Desert Fox

Jbghost, "Those on here who want to have a go at the non match day catering really have no understanding of the restaraunt trade at present." I understand the point you are making but most fans on here are interested in the fottball team and not the restaurant trade- we are not playing a celebrity chef popularity league. One of the themes of this thread is that it is doubtful whether non-matchday catering is actually paying its way, which is another way of saying that the football team may be suffering from a shortfall of investment.

Story about the Trust on the BBC football homepage at the moment: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/8123031.stm

With the probable departures to come we are very badly short of the following: 1. Pace 2. Creativity in the centre of midfield 3. Goalscoring Lets hope we dont end up with a team of Andy Hughes type battlers.

Buzz, I forgot to add that there is no way on earth that the land (excluding Chase''s purchases) is worth anywhere near what they pai for it and have spent developing it. This is why it remains in limbo (incurring interest payments) because they cant sell it or afford to continue developing it.

Buzz Killington, The original purchase of land by Chase was (with the benefit of hindsight) a good deal, although it could be argued that the opportunity cost (i.e. failure to stay in the Prem) was much greater. The real crime that has been committed by our Board is to buy more land and spend signifcant sums on trying to develop this at the wrong time in the economic cycle. I am not saying this with the benefit of hindsight either having personally liquidated all my investments in property three years ago. The other huge mistake they have made is trying to play at being a property developer without bringing in a joint venture partner to share expertise. How many property development companies run sucessfull football teams? What skills did our Board think they had collectively to pull off one of the largest developments in Norfolk? Whilost they may have thought that they were trying to create value for the club which coul be invetsed in the team downstream, their stretgyu has backfired spectacularly and partly explains where some of transfer fee receipts have not been invetsed in the team depsite starements to the contrary. Put simply, they have picked the wrng stargey and executed it poorly and have admitted (at the last AGM) they do not have a clue how to change tack.  

Michael Bates, This is interesting. Assuming what you have been told is correct, it conflicts directly with Doomy''s view of the world. A £1.3M return over 10 years is not great considering teh cost of capital and opportunity cost. Furthermore, I would estimate that matchday catering is likley to yield a net profit of circa £0.3M per year largely on the back of the bars. So, this would imply that the non-matchday operation is loss making, again assuming that your information is correct. If you do work in the catering operation, have you got any idea how many staff are tied up in the non-matchday operation and how well this is doing. If they have made two managers  redundant, I am assuming that it was not doing that well.

7rew, No - I am talking about the open remit to cut costs and the immovable object that was Delias catering empire.

7rew, .... or is related to the vanity of the majority shareholders. There is no smoke without fire regarding the reasons for the Turner''s departure.

Mr C, I am not sure whether you figures are just examples, but there is no way on earth that the club is making £1M profit from match day catering. Equally, I suspect that the true cost (including overheads, depreciation, finnancing costs) of the non-matchday catering is likely to be very considerable and I suspect will never pay its way -but this would too embarassing for Delia. I also suspect that Doomy''s catering rpofit was based upon management accounts rather than a full trading account. By this I mean that it would include all of the catering income matched just against the direct costs (e.g. staff and materials) which reflects the budget managed by the catering manager. It is typical in management acconuts for items such as overheads, depreciation and financing charges to be excluded as these are likley to be managed at a corporate level. Thus, one man''s profit can be anothers loss depending upon whether it is based upon management accounts or a trading account format (i.e quasi P&L).

|BA, Sorry I missed the last part of your post. The reason for dressing up the catering division''s performance (which includes the highly lucrative matchday operation) would simply be vanity of the majority shareholders. This is particulary given the mess we are now in. Do you think it would sit well with increasingly nagry fans if they found out that the team was being drained off funds to support non-essential side projects - dont even get me started on the land disaster which makes the cost of the catering operation look like petty cash.

|BA, Quit the hysteria - you asked for a debate. I dont waste my time in silly posts. There is absolutely nothing illegal in how the club chooses to present its management accounts. Statutory accounts do not require this level of reporting. As I have said this is an internal matter which will not be proven without inside information, but lets just say, I have complete mistrust in anything that came out of either Doomy''s mouth or his keyboard. Buckethead has made another sensible suggestion about two club shops. Lets have a sensibel discussion about this?

|BA, How about the beloved catering empire? By this I am not talking about traditional matchday catering (bars etc) where it is virtually impossible not to make money, but rather the restaurant and training courses side of the business. We have made a huge investment in catering equipment and I would guess that there are quite a few staff tied up with this. This is nothing but a hunch on my part, and given the lack of segmental reporting in the accounts, not able to be verified either way. Doomy would have us believe this was making money, but this is quite easy if you dont allocate any overheads to the division. As I said, no proof just intuition.

Cam, Wrong.

LQ, What are you trying to achieve? Whats wrong with a fan discusiing the clu on a fans discussion board?

TFA, Thanks - this is not obsessive. We are entitled to rely upon the truth from the club and I dd wonder at the time whether they were (yet again!!) being economical. The fact that LQ and Lappinitup have jumped on your post straight away probably says to me that there is real substance to this issue.

[quote user="ncfcrule"] But im sure the money already in the playing budget will be moved to pay for otherthings therefore us having the same transfer budget as we would have now. well thats what i think, thoughs?? OTBC [/quote] This is the crux of the matter. How will we ever know either way. A more fundamental issue than the rebate is the wider issue of transparency and communication at the club. How many seasons have been told that receipts from high profile transfers will be ring fenced within the playing budget. Curiously, I dont believe that the money from Earnshaw, McKenzie, Etuhu, Lewis, Francis, Green made it into the playing pot and sure as nigh follows day, the wages bill did not increase following relagation from the prem. So why should we believe them now?

Ryan, There are no EU laws or UEFA rules that prevent us from signing players before 1st July. Had you not noticed that David Marshall has left us?

Undertaker, Six minutes past six - hence the title "606". Lets hope he is in a candid rather diplomatic mood.

Ryan, Its called protecting your investment. Sometimes you ahve to keep pumping more in to avoiud the risk of losing everything.

[quote user="Bobert"][quote user="Desert Fox"] Bobert, Creating shares is not related to the debt. In theory an infinite number of shares can be created so long as this is approved by a AGM or EGM. Of course, this question is academic given that the majority of shares are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. If the Wynn-Jones approve it, Foulger can convet his invetsment into fresh equity, but they expect the fans to just gift their contribution. [/quote] No its not like that because NCFC is a Public Limited Company ...........also I think the FA have rules about ratios. I remeber Neil Doncaster giving an explanation a couple of years ago. [/quote] Bobert, PLC status is irrelavent. The key issue is what the Articles of Association state. Even if thsi contsrains the number of shares in issue, there is nothing to stop a makority of shareholders voting to amend the Aof A. Put simply, with our currnet ownership structure they can print as many shares as they like.I

Bobert, Creating shares is not related to the debt. In theory an infinite number of shares can be created so long as this is approved by a AGM or EGM. Of course, this question is academic given that the majority of shares are concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. If the Wynn-Jones approve it, Foulger can convet his invetsment into fresh equity, but they expect the fans to just gift their contribution.

At the end of tonights 606, I thought that Alan Green mentioned that there would be a Q&A session with Dion Dublin on a open forum basis. Might be really interesting to hear his views on our current plight.

A good question for Mr Foulger, Is your proposed matched investment being treated as a gift or are you expecting to convert your investment into equity?  

Jack, re Ramsey from Arsenal. From Champions League to chumps league - I dont think so somehow

Craig Bellamy?