No Need To Sell?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

53 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

It is much more nuanced than that.

As is almost everything always.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

18 minutes ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

Only if you bring in dross. Which we haven't. 

Well in reality dross is a harsh word. But surely we won't know if the signings are good until the end of the season.

Would you accept 12th as an improvement?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

19 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

yes i would have got cannon 

but if money was short Clarke Harris for the 800k plus add on was a steal 

We sent Kamara out on loan and he scored yesterday.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

28 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is much more like it. 

Can't beat a busy forum after a game.

It was quiet yesterday. Only 11 pages on the match thread. 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

11 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Yes and the only way of doing that (notwithstanding any Atannasio investment) is to sell players. So Big Vince is spot on in his first post. The club have told us we do NOT need to sell when it was painfully obvious to every single fan that they did have to. 

i thought the loan was so we could spend money that was owed parachute payments that when paid would repay loan ?

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,380]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well in reality dross is a harsh word. But surely we won't know if the signings are good until the end of the season.

Would you accept 12th as an improvement?

Maybe a harsh word but it's still correct, if we spend nothing and bring in a load of dross then it's bad business, if we've brought in decent players who can change our fortunes from last year ( early evidence is promising ) then its absolutely outstanding business...

Would I "take" 12th? Of course not. Although technically it is a improvement no matter how miniscule. 

I fully believe we'll be in the play off mix IF ( pay attention to the if) Hwang can emulate Sarge. 

If not, I still believe we have enough to just miss out on the play offs (7-9th) which in my book after last year is a definite improvement. 

 

We shall see. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

i thought the loan was so we could spend money that was owed parachute payments that when paid would repay loan ?

Do we know why we had to borrow ahead of the payments? Wages, compensation for Smith?

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,380]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Do we know why we had to borrow ahead of the payments? Wages, compensation for Smith?

Probably a big reason, can't imagine him and shakey being on peanuts

[norfolkngood 1,087]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Do we know why we had to borrow ahead of the payments? Wages, compensation for Smith?

no idea 

[norfolkngood 1,087]

1 minute ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

Probably a big reason, can't imagine him and shakey being on peanuts

i imagine they were well paid well , say 5 million for both at a guess how did we spend the rest of the 61 million ?

[nutty nigel 7,608]

22 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Yes and the only way of doing that (notwithstanding any Atannasio investment) is to sell players. So Big Vince is spot on in his first post. The club have told us we do NOT need to sell when it was painfully obvious to every single fan that they did have to. 

We're up the creek without a paddle if we're trying to p itay off 66m with whatever we got up front for Omobamidele. 

Truth is we don't know. We'll have more idea in a couple of months.

When we were debt free we had posters saying debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I never understood that. 

But football is now built on foundations of debt. As is it seems is much of the country. They tell you it's 'easy payments'. I've never known an easy payment and they're certainly not easy now.

[Indy 3,315]

1 minute ago, norfolkngood said:

i imagine they were well paid well , say 5 million for both at a guess how did we spend the rest of the 61 million ?

According to some private jets, hospitality and red wine! 😂

[shefcanary 2,448]

12 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Do we know why we had to borrow ahead of the payments? Wages, compensation for Smith?

Yes, we overspent on transfers and wages in a "gamble" on preserving our EPL status. The so called contractual salary cuts on relegation were not as deep as were required, hence why Gibson, Pukki and Krul were still effectively on EPL salaries. There were probsbly others as well.

He is castigated on here but Essex is right to regularly point out the £118m salaries bill in that EPL season was a significant part of the reason for the cash requirement. The next accounts will show the reduction in that bill will not be as much as expected last year. However apart from Gibson, you would expect the majority of players this season are playing for a promotion bonus to get near their EPL salary, and is certainly one reason for the better start so far.

Edited September 3, 2023 by shefcanary

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,380]

3 minutes ago, norfolkngood said:

i imagine they were well paid well , say 5 million for both at a guess how did we spend the rest of the 61 million ?

Swimming pool 😜

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

We're up the creek without a paddle if we're trying to p itay off 66m with whatever we got up front for Omobamidele. 

Truth is we don't know. We'll have more idea in a couple of months.

When we were debt free we had posters saying debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I never understood that. 

But football is now built on foundations of debt. As is it seems is much of the country. They tell you it's 'easy payments'. I've never known an easy payment and they're certainly not easy now.

I have no idea where the £66M comes from either. That seems a farcical figure. As I posted, was the loan to pay off Smudger and co?

[Indy 3,315]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We're up the creek without a paddle if we're trying to p itay off 66m with whatever we got up front for Omobamidele. 

Truth is we don't know. We'll have more idea in a couple of months.

When we were debt free we had posters saying debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I never understood that. 

But football is now built on foundations of debt. As is it seems is much of the country. They tell you it's 'easy payments'. I've never known an easy payment and they're certainly not easy now.

Didn’t we get angry about certain owner who sold off all the silverware, got us relegated and put us in debt! Hung on for as long as he could,  But football is different now? How? Just asking.

Being as it’s a boring Sunday afternoon thought I’d stir this pot up again! 😉😉
It’s going to be interesting what the debt is and how it’ll be managed in the future.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Indy

[mrD66M 102]

As a fan I understand the attachment to players who are / became important to us - but the club is a business, and profit-motive dictates that most clubs have to sell every once in a while. Maybe what the OP is disgruntled about is the mixed messaging from the club above all else, with SW saying one thing and Delia saying something else?

 

Either way, to me it was a matter of time that Aarons and Omo had to be sold, as they clearly stagnated for us. The fact that the club was able to make a modest profit is a bonus.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, we overspent on transfers and wages in a "gamble" on preserving our EPL status. The so called contractual salary cuts on relegation were not as deep as were required, hence why Gibson, Pukki and Krul were still effectively on EPL salaries. There were probsbly others as well.

He is castigated on here but Essex is right to regularly point out the £118m salaries bill in that EPL season was a significant part of the reason for the cash requirement. The next accounts will show the reduction in that bill will not be as much as expected last year. However apart from Gibson, you would expect the majority of players this season are playing for a promotion bonus to get near their EPL salary, and is certainly one reason for the better start so far.

I read that Gibson was the highest earner with reputedly £41K a week. And that our wage bill in the EFL was £28M. But last year we had £60M parachute money.

Maybe its the old muriels outside the ground.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, mrD66M said:

As a fan I understand the attachment to players who are / became important to us - but the club is a business, and profit-motive dictates that most clubs have to sell every once in a while. Maybe what the OP is disgruntled about is the mixed messaging from the club above all else, with SW saying one thing and Delia saying something else?

 

Either way, to me it was a matter of time that Aarons and Omo had to be sold, as they clearly stagnated for us. The fact that the club was able to make a modest profit is a bonus.

Yes you are right. But why mislead the faithful? 

[nutty nigel 7,608]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Didn’t we get angry about certain owner who sold off all the silverware, got us relegated and put us in debt! Hung on for as long as he could,  But football is different now? How? Just asking.

Being as it’s a boring Sunday afternoon thought I’d stir this pot up again! 😉😉
It’s going to be interesting what the debt is and how it’ll be managed in the future.

I don't know what you get angry about but that was a very different kettle of fish. Unless you know something I don't our club is nowhere near where it was back then. 

Edited September 3, 2023 by nutty nigel

[norfolkngood 1,087]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We're up the creek without a paddle if we're trying to p itay off 66m with whatever we got up front for Omobamidele. 

Truth is we don't know. We'll have more idea in a couple of months.

When we were debt free we had posters saying debt wasn't necessarily a bad thing. I never understood that. 

But football is now built on foundations of debt. As is it seems is much of the country. They tell you it's 'easy payments'. I've never known an easy payment and they're certainly not easy now.

i thought we were self funded so this did not happen ? 

i understood that the 60 million( what ever it was )  loan was to be paid off with future parachute payments ,

you can borrow against future income as that was guaranteed income if you needed it at the time but i never would have realised we would have gone from no debt to approx 60million   that's crazy and against all the club had planned for 

 

[nutty nigel 7,608]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Yes you are right. But why mislead the faithful? 

I don't think any are misled. The accounts are there for all to see.

[Indy 3,315]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

I dong know what you get angry about but that was a very different kettle of fish. Unless you know something I don't our club is nowhere near where it was back then. 

How? I’m just asking what’s the difference now?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I don't think any are misled. The accounts are there for all to see.

Not the accounts. Statements such as we don't need to sell. Its patently not true. We have brought in up to £40M during the window and spent little if anything. That sounds to me like banking the money.

[shefcanary 2,448]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

I read that Gibson was the highest earner with reputedly £41K a week. And that our wage bill in the EFL was £28M. But last year we had £60M parachute money.

Maybe its the old muriels outside the ground.

Yes and that £28m has to be compared to those clubs not having parachute payments. Luton was only just over £10m IIRC.

So the loans were to cover overspends in part when in the EPL, then to cover for heavy outlays last season, and to cover Gibson's salary this! The club haven't downsized their coaching staff either due to the needs of a Cat 1 Academy, the squad remains large comparatively, as well. So the loan was as much cashflow cover as it was for overspending.

Given recent interest rate increases the club did well to ensure they didn't pay heavily for short term overdraft facilities over the past 16 months! 

[nutty nigel 7,608]

6 minutes ago, Indy said:

How? I’m just asking what’s the difference now?

I suppose we can do all thius again because you're bored

Norwich City lost a staggering �4 million in the year after their relegation from the Premiership in 1995, the club's chief executive Gordon Bennett has revealed. Mr Bennett pulled few punches as he painted a vivid picture of the expenditure that marked the final stages of Robert Chase's 10-year reign and left the club staring bankruptcy in the face when he finally stepped down as its chairman in May.

"I was amazed at the seriousness of the situation," said Mr Bennett, who left his post as youth development officer to take over the running of the club in March. His comments to an audience of around 300 South Stand season ticket holders on Saturday provided many answers to fans' questions about where all the "missing millions" from the transfers of top Canaries players went. "The debts were about �7 million, the bank was going potty, we'd sold Ashley Ward and Jon Newsome for �2.5 million and that had hardly bought us a month's grace," he said.

"At the first board meeting I attended I told the directors they were trading insolvently and were personally liable for every single penny of expenditure they authorised as there was no ready means whereby the club could pay the bills that came in."

[norfolkngood 1,087]

well i am shocked i do not know where i have been but i thought we were self funded still 

i thought the last of parachutes would pay off loan and we would be back to debt free ,

i also thought players wages would be on a sliding scale to which Div we were in to stop this sort of thing happening 

we were also told Delia and Mwj would not put the club at risk again 

if of course we are 60 million in debt ? 

[chicken 2,642]

25 minutes ago, GodlyOtsemobor said:

Probably a big reason, can't imagine him and shakey being on peanuts

Farke was on a long term contract too... 

[Indy 3,315]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

I suppose we can do all thius again because you're bored

Norwich City lost a staggering �4 million in the year after their relegation from the Premiership in 1995, the club's chief executive Gordon Bennett has revealed. Mr Bennett pulled few punches as he painted a vivid picture of the expenditure that marked the final stages of Robert Chase's 10-year reign and left the club staring bankruptcy in the face when he finally stepped down as its chairman in May.

"I was amazed at the seriousness of the situation," said Mr Bennett, who left his post as youth development officer to take over the running of the club in March. His comments to an audience of around 300 South Stand season ticket holders on Saturday provided many answers to fans' questions about where all the "missing millions" from the transfers of top Canaries players went. "The debts were about �7 million, the bank was going potty, we'd sold Ashley Ward and Jon Newsome for �2.5 million and that had hardly bought us a month's grace," he said.

"At the first board meeting I attended I told the directors they were trading insolvently and were personally liable for every single penny of expenditure they authorised as there was no ready means whereby the club could pay the bills that came in."

I didn’t ask for a history lesson I asked what the fundamental difference is? If we have a debt, we’ve just sold out best youngster’s and we’re sitting as mid table second division last year, we owned our club and Colney so what’s the difference between 95 and now?

[nutty nigel 7,608]

4 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Not the accounts. Statements such as we don't need to sell. Its patently not true. We have brought in up to £40M during the window and spent little if anything. That sounds to me like banking the money.

I think we just post a few words from any statement. There was that big interview with 'the suit' from our club about all this. But he also said the fans were part of the atmsphere problem. And that's what we went with. Maybe that was the plan...