Jump to content
Yellowhammer

Why can’t we do this

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well if he didn't he would not be sitting in the boardroom.

I'm sorry TIL, but this is a deeply stupid comment. You've got no idea what goes on in the boardroom so stop trying to pretend that you do. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

 

Giggles uncontrollably.

6 hours ago, Crafty Canary said:

hink that is essential for us. It's mission-critical."What freedom to act he will have may be constrained by the terms of the trust holding the majority share holding

Indeed.

 

For sure NCFC will be stitched up like a kipper.

Edited by robert choice

Share this post


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

Obsessed with Ipswich? Much?

Well no, as you can see they're just in a long list of now completely irrelevant clubs. Not entirely sure what an Ipswich even is half the time.

Share this post


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

I'm sorry TIL, but this is a deeply stupid comment. You've got no idea what goes on in the boardroom so stop trying to pretend that you do. 

So you saying Tom isn't on board with the project / plan? Ok.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

So you saying Tom isn't on board with the project / plan? Ok.....

All I'm saying is what I've been told by someone who has met him a couple of times. They told me that he seemed to be more open to the idea of 'outside investment' than Delia and Michael appear to be. That's it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you can remind me which players who fit that description were bought by Watford and Brentford.

Again not quite what is being said but close so will indulge. Sissoko on 78k per week for Watford. Not sure what Ajer is on but to be fair, I don’t think anyone has claimed Brentford have a wage structure that is high enough to succeed in the PL either. At a loss to understand how someone saying our limited ability to recruit and pay Premiership quality players is a significant obstacle to survival is even debatable let alone called out as false due to lack of evidence!

Edited by Son Ova Gunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Again not quite what is being said but close so will indulge. Sissoko on 78k per week for Watford. Not sure what Ajer is on but to be fair, I don’t think anyone has claimed Brentford have a wage structure that is high enough to succeed in the PL either. At a loss to understand how someone saying our limited ability to recruit and pay Premiership quality players is a significant obstacle to survival is even debatable let alone called out as false due to lack of evidence!

Watford had several seasons in the PL. Sissoko cost £2.5m because he was not considered good enough anymore by Tottenham, and paying him that sort of money is a big gamble for a club with huge debts. Normann, Rashica, Lees-Melou, Kabak, Giannoulis, Gibson, Tzolis, Williams, Gilmour  are all considered PL quality by critics with far greater knowledge than you or myself, and were all being chased by other PL teams. The ridiculous logic of your position is that no one who has not already appeared regularly in the PL can be considered to be of PL quality. The absurd consequences of that don't even need to be stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He played 25 times for spurs last year and twice for France at the euros? He cost very little and has a contract clause where he goes for free if relegated  so not a problem with wages if they don't stay up. He played for them the day after signing and didn't need bedding in or look out of place. He looked like a  Premier league player against us but that doesn't say a lot. We have signed a lot of young prospects who will all need time. I'm not saying it won't work but we are going to have a mountain to climb if they don't gell together soon. He would have been a good signing for us even on those wages. Battle hardened and ready. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

At a loss to understand how someone saying our limited ability to recruit and pay Premiership quality players is a significant obstacle to survival is even debatable let alone called out as false due to lack of evidence!

1. It is a simple fact that we spent more on players this summer than several other premier clubs.

2. We spend more on wages than some Premier League clubs, and are very close to others. 

The facts simply don't support the assertion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hogesar said:

Well no, as you can see they're just in a long list of now completely irrelevant clubs. Not entirely sure what an Ipswich even is half the time.

Seems like one or two on here attempt to use it as a weapon to beat anyone who dares to criticise events at CR. Currently two leagues below us and falling fast who should even give them a second thought nowadays?

 

All rather immature and embarrassing really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a real pedant and making no apology for the title of this thread, but Webber has done a very fine job of confusing everyone about how much we have actually spent. using those Transfermkt figures is misleading because the Gibson and Giannoulis transfer fees have been confirmed many times as coming from last years budget.

So our net spend on fees is actually only £10m. 

The impact on wages is higher, given we have acquired 10 more players, but we also got rid of 13 lower earners to contribute to that.

I don't think we've spent a lot to be honest. The impact of Covid is clearly a factor, but we will still have money in the kitty for January.

Having said all of that, we clearly choose not to compete with the wages of most of the other PL clubs. Watford are paying Sissoko £80k a week; Danny Rose £60k; Sarr £65k. Most other clubs we are competing with to stay up are paying half their squad more than £50k a week.

One other point - the media and lots on here are going on about losing to Liverpool's youth team. Their starting 11 had an average age of 23, including one 16 year old, one 18 year old and a 20 year old.

Our starting 11 had an average age of 23.8 including three 19 year olds and two 20 years olds.

Tell me which team was the least experienced? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

So our net spend on fees is actually only £10m. 

 

I can't agree with this - we paid for them this year not last.

I'm sure that many other clubs will have spent money this year from money left over as well. Its when you spend it that determines transfer spend in a particular window, not when you earned the cash. 

Share this post


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

I can't agree with this - we paid for them this year not last.

I'm sure that many other clubs will have spent money this year from money left over as well. Its when you spend it that determines transfer spend in a particular window, not when you earned the cash. 

Agree to an extent but then the club shouldn’t have banged on about the ambition shown spending millions of pounds on Gibson and Dimi last year then. It great when you get the credit twice!. Also if a club agrees to buy a player for £20m and it’s structured in such a way that it’s paid as £10m over two seasons, doesn’t all the transfer tables show a £20m outlay in the first year? Why is that not the same as initial loan with obligation to buy?. Also that obligation was met before the end of the last season so why is the expenditure not down for last season? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Mello Yello said:

I wonder if when the club hierarchy have boarded the executive jet at Norwich international to fly them to Scouseland and back this weekend. As they take their plush seats and get airborne, do they then discuss things like 'Right people, as our finances are evidently tight, on what club non-essentials do you all suggest we can save our ickle community self-funding football club a few quid?'....."Anyone?"...."Anyone?"....

If I can dig through your weird posting style to the actual meaning, you seem to be claiming that our majority owners waste the club’s money on using an executive jet to fly to and from games? I’m pretty sure it has been stated in the past that they pay for this themselves. But carry on throwing sh1t if that’s what floats your boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

If I can dig through your weird posting style to the actual meaning, you seem to be claiming that our majority owners waste the club’s money on using an executive jet to fly to and from games? I’m pretty sure it has been stated in the past that they pay for this themselves. But carry on throwing sh1t if that’s what floats your boat.

They pay for themselves? Excellent news. 

Share this post


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

If I can dig through your weird posting style to the actual meaning, you seem to be claiming that our majority owners waste the club’s money on using an executive jet to fly to and from games? I’m pretty sure it has been stated in the past that they pay for this themselves. But carry on throwing sh1t if that’s what floats your boat.

You're pretty sure? That's ok then if you're pretty sure.....As a fellow poster above said....Excrement news!..... 

Edited by Mello Yello

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

You're pretty sure? That's ok then if you're pretty sure.....As a fellow poster above said....Excrement news!..... 

Ok, how sure are you that the club pays? Tick below:

🔲 Not at all

🔲 I suspect it but have no proof

🔲 Pretty sure

🔲  I’m convinced, there’s £27.50 unaccounted in the club P&L for the last financial year

Share this post


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

Ok, how sure are you that the club pays? Tick below:

🔲 Not at all

🔲 I suspect it but have no proof

🔲 Pretty sure

🔲  I’m convinced, there’s £27.50 unaccounted in the club P&L for the last financial year

You really don't have to go to all this bother for me......If you're sure, I will be sure.....Cool your jets man......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

In response to the OP I would say ...

1. Money.

It is a HIGHLY competitive league - with the money we invest (we broke all our spending records on players that cost half the price of what most teams spend on individuals) we have to have everything whirring perfectly to stand a chance.

e.g

Lambert's top flight season with us.

Wilder's 1st top flight season with the Blades.

Brentford this season it seems.

Currently we are FAR from a well oiled, intensely drilled team with high confidence that's greater than the sum of its fairly modest parts. We have to be PERFECT!

Honestly, how many of our players would the fans of Palace, Newcastle, Watford, Soton, Brighton, Wolves swap for theirs? One or two??? None??? We need to finish ABOVE THREE of them to survive (and the Bees)!!!

 

2. Style.

Unless you spend proper money (like Villa and Leeds) you cannot play attractive football and survive.

A club like ours needs to be big, strong and resolute or face being blown away by the top teams who pass and move better than us or stamped on and bullied by the rest.

There's a reason Burnley, Palace, Soton, Stoke, Watford etc surprised people by surviving so long. They are / were tough and gritty.

Would'nt be surprised to see Leeds go down this season. Feel they've been sussed out to a point. People moan about Farke but Bielsa now has the Leeds fans doubting he's the god they thought he was!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Badger said:

I can't agree with this - we paid for them this year not last.

I'm sure that many other clubs will have spent money this year from money left over as well. Its when you spend it that determines transfer spend in a particular window, not when you earned the cash. 

No, sorry, but you're wrong. It's the difference between budget and cashflow. Webber has previously said (on several occasions) that their permanent fees had been allocated from last years budget i.e. not from the funds available for transfers in this years budget.

Clearly the cash has to be available but we have spent a net £10m from this years budget and that is the relevant figure, not a net £25m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

No, sorry, but you're wrong. It's the difference between budget and cashflow. Webber has previously said (on several occasions) that their permanent fees had been allocated from last years budget i.e. not from the funds available for transfers in this years budget.

Clearly the cash has to be available but we have spent a net £10m from this years budget and that is the relevant figure, not a net £25m.

1. If we want to be pedantic about it neither of us are correct. The value of a player's contract is amortised on a straight line basis over the duration of his contract. 

2. However, to say that it the difference between budget and cash flow is additionally wrong - much of the cash that will flow, will not be from this season at all, but over future years.

3. There is a newspaper reporting convention to look at the window and to work out (as best they can) how much has been committed by a club in the window in transfer fees and deduct from that how much other clubs have committed to them. It is extremely "rough and ready" and technically inaccurate from an accounting perspective.

4. Every other club will have their transfer spend reported (again not strictly accurately due to the amortisation convention) as what they have committed in this window. Have you deducted the money that Man City/ Leicester, and anybody else did not spend last year although it was in their budget + every other club to whom it applies. I can tell you that none of the press will have done so, so you will have to work "SG system" out all on your own if you want to make any sort of comparison, and nobody else will know what you are talking about.

It really is a nonsense to say that money that we spent in this year's transfer window should not count as money that we spent in this year's transfer window because it was left over from last year. I don't know your occupational background but if you roll over unspent money from one year's budget into year two, you can't say that you spent it in year one - you just refer to it as an under-spend in year one that was carried forward to you two and spent then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That spending table is indicative really. We spent more than those around us but that means we now have more new players to integrate. That showed in the Watford game where the understanding between their players was so much better. The hope now is that as the new players assimilate the results will improve but we'll have to wait and see.

Edited by Yelloow Since 72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Badger said:

1. If we want to be pedantic about it neither of us are correct. The value of a player's contract is amortised on a straight line basis over the duration of his contract. 

2. However, to say that it the difference between budget and cash flow is additionally wrong - much of the cash that will flow, will not be from this season at all, but over future years.

3. There is a newspaper reporting convention to look at the window and to work out (as best they can) how much has been committed by a club in the window in transfer fees and deduct from that how much other clubs have committed to them. It is extremely "rough and ready" and technically inaccurate from an accounting perspective.

4. Every other club will have their transfer spend reported (again not strictly accurately due to the amortisation convention) as what they have committed in this window. Have you deducted the money that Man City/ Leicester, and anybody else did not spend last year although it was in their budget + every other club to whom it applies. I can tell you that none of the press will have done so, so you will have to work "SG system" out all on your own if you want to make any sort of comparison, and nobody else will know what you are talking about.

It really is a nonsense to say that money that we spent in this year's transfer window should not count as money that we spent in this year's transfer window because it was left over from last year. I don't know your occupational background but if you roll over unspent money from one year's budget into year two, you can't say that you spent it in year one - you just refer to it as an under-spend in year one that was carried forward to you two and spent then.

 

I'm looking at it from a pure accountancy and business planning basis of budget against cash. The Gibson/Gianni fees were included in the budget for the year ending June 21 so we should expect to see those initial amortisations in that years accounts, when they are produced - if we don't, then Webber has misled us on several occasions.

The budget for transfers for the year ending June 22 (the current season) was around £30m I think Webber indicated. If we add in the £33m we got for Buendia then we had a total budget for fees of around £63m in this financial year. We've committed to about £44m according to Transfermkt, including loan fees. Our net outlay in budgetary terms is therefore £10 - 11m. We have potentially another £20m odd for Normann/Kabak if we stay up (presumably from next years budget, but not clear).

My points stands though. We haven't spent £50m of new money. This is just media spin of the like that political parties use. So if you are comparing apples with apples the table produced above is completely misleading.

Like many, and most of the media, you are confusing cashflow with budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2021 at 10:48, For the future said:

The only way that Norwich city will stay in the premier league is change the owners and manager but this will never happen.

That’s very insightful, who is going to keep us in the Premier League when we’ve never managed it for any long period before?   How about some meat on the bone of your point, how’s that going to happen?   I’ll get it in now….. thought not! 
 

what makes fans so entitled to expect Premier League football?   Who would have done a better job these past 4 years?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 22/09/2021 at 12:28, AJ said:

Confidence, that's the biggest thing. And watching the net bulge after 4 minutes last night, you could see what little was left get drained away fairly sharply.

The lads just need to get their heads down and battle back into the game, but too much sideways and backwards passing isn't going to get you goals.

Simplistic but sensible,I think sometimes when teams struggle it gets in their head ,things get over thought ,the manager will bombard players with new ideas ,fill the players heads with ever more instructions. Often just getting stuck in  and kicking out the fancy stuff is probably the answer  

 

Share this post


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

I'm looking at it from a pure accountancy and business planning basis of budget against cash. The Gibson/Gianni fees were included in the budget for the year ending June 21 so we should expect to see those initial amortisations in that years accounts, when they are produced - if we don't, then Webber has misled us on several occasions.

The budget for transfers for the year ending June 22 (the current season) was around £30m I think Webber indicated. If we add in the £33m we got for Buendia then we had a total budget for fees of around £63m in this financial year. We've committed to about £44m according to Transfermkt, including loan fees. Our net outlay in budgetary terms is therefore £10 - 11m. We have potentially another £20m odd for Normann/Kabak if we stay up (presumably from next years budget, but not clear).

My points stands though. We haven't spent £50m of new money. This is just media spin of the like that political parties use. So if you are comparing apples with apples the table produced above is completely misleading.

Like many, and most of the media, you are confusing cashflow with budget.

I am not confusing cash flow with budget, but I think you might be. Much of this years activity will not come from this year's cash flow at all but from future years: it is actually very rare for clubs to pay the transfer fees all in one go, but in stages - it is why I tried to use the word committed, which is more more helpful (although again, amortisation is the financial reality). A transfer is not a flow of cash in one season but a commitment (legally backed by contract) to pay specific sums dependant upon specified criteria. It is NOT a cash transaction in a single year, and confusing a multi-year transfer deal with a single year's cash flow may be why you are muddled.

Of course, I agree with you that the way media reports these things is inaccurate and as a non accountant, I wouldn't accuse Webber of deliberately misleading us. I think a classic example of this is would be a player bought for £50 million on a 5 year contract sold at the end of year 2 for £40 million. The press would report this as a £10 million pound loss, whereas in football accounts terms it is a £10 million profit.

I very much doubt that the first year's amortisation will be seen in the 20-21 accounts - it would be a nonsense: you would be paying a loan fee and amortising the first year of a permanent contract which had not been signed yet. Gibson and Giannoulis only became permanent transfers on July 1st in the 21-22 season, so we couldn't write down the first year of a transfer fee that hadn't happened yet.

Again I would point out, that as every other team uses the media conventions which we both recognise as inaccurate it would be impossible to make any meaningful comparison of transfer spend if we have one system for us and a different one for everyone else. Therefore, despite its obvious weaknesses, it is best to refer to a system like Transfermarket (deeply flawed, but impartial) which has us as a net spend of about £25 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/09/2021 at 16:36, Crafty Canary said:

What freedom to act he will have may be constrained by the terms of the trust holding the majority share holding

You may know more than has come out in public but I’ve not seen anything to suggest this trust rather than nephew Tom would hold the shares permanently. There has not, as far as I know, been any information about what role this trust would play but the impression was it would only act in an interim capacity if need be. If the trust was to hold the shares then the trust rather than Tom would in effect own the.club.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

You may know more than has come out in public but I’ve not seen anything to suggest this trust rather than nephew Tom would hold the shares permanently. There has not, as far as I know, been any information about what role this trust would play but the impression was it would only act in an interim capacity if need be. If the trust was to hold the shares then the trust rather than Tom would in effect own the.club.

 

Does anyone know who the trustees of said trust are? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Does anyone know who the trustees of said trust are? 

I certainly don't. I may have missed stuff, but as far as I can remember the only comment about a trust was made at the time S&J announced the Nephew Plan, and it came with absolutely no detail on any aspect of it.

The impression I remember getting at the time (which may be faulty) was this trust might serve in  the interim if for whatever reason there was some kind of interregnum between S&J holding the majority stake and it being gifted to Tom. But not that it would end up holding the shares and so controlling Tom and so the club.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way Smith and Jones have possessively clung on to NCFC and rebuffed all and any opportunity to take us forward it is a certainty that the same mentality will follow them to the grave.

 

To S&J 'they are' Norwich City and the pre-ordained dynasty to follow will hold us back long after they are gone. Similiar to 'creationism', the football club never existed before they came along and the 'legend' of how they took over will remain as dodgy as the Dead Sea Scolls regarding what really happened berfore time began.

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...