Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
First Wizard

In Praise Of The Board!.

Recommended Posts

Yes Wiz, the MK goal was certainly up there, as was the goal he scored at home against Cardiff in the Champ season. Anyway, I am very glad you didn''t miss it - because it did show (I think) that it is still very much worth going to watch City, and that it isn''t all doom and gloom. Nice one, its great that you didn''t miss it. OTBC!!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tumbleweed"]

One misconception is, I fear, that big money transfers= big risk. I don''t accept that that is necessarily the case. In our case the three most recent high profile tansfers (Huckerby, Ashton, Earnshaw) were not risks at all because unless they were totally mismanaged there was almost no way that NCFC would not have a saleable assets on its books which would be capable of being sold at the same or greater value. So, if we go/stay up we win because of TV money. If we go down from the prem we get the sale proceeds which in the case of Ashton made us a tidy profit, should we need to realise some of that value. Thus heads you win, tails you win.

No, the risk to me lies at a lower level. It lies with the Andy Hughes type player- a cool half a million but which could go either way, but is unlikely to go up much. If you fritter away too much on £0.5m players you soon get to the sort of level which would buy you a guaranteed performer who could be the difference between mid table and play offs.

Further down, the Lappin type player is virtually risk free apart from the wage overhead but you will never lose huge chunks of capital as they come cheap. In many ways at that level the only way is up, but you can''t build a Prem-aspiring  team with purely that level of player coming in unless you get very lucky.

Our Board have used the three big transfers above to back up their preparedness to invest. In fact that is a fallacy because of the low nature of that risk if done selectively and on the right types of player and not at over inflated wages. Our Board have positioned themselves seemingly in that dangerous middle ground where you could easily spend significant money but see it all shrivel and die.

[/quote]

 

While the basic principles of this logic are correct, big money transfers are most assuredly big risks. How many times have clubs splashed the cash only to find that player give nowhere near the level of performance than what was expected, and then be forced to sell that player at a reduced price when their contracts are coming up for renewal (poor performances = poor league position = the player wont renew - circle of decline). Mismanagement is sometimes to blame, but there are often numerous other reasons, not settling into the area well, doesn''t like another player, greed, prima dona effect etc etc, these are human beings not machines after all and many of these problems cannot possibly be predicted. Couple in the fact that a big money player will always want to be on a similar wage to the highest earners of the club (even higher with players considered to be "cheap", with larger agent fees to boot due to this) your talking about a large long term outlay with no guarantee of being able to recoup that money in full.

Take into account the player that breaks his leg and is never the same again (and that fat wage is going out of the club week in week out for no gain) or worse that career ending injury and one big signing could mean bankruptcy for a club (insurance not-with-standing, but definitely a big financial loss). I would say the risks are much greater with the big names, with the probability of the transfer being a failure less than the £0.5m type players. If there were any guaranteed performers / money making transfers every other club would be after that same player anyway, bumping up the price and wages accordingly. No, unfortunately there are no guarantees in the beautiful game.

To be honest, we have been relatively lucky with our big money transfers. Huckerby, while relatively cheap in transfer fees is a massive wage outlay, and there was no guarantee at all that after his loan period complacency wouldn''t set in like it had for him at many of his previous clubs. Also, what about the wages of the rest of the team, 9 times out of 10 when a club brings in a star player breaking the wage cap all the other supposedly star players want the same wage, basic human nature after all, but additional hidden expenses that have to be taken into account when balancing the books. Huckerby was a risk, which paid off.

Apologies for picking apart you post, and I agree completely that too many of those £0.5m players can bleed a team dry with little to show for it. Some are needed, as injuries can very easily destroy a season with no recognisable backup players, but once a team relies on them they are usually doomed to obscurity. It''s how you want to throw the dice, do you go for rolling a 1 meaning severe damage for the clubs financial future and anything else being a good season, or having to roll a hard 6 to have a good one and everything else being mediocrity? Prudence or ambition, both have their merits and weaknesses. For me, I like to gamble, big risks big rewards and all, so I''d always go for anything but rolling a 1.

By the way, hello to everyone! Long time Norwich supporter (knee high and all), long time reader of the Pinkun, first time poster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Beermachine"][quote user="Tumbleweed"]

One misconception is, I fear, that big money transfers= big risk. I don''t accept that that is necessarily the case. In our case the three most recent high profile tansfers (Huckerby, Ashton, Earnshaw) were not risks at all because unless they were totally mismanaged there was almost no way that NCFC would not have a saleable assets on its books which would be capable of being sold at the same or greater value. So, if we go/stay up we win because of TV money. If we go down from the prem we get the sale proceeds which in the case of Ashton made us a tidy profit, should we need to realise some of that value. Thus heads you win, tails you win.

No, the risk to me lies at a lower level. It lies with the Andy Hughes type player- a cool half a million but which could go either way, but is unlikely to go up much. If you fritter away too much on £0.5m players you soon get to the sort of level which would buy you a guaranteed performer who could be the difference between mid table and play offs.

Further down, the Lappin type player is virtually risk free apart from the wage overhead but you will never lose huge chunks of capital as they come cheap. In many ways at that level the only way is up, but you can''t build a Prem-aspiring  team with purely that level of player coming in unless you get very lucky.

Our Board have used the three big transfers above to back up their preparedness to invest. In fact that is a fallacy because of the low nature of that risk if done selectively and on the right types of player and not at over inflated wages. Our Board have positioned themselves seemingly in that dangerous middle ground where you could easily spend significant money but see it all shrivel and die.

[/quote]

 

While the basic principles of this logic are correct, big money transfers are most assuredly big risks. How many times have clubs splashed the cash only to find that player give nowhere near the level of performance than what was expected, and then be forced to sell that player at a reduced price when their contracts are coming up for renewal (poor performances = poor league position = the player wont renew - circle of decline). Mismanagement is sometimes to blame, but there are often numerous other reasons, not settling into the area well, doesn''t like another player, greed, prima dona effect etc etc, these are human beings not machines after all and many of these problems cannot possibly be predicted. Couple in the fact that a big money player will always want to be on a similar wage to the highest earners of the club (even higher with players considered to be "cheap", with larger agent fees to boot due to this) your talking about a large long term outlay with no guarantee of being able to recoup that money in full.

Take into account the player that breaks his leg and is never the same again (and that fat wage is going out of the club week in week out for no gain) or worse that career ending injury and one big signing could mean bankruptcy for a club (insurance not-with-standing, but definitely a big financial loss). I would say the risks are much greater with the big names, with the probability of the transfer being a failure less than the £0.5m type players. If there were any guaranteed performers / money making transfers every other club would be after that same player anyway, bumping up the price and wages accordingly. No, unfortunately there are no guarantees in the beautiful game.

To be honest, we have been relatively lucky with our big money transfers. Huckerby, while relatively cheap in transfer fees is a massive wage outlay, and there was no guarantee at all that after his loan period complacency wouldn''t set in like it had for him at many of his previous clubs. Also, what about the wages of the rest of the team, 9 times out of 10 when a club brings in a star player breaking the wage cap all the other supposedly star players want the same wage, basic human nature after all, but additional hidden expenses that have to be taken into account when balancing the books. Huckerby was a risk, which paid off.

Apologies for picking apart you post, and I agree completely that too many of those £0.5m players can bleed a team dry with little to show for it. Some are needed, as injuries can very easily destroy a season with no recognisable backup players, but once a team relies on them they are usually doomed to obscurity. It''s how you want to throw the dice, do you go for rolling a 1 meaning severe damage for the clubs financial future and anything else being a good season, or having to roll a hard 6 to have a good one and everything else being mediocrity? Prudence or ambition, both have their merits and weaknesses. For me, I like to gamble, big risks big rewards and all, so I''d always go for anything but rolling a 1.

By the way, hello to everyone! Long time Norwich supporter (knee high and all), long time reader of the Pinkun, first time poster.

[/quote]

These are a great couple of posts, both of which make you think.

It is going to be interesting once this season is over, as a few of the teams at the top have spent a lot of money. But therea re only three places for promotion available. Not everyone''s ''risks'' will have paid off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points beermachine, but I still believe that many of the reasons you cite would not necessarily result in a diminution of value of the player.

The amount of money you spend should be proportional to the amount of due diligence you do and this will help to reduce the chances of making a duff deal. Where I think some clubs go wrong is  simply bringing in  a swathe of signings which introduces many more variables and complicated dynamics. I don''t regard any of those three deals as true risks (you mention Huckerby in some detail but the loan period proved just how valuable he would be and as the most high profile joiner for many years would be expected to come at a premium price) despite the Board using them as examples of gambles they have taken.

Where we may have gone wrong is the frittering away at that middle/lower level. Just how much money did Brian Hamilton spend on all that mediocrity I wonder?

By the way welcome to the posting community- hope you build on a well argued first post and look forward to future debates with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does Beermachine win some kind of award for "best debut post"? Cracking read, and agree with mbncfc that the close season is going to be very interesting for some of those clubs that have spent big and failed to get promoted... Whilst I''d love to be up there with them, I''m glad we don''t have that uncertainty over finances... well, uncertainty in terms of not going bust... not uncertainty in terms of "where has all the money gone?" [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

macdougall''s perm wrote:

Nice one, its great that you didn''t miss it. OTBC!!   

Sorry MP, I think I may have miss-led you mate, I''ve just re-read my post again, and it certainly gives the impression that I was at the game last..........and in fact I wasn''t!.

I should have added on the end of my post, that yes, I did see the goal................but via SSN ''higlights'' last night at ten pm, sorry for that. And yes, thats not the same as seeing it live I know!.

I must be honest here, and I always try to be with everyone, but I didn''t want you to be under any false impressions. In general, for very boring physical reasons, I find night games very diffficult to attend. Thats just for your future refererence.

But you''re quite right of course, it is still worth going to watch City in case you miss goals like Hucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Big A"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Big A"][quote user="ob1"]

[quote user="Two Tails"]Regarding the comments about several teams dominating over the last decade.I wonder how different our club history would have been if we had won the premiership in its first season instead of finishing third?[/quote]

Well, Leeds won it the year before.... so maybe we''d be doing as well as them? [;)]

[/quote]A prime example of a team with ambition over prudence!!![/quote]

oh so why is that then???

If Martin O''Neill hadn''t felt inclined to be an admirable sort of fellow and honour his contract at Leicester then Leeds Utd would of probably become a bigger club than they ever were during the 70''s.

Instead they had to put up with Ridsdale bankrolling an absolute fool like David O''Leary... that is why Leeds find themselves where they are today!!!

Funny enough Aston Villa now have O''Neill... let us see over the next few years if Larner gives him the backing if O''Neill can crack the dominance of thos top 3 or 4 clubs (I for one would not bet against him doing so).

We only have to look closer to home to see what continually bankrolling a manager that can''t take you any further can do for a clubs fortunes don''t we Delia???

[/quote]That whole post is a manipulation of the truth just so that you can bring it back around and take a shot at NCFC.  Full of inaccuracies.  We all know that the situation at Leeds was mismanagement throughout the hierarchy.  Starting (and ultimately finishing) with Risdale and the Board!!!  Risdale wasn''t bankrolling anydoby!, the creditors were.  I''ll never forget Risdale personally thanking HSBC for funding the Ferdinand transfer.  It was clear that the club were sanctioning transfers that were not sustainable.  Like i said, it was blind ambition over prudence.But don''t let the truth get in the way of your vendetta against NCFC!  Are you honestly saying you would prefer to be Leeds right now?  NCFC has ambition, no doubt, the difference is the board have to deal with REAL MONEY, not the monopoly money that some on here like playing with!

[/quote]

Who is to say that we won''t be in Leeds position this time next year?  There is more chance of that than us finishing in the play-offs next year. 

Who would of said at the beginning of this season that Leeds would of finished bottom???

As for Leeds "sanctioning transfers that were not sustainable" how close were you to what was going on at Elland Road at that time???

I lived in Leeds during that time and constantly took the pee out of them giving a c**p manager (O''Leary who they all loved to bits at the time but aren''t so keen of now) millions to waist on the likes of Danny Mills, Michael Duberry, Michael Bridges Seth Johnson and Jason Wilcox who clearly were not worth the money O''Leary spent on them.

The re-signing of David Batty and willingness to let Olivier Dacourt perform week in week out below acceptable performance levels were also mistakes that O''Leary made.

Rio Ferdinand & Robbie Keane (class players) but worth £40million back in 2000/01????

The majority of Leeds fans have been able to tell that in hindsight it all fell apart at Elland Road the day George Graham left (shortly to be followed by one of the players who had shot them to the semi-finals of the UEFA cup... Jimmy Floyd Hasselbaink).  They fell from grace not because they spent too much money but because they placed too much money in the hands of a fool.

They continued to back this fool (like we did to some extent with Worthy) until it was far too late.  They then replaced him with Peter Reid (hardly an inspired choice).  Reid took things from bad to worse signing a load of second-rate foreigners (et la Brian Hamilton) before Eddie Gray took the reigns trying to steer Leeds away from the foot of the table to no avail over the last few months of the season.

You use the LEEDS EXAMPLE to try and back up your arguement... all I have rightly done is pick holes in what you have said...  Leeds never went down and in to adminsitration just through investing too heavily in their playing squad BUT BRCAUSE THEY GAVE FAR TOO MUCH MONEY TO AN ABSOLUTE FOOL TO SPEND!!!

Ask Leeds fans now what they think of O''Leary also ask the Villa fans what they think of him.... I think that both sets of fans would agree with my opinion and so would the majority of the rest of the footballing community so it seems....

That is why O''Leary has NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND A JOB SINCE!!!

[/quote]Firstly, i''d like to say how refreshing it is to have a conversation with somebody who has clearly done their homework!!  also, I apologise for my comments last night.  You are right that the Leeds example is an extreme but then so are some peoples perception of our current circumstance.  I agree that we are not performing to our potential but i''m not about to start WW3 like some ''fans''I guess the question remains then, was it O''Learys fault for spending the money gven to him, or Risdales fault for giving it to him??  You have to remember that Managers WANT transfer money, if they have it they will spend it.  Even on crap players or players they don''t need.  Chelsea being a prime example, albeit on a much bigger (and more sustainable) scale.  I still maintain that, whilst I agree Leeds bought poorly, it was Risdale who ultimately has to take the blame.  Likewise the Board at NCFC are ultimately responsible for our Success (or otherwise)  unfortuantely it is a thankless task for them.  If we win, it was the players.....if we lose, they are scum (apparently).  As far as how much I know about the Leeds situation, at the time I

didn''t know anymore than the average footy fan but since I have learnt

a number of facts about the Risdale ''reign'' which would send shivers

down your spine.  The man (and the board) really did shaft that club.  His expenses

were obscene.  Can''t say anymore than that.  Needless to say there was

no surprise when he ended up at Cardiff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tumbleweed"]

One misconception is, I fear, that big money transfers= big risk. I don''t accept that that is necessarily the case. In our case the three most recent high profile tansfers (Huckerby, Ashton, Earnshaw) were not risks at all because unless they were totally mismanaged there was almost no way that NCFC would not have a saleable assets on its books which would be capable of being sold at the same or greater value. So, if we go/stay up we win because of TV money. If we go down from the prem we get the sale proceeds which in the case of Ashton made us a tidy profit, should we need to realise some of that value. Thus heads you win, tails you win.

No, the risk to me lies at a lower level. It lies with the Andy Hughes type player- a cool half a million but which could go either way, but is unlikely to go up much. If you fritter away too much on £0.5m players you soon get to the sort of level which would buy you a guaranteed performer who could be the difference between mid table and play offs.

Further down, the Lappin type player is virtually risk free apart from the wage overhead but you will never lose huge chunks of capital as they come cheap. In many ways at that level the only way is up, but you can''t build a Prem-aspiring  team with purely that level of player coming in unless you get very lucky.

Our Board have used the three big transfers above to back up their preparedness to invest. In fact that is a fallacy because of the low nature of that risk if done selectively and on the right types of player and not at over inflated wages. Our Board have positioned themselves seemingly in that dangerous middle ground where you could easily spend significant money but see it all shrivel and die.

[/quote]

So true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...