Why this relegation is worse than last

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm not sure why this persuaded you that this is good reason to take on debt?

 

Now that you seem to be a convert, unless I have misinterpreted what you said, how much debt do you think that we should take on and how certain are you that this sum would improve us?

You have.

I was railing at some of the club's critics and the conclusion of their criticism ... which suggested getting into debt.

I am now one of those who would like some change in our ownership model. What form that could take is entirely up to the owners of course.

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[BigFish 1,988]

19 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

Last time we were relegated we were fearing that we'd lose our crown jewels.

We did, as it happens the evidence is that our "crown jewels" were pretty much over rated by the fans. Mirror image of what the despair of relegation does to perspective in that the current squad is probably underrated. Still not good enough for the Prem, mind.

Edited March 18, 2022 by BigFish

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

21 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Last time we didn't even try and stay up - it was a free hit. So when we went down we regrouped and went again as part of a plan. 

This time we spent big by our standards (small by any others when balanced against outgoings) and TOTALLY messed up recruitment. 

This will have a knock on effect of eroding confidence in leadership and players. And belief is so important in sport. One senses an era is ending in failure and we face the fall out. Low spirits, exodus of players and rebuilding whilst seeking a fresh vision. This fresh vision wont be easy to find given that we lack the resources of other clubs. Fans wont be over hungry for promotion if they feel we just get another kicking. The board too. And that sort of doubt can spread. Yet without parachute payments we are in real trouble and will likely slide into L1 quicker than many realise. Roeder era mark 2- lots of cheap loans etc.... 

Sorry to be so gloomy but it really is hard to find the positives after that last defeat. We need to hear from the board soon. They need to find a fresh narrative and some positivity and begin to build - will it come? Am I overly negative or is this the start of decline? Thoughts? 

I think player morale was screwed up and thrown in the bin the moment Talk Sh1te and others started saying "oh great Norwich are back with no commitment to staying up"

Ive gone through every emotion this season and now im calmly looking at it and pointing the finger squarely at the media / officiating and ethos of the Premier League.

We are about as welcome as a bad fart in a lift in the Premier League and E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y is happily letting us know

[Badger 2,408]

8 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

You have.

I was railing at some of the club's critics and the conclusion of their criticism ... which suggested getting into debt.

I am now one of those who would like some change in our ownership model. What form that could take is entirely up to the owners of course.

 

Sorry if I misinterpreted you Broadstairs. 😳

Unless we get a "donor owner," which I suspect is unlikely, the other models of ownership are likely to involve debt. I'd be very happy with a donor, but taking on debt would probably weaken us rather than strengthen us. 

[smooth 114]

Our campaign under Farke was doomed because of injuries. We were hit so severely in defence that we played 2 central midfielders there at Brighton, we had 3 goalkeepers on the bench against Man City.

We came up with a bright squad with potential and after the spurs Cup win there was something coming together, it may not have saved us but covid hit and those last 10 games we even had a very injured zimmerman play. We had so many things against us but we had players in their prime and best youngsters we have had for years.

We sold well and rebuilt a little in the championship, but bridges were burned clearly with Buendia and Cantwell and a number of players such as Dowell and Hughill took time to settle and we have found, again, they were not upgrades.

Gibson and, later in the season, Dimi came in. It began to look decent but glaring holes still needed to be addressed and a number of farkes original signings were likely to move on.

This season, the transfer strategy was to focus on the signings we really want and wait. It means less time to build a cohesive group, gambles did not materialise and we are in the relegation position because we are well short. Pukki and Krul have given us their best years but with no supporting cast to help can do little more. 

We may have a few assets but we need to find a style of play, for next season this year we have looked so out of sorts.

But I would say the first season under Farke could have been very different with a long standing centre back pairing.

[BigFish 1,988]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Sorry if I misinterpreted you Broadstairs. 😳

Unless we get a "donor owner," which I suspect is unlikely, the other models of ownership are likely to involve debt. I'd be very happy with a donor, but taking on debt would probably weaken us rather than strengthen us. 

Like the idea of "donor owner" @Badger - it sums it up perfectly. Donor owners get intangible benefits from owning clubs, sports washing being the obvious or money laundering being another. Occasionly, like with Tony Bloom it is the self realisation of a long term fan.

[Badger 2,408]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Like the idea of "donor owner" @Badger - it sums it up perfectly. Donor owners get intangible benefits from owning clubs, sports washing being the obvious or money laundering being another. Occasionly, like with Tony Bloom it is the self realisation of a long term fan.

Yes, Tony Bloom would be everybody's dream owner. I think that he is a philanthropist as well. I can't think that it is very likely for us but we live in hope. Perhaps one of the new owner  advocates could use Gresham's links to contact Dyson?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

20 hours ago, Badger said:

Decline from when?

Not sure what you are getting at here, it’s seriously hard to argue we’re in any kind of a better spot right now to where we’ve been the last few seasons under Webber.

Has the squad declined from last year’s promotion? Yes clearly. We’ve lost Buendia, Skipp and an inform Cantwell to a vast array of totally average joes (Rashica aside) and one good loan option in Williams. 

Have we declined from the relegation 2 years ago? Yes. We’ve scored 8 goals less than at this point 2 years ago, picked up less points, looked far less-competitive overall, not put in any performances against the big teams and all this despite not having to deal with a centre back injury crisis for most of the season.

Have we declined from 18/19? I’d hate to think we’ve gone that far back but this squad doesn’t give me much confidence to say we’re definitely in a better place. We certainly have more strength in depth now, but better quality in the starting 11? It’s pretty close…

I’d say the quality in the squad has unravelled to roughly around 18/19 levels; certainly better than 17/18, but worse than 19/20. However as @Son Ova Gunn pointed out; that’s to totally ignore all of the water under the bridge at that time too. I.e. the impact on our players of another miserable, whimpering relegation, the loss of reputation in our recruitment, the diminishing neutral perception of our club, and the lack of saleable assets compared to 2 years ago to now go and sort it all out etc etc etc.

If I were to guess right now then I’d say we won’t bounce back next season. But unlike last time I don’t really care, the thought of another promotion is daunting not exciting. I commend anyone who feels ‘up for’ automatic promotion next season, because I do not wish to muster another season of abject failure and embarrassment if we did go up. I know we are in a difficult place to compete financially but that hasn’t close to excused the pathetic absence of competitiveness on the pitch - we are no worse off than the Burnleys or Brentfords who are / have been putting up a much better go of things.

Overall one of the most depressing seasons I can remember - worse is the fact that it is essentially making me question our place in the footballing pyramid, an existential crisis. For the first time I can remember I now do not know what this club is building for, nor do I really look forward to seeing us try to get there. At least after the relegation to league 1 there were no doubts about where we should be. 

Of course this is the kind of thing that will change after the end of this dreadful season and hopefully a good summer of transfer business - but I can’t see myself fully buying into the model / Webber for a while and maybe never again. The ownership debate is definitely starting to shift isn’t it? 

[Badger 2,408]

9 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

The ownership debate is definitely starting to shift isn’t it? 

I don't think it has changed at all. Everybody (myself included) would have welcomed a donor owner, willing to give us tens of millions of pounds 10 years, 5 years and 1 year ago.

The understandable disappointment at another terrible season in the premier league makes people want it even more, but I'm afraid it doesn't make it any more likely.

There might be some on here who want a model whereby we take on tens of millions of debt in a gamble, but I have not seen many people advocate it.

[chicken 2,640]

22 hours ago, BarclayWazza said:

Personally I think this is the start of a decline.  Looking at last time we came down we kept Aarons, Buendia and Cantwell and had £40m from the sales of Godfrey and Lewis.  Since, we've essentially p*ssed that 40m plus the Buendia money up the wall, not found a solution to key parts of the squad (CDM, Pukki backup, solid defence) and our only real saleable assets are Aarons and whatever we might get for Cantwell.  

Said it many times before though... we must have pulled in £250m in PL money and parachute payments over the last 3 seasons yet our net spend over that time can only just be above zero.  Something isn't right somewhere.

I think the sign that things are really going bad is when you get the usual pro-Delia, can't criticise the club for anything poster's unable to offer anything of a counterpoint so resort to snide jibes - seen quite a lot of that recently!

Not even close. It is really worth a quick google, in most cases you'll find a season in the premier league is worth roughly £80-100m. Then you get parachute payments split over 3 seasons, or at least you did, after relegation. However, if you are promoted before those three seasons are up, you don't get it all. Eg, if you are down for one season, you just get the one seasons parachute payments.

The rest is all very clearly set out in the publicly available in the club accounts, that they have to release every year. EPL wage bill for the playing staff is usually £50-60m. So a large chunk of that is gone from the off. The last two seasons we have had to contend with Covid, that saw profits drop due to refunds or holding over of payments for season tickets etc and no casual ticket sales as well as the executive boxes, stadium tours, external stadium use and general additional match day revenue.

Something is very right somewhere - and it is all information readily and easily available.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

48 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't think it has changed at all. Everybody (myself included) would have welcomed a donor owner, willing to give us tens of millions of pounds 10 years, 5 years and 1 year ago.

The understandable disappointment at another terrible season in the premier league makes people want it even more, but I'm afraid it doesn't make it any more likely.

There might be some on here who want a model whereby we take on tens of millions of debt in a gamble, but I have not seen many people advocate it.

I should’ve been clearer as I don’t personally want the owners to be hounded out. However I’ve lost faith in the current model being able to secure us premier league status. So where do we go now?

During 4 seasons of building and even the relegation I could always see the progression under the model, or at least where we were expecting to get to, with this season supposedly being the climax. But we instead spaffed the bed sheets with all the wasted money.

And now I’ve lost sight of it - I bought into it last time but I can’t this time. 

So do I want the personnel change (I.e. Webber) or an ownership change? Personally as I said separately to you just now it is Webber who has bungled the opportunity this season, an opportunity which had been earned through seasons of building and a ‘banked’ relegation. So he would be the immediately obvious one to change. 

But the problem we now have is that I can see us needing to rebuild over the course of a couple of seasons in order to mount another successful promotion campaign. Something which actually suit Webber??

Under his reign we’ve managed to recruit so well in the championship but equally as poorly in the PL, could we get someone in who could do as good in the championship and also better in the prem?  If we failed to that then we could easily fall into championship mediocrity?

We do need to still out-recruit our championship competitors first and foremost which makes Webber a good candidate, but what’s the point if we’re only going to end up humiliated in the prem again? What can he say or do that’s going to make me or anyone else think it could be different another time round? 

As you can tell, I just don’t know anymore….

Edited March 18, 2022 by Hank shoots Skyler

[king canary 7,654]

Just now, chicken said:

Not even close. It is really worth a quick google, in most cases you'll find a season in the premier league is worth roughly £80-100m. Then you get parachute payments split over 3 seasons, or at least you did, after relegation. However, if you are promoted before those three seasons are up, you don't get it all. Eg, if you are down for one season, you just get the one seasons parachute payments.

If we get £80-100m per season in the Premier League and first year of parachute payments are reported to be about £40-50m then that £250m is pretty close no?

[chicken 2,640]

1 hour ago, smooth said:

Our campaign under Farke was doomed because of injuries. We were hit so severely in defence that we played 2 central midfielders there at Brighton, we had 3 goalkeepers on the bench against Man City.

We came up with a bright squad with potential and after the spurs Cup win there was something coming together, it may not have saved us but covid hit and those last 10 games we even had a very injured zimmerman play. We had so many things against us but we had players in their prime and best youngsters we have had for years.

We sold well and rebuilt a little in the championship, but bridges were burned clearly with Buendia and Cantwell and a number of players such as Dowell and Hughill took time to settle and we have found, again, they were not upgrades.

Gibson and, later in the season, Dimi came in. It began to look decent but glaring holes still needed to be addressed and a number of farkes original signings were likely to move on.

This season, the transfer strategy was to focus on the signings we really want and wait. It means less time to build a cohesive group, gambles did not materialise and we are in the relegation position because we are well short. Pukki and Krul have given us their best years but with no supporting cast to help can do little more. 

We may have a few assets but we need to find a style of play, for next season this year we have looked so out of sorts.

But I would say the first season under Farke could have been very different with a long standing centre back pairing.

Spot on.

I would add that everyone saying we "chose" to take a "free hit" needs a reality check. We had zero money. That's a bit like having enough money for a 2nd hand car but not a new BMW and saying that you chose the 2nd hand car. No, not a choice really. It was the position we were left in the last time we had been in the premier league and the club actually did what people had been advocating for years and speculate... it didn't go well and we were left with the likes of Naismith, who probably would have done well at championship level but we couldn't afford to pay all of his wages so had to send him on loan to get some of them covered.

The result was having to sell Maddison with the Murphy's and Pritchard also going.

I still find it laughable that people say we don't take risks or gambles, yet we have, and they have rarely paid off for us. 

[chicken 2,640]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

If we get £80-100m per season in the Premier League and first year of parachute payments are reported to be about £40-50m then that £250m is pretty close no?

We've been promoted twice, we're not yet through the 2nd campaign so won't have received all of the PL money this time out - it isn't all up front.

£250m is based upon the top bracket of what we "might" have. The lower bracket is £200m. The 2nd part of the question posed was that there isn't a logical explanation for where the money has gone. There is. Especially when we know that the club needed the first promotion financially hence very little money to improve the squad, and this time out being the first time we have had actual money to spend.

IMHO, got caught between trying to spend more money to land better players and forgetting that traditionally, we have always done better picking up less established players. Although it was a decade ago now, which is hard to believe. Pilkington, E. Bennett, Howson, and a few others were exactly what we needed and didn't cost the earth. They fought hard and played well. None of them cost more than £3.5m. Arguably our best performers this season are the same. Hanley £3m looks a better player than Gibson £8m. Krul and Pukki were free. Williams is a loan. 

[king canary 7,654]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

We've been promoted twice, we're not yet through the 2nd campaign so won't have received all of the PL money this time out - it isn't all up front.

£250m is based upon the top bracket of what we "might" have. The lower bracket is £200m. The 2nd part of the question posed was that there isn't a logical explanation for where the money has gone. There is. Especially when we know that the club needed the first promotion financially hence very little money to improve the squad, and this time out being the first time we have had actual money to spend.

IMHO, got caught between trying to spend more money to land better players and forgetting that traditionally, we have always done better picking up less established players. Although it was a decade ago now, which is hard to believe. Pilkington, E. Bennett, Howson, and a few others were exactly what we needed and didn't cost the earth. They fought hard and played well. None of them cost more than £3.5m. Arguably our best performers this season are the same. Hanley £3m looks a better player than Gibson £8m. Krul and Pukki were free. Williams is a loan. 

Yeah I can do the maths. Just a bit off to say the poster who mentioned that £250m figure was 'not even close' and needed to do some googling when, looking at the numbers, £250m over the last three seasons is a pretty reasonable figure considering you yourself admit it is within the bracket of what the numbers suggest. Quibbling that we 'haven't received it all' is just a bit petty. 

[chicken 2,640]

9 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah I can do the maths. Just a bit off to say the poster who mentioned that £250m figure was 'not even close' and needed to do some googling when, looking at the numbers, £250m over the last three seasons is a pretty reasonable figure considering you yourself admit it is within the bracket of what the numbers suggest. Quibbling that we 'haven't received it all' is just a bit petty. 

Not really, especially when they are claiming, like another thread is now, that there must be dodgy accounting going on.

There is a huge difference between £200m and £250m. £50m is not a small sum at all. And we are not through the 2nd season of PL football yet so we won't have received all of the money for it.

It is more than a fair criticism for someone that doesn't want to look at the clubs annual report to find out exactly where and how money is spent.

[king canary 7,654]

3 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not really, especially when they are claiming, like another thread is now, that there must be dodgy accounting going on.

There is a huge difference between £200m and £250m. £50m is not a small sum at all. And we are not through the 2nd season of PL football yet so we won't have received all of the money for it.

It is more than a fair criticism for someone that doesn't want to look at the clubs annual report to find out exactly where and how money is spent.

£200m is the lower estimate. £250m is the upper estimate. Neither of those figures are wrong without knowing the exact amounts but £250m is a perfectly reasonable estimate. I'm not talking about other posts, I just find it odd you specifically bolded the £250m claim and said it wasn't even close when it clearly was.

Each to their own though.

[ged in the onion bag 856]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah I can do the maths. Just a bit off to say the poster who mentioned that £250m figure was 'not even close' and needed to do some googling when, looking at the numbers, £250m over the last three seasons is a pretty reasonable figure considering you yourself admit it is within the bracket of what the numbers suggest. Quibbling that we 'haven't received it all' is just a bit petty. 

Am reading this with interest and think Chicken makes good and valid points... what he said earlier that seems to have been lost in the arguments between you (and what BarclayWazza argued) is that the money earned and any parachute payments have to pay staff wages, no doubt other outgoings which are also substantial sums.    In terms of where the income we have received has gone, its not as simple as BarclayWazza would conveniently have it. 

Edited March 18, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[king canary 7,654]

3 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Am reading this with interest and think Chicken makes good and valid points... what he said earlier that seems to have been lost in the arguments between you (and what BarclayWazza argued) is that the money earned and any parachute payments have to pay staff wages, no doubt other outgoings which are also substantial sums.    In terms of where the income we have received has gone, its not as simple as BarclayWazza would conveniently have it. 

No doubt it is just me being petty and choosing a weird hill to die on really. It just bugged me. 

[chicken 2,640]

39 minutes ago, king canary said:

£200m is the lower estimate. £250m is the upper estimate. Neither of those figures are wrong without knowing the exact amounts but £250m is a perfectly reasonable estimate. I'm not talking about other posts, I just find it odd you specifically bolded the £250m claim and said it wasn't even close when it clearly was.

Each to their own though.

No, it's not close. As I just said, we're not through the 2nd PL season yet, so we can't have the maximum amount of money.

And in case of arguments, or trying to put your case forward, you always go with the conservative estimate or you put it as a bracket. Eg £200-250m. Maximum figures really needs to be evidenced with more than a guess.

Couple that with "where's the money gone NEYULL?!!" you can only conclude that it was deliberately pushed to emphasise the "missing" money amount - shock and awe etc.

19 minutes ago, king canary said:

No doubt it is just me being petty and choosing a weird hill to die on really. It just bugged me. 

Yes.

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

Spot on.

I would add that everyone saying we "chose" to take a "free hit" needs a reality check. We had zero money. 

We bid £16 million on that French player on the last day of the window but it never materialised. We absolutely could’ve spent money if we chose to. We chose not to. 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

9 minutes ago, chicken said:

No, it's not close. As I just said, we're not through the 2nd PL season yet, so we can't have the maximum amount of money.

And in case of arguments, or trying to put your case forward, you always go with the conservative estimate or you put it as a bracket. Eg £200-250m. Maximum figures really needs to be evidenced with more than a guess.

Couple that with "where's the money gone NEYULL?!!" you can only conclude that it was deliberately pushed to emphasise the "missing" money amount - shock and awe etc.

Yes.

Very similar to you exaggerating that we had ‘zero money’ to spend in 19/20, no?

[chicken 2,640]

23 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

We bid £16 million on that French player on the last day of the window but it never materialised. We absolutely could’ve spent money if we chose to. We chose not to. 

Which French player? And did we actually bid £16m or was that just a rumour? 

We wanted to sign Duda that summer but couldn't afford to, and he wouldn't have costed £16m. 

[chicken 2,640]

17 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Very similar to you exaggerating that we had ‘zero money’ to spend in 19/20, no?

Not at all. I think we spent around £5m on loans etc didn't we?

Nice of you to start taking pot shots again. Have you actually got anything to add to this other than you disagree but without anything worthy of note as to say why? 

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

12 minutes ago, chicken said:

Which French player? And did we actually bid £16m or was that just a rumour? 

We wanted to sign Duda that summer but couldn't afford to, and he wouldn't have costed £16m. 

Alexis Claude Maurice, numerous articles speak of a £15-16m bid which was accepted but he turned us down. As I said, there was money to spend we just chose not to - except for this deadline day attempt. Always found it odd why we did that. Was he seen as the only real opportunity for spending money? Why did we wait so long before such drastic action in the window? Strange one!

[chicken 2,640]

53 minutes ago, Hank shoots Skyler said:

Alexis Claude Maurice, numerous articles speak of a £15-16m bid which was accepted but he turned us down. As I said, there was money to spend we just chose not to - except for this deadline day attempt. Always found it odd why we did that. Was he seen as the only real opportunity for spending money? Why did we wait so long before such drastic action in the window? Strange one!

Unconfirmed. I am looking around and from what I can see, it was one rumour that was unsubstantiated from Soccer Link. The others, all small internet stuff like Geordiebootboys, HITC, readnorwich and one or two others are all relatively small-time and unreliable and are simply linking to the Soccer Link article.

Also, the figure seems way off. He went for a lot less.

You simply can't believe all rumours. Looks a lot more like we may have put in a bid but not for that amount, or anything close to it. Or we simply didn't and this was the way of the agent and the club trying to drum up interest.

Again though, look at the accounts rather than put your entire faith in an argument based upon a rumoured offer for a player on the last day of the transfer window.

How much money did the club accounts say we had in 2019? How much in 2020? Is there an odd £16m kicking about? 

Edited March 18, 2022 by chicken

[king canary 7,654]

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

You simply can't believe all rumours

Yep

1 hour ago, chicken said:

We wanted to sign Duda that summer but couldn't afford to, and he wouldn't have costed £16m. 

Oh.

[hogesar 9,722]

25 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yep

Oh.

In his defence, isn't that less of a rumour and more of a Farke told us we wanted to buy him but couldn't afford it?

[king canary 7,654]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

In his defence, isn't that less of a rumour and more of a Farke told us we wanted to buy him but couldn't afford it?

If I remember correctly Farke said he would have cost £25m, Chicken claimed it would have been less than £16m.

Edit- found the full quote.

"I would have loved to sign this player in the summer but to sign this player, after he delivered such a season with 11 goals and seven assists, we would have needed to spend £25m and we were not able to do this," said Farke.

Edited March 18, 2022 by king canary

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

 

52 minutes ago, chicken said:

Unconfirmed. I am looking around and from what I can see, it was one rumour that was unsubstantiated from Soccer Link. The others, all small internet stuff like Geordiebootboys, HITC, readnorwich and one or two others are all relatively small-time and unreliable and are simply linking to the Soccer Link article.

Also, the figure seems way off. He went for a lot less.

You simply can't believe all rumours. Looks a lot more like we may have put in a bid but not for that amount, or anything close to it. Or we simply didn't and this was the way of the agent and the club trying to drum up interest.

Again though, look at the accounts rather than put your entire faith in an argument based upon a rumoured offer for a player on the last day of the transfer window.

How much money did the club accounts say we had in 2019? How much in 2020? Is there an odd £16m kicking about? 

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/city-target-will-become-pl-player-1822250

I feel like quotes from Lorient’s president after the player has already signed for Nice are pretty conclusive about our interest and bids? He has no reason to lie does he? And yes this article does say he ended up going for £13m, so a bit less than I had read our bid was for elsewhere. But still quite a lot more than ‘zero money’ available. 

In fact if we’d had spent that £13m then our net spend (including the £5-6m on other transfers / loan fees) for 19/20 wouldn’t have been too far off from this season. I think our net spend was like £22m for this season so a few million off.