'Prudence with ambition'

[Bill 1,788]

Prudence without ambitionclick

[TIL 1010 4,750]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]i do not mind the club living within its means

its our club and we will find the level we should be at

with the income we should have high''s and lows exactly as we have had That''s fine i can live with that

Norwich always have had to sell players i can live with that also

BUT as others have pointed out the last AGM we were told debt of 6/7 million that''s fine also not putting the club at risk meaning we had to get rid of high earners and sell some

yes i understand that we did release alot of high earners also sold Dorrens and howson / Rudd

that should of got us pretty much even and got the new era a blank bank sheet a fresh start

but no we sell Murphy for 12.5 and told the money is going to wipe off the overdraft

so lets look at it this way we sold nearly lets say 17 million pound of talent and saved ALOT of wages with players sold and released

that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???

that is where my feeling for the owners comes in you can talk about the scum millions in debt other clubs in debt but the common factor with most other clubs is that the owner can wipe the debt at any time

if we get into 17 million pounds worth of debt can our owners wipe that off ? no they can not with their wealth they can put the club in debt with loans but not write a cheque and pay it

so my final part is Delia put this club or her employees did 17 million in debt again ! lucky we had players to pay it off this time next time we might not be so lucky[/quote][Y]

[Bill 1,788]

"that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???"no, that''s just you having a guessand point me to where the club has stated anything about the transfer fee and an overdraft

[norfolkngood 1,087]

sorry for lack of spaces in post they were there !!!

also bill the homepage read the bit about Murphy signing for Newcastle

and if i am guessing why after all the released players Howson and Dorrans / Rudd sales are we still paying off a overdraft if we were not around that figure in debt ??

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

The most annoying thing is we have been here before, sorted it and thought the club was being run by CEO''s with the knowledge not to let it happen again. As Steve Stone says we have had four of the last six seasons in the Premiership and have nothing to show for it. What were the CEO''S doing apart from counting their bonuses.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]sorry for lack of spaces in post they were there !!!

also bill the homepage read the bit about Murphy signing for Newcastle

and if i am guessing why after all the released players Howson and Dorrans / Rudd sales are we still paying off a overdraft if we were not around that figure in debt ??[/quote]

So as I said you don''t know, you are just guessingThe released players mean we don''t have to pay wages we do not have the money forPlayer payments are in stages. Those stages maybe negoitable for other transfers (assigned I would imagine) but cannot be used to clear an overdraft until the money comes in.If I owe you a couple of pints, It matters little what I am owed... until you have been paid for those pints they are outstanding. If someone thengives me a £20 note I can repay you the pints. It doesn''t mean those two pints cost £20

[TIL 1010 4,750]

City1st the £6/7 million overdraft was a figure given to the shareholders at the last AGM.

[Essjayess 307]

[quote user="Barnacle Bill"]Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...And so many are nottake our impoverished neighbours they have one of these so called ''hinvestors''all he does is take whatever isn''t nailed downI''m quite happy as we are[/quote]Agree with Bill totally. Also the "many that are not" will only increase to, as the clubs with these so called "rich owners" are increasing quite rapidly, but now far outweighing any positions available in the upper tier which would deem a club to be "successful". As for "surprise , surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well", you think Delia does not?..a more fervent at heart ardent supporter you are likely never to meet than herself.Talk of "fresh wind of change", i think Delia is giving that to our club right now, and same time responsibly responding financially to our state of affairs. That both things are happening, yet i personally feel quite excited and optimistic about whats happening, especially after 4 or so years of Hughton / AN, excepting ANs initial 6 months, is no mean feat in my eyes.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Essjayess"][quote user="Barnacle Bill"]Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...And so many are nottake our impoverished neighbours they have one of these so called ''hinvestors''all he does is take whatever isn''t nailed downI''m quite happy as we are[/quote]Agree with Bill totally. Also the "many that are not" will only increase to, as the clubs with these so called "rich owners" are increasing quite rapidly, but now far outweighing any positions available in the upper tier which would deem a club to be "successful". As for "surprise , surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well", you think Delia does not?..a more fervent at heart ardent supporter you are likely never to meet than herself.Talk of "fresh wind of change", i think Delia is giving that to our club right now, and same time responsibly responding financially to our state of affairs. That both things are happening, yet i personally feel quite excited and optimistic about whats happening, especially after 4 or so years of Hughton / AN, excepting ANs initial 6 months, is no mean feat in my eyes. [/quote]totally agreeI don''t want us to be another plastic club, in a souless plastic ground with distant owners who regard as nothing more than their play thing or money laundering facility.Would we get the meetings of last week, where fans could talk to directors/coach etc  ? Would we still really have the type of supporters who would put the tremendous effort to arrange such great nights ?There is a togetherness'' in this club that you would go along way to find elsewhere ?And I heed the wise words of one of those now seeing out his last few days in the ''blankets'' young master Nigel. "It is often a lot more fun getting into the PL than being there''So stop upsetting yourself because yours isn''t the shinest newest bike on the street. Maybe a few ups and downs are better than the stagnation of clinging onto a PL place. just as a play off place and stuffing the binners before a brilliant day out at Wembley was better than automatic so another tilt at the title this season will be a helluva lot more fun than appearing last on MOTD every Sat night.So we are who we are. So why not enjoy it and stop friggin'' whining.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

[quote user="Salopian"]

The new system under Webber really does seem to be cautious and careful. We have spent relatively little, but we seem to have obtained quality.[/quote]

You say we have obtained quality. On what do you base this? A few friendly games against the likes of Lowestoft?

Is Gunn fit for the championship having never played a competitive game. Nobody can say. That is a risk not a promise of quality.

Is Zimmerman any better than Turner or Bassong? Doubtful given his pedigree but again who knows. Transfer fee suggests not.

Is the expensive German centre back an improvement in Bennet- impossible to say. Probably little difference. Why is Martin still here? Is losing the unit Dijks for Husband, unwanted biro third choice, a quality improvement? I can''t see it.

Is losing Howson and Dorrans and Murphy and gaining Reed (untested) and Marley and Vrancic a sign of quality. Again impossible to say but very unlikely.

Sorry but some are really optimistic simply because there is chnge. That is no guarantee, nor is Webbers one season at Huddersfield.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]City1st the £6/7 million overdraft was a figure given to the shareholders at the last AGM. [/quote]yes I am aware of thatI was questioning"that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???"anfd asked if their was an official (club) statement to that affecta post later norfolkngood stated that the £17m figure was just a guessthat''s all

[norfolkngood 1,087]

i didnt post later bill

this quite rightly was "that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???"

approx and guess in that sentence means just that approx figure or at a guess ??? means i am guessing !!!

NOW we know as fact that the debt was 6/7 as said at AGM agreed ?

now we know the figures approx ( guessing again ) what we sold Rudd / Howson / Dorrans for and we know as fact we released 7 players

so would you not agree that would wipe out 6/7 million ?? or at a guess that would be pretty close

now bill we then sold a player for 12.5 ok i agree that''s not all in one go but neither are our outgoing transfers in one go ( again a guess )

so here we are with the Murphy money and told we were going to wipe off the money we had on overdraft

so at a guess it must be north of 15 million owed if we released 7 players sold howson sold rudd sold dorrans sold Murphy and we are told that will clear overdraft

so you tell me and i accept it will be a guess as nobody knows until accounts are announce how much do you think we were in debt ?

[lappinitup 629]

While some of you are extolling the virtues of Marcus Evans, down the road the opposite seems to be happening.......[quote user="Jim Smith"]despite the disparaging comments about Evans he

props up the sc*m and enables them to run at a loss.[/quote][quote user="Time to go Delia"]even Evans puts money in when was the last time Smith put a penny into Norwich .[/quote]Meanwhile, over at TWTD...... "Frankly Town could do with someone who has the club at heart as much as she does the budgies"https://www.twtd.co.uk/forum/409789/cameron-jerome-to-forest-for-%EF%BF%BD6m/#35It seems some football fans are envious of other clubs whoever they may be.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]i didnt post later bill

this quite rightly was "that means we were approx or at a guess 17 million in debt ???"

approx and guess in that sentence means just that approx figure or at a guess ??? means i am guessing !!!

NOW we know as fact that the debt was 6/7 as said at AGM agreed ?

now we know the figures approx ( guessing again ) what we sold Rudd / Howson / Dorrans for and we know as fact we released 7 players

so would you not agree that would wipe out 6/7 million ?? or at a guess that would be pretty close

now bill we then sold a player for 12.5 ok i agree that''s not all in one go but neither are our outgoing transfers in one go ( again a guess )

so here we are with the Murphy money and told we were going to wipe off the money we had on overdraft

so at a guess it must be north of 15 million owed if we released 7 players sold howson sold rudd sold dorrans sold Murphy and we are told that will clear overdraft

so you tell me and i accept it will be a guess as nobody knows until accounts are announce how much do you think we were in debt ?[/quote]"NOW we know as fact that the debt was 6/7 as said at AGM agreed"minus Brady to Burnley"how much do you think we were in debt ?"£17m perhaps ?

[cornish sam 954]

Just a point Norfolkngood, I know you are privy to inside information so you may tell me I''m wrong on this, but, most transfers these days are seemingly structured with payments spread out, either in installments or dependent on triggers (e.g. the 12.5m for Murphy is being reported in Newcastle as 10+2.5 add one and that 10 probably isn''t all up front) so it could be the case that the overdraft is still 6-10m but the fees we have received thus far cover that and nothing more. Yes, we could spend in anticipation of what we should get but then there''s risk and interest on it that reduces the bang for the buck...

[Hairy Canary 704]

If we were looking at a debt of £6/7 million at the AGM then it is reasonable to deduce that that had built up during a season with full parachute money.

The parachute money this year is several millions less so, assuming we do nothing to trim our costs, we would have a much bigger debt by the end of this year. Therefore we need to sell and reduce wages in order to keep us in a debt free situation.

Jacob''s fee is not just needed to pay off the £6/7 million but also to make up the shortfall of this year''s income.

[Badger 2,406]

It is not about clearing a £7 million debt, it is about sensible preparation for the possibility that we do not get promoted this year.When we were in the premier league our revenue was £98million. Our wage bill was £67 million.If we do not get promoted this year, our revenue will be about £30 million and we would not be able to sustain a wage bill of £20 million for long.I have no inside knowledge, but have seen figure of 20% quoted as the wage reduction for relegation. If this is true, we would need to plan for about another £35 million in wage reductions for our two years on parachute payments. This year''s player releases and last, will not have reached that amount imo - I guess about half of it but we will have more idea when the new accounts are published.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]If we were looking at a debt of £6/7 million at the AGM then it is reasonable to deduce that that had built up during a season with full parachute money.

The parachute money this year is several millions less so, assuming we do nothing to trim our costs, we would have a much bigger debt by the end of this year. Therefore we need to sell and reduce wages in order to keep us in a debt free situation.

Jacob''s fee is not just needed to pay off the £6/7 million but also to make up the shortfall of this year''s income.[/quote]

That''s what I was saying on the other thread before it was wrecked Hairy. And even if we go with the bookies we have 3 times more chance of remaining in the champs than getting promoted. And I''m not anywhere near even that confident. But whatever you think our chances are the most likely outcome is that we will still be in the Champs 18/19. The board would be derelict in their duty if they didn''t plan for that outcome.

However the main complaint now seems to be that they didn''t plan for it when in the PL. And yet the main complaint then was that they didn''t push the boat out enough. It''s nuts.

[lharman7 39]

nutty nigel wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 11:44 PM:

Hairy Canary wrote:

If we were looking at a debt of £6/7 million at the AGM then it is reasonable to deduce that that had built up during a season with full parachute money. The parachute money this year is several millions less so, assuming we do nothing to trim our costs, we would have a much bigger debt by the end of this year. Therefore we need to sell and reduce wages in order to keep us in a debt free situation. Jacob''s fee is not just needed to pay off the £6/7 million but also to make up the shortfall of this year''s income.

That''s what I was saying on the other thread before it was wrecked Hairy. And even if we go with the bookies we have 3 times more chance of remaining in the champs than getting promoted. And I''m not anywhere near even that confident. But whatever you think our chances are the most likely outcome is that we will still be in the Champs 18/19. The board would be derelict in their duty if they didn''t plan for that outcome.

However the main complaint now seems to be that they didn''t plan for it when in the PL. And yet the main complaint then was that they didn''t push the boat out enough. It''s nuts.

Yet another case of damned if they do!

[Captain Birdseye 0]

Awful owners making awful decisions

[king canary 7,609]

I feel like the ownership debate comes down to a debate between idealism and pragmatism.

Ideally I''d like to keep our current ownership model. We''re not beholden to the whims of a billionaire, the owners have the best interests of the club at heart and are genuinely fans.

However pragmatically I can''t see how we can compete for much longer without extra investment. Our current owners are one of the least wealthy in the Championship let alone the Premier League and their nephew appears to have even less money. It''s not about being able to spend £30m every summer but if we don''t go up this season then we''re going to be relying on sales every year to keep us going.

[Badger 2,406]

[quote user="king canary"]I feel like the ownership debate comes down to a debate between idealism and pragmatism.

Ideally I''d like to keep our current ownership model. We''re not beholden to the whims of a billionaire, the owners have the best interests of the club at heart and are genuinely fans.

However pragmatically I can''t see how we can compete for much longer without extra investment. Our current owners are one of the least wealthy in the Championship let alone the Premier League and their nephew appears to have even less money. It''s not about being able to spend £30m every summer but if we don''t go up this season then we''re going to be relying on sales every year to keep us going.[/quote]I agree with most of what you have to say King, except about the point about investment. Investors put money into a business in the expectation of making a return on it: it is not a gift.In the long run, they are hoping to take money out of the business, not put it in.

[lake district canary 4,533]

Well I''m of the opoinion that all the money swishing around football is starting to make less difference to what happens. You can keep pumping money in, but there is a limit as to how much players are worth and even if there were enough quality players around to justify the huge fees being paid, they will be spread more thinly around all the clubs that have the most money. Think of it like this - ten years ago there may have been ten clubs vying for the best players available, five years ago there might have been 15 clubs vying for the best players available.....this year there is maybe twenty five clubs vying for the best players if you include rich championship clubs - so it is fairly obvious that the best players are getting thinner on the ground and the rich clubs will be fishing for lesser players, but still having to pay stupid prices (hence Assombalonga to Middlesbrough).  So imo the lines are being blurred and that a good club (like ours) will still be able to get players that are good enough to compete with the richer clubs like Middsbro, Sheff Wed etc etc.  It is just that the richer clubs in the championship will find it difficult to get enough for their money to put them too far ahead of us and any club that is living within its means. All I''ve written above may be guff,  but I refuse to believe that a well run club that is self sufficient cannot compete with the rest simply because they have less money.  The clubs above us in the money stakes may have more ability to attract players, but there is a limit to the kind of players that are available that would put them so very far ahead of us in the football stakes. And I''d rather we were a self-sufficient club with a tradition of supporters as owners, than a club that has sold out to big money - basically because money is no longer a guarantee of success.  There are only twenty clubs in the PL and there are now maybe getting towards 30 clubs that can be considered rich.....they cannot all be successful.

[Badger 2,406]

I agree with what you say LDC and would go further in highlighting the risks of selling out to money. We have already seen people like Randy Lerner pull out of English Football because the risk-return ratio is too high. Villa were lucky, they managed to find another very rich owner to pick up the debts, but this will not happen indefinitely. They made a loss of over £80m in 2015-16 alone. Looking at their transfer activity last year, they will have made a very big loss again last year. Even billionaires cannot sustain that level of loss for ever and at some stage business will look at the debt that they will inherit and see that it dwarfs the potential return.

[king canary 7,609]

@badger

Yes, investors probably isn''t the right word. But I''m fairly sure most owners of clubs realise they aren''t making money off it.

I don''t see any point in naming individual takeover that went wrong though - for everyone you name, someone else can probably name one that did work out.

[T 190]

Would the serial miserable ignorant trolls be happy and stop moaning if we were taken over my foreign owners. I doubt it.

[Badger 2,406]

[quote user="king canary"]@badger

Yes, investors probably isn''t the right word. But I''m fairly sure most owners of clubs realise they aren''t making money off it. They may realise this, but they hope to make money in the future. Would you not be a little suspicious of a say, Chinese billionaire with no affinity to the area who decided to buy us and pump in tens or hundreds of millions of pounds for no return? It''s not as if we are even in an area blessed with good communications, where they can get to easily or "high profile." If I really thought that there was such a person/ people who would pump all this money in and then not try to recover as much as possible if it did not work out, I would jump at it - I just don''t think that it is very likely, that''s all.I don''t see any point in naming individual takeover that went wrong though - for everyone you name, someone else can probably name one that did work out.Statistically this cannot be the case - there have been far more takeovers from foreign and business investors than there are established and profitable premier league teams. People who say this are victims of "confirmation bias" - but they honestly believe it and I doubt that they will change their minds.[/quote]

[king canary 7,609]

Yes they probably won''t have entirely selfless motivations but clearly the owners of teams like Sheffield Wednesday or similar are getting something out of their ownership. I don''t even think we need a billionaire but someone with the wealth of a Steve Gibson can allow a team to be competitive.

[norfolkngood 1,087]

Maybe someone with Money who is not a Norwich fan would not be such a bad thing he would run it like a business and not get attached to managers etc like delia maybe more ruthless in business terms

would that be a good thing ?? who knows

will Tom when he gains control be more modern thinking as he maybe ( guess ) less wealth than his Aunt ?

i very much doubt tom would sell but maybe seek help from outside

[Captain Birdseye 0]

Nepotism Tom is a terrifying prospect in owning the club

God help us