The 2019-2020 season.

Buendia must play.

https://www.skysports.com/football/...dia-must-play-if-norwich-are-to-have-any-hope

 

Well written, non hysterical piece about the NCFC approach...for a change
[Site went down about 11 last night but seems OK again now]
https://www.thenational.ae/sport/fo...-approach-augurs-well-for-the-future-1.985729

 

I would like somebody to explain the finances for this season. I understand that being in the PL should equate to at least £100m, but this money doesn’t come until the end of the season? Also, when we are relegated we should receive at least £50m in parachute payments? On the premise that we sell 2 or 3 players then we could well pocket say another £30-50m? Thanks in advance.

 

Quote: "....... they conceded more home goals than bottom club Ipswich in last season’s Championship. Defensive naivety remains an issue and Norwich have been too open ........"

Is this particular sort of criticism "well-written and non hysterical" as long as I don't write it?

The comment about home goals is interesting. The Portman Road version of the false dichotomy: "It's either Lambert or McCarthy"!

Also, I'm not sure you can say that Ben Godfrey's putative value has been increased by his performances this season. Aarons possibly, Cantwell certainly, but Godfrey?

 

Well we had a clean sheet last nigh

 

Yes we did, and the fact we took all three points scoring just a single goal emphasises just how valuable a clean sheet is. We've kept five clean sheets in the league now:

Bournemouth (a) 0--0
Everton (a) 0--2
Bournemouth (h) 1--0
Newcastle (a) 0--0
Leicester (h) 1--0

5 matches, 4 goals, 3 wins and 2 draws, 11 points: that's just over 2 points per game.

23 matches, 21 goals, 2 wins and 4 draws, 10 points; that's less than 0.5 points per game.

Do I need to say more? How about we set out to keep more clean sheets?

 

I think we all agree that clean sheets are good to aim for

 

Well of course you're going to score more with clean sheets because the worst you can do is draw. In our last 6 games (2-1-3) we've taken 7 points, all of those from clean sheets. That indicates to me that we have improved our defending (Wolves being the exception) Having two CBs has helped as well. It's a delicate balance though. If Aarons and Lewis had not gone forward when we scored last night, we might have dropped 2 or 3 points. The other difficulty is that every time the opposing team has scored first we've lost.

We now need 16-17 points from our last 10 games. We need 5 wins to do that. Do we attack to score first or defend to keep them from scoring? Hopefully we do both - no goals scored, no win.

Sheffield United A
Southampton H
Everton H
Arsenal A
Brighton H
Watford A
West Ham H
Chelsea A
Burnley H
ManCity A

The key games are Brighton at home, Watford away and West Ham at home. We also have 3 other winnable games at home (it's hard to see us getting much from the 5 away games). The pressure will be immense, but it is still possible, just. We need a run of games to keep the points coming as well as those we're chasing faltering. It's a big ask, but possible.

 

I would also include Brighton as a key game.

 

There'a difference between "aim for" and "set out to keep" ZK!

 

Good point, canario. Have changed it accordingly.

 

Indeed Rick, the logic is soooooo obvious. But apparently not so obvious that everybody takes it to heart.

 

Gaining seven points on the teams above us is a virtual impossibility. It's quite possible that one of the teams currently on 27 points won't get more than nine or ten points but the two others probably will do. We will need to win six games or at least five plus a couple of draws. If we do that it will be the escape act of all time.

 

From a horrid red-top tabloid in 2018:

How much do the relegated teams receive?
Relegated teams are reported to receive a £40million parachute payment.
This equates to 55 per cent of the broadcast revenues in the first year after relegation.
It then goes down to 40 per cent (£35m) in year two and to 20 per cent (£15m) in year three.
A club that has only been in the Premier League for one season will only receive two payments.

Call me a sourpuss, but I firmly believe these should be abolished.
Why should we only spend a miserly sum on Byram and still receive nearly £90m when the project fails dismally?
Even Webber admits the summer window last season was far from acceptable, leaving DF with an impossible (highly improbable) mountain to climb with an inadequate defence. (Multiple injuries apart)
To an outsider, we've made no realistic effort to strengthen in order to survive in this division.
So why should we be entitled to a "helping financial hand" to launch another tilt at promotion next season?

 

Good point Cromer.
Never looked at it from that perspective.
It does like you are rewarding failure,or lack of ambition

 

I think the club's ambition is to remain in business, solvent, as a family owned entity. On that basis the current strategy looks to be achieving that. TV money and selling of a couple of the club's bright young things in the summer will see us remain as a going concern and looking at poor old Bury and Oldham that's got to be a good thing, especially if we can have seasons like the last one along the way.

 

I think the board would have been happy to finish top 4 and the team to score more goals and concede less.

They just aren't listening to the expert(s) on here .

 

Matthew 7:6: "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

 

The parachute payments are part of the deal for being in the PL. whether you approach knowledge of receipt of those payments with prudence and a long term vision (or lack of ambition) or spunk it all and more hoping to stay up (I give you Villa me lud) everyone knows they are there to be collected.
After the pay rises upon promotion, I'm not convinced our wage bill would now or even with relegation clauses be affordable on a flat championship budget. For others the short fall will be more stark. We with our wages can either survive the income drop or sell players to do so because for PL players they're not well paid. Others like Villa who might have attracted players with £60k+ Pw, will be buggered with or without them but slightly less buggered and might get one season before totally having to RIP their team apart.
The payments are as unfair as they have been since their inception, to the rest of the championship, but to any team trying to compete and establish in the PL they are a must.

Bah!

 

It’s a good point Cromer and interesting to think about it like that. I think it’s got legs and you can see why it makes other clubs in lower leagues annoyed.

I think it can be looked at in another way - the fact that we have chosen to spend nothing, collect the money and not risk insolvency (but be highly likely to get relegated) actually shows, ironically, that all that premier league money on promotion/relegation actually isn’t enough because spending it doesn’t give you enough certainty of staying up. I don’t mean that in the sense of promoted/relegated clubs deserve more. It highlights, as we all know, that you can’t really get to the top on merit but the financial disparity between the top half of the premier league and the rest of the football league is too massive to overcome other than occasionally. The real fix required is that the playing field needs flattening - parachute payments are a necessary evil while flattening remains impossible and a symptom of the problem not a cause.