the dangers of spending big!

[In Dubious Battle 0]

Many posters on here want us to spend big money on players in order to give us a realistic chance of getting back to the premiership, what many of them fail to consider is the consequences of large investment in the playing side if promotion attempts consistenly end in failure.

You don''t need much imagination, take a look at leeds utd, yes they had some glory years but go and ask thier fans if it was all worth it? They may very well go out of business for doing the very thing many posters on here are adamant we should be doing, it makes little sense to me.

Regarding transfers people need to realise that just because we have received X amount of money from transfers does not mean it will all be automatically available to spend on reinforcements, norwich city has always been a selling club players have always had to be sold to balance the books and this goes back way before delia got involved.

It''s a hard truth to swallow but when clubs spend big in the pursuit of success they are basically gambling if they loose they become another leeds utd. NCFC is far too important to me to ever want to gamble with!

[Hotdog 0]

Another danger is we might actually do well and get promoted [:P]

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]

Many posters on here want us to spend big money on players in order to give us a realistic chance of getting back to the premiership, what many of them fail to consider is the consequences of large investment in the playing side if promotion attempts consistenly end in failure.

You don''t need much imagination, take a look at leeds utd, yes they had some glory years but go and ask thier fans if it was all worth it? They may very well go out of business for doing the very thing many posters on here are adamant we should be doing, it makes little sense to me.

Regarding transfers people need to realise that just because we have received X amount of money from transfers does not mean it will all be automatically available to spend on reinforcements, norwich city has always been a selling club players have always had to be sold to balance the books and this goes back way before delia got involved.

It''s a hard truth to swallow but when clubs spend big in the pursuit of success they are basically gambling if they loose they become another leeds utd. NCFC is far too important to me to ever want to gamble with!

[/quote]

I understand the point you make with regards to Leeds but fo every Leeds you could argue there is a Derby,Portsmouth,ect ect. Would you be happy with mid table again this season? i for one think we have been stuck in this rut far to long and believe we must take some form of risk unfortantly i believe we should of done that a few seasons ago and maybe just mabe we would be in a better position finacially and as a football club. Its clear from the last few years and certainly since we were in the prem that the prudence with ambition style of management hasnt worked as the league and finacial situation would suggest.

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

I don''t think there is too much danger of our cautious, frugal board spending big.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

Here here, I agree with every word.  However the Clucks & Smudgers of this forum believe that we shouldn''t be worrying about the finance side of things.  Apparantly the only thing we should concern ourselves with is the playing/football side of things.

Like you, I also keep one eye on the Leeds, Rotherhams, Bradford City''s of this world and am more than happy with the prudence with ambition tact.

If we go balls out we could well end up like one of those clubs, ipswich added to the list.  If we stick with our current tactic we could well become a Bolton Wanderers.  What would the posters on this forum prefer.   Maximum gamble and maybe one/two seasons of glory followed by 20 years of skint nothingness.  Or 5-10 years of sensible spending, whilst building a solid infastructure on which to build, followed by a sustained bid for A. Premier League Security & B. Competing for domestic cup honours & C. Qualifying for Europe (all ala Bolton).

[Blainsey 2]

er didnt we take a risk a few years back and get hucks/crouch/harper?

i agree with the original thread but can def see the merits of gambling/risk taking.

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="jimmy500"]

Here here, I agree with every word.  However the Clucks & Smudgers of this forum believe that we shouldn''t be worrying about the finance side of things.  Apparantly the only thing we should concern ourselves with is the playing/football side of things.

Like you, I also keep one eye on the Leeds, Rotherhams, Bradford City''s of this world and am more than happy with the prudence with ambition tact.

If we go balls out we could well end up like one of those clubs, ipswich added to the list.  If we stick with our current tactic we could well become a Bolton Wanderers.  What would the posters on this forum prefer.   Maximum gamble and maybe one/two seasons of glory followed by 20 years of skint nothingness.  Or 5-10 years of sensible spending, whilst building a solid infastructure on which to build, followed by a sustained bid for A. Premier League Security & B. Competing for domestic cup honours & C. Qualifying for Europe (all ala Bolton).

[/quote]

I see your point and I am far from being in the same camp as Smudger and Cluck but your argument does have some holes in it.

Spending big money does not guarantee success, I am sure everyone is aware of that.  However, it can help if spent well. 

We should not be put off making investments in the most crucial area of our business for fear of what may happen should we not be successful.  The same financial pitfalls are relevant should we under spend and get relegated.  Spending big money has not hurt us in anyway when we have signed the likes of action Ashton and Earnie.  I don’t think anyone would suggest we should pay over the odds for run of the mill players but when exceptional opportunities arrive we should be prepared to take that opportunity on a player that can provide good value on the pitch and potentially rise transfer value over a couple of seasons.  So far this close season we seem to have tried.

Leeds is a poor example in my book because you are talking about transfer fees spent that ran close to £100m and they paid over the odds on most occasions.  The example of Leeds will not convince me that investment in good players will eventually lead to our downfall.  Ashton may have been our most expensive signing but we made profit on him.  I would wager we have wasted more money on players who were safer, cheaper options but have given little in terms of quality and effort than Ashton.  Players I may add who have left or will leave for far less than we paid for them and only after extracting big amounts of cash from us via their wages.  Surely the same gamble applies to buying cheap sometimes because you are just throwing good money away however small the amount?  Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made. 

Spending big money is not our biggest danger.  Spending any money poorly is.

 

[ricardo 8,033]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"]

Many posters on here want us to spend big money on players in order to give us a realistic chance of getting back to the premiership, what many of them fail to consider is the consequences of large investment in the playing side if promotion attempts consistenly end in failure.

You don''t need much imagination, take a look at leeds utd, yes they had some glory years but go and ask thier fans if it was all worth it? They may very well go out of business for doing the very thing many posters on here are adamant we should be doing, it makes little sense to me.

Regarding transfers people need to realise that just because we have received X amount of money from transfers does not mean it will all be automatically available to spend on reinforcements, norwich city has always been a selling club players have always had to be sold to balance the books and this goes back way before delia got involved.

It''s a hard truth to swallow but when clubs spend big in the pursuit of success they are basically gambling if they loose they become another leeds utd. NCFC is far too important to me to ever want to gamble with!

[/quote]

All very logical SHTTA. None of us are agitating for the club to bankrupt itself.

However the consequences of under investment in the playing side are made all too obvious by the results of the last couple of seasons. We are not going to get back to the Premiership with a few loan players and a bunch of free transfers. All I am asking for is that we spend a reasonable amount of money in a realistic attempt at getting back up.

I think a sum of £5-6 million would be both reasonable and realistic. We need to spend the Earnie money plus £2-3 million on strengthening the backbone of the team. By which I mean goalkeeper, centre half, centre midfield and centre forward. Its the way all good teams are built. So far we have managed to get the Goalkeeper (Marshall) and the midfielder (Brellier) and hopefully the big centre forward (Strihavka) is on the way.

That still leaves us a good centre half and so far I have seen little sign that we are in the market for one. Somebody like Davenport would fit the bill for me and then a good creative midfielder to top it all off and we would have a realistic chance of getting somewhere.

Without investment in the playing side we are set for another year of disappointment and the disillusioned few will increase in number. The gap to the Premiership is getting bigger every year so now is the time to make that reasonable investment.

Anything less will result in another year of failure.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]We are not going to get back to the Premiership with a few loan players and a bunch of free transfers.[/quote]In our promotion season, Huckerby and Crouch were notable loan players.  I''d go so far as to say that the difference between us and the rest of the division in our promotion season was the Premiership standard loanees we brought in.  As for free transfers, whether a player is in a contract has no bearing on their quality, especially in the case of Brellier, given the way he was treated by Romanov.Spending money does not equate to success.  Building a working team around good players does.  In Brellier, Marshall, and Cureton we have players who will perform very well at Championship level, fitness permitting.

[ZLF 334]

I agree with your last comment saint - our problem is not that we havent spent,  we have,  its just that we have used the money very poorly.

Hungry talented youngsters mixed with good old heads still thirsty for success is the way to go and whether come on frees or with a multi million £ price tag is irrelevant. 

[One Flew Over... 33]

Grant needs to get us in the top 6 in time for the January transfer window, with a squad of championship players / youth and some team spirit of confidence. Then the board should take the risk and bring in some big signings - in positions where it is clear we are weakest. They may be priced higher in January than now, but we won''t have paid their wages for 5 months..

Also we can''t seem to attract the "big" names here at the moment for whatever reason. If we get ourselves in a position where it is possible to go up I''m sure this will make a big difference. I wonder if Sharp would have gone to his boyhod club if they were struggling at the bottom of the Championship, and we were poised to go up?

[ricardo 8,033]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]We are not going to get back to the Premiership with a few loan players and a bunch of free transfers.[/quote]

In our promotion season, Huckerby and Crouch were notable loan players.  I''d go so far as to say that the difference between us and the rest of the division in our promotion season was the Premiership standard loanees we brought in.  As for free transfers, whether a player is in a contract has no bearing on their quality, especially in the case of Brellier, given the way he was treated by Romanov.

Spending money does not equate to success.  Building a working team around good players does.  In Brellier, Marshall, and Cureton we have players who will perform very well at Championship level, fitness permitting.
[/quote]

Indeed, but we bought Huckerby at Christmas and should have bought Crouch but we were scared to pay the £2 million that Villa wanted. Had we got him we might not have got relegated from the Prem the following season and It would have been us that copped a nice big £5 million profit when he went to Liverpool.

Instead we paid £50k for Matt Svennson (decent player that he was) who turned out not to be good enough to keep us in the Prem and eventually left on a free.

You are right. Spending guarentees nothing, but not spending guarentees nothing but failure.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

I don''t think the amount we spend is really as relevant as some think if we can get the quality cheap all the better, however if it is neccesary to spend money to get the required talent we should only spend what we can afford.

You wouldn''t get a credit card and a load of loans and go on an extravegent spending spree in the hope that your going to get a big promotion at work next year if you work hard enough would you? it''s the same thing

Spend big yes but only if it does not risk in any way the long term future of our club!

[chicken 0]

"Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made."

Walsh and Cottee?

[Stone Cold 0]

Didn''t Walsh cost us like £8000 a minute he played for us , money well spent !!!

[Hardhouse44 289]

I for one don''t agree. You can buy yourself out of this league. Ambitions attracts players. Players who want to play in the top league in the world. The purchase of some quality player which have to be paid for will encourage the other better free to sign players to join as well.

Eastwood and Sharp wouldn''t sign for us because we couldn''t convince them that we are promotion contenders.

That is also why we lost Earnshaw. We couldn''t get promotion last term and we couldn''t convince him that it would be any better this season.

The standard of football in this league means you need to spend £8 10mil to give yourself a very good chance of promotion. That would be enough to get in top championship players on a fee whilst enticing the freebies that your on the up.

This is not a massive gamble and if spent wisely the players will be worth that and more regardless of whether you get promoted or not. Safri is about to go for £1.5 mil you telling me if we had signed Sharp and Eastwood for £5-6mil and we failed to get up we wouldn''t get the money back. If we have the money now which to some extent we do then now would be the time to do it.

The biggest problem is we don''t have the managerial or board level clout do pull all the strings at the right time to make it happen.

But that''s a different issue altogether.

.

[Smudger 0]

Leeds Utd throwing money at a  manager like David O''Leary... silly YES... but they will bounce back from where they find themselves now.

Either you do not trust Granty''s management capabilities (along with those in the boardroom), or you give him all of the money that NCFC needs to move forwards as a football club.

Quite simple really... their choice of manager... either back him or sack him Delia & Co... otherwise those of us with any sense know exactly who to blame don''t we?

Even when we sign a decent player.... we always sell him on the cheap when the first offer that is more than what we have spent on him comes along.

Quite frankly the way our club is run is an absolute JOKE...and the whole thing needs shaken hard to the core if any changes are to happen!!!

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Hardhouse44"]

I for one don''t agree. You can buy yourself out of this league. Ambitions attracts players. Players who want to play in the top league in the world. The purchase of some quality player which have to be paid for will encourage the other better free to sign players to join as well.

Eastwood and Sharp wouldn''t sign for us because we couldn''t convince them that we are promotion contenders.

That is also why we lost Earnshaw. We couldn''t get promotion last term and we couldn''t convince him that it would be any better this season.

The standard of football in this league means you need to spend £8 10mil to give yourself a very good chance of promotion. That would be enough to get in top championship players on a fee whilst enticing the freebies that your on the up.

This is not a massive gamble and if spent wisely the players will be worth that and more regardless of whether you get promoted or not. Safri is about to go for £1.5 mil you telling me if we had signed Sharp and Eastwood for £5-6mil and we failed to get up we wouldn''t get the money back. If we have the money now which to some extent we do then now would be the time to do it.

The biggest problem is we don''t have the managerial or board level clout do pull all the strings at the right time to make it happen.

But that''s a different issue altogether.

.

[/quote]

your missing the point i don''t dispute the fact that we could spend all this money and it might get us promoted but what if it doesn''t and we''re left with a huge gap in our finances the premiership money was supposed to fill? i''ll tell you what happens all the expensive players you signed will have to be returned and we''ll at best be back to square one and at worst in the sort of situation leeds find themselve''s in.

[FilletTheFishWife . 0]

You don''t have to go to extremes but there''s a helluva gulf between the excesses of Leeds Utd and the frugality at Norwich and the board need to compromise and pay competitive transfers fees and wages if they seriously want to compete for promotion.

The club made a lot money from the promotion, the premiership season, 2 years of parachute payments, and the sales of ashton, mckenzie, green and earnie plus several years of sold-out season tickets.

And each time we''re fobbed off with "adjusted " receipts and expenditure and we scrap around for bargains and hope they come good.

The board have to invest for success and that doesn''t necessarily have to compromise the club.

 

[lobster catcher 0]

Spending big is fine if you get the right players,but most good players coming to norwich would have a buy out clause in their contracts like earnshaw so what is the real point.Norwich aren''t glamorous enough for most players so no amout of money will get them here ie sharp and eastwood

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="chicken"]

"Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made."

Walsh and Cottee?

[/quote]Who ever it is the point remains.  Money spent badly, however much, is money wasted.  It''s not always about big money , it''s about value.  You have to admit though, our most "prudent" signing in recent years was also our most expensive in Ashton.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,220]

Kind of agree with what you say, and I would not want us to spend for the sake of it. Leeds are a poor example, whilst they did indeed spend big on players I think you will find that there was a certain amount of extravagance off the pitch (Risdales office for one) that contributed to their downfall. I think there is a lot in the suggestion that if you sign "big" it sends out a message to other players about the ambition of the club, it would be interesting how the fans of other Championship clubs perceive us based on who we have sold and who we have bought, does it send out a message that Norwich City mean business? 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Eastwood and Sharp wouldn''t sign for us because we couldn''t convince them that we are promotion contenders[/quote]

For the 4th time today - Sharp didn''t sign for us because Sheff Utd is his boyhood club, where he trained in their academy, and the team several generations of his family support.

Grant said he never enquired about Eastwood - I would imagine that was because his wages would have been too high.  Grant mentioned something about not putting all your eggs into one basket.   Never mind, we''ve signed a fella who scored twice as many last season, but don''t let that stop you moaning about a lack of ambition.

[quote]This is not a massive gamble[/quote]

If it''s not your money, and you don''t have all the facts about the clubs'' financial position, I don''t suppose it is.  Would you take odds of 4 - 1 with one third of your yearly income ?  Because there are easily 12 clubs just as capable of making that gamble pay off, and only 3 spaces going up.

[quote] and if spent wisely the players will be worth that and more regardless of whether you get promoted or not. Safri is about to go for £1.5 mil[/quote]

Is he ?  If we get 800k for Safri they''ll have been done, he''s in the last year of his contract and 30 years old.  I''d be amazed if we get that.

[Stevie Wonder 0]

[quote user="Saint Canary"][quote user="chicken"]

"Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made."

Walsh and Cottee?

[/quote]

Who ever it is the point remains.  Money spent badly, however much, is money wasted.  It''s not always about big money , it''s about value. 
You have to admit though, our most "prudent" signing in recent years was also our most expensive in Ashton.
[/quote]

Exactly. In general over the last 3/4 years when we have gambled with a big signing they have paid off. Mainly because we have gone for the win/win signing. We signed Hux for £750K and on a big wage to maintain a realistic bid for promotion. However, he wasn''t a gamble becuase had it gone t*ts up at the end of the season we would have been able to sign him to any number of clubs who wanted him - remember just how many clubs wanted him when we signed him. Likewise with Ashton who was 21 scoring for fun and had been touted as the "next big thing" for 2/3 years previously - he had scored something like 20 goals in half a season for Crewe and was clearly a top talent. Again there was a much lesser risk in signing him as if he was in anyway successful for a struggling prem team then there would be no shortage of takers - subsequently proved when he left for West Ham at twice what we paid. Finally, we have Earnshaw. A striker with a proven record at almost every level he has played and who is the nearest thing to a guaranteed 20 goal a season man as you will find. We were always likely to be able to sell without losing much money. Compare these to other signings over that period such as Helveg, Jonson, Hughes, Robinson, Jarrett, Louis-Jean, Colin, Charlton, Thorne and a whole host of rubbish loan players. Who have provided the best value for money?

As some on here have pointed out it is about targeting the right type of player. People like Commons, Zamora, Sharp, Varney & maybe even Macloed fall into that category.

Our board do seemed to have slipped up in their prudence with ambition nonsense in the signing of Cureton who at £750K for a soon to be 32 year old does not fit into that category. Of course if he bangs in 25 goals this year and we get promoted he will be the greatest signing in our history! 

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="Say Hello To The Angels"][quote user="Hardhouse44"]

I for one don''t agree. You can buy yourself out of this league. Ambitions attracts players. Players who want to play in the top league in the world. The purchase of some quality player which have to be paid for will encourage the other better free to sign players to join as well.

Eastwood and Sharp wouldn''t sign for us because we couldn''t convince them that we are promotion contenders.

That is also why we lost Earnshaw. We couldn''t get promotion last term and we couldn''t convince him that it would be any better this season.

The standard of football in this league means you need to spend £8 10mil to give yourself a very good chance of promotion. That would be enough to get in top championship players on a fee whilst enticing the freebies that your on the up.

This is not a massive gamble and if spent wisely the players will be worth that and more regardless of whether you get promoted or not. Safri is about to go for £1.5 mil you telling me if we had signed Sharp and Eastwood for £5-6mil and we failed to get up we wouldn''t get the money back. If we have the money now which to some extent we do then now would be the time to do it.

The biggest problem is we don''t have the managerial or board level clout do pull all the strings at the right time to make it happen.

But that''s a different issue altogether.

.

[/quote]

your missing the point i don''t dispute the fact that we could spend all this money and it might get us promoted but what if it doesn''t and we''re left with a huge gap in our finances the premiership money was supposed to fill? i''ll tell you what happens all the expensive players you signed will have to be returned and we''ll at best be back to square one and at worst in the sort of situation leeds find themselve''s in.

[/quote]

Your missing my point. Good players are worth money if you go up or not. Earnshaw didn''t go up but he was still worth good money.

I question whether we have the directors and management capable of spending it wisely enough.

Leeds is everybody''s example. But leeds spent badly. Whilst in the Premiership. We are talking about getting out of this league. By the time Leeds were a Championship team they were already doomed.

Bad investments will always be bad investments. Thats the key, get people who have the ability to make good investments. Other wise why bother. If were never going to compete then what difference is there between us and Leed of present. We''re both going nowhere fast.

No investment is risk free. But thats business, if done right reasonable investment should get you out of this very average league.

 

My point was that I don''t feel spending big is a bad thing if you do it right.

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="FilletTheFishWife ."]

You don''t have to go to extremes but there''s a helluva gulf between the excesses of Leeds Utd and the frugality at Norwich and the board need to compromise and pay competitive transfers fees and wages if they seriously want to compete for promotion.

The club made a lot money from the promotion, the premiership season, 2 years of parachute payments, and the sales of ashton, mckenzie, green and earnie plus several years of sold-out season tickets.

And each time we''re fobbed off with "adjusted " receipts and expenditure and we scrap around for bargains and hope they come good.

The board have to invest for success and that doesn''t necessarily have to compromise the club.

 

[/quote]

Spot on. Nail on head. Exactly.

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="chicken"]

"Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made."

Walsh and Cottee?

[/quote]

£8000 a week over 2 years...  104 * £8000 = £832,000  + signing on fee. 

Not many goal bonuses to worry about tho.

[Hardhouse44 289]

[quote user="lobster catcher"]Spending big is fine if you get the right players,but most good players coming to norwich would have a buy out clause in their contracts like earnshaw so what is the real point.Norwich aren''t glamorous enough for most players so no amout of money will get them here ie sharp and eastwood[/quote]

The club it''s self does everything to make it'' self non glamorous. We told constantly we''re little old Norwich. However players come for money and fame all of which is waiting for them in the premiership. Players like Eastwood and Sharp want to get there. Thats all they consider when they join their prospective new clubs. The didn''t feel that they would achieve it a Norwich City. That has nothing to do with whether were are popular well supported or glamorous it''s to do with the fact the they felt we lacked the players and ambition to do it.

It doesn''t take a fool to see that even with a top class player like Earnshaw we couldn''t get with a mile of the player offs let alone promotion last term. And Sharp and Eastwood would realise that if they replace him and we don''t add any other quality were not going anywhere again. We obviously couldn''t show them enough ambition outside their own transfer.

[DONT REMEMBER YOUR TENURE AS ENGLAND MANAGER 0]

I would wager we have wasted more money on players who were safer, cheaper options but have given little in terms of quality and effort than Ashton.  Players I may add who have left or will leave for far less than we paid for them and only after extracting big amounts of cash from us via their wages.  Surely the same gamble applies to buying cheap sometimes because you are just throwing good money away however small the amount?  Peter Thorne must be the most expensive “free” signing we have ever made. 

 

Great point Sain Canary, Totally spot on

[ZLF 334]

Spending big CAN get you promotion but was Wolves are aware it far from guarantees success.  Several clubs spent large last season and failed and are losing key players - eg Soton and Baggies.   

City could splash 2/3 years of transfer budgets this summer and sign ''quality'', ''good value'' players but still not get promoted for any one of 100 reasons,  and leave us broke for the next couple of years. Like Leeds or Man City before them, we would bounce back;  the only question would be how quickly.

However more fans would cry outrage if the club was left destitute and relegated trying to overstretch for a dream in a season; There has to be some plan for tomorrow and contingencies as well as being ambitious today.  Its a damn difficult one to balance and I for one am glad I dont have to make that call.

So far we seem to be having our best summers transfer activity in a long long while;  no, the mega stars we may want are not coming here but we are rebuilding a threadbare squad by filling the obvious gaps with young player who seem to have a future in the game.   Having to buy so many new faces this season always meant that we would have to pick and chose carefully,   but a £1m keeper and a couple of strikers who can score (top in their league) and free midfielder suggests that Grant is using the cash he has well to shape the squad as effectively as he could.  

Breaking the bank to get sign sharp and Marshall but not getting a right back, midfielder etc etc etc would not have made us competetive next season. 

More significantly most of our competitors have not gained a huge march on us with their signings;  reinforcing the feeling that the club is doing OK.