We're to proceed on the cheap, I see.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=54868

OTBC

[First Jedi 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=54868

OTBC

[/quote]

We can''t buy unless they are free since the transfer market closed. Would you rather we didn''t bother at all?

[Gingerpele 0]

if we spent 1 mill or more on very player we wouldnt be able to buy many, therefore we whould have to hvae kept all the rubbish we threw away (i.e thorne, mcviegh) cos the squad whould be very small

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

Hopefully this may mean a move for Derek Riordan in January, especially if Brown doesn''t show any promise or if Hucks announces its his last season with us.

Personally I can see logic in PG''s raiding of the SPL for players. Many of them can match Championship or even Premiership standards of football but earn about a third of the wages. That to me is an ideal situation for clubs like ourselves to buy quality and afford the wages too. Too many people under-estimate the standard of football in the SPL - its not as bad as they think. Provided the players he chooses are genuinely good (goes without saying where ever you buy from) I don''t care how little they cost.

[blahblahblah 2]

The largest financial component of any player signing for us is his wages. It applies to Dion Dublins'' free aswell as Ashtons'' record transfer. We have shown over the summer that we will pay for players.  If Marshall has a bad spell in goal, will he become "too expensive" in your eyes Bly ?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]The largest financial component of any player signing for us is his wages. It applies to Dion Dublins'' free aswell as Ashtons'' record transfer. We have shown over the summer that we will pay for players.  If Marshall has a bad spell in goal, will he become "too expensive" in your eyes Bly ?

[/quote]

Ermmmmm..........?

Could you say that again please?

OTBC

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Ermmmmm..........?

Could you say that again please?[/quote]

Nearly all Transfer fees cost less than paying the wages of the player transferred.In the example below (which I chose only because the figures are in the public domain) , an apple = 1000 pounds.*******The transfer of Luke Varney cost 2000 apples.Luke gets 17 apples a week.2000 / 17 = 118 weeks.If Luke is on a contract of more than 2 years and 14 weeks, then his wages will cost Charlton more than his transfer fee.  And he''s one of the more expensive transfers at this level.  If Luke is bought out of his contract earlier, then the club are more than likely to recoup the transfer fee.We did spend money on players over the summer on Marsall and Cureton.  If they play badly, will you claim that they are too expensive ?And what is your opinion of the signing of Dion Dublin ?

[we8wba 0]

[quote user="ob1"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

http://www.tribalfootball.com/article.php?id=54868

OTBC

[/quote]

We can''t buy unless they are free since the transfer market closed. Would you rather we didn''t bother at all?

[/quote]

technically this is wrong, my team wolves agreed to take michael kightly and michael mcindoe on loan bout nov/dec time with a fee already agreed for the pair to sign on jan 1st! maybe norwich could go down this route of transfers! dont know if it applies to foreign league i.e the spl

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Ermmmmm..........?

Could you say that again please?[/quote]

Nearly all Transfer fees cost less than paying the wages of the player transferred.

In the example below (which I chose only because the figures are in the public domain) , an apple = 1000 pounds.

*******

The transfer of Luke Varney cost 2000 apples.

Luke gets 17 apples a week.

2000 / 17 = 118 weeks.

If Luke is on a contract of more than 2 years and 14 weeks, then his wages will cost Charlton more than his transfer fee.  And he''s one of the more expensive transfers at this level.  If Luke is bought out of his contract earlier, then the club are more than likely to recoup the transfer fee.

We did spend money on players over the summer on Marsall and Cureton.  If they play badly, will you claim that they are too expensive ?

And what is your opinion of the signing of Dion Dublin ?

[/quote]

Whether or not one pays a transfer fee, one has to pay wages. ''Twas ever thus.

You are confusing two things.

Wages are recurrent expenditure.

Transfer fees represent capital expenditure. And when a player for whom a fee is paid joins the club, he goes on the books as an financial asset.

Want to try to change the argument again?

OTBC  

 

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

Firstly, how the **** did we miss out on Luke Varney if Charlton are paying him in apples?

BlyBly totally agree mate.

Yes the transfer window is closed and we can''t buy anyone now, but when it was open, for the last however many weeks we only looked at loans and frees, why?

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Ermmmmm..........?

Could you say that again please?[/quote]

Nearly all Transfer fees cost less than paying the wages of the player transferred.

In the example below (which I chose only because the figures are in the public domain) , an apple = 1000 pounds.

*******

The transfer of Luke Varney cost 2000 apples.

Luke gets 17 apples a week.

2000 / 17 = 118 weeks.

If Luke is on a contract of more than 2 years and 14 weeks, then his wages will cost Charlton more than his transfer fee.  And he''s one of the more expensive transfers at this level.  If Luke is bought out of his contract earlier, then the club are more than likely to recoup the transfer fee.

We did spend money on players over the summer on Marsall and Cureton.  If they play badly, will you claim that they are too expensive ?

And what is your opinion of the signing of Dion Dublin ?

[/quote]

Whether or not one pays a transfer fee, one has to pay wages. ''Twas ever thus.

You are confusing two things.

Wages are recurrent expenditure.

Transfer fees represent capital expenditure. And when a player for whom a fee is paid joins the club, he goes on the books as an financial asset.

Want to try to change the argument again?

OTBC  

 

[/quote]

I don''t think he needs to. All he is saying is that you are being misleading by implying that because we didn''t pay large transfer fees, we haven''t committed decent amounts of money in securing our current playing squad. All too often people disregard the cumlative cost of wages because they aren''t shown as a lump sum, when it can actually be a consequential amount. Simple as that.  

[Mello Yello 2,572]

What if most of the apples are rotten?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

MacD said

I don''t think he needs to. All he is saying is that you are being misleading by implying that because we didn''t pay large transfer fees, we haven''t committed decent amounts of money in securing our current playing squad. All too often people disregard the cumlative cost of wages because they aren''t shown as a lump sum, when it can actually be a consequential amount. Simple as that.  

We can just about afford wages as usual, but we can barely afford to pay transfer fees again.

Have we not shrunk?

Who''s being misleading?

OTBC

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Have we not shrunk?[/quote]Losing parachute payments inevitably leads to shrinkage.[quote]Who''s being misleading?[/quote]I don''t think either of us are - I''ll come clean on this, for some reason I thought I was answering another thread about the possible free transfer of the Cameroon player.  I''ve just checked and it looks like that thread doesn''t exist.  Oops, too much coffee yesterday [:)].  Although if we''re looking at decent quality low-wage players, their transfer fees will probably be low too.  I think it makes sense to cut your cloth accordingly rather than take high-wage risks on veterans as some have done in this league.

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

MacD said

I don''t think he needs to. All he is saying is that you are being misleading by implying that because we didn''t pay large transfer fees, we haven''t committed decent amounts of money in securing our current playing squad. All too often people disregard the cumlative cost of wages because they aren''t shown as a lump sum, when it can actually be a consequential amount. Simple as that.  

We can just about afford wages as usual, but we can barely afford to pay transfer fees again.

Have we not shrunk?

Who''s being misleading?

OTBC

[/quote]

Showing your age again BBB, footballs changed in case you haven''t noticed and is all about wages now rather than transfer fees. Time was the transfer free was the largest component of a transfer now it is largely wages & the related agents fees. This is why all those numptys run on about adding the fees in & fees out and say we are doing it on the cheap. I suspect the frees are far from cheap and easily match what would have been paid in the past. Remember a footballers contract is a liability so a free transfer on £5k a week and and a three year contract costs £750k + fees and starts to depreciate from the moment he signs.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="BigFish"]

Showing your age again BBB, footballs changed in case you haven''t noticed and is all about wages now rather than transfer fees. Time was the transfer free was the largest component of a transfer now it is largely wages & the related agents fees. This is why all those numptys run on about adding the fees in & fees out and say we are doing it on the cheap. I suspect the frees are far from cheap and easily match what would have been paid in the past. Remember a footballers contract is a liability so a free transfer on £5k a week and and a three year contract costs £750k + fees and starts to depreciate from the moment he signs.

[/quote]

In the days of big transfer fees the players got paid too though. It''s just that players contracts are worth so much now. That''s why so many players agents try to put ridiculously low release clauses into contracts because the less paid on transfers the more there is for the players contracts and agents fees etc. It''s all part of the game now and we have to learn to live with it and deal with it.

I think one of the fairest criticisms of our board is that they failed to get to grips with the transfer window and the problems it created soon enough. It seems that this summer some lessons have been learned because although there is mass hysteria on this message board because we didnt sign anyone in the final week I''m sure the club is much better off through doing their business earlier in the summer.

Things were much simpler when the biggest cost of a player was the transfer fee, in those days most of the money stayed in the game circulating around the clubs as players were bought and sold. Now more of  it goes out of the game into players and agents pockets making doing the sums of transfer fees in/out and money left over more difficult.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Things were much simpler when the biggest cost of a player was the

transfer fee, in those days most of the money stayed in the game

circulating around the clubs as players were bought and sold. Now more

of  it goes out of the game into players and agents pockets making

doing the sums of transfer fees in/out and money left over more

difficult.[/quote]Hmm - how to keep the players'' money in the game ?How about a bling boutique in the Barclay End, for the Wags (thin) ''air an'' (massive) booty ?  Or a breast enlargement clinic by the hotel ?  Could the pitch double up as a nightclub venue during the summer ?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

MacD said

I don''t think he needs to. All he is saying is that you are being misleading by implying that because we didn''t pay large transfer fees, we haven''t committed decent amounts of money in securing our current playing squad. All too often people disregard the cumlative cost of wages because they aren''t shown as a lump sum, when it can actually be a consequential amount. Simple as that.  

We can just about afford wages as usual, but we can barely afford to pay transfer fees again.

Have we not shrunk?

Who''s being misleading?

OTBC

[/quote]

Showing your age again BBB, footballs changed in case you haven''t noticed and is all about wages now rather than transfer fees. Time was the transfer free was the largest component of a transfer now it is largely wages & the related agents fees. This is why all those numptys run on about adding the fees in & fees out and say we are doing it on the cheap. I suspect the frees are far from cheap and easily match what would have been paid in the past. Remember a footballers contract is a liability so a free transfer on £5k a week and and a three year contract costs £750k + fees and starts to depreciate from the moment he signs.

[/quote]

Of course there''s some truth in what you say BigFish. But a couple of  things.

What you say does not invalidate the fact that we are ''unable/unwilling'' to match most of the competition on transfer fees. This is the market where quality players are still traded for the most part. ''Frees'' are usually other peoples spoilt, unwanted, sub-standard and/or outdated merchandise - although of course there is the odd bargain to be had.

If one lived in Great Yarmouth, for example, it''s rather like the difference between purchasing one''s goods in Palmer''s as opposed the the adjacent Wednesday/Saturday marketplace. One might pay a lower  price for a suitcase or pair of shoes from the market, but one is highly likely to get far more quality and utility from the suitcase/shoes purchased from Palmer''s. That''s just a fact of life. Further, it is quite likely that one will have to dump the marketplace suitcase after two years or so, but get five/ten years excellent service from the Palmer''s sourced suitcase.

The fact is that in football (far more often than not) one gets what one pays for. And it was ever thus.

We are proceeding on the cheap (a) because our leadership has largely wasted the  Prem and parachute ''windfalls'' and (b) has determined that the club is not to run at a loss (season by season) - at the instigation of the Turners one gathers.

.I repeat. The very plain fact is that we are proceeding on the cheap in the 5th richest league in the world, having wasted the Prem/parachute proceeds, and in the face of virtually capacity crowds. Something is wrong. Guess what.

OTBC

 

 

  

 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]What you say does not invalidate the fact that we are ''unable/unwilling'' to match most of the competition on transfer fees.[/quote]We matched Charltons'' transfer fee for Luke Varney, if not their wages.  Is 17,000 a week for an unproven league 1 striker reasonable ?  We matched Sheff Utd''s terms for Billy Sharp, in fact Scunthorpes'' chairman made a point of saying that no other club had matched what we offered by the time Sheff Utd came calling.[quote]If one lived in Great Yarmouth, for example, it''s rather like the

difference between purchasing one''s goods in Palmer''s as opposed the

the adjacent Wednesday/Saturday marketplace. One might pay a lower

 price for a suitcase or pair of shoes from the market, but one is

highly likely to get far more quality and utility from the

suitcase/shoes purchased from Palmer''s. That''s just a fact of life.

Further, it is quite likely that one will have to dump the marketplace

suitcase after two years or so, but get five/ten years excellent

service from the Palmer''s sourced suitcase.[/quote]Players that play for a club for 5 years these days are a rarity.  You don''t get that longer-term return on investment in this situation, so your analogy doesn''t stand. And anyway, if you can''t afford a suitcase from Palmers, because you also need to buy clothes to put in the suitcase, what should you do ?  Borrow beyond your means to have a full suitcase from Palmers ?  Or just carry an empty Palmers suitcase around ?Do you have shares in Palmers ?[quote]The very plain fact is that we are proceeding on the cheap in the 5th

richest league in the world, having wasted the Prem/parachute

proceeds, and in the face of virtually capacity crowds. Something is

wrong. Guess what.[/quote]In my opinion, the thing that is wrong is that too many of our opponents are spending beyond their means in order to get a seat at a bigger table.  If you believe that NCFC shouldn''t be run as a business, then you either need to do something to intervene, or prepare for disappointment, because the people in line to the throne do.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]What you say does not invalidate the fact that we are ''unable/unwilling'' to match most of the competition on transfer fees.[/quote]

We matched Charltons'' transfer fee for Luke Varney, if not their wages.  Is 17,000 a week for an unproven league 1 striker reasonable ?  We matched Sheff Utd''s terms for Billy Sharp, in fact Scunthorpes'' chairman made a point of saying that no other club had matched what we offered by the time Sheff Utd came calling.

[quote]If one lived in Great Yarmouth, for example, it''s rather like the difference between purchasing one''s goods in Palmer''s as opposed the the adjacent Wednesday/Saturday marketplace. One might pay a lower  price for a suitcase or pair of shoes from the market, but one is highly likely to get far more quality and utility from the suitcase/shoes purchased from Palmer''s. That''s just a fact of life. Further, it is quite likely that one will have to dump the marketplace suitcase after two years or so, but get five/ten years excellent service from the Palmer''s sourced suitcase.[/quote]

Players that play for a club for 5 years these days are a rarity.  You don''t get that longer-term return on investment in this situation, so your analogy doesn''t stand. And anyway, if you can''t afford a suitcase from Palmers, because you also need to buy clothes to put in the suitcase, what should you do ?  Borrow beyond your means to have a full suitcase from Palmers ?  Or just carry an empty Palmers suitcase around ?

Do you have shares in Palmers ?

[quote]The very plain fact is that we are proceeding on the cheap in the 5th richest league in the world, having wasted the Prem/parachute proceeds, and in the face of virtually capacity crowds. Something is wrong. Guess what.[/quote]

In my opinion, the thing that is wrong is that too many of our opponents are spending beyond their means in order to get a seat at a bigger table.  If you believe that NCFC shouldn''t be run as a business, then you either need to do something to intervene, or prepare for disappointment, because the people in line to the throne do.

[/quote]

1 out of 10. Fail.[:(]

So I''m in line for the throne? Is that what you''re saying?[:)]

OTBC

 

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]What you say does not invalidate the fact that we are ''unable/unwilling'' to match most of the competition on transfer fees.[/quote]

We matched Charltons'' transfer fee for Luke Varney, if not their wages.  Is 17,000 a week for an unproven league 1 striker reasonable ?  We matched Sheff Utd''s terms for Billy Sharp, in fact Scunthorpes'' chairman made a point of saying that no other club had matched what we offered by the time Sheff Utd came calling.

[quote]If one lived in Great Yarmouth, for example, it''s rather like the difference between purchasing one''s goods in Palmer''s as opposed the the adjacent Wednesday/Saturday marketplace. One might pay a lower  price for a suitcase or pair of shoes from the market, but one is highly likely to get far more quality and utility from the suitcase/shoes purchased from Palmer''s. That''s just a fact of life. Further, it is quite likely that one will have to dump the marketplace suitcase after two years or so, but get five/ten years excellent service from the Palmer''s sourced suitcase.[/quote]

Players that play for a club for 5 years these days are a rarity.  You don''t get that longer-term return on investment in this situation, so your analogy doesn''t stand. And anyway, if you can''t afford a suitcase from Palmers, because you also need to buy clothes to put in the suitcase, what should you do ?  Borrow beyond your means to have a full suitcase from Palmers ?  Or just carry an empty Palmers suitcase around ?

Do you have shares in Palmers ?

[quote]The very plain fact is that we are proceeding on the cheap in the 5th richest league in the world, having wasted the Prem/parachute proceeds, and in the face of virtually capacity crowds. Something is wrong. Guess what.[/quote]

In my opinion, the thing that is wrong is that too many of our opponents are spending beyond their means in order to get a seat at a bigger table.  If you believe that NCFC shouldn''t be run as a business, then you either need to do something to intervene, or prepare for disappointment, because the people in line to the throne do.

[/quote]

1 out of 10. Fail.[:(]

So I''m in line for the throne? Is that what you''re saying?[:)]

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Second time around for this post after the previous one got deleted for abuse[:O]. Please answer balhblahblah''s post if you don''t mind.

Polite enough for you web team???[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

In my opinion, the thing that is wrong is that too many of our opponents are spending beyond their means in order to get a seat at a bigger table.  If you believe that NCFC shouldn''t be run as a business, then you either need to do something to intervene, or prepare for disappointment, because the people in line to the throne do.

[/quote]

I want NCFC to be run as a football club thanks, not a business...

Unfortunatly the Turners think they can ''cut costs''...  When your top players are taking home £10,000 a week, I doubt much can be done at a club like ours to ''cut costs''.  It isn''t as if the current people in charge are doing a Chase and wasting money hand over fist.

To be honest Norwich City is not run under a ''results come first'' policy, muchlike the England national team really, untill this changes we are heading only one way... downwards.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I want NCFC to be run as a football club thanks, not a business...[/quote]Since 1992, over 40 football league clubs have been into administration, that''s nearly two thirds of them.  You''re sick of hearing about Leeds, but what about Leicester, Ipswich, Wimbledon, Boston United, and the others ?  Sooner or later the TV money bubble will burst, sugardaddies will get bored, and football league clubs will have to fold.  Even if the Turners were the type to splash the cash, there''s no guarantee that we''d get out of a division that requires high-tempo ugly wins, ask any Wolves fan.  I think the board are trying to do things the right way for the club.  So sue me [:)]

[ricky knight 0]

I want us to compete in this division let alone get out of it. Sometimes you have to speculate to accummulate, This board would not give you a spot if it had an outbreak of measles.