Dean Coneys boots 1,400 Posted May 9, 2016 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
Dean Coneys boots 1,400 Posted May 9, 2016 Apologies my spellcheck changed DM to Adam!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
Buh 0 Posted May 9, 2016 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
shefcanary 2,402 Posted May 9, 2016 [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
Thirsty Lizard 3,163 Posted May 9, 2016 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
shefcanary 2,402 Posted May 9, 2016 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
norfolkbroadslim 223 Posted May 9, 2016 You''ve forgotten Bradley Johnson, thirsty liz. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkbroadslim 223 Posted May 9, 2016 Apologies, just re-read and you were talking about Jan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
......and Smith must score. 1,342 Posted May 9, 2016 [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
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted May 9, 2016 [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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 9, 2016 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
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 9, 2016 [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
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 9, 2016 The success of the January window only really serves to show how poorly we performed in the summer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 9, 2016 I''d assume deciding to pay more money and the realisation we''d f*cked up other the summer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 9, 2016 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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 9, 2016 I''m really not sure what point you''re making here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 10, 2016 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
king canary 7,605 Posted May 10, 2016 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
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted May 10, 2016 [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
nutty nigel 7,533 Posted May 10, 2016 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
TCCANARY 263 Posted May 10, 2016 [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
norfolkbroadslim 223 Posted May 10, 2016 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