Jump to content

mr carra

Members
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I''d be satisfied with anything over 4. 7 would be fantastic.
  2. I fear £20m doesn''t go very far these days.   To become an established (i.e. not just up and back down) Prem team, as some on here seem to think we are entitled to expect, would probably cost us (well, someone!) £100m at least.
  3. [quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="mr carra"]Hard to know where to begin with this since it is so ridiculous.  Obviously there is no reason Delia could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats except for the fact that she is a fan and therefore never would.  The protection that not being listed provides is that provided the club retains financial stability Delia can choose to sell when and to whom she pleases and as a fan would clearly have to satisfy herself that such a person also had the best interests of the club at heart - with a listing that control over the club''s future ownership vanishes.  You raise the issue of Evans dubious intentions and Ipswich not being listed as a demonstration that beung unlisted is no protection, but the reason Ipswich''s board had to sell to Evans was because their financial situation was so bad they were no longer in a position to say no to any offer.  They got in that situation by spending over their means (precisely what some people seem to believe this Board should do every year) For all the arguments about Delia I cannot believe a single person really believes she does not have the best interests of the club at heart (different people obviously have different ideas about how to achieve that goal but let''s not doubt the we do all share a goal).  Football is an ongoing concern (over 100 years for NCFC and counting) and the long-term future fortunes of this club are governed by far more than how much we spend on players in the next 6 months as some seem to believe [/quote] You miss the point completely. If NCFC were listed, Delia could still maintain ownership of her shares for as long as she wished to hold onto them. Being listed does not force her to sell the shares at all, and she can still sell her shares to whomsoever she wishes.. What listing does do is allow minority shareholders to receive the market valuation for her shares. Now isn''t that exactly what all the pro-Delia have been saying - that Delia shouldn''t walk away from the club without getting hr money back? Well here is a way that allows all shareholders - and not just the majority shareholders to release the market value in their shareholding. And does Delia have the best interest of the club at heart? I would say that was secondary to her own personal interests. Or would you suggest the order is reversed? [/quote] Surely her own best interests would have been seved by never putting a penny into NCFC???  Your comment has no basis in any evidence whatsoever.   The problem with listing (which is an expensive business) is that who is going to buy shares in a  company that makes no money?  Football clubs are delisting, rather than listing, partly for that reason.  Would you really like us, as a club, to put paying dividneds to shareholders before funds for players?  The only ''value'' for investors in a football club like ours is control.  A minority share is pretty worthless.
  4. [quote user="Fat Strawberry"] [quote user="can u sit down please"]I have a feeling that money has been invested but we are not publicising it while rebuilding our squad. Makes sense to me! It would also link back to the Delia quote for the RNS "we are not like other clubs who talk about how much money they have!" Watch this space......[/quote] I''ve only just noticed something.  Delia in her comments is so often divisive.  Why say "not like other clubs"?  It''s superfluous.  Just say "we don''t talk about how much money we have".  "We''re better than them nana nanana". And similarly "The best fans in the world".  It''s a meaningless phrase and isn''t "fantastic fans" or "marvellous fans" enough?  The "best" fans is not saying much if the rest are rubbish! I''ve never known a club to be so deeply divided.  There has always been healthy disagreement but this isn''t healthy and it''s become embedded in our mentality now.  And I think I can see where it''s coming from.  A lot of the pro-board arguments on here justify our club''s mismanagement on the grounds that "we''re not like club X".  That makes it all right then does it?   [/quote] The ranters have no evidence of mismanagement, that''s the real problem.  We are not one of the 20 biggest or richest clubs in the country so not being in the Prem is not evidence of mismanagement (though some seem to claim it is) We are not bankrupt or insolvent so that isn''t evidence of mismanagement. The overwhelming majority of the protesters ore of the spoilt child variety.  "I want my club to spend millions and millions of pounds (i.e. other people''s money) on players every year and be an established glamourous Prem team so the media will fawn over us and someone must be to blame because I''m (somehow) entitled to it and I''m going to scream and scream until I''m sick if I don''t get it".  All clubs and all fans want that, even the pro-Board ones.  But life isn''t that simple.  It isn''t in our or the Board''s control.  All you can do is your best and hope the footballing decisions (the manager you appoint and the players you buy) work out, which no-one can guarantee.  And that you get a bit of luck (refs decisions, injuries and all the rest of those crucial little factors that are a central part of something as unpredictable as football).  Our playing budget last year wasn''t any bigger than Hull''s, for example, and probably less than Bristol City''s.  Conversely when we won the title in 2003/4 we were the overachievers since plenty of teams who spent more money finished in our wake. I haven''t seen any reasonable posts yet from the moaners suggesting what realistically could be done differently for clear benefit.
  5. "I''ve got ambition to do things but I probably won''t get to do them" Why haven''t you then?  You criticise the Board for not having done things they have ambition to do and yet admit that the same is true of you!  The reason they haven''t is the same reason you haven''t - they have to operate in the real world.  Having ambition to do something doesn''t guarantee it happening (after all, if it wasn''t hard to achieve it wouldn''t be much of an ambition, would it?) "And where has all the money gone?" Yawn. The club publishes full accounts every year that answer this question.  The new ones will come out in a month or two and then you''ll get the answers.  Nothing is (or could be) covered up. "For God''s sake we were that close to getting relegated and probably going into Administration ourselves." Rubbish.  The difference in income between League One and the Championship is nowhere near as large as between the Prem and the Championship so even if we''d been relegated I think it is extremely unlikely we''d have gone into administration. "But why should we give the Board credit for hiring Roeder when they were also the ones to hire Peter Grant and trust his judgement in the transfer market. They haven''t learnt about last year." Yes, and they are the same board who appointed Nigel Worthington, who got us to a playoff final and then won the division title.  No Board gets all it''s decisions right, because every decision in football is a huge gamble.  There aren''t any certainties.  Good players/managers at one club do badly at another (Worthy in fact went from being able to do almost no wrong in his first 3/4 years in charge to one who could do almost no right in his last two).  You can''t predict stuff like that, it''s the nature of football.    
  6. [quote user="yellow hammer"] The main point about trading shares publically is that it makes control easier to pass from one person to another, it doesn''t influence how that person exercises that control. There is absolutely no reason why Delia, or come to that Cullum or A.N. Other, could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats regardless of how they gained control of the majority of the shares. What it takes is for the owner to act in the best interests of NCFC rather than in their own interests, and listing on Ofex neither increases nor decreases the likelihood of that happening.There is no guarantee that the majority shareholders of an unlisted company will not see the future in fixed assets rather than football. After all, isn''t this what many people said about Chase, are saying about Smith, and are now beginning to point the finger at Evans down the road? Being unlisted is no protection against those without the best interests of the club at heart. I agree with you that listing is not going to happen, but not as you say because ''she is going to have less control over her money'' - in fact she will have more control over her money because she can move it in or out of the club more easily - but because ''she is going to have less control over the club'' - the distinction is important because it is the root cause of why many posters feel she will never let go of NCFC. I kinda like the Arsenal model. They know the key to success is to have the best manager and then support him with the neccessary funds. Because they are in the top four, they attract money. Their new stadium was financed by Emirates money because they are successful, not the other way round. Would you rather be trading Tierry Henry for 16m to finance the new crop of talented European youngsters who actually want to play for the Gunners because they are one of the most successful clubs in the world(and therefore attract the best talent), or would you rather be flogging Lewis to Peterborough to pay the electricity bill? [/quote] Hard to know where to begin with this since it is so ridiculous.  Obviously there is no reason Delia could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats except for the fact that she is a fan and therefore never would.  The protection that not being listed provides is that provided the club retains financial stability Delia can choose to sell when and to whom she pleases and as a fan would clearly have to satisfy herself that such a person also had the best interests of the club at heart - with a listing that control over the club''s future ownership vanishes.  You raise the issue of Evans dubious intentions and Ipswich not being listed as a demonstration that beung unlisted is no protection, but the reason Ipswich''s board had to sell to Evans was because their financial situation was so bad they were no longer in a position to say no to any offer.  They got in that situation by spending over their means (precisely what some people seem to believe this Board should do every year) For all the arguments about Delia I cannot believe a single person really believes she does not have the best interests of the club at heart (different people obviously have different ideas about how to achieve that goal but let''s not doubt the we do all share a goal).  Football is an ongoing concern (over 100 years for NCFC and counting) and the long-term future fortunes of this club are governed by far more than how much we spend on players in the next 6 months as some seem to believe
  7. You yourself describe the current footballing model as ''fantasy economics''.  Enough said. Last year Hull didn''t spend that much on their team and got promoted.  Leicester spent loads and got relegated. This league is too tight to make gambling with money particul;arly sensible.  Anyone worth a lot of money will be in the Prem so having money in this league doesn''t get you very much (ask the three newly-relegated teams with £10m parachute payments last season - Watford, Sheff U and Charlton), mainly overpriced castoffs. What counts more is a decent manager making dceent footballing decisions.  Hopefully we have that now.
  8. The annual accounts will be out soon (the first ones since we lost the parachute payments).  Then we will be able to answer your questions.  As it is you are just quessing rather wildly.  An example of how far out your ''estimates'' are is that in the last set of accounts our wage bill was over £14m.
  9. [quote user="soccer"]3 years since promotion the fans have got so fed up on here that ur all accepting mid table finish i know rome wasnt built in a day but it was built . the board have limited ambition i know but thought the fans would demand a top 6 finish were a big championship side not a small one accept nothing else but playoff position not midtable finish.[/quote]   Why do we have to be a ''big'' or ''small'' Championship club?  I don''t think we are either.  We are an average one.  The division is very strong this year - there are 6 clubs alone with £10m parachute payments and several other clubs (Wolves, Ipswich, Forest, Sheffield Wednesday to name just four) who are at least as ''big'' as us, so it seems a bit deluded to ''demand'' a top 6 finish.  What planet are you living on?
  10. "We''ve had thousands of posts on the subject and without raking over old ground too much, can we agree that the main problem lies with the board? Short term problems can be placed at players, at coaching staff or at the manager, but over a longer period of time, when players, coaching staff and managers have all come and gone and the problems still exist, then would you agree with me that we have to start looking at the board as the main root cause of our present troubles? Given that many of the issues relate to the balance of investment between fixed assets and the playing squad, this has to be evidence that we should be looking at the board. And finally, the absolute level of investment is determined more by the private wealth of the board members than by the fan''s contribution via season tickets, merchandising etc."   I don''t think we can agree on that at all.  There is no evidence that the club has spent too much on fixed assets.  The club is a long-term ongoing entity that has existed for over 100 years and we all hope will continue to do so.  That means the long-term infrastructure has to be maintained. I would have more fun next week if I spent money on a holiday rather than redecorating my house, but if I do that all the time eventually my house will become dilapidated.  Similarly, while we might enjoy the next season more if we spend all our money on players if, as remains the most likely outcome, we still don''t get promoted then that money will have gone down the drain and the club will never see it again (remember Southampton taking Safri off us last year because, unlike us, they were prepared to offer him £10k per week - look where that got them!).  Fixed assets, however, continue to generate income for the club to spend on players year after year. It is by maintaining the infrastructure that the board have ensured that this is a financially fairly stable club in what is a fantastically difficult economic environment for Championship football clubs (that, incidentally is where the real blame lies). Yes, a much richer owner will be required to enable this club to ever establish itself in the Premiership (where pretty much all the clubs lose money even with their vast TV income).  But any such owner will reap the benefits of the quality infrastructure that the current owners have given us and should reimburse them appropriately on taking over.  If Cullum had offered £20m for a seat on the Board I''m sure it would have been accepted, but he wanted control.  People may say it is natural that he wants to retain control of his money which is, of course, fair enough.  But he was not offering to buy out Delia''s shares which means the money she has invested in the club over the years would still be tied up in it.  Since I''m betting the money she has invested is a larger share of her wealth than £20m is of Cullum''s then surely she is also at least as justified in wanting to retain control. You can''t easily have two people in control (it is a recipe for disaster) so the only real solution is for Cullum to buy out Delia''s shares.  So far he has apparently not offered to do so, but hopefully down the line when he has generated more liquid funds from his investments he will be in a position to do it.    
  11. [quote user="Canary Nut"]If we really have bid £500k for Howard then it clearly shows the lack of ambition at NCFC Plc.[/quote]   Why does it?  It doesn''t show that we only have £500k.  It more likely means that Roeder thought that Howard would make a useful addition to the squad, having played successfully with Lupoli at Derby a couple of years ago, but given his age didn''t think he was worth spending more than £500k on.
  12. There is actually a very good reason there isn’t more anger and that is that we are a pretty well-run club.  Of course it isn’t always as successful as we’d like on the pitch but then no club is.   Every footballing decision a club makes is a gamble – there are no real certainties – a player that looks great for one team can look hopeless at another while players that look hopeless for one club (Akinbiye and Sheron here, for instance) can bang in goals for fun elsewhere.  The same applies to managers – Walker could do no wrong in his first spell here but failed at Everton and looked a total mediocrity in his second spell here.  Worthy was a terrific Championship manager from 2001 to 2004 and a hopeless one after we got relegated.   That sort of thing simply cannot reliably be predicted in advance (it’s easy with hindsight, which so many people on here seem to have in abundance).  Luck plays a huge in getting the chemistry right in any particular season.     As a result pretty much all clubs fluctuate between good seasons and bad seasons.  We are no different, it is just that ours have been a bit more clumped together recently – good seasons in the early part of the decade, undeniably bad seasons for the past three.  But the people on the board making decisions now are the same ones, making decisions on the same basis, as those that brought us such fantastic times in 2002 and 2004.  Things just worked out then and haven’t recently – that doesn’t tell us anything much about the Board but a lot about football.  However fortunes can change back just as quickly.  The much-admired Charlton board who achieved Prem status for quite a few years (presumably exactly what we are looking for from our Board) are, I suspect, the very same people who are now within one year of overseeing their club becoming an average Championship club with no parachute payments and a Championship-sized budget.    This simply isn’t one of the biggest 20 clubs in the country – we have no right to expect to be in the Premiership (we can certainly hope for it!).  Are we a badly run club?  Look at the other similar sized clubs that played predominantly in the top division in the 70s/80s/90s – Coventry, Leicester, Ipswich, Southampton.  All have suffered far greater financial trauma than us in recent years and none are significantly better off than us at this moment (a couple would appear to be worse off).  It is because we are a well-run club that we have remained pretty financially stable and, like the rest of this division, if the footballing decisions work out right for us we are always capable of having a good season.  Only time will tell if this will be one…   But there certainly doesn''t appear to be anything to be angry about as though we are suffering from some great injustice.  But I guess that’s modern entitlement culture for you….
  13. The issue of ''punching our weight'' is an interesting one.  I think it is safe to say that we are not one of the biggest 20 clubs in the country so we are not punching below our weight by not being in the Premiership.  However we should be one of the better Championship clubs, which seriously challenges  for promotion every few years and every now or then actually achieves it.  We did achieve it in 2004 and were doing OK at that point, having made the playoff final only 2 years earlier we were clearly ''punching our weight'' for the first half of the decade, but the last 3 seasons have been really disappointing.  If we can stay in the top half and challenge for a playoff place this season, even if ultimately we fall short, I feel we will have pretty much be getting back to punching our weight as one of the better Championship clubs (although it will require us to keep that standard up the following season in order to prove that it wasn''t a one season blip).
  14. In August 2001 we got totally outclassed at home by Arsenal in a pre-season friendly and it turned out to be a pretty good season.
  15. The purpose of this game was to generate money, not be a competitive match.  Spurs bear no resemblence whatsoever to anyone we will play in the league this year.   They are a different class to us.  They should be. De Dantos and Bent alone cost over £34m!!    In a competitive match the only way to slow down a team like that with much better players than you  is to get stuck in and rough them up a bit to break their rhythm.  In a friendly you can''t do that - it will be part of a gentlemen''s agreement between the teams.  If you do start roughing them up no decent team will ever play you in a friendly again.   As a result we couldn''t get the ball off them and thus (rather obviously) couldn''t really do much of anything in an attacking sense.   Friendlies bear no relation to league games - especially ones like this against ''glamour'' opposition.   We got a full house, which was the aim of the game.  Nothing else matters.
×
×
  • Create New...