So, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the latest buzzword in the Canary lexicon.
‘Tinpot’.
Which has, of course, replaced ‘plastic’, it’s late and not at all lamented predecessor in the role as word of the week amongst sections of Norwich City supporters.
First, let’s take a retrospective look at the latter.
It’s popular use may be temporarily on the wane, but, as with so many equally annoying things in life (Lady Gaga for example), just as you think it’s gone away forever, it’ll inevitably return – probably in or around the time we are due to play someone like Chelsea or Manchester City at home.
No further explanation needed. You know the rest.
I’m probably a ‘plastic’ fan myself. I certainly don’t go to as many games as I used to and, whilst I don’t pick and choose those that I do attend, I’m not as hardcore now as some I know, many of whom have barely missed a fixture of any description for well over a decade and beyond.
That sort of dedication to the Canary cause probably applies to a lot of you who are reading this right now and, believe me, when I hear or see the legions of you up at Blackburn on a cold Wednesday night, it makes me very proud to be a Norwich fan and to know we have such a loyal and noisy following for even the most logistically difficult away fixtures.
But does that dedication and both personal and financial sacrifice make you or anyone else whose blood, like Peter Mendham’s, really does run yellow and green a ‘better’ supporter than me and many others in similar circumstances?
That’s a debate which, I suspect, has run for a long time amongst fans of just about every league club in England.
What makes a true fan? And are you one? Or, as in the case of we perceived plastics, not?
For me, anyone who genuinely supports the club is a fan of Norwich City. They can have attended 500 consecutive matches or never been to one at all. If you love, follow and support our club then that’s good enough for me.
I don’t expect everyone to agree with that. Football is, as I have said on here on more than one occasion, is a game of differing and often wildly polarising opinions. And long may it remain so. That is one of the great joys of following a team and our national game. And I know some will accuse me of being one of those with a great long streak of plastic running down his spine.
Then so be it. I’ll just carry on loving and supporting my team and enjoying all that added flexibility it gives me.
I can be your flexible friend.
Tinpot, on the other hand, is a phrase reserved for the club itself rather than the fans. Or, more precisely, the perceived attitude of those running the club.
But what is ‘tinpot’ and why the accusations of same being labelled at the club at the moment?
Good writing practice dictates that it is a capital offence to write down the definition of any word in an article and that copying it from a dictionary is a faux pas of cataclysmic proportions and a definite no-no.
But, given that good writing practice and I have never even been introduced, much less sat down at the same table and had a frank and honest chat, I’ll do so here, because I want to know exactly what people mean when they throw this accusation at the club. So…
Tinpot: Adjective (pronominal) Brit. Inf. 1. Inferior, cheap or worthless. 2. Petty, unimportant.
Tinpot? Do they mean us?
I think I have to beg to differ.
Inferior? A club that has just won promotion to the English Premier League?
Cheap or worthless? A club that has little to no exterior debt and which, for the financial period ending June 30 2014 posted figures that showed revenue was up to £95.5million – an increase of £16.8 million on the previous year?
One that posted a profit, after tax, of £6.7million?
You want Manchester United? Sure, don’t we all. Well, no actually. Billy Big Bollocks they may well be, but their quarterly financial figures released in February show that they are operating under a debt of £380million.
No, they aren’t a ‘tinpot’ outfit. But they won’t have a tinpot or pot of any description to pee in if they don’t get their financial affairs straightened out in the next few years.
It matters not that they are Manchester United.
Leeds United thought they were untouchable once. As did Glasgow Rangers. And remember, for all that they stood for and achieved, they went under. The club playing at Ibrox Park next season is not the Glasgow Rangers of old but a fledgling football club just three years old whilst, back in 2010, there were serious concerns that Liverpool, yes, Liverpool were on the brink of going into administration.
Whilst in Italy, Parma, the not-at-all-tinpot club of Zola, Stoichkov, Crespo and Thuram have gone bankrupt twice in a decade.
Trying all along, I suspect, not to be tinpot. And look where it has got them.
It’s easy to confuse being tinpot with being financially prudent. And it’s just as easy to equate observing the latter with being boring – at least that is, if it’s not your money.
Put it this way. I have a ridiculous, bordering on the obscene credit limit on one of my credit cards, as will many of you reading this. You and I could go into our nearest car showroom and okay, we won’t be driving out in a Jaguar or a Merc, but a nice new Citroen C4 Sir? Thankyou, that’ll do nicely.
But that ain’t gonna happen. All because the money is there and available doesn’t mean you have to spend it regardless. It isn’t obligatory. Leeds United had it, or, at least, thought they had it, and paid a substantial amount to Seth Johnson.
Because they could. And because their spectators expected them to do so. Because they weren’t tinpot.
The story of Johnson’s contract negotiations with Leeds have passed into legend. He’d been earning £5,000 a week at Derby which led to his agent telling Johnson that, in the hope he’d eventually get his client at least £10,000 a week at Elland Road, that he “…wouldn’t settle for less than £13,000 a week” before he signed.
Yet, even before he had the chance to put forward his demands, Leeds Chairman Peter Risdale opened the meeting by telling them that he could ‘only’ offer Johnson £30,000 a week.
Both Johnson and his agent were stunned into silence; so much so that Ridsdale interpreted it as disgust, before going on to offer Johnson £37,000 a week.
That told them didn’t it? Leeds United. We’re many things but we are not tinpot. At least they weren’t then. But they are now.
And all because they tried so hard to show that they were not.
So you’ll perhaps forgive me if I don’t get myself into the sort of rich and creamy lather some of my fellow Norwich fans are getting themselves into because we won’t meet Hull City’s asking price for Robbie Brady.
Yes, I’m sure that we could afford to pay them the £7million they there were originally asking. But this is not an episode of Blackadder and we are not, to quote Prince George going to “… pay the fellow Edmund (aka David) and damn his impudence.”
We can. But that’s not the point. Because we don’t have to. And it makes a far better and more long lasting point to other clubs, players and, most of all, agents to show that, whilst we may well have the means, that doesn’t translate as us being willing to roll over and give in to whatever demands are made of us.
Passive we are not. And giving in to whatever demands are made of us by other clubs and all their assorted hangers on is not a good thing.
I hear the counter argument and I hear it loud and strong.
The one that says it all very well saying that but we need to strengthen the squad and that everyone else is doing so, even Watford and Bournemouth and if we don’t follow their lead we’ll be left behind and struggling from that start.
And that £7million is a very good price for a Premier League player. And indeed it would be if the player in question we wanted to sign from Hull City was, for example, Tom Huddlestone.
But not Robbie Brady.
Transfer fees and player demands are now ridiculous. We all know that, there’s nothing new in that statement, nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
So, sometimes, just sometimes you have to take a stand against the madness. Draw a line in the sand and say that, come what may, we are not crossing it.
And maybe that’s exactly we are doing in the case of Norwich City, Hull City and Robbie Brady.
If we are then, far from thinking the club is ‘tinpot’ for doing so, I rather think it deserves a little bit of respect for taking such a stance. One that marks us out as anything but “inferior, cheap or worthless.”
But, rather, one that makes us stand out as strong, professional and yes, I can hear the shouts of boring in response to this, as eminently sensible and responsible.
Four values that are essential qualities in the running of any business. Especially football clubs.
‘Tinpot’, for me, would be giving in, to capitulating, to being dictated to by other clubs over unrealistic transfer fees and players whose wage demands that far outweigh what they have to offer.
‘Tinpot’ would be acquiescing to Hull City’s demand that we pay £7million for Brady and not only because they know we can but because we know we can as well.
But still not doing it. That’s strength, not tinpot.
And we should be very glad that we have strong people running our club, individuals whose modus operandi is working to the football club’s very best interests. And not just this summer or for the pending Premier League season, but for its financial health and well-being for many years to come.
Robbie Brady has become somewhat a symbol of that this summer. Yet, as one swallow doesn’t make one, neither will he, whatever happens, make or break ours.
Because he isn’t Seth Johnson. And David McNally isn’t Peter Risdale.
And thank all the gods for that.
Well said. What does Steve Bruce think he is doing by insulting everyone at Norwich? He is just making himself look a bit foolish and, probably, a bit desperate. He is worried that our offer will unsettle Brady who only has 12 months left on his contract. Does that remind anyone of what he did with Snodgrass? The fact that he paid up the money for Snoddy was his choice. I happen to think Norwich did very well out of that deal (no offence Snoddy – I rate you but 7 million quid is a hell of a lot of money!). The fact that we won’t pay that money for Brady is all credit to us. Yes he may well be an international with a lot of games under his belt. So is Whitts, so is Martin – doesn’t mean we would get 7 million for them. There have to be other options out there. Young, hungry players on the fringes of some of the big clubs who would be tempted by a move. Or a player who came through young in the lower leagues and is hungry for a move up. Why don’t we make a bid for Yedlin instead?
0
Excellent words Ed. It’s not about how much cash you have in the bank, or the burning needs to spend it and quickly.
Ultimately, if Robbie Brady was really worth £7m he would have been snapped up already and I don’t see a long queue, do you?
Amen to the club being run by a CEO with business acumen!
0
I have to admit that before reading your piece above Ed I thought McNally was taking the pee offering just £2M for Brady. However I now see the bigger picture and with Brady arguably having just the one really good season under his belt, to pay anywhere near £7M would be a big gamble for us. I still think £2M even £3M won’t be enough to land Brady in today’s market place but with a couple of £M included as add-ons for appearances and our PL survival that should do it and would then be well worth the punt IMO
0
I have to say that if 3 million has been our top bid for Brady, then that is a little naughty as they paid slightly less than that 3 years ago.
Don’t like to see us pay over 5 million for anyone but I would have said that figure is a more realistic one for an established international. Bruce knows we’ve got the money, so we shouldn’t be messing around down at 3 million.
Seth Johnson’s transfer fee was 7 million – that’s 10.5 million in today’s money. Leeds are exactly where they deserve to be – the new Italian owner is the cherry on the top of their ‘tinpot’ times.
0
Good article and pretty thought provoking. While I agree with you on the Brady issue itself (£4m, game over I would hope) and would not like to see money slung at future Winkle types I fear the ghost of CH is still floating around the Boardroom. He actually spent a significant amount on several players that ultimately got us relegated. I hope this does not mean the Board tie Alex Neil’s hands. How ironic if he inherited the stance of “sorry Alex we’ve been caught out before”. While I admire David McNally as much as the author and Gary Field, I do not warm to the actual Board in the same way I am afraid and I understand how and why the word “cheapskate” is sometimes thrown in their collective direction. As for who I’d like to sign, a Palace board puts it nicely: “If you think QPR would sign him, you don’t want him”.
0
I hear what you’re saying, Ed, and I’d hate to see the club throwing money around willy-nilly (incidentally, I don’t think Hughton’s spending was all that extravagant). But, we need to compete. You can talk about principles all you like but with so much at stake (like the huge increase in TV revenues after this season coming) you have to push the boat out sometimes. I agree with the above comment that £3m is more than a bit cheeky for Brady, especially when you start the bidding at £2m. Hull may have taken advantage of the Snodgrass situation, but I’ll bet their initial offer was way above that.
I would have no problem with a lack of large amounts being spent if there were signs of innovative scouting and recruitment. Looking at the clubs being relegated and going after a well-known player from one of them with a very low-ball bid, however, doesn’t speak of much in the way of imagination. We have done well with relatively unknown players from lower leagues before, though, picking up some gems without splashing the cash. Tettey was also a great find. There’s a way to go yet before the window closes and who knows who might show up. I just hope there’s a lot more going on that what we’ve been hearing about.
0
With due respect to my fellow MFW columnists, not many of our recent articles have been important. But this one is.
The kind of club managements which deserve scorn are Leeds, Rangers (both the Glasgow and Queens Park versions) and pretty well anyone Harry Redknapp has been associated with. Plus anyone who’s gone into Administration, which in effect means welching on your obligations and screwing your local partners and suppliers.
I’ve heard some of our fellow fans say we should pay over the odds for Brady because (i) we have £120 million, and/or (ii) if we don’t snap him up, someone else will.
Actually, we don’t have £120 million. That amount would be to cover the entire costs of the club for the next three years, and I don’t believe we’ve seen any of it yet.
I’d be sorry to miss out on Brady. But we can’t be held to ransom over him, and we should perhaps trust David McNally’s skills. We were in a similar situation with Snodgrass, Howson, Hooper, Redmond and others; while playing hardball over fees, McNally didn’t let any of them slip from our grasp.
Our club is in good hands. While I generally try to respect different views, frankly anyone who calls us ‘tinpot’ doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
OTBC
0
If Brady is so good why are we the only club trying to acquire him?
He is in international only because he is Irish, and he has to play out of position for them because they have nobody else. I doubt if he would get anywhere near the England squad.
“I have to say that if 3 million has been our top bid for Brady, then that is a little naughty as they paid slightly less than that 3 years ago.”
Or alternatively that just reiterates how stupid Bruce was paying way over the odds then. Just bear in mind Bruce has a long record of splashing he cash with little real reward to show for it.
8 years ago he spent £9.5m on 3 strikers for Birmingham in the Championship (Jerome being one of them), and even then had to borrow an ageing Andrew Cole to edge over the line. That included paid £2.5m for Rowan Vine. That surely tells you something!
I would have thought a deal involving a sensible fee (£3m sounds good to me) plus further payments if he plays a pile of games and we stay up, win a cup etc. plus a decent cut of any profit should he move on is where we are going with this one.
Unless of course Bruce can get other parties interested to start a bidding war, but that seems unlikely.
0
Keith B (8) – we paid over 3M for Ryan Bennett 4 years ago from P’boro. I suspect that’s why DM is being a little frugal on the Brady deal.
Who would you say is the better footballer?
7M is too much, 3M undervalued – whatever happened to good old compromise – 5M sounds spot on to me. If that’s not good enough for Brucie, then we move on.
Only the Irish? They’re good enough for Wes and I wouldn’t say the England left-back is any better.
Stewart(7) – it’s ggod to have some ‘fluff’ once in a while as well as the serious stuff. 6M for Hooper? We got stung badly on that one.
0
Best article on here in weeks, Ed.
All the ‘informed’ comments in the world regarding this season’s transfer activities amount to a hill of beans, because, basically, we just don’t know what’s going on until after it’s happened.
And those who have a go at Steve Bruce – who was a remarkable and loyal servant of this club – should remember that he’s only trying to protect his clubs interests, just as AN would.
The only slight addition I’d add to the argument is that – occasionally – because we aren’t necessarily the most attractive Prem club for a player to go to (i.e., we’re not a potential top six, but we are a potential relegation case), we may have to pay a little over the odds in wages to attract a player, which we generally don’t do. Also, many of our fellow fans insist that we must recruit players with Prem experience. I thought we already had many players with Prem experience, so why not try and get the odd bargain from the lower leagues. One Redmond N was brought in from Birmingham. Bradders and Howson from Leeds. they did okay for us. And will do better.
And it’s much more exciting watching an ‘unknown’ really come unexpectedly good!!
0
This is the same Steve Bruce who , When we turned down an offer from Man Utd for him , refused to ever play for us again and threatened all sorts if we did not sell him !!!! I lost all respect for him at that time and if what we are doing winds him up the I am all for that – I personally don’t particularly rate or want him
0
I’m pleased to read the comments here. On other boards people are just saying pay the money, get the player. These are probably people who overbid on ebay.
I am sure the club have set a maximum price they will pay for Brady (as I am sure they do for every player they look at). In this case the maximum may be £3M or it may be more than this but £3M is the latest bid. If they cannot get him for within the price they value him and the price will be say £7M then you move on and look at other players.
If you have to pay £7M for a left midfielder / left back then you spend £7M on a player you rate at that value.
0
Cosmo, with respect to Wes, he wouldn’t get in the England B squad. Nor would Snoddy. They are a similar level to Howson and Johnson, neither of whom are anywhere near international calibre.
If Brady is as good as the English left back why did Man U let him go and then buy Shaw? If Baines left Everton do you think they’d be in for Brady? No, nor do I.
I repeat, why are we the only club interested?
Incidentally I think Ryan B is capable of far more than we’ve seen if he can get fit. His probable is having to learn the trade at the highest level in a backs-to-the-wall situation. Last season should have been a great chance for him, but it was wrecked by the injury in the autumn.
0
Tinpot? £8m for Tyrone Mings, anyone?
0
Good article, great read.
6. Ben K – regarding a lack of imagination/innovation in the scouting network. Noteworthy perhaps that the club has had more Heads of Scouting/Recruitment than I’ve had hot dinners in the last 5 years? Lee Darnborough is just the latest name to come through the door. This, coupled with turnover in managers, is probably stifling any hopes of a sustained and cohesive player recruitment strategy. I can but hope we get some stability in this area over the next few seasons!
0
If £8m was the right price for Mings, Brady would be a bargain for £7m, but that’s a very big IF.
0
@5 El Dingo – I’m slightly puzzled by the “cheapskate” comment, especially in the context that in our last Premier League season.
If you recall, we only made a £6m surplus, off the back of a £95m turnover, because we were relegated, so certain performance bonuses payments weren’t due.
And, whilst no one wanted to be relegated, that suggests that the club is being run on a proper financial basis. One that only spent what it could afford.
If you want another example of bad financial management, you don’t have to wander too far down the A140 to find a club that spent more on players wages the previous season than its total turnover.
I know which way I prefer our club to be run!
0
Keith B(13) – we were the only club interested in bringing Alex Neil across the border – was that an indication he wasn’t up to the job?
Everton? Thanks for answering your own question but you have no idea if Martinez would be interested or not – he might be.
Man Utd. – they let Brady go well before they bought Shaw. I seem to recall thay had a pretty good French international in that position while Brady was there.
Wouldn’t dismiss the quality of the Irish so easily – England haven’t beaten them for 30 years.
0
Cosmo P: Certainly good to have some ‘fluff’ on here. Russell Saunders and I do our best…
Do you remember Celtic saying there was ‘no way’ they’d sell Hooper for anything less than £10m? I understand we paid half that. In that particular case, though, I agree the value is still debatable.
0
Firstly, with a lot of potential business still to be done in this transfer window (which doesn’t shut til September 1st, why are people worrying?!) I think it’s important we don’t set a president of paying over the odds just because we have the resources. Prudent financial management is one reason WHY we have the resources.
Secondly, a lot of this Brady situation rests with the player himself. Bruce is talking up a new contract for him, but if he wants to leave, which seems likely, he won’t sign, and Hull will get £0M for him this time next year. It’s in their interests to sell, so they’re playing hardball just as much as we are at the moment.
0
I believe when a club is promoted to the premier league fans and officials of that club have to realize that football becomes a very different ball game,literally.If your not careful you may get carried away.The secret of even moderate success is having a top class system of identifying/buying players who will not cost zillions but will improve the squad.Not easy but its the only way to stay within budget and ensure a reasonable season.
0
You demanded silly money from Hull for RS. They were willing to pay it which is their choice and so they are playing hardball with you. I suspect you will end up paying near that figure.
Pots and kettles spring to mind!
0
To 17 Gary Field. Okay you have a good point. The Board are just too non – football savvy for me. I am nevertheless as pleased as any of us to be where we are right now. Great reads on this site. Really like it.
0
I don’t really see this whole transfer window in terms of how much clubs pay. We are not trying to compete week in week out with the top 7 so forget what they are doing. It is about AN being able to bring in players he feels will suit the system or provide adequate cover. There’s always relegated teams off loading their better players e.g. Leroy Fer but I’m not a great fan of this neither do I believe in taking the older experienced premiership players. For me we should be looking at players who don’t quite fit in at their current clubs players with a point to prove. We all remember Hucks and thenJerome last season. Price tags are often meaningless i.e. RVW and Holty. If AN really wants Brady fine but only if he really wants to come. We all know those running the club are doing so responsibly spending millions is a slippery road to disaster.
0