Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

The Wallet Is Empty.

Recommended Posts

I know i will be jumped on straight away but i was told yesterday from a source VERY well connected inside the club that we gambled all our available money in the January window on signings, fees and wages in an attempt to stay up and that there is no money whatsover to spend this summer until we sell hence Redmond and now Brady going. At least two others Bennett and Ollsen are trying to be shifted.Also Steve Clarke the Villa number two is sniffing around our latest chief scout Tony Spearing trying to re-unite him from their days together at Reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What doesn''t add up from that is Norwich made bids of around £12m for strikers in the Jan window which never came off. So no way Norwich spent ''all the available money''.

Anyway, Norwich have been relegated - were people realistically expecting a net spend on transfers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You won''t get jumped on from me as I''ve asked this question many times!

It''s no suprise but we can shift a couple and keep Klose, Pinto, Wes, Howson & Tettey with Maddison and the other youngsters we have a good strong squad with a balanced mix of youth and experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not jumping TIL, but didn''t somebody (?) say fairly recently that there was money in the bank?

Had AN been misled when he said that he had no need to sell.

Besides that, we get £36m in parachutes and look like pocketing in excess of £20 by selling Redmond and Brady. Two sales we could not seemingly have prevented.

Add in season ticket sales and new sponsorships and things cannot be THAT bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it come as a surprise to you that a consequence of relegation is that we have less money?

We didn''t have a lot when we were in the Premier League so having to sell players before we can buy should not be a surprise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]What doesn''t add up from that is Norwich made bids of around £12m for strikers in the Jan window which never came off. So no way Norwich spent ''all the available money''.

Anyway, Norwich have been relegated - were people realistically expecting a net spend on transfers?[/quote]So you think we have £12 million still in the wallet then ? We spent over £20 million on Naismith,Klose, Pinto and the loan of Bamfield so i am interested to know who these strikers were we bid for and were unsuccessful in getting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn''t come as a great shock- last time we were relegated we only spent about as much as we made through sales and I expected it to be similar this year. As long as we''re not in a situation that means money from sales won''t mainly available to spend I wouldn''t be concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think there is £12m to spend, but as Norwich were making bids on strikers right up to the end of the window it is clear all the available cash in January wasn''t spent. The list of strikers is long, from Afobe to Zaza, via Gayle, Haller and others. Impossible to know which are real and which were rumour (although we do know the Haller one was genuine and rumoured to be worth £8m).

We also know there was money available as AN said of the Maddison deal that Norwich could sign him as they were pursuing something else that fell through - and he wanted some of the money not spend ''put to good use''. This doesn''t sound like a club who were spending their last pennies in desperation.

As I said in my first post, Norwich were relegated so will have to recoup more from transfers than they spend. I don''t however believe Norwich are up against the wall money wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But last season these sources said we were obsessed with balancing the books and that we hadn''t pushed the boat out at all, simply spent the money we recouped from Johnson and Grabban?

Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The psychology of these threads where people pretend to be in the know and make up this stuff is interesting. Looks like inclusion issues from a traumatic childhood resurfacing.

I would treat any thread where the source isn''t named as highly dubious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McNally was known for trying to keep a tight ship financially and it was a bit of a surprise to see us spend quite a bit in January.  It was a pleasant surprise, to no avail of course, but I wonder if it was against the advice of McNally and as said by the op "a gamble", something McNally was not known for.....so could that account for his resignation?  After all, part of our success under him was keeping the finances under control.  Funny that suddenly spending a lot of money co-incided with Ed Balls coming to the club........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was anyone expecting to spend more than the amount taken in from the inevitable sales of Brady and Redmond ... c.£20m?

For me this window is most about keeping Naismith, Tettey, Ruddy, Howson, Jerome, Hoolahan, Pinto etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been saying it for weeks we I don''t think we wil spend much more than 4-6 million after players go.

To be honest we don''t need to, we have a really strong squad if we can keep, Wes, Ruddy, Rudd, Pinto, Klose, Howson, Tettey, Jerome signed up, Jarvis, Naismith, Martin, Bennett, Whitts, Bassong, Vadis & Dorrans.

Let Laffs, RVW, Olsson, Brady go then add Tofollo, Morris, Murphy twins and Thompson.

We really only need a couple more young hungry players to have a real go this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not too worried. We always expected to lose players and a quick bit of fag packet maths leads me to believe we spent roughly 6 million more than we received in transfers last time we went down.

We wasted that extra with the large fees (At least 6, maybe 8 million) for Lafferty and Vadis last time so if we assume we won''t make another couple of signings as poor as them this time we''re kinda starting from the same base as last time financially

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What fees are you attributing to players if you think we spend £6m net on signings after the last relegation?

If the reports that Snodgrass and Fer were sold for £15m between them and Pilkington was sold for roughly £1m. Then that would come out to spending £22m on players overall which seems massively high to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We also got some cash for Surman and there was talk about a decently sized loan fee from St Etienne for RVW.

I was under the impression we made a small profit on transfers last year but reports can vary. I remember hearing £3m for Lafferty, £3m for Grabban, £2m for Jerome, £3m for Vadis, £1m for Miqel (!) and then some others although reports of those fees vary wildly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I should very much hope that the wallet is near to empty and that we have spent to our limit in an attempt to stay in the PL. If it came out that we had £20 or £30 million left in the pot then there would quite rightly be uproar on here.Even if we have overspent then that would have been a good strategy too knowing that we could move on the assets if we were relegated and get the outlay back.We will not lose players because of lack of cash, we will lose players because we were relegated and players want to play at the highest level they can and secure the best financial deal they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the gossip and tittle tattle is true it will please those who said we were too obsessed with being debt free and should gamble with money we don''t have. That is if the reality hasn''t changed their minds sort of like brexit has done. If it''s false then they can still blame our relegation on being obsessed with being debt free.

So it''s a win/win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''d rather we are still stable financially and gamble with money we can afford to lose than go OTT trying to sign players.

Agree with Molly, it shows we gave it our best shot to stay up, now we adjust to the championship, we still have a very good mixed squad with a couple additions we should give it a good go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we didn''t bid much till we sold redmond i think thats the money we have to play with

any sales will be used to balance books and buy players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"]I know i will be jumped on straight away but i was told yesterday from a source VERY well connected inside the club that we gambled all our available money in the January window on signings, fees and wages in an attempt to stay up and that there is no money whatsover to spend this summer until we sell hence Redmond and now Brady going. At least two others Bennett and Ollsen are trying to be shifted.Also Steve Clarke the Villa number two is sniffing around our latest chief scout Tony Spearing trying to re-unite him from their days together at Reading.[/quote]I don''t have the exact figures to hand, but over the summer and winter windows our net spending (bearing in mind the large amount we gotr back for some players) was not obviously excessive. A guess - I don''t have the time to check - would be that our net spend was no higher than in the summer and winter windows in Hughton''s second season.Whether we broke our wage structure to try to stay up, and so have hobbled ourselves, is another question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]I know i will be jumped on straight away but i was told yesterday from a source VERY well connected inside the club that we gambled all our available money in the January window on signings, fees and wages in an attempt to stay up and that there is no money whatsover to spend this summer until we sell hence Redmond and now Brady going. At least two others Bennett and Ollsen are trying to be shifted.Also Steve Clarke the Villa number two is sniffing around our latest chief scout Tony Spearing trying to re-unite him from their days together at Reading.[/quote]I don''t have the exact figures to hand, but over the summer and winter windows our net spending (bearing in mind the large amount we gotr back for some players) was not obviously excessive. A guess - I don''t have the time to check - would be that our net spend was no higher than in the summer and winter windows in Hughton''s second season.Whether we broke our wage structure to try to stay up, and so have hobbled ourselves, is another question.[/quote]Of course the pound''s post-Brexit fall against the euro means continental players will now be much more expensive. Perhaps that was was this senior figure was talking about...[:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As Bethnal and Purple have both intimated, this is true and not true.

A significant outlay was made in January, with investments in players and wages that were intended for Premier League football. A necessary and calculated gamble was taken against a backdrop of a good manager, a reasonable league position, an opportunity for high returns and a relatively stable squad. It was more aggressive than previously, though not without reason and context.

The boardroom time has inevitably changed and there is more of a recognition that variables in the competition - and the artificial benefits that some of them have - means that the previously accepted back-stop model of yo-yo, too-good-for-the-championship via stable, organic development is not now such a clear safety net model as it was perceived to be previously.

The money was spent in January and the ongoing commitment to wages is often far more significant that headline transfer fees.

To retain Naismith and Klose - for example - means to continue to accept the exposure to their full contracts and the amortisation of their fees across that contract. A total outlay of c£25m (say).

The expendable departures of Redmond and Brady fill some of the immediate cash hole disparity between Prem and Champs funding, whilst the club absorbs the risk of holding on to high value players (again amortising the depreciation of their assets and inherent risks in this). For fans to portray this as ''lacking in ambition'' is to grossly misunderstand the realities of running the Company.

We have been contextually ambitious and if we go - arguably - backwards a little (vid Redmond and Brady), this will nonetheless remain ambitious in the context of both the sporting level we find ourselves at and in terms of the massive revenue drop the club must now negotiate.

Parma

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  

×