Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
priceyrice

Webber's youth signings

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

Interesting read, thanks Shef.

McCallum seems to have had a stop start season due to injury. I'm hopeful he's in the squad next season to compete with Dimi if he stays as I think he's got some talent. 

Yeah, it is possible Warburton was allowing him to work back to full fitness given the rapport between them when he came on, thinking the Blades may have been a bit to physical for him.  Indeed he would have had to play up against George Baldock who although a good ball player, is invariably played as an assassin of opposing wingers by Blades managers so Warburton may have had that in mind.

Share this post


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

I have heard this claim before, but I just don't buy it.  I think folk are just trying to put lipstick on a pig.

We signed Bushiri from Belgian top-flight as an U21 international We allegedly paid EU100k for his services, plus agents fees and, it is to be assumed, the player got a hefty pay-rise (we were a PL side)

Year 1: Bushiri went out on loan to a D3 club (Blackpool) & then back to the Belgian top-flight. The season was cut short due to covid. I can't see either of these deals producing much of a loan fee or major contribution to his wages. And every move sees an Agent getting paid.  This was also the last season that Bushiri was involved with the Belgian national set-up

Year 2: Bushiri went back to Belgian top-flight on loan, switching again mid-season. His season was cut short due to injury.  

Year 3: Trialled at D2 Coventry, but not progressed. Spent first half of this season with Andy Hughes' Go-Away Squad', making three U23 appearances. In Jan got a loan to top-flight Scottish club Hibs (whose entire wage bill is 2.5 times what Pukki gets at Norwich) 

So, a player signed by an English PL club is going out on loan to much poorer clubs, while his international progress has stalled & he has suffered from illness & injury. Are we really making money from this?  I honestly can't see it.

For season 2020-21 Norwich received £639,000 in loan fees & wage-contributions.  Across the 24 loan deals (!) you can see that we are really not bringing in that much.

Happy to be corrected if anyone has any actual figures.

So you don't believe what others have said and I have been informed, but we all have to take your opinion as gospel instead.

I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has any actual figures...

How much did the club spend last season on signing youth players? If that total for loans and wage contributions is more than we spent, it's working. Because essentially that's just one season and it can make the club money. Even if it doesn't pay player A's fee, loaning players as an approach of generating money, may neutralise that financial risk.

After all, this is what Chelsea does and in the past, Man Utd did. Use loans to either give players experience to bring back to their squad or to generate some value in them to then sell. When it comes to FFP it could help quite a lot.

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/04/2022 at 19:19, Yellow and Green said:

I would argue that the academy has improved on two fronts since Webber arrived:

1) We actively look to give young players first team opportunities. 

2) Those who don't make it usually go on to have a career in the game, in leagues 1 and 2.

The criticism is that the most successful academy graduates were already here when they arrived. This is true but these things usually go in cycles. We're now coming to the end of the Max-Ben-Jamal-Todd era and we're now seeing another crop come though, who Webber will have signed.

For the ones who haven't made it, there will have only been a few who they had genuine expectations for - the likes of Soto, Bushiri and Martin - who had u21 international experience etc. They would've had high hopes for the others but we can't expect them all to work - especially when we're spending every other season in the PL.

We've had great academy success over the past 5 years and I genuinely hope that this 'pathway to the first team' continues long after Webber leaves.

I don’t think it’s improved although we have some promising players in the u23s at the moment. Many of our main successes who have come through the ranks in recent times (although several were poached from other clubs at the age of 16/17) were recruited by Greg Broughton. Someone who I think was a big loss to the club. Now at Bodo Glimt. moved out by Webber early in his tenure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I don’t think it’s improved although we have some promising players in the u23s at the moment. Many of our main successes who have come through the ranks in recent times (although several were poached from other clubs at the age of 16/17) were recruited by Greg Broughton. Someone who I think was a big loss to the club. Now at Bodo Glimt. moved out by Webber early in his tenure. 

I've not seen as many youth player progress into the first team in a short space of time than under Webber, and I've not seen anywhere near as many of our youth players get loan moves that generally prove successful. With the facilities being improved alongside that, I think claiming it's not improved is just an unfounded criticism of Webber, because you don't like him.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chicken said:

How much did the club spend last season on signing youth players? If that total for loans and wage contributions is more than we spent, it's working. Because essentially that's just one season and it can make the club money. Even if it doesn't pay player A's fee, loaning players as an approach of generating money, may neutralise that financial risk.

I don't think its quite as simple as that.

Take the £639k figure mentioned. If that covers all loans from that season then it includes loans out for several senior players including Drmic, Klose, Trybull and Heise, all of whom you'd imagine would make up a big chunk of any loan fee or wage contributions.

I think you may be right that over his time here we made money on Bushri. But I'd wager he's the exception rather than the rule.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Results are short term. Managers get sacked for poor results so little wonder they bring in whomever they can who they think will get them over the line. Often we look at the youngsters with Canary tinted specs. Most are not, nor will ever be good enough.

This is exactly why Eric ten Hag shouldnt take the  Man u job.  No way will man u fans have the patience for the total restructuring of the club to allow him to do what he has done at Ajax, he has had help of course , but what he has that Man u dont have is the footballing culture behind him that has been in place for years at Ajax.  Now, Ajax arent perfect but they aint bad at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I've not seen as many youth player progress into the first team in a short space of time than under Webber, and I've not seen anywhere near as many of our youth players get loan moves that generally prove successful. With the facilities being improved alongside that, I think claiming it's not improved is just an unfounded criticism of Webber, because you don't like him.

Not doubting it’s improved from say 15 years ago. But my point was it was improving before Webber and may well have improved to an even greater degree than it has under Weaver had previous incumbents been left in place. 

Edited by Jim Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2022 at 12:05, NewNestCarrow said:

For season 2020-21 Norwich received £639,000 in loan fees & wage-contributions.  Across the 24 loan deals (!) you can see that we are really not bringing in that much.

I agree with KC - surely this must be the income from loans only and NOT the player's wages. Several of the players loaned out, would be be on more than twice this sum individually! They are certainly earning over £1,000,000 a year.

I think it must be that we have earned £630,000 in loan fees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree with KC - surely this must be the income from loans only and NOT the player's wages. Several of the players loaned out, would be be on more than twice this sum individually! They are certainly earning over £1,000,000 a year.

I think it must be that we have earned £630,000 in loan fees.

To be fair there were rumours that Blackburn were only playing 10% of Trybulls wages and I can't imagine much more than that was being covered of Drmic's too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Not doubting it’s improved from say 15 years ago. But my point was it was improving before Webber and may well have improved to an even greater degree than it has under Weaver had previous incumbents been left in place. 

That is all a bit 'if my auntie had **** she'd be my uncle' though isn't it?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

So you don't believe what others have said and I have been informed, but we all have to take your opinion as gospel instead.

I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has any actual figures...

How much did the club spend last season on signing youth players? If that total for loans and wage contributions is more than we spent, it's working. Because essentially that's just one season and it can make the club money. Even if it doesn't pay player A's fee, loaning players as an approach of generating money, may neutralise that financial risk.

After all, this is what Chelsea does and in the past, Man Utd did. Use loans to either give players experience to bring back to their squad or to generate some value in them to then sell. When it comes to FFP it could help quite a lot.

We signed Coker & Riley last season. Riley was 250k and Coker was undisc.

You are right, of course. People can believe anything they like, even if common sense (or even facts) indicate otherwise.

We know that the English TV deal is the richest in the world. And we know that Norwich pay wages that reflect this.

Here is a list of the clubs that we loaned players to last season. You tell me which of these would have paid full wages to the player in question?  

(1st team) - Basel, Blackburn, Charlton, Coventry, HNK Reijeka, Karlruher, Milton Keynes & Waasland Beveren

(Development) - Bury T, Eupen, Harrogate, IA, Kidderminster, Leiston, Kings Lynn (x2), Mechelen, Orient, Oviedo, Queen of the South, St Mirren, Slough & Telstar

 

The way that Chelsea & Man U make money from the hoard & loan scheme is because  a) some players go on loan to clubs with PL cash (like us!) and b) they sell Reserve players for big fees.

Nine players left our Development squad last summer.  In all cases their contracts expired or were cancelled early. So not a single one generated a Fee. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That is all a bit 'if my auntie had **** she'd be my uncle' though isn't it?

Maybe. But worth noting that Godfrey, Lewis and Aarons were brought in on his watch. Think Idah was lined up too albeit he may have actually signed after Webber arrived. 
 

truth is it’s probably too early to tell if the academy has improved or not (facilities aside)because there is a lag of several years before you really see if the players are coming through into the first team. 

 

Share this post


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

I've not seen as many youth player progress into the first team in a short space of time than under Webber, and I've not seen anywhere near as many of our youth players get loan moves that generally prove successful. With the facilities being improved alongside that, I think claiming it's not improved is just an unfounded criticism of Webber, because you don't like him.

I'd also add that it has happened while playing at the top of the Championship or in the Premier League, which isn't easy at all.

The last manager who consistently gave youth a chance was Lambert (Spillane, Chris Martin, Korey Smith, Tom Adeyemi, Declan Rudd etc all got solid playing time in his three years) and that was mostly in League One/Championship. However he had the attitude that he'd take a gamble on younger players- for example we went into our first Premier League season with Ruddy being backed up by Rudd and Steer. When Hughton came in he immediately went out and signed Bunn, Camp, Nash etc. 

Under Hughton, Adams and Neil we really had the Murphy twins and not much else, which sucked considering we had a youth cup winning squad. 

So the achievement of having all of Godfrey, Lewis, Aarons, Cantwell, Rowe, Omobamidele and Idah come through in a 5 year period (I don't count Maddison as he was already playing regular football at a decent level with Coventry) shouldn't be underplayed. It isn't just about who scouted and signed these players, it is about putting the pathways in place for players to break through. It isn't inevitable that talented players will break through whatever the structure in place is. 

I also don't think we'd have hired Smith if there is any doubt he's willing to use young players. It is noticeable that in about half a season he's already giving game time to Rowe and had increased Idah's role. So I don't think this pathway is under threat.

Share this post


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

I agree with KC - surely this must be the income from loans only and NOT the player's wages. Several of the players loaned out, would be be on more than twice this sum individually! They are certainly earning over £1,000,000 a year.

I think it must be that we have earned £630,000 in loan fees.

Rereading it again, you are prob right.

So, loan player income (we are guessing, loan fees received) = 639k

Other employments costs (including our contribution to loaned player wages, plus what we paid to incoming loan players) = 4,842k

Clearly we were making a huge loss on the loans of Drmic, Klose & Trybull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NewNestCarrow said:

Clearly we were making a huge loss on the loans of Drmic, Klose & Trybull

Not as much as we'd have lost if they hadnt gone on loan though. Damage limitation. Id say most Clubs do it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2022 at 10:07, TheGunnShow said:

Always remember with youngsters that by definition, the majority will not make it. Even with all the coaching, scouting, careful management etc., you will invariably only have a small proportion that make it to the first team. Even then, if we get one like Carlton Morris, who got us about £200K, he will have paid for himself. The sales like Lewis, Maddison, Buendia, Godfrey, Murphy, etc. are the icing on the cake (or the visible part of the iceberg).

If you've not read Garry Nelson's excellent book Left Foot in the Grave, there's a short but very telling part about how youngsters don't make it when he was player-coach at Torquay. Clubs like us, and especially lower down the pyramid, can't turn down the opportunity to find a diamond - but by definition they're hard to get.

WSC reported that of players in academies in general 97% never play a single minute in the Premier League whilst 70% never get an EFL contract. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 07/04/2022 at 13:14, NewNestCarrow said:

We signed Coker & Riley last season. Riley was 250k and Coker was undisc.

You are right, of course. People can believe anything they like, even if common sense (or even facts) indicate otherwise.

We know that the English TV deal is the richest in the world. And we know that Norwich pay wages that reflect this.

Here is a list of the clubs that we loaned players to last season. You tell me which of these would have paid full wages to the player in question?  

(1st team) - Basel, Blackburn, Charlton, Coventry, HNK Reijeka, Karlruher, Milton Keynes & Waasland Beveren

(Development) - Bury T, Eupen, Harrogate, IA, Kidderminster, Leiston, Kings Lynn (x2), Mechelen, Orient, Oviedo, Queen of the South, St Mirren, Slough & Telstar

 

The way that Chelsea & Man U make money from the hoard & loan scheme is because  a) some players go on loan to clubs with PL cash (like us!) and b) they sell Reserve players for big fees.

Nine players left our Development squad last summer.  In all cases their contracts expired or were cancelled early. So not a single one generated a Fee. 

 

You go wrong here. We pay some players wages that reflect this, not all will have promotion clauses, and not all, especially young players not expected to play for the first team yet and likely to be sent on loan, will be paid top championship wages either.

Some of the development squad will be on apprentice wages... which will be pretty low. Some may well be on a little more than that, but you're not talking massive sums here, so yes. Of those teams you mention, depending upon the players, yes, I expect most will cover their wages if not the majority of their wages.

The only players I think we can really doubt had their wages covered by the loaning club are likely to be Klose at Basel and Drmic at Rijeka.

Another example of what I mean though is Bushiri - you have him down as a first team player. He's yet to actually play a competitive game for us though is he? And he's not spent a season in our 1st team squad... or even part of it properly. Do you really think he is on premier league wages?

Sinani is similar, one of the many attractive things about signing Sinani is that you can guarantee he wasn't on a lot of money at Dudelange, so he also wouldn't have been on huge wages.

I mean at this point it's all conjecture, but you make a huge mistake in suggesting that all of our players are paid competitive premier league wages - even those who are not in and around the 1st team squad. And therefore loaning clubs will not be able to afford to pay all of their wages. 

As for the 9 players that left the development squad - all will have been on very low wages.
Dronfield, age 20 (March) - no loans, no fee, left on a free.
Hondermarck, age 21 (Nov)  - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Lomas, age 21 (Oct) - 2 loans, no fee, left on a free.
Thomas, age 21 (Jan) - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Vaughan, age 20 (Nov) - no loan, no fee, left on a free.
Nizet, age 19 (Apr) - no loan, compensation, undisclosed.
Ahadme, age 21 (Nov) - 2 loans, no fee, left for free.
Þorvaldsson, age 20 (May) - 3 loans, no fee, left for free.
Fitzpatrick, age 21 (March) - 1 loan, rumoured £350k, contract release.
Hutchinson, age 21 (Oct) - no loans, no fee, left for free.

Sitti is an interesting one. When signed he was 19 and loaned straight back to Sochaux. So almost certainly not one to be brought straight into the 1st team as a regular, or even on the fringes initially.
Sitti, age 22 (Feb) - 2 loans, can't find any mention of a fee, mutually agreed contract cancel.

So that's ten or eleven development squad players depending upon how you look at it. One of them landed us a fee, though we don't know how much. Two cost us money to sign. If you include Sitti 7 of them had loans, 6 if not. A total of 10 loans without Sitti, 12 with.

"So not a single one generated a Fee" - in terms of a sale, that is incorrect. One did. However, the other 9-10 didn't in terms of sales. But then, last summer one of them was 18, three of them were 19, 6 were 20, and one was 21. These are not the age of players that will generate huge incomes. That's how youth football works.

How many have we kept on though - because that's the balancing act isn't it?

Idah is that age group and he scored goals last season that helped us gain promotion - will he be one of the best paid players at the club? Probably not. Equally Omobamidele is still just 19 and yet he put in some vital performances last season and looks like he could well become a solid part of our future going forwards.

Aarons at 22 has been an ever-present in two promotions and two premier league seasons. It's hard to remember he just turned 22 at the start of the year when he has so much football behind him already. Obviously there is all the talk around him interesting other established top tier sides as well as that Barcelona offer... 

Rowe is another who has just broken through at 18yrs of age and could have a bright future.

It is much to my annoyance that we can't add Cantwell to the list of players to have contributed this season, despite the ability he has shown before, but he turned 24 in Feb and again, contributed to two promotions, and a premier league season and is rumoured to have a fee of £11m agreed already with Bournemouth should they get promoted. Not to mention a loan spell earlier in his career in Holland.

There is one other academy product in our ranks too though, Gunn. Obviously was with us before moving with his father to Manchester and signing for City. Tribunal set a fee of £250k. We loaned him back and after a successful season with us he moved to Southampton. Then we signed him last summer.

Probably worth a special mention to Tomkinson as well. I believe his name goes relatively unnoticed by many but he has been part of matchday squads now on a number of times, possibly as many as Rowe and Omobamidele to be fair, often taking a slot on the bench. He certainly travels with the squad relatively frequently. Similar age to Omobamidele too. We might start to see more of him in the future too, who knows.

Obviously you then have some out on loan right now too. Famewo being a good example of a player that had we been in the premier league less, and perhaps challenging less for promotion when not, may well have seen more game time for our side rather than others he has been on loan to. He was signed for an undisclosed fee, has been loaned out three times, the latest having an option for it to be made permanent which will land a fee.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/04/2022 at 13:42, NewNestCarrow said:

Rereading it again, you are prob right.

So, loan player income (we are guessing, loan fees received) = 639k

Other employments costs (including our contribution to loaned player wages, plus what we paid to incoming loan players) = 4,842k

Clearly we were making a huge loss on the loans of Drmic, Klose & Trybull

Are you sure about that? Does it state that other employment costs includes what we paid to incoming loan players? Only wouldn't their wages just be included with the general playing staff wages? What else is included in that amount? Doesn't actually seem like a lot to be honest.

Plus I am a little lost with the figure - 4,842k. As 'k' denotes thousand, 4842k is actually 4,842m surely (4,842,000)? Or have you put the comma in the wrong place? 🤔

Trybull went to Blackburn didn't he? Why do you think they couldn't afford all of his wages?

Worth noting that our players have relegation clauses and that they typically fall back into the realms of us operating as a championship club comfortably again. As at that point we had been relegated, the chances are Blackburn probably could have afforded his wages.

Last season we also loaned in, Skipp, Quintilla, Gibson and Giannoulis. So when you consider that three of those were for the entire season and we take your sum quoted above to be millions then it seems to start to shrink.

Skipp may not have been on a lot of money as essentially a 19yr old out on his first loan. Quintilla and Gibson however, are experienced pro's who would have been on fair whack even if we weren't paying all of their wages. If those two were earning between £15-20k per week then that's £1m each, or just over. Add in Skipp who was probably a lot less, Giannoulis's half season... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, chicken said:

Are you sure about that? Does it state that other employment costs includes what we paid to incoming loan players? Only wouldn't their wages just be included with the general playing staff wages? What else is included in that amount? Doesn't actually seem like a lot to be honest.

Plus I am a little lost with the figure - 4,842k. As 'k' denotes thousand, 4842k is actually 4,842m surely (4,842,000)? Or have you put the comma in the wrong place? 🤔

Trybull went to Blackburn didn't he? Why do you think they couldn't afford all of his wages?

Worth noting that our players have relegation clauses and that they typically fall back into the realms of us operating as a championship club comfortably again. As at that point we had been relegated, the chances are Blackburn probably could have afforded his wages.

Last season we also loaned in, Skipp, Quintilla, Gibson and Giannoulis. So when you consider that three of those were for the entire season and we take your sum quoted above to be millions then it seems to start to shrink.

Skipp may not have been on a lot of money as essentially a 19yr old out on his first loan. Quintilla and Gibson however, are experienced pro's who would have been on fair whack even if we weren't paying all of their wages. If those two were earning between £15-20k per week then that's £1m each, or just over. Add in Skipp who was probably a lot less, Giannoulis's half season... 

So much, so very much to unpick.

Yes, I am sure about that figure.  "Loan player wages and salaries are included in other employment costs"   You don't seem to want to believe what is in the club accounts.

Both figures are in Thousands, and 4,842k is what the accounts say. Again, you are casting doubt on figures from the club accounts.

Trybull is not an Academy player, so not part of the initial discussion here. Notwithstanding, if you really believe that Blackburn (wage bill of £26m) pays the same as Norwich (wage bill of £67m) then your mind is made up.  [ Note:  PA & Pink Un both reported that Blackburn were paying 2k of Trybull's 22k salary, and nether club corrected it. Even if you take Trybull's post-relegation wage of 10k (minimum) it is clear that Blackburn were paying a small percentage]

Skipp etc are irrelevant to the subject of "Webber's youth signings" 

Share this post


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

Trybull is not an Academy player, so not part of the initial discussion here. Notwithstanding, if you really believe that Blackburn (wage bill of £26m) pays the same as Norwich (wage bill of £67m) then your mind is made up.  [ Note:  PA & Pink Un both reported that Blackburn were paying 2k of Trybull's 22k salary, and nether club corrected it. Even if you take Trybull's post-relegation wage of 10k (minimum) it is clear that Blackburn were paying a small percentage]

Skipp etc are irrelevant to the subject of "Webber's youth signings" 

Yeah, because you are quoting our premier league wage bill Vs Blackburns championship wage bill. As I stated, and you then go to state in your own words "post relegation".

An issue you've had from the start of this rant is that we pay our players premier league wages. Another factor in that £67m I believe it also includes bonuses paid to players for promotion. I say that as I am fairly confident it did last time round.

And again, you are guessing at what Trybull's wage is. We won't know. However, lets have a further look.

Blackburn jettisoned 11 players in the summer of 2020.
Senior Pro's: Graham (now 36), Leutwiler (now 32), Smallwood (now 31), Samuel (now 28), Hart (now 25), Fisher and Platt (both now 24).
Development players: Doyle (now 23), Boyomo (now 20), Zimba (now 20), and Evans (now 21).
They also free transferred out Williams (now 29) in the January window.

I can go into more detail, it's all here.

Transfers in:
image.thumb.png.64cf96fbfd6ecfc859538ce006c97e34.png

So 7 players, of whom 4 were for academy/development teams. They also loaned in the following players:
image.png.86bc025c8d0bede4529f8d2764b6301d.png
They did a bit more business in the January transfer window with two permanent signings, one of which was for their U23's and two loans.

I'm not sure how you can prove they couldn't afford to, or were not paying all of Trybull's wages, especially as you are making the assumption that he would be on more than a number of the players they released/sold and or still had within their squad. Bearing in mind they still had Downing, Johnson, Evans, Armstrong and Gallagher whom all have been premier league/to of the championship players, so likely to be on comparable wages.

At the end of the day, you really don't have the evidence to really evidence that the academy is making a loss for the club and costing money. The only arguments you have is that youth players are not regularly being sold and that they don't bring in much in terms of loan fees. And that other teams can't afford to pay all of the wages of our players.

In other words, there are too many unknown factors for it to be proven either way. Though there is at least evidence to suggest that Blackburn could afford Trybulls wages having released at least four senior players who would have been on competitive wages for the championship, and lets not forget Blackburn are not a "small" club. In addition to that, they had players like Downing and Johnson who would also be on comparable if not better wages to Trybull.

Plus, if you take a look at the Blackburn squad that season, you'll note that much of the depth is made up of youngsters. Some of whom are still 23 and under nearly two years on.

Above all else, that's just one player. As I said, only two who that would almost certainly apply to would be Klose and Drmic. Even then we don't know if that is true.

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, chicken said:

You go wrong here. We pay some players wages that reflect this, not all will have promotion clauses, and not all, especially young players not expected to play for the first team yet and likely to be sent on loan, will be paid top championship wages either.

Some of the development squad will be on apprentice wages... which will be pretty low. Some may well be on a little more than that, but you're not talking massive sums here, so yes. Of those teams you mention, depending upon the players, yes, I expect most will cover their wages if not the majority of their wages.

The only players I think we can really doubt had their wages covered by the loaning club are likely to be Klose at Basel and Drmic at Rijeka.

Another example of what I mean though is Bushiri - you have him down as a first team player. He's yet to actually play a competitive game for us though is he? And he's not spent a season in our 1st team squad... or even part of it properly. Do you really think he is on premier league wages?

Sinani is similar, one of the many attractive things about signing Sinani is that you can guarantee he wasn't on a lot of money at Dudelange, so he also wouldn't have been on huge wages.

I mean at this point it's all conjecture, but you make a huge mistake in suggesting that all of our players are paid competitive premier league wages - even those who are not in and around the 1st team squad. And therefore loaning clubs will not be able to afford to pay all of their wages. 

As for the 9 players that left the development squad - all will have been on very low wages.
Dronfield, age 20 (March) - no loans, no fee, left on a free.
Hondermarck, age 21 (Nov)  - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Lomas, age 21 (Oct) - 2 loans, no fee, left on a free.
Thomas, age 21 (Jan) - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Vaughan, age 20 (Nov) - no loan, no fee, left on a free.
Nizet, age 19 (Apr) - no loan, compensation, undisclosed.
Ahadme, age 21 (Nov) - 2 loans, no fee, left for free.
Þorvaldsson, age 20 (May) - 3 loans, no fee, left for free.
Fitzpatrick, age 21 (March) - 1 loan, rumoured £350k, contract release.
Hutchinson, age 21 (Oct) - no loans, no fee, left for free.

Sitti is an interesting one. When signed he was 19 and loaned straight back to Sochaux. So almost certainly not one to be brought straight into the 1st team as a regular, or even on the fringes initially.
Sitti, age 22 (Feb) - 2 loans, can't find any mention of a fee, mutually agreed contract cancel.

So that's ten or eleven development squad players depending upon how you look at it. One of them landed us a fee, though we don't know how much. Two cost us money to sign. If you include Sitti 7 of them had loans, 6 if not. A total of 10 loans without Sitti, 12 with.

"So not a single one generated a Fee" - in terms of a sale, that is incorrect. One did. However, the other 9-10 didn't in terms of sales. But then, last summer one of them was 18, three of them were 19, 6 were 20, and one was 21. These are not the age of players that will generate huge incomes. That's how youth football works.

How many have we kept on though - because that's the balancing act isn't it?

Idah is that age group and he scored goals last season that helped us gain promotion - will he be one of the best paid players at the club? Probably not. Equally Omobamidele is still just 19 and yet he put in some vital performances last season and looks like he could well become a solid part of our future going forwards.

Aarons at 22 has been an ever-present in two promotions and two premier league seasons. It's hard to remember he just turned 22 at the start of the year when he has so much football behind him already. Obviously there is all the talk around him interesting other established top tier sides as well as that Barcelona offer... 

Rowe is another who has just broken through at 18yrs of age and could have a bright future.

It is much to my annoyance that we can't add Cantwell to the list of players to have contributed this season, despite the ability he has shown before, but he turned 24 in Feb and again, contributed to two promotions, and a premier league season and is rumoured to have a fee of £11m agreed already with Bournemouth should they get promoted. Not to mention a loan spell earlier in his career in Holland.

There is one other academy product in our ranks too though, Gunn. Obviously was with us before moving with his father to Manchester and signing for City. Tribunal set a fee of £250k. We loaned him back and after a successful season with us he moved to Southampton. Then we signed him last summer.

Probably worth a special mention to Tomkinson as well. I believe his name goes relatively unnoticed by many but he has been part of matchday squads now on a number of times, possibly as many as Rowe and Omobamidele to be fair, often taking a slot on the bench. He certainly travels with the squad relatively frequently. Similar age to Omobamidele too. We might start to see more of him in the future too, who knows.

Obviously you then have some out on loan right now too. Famewo being a good example of a player that had we been in the premier league less, and perhaps challenging less for promotion when not, may well have seen more game time for our side rather than others he has been on loan to. He was signed for an undisclosed fee, has been loaned out three times, the latest having an option for it to be made permanent which will land a fee.

Unpicking, pt 2:

Your belief that lower league clubs pay their youngsters the same as Norwich is fundamentally illogical.  The business of football is a pyramid, and the income & expenditure at the top are massively bigger than those at the bottom.

When Dan Adshead swapped Rochdale (turnover £6m) for Norwich (turnover £120m) it goes without saying that his weekly wage increased.

If you maintain that his wage did not increase then where is the incentive for him to move from his home-tiwn, and to lose the opportunity for first-team football?

 

The official announcement of Nizet's departure made no mention of any fee. Let me know where this was stated, and how much was paid by an Italian second-tier club for a player to go into their U19 squad.

These are not the age of players that will generate huge incomes. That's how youth football works

While our nine were going for nowt, Chelsea sold six players from their U23s for an est £35m in fees.  That is how the hoard & loan model works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Yeah, because you are quoting our premier league wage bill Vs Blackburns championship wage bill. As I stated, and you then go to state in your own words "post relegation".

An issue you've had from the start of this rant is that we pay our players premier league wages. Another factor in that £67m I believe it also includes bonuses paid to players for promotion. I say that as I am fairly confident it did last time round.

No, no, no, no, no.

The 26m and 67m are both for the Championship season.   Our PL wage was 89m

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, chicken said:


As for the 9 players that left the development squad - all will have been on very low wages.
Dronfield, age 20 (March) - no loans, no fee, left on a free.   
Hondermarck, age 21 (Nov)  - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Lomas, age 21 (Oct) - 2 loans, no fee, left on a free.
Thomas, age 21 (Jan) - 1 loan, no fee, left on a free.
Vaughan, age 20 (Nov) - no loan, no fee, left on a free.
Nizet, age 19 (Apr) - no loan, compensation, undisclosed.   DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON

Ahadme, age 21 (Nov) - 2 loans, no fee, left for free.   DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON
Þorvaldsson, age 20 (May) - 3 loans, no fee, left for free.   DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON
Fitzpatrick, age 21 (March) - 1 loan, rumoured £350k, contract release. DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON
Hutchinson, age 21 (Oct) - no loans, no fee, left for free.  DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, king canary said:

@chicken

It was reported in a couple pf places that Blackburn only paid 10% of Trybulls wages. 

Okeydokes. Well, I'll take your word above NNC's at this point...

 

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

No, no, no, no, no.

The 26m and 67m are both for the Championship season.   Our PL wage was 89m

Issue here is you keep referring to the clubs accounts in the annual statement which covers both to an extent. Anyway, some important parts that may help you:
image.png.2cc2dbe473c1c7eb472f2787c496a51b.png

This:
image.png.69242b5d17cef7312d3f83166a9601d8.png
Means add a further three zeros on the end. It does look daft if you type 4,000k. It's £4m or £4,000,000.

I guess where you are getting player salaries from is this:
image.png.e22f78cc7680af93f5743ca62a301dc1.png

However, as you will note, this is "staff costs". Also, you will note is says (note 7). So lets have a look at 'note 7'.
image.png.06fd6332636373979fe30bd05adae8af.png
So we can see the salaries are NOT as you have shared. We can also see that this is not just the salaries of the players, but everyone employed by the club. Not only this, but as I previously stated, bonuses for promotion to the Premier League are also correct. Worth noting that this is again, not just for players.

Now here's the other thing that is relevant:
image.png.6d167573bedaba046476ccf4b957bd71.png
So the club made an income of £773,000 in the 19-20 season on loans and then a further £639,000 on loans last season.

You brought Trybull into the discussion - 
image.png.9e2d8e4639e278d12154dacd180df9cb.png

Also:

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

DID NOT LEAVE LAST SEASON

Or

On 07/04/2022 at 13:14, NewNestCarrow said:

Nine players left our Development squad last summer.  In all cases their contracts expired or were cancelled early. So not a single one generated a Fee. 

Which is it? I think you'll agree that the two are very different. Last summer would be summer 2021. Last season would be 2020-2021.

Edited by chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, king canary said:

@chicken

It was reported in a couple pf places that Blackburn only paid 10% of Trybulls wages. 

Okeydokes. Well, I'll take your word above NNC's at this point...

 

Gosh, if only I had made this point.

"[ Note:  PA & Pink Un both reported that Blackburn were paying 2k of Trybull's 22k salary"

Looks like I did! 🤪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 years ago one Academy player we had was Adam Phillips. Prior to being with us he was with Liverpool then he joined Burnley. Now aged 24 he is still on their books though he hasn't played a single game for them in 3 years. His football since has been for Accrington and Morecambe for whom I saw him play at Cambridge today. It is cases like this that makes this Academy system difficult to understand. He is a lower division footballer, as such the most appropriate solution would seem to be a contract at a lower division club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scout update on Cantwell.  I had another trip to Bramall Lane yesterday, in a seat behind the away dugout.  Cantwell did not get on pitch, had just one warm up each half.  Noted he went down the tunnel a couple of times each half, not sure if he is the team's gofer or just had a weak bladder.  He also went to applaud the travelling supporters at the end.  It doesn't seem he is high in Parker's plans, so would expect they will not be taking up the option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...