colneycanary 0 Posted July 8, 2009 With another free signing today, that means we still have all the rebate money left plus what else we had in the transfer kitty. Surely we can afford to get at least 2 out of Rickie Lambert, Alan Lee or Grant Holt. If we don''t spend the rebate money on strikers that we desperatly need, questions will have to be answered Mr Foulger! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted July 8, 2009 I''m fairly sure they said the rebate money goes into the player budget, which includesTransfer feesSigning on feesWagesSo it''s possible the rebate money is being used to pay players who signed on free transfers a few grand a week more than they''d have got elsewhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Minster Canary 0 Posted July 8, 2009 To be fair, we have a month until the season starts, hopefully we''ll be spending the majority of that money on a couple of decent strikers and we''ll all be happy. If taking our time means we get a couple of players capable of scoring consistently at this level, we should be patient. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted July 8, 2009 You will now receive several explanations of how the rebate money went into the ''player budget'' and since this also includes the player wages there is none actually left for transfers per usual. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="Mister Chops"]I''m fairly sure they said the rebate money goes into the player budget, which includesTransfer feesSigning on feesWagesSo it''s possible the rebate money is being used to pay players who signed on free transfers a few grand a week more than they''d have got elsewhere.[/quote]Goddam you are quick Mr Chops this makes my post look obsolete now. [:(] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. T 0 Posted July 8, 2009 if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
colneycanary 0 Posted July 8, 2009 Who said the rebate money was for wages? Season ticket sales are normally for players wages. The rebate money was for player transfers, and any signing on fee''s for players, must be very small in Leage 1 unless we are chucking money away again! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Superflash 0 Posted July 8, 2009 Keep in mind that all of the loanees from the previous season will have returned to their clubs in addition to the one or two contracted players which have departed the club. This''ll free up the wage budget a bit which has allowed us to sign the players we have. If this £700, 000 is still available for a couple of signings then it must be spent just as wisely. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted July 8, 2009 but surely our player wage budget would have dropped after relegation surely? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="singing canary"]but surely our player wage budget would have dropped after relegation surely?[/quote]And there I was thinking you never get any insight on message boards. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted July 8, 2009 i realise the is a big gap in player wages from the premiership to championship level .but how much of a drop would players have to take (if they do ) from getting relegated from the championship ? whats the average wage for a first division player..? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted July 8, 2009 Championship budget was 8.5 million, apparently our budget is "appropriate" and is around 5 million - I think - plus the rebate money. Actually, I doubt it''s anywhere near 5 million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ZLF 335 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="Mister Chops"]I''m fairly sure they said the rebate money goes into the player budget, which includesTransfer feesSigning on feesWagesSo it''s possible the rebate money is being used to pay players who signed on free transfers a few grand a week more than they''d have got elsewhere.[/quote]spot on Chops. Its inconceivable that we wont sign a striker, but whether its as much as we paid for Cureton 2 seasons ago remains to be seen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bovril 264 Posted July 8, 2009 In general its about a 30-35% drop I would have thought (based on past clubs finances doing the same drop, and data taken from Football Manager under Norwich which may or maynot be true of course, but they have some pretty decent researchers rest assured)For example, Russell was on about 6k and would have a wage rise/fall depending on promotion/relegation written into his contract, so would now be on something around 4-4.2k a year i would think-----------As for the original question, we have little actual ''transfer'' money which Im still amazed when you get people on here quoting weve got upwards of a £1million to spend....Using Alan Lee as an example, palace paid 600k and would want at the most probably 500k at the least 400k I would expect and Warnock has stated basically we haven''t got that...so we cant afford to spend 400k on one player Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhickl 0 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="colneycanary"]Who said the rebate money was for wages? Season ticket sales are normally for players wages. The rebate money was for player transfers, and any signing on fee''s for players, must be very small in Leage 1 unless we are chucking money away again![/quote]They said it will go to the player budget - which includes transfer fees, signing on fees and wages (see post above!) No one said it was just for transfer fees. You also tend to pay more signing on fees for free transfers. Season ticket money goes towards everything - wages (players, football staff and non-football staff), loans, police bills, utilities, etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Smudger 0 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="Hucks is Legend"]if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson![/quote]Norwich City will not spend money in January while Delia Smith remains at our club... [:$] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arthur Whittle 0 Posted July 8, 2009 Foulger said all the rebate money plus what he matched would go into the transfer kitty. Not wages, signing on fees etc, the trnasfer kitty. We shall see.......... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Frys Evil Twin 0 Posted July 8, 2009 [quote user="Arthur Whittle OBE"]Foulger said all the rebate money plus what he matched would go into the transfer kitty. Not wages, signing on fees etc, the trnasfer kitty. We shall see..........[/quote]No offence, but which part of making a transfer doesn''t involve paying a player''s wages/signing on fee? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kdncfc 0 Posted July 8, 2009 Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted July 8, 2009 naivety and expectation all rolled into one thread? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhickl 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="Arthur Whittle OBE"]Foulger said all the rebate money plus what he matched would go into the transfer kitty. Not wages, signing on fees etc, the trnasfer kitty. We shall see..........[/quote]Check your facts - you are just making things up, so you can have another moan later. What he actual said was "This money will all go straight to the manager''s player budget..." http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1701057,00.html The player budget covers the things that have been mentioned repeatedly on this board - wages, signing fees and transfer fees. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhickl 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="kdncfc"]Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.[/quote]The arguement of this post is so flawed I don''t know where to start...If someone has £3m budgeted for wages and he has 20 people earning £150k each, that is the money accounted for. If they then say you have have an additional £500k, It doesn''t mean that they can spend £500k on a player. The reason why is the new player will also have wages. Although the original wages were accounted for, doesn''t mean that if you increase the planned number of people their wages are all accounted for. Those wages must come from somewhere - it will also come out of the £500k, so you may spend £350k on the player and £150 on the wages.I hope I have dumbed it down enough for you to understand!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rjwc22 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"] Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.[/quote]The arguement of this post is so flawed I don''t know where to start...If someone has £3m budgeted for wages and he has 20 people earning £150k each, that is the money accounted for. If they then say you have have an additional £500k, It doesn''t mean that they can spend £500k on a player. The reason why is the new player will also have wages. Although the original wages were accounted for, doesn''t mean that if you increase the planned number of people their wages are all accounted for. Those wages must come from somewhere - it will also come out of the £500k, so you may spend £350k on the player and £150 on the wages.I hope I have dumbed it down enough for you to understand!!![/quote]But surely that would only make £350,150??? What happens to the other £149,850??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Butler 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"] Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.[/quote]The arguement of this post is so flawed I don''t know where to start...If someone has £3m budgeted for wages and he has 20 people earning £150k each, that is the money accounted for. If they then say you have have an additional £500k, It doesn''t mean that they can spend £500k on a player. The reason why is the new player will also have wages. Although the original wages were accounted for, doesn''t mean that if you increase the planned number of people their wages are all accounted for. Those wages must come from somewhere - it will also come out of the £500k, so you may spend £350k on the player and £150 on the wages.I hope I have dumbed it down enough for you to understand!!![/quote]So as a football club needing enough players to make a team I DO NOT BUDGET FOR ALL OF THAT TEAM.You are the one with the flawed argument, or and this is a possibility, the club is not run properly! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Ink 0 Posted July 9, 2009 We all know a significant amount of player budget money diappears into a large black hole. Always has, always will. Exactly the reason why I claimed my rebate back!I''m still waiting to see who we will sign with the Green and Ashton money? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
astrodyne 0 Posted July 9, 2009 Perhaps dickl runs the club - would explain the mess..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="Dr. Ink"]We all know a significant amount of player budget money diappears into a large black hole. Always has, always will. Exactly the reason why I claimed my rebate back!I''m still waiting to see who we will sign with the Green and Ashton money?[/quote]Good comment!!Of course at the time of sale we would have been told that the money is payable in two or three annual instalments to explain away the lack of re-investment of this money. We are I suppose expected to have forgotten this a year or two later and not ask awkward questions like what will happen to the third years payment of the Ashton money, the second years payment of the green or Earnshaw or Etuhu or Francis or etc. etc. money.Either we received lump sums or we received annual payments and if so several of these residuals must be due in this season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hog 0 Posted July 9, 2009 I think that the fans are actually entitled to find out exactly how the rebate money was spent as this was essentially a gift to the club rather than a purchase. I expect everything will be "undisclosed" as usual though! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueJam 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="Salahuddin"]I think that the fans are actually entitled to find out exactly how the rebate money was spent as this was essentially a gift to the club rather than a purchase. I expect everything will be "undisclosed" as usual though![/quote]I actually agree with you to a point...The money from the rebate is a gift from supporters and we should be informed on how and what it was spent on. However, there is a grey area - what expense was directly from the rebate "gift" and what was not. I suspect we will be none the wiser as is normal form for NCFC. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dhickl 0 Posted July 9, 2009 [quote user="rjwc22"]But surely that would only make £350,150??? What happens to the other £149,850???[/quote]Very good, I meant £150k for wages Share this post Link to post Share on other sites