Our Obsession With Money

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="Supermarket Sweep"][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]“Directors are not there to fund the club“

In any other owner managed company, a shortfall in cash would have to be funded by the directors themselves or by looking at loans etc. Can’t really imagine any other companies trying to raise capital by asking their customers/fans.[/quote]There is no ''shortfall'' per seThe club is looking to raise money to develop one part. This bond is no more than a loan ie guaranteed repayment and a defined interest payment. As it would appear to be at a lower rate than a commercial loan the board is exercising financial diligence.As it is open to anyone then the club cannot be castigated for "asking their customers/fans", and I''m not too sure what other companies have fans either.Still, if you need a stick this will have to do, I suppose.

[/quote]It isn''t guaranteed at all.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

It’s unsecured.

Not guaranteed at all.

Maybe City Ist should have done some research.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]It’s unsecured.

Not guaranteed at all.

Maybe City Ist should have done some research.[/quote][:D]

[TIL 1010 4,746]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]It’s unsecured.

Not guaranteed at all.

Maybe City Ist should have done some research.[/quote][:D][/quote]Expect the following in no particular order...Oh dear oh dearGuffLieYou just don''t get this do youThat is you just making stuff up againDimwitted..................and so on and so on.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

“Unsecured bonds are not secured by a specific asset, but rather by "the full faith and credit" of the issuer. In other words, the investor has the issuer’s promise to repay but has no claim on specific collateral“.

This doesn’t sound like the initial

capital is GUARANTEED to be repaid, ie unsecured. I thought City 1st claimed it was a “guaranteed loan”? Incorrect unfortunately.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]It’s unsecured.

Not guaranteed at all.

Maybe City Ist should have done some research.[/quote]"Not guaranteed at all."I think notI would suggest you check on what guarantees there areI did

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]It’s unsecured.

Not guaranteed at all.

Maybe City Ist should have done some research.[/quote][:D][/quote]Expect the following in no particular order...Oh dear oh dearGuffLieYou just don''t get this do youThat is you just making stuff up againDimwitted..................and so on and so on.[/quote]I put that down to me ''not suffering fools gladly"

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

There is no guarantee an unsecured bond will be fully repaid. Please research before you post these LIES.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Maybe we could meet before the next home game, City 1st, to discuss.

Whereabouts do you sit?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

It is about faith. Steve Stone and Stuart Webber have already said this. However some of the people I''ve spoken to cite faith in Delia and Michael as reasons to help make up their minds.

There''s no hidden agenda here. They''ve been up front and said it''s an investment where folk can make money if they have faith in Stone and Webber to deliver.

So once the offer has been fully undestood and digested it will come down to how many fans are prepared to invest.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]There is no guarantee an unsecured bond will be fully repaid. Please research before you post these LIES.[/quote]Oh dear,  making up stuff yet againpoint to where I stated that it was unsecured, I didn''t

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Did you not say it was a loan guaranteed to be repaid?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Did you not say it was a loan guaranteed to be repaid?[/quote]No. Check my actual words.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

“This bond is no more than a loan ie guaranteed repayment“

So it’s basically a loan with a guaranteed repayment? Your words.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

What happens if the club doesn’t get promoted?

Where will we suddenly find the money to pay it all back?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]“This bond is no more than a loan ie guaranteed repayment“

So it’s basically a loan with a guaranteed repayment? Your words.[/quote]So you accept that I never said anything about it being secured or unsecured ?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]What happens if the club doesn’t get promoted?

Where will we suddenly find the money to pay it all back?[/quote]Yes, it would be sudden.The five years would leap out on the club with no warning .... or perhaps the club would set aside money for that eventuality over that five year period.As it stands my understanding is that Colney needs upgrading to remain a Cat 1 academy. Staying as that means a few million every year in grants, so there is money to meet the upgrading. However as with much (our wages) it is not paid all upfront so a loan is taken out on the basis on that income stream.How strange I can hear you say... I have never heard of that beforeSo the club has identified this as the most cost effective way of raising the moneyThat''s all

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]What happens if the club doesn’t get promoted?

Where will we suddenly find the money to pay it all back?[/quote]If we got promoted, the money would be relatively peanuts - which emphasises the point that we should have done it when we were in the premier league.

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Football has ALWAYS been dominated by money from throwing coins into blankets to selling the first £5m player to being able to loan in young Gunn.

Money enables a club to be in a position to acquire the better players and therefore achieve the success the fans aspire to.

It needs to be handled well though.

Cloughie wasn''t averse to spending a bit.

John Bond bought a few good ''uns.[/quote]A deliberately provocative piece, Duncan, as good columns should be. Not sure I buy the general idea that there is something unhealthy about the current obsession with money. Broadstairs is right that the sport has always been dominated by lucre, filthy or otherwise. Only nowadays the amounts are frankly obscene, and there is an all too obvious general (but not absolute) correlation between high-spending and on-field success.As to Norwich City, it would take far too much time to work it out, but if there was a chart that linked the wealth of owners in the four divisions of English football to on-field success over the last 20 years then I am sure Smith and Jones would be shown to have significantly out-performed the market.The problem is not their record as owners up to now, which has been generally positive, but their likely record from now on, as they slip further down the ownership rich list.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

I get that. But the question is what if we DON’T get promoted.

We will be ‘legally obliged’ to pay back the money, which will be a large % of our turnover

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]I get that. But the question is what if we DON’T get promoted.

We will be ‘legally obliged’ to pay back the money, which will be a large % of our turnover[/quote]eh ?Where does it say that repayment is linked to promotion It doesn''t, so why do you keep harping on about it ?

[Badger 2,405]

Sorry RB, I missed your point. It''s a known outflow, so there shouldn''t be any issue about making provision for it in cash flow planning. It will have to come out of revenues - they could do this out of one year''s revenue but I would have thought that would be looking to set aside a sum over the period of the bond.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

@Sweep

For somebody that has spent half the thread trying to pretend they haven''t said something they did say, I find it ironic you are trying to claim I have said something I didn''t say. At no point did I say its linked to promotion.

As Badger points out, if we get promoted (which I''m sure is the clubs plan) then the £3.5-£5mil is a small amount compared to money we will bring in.

But if we don''t get promoted the money still has to be paid back - we have to make sure we have that money spare to pay back. But £3.5mil is a large percentage of our current turnover to be able to pay back.

[......and Smith must score. 1,343]

[quote user="Supermarket Sweep"][quote user="Rogue Baboon"]I get that. But the question is what if we DON’T get promoted.

We will be ‘legally obliged’ to pay back the money, which will be a large % of our turnover[/quote]eh ?Where does it say that repayment is linked to promotion It doesn''t, so why do you keep harping on about it ?[/quote]Eh ? RB has correctly said that we are legally obliged to pay back the investors at the end of the bond''s five year life if NCFC is still in existence. The comment that IF we haven''t been promoted in five years the amount we''ll have to find is a large % of our turnover, ie, there''ll be no Premier League TV income, is correct too.Nothing has been said about repayment being linked to promotion.If NCFC goes t*ts up before the end of the five years then investors may lose some or all of their money as the offer isn''t covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The return of any lump sum invested will more than likely be repaid but it is NOT guaranteed.How can that be any clearer ?

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]@Sweep

For somebody that has spent half the thread trying to pretend they haven''t said something they did say, I find it ironic you are trying to claim I have said something I didn''t say. At no point did I say its linked to promotion.

As Badger points out, if we get promoted (which I''m sure is the clubs plan) then the £3.5-£5mil is a small amount compared to money we will bring in.

But if we don''t get promoted the money still has to be paid back - we have to make sure we have that money spare to pay back. But £3.5mil is a large percentage of our current turnover to be able to pay back.[/quote]ohdearDo stop making up stuff. I was merely pointing out that I never once mentioned the word unsecued. That can not (other than your Alice in Wonderland view) be construed as "trying to pretend they haven''t said something they did say," unless you have evidence of where I said that !As to your comment about the bond being linked to promotion then But the question is what if we DON’T get promotedThe

strange thing is you can make up stuff that you want, but not reply to

the awkward bits. Nevermind I am happy to post them up again..My

thought is that Colney needs ''upgrading'' to still qualify for Cat 1.

That status brings with it millions in grants (still with me?). So the

club raises the money and uses some of that money to repay the bond.Not too difficult and so real need to make up stuff about me.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

What grants for a Cat 1 academy?

That''s the first time I have ever heard we get grants for having it? if that''s the case why are clubs choosing not to bother with it? (Watfoprd, Huddersfield etc)

And my point still stands, and others seem to get it to. If we get promoted we can simply pay it out of £150mil or so we get just for being in the Premier League. If we don''t get promoted we have to find that money, but from a much smaller budget.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="Supermarket Sweep"][quote user="Rogue Baboon"]I get that. But the question is what if we DON’T get promoted.

We will be ‘legally obliged’ to pay back the money, which will be a large % of our turnover[/quote]eh ?Where does it say that repayment is linked to promotion It doesn''t, so why do you keep harping on about it ?[/quote]Eh ? RB has correctly said that we are legally obliged to pay back the investors at the end of the bond''s five year life if NCFC is still in existence. The comment that IF we haven''t been promoted in five years the amount we''ll have to find is a large % of our turnover, ie, there''ll be no Premier League TV income, is correct too.Nothing has been said about repayment being linked to promotion.If NCFC goes t*ts up before the end of the five years then investors may lose some or all of their money as the offer isn''t covered by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. The return of any lump sum invested will more than likely be repaid but it is NOT guaranteed.How can that be any clearer ?

[/quote]oh dearThose are NOT RB''s words OR inference so don''t try to argue against what I did say by using your take. Move the argument on by all means but don''t make up stuff.I am fully aware of how this works. The guarantee is in regard to the fixed amount returned as opposed to an equity investment, that is why I did not state secured."IF we haven''t been promoted in five years the amount we''ll have to find

is a large % of our turnover, ie, there''ll be no Premier League TV

income, is correct too.Nothing has been said about repayment being linked to promotion."I think the above is self explanatory.And I''m still can''t work out why you are both under some delusion that the club will have to find the full amount at the end of year five - and not simply ''put away'' the money on an annual basis.All this is doing is raising the money so that the work can begin as soon as possible - with my thought that it is with regard to maintaining CAT 1 status and also the grants that accompany that status.

So I am not sure why both of you are trying to ''muddy the waters''.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

I don''t even think you know what you are talking about now...

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]I don''t even think you know what you are talking about now...[/quote]you making up stuff was where I left itand will do

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Sweep claimed the bonds were effectively loans that were guaranteed to be repaid - they’re not. They’re unsecured bonds.

He then claimed he didn’t say this - however, it’s all there in black and white.

I wouldn’t bother arguing with him - you can’t win an argument with a narcissist. Hopefully he’ll get the validation he’s obviously looking for.