Badger

I'm really not MY. It's all in the accounts if you could be bothered to look.

Last time, it was Sheffield Utd who were the "best example" - and they went down the year after. In previous years it has been Stoke, Huddersfield, West Brom, Swansea, Middlesbrough. Where is the evidence that their model is "sustainable?" All yo uwant to do is suggest that they stayed up, we should be like them without any real knowledge. Brentford's wages will be a lot lower than ours for a start, so should we pay our players yes moving forwards? Your view is that we offer too much in wages when w try to sign someone?

Sorry Kenny, you are outed. You are an... apologist🥵 What is the point in developing commercial activities to raise a few million a year, when we know that there is a queue of billionaires desperate to give us tens of millions a year. Obviously you have carnal fantasies over over Delia. 😃

Don't be silly, of course it did. 🤦‍♂️ You said it wasn't reported in the accounts, I showed you that it was. This was original mistake. The second one was to think that the sale did not contrite to summer signings. Perhaps if you were to think a little before you post your error rate might be lower? We can't spend all our time explaining basics to you.

I don't think that there is anyone who would resist new finance coming into the club by form of new equity (giving the club money) so you are creating a false dichotomy. The "camps" as you refer to them are those who think that they is a queue of people ready to gift us tens of millions and those who think that this is unlikely. Again, as I'm sure that you know, if a formal offer comes in for the club it has to notify the shareholders.

??? Sorry, that's not how financial accounts work. If the sale came during this period it would have to be included in the accounts or it would break the law. Page 27 "gain on disposal of player registrations" - £59.6 million (rounded by me).

It certainly helps dilute the effect of irritating habits, although I don't have any of course!

How do you arrive at a figure of less than 100 million Jim? At that price you could buy it and break it up and sell all the assets (over a two-year period for the parachute money) and make a huge profit.

Until we had kids, I used to work in London whilst my wife was in Norwich and just see her at weekends. She said she was very happy with the arrangement.🤔

I thought the ducking stool was on Fye Bridge? Are their two? Lollard's pit is where the Lollards (a heretic group) were burnt at the stake.

Apart from the other 5 directors?

More than this I'm afraid - £52.7 million with a further 22.7 million dependant upon club/ player performance - so up to £75 million, but we probably won't have to pay the bonus for staying up this year. (There's always a bright side 😄) There is a note in this years accounts (page 44).

If I understand what you mean correctly, I think the marketing term is "crossover?"

And why do they pan to her - because she is a well known celebrity chef and cultural icon according to some. When they pan to the owners of other teams, do you remember all of their names? I don't know the viewing figures for MOTD but why she should be better known for the occasional fleeting glimpse on there when most people don't even watch football, when she has made several popular TV series in her own name watched by millions. She has a big enough name to sell about 25 million books: they don't just know her name but spend money on the strength of it! None of this makes her a better or worse owner but I find this really interesting. Several people, some of whom I generally agree with have also suggested that most people know that she is our owner - I just don't think that as many people as you believe follow football - it was desperately untrendy in the 80ss and early 90s and I think that I was viewed as a bit of an "oik" for professing interest . I had lunch with friends today (non Norfolk) and raised the matter and they agreed with me - perhaps we underestimate how the Premier league has made football more socially acceptable in middle class circles. Perhaps its an age/socio-economic thing - in the 80s and 90s everybody (in my "then" type of social circle - London-based professional graduate) had a copy of one of Delia's books on their bookshelf and everyone would know what was meant if you said "it's one of Delia's."

It is actually pretty simple: wages. For the last 3 years for which we have accounts our turnover was £210.3 million. Our wage costs were 206.7 million. So answer to the question where did the money go to, 98.3% of out last 3 completed years turnover went on player salaries. Player sales covered all the rest - purchases, impair contracts, all other expenses.

Nobody knows that is the truth of it - it's just not many admit it! 👍 Other than a donor owner willing to give us tens or hundreds of millions of pounds there is no sure way of established EPL status. How likely is such a donor? In my view it far less likely than we can achieve "established" EPL through organic growth and avoiding playing debt. (We need it for ground expansion but is financed totally differently). All things remaining equal, the one possible glimmer of hope on the horizon is that loads of EPL clubs are carrying unsustainable levels of debt. Debt cannot grow indefinitely unless the means of paying it grow at a faster rate. This does not seem to be happening now. The domestic TV deal seems to have pretty much peaked (although there is still some growth internationally) which is why the big clubs are so desperate for a European Super league. As I have pointed out on here some clubs were paying over 9% in interest two years before the current rate rise. It is not sustainable In the meantime, however, the only easy solution to yo-yoing is not getting promoted. People will tell you that there are easy ways but they are hopelessly naïve. Borrowing money is the best way available to weaken our long term prospects imo.

The clue there is you refer to talking about footie: most people don't! Of course if they talk to you about Norwich City they will do, but most people I knew outside the "football bubble" will know Delia Smith as a celebrity chef + Cook book author. That's why the 5 live interview didn't ask her about Norwich City - their audience doesn't care! They know her for food.

Sorry if I I gave this impression. My point really was about playing style: Southampton aside, clubs of a similar size to us seem to stay up because of a very pragmatic, defensive and/or physical approach rather than transfer spend. The debate in my mind is whether this is a price worth paying?

I don't think it has changed at all. Everybody (myself included) would have welcomed a donor owner, willing to give us tens of millions of pounds 10 years, 5 years and 1 year ago. The understandable disappointment at another terrible season in the premier league makes people want it even more, but I'm afraid it doesn't make it any more likely. There might be some on here who want a model whereby we take on tens of millions of debt in a gamble, but I have not seen many people advocate it.

New owners at Burnley are doing essentially the same. They bought Burney using a combination of Burnley's own cash and debt which Burnley FC have to pay the interest on and is secured against Burnley's stadium and assets. Yet this is what some on here want for us????

Yes, Tony Bloom would be everybody's dream owner. I think that he is a philanthropist as well. I can't think that it is very likely for us but we live in hope. Perhaps one of the new owner advocates could use Gresham's links to contact Dyson?

Sorry if I misinterpreted you Broadstairs. 😳 Unless we get a "donor owner," which I suspect is unlikely, the other models of ownership are likely to involve debt. I'd be very happy with a donor, but taking on debt would probably weaken us rather than strengthen us.

In 18-19 that "chunk" was 116% of turnover as we made an operating loss of just under £40 million. We spent £51 million on wages and had a turnover of £33.7 million. In 19-20 the chunk was £74.5% of turnover (£88.9 million on a turnover of £119.4 million) however we started the year with debt of £22.6 million. Wages + debt repayment accounted for 93.4% of our revenue. Our wages in 20-21will be higher than 18-19 (championship) and the wages in 21-22 will be higher than 19-20 (EPL). So the short answer to the question title of the thread is, mainly on wages.