The Canaries Are One Of The Most Fortunate Clubs In Football

[bob.eastick@yahoo.ca 20]

The Canaries are one of the most fortunate clubs in the football league when it comes to fan loyalty and the unwaverng support they provide. No matter what league they play in, as has been clearly demonstrated over time, the attendance at Carrow road for many games in near capacity.

Even when they are playing below par the batallions of the faithful, albeit at times justifiably disgruntled, are at the ready to find reasons why that is the case. They have a patience level that many clubs wish were the case for them, their attendance figures slipping and sliding to levels unheard of for Norwich City.

No question, there have been some joyous times, going back all the way to the 1959 cup run as a third division club, knocking out Man Utd. at Carrow Road, 3-0 in the 3rd. round. Many reading this would not have been even a twinkle in their fathers eye at that time. That was a very different soccer world back then when players played for the pure love of the game, with salaries on a par with many of those cheering them on, standing on the terraces. Back then the capacity was 36,000 before becoming an all seated arena.

In the early sixties I spent four seasons on the Canaries books as an up and coming teenager, although my participation as a player was cut short following a very serious leg injury. Ron Ashman was the manager back then and the only focus was football. Money did not come into the equation at all.

No doubt many of those who are now an old fart such as myself will recall the exceptional initiative of  Fulham to make Johnny Haynes the first player to be paid one hundred pounds a week.

City have had their ups and downs. Perhaps the most significant game in recent history was the 3-2 victory over Manchester City at Carrow road when newly promoted to the Premier league, an exceptional result. With reason is was an exhilirating moment giving cause to feel that perhaps the ambition of becoming a premier league club with the capacity to remain as one, had arrived. Unfortunately that was not the case as subsequent to that good fortune did not shiine upon the Canaries as results slumped and it was back to the Championship.

While being far from the most well paid team in football many of the Norwich players were earning in excess of two million pounds a season. a figure available to their supporters, only if they should win the lottery.

Today, so much is driven by exceedingly high financial investment that is far beyond the current means of the club. One only has to look at the history of Manchester City, who prior to being taken over by Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan were not significantly different in terms of ongoing success to the majority of clubs. For this reason alone perhaps becoming a stable Premier league club is an impossible dream.

That said, Brighton certainly have managed at this point to hold their own since being promoted, who perhaps in terms of their club profile come as close as any to the Canaries. They do provide a beacon of hope for the smaller clubs. Hopefully their victory over Man. Utd. at the weekend is not a prelude to a slump in form.

One very stark differance with Brighton. They have invested in some established Premier league players and they have not sold on the younger players with the talent to make a differance. You do reap what you sew.

Perhaps therein lies the key to the resilience of the Norfolk faithful who have adopted and accepted mediocrity as an inevitable outcome and that is why one reads a statement such as "We played quite well" when losing 4-0 to Crystal Palace in the league cup. A Premier league club yes, but winless to this early point in their season. 4-0 by any standard is a drubbing.

It perhaps also underlines the stark differance in standard between the Championship and the Premier league. The statistical incidence of teams being promoted and then making an immediate return to the Championship is very high. Burnley being the most recent example having won the championship by a wide margin only to be immediately unceremoniously relegated.

On the ball City, never mind the danger, haraah we've scored a goal........

Hope burns eternal.

ps. If you find another typo that's a positive because it does at least mean you have taken the time to read it. Enjoy.

 

Edited August 28 by bob.eastick@yahoo.ca
typo

[TheGunnShow 7,377]

Missed a key factor out with Brighton, namely the heavy-duty investment of Tony Bloom, particularly in getting the move to their stadium. Easier to keep younger talent with him cats-cradling the purse strings.

[essex canary 623]

Perhaps I was a twinkle in my dad's eye at 2 days old when we beat Manchester United 3-0 in that cup tie.

At least my grandson could watch the first game of his lifetime on the sofa with dad. Apparently though he fell asleep during the 2-0 defeat at Oxford.

[cambridgeshire canary 7,799]

Not like Brightons owner are billionaires or anything, but yes they have done very well and I imagine being a Brighton fan right now must be pretty great. Hell, given they were groundsharing at a racetrack only over a decade ago they've come in leaps and bound to say the least

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

1 hour ago, bob.eastick@yahoo.ca said:

In the early sixties I spent four seasons on the Canaries books as an up and coming teenager, although my participation as a player was cut short following a very serious leg injury. Ron Ashman was the manager back then and the only focus was football. Money did not come into the equation at all.

 

Money has always been the main factor in football, and it was for Norwich City just as much back then as it is now.

[Paul101 191]

dont forget bloom spent 410m of his own money on the club which still owes him over 350m

[sgncfc 1,330]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Money has always been the main factor in football, and it was for Norwich City just as much back then as it is now.

I'd agree.....except that no, it hasn't been. In the 1950s and early 1960s lots of players played football out of choice even though they could have earned more doing something else - lots of them became publicans when they retired and earned more. Lots of others chose not to be footballers because the wages were too low.

I remember that Alf Tupper used to play for a bag of fish and chips every week......

By the 1970s it was changing and becoming glamorous, certainly way before Sky came along, but football even then wasn't a guarantee of riches unless you were at the very top of the game.

[Robert N. LiM 6,299]

3 hours ago, bob.eastick@yahoo.ca said:

They have invested in some established Premier league players and they have not sold on the younger players with the talent to make a differance

They have now. But when they were getting themselves into the top division and then trying to stay there, they did so via selling their best players and replacing them cheaply. Brentford have done the same. The difference is that they both had rich enough owners to allow them to have the replacements already at the club, developing, so they could replace the stars when they moved on.

As others have said, Bloom's riches have made all the difference for Brighton. Benham at Brentford hasn't invested so much of his own money, but he has made a new stadium possible without a knock-on effect on team-building. It's right that those two clubs should be the model for us, but we do need to acknowledge the differences too.

[bob.eastick@yahoo.ca 20]

There is no question that ownership and the depth of their financial resources is a major factor in the modern game. Back in the sixties it was by comparison on a very modest level.

Clubs such as Wolverhampton for example, who were a force to be reckoned with back then with Billy Wright at centre half, had very extensive youth team systems with as many as six teams from which to select and develop players. At that time there were very few foreign players playing in the English league system, as opposed to the situation today with English born players in many clubs being in the minority.

The revenue from sponsors who use clubs to spread the word and familiarise the world with their corporate logo is immense as are the tv rights. Iconic teams by virtue of their established profile and reputation such as Manchester United, familiar to soccer fans around the world, are a perfect example. It is estimated that approx. 1.5 billion people around the planet tune into the tv to watch their home fixtures. To run a corporate advertising video on the low level screens surrounding the pitch bring in close to one million pounds for every sixty seconds of on screen exposure. My life in the corporate world exposed me to this fact.

The salaries for players at the peak of the talent pyramid have reached insane amounts. Salah at Liverpool for example rumoured to now be earning 400,000 GBP per week.

When visiting different countries around the world I have often been asked "What is your favourite team. Who do you support? My response would be "Norwich City". The response to that was usually along the lines of, "Norwich City, which league do they play in?"

For the majority, having a team that is reasonably competitive, able to provide a satisfactory level of entertainment if not every week, most weeks, is where it is at. Pep Guardiola's career record as a manager is very impressive but he has always been extremely careful in contracting his services to clubs with the status and financial means to secure the players that he needs. If he were obliged to manage the Canaries with their current level of resources, one wonders how well he would do.

 

Edited August 29 by bob.eastick@yahoo.ca

[Commonsense 802]

3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

I'd agree.....except that no, it hasn't been. In the 1950s and early 1960s lots of players played football out of choice even though they could have earned more doing something else - lots of them became publicans when they retired and earned more. Lots of others chose not to be footballers because the wages were too low.

I remember that Alf Tupper used to play for a bag of fish and chips every week......

By the 1970s it was changing and becoming glamorous, certainly way before Sky came along, but football even then wasn't a guarantee of riches unless you were at the very top of the game.

Yes it has been. In 1956 Norwich almost went bankrupt and needed company donations and an appeal fund to survive. The fact that players were poorly paid doesn’t underestimate the role that finance played.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

2 hours ago, Commonsense said:

Yes it has been. In 1956 Norwich almost went bankrupt and needed company donations and an appeal fund to survive. The fact that players were poorly paid doesn’t underestimate the role that finance played.

In my view the closest the club has ever come, before or since, to financial meltdown. A report commissioned by the directors even suggested dissolving the club. From memory the straw that threatened to break the camel’s back was a debt of £500! So, yes, the figures were smaller back then, but just as potentially significant.

[Badger 2,745]

20 hours ago, bob.eastick@yahoo.ca said:

One very stark differance with Brighton. They have invested in some established Premier league players and they have not sold on the younger players with the talent to make a differance. You do reap what you sew.

Not sure about this part. According to this they made £121.4 million on player sales for the last accounting period + £21 million in compensation for Graham Potter.

Their success has come from huge owner investment + an effective buy, develop, sell and buy again strategy. My understanding is that it is the latter part we are trying to emulate. (But we're not alone in that!)

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40069726/how-brightons-transfer-mastery-broke-premier-league-profit-record

[shefcanary 2,955]

13 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

In my view the closest the club has ever come, before or since, to financial meltdown. A report commissioned by the directors even suggested dissolving the club. From memory the straw that threatened to break the camel’s back was a debt of £500! So, yes, the figures were smaller back then, but just as potentially significant.

Technically Purps, the club's worst moment was back in 1917 when the club did in fact get dissolved, four seasons without organised football and with no real sign of the war ending at that point, with the coffers empty the plug was pulled. Thankfully like a Phoenix it was re-constituted in 1918 and the bumpy roller coaster began again.

Yes, in 1956 the figures were smaller but no less damaging. I think what happened was, having rode the post-war attendance boom, the club got a little giddy with investment in playing assets that neither delivered results or got the fans excited and were then caught out when attendances began to dip in the mid-50's.

Now we ride the pay TV boom, but really shouldn't rely on it lasting for ever.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Technically Purps, the club's worst moment was back in 1917 when the club did in fact get dissolved, four seasons without organised football and with no real sign of the war ending at that point, with the coffers empty the plug was pulled. Thankfully like a Phoenix it was re-constituted in 1918 and the bumpy roller coaster began again.

Yes, in 1956 the figures were smaller but no less damaging. I think what happened was, having rode the post-war attendance boom, the club got a little giddy with investment in playing assets that neither delivered results or got the fans excited and were then caught out when attendances began to dip in the mid-50's.

Now we ride the pay TV boom, but really shouldn't rely on it lasting for ever.

I hadn't realised you were that old, shef! Seriously, I hadn't known that.

[essex canary 623]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

Not sure about this part. According to this they made £121.4 million on player sales for the last accounting period + £21 million in compensation for Graham Potter.

Their success has come from huge owner investment + an effective buy, develop, sell and buy again strategy. My understanding is that it is the latter part we are trying to emulate. (But we're not alone in that!)

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/40069726/how-brightons-transfer-mastery-broke-premier-league-profit-record

But S&J told us we would be leaders not followers.

[essex canary 623]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Technically Purps, the club's worst moment was back in 1917 when the club did in fact get dissolved, four seasons without organised football and with no real sign of the war ending at that point, with the coffers empty the plug was pulled. Thankfully like a Phoenix it was re-constituted in 1918 and the bumpy roller coaster began again.

Yes, in 1956 the figures were smaller but no less damaging. I think what happened was, having rode the post-war attendance boom, the club got a little giddy with investment in playing assets that neither delivered results or got the fans excited and were then caught out when attendances began to dip in the mid-50's.

Now we ride the pay TV boom, but really shouldn't rely on it lasting for ever.

We won't see McNally, Moxey or the Webbers for dust the next time the Club is short of £500.

[sgncfc 1,330]

On 28/08/2024 at 20:24, Commonsense said:

Yes it has been. In 1956 Norwich almost went bankrupt and needed company donations and an appeal fund to survive. The fact that players were poorly paid doesn’t underestimate the role that finance played.

Well, if you're saying that was Purple's point then everything in the entire world is always about money, not just football. But that wasn't his point; his point was that in football, decisions were and always have been, always about money. They weren't, and sometimes still aren't. Darren Huckerby's decisions weren't about money, as a for instance, and when I were a lad lots of footballers played professionally for peanuts when they could have earned loads more in other jobs.

Even now, I suspect there are quite a few players out there who choose to stay at clubs for less money than they could get elsewhere.

So, no, it isn't always about money and it never has been. 

[essex canary 623]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

Well, if you're saying that was Purple's point then everything in the entire world is always about money, not just football. But that wasn't his point; his point was that in football, decisions were and always have been, always about money. They weren't, and sometimes still aren't. Darren Huckerby's decisions weren't about money, as a for instance, and when I were a lad lots of footballers played professionally for peanuts when they could have earned loads more in other jobs.

Even now, I suspect there are quite a few players out there who choose to stay at clubs for less money than they could get elsewhere.

So, no, it isn't always about money and it never has been. 

True. That's why we love Hucks, Grant and Wes. There are still plenty of others though willing to milk supporters.

[PurpleCanary 6,386]

3 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Well, if you're saying that was Purple's point then everything in the entire world is always about money, not just football. But that wasn't his point; his point was that in football, decisions were and always have been, always about money. They weren't, and sometimes still aren't. Darren Huckerby's decisions weren't about money, as a for instance, and when I were a lad lots of footballers played professionally for peanuts when they could have earned loads more in other jobs.

Even now, I suspect there are quite a few players out there who choose to stay at clubs for less money than they could get elsewhere.

So, no, it isn't always about money and it never has been. 

Just to be clear, I was talking only about the overall finances of clubs, which i believe have always been dictated by money. Although the type of money has changed over the decades. It is quite true that sometimes individual players act against their purely financial best interests.