Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Coneys boots

Not unlucky. Not clever.

Recommended Posts

Don't know what the argument is here, I've supported Norwich for 50 years, back then we were a lower Division 1 upper Division 2 side and apart from the odd spell where we've overachieved/underachieved we're pretty much in the same place. 

The game itself has changed though, back then we looked up to giants like Sunderland, Forest, Derby, Wednesday, Coventry, Leeds, Stoke, West Brom and that lot down the road. 

The Teams that have overtaken us from those days include Watford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Palace and Villa who'd had some time in Division 3. All of which have mega rich owners ploughing huge sums in to keep them competitive. 

Remaining largely competitive when the rest have changed their business model to stay ahead of us should be acknowledged for the achievement that it is.

Share this post


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

I agree. This idea that if we "put the club up for sale" we'd suddenly get loads of billionaires interested in one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on here, and it's repeatedly said! 

Like a multi-billionaire has to wait to see a premier club release a statement saying "buy us please" to show interest. The only difference stating "buy us please" might be that any suitors would think we were desperate and could gamble on getting us at a cut price.

The reality is, as people on here keep saying, squads in the Premier League need investment to succeed. I don't see why someone would be interested at buying a club that's in a really good financial position, as it's going to cost them to do so. On top of that, fans are going to want what, 50, 60, 70 million spent on the squad inc wages? Villa done £130 mill, is that enough? 

 

As I have said before it depends what sort of price our owners demanded. They acquired a controlling stake almost by accident and without paying any kind of premium for it as would usually be the case. They did so after saying that no one should have a controlling stake again. They have said on a couple of occasions they are not looking to make a profit from the club and that they would stand aside if the “right” person capable of taking the club forward came along. It would be open to them to make the club available on very attractive terms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 02/01/2020 at 09:46, Nuff Said said:

If we go down, reinvest, carry on picking up underrated players and combine them with astutely chosen academy products and come back up again stronger than this season, will it be working again?

 

Plank - get your head out of the sand.  Carry on like this and Webber / Farke won’t be here to “pick up underrated players and combine them with astutely chosen academy products and come back up again stronger than this season”.

Seriously, can you not see that it’s not just the best players who’ll be leaving if we carry on like this?  

Time and again, we’re lucky enough to unearth an exciting young manager, they drag us into the big time, and time and again, we don’t invest so either the manager leaves, or we get relegated and the manager leaves.

All this happy flappy nonsense.  Get real.

 

Edited by Kingston Yellow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kingston Yellow said:

Plank - get your head out of the sand.  Carry on like this and Webber / Farke won’t be here to “pick up underrated players and combine them with astutely chosen academy products and come back up again stronger than this season”.

Seriously, can you not see that it’s not just the best players who’ll be leaving if we carry on like this?  

Time and again, we’re lucky enough to unearth an exciting young manager, they drag us into the big time, and time and again, we don’t invest so either the manager leaves, or we get relegated and the manager leaves.

All this happy flappy nonsense.  Get real.

 

Maybe you’re right, maybe I am. But you’re predicting something in the future, something that is the opposite of what has been said by Webber and Farke who will not be surprised by our financial situation. 
 

Say Farke does leave, do you really think Webber doesn’t know exactly which candidates he would select from right now? (Hopefully not whoever is coaching the second team at Dortmund or 1) they’ll be ready for him and 2) he’ll start to look like a one trick pony). Webber has spoken about having a succession policy in place, so that implies he would have his own replacement identified too.

 

we’re lucky enough to unearth an exciting young manager” - name them? Alex Neil I’ll give you, but are you saying you wanted him to stay when he finally left? He didn’t leave for greener pastures, he left because he was failing, nothing to do with money, in fact we spent more money than we ever had under him and that didn’t work well, did it? Paul Lambert? Nuff said on that one. 
 

And why would a plank have its head in the sand? I’d argue if anyone has his head somewhere it’s the one who thinks we keep unearthing exciting new managers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

It's almost like the brexit debate. You will never convince those who are of the "get a rich bilionare in" opinion to accept that anything less is acceptable - and you will never convince those that say "living within your means" is a good way to go that the opposite view of spend spend spend is in any way sensible.  

What would be sensible imo view would be to carry on as we are and see where it takes us over the next five or so years - and if the plan works (which for me it could) we might see a club that has grown in stature to the point that the money gained from bringing on young players puts us in a much better financial state to compete better at the higher level.

The way I see it, the plan is in place, it is working, as suggested by the value being placed on some of our young stars and the up and coming excellent young players in the system.  If such time comes that we find ourselves back in debt, failing in the championship and in League 1, then yes, that would be the time to look for new investment ideas. But do you know something?  If we carry on sustainably, not letting the club get into debt, carry on the policy of getting in very good quality youth players....then there is no reason why this can't work for quite a long time. 

The only thing that might make it work less effectively is if other clubs copy our model and make their clubs as desireable for a young player to want to go to as ours is.  But I don't see that happening any time soon and if we do make it work at the highest level and use the experience of seasons like this to develop further, then the arguments about getting big money in will start to get less vocal.  Obscene levels of money are not the answer.  Norwich's way of doing it is the answer. Stuff your villas and fulhams - all money does if give their fans more sense of entitlement - and makes them more dis-satisfied with their lot. We've all seen it, miserable clubs with miserabe fans pi**ed off because all that money and they are still not being successful. 

Give me Norwich any day. A club evolving, a club learning and a club now doing it right. Long may it continue.

 

Edited by lake district canary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a middle ground though LDC which we have chosen not to take this season. We could have spent £29-£30m on a couple more players without taking a significant risk given the monies we had to come in and the player assets we have which will be some following relegation.

even “living within our means” I don’t think we have done all we can to stay up this season. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

There is a middle ground though LDC which we have chosen not to take this season. We could have spent £29-£30m on a couple more players without taking a significant risk given the monies we had to come in and the player assets we have which will be some following relegation.

even “living within our means” I don’t think we have done all we can to stay up this season. 

I don't think we could have spent 20-30 million. Maybe a player or two up around 5 million each, but 20-30m is a huge amount of our budget and would risk taking us into debt again at some point or meaning we have to sell like we did Maddison, just to balance the books - and the point in being able to sell players is to progress the club, not just stand still. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I don't think we could have spent 20-30 million. Maybe a player or two up around 5 million each, but 20-30m is a huge amount of our budget and would risk taking us into debt again at some point or meaning we have to sell like we did Maddison, just to balance the books - and the point in being able to sell players is to progress the club, not just stand still. 

Didn’t you once believe we would buy 3/4 players for around £5M in the Championship after Murphy/Maddison sales ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Didn’t you once believe we would buy 3/4 players for around £5M in the Championship after Murphy/Maddison sales ? 

I can't remember. With both those sales and Pritchard's it was clear that debts would be paid off and hopefully leave a bit for transfers, but as I said, we are not in the position of selling to pay off debts, we are in the position of selling to develop the club on from a point of view of strength, not weakness. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I can't remember. With both those sales and Pritchard's it was clear that debts would be paid off and hopefully leave a bit for transfers, but as I said, we are not in the position of selling to pay off debts, we are in the position of selling to develop the club on from a point of view of strength, not weakness. 

I hope we do it this time to help the young lads coming through next season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I don't think we could have spent 20-30 million. Maybe a player or two up around 5 million each, but 20-30m is a huge amount of our budget and would risk taking us into debt again at some point or meaning we have to sell like we did Maddison, just to balance the books - and the point in being able to sell players is to progress the club, not just stand still. 

But the point is if we go down we will lose 2 or 3 inevitably and will get at least £40m,  probably significantly more. So in that context, committing to an extra £20-30m is not a big risk. If it comes off then we stay up and it’s paid for itself. If it doesn’t then we can cover it with player sales plus the chances are that the players you buy still have significant value anyway. It’s clear we have been ultra, ultra cautious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I can't remember. With both those sales and Pritchard's it was clear that debts would be paid off and hopefully leave a bit for transfers, but as I said, we are not in the position of selling to pay off debts, we are in the position of selling to develop the club on from a point of view of strength, not weakness. 

Once in the Premier league it would seem sensible to invest in order to achieve premier League status due to the vast amounts available every year. Every successful business invests / borrows to accumulate and given the historically low interest rates a sensible amount of borrowing would not have jeapodised the club's future. I believe the buy low strategy is a very risky route that will eventually fail due to the calibre of the players being bought. I don't adhere to the 'risk all billionaire route' or the "no debt no cash flow route" both will see us trapped in a cycle of very little development.

Oh well, I agree it does seem pointless to discuss as there seems very little chance of the current board and its supporters changing tack... Still it will change eventually and I will still be there when it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that awful calibre of player we've bought in under this model really has hindered us.

If only players like Emi Buendia were half decent eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ron obvious said:

Too much concentration on transfer fees I feel. Wages - & the impact that a new player coming in on huge money would have on the rest - are far more significant, especially over the length of a contract:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/every-premier-league-clubs-average-20916779

 

19. Norwich City - £12,000

11.Southampton - £50,000

 

 

29 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

But the point is if we go down we will lose 2 or 3 inevitably and will get at least £40m,  probably significantly more. So in that context, committing to an extra £20-30m is not a big risk. If it comes off then we stay up and it’s paid for itself. If it doesn’t then we can cover it with player sales plus the chances are that the players you buy still have significant value anyway. It’s clear we have been ultra, ultra cautious. 

Ron's answered it Jim, you pay big money for players you get a bit wage commitment. The way the club is now run, that is unlikely to happen anytine in the near future. Millions can be wasted in the blink of an eye, you just have to think of Naismith, who of course  seemed a good idea at the time, but proved a huge drain on resources. We just cannot risk going down that route again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yeah, that awful calibre of player we've bought in under this model really has hindered us.

If only players like Emi Buendia were half decent eh.

Did not say that at all but I won't expect you to look at what I was saying and consider the argument. Yes it has bought us Emi, Pukki but also a bunch of players that have not added to the team. Constantly finding an Emi is as risky, or maybe more risky, than investing in proven quality and one were you are likely at some stage, fail to keep finding these gems. Would it not be nice to keep our best players and add to the 1st team? I look forward to your considered reply as always 😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

 

Ron's answered it Jim, you pay big money for players you get a bit wage commitment. The way the club is now run, that is unlikely to happen anytine in the near future. Millions can be wasted in the blink of an eye, you just have to think of Naismith, who of course  seemed a good idea at the time, but proved a huge drain on resources. We just cannot risk going down that route again.

Naismith was an appalling sanction of money by the current owners, they massively messed up. If you do it professionally it works. Other clubs do it very well and I am sure you would agree that Webber and co would spend that money far better.. or do you not think they have that skill? The risk following your route is we get stuck in the championship, going nowhere for years... I have been there done that.. would like to see the club reach its true potential.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inability for some to see a middle ground can be a bit frustrating on here.

Give anyone two options of either spending £1m on Byram or spending £100m on 5 Steven Naismith's and 5 RvW's... Clearly everyone picks the former - but there aren't two options, so it is irrelevant. 

Why do we assume that if we signed 2 or 3 players at ~£5m, that they are all instantly going to be on Steven Naismith's wages? While he was no doubt a mistake, you can compare him to Dean Ashton as an example of a player who didn't break the bank and probably would have kept us up if we had signed him in the summer. More recently players like Morrison, Bennet, Pilkington, Johnson and Howson were signed on both prudent fees and contracts - and all contributed to staying in the division. 

Clearly even in modern game, there are players of Emi and Pukki's ability out there - players who are able to be signed on contracts fitting for a championship team.

The squad is bare bones or not good enough in certain areas and has been thrown under the bus this season with poor recruitment. Whether the scouting team couldn't come up with the goods, or whether simply not enough funds were sanctioned remains unclear. Perhaps a combination of both. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proven quality still guarantees nothing, it simply mitigates the chances more that the player may not fail to perform.

Look at the likes of Shevchenko and Morata at Chelsea, great players who absolutely failed to perform anywhere near their previous 'proven' levels and simply cost Chelsea a lot of money and possible dropped points in the process.

Janssen and Soldado at Spurs, Depay at Man Utd, the list goes on.

People wrote Pukki off before last season as being a Celtic reject who'd never really performed anywhere outside Denmark, proving the exact opposite of simply going for 'proven' talent.

When Champs level strikers such as Che Adams and Maupay are going for £15 mil or more, then 'proven' simply becomes 'expensive' and still not guaranteed anyway.

I'd rather we continued down our current recruitment path than see us paying 50k+ per week in wages as well as a relatively hefty transfer for someone like Shane Long or Christian Benteke...

  • Like 4

Share this post


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

Did not say that at all but I won't expect you to look at what I was saying and consider the argument. Yes it has bought us Emi, Pukki but also a bunch of players that have not added to the team. Constantly finding an Emi is as risky, or maybe more risky, than investing in proven quality and one were you are likely at some stage, fail to keep finding these gems. Would it not be nice to keep our best players and add to the 1st team? I look forward to your considered reply as always 😆

I think generally speaking having more money reduces the risk that signings fail but overall financially you're no better off. 

Also for us as a club not spending big has generally resulted in better recruitment for us but obviously that's not the case across the board.

Whilst spending 10s of millions mitigates the risk factor of the player not being good enough; look at our current situation. We signed Emi, Vrancic, Leitner, Stiepermann, Heise, for modest fees. Now spending 10m on 5 players and getting 2 really good buys, is that better or worse than spending 50m on 3 players and getting 2 good players and 1 bad?

Equally, a higher transfer fee and higher wage failure its much more difficult to move on afterwards I.e Naismith - whereas players like Heise wont be looking to sit at a club where they're not getting paid much anyway.

Share this post


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

Naismith was an appalling sanction of money by the current owners, they massively messed up. If you do it professionally it works. Other clubs do it very well and I am sure you would agree that Webber and co would spend that money far better.. or do you not think they have that skill? The risk following your route is we get stuck in the championship, going nowhere for years... I have been there done that.. would like to see the club reach its true potential.

I am not sure what you are getting at. The owners got in Webber because they thought he would do a good job - and he's doing it, so surely it's happy days? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lake district canary said:

I am not sure what you are getting at. The owners got in Webber because they thought he would do a good job - and he's doing it, so surely it's happy days? 

My point is we need a bit of balance... our current owners have achieved much but they have also messed up a lot including spending wisely. If they have learnt their lessons then spending again sensibly 100% gives you a bette chance to massively change the club for the better as your income massively increases... Not investing when you are in the top flight 100% guarantees failure in the top flight. Anyway, at least we are getting to a degree of civility on here, were we can discussion these things like adults.. here is to a third round victory today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Oh dear... I think most successful people in business are rational, polite, listen respectfully to other arguements and give a measured response when disagreeing. They certainly don't use outmoded terms such as "spazzed out"... Each to their own I suppose.

It’s called ‘tough love’.

When you’ve worked with as many business owners and behavioral types as I have, you learn when someone needs a direct head-on response and where others need a softer, more empathetic approach.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Naismith was an appalling sanction of money by the current owners, they massively messed up. If you do it professionally it works. Other clubs do it very well and I am sure you would agree that Webber and co would spend that money far better.. or do you not think they have that skill? The risk following your route is we get stuck in the championship, going nowhere for years... I have been there done that.. would like to see the club reach its true potential.

Here we go again. When we fail, it’s the owners fault, when we succeed it’s despite them.
 

They backed the manager and/or McNally with the money to buy the players to keep us in the PL. Isn’t that want you want them to do now? If they’d said “Steven Naismith? You’re having a laugh, no way can you buy him”, you’d have been complaining with the other “spend it now”ers.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Here we go again. When we fail, it’s the owners fault, when we succeed it’s despite them.
 

They backed the manager and/or McNally with the money to buy the players to keep us in the PL. Isn’t that want you want them to do now? If they’d said “Steven Naismith? You’re having a laugh, no way can you buy him”, you’d have been complaining with the other “spend it now”ers.

👍

It's the rewriting of history that gets on my ****. As has been said numerous times before, hardly anyone was complaining about Naismith's signing at the time. A tough AM was what we needed at the time, he fit the bill and although relatively expensive for us, it wasn't stupid money. It didn't work out but the club were willing to invest.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, CirclePoint said:

It’s called ‘tough love’.

When you’ve worked with as many business owners and behavioral types as I have, you learn when someone needs a direct head-on response and where others need a softer, more empathetic approach.

 

Yah yah absolutely absolutely yah yah absolutely yah yah......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Here we go again. When we fail, it’s the owners fault, when we succeed it’s despite them.
 

They backed the manager and/or McNally with the money to buy the players to keep us in the PL. Isn’t that want you want them to do now? If they’d said “Steven Naismith? You’re having a laugh, no way can you buy him”, you’d have been complaining with the other “spend it now”ers.

Again I have given the owners credit for when they get it right and they have got it right a lot of times.. I also say when I think they have it wrong and a 4th potential premiership relegation is definitely not getting it right. I want them to professional invest in the 1st team as many others do and to give ourselves a chance to of surviving in the premiership. Nasmith was an appalling buy and one I am sure the current regime would not sanction or do you think they have not learnt? 

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  

×