Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TeemuVanBasten

All of our signings this season have been crap

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

To continue the self funding model surely we have to have a conveyor belt of player assets to sell season after season unless of course you think ticket sales,hospitality and commercial revenue will keep us going Squit ?

Sorry, but that is just nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, City 2nd said:

Surely the taking round of a blanket and the supporters chipping in isn’t the same model of the self financing model the great Mr Webber and the board and owners of NCFC allude to. For one did the owners chip into that blanket? 

If it went past the riverend I expect they did. Did you?

It was before my time so I threw a cushion at the linesman first chance I got. Does that count?

 

Share this post


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

That's pretty much how I see it. And I doubt you could argue against it's success. It's certainly proved more successful than the majority of clubs with external investment. With the caveat that it's had support from the fans.

By external investment I take it you mean change if ownership.  

External investment would be good but that is not going to happen until the Boy Tom gets out of his depth and runs out of goodwill.

Share this post


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

Sorry, but that is just nonsense.

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIL 1010 said:

External investment would be good but that is not going to happen until the Boy Tom gets out of his depth and runs out of goodwill.

What would be the chances of achieving what we have with new owners and a different model? 

 

Share this post


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

No it isn't.

You do not need  "a conveyor belt of player assets to sell season after season."

Share this post


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

Sorry, but that is just nonsense.

Maybe Badger you could explain the self funding model and the financial mechanics of it if i am talking nonsense ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me that the self funding model only works with PL money. A spell in the championship would likely require player sales every season to balance the books.

 

Share this post


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

This is actually a very valid point. These three players would have cost what? Maybe £30 million for the three of them? I’d have been disappointed to say the least if we’d have spent that on these very average players. 

It's not really that valid a point.

If you can only look at loanees then your market is artificially limited. Also, loanees have both resale value so any fees/wages you spend on them is a loss you can't make back by selling them onwards.

Share this post


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

You do not need  "a conveyor belt of player assets to sell season after season."

You do if you're in the championship. 

Last season, if we'd have not gone up we were going to lose £14m , a gap that would have to made up by player sales.

Share this post


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

Seems to me that the self funding model only works with PL money. A spell in the championship would likely require player sales every season to balance the books.

 

If it doesn't work how do you get the PL money?

Share this post


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

If it doesn't work how do you get the PL money?

Is only sustainable with PL money 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

To continue the self funding model surely we have to have a conveyor belt of player assets to sell season after season unless of course you think ticket sales,hospitality and commercial revenue will keep us going Squit ?

Not strictly true.  A self-funding model that leads to success in the championship followed by at least one season in the PL gives enough of a buffer financially to keep things very healthy and without having to sell.   If we went that one stage further and managed to stay in the PL for a season or two and build up funds to allow us to spend a bit more, then you could say we are on to a winner, self-funded, players coming through at the top level, no neccesity to sell and lot's of money coming in at the end of the season to boost the following season.  

Self-funding only becomes a problem, if we change the policy that is in place now, buy in over our budget and then fail, causing debts to mount. Then we would have to sell and the slope becomes more slippery. As things stand, there is no need to sell anyone. That doesn't mean we won't sell, but it is not a necessity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, king canary said:

You do if you're in the championship. 

Last season, if we'd have not gone up we were going to lose £14m , a gap that would have to made up by player sales.

I'm not sure about your figure for last year - not saying it's wrong but could you source it?

The reason we had to sell Madison , Murphy's etc to survive was because we had previously overspent. The whole point of the new model is NOT to gamble our future as we have done in the past and some wish for us to do again.

It's quite easy KC - if you spend more than you can afford you have to sell to meet commitments and pay debt on time. If you keep costs under control you can choose whether to sell players or not. When you sold, it would not have to be the result of a fire sale for purely financial reasons.

In simple terms, if we had not bought the likes of Naismith and others, we would not have had to sell Maddison, unless we chose to for other reasons.

Share this post


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

It's not really that valid a point.

If you can only look at loanees then your market is artificially limited. Also, loanees have both resale value so any fees/wages you spend on them is a loss you can't make back by selling them onwards.

That’s true but you forget to mention that our clubs stature is also a very big factor in our range of players as found out this summer! Not everyone wants to play at Norwich.


 

Share this post


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

That’s true but you forget to mention that our clubs stature is also a very big factor in our range of players as found out this summer! Not everyone wants to play at Norwich.


 

What do you think the biggest factor was- our stature or the fact we weren't willing to pay the going rate?

Share this post


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

What do you think the biggest factor was- our stature or the fact we weren't willing to pay the going rate?

Are we able to? I honestly think if Villa go down this season then it could be found out that they weren't either....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Maybe Badger you could explain the self funding model and the financial mechanics of it if i am talking nonsense ?

Well for a start off to call it "self-funding" is slightly misleading/ confused if applied strictly to us. The very fact that we prepared to issue external debt to fund Colney shows that we are not purely self-funding.

The simple mechanics are that you budget to spend within the expected revenues (cautiously constructed - e.g. assume knocked out of cup first round etc). Given this, you do not have to sell anyone for financial reasons, although you may decide to do so for a number of non-financial reasons. 

As I pointed out in another post, the reason we have had to sell some of best players for financial reasons, is because we have taken a risk and ended up purchasing rubbish. We are not alone in this - most clubs buy quite a lot of rubbish as well over the medium term (they may get away with it for a while).

Buying players is inherently risky - the more you pay, the higher the risk. This is especially the case with established players - sadly even a 20 million pound purchase does not guarantee success.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure about your figure for last year - not saying it's wrong but could you source it?

The reason we had to sell Madison , Murphy's etc to survive was because we had previously overspent. The whole point of the new model is NOT to gamble our future as we have done in the past and some wish for us to do again.

It's quite easy KC - if you spend more than you can afford you have to sell to meet commitments and pay debt on time. If you keep costs under control you can choose whether to sell players or not. When you sold, it would not have to be the result of a fire sale for purely financial reasons.

In simple terms, if we had not bought the likes of Naismith and others, we would not have had to sell Maddison, unless we chose to for other reasons.

"That loss of £38m may seem an alarming drop but club bosses estimate not getting promotion would have meant a loss of between £10m and £15m, when player sales could then have been used to balance the books - as the sale of James Maddison to Leicester, for a reported initial £21m, demonstrated the previous summer"

From the pinkun report on the accounts 

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich-city-2018-2019-financial-results-1-6357790

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

What do you think the biggest factor was- our stature or the fact we weren't willing to pay the going rate?

Probably both, but had we paid the going rate and he turned out to be as effective as Drmic what would you be saying now?

Share this post


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

Is only sustainable with PL money 

So we've had PL money for 8 of the last 10 years. How did we get it while so many so called sustainable models didn't get a sniff?

Share this post


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

Probably both, but had we paid the going rate and he turned out to be as effective as Drmic what would you be saying now?

I'd be wondering what our scouts saw in this hypothetical player.

Share this post


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

"That loss of £38m may seem an alarming drop but club bosses estimate not getting promotion would have meant a loss of between £10m and £15m, when player sales could then have been used to balance the books - as the sale of James Maddison to Leicester, for a reported initial £21m, demonstrated the previous summer"

From the pinkun report on the accounts 

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich-city-2018-2019-financial-results-1-6357790

Thanks KC.

In essence this demonstrates the wisdom of not over-exposing ourselves financially. We spent so much money on sh1t during our last visit to the premiership the wages and transfer legacy of this was still in the accounts 3 years later, despite the player sales. 

It just goes to show why it is so essential not to repeat the same mistakes.

Share this post


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

What do you think the biggest factor was- our stature or the fact we weren't willing to pay the going rate?

Which of the players that our fellow "promotees" bought would you have liked at City? 

Share this post


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

I'd be wondering what our scouts saw in this hypothetical player.

This hypothetical player being Alexis Maurice, turned us down flat, touted at 17 million, big wages and scored just once and made one  in 19 appearances this season I believe.....pretty rubbish really for a 17 million winger!

Just saying sometimes 17 million doesn’t guarantee any better than loaning!

Edited by Indy
  • 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...