Idah

[Ulfotto 664]

It occurred to me that the Idah loan is an example of the role of the sporting director. If David Wagner was in sole charge of football operations the transfer would never had happened. As the manager you would never sanction the sale/loan of your second top scorer and 3rd choice striker with the club approaching the business end of the season. It’s madness. Even if Idah wanted more football Wagner or any other manager would say I get it keep your head down we’ll review it at the end of the season we need you for the run in.

 

[Grando 283]

11 hours ago, Jimmy_Fitch said:

I don't know if it's been mentioned already. The Scottish Prem finishes on the 13th April. We have a further 3 fixtures and possibly play offs. Are we able to play Idah? Could be in a hot streak of form by then.

April 13 is when the Scots Prem splits into top 6 and bottom 6. There are then further fixtures and the season goes on till May 19th. So Idah won’t be back with us this season unless we’re in the playoffs.

[Jimmy_Fitch 39]

32 minutes ago, Grando said:

April 13 is when the Scots Prem splits into top 6 and bottom 6. There are then further fixtures and the season goes on till May 19th. So Idah won’t be back with us this season unless we’re in the playoffs.

Thanks for explaining that. I did see that it said phase 1 on the fixtures list which confused me.

[RobJames 905]

1 hour ago, Ulfotto said:

It occurred to me that the Idah loan is an example of the role of the sporting director. If David Wagner was in sole charge of football operations the transfer would never had happened. As the manager you would never sanction the sale/loan of your second top scorer and 3rd choice striker with the club approaching the business end of the season. It’s madness. Even if Idah wanted more football Wagner or any other manager would say I get it keep your head down we’ll review it at the end of the season we need you for the run in.

 

And Wagner would be over ruled, that makes no sense at all. Clearly it has been deemed that Idah is either surplus to need and/or wanted away, There is no way a 'man in the office' has the final say over those at Colney.

[repman 642]

1 hour ago, Ulfotto said:

It occurred to me that the Idah loan is an example of the role of the sporting director. If David Wagner was in sole charge of football operations the transfer would never had happened. As the manager you would never sanction the sale/loan of your second top scorer and 3rd choice striker with the club approaching the business end of the season. It’s madness. Even if Idah wanted more football Wagner or any other manager would say I get it keep your head down we’ll review it at the end of the season we need you for the run in.

 

While I think this is broadly true there would've been more dialogue beforehand. Any good sporting director will always keep an eye on the mid to long term future, Webber did it and Knapper will be no different. It's why upon promotion to the PL we chose to spend money on a teenager in Tzolis rather than a more experienced option, further amplified by the ownership which means we have to rely on selling players to keep going. Wagner on the other hand is basically all in on this season, a managers focus will always be the next game.

 

[Newtopia 520]

It is great to see Adam doing so well.  It shows how his development might have been improved with a loan three seasons ago.  I agree, this is a great example of a sporting director looking after the best interests of the club opposed to just the first team. 

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

Idah requested/begged a loan move, and he had very valid reasons that were clear for all to see and hear.

What else was Knapper supposed to do?

We now have to hope that Van Donk is one for the future. Everything seems positive to me in this respect, but we are devoid of evidence thus far. 

Edited March 1 by BroadstairsR

[RobJames 905]

5 hours ago, repman said:

While I think this is broadly true there would've been more dialogue beforehand. Any good sporting director will always keep an eye on the mid to long term future, Webber did it and Knapper will be no different. It's why upon promotion to the PL we chose to spend money on a teenager in Tzolis rather than a more experienced option, further amplified by the ownership which means we have to rely on selling players to keep going. Wagner on the other hand is basically all in on this season, a managers focus will always be the next game.

Not correct. The club sets a budget, and then uses any subsequent sales to expand that budget. To try to do, as you say, would not only be foolish but very risky ie we base our budget for the years ahead on (say)selling Idah. And he sustains a long term injury in the interim. Do we then return a bought player, or reduce a players wage to make up the now shortfall

It is not 'cash converters', we cannot simply cash in on players when we need. Sales are a bonus, not any certain or regular income stream, unlike gates, TV money, sponsorship etc

If there was dialogue beforehand then that rather refutes the claim that the SP can, or did, take unilateral action.

[BroadstairsR 2,227]

Didn't Delia Smith herself say that every season in the Championship results in a financial deficit of millions. 

NCFC have always relied upon sales to keep its head above water from Ron Davies, through Chris Sutton, James Maddison and then on to Emi Buendia. We are not the only ones by far though and the alternative, apart from a rich donor, is scraping along in the lower leagues and relying on gate receipts and all the other match day income streams in order to finance a lower wages bill which would entail staff redundancies, players who can only demand lesser remuneration and even possibly the inability to finance Colney to the same degree as now, a reduction in Cat. 1 status and blankets collecting donations from the remaining attendants. Sponsorship would diminish, as would tv receipts.

Fortunately, we have a solid and loyal fanbase and that Cat 1. status, which it seems to be are our most valuable assets discounting the possibility of American investment as unfortunately, and possibly due to poor managerial appointments, an instant yo-yo seems unlikely.

Edited March 1 by BroadstairsR

[Indy 3,344]

33 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Didn't Delia Smith herself say that every season in the Championship results in a financial deficit of millions. 

NCFC have always relied upon sales to keep its head above water from Ron Davies, through Chris Sutton, James Maddison and then on to Emi Buendia. We are not the only ones by far though and the alternative, apart from a rich donor, is scraping along in the lower leagues and relying on gate receipts and all the other match day income streams in order to finance a lower wages bill which would entail staff redundancies, players who can only demand lesser remuneration and even possibly the inability to finance Colney to the same degree as now, a reduction in Cat. 1 status and blankets collecting donations from the remaining attendants. Sponsorship would diminish, as would tv receipts.

Fortunately, we have a solid and loyal fanbase and that Cat 1. status, which it seems to be are our most valuable assets discounting the possibility of American investment as unfortunately, and possibly due to poor managerial appointments, an instant yo-yo seems unlikely.

Yep in a nutshell! 
We are in debt to the tune of about 26 million if the figures discussed on here are accurate, we still have player sales and last set of parachute money which covers some of the debt on MA, so I believe the true debt this year someone said was likely to be 26 million.

We will no doubt require further alignment into FFP guidance so the wage budget will no doubt be cut further and high earning players such as Gibson will probably be heading out the door on his contract ending.

Tzolis & Idah will probably be two sales to generate around 10 million this summer and if we can keep Sara, Sargent & Rowe it will be a successful summer!

We will no doubt see a few loans and probably a few academy players out on loan will be utilised in the first team squad. Which is no bad thing, it’s great to watch our own come through!

We will have to accept that we are back to square one, less budget, FFP rules to abide by and try to build a squad worthy of promotion, that might take a few years…..

[Google Bot 3,390]

4 hours ago, RobJames said:

It is not 'cash converters', we cannot simply cash in on players when we need. Sales are a bonus, not any certain or regular income stream, unlike gates, TV money, sponsorship etc

Of course it's part of the budget to know what the target for incomings and outgoings are, that's business 101.  The only time it's a bonus is when a players value goes beyond that which was budgeted for.

If we fail to sell surplus assets as per the target budget, then we are then forced to let go of higher grade ones.  Which is why the club operates in the way it does in building assets in the background in order to protect the ones we would prefer to keep.

So 'who' we sell is the unknown, but the target funds to raise is not.  That very much plays a part into the whole squad building process hence why players like Tzolis and Mumba are outside of this squad when we could probably benefit with them today based on Rowe and Onel injuries.

But, this, along with the Omobamidele sale is why we are also able to field players like Sara and Sarge this season.

Edited March 1 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,503]

Ah ha, someone has mentioned a figure for indebtedness again, so I thought I'd share analysis I made back in November.

In the discussion above people have stated that future transfers are built into the budget, but Richens has been very clear in his public statements that transfers are not; to buy a new player the club has to sell first to generate cash. This is borne out by the recent January window. However, on the other hand the net trading position over the summer saw a net inflow of cash of c.£18m, which in my discussion below I've assumed was a one-off necessity to meet the deficit on past endeavours in that area. Quite rightly people will insist that once the parachute payments have run out, we will have to budget to borrow again if we have any ambition at all. 

Anyway, a brief summary which is probably hard to follow but I'll explain more below.

What I've tried to do is use all the information available in the 2023 accounts plus the infamous financial information included in the September AGM circular to map the likely movement in debt during this season.

On the left hand side is the analysis of the £96m debt at 30 June. I've tracked the bulkier elements to show how they must eventually end up being owed to Attanasio.

My assumptions in this analysis:

• Based on Richens comments, that a balanced budget has been set for the season and no further borrowings are required. The evidence from the January transfer window very clearly showed that the club were sticking to this, as no major ins our outs (the salary of players let go (Forshaw & Placheta for instance) should cover the costs of van Hooijdonk for instance).
• I have assumed of Attanasio's £28m line of credit, £10m will be allocated for operating cash cover - this may be over prudent. But it makes a nice figure to roughly balance back to the line of credit he has provided.
• I've tracked the short term loans and matched them against the media rights and transfer instalments mentioned in the accounts. The assumption here is that as that cash comes in it will be used to pay off the short term debts. There will be no call on this cash to support the current season's activity (this point is probably the weakest element of the analysis, but again I'm relying on Richens being truthful in his recent statements about a balanced budget).
• I've assumed that the club will move to pay off the balance of the short term loans to third parties using Attanasio's £28M line of credit. 
• I've lumped preference shareholder loans and amounts owed to Delia and Michael as "friendly" debts - there should be no early calls on any of these.
• Not mentioned in the spreadsheet above is an assumption that season ticket renewals would be at a similar level as past seasons thus providing operating cash cover for the rest of this financial year. That seemed a very weak assumption before Christmas, but feels much stronger as of today! But there is time for sentiment to change again.
• I've also assumed the EFL will approve Attanasio under the owners and directors test which will see him paying £4.9m for his share allotment out of the debt to him. 

In summary, by the end of the financial year, Attanasio will be owed the full amount of his line of credit of £28m for working capital cover (this is the impact of Webber's dash of cash before the 22/23 season). Attanasio will also technically be owed the £10m for his preference shares, however all parties to the shareholder "concordat" have indicated there is no intention of anything happening with these. So the club will be on the hook to Attanasio for £38M at the end of the year. If cash is managed well it could be less. 

On top of that the preference shareholders and Delia & Michael will be owed c.£5m, with another £6m still covered by transfer instalments to come. 

Even with these sums totalling £48M, only about £10M is falling due within one year, with £6M of this covered by transfer fee instalments. 

So (with a very big health warning that I've not discussed any of the above with the people that really know), despite the horror show of the headline figure in the 2023 accounts, if Attanasio stays on board there is no real issue at all as all the debt should be "in house". The key from thereon will be how quickly Attanasio assumes complete control and what he does when he achieves that. 

 

 

[Robert N. LiM 4,664]

11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Ah ha, someone has mentioned a figure for indebtedness again, so I thought I'd share analysis I made back in November.

In the discussion above people have stated that future transfers are built into the budget, but Richens has been very clear in his public statements that transfers are not; to buy a new player the club has to sell first to generate cash. This is borne out by the recent January window. However, on the other hand the net trading position over the summer saw a net inflow of cash of c.£18m, which in my discussion below I've assumed was a one-off necessity to meet the deficit on past endeavours in that area. Quite rightly people will insist that once the parachute payments have run out, we will have to budget to borrow again if we have any ambition at all. 

Anyway, a brief summary which is probably hard to follow but I'll explain more below.

What I've tried to do is use all the information available in the 2023 accounts plus the infamous financial information included in the September AGM circular to map the likely movement in debt during this season.

On the left hand side is the analysis of the £96m debt at 30 June. I've tracked the bulkier elements to show how they must eventually end up being owed to Attanasio.

My assumptions in this analysis:

• Based on Richens comments, that a balanced budget has been set for the season and no further borrowings are required. The evidence from the January transfer window very clearly showed that the club were sticking to this, as no major ins our outs (the salary of players let go (Forshaw & Placheta for instance) should cover the costs of van Hooijdonk for instance).
• I have assumed of Attanasio's £28m line of credit, £10m will be allocated for operating cash cover - this may be over prudent. But it makes a nice figure to roughly balance back to the line of credit he has provided.
• I've tracked the short term loans and matched them against the media rights and transfer instalments mentioned in the accounts. The assumption here is that as that cash comes in it will be used to pay off the short term debts. There will be no call on this cash to support the current season's activity (this point is probably the weakest element of the analysis, but again I'm relying on Richens being truthful in his recent statements about a balanced budget).
• I've assumed that the club will move to pay off the balance of the short term loans to third parties using Attanasio's £28M line of credit. 
• I've lumped preference shareholder loans and amounts owed to Delia and Michael as "friendly" debts - there should be no early calls on any of these.
• Not mentioned in the spreadsheet above is an assumption that season ticket renewals would be at a similar level as past seasons thus providing operating cash cover for the rest of this financial year. That seemed a very weak assumption before Christmas, but feels much stronger as of today! But there is time for sentiment to change again.
• I've also assumed the EFL will approve Attanasio under the owners and directors test which will see him paying £4.9m for his share allotment out of the debt to him. 

In summary, by the end of the financial year, Attanasio will be owed the full amount of his line of credit of £28m for working capital cover (this is the impact of Webber's dash of cash before the 22/23 season). Attanasio will also technically be owed the £10m for his preference shares, however all parties to the shareholder "concordat" have indicated there is no intention of anything happening with these. So the club will be on the hook to Attanasio for £38M at the end of the year. If cash is managed well it could be less. 

On top of that the preference shareholders and Delia & Michael will be owed c.£5m, with another £6m still covered by transfer instalments to come. 

Even with these sums totalling £48M, only about £10M is falling due within one year, with £6M of this covered by transfer fee instalments. 

So (with a very big health warning that I've not discussed any of the above with the people that really know), despite the horror show of the headline figure in the 2023 accounts, if Attanasio stays on board there is no real issue at all as all the debt should be "in house". The key from thereon will be how quickly Attanasio assumes complete control and what he does when he achieves that. 

 

 

Thanks for this,  very helpful 

[Indy 3,344]

7 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

the key from thereon will be how quickly Attanasio assumes complete control and what he does when he achieves that. 

 

 

There’s the question and timeline on when that will actually happen will also dictate on who will be sold to cover future debts.

Likelihood is Tzolis & Idah are gone, both appear to want out, then if we get Sara & Sargent wanting to play higher level we might need to sell these guys too, we are a stepping stone club for good young players under the current owners. Nothing can be done about that without promotion.

I can see a protracted few years of championship football like the 9 seasons we spent here from mid 90’s.

It will be a big factor to the level of debt by the time MA takes ownership of the club and what his intentions are. We’re in limbo for the foreseeable future, so we need a good vision and talented coaching staff to get the best chance of promotion short term IMO. Another critical summer coming up.

 

[Google Bot 3,390]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

In the discussion above people have stated that future transfers are built into the budget, but Richens has been very clear in his public statements that transfers are not; to buy a new player the club has to sell first to generate cash.

Personally I only see this as over-simplification for a Q&A, it was no deep dive into what actually goes on behind the scenes.  And from a public perspective was very much there to put out the agenda that we don't need to sell.

You can guarantee that assets at this club have a saleable value attached to them and plays into the overall strategy for that player, and those highlighted as possible sales have to feed into the scouting and procurement of new players.  It has to be pro-active to work, as we don't have a pool of money that acts as a buffer to make moves.

Trouble with the Idah situation is that it could be that Adam was not happy with his progression at the club and the move happened on that basis.  Or the club have highlighted his potential value and the loan is more related to raising his profile/value to be collateral in keeping Sarge at the club.

Or most likely, a combination of the two. 🙂

I just fail to believe that potential sales such as Idah and Tzolis are not part of internal budgets when looking ahead to what summer brings to start putting irons in fires today.  It's also worth mentioning that budgets change through the course of a year too and the delta between expected and actual has to be offset with some kind of ongoing plan.

[shefcanary 2,503]

3 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Personally I only see this as over-simplification for a Q&A, it was no deep dive into what actually goes on behind the scenes.  And from a public perspective was very much there to put out the agenda that we don't need to sell.

As I said in my analysis I had assumed £10m would be required to cover working capital, or in other words any capital sales included in the budget that didn't take place. Therefore I expect there will be upsides. And I'm not calling Richens a bare faced liar either - I'd never say that of a fellow beancounter! He had his reasons, and instructions no doubt.

[ray of sunshine 1]

On 25/02/2024 at 14:07, Indy said:

Indeed, it’s not like Pukki didn’t make it with Celtic! Hmmm. ****e league! Why try to diss the lads quality finishing?

Motherwell just beat Rangers not sure what he's smoking , the championship in England is mid

 

[Sufyellow 246]

On 01/03/2024 at 13:13, Google Bot said:

Personally I only see this as over-simplification for a Q&A, it was no deep dive into what actually goes on behind the scenes.  And from a public perspective was very much there to put out the agenda that we don't need to sell.

You can guarantee that assets at this club have a saleable value attached to them and plays into the overall strategy for that player, and those highlighted as possible sales have to feed into the scouting and procurement of new players.  It has to be pro-active to work, as we don't have a pool of money that acts as a buffer to make moves.

Trouble with the Idah situation is that it could be that Adam was not happy with his progression at the club and the move happened on that basis.  Or the club have highlighted his potential value and the loan is more related to raising his profile/value to be collateral in keeping Sarge at the club.

Or most likely, a combination of the two. 🙂

I just fail to believe that potential sales such as Idah and Tzolis are not part of internal budgets when looking ahead to what summer brings to start putting irons in fires today.  It's also worth mentioning that budgets change through the course of a year too and the delta between expected and actual has to be offset with some kind of ongoing plan.

We have always had to sell in the championship our out goings are always far higher. Every season farke was in the championship we had to raise 20 million in player sales , we also did it in the summer. TV money,  ticket sales sponsorship and Money generated through other sales will not cover player wages , other wages and running the academy. Hopefully we can sell a few players and hold on too the good ones and show some ambition. 

[RobJames 905]

On 01/03/2024 at 13:13, Google Bot said:

 just fail to believe that potential sales such as Idah and Tzolis are not part of internal budgets when looking ahead to what summer brings to start putting irons in fires today.  It's also worth mentioning that budgets change through the course of a year too and the delta between expected and actual has to be offset with some kind of ongoing plan.

Absolutely not !

Budgets are set on what is guaranteed, the idea that the club sets its budget on what it hopes will happen is absurd. You might just as well set a budget on the basis City will reach the FA Cup quarter finals.  The budget will be set to meet commitments based on known income.

Player sales are then allocated to paying off some of any debt and/or increasing the playing budget. No player sale can be guaranteed, as no player can be guaranteed to remain injury free.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

2 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Absolutely not !

Budgets are set on what is guaranteed, the idea that the club sets its budget on what it hopes will happen is absurd. You might just as well set a budget on the basis City will reach the FA Cup quarter finals.  The budget will be set to meet commitments based on known income.

Player sales are then allocated to paying off some of any debt and/or increasing the playing budget. No player sale can be guaranteed, as no player can be guaranteed to remain injury free.

I think you're thinking about how it works in every other business in the world except football. Player sales have been the difference between solvency and insolvency as a routine thing.

[repman 642]

29 minutes ago, RobJames said:

Absolutely not !

Budgets are set on what is guaranteed, the idea that the club sets its budget on what it hopes will happen is absurd. You might just as well set a budget on the basis City will reach the FA Cup quarter finals.  The budget will be set to meet commitments based on known income.

Player sales are then allocated to paying off some of any debt and/or increasing the playing budget. No player sale can be guaranteed, as no player can be guaranteed to remain injury free.

This bit is kind of linked to the point that the club factors in potential sales. The club has been able to keep running pretty big wage budgets mainly because of player sales. 

Even going back to Webber's first few seasons we never experienced a massive shrinking of squad payroll because we'd got money for Maddison and Murphy. If the player sales were to dry up we wouldn't be able to maintain the wages we do now.

[Google Bot 3,390]

7 hours ago, RobJames said:

Budgets are set on what is guaranteed, the idea that the club sets its budget on what it hopes will happen is absurd.

Budgets are worked out on forecasts, there's nothing absurd about it at all. It's not based on 'hopes', at all, these are forecasted targets that allows the budget to be calculated.  Many times different budgets based on different scenarios.

If it was only set on guarantees then there's very little reason to budget in the first place as you know the certainties.  So what would be the point, and how would you grow if you're not forecasting more income?

Even those at the top have to forecast their outgoings to meet FFP.  For us it's absolutely crucial to have a forecast in place for players sales that then feeds the spending budget for the season. 

Any business that can operate in a guaranteed financial state is very lucky.  ...Well, unless that guarantee is zero pounds of course! 🙂

Edited March 3 by Google Bot

[ron obvious 1,517]

On 29/02/2024 at 16:31, sgncfc said:

There's talk of £6 - 8m for him with numerous suitors. If we can get that for him it would be extremely good business and would even vindicate the 5 year contract. Like others, I don't see him playing for us again.

Carlton Palmer reckons his value has gone up to £10m with Celtic & Rangers both after him. We'll see.

[RobJames 905]

25 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Budgets are worked out on forecasts, there's nothing absurd about it at all. It's not based on 'hopes', at all, these are forecasted targets that allows the budget to be calculated.  Many times different budgets based on different scenarios.

If it was only set on guarantees then there's very little reason to budget in the first place as you know the certainties.  So what would be the point, and how would you grow if you're not forecasting more income?

Even those at the top have to forecast their outgoings to meet FFP.  For us it's absolutely crucial to have a forecast in place for players sales that then feeds the spending budget for the season. 

Any business that can operate in a guaranteed financial state is very lucky.  ...Well, unless that guarantee is zero pounds of course! 🙂

Nope. Incorrect. City have agreed payments to meet

"there's very little reason to budget in the first place as you know the certainties"

That makes NO sense whatsoever. At the basic level household spending is based on what is known to come in. not what you hope might come in on a lottery win. If there are player sales then they are treated as a 'bonus'and spending an be, and is, increased. A classic example of this was down the road where the idiot Sheepshanks though PL status was a certainty for the following 25 years, the result is well known. Go back to the times of McNally when it was clearly spelt out. The club would balance the books on what it could afford. If they sold player x then they could afford more.

They did not afford more, then look to sell player x, as that was not always going to be in their control, see Cantwell

Yes there is thought that we will see players wanting to move for better pay and that will be to our advantage AFTER they have left, not as part of any projection going forward before any sale.

Edited March 4 by RobJames

[littleyellowbirdie 2,613]

On 29/02/2024 at 21:44, Ulfotto said:

It occurred to me that the Idah loan is an example of the role of the sporting director. If David Wagner was in sole charge of football operations the transfer would never had happened. As the manager you would never sanction the sale/loan of your second top scorer and 3rd choice striker with the club approaching the business end of the season. It’s madness. Even if Idah wanted more football Wagner or any other manager would say I get it keep your head down we’ll review it at the end of the season we need you for the run in.

 

It depends if there's a recall clause in the event of a striker being injured. If that's the case, having the player out on loan is advantageous because they're match fit if you need them instead of withering away from sitting on the bench all of the time.

I would imagine we do have the right to recall Idah if necessary.

Edited March 4 by littleyellowbirdie

[Google Bot 3,390]

1 hour ago, RobJames said:

At the basic level household spending is based on what is known to come in. not what you hope might come in on a lottery win. 

Again, it's not "hope", it's about forward planning and the club working towards those targets set.  You don't build a self sustainable model reliant on investment into youth who's revenue is simply a 'bonus'.  It's paramount to our ability to not just compete, but to remain solvent.

There's a reason the club spent money on a mini-doc featuring Omobamidele, and Webber publicly announcing these high level bids we turned down prior to that.  He's a shrewd guy and had budgets to meet based on the lost revenue previously with Cantwell etc.

[shefcanary 2,503]

@Google Bot I appreciate what you say that one way of budgeting is to assume there will be player trading of some kind, and to budget for it. However the mantra at Norwich over the past 20 odd years (prudence with ambition, a self funding club, etc) has always been that the Budget includes the known unknowns except player trading. This publicly has been reinforced by Richens regularly, albeit in one season (see later) this was a major untruth.

Managers have consistently been told that if they want to buy any new players, they have to sell some of their old ones first. This was even true under Lambert, Neil and Farke's first season in the EPL. The acquisition of Naismith to an extent pushed those rules to the absolute limit, as it was done as a pre-meditated gamble, with the sale of Maddison eventually baling the club out on that mistake.

The only real time this "Budget rule" was broken strategically was in Farke's 2nd EPL season, where all hell seems to have broken loose - not only was money spent on lots of young and EPL under-exposed players, but player contracts were written that even broke the old "relegation clauses included" mantra too. Coming after the Covid season where the club's underlying finances were already weak, that decision by the Webbers (albeit signed off by the Board) predicated the "rescue" by Attanasio.

I wonder where we would be today if the old rules were followed in that season, but in hindsight it may have been the best thing for the club. But that's another argument. 

As my recent analysis in this thread says, by the end of this season one could argue that the debt we owe to Attanasio is really only covering the Covid losses; I would argue the club generally sticks to the main budget scenario that all player trading has to pay for itself independent from the normal running costs of the club.

[Google Bot 3,390]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

However the mantra at Norwich over the past 20 odd years (prudence with ambition, a self funding club, etc) has always been that the Budget includes the known unknowns except player trading. This publicly has been reinforced by Richens regularly, albeit in one season (see later) this was a major untruth.

I think the trouble is that the term 'budget' can have many meanings, there's the financial start of year budget which demonstrate the ability to remain solvent without reliance on high value unknowns. i.e. for external audits to pass without concern. 

But there's also the operational budgets based around internal planning and progression of the club - of which there can be a few drafts. Revenue from player sales have to be factored in, and this is why AO was highlighted as so last season.

It depends which side of the line you're standing when discussing this, my background isn't financial accountancy but operational.  And there's some key differences, which i'm sure you're aware of.

Edited March 4 by Google Bot

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

And there's some key differences, which i'm sure you're aware of.

I am thanks.

My own personal philosophy on budgeting is that there must be only one formal budget each financial year, that everyone is fully briefed on and understands the implications for. That means a lot of hard work on communicating it effectively and then managing it. Up front however a number of sensitivities are run on the budget. What happens if turnover increases by 10% more than budget - what could we spend that extra revenue on, assuming that no extra costs have been incurred in earning that money. Conversely, what if revenue falls below budget by 10%, what could we do in the time remaining to get the bottom line back on budget? 

Now, if Richens is like me, sure he has a balanced budget as the one and only budget that everyone in the club works to, but he will have worked up a number of sensitivity scenarios up front when the budget is approved to ensure changes can be made as when necessary.

However the player trading budget, in broad terms is effectively capital in nature. Totally separate from normal revenue budgets. And the way the transfer windows work, are only really required for three months a year. This makes them relatively easy to manage, apart from the availability or otherwise of players targeted.  

So, if come the January window and a player wants to try his luck elsewhere, then people will be given knowledge of the impact this has in monetary terms. So Idah wants a loan, Wagner is happy for Placheta to try elsewhere, Hwang isn't going to be asked to stay on loan, what do Knapper & Wagner want to prioritise the new available cash on? 

But none of this affects the underlying principles of a balanced budget. 

Unless of course you have a SD who overrides those principles with the agreement of the Board pisses cash up the wall in some dash for EPL survival based on untried personnel. 

 

[Google Bot 3,390]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

My own personal philosophy on budgeting is that there must be only one formal budget each financial year, that everyone is fully briefed on and understands the implications for.

I think that's everyones ideal, but the work carried out across the year to progress operations, develop assets AND hit those numbers involve detailed budgeting based on forecasts of additional revenue.  

As I say, There's no way that Knapper isn't working on next summers moves without factoring in the likes of Idah and Tzolis.  You'd be unable to move unless you can develop a plan that is financially viable, hence why transfers and loans bottleneck for weeks, and then they all move at once.

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Unless of course you have a SD who overrides those principles with the agreement of the Board pisses cash up the wall in some dash for EPL survival based on untried personnel. 

I think he convinced himself, and then the board, that they were guaranteed future revenue streams.  But that's part of his job really, and demonstrates how we make decisions based on unknown revenue. 

Another example is Sara, we invested a lot into scouting that area, and a real risk in signing him for the total fee stated  - but it would've been done on the basis of generating revenue for the club from players like Tzolis, Cantwell, Aarons that were all irons in the fire leading up to that point.

Those yielding nowhere what we were expecting, which no doubt added to the deficit.  But, because we'd put the leg work in we had to get our man.  And I have no doubt that the reason for that is that his perceived worth.

So this idea that we're only reactive and don't factor in players sales maybe true in terms of legal and financial obligations, but it's not in regards to how we operate behind the scenes, we are very much reliant on player sales and we've demonstrated a willingness to stick our necks out based on future revenue. 

Webber was also keen to do all our incoming business early in the window, to do that you must have outgoing sales factored in to the plan.

It shouldn't really need explaining though, as we all moan about it. 😉

 

Edited March 4 by Google Bot