'Going for it' and the reality of the January transfer window

[Shack Attack 0]

This board if full of comments at the moment stating that by refusing to ''go for it'' we have blown our chance of automatic promotion and that this is yet another example of the owners letting us down. I asked posters where the expectation that we were ''going for it'' came from on [url=http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/3/2405784/ShowPost.aspx#2405784]another thread[/url] and it seems that there is some confusion over the origin of this quote. Alan Bowkett certainly made reference to finding extra investment for Paul Lambert in the transfer window and Lambert himself made it clear he wanted us to ''go for it'' back in early December.What seems clear is that many fans are spoiling for yet another fight with the board even though we are currently sitting in second place in The Championship just two years after falling to our lowest league position in 50 plus years. And yet again we''re arguing over semantics and context. Just as we have done with soundbites made by various members of the board in the past. Why are we so keen to moan about this when we have no idea what ''going for it'' means? Why do we always want to believe that the owners are trying everything in their power to mess things up and deprive us of success when the evidence of the last twelve months or so points to the exact opposite. Is it because we don''t understand the way the January transfer window works?To understand how the January transfer window works you may as well start with one of the most surprising transfers that took place. Namely that of Andy Carroll to Liverpool for £35million. Now every time you look at the headline figures surrounding this it makes absolutely no sense. This is a player who has played just half a season in the top flight. A player who, although he has great potential, has achieved nothing of note in his career to date. How can he be worth £35million? How can he be worth around the same price as David Villa (a man widely regarded as the best striker in the world)? It''s because it is January!!!In January all of the usual factors that influence a transfer fee are magnified by the desperation of club owners to get success. In the case of Liverpool the owners are desperate to make a mark and desperate to prove to their fans that they are still a big club despite losing their star striker. The player they identify is young, English and has a five year contract. The club that this player is contracted to do not want to sell. All of these factors will push up the price of a player at any time but in January the buyer is getting desperate, especially with only twenty four hours to go before the window slams shut. Result- Liverpool end up paying around £20million over the odds for Andy Carroll.Now transfer those factors over to Norwich and our pursuit of Elliott Bennett. Norwich identify a young, English (although that doesn''t really matter to us) player with one and a half years on his contract. The club that this player is contracted to do not want to sell. The fact that he is young, has a reasonable amount of time left on his contract and Brighton do not want to sell is already pushing his price up. The fact that we are in the January transfer window is pushing it up even more. How desperate are Norwich? Do they need to make a big signing to save face with their fans like Liverpool do? Result - Norwich don''t pay over the odds for Elliott Bennett but they may sill have been ''going for it''.Show a bit more trust people. The last eighteen months should have built up a lot more goodwill than has been shown here today.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

 

If this was Facebook I would be ''liking'' this post!!!!!!!  Some people on this board really do need some perspective

[Forces2Canaries 0]

Quality post - well thought out and very well put forward!

[Nexus_Canary 1,016]

Very good post OP

[Norwich R Us 59]

Some people on this forum are utter morons who''s thought patterns are anchored on about 30 minutes of memory.

[yellow hammer 0]

Agree with every word you write, Shack.

Liverpool smacks of desperation, as though this is the last throw of the dice for them.

I posted a couple of years back that I though Liverpool would implode and end up doing a Leed''s. Then then went out and signed Torres and blew my prediction out of the water, lol.

However, Torres kept them out of a hole and I doubt lightning won''t strike twice in the same place. So I put my prediction back onto the front burner and say that Liverpool will be in mighty big trouble, sooner rather than later, especially once the Daglish honeymoon is over.

As for Norwich, their actions seem totally cool, calm and collected. The management has a vision and a plan and they''re working towards it.

Over the past eighteen months the players we''ve signed have met with a lukewarm reception on this message board. But I notice that a few weeks in, the players are getting much more praise and even comments such as ''immense'', ''towering performance'' and ''MoM today''. It can only mean that the Lambert magic is working and the coaching team that we have are really doing their stuff.

No need for hysteria on the Pinkun, just calm determination will see us through.

YH

[. 0]

If Paul Lambert is happy with things, that''s all that matters.Try to accept that the new regime is in the middle of a ''building process'' and all of this promotion crap is coming from the same empty minds that saw us relegated to Division 3 for the first time in 50 years.I realise that this is a spoilt brat ''I want it now'' generation, but get a grip for feck''s sake.

[the bristol nest 0]

Spot on Shark. Its nice to hear an intelligent post on the reality of the transfer window and well done city for recognising it too.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

Shack, an interesting piece full of sense. Just to explain why I think the Bowkett quote is more significant than the vague Lambert quote. Managers often say that kind of stuff, sometimes - you will be shocked to hear - to put pressure on the board to cough up more money.

When the CEO or the chaiman or the owners, ie the people who control the money, say something like that then that is time time to start paying attention.

 

More generally, you''re right that prices get inflated in January, and clubs make high-profile signings for the sake of it. To save face. I think the former may (only may) have been a factor with us and Bennett, but not the latter.

 

 

Three things had become obvious. One, Lambert wanted an out and out winger to give himself tactical options. Two, the players he had in the squad (McNamee, Daley) he plainly thought not top-six Championship level. Three, he thought Bennett was. Whether Lambert is right about any or all of that (in my idiot view he is certainly right about the first two, and I haven''t seen Bennett play) is irrelevant.

 

 

To that end he clearly husbanded what he had been given to spend (a journeyman back-up for Holt rather than a quality player and a League One full-back) because he knew Barnett would not come cheap and neither would Bennett.

 

 

In the end we judged Bennett too expensive, but only those involved in the negotiations would know how close or far away a deal was. Whether Brighton''s price was exhorbitant. Whether we were offering too little. Whether we pulled out because Lambert has a Plan B in the shape of a loan deal lined up. Etc etc etc. I do think some chairmen, faced with a transfer request, would have caved in. The Brighton chairman plainly is made of sterner stuff, and they may be a club to watch over the next decade.

[blahblahblah 2]

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of being held to ransom by a club for a potentially very good player, as Shack rightly points out we should look at where we are, and what we need to win promotion.  Do we need a talented winger who is ripping up trees in league 1 for Brighton, but one who has never played above league 1, where there are probably 6 or 8 teams who would stretch a championship side ?  Or do we need a seasoned campaigner or two in key positions such as striker or on the wing, to get us through the next 17 games with 34 points, a total which is pretty likely to guarantee promotion in this tight league ?It could be that Bennett turns out to be the next Charlie Adam.  Or he could be the next David Coterrill.  But if we bring a couple of players who have been there, done that and won things in the championship, arguably we would be stronger for that than if we had paid Brightons'' inflated price.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Excellent OP and comments. I thought the muted atmosphere last night was like a collective sulk originated in the transfer window.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Shack, an interesting piece full of sense. Just to explain why I think the Bowkett quote is more significant than the vague Lambert quote. Managers often say that kind of stuff, sometimes - you will be shocked to hear - to put pressure on the board to cough up more money.

When the CEO or the chaiman or the owners, ie the people who control the money, say something like that then that is time time to start paying attention.

 

More generally, you''re right that prices get inflated in January, and clubs make high-profile signings for the sake of it. To save face. I think the former may (only may) have been a factor with us and Bennett, but not the latter.

 

 

Three things had become obvious. One, Lambert wanted an out and out winger to give himself tactical options. Two, the players he had in the squad (McNamee, Daley) he plainly thought not top-six Championship level. Three, he thought Bennett was. Whether Lambert is right about any or all of that (in my idiot view he is certainly right about the first two, and I haven''t seen Bennett play) is irrelevant.

 

 

To that end he clearly husbanded what he had been given to spend (a journeyman back-up for Holt rather than a quality player and a League One full-back) because he knew Barnett would not come cheap and neither would Bennett.

 

 

In the end we judged Bennett too expensive, but only those involved in the negotiations would know how close or far away a deal was. Whether Brighton''s price was exhorbitant. Whether we were offering too little. Whether we pulled out because Lambert has a Plan B in the shape of a loan deal lined up. Etc etc etc. I do think some chairmen, faced with a transfer request, would have caved in. The Brighton chairman plainly is made of sterner stuff, and they may be a club to watch over the next decade.

[/quote]

 

--

 

There are now some interesting, rather frank, comments from McNally:


We made three offers, significant seven-figure sums," McNally told BBC Radio Norfolk.

"If we had our way he would have joined us and it would have been the biggest transfer fee this club has paid since January 2006."

That transaction was for Nottingham Forest''s Robert Earnshaw, with the Canaries splashing out £3.5m on the Wales international.

 

"This was a serious offer, we meant serious business," he added.

"Brighton are a great football club, good people, our relationship with them is unharmed by the events of the last four weeks.

"We can understand them not wanting to sell their best player, so we do have some sympathy but he was the one that got away."

Lambert will have the funds from the failed Bennett deal to use when the loan window opens next week.

 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

To my admittedly small mind, going public like that is a mistake, unless you have already negotiated loans.  Anyone in the business who reads this will know roughly what Norwich will have available to spend now.

[Jeremy God 0]

Totally agree with this post, mentioned it''s very very well thought out!!......"take a bow son, take a bow!!"

Personally i cant emphasise the fact that we must strengthen our attack, i''m not saying we should splash silly money, but there are players out there who are proven tried and tested goal scorers at this level who we could possibly sign on loan and for me that is what will get us over the line!

Don''t get me wrong, with goals coming from both the defence and midfield it highlights the depth of our squad and it can only be a matter of time until the likes of Martin and Jackson find the back of the net again, but for me to be in this position (which is far higher than anyone could have imagined) we must "go for it"............in lambert we trust!

[Shack Attack 0]

 

What I probably also should have pointed out in my original post is that any desire to ''go for it'' has to be balanced against the financial situation at any given point. Some people seem to be suggesting that just because QPR or Forest have spent big then we can only possibly be ''going for it'' if we match them. The financial picture that has been painted by David McNally since he came in has clearly shown that this cannot possibly happen and we should be wary of encouraging our club to spend more money we that we do not have.

 

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

In the end we judged Bennett too expensive, but only those involved in the negotiations would know how close or far away a deal was. Whether Brighton''s price was exhorbitant. Whether we were offering too little. Whether we pulled out because Lambert has a Plan B in the shape of a loan deal lined up. Etc etc etc. I do think some chairmen, faced with a transfer request, would have caved in. The Brighton chairman plainly is made of sterner stuff, and they may be a club to watch over the next decade.

[/quote]

 

Thanks Purple, this sums up my whole point very neatly. We simply don''t know what the reasons behind our failure to sign Bennett are and until we do (and I would suggest that we probably never will) then we really should lay off the criticism. There are some [url=http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich_city_go_close_to_getting_bennett_for_near_1m_1_790289]interesting comments from both Paul Lambert and Gus Poyet here[/url] which certainly seem to suggest that we were not undervaluing Bennett.

 

“There were three (bids),” he said. “It was very, very difficult because it was quite a good offer, I would say a very good offer.”

 

What can sometimes happen in these situations is that the offer is turned down but the player is given an assurance that he can leave at the end of the season. After all there is no value to Brighton in having a disgruntled player on their books for the rest of the season. I wonder is that is what has happened here and that, as Purple has suggested, Paul Lambert will now revert to Plan B and look for a more short term solution. The money is clearly available for us to do this as evidenced by our ''very good offer''.

[ricardo 7,328]

I have to agree with that Shack. Bennett is a decent player but anything over £1m is too much to pay for a league 1 player.For me personally £700-£800k would be the top whack with perhaps an add on for promotion.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Is there really a huge amount of dissent Shack? I think that the vast majority realise that the way the new board have moved from flogging off our best players at every opportunity, to building a squad and consistently investing to strengthen it (despite the backdrop of about the worst financial position the club has ever been in) is verging on the miraculous. And all based on running the club properly and allocating income to the right areas, rather than new director loans as some posters on here were insisting was behind our spending- hey PC?

[Bill 1,788]

"have moved from flogging off our best players at every opportunity"

I thought the pantomime season was over

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Is there really a huge amount of dissent Shack?[/quote]

 

Maybe not a ''huge amount'' Mr C but certainly enough to catch my eye. There were plenty of negative threads on Monday night as it became apparent that we were not going to sign anybody else and they all seemed to contain the ''going for it'' quote. That''s why I asked for a bit of context and felt it worthy of it''s own thread. RH is suggesting that there was a general air of sulkiness around the ground last night (I wasn''t there) and I do get the feeling sometimes when I read this forum that we''re only a couple of bad results away from being at each others throats again.

 

Although to be fair it was much more fun back then [;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

 

 

Is there really a huge amount of dissent Shack? I think that the vast majority realise that the way the new board have moved from flogging off our best players at every opportunity, to building a squad and consistently investing to strengthen it (despite the backdrop of about the worst financial position the club has ever been in) is verging on the miraculous. And all based on running the club properly and allocating income to the right areas, rather than new director loans as some posters on here were insisting was behind our spending- hey PC?

---

 

Mr.Carrow, I admire your efforts to provoke me into a discussion, I really do, but my friendly advice is for you to give up. I decided a year or more ago to stop trying to debate Norwich City finances with you. Experience taught me I needed to check what purported in your posts to be accurate facts, or direct quotes, or assessments of posters'' attitudes and statements. And I decided life was too short for research that extensive. Hence the decision to stop debating.

 

 

 

I must say, though, to be fair, at least in this post you''ve got one thing right. I did say many months ago, based on an analysis of the situation, plus later reported comments from McNally, that our spending had been at least in part bankrolled by directors.

 

 

 

And in the 2010 accounts - the latest we have - it''s there in black and white. A new "loan" of £770,000 from Michael Foulger. Who is a director. So I was right.

 

 

 

But the funny thing is, you must have known that was there in the accounts. You really must. And yet you decided to quietly forget about it and post something that was plainly misleading, in order to convince posters I was wrong. If I ever needed confirmation that I was right not to have total faith in the accuracy of your posts then you have just provided it.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

The loan from Foulger was well known about PC and you were referring to other loans on top of that as well you know. The bulk of our recent emphasise on building a decent squad, instead of dismantling one as the previous board did, has been funded by cutting back on peripheral activities as the board have stated on several occasions- most recently when the last accounts came out showing running costs and capex reduced by millions (as i was regularly labelled anti-club for suggesting.....). Will you accept that simple truth?

I don`t blame you for stopping debating- you comprehensively lost the argument and you seem rather bitter with our current Chairman for blowing you out of the water :-)

[Bill 1,788]

"instead of dismantling one as the previous board did"

a never ending stream of bile, lies and hatred - topped up with slander and malicious slurs

[T 190]

Mr Carrow has brilliantly noted that we sold players as our income reduced as the premiership payments and subsequently the parachute payments stopped and that we are buying players after our income incréased following promotion. He has also correctly noted that our costs reduced when we got demoted. I think you will find UEFA hailed Arsenal, as the financial model, a club with is funded by substantial peripheral and property interests. it is very simple if these activities contribute to the income available for players it is a good thing and if they don''t it is a bad thing. Our major peripheral activity is catering which generates substantial income so that argument is dead and what do you call organising concerts other than a peripheral activity. On capex it is about time that Mr C worked out that capex is funded by loans which would not be available for players. What matters is whether it generates income or not. The major capex relates either to stands which are generally full and therefore profitable or the property investments which had a 3m profit based on the market value when the decision was made but have cost 300k a year in interest as a result of the financial exoncomic crisis. I''ve no doubt the new regime are squeezing revenue and costs but the fundamental lack of profitabiltiy of football clubs  and therefore the need for additional funds has not changed. Mr C has never said where he would find these additional funds. Neither looking at it from the other angle of a squad which consists of a substantial numberof league one players do I believe that Lambert has substantially more funds than Grant, Roeder or Gunn. Perhaps if Mr C spent as much time studying basic finance as he does posting on here than he and his fellow FPAs could finally grasp these facts. Its the manager stupid!

[. 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"instead of dismantling one as the previous board did"

a never ending stream of bile, lies and hatred - topped up with slander and malicious slurs[/quote]Thank you Delia.Now bugger off back into the shadows.

[Bill 1,788]

That you should pop up in response to comments about lies, slander amd malicious slurs should not be a surprise to anyone.

That I am Delia does come as bit of a surprise though, more so as I don''t even like sherry !

[Yellowfuture 71]

Failing to sign the Holy Grail that is Bennett could well have the beneficial effect of allowing us to use at least some of the 7 figure sum to bring in more strike power on loan. Maybe a winger too, it could all be a blessing in disguise.

[Power Hamster 0]

We are second in the league, with nearly two thirds of the season gone, and on a smaller budget than most of the other sides around us.If that isn''t "going for it", then what is???

[. 0]

[quote user="City1st"]That you should pop up in response to comments about lies, slander amd malicious slurs should not be a surprise to anyone.

That I am Delia does come as bit of a surprise though, more so as I don''t even like sherry ![/quote]That''s why I couldn''t allow you to get away with it.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]So if we are to believe Mr C then the reason that we are doing better this season is not because Lambert is a better manager than Grant; Roeder and Gunn but he has a bigger budget for his League one group of players  than Roeder''s premiership loanees. I''m afraid his grasp of reality is as good as his grasp of finance. Mr C is to fianance what Gunn is to football management. Utterly clueless.[/quote]

You don`t do joined up thinking do you T? Good footy managers are driven, pro-active and ambitious and will only leave a decent position if they are joining a club with those attributes- hence we ended up with Grant and Gunn who were not actually football managers and Roeder who had failed at other clubs and was struggling to find another position. Grants introduction to management was to lose his three best players for £5.5m and public unrest from his players about the clubs ambition. Roeder started his second season with a squad down to seven senior pro`s. So what do you think is more effective T- an £8m budget to rebuild a squad demoralised and decimated down to seven senior pro`s, or an £8m budget to keep together and strengthen a 25-man squad most of whom have shown themselves to be capable first-team players? Not rocket science is it?

We would not have attracted a manager of Lamberts quality here under the old regime and if you knew anything at all about football you would realise that. Bowkett compared us to Wolves a while back (when they were promoted) and stated that what they had done differently to us was "build a squad of their own players" and thankfully that is exactly what we have done. We were net sellers in a big way every season after relegation from the Prem (i know you don`t have the accounts but it`s there in black and white) and you defended that to the hilt and told us it was all worth it if the off-pitch "obsession" eventually yealded a return at some unspecified point in the future. We are now net buyers and have just bid a million for a player despite having sold no first-team player for a year and a half. If your argument had any consistancy at all you would be campaigning against this kind of ambition on the pitch and calling for our best players to be sold off to pay for more off-pitch stuff as you have in the past. It`s called wanting it both ways.....:-)

[T 190]

Not sure there was any point to your ramble but you at least seem to have finally recognised that the improvement in the team''s performance is down to Lambert rather than any radical miraculous transfomation in the player budget available. All I have ever argued is that spending money on capex and peripheral activities as most clubs do is a good thing if it generates extra funds for players and I demonstrated in most cases  they have. Even the NCISA seem to have finally grasped this basic concept but unfortunately it seems your grasp of finance is so poor that you somehow translate advocating generating more money to spend on players translates as advocating that we sell players. Wierd.