Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dean Coneys boots

Not unlucky. Not clever.

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Simply making a prediction that their owners will do what needs to be done to make them competitive and keep them in the top division or if they can;t will find someone else who can. They won;t want to risk going down again on the basis that they might bounce back.

Nothing wrong with making predictions Jim, it's the saying that it WILL happen that I query. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Nothing wrong with making predictions Jim, it's the saying that it WILL happen that I query. 

Ok - " I predict that what will happen is........... etc etc."

Share this post


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

Ok - " I predict that what will happen is........... etc etc."

🙂  Fair enough.

I predict that we will get relegated this season and then come back up again in one of the following two seasons. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that anyone making predictions regarding promotion, relegation etc is jumping the gun, only just over half the season gone. This is the period for might, maybe and could, which as Leeds have proved in the last couple of seasons is a long way from should and will, and even further from have done. 

Share this post


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

Ok - " I predict that what will happen is........... etc etc."

Yes but this is the point. It was only months ago that you predicted what will happen is that we won't be able to compete with Ipswich. I guess you never said when it will happen....

Share this post


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

Yes but this is the point. It was only months ago that you predicted what will happen is that we won't be able to compete with Ipswich. I guess you never said when it will happen....

I believe I said if we stay down long term then financially we would be on a par with or struggling to compete with even the likes of Ipswich due to the fact Evans subsidises them (or did previously anyway) to the tune of around £7m a season Nutty. However, obviously and pleasingly promotion has changed the landscape for the forseeable future anyway.

Share this post


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

I believe I said if we stay down long term then financially we would be on a par with or struggling to compete with even the likes of Ipswich due to the fact Evans subsidises them (or did previously anyway) to the tune of around £7m a season Nutty. However, obviously and pleasingly promotion has changed the landscape for the forseeable future anyway.

I don't remember any qualifications like that Jimbo.

So are you actually saying that pleasingly the decisions made by our club has changed the landscape for the foreseeable future?

Or are you still "all Kingsley Amis" about it...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I believe I said if we stay down long term then financially we would be on a par with or struggling to compete with even the likes of Ipswich due to the fact Evans subsidises them (or did previously anyway) to the tune of around £7m a season Nutty. However, obviously and pleasingly promotion has changed the landscape for the forseeable future anyway.

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Our turnover is far higher. 

It is one of the reasons why financial continence is a policy that is likely to succeed in the long term. Without the burden of debt, we are able to maximise our other advantages - good attendances a category one academy and a well-developed commercial + the very fact that we don't have to finance debt.

there is a lack of financial literacy in some of the comments made on this thread and people seem to think that rich owners just "give" the clubs money. There are a few examples of this, but in most cases, investors invest to make a return in the long run - they want to take money out of the club not put it in. 

Birmingham's recently published account are yet another example, if needed, of the naivety of some of the posts here. despite a loss of 30 million, mainly on players (wages + amortisation) - 173% of total income, they failed to even make the playoffs. To meet the shortfall, the owners sold off 23 million pounds of Birmingham City physical assets to another company that the owners have. Clubs, like any other business, person (or even government) cannot infinitely sell off assets to meet income shortfalls.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Badger said:

Sorry, but this is nonsense. Our turnover is far higher. 

It is one of the reasons why financial continence is a policy that is likely to succeed in the long term. Without the burden of debt, we are able to maximise our other advantages - good attendances a category one academy and a well-developed commercial + the very fact that we don't have to finance debt.

there is a lack of financial literacy in some of the comments made on this thread and people seem to think that rich owners just "give" the clubs money. There are a few examples of this, but in most cases, investors invest to make a return in the long run - they want to take money out of the club not put it in. 

Birmingham's recently published account are yet another example, if needed, of the naivety of some of the posts here. despite a loss of 30 million, mainly on players (wages + amortisation) - 173% of total income, they failed to even make the playoffs. To meet the shortfall, the owners sold off 23 million pounds of Birmingham City physical assets to another company that the owners have. Clubs, like any other business, person (or even government) cannot infinitely sell off assets to meet income shortfalls.

The 'physical assets' being their ground of course. Why haven't we sold off our ground? Why can't we be Birmingham City?? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

The 'physical assets' being their ground of course. Why haven't we sold off our ground? Why can't we be Birmingham City?? 

Keep an eye on Sheffield Wednesday Thirsty. They managed the amazing feat of selling their stadium and backdating the sale to a time before the company that bought it existed....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Keep an eye on Sheffield Wednesday Thirsty. They managed the amazing feat of selling their stadium and backdating the sale to a time before the company that bought it existed....

If only their players could display such 'creativity' on the pitch............ 😉 

Share this post


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

Frankly amazing how many people have been taken in by Webber's 'Emperor's New Clothes'!

Nonsense.

Webber has, since his arrival, overseen the biggest on and off field changes this club has undertaken since Delia's arrival. 

Together with the other executive directors, this club has changed for the better in almost every way. We have significantly improved facilities, Carrow Rd is used for all sorts of other things, bringing the club another source of revenue (can't believe anyone above suggesting we should sell Carrow Road - that's lunacy) and unless you haven't noticed we are significantly better off on the field with a vastly improved youth system and a side plying their trade in the Premier League. 

Not all of that is solely down to Webber, I appreciate, but to say his impact has been anything other than substantial is absolutely, mind bogglingly, ridiculous - even for this website.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Nonsense.

Webber has, since his arrival, overseen the biggest on and off field changes this club has undertaken since Delia's arrival. 

Together with the other executive directors, this club has changed for the better in almost every way. We have significantly improved facilities, Carrow Rd is used for all sorts of other things, bringing the club another source of revenue (can't believe anyone above suggesting we should sell Carrow Road - that's lunacy) and unless you haven't noticed we are significantly better off on the field with a vastly improved youth system and a side plying their trade in the Premier League. 

Not all of that is solely down to Webber, I appreciate, but to say his impact has been anything other than substantial is absolutely, mind bogglingly, ridiculous - even for this website.

Pity he has announced his departure already... Imagine Todd doing that.. this website would be in meltdown... Do as I say not as I do etc etc....

Edited by Kenny Foggo

Share this post


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

Frankly amazing how many people have been taken in by Webber's 'Emperor's New Clothes'!

Yeah but you can see what's really going on whilst all us thick folks lap it up. 

Jesus christ 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Bristol Nest said:

Ok, what do you actually want, if not the current regime?

I would like to see a reasonable spend in the summer before a premiership campaign to give us a chance of competing. Instead we only ever get panic spend in january or else a risible spend as this year thus far. 

I remain convinced that signing Ashton in September would have kept us up. That signing Klose in September the second time. I think two or three better signings this summer likewise. 

Either our board needs to show more desire when promoted or step aside in my opinion. As we seem to have hit a glass ceiling that is entirely linked to our inability to set a realistic budget to compete at the next level. Unless something changes we seem doomed to stagnate as a decent champ side who sells best players to survive. If palace and shelf utd and Burnley and bournemouth and watford can do it...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I would like to see a reasonable spend in the summer before a premiership campaign to give us a chance of competing. Instead we only ever get panic spend in january or else a risible spend as this year thus far. 

I remain convinced that signing Ashton in September would have kept us up. That signing Klose in September the second time. I think two or three better signings this summer likewise. 

Either our board needs to show more desire when promoted or step aside in my opinion. As we seem to have hit a glass ceiling that is entirely linked to our inability to set a realistic budget to compete at the next level. Unless something changes we seem doomed to stagnate as a decent champ side who sells best players to survive. If palace and shelf utd and Burnley and bournemouth and watford can do it...

Ashton would definitely have kept Norwich up if signed earlier. The transfers policy that summer before a ball was kicked was the same as this season. Spend as little as possible and just cross your fingers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I would like to see a reasonable spend in the summer before a premiership campaign to give us a chance of competing. Instead we only ever get panic spend in january or else a risible spend as this year thus far. 

I remain convinced that signing Ashton in September would have kept us up. That signing Klose in September the second time. I think two or three better signings this summer likewise. 

Either our board needs to show more desire when promoted or step aside in my opinion. As we seem to have hit a glass ceiling that is entirely linked to our inability to set a realistic budget to compete at the next level. Unless something changes we seem doomed to stagnate as a decent champ side who sells best players to survive. If palace and shelf utd and Burnley and bournemouth and watford can do it...

But they can't all do it. Sheff United haven't even stayed up for 1 season yet (albeit they will of course this season). We stayed up for 3 under our model. What if Sheffield United get relegated next season? 

Share this post


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

But they can't all do it. Sheff United haven't even stayed up for 1 season yet (albeit they will of course this season). We stayed up for 3 under our model. What if Sheffield United get relegated next season? 

'Under our model.'

The model now is very different from what it was then.

We spent quite a bit more on permanent transfers the first season we came up under Lambert, because you could still get quality players from the lower leagues like Bennett and Pilkington for £1-2m.

The unfortunate truth is that football, especially at the very top level, has changed hugely over the past decade but we haven't.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

I would like to see a reasonable spend in the summer before a premiership campaign to give us a chance of competing. Instead we only ever get panic spend in january or else a risible spend as this year thus far. 

I remain convinced that signing Ashton in September would have kept us up. That signing Klose in September the second time. I think two or three better signings this summer likewise. 

Either our board needs to show more desire when promoted or step aside in my opinion. As we seem to have hit a glass ceiling that is entirely linked to our inability to set a realistic budget to compete at the next level. Unless something changes we seem doomed to stagnate as a decent champ side who sells best players to survive. If palace and shelf utd and Burnley and bournemouth and watford can do it...

Spending more doesn't always mean success.

I want to see us sign the right players. For me, I think criticism can be made of who we signed this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, king canary said:

'Under our model.'

The model now is very different from what it was then.

We spent quite a bit more on permanent transfers the first season we came up under Lambert, because you could still get quality players from the lower leagues like Bennett and Pilkington for £1-2m.

The unfortunate truth is that football, especially at the very top level, has changed hugely over the past decade but we haven't.

Sorry, I shouldn't have said model. I should have said ownership. Although I'm sure you'll say your point still stands. 

 

(which i don't really disagree with, by the way.)

Edited by hogesar

Share this post


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

But they can't all do it. Sheff United haven't even stayed up for 1 season yet (albeit they will of course this season). We stayed up for 3 under our model. What if Sheffield United get relegated next season? 

Under our model? Webber was not here but I thought he started this "model"? Are we claiming all successes as the "model" and all failures as post / pre "model"... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Spending more doesn't always mean success.

I want to see us sign the right players. For me, I think criticism can be made of who we signed this season. 

Spending doesn't mean success but spending wisely at least gives you a chance. Spending £750'000 on a leaky defence 100% gets you relegated. Or as I have said on countless occasions, someone can show me a successful fan funded side in the premier league...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Ashton would definitely have kept Norwich up if signed earlier. The transfers policy that summer before a ball was kicked was the same as this season. Spend as little as possible and just cross your fingers. 

Although there is also an overriding wage budget issue, the issue following promotion with "poor" owners is a cash flow issue isn't it when combined with an obsession to avoid taking on any debt other than a very short bridging loan. Other clubs are not limited because their wealthier owners are able to (as well as pay for infrastructure themselves and often bring large sponsorship deals) help them bridge the period before the premier league monies start to come in whether by loaning money themselves or by underwriting debts. We can't/won't do that and so are placed at a big disadvantage immediately after promotion. Although I still feel the club should and could have done more this summer without placing us at risk, its not inherently untrue to say that the money is not there if you are not prepared to take on debts (whether to your owner or a.n. other), have to pay certain bonuses and for facilities upgrades and then don;t get the first instalment of the premier league monies until after the season has started. We had to borrow £18m just to get us through the summer period and meet the obligations we had which was then paid off as soon as we got the first tv money instalment.

Share this post


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

Although there is also an overriding wage budget issue, the issue following promotion with "poor" owners is a cash flow issue isn't it when combined with an obsession to avoid taking on any debt other than a very short bridging loan. Other clubs are not limited because their wealthier owners are able to (as well as pay for infrastructure themselves and often bring large sponsorship deals) help them bridge the period before the premier league monies start to come in whether by loaning money themselves or by underwriting debts. We can't/won't do that and so are placed at a big disadvantage immediately after promotion. Although I still feel the club should and could have done more this summer without placing us at risk, its not inherently untrue to say that the money is not there if you are not prepared to take on debts (whether to your owner or a.n. other), have to pay certain bonuses and for facilities upgrades and then don;t get the first instalment of the premier league monies until after the season has started. We had to borrow £18m just to get us through the summer period and meet the obligations we had which was then paid off as soon as we got the first tv money instalment.

‘It’s not inherently untrue...’😎

Share this post


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

Spending doesn't mean success but spending wisely at least gives you a chance. Spending £750'000 on a leaky defence 100% gets you relegated. Or as I have said on countless occasions, someone can show me a successful fan funded side in the premier league...

Exactly this. You do not need a budget of multi millions to buy a car to get you from A to B. But if you spend only £200 do not be surprised if it doesn't start or breaks down on the way. Between spending massive amounts a club does not have- and spending so little as to guarantee struggling lies a sensible middle ground. And the very purpose of this post is to ask why we dont seem to find that sensible ground? 

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...