The official accounts thread

[Saint Canary 0]

The accounts are "messy" as I see but I don''t understand some of the level of hysteria by some.

The club are owed money for transfers - sounds bad doesn''t it?  No not really, it the way most modern transfer deals are done.  Did anyone actually think West Ham had £7.25m in cold hard cash?  More fool you.  It''s just the way things are done unless you are cash rich like Chelsea.  The point of staggering payments in transfer is to avoid borrowing large sums of money and accruing interest.  It''s better to pay £100k extra for a player to pay over two years rather than £300k in interest.

Worthington got a £600k payoff - Pretty much what I expected, slightly less in fact.  Was he worth it?  Looking at the overall picture, probably.  Improved gates and the club making profit thanks to the success he brought.  I doubt anyone would have begrudged him it 3 years ago at the Town Hall.  Was he worth it in the last 18 months?  No but that''s just business, you make a deal at time that you feel is best.

I think the crux of the problem though is that fans are seeing this as the club (in a round about way) telling us we will spend very little come January.  I hadn''t held out much hope anyway but it''s always deflating to hear the club making those sort of noises.  I can also understand why people could become bemused by the accounts and lack of spending on players.  One minute the board are not prepared to "risk" NCFCs financial future but then we see the debts increase for expenditure that many maybe don''t see the long term benefit in.

Nothing in this report suprises me, just my enforces some of the things I already knew.  However there is one thing in it that really hurts.  The club made a small(ish) reduction in wages from the Premiership to the Championship, yet we on the pitch we saw a drastic reduction in qaulity. 

 

 

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="cluck_the_positive"]

I guess I would be expected to jump in here and gloat about the state of affairs at NCFC right now.........

Fortunately however I don''t ''do'' gloat....especially when it concerns something so very important for our club. The details released by the Board read more like the Beano than anything else......and we should all be worried. It basically states that we have blown our income on trifles.....and the CR cupboard is bare.  Well......why doesn''t that surprise me?

I''ve always maintained that Worthington was a convenient smokescreen for Delia Smith and Co....because as long as we were baiting him....the Board was off the hook and not under scrutiny. Cynical and very stupid of them I feel to think they could get away with it....although had PG instantly been a huge success and got them off the hook like they hoped....we supporters may have been more forgiving............

So...where are we then? No money....a rookie ''puppet'' manager few supporters trust.....a Board which would be better selling doughnuts on the market....a spin doctor who really does think we are stupid......a fancy ground where too much has been invested in trivia.....a squad of journeyman misfits (the pick of whom will be flogged off in January)....at least 19 million squid of debt....la de da de da.......AND YET....there are still voices of support for them? Unbelievable.

I won''t repeat the many great issues put forward on here by other posters....but looking at the statistics.....how has all of this been allowed to happen?  Maybe this is all OUR fault too....so perhaps we can expect a slating from DS shortly.

[/quote]

What you get with Cluck is double speak and spin....the very things he accuses others of. He does not do "gloat" he announces smugly at the start of his message. He then goes on unashamedly with trumpets blaring "GLOAT" from the rooftops with "Well, why doesn''t any of this surprise ME."

 

[/quote]

It''s all very well you attacking Clucksembourg with all your military might Yankee, lets hope 99% of the NCFC world posters don''t become your enemies and the remaining 1% get killed in your friendly fire!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="cluck_the_positive"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="cluck_the_positive"]

I guess I would be expected to jump in here and gloat about the state of affairs at NCFC right now.........

Fortunately however I don''t ''do'' gloat....especially when it concerns something so very important for our club. The details released by the Board read more like the Beano than anything else......and we should all be worried. It basically states that we have blown our income on trifles.....and the CR cupboard is bare.  Well......why doesn''t that surprise me?

I''ve always maintained that Worthington was a convenient smokescreen for Delia Smith and Co....because as long as we were baiting him....the Board was off the hook and not under scrutiny. Cynical and very stupid of them I feel to think they could get away with it....although had PG instantly been a huge success and got them off the hook like they hoped....we supporters may have been more forgiving............

So...where are we then? No money....a rookie ''puppet'' manager few supporters trust.....a Board which would be better selling doughnuts on the market....a spin doctor who really does think we are stupid......a fancy ground where too much has been invested in trivia.....a squad of journeyman misfits (the pick of whom will be flogged off in January)....at least 19 million squid of debt....la de da de da.......AND YET....there are still voices of support for them? Unbelievable.

I won''t repeat the many great issues put forward on here by other posters....but looking at the statistics.....how has all of this been allowed to happen?  Maybe this is all OUR fault too....so perhaps we can expect a slating from DS shortly.

[/quote]

What you get with Cluck is double speak and spin....the very things he accuses others of. He does not do "gloat" he announces smugly at the start of his message. He then goes on unashamedly with trumpets blaring "GLOAT" from the rooftops with "Well, why doesn''t any of this surprise ME."

 

[/quote]

For Christ''s sake Yankee grow up and stop trying to point score on such serious matters. Ok so we don''t like each other.....but let''s take it above nursery level now and again eh?

If you seriously think this matter is anything to joke about....maybe it''s best you''re thousands of miles away over there in la la land......where you and your fellow nutters think you run the world.

[/quote]

Cluck, I neither like or dislike you. I don''t know you well enough. Further, there was nothing jocular in the content of my last comments to you, either stated or intended. You appear to like to dish out criticism but have a dislike when it comes back to you. Well, if you intend to stay on this message board, get used to it. It is all about exchange of, and criticism of, each others views. If you don''t like the heat, then "get out of the kitchen." With respect to your comments on childishness, I simply criticised your input. You, on the other hand, resort to name calling. It''s easy to conclude who''s being childish....you don''t even make it difficult. 

[YankeeCanary 0]

John, for you and others of the same ilk who like to throw insults in this direction as you sit comfortably sipping your beer, may feel differently about the USA if the country you have to tackle alone next time is someone tougher than Argentina.

[GMF 742]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

The accounts run from 1st June 2005 to 31st May 2006.  Worthy was sacked on 1st October 2006.

Therefore his payoff has absolutely nothing to do with last year''s accounts.  So why announce it at the same time?  What a cynical little spin machine we do have . . .  

 

[/quote]

It''s within the Notes under the heading Post Balance Sheet Events and it''s usual practice to include such details. You are right, however, such events aren''t within these figures. 

[Dionysus 0]

[quote user="Two Tails"]You really really dont have a clue do you "I Own This Club"

And for those of you whinging about the 600k payoff, it was because he was on a rolling 1 year contract, if ANY of you where fired from your job you would get the money for your notice period if you didnt work it off. Its standard in everyday life, and its not going to be different in football either that is run as a business.

The club was in debt before this board took over so its not them that we have to blame for this.
[/quote]

If I was sacked from my job for gross incompentency, I wouldn''t receive a penny.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="mystic megson"]

The accounts run from 1st June 2005 to 31st May 2006.  Worthy was sacked on 1st October 2006.

Therefore his payoff has absolutely nothing to do with last year''s accounts.  So why announce it at the same time?  What a cynical little spin machine we do have . . .  

 

[/quote]

It''s within the Notes under the heading Post Balance Sheet Events and it''s usual practice to include such details. You are right, however, such events aren''t within these figures. 

[/quote]

 

The profit on buying and selling players just doesn''t add up according to all known figures for transfers as posted by the Web team a week or so back. Unless you include all the Ashton money and some of the Green/McKenzie money since they''re well over 1.5 mill out on the Ashton money alone. As some of the Ashton money, and all of the Green/McKenzie money wouldn''t be due during the period of accounting surely they too are some of these PBSE''s? If so they should not be included. Seems the Club have bumped up the profit on players, whichever way you look at it, and if the story was true about outside cash being used to partially fund Ashton...........

12 months ago the board could have just served 12 months notice on Worthy on the rolling contract, told him that on expiry they would be looking to renegotiate his contract. Standard business practice, Worthy wasn''t being sacked just working through a contract period. Might have given him a bit more incentive to perform, would have saved the club the £600K compo in the very least. It''s not like the problem wasn''t apparent 12 months ago was it? That was poor, weak management IMO.

Most tellingly looking back at those transfer figures it''s blatantly obvious that the Club are only prepared to invest in the hope of a short term return. Sure they''ll hock us up to a 15 year mortgage but when it comes to players they managed to balance the books very nicely with any money being risked from the purchase of Huckerby onwards and throughout the Prem season being safely back in the bank from the sale of assets (whoops I meant players) as soon as possible after relegation. Sure there''s still a risk involved but at the first sign of trouble they''ve cashed in, four of the most prominent transfers involved players who hadn''t been at the club twelve months before being shipped out again, surely that''s not right?

They''re talking about needing to sell assets if we dont get promoted well sorry guys as I see it we''ve had an extra £30,0000,000 minimum over the last three years and we''ve weed it down the drain. We''ve already sold the family silver, Ashton, Francis,Helveg,Jonson,Green and McKenzie in return we''ve bought Earnie and Croft, two great players but we had six great players there and that''s not including the ones we let go for nothing.. The 30 mill is meant for team building, our team is no stronger and surely worth less now than a couple of years back? Had our chance muffed it!

See if you can make a six mill profit from these figures? http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/801915/ShowPost.aspx

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]John, for you and others of the same ilk who like to throw insults in this direction as you sit comfortably sipping your beer, may feel differently about the USA if the country you have to tackle alone next time is someone tougher than Argentina.[/quote]You have made a good point there Yankee and out of respest I''d like to appologise to all the families of American forces who died fighting in the Falklands, talking about taking on tough countries alone, there''s also the little matter of Afghanistan and Iraq but I won''t go there, my beer is getting warm

[ZLF 274]

I see nothing in the accounts that is a surprise

1 Money owed on transfers - its how these deals are done and we owe as well as being owed,  having done more transfers during this period than for some while the amounts involved are inevitably bigger.

2  Loans - we already owed over £19m (previous years accounts),  for me the only surprise is that we have not exceeded £20m already - so no change was expected.

3 Players wages - why the shock?  In Oct last year in his EDP column the CE confirmed that most players contracts stipulated premier salaries until the parachute payments ceased.  The only reason the wage bill fell is that we lost so many players after relegation;  the wage bill should be lower this year as the number of players from the prem season has continued to fall.  As always the players (and their agents) are the only ones to benefit from footballs financial windfall. 

4 Nigels pay off;  it is a disclosable amount within the accounts but not linked this financial period.  The amount seems to reflect the basic salary excluding any bonus'' and reflects what was reported at the start of the prem season, when he was the lowest paid manager in the league. 

The most worrying statement is that the cash position is much worse,  without cashflow business get stifled so raising income to invest (in players primarily) remains a high priority.   The availability of cash does not necessarily directly influence the transfer budget as that has already been set and if the loans are as managed as claimed should not have a huge bearing.   What has not been made clear is how much worse than target the cash situation is if it is significantly worse then was can expect to see some more belt tightening.   I suspect this is the reason why the managers pay off has been confirmed - it is an unplanned (if not completely unexpected!) expense that eats into cash.

 

So pretty much the club is where it should have expected to be;  the question is having seen how open the league is, how we are close to the play off spots despite being hopelessly under staffed will a calculated gamble be taken to push for promotion over the next 6 months?   As with the signing of Hux the timing is right - will the boards resolve match that Xmas of 2003?

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

The accounts are "messy" as I see but I don''t understand some of the level of hysteria by some.

The club are owed money for transfers - sounds bad doesn''t it?  No not really, it the way most modern transfer deals are done.  Did anyone actually think West Ham had £7.25m in cold hard cash?  More fool you.  It''s just the way things are done unless you are cash rich like Chelsea.  The point of staggering payments in transfer is to avoid borrowing large sums of money and accruing interest.  It''s better to pay £100k extra for a player to pay over two years rather than £300k in interest.

Worthington got a £600k payoff - Pretty much what I expected, slightly less in fact.  Was he worth it?  Looking at the overall picture, probably.  Improved gates and the club making profit thanks to the success he brought.  I doubt anyone would have begrudged him it 3 years ago at the Town Hall.  Was he worth it in the last 18 months?  No but that''s just business, you make a deal at time that you feel is best.

I think the crux of the problem though is that fans are seeing this as the club (in a round about way) telling us we will spend very little come January.  I hadn''t held out much hope anyway but it''s always deflating to hear the club making those sort of noises.  I can also understand why people could become bemused by the accounts and lack of spending on players.  One minute the board are not prepared to "risk" NCFCs financial future but then we see the debts increase for expenditure that many maybe don''t see the long term benefit in.

Nothing in this report suprises me, just my enforces some of the things I already knew.  However there is one thing in it that really hurts.  The club made a small(ish) reduction in wages from the Premiership to the Championship, yet we on the pitch we saw a drastic reduction in qaulity. 

[/quote]

Thank God for some sensible responses. 

I think one of the main problems in all this is that people are getting sets of Accounts without really knowing what things mean, and the pink un sadly doesn''t seem to want to do anything other than stoke up fears with stories that are slightly misleading at least in terms of  their titles.  Of course there are also others who just want to have a dig at the club/board any opportunity and will jump on any slagging off that is going.

The transfers issue is one such example: very few companies have such large chunks (in terms of tens of £m''s) of accessible cash just sat there, to do so would not be seen as investing funds properly.  There is not really anything odd in it: taking an individual''s finances as an example, if one of us were to buy a house, we are hardly likely to write a £150k cheque there and then.  It is not at all surprising that most transfers, due to the amounts involved, are dealt with in this way.  This does make the point about available funds therefore slightly moot: we would put similar terms of instalment on any fee paid, so that the cash out and cash in come at the same sort of timeframe - so it follows that amounts we are owed should be available to spend. 

 Worthy''s pay-off is slightly annoying but falls way short of the £1m that was bandied around.  It is a hell of a lot of cash, but was clearly his entitlement, there is not a lot we can do about it now.  I don''t suppose our terms and conditions are that different to other clubs though....to assume otherwise is suggesting we know the intricate details of these things which we don''t.

[macdougalls perm 0]

YC,

But perhaps we would also be better off not hanging on to the shirt tails of an ally who seems hell bent on antagonising the entire ''non-western'' world in protecting its economic interests. Perhaps prevention is better than cure, i.e. you don''t need a bee keeping outfit if you don''t intend to spend all of your time poking sticks into beehives. And, yes, I accept your point but I think that we could be a little more shrewd in protecting our own interests than simply depending on the might of our ''bigger brothers'' across the pond. 

[ManchesterCanary 0]

One of the details from the accounts....players wages were £9m in 2005/6 - down from £11m in the Premiership...and a quote from Mr. Doncaster..."the board believed that it should back the judgment of former manager Nigel Worthington and did so, sanctioning player wages during 2005/6 which were only marginally lower than during our year in the Premier League.”

Where is the incentive for players to perform?. Surely the club should cut its cloth accordingly. This looks like extremely bad financial judgement...and nothing like passing the buck is there?...Mr Doncaster, its THE BOARDS FAULT if you let a football manager dictate financial matters. It beggars belief.

I am no accountant but....Players wages of £9 million!!  Profit down £5.1 million!. Easy answer...players wages should be a lot lot less!

 

 

 

[beelsie 0]

YC ! why is it some posters get so het up with your style? is it that

the clarity of your assumptions and ideas are sometimes a little bit

critical about our board and some posters at times, me included. 

I say more power to your pen. Often it is the compromises made as a

result debate that make for better decisions. Paying more money for

players as has WBA does not guarantee that although on paper one has

the best side, and a manager of some repute, results that are

exceptable will necessarily follow: we. the fans should know.  I

believe that just because we were in the Prem for a taster, and that

really was what it was, judging by the small investment that followed,

in my opinion too small to have a consolidating effect: although I for

one was against bankrupting the club, however i did feel that we might

just hang on in there and the abysmal display at Fulham sealed our

fate: again IMO down to the players attitude coupled with lack of pride

and self-motivation.  There was still the matter of keeping us

where the golden nuggets were obtainable.  This for our board was

a big question that they chickened out on IMHO.  The Argentinian

point is well made in my opinion, but it has often been the case that

we as a country have prevailed in conflict and against the odds just

due to doggedness coupled with courage, sadly this is often lacking in

our football.  To take your last para above.  Our board has

acted in the best interests of our club in their opinion.

[Stevie 0]

[quote user="mystic megson"]

The accounts run from 1st June 2005 to 31st May 2006.  Worthy was sacked on 1st October 2006.

Therefore his payoff has absolutely nothing to do with last year''s accounts.  So why announce it at the same time?  What a cynical little spin machine we do have . . .  

 

[/quote]It''s called a post balance sheet event.  Anything significant which happens to a company after the year end but before the accounts are signed has to be mentioned.  If not the Auditors could "qualify" the accounts.

[sheded 0]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]John, for you and others of the same ilk who like to throw insults in this direction as you sit comfortably sipping your beer, may feel differently about the USA if the country you have to tackle alone next time is someone tougher than Argentina.[/quote]

You have made a good point there Yankee and out of respest I''d like to appologise to all the families of American forces who died fighting in the Falklands, talking about taking on tough countries alone, there''s also the little matter of Afghanistan and Iraq but I won''t go there, my beer is getting warm
[/quote]

Actually  Boubepo ,  in reference to the Falklands  war , the Yanks  helped us in many ways !   look it up ....   in contrast  to that scenario is the french supplying  the argentines with Exocet missiles  , one of which  sank one of our ships  ....  get to know who your allies are eh ? 

As for Afghanistan ,  the Yanks  are still operating   over there , but the brunt  of the fighting  IS   being  experienced by the Brits   in the Helmand area  of southern Afghanistan  !  the Canadians  are also engaged   in action to the east  of that province .

Meanwhile , back at the ranch  , we have most of the nato troops sitting on their arses  in safe  northern Afghanistan  , with our " allies " ,Germany and France  , refusing to let their troops   go into " risky " areas    , well ..... surprise surprise  !   the gruesome twosome  sit back while the Brits get killed ,  must satisfy  their  inbuilt hatred of  all thing British ?      look out for a rush of  " courage "   when the Helmand province is made safe  , they wouldn`t want to miss out on the rebuilding contracts  , now would they ?

I have a younger brother serving  over there  , so I get the facts  in real time   , and its not exactly how the politicians  make out  .....

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

I don''t see any problem in the accounts.  My only problems are as follows:

• I am of course disappointed that we had to pay 600K to sack a man who new his time was up and was just hanging on this season for a pay-off.
• The wages are a disgrace.  people keep saying where has the money gone - it went on wages.  Ask the question as often as you like the answer is still the same.  It went on wages.
• The Dean Ashton signing.  we should have spent the 3 million on a striker at the start of the season - be it crouch or Ashton (if we had him in mind then).

[BBFF 0]

More to the point when will Football come first at Carrow Rd?

[shyster 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]John, for you and others of the same ilk who like to throw insults in this direction as you sit comfortably sipping your beer, may feel differently about the USA if the country you have to tackle alone next time is someone tougher than Argentina.[/quote]

What like Panama or Grenada? [:$]

[John Boubepo 0]

[quote user="sheded"]

[quote user="John Boubepo"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]John, for you and others of the same ilk who like to throw insults in this direction as you sit comfortably sipping your beer, may feel differently about the USA if the country you have to tackle alone next time is someone tougher than Argentina.[/quote]

You have made a good point there Yankee and out of respest I''d like to appologise to all the families of American forces who died fighting in the Falklands, talking about taking on tough countries alone, there''s also the little matter of Afghanistan and Iraq but I won''t go there, my beer is getting warm
[/quote]

Actually  Boubepo ,  in reference to the Falklands  war , the Yanks  helped us in many ways !   look it up ....   in contrast  to that scenario is the french supplying  the argentines with Exocet missiles  , one of which  sank one of our ships  ....  get to know who your allies are eh ? 

As for Afghanistan ,  the Yanks  are still operating   over there , but the brunt  of the fighting  IS   being  experienced by the Brits   in the Helmand area  of southern Afghanistan  !  the Canadians  are also engaged   in action to the east  of that province .

Meanwhile , back at the ranch  , we have most of the nato troops sitting on their arses  in safe  northern Afghanistan  , with our " allies " ,Germany and France  , refusing to let their troops   go into " risky " areas    , well ..... surprise surprise  !   the gruesome twosome  sit back while the Brits get killed ,  must satisfy  their  inbuilt hatred of  all thing British ?      look out for a rush of  " courage "   when the Helmand province is made safe  , they wouldn`t want to miss out on the rebuilding contracts  , now would they ?

I have a younger brother serving  over there  , so I get the facts  in real time   , and its not exactly how the politicians  make out  .....

[/quote]

Thanks for the history lesson shedded, British forces did indeed face  French supplied Excocets in the Falklands, they also had to face bullets and plastic explosives in Northern Ireland, supplied from guess where?  

[ronbol ronbol 0]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]

I told you, I damn well told you!.  But there are posters on here who would rather ''point score'' off me, than see the plain truth of the matter.

Forget any decent signings in January, because reading the article (link below) Doomcaster is preparing the excuses already for lack of January transfer activity by this club.

http://new.pinkun.com/content/ncfc/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=Norwich&tBrand=PinkUnOnline&tCategory=Norwich&itemid=NOED01%20Dec%202006%2008%3A29%3A26%3A567

And what away to do buisness eh?, the club is owed millions, we, the supporters, will never see any real benefits for our ''flogged off'' silver. No, imo, that will again ''vanish'' in the accounting process. I said only a few days ago that this would happen, although Herb will deny this!, but I can produce all my posts on this subject if I have to.

The board in my opinion, are not fit to run this club of ours, and should be removed from office if the club is to go forward. Forget any major new signings it won''t happen, unless Hucks, Earnie and others are sold, and even then don''t hold your breath, because we''ll only get the money in three years time!......

We are being set up, and its a joke.

Enjoy!

[/quote]don''t often agree with you wiz, but yes i can see this coming a mile off.

[GMF 742]

The accounts are a "snap shot" of the state for the Club as at the end of May, so, effectively, they''re out of date as soon as they''re published.

Talking about a deteriorating cash position can be misleading, cos we simply don''t know what the postion is today. It could be better, it could be worse, we just don''t know and they sure aren''t going to tell us.

Wages should be lower cos the squad is even smaller than twelve months ago.

Guess we''ll just have to wait and see.[:@] 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

The accounts are a "snap shot" of the state for the Club as at the end of May, so, effectively, they''re out of date as soon as they''re published.

Talking about a deteriorating cash position can be misleading, cos we simply don''t know what the postion is today. It could be better, it could be worse, we just don''t know and they sure aren''t going to tell us.

Wages should be lower cos the squad is even smaller than twelve months ago.

Guess we''ll just have to wait and see.[:@] 

[/quote]

My company accounts are equally muddy....except that mine are of little interest to anyone other than the Inland Revenue......no ''fans'' to scrutinise or question.

The NCFC books will be a work of fiction to bamboozle....cleverly constructed to deflect criticism and put out a ''positive'' spin. God help us then if this is as ''positive'' as they could get away with....because the truth behind them must be bloody awful. Any January transfer activity will be hilarious......and just more debt incurred unless Earnie leaves us as is expected.

Well done Delia....consider the books ''over-cooked''.........

[The Fish Seller 0]

Is mentioning that we have made a 6million + profit  on players something to be proud of? Does it not mean our squad is now worth £6,000,000 less than the previous year? And they talk about possibly having to sell assets....... Strikes me that the family silver was off down the pawn shop at the earliest opportunity after exiting the Prem, not much else to hock really Earnie. I suppose for starters and one or two others would raise a bit but several with value are oin the longest contracts .

 

Sorry but a £6 mill profit on players is only something to put a positive spin on if they have been replaced with players of equal worth bought for less, anything less is admittance that the team has been devalued. For heavens sake leave quality out the picture for a moment they haven''t even replaced the number of personnel sold off, our squad is perilously thin, I dont expect overall squad size to increase by more than one or two in Jan, if we get four in I reckon it will be at the expense of two leaving, I''ll let you wonder who they might be.......

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Ralph Wrong"]

Is mentioning that we have made a 6million + profit  on players something to be proud of? Does it not mean our squad is now worth £6,000,000 less than the previous year? And they talk about possibly having to sell assets....... Strikes me that the family silver was off down the pawn shop at the earliest opportunity after exiting the Prem, not much else to hock really Earnie. I suppose for starters and one or two others would raise a bit but several with value are oin the longest contracts .

 

Sorry but a £6 mill profit on players is only something to put a positive spin on if they have been replaced with players of equal worth bought for less, anything less is admittance that the team has been devalued. For heavens sake leave quality out the picture for a moment they haven''t even replaced the number of personnel sold off, our squad is perilously thin, I dont expect overall squad size to increase by more than one or two in Jan, if we get four in I reckon it will be at the expense of two leaving, I''ll let you wonder who they might be.......

[/quote]

Spot on RW.  We had the same problem last season btw, but it was obscured by the WO situation.  We had the joint smallest squad in the Championship. 

Talking of profits, our net profit of about £2.5 million last season looks like one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, in the Championship.  Annual figures are coming out daily, but the four I''ve picked up so far are as follows:  Preston £2m loss, Reading £2m loss, Ipswich £3m loss, Southampton £3.3m loss.  A bit too early to say whether a pattern is emerging.  I''ll keep you posted.

Message to the board: if you''d sacrificed that profit for a break-even position last season, spent £2.5m more on increasing the size of the squad, there''s every chance we''d have finished in the top six.  Do you really want to run a football club or not?

 

[Canary Poirot 1]

I also want to comment on the wages being paid by this football club. Quite frankly, given the size of our squad (and the fact there''s a lot of players straight out of the academy too who are earning presumably next to nothing) our so called senior pros are clearly taking home a hell of a lot of money every week. And what do they have to show for it? Absolutely diddly squat most weeks. Another no show was that Dickson? Couldn''t be bother this week Robinson? Happy to sit on the bench Peter Thorne? No matter, they think, I''m going home with £5,000 +. There was even a rumour that Ryan Jarvis was on about £4,000 a week, now if that was true then quite frankly the board have lost it completely - he''s not even competent to play at Championship level! And where would he go if we sold him? To Kings Lynn and earn £4,000 a year - that''s where.

The wages being paid at our club are a scandal. There''s no incentive for these guys to earn their cash. The high wages mean we can''t afford decent competition for places. It''s time we sorted this mess out. It''s time we started offering a low basic salary, and then offer big incentives like appearance bonus (so players get themselves fit - i.e. Thorne / Louis Jean (who in my opinion is taking the piss completely), win bonus, goal bonus, away draw bonus. If that means we miss out on a few players, then so be it. We can never be allowed to end up in this situation with a squad of players like we have at the moment ever again.

Here''s an example: Wigan were smart. They offered Jarratt an incentive based contract, low basic salary - so what do we do? We go in and offer him a big basic salary - result - he signs for us, and is on the whole compeltely useless and a huge waste of money. Why are Wigan doing so well? Maybe because their players have incentivised contracts?

And one last point before Yankee says we are paying commensurate wages to our players as say Burnley are to theirs - I''m not buying that arguement. Firstly the transfer market never clears in football - players are stuck on long contracts and you have to buy them out, so even if a star at Burnley wanted to move because he was earning half what Bobinson earned here, he couldn''t, because Burnley could price him out the market. Also good players are scarce and therefore can be priced off the market. Hence the need to get Bosmans. And only two kind of players end up on Bosmans - the mercenary out to get the highest wage he can, and the cast offs. And the Bosmans go to the highest bidder who wants them. It''s just a shame we keep backing lemons, instead of the plums on the Bosman market. hopefully Grant will be a better judge of player and character.

[Snakepit Boy 0]

I might be missing something here, but why has the club even mentioned Worthington''s pay-off here? It''s nothing to do with the accounting year in question. His pay-off will appear in N EXT year''s accounts.

I don''t suppose they''re trying to media-manage the figures so that we''re already braced for even worse news next year? As in, "Let''s drip-feed the bad news from this point onwards, so people aren''t too shocked in a year''s time" . . . ?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Snakepit Boy"]

I might be missing something here, but why has the club even mentioned Worthington''s pay-off here? It''s nothing to do with the accounting year in question. His pay-off will appear in N EXT year''s accounts.

I don''t suppose they''re trying to media-manage the figures so that we''re already braced for even worse news next year? As in, "Let''s drip-feed the bad news from this point onwards, so people aren''t too shocked in a year''s time" . . . ?

[/quote]

Glad I''m not the only one who had the same reaction Snakey.

Accounting bods have commented that it''s a "post balance sheet event" that had to be included to get the accounts signed off.  Be that as it may, the effect has been to distract people from the accounts themselves.

There is spin going on, of course.  For example, "Our profits are down" oh dear oh dear we''re so skint.  Of course the profits are down on the previous year, because we were in the Premiership then.  The real point is that our net profit of £2.5m looks like one of the highest, if not THE highest in the Championship last season. 

 

 

 

[The Judge 0]

You need to remember Mystic when taking about our profit and comparing it to other clubs is that the parachute payment has been taken into consideration in calculating this. So if the parachute payment is around £6m - means we actually made a 4.5m loss - so when this disappears next season we really are in the poop. (Hence Delia saying we need to cut costs).

There is some good stuff on this thread, however for me the one thing that is screeming out to be answered by those on the board of "DeliaLand Norwich" is where are we going to get new investment from ??

I don''t have the answers, I don''t know who is out there with money and wants to invest in a football club, I don''t know whether Delias majority share is/has put potential investors off, or indeed whether she is prepared to relinquish her majority shareholding to secure the finances necessary to move forward.

However I do know one thing, with the level of debt as it is, the squad being as small as it is with one or 2 saleable assets (which would have to be sold at the end of the season if we don''t get promoted), parachute payments finishing, and lack of "real" new money available from the existing board - there is only one way this club is going - Backwards.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but looking at it logically, without this significant new investment it the only way we are going. I''m not having a go at Delia for what is has done for the club, and though she has benefited from self promotion in being associated with NCFC i don''t think it is her primary objective for being in charge of NCFC. But she (if she is really a true fan) and the rest of the board don''t have a major strategic re-think on how they want/need to finance NCFC over the next 10 years we are certainly not going to be challenging at the top of the championship, and actually have the potential (with the lack of players we have) to slip down a division.  

[canary cherub 1]

I haven''t forgotten about the parachute payments, Judge.  But I don''t really understand your point.  Income is income, wherever it comes from. 

Given that the club knew the parachute money would run out, that''s even more reason for them to spend it on strengthening the squad while we''ve got it.  If we had gone straight back up or even made the play-offs it would have brought in more income.  Instead we became one of the most profitable clubs in the Championship last season but never mounted a serious challenge for the play-offs.  A gross profit of £3.1 million could have been spent on the footballing side, or at the very least on reducing the debt, if only to prevent Gordon Brown snatching £600,000 of it.

Should a club like ours even be trying to make a profit, if we''re going to lose 20% of it in tax?  Nearly £2 million tax last season, that''s £3.5 million over two seasons that we can''t afford to lose.  Does anyone benefit from a profit situation, apart from the shareholders?  Obviously we want to avoid making a loss, but perhaps a break-even position is what we should be aiming for?

   

[Chunky 0]

Whilst not many businesses have an endless pit of money the board of any company will be guided by their senior staff.

I am sure the board want success as muchas every true fan does. And if their senior staff say I need for example £ 2 million to buy a player who will make a big difference and get us promoted I am certain most businesses will except the gamble of £ 2 million to gain a considerable amount more.

However until recently we had a manager who was blindly convinced everything was all right with the assets we had here and that he had the players to do the job. Why therefore would the board (who are non football people) invest / gamble large sums when a manager (supposed football person) says he is happy with what he had.

Now I am certain Mr Grant will have told the board in no uncertain terms that money is needed and quick before the losses mount up due to us being stuck in this division. Lets judge the boards bravery then and see if they intend to recoup the money through football rather than try to sell a poor product to new investment, wherever that may be coming from, or even if it is available.