Unnecessary transfer activity

A new blog offering commentary on all things Norwich City FC from a proud "citizen journalist". I will criticise or praise our team without fear or favour. And abuse nurses if I'm in the mood because I am that sort of person.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Good old-fashioned common sense (part 4)

I have remained from commenting further on last season, largely because I didn't want to add to the misery it induced in me. But one thing concerns me so much that I feel impelled to offer my thoughts:

In January "Neil Doncaster" told us "The cash to sign Robinson has been raised through loans to the Club from Directors Delia Smith, Michael Wynn Jones and Michael Foulger, for which we are very grateful. The loans cover the full cost of the player's wages this season and the transfer fee."

That's right - in January 2006 a club which had organised two successful share offers, seen attendances increase year on year, and reaped the financial benefits of a season in the top flight was in the position of borrowing the nominal transfer fee for Robinson, and, indeed borrowing the wages of just one extra employee.

How did we find ourselves in this parlous state? I'm not sure - but I do hope the board will consider a couple of suggestions that I have to make.

Firstly, Mr "Doncaster" has set out the board's policy (or lack thereof) in relation to transfers:

"We allocate the amount to be spent by the manager as he sees fit. Whether he chooses to spend it on one or six players, on free transfers or wages or loans is really down to his judgment. It is not the board's place to tell the manager who to buy and we would never dream of doing that."

I suggest that the manager's many blunders over the past 2 years show that this policy is flawed and that the board should scrutinise not only each individual transfer, but also consider whether the huge volume of transfers he undertakes is consistent with what Mr "Doncaster" says is the board's belief in "stability and continuity".

Secondly, it would appear that the club had simply allocated too much money to the manager, regardless of whether he was spending it wisely or not. Mr Doncaster is a lawyer. If the Chief Executive of the club had been an accountant I wonder if the same situation would have arisen? I suggest that the board consider appointing a Chief Executive from a financial background, and leave Mr Doncaster to handle other matters - notably the contract negotiations with which he deals so well.