2009 v 2024 What is the difference?

[Fen Canary 834]

19 minutes ago, GenerationA47 said:

lol 

But in all seriousness.. liking this ‘kids for bricks’ scheme. Solving two problems in one move, thanks to a broadminded lender, though you do wonder how they put them  to work their end

 

Have you met my brats? If I tried to give them to the bank I’d probably get charged more, they’re a nightmare! 

[dylanisabaddog 4,933]

19 hours ago, shefcanary said:

The debt by the end of the season will all be internal. The guy who got us into the financial mess has moved on to climb mountains. The only issue is how quickly Attanasio gets the okay from the EFL and then gets on with the job of bringing the club up to modern EPL standards.

He wasn't climbing mountains last weekend. He was spreading the word of God at the new Soul Church with Simon Thomas and Jake Humpreys. 

[GMF 747]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

That's why Brentford spent £50 million less on Wages but were more competitive.

Yes, they were the outlier, spending the least on wages in the Premier League in 2021-22, yet surviving. It was their first Premier League season, their wages were therefore comparatively low, but, unlike NCFC, they didn’t go down the expensive loan route, the loan fees for Gilmore, Brandon Williams, Kabak and Normann all inflated the NCFC wage figure.

But that doesn’t tell the whole story, as you well know.

Brentford’s recruitment, and player trading model, has been excellent for a number of years, under the guidance of Matthew Benham, and, arguably, the manager, Thomas Frank, far more tactically astute than our incumbent at the time.

Clearly there were other factors in play, too.

[chicken 2,627]

23 hours ago, shefcanary said:

The debt by the end of the season will all be internal. The guy who got us into the financial mess has moved on to climb mountains. The only issue is how quickly Attanasio gets the okay from the EFL and then gets on with the job of bringing the club up to modern EPL standards.

Note how he has ignored this yet again? Thanks for repeating it Shef, he has hand waived this off before with the "I don't understand that explanation" we are getting used to seeing a lot of in the world today. I think it's important to repeat because a lot of people who truly don't understand finances etc and so don't try to, are listening to doomsayers who also profess to not understand it but still want to tell everyone how doomed we are and it's all because of Mrs Webber and not giving out free season tickets upon demand. 

[shefcanary 2,410]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

He wasn't climbing mountains last weekend. He was spreading the word of God at the new Soul Church with Simon Thomas and Jake Humpreys. 

😲

[essex canary 497]

21 hours ago, chicken said:

Note how he has ignored this yet again? Thanks for repeating it Shef, he has hand waived this off before with the "I don't understand that explanation" we are getting used to seeing a lot of in the world today. I think it's important to repeat because a lot of people who truly don't understand finances etc and so don't try to, are listening to doomsayers who also profess to not understand it but still want to tell everyone how doomed we are and it's all because of Mrs Webber and not giving out free season tickets upon demand. 

Try this explanation.

As per the OP. Chairman to be Alan Bowkett slammed his predecessor and the then Club CEO for acquiring levels of debt equivalent to 3 times the gate money. Over the following 4 years Alan was at the heart of sorting rhe matter out to the extent that the Club retained it's PL status for the only 2 seasons to date that it has achieved that during S&J's reign and what Delia herself describes as the greatest achievement of her life in wiping out the debt.

14 Years later post the Webbers we are in debt by over 9 times the gate money. Perhaps by the end of this season it will be down to 6 times and, as you state, internalised. Unlike at many other Clubs eg. Middlesbrough, Interest will be charged on that Debt for which fans will need to cough up in paying a foreign national. Both the architects of this are currently still earning very handsomely from the Club. One largely on gardening leave. The other benefitting from a salary 4 times as large as a Cabinet Minister or Premier League referee or the whole gate income of a Club such as King's Lynn whilst sitting around at meetings debating the merits of retention of a £1 discount for ST holders who otherwise typically pay 20 to 30% more than at other comparator Club's 

Could I politely suggest that you may be missing far more elements of the equation than I am?

Edited March 10 by essex canary

[TIL 1010 4,753]

 

 

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Try this explanation.

As per the OP. Chairman to be Alan Bowkett slammed his predecessor and the then Club CEO for acquiring levels of debt equivalent to 3 times the gate money. Over the following 4 years Alan was at the heart of sorting rhe matter out to the extent that the Club retained it's PL status for the only 2 seasons to date that it has achieved that during S&J's reign and what Delia herself describes as the greatest achievement of her life in wiping out the debt.

14 Years later post the Webbers we are in debt by over 9 times the gate money. Perhaps by the end of this season it will be down to 6 times and, as you state, internalised. Unlike at many other Clubs eg. Middlesbrough, Interest will be charged on that Debt for which fans will need to cough up in paying a foreign national. Both the architects of this are currently still earning very handsomely from the Club. One largely on gardening leave. The other benefitting from a salary 4 times as large as a Cabinet Minister or Premier League referee or the whole gate income of a Club such as King's Lynn whilst sitting around at meetings debating the merits of retention of a £1 discount for ST holders who otherwise typically pay 20 to 30% more than at other comparator Club's 

Could I politely suggest that you may be missing far more elements of the equation than I am?

@Duncan Edwards is Middlesbrough on that list you are collating ?

[GMF 747]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Try this explanation.

As per the OP. Chairman to be Alan Bowkett slammed his predecessor and the then Club CEO for acquiring levels of debt equivalent to 3 times the gate money. Over the following 4 years Alan was at the heart of sorting rhe matter out to the extent that the Club retained it's PL status for the only 2 seasons to date that it has achieved that during S&J's reign and what Delia herself describes as the greatest achievement of her life in wiping out the debt.

14 Years later post the Webbers we are in debt by over 9 times the gate money. Perhaps by the end of this season it will be down to 6 times and, as you state, internalised. Unlike at many other Clubs eg. Middlesbrough, Interest will be charged on that Debt for which fans will need to cough up in paying a foreign national. Both the architects of this are currently still earning very handsomely from the Club. One largely on gardening leave. The other benefitting from a salary 4 times as large as a Cabinet Minister or Premier League referee or the whole gate income of a Club such as King's Lynn whilst sitting around at meetings debating the merits of retention of a £1 discount for ST holders who otherwise typically pay 20 to 30% more than at other comparator Club's 

Could I politely suggest that you may be missing far more elements of the equation than I am?

As someone recently said, “you have no idea, no idea whatsoever.” How apt, perhaps in more ways than one.

As for the text in bold, does its accuracy really withstand closer scrutiny?

Whilst it may be true that the levels of Director debt was removed, the comment ignores the fact that there was still outstanding liabilities in relation to both preference shares and transfer fees owed to other clubs. The net transfer position was negative, and the cash balance didn’t match the liabilities outstanding to other clubs and shareholders.

AKA, Delia was being economical with the truth with her comment.

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

 

@Duncan Edwards is Middlesbrough on that list you are collating ?

I thought he was totting up the number of clubs in my golf bag.

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

As someone recently said, “you have no idea, no idea whatsoever.” How apt, perhaps in more ways than one.

As for the text in bold, does its accuracy really withstand closer scrutiny?

Whilst it may be true that the levels of Director debt was removed, the comment ignores the fact that there was still outstanding liabilities in relation to both preference shares and transfer fees owed to other clubs. The net transfer position was negative, and the cash balance didn’t match the liabilities outstanding to other clubs and shareholders.

AKA, Delia was being economical with the truth with her comment.

Re the last sentence she doubtless makes a habit of it whenever it suits. Therein lies the problem.

Upon reflection, I agree there is an element of smoke and mirrors between 2009 and 2013 in that the loan notes have been swapped for as you imply transfer dealings and additionally  receipts in advance (eg. getting supporters to pay upfront for season tickets earlier). Maybe therefore I have over played the Bowkett point (still a great line though in the context of Delia's comments) and none of it distracts from my point about where we are now in comparison.

Edited March 10 by essex canary

[chicken 2,627]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

Try this explanation.

As per the OP. Chairman to be Alan Bowkett slammed his predecessor and the then Club CEO for acquiring levels of debt equivalent to 3 times the gate money. Over the following 4 years Alan was at the heart of sorting rhe matter out to the extent that the Club retained it's PL status for the only 2 seasons to date that it has achieved that during S&J's reign and what Delia herself describes as the greatest achievement of her life in wiping out the debt.

14 Years later post the Webbers we are in debt by over 9 times the gate money. Perhaps by the end of this season it will be down to 6 times and, as you state, internalised. Unlike at many other Clubs eg. Middlesbrough, Interest will be charged on that Debt for which fans will need to cough up in paying a foreign national. Both the architects of this are currently still earning very handsomely from the Club. One largely on gardening leave. The other benefitting from a salary 4 times as large as a Cabinet Minister or Premier League referee or the whole gate income of a Club such as King's Lynn whilst sitting around at meetings debating the merits of retention of a £1 discount for ST holders who otherwise typically pay 20 to 30% more than at other comparator Club's 

Could I politely suggest that you may be missing far more elements of the equation than I am?

The last bit in bold I will address first. A resounding "No". As you yourself have expressed before, you found Shef's very concise explanation too confusing.

What you have done here is to over-simplify, I suspect deliberately, in an attempt to paint things in the light you ALWAYS want to paint them in.

It actually ignores that there are different types of debt, which actually, is really important to identify. For example, if you are in debt to a director, the chances of them calling it in will be rare. In most cases, that debt is actually quite dubious (see the big clubs in the premier league that are in debt) because owners buy the club then essentially pay themselves back, putting the club into debt.

In any case. You have been told on a number of occasions now that the club will be externally debt free come the summer. This has been laid out in more detail for you and everyone else before.

The difference to now and back then was that we weren't looking at being externally debt free by the end of the season ahead, were in a lower league position and had no "assets" in the playing squad that could be sold to help balance the books. We'd spent a season or two loaning in a number of mercurial players that ultimately didn't come at any benefit to us.

If that was up the creek without a paddle, fast forward to the Webberlution. We were in a better place when Webber took up his post and Zoe took up hers. But the similarities were there. Naismith's wages, amongst others, were draining huge amounts of sums away from the club. Neil and completed the destruction of the Lambert era squad bar Hoolahan. Precious few youngsters were being given the oppertunity to break through other than those already brought through by his predecessors in the Murphy's. Pritchard was pretty much our only immediately saleable asset on the pitch in terms of raising a good some of money.

People often suggest that the likes of Lewis, Aarons, Maddison, Murphy's, Godfrey, Cantwell etc were already at the club and no credit can go to Webber/Farke for that. This is rubbish. Those players were at the club, but they were not being given a chance or a pathway through by the then management or set up, unless they had already been given one (Murphy's).

In any case, it is undeniable that Lewis, Aarons, Maddison, the Murphy's, Godfrey and Pritchard, plus the likes of Buendia and Omabamidele were all nurtured into assets on the pitch and financial assets off it. In one season we had become much more financially safe just by generating value in the youth system already in place by building the value in the players.

Even now we are the same. We have several players out on loan who are impressing and developing with that vital experience.

We are also not in the same type of debt, and therefore the same type of debt problems as we were back then. We also have several assets in the squad worth millions, several pushing tens of millions (Rowe, Sainz, Sargent, Sara, Gunn for starters). Again, rewind to 2009, did we have any player, at that point, valued at more than a million? Half a million even? Hoolahan was yet to shine for us. Martin was young and promising but yet to find his form having been sent out on loan as one of "tweedle dee and tweedle dum"(the other being Spillane) - such is what Roeder thought of them.

So again, no, no there is not a cat's chance in hell that I am missing far more of the elements than you. Missing elements is your speciality I am afraid, and that is also putting it politely. 

[chicken 2,627]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Re the last sentence she doubtless makes a habit of it whenever it suits. Therein lies the problem.

Not at all like you then Essex? You really, really ought to consider a little, just how you try to twist and manipulate reality to bend it to what YOU want it to say, because that is 70-80% of what you post on here. You will flippantly handwave off something because you don't like it, from an established poster who has a lot of respect for their more detailed understanding of the club and things like finances because it simply doesn't suit your argument.

I would suggest that you have been involved in politics, such is the level of the spin you try to put on things and how regularly you do it, but I'm not sure the spin would be convincing enough for political office because it is incessant, and they know that you have to sow the truth a bit otherwise people will just believe everything is a "lie" or spun. 

[essex canary 497]

9 minutes ago, chicken said:

The last bit in bold I will address first. A resounding "No". As you yourself have expressed before, you found Shef's very concise explanation too confusing.

What you have done here is to over-simplify, I suspect deliberately, in an attempt to paint things in the light you ALWAYS want to paint them in.

It actually ignores that there are different types of debt, which actually, is really important to identify. For example, if you are in debt to a director, the chances of them calling it in will be rare. In most cases, that debt is actually quite dubious (see the big clubs in the premier league that are in debt) because owners buy the club then essentially pay themselves back, putting the club into debt.

In any case. You have been told on a number of occasions now that the club will be externally debt free come the summer. This has been laid out in more detail for you and everyone else before.

The difference to now and back then was that we weren't looking at being externally debt free by the end of the season ahead, were in a lower league position and had no "assets" in the playing squad that could be sold to help balance the books. We'd spent a season or two loaning in a number of mercurial players that ultimately didn't come at any benefit to us.

If that was up the creek without a paddle, fast forward to the Webberlution. We were in a better place when Webber took up his post and Zoe took up hers. But the similarities were there. Naismith's wages, amongst others, were draining huge amounts of sums away from the club. Neil and completed the destruction of the Lambert era squad bar Hoolahan. Precious few youngsters were being given the oppertunity to break through other than those already brought through by his predecessors in the Murphy's. Pritchard was pretty much our only immediately saleable asset on the pitch in terms of raising a good some of money.

People often suggest that the likes of Lewis, Aarons, Maddison, Murphy's, Godfrey, Cantwell etc were already at the club and no credit can go to Webber/Farke for that. This is rubbish. Those players were at the club, but they were not being given a chance or a pathway through by the then management or set up, unless they had already been given one (Murphy's).

In any case, it is undeniable that Lewis, Aarons, Maddison, the Murphy's, Godfrey and Pritchard, plus the likes of Buendia and Omabamidele were all nurtured into assets on the pitch and financial assets off it. In one season we had become much more financially safe just by generating value in the youth system already in place by building the value in the players.

Even now we are the same. We have several players out on loan who are impressing and developing with that vital experience.

We are also not in the same type of debt, and therefore the same type of debt problems as we were back then. We also have several assets in the squad worth millions, several pushing tens of millions (Rowe, Sainz, Sargent, Sara, Gunn for starters). Again, rewind to 2009, did we have any player, at that point, valued at more than a million? Half a million even? Hoolahan was yet to shine for us. Martin was young and promising but yet to find his form having been sent out on loan as one of "tweedle dee and tweedle dum"(the other being Spillane) - such is what Roeder thought of them.

So again, no, no there is not a cat's chance in hell that I am missing far more of the elements than you. Missing elements is your speciality I am afraid, and that is also putting it politely. 

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Webber Party.

[essex canary 497]

10 minutes ago, chicken said:

Not at all like you then Essex? You really, really ought to consider a little, just how you try to twist and manipulate reality to bend it to what YOU want it to say, because that is 70-80% of what you post on here. You will flippantly handwave off something because you don't like it, from an established poster who has a lot of respect for their more detailed understanding of the club and things like finances because it simply doesn't suit your argument.

I would suggest that you have been involved in politics, such is the level of the spin you try to put on things and how regularly you do it, but I'm not sure the spin would be convincing enough for political office because it is incessant, and they know that you have to sow the truth a bit otherwise people will just believe everything is a "lie" or spun. 

I conceded a point to a poster who made an entirely sensible and correct challenge to what I had written though it still does not deflect away from my overall point whilst the poster themselves drew attention to melodramatic communication from the joint owners and indeed from a now ex Club Chairman.

Edited March 10 by essex canary

[chicken 2,627]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

That was a party political broadcast on behalf of the Webber Party.

There you go again.

Address the points, not the poster. You asked, I answered. You then continue on with utter garbage and contempt.

As I said to you before. Point out where Shefs explanation is wrong. Because therein lies exactly the difference between the then you raise and now. I have asked you too on several occaisions and the only answer thus far has been "it's too complicated" for you to understand.

Well, he's said it far simpler for you. Debt free at the end of the season. That's a couple of months away now. That means for what you have said to be true, you need to disprove that. So disprove it. Not me, or what I have said, but Shef.

And it wasn't a pro SW post, it was a refection of the two different situations, which you asked for. Roeder had well and truly messed us up, ditching youth with insults and contempt for a gaggle of mercenaries that cost us more money to take us down. We had no players worth considering as high value assets and we were on a downward trajectory with external debts. 

We are now in an upwards trajectory with multipl players worth considering as high value assets and will, in relatively short order, be debt free externally, and internally to our new joint majority share holder.

Tell me were that is wrong, without a "party political broadcast" of YOU. 

[chicken 2,627]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I conceded a point to a poster who made an entirely sensible and correct challenge to what I had written though it still does not deflect away from my overall point whilst the poster themselves drew attention to melodramatic communication from the joint owners and indeed from a now ex Club Chairman.

Spin again.

Quote

Note now the debt is 4 times higher, next year's Turnover likely to be only twice as high and gate money only 30% higher.

This is what you have claimed, time and time again. It's about the debt, look at the debt, look at how badly run the club is. This is YOUR narrative. Not the communication.

Are you now accepting of Sheffield's explanation? Will you now drop the erroneous claims that we are in a worse position now than then? Will you finally accept that despite not liking SW and seemingly resenting ZW for just being a woman in a high position at our club, that we have actually been relatively and comparatively well run over recent years? And now the only issue you have is some of the communication...

...I very much doubt you will, but you never know, strange things do happen.

P.S. As I have said enough times on here, whilst I appreciate what SW has done for the club, and DS&MWJ, change happens, it needs to. Sometimes it is brought about by frustration, others it's just time. Nothing goes on forever. SW in a way was stagnating here, I feel his frustrations were surfacing and that created a stand-offish position with fans etc. At that point it isn't good for anyone to hang around. I have also said that I have been on Look East stating my belief that as much as we can and should appreciate what DS and MWJ have done for this club, it isn't mutually exclusive to think their time has also come to hand on the torch.

[essex canary 497]

2 hours ago, chicken said:

Spin again.

This is what you have claimed, time and time again. It's about the debt, look at the debt, look at how badly run the club is. This is YOUR narrative. Not the communication.

Are you now accepting of Sheffield's explanation? Will you now drop the erroneous claims that we are in a worse position now than then? Will you finally accept that despite not liking SW and seemingly resenting ZW for just being a woman in a high position at our club, that we have actually been relatively and comparatively well run over recent years? And now the only issue you have is some of the communication...

...I very much doubt you will, but you never know, strange things do happen.

P.S. As I have said enough times on here, whilst I appreciate what SW has done for the club, and DS&MWJ, change happens, it needs to. Sometimes it is brought about by frustration, others it's just time. Nothing goes on forever. SW in a way was stagnating here, I feel his frustrations were surfacing and that created a stand-offish position with fans etc. At that point it isn't good for anyone to hang around. I have also said that I have been on Look East stating my belief that as much as we can and should appreciate what DS and MWJ have done for this club, it isn't mutually exclusive to think their time has also come to hand on the torch.

The quote is factually correct. Yes internalised debt is better from a control perspective but is still debt and under our arrangements, as I previously explained, will be more expensive than at other Clubs. It was still incurred despite the claims of self financing ahead of finding someone to finance it at a price. We can hope that the enhanced business brains in the new arrangement will be to our benefit going forward but ir is far from a shoe-in.

[GMF 747]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

Re the last sentence she doubtless makes a habit of it whenever it suits. Therein lies the problem.

Upon reflection, I agree there is an element of smoke and mirrors between 2009 and 2013 in that the loan notes have been swapped for as you imply transfer dealings and additionally  receipts in advance (eg. getting supporters to pay upfront for season tickets earlier). Maybe therefore I have over played the Bowkett point (still a great line though in the context of Delia's comments) and none of it distracts from my point about where we are now in comparison.

Correct me if I’m wrong (now doubt you will irrespective) but the 2009 accounts contained a comment from the auditors expressing their reserved on the Club being a going concern, because we were in breach of the loan agreements and reliant on the whim of the lenders for their continuing support not to foreclose on the breach?

We’ve not had similar comments since, so I would respectfully suggest that we were in far worse shape back in 2009, than now!?!?

Debt per se isn’t necessarily bad, when viewed in the context of quantum, it’s the ability to repay / refinance it as and when due that’s important. Aka, internal debt is preferable to external debt, as other posters have mentioned above.

Edited March 10 by GMF

[chicken 2,627]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The quote is factually correct. Yes internalised debt is better from a control perspective but is still debt and under our arrangements, as I previously explained, will be more expensive than at other Clubs. It was still incurred despite the claims of self financing ahead of finding someone to finance it at a price. We can hope that the enhanced business brains in the new arrangement will be to our benefit going forward but ir is far from a shoe-in.

It isn't "factually" correct. You denied that this was the case on a number of occasions and despite recently claiming it wasn't true as it was too complicated to understand, you now accept it. However, you are desperately trying to display it as being the same thing - when it really isn't.

Delia and Michael - the latter of which folks proposing similar arguments conveniently omit, had loaned the club money that they didn't think would ever be repaid. It sat there as a debt for a number of years. That is an internal debt.

Now, you accept that internal debt is better than external debt. So you had the answer already. That the debt in 2009 was external compared to the debt now which will be internal. External is worse than internal, ergo the position is better now than then.

I had to endure personal insults to get any form of reason out of you despite being accused of knowing/understanding less.

Do you know who the internal debt is to? And the terms of it? Because you suggest that it's someone different to the new investment group who are now joint majority shareholders by all but a piece of paper confirming it.

And please, stop changing the goalposts and spinning things and most certainly stop with the insults that poorly attempt to suggest I don't understand things when so far, all they have done is suggest you don't. You also probably owe an apology to Shef for claiming his explanation was too complicated and therefore probably had no basis so you ignored it (mainly because it turns out you did understand it and chose to spin a lie instead).

[essex canary 497]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

Correct me if I’m wrong (now doubt you will irrespective) but the 2009 accounts contained a comment from the auditors expressing their reserved on the Club being a going concern, because we were in breach of the loan agreements and reliant on the whim of the lenders for their continuing support not to foreclose on the breach?

We’ve not had similar comments since, so I would respectfully suggest that we were in far worse shape back in 2009, than now!?!?

Debt per se isn’t necessarily bad, when viewed in the context of quantum, it’s the ability to repay / refinance it as and when due that’s important. Aka, internal debt is preferable to external debt, as other posters have mentioned above.

Auditors take a view on such issues. The Club's recent history isn't great there with auditors being changed midstream between AGM's but clearly if the Can is kicked further down the Road it helps convince on the Going Concern issue and the Club has a more convincing case on that issue now than in 2009.

 

 

 

 

[essex canary 497]

6 hours ago, chicken said:

It isn't "factually" correct. You denied that this was the case on a number of occasions and despite recently claiming it wasn't true as it was too complicated to understand, you now accept it. However, you are desperately trying to display it as being the same thing - when it really isn't.

Delia and Michael - the latter of which folks proposing similar arguments conveniently omit, had loaned the club money that they didn't think would ever be repaid. It sat there as a debt for a number of years. That is an internal debt.

Now, you accept that internal debt is better than external debt. So you had the answer already. That the debt in 2009 was external compared to the debt now which will be internal. External is worse than internal, ergo the position is better now than then.

I had to endure personal insults to get any form of reason out of you despite being accused of knowing/understanding less.

Do you know who the internal debt is to? And the terms of it? Because you suggest that it's someone different to the new investment group who are now joint majority shareholders by all but a piece of paper confirming it.

And please, stop changing the goalposts and spinning things and most certainly stop with the insults that poorly attempt to suggest I don't understand things when so far, all they have done is suggest you don't. You also probably owe an apology to Shef for claiming his explanation was too complicated and therefore probably had no basis so you ignored it (mainly because it turns out you did understand it and chose to spin a lie instead).

The Debt quoted by many individuals on here as per the last set of accounts is £96 million.  The comparable figure in 2009 was around £24 million. Both are a mixture of internal and external. There is an expectation that the latter component only will be substantially settled this year that, as discussed, potentially improves the controllability of debt. There is nothing wrong with the facts I have presented though.

You can call them 'spin' if you wish but they are no more or no less spin than many other arguments eg. Delia's claim to be debt free in 2013.

Alex Neil was an appointment probably made for short term effect and a sign of McNally"s early touch deserting him. Clearly Farke was an improvement for which Webber can take credit. Then again he also destroyed it with Dean Smith etc. We may have better players now providing we retain them for a while then again Sargent was never going to be our saviour 2 seasons ago and there have been many other mistakes with both young and old players alike post Farke that have cost the Club dear. Based on Shef's postings I am sure he would agree with me that a quality Club Chairperson over the last 5 years ago would have led to far less waste than the Webbers have presided over. 

 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,415]

🍿 

[chicken 2,627]

13 hours ago, essex canary said:

The Debt quoted by many individuals on here as per the last set of accounts is £96 million.  The comparable figure in 2009 was around £24 million. Both are a mixture of internal and external. There is an expectation that the latter component only will be substantially settled this year that, as discussed, potentially improves the controllability of debt. There is nothing wrong with the facts I have presented though.

You can call them 'spin' if you wish but they are no more or no less spin than many other arguments eg. Delia's claim to be debt free in 2013.

Alex Neil was an appointment probably made for short term effect and a sign of McNally"s early touch deserting him. Clearly Farke was an improvement for which Webber can take credit. Then again he also destroyed it with Dean Smith etc. We may have better players now providing we retain them for a while then again Sargent was never going to be our saviour 2 seasons ago and there have been many other mistakes with both young and old players alike post Farke that have cost the Club dear. Based on Shef's postings I am sure he would agree with me that a quality Club Chairperson over the last 5 years ago would have led to far less waste than the Webbers have presided over. 

So from this post we can learn that your point was indeed about the money.

Delia's quote was about external debt unless I am wrong, which came in 2013, four years AFTER you are wanting people to compare us to.

We will be externally debt free in a couple of months.

Ergo you keep changing the goalposts and rarely, if ever, accept where you have lied or spun or just tried to manipulate the discussion away from where you have got things wrong.

You can call upon Shefs support if you like, but considering you are now accepting his "too complicated" explanation, perhaps an apology would first be appropriate.

Now, can you decide if we are comparing now to 2009 or 2013.

Less waste than the Webbers is another discussion. Unless you can evidence what you mean by Z.Webber being wasteful - and please don't bring up terms of her contract which would have been agreed to by other people, not to mention, Attanasio will have seen such terms and will have challenged them by now if it was not felt to be good.

I want actual 'waste' as in, from her job role, misspent money or money badly spent.

As for S. Webber, I think the only time he can be genuinely accused of being wasteful is the last time out in the premier league and even then, some of that is starting to look more like an issue with players hitting the ground running or being just a tad to early. Lees-Melou showed the class he had in flashes and returned to playing top tier French football again - going for what we paid for him. Kabak is playing for Hoffenheim in the Bundesliga. Tzolis appears to be impressing in the league bellow, enough to be attracting interest from the Bundesliga itself. We have seen that Sargent is a solid centre-forward but was kept out of that position by the legend that is Pukki. Even Norman looked good at times, it just didn't work out. They gambled, which is what a lot of Norwich fans were calling for.

Smith turned out to be a poor appointment in the long run, but it wasn't an appointment without merit. He had kept Villa up, albeit having spent a lot more money. It didn't work out, that's football. Of three appointments though, two have us performing in the correct ballpark.

Again, look at 2009, downwards trajectory, very few if any assets on the pitch, external debt which we had no concrete plans to pay off(see assets on the pitch). Next to no money to spend. Club in relative disarray. No philosophy connecting the academy to the first team squad, next to no youth being brought through and when it was, it was horrendously treated by a manager who clearly didn't agree with it.

We now have a well run footballing side of the club with a clear route through from youth to first team. That is complemented with bringing in young and promising players like Sainz, Omobamidele, Idah... the path already beaten down for them by the likes of Murphy and Murphy, but more importantly, Lewis, Aarons, Cantwell, Godfrey et al.

In 2009 we had produced Gren and Shackell - but both of those you'd have to go back at least 5yrs for their debuts and both had long departed. Chris Martin and Spillane were it really.

Again, this isn't a pro-Webber or Webbers post, it's factual reality. We are producing and investing, in the whole, far better in player trading than we have in a very long time. Arguably since Bellamy, some might argue Ashton who is a bit more recent.

[essex canary 497]

If Delia isn't happy with MA she could take a leaf out of Chase's book and sell off our fine squad to pay off MA.

[TIL 1010 4,753]

44 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If Delia isn't happy with MA she could take a leaf out of Chase's book and sell off our fine squad to pay off MA.

So what would you do about his 40% shareholding ?

[essex canary 497]

17 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So what would you do about his 40% shareholding ?

Sell enough players and he could be paid off as Delia indicated. She may need the support of the 20% though. The AD'S don't seem to be happy with the Liz Truss mentality. Given that they could muster 30,000 or so votes and the minority share exclusive vote only managed 32,000 or so, MA should be safe.

[Indy 3,301]

22 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

So what would you do about his 40% shareholding ?

Is it 40% yet? I thought it’s still going through the EFL review?

[chicken 2,627]

Clutching at twigs now rather than sticks it would seem. Now we resort to conspiracy theories to berate Delia with. And again, conveniently forgetting Michael. It seems to be a pattern. 

[essex canary 497]

11 hours ago, chicken said:

Clutching at twigs now rather than sticks it would seem. Now we resort to conspiracy theories to berate Delia with. And again, conveniently forgetting Michael. It seems to be a pattern. 

It was Delia who made the public statement on this matter.

[essex canary 497]

15 hours ago, Indy said:

Is it 40% yet? I thought it’s still going through the EFL review?

Maybe Delia had a nightmare one night and put in a call the next day?