Well it could be worse...

[Magicmol 0]

The whole thing is a catch 22 - if we invested heavily there is a chance we get promoted within a season and secure large amounts of money or the signings fail to produce the goods and we get relegated with huge debt problems. Then there is the invest very little and hope you get some bargains that help you form a solid team that work together and end up promoted however those players can turn out to be useless buys and team morale drops giving very mediocre/poor seasons.I sincerely hope that a decent amount of money can be invested into the team rather than off field activities for once but at the same time I don''t want us overstretching ourselves and paying the ultimate price.As for being a true fan I don''t believe you need to go to every game. I have supported Norwich since I was a young lad and in that time I have felt many highs and many lows despite not being able to get to a huge amount of games and no-one can tell me I''m not a true supporter.

[Mud Man 0]

<<The key word is "all".  There''s no evidence whatever that this is what ALWAYS happens, and indeed the board have never said so.>>

Any purchase of a player is going to have to have the approval of at least two directors who can authorise the payment, if not the whole board, depending on the value of the player. The accountants won''t sign off on the company accounts if there isn''t some kind of checking procedure on such purchases.  It''s an elementary part of running a business and if you are saying that directors don''t check such purchases then they are not fulfilling their fiduciary obligations and can be sued.

 

I''m not saying you are thick, as you clearly aren''t ...

[Putney Canary 0]

I''m sorry Mystic and Cluck but there is absolutely no evidence that the board decide on who to bring to the club purely for financial reasons. In fact the evidence shows otherwise, not for all purchases but for enough. I really don''t think Worthy would have accepted players being forced on him, or any other manager for that matter, and I don''t see Grant accepting it. It is entirely logical that the board run the financial rule over players suggested by the manager, I still don''t see why you think otherwise. This is not falling for club spin, its listening to what they say, what the manager says, watching what they do, and looking at the facts. The manager wants a player for footballing reasons, if it is a major investment the board decide on the financial aspects - just as it should be.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]I''m sorry Mystic and Cluck but there is absolutely no evidence that the board decide on who to bring to the club purely for financial reasons. In fact the evidence shows otherwise, not for all purchases but for enough. I really don''t think Worthy would have accepted players being forced on him, or any other manager for that matter, and I don''t see Grant accepting it. It is entirely logical that the board run the financial rule over players suggested by the manager, I still don''t see why you think otherwise. This is not falling for club spin, its listening to what they say, what the manager says, watching what they do, and looking at the facts. The manager wants a player for footballing reasons, if it is a major investment the board decide on the financial aspects - just as it should be.[/quote]

Putney, no one is suggesting that ALL signings work like this.  What I am suggesting is that the big money deals, which were few, were primarily (not "purely") finance-led.  During the Worthington era, the only big signing that was primarily football-led was Hucks imo.  As we know, the board did their level best to wriggle out of it, despite the fact that he represented as near a guarantee of promotion as you will ever see in football. 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]I''m sorry Mystic and Cluck but there is absolutely no evidence that the board decide on who to bring to the club purely for financial reasons. In fact the evidence shows otherwise, not for all purchases but for enough. I really don''t think Worthy would have accepted players being forced on him, or any other manager for that matter, and I don''t see Grant accepting it. It is entirely logical that the board run the financial rule over players suggested by the manager, I still don''t see why you think otherwise. This is not falling for club spin, its listening to what they say, what the manager says, watching what they do, and looking at the facts. The manager wants a player for footballing reasons, if it is a major investment the board decide on the financial aspects - just as it should be.[/quote]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

Mud Man-a good post but i think i should point out that very few fans advocate throwing money at the team in an all or nothing gamble on promotion. The board stated on relegation that there wasn`t much money to spend but that all money raised from player sales would be ploughed back into the team. Given that we have sold around £14million of talent and spent about £6million this has clearly not happened and we have every right to be angry.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

[/quote]

I have been banging on about this for the last 8 months! Nobody took any notice of what Worthington said at the time because the primary agenda then was to use everything he said agaist him. Worthington also said :-

 “It is most important from my point of view that we get people in as early as possible. The problem is that anybody who joins us now will be 2½ weeks behind in training and the very high levels of fitness we are trying to achieve.
“We have to be proactive rather than reactive. We signed Dean Ashton in January instead of pre-season and I think the lesson should have been learned from that.
“Things can develop very fast and it is a case of you can miss out if you don''t move swiftly.”

Hulse was Worthingtons 1st choice and then Howard was plan B. After they had both signed for other clubs Worthy had this to say :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.
“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”
“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.
“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

But I don''t ever remember anyone from the board saying the reason Howard wasn''t signed was because of the unlikeliehood of a resale value. I thought they just didn''t feel he was worth the package we were going to have to pay:-

A good example is striker Steve Howard - a 30year old with one year to run on his contract and who scored 14 League goals for Luton last season. We had in mind what we believed to be a fair price for the player. But faced with competition from the likes of Leeds, Derby, Stoke and others, the bidding soon escalated, with Derby ending up paying £1 million plus a very, very healthy player salary and other add-ons.

In defence of the board over the Howard transfer it''s fair to say that many fans also saw it as too much of a gamble.And the board took a similar gamble, minus the transfer fee, with Peter Thorne the previous summer.

It''s all water under the bridge now. Failing to get either player in the summer is a big part of the reason I say that this board hasn''t found the right balance between their much vaunted prudence and being reckless.

What will be interesting though is to see whether Peter Grant has paid 2.25 times over the odds for a £100,000 six foot three striker or has unearthed a bargain! Only time will tell!!

 

[Putney Canary 0]

Nutty Nigel - thats how I remember the Howard saga, it ws the wages that we couldn''t / wouldn''t match.  We got outbid on a few players, I have it in my mind for example that we had a 750k bid for Vine accepted only for Birmingham to totally outbid us.

Mystic, you said "During the Worthington era, the only big signing that was primarily football-led was Hucks imo.  As we know, the board did their level best to wriggle out of it, despite the fact that he represented as near a guarantee of promotion as you will ever see in football. " Why do you think the Ashton deal wasn''t primarily football related? I don''t remember the board trying to wriggle out of the Hucks deal, what did I miss? I do remember Huck''s agent saying in the press that we couldn''t afford him, and our board saying also in the press that it looked like he wouldn''t be coming because his wage demands were too high, but then Hucks told his agent to shutup, and he signed. Have I remembered incorrectly?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]

Nutty Nigel - thats how I remember the Howard saga, it ws the wages that we couldn''t / wouldn''t match.  We got outbid on a few players, I have it in my mind for example that we had a 750k bid for Vine accepted only for Birmingham to totally outbid us.

Mystic, you said "During the Worthington era, the only big signing that was primarily football-led was Hucks imo.  As we know, the board did their level best to wriggle out of it, despite the fact that he represented as near a guarantee of promotion as you will ever see in football. " Why do you think the Ashton deal wasn''t primarily football related? I don''t remember the board trying to wriggle out of the Hucks deal, what did I miss? I do remember Huck''s agent saying in the press that we couldn''t afford him, and our board saying also in the press that it looked like he wouldn''t be coming because his wage demands were too high, but then Hucks told his agent to shutup, and he signed. Have I remembered incorrectly?

[/quote]

Re. Howard, ND stated in his weekly column that we had valued him at half a million, or a little less.  Given that Derby offered twice that amount I very much doubt whether it ever got as far as the wage negotiation stage.  I''ve tried before on this board to identify where the wages rumour came from, without success.

Re. Hucks, according to Iwan''s book covering the 2003/4 season, the deal was dead in the water and would have stayed that way if an "outside source" had not stepped in.  Worthy told the players on Christmas Eve that Hucks wouldn''t be coming, so the various press statements were clearly more than just negotiation via the media.  The board''s reluctance to seek additional funding from outside sources also concerns me greatly, but that''s another story.

    

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

[/quote]

I have been banging on about this for the last 8 months! Nobody took any notice of what Worthington said at the time because the primary agenda then was to use everything he said agaist him. Worthington also said :-

 “It is most important from my point of view that we get people in as early as possible. The problem is that anybody who joins us now will be 2½ weeks behind in training and the very high levels of fitness we are trying to achieve.
“We have to be proactive rather than reactive. We signed Dean Ashton in January instead of pre-season and I think the lesson should have been learned from that.
“Things can develop very fast and it is a case of you can miss out if you don''t move swiftly.”

Hulse was Worthingtons 1st choice and then Howard was plan B. After they had both signed for other clubs Worthy had this to say :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.
“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”
“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.
“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

But I don''t ever remember anyone from the board saying the reason Howard wasn''t signed was because of the unlikeliehood of a resale value. I thought they just didn''t feel he was worth the package we were going to have to pay:-

A good example is striker Steve Howard - a 30year old with one year to run on his contract and who scored 14 League goals for Luton last season. We had in mind what we believed to be a fair price for the player. But faced with competition from the likes of Leeds, Derby, Stoke and others, the bidding soon escalated, with Derby ending up paying £1 million plus a very, very healthy player salary and other add-ons.

In defence of the board over the Howard transfer it''s fair to say that many fans also saw it as too much of a gamble.And the board took a similar gamble, minus the transfer fee, with Peter Thorne the previous summer.

It''s all water under the bridge now. Failing to get either player in the summer is a big part of the reason I say that this board hasn''t found the right balance between their much vaunted prudence and being reckless.

What will be interesting though is to see whether Peter Grant has paid 2.25 times over the odds for a £100,000 six foot three striker or has unearthed a bargain! Only time will tell!!

 

[/quote]

I wasn`t one of those using every issue as a stick to beat Worthington with as i realised fairly early on that with the paltry level of investment from the board he would only be able to bring in "C" list players at best. The way i see it the board are guilty whichever way you look at it on this issue. Either they decided not to sign Howard because of his age/lack of resale value, or they arrogantly decided that their opinion of the"value" of a player in football terms was more important than the managers. A board which goes down this road is way overstepping the mark.

The irony, as you say, is that most fans (including myself) did not think he was worth the money but with hindsight Worthington was right and we and the board were wrong......again.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

[/quote]

I have been banging on about this for the last 8 months! Nobody took any notice of what Worthington said at the time because the primary agenda then was to use everything he said agaist him. Worthington also said :-

 “It is most important from my point of view that we get people in as early as possible. The problem is that anybody who joins us now will be 2½ weeks behind in training and the very high levels of fitness we are trying to achieve.
“We have to be proactive rather than reactive. We signed Dean Ashton in January instead of pre-season and I think the lesson should have been learned from that.
“Things can develop very fast and it is a case of you can miss out if you don''t move swiftly.”

Hulse was Worthingtons 1st choice and then Howard was plan B. After they had both signed for other clubs Worthy had this to say :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.
“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”
“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.
“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

But I don''t ever remember anyone from the board saying the reason Howard wasn''t signed was because of the unlikeliehood of a resale value. I thought they just didn''t feel he was worth the package we were going to have to pay:-

[/quote]

Nutty: Is it likely that the board would tell us if Howard''s resale value was an issue?  The Howard saga needs to be seen in light of our subsequent bid of £1.5m + add ons for Cotterill.  Not on Worthy''s list of targets, not a big front man (not yet anyway), talented but inexperienced and unproven, yet we were prepared to pay three times as much as for Howard.  Doesn''t make any sense unless you think of it in terms of his resale value. 

You say it''s water under the bridge.  I hope you''re right.  But if that''s how they operate there''s no reason to think they won''t try it again. 

 

 

 

[Cluck 0]

Putney Canary.......

I''m sorry Mystic and Cluck but there is absolutely no evidence that the board decide on who to bring to the club purely for financial reasons. In fact the evidence shows otherwise, not for all purchases but for enough. I really don''t think Worthy would have accepted players being forced on him, or any other manager for that matter, and I don''t see Grant accepting it. It is entirely logical that the board run the financial rule over players suggested by the manager, I still don''t see why you think otherwise. This is not falling for club spin, its listening to what they say, what the manager says, watching what they do, and looking at the facts. The manager wants a player for footballing reasons, if it is a major investment the board decide on the financial aspects - just as it should be.

Fair enough then.  I''ll start doing this in future so that I can be as hoodwinked and deluded as you appear to be.

I rely on my common sense and logic to unravel "spin"......plus quite a few years in business to actually understand how it all works.  The Board will have had a major say in every transfer....plus a veto.  At NCFC "cheap" means buy....while "market value" means no thank you.

Evidence by the way PC (how appropriate)?  No-one needs evidence in the world of religion....yet it seems to draw crowds ok.

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

[/quote]

I have been banging on about this for the last 8 months! Nobody took any notice of what Worthington said at the time because the primary agenda then was to use everything he said agaist him. Worthington also said :-

 “It is most important from my point of view that we get people in as early as possible. The problem is that anybody who joins us now will be 2½ weeks behind in training and the very high levels of fitness we are trying to achieve.
“We have to be proactive rather than reactive. We signed Dean Ashton in January instead of pre-season and I think the lesson should have been learned from that.
“Things can develop very fast and it is a case of you can miss out if you don''t move swiftly.”

Hulse was Worthingtons 1st choice and then Howard was plan B. After they had both signed for other clubs Worthy had this to say :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.
“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”
“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.
“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

But I don''t ever remember anyone from the board saying the reason Howard wasn''t signed was because of the unlikeliehood of a resale value. I thought they just didn''t feel he was worth the package we were going to have to pay:-

A good example is striker Steve Howard - a 30year old with one year to run on his contract and who scored 14 League goals for Luton last season. We had in mind what we believed to be a fair price for the player. But faced with competition from the likes of Leeds, Derby, Stoke and others, the bidding soon escalated, with Derby ending up paying £1 million plus a very, very healthy player salary and other add-ons.

In defence of the board over the Howard transfer it''s fair to say that many fans also saw it as too much of a gamble.And the board took a similar gamble, minus the transfer fee, with Peter Thorne the previous summer.

It''s all water under the bridge now. Failing to get either player in the summer is a big part of the reason I say that this board hasn''t found the right balance between their much vaunted prudence and being reckless.

What will be interesting though is to see whether Peter Grant has paid 2.25 times over the odds for a £100,000 six foot three striker or has unearthed a bargain! Only time will tell!!

 

[/quote]

I wasn`t one of those using every issue as a stick to beat Worthington with as i realised fairly early on that with the paltry level of investment from the board he would only be able to bring in "C" list players at best. The way i see it the board are guilty whichever way you look at it on this issue. Either they decided not to sign Howard because of his age/lack of resale value, or they arrogantly decided that their opinion of the"value" of a player in football terms was more important than the managers. A board which goes down this road is way overstepping the mark.

The irony, as you say, is that most fans (including myself) did not think he was worth the money but with hindsight Worthington was right and we and the board were wrong......again.

[/quote]

At the time I thought Howard was worth the risk but I was in the minority. I also trusted Worthingtons judgements in the transfer market and thought he talked a lot of sense. If we could have got in and nabbed Hulse before Sheffield United did it would have been a better signing though because a younger player would have been a better investment for all reasons. This is the one that the board should have pulled out all the stops for, maybe they did, we will probably never know. What doesn''t add up in my head is that if the board are only interested in re-saleable assets then why did they commit so much money to Peter Thornes contract.

Like I said, it''s all water under the bridge now. But I am really interested to see how the Chris Brown transfer works out.

 

[Mud Man 0]

Mr Carrow, I was just pointing out the mechanics of why the Board/Directors have to consider every player purchase brought to them by the manager. It was suggested by others that they don''t consider every one.  I was not talking about the investment policy of the club. Obviously, the club can''t spend what they don''t have. The clear out of five players creates a bit of a surplus. The loss of the parachute payment is a big problem. If you look at what Wigan and Reading have achieved (although Wigan''s good run may be ending this year), they established squads of unknown players with whom they won promotion from the Championship. The team ethos was hard work and because they knew each other well their teamwork was good. This carried them through against some Premiership teams who may have better known players but didn''t have the togetherness. Reading, in particular, have been great this year, while Wigan have fallen short of their sterling efforts the previous season.

Is Grant going to be able to fashion a team to emulate Reading''s success? It seems to me that we are going to see a lot of 4-3-3 next year with Huckerby, Earnshaw (if he stays) Plus one (Croft, Chadwick, Brown, Martin, Renton, Smart) up front. The midfield will be built around Etuhu. Lappin looks to have established himself on the left and can hopefully continue to build on his understanding with Drury. I think Fotheringham could well develop into a useful addition. Spillane adds a dynamism to the midfield because he runs and chases well, even if it is sometimes of the headless chicken variety. He has a good skills base and should develop well this year.

With everyone fit, the squad is beginning to look pretty solid. It does lack pace at the back and whether Dion Dublin stays or goes could have a bearing. Personally, I think he''s very good for morale. He''s a leader, he''s a great character and an example to what is an increasingly young squad. He''s also versatile in that he can be thrown into attack or defence. Let''s hope he can be persuaded to continue his commuting next year. Shackell is growing as a player and can become the mainstay of the defence. He needs a young, speedy partner.

Watched the first team training before they headed off to Sheffield today and they played some great football. They just have to concentrate more on defence, particularly towards the end of games. How many points did we lose in the last five minutes of matches this year?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

After the club failed to sign Howard the board came out and stated that they didn`t think a 30 year-old was worth £1million given the unlikelihood of a resale value. Within a few days an interview with Worthy was printed in the local press entitled "Worthy-City must pay going rate" in which he politely had a dig at the board for not backing his judgement. A clear case of the board deciding whether or not to buy a player based on wider financial reasons rather than the impact the player may have on the team. Considering we have been crying out for a target man this season and given Howards form for Derby i think it is reasonable to say that had we bought him we could very well be in contention for a £50million promotion right now.

[/quote]

I have been banging on about this for the last 8 months! Nobody took any notice of what Worthington said at the time because the primary agenda then was to use everything he said agaist him. Worthington also said :-

 “It is most important from my point of view that we get people in as early as possible. The problem is that anybody who joins us now will be 2½ weeks behind in training and the very high levels of fitness we are trying to achieve.
“We have to be proactive rather than reactive. We signed Dean Ashton in January instead of pre-season and I think the lesson should have been learned from that.
“Things can develop very fast and it is a case of you can miss out if you don''t move swiftly.”

Hulse was Worthingtons 1st choice and then Howard was plan B. After they had both signed for other clubs Worthy had this to say :-

“There is not a lot of plan C, D, E, F, G, H from the point of view of the quality that we need to come into this football club and take us forward. I can go and sign five six-foot three strikers tomorrow for £100,000 apiece - they won''t do the job that we want because they are not good enough, simple as that, and if you want to move forward then you need good players within the club.
“We have looked across the board and the two top targets were Hulse number one, and Howard number two.”
“It is not a surprise because when there is not an abundance of those types of strikers about, they command high transfer fees, they command high wages,” he said. “Certainly in the Howard situation, yes, £1m is a lot of money for him, but if that''s what there is about and that''s the going rate at the time, then that''s it.
“There is a budget here and it''s a tight budget and we have got to manage that very carefully to get the most from that and with having a tight budget you have got to be very careful how you spend it, simple as that.”

But I don''t ever remember anyone from the board saying the reason Howard wasn''t signed was because of the unlikeliehood of a resale value. I thought they just didn''t feel he was worth the package we were going to have to pay:-

A good example is striker Steve Howard - a 30year old with one year to run on his contract and who scored 14 League goals for Luton last season. We had in mind what we believed to be a fair price for the player. But faced with competition from the likes of Leeds, Derby, Stoke and others, the bidding soon escalated, with Derby ending up paying £1 million plus a very, very healthy player salary and other add-ons.

In defence of the board over the Howard transfer it''s fair to say that many fans also saw it as too much of a gamble.And the board took a similar gamble, minus the transfer fee, with Peter Thorne the previous summer.

It''s all water under the bridge now. Failing to get either player in the summer is a big part of the reason I say that this board hasn''t found the right balance between their much vaunted prudence and being reckless.

What will be interesting though is to see whether Peter Grant has paid 2.25 times over the odds for a £100,000 six foot three striker or has unearthed a bargain! Only time will tell!!

 

[/quote]

I wasn`t one of those using every issue as a stick to beat Worthington with as i realised fairly early on that with the paltry level of investment from the board he would only be able to bring in "C" list players at best. The way i see it the board are guilty whichever way you look at it on this issue. Either they decided not to sign Howard because of his age/lack of resale value, or they arrogantly decided that their opinion of the"value" of a player in football terms was more important than the managers. A board which goes down this road is way overstepping the mark.

The irony, as you say, is that most fans (including myself) did not think he was worth the money but with hindsight Worthington was right and we and the board were wrong......again.

[/quote]

At the time I thought Howard was worth the risk but I was in the minority. I also trusted Worthingtons judgements in the transfer market and thought he talked a lot of sense. If we could have got in and nabbed Hulse before Sheffield United did it would have been a better signing though because a younger player would have been a better investment for all reasons. This is the one that the board should have pulled out all the stops for, maybe they did, we will probably never know. What doesn''t add up in my head is that if the board are only interested in re-saleable assets then why did they commit so much money to Peter Thornes contract.

Like I said, it''s all water under the bridge now. But I am really interested to see how the Chris Brown transfer works out.

 

[/quote]

Nobody has said that the board are "only interested in resaleable assets" but that it plays a big part in their thinking and could swing a potential transfer one way or the other. The Thorne transfer came about at a time when the club had just lost several big wage-earners (Helveg,Jonsson,Svensson,Francis) and recieved big fees for some of those players. I think that if the board have a choice between a big wage-earner the manager desires on a free and a younger player for £1million+ on slightly lower wages it is pretty obvious which one they will go for. Bear in mind that the current regime have only signed TWO players for over £1million during their tenure.

At the end of the day it is completely irrelevant what fans thought of Howard at the time. The board admitted they had the money but they did not back the manager and his judgement has subsequently proved correct. It is just another in a long line of episodes which show the boards judgement in a very poor light indeed. Either we do the classic Norfolk thing of shrugging our shoulders and saying "oh well, lets hope they get it right next time", or we let them know that as custodians of one of the best supported clubs in the country they are letting us down badly and need to sort their act out-or actively look for people to come in to take the club forward. I know which one is most likely to have a positive outcome.

[Putney Canary 0]

Mr Carrow, you may be right in that Howard might have made a difference this season. Equally, we might have carried on leaking goals at the back and losing games in the last 5 minutes. If his wages were as high as 20k per week, would you still advocate us doing the deal? The summer before we lose parachute payments? The problem with this whole debate is that we don''t know specifics like what Derby are actually paying him (I have heard 20k per week but have no idea if its true) and we don''t actually know how much the board were prepared to pay. Since Abramovich, transfer fees and especially wages have gone through the roof and most fans don''t seem to understand this. Our board obviously don''t like the inflated prices that teams like Birmingham, Sunderland and Derby are paying and won''t match them. I don''t think this is necessarily a bad thing, I think that football could implode and we will be seeing a lot more clubs in financial difficulty. Although the football pie is getting huge now it is being inflated with Sky money, there are just the same number of slices going around.

Nutty Nigel says that he isn''t convinced the board have found the right balance between prudence and ambition and I think he is probably right, although they have spent way more than most give them credit for. Despite what some of the idiots say, I don''t think our board are perfect but equally I don''t think they are doing a job bad enough to be sacked for. Especially as there are no obvious replacements lined up or even knocking at the door. I would love to see us get additional investment to spend, but I agree with Delia that the investment must come from someone with the long term interest of our club at heart, not someone looking to simply double their money in 3 years and then disappear.

[Putney Canary 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]

Putney Canary.......

I''m sorry Mystic and Cluck but there is absolutely no evidence that the board decide on who to bring to the club purely for financial reasons. In fact the evidence shows otherwise, not for all purchases but for enough. I really don''t think Worthy would have accepted players being forced on him, or any other manager for that matter, and I don''t see Grant accepting it. It is entirely logical that the board run the financial rule over players suggested by the manager, I still don''t see why you think otherwise. This is not falling for club spin, its listening to what they say, what the manager says, watching what they do, and looking at the facts. The manager wants a player for footballing reasons, if it is a major investment the board decide on the financial aspects - just as it should be.

Fair enough then.  I''ll start doing this in future so that I can be as hoodwinked and deluded as you appear to be.

I rely on my common sense and logic to unravel "spin"......plus quite a few years in business to actually understand how it all works.  The Board will have had a major say in every transfer....plus a veto.  At NCFC "cheap" means buy....while "market value" means no thank you.

Evidence by the way PC (how appropriate)?  No-one needs evidence in the world of religion....yet it seems to draw crowds ok.

[/quote]

Cluck, note how the gown ups have been talking on this thread, using facts to back up their debating position and not resorting to such childish behaviour as you are with your name calling. You claim to have experience in business, but your whole argument comes from pure emotion and not a shread of intellect. Now that, in my experience, isn''t how successful business men operate. But thats the beauty of the internet, isn''t it, you never know really who you are talking to and someone can pretend to be whatever they want.

[7rew 0]

We have to notice that for howard we were not bidding against Derby, we were bidding against Derby and three/four other teams.  When  I am trying to buy something at auction (ebay for example)  I say I think £100 is a fair price, but I really want the item, its unique, so I may be prepared to go higher.well I''ll open with a bid of £50, to see if others want it.  Once someone else bids I raise, once I get to around £120-£130 I start looking at how many people I am bidding against, but keep going. By £150 I will stop bidding if there is more than one person bidding against me, simply because youe have to stop somewhere sensible or you end up playing silly money.  It eventually goes for £210 and I think "few, that was far too much".  Against one person at £150 I keep going since I am more likely to get it soon, still giving up at about £180-£190.Why should a football club bidding on a player have a different stratagy?Also on looking at resale value - why is it a bad thing exctly?  Buying a player is a risk, honestly a bigger monetary risk than most people will ever take.  When you are buying a house do you buy the best one on a bad street or the worst one on a good street?   Do you buy the house that is close to the proposed new incineratior (which would slash its value - but hasn''t yet) or the one that''s next to a proposed new swimming pool (which would add to its value)?Talking directly about a football player, there are various things that could happen when you sign a player:  He does better than past form(BPF), He does as well as past form(PF), He does worse, but still is successful (LPFW), He does worse, and still is not successful (LPFB), He doesn''t fit in, so does badly (DFI), Greviously Injured (GI).Then you look at the probability of each outcome: DFI and PF (as a proportion of options that aren''t DFI and GI) are equally likely for any player,  the better his past form, the better the chances of LPFW but have worse chances of LPFB and BPF.  The only one which is age dependant is GI.Examine now the payoff for each outcome:  BPF, PF, LPFW mean that the player is good for the team and kept, which I''ll model as a monetary loss of 0.  LPFB and DFI have a monetary loss of transfer fee paid (TFP) - sell on value[having done bad] (SOVb)  and GI has a loss of TFP.  Wages are not included as they are paid in each case.Now let us consider two players: PlayerA is 31 has very good PF.  PlayerB is 24 and has good PF.  Lets say this makes PlayerB has twice the probability of LPFB than PlayerA and PlayerA has twice the probability of GI than PlayerB.  Say that in addition, PlayerA costs £1m and could be sold on for £0.5m and PlayerB costs £1.6m and could be sold on for £1.25m. Now give the probailities values: A: GI 10%, DFI 20%, LPFB 5%  and B: GI 5%, DFI 20%, LPFB 10%, The expected loss on each player is the sum of loss * probability of loss.  So PlayerA gives loss of £0.225m  and PlayerB gives a loss of £0.185mThe fact that the loss on PlayerB is lower means that buying him is less of a risk despite him costing more and that the probability of him being useless is the same. And that analysis ingores the possibility that a player could do amazingly and be sold on for a profit!The other point on resale value is this: Chelsea were critisised for buying Shevchenko based on that if he did badly they wouldn''t be able to sell him and get any meaningful amount of the money they spent back.  If Chelsea have to consider resale value, then sure as heck we do!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="7rew"]We have to notice that for howard we were not bidding against Derby, we were bidding against Derby and three/four other teams.  When  I am trying to buy something at auction (ebay for example)  I say I think £100 is a fair price, but I really want the item, its unique, so I may be prepared to go higher.

well I''ll open with a bid of £50, to see if others want it.  Once someone else bids I raise, once I get to around £120-£130 I start looking at how many people I am bidding against, but keep going. By £150 I will stop bidding if there is more than one person bidding against me, simply because youe have to stop somewhere sensible or you end up playing silly money.  It eventually goes for £210 and I think "few, that was far too much".  Against one person at £150 I keep going since I am more likely to get it soon, still giving up at about £180-£190.

Why should a football club bidding on a player have a different stratagy?

Also on looking at resale value - why is it a bad thing exctly?  Buying a player is a risk, honestly a bigger monetary risk than most people will ever take.  When you are buying a house do you buy the best one on a bad street or the worst one on a good street?   Do you buy the house that is close to the proposed new incineratior (which would slash its value - but hasn''t yet) or the one that''s next to a proposed new swimming pool (which would add to its value)?

Talking directly about a football player, there are various things that could happen when you sign a player:  He does better than past form(BPF), He does as well as past form(PF), He does worse, but still is successful (LPFW), He does worse, and still is not successful (LPFB), He doesn''t fit in, so does badly (DFI), Greviously Injured (GI).
Then you look at the probability of each outcome: DFI and PF (as a proportion of options that aren''t DFI and GI) are equally likely for any player,  the better his past form, the better the chances of LPFW but have worse chances of LPFB and BPF.  The only one which is age dependant is GI.
Examine now the payoff for each outcome:  BPF, PF, LPFW mean that the player is good for the team and kept, which I''ll model as a monetary loss of 0.  LPFB and DFI have a monetary loss of transfer fee paid (TFP) - sell on value[having done bad] (SOVb)  and GI has a loss of TFP.  Wages are not included as they are paid in each case.
Now let us consider two players: PlayerA is 31 has very good PF.  PlayerB is 24 and has good PF.  Lets say this makes PlayerB has twice the probability of LPFB than PlayerA and PlayerA has twice the probability of GI than PlayerB. 
Say that in addition, PlayerA costs £1m and could be sold on for £0.5m and PlayerB costs £1.6m and could be sold on for £1.25m. Now give the probailities values: A: GI 10%, DFI 20%, LPFB 5%  and B: GI 5%, DFI 20%, LPFB 10%,
The expected loss on each player is the sum of loss * probability of loss.  So PlayerA gives loss of £0.225m  and PlayerB gives a loss of £0.185m
The fact that the loss on PlayerB is lower means that buying him is less of a risk despite him costing more and that the probability of him being useless is the same. And that analysis ingores the possibility that a player could do amazingly and be sold on for a profit!

The other point on resale value is this: Chelsea were critisised for buying Shevchenko based on that if he did badly they wouldn''t be able to sell him and get any meaningful amount of the money they spent back.  If Chelsea have to consider resale value, then sure as heck we do!
[/quote]

hehehe hoo hoo hoo don''t 7rew...

I can just see Granty, Deliliar and the Donkster now sitting around a PC in the Donksters secret office debating whether or not they should bid another £5 on e-bay or not to see if they can unearth our new centre-back and goalkeeper for next season!!!  [:D]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="7rew"]

Also on looking at resale value - why is it a bad thing exctly?  

[/quote]

"Looking at" resale value is not necessarily a bad thing, provided it does not become the primary motive.  I would even argue that there''s a place for buying players primarily as an investment, provided the basic squad is already fit for purpose and particularly if you have plenty of money.  Ours wasn''t, and we don''t.

The Howard situation needs to be judged alongside our (failed) bid for Cotterill, as I have said before.  We wouldn''t pay more than half a million for an experienced target man to fill a fundamental gap in the squad, but were prepared to pay three times as much for an inexperienced, unproven though talented youngster.

You mention Shevchenko.  Whatever the motivation for buying him, there are strong indications that he was the owner''s choice and not the manager''s.  I rest my case.

 

 

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="7rew"]We have to notice that for howard we were not bidding against Derby, we were bidding against Derby and three/four other teams.  When  I am trying to buy something at auction (ebay for example)  I say I think £100 is a fair price, but I really want the item, its unique, so I may be prepared to go higher.

well I''ll open with a bid of £50, to see if others want it.  Once someone else bids I raise, once I get to around £120-£130 I start looking at how many people I am bidding against, but keep going. By £150 I will stop bidding if there is more than one person bidding against me, simply because youe have to stop somewhere sensible or you end up playing silly money.  It eventually goes for £210 and I think "few, that was far too much".  Against one person at £150 I keep going since I am more likely to get it soon, still giving up at about £180-£190.

Why should a football club bidding on a player have a different stratagy?

Also on looking at resale value - why is it a bad thing exctly?  Buying a player is a risk, honestly a bigger monetary risk than most people will ever take.  When you are buying a house do you buy the best one on a bad street or the worst one on a good street?   Do you buy the house that is close to the proposed new incineratior (which would slash its value - but hasn''t yet) or the one that''s next to a proposed new swimming pool (which would add to its value)?

Talking directly about a football player, there are various things that could happen when you sign a player:  He does better than past form(BPF), He does as well as past form(PF), He does worse, but still is successful (LPFW), He does worse, and still is not successful (LPFB), He doesn''t fit in, so does badly (DFI), Greviously Injured (GI).
Then you look at the probability of each outcome: DFI and PF (as a proportion of options that aren''t DFI and GI) are equally likely for any player,  the better his past form, the better the chances of LPFW but have worse chances of LPFB and BPF.  The only one which is age dependant is GI.
Examine now the payoff for each outcome:  BPF, PF, LPFW mean that the player is good for the team and kept, which I''ll model as a monetary loss of 0.  LPFB and DFI have a monetary loss of transfer fee paid (TFP) - sell on value[having done bad] (SOVb)  and GI has a loss of TFP.  Wages are not included as they are paid in each case.
Now let us consider two players: PlayerA is 31 has very good PF.  PlayerB is 24 and has good PF.  Lets say this makes PlayerB has twice the probability of LPFB than PlayerA and PlayerA has twice the probability of GI than PlayerB. 
Say that in addition, PlayerA costs £1m and could be sold on for £0.5m and PlayerB costs £1.6m and could be sold on for £1.25m. Now give the probailities values: A: GI 10%, DFI 20%, LPFB 5%  and B: GI 5%, DFI 20%, LPFB 10%,
The expected loss on each player is the sum of loss * probability of loss.  So PlayerA gives loss of £0.225m  and PlayerB gives a loss of £0.185m
The fact that the loss on PlayerB is lower means that buying him is less of a risk despite him costing more and that the probability of him being useless is the same. And that analysis ingores the possibility that a player could do amazingly and be sold on for a profit!

The other point on resale value is this: Chelsea were critisised for buying Shevchenko based on that if he did badly they wouldn''t be able to sell him and get any meaningful amount of the money they spent back.  If Chelsea have to consider resale value, then sure as heck we do!
[/quote]

hehehe hoo hoo hoo don''t 7rew...

I can just see Granty, Deliliar and the Donkster now sitting around a PC in the Donksters secret office debating whether or not they should bid another £5 on e-bay or not to see if they can unearth our new centre-back and goalkeeper for next season!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Got to agree with you Smudger.

By the time anyone worked out 7rews value for money equations the guy''s carreer would be over.

[7rew 0]

The point of the long, complicated, (slightly confused) bit of my post is this - Cotterill could very well represent less of a finacial risk than Howard, despite his much higher price. Also taking into account the investment potential makes Cotterill more attractive.Also the words were we valued him at half a million, not we wouldn''t pay more than half a million - they may have said we value him at half a million, so will play up to £850k (70% percent more), but did not go for double the price they rated him at.I would argue that there is always a case for buying players as an investment, unless you can afford to do without this stream of income.  It is of course better to buy players as investment that will help out your first team. - In fact I''d rather we spent 1 million on a player which we can sell in 2 years for 3 million than several other forms of wealth aquisition.Shevchenko, who ever brough him, was criticised as not having good re-sale value which was the point. He certainly wasn''t brought in by the board as an investment!And Smudger, the ebay thing was an analogy - I am not in the habit of buying anything worth millions of pounds, I do buy things in an auction worth lower amounts of money.  The principle of an aution remain the same - you have to set a boundary figure which you will not exceed (this will not be the amount you think the item is worth) otherwise you will get repeatedly taken for a ride.

[7rew 0]

Ricardo, The VFM equations are quite simple really, well if your like me [8-|]. Something very similar is done subconciously everytime someone makes a risky purchase, its just complicated to formalise it.I think smudger hadn''t actually read that far down my post however and was just laughing at the ebay analogy.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="7rew"]Ricardo, The VFM equations are quite simple really, well if your like me [8-|]. Something very similar is done subconciously everytime someone makes a risky purchase, its just complicated to formalise it.

I think smudger hadn''t actually read that far down my post however and was just laughing at the ebay analogy.
[/quote]

I hope you don''t evaluate your girlfriends by that equation 7rew.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]

Mr Carrow, you may be right in that Howard might have made a difference this season. Equally, we might have carried on leaking goals at the back and losing games in the last 5 minutes. If his wages were as high as 20k per week, would you still advocate us doing the deal? The summer before we lose parachute payments? The problem with this whole debate is that we don''t know specifics like what Derby are actually paying him (I have heard 20k per week but have no idea if its true) and we don''t actually know how much the board were prepared to pay. Since Abramovich, transfer fees and especially wages have gone through the roof and most fans don''t seem to understand this. Our board obviously don''t like the inflated prices that teams like Birmingham, Sunderland and Derby are paying and won''t match them. I don''t think this is necessarily a bad thing, I think that football could implode and we will be seeing a lot more clubs in financial difficulty. Although the football pie is getting huge now it is being inflated with Sky money, there are just the same number of slices going around.

Nutty Nigel says that he isn''t convinced the board have found the right balance between prudence and ambition and I think he is probably right, although they have spent way more than most give them credit for. Despite what some of the idiots say, I don''t think our board are perfect but equally I don''t think they are doing a job bad enough to be sacked for. Especially as there are no obvious replacements lined up or even knocking at the door. I would love to see us get additional investment to spend, but I agree with Delia that the investment must come from someone with the long term interest of our club at heart, not someone looking to simply double their money in 3 years and then disappear.

[/quote]

The "accepted" figure ive heard doing the rounds is 9k a week. I`ve got a vague memory that Doncaster may have stated this figure. The main point i am trying to get across is nothing to do with what fans thought of Howard at the time,how much he was worth etc. The fact is that the manager wanted him and the board-despite admitting they could afford him-did not back his judgement. They then continued to back a failing manager in public (but not financially),digging an even deeper hole for themselves. Is it really acceptable for a board to decide not to sign a player for "other reasons" when he is affordable and "their man" has publicly stated he wants him at the club? No wonder Worthingtons position became so undermined.