| Norwich City promoted on a budget 19:30 - Apr 29 with 9477 views | bournemouthblue |
They are slightly rewriting history here
They spent about £15 million last season on transfer fees and around £5 million this season
Granted they have recouped those fees in sales but to say they have done this on the cheap is a little misleading
Fair play, they have built a decent side but it certainly isn't quite a Sheffield United scenario |  |
| |  |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 23:04 - Apr 29 with 2984 views | Herbivore |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 20:25 - Apr 29 by giant_stow |
I do have sympathy on financial doping as you call it. There must be a better way of running things, but the parachute money ran out the year before in any case - no madison £20m, no club possibly. |
Although you were able to take a £3m punt on Maddison courtesy of parachute payments. Yes they ran out in the summer, but the advantage they give you doesn't just disappear. |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 00:22 - Apr 30 with 2930 views | stonojnr |
their own published accounts had it at 20.1million spent upto June 2018,with 25million income from sold players & total income of around 63million, they spent another 27.6million in 2017,22 in 2016...
Im sure Id read in February, , but cant find the link anymore, theyd managed to sell nearly 100million worth of players since they got relegated, which as you can see they spent pretty much 75% back on buying new ones just on the fees,probably pushed the other 25% just on wages, or their tax bill.
but yeah imagine if an ITFC manager who knew what they were doing in the transfer market, had a 30million transfer kitty to spend every season for the past 3 years...if thats promotion on a budget no wonder football is in such a financial mess |  | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 06:25 - Apr 30 with 2871 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 00:22 - Apr 30 by stonojnr |
their own published accounts had it at 20.1million spent upto June 2018,with 25million income from sold players & total income of around 63million, they spent another 27.6million in 2017,22 in 2016...
Im sure Id read in February, , but cant find the link anymore, theyd managed to sell nearly 100million worth of players since they got relegated, which as you can see they spent pretty much 75% back on buying new ones just on the fees,probably pushed the other 25% just on wages, or their tax bill.
but yeah imagine if an ITFC manager who knew what they were doing in the transfer market, had a 30million transfer kitty to spend every season for the past 3 years...if thats promotion on a budget no wonder football is in such a financial mess |
Not sure where you’re getting your figures from, but according to Transfermarkt they’ve spent approx £41m in the 3 seasons since being relegated (the majority in the first season) and brought in around £96m
Unfortunately truth is that their parachute payments ran out last season and they’ve had to cut costs considerably this time, including selling their best player, and been promoted in spite of it |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:25 - Apr 30 with 2779 views | Ftnfwest |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 06:25 - Apr 30 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Not sure where you’re getting your figures from, but according to Transfermarkt they’ve spent approx £41m in the 3 seasons since being relegated (the majority in the first season) and brought in around £96m
Unfortunately truth is that their parachute payments ran out last season and they’ve had to cut costs considerably this time, including selling their best player, and been promoted in spite of it |
Transfer market won't count things like loan fees and will guess at 'undisclosed fees' etc. In any event it's increasingly less about up front fees and more about level of wages clubs can offer and in that respect Norwich are miles in front of us (2-3 times higher so they can simply attract better players from the outset). |  | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:45 - Apr 30 with 2749 views | Herbivore |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 06:25 - Apr 30 by C_HealyIsAPleasure |
Not sure where you’re getting your figures from, but according to Transfermarkt they’ve spent approx £41m in the 3 seasons since being relegated (the majority in the first season) and brought in around £96m
Unfortunately truth is that their parachute payments ran out last season and they’ve had to cut costs considerably this time, including selling their best player, and been promoted in spite of it |
Just the £41m? | |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:46 - Apr 30 with 2748 views | m14_blue |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:45 - Apr 30 by Herbivore |
Just the £41m? |
Shoestring | | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:51 - Apr 30 with 2741 views | BiGDonnie |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 19:34 - Apr 29 by strikalite |
Damn lucky to have got huge money for Maddison which covered it... |
No luck about it, they invested £1.5 on a quality, young player and reaped the rewards 12 months later.
Only difference to say someone like Mings or Wickham was that we didn't invest the money received. |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:55 - Apr 30 with 2734 views | Herbivore |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:51 - Apr 30 by BiGDonnie |
No luck about it, they invested £1.5 on a quality, young player and reaped the rewards 12 months later.
Only difference to say someone like Mings or Wickham was that we didn't invest the money received. |
Try doubling that. Being able to spend £3m on a prospect that you then loan out is what a year in the Prem gives you. We haven't spent £3m on one player in a very long time and if we ever do again they'll be straight into the first team. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 09:29 - Apr 30 with 2701 views | Swansea_Blue |
If net spend is very little, I don't see the problem with that. We raised a shed load for the likes of Wickham and Mings. Couldn't do anything with it though. Good luck to them.
Key for me is that someone had the vision to see what the little Farker could do. And even when it wasn't going well they stuck by him. And similarly the little Farker stuck to his guns and trusted in his players. That vision and trust looks very well placed now.
We've done the opposite - we've almost had enough players for 2 teams tis season and think the answer lies in more players rather than developing what we have. Or a new system because the one we used last week didn't work. Nowhere near enough continuity and belief in what we're trying to do (does PL even know what he wants to do - best style, best players?). |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 09:43 - Apr 30 with 2681 views | BiGDonnie |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 08:55 - Apr 30 by Herbivore |
Try doubling that. Being able to spend £3m on a prospect that you then loan out is what a year in the Prem gives you. We haven't spent £3m on one player in a very long time and if we ever do again they'll be straight into the first team. |
I can't see us spending that much on one player again in my lifetime. | |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 09:49 - Apr 30 with 2672 views | m14_blue |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 09:29 - Apr 30 by Swansea_Blue |
If net spend is very little, I don't see the problem with that. We raised a shed load for the likes of Wickham and Mings. Couldn't do anything with it though. Good luck to them.
Key for me is that someone had the vision to see what the little Farker could do. And even when it wasn't going well they stuck by him. And similarly the little Farker stuck to his guns and trusted in his players. That vision and trust looks very well placed now.
We've done the opposite - we've almost had enough players for 2 teams tis season and think the answer lies in more players rather than developing what we have. Or a new system because the one we used last week didn't work. Nowhere near enough continuity and belief in what we're trying to do (does PL even know what he wants to do - best style, best players?). |
There's absolutely nothing wrong with it, Norwich are a well run club who have done things the right way and made the most of what they have.
What people are challenging is the narrative that they've gone up on a tight budget which simply isn't true, however they got the money, they've spent huge sums over the last few seasons (again, nothing wrong with that). | | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 10:09 - Apr 30 with 2652 views | Slambo |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 23:04 - Apr 29 by Herbivore |
Although you were able to take a £3m punt on Maddison courtesy of parachute payments. Yes they ran out in the summer, but the advantage they give you doesn't just disappear. |
In regards to the parachute payment debate, what people to realise is that all that extra money allowed Norwich to dramatically improve their infrastructure, which for me is really what makes difference. So although it seemed they were cutting back and taking 'punts' on unproven foreigners, behind the scenes they were still able to run a top notch Premier League operation - Cat 1 academy, a broad scouting network and strong community trust. Were it not for parachute money (REPEATED parachute money over many years) the level of dominance that Norwich have been able to exercise wouldn't be so great... |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 10:12 - Apr 30 with 2648 views | Manuber |
HCs have mad a simple mistakes like these for years, basing every idea we have on other teams. We should get hungry and young because this team did it, we should play the youth because that team did it.
Evans starts to listen to the HCs and make the changes based on what he thinks we all want, and this is where we end up. Have some original ideas instead of worrying about what Norwich are doing. [Post edited 30 Apr 2019 10:13]
|  | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 10:29 - Apr 30 with 2624 views | itfcjoe |
They have done it on the cheap in terms of their competitors. There's no need to be bitter about it as some are - we should be jealous and frustrated.
Their parachute payments ran out this year, and they came down in a big financial muddle - from the start of last season to now they have slashed their wage bill by around a half, sold their best players, replaced them with players from European 2nd and 3rd tiers and smaller European leagues and brought through youngsters and gone up.
It's an incredible feat of squad management and player management to have done all they have over the last 2 years and remain even competitive in this league without an owner being able to bankroll any losses - let alone to win the league from that position. They must have 4 or 5 players that they can get huge fees fro now - Buendia, Aarons and Lewis especially. |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 15:50 - Apr 30 with 2412 views | agentp |
Transfer Market only gives the transfer values. I suspect it is (as a percentage variation) more accurate than ours. Ours is nowhere near a true reflection as Undisclosed fees are listed as zero. Loan fees are listed as zero and obviously free transfers are listed as zero, but the sign on fees can be the equivalent of a weighty transfer fee. I imagine the Krul and Pukki sign-on fees would be substantial figures. I would those and the agent fees would add another £5m on to that transfer budget. [Post edited 30 Apr 2019 15:54]
| |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 15:54 - Apr 30 with 2409 views | ArnieM |
Scum are always bugging themselves up , strange hey should try and make out it’s “ poor little narwich” all of a sudden.
ncfc#Tinpot club#Plastic fans |  |
| |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 17:38 - Apr 30 with 2348 views | jas0999 |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 19:38 - Apr 29 by christiand |
Yes, but as we all know that needs to be reinvested wisely. Unfortunately, that's something we don't do. |
It also needs to be reinvested in full. That’s also something which we don’t do. | | | |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 22:01 - Apr 30 with 2184 views | radiogaga |
| Norwich City promoted on a budget on 19:31 - Apr 29 by SpruceMoose |
Plucky Norwich, plucky Bournemouth, plucky Fulham yadda yadda the media love a rags to riches story even when there were no rags to begin with! |
I think the reality is:
- They got promoted, earned the right to the financial benefits that went with it, but spent most of it really poorly which led to them being lumbered with players like Olivera training with the youth team for arguing with the manager on the pitch and the likes of Martin/ Naismith/ Jerome long past their best sitting on comfortable contracts.
- Club needed to completely reset its strategy as it spent all its parachute money to fund a really poor recruitment drive during during their first season after relegation.
Basically, their need to cut their cloth after the loss of parachute money forced them to adapt a new recruitment drive which has paid off massively. [Post edited 30 Apr 2019 22:03]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
