Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ron obvious

Webber interview

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The two attacking stars from last season in the Championship who got talked about as Premier League targets were Adams and Bowen. One cannot trust reported transfer fees but supposedly Bowen cost £20m, while Adams cost £15m and he has yet to score a goal in 8 starts and 12 appearances off the bench.

Or Neal Maupay but that doesn't quite fit 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don’t have the money to do anything else. £23million vs £23billion. 


Self-funding means you have no safety net for errors, you have to have actual positive cash to cover scenarios and liabilities. 


Actions - including transfers - will therefore be much, much more cautious and ‘defensive’ than anyone else. 


Because of our limited finance we attract young, promising players with playing opportunities that are often restricted to them. 
At a higher level they make mistakes, come up against a lot of unknowns, the Club overall may not succeed, but those players receive an unusual and priceless education that may well massively increase their asset value. 


We also attract players via ‘back-end’ deals that reward success and achievements handsomely, so when we do progress, they get financial benefits that are not regular liabilities on our books, but which do soak up Premier cash.

Finally and crucially, the major drain on resources is nearly always wages, not transfer fees. We have relegation clauses with all our players because the Premier is so dramatically different. A theoretical example:

Jamal Lewis in the Premier £20m transfer fee, then £50k per week x 4 years = £30m

Sam McCallum £3m fee, then £10k per week x 4 years = £5m

Difference to club = £25m

Jamal Lewis Premier wages x 20 players = £50m per year (not including bonuses)

Sam McCallum wages per year x 20 players = £10m

Jamal Lewis x 20 players = £600m

Sam McCallum x 20 players = £100m

Difference to club = £500m

Difference on pitch? Maybe nothing. And so we continue...

The owners don’t have the money, promotion to the Premier swallows up lots of available cash through liabilities and increases in wages. Add in some previous errors that need correcting and you quickly arrive at £100m.

Webber is doing exactly what is required and maximising outcomes via the parameters in front of him. 

Two possibilities for all: 

1. Accept it

2. Different ownership

Parma 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Two possibilities for all: 

1. Accept it

2. Different ownership

Parma 

Option 3.  Come on pinkun message board, try to convince eeveryone that if we had only spent €30 m on player(s) . We'd be safe mid table by now. 😄👍

Cheers for that Mouldyo. A different  angle on a rather over discussed subject. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

At a bit of a tangent, Imbecile of the Week award goes unanimously to Christian Purslow:

 

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/aston-villa-chief-slams-tv-income-1-6524795

That’s one of the worst arguments , against anything , I’ve heard for a while . Just basically shouting “it’s not fair” at the top of his voice. Very odd chap. 
 

Not that I’m overly interested but have Leeds been on TV more than us this season? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. And we got promoted by playing better football, Leeds failed to go up. Sounds fair to me.


Or maybe rather than kicking a ball around the teams should just line up the supporters, see who has more, award them the game and go home?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, king canary said:

Hardly a new argument- 'big' teams have long been suggesting they should get more due to being more attractive. 

I have seen that big-club argument raised within the PL and perhaps within the Championship, but never (I may not have been paying attention) between the PL and the Championship.

As it happens I think the Championship is a fantastic league but if there was serious money to be made from it for TV companies (which would in part get passed on to clubs) then there would be a high-stakes bidding war for the rights, and currently there is not. That is why there is the massive disparity.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


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

Option 3.  Come on pinkun message board, try to convince eeveryone that if we had only spent €30 m on player(s) . We'd be safe mid table by now. 😄👍

Cheers for that Mouldyo. A different  angle on a rather over discussed subject. 

Morning all!

You forgot option 4 Corky - Come on pinkun message board, attack/mock anyone (and everyone) who dares to offer a different opinion to you that varies from the status quo. :classic_wink: :classic_tongue:

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Because of our limited finance we attract young, promising players with playing opportunities that are often restricted to them. 
At a higher level they make mistakes, come up against a lot of unknowns, the Club overall may not succeed, but those players receive an unusual and priceless education that may well massively increase their asset value. 

This is all fine but I don't support a balance sheet...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We don’t have the money to do anything else. £23million vs £23billion. 


Self-funding means you have no safety net for errors, you have to have actual positive cash to cover scenarios and liabilities. 


Actions - including transfers - will therefore be much, much more cautious and ‘defensive’ than anyone else. 


Because of our limited finance we attract young, promising players with playing opportunities that are often restricted to them. 
At a higher level they make mistakes, come up against a lot of unknowns, the Club overall may not succeed, but those players receive an unusual and priceless education that may well massively increase their asset value. 


We also attract players via ‘back-end’ deals that reward success and achievements handsomely, so when we do progress, they get financial benefits that are not regular liabilities on our books, but which do soak up Premier cash.

Finally and crucially, the major drain on resources is nearly always wages, not transfer fees. We have relegation clauses with all our players because the Premier is so dramatically different. A theoretical example:

Jamal Lewis in the Premier £20m transfer fee, then £50k per week x 4 years = £30m

Sam McCallum £3m fee, then £10k per week x 4 years = £5m

Difference to club = £25m

Jamal Lewis Premier wages x 20 players = £50m per year (not including bonuses)

Sam McCallum wages per year x 20 players = £10m

Jamal Lewis x 20 players = £600m

Sam McCallum x 20 players = £100m

Difference to club = £500m

Difference on pitch? Maybe nothing. And so we continue...

The owners don’t have the money, promotion to the Premier swallows up lots of available cash through liabilities and increases in wages. Add in some previous errors that need correcting and you quickly arrive at £100m.

Webber is doing exactly what is required and maximising outcomes via the parameters in front of him. 

Two possibilities for all: 

1. Accept it

2. Different ownership

Parma 

Option 2 please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Morning all!

You forgot option 4 Corky - Come on pinkun message board, attack/mock anyone (and everyone) who dares to offer a different opinion to you that varies from the status quo. :classic_wink: :classic_tongue:

OTBC

Good point. An obvious  oversight on my part, apologies to all. I must do better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, king canary said:

This is all fine but I don't support a balance sheet...

Wouldn't be much to support if the books dont balance. Sooner or later profligate spending  would do for us. .......unless of course we had a serious benefactor. 

And round we go again.........

Edited by wcorkcanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Morning all!

You forgot option 4 Corky - Come on pinkun message board, attack/mock anyone (and everyone) who dares to offer a different opinion to you that varies from the status quo. :classic_wink: :classic_tongue:

OTBC

Of course assisted by dragging up posts and threads from years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Of course assisted by dragging up posts and threads from years ago.

Is there a statute of limitations on opinions then? One man's 'dragging up' is another man's research in order to present a coherent argument. Cant see the harm myself.   It's just opinions,  which, believe it or not,  can change. 

Someone been trawling your previous , Benny?

Share this post


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

This is all fine but I don't support a balance sheet...

No, but you want to have a club to support. If someone isn't keeping a sensible eye on the balance sheet then you might end up without a club - see Bury FC. And there's some clubs in the Championship right now who are seriously teetering on the brink - Derby and Sheffield Wednesday - and Villa if they go down. (Oh but Villa can flog Grealish and they'll be alright say some - Grealish does his ACL before the end of the season and then what?). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Or Neal Maupay but that doesn't quite fit 😉

Webber would probably argue that 21 year old Neal Maupay cost Brentford around £1.6m and after two seasons they sold him for £20m. Even taking transfer figures with a huge pinch of salt it makes a big argument for trying to recruit the right talent at an early age rather than waiting to see their value explode.

Similarly Adam Webster more than doubled his value after one season not playing for Ipswich (insert own punchline here).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of us started watching football when profit and loss were never discussed except at the AGM (apart from when we bought Colin Prophett) and then it was on the back page of the EEN and that was it.

It is upsetting to see the financial side of the club becoming as important as on the field activities. Who or what to blame doesn't really matter as it has created the darker side of the game that is troubling even a club like ours which has spent at least half its time in the top division since 1971.

Of course we were never flush and the Supporters Club often handed over cheques to help out. And selling on players kept us manageable, certainly after the dark days of the mid fifties.

The Villa spokesman is correct in some ways. Not only do the top four get TV money but then CL money so can look forward to a minimum of £200M a season from TV. The bigger clubs have larger expenses I hear but that doesn't wash. The bills are that large because they are guaranteed that income. So they spend it and under FFP allowances, can lose another £100M for two seasons running.

Poor old Bury weren't guaranteed much at all. Most teams in the Championship down have a match postponed and may well have a cash flow problem for a week.

I did post on another topic that I believe the TV money from the contract should be divided equally. The amount of appearances would give the more popular clubs the extra revenue.

There is probably too much football being played at a professional level to sustain any real success. Too many clubs need to dip their beaks. If Kings Lynn should make it to the EFL, could Norfolk sustain two league clubs? Especially as we are the established club.

Self sustaining is the only real option for the future.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Many of us started watching football when profit and loss were never discussed except at the AGM (apart from when we bought Colin Prophett) and then it was on the back page of the EEN and that was it.

It is upsetting to see the financial side of the club becoming as important as on the field activities. Who or what to blame doesn't really matter as it has created the darker side of the game that is troubling even a club like ours which has spent at least half its time in the top division since 1971.

Of course we were never flush and the Supporters Club often handed over cheques to help out. And selling on players kept us manageable, certainly after the dark days of the mid fifties.

The Villa spokesman is correct in some ways. Not only do the top four get TV money but then CL money so can look forward to a minimum of £200M a season from TV. The bigger clubs have larger expenses I hear but that doesn't wash. The bills are that large because they are guaranteed that income. So they spend it and under FFP allowances, can lose another £100M for two seasons running.

Poor old Bury weren't guaranteed much at all. Most teams in the Championship down have a match postponed and may well have a cash flow problem for a week.

I did post on another topic that I believe the TV money from the contract should be divided equally. The amount of appearances would give the more popular clubs the extra revenue.

There is probably too much football being played at a professional level to sustain any real success. Too many clubs need to dip their beaks. If Kings Lynn should make it to the EFL, could Norfolk sustain two league clubs? Especially as we are the established club.

Self sustaining is the only real option for the future.

I would argue the financial side was always that important. Not for nothing were Sunderland and later Everton known as the Bank of England Club. It is just that it is understood and discussed more. There have also been significant shifts in the kind of finance underpinning clubs, hence the rise and fall of certain clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Why, have they signed up for life ? 

You're talking about different ownership coming in, I thought, to solve the fact that we aren't going to go and spend millions on players in the next season or so. Which would likely mean that they'd want to put their stamp on the club. So, different head coach and different sporting director (bearing in mind they even decided to run with that model).

You'd rather we do that and potentially face utter oblivion if things don't work out, than carry on with what we're doing at the moment.

OK.

It seems stupid to me but whatever. We all know you are an angry fellow 😊

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Icecream Snow said:

Webber would probably argue that 21 year old Neal Maupay cost Brentford around £1.6m and after two seasons they sold him for £20m. Even taking transfer figures with a huge pinch of salt it makes a big argument for trying to recruit the right talent at an early age rather than waiting to see their value explode.

Similarly Adam Webster more than doubled his value after one season not playing for Ipswich (insert own punchline here).

Exactly, a great bit of scouting by Brentford. Identifying the talent early with clever recruitment is definitely the way to go, why pay £20mil when you can get him for £2. It’s a no brainer, and all about being one step ahead of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BobLoz3 said:

You're talking about different ownership coming in, I thought, to solve the fact that we aren't going to go and spend millions on players in the next season or so. Which would likely mean that they'd want to put their stamp on the club. So, different head coach and different sporting director (bearing in mind they even decided to run with that model).

You'd rather we do that and potentially face utter oblivion if things don't work out, than carry on with what we're doing at the moment.

OK.

It seems stupid to me but whatever. We all know you are an angry fellow 😊

Hardly ever angry really. I’d like to see this club get promoted again (after this relegation) and then stay up for more than one season. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to happen under this regime.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Hardly ever angry really. I’d like to see this club get promoted again (after this relegation) and then stay up for more than one season. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to happen under this regime.

Yes apologies for that last comment. I didn't mean to be personal as such.

I just think the calls for new ownership are a little far-fetched. None of us know what will happen over the next couple of seasons. The same as we aren't assured of anything IF new ownership occured.

I just want to enjoy the ride for the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BobLoz3 said:

Yes apologies for that last comment. I didn't mean to be personal as such.

I just think the calls for new ownership are a little far-fetched. None of us know what will happen over the next couple of seasons. The same as we aren't assured of anything IF new ownership occured.

I just want to enjoy the ride for the moment.

No need to apologise. I understand a change of ownership could go either way. I think it will happen(not in the near future and probably after Tom takes over) so patience is a virtue I guess. 

  • Like 1

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...