Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kenny Foggo

Model / Plan

Recommended Posts

This is not a wind up and I have mafe my feelings know about this but can people explain to me what the new model.is, what the timescales are and what success looks like? Genuinely interested in the thoughts of those that are 100% behind this. I have no given right to enforce my opinions on any City fan but clarity on this plan / model would be interesting as I believe its no different to last time we were up.... Happy New Year by the way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

This is not a wind up and I have mafe my feelings know about this but can people explain to me what the new model.is, what the timescales are and what success looks like? Genuinely interested in the thoughts of those that are 100% behind this. I have no given right to enforce my opinions on any City fan but clarity on this plan / model would be interesting as I believe its no different to last time we were up.... Happy New Year by the way...

I generally believe Delia is just getting enough money in to cover wages and has Webber and the team firefighting everything else. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're aiming to be a top 26 side on a regular basis, or something like that...... so far so good. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not convinced there is a coherent plan or strategy they are just making it up as they go along ie what they have always done 

no semblance of a plan what so ever 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

I believe plans are in place to reduce the scampi portions in the Gunn Club when we get relegated, as part of the overall strategy to reduce costs and pocket the cash.........

Don’t get me started 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think too much is made of the 'model' to be honest. Buying cheap players from lower leagues, as well as trying to get solid youth prospects into the first team, so you can then flog them off for wodges of cash, is hardly new. Robert 'Look at the girth on that' Chase practiced exactly that during our stint in the top league at the back end of the 80's/early 90's. Foxy, Disco, Sutton - all youthies sold for big bucks while at the same time getting in cheapos from other teams ala Culverhouse, Bowen etc.

The big difference now is the money involved. It was more of a level playing field then but with the vast sums in football now it won't work at the top level of the game - what we are doing now (yo yo) is probably the best we can hope for.

The issue I have is that eventually it will catch up to you, just as it did with Chase. At some point the youthies won't be so good, the cheapos you get in to replace who you've sold won't quite work...and then suddenly you find your self stuck in the Championship for 10 years...or worse.

That said, I'm not sure there is another way we can go, with our finances the way they are; I find that fact quite depressing.

Some do seem happy to stay in the Championship and I see some posters already welcoming our return to the lower league like its a good thing. "Glad to see the back of VAR" etc. Bullsh1t. If you aren't aiming to progress as a club, then you're only ever going to go one way.

Anyway, rant over. Not feeling in the best of spirits NCFC wise and can't be bothered to hide it.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have just progressed a bit sooner than expected. The plan will always be to be a steady premiership outfit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jaberry2 said:

We have just progressed a bit sooner than expected. The plan will always be to be a steady premiership outfit.

I honestly don't think that is the plan under the current owners model for reasons stated above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Do you think the first player to go for over £20M should have the new stand named after him ? 

The Emiliano Buendia stand has an exotic sound to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, jaberry2 said:

We have just progressed a bit sooner than expected. The plan will always be to be a steady premiership outfit.

Can you please explain how this is. Would it have been any different had we gone up a year later? I struggle to see how. The financial position would have been no different.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, JF said:

The Emiliano Buendia stand has an exotic sound to it

Yes I agree. One of the best to wear the yellow shirt so would be a fitting tribute. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

This is not a wind up and I have mafe my feelings know about this but can people explain to me what the new model.is, what the timescales are and what success looks like? Genuinely interested in the thoughts of those that are 100% behind this. I have no given right to enforce my opinions on any City fan but clarity on this plan / model would be interesting as I believe its no different to last time we were up.... Happy New Year by the way...

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but my understanding is as follows:

1) The club continues to invest in Colney - work there is not finished - to attract talented yougsters.

2) The scouting network looks for good young British talent but also has finding young overseas players as a priority (Brexit may interfere with this).

3) Promotion to the Premier League will not spark a spending splurge on high-wage players with long and expensive contracts, so relegation will not cripple the finances  as it threatened to last time. Instead the assumption is that a player or two or three will inevitably be sold, but the overall squad, bumped up with the next generation of talent, will survive, as will the style of play - arguably the main point of the sporting-director plan.

4) So there is consistency and organic growth in terms of the squad but also crucially with the finances (definitely keeping within FFP rules), giving the club the best chance of getting back to the PL, with the eventual aim that a gradual strengthening of the squad will enable it to get up and stay up. I doubt there is a specific timeframe on this.

In general the plan is very different to the course pursued last time we went up and got relegated. The first part of 3) has already happened, of course, and last summer's transfer business exemplified 2).

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but my understanding is as follows:

1) The club continues to invest in Colney - work there is not finished - to attract talented yougsters.

2) The scouting network looks for good young British talent but also has finding young overseas players as a priority (Brexit may interfere with this).

3) Promotion to the Premier League will not spark a spending splurge on high-wage players with long and expensive contracts, so relegation will not cripple the finances  as it threatened to last time. Instead the assumption is that a player or two or three will inevitably be sold, but the overall squad, bumped up with the next generation of talent, will survive, as will the style of play - arguably the main point of the sporting-director plan.

4) So there is consistency and organic growth in terms of the squad but also crucially with the finances (definitely keeping within FFP rules), giving the club the best chance of getting back to the PL, with the eventual aim that a gradual strengthening of the squad will enable it to get up and stay up. I doubt there is a specific timeframe on this.

In general the plan is very different to the course pursued last time we went up and got relegated. The first part of 3) has already happened, of course, and last summer's transfer business exemplified 2).

Thank you Purple.. decent response. A lot of that makes absolute sense but do you not feel that with more progressive owners and a sensible investment plan (Not Villa or Fulham... zero people have asked or expect that) would help establish us without jeopardising the clubs future (see Sheffield Utd). I see it impossible to achieve point 4 if you are constantly selling your best players plus losing out on the vast amounts of cash you get from being in the Premiership. Saying we tried that with Nasmith etc is surely not a valid argument as we have a better structure in place & therefore would not make the same mistakes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are 'more progressive owners'? I presume what you actually mean is; richer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richer is definitely one aspect to be a successful owner in the premiership yes... but also a desire to build the community side, the academy side, the relationships & involvement with the fan base. The current owners have done alot of that & they deserve a hell of a lot of credit for it, just think there are others out there ready to carry on the good work and to help establish us as a premiership club. Wolves, Leicester, Burnley, are current examples....  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I posted this on the wrong thread!

 

The terms Business Model is very loose in this context. Most business models are based around income or profit . Others are based around the customer , or around the market within which the business operates. Ideally a business model looks to achieve success by being nimble , or entrepreneurial , or getting into a market early. The most documented set of models of recent times are mostly technology based - ranging from the Dot.Com bubble and burst , to the likes of Amazon . 

What makes the Football Clubs position differ to usual business models as a concept, is that a) success isn't measured in profit or income primarily and b) the constraints of NCFC are largely self imposed as the incumbents cannot/ will not put in any further significant monies .

 

For a) above, success is determined by football results and league position. As we speak today, you would say under a) last year  we have been successful by pretty much any measure up until August. We were dreadfully unsuccessful at the turn of the Decade. We now face relegation. Yes there are spin off objectives re Community etc, but without success on the pitch these become increasingly more difficult to deliver. Our "community" work in 2007 was negligible because we were skint. 

for b) it is what it is. 

So the "model" is cloth cutting. Everything done is based solely on constraints of income , and therefore expenditure, as part of the self imposition.  Arguments are aplenty here. If we spend more it doesn't guarantee success. Unfortunately with this argument it doesn't take into account the market.   Yes, one team can be used to exhibit the adversities of spending money (Portsmouth, Wigan, Bolton) but it  doesn't take into account what economists call the "new entrants".  Any other market is acutely aware of new entrants and what they are up to. Norwich choose to ignore them . For every Wigan there is a Crystal Palace. For every Sunderland there is a Wolves. 

Yes there are some examples of clubs not spending much and over achieving but these are few and far between. Huddersfield did for a while. Even Huddersfield had an owner who put far more money in than our incumbents. 

Whilst you can find any number of Clubs to fit your position/ agenda, the facts are that at any given time across Europe, those spending more on wages (the best relative measure used by industry analysts such as PWC or Swiss Ramble) are higher up the division than the others. Last night we watched Palace - Zaha probably earns treble what the highest NCFC player earns. 

The argument is therefore to achieve "success" over even a relatively short period of time you need to adopt the "model" of those around you in the market.

Of course one other thing you can do is to subtly adjust your objectives  - when the current incumbents employed McNally it was to become "established" in the premier league. Now the objective includes the top 6 of the Championship. 

I would argue rather than a business model, it is an operating policy based around limiting criteria, in a market where, by and large, your competitors don't apply the same criteria. I think we saw the results of this this summer in the Window. Please sign for us and we'll pay you prem money , but we can't offer a 4 year contract unless you accept a hefty relegation reduction in money. Would Maupay accept this when Brighton are offering better/ more? No chance. Claude- Maurice ? No. 

Arguments about long term stability are complicated. We lost £38m last year but fortunately we can point to previous operations / individuals to talk that away.  That one of our main incomes was generated by the sale of James Madison - signed by the afore mentioned previous operators - was not dwelt on.  

The board , and their selected operators (Farke, Webber) took us up last year playing an extraordinary style of football. The board are now likely to oversee another relegation. A tweak in the top 26 objective helps here. 

Your view on this is largely predetermined. The facts are what they are, it is how you use myriad examples to support your view. To stay in the Prem for 5 years would cost far more money that NCFC have available. We wont do it under the current operating criteria.

The question is does it matter? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I can only go on what has been said publicly, but my understanding is as follows:

1) The club continues to invest in Colney - work there is not finished - to attract talented yougsters.

2) The scouting network looks for good young British talent but also has finding young overseas players as a priority (Brexit may interfere with this).

3) Promotion to the Premier League will not spark a spending splurge on high-wage players with long and expensive contracts, so relegation will not cripple the finances  as it threatened to last time. Instead the assumption is that a player or two or three will inevitably be sold, but the overall squad, bumped up with the next generation of talent, will survive, as will the style of play - arguably the main point of the sporting-director plan.

4) So there is consistency and organic growth in terms of the squad but also crucially with the finances (definitely keeping within FFP rules), giving the club the best chance of getting back to the PL, with the eventual aim that a gradual strengthening of the squad will enable it to get up and stay up. I doubt there is a specific timeframe on this.

In general the plan is very different to the course pursued last time we went up and got relegated. The first part of 3) has already happened, of course, and last summer's transfer business exemplified 2).

There are quite a few younger players that can come in next year. As much work has gone into this type of recruitment, arguably, more than good for the first team. Yet, you can see the whole embodiment of the strategy through this. I'm looking forward to seeing if Idah, Gilmour and Famewo can come through the ranks, or perhaps a player like Martin.

Good post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Thank you Purple.. decent response. A lot of that makes absolute sense but do you not feel that with more progressive owners and a sensible investment plan (Not Villa or Fulham... zero people have asked or expect that) would help establish us without jeopardising the clubs future (see Sheffield Utd). I see it impossible to achieve point 4 if you are constantly selling your best players plus losing out on the vast amounts of cash you get from being in the Premiership. Saying we tried that with Nasmith etc is surely not a valid argument as we have a better structure in place & therefore would not make the same mistakes?

Bear in mind, for what it's worth, that I have never argued against a change in ownership or for Tom Smith taking over. In both cases I would need a long list of questions answered. I am against any owner breaking or even bending, as is happening in the Championship, FFP rules.

Extra money would certainly help, even if only as a backstop, while keeping to FFP rules, and to fund improvements at Colney and perhaps ground expansion.

GPB makes some perfectly valid points. Over time there is a close correlation betweeen wage spending and success. Of course there is always the danger of a rachet effect, whereby whatever plateau a club reaches in accordance with its wealth will then not seem high or ambitious enough.

As to my 4), I don't see that as an impossibility. For starters the PL cash is mainly a mirage, because agents ask massive transfer fees and - more importantly - massive wages. Unless you do what Norwich have done this season and be very prudent you won't make a profit. I don't have the time to look but I doubt we were going to make a profit in any of our recent PL seasons until relegation meant we didn't have to cough up staying-up bonuses.

And the aim, as I understand it, is not to sell all the best players, but to use the monery from some sales, plus parachute payments, to replace with players who will be as good or better. Either by buying in new or putting into the first-team squad someone bought a year or two or three ago. Daniel Adshead looks just like that kind of player for the future. Muir the goalie as well. Both still in their teens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Financial fair play is absolutely critical here. If Robustly imposed next year We would have a massive advantage . Looking at the championship the likes of Derby Middlesbrough and Forest must be walking a tightrope. 
The cynic in me fears that it won’t be robustly enforced. Income , and therefore losses, can come in various guises. Purple follows this closer than me but I suspect a  wealthy owner can call income many things - remember Man City and their shirt sponsorship deals? Or the sale of training grounds to generate income.  
 

Two years ago the three teams being promoted from the Championship according to a poster on here made the three highest losses - Wolves Fulham and Cardiff. I know the losses are aggregated over three years now but even so if you breach FFP and go up (and stay up) the reward outweighs the risk. Like Purple I wouldn’t want to see NCFC go outside FFP .
 

Its complicated of course . Ironically without promotion our losses last f/y/e would not have been so high - player bonuses and bond repayment were made/accrued last year , without any of the prem income . 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sonyc said:

There are quite a few younger players that can come in next year. As much work has gone into this type of recruitment, arguably, more than good for the first team. Yet, you can see the whole embodiment of the strategy through this. I'm looking forward to seeing if Idah, Gilmour and Famewo can come through the ranks, or perhaps a player like Martin.

Good post.

Why does everyone keep including Famewo in the list of players who may be starters next season? Farke was not prepared to use him this season even when we had no fit centre backs. I've not really read lots of reports from those who watch the U23s saying he is knocking on the door. 

I don;t know how Gilmour's loan has gone but agree he looks to have promise to play at that level given that he has played first team games for Arsenal. Idah is of course the big hope and needs games in the second half of this season (on loan if not with us).

I can;t recall if Klose is out of contract or around for another year or two but defence wise is probably the one area where we can cope with selling a couple as we should still have Byram, Hanley and Zimm at the club plus hopefully at least one of Godfrey, Lewis and Aarons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Financial fair play is absolutely critical here. If Robustly imposed next year We would have a massive advantage . Looking at the championship the likes of Derby Middlesbrough and Forest must be walking a tightrope. 
The cynic in me fears that it won’t be robustly enforced. Income , and therefore losses, can come in various guises. Purple follows this closer than me but I suspect a  wealthy owner can call income many things - remember Man City and their shirt sponsorship deals? Or the sale of training grounds to generate income.  
 

Two years ago the three teams being promoted from the Championship according to a poster on here made the three highest losses - Wolves Fulham and Cardiff. I know the losses are aggregated over three years now but even so if you breach FFP and go up (and stay up) the reward outweighs the risk. Like Purple I wouldn’t want to see NCFC go outside FFP .
 

Its complicated of course . Ironically without promotion our losses last f/y/e would not have been so high - player bonuses and bond repayment were made/accrued last year , without any of the prem income . 
 

GPB, the real problem is that the FFP limit was changed from £13m a season to £39m over three. The argument being that if a club lost £14m should it really be penalised.

But what this has encouraged is for clubs to gamble by losing most or even all the £39m in one season, on the basis that they will get promoted straight away, and if they don't then to lose another £39m, on the assumption that they are bound to go up that second season. And of course that they will never get relegated back down, so they will never get punished.

The season Brighton got promoted they made a loss of...drum roll...yes, you guessed it - £39m! Some of that may have been allowed under FFP rules but it is hard to see how even if only, say, £26m counted to FFP, that Brighton could have got through the next two seasons in the Championship making only an FFP loss totalling £13m when they had lost double that in one season.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Why does everyone keep including Famewo in the list of players who may be starters next season? Farke was not prepared to use him this season even when we had no fit centre backs. I've not really read lots of reports from those who watch the U23s saying he is knocking on the door. 

I don;t know how Gilmour's loan has gone but agree he looks to have promise to play at that level given that he has played first team games for Arsenal. Idah is of course the big hope and needs games in the second half of this season (on loan if not with us).

I can;t recall if Klose is out of contract or around for another year or two but defence wise is probably the one area where we can cope with selling a couple as we should still have Byram, Hanley and Zimm at the club plus hopefully at least one of Godfrey, Lewis and Aarons. 

Hopefully we might get one or two ideas on the future in the FA cup.

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...