Jump to content
hertfordyellow

The £15 million myth

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're right there is an element of hindsight- but what I thought at the time is immaterial because I'm not paid large sums of money to identify the right players.

My position is that whether we have 1 million or 50 million pounds to spend, I would prefer Webber and co to be in charge of how it was spent above any previous management team in my supporting lifetime.

Share this post


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

He has credit because he was given a reasonable budget to work with and made good signings.

I think it is hugely harsh to judge him based on working with the lowest budget of any newly promoted team in the last decade or so.

Yes, I agree that it is harsh to judge him just on the last 2 windows when he had success before. He is also to be credited with the strategy of not risking everything on a few highly gambles. So I am generally quite happy with his overall performance - but you can't keep on buying duds without questions being asked. As I say, I am pretty confident that he will have learnt - he has certainly given that impression.

Share this post


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

My position is that whether we have 1 million or 50 million pounds to spend, I would prefer Webber and co to be in charge of how it was spent above any previous management team in my supporting lifetime.

I agree- but I'm constantly confused by the fact people bring up Naismith every time someone mentions spending more, as if they believe Webber would have bought us a bunch of duds on large contracts we couldn't shift.

To your initial £20m extra spend point- I partially agree that is likely wouldn't have kept us up but we don't know for sure. What we do know is the approach we took played a large part in giving us one of the worst seasons in my living memory.

What I also believe is that if you'd have given Webber £20/30m to spend he'd have spent it wisely enough that we wouldn't be staring administration in the face due to those deals.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree- but I'm constantly confused by the fact people bring up Naismith every time someone mentions spending more, as if they believe Webber would have bought us a bunch of duds on large contracts we couldn't shift.

To your initial £20m extra spend point- I partially agree that is likely wouldn't have kept us up but we don't know for sure. What we do know is the approach we took played a large part in giving us one of the worst seasons in my living memory.

What I also believe is that if you'd have given Webber £20/30m to spend he'd have spent it wisely enough that we wouldn't be staring administration in the face due to those deals.

 

As it happen I don't think I've ever mentioned Naismith in that context. I get your argument, but I think you over-estimate the talent pool available to us in the Premier League for permanent deals, given the twin financial constraints on transfer fees and wages. The situation is very different when we are in the Championship, as can be seen by the two deals we have already done.

Share this post


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

I doubt that we would have been able to buy Duda and Fahrmann, nor indeed Roberts, at that stage, I suspect: they were only available to loan. e.g. Sheff Utd could have bought a keeper but preferred to loan Henderson

Webber (or Farke) mentioned after we'd secured Duda in January that he was someone we'd looked at in the summer but baulked at the £15m tag...he didn't shine during his loan spell, but would he perhaps have fared better with a pre-season amongst a squad still high on promotion rather than joining one that was struggling in and around the relegation zone? We'll never know for sure, but that doesn't strike me as the most ludicrous of signings if it's one that they'd identified early on.

We have a habit of keeping our powder dry until the January window after promotion (despite talking up how important it is to get business done early) for some reason and, yes, it's all ifs, buts and maybes (Peter Thorne and Tony Cottee scored goals everywhere other than us!), but there's recklessness and calculated gambles. As an example, Gary Cahill is one that I think we should have taken a serious look at. It sounds ludicrous, as he's allegedly on £75,000 a week at Palace, but he was fee-free and over his two year deal that's only £7.8m - cheap for a player with his experience, and that gives you some game management that we evidently lacked across the season.

All in my opinion, of course.

Edited by Declan

Share this post


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

Do you think Stuart Webber is bad at his job at should be sacked?

Errrr....no.  Really don't see the link to Webber and whether signings work or not - it's a bit of a lottery whether a signing will work out, loan or otherwise.  Buying young hopefuls we seem to be pretty good at and that is a big part of Webber's strategy for the club given we don't have huge amounts of money, so you buy young and if you want experienced older players look for frees or loans, no problem.  Rupp I quite like, but Duda is a funny one, you could forgive him for being off the pace of the PL, which mnaybe he was, but his set pieces were so appalling it is hard to credit.  Very strange.  

Share this post


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

As it happen I don't think I've ever mentioned Naismith in that context. I get your argument, but I think you over-estimate the talent pool available to us in the Premier League for permanent deals, given the twin financial constraints on transfer fees and wages. The situation is very different when we are in the Championship, as can be seen by the two deals we have already done.

Well it hugely depends on what you're looking for doesnt it? Are you looking to buy a player with lots of proven Premier League experience? Then likely yes it would be beyond our budget. However a couple of younger players from smaller league with potential? Shouldn't be beyond us.

Share this post


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

Errrr....no.  Really don't see the link to Webber and whether signings work or not - it's a bit of a lottery whether a signing will work out, loan or otherwise.  Buying young hopefuls we seem to be pretty good at and that is a big part of Webber's strategy for the club given we don't have huge amounts of money, so you buy young and if you want experienced older players look for frees or loans, no problem.  Rupp I quite like, but Duda is a funny one, you could forgive him for being off the pace of the PL, which mnaybe he was, but his set pieces were so appalling it is hard to credit.  Very strange.  

The link is that you, badger and others seem certain that given some cash Webber would have saddled us with Naismith types.

Signing players isn't a lottery though- sure there are risks but if its a lottery then its just luck isn't it? Which isn't the case with signing players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

As it happen I don't think I've ever mentioned Naismith in that context. I get your argument, but I think you over-estimate the talent pool available to us in the Premier League for permanent deals, given the twin financial constraints on transfer fees and wages. The situation is very different when we are in the Championship, as can be seen by the two deals we have already done.

Exactly. In the market  which promoted teams shop there is inherent risk. You are unlikely to get established players with a pedigree (except on loan) and tend to be left with a gamble on those who you think that will "make the jump" - RVW/ Hooper.

When you do get established players, it tends to be those looking for a last payday as they go over the hill - e.g. Naismith, Helveg etc

Share this post


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

Signing players isn't a lottery though- sure there are risks but if its a lottery then its just luck isn't it? Which isn't the case with signing players.

It isn't a lottery ... but it is a calculated gamble. By many accounts we did have money to buy players if the risk/ reward balance was ok, but sensibly we decided not to just "blow it" when we were not sure. e,g, Wildshutt?

Share this post


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

Exactly. In the market  which promoted teams shop there is inherent risk. You are unlikely to get established players with a pedigree (except on loan) and tend to be left with a gamble on those who you think that will "make the jump" - RVW/ Hooper.

When you do get established players, it tends to be those looking for a last payday as they go over the hill - e.g. Naismith, Helveg etc

Which is exactly what we did under Hughton and you know what...it went OK.

Rvw- flop

Fer- sold for a profit

Hooper- involved on bouncing straight back up  sold for not much less than we paid reportedly 

Redmond- huge part of our bouncing back up, sold for significantly more than we paid for him

Olsson- key part of our promotion, sold for a small profit

Elmander- loan, was awful.

 

Share this post


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

Which is exactly what we did under Hughton and you know what...it went OK.

We we relegated!

We were not a promoted team then in any case - it was our second or third season when we bought these players. A much safer bet for better quality players. We wouldn't have attracted them first year up as it would be seen by most as too risky a move - they'd rather sign for a club who were more established.

Edited by Badger
Added more comment on top of the rather facetious first sentence (sorry KC)

Share this post


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

We we relegated!

Yes, my point is it didn't cripple us financially as people keep claiming any spending this summer would have.

I understand there is a risk reward element to transfers. I just think you're view is so risk averse that it gets a bit ridiculous. 

Share this post


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

Yes, my point is it didn't cripple us financially as people keep claiming any spending this summer would have.

I understand there is a risk reward element to transfers. I just think you're view is so risk averse that it gets a bit ridiculous. 

1. Paying for "the extra quality" led to us getting relegated. When we shopped in the "bargain basement" we stayed up. Conclusions?

2. We were not a newly promoted side when we bought these players - we were in our third season in the Premier League. They would not have come to us if we were newly promoted (unless there were no other longer-established suitors) - too risky. FWIW, I imagine that we would spend bigger in a second or third year in the EPL + we might be in a position to spend more next time (the accounts will give us a clue) but Covid makes any predictions very difficult.

3. Being in our third year, the finances were in a much healthier state - it would have been our third year on Premier League money - less risky.

4. We were guaranteed 3 years of parachute payments if relegated - this year, just 2.

5. Any financial repercussions that might have occurred were alleviated by our play-off promotion.

In short, it was far less risky to invest in Hughton's year and it didn't work - hardly a great argument in "having a punt." Had we spent to anything like the same extent this year and had a similar result, it would have greatly weakened us moving forwards.

Share this post


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

Which is exactly what we did under Hughton and you know what...it went OK.

Rvw- flop

Fer- sold for a profit

Hooper- involved on bouncing straight back up  sold for not much less than we paid reportedly 

Redmond- huge part of our bouncing back up, sold for significantly more than we paid for him

Olsson- key part of our promotion, sold for a small profit

Elmander- loan, was awful.

 

I continue to think we would have stayed up if we'd got our first choice of Toivonen, who was still a good player and even scoring goals  (well, one goal anyway) four years later in the 2018 World Cup tournament. Elmander was shot by the time he joined us.

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


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

It isn't a lottery ... but it is a calculated gamble. By many accounts we did have money to buy players if the risk/ reward balance was ok, but sensibly we decided not to just "blow it" when we were not sure. e,g, Wildshutt?

The Funny thing is the scouts at the time were Excited about Wilshutt ha !! 

i was told he a quick player would be Really good which was very wide of the mark 

yet the same scout told me RVW would be no Good and would not be suited to the english league 

Funny old game that scouting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badger said:

1. Paying for "the extra quality" led to us getting relegated. When we shopped in the "bargain basement" we stayed up. Conclusions?

2. We were not a newly promoted side when we bought these players - we were in our third season in the Premier League. They would not have come to us if we were newly promoted (unless there were no other longer-established suitors) - too risky. FWIW, I imagine that we would spend bigger in a second or third year in the EPL + we might be in a position to spend more next time (the accounts will give us a clue) but Covid makes any predictions very difficult.

3. Being in our third year, the finances were in a much healthier state - it would have been our third year on Premier League money - less risky.

4. We were guaranteed 3 years of parachute payments if relegated - this year, just 2.

5. Any financial repercussions that might have occurred were alleviated by our play-off promotion.

In short, it was far less risky to invest in Hughton's year and it didn't work - hardly a great argument in "having a punt." Had we spent to anything like the same extent this year and had a similar result, it would have greatly weakened us moving forwards.

1. You're a stats guy, you know about causation and correlation surely? 

2/3 True but financially we were actually in quite a similar position- years one and two had been focused on paying off debts due to the deals with the banks- this year we went up debt free.

4. Yes but I don't feel this is hugely relevant- 3 year contracts so worst comes to worst they're off your books when parachute payments run out

5. Yes, a playoff promotion partly won by players signed that window.

Again, I'm not advocating 'having a punt' I'm advocating taking calculated risks. 

 

 

Share this post


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

The Funny thing is the scouts at the time were Excited about Wilshutt ha !! 

i was told he a quick player would be Really good which was very wide of the mark 

yet the same scout told me RVW would be no Good and would not be suited to the english league 

Funny old game that scouting 

Wildshutt looked really exciting at times - but just couldn't get it altogether. I still think that he could have been useful in another team - but I'm no scout!

General point is - all transfers are risky. You don't take a gamble you can't afford to lose!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

1. You're a stats guy, you know about causation and correlation surely? 

Yes quite happy to acknowledge that there is very little correlation between  transfer expenditure and EPL relegation for those clubs normally outside the top 10. (i.e. The fully established EPL clubs)

2/3 True but financially we were actually in quite a similar position- years one and two had been focused on paying off debts due to the deals with the banks- this year we went up debt free.

No. We made a loss of £39.4 million before tax in 2018-19  and had net debt of 22.6 million.

The accounts for 13-14 show that we made an  after tax profit of £6.7 million and had had no external debt at all. (https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2014/october/norwich-city-accounts-2013-14/)

Additionally after 2 years in the PL and quite  a high finish (relatively) the previous season, we had reason to believe that we were likely to remain in PL - this changes the balance of risk considerably. Financially we were in a very different position not a similar one.

4. Yes but I don't feel this is hugely relevant- 3 year contracts so worst comes to worst they're off your books when parachute payments run out

Most new contracts for players purchased are for 4 years. In addition the amortisation period of purchases tends to be over a number of years as well. The danger is that you pay for players who do not keep you up and you continue to pay their ages and transfer fees after you have stopped receiving parachute payments.

5. Yes, a playoff promotion partly won by players signed that window.

Again, I'm not advocating 'having a punt' I'm advocating taking calculated risks. 

I think that we are both in favour of calculated risk. I just think that we calculate it differently 😃 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2020 at 10:41, pete said:

Spending money is no guarantee see Fulham and Villa.  Just a pity we couldn't find another gem in the mould of Byram as for a CB we could have picked up Semi Ajayi who was playing very effectively for Rotherham for £1.5m until West Brom swooped and played him for most of the season.  Still need to look for lower league gems who are still out there particularly experienced CB's, maybe not young and thrusting but knowledgable concerning their role. 

The problem we faced is Ajayi is 2m to West Brom and 6m to us because of the Premiership factor. "You are getting all this money and you are desperate to stay up so the fee is different for you". Webber has eluded to this a few times. He has been frustrated with not being able to get previous Championship targets because they have moved the goalposts on price.

Share this post


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

Stoke will be top 6 next year as he has sorted them out....

 

On 22/07/2020 at 15:30, Grando said:

I'd argue that going into the season with 4 centre-halves was short-sighted. Particularly given Hanley and Klose's injury records to that point. More bodies may well have helped us in that regard, but there's no way of definitely knowing whether the OP is correct in his assertion that the "£15m spend" is a myth that would've helped us, or my hunch that it would've been a gamble worth taking. And, btw, that mythical £15m could've been used towards loan wages or wages of free transfers – I'm not saying we had to spend that on transfer fees, merely that I believe we underspent to some degree (and spent the little we did spend badly).

I would say that going into next season with Hanley and Klose as two of four centre halves is extremely optimistic. Hanley in particular is a superb Championship player but quite how many games we'll get out of him is questionable. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...