Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing

[ncfclad 0]

Just been having look at our transfer fees from the last 3 years. Doncaster said before the Earnie sale that the £2m loan from the turners will mean we wont need to sell any players. So lets look at the fees just for this season. There is a profit of £3.4m this season from transfer fees plus the £1.1m that we dont need to pay for Strihavka that we agreed earlier on this season.

So we should have around £4.5m to spend this summer, obviously that is unlikely.

2007/08 Season	IN	Matty Pattison	£500,000
		David Strihavka	£240,000
		Jamie Cureton	£800,000
		Darel Russell	£410,000
		David Marshall	£1,000,000	£2,950,000
	OUT	Joe Lewis	£400,000
		Chris Brown	£400,000
		Robert Earnshaw	£3,500,000
		Dickson Etuhu	£1,500,000
		Youssef Safri	£250,000
		Andy Hughes	£200,000
		Jurgen Colin	£100,000	£6,350,000
2006/07 Season	IN	Chris Brown	£275,000
		Simon Lappin	£50,000
		Luke Chadwick	£200,000
		Lee Croft	£700,000	£1,225,000
	OUT	Leon Mckenzie	£600,000
		Robert Green	£2,000,000	£2,600,000
2005/06 Season	IN	Robert Earnshaw	£3,000,000
		Dickson Etuhu	£600,000
		Jurgen Colin	£260,000
		Andy Hughes	£500,000
		Carl Robinson	£50,000	£4,410,000
	OUT	Dean Ashton	£7,125,000
		Damien Francis	£2,250,000
		Thomas Helveg	£169,000
		Mattias Svensson	£100,000
		Mattias Jonson	£700,000	£10,344,000
Total	Incoming			£8,585,000
	Outgoing			£19,294,000

[blahblahblah 2]

Unfortunately, it''s not quite that straightforward.  Transfer fees are only a small part of the overall cost of employing a player.  Also, there is no mention of loan fees, or signing on fees for free transfers.

[we8wba 0]

what about maitence work? training and youth development?

cheif exectuvie take few hundred thousand im sure

as mentioned above sadly its not that easy

[ncfclad 0]

Of course its difficult to include all that as we dont know how much it cost, I just thought it was interesting to see how much on transfer fees alone.

[kdncfc 0]

Even allowing for any other fees I''d be very surprised if there wasn''t at least a 7 million profit on player trading, even if half of that had been reinvested we''d be in a far better state than we are now.

[colneycanary 0]

Different story his summer though! We don''t have anyone who is worth much, apart from Croft and Marshall maybe. Its going to be all money going out with very little coming in.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="kdncfc"]Even allowing for any other fees I''d be very surprised if there wasn''t at least a 7 million profit on player trading, even if half of that had been reinvested we''d be in a far better state than we are now.[/quote]

Would 3 years worth of loans come to about 3.5 million do you reckon ?  I do.

[ricardo 7,395]

The truth is that we have always been a club that buys cheap and sells big.

It''s been going on ever since I can remember and thats over 50 years.

Do not believe any claptrap coming out of Carrow Road that claims that any transfer income is put towards new players.

It never has been and never will be the case.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Agents fees arent a great deal, im sure they are published each year in the press.

[Felixfan 53]

It is a fact of life that bums on seats do not pay the wages so the shortfall has to be met from profits on player sales,parachute money or the much maligned off-field activity.

[Bovril 219]

I think ''ncfc lad'' realises there is more to it finacially then ins and outs of transfer fees, but never-the-less its still an interesting post as its nice to see what we actually paid and recieved for players

for those that simply see the numbers don''t forget the vast majority of these transfers such as ashton, the money recieved will not all arrive in the same financial period, often its in installments and probably set-off against building costs, other players wages, non-playing staff and sundry costs to name a few

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="ncfclad"]

Just been having look at our transfer fees from the last 3 years. Doncaster said before the Earnie sale that the £2m loan from the turners will mean we wont need to sell any players. So lets look at the fees just for this season. There is a profit of £3.4m this season from transfer fees plus the £1.1m that we dont need to pay for Strihavka that we agreed earlier on this season.

So we should have around £4.5m to spend this summer, obviously that is unlikely.

2007/08 Season	IN	Matty Pattison	£500,000
		David Strihavka	£240,000
		Jamie Cureton	£800,000
		Darel Russell	£410,000
		David Marshall	£1,000,000	£2,950,000
	OUT	Joe Lewis	£400,000
		Chris Brown	£400,000
		Robert Earnshaw	£3,500,000
		Dickson Etuhu	£1,500,000
		Youssef Safri	£250,000
		Andy Hughes	£200,000
		Jurgen Colin	£100,000	£6,350,000
2006/07 Season	IN	Chris Brown	£275,000
		Simon Lappin	£50,000
		Luke Chadwick	£200,000
		Lee Croft	£700,000	£1,225,000
	OUT	Leon Mckenzie	£600,000
		Robert Green	£2,000,000	£2,600,000
2005/06 Season	IN	Robert Earnshaw	£3,000,000
		Dickson Etuhu	£600,000
		Jurgen Colin	£260,000
		Andy Hughes	£500,000
		Carl Robinson	£50,000	£4,410,000
	OUT	Dean Ashton	£7,125,000
		Damien Francis	£2,250,000
		Thomas Helveg	£169,000
		Mattias Svensson	£100,000
		Mattias Jonson	£700,000	£10,344,000
Total	Incoming			£8,585,000
	Outgoing			£19,294,000

[/quote]

Looks to me like they have pumped loads of money in [:D]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

It all has to be viewed in the context of the fact that the club have received £14m parachute payments over and above ordinary income during that period, which should have allowed the managers far more scope in the transfer market.

[Jonny 5 0]

A lot of the fees aren''t straight lump sums either, I''m pretty sure with McKenzie and Green we receive the money slowly depending on apprences/goals. Also half the transfer fees published in the press are guesses or the clubs straight out lying. And ever time a player signs a new contract they will get a nice signing on fee, and all the "free" transfers have one off payments to the players so it really is impossible to tell.I do think we have taken more than we have spent, but if you add in the season before when we bought Hucks, McKenzie etc then it might start to even out a bit.I think there will be cash for Roeder, a few million I guess. I also think nearly every transfer fee will be "undisclosed" as it is never polite to go around shouting how much money you have [:)]

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Jonny 5"]A lot of the fees aren''t straight lump sums either, I''m pretty sure with McKenzie and Green we receive the money slowly depending on apprences/goals. Also half the transfer fees published in the press are guesses or the clubs straight out lying. And ever time a player signs a new contract they will get a nice signing on fee, and all the "free" transfers have one off payments to the players so it really is impossible to tell.

I do think we have taken more than we have spent, but if you add in the season before when we bought Hucks, McKenzie etc then it might start to even out a bit.

I think there will be cash for Roeder, a few million I guess. I also think nearly every transfer fee will be "undisclosed" as it is never polite to go around shouting how much money you have [:)]
[/quote]

A lot of the fees were recieved in instalments but you can also buy players and pay for them in stages so it doesn''t really make any difference as long as you know you are going to get the money.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

completely understand we''re a championship club and that''s how it works,... blah blah blah, however, going back to our premiership season, we hardly spent big, and the big signings we have made have gone on for a profit, even mattias jonson left for what we got him. We also have 15 senior players on the books, i.e lowish wage spending. Obviously, i know it''s not a simple as a computer game..., but there''s something in this, and I wanna know where the money is, as a few people seem to think we have only £1.5m to spend

[Tetteys Jig 830]

adding to the point above about you calculating £4.5m, we''d also have the standard yearly pot of transfer funds we would earn from season ticket sales, sponsorship and prize money... are you telling me all that (and perhaps more) has been eaten up by wages, maintainence...

[Mello Yello 2,296]

What about the meagre amount of ''Sky'' money that we were given during our flirt with the big guns? What happened to that.....?

 

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

I think this is a good point.  £11m transfer shortfall yes, transfer profit to fund the football club is inevitable in this league.  But in fairness when you look at the numbers a 4.5m transfer budget is not inconceivable.  I still reckon it is going to be about £3m, but spent wisely we could do alright with that.  Especially if we can find players like Hoolahan and Gorkss who have release clauses.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

What about the meagre amount of ''Sky'' money that we were given during our flirt with the big guns? What happened to that.....?

 

[/quote]

Funny how the paltry sum of £34m can be so easily glossed over isn`t it?  I really am starting to wonder as to the motives of some posters on here, some people seem totally incapable- or unwilling- to take a step back and look at the big picture in a logical and unbiased way. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]Even allowing for any other fees I''d be very surprised if there wasn''t at least a 7 million profit on player trading, even if half of that had been reinvested we''d be in a far better state than we are now.[/quote]

Would 3 years worth of loans come to about 3.5 million do you reckon ?  I do.

[/quote]

Words fail me......[:|]

[claud 0]

It''s not about how much we have bought and sold for. It''s about who we have bought and sold.

West Brom, Stoke, Bristol City or Hull/Watford. Off the top of my head, three of these clubs have spending which must be similar to ours (if not less).

[ZLF 274]

Our annual budget stands up well in the league - its just the managers have not used the budget well;   If I recall correctly our budget is in the top third size wise,  yet we have failed to finish anywhere near the top 8.

Its the squad and managers that are underperforming...  when  they need to be outperforming.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

What about the meagre amount of ''Sky'' money that we were given during our flirt with the big guns? What happened to that.....?

 

[/quote]

Funny how the paltry sum of £34m can be so easily glossed over isn`t it?  I really am starting to wonder as to the motives of some posters on here, some people seem totally incapable- or unwilling- to take a step back and look at the big picture in a logical and unbiased way. 

[/quote]

Another little nugget which many seem to have conveniently forgotten about is that in the first two seasons back down the club made £12m in profits and wasted £2m as a gift to the taxman.  Can someone explain to me how it is prudent to throw £2m away when the team is starved of funds and in decline, and how it in any way benefits the club?

[Trent Canary 0]

I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.

[GMF 747]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[Trent Canary 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[Mello Yello 2,296]

Yes, but where''s the ''Sky'' money GONE!.......[:^)]

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

Our annual budget stands up well in the league - its just the managers have not used the budget well;   If I recall correctly our budget is in the top third size wise,  yet we have failed to finish anywhere near the top 8.

Its the squad and managers that are underperforming...  when  they need to be outperforming.

 

[/quote]that may have been the case while we were cushioned with chute payments, but i doubt if that was the case last season or certainly next.  for starters, this coming season, theres the 3 relegated clubs - add in watford, sheff utd and charlton - and assuming hull goes up - bristol city.  then theres mega rich QPR, wolves with a scouse consortium behind them, then coventry with ray ranson prepared to stump up the readies.  then burnley are prepared to add to their squad - trying to bring andrew cole in and others - who are decent earners.  then  from the prmoted sides, forest have an ambitious chairman.  cardiff are in trouble, but have a bigger sqaud budget than us - and will probably get refinanced in the summer.  and what about preston - who spent nowt in the summer, and looked relegation candidates, until a new chairman and money meant they could spend in the jan window.  and thens theres ipswich - they will probably have more to spend than us.  and what bout palace - sure to back warnock after his efforts this year???in other words - there are likely to be 12-15 other teams who have better financed squads than ours.  we are more likely to be competeing with the likes of blackpool and barnsley in terms of budget...A BOTTOM THIRD financed squad, unless we have £6-7m to spend!!!lets all hope we have at least £4m to spend to give us a dogs chance.  its clear, anything less than that puts us well below the spending of most other teams in an increasingly competitive champs league.  in short - less than £4m must have as a ambition to escape relegation first, and once acheived look to get as close to the top 6 as poss.  imo - this is closer to the truth...