Proof that "the model" is sustainable!

[Badger 2,407]

15 minutes ago, BarclayWazza said:

Can we please stop using the word "invested".  We "invested" less than both other promoted teams because none of them sold their best player for £33m.

Wrong. 

Watford spent  just over £5 million + Brentford spent £33.5 million. Net of the Buendia transfer we spent far more than them.

[king canary 7,644]

21 minutes ago, Badger said:

Oh no...?

It is the players that we get on the pitch matter, the fact that payment is conditional on staying up is completely irrelevant - they still play for us! As I think you know anyway, the "spending" figures are misleading anyway as a lot of the expenditure will take place in the future anyway through amortisation. The "actual spend" in this financial year will be very different from the quoted figures -  I think that Dylan explained this to you before.

Our financial commitments on new players is higher than both of the other relegated teams - when the payments go through and the various conditions are not relevant to performance on the pitch. You might not want to admit it but if we get relegated this year, it has nothing to do with our financial restrictions being greater than our fellow promoted clubs: it is not "the model" that is to blame. 

 

You're going to have to clear up how anything I've said suggests I think Kabak & Normann are less effective due to the way the money is attributed or that I was claiming if we don't stay up its because we haven't spent enough.

As I said, you're arguing with me about things I've never even remotely suggested, so I'm confused.

[nutty nigel 7,555]

3 minutes ago, BarclayWazza said:

I think he got the Conley bit, less so the TSOHF.  For the Luddites of the group.... https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tsohf

Or not, in which case I'll retire my limited knowledge of the kids text speak for the evening. 🤣

No, got the TSOHF but hadn't a clue who the picture was or even who Brian was.

[BarclayWazza 91]

Regardless - are the bolded parts of the OP "proof" that the model is sustainable?  Were we looking for proof that the model was sustainable?  I think what we'd actually like to see is the model providing something other than abject failure on the pitch.

And in answer to your previous question, I'd suggest a spend of £85 million over 3 seasons when the vast chunk of that is funded by player sales is nowhere near enough.  

 

[Badger 2,407]

Just now, king canary said:

You're going to have to clear up how anything I've said suggests I think Kabak & Normann are less effective due to the way the money is attributed or that I was claiming if we don't stay up its because we haven't spent enough.

Sorry, so you do think that Kabak and Normann are just as effective even though their full transfer is contingent on us staying up? And you also think that failure to stay up is nothing to do with "the model."

You are being rather cryptic? What do you think?

[Jim Smith 2,325]

9 minutes ago, Badger said:

No you are wrong in this. The Gibson and Giannoulis transfers are not in this year's accounts according to Michael Bailey.

"Well, for starters, the only piece of Norwich’s substantial summer recruitment included in this set of accounts is the £9.4 million arrival of Milot Rashica from Werder Bremen. Everyone else signed in that window will show up in 12 months, including the combined £14 million of obligations to buy Ben Gibson and Dimitris Giannoulis after their loans from Burnley and Greek side PAOK. In fact, Norwich have committed to paying up to £54 million should certain conditions in player contracts be met.

On top of that, the rest of their summer signings have cost £52.7 million, with another £22.7 million due if clauses relating to individual and team performance are met – almost entirely taken up by the club’s options to buy Mathias Normann and Ozan Kabak at the end of this season."

So using Bailey's figures (I haven't seen the accounts yet) we have spent this year in preparation for the Premier League

£9.4 million on Rashica; £52.7 million on the other summer signings + other commitments of £22.7 million (mainly Normann and Kabak). This actually totals £84.8 million.

https://theathletic.com/2912816/2021/10/27/norwich-finances-why-farke-under-pressure-keep-them-up/

 

That doesnt sound right. There is no way we spent £52m this summer excluding Rashica and the permanent fees for Normann and Kabak.

That woulkd mean that £52,7m comprised Gunn, Sargent, PLM and Tzolis fees (£25m perhaps?) and then loan fees for Gilmour, Williams, Normann and Kabak cost the same again? 

[king canary 7,644]

Just now, Badger said:

Sorry, so you do think that Kabak and Normann are just as effective even though their full transfer is contingent on us staying up? And you also think that failure to stay up is nothing to do with "the model."

You are being rather cryptic? What do you think?

Yes I think both of those things. I've not been cryptic, I've just not passed judgement on either of those things in this thread. I just said there are ways to spin the figures as shown by both yours and CanaryDan's different interpretations of the same figures. You seem to have taken this and run and assigned me a position I don't have based on...I'm not really sure.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

4 minutes ago, BarclayWazza said:

Regardless - are the bolded parts of the OP "proof" that the model is sustainable?  Were we looking for proof that the model was sustainable?  I think what we'd actually like to see is the model providing something other than abject failure on the pitch.

And in answer to your previous question, I'd suggest a spend of £85 million over 3 seasons when the vast chunk of that is funded by player sales is nowhere near enough.  

 

Of course the model is sustainable in financial terms because the model is to run sustainably. It would be a bit of a nonsense if our model was unsustainable financially!

The question in terms of sustainabilty is whether it enables us to sustain a competitive, top level, team on the pitch. 

[Badger 2,407]

4 minutes ago, BarclayWazza said:

And in answer to your previous question, I'd suggest a spend of £85 million over 3 seasons when the vast chunk of that is funded by player sales is nowhere near enough. 

So how much have Watford and Brentford spent? And was any of theirs financed by player sales? (Clue yes it was)

[king canary 7,644]

 

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

That doesnt sound right. There is no way we spent £52m this summer excluding Rashica and the permanent fees for Normann and Kabak.

That woulkd mean that £52,7m comprised Gunn, Sargent, PLM and Tzolis fees (£25m perhaps?) and then loan fees for Gilmour, Williams, Normann and Kabak cost the same again? 

I think that Bailey quote suggests it would also include the perm Gibson and Kabak fees.

[Badger 2,407]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

Yes I think both of those things. I've not been cryptic, I've just not passed judgement on either of those things in this thread. I just said there are ways to spin the figures as shown by both yours and CanaryDan's different interpretations of the same figures. You seem to have taken this and run and assigned me a position I don't have based on...I'm not really sure.

Please accept my apologies - I jumped to conclusions.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Badger
Corrected typo

[PurpleCanary 5,577]

21 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well technically its not committed as we don't have to pay the fees for Normann and Kabak unless we stay up and exercise the options presumably?

So "potentially or conditionally committed" would be a better desciption and only in the event we have another £100m of tv monies next season.

I specifically instanced Gibson and Giannoulis, so I was right to say we are committed to paying that money. Your suggestion of 'potentially or conditionally committed' would be entirely wrong.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

 

I think that Bailey quote suggests it would also include the perm Gibson and Kabak fees.

Ah sorry so that £52m inlcudes the Dimi and Gibson fees? Although we were always told they were covered by the previous season's budget. I suppose £52m for Gibson, Gianoullis, Tzolis, Sargent, PLM, Gunn plus loan fees for Kabak, Gilmour, Williams and Normann is feasible. 

[BarclayWazza 91]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Wrong. 

Watford spent  just over £5 million + Brentford spent £33.5 million. Net of the Buendia transfer we spent far more than them.

Again, its how you spin it.  I'm assuming you're taking the full £75m but ignoring that we sold 2 players for c.£40m last season and replaced them with 2 players worth c.£15m but physically made the payments this season.  Taking Gibson, Giannoulis, Kabak and Normann out of the equation, our net spend might be a bit more than Watford.  

Not slating the way the club structured these deals, even though player sales and parachute payments probably brought in around £80m last season, with Covid it was probably sensible to make the Gibson and Giannoulis purchases dependent on promotion.  And its clear with Kabak and Normann the pot wasnt sufficiently deep to buy them from this years budget.  No issue with that.  But championing that we've committed £75m this season when it's reasonable to say it's actually over 3 years is pure spin.

[king canary 7,644]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Please accept my apologies - I jumped too conclusions.

Appreciated

It is why I've been so critical of Farke this season- I think Webber has given him a 'gun' this time and he's not doing enough with it.

[Greavsy 2,418]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

If I'd have wanted to play the long game I'd have started with Z.

Shall we keep this thread on topic now?

Depends if you keep replying to me Eddie! 🥰 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Greavsy

[Jim Smith 2,325]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I specifically instanced Gibson and Giannoulis, so I was right to say we are committed to paying that money. Your suggestion of 'potentially or conditionally committed' would be entirely wrong.

If by instanced you mean highlighted in red I did not see that. I thought you were referring to the full £75m Purple. We seem to have got it clear now that we are committed to £52m plus Rashica and there is about another £22m that we are not "committed" to.

[Badger 2,407]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The question in terms of sustainabilty is whether it enables us to sustain a competitive, top level, team on the pitch. 

The point is that with the expenditure we have made being much in excess of the two teams who were promoted below us, we might reasonably have expected to outperform them.

Watford have an investor model and have spent much, much less but are so far, being more successful. This cannot be explained by transfer spend, which is said to be a main limiting factor of our model.

There is a problem, unless we see the great turn around that I long for but am not confident about, but to simply dismiss it as a consequence of not borrowing enough or having investor owners ("the model") is simply insufficient as an answer.

[king canary 7,644]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Ah sorry so that £52m inlcudes the Dimi and Gibson fees? Although we were always told they were covered by the previous season's budget. I suppose £52m for Gibson, Gianoullis, Tzolis, Sargent, PLM, Gunn plus loan fees for Kabak, Gilmour, Williams and Normann is feasible. 

It may be that the club looked at the budget that way but if the payments don't go through until a certain date then it will show up in the accounts that cover that date. Just as Rashica is in these accounts but he won't have been budgeted from last season.

[PurpleCanary 5,577]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

If by instanced you mean highlighted in red I did not see that. I thought you were referring to the full £75m Purple. We seem to have got it clear now that we are committed to £52m plus Rashica and there is about another £22m that we are not "committed" to.

You thought I had actually got something wrong and just posted accordingly without double- and treble-checking? What on earth possessed you to do that? Weird.🤓

[BarclayWazza 91]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

The point is that with the expenditure we have made being much in excess of the two teams who were promoted below us, we might reasonably have expected to outperform them.

Watford have an investor model and have spent much, much less but are so far, being more successful. This cannot be explained by transfer spend, which is said to be a main limiting factor of our model.

There is a problem, unless we see the great turn around that I long for but am not confident about, but to simply dismiss it as a consequence of not borrowing enough or having investor owners ("the model") is simply insufficient as an answer.

You're still making an incorrect comparison.  Claiming we've vastly outspent Watford and Brentford but ignoring that none of them have funded this with the sale of their star player.  Watfords major departure last summer was Will Hughes.  Buendia, he is not.

Where you possibly want to be looking is Buendia basically shaped our playing style for the last 3 years.  Losing a player of his magnitude goes beyond the £33m we got for him.  We now look lost with pretty much no attacking ability.  This is what the model relies on.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

The point is that with the expenditure we have made being much in excess of the two teams who were promoted below us, we might reasonably have expected to outperform them.

Watford have an investor model and have spent much, much less but are so far, being more successful. This cannot be explained by transfer spend, which is said to be a main limiting factor of our model.

There is a problem, unless we see the great turn around that I long for but am not confident about, but to simply dismiss it as a consequence of not borrowing enough or having investor owners ("the model") is simply insufficient as an answer.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. My doubts about the model are long term competitiveness but I am not arguing that we should not be doing an awful lot better on the pitch this season with what we have. I think Webber has messed up again with the defenive midfield recruitment (or lack thereof) and I think Farke is really performing very badly and those are our main issues this season. Of course they will impact on the model because both are reducing our likely future receipts and spend (and indeed ability to attract players if we continue to be a laughing stock).

Edited October 27, 2021 by Jim Smith

[PurpleCanary 5,577]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

The point is that with the expenditure we have made being much in excess of the two teams who were promoted below us, we might reasonably have expected to outperform them.

Watford have an investor model and have spent much, much less but are so far, being more successful. This cannot be explained by transfer spend, which is said to be a main limiting factor of our model.

There is a problem, unless we see the great turn around that I long for but am not confident about, but to simply dismiss it as a consequence of not borrowing enough or having investor owners ("the model") is simply insufficient as an answer.

Badger, Watford had spent five season in the Premier League so had been able to build up an appropriate squad. And if wages are also a limiting factor in our model, which I am sure they are, then the chances are Watford are able to go higher than us. It is said we dropped out of a serious chase for Josh King (who would have been a good multi-purpose fit for us) because of his wage demands.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You thought I had actually got something wrong and just posted accordingly without double- and treble-checking? What on earth possessed you to do that? Weird.🤓

You posted the whole quote. Colouring a sentence red does not really make it that clear you are then only referring to one part of it so I missed it.  Had you said "in respect of the Gibson and Gianoulis monies it does mean.... etc" then that would be different. 

[chicken 2,640]

1 hour ago, BarclayWazza said:

Once again, the usual suspects falling for the club spin.

Or is it once again, people not liking how an accounting year works because it doesn't favour how they want the books to look?

[nutty nigel 7,555]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I'm not disagreeing with you on this. My doubts about the model are long term competitiveness but I am not arguing that we should be doing an awful lot better on the pitch this season with what we have. I think Webber has messed up again with the defenive midfield recruitment (or lack thereof) and I think Farke is really performing very badly and those are our main issues this season. Of course they will impact on the model because both are reducing our likely future receipts and spend (and indeed ability to attract players if we continue to be a laughing stock).

@Jim Smith

But the models that you champion equally have doubts about long term competitiveness.

Edited October 27, 2021 by nutty nigel

[BarclayWazza 91]

Just now, chicken said:

Or is it once again, people not liking how an accounting year works because it doesn't favour how they want the books to look?

I don't know, I mean the club claiming they are committing £75m this season but its actually some that was spent last season and some next season.  I'm no Alistair Campbell but that looks like spin to me.

[chicken 2,640]

Just now, BarclayWazza said:

I don't know, I mean the club claiming they are committing £75m this season but its actually some that was spent last season and some next season.  I'm no Alistair Campbell but that looks like spin to me.

It wasn't spent last season though was it?

People seem to have this really very confused with Giannoulis and Gibson. We paid whatever the loan fee was last season for them. Gibson for the entire season, Giannoulis from January. The deal was at that time, should we gain promotion, we would sign them permanently for prearranged fees.

Technically, they returned to their parent clubs after the last game of the season and we could not officially sign them until the summer transfer opened. Whether or not we had the money sitting in a bank waiting to pay for them or not doesn't matter. It was coming out of our accounts when the summer transfer window opened. Therefore, that is when the commitment was for.

It might have been that we wouldn't have had all of the money until the end of the season due to installments from Godfrey's and Lewis' sale too. May well be that one instalment came just before the end of the season. Either way, it's not "spin" - it is exactly how accounts have to work.

When you go to get a mortgage, they ask you what commitments you have financially. When my father passed away, the main thing the solicitors do is ensure that there are no commitments left owed to others before they sign over the accounts. This could be payments for items on repayment deals spread out over months or years like furniture, cars or mobile phones etc.

@PurpleCanary will correct me if I am wrong, but this is how it has to be really.

[DraytonBoy 159]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

So why were you on this forum saying it as fact...

Just like most fans I don't have inside info Nigel, the reliable media speculated the owner was going to sell to Qatar Sports Investments but when it came down to it he chose the Americans because they were happy to take a smaller stake with the option to buy the remaining shares later whereas QSI wanted an outright purchase immediately.  

[Badger 2,407]

24 minutes ago, BarclayWazza said:

You're still making an incorrect comparison.  Claiming we've vastly outspent Watford and Brentford but ignoring that none of them have funded this with the sale of their star player.  Watfords major departure last summer was Will Hughes.  Buendia, he is not.

Where you possibly want to be looking is Buendia basically shaped our playing style for the last 3 years.  Losing a player of his magnitude goes beyond the £33m we got for him.  We now look lost with pretty much no attacking ability.  This is what the model relies on.

Sigh - we had to sell Buendia because he wanted to go - forcing him to stay was technically an option but keeping an unhappy player is not a good way to start a season (which is why Watford sold Hughes).

Net of the Buendia sale we spent far more than Watford and Brentford. We are talking about "the model." Leaving aside the individuals and focus on the model and you will see that a self-funding team were able to spend more than an investor owned team - argue as hard as you like, this is a simple fact.