Oh, so you're now au fait with the running of the NCFC boardroom, too? As sensible / logical as 1950's post is, it's merely guesswork and conjecture. Nett result is the squad is marginally stronger after yesterday, but a nett spend of circa £4m (plus whatever loan fees were due to get Mbokani, Wisdom and Jarvis in) may well prove woefully inadequate at keeping the club in this division, especially given the activity of most of our peers (except Arsenal, of course, and they're hardly in the same league as us in real terms)
Of course it is conjecture/guesswork Cromer - I did say that ' it is how I see it ' I am equally concerned that our squad has not ended up stronger but where we disagree is whether it was a deliberate ploy/incompetence or a victim of circumstances. Personally I think that they did go out to sign another striker with Premiership experience and to be fair both Everton and Stoke confirm this and I do suspect, although I have less proof, that they tried to sign another central defender but if Clubs won't sell, players won't come, terms can't be agreed etc etc life becomes very difficult. I also think that they deserve some credit for pushing through the Jarvis deal so quickly when it is unlikely that he was available before West Ham signed Antonio
Mbokani should be no loan fee if it's with an option to buy. Wisdom supposedly £1.25m. http://www.theguardian.com/football...isdom-liverpool-norwich-loan-season-long-loan Matty Jarvis there is supposedly no loan fee according to this article just up: http://www.claretandhugh.info/jarvis-loan-details-revealed/ So a total spend of just £1.25m on loans (although we're covering 100% of wages, I'd expect Jarvis's to be by far and away the most out of those three and together our loaned out players should mean we break even there). Overall spend of c. £5.25m. That's not much at all in this day and age - many championship teams have spent more. Something funny is going on, as Redmond and now Grabban have alluded to.
We didn't make as many signings as we'd hoped (as in the club wanted more signings but couldn't get them across the line - because of course some of the fans had unrealistic expectations), but as said, with the exception of Arsenal, every other club managed to make signings. Yes we were at a disadvantage coming up through the play-offs. Regardless of the reasons for this can we at least establish that the club had transfer objectives that were not achieved? To the best of my knowldege, at no point did anybody from the club say something along the lines of; "we're happy with the squad" and hence we were still bidding for strikers right up to the wire. BTW re: that Redmond Tweet, why is everybody so convinced he is saying something about the club? He always posts cryptic Tweets.
A) It was posted last evening B) Tensions among fans, in particular, were running a little high, hard on the heels of Brad-gate happening. C) Johnson suddenly leaving was right out of leftfield at the time (makes far more sense now) and was done quickly and decisively - more than can be said for our pursuit of targets in that horrid window. D) The impression has always been a dressing room full of harmony, unity, call it what you like. Grabban's pantomime villain impression and a sharp exit for Bradley indicate to me, anyway, that it might not be the bowl of cherries it's portrayed as When things weigh a little heavy on peoples' shoulders, it's easy for two and two to equal £6m, rising to £7m, based on .............
I would imagine that Johnson, POS last year, would be more than a little miffed that we signed Bradey, thus in effect relegating him to bit part appearances from the bench. Brady for Bradley, an l of a mess.
Sky have done some good research here: please log in to view this image I believe that £100k in for us is Cam McGeehan. It's not like they're ignoring undisclosed fees either, as both Dorrans and Brady (the £10m) were undisclosed. Bradley Johnson apparently doesn't exist. Based on how inaccurate ours is though, you really can't believe any of the rest of it.
Net spend of £5m does smack of a lack of ambition I'm afraid, particularly when you look at what our rivals in the bottom 8 have spent. 6 players to cover 4 defensive positions is a gamble we didn't need to take. And why on earth we need 5 strikers to cover 1 position I have no idea. I suspect we might see a striker leave on loan to a championship club.
The bottom line is we were not organised this summer, Lee Darnbrough our head of recruitment did not start his role until July, Barry Simmonds his predecessor left in March, our season ended on the 25th May, why didn't we have something in place during the most crucial time of the season? It's amateurish for a club of our size and budget to operate like that. In my opinion the board make life deliberately difficult for themselves they've made some absolutely shocking decisions in the past and that's not just hiring some lousy managers, there was the chief executive at the helm for nearly a decade who in that time nearly bankrupted the club. Every Norwich fan will back up Alex Neil, I just don't think his been given the resources to work with by our board.
I have no idea what he's on, but if these allegations of Jarvis, on loan is getting £42k a week, surely a permanent deal for an experienced defender - albeit in his twilight years, wouldn't have been insurmountable? Even a one year deal to help get us a foothold on the ladder?
A quick check seems like they're broadly ok, but even if they aren't I still think it shows generally that: 1) Other than Swansea no team spent less on transfers. 2) Other than So'ton and Stoke, no team has a net spend lower than ours (both teams spending big with big sales). Whatever way you look at it, I think that suggests we've kept the purse strings a lot tighter than all our direct competitors. It might be ok. But if it's not I can see where the blame will be directed...
