can someone explain

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

why on one hand our debts have gone up by 400k, but we''ve made close to 8M profit...

...what is the reason some of this profit cant be used to lessen the debt...

...sounds like the way I manage my student loan (12 years and still counting)

 

 

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

I think because the bills don''t arrive in the same reporting period as the money. So you can make a huge loss one season and a huge profit the next. You have no money to spend as such.

Put another way, when we got promoted the players got big bonuses, and they showed in the previous year''s accounts as a loss. Then we got the money for being promoted and it shows in this year''s accounts as a profit... buit it isn''t really a profit is it?

[MadDan 0]

Bluntly

we had £37.4m coming in last year

we had £28.3m going out

after tax that left us with a £7.7m ''profit

unfortunately we had to pay for -

the new pitch,infill, new offices and upgrades to the training facilities

some of this was paid for up front, some was paid by borrowings that left us with a slight increase in debts by £400k

Payments from Wilson Connelly will reduce a good third of this. Annual payments on the loan are well within our abilities

We''ve been able to take on a massive upgrade to the ground and the facilities in a very short period of time.

It could be argued that the money spent on development should have been spent on playing staff, which could have kept us up.

What can''t be argued is that given the choice the club did make they''ve made a bloody good job of it

[Mariner 0]

MadDan is quite right. It''s worth remembering that the debt, although pretty frightening, is managed. That is to say, with structured repayments and not open to foreclosure as some football club debts can be. All in all, I think the club is on the right path and we have had enormous improvement to the ground. I can understand the hotel venture although a little concerned at seeing enlargement of the City Stand as the only way of increasing the capacity. Should we want to do this, I hope there is no problem with the old road running past the City Stand. This is still a maintained highway as far as I know.

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

[quote]Bluntly we had £37.4m coming in last year we had £28.3m going out after tax that left us with a £7.7m ''profit unfortunately we had to pay for - the new pitch,infill, new offices and upgrades to ...[/quote]

thanks all that does make sense...although I would have thought profit would have been after costs not before costs of stand etc...must try that one at home...look love Ive got £1500 to spend on booze...but we''ve got bills to pay yet and theres the mortgage...sorry love Im not taking those into consideration I''m using Munby Maths

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Well my admittedly perfunctory reading of the accounts suggests that the vast majority of expenditure on pitch/facilities etc. IS included in the 28.3m outgoings figure. There is a mention of some money outstanding for the infill, which i assume is being paid off by the hotel money.

Sorry but i cannot accept a profit of 7.7m being an `accounting quirk` when there doesnt seem to be any indication of what this money has been allocated for. I hope someone will ask some probing questions at the AGM because we must be the only club in the country who can make an enormous profit and still maintain the "we`re still really skint,honest" line which is frankly,starting to wear very thin when you consider the paltry team investment before the transfer window closed.

[Fat Barman 0]

Mariner - "I hope there is no problem with the old road running past the City Stand. This is still a maintained highway as far as I know."

I believe the club have already had discussions with the City Council about purchasing Carrow Road (I forget what the new road that runs parallel is called) should they wish to enlarge the City Stand.

This would be necessary as the new tier would effectively be a separate stand over-hanging the existing one and would require hoooooge foundations!

[MadDan 0]

Mr Carrow, can''t find the bit in the accounts where it says - " he vast majority of expenditure on pitch/facilities etc. IS included in the 28.3m outgoings figure ". perhaps you could point me towards it.

Doing my ''sums'' I have the club running costs going up as

£28.3m
£19.7m

£ 8.6m more spent last season

Given that we spent -

" the Canaries also forked out over £5m to bring in new players, with the likes of Mattias Jonson, Youssef Safri and record signing Dean Ashton being snapped for sizeable fees. On top of that they had to splash out a further £1.25m to keep up the instalments on previous transfers."

that leaves £2.35m unaccounted for. Maybe the extra costs of 8,000 fans at games might have been part of it.

However it is silly to state " an enormous profit and still maintain the "we`re still really skint,honest" ". The profit was only a profit in the sense that it was used to pay for facilities rather than players wages/transfers etc.

We are not skint. We merely spent everything that came in. Most clubs do. Perhaps with the exception of our third world neighbours who have already spent everything that is coming in for the next 25 years, or more.

Repeatedly having to hear this conspiracy theory of a wicked club ''cheating'' it''s fans is what is REALLY wearing thin. Either come up with the figures that prove your case or button it !

[Ark 0]

It struck me that perhaps it had something to do with the Charlton approach... Spend one third on players, another third on facilities and keep the final chunk for a rainy day (ie. softening the blow of potential relegation)... Sounds much more to my likeing than Ipswich/Bradford/Leeds/Sheff Wed approach of spend the money now, face the consequences/screw over your fans later!

[Tumbleweed 106]

The securitised loan also has early repayment penalties. These are inserted to ensure the bank gets its expected rate of return over the length of the loan. If City decided to pay off some of that loan they would actually incur additional charges (unspecified as the documents are not public) which rather undermines the benefit of paying it off.