Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sgncfc

Top 26

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Canary dwarf said:

Personally not interested in us doing a Burnley , they're style of football is bad too watch at least we're entertaining.😄

There have always been clubs that have managed to sustain PL football for a few years using "pragmatic" football. Alladice, Pulis etc have often been the manager. Eventually it tends to fail and the club does not seem to gain long-term benefits.

TBH, I'm not sure it's a price worth paying, although I know that some will be prepared to accept anything so long as it keeps us in the Premier league.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Thing is though Purple they only went down once and then went back up and have stayed up.

We've already been down twice in recent years, this will be the third relegation so its not quite the same is it!

Jim, the whole point is that last time, in particular, we "went for it" and overspent, which left us in difficulty when the gamble failed. That's why this time we are trying adopting a more long-term approach, rather than the "sh1t or bust" that McNally tried. 

Fortunately, as our owners are not excessively rich, we were not able to borrow too much and didn't end up in a situation when it takes many, many years to recover.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

According to transfermarkt Burnley spent about £12m in the 14/15 season. While that still isn't loads, it is more than we did this season, despite TV revenue having increased significantly in the last 5 years.

Yes but the players we brought in on loan/ free were worth significantly more than this. I don't think 30 to 40 million is an unreasonable estimate of their value at the start of the season. Fortunately, as they were loans rather than purchases means that we are not left with a long term liability if it does not work out.

Seems a sensible strategy to me: reduces risk greatly, although at the "cost" of not being able to profit from the player if they were a great success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Badger said:

Jim, the whole point is that last time, in particular, we "went for it" and overspent, which left us in difficulty when the gamble failed. That's why this time we are trying adopting a more long-term approach, rather than the "sh1t or bust" that McNally tried. 

Fortunately, as our owners are not excessively rich, we were not able to borrow too much and didn't end up in a situation when it takes many, many years to recover.

We didn’t really “go for it” we wasted a lot of the money we wasted after relegation. Two shocking bits of judgment over Jarvis and Naismith (which suggest more that McNally was having done sort of meltdown) does not constitute “going for it.” In any event nobody is suggesting spending stupid money, at least not whilst we have an owner who can’t underwrite it. 

Share this post


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

We didn’t really “go for it” we wasted a lot of the money we wasted after relegation. Two shocking bits of judgment over Jarvis and Naismith (which suggest more that McNally was having done sort of meltdown) does not constitute “going for it.” In any event nobody is suggesting spending stupid money, at least not whilst we have an owner who can’t underwrite it. 

Without getting into the semantics of "going for it," we spent money that meant that we were severely constrained going forwards because we followed a short-term sh1t or bust tactic, rather than a long term strategy. 

Fortunately, we don't have a an owner with the resources to put the club in greater debt, so we recovered more quickly than we otherwise might have.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay top 26. Shows the lack of ambition amongst the fans as long as the board/owners.

 

This clubs is a joke to be honest 

Share this post


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

Yes but the real point is what kind of wages Burnley paid and whether they had adequate relegation clauses in place to ensure they were not crippled in the way we were after ther Neil relegation. I don't know the answers, but it was certainly said at the time by people who were well-informed that Burnley had been very prudent, because they did have this two steps forward, one back plan.

PS. Just found this from the Swiss Ramble, from a year or two back, which gives a good sense of Burnley's overall approach over the last decade:

"Unlike many clubs #BurnleyFC pay their own way. Since 2009 they generated £104m from operations. Of this, £52m went on players (net), while £16m was invested in infrastructure (mainly Barnfield training ground) and £16m interest/loan payments. £20m increased cash balance."

There is also a mention of strong relegation clauses.

And specifically in the 2014-15 season when Burnley were in the PL, the figures show they were very prudent, in effect accepting they might well get relegated, as happened, but would be financially in a good state to bounce back, as also happened. Their wage bill was the lowest in the PL that season and their wages as a proportion of turnover  were also the lowest. This from The Guardian's David Conn:

'A remarkably low wage bill, £27m less than the next lowest-paying club, Hull City. Bouncing straight back from the Championship this [following] season has vindicated the directors’ choice of not using the top-flight bonanza to sign players in an effort to stay up, but to pay off debts – including to themselves – redevelop the training ground, and bank a profit.'

Stap me, it really does almost sound like a model to follow...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Yay top 26. Shows the lack of ambition amongst the fans as long as the board/owners.

 

This clubs is a joke to be honest 

 

Good banter. Is that the beat you can do 🙈

Share this post


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

There have always been clubs that have managed to sustain PL football for a few years using "pragmatic" football. Alladice, Pulis etc have often been the manager. Eventually it tends to fail and the club does not seem to gain long-term benefits.

TBH, I'm not sure it's a price worth paying, although I know that some will be prepared to accept anything so long as it keeps us in the Premier league.

I would still rather we play our way ,but I understand what your saying but would you like to see us play allardyce pulis Warnock style football really ,when Roberts played for us it became to much of an easy option too lump it long although it would be a good option from the bench.😭

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

And specifically in the 2014-15 season when Burnley were in the PL, the figures show they were very prudent, in effect accepting they might well get relegated, as happened, but would be financially in a good state to bounce back, as also happened. Their wage bill was the lowest in the PL that season and their wages as a proportion of turnover  were also the lowest. This from The Guardian's David Conn:

'A remarkably low wage bill, £27m less than the next lowest-paying club, Hull City. Bouncing straight back from the Championship this [following] season has vindicated the directors’ choice of not using the top-flight bonanza to sign players in an effort to stay up, but to pay off debts – including to themselves – redevelop the training ground, and bank a profit.'

Stap me, it really does almost sound like a model to follow...

All sounds great. 

The question is do we follow part B of that model- significant investment in the squad at Championship level. Burnley followed up that relegation by cherry picking players like Gray and Tarkowski from other Championship clubs and spending north of £20m. 

Lets see if we do the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

All sounds great. 

The question is do we follow part B of that model- significant investment in the squad at Championship level. Burnley followed up that relegation by cherry picking players like Gray and Tarkowski from other Championship clubs and spending north of £20m. 

Lets see if we do the same.

To an extent that started with the winter window, and it depends how many of our stars we keep this summer, but I take the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PurpleCanary said:

To an extent that started with the winter window, and it depends how many of our stars we keep this summer, but I take the point.

This has always been the big question mark for me- if we do go back down are we actually able to flex our financial muscle a bit in the league below? 

You're right that Sitti and McCallum seem like signings in the right direction. But at some point we're going to have to shake off this Naismith based hangover and actually spend some money on a player.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This has always been the big question mark for me- if we do go back down are we actually able to flex our financial muscle a bit in the league below? 

You're right that Sitti and McCallum seem like signings in the right direction. But at some point we're going to have to shake off this Naismith based hangover and actually spend some money on a player.

I'm not sure if this "hangover" actually exists - by many accounts we offered £15 million for Alexis Claude-Maurice this summer, which was agreed by Lorient but we were rejected by the player. 

It is all about getting the "right" player - and if we do not believe that we can get what we want, not spending for the sake of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure if this "hangover" actually exists - by many accounts we offered £15 million for Alexis Claude-Maurice this summer, which was agreed by Lorient but we were rejected by the player. 

It is all about getting the "right" player - and if we do not believe that we can get what we want, not spending for the sake of it.

I do love how the ACM story is now taken as gospel, while other speculation that less fits the narrative would be written off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

I do love how the ACM story is now taken as gospel, while other speculation that less fits the narrative would be written off.

I followed it fairly closely and based on what I read I believe we did make a serious bid for him. Just to add to Badger's point, Naismith was a short-term move, aimed at keeping us up (and in a rare, not to say unique, show of agreement, was welcomed by pretty much every poster here, myself included). The downside, when it failed, was we were stuck with a high-wage player with no sell-on value. Hence avoiding such purchases since. Claude-Maurice potentially had considerable sell-on value.

Share this post


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

I followed it fairly closely and based on what I read I believe we did make a serious bid for him. Just to add to Badger's point, Naismith was a short-term move, aimed at keeping us up (and in a rare, not to say unique, show of agreement, was welcomed by pretty much every poster here, myself included). The downside, when it failed, was we were stuck with a high-wage player with no sell-on value. Hence avoiding such purchases since. Claude-Maurice potentially had considerable sell-on value.

Can I just say I was very vocal on both Naismith and Jarvis, not saying told you so, but I am so much happier signing the players we have this window, Rupp could be put into that category but the money spent was a no brainier.
 

I love the current set up, the idea of building on younger hungry players has been a breath of fresh air.

Naismith was very vocal he didn’t want to come and we paid way too much to get him here and Jarvis had a history of being injured. Two of the poorest signings ever.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I do love how the ACM story is now taken as gospel, while other speculation that less fits the narrative would be written off.

I did say "by many accounts" which is a long way short of "gospel." However, it was a widely circulated rumour that seemed to have more legs than some of the others.

I can't think of a reason why we would not have been able to afford this level of fee had we identified anyone that fitted all the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Indy said:

Can I just say I was very vocal on both Naismith and Jarvis, not saying told you so, but I am so much happier signing the players we have this window, Rupp could be put into that category but the money spent was a no brainier.
 

I love the current set up, the idea of building on younger hungry players has been a breath of fresh air.

Naismith was very vocal he didn’t want to come and we paid way too much to get him here and Jarvis had a history of being injured. Two of the poorest signings ever.

 

Share this post


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

 

Yes Nutty, when we were linked with Naismith he looked a decent prospect but not at 8 million, as I said it was a lot of money for us and I can’t be asked to troll through threads back then, but he was very negative about signing after this initial thread which made me question his signing.

Share this post


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

I did say "by many accounts" which is a long way short of "gospel." However, it was a widely circulated rumour that seemed to have more legs than some of the others.

I can't think of a reason why we would not have been able to afford this level of fee had we identified anyone that fitted all the criteria.

To be blunt, we can only go on what we did spend, not what reports said we were willing to spend.

What frustrates me in these discussions is it is often presented as we just didn't spend quite as much as others, when actually in terms of pure transfer fees we spent significantly less than any promoted team in recent memory. Our underspend was not just at the lower end of the spectrum,  it was setting a new low level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of Norwich City, as a professional football club, is to be as successful as they can be. To be a premiership club spending more than one season in the top flight should be the target. Top 15. Top 26 is a target that can be achieved this season even if no one bothered. It's pointless.

Naismith failure is no reason not to spend wisely, question is, can these owners learn from previous mistakes or indeed will they ever invest in the 1st team in order to progress? I have my doubts...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, king canary said:

To be blunt, we can only go on what we did spend, not what reports said we were willing to spend.

What frustrates me in these discussions is it is often presented as we just didn't spend quite as much as others, when actually in terms of pure transfer fees we spent significantly less than any promoted team in recent memory. Our underspend was not just at the lower end of the spectrum,  it was setting a new low level.

Not sure I agree. If we only go by "what we did spend" rather than what we were willing to spend it implies that spending is a goal in its own right. I'm sure we could have spent more, the fact that we were not willing to do so suggests that we were not sufficiently confident about the options available.

We could have spent £20 million on Ollie McBurnie, for example but I presume that the management team felt that it was not likely to improve the squad sufficiently. Equally, we could have bought Amadou or possibly Roberts (not sure that we could have got him) rather than loaned them. If we had done so we would have not "underspent," but I don't think we would have been doing any better in the PL. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we at the very least not aim to be a top-25 team? It rolls off the tongue better. And besides, if you ever were to see a banner somewhere - let's say on a chip shop - proclaiming 'Top 26 Chip Shops in the Country', then you'd know that the establishment in question came 26th... 😉

Share this post


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

Realistically our natural place in the football hierarchy is somewhere between 16 and 26.

It is not our natural place. In modern football this is crucially determined by the ambition and resources of clubs’ owners. Would many regard Bournemouth’s natural position as a tier one club? I think not. But its owners have made it so.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it matters one iota what club supporters link their own club too or whom they wish the club to be, it’s what our manager Daniel Farke adheres too that matters most, and his comments today (7th) in the EDP (but it is the EDP!) suggest too, that he is alluding to a point of no return in suggesting that “he has had to pick himself up before the players” and “ We can't expect wins because we don't bring in £10m or £20m players. If we did then we could be a bit more strict. We simply have to back our players, back our young lads and that is what we are trying to do. That is our way." 

The lack of a competitiveness edge and our clubs policy appears to be taking its toll?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Badger said:

Not sure I agree. If we only go by "what we did spend" rather than what we were willing to spend it implies that spending is a goal in its own right. I'm sure we could have spent more, the fact that we were not willing to do so suggests that we were not sufficiently confident about the options available.

We could have spent £20 million on Ollie McBurnie, for example but I presume that the management team felt that it was not likely to improve the squad sufficiently. Equally, we could have bought Amadou or possibly Roberts (not sure that we could have got him) rather than loaned them. If we had done so we would have not "underspent," but I don't think we would have been doing any better in the PL. 

No, spending is not a goal in itself, but improving the team is and those two things are generally linked, certainly at this level.

We could have spent £20m on McBurnie you're right. Or we could have trusted Webber with some decent budget to get in players that fit our way of playing. 

 

 

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...