Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Crafty Canary

The cost of poor signings

Recommended Posts

Following our promotion we now have to pay Everton and Wigan a million pounds each as part of the deals when we signed Naismith and Wildschut even though both are out of contract this summer. Such is life and shows how signings that don't come off in their performances can continue to be expensive mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... and if we hadn't been promoted, we'd have lost Max, Ben, Jamal, Emi and Teemu, all for a lot less than they'll be worth with a season in the Premiership under their belt. So, horses for courses. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we'd signed other players the cost of promotion would be the same. Don't fret about which players get what money because it's all gonna go to someone. At least we got a subsidised trip to Wigan🙃

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These were undeniably both horrendous signings - a sign of everything that was wrong with our recruitment under the previous management structure.

Webber has had some misses, but at least they didn't cost £7m and command premier league wages for 4 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that's the case, apart from the extremely poor recruitment, it's diabolical negotiation.    Surely they could have included a clause, provided the players contribute to say 50% of the games that get us promoted.     In Naismith's case we were paying a fortune for a fringe player who Everton clearly didn't need.      

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can include whatever clause we like. However if we want players to sign we have to have clauses they agree with. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all part of football life, some transfers work out and others don’t, most have clauses which presumably never get ‘enacted’.  It does feel a little weird to pay out on players who had little-to-no impact on our season, but you can only know that in hindsight and it’s only an issue because of our success.  I’m sure we’ve had plenty of clauses work in our favour as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We can include whatever clause we like. However if we want players to sign we have to have clauses they agree with. 

Exactly. 

Norwich can make whatever demands they like, but they still need to offer a deal that the selling club find agreeable. 

While the Naismith and Wildschut signings aren’t ones I was big on at the time, they were the board backing their manager. Which is what fans always demand. If Norwich had missed these transfers because they wouldn’t add these clauses and payments - fans would have accused them or a ‘lack of ambition’ etc. 

These really aren’t the worst clauses. They make the club liable for money, when I knows it will be getting a lot of money. I could be much worse really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be surprised if this was the case for Naismith because we were in the Prem when we signed him so a promotion clause is unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems odd with Naismith to have a promotion clause given we were in the Prem when we signed him ?

 

But clearly we were desperate to sign him and had to give them/him pretty much what they wanted in return for him moving to a team under threat of relegation.  Hence his wages obviously didn't go down much on relegation and clauses like this.

 

If he'd helped to save us from relegation it would have been money well spent, just unfortunate that he didn't add anything to the team, nor was it obvious how he would do so when we first signed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the Naismith one was more of a 'playing in the premiership' clause, as in if we had stayed up we would have paid it instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

Seems odd with Naismith to have a promotion clause given we were in the Prem when we signed him ?

 

But clearly we were desperate to sign him and had to give them/him pretty much what they wanted in return for him moving to a team under threat of relegation.  Hence his wages obviously didn't go down much on relegation and clauses like this.

 

If he'd helped to save us from relegation it would have been money well spent, just unfortunate that he didn't add anything to the team, nor was it obvious how he would do so when we first signed him.

It was probably a clause that meant Norwich deferred as certain amount of money should they be relegated, to be paid should the club be promoted again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bethnal Yellow and Green said:

It was probably a clause that meant Norwich deferred as certain amount of money should they be relegated, to be paid should the club be promoted again. 

That would make more sense.

 

Like you say, it's not really the end of the world to have these sort of clauses.  Like the story about a lot of our contracts having wages doubling next season, it makes sense and I'd guess a lot of those are going to be key players like Buendia, Pukki, Aarons who need a big wage uplift anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HertsCanary93 said:

These were undeniably both horrendous signings - a sign of everything that was wrong with our recruitment under the previous management structure.

 

That recruitment structure had a couple of people involved in it who walked on water according to some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when we signed Naismith it was universally heralded as a good signing on here. When it seemed to take forever to get over the line one of the boards biggest critics on here suggested we should change our wage structure to make it happen. The amount of hindsight being used now is of epic proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully appreciate the "Captain Hindsight" approach, but Naismith must be the worst signing in our (recent) history? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think regards Naismith at least this is fake news, and anyway if we sold to another club wouldn’t we go mad if our club didn’t have written in all sorts of clauses such as appearances, promotions ( including the likes of champions league football ) England or national caps to name but a few. 

I also recall when it looked liked the Naismith deal was about to collapse, there was outcry that the club had no ambition and we weren’t offering enough money. At the same time we also signed Klose whom I still beleive would have kept us up had he not got injured.

I finally suspect there are a lot of clubs that we owe money to as a result of our promotion, Jordan Rhodes being one. We also owe the players and The Colney shareholders lots of money, can’t have it all ways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Crafty Canary said:

Following our promotion we now have to pay Everton and Wigan a million pounds each as part of the deals when we signed Naismith and Wildschut even though both are out of contract this summer. Such is life and shows how signings that don't come off in their performances can continue to be expensive mistakes.

Where in that Pinkun report does it say that NCFC has to pay Everton and Wigan £1m each ?

And given as I very much doubt you have seen the details of both contracts then you do not know, you are just making up stuff.

As to the wider thought then it is a case of 'swings and roundabouts' as I well remember the whines on here about the money spent on Maddison. How must Coventry fans be feeling after what they sold him for compared to what we sold him for ?

Pukki worked out well, Husband didn't. That's how it goes.

Any money lost on AN signings was more than made up by PL income through promotion.

But for some, any stick will do I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The faux rage over Naismith and Wildschut is bemusing, not least because most transfers have various “add on’s” usually linked to appearances, promotion or players seeing out their contracts to expiry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bill said:

Where in that Pinkun report does it say that NCFC has to pay Everton and Wigan £1m each ?

It could be poorly phrased but the article states that both clubs are due £1 million:

Everton and Wigan can both thank Norwich City to a tune in excess of £1m - despite their transfers having so little to do with the Canaries' Premier League return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a bit frustrating considering they contributed **** all to the club but at least we can now start afresh - we now have a talented squad with most of the dead wood gone!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Bill said:

Where in that Pinkun report does it say that NCFC has to pay Everton and Wigan £1m each ?

And given as I very much doubt you have seen the details of both contracts then you do not know, you are just making up stuff.

As to the wider thought then it is a case of 'swings and roundabouts' as I well remember the whines on here about the money spent on Maddison. How must Coventry fans be feeling after what they sold him for compared to what we sold him for ?

Pukki worked out well, Husband didn't. That's how it goes.

Any money lost on AN signings was more than made up by PL income through promotion.

But for some, any stick will do I suppose.

The duplicitous Billsh1te strikes again with his lies and insinuations. In my post I never claimed it came from a Pinkun report. It came from the Sports Agenda section of today's Daily Mail. You might think the DM made it up but I didn't. Nor did my post carry any criticism of the club for these signings. As my last sentence stated, that's life. Sometimes they come off and sometimes they don't but when they don't the add ons are painful. Like many, as Nutty has said, I thought the Naismith signing could have been a very good one.

So, I made nothing up and did not use a stick. However, I won't hold my breath for an apology for that ** Billsh1te to apologise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Crafty Canary said:

 I won't hold my breath for an apology for that ** Billsh1te to apologise.

oh go on

hold your breath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In recent years  one can say Naismith, Wildschutt, Jarvis and Husband have been 4 signings that have not worked out well but for each one of those there's  been 4 or 5 that worked well. Overall thru the seasons City have a pretty good track record of both buying and selling, of course theyve had to be, given the nature of the clubs financial reliance in transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Crafty Canary said:

Following our promotion we now have to pay Everton and Wigan a million pounds each as part of the deals when we signed Naismith and Wildschut even though both are out of contract this summer. Such is life and shows how signings that don't come off in their performances can continue to be expensive mistakes.

Player transfers - You win some you lose some, you can never win them all.

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...