The worrying truth . . . We need investment or it could all go tits up

[morty 0]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Do you not see morty and lappinitup that the posts researched there are providing a farly good indication that he does in fact have a connection to the club via a players family. While the information may have turned out to be incorrect, the fact that it did turn out incorrect in many ways makes the probablitlty of the OP having a connection vastly more likely.

 

 

[/quote]I don''t follow his posts that closely. There are lots of factors here, the current one being that people are falling over themselves to bring us "100% genuine" breaking news and info. Secondly, okay maybe he does know someone "in the know" but just how in the know are they? As an employee (which is what players are) do you know every single detail about the company you work for? Do you think it would be in a companies interests to have private and confidential information thrust into teh public domain? Do you really think McNally is that stupid?I''ll take my news the official way thanks.[Y]

[RvWs 4 year contract 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]This thread has been running for over an hour and i am amazed that with the title it has Tangible and Cluck have as yet not swarmed all over it like bees round a honey pot with their anti Delia bile.[:''(][/quote]Yet YOU''RE the one who has just bought it up...

[shefcanary 2,377]

A couple of points:

Financial Fair Play kicks in in 12 months time - neither our club or others are going to risk writing long term contracts that will cause them huge contractual and financial issues this time next year.  McNally & Co. are right to play hardball and the players better wake up and smell the coffee - the new reality has arrived.  And agents can go and find work elsewhere - leave contract negotiations to the players and the Players union!

 

Secondly Montpelier just won the French Premier league with an income half Norwich''s.  Okay so it ain''t the best league in the world, but their income was about a third or less of Paris St Germain and other free spending French clubs. 

 

So Volpe, what you say may be true, but over the next month you are going to see a lot of clubs off loading their high paid bench warmers.  That''s when the new contractual reality will bite - or you will see a lot of them moving outside of Europe.

 

Stick with it McNally.

[Oswald Cobblepot 0]

Aggy - Not sure what you''re trying to get at here. Read my reply to you above re: your previous comments.

I''m not doubting the fact that you may or may not have a source at the club. If you read my original post I never said Lambert is definitely on his way. I don''t know this as much as my source doesn''t know. I said that none of the players seem to know what''s happening with him at the moment, or certainly didn''t at the point I spoke to my man. We don''t know what Lambert will do . . . I only pray that the board do enough to convince him to stay if he is contemplating leaving the club.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Do you not see morty and lappinitup that the posts researched there are providing a farly good indication that he does in fact have a connection to the club via a players family. While the information may have turned out to be incorrect, the fact that it did turn out incorrect in many ways makes the probablitlty of the OP having a connection vastly more likely.

 

 

[/quote]

Am i having a senoir moment here or does this post turn on its head and contradict itself halfway through ?[*-)]

[/quote]

Sorry TIL, badly worded, lemme try again. There is virtualy no point in claiming to work with a footballers step father when said footballer doesnt play or norwich, it adds no credability to any future norwich city gossip you may share. Not only did he not play for norwich at that time but the OP went on to say that he wont. Later posts then maintain this working relationship. This is the opposite to the unfounded rumour creators who dont divulge any indication of source and claim to know someone will sign not that they wont sign. still not really phased this well but I believe to information here is passed in good faith and as said before worry that we jump all over people posting like this eventually nobody will share.

 

 

[ricardo 7,336]

[quote user="Francesco Volpe"]Tilly - Not sure what you mean about the post contradicting itself? in what way?

Yellow Lorry - Thanks for actually noticing/remembering that. Certain people clearly only like to pick holes rather than take what they''re being told at face value. I only post on this forum when I actually have something to contribute . . . apart from that I just tend to read the rest of the stuff that gets posted.[/quote]

But you''ve told us nothing we can''t already surmise for ourselves.1. Players want more money......................Who doesn''t?2. Management want to keep finances tight...................Shock, Horror!3. Lambert has ambitions to manage a bigger club............Well, I never!4. Another club may want to speak to him.................Oh surely not!5. We need a rich benefactor............................Who''d have thought it?6. I''ve got a source at the club............................Don''t we all?I have been to all recent AGM''s where the financial situation has been fairly explained and the plan going forward has been mapped out. Lambert is party to all this so knows full well what the constraints are and what he can expect in transfer funds. The players who were signed pre season were happy with their contracts so are obviously happy with them.None of this is a mystery or a revelation and if Morisons step father knows any more than we do I will be very surprised.

[NCFCgardener 0]

Everyone has a ''source'' at the club but yours is giving you their opinion, not fact. I like to look at the facts...

Nothing worrying here, you have just told us that the club is being well managed.  McNally has already stated in the last few weeks that the club will be out of debt inside a year.  Considering the club was in a very dire situation a few years back, we should be congratulating McNally for what he has done for out club.  Norwich City does not have the fan base (at the moment), nor a Billionaire owner to compete with some of the other clubs in the League so we have to be smarter with what we have got..  McNally is not being stubborn, if you dont have the money, you cant spend it and I for one would rather spend the next 10 years in the Championship than gamble on the clubs future like some other clubs have done.  Also, dont forget that there are the Financial Fair Play regulations that will be rolled out over the next few years and we are in a great position. 

 

[Oswald Cobblepot 0]

Yes Ricardo, fair comments. Of course we can all assume those things on our own, but what I''m trying to emphasise is the detrimental effect that all this is currently having on the club and the harmony in the changing room. It''s already come to the fore with GH''s transfer request, and from what I''ve heard he won''t be the last to be disgruntled by the way things are being handled at the moment. Something that could prove very damaging to the club if a solution isn''t found to resolve the issue.

Oh and one thing I forgot to mention about my chat with the now obvious source is closure to the ridiculous Grant Holt black eye rumours that have been doing the rounds. . . When I mentioned to him the rumours of the bust up between PL and GH that were doing the rounds a few days ago, he almost fell off his chair with laughter. His response was, and I quote "Wow, your fans really do have imagination. It''s absolute rubbish. I''ve never known anything like them. Steve never mentioned it, and if it had happened, I''m sure I would''ve heard about it!"

[norfolkchance1 0]

Agree with NCFCgardener wholeheartedly think we should be encouraging the board in the direction they are taking the club.

Just look at Newcastle they aren''t suffering and it seems like they have been on a similar path.

[Bill 1,788]

"The players who were signed pre season were happy with their contracts so are obviously happy with them."Spot onNone of those signed give the appearance of big time charlies or ''carlos kickaballs'' who are here because they are merely a means to fill their boots and line the pockets of numerous ''foreign johnnies'', through various commissions, fees and backhanders. They appear to be decent lads intent on furthering their careers, and at the moment Norwich City have given them a massive ste up in that ambition.I''m sure this no coincidence either way. What has marked this currents boards running of the club (amongst other things)is the way transfer dealings have been carried out professionally without hardly any media speculation before players are signed or leave. There has been virtually no speculation regarding players being sold either.In that light I would suggest tha,t as stated elsewhere, these insider stories are no more than mere fabrication based on some half guessed speculation. For my part I know a number of people who work at the club in various guises, full and part time, but I also know that they do not sit in on board meetings or contract negotiations. What they know is pretty much what goes on where they work and the consensus is usually on the lines of "dunno, they don''t tell us anything".So perhaps when the club does make an announcement we will know for certain, until then 99% of the rest is worthless shight.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

I dont think anyone could seriously argue that we should spend money we cannot afford but if both players and manager do not believe that they are recieving as much as we can afford there will be problems. I was under the impression that Lambert felt he was getting everything we could give him but Franceso''s information seems to indicate otherwise. The problem here is that McNally cannot easy keep both players on below market rate contracts and the manager happy at the same time. If he gives the manager all available funds to buy more players then exisiting players will say "if they can afford £15million to buy players that can afford to pay me properly" and visa versa if money is being spent on improving contracts the managers war chest shrinks very quickly. It''s a really difficult negotiation/balancing act in which the outcome could easy upset both sides.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

[quote user="T"]renegotiating the debt cost 1m last time and in the current debt crisis the financial institutions have to recapitalise their balance sheets in order to comply with the requirements of Basel III banking regulations so very unlikely that rescheduling the debt is an option.  [/quote]

 

To be honest, I try not to think too much about the ins and outs of the clubs finances, i prefer to leave that up to PurpleCanary as the mans a whizz with numbers and would be my vote for chancellor of the exchequer. If your out there PC, can we increase our wage structure by say an average of £5k please sowe can keep our better players and manager?

 

 

[/quote]

 

How do you know I''m not already, SOG![;)][:D][;)]

I am not sure I can be much help. Firstly, as to the main point of the OP, that the board is playing hardball over contracts. It would be surprising if it wasn''t. There is a view that the new regime came in and performed a massive policy U-turn. Not true. Superficially, yes. PR, for example. But in terms of the big-picture decisions, no. It is hard to find a cigarette paper''s width of difference between the way the old and the new regimes have run the club. Particularly in terms of trying to get to the PL and then staying there.

Secondly, I really do think posters need to let go of the idea that our lenders will be willing to regenotiate the debt. They want out of football, and the sooner the better. That is why Axa made us agree to an early repayment clause if we got to the PL.

Thirdly, there is the wild card of the Financial fair Play rules. I defy anybody to be sure how they will work. Reduce the obscene disparities in the PL? Possibly. But the rich will still be richer.

As to our wages, and what we could afford, a clearer picture might emerge at the end of this financial year, if the directors issue preliminary results in early June. But we may need to wait until the full results come out at the end of the year. Last year, according to the accounts, player wage costs were 47 per cent of the turnover of £23m. So £10.8m. What I don''t know is what the club means by player wage costs. Basic salaries? Bonuses as well?

Could we give everyone in the first-team squad a £5,000 pw pay rise? I assume you mean per week and not per year! Supposing - and this is very rough and ready - our structure is vaguely as follows, based on what seems reasonable figure of £17,000 pw for Holt as joint top earner. So, eight bands of £1,000 pw difference, with three players in each band, going down to the lowest earners on £10,000 pw. That would give us this season a basic player wage bill of £16.84m. Give everyone a £5,000 pw raise and the figure climbs to £23.1m. A 37.5 per cent rise. With the debt we have to pay off? And with us locking ourselves into a significatly higher basic wage structure from which we could not go back while in the PL and would need to be slashed back upon relegation? I am dubious.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

Many thanks PurpleCanary, precise and articulate as ever. The £6.3million it would take to even make our wages slightly more competative would therefore have to come straight out of Lamberts budget (with relegation clause) which would probably be the fastest way to send him to Birmingham or wherever.

I guess for the next season or 2 we will need our players to be patient, which is fine unless you are 31 years of age with a couple of good seasons left.

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

All sounds pretty plausible to me, and I think ties in with my own anxieties about this summer. I just have a feeling that everything is currently on hold as we do not know what Lambert is going to do and I hope that this can therefore be sorted out very soon.

Re the wages, this is obviously our biggest challenge and whilst I generally support prudence in the sense that I don;t want to see us living vastly beyond our means I do feel that there needs to be a bit of give and take here and therefore hope that McNally and Bowkett are not being as rigid and unreasonable as the original post suggests. If they are, then we could have big problems in terms of keeping our players happy and keeping Lambert. Regardless of the Villa situation he may feel he cannot do his job if he is being asked to do it with one hand tied behind his back. We simply have to be able to match the likes of WBA, Fulham, Reading, Saints and Swansea or next season will be very hard indeed. Surely we can do that if contracts are structured carefully so as to cater for relegation. Its also not as if we don;t have any slaeable player assets if we do go down again. Virtually the entire squad now would be worth a decent fee on the transfer market.

I guess my nervousness stems from the fact that the OP has struck a few chords with certain anxieties i have been feeling but hopefully the powers that be at the club are not acting as rigidly as is suggested.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

But Purple - that £23m turnover is presumably championship yes? I appreciate its not easy as financial years do not tie in precisely with the season but surely with the guaranteed tv money, ticket sales etc one would expect our turnover as a premiership club to be nearer £70 million. In that context a wage bill of £16m seems quite low and one would think that there must be scope to both pay off the debts and give the players a reasonable increase in salary to bring them into line with other (lower end) premiership clubs.

Surely provided any new contracts/wage increases allow for relegation it can be done without too much risk? Other than player wages our other costs are presumably not that much higher in the prem than in the championship (although i am sure the police bill is higher!) 

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Son Ova Gunn"]

Many thanks PurpleCanary, precise and articulate as ever. The £6.3million it would take to even make our wages slightly more competative would therefore have to come straight out of Lamberts budget (with relegation clause) which would probably be the fastest way to send him to Birmingham or wherever.

I guess for the next season or 2 we will need our players to be patient, which is fine unless you are 31 years of age with a couple of good seasons left.

 

 

[/quote]

 

SOG, this is why the directors want so badly to increase capacity at Carrow Road. But (based on their timescale) that won''t happen at the earliest until sometime in the 2014-15 season, with the 2015-16 season being the first full season with extra capacity. And it will cost loads of money as well. If Holtgate has served a purpose it is to remind fans that we are a club owned by paupers in a financially unforgiving league.

[ron obvious 1,495]

Am I the only one, or does it strike you that the club''s situation reflects the national one?

Management want sustainability:

expenditure = income ( Austerity)

fans & players want unlimited ever increasing success, unlimited ever increasing wealth:

expenditure = income + as much as the owners can/will stump up ( Borrowing + Tax + Printy Printy ).

It''s the same with any other club I suppose. And any other country. Except perhaps Germany.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

But Purple - that £23m turnover is presumably championship yes? I appreciate its not easy as financial years do not tie in precisely with the season but surely with the guaranteed tv money, ticket sales etc one would expect our turnover as a premiership club to be nearer £70 million. In that context a wage bill of £16m seems quite low and one would think that there must be scope to both pay off the debts and give the players a reasonable increase in salary to bring them into line with other (lower end) premiership clubs.

Surely provided any new contracts/wage increases allow for relegation it can be done without too much risk? Other than player wages our other costs are presumably not that much higher in the prem than in the championship (although i am sure the police bill is higher!) 

[/quote]

 

Jim, it is a Championship turnover. My guess is that this year''s will actually be somewhere between £70m and £75m. But with that do come higher expenses. Probably including player bonuses for keeping us in the PL. But the real point about a substantial wage rise for everyone (to keep them happy, presumably) is that you are limited as to how much you can go back from that. Any relegation cut in wages starts from a much higher point. The likelihood is that the cut would only - at best - take the wages in the Championship down to what they had been in the PL before the second-season PL rise!

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

But Purple - that £23m turnover is presumably championship yes? I appreciate its not easy as financial years do not tie in precisely with the season but surely with the guaranteed tv money, ticket sales etc one would expect our turnover as a premiership club to be nearer £70 million. In that context a wage bill of £16m seems quite low and one would think that there must be scope to both pay off the debts and give the players a reasonable increase in salary to bring them into line with other (lower end) premiership clubs.

Surely provided any new contracts/wage increases allow for relegation it can be done without too much risk? Other than player wages our other costs are presumably not that much higher in the prem than in the championship (although i am sure the police bill is higher!) 

[/quote]

 

Jim, it is a Championship turnover. My guess is that this year''s will actually be somewhere between £70m and £75m. But with that do come higher expenses. Probably including player bonuses for keeping us in the PL. But the real point about a substantial wage rise for everyone (to keep them happy, presumably) is that you are limited as to how much you can go back from that. Any relegation cut in wages starts from a much higher point. The likelihood is that the cut would only - at best - take the wages in the Championship down to what they had been in the PL before the second-season PL rise!Thanks. I get that but surely that would be ok, given that most players will only have 2-3 years tops on their contracts and we will be getting parachute payments for the duration of that period and will apparently be debt free. It just seems to me that a certain calculated risk can be taken. Of course they may well be taking it already, as the original post may not be right. I just feel that if they are not it could be a damaging further case of the famous"prudence with ambition" rather than "ambition with prudence."

[/quote]

[ricardo 7,336]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Am I the only one, or does it strike you that the club''s situation reflects the national one?

Management want sustainability:

expenditure = income ( Austerity)

fans & players want unlimited ever increasing success, unlimited ever increasing wealth:

expenditure = income + as much as the owners can/will stump up ( Borrowing + Tax + Printy Printy ).

It''s the same with any other club I suppose. And any other country. Except perhaps Germany.[/quote]The perfect analogy Ron.Some clubs (countries) have been living beyond their means for years.Debt is the problem everywhere and lenders are no longer willing to lend.It''s called extend and pretend.Portsmouth =Greece.[;)]

[chicken 0]

Part of this sounds true, like most rumours, and others sound a bit false.

For starters the club has a budget in terms of a transfer kitty. Part of this will be wages. I believe there is a wage cap at the club, what that is I am unsure. However I don''t think the club will be unflexible in terms of wages, but it will be stubborn to those that are perhaps seen to be in the ''squad player'' catogory rather than the starting 11 list.

I think Whitbread was a different situation altogether. According to the new rules I believe that players are able to speak to other clubs when they come to the last x-many months of their contract. I think I read somewhere that this could be as early as January.

If you are a free agent and you are riding your luck a little bit. You could hang out until that date and test the waters with your agent. It is interesting that it seems that Lambert has opted not to play Whitbread so much recently since his substitution at Fulham using the excuse of a thigh strain or something. It sounds very much to me like either after that game or before it Whitbread had recieved offers from other clubs and had perhaps approached the club and asked them if they could match it, within reason. Obviously the answer was no. Maybe he didn''t even care, maybe he didn''t want to stay as he was offered wages he knew were out of our reach?

Finally, this is almost accusing the club of cooking the finance reports in that ''we need investment'' - do we? Someone to improve the wages pot is one thing, but you can get around that by looking for cheaper to purchase options that you can supplement the lack of fee for with higher wages, or you can go and get players like Pilkington from the lower leagues that even £10k will be a triple wage increase.

There is more to all this than wages if you ask me.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

But Purple - that £23m turnover is presumably championship yes? I appreciate its not easy as financial years do not tie in precisely with the season but surely with the guaranteed tv money, ticket sales etc one would expect our turnover as a premiership club to be nearer £70 million. In that context a wage bill of £16m seems quite low and one would think that there must be scope to both pay off the debts and give the players a reasonable increase in salary to bring them into line with other (lower end) premiership clubs.

Surely provided any new contracts/wage increases allow for relegation it can be done without too much risk? Other than player wages our other costs are presumably not that much higher in the prem than in the championship (although i am sure the police bill is higher!) 

[/quote]

 

Jim, it is a Championship turnover. My guess is that this year''s will actually be somewhere between £70m and £75m. But with that do come higher expenses. Probably including player bonuses for keeping us in the PL. But the real point about a substantial wage rise for everyone (to keep them happy, presumably) is that you are limited as to how much you can go back from that. Any relegation cut in wages starts from a much higher point. The likelihood is that the cut would only - at best - take the wages in the Championship down to what they had been in the PL before the second-season PL rise!

Thanks. I get that but surely that would be ok, given that most players will only have 2-3 years tops on their contracts and we will be getting parachute payments for the duration of that period and will apparently be debt free. It just seems to me that a certain calculated risk can be taken. Of course they may well be taking it already, as the original post may not be right. I just feel that if they are not it could be a damaging further case of the famous"prudence with ambition" rather than "ambition with prudence."

[/quote][/quote]

 

Jim, at the last AGM Bowkett predicted a lower figure (about £65m) for revenue this financial year just ending than my estimate of  £70m-£75m, but we shall see. He also predicted an operating post-tax profit of £18m, but stressed the club would not be rolling in money. He said the extra income was already accounted for, with debt repayments and the like. There is also the cost of setting up the Academy as a top of the range operation.

I would assume that among their calculations, going forward, is a sober wage structure for staying in the PL, with small increases, on the basis that our income for the coming season will not be vastly greater than the £65m or so for this season. In other words, what has been accounted for - and can be afforded - is the current structure. And just to show what we are up against, if reports are correct, West Ham paid their goalie £30,000 PW last season in the Championship. That would be double or close to double what we apparently paid our leading goalscorer in the PL. And the goalie now wants a 50 per cent pay rise to £45,000 to stay!

Because we can''t possibly compete with that doesn''t mean we can''t improve our wages somewhat, but there is a prudent limit, and we breach it at our peril. There is a reason why, as I have said before, the attitude of the new regime towards the prudence versus ambition conundrum is startlingly similar to that of the old regime. The financial imperatives haven''t changed.

[colneycanary 0]

Excellent post and I believe in what you are saying. If the club want to remain in the prem, they NEED to increase the transfer budget each year were in the prem to slowly become a stronger and stronger team to establish ourselves in this league. Otherwise we will never get anywhere and will soon be back in the Championship. I can understand Paul Lambert is not happy if he is not given more money than last year. Paul Lambert wants to take Norwich as high as he can and if the club are not going to increase the budget, he will feel he has already taken the club as high as he possibly can. And if he decides to move on, we only have McNally and the board to blame. If Lambert does move on, I fear we will be back in the Championship in no time. It''s really like any other business, you increase the funds every year to make it a success.

[Yellowbeagle 0]

The worrying truth, if some of the fans who think they know better than McNally had their way it would all go tits up. McNally has supported Lambert at everyturn within the confines of the club, spending money we dont have is the surefire way to this all finishing extremely badly. I never looked at clubs like QPR with envy when they started throwing cash round and neither should anyone else who has our clubs long term future at heart. Football is changing, the clubs that get their houses in order will be the ones benefitting long term.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Francesco Volpe"]Sorry, forgot to add ''apart from you Tim, the only other person I''ve seen with their actual name?? as username." There, I''ll change it back just to keep you happy![/quote]so your real name was Eplov?was it though? really?

[militantcanary 0]

Haven''t our wages already been quantified as 22.9 M Per year which compares very well to Wigan at 39M for example.

Of course if we start going towards that figure we are liable to spend more than we afford and thus if we do stay up be trapped in a cycle which Wigan and Everton are in ie not being able to spend on new players as the wages take too much of turnover.

i think the idea of a small no of players agitating for more money may be true, I can give a minor insight in the Grant Holt situation in that on the Charities day in March he was making comments to McNally about a pay rise for next season in a quarter joking 3/4 show me the money way, i would take a largely hard nosed attitude ie give them an extra 10 or 15% and telling them that''s it for forseeable future

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Shaker Maker"][quote user="TIL 1010"]This thread has been running for over an hour and i am amazed that with the title it has Tangible and Cluck have as yet not swarmed all over it like bees round a honey pot with their anti Delia bile.[:''(][/quote]

Yet YOU''RE the one who has just bought it up...

[/quote]

When you are dealing with a bully it is sometimes necessary just to ignore them as they have nothing of value to say.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

[quote user="ricardo"]Nothing here beyond the blindingly obvious that any of us could have made up themselves.
[/quote]

Shame these kids haven''t got something else to do. Next they will be telling us that Karsa and Culverhouse will leave with Lambert. Oh hang on....

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="ron obvious"]Am I the only one, or does it strike you that the club''s situation reflects the national one? Management want sustainability: expenditure = income ( Austerity) fans & players want unlimited ever increasing success, unlimited ever increasing wealth: expenditure = income + as much as the owners can/will stump up ( Borrowing + Tax + Printy Printy ). It''s the same with any other club I suppose. And any other country. Except perhaps Germany.[/quote]

The perfect analogy Ron.

Some clubs (countries) have been living beyond their means for years.

Debt is the problem everywhere and lenders are no longer willing to lend.

It''s called extend and pretend.

Portsmouth =Greece.[;)]
[/quote]

 

Not quite the same as perceived by the masses of these two "villains" Ricardo. Those involved with Portsmouth now realise where they are. The Greeks still think all they have to do is hoist a few flags, organise a March and all will be remedied. Even the lenders are still ''working with" the Greeks for a variety of reasons. Eventually, one would think, the dam will break.

[Bill 1,788]

" to remind fans that we are a club

owned by paupers in a financially unforgiving league."more old sh iteyou may wish to put the boot in via some pompous guff preceding it but the facts state differentcheck what our income will be then measure it against the rest of the league via the 2011/12 figureswe will be easily around or just outside the top ten

take a look down the A140 and guess the supposed wealth of the ral paupers owners, then tell us if matters what wealth they have, likewise Aston Villait is what money the club have to spend that counts if you are solely measuring like for like