith, Klose and Pinto.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But had we have carried on as we did in the summer it wouldn''t have done.

 

Why could we suddenly attract the players in January? Even from a precarious league position. There must be a reason. What suddenly enabled Klose, Pinto and Naismith''s signatures?  I''m just a bog cleaner but I can see there must have been a change. Should be easier for you highflyers[;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That''s what I thought. And that decision to pay more money would have come at the same time there were changes in the boardroom. Now I don''t know if those two things are connected but I do think it would take a bigger leap of faith to suggest they weren''t.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point I am making is that the changes in the boardroom could be connected to the changes in policy that enabled us to sign three players of a greater quality than we could sign in the summer. It could also have been coincidence. Quite a coincidence though don''t you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes, it seemed to be talked about at the time that Balls coming in might see a change in philosophy about how we spent money.

It unfortunately looks to be too little too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]The point I am making is that the changes in the boardroom could be connected to the changes in policy that enabled us to sign three players of a greater quality than we could sign in the summer. It could also have been coincidence. Quite a coincidence though don''t you think?[/quote]Nutty, almost certainly that we spent a record amount (for a winter window) on transfers was due to having failed to spend all we aimed to in the summer. The money was sloshing around, and I suspect that would have happened without any boardroom changes.What I do wonder (based on Parma''s figures reposted today) is whether we relaxed the previously tight rein on wages to help attract those players, and if so whether that is a temporary move or a sign of a more permanent change of policy.When the accounts land in October I would head straight for the figures on staff costs and player wages and compare them to last season and to the PL season before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shackles on wages and maybe even relegation clauses were what I was alluding to. It''s all conjecture on my part but that''s all any of us have. Whatever the reason players suddenly were able to sign for us that appeared to turn us down in the summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]The success of the January window only really serves to show how poorly we performed in the summer.[/quote]

 

We performed better on the pitch before the January window, isn''t that what counts?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It will certainly be interesting to be able to add a bit more meat to these bones - "NORWICH City are delighted to announce a

historic and substantial deal
confirming leading bookmakers Coral as the

Club''s official betting partner and new sponsors of the Barclay Stand

at Carrow Road.

"
[url]http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/norwich-city-coral-official-betting-partner-2585051.aspx[/url]

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...