Bobzilla

Me too. Not, but that doesn’t stop anyone here. I‘ve just been labelled a plastic…

A plastic? As in a non-fan? If so, I’ve been a plastic for nearly 30 years.

Let's take those issues. Female sports and 'biological females'. The issue is competitive advantage. The studies that have been done are, at best, ambiguous as to whether there is a competitive advantage when a trans female has gone through a male puberty. The anti-trans lobby would have you believe that they are conclusive, but not enough have been done because the data simply isn't available - professional/serious amateur sport is a very small pool to be fishing in anyway, and the trans population is minute, comparatively speaking. But here's the rub. It is perfectly possible to get a 'natal female' who has the same competitive advantage (muscle mass, testosterone) as a trans female; Castor Senyama come springs to mind. Do you ban them? Do you force them to take medication if they want to compete? That's a very slippery slope to appease a minority. Looking at the evidence, of the really was an issue, trans females would dominate female sport in a way that was disproportionate to their incidence in the pool. But that isn't happening. So, to my mind, and many others', the jury isn't even out - the prosecution hasn't even presented anything like full evidence - but various bad actors want the jury to provide an early guilty verdict. That's not right. Taking next the question of puberty blockers to 'children'. Define 'child'. In medical terms, the leading case is one of Gillick, from Norfolk as it happens. The case focused on a girl under 16 who wanted to be put on the pill, and an over-protective mother who wanted to control all the health choices of her daughter. This one went either to the Court of Appeal or House of Lords (can't remember which, can't be bothered to Google, there's no practical difference here). It held that a 'child' can choose their own treatment and parents don't have to be involved if the child is capable of fully understanding the treatment itself and the consequences of that treatment. In a case such as puberty blockers, that is going to be a very thorough process, despite what Panorama might tell you - I've professionally been a victim of that hatchet job of 'investigative journalism', and their recent piece on ADHD diagnosis was incredibly dubious, even harmful. You don't just get handed out puberty blockers (or ADHD meds) like candy. The psychological process involved for assessment is insanely rigorous. So, my stance on puberty blockers for 'kids' is that it's a difficult and nuanced question being handled in a difficult and nuanced way, and trying to give a blanket one size fits all solution is not desirable for society at large. If they do it for them, what about the rest of us? What can we as a general population be denied because we can be legally deemed to not understand, even though we do as a matter of fact? Also, there's a massive discrimination issue between the two above issues. You won't allow trans females that have gone through a male puberty to play sports, but you won't permit puberty blockers either? The two in conjunction sound very discriminatory to me. On the sentiment of the LGBT community at large, I'm seriously involved in DE&I efforts at my employer (I'm autistic and lead our neurodivergent network) and as such work closely with our pride network representing our LGBT community, including many members. I have seen a lot of support for the trans community there, and have never seen any reservations expressed. The only person I've ever had a discussion with where they've expressed issues is with a straight white older man, who clearly has a whole load of skin in that particular game... That conversation focused on the women's refuges that JK Rowling supports - he's a huge fan of her work, and thinks that allowing trans women in is abhorrent, and risks triggering women in there. But when you talk to the women, my understanding is that a significant majority aren't actually bothered by trans women - the issue is not as pervasive as portrayed by the media. But where's the line? White woman triggered by black people because her abusive partner was black? So let's exclude black women from the refuge? Would anyone even try to argue that sort of discrimination was acceptable? If a women's refuge is incapable of running an individual risk assessment on the people it lets through its doors, then there's a real problem there. And if it can do that, blanket bans are unnecessary. Remember, discriminating against trans people is only permissible for single sex spaces if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Even if the aim is legitimate, the means has to be proportionate. Blanket bans when there should be risk assessment processes in place are not proportionate. Prisons might be more of an issue, but again, individual risk assessment. They do it every single day on general population. And you know what? The biggest issue, seed offenders, are likely to be in the Seg, separated out from general population, usually with other sex offenders, with a higher guard ratio, closer monitored, tighter controls, because violence against sex offenders, cis or trans, is a massive risk anyway. As for stonewall and money flow, i have no idea, but my bet is that general attitude is that if they can do it to trans people, they can do it to anyone. This is EVERYONE'S fight, whether they know it or not.

I'm a semi regular away supporter, but haven't been to a home game in years because I live miles away. I've got leave to go to the Ipswich game because of when it falls in school holidays. BUT... I'm an away member, not home, I need two seats together, so I'll be fishing in the general release pool for a pair of tickets. What are my chances? I'm not so fussy about where I sit, but is it likely to be a capacity crowd? Also, how smart is it to bring a 13yo into THAT game? He's pretty smart and we know how to stay away from trouble, but I know that game can attract it around the ground.

Anyone gone with Keith O’Neill, Chris Martin (not the Coldplay frontman) or the ego that is Craig Bellamy? Iwan Roberts?

But you said ‘all but disappeared’. Perhaps sir could put a precise figure on how many incidents per day are permissible before we must acknowledge that there is still a problem… As for your assertion that transphobia does not equal homophobia, 1 - technically you are correct, but, and more importantly, 2 - that doesn’t matter in the slightest bit. The point is that a court has ruled that having a hatred of a particular PROTECTED group is a belief system worthy of respect, so long as the person is only telling people that they are basically abhorrent rather than actually misgendering them…. I won’t deny that there are some in the LGB community that think that the trans issue is an existential threat to them as LGB persons, but by far the majority position is that the LGBT community needs to stick together rather than be splintered off. The prevalence of transphobia is directly concerning to them because, to misquote Richey Manic, ‘if you tolerate this, then [we] will be next’. If transphobia is acceptable, why is homophobia not acceptable? After all, it’s the same old recycled arguments being used now as they were 15 years ago against the gay community. The mere existence of transphobia as a legally sanctioned belief system worthy of respect is terrifying to everyone I know in the LGB community. And, to be brutally honest, the fact that you’re here telling the community how they should feel, and that 70 incidences a day is ‘all but disappeared’ is a massive red flag that actually the issue is as alive and healthy as ever.

It’s happening again, isn’t it…

Actually, yes I do. The Tory MP than came out as trans? The hate that the trans community has faced and the legal support that trans-phobia has received? (And before you say that trans phobia is not homophobia, 1 - take a long hard look at yourself and 2 - ask the majority of the LGB community how they feel about transphobia, and what it says about societal acceptance of them). If you want to look at homophobia specifically, look at the number of people that will not come out as gay or bi because of how they expect to be treated by peers, colleagues, friends and family. There’s some enlightening stats on Stonewall’s website - only 46% of LGB people feel comfortable actually coming out. If you’re telling me that you wouldn’t see a friend or colleague in even the slightest different (negative) way if they suddenly came out as gay, you’re either incredibly enlightened or you’re lying. Probably to yourself as much as to me and the rest of the people on this forum. You might be one of the enlightened ones. Most aren’t.

That’s great, but can a firefighter instantly tell which car exploded in a raging inferno, and what type of vehicle it was? I have absolutely no doubt that there were EVs in that car park, and that would have made the fire more difficult to fight because of the two different types of fuel in play, but the myth that it was a hybrid has repeatedly been debunked. The Fire Service themselves debunked that, categorically, and they have no ulterior reason to do that, especially under this government that will bend over backwards to promote the interests of the oil and gas industry. If you’d have told me that your mate was part of the investigative service that investigated the causes of the fire, and could explain why his story was totally contra to the published one, great, but that’s not what you’ve said. And plenty of the press have an anti-EV stance so if this were true, it would have come out. So sorry, but I simply don’t believe that your assertion has any credibility.

Where homophobia has all but disappeared? Yeah, right. It hasn’t disappeared, it’s gone incognito. It’s turned from outright banning gay people from various places, abusing them, beating them up, to more subtle forms of discrimination, lower pay rises and promotion prospects, being excluded from things, presumptions made. We’re not enlightened, we’re covert.

Or your Range Rovers, as in what actually went up in flames. The problem with our country is that far too many people are prepared to believe the **** that you find on the internet put there by people with an agenda and a big budget.

Gain? Immediately? None. 2022 - our operating profit excluding player trading was a loss of £392k. Our player trading loss was £23m. The £392k loss included interest payable of £3.4m. 2023 - our operating profit excluding player trading was a loss of £7.5m, including interest payments of £6m. We lost another £19.7m on player trading. Our 23 accounts don’t separately disclose interest on director loans, so no information on interest on the £36m that Attanasio has lent us, but assume a 7% interest rate if his cumulative prefs are 7%. So £2.5m interest there. But our loss was £7.5m, so even taking that out, we still lost £5m last year. Excluding player trading. So what does he get out of the purchase? That depends entirely on him turning the financial fortunes of the club around. Which means more commercial aspects of the business, us paying more as fans, making more out of the media side, perhaps more pay TV channels to get all of our games livestreamed, not just the ones on Sky. I’d be really interested to hear what he is thinking, not just as a fan but as an accountant/business adviser. But one thing is absolutely clear reading through our accounts. The financial gulf between lower Prem and upper Champ is HUGE. It’s £50m per year, which is 80% of our entire wage bill for 20/21, and 100% of it for 22/23. Football as a business has to do something about this. I think that a Prem 2 is long overdue. The Prem itself was a response to money having to be shared with the rest of the football league clubs, meaning that the premier teams got too small a share of it. We’re there again, 30 years later.

FPA? FPEA?

The A Prefs are not redeemable, but preference dividends are cumulative. They’re accounted for as a liability rather than equity, but I’m not sure why, given that they’re not redeemable. That said, the numbers are very small - £10k of shares paying £500 of dividend, so whatever the ‘right’ answer is, it isn’t going to make any difference of any note. The preference dividend should be disclosed as a liability. The B Prefs are redeemable and preference dividends are cumulative. Both the shares and their dividends should be accounted for as a liability, but legally they are preference shares and preference dividends. **Holders of B Prefs should get interest on any unpaid dividends at 3% over Barclay’s base rate (currently 5.25%, so total of 8.25%) from 31 December after the 30 June accounts. So you won’t get your dividends at the minute, but when (if) you do get them, you should get a big chunk more than you would have. The C prefs are very nice, 7% divi compounding annually so any unpaid pref dividend also gets 7% on it. But I don’t think they were widely issued.

They may be accrued for through the interest payable line, but their payment is a distribution, and therefore the distribution can only be paid out of realised net profits. Post 2005 accounting standards and financial instrument classification rules have not superceded basic companies act principles or the legal nature of a preference share. The accounting merely reflects the economic substance in that it isn’t optional as to whether you pay them, just when you pay them (if they’re cumulative, which the NCFC A and B prefs are). As to how it’s different, my money is on an accountant that didn’t understand that nuance and an auditor that didn’t get it or simply said ‘that’s not material, I won’t look at it’ without thinking about the fact that materiality on an illegal transaction is zero. Someone’s probably woken up to it (possibly Attanasio’s advisers on their due diligience) this year, and that’s what has changed.

Surely you mean a new name to criticise as not good enough, a waste of money etc…

Neither was Hayden. The problem with loan signings is that they can either be absolutely fab or really crap. They can be really looking to succeed or just draw a wage from a ‘lesser’ club that they didn’t sign for and won’t stick their neck out for. And often you get them too young. Who here remembers Kane’s outing with us? He certainly didn’t look like a 30 goal a year striker in the making, or at least in the making any time soon…

True, but you’re assuming that someone would actually take a promise of payment. We also don’t know if there is anything else that would prevent us from buying. We have lost £45m over the last 2 seasons, and gone from having positive net assets of £23.5m 2 years ago to being £22m down at 30 June 2023. As in our accounts assets are negative. Sure, we can’t revalue our players up in our accounts, so if Sara is worth £30m, we only see that in our accounts when we sell him. But it is still not good. And it makes a difference when working out how much we can afford to risk on a player. Look at the damage that RvW did to our finances. One transfer.

Take one look at our accounts and you will see why we might not be able to afford a little more until we have fully roped Attanasio.

Tell me you know nothing about financial accounting and commerce without… A few things need correcting here. No, preference shares are not liabilities, they are equity, and preference dividends are not interest, they are dividends. You need distributable reserves to pay them, and we haven’t got any. In fact, our distributable reserves are negative £31.5m, so we need to make £31.5m of profit before we can pay any preference dividends. The money is (technically) there to pay them (they have been accrued as a liability) but they cannot be paid. I do not understand how they have been paid in previous years given that there haven’t been sufficient distributable reserves since 1 July 2021. But the point remains - the club aren’t paying preference dividends because if they did they would be acting illegally. Mark Attanasio putting more money into the club isn’t going to solve this problem. The MA money will be capital, not profits, not distributable reserves. So he changes nothing. Technically, the club could undergo a ‘capital reduction’ to turn the new capital into distributable reserves, but we lost £18m in 21/22 and £27m in 22/23. No director in hell would sign off on a capital reduction in those circumstances. Are we screwed? Quite possibly. The accounts do not make good reading at all. Our TV money has gone down by £54m in the last financial year, we made a loss on player trading of £19.7m, and the entirety of our deficit on reserves is being funded by Mark Attanasio’s Norwich investment vehicle. We do not have the assets to pay off his loan if he pulls it. So if we’re not screwed, it is entirely down to him. The good news is that whilst our TV money went down by £54m, our wage bill went down by a similar amount (very slightly more). But money to invest in new players? Yeah, no. Not without Mark Attanasio.

4-1 to Liverpool. Doesn’t make us look quite so bad, does it…

As someone who also saw Sutton and Co take on the best, we sure fell off a cliff once MW left for Everton. We were a fantastic force under him. After that we were waiting to go down. It was cruel the way that it happened - injury for Gunn, Marshall being good but inexperienced and the ‘2 up 4 down’ format for that season, but we were a shadow of the Bayern killers from the season before. Take your rose tinted hindsight specs off.

I went there knowing it was only half an hour down the road for me, but knowing that I was going to watch our team lose. We were never going to beat them, well maybe one time in 1,000, but practically never. I reckoned we’d be 3/4-1 down at the end. Some of their goals were very soft - their first one in particular. Our defending could have been better, but their placement and play and passing accuracy was obscene. Their one touch football exposed us in the same way that they expose many premier league sides even. We have a back 4 that are realistically a bit average in the Championship, and would be utterly lost in the Prem, so for us to keep it down to 4, with a 95th minute surprise (always the way for us against Liverpool), is an achievement. For us to score twice, and have the ball in the back of the net a third time, when we’re without both Rowe and Sargeant was fab. Sainz’s goal was exceptional, and Becker is their 1st team goalkeeper, not the reserve one we put out. I was there in the Sutton glory days, I watched the Munich match (albeit on telly), so I’ve seen how great we can be. But I’ve also seen the Colchester match. I know how crap we can be. I’ve also seen what being out of the Prem on a regular basis for 28 years has done to us in terms of the gap between us and regular premier league football. Sure, we’ve had 6 seasons of Prem football in those 28 years, but the Hughton appointment cost us that particular dream. The gap between us and Liverpool is HUGE, but we made it look a little bit smaller than it should yesterday, possibly quite a bit.

I’ll be sure to mention to Alison, Van Dijk, Konate, Nunez, Gakpo, Gomez, TAA, Szoboszlai, Luis Diaz et al that they’re second string… They had 4 kids in their lineup, all of which would comfortably be regular first team for us based on their performance yesterday. I’m not a happy clapper, but I have no idea what game you were watching because it sure as hell was not the one in front of me. Yes, we played most of the game in our own half, but we weren’t overwhelmed apart from a few notable Liverpool breaks where their one touch football was sublime, and we had no counter to that. But that was always going to be the case. There isn’t a team in the championship that can play that sort of football, and I expect that most would be struggling against it. I’ll tell you something. Apart from Huddersfield, that’s the best I’ve seen us play this year. I’m proud. And the Liverpool fans I spoke to after the game told me I had every reason to be.

I’m seriously considering buying. Probably not this lot, but if others come up for sale…