The trouble with Norwich...

[morty]

Great read this thread, with some very interesting and mixed views.

I personally don't believe that our recruitment campaign was somehow hindered by our late promotion, simply because the transfer window doesn't really get going in any event until June and only starts to pick up speed when players return to pre-season in late June.

I suspect many of our potential targets were keeping their options open for as long as possible in order to negotiate the best deals for themselves.

I also think Norwich is different to other clubs in that we only spend according to the cash actually available. And therein lies another problem, as Financial Fair Play actually permits clubs to lose money over a three year period. Other clubs can do so because of their owners. Norwich simply can't.

One other thing that was different during the past window was the number of clubs who actually disclosed bids received for their players.

I suspect, in many instances, this was due in part to the pending increases in Premier League revenues next season which contributed to some crazy bids.

In others, because the clubs were trying to entice other clubs to create a  bidding war for players they knew they would be selling.

Maybe, these combination of circumstances resulted in our overall lack of success.

Can't or won't?

Theres no point in ploughing some kind of lone furrow on this though, you either compete or you fail. Or I guess you do the bare minimum, and hope for a bit of luck. Of course I don't advocate stupid financial irresponsability, I understand the risks, and the reasons behind the prudence.

But if we get relegated, will we look back to the pre season transfer business, will we be thinking "You know what, would it have been the end of the world to borrow 5 or 10 million, and get that quality centre back and decent striker in?"

 

[Canaryboy]

"You know what, would it have been the end of the world to borrow 5 or 10 million, and get that quality centre back and decent striker in?"

We could have sold Grabban for £7m and we got £6m for BJ on deadline day, so there's £13m. 

We know that we had money though, we just couldn't spend it. Gayle would have cost £6m to £8m you'd have thought.

 

[morty]

We could have sold Grabban for £7m and we got £6m for BJ on deadline day, so there's £13m. 

We know that we had money though, we just couldn't spend it. Gayle would have cost £6m to £8m you'd have thought.

Again, we circle back to points in my opening post, if we had the money, why didn't we land the players that we wanted to? Is it image, cheapskate atttitudes, or too rigid a financial policy?

The season we went down I feel the board let Hughton down in the January transfer window, hoping we'd scrape by with the minimum of financial outlay. We didn't. I would like to hope that the board learned something there. Yes, it ended happily, we got back up, but it could have just as easily ended badly. Then we just become another Leeds, Ipswich, Sheff Wed etc etc etc. I just hope we aren't repeating mistakes.

 

[GazzaTCC]

Mark, it's a case of can't, rather than won't.

Yes, in the past they've given us loans, which, over time, have added up to a few million. However, they're never going to be in a position to write out a cheque for, say, ten million in one go.

As to your "borrow" comment, my understanding is that most, if not all, PL clubs assign the rights to future TV installment payments to Barclays, who, effectively then underwrite your current dealings. This actually gives comfort to the selling club that the buyer actually has the cash. An insurance policy if you like.

To answer Canaryboy's point on fees, even those sales had both have gone through, payments are usually in installments over several seasons. We'd probably receive no more than a third of the total fees initially.

 

[morty]

Quite a depressing concept then, if we are destined to struggle every single season that we stay in this division....

 

[Canaryboy]

To answer Canaryboy's point on fees, even those sales had both have gone through, payments are usually in installments over several seasons. We'd probably receive no more than a third of the total fees initially.

And this is why I think the Brady fee was reported so high, and why McNally went in so low initially.

Wouldn't surprise me if a big proportion of the £7m transfer fee was actually us waiving money that Hull owed to us for Snodgrass.

So lets say they paid £7m for Snodgrass, 25% up front and then 25% in three yearly installments. So four installments of £1.75m.

From the £7m paid for Brady that could have been us committing to pay them £3.5m, plus writing off £3.5m that they still owed us. Made that point at the time. 

 

[It's Character Forming]

I'm sure we could have spent significantly more in the summer, it was just that the deals didn't come off.

Looking back to the January window when we were relegated under Hughton, I think the board decided not to trust him to spend the inflated amount that would have been necessary to get someone useful in, which was a calculated gamble that he'd keep us up with the existing squad.  Unfortunately that gamble failed.

Over the summer the club has made a similar gamble by keeping spending tight.  I am still cautiously optimistic that AN will be able to keep us up with the current squad, but definitely worried.

 

[morty]

Yes ICF, thats pretty much where I am too.

 

[SussexYellow]

This is a condensed transcript of a long, rambling disection in the pub after the game yesterday!

We are all bemoaning lack of signings, especially in the defensive department, if reports are to be believed we bid some fairly serious money, but didn't land the targets, which provokes a few wider questions.

Do we suffer from an image problem? What is the wider public's perception of Norwich City? Are we just short term visitors to the Premiership in our funny yellow kit and our celebrity chef? Are we viewed as "small time"?

Have we overplayed the "Poor Norwich, we don't have much money" making players not want to come here? Is it just the money thats the issue? Sides like Stoke and Leicester seem to attract the quality of players that we struggle with, despite both places being *bleep* holes, so is it really just all about the money then?

Now, I know that we are shackled by the fact our owners are relatively poor, but are they really starting to hold us back? Is there really nobody out there who wants to invest in a great football club such as ours? I see from the released accounts that we are debt free, which is nice, really great. And I know its all too easy to spend someone elses money, but would it have been the end of the world to borrow 5 or 10 million to push the boat out a bit on wages and transfers in the summer? Worst case is we go down fighting, and flog the players we bought, and pay off the loan.

Its commendable that we aspire to be a well run club, but I am starting to wonder if we're just being a little too prudent. I am not questioning Delia and Michael's commitment, but am wondering, as they come closer to retirement if they are becoming too concerned with leaving a lasting legacy at Norwich City, and less concerned with immediate Premiership survival.

This is a good OP and subsequent discussion. Sounds a good discussion in the pub!

It is a good post because it goes to the soul of being a Norwich supporter and points out the elephant in the room or should we say the elephant in the boardroom. Most like the unique model of our club and the way it is run. But this challenges whether that model is sustainable going forward.

The dilemma is that our current model requires us to beat the odds season after season. And that is not going to happen.

Financial strength, sadly, seems to be the key factor in ongoing success. The discussion talks of the financial benefits of becoming established in the league. That would help but is it enough on its own? Developing and selling players for significant profit (Joe Allen for Swansea for instance) is also an important financial source. Something we are not at all good at. However both these factors only improve the odds, yes the chances are better but ultimately they are still against you.

The discussion also talks of the merits of being debt free and run in a financially prudent way. Essential on our current model but still needs to be seen in the context of billionaire owners who accept financial loss in the pursuit of success.

The discussion further hints at perhaps being satisfied with being a yo yo club. But is even that achievable? We appear to have less financial muscle than a number of championship clubs who were reported as making bids in the transfer window at least as big as us if not bigger. We should not take even being a yo yo club for granted!

Delia and Michael's tenure at the club should be viewed largely as one of success. An era, for me, to be remembered with some fondness. However as we all know past performance should not be taken as an indicator of future success. Bottom line is that if we are going to have aspiration, even modest aspiration, then we are going to need more financial resources than we currently have. And the board have acknowledged that in the past, and presumably still accept that. 

All that said I would not just throw out the way that the club is currently run. It has a lot of merits. I would not wish to a "billionaire" buyer to come in who could get bored after a couple of years and leave us in the lurch. As a model going forward I would look to my two local clubs - Brighton and Palace. Both owned by businessmen who I am told have sound business plans in place. Both are supporters. Both are ambitious. Both bring in more financial resource than we have. Plus also bring the right mentality - See link below to an interview with Steve Parish (Yes I know Palace are owned by a consortium but he is very much the public face)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/crystal-palace/11579064/Crystal-Palace-owner-our-fans-like-glorious-failure-but-I-want-us-to-be-Englands-Atletico-Madrid.html 

This is an article that addresses many of Morty's points. It shows what is necessary for longer term success and stability. Borrowing a relatively small sum £5m to £10m would be a band aid solution, it might have worked for a year, but is not the solution. We need greater investment, vision, a sound business plan and the right mentality. The real problem though is that this is very easily said and very difficult to deliver.

 

[eatonparkboy]

I will always remember the first time Mum allowed me to buy my own clothes. She handed me the money and expected me to shop in the normal places. But I didn't and went to Jonathan Trumbull and spent ALL the money. She was not well pleased and I suffered for a couple of days.

But did I look the business when I went to the Industrial Club. And people who had ignored me before suddenly noticed me and that was important as an early teenager.

Mum got over it and I never looked back in my social life after that.

Perhaps Delia or Macca could be a bit like my Mum and give AN a bit of trust. She might sigh a bit but I'm sure she would get over it. 

 

[GazzaTCC]

Surely, Mark, if we stay up for more than a season it should b easier to attract potential players to the club in comparison to a newly promoted club? 

 

[GazzaTCC]

Sussex - surely our "model" is the most sustainable of all clubs in the Premier League. Whether it's considered desirable is another matter all together.

 

[SussexYellow]

Sussex - surely our "model" is the most sustainable of all clubs in the Premier League. Whether it's considered desirable is another matter all together.

I would not disagree that we have a financially sustainable model. The question then becomes as to what division it will be sustaining us in? I think that is maybe what you are getting at when you ask if it is desirable.

If you are right that ours is the most sustainable model of all the premiership clubs then it does suggest that the football world is now a very different place and that our prudent model does not sit at all easily with having ambition.

 

[morty]

Surely, Mark, if we stay up for more than a season it should b easier to attract potential players to the club in comparison to a newly promoted club? 

I agree, but get that balance wrong, and we're back to square minus one.

 

[Watling the Gnome]

I honestly think it is all about wages and our wage structure. I don't think it's about the size of the club or our image.  It's cash in pocket.

Transfer fees are a red herring - we let Hughton spend upwards of £20m, I think - Hooper was £5m, Fer £5.5m, RvW £8.5m, plus he bought others with the "loose change".

We are not going to pay the going rate in wages to bring in players who are of the proven quality to take us forward.  A proven Premier league player can command a salary in excess of what we believe our cap to be - I don't think any of us know what it is, actually - so the scenario is this.

We identify a promising player and make enquiries

The player's agent pushes us to the best deal possible

The player's agent lets other clubs know this is a possibility

We get gazumped by a club who can pay more in wages per week, because let's face it, who doesn't want to earn the most money they possibly can?  I understand most of us would play for City for nothing, and in my case you would get what you pay for, but 99.5% of professional players couldn't give a monkeys about where they play, only what they will be paid - and the other 0.5% are the Daryl Sutches of this world.

So we keep missing out.

The question for me becomes is this because we can't, or because we won't?  I believe it's the latter, and we will not gamble the club's long term security.

And when I think it through, I end up supporting the club policy, and I'll try to explain why.

Once you break the wage ceiling, the genie is out of the bottle.  You have a queue of disaffected players who will expect the same or similar rises on the next contract negotiation.  Morale is impacted.  Team unity is impacted.  And you can't go back without player revolt, and you are carrying a wage bill which you can't sustain in the (perennial) threat of relegation. As a business it would be irresponsible to open the door to this financial risk as the consequences can be disastrous.  Look at all the clubs who have chased the dream - a few have succeeded (albeit none that spring to mind - maybe Swansea) but what about Bradford, Leeds, Portsmouth, Sheffield Wednesday, Cardiff?

As fans, I get the frustration completely.  As a fan of the club, I share it but I see it as the lesser of two evils.  It is the price we have to pay for responsible ownership in a seedy, money obsessed business, and it's a price I am happy that we pay.

(And look, it's never going to be dull, is it? Every season is a relegation fight and/or a promotion fight. Why did the good lord give you fingernails?  Who wants to finish eleventh every year?    )

 

[Watling the Gnome]

NB: My pub conversations are usually about which Spice Girl I would like to have had crawling around my flat on a leash, so well done on raising the bar.

 

[Gaffer]

Maybe put that one in a poll Watling...

Back to the thread, it's tempting to look at clubs like Leicester are say owners with dubious wealth are making it difficult to compete but neither Vardy nor Mahrez were big money signings. Maybe a reluctance to take risks with signings like that and to give our own young players a chance is holding us back.

 

[Dubai Mark]

Mel B for me 

 

[eatonparkboy]

I've been married 43 years so its Old Spice for me.

 

[morty]

This blog, written by Duncan Edwards, neatly dovetails into this thread.

https://duncanedwards8.wordpress.com/2015/11/01/are-the-ghosts-of-2013-still-haunting-us-ncfc/