No Need To Sell?

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

That's squad value in your opinion. All I'm saying is that we were told if we didn't get promoted last season we would be funded by an element of player trading. 

 

Oh yes I know that. But it was said as if it wouldn't alter anything. But it clearly has. It has probably weakened the squad.

[sgncfc 1,345]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

But would we be better off without the debt? 

The gamble failed. It wasn't such a failure that it brought us down but we are paying for it now in terms how fans value the squad. 

Yes, the gamble failed. But Webber knew he had to try to do something differently to the first time, so he tried. At the time everyone thought Gilmour, Rashica, Sargent etc would give us a proper shot. But to pay for that shot, and the chance to bounce back, we had to borrow, and the way he structured the debt was clever and well timed.

Most on here don't seem to realise that of the £100m guaranteed on promotion, about 70% of it is already committed on salaries and wages. 

It cost Forest £250m and an awful lot of luck, to stay up by a point or two. Burnley have already spent £90m and haven't yet got a point. Both must have borrowed - it will be interesting to see their accounts in June.

[essex canary 631]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

There's no misleading of any king as long as you have a decent amount of common sense to go alongside what the club says.

When they say "We do not need to sell", its very different to "We are not going to sell".

Essentially, all the club means is that we don't need to sell a valuable asset for a reduced fee because we are desperate for the money to the point that we are willing to take a significant hit on the value for immediate cash injection.

However, should someone offer an appropriate fee for a player that we do not see as critical in our own ambitions, then of course the club would listen. As would any other club in this division. Yes, even Leeds and Leicester who already have, of course.

 

We didn't need to sell at reduced prices. In a sense though we needed to sell at enhanced prices because otherwise we wouldn't have enough money to service both current wages and the £66 million loan.

That isn't all negative in the sense that we did have some assets to sell and have perhaps have acquired some good replacements. There was still however a need to sell and such situations still create risk, Sargent's injury being a good example. It also creates quite a lot of player churn from year to year which may not necessarily be advantageous.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

14 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Oh yes I know that. But it was said as if it wouldn't alter anything. But it clearly has. It has probably weakened the squad.

In your view it weakened the squad. Arguably we only have to finish top half to have strengthened the squad.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

In your view it weakened the squad. Arguably we only have to finish top half to have strengthened the squad.

You and I know that isn't a good argument. The coaching and a full preseason could equally be responsible.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

15 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Yes, the gamble failed. But Webber knew he had to try to do something differently to the first time, so he tried. At the time everyone thought Gilmour, Rashica, Sargent etc would give us a proper shot. But to pay for that shot, and the chance to bounce back, we had to borrow, and the way he structured the debt was clever and well timed.

Most on here don't seem to realise that of the £100m guaranteed on promotion, about 70% of it is already committed on salaries and wages. 

It cost Forest £250m and an awful lot of luck, to stay up by a point or two. Burnley have already spent £90m and haven't yet got a point. Both must have borrowed - it will be interesting to see their accounts in June.

Yes I know all that. You're preaching to the converted.

Having continually been promoted back since 2014 is one hell of an achievement. But it gets harder to do that every year. Especially without putting our club at real risk. This is recognised practically everywhere. Apart from here.

 

 

[Big Vince 430]

53 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its nothing to do with the players or their agents. They don't make statements that are misleading. Our squad is now weaker then it was a fortnight ago. One reason is because of a serious injury and one is because we sold an exciting young prospect. Both need replacing adequately. But both positions arguably needed more personnel before selling or injuries.

For me, the club is just banking money.

Agreed. Banking money line, hook and sinker. Still no replacements for Tettey and Skipp and centre back positions needed a significant quality upgrade requiring money to be spent, regardless of whether Omobamidele stayed or went and regardless of whether Hanley got injured or not.

Edited September 3, 2023 by Big Vince

[nutty nigel 7,963]

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

You and I know that isn't a good argument. The coaching and a full preseason could equally be responsible.

No. It's a fair measure and good argument. It just doesn't suit you.

[Canary dwarf 221]

It will be interesting to see if there any available funds for the jan transfer window!

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Yes I know all that. You're preaching to the converted.

Having continually been promoted back since 2014 is one hell of an achievement. But it gets harder to do that every year. Especially without putting our club at real risk. This is recognised practically everywhere. Apart from here.

 

 

Perish the thought that we take gambles like that. I doubt there are any posters who would take those risks mentioned.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

It's easy to take gambles when you can pretend you didn't when it goes wrong...

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

No. It's a fair measure and good argument. It just doesn't suit you.

Be fair it isn't to do with suiting an argument. There are any number of reasons why we could finish higher this season with a weaker squad. For instande, we won't have Dean Smith as coach for moet of it. 

[nutty nigel 7,963]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

Be fair it isn't to do with suiting an argument. There are any number of reasons why we could finish higher this season with a weaker squad. For instande, we won't have Dean Smith as coach for moet of it. 

I think you're like Indy, bored so you're poking me.

But to keep you from further boredom, one factor that never caused us to finish higher is our owners and the most popular factor when this happens is luck.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

I'm exhausted. I'm going for a shower.

[keelansgrandad 6,680]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

I think you're like Indy, bored so you're poking me.

But to keep you from further boredom, one factor that never caused us to finish higher is our owners and the most popular factor when this happens is luck.

No I am not poking at all. I joke but not poke. Its a genuine attempt to offer my two penneth about how I see things. I try not to upset. I try to be factual, I do research things. And I hope there is mrrit in the points I make. 

I don't expect to convince or persuade everyone. Presidents and PMs win with less than 50%.

Now for that shower.

[nutty nigel 7,963]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

No I am not poking at all. I joke but not poke. Its a genuine attempt to offer my two penneth about how I see things. I try not to upset. I try to be factual, I do research things. And I hope there is mrrit in the points I make. 

I don't expect to convince or persuade everyone. Presidents and PMs win with less than 50%.

Now for that shower.

Don't forget to wash behind your ears...

[Big Vince 430]

3 hours ago, hogesar said:

There's no misleading of any king as long as you have a decent amount of common sense to go alongside what the club says.

When they say "We do not need to sell", its very different to "We are not going to sell".

Essentially, all the club means is that we don't need to sell a valuable asset for a reduced fee because we are desperate for the money to the point that we are willing to take a significant hit on the value for immediate cash injection.

However, should someone offer an appropriate fee for a player that we do not see as critical in our own ambitions, then of course the club would listen. As would any other club in this division. Yes, even Leeds and Leicester who already have, of course.

 

If you say you don't need to sell then if you do sell that implies you have then got extra money which can be ring fenced for player purchases. But Delia connived to make the sales so late that the proceeds couldn't be used in this way. It was a deliberate ploy to bank the money.

[Jason Shackell’s Limp Tack 134]

7 hours ago, Big Vince said:

So here we are with the window shut and having raked in £40 million and spent the grand sum of £1.7 million on Fassnacht. And yet the club continues to peddle the line that it doesn't have to sell. Really? A net profit on player trading this summer of £38 million tells me that Delia remains by far the most untruthful person in the universe and that supporters have once again been sold a false prospectus. We were told at the start of the window that any players signed for a fee would have to be funded by players sold for fees. But the conniving Delia left the business so late in the window as to make it impossible to sign better players for fees. And so what did we get instead? A player who is 91st choice striker for Forest. And another free CB with the turning circle of an oil tanker. So if Gibson gets injured we will have two aged oil tankers with matching turning circles.

Verdict: the reality of the situation is that the club's financial position is much worse than it is letting on and that there is a black hole in excess of £30 million that needs to be filled by player sales. If only Delia could just be honest with people for a change. But no, it was too much to ask and she just couldn't resist another go at smoke and mirrors.

I miss Mr Chops. His executions of wind ups were much better. 4/10

[BigFish 2,330]

3 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its nothing to do with the players or their agents. They don't make statements that are misleading. Our squad is now weaker then it was a fortnight ago. One reason is because of a serious injury and one is because we sold an exciting young prospect. Both need replacing adequately. But both positions arguably needed more personnel before selling or injuries.

For me, the club is just banking money.

None of this is evidence that the statement "we don't need to sell" was misleading and no amount of supposition will provide evidence that AO & Max were sales were forced rather than a decision by the club. That decision could well have been made some months ago with the full knowledge of all involved. The club pretty much spends all the money it has on football matters, may not be enough but it is a polar opposite of banking the cash. Sarge's injury is unfortunate but that aside after the window the team is clearly better now than the one that finished last season.

[Bradwell canary 112]

If there was no need to sell, then why were two players openly put up for sale just as the window opened?

Webber spoke openly about that himself.

Always been a selling club, will always be a selling club.

[Jim Smith 2,654]

13 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

Its nothing to do with the players or their agents. They don't make statements that are misleading. Our squad is now weaker then it was a fortnight ago. One reason is because of a serious injury and one is because we sold an exciting young prospect. Both need replacing adequately. But both positions arguably needed more personnel before selling or injuries.

For me, the club is just banking money.

I tend to agree. I don’t believe this Omobamidele sale was as last minute as it was made to appear. I think it rather suited the club for it to be made too late for us to be able to reinvest the proceeds. By January there may be less pressure to spend it or people just forget about the money. 

[essex canary 631]

12 hours ago, Big Vince said:

If you say you don't need to sell then if you do sell that implies you have then got extra money which can be ring fenced for player purchases. But Delia connived to make the sales so late that the proceeds couldn't be used in this way. It was a deliberate ploy to bank the money.

It won't be in the Bank for long because they need to pay the high wages and the loan back. 

You are right about the need to sell. We need to be grateful that there are other insane football clubs willing to pay mad prices. Where would we be if it went like the housing market?

[wcorkcanary 4,839]

essex canary     331

•  
•  
•  

Posted 6 minutes ago

  12 hours ago, Big Vince said:

If you say you don't need to sell then if you do sell that implies you have then got extra money which can be ring fenced for player purchases. But Delia connived to make the sales so late that the proceeds couldn't be used in this way. It was a deliberate ploy to bank the money.

It won't be in the Bank for long because they need to pay the high wages and the loan back. 

You are right about the need to sell. We need to be grateful that there are other insane football clubs willing to pay mad prices. Where would we be if it went like the housing market?

 

 

Two complete morons find solace in each others support.  

[essex canary 631]

13 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

essex canary     331

 

•  
•  
•  

Posted 6 minutes ago

  12 hours ago, Big Vince said:

If you say you don't need to sell then if you do sell that implies you have then got extra money which can be ring fenced for player purchases. But Delia connived to make the sales so late that the proceeds couldn't be used in this way. It was a deliberate ploy to bank the money.

It won't be in the Bank for long because they need to pay the high wages and the loan back. 

You are right about the need to sell. We need to be grateful that there are other insane football clubs willing to pay mad prices. Where would we be if it went like the housing market?

 

 

Two complete morons find solace in each others support.  

If it takes one to know one, what does it take to know two?

[Greavsy 2,661]

Just now, essex canary said:

If it takes one to know one, what does it take to know two?

At least Corkio can read a room! 

Just saying 

[SwindonCanary 457]

We need a Norwich supporter to win the Euro millions  

[hogesar 10,949]

4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I tend to agree. I don’t believe this Omobamidele sale was as last minute as it was made to appear. I think it rather suited the club for it to be made too late for us to be able to reinvest the proceeds. By January there may be less pressure to spend it or people just forget about the money. 

Yeah, Forest were willing to wait last minute in signing a defender for their Premier League survival having on the same day had another defender bid turned down prior, all to do us a favour to stop us spending money.

Is your head itching under that tin-foil hat? Jesus

[norfolkngood 1,179]

1 hour ago, SwindonCanary said:

We need a Norwich supporter to win the Euro millions  

So delia and Mwj can say pump your money in but we are not going anywhere 

[wcorkcanary 4,839]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

If it takes one to know one, what does it take to know two?

If you have  to ask ... you'll never know.  Just you enjoy the company you've found that is on your level.  Ethics and Small Vince.... need I say more. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by wcorkcanary

[Capt. Pants 5,152]

4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I tend to agree. I don’t believe this Omobamidele sale was as last minute as it was made to appear. I think it rather suited the club for it to be made too late for us to be able to reinvest the proceeds. By January there may be less pressure to spend it or people just forget about the money. 

When do you think the sale was agreed then?

I thought we'd agreed to loan out Tomkinson on the final day effectively leaving us with only 2 CBs. With all due respect that doesn't really add up.