Jump to content
A Load of Squit

Safe, sensible hands guiding the club

Recommended Posts

I just don't see any "all in it together" when those at the top do not seem to be contributing. It will be the contributing element to me asking for a refund or not. 

 

2 minutes ago, Petriix said:

I imagine that a significant portion of player wages are likely to be in the form of bonuses for appearances, winning, avoiding relegation etc. I would really hope that the basic contracts are not overly generous and that a significant amount of the expected wage bill would no longer be due if the games aren't actually played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your refusal to accept the evidence is Trump-like.

How? Why have other clubs managed to unlock binding contracts? I did apologise to you when I said you were hiding behind legalities. It was the wrong words but much the same as you say you cannot see my argument, I'm afraid I cannot see why you do not believe it is possible for the players to amend their contracts.

Everyone else who works has a legally binding contract. But some of these are being temporarily altered in the interest of their companies.

To me the evidence is that football and footballers is drifting away from reality. And the good and the brave are being trampled under this constant greed.

Norwich is a great club at what it does. It cannot stand toe to toe with the titans at the very top. But it is being led by the nose into areas it doesn't want to be.

And many of the new younger supporters cannot see past the EPL. But football at Norwich is more about the community and enjoyment and continuing.

I was really hopeful that football per se would see sense during this crisis. But it isn't. The Accrington's can go to the wall because Chelsea won't be signing anyone from there. 

By the way, I keep clicking the A to change to black for the reply but it doesn't alter. How do I do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I will most certainly be taking my refund/reimbursement if and when it's offered - and I won't feel one iota of personal guilt in doing so.....There are those involved in the higher/upper echelons of our club whom financially won't be out of pocket regardless of the future fate of NCFC.....

Edited by Mello Yello
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

We really should not be surprised at anything in this troubling chapter for football in general and Norwich City who are obviously very close to our hearts.

However i will make a judgement on our particular situation once the forensic financial experts post on this thread, the same ones who were constitutional experts on the Brexit thread and are currently advising the Government and its medical team via this forum on how to deal with the Coronavirus crisis.

I ducked out of the Coronavirus thread a few weeks back when I started to see which way the wind was blowing; it's not even about the virus anymore. 

OTBC

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see where the club is being run sensibly still spending huge amounts.  The contracts agreed last summer have become a mill stone perhaps it would have been prudent to see how we fared most players were contracted beyond 2020, could have offered generous bonuses if relegation was avoided or on completion of the season when we had PL riches in hand.  And then if survival then hand out those contracts.  Now that would have been sensible this looks a financial hole a self sustaining club will not survive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

By the way, I keep clicking the A to change to black for the reply but it doesn't alter. How do I do it?

Did you click 'A' and then select a colour? Black is bottom right.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you click 'A' and then select a colour? Black is bottom right.

Yes I did that and it changed to black, but when I unhighlighted it, it returned to blue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow this loss is awful and just think if we do go down there certainly going to be a mass clear out of our top players- now I can see why it was so important to buy all these new younger players we are going to be calling on them soon .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Badger said:

 

No you did not imagine that some have done this. However, it does not save money, it just delays payment. This could have a short-term beneficial effect on cash flow but in the longer run could actually increase costs, especially if there is interest on the deferrals.

So you wouldn't save money, just kick the problem down the road and not face up to it now. the club has behaved very responsibly and in the interests of both the club and the local community.

 

I'm aware what a deferral means thanks, although I appreciate you bolding for me in case I'm like KG and just not intellectual enough for you on this topic...

Clearly the club sees some benefit in pushing back some costs- otherwise they wouldnt be deferring their tax bill.

The fact is, with how our clubs finances are run, things like furloughs are likely just tinkering around the edges. We spend a huge chunk of our income on player salaries and at some point we're going to have to see what we can do with that. If we lose £35m in income then we're likely turning a projected £15m odd profit into a £20m odd loss. At that point we might have some issues with honouring our contracts anyway.

I fear we're approaching a worst case scenario with the plans outlined today in the Sun- loss of matchday revenue and the season likely to conclude with our relegation and thus a further heavy drop in income, combined with a depressed transfer market which could hurt our backup plan for raising money to cover losses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Did you click 'A' and then select a colour? Black is bottom right.

Yes I did that and it changed to black, but when I unhighlighted it, it returned to blue

Hmmm. One possible way round it is to duplicate your response by copying and pasting it.

It should then say "Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain test instead." Click the link and it should go to normal text.

Then delete your original response.

My responses are always in black - there must be a setting to change it to blue.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Did you click 'A' and then select a colour? Black is bottom right.

Yes I did that and it changed to black, but when I unhighlighted it, it returned to blue

Sounds like your device has been infected with Binnervirus. Ususally anything relating to the colour blue results in uncontrollable laughter-induced hyperventilation but this version is different, it refuses to let anything change and is stuck in it's ways - even though it is no longer user-friendly.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Let's get this straight.

It's surely a loss of projected income and not a loss as such.

Of course, the longer this goes on the two might become one, but that would need time?

I note that this has been eagerly picked up by the sour grapes suckers down the road, who have also conveniently got it the wrong way around:

"No idea how they've spent £125m this year."

Yes, there arer a couple of corkers on TWTD. One poster doesn't understand how we can lose £9m of projected revenue if games are played behind closed doors, and another says that since we haven't announced a fee for the Sinani signing that must mean there is one...😎😎

Edited by PurpleCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Let's get this straight.

It's surely a loss of projected income and not a loss as such.

Of course, the longer this goes on the two might become one, but that would need time?

I note that this has been eagerly picked up by the sour grapes suckers down the road, who have also conveniently got it the wrong way around:

"No idea how they've spent £125m this year."

Yes, there arer a couple of corkers on TWTD. One poster doesn't understand how we can lose £9m of projected revenue if games are played behind closed doors, and another says that since we haven't announced a fee for the Sinani signing that must mean there is  one...😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement doesn't change my thoughts on the matter (morally, it just does not sit comfortably with me) and, additionally, makes me a bit concerned with how the club is being run. 

Worryingly, how on God's earth have we already spent £125m so far this season???  If that's not pishing money up the wall, then I don't know what is? 

The criticism of previous regimes by Webber is looking more and more laughable.  Yes the previous regime spent big on players who flopped, but at least they spent money on trying to improve the squad by signing what they thought were better players who'd improve the squad.

What has the Webber regime spent £125m on?  A large proportion of it must have been on massive new contracts, and bonuses for staff (directors, manager, coaches etc) and for players, who have not been good enough this season.  Is that a better spend of resources?  Has it had a better result?

Share this post


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

I doubt it. Why would you accept a wage cut especially when the best players know that they could get more elsewhere. I don't see any overall long-term benefit to the club.

The executives have full control over whether they take a cut or not.  

Sure the savings from this cut might be largely symbolic but if they do there is a chance that other big earners will fall in line.  If they don't then the chance is going to be vanishing small.

Let's put it another way.  How would you answer this conundrum? Why should we the UK cut greenhouse gases since our contribution to the problem is tiny compared to the big boys? What difference would us making a sacrifice possibly make?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, benchwarmer said:

Two PL clubs are in the government scheme.  City and Newcastle.  Make of that what you will.

 

 

Newcastle are currently going through a take over, Mike Ashley isn't going to put any money into the club, his motive for being in the scheme is completely different to ours.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the issues are difficult. Easyjet have apparently furloughed having paid £60 miilion dividend to shareholders. Arsenal with a 12% cut in players wages have clearly used that to avoid furloughing. NCFC are relatively small fry by Premier League yardsticks. Then again as I pointed out earlier this week I may prefer the 'different approach' of Kings Lynn FC who have secured 20% reduction in players wages and refuse to take supporters season ticket money. Then again NCFCs position is currently more uncertain. Webber's comment about players wearing placards is really not helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O can understand all of these slightly differing views, but I always go back to the maths when I can and in particular in view of Ben Kensall's statement it is pertinent that we do. His talk of projected losses etc is just one plan out of dozens when no one knows what is going to happen yet.

If we have furloughed 200 staff this will include a number of casuals who earn much less per month than the maximum furlough reclaim amount. But let's give the club the benefit of the doubt and say that all 200 of these people earn at least £30,000 per annum. So the maximum amount of money they can get back from the furlough scheme is 200 x £2,500 x 4 months = £2m.

Our wageroll for playing staff this financial year is estimated to be £64m I believe. That is £5.33m per month. Our players had to give up 3% of their salary to save the club enough money to not have to furlough. 3%. Let me repeat that again - THREE PER CENT!!!!!

A second point. Our highest paid director last year earned something over £400,000. Let's assume he's had a rise since as a reward for promotion. Should we also assume that his partner, who also works for the club in a senior position, brings in another fair sum to the household, certainly well into six figures.

Do we all agree that it is fair that that household should continue to bank their normal income of probably around £50-60,000 per month at this moment when the club is claiming £2m in benefits from the taxpayer. A simple yes or no will suffice. (I'll give you a clue - the answer is no, if you have any morality at all).

Businesses all over the country are struggling to survive. Their owners are earning nothing. I personally know many who have reduced their personal income to almost zero. 

Sorry - I hear all of your arguments and the desperation in Ben Kensall's statement but you are defending the indefensible.

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

 

Do we all agree that it is fair that that household should continue to bank their normal income of probably around £50-60,000 per month at this moment when the club is claiming £2m in benefits from the taxpayer. A simple yes or no will suffice. (I'll give you a clue - the answer is no, if you have any morality at all).

 

 

The answer is no.

The executive committee has handled this very badly but there is still time for them to prove that some things matter more to them than a six or seven figure pay cheque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first bit of PR in the lead up to the begging bowl coming out again and no doubt the club asking fans to forego refunds. They’ve got the (unrealistic) worst case scenario out there so it’s in people’s minds.

 I may consider not taking any refund due if the players and executive staff take a cut and the owners actually put some money in to preserve their asset instead of asking the fans to bail them out again. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

The figure that stands out is the estimated £9m loss in match-day revenue from playing behind closed doors. Fans get fixated by the TV money but for us in the Premier League non-TV money is a significant part of our income. And in this case a significant part of this potential overall loss.

I also think it’s a slightly inflated figure and must include all season ticket holders taking refunds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

A second point. Our highest paid director last year earned something over £400,000. Let's assume he's had a rise since as a reward for promotion. Should we also assume that his partner, who also works for the club in a senior position, brings in another fair sum to the household, certainly well into six figures.

 

That is not necessarily Webber (although I cannot think who else it might be, unless it was paying off Stone, who was a director) because he is not a director and there is no mention of a performance-related bonus for promotion to the Premier League, which is previous years has been listed in the accounts for that same season.

So for example McNally got a £582,000 bonus for the Lambert promotion, listed in the accounts for that season, a bonus of just under £1m for staying up under Lambert, and a bonus of £867,000 for staying up under Hughton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I also think it’s a slightly inflated figure and must include all season ticket holders taking refunds. 

That's what it says in the OP article Jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, norfolkbroadslim said:

The statement doesn't change my thoughts on the matter (morally, it just does not sit comfortably with me) and, additionally, makes me a bit concerned with how the club is being run. 

Worryingly, how on God's earth have we already spent £125m so far this season???  If that's not pishing money up the wall, then I don't know what is? 

The criticism of previous regimes by Webber is looking more and more laughable.  Yes the previous regime spent big on players who flopped, but at least they spent money on trying to improve the squad by signing what they thought were better players who'd improve the squad.

What has the Webber regime spent £125m on?  A large proportion of it must have been on massive new contracts, and bonuses for staff (directors, manager, coaches etc) and for players, who have not been good enough this season.  Is that a better spend of resources?  Has it had a better result?

We haven’t spent £125m it days budgeted expenditure is £125m but that includes all the promotion bonuses which are already accounted for in last years accounts so it’s a bit misleading. We budgeted for a £16m profit. That will obviously be swallowed up plus there may be a bit more loss on top of that but with that and the tax deferral we should be ok in the short term as far as I can see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

The executives have full control over whether they take a cut or not.  

Sure the savings from this cut might be largely symbolic but if they do there is a chance that other big earners will fall in line.  If they don't then the chance is going to be vanishing small.

I think that the chances that players will agree pay cuts are vanishingly small anyway - it would just be tokenism. the players and staff did far more by their contribution to local charities with their 200K donation.

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Let's put it another way.  How would you answer this conundrum? Why should we the UK cut greenhouse gases since our contribution to the problem is tiny compared to the big boys? What difference would us making a sacrifice possibly make?

Not sure about the analogy at all, however to answer your question

1. Cutting greenhouse gases is not a "sacrifice" but a "benefit." Living in a less polluted atmosphere is more pleasant regardless of any global warming benefit.

2. Our greenhouse gas emission might be smaller be smaller than other countries but we should nevertheless maximise any advantage we can obtain by using modern energy rather than relying on historic sources. It also makes more sense to use largely domestically produced renewable energy than using finite resources that cannot be replenished.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is not necessarily Webber (although I cannot think who else it might be, unless it was paying off Stone, who was a director) because he is not a director and there is no mention of a performance-related bonus for promotion to the Premier League, which is previous years has been listed in the accounts for that same season.

So for example McNally got a £582,000 bonus for the Lambert promotion, listed in the accounts for that season, a bonus of just under £1m for staying up under Lambert, and a bonus of £867,000 for staying up under Hughton.

From the accounts there were payments to “executive employees” or “key non director employees” of something in the region of £2m last year. I would assume that the Webber’s and Kensell would be part of that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, king canary said:

Clearly the club sees some benefit in pushing back some costs- otherwise they wouldnt be deferring their tax bill.

As I said, there are cash flow advantages to delaying some payments (cash flow) which is why the club have deferred their tax bill. To try to defer wages when they feel that they have sufficient cash flow would be pointless. If at some future stage this were not the case, then wage deferral might be a financial option to explore.

However, I imagine that the fact that they have not means that they do not currently think that it is necessary. In the meantime, it makes sense financially to use the help the govt is offering now first, because it might not offer it in a few months time if it is needed. At this stage wage referral might be an option that we could use, but not if we have already used it! You can't continually defer the players wages, so perhaps wait until we need to? And hopefully, that need won't arise.

The fact is, with how our clubs finances are run, things like furloughs are likely just tinkering around the edges. We spend a huge chunk of our income on player salaries and at some point we're going to have to see what we can do with that. If we lose £35m in income then we're likely turning a projected £15m odd profit into a £20m odd loss. At that point we might have some issues with honouring our contracts anyway.

I don't see how wage deferrals helps this? It will still be a loss. You did emphasise in your earlier post about "wage deferrals," so this seems inconsistent. Were you talking about deferrals or cuts?

I fear we're approaching a worst case scenario with the plans outlined today in the Sun- loss of matchday revenue and the season likely to conclude with our relegation and thus a further heavy drop in income, combined with a depressed transfer market which could hurt our backup plan for raising money to cover losses.

I am pretty sure that this is one of the scenarios that will have been planned for. I think that there is a risk that we have to sell players in a depressed transfer market. Fortunately not as many as we would have done if we had followed the advice of some on here and "gone for it." In this advice had been followed we would have been in a far weaker position.

 

Share this post


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

 

Then even more important we do not timidly accept some contrived plan for ending the season that sees us relegated. 

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

×
×
  • Create New...