It is happening again

[Jim Smith 2,314]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

The answer was not obvious to me at all, Jim. There are plenty of posters on this message board who think that most investor owners just give the club their money and don't charge them interest on it and don't expect it back and have said so explicitly. Fair play to you if you recognise if this is not the case - I don't understand why you wouldn't say so.

Given that you know that clubs pay interest on debt and have to pay money back, how do you justify the following?

 

How can Watford, over £100 million in debt and a multi-million pound interest bill each year  (with extended owners, I suspect) outbid us for players. How can Southampton, again £100 million+ in debt, including a near £80 million loan at over 9% pa, due for repayment in 202o outbid us? How can Burnley, following a leveraged buy-out, again paying debt at 9%+ oubid us for players. They can only do so, if they think that they are worth more than we do - if it came to a straight race, we have greater financial resource than they do, but we may chose not to use it to avoid the mess that I suspect Southampton and Burnley are likely to be in within a few years.

Do you also acknowledge that we are able to access bridging finance, quite cheaply as it happens, I suspect, guaranteed against TV money. This would negate you cash-flow point.

Re bridging finance yes I do acknowledge it and we should be using it more than we do. In recent times, we’ve only ever done it to cover the promotion bonuses as far as I am aware. 
 

 

[Badger 2,405]

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Re bridging finance yes I do acknowledge it and we should be using it more than we do. In recent times, we’ve only ever done it to cover the promotion bonuses as far as I am aware. 

I recall at we have used it in the past, and don't believe it to be expensive (on a monthly rate) so can so no reason why we wouldn't use it again if we had to.

What about your assertion that every other club in the division can outbid us for players, despite the heavy debt load and high interest that they are carrying? If the managers are flush with money, why borrow at 9%+?

[king canary 7,578]

On 28/07/2021 at 15:46, Badger said:

 

They did- see below. £4.1 million for 2020, just over £40 million from 2011-20.

You cannot tell whether Sheffield Utd will continue to make a profit on player sales. As you say they spent over £60 million during the season - whether they make a profit or not depends upon what they sell them for. My point was simply in response to what someone said earlier saying that Norwich were the only club who has to profit from player sales - as I said above, I don't think it was you.

 

So having found this thread to look into out of interest, it turns out 'profit on player sales' in regards to this graph is just 'total amount of players they sold.

Their actual spend on transfer fees was the £60m+ that I mentioned.

I'm sure @dylanisabaddog will be along to tell me I don't understand but it seems pretty clear to me.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

23 minutes ago, Badger said:

I recall at we have used it in the past, and don't believe it to be expensive (on a monthly rate) so can so no reason why we wouldn't use it again if we had to.

What about your assertion that every other club in the division can outbid us for players, despite the heavy debt load and high interest that they are carrying? If the managers are flush with money, why borrow at 9%+?

I’ve never said we should borrow at 9%. There may be occasions where it’s worth borrowing sustainably but I’ve never suggested we load the club up with long term debt at high interest.

That said, a lot depends on who the debt is too and on the terms. Where the debt is to club owners or their connected businesses then the risk of it being called in is obviously minimal.

My main gripes have always been (i) that I feel in the past we have been a little over conservative on promotion snd not taken a bit more of a calculated risk on the basis that not all players are like Naismith and become a financial burden on relegation and (ii) I believe that the owners have been fiercely resistant to/have effectively blocked any possibility of new investment/ownership and indeed have created a situation where their majority shareholding acts as something of an obstacle to it.

I don’t think they’ve done it out of spite of greed. I just think they love owning and running their club. To a degree I like that about them but I also think it has possibly prevented us from realky kicking on after some of the opportunities we’ve created in the last few years. 

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,868]

55 minutes ago, king canary said:

So having found this thread to look into out of interest, it turns out 'profit on player sales' in regards to this graph is just 'total amount of players they sold.

Their actual spend on transfer fees was the £60m+ that I mentioned.

I'm sure @dylanisabaddog will be along to tell me I don't understand but it seems pretty clear to me.

Here I am. You're wrong. Player costs for the purposes of accounts are spread over the period of each players contract. That may seem difficult to understand but it reflects reality. So if the players that Sheffield United bought were on 3 year contracts their actual expenditure was actually £60m divided by 3 = £20m. Obviously the remaining £40m would be spread over a 2 year period. 

They are now in a bit of a mess because they got relegated which rather damages your argument that Norwich City should throw money around that they don't have. 

You should stop being angry that we don't spend money we don't have and start being angry that it's virtually impossible for a self funding club to survive in the Premier League. 

You also totally fail to recognise the effect of Covid. It has cost us £35m. How do we pay for that in the world you live in? Shake the money tree? 

The method of computing profit on player sales is affected by the length of their contract remaining. If you buy a player for £9m and give him a 3 year contract his value is £6m at the end of year 1, £3m at the end of year 2 and zero at the end of year 3. If you sell him for £15m at the end of year 1 you have made a profit of £9m. That may distort the figures in your rather simplistic financial view but it's how it works. Sorry. 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2021 by dylanisabaddog

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I'm sure @dylanisabaddog will be along to tell me I don't understand but it seems pretty clear to me.

I think that you are conflating points - understandably - as I have pointed out before a message board is not a dialogue, people pick up one point in response to somebody else, and comment upon that.

Somebody, I forget whom, said that we were the only club that had to sell players to finance operations. I responded that this was normal and that we were not exceptional. Your point, is again, is not technically correct - it is not the "total amount of players they sold." As I understand it, it the price they sell a player for minus his residual value, based upon straight line depreciation of the amount they paid for him over the period of his contract.

You are correct that SUFC spent more than us on transfers in our last premier league season, although about a third of this was in late January, when they knew that they were guaranteed a further year in the EPL. However, their wages were still 11 million lower than ours (over 13 months😃). As you know, they spent heavily again last season but were relegated and quite heavily in debt, so I'm not sure it has done them much good.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I’ve never said we should borrow at 9%. There may be occasions where it’s worth borrowing sustainably but I’ve never suggested we load the club up with long term debt at high interest.

That said, a lot depends on who the debt is too and on the terms. Where the debt is to club owners or their connected businesses then the risk of it being called in is obviously minimal.

My point is that Southampton FC have borrowed about £80 at over 9% (on top of other debt) which is secured against the clubs assets - again, my recollection is that this includes intangibles. Therefore, Southampton

1. They are thus paying nearly £10million in interest +

2. Have a near £80 loan due to be paid back in full in 2025, meaning debt + interest payments of nearly £120 million

Why do you think that they can outbid us on every player we go for if they want to as you asserted?

If you answer that, I can go through similar scenarios with other clubs.

[Badger 2,405]

54 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

You should stop being angry that we don't spend money we don't have and start being angry that it's virtually impossible for a self funding club to survive in the Premier League. 

I don't agree with you here in the long term. Some clubs have managed to extend their stay with the use of heavy debt for a short period, but it has rarely worked long term. We have seen chickens coming home to roost already, and looking at the accounts of some clubs, you can see it with several others as well. Add to this the period of exceptionally cheap credit that we have experienced since the last great crash and you can see a bloody scenario for some teams. It is why companies like MSD are able to charge 9%+ - because most banks are very reluctant to lend to football clubs - they have had their fingers burnt too many times.

Other big clubs, despite debts, essentially profitable operations.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

My point is that Southampton FC have borrowed about £80 at over 9% (on top of other debt) which is secured against the clubs assets - again, my recollection is that this includes intangibles. Therefore, Southampton

1. They are thus paying nearly £10million in interest +

2. Have a near £80 loan due to be paid back in full in 2025, meaning debt + interest payments of nearly £120 million

Why do you think that they can outbid us on every player we go for if they want to as you asserted?

If you answer that, I can go through similar scenarios with other clubs.

Fundamentally, because they are prepared to and not so concerned about taking on or accruing debt. Perhaps also because they are more used to spending those sorts of sums of money and confident that they have saleable assets if need be.

obvioudky the situation changed there when their owner died and his daughter took over and took a more “businesslike” approach to funding the club. 

I would not advocate the Southampton approach as our long or even mid term strategy. Fact remains though that if we were head to head with them for a player they would both be likely to outbid us and offer better wages if it means ensuring they get the player. 
 

[Badger 2,405]

27 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Fundamentally, because they are prepared to and not so concerned about taking on or accruing debt. Perhaps also because they are more used to spending those sorts of sums of money and confident that they have saleable assets if need be.

obvioudky the situation changed there when their owner died and his daughter took over and took a more “businesslike” approach to funding the club. 

I would not advocate the Southampton approach as our long or even mid term strategy. Fact remains though that if we were head to head with them for a player they would both be likely to outbid us and offer better wages if it means ensuring they get the player. 
 

I think that you are behind the times on Southampton - they were sold in 2017 - 80% owner is Chinese businessman Gao Gisheng, who has reportedly had enough of it and is looking to sell - so far without luck. Owners in this scenario don't tend to want to throw their money around (cf Mike Ashley at Newcastle). 

Last season he told the FT that he wanted the club to be self-sufficient (quite poetically):

“I am not treating Southampton as a pig to be fattened and sold. “I am treating it as a child. But my children must believe they cannot depend on the boss. I have said to Southampton: ‘I am now  your father. But I am putting you on the right track: you need to feed yourself.”

https://www.ft.com/content/599f0a1e-8910-11e9-a028-86cea8523dc2

Doesn't sound like someone, who is not bothered about accruing debt. More importantly his actions - if he wasn't bothered by debt, why not put his own money in, rather than borrow at 9%+? As this loan is secured against all the assets of Southampton, any future loan would have to be unsecured.

The Daily Star (yes, I know) reports:

"the club’s Chinese owner Gao Jisheng is desperate to sell his 80 per cent stake for a cut-price £150m. However, if unable to attract the right offer before the transfer window eventually opens, the Saints will be left with no option but to cash in their leading names to cover spiralling debts. That could mean them reluctantly parting company with at least four English players in an effort to raise the best part of £100m."

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/southampton-face-major-exodus-star-22075625

Be honest, Jim, do you really think that this is a club that can outbid us on every player we go for if they want to as you asserted? 

Edited July 30, 2021 by Badger
Added link

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

There's a heck of a lot to be said about being self-funded as we are right now, especially in a shaky economy and with a fair few teams potentially in a lot of trouble. Financial prudence might help us get a march later on.

[hertfordyellow 460]

Possibly naively, I’ve always thought that Norwich may get relegated a few times but eventually the financial doping in football will become unsustainable and clubs will either fail spectacularly or really cut back on outgoings making it a much more level playing field (in the bottom 10 at least). At this point Norwich can flourish and can enjoy the Premiership again.
 

Investing in academies over contracts for 31 yr old journeymen is always prudent.

[sgncfc 1,221]

Badger, bridging finance is the most expensive way to borrow - accountants call it "last chance money" because it is the last place you want to be as a business. At the moment it's about 0.9% per month so actually more expensive than the 9% pa flat rate. You can also defer interest before you then borrow again, and stay on the gravy train. The chickens only come home to roost on relegation when suddenly the LTV drops below the agreed percentage and it becomes repayable.

However, all this is moot as we are largely agreed that Norwich are no longer in this situation - but we were in 2019 which is why we couldn't spend money. I would still question though whether just because several PL teams are heavily indebted, their future is questionable. Debt used sensibly is a perfectly reasonable business tool. For instance, most of the top teams in Italy and Spain carry massive debt, as do Man Utd. It's just a different model. Cash remains the real issue for expansion of ambition for a team like Norwich.

 

[Badger 2,405]

10 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Badger, bridging finance is the most expensive way to borrow - accountants call it "last chance money" because it is the last place you want to be as a business. At the moment it's about 0.9% per month so actually more expensive than the 9% pa flat rate. 

I know that bridging finance is more expensive, but it was a response to several on here that we had to sell Buendia this year, because we didn't have any cash because the TV money comes in later in the year - i.e. that we had to sell purely to generate cash flow to buy players. They have also alleged that this was a repeated pattern of activity.

I disagreed with this point but obviously do not have access to the day-to-day details of cash flow/ staged transactions etc, so was looking for a simple way of demonstrating that this was extremely unlikely. Therefore, I explained bridging finance as one method that could be used (although I doubt that it is necessary - I suspect a lot of payments are staged around TV revenue's arrival).

Even at 0.9%, which seems high to me secured against guaranteed revenues (but I don't know tbh), £10 million at 0.9% per month would cost 90,000 a month and would only be needed until the TV money came- not great but less than a first teamer's wages and a better alternative than selling your best player!

In short, I don't think that we need this type of bridging finance, but if we did it would be a better way of raising very short-term finance to fund player purchases than selling your star player.

 

[Badger 2,405]

11 hours ago, sgncfc said:

I would still question though whether just because several PL teams are heavily indebted, their future is questionable. Debt used sensibly is a perfectly reasonable business tool.

1. Some teams can carry the debt with no difficulty at all.

However, the key word you use if sensibly.  I would question whether a loan at over 9%+ secured against all the clubs assets and repayable in 2025, from a club whose wages are 90% of turnover fits into this category.

I would also question whether it is sensible to use the debt acquired against all assets of the club to buy player registrations. This is very different from Spurs/ Liverpool etc who have borrowed to fund ground development which almost certainly guarantees higher revenue in the future.

2. The point was made that because teams like Watford use debt, they can always out bid us in the market and pay higher wages than we can. Again, I disagreed and said that in reality, there is a limit to how much any club can borrow sustainably, and in the meantime debt repayments actually reduce money available for wages/ transfers. e.g. Watford's debts are already higher than the reported wealth of the owners - given the reluctance of banks to lend to football nowadays, how much do you think that they can sensibly borrow at 9%+ to finance player registrations and wages this year?

[chicken 2,604]

18 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

(ii) I believe that the owners have been fiercely resistant to/have effectively blocked any possibility of new investment/ownership and indeed have created a situation where their majority shareholding acts as something of an obstacle to it.

"I believe"

You know that despite people saying this over and over and over again for 20+ years, the only evidence is to the contrary. It's become rather tired and boring to be honest. In the age of misinformation, this has to be up there as No.1 in terms of NCFC misinformation. I've not plumped for the "scheming money off the club for the retirement fund" as that is a whole other level of batpoo flatearther style conspiracy theory.

[chicken 2,604]

12 hours ago, hertfordyellow said:

Possibly naively, I’ve always thought that Norwich may get relegated a few times but eventually the financial doping in football will become unsustainable and clubs will either fail spectacularly or really cut back on outgoings making it a much more level playing field (in the bottom 10 at least). At this point Norwich can flourish and can enjoy the Premiership again.
 

Investing in academies over contracts for 31 yr old journeymen is always prudent.

14 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

There's a heck of a lot to be said about being self-funded as we are right now, especially in a shaky economy and with a fair few teams potentially in a lot of trouble. Financial prudence might help us get a march later on.

I agree with both of you.

In reality we learnt a lot from the pandemic in regards to football. Without fans the EFL cannot exist - some of those clubs would have more than known that before, but there will be others who perhaps didn't realise the extent - I'm talking about clubs as a whole, fans, board members etc.

We then saw the attempted "rescue package" coups from EPL clubs that also went on to try and create a European Super league. You don't even have to read between the lines to know that TV deal money is perhaps heading into it's endgame as it is. We have seen deals flop and fold in other nations top leagues and the use of i-follow suggests a new model going forward is likely to occur at some point.

Financial turmoil for football in this country is somewhat inevitable. 

 

[Badger 2,405]

19 minutes ago, chicken said:

Financial turmoil for football in this country is somewhat inevitable. 

 

I don't know if it is "inevitable," but I agree with the thrust of what you are saying - there a re plenty of warning signs and the smart money seems to be increasingly wary of football. For example,

1. BT are rumoured to want to get rid of their sports channel, which has been a major financial drain on them.

2. The collapse of the French TV deal

3. The premier league has "rolled over" the current TV deal - so perhaps it has ended its growth stage.

4. Some clubs seem to be quite difficult to sell. Two Palace shareholders have been trying to get rid of their shares for years; the Southampton owner is trying to sell, with no takers even at a reduced price. Even Newcastle, a club with massive support and infrastructure seems difficult to sell, despite what seems to me to be a relatively modest price. + I'm not sure that Morris could give Derby away 😃

5. Banks seem to be increasingly reluctant to lend to clubs, hence the rise in alternative lenders, especially MSD lending at over 9% on very stringent terms.

6. It's by no means certain when , but interest rates are likely to rise in the medium term

7. Many clubs are already heavily geared, they cannot keep on borrowing indefinitely, especially if the borrowing is to buy player registrations and pay player wages - it must become unsustainable at some point.

Like you, I think that this is a good time to be a solvent club. 

[sgncfc 1,221]

Whilst accepting all these points, no one has actually hit the buffers yet in the top 3 divisions despite an awful lot of scaremongering, particularly from the lower leagues in the early days of the pandemic.

We can give examples like Portsmouth, Sunderland etc of clubs who overtraded in some way to try to achieve success and failed, but they haven't disappeared. I don't see clubs like Southampton and Watford being at such risk either. They might suffer a few years in the lower leagues but their supporter base will always see them survive, and as long as parachute payments are in place the debt should always be manageable. (Not sure about giving out 4 year deals, but that's another thread.)

There was a lot of noise about Bournemouth but a few player sales seem to have steadied that ship, and they still have a team of £10m -£20m players in the Championship. Player assets may not be as risk free as physical ones, but one success is often enough to stave off any financial issues. Watford haven't had to cash in on Sarr or any of their others. Southampton are rejecting bids of £25m for Ward-Prowse. There is no desperation in either club.

As we all know, the time to borrow money is when you're solvent.

My point being that we could loosen the purse strings just a little and not cause ourselves any long term harm.

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

"I believe"

You know that despite people saying this over and over and over again for 20+ years, the only evidence is to the contrary. It's become rather tired and boring to be honest. In the age of misinformation, this has to be up there as No.1 in terms of NCFC misinformation. I've not plumped for the "scheming money off the club for the retirement fund" as that is a whole other level of batpoo flatearther style conspiracy theory.

It’s my opinion. If you think to the contrary then do be it but there is just as much evidence if not more to back up my view than yours so to call it misinformation is I think completely wrong. 

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Watford haven't had to cash in on Sarr or any of their others. Southampton are rejecting bids of £25m for Ward-Prowse. There is no desperation in either club.

The point I was challenging is that apparently ALL clubs can outbid us for players and pay higher wages. I don't think Watford or Southampton will cease to exist either, but nor do I believe that they can continue to borrow to pay wages and transfers.

Southampton, in particular, are a relegation away from great challenge. Over the next 4 years they have to find £120 million to pay the interest and repay their MSD loan. How does this help them outbid us for players and pay higher wages than us.*

*TBH, I don't think that this is what you were saying but it was the point to which I was responding originally

[Badger 2,405]

9 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

My point being that we could loosen the purse strings just a little and not cause ourselves any long term harm.

 

We could and perhaps we will. With guaranteed parachute payments, we can afford to make a manageable loss and we have taken on credit, even since the "new regime." It is easier this year precisely because of the hard work that we have done to become solvent.

TBH, I'm not sure that there is much difference in our viewpoints - I was responding to some of the more extreme and simplistic arguments.

[Petriix 2,834]

17 minutes ago, Badger said:

We could and perhaps we will. With guaranteed parachute payments, we can afford to make a manageable loss and we have taken on credit, even since the "new regime." It is easier this year precisely because of the hard work that we have done to become solvent.

TBH, I'm not sure that there is much difference in our viewpoints - I was responding to some of the more extreme and simplistic arguments.

I really don't think it's as simple as 'loosening the purse strings'. We have a limited budget which has to cover wages, bonuses, agents fees, singing on fees, loyalty payments etc. as well as the headline transfer fee and add on clauses.

We *could* gamble by committing to future expenditure that exceeds guaranteed future income. We did that under Alex Neil. It nearly bankrupt us. The alternative is to keep our spending equal to our income while building the best possible squad within that constraint.

We typically attempt to do this by heavily structuring fees and bonuses around the overall success of the club. This is the biggest barrier to us signing players of the calibre which will immediately improve the first team: most players who are already good enough demand higher basic wages than we're willing to pay, and most selling clubs want a guaranteed fee rather than only getting the full whack if we stay up.

We're in a fairly unusual position of having a whole bunch of players 'worth' more than we could afford to pay to sign them. So most signings within our budget won't actually improve the first 11. That means we have to be smarter with who we sign rather than just chucking money around.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

On 25/07/2021 at 13:20, Dean Coneys boots said:

I remember a neutral pundit, at the end of our last Premiership campaign, suggesting our fans were massively shortchanged given the lack of funds spent on promotion. And given that the club have now had two promotion windfalls and several record sales in recent years- it is hard to continue to see us playing the overly cautious card and being outbid by every other club so that we then struggle to land the right quality of player for this level. This self funding model makes a lot of sense in terms of maintaining top championship status but in reality we end up struggling to compete at next level. Seeing Ajer end up at Brentford stung, as did losing Emi. Other clubs dont seem to sell their best players on promotion and always lose out on all their targets. Frustrating because it feels like we always look the gift horse of promotion in the mouth.

Bootsie, why do you continually refer to promotion as a "gift horse". Surely it's nothing like. Why do you believe this horse keeps trotting up to Carrow Road and not other clubs. The binners even try to tempt it with poor old bluey but with no success.

Maybe it's not a horse at all. Maybe it's a gift homing pigeon.🙃 

 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Bootsie, why do you continually refer to promotion as a "gift horse". Surely it's nothing like. Why do you believe this horse keeps trotting up to Carrow Road and not other clubs. The binners even try to tempt it with poor old bluey but with no success.

Maybe it's not a horse at all. Maybe it's a gift homing pigeon.🙃 

 

Most championship clubs would give anything to get promoted - and once you do there are many riches to be tapped into. It’s a real opportunity to push on. Hence a gift horse that shouldn’t be squandered. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

5 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Most championship clubs would give anything to get promoted - and once you do there are many riches to be tapped into. It’s a real opportunity to push on. Hence a gift horse that shouldn’t be squandered. 

How is it squandered? Surely the opposite is true.

Don't you believe it's been spent? 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

5 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Most championship clubs would give anything to get promoted - and once you do there are many riches to be tapped into. It’s a real opportunity to push on. Hence a gift horse that shouldn’t be squandered. 

When something has been achieved  by hard work, consistency and good management, it is not a gift horse.  Those riches you speak of vaporise  very quick with increased wages  , etc. It's not a gift  horse it is a self gorging  monster. Your view seems so simplistic,  as if it's Jack and the magic  beanstalk.

[hogesar 9,618]

17 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Most championship clubs would give anything to get promoted - and once you do there are many riches to be tapped into. It’s a real opportunity to push on. Hence a gift horse that shouldn’t be squandered. 

I dont think we have squandered it at all under Webbers direction.

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s my opinion. If you think to the contrary then do be it but there is just as much evidence if not more to back up my view than yours so to call it misinformation is I think completely wrong. 

No it's not. Misinformation is BANG on the right term.

You have absolutely nothing to back up your view. There never is. People point the likes of yourself to the club annual reports on it's finances etc and there is never anything there in supporting evidence. The response then becomes "it's been fiddled" and accusations abound that fraud has been committed in hiding loans or pay checks for board members etc are "hidden". No care that what is being suggested is highly illegal and would very quickly attract the attention of the taxman.

So, here is your big chance Jim, what clear and damning evidence do you have to make this different from any other paranoia fuelled conspiracy theory? 

As for my evidence - in abundance. McNally spoke many times of looking for outside investors. We know that the West Ham fan who ended up investing his money in QPR visited and spoke at length with the board and majority shareholders. We also know that Callum had meetings with the board/majority shareholders - and that his offer was the club for free in return for investing £20m into the playing squad. We also know that we have had investors invest in the club and sit on the board too.

All of this is fact. Undeniable truth.

So where is the evidence to the contrary?

Edited July 31, 2021 by chicken

[horsefly 4,287]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Most championship clubs would give anything to get promoted -

Yes indeed! Derby spring to mind, how's it going with them? Do you need other examples???