Bradwell canary 109 Posted May 3, 2017 It seems that someone has to hugely at blame for the stupid wages being paid in the past.Nick Mashiter states that Mulumbu was on £40KLafferty £35K, and by all accounts Naismith is on £50K. But Ruddy is in the similar bracket.I find this unbelievable . Its a wonder we are not already broke.Furthermore none of them could even be considered 1st team regularsNo wonder Webber has axed them all.BUT WHO GAVE OUT SUCH CONTRACTS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted May 3, 2017 Those wages don''t sound massively out of line with other clubs in the Premier League.Mulumbu was a free transfer, so he would receive a larger wage to reflect the fact Norwich paid no fee. £50k for Naismith probably matched his wage at Everton. Lafferty''s is high, but it was for the season Norwich were in the Prem and probably represented him getting a large % bump up on promotion from the Championship. If Norwich unpaid on wages then they would miss out on players. At least Mulumbu was only on a two year deal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wings of a Sparrow 1,385 Posted May 3, 2017 Welcome to the Sky television era. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted May 3, 2017 The BT Sport Era.Although it is the massive rise in non-domestic TV rights that have prompted the latest spike in money and therefore wages.The next deal will be even bigger considering the weak pound and overseas players will demand bigger wages to match what they can earn in Euros (or dollars, yuan or yen etc). And when overseas players start to earn more, then domestic players will also want a pay rise to match. The richer the league gets, the more they spend in wages. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Great Drinkell 50 Posted May 3, 2017 And this is why, I''m not renewing my season ticket not because I''ve gone off Norwich City, but the wages for very average players are ridiculous.I can invest my money better elsewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SwindonCanary 455 Posted May 3, 2017 Are those wages after the reduction when getting relegated ? It''s no wonder the wage bill needs reducing but I''m sure we could sell players like Naismith for a fee rather than just letting him go. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557 Posted May 3, 2017 The figures Mashiter mentioned were while Norwich was in the Prem - so would have all been subject to 20% - 25% reductions on relegation.I can''t see who could afford a fee and meet Naismith''s wage demands to be honest. He''ll either be at Norwich for another 2 years, spend 2 years out on loan with Norwich subsidising part his wages or be transferred with no fee. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,598 Posted May 3, 2017 The thing is that there seems to be a thought that is almost taken as fact that we are overpaying players when in all likelihood we aren''t doing anything of the sort. The figures are pretty mind-boggling given how much an ''ordinary'' person earns, but contracts will be negotiated using the current circumstances, - i.e. If we are PL they will reflect that - and if we want to attract decent players we have to pay the going rate for that point in time. There is a legacy issue that is thankfully being sorted, but is is pretty-much what the parachute payments are for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rustyboy 2 Posted May 3, 2017 You have got to feel sorry for the players having to pay all that tax though Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete 318 Posted May 3, 2017 Lafferty bought by Adams following relegation to Championship not whilst City in PL. Ridiculous if true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Branston Pickle 3,598 Posted May 3, 2017 It was under McNally who at the time was practically infallible in many supporters eyes - again, you pay the prevailing rate at the time. Looking back on things now that were perfectly reasonable at the time is not particularly fair, but I guess will always be done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Woodman 92 Posted May 3, 2017 Wasn''t Mbokani on something ridiculous like £80k a week with £40k of it being paid by his Russian club?We were the victim of the circumstances, we wanted / needed the players in the Prem but they''d only come if their massively inflated personal terms are agreed.I''ve lost count of the number of times we''ve ''lost out'' to a player, but I suspect many of those were because we wouldn''t pay their huge wage demands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yoda 0 Posted May 3, 2017 Just goes to show getting to the promised land isn''t all that,it''s all very well being given 100-200 million but if 90% of it is set aside for wages there''s a price to pay.If only players would play for 10 grand a week max we could have built on Carrow road and increasing capacity to help the fans who are what football is about after all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites