So

[lappinitup 629]

The wallet IS empty......Rob Butler

‏@BobRutler

AN says every spare penny possible has been spent on players. There isn''t an amount left sitting in kitty.

Rob Butler

‏@BobRutler

Alex Neil: "We''ve got no money left over at the club to spend on transfers that we''re sitting on"

Proves finally what a successful transfer window it was. I''m glad we kept our star players rather than gamble on new ones. It will be worth keeping an eye on Villa who did the polar opposite to us.

It will be interesting to see if our team with it''s "poor old owners" can compete with Villa''s "shiny new mega-rich foreign" investor.

Bring it on. [<:o)]

[AJ 1,218]

I wonder how much truth is in that, I know last time we got relegated we were very tight on finances but as we went straight back up we could spend the cash on Klose and Brady etc.

I would imagine we have a bit of money in the club just in case we don''t go up this year. At least, you''d hope so!

Makes me wonder if we''ll be able to do any business come Jan without selling someone first though?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="AJ"]Makes me wonder if we''ll be able to do any business come Jan without selling someone first though?[/quote]I think the parachute payments are paid in stages, it just depends whether the wages gobble them up. I hope there''ll be some left over.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

If true, that would mean after buying Oliveira, we''d only have been able to buy another striker if we''d sold someone, like say Naismith.  Seems plausible to me, I''m not convinced we''ve spent our money in the wisest way if it''s true though.  Basically we''ve ended up overloaded in midfield & making loans out, while being unquestionably light up front.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"Every spare penny possible" ie. budgeting?

Saving some for a rainy day?

Parachutes in instalments and potential £10-£15m for Brady an insurance policy?

[Lessingham Canary 99]

I think this comment was very much around managing fans expectations, if we are in touching distance come xmas, he will find money to sign the right player for area''s of most concern eg; striker, defender etc, if we are sitting long way off, there will be no money in the kitty.

[CanaryOne 0]

You always hear how wealthy the relegated clubs are with their parachute payments , they can cherry pick all the talent on offer . Not at Norwich City it seems , just where has all the money gone that we cannot even afford a decent striker ? . Robert Chase could learn a thing or two from this lot .

[Diane 500]

But the good news is we haven''t got any debt plus we''ve kept all our best players despite people saying we would lose 5/6.

Also I remember Steve Stone saying at the forum we get the parachute payments in instalments plus of course we have several players who are worth a few million should we wish to make changes in January

[hogesar 9,611]

[quote user="CanaryOne"]You always hear how wealthy the relegated clubs are with their parachute payments , they can cherry pick all the talent on offer . Not at Norwich City it seems , just where has all the money gone that we cannot even afford a decent striker ? . Robert Chase could learn a thing or two from this lot .[/quote]

I think that was more relevant in the past, but not now that average championship sides are being bought my mega-billionaires.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

If money was limited twlobvious question arises.

Why has the club purchased so many attacking midfielders that we cannot hope to play them all and even have to send players perfectly capable for this division out on loan...and didn''t purchase up front where were are chronically short

And why did we pretend to be in for McCormack?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="CanaryOne"]Robert Chase could learn a thing or two from this lot .[/quote]Exactly CanaryOne. [Y]How to hold on to your best players and not be forced by Barclays bank to sell them.I knew you''d come round one day. [:D]

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="lappinitup"]The wallet IS empty......Rob Butler

‏@BobRutler

AN says every spare penny possible has been spent on players. There isn''t an amount left sitting in kitty.

Rob Butler

‏@BobRutler

Alex Neil: "We''ve got no money left over at the club to spend on transfers that we''re sitting on"

Proves finally what a successful transfer window it was. I''m glad we kept our star players rather than gamble on new ones. It will be worth keeping an eye on Villa who did the polar opposite to us.

It will be interesting to see if our team with it''s "poor old owners" can compete with Villa''s "shiny new mega-rich foreign" investor.

Bring it on. [<:o)]

[/quote]

We can''t compete with our owners. Two relegations in two calendar years proved that. What further proof do you need? How we perform compared to Villa is a complete red herring.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Big Vince"]

We can''t compete with our owners.[/quote]

I''ve always known that I can''t compete with our owners, it''s nice to hear you admit that you can''t as well.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

It must be frustrating to have an owner who''s got the money but isn''t willing to spend it, eh Vince .  Mind you, maybe the distraction of being worried about extradition to a Brazilian jail is worse than the distraction for a player who''s the subject of a bit of speculation during the transfer window.

[morty 0]

I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?

[Hairy Canary 667]

Borrow it, with the expectation to pay it back once someone is sold, this window or the next?

[hogesar 9,611]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]

Yep.

[morty 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]Ah you could well be right[Y]

[morty 0]

How much did we actually pay for Pritchard?

[hogesar 9,611]

Think it was around 8 mill? I presume as well, that wages wise Pritchard and Oliveira is quite a substantial amount!

[Jools 584]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]Ah you could well be right[Y][/quote]Blimey! Bit slow on the uptake [:|]

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Jools"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]Ah you could well be right[Y][/quote]Blimey! Bit slow on the uptake [:|][/quote]Probably side tracked thinking about Curly Wurly comparisons.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jools"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]Ah you could well be right[Y][/quote]Blimey! Bit slow on the uptake [:|][/quote]I have been at sea for 6 weeks, I couldn''t keep as close an eye on transfer dealings as I would have liked to.That okay with you?

[Jools 584]

[quote user="TCCANARY"][quote user="Jools"][quote user="morty"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]Ah you could well be right[Y][/quote]Blimey! Bit slow on the uptake [:|][/quote]Probably side tracked thinking about Curly Wurly comparisons.

[/quote]I see no reason why that thread should''ve been pulled -- I posted it late in the evening, came to read any replies the next day and it was gone [:O]

[norfolkngood 1,086]

the wallet is empty for transfers i have told some people that via PM

That is where an Really messed up instead of spending 8 mil on a striker or strikers he spent it on Pritchard good player but we needed a striker more and knowing we only had that to spend

OR did someone say to AN you can have Pritchard and a striker but money was pulled ?

thats the bit i do not know or understand why buy pritchard ?? why say in the press strikers were coming ?

somethin fishy cor on bor ! ??

[shefcanary 2,377]

I too am puzzled and can only reconcile the position as such.

1. We will eventually receive healthy payments as part of the "parachute" settlement.

2. As others have said the money is paid for by instalments.

3. It would be perfectly acceptable for the club to pay for a marquee signing by instalments as well.

4. Or the club could borrow the full fee up front secured against the future parachute income.

5. However for 3. because other clubs were aware of the parachute payments they insisted on a full fee up front and would not negotiate an alternative payment pattern which they probably would have been prepared to by other clubs (i.e. Forest and Assombolonga I''ve no doubt).

6. and the bank would not advance a loan because no-one from the club was prepared to guarantee such loans should the money loaned be squandered elsewhere (Smith & jones just don''t have the funds available to write such a guarantee).

So what you say?

Well this issue of the pot being empty is a short term thing. The cash will build back up as the season progresses. By January the pot will be replenished and there will be more talk of us being in the market for so and so again. Can we hope for a striker of the quality we so desperately want then?

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="morty"]I have it on good authority that we were willing to spend 9 million on McCormack.I wonder where they were getting that money from then, if theres none left now?[/quote]Didn''t it go on Pritchard instead Morty?[/quote]

Yep.

[/quote]

We acted very quickly to get Pritchard once we knew McCormack was going elsewhere. Quick enough for him to make a u-turn whilst on his way to Brighton.

It seems any signings would only be made if we sold. By holding on to Naismith and Brady, we weren''t able to buy anyone. Question is, who would we have bought who would be better than them? I accept Naismith is out of form for us at the moment, but most teams would be really pleased to have those two in their team.

[Captain Birdseye 0]

I have never been so ashamed of our club as I am after this press conference.

No way the wonga has all been spent we are basically net neutral on spending with the sale of Redmond

Back to the days of prudence with ambition

How much longer must we endure the unendurable

[nutty nigel 7,506]

We had a net spend. You can see ours and others on here

Newcastle had a net gain of 30m.