eh oop, me ducks

[Bill 1,788]

or not, as it would seem

as Marvin Ducksch is staying in Germany now, not joining us as was suggested

a case of herr today, gone tomorrow

(some might say)

[Diane 500]

City 1st - What happened to 0rgyn the Mighty, that name didnt last long?

As for the German striker think hes going for 3m so we were priced out of the market

[TIL 1010 4,737]

If we are being priced out of the market at 3 million euros what a sorry state of affairs.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]If we are being priced out of the market at 3 million euros what a sorry state of affairs.

[/quote]

With respect to Diane, if he is going to a Bundesliga club, as seems likely, then I imagine that is at least as much a factor as the transfer fee (and probably more so) in us missing out.Whether we would, as it happens, have been willing and able to pay this mooted 3m euros is unknowable. Of course the post-Brexit referendum fall of the pound means 3m euros is more expensive for us than it was beforehand...

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

Pity. I was beginning to like the idea of this player, though only through reports and the fact that he was generating a lot of very decent interest, of course.

Add to this his clear goal-scoring prowess and Farke''s familiarity with him and, on the surface at least, things seemed to fall into place.

Perhaps I am kidding myself but I do not think that we would be stuck for £3-4m Euro, even at this stage.

If it is the case then it would mean that the coffers are virtually empty and I find it difficult accepting this.

In any case, we have equity in our assets, not least James Maddison so if it was strongly considered that this player would go a long way towards solving our striking problems then a bit of temporary borrowing wouldn''t have gone amiss.

All well run businesses know when it is expedient to rely on the loan market in order to improve or expand. Being debt-free is never the be all and end all and adhering to this mantra is timid and can restrict progress.

Of course a speedy sale of the miscreant Nelson Oliveira might have provided some funds as well, although it is now impossible to assess his worth as a footballer because he has not been much of a footballer for most of the season.

I''m very disappointed that this man wasn''t shifted on on the first day of the window. There has been some interest in the past after all. Perhaps that''s being unrealistic such is my willingness for us to rid ourselves of one of my least favourite City players of all time.

I digress and most of the above has little relevance as it seems that he eventually had a preference to stay at home and ply his trade with a bigger German outfit, even though I seem to remember reading that he had stated a wish to play in England.

Within reason, I would not like us to miss out on any of our targets when we have assets/equity by the bucketload.

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

I have forgotten season ticket sales for one thing.

We are NOT broke for £3m or so.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"] we have equity in our assets, not least James Maddison so if it was strongly considered that this player would go a long way towards solving our striking problems then a bit of temporary borrowing wouldn''t have gone amiss. [/quote]

Broady who on earth is going to loan money using a player as equity ?

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

"Broady who on earth is going to loan money using a player as equity ?"

"Not LEAST James Maddison."

The institution that is NCFC is loaded with equity.

The business world is awash with loan providers dishing out finance to businesses with far less credibility than City have.

I was not particularly advocating this route though so I may have expressed myself badly.

I simply made the point that if push came to shove then there would be nothing wrong with TEMPORARY debt to land a player that we have decided would be a likely fit and this Duck (?) fitted that criteria it seemed.

I mentioned season ticket sales on the basis of providing cash-flow but it is more than likely that sales will bring in some useful income in the near future, not least from James Maddison, in any case. A loan based upon projected future income is the basis of many business loans after all.

Watch Dragon''s Den. Perhaps Delia should book a slot.

However if the institution that is Norwich City Football Club cannot muster up as much funding as the average Manchester City player''s wages accumulated over a few months then things are desperate indeed.

There need be some balance between prioritising the need to accommodate future losses and being enterprising when it comes to strengthening our hand on the field of play.

The implication in this thread seems to be that there is not.

[Making Plans 936]

It''s beyond me that people still haven''t grasped the fact that Webber was brought in to get rid of (a) anyone who is on high wages and/or (b) anyone who is worth anything in the transfer market whilst spending the absolute bare minimum on replacements.

Meanwhile Denial Freak it tasked with the job of maintaining a mid table Championship position with the meagre resources provided by Webber whilst offering just enough hope of something better to retain season ticket sales but without anything better actually materializing.

[JF 694]

I can’t see why we don’t borrow from a pay day loan company. Just enough to tide us over until Toms monthly allowance comes in...

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

"It''s beyond me that people still haven''t grasped the fact etc. etc."

Then within the context of this thread it would depend upon what you mean by the "bare minimum."

Nobody is expecting us to blast holes in the market with big money signings.

This German striker would not have been a big money signing in any case.

My overall assessment of the situation is not nearly as pessimistic as yours and, although realism need be the order of the day, I cannot accept the fact that the aims of our club are any different from any of those of any other outfit in our league in as much as they all aspire promotion. It would surely be a first if that is a fact.

Anything other than this makes little sense.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Making Plans"]

It''s beyond me that people still haven''t grasped the fact that Webber was brought in to get rid of (a) anyone who is on high wages and/or (b) anyone who is worth anything in the transfer market whilst spending the absolute bare minimum on replacements.

Meanwhile Denial Freak it tasked with the job of maintaining a mid table Championship position with the meagre resources provided by Webber whilst offering just enough hope of something better to retain season ticket sales but without anything better actually materializing.

[/quote]

We all know the situation, so why the cynicism? All the club is doing is cutting it''s cloth to match the situation - and your interpretation that the task is maintaining mid table without expecting better frankly daft.

The task is consolidate, develop a better footballing style with younger players and go on to challenge the top of the table.  We may or may not do all that but the intention of any club is to improve and get success on the pitch - and we are no different. 

Oh - and his name is Daniel, Daniel Farke.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="Diane"]City 1st - What happened to 0rgyn the Mighty, that name didnt last long?

As for the German striker think hes going for 3m so we were priced out of the market[/quote]

It was a pee take of another poster and never intended to last long

The clue being the original is pronounced as Morgan (I dropped the M)

The name changes are little more than an attempt to add a bit of colour, and also to satirise those who have more than one log in name

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="JF"]I can’t see why we don’t borrow from a pay day loan company. Just enough to tide us over until Toms monthly allowance comes in...[/quote]

Tom, again ?

[TIL 1010 4,737]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"Broady who on earth is going to loan money using a player as equity ?"

"Not LEAST James Maddison."

The institution that is NCFC is loaded with equity.

The business world is awash with loan providers dishing out finance to businesses with far less credibility than City have.

I was not particularly advocating this route though so I may have expressed myself badly.

I simply made the point that if push came to shove then there would be nothing wrong with TEMPORARY debt to land a player that we have decided would be a likely fit and this Duck (?) fitted that criteria it seemed.

I mentioned season ticket sales on the basis of providing cash-flow but it is more than likely that sales will bring in some useful income in the near future, not least from James Maddison, in any case. A loan based upon projected future income is the basis of many business loans after all.

Watch Dragon''s Den. Perhaps Delia should book a slot.

However if the institution that is Norwich City Football Club cannot muster up as much funding as the average Manchester City player''s wages accumulated over a few months then things are desperate indeed.

There need be some balance between prioritising the need to accommodate future losses and being enterprising when it comes to strengthening our hand on the field of play.

The implication in this thread seems to be that there is not.[/quote]

Broady all this makes me wonder why we could not borrow £5 million from a loan provider to built bricks and mortar at Colney.

[JF 694]

Surely we should be utilising the collective expertise of the board members to raise a few quid? We Have Delia a chef, her husband the printer, Micky Chicken and Tom, well Tom owns a camera. Has anybody thought about a recipe book for Chicken based meals before, with glossy pictures? It could be a seller!

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

"Broady all this makes me wonder why we could not borrow £5 million from a loan provider to built bricks and mortar at Colney."

That puzzles me as well.

I did not spend much time on the details of the scheme because I decided straight away that it would not get a penny of my money. I thought it flawed, and a complicated way to raise a relatively small sum (by a business with a projected turnover of at least £30m per annum,) but realise that more investigation by myself might have revealed otherwise.

Although in many ways it seemed too good to be true for the investor the club has committed itself to a lot of paying out sometime in the future.

There are/were middlemen to pay as well.

Let''s hope it doesn''t turn into some ''sort'' of Ponzi scheme whereby another issue is necessary to encourage new investment in order to pay out the existing one; if of course that possibility is within the bounds of the rules that were set out.

[Bill 1,788]

or no

I would suggest that this work was needed to not only retain Cat 1 status but to receive the grants that accompany it, so it some way it is rather self funding

I suspect that any bank loan would have been on higher return payment terms

[BroadstairsR 2,159]

"I would suggest that this work was needed to not only retain Cat 1 status but to receive the grants that accompany it."

Yes, and this became quite urgent apparently and, as a timely means of involving the support, the connection with the Youth programme of the club gave added incentive to invest.

[hogesar 9,657]

Til, We could have easily borrowed 5m for Colney if we wanted too.

Instead we''ve given the fans a chance to get involved and it was a massive success. When will you accept That?

[A Load of Squit 5,160]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

Broady all this makes me wonder why we could not borrow £5 million from a loan provider to built bricks and mortar at Colney.

[/quote]

It''s been explained to you on many occaisions that it''s down to the business case.

No-one said that the club could not borrow £5M, they chose to finance it by raising a bond and it was very succesful.

There''s more than one way for a business to raise cash and the club look like they will explore every option before deciding on the best course to take.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

So the best course of action was to pay out over £600k in dividends over the full term of the bond and pay Tifosy a fee which was reported as being between 5 to7 % of the original investment as opposed to going to a financial institution ? Yeah whatever.

[thedarkside 0]

I''m no expert on high finance but even if a fee of 7% was paid that equates to £350,000 which adding the dividend of £600,000 totals £950,000 ''interest'' over a period of 5 years. 20% total over 5 years - I don''t think a loan/overdraft from the bank would be that cheap but I''m prepared to be proved wrong.

[TIL 1010 4,737]

Don''t forget that after paying skywards of getting towards £1 million based on your figures darkside that after 5 years the £5 million will still need repaying.

[Bill 1,788]

"wos gorn on here ?

get orf my thread or I''ll set my dawgs on ya

this is for them there German fellas

not your wranglings about sums "

[thedarkside 0]

Quite right Til, but if it was a loan from a bank then the capital would also still require payment along with any interest.

[CANARYKING 637]

I think they are hoping that a lot of the small investors will let the club keep their money

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

I think the point is being missed here. That fans have coughed up 5m pounds to help the club must be A VERY BAD THING. Even if it looks like REALLY RATHER A GOOD THING, and it is not clear how it could be otherwise, it must by definition be A VERY BAD THING.

[king canary 7,599]

@Purple

I''m pretty ambivalent to it in isolation.

I do have some longer term concerns as to what happens next time we need to upgrade some of the facilities, especially if it falls within this initial 5 year time period.

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

[quote user="king canary"]@Purple

I''m pretty ambivalent to it in isolation.

I do have some longer term concerns as to what happens next time we need to upgrade some of the facilities, especially if it falls within this initial 5 year time period.[/quote]

There are only so many times the club can do this, and that number may have been reached. And there are some questions about the potential cost. But as a one-off I cannot see how overall this is anything but welcome. My post was aimed at those who take an anti-club stance no matter what. So that if the issue had failed they would have been the first to slag the directors off for that. As it has succeeded they have to try to find a different line of attack.