Jump to content

Monty13

Members
  • Content Count

    5,840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Monty13

  1. Ouch dpit, I feel your pain. Survival is the priority, above all the club must maintain it''s league status, the bonus is we achieve that by being in any position above 18th! Of course we want to win every game and every place we finish higher is a not a bonus, that''s the wrong sentiment, but a reward/recognition for the hard work of the management team and players. How much further can we go? Well who knows, the league seems far more open than previous years, Europe would be amazing but it should not be an expectation. I''m not sure what you mean by how far should we go? While Europe can be a debilitating factor on squads I don''t think there should ever be any thought other than to win as many points as we can. If your talking as a club, then I hope and expect next year to see the same controlled evolution of our playing staff as we have seen this year with quality players being brought in without effecting the overall harmony of the squad. This also means hanging on to the likes of Ruddy, Tettey, Bassong etc. When the bigger boys come calling, but so far we seem to be achieving that. I like to think that teams such as ourselves and Swansea are proving that a well run club can compete, if it means we will never win the league, well that''s sad, but I would rather that than be some billionaires plaything.
  2. 2-4 unbelievable.....maybe were wrong??
  3. 4 points or more would be good going and I think were more than capable of beating WBA, WH and Chelsea on our day, so maybe I''m being a bit dour but I can see this: WBA (A) - Draw Chelsea (H) - Draw Man City (H) - Loss West Ham (A) - Draw And to be honest I wouldn''t be unhappy.
  4. The just had the half time stats up, 75% Arsenal possession, that says it all really. Absolutely Dominated!
  5. Assist and a goal (with his head to boot!).....everybody happy now?? Deserves that new contract top player!
  6. Tom, I''m all for stadium expansion but your brand of optimism makes zero sense. As others have said, where in the current economic climate, where councils are being cut to the bone, would this loan come from? Just who is eager to drop millions on the real estate at Carrow Road? Were in economic decline. Who can''t find space in Norwich? A new stadium would cost millions, far, far more than expansion and is not necessary.
  7. Well if you''re right, then Wigan isn''t an isolated event based on a series of connected issues and its the first of many games to be offered at the rate of 19 pounds, I''m sure a lot of people will be very happy about that. The demand has of course dropped off, its related to the ticket price increase from last year and the year before, its in search of that maximum price per ticket in your ''cross price price elasticity'' reasoning. It shows that the price, especially for less attractive games, is reaching its acceptable ceiling based on demand. It doesn''t necessarily indicate the overall demand has dropped, just that the marketing team have reached their pricing ceiling. It backs up your own argument.The problem is that unlike when cross price price elasticity is usually used in business, we have a maximum product limit of how many we can sell as we don''t have any more seats even if the demand is there for the product at that price. As I say I would be interested to see how much of the 11 million catering is related to matchday''s. As it is relevant, even if its obviously not as big as the ticket money. Once again I agree and don''t believe the stand can be paid for from income generated by it in the event of relegation, that''s the risk, and its a big one if the period in question is 20 years. But if the club could never hope to cover the payments in the premiership I am bemused why a smart set of Directors used to believe that expansion was essential less than 2 years ago. It also doesn''t answer my concern that if this is the plan, when is a better time to implement it? we will always face the same risks at probably increased costs. The answer being then we never upgrade the stand, or we are less ambitious in its size and expense.
  8. Considering how much they have spent, the Southampton figure is very surprising. QPR paying more than Chelsea, Arsenal and Man U.....not really surprising at all.
  9. Why on earth would we reduce 12 games to the Wigan price? The Wigan price is a perfect storm moment, an unfashionable club, with poor away support, at home on the busiest shopping day of the year, oh just before xmas in a poor economy. The club have had to reduce ticket prices below even grade c in response. Why didn''t it happen last year? well we didn''t have a home game in the week run up to xmas, we had 2 away games. Is there less demand, well how much have tickets gone up on last year? At the moment we have a grade system for games which is laughable, if we had more seats those grades would be used appropriately. Be reasonable, even with increased capacity the vast majority of casual tickets sold would never come close to being 19 pounds. The 91% figure makes things even less clear to their thinking then, I am assuming we are talking an average attendance over the season of that figure at current rates? That''s an average attendance of 31,850. Assuming cat A+ games would get much closer to sell outs than that, they also cost much more per ticket making it hard to pin down why that 91% figure is relevant? Surely the more important thing is to average high to sell out attendance in Cat A/A+ games? Its got to be quantified somehow i suppose, but a required average attendance when there are so many variables per game is a confusing. The catering and other match day revenue is not insignificant, maybe Purple can explain how the Catering and Commercial income, which in the latest figures as near as damn it equals ticket income, is broken down? I''m not debating if we get relegated the money will have to come from elsewhere, in the premiership i''m not so sure, as if we couldn''t as a minimum break even in any year when the stand was complete, under any circumstances, I would be incredibly surprised. Out of interest if we get relegated can we withdraw our Academy status?
  10. Ricardo, I totally agree it is far from being a no brainer as some suggest, but, with the potential of such a long period to repay back (I was quite surprised the term being suggested at the AGM was 20 years as I thought such a length would be unlikely to be offered), it also means it could potentially not be as crippling a yearly effect as previous debts were, if in the worse case scenario, the seats are generating nothing towards the loan. My overwhelming concern is that people seem to think, oh give it a couple of years of premiership football it will be an easier decision, it wont, and as the years go on the costs as you suggest will only go up. I don''t think that therefore means we should get the builders in next week and start, but the waters are very muddy. Unless someone will give us the money, or a large portion of it, there will never be a good time to do this.
  11. Paul its too late for that, as long as the game is being shown somewhere in the world it will be streamed. Streaming is now fairly publicly known and accepted, its the TV companies that hate it! The only way to stop it is to not sell the rights to those games and while the clubs will benefit from ticket sales in that instance, as you suggested because no one can otherwise view the game, the TV pot would decrease as those game rights weren''t sold. So clubs would overall be worse off. The Tv rights owner needs to find a business model to work with streaming otherwise there is no way forward that doesn''t lose them, and clubs, money.
  12. City1st, firstly I''m sorry, it is entirely flawed and I would imagine it is not the way the club are estimating their potential income unless you can prove otherwise. The current capacity is 27,000 and we have 22,000 season ticket holders, that is 81.5% of current ticket sales. Unless you are suggesting that 81.5% of new seats will be given to season ticket holders that method of working out new income is massively flawed as casual ticket average income per ticket per game will always be more than a season tickets average per game over a season. I did the interest calculations on the stadium expansion thread, go have a look and question me then, but it very much depends on what the club are saying. If they are saying it will cost 31 million plus interest then the figure in repayments over 20 years is no more than 3 million a year and that is probably overestimating as unless you can tell me I have no idea what rate they can borrow at. If they are saying that they have already factored in the interest payments in that 31 million then the yearly figure will be considerably lower. As I stated on the other thread in a good attendance premiership year we could even turn a profit as we are paying back over such a long period, the problem being over 20 years no one knows what the club or footballs fortunes will be so you can''t base the decision to do this on premiership football, I totally agree with you. Look back through any post I have ever said with with regard to stadium expansion and I never suggested ticket prices will remain the same, I have always suggested in low demand games they must drop to generate interest, don''t put words in my mouth to support your opinion of my argument. Nor do I believe that casual tickets can be dropped without any reduction in season ticket prices. But as the difference between the two at the minute is so vast the season ticket price drop would be minimal and casual price drop would depend on the demand for a particular game ie. little to no drop Man Utd, big drop Wigan, even if you decrease prices massively for unpopular games overall season tickets would still be a far cheaper option. Its peoples obsession with the fact that because we have been in or around capacity the last few years that all games need to sell outs for these seats to be worthwhile, they don''t and that''s where your cross price elasticity applies. The club will always try and get as much as possible for the current number of seats, I don''t deny that either and it will result in some games underselling. "The understanding is that anything over 31,000 and the club would only be in neutral ''gain'' ie no more money with all the debt to meet" whose understanding, i have not read or heard this anywhere but from you? Look I would love to see the club replace the main stand, its ageing facilities and expand the ground. But I do understand why its a difficult decision with many risks, it is not clear cut otherwise there would be no debate. But with such a long time period for the debt being talked about the impact on year by year is therefore minimalised. I''m not actually disagreeing with you apart from your potential income calculation. We will always probably have to subsidise the stand (although once its up and running in a premiership season this may not be the case) and almost certainly if relegated. My point is if the money to do this is being borrowed over 20 years somehow people seem to think the decision is easier after a couple of premiership seasons and it simply isn''t. Also as its being borrowed over such a long time period the yearly shortfall might not be as crippling even in the bad times as some suggest.
  13. I''m pro expansion Shefcanary, but just to be clear, just because there is not going to be a better time to do something is not singularly a reason to do it! Its just another factor in the equation.
  14. I put this on the expansion thread but the debate seems to have raged on here. I''m sorry, some of the calculations on here for what ticket income could be generated by an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed. Using 410,000 as the figure per thousand as an average of current sales and then multiplying it by the number of thousand new seats gives you a figure well below the maximum potential income if tickets were the same price and games sold out. This is because it extrapolates that the new seats will be held by the same percentage of current season tickets in the current capacity, highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals. Also unless someone can show me otherwise, any talk of expansion by the board has always been about creating an EXTRA 8000 seats to bring us to 35,000, not replacing 4000 with 8000. Therefore even using the wrong figure of 410,000 the potential maximum new income would be 3.3 million. Personally i don''t think the figure however it''s calculated will be that high as I agree for non (real) cat a games ticket prices will have to drop to stimulate demand. And is there another regular 8000 fans? I don''t know, but neither does anyone else unless they have done some pretty hefty market research and the club haven''t shown it to anyone if it is done. Anyway the difference, and there will be a difference (especially when the stands being built!) will have to come from somewhere, but as I tried to show by doing the loan maths above (on other thread), because the board is talking about a lengthy loan, and it''s unclear of what the actual yearly payments will be, it might be relatively small or even nothing in a good year but close to the yearly payment in a bad year. Over the life of the loan it is certain to fluctuate. Certainly in the premiership it would be very low once it is built with ticket and confectionary sales there might even be a profit, but if we suffered relegation it could be as much as the yearly cost of the loan (whatever that might be but no more than the figures I quoted before). It''s a complete catch 22 situation, in the premiership it''s almost a no brained but if we relegated (when we might need the income most) it will likely be a drain on the playing staff. Hence why again I understand the boards new found reluctance when there is no enforced requirement. Once again I do worry when the better time will be though, because in my mind while a long repayment schedule of 20 years makes it cheaper per year, it also means there will never be a better or worse time to do it as no one can predict the fortunes of the club or football in general over such a period.
  15. I thought I would post on here rather than pull the financial thread into yet another stadium debate but some of the calculations on here for what ticket income could be generated by an increased capacity are wildly inaccurate as the method for extrapolating the figures are totally flawed. Using 410,000 as the figure per thousand as an average of current sales and then multiplying it by the number of thousand new seats gives you a figure well below the maximum potential income if tickets were the same price and games sold out. This is because it extrapolates that the new seats will be held by the same percentage of current season tickets in the current capacity, highly unlikely and season ticket prices per game are massively below that of casuals. Also unless someone can show me otherwise, any talk of expansion by the board has always been about creating an EXTRA 8000 seats to bring us to 35,000, not replacing 4000 with 8000. Therefore even using the wrong figure of 410,000 the potential maximum new income would be 3.3 million. Personally i don''t think the figure however it''s calculated will be that high as I agree for non (real) cat a games ticket prices will have to drop to stimulate demand. And is there another regular 8000 fans? I don''t know, but neither does anyone else unless they have done some pretty hefty market research and the club haven''t shown it to anyone if it is done. Anyway the difference, and there will be a difference (especially when the stands being built!) will have to come from somewhere, but as I tried to show by doing the loan maths above, because the board is talking about a lengthy loan, and it''s unclear of what the actual yearly payments will be, it might be relatively small or even nothing in a good year but close to the yearly payment in a bad year. Over the life of the loan it is certain to fluctuate. Certainly in the premiership it would be very low, but if we suffered relegation it could be as much as the yearly cost of the loan (whatever that might be but no more than the figures I quoted before). It''s a complete catch 22 situation, in the premiership it''s almost a no brained but if we relegated (when we might need the income most) it will likely be a drain on the playing staff. Hence why again I understand the boards new found reluctance when there is no enforced requirement. Once again I do worry when the better time will be though, because in my mind while a long repayment schedule of 20 years makes it cheaper per year, it also means there will never be a better or worse time to do it as no one can predict the fortunes of the club or football in general over such a period.
  16. The thing I find most concerning about the TV money increase is the effect it will have on relegated teams. I truly believe we will stay up this year, and I hope I''m right because the more premiership money goes up the more disastrous relegation looks. I agree with you that premiership wages will inevitably rise with the huge percentage increase in extra income. Unless teams have some incredibly well written player contracts in relation to relegation though, the effect of this in that instance will inevitably be more dramatic. Does anyone know whether parachute payments are increasing correspondingly? It also makes promoted teams lives adjusting to the money harder and inevitably more risky going all out to stay up. It''s great that it looks increasingly likely we will be part of the better off club, but the football haves and have nots are diverging at an even greater rate (although there will with transfers inevitably be some trickle down). Personally I think this is the last time this money will increase in this way, Football is global but it has made its way, increasingly publicly, on to the internet. Sky can''t stop that, however much they try, bigger industries have tried and failed (music/film), they either find a way to gain advantage from that situation or sit and suffer the effects. At the minute the strategy towards streaming and pubs seems ineffective and outdated imo and they will suffer financially for it.
  17. Whatever your feelings about the style of play technika, the fact we are unbeaten in 7 and won are last 3 home games is not relegation form. Good point and it was important not to lose. BOTH teams were not pretty to watch tonight, it was a scrappy game. We snuffed out the majority of their attacking threat, but I will agree we offered little going forward.
  18. Got to say Hughton has been vindicated in signing him now, if he wasn''t already, I''m really glad we don''t have to put Rudd in for 3 months, I rate him but thats lot of pressure for someone of his age with no PL experience. Bunns an older head with a bit of experience, lets hope he steps up and fills those big shoes!
  19. Just in case anyone is interested in the maths, 31 million paid back over 20 years even if you looked at a high interest rate, say 10%, would be just over 3.5 million a year. A more realistic rate given the current low interest rates but the perceived risk to the banks is around 7% and this would be just under 2.9 million a year for 20 years. This is however assuming that the 31 million is the amount the board require to borrow, not what they have assessed the total cost at including the interest payable. If they are saying with interest the build will cost 31 million then your actual repayments per year are far lower, again depending on interest rate they are assuming will be (or have) negotiated. This is also assuming the build is totally financed and no other revenue generation is used. So your worst case cost is around 3 million a year if the loan period is 20 years as I believe from others Bowkett apparently stated. How much of that will be covered by ticket revenue generated? who knows, presumably the figures have been done by the board though. Interestingly though if it was half covered (1.5 million), which once the stand is complete a 1-1.5million increase a year in ticket income seems a conservative estimate, then your actual worst case scenario is a 1.5 million a year cost. This would be the same cost as the Academy and no one seems to be in massive uproar about that expenditure away from the first team. I would personally like to see expansion but I can totally understand why the boards direction regarding it has changed. It is a lot of debt, even over a long period such as 20 years and is not a decision forced on us by a requirement to replace the stand. The economic argument doesn''t stand up LDC, if you have or can borrow the money, a poor national economy is the cheapest time to build. As the economy recovers that building cost will increase, not to mention the fact that Chinese economy continues to push up the price of raw materials year by year. Its really a long term decision and the problem being a clubs board, as with any Government, doesn''t wish to make decisions that have have long term risk but no short term gain, even if in the long run its the right decision. Will Delia still be owner when the debt is paid, will Bowkett still be chairman? However they will still be in those positions if we get relegated a year after starting the project, and whether the build is the cause or not you can guarantee that many will see it that way. As I say I would like to see a new stand for many reasons but I totally understand why the board have cooled the interest in it, and I don''t blame them. But I don''t understand why people believe it will be an easier decision in 2 or 3 seasons of premiership footballs time, if anything it will be a greater risk (once again that''s not an advocation for getting the builders in next week!).
  20. Once the game is finished radio norfolk is unlocked on the internet, its just during the game you can''t listen
  21. Signed a new 2 year deal in September taking him to 2014 with the option of another year according to the official site. No wonder he''s now a little miffed at not even warming the bench, but I would assume from our recent benches that Howson is seen as a bit more flexible a sub as he can replace Wes in the hole or play in CM. Still all pretty harsh on Fox, but the fact that he signed a new deal should mean if he is wanted by PL, as some suggest, that we get a decent deal for him.
  22. Bet anything that one of them was Ruddy, hence the lucrative new 4 year deal for him, not that he didn''t deserve it anyway but I bet a few clubs were sniffing around.
  23. I would have him here definitely, a proven premiership goalscorer, in form at his current club and if it doesn''t work out we have not thrown millions away. With players now out on loan or seemingly not in first team plans I don''t think squad places would be an issue. We may make a couple of good signings in January but with money tight and prices at that time of year pretty high, a couple of month loan move for someone like Keane would be good business imo. He played well for Villa last year and at 32 is not quite passed it yet.
  24. Bassong is the standout player for me in your scenario, the defence looks far less organised and solid without him. Saying that, now Whittaker has come in, if Bassong was to get injured I would perhaps say replace with Martin rather than Bennett as he showed last year he could play that role well and more importantly marshal the defence. But I''d still say Bassong is the one player above all else I now fear us losing. I''m surprised you''ve not mentioned Ruddy. Bunns heroics in the cup have silenced the people asking why we bought him, and I think its a sensible move as if Ruddy was injured all season I would be happier with him stepping up for the long term than Rudd or Steer. I don''t doubt eithers ability but there experience is not sufficient for a long run of games. But if Ruddy was to get injured he is one of our truly class talents that would walk into most prem sides and it would be a big blow. I struggle to see where the creativity would come from without Hoolahan, and none of the similar players Howson, Butterfield, Snodgrass have proved they can play his role anywhere near his effectiveness. For me I would like to see us build on current systems success in Jan. I would really like to see someone come in with Johnson''s defensive abilities but Fox''s passing range. No idea who that is and hopefully Hughton pulls out another Tettey like gem from the continent. But if we had such a player it would take some of the pressure off Hoolahan as currently everything pretty much goes through him.
  25. I was just about to post this, so instead will add to your post: There seemed to be a general reaction of disappointment from some when he signed. A case of he wasn''t Naughton I think, and while I was more than prepared to let him prove himself, I have to admit to at the time feeling disappointment that his signing meant the end of any interest in Naughton. Since coming in to replace Martin though I have been more than impressed with him, I think above all he reads the game very well and like Martin is very good in the air. He also seems to throw himself in for the cause and I''m now a big fan. I''m still not sure he is a huge step up on Martin, whose performances at RB in the prem seem to divide opinion, but at the same time I can''t see Martin getting his place back unless Whittaker gets injured or his form dips considerably. I thought he played really well yesterday, and considering the results that have coincided with his inclusion, this back four look like the settled back 4 starters we need.
×
×
  • Create New...