£20m Debt ?

[Peter Gates 0]

Where has this figure come from, according to announcement re hotel, payment of £1.1m goes immediately to offset a £20m debt, did we not make any money out of the reported £20m+ for getting to Prem?

[GJD 0]

This article in the Observer sport yesterday might be enlightening on Premiership money and in itself is a worthwhile read.

Not a great fan of the Palace chairmen, but his analysis is thought provoking always.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/sport/story/0,6903,1583059,00.html

[Cloughie 0]

I also am interested in these debts.  We are told the cost of the stands but no mention is made of a cash inflow from the sale of the land around the ground.  Have I missed this one or is the normal plea of poverty emanating from the club?  We also received parachute money yet the only money spent was equivalent to the fee received for Jonsson.  If the figures are true then what would the debt be if promotion had not been achieved?

[3pmkickoff 0]

It''s a grand myth that promotion to the prem get''s you £20M instantly. Obviously you generate more income through higher ticket prices and higher interest in attendances. But when you compare to an increased wage bill, larger transfer spending and rules such as paying for away tickets which you can''t sell then it''s not the golden ticket everybody thinks it is

[Crazy Eddie 0]

These days the only way to not be an indebted club is to have a multi-millionaire benifactor, even Real Madrid have enormous debts. For a while now Norwich have had what they refer to as a "manageable debt", it''s £20m and unfortunately is not likely to get much smaller than that in the near future, if anything it will rise - because we are paying prem wages and are not in the prem.

[Crazy Eddie 0]

[quote]I also am interested in these debts. We are told the cost of the stands but no mention is made of a cash inflow from the sale of the land around the ground. Have I missed this one or is the normal p...[/quote]

I would think all parachute payments will be used to pay the wages and even then we will be running at a loss.

[ronbol ronbol 0]

[quote]These days the only way to not be an indebted club is to have a multi-millionaire benifactor, even Real Madrid have enormous debts. For a while now Norwich have had what they refer to as a "manageable...[/quote]

Actually we are not paying prem wages and never had been, The players took a season based bonus for being in the prem league which of course was substantial but still no where near you average prem league club. Now we are in the lowewr division they revert to there normal wages + plus annual wage rise which is negotiated into there contracts. I also believe wigan and sunderland are operating a similar scheme this season.

[ronbol ronbol 0]

Just to add all financial info is printed yearly in the club accounts. It''s no secret the club is not hiding anything as in years past.

[Massimo Venta Icenorum 0]

Going into the premiership with a smaller debt

Since then,  so called  tv money, sell off of land at both ends of ground, Mr Walting debt written off, a share sell off, less players and still £20m in debt.

Give me back Robert Chase, I saw the best football on the pitch Norwich ever played

(I know Mr Chase was a to**er) but are we really any better off now as a fan

[Dicky 0]

[quote]Going into the premiership with a smaller debt Since then, so called

[ncfc0405 0]

Some people on this board need a basic understanding of how businesses work. The £20m ''debt'' that the club is in is nothing more than a mortgage borrowed to pay for rebuilding the South Stand and the infill and other improvements, borrowed at a perfectly serviceable rate. This demonstrates the club is a well-run business, with prudent borrowing to create assets that will pay bank handsomely over their lifetime.

The doom merchants on this board really will look for any opportunity to portray the club as in some kind of crisis...

[Juggler 7]

"The deal is important as it enables us to start to repay the significant non-securitised debt the club has incurred over the last few years, while giving the club a stake in a valuable business going forward."

This is the quote from Doncaster that I find concerning. I was under the impression that our debt of about £18million was secured through a securitisation loan, presumably secured against the land and ground. Now we are told we have a "significant non-securitised debt". Just how significant is this debt over and above the securitised debt. The next set of accounts should make interesting reading.

 

[Ken Aries 0]

If we are in debt as the second best supported club in the Championship, it begs the question: how on earth do clubs like Crewe and Brighton survive on gates of between 6 - 8,000?

[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]

Crewe and Brighton SELL players like Ashton, they don''t a) buy them and b) pay their wages like we do. I expect Green, Hux, Ashton are all on pretty big wages for this level.As for our debt... we were running at a huge loss before we got promoted (something like £4.6m in the year we did get promoted). So we probably broke even in the Prem and with the parachute money are still doing so. More to the point, what would our debt have been like if we HADN''T been promoted!!The club is very well run compared to most others. We get a chance to see the books once per year when the accounts are published, so there''s no hiding. We''ll see the true income from promotion in the set of accounts due out soon, having seen the ''costs'' of promotion in the previous year.

[Cloughie 0]

Sorry but I do not consider myself a doommonger.  The question I asked was a simple one ie What monies have been received for the sale of valuable land.  The reason I ask is that when the new Jarrold Stand was planned it was stated that the cost of the stand would be covered by the sale of land.  In the same way I remember that we were told the cost of the infill would be 3/4 of a million pounds and it seems to have escalated to 4 and a half million. 

As the club seems to be bringing fewer and fewer home produced players into the team is it reasonable that £12 million has been spent on buildings and a small fraction of that on players.  If that is doommongering fair enough but it does seem a reasonable question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ronbol ronbol 0]

somthing like 4.6m?

don''t know where you get you figures from, but your somthing like 4.6m is actually 1.8m a big difference.

somehting like 1.8m! was a budgeted loss. The figures would have looked no worse if we hadn''t been promoted.

[Huddy 0]

i wouldn''t worry to much, i think its more of a wilg guess because the accounts are released  about a year after the period ends and i don''t think any figures have been pub;ished yet. I hope  that when the accounts for the period ending  this summer are published it wont be 20 million, and then there is still the parachutes. so  dont worry YET

[Moanin Riverender 0]

A reminder for you all,some questions answered. 03 December 2004 09:01 When Norwich City achieved promotion in April, many people thought a magic wand would be waved to wipe out all the club''s debts. The step up to the promised land would bring with it untold riches from the Sky TV deal and an end to City''s years of financial worries – or so they thought. But while Sky will boost the Canary coffers by between £18m-£19.5m – even if the team finishes bottom of the Premiership – increased costs in the top flight mean City are expecting to have large debts for many years to come. Today''s announcement of the annual accounts from June 1, 2003 to May 31, 2004 makes grim reading on the face of it. The figures include: Record overall debts of £18.1m – up from £8m in 2002-3 Losses for the year of £3.3m, compared with £4.6m in 2002-3 Expenditure during the season up from £16.9m to £19.7m. But there are also plenty of good points to report, including: Sell-out crowds for the whole season Gate receipts up by £400,000, despite one side of Carrow Road being off limits as the South Stand was replaced Merchandising turnover passing £2m for the first time Overall turnover up to £14m from £13m. The increase in debt to £18.1m comes mainly because the club has received the second £7.5m instalment of its £15m securitisation loan. The loan, announced last year, enabled the Canaries to build the Jarrold Stand, manage all their debts and pay them off gradually over 15 years. But because there are huge penalties if the debt is settled early, the overall debt figure is only likely to reduce gradually during that time. The extra £2.5m comes in the shape of the deal to buy land behind Carrow Road from Laurence Scott and Electromotors. The £3.3m loss for the year would have been a small profit without the costs associated with promotion to the Premiership. The gambles paid off as City stormed to the Division One title – with players collecting £1.6m in bonuses. The accounts for 2004-5 will show more of the effects of elevation to the top flight, with £2.5m having been spent on new players in the summer, and up to £1.5m potentially on top of that in bonuses and appearance fees. Nonetheless, club officials were upbeat about the future, and predicted a profit of £6.5m at the end of this season. (Neil Doncaster) "But we have the benefit of all the Sky TV money coming in over the next year. The accounts lag a year behind reality. If we were relegated at the end of the season, that year''s accounts would look pretty good." Next year''s predicted profit is tempered by some known outgoings, including £3.25m to build the in-fill between the Jarrold and Norwich & Peterborough stands. This years accounts will be most interesting. Cloughie,to answer your question,the club received 6 million pounds from Taylor Woodrow for the Riverside land,payable over 2 years in instalments.