Why the negativity?

[Indy 3,283]

City 1st you are correct with the option for 3 years but everyone until Slavia bought out the loan fee which was half of £ 400k and should Norwich have signed Dave in the summer for the three years a further 600k would have been paid.

Not sure of the exacts Norwich paid but I do know from talking with my friend that Slavia piad £ 200k remaining for the loan and in the summer Pilzen paid around 11 million czk rougly £ 400k.

You might well be right that it cost City £240k I just assumed we only paid half the agreed loan fee.

Shame we didn''t look at Tomas Necid at the time, he was only 17 with bags of potential at the time would have been affordable.

[Bill 1,788]

oh dearlet''s have another go and see what bit is beyond your limited mental abilities

the fees are undisclosed - so no one knows - end off

the numbers quoted in the media are prefaced with '' it''s been reported/believed/thought to be'' etc............................... as they DON''T KNOW (see above)

now what about this £65m you told us about ?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

[quote user="City1st"]oh dearlet''s have another go and see what bit is beyond your limited mental abilities

the fees are undisclosed - so no one knows - end off

the numbers quoted in the media are prefaced with '' it''s been reported/believed/thought to be'' etc............................... as they DON''T KNOW (see above)

now what about this £65m you told us about ?

[/quote]

ah, so these reporters who "report" these figures just pluck them out of thin air?.......as i said ,I think i''ll be holding more store with them than I will with you.

Snodgrass??......lies?

and no the £65m isnt plucked out of the air...as I said earlier its the "supposed amount" spread over 3 years..................but of course you wont believe any of that and will know a lot better??

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Indy"]City 1st you are correct with the option for 3 years but everyone until Slavia bought out the loan fee which was half of £ 400k and should Norwich have signed Dave in the summer for the three years a further 600k would have been paid.

Not sure of the exacts Norwich paid but I do know from talking with my friend that Slavia piad £ 200k remaining for the loan and in the summer Pilzen paid around 11 million czk rougly £ 400k.

You might well be right that it cost City £240k I just assumed we only paid half the agreed loan fee.

Shame we didn''t look at Tomas Necid at the time, he was only 17 with bags of potential at the time would have been affordable.[/quote]

Which merely underlines my point - we don''t know

likewise these supposed fees never state whether they are the cost of the player''s regisistration, aloneor whether they include the players signing on fee and/or the agents fee

or even future performance, goals, appearance bonuses etc etc

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

well you may choose not to know...but if I''m reading a reported transfer fee, I''ll believe that those who have reported it , as is their profession, have taken those variables into account.

[GenerationA47 747]

GJL, in this case I would err on the side of City1st - unless and until somebody like Bethnal sets us right on journalistic practice.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="City1st"]oh dearlet''s have another go and see what bit is beyond your limited mental abilities

the fees are undisclosed - so no one knows - end off

the numbers quoted in the media are prefaced with '' it''s been reported/believed/thought to be'' etc............................... as they DON''T KNOW (see above)

now what about this £65m you told us about ?

[/quote]

ah, so these reporters who "report" these figures just pluck them out of thin air?.......as i said ,I think i''ll be holding more store with them than I will with you.

Snodgrass??......lies?

and no the £65m isnt plucked out of the air...as I said earlier its the "supposed amount" spread over 3 years..................but of course you wont believe any of that and will know a lot better??[/quote]There was talk of a meeting in June to alter the figures, so this may have changed, but the parachute payment deal was £59m over four years - £23m, then £18m, then £9m, then £9m.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]well you may choose not to know...but if I''m reading a reported transfer fee, I''ll believe that those who have reported it , as is their profession, have taken those variables into account.[/quote]reported by who................................. ?and you have still failed to tell us how that squares with both clubs NOT disclosing the fee

now, what about the £65m you told us about ?did sky quote you that figure ?

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

well thats your choice.....admittedly "undisclosed" fees are one thing ,but if your disbelieving every disclosed fee aswell thats another entirely.

may aswell go the whole hog and deny the moon landing and the holocaust..

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

ok, in this article its £60m,

but as you wont believe anything you read, its seems hardly worth posting the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2638405/60million-relegation-parachute-payments-paid-two-years-instead-four.html

[Bill 1,788]

you are being completely silly as it is you who have been telling us that we should believe stuff just because someone else has made it upthough at least you now admit that you DON''T KNOW the fees/costs of City transfers........... so your attacks were based on ..... err, .............made up stuff

now talking of made up stuff, why are you avoiding backing up another of your claims[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]....so as it stands we''ve spent nothing so far of this supposed

£65m parachute payment.[/quote]

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

[quote user="City1st"]you are being completely silly as it is you who have been telling us that we should believe stuff just because someone else has made it upthough at least you now admit that you DON''T KNOW the fees/costs of City transfers........... so your attacks were based on ..... err, .............made up stuff

now talking of made up stuff, why are you avoiding backing up another of your claims[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]....so as it stands we''ve spent nothing so far of this supposed

£65m parachute payment.[/quote]

[/quote]

i said nothing of City transfers ,I was referring to ALL transfers.

and yes, we''ve spent less on Grabban and Lafferty than we received for Snodgrass , so it doesnt take a mathmatician.

[Bill 1,788]

this has to be a wind up - you are deliberately trying to be exceedingly stupdhowever, i''m bored at work so ..................."i said nothing of City transfers"actually you did[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]

and at the moment we''ve raked in more money than we''ve spent this

summer....so as it stands we''ve spent nothing so far of this supposed

£65m parachute payment.[/quote]in which ypu claim to know how much the Snodgrass transfer was ... and bother the other two transfers costbut you don''t, that is the bit that seems incapable of penetrating your wooden headthe clubs state that the fees are undisclosed so please tell us how you worked this out

and maybe that £65m bit as well

 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

well, if you''re choosing to not believe the figures quoted for the Snodgrass,Grabban and Lafferty transfers but I am, then we''ve hit something of an impasse as we''re effectively talking different languages and cannot therefore continue any kind of debate...

(but if you think the combined sums for Grabban & Lafferty exceeds £8m, that''s your perogative).

and i''ve posted one of i''m sure many links about the parachute payments.

[Bill 1,788]

it is not about ''believing'' I don''t believe in Father Christmas despite what certain parts of the media tell usIthe known truth and fact, is that you and I don''t know, however what little evidence we do have from City accounts is that the figures quoted for Surman and others that season were way, way out - check the figures

you have posted nothing about this £65m other than the quote above

but this ain''t about accuracy is it ?it is about you scrabbling about for something to attack the club withhmmm

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

well you''re a boring fellow aren''t you?...

as I said, I think I''ll believe what I read from football reporters over you....

other than posting a link to the Daily Mail article about the parachute payments, I don''t see what else I can do?....and as above, I think I''ll believe that over you

and no...far from beating the club with a stick....my very first response to this whole thread, which youve tried to hijack with blind pedantry....I stated that if the squad was as it is now come the end of the transfer window ,I believe we will be very close to automatic promotion.

My concern is that should some players leave and the money we recieved not be re-invested to either not be replaced at all, or be replaced with a lesser standard of player....then come Sept 1st ,I would have to re-evaluate that prediction.

[Bill 1,788]

dearrie dear meit is not about believing me, it is about the club''s stating that the fee is undisclosed yet you still are unable to tell us all where this stuff you believe comes fromso it simplified terms IT IS NOT ME IT IS THE CLUB''S MAKING THAT STATEMENT OF NON DISCLOSUREyou lie when you talk of not attacking the club as you have constantly talked of supposed failings due to your umagined figuresyou even talked of Reeves and Fashanu

now I am not asking for links about this £65m merely that you explain to us where, why, what this figure is ... bit of background, as you told us that the club had so far not spent any of it

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

yawn

already answered it on this thread

already answered it on this thread

....you really want to start a debate around our history of selling players for big money and not re-investing it back into the playing staff?

I fear I''d be wasting my time on someone that probably even disputes that we sold Chris Sutton for £5m

[Herman 9,713]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]I wouldnt say there''s negativity, just slight trepidation as to the certainty for the remainder of the transfer window. Until we know if/when anyone is going then we don''t know who we need to bring in to replace them.

If nobody else left our squad ,as its stands ,I would expect us to be very close to automatic promotion, but should Fer,Bassong,Tettey maybe Hooper?, Redmond begin to leave , we know full well that the board would only make a fraction of the transfer fees any of these players would bring in available for Adams to re-invest.

Difficult to judge really until 11.00pm on Sept 1st as our squad ''could'' be a lot weaker than it currently stands.[/quote]

We don''t know full well. There''s the negativity for you.[/quote]

not negative...sadly realistic, i''ve followed this club for 35 years and we''ve never reinvested incoming transfer fees on replacements, we''ve always banked it.

if we got £8m? for Fer, maybe £3m for Tettey, £6m Redmond......do you really think we''d spend all £17m on replacemnts in the last few weeks of this window??....no ,it''ll be Gary O''Neil and players of that ilk.[/quote]Before City 1st wakes up and mangles the whole thread, no i don''t think we will blow all of that money on replacements, and i wouldn''t want us to either. I''d rather we spend sensibly on good quality Champs players, like Grabban and Lafferty. We need to keep money for January as well, just in case.The history of the club does suggest we sell high and buy low, and due to our financial situation over the years was probably sensible, albeit very frustrating as a fan. But saying that we haven''t been doing this as much over the last few years and have been reinvesting our sales into better quality (more expensive) players.

[A Load of Squit 5,128]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]yawn

already answered it on this thread

already answered it on this thread

....you really want to start a debate around our history of selling players for big money and not re-investing it back into the playing staff?

I fear I''d be wasting my time on someone that probably even disputes that we sold Chris Sutton for £5m[/quote]When the club sold Chris Sutton they banked £800,000 of his fee, the rest went to pay off the short term loans that Chase had negotiated with the banks.

 

[Horse Renoir 1]

I have no idea!

Everyone knows the best way of bouncing back up is to keep the squad together (Which we''ve mostly done, I didn''t rate Snoddy anyway) so we''ve still got a Premiership team, now unburdened from an overly negative, poor manager and all we''ve really done is improve the weakest part of our team, the forward line.

We should be excited! It''s going to be a fun season, look at it this way, how do you think Wolves fans are relishing the thought of watching their untested, newly promoted team have to try to keep out a fluid forward line of Grabban, Lafferty, Hoolahan, Redmond and Surman on Sunday?

We''re going to absolutely smash them and this league!

[Horse Renoir 1]

Let''s also not forget most of our team was signed on the back of proving themselves to be exceptional at this level anyway or already were

Ruddy, R.Bennett, Martin, Howson, Hoolahan, Surman, Grabban, Redmond have in very recent times proven themselves to be a class above in this league and that''s ignoring the rest of our players who have proved themselves to be comfortably PL class. I have no idea why we''re not the bookies red hot favorites, looking at this as objectivly as I can I can''t see past us to win the league, no other team has anywhere near our overall quality

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

[quote user="Herman "][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"][quote user="Herman "][quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]I wouldnt say there''s negativity, just slight trepidation as to the certainty for the remainder of the transfer window. Until we know if/when anyone is going then we don''t know who we need to bring in to replace them.

If nobody else left our squad ,as its stands ,I would expect us to be very close to automatic promotion, but should Fer,Bassong,Tettey maybe Hooper?, Redmond begin to leave , we know full well that the board would only make a fraction of the transfer fees any of these players would bring in available for Adams to re-invest.

Difficult to judge really until 11.00pm on Sept 1st as our squad ''could'' be a lot weaker than it currently stands.[/quote]

We don''t know full well. There''s the negativity for you.[/quote]

not negative...sadly realistic, i''ve followed this club for 35 years and we''ve never reinvested incoming transfer fees on replacements, we''ve always banked it.

if we got £8m? for Fer, maybe £3m for Tettey, £6m Redmond......do you really think we''d spend all £17m on replacemnts in the last few weeks of this window??....no ,it''ll be Gary O''Neil and players of that ilk.[/quote]Before City 1st wakes up and mangles the whole thread, no i don''t think we will blow all of that money on replacements, and i wouldn''t want us to either. I''d rather we spend sensibly on good quality Champs players, like Grabban and Lafferty. We need to keep money for January as well, just in case.The history of the club does suggest we sell high and buy low, and due to our financial situation over the years was probably sensible, albeit very frustrating as a fan. But saying that we haven''t been doing this as much over the last few years and have been reinvesting our sales into better quality (more expensive) players.[/quote]

the reason we havent been doing this over recent years if probably because up until the season before last, we didnt havent anyone that would command a lot of money?......this isn''t s situation we''ve been in for a while now.

[Bill 1,788]

once last try

"now I am not asking for links about this £65m merely that you explain to

us where, why, what this figure is ... bit of background, as you told

us that the club had so far not spent any of it"

just a few sentences will do ..... your thoughts not the thoughts of mystic meg, russell grant or father christmas

[Talk Show Host 0]

[quote user="GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary"]ok, in this article its £60m,

but as you wont believe anything you read, its seems hardly worth posting the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2638405/60million-relegation-parachute-payments-paid-two-years-instead-four.html[/quote]

Don''t believe everything you read mate, journalists are a deceitful kind, trust me, I am one.

But here''s a tip for you, if you''re trying to construct a convincing argument, don''t quote or use the Daily Mail as a source...

[Molly Windley 76]

[quote user="City1st"]once last try

"now I am not asking for links about this £65m merely that you explain to

us where, why, what this figure is ... bit of background, as you told

us that the club had so far not spent any of it"

just a few sentences will do ..... your thoughts not the thoughts of mystic meg, russell grant or father christmas

[/quote]

Russel Grant knows a lot about football, has supported Brentford all his life he is actively involved in non league and grass roots football.Heard him several time on Talksport and he talks a lot of sense.