Big Down Under

Why are people so down on the idea if Iversen? He proved he can do a job in the Prem with Spurs, he isn''t that old (31 or 32?), he has a decent international record and Champions League experience. Hardly a journeyman. We need experience. According to this site http://premiersoccerstats.com/Top100.cfm he is the 83rd all time top scorer in the Prem, with a 1 in 3 goal scoring record. Thats the same as Crouch, Chris Sutton, James Beattie, Duncan Furguson, Zola, Flo. Better than Hucks (1 in 5). Better than Heskey (1 in 4).He is still fit and still scoring, he could be just what we need.

Check out http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/aug/11/fan.quiz What sort of fan are you?Smudger and Cluck are mostly Cs (I''ve been wanting to say that for ages)For what its worth I''m an almost total B

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"] BDU, this "We"? Is that ''we'' as in NCFC or ''we'' as in Creditors?I only ask since I''m aware that we (NCFC) have assets of £51m and liabilities of £35m which implies to me that our Creditors own approx 70% of the Club [/quote] Which is why I believe the decision as to whether to accept any offer from Peter Cullum or anyone else is not up to those who only own 30% of the club. I could be wrong and it''s just personal opinion, but I would imagine the creditors have the final say.   [/quote]Apparently the terms of the loan state the loan would have to be repaid in full on change of ownership (including Director loans). Cullum said he could renegotiate it the main loan.

I''m not joining in on this one, I feel it would be inappropriate. I urge you all to leave this one alone.

I was meaning we as in NCFC. Most people borrow money for their house, but call it ''my house''. Most people would say Glazer bought Man Utd, but he put the club hundreds of millions of pounds in debt to do it.My understanding was that Chase ran up loans that wern''t agreed by the bank, unofficial overdraft if you will, and as such the bank could call in the loan at any time, which they duly did. So the loan amount under Chase might have been smaller, but it wasn''t structured properly and we couldn''t pay it back, hence the criticism. Also hence the urgent scrabble for new money (at which point Delia came into the picture) and the firesale of players (both when we were in the Prem, on relegation, and when Delia first came on board). We have the capability of paying back our current loan, and it is structured so the banks can''t just call it in, any more than they can just call in your mortgage.When Chase left we were extremely close to bankruptcy. He left a real mess. Getting out of that mess, with our (tangible) fixed assets in place has been a real achievement.

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"] [quote user="Big Down Under"] The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote] Where have you been?  We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson. [/quote]Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.[/quote] But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types. Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give. Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?  [/quote] Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset! [/quote] BDU., May I refer you to your line: ''The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets '' It is YOU that made the first reference to fixed assets!  It is the clubs Annual Report that refers to the players registrations (not the person) as Intangible Fixed Assets.   [/quote] Why are you still going on? I have made it very clear by fixed assets I wasn''t referring to players, it was clear in my previous post, but you won''t let it drop. Argue the point I was making if you can / want, not the semantics. We still own our TANGIBLE fixed assets and that is an achievement. Many teams have had to sell off their ground and facilities, we have first class facilities and thats a real achievement. Oh btw only one in five teams relegated from the Prem bounce straight back, average position is 8th/9th, outside the playoff places. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2008/08/can_birmingham_reading_and_der.html#033728 Salahuddin, if Cullum loves the club as much as he stated, he will be back. Otherwise we will have to assume he was just trying to buy a struggling club on the cheap. He is worth 1.7b on paper, but only liquidated 60m cash. When he liquidates more, I fully expect him to be back.

Thanks Jim for taking the time to post that. Get that striker and get Lupoli match sharp and I''m confident the goals will come.

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"] [quote user="Big Down Under"] The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote] Where have you been?  We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson. [/quote]Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.[/quote] But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types. Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give. Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?  [/quote] Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset! As for ''how many clubs'' do your own research. But whilst you are doing it also research HOW they are funding this, and research what happens to the clubs that over spend in a quest for the Premiership promised land. Its obvious from our league position the last three seasons that things have been seriously wrong with the club, I invite you to read my reply to Mello above for a partial list. The land deal is one thing taking money from the player budget, but without knowing the full financial return detail (Mr Carrow and I speculated on a previous thread that it could return 5m profit for the club) we can''t really criticise - these off field investments have a full role to play in the entertainment on the pitch by helping to fund them. I doubt if one single fan is excited by the hotel or the land deals, but one day we will hopefully be excited by the players they help fund.

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"] [quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?[/quote] Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club. So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah. People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk). It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?  [/quote] Whenever the accusations ''you work for the club'' come out its a sure sign that the accuser can''t actually debate the points raised. Mello where did I suggest you are anti club? Where have I suggested you are an untrue fans? I suggested we both love the club, you replied "It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC". Fair enough if thats how you feel, only an idiot would accuse you of being a binner or anti club and I have said or implied neither. If you don''t want to have the debate, and prefer playground taunts thats up to you. All I have done is disagree with you. The rest you are making up. [/quote] Nothing wrong then, with your pseudo-intellectual ''but fortunately, not like my infantile in the playground'' taunts - regarding your assumed and supposed ability to detect the ''emotional states'' of an individual poster? (I think you''re just making that up) Or, what some understand of the machinations of running a football club - wouldn''t even fit on a postage stamp, (arrogance, smuggy and snooty-ism).You see, ''Biggest Blunder Asunder'',(tee hee) I don''t actually take myself or this forum seriously, where as the likes of you, continually climb atop your tower of imitation ivory, and feel the need to continually educate the lower masses on how we should be so damn grateful, that we have a supposedly dedicated group of individuals, who are apparently 100% dedicated to drive this club further. I continually climb on my reality soapbox, and disagree with your view, which is your continual unwavering defence of those in power at Carra, and I just feel that you have a connection or personal interest within that clique.  They''ve served their time, the relationship is turning sour, they''re past their sell by date - and I see changes on the horizon.  Also, all I''m doing is disagreeing with you, (in my own little lacking general business acumen, and in my sub-standard intellect but humorous kinda way). But, still personally thinking that you''ve more than a passing and general interest in those in the ''tower of power'' at NCFC.....Although, if I''m incorrect in my assumption.....I still think that you have. I also may be diverting you away from serious discussion and debate, with those more suited to do battle with yourself.......and I''m having fun doing so, but, it certainly isn''t intentional.......much.      [/quote]Plenty of things are wrong Mello, the board have made many serious mistakes. The academy is a money pit when we need it to turn a profit, hiring Grant was reckless and extremely stupid, the whole ''costa del colney'' atmosphere that permeated through the club, all these things have seriously hampered us. I have no unwavering defense of the board. I have regularly criticised them on this message board. But there is a whole bunch of posters, yourself included, that criticises EVERYTHING about the club, that makes constant unfounded criticisms of the board based on personalities and perceived character flaws rather than actual facts. I would rather deal in the facts.I''m not trying to make out you are stupid, and I am genuinely sorry if you think I was. I do think however that you don''t look at what is happening at other clubs or at what is happening to the whole football economy. One major motivation of the board is to avoid what has happened at so many other clubs, namely administration, having ruthless business types take control to their benefit and the total detriment of the club, and failing as a business to such an extent that local business who supply the club go out of business. If you don''t understand the dangers, you can''t understand the board''s main motivations.

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] [quote user="Big Down Under"]Wasn''t the final profit 90k after tax? Shows that the books pretty much balanced, and that profit on player transfers was necessary to avoid a loss. [/quote] Over the last three financial years the club have made a combined £12m pre-tax profit.  Not bad for a "loss-making" club hey?  Oh and the team on the pitch has declined in each one of those years- but then maybe, just maybe, making a profit in whatever way (selling players etc.) is now the most important thing...... [/quote] Spin it how you want, but quoting the pre-tax figure is misleading because all Clubs have to pay tax. Avoidance may be legal, but evasion isn''t.  [/quote] You don`t have to pay tax if you make sure you don`t make a profit.  The treasury has benefitted from a £2m tax gift from NCFC in the last three financial years but how has the club gained from it exactly?  Munby stated in one of the recent annual reports that NCFC are "essentially a not-for-profit business" yet you can`t help but get the feeling that the club would rather gift £2m to the taxman than spend money on the team in recent years. [/quote] That''s a very simplistic approach you''re taking there, as you still have to pay tax on your ordinary activities (£188K on £627K profit for the last year) and take account of any deferred tax liabilities / losses b/fwd from previous years.  [/quote]The losses from the previous two years (pre tax figures) were over 8m I think. Mr Carrow I don''t think I have said we are a loss making club, I have said many times that the traditional ways of balancing the books and funding player budgets are gate receipts and tv money. These days that just isn''t enough, so we have to find other ways to balance the books. Profiting on player sales is one of them.

[quote user="astrodyne"]All of this talk about the league being ''a tight one again this season'' is pure conjecture - it could equally see 8 teams pull away from the rest pretty quickly - such is the nature of the beast. Hence, to not get the players, whom you know you are going to have to get as their predecessor is retiring, seems rather poor management. Hence, do I blame Roeder? No, I blame the penny pinchers who have given him an obviously woeful budget from which to produce a silk purse. [/quote]Yes it is conjecture, I wouldn''t be surprised to see Brum and Reading pull away from the pack early on, on paper they should, I just have a hunch Brum will have a disappointing season. As for the rest, the teams seem pretty even to me, looking at the ''experts'' predictions none seem to agree, so I would expect it to be tight. Time will tell.Roeder would have known his budget ages ago, and built his target list accordingly. Blaming finances on us not getting a particular position filled seems a bit illogical to me. If as you say its poor management, why aren''t you blaming Roeder?

[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]It looks like same old same old from where I am sitting. Cheapish transfers who ''might'' gel if lucky. But my worries are: 1) Size - this is a physical league and we have small players. That did not help last year- it wont help this year 2) Attack - we lack teeth on paper. Curo is getting old and needs a bog chap which we do not have, Lupoli has hardly played for a year- and has never scored shed loads, the other lad is barely out of nappies and lacking experience. Sturggle ahead me thinks- and I cannot help but look to Coventry and note that either Morrison or Eastwood would have been a far better siging than any we have made. The same could be said for amny others. I mean in all honesty- who have we signed that will upset other teams? Hoolan? Barely STILL - let us hope I am just being gloomy and that the boys do something amazing tomorrow. But the day before it all starts- I for one cannot say we showed ambition this summer. And that worries me. [/quote]I think you are just being gloomy Vic! Agree re the size, the big target man Roeder is looking for will help but our midfield also looks a bit lightweight. Lupoli though HAS scored shedloads. He is coming off a bad season, so has lots to prove (a good thing) but at Arsenal, before that at Parma and U17s he was prolific. His record at Derby was good considering he wasn''t often started up front, he knows his way around the Champs. I think he will be excellent for us. I think he will prove to be a better signing than Eastwood will for Coventry. Hoolihan will be important - if he is as good for us as he was at Blackpool, he will fit the ''new heroes'' bill. I also have high expectations of Clingan. Stefanovic in defense adds some much needed experience, and the loan players are all exciting young talents with careers to build.Signing a big striker is very important - its obvious this position is a big part of Roeder''s plans, its disappointing he hasn''t been signed. This signing will be key to our season.

Hardhouse, I agree and whilst I''m not ''gobsmacked'' I am disappointed. What cheers me up is how disappointed Roeder seems to be, and if he ends up signing a striker as he describes, i.e. big, strong, good goal scoring record, experienced, it will be worth the wait. I would rather wait until the end of August for the right stiker, than sign the wrong one now. This league will be tight again and as long as we aren''t way adrift like we were last season, we can afford a slow start we can make up the points.I do think Lupoli is a good exciting young prospect and I hope Koroma (?) is the same, but I agree we need experience. We have that in Curo but he certainly won''t give us 20+ goals this season without a big player beside him.

Now, here we are before this season has even begun, Watford are in denial that they are on the edge of administration, despite selling anything they can land their hands on, and they have a manager who looks and sounds like he''s just waiting for someone else to make an offer. Watford''s board state they continue to investigate the possibility of fresh investment as a priority.Substitute "Norwich" for "Watford" in the above paragraph.We''ve sold or remortgaged pretty well anything the Board can get their hands on, players, the ground,Colney with the Directors funding the transfers thats another £1m+ on the Directors loans ''debt'' to be repaid on takeover, (that''s up to £5m now).Yes  we are in a healthy financial state aren''t we?I don''t think thats at all accurate. We still own our ground, our training facilities, and we can repay the debt on them. We aren''t facing administration, there aren''t ANY rumours suggesting we are.The board can''t just donate money. If they are to top up the players budget, they have to either by more shares or make a loan. We all want them to put in MORE money, not less!For every Watford there''s a West Brom, for every Leicester there''s a Birmingham some go up and consolidate the club financially and build a strong team and some go up and waste the opportunityEr, I don''t think there is. Only a limited number of clubs achieve and retain Prem status, many more clubs are in financial trouble trying to get there. Look at Charlton, several seasons in the Prem, they get relegated and reduce the squad budget. They sell players. West Brom and Birmingham are more exceptions to the rule. They are doing very well, but they don''t have to worry so much about balancing the books as their board have more money (put into the club via share purchases and loans) than our board.

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"]. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.[/quote] How many of the tier 2 (old division 1 / Championship) clubs have gone into Administration?   Leicester, Leeds United, Ipswich Town, who else? I think Bradford were in tier 3 when the went into Administration  [/quote] Do you mean clubs whilst in Champs/Div1, or clubs that were in Champs/Div1 but got relegated before going into Admin? I don''t know, but I would be interested to see. If I get a chance I will try and find out. You can certainly add Wimbledon and Bradford to that list. Bradford went into administration immediately following relegation from Div 1 (championship). They then went into Administration AGAIN 2 years later on further relegation. I''m not sure how relevant this is though. Administration usually follows financial mismanagement, which can happen in any division. What point are you making here? Canary Nut thanks for taking up the debate in a reasonable manner.