Finances

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="Dead Canary"]The point is DEB that you can''t compare net spend on players until the end of January. Your quoted number includes players signed in that window and you need a full season because finances, both TV money in and transfers out, are accounted for over a year not just the August window. Also until last seasons accounts are released we don''t know how much we have had to potentially pay back this season and thus the effect on our playing budget. Until these two factors are sorted your question has no answers and come the end of the January window may no longer be pertinent.[/quote]

Excellent points put most eloquently!

In retrospect, my figures included the likes of Howson, but I still conclude (on balance) that we must have significant balance of transfer budget available for January - and I fail to understand why we didn''t take advantage of increasing funds further, by the £7m on offer for Grabban. On field performance between now and the January window is of critical importance, as will be our success (or otherwise) in what is a very difficult time in trading players. Why we would go forward with such weaknesses in the area''s of central defence & up front is truly baffling.

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

Just a guess but I would say between 1st-31st January 2016.

[Ivor Know 0]

You''re right about one thing Dead Canary, many seem to think we''re OK because we got promoted.

Bet we made a huge loss and most of the first installment of Premier League cash has gone straight to the bank to clear a huge overdraft.

The half wits believe we got a cheque for £120m on promotion. Bless.

[westcoastcanary 173]

DEB wrote: "However, that is no explanation for the significant differential in net squad investment in comparison to this time 4 years ago, when the club were handicapped by £27m of net debt, with an associated commitment for repayment."

You are ignoring fundamental differences between the two summers. In the summer of 2011, our still substantial debt had been restructured two years earlier, with repayment by 2020. The further commitment to repay the debt early only applied at the end of the second season in the EPL. So the debt did not in fact impact to any significant extent on the unexpected windfall which promotion brought. That was why the club was able to make money available to strengthen the squad (though as has been pointed out, it was done partly in the January window not just in the summer).

Until the accounts for last season are published we do not know whether the club incurred short term debt, and if so how much. What we do know is that we kept a substantial proportion of our PL squad and promotion bonuses will have significantly eroded any savings accruing from relegation clauses. We also know that there is a significant ongoing cost in funding our Academy, and that any infrastructure savings made through not having to meet EPL requirements in the Championship now have to be reversed (e.g. pitch maintenance standards etc. etc.).

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

I agree there must be some money there to be spent in January, just don''t feel at the moment that it will be as much as some think.

As to the small net spend so far we have have been able to bring in good money for a squad player and looking back at that list, bar Howson, I think we have purchased more quality this time for less outlay which is pretty impressive. I agree another centre back would have been good but it hasn''t been possible and not much we can do about that until January.

[RuelFox 0]

Huge loss on what basis? Your inability to grasp reality?

We had parachute payments, had players on automatic wage reductions and went straight back up.

You are in cuckoo land of you think we made a loss in their multiple millions.

Yes the blanket cheque does not arrive on Day One but the transfer budget would and should of been there. It was our lack of business acumen which cost us.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Little old Norwich. Norwich fans know your place. Not a squeak, not a murmur, shhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ivor Know 0]

Comparisons between 2011 and now are completely irrelevant.

It''s cash in hand now (or not if we''re overdrawn) to pay bonuses on promotion to players, payment installments to other clubs for previous player purchases & bonus payments arising from promotion.

That''s before we start adding new transfer fee installments to the pot.

£30m doesn''t go very far when you throw that lot into the mix.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

After a skim through I am more confused than normal. Is it that we should have bought more players even though we are broke, or that we should have sold more players (Grabban specifically) despite having pots of money from not buying enough?

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

Ten months ago the club released financial statements for the year to 30th June 2014, and gave commentary as to the (then) financial position.

Key points of note:

- Revenue up to £95.5m (£78.7m in 2013)

- Profit after tax of £6.7m (£0.5m in 2013)

- External debt was reduced to zero (£0.2m at June 2013)

- Operating activities generated £24.9m cash which was used to invest in the playing squad.

Key actions taken in the business within the last 12 months include:

- Financial position remains strong despite relegation due to no debt and relegation clauses in all player contracts.

- Continued strategy of investing spare cash in to football in each transfer window.

The Club’s main objective for the current season is to return to the Premier League at the first opportunity.

City Chairman Alan Bowkett commented: “I find myself in the uncomfortable position of being disappointed that the club has reported an above forecast profit for last year.

"This surplus is due to our failure to remain in The Premier League and as a consequence bonus payments due for success have not been paid.

“The good news is that this surplus has enabled us to construct one of the strongest squads in the Championship and our overall performance to date has been encouraging.

“Due to our strong balance sheet we are able to totally focus on planning our return to The Premier League. We believe we have the human and financial resources to achieve"

From subsequent information released through local media we can establish that non budgeted income (from the play-off''s) further strengthened the club''s financial position, and player trading throughout the year to 30th June 2015 was undertaken at a net surplus. It is also worth noting that our club was effectively debt free by June 2013.

The forthcoming release of the 2015 accounts should provide us with more clarification of the club''s financial state, healthy or not!

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

It is also important to note that after promotion to the premier league in 2011, we cleared well over £20m of net debt at the same time as making significant squad investment, at a time when turnover was significantly less than it will be now.

McNally commented after publication of the 2013 accounts as follows:

"There was £19.7m of player investment in the last financial year, up from £10.4m, and increase in spending made possible by successfully retaining our Premier League status, and the £49.03m received for television rights, a figure which will rise to somewhere between £62m and £64m for this season".

[Ivor Know 0]

[quote user="RuelFox"]Huge loss on what basis? Your inability to grasp reality?

We had parachute payments, had players on automatic wage reductions and went straight back up.

You are in cuckoo land of you think we made a loss in their multiple millions.

Yes the blanket cheque does not arrive on Day One but the transfer budget would and should of been there. It was our lack of business acumen which cost us.[/quote]

You are the one in cuckoo land, bud, the numbers simply don''t add up.

Previous season - £95m turnover, with a £65m contribution from TV and a wage bill of £52m.

Last season - a £40m reduction in turnover because the parachute payment was just £25m. A wage reduction of 40% still gave a wage bill of circa £30m, but much of the reduction was paid back as bonuses upon promotion.

Ergo, a cash burn which exceeded income by some considerable margin.

Guess where most of that first installment of Sky monies this summer went?

It''s not a trick question.

[Badger 2,405]

To my mind, the fact that we were seeking to issue three year season tickets looks like an attempt to bring forward cash flows so that we have money. I presumed that it was for the January window. It may be that our failure to attract some of our targets means that this is no longer necessary - hence the quick finish to the scheme? Does anybody know how many 3 year tickets were actually sold?As a (very minor) shareholder, I have never received any money from my shares. Unless the board of directors are illegally siphoning off money for themselves, which seems frankly unbelievable, the idea that the board are just using the club as some sort of "cash cow" is ridiculous.The absence of another centre back aside, I think that we had a pretty good "window" which seems to have met the aims set out at the start.