Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Great Mass Debater

Why did we not strengthen in January?

Recommended Posts

Watching Hull and seeing both Huddlestone and Davies playing, two players we were linked to in the summer, I''ve been left asking why we didnt strengthen in January. McNally has commented openly that he feels we got out ''strengthening'' in the summer ''horribly wrong''. However, he seems to have dodged perhaps the more obvious question of why more wasnt done in January. Yobo, another unwanted older loanee was brought in as a direct result of losing Turner to injury, and Gutierrez, well hell knows what the point of that was.

But, why, when it was obvious at that point that the team was struggling, and the new signings had generally struggled, was there not more of a move to improve the squad in January, when the decision to stick with Hughton had been made? In retrospect, you wonder whether a key signing in that window might have made a difference.

So what was the reason? Had we broken the bank in summer and were there no funds available? Did we have funds but couldnt bring in the players we wanted? Did we not want to pay the inflated prices in January and ultimately pay the price for this stance? Did the board not trust or back the manager? - in which case they have to take responsibilty for this (either back him or sack him). Or was it simply head in the sand time and noone felt the squad actually needed improving, despite the lack of success in most areas?

What do people think? It could genuinely be any of those reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we never do and those we get it, never made that difference. It''s that simple!

Can argue, wrong players at the wrong time but outstanding fact is none have made a difference in our recent history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple available money - the club has always spent as much money as available despite what many deluded fans have claimed as the accounts have always shown. Hull have a rich benefactor, Norwich don''t. There are many to try to deny this simply reality but their ignorance is just an embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue that Ashton was a great January signing and but for the no-show at Fulham might have saved our season. Who knows what might have happened if he''d have been the summer signing worthy wanted. The board acted in that window then and it almost came off. Who knows what a key signing might have done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the argument is that we didnt have enough funds, one big thing that has to be clarified is where the RvW funds came from. We hear that we spent 25m in the summer, but we also often hear that the RvW funds came out of last years January tranfer funds, the same window where we failed to get Hooper so definitely had that money at least burning a hole in our pockets. If RvW wasnt paid for with summers budget, then we really spent quite a way short of 25m in the summer. We dont have a rich benefactor, but we did have a Premier League income, a very unrepresentitive Premier League expenditure, and had declared at the start of the year that we were free from external debt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Transfer fees are not all paod up front. The figures quaoted are usually highlyinnaccurate as clubs no longer release these figures and when they do they are the figure they will see as favourable.What is a transfer fee ?The original down payment or the final figure should all eventualities happen, with numerous stages in between.A cynic might suggest that the club were merely setting out to acieve that yo yo target rather than Bowkett''s now forgotten mid table mediocrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The transfer fees are disclosed in accounts each year. What matters is the cash flow budget. I''ve never seen any accounts that show free unspent cash as the club is run as a not for profit club. Anyone who believes anything else is just plain ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Transfer fees are disclosed in the post balance sheet notes and also as part of acquisitions in intangible assets. Quite why there are so many on their message board who are so keen to demonstrate their ignorance I don''t know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work at nrp and they test alot of blood for city , and we did have a sample come in from a Liverpool based club which club or player it was i have no idea but it does show we had some intent of getting someone else in possibly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Transfer fees are disclosed in the post balance sheet notes and also as part of acquisitions in intangible assets. Quite why there are so many on their message board who are so keen to demonstrate their ignorance I don''t know.[/quote]

perhaps you could point us all to where they are listed ie as transfer fees .... broken down by playerthe ignorance you talk of is one of NOT reading what is posted but over exciting yourself in some self important bolloxso to help you, here are the accounts for the year ending 2013so please show us where the "Transfer fees are disclosed" -

accounts 2103

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...and I suspect that you are writing complete and utter nonsense as the accounts show each year that the club is not holding funds back. But then people''s desire to blame and be vindictive invariably overrides reality on this message board.Many Norfolf people on this message board are incredibly ignorant and plain unpleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don''t let the door hit your arse on the way out then T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That really is the pot calling the kettle black T, you have one of the most unpleasant, arrogant, condescending posting styles I''ve ever seen.

Not the first time I''ve seen you state your contempt for Norfolk people either, if you have that little regard for us then feel free to not interact with us anymore, I doubt very much you''ll be missed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad world where some seem to think it is acceptable for people with no experience, qualifications or training to be abusive to the club''s board, manager and players but not OK to use professional experience to highlight abusive nonsense. I''ve no doubt you are right that I would be far more popular on here if I was abusive to the club rather than posters but that does mean that abuse towards the club is right. My posts are merely a response to the abuse on this message board. It seems people can happily abuse the club but can''t take comments posted in the same vein which merely highlights how wrong the abuse to the club is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T,

I accept my knowledge of football is limited but I don''t think that means I should not have an opinion - it may be uninformed and worthless but it will be what I have concluded based on what I see before me.

It would help folk like me if you were able to explain things, like an indulgent parent but without being patronising, so that we can all benefit from your insight.

I find your observations interesting and to summarise in one line it seems to be - on the balance of probabilities success in football in dependent upon the financial resources available.

I think you''ve also said that anomalies may occur (eg Swansea & possibly Southampton) but the prevailing winds are against smaller clubs like Norwich.

But is that it? Rather than just waiting for a sheikh or an oilgarch are there other smaller changes that we can make that might improve our position relative to our peers and, if so, what are these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s a football message board so by definition we are generally punters without inside knowledge so based on my experience I stick to what I know. I''ve absolutely no problem with people given their views or being critical but when it gets abusive then I will respond in kind. If people don''t like my posts it shows that they should not post like that about the club.There is no value to going along with the flow of abuse against the club.

On finance, I''m surprised there was not a bigger call for the club to be put up for sale when we cleared the debts in premier league as that would have been ideal time to sell. NCFC is a difficult sell given geography but that was the best time. Would have been far more relevant than abusing CH all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is T, you seem to imply a lot of the time, that finance is the only thing that is relevent. Whilst I dont disagree with the importance you place on finance, football performance is based on a multitude of different factors, else there would never be any upsets. Your argument seems to be that Chris Hughton did not have the resources to compete, therefore is performance as manager is not subject to scrutiny, as, based on finances, we should not be expected to finish outside of the relegation zone.

But, Chris Hughton inherited a team which had been put together on a shoe string, but performed above stock value. Whilst I understand the idea that eventually everything settles at its intrinsic value, Paul Lambert got these players to achieve success beyond their stock value - and that is the value of a good manager, something Tony Pulis has demonstrated this season. Good managers offset the disadvantage of finance by good man management, good motivation, good psychology, astute tactics and good player recruitment. Chris Hughton seemed to do the opposite, his management of the team saw players underperform across the board, due basically to the opposite of the above.

Footballers are not robots or products who perform to a level determined by their stock value. They can over or underperform due to the influences upon them. You dont have to be a football expert or professional to recognise certain things. Many people will have professional and academic knowledge of other industries and fields which are transferrable enough for them to recognize the same prinicples. Player or employee performance is often down to human factors, not football factors. Unhappy employees will not perform to their full potential. You dont have to be experienced or qualified in football for that to be a valid observation.

I fully accept that most posters will not understand the inticacies of how football clubs are run, but many will have valid parallel knowledge or experience to offer a valid opinion. You dont really know what skills or qualifications or experience any posters have, and I maintain that some are transferrable, knowledge of human factors for instance. You cant assume everybody is a half-wit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GMD/T,

Parma Ham wrote and long & interesting piece (back in March I think) on how CH had bought the wrong players for his system - perhaps CH hoped that they would be good enough to adjust - and (for instance) how he should have bought a Peter Crouch type player rather than RVW.

It''s fairly obvious but poor management decisions can exacerbate a weak position and, as GMD suggests, good management such as PL''s (or Pulis''s) player motivation can paper over the cracks.

One only needs a few years of over-performance to materially increase the financial well-being of the club and to improve one''s likelihood of survival. We''d still be outgunned by Man City, Chelsea, etc but should be able to survive more comfortably against the other 10-11 PL clubs.

I think this is where finance sets the general trends over time but one''s place (outside the mega-rich) can be enhanced with something other than money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not disagree with that. I''ve never claimed it''s all down to money. Just that it''s as a matter of fact the single largest factor. Why if it is really so down to the manager such as PL in the past or Pulis this season or for a matter of fact CH last season has PL underperformed at Villa for 2 seasons and Pulis never outperformed at Stoke. Managers may well find a formula that works at a certain club with certain players in a certain season but managers are unable to consistently repeat this performance at other clubs and in other seasons. This suggests chance comes into it more than people would like to think and managers have far less influence then people perceive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you not think it was as simple as the board believed we were essentially safe come January, but had decided to change the then management team in the Summer come what may and, therefore, did not want to give them further funds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was as simple as there not being a player we could afford willing to come here & who had a good chance of outperforming the rest of the squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]....Many Norfolf people on this message board are incredibly ignorant and plain unpleasant.[/quote]I don''t reckon you should assume they''re all good Norfolk folk, though of course there are one or two bad apples.  More likely that the Suffolk filth have wormed their way in here as binners in canary clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]...and I suspect that you are writing complete and utter nonsense as the accounts show each year that the club is not holding funds back. But then people''s desire to blame and be vindictive invariably overrides reality on this message board.Many Norfolf people on this message board are incredibly ignorant and plain unpleasant.[/quote]

I''m not sure what any of the first two sentences are about, and I doubt anyone else does either.However no one can accuse me of not trying, soYou claimed that transfer fees were declared in the club accounts, as "Transfer fees are disclosed" -I pointed you (and the forum) to an online set of the club accounts (most recent, 2013) and asked to to show us and so back up your point.I don''t think that should be a difficult task, or an unreasonable request ie to substantiate your claim

So where are those transfer fees ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GMD, decent post but I''ve certainly never claimed that money is the only factor. There are indeed a multitude of factors. Of course people can bring their outside experience as I do - it''s the abuse of the club I object. Its just a fact that humans have poor perceptions of stats. People focus on single,recent events rather than the big picture and the big picture is that while there are always variations around the mean - the long term mean for Norwich is relegation. PL understood this very clearly. It it was down to the manager they would consistently outperform. They dont.

As for transfer fees not being disclosed in the accounts. Well it is just surreal. They are a major expense that are required to be disclosed in the accounts so either they are there under another name such as player registration fees or the club paid the fees with magic beans or someone is illustrating my point that someone without the relevant traing, qualifications or experience does not really understand what they are looking at or someone is not being precise enough with their language either way a punter does not know as much as a pro despite how they may be deluded by their ego''s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aan awful lot of meaningless shi te that does not disguise the fact that you clamed that "The transfer fees are disclosed in accounts each year."Now why not simply point us all to where they are disclosed in the 2013 accounts as posted above.The moot point was that I stated that no one knows the transfer fee and are only regurgitating press speculation - you countered with your above claim.So as requested, simply cut the verbal diahorrea, and prove your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where I said they would be note 12, 26, 33. Transfer fees are disclosed as player registration fees under intangible assets as I said they would be. If you understand accounts you would not ask. Classic demonstration of difference between reading and understanding just like there is a difference between watching and understanding a football match. It just illustrates that punters know less than pros and punters think they know far more than they do.

You could apologise for your ignorance and abuse but I very much doubt you are man enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
err noyou stated, as quoted here ""The transfer fees are disclosed in accounts each year."You lied, they are not ... as is obvious to everyone reading this thread.What is disclosed is a figure refered to as intangible assets which we are to assume includes the cost of transfer fees in that accounting period. So please explain to the rest of us how this amorphous figures shows how much each transfer fee was - as was the original point (as you well know)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...