Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
norfolkchance1

Lambert favourite for Burnley

Recommended Posts

[quote user="First Wizard"]

And Lambert is not even listed in their fans poll:

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/burnley/news/4837934.Burnley_could_go_back_in_for_Peter_Reid/?ref=rss

[/quote]

Wiz you''re scratching around now, this was this mornings paper therefore yesterdays news. Lambert only started moving in the betting today. It''s probably all bookmaker manipulation but there''s an outside chance it''s down to someone''s insider info that has broken today.

If you''re so confident he''s staying there''s no need to take any notice of all these ramblings is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]I like Buns...You think they would take me ??My Footy Manager CV is as long as my arm and my Year 7 School team went all season without losing last year... ok so they played 6 drew 5 won 1 but they were all little kids and crap !

[/quote]Sounds a bit like Burnley!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="eddy melito"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"][quote user="burnleyfan"] Look at the 16th. We''re going to Manchester United You''re going to Colchester United.[/quote]Easy tiger, dont come in here throwing that kinda crap about.I mean.... where is Burnley anyway ? I couldnt find it on a map if i wanted to.... and your punching above your weight being in the Prem even. Hope your preparations are in place for Championship football next season, ours are ;) ( But i will agree at the LOL whothehell are Colchester part )[/quote] burnley is difficult to find on a map because there are a number of passionate footballing towns and cities in the area. norwich on the other hand is very very easy to find on a map as there is nothing for 40 miles around it! you dont even have a full dual carriageway link to the rest of the world for christ sake![/quote]

Blimey, I take it you''ve never been to Norwich or surrounding areas much, most of the A47 is dualed.  The reason we don''t have it is because we don''t want any old idiot visiting [:)]

[/quote]

Sorry I''m picking at you again WAY but it''s not really is it.  The A47 is an absolutely dire road which needs to be sorted.  I drove from Leicester to Norwich on it just before Xmas, and I tell you what, it was probably one of the worst journeys I''ve ever had and there was next to no traffic.  One thing we can''t argue about when it comes to Norwich and Norfolk in general is that the transport network is absolutely rubbish!
[/quote]

The A47 dual carriageway runs right past the end of our garden, and I travel it weekly, and know a lot of it is dualled, I never said we had a fantastic transport system did i?

We don''t want big motorways in Norfolk.  Might not be convenient, but we love Norfolk the way it is [:)]

[/quote]

 

thats fair enough. my original point though was that you cant drive fron norwich to london, or any other city as far as im aware travelling only on dual carriageway standard or higher roads. thats pretty backwards in this day and age in anyones book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You wouldn''t have thought Burnley was that difficult to spell, would you?!! :-)

Losing Reid would please most Stokies, by all accounts.

I actually thought Mike Phelan would be the most obvious candidate - local lad (born Nelson) who signed as a schoolboy, playing for several seasons before coming to us in the 80s; he''s done his managerial apprenticeship at Utd, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t want to join the idiotic Burnley/Col U bashing. But by my reckoning it is quite clear that Norwich is a bigger club than Burnley or Wigan. This is because recent success is only part of the equation. It was interesting that it was mentioned Burnley only has a population of 80k and that the fact that they have the highest percentage of supports compared to the size of the town. This is the reason I think they are a smaller club – they have little chance of increasing their catchment.

In the longer term the size and success of a club is determined by revenue. Facilities, playing squad etc are all determined by revenue in the longer term. All other things being equal revenue is determined by fan base. And in general this is determined by catchment (catchment variables would include size of catchment area, relative position to other clubs and sporting tradition of a region). Yes a rich owner or successful manager may have an effect even to the medium term. But over the decades on average clubs with bigger revenue from their fanbase will be more successful. Are we seriously saying that should Col U be promoted and Bothroyd gets them going in the Championship and we remain in league one they suddenly become a ‘bigger’ club? It is clearly a farcical proposition. There is a big difference between size of club and current league position or squad. If you take a 10 year period at any time in the modern era I would imagine City will have a higher league position on average.

Nothing against Col U or Burnley – they should be proud of their clubs relative success (this is not meant to be patronizing!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Darren Lamb.... Agent"]colufan I suggest you take a look at the ''Non Norwich Supporters'' thread, and take the hint.[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Branston Pickle"]You wouldn''t have thought Burnley was that difficult to spell, would you?!! :-) Losing Reid would please most Stokies, by all accounts. I actually thought Mike Phelan would be the most obvious candidate - local lad (born Nelson) who signed as a schoolboy, playing for several seasons before coming to us in the 80s; he''s done his managerial apprenticeship at Utd, too.[/quote]

With my 25 fingers it is![:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Suffolk exile"]

Don’t want to join the idiotic Burnley/Col U bashing. But by my reckoning it is quite clear that Norwich is a bigger club than Burnley or Wigan. This is because recent success is only part of the equation. It was interesting that it was mentioned Burnley only has a population of 80k and that the fact that they have the highest percentage of supports compared to the size of the town. This is the reason I think they are a smaller club – they have little chance of increasing their catchment.

In the longer term the size and success of a club is determined by revenue. Facilities, playing squad etc are all determined by revenue in the longer term. All other things being equal revenue is determined by fan base. And in general this is determined by catchment (catchment variables would include size of catchment area, relative position to other clubs and sporting tradition of a region). Yes a rich owner or successful manager may have an effect even to the medium term. But over the decades on average clubs with bigger revenue from their fanbase will be more successful. Are we seriously saying that should Col U be promoted and Bothroyd gets them going in the Championship and we remain in league one they suddenly become a ‘bigger’ club? It is clearly a farcical proposition. There is a big difference between size of club and current league position or squad. If you take a 10 year period at any time in the modern era I would imagine City will have a higher league position on average.

Nothing against Col U or Burnley – they should be proud of their clubs relative success (this is not meant to be patronizing!)

[/quote] Sorry but i have to disagree! All that matters is where you are NOW. we are where we are cos we have been cr#p since relegation and deserve to be playing our football in League1. Burnley are in the Premier league because they deserve to be. Premier league money talks and our 25000 fans is insignificant to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="eddy melito"][quote user="Nexus_Canary"][quote user="burnleyfan"] Look at the 16th. We''re going to Manchester United You''re going to Colchester United.[/quote]Easy tiger, dont come in here throwing that kinda crap about.I mean.... where is Burnley anyway ? I couldnt find it on a map if i wanted to.... and your punching above your weight being in the Prem even. Hope your preparations are in place for Championship football next season, ours are ;) ( But i will agree at the LOL whothehell are Colchester part )[/quote] burnley is difficult to find on a map because there are a number of passionate footballing towns and cities in the area. norwich on the other hand is very very easy to find on a map as there is nothing for 40 miles around it! you dont even have a full dual carriageway link to the rest of the world for christ sake![/quote]

Blimey, I take it you''ve never been to Norwich or surrounding areas much, most of the A47 is dualed.  The reason we don''t have it is because we don''t want any old idiot visiting [:)]

[/quote]Sorry I''m picking at you again WAY but it''s not really is it.  The A47 is an absolutely dire road which needs to be sorted.  I drove from Leicester to Norwich on it just before Xmas, and I tell you what, it was probably one of the worst journeys I''ve ever had and there was next to no traffic.  One thing we can''t argue about when it comes to Norwich and Norfolk in general is that the transport network is absolutely rubbish![/quote]

The A47 dual carriageway runs right past the end of our garden, and I travel it weekly, and know a lot of it is dualled, I never said we had a fantastic transport system did i?

We don''t want big motorways in Norfolk.  Might not be convenient, but we love Norfolk the way it is [:)]

[/quote]Speak for yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is off the burnley mad site

This is the 5th time in 3 days that betting has been suspended; twice for Coppell, once for Jewell, once for Phelan and once for Lambert.

I think this shows that no one has really got a clue whats going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"][quote user="Suffolk exile"]

Don’t want to join the idiotic Burnley/Col U bashing. But by my reckoning it is quite clear that Norwich is a bigger club than Burnley or Wigan. This is because recent success is only part of the equation. It was interesting that it was mentioned Burnley only has a population of 80k and that the fact that they have the highest percentage of supports compared to the size of the town. This is the reason I think they are a smaller club – they have little chance of increasing their catchment.

In the longer term the size and success of a club is determined by revenue. Facilities, playing squad etc are all determined by revenue in the longer term. All other things being equal revenue is determined by fan base. And in general this is determined by catchment (catchment variables would include size of catchment area, relative position to other clubs and sporting tradition of a region). Yes a rich owner or successful manager may have an effect even to the medium term. But over the decades on average clubs with bigger revenue from their fanbase will be more successful. Are we seriously saying that should Col U be promoted and Bothroyd gets them going in the Championship and we remain in league one they suddenly become a ‘bigger’ club? It is clearly a farcical proposition. There is a big difference between size of club and current league position or squad. If you take a 10 year period at any time in the modern era I would imagine City will have a higher league position on average.

Nothing against Col U or Burnley – they should be proud of their clubs relative success (this is not meant to be patronizing!)

[/quote] Sorry but i have to disagree! All that matters is where you are NOW. we are where we are cos we have been cr#p since relegation and deserve to be playing our football in League1. Burnley are in the Premier league because they deserve to be. Premier league money talks and our 25000 fans is insignificant to that.[/quote]

But it does make us more likely to taste the Premier league money than a less well supported club - though admittedly the premier at the minute has quite a few micky mouse clubs who would not be out of place in league one but this will change over time. For example Leeds have been run diabolically, but I don''t think it makes them smaller in the sense I''m talking. To say they are smaller than Wigan is a joke. It''s not where you are it''s where on average you are going to be (lets hope thats not administration for NCFC!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suffolk Exile, it''s a really interesting post and 20 years ago I would have agreed with you, but the revenue of clubs has been so skewed by the Premier League that clubs with relatively small fanbases can earn multiple times those with larger ones. Look at the relative incomes of Fulham and Norwich. If managed prudently this can keep then in a league position far higher than their fanbase would warrant.

Where teams like Norwich should have an advantage, if well run, is in reaching the promised land. Then it''s down to how you spend the riches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Suffolk exile"][quote user="JF"][quote user="Suffolk exile"]

Don’t want to join the idiotic Burnley/Col U bashing. But by my reckoning it is quite clear that Norwich is a bigger club than Burnley or Wigan. This is because recent success is only part of the equation. It was interesting that it was mentioned Burnley only has a population of 80k and that the fact that they have the highest percentage of supports compared to the size of the town. This is the reason I think they are a smaller club – they have little chance of increasing their catchment.

In the longer term the size and success of a club is determined by revenue. Facilities, playing squad etc are all determined by revenue in the longer term. All other things being equal revenue is determined by fan base. And in general this is determined by catchment (catchment variables would include size of catchment area, relative position to other clubs and sporting tradition of a region). Yes a rich owner or successful manager may have an effect even to the medium term. But over the decades on average clubs with bigger revenue from their fanbase will be more successful. Are we seriously saying that should Col U be promoted and Bothroyd gets them going in the Championship and we remain in league one they suddenly become a ‘bigger’ club? It is clearly a farcical proposition. There is a big difference between size of club and current league position or squad. If you take a 10 year period at any time in the modern era I would imagine City will have a higher league position on average.

Nothing against Col U or Burnley – they should be proud of their clubs relative success (this is not meant to be patronizing!)

[/quote] Sorry but i have to disagree! All that matters is where you are NOW. we are where we are cos we have been cr#p since relegation and deserve to be playing our football in League1. Burnley are in the Premier league because they deserve to be. Premier league money talks and our 25000 fans is insignificant to that.[/quote]

But it does make us more likely to taste the Premier league money than a less well supported club - though admittedly the premier at the minute has quite a few micky mouse clubs who would not be out of place in league one but this will change over time. For example Leeds have been run diabolically, but I don''t think it makes them smaller in the sense I''m talking. To say they are smaller than Wigan is a joke. It''s not where you are it''s where on average you are going to be (lets hope thats not administration for NCFC!)

[/quote] I can see what you are saying but for me it''s just a case of who is higher up the ladder at any given time. for example you mention Wigan but if in this window they were to move for Snodgrass he would be gone in a flash and who would blame him. It''s sad but all that matters in football today is money and it''s a worse game for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="colufan"]Suffolk Exile, it''s a really interesting post and 20 years ago I would have agreed with you, but the revenue of clubs has been so skewed by the Premier League that clubs with relatively small fanbases can earn multiple times those with larger ones. Look at the relative incomes of Fulham and Norwich. If managed prudently this can keep then in a league position far higher than their fanbase would warrant. Where teams like Norwich should have an advantage, if well run, is in reaching the promised land. Then it''s down to how you spend the riches.[/quote]

I don''t disagree with a word of this. But my ''all other things being equal'' includes incompetent club management. Over a number of years decisions made at our club have lead to our current position. I''d say if these type of blunders happened at Fulham they could have (who knows could lead) to them ending up in the Blue square South since their brittle support base would soon dwindle with less successful times. For us, hopefully our fan base will see league one as the lowest point since we can use our finincial muscle over other clubs at this level - it''s an uneven playing field. For Fulham without investment I don''t think this would be the case - you don''t know what will be the situation five-ten years from now. I''d like to think it possible Norwich will be higher in the food chain than Fulham. Does involve some people at the top of the club securing investment though (our fan base could/should help entice this).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="eddy melito"]honest question here, how can you have/claim to have finincial muscle when your club are 23m in debt?[/quote]

Same reason someone can borrow a large mortgage on the basis of a large income. This is why even in this situation we can buy one of Swindon''s best players. I''d like to see our wage structure compared to for example Hartlepool or Southend - I bet any player for those clubs would like to play for Norwich. It''s true we''ve pissed away a lot of money in the last 3-4 years and even if we do go into admin because of it and unfairly write off this debt we would come out of it like Saints. Not fair but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m starting to like our new chairman...

“And to be perfectly brutal, it is probable that we will be in the Championship next year and it is probable that Burnley will be in the Championship next year and I think Paul would prefer to work for the Norwich fans than the Burnley fans.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]

I''m starting to like our new chairman...

“And to be perfectly brutal, it is probable that we will be in the Championship next year and it is probable that Burnley will be in the Championship next year and I think Paul would prefer to work for the Norwich fans than the Burnley fans.”

[/quote]Has to be better than Doomcaster spin lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="eddy melito"]honest question here, how can you have/claim to have finincial muscle when your club are 23m in debt?[/quote]I take it you''ve not seen Man U, Chelsea, or Liverpool''s debts recently then? I''m not claiming it''s right, and I don''t even believe that football can go on for much longer in its present state, but the size of a club''s debt doesn''t equate to its "financial muscle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite so, I.S. Debt is only ever an issue if you can''t service it, however big or small it is. At the moment we can, so it isn''t really so much of an issue.

Put simply, you can have huge debts but still splash plenty of cash (indeed, it could be the debt that you are splashing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="eddy melito"]honest question here, how can you have/claim to have finincial muscle when your club are 23m in debt?[/quote]

I take it you''ve not seen Man U, Chelsea, or Liverpool''s debts recently then? I''m not claiming it''s right, and I don''t even believe that football can go on for much longer in its present state, but the size of a club''s debt doesn''t equate to its "financial muscle".
[/quote]

i guess so, it just seems wrong to me to be spending money on players when you owe so much money to various people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="I.S."][quote user="eddy melito"]honest question here, how can you have/claim to have finincial muscle when your club are 23m in debt?[/quote]I take it you''ve not seen Man U, Chelsea, or Liverpool''s debts recently then? I''m not claiming it''s right, and I don''t even believe that football can go on for much longer in its present state, but the size of a club''s debt doesn''t equate to its "financial muscle".[/quote]Last year Man Utd made a profit of £70 million - that can service their £500 million debt they could continue doing that ad nauseum, last year you made a loss which meant your debt grew - not the same thing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
[quote user="eddy melito"]

[quote user="I.S."][quote user="eddy melito"]honest question here, how can you have/claim to have finincial muscle when your club are 23m in debt?[/quote]I take it you''ve not seen Man U, Chelsea, or Liverpool''s debts recently then? I''m not claiming it''s right, and I don''t even believe that football can go on for much longer in its present state, but the size of a club''s debt doesn''t equate to its "financial muscle".[/quote]

i guess so, it just seems wrong to me to be spending money on players when you owe so much money to various people.

[/quote]Absolutely agree, which is why clubs like Portsmouth and West Ham are struggling financially even though they have HUGE incomes compares to the average Champ/League One club. Our debts are secured on our assets and are director''s loans (I *Think* although don''t have time to go through it), so I would be surprised if our assets didn''t mostly cancel out or debts.Back on topic, there is no way Lambert to Bolton is a done deal as some people seem to think - he''s drifted out to 4/1 on Betfair and there is no way it would be that high if people knew he was definitely on the move. Still, famous last words... [:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="jibbajabba"]
Last year Man Utd made a profit of £70 million - that can service their £500 million debt they could continue doing that ad nauseum, last year you made a loss which meant your debt grew - not the same thing at all.
[/quote]

I take that includes am 80 mil transfer fee they recieved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Legend Iwan"]

[quote user="jibbajabba"]Last year Man Utd made a profit of £70 million - that can service their £500 million debt they could continue doing that ad nauseum, last year you made a loss which meant your debt grew - not the same thing at all.[/quote]

I take that includes am 80 mil transfer fee they recieved?

[/quote]The day after they announced a shirt sponsorship deal of £80m - but it''s all money isn''t it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eddy - your assertion that it is somehow wrong that we can spend money on players when we owe so much money is, to be nothing other than honest, totally wrong.

In short, corporate finance for a company works as follows (albeit slightly differently in a football club given the shareholders goals are unlikely to be profit maximisation):

Companies can be funded in one of two ways; equity (ie share capital) or debt. The objective of the company is to choose the method of finance which has the lowest cost (I.e the lowest percentage return required in the form of dividends or interest). In a normal business this will typically be debt finance, as should the company go tits up the debtholders are first in the queue to pick over it''s bones, (the idea being here that the greater the risk being taken the greater the reward needed). Therefore companies are routinely funded by long term debt, and in actual fact the optimum funding method will invariably include debt.

However, a football club works differently. As the goal of the shareholders is not to generate a return via dividend (at least one would hope it isn''t) equity is the cheapest form of finance. Therefore for a football club I''d say all equity finance is optimum. But, if there is no more equity finance available, debt is the alternative. This will take the form of long term bank loans (usually secured against the clubs assets) or debentures, or other long term debt instruments.

In your post you imply that we should pay back the money we owe before spending anything, but why would the lenders want repayment? From their perspective they are getting a good return for their outlay, and (on the assumption it is secured debt) they can rest easy about getting their money back.

The downside of the debt to the club is very clear: money we can spend is reduced by interest payments plus if we don''t make the interest payments we get put out of business. However, having debt is no massive problem so long as cashflow is managed properly.

Businesses rely on debt funding, it is essential. That is one of the reasons the credit crunch had such a massive impact: businesses were neither able to obtain new finance or refinance existing debts.

Hope someone found that useful. News stories on this subject are often somewhat lacking context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...