how far have we slumped???

[Magicmol 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]

[quote user="Magicmol"][quote user="Cluck "]This is a "virtual" forum "virtually"supporting a "virtual" club. A large percentage don''t even go near the ground...yet they know all the answers...A fair few others spend far too much time playing "virtual football" on their Xbox instead of studying the true state of the club....where they can''t simply switch off and start from the beginning again. Once we''re broke...we''re broke. There is no easy electronic way out. [/quote]Coming from the person with over 2000 posts since the end of September last year![/quote]

Just because you''ve not been able to think up more than 24 posts since August 2005.   [:P]  .....on this particular user name anyway.........     

[/quote]Good reply - I have other things to do in my life though than post on here [:p] - still does it make you a "virtual" supporter?

[August 64 0]

Cluck claims to be in touch with "paying" fans while those of us who laugh at his half-baked conspiracy theories are not.  Funnily enough the people who I sit with at games home and away and travel hundreds of miles each week with pay a hell of a lot of money to do so.  They have a range of opinions from optimistic to pessimistic at any one time but, and crucially, they have a range of opinions that often change from hour to hour let alone day to day.  You Cluck, and your pet lamb Smudgelet, are a cracked record spouting the same old spin day in day out.  I have never played an Xbox but maybe you should Cluck since you clearly need a bit of variety in your life.  Either that or lets meet up for a drink and debate at Hillsborough - oh no, guess what, you won''t be there will you.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

Peter Grant certainly hasn''t had enough time in charge.  However the lack of any improvement in results is worrying.  As is his tactical naiviety, and player judgement.

I don''t feel he will prove to be the answer, but am willing to at least give him until January, barring us hanging around the relegation zone.  In which case he should be sacked.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

We do not have to spend ourselves into bankruptcy to be challenging for promotion from the Championship.  That''s the limit of my ambition at the present time.  Is that ambitious and realistic enough for you? 

In the past two dismal seasons we''ve had £24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds) in parachute payments and profits, that most other clubs in this division can only dream of, and where are we now?  In terms of profits we are a BIG club.  Football-wise we are in crisis.  That''s quite an achievement.  Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City.  Discuss.

 

[/quote]

I respectfully suggest that you re-read the balance sheet Mystic.

The Sky money (Prem and Parachute payments) are an integral part of the the profit and loss account and not additional to it.

What you have done is count the money twice. A bit like that Scotts bloke, err whats his name............Gordon Brown.

[/quote]

Darling heart.  Most of the profit (£7.1m) was made in the season BEFORE we had the parachute payments.

Therefore please replace "£24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds)" with "£21,500,000 (twenty-one and a half million pounds)". 

And send for the nit nurse.

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="August 64"]

Cluck claims to be in touch with "paying" fans while those of us who laugh at his half-baked conspiracy theories are not.  Funnily enough the people who I sit with at games home and away and travel hundreds of miles each week with pay a hell of a lot of money to do so.  They have a range of opinions from optimistic to pessimistic at any one time but, and crucially, they have a range of opinions that often change from hour to hour let alone day to day.  You Cluck, and your pet lamb Smudgelet, are a cracked record spouting the same old spin day in day out.  I have never played an Xbox but maybe you should Cluck since you clearly need a bit of variety in your life.  Either that or lets meet up for a drink and debate at Hillsborough - oh no, guess what, you won''t be there will you.

[/quote]

Do I detect an attempt to hijack the title of the ovine masses on here.....or are you just a "sheep in wolf''s clothing"?  Very much the latter I suspect.

Unlike your "friends"...I believe in consistency, rather than foolishly drifting into Lalaland one day after a flukey win and then suicidal disappointment if we lose. Smith and Co. have had plenty of my money on false pretences in recent years....but then you obviously haven''t caught on yet have you?

Enjoy Hillsborough if you are actually going. I believe they wear blue and white stripey thingies which you might find entertaining.

Baaaaaaaaaahh.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Putney Canary: a point you might like to bear in mind regarding the £9million wage bill is that in the last financial year it was virtually covered by the tv revenue (£8million) received by the club. Not quite so crippling really hey? Its all in black and white in the accounts-if you have them.[/quote]

 

So what do they do next year when they are without the TV revenue?

A sensible company would make provision for the future or risk going out of business. What ever way you cut it the wage bill will remain and any purchase of  expensive players is only going to increase it.

You can stick your head in the sand and take a chance. You might do a Sunderland but then again you might do a Leeds.

[/quote]

Well as our board cannot run a competitive football team with the benefit of £8million tv revenue in each of the last two years plus a big profit on the likes of Ashton,Francis,Jonsson,Green etc. i would say things are looking pretty bleak. But perhaps not spending £4million on"infrastructure costs" and reducing the overall wage bill from near £16million (player wages=£9million) would be a good start?

I sincerely and fervently hope they do manage to stem the flow of off-field expenditure and once again focus on the team where it really matters-its why i and others have been trying to put pressure on them in the last few years. But im sure that whatever they do most of you will still be doffing your caps and thanking them for this fine mess they`ve got us into.....

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="August 64"]

"I don''t know about you, but I don''t call one week in the early stages of 2006-07 in the top 6 "play-off contention", though you probably would."

I don''t know about you but I expect it in 2007-08.  The rest is history - let it go.  Play-off contention means being in the play-offs or close enough to qualify by the last game of the season.

I am very ambitious for the Club.  I also believe in sustainable ambition.  Would I like to see the Club collapse in an attempt to spend our way back to the Premiership?  Definitely not.  Do I believe that we will spend enough to make promotion possible?  Yes.

Such views don''t go down well with the La La Land supporters who hark back to the supposed golden age of Chase.  Live in the real world where Leeds are going down and potentially into administration after trying to buy a dream.  I was proud to be a Norwich fan the day we got Chase out.

Being realistic and being ambitious are not mutually exclusive qualities. Discuss.

August 64

[/quote]

We do not have to spend ourselves into bankruptcy to be challenging for promotion from the Championship.  That''s the limit of my ambition at the present time.  Is that ambitious and realistic enough for you? 

In the past two dismal seasons we''ve had £24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds) in parachute payments and profits, that most other clubs in this division can only dream of, and where are we now?  In terms of profits we are a BIG club.  Football-wise we are in crisis.  That''s quite an achievement.  Financial success and footballing failure ARE mutually exclusive qualities, except at Norwich City.  Discuss.

 

[/quote]

I respectfully suggest that you re-read the balance sheet Mystic.

The Sky money (Prem and Parachute payments) are an integral part of the the profit and loss account and not additional to it.

What you have done is count the money twice. A bit like that Scotts bloke, err whats his name............Gordon Brown.

[/quote]

Darling heart.  Most of the profit (£7.1m) was made in the season BEFORE we had the parachute payments.

Therefore please replace "£24,000,000 (twenty-four million pounds)" with "£21,500,000 (twenty-one and a half million pounds)". 

And send for the nit nurse.

 

[/quote]

Just looked at the profit and loss figures for the last 4 years

2003                   4.611 million loss

2004                   2.015 million loss

2005                   7.608 million profit

2006                   2.454 million profit

Next year we have no parachute payments so not very hard to see where that will leave the profit and loss account.

Looks like wage cuts and redundancies all round.

Some quite big nits there so we may still need the nurse.

Does anyone know a sugar daddy who likes canaries?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

 

NuttyNigel: I see your point about Delia and the board as a "team" but at the end of the day she has the power to say what goes at the club. The extent to which she uses this is open to debate and at the end of the day no-one can really know. I do however believe, judging from her "i saved the club" outburst earlier in the season and the board in generals unwillingness to accept any criticism, that egos in the boardroom have grown to Chase-like proportions....

The rest of your post i largely agree with and as such i cannot understand why you spend so much time on here arguing with people who are trying to put pressure on the board to focus on the team rather than off-field projects. "They have been far too prudent since our promotion to the Premiership". Indeed. In the past 2 seasons the club have raked in £16million in tv revenue, sold players to the value of about £14million, had a £1.5million loan written off and made £1.1million from the hotel. Out of all this they have provided about £6million in transfer fees for new players. I appreciate that there are add-ons, agents fees etc. but im afraid these are completely dwarfed by the figures above. Given the pathetic state of the playing squad and the performances at Carrow Rd this season dont we have every right to be angry? Whats so wrong with letting them know they`ve been rumbled?

The attitude of many on here seems to be "it could be worse, lets hope they`re a bit more ambitious next season" and im afraid such a shoulder-shrugging approach is part of the problem. Complacency and inertia rule at Carrow Rd in my opinion and those people who are going out of their way to put pressure on the board to change should be applauded.

[Green and Yellow 0]

Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Just looked at the profit and loss figures for the last 4 years

2003                   4.611 million loss

2004                   2.015 million loss

2005                   7.608 million profit

2006                   2.454 million profit

Next year we have no parachute payments so not very hard to see where that will leave the profit and loss account.

Looks like wage cuts and redundancies all round.

Some quite big nits there so we may still need the nurse.

Does anyone know a sugar daddy who likes canaries?

[/quote]

The two most profitable years have been the most dismal performance-wise since the mid-1990s, when we really were skint.  Conversely, we had a smallish debt in 2004 (probably due largely to the loss of South Stand income for half a season) but we went up as champions and subsequently made a substantial profit.  

I rest my case.

 

 

[August 64 0]

[quote user="Grumpy "]Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.[/quote]

 

This is the world where madness lies.  On what possible grounds can anyone make such a statement that we have 14,000 "true fans" and the rest are "spectators".  This statement is so shot through with fallacious assumptions that it is hard to imagine spinner Cluck saying it let alone having others repeat it. 

It is a figure plucked (or is it clucked!) from the air. 

The idea that a group of many thousands think exactly the same way is patently nonsense.

I haven''t heard anyone take the view "it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season", let alone thousands.  Even if someone thought that - so what?

What sort of self-important egotist would dare to draw a distinction in the value of one person regularly attending a match over another - let alone those who only attend sporadically or never.

Whipping yourself into a frenzy is fine if that is what turns you on.  Others will disagree with you - maybe not so venomously or with such dogma.  There seems to be a growing approach on this board that deems aggression and vitriol as the hallmarks of valid arguments - nothing could be further from the truth.

I''ll be enjoying Hillsborough and then looking forward to Exeter.  I won''t be wondering whether the people around me can be categorised ar "true fans" or not, and I certainly will not be lowering my realistic ambitions for the Club while I''m enjoying myself.

August 64

 

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="Grumpy "]Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.[/quote]

Worth highlighting....as it is as perfect a statement as I''ve ever read on here.       [Y]

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="August 64"]

[quote user="Grumpy "]Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.[/quote]

 

This is the world where madness lies.  On what possible grounds can anyone make such a statement that we have 14,000 "true fans" and the rest are "spectators".  This statement is so shot through with fallacious assumptions that it is hard to imagine spinner Cluck saying it let alone having others repeat it. 

It is a figure plucked (or is it clucked!) from the air. 

The idea that a group of many thousands think exactly the same way is patently nonsense.

I haven''t heard anyone take the view "it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season", let alone thousands.  Even if someone thought that - so what?

What sort of self-important egotist would dare to draw a distinction in the value of one person regularly attending a match over another - let alone those who only attend sporadically or never.

Whipping yourself into a frenzy is fine if that is what turns you on.  Others will disagree with you - maybe not so venomously or with such dogma.  There seems to be a growing approach on this board that deems aggression and vitriol as the hallmarks of valid arguments - nothing could be further from the truth.

I''ll be enjoying Hillsborough and then looking forward to Exeter.  I won''t be wondering whether the people around me can be categorised ar "true fans" or not, and I certainly will not be lowering my realistic ambitions for the Club while I''m enjoying myself.

August 64

 

[/quote]

Oh dear oh dear Rudolf Hucker.  This is as transparent as the sentiments and words you utter. Kind of sad in a way....but rather amusing in another.

 

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="August 64"]

[quote user="Grumpy "]Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.[/quote]

 

This is the world where madness lies.  On what possible grounds can anyone make such a statement that we have 14,000 "true fans" and the rest are "spectators".  This statement is so shot through with fallacious assumptions that it is hard to imagine spinner Cluck saying it let alone having others repeat it. 

It is a figure plucked (or is it clucked!) from the air. 

The idea that a group of many thousands think exactly the same way is patently nonsense.

I haven''t heard anyone take the view "it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season", let alone thousands.  Even if someone thought that - so what?

What sort of self-important egotist would dare to draw a distinction in the value of one person regularly attending a match over another - let alone those who only attend sporadically or never.

Whipping yourself into a frenzy is fine if that is what turns you on.  Others will disagree with you - maybe not so venomously or with such dogma.  There seems to be a growing approach on this board that deems aggression and vitriol as the hallmarks of valid arguments - nothing could be further from the truth.

I''ll be enjoying Hillsborough and then looking forward to Exeter.  I won''t be wondering whether the people around me can be categorised ar "true fans" or not, and I certainly will not be lowering my realistic ambitions for the Club while I''m enjoying myself.

August 64

 

[/quote]I think it''s all those Under 10s that aren''t true fans. You never hear them have valid opinions on the financial state of the club, and they never do anything to try to undermine the board or criticise the players. It''s this kind of ignorance that allows our fine club to go to ruin. I think all the kids should be banned from the ground, so all the adults can join together and start planning the inevitable coup d''etat. I estimate that if we could get the number of ''true fans'' up to about 19,250, we''d probably be able to overthrow the board, and then all those ''spectators'' who have the temerity to turn up just to watch the football (the very thought!) can be hounded from our midst for refusing to subscribe to our revolutionary ideals. Who''s with me?Top post, by the way, August 64.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Cluck "]

[quote user="Grumpy "]Mr Carrow I agree with with your comments in particular the comment regarding the attitude ''it could be worse, lets hope they are a bit more ambitious next season''. This ties in with what Cluck is stating that Norwich may have 20.000 plus season ticket sales but, the hardcore number is 14.000 ish the rest being spectators. There is a BIG difference between a FAN and a SPECTATOR. That is why Delia and her merry band of fools continue because NCFC carries SPECTATORS not TRUE FANS.[/quote]

Worth highlighting....as it is as perfect a statement as I''ve ever read on here.       [Y]

[/quote]

I largely agreee with highlighted statement above i know some non city fans who got a season ticet when we went up in order to see the premiership live and have sice retained them in the hope we''ll return. But i hope your not trying to say that anybody who supports the board or who isn''t anti-the board to the same level as yourself is not a true fan because thats simply untrue.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

The finances to fund all this activity came from success on the pitch payed for by the fans and the weakening of the team by the big-money sale of players and the failure to adequetly replace them. The actions of the board have made a repeat of a money-spinning promotion highly unlikely and the failure to invest in talent leaves us with only one saleable asset in Earnshaw. But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[:D][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

The finances to fund all this activity came from success on the pitch payed for by the fans and the weakening of the team by the big-money sale of players and the failure to adequetly replace them. The actions of the board have made a repeat of a money-spinning promotion highly unlikely and the failure to invest in talent leaves us with only one saleable asset in Earnshaw. But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

[/quote]

What''s the evidence for even this?

The profitability of restaurants is notoriously dicey.

Do you have ''further & better particulars"?[*-)]

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

The finances to fund all this activity came from success on the pitch payed for by the fans and the weakening of the team by the big-money sale of players and the failure to adequetly replace them. The actions of the board have made a repeat of a money-spinning promotion highly unlikely and the failure to invest in talent leaves us with only one saleable asset in Earnshaw. But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

[/quote]

I''m not ducking out of this mate but I really don''t understand the annual reports enough to make reasoned comments. But it''s unfair on anyone to take out a few paragraphs here and there to try and prove a point. On page 8 it certainly does state exactly what you say but it also goes on to say that some of the expenditure on infrastructure was neccessary to comply with planning obligations linked to the sale of areas of riverside land for residential developement and construction of the Jarrold Stand.

The Jarrold Stand was a neccessary expense unless we wanted to continue to have a three sided stadium with reduced capacity. 3.5m on the infill was felt neccessary to increase capacity, the other corner was used for a hotel to hopefully provide another revenue stream. We are not the only club to have realised additional revenue streams are neccessary for survival and in fact we are in front of many of our rivals who are just starting out on that road. Of course nothing is free, and there are costs involved.

Outside investment in the short term does away with need for these revenue streams and puts a large injection of money straight into the club. If the club is succesfull then the investment is like a kick-start and the success finances future seasons. If the investment is unsuccesfull then the investors are either bled dry or they walk away.

We have yet to see what next season holds, what sort of player budget Grant has and whether he is forced to sell players he would rather keep. The Board apparently budget for the worst eventualities so they should have taken the loss of parachute payments into account for next season and not be caught out. It''s difficult to tell what the current wage bill and other costs are when the last financial report was for year ending May06 and included players wages from May 05 which was two years ago when we had just been relegated from the Premiership. A clearer picture of where we are will be in the accounts for year ending May 07 but unfortunately we will not see them until Christmas!

If your last comments are suggesting that I am happy as long as there''s a few grand profit from the resturaunt and everything is fine then you are spoiling what is an interesting debate. I am not happy while we are not challenging to get out of this league, neither I doubt is any Norwich fan.

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

What''s the evidence for even this?

The profitability of restaurants is notoriously dicey.

Do you have ''further & better particulars"?[*-)]

OTBC

[/quote]

The evidence is in the Annual Report on pages 6 and 7.

Would you be good enough to return the favour and answer my question on the other thread?

 

[Putney Canary 0]

This conversation seems to be going round in circles. Obviously some people are upset by the club spending money on things other than players (although I would maintain that we need a ground and a pitch to be a football club leagally able to compete in the football league, and this needs money). People would also rather ignore the fact that we had one of the highest wage bills in the league (yes I agree not a cripling wage bill Mr Carrow, but still much higher than the average) and label the board as lacking in ambition, and if all the facts don''t fit hey lets just ignore all the facts!

I would also prefer it if the club didn''t feel the need to invest money in restaurants and hotels, but ALL THE OTHER CLUBS FEEL THE NEED TOO! You guys go on as if its only Norwich who have these facilities, pretty much all the clubs in the top two leagues have invested in corporate hospitality and catering, they all recognise the need for raising revenues from any way possible. People have rightly been praising the Sunderland board recently, here is a link to their restaurant http://www.safc.com/home/?page_id=9786. Why do clubs do this? Because you can''t compete money wise with the bigger spenders through tv rights and gate receipts alone. If you have aspirations of challenging at the top of the championship or higher, you need money to do so.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' he certainly wasn''t out of pocket......and, if Delia were ever to depart, I''m pretty certain that she wouldn''t be out of pocket either.....It''s not just the mediocre football that''s the attraction y''know, and if anyone thinks otherwise.........well, there''s naivety, ignorance and there''s gullibility.......and there''s some folk who are guilty of all three.

We are less than 15million in debt behind the ''mighty Leeds''......If we had been relegated, I''m pretty certain we''d have been in the same ''sh*t creek - aboard a canoe with a massive leak'''' only with a slightly larger paddle..........

As much as I loathe that "Bearded Beelzebub Bates", he certainly knows how to ''utilise and manipulate his resources to achieve his gains''..........Hook or by crook, eh........Works for some. 

 

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' he certainly wasn''t out of pocket......and, if Delia were ever to depart, I''m pretty certain that she wouldn''t be out of pocket either.....It''s not just the mediocre football that''s the attraction y''know, and if anyone thinks otherwise.........well, there''s naivety, ignorance and there''s gullibility.......and there''s some folk who are guilty of all three.

We are less than 15million in debt behind the ''mighty Leeds''......If we had been relegated, I''m pretty certain we''d have been in the same ''sh*t creek - aboard a canoe with a massive leak'''' only with a slightly larger paddle..........

As much as I loathe that "Bearded Beelzebub Bates", he certainly knows how to ''utilise and manipulate his resources to achieve his gains''..........Hook or by crook, eh........Works for some. 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' the club was on the edge of oblivion. I have no idea whether he was out of pocket, only he could tell you. He left the club in a right royal mess though. Chase did however devote many years of his life getting the club the good times we had before it all went wrong. If Delia and MWJ were to depart I have no idea if they would be out of pocket either. But they would leave the club with much stronger foundations than they found it (yes even with the debt). And they also will have devoted many years of their life getting the club good times.

Leeds have been relegated, they spent most of the season looking like being relegated in the relegation places in this league. We have not been relegated and have never looked like being relegated and spent none of this season in the relegation places in this league.

I believe in what I believe in and although I don''t actually sit on the fence I can see both sides of the argument regarding how much money is invested in the football team. You believe in what you believe and I respect that too. I am not naieve, ignorant or gullible. Neither am I a sheep or Delia''s lap dog or an apologist for the board. Neither am I happy with being in the bottom half of this league and nothing in my posts suggests otherwise.

I could end this post by suggesting others want to see us go into administration and would much rather Bates or even Ribsdale were running our club. I could suggest they want to see us lose matches and get relegated. I could suggest they are reckless naieve and gullible in believing the board are selling them short. I could suggest some are divisive in trying to stir up fans to protest againt the people who run the club. Tit for tat isn''t my thing though and the debate would just drop off the page and we would have to start all over again!

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Spot on. Its amazing how so many people can be taken in by a bit of prettier packaging isn`t it?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Putney Canary"]

This conversation seems to be going round in circles. Obviously some people are upset by the club spending money on things other than players (although I would maintain that we need a ground and a pitch to be a football club leagally able to compete in the football league, and this needs money). People would also rather ignore the fact that we had one of the highest wage bills in the league (yes I agree not a cripling wage bill Mr Carrow, but still much higher than the average) and label the board as lacking in ambition, and if all the facts don''t fit hey lets just ignore all the facts!

I would also prefer it if the club didn''t feel the need to invest money in restaurants and hotels, but ALL THE OTHER CLUBS FEEL THE NEED TOO! You guys go on as if its only Norwich who have these facilities, pretty much all the clubs in the top two leagues have invested in corporate hospitality and catering, they all recognise the need for raising revenues from any way possible. People have rightly been praising the Sunderland board recently, here is a link to their restaurant http://www.safc.com/home/?page_id=9786. Why do clubs do this? Because you can''t compete money wise with the bigger spenders through tv rights and gate receipts alone. If you have aspirations of challenging at the top of the championship or higher, you need money to do so.

[/quote]

You state that people ignore the facts that dont fit their argument and then you come out with a totally erroneous one. Our wage bill is "still much higher than the average"? Last year player wages were 36% of turnover having risen from 28% the previous year. In our promotion season they were 52% of turnover which is in fact around the average. The percentage of turnover spent on player wages at NCFC is probably one of the LOWEST in the country.

Of course other clubs spend on corporate hospitality etc. but it is a question of degree. Ask a bunch of Portsmouth fans if they would swap their 5 best players for a shiny new Fratton Park complete with "brasserie" and you probably wouldn`t get out alive.......

[Cluck 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' he certainly wasn''t out of pocket......and, if Delia were ever to depart, I''m pretty certain that she wouldn''t be out of pocket either.....It''s not just the mediocre football that''s the attraction y''know, and if anyone thinks otherwise.........well, there''s naivety, ignorance and there''s gullibility.......and there''s some folk who are guilty of all three.

We are less than 15million in debt behind the ''mighty Leeds''......If we had been relegated, I''m pretty certain we''d have been in the same ''sh*t creek - aboard a canoe with a massive leak'''' only with a slightly larger paddle..........

As much as I loathe that "Bearded Beelzebub Bates", he certainly knows how to ''utilise and manipulate his resources to achieve his gains''..........Hook or by crook, eh........Works for some. 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' the club was on the edge of oblivion. I have no idea whether he was out of pocket, only he could tell you. He left the club in a right royal mess though. Chase did however devote many years of his life getting the club the good times we had before it all went wrong. If Delia and MWJ were to depart I have no idea if they would be out of pocket either. But they would leave the club with much stronger foundations than they found it (yes even with the debt). And they also will have devoted many years of their life getting the club good times.

Leeds have been relegated, they spent most of the season looking like being relegated in the relegation places in this league. We have not been relegated and have never looked like being relegated and spent none of this season in the relegation places in this league.

I believe in what I believe in and although I don''t actually sit on the fence I can see both sides of the argument regarding how much money is invested in the football team. You believe in what you believe and I respect that too. I am not naieve, ignorant or gullible. Neither am I a sheep or Delia''s lap dog or an apologist for the board. Neither am I happy with being in the bottom half of this league and nothing in my posts suggests otherwise.

I could end this post by suggesting others want to see us go into administration and would much rather Bates or even Ribsdale were running our club. I could suggest they want to see us lose matches and get relegated. I could suggest they are reckless naieve and gullible in believing the board are selling them short. I could suggest some are divisive in trying to stir up fans to protest againt the people who run the club. Tit for tat isn''t my thing though and the debate would just drop off the page and we would have to start all over again!

 

[/quote]

Does the highlighted passage interpret to "For sale with only manageable debts of £6 million....some great years of football to remember and investments/players/legacies to aid simple enough recovery even for a monkey to perform?"

Just askin''..........[N]

[shyster 0]

We''ve slumped so low that we could parachute off of a rattlesnakes arse and still freefall.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' he certainly wasn''t out of pocket......and, if Delia were ever to depart, I''m pretty certain that she wouldn''t be out of pocket either.....It''s not just the mediocre football that''s the attraction y''know, and if anyone thinks otherwise.........well, there''s naivety, ignorance and there''s gullibility.......and there''s some folk who are guilty of all three.

We are less than 15million in debt behind the ''mighty Leeds''......If we had been relegated, I''m pretty certain we''d have been in the same ''sh*t creek - aboard a canoe with a massive leak'''' only with a slightly larger paddle..........

As much as I loathe that "Bearded Beelzebub Bates", he certainly knows how to ''utilise and manipulate his resources to achieve his gains''..........Hook or by crook, eh........Works for some. 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' the club was on the edge of oblivion. I have no idea whether he was out of pocket, only he could tell you. He left the club in a right royal mess though. Chase did however devote many years of his life getting the club the good times we had before it all went wrong. If Delia and MWJ were to depart I have no idea if they would be out of pocket either. But they would leave the club with much stronger foundations than they found it (yes even with the debt). And they also will have devoted many years of their life getting the club good times.

Leeds have been relegated, they spent most of the season looking like being relegated in the relegation places in this league. We have not been relegated and have never looked like being relegated and spent none of this season in the relegation places in this league.

I believe in what I believe in and although I don''t actually sit on the fence I can see both sides of the argument regarding how much money is invested in the football team. You believe in what you believe and I respect that too. I am not naieve, ignorant or gullible. Neither am I a sheep or Delia''s lap dog or an apologist for the board. Neither am I happy with being in the bottom half of this league and nothing in my posts suggests otherwise.

I could end this post by suggesting others want to see us go into administration and would much rather Bates or even Ribsdale were running our club. I could suggest they want to see us lose matches and get relegated. I could suggest they are reckless naieve and gullible in believing the board are selling them short. I could suggest some are divisive in trying to stir up fans to protest againt the people who run the club. Tit for tat isn''t my thing though and the debate would just drop off the page and we would have to start all over again!

 

[/quote]

Does the highlighted passage interpret to "For sale with only manageable debts of £6 million....some great years of football to remember and investments/players/legacies to aid simple enough recovery even for a monkey to perform?"

Just askin''..........[N]

[/quote]

If a monkey could do it, what does that make our lot?

Any suggestions?

Just asking.

OTBC

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Cluck "][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="yellow hammer"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr. Carrow - I don''t believe the board focus on off the field projects rather than the team. I believe they try to create additional revenue streams in order to have more money to strengthen the team. When we  are disappointed by results and performances we look at kitchens and hotels and kick out but can you show me where these off-field projects are taking money from the team. We can cry out for people to invest in the club as loud as we like but the ultimate aim surely has to be to try and become self-financing for the future security of the club.

Where I do agree with the boards critics to a certain extent is that since our promotion they have been too prudent. We should have secured Dean Ashton in the August of our Premiership campaign. And then last summer I believed we should have backed Worthington in his quest to bring in a targetman (Hulse or Howard). Only in the case of Steve Howard have I got any sympathy with the boards stance because he could so easily have turned out to be another Peter Thorne and in that the transfer fee on top of the high wages was a gamble. It''s only with hindsight that we see Howard was fit for most of the season.

What many of the boards critics refuse to see is how football has changed since the mid-nineties. It''s not possible to run football clubs in the way they were run in years gone by. We should always keep pressure on the board to produce a succesful team but we also need to try to understand the difficulties involved and how times have changed.

 

[/quote]

They bought Kerrison Rd playing field for £1million, the resturaunt cost £1million, £3.5million on the infill, £600k+on the pitch and undersoil heating, £1million on a Jarrold stand "refit",the "spaces for sport" facility and "construction of new office facilities for third party lettings" cost money. The development of the rest of the land the club own costs money (feasability studies,planning applications etc.)

 Page 4 of the 2004 accounts-"the group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich city council for £0.9million". Page 5 of the same accounts-"the group financed the purchase of six acres of land from Laurence Scott and Electromotors with a seperate facility of £2.5million". Page 8 of the latest accounts-"the group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9million".

[/quote]

 

The strategy of the board seems to be:

1. Use TV money and other income to finance investments into bricks and mortar projects

2. Use share issues from the fans to finance player transfer fees. (Ashton,Huckerby)

The fan shares are basically worthless and unsellable, whereas Delia''s shares will be be backed up by all that propery development and worth a small fortune. In other words the current owners are doing exactly what Robert Chase did ten years ago.

 

 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' he certainly wasn''t out of pocket......and, if Delia were ever to depart, I''m pretty certain that she wouldn''t be out of pocket either.....It''s not just the mediocre football that''s the attraction y''know, and if anyone thinks otherwise.........well, there''s naivety, ignorance and there''s gullibility.......and there''s some folk who are guilty of all three.

We are less than 15million in debt behind the ''mighty Leeds''......If we had been relegated, I''m pretty certain we''d have been in the same ''sh*t creek - aboard a canoe with a massive leak'''' only with a slightly larger paddle..........

As much as I loathe that "Bearded Beelzebub Bates", he certainly knows how to ''utilise and manipulate his resources to achieve his gains''..........Hook or by crook, eh........Works for some. 

 

[/quote]

When Chase ''left the building'' the club was on the edge of oblivion. I have no idea whether he was out of pocket, only he could tell you. He left the club in a right royal mess though. Chase did however devote many years of his life getting the club the good times we had before it all went wrong. If Delia and MWJ were to depart I have no idea if they would be out of pocket either. But they would leave the club with much stronger foundations than they found it (yes even with the debt). And they also will have devoted many years of their life getting the club good times.

Leeds have been relegated, they spent most of the season looking like being relegated in the relegation places in this league. We have not been relegated and have never looked like being relegated and spent none of this season in the relegation places in this league.

I believe in what I believe in and although I don''t actually sit on the fence I can see both sides of the argument regarding how much money is invested in the football team. You believe in what you believe and I respect that too. I am not naieve, ignorant or gullible. Neither am I a sheep or Delia''s lap dog or an apologist for the board. Neither am I happy with being in the bottom half of this league and nothing in my posts suggests otherwise.

I could end this post by suggesting others want to see us go into administration and would much rather Bates or even Ribsdale were running our club. I could suggest they want to see us lose matches and get relegated. I could suggest they are reckless naieve and gullible in believing the board are selling them short. I could suggest some are divisive in trying to stir up fans to protest againt the people who run the club. Tit for tat isn''t my thing though and the debate would just drop off the page and we would have to start all over again!

 

[/quote]

Does the highlighted passage interpret to "For sale with only manageable debts of £6 million....some great years of football to remember and investments/players/legacies to aid simple enough recovery even for a monkey to perform?"

Just askin''..........[N]

[/quote]

The passage you highlighted is what happened at the time. No spin, not my opinion, just what was reported at the time when there really was a mess to sort out.

Just sayin'' .................................