Badger 2,405 Posted July 26, 2020 Below is a list of clubs that have been relegated from the EPL and have not yet been re-promoted. Obviously a long-term member of this list has finally got promotion this year (Leeds). Many of these clubs have been established top league clubs for many years, have bigger grounds and crowds and have won more. One things that a lot of these larger clubs have in common, particularly those with longer Championship stays is that they have had financial problems as a consequence of over-spending either trying to get to the EPL or to stay there. Except for the very richest owners (and we are talking billionaires rather than a few hundred million) - e.g. Man City, the extra spending trying to but PL status does not work over the long term. It may last for a few years, but at some stage it goes wrong and then the big spenders find it harder to manage the debt that they have accrued and get re-promoted. The best chance of becoming established in the Premier League is by well-managed organic growth. (Unless you happen to know of a multi-billionaire going spare). Those that take a "calculated gamble" (i.e. spend more than they can afford) will come down when they stop rolling 6s! Club Club Re promoted 1997-98 Barnsley N 2010-11 Birmingham City N 2011-12 Blackburn Rovers N 2010-11 Blackpool N 2011-12 Bolton Wanderers N 2006-07 Charlton Athletic N 2000-01 Coventry City N 2007-08 Derby County N 2018-19 Huddersfield Town N 2016-17 Hull City N 1994-95 Ipswich Town N 2016-17 Middlesbrough N 1998-99 Nottingham Forest N 1993-94 Oldham Athletic N 2009-10 Portsmouth N 2014-15 QPR N 2012-13 Reading N 1999-00 Sheffield Wednesday N 2017-18 Stoke City N 2016-17 Sunderland N 1993-94 Swindon Town N 2012-13 Wigan Athletic N 1999-00 Wimbledon N 2018-19 Cardiff City Poss 2018-19 Fulham Poss 2017-18 Swansea City Poss Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norfolkngood 1,087 Posted July 26, 2020 19 minutes ago, Badger said: Not if we'd spent £140 million and had contract liabilities worth tens of millions and no ground I wouldn't!! I know if i was the Villa Chairman i would get rid of the person who signs their players Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sgncfc 1,227 Posted July 26, 2020 Can some of those on this thread bemoaning the lack of "investment" please enlighten me as to where the money would have come from? Given that if you've seen the accounts we made a loss of £33m for the y/e May 2019. Given that everyone knows our owners don't have the sort of money where they can bung £100m to the club as a loan. I guess we could have sold our ground to someone for £30m like Villa did. Today we played a team who have £50m+ players in every position and on the extended subs bench. Our record signing is, what,£8.5m? Villa had 8 players in their team today who cost more than that. I know it's been disappointing but really, get a grip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted July 26, 2020 So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016. Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015. Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 3,984 Posted July 26, 2020 13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016. Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015. Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now... It means we would love to stop in the top league for more than one season. Norwich fans are very fair with rational expectations and compared to most others not that fickle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hucks6 169 Posted July 26, 2020 Horrible team horrible supporters horrible so called big team Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted July 26, 2020 Just now, Midlands Yellow said: It means we would love to stop in the top league for more than one season. Norwich fans are very fair with rational expectations and compared to most others not that fickle. Well that's strange because when we stayed in for three seasons it was no different. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 3,984 Posted July 26, 2020 13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: Well that's strange because when we stayed in for three seasons it was no different. Once in the last four as you already know. Even with £100m for finishing bottom and parachute payments to top that up we show no signs of learning the game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,300 Posted July 26, 2020 38 minutes ago, nutty nigel said: So Villa stayed up having been relegated with us in 2016. Bournemouth and Watford go down having been promoted with us in 2015. Does that mean we stop wanting to be Bournemouth and Watford who we started wanting to be when we stopped wanting to be Aston Villa who I assume we want to be again now... No Nutty, I won’t settle till we are like Liverpool ! We have a German manager.......step 1 achieved. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nutty nigel 7,534 Posted July 26, 2020 15 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said: Once in the last four as you already know. Even with £100m for finishing bottom and parachute payments to top that up we show no signs of learning the game. A lot of clubs people used to want to be show far less signs... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr Greenthumb 749 Posted July 26, 2020 3 hours ago, kick it off said: There was literally about a point in it at the start of lockdown. Our total collapse doesn't mean they were much better. Before today they'd conceded almost exactly the same amount of goals as our porous defence. They really weren't much better than us. We were playing better before lockdown and still lost twice to them. They are a better team, but spent a hell of a lot more to achieve it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midlands Yellow 3,984 Posted July 26, 2020 1 hour ago, nutty nigel said: A lot of clubs people used to want to be show far less signs... Is that a clue for Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted July 26, 2020 Webber has said publicly that he made a mistake this season. Some say we should have invested 100 mill and some defend the fact we invested basically nothing. The point is the right amount of investment is the amount that would have kept us up, but we didn't stay up so we will never know. I wouldn't imagine we will repeat this mistake if we get promoted in the near future. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,405 Posted July 26, 2020 2 hours ago, sgncfc said: Can some of those on this thread bemoaning the lack of "investment" please enlighten me as to where the money would have come from? Given that if you've seen the accounts we made a loss of £33m for the y/e May 2019. Given that everyone knows our owners don't have the sort of money where they can bung £100m to the club as a loan. I guess we could have sold our ground to someone for £30m like Villa did. Today we played a team who have £50m+ players in every position and on the extended subs bench. Our record signing is, what,£8.5m? Villa had 8 players in their team today who cost more than that. I know it's been disappointing but really, get a grip. 1. We'd borrow it - and because as a result of spending (what ever amount they say) millions we would be in the Premier league for ever and so would never have to pay it back - I think this is the basic gist. 2. Some on the other hand, thinks "it's just worth a punt." 3. Another group subscribe to the idea that there's loads of multi billionaires queuing up to buy us and invest squillions. 4. There is the "Goldilocks brigade" - we should borrow "not too much, not too little, but just the perfect amount". This tends to be a fairy tale with predictably little detail or reality. 5. There is a final group who don't say much except, except mumble under their breath about "nepotism Tom," grumble grumble, because others owners really don't pass on control to their family you know - only us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary dwarf 221 Posted July 26, 2020 5 hours ago, Badger said: Really? Watford spent £43 million this season on transfers and went down (+ Welbeck on what was no doubt a huge wage). Bournemouth spent £50 million. So their gamble failed as well. So what are you suggesting ,we should spend nothing and go down as the laughing stock of uk football,get a life. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted July 26, 2020 The bottom line is we didn't spend enough. Any counter argument is at best, bizarre and worst, completely deluded. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted July 26, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Canary dwarf said: reeeettttaaaarrrddd Is there not a reddit thread missing your insightful input? *slow clap* Edited July 26, 2020 by Chelm Canary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary dwarf 221 Posted July 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said: The bottom line is we didn't spend enough. Any counter argument is at best, bizarre and worst, completely deluded. Yeah I completely agree but don't make out us as Norwich fans wanted to spend 100 mill,but yeah we should certainly spend more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary dwarf 221 Posted July 26, 2020 Just now, Chelm Canary said: Is there not a reddit thread missing your inciteful input? *slow clap* It is very inciteful ,are you not impressed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted July 26, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Badger said: 1. We'd borrow it - and because as a result of spending (what ever amount they say) millions we would be in the Premier league for ever and so would never have to pay it back - I think this is the basic gist. 2. Some on the other hand, thinks "it's just worth a punt." 3. Another group subscribe to the idea that there's loads of multi billionaires queuing up to buy us and invest squillions. 4. There is the "Goldilocks brigade" - we should borrow "not too much, not too little, but just the perfect amount". This tends to be a fairy tale with predictably little detail or reality. 5. There is a final group who don't say much except, except mumble under their breath about "nepotism Tom," grumble grumble, because others owners really don't pass on control to their family you know - only us. 1) Yes. If posters know of financial institutions out there who lend money and never want it repaid could they please send me a personal message. 2) The more sophisticated version of this is the oxymoronic 'calclated risk' mantra. In this case 'calculated' means 'unjustifiably hopeful'. And with the owners we have cannot take a risk because if it goes wrong we will actually be in real financial trouble with no obvious or pleasant way out, as opposed to the solvable probems we've had so far the Smith and Jones era. We could never have remotely been able to justify taking the kind of risk Aston Villa took, but then not even Aston Villa, with the owners they have, could possibly justify that risk. They have been very, very lucky. Edited July 26, 2020 by PurpleCanary Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Chelm Canary 404 Posted July 26, 2020 1 minute ago, Canary dwarf said: It is very inciteful ,are you not impressed. Very.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NFN FC 1,123 Posted July 26, 2020 23.2562 million is what we should've spent Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary dwarf 221 Posted July 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, Chelm Canary said: Very.... Yeah I can tell Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,606 Posted July 27, 2020 With regards to Villa I think it is utterly pointless to be looking for lessons to learn both positive and negative from them. Completely different club in a completely different situation. They came up in some quite unique circumstances in that 4 of their key players were on loan and thus would either need to be signed permanently of replaced so were always likely to have to spend. I imagine if we'd have come up and then had to replace Pukki, Godfrey, Zimmerman and Buendia we'd have probably spent a bit more than we did too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,606 Posted July 27, 2020 8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said: 2) The more sophisticated version of this is the oxymoronic 'calclated risk' mantra. In this case 'calculated' means 'unjustifiably hopeful'. And with the owners we have cannot take a risk because if it goes wrong we will actually be in real financial trouble with no obvious or pleasant way out, as opposed to the solvable probems we've had so far the Smith and Jones era. You're a smart guy and you know calculated risk isn't an oxymoron so lets start there. People take calculated risks all the time. You get a mortgage, you're risking that you'll be earning enough money to keep paying it off over a long period. That is a calculated risk Football clubs take these all the time too. The issue is the apparent threshold for what becomes to risky for NCFC is so much lower than with the 19 other clubs in this league (and likely a few in the league below too). According to transfermark, 50 players were signed by Premier League clubs for north of £10m. Yet apparently for us making a signing like that would unfathomable and threaten the long term future of the club. I don't think any but the most moronic of posters are calling for us to have done what Villa did. But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
......and Smith must score. 1,343 Posted July 27, 2020 42 minutes ago, king canary said: You're a smart guy and you know calculated risk isn't an oxymoron so lets start there. People take calculated risks all the time. You get a mortgage, you're risking that you'll be earning enough money to keep paying it off over a long period. That is a calculated risk Football clubs take these all the time too. The issue is the apparent threshold for what becomes to risky for NCFC is so much lower than with the 19 other clubs in this league (and likely a few in the league below too). According to transfermark, 50 players were signed by Premier League clubs for north of £10m. Yet apparently for us making a signing like that would unfathomable and threaten the long term future of the club. I don't think any but the most moronic of posters are calling for us to have done what Villa did. But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending. This. You can’t expect to completely luck out on lower league, cheap imports and academy products. We are now in a good position cash wise and will be even more so with the inevitable departure of some of our better players. I can’t believe that those in charge won’t sanction a decent spend in readiness for next season. Not £100m or whatever but enough to give us a fighting chance of making a decent fist of it in the Championship again. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,405 Posted July 27, 2020 9 hours ago, Canary dwarf said: So what are you suggesting ,we should spend nothing and go down as the laughing stock of uk football,get a life. I am saying that clubs, like the ones mentioned above spend a lot and go down. I don't really understand what my life has to do with the facts. Perhaps the reason that you don't like simple facts says something about the state of yours? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
king canary 7,606 Posted July 27, 2020 37 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said: This. You can’t expect to completely luck out on lower league, cheap imports and academy products. We are now in a good position cash wise and will be even more so with the inevitable departure of some of our better players. I can’t believe that those in charge won’t sanction a decent spend in readiness for next season. Not £100m or whatever but enough to give us a fighting chance of making a decent fist of it in the Championship again. Yeah I agree we should be able to be competitive financially this season, especially if we do sell a few of our crown jewels for big fees. The eternal question mark for me will be what happens if we go back up- do we repeat what we did this season and hope for different results? Or do we bank on having recruited more players in the Championship who can step up into the Premier League unlike the current squad? Or do we bite the bullet and pay a couple of big fees and decent wages? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Badger 2,405 Posted July 27, 2020 1 hour ago, king canary said: But at some point, if we ever want to really compete at this level we have to be in a position to take some risks with spending. All transfers are risks - I'm not sure how "calculated" they can be as so much uncertainty surrounds their subsequent performance. This is particularly the case with promoted clubs, who are normally unable to obtain established top level players unless they loan them - an as we have seen even this does not always work. So, promoted clubs are buying at the riskier end of the scale and hoping that players "step up." This frequently fails: e.g. Wesley Aston Villa from Club Brugge - £22.5 million e.g. Ollie McBurnie - £17.5 million - 36 appearances, 6 goals (353 minutes per goal, compared to Drmic's 298 minutes per goal!); Callum Robertson - £10 million but at 25 years old loaned out again These clubs stayed up - but didn't stay up because they bought these players - the connection people draw is too simplistic. We could have bought all three for £50 million, but I suspect that we' still have been in the Championship next year - or do you think that they would have made the difference? In addition, I very much doubt that they would have accepted our relegation wage cuts, so the pay structure would have been messed up for the future years. In short, I think that we would still have been relegated, but our chances of future promotion greatly weakened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites