Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

They had a board meeting on the 06/09/05 & the shareholders were told that the club is £33m in debt. They are paying £1.5m per year in interest to Norwich Union & it is likely the £28m capital owed to NU will never be paid. This figure doesn''t include the CVA agreement which must be a few million more debt. They are also charging the sad little fans £2.70 for a can of LIDL premium beer & their poor little fans are getting all irate about it. Sounds like they are going to have many more years of pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its a shame when any team is in such a poor financial state. It is especially a shame when fans are charged so much for everything to do with football. Our own club is no stranger to ludicrously priced drinks and pies. They do taste good though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Considering Ipswich went into administration a few years back, and wiping out 95% of their debt, its incredible that they are so badly in the red. And Sheepshanks was the Football league chairman........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not as if I even need cheering up this morning but that is the stuff dreams are made of.

I tell you what thought the Than’s PR department could teach ours a lesson or two as you never really get this sort of thing reported in the press with the national media having this ill founded perception of them being some sort of well run family club.

In all probability they could well go into administration again at the end of the season as how many of those players are going to bed sold to make up the cash shortfall? And how mnay of them are worth for than £2.95?

Mmmmm receivership…………

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you confirm where you got those figures ?

The original bond was for £25m at 8.9% interest which with an amount of capital repayment would have meant around £2.5m annually over 25 years. Sadly our not too bright neighbours had convinced themselves that it was a mortgage and that £25m over 25 years would amount to £1m a year !

More hilarious has been their other long held belief that 8000 gates would still pay the debt. Not quite. The first 8000 season tickets are earmarked to the debt for the next 25 years or more.

What''s owed to former players in wage deferals is unknown. Last season''s promotion push was funded by the sales of Bent and Davis. Where the money to strengthen the squad is going to come from lord alone knows. Selling cans of Lidl beer clearly shows how far they have sunk. It suggests a lack of faith from their suppliers and a desperate need to maximise returns however ridiculous they look

The club is not a viable investment as it owns nothing as the ground is rented off the council. With little or no investment in the infrastructure they had an awful lot of catching up to do when they reached the Premiership. Their last foray into ground development was the ill fated Pioneer stand which crippled them. Can''t remember the Barclay or River end development doing that to us.

The poor saps have not yet reached the £5m annual wage target so try and imagine what the squad will be like with further cuts. Even that wage level could well be cut if(when) the gates drop.

Well they might wave ''grandad''s medals'' at us - gained when their club was the plaything of two exceedingly, wealthy old Etonian''s. Unfortunately that plan was not replicated this time around when they acquired the services of another old Etonian - who might have been a true blue in many ways but has left then with the same colour as his face.

Deeply in the red !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now HANG ON a minute boys! Are we (with our £18.5M securitisation laon from AXA, REALLY in a position to make fun? I think not).

I have no time for Ipswich and the ''chip on the shoulder'' Suffolk mentality that HATES anything to do with Norwich or Norfolk but you lot could be setting yourselves up here.

1. If they DID have a Board meeting as alleged and told their shareholders that news then how come there was absolutely NOTHING about it on the local radio, TV or in the press??

2. Mad Dan and the guy who kicked this thread off both seem to have inside knowledge of the affairs of ITFC finances but BOTH have quoted vastly different figures! First post says the annual interest is £1.5M, the other says it''s 8.9% OF £25M (which by my maths is £2.225M). Still whats a mere £1M (nearly) per year between friends? Then there''s the capital owed, is it £25 OR £28M? I am not standing up for Ipswich but UNLESS someone, somewhere can actually get hold of a copy of their latest accounts and the terms of the deal with NU, I''m afraid much of this stuff is just speculation. BUT, to be fair to the two posters, there is no doubt that ITFC are in a poor financial position.

3. Knowing NU from a previous life, I would be absoutely amazed if they had not written something into the deal to safeguard the capital repayments (even allowing for the fact that the ground does, as you rightly say, belong to the Council). If that ''security'' is the first 8000 season ticket sales every year then I can only assume that ITFC will have to make all other financial sacrifices before they could renage on that. Loaning to football clubs is notoriously risky and I honestly don''t see NU entering into that sort of deal without being as sure as they could resonably be at the time that they would get their money back. UNLESS of course the guy who signed the deal off at NU was a Binner (believe me there are several of them crawling around the woodwork at NU!).    

4. ''Can''t remember the Barclay or River End development doing that to us'' Well may be not but do we honestly think that we afforded both projects with no financial problems? Get real, please. Did we not sell Kevin Reeves to (effectively) pay for the new River End in 1980? Also, how did the £8M+ debt that Chase finally revealed in spring 1996 come about? Was not that largely through ''land development'' be it buying flour mills, the land at Colney or the development of the Barclay and then the infills to the City Stand? Have not the current Board borrowed heavily to build The Jarrold / corner infill hence the AXA deal we have, yes i know we partly funded it ourselves through selling the old car park but we still needed £18M to build those stands + cover year on year LOSSES!      

Oh and those ''8000 season ticket sales every year just to service the debt for 25 years or more''. Don''t snigger at that but check the facts of our own deal first. You will find chillingly similar terms I can assure you!     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here is the link have a look at it.

http://www.ipswichtown.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=911&p=2&stid=8391981

The difference YR is that our debt is considerably smaller & included in our repayments there is a capital repayment thus reducing the debt year on year. We also have Capital assets as well as playing assets & a number of these assets are yet to realise the full value. We also receive a parachute payment this & next season. If we needed to we could reduce the debt immediately with the sale of assets & our balance sheet is reasonably strong. They don''t have any assets to sell neither from a capital or a player point of view & will find it tough work in the coming seasons to be a force. I understand the point you are making but feel that we are in a much stronger position financially due to good Board management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just out of interest, why did NORWICH Union lend money to IPSWICH town? Is it a plan by a far sighted City fan at Head Office to put the scum out of existence when they renege on the deal and NU have to foreclose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see paralells reported between the debts of both NCFC and ITFC, and the difference between the two debts clearly drawn.  That it is possible for Ipswich to get into such a bad financial position and compound on the previous situation is woeful. We can only be pleased that NCFC is in a sounder financial position both in real estate ownership and a board that has at the present time retained some semblance of prudent accounting. However, as one member points out we have our debts and cannot afford to be be complacent or rash in our spending control. To smirk at the situation that ITFC finds itself in is to pass  an ironic judgement on the amount of debt incurred by the spenders of our populationwho hav gone open eyed into a trillion pound credit card who have much adjusting to do to ever get their finances under control.  It almost looks as if there is a national finance virus in the air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been most impressed with the points put forward and the comparrison with the NCFC financial position. Two very important issues separate the two clubs however.  Was it not David Sheepshank who stated that Ipswich were a financial role model for smaller clubs and did they not subsequently go into administration ?

What sort of organisation would pay £3.5m for a player, agree to pay him £27,000 per week and then give him a free transfer and a one million pound payoff.  The directors of ITFC are in a league of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a can of the "LIDL" ale before kick off, and if it didn''t quench your thirst, it would certainly clean your teeth!......RANCID!

On the building of the Barclay and infills etc. Wasn''t "Robber Chase" connected to Carter Builders in some ''roundabout thingummy jig way?''

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]I had a can of the "LIDL" ale before kick off, and if it didn''t quench your thirst, it would certainly clean your teeth!......RANCID! On the building of the Barclay and infills etc. Wasn''t "Robber Ch...[/quote]

Yes, Chase was connected. Have you seen his Halvergate mansion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The figures I quoted have been gleaned from various postings. I still stand by them as a number of answers given by Bowditch do not tally with earlier statements from Ipswich Town

see his lordships mumbling apologies

http://ipswichtown.rivals.net/default.asp?sid=911&p=2&stid=8287750

and an excellent article by Rick Waghorn that originally put me on to this some while back

http://www.pinkun.com/Content/ncfc/Columns/rick/2003-4/031129Rick.asp

A few suggestions. The money from the sale of Kevin Reeves may have been used to pay for part of the Riverend development but it was not a case of sell him and built a new stand, likewise with the Barclay. We were running a loss through most of the early 90''s. The figure quoted was simply the sum total of that. It was in fact Chase''s purchase of the land around the ground that secured the club and has been used to fund much of our present growth.

I''m not sure if it was £18m we borrowed more like £15m. As another contributor has correctly stated that is within our grasp and is being paid off. It should also be born in mind when judging the clubs wage/transfer budget that they are having to do the tricky job of aggregating championship income with premiership income to provide an average spend that meets our commitments whilst still moving us forward. That without really knowing which division we are going to be in. Maybe a few of the critics should cast their eyes further south before moaning at the club.

Again what it highlights is the difference between the clubs over the years. Norwich have consistently recognised the need to update their facilities whenever possible whilst the binners have stuck every penny into the players. Even at times when the idea of modern facilities were regarded as heresy and that any money in that direction was a complete waste.

Sadly for the binners it has caught up with them badly. What has been at times more shocking is the absolute nonsense that they have been spouting the past few years. Contrary to their claims of poor Joe struggling with no players they had a wage bill of over £20m the first year they were in this division, £14.3m the year after and around £8m last year.

It couldn''t have happened to a nicer set of fans !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think Robert Chase had any link with Carters at all. However there used to be a link as Sir Arthur South who was chairman of NCFC was, I believe, at one time a director of Carters, hence the close relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies Sparrow and Mad Dan for disbelieving some of what you said. I have just printed off the articles you refer to and will take great delight in trawling through the whole sorry story!

I still say though it is dangerous ground to draw too many conclusions about the respective financial positions. It is aways better to actually own an asset (as we do) than lease it (as they do) but I wonder whether in reality that would make much difference. Ipswich Council after all no doubt have a very cosy relationship with the club on that score at least and are hardly likely to turf them out are they? I knew we were paying off interest and capital on our loan whereas it appears that they are on an ''interest only'' type basis. How could NU,well it''s not them actually, its'' their Fund Management arm Morely based in London, agree to a deal whereby the capital is not secured against anything that they could actually call in? From what this guy Bowden is saying ''''the loan may never be repaid if they stay outside the Premiership''''. I wonder if I can re-mortgage to Morley and then not have to repay any capital when the term expires? Fat chance me thinks!! I can only asssume that no-one at Morley bothered to check whether the Binners actually OWNED their ground.     

I agree that our financial position is probably ''better'' but who are we ''in debt'' to for that? I am no fan at all of Delia Smith (for a number of reasons) but if you subtracted the loans or ''gifts'' of money she has put in where would we be now in solvency terms? In fact you could make a rather bizarre argument for saying that for all their mismanagement, Ipswich are actually ''trying'' to run the thing as it should be i.e. balancing income v expenditure. With us we are heavily reliant (or have been in the past) on Smith''s goodwill. They have had no such luck with a similar benefactor. If Smith ever takes her money out then I wonder what the consequences might be?  

Anyway, do any of you SERIOUSLY wish that the Suffolk lot go out of business? We would lose out on what is a pretty predictable 3 points on those away matches for a start! On a more historical front, there is no doubt that Ipswich have a record of achievement on the field that I doubt we will ever come close to matching. We all know the details (unfortunately!). A Division One championship (the proper one), one FA Cup and a UEFA Cup. That + many, many years of European football under Robson. Pains me very much to say it but set that against 2 League Cup wins, theirs looks a bit more impressive don''t you think.  

Having drawn that strand into the topic, I must say I took great delight yesterday (my first visit since Ginger Nut 1 bulleted that header past Gunn in the last minute), in deriding the binners as they trudged sadly out of the lower tier of the old Churchmans stand. Mind you if it were me and the stick they were getting,i think I would have gone out the other way!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yellow Rider - It is better to own. That''s what much of our debt is secured against. It allows us to borrow against something tangible. We can. The binners can''t. I would also suggest that the Smiths (Delia & Wyn) have secured their ''investments'' against something tangible. Benefactors do not willing hand over money for nothing. That''s the reason the binners haven''t got any interested investors. Invest in what ?

It''s ridiculous to claim that Ipswich are "trying'' to run the thing as it should be i.e. balancing income v expenditure ". The whole point is that they have been reckless with the contracts they issued, carried on trading right up to the administration without giving any warning to their creditors and ran the club with little or no planning for the future other than spend spend spend to get/stay in the Premiership. It should also be born in mind that had they have had to pay all the debts they defaulted upon they would have folded.

One club is working within it''s budget - us. One club is surviving on other people unpaid debts - them.

As to the days of Granda''s medals this has been covered repeatedly. The club was always ran as some closed shop by a small upper class cabal. There is every likelihood that the Cobbold brothers were funding the club way beyond it''s normal means. Nothing illegal and good luck to all concerned. But those days are long gone.

However it has given the Uncle Alberts (''ere ''ave I told you about the time we was in europe ?) a false sense of their own importance and abilities. Remove this money and where are they ? Trying to catch up on years of under investment.

As to us -

" All of which brings us on to the £15m securitisation. Broadly speaking, £7.5m of the loan has been allocated towards paying off short and medium-term debt, paying for some of the site development costs and filling the remainder of the hole left by the collapse of ITV Digital.

"The remaining £7.5m will then help bridge the cost of the new stand. For although the £6m that we should receive from Wilson Connolly will be set against the construction costs of the new stand, that £6m will only come in as staged payments over the next three to four years."

Neil Doncaster 2003

Therefore we''ve repaid our short term debt with a long term loan and have borrowed against future payments from Wilson Connolly. £7.5 m is NOT £32m.

There are also doubts on my part (again) as to where Yellow Rider''s true allegiance lies after his hopeless attempts to put a decent spin on the binner''s third world finances and his doubts cast upon us. Also his quote "but you lot could be setting yourselves up here" speaks volumes.

Poorman Road - the banana republic of English football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let''s not forget that in Neil Doncaster we have an extremely good chief exec (or whatever his title is).

Since Neil came in, the club has moved forward leaps and bounds.  Without wanting to sound totally boring, if you read the club''s accounts and P&L accounts, you will see how far we have moved in a very prudent way.

Yes, we would all liked to have seen us splash out big in a bid to stay in the Prem, but it would not have been for the long term good of the club.  I am, in fact, amazed at the money we have spent - tripling the club previous transfer payment for Ash was a bold move and obviously now an extremely good one - a move that the Scummers could not have made!

And who can forget the game against Forest where Hux was unveiled - I almost(?) had a tear in my eye.

We ARE a very well run club, mixing prudence with ambition and I know that with our financial team in place, we will stay that way - and be able to have a great laugh at the predicament of Fat Potato Head and his team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mad Dan!!!

Not often the Yellow Rider knows when to quit but this is one of those moments (so make the most of it while you can!). Your comments are well researched and excellently written - well done. I was not trying to justify their (Ipswich) disgraceful treatment of local businesses etc. who received virtually nothing as unsecured creditors or their distinctly ''holier than thou'' self portrayed image. 

BUT, make no mistake Yellow Rider IS 100% CANARY YELLOW - that is as much a fact as night following day, I can assure you of that!  I think over 30 years of support, sackloads of Pink Un''s in the loft and shed and garage, Ambassador 200 member and a leading light in the Chase Out campaign should kill that particular slur! 

There are one or two points I would dispute but others will get bored. You talk of benefactors not giving something for nothing basically did you not? The name Jack Walker springs to mind. Closer to home did not Geoffrey Watling ''write off'' (via his will) a loan to us of £1.5M?  

Still, I repeat (and agree with you) that we are (at the moment) a ''better run club'' and have been so for a few years now than the Binners. Interesting is''nt it though that through this particular post, the boy Doncaster is being praised (rightly so in my view) whereas only a few weeks ago he was the victim of many a tirade of abuse at his ''prudent'' approach?  

I can be found in Block K, Row W Seat 120 on Saturday if you would like to discuss further, it''s been a great topic to discuss.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]I don''t think Robert Chase had any link with Carters at all. However there used to be a link as Sir Arthur South who was chairman of NCFC was, I believe, at one time a director of Carters, hence the c...[/quote]

tumbleweed, as far as i am aware, didn''t one of chase''s daughters marry someone from carters, if that isn''t the connection you are talking about

strange if this is not true, how one building firm managed to secure all the contracts during his reign as supreme leader

thanks, however, for reminding me of the bad days, whatever happens to us this season, it pales in comparison to the bad ole days

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the point of benefactors both Watling and Walker were long term supporters who stepped up when their club needed them. Most other benefactors step in when the club needs anyone. A prime example would be Mathew Harding who was seen by Chelsea fans as a knight in shining armour who rode in to save them whereas in reality he merely unwrote loans to the club at extortionate rates.

Those criticising Doncaster are the usual rabble that can form no more of an argument than two words - one of which is usually out.

Happily Mr Chase stayed long enough to ensure we had a new mainstand and a large lump of land to flog off a few years later.

Also very suprised how ill informed so many fans are when with the net you''ve only got to put in the key words into google and up it comes.

I''ll be the one stood near the dugout with the placard saying ''Worthy out'' ....................... I''ve always wanted to sit there !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i for one would personally be very sorry to the the scum fold - despise them as i do, can you imagine life without local derby''s - without going top of the league on the way to championship at portman road - life without moments like yesterday and recording our first away win for 16months against the binners? cuz i couldnt, and i would even want to contemplate it - so personally - i couldnt be happier that they wont be able to mount any serious promotion challenge for a good few years yet, but i really hope they dont fold...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]tumbleweed, as far as i am aware, didn''t one of chase''s daughters marry someone from carters, if that isn''t the connection you are talking about strange if this is not true, how one building firm man...[/quote]

There definitely appears to be a connection between teeny Chase Builders & slightly less teeny Carters ltd.

As Gazza says, Carters got all the contracts under Chase - ok if they had the best quotes - but I remember they weren''t the cheapest for the (then) new City Stand. The rival tender also allowed for the addition of an upper tier at a later date, without the extra costs to be incurred if we build on the existing stand (I can give more details if you ask). Strange then, given the insurance was paying, that Chase & others on the Board indicated a preference for Carters'' more expensive and less appealing (long-term) design!

This is all a bit off the original thread, but it helps to remember the cloudiness of our finances under Chase - for all that his property investment has come up trumps now. The unanswerable question there is "How much of the profit would have found its way into the transfer kitty under a Chase regime?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Carters build the Jarrold stand? It would mean that they built the whole stadium but under the current regime you can''t see some old historic link clouding the decision making process.

Doncaster is actually a lawyer turned CEO. I believe he started out as a solicitor with a small Bristol firm and supported Bristol Rovers before coming to Norwich when they wanted a company secretary. When Gordon Bennett left Doncaster took over- much of the stability and prudence that now permeates the club was set up by Bennett and Doncaster has carried it on with the benefit of two eminently sensible majority shareholders.

If the facts about Ipswich are true then they must be very close to administration again which would incur a 10 point penalty so I believe. I don''t know much about insolvency but I do remember reading somewhere that the directors have to call in the administrators if the club can''t pay its debts.

While I would feel (slightly) disappointed if they disappeared altogether it would be rather amusing to see them lodged firmly in Divison Two or the Conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember the dark days of Robert Chase and would never wish to return there BUT.....how many times has a new signing/loanee commented on the amazing training facilities at Norwich? And who was far sighted enough to build them? OK so RC may have wanted to simply revel in being Chairman of a Premiership club with A* facilities, but they have helped bring players here. And some of the land acquisitions have also been very beneficial in recent times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
" Strange then, given the insurance was paying, that Chase & others on the Board indicated a preference for Carters'' more expensive and less appealing (long-term) design! "

Even stranger that no one spoke out.

Chase has become a convenient bogey man for all those unable to face the unappealing truth about football finances. The idea of developing the ground, maximising it''s commercial use beyond saturday and the odd midweek game was seen as heresy in the early 90''s. Spending money on state of the art training facilities was akin to the murdering of the innocents. I well remember the battles over replacing the terraces with seating, his getting the Football Grounds Improvement Trust to stump up the £2m of the £2.8m for the new Barclay stand. Pushed through just before the grants were cut.

He took over when we were bankrupt in 1985. We went to 3rd in the Premiership, into europe, oversaw the building of two new stands, the new training facilities and left use a legacy which is now underpinning most of our growth. Whether all that was by accident or design can be debated, but what can''t be is that clubs all to often overspend when trying to maintain success or a higher position.

Many fans have little or no interest in what goes on behind the scenes and happily believe that it''s Xmas everyday and resent anyone who tells them that the decorations have to come down. If I have kicked off against those, that at the first opportunity demand the sacking of such and such, it''s because of having seen how ill informed much of it is.

Those fans with long memories may well remember the routine abuse that Geoffrey Watling received from sections of the crowd in the early 70''s for having the temerity to tell the fans how it was. The abuse was pretty blunt and far coarser than would be allowed now.

I don''t think this is the time now to rake over old coals. What''s done is done and that''s my lot on this matter other than to ask for a bit more trust from some of our fans. Despite our varied differences we are all City fans. If some of us don''t see that our frustrations and feelings of being let down are best dealt with by calling for the heads of those concerned then it is because we have been here before. We''ve learned that all too often there are reasons unbeknown to us and all our huffing and puffing helps no one.

Anyway, I''m off to look out my boots as I''ve got a funny feeling that the team maybe a bit short tonight and if I get there early who knows.

I can even see some headline on the Pinkun site talking about old Cobblers and MadDan

(nothing new there then I hear you say !)

enjoy tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...