Why are we £18m in debt? The facts.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,030]

Whilst I appreciate the need to improve the infrastructure at Carrow Rd, we need to get the balance right otherwise we could have the best stadium/set up in League 1 if we do not improve the quality of the playing side of things. Oh yes Mr Chase was years ahead of his time wasn`t he!!, what if we had purchased Dean Windass (instead of land)  and Martin O`Neill had stayed on as manager of Norwich City, where would we be now and would we be having this debate ?. My feeling is we would be a well established Premiership club with the resources to buy decent players, buy land and have a nice stadium, but of course we will never know.......

[Carrow89 0]

The current spending on infrastrucure is mostly a one off. When next will we be having to build a new South Stand, the corner infill etc. Far better we do this now whilst we are able than be unable when we have to at some future date. The examples given earlier are ridiculous and bear no relation to the truth. Sheff Weds, Forest, Bradford and such like sunk not because of ground development but the inability to sustain player payments. For every obscure example you can drag out of a large ground bereft of supporters I can name you fifty others where a solid base is seen as absolutely essential. In fact if you ever bother to check with football from the grassroots level upwards you would see that all leagues require certain standards at the stadia. Each improving as you go further up. In fact, despite the third world ecomonics of our financially incompetent neighbours it was not the payments to the loan that broke them but the wage bill they incurred on their reckless player spending spree. Lets have a little more evidence rather than simply expressing petulance at having a club that is ran on business lines not infantile fantasy and wishful thinking.

[beelsie 0]

Well!!  SoB it makes interesting reading, but!  it contains so much speculation and the most pertinent piece is right at the end "but of course we will never know"  not really the stuff that good business decisions are made on, IMHO.  OTBC

[beelsie 0]

Mr Wright, I like the drift of this post very much. There''s not much to add except, "I could''nt have put it better myself".  I will say, though, looking back at the prime post, that even drivel can make interesting reading. Helps in some way to conjure up a picture of the poster, and where his/her place is in the stands among the fans.

[beelsie 0]

Good post, Saint, much of which I can agree with, apart from the onwards and upwards bit, when an old saying springs to mind, "don''t jump into the sea untill you can swim with confidance", meaning, in my interpretation that it''s unwise to attempt to go on the town with the rich and famous until you can stand your own round of drinks.

[beelsie 0]

Good post Blah Blah Blah, am I wrong in thinking, that contrary to your statement the restaurant produced a £million in profit, as opposed to revenue. A better scenario because profits will go into the Canary coffers.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,030]

Apologies for the speculation, it is nice to dream some times. I have nothing against the improvement in infrastructure, I recognise the good deals the club has negotiated for land around Carrow Rd and I also recognise the good work the club has done in implementing alternative revenue streams. Presumably the club has done all of this to get itself on a firm financial footing, which is fine, but to attract quality players to the club you have got to have something to offer them (other than a nice stadium and good training facilities), say like competitive wages, the prospect of playing in the Premiership etc. My point remains, which is we have to strike the right balance.

[Carrow89 0]

Sorry to say SoB that your point is floored. You are arguing for something we all want but however, recognise the greater picture.

There is no question of the right balance. Most of what is/has been spent has been forced upon us by regulation and economic requirement.

You make no statement as to where the money for "competitive wages " should come from or how without alternative revenue we could achieve ''premiership status''

I''m sorry if this sounds a bit harsh but you seem to be labouring under the false delusion that there is a simple ''either or'' argument here. A view that football ground/training ground improvements are carried out in opposition to providing funding for the team. There are not.

They are an integral part of any successful club. The very backbone of the club in fact.

[beelsie 0]

Agreed again Mr Wright.  These problems are faced by management in any business and if the answer was simple then there would be many more people in business.  I think among others, Leeds were a prime example of how to get it wrong, and at Leeds there were many prominant and before the event, wise business men on the board, and if we were to follow their example, as many seem to imply that we should, then I for one would rather we wait two or three years to get the income right before having ideas greater than our income capabilities.  As you say it''s the balance we have to get right, and on that we can, I think, all agree.

[mystic megson 0]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]The current spending on infrastrucure is mostly a one off. When next will we be having to build a new South Stand, the corner infill etc. Far better we do this now whilst we are able than be unable when we have to at some future date. The examples given earlier are ridiculous and bear no relation to the truth. Sheff Weds, Forest, Bradford and such like sunk not because of ground development but the inability to sustain player payments. For every obscure example you can drag out of a large ground bereft of supporters I can name you fifty others where a solid base is seen as absolutely essential. In fact if you ever bother to check with football from the grassroots level upwards you would see that all leagues require certain standards at the stadia. Each improving as you go further up. In fact, despite the third world ecomonics of our financially incompetent neighbours it was not the payments to the loan that broke them but the wage bill they incurred on their reckless player spending spree. Lets have a little more evidence rather than simply expressing petulance at having a club that is ran on business lines not infantile fantasy and wishful thinking.[/quote]

I agree, RW, let''s leave aside Shef Weds, Forest, Ipswich, Bradford etc. and concentrate on Norwich City. 

In 1996 we almost went bankrupt.  How did that happen?  By spending too much on players'' wages and transfer fees?  Or diverting too much money from the playing side into infrastructure and speculative land developments? 

As Sons of Boadicea points out, it''s a question of finding the right balance.  IMO we got in wrong in the past and we''re in serious danger of getting it wrong again.

[Carrow89 0]

" In 1996 we almost went bankrupt. " We did the same in 1985 and a few times previous. Were they the result of this mysterious speculation on land deals. Check City''s wage bills around the time and you''ll see that we burdened ourselves with high costs that could not be recouped by an income that can be extremely volatile. It was that that brought us down on all occasions. We should not leave out other clubs, if only in reply to previous statements, because it is against them that we can measure and judge ourselves. WE would be top of the table were we to leave out all others. The club is not in " serious danger of getting it wrong ". This is not ipswich, presided over by some hapless clown with the footbal,l and business brain, of a pop up toaster where the habitual whingers at poorman road sip on their warm Lidl lager and contemplate that they are in existence only through stiffing numerous small business''s, repeatedly having to borrow off their fans and flogging off what little they own to their major creditor. AND WHY ? Because they believed that you could chuck money at something to guarantee success. They received nigh on £30m extra than us over their time in the Premiership and yet are now carrying something like another £15m or more in debt. This excludes the other £10m they defaulted on. Unlike them we ARE meeting our payments. Maybe we should stop paying people who entered into an honest contract with us and waste the money on some 30(40) something player the we can have our manager having to pay the hotel bill because the receptionist said " ipswich town, no thanks"

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,030]

Ralph - I do not think it is an "either or" situation at all, if I did I would be advocating that all capital expenditure on land, infrastructure or the like should be spent on the team, which I clearly am not, nor do I subscribe to the Ippo model of spending lots of money on the infrastructure and lots of money on expensive players with expensive wages. I also made it absolutely clear that I acknowledge and understand all that the club has done with alternative revenue streams, land deals and the like. At the risk of you being a wind up merchant, my point is quite simple, as a very smart business operation the club must have built the size of stand and infill for a reason, presumably because they thought they could fill both -  Along the lines of "we will build a stand of "x" size, at a cost of "y" pounds because with "z" fans it will pay for itself in "a" years". The "z" fans must have been based on some sort of estimate of potential crowd sizes. This is all very well but to get "bums on seats" (or not if you are an away supporter or in the lower Barclay) there has to be a modicum of success on the pitch for that plan to be sustainable.

[Carrow89 0]

Turn your argument on it''s head and you will soon see how absurd your position is. Achieve the success you crave by devoting resources to the playing staff and you would be in the position of having not having the income stream top continue that success.

As has been pointed out numerous times these are one off payments that have almost been forced upon us. Had the club scaled down it''s expectations and build a smaller stand and aimed for a capacity of 18,000 they would have been slaughtered for lack of ambition. So where would the extra money come from in this 18,000 ground to fund this ''modicum of success'' ?

The other big floor in your argument is that spending money on the playing staff DOES NOT guarentee success as our hapless neighbours found out.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Ralph, you have posted 7 times on this thread telling others their thinking is floored. If you are going to do that at least learn how to spell the word correctly ( it''s "flawed" ).

The main point is that, while telling others their thinking is flawed, you offer nothing constructive as to what you think NCFC needs to do to achieve what was indicated to fans by the club as the objective,  namely, sustained Premiership participation, thereby encouraging fans to sign up thick and fast for season tickets. What specific actions do you believe are required by the club this coming season and the two beyond to begin meeting this objective versus the prospect of achieving a single season of participation in the decade under new management?   

[Fat Barman 0]

I''m really enjoying this thread - strongly argued opinions from several posters - please don''t be side-tracked by the language-police from over the pond!I believe, Yankee, that Ralph Wright already stated his belief that by increasing the capacity of the stadium, NCFC would be better placed to afford the necessary wage bill to compete for promotion (at which point the TV money and salaries increase exponentially). Perhaps you were too busy underlining spelling errors to read the post?

[Carrow89 0]

Nice of you to have read the posts so many times. Shame you didn''t bother to read the thread title - it might explain what I am replying to.

As to spelling, well I''m a Norfolk lad and anything that is knocked down is floored.

Rather like the paw old binners.

[Saint Canary 0]

No-one is advocating spending money on playing staff such as the likes of Ippo Ralph.  In fact SOB is merely suggesting that the balance of spending has to be right.

I accept and agree that had we not done the works on the stadium and we had retained a place in the Premier League, 18,000 seats would not be enough.  However, enforced spending or not the fact remains that if City do not have a relative success (not necessarily promotion but contending the play-off places) then the spending of millions on the expansion of the stadium will be nothing more than millions wasted.  It''s all about balance Ralph - it''s not easy to find the balance but to be successful both on and off the pitch then that balance needs to be found.  Norwich City is a football club and the product they sell is football.  No amount of investment in the stadium or acquisition of land will sustain the club if the fans do not turn up on Saturday''s as well as buying merchandise. 

When talking about spending on playing staff, calculated risks have to be taken - as in any business.  Huckerby and Ashton were both "risks" but both paid off in their own way.  Huckerby propelled us to the Premier League and Ashton doubled in value within the space of half a season.  I don''t want to pick on Andy Hughes as such but £500k spent on players like him is never going to turn out to be a good investment, when he leaves (as all players do) I have no doubt it will be for less money than we spent to bring him here. 

Beelsie, I understand what you are saying and Leeds is no doubt an example that no club will want to follow.  The word balance keeps popping up and it''s very important to find the balance between taking huge risks and taking calculated ones.  In business it can be just as risky to become safe and comfortable with your own position as others with ambition and those taking calculated risks can easily overtake you.  Marks & Spencer is classic example of this.  Top of tree for so many years but as a company they sat on their hands admiring how wonderful and successful they were.  Before they knew it, profits were tumbling and millions of loyal customers were deserting them because the world had moved on and others who reacted and adapted were leaving them behind.

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,030]

Ralph - You misquote me again, I merely ask whether you think the business plan is sustainable, particularly if we fail to acheive promotion this season, or worse we play as badly as last season. I admire your optimism, as a true Norfolk bor, and co-founder member of the "Sons of Boadicea - Home Rule for Norfolk (blass yis bor!!) Camapaign", I do not feel that I have been "floored" by your arguement at all, in fact I would question whether you are indeed from this fine county, I suspect you are a wind up merchant from south of the river.....

[YankeeCanary 0]

Ralph, you make some good points in one or two of your many posts but, as I suspected, your non-constructive answer to me suggests that, at the end of the day, your rhetoric is simply just more of the same old defense of a club that does not know how to move forward to achieve the objective it sold to the fans.

[Carrow89 0]

Bit of an odd post Saint to reply to but here goes. The balance you go on about is nonsense,. Your suggestions are akin to a model asking for only one breast to be enlarged so that she can use the rest of the money to launch her new modelling career.

Ground developments DO NOT equate with funding the team. The first is a one off long term project whereas the latter is something that can be (and is) constantly adjusted. The idea that we could somehow modify the new South Stand as we go or build the infill on a seasonal basis related to league status is absurd.

Likewise the product is not football. Football maybe seen as it''s core value but it has far greater layers to it than that. You can watch just as good game at your local park as at many league grounds. Cup finals are often dire games but sellout every game. It is the occasion rather than the actualle.

Naively trundling out the tworn out arguments about playing staff and wages has the same logic as that which suggests the more money you give to somebody entering a casino the more he will win. Wiser heads might suggest that you ensure his rent and bills are paid first as is his taxi home before he enters the casino.

We had to make decision a few years back as to where we wanted to be. The club took the view that we required facilities that would be compatible with Premierhip status. Those facilities have to be paid for. We are not the blaggers down the road who''ve happily stiffed everyone from the lowliest trader to the humblest charity.

Saint, you champion the cause of taking risks with players yet in the next sentence highlight what you see as the downside with the signing of Hughes. I note you give no credit to the club for signing Huckerby and Ashton.

Sadly the real issue here is not some spurious guff about balance or investment but yet another thread being used to make unfounded attacks upon Norwich City. Why the same posters should feel the need to do this they alone know the reason.

Finally lets just hope that the club has put aside enough money held over to fumigate Carrow Road after the binners next visit. Sour grapes can leave an awfully rancid smell.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Whereas your suggestions Ralph are akin to a young woman spending all her money on having both breasts enlarged only to be told by modelling agencies that she has more capacity in that area than is required. So, back to the drawing board she goes, to try and develop a product that will help her market herself and meet her objective. Which brings me back to the question I asked you; what is your solution to help NCFC meet the objective they sold to the fans?

[Saint Canary 0]

The balance you go on about is nonsense,. Your suggestions are akin to a model asking for only one breast to be enlarged so that she can use the rest of the money to launch her new modelling career.

Where in your analogy do you prove that balance is nonsense? However, your lopsided model is actually a pretty good metaphor for our team. Did said model have her left breast enlarged and end up neglecting the right side while her remaining money was spent elsewhere by any chance?

Ground developments DO NOT equate with funding the team. The first is a one off long term project whereas the latter is something that can be (and is) constantly adjusted. The idea that we could somehow modify the new South Stand as we go or build the infill on a seasonal basis related to league status is absurd.

Please point out where I voiced such an opinion because I don''t recall it.

Likewise the product is not football. Football maybe seen as it''s core value but it has far greater layers to it than that. You can watch just as good game at your local park as at many league grounds. Cup finals are often dire games but sellout every game. It is the occasion rather than the actualle.

Football may be seen as the core value? So what you are saying is that football is the core value of football. That is genius, do you lecture in philosophy by any chance?

I will agree that Cup finals are as much or more about the occasion than the football on offer but that has nothing to do with following and attending football as a whole. If you can watch as good a game of football at Old Catton Rec why do people waste hundreds of pounds paying to watch Norwich when they could be getting the same thing for free? If quality has little to do with it why were City getting 16,000 attendance’s during the mid-90''s? Why as a teenager in those years could I buy a ticket for £1? Why all of sudden does it cost me a hell of a lot more than that and the ground is almost full every game? It''s because the success of the club and the quality football. During the play-off and title winning season the demand for tickets increased because of the football on offer. No one thought, "Norwich have bought a nice piece of land I think I might pop down Saturday afternoon to watch a game".

We had to make decision a few years back as to where we wanted to be. The club took the view that we required facilities that would be compatible with Premierhip status. Those facilities have to be paid for. We are not the blaggers down the road who''ve happily stiffed everyone from the lowliest trader to the humblest charity.

Good for the board and I commend them for looking to the future. It still does not detract from the likelihood though that without a half-decent side the stadium could be half empty.

Saint, you champion the cause of taking risks with players yet in the next sentence highlight what you see as the downside with the signing of Hughes. I note you give no credit to the club for signing Huckerby and Ashton.

Surely the fact that I held them up as examples goes to show I feel that both the board and Worthington did very well with those two transfers. The transfer of Hughes was not a calculated risk, it was safe deal. Worthington knew exactly what he would get from Hughes, finding another million for Sidwell would have been the risk.

Sadly the real issue here is not some spurious guff about balance or investment but yet another thread being used to make unfounded attacks upon Norwich City. Why the same posters should feel the need to do this they alone know the reason.

Please read my posts from the start of this thread and you will notice that I praise the club and I don''t merely seek to attack it. If you do not see the need for City to invest equally in playing staff as well as outside interests then I don''t see any use of further labouring the point.

[mystic megson 0]

Ralph, are you saying that as long as we''ve got Premiership facilities, it doesn''t really matter whether we''re actually IN the Premiership or not?

 

 

[beelsie 0]

Hi YC. I hope you will excuse my butting in here, and I know you asked Ralph the question. But may I reiterate my solution to the question.  We must have more patience and allow more time for income development to take place, may be three years will be sufficient.  So that we can show the banks that we are serious about our finances and with a potential fan base of 35/40 000 catered for, once proven and in place, we can afford to buy and pay the wages that quality will demand in to-days football market.  In saying this I would be happy to watch good football played by NCFC in this league for those three years as long as we are playing attractive football at top six level every season.  This will prove that we are serious in our objectives, and good players little used who are ever watching from the Prem who may just want to play for us to get first team football at an ambitious club.

[Carrow89 0]

You seem to be arguing with yourself here Saint.

You claim that the reason that the ground is full is " It''s because the success of the club and the quality football."

Yet mid table with the world and his wife bemoaning the dire fare on offer, even you chimed in with stuff about the team and we are as good as ''sold out'' again. And who bettered us with their attendances last season ? Sheff Weds with their success and quality football perhaps.

A large number of fans turn up for the glory. Witness Fulham away May 2005 or Cardiff 2002. Quality is never an issue despite your naive belief. You even answered your own question when you asked why people " waste hundreds of pounds paying to watch Norwich when they could be getting the same thing for free?" Because it is not the same thing.

The price of tickets has increased across the board at EVERY professional club. A visit to your local club is now deemed an ''experience''. Try checking with City''s marketing department. Try checking how much is derived from corporate packages to see how much of that experience is the core value ie football.

It is never the quality it is always the occasion. The vast majority of the paying public want to see a win or an event. They don''t give a flying toss about your quality.

So you either accept that we have a club that has some idea about providing a stable base to build upon or you head off down the A140 where they even managed to lose money on a pop concert.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Hi beelsie. I always look forward to your comments. You ( like many others ) are closer to the situation than I am so, admittedly, are in a far better position to judge whether the fans have the kind of patience you suggest is called for. However, my opinion is that if three more seasons of what has been on offer is in the cards I doubt that 25,000 will hang around, never mind a greater number. To be fair to your comments, you do say you would be happy as long as we are continuously playing attractive football and competing in the top six. I say to believe that will happen is signing up on a wing and a prayer. We did not replace key positions of weakness even on entering the Premiership. When we came down we did not attract quality The squad and the quality was clearly weakened. The end product, in my view, became predictable. I will be happily surprised if there are significant improvements in either squad strength or quality for this coming season.

You know the old expression beelsie.....those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. If we fail to improve this season in providing a quality on-field product ( a betting man would have to say there is a very good chance of this being the case ) I suspect the growth will be in restlessness and discontentment rather than patience.

[Saint Canary 0]

The attendances of last season have everything to do with success and quality, or in this case the potential of seeing them.  Do you really believe we would have had the attendances of last season had we not won the league two seasons before?  The reason why season ticket sales and attendances were so high were because of the success and quality of two years ago and the belief/hope that it would happen again. 

A serious question Ralph, do you think that attendances will continue to be so high if we have another season or two like last time?

 

[Evil Monkey 52]

Don''t forget that there are many clubs out there, some even within our own league, who don''t even own their own Stadium!

Strange though it sounds I''ve got more faith in the real estate and development side of the NCFC business than I do in the transfer business....

[Carrow89 0]

" do you think that attendances will continue to be so high if we have another season or two like last time?"

Where would we have put those fans previously and where will we put them if we achieve that success again ?

[Saint Canary 0]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]" do you think that attendances will continue to be so high if we have another season or two like last time?" Where would we have put those fans previously and where will we put them if we achieve that success again ?[/quote]

You have quite clearly chosen to ignore a previous post where I agreed with you that the works needed to be done.  So in answer to your question I will copy and paste the reply I already gave you,
I accept and agree that had we not done the works on the stadium and we had retained a place in the Premier League, 18,000 seats would not be enough.

So, do you think that attendances will continue to be so high if we have another season or two like last time?