Annual Report

[essex canary 496]

11 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I doubt they ignore it. They even had the away dressing room painted pink so we could win the league....

Which stat did they use to come up with that one?

One fact we can be sure of is effectively no parachute payments next season because they will be paying off the creditor and only around half this season assuming the recipients can be bothered. The stat team needs to work harder to give us any advantage and the Truss like characters removed.

Edited October 21, 2022 by essex canary

[shefcanary 2,407]

36 minutes ago, essex canary said:

One fact we can be sure of is effectively no parachute payments next season because they will be paying off the creditor and only around half this season assuming the recipients can be bothered. 

This is the main item from the accounts that has deflated me so much. Borrowing against future income, even if guaranteed as the parachute payments are, is still not a good place to be to plan for the future. Any plans now are contingent effectively on our best players being sold! Wasn't Webber's aim to put this strategy into history?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This is the main item from the accounts that has deflated me so much. Borrowing against future income, even if guaranteed as the parachute payments are, is still not a good place to be to plan for the future. Any plans now are contingent effectively on our best players being sold! Wasn't Webber's aim to put this strategy into history?

This is where I'm glad to be ignorant because I can't see where they've borrowed next seasons potential parachute payments.

Bog cleaning was a joyous vocation without all this stress...

🙃

[nutty nigel 7,534]

54 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Which stat did they use to come up with that one?

 

Straight from the Dulux colour chart. The shade was proven to lessen players xg. It worked.

[shefcanary 2,407]

8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

This is where I'm glad to be ignorant because I can't see where they've borrowed next seasons potential parachute payments.

Bog cleaning was a joyous vocation without all this stress...

🙃

Note 19 to the accounts Nutty. It is hidden slightly in media speak. It says:

"Included in the short term loan totalling £44m (£31m due in more than one year) relates to accelerated funds secured on future media rights and fully repayable by March 2024."

Here "future media rights" is the parachute payments - they are recorded in the accounts as "Broadcasting income", but are really media rights income. A conflation of information, like you I would rather it be a "call it a spade" approach. This money seemingly is required to pay salaries of those players whose contracts end by March 2024. Again, it gives concern that all the discussion of contracts being written with substantial salary reductions on relegation is once again a bit of obfuscation of reality.

On top of this there is a further loan of £23m secured on transfer fee instalments of players we have sold (mainly Emi one suspects) repayable by March 2024. Usually a club would merely match that fee income against the fees payable on our recent player purchases, but it seems we have used this instead to pay current salaries! In other words robbing Peter to pay Paul! 

Note 19 is the most depressing note I have ever read in a set of NCFC accounts! And there have been some real corkers in the past!

[Badger 2,405]

27 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

This is the main item from the accounts that has deflated me so much. Borrowing against future income, even if guaranteed as the parachute payments are, is still not a good place to be to plan for the future. Any plans now are contingent effectively on our best players being sold! Wasn't Webber's aim to put this strategy into history?

I have similar feelings. Gambling your future in the hope that it (the gamble) will all come good is never a sensible policy. I know it is what a section of the fan base has called for, but it has rarely worked for newly promoted clubs and the downside risk is considerable.

If we do not go up this year, it will make the close season considerably more difficult and there is likely to be a significant turnover of players as the club tries to slash its wage bill.

[GMF 742]

4 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Note 19 to the accounts Nutty. It is hidden slightly in media speak. It says:

"Included in the short term loan totalling £44m (£31m due in more than one year) relates to accelerated funds secured on future media rights and fully repayable by March 2024."

Here "future media rights" is the parachute payments - they are recorded in the accounts as "Broadcasting income", but are really media rights income. A conflation of information, like you I would rather it be a "call it a spade" approach. This money seemingly is required to pay salaries of those players whose contracts end by March 2024. Again, it gives concern that all the discussion of contracts being written with substantial salary reductions on relegation is once again a bit of obfuscation of reality.

On top of this there is a further loan of £23m secured on transfer fee instalments of players we have sold (mainly Emi one suspects) repayable by March 2024. Usually a club would merely match that fee income against the fees payable on our recent player purchases, but it seems we have used this instead to pay current salaries! In other words robbing Peter to pay Paul! 

Note 19 is the most depressing note I have ever read in a set of NCFC accounts! And there have been some real corkers in the past!

This previously happened whilst McNally was in charge, but with Barclays and against future TV revenues.

As a concept, there’s nothing wrong, in principle, with accelerating revenues. But it does depend on how you spend it and, perhaps more importantly, mean that once it’s spent, there’s less available in the future, when the need might actually be far greater.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

20 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Norwich have - as many other clubs do - in effect taken out a mortgage on future premier receipts (the parachute payments).

Instead of waiting for that cash to arrive - on a date proscribed by the PL - they have got most of it in cash now from a finance house that will make a percentage return on the process. 

This is reasonably standard practice in Football. It can either be used to front load a huge investment upon promotion, or to - in many ways quite prudently - ensure a decent, even and positive cash flow when costs are high, then simply tighten belts later (upon relegation) when income takes a dramatic drop.

This is the real answer to ‘where’s the money gorn Neil?’….in that the amounts talked about for transfers - out as well as in - do not come in on the day the Sun writes the headline figure (which may or may not include contingencies, spread payments, bonuses et al). 

Cash and profits and costs and transfer receipts and transfer spends and timings of all of those in-out is a moving feast that has to be managed within your financial limits (your cash available, your overdraft facility, your access to more shareholder funds).

It is a perfectly conceivable scenario to run out of cash having sold your best player the day before for a fortune. It depends what cash you had in hand before, what your costs and debts are and when you’re going to get the money for your star you just sold. 

Norwich have ‘borrowed’ in advance on monies they are sure of getting tomorrow, next month or next year (s).

Parma 

post script: I think it should be pointed out - if there is any doubt or confusion - that Norwich have not (on the surface) done what Leeds allegedly did some years ago and borrowed against future (possible) gate receipts or  (possible) success. Nor have they ‘done a Barcelona’ and sold shares-income streams from parts of their brand-business. 

 

Is all this what Parma explained here?

To me it all looks like a way to get around waiting for the cash to arrive. I guess it depends on how the payments come. Are they paid in installments throughout the year or as a lump sum in the summer.

The accounts confuse me because they seem to be how things were in June with limited info going forwards.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Note 19 to the accounts Nutty. It is hidden slightly in media speak. It says:

"Included in the short term loan totalling £44m (£31m due in more than one year) relates to accelerated funds secured on future media rights and fully repayable by March 2024."

Here "future media rights" is the parachute payments - they are recorded in the accounts as "Broadcasting income", but are really media rights income. A conflation of information, like you I would rather it be a "call it a spade" approach. This money seemingly is required to pay salaries of those players whose contracts end by March 2024. Again, it gives concern that all the discussion of contracts being written with substantial salary reductions on relegation is once again a bit of obfuscation of reality.

On top of this there is a further loan of £23m secured on transfer fee instalments of players we have sold (mainly Emi one suspects) repayable by March 2024. Usually a club would merely match that fee income against the fees payable on our recent player purchases, but it seems we have used this instead to pay current salaries! In other words robbing Peter to pay Paul! 

Note 19 is the most depressing note I have ever read in a set of NCFC accounts! And there have been some real corkers in the past!

You've forgotten the "We broke our lending covenants" in the accounts for 2009-10, shef?!🤓

[TIL 1010 4,746]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

 

Bog cleaning was a joyous vocation without all this stress...

🙃

You were stressed out when the phantom bog roll thief struck time and time again.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You were stressed out when the phantom bog roll thief struck time and time again.

They nicked the bog seat once. We never did find the culprit because we had nothing to go on...

[shefcanary 2,407]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Is all this what Parma explained here?

To me it all looks like a way to get around waiting for the cash to arrive. I guess it depends on how the payments come. Are they paid in installments throughout the year or as a lump sum in the summer.

The accounts confuse me because they seem to be how things were in June with limited info going forwards.

 

I'll try again. What has happened is effectively the parachute payments cash we are getting is to repay one of the new loans which we have used to pay salaries last and this season. The transfer cash we are owed on Buendia et al is now going to be used on repaying another loan, which we have borrowed to pay for some of those new players on exorbitant salaries and on loan fees, not just last season but also ongoing.

When we get those parachute payments and transfer cash they can't be used for further transfer dealings and / or paying salaries to keep players at the club.

We're back to selling before we can buy again, something Webber said would disappear under his stewardship! Although granted he didn't say when, so implies he is here for a while yet.🤨

[shefcanary 2,407]

32 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You've forgotten the "We broke our lending covenants" in the accounts for 2009-10, shef?!🤓

Yes, but by the time those accounts were published we were racing away at the Championship playing fun football. I missed that detail because there were good things happening on the pitch! 🤣

[nutty nigel 7,534]

8 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I'll try again. What has happened is effectively the parachute payments cash we are getting is to repay one of the new loans which we have used to pay salaries last and this season. The transfer cash we are owed on Buendia et al is now going to be used on repaying another loan, which we have borrowed to pay for some of those new players on exorbitant salaries and on loan fees, not just last season but also ongoing.

When we get those parachute payments and transfer cash they can't be used for further transfer dealings and / or paying salaries to keep players at the club.

We're back to selling before we can buy again, something Webber said would disappear under his stewardship! Although granted he didn't say when, so implies he is here for a while yet.🤨

I can't find all that detail. I like Parma's explanation better. But I would because he's my bro🙃👍

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

41 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Yes, but by the time those accounts were published we were racing away at the Championship playing fun football. I missed that detail because there were good things happening on the pitch! 🤣

Ah, now that is the very basic mistake you’ve been making. You watch the football…😍

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I can't find all that detail. I like Parma's explanation better. But I would because he's my bro🙃👍

Bog sheet number 67 Note 18 is a list of outstanding bills to be settled this season whilst number 68 Note 19 top table is the same to be paid next season or beyond. As outstanding bills, the numbers should be in brackets to agree to bog sheet 51 but hey hey. The text below that top table on bog sheet 68 kind of explains it all.

The Auditors stress got the better of him/her on bog sheet 68 as this is by definition a long job not a short one.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by essex canary

[essex canary 496]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

This previously happened whilst McNally was in charge, but with Barclays and against future TV revenues.

As a concept, there’s nothing wrong, in principle, with accelerating revenues. But it does depend on how you spend it and, perhaps more importantly, mean that once it’s spent, there’s less available in the future, when the need might actually be far greater.

If the intangible assets (effectively the squad contract value) is disregarded the Club had Net Liabilities of around £7million when McNally left 6 years ago upon relegation compared to £46million now. That seems more than a little different.

[Yellow and Green 334]

4 hours ago, GMF said:

This previously happened whilst McNally was in charge, but with Barclays and against future TV revenues.

As a concept, there’s nothing wrong, in principle, with accelerating revenues. But it does depend on how you spend it and, perhaps more importantly, mean that once it’s spent, there’s less available in the future, when the need might actually be far greater.

Momentarily defending Webber, I'd assume his strategy was to spend it on talented young players with high sell on value, as opposed to the Naismiths of McNally's splurge.

I'm not sure how harshly to criticise Webber. He got roasted for not spending in 2019, and I guess he knew he couldn't repeat that strategy in 2021. Once you factor in the covid losses and losing Buendia/Skipp, it becomes an incredibly complicated balancing act.

I admire the approach to buy up-and-coming talent. It would've been epic to see Daniel Farke succeed with a group of Europe's finest young talent.

It didn't work though, and I pray to God that he hasn't completely screwed us over.

Question: if we were to get promoted, would we likely take out another similar loan?

Edited October 21, 2022 by Yellow and Green

[GMF 742]

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If the intangible assets (effectively the squad contract value) is disregarded the Club had Net Liabilities of around £7million when McNally left 6 years ago upon relegation compared to £46million now. That seems more than a little different.

You can’t just disregard intangible assets like that, they’re still part of the balance sheet, representing the the element of transfer costs (not to be confused with values) that have yet to be amortised. They’re still part of the accounting ‘picture’.

[GMF 742]

21 minutes ago, Yellow and Green said:

Momentarily defending Webber, but I'd assume his strategy was to spend it on talented young players with high sell on value, as opposed to the Naismiths of McNally's splurge.

I'm not sure how harshly to criticise Webber. He got roasted for not spending in 2019, and I guess he knew he couldn't repeat that strategy in 2021. Once you factor in the covid losses and losing Buendia/Skipp, it becomes an incredibly complicated balancing act.

I admire the approach to buy up-and-coming talent. It would've been epic to see Daniel Farke succeed with a group of Europe's finest young talent.

It didn't work though, and I pray to God that he hasn't completely screwed us over.

Question: if we were to get promoted, would we likely take out another similar loan?

The point relating to that infamous January 2106 window, when we did spend big off the back of charging future parachutes, is that there a tendency to focus on the Naismith, Klose and Jarvis deals, while ignoring that Maddison and Godfrey were also acquired then. Which rather reinforces your point, it may not be possible to fully grasp the summer 2021 spend until several seasons down the line.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Bog sheet number 67 Note 18 is a list of outstanding bills to be settled this season whilst number 68 Note 19 top table is the same to be paid next season or beyond. As outstanding bills, the numbers should be in brackets to agree to bog sheet 51 but hey hey. The text below that top table on bog sheet 68 kind of explains it all.

The Auditors stress got the better of him/her on bog sheet 68 as this is by definition a long job not a short one.

 

 

The bog sheet references don't help I'm afraid. Bog sheets aren't much use for writing on although pencil on Izal works best. If you're saying we've already spent the money to pay outstanding bills should the accounts be signed off as a going concern?

I'm not sure if I ever told you but I had my bog brush for 25 years. This was depreciated in the accounts over 24 months. The head was replaced the first year and the handle the second year. It was always the same brush though🙃

[nutty nigel 7,534]

49 minutes ago, GMF said:

You can’t just disregard intangible assets like that, they’re still part of the balance sheet, representing the the element of transfer costs (not to be confused with values) that have yet to be amortised. They’re still part of the accounting ‘picture’.

I miss tangible fixed assets.

[GMF 742]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The bog sheet references don't help I'm afraid. Bog sheets aren't much use for writing on although pencil on Izal works best. If you're saying we've already spent the money to pay outstanding bills should the accounts be signed off as a going concern?

I'm not sure if I ever told you but I had my bog brush for 25 years. This was depreciated in the accounts over 24 months. The head was replaced the first year and the handle the second year. It was always the same brush though🙃

Sounds just like Trigger’s broom 🧹😜

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

You can’t just disregard intangible assets like that, they’re still part of the balance sheet, representing the the element of transfer costs (not to be confused with values) that have yet to be amortised. They’re still part of the accounting ‘picture’.

What other industry puts flesh and blood on the Balance Sheet?

Maybe £50 million is a reasonable and/or under valuation of either what they can deliver for our team and/or be sold onto others but there is a lot of conjecture involved. 

With Maddison's sale the 2016 player valuation probably turned out fairly well despite not getting much for Naismith's amortisation and impairment and there don't appear to be comparable loans on that years Balance Sheet.

In general unless we have unearthed the next Stanley Matthews, we won't do as well as Nutty's brush.

 

[Big Vince 318]

6 hours ago, shefcanary said:

This is the main item from the accounts that has deflated me so much. Borrowing against future income, even if guaranteed as the parachute payments are, is still not a good place to be to plan for the future. Any plans now are contingent effectively on our best players being sold! Wasn't Webber's aim to put this strategy into history?

Norwich always sell their best players anyway regardless of any set of accounts. All started with the boy Reeves. After all, they always come out with the line that the boy wanted the move. They never say that Delia rather wanted to take the money to make her sums add up. But then again you would never put her top of any deceitless table.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

12 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Norwich always sell their best players anyway regardless of any set of accounts. All started with the boy Reeves. After all, they always come out with the line that the boy wanted the move. They never say that Delia rather wanted to take the money to make her sums add up. But then again you would never put her top of any deceitless table.

I think you'll find the boy Davies then the boy Curran were the start.

[Big Vince 318]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

I think you'll find the boy Davies then the boy Curran were the start.

Okay then.

[shefcanary 2,407]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

The bog sheet references don't help I'm afraid. Bog sheets aren't much use for writing on although pencil on Izal works best. If you're saying we've already spent the money to pay outstanding bills should the accounts be signed off as a going concern?

I'm not sure if I ever told you but I had my bog brush for 25 years. This was depreciated in the accounts over 24 months. The head was replaced the first year and the handle the second year. It was always the same brush 

 

Edited October 21, 2022 by shefcanary

[shefcanary 2,407]

46 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Norwich always sell their best players anyway regardless of any set of accounts. All started with the boy Reeves. After all, they always come out with the line that the boy wanted the move. They never say that Delia rather wanted to take the money to make her sums add up. But then again you would never put her top of any deceitless table.

I just hoped we had moved past this sort of resolution of our problems. Ah well ..........

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I think you'll find the boy Davies then the boy Curran were the start.

Alf Kirchen to Arsenal in 1935...