Fox signs...

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Canary Wharf Canary"]Fox signs....[/quote][img]http://woodbadgestore.net/shop/images/xing-fox.gif[/img]

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="Canary Wharf Canary"]Fox signs....[/quote][img]http://www.saunzee.com/uploads/images/SIGNS/Fox%20steel.jpg[/img][/quote]

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I`m sorry but i`m a shareholder and that is total garbage.  Even the first season back down with parachute payments the player wage bill was £9m but largely financed by flogging off Ashton,Jonsson and Francis and replacing them for peanuts.  Under Grant player wages were £6.8m and again partly financed by the sale of Earnshaw,Etuhu and Safri with cheap replacements.  £14m??!!

Under Lambert has been the first time since relegation that we`ve been signing players without selling big first.

[/quote]My mistake, the figures i''ve used are the club''s overall wages rather than the playing budget, the club was selling out £13.6m in wages under Roeder in 2008 after our parachute payments had finished, although I understand that isn''t all down to the playing staff.I haven''t got the figures for this year at hand but I know the playing budget although still a Championship budget was considerably lower than in previous seasons, i very much doubt once Lambert has finished his player recruitment over the summer the playing budget will be anywhere near what Grant & Roeder haemorrhaged.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Canary Wharf Canary"]Fox signs....[/quote][img]http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/00/1d/60/a8/sly-fox-sign-on-front.jpg[/img]

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

The club had to make a profit on transfers because the playing budget was £2m too high, the club seems to have got on top of its needless expenditure now, especially the wages we''re paying it. meaning we''re not forced to sell a player or 2 to cover the losses we were making.

[John 0]

As ridiculous as i find it, hopefully this will bring those few words of comfort you doubters seem to need at the moment....http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11688_5883244,00.htmlReading through the posts, i find it almost frightening just how one-dimensional peoples perceptions of the game of football seem to be. Utterly focused soley on the big names, and struggle to gather the concept of the ''game'' of football as a whole, and that Lambert may just be trying to build something here, rather than throwing in past accolades and ''hasbeens'' in the hope that it will all come good.Anyway, those ''big names'' have to make a name for themselves, and they don''t necessarily do so as soon as they appear on the big stage. Look at the likes of Chris Iwelumo, Jason Scotland and our very own Grant Holt, making the greatest leaps and bounds of their career in it''s twighlight years. Being in the right side as much as anything matters, and if Lambert believes we need this type of player to develop our side, so be it.In my frustration, i''d be all too willing to elaborate, but Canary on the Trent (good man [Y]) has covered much of the ground i''d hope to already on this subject, and truth be told i''m feeling a little tired as it is.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I`m sorry but i`m a shareholder and that is total garbage.  Even the first season back down with parachute payments the player wage bill was £9m but largely financed by flogging off Ashton,Jonsson and Francis and replacing them for peanuts.  Under Grant player wages were £6.8m and again partly financed by the sale of Earnshaw,Etuhu and Safri with cheap replacements.  £14m??!!

Under Lambert has been the first time since relegation that we`ve been signing players without selling big first.

[/quote]

My mistake, the figures i''ve used are the club''s overall wages rather than the playing budget, the club was selling out £13.6m in wages under Roeder in 2008 after our parachute payments had finished, although I understand that isn''t all down to the playing staff.

I haven''t got the figures for this year at hand but I know the playing budget although still a Championship budget was considerably lower than in previous seasons, i very much doubt once Lambert has finished his player recruitment over the summer the playing budget will be anywhere near what Grant & Roeder haemorrhaged.

[/quote]

The player wage bill in `08 was £6.8m.  There was also a £3.5m "profit from player trading".  Even allowing for loans and other costs that was a very cheap year on the "football side".  As i`ve been saying for ages, the problem wasn`t that the team cost too much, it was that we were spending far too much on other things and i think it`s pretty obvious the new people on board think the same and are doing something about it.  We are told we have a "top 6" playing budget and to me that would suggest at least £8m- and the fact that we are spending that without having first flogged off the family silver speaks volumes about how badly the club was run under the previous regime.

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I`m sorry but i`m a shareholder and that is total garbage.  Even the first season back down with parachute payments the player wage bill was £9m but largely financed by flogging off Ashton,Jonsson and Francis and replacing them for peanuts.  Under Grant player wages were £6.8m and again partly financed by the sale of Earnshaw,Etuhu and Safri with cheap replacements.  £14m??!!

Under Lambert has been the first time since relegation that we`ve been signing players without selling big first.

[/quote]My mistake, the figures i''ve used are the club''s overall wages rather than the playing budget, the club was selling out £13.6m in wages under Roeder in 2008 after our parachute payments had finished, although I understand that isn''t all down to the playing staff.I haven''t got the figures for this year at hand but I know the playing budget although still a Championship budget was considerably lower than in previous seasons, i very much doubt once Lambert has finished his player recruitment over the summer the playing budget will be anywhere near what Grant & Roeder haemorrhaged.[/quote]

The player wage bill in `08 was £6.8m.  There was also a £3.5m "profit from player trading".  Even allowing for loans and other costs that was a very cheap year on the "football side".  As i`ve been saying for ages, the problem wasn`t that the team cost too much, it was that we were spending far too much on other things and i think it`s pretty obvious the new people on board think the same and are doing something about it.  We are told we have a "top 6" playing budget and to me that would suggest at least £8m- and the fact that we are spending that without having first flogged off the family silver speaks volumes about how badly the club was run under the previous regime.

[/quote]I''ll be very surprised if the playing budget is anywhere near £8m, we have been told the playing budget will enable us to be competitive and aim for the top 6, that doesn''t mean it will be on a par with the top 6 clubs budget wise, ie Boro, Burnley and Forest.I do agree that the club was spending far too much on other things but the profit on transfers was to cover the loss of revenue because of parachute payments finishing, the playing budget was still too high and not in line with a club without the parachute payments.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Trent i`m sorry but we`ve had this debate so many times on here and i`ve yet to see any evidence for your opinion.  We made massive profits in the transfer market even when we had parachute payments and player wages were £9m and £7.4m in those two seasons.  I suggest you have a look at the relevant accounts.  Given the sale of £5.5m worth of players Grant had an absolutely tiny budget. 

Roeder was down to 9 senior pro`s in the pre-season before his "main" season and hardly spent any transfer money at all on rebuilding a decimated squad, relying mainly on loans.  Obviously this policy failed miserably but you`re not saying that loans are more expensive than signing permanent players are you?!  Roeder had a bigger budget than previous seasons but then when you have a team which was nearly relegated and down to 9 senior pro`s there isn`t really alot of choice.  The real question is why the squad was allowed to become that weak and i firmly believe it was because the club expected to rake in millions each season flogging off our best players and the managers had to replace them with peanuts to spend.

Taking into account the transfer profit in `08 i`d say the budget was no more than £5m.  Do you seriously think we spent less than that last season, or will this?

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

The average Championship wage budget last season was about £5m so it''s clear to me we were spending far too much on players wages before our relegation if we were spending close to £7m. I''d be very surprised if the wage budget goes far over £5m next season when you consider our 2 biggest earners were moved on this summer and it is looking like Russell is off as well. Not saying these new signings are on peanuts but it''s pretty clear to me that the club is being run like a tight ship now as it should have been before our relegation.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"]The average Championship wage budget last season was about £5m so it''s clear to me we were spending far too much on players wages before our relegation if we were spending close to £7m. I''d be very surprised if the wage budget goes far over £5m next season when you consider our 2 biggest earners were moved on this summer and it is looking like Russell is off as well. Not saying these new signings are on peanuts but it''s pretty clear to me that the club is being run like a tight ship now as it should have been before our relegation.
[/quote]

We were spending a bit more than average on wages because a, we have bigger ticket revenue than average, b, for two seasons we had parachute payments and c, we made big profits in the transfer market which paid a large chunk of the wage bill.  You seem to be saying that despite those factors we should only have been paying an "average" wage bill which sounds about as unambitious as you can get and could well have got us relegated sooner! 

I`m away for the rest of the weekend but i`ll leave you with this- in `08 our income was £19m.  Excluding player wages our costs were £17.3m, therefore our "affordable" player budget was £1.7m.  It is these ridiculous non-player costs which were the problem and i am certain that they are being hammered by the new men freeing up more cash for the team.

 

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"]The average Championship wage budget last season was about £5m so it''s clear to me we were spending far too much on players wages before our relegation if we were spending close to £7m. I''d be very surprised if the wage budget goes far over £5m next season when you consider our 2 biggest earners were moved on this summer and it is looking like Russell is off as well. Not saying these new signings are on peanuts but it''s pretty clear to me that the club is being run like a tight ship now as it should have been before our relegation.[/quote]

We were spending a bit more than average on wages because a, we have bigger ticket revenue than average, b, for two seasons we had parachute payments and c, we made big profits in the transfer market which paid a large chunk of the wage bill.  You seem to be saying that despite those factors we should only have been paying an "average" wage bill which sounds about as unambitious as you can get and could well have got us relegated sooner! 

I`m away for the rest of the weekend but i`ll leave you with this- in `08 our income was £19m.  Excluding player wages our costs were £17.3m, therefore our "affordable" player budget was £1.7m.  It is these ridiculous non-player costs which were the problem and i am certain that they are being hammered by the new men freeing up more cash for the team.

 

[/quote]That''s not what i''m saying, most clubs outside the Premiership and it''s far superior revenue are making a loss, its just not possible to make a profit outside the Premiership. Our losses before relegation were just too high with the debt increasing year on year as well. The non-playing costs weren''t helping and needed to be cut substantially thats blatantly clear but we had 1 of the top 6 or 7 playing budgets in the whole division, which is ridiculous when we didn''t have parachute payments any longer whilst Sheff Utd, Reading, Birmingham, Derby, Charlton & Watford did. You''ve backed up my point by saying player sales paid a large chunk of the large wage bill yet earlier you said Lambert has a bigger budget because he doesn''t need to sell, it''s because he has a smaller wage bill he doesn''t need to sell to cover the unneccessary wages & fees being shelled out.

[ref89 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Obviously this policy failed miserably but you`re not saying that loans are more expensive than signing permanent players are you?!  [/quote]Erm, earth to Mr Carrow, yes they were.  Just take a look at Sibierski''s loan fee and weekly wage for a start.

[Barclaybred 0]

Depends on the loaners parent club..If it is to get a player fit who still is in their plans,then they may subsidize the deal,meeting half the wages as it would benifit them as well as us..Even if it is to regain loss form ....If it is a club who wants to put him in the shop window etc then may be very expensive as imo we would meet all costs

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="NCFC Sinky"]isn''t he a left sided midfielder which means this gives Lappin competition for the left sided place which really he didn''t have last season so another good signing hopefully :)[/quote]

He took the free kick against us with his right foot. So I assume he is right sided. But I guess you dont have to be left footed in the diamond really.

[Barclaybred 0]

[quote user="Barclaybred"]

Depends on the loaners parent club..If it is to get a player fit who still is in their plans,then they may subsidize the deal,meeting half the wages as it would benifit them as well as us..Even if it is to regain loss form ....If it is a club who wants to put him in the shop window etc then may be very expensive as imo we would meet all costs

[/quote]

Wonder what the arrangement will be now for Forster? .

[Jacko 0]

[quote user="Ncfc"]Blackpool got shot of him and he couldnt get a regular place in the Col Who side , is this really what we need ?
[/quote]

From the Green un

''Tangerines boss Holloway has gone on record as regretting his decision to release Fox, saying that he now feels he would have done a good job in the Championship this season.'' Holloway isn''t an idiot....

[TheNewBoy 0]

[quote user="Canary_on_the Trent"]The club had to make a profit on transfers because the playing budget was £2m too high, the club seems to have got on top of its needless expenditure now, especially the wages we''re paying it. meaning we''re not forced to sell a player or 2 to cover the losses we were making.
[/quote]

Helped no doubt by the end of Jamie Curetons inflated contract and, probably, Gary Doherty too.

In Jamie Cureton we had somebody who wasn''t good enough to get in our League One team who was probably earning enough money to pay the wages of 4 League One quality players.

At least if the wage I know is correct.

[cannycanary 0]

I know Colchester would be foolish to force a want away player to stay, but allow him to join Norwich with so much animosity between the clubs?He couldnt settle in the area but he is only moving an hour up the road?Maybe Colchester have received some extra compensation from Norwich by way of an inflated fee?Who knows whats going on behind closed doors between our club and Colchester.

[SirRobbie 0]

You wanted the Dave the Desert Fox (for obvious reasons) who was I to stand in the way of your destiny?

[Colchester fan 0]

Morning folksIn David Fox you have a very good player if you let him do the things he is good at, pass the ball and take free kicks but most importantly he needs a strong midfielder alongside him for protection because he is lightweight and cant tackle to save his life!He was doing well for us at the start of the season when he had Dean Hammond alongside him in midfield as a big tough tackling supporting midfielder but when Dean left for Southampton and we used the smaller players like Perkins and Izzet he was not the same player.I think Lambert knows that and will use him to create the flowing moves all us fans like to see, by using him in centre mid to spray the ball around the park and of course use his dead ball ability that you have already witnessed at 1st hand.Boothroyd was trying to change his game by getting him to play a tougher role, something that he was not happy with or physically equipped to do, by the same token someone like Kem Izzet could never be a David Fox he is a tough little battling midfielder who breaks up the opposition play, he does the stuff that often goes unoticed by the fans. As a consequence of all this David has understandably asked for a move having become disheartened at Colchester, I think the family not settling in the area is nothing more than an excuse to get away, a player of his quality should not be on the bench most games.  Hopefully we can do better next season with a new manager who will keep the ball on the deck and play football, we have a good squad of players at present but I fear 4 or 5 more could go before August so we will need to have replacements lined up. Good luck for the coming campaign like other clubs of your size the real challenge is to get from that league into the prem and stay up, given the size of your stadium and income it is always going to be difficult in the extreme to compete with the really big clubs in that division,(Start praying for Blackpool!) something we would face at a lower level if we ever get back into the Championship which is our "prem"

[Lambo 0]

Cheers for your comments mate. Thought Fox looked very decent when you guys came to Carra Rd. Best of luck next season mate.

[Ex Norwich Resident 0]

Yep, people remember the Carrow Road game as by far his best for us. By contrast, I''d say the return game against you lot was by far his worst, he was just totally anonymous and over-run and was hooked after an hour for a striker in a vain attempt to get back into the game.

As I said on another thread, with the right partner he''ll look classy, maybe even at the level above us.

[Barclaybred 0]

[quote user="Ex Norwich Resident"]Yep, people remember the Carrow Road game as by far his best for us. By contrast, I''d say the return game against you lot was by far his worst, he was just totally anonymous and over-run and was hooked after an hour for a striker in a vain attempt to get back into the game. As I said on another thread, with the right partner he''ll look classy, maybe even at the level above us.[/quote]

I missed that one,but a carrow road,he reminded me of crook(a norwich fav of the 90`s who spread the ball about like hoddle),But did say at the time,half time,if we had marn marked him as he looked so light we wouldve dried up your supply...Needs to have minder with him against certain teams then and not play him in a mud bath lol ;)

[Canary_on_the Trent 0]

[quote user="Ex Norwich Resident"]Yep, people remember the Carrow Road game as by far his best for us. By contrast, I''d say the return game against you lot was by far his worst, he was just totally anonymous and over-run and was hooked after an hour for a striker in a vain attempt to get back into the game.

As I said on another thread, with the right partner he''ll look classy, maybe even at the level above us.[/quote]If what has been said earlier is true then he sounds like a player who will struggle on a swamp, luckily he won''t have to play on a pitch like that again next season though, i''m a bit concerned if Russell does goes we''ll struggle to win the "battle" with out lightweight midfield, don''t get me wrong i rate all of our midfielders and they all get stuck in when needed but none of them have the physical presence of Rusty

[Northern Canary 0]

If hes a passer, not a tackler, then im not surprised he was anonymous at Colchester, but pitches as bad as that arent too common fortunately