Fair Criticism in the press

[chicken 2,973]

15 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Delia is untouchable to some, it’s just the way it is. 

10/10 for missing the point... about as successful as the banner flown over Carrow Road... 

[BigFish 2,209]

2 hours ago, komakino said:

That in turn would escalate even further to show how ridiculous it is to have owners that do not invest or attract outside investmentt.

 

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

I don't really know how many times you need to have it explained to you before you get it, that it is not investment if the model is for the club's planned expenditure to be higher than the club's expected revenues.

 

[hertfordyellow 462]

The problem with these journalists is they see football only through the distorted prism of the Premiership. They have no concept of the pyramid, the world in which Preston, Colchester or Coventry live.

It means their starting position is always going to prevent them from understanding the situation fully. The parachute payments shouldn’t ‘need’ to exist, if the Premiership didn’t suffer from financial doping on a reckless scale.

They always look through the wrong end of the telescope. To them we are some sort of kooky hippy that want’s to try something naively weird like make the best of all our assets while living within our financial means. They see us as the weird ones and not giving the Premiership ‘a go’, when actually the Premiership is bonkers and it’s entirely sensible and pragmatic to take sustainable growth seriously and improve the club from the foundations up, bit by bit.

[Midlands Yellow 4,479]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

10/10 for missing the point... about as successful as the banner flown over Carrow Road... 

Only your opinion matters Chicken, I get you. Your on a normal football message board, not doing lectures at Oxford. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Midlands Yellow

[komakino 281]

4 minutes ago, hertfordyellow said:

The problem with these journalists is they see football only through the distorted prism of the Premiership. They have no concept of the pyramid, the world in which Preston, Colchester or Coventry live.

It means their starting position is always going to prevent them from understanding the situation fully. The parachute payments shouldn’t ‘need’ to exist, if the Premiership didn’t suffer from financial doping on a reckless scale.

They always look through the wrong end of the telescope. To them we are some sort of kooky hippy that want’s to try something naively weird like make the best of all our assets while living within our financial means. They see us as the weird ones and not giving the Premiership ‘a go’, when actually the Premiership is bonkers and it’s entirely sensible and pragmatic to take sustainable growth seriously and improve the club from the foundations up, bit by bit.

I get your point, but the EPL is what it is. The fact that Norwich City have owners they don’t wish to play is not something that should be viewed in a positive way. 

The Premiership is flawed, but so is Norwich City’s attitude towards it. 

[TheGunnShow 6,928]

Can't agree with this notion that NCFC's attitude is flawed towards the Premier League. It is not a sign of good health, or indeed a healthy approach to matters, to be in harmony or indeed lockstep with what is fundamentally a dystopia masquerading as meritocratic competition.

Whilst extra investment would be very nice, we haven't got it so we make do with what we have and try our best to gate-crash the party that way. It just means making that step up is that bit harder and we have less margin for error.

Put it this way, Everton and Burnley would be in the crap and then some if they go down, Everton in particular.

Edited April 11, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[hertfordyellow 462]

26 minutes ago, komakino said:

I get your point, but the EPL is what it is. The fact that Norwich City have owners they don’t wish to play is not something that should be viewed in a positive way. 

The Premiership is flawed, but so is Norwich City’s attitude towards it. 

Depends what you mean by ‘play’. All owners should take their position as custodians sensibly. They shouldn’t be adding significant debt to a club. If that’s what you are inferring then I disagree with you.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

You see, this is incredibly broken logic to me.

The parachute payments were there years before Webber rocked up, therefore when he talks about the self-financing model it clearly includes any and all funds gained from being promoted. As it does adjusting to being relegated.

It's a bit like saying someone self employed follows a self funding model but claiming tax back shouldn't be part of the model.

The model is based upon the environment it operates in. It takes into account all monies earned and all monies lost. Now, if you want to slant it as being rewarded for failure, that's fine, that's opinion. Holding to a belief that it's immoral is also fine. But a self financing model doesn't count as being self financing because it uses and relies upon money gained through promotion is more than a tad bizarre.

Like I said, say they get rid of parachute payments and instead give more money to premier league clubs. Say it means promotion is worth £110m for each season a club is there. How would you see that as being any different? Instead of breaking the money down, you just get more. But it isn't parachute payments anymore, it's just one lump sum. Prize money?

It's no longer money for failure. Then it can't be immoral. And it fits your criteria of self funding? 

See how bizarre that is? You're happy to take the premier league money, just not the season after you've been in it. 

I don't see it as bizarre at all. The initial money for gaining promotion is because the club becomes a shareholder of the EPL and gets a share of that season's TV money.

Relegation means you are no longer a shareholder but are given a golden handshake or redundancy payment.

So they way you describe it is not correct.

Self employed people is a poor example. A self employed builder will still be exactly that year after year and will perform the same tasks at the same level. And rather than getting tax back a self employed person gets tax allowances in the first instance.

And I still believe it is rewarding failure. We are hardly newcomers to this situation. And yet this season has probably been our worst of the lot. We spent nigh on £50M and our performances have been dire and led to an excellent coach being sacked. So as far as I am concerned, that is failure.

Webber has nothing to do with the payments. Personally I think he should go because he has not done his job properly this season. And football has no soul so those in charge are held responsible. And it isn't just him who talks of the model. If its his idea then the rest have supported it.

But to me, self financing is more like what Daniel Levy envisaged as to why they built a bigger stadium. Why West Ham get 60K crowds. Its because they take a million or so quid on match days. They sell shirts in their millions and other consumables.

We have not taken any major steps to make us self financing other than factoring in parachute payments. So I believe our attitude is too laissez faire. We have to borrow from the banks before the season starts so we do have external debt although at the moment we are able to repay it quickly.

I hope next season is a successful one because two years down in the Championship will put a massive strain on the model and three would be a disaster.

[Nuff Said 5,664]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Delia is untouchable to some, it’s just the way it is. 

 

Nurse! He’s out again.

[wcorkcanary 4,559]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Delia is untouchable to some, it’s just the way it is. 

 

Where would you like to touch her then Midlandso?

[Nuff Said 5,664]

We repeatedly hear on this thread that we are exploiting/cheating the system because we wasted money on our player purchases this season. If those we bought had performed a little better and we were 18th instead of 20th, would that make a difference? Or 17th? The argument seems to hinge on the success of our transfers, not our financial prudence.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Nuff Said

[chicken 2,973]

35 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I don't see it as bizarre at all. The initial money for gaining promotion is because the club becomes a shareholder of the EPL and gets a share of that season's TV money.

Relegation means you are no longer a shareholder but are given a golden handshake or redundancy payment.

So they way you describe it is not correct.

Self employed people is a poor example. A self employed builder will still be exactly that year after year and will perform the same tasks at the same level. And rather than getting tax back a self employed person gets tax allowances in the first instance.

And I still believe it is rewarding failure. We are hardly newcomers to this situation. And yet this season has probably been our worst of the lot. We spent nigh on £50M and our performances have been dire and led to an excellent coach being sacked. So as far as I am concerned, that is failure.

Webber has nothing to do with the payments. Personally I think he should go because he has not done his job properly this season. And football has no soul so those in charge are held responsible. And it isn't just him who talks of the model. If its his idea then the rest have supported it.

But to me, self financing is more like what Daniel Levy envisaged as to why they built a bigger stadium. Why West Ham get 60K crowds. Its because they take a million or so quid on match days. They sell shirts in their millions and other consumables.

We have not taken any major steps to make us self financing other than factoring in parachute payments. So I believe our attitude is too laissez faire. We have to borrow from the banks before the season starts so we do have external debt although at the moment we are able to repay it quickly.

I hope next season is a successful one because two years down in the Championship will put a massive strain on the model and three would be a disaster.

Well... ok, I guess... though you do get those parachute payments for having been an PL shareholder... so you still have to have gained promotion to receive them, so they are essentially part of the "prize". As mentioned, it would appear you wouldn't complain if the money was the same but paid all at the same time...

You make a grave error again though: "I hope next season is a successful one because two years down in the Championship will put a massive strain on the model and three would be a disaster."

It reiterates this idea that "the model" is reliant upon parachute payments. As already said, this is woeful. Primarily because the model began shortly after Alex Neil departed after what can only be described as attempting to try and do it by excess. Spending £8.5m on Naismith and Klose and giving them contracts without relegation clauses that almost cost us administration.

The season after we relied upon the likes of Stiepermann, Vrancic, Zimmermann, Watkins, Husband and a few other players that were very low cost in terms of wages and fees.

The entire point of a self funding model is that it adapts to the financial demands of the situation. If we can't afford the higher paid players, we don't sign them. We start to promote more of our youth players as the quality we can sign is more on a par with their ability. For example, Famewo was touted as being the next player to break through, but the emergence of Godfrey as a CB and two promotions to the Premier League along with Omobamidele have meant he is less likely to now.

We would put more emphasis on the academy producing players, some of whom we could sell. Three years down the line that model will have improved more upon where it is at at the moment.

In that sense, we are in a far superior financial position than we were when Webber arrived and this model was as developed as it is now. This is why they spent the money on the training facilities and the academy.

There really isn't the evidence that we'd drop off a cliff in three years.

As for West Ham and Spurs... both London clubs. I really wish that we had owners who had best mates high up in government that could help them land a stadium instantly ready to move into. Despite having a ready made stadium, West Ham are in £120m debt. Spurs on the other hand, best that by quite some margin and sit at around £700m in debt. Those sound particularly self-funding to you? 

You think it's more moral for clubs to operate with such huge levels of debt than it is to effectively be neutral? 

If you think it is immoral for clubs to take parachute payments because it's rewarding failure and shouldn't be considered part of a self funding model... what about spending hundreds of millions you don't have? Our board could quite easily put the club £40m in debt for stadium expansion... whilst we're there, there is very little support, if any, from fans for us to have a new stadium. Tom Cavendish might still be about somewhere, perhaps on his bike watching as the new Poswick trainline is being laid.

[chicken 2,973]

10 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

We repeatedly hear on this thread that we are exploiting/cheating the system because we wasted money on our player purchases this season. If those we bought had performed a little better and we were 18th instead of 20th, would that make a difference? Or 17th? The argument seems to hinge on the success of our transfers, not our financial prudence.

Some of it is quite bizarre if honest.

[chicken 2,973]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Only your opinion matters Chicken, I get you. Your on a normal football message board, not doing lectures at Oxford. 

What a strange response. Just to clarify for you, as you're struggling.

We were having a discussion about the morality of parachute payments and the model of self funding.

You walk in and blurt out something about touching Delia.

I mean, would you like to sit in the chair in the corner and help yourself to the whiskey Father Jack?

Whiskey! ****! DELIA!

[hogesar 10,261]

1 hour ago, chicken said:

What a strange response. Just to clarify for you, as you're struggling.

We were having a discussion about the morality of parachute payments and the model of self funding.

You walk in and blurt out something about touching Delia.

I mean, would you like to sit in the chair in the corner and help yourself to the whiskey Father Jack?

Whiskey! ****! DELIA!

Your posts have been factual, well articulated and backed with evidence. Some posters on here cannot cope with that 🙃

I have no idea why Delia was even mentioned; do they think if we had a billionaire owner we would turn down the option for parachute payments?

[komakino 281]

10 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

We repeatedly hear on this thread that we are exploiting/cheating the system because we wasted money on our player purchases this season. If those we bought had performed a little better and we were 18th instead of 20th, would that make a difference? Or 17th? The argument seems to hinge on the success of our transfers, not our financial prudence.

Webber has made a complete Horlicks of his transfer budget, but conversely he would argue that his budget is so small that he is expected to buy EPL quality with buttons, which is unrealistic. The club generally has an eye for players at The Championship level because that is where the majority shareholders are most comfortable. They are not really interested in the EPL as they are a tug boat amongst liners and instead criticise it when the problem lies directly at their door.  

Where the club went wrong - given the derisory system it operates under - is that it bought too many ordinary players where it should have bought far less, but at a higher quality/wage level. If the desire was there to turn Norwich (again) into a top flight mainstay, they would make a better effort. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by komakino

[duke63 680]

The problem is the EPL is set up to the advantage of the big clubs and thus to the disadvantage of those who try to do things without amassing huge debts.

let's not forget that without the wealthy owners that Citeh, Chelski, ManuRe, Liverpool have, they might be yo-yoing between the EPL and the Championship and in many of those cases, they actually were until their sugar daddies came along.

 

[Badger 2,732]

11 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I hope next season is a successful one because two years down in the Championship will put a massive strain on the model and three would be a disaster.

I don't see why. We would have to adjust the wage structure but we would be in a similar position to the first Farke promotion year - except that we have a fully paid decent quality training ground now.

Because of our attendances and strong commercial operation by championship standards, we will always hold our own in terms of funding by championship standards.

If parachute payments are finished, as seems possible, we will always be near the top-funded championship team + we will not have to pay heavy interest charges that other teams who have run up debt have to pay.

Without TV money we are a strong championship proposition.

[Badger 2,732]

31 minutes ago, komakino said:

Where the club went wrong - given the derisory system it operates under - is that it bought too many ordinary players where it should have bought far less, but at a higher quality/wage level. If the desire was there to turn Norwich (again) into a top flight mainstay, they would make a better effort. 

You need to remember that in most cases players will only go to newly-promoted clubs if there is no other EPL club interested. They know that most promoted clubs are relegated and that there would be a corresponding wage drop.

Players that go to Southampton and Palace for example, would not go to us, Watford or Brentford. 

[hogesar 10,261]

34 minutes ago, komakino said:

Webber has made a complete Horlicks of his transfer budget, but conversely he would argue that his budget is so small that he is expected to buy EPL quality with buttons, which is unrealistic. The club generally has an eye for players at The Championship level because that is where the majority shareholders are most comfortable. They are not really interested in the EPL as they are a tug boat amongst liners and instead criticise it when the problem lies directly at their door.  

Where the club went wrong - given the derisory system it operates under - is that it bought too many ordinary players where it should have bought far less, but at a higher quality/wage level. If the desire was there to turn Norwich (again) into a top flight mainstay, they would make a better effort. 

I mean, after seeing you historically making things up about Delia investing in Ipswich, this is a new one. Do you think the majority shareholders are also our scouting team or something? 

[A Load of Squit 5,875]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I mean, after seeing you historically making things up about Delia investing in Ipswich, this is a new one. Do you think the majority shareholders are also our scouting team or something? 

It's no coincidence that the standard of scouting and recruitment dropped when Etty Smith died. 😀

Edited April 12, 2022 by A Load of Squit

[komakino 281]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I mean, after seeing you historically making things up about Delia investing in Ipswich, this is a new one. Do you think the majority shareholders are also our scouting team or something? 

Of course Delia doesn't scout - that would be ridiculous - though ultimately The Stowmarket Two are ultimately responsible as they hire and fire. The buck always stops at the top. 

As for trying to invest in Ipswich, I still know Ipswich fans that are adamant that she tried. This would have been in the 1990's. However, I was once looking for more on this story and I came on a thread that claimed that she was originally knocked back by John Cobbold, which if true - and I'm not saying it is - would mean the 1970's as he stepped down later that decade. 

You've got to remember that Delia is an opportunist. In the case of Norwich City, she has played an absolute blinder in that respect. The amount in publicity terms to what she initially invested cannot be understated. Norwich City is a vehicle, nothing more, nothing less. 

Many owners own football clubs as a vanity project, as they don't make any money out of them. But Delia indirectly has. So in that sense, she has beat them all, though at the expense of the real investment that is required on and off the pitch. 

[shefcanary 2,795]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

Our board could quite easily put the club £40m in debt for stadium expansion... whilst we're there, there is very little support, if any, from fans for us to have a new stadium. 

Hey, Chicken, on stadium expansion.  Have you been reading other threads especially with regard to the proposed 70% limit on salary spending as part of income by UEFA.  Even if Norwich only want to be in the top 26 in England, then they have to increase income to afford the quality of player required.  The only way they can consistently do that is by enlarging the capacity.  Quite a few of us on here have looked at the numbers and are convinced this can be done within the self funding model without impacting on the player budget. £40m cost can be serviced by a combination of source for less than £2m p.a.  The additional income brought by the extra ticket revenue and hospitality opportunities would cover that and also contribute to the cost of salaries.

Agreed though that no-one wants to move from the Carra.  Why would you leave a city centre based stadium which brings the City a lot of additional revenue if not the club?

[komakino 281]

The redevelopment of The City Stand - which even when new was an absolute joke - keeps getting kicked down the road. It was initially meant to have happened when we got promoted under Worthington and ever since then it's always 'when we next get promoted'. I just can't ever see this happening. 

I'm agreeable to us moving away from CR if it was in the long term interest of the club and where the new site was likely to be. Chase did a study back in the late '80's regarding moving to the show ground, which unsurprisingly didn't get anywhere as lack of access killed that stone dead. 

[Nuff Said 5,664]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

If the desire was there to turn Norwich (again) into a top flight mainstay, they would make a better effort. 

That’s pure horsesh1t, to be blunt.

 

I know you’re either out and out trolling or so blinded by unreasoning dislike of our board that you can’t acknowledge reality but I will rise to the challenge this one time. So you think “they” need to make a better effort? What about all the clubs in the Championship and their owners? Do they need to make a better effort too? Or do they not “desire” it enough either? And the clubs in League 1 and lower? And given that we have fewer resources than many clubs below us, doesn’t that mean “they” are actually making a decent effort?

 

Your vendetta against the owners for running the club in a realistic but effective manner is blinding you to facts and logic.

[komakino 281]

12 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

That’s pure horsesh1t, to be blunt.

 

I know you’re either out and out trolling or so blinded by unreasoning dislike of our board that you can’t acknowledge reality but I will rise to the challenge this one time. So you think “they” need to make a better effort? What about all the clubs in the Championship and their owners? Do they need to make a better effort too? Or do they not “desire” it enough either? And the clubs in League 1 and lower? And given that we have fewer resources than many clubs below us, doesn’t that mean “they” are actually making a decent effort?

 

Your vendetta against the owners for running the club in a realistic but effective manner is blinding you to facts and logic.

 

'Realistic but effective'. What planet are you on? 

The majority shareholders aren't interested in the EPL. For me, that attitude is wholly unacceptable but there are some on here who view Delia & Michael as a critical free zone. What club would want owners that do not invest or attract outside investment? Oh how lucky we are!!!

You rate our owners and I don't. They are totally superfluous for the needs for a modern football club, but there are those out there that clearly think otherwise. 

Another wasted season. Another wasted opportunity. Very effective that.  

[Midlands Yellow 4,479]

12 hours ago, wcorkcanary said:

Where would you like to touch her then Midlandso?

A light whipping (no pain) in the kitchen. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,479]

12 hours ago, chicken said:

What a strange response. Just to clarify for you, as you're struggling.

We were having a discussion about the morality of parachute payments and the model of self funding.

You walk in and blurt out something about touching Delia.

I mean, would you like to sit in the chair in the corner and help yourself to the whiskey Father Jack?

Whiskey! ****! DELIA!

I don’t think I’d get any alcoholic beverage from  her do you? Funny reply though, keep them coming. 

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

14 hours ago, chicken said:

Well... ok, I guess... though you do get those parachute payments for having been an PL shareholder... so you still have to have gained promotion to receive them, so they are essentially part of the "prize". As mentioned, it would appear you wouldn't complain if the money was the same but paid all at the same time...

You make a grave error again though: "I hope next season is a successful one because two years down in the Championship will put a massive strain on the model and three would be a disaster."

It reiterates this idea that "the model" is reliant upon parachute payments. As already said, this is woeful. Primarily because the model began shortly after Alex Neil departed after what can only be described as attempting to try and do it by excess. Spending £8.5m on Naismith and Klose and giving them contracts without relegation clauses that almost cost us administration.

The season after we relied upon the likes of Stiepermann, Vrancic, Zimmermann, Watkins, Husband and a few other players that were very low cost in terms of wages and fees.

The entire point of a self funding model is that it adapts to the financial demands of the situation. If we can't afford the higher paid players, we don't sign them. We start to promote more of our youth players as the quality we can sign is more on a par with their ability. For example, Famewo was touted as being the next player to break through, but the emergence of Godfrey as a CB and two promotions to the Premier League along with Omobamidele have meant he is less likely to now.

We would put more emphasis on the academy producing players, some of whom we could sell. Three years down the line that model will have improved more upon where it is at at the moment.

In that sense, we are in a far superior financial position than we were when Webber arrived and this model was as developed as it is now. This is why they spent the money on the training facilities and the academy.

There really isn't the evidence that we'd drop off a cliff in three years.

As for West Ham and Spurs... both London clubs. I really wish that we had owners who had best mates high up in government that could help them land a stadium instantly ready to move into. Despite having a ready made stadium, West Ham are in £120m debt. Spurs on the other hand, best that by quite some margin and sit at around £700m in debt. Those sound particularly self-funding to you? 

You think it's more moral for clubs to operate with such huge levels of debt than it is to effectively be neutral? 

If you think it is immoral for clubs to take parachute payments because it's rewarding failure and shouldn't be considered part of a self funding model... what about spending hundreds of millions you don't have? Our board could quite easily put the club £40m in debt for stadium expansion... whilst we're there, there is very little support, if any, from fans for us to have a new stadium. Tom Cavendish might still be about somewhere, perhaps on his bike watching as the new Poswick trainline is being laid.

This will be my final post about this as we are probably looking at moral issues which may be personal.

My last point is that clubs like Spurs who are in debt at the moment are trying to plan ahead and become self financing, that is their goal, within a period whereas ours is not about increasing income but lessening costs if we are relegated.

[chicken 2,973]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

This will be my final post about this as we are probably looking at moral issues which may be personal.

My last point is that clubs like Spurs who are in debt at the moment are trying to plan ahead and become self financing, that is their goal, within a period whereas ours is not about increasing income but lessening costs if we are relegated.

This is incorrect. We are trying to increase income but doing so within our means. For example, the investment in our accademy is so we get more players coming through that can be of use to our first team, thus reducing outlay in fees for new players and also to increase value in players that we then maybe able to sell. That is a legitimate part of the business model and we have already seen those going forward.

Moral issues... I still don't see how it is immoral. You're yet to define what is immoral about it all. Especially if in a strange world being £700m in debt is seen as "planning for the future" and is preferred to gaining promotion and seeing a position in the premier league as a way of expanding finances.

By the way, that's the reality. Being in the premier league brings in more guaranteed money than 6k additional fans in the stadium. £90m... Staying in the premier league brings in more money than being relegated from it. That the club hasn't been successful doesn't make them more or less immoral.

The reason you shouldn't bring morals into it is purely because the can be incredibly subjective, and can quite often lack any sense of logic. In this instance it's totally ok to lend against the future, but not ok to be playing in a system that was designed to allow more competitiveness in the premier league but without throwing clubs against the wall.