Norwich City vs QPR(home) Sunday 7th May.

[Canaryboy]

I really can't see Webber selling Pritchard, should imagine he'll see him as the man he wants to build our team around. He's contracted until 2020 so we're under no pressure to sell just yet, and Pritchard himself looks happier these days so I'm sure he'd be happy to give it another year to see if we can get up next season.

I think it will be Naismith who moves on, and that we'll use the proceeds (or wages saved) to bring in a good striker. That is probably the full of extent of what needs to happen in the final third, lose an attacking midfielder and bring in another striker.

 

[morty]

I really can't see Webber selling Pritchard, should imagine he'll see him as the man he wants to build our team around. He's contracted until 2020 so we're under no pressure to sell just yet, and Pritchard himself looks happier these days so I'm sure he'd be happy to give it another year to see if we can get up next season.

I think it will be Naismith who moves on, and that we'll use the proceeds (or wages saved) to bring in a good striker. That is probably the full of extent of what needs to happen in the final third, lose an attacking midfielder and bring in another striker.

Thing is though, we have already saved the wages on Lafferty, Turner, Bennett, Bassong and Ruddy. By my fag packet accounting, thats a fair old bit, especially if you believe figures bandied about.

We could basically buy 5 direct replacements for those departing, and still be saving money.

I don't want this revolution to be all about saving money, I want it to be about getting better players in.

 

[Canaryboy]

That's assuming that we haven't made a financial loss this season though, which us fans won't know until October time. 

Will be a bit of a bummer if we need to shift Naismith to balance the budget though, six months after shelling out £7m for Wildschut  h34r:

I think Wildschut is a handy squad player but that was a huge fee in hindsight. At least Burnley overpaid for Brady at the same time, he was no Hucks himself. 

 

[morty]

That's assuming that we haven't made a financial loss this season though, which us fans won't know until October time. 

Will be a bit of a bummer if we need to shift Naismith to balance the budget though, six months after shelling out £7m for Wildschut  h34r:

I think Wildschut is a handy squad player but that was a huge fee in hindsight. At least Burnley overpaid for Brady at the same time, he was no Hucks himself. 

We turned profit on Brady and Redmond, and I would assume Olsson too. I think Wildschut is the pre emptive replacement for Jarvis. We score a lot from midfield, so I think we bought him on that basis, and the fact we only play one striker, so it was assumed Jerome And Oliviera, with Lafferty in a dire emergency, were enough up top.

Really Wildschutt and Dijks for Olsson and Brady was decent business overall.

 

[Canaryboy]

Our turnover for last season (Premier League) was £47m more than it was the season prior (Championship on parachute payments). So even accounting for making a profit on Brady and Redmond, and a 40% squad wide wage decrease, I wouldn't bank on us declaring a profit from this season.

I do think the Naismith thing though is more about how much of a problem his wages could cause if we didn't go up next season, with the thinking being that if there is a taker this summer then we ought to accept their offer because there may not be an offer on the table next summer when he'll be almost 32.

If he really is on £50k a week then then post parachute payments that will be the equivalent of something like 6% - 7% of our entire likely turnover, for the wages of one player. That's what Webber is thinking about I think.... there has to be a balance struck between ambition and negligent risk taking. Starting to sound like Neil Doncaster and his "prudence with ambition" shtick now, so I'll leave it there  :lol:

 

[morty]

But on the flipside, I'm pretty sure any Championship manager would like Naismith in his team, so I'm more on the side of keep him, if he will improve our chances of promotion. Obviously if we aren't promoted next season then changes will have to be made, but lets worry about that if and when it happens. Pretty much every side in the Championship runs at a loss, so we shouldn't over obsess about it.

Would I suggest buying Naismith right now, if he wasn't our player? Probably not. But he is our player, so we may as well make the most of him. It follows absolutely no logic to somehow pay him up just to get him off the books.

 

[hogesar]

Well his interview is clear - we will need to sell to make proper adjustments to the squad. 

Good news, in my book, obviously, is that is unlikely to be Russ or Wes:

Listen, we have to get the age of the squad down, we had 13 over 30 at one point, but then it is keeping the great, experienced players like Russ and Wes Hoolahan to help any younger ones,” he said. “With the budget constraints we have got, we are not going to be able to have two fantastic right backs on excellent salaries. We might only be able to have one and back him up with a younger guy, whether from the academy or signing a young one who isn’t on a big salary, to keep our best players. The easiest thing to do is sell one of our top players but instead we have to be creative.” 

 

[morty]

Interview here if anyone hasn't heard it :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0529vd7

Is that clear though Hogesar? I think you could take from it what you want really. The obvious player would be Naismith, and I doubt anyone either in Scotland, or the Championship could afford him. Webber also talked about not focussing on wages but on the player wanting to be here, and what he can bring to the team. I think its the standard position of "He's an important player to us, but, everyone has their price".

Also worth a listen is the interview with Steve Stone :-

 

[hogesar]

I think Webber made it pretty clear that we will need to move players out to create a budget to bring them in, basically saying as it stands we don't have any cash to go bring players in. Webber comes across pretty articulate and targeted and says exactly what he wants to get out into the public domain. For example, he didn't pick Wes and Russ from a hat, I think he's making it clear those two are staying.

Like you say, Naismith is an obvious one to move on but it doesn't make sense if we can't find someone to take him! If someone's willing to pay a couple mill and relieve the financial burden of 50k a week then I'm pretty sure, rightly or wrongly, we'd snap their hands off.

 

[morty]

I think Webber made it pretty clear that we will need to move players out to create a budget to bring them in, basically saying as it stands we don't have any cash to go bring players in. Webber comes across pretty articulate and targeted and says exactly what he wants to get out into the public domain. For example, he didn't pick Wes and Russ from a hat, I think he's making it clear those two are staying.

Like you say, Naismith is an obvious one to move on but it doesn't make sense if we can't find someone to take him! If someone's willing to pay a couple mill and relieve the financial burden of 50k a week then I'm pretty sure, rightly or wrongly, we'd snap their hands off.

I'm not so sure to be honest, as I said above we have saved some pretty big wages, and we don't even need to replace every single player that has been released. And apart from other income streams, we have a 30 million quid parachute payment.

I'd like to think we're not that broke! And I don't want to even think about selling either a Murphy or Howson.

 

[hogesar]

No, you'd like to think otherwise, maybe Webber is just covering himself. I agree with you, we should be in a pretty healthy position but Webbers interview indicates we do need to sell to buy. 

And no, I don't think selling either Murphy's or Howson's would benefit us in either the short or long term!

 

[GJP]

Next seasons POTS is already Pritchards to lose I think

Didn't people say that kind of about Mulumbu?

 

[morty]

No, you'd like to think otherwise, maybe Webber is just covering himself. I agree with you, we should be in a pretty healthy position but Webbers interview indicates we do need to sell to buy. 

And no, I don't think selling either Murphy's or Howson's would benefit us in either the short or long term!

I think its a case of options being open.

I would not to lose any of our sellable assets :-

Murphy x2, Howson, Pritchard, Maddison or Wes.

I can't really see any of our other players being of much interest to other clubs, given that the likes of Jerome and Oliviera are likely on pretty good wages.

Hopefully its just Webber making the "we're broke" noises so we don't get our pants pulled down on deals.

 

[morty]

Didn't people say that kind of about Mulumbu?

Haha, did they?

 

[GJP]

Haha, did they?

They did.

But I do think it's a more reasonable shout with Pritchard.

 

[morty]

They did.

But I do think it's a more reasonable shout with Pritchard.

Well they are silly sausages then. Whilst I had high hopes for Mulumbu, they weren't that high!

 

[CanaryNath]

I do think that clearing some of the bigger earners off the wage bill will free us up to sign the 7-8 people we probably need to, however the issue is the transfer fees.....THAT'S where I think we may have an issue.

 

[Canaryboy]

When you are in the market to sell players you tell your competition that you have plenty of money. 

When you are in the market to buy players you tell your competition that you don't have much money. 

Obviously we're not going to be shelling out £7m on anybody this time, but I'd be worried if we started talking about having a "war chest" or something, it would be terribly naive. 

Also, fees are usually spread across the length of the contract rather than being a lump sum, so if we sold Naismith for £1m and saved £5m in wages over the next two seasons, and didn't feel we needed to replace him, then that's £6m we can use for transfer fees for those other positions... which is why I think Webber wants him gone.

Using that number, which makes some big assumptions, Naismith leaving for £1m without us paying any of his wages at his new club, would enable 3 x £2m transfer fees.

Same applies to anybody else who may leave for a small fee but save us additional wages though, wouldn't surprise me terribly if we made an attempt to mutually terminate the contract of Jarvis.... not convinced we'd get anywhere with that though.

I think the obvious player to be leaving for some sort of fee in this window is Klose. Shame because I think he could still be an excellent player in a settled defense with the right partner, but it doesn't feel like he's 100% committed and he's surely now one of the players earning mega money.