Klose

[ron obvious 1,502]

Klose really is a bit of an enigma. He obviously has talent, but seems to be completely jaded in the Champs. Can he be motivated again?

Best leave it to Farke I think.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@donkey dangler

No, I''m not struggling to understand anything, thank you. But I don''t have the tunnel vision that apparently can''t see anything other than the end of parachute payments come June 2018. Has it occurred to you that if we are promoted next season we will have no need of parachute payments, or that keeping Naismith and Klose might significantly improve our prospects of promotion? We are not Huddersfield, who started last season hoping simply to improve on the season before, and whose prospects for last season would not be hugely damaged by a complete rebuild of their seriously deficient squad. In contrast, it is completely realistic to think that we have a promotion campaign ahead of us, especially if we retain the players most capable of understanding and adapting to the methods of our new head coach. 

[Dorset Canary 0]

[quote user="Diane"]Bethnal - So what is the parachute payment for this year please, I know its our last one as we only got 2?

I found this which refers to Villa

Under the new system clubs will be paid Parachute Payments for three seasons following relegation, save for if they have only been in the Premier League for one season, when they will receive two years of Parachute Payments.

In season one, 2016-17, Villa would get £40 million

In season two, 2017-18, Villa would get £33 million

In season three, 2018-19, Villa would get £14 million.[/quote]Hi Dianne, are you asking the question why we only got two seasons payments?If yes it''s because we only managed to stay up for one season but Villa came down after a number of years in the Prem, hence getting the full three years worth of payments.I think we can find a suitable replacement for Klose should a decent offer comes in... Not worth keeping him in case we go up next year as he will be another year older then.Both Klose and Naismith were worth buying to try and stay up, they were clearly the best we could get in and no doubt we would have been kicking off if we hadn''t tried to stay up.The current board have excellent business knowledge and will do the very best they can to get us back in the Prem... They know it''s where we need to be and I''m excited with the changes, all looking positive to me!!! OTBC

[Mr Angry 1,561]

I think Diane wanted to know how much we receive, rather than why we only get 2 lots.

From what I''ve read, I think we miss out on the 3rd payment, so we will get £33 million this year.

[Dorset Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr Angry"]I think Diane wanted to know how much we receive, rather than why we only get 2 lots.

From what I''ve read, I think we miss out on the 3rd payment, so we will get £33 million this year.[/quote]

[Dorset Canary 0]

[quote user="Dorset Canary"][quote user="Mr Angry"]I think Diane wanted to know how much we receive, rather than why we only get 2 lots.

From what I''ve read, I think we miss out on the 3rd payment, so we will get £33 million this year.[/quote][/quote]Okay the thumbs up was meant to go in here lol

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

It is hard to say exactly how much Norwich will receive in parachute payments, as it is set out as a percentage monies Premier League teams receive at the beginning of a season.

In the first season after relegation a team gets a 55% share and the second season it is a 45% share. I have seen figures quoted showing a drop in the amount of money between year one and year two ranging from £7m - £12m. There is also the consideration in the reduction of other money from sponsorship and other commercial revenues (not to mention reduced intact from tickets).

It is also very true that the reduction from last season to the next one is a mere step, compared to the cliff edge facing Norwich at the end of the forthcoming season should the club not get promoted.

While I understand the rationale that Norwich have the best chance of promotion by keeping hold of players like Naismith and Klose, there is also the counter point that however hard it will be to sell those two this season, it will be doubly hard in a years time when they are both a year older.

The prospect of a 31 year old Naismith, with a year on his contract earning £40k a week and no parachute payment to cover it, is frankly, terrifying. If someone is prepared to take him then snap their hand off.

As for Klose, he has been living off 5 or so good games int he Prem all season and looked nothing better than an average Championship centre back. If someone in Germany is prepared to sign him for a couple of million then he should go. That fee and his wages can be spent a whole lot wiser. Webber managed to put together an impressive defensive partnership of Schindler and Hefele for a total cost of £1.8m - their joint wages is probably what Klose earns alone.

Sell him now, along with Naismith, Dorrans and pretty much anyone 30 and around.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I think that''s the point BYOG.  Klose is on a high salary and we have a reduced budget, but still substantial this year, while next year it is a huge drop.  We need to manage our resources carefully to give it a really good shot while we still have the ability to attract some good players in.

 

The new management team need to decide whether it''s worth having Klose or have the money we''d get from selling him to spend on other players (transfer fee + saving on wages), and I agree they could probably get a pair of CBs who would do a good job in the Champs for that, which would be good business.

Naismith is tricky because we''re going to get a minimal return from saving him, except possibly saving wages, but then his contribution has been minimal.  It''s exactly the same calculation but there may be more of an upside if they can get him playing to his potential, I''m unconvinced though.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

The thing is, the club don''t want to take the risk of having these players sitting there once the money stops. If Klose or Naismith was to do an ACL a month before the end of the season then the club is f*cked.

You ship them out with plenty of time to spare and also while the player''s value is at its maximum. If the club are going to have to let Naismith move without a fee this summer to get him off the books, next summer they will have to let him transfer without a fee and subsidise some of his wages. These risks just really aren''t worth taking for players who have been average at best.

[Coq au vin 0]

@ BYG I would agree with the above in the view this is a transitional season (17/18) with palns for longer term. In my humble opinion I do not see us getting further than the play offs, that''s not to say I don''t want us to go up but given the likely upheaval might be realistic to consider another Champ season.

[Woodman 92]

If we''re going to look at ageing / high earners as being those ''at risk'' of being sold, in addition to Klose and Naismith, we have a few others: McGovern, Jones, Dorrans, Jarvis, Tettey. And if we''re going to be really ruthless, Wes and Jerome would also come into consideration. 4 or 5 of them are ''squad'' players, so could go without an enormous impact on the first team.

Risky strategy in my opinion though, as Webber has spoken of needing to help Farke''s coaching team this morning (in terms of knowing the Championship - small pitch at Burton, small changing rooms at Leeds etc). Our experienced players can help with this too.

[Bonzo 198]

Klose went from hero to zero in a season. Last year we lacked a defensive coach and the whole team lacked defensive nous. This guy got blamed publically by AN and my guess is that this had a big impact on his confidence. This guy can be a prem quality superhero but he needs a manager who believes in him. If we get him playing right he''s one we''ll want to keep particularly if we get promoted. I don''t know what goes on behind the scenes maybe he wants out and if he does he should go but if he''s up for the fight the we should back him because he has talent. All the best Centre backs make mistakes and when they do it stands out more than for most other positions. I can''t think of one great CB who hasn''t made the odd howler.Even Stones get pilloried and yet someone is willing to pay £50m for him. It comes with the territory. Klose needs managing by someone who has both sensitivity and courage.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

As Bethnal eloquently pointed out:

"Webber isn''t afraid of making wholesale changes in a window. Last summer Huddersfield signed 15 players and sold/loaned out 18. I really wouldn''t be surprised if we saw changes of that level this summer. I also wouldn''t be at all surprised to see players fans feel we should keep being sold. I expect Webber is open to offers on literally everyone in our squad as he has faith in his own ability to find someone as good to replace them, but cheaper. That is what a good Sporting Director does. "

Whilst that may have worked for the Championship, the flip side to this is that Huddersfield now won''t make wholesale changes and they will really struggle next season.

IF, we do make a stab at getting back to the Prem, (and aiming to stay there) employing the same tactics as Huddersfield did would be disastrous. We are in a different situation to them - they were relegation candidates (and so had to try something different) whereas we are more likely to be at the upper end of the table, and in my opinion, that kind of turnaround is more likely to be counterproductive.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

Why do you think Huddersfield won''t make large changes again? They will need a certain amount of change as a lot of their key players are on loan.

Also wonder why you don''t think this approach would work for Norwich? Yes our squad is in a better position than Huddersfields was, but due to the ageing squad, money issues and lack of personnel in key areas, NOT making such large changes seems the bigger risk this summer.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]The thing is, the club don''t want to take the risk of having these players sitting there once the money stops. If Klose or Naismith was to do an ACL a month before the end of the season then the club is f*cked. You ship them out with plenty of time to spare and also while the player''s value is at its maximum. If the club are going to have to let Naismith move without a fee this summer to get him off the books, next summer they will have to let him transfer without a fee and subsidise some of his wages. These risks just really aren''t worth taking for players who have been average at best.[/quote]

 

Spot on.  I really hope that the contracts signed for Klose/Naismith were budgeted for on the basis of the parachute payments we could expect if relegated, and that other players have sensible relegation clauses so their wage costs have gone down to a level we can afford.

 

People need to understand that nowadays having a player signed to a long contract doesn''t make him automatically an asset, like it normally did in the past - it can be a real liability A(AKA a millstone around the club''s neck).  It obliges you to pay his wages for the contract and you can only get a transfer fee if someone else is willing to pay those wages and pay a fee to you on top, otherwise you''re stuck with him.  You''d have thought after our experiences with RVW, Lafferty etc that City fans would be well versed with this idea by now, but I''ve still seen comments about some of the players we released at the end of their contracts, that we should have got them to sign longer contracts so we could get transfer fees for them, when in reality that would probably have just meant we''d have been stuck paying their wages for longer when we didn''t want them.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

Bethnal:

If Huddersfield were to make large changes again, then they wouldn''t get 1st choice, as those type of players are more likely to go a perceived "established" prem club - and unlikely to take a chance with a potential relegation to their CV. So, they would end up with a lot of so called journeymen who are after a last pay packet.

As for why I don''t think it will work for us - if you remove 3 or 4 midfielders, then we don''t have that much of an ageing squad.

Our backline has RM at 31 and Klose at 29 (and this post subject is Klose).

Our midfield has 6 players 26 or younger. There seems to be general consensus that Jarvis, Naismith, Dorrans and Tettey, all in their 30''s, are possible candidates to go which leaves Wes, who at 35 seems to belie the rationale that once players hit 30, then they''re too old.

At 31 Cam is the oldest forward, yet probably put in one of the bigger shifts of the season.

So that leaves us with a sketchy backline, and a well stocked youthful midfield (but who would need some experienced and composed players - probably 2 out of Tettey, Dorrans and Naismith).

Hence my opinion that wholesale changes would in all likelihood be detrimental to the squad. However, having let 7 go already, I suspect 3 or 4 more to go will probably be nearer the mark (which after all, is still a substantial overhaul - not the 16 or so Huddersfield relinquished, but as I said earlier, we are in a different position to the one that Huddersfield was in)

[Woodman 92]

Very true - I think Alex Neil said that Bassong, Turner and Lafferty were all for sale, but that no one offered money for them, or, more pertinently, was prepared to pay the wages they were on (Lafferty to Leeds I believe?). So, we (and they!) were saddled with their contracts until they ran out.

There''s always some element of a gamble; I''m sure Klose and Naismith were signed with the expectation (hope?) that they would improve the team enough to survive. It might be that be that they wouldn''t agree to the relegation clause in their contract, but that our need was so great that we agreed to it (a gamble that ultimately failed). Who knows, we might have missed out on two or three superstars who refused a similar clause.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I find your assumptions about Huddersfield weird - that they would suddenly have to start signing journeymen. There promotion was based on shopping smarter than other Championship teams, for which the prime architect is now at Norwich. While Webber has gone I can''t see them suddenly changing tact and imagine they will soon announce a new Sporting Director who will be looking for further lessor know players to bring them forward again.

As for Norwich''s overhaul, I expect Webber to carry on his previous philosophy at Huddersfield to Norwich. He has already done that with the manager and I expect he will not have any qualms in letting players such as Howson, Klose, Dorrans or Martin go - should someone make the right offer, and I also expect the right offer may be significantly below what fans consider the right offer to be.

Overhaul will only be detrimental to Norwich''s squad if the replacements are of a poorer standard to the existing players, and with the likes of Klose or Naismith being the players mentioned I really don''t think it would take too much to replace them with something better.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

Perhaps we should agree to disagree - after all we live in an environment where everyone can have their opinion which fortunately doesn''t have to conform to everyone else''s - whether it''s considered weird or not.

Be fascinating to see the outcome next May

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Woodman"]Very true - I think Alex Neil said that Bassong, Turner and Lafferty were all for sale, but that no one offered money for them, or, more pertinently, was prepared to pay the wages they were on (Lafferty to Leeds I believe?). So, we (and they!) were saddled with their contracts until they ran out. There''s always some element of a gamble;

I''m sure Klose and Naismith were signed with the expectation (hope?) that they would improve the team enough to survive. It might be that be that they wouldn''t agree to the relegation clause in their contract, but that our need was so great that we agreed to it (a gamble that ultimately failed). Who knows, we might have missed out on two or three superstars who refused a similar clause.[/quote]

 

I think you''re right about the Klose/Naismith signings being a gamble to try to survive, which failed.

 

Actually I think it''s worse than that, because it looks to me like both players worked out that Alex Neil was out of his depth as a manager and lost faith in him, which in turn undermined his position and actually made things worse.  I''m thinking of Naismith''s comment about being unable to keep the lead against Liverpool when we had been 3-1 up and the general failure to fit him into our lineup in a productive way - (I wonder if it also didn''t help that he''d come across AN as a player in Scotland?).  Similarly with Klose, the fact that AN eventually was dropping him from the lineup last despite the decision to persuade him to stay after relegation.  This is just my speculation (I certainly don''t have any inside knowledge) but I find it plausible this was part of the problem last season - the squad as a whole seemed to lose faith in AN towards Christmas last year, then we had a bit of a revival when it became clear that he wasn''t going to be sacked any time soon, but not enough to achieve anything.

 

Of the two signings I feel Klose was at least a sensible signing which may have made a difference had he stayed fit for the Prem season.  Naismith was just a misconceived signing IMO.