Sustaining the future

[king canary 7,578]

@nutty

Because this is a thread about money...

[norfolkngood 1,086]

i Agree Purple i imagine Delia listens to Balls quite a bit he is very good in business matters ( not politics ) and i think sometimes coming from a friend advice is better than from someone who is employed by yourself

[Sussexyellow 55]

Well made points Purple and Parma.

I concur that our sustainability model (Parma’s phrase) will be a challenge in the current Championship environment.

I also picked up on the Balls comment in the post AGM interview but did not elevate it as high as a siren call.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

We need to cut overall costs by a net £20 million in the summer.

We have already cut heavily. We have already seen major turnover of players. The new players are cheaper.

What we will see in the summer will be significantly more extreme than that which we have already seen.

We will only be able to sell that which others want. We will only be able to buy those that we can afford and who want to come.

Or of course we can find new investment. At this stage investment would be valuable not necessarily to buy new assets, but rather to avoid the asset stripping of those we would prefer to keep.

In its absence we will be forced to weaken our strategic position against our wishes. That moves us dramatically from a buying club to beyond calculated selling club and into the realms of simply unavoidably going backwards with little resources to address the slide.

Once you sell Pritchards, Oliveiras, Maddisons and Murphys there is nothing in our recent history that would suggest we can grow such asset replacements within the necessary timeframe. Indeed it is only the Murphys that we have grown in the last decade. Placing that kind of pressure on the Academy is something of an unfair burden and is a tantalising, utopian and somewhat disingenuous mirage to present to the fans.

Providing regular £0.5m players to lower league clubs would already be a step forward, the next step a few first team regulars, then an occasional star that raises high millions. The revamping of the coaching staff came with implications that change was required. We have to significantly improve players to achieve sustainable trading profitability. Logic indicates we will be working with rougher raw materials hereon.

The strategy may be to find another Maddison at £3m from the lower leagues. Though that raises new questions: How many have we found in recent years? and ‘would (a) Maddison choose us over others next summer?’. £3m also suddenly looks a great deal of money to spend. Not all Maddisons are Maddisons.

Any sustaining the future is going to have to occur after a period of financial blood-letting and likely sporting retrenchment. An elegant Uber-Crewe talent factory may be the ultimate outcome at some point in the future and may it be so.

The new model is too late and too compromised by dramatic cost restructuring that will be beyond any desirable strategic plan. Surviving in the Championship may be a poisoned chalice. It is now an expensive place to (not quite) fail.

Sustainability comes at an expensive cost when reversed into.

Parma

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Kingo, Steve Stone''s presentation was about money.

[Bill 1,788]

"Once you sell Pritchards, Oliveiras, Maddisons and Murphys there is

nothing in our recent history that would suggest we can grow such asset

replacements within the necessary timeframe."asset replacements, eh ?(or players as they were once known, and probably still are)otherwise some with very long memories may recall we got out of L1 and into the PL without too many asset replacementswhether it was solely due to the manager, the players, the bonuses offered or some combination of all three is a moot pointbut was is not moot is that we are in a different income level and we bought those players, as Klose. when we could afford that level of transfer fee and wages - so we adjust

(just a shame the volume of whining on here cannot be similarly adjusted)

[king canary 7,578]

@nutty

My point is no different to this from Parma

"The new model is too late and too compromised by dramatic cost restructuring that will be beyond any desirable strategic plan."

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Kingo, my point remains that it''s the reality of what team we get from the budget that will determine our future. Not the budget. In the PL season we had a huge net spend. Apparently our net spend was greater than Chelsea''s. It didn''t keep us up. Did it.

Because it still upsets you I''m tempted to post it again. It''s not irrelevant. It''s not off topic and it''s not obtuse.

[Mello Yello 2,279]

"Sustaining the suture.......Frustrating, the future".......

[king canary 7,578]

The only one who seems upset here is you- post it again if you wish, more power to you.

It is, however, obtuse because it is adding nothing to the debate or the discussion if that is all you post.

As said before, my belief is that slashing wage budgets and transfer budgets makes implementing a new system even harder. I believe that when you pay less and spend less you will generally get less. Not hugely controversial.

There are some substantial wastes of money on the list of players we let go, no doubt, but from what I can see on the pitch, the results we''re getting, our struggles to score goals and all round regression from where we were last season the squad has gone backwards in quality. We''ve got worse in key positions (particularly left back, central midfield and out wide) while not really getting any better in other positions.

If you disagree with any of this, fine. But just posting a list of names doesn''t really add anything to the discussion.

[Highland Canary 76]

Poor decisions in the boardroom took us down from the PL. Neil should never have been allowed to use us as practice. What a fiasco.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Seriously Kingo? I would say it adds substance to the discussion. As with my earlier point about our spend in the PL the names would add substance. If people think that Naismith, Jarvis, RVW, Hooper etc are a waste of money if you just quote the transfer budget it would say they were footballers who cost millions of pounds. Without the detail people would have to assume all footballers brought from a financial position of strength were bad value. Just as you''re making the assumption that footballers bought from a weaker financial position won''t be up to the task.

[king canary 7,578]

"If people think that Naismith, Jarvis, RVW, Hooper etc are a waste of money if you just quote the transfer budget it would say they were footballers who cost millions of pounds. Without the detail people would have to assume all footballers brought from a financial position of strength were bad value"

Well, yeah, if they know nothing about Norwich City or the players that play here. I credit the average fan on here with the intelligence to know the players we''ve bought and sold in our recent history. I don''t feel the need to list exactly who we''ve bought and sold this season as I imagine most people reading and posting on here know this as they follow Norwich.

The reason you just posting the list adds nothing is you''re not giving an opinion or a view on these things. If you were saying you believe we''ve managed to get players as good or better than those who left then fine- instead you''re just posting...nothing.

[Fraz 2]

For me the club have never thought long term, there decision not to increase the capacity at Carrow road (even though they said they would) when it was full every week (even in league 1) has weakened the clubs ability to grow the support, something that they had done well in the past, hence the amount of season ticket holders we have. a full ground has been the situation for the last 10yrs we have missed a generation of would be fans that will go on and to support the chelsea''s & Man Us of the world as there is little opportunity to see their local team without planning a month in advance.

When I take my 8yr old to saturday morning football training I hardly see and kids with Norwich kits, its seems to be alot of Harry Kane tottenham shirts.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]Poor decisions in the boardroom took us down from the PL. Neil should never have been allowed to use us as practice. What a fiasco.[/quote]Attaboy, Highland. Constructive and forward-thinking as ever.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Kingo, I''m bringing players to the focal point where you are just bringing money. It''s the two things together that become the reality. You have not considered anything beyond the unsubstantiated view that less money means worse players.

This is even more important when you apply it to seasons with parachute payments. Your view is that the payments give us a great advantage. My view is that the payments simply allow us to continue paying players who have failed. We can''t choose how that money is spent so if the players we are stuck with aren''t good enough we still have to use that money to pay them. As can be clearly seen on the lists I posted.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Nutella, i’m actually pretty excited by your premise..

....think how awesome our players are going to be after we cut a further £23m net in the summer.....!

Parma

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I''m not so excited by yours Parma. But I reckon the reality will be somewhere between the two but the players will be the deciding factor ☺

[king canary 7,578]

"You have not considered anything beyond the unsubstantiated view that less money means worse players. "

I very much have.

I still don''t think I understand your point here. My main point when I posted on this thread was echoing what Parma said- that the job Webber is being asked to is made a lot more difficult due to cost cutting and a lack of funds in place to better implement his vision. What part of this do you not agree with?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

As several previous Masterclasses have stated:

‘Can you do better with less?’ and ‘if so, why doesn’t everybody do it?’

Parma

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]As several previous Masterclasses have stated:

‘Can you do better with less?’ and ‘if so, why doesn’t everybody do it?’

Parma[/quote]Because of the difference between "can" and "will". You can do better with less, but it''s not guaranteed. Otherwise, wouldn''t the league table would just be a ranking of who spent the most? Most would consider that the more money you spend, the more likely you are to achieve the outcome you want. Therefore, if they have the money, they will spend (some of) it in the hope that it improves the odds. We don''t have that option, so have to try the other one.

[king canary 7,578]

@Nuff

Yes you can do better with less as you can do worse with more.

The other issue in doing more with less is the margin for error shrinks. So every mistake hurts us more and risks become riskier.

Previously this board was able to help us take those gambles- the Huckerby/McKenzie/Svensson deals being obvious examples. Now, with fees and wages ever inflating we are left in a position where one wrong move (Naismith for instance) can have some far reaching consequences.

[Guest]

I find the premise that because we will not have any parachute payments next season, then we won''t be able to bring good or better than we have players in.

We have a better record with some inexpensive signings, Martin (yes Martin), Holt, Crofts, Ward and Jackson to name just five cost less in comparison than many and did the job of getting us out of the Championship.

And when they came we had been in the Prem for four out of five seasons.

Webber just needs to justify his title of DoF and do the proper job of finding talent. Not just spending £8M or £10M and expecting them to justify the money spent on them.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Pooh sat at his window listening to his friends

discussing their local football team HundredAcreWood City. Their beloved club

was owned by Kanga who’d caused great unrest amongst the supporters because

she’d put her majority shareholding in trust for Roo and wouldn’t sell out to

the rich developers.

 

Eeyore was saying “We won’t be competitive once

these sycamore seed payments run out. It’s the end for ambition and we’re

doomed.”

 

Piglet thought about this and said “but what about

this list of  players that we were

wasting  the sycamore seed payments on?”

 

Eeyore said “ It’s not about players, it’s about

finance, players don’t come into it! Anyway, it’s going to rain and I shouldn’t

be surprised if there’s a flood”.

 

Piglet thought to himself “football isn’t about

players? Hmmmmm” So he ventured to ask “If 8m is spent on a player and he’s not

worth it that 8m won’t score goals and get us points”

 

Eeyore raised his eyes to the sky. “I don’t see what

your point is Piglet. It’s all about the money. And we don’t have money

anymore.” Then he added thoughtfully “we haven’t had an earthquake recently….”

 

At this point Tigger bounced in and told Piglet his

list of players was all wrong anyway and that “money is what Tiggers like best”.

 

Piglet remained in good humour so thought he’d try

again “But when it comes down to it I believe the players are the focal point

not the money”. Piglet had been thinking about examples in the recent past

where the two smallest PL budgies secured mid-table finishes where as the two

largest budgies had resulted in relegation.

 

Eeyore became frustrated. “This conversation is

about money. Players don’t come into it. Mentioning footballers adds nothing to

the debate.” He then looked down at Piglet and said “you’re being obtuse!”

 

Poor piglet isn’t good with unusual words so he went

to ask his best friend Owl what being called obtuse meant. Owl was the wisest

creature in the whole wood but he was busy giving a masterclass. So Piglet asked

Pooh instead. Pooh looked pityingly at poor Piglet and said “I think it means

you’re annoying, insensitive, slow and a bit thick!” “Oh” said Piglet looking

all hurt. "That could be true because that nasty Crafty fox calls me that too”.

 

“I don’t think you’re like that” Said Pooh….

 

Just then Owl came by after his class. Owl said “we

haven’t been able to do better with more so now we can’t expect to do better

with less. If it were possible to do better with less then why would people

bother trying to do better with more”.

 

“That’s what I was saying” said Eeyore. “what do you

say to that Piglet?”

 

Piglet thought to himself “I’m sure we used to do better with less” but afraid of being called obtuse again he went in for his tea…

**All characters in this post are fictitious. Any resemblance to real posters, living or dead, is purely coincidental**

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

Haha very good, Nutty. I see where Big Dunc gets it from.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

That is indeed possible Nonno di Keelan, my fratello Nutella is quite understandably clinging to that hope and even belief. I genuinely hope he is right, I prefer his belief to my analysis too.

There is human truth to a belief that it is only when truly striving that we achieve our potential and maximise our resources. As the Chinese mindfully say when wishing good luck: ‘May you not get what you want’. Clever.

Let us not get too Misty eyed here though. McCormack is £14m, Jacob Murphy is £12m and Pritchard is £11m. Nelson Oliveira is £6m and even Maddison is £3m.

We are simply not going to be able to afford many Maddisons at all after next summer, particularly when the major assets are exhausted.

Prices have changed. Wages have changed. Sustainability hasn’t.

TV money in the Championship also hasn’t. Costs are much higher, whilst sustainability still means season ticket money + commercial + (Low millions) all minus increased wages, spiralling fees and increased costs. All compounded by impending savage cost-cutting to the tune of £23 million net.

We may find a trove of youthful lower league gems, full of something-to-prove will to win and committed to the cause that drive us success at a fraction of our previous costs. May it be so.

To pretend that that likelihood is anything but vastly against us, despite our imperfect transfer record when loaded with Murdoch money, is however to wilfully block out everything that Stone, Balls and Webber have clearly laid before us.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Owl wished Piglet would read him his bedtime story every night.

They always had such happy endings..:

Parma

[king canary 7,578]

Rings very true that Nutty, conversations with you on here do feel like we''re disappearing into a world of fiction...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

The rich are always with usEvery owner in the Premier League is wealthier than Smith and Jones (based on what is probably the high point of their wealth some years back of £24m. Only Burnley, Huddersfield Town and West Ham United have owners who are not worth billions, as opposed to mere hundreds of millions.In the Championship only the Burton Albion owner is poorer, and six are billionaires. In League One six owners are listed as richer, although I suspect the number is higher, and four in League Two.Within those figures there are three trends that have developed in the last two and a half decades, from when the archetype was local boy Jack Walker pouring his home-grown fortune into the club he loved. Firstly, the money has not just gone into Premier League clubs and a few fallen giants slumming it below. Secondly the money is coming from overseas as much as from the UK. Thirdly some of it is corporate/state- or semi-state-based (fortunately there is not enough space to go into the intriguing Chinese takeover of Midlands football, which may already have reached a peak).In terms of money, leaving aside scruples about the suitablity of the new breed of owner, those trends, especially if continued, are bad news for Norwich City, potentially throwing into question the viablity of our self-sustaining model in the Championship, let alone the PL.A tilted pitch?But Financial Fair Play is supposed, at least in the Championship, to level the playing-field. Some quick research suggests FFP has been (note the tense) working reasonably well in the Championship. The initial review of the 2015-16 season, the latest for which figures are available, showed all 24 clubs had complied (significantly, a first, as it happens). What tends to get the publicity are not the majority that comply but the few that do not, and particularly those that cheat their way to promotion, such as QPR and Bournemouth, in a cold-blooded calculation that either they won''t get relegated, and so avoid any penalty, or that the profit will outweigh the fine.Whether Championship clubs will carry on keeping to the rules is a question, given the trend outlined above to mega-rich owners, some of which are corporate. A Jack Walker-style fan would understand and accept that their money might not guarantee success. I am not sure some of the new mega-rich owners in our second tier, from a different business culture, will be equally phlegmatic. I am not suggesting Brighton cheated their way up last season (they have a history of complying with FFP) but there was a very pointed quote from their multi-millionaire owner Tony Bloom last autumn, in unveiling a  £25.9m loss for the season  before (clubs can only lose  £39m over three seasons but some bits of losses are allowable) when they got beaten in the play-offs:"Our ambition remains for the club''s teams to play at the highest level possible. As chairman (and lifelong supporter of the club), I will do everything I possibly can to achieve that and remain fully committed. Any Championship club without parachute payments wishing to compete for promotion will inevitably make significant losses. It remains a delicate balancing act for the board as we strive to achieve our ultimate aim."Brighton of course then got promoted, automatically. That may well - seriously - just be a coincidence, given how close they were before. The owner, having contemplated the dilemma he highlighted, may have decided to stay the right side of the law. And I cannot foresee Smith and Jones doing otherwise. But given some of the clubs and their new ownership that are straining to get promoted from the Championship I would not bank on that recent total-compliance record being replicated this season or in those to come.

[/quote]

There are already pointers this season to the increasingly ruthless results of the influx of big/corporate money into the Championship. In the wake of those ambiguous comments from Bloom a bit over a year ago Brighton released their accounts for last season''s promotion campaign just three days before Christmas - usually a trick used by companies that want bad news not to get noticed, but there seems no reason to suspect that in this case.There are, from a Norwich City perspective, some eye-watering figures in there. You can either weep or laugh. I chose the latter option. The overall amount owed to creditors has risen to ₤224m, with ₤190m of that owed to Bloom, up from ₤170m the season before. But Bloom also turned ₤8m of his loan into new shares, so he actually injected ₤28m into the club in this promotion-winning season. And his total contribution, by way of shares and loans, is now ₤280m.As far as FFP goes, the accounts show a loss of ₤38.9m (after a previous loss of ₤25.8m) but the club says they have - as before - kept within Championship FFP. No doubt true, as far as it goes, which - through not fault of Brighton''s - is not very far. Because the new rules, beginning with that 2016-17 season, stipulate that a club can lose ₤39m in any three-season period. So if all of that ₤38.9m loss counted towards FFP then Brighton would not be in breach (if they were still in the Championship), provided they broke even the next two seasons.And the situation is complicated by not knowing (at least I do not) which bits of that ₤38.9m loss can be written off as not counting to FFP. An optimistic-looking guesstimate on a Brighton message-board suggests possibly only about ₤13.9m will count towards FFP. My guess would be more than that, but it is only a guess. What is true is that Brighton''s wage bill was 107 per cent of income. By contrast, Norwich City''s wage bill last season was only 73 per cent of income.None of this provides a definitive answer to the not at all rhetorical question Bloom posed a bit over a year ago - did he decide to risk potentially breaking FFP to gain promotion, or at least push the system to its limits, or stay comfortably on the side of the angels? What can be said, and this applies to a frightening number of our rivals in the Championship, is that Brighton had the option of going to the dark side.The other development, linked to the influx of big/corporate money, and the concomittant expectation of quick success, and impatience with the lack thereof, is the sacking of managers such as Monk and Warburton after only a few months. The Monk dismissal is particularly eyebrow-raising, given Gibson''s reputation at Middlesbrough for allowing managers the time to get it right.

[king canary 7,578]

@Purple

For me this part is key...

"What is true is that Brighton''s wage bill was 107 per cent of income."

Without parachute payments I''d assume we need to keep to about the 73% of turnover for the wages, if not a bit lower. I reckon this will put our wage bill as one of the lower in the Championship.

Even last years fairytale story of Huddersfield were running at over 100% wages to turnover apparently, propped up by an owner who could cover that.