Brian Badonde 0 Posted August 19, 2010 Strange article given that Norwich dropped a league and still spent a huge amount on agent fees. I wonder if the article would have been headlined this way if Lambert had not blasted Archant earlier this week. For the record we dropped a league but still spent almost the same as the previous year and certainly a fortune for the league we were in. Ultimately it worked this year, but the tone of the article is certainly flowered up for the benefit of the club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
. 0 Posted August 19, 2010 [quote user="Brian Badonde"]Strange article given that Norwich dropped a league and still spent a huge amount on agent fees. I wonder if the article would have been headlined this way if Lambert had not blasted Archant earlier this week. For the record we dropped a league but still spent almost the same as the previous year and certainly a fortune for the league we were in. Ultimately it worked this year, but the tone of the article is certainly flowered up for the benefit of the club.[/quote]The spin machine continues to spin............ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yobocop 1,442 Posted August 20, 2010 don''t forget we had ''two sets'' of signings namely being Gunn''s failure signings and Paul Lambert''s filling the gaps signings.I''m a firm believer we need to forget about last season and move on. We''re currently under a new era at Carrow Road and as D-REAM say ''Things can only get better'' Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted August 20, 2010 [quote user="Brian Badonde"]Strange article given that Norwich dropped a league and still spent a huge amount on agent fees. I wonder if the article would have been headlined this way if Lambert had not blasted Archant earlier this week. For the record we dropped a league but still spent almost the same as the previous year and certainly a fortune for the league we were in. Ultimately it worked this year, but the tone of the article is certainly flowered up for the benefit of the club.[/quote]I think you''re misreading the article.NCFC turned round 57 transactions on players last season at a cost of around £400k. The season before, they spent £500k, so we spent less last season despite a huge number of deals going through.Meanwhile, "Football League clubs spent £12,739,867 on agents'' fees - a £3.9m increase on the total outlay in the previous year."So to reduce our outlay by around 20% in a climate where the trend is for around a 50% increase (from around 8.8m to 12.7m), is certainly NCFC bucking the trend.Also, you could consider the "huge amount" we spent as money well spent, given we won the league.Oh, but hang on, it''s the Pink Un message board.Boo! Sack the witch! Archant are puppets! [:@] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites