Proof that "the model" is sustainable!

[Jim Smith 2,339]

Thing is with Watford, two of their most important signings (along with retaining Sarr) were more enabled by their greater ability to pay higher wages than large fees. Sissoko and King are two signings that would have been very useful for us but were out of reach. 

[PurpleCanary 5,586]

17 minutes ago, chicken said:

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.

I've have only just had a look at the accounts but that is correct. We bought Gibson and Giannoulis  sometime after June 30, so that is committed spend that counts entirely in this season and possibly beyond, if, as is usual, we don't pay it all in one go straight away. We will not have paid anything towards the transfer fees before signing them.

[Badger 2,412]

26 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

Assuming that Norwich and Watford finished level*, we would have a greater revenue than Watford - our attendances and commercial revenue are significantly bigger.  In addition, we also do not have to pay as much in interest as we are nowhere near as much in debt as Watford (last thing I heard was that they were paying the Pozzos about 5% on the £70 million they had lent them). We would be able to pay higher wages than Watford if we chose to. 

(I know it's impossible 😀 but it's important because of TV revenue achievement payments)

[Badger 2,412]

8 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Thing is with Watford, two of their most important signings (along with retaining Sarr) were more enabled by their greater ability to pay higher wages than large fees. Sissoko and King are two signings that would have been very useful for us but were out of reach.

I have just posted about this above. Our revenue will be greater than Watford's (excluding TV performance payments). Our crowds are bigger; our commercial revenues are greater + we do not have to finance the debt that Watford carry. We could afford a higher wage bill than them if we chose to do so. Watford decided that they could not afford to buy players and instead gambled on a few "golden oldies" and gave them one last big pay cheque.

If they stay up, it will be money well invested but it was a strategy necessitated by financial weakness rather than strength.

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, BarclayWazza said:

I'd suggest a spend of £85 million over 3 seasons

It isn't over three seasons though.

1. We spent other money last year.

2. If we stay up we will spend substantially more next summer as well.

It will be well over £85 million - nearer £120 million I would estimate and could have been £150 but for Covid.

[nutty nigel 7,645]

44 minutes ago, DraytonBoy said:

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.  

Okay, so it was just a rumour you came here to share as fact🙃

Were you disappointed? Because you seemed quite keen at the time.

[hogesar 9,760]

4 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

OR Brentford who kept their main players and added the one we could not afford.

1) We could afford him

2) Maybe we actually made the sensible decision in getting Kabak on loan with option to buy, believing he was the better player with less risk. Since Ajer can't get a game for Brentford, I'd suggest that's a good shout.

[DraytonBoy 165]

30 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Okay, so it was just a rumour you came here to share as fact🙃

Were you disappointed? Because you seemed quite keen at the time.

I would prefer my club is owned and run by genuine fans like it was many years ago but I know that football at PL level is now all about money so I'll just have to accept that it could be bought by anyone. The current ownership structure seems to work and the club is moving forward in the right direction which after 20 years of miss-management is something to be welcomed. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

1) We could afford him

2) Maybe we actually made the sensible decision in getting Kabak on loan with option to buy, believing he was the better player with less risk. Since Ajer can't get a game for Brentford, I'd suggest that's a good shout.

Time will tell if Ajer is a better defensive option than Kabak who was part of a side that let in 7 last weekend. and was awarded 3 out of 10 by the Pink Un. I believe they wanted Ajer but Brentford offered a better deal, Kabak was a last ditch option IMO. 

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

15 minutes ago, hogesar said:

1) We could afford him

2) Maybe we actually made the sensible decision in getting Kabak on loan with option to buy, believing he was the better player with less risk. Since Ajer can't get a game for Brentford, I'd suggest that's a good shout.

You must do your homework better Hoggy. The Brentford fans adore him and he’d been injured prior to playing the 2nd half on Sunday v Leicester. Here’s a comment on him from their Grapevine MB. 
 

Calling it now…. Best centre back in modern times to play for us…. An absolute Rolls Royce player…. Can genuinely see him being a £60m centre back for Liverpool or Man U in 2 years

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Midlands Yellow

[hogesar 9,760]

6 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Time will tell if Ajer is a better defensive option than Kabak who was part of a side that let in 7 last weekend. and was awarded 3 out of 10 by the Pink Un. I believe they wanted Ajer but Brentford offered a better deal, Kabak was a last ditch option IMO. 

 

I have no idea which one is better yet, but my point was more that the club clearly felt he didn't represent value compared to say Kabak.

We could have matched Brentford on fee and wages, they're no richer than us. We decided to go elsewhere, not because we had to but because we chose to.

Kabak wasn't a last ditch option because Farke had already been sounding out via Klopp weeks before the deal was even announced, unless DF made that up for god knows what reason.

[Badger 2,412]

21 minutes ago, hogesar said:

We could have matched Brentford on fee and wages, they're no richer than us.

They are less rich than us.

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

They are less rich than us.

One of our main targets got away because we wouldn’t pay the fee wanted. Looks like Norwich missed out big time though. 

[priceyrice 123]

3 hours 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/

 

I haven't looked into this but if your numbers are right then surely this has to be the biggest case of negligence and failure we have seen from any management team at Norwich in relatively recent times. 

I'm sure these figures can't be correct and would highlight how much money Webber has thrown away far beyond anyones realisation. 

[Canaries north 151]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I have just posted about this above. Our revenue will be greater than Watford's (excluding TV performance payments). Our crowds are bigger; our commercial revenues are greater + we do not have to finance the debt that Watford carry. We could afford a higher wage bill than them if we chose to do so. Watford decided that they could not afford to buy players and instead gambled on a few "golden oldies" and gave them one last big pay cheque.

If they stay up, it will be money well invested but it was a strategy necessitated by financial weakness rather than strength.

I agree with what you are saying but also was our strategy necessitated by the same financial constraints. We have tried to sign young players with promise so we can try to get resale value rather than players who are ready to go in this league. Are we too set in our ways, and feel we can always improve players values. We have done this well in the last few years but it doesn't look like it this time to me. We needed some premiership experience, some wise old heads to go with the young players we signed. With our strategy the problem I can see at the moment is the players on the pitch are not improving their transfer value and the other new players can't get on the pitch. We could easily both end up relegated but for them king on a free will be taken by another lower level premier League team. Who is going to take seargent?  

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

To all fag packet and genuine accountants on this thread I would urge caution about being definite as to how these figures relate to the status quo. 

The man on the Clapham Omnibus might well consider Management Accounts significantly more reliable an indicator than Statutory Accounts. 

One might be considered a live video feed, the other an 18 month old Polaroid snapshot. 

There is relevance and importance to both, though caution is advised when looking at Statutory Accounts in relation to today. 

It is certainly not unreasonable for the average observer to consider conditional obligations as money not yet spent (Kabak and Normann) and to consider end of previous season transfers triggered in such a way as money previously allowed for (Gibson and Giannoulis).

It is not completely helpful in this context to overload the maybes and put them in a fat pile, rather than creating an arguably more meaningful net position (This summer’s outlay - not conditional on staying up - minus Buendia).

Parma 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

Norwich also chose to sell Buendia. At the point of promotion. To the top tier. He was under contract. 

Pmayers ‘having a bit of a strop about something’ is a daily occurrence. In my experience almost every player problem melts away after:

a. Being in the team

b. Playing well

c. Scoring or assisting

d. Getting talked about 

‘Wanting to leave’ is generally as ephemeral as the wind. 

Parma 

nota bene: our beloved hall-of-famer Wes desperately, publicly and excruciatingly pleaded to join Lambert at Villa if you recall. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Badger, if you like Delia’s ownership just say it, each to their own but trying to make out that it doesn’t put us at a financial disadvantage compared to our competition is just crazy talk and indeed goes against what the board and owners even say themselves!

The running model imposed upon us by lack of rich owners resulted in a summer transfer window in which we failed to recruit what is needed to compile a PL team and left a manager needing more than the sum of its parts to succeed (and is falling well short of even getting close to the best). The model allows free agents like King and Cahill to be missed out on, targets like Ajer to go elsewhere and players like Emi to seek better pay as soon as they are able. It relays on buying cheap in order to make profit (and cover the ones who fail). It means throwing enough mud at the wall that some will stick, it means paying championship wages in the PL and not being able to attract proven performers at the top level or even outstanding players from the tier below. You can run around in circles finding transfer expenditures over certain timeframes and examples of clubs who haven’t spent (which doesn’t automatically make them less rich, perhaps they were happy with the team?) but ultimately if the board and owners say we are unable to financially compete in this tier then I see no reason why they would make it up.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

I have no idea which one is better yet, but my point was more that the club clearly felt he didn't represent value compared to say Kabak.

We could have matched Brentford on fee and wages, they're no richer than us. We decided to go elsewhere, not because we had to but because we chose to.

Kabak wasn't a last ditch option because Farke had already been sounding out via Klopp weeks before the deal was even announced, unless DF made that up for god knows what reason.

Or the club wouldn’t pay what was needed for Ajer so went for Kabak instead. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

To all fag packet and genuine accountants on this thread I would urge caution about being definite as to how these figures relate to the status quo. 

The man on the Clapham Omnibus might well consider Management Accounts significantly more reliable an indicator than Statutory Accounts. 

One might be considered a live video feed, the other an 18 month old Polaroid snapshot. 

There is relevance and importance to both, though caution is advised when looking at Statutory Accounts in relation to today. 

It is certainly not unreasonable for the average observer to consider conditional obligations as money not yet spent (Kabak and Normann) and to consider end of previous season transfers triggered in such a way as money previously allowed for (Gibson and Giannoulis).

It is not completely helpful in this context to overload the maybes and put them in a fat pile, rather than creating an arguably more meaningful net position (This summer’s outlay - not conditional on staying up - minus Buendia).

Parma 

This 

a set of accounts doesn’t “prove” anything . Comparison between the first promotion year under this “model” and the most recent shows a significant loss and a profit . Can you compare ? Very difficult when you look at exceptional matters. The year of the loss , from memory , the club loaded up expenses including all of the promotion bonuses and the bond repayment . The year of the profit includes income from Lewis Godfrey and Buendia , where in previous years the sale of players in different seasons would not occur . 
 

The model is , I assume new . It apparently wasn’t in place when we signed Naismith and entered a long term liability contract (mitigated by Maddison’s sale btw - signed by the same regime) 

Its great that we made a profit . And not great that we are bottom of the league . 

[hogesar 9,760]

12 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Or the club wouldn’t pay what was needed for Ajer so went for Kabak instead. 

Yeah, as in they clearly didn't think he was worth that much, but thought Kabak was (should we stay up). Its not a case of being unable to pay the transfer fee but a choice by Webber and Co not to.

[Canaries north 151]

I have just been chatting to a Watford fan friend of mine about King. Yes not only is he a Watford fan but a friend of mine so pity the poor man. His verdict on why we didn't get King was wages. He can not believe we didn't get him, when we spoke to him as Watford fans believe this was before they had talks. His wages are quite high but not outrageous and as a free transfer he sees it as a no brainer. He has only scored in one game so far (hatrick) and has missed a few with injuries but when playing has been one of the best players on the pitch. He reckons his hold up play is great. Yes he has no sell on fee but as he said if relegated he will move on and the money they will get will probably cover his wages from this season. We have signed Sargent who has a terrible goal scoring record and from what I have seen has no first touch. I can't deny he tries but I can't see us getting half the money back on him. I still believe we look so much for diamonds in the rough to polish that sometimes we miss premier League ready players because wages are too high? Or no sell on fee? His hold up play could have made all the difference to us this season but we didn't go for it. 

[nutty nigel 7,645]

4 hours ago, DraytonBoy said:

I would prefer my club is owned and run by genuine fans like it was many years ago but I know that football at PL level is now all about money so I'll just have to accept that it could be bought by anyone. The current ownership structure seems to work and the club is moving forward in the right direction which after 20 years of miss-management is something to be welcomed. 

No you wouldn't because if you did there would be no following 'but'

I wish you no ill will LeedsBoy but I don't know why you spend so much time on here talking about us.

Are you going to the game on Sunday?

[chicken 2,649]

4 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

You must do your homework better Hoggy. The Brentford fans adore him and he’d been injured prior to playing the 2nd half on Sunday v Leicester. Here’s a comment on him from their Grapevine MB. 
 

Calling it now…. Best centre back in modern times to play for us…. An absolute Rolls Royce player…. Can genuinely see him being a £60m centre back for Liverpool or Man U in 2 years

 

The only caveat to that is that this is Brentford we are talking about. And not wishing to sound particularly mean about it, they just put down £15m+ on a 23yr old CB. You would bloody hope he was the best centre back they have had play for them in "modern times". I mean, if he is good enough to start the majority of their games at this level, that'd put him as their best CB in what? 30-40yrs.

Where as for us, people could say Fleming, Malky, Bassong the first couple of seasons, Klose when he first arrived, Godfrey, Zimmermann prior to injury, or go back further and say Bruce, Newman etc. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,085]

10 minutes ago, chicken said:

The only caveat to that is that this is Brentford we are talking about. And not wishing to sound particularly mean about it, they just put down £15m+ on a 23yr old CB. You would bloody hope he was the best centre back they have had play for them in "modern times". I mean, if he is good enough to start the majority of their games at this level, that'd put him as their best CB in what? 30-40yrs.

Where as for us, people could say Fleming, Malky, Bassong the first couple of seasons, Klose when he first arrived, Godfrey, Zimmermann prior to injury, or go back further and say Bruce, Newman etc. 

Brentford who are playing in the same league as ourselves and have a plus goal difference compared to our cheeky minus 21. 

[sgncfc 1,259]

3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Norwich also chose to sell Buendia. At the point of promotion. To the top tier. He was under contract. 

Pmayers ‘having a bit of a strop about something’ is a daily occurrence. In my experience almost every player problem melts away after:

a. Being in the team

b. Playing well

c. Scoring or assisting

d. Getting talked about 

‘Wanting to leave’ is generally as ephemeral as the wind. 

Parma 

nota bene: our beloved hall-of-famer Wes desperately, publicly and excruciatingly pleaded to join Lambert at Villa if you recall. 

Except that isn't what Webber is quoted as saying. So either Webber is deliberately misleading the supporters when he says that Buendia gave them no option, or you are mistaken.  Buendia was all of the things you mention but his "strop" apparently didn't disappear.

 

 

[DraytonBoy 165]

7 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

No you wouldn't because if you did there would be no following 'but'

I wish you no ill will LeedsBoy but I don't know why you spend so much time on here talking about us.

Are you going to the game on Sunday?

I'm Norwich born and bred Nigel and all my family have season tickets at CR, saw my first game there in 68/69 and have probably been to CR over 400 times as well as many away games, even shared a season ticket for many years. At the same time I watched Leeds and some seasons did every game home and away despite living in Norwich.

Won't be going Sunday as I don't live in the UK anymore. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,243]

8 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Except that isn't what Webber is quoted as saying. So either Webber is deliberately misleading the supporters when he says that Buendia gave them no option, or you are mistaken.  Buendia was all of the things you mention but his "strop" apparently didn't disappear.

 

 

Winston Churchill was asked by a journalist whether he thought history would treat him kindly. He replied:

’Yes. I intend to write it myself’
 

Such is football.

Parma

[hogesar 9,760]

3 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Winston Churchill was asked by a journalist whether he thought history would treat him kindly. He replied:

’Yes. I intend to write it myself’
 

Such is football.

Parma

The word's Webber used in this interview was that Emi said he's "not playing for this football club again".

Is that new phraseology? Or has he said this before?

[king canary 7,680]

Just now, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Winston Churchill was asked by a journalist whether he thought history would treat him kindly. He replied:

’Yes. I intend to write it myself’
 

Such is football.

Parma

Indeed.

We had the same with Pritchard and Howson but Webber is the only one who really gets to speak publicly on it, at least at the moment.