Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nutty nigel

A timely reminder

Recommended Posts

[quote user="mystic megson"]

And your point is . . .?

[/quote]

Sorry mystic..  my point was that his view was different to yours. It was at the start of my post thats probably why you missed it.

 

Share this post


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

I agree as well. You CANOT run a clubs finances on the hope that player A can be sold for amount X.

If bale had picked up an injury like Earnie''s or Ashtons, or Owens, or even Notmans near the end of the season would they still be getting £6m from spurs? I think not.

Massive gamble that could easily of gone horribly horribly wrong.

If it had what would the saints fans be saying? If we did something similar and it went wrong we would (rightly) be running the board out of town (city!).

[/quote]

Players are insured you know and they are generally insured for something approaching their transfer value. I work in the insurance industry and have seen some claims for the likes of David Howells & Martin Dahlin so in the case of career ending injuries clubs are covered.

As regards Soton''s spending I suspect that they funded this after the sale of Theo Walcott.

Whilst I am not advocating crazy spending it can''t be denied that we should have spent more money in each of the last 2 summers. In particular, the summer after relegation we spent a very poor amount on very poor players and missed our best chance of promotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there we go - sold for 5m (could rise to 10m with add-ons). From the Saints site;

Saints starlet Gareth Bale has signed for Tottenham for a fee

which could rise up to £10m.

The North London club have won the race for the highly-rated

17-year-old who had only a year of his contract left and who turned

down the offer of an extended deal.

That meant Saints could have lost him for minimal compensation

in 12 months time - so they reluctantly agreed to sell once it

became clear the player wanted to go.

So they still have a shortfall. They still have to sell. And I''m pretty sure that at 17 Bale going won''t help bring down their wage bill by all that much. But they are a good model to follow because??!!?? Apart from having a good academy I don''t really see it I''m afraid!

Share this post


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

As regards Soton''s spending I suspect that they funded this after the sale of Theo Walcott.

 

[/quote]

But it wasn''t Stevie Wonder. That was the whole point of the thread. Southamptons chief exec. said as much himself.

Saints'' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

So without any warchest'', how have Saints paid for their manager''s close season rebuilding.

"It''s in staged payments for the players, but it''s been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed.

 

 

Share this post


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

As regards Soton''s spending I suspect that they funded this after the sale of Theo Walcott.

 

[/quote]

But it wasn''t Stevie Wonder. That was the whole point of the thread. Southamptons chief exec. said as much himself.

Saints'' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

So without any warchest'', how have Saints paid for their manager''s close season rebuilding.

"It''s in staged payments for the players, but it''s been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed.

[/quote]

OK, but if they hadn''t sold those players they wouldn''t have been able to sign the new ones as they would be a further £14M in debt!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Southampton find themselves in financial trouble by spending money they didn`t have on a gamble where the prize would have meant joy to their supporters and a £55million jackpot in promotion to the Premiership. They still have the players they payed out for as valuable assets which they can cash in on, or keep hold of to have another go next season. City, on the other hand, find themselves back in financial trouble having taken a gamble on spending a large proportion of the Prem/transfer income on infrastructure (£20million in the last 3 years)/land/subsiduary companies, the prize of which is a theoretical profit some time in the future-which will be closer to £55 than £55million.

Over this period the squad has been starved of investment (at some points the smallest in our division) and as a result was never even going to be in contention to win the big prize and indeed even flirted with a disastrous relegation. The club now have only one real saleable asset in the event of some financial catastrophy and are faced with having almost no choice in investing fairly heavily in a pitifully weak squad to stave off the spectre of a relegation battle and increasing supporter unrest. Two gambles, two failures, two equally culpable boards.

Share this post


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

Southampton find themselves in financial trouble by spending money they didn`t have on a gamble where the prize would have meant joy to their supporters and a £55million jackpot in promotion to the Premiership. They still have the players they payed out for as valuable assets which they can cash in on, or keep hold of to have another go next season. City, on the other hand, find themselves back in financial trouble having taken a gamble on spending a large proportion of the Prem/transfer income on infrastructure (£20million in the last 3 years)/land/subsiduary companies, the prize of which is a theoretical profit some time in the future-which will be closer to £55 than £55million.

Over this period the squad has been starved of investment (at some points the smallest in our division) and as a result was never even going to be in contention to win the big prize and indeed even flirted with a disastrous relegation. The club now have only one real saleable asset in the event of some financial catastrophy and are faced with having almost no choice in investing fairly heavily in a pitifully weak squad to stave off the spectre of a relegation battle and increasing supporter unrest. Two gambles, two failures, two equally culpable boards.

[/quote]

Apparently not Mr.Carrow. The report states that they will have to get rid of these players in order to cut the losses which are running at £1 million a month. Big money players come with big money wages. Other than Gareth Bale I cannot see them making much profit on the others, indeed they may need to let them go at cut price just to get their wages off the balance sheet. In this respect they are more liabilities than assets.

Share this post


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

Southampton find themselves in financial trouble by spending money they didn`t have on a gamble where the prize would have meant joy to their supporters and a £55million jackpot in promotion to the Premiership. They still have the players they payed out for as valuable assets which they can cash in on, or keep hold of to have another go next season. City, on the other hand, find themselves back in financial trouble having taken a gamble on spending a large proportion of the Prem/transfer income on infrastructure (£20million in the last 3 years)/land/subsiduary companies, the prize of which is a theoretical profit some time in the future-which will be closer to £55 than £55million.

Over this period the squad has been starved of investment (at some points the smallest in our division) and as a result was never even going to be in contention to win the big prize and indeed even flirted with a disastrous relegation. The club now have only one real saleable asset in the event of some financial catastrophy and are faced with having almost no choice in investing fairly heavily in a pitifully weak squad to stave off the spectre of a relegation battle and increasing supporter unrest. Two gambles, two failures, two equally culpable boards.

[/quote]

Apparently not Mr.Carrow. The report states that they will have to get rid of these players in order to cut the losses which are running at £1 million a month. Big money players come with big money wages. Other than Gareth Bale I cannot see them making much profit on the others, indeed they may need to let them go at cut price just to get their wages off the balance sheet. In this respect they are more liabilities than assets.

[/quote]

Clearly there is a "happy medium" somewhere in between. Our own board have shown in the past that you can make calculated gambes and if you sign the right players it isn''t a gamble. SPending £750K on Hux was never a gamble - if we hadn''t gone up we would have been able to get that money back from any number of clubs who would have signed at Hux. Likewise with Ashton - a very highly rated young player who had been attracting attention for sometime. Even Earnie who is just about the only player who will guarantee goals at this level is a player we were always likely to get our money back on.

I just feel that the club messed up bigtime when we were relegated and were one of the big draws in the division and we signed a collection of journeymen. Look at what Birmingham did upon relegation. No Hughes, Robinson, Jarret & Thorne type signings for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Southampton find themselves in financial trouble by spending money they didn`t have on a gamble where the prize would have meant joy to their supporters and a £55million jackpot in promotion to the Premiership. They still have the players they payed out for as valuable assets which they can cash in on, or keep hold of to have another go next season. City, on the other hand, find themselves back in financial trouble having taken a gamble on spending a large proportion of the Prem/transfer income on infrastructure (£20million in the last 3 years)/land/subsiduary companies, the prize of which is a theoretical profit some time in the future-which will be closer to £55 than £55million.

Over this period the squad has been starved of investment (at some points the smallest in our division) and as a result was never even going to be in contention to win the big prize and indeed even flirted with a disastrous relegation. The club now have only one real saleable asset in the event of some financial catastrophy and are faced with having almost no choice in investing fairly heavily in a pitifully weak squad to stave off the spectre of a relegation battle and increasing supporter unrest. Two gambles, two failures, two equally culpable boards.

[/quote]

Apparently not Mr.Carrow. The report states that they will have to get rid of these players in order to cut the losses which are running at £1 million a month. Big money players come with big money wages. Other than Gareth Bale I cannot see them making much profit on the others, indeed they may need to let them go at cut price just to get their wages off the balance sheet. In this respect they are more liabilities than assets.

[/quote]

I think to an extent you are right Ricardo but the Bale sale will ease their problems significantly for the foreseeable future (making "fire-sales" less likely) and they are still likely to recieve hefty "add-ons" from Walcott. Sometimes it suits a club to paint a bleak financial picture in that it lowers expectation levels and makes supporters more inclined to back a club financially. It worked for us with the share issues, buy-a-brick etc.but a club can only play on it so long before it starts to wear a bit thin.....

I believe in its own way our board have been equally reckless and the squad has become so weak that we simply HAVE to invest to avoid a relegation battle. Had we signed the likes of Eastwood,Halford,Chopra etc. a few seasons ago when we were a big draw and they were being touted for under a million, we would probably be doing much better on the pitch and we would have assets to make a profit on if required. Money spent on the pitch is NOT always money lost, consider the profits made on Ashton,Francis,Mckenzie,Jonsson and an anticipated one on Earnshaw. NOT spending money on a weak squad is a gamble. A few more injuries and a disastrous relegation could have occurred last season. Fat lot of good our shiny new corner infill and box office would have done us then.

Share this post


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

 

I think to an extent you are right Ricardo but the Bale sale will ease their problems significantly for the foreseeable future (making "fire-sales" less likely) and they are still likely to recieve hefty "add-ons" from Walcott. Sometimes it suits a club to paint a bleak financial picture in that it lowers expectation levels and makes supporters more inclined to back a club financially. It worked for us with the share issues, buy-a-brick etc.but a club can only play on it so long before it starts to wear a bit thin.....

I believe in its own way our board have been equally reckless and the squad has become so weak that we simply HAVE to invest to avoid a relegation battle. Had we signed the likes of Eastwood,Halford,Chopra etc. a few seasons ago when we were a big draw and they were being touted for under a million, we would probably be doing much better on the pitch and we would have assets to make a profit on if required. Money spent on the pitch is NOT always money lost, consider the profits made on Ashton,Francis,Mckenzie,Jonsson and an anticipated one on Earnshaw. NOT spending money on a weak squad is a gamble. A few more injuries and a disastrous relegation could have occurred last season. Fat lot of good our shiny new corner infill and box office would have done us then.

[/quote]

Yes, I would certainly agree that not spending money to improve a weak squad is a gamble and the board have been guilty of that for the past couple of seasons. However the real point of this thread from Nutty Nigel is that if you gamble too heavily and don''t succeed on getting promotion you can end up in an even worse position. You may be able to get out of this predicament by selling promising yougsters like Walcott and Bale but you can''t guarentee  on unearthing one of these every season.

Surely the answer lies somewhere in between these two extremes. The board seem to have gained a measure of new investment which may yet prove to be more extensive than has been made public. Reading the 2006 Accounts (which I know you do) there does seem to be a reasonable profit on recent transfers. I am therefore quite hopeful that this season we will be much more active in the market than in previous seasons.

Getting back to the Southampton situation. I don''t see that painting a bleak financial postion is going to be very much help to them in their quest for new investment. Surely any potential investor would like to see something better than a club that is losing a million a month. Without that investment clubs like Southampton, Derby, Wolves, Ourselves etc would be unable to sustain a promotion push for more than a season or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are some really interesting points being made on this thread.Stevie Wonder re Insurance - you are right of course. However, I would question that if you were relying on selling a player for #10m at a certain point of time, and he breaks a leg, you then you are paying his wages still AND you don''t have the 10m from the transfer. How much would you get on the insurance, enough to cover all of that, or just a proportion of his fee? I can foresee a cash flow problem potentially... and cash flow is what buggers up many, many businesses. Mr Carrow - You say that our investment in the squad was at some point the smallest in the division, but if you include the 9m we were paying in player''s wages then that is just not true. I fully agree that the squad is 1. too small and 2. very badly balanced, and whilst you blame the board for that I would lay more blame with Worthy. I don''t believe our board interfere that much with the playing side and the manager''s plans, as they know they don''t have the footballing knowledge. This in itself IS a weakness - I would advocate us strengthening our board with a person with indepth football knowledge, so they can question some of the decisions being made on the footballing side. Someone like Stringer. I advocate strengthening our board, not wholesale change.I''m not trying to say that money spent on the pitch is money lost, I agree we made good money on Ashton etc. Like you I would LOVE to see us invest in younger players, who have hunger, ambition AND skill. We wasted money on the likes of Peter Thorne and his magic wage bill, for the money we spent on him we could have probably signed 3 or 4 decent prospects. I agree there is a balance, that looking at it Southampton went too far and we probably haven''t gone far enough. We do however need to invest in the club''s infrastructure too, which further complicates the balancing game the board have to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putney and Stevie Wonder seem to be saying exactly how I feel and have been saying for months in that somewhere between Southamptons ambition and our prudence there is a balance that our board have yet to find.

As much as posters try to excuse Southamptons gamble, it seems to me from what their board have to say that they are relying on outside investment to put things right. Given that they have spent the best part of the last year actively moving heaven and earth to attract that investment and given that as yet they havent been succesful, does this not show our board and our new investment in a better light than it is often portrayed on here?

 

Share this post


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

Putney and Stevie Wonder seem to be saying exactly how I feel and have been saying for months in that somewhere between Southamptons ambition and our prudence there is a balance that our board have yet to find.

As much as posters try to excuse Southamptons gamble, it seems to me from what their board have to say that they are relying on outside investment to put things right. Given that they have spent the best part of the last year actively moving heaven and earth to attract that investment and given that as yet they havent been succesful, does this not show our board and our new investment in a better light than it is often portrayed on here?

[/quote]

I''m not "trying to excuse" Southampton nutty.  What I''m saying is that given the particular set of circumstances in which they found themselves, with a highly saleable asset who cost them nothing except for youth development costs, and the last year of parachute money, their actions were probably justified.  It was a one-off situation which can''t be applied more generally.  I''m not saying we ought to have done the same, because we weren''t in the same situation.

The point is that in not selling Bale sooner but retaining his services whilst borrowing against his inevitable departure in order to strengthen the team, their number one priority was a last stab at promotion.  They didn''t win the playoff lottery but at least they bought a ticket, and their desire to compete remains intact.  In contrast, there''s a malaise about Carrow Road born of an attitude that "we might not succeed so it''s better not to try".

All of which is a longwinded way of saying that I agree with you nutty, there''s a balance to be struck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Putney Canary"]There are some really interesting points being made on this thread.

Stevie Wonder re Insurance - you are right of course. However, I would question that if you were relying on selling a player for #10m at a certain point of time, and he breaks a leg, you then you are paying his wages still AND you don''t have the 10m from the transfer. How much would you get on the insurance, enough to cover all of that, or just a proportion of his fee? I can foresee a cash flow problem potentially... and cash flow is what buggers up many, many businesses.

Mr Carrow - You say that our investment in the squad was at some point the smallest in the division, but if you include the 9m we were paying in player''s wages then that is just not true. I fully agree that the squad is 1. too small and 2. very badly balanced, and whilst you blame the board for that I would lay more blame with Worthy. I don''t believe our board interfere that much with the playing side and the manager''s plans, as they know they don''t have the footballing knowledge. This in itself IS a weakness - I would advocate us strengthening our board with a person with indepth football knowledge, so they can question some of the decisions being made on the footballing side. Someone like Stringer. I advocate strengthening our board, not wholesale change.

I''m not trying to say that money spent on the pitch is money lost, I agree we made good money on Ashton etc. Like you I would LOVE to see us invest in younger players, who have hunger, ambition AND skill. We wasted money on the likes of Peter Thorne and his magic wage bill, for the money we spent on him we could have probably signed 3 or 4 decent prospects. I agree there is a balance, that looking at it Southampton went too far and we probably haven''t gone far enough. We do however need to invest in the club''s infrastructure too, which further complicates the balancing game the board have to play.


[/quote]

It probably isn`t very clear but i was referring to our squad size being,at times, the smallest in the division, not overall investment. Yes, the £9million player wage bill would be quite high compared to other clubs in our league but i think as a percentage of turnover (36%) it would be amongst the lowest. If you add on around £6.5million non-player wage bill the overall figure does look pretty horrendous. Perhaps a few more questions should be asked about what these people are doing to justify such an enormous outlay and quite how they contribute to improving a poor product on the pitch?

Other than Earnshaw-who was a direct replacement for Ashton for less than half the fee received- Worthington really did have peanuts to play with after relegation,despite loosing quality players for millions. Hughes,Etuhu and Croft cost around £500k each, other than them its been frees, loans and a few £100k here and there. Of course real bargains can be found (Drury, Francis) but there are few managers around who can keep unearthing cheap gems with regularity. I seem to remember Worthington stating that he needed a squad 5 men stronger at one point and within a few months it was actually smaller than when he made that statement. I`m sure he would have loved a single right-winger the season after relegation and some sort of cover for both full-backs, left midfield, central defense before Dion arrived and a target man type replacement for Ashton but the idea that he refused to buy players whilst being thrown wads of cash by the board is just ridiculous. We only signed Robinson because a board member loaned some money to boost the budget. The fact is that the squad has been totally neglected in favour of infrastructure and we can now see the result.

Had Worthy got his wish and been able to boost his squad by 5 who knows, we might be celebrating a promotion worth £60million or unearthed 5 young gems who might be sold on for millions but, as someone else has said "we didn`t even buy a ticket"......and that is inexcusable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree the squad last season was way too small. I stand by the fact that the 9m player wage bill was large, and counters the argument that our board gave Worthy no money to spend, that figure is (or was) double the average for this division. Worthy had far more money to spend than any other manager in our history. I know nothing about the 6.5m non player wage bill, who is included in that and how it compares with other clubs of our size. I think Worthy was reasonably happy to play the likes of Hendo and WLY on the right. I don''t think he did buy well towards the end, the Cotterill affair shows we *could* have spent more last summer but those funds just never got spent. I do believe that Worthy decided to gamble on a smaller squad size so he could use a larger allocation for wages, I think he believed that the experience of the likes of Thorne, Hughes and Robinson would see us back up.I think we could go around on this forever though!Looking forward to this summer, it looks like Grant has a decent war chest and is looking in the right areas. We MUST sign at minimum another centre back, goalkeeper, centre mid and a left sided player (I prefer Hucks up front). We could also use another right back. There should be money left over from the Ashton and Green sales (I believe it wasn''t full payment at the time) and money from the Turners (or else what was the point getting them in). If we don''t get this, it will be another bad season and then even I will start losing patience...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are getting back to “Prudence with Ambition” here again.  That is a great statement and fantastic way to run a club like City or Soton if you actually live by it.  The problem here is that has been no “with” from either club.  Our problem has been that we have been too prudent, while Southampton have been too ambitious.  City have been too afraid to make signings etc for the fear of failure, forgetting what success would bring.  Saints have been eyeing the prize but lost sight of what may happen should they fall short.

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

Southampton have now got themselves into a pickle.  With Bale gone I don’t see too many saleable assets in their squad.  Wright-Phillips has hardly set the world alight, Rasiak did little at Spurs to suggest a PL club would pay more than a £m or so.  Skacel, Idiakez, Jones, Best?  I can’t see too many clubs will be clamouring to get their signatures, let alone pay much to get them.  At the very least I can say that when our board have spent serious money it is on players where we can get that money back if we need to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

[/quote]

OK Nutty, on the figures you give above we made a net (after tax) profit of 10.1 m in 2004-06 as well as giving the tax man 2.1 m.

We know what Brum spent.

We know that Brum got automatic promotion under an ex-canary great - and that we finished 16th after having a severe brush with the other end of the table.

Please explain to us ignoramuses how these financials constitute good & positive leadership by our board and majority shareholders. Please, please.

After all the business of NCFC is football at which we have been considerably less than successful over the last 3 years.

It seems to many of us that our leadership has been less than ambitious in general - and less than prudent in allowing our main product line (football) to run down.

So please explain.

Pretty please.

OTBC

P.S. Any idea about how much we may be giving to the tax man this year?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

[/quote]

OK Nutty, on the figures you give above we made a net (after tax) profit of 10.1 m in 2004-06 as well as giving the tax man 2.1 m.

We know what Brum spent.

We know that Brum got automatic promotion under an ex-canary great - and that we finished 16th after having a severe brush with the other end of the table.

Please explain to us ignoramuses how these financials constitute good & positive leadership by our board and majority shareholders. Please, please.

After all the business of NCFC is football at which we have been considerably less than successful over the last 3 years.

It seems to many of us that our leadership has been less than ambitious in general - and less than prudent in allowing our main product line (football) to run down.

So please explain.

Pretty please.

OTBC

P.S. Any idea about how much we may be giving to the tax man this year?

 

[/quote]

Funny how some people are suddenly desperate to let this thread die . . .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At what point did I say that I agreed with the prudent policy of the board. What I said on this thread, and what I said on countless other threads since I started posting on this board was that I didn''t believe they had got the balance right.

The point of this thread was a reminder of what can happen when a board is to reckless. Which in my opinion Southampton were. And also to show that seeking investment and getting that investment are two different things. Southampton have been actively seeking, begging, investment for months. Their strategy was reliant on this investment and I believe the sale of  Bale (I''m a poet!) was a consequence of being unable to attract that investment.

I have no idea how much we are going to give the taxman this year. I am not an accountant and do not understand fully how the accounts work. One thing that puzzles me though is that if we spend all our surplus money before 31st May each year how are we ever going to have a "warchest" when the transfer window opens. I''m sure there is a perfectly good reason why and I am twice as sure that someone will be good enough to point it out to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

[/quote]

OK Nutty, on the figures you give above we made a net (after tax) profit of 10.1 m in 2004-06 as well as giving the tax man 2.1 m.

We know what Brum spent.

We know that Brum got automatic promotion under an ex-canary great - and that we finished 16th after having a severe brush with the other end of the table.

Please explain to us ignoramuses how these financials constitute good & positive leadership by our board and majority shareholders. Please, please.

After all the business of NCFC is football at which we have been considerably less than successful over the last 3 years.

It seems to many of us that our leadership has been less than ambitious in general - and less than prudent in allowing our main product line (football) to run down.

So please explain.

Pretty please.

OTBC

P.S. Any idea about how much we may be giving to the tax man this year?

 

[/quote]

Funny how some people are suddenly desperate to let this thread die . . .

 

[/quote]

hehehe you have to laugh don''t you Mystic???  Nutty and the truth Police would never hide from your line of questioning surely???

As for SAINTS CANARY... Southampton have hardly broke the bank when it comes to team investment have they?

Kelvin Davies (£1.25million), Pele (Undisclosed - minimal fee), Chris Makin (Free), Rudi Skacel (£1.6million), Jermaine Wright (Free), Mario Licka (Free), Idiakez (£250k), Jhon Viafara (£750k), Danny Guthrie (Loan only), Saganowski (Loan only), Bradley Wright-Phillips (Undisclosed but thought to be in the region of £500k to £1million), Rasiak (£2million). 

Total Spent £5.85million to £6.35million

Players sold... Walcott (£12.5million) and didn''t they get a few quid for the likes of Delap and Fuller?

How little should the Saints of spent in a persuit of mid-table mediocrity in the humble opinion of the apologists on here then???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

[/quote]

OK Nutty, on the figures you give above we made a net (after tax) profit of 10.1 m in 2004-06 as well as giving the tax man 2.1 m.

We know what Brum spent.

We know that Brum got automatic promotion under an ex-canary great - and that we finished 16th after having a severe brush with the other end of the table.

Please explain to us ignoramuses how these financials constitute good & positive leadership by our board and majority shareholders. Please, please.

After all the business of NCFC is football at which we have been considerably less than successful over the last 3 years.

It seems to many of us that our leadership has been less than ambitious in general - and less than prudent in allowing our main product line (football) to run down.

So please explain.

Pretty please.

OTBC

P.S. Any idea about how much we may be giving to the tax man this year?

 

[/quote]

Funny how some people are suddenly desperate to let this thread die . . .

 

[/quote]

hehehe you have to laugh don''t you Mystic???  Nutty and the truth Police would never hide from your line of questioning surely???

As for SAINTS CANARY... Southampton have hardly broke the bank when it comes to team investment have they?

Kelvin Davies (£1.25million), Pele (Undisclosed - minimal fee), Chris Makin (Free), Rudi Skacel (£1.6million), Jermaine Wright (Free), Mario Licka (Free), Idiakez (£250k), Jhon Viafara (£750k), Danny Guthrie (Loan only), Saganowski (Loan only), Bradley Wright-Phillips (Undisclosed but thought to be in the region of £500k to £1million), Rasiak (£2million). 

Total Spent £5.85million to £6.35million

Players sold... Walcott (£12.5million) and didn''t they get a few quid for the likes of Delap and Fuller?

How little should the Saints of spent in a persuit of mid-table mediocrity in the humble opinion of the apologists on here then???

[/quote]

Do you ever read a thread before you reply to it Smudge? Surely the bit about the transfers has been covered already.

And why would I hide, especially from a poster I have respect for.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our budget has been reasonable in the context of the league but it has been used poorly, both in terms of obtaining the squad size needed, value for wage and balancing experience v youth;  primarily by the previous manager.

The leagues (all 4 ''professional'' ones) are littered with teams who have invested (relative to their league/income) heavily in the transfer marker;  more often than not they do not acheive the success people assume the spend will bring them.  Darlington as well as Newcastle have spent well over the odds yet none have acheived success with that spend and Liverpool have spent almost as much as Chelsea and have a flukey Champs League win 3 seasons ago to account for the £100m spend on transfers alone.  Ditto Wolves,  isnt their current spending spree only a repeat of the hayward years a couple back,  and that got them nowhere for nearly a decade?

Yet we see the success the likes of reading, yeovil and   colchester have had;   by spending the money they do have wisely on getting a solid infrastructure in place off-field  to SUPPORT a manager in building a squad that has ability, hunger and understanding to perform at or above the required level.  Sometimes the formula is stumbled upon;  but it always involves a sound manager who knows where they want to go (who has the support of the board to)  who is prepared to take relative unknowns and rejects, both young and old, from other clubs at knock down prices to mix in with good players at the club to create the drive needed to succeed.

It is this drive for success, from the football manager into the players that this club has been missing for three seasons.   PG challenge this season is not to knock down the door of the chair to demand more money,  but to use what he has wisely,  strengthen the squad and build a fighting performing mentality in those players who are prepared to play a full 100 mins each match for each other even when the going gets tough.  If PG cant drill that attitude into the players we can by Henry and will still suffer in mid table in 10 months time.

Its the players who are not performing and not being encouraged to perform consistently enough. 

Share this post


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

Its the players who are not performing and not being encouraged to perform consistently enough. 

[/quote]

True Zipper, as far as it goes.  But it''s not the root of the problem imo. 

The underlying culture at Norwich City has become far too risk-free, safe and comfortable - "affordable family football" (ND quote unquote), whatever that is.  These qualities are not compatible with ambition and success, because ambition and success involves risk-taking.  The board has NOT been pulling in the same direction as the manager and players for some time now.  Motivating the team is like trying to drive a car with the brakes on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing wrong, nor incompatible with goals of affordable family football and on-field sucess. But it also depends on your definition of sucess - Reading - Man U ? Given the ticket pricing and general state of crowds in the Premiership over the last few seasons if you WERE a family who currently attend games, it might make you wonder if that league is where you really want Norwich to play? Its also my belief that the TV paymasters of football really will want to develop a 12 team Premier Euroleague, regardless of FIFA''s and the FA''s wishes. If the current Premier has only 4 teams that get all this money, maybe everyone else will be looking for a sustainable business plan that treats its loyal customers well, works hard to build up the next generation of fans, and most of all serves up some great FOOTBALL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

 

I don’t think I am being unfair either. City dropped out of the PL when one goal on the first day of the season against Palace would have seen us safe (overly simplistic I know but).  We were far too prudent and when our accounts showed a £3m profit for that season, that confirmed it for me.  Our board were too busy counting the money to spend it.  We then lost £500k to the tax man, how was that prudent.

 

[/quote]

 

Just a point of information Saint.  We made a profit of £3m in the season after relegation (2005/6), not the Prem season.  In the Prem season we made over £9m.  Hard to believe I know, so here''s the figures from the 2006 Annual Report (page 17):

 

2004/5 (Prem season)      Gross profit £9,118,979          Net profit £7,618,979           Tax £1,500,000 (strangely round figure)

2005/6 season                      "         "   £3,064,814             "       "   £2,484,222            Tax  £580,592

 

By way of comparison, Birmingham in their last Prem season made a profit of about £2.5m.

 

[/quote]

OK Nutty, on the figures you give above we made a net (after tax) profit of 10.1 m in 2004-06 as well as giving the tax man 2.1 m.

We know what Brum spent.

We know that Brum got automatic promotion under an ex-canary great - and that we finished 16th after having a severe brush with the other end of the table.

Please explain to us ignoramuses how these financials constitute good & positive leadership by our board and majority shareholders. Please, please.

After all the business of NCFC is football at which we have been considerably less than successful over the last 3 years.

It seems to many of us that our leadership has been less than ambitious in general - and less than prudent in allowing our main product line (football) to run down.

So please explain.

Pretty please.

OTBC

P.S. Any idea about how much we may be giving to the tax man this year?

 

[/quote]

Funny how some people are suddenly desperate to let this thread die . . .

 

[/quote]

hehehe you have to laugh don''t you Mystic???  Nutty and the truth Police would never hide from your line of questioning surely???

As for SAINTS CANARY... Southampton have hardly broke the bank when it comes to team investment have they?

Kelvin Davies (£1.25million), Pele (Undisclosed - minimal fee), Chris Makin (Free), Rudi Skacel (£1.6million), Jermaine Wright (Free), Mario Licka (Free), Idiakez (£250k), Jhon Viafara (£750k), Danny Guthrie (Loan only), Saganowski (Loan only), Bradley Wright-Phillips (Undisclosed but thought to be in the region of £500k to £1million), Rasiak (£2million). 

Total Spent £5.85million to £6.35million

Players sold... Walcott (£12.5million) and didn''t they get a few quid for the likes of Delap and Fuller?

How little should the Saints of spent in a persuit of mid-table mediocrity in the humble opinion of the apologists on here then???

[/quote]

Do you ever read a thread before you reply to it Smudge? Surely the bit about the transfers has been covered already.

And why would I hide, especially from a poster I have respect for.

 

 

[/quote]

Only the points that appeal to me Nutty dear...

Oh and I know that you would never hide from any of us... more is the pity!!!

While the slant on transfers has been made to some extent it has never been shown in clear daylight how mush money of what Southampton have recieved in transfer revenues has been re-invested in to development of their squad.

So I will once again ask the question... what amount of money from the £12.5million would you of given Burley to spend if you were Chairman at St Mary''s???

I will also once again ask (as I did prior to the Microsoft chap''s takeover) who is prepared to bet against the Saint''s finishing in at least a play-off spot again this coming season???

They have been invested in because they have shown ambition... the same reason that Wolves have recently found a money man and why we subsequently will not!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"]There is nothing wrong, nor incompatible with goals of affordable family football and on-field sucess. But it also depends on your definition of sucess - Reading - Man U ? Given the ticket pricing and general state of crowds in the Premiership over the last few seasons if you WERE a family who currently attend games, it might make you wonder if that league is where you really want Norwich to play? Its also my belief that the TV paymasters of football really will want to develop a 12 team Premier Euroleague, regardless of FIFA''s and the FA''s wishes. If the current Premier has only 4 teams that get all this money, maybe everyone else will be looking for a sustainable business plan that treats its loyal customers well, works hard to build up the next generation of fans, and most of all serves up some great FOOTBALL.[/quote]

What the hell???

So where should we want NCFC to play then?  What should we aspire to???

Conference?  Jewson League???

May be able to take the family out for £30.00 in a few years if we''re really lucky!!!

A perfect illustration to people who question wether or not football is losing it''s working class roots and with it it''s soul!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yellow Rose of Texas"]There is nothing wrong, nor incompatible with goals of affordable family football and on-field sucess. But it also depends on your definition of sucess - Reading - Man U ? Given the ticket pricing and general state of crowds in the Premiership over the last few seasons if you WERE a family who currently attend games, it might make you wonder if that league is where you really want Norwich to play? Its also my belief that the TV paymasters of football really will want to develop a 12 team Premier Euroleague, regardless of FIFA''s and the FA''s wishes. If the current Premier has only 4 teams that get all this money, maybe everyone else will be looking for a sustainable business plan that treats its loyal customers well, works hard to build up the next generation of fans, and most of all serves up some great FOOTBALL.[/quote]

My definition of success for Norwich City in 2007/8 is to finish in the top six of the Championship.  A modest and realistic ambition, especially given the size of our gates compared with the rest of this division.  But unless there is a sea change to the "safety first" culture that emanates from the boardroom these days, we won''t get anywhere near imo. 

The reality of course is that "safety first" is not safe at all.  It''s beginning to put us at risk of disappearing out of this division at the other end.  The first thing we need to do is reverse the slide that has seen us drop 17 league places in the past two seasons.  If this trend is allowed to continue we''re in big trouble. 

Texas, football is like trying to climb the ''down'' escalator - stand still and you start going backwards.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is just how attractive are we to potential investers?

Southampton have a much higher profile on account of almost 30 years unbroken in the top division until their relegation including the first 12/13 years of the prem.

Wolves have a great history and a "better" geographical position than us which makes them more attractive to investers.

Factor in the fact that we have quite a high profile majority shareholder which may put some investers off - from the outside it may well appear that Delia is a generally well liked and loved owner of the club. Whilst I appreciate that she has done some good for the club I think most fans would acknowledge that it''s gone a tad pear shaped over the last 2/3 years.

Personally, I am hoping that the appointment of the Turners to the board is the first step towards a "changing of the guard" at Carrow Road.

The early signs are encouraging in that we are making decent offers for seemingly good young players. 

Share this post


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

Its the players who are not performing and not being encouraged to perform consistently enough. 

[/quote]

True Zipper, as far as it goes.  But it''s not the root of the problem imo. 

The underlying culture at Norwich City has become far too risk-free, safe and comfortable - "affordable family football" (ND quote unquote), whatever that is.  These qualities are not compatible with ambition and success, because ambition and success involves risk-taking.  The board has NOT been pulling in the same direction as the manager and players for some time now.  Motivating the team is like trying to drive a car with the brakes on.

 [/quote]

I agree with ZLF that it is at the door of the players the majority of the problem lies, and with the team being way too unbalanced - and that has to lie at the door of the previous manager. I still agree wuth Nutty, that the board needs to find a better balance, but I also think that it seems so far this summer they are. Time will tell on that one.

Mystic, at the moment in the Premiership gates over the last few years have been going down, and the average age of those attending has been going up. The traditional fan is being priced out. You won''t see this on TV, Sky will do what they can to mask the truth, but it is happening. The concern is, where is the next generation of fan coming from? Any club that doesn''t provide "affordable family football" is not getting the next generation of fans. The vast majority of people chose allegiance to a club when a young kid. If they can''t get in to see Norwich, they will pick a team off TV and wander around in Chelsea / Man U / Liverpool / Arsenal shirts. Not good for Norwich, is it? Norwich can''t compete with the big 4 clubs at winning fans, without getting them into the ground!

It sounds like you are wanting success at the club at any cost, whether it be at risk to the long term viability of the club, at risk to gaining future supporters, at risk of losing the Norfolk club character. Thats just not for me I''m afraid. I love Norwich BECAUSE it represents Norfolk, the county I love.

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...