Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

Slaven Bilic says he wont replicate our approach to recruitment, claiming we 'haven't even tried anything'

Recommended Posts

 May we add that without the LS land bought by the previous regime we would have been in the proverbial ****e on more than the three occasions.


Bowkett was appointed by the board but wasn’t their free will, it was forced upon them to deal with the creditors!

Like I said selective memory is a real privilege to have.......

As said we have always been a selling club to cover debts, big part of the Chase final throws was his incredible Sutton debacle.....

Anyhow I’m bored with it all now, some people will spin things to see it from their own window of vision others see it from another perspective, the club has stated on two other occasions apart from 1996 we were close to nearly going bust, so they must be wrong because nutty said so!

Share this post


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

My memory certainly isn’t what it used to be, but the driver around the appointment of Alan Bowkett was the letter from two AD’s following relegation to League One and the general dissatisfaction at the direction of the Club at that time.

I have no idea what insight, if any, he had around the time he joined, but the situation was far worse than most probably expected. 
 

The 2010 accounts refer to the Club being in breach of its banking covenants and required non-binding letters of support from its principal lenders in order to be signed off with a qualified reference to the Club being a going concern.
 

That’s about as close as you can get without being in administration and, a year later, with Debt rescheduling, the picture was somewhat rosier, albeit not being out of the woods just yet.

By 2018, it was clear that the Club did come close to another financial cash flow problem, only eased by player trading and the sales of Josh Murphy and Maddison.

Yes and Bowkett’s appointment wasn’t by our majority share holders as some want you to believe but forced on them by the financial situation. But It’s old news but like I said some on here have a very selective view regarding our current majority share holders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

City sporting director Stuart Webber admitted that Maddison's sale to Leicester last summer averted a financial disaster at Carrow Road.

 

I look forward to you telling us what Webber exactly meant by a financial disaster.

There's no point me trying because you have already decided it means administration. I disagree. We could go over it. I could quote you from the financial reports. But you have decided he meant administration.

It's rather like Tom and the coffee. Just because posters want it to be true doesn't mean it is.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1:07  Sports Desk Pete: You publically challenged how Smith & Jones were running the club back in May. Apart from their obvious love of the club, what have you seen to change your opinion?

Can u sit down please 

Tuesday October 27, 2009 1:07 Sports Desk Pete

1:13  Alan Bowkett: Can u sit down please - I must correct you, I publicly challenged how Neil Doncaster was running the Club.   As for Delia and the two Michaels, I think their outstanding contribution has been the appointment of David McNally   as Chief Executive - a consummate businessman who has a decade of football experience at the highest level.   Paul, David and I are now running the Football Club with the complete support of the substantial shareholders.   When we have had to take very difficult decisions, all our substantial shareholders have been demanding in their questioning of our proposals, as I would wish any non-executive director to be and then they have been some of the most supportive non-executive directors I have ever worked with and I can assure you I have worked with a lot.   Let's not forget, I did not seek this job and it was Delia and Michael that realised some fundamental changes had to occur and they spent considerable time persuading me to undertake the task. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There's no point me trying because you have already decided it means administration. I disagree. We could go over it. I could quote you from the financial reports. But you have decided he meant administration.

 

I have invited you to explain what you thought Webber meant by financial disaster. The question is quite a simple one so why not indulge us all with your take on it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I have invited you to explain what you thought Webber meant by financial disaster. The question is quite a simple one so why not indulge us all with your take on it ?

We would probably have had to sell more players to cover off the gap of him staying here.

Which is what Stuart Webber said.

Now if I'm allowed a question...

How do you get from there to administration?

Edited by nutty nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

We would probably have had to sell more players to cover off the gap of him staying here.

Well that then begs the question why did we have to sell him or anybody else ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIL 1010 said:

Well that then begs the question why did we have to sell him or anybody else ?

You can twist all you like. I am not moving from my statement that the only time we've been near to administration is in 1996.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Yes and Bowkett’s appointment wasn’t by our majority share holders as some want you to believe but forced on them by the financial situation. But It’s old news but like I said some on here have a very selective view regarding our current majority share holders.

Some on here have a very untrue argument regarding our current majority shareholders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You can twist all you like. I am not moving from my statement that the only time we've been near to administration is in 1996.

What exactly have i twisted ? Webber said that selling Maddison averted a financial disaster. Those are his words not mine and i think anybody would have justification in thinking that deep $hite was heading our way, well anybody except you of course.

Let's take the scenario that we had nobody to sell that summer able to raise a significant sum of money what would have happened to prevent this financial disaster and please don't just respond with something along the lines ....but we did have |Maddison to sell ?

 

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


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

What exactly have i twisted ? Webber said that selling Maddison averted a financial disaster. Those are his words not mine and i think anybody would have justification in thinking that deep ****e was heading our way, well anybody except you of course.

 

A summer exit had always been on the cards for Maddison − Norwich needing to sell with their parachute payments coming to an end − but a move was thrown into jeopardy when the attacking midfielder injured his knee ligaments in the final game of last season.

 

“Listen, that would have been a disaster. There's no other way of dressing that up,” said Webber.

“I remember going down at half-time (during the final game) and speaking to the physios and you get that look of, 'This isn't going to be good news,' before you even start to speak.

“Then the next two or three days were nervous until he had his scan and it wasn't as bad as first thought.

“That Sunday night was not good. We were being slagged off for getting beat 5-1 at Sheffield Wednesday and we didn't know how long James would be out for.

“The transfer hadn't been agreed. We had not even spoken to a club but if he had been out for nine months or whatever then the deal would not have happened.

“We would probably have had to sell more players to cover off the gap of him staying here.”

But now, next season, there will be a reunion.

Maddison is clearly chuffed for his former side and was quick to pass on his congratulations.

Meanwhile, Webber reckons the 22-year-old will be at a Champions League before too long.

“He was one of the first text messages I got the other day,” said Webber. “That sums him up. He was the same with a lot of the staff here.

Share this post


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

My memory certainly isn’t what it used to be, but the driver around the appointment of Alan Bowkett was the letter from two AD’s following relegation to League One and the general dissatisfaction at the direction of the Club at that time.

I have no idea what insight, if any, he had around the time he joined, but the situation was far worse than most probably expected. 
 

The 2010 accounts refer to the Club being in breach of its banking covenants and required non-binding letters of support from its principal lenders in order to be signed off with a qualified reference to the Club being a going concern.
 

That’s about as close as you can get without being in administration and, a year later, with Debt rescheduling, the picture was somewhat rosier, albeit not being out of the woods just yet.

By 2018, it was clear that the Club did come close to another financial cash flow problem, only eased by player trading and the sales of Josh Murphy and Maddison.

12:44  [Comment From GMFGMF: ]

In light of your reply to BlyBlyBabes, is Administration on the horizon?

12:49  Alan Bowkett: In reply to GMF - Clearly, apart from 4 or 5 clubs in the whole Football League, finance remains the critical challenge.   Fortunately, we have the support of our long-term lenders and we are working with them to ensure administration is as far away from Norwich as we can possibly make it.   We have meritorious business plans that are self-funding and can take this Club forward.   Naturally, as I have said before, in the medium-term we need to look at all aspects of funding which could include new equity injection, change of ownership and a public offering of new shares or bonds.   None of these can be ruled out. 

Share this post


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

A summer exit had always been on the cards for Maddison − Norwich needing to sell with their parachute payments coming to an end − but a move was thrown into jeopardy when the attacking midfielder injured his knee ligaments in the final game of last season.

 

“Listen, that would have been a disaster. There's no other way of dressing that up,” said Webber.

“I remember going down at half-time (during the final game) and speaking to the physios and you get that look of, 'This isn't going to be good news,' before you even start to speak.

“Then the next two or three days were nervous until he had his scan and it wasn't as bad as first thought.

“That Sunday night was not good. We were being slagged off for getting beat 5-1 at Sheffield Wednesday and we didn't know how long James would be out for.

“The transfer hadn't been agreed. We had not even spoken to a club but if he had been out for nine months or whatever then the deal would not have happened.

“We would probably have had to sell more players to cover off the gap of him staying here.”

But now, next season, there will be a reunion.

Maddison is clearly chuffed for his former side and was quick to pass on his congratulations.

Meanwhile, Webber reckons the 22-year-old will be at a Champions League before too long.

“He was one of the first text messages I got the other day,” said Webber. “That sums him up. He was the same with a lot of the staff here.

You are just trying to take this off track from what webber said about a financial disaster with smoke and mirrors guff . 90% of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question which i repeat yet again was that Webber said if we had not sold Maddison it would have been a financial disaster.

Why did he panic when Maddison was injured at Sheffield in the last game ? My take is that he possibly saw our get out of jail card possibly being ripped up before his eyes but no doubt i have got it totally wrong in your eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is madness.

I made one statement about the only time I remember us being near administration was in 1996.

Every reply I have responded to with facts.

Is anyone going to show me anything to back up their administration claims?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes he  did !

Oh no he didnt!

Oh yes.....

You get the idea.

Repeat until nauseous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

12:44  [Comment From GMFGMF: ]

In light of your reply to BlyBlyBabes, is Administration on the horizon?

12:49  Alan Bowkett: In reply to GMF - Clearly, apart from 4 or 5 clubs in the whole Football League, finance remains the critical challenge.   Fortunately, we have the support of our long-term lenders and we are working with them to ensure administration is as far away from Norwich as we can possibly make it.   We have meritorious business plans that are self-funding and can take this Club forward.   Naturally, as I have said before, in the medium-term we need to look at all aspects of funding which could include new equity injection, change of ownership and a public offering of new shares or bonds.   None of these can be ruled out. 

I remember thinking at the time, it’s a good answer but he didn’t really answer the question asked.

The fact remains that at, or around that time, we were in breach of our banking covenants, as confirmed by the accounts. That gave the lenders various choices, including administration.

The fact that they chose to give us qualified support doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an option - it certainly was. 
 

Thankfully, they chose not to pursue it, but it did require an expensive refinancing, which AB alluded to being a possible option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GMF said:

I remember thinking at the time, it’s a good answer but he didn’t really answer the question asked.

The fact remains that at, or around that time, we were in breach of our banking covenants, as confirmed by the accounts. That gave the lenders various choices, including administration.

The fact that they chose to give us qualified support doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an option - it certainly was. 
 

Thankfully, they chose not to pursue it, but it did require an expensive refinancing, which AB alluded to being a possible option.

So

All those clubs who went into administration at that time we're just unlucky. Whilst we, as usual, were lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

So

All those clubs who went into administration at that time we're just unlucky. Whilst we, as usual, were lucky.

That’s great deflection, Nutty!

What’s luck, or lack there of, got to do with your comment that 1996 was (in your opinion) the only time NCFC were close to administration? 
 

As I highlighted in my first reply, circa 2009 / 2010, we were certainly very close, hence the qualified statement in the accounts about NCFC still being a going concern, but only because of the ongoing support of its lenders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, GMF said:

That’s great deflection, Nutty!

What’s luck, or lack there of, got to do with your comment that 1996 was (in your opinion) the only time NCFC were close to administration? 
 

As I highlighted in my first reply, circa 2009 / 2010, we were certainly very close, hence the qualified statement in the accounts about NCFC still being a going concern, but only because of the ongoing support of its lenders. 

It's not a deflection. I just cant get my head around the club taking care of it's own affairs can possibly be close to administration. 

In the note in the accounts about a going concern in 2009 it was forecast that on the basis of continued Leagu One status , in order to operate within existing finance facilities, additional funds of 2.9m will need to be generated to cover the deficit from 31st May 2010 to 31st May 2011. The club was actively pursuing a strategy to raise sufficient funds through increased income, additioinal investment and/or disposal of non core assets and has instructed professional advisors to assist with it's strategy.

The directors believed there was a reasonably prospect that adequate funding arrangements could be agreed beyond 31st May 2010 and therefore concluded it was appropriate for the financial statements to be prepared on a going concern basis. Accordingly no provisions, reclassifications or adjustments had been made in the financial statements to reflect the impact of the club not being able to continue in business.

That's not a rosy picture but also not close to going into administration. How would you compare that to what went on in 1996?

And what actually did happen in the next 12 months to May 2010?

 

Share this post


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

You are just trying to take this off track from what webber said about a financial disaster with smoke and mirrors guff . 90% of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question which i repeat yet again was that Webber said if we had not sold Maddison it would have been a financial disaster.

Why did he panic when Maddison was injured at Sheffield in the last game ? My take is that he possibly saw our get out of jail card possibly being ripped up before his eyes but no doubt i have got it totally wrong in your eyes.

Ain’t ever going to stop him. 

Share this post


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

You are just trying to take this off track from what webber said about a financial disaster with smoke and mirrors guff . 90% of your post has absolutely nothing to do with the point in question which i repeat yet again was that Webber said if we had not sold Maddison it would have been a financial disaster.

Why did he panic when Maddison was injured at Sheffield in the last game ? My take is that he possibly saw our get out of jail card possibly being ripped up before his eyes but no doubt i have got it totally wrong in your eyes.

The post was Webber's statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, GMF said:

I remember thinking at the time, it’s a good answer but he didn’t really answer the question asked.

The fact remains that at, or around that time, we were in breach of our banking covenants, as confirmed by the accounts. That gave the lenders various choices, including administration.

The fact that they chose to give us qualified support doesn’t mean that it wasn’t an option - it certainly was. 
 

Thankfully, they chose not to pursue it, but it did require an expensive refinancing, which AB alluded to being a possible option.

Of course it was an option, but the question is how likely an option was it. As said before, gIven the tendency of lenders not to want to pull the plug on football clubs unless the situation was really dire, which ours was not, I doubt the likelihood was very high. 

Not only did we replace Munby with Bowkett but McNally replaced Doncaster. I don’t doubt for a moment that having a heavy-hitter in as chairman was what the banks wanted and was a condition of the rescheduling, and getting McNally in probably added to the sense that the boardroom was being revitalised, which was enough for the lenders to reschedule.

As it happens I suspect, as Bowkett himself said, that Smith and Jones had been trying to tempt him to join the board for some time, and it may well have been that they suggested Bowkett to the lenders rather than the other way round. And, although I cannot explain why, I believe the decision to replace Doncaster would have been taken financial problem or not.

The test of how close a club comes to administration is how savage or benign is the solution that staves it off. In 2009 and more recently the solutions were reasonably benign. It was only in 1996 that the solution was savage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does appear that Norwich didn't try too hard to stay in the Prem. Maybe the club felt loyal to the players that got promoted so they stuck with them. Their defensive record in the Championship should have rung some alarm bells, so the clubs unwillingness to improve the squad cost them massively and we have broken all sorts of club records along the way and it is not good enough. The paying fans deserve more. 

If I remember correctly Webber was being negative about our chances in the Premier before it even started , what a message to give out that is and we kept hearing throughout the season about needing one miracle after another. It's a defeatist attitude. Get some balls and don't accept defeat as an option its professional football not tiddlywinks.

So I think Bilic is totally right not to follow our example

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
image.jpeg.a7f314d0615604dc2db99c0a7ad23f28.jpeg
 
Champagne Socialist Pin Badge
 
Nice Spread: Throw A Holiday Party – Snowe
 
"Administration?"....."Pah!"....."Maybe we've had the odd cash-flow problem"........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mullet said:

It does appear that Norwich didn't try too hard to stay in the Prem. Maybe the club felt loyal to the players that got promoted so they stuck with them. Their defensive record in the Championship should have rung some alarm bells, so the clubs unwillingness to improve the squad cost them massively and we have broken all sorts of club records along the way and it is not good enough. The paying fans deserve more. 

If I remember correctly Webber was being negative about our chances in the Premier before it even started , what a message to give out that is and we kept hearing throughout the season about needing one miracle after another. It's a defeatist attitude. Get some balls and don't accept defeat as an option its professional football not tiddlywinks.

So I think Bilic is totally right not to follow our example

He doesn't have to follow our example. The only real difference between the two clubs is that they have a "stinking rich Chinese owner", as I believe such people are called on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

It's not a deflection. I just cant get my head around the club taking care of it's own affairs can possibly be close to administration. 

In the note in the accounts about a going concern in 2009 it was forecast that on the basis of continued Leagu One status , in order to operate within existing finance facilities, additional funds of 2.9m will need to be generated to cover the deficit from 31st May 2010 to 31st May 2011. The club was actively pursuing a strategy to raise sufficient funds through increased income, additioinal investment and/or disposal of non core assets and has instructed professional advisors to assist with it's strategy.

The directors believed there was a reasonably prospect that adequate funding arrangements could be agreed beyond 31st May 2010 and therefore concluded it was appropriate for the financial statements to be prepared on a going concern basis. Accordingly no provisions, reclassifications or adjustments had been made in the financial statements to reflect the impact of the club not being able to continue in business.

That's not a rosy picture but also not close to going into administration. How would you compare that to what went on in 1996?

And what actually did happen in the next 12 months to May 2010?

 

The fact remains that NCFC were in breach of their banking covenants and had insufficient cash flow to make payments when they fell due. That’s not normal and It’s illegal to trade if the company has insufficient funds to satisfy its debts as and when they fall due.

The fact that NCFC managed to do so was undoubtably down to the ongoing support of its lenders, the costly rescheduling of the outstanding debt, not forgetting the sterling efforts of AB and his colleagues around that time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Indy said:

 May we add that without the LS land bought by the previous regime we would have been in the proverbial ****e on more than the three occasions.


Bowkett was appointed by the board but wasn’t their free will, it was forced upon them to deal with the creditors!

Like I said selective memory is a real privilege to have.......

As said we have always been a selling club to cover debts, big part of the Chase final throws was his incredible Sutton debacle.....

Anyhow I’m bored with it all now, some people will spin things to see it from their own window of vision others see it from another perspective, the club has stated on two other occasions apart from 1996 we were close to nearly going bust, so they must be wrong because nutty said so!

Specific individuals in the club have said it because it suits them to portray the hand they were dealt as difficult. As Purple and others have said, the club was in financial difficulty but it was manageable, as proved by events.

Share this post


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

It does appear that Norwich didn't try too hard to stay in the Prem. Maybe the club felt loyal to the players that got promoted so they stuck with them. Their defensive record in the Championship should have rung some alarm bells, so the clubs unwillingness to improve the squad cost them massively and we have broken all sorts of club records along the way and it is not good enough. The paying fans deserve more. 

If I remember correctly Webber was being negative about our chances in the Premier before it even started , what a message to give out that is and we kept hearing throughout the season about needing one miracle after another. It's a defeatist attitude. Get some balls and don't accept defeat as an option its professional football not tiddlywinks.

So I think Bilic is totally right not to follow our example

Did Bournemouth and Watford " try hard"? Did they "not accept defeat as an option"?

When you say try, I guess you actually mean spend money on players (?). We spent enough money to bring in six - over half the first team - possible new starters. They weren't good enough. It's not that we didn't try, it's that we got our recruitment wrong (plus there's an argument to be had about Farke's tactics, but not on this thread).

Edited by Nuff Said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

Did Bournemouth and Watford " try hard"? Did they "not accept defeat as an option"?

When you say try, I guess you actually mean spend money on players (?). We spent enough money to bring in six - over half the first team - possible new starters. They weren't good enough. It's not that we didn't try, it's that we got our recruitment wrong (plus there's an argument to be had about Farke's tactics, but not on this thread).

We were the only team relegated with several games to go. We were the only team not to spent decent money on first team additions. We were the only team that had consistent messaging from upper management that we were preparing for relegation and to stay up would be a miracle. If you take off the yellow and green glasses for a second, we were the only team not to do all the usual things that teams try to do to stay up, the result was that we were relegated. Yes so were Bournemouth and Watford, but at least they were still in with a shot of staying up at 16:30 on Sunday. We were dead, buried and 14 points well short.

Edited by Canary Wundaboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

The post was Webber's statement.

The discussion is about his use of the words ' financial disaster  ' not about what was said by the physios , the grief Webber was expecting for a 5-1 defeat, text messages that Maddison sent or that he would be a Champions League player.

Deflection from the point in question as usual.

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...