Have they got enough money?

[Alan 0]

With several new players being signed some of whom have commanded a fee and others such as Hughes on a reportedly very high wage I wonder if Norwich can now afford them with its new reduced income. It''s also suggested we will be signing Holt for arround £450K. We were losing at least 1-2 million a year over the last few years with a higher income. At the moment I only see losses increasing.

Clignan and Russel  have not gone yet and even if they do I think that some of the other high earners will also have to leave or be sold to afford the new boys. One or two more players are still needed and a proven taget man will cost money in either wages and or a fee. In some other areas we now have too many players for them all to get a game unless there is a very serious injury crisis so some more departures are needed especially with some of the younger players looking like first team possibilities.

 

[singing canary 0]

i dont think many more will leave to be honest .

several loan players went back at the end of the season freeing up wage budget .

some have been sold and released .

the players we have brought in will be on lower wages and did not cost the earth yet i feel will be better players than what we had.

full time norwich players who want to play here can only be a good thing.

most are still young and can get better .

we are still missing the vital link a proven striker what has been missing for a few seasons now.

time will tell if we bring in a proven striker but i feel that position is a must.

[Nuff Said 5,082]

[quote user="Alan"]

With several new players being signed some of whom have commanded a fee and others such as Hughes on a reportedly very high wage I wonder if Norwich can now afford them with its new reduced income. It''s also suggested we will be signing Holt for arround £450K. We were losing at least 1-2 million a year over the last few years with a higher income. At the moment I only see losses increasing.

Clignan and Russel  have not gone yet and even if they do I think that some of the other high earners will also have to leave or be sold to afford the new boys. One or two more players are still needed and a proven taget man will cost money in either wages and or a fee. In some other areas we now have too many players for them all to get a game unless there is a very serious injury crisis so some more departures are needed especially with some of the younger players looking like first team possibilities.

[/quote]So are you suggesting we''re signing too many players? Board showing an excess of ambition! BOOO!!!

[Soldier on 160]

Huge savings made on the wage bill.  Numerous in house job cuts.  Player sales.  We can afford it just looks like they are putting football first for a change.

[singing canary 0]

for the first time in a long time im fairly happy things are looking better .

players of our own and maybe better quality than what we had .

cant be bad!!!

[Canary02 III 0]

Factor in that we are not paying Dunston Hall £300 a night x 8 players x 300 days per year...

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="Alan"]

With several new players being signed some of whom have commanded a fee and others such as Hughes on a reportedly very high wage I wonder if Norwich can now afford them with its new reduced income. It''s also suggested we will be signing Holt for arround £450K. We were losing at least 1-2 million a year over the last few years with a higher income. At the moment I only see losses increasing.

Clignan and Russel  have not gone yet and even if they do I think that some of the other high earners will also have to leave or be sold to afford the new boys. One or two more players are still needed and a proven taget man will cost money in either wages and or a fee. In some other areas we now have too many players for them all to get a game unless there is a very serious injury crisis so some more departures are needed especially with some of the younger players looking like first team possibilities.

 

[/quote]Do you honestly think the new board would take that risk?I think they have finally realised that football must come first, and are showing that by investing in the playing squad.  I can''t believe people are now concerned about this!  It is what we have wanted since promotion to the Premier League, and yes it has come 5 years too late, but better late than never.  The jury is still out on Gunn as a manager in my opinion, but he has done a damn good job in getting players in this summer, so I now think he deserves a chance to prove himself in the position.  Best of luck to him.

[shortfatb 0]

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="Alan"]

With several new players being signed some of whom have commanded a fee and others such as Hughes on a reportedly very high wage I wonder if Norwich can now afford them with its new reduced income. It''s also suggested we will be signing Holt for arround £450K. We were losing at least 1-2 million a year over the last few years with a higher income. At the moment I only see losses increasing.

Clignan and Russel  have not gone yet and even if they do I think that some of the other high earners will also have to leave or be sold to afford the new boys. One or two more players are still needed and a proven taget man will cost money in either wages and or a fee. In some other areas we now have too many players for them all to get a game unless there is a very serious injury crisis so some more departures are needed especially with some of the younger players looking like first team possibilities.

[/quote]So are you suggesting we''re signing too many players? Board showing an excess of ambition! BOOO!!![/quote]Calculating Bastards! Is there no end to their cunning?

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Soldier on"]Huge savings made on the wage bill.  Numerous in house job cuts.  Player sales.  We can afford it just looks like they are putting football first for a change.[/quote]

Indeed, something they should have done 5 or more seasons ago IMO

[singing canary 0]

holding out for more than 500k for russell surprises me this is not like norwich .

we can not be that skint we could risk losing that sort of money for a player that we did not take on tour.

i take it mcnally has better skills at getting the best deals for norwich .

lets hope so .

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Here''s a financial related post I made earlier:

 

22/07/2009, 5:05 PM
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? Joined on 03/08/2005 Posts 3,071	Re: the board have taken ncfc fans as fools again !!!
	Desert Fox wrote:  Camuldonum wrote:  Desert Fox wrote: Cam, Whilst I agree with what you are saying, you are missing the point as to why we are so frustrated. Season after season we are made promises along the lines of the manager will be given all the proceeds of transfers to spend or the rebate will be given to the playing budget. Whilst the back of the fag packet calculations (including my own) are probably all wrong, we can all see that season after season the quality of the team has reduced despite money flowing into the club. For example, last year we made a £3.6M profit on player transfers and no major signings. This year we are about to sell all players (except possibly Hoolahan) that have nay value in the market. God knows what will happen next year if we dont get promoted (I am not expectant as you can probably tell) as we will have no one left to sell. It''s nothing to do with what has gone on in the past, it is the calculations being made on this season with a number of people apparently assuming that you have £400k in your bank account for Marshall and a potential £650k on the way for Clingan.  I am sure that will not be the case.  I''d be surprised if you get half of that total.  Furthermore it is not necessary to spend a fortune to get a good League One side - Millwall and Scunthorpe, among others, did not spend very much at all but produced fine competitive sides in the division, one of whom got out of the League and the other nearly managed it and may do well again this season. Cam, We are going round in circles here. The fact that we may not receive all the Clingan/Marshall money in one lump is a red herring. We could equally defer the cashflow relating to any purchases in a similar manner to ensure cash neutrality. The real story is why we are not spending any money. With respect to Scuthorpe and Millwall, I am not sure that either of them is likley to generate the level of receipts we are from transfers and rebates. So, the key issue is why are the Board not levelling with the fans and why are they hinding behind words like "appropriate" and implying that rebate will be used additionally over and above the planned budget. I would rather that they set out their strategy in plain english and provided some real assurance that things are changing. At the end of last season they acknowledged that mistakes have been made and these will be rectified. Well I am completely what mistakes they are rectifying at the moment! Well here''s a scenario:                                                                                                                                                        £m. Year ended 31/5/2008 loss after excluding depreciation but not including interest                             (1.5) Net Interest payable                                                                                                                       (1.6) Reduction in commercial / TV receipts (if I heard Neil D. at the Open Day Forum correctly)            (3.0) Season ticket rebates (I know 359k was left with the club - see below)                                           (1.0) Approx 1,500 fewer season tickets                                                                                                (0.4) Say reduction in catering contribution                                                                                              (0.1) Repayment of capital element of loans                                                                                             (1.1) Total                                                                                                                                             (8.7)       Reduction in player budget*                                                                                                             4.5 Reduction in overheads during 08-09 - annualised basis                                                                    0.6 Say reduction in overheads during 09-10 - annualised basis                                                              0.6 Reduction in interest                                                                                                                        0.1 Total                                                                                                                                              5.8   Funding gap                                                                                                                                 £2.9m.   * Excludes transfer fees, agents fees etc.   So how do you think the funding gap is going to be closed?  Via the directors and/or the transfer fees is my guess. Marshall                      £600k Lewis                          £100k Rebates / Foulger        £718k. Clingan                       £650k??   Playing squad or cut the overheads further?