Loans and frees

[mr footy 36]

As we have no money for transfers, the loan market is our best bet for bringing in players. It can be a good thing for both clubs. Frees also good and are straightforward to put into action. The squad as it stands will struggle to stay in the top half of the league so recruitment will be welcome in the coming weeks

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

👍

[Yobocop 1,105]

2 minutes ago, mr footy said:

As we have no money for transfers, the loan market is our best bet for bringing in players. It can be a good thing for both clubs. Frees also good and are straightforward to put into action. The squad as it stands will struggle to stay in the top half of the league so recruitment will be welcome in the coming weeks

Good job the season doesn’t start until august then really? 

[dylanisabaddog 4,975]

The disadvantage to loans is that if we did go up we would have to spend a small fortune in replacing the loan players just to get back to where we started. I don't know what the maximum is but we certainly shouldn't go for any more than 2.

As for out of contract players, I'm sure we have a list. 

[essex canary 504]

Now the plush banquet party is over we must live off the dregs.

[Soldier on 161]

Money will be available once sales have been made (Rashica, Andy O, Aaron’s & Maddison)

[PockthorpePete 331]

16 minutes ago, mr footy said:

As we have no money for transfers, the loan market is our best bet for bringing in players. It can be a good thing for both clubs. Frees also good and are straightforward to put into action. The squad as it stands will struggle to stay in the top half of the league so recruitment will be welcome in the coming weeks

If only we had  some sort of parachute payment (£30m), or maybe a sell on payment (£5m). Is there no player we could sell (Rashica £5m plus) or one who is currently here, Aarons( £10m plus).

£50m plus. That does not sound like 'no money' to me.

Ex PL players will not be playing for nothing, either. I expect all three to be topping our wage bill. Free agents are grabbed early to avoid others signing them. Others who follow and are signed to other clubs usually are in a 'chain', so you have to wait.

Let's hope Omo and/or Giannoulis do not leave. That might actually bankrupt us.

[PockthorpePete 331]

16 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The disadvantage to loans is that if we did go up we would have to spend a small fortune in replacing the loan players just to get back to where we started. I don't know what the maximum is but we certainly shouldn't go for any more than 2.

As for out of contract players, I'm sure we have a list. 

or, the advantage is we are not spending what we don't have and will certainly not be able to afford, if we don't go up.

We are allowed five. Which we only pay a percentage of their wages and a 'signing' fee.

If we go up we will have the money to buy. If we don't, we are not committed to a long wage/transfer contract. A no brainer really.

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

6 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Money will be available once sales have been made (Rashica, Andy O, Aaron’s & Maddison)

Quite so - we’re obviously not going to be shopping in the megabucks market but should be able to muster up some funds for decent players.  I’m all for supplementing gaps with loan players - I get the anti-arguments but just don’t agree with them, all sides use loans.

[BroadstairsR 2,202]

18 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Money will be available once sales have been made (Rashica, Andy O, Aaron’s & Maddison)

Exactly.

It's early days too, the window has yet to open.

We obviously could do with a loan or two from the PL, and they never come on the cheap. Perhaps a promising, young striker might pay dividends.

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

There's absolutely nothing to suggest money from sales will lead to money being available for purchases.

[Soldier on 161]

3 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

There's absolutely nothing to suggest money from sales will lead to money being available for purchases.

Yea there is Webber said so himself. Clearly only a % of money made will be made available but just look at Webber’s quotes on possibly selling Andy O….

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

7 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Yea there is Webber said so himself.

No, he didn't. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Terminally Yellow

[PockthorpePete 331]

12 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

There's absolutely nothing to suggest money from sales will lead to money being available for purchases.

So where will this £50m plus go tghen. Do you really expect the club to dance around singing 'e're in the money".. And as said,  I doubt the three ex PL players wages are 'cheap' either..

[cambridgeshire canary 6,792]

Omo is about to be sold it would seem. There's some dosh there.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

47 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

If only we had  some sort of parachute payment (£30m), or maybe a sell on payment (£5m). Is there no player we could sell (Rashica £5m plus) or one who is currently here, Aarons( £10m plus).

£50m plus. That does not sound like 'no money' to me.

Ex PL players will not be playing for nothing, either. I expect all three to be topping our wage bill. Free agents are grabbed early to avoid others signing them. Others who follow and are signed to other clubs usually are in a 'chain', so you have to wait.

Let's hope Omo and/or Giannoulis do not leave. That might actually bankrupt us.

Unfortunately, we haven't got 30 million to spend from PP - that money will be going towards servicing the 66 million loan we took out recently. 

Any monies to spend will have to come from player sales (inc Maddison).

OTBC

[Soldier on 161]

10 minutes ago, Terminally Yellow said:

No, he didn't. 

Yes he did he said sales would allow us to reinvest in younger lads. Listen to anyone of the interviews he did when discussing selling players and our model

[Terminally Yellow 2,477]

31 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

So where will this £50m plus go tghen. Do you really expect the club to dance around singing 'e're in the money".. And as said,  I doubt the three ex PL players wages are 'cheap' either..

Where do you think it goes?

It goes into the wages of players and staff. We had by far the most expensive wage bill in the division last year. 

Upkeep of infrastructure.

The parachute payments have already been spent. That's been said repeatedly. 

We have to make money just to stand still. 

[Branston Pickle 3,683]

36 minutes ago, Soldier on said:

Yes he did he said sales would allow us to reinvest in younger lads. Listen to anyone of the interviews he did when discussing selling players and our model

Indeed he did.  The idea that we would sell a player for £20m and have nothing added to the pot isn’t right, but I imagine so is the idea that we will then have £20m to spend.

[PockthorpePete 331]

33 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Unfortunately, we haven't got 30 million to spend from PP - that money will be going towards servicing the 66 million loan we took out recently. 

Any monies to spend will have to come from player sales (inc Maddison).

OTBC

Perhaps you could point us all to that £65m loan

The club has borrowed to cover a £44m debt incurred through the Covid lockdown. However, "Norwich have borrowed an undisclosed sum against 'both future media rights and contracted player receivables"

Ever season since lord knows when the club have had a budget to buy players - I VERY much doubt that has changed this summer

[PockthorpePete 331]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Indeed he did.  The idea that we would sell a player for £20m and have nothing added to the pot isn’t right, but I imagine so is the idea that we will then have £20m to spend.

I don't think anyone is claiming transfer money received is automatically speed on transfers in - bar the usual anti-club posters. My point is that to state 'there is no money" when all the evidence shows there is needs correcting.

[Soldier on 161]

7 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Indeed he did.  The idea that we would sell a player for £20m and have nothing added to the pot isn’t right, but I imagine so is the idea that we will then have £20m to spend.

Indeed I haven’t said we would spend what we bring in though clearly that would be nonsense. Pretty clear though we have targeted our free transfers and will likely reinvest when we have sold some players. 

[BroadstairsR 2,202]

Have we or have we not borrowed against future parachute payments?

I thought it was common knowledge that we have and borrowed money in lieu.

So many posters on here mention that we will have more to millions to use that I am beginning to doubt the debt.

In my book all we will have to spend will be from from sales, sell on clauses and other bits and pieces connected with tv, advertising, sponsorship and club on-site sales.

Edited June 10, 2023 by BroadstairsR

[Soldier on 161]

Indeed the parachute payments support transfer fees already accounted for and previous purchases made last season and post promotion.

a proportion of any sales made will be made available though I am sure and our wage bill is probably lower than last season at this point.

[TIL 1010 4,789]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Now the plush banquet party is over we must live off the dregs.

Surprised you haven't mentioned the Webbers.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

3 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

Perhaps you could point us all to that £65m loan

Us? I thought everyone was already aware of it. And it was 66 million not 65. Give Anthony Richens a bell; he'll fill you in.

8 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

The club has borrowed to cover a £44m debt incurred through the Covid lockdown. However, "Norwich have borrowed an undisclosed sum against 'both future media rights and contracted player receivables"

Yes? And? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than to undermine your own. We've borrowed 66 million - a big chunk of which is secured against our parachute payments (future media rights). Some of it is secured against fees for players (contracted player receivables) we have sold but we have not had all the money for as yet.

“As per the club’s model, we always model multi-period looking at different scenarios. The worst case scenario always doesn’t include promotion. In those scenarios, an element of player trading would be needed and that would be based off the cash deficit in that period. 

That was from October 2022. Does that sound like we have 30 million to blow?

17 minutes ago, PockthorpePete said:

Every season since lord knows when the club have had a budget to buy players - I VERY much doubt that has changed this summer

Of course we will have a budget for players - but without selling any, it will be very small. The 30 million you have in your unicorns and rainbows budget doesn't exist I'm afraid but feel free to keep howling at the moon.

OTBC

[PockthorpePete 331]

16 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Have we or have we not borrowed against future parachute payments?

I thought it was common knowledge that we have and borrowed money in lieu.

So many posters on here mention that we will have more to millions to use that I am beginning to doubt the debt.

In my book all we will have to spend will be from from sales, sell on clauses and other bits and pieces connected with tv, advertising, sponsorship and club on-site sales.

Quoting from the report on the 21/22 accounts ""Norwich have borrowed an undisclosed sum against 'both future media rights and contracted player receivables". No mention of borrowing against the parachute payments.

I have yet to read here, or elsewhere, of anyone stating that "we will have more to millions to use". More than what, exactly ?

What posters are saying is we are NOT potless with no transfer budget. Demonstrating that with evidence does upset some, as is seen by their attempts to twist it to we have tens of millions to spend.

What is available to spend in the summer, what is held over until Jan and what is needed to run the club is unknown. But an extra income (above TV, sponsors and gate) of £50m plus clearly shows there is money.

And the constant bitching by the usual suspects merely affirms what most on here already know.

[PockthorpePete 331]

10 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

Us? I thought everyone was already aware of it. And it was 66 million not 65. Give Anthony Richens a bell; he'll fill you in.

Yes? And? I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than to undermine your own. We've borrowed 66 million - a big chunk of which is secured against our parachute payments (future media rights). Some of it is secured against fees for players (contracted player receivables) we have sold but we have not had all the money for as yet.

“As per the club’s model, we always model multi-period looking at different scenarios. The worst case scenario always doesn’t include promotion. In those scenarios, an element of player trading would be needed and that would be based off the cash deficit in that period. 

That was from October 2022. Does that sound like we have 30 million to blow?

Of course we will have a budget for players - but without selling any, it will be very small. The 30 million you have in your unicorns and rainbows budget doesn't exist I'm afraid but feel free to keep howling at the moon.

OTBC

So no evidence what soever and a claim that we will not receive parachute payments. And we see Johnson as being a barefaced liar.

"Does that sound like we have 30 million to blow?"

I never stated that, You are just making up stuff again to distract from your erroneous claim. I merely pointed out the extra £50m we could be due to refute the lie';there is no money'

Now point us all to that £65m loan. It must be available online, otherwise you would not know about it. Unless of course you are making it up. To what purpose, I might ask, as if the rest of us cannot guess.

Edited June 10, 2023 by PockthorpePete

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

1 minute ago, PockthorpePete said:

So no evidence what soever and a claim that we will not receive parachute payments. And we see Johnson as being a barefaced liar.

Now point us all to that £65m loan. It must be available online, otherwise you would not know about it. Unless of course you are making it up. To what purpose, I might ask, as if the rest of us cannot guess.

LOL! Honestly mate. You're getting to Bill levels of delusion here.

I'm sorry my friend, but I'm not going to indulge you any further when it's clear your reading comprehension skills are on a par with a Border Collie.

Keep howwwwwwwwling!

OTBC

[BroadstairsR 2,202]

Debt is debt no matter what it was borrowed against.

If there is still parachute money to come then it can be used to pay off debt on "future media rights and player receivables."

In fact, it should be (or at least some of it) to avoid what must be mammoth interest payments.

The only thing sure from all this is that we cannot afford any further Stuart Webber wastefulness nor another Greek wonder boy, any heady South American  prospects or duff loans like Gilmour and Marquinos (along with quite a collection of others.)

Edited June 10, 2023 by BroadstairsR