Bottom of the Premier League.....

[CANARYKING 637]

.....gets you £99 million according to today’s Sun

[Trevor Hockey's Beard 526]

When I used to play Monopoly I used to like to put one of my £500 notes under the board as a reserve, and play with the remaining £1,000. I'd like to see us do the same with £20 million - well maybe put it in an investment account instead.

[splendidrush 700]

Doesn't get you much nowadays, easy to use Fulham as an example but we blew a fortune the last time we were up.

Fortunately DF/SW will be a little more cautious this time around, so that even if we're relegated we are still equipped to get back again 

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

2 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

.....gets you £99 million according to today’s Sun

That’s what it got WBA last season, next season will be worth more as the new TV deal kicks in and it is larger than the previous one. 

 

1 hour ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

When I used to play Monopoly I used to like to put one of my £500 notes under the board as a reserve, and play with the remaining £1,000. I'd like to see us do the same with £20 million - well maybe put it in an investment account instead.

That is what the £70m of parachute payments are for - while I’m not a advocate of spending for spending sake - Norwich need to make every effort to stay in the league and that means spending all available resource. 

Teams who come down after one season get 2 years of parachute payments, teams who come down after 2 or more seasons get 3 years.

Norwich were relatively lucky this season that the relegated teams were all in pretty bad ways behind the scenes and apart from WBA never looked like challenging for promotion. There was also no Wolves like team who had that sudden cash injection. 

This won’t be the case every season, Norwich have done the really hard bit in getting promoted, they need to push with all they have to make sure they stay up. Putting £20m away for a rainy day could cost them hundreds of millions. 

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

£100m doesn't go far in the serious transfer market true, but it can still go a long way in maintaining a football club of our size.Throw in decent gates, corporate business, increased advertising and sponsorship revenue and the 'self-sustaining model' will look to be doing rather well for the time being.

We also have a squad of some value already and this will likely increase with PL exposure, whilst a useful cup run would be the icing on the cake.

Well! That's the finances sorted now let's get on with preparing for a spell of survival at the top table.

Fun this Premier League lark, yo-yo club or not.

When are the builders and roofers due in?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Clearly there will be a lot of extra money to spend, but from the reports that have come out a fair chunk will go on doubling the salaries for a lot of existing player contracts.  That makes complete sense especially if the contracts are that the young players who have come through and are attracting interest from other clubs.

 

Spending extra needs to be balanced against the risk that you get in new players who are only in it for the money, who don't fit with the ethos of putting the club first, and also the risk is you bring in new players on high wages and that disrupts the feeling in the squad for the existing players.

 

So it should not be assumed that City should automatically spend 100% of the available money in an attempt to stay up.  Instead they should spend extra, but be very clearly focused on trying to strengthen the squad selectively in a way that doesn't disrupt the squad and which stays true to the approach which brought us promotion.  If the money is not spent wisely, it can actually be counter-productive.  There are plenty of examples to show this. 

 

This is my view, but more importantly from interviews it seems to be Webber's view.

 

I am sure Webber will keep his cards close to his chest on how much will be left over at the end of the season, but I'm pretty sure there will be a sizeable chunk that he will keep back for next season - regardless of which division we're then in.

Edited May 8, 2019 by It's Character Forming
finishing sentence

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Actually I think the perfect example of the "push with all you have to stay up " philosophy was our January transfer window before relegation under AN when we spent lavishly on players like Naismith and Klose in a bid to stay up.  That failed, which meant we were saddled with their wages for the next season in the Championship and beyond.  We'd have been much better off not spending that money.

 

Where we have been really lucky is being able to make a few player sales which covered our financial shortfall after the end of parachute payments, although to a degree you make your own luck.  If we hadn't sold Maddison, we wouldn't have been able to afford even the (relatively) modest squad wages we've paid this season.

 

Getting out of the Championship is never easy, but I'd much rather we stay true to the approach which has won promotion (both on and off the field), strengthen selectively and make sure our finances will be sound with some money left over to add to parachute payments if we are relegated.

[Well b back 3,199]

3 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Actually I think the perfect example of the "push with all you have to stay up " philosophy was our January transfer window before relegation under AN when we spent lavishly on players like Naismith and Klose in a bid to stay up.  That failed, which meant we were saddled with their wages for the next season in the Championship and beyond.  We'd have been much better off not spending that money.

 

Where we have been really lucky is being able to make a few player sales which covered our financial shortfall after the end of parachute payments, although to a degree you make your own luck.  If we hadn't sold Maddison, we wouldn't have been able to afford even the (relatively) modest squad wages we've paid this season.

 

Getting out of the Championship is never easy, but I'd much rather we stay true to the approach which has won promotion (both on and off the field), strengthen selectively and make sure our finances will be sound with some money left over to add to parachute payments if we are relegated.

I wouldn’t say the Klose money was blown, had he not have got injured I suspect the history books on the club would have read slightly differently.

[Essjayess 307]

Bethnal, i kinda get what your saying, but disagree with you somewhat in that you said Norwich were relatively lucky  in the circumstance of the seasons make up of teams in the Champs. Yes true, Wolves had a huge cash injection and the way they spent it obviously has had a current success story to it, but theres plenty of other instances where that kind of thing has not succeeded. WBA and Stoke, at least on paper, had much better higher rated squads than City. A fair few clubs, Derby and Forest to name just two, spent far more than City did, so many clubs should have had a much better chance than City to nail down the top spots. In fact what City have done is way more impressive than what Wolves achieved as Wolves never had any competition of note thru their promoted season, Cardiff  only coming thru with a late surge.

We hit the top in early November, maintained a high position the rest of the season and finished at 46 games 5 points clear of 2nd and 11 clear of 3rd...and, after spending diddly squat on transfer fees and wages in comparison to Wolves, and we also had Leeds and Sheffield breathing down our neck all the way thru. As to future Prem money...i have nothing to say, let City use it as they wish. W e have heard enough from Delia and Michael and SW about that so im sure most of us know the score.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

3 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

That’s what it got WBA last season, next season will be worth more as the new TV deal kicks in and it is larger than the previous one. 

 

That is what the £70m of parachute payments are for - while I’m not a advocate of spending for spending sake - Norwich need to make every effort to stay in the league and that means spending all available resource. 

Teams who come down after one season get 2 years of parachute payments, teams who come down after 2 or more seasons get 3 years.

Norwich were relatively lucky this season that the relegated teams were all in pretty bad ways behind the scenes and apart from WBA never looked like challenging for promotion. There was also no Wolves like team who had that sudden cash injection. 

This won’t be the case every season, Norwich have done the really hard bit in getting promoted, they need to push with all they have to make sure they stay up. Putting £20m away for a rainy day could cost them hundreds of millions. 

This strategy would be a huge mistake because to bring in expensive signings they would require decent length contracts. In the event of relegation we are stuck with high earners that need offloading just as we did when Webber first arrived. You have also broken up the team that got you promotion in the first place 

Hopefully we have learnt our lessons from the past and we undertake a cautious approach that takes the long-term into consideration

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

8 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

This strategy would be a huge mistake because to bring in expensive signings they would require decent length contracts. In the event of relegation we are stuck with high earners that need offloading just as we did when Webber first arrived. You have also broken up the team that got you promotion in the first place 

Hopefully we have learnt our lessons from the past and we undertake a cautious approach that takes the long-term into consideration

If the money is spent wisely it won’t be a milestone round the clubs neck. I wouldn’t advocate spending money on post-peak players (which is why I don’t want Norwich to sign Rhodes). But investing in talented, younger players who have an intrinsic value even in the event of relegation wouldn’t be an issue for the club. 

I also don’t believe signing players has to ‘break up the team’, a few key, quality additions will strengthen the group. Footballers like to see the club they play for signing new players. It isn’t like the team Norwich currently use are all players who have been at the club for years and years. Most have been around 2 years at the max and many only around a season. If Webber and Farke continue to identify not just talented footballers but good characters the it shouldn’t be an issue. 

Spending money doesn’t not automatically equal bad characters or prima donnas. Norwich need to learn from past mistakes, but not let it scare them from being ambitious and using the hard won resources to improve the team and the club’s future.  

[Tetteys Jig 830]

20 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

If the money is spent wisely it won’t be a milestone round the clubs neck. I wouldn’t advocate spending money on post-peak players (which is why I don’t want Norwich to sign Rhodes). But investing in talented, younger players who have an intrinsic value even in the event of relegation wouldn’t be an issue for the club. 

I also don’t believe signing players has to ‘break up the team’, a few key, quality additions will strengthen the group. Footballers like to see the club they play for signing new players. It isn’t like the team Norwich currently use are all players who have been at the club for years and years. Most have been around 2 years at the max and many only around a season. If Webber and Farke continue to identify not just talented footballers but good characters the it shouldn’t be an issue. 

Spending money doesn’t not automatically equal bad characters or prima donnas. Norwich need to learn from past mistakes, but not let it scare them from being ambitious and using the hard won resources to improve the team and the club’s future.  

would agree with this. This is why potentially spending £15m on Isaac Hayden may not be the worst idea. 24 years old, clearly premiership quality and English. Even if we went down his value would likely hold.

[Aggy 754]

9 hours ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

 Norwich need to make every effort to stay in the league and that means spending all available resource. 

Does it? 

If the right player(s) come(s) along who would be a good fit for the club, fit into Farke’s way of playing and would take us to an extra level, then I would agree that it would be better to spend on them than deliberately withhold money as a “savings fund” instead. I wouldn’t be happy if we failed to sign a perfect player because they wanted an extra 5k a week but that extra would dig into a “savings fund”.

However, Fulham spent all available resource and that got them nowhere.

Far more important than how much we spend is who we bring in. I won’t be disappointed if we don’t spend all of our money because the right players don’t come along and I don’t think that we need to spend everything possible to stay up.

[Bill 1,788]

11 hours ago, CANARYKING said:

.....gets you £99 million according to today’s Sun

blimey, I never knew that

and people laugh at the sun

does it tell us what ground we play at ?

[GenerationA47 751]

Oh Bill, you are awful!

[Bill 1,788]

1 hour ago, GenerationA47 said:

Oh Bill, you are awful!