Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Recommended Posts

I would rather that this debate was more central to the accounting year in focus rather than having a need to revert to the well worn argument about rich, or otherwise, owners.

 

This latter seems to be a constant and raises it's head at the slightest downfall in the team's fortunes. We all know the score in full and any new incite is clearly unavailable.

The loss in question, which seems to have hit us as as bit of a surprise does seem to contain detail which might suggest it to be exceptional.

Our promotion triggered bonuses which seem to have been quite expansive ... but after last season who can grumble. These include extra payments to the players involved, which is fair enough, and also extras for the likes of Buendia whose original contract seem to have been constructed based upon the subsequent fortunes of our club.

In this context then one off payments have needed to be honoured but equally need be equated with the  extra millions expected for being a Premier League member.

There is also quite some outstanding payments to come from player sales, especially, but not exclusively, from Madisson's sale to Leicester City (which might still increase if he plays for England.) We do owe a bit in this respect but the balance is significantly in our favour.

The bond issue proved to be an expensive way of borrowing £5 (but that money may have been crucial at the time.) It was generous from the outset but being based significantly upon success made it a veritable bonanza for investors (big boys mostly?)

The loss is therefore not likely an accurate forecast of any future  Championship season that might be on the cards because much of the outlay has been due to the (unexpected) success ie. getting promoted.

The self-funding model will still prevail and, as ever, we will need to sell to survive a Championship existence. However, there again, we are likely to be strong enough in all respects (from management, playing staff, youth (Academy 1.,) owned infrastructure, support, sponsorship etc. to make this existence as temporary as we seem to make a habit of our existence in the Premier League.

In sum this massive figure need not be a below the belt hit for us supporters. There are many things to read between the lines, including, it seems, a single but significant pay-off. 

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're self-funding and therefore must live within our means......Shame we can't get another local businessman akin to the generous chap who chipped in with a few bob for Darren Huckerby's wages. Oh, and that sterling local businessman, also made a significant contribution towards our loan of Reading's Leroy Lita as well (as we were a bit skint then).....Funny how we tend to forget these things.......?

 

Outside contributions.....the moore the merrier....... 😉 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"..... anyone really serious about buying the club would hardly be put off anyway. If the conditions really were designed to put off even genuine buyers, then making an offer and publicising the absurdity of the restrictions, along with a detailed and costed explanation of the planned deal, would win fans over (in a way Cullum never did) and force S&J to take it seriously."

 

And there is the elephant in the room, any genuine buyer who had been foilled by restrictions and unreasonably rebuffed would undoubtedly seek to stir up the fans to gain support for their bid. Never happened to my recollection.

Edited by Van wink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, BigFish said:

As I said, some clubs do, for a while until gravity catches up with them

People seem to overlook the fact that the main reason the owners should be changed at Norwich is the number of mistakes the current owners have repeated over a 23 year period. The mere fact we are heading for a 5th relegation under these owners is surely proof enough that they are no good; and that is before we start to look at the money issue. No other club will have been relegated from the EPL more times than Norwich.

I come back to the following stats:

Watling relegations:  0

Chase relegations:  1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile clubs of similar stature have never been promoted to the Premier League in order to be relegated from it either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Surfer said:

Meanwhile clubs of similar stature have never been promoted to the Premier League in order to be relegated from it either. 

Which clubs of similar stature have never been promoted to the EPL?

I can't think of any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

People seem to overlook the fact that the main reason the owners should be changed at Norwich is the number of mistakes the current owners have repeated over a 23 year period. The mere fact we are heading for a 5th relegation under these owners is surely proof enough that they are no good; and that is before we start to look at the money issue. No other club will have been relegated from the EPL more times than Norwich.

I come back to the following stats:

Watling relegations:  0

Chase relegations:  1

And what is the score on Promotions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 08/11/2019 at 19:02, BigFish said:

And what is the score on Promotions?

Promotions are only relevant if you stay up for a reasonable period, or go further.

Watling was promoted and stayed in that league for about 12 years then got promoted to a higher league until he was succeeded by Sir Arthur.

Chase got promoted and stayed in that higher league for 9 years.

Delia by contrast has managed 1-3 years in the EPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Promotions are only relevant if you stay up for a reasonable period, or go further.

Watling was promoted and stayed in that league for about 12 years then got promoted to a higher league until he was succeeded by Sir Arthur.

Chase got promoted and stayed in that higher league for 9 years.

Delia by contrast has managed 1-3 years in the EPL.

Bang on the money .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

Promotions are only relevant if you stay up for a reasonable period, or go further.

Watling was promoted and stayed in that league for about 12 years then got promoted to a higher league until he was succeeded by Sir Arthur.

Chase got promoted and stayed in that higher league for 9 years.

Delia by contrast has managed 1-3 years in the EPL.

The recent promotions and relegations have taken place in a much tougher environment than the previous incumbents.

Comparing those different eras is like comparing apples and cucumbers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Bang on the money .

Big Vince's money is worth about as much as the Papiermark in the bad days of the Weimar Republic.

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

×