Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crispy

'Prudence with ambition'

Recommended Posts

The club for years hid behind our motto of ''Prudence with ambition'' planning our financial security and being frugal with our budgets. Since our League one season on the pitch we have achieved allot managing to climb back to the Prem and yo-yo a few times. Respect where respect is due we could be in a much worse position.

However I struggle to understand how we always seem to spend less than our similar statured rivals crying about how we are poor when we have done very well with player sales, securing promotion and have a ever present fanbase. In most cases we really have managed to re-coup when we have spent big on players. Here''s a few of the major moves:

Murphy academy product sold for 12m

Brady bought for 8m sold for 12.5m

Redmond bought for 2m sold for 12m

Olsson bought for 2.5 sold for 4m

Lewis Grabban bought for 3m sold for 6.5m

Bradley J bought for 0.5m sold for 7m

Fer bought for 4.5m sold for 8.5m

Snodgrass bought for 2.7m sold for 6m

Howson bought for 1m sold for 5m

Have the fees we paid for Klose, Naismith and RVW really ruined the club ?! Surely our ''prudence'' over the last 10 years means we shouldn''t be in the predicament we are in. All that talk of being debt free and today out manager isn''t expecting to re-invest the Murphy money. Very frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t agree that we''re frugal with our budgets when every penny we get is put into football and everything is spent. It''s frustrating for sure. But I can''t see where we could invest any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why, oh why, oh whyis the club wanting to carry on after June 2018 ?Surely verything should be put unto this season. We need a much more short term view.Why didn''t we sell Jacob Murphy to Reading last summer for a supposed £300,000. That money could have bought us promotion and we would now be in the PL.Maddison, Efete, Lewis and Godfrey should be sold now so as to have more money for our promtion push this season.The club must stop looking ahead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our rivals, even in this division, are now bankrolled by foreign billionaires. We solely rely on player sales, match tickets and limited tv money.

Without the Prem tv money we see our bank account drained by the wages dished out to players we attracted whilst in the top tier and we now need to cut our cloth accordingly.

Huddersfield and Villa showed why we shouldn''t despair about being a financial dwarf in the second tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People also need to realise that despite the disparaging comments about Evans he props up the sc*m and enables them to run at a loss. We won''t have the same luxury so without parachute payments (and despite better st receipts) will probably be worse off and have a lower budget than the sc*m.

Glorious self funding!

In the last 12 months we''ve sold over £30m worth of players and released another 7 that will take a further £10m off the wage bill. Very clear to me we are hoarding money to prepare for our "self funding future" imposed on us by our owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you look at that list crispy it''s a pretty impressive record of generating cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Steve Stone said himself that spending 4 years out of 6 In the prem and where we are financially shows how badly run we were.

You only have to look at players like the ones who''ve recently left Kyle Lafferty cost £3m was probably on £30k a week for 3 seasons in which he made 39 apps for us. Probaby cost us £7m in fees and wages and has now been released.

Michael Turner who has hardly featured for 3 years has been at the club for 4 years probably earned £5m in wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue Palace were a similarly statured rival when we were last in the championship together- they have since invested wisely and moved on.

Of course it is hard to find one because most clubs our size have, in the last decade, secured new investment and vision at board level, as at Southampton, Stoke, Watford, etc... But they were much like us before that. The point being that we are FAST being left behind by those moving with the times because our board is stale beyond words and now holding us back.

We saw that on our last promotion. We spend less than almost ANY recently promoted side and were, therefore, nailed on for relegation. People jabber on about money wasted on Naismith but in Prem terms he was a cheap option. Our defence was a total joke at that level - hence it also failed last season when it wasn''t invigorated despite being an OBVIOUS flaw. Had it been sorted we probably would have secured promotion- give the goals in the team.

People also say the managers are at fault not the board- but we always go for unproven yes men and tight budgets. That is a board decision. And it is costing us. We just looked a gift horse of two promotions in the mouth and are now cutting our cloth in L1 fashion.

For me the problems have been very evidence at board level ever since Bowkett jumped. Nephew Tom is not the answer- nor was Ed Balls. Delia and Michael have passed their sell by date and need to let go for the good of the club.

Just my take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Coney''s boots wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 2:32 PM:

I would argue Palace were a similarly statured rival when we were last in the championship together- they have since invested wisely and moved on.

Of course it is hard to find one because most clubs our size have, in the last decade, secured new investment and vision at board level, as at Southampton, Stoke, Watford, etc... But they were much like us before that. The point being that we are FAST being left behind by those moving with the times because our board is stale beyond words and now holding us back.

We saw that on our last promotion. We spend less than almost ANY recently promoted side and were, therefore, nailed on for relegation. People jabber on about money wasted on Naismith but in Prem terms he was a cheap option. Our defence was a total joke at that level - hence it also failed last season when it wasn''t invigorated despite being an OBVIOUS flaw. Had it been sorted we probably would have secured promotion- give the goals in the team.

People also say the managers are at fault not the board- but we always go for unproven yes men and tight budgets. That is a board decision. And it is costing us. We just looked a gift horse of two promotions in the mouth and are now cutting our cloth in L1 fashion.

For me the problems have been very evidence at board level ever since Bowkett jumped. Nephew Tom is not the answer- nor was Ed Balls. Delia and Michael have passed their sell by date and need to let go for the good of the club.

Just my take.

Still showing your frustrations of seasons past!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a club like us successful recruitment is the key, the perception is that there have been too many bad buys and money wasted by poor recruitment.

It would be interesting to see an analysis comparing the profits made from player sales to the losses made by buying players that didn''t perform.

Trouble is we don''t know all the figures involved I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are one of only two teams in the Championship without a major investor. Self sufficiency is a great ideal but sooner or later without promotion the club will need some external investment or we go back to the days of bank loans that take years to clear if at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Felixfan"]We are one of only two teams in the Championship without a major investor. Self sufficiency is a great ideal but sooner or later without promotion the club will need some external investment or we go back to the days of bank loans that take years to clear if at all.[/quote]Then why were we not second from bottom ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Delia and Michael have passed their sell by date and need to let go for the good of the club."

This season is vital. If we fail then the future for the club will look bleak with those two at the helm.

All the daft taunts about "Delia''s plaything" etc. will begin to look valid after all.

If they love the club as much as they profess to then surely they realise that alternative investment will be vital.

One more throw at the dice Delia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Highland Canary"]It seems the predominant feeling on this board is the former rather than the latter is what counts.[/quote]no, that is just the usual whiners on this thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find this "investor" argument difficult. When investors invest, they put money in with the expectation that they will be able to take more out over the long run. They don''t do it as an act of charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Coney''s boots wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 4:00 PM:

Yes I am still dwelling on failures of recent seasons past- they are very much impacting on recruitment in the present

You really do fail to see what the club are trying to do.

Do you expect them to spend large amounts of cash on bigger name players?

We are not wealthy so get over it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some do and some don''t - but even with those who do expect a return the playing budget is increased and thus competitiv. We are falling behind regardless of how we might prefer the industry to be

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Coney''s boots  -   Some do and some don''t - but even with those who do expect a return the playing budget is increased and thus competitiv. We are falling behind regardless of how we might prefer the industry to be

If they don''t, then they are not an investor.... by the very meaning of that wordAs to why many foreign owners chose to get involved might I suggest you look a little closer at how they got their money, and what might be there true motivesOr we to believe the are all kindly old uncles who will ruffle the hair of the nephew and say "here we are young fellow me lad, and there''s plenty more where that came from

(sadly I do think there are some on here who are that dim)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Coney''s boots wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 4:24 PM:

Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...

Yep, I''ll bet there''s plenty of hugely wealthy investors itching to buy our club!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCB - "Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because,

surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well"Some are thriving - more are not. Of course they want their investment to do well. However, there are other ways of regaining their investment if plan A does not work, through sale of assets - playing staff and other physical assets like the ground/ training facilities etc. If or when, the current bubble in in football club valuations is "popped" this becomes the most likely option.Sorry DCB, you cannot get away from the basic fact that investors want to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...
And so many are nottake our impoverished neighbours they have one of these so called ''hinvestors''all he does is take whatever isn''t nailed downI''m quite happy as we are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Better an investor who puts money in brings success and makes a little for himself than a family putting absolutely nothing in they seem capable of making millions vanish with ease . Only surprise is it''s taken people this long to wake up to the real problem at the club Smith her relatives and friends all need hounding out or City 1st will be stuck for material when we are below the bonnets next season ,as another poster said even Evans puts money in when was the last time Smith put a penny into Norwich .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The never-ending increase in football club valuations is largely under-pinned by TV money - I suspect that the ever-increasing source of revenue is likely to slow.E.G BT pays £320 million pa for Premier League rights and £394 million for European football. They recoup nothing like this in subscriptions. It last recorded profits across all its operations was £2.4 billion. No business can continue to over-fund one division of its company indefinitely before calling a halt to an attempt to gain market share. There are already turning their attention to other sports that might be a better way of establishing themselves in the market more cheaply. For £80 million they get rights to Australian Cricket for 5 years (£16m pa)- including the Ashes series and the Big Bash. As a cricket fan, I will pay this, but have never bothered paying the extra for BT''s football coverage - things like this is likely to be a more efficient way of building market share.When the TV money spiral does slow down, football clubs that are over-exposed will find they have major problems. Assuming booms last for ever always brings disaster to some.http://news.sky.com/story/bt-boss-drops-bonus-as-annual-profits-fall-19-to-24bn-10872169

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i do not mind the club living within its means

its our club and we will find the level we should be at

with the income we should have high''s and lows exactly as we have had That''s fine i can live with that

Norwich always have had to sell players i can live with that also

BUT as others have pointed out the last AGM we were told debt of 6/7 million that''s fine also not putting the club at risk meaning we had to get rid of high earners and sell some

yes i understand that we did release alot of high earners also sold Dorrens and howson / Rudd

that should of got us pretty much even and got the new era a blank bank sheet a fresh start

but no we sell Murphy for 12.5 and told the money is going to wipe off the overdraft

so lets look at it this way we sold nearly lets say 17 million pound of talent and saved ALOT of wages with players sold and released

that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???

that is where my feeling for the owners comes in you can talk about the scum millions in debt other clubs in debt but the common factor with most other clubs is that the owner can wipe the debt at any time

if we get into 17 million pounds worth of debt can our owners wipe that off ? no they can not with their wealth they can put the club in debt with loans but not write a cheque and pay it

so my final part is Delia put this club or her employees did 17 million in debt again ! lucky we had players to pay it off this time next time we might not be so lucky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some of the outcomes depend heavily on the unknowable future. Having said this we do seem to have exercised a longer term outlook, and we have bought some very promising youngsters, such as Maddison and Godfrey.

What has worried me is that over the past few years we have lashed out, usually in August or January, in some kind of panic. Why did we spend so much on Naismith. Wildschut, Jarvis, van Wolfwinkel and others?

The new system under Webber really does seem to be cautious and careful. We have spent relatively little, but we seem to have obtained quality.

"Prudence and Ambition" was the declared policy when McN arrived, and some of the time has been evident. At times, I suspect in panic, we have wasted money.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...