Radio Norfolk today - Should we have splashed the cash?

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="ncfc"]. Lots of teams hitting good form now Leicester will be in the top 6 before very long and there is usually one or two who drop away . [/quote]

 

Its very tight in the top 10, guess this is the time to decide are we happy to finish in the top 10 or do we want an automatic place as we are so close and might not be in this position next season.

I know what my decision would be if I was sat on the board and was wondering if a few million would be worth gambling on a couple of loanees to get us that  £90m prize.

 

1	QPR	30	31	59
2	Nott''m Forest	28	16	52
3	Norwich	30	9	51
4	Swansea	29	11	50
5	Leeds	30	8	49
6	Cardiff	28	12	48
	Millwall	30	9	45
8	Leicester	30	-1	45
9	Watford	28	12	43
10	Burnley	29	7	43
11	Reading	29	12	42
12	Hull	30	3	42
13	Barnsley	30	-8	40

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

Angel, from where - or from whom - are these few millions coming?

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, from where - or from whom - are these few millions coming?

[/quote]

 

Delia and hubby and Michael Foulger maybe ?????

[morty 0]

[quote user="Cluckbert Chase"]If Paul Lambert is not sweating about it that''s all you need be worried about.NCFC are ahead of the game plan as far as McNally and co see it and they are right to stick to their guns. Another season in Division 2 would be no great disaster and we have no big time charlies in the squad who would spit out their dummies if we failed to make it.As long as PL is content.... so am I and I suggest all of the promotion obsessed numbnuts pull up their pants and get real. Norwich and Norfolk are getting their club back and that should be enough for now.

[/quote]^^This.[Y]

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, from where - or from whom - are these few millions coming?

[/quote]

 

Delia and hubby and Michael Foulger maybe ?????

[/quote]

 

Angel, thanks. I doubt there is any alternative source of money. I''m not arguing for or against you but we do already owe at least £6m to directors and ex-directors. The kind of expensive push you are talking about would almost certainly sharply increase that figure.

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, from where - or from whom - are these few millions coming?

[/quote]

Delia and hubby and Michael Foulger maybe ?????

[/quote]

Angel, thanks. I doubt there is any alternative source of money. I''m not arguing for or against you but we do already owe at least £6m to directors and ex-directors. The kind of expensive push you are talking about would almost certainly sharply increase that figure.

[/quote]

I know that it would increase our debt PC but say we spent £2m on a proven striker to play upfront with Holty and between them they got us enough goals to finish top 2, we would then get £90m over the next few years to pay our debt off.

Its a gamble I know but isn''t it worth taking whilst we''re in touching distance and so close??

[blahblahblah 2]

who is available ? Are there many / any 20 goal a season championship warming the bench on the Premiership ?

Given that there have been some strong suggestions that Bennett would have cost over a million at least, then it''s possible that a couple of loans will come through. Equally possible that the money will be held back for the summer though.

What would happen if the gamble was made and lost ? In any walk of life, you should only gamble with money you can afford to lose. 2 million is a lot to lose.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Are there many / any 20 goal a season championship warming the bench on the Premiership ? [/quote]

I need a sub-editor.

I meant to say, "are there any 20 goal a season championship level strikers warming Premiership benches ?"

Note to self - Things look so much better when you read them before you post...

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, from where - or from whom - are these few millions coming?

[/quote]

Delia and hubby and Michael Foulger maybe ?????

[/quote]

Angel, thanks. I doubt there is any alternative source of money. I''m not arguing for or against you but we do already owe at least £6m to directors and ex-directors. The kind of expensive push you are talking about would almost certainly sharply increase that figure.

[/quote]

I know that it would increase our debt PC but say we spent £2m on a proven striker to play upfront with Holty and between them they got us enough goals to finish top 2, we would then get £90m over the next few years to pay our debt off.

Its a gamble I know but isn''t it worth taking whilst we''re in touching distance and so close??

[/quote]

 

---

 

Angel, in the interval blah has rather made the point I was going to make. There is no certainty that spending an extra £2m or whatever would guarantee a top-two finish. If it didn''t work we would be even more heavily in debt at a time when the business plan is to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt.


Of course it is possible that what we owe to S&J and Foulger isn''t really debt at all. It is all really a gift. And that any new "loans" would alo be gifts. That might be a different matter.

[The Great Drinkell 50]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]who is available ? Are there many / any 20 goal a season championship warming the bench on the Premiership ? Given that there have been some strong suggestions that Bennett would have cost over a million at least, then it''s possible that a couple of loans will come through. Equally possible that the money will be held back for the summer though. What would happen if the gamble was made and lost ? In any walk of life, you should only gamble with money you can afford to lose. 2 million is a lot to lose.[/quote]

I think we are doing fine, with an extremely good team spirit that could easily be unsettled if the wrong type of player comes in. I would stick at the moment but if I was forced to twist then one name would ben on my list to help Holt and that name may be available (Kevin Phillips)

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Richard Keys would agree that we should have smashed the gash......

[. 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Richard Keys would agree that we should have smashed the gash......[/quote]Ewwwww..... Lucky old Mrs. Mello.  [8-|]

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="cityangel"]We need to splash some cash now on a couple of loanees if we want to stay on the top 6[/quote]We do?

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Graham Humphrey"][quote user="cityangel"]We need to splash some cash now on a couple of loanees if we want to stay on the top 6[/quote]We do?[/quote]Well, we don''t have to - Delia does.  It''s always easier to spend other people''s money for them and after our recent appalling run of one defeat in one game, they simply must throw a few million, whether they have it in readies or not, at a couple of ''loon'' players to help us dig for victory.  It doesn''t matter that we''re massively in debt, skint, and over-achieving against a plan drawn up by the Chief Exec - let''s throw money at the issue and push on!  I mean, what''s the worst that could happen?

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, in the interval blah has rather made the point I was going to make. There is no certainty that spending an extra £2m or whatever would guarantee a top-two finish. If it didn''t work we would be even more heavily in debt at a time when the business plan is to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt.


Of course it is possible that what we owe to S&J and Foulger isn''t really debt at all. It is all really a gift. And that any new "loans" would alo be gifts. That might be a different matter.

[/quote]

 

How nice to have a pleasant conversation with you PC. Do you know how much of that £6m to directors and ex -directors is actually owed to Delia?

I agree its a gamble but hypothetically if you were in Delia & the two Michael''s position and has their wealth would you have been tempted to go for it or would you have been sensible and be contented to finish top 10 this season ??

CA

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I thought the NCISA started a bold initiative a couple of months ago to give fans a chance to increase Paul Lamberts transfer kitty.

 

How''s that going?

 

How many fans felt it was "worth the gamble"?

 

 

[Resident Leeds Fan Jonny! 0]

No need to splash the cash, you have a very good team and are sitting pretty in the top 6...if asked would you have taken that at the start of the season?? probably. It''s hard to just bring someone in and expect that that will be that as far as promotions concerned. Leeds got rid of like 6 players in the transfer window lol and brought no one in, what''s the point if your not gonna bring in Premiership standard players?Norwich, Leeds and other promotion contenders should be aiming for Premiership quality when shopping, and lets face it that''s hard to come by without spending millions.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, in the interval blah has rather made the point I was going to make. There is no certainty that spending an extra £2m or whatever would guarantee a top-two finish. If it didn''t work we would be even more heavily in debt at a time when the business plan is to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt.


Of course it is possible that what we owe to S&J and Foulger isn''t really debt at all. It is all really a gift. And that any new "loans" would alo be gifts. That might be a different matter.

[/quote]

 

How nice to have a pleasant conversation with you PC. Do you know how much of that £6m to directors and ex -directors is actually owed to Delia?

I agree its a gamble but hypothetically if you were in Delia & the two Michael''s position and has their wealth would you have been tempted to go for it or would you have been sensible and be contented to finish top 10 this season ??

CA

[/quote]

---

 

The pleasure at least equally mine, Angel. The bare facts are that as of May 2010 these were the amounts owing:

£2.5m to the Turners

£2.1m to Smith and Jones

£1.4m (this doesn''t include his £360,000 gift) to Foulger

Those figures may have changed since then. As to how much of this really is debt only the people involved would know. My suspicion all along has been that the "debt" owed to S&J and Foulger is probably not really debt at all, but that the Turners (and this is no criticism of them) will want their money back.

As to your question about the "gamble" that is difficult. You will be shocked to hear I may not know the answer to everything! More seriously, I don''t see a problem in the directors loaning us money if the loans are really gifts. And if the players acquired are loanees. So we don''t get lumbered with expensive long-term contracts.


I do see a problem if the loans really are loans that we will have to pay back. We really are not in a position to increase our real debt.

One thing to bear in mind is that Lambert almost certainly did not spend all the money allocated to him for January. One of the obvious factors overlooked by posters criticising the cheap acquisition of Wilbraham (particularly) and Tierney is that Lambert was husbanding his money to spend on Bennett. That money, then, is still available. McNally has said so. It also suggests very much that the amount made available was guided by what - and this is a phrase that has just popped into my head out of nowhere - one might call prudence with ambition. Has a ring to it, don''t you think?!
[;)][:D][;)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Angel, in the interval blah has rather made the point I was going to make.[/quote]Sorry old bean, didn''t mean to spoil your fun [:)]

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

 The bare facts are that as of May 2010 these were the amounts owing:

£2.5m to the Turners

£2.1m to Smith and Jones

£1.4m (this doesn''t include his £360,000 gift) to Foulger


Those figures may have changed since then. As to how much of this really is debt only the people involved would know. My suspicion all along has been that the "debt" owed to S&J and Foulger is probably not really debt at all, but that the Turners (and this is no criticism of them) will want their money back.

As to your question about the "gamble" that is difficult. You will be shocked to hear I may not know the answer to everything! More seriously, I don''t see a problem in the directors loaning us money if the loans are really gifts. And if the players acquired are loanees. So we don''t get lumbered with expensive long-term contracts.I do see a problem if the loans really are loans that we will have to pay back. We really are not in a position to increase our real debt.

One thing to bear in mind is that Lambert almost certainly did not spend all the money allocated to him for January. One of the obvious factors overlooked by posters criticising the cheap acquisition of Wilbraham (particularly) and Tierney is that Lambert was husbanding his money to spend on Bennett. That money, then, is still available. McNally has said so. It also suggests very much that the amount made available was guided by what - and this is a phrase that has just popped into my head out of nowhere - one might call prudence with ambition. Has a ring to it, don''t you think?!
[/quote]

Thanks for all those facts and figues PC, so if I understand it correctly if Smith & Jones & Foulger had of decided they don''t want their £3.6m back and had decided to gift it to us we could  have increased our debt by say £2m of that amount, given that to Lambert to spend in January and wouldn''t have been any worse off debt wise.

As for prudence with ambition yes I''ve heard that before somewhere [:)]

As you say he still has the money he had set aside for Bennett so I''m hoping he uses some of that to get us a decent striker to play alongside Holty and maybe another winger on loan to help us with the final push.

Are you coming to the pups social on Friday PC ??

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

 The bare facts are that as of May 2010 these were the amounts owing:

£2.5m to the Turners

£2.1m to Smith and Jones

£1.4m (this doesn''t include his £360,000 gift) to Foulger


Those figures may have changed since then. As to how much of this really is debt only the people involved would know. My suspicion all along has been that the "debt" owed to S&J and Foulger is probably not really debt at all, but that the Turners (and this is no criticism of them) will want their money back.

As to your question about the "gamble" that is difficult. You will be shocked to hear I may not know the answer to everything! More seriously, I don''t see a problem in the directors loaning us money if the loans are really gifts. And if the players acquired are loanees. So we don''t get lumbered with expensive long-term contracts.I do see a problem if the loans really are loans that we will have to pay back. We really are not in a position to increase our real debt.

One thing to bear in mind is that Lambert almost certainly did not spend all the money allocated to him for January. One of the obvious factors overlooked by posters criticising the cheap acquisition of Wilbraham (particularly) and Tierney is that Lambert was husbanding his money to spend on Bennett. That money, then, is still available. McNally has said so. It also suggests very much that the amount made available was guided by what - and this is a phrase that has just popped into my head out of nowhere - one might call prudence with ambition. Has a ring to it, don''t you think?!
[/quote]

Thanks for all those facts and figues PC, so if I understand it correctly if Smith & Jones & Foulger had of decided they don''t want their £3.6m back and had decided to gift it to us we could  have increased our debt by say £2m of that amount, given that to Lambert to spend in January and wouldn''t have been any worse off debt wise.

As for prudence with ambition yes I''ve heard that before somewhere [:)]

As you say he still has the money he had set aside for Bennett so I''m hoping he uses some of that to get us a decent striker to play alongside Holty and maybe another winger on loan to help us with the final push.

Are you coming to the pups social on Friday PC ??

[/quote]

 

---

 

Angel, that is a cunning plan! But it only really works if the new £2m of debt you envisage isn''t really debt. Ie, it is more money from S&J and/or Foulger that they don''t want back.

My belief all along has been that the money we owe that really is debt is the £16m or so (whatever the latest figure) we owe to the banks and probably the £2.5m we owe the Turners. I doubt S&J and Foulger expect to see their money back, and I am as sure as one can be without actually being them that S&J will happily accept a solidly-based takeover proposal that doesn''t recompense them.

 

So a plan that adds to the debt we don''t have to pay back is OK. A plan that adds to debt we do have to pay back is not OK.

 

Afraid this weekend is not one of my rare trips back to see Norwich, but I hope the PUPs evening goes well. Sounds like there should be a good turnout.[Y]

 

[ca 1]

Guess Michael Foulger read my plea for another £2m then PC [:)]

What a star he is  [:)]

[Mr Jenkins 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Guess Michael Foulger read my plea for another £2m then PC [:)]

What a star he is  [:)]

[/quote] What a wonderful jesture, a man who truly loves our club, as we all do?  

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Angel, in the interval blah has rather made the point I was going to make. There is no certainty that spending an extra £2m or whatever would guarantee a top-two finish. If it didn''t work we would be even more heavily in debt at a time when the business plan is to reduce and eventually eliminate the debt.


Of course it is possible that what we owe to S&J and Foulger isn''t really debt at all. It is all really a gift. And that any new "loans" would alo be gifts. That might be a different matter.

[/quote]

 

How nice to have a pleasant conversation with you PC. Do you know how much of that £6m to directors and ex -directors is actually owed to Delia?

I agree its a gamble but hypothetically if you were in Delia & the two Michael''s position and has their wealth would you have been tempted to go for it or would you have been sensible and be contented to finish top 10 this season ??

CA

[/quote]

---

 

The pleasure at least equally mine, Angel. The bare facts are that as of May 2010 these were the amounts owing:

£2.5m to the Turners

£2.1m to Smith and Jones

£1.4m (this doesn''t include his £360,000 gift) to Foulger

Those figures may have changed since then.

 

[/quote]

 

---

Angel, I hope - re TODAY''S news about Foulger - that you noticed this comment of mine YESTERDAY! Spooky eh! Almost as if I already knew...

 

 

 

[hps2031a 2]

Our options, are only loan players, but not sure for what period.What

we need is another pair of loans like Huckerby & Crouch, it did it

then, and I am sure it would certainly at least guarantee a place in the

play offs.One striker that would help us at least until the end of the season is Kevin Phillips, been there, done that, got the Tshirt.PL

his team and the board, not forgetting David Mcnally, have done an

excellent job upto know, and that would still be a remarkable season

considering were we were two seasons ago, lets not forget that, we

should have every faith,come on you yellows.

[Move Klose 303]

Kevin Phillips - Been There, Done That, Over The Hill Now !

[hps2031a 2]

Our options, are only loan players, but not sure for what period.What

we need is another pair of loans like Huckerby & Crouch, it did it

then, and I am sure it would certainly at least guarantee a place in the

play offs.One striker that would help us at least until the end of the season is Kevin Phillips, been there, done that, got the Tshirt.PL

his team and the board, not forgetting David Mcnally, have done an

excellent job upto know, and that would still be a remarkable season

considering were we were two seasons ago, lets not forget that, we

should have every faith,come on you yellows.

[hps2031a 2]

Still scoring in the premier league, when they play him, over the hill, look''s like it.

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="Resident Leeds Fan Jonny"]No need to splash the cash, you have a very good team and are sitting pretty in the top 6...if asked would you have taken that at the start of the season?? probably. It''s hard to just bring someone in and expect that that will be that as far as promotions concerned. Leeds got rid of like 6 players in the transfer window lol and brought no one in, what''s the point if your not gonna bring in Premiership standard players?Norwich, Leeds and other promotion contenders should be aiming for Premiership quality when shopping, and lets face it that''s hard to come by without spending millions. [/quote]Thank you Jonny. I agree with this. I think it''s just an amazing combination of the right players with the right manager we have at the moment which have got us where we are. If we bring in new players we must have at least a hope they could perform in the Prem. - otherwise, as you say, it''s pretty pointless. It sounds like there may have been doubts that Bennett has that potential.I think Lambert''s very concerned about the character of his signings as well. I''m sure Wilbraham''s attitude was one of the main reasons he was brought in.

[YankeeCanary 0]

None of us knows what goes on in the minds of those pulling the strings on the board. It''s interesting of course to ponder/speculate  what may be going on behind the scenes and why this two millions pounds emerged from Michael Foulger just after the transfer window was closed ( presumably he and probably at least other key board members were aware of his intentions prior to the end of the transfer window ). An alternative thought to the obvious "we''re definitely going to get some key loan players in" might be how do we keep Paul Lambert motivated in his role with Norwich City and not have him be too easily tempted by other clubs that may come calling. He knows that what was available to him in the January transfer window is still there and that combined with this two million and possibly other funds to be made available for next season might look like an enticing carrot for Lambert, even if the squad he has or a loan addition doesn''t get the job done this season, it may be a message designed to let Lambert know we are ambitious and his own career aspirations can best be met at Norwich City.     

It seems to me the words communicated by Mr. Foulger have been chosen very carefully:

 “This money will all go to help Paul and his plans for the squad, whether that be when the emergency loan window re-opens next week or in the summer - or both.

“It’s an honour and a privilege to continue to serve the club as deputy chairman at this exciting time, and to be part of a revitalised Norwich City board of directors with a clear and progressive strategy aimed at putting our financial house in order and establishing this great club back in the top flight.”

[ca 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Angel, I hope - re TODAY''S news about Foulger - that you noticed this comment of mine YESTERDAY! Spooky eh! Almost as if I already knew...[/quote]

Agree PC, would like to think we talked this up but guess this all happened in January and was kept quiet so prices weren''t inflated.

Incidentally I had a chat with Mr Fouger in Delai''s restaurant about 18 months ago just after Wizard was speculating about him buying Delia out. He was really angry about some of the posts which suggested that he was selling Banham Poultry to buy out Delia''s shares and had sent emails out to all his staff assuring them it wouldn''t happen and that their jobs were safe. He did say then he would continue to help the club out when he could or when he thought the time was right and he''s kept his word.

Bless him [:)]