Transfer kitty?

[Chelmsford Canary 0]

Didn''t Hull "blow the lot"?

That didn''t get them far!

Yes we have excellent manager - but look at Burnley, Owen Coyle was also v.good - until better offer comes calling, and that offer will come calling.

As someone who deals with finances for work, I would like to see some of the debt reduced.

I also see PL doing some deals - he has eye for a bargain. People need to be realistic - i''ve read some rubbish on here laterly - Scott Parker, Heskey, Owen, wake up and smell coffee.

These are not PL signing - he has stated the type of player - and thats what happened last year.

[kdncfc 27]

Lewis Mcguigan if Forest don''t go up would be a very good signing.

[Unhinged Canary 375]

I might have to start shopping at Morrisons.ASDA is going to be packed over the summer.........[A]

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Hey folks, not really been online for a couple of days - This talk of £40million is a joke right? My cuppa just nearly ended up over my laptop via my mouth. If this is serious, that shows incredible backing for Paul Lambert and also shows we mean SERIOUS business - I don''t think Lambert would have even predicted this!. I''m blown away by it. As for the debt, we should have no fears here - McNally etc have shown they''re very clever people and know what they''re doing. People may think I''m getting carried away but I firmly believe next season''s results may surprise 1 or 2 of us.

Fair play to the Carrow Rd top brass - I''m truly and utterly gobsmacked if this is true... but in a good way!.

And where''s the new shirts? - I''ve got cash burning here ;)!

[Worsencroft 0]

McNally did preside over Laurie Sanchez spending £20million plus in one summer at Fulham... signing such greats as Chris Baird, David Healy, Paul Konchesky and Hameur Bouazza... I have a lot more faith in Paul Lambert to use whatever funds he gets wisely.

[kellybrook 0]

What Bowkett was obviously saying was that the club will back Lambert as much as is needed, up to the 40 million, not "we will spend 40 million to stay up".If we go down, we use the parachute payments to clear some of the debt.  But while we are up there we need to spend what we have - its called speculating to accumulate.  If we fail we have a cushion to manage the debt, if we succeed we may never look back.Anyone suggesting we should  hold back money and pay of the debt rather than buy a new team is is probably Neil Doncaster in disguise.

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="kellybrook"]What Bowkett was obviously saying was that the club will back Lambert as much as is needed, up to the 40 million, not "we will spend 40 million to stay up".If we go down, we use the parachute payments to clear some of the debt.  But while we are up there we need to spend what we have - its called speculating to accumulate.  If we fail we have a cushion to manage the debt, if we succeed we may never look back.Anyone suggesting we should  hold back money and pay of the debt rather than buy a new team is is probably Neil Doncaster in disguise.[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting we go out and ....''buy a new team'' (in your words). That would be insanity of the highest order!

As for not paying off debt, presumably you don''t read papers, listen to the TV or radio? If you do you would realise that the strategy you''re calling for is exactly why GB plc is in almsot total financial ruin!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lincoln canary"][quote user="When Saturday Comes"]Goreham has tweeted that Bowkett announced last night that all of the £40m PL money will go into the transfer kitty. If true, this shows amazing ambition, but maybe it''s too much?![/quote] This surely isn''t true![/quote]

A player budget (Transfer fees and wages etc.) of £40m is feasible.

[T 190]

I think that the key point here is that the chairman was quoted as saying that the TV money would be available for the player budget not all additional income so that still leaves additional matchday income, merchandising, sponsorship and any land proceeds to reduce the debt. Spending the TV money on players is therefore fine providing that the contracts are dependent on the division we are playing in.

[shefcanary 2,410]

Accounting for playing staff includes spreading the transfer fee over the life of the players contract.  In simple terms a £6m transfer fee may only cost the club £2m in a year if the players'' contract is 3 years in length.  Trying to match accounting treatments to the comments by Bowkett could come up with a number of scenarios though.At an extreme level if the £42m is purely spent on transfer with average player contract length of 3 years, the transfer fee pool could be 3 x the annual cost - 3 x £42m = £126m.  Even Chelsky would struggle to spend that.  Or more realistically the budget incorporates salaries etc. Thus for a whole year the playing staff budget may be £42m, half of which say is spent on salaries, leaving £21m for transfer fees which could mean in accounting terms a pot of £63m for average 3 year contracts.  Alternatively if the £42m is the cash spend on player budget in the year, incorporating salaries say of £21m, then £21m on transfers with an average contract length of 3 years would produce an accounting surplus of £14m. Also the club currently spends about £12m on playing staff costs already without Premier League money whilst attempting to break even on player transfers.   Is this to be included in the £42m - if so this could release another £12m to spend elsewhere.  I hope what the above demonstrates is that interpreting Bowkett''s throwaway statement is not a straightforward thing.  The actual transfer pot could be anything from £20m to £126m and yet still only result in a playing budget of £42m in a year.  My own thoughts are that you have to add the current playing budget of £12m to the £42m, with say a 50:50 split between salaries etc and transfer pot (including agents fees and signing on fees), that is £27m on transfers, probably a net £20m after those bloody fees.  That remains at the lower end of peoples initial expectation but still a leap from anything NCFC have had available before.  But that seems a realistic budget for a newly promoted club.  I have no real idea on how to spend it yet - wait until the end of the Premiership matches before doing that.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="T"]I think that the key point here is that the chairman was quoted as saying that the TV money would be available for the player budget not all additional income so that still leaves additional matchday income, merchandising, sponsorship and any land proceeds to reduce the debt. Spending the TV money on players is therefore fine providing that the contracts are dependent on the division we are playing in.[/quote]Exactly - our income last year in League 1 was £17m (from ticket sales, etc as T mentioned), with a player budget of £12m.

 

I guess with the increased prices and additional seats our income this year is about £20m.  Add to that the additional £40m TV revenue, that is a total income of £60.  This is conservative, as I would expect their to be addition ticket, merchandising, sponsorship revenue.

 

To provide a £40m player budget (fees & wages) is very realistic, with maybe £10m paying off debts and the rest for other running costs.

 

My understanding is that he said the whole £40m would be available for the player budget, and he didn''t specify that it was on top of the current budget.

[Tim Allman 1]

[quote user="T"]I think that the key point here is that the chairman was quoted as saying that the TV money would be available for the player budget not all additional income so that still leaves additional matchday income, merchandising, sponsorship and any land proceeds to reduce the debt. Spending the TV money on players is therefore fine providing that the contracts are dependent on the division we are playing in.[/quote]

 

I''m in agreement with T here; I posted pretty much the same thing on another message board last night.

 

Splashing all the TV cash is a good headline for the EDP, and keeps the supporters happy, but of course there’s plenty of other income that NCFC have; season tickets, casual sales, merchandising, catering income sponsorship deals etc.

 

I’m sure that this income will be used for paying off the Turners £2mill+ loan, keeping up the repayments to the banks and all the other non playing costs we have.

 

If this is the case it seems a sensible strategy to me.

 

[SnakepitCanary 0]

Exactly the case, we have a sensible but passionate board who will not put the club in jeopardy. We shouldn''t be worried whatsoever, more so optimistic.

[alysha 0]

If Chelsea wants to cut their losses, if we stump up another 10 million we could get Torres! [;)]

[paul moy 235]

Perhaps we may get Scott Parker after all.... [:D]

[City penguin 0]

[quote user="paul moy"]Perhaps we may get Scott Parker after all.... [:D][/quote]your still dreaming, hes on over 60k a week at wetsham and his stock has risen considerably. He will get a contract on at least 60 probably wich equates to 3.1 million in just wages. He will also be on appearence money and will get at least a million signing on fee and got knows whatever his agent charges. So your looking at minimum 4 million just for one player! I doubt we will pay anyone over 30k a week maximum, most will be on under 15k.

[paul moy 235]

[quote user="City penguin"][quote user="paul moy"]Perhaps we may get Scott Parker after all.... [:D][/quote]

your still dreaming, hes on over 60k a week at wetsham and his stock has risen considerably. He will get a contract on at least 60 probably wich equates to 3.1 million in just wages. He will also be on appearence money and will get at least a million signing on fee and got knows whatever his agent charges. So your looking at minimum 4 million just for one player! I doubt we will pay anyone over 30k a week maximum, most will be on under 15k.
[/quote]

The question is with that money, do we go for quality or quantity ?  We want to keep the nucleus of our current squad and I''m sure that we won''t be adding masses of players so just adding two or three players of his level would take us far. Perhaps that is just a dream, but who knows, he has played for us before and may like to return with a pay-cut...... LOL 

[militantcanary 0]

I don''t particularly care for Mick Dennis but he seems to have an inside track into the Board

In his latest article he says 40M will have to be on the transfers spent and budget for players for the entire squad.

in other words I would surmise 13M on transfers, £3M on signing on fees for Bosmans and other transfers, our current wage bill will perhaps be about 13M with wage increases from being in the Prem League from what I think is about 8M currently, bonuses allowed for at say 3M, and 8M for the wages in 1st year of new players.

There you go 40M spent or budgeted for because of bonus allowance but not all on transfers.

i am guessing a bit here but if we spend more than 13M on players this summer then I would still be absolutely amazed. The 40M is not going all on new costs but seem to be the transfer budget.

if this is true and I fully expect it to be it is a v v sensible policy. Spent a good bit of money but still be able to pay off a fair portion of the debt, sounds like the Turners will be paid 2M soon thereby reducing overall debt to 18M straight away.

[Grant holts boot cleaner 0]

Rumour has it 1p5wich offered £1:5 million for grant holt which was rejected and told to come back with £4:1M. Grant holt was informed and reckons his worth atleast £9:2M!

Anyway jimmy kebe would be a great addition for a possible right winger role and maybe quite cheap?

[scrappy33 0]

Don''t broadcast how much we''ve go thats what i say, you know what happens to these price''s when clubs know your worth a few quid. so no dealings with posh lol

[Yelloow Since 72 54]

I think that jamesg has got it about right, though I think that the current player budget could be more than 13m. But considering the budget Lambert had to work with last summer (and what he did with it!) I think the money will be spent wisely to continue building the squad, but this time for the Premiership. Pacheco seems keen to come back if he can''t break into the Liverpool squad, and if we could get Lansbury back as well that would provide both quality and continuity. A quality striker (or two), a pacey winger, a quality holding midfield player, another RB and possibly an experienced keeper as well could be accomplished within 12-13m without breaking up the squad that got us to the Prem.

Meamwhile, the club''s other income is used to carry on and begin working the debt down to reasonable proportions. This all looks very promising to me, as long as we don''t get carried away thinking that we have a 40m transfer kitty, as that just isn''t going to be the case.

[Mahogany 0]

Surely we need 2 wingers? We don''t really have anyone up to playing on the left or right wing in the Premiership

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Don''t forget that players leaving could raise a million pounds and even more importantly, if

Gill,

OTJ

Askou

Steven Smith

Oli

McNamee

etc

leave then that will save betwen £10,000 and £20,000 a week in salaries assuming they receive an average of £2,000 per week each.   Given that Stephen Hughes was widely claimed to have been offered £8,000 a week, the savings could be more.

It all goes in the pot.

 

[Pete Raven 276]

Not forgetting you don''t get the £40m in one lump sum and there are essential costs associated with promotion to the Premier League: http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich_city_board_backs_lambert_1_889137

[blahblahblah 2]

I think Bethnal Y & G mentioned that about half of the money doesn''t arrive till the end of the season - which is a big problem for 1st season teams.  So assuming it''s 20 million over 10 months, and then another 20 million at the end, that''s "only" 2 million per month, or 500k per week, unless a club are willing to borrow to use that money, which I don''t think Norwich are allowed to do because of their current debts.Aren''t most transfer fees paid in installments though ?  If  thats the case then Lambert may be able to bring a few players for fees over the summer.  I like that this bloke gets his business done early - it should be a fun summer !

[First Wizard 0]

40 million?

 

No chance, Lambert will be very lucky to get a tenth of that!!

 

If the board pi*ses him about on this, or tries to do it on the cheap, again, he''ll walk, and I wouldn''t blame him one little bit.

[urdie_Canary 33]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLIf that happeneds or has happended i would literally eat out my rectum mate

[York Canary 28]

Well we''ve got £2m or so from this January unspent so that''s a start lol

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Well we''ve got £2m or so from this January unspent so that''s a start lol[/quote]

 

And you believe that to the letter?

 

Oh very dear. [:S]

[York Canary 28]

What''s wrong with that? The ring-fenced £2m, that''s all I was talking about