Simon Jordon on Talk Sport

[chicken 2,624]

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

Agreed. People on here and on Canary Call keep barking up the wrong tree.

It is not the amount spent on transfer fees, it is the wage structure that is the issue. Norwich City may have spent £60 million on transfers, but they are nowhere near paying the going rate for wages in this league. For that, you need to be at £80-100,000 a week. Norwich don't pay more than £40,000 per week.

For that reason, Norwich City are a Championship club in the Premier League.

I think you'll find your quite a long way out to be honest.

£80k-100k is still a pretty high wage, you'd be looking at top half of the premier league table for that. £40k is rumoured to be what our top earners are on though.

The top 3-4 teams will pay players over £100k per week. Some as much as £250k, but that's what champions league money does for clubs and having a much bigger global market in places like the wealthy oil rich gulf states etc. Eg; no matter where you go on holiday, you can always find a local with a Man Utd shirt. 

[Big Vince 318]

5 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He was a bit dodgy though weren't he, the club had a maintenance contract with a company that he owned, bet that never went out for competitive tender. He wanted to make the club as lean as possible before an IPO so he could enrich himself, and it backfired when he flogged a few too many and took us down. It was fashionable for football clubs to float on the stock market back then, Chase was writing to shareholders offering to buy their shares at a price which was well below what the rumoured IPO valuation would be. 

Wouldn't trust  him as far as I could throw him, which at his 1995 weight is about 2 inches. 

If you are going to be a nice club with nice owners and nice supporters then you are not going to last very long in the EPL as we are seeing yet again.

The most successful teams in this league have owners who either themselves have unsavoury backgrounds or their countries are unsavoury. Until the current owners and Canary fans are able to countenance torture, beheadings, backstreet murder, gangsterism, extortion, theft, blackmail, money laundering and embezzlement then they had best remain in the EFL for good.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

34 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I don't know any club in the world who get's promoted, looks like their signings aren't good enough and sacks their sporting director half-way throughout a season. So if you were expecting that to happen you're looking for a world's first, not some problem with our owners.

Our owners are the one's that employed Webber who employed Farke and oversaw two Championship titles - so it's hardly surprising they've both had additional time 'in the bank' so to speak.

The owners don't se the wage structure but their lack of wealth does. Of course it's a limitation. We all knew that coming into this season. Whilst they're still the owners there is no other option. IF someone wants to come in and genuinely invest then great. The argument Delia tells them to go do one doesn't wash with me, it defies all logic. Any half-decent billionaire doesn't go away quietly if they're interested in something. They'd go public. Or, if they move onto another club, they'd happily try and disrupt a rival by then saying we were an option who weren't interested.

"The argument Delia tells them to go do one doesn't wash with me, it defies all logic" 

Even when she said it...

The supporters will be very disappointed to hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries,” she said. “Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter and he will be the recipient of our shares.”

My point that Webber has no boss and as such can do what he want's is 100% correct. That structure lays at the feet of the owners 100%. 

Is there anything you'd actual think is down to them and surely if they do so little, it's argument in it's self that we need people that actually have a say and care...

No business that needs to change badly doesn't start at the top...

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

5 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

"The argument Delia tells them to go do one doesn't wash with me, it defies all logic" 

Even when she said it...

The supporters will be very disappointed to hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries,” she said. “Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter and he will be the recipient of our shares.”

My point that Webber has no boss and as such can do what he want's is 100% correct. That structure lays at the feet of the owners 100%. 

Is there anything you'd actual think is down to them and surely if they do so little, it's argument in it's self that we need people that actually have a say and care...

No business that needs to change badly doesn't start at the top...

It’s all very cosy upstairs at NCFC isn’t it, they must have a right chuckle mid air on their way to away matches. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Well this is some thread. Embarrassing?  For who?  Who cares what other clubs/pundits think?  We are here on merit.

No problems in agreeing it's not going well, but you have to look at circumstances too.

1) The transfer window finishing well after the season starts meaning your best players which invariably come in at the last minute don't get any pre-prep done. 

2) The "fix" ture list...which was exactly this imo - fixed - to make sure we got off to a bad start (I really believe the PL do not want a self sustaining club in their money tree). 

3) The injuries, which as last time, kyboshed our chances.

4) Covid, which although affects all clubs, affects one with few resources more than richer clubs.

So get the best 11 fit, get rid of Cantwell and Gilmour, focus on getting those 11 up to the top of their game and we have a team. Webber will not look so bad in that light, the team will start to look competitive and our self sustaining project will look a bit more credible......don't forget we won the championship twice, even though most of the clubs in that division also have rich owners.

Ignore the "embarrassing" nonsense. It means nothing at all.

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

They may not have spent more on fees but you can bet they are on wages. And wages is what attracts good players. We pay comparative peanuts wages wise compared to other clubs at this level. Always have. And we’ve got ourselves a complete safari park of monkeys.

What do you think our wage bill should be (to the nearest10 million)?

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Branston Pickle said:

Well, I’ve always thought Jordan was a total **** and don’t think I’ll be changing that opinion soon. 

You be a tw*t and correct, or a nice guy and wrong.

Sounds like you are allowing your personal grudge stand in the way of reason. 

[Capt. Pants 4,229]

We have been an embarrassment, our own fans are showing their frustration.

More to the point what are we going to do about it? Rinse repeat I suspect.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

38 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Well this is some thread. Embarrassing?  For who?  Who cares what other clubs/pundits think?  We are here on merit.

No problems in agreeing it's not going well, but you have to look at circumstances too.

1) The transfer window finishing well after the season starts meaning your best players which invariably come in at the last minute don't get any pre-prep done. 

2) The "fix" ture list...which was exactly this imo - fixed - to make sure we got off to a bad start (I really believe the PL do not want a self sustaining club in their money tree). 

3) The injuries, which as last time, kyboshed our chances.

4) Covid, which although affects all clubs, affects one with few resources more than richer clubs.

So get the best 11 fit, get rid of Cantwell and Gilmour, focus on getting those 11 up to the top of their game and we have a team. Webber will not look so bad in that light, the team will start to look competitive and our self sustaining project will look a bit more credible......don't forget we won the championship twice, even though most of the clubs in that division also have rich owners.

Ignore the "embarrassing" nonsense. It means nothing at all.

 

31 minutes ago, Badger said:

What do you think our wage bill should be (to the nearest10 million)?

Our wage bill should enable us to attract players & compete with brentford, Watford, Burnley at the very least. 

[Overrated, over paid 22]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That's because you're a massive binner, I understand how top tier problems seem trivial to you barely professional sides that sit just below non-league. 

Binner or not, the problems here at City sitting bottom of the EPL are trivial to most clubs in England. That's why most fans enjoying seeing Norwich whipped!! We're a medium sized club trying to scrape by in the top tier, very few manage it long term, West Brom, Sheff Utd, Fulham, Derby, Middlesboro, Cardiff, Swansea... on and on this list goes. 

There are exceptions that sustain a reasonable stint in the league, Brighton, Wolves but they are rare. What do you, and many others, fail to understand? I've asked before, give me one good reason why we deserve to avoid relegation??? Just one.

Oh, Jordon is a bell-***, always has been, however, his comments on this occasion are justified. 

OTBC

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,273]

Sadly, I agree with every word. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

But the expectation that we could replace Skipp and Buendia easily is perhaps a source of the most frustration. 

Is that your own expectation too? Midway through the summer you laughed in my face when I suggested that we *might* be weaker with Gilmour, PLM and Rashica than we would be with Buendia and Skipp. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

40 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Well this is some thread. Embarrassing?  For who?  Who cares what other clubs/pundits think?  We are here on merit.

No problems in agreeing it's not going well, but you have to look at circumstances too.

1) The transfer window finishing well after the season starts meaning your best players which invariably come in at the last minute don't get any pre-prep done. 

2) The "fix" ture list...which was exactly this imo - fixed - to make sure we got off to a bad start (I really believe the PL do not want a self sustaining club in their money tree). 

3) The injuries, which as last time, kyboshed our chances.

4) Covid, which although affects all clubs, affects one with few resources more than richer clubs.

So get the best 11 fit, get rid of Cantwell and Gilmour, focus on getting those 11 up to the top of their game and we have a team. Webber will not look so bad in that light, the team will start to look competitive and our self sustaining project will look a bit more credible......don't forget we won the championship twice, even though most of the clubs in that division also have rich owners.

Ignore the "embarrassing" nonsense. It means nothing at all.

Maybe you don't know any other fans of teams others than ours but trust me, if you did, its utterly embarrassing.. my 9 years god daughter takes the p**s! 

1. Transfer window - no difference to any other club. No an excuse

2. Conspiracy rubbish in my opinion.

3. Other clubs have injuries and if ours are that bad again, stop signing crocked players.. Normann was injured before he joined us!

4. Eh! Covid effects all clubs the same.

The 1st team is poorer than last year and we have made zero progress since our last disasterous premiership campaign

 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

42 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

No problems in agreeing it's not going well, but you have to look at circumstances too.

1) The transfer window finishing well after the season starts meaning your best players which invariably come in at the last minute don't get any pre-prep done. 

Did the transfer window stop earlier for the other teams? Or was that our own fault for leaving things too late?

42 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

2) The "fix" ture list...which was exactly this imo - fixed - to make sure we got off to a bad start (I really believe the PL do not want a self sustaining club in their money tree). 

I'm sorry but you can't get to this point in the season and still reasonably blame three tough fixtures at the start of the season and a couple of missed games in pre-season for the club's current plight.

If that's all it takes to derail everything then we certainly don't belong in this league. 

Accusing the fixture list of being 'fixed' is also hilariously tin pot. Everyone else has to play these teams to you know?

42 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

3) The injuries, which as last time, kyboshed our chances.

We can probably write off the Arsenal, Villa and Palace games, but not any more, and really those performances were still obscenely poor even in light of the injury issues

42 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

4) Covid, which although affects all clubs, affects one with few resources more than richer clubs.

As above. Its not an excuse other than a few games.

 

Overall, 'embarrassing' is probably a good summary of the season.

 

[Badger 2,405]

15 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Our wage bill should enable us to attract players & compete with brentford, Watford, Burnley at the very least. 

So how much is that? To the nearest £10 million? How much do these other teams spend on wages? Do you know?

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

35 minutes ago, chicken said:

I don't 100% agree with this.

On paper, we were/are stronger in many areas.

But the expectation that we could replace Skipp and Buendia easily is perhaps a source of the most frustration. The two now would cost you £55-70m to sign. £33m+ for Buendia and at least £25m+ for Skipp I would say.

Folks will say we spent £50-60m last summer, but realistically, £15m was already spent on Giannoulis and Gibson. People can say that was money wasted, but realistically, we wouldn't have signed them without that agreement in place and arguably, wouldn't have gained promotion so wouldn't be competing in the Premier League. At times last season, Gibson and Hanley were the only fully fit senior CB's - just to prove a point.

 

I haven't quoted all your post several chunks of which I agree with - and I may be wrong on this but I don't think the £15m for Giannoulis and Gibson was included in the £60m quoted, either way as you rightly say we were committed to that and they are two players who I was quite happy to see be turned into permanent signings.

Of course you are also right that signing equivalent replacements to Emi & Skipp would have cost a fortune but I can't imagine that in the PL we were going to play both Emi and Cantwell together anyway so I assume they expected Cantwell to play regularly which for whatever reason hasn't happened. Realistically we never going to find another Emi, the best we could have hoped for was to find another younger Emi of three years ago and develop them into a top player, and maybe that it what Webber was trying to do.

Although I have been extremely critical of Webber's summer signings I don't think he has necessarily signed bad players (although you do have to wonder about a couple at least), but what Webber has done is a complete u-turn about the reasons for making the signings he did.

I seem to remember quite clearly from the summer as the signings were being made the talk was all about the long term project to become established in the EPL and bringing in young players with great potential that would gradually develop and gives us a better nad more competitive squad. I don't think it was ever suggested at the time that many of these youngsters were going to step straight into the first team & start winning EPL games for us - the corollary of that being that it was quite likely that to achieve that longer term objective we might well get relegated this season and have to come back up again but come back up stronger next time. Nevertheless in a matter of weeks Farke was sacked apperently because 'he wasn't getting enough out of these players' - the players that mostly had never been expected to deliver in the short term. I don't pretend to know what Webber's reasoning really was for the signings he made in the summer but the story changed dramatically when he sacked Farke and despite some rumblings I think the sacking came as a real shock to the majority of supporters.

I know many don't agree but personally I was quite happy with the long term approach which is the only realistic and practical approach to take for a club of our size, and I would have been completely confident in DF's ability to get us up again. But whatever those summer signings were meant to achieve and whatever the actual sum was at his disposal I really don't accept that he did the best, or anywhere close to it, that he could do with that money.

For instance, was spending £8m on another backup keeper really anywhere near the top of our priorities, especially when we have Skipp & tettly shaped holes to fill? More generally I think he repeated Worthington's mistake of years ago in prioritising quantity over quality - 3 more expensive (and hopefully better quality) players who would really strengthen the team would have been far more useful than 9, none of which bar perhaps Normann, have really had any impact (yet).

[hogesar 9,658]

1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

 

Our wage bill should enable us to attract players & compete with brentford, Watford, Burnley at the very least. 

Obviously I don't know for this season but generally speaking looking at prior years our wage spend has been very similar / on par with the likes of Burnley and Watford. I doubt it's going to be that much different this time round.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Overrated, over paid said:

Binner or not, the problems here at City sitting bottom of the EPL are trivial to most clubs in England. That's why most fans enjoying seeing Norwich whipped!! We're a medium sized club trying to scrape by in the top tier, very few manage it long term, West Brom, Sheff Utd, Fulham, Derby, Middlesboro, Cardiff, Swansea... on and on this list goes. 

There are exceptions that sustain a reasonable stint in the league, Brighton, Wolves but they are rare. What do you, and many others, fail to understand? I've asked before, give me one good reason why we deserve to avoid relegation??? Just one.

Oh, Jordon is a bell-***, always has been, however, his comments on this occasion are justified. 

OTBC

 

Never said we are in some way entitled to avoid relegation or retain a place in the Premier League, but do think we're entitled to see a team put up more than fight than the one we've currently got, this is the worst top flight side we've ever had, we've scored 8 goals and we're on course to beat about 6 unflattering records including lowest ever number of goals scored, lowest number of home goals, lowest number of away goals, and worst ever goal difference.

I know that Jordan is justified, that's all I was saying, you seem to be picking an argument with somebody who agrees with you, that's a bit strange don't you think? Did you mean to pick this fight with somebody else?

Webber has managed to assemble our worst ever top flight side, which would be acceptable had we not had a better one two years ago on a much smaller budget. He needs to go. 

We don't have the lowest wage bill in this league, by a long shot, Brentford have a lower wage bill and a lower net transfer spend. Their recruitment has been on point, ours has been severely lacking for multiple successive transfer windows.

I would be surprised if this squad could achieve automatic promotion next season. 

[Big Vince 318]

41 minutes ago, Badger said:

So how much is that? To the nearest £10 million? How much do these other teams spend on wages? Do you know?

 

Assuming that you are paying for a first-team squad of 30 players and the worst ten are on £40,000 per week, the middle ten are on £60,000 per week and the top ten are on £90,000 per week that gives a player wage bill of £98,000,000. Obviously, there are hundreds of other football and non-football staff to pay on top and the cost of running a professional football club generally.

I would say if you are turning over less than £200,000,000 in this league, or the directors are not putting in the balance to reach this figure, you are in trouble. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Big Vince said:

Assuming that you are paying for a first-team squad of 30 players and the worst ten are on £40,000 per week, the middle ten are on £60,000 per week and the top ten are on £90,000 per week that gives a player wage bill of £98,000,000. Obviously, there are hundreds of other football and non-football staff to pay on top and the cost of running a professional football club generally.

I would say if you are turning over less than £200,000,000 in this league, or the directors are not putting in the balance to reach this figure, you are in trouble. 

Rubbish!

£98m in wages would be equal to Arsenal, and significantly more than Spurs, and twice as much as Villa and Wolves.

ps. Our wage bill is believed to be twice as much as Brentfords, and significantly higher than Leeds. Sportrac think we've got the 18th lowest wage bill, 

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

So how much is that? To the nearest £10 million? How much do these other teams spend on wages? Do you know?

Bet this isn't far wrong, considering they do have the benefit of historic financial accounts for estimates.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/

[hogesar 9,658]

8 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Never said we are in some way entitled to avoid relegation or retain a place in the Premier League, but do think we're entitled to see a team put up more than fight than the one we've currently got, this is the worst top flight side we've ever had, we've scored 8 goals and we're on course to beat about 6 unflattering records including lowest ever number of goals scored, lowest number of home goals, lowest number of away goals, and worst ever goal difference.

I know that Jordan is justified, that's all I was saying, you seem to be picking an argument with somebody who agrees with you, that's a bit strange don't you think? Did you mean to pick this fight with somebody else?

Webber has managed to assemble our worst ever top flight side, which would be acceptable had we not had a better one two years ago on a much smaller budget. He needs to go. 

We don't have the lowest wage bill in this league, by a long shot, Brentford have a lower wage bill and a lower net transfer spend. Their recruitment has been on point, ours has been severely lacking for multiple successive transfer windows.

I would be surprised if this squad could achieve automatic promotion next season. 

Obviously Brentfords recruitment has been very good - because like you say they'll have a lower wage spend than us in reality. Of course, if everyone could do it they would, it's an incredibly difficult task.

Unfortunately, in our self-funding environment, we literally had to get recruitment spot on. We couldn't even really get away with 50% of the signings offering good returns. 

[Big Vince 318]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Bet this isn't far wrong, considering they do have the benefit of historic financial accounts for estimates.

https://www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/

Well there you go! If you want to get into the Europa League it's £98,000,000.

Just to get mid-table is double what they are quoting for Norwich.

Reality still holds true - Norwich are relegation material on wages; always have been in this league.

[kirku 1,332]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

So how much is that? To the nearest £10 million? How much do these other teams spend on wages? Do you know?

 

There is very little correlation between success in football and money spent on transfers. There is a strong correlation between success and size of the wage bill.

The point being made is completely valid - wages matter more than transfer fees.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Well there you go! If you want to get into the Europa League it's £98,000,000.

I don't though, I want us to finish 17th with the 18th biggest wage budget.

If Webber is the wizard some think he is, why are we 20th with the 18th biggest wage budget?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

So how much is that? To the nearest £10 million? How much do these other teams spend on wages? Do you know?

 

Not being a professional club owner and not knowing what those figures are (I'm sure you could find them if you tried hard enough) No I don't know but I do know that we are probably the lowest in the league.

You'll be insulting people's intelligence if you think we have an adequate wage budget for this league.

One example, Buendia on £35k here £80k at Villa. 

To attract people capable of playing at this level you have to pay the wages.

That also applies to all businesses. 

When you find out the wage bill feel free to post.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Although Norwich are struggling in this season's Premier League, they aren't exactly doing it on the cheap - spending £24.2m on player wages.

Worryingly, £10.8m is being spent on defenders such as Ben Gibson, Christoph Zimmermann and Ozan Kabak, which has leaked 25 league goals this term.

Perhaps Norwich's biggest mistake is investing just £1.9m on their strikers, with the team scoring a mere three goals in ten Premier League games since their promotion.

[City 2nd 191]

17 hours ago, mastoola said:

Webber has no money to spend

No because he wasted what he did have!

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

He's a genius Webber....

 

[City 2nd 191]

1 minute ago, Kenny Foggo said:

He's a genius Webber....

 

Somehow I don’t think thousands of NCFC supporters would agree with you on that one!