Here Are The Accounts.

[king canary 7,681]

I could be wrong here but it seems to me that actually our actions after relegation may have done more financial damage than what happened the season before.

It seems the wage budget was actually managed ok- we were able to half it in the course of one season- but after relegation this still sizable wage spend is usually offset by incoming transfer fees. 

Instead it seems like we put all our eggs in a Dean Smith shaped basket banking on bouncing back up. Burnley and Watford, who came down with us, both made net transfer profits north of £30m, while we held onto our key players and bought in Sara and Nunez for decent sums, while taking out a loan against future parachute payments, essentially mortgaging those years against the idea of an immediate successful bounceback.

[city4eva 215]

8 hours ago, Capt. Pants said:

That's astonishing. If you are a self funding club you have to get that bit right.

However, he shouldn't carry all the blame for this, surely there has to be some oversight or governance? Just feels we have owners and a BOD that have sat back and let him get on with it. We used to be a well run club, how the hell did we get in this mess?

Delia, that’s how

[king canary 7,681]

6 hours ago, hogesar said:

The disappointing thing I guess is that the club decided that second promotion season to give it a real go (by our financial capability) and overspent on wages and transfer fees (mostly wages).

It was too much.

But then the majority of fans not happy with our ownership over the past 20 years have bemoaned a lack of ambition and not 'loosening the purse strings'.

A bit unhappy that the club gave in to those fans or decided it was worth a punt themselves. 

But to see those same fans that I've seen post that sort of thing particularly over the last 10 years then criticise these numbers is a little hypocritical. There was never any guarantee that being more "ambitious" (reckless?) would equal success, but it did guarantee that if it failed, we'd be in trouble.

Suspect MA will be more involved sooner than expected.

On the other hand it does rather show what many of us have said for the last few years, that our owners idea of competing while being sustainable financially in the top flight was unworkable.

Yes the wage spend was big by our terms but it was nothing remarkable for a Premier League club. Our transfer spend was similarly large for us but not by Premier League standards and was largely subsidised by selling Buendia. If this sort of spend is so financially damaging then something at the club isn't fit for purpose in the modern game.

It seems the board reached the same conclusion too.

[The Real Buh 3,486]

21 minutes ago, king canary said:

I could be wrong here but it seems to me that actually our actions after relegation may have done more financial damage than what happened the season before.

It seems the wage budget was actually managed ok- we were able to half it in the course of one season- but after relegation this still sizable wage spend is usually offset by incoming transfer fees. 

Instead it seems like we put all our eggs in a Dean Smith shaped basket banking on bouncing back up. Burnley and Watford, who came down with us, both made net transfer profits north of £30m, while we held onto our key players and bought in Sara and Nunez for decent sums, while taking out a loan against future parachute payments, essentially mortgaging those years against the idea of an immediate successful bounceback.

If only somebody had warned them about Dean Smith at an early stage

[Petriix 2,853]

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

I could be wrong here but it seems to me that actually our actions after relegation may have done more financial damage than what happened the season before

I think it's part of a bigger picture which started with the tranche of our 2019-20 Premier League windfall bizarrely handed out in the form of new contracts to many of the existing players. This was compounded by the business done in the summer of 2021 by which point we were committed to a wage bill more fitting to an established mid-table PL team; IIRC around double what Brentford were paying. 

Let's generously call it 'wishful thinking' from Webber. He seemed to belive that the players would perform to the level of their pay and was so wedded to the belief in his squad that he continued to double down on them: first sacking Farke, then keeping the majority of the squad together for a promotion push last season.

Ultimately we've vastly overpaid for some very average players and continue to do so. The delusion at the club runs deep because the manager and coaching staff seem to keep asking the players to perform beyond their ability. What's needed now is a bit more honesty so that we can address the real issue: there's a lot of overpaid 'dead wood' to cut from this squad and we need to find a tactical approach commensurate to the ability we actually have. 

These accounts show the depth of Webber's failure. We're essentially in the same (albeit slightly worse) position we were when he arrived. 

[Badger 2,413]

17 minutes ago, king canary said:

On the other hand it does rather show what many of us have said for the last few years, that our owners idea of competing while being sustainable financially in the top flight was unworkable.

Yes the wage spend was big by our terms but it was nothing remarkable for a Premier League club. Our transfer spend was similarly large for us but not by Premier League standards and was largely subsidised by selling Buendia. If this sort of spend is so financially damaging then something at the club isn't fit for purpose in the modern game.

It seems the board reached the same conclusion too.

Sorry KC but this is complete garbage!

Since before I joined this board there have been posts and dozens of threads saying that our problems are because we don't spend enough. If only we spent a few tens of millions more than we receive in revenue and everything will be ok - on to the sunlight uplands etc.

It was always ill-informed and misunderstood what was going on at other clubs. Now that the club has done (stupidly imo) what so many have you have argued for and got itself into tens of millions in debt and pledged its future to an investor owner, some of the same posters are saying that this is not what should have been done 😖

So what is the problem - did we spend too much or not enough? Or is it that we don't live in a fairy-tale world where a manic Godmother or father just gives us tens of millions?

At last, we have a billionaire owner, so surely everything is going to be ok now?

[canarybubbles 1,950]

21 minutes ago, Petriix said:

 

Ultimately we've vastly overpaid for some very average players and continue to do so. The delusion at the club runs deep because the manager and coaching staff seem to keep asking the players to perform beyond their ability. What's needed now is a bit more honesty so that we can address the real issue: there's a lot of overpaid 'dead wood' to cut from this squad and we need to find a tactical approach commensurate to the ability we actually have. 

These accounts show the depth of Webber's failure. We're essentially in the same (albeit slightly worse) position we were when he arrived. 

And after the latest Dad's Army recruitment cycle, we've got even more dead wood on high wages that we won't be able to shift. 

Let's face it, Sara and Rowe have gone - it's just a question of whether it's January or June. The squad is going to look truly awful when that happens. I doubt if Sargent will want to stick around either.

Plus we've got rid of young players with real potential, while keeping Idah, Springett, Hernandez and Placheta. I can't see other clubs chomping at the bit to take those off our hands. And the icing on the cake is loaning a player who is so hapless that he has us all calling for Idah to come on instead.

For me, our only hope is to have a season when we blood a lot of our youngsters, hope they are capable of keeping us clear of the relegation zone, and then further hope that they come good next season. 

Edited November 4, 2023 by canarybubbles

[Petriix 2,853]

6 minutes ago, canarybubbles said:

Let's face it, Sara and Rowe have gone - it's just a question of whether it's January or June.

I seriously hope you're wrong: they are the only quality we have. If we're building for the future then they need to be at the heart of it. But we basically need to start again. On the current trajectory it might well be from League One. 

[The Real Buh 3,486]

It’s got to be said, nothing gets this website going like accounts. There’s some proper mad finance nerds on here.

”ooooh, APR and the DOW JONES and all that!”

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

Trouble is we might not make much profit on Sara. I thought he was nearer £10m cost. 

There was another £10m plus left the building when we managed to mess up the Cantwell situation.

[essex canary 508]

The five year figures attached providing a little clarity on where we lost £66.6 million.

[Ulfotto 644]

The debate on we went wrong is endless for my 5 pence as mentioned early we made the mistakes after 18-19 handing big contracts to players we were never going to be good enough for the premier league like Trybull. It would have been much better to have a go in 19-20 spending the (still rather modest by modern standards) money we did two years later. I suppose all that money went on building infrastructure and paying debts guess we will find out if it’s worth it in 5-10 years.

[PurpleCanary 5,587]

24 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

Trouble is we might not make much profit on Sara. I thought he was nearer £10m cost. 

There was another £10m plus left the building when we managed to mess up the Cantwell situation.

The post-balance sheet notes this time last year gave £10.5m for the basic fees for Sara and Nunez plus Ramsey's loan from Aston Villa, and about £4m in potential add-ons. So the basic fee for Sara was probably around £6m or so.

[Capt. Pants 4,298]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

The post-balance sheet notes this time last year gave £10.5m for the basic fees for Sara and Nunez plus Ramsey's loan from Aston Villa, and about £4m in potential add-ons. So the basic fee for Sara was probably around £6m or so.

Yeah I guess it could be 'rising to' £10m with add-ons, which would unlikely to be triggered if he's sold relatively quickly.

[The Real Buh 3,486]

Oooooooh Spreadsheets

[City Stand Ultra 41]

8 hours ago, hogesar said:

The disappointing thing I guess is that the club decided that second promotion season to give it a real go (by our financial capability) and overspent on wages and transfer fees (mostly wages).

It was too much.

But then the majority of fans not happy with our ownership over the past 20 years have bemoaned a lack of ambition and not 'loosening the purse strings'.

A bit unhappy that the club gave in to those fans or decided it was worth a punt themselves. 

But to see those same fans that I've seen post that sort of thing particularly over the last 10 years then criticise these numbers is a little hypocritical. There was never any guarantee that being more "ambitious" (reckless?) would equal success, but it did guarantee that if it failed, we'd be in trouble.

Suspect MA will be more involved sooner than expected.

I've seen this argument / observation presented several times on this forum and it is frankly ludicrous.  
To précis "it's the fans fault that between them Delia Webber and the NCFC board have disastrously mismanaged the club, especially the appalling transfer activity of the last few seasons".  
All businesses face risk.  They manage the risk and take calculated gambles.  Good management ensures the businesses thrive and poor management can mean the business goes bust.  
just because Delia/Webber/Board p**sed all the money away in a way that Sam Bankman-Fried would have been proud of does not mean the fault lays at the feet of the fans !!!

were the shareholders/customers of Lehman, Enron, Silicon Valley bank responsible for their demise ? No - it was pi** poor controls, risk management and execution within the organisation 

To lay our current plight on the fans is laughable and disingenuous at any level.  The buck stops squarely in the boardroom of Carrow Road and Webber 

Edited November 4, 2023 by City Stand Ultra

[essex canary 508]

14 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

I've seen this argument / observation presented several times on this forum and it is frankly ludicrous.  
To précis "it's the fans fault that between them Delia Webber and the NCFC board have disastrously mismanaged the club, especially the appalling transfer activity of the last few seasons".  
All businesses face risk.  They manage the risk and take calculated gambles.  Good management ensures the businesses thrive and poor management can mean the business goes bust.  
just because Delia/Webber/Board p**sed all the money away in a way that Sam Bankman-Fried would have been proud of does not mean the fault lays at the feet of the fans !!!

were the shareholders/customers of Lehman, Enron, Silicon Valley bank responsible for their demise ? No - it was pi** poor controls, risk management and execution within the organisation 

To lay our current plight on the fans is laughable and disingenuous at any level.  The buck stops squarely in the boardroom of Carrow Road and Webber 

Absolutely and did they listen to the fans who are shareholders ahead of those who are not?

[hogesar 9,767]

7 hours ago, 7HAR1980 said:

Ah, the old "it's the fans fault" line.

Signing inadequate players to give it a real go wasn't the problem then? 

No one said it was the fans fault from what I can see, least of all me.

It might be worth actually reading what is written.

[hogesar 9,767]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

On the other hand it does rather show what many of us have said for the last few years, that our owners idea of competing while being sustainable financially in the top flight was unworkable.

Yes the wage spend was big by our terms but it was nothing remarkable for a Premier League club. Our transfer spend was similarly large for us but not by Premier League standards and was largely subsidised by selling Buendia. If this sort of spend is so financially damaging then something at the club isn't fit for purpose in the modern game.

It seems the board reached the same conclusion too.

Our wage spend was higher than Brighton and Brentford for example.

We gave it more of "a go" than any time in our history and we are paying the price for that (not working).

It's disappointing to see the board take such a punt from my point of view but the thousands of posters over the years who have said "if only we could match others wages" and "if only we spent 10 more million on a player" can't criticise the accounts because this is the result. Of course,  they can criticise what we spent it on, but not the fact we did.

[hogesar 9,767]

31 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

I've seen this argument / observation presented several times on this forum and it is frankly ludicrous. 

To lay our current plight on the fans is laughable and disingenuous at any level.  The buck stops squarely in the boardroom of Carrow Road and Webber 

Again I would politely request that you actually read what is written because I've not blamed the fans once.

[City Stand Ultra 41]

8 hours ago, hogesar said:

A bit unhappy that the club gave in to those fans or decided it was worth a punt themselves. 

If only those pesky fans hadn't have forced us into it we would have gotten away with it .....

You have stated yourself that pressure from fans has caused this. So you are clearly blaming the fan base for forcing the poor fragile NCFC board into a policy of reckless mismanagement

[Badger 2,413]

25 minutes ago, City Stand Ultra said:

I've seen this argument / observation presented several times on this forum and it is frankly ludicrous.  
To précis "it's the fans fault that between them Delia Webber and the NCFC board have disastrously mismanaged the club, especially the appalling transfer activity of the last few seasons".  
All businesses face risk.  They manage the risk and take calculated gambles.  Good management ensures the businesses thrive and poor management can mean the business goes bust.  
just because Delia/Webber/Board p**sed all the money away in a way that Sam Bankman-Fried would have been proud of does not mean the fault lays at the feet of the fans !!!

were the shareholders/customers of Lehman, Enron, Silicon Valley bank responsible for their demise ? No - it was pi** poor controls, risk management and execution within the organisation 

To lay our current plight on the fans is laughable and disingenuous at any level.  The buck stops squarely in the boardroom of Carrow Road and Webber 

It is not a question of blaming fans - that is a misrepresentation of what is being said. The point being made is that the board (foolishly imo) has done what many fans have been calling for - i.e. spending more than the club gains in income.

The second element of this is where they have spent it - i.e. on the pitch, paying highly wages and transfer fees rather than develop the club, again something that many on here have advocated. For all the (probably likely) failings in the transfer market, Webber has at least developed the training facilities so that we have a decent standard now. I wish that the board had done likewise with the ground and seized upon historically low interest rates to develop the ground and increase capacity - instead they have p*sed it up the wall on buying and paying players.

But as we now have a billionaire investor owner that so many have been calling for, presumably everything will be ok?

[Branston Pickle 3,705]

Just now, hogesar said:

Again I would politely request that you actually read what is written because I've not blamed the fans once.

It’s interesting isn’t it - seems to be a fallback position: when you don’t have an answer to something, claim the person was blaming the fans.

[Monty13 2,255]

11 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

 

That is a laughably glass half-empty view. 

Recruitment is not just about making a profit., or are you suggesting that Pukki, Krul, Zimmerman (and many others) were not a success?

That’s entirely true. However as a self funding club we needed to generate money from player trading and actually when you look at it nearly all our players that generated income were ones that were already here before his arrival. 

Of course a decent chunk of players would see out the best years of their careers here, that’s a positive, but I think on reflection it is a bit disappointing how few assets we’ve found and grown in the last 6 years.

[Indy 3,323]

15 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Our wage spend was higher than Brighton and Brentford for example.

We gave it more of "a go" than any time in our history and we are paying the price for that (not working).

It's disappointing to see the board take such a punt from my point of view but the thousands of posters over the years who have said "if only we could match others wages" and "if only we spent 10 more million on a player" can't criticise the accounts because this is the result. Of course,  they can criticise what we spent it on, but not the fact we did.

If only we hadn’t try to buy loads of wingers with potential to make more money on instead of that CDM and replacing Buendia!

I’m all for giving it a go but that last summer prior to the premier season was utterly disappointing and many said so at the time, then to see Farke sacked for Smith that was another massive cost and huge mistake again only people to blame for keeping faith with the worst manager we’ve ever had after relegation was Webber and finally when we got shot of the utterly useless Smith we replaced him with Wagner who was always a gamble, sadly the finances have driven this summers utter crap signings and we now know why we had to settle on selling 30 million pounds worth of best young players and replacing them with the home guard on a free!

None of this can be laid at the fans but the **** poor team under Webber and Webber himself! We’re in a far worse place than when Weber took over! So in my book he’s totally failed! The sooner the useless SD is gone the better! Mr 80% can go climb his mountain now!

Edited November 4, 2023 by Indy

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

11 hours ago, NewNestCarrow said:

 

That is a laughably glass half-empty view. 

Recruitment is not just about making a profit., or are you suggesting that Pukki, Krul, Zimmerman (and many others) were not a success?

I’m not saying any players were not a success on the pitch. Although I could make that argument for a vast majority of them. 

I’m saying financially we are much worse off having had to recruit players after having sold our best academy products. As I mentioned before it’s my belief that had we kept all our major academy products over the period that Webber was here we would have a strong team and one that had wasted less money on high risk unproven overseas players. 
 

I don’t think wanting to keep the players we’ve heavily invested time and resources into by training them since a young age is a glass half empty. If anything it’s ambitious because it moves away from the narrative that Norwich have to be a selling club to survive. 

[Monty13 2,255]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

It is not a question of blaming fans - that is a misrepresentation of what is being said. The point being made is that the board (foolishly imo) has done what many fans have been calling for - i.e. spending more than the club gains in income.

The second element of this is where they have spent it - i.e. on the pitch, paying highly wages and transfer fees rather than develop the club, again something that many on here have advocated. For all the (probably likely) failings in the transfer market, Webber has at least developed the training facilities so that we have a decent standard now. I wish that the board had done likewise with the ground and seized upon historically low interest rates to develop the ground and increase capacity - instead they have p*sed it up the wall on buying and paying players.

But as we now have a billionaire investor owner that so many have been calling for, presumably everything will be ok?

You have to spend money on the pitch to progress. Better players cost more money.

IMO the problem isn’t that we risked the finances, let’s face it while it makes uncomfortable reading it’s been managed even if you argue only by the intervention of our new board member.

The issue is we have spent our money so, so poorly since the sale of Buendia. Expensive players with no return on and off the pitch in some cases. While there’s never sure things in football we spread the cash too thinly gambling on a lot of players that didn’t pay off. 

[rock bus 872]

I haven’t got the heart or energy for the club to even bother to read the accounts.

But it really seems we have gone full circle with Webber. Now back to a mid championship team, squad full of worthless old hasbeens and a bit of a financial mess (and one where he has p’d even more money up the wall than the predecessors he was so keen to moan about!)

[Monty13 2,255]

13 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Our wage spend was higher than Brighton and Brentford for example.

We gave it more of "a go" than any time in our history and we are paying the price for that (not working).

It's disappointing to see the board take such a punt from my point of view but the thousands of posters over the years who have said "if only we could match others wages" and "if only we spent 10 more million on a player" can't criticise the accounts because this is the result. Of course,  they can criticise what we spent it on, but not the fact we did.

All that proves is we didn’t spend that wage money very well. 

I don’t think anyone’s really arguing we didn’t give it a go are they? The accounts show we did.

The issue is we wasted all that money through a series of poor choices.

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

10 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Not bad, does this surprise you?

With Pukki and Gibson supposedly on £2m pa and others still on EPL wages despite Webbers' pronouncement of salary cuts on relegation, an average of £300k pa is about right for a team attempting to regain their position in the EPL. Espdcially as KPM earn an average pf £400K pa each.

I suspect the current seasons average will be much lower, probably c.£200k.

That’s an average worked out on the entire 161 members of the playing staff which goes from scholarship to first team. I’d bet 80% of the actual total sum was paid to 15 players in the first team with the youth guys still in relatively low wages.