Maybe it's not the cash that's the problem after all....

[slater 0]

Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club. People on this board have continually argued the toss over whether enough cash has been spent on the football side of Norwich City.  I had no idea whether £8.5m was a pittance or extremely generous in Championship terms but this article suggests that we we still spend more on our player wage bill than than around least half of the Championship. It looks like our wage bill is somewhere close to average for the division.The top eight (inc. Birmingham, Wolves, Reading QPR and the Arms Dealers south of the border) and two clubs in our cohort have either got wealthy benefactors or parachute payments. The article then goes on to look at this season''s performance of the different teams in relation to how wealthy they are. Norwich City is second bottom in terms of bangs per buck. Or if you prefer, we don''t pay peanuts but we seem to have got monkies. The other main under achievers include (from worst to least worst) Charlton, Derby, Forest, Watford, QPR and the not-so-super blues down the road. It''s fascinating - have a look.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

People on this board have continually argued the toss over whether enough cash has been spent on the football side of Norwich City.  I had no idea whether £8.5m was a pittance or extremely generous in Championship terms but this article suggests that we we still spend more on our player wage bill than than around least half of the Championship. It looks like our wage bill is somewhere close to average for the division.

The top eight (inc. Birmingham, Wolves, Reading QPR and the Arms Dealers south of the border) and two clubs in our cohort have either got wealthy benefactors or parachute payments.

The article then goes on to look at this season''s performance of the different teams in relation to how wealthy they are. Norwich City is second bottom in terms of bangs per buck. Or if you prefer, we don''t pay peanuts but we seem to have got monkies. The other main under achievers include (from worst to least worst) Charlton, Derby, Forest, Watford, QPR and the not-so-super blues down the road. It''s fascinating - have a look.
[/quote]

 

Interesting stuff, and tends to confirm my view that much of the problem is down to very poor player recruitment going back over several managers, all appointed by the current board.

[Smeg 0]

the wage bill must take into account the directors /CEO wages

 

8.5m could = 17 players on 10k a week?? i dont think so!!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

People on this board have continually argued the toss over whether enough cash has been spent on the football side of Norwich City.  I had no idea whether £8.5m was a pittance or extremely generous in Championship terms but this article suggests that we we still spend more on our player wage bill than than around least half of the Championship. It looks like our wage bill is somewhere close to average for the division.

The top eight (inc. Birmingham, Wolves, Reading QPR and the Arms Dealers south of the border) and two clubs in our cohort have either got wealthy benefactors or parachute payments.

The article then goes on to look at this season''s performance of the different teams in relation to how wealthy they are. Norwich City is second bottom in terms of bangs per buck. Or if you prefer, we don''t pay peanuts but we seem to have got monkies. The other main under achievers include (from worst to least worst) Charlton, Derby, Forest, Watford, QPR and the not-so-super blues down the road. It''s fascinating - have a look.
[/quote]

Interesting stuff, and tends to confirm my view that much of the problem is down to very poor player recruitment going back over several managers, all appointed by the current board.

[/quote]

Who was in charge of player recruitment under Roeder (and Grant)?[:$]

Or was he just the message boy? Let''s hope so.

OTBC

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

People on this board have continually argued the toss over whether enough cash has been spent on the football side of Norwich City.  I had no idea whether £8.5m was a pittance or extremely generous in Championship terms but this article suggests that we we still spend more on our player wage bill than than around least half of the Championship. It looks like our wage bill is somewhere close to average for the division.

The top eight (inc. Birmingham, Wolves, Reading QPR and the Arms Dealers south of the border) and two clubs in our cohort have either got wealthy benefactors or parachute payments.

The article then goes on to look at this season''s performance of the different teams in relation to how wealthy they are. Norwich City is second bottom in terms of bangs per buck. Or if you prefer, we don''t pay peanuts but we seem to have got monkies. The other main under achievers include (from worst to least worst) Charlton, Derby, Forest, Watford, QPR and the not-so-super blues down the road. It''s fascinating - have a look.
[/quote]

Interesting stuff, and tends to confirm my view that much of the problem is down to very poor player recruitment going back over several managers, all appointed by the current board.

[/quote]

Who was in charge of player recruitment under Roeder (and Grant)?[:$]

Or was he just the message boy? Let''s hope so.

OTBC

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Fair point, Bly, and he''s now taking the imagination and creativity that he showed in his former incarnation into the technical area. Perhaps someone could e-mail him the meaning of the expression "tactical substitution".

[I am a Banana 0]

roeder got the players thta he wanted on v hogh wage bills and this cost us dearly!

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

[/quote]

In 2008 the club''s income was approximately £19.2m.  Can we really only afford to spend just over 20% on players'' wages?  What''s happened to the rest Neil?

 

[Smeg 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

[/quote]

In 2008 the club''s income was approximately £19.2m.  Can we really only afford to spend just over 20% on players'' wages?  What''s happened to the rest Neil?

 

[/quote]

 

very good point, the maths just don`t add up

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

[quote user="slater"]Today Neil Doncaster said, for the umpteenth recent time, that our player wage bill is £8.5m - of which only £4m is covered by income generated by the club.

[/quote]

In 2008 the club''s income was approximately £19.2m.  Can we really only afford to spend just over 20% on players'' wages?  What''s happened to the rest Neil?

[/quote]

Meant to add:  looking at the wages list, there are no clubs with a wage bill of less than £5m.  So in effect ND is saying: "We can''t afford to stay in the Championship.  League 1 is where we belong."

Something tells me they''re budgeting for League 1 and wouldn''t be at all upset if that''s where we end up, especially with the level of season ticket renewals.

 

[slater 0]

20% of total club income on the player wage bill? Surely you mean 8.5/19.2 x 100 = 45%.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="slater"]20% of total club income on the player wage bill? Surely you mean 8.5/19.2 x 100 = 45%.
[/quote]

No I was referring to what ND said we could afford not what we are actually spending.

 

[JohnoBono 0]

Our wage bill is 8.5m of which only 4m is covered by income by income generated by the club.

We still spend more on our wage bill than around at least half of the Championship or more.

Bottom line it is not money well spent. We have not brought in the desired and reqired quality. If we have have spent better than at least half of the Championship why do we languish second from bottom. Our investments have been unwise and poor. The way we have chosen to spread that money around has lacked sound judgement. When you look at it how many Championship clubs have brought in more players than Norwich City. We have spread that money round so far, so thinly, to drag so many loan players in, half of whome don''t or didn''t even play for the team, that we have not been able to afford the quality we have needed.

Quality is always better than quantity. Most teams in this division try to bring in a few quality additions to their teams then supliment then with loans. It seems to me that we have gone about it the other way round and even failed at that. The surgery that Glenn Roeder carried out in the summer was far too drastic to be remedied satisfactorially by a load of loan players and a couple full time additions. We were desparate for stability after that summer clear out, something that loads of loan players were not going to provide. But to carry out his policy he had to spread the money round, hence I guess the reason for the likes of Henville and Koroma.

The finance while I am at it has been hit even harder over since relegation particulary by the annual summer termination of contracts. Just think how much money we have flittererd away again in comparison to other clubs because we have not purchased wisely or we have purchased on the cheap. Wothington, Grant and Roeder all seemed to reach summer time handing out notices of termination like Christmas cards. To me this says that since we were relegated there has been something fundamentally wrong with the way we have gone about identifying and siging players. You are bound to get one or two wrong, not all players don''t work out for whatever reason, but just look at how many we have terminated contracts for over recent years.

Coming back to the start again then. I don''t think it''s so much about how much Norwich City end up spending on wages and the likes, but it''s about how that money is spent. 

[grantroederdisaster 0]

I''ve known for along time that we aren''t as skint as what some seem to think we are who talk as if we''re the paupers of this Division!

 

The problem is a lot of money has been wasted on rubbish!

[slater 0]

Spot on and very well put Johno. Since the fag-end of Worthington''s tenure we''ve had a succession of managers who would claim that because they were fire-fighting there was no time to think of the long-term. Which, rather inevitably, led to more firefighting. The board''s hands-off approach to managing the football team manager hasn''t helped - the board seem to take the attitude that they''d better leave that ''football stuff'' to a professional who knows more about it than them.And you''re so right about the terminated contracts. I''m struggling to name another club that sacks so many players so close to the beginnings of their contracts that they have to pay off the substantial remainder. It''s the sort of thing that I can imagine an egotist  like Barry Fry or the Latvian lunatic at Hearts doing.

[Muddy funster 0]

Slater!  Give us a call on my mobile when you can matey phone''s gone crazy and I can''t access my phone book.  Just so I have still got your number!  How''s Rosa?

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Given his record, why on earth does anyone think that the "£8.5m on player wages" from Doncaster is true?  When he first used that figure he called it a "player budget" (ie. including transfer fees, loan fees, agents fees etc.) which within a few weeks was subtly changed to "player wages", presumably because it sounded more hard-hitting.  He also changed our "affordable" figure from £5m to £4m within the space of a few weeks.  Does anyone seriously think that the small transfer fees we`ve paid out, and the £500k on agents fees haven`t come out of that £8.5m figure?  Does anyone seriously think we are paying £1m more on player wages than we were when we had a £7.1m parachute payment?!

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Given his record, why on earth does anyone think that the "£8.5m on player wages" from Doncaster is true?  When he first used that figure he called it a "player budget" (ie. including transfer fees, loan fees, agents fees etc.) which within a few weeks was subtly changed to "player wages", presumably because it sounded more hard-hitting.  He also changed our "affordable" figure from £5m to £4m within the space of a few weeks.  Does anyone seriously think that the small transfer fees we`ve paid out, and the £500k on agents fees haven`t come out of that £8.5m figure?  Does anyone seriously think we are paying £1m more on player wages than we were when we had a £7.1m parachute payment?!

[/quote]

Whatever the record it has to spin to play. This forum is a classic example of if you say it often enough then it becomes fact!

Doncaster might not be a good CE but he knows his audience.

Renew your season tickets so we will have money for new players.

Can someone remind us of that quote come the summer or will there then be other extenuating circumstances.

[Sir Digby Chicken Ceasar 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Given his record, why on earth does anyone think that the "£8.5m on player wages" from Doncaster is true?  When he first used that figure he called it a "player budget" (ie. including transfer fees, loan fees, agents fees etc.) which within a few weeks was subtly changed to "player wages", presumably because it sounded more hard-hitting.  He also changed our "affordable" figure from £5m to £4m within the space of a few weeks.  Does anyone seriously think that the small transfer fees we`ve paid out, and the £500k on agents fees haven`t come out of that £8.5m figure?  Does anyone seriously think we are paying £1m more on player wages than we were when we had a £7.1m parachute payment?!

[/quote]

Whatever the record it has to spin to play. This forum is a classic example of if you say it often enough then it becomes fact!

Doncaster might not be a good CE but he knows his audience.

Renew your season tickets so we will have money for new players.

Can someone remind us of that quote come the summer or will there then be other extenuating circumstances.

[/quote]

Very good point, i''ll remind you after Mr Doncaster etc have given me my 15% rebate  for league one football (that will be the extenuating circumstances i have no doubt).

I personally would have got my ticket without that particular incentive, which i think will be an own goal and starve the club of more funds... i mean, average season ticket roughly £350  thats a  £52 rebate, times that by 17000 thats £884,000 these are rough figures.... (and you all know the exact figure will be more) I can hear Doncaster now!!!   

[Canary Wundaboy 1,423]

We''ll end up in League one, still with 17,000 season ticket holders, and suddenly we won''t be able to buy quality players due to decresed TV revenue or some other cock and bull story. I cannot believe so many Norwich fans are so utterly deluded as to believe this "renew so we have more money for new players!" BS. For the last 4 seasons 20 thousand season tickets has funded the likes of Fotheringham, Cureton and more cr*p loan players than I care to count.That tells me that the money is being squandered.That tells me that renewing season tickets will only lead to more waste.So why can''t the average Norwich fan see that? Are all those jokes about us being a region of stupid, inbred numpties far more accurate than I wish to believe?

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]We''ll end up in League one, still with 17,000 season ticket holders, and suddenly we won''t be able to buy quality players due to decresed TV revenue or some other cock and bull story. I cannot believe so many Norwich fans are so utterly deluded as to believe this "renew so we have more money for new players!" BS. For the last 4 seasons 20 thousand season tickets has funded the likes of Fotheringham, Cureton and more cr*p loan players than I care to count.

That tells me that the money is being squandered.
That tells me that renewing season tickets will only lead to more waste.

So why can''t the average Norwich fan see that? Are all those jokes about us being a region of stupid, inbred numpties far more accurate than I wish to believe?
[/quote]

To be honest 20k season tickets hasn`t funded anything since relegation.  Pretty much the only thing which has allowed us to have a team at all is selling our best players for millions and spending a little bit on replacements- and that was even whilst we had £7.1m parachute payments.  And people wonder at our fall from grace......

Whether we stay up or go down we will lose Croft and sell at least £2m worth of players in the summer to be replaced with freebies and loans, and the spiral of decline will continue.

[Matt Morriss 69]

I have never been on of the ''we dont spend enough, sack the board'' brigade. I have always thought, while we''d like to see £1m and £2m players ''bought'', that we still do spend enough.Fact is its been spent poorly. Look at the players who weve paid for, contract or loan, that in my opinion have been a waste of money.Dejan StefanovicJohn KennedyElliot OmozusiTroy Arch..Arturo Lupoli!!!! (massive agent fee, never played him, madness)Omar KoromaGow, Killen, Leijer!!!Jimmy SmithMatthew BatesJames HenryKieron GibbsAnd im sure theres been more. For me, all were a complete waste of money.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

I agree Barclayman but the players you highlight are all loans or free`s.  Have a think about it- the vast majority of players we`ve spent good money on in recent years have either been sold for a profit or been good first team players.  The vast majority of the freebies, cheapo`s and loans have been useless and a combined big waste of money.  It is classic false economy- just the same as buying a new pair of shoes for £20 every year when a £60 pair would have lasted five years.  Roeder said the loans represented 15% of the wage bill so they are most definately the cheap option, and like all the other cheap options we`ve tried it has failed.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

And another one PC.....

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] It is classic false economy- just the same as buying a new pair of shoes for £20 every year when a £60 pair would have lasted five years. [/quote]LOLSold your house and bought anyone yet? Good investment apparently

[Mr.Carrow 394]

quote user="|BA"

"LOL

Sold your house and bought anyone yet? Good investment apparently"

 

 

What really makes me laugh is that most of your blinkered pro-board brethren argue that "we`ve always sold players for a profit to survive, so accept it".  Are you calling them liars |BA?