Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lucky green trainers

how far have we slumped???

Recommended Posts

[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]

No Cluck, debts of £6 million, the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it. The forced sail of Newsome and Ward to satisfy the bank and financial cuts all round.

I think it was the monkey who jumped ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][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?

 

[/quote]

Are you referring to the quote "Catering income has again shown good growth"? Income does not equal profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][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]

No Cluck, debts of £6 million, the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it. The forced sail of Newsome and Ward to satisfy the bank and financial cuts all round.

I think it was the monkey who jumped ship.

[/quote]

Ummm, remember a bit of land we once owned behind the River End which has been developed by TaylorWoodrow? Remember Doncaster stating that the £6.5million recieved for it would largely pay for the new South stand? Thought not. Not suprising really considering that this and the share issue millions seem to have been erased from history by the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The monkey may well have jumped ship Ricardo...but it was replaced by a turkey.

I''ll never buy any view that shows the transition from Chase to Smith as anything other than a good deal for both. Smith got a bargain and set about creating the "saviour" myth to entrench her standing. We were always far from collapse with the various investments inherited by Smith.....and if this wasn''t infact the case how did Smith "turn things round" with such minimal personal investment? Skill or bullsh*t? Added to that the current £20 million debt and regular asset stripping on the pitch....."turning things round" is far from a realistic description in truth.

It''s a public relations coup on an impressive scale...but what surprises me most is how long the myth has been allowed to prevail.  Over to the sheep for the answer to that one I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cluck "]

The monkey may well have jumped ship Ricardo...but it was replaced by a turkey.

I''ll never buy any view that shows the transition from Chase to Smith as anything other than a good deal for both. Smith got a bargain and set about creating the "saviour" myth to entrench her standing. We were always far from collapse with the various investments inherited by Smith.....and if this wasn''t infact the case how did Smith "turn things round" with such minimal personal investment? Skill or bullsh*t? Added to that the current £20 million debt and regular asset stripping on the pitch....."turning things round" is far from a realistic description in truth.

It''s a public relations coup on an impressive scale...but what surprises me most is how long the myth has been allowed to prevail.  Over to the sheep for the answer to that one I suppose.

[/quote]

If things were so rosey it makes you wonder why Chase quit.

We couldn''t wait to get him out at the time and I remember the critisism when he spent money on the old grain silo area ar the back of the South stand instead of on players. Exactly the same thing that you critisise the present board for. Now suddenly where Chase was concerened it becomes an astute piece of investment.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="ricardo"][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]

No Cluck, debts of £6 million, the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it. The forced sail of Newsome and Ward to satisfy the bank and financial cuts all round.

I think it was the monkey who jumped ship.

[/quote]

Ummm, remember a bit of land we once owned behind the River End which has been developed by TaylorWoodrow? Remember Doncaster stating that the £6.5million recieved for it would largely pay for the new South stand? Thought not. Not suprising really considering that this and the share issue millions seem to have been erased from history by the board.

[/quote]

Yes I remember that piece of land. Please re-read the 2004 Accounts page 4.

Land sold for £6.2 million which gave a £4 million profit after puchase cost and expenses. Also we would recieve phased payments for this over the next 3 years.

I can''t see where anything has been erased from history. Its all in the accounts should you care to read them. Your argument seems to be we should have spent the stand redevelopment money on players instead of the ground. Fair enough if you are happy with a three sided ground and a capacity of 16,000. We may well have been able to get promotion by spending £8 million but would you guarentee it? We could easily have been in a bigger hole now (e.g. Leeeds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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?

 

[/quote]

Are you referring to the quote "Catering income has again shown good growth"? Income does not equal profit.

[/quote]

No, I''m referring to the quote by Mr. Carrow on page 6 of this thread. The evidence for this is on pages 6 and 7 in theAnnual Report. Which of your own statements are you referring to?

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

 Mr.Carrow wrote:

But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

[/quote]

are you on the norwich city board?

 

 

Fozzy a replacement for Safri...  get a grip Waghorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

[/quote]

are you on the norwich city board?

 

 

Fozzy a replacement for Safri...  get a grip Waghorn.

[/quote]

Nutster Niggle is certainly a defender of those in the NCFC hierarchy..........Probably a Pawn wanting to be a Bishop........[:P]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Cluck "]

The monkey may well have jumped ship Ricardo...but it was replaced by a turkey.

I''ll never buy any view that shows the transition from Chase to Smith as anything other than a good deal for both. Smith got a bargain and set about creating the "saviour" myth to entrench her standing. We were always far from collapse with the various investments inherited by Smith.....and if this wasn''t infact the case how did Smith "turn things round" with such minimal personal investment? Skill or bullsh*t? Added to that the current £20 million debt and regular asset stripping on the pitch....."turning things round" is far from a realistic description in truth.

It''s a public relations coup on an impressive scale...but what surprises me most is how long the myth has been allowed to prevail.  Over to the sheep for the answer to that one I suppose.

[/quote]

If things were so rosey it makes you wonder why Chase quit.

We couldn''t wait to get him out at the time and I remember the critisism when he spent money on the old grain silo area ar the back of the South stand instead of on players. Exactly the same thing that you critisise the present board for. Now suddenly where Chase was concerened it becomes an astute piece of investment.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[/quote]

Ehhh???  Who says so Ricardo?  It was a lousy piece of investment.  Using the money to keep us in the Prem in 1995 - now THAT would have been an astute investment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Cluck "]

The monkey may well have jumped ship Ricardo...but it was replaced by a turkey.

I''ll never buy any view that shows the transition from Chase to Smith as anything other than a good deal for both. Smith got a bargain and set about creating the "saviour" myth to entrench her standing. We were always far from collapse with the various investments inherited by Smith.....and if this wasn''t infact the case how did Smith "turn things round" with such minimal personal investment? Skill or bullsh*t? Added to that the current £20 million debt and regular asset stripping on the pitch....."turning things round" is far from a realistic description in truth.

It''s a public relations coup on an impressive scale...but what surprises me most is how long the myth has been allowed to prevail.  Over to the sheep for the answer to that one I suppose.

[/quote]

If things were so rosey it makes you wonder why Chase quit.

We couldn''t wait to get him out at the time and I remember the critisism when he spent money on the old grain silo area ar the back of the South stand instead of on players. Exactly the same thing that you critisise the present board for. Now suddenly where Chase was concerened it becomes an astute piece of investment.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[/quote]

Ehhh???  Who says so Ricardo?  It was a lousy piece of investment.  Using the money to keep us in the Prem in 1995 - now THAT would have been an astute investment.

 

[/quote]

Cluck says so. Please read the highlighted passage in his post.

We were either financially stable due to astute investments or skint and up the creek without a paddle.

You can''t have it both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Cluck "]

The monkey may well have jumped ship Ricardo...but it was replaced by a turkey.

I''ll never buy any view that shows the transition from Chase to Smith as anything other than a good deal for both. Smith got a bargain and set about creating the "saviour" myth to entrench her standing. We were always far from collapse with the various investments inherited by Smith.....and if this wasn''t infact the case how did Smith "turn things round" with such minimal personal investment? Skill or bullsh*t? Added to that the current £20 million debt and regular asset stripping on the pitch....."turning things round" is far from a realistic description in truth.

It''s a public relations coup on an impressive scale...but what surprises me most is how long the myth has been allowed to prevail.  Over to the sheep for the answer to that one I suppose.

[/quote]

If things were so rosey it makes you wonder why Chase quit.

We couldn''t wait to get him out at the time and I remember the critisism when he spent money on the old grain silo area ar the back of the South stand instead of on players. Exactly the same thing that you critisise the present board for. Now suddenly where Chase was concerened it becomes an astute piece of investment.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

[/quote]

Ehhh???  Who says so Ricardo?  It was a lousy piece of investment.  Using the money to keep us in the Prem in 1995 - now THAT would have been an astute investment.

 

[/quote]

Cluck says so. Please read the highlighted passage in his post.

We were either financially stable due to astute investments or skint and up the creek without a paddle.

You can''t have it both ways.

[/quote]

Apologies Ricardo, didn''t realise I was playing gooseberry.  Continue your private conversation and I''ll go and do something more constructive, like watching paint dry . . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

[/quote]

are you on the norwich city board?

 

 

Fozzy a replacement for Safri...  get a grip Waghorn.

[/quote]

Nutster Niggle is certainly a defender of those in the NCFC hierarchy..........Probably a Pawn wanting to be a Bishop........[:P]

[/quote]

No.. I just believe in what I believe in and try and back up my opinions with facts as I see them. I was enjoying the debate until it became personal and it seems to me that without anything to back up opinions posters resort to insults or baseless accusations to back up their posts. I was tired last night and suddenly realised that it''s easier to be that way. Even nutster niggle realises that any self respecting pawn with any sort of ambition would not want to be a bishop!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ricardo, you made a statement "the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it" which is clearly wrong. Considering that whenever anyone asks what has happened to the £16million parachute payments and £millions of profit on Ashton/Francis/Green etc. one of the stock answers is always "we have used it to pay for the South stand", i just thought i`d point out that this is actually a myth which has been allowed to grow because the board and its apologists never mention the TaylorWoodrow deal anymore. Sorry if this fact intrudes upon your version of reality.

 Dont forget that we still recieved £6.2million whatever the costs were. If you stake a pound in a bet and win a tenner you`ve made a £9 profit plus got your pound back to spend on something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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?

 

[/quote]

Are you referring to the quote "Catering income has again shown good growth"? Income does not equal profit.

[/quote]

No, I''m referring to the quote by Mr. Carrow on page 6 of this thread. The evidence for this is on pages 6 and 7 in theAnnual Report. Which of your own statements are you referring to?

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

 Mr.Carrow wrote:

But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, the quote "catering income has again shown good growth" is from p.6 of the accounts. It does not mention PROFIT anywhere so where exactly is this "evidence" of profitability you speak of? At least us "clowns and jokers" base our opinions on facts and reality rather than a cosy myth that some people just cant seem to let go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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?

 

[/quote]

Are you referring to the quote "Catering income has again shown good growth"? Income does not equal profit.

[/quote]

No, I''m referring to the quote by Mr. Carrow on page 6 of this thread. The evidence for this is on pages 6 and 7 in theAnnual Report. Which of your own statements are you referring to?

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

 Mr.Carrow wrote:

But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, the quote "catering income has again shown good growth" is from p.6 of the accounts. It does not mention PROFIT anywhere so where exactly is this "evidence" of profitability you speak of? At least us "clowns and jokers" base our opinions on facts and reality rather than a cosy myth that some people just cant seem to let go....

[/quote]

then you won''t need me to show you the evidence of the profitability because you will have already based your opinion that there''s a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt on some real facts of your own. Alternatively you can just look at the two page reference I gave you twice earlier.

NN baiting may be fun but  eventually you are going to have to let the thread die or go back to debating properly. I bet I know what will happen!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Ricardo, you made a statement "the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it" which is clearly wrong. Considering that whenever anyone asks what has happened to the £16million parachute payments and £millions of profit on Ashton/Francis/Green etc. one of the stock answers is always "we have used it to pay for the South stand", i just thought i`d point out that this is actually a myth which has been allowed to grow because the board and its apologists never mention the TaylorWoodrow deal anymore. Sorry if this fact intrudes upon your version of reality.

 Dont forget that we still recieved £6.2million whatever the costs were. If you stake a pound in a bet and win a tenner you`ve made a £9 profit plus got your pound back to spend on something else.

[/quote]

That would be true if it was your pound that you had bet. Unfortunately in the case you site it was money that we borrowed to fund the purchase (see 2003 Accounts).

In the wake of the Sky Digital collapse the club lost £2.5 million in expected income.If you examine the 2003 accounts (page 5) you will see that the club borrowed £15 million that they used for the following purposes.

New Stand Construction £8 million

Refinancing existing debt £4.5 million

Working Capital £2.5 million

Since the Ashton/ Green transfers etc came 2 years later, the myth that they paid for the new stand  appears to be of your own making and certainly not one that I have ever proposed.

I seem to recall that we have had a similar discussion about this a few months ago concerning mainly the profit on transfers. My reading of the Accounts is that we have an accumalated fund of about £6 million which I presume will cushion the affects of the loss of parachute payments. I can''t see all of this being lashed out on players but in my opinion we are not quite as skint as some posters on here like to claim.

I am not advocating unqualified support for the board. There actions should always be open to constructive critisism. However some people only seem to see the profits made and are blind to any attendant costs. I would love to see us challenging back in the Premiership but not at the risk of going bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][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?

 

[/quote]

Are you referring to the quote "Catering income has again shown good growth"? Income does not equal profit.

[/quote]

No, I''m referring to the quote by Mr. Carrow on page 6 of this thread. The evidence for this is on pages 6 and 7 in theAnnual Report. Which of your own statements are you referring to?

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

 Mr.Carrow wrote:

But hey, we`ve got a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt to look forward to so everythings fine.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, the quote "catering income has again shown good growth" is from p.6 of the accounts. It does not mention PROFIT anywhere so where exactly is this "evidence" of profitability you speak of? At least us "clowns and jokers" base our opinions on facts and reality rather than a cosy myth that some people just cant seem to let go....

[/quote]

then you won''t need me to show you the evidence of the profitability because you will have already based your opinion that there''s a few hundred thousand profit from the resturaunt on some real facts of your own. Alternatively you can just look at the two page reference I gave you twice earlier.

NN baiting may be fun but  eventually you are going to have to let the thread die or go back to debating properly. I bet I know what will happen!

 

 

 

[/quote]

Jeez, talk about not knowing when you are beaten......My initial post included the phrase ".....to look forward to", ie. we may well make a profit in the future but as there is none stated at the moment (certainly not on the pages you have pointed out) we dont know do we? INCOME is not the same as PROFIT! Have you mislaid your accounts Nutty or do you have a set of imaginary ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Clowns to the left of me and jokers to the right -  looks like I''m stuck in the middle with the performing seals.

[/quote]

are you on the norwich city board?

 

 

Fozzy a replacement for Safri...  get a grip Waghorn.

[/quote]

Nutster Niggle is certainly a defender of those in the NCFC hierarchy..........Probably a Pawn wanting to be a Bishop........[:P]

[/quote]

No.. I just believe in what I believe in and try and back up my opinions with facts as I see them. I was enjoying the debate until it became personal and it seems to me that without anything to back up opinions posters resort to insults or baseless accusations to back up their posts. I was tired last night and suddenly realised that it''s easier to be that way. Even nutster niggle realises that any self respecting pawn with any sort of ambition would not want to be a bishop!

 

 

[/quote]

Nutster, I have no intention to insult your pawn''ness.......or heaven forbid, even bash your bishop! I''m not being malicious, personal or nasty to you. I am just being light-hearted - and truly have no wish to upset you. Please let me offer the use of one of my heavily mucus soiled handkerchiefs - to wipe away your crocodile tears.....it must be really awful having to be an apologist for the "Ne''er do wrong" NCFC board.[:''(]

See, I am nice![6]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Jeez, talk about not knowing when you are beaten......My initial post included the phrase ".....to look forward to", ie. we may well make a profit in the future but as there is none stated at the moment (certainly not on the pages you have pointed out) we dont know do we? INCOME is not the same as PROFIT! Have you mislaid your accounts Nutty or do you have a set of imaginary ones?

[/quote]

Jeez, talk about being to idle to look yourself.... on page 6 is income and on page 7 is expenditure. Then you have to remember what you learned in Mrs Percivals class in Bobsville lalaland and do a few simple sums.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Ricardo, you made a statement "the South stand about to be condemned and no money to replace it" which is clearly wrong. Considering that whenever anyone asks what has happened to the £16million parachute payments and £millions of profit on Ashton/Francis/Green etc. one of the stock answers is always "we have used it to pay for the South stand", i just thought i`d point out that this is actually a myth which has been allowed to grow because the board and its apologists never mention the TaylorWoodrow deal anymore. Sorry if this fact intrudes upon your version of reality.

 Dont forget that we still recieved £6.2million whatever the costs were. If you stake a pound in a bet and win a tenner you`ve made a £9 profit plus got your pound back to spend on something else.

[/quote]

That would be true if it was your pound that you had bet. Unfortunately in the case you site it was money that we borrowed to fund the purchase (see 2003 Accounts).

In the wake of the Sky Digital collapse the club lost £2.5 million in expected income.If you examine the 2003 accounts (page 5) you will see that the club borrowed £15 million that they used for the following purposes.

New Stand Construction £8 million

Refinancing existing debt £4.5 million

Working Capital £2.5 million

Since the Ashton/ Green transfers etc came 2 years later, the myth that they paid for the new stand  appears to be of your own making and certainly not one that I have ever proposed.

I seem to recall that we have had a similar discussion about this a few months ago concerning mainly the profit on transfers. My reading of the Accounts is that we have an accumalated fund of about £6 million which I presume will cushion the affects of the loss of parachute payments. I can''t see all of this being lashed out on players but in my opinion we are not quite as skint as some posters on here like to claim.

I am not advocating unqualified support for the board. There actions should always be open to constructive critisism. However some people only seem to see the profits made and are blind to any attendant costs. I would love to see us challenging back in the Premiership but not at the risk of going bust.

[/quote]

Interesting points Ricardo but the truth is "that pound" you have borrowed is still yours to spend as you like until you have to pay it back. You just have to pay interest on it in the meantime. The board did state at the time that the £6.2m TaylorWoodrow deal would pay for the new stand. They then said the same about the securitisation loan. And as we are still technically paying for it through the loan it still comes up in debates about the parachute payments and Ashton,Francis etc. fees-admittedly by board supporters rather than the board themselves. By some peoples logic we have paid for the stand at least three times over.....Hope you are right about a £6million surplus but given the actions of the board in recent years i think they would much rather spend the money off the pitch than on it. I dont think a nuetral looking at the events of the last few years could come to any other conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Interesting points Ricardo but the truth is "that pound" you have borrowed is still yours to spend as you like until you have to pay it back. You just have to pay interest on it in the meantime. The board did state at the time that the £6.2m TaylorWoodrow deal would pay for the new stand. They then said the same about the securitisation loan. And as we are still technically paying for it through the loan it still comes up in debates about the parachute payments and Ashton,Francis etc. fees-admittedly by board supporters rather than the board themselves. By some peoples logic we have paid for the stand at least three times over.....Hope you are right about a £6million surplus but given the actions of the board in recent years i think they would much rather spend the money off the pitch than on it. I dont think a nuetral looking at the events of the last few years could come to any other conclusion.

[/quote]

But thats my point Mr.C. You do eventually have to pay it back and it gets bigger every month with the interest added.

Yes, people do seem to think the stand has already been paid for. The truth however is that we will be paying for it (and other debts) for the next 13 years under the terms of the securitisation deal. You can have a lot of fun with other peoples money but payback time eventually comes around.

I can see your point about spending money on off field activities but there has to be some sort of sensible balance here. The stand needed to be replaced and the L&S land became available at that time. The board took the opportunity to get on with the development, correctly in my opinion.

In the final analysis you have to make decisions on how to spend the money and hindsight can either make you look a genius or a mug.

Regarding the £6 million. Have a look at the Accounts page39. Seems pretty clear to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Jeez, talk about being to idle to look yourself.... on page 6 is income and on page 7 is expenditure. Then you have to remember what you learned in Mrs Percivals class in Bobsville lalaland and do a few simple sums.

[/quote]

So your "evidence" of profit is two bar charts in which income and expenditure look pretty much the same? If there had been a profit surely they would have mentioned this rather than just income growth? I should remind you also that we were discussing Delia`s restaurant not the overall catering. Did you ever get a school report from Mrs.Percival using the phrase "must try harder"?

To be honest branding someone a Chase supporter when they in fact went to great lengths to aid his removal is about the most offensive thing you can come up with. But then i think you`ve worked all that out already....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

So your "evidence" of profit is two bar charts in which income and expenditure look pretty much the same? If there had been a profit surely they would have mentioned this rather than just income growth? I should remind you also that we were discussing Delia`s restaurant not the overall catering. Did you ever get a school report from Mrs.Percival using the phrase "must try harder"?

To be honest branding someone a Chase supporter when they in fact went to great lengths to aid his removal is about the most offensive thing you can come up with. But then i think you`ve worked all that out already....

[/quote]

I was a Chase supporter for many years, he brought good times to this club. Don''t be such a drama queen!

If those two bar charts were showing a loss I rather think somebody would have reported it by now don''t you? Of course if you want to seperate out Delia''s resturaunt then you are guessing what the outcome is. How would you feel if it was actually subsidising other catering ventures?

I was crap at school and got a lot worse than that on my reports, but I do know that Mrs Percival only teaches in Bobsville and not Delia lalaland.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Carrow - So you are complaining that the evidence of profit is contained within the accounts, which are of a (pretty) standard form and not actually a complicated fiction (as recent high profile events would make it seem) - thus companies are not allowed to crow over their successes and hide their losses, which is what you are suggesting should have happened in this case.Crowing over your profits is what press releases are for!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

So your "evidence" of profit is two bar charts in which income and expenditure look pretty much the same? If there had been a profit surely they would have mentioned this rather than just income growth? I should remind you also that we were discussing Delia`s restaurant not the overall catering. Did you ever get a school report from Mrs.Percival using the phrase "must try harder"?

To be honest branding someone a Chase supporter when they in fact went to great lengths to aid his removal is about the most offensive thing you can come up with. But then i think you`ve worked all that out already....

[/quote]

Quite frankly, if the darned thing was making  even a half-decent profit they would have been boasting about it instead of rabbiting on about catering income showing good growth.

Maybe Nutty you can tell us where the catering consultancy fees are booked.

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Quite frankly, if the darned thing was making  even a half-decent profit they would have been boasting about it instead of rabbiting on about catering income showing good growth.

Maybe Nutty you can tell us where the catering consultancy fees are booked.

OTBC

[/quote]

I have no idea what the catering consultancy fees are or where they are booked.

Have you noticed that I answer every question you ask me as honestly and accurately as I can?  When are you going to reciprocate??

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I was a Chase supporter for many years, he brought good times to this club. Don''t be such a drama queen!

If those two bar charts were showing a loss I rather think somebody would have reported it by now don''t you? Of course if you want to seperate out Delia''s resturaunt then you are guessing what the outcome is. How would you feel if it was actually subsidising other catering ventures?

I was crap at school and got a lot worse than that on my reports, but I do know that Mrs Percival only teaches in Bobsville and not Delia lalaland.

[/quote]

This argument is basically going up a pointless blind alley. Blyblybabes asked initially what the evidence was of a profit at Delias restaurant after i had stated that we had "a few 100k to look forward to" (ie. in the future). The fact is that there is no evidence of profit. End of. If it does make a profit i would be pleased-and then fully anticipate the profit to be ploughed into yet another non-football venture. Who would have reported that the restaurant was making a loss? Archant? Dont make laugh.

As you now appear to have become a bit of an expert on the accounts Nutty,maybe you would like to have a look at my evidence of major off-field expenditure in the last few years on another thread,you know buying land for millions and suchlike whilst the team struggle on the pitch. Or can you only understand the facts which back up your own argument?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

This argument is basically going up a pointless blind alley. Blyblybabes asked initially what the evidence was of a profit at Delias restaurant after i had stated that we had "a few 100k to look forward to" (ie. in the future). The fact is that there is no evidence of profit. End of. If it does make a profit i would be pleased-and then fully anticipate the profit to be ploughed into yet another non-football venture. Who would have reported that the restaurant was making a loss? Archant? Dont make laugh.

As you now appear to have become a bit of an expert on the accounts Nutty,maybe you would like to have a look at my evidence of major off-field expenditure in the last few years on another thread,you know buying land for millions and suchlike whilst the team struggle on the pitch. Or can you only understand the facts which back up your own argument?

[/quote]

Instead of being so patronising maybe you could show me the facts that show the returaunt doesn''t make a profit. Maybe you could point me towards the facts that back up your claim that any profit would not be put into the playing side. Maybe you could go back to the other thread and show me where the club have accounted for agents fees twice.

In my opinion the two bar charts show a small profit on catering. As far as I am aware that''s the only information available to either of us. If so then any other "facts" can only be opinions. If you know different then please feel free to show me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Instead of being so patronising maybe you could show me the facts that show the returaunt doesn''t make a profit. Maybe you could point me towards the facts that back up your claim that any profit would not be put into the playing side. Maybe you could go back to the other thread and show me where the club have accounted for agents fees twice.

In my opinion the two bar charts show a small profit on catering. As far as I am aware that''s the only information available to either of us. If so then any other "facts" can only be opinions. If you know different then please feel free to show me.

[/quote]

This is what i mean by a blind alley.....Nutty i have not, anywhere, stated that the club does or does not make a profit on the restuarant (although i do anticipate a small one in the future)-therefore i have no reason to prove that it doesn`t. In fact i stated in an earlier thread that there is no evidence one way or the other therefore we don`t know. In answer to Blyblybabes post you stated that the evidence of a profit is on P.6 and 7 of the accounts. It isn`t.

I can`t give any facts that prove that any profit would not be put into the playing side but events of the last few years lead me to that conclusion-and the figures i posted on the other thread do show that millions have been spent on land/infrastructure whilst the squad has been allowed to weaken pitifully. The fact that our chairman stated "some people acuse us of being obsessed with off-field matters,and to an extent we are" doesn`t really put my mind at rest on the issue.

As for the agents fees, i have put a post on there allowing for the possibility i may have got it wrong. Its called adapting your opinions as events change and other ideas/evidence come to light. Its actually easier than adopting an entrenched position and refusing to contemplate anything that may show you to be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...