How Can We Reinvest ?? The big problem !

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Who said yes to RVW and Hooper though Norfolk?[/quote]Both of whom had excellent scoring records before coming here, only to be mis-used and ruined by the same clown that asked the board to sign them...If we signed Aguero and asked him to to play as a target man and he failed miserably, would it be the fault of the board for sanctioning a move for a world class striker, or the manager who played him in completely the wrong way?

[Duncan Edwards 2,219]

I really can''t see what all the fuss is about here.

Stone said something along the lines that the fact we have spent four years out of six in the Prem but no farther forward is a damning indictment of how the club was run during that period.

The people running the club during that period? Well it depends who you believe.

Some would say an omnipotent McNally, others would say that everyone bar Delia was a puppet and others would say that it was a combination of the various incumbents of influential positions during the 6 year period.

That would seem to be the most sensible take and so, at least by inference, it was Steve Stone that suggested we''d been mismanaged during the tenure of Bowkett.

Now, I really don''t see that this was particularly difficult to work out Tilly and there was certainly no need for such entrenched positions when the initial mention of Bowkett by Nutty was of the context to actually defend his honour!!!

As you were.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Surely we were told all players had a relegation clause.

It''s funny how views change. January 2016 the board has a right go at staying up. So much so that the wallet was empty that summer.

Did the board try that hard in January 2014 after the summer signings didn''t work out?

It seems to me that they''re never right. It''s easy with hindsight to continually call them out for whatever they do.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Lets just say the signing didnt work out Indy. Not for Hughton, Adams or Neil. Why it didnt won''t change that.

[king canary 7,578]

@nutty

I''d generally never blame the board for a signing- they back their managers and trust them to know who they are signing.

It isn''t hindsight though to say they have fairly consistently stuck with managers for too long.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Not hindsight Kingo.

It''s opinion. ''And the unknown is whether sticking with them for a shorter time would have changed history.

[king canary 7,578]

Well of course but it''s a hypothetical. If you could only talk facts on here it would be pretty dull.

We can''t prove that sacking Neil in November would have improved our fortunes, equally we can''t prove that sacking him the day after Wembley wouldn''t have kept us up.

[Captain Birdseye 0]

I tend to agree with Nutty that the problem was bowkett he could see the financial storm approaching he had created and got out whilst the going was good

[Indy 3,283]

Hang on, there was a thread which pointed to the fact that Bowkett left then the coffers opened, so he was the prudent member on the board! Can''t blame Bowkett for being prudent then say it''s at his hand that we''re in the position we are in!

Bowkett left prior to us pushing out 16 million on Naismith and 7 million on Klose, so FMT really be blamed for the financial shite we are in.

Stone being our financial director must take some criticism himself as director of finance since 2015, funny just after we cleared the debt and loans, must have had some input into playing budgets!

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I agree Kingo. But if you look at the last 6 seasons they have been successful compared to the majority of our contemporaries. Yes we''d have liked them to be even more successful and can point to a few clubs who have done better.

BTW I reckon the season that cost us was when we were relegated in 2014. That season the board were convinced we''d stay up. I include Bowkett and McNally in that because they both spoke at length at that agm.

But blame them? that would be far too simple. Its football and as McNally always took great pains to point out football is cyclical.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

Exactly that; the irresponsible spend happened once he left under Ed Balls

[norfolkngood 1,086]

I was told hard to state as fact but the person who told me would know that Naismith would only sign if he did not have a clause in his contract if we went down

Norwich was not his first choice but his only choice so that is why he stated he would only sign if that was the case

can i prove it no i can not can you prove it is not the case no

BUT Nutty you already said someone who processes to be in the know i know very little ;-)

[Badger 2,405]

Dean Coney''s boots "Exactly that; the irresponsible spend happened once he left under Ed Balls."

What irresponsible spend? We went down with a

small deficit - in the hope that the extra spend would keep us up. Given

the difficulty in gaining promotion, it might be seen as a reasonable

risk, especially as we were buying saleable assets. I really think that you don''t understand the real problem which is the annual loss of the majority our revenue.Our

revenue in the last Premier League season was just under £100 million;

if we don''t get promoted we will have a revenue of about £30 million. We

have a playing staff that were on premier league wages and the better

ones wanted to keep it that way - of course there were player sales. It

seems to me that you are trying to come up with some complicated

conspiracy theory when it is all blindingly obvious - unless there is

something ITK knowledge that you have and I don''t know. Teams that get relegated from the PL have to make big cuts and sell players - it''s simple.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]I was told hard to state as fact but the person who told me would know that Naismith would only sign if he did not have a clause in his contract if we went down

Norwich was not his first choice but his only choice so that is why he stated he would only sign if that was the case

can i prove it no i can not can you prove it is not the case no

BUT Nutty you already said someone who processes to be in the know i know very little ;-)[/quote]

Yes.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/News/2016/october/city-release-2015-16-accounts/

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

-    Ensuring financial position remains strong despite relegation, due to no debt and relegation clauses in all player contracts 

[norfolkngood 1,086]

well if that is true then i stand corrected one possible was he included in those accounts ??

[westcoastcanary 173]

This debate is being conducted in the wrong terms. There is a difference between responsibility, and blameworthiness, likewise between decisions taken and strategies adopted which went wrong, and mismanagement. When Stone says that, despite spending four of the last six seasons in the EPL, the club has not advanced, he is simply pointing to a series of decisions etc. throughout that period which have de facto failed to deliver the intended result, i.e. to become an established EPL club. 

The debate is also flawed in not starting from a proper analysis of the size of the problem facing those running the club if the objective of becoming established in the EPL was to be achieved. My opinion has always been that the seeds of our failure were already sown in the meteoric rise under Lambert, which catapulted us into the top tier before any of the necessary groundwork could be laid. In terms of our ill-preparedness as a club for long-term survival in the EPL, we could best be compared, not with Southampton, or Swansea, or Watford, or Bournemouth, but Blackpool. People hurling brickbats at those who have been in charge of our club might like to contrast where "failure" finds us with the fate which has befallen Blackpool. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Naismith signed in Jan 2016 and that accounting period is up to June 2016. So unless there''s some massive deception of shareholders taken place he''s in there buddy. Me and Tilly knew that BTW because we sat together at the agm.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

well you are correct then

only going by what i was told

the board would be 100 % truthful at AGM

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Great post Westie. At no point was I suggesting Bowkett had held the club back. That was just mischief making. My view is the opposite in that I think the past six seasons have been successful and I believe our club is in a better position now than it was before those six seasons happened.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

So nutty now this thread has died down what do you think the debt rose to since last AGM ?

like you said last AGM it was 6/7 mill so before the much need players sold and released you think it is possible it doubled ?

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

How Can We Reinvest ?? The big problem !

Keep an eye on Sean McGuire, just about to move from Cork City to PNE, not someone brought in by AN but scouted before change of management. Pretty much a goal a game this season for Cork. Sharp little Fecker.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I didn''t think we had any debt at the end of the last published financial year but from memory we were expected have some in the year up to June 2017. Those accounts are not published until the autumn. By the time they are published we will already be well into the following year. But if they expected a loss last season we can only assume a greater loss this season as we have less parachute payments.

We do know that the club understand this and are told constantly that they plan ahead for different outcomes. Steve Stone has said that he has to budget for the future with alternatives for where we would be.

For me it''s not all doom and gloom. Seeing Stone, Webber and Farke together last week filled me with optimism. Three young men driving the club forward. Interesting and hopefully exciting times.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]So nutty now this thread has died down what do you think the debt rose to since last AGM ?

like you said last AGM it was 6/7 mill so before the much need players sold and released you think it is possible it doubled ?[/quote] The figure of £8M quoted by Steve Stone at the 2016 AGM was what, at that point in time, the board anticipated the debt would be at the end of the financial year (June 2017). So your question is whether the actual figure could have been double that, i.e. £16M, at the end of June 2017. 

As for the answer, among reasons to expect a significantly increased level of debt are surely the costs of the multiple hiring and firing that has since taken place -- from the departure of Moxey, Neil and others to the recruitment of Webber, the new coaching team and various backroom staff; and that''s over and above any new signings. I find it completely plausible that the true current level of debt more or less equates to the combined actual up front proceeds from the sale of Murphy, Howson and Dorrans.