Mr.Carrow
-
Content Count
4,574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mr.Carrow
-
-
Excellent post Cluckaduck, couldn`t agree more. Time for people to wake up and see the bigger picture. 30 million in tv revenue alone over the last 3 seasons and we are still as much of a `selling club` as we were under chase. Just look at Cardiff, lower crowds and a bigger debt (and no parachute payment) and they are trying to land Alan Smith to push for promotion! Apparently all our money`s gone on wages (smallest squad in the division), `infrastructure costs`(nice carpets), and agents fees. If you believe that you really need to take a look at yourselves.
-
Im not sure what kind of time-scale you`re thinking about GazzaTCC but certainly since relegation the club have made a huge profit in the transfer market. Who,other than Earnshaw for 3 million have we spent good money on? Etuhu 600k and Hughes 500k are the only ones i can think of-both easily covered by the Francis transfer alone. As for this summer being the first in ages where signings were thin on the ground, i seem to remember going into last season wondering what had happened to the idea of a big push to go straight back up. I think we just signed Colin And Hughes? And of course sold our best midfielder for 2 million (plus 300k when Wigan stayed up), failed to replace him, then within a few months were hearing all the usual "we`re skint" claptrap from the club.
The only time the board have shown any ambition has been when it has been bankrolled by the fans in the form of share issues (Huckerby, Mckenzie, Svensson) and the non-redemption of the B shares (Ashton). They are just extremely lucky that most fans seem to have very short memories.
Im afraid the "Worthy had loads to spend but wasted it" idea just doesn`t stand up. Worthy signed Hucks,Francis,Safri,Doherty,Mckenzie,Svensson,Ashton and Drury, all of whom are either valuable team members or have been sold on for a profit. Helveg and Jonsson could be cast as expensive flops but we actually made a profit on both. Thorne and Hughes can also be cast as flops but Thorne was free and Hughes is generally regarded as a good cover player in such a small squad. Of the more recent signings Robinson is at best average-but for 50k what do people expect? I dont think too many people would argue that Colin,Etuhu and Croft are not good young players who are now worth more than we paid for them. When Worthy spent money he bought in almost to a man very good players, he just had almost nothing to play with since relegation-hence playing the whole of last season with no right-sided midfielder in the squad-a farcical approach from a club supposedly making a serious attempt at promotion.
-
The thing that i find hard to swallow is that every large sum of money recieved by the club in the last few years has been explained away on exactly the same things ie.wages,infrastructure costs,agents fees etc.If the parachute payments have covered these costs what about the Francis/Jonson/Ashton/Green money? We have spent well under half of what we have received in the transfer market since relegation. What about the continuing income from the TaylorWoodrow development? The 1.1million for the hotel land? The bonus 1.5million of G.Watlings loan being written off? What about the record season ticket sales and catering income? It doesn`t even begin to add up.
In terms of wages, we only have a handful of players left from the Prem season anyway and the club stated they were all on a `divisional` pay structure. Dont forget that the back-up players to the 16 or so `first teamers` are kids who will be on peanuts.
The accounts should make interesting reading but i think its high time the board were made to explain in detail some of the murkier aspects of the clubs financial situation-the activities of subsiduary company `Kerrison Holdings` would be a good start. Any idea when they are out BlyBlyBabes? Also, if the parachute payments are `exceptional` income any idea if they would be listed as such in the accounts?
-
[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]Yankee- I was making the point that the apricot example wasn''t a fair one. But if you wish me to expand i shall. No need to be rude though old chum!
Mr .Carrow wrote: (and I thank him for his opinions however different from my own)
One of my main problems with christianity is its claim of exclusivity in an ever more homogenous world.
You may not like it but we can''t just change it to suit you! I respect you enough to let you disagree- but because I beleive Christ WAS the Son of God means we have a very definate message in the Gospels. I have no authority- nor does anyone else- to rewrite it according to whim, as I belive it to be factual. Fortunately though most Christians are generous enough to have allowed our society to become diverse and inclusive- which is what grants you your right to an opinion in the first place. Don''t forget it was Christianity that allowed for the freedom of thought found in Britain today.
I have spent quite alot of time in a country in which only a tiny fraction of the population are christian.
Me too.
Despite extensive poverty, violent crime is low and i was met with smiles and friendliness wherever i went-a pretty obvious contrast with 80% christian America.
I would heavily contest that America is 80% Christian. More like 80% secular and liberal - much like Britain. Going to church does not make you a Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you a car. Americans go to church cos its American to do so- it often means precious little.
Vicar, in a country such as this would you feel that you were travelling through the land of the damned?
No I would consider myself travelling through a land of God''s precious children whom he loves. I might consider it a shame they do not know him as revealed in the person of Jesus. But in any case it is not for me to ''damn''. I take great comfort in the genrous way Jesus found God in people. He included the poor and the marginalised more than he included sad hypocrites like myself! Good news for all.
Or would you pity them in the "knowledge" that if only they could understand the wisdom of your particular "one true path" amongst thousands they could all be saved?
Perhaps though I would not express it that way. My wish for others to be Christian may be seen as arrogance . But only in the same way a doctor flown into a primitive community might seem arrogant for suggesting vaccine instead of witch doctor''s remedy. I look at society and see a lot of lonely people. A people desperate for purpose who undeniably have a moral and spiritual vacuum in their lives- I think there is something to fill this. Is it so wrong to want to share good news with others? After all I cope with people disagreeing and respect them for it. (To my knowledge I force opinions on no one)
Either is an extremely sad way to see your fellow man in my view. I actually tend to get on with all and love them as God''s children! How do you know how I view my fellow man- touch unfair there I think.
Does a toddler who dies on the steppes of Mongolia go to hell because she has never heard of your particular religion? Could you tell me where I claim she does? I have little doubt that the loving God who created her will continue to treat her soul with the same love and grace.
Or is there some kind of halfway-house which is merely mildly pleasant and comfortable, as oppose to the eternal bliss of heaven or the fiery tortures of hell?
I assume you refer to purgatory? As an Anglican this is not part of our doctrine- however I have sympathy with the notion that there may be a stepping stone place- for those not quite ready for heaven. Still none of us knows for sure what exists on the other side- it is not something I spend hours dwelling on. I far prefer to practice and advocate my faith for what it offers in this life.
Im afraid the more you question organised religion the more proposterous it becomes.
Really? Millions disagree. Are they all deluded? Have you really studied theology to prove this? I have never met one theology graduate (including many atheist ones) who would agree. This comment is more preposterous. Organised religion is essential to stop people beleiving bunkum - so long as one accepts there is truth behind it. I would agree however that religion without true faith is nasty.
Simply a mixture of human arrogance that we can understand the universe and our place in it,
No more arrogant than those who dismiss the possiblity of God with the beleif that thier own limited experience and knowledge is superior.
and insecurity that without a simplistic doctrine to live by .
Let me lend you Von Balthasar''s writings or those of Thomas Aquinas. Do you really suppose C S Lewis was an idiot? After all he tutored at Oxford for years. One thing the Christian faith is not is shallow or simplistic. That comment suggests to me you do may not know as much as you suppose. Perhaps you might investigate further?
we might have to face the fact that we dont actually know......an idea that i personally find extremely exciting
At last we agree-which leaves open the possiblity we do know! Thus look at the evidence, the delightful thing is that the more you study scripture the more intriguing questions it throws up- it is a lifelong journey in which we search for God.
[/quote]
Vicar, your point about the 80% of Americans who claim to be christian not being so sounds very much like you are saying that the only true christians are the ones you agree with. Perhaps this goes some way to explaining why there are hundreds of denominations of christianity who often agree on very little. Are we really expected to take seriously a religion which cant even come to agreement within itself? Recent world events (Bush was voted in by the "christian right") point to the fact that the majority of christians are not tolerant, educated,reasoned people who have studied and debated theology, but people for whom following a simplistic doctrine gives a feeling of security, status and above all superiority over people who do not follow their beliefs.
The real heart of the matter as regards the "land of the damned" and the "Mongolian toddler" is that the christian God judges people not by their good thoughts and deeds in life, but on whether or not they are a christian. Therefore a serial killer who repents on his death-bed and becomes a christian gets into heaven whilst a buddhist who has led a peaceful,blameless life does not. If a Mongolian toddler (and presumably we can extend that to blameless souls of any age,any religion or none?) is treated with love and grace by her "creator" it negates the need to become a christian does it not? You encourage me to study more theology but until a christian can give me a decent explanation for this very simple quandary (and believe me,i have debated with many) i cannot see the point in debating the more complex stuff.
I have never said anywhere that i dismiss the possibility of a God (i dislike scientific arrogance as well) but i find the idea of total faith in one human idea of God, and the dismissal of the many thousands of other human ideas of God extremely arrogant (and a major cause of division in the world). Stating that "none of us know for sure what exists on the other side" and describing life as "a journey in which we search for God" further confuses an already confused argument. Why still search for God when you already have total faith in the christian version of God? If you are still searching are you open to the possibility that you may conclude that one of the other versions of God is the correct one? If not surely you cannot be searching with an open mind?
Lastly, i dont believe that good, well-meaning people from one school of thought looking on good,kind,happy people of another with pity can ever be a good thing. Something to think about i hope.
-
I suggest everyone takes a stove, a frying pan and some parsley sauce.....Of course the frying pan is to be used solely (sorry!) for frying the fish............ -
[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]Thank you for this I think I agree with what you say - only Jesus was far from simple. His grasp of Old Testament law was phenomenal - and in an age where only few were literate. His genius was being able to explain the complex in words a child understands- something this thread would benfit from no doubt!
To move things on I wonder what posters think of this:
It is not the intellectual arguments alone that convince me of my position. As a priest I experience incredible things through the power of prayer everyday. And I do not run one of these sensationalist Churches for nutters! Far from it ours is a very Traditional Anlgo-Catholic one. Lots and lots of bells and smells!
I can tell of a man who came to me desperate and distraught. He was incredibly successful and had just discovered that he had cancer and only 6-12 months to live. He asked me to heal him. I explained that I am neither a doctor nor magician and tha he asked the impossbile. I could offer no such thing. But I could however pray- and if he fully engaged in the process - I was certain God would at least give him strength to cope. He came along to our healing Mass and was anointed. He also began to pray and attend Church. Two months later he came to me and said'' thank you- the cancer remains but I AM healed'' His marriage was better than ever before- and he felt so much more at peace with life.
six months later he went to hospital and confounded the emperts who pronounced that the cancer had gone into remission. It was nothing short of miraculous. Now certianly the helath services played their part- certainly nothing can be proved one way or another...but that man is convnced it was the anointing that did the business.
If it was one off- I would remain sceptical - but I could tell you so many other simliar instances that have amazed me- real proof of pray at work. Having said that we then have to deal with the times they do not seem to work- which is why I never promote God as a magic wand- we simply place ourselves in his love and care- and he responds. Sometimes a peaceful death is an answer in itself? Sometimes life is cruel and then I too am baffled......
your thoughts?>
[/quote]
Vicar, i know of someone who was "cured" of cancer whilst eating a diet largely consisting of apricot kernels. She doesn`t now worship a fruit god.
One of my main problems with christianity is its claim of exclusivity in an ever more homogenous world. I have spent quite alot of time in a country in which only a tiny fraction of the population are christian. Despite extensive poverty, violent crime is low and i was met with smiles and friendliness wherever i went-a pretty obvious contrast with 80% christian America. Vicar, in a country such as this would you feel that you were travelling through the land of the damned? Or would you pity them in the "knowledge" that if only they could understand the wisdom of your particular "one true path" amongst thousands they could all be saved? Either is an extremely sad way to see your fellow man in my view. Does a toddler who dies on the steppes of Mongolia go to hell because she has never heard of your particular religion? Or is there some kind of halfway-house which is merely mildly pleasant and comfortable, as oppose to the eternal bliss of heaven or the fiery tortures of hell?
Im afraid the more you question organised religion the more proposterous it becomes. Simply a mixture of human arrogance that we can understand the universe and our place in it, and insecurity that without a simplistic doctrine to live by we might have to face the fact that we dont actually know......an idea that i personally find extremely exciting.
-
Agreed Fillet....It would be interesting to see a run down of other championship clubs wheelings and dealings in the transfer market over the last 2 seasons-it wouldn`t suprise me if City were not up there at the top in terms of the overall profits made from selling players. And thats after hearing the usual "we dont have to sell"and "any money made will go straight back to the team" c**p, and during a period in which we are recieving 6 million parachute payments and record income from other areas! Its just incredible to me that City fans continue to swallow this. -
Yep great news. Congrats Crofty. Absolutely first-class attitude since he`s been at the club and seemed to be improving game on game which is what you want to see from a 21 year old. Dare i say it.....Another Worthington bargain buy......?! -
I see a situation similar to the O`Niell/Chase one developing here. The board have already asset stripped the team enough since relegation,making enormous profits in the transfer market on top of 6 million per season parachute payments,and now Grant seems to be hinting that they want even more?? If this occurs and the board sell our best player against the wishes of the man they`ve just given a 3 year contract to, they should expect to see mass demonstrations at Carrow Rd. once again. But then knowing the sheep mentality of most City supporters they`ll probably let the situation continue and the club decline further for a few years before doing something about it..... -
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr Carrow"] A good example of the boards tendency for economy with the truth is that they still have the front to state that all incoming transfer fees are reinvested in the team-despite being 8 million in profit on transfer dealings since relegation. Of course they are not lieing. Its just that EVERY part of an incoming transfer is paid out of an incoming transfer fee including the entire contract of the incoming player. Therefore to replace say Mckenzie with the 600,000 fee received, the club will probably only spend 200,000 on the transfer fee and the rest will pay other fees and, say, a 3 year contract for the new player. Thats despite the fact we have `lost` Mckenzies wage! And then Doncaster has the nerve to state earlier in the season that the board have "sanctioned a wage bill significantly higher than that budgeted for",when most of these wages have already been covered by incoming transfer fees! Any thoughts Blahblahblah?[/quote]
Does your "headline" figure of 8 million include the "4 million profit" on Ashton ? Are you removing Crewes'' sell-on clauses ? How about Ashtons'' agents fees for the transfer, or indeed the 380k his agent made for re-negotiating his contract ? Or indeed hidden costs in any other transfer in ? Every transfer has hidden costs that aren''t covered in the headline figure.
My main thought regarding this is that the club can''t win in this situation. Transfers don''t happen in isolation to all other financial transactions, they occur within the context of everything else the club has to pay for. To give out every piece of financial info on current transfers would be to give away our hand in negotiations. To say nothing is to hide and obscure information from fans. Either way neither of us can prove that what you say is happening, is actually happening. "Headline" transfer fees are usually variable to the truth anyway, so to build an argument upon them is like building a house out of sand. People will either choose to believe that the club creates off-field ventures to help to fund the club during times of low tv revenue, or as an end in themselves that transfer fees help to bolster. I choose to believe that most things the board have put in place are done in order to ensure the long term success of the club. Only time will prove you right / me wrong, or vice versa.
[/quote]
Blahblahblah, what i have stated is happening is what Doncaster admitted was club policy on the official message board last season. I cant provide any proof but if you do some digging you may well find it-if not why not enquire to N.D. himself and he will put you straight? As to my figures i am taking a straight comparison between transfer fees received and those payed out. Of course there are other fees to be payed out (i mention "other fees" in reference to Mckenzie) but we have spent less than half of what we have received in transfer fees on incoming players. The other fees would only account for a smallish fraction of the remaining sum. The rest covers the players entire contract as i have stated, which is why the club can claim that every penny received is reinvested in the team without technically lieing. Very subtle,very clever and frankly very misleading.
Of course as fans it is almost impossible to know the full story of what goes on behind the scenes. You can only really build up a general impression from news stories,interviews,discussions with fellow fans "in the know"and of course actual events, and my impression is of a club almost farcicly clinging to a "skint" image which has served it well in the past despite unprecedented injections of cash from many different quarters in recent years. This image is used to deflect criticism from the fact that the club are running the football side of things on a shoestring to concentrate on off-field ventures (Kerrison Holdings, Eventguard, Delias Brasserie, the Hotel.....) many of which hold as many risks in terms of profitability as simply buying good young talent and hoping to make a profit at a later date. I would love to think that at a future date these ventures would provide a massive windfall to snap up the best young talent around but of course this wont happen. Any profits would be "reinvested" in more off-field ventures simply because this is the prevailing attitude of the people running our club. And this should suprise no-one when you consider that the current Chairman is a man who used to work under the infamous R.Chase and whos main business interest is a PR consultancy.
-
Good stuff Mello Yellow and Mystic Megson. Blahblahblah, i dont think anyone objects to the club trying to give as much information as they can, however it does not neccessarily follow that that information is 100% accurate or that it sheds a good light on events. As i stated on another thread Doncaster was praised for his honesty on the Mckenzie/Cotteril debacle, however in my view his account was simply an honest admission of complacency and ineptitude (how handy would one of those players be in replacing Earnshaw at the moment?).
A good example of the boards tendency for economy with the truth is that they still have the front to state that all incoming transfer fees are reinvested in the team-despite being 8 million in profit on transfer dealings since relegation. Of course they are not lieing. Its just that EVERY part of an incoming transfer is paid out of an incoming transfer fee including the entire contract of the incoming player. Therefore to replace say Mckenzie with the 600,000 fee received, the club will probably only spend 200,000 on the transfer fee and the rest will pay other fees and, say, a 3 year contract for the new player. Thats despite the fact we have `lost` Mckenzies wage! And then Doncaster has the nerve to state earlier in the season that the board have "sanctioned a wage bill significantly higher than that budgeted for",when most of these wages have already been covered by incoming transfer fees! Any thoughts Blahblahblah?
-
But a quite a small propertion of what we have received. Dont forget we `lose` a players wages once he is sold and we have shipped out plenty more than we`ve brought in. Earnie is bound to be on a fair wack, but it wouldnt suprise me if the other 5 earn less than Ashton and Greens wages combined. -
"Paid out a hell of a lot in the last 2 years" TVOTTA? Apart from Earnshaw who have we paid good money for? By my fag-packet calculations we are about 8 million in profit in the transfer market since relegation! And most of those departed were the higher earners. Yes we have "fans" in charge of the club but unfortunately they are part of the predominant group for whom City are a nice little country club who are constantly trying to punch above their weight against those nasty big clubs like Cardiff, Coventry, Palace, Brom etc. Of course its a minor irritating inconvenience that we already attract crowds well above those clubs (and most others) and, with a bigger ground, would be higher still...... -
The boards whole approach in the last 2 years seems to be "leave everything to the last minute and hope for the best". Every transfer window we seem to be scrabbling around for last minute bargains after everyone else has completed the real business. Doncaster was praised by some for his honesty in the Mckenzie/Cotteril affair, but in my opinion it was just an honest admission of complacency and ineptitude. Its the board who set the wage budget so if they are planning even further cuts (absolutely ridiculous, but probably true) then there is absolutely nothing the manager can do about it. So the board are probably waiting to see where we finish (or if we make some money in the cups) before deciding if they can afford to dish out new contracts. By which time Hucks may well have thought "sod this" and signed a pre-contract agreement with Celtic. I sincerely hope to be proved wrong but given the events of the last 2 years i have little confidence that i will be. -
In this thread human beings have been labelled "foul-mouthed idiots","racists","pond life","morons" and "neanderthals". These judgements have been made about the actions of complete strangers in the heat of a passionate sporting event.
Unfortunately there are alot of people around who get their sense of self-importance and superiority by making these extreme prejudgements of others based on nothing more than the way they look and behave (ie. exactly the mentality which leads to racism). Please dont break your necks whilst trying to get off your high-horses folks.....
-
Cluckin`, in your thoughts on the board believe me you are not out on your own. Its just that debating the matter with most of the usual suspects on here is like banging your head on a brick wall. If you present a cogent argument and ask some pertinent questions about the way our club has been run (particularly since promotion) you either get abuse or ignored. After 15 years as a season ticket holder im now an away-only supporter. I will not financially support a board for whom success on the pitch comes way down their list of priorities. -
"Pretty thick-skinned"? I think if you take the "skinned" bit out you`ve hit the nail on the head....
-
I think this thread sums up why i gave up my season ticket after 15 years. I can support a club through thick and thin, but i cant support a club which isnt even trying. -
Spot on Ramrod. It takes a while for the others to see the light.....But at last its starting to happen. -
Any chance of a reply Blahblahblah? I would be very interested in your opinion on the points i have raised. -
Blahblahblah, we have in recent years made good profits on Ashton,Francis,Jonson,Mckenzie and even made a profit on Helveg. There have also been press stories linking Drury and Safri with moves to other clubs for good fees. And i dont think there would be too many arguments that Colin,Etuhu,Croft,Earnshaw and even Huckerby are not now worth significantly more than we signed them for. Name the expensive flops? Hughes? Possibly, but he is currently playing well at Rotherham and for 500,000 we shouldnt expect him to be anything other than a decent squad player. Oh, and several of these players played a big part in winning the club a money-spinning season in the Premiership.....This is the main reason my anger is focussed on the board and not the manager.
Have you ever considered that NOT backing a manager with an excellent record in the transfer market is playing russian roullette with the future of the club,risking a deterioration in the strength of the squad,followed by poor performances,fan unrest, bickering and disharmony, and who knows,possibly a relegation battle? In short most of the things we are witnessing now. Does the fact that other clubs in our division were prepared to offer more money for the services of our ONLY signing of the season suggest a `slight` imbalance between off and onfield investment?
The club publicly stated that they were extremely worried by the planning problems encountered during the TaylorWoodrow land sale, and a recent article stated that the amount of money the club makes on the phase three development will depend on various council and planning decisions. So it seems the club are quite happy to take huge risks off the pitch? In my opinion, bearing in mind the vast amounts of money that has been pumped into the club in recent years, the attitude of our current board is more negative,small-minded and self-defeating than even under Robert Chase.
-
Please remind me jimmy500 how much of a profit Southampton made on Crouch (who we could have signed) and us with Ashton-all in under a year. None of the off-field projects the current board are obsessed with are guarenteed to make money. -
One thing which is often overlooked is that the one player we actually managed to sign turned down more money from other Championship clubs to come here. In other words had L.Croft had the same mentality as the vast majority of footballers we would actually have signed NOBODY. This is a club which has recieved 12 million parachute payments since relegation, is 8 million in profit in the transfer market over the same period,has had record s.ticket/merchandise/catering sales (significantly higher than the clubs we are competing against who some people seem to think we cant compete with...),has had a 1.5 million loan written off,recieved 1.1 million for the Hotel land and is still recieving money from the TaylerWoodrow development. Anyone who can look at this situation and still justify nearly loosing out on a 21-year old reserve player to our rivals and the current embarrassingly thin squad needs to have a good look at themselves. Prudence with ambition? Its not even funny any more. -
Well i thought i would resurrect this thread as it seems even more pertinent given the events of the past week.
Blahblahblah, i will certainly give my view on the next annual report (yes i am a shareholder) as i did on the last one. Remember the one with the 7.5 million post tax profit which was brushed under the carpet as an "accounting quirk"? I seem to remember posting several times on this topic at the time and guess what? No replies. I dont claim to be an expert so i trust you will be the first to step up to the plate when a difficult question arises?
Herb. Yes my mistake, Francis was sold at the beginning of last season. Perhaps someone would like to give an opinion on why,if you include his transfer fee,the club is currently around 8 million in profit in the transfer market since that point? Thats despite 12 million in parachute payments, 1 million from the hotel, 1.5 million from Watlings loan being written off, record season ticket/merchandise/catering money........Oh and we have ended up with one of the most threadbare squads in the division. What a surprise. Did the board not state at the beginning of last season that any money raised in the transfer market would be put straight back into the team?
Oh and i seem to remember the board saying at the time that the cost of the new stand would be covered by money from the sale of the land behind the River End? But then that seems to have been largely forgotten about-perhaps because the board endlessly bleat about any money the club has to pay out ( a few hundred thousand in agents fees,policing costs etc.) but never mention the vast amounts of money that have poured into the club since promotion.
We have been told for years now that the clubs financial position is healthy and the debts are easily manageable and yet any `bonus` money the club recieves (as listed above) never seems to find its way into squad strengthening? I am prepared to fully back a club that is fighting tooth and nail to progress and succeed, but to put it bluntly, our board isn`t even trying.
Right lets deal with a few points. Then onwards and upwards.
in Main Discussion - Norwich City
Posted
I agree in all major respects except one, I still see the board as fans like the rest of us. We could have a worse board and they are more open and approachable than most. I believe they Have put their money where their mouth is and all this piteous whining about ''where has the premiership money gone'' is a load of hogwash that ignores the economic reality of actually running a league football club.
Having said that, on the pitch we lack bottle and leadership. Its time to give youth a chance. Even with a good run from here on in we have still dropped too many points to be serious challengers. Lets give the youngsters some experience and hope that the door doesn''t stop revolving in January as the under achievers go and Grants cavalry arrives.
I feel better already, OTBC.
[/quote]
In terms of finances unfortunately we can speculate till the cows come home but none of us really know the situation. The accounts dont make things much clearer-remember the 7.5million profit which was an "accounting quirk" (still entirely unexplained)? There are plenty of ways a good accountancy company can portray a situation in a very different light to how it actually is (write-downs against the value of fixed assets,exceptional income etc.).
The real question is why,during the most financial lucrative period of the clubs history, it cannot seem to compete with clubs with smaller crowds and no parachute payments? A thread recently compared Stoke`s first 11 to ours and it was generally agreed that on paper they were at least on a par-they have crowds 10,000 lower than ours and none of the Prem millions we have enjoyed. Cardiff are very similar and look at the players they have splashed out on in recent times-and they are being linked with several high-profile players in a bid to secure promotion. Ipswich have twice our debt but seem to be more succesful in the loan market,have stated they have money to spend in January and carry a squad far bigger than ours. Are these clubs playing by different rules to us? Surely in this league the costs of running a club are generally similar? Before someone spouts off about wages,we have one of the smallest squads in the division and most of the high earners have left. If the costs of running NCFC are so much higher than every other club, are people not at least a little curious as to why?