Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bill

If the numbers are to be believed

Recommended Posts

£25m Maddison
£10m Murphy
£5m   Oliveira
____
£40m
That should make a bit of a dent in the ''shortfall''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you''re posting threads like these I assume you''re now going to stop jumping down people''s throats everytime they mention a transfer fee/wages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]If you''re posting threads like these I assume you''re now going to stop jumping down people''s throats everytime they mention a transfer fee/wages?[/quote]
whooooo-oooosh !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We should spend on a couple of strikers not so much forwards, but guys who score. I think we are covered in other areas and while people say we need a keeper I think we can risk a season without investing in one. Other than that save the money, spent it on facilities. If we need to spend I think maybe save it for January to see what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our spending does lie on whether we can shift some of these players, both to save wages and to try and generate some spending funds. A few decisions need to be made on whether to shift players like Naismith, Martin and Wildschut, although many obviously believe their careers are done here.

What we do sell will be allocated out proportionately, it won''t be all to spend this window but to cover January and potentially next summer as well. Either way, the linchpin is obviously the sale of Maddison if it happens, that would give us funds to potentially bring in 2-3 cheaper players to cover the weaker areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was that first we not so bad off as some would have
Selling before buying has been exposed as a myth, in our case.
The reality is that players will move so as to fit the abilities/promise.That''s how we signed Maddison, Lewis, Godfrey etc. It is the nature of the game, not a consequence of us having a board who have a ''wicked stepmother'' approach to life.
As to incoming transfer sales, first we DON''T know what they are. Wildschutt''s fee has recently been dismissed.
Similarly I don''t know what we received for Jacob. However it would suggest Newcastle were not handed a bargain as if often claimed about our transfer dealings.
At the moment we are still in the transition from PL wages while now on Championship income. Something that has not happened before in our past. Take a look at the number of former PL clubs (last decade or so) who somehow did not adjust and so flounder around the lower reaches of the Championship, or even L1.
PL money was not a ''pools money win'' that we blew but a huge expenditure that is required if there is to be any hope of staying there. Thankfully we did spend money on developing youth players, something that is now beginning to show fruit.
Maybe some should support the club in what it is doing, rather than endlessly carping on that we have deliberately chucked away our rightful place at the PL table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the club would like to get rid of those who won''t add much to the matchday squad next season first or where the player doesn''t fit in with the Farke system: Jarvis, Watkins, Martin, Naismith, Wildschut, McGovern. Any money received for those would be a bonus.

Then they''ll look at where we have assets worth selling: Oliveira, Murphy, Maddison, Klose, Pinto. In theory, we can name our price as they''re under contract - especially for Murphy and Maddison. As mentioned on the Murphy thread; selling one is accepted, but selling both would be a risky move without high quality replacements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Woodman"]I guess the club would like to get rid of those who won''t add much to the matchday squad next season first or where the player doesn''t fit in with the Farke system: Jarvis, Watkins, Martin, Naismith, Wildschut, McGovern. Any money received for those would be a bonus.

Then they''ll look at where we have assets worth selling: Oliveira, Murphy, Maddison, Klose, Pinto. In theory, we can name our price as they''re under contract - especially for Murphy and Maddison. As mentioned on the Murphy thread; selling one is accepted, but selling both would be a risky move without high quality replacements.[/quote]
I have to disagree with both thoughts
First any of the players listed in the first group will cost us to move on rather than us earning anything. If Kilmarnock were to offer Naismith a 3 year contract at £2000 a week does anyone seriously imagine he will simply walk away from what he still stands to earn in his last year at City.
Second, theory or not we cannot ''name our price'' as that is only ever determined by the buying club ie we can only get what someone is prepared to pay.
As to the being under contract. so are all those in the first group.
If they were not under contract then we would not have their registration to sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Beane"]
£25m Maddison
£10m Murphy
£5m   Oliveira
____
£40m
That should make a bit of a dent in the ''shortfall''
[/quote]
One down, two to go
ps hopefully Widschutt was added as a sort of ''make weight''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"First any of the players listed in the first group will cost us to move on rather than us earning anything. If Kilmarnock were to offer Naismith a 3 year contract at £2000 a week does anyone seriously imagine he will simply walk away from what he still stands to earn in his last year at City."

Yes, but then its up to Naismith. Depends how much he wants to play football every week. As in all contracts, the player holds all the cards. If we accept an offer for his sale, it''s then up to him to agree personal terms - and of course, he''s unlikely to agree to £2k a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If we accept an offer for his sale,......"
However that offer cannot remove his current contract with us.
That seems to be something that is not understood.
Somehow we will have to pay all or part of that remaining contract unless a buying club takes it on.
That applies to all the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, surprising how many still think a players contract can just simply be cancelled
if that were the case why has the club not done it before ?
in fact, bar breaches of contract, no clubs seem to ever do it
I wonder why ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Naismith may walk away from us with a payoff is one of the more galling things on the horizon, especially as he has been stealing a living off us for the last two seasons. A prime example of all that is wrong with football when a guy like him who has basically looked like a pub player for us will walk away with multi millions from his time with us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Jim Smith"]The fact that Naismith may walk away from us with a payoff is one of the more galling things on the horizon, especially as he has been stealing a living off us for the last two seasons. A prime example of all that is wrong with football when a guy like him who has basically looked like a pub player for us will walk away with multi millions from his time with us.[/quote]
''may walk away from us''
eh ?
Did he impose his terms on us, or did we willingly sign the current contract ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Get yourself a life City 1st, wasting a beautiful morning like this fumbling with your keyboard, sad indeed.👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then you have not been reading these threads
The club can simply sell a player, thereby ending his contract.
Whatever the player can then get as a contract from the new club is his best hope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It’s a contract, both parties can mutually agreed to end it, for nothing. This is what happens when a club sell a player ‘up’ like the case with Maddison and Murphy etc.

If the player doesn’t feel he is getting a good deal by moving he won’t move. Clubs can’t force players to leave. But neither can a player force the club to end their contract and let them leave. What you suggest makes it sound like a one way street.

So with Naismith then there will mostly likely have to be an agreement on Norwich paying him something. On Maddison and Murphy the clubs will pay them nothing. (Apart from loyalty bonuses for not forcing moves away).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
err.that is what I have been saying all along
However the agreement with Naismith will be that City will make up the difference between what he is offered over the time his contract exists with City ie
City 10k per week
New Club £2k per week
City would need to pay the difference over the period of his remaining contract. That is how it works.
City cannot, as some on here hold, simply cancel Naismith''s contract by selling him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They wouldn’t need to pay the exact difference, only an amount that was agreeable to the player. He has a one year deal at Norwich, he might accept a smaller yearly pay in return for having a 3 or 4 year deal.

Everything if negotiable in transfers and if all parties are happy there is no obligation to meet any fixed requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That has been my point, that the ckub has an obligation to that contract. Something that has constantly been denied on here.
Of course any figure is subject to numerous variables, and so will be arrived at in consequence of those variables. But to claim as has been the case on here that a club can simply sell a player thereby ending is contract is absurd.
Which moves on to the alleged transfer fees. These are definitely unknowns,  as even if the total cost was known that is only what the total cost would be to the buying club. Never a break down on what are player/agent fees. What is subject to appearances, goals, promotion etc etc
The concern has been that some of the ''less bright'' grab these unknown''s to attack the club with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you’ll find it depends on many things.

1. Naismith or indeed any player wants to leave, they will negotiate their way out directly with club in line when their existing contract length left.

2 A club comes in for a player, we accept the offer and allow the player to speak to the other club and he agrees the deal, he goes, we pay nothing.

3 Above but the player cannot agree terms and chooses to stay. We are stuck with him and his wages (back to Option 1).

4 Above but the player cannot agree terms but still wants out therefore Norwich support the the deal with a pay off or don’t ask for a fee and therefore that fee is paid to the player.

The only way that any players contract is worth anything is if he wants to see it out and the club wants rid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Beane -

''"PL money was not a ''pools money win'' that we blew but a huge expenditure that is required if there is to be any hope of staying there"

glad someone acknowledges this. So many people / fans of other clubs seen to be under the impression if you''re not turning over a profit season to season in the premier you''re wasting your money. It doesn''t matter who you are. If you''re in the premier league and you want to stay there for several years you will eventually be spending money on transfers / wages that will leave you needing to cost cut when you descent back into the championship. The longer you stay in the premier the bigger your expenses are going to be.

That said I don''t blame Ipswich fans for not realising this, the financial picture was very different back in 2002.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not this again...

If I leave my job to join another company, would my previous company continue paying me the difference in pay were I to take a lower wage at my new company?

Absolutely not.

There''s no way Norwich would have a clause in their contracts that allow a player to join another team and continue getting paid by Norwich.

The only rare case in which this would likely to happen is if a player has a long time remaining on a contract (say 5 years) and refuses to leave the club due to loss of finances. If this were the case Norwich might negotiate that the player accepts a wage over a period of time but I highly doubt this would be the complete sum of what was originally agreed.

When a player is getting "forced out" a club, the club will obviously open negotiations in order to get the best deal for all parties. In most cases, players would prefer to move on and keep playing, in most cases like this for the new club/contract the wage might be lower but the contract will be longer to even out the difference. If the player decides to take a lower wage deal with another club, it is not Norwich City''s obligation to pay them once they leave.

It is probably quite rare that players who leave continue getting paid by the club, so therefore the assumption that when selling it ends the contract is probably on the whole quite true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I I was simply referring to Naismith in my above post because despite the way he and his agent will try to spin it ("I will play for free to move back to Scotland blah, blah, blah) what he really means is that he will agree to leave and go back to some small Scottish club if we pay him off or subsidise his wages whilst he goes there on loan.

He''s got 1 year left, that''s probably around £2.5m in wages. I suspect to get him to agree to leave we will have to pay him off a chunk of that and perhaps the club signing him would have to agree to pay a signing on fee as well. Otherwise he will just see out his contract, perhaps go on loan somewhere and then join someone as a free agent next summer £2.5m richer!

The Naismith situation really does sum up how obscene the money in football has become but it was a huge error giving him the contract we did as well when he was never likely to have any significant re-sale value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr Beane"]
That has been my point, that the ckub has an obligation to that contract. Something that has constantly been denied on here.
Of course any figure is subject to numerous variables, and so will be arrived at in consequence of those variables. But to claim as has been the case on here that a club can simply sell a player thereby ending is contract is absurd.
Which moves on to the alleged transfer fees. These are definitely unknowns,  as even if the total cost was known that is only what the total cost would be to the buying club. Never a break down on what are player/agent fees. What is subject to appearances, goals, promotion etc etc
The concern has been that some of the ''less bright'' grab these unknown''s to attack the club with
[/quote]
I haven''t been following this at all, so am even more confused than normal. Let me try to get this straight. Naismith has a year left on his contract with us and is being paid, say, 30K a year. He moves to Hearts on a three-year deal at, say, 10K a year. In that case we have a legal obligation to pay him 20K, and not less than that, for his first season at Hearts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven''t been following this at all, so am even more confused than normal. Let me try to get this straight. Naismith has a year left on his contract with us and is being paid, say, 30K a year. He moves to Hearts on a three-year deal at, say, 10K a year. In that case we have a legal obligation to pay him 20K, and not less than that, for his first season at Hearts?

if Norwich want to save 10k on wages then I''m sure Norwich can agree to pay the other 20k in the terms?

Or do you mean we absolutely must pay the difference? That there is no possible way Naismith can move anywhere for less money WITHOUT us being forced to pay the difference? in that case then the answer is of course NO that''s not true (who thinks it is?) Simon Jordan was on Talksport talking about Sunderland or Villa saying these players will in all probability accept a pay cut at another club or just sit out their contracts at their current team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clubs and players can work out deals on those sort of things but players like Naismith and Jarvis will obviously run down their last big contracts. I think we all would.

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...