What is the "five year plan"?

[king canary 7,580]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Does this not include the £3.5m extra we had to pay for Buendia after promotion?

Don't believe so- think that was in a different section.

£7m in fees for Fahrmann, Amadou, Roberts and Byram sounds about right to me.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

Don't believe so- think that was in a different section.

£7m in fees for Fahrmann, Amadou, Roberts and Byram sounds about right to me.

But we signed about half a dozen U23 players for a fee which must account for a couple million of that? Bushiri and Ashead for a start. 

I thought Amadou was stated as £1m fee + £9m if we want to keep him. Defo saw that somewhere. 

 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

But we signed about half a dozen U23 players for a fee which must account for a couple million of that? Bushiri and Ashead for a start. 

I thought Amadou was stated as £1m fee + £9m if we want to keep him. Defo saw that somewhere. 

 

Might be next to that Webber quote. 😉

[Badger 2,405]

19 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

I don’t quite get the ‘staged payment’ thing re the tv money - obviously it is staged, but so are transfers and there is/was a minimum guaranteed amount that everyone knows we’d be getting.
We took the bridging loan due to the cash flow, and used part of it to repay the bond money, something that was not completely necessary, which took £5m out of it.

I tend to agree Branston - I think it is something of a myth. I recall that we were strongly rumoured to have tried to sign a French player (name escapes me atm) right at the end of the window for £15m.

I think that it is more likely that the club could not obtain the players they wanted, so didn't spend it, rather than just spend for the sake of it, which some seem to prefer.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

35 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

Might be next to that Webber quote. 😉

Or perhaps it was in the Pink'un

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich-city-confirm-ibrahim-amadou-loan-1-6203358

[Badger 2,405]

6 hours ago, king canary said:

The idea that because our previous manager/MD ballsed up a couple of high cost transfers we can never spend money again is a tough one for quite a few to get past it seems.

Not really - I think that we are perfectly prepared to spend significant amounts of money for the right player, but I think that the criteria will be very strongly drawn and we will not be deflected from it.

Spending big money on a player "on the way down" is a very risky strategy and one we should avoid from now on - especially if the relegation reduction clause is not significant as is rumoured to be the case with some of our last big purchases (have no idea if it's true).

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

7 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Or perhaps it was in the Pink'un

https://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/norwich-city-confirm-ibrahim-amadou-loan-1-6203358

What? The Webber  Qoute? I never doubted the veracity  of your Amadou comment...as indicated by the wink, I'm  a bit of a tease sometimes,  you may get that one day. Glad you haven't blocked me yet as I get the feeling that behind your confrontational,  abusive and dare I say occasionally obnoxious persona, is a lovely  human being,  a little scared, just waiting to be  hugged.  Here comes a wink, just for Clarity 😉.

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

21 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

There's no such thing as being a "nailed on top 26 club", not when Stoke are 41st when owned by the 19th richest person in the UK. 

I think you've missed one of the major elements of the plan - to be a self sustaining top 26 club which by definition means that it doesn't matter a damn how rich your owner is (or isn't).

Didn't realise that the Stoke owner was that wealthy but I suspect it will be even more of a shock to the many on here who apparently believe that the only requirement for success as a football club is to spend huge amounts on players every summer.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

I think you've missed one of the major elements of the plan - to be a self sustaining top 26 club which by definition means that it doesn't matter a damn how rich your owner is (or isn't).

Didn't realise that the Stoke owner was that wealthy but I suspect it will be even more of a shock to the many on here who apparently believe that the only requirement for success as a football club is to spend huge amounts on players every summer.

He owns Bet365 which is based in stoke, that's why they play at the Bet365 stadium and have Bet365 on their shirts.

Although rumour is that co-founder (his daughter) isn't as fussed about Stoke FC and with her dad well into his 80's there are question marks about their future. Although same could happen when a club is left in a will whether they are self-sufficient or heavily subsidised. 

The problem with running a "self-sustaining" football club without a wealthy owner, is how exactly do you fund things like stadium redevelopment (or a new stadium) unless you borrow heavy? There's one thing operating at break even, accruing £50m of post-tax profit over time to fund a new city stand is another.

(Assume it will be more like £50m now because the £30m-£40m estimate is very old now and prices rise!). 

Edited January 24, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[Midlands Yellow 3,939]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He owns Bet365 which is based in stoke, that's why they play at the Bet365 stadium and have Bet365 on their shirts.

Although rumour is that co-founder (his daughter) isn't as fussed about Stoke FC and with her dad well into his 80's there are question marks about their future. Although same could happen when a club is left in a will whether they are self-sufficient or heavily subsidised. 

The problem with running a "self-sustaining" football club without a wealthy owner, is how exactly do you fund things like stadium redevelopment (or a new stadium) unless you borrow heavy? There's one thing operating at break even, accruing £50m of post-tax profit over time to fund a new city stand is another.

(Assume it will be more like £50m now because the £30m-£40m estimate is very old now and prices rise!). 

All true and she only received a £300M bonus last year in payments.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He owns Bet365 which is based in stoke, that's why they play at the Bet365 stadium and have Bet365 on their shirts.

Although rumour is that co-founder (his daughter) isn't as fussed about Stoke FC and with her dad well into his 80's there are question marks about their future. Although same could happen when a club is left in a will whether they are self-sufficient or heavily subsidised. 

The problem with running a "self-sustaining" football club without a wealthy owner, is how exactly do you fund things like stadium redevelopment (or a new stadium) unless you borrow heavy? There's one thing operating at break even, accruing £50m of post-tax profit over time to fund a new city stand is another.

(Assume it will be more like £50m now because the £30m-£40m estimate is very old now and prices rise!). 

Genuine  question,  why does it have to be post tax profit  to fund  new stand, is it not part of the running of the Club, or is it considered I  investment s and therefore have to  bepost tax. Think I read that you're an accountant,  please enlighten me. 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

He owns Bet365 which is based in stoke, that's why they play at the Bet365 stadium and have Bet365 on their shirts.

Although rumour is that co-founder (his daughter) isn't as fussed about Stoke FC and with her dad well into her 80's there are question marks about their future. 

The problem with running a "self-sustaining" football club without a wealthy owner, is how exactly do you fund things like stadium redevelopment (or a new stadium) unless you borrow heavy? There's one thing operating at break even, accruing £50m of post-tax profit over time to fund a new city stand is another.

(Assume it will be more like £50m now because the £30m-£40m estimate is very old now and prices rise!). 

That's a fair point and there is no question that our plan is one that is pretty unusual, at least as far as the top 26 clubs in this country are concerned (although so far it has worked pretty well!).

But that is explicitly the basis of our plan which clearly does exist, although I don't think it was specifically a five one. In fact I think it is intended as the long term ongoing plan, and 5 years might be what Farke or Webber said at some point as to the length of time to get into the Premiership and survive the first season there.

As for upgrading the stadium it is clear that in our scenario it could only happen based on several consecutive seasons in the Premier.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, wcorkcanary said:

Genuine  question,  why does it have to be post tax profit  to fund  new stand, is it not part of the running of the Club, or is it considered I  investment s and therefore have to  bepost tax. Think I read that you're an accountant,  please enlighten me. 

The only way to pay for that stand if not borrowing is to save the capital to pay for it in cash.

If the club generates a surplus each year and retains some of it to at one stage in the future pay for a stand in cash, then of course it will be from taxed money. You can't dodge tax because you will have a major piece of capital expenditure at an undetermined point in the distant future. 

We'd have to borrow the money to redevelop, we'd then have a cost associated with that borrowing (interest). 

[Badger 2,405]

32 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Although same could happen when a club is left in a will whether they are self-sufficient or heavily subsidised. 

Yes but clubs that have donors tend to LEND the money to the club (often secured against the ground) so death of a generous owner can result in the club having to manage debt going forwards as well as having to deal with the loss of "subsidy*".

* Again - very often the "subsidy" is in the form of debt, so it is not really the correct word.

The Hull owner, for example, subsidised the club during its premiership years and secured the loans against the ground. He now now charges Hull just under a million pounds a year to play at their home ground. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The only way to pay for that stand if not borrowing is to save the capital to pay for it in cash.

If the club generates a surplus each year and retains some of it to at one stage in the future pay for a stand in cash, then of course it will be from taxed money. You can't dodge tax because you will have a major piece of capital expenditure at an undetermined point in the distant future. 

We'd have to borrow the money to redevelop, we'd then have a cost associated with that borrowing (interest). 

Ok, thanks. Here's  another,  if say , we raised that money ( player sales )and spent  it in the  same  fiscal year on the new stand, would it still be liable for tax. I only ask as if theres a way to avoid laying out more than we have  to , I think it would be  wise.  Can it be done?

[Badger 2,405]

22 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The only way to pay for that stand if not borrowing is to save the capital to pay for it in cash.

If the club generates a surplus each year and retains some of it to at one stage in the future pay for a stand in cash, then of course it will be from taxed money. You can't dodge tax because you will have a major piece of capital expenditure at an undetermined point in the distant future. 

We'd have to borrow the money to redevelop, we'd then have a cost associated with that borrowing (interest). 

This is not the case. the club can take on external finance, as it showed with the bond scheme for training ground development. They have already demonstrated that they are prepared to take on debt as part of the financial plan of "self-funding." Borrowing for sensible capital development can be a good idea (as long as it is the right project).

Sensibly, the club are looking to limit their borrowing to buying "tangible fixed assets" rather than borrowing to buy players and pay their wages.

[Bradwell canary 109]

Think it’s to get in as much money as possible, then spend as little as possible 

We will then be the richest club in whatever division we find ourselves.