Dont be fooled by the frees-wheres the money gone?

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="lobster catcher"]Has anyone been on a leeds forum recently,bet they are all pleased with the success they had by spending big,is 4 years of success worth maybe 20 years of nothing or even no club at all,all you anti board people should put up or shut up,i defy anyone of you to find a billionaire to buy them out[/quote]

in my opinion you really are scrapping the barrel by constantly using Leeds, for heavens sake they spent a 100m under O,leary! No one in there right mind are suggesting we do the same. I would like to use Derby as an example- 5 different investers all investing 5m each, sraight up to the prem,didnt go OTT in the transfer market and now the lucky owners of our ex best player. For every Leeds,Oxford ect ect you could argue there is a Deby,Portsmouth. This current prudence with ambition outllook is in my opinion total folly and you only have to look at the last few seasons to see that.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Bigmarkcanary"][quote user="Millo"]

[quote user="lobster catcher"]Has anyone been on a leeds forum recently,bet they are all pleased with the success they had by spending big,is 4 years of success worth maybe 20 years of nothing or even no club at all,all you anti board people should put up or shut up,i defy anyone of you to find a billionaire to buy them out[/quote]

How many times are people going to use leeds as a reason we shouldnt spend money. Im all for debate but this "look what happened to Leeds" is really p''ssing me off.

[/quote]

Is that because it''s true and cannot be argued with? lobster made a very good point in my opinion.

[/quote]

Fulham?

[/quote]

Is that the best reply you can muster? Oh dear Arthur, and there was me thinking that it was actually to do with the performance on the pitch during the Fulham game - particularly the ill-fated second half [:''(]

Obviously I am very much mistaken [:|]

[/quote]

I was using Fulham as an example of what can happen if you spend big as a point against the Leeds debate.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="kevin brighton"]Fine! Now there is some substance to your point. Now ask the board the questions, ask Neil Doncaster who is open to receiving emails. At the end of the day its all about making decisions.

Personally I believe we were one player short of staying in the premier league. Was that the board or the manager’s fault? I believe the manager was responsible. He put together the team for the premier league, he let Malky and Ewan go too early in my opinion. Malky would have prevented a goal and possibly scored one or two. Ewan would have notched a goal or two in my opinion. A couple of extra points in my opinion. But its all about decisions not unsubstantiated allegations or recriminations. The board have invested the money where they believe it should have been invested maybe not to our liking. The fact is that we have obtained some talented players for free by exploiting Bosman that does not mean that the players are no good does it? The issue I have with many posts is that they are full of unfounded allegations because the board will as some suggest hide the money.     

[/quote]

Maybe your right mate but how many times are we going to be short of a player here or there. People have suggested we are 3 players short of a play off team this season. no doubt they thought that the year before and the year before that. The point is how long do you give it until one day you realise we are always going to be that player short? I personally have given up and i blame the board for that,but it doesnt mean i dont want PG to prove me wrong.

[mbncfc 1]

I might do a survey of all 92 professional clubs, and see if any of them feel they''re not a player short in a position somewhere.

It''s always the way.

Personally, I expect us now to have around £3m which could be loosely described as a transfer budget, with any players who now leave (not loans) to be replace.

I also think we need to bring in another centre back before the season starts.

I''m not sure whether to be depressed or impressed by the rest of the thread. [:D]

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Now now Rob! Admittedly I questioned Delia for calling us "little Norwich" but EVEN I wouldn''t beat her with a stick for giving our diminuitive and broken striker the benefit of her culinary skills and a free football book!  [/quote]

You are of course both right, our directors shouldn''t have any interest in the welfare of the players, and shouldn''t go out of their way to do anything that should be mis-construed as giving a flying monkeys. [:|]

[/quote]

She didn''t send me a ''there, there, there,'' comforting book, after the 6-0 drubbing at Fulham......and I was absolutely inconsolable.......but I came through it........[:''(]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr Carrow"]The last accounts (year ending May 2006) show that the club made a £3million profit in the transfer market and spent £3.9million on such vital things as "a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility,study support facility,tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project".[/quote][quote user="Shack Attack"]a) Did we need a new ticket office? I''m going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that they didn''t just build a new one for the hell of it. It''s also quite tenuous to link this with ''non-footballing activities'' in my opinion.[/quote]If building a new ticket office means that I don''t have to queue for 11 + hours for a play-off ticket (should we reach the play-offs), or spend ages on hold waiting for an operator when phoning up for a ticket for a league match, then I''ll be happy.[quote user="Shack Attack"]b) I suspect that, like me, you hate the fact that football is becoming more and more about corporate hospitality in this country. However, as this is clearly a nationwide trend it''s a little unfair to use it as a stick to beat our board with.[/quote]I also don''t like the fact that room that could be offered to fans is handed over to dull corporate air-conditioned glass-plated office zones.  As if businessmen wouldn''t want the atmosphere of a match.  But as Shack says it''s part of modern football.[quote user="Shack Attack"]c) I''m guessing that the office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the Spaces for Sport project are all part of the FITC scheme? Didn''t Delia mention how concerned she was about the average age of football fans in the interview in The Guardian that people always bring up on here. I suppose these schemes are aimed at getting more kids interested in coming to Carrow Road.[/quote]Tenanted Offices.  This means that the tenants are paying rent for those offices, which in the medium - long term will exceed the money spent on creating them ?  In effect, property development in an area of the ground which would otherwise lay dormant for 300 days a year ?Is that list everything we bought for the 3.9 million ?  Or has Mr Carrow cherry-picked the items from the Annual Report that best suit his argument ?

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"]

I might do a survey of all 92 professional clubs, and see if any of them feel they''re not a player short in a position somewhere.

It''s always the way.

Personally, I expect us now to have around £3m which could be loosely described as a transfer budget, with any players who now leave (not loans) to be replace.

I also think we need to bring in another centre back before the season starts.

I''m not sure whether to be depressed or impressed by the rest of the thread. [:D]

[/quote]

I agree a big CB is a must in my opinion. If like you say we have 3m i believe we should be looking at spendig half that on a proven CB or at very least a quality loan in the Callum Davenport mould. I  understand the point about being a player short and most fans will always say there team could do with more depth here or there,but have we signed players/replaced the older ones with better talent? Time will tell i suppose thats why im not going to say the team will be competing for honours this season and like the last few before it.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr Carrow"]The last accounts (year ending May 2006) show that the club made a £3million profit in the transfer market and spent £3.9million on such vital things as "a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility,study support facility,tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project".[/quote]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]a) Did we need a new ticket office? I''m going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that they didn''t just build a new one for the hell of it. It''s also quite tenuous to link this with ''non-footballing activities'' in my opinion.[/quote]

If building a new ticket office means that I don''t have to queue for 11 + hours for a play-off ticket (should we reach the play-offs), or spend ages on hold waiting for an operator when phoning up for a ticket for a league match, then I''ll be happy.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]b) I suspect that, like me, you hate the fact that football is becoming more and more about corporate hospitality in this country. However, as this is clearly a nationwide trend it''s a little unfair to use it as a stick to beat our board with.[/quote]

I also don''t like the fact that room that could be offered to fans is handed over to dull corporate air-conditioned glass-plated office zones.  As if businessmen wouldn''t want the atmosphere of a match.  But as Shack says it''s part of modern football.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]c) I''m guessing that the office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the Spaces for Sport project are all part of the FITC scheme? Didn''t Delia mention how concerned she was about the average age of football fans in the interview in The Guardian that people always bring up on here. I suppose these schemes are aimed at getting more kids interested in coming to Carrow Road.[/quote]

Tenanted Offices.  This means that the tenants are paying rent for those offices, which in the medium - long term will exceed the money spent on creating them ?  In effect, property development in an area of the ground which would otherwise lay dormant for 300 days a year ?

Is that list everything we bought for the 3.9 million ?  Or has Mr Carrow cherry-picked the items from the Annual Report that best suit his argument ?[/quote]

I would be ecstatic to queue for 11+hours for a play-off ticket. It`s alot more likely to be a league 1 play-off final than a Championship one though isn`t it?

To be honest i`m not fussed about the corporate development in football. I thought the whole idea was to make money to help create a successful football team, but for the last three years it has been the other way around- the millions made from asset-stripping the team have disappeared into a seeming off-field black hole. Could you please enlighten me as to when meaningful revenue will be spent on squad strengthening from these developments? Or will there be another expensive stand refit/restaurant/ticket office to be built by then? Or maybe the club will go from four subsiduary companies to six,eight or ten?

The tenanted offices "might" in the long-term exceed the money spent on them,they might not. Had we spent £3.9million on the team we "might" now be raking in a £50million promotion or have the next Wayne Rooney tied to a 4-year contract. Nothing is gauranteed.

If you don`t like the facts i quote from the accounts, why don`t you have a look for yourself and show me where i have got it so wrong?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Had we spent £3.9million on the team we "might" now be raking in a

£50million promotion or have the next Wayne Rooney tied to a 4-year

contract.[/quote]Chris Martin isn''t the next Wayne Rooney then ? [:)]  I heard that Bellamy was joining the Hammers on the radio, to link up with Ashton.  Would have been nice if it had been us, not them, but might is a big word.[quote]If you don`t like the facts i quote from the accounts, why don`t you

have a look for yourself and show me where i have got it so wrong?[/quote]Quoting any set of numbers in isolation can prove anything.  Especially when you mention 3 years worth of income without discussing wages / signing on fees / transfer fees / the cost of  running the ground.  That''s the problem I have with quoting from the accounts, the figures are not quoted in the correct context of a running business, but as the basis of making an argument.  The most recent set of accounts relate to the Worthington era, I was questioning why there were no signings at the time, so I agree that investment has been with-held from the team.  But this is getting on for 12-24 months ago now.The difference between now and then is a recognition of the need for investment in the team seems to have occured.  To claim that the board haven''t learnt from their mistakes seems a bit crass when we''ve just signed 6 players over 2 weeks.Even if Peter Grant was offered all his eggs at once, I don''t think he would put them all into the one transfer window basket, preferring instead to get a solid squad together and playing well up to Xmas, before reviewing his options for a promotion push.  The board have the ability to and are willing to finance one or two big deals, as you have seen with the Sharp and Cotterill deals falling through.  But now that Sharp has fallen through, there don''t seem to be many "win-win" candidates of the calibre of Earnshaw / Ashton worth spending big money on.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr Carrow"]The last accounts (year ending May 2006) show that the club made a £3million profit in the transfer market and spent £3.9million on such vital things as "a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility,study support facility,tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project".[/quote]

[quote user="Shack Attack"]a) Did we need a new ticket office? I''m going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that they didn''t just build a new one for the hell of it. It''s also quite tenuous to link this with ''non-footballing activities'' in my opinion.[/quote]

If building a new ticket office means that I don''t have to queue for 11 + hours for a play-off ticket (should we reach the play-offs), or spend ages on hold waiting for an operator when phoning up for a ticket for a league match, then I''ll be happy.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]b) I suspect that, like me, you hate the fact that football is becoming more and more about corporate hospitality in this country. However, as this is clearly a nationwide trend it''s a little unfair to use it as a stick to beat our board with.[/quote]

I also don''t like the fact that room that could be offered to fans is handed over to dull corporate air-conditioned glass-plated office zones.  As if businessmen wouldn''t want the atmosphere of a match.  But as Shack says it''s part of modern football.

[quote user="Shack Attack"]c) I''m guessing that the office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the Spaces for Sport project are all part of the FITC scheme? Didn''t Delia mention how concerned she was about the average age of football fans in the interview in The Guardian that people always bring up on here. I suppose these schemes are aimed at getting more kids interested in coming to Carrow Road.[/quote]

Tenanted Offices.  This means that the tenants are paying rent for those offices, which in the medium - long term will exceed the money spent on creating them ?  In effect, property development in an area of the ground which would otherwise lay dormant for 300 days a year ?

Is that list everything we bought for the 3.9 million ?  Or has Mr Carrow cherry-picked the items from the Annual Report that best suit his argument ?[/quote]

I would be ecstatic to queue for 11+hours for a play-off ticket. It`s alot more likely to be a league 1 play-off final than a Championship one though isn`t it?

To be honest i`m not fussed about the corporate development in football. I thought the whole idea was to make money to help create a successful football team, but for the last three years it has been the other way around- the millions made from asset-stripping the team have disappeared into a seeming off-field black hole. Could you please enlighten me as to when meaningful revenue will be spent on squad strengthening from these developments? Or will there be another expensive stand refit/restaurant/ticket office to be built by then? Or maybe the club will go from four subsiduary companies to six,eight or ten?

The tenanted offices "might" in the long-term exceed the money spent on them,they might not. Had we spent £3.9million on the team we "might" now be raking in a £50million promotion or have the next Wayne Rooney tied to a 4-year contract. Nothing is gauranteed.

If you don`t like the facts i quote from the accounts, why don`t you have a look for yourself and show me where i have got it so wrong?

[/quote]

It is pretty funny that when you put such things on here Mr.CARROW the following silence is almost always deafening!!!  [:D]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Fair points Blah, but to be honest if i had looked at the accounts and seen a picture of crippling player wages, huge signing on fees and agents fees, i wouldn`t be bothering to post on here. In the last accounts player wages (which include coaches, fitness instructors etc.) cost £9.1million and the club made a £3million profit on transfers. That means that the major cost of the "footballing side" at Carrow Rd cost £6.1million out of a turnover of £24.7million. I appreciate that these are simplistic figures and there are lots of ancillary costs, but i don`t think anyone can seriously deny that, in that year, the "football side" was run on a ridiculously tight budget. And we have all witnessed the result. I find the fact that some supporters seem indignant that others are angry about this quite bizarre.

I think you are right that recent developments are encouraging. However, now the dust has settled on our flurry of new signings i have remembered how encouraged i was by the signings of Croft, Jarret, Thorne, Colin,Hughes and Louis-Jean.......The "cheaps and frees" approach of the last few seasons has failed miserably. But a couple more decent signings and i think it`s fair to say we will be looking stronger than last season.

I have little faith that the ultra cautious, negative, self-defeating approach from the board in recent times has changed. All i can say is please,please prove me wrong.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr Carrow - nice to chat with you again [;)] I really am not ready for another browse through the accounts just yet or maybe even ever! We had a long discussion before where although we were not far apart in our views we both had different understandings of the details in the accounts. I was trusting and you were cynical of the motives of our board. One of us is probably right or maybe we are both half right, but it can only be opinion and I respect yours.

However, you have confused me in this post because I don''t understand how we can keep offloading the clubs best players for millions and not bring in quality replacements. If there aren''t quality replacements then we couldn''t keep selling our best players for millions. Surely nobody is going to pay millions for cheap has-beens or never-were''s.

From Ron Davies to Robert Earnshaw nothing has changed - our best players are sold for big money but quality replacements always seem to come from somewhere.

 

 

[/quote]

How sad it is to have to reply to my own post Mr Carrow. You obviously aren''t talking to me anymore [:''(]

I got another question for you because, while I totally agree with Mello''s description of us all being cyber-oiks as we don''t know the facts, I look upon you as an accounts orientated sort of chap [8-|][*] I think you do understand the accounts more than a lot of us [Y]

Anyway, what I was wondering was, when we try to work out where the money has gone the likes of Peter Thorne doesn''t cost anything but yet when we want to make a point about how awful he was and how useless the people concerned were in getting him he suddenly cost a lot of money and bled the club dry.

[B] I paid £3 for that in Archants Bar.. it''s only £1.70 where I drink... but you''re worth it [*-)]

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

Ive moderated my stance with regards to the board [Pictures of delia in a scum scarf ect ect] because i realised it wasnt the way things are done on here, Also with regards to the anti board demo leader or wharever it is you call me, i think you will find im merely saying im prepared to take over where Lee left off if and when a campaign is needed as Lee is unable to do it now. Ive made mistakes on here when i first started posting but most people have got over it and reply in a civilised manner, you on the other hand are intent to carry on going over old ground. So i would suggest that you should ignore my posts as they clearly irritate you to an extent that you have to reply to them in such a manner.

[/quote]

Fair enough Arthur, consider the slate wiped clean.

I got quite annoyed with your reluctance to answer the questions asked of you by various posters in the threads that you started but I guess there''s no point raking over old ground. My disappointment came from the fact that at the time I thought your threads detailing your problems with the board could be quite beneficial for everybody.

No hard feelings....but I reserve the right to make sarcastic comments about you if the mood so takes me!

[/quote]

Ditto and slate wiped clean.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"beyond our finance, we must continue to punch above our weight,both on and off the field,as i believe we have done for the last four seasons. If our destiny were tied solely to current finance, we would settle somewhere in the middle of the Championship". (quote:R.Munby P2 2005 annual report).

[/quote]

Is it just me then?  I read this as saying if it were only down to our current financial position, we would have to settle for mid-table obscurity in this league.  I don''t believe it says that that is what the board''s ambitions are - in fact, quite the opposite - it states that we need to punch above our weight, which surely means that despite our current financial position, the board''s ambitions lie much higher than that?

[/quote]

That''s spot on Temp the Revelator, although, let''s not forget, he was looking backwards and basing his judgement on our relative financial strenght over the previous four seasons. Since then, the game has moved on and, unfortunately, the Premiership legacy has largely been wasted. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr Carrow - nice to chat with you again [;)] I really am not ready for another browse through the accounts just yet or maybe even ever! We had a long discussion before where although we were not far apart in our views we both had different understandings of the details in the accounts. I was trusting and you were cynical of the motives of our board. One of us is probably right or maybe we are both half right, but it can only be opinion and I respect yours.

However, you have confused me in this post because I don''t understand how we can keep offloading the clubs best players for millions and not bring in quality replacements. If there aren''t quality replacements then we couldn''t keep selling our best players for millions. Surely nobody is going to pay millions for cheap has-beens or never-were''s.

From Ron Davies to Robert Earnshaw nothing has changed - our best players are sold for big money but quality replacements always seem to come from somewhere.

 

 

[/quote]

How sad it is to have to reply to my own post Mr Carrow. You obviously aren''t talking to me anymore [:''(]

I got another question for you because, while I totally agree with Mello''s description of us all being cyber-oiks as we don''t know the facts, I look upon you as an accounts orientated sort of chap [8-|][*] I think you do understand the accounts more than a lot of us [Y]

Anyway, what I was wondering was, when we try to work out where the money has gone the likes of Peter Thorne doesn''t cost anything but yet when we want to make a point about how awful he was and how useless the people concerned were in getting him he suddenly cost a lot of money and bled the club dry.

[B] I paid £3 for that in Archants Bar.. it''s only £1.70 where I drink... but you''re worth it [*-)]

 

[/quote]

Hi Nutty. Sorry about the lack of replies. I just haven`t had time to post as much as i`d like lately. I tend to end up replying to whichever post winds me up the most, so i suppose you can take that as a compliment of sorts!

On your original post, i think the period of the share issues should be seen as a pivotal one for the club. Fair play to the board for coming up with the idea and, as promised, spending the cash pile on players, but it was basically the fans money which guaranteed promotion (Hucks,Mckenzie,Svensson). The board then had the opportunity to show that they were capable of taking a bold move themselves when Crouch was available for £2.5million at the start of the Prem season. We signed Doherty to play upfront instead, and only moved for Ashton when the board received a budget surplus of £1.5million from the B shares. Of course we then made a large profit on Ashton (who wouldn`t have been signed but for the share issue) which easily paid for Earnshaw.

To put it bluntly, spending money on top young talent has paid off spectacularly for the club but,apart from the share issue "gift-horse", our board just won`t do it. I seem to remember that we actually put a bid in for Eastwood a while back and Southend`s chairman came out in the press and called it "a joke". Halford, Koumas, Sidwell and Chopra have all been unsettled and linked with City since relegation, but once the board realise that a club isn`t going to hand us their best young talent for a bit of loose change, we are not interested. We tried to get Cotteril a few hours before the window shut and then got a sob-story from Doncaster about how difficult and unfair it all is. Sheer incompetence. We have settled for the cheap option time and again-and how many of these are going to be sold for a profit?

I understand your point about the paradox between claiming that the club takes the cheap option, but also moaning about the high wages of the "frees". Thorne is probably the most extreme example to use-i don`t think the others will be very near to the rumoured £9k a week he was on. To me, the board have wanted it both ways. They have been unwilling to pay the high transfer fees demanded for up-and-coming players, and player wages are shown in the last accounts as nowhere near as high as many believe. £9.1million out of a £24.7million turnover is quite low in relation to other clubs. It has proved to be false economy. Even if a player is on £3k a week, if he is rubbish or completely disinterested that is £150k a year wasted.

A large part of the Prem/Francis/Ashton/Green money has gone on infrastructure. We can`t change that, and it is my fervant hope that most of the projects are finished and paid for now and we can get back to focussing on what i assume we all want- a successful football team. But the board have admitted they are "to an extent, obsessed" with off-pitch activities. How do we know what other expensive projects they have got lined up? If they are true to recent form, a fraction of the Earnshaw money will be spent on the team and the rest will be diverted into their latest pet project.

The new players signed so far are encouraging, but it looks likely we will lose at least two more first-team regulars (Colin,Safri,Etuhu?), so we will need to bring in at least 3-4 decent new faces for the squad to be noticably stronger than last season i would say. We`ll see.....

I remember during the anti-Chase demo`s a common opinion was that we`d end up with the best stadium in the third division. I think that unless we see a radical and permenant change of of approach the same could be said now.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="kevin brighton"]

Mr Carrow, what a cynic, can you or any of the other detractors on this forum prove your cynical allegations against those that hold the purse strings. Can you prove that any of the money from the sale of past players has been siphoned off or used for other ventures. In fact can you prove any of your statements?

How does this type of posting help anyone? Yes you could write to the club and ask a question or you could even email Neil Doncaster but what you cannot do is dissect ever response or statement and then bend or alter it to suit your cynical view and accusations.

It is probable that football is the only place that you can get away with this type of stuff so if you are saying that your views would apply to all clubs then I guess we would all have to accept that football is full of the type of dishonest people you appear to think preside over our club. Is that what you are suggesting or is it just relevant to Norwich City?

 

[/quote]

If you tell me what you want me to prove i will have a go for you. But then would you accept it or just dismiss it as irrelevent because it doesn`t fit in with your view of the club like several other people on here?

The last accounts (year ending May 2006) show that the club made a £3million profit in the transfer market and spent £3.9million on such vital things as "a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility,study support facility,tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project". (P8 2006 annual report). What is your opinion on this?

At the end of the day, if i had looked at events of the last few years and the financial details in the accounts and decided that the board had done all it could to build a successful team and had just been unlucky, i wouldn`t waste my time posting on here. But i think that by focussing on non-football ventures whilst allowing the team to spiral into decline, they have cocked up massively and set our club back years.

[/quote]

Your comments relating to the £3.9M expenditure are somewhat misleading, as you''ve specifically excluded the subsequent two sentences from the Accounts. These relate to the  planning obligations the Club was liable for resulting from the sale of three areas of land around the ground. 

If you want to spin it that the Club "spent £3.9M on such vital things as a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility, study support facility, tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project", that''s your choice, but you''re attributing no value to the infrastructure costs that the Club are legally required to make.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"beyond our finance, we must continue to punch above our weight,both on and off the field,as i believe we have done for the last four seasons. If our destiny were tied solely to current finance, we would settle somewhere in the middle of the Championship". (quote:R.Munby P2 2005 annual report).

[/quote]

Is it just me then?  I read this as saying if it were only down to our current financial position, we would have to settle for mid-table obscurity in this league.  I don''t believe it says that that is what the board''s ambitions are - in fact, quite the opposite - it states that we need to punch above our weight, which surely means that despite our current financial position, the board''s ambitions lie much higher than that?

[/quote]

That''s spot on Temp the Revelator, although, let''s not forget, he was looking backwards and basing his judgement on our relative financial strenght over the previous four seasons. Since then, the game has moved on and, unfortunately, the Premiership legacy has largely been wasted. 

[/quote]

My point in posting this quote is to show where those who run NCFC see our place in the footballing hierarchy. In the following season we had the second highest crowds in the division (pipped by a few dozen by Sheff.Wed), £7.1million parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.

I would say that the clubs turnover would have been comfortably in the top three in the division. Why then, is anything above mid-table "punching above our weight"? The most polite thing i can say about this statement is that it is "misleading". The "little Norwich" myth lives on......

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I would say that the clubs turnover would have been comfortably in the

top three in the division. Why then, is anything above mid-table

"punching above our weight"? The most polite thing i can say about this

statement is that it is "misleading". The "little Norwich" myth lives

on......[/quote]If someone wanted to provide evidence of the poor relationship between turnover and team investment, they would get the annual reports of the 23 other teams in the league, and produce a league table of % of investment / turnover.  Anybody who did this would have to be very clear in their definition of team investment, to avoid claims of bias in attempting to prove a point.  It could be that someone like Deloitte and Touche have already done this.Just a thought.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I would say that the clubs turnover would have been comfortably in the top three in the division. Why then, is anything above mid-table "punching above our weight"? The most polite thing i can say about this statement is that it is "misleading". The "little Norwich" myth lives on......[/quote]

If someone wanted to provide evidence of the poor relationship between turnover and team investment, they would get the annual reports of the 23 other teams in the league, and produce a league table of % of investment / turnover.  Anybody who did this would have to be very clear in their definition of team investment, to avoid claims of bias in attempting to prove a point.  It could be that someone like Deloitte and Touche have already done this.

Just a thought.
[/quote]

Hasn''t something similar to this already been done???  [8-)]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I would say that the clubs turnover would have been comfortably in the top three in the division. Why then, is anything above mid-table "punching above our weight"? The most polite thing i can say about this statement is that it is "misleading". The "little Norwich" myth lives on......[/quote]

If someone wanted to provide evidence of the poor relationship between turnover and team investment, they would get the annual reports of the 23 other teams in the league, and produce a league table of % of investment / turnover.  Anybody who did this would have to be very clear in their definition of team investment, to avoid claims of bias in attempting to prove a point.  It could be that someone like Deloitte and Touche have already done this.

Just a thought.
[/quote]

I read the article based on the last Deloitte and Touche report in the EDP and it seemed to show-at least on wages-that we were below average for our division. A link to something like that would be vey interesting though.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Temp the Revelator"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"beyond our finance, we must continue to punch above our weight,both on and off the field,as i believe we have done for the last four seasons. If our destiny were tied solely to current finance, we would settle somewhere in the middle of the Championship". (quote:R.Munby P2 2005 annual report).

[/quote]

Is it just me then?  I read this as saying if it were only down to our current financial position, we would have to settle for mid-table obscurity in this league.  I don''t believe it says that that is what the board''s ambitions are - in fact, quite the opposite - it states that we need to punch above our weight, which surely means that despite our current financial position, the board''s ambitions lie much higher than that?

[/quote]

That''s spot on Temp the Revelator, although, let''s not forget, he was looking backwards and basing his judgement on our relative financial strenght over the previous four seasons. Since then, the game has moved on and, unfortunately, the Premiership legacy has largely been wasted. 

[/quote]

My point in posting this quote is to show where those who run NCFC see our place in the footballing hierarchy. In the following season we had the second highest crowds in the division (pipped by a few dozen by Sheff.Wed), £7.1million parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.

I would say that the clubs turnover would have been comfortably in the top three in the division. Why then, is anything above mid-table "punching above our weight"? The most polite thing i can say about this statement is that it is "misleading". The "little Norwich" myth lives on......

[/quote]

Contrary to your suggestion, it doesn''t actually say that''s where they see our place in the footballing hierarchy, merely, if league position was based on turnover (at that time) we should have been mid-table and that''s something totally different to what you''re impying.

It''s also a quote from the 2004-05 season and compare it with the 2006-07, when the financial position has changed, is misleading on your part, as you''re not comparing like with like.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

I omitted those sentences because i was unsure what they were referring to. But i think that if the club are going to constantly incur ongoing costs for the land deals etc. it is as good an argument as i have heard to steer well clear of them and concentrate on the football team-which has made the club tens of millions in recent seasons.

The whole point of the off-pitch ventures was to make the club money, not lose it, was it not?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

"If our destiny were tied solely to CURRENT finance,we would settle somewhere in the middle of the Championship"

We had just had £20million in the Prem and knew we were going to recieve two more £7.1million parachute payments. We also had some of the highest season-tickets and crowds in the division. This is far,far more than your average mid-table Championship club had at the time (Preston, Cardiff, Ipswich, Burnley etc.) GazzaTCC, that statement was misleading nonsense and a good illustration of the small-mindedness that reigns at our club.

[Boogle 0]

Arthur Whittle

I read your letter in the evening news today.

[GMF 736]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I omitted those sentences because i was unsure what they were referring to. But i think that if the club are going to constantly incur ongoing costs for the land deals etc. it is as good an argument as i have heard to steer well clear of them and concentrate on the football team-which has made the club tens of millions in recent seasons.

The whole point of the off-pitch ventures was to make the club money, not lose it, was it not?

[/quote]

It''s one off capital expenditure, not ongoing as you suggest and the original capital receipts exceeded the subsequent liabilities, so where''s the loss? 

The quote you''ve used is two years out of date and the game has moved on since then. No one disagrees that the last two seasons have seen considerable under performance by the team, despite the increases in turnover associated with promotion to the Premiership

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

I omitted those sentences because i was unsure what they were referring to. But i think that if the club are going to constantly incur ongoing costs for the land deals etc. it is as good an argument as i have heard to steer well clear of them and concentrate on the football team-which has made the club tens of millions in recent seasons.

The whole point of the off-pitch ventures was to make the club money, not lose it, was it not?

[/quote]

It''s one off capital expenditure, not ongoing as you suggest and the original capital receipts exceeded the subsequent liabilities, so where''s the loss? 

The quote you''ve used is two years out of date and the game has moved on since then. No one disagrees that the last two seasons have seen considerable under performance by the team, despite the increases in turnover associated with promotion to the Premiership

[/quote]

Fair enough, my choice of words wasn`t very good. The point i am trying to make is that if these projects incur further costs even after they have been completed surely you have to question whether they are worth it? Will there be further costs associated with the Hotel, phase three land development etc.? How much did the South stand and infill really cost when you take into account all these other ancillaries? I know the argument will be "we had to replace the South stand" but even that is a very debatable point.

My stance is that these projects have been a massive drain on club finances in recent years, so much so that despite the millions from the Prem and player sales we have been unable to maintain a competitive team on the pitch. If you can show me evidence that i am wrong i would welcome it.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I know the argument will be "we had to replace the South stand" but even that is a very debatable point.[/quote]The South Stand would not have passed another safety inspection, under any circumstances.  Not replacing it would have left us with a capacity of approx.18 thousand.  8000 seats *  20 per seat = 160,000 per game.160,000 per game * 43 league matches  = 6,880,000 per season ?  Nearly 7 million pounds per season is a lot of money to miss out on.[quote]Will there be further costs associated with the Hotel, phase three land development etc[/quote]The costs of the Hotel will belong to the Hotel, which the club have a 30 % share in.  The current land price inflation will ensure that any extra property development will easily make a profit.You have a lot of questions Mr Carrow, and I can''t help but feel that you''re not addressing those questions to people that are best placed to answer them.  The official site forum has a "questions for the club" section, or you can drop Neil Doncaster himself an email.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I know the argument will be "we had to replace the South stand" but even that is a very debatable point.[/quote]

The South Stand would not have passed another safety inspection, under any circumstances.  Not replacing it would have left us with a capacity of approx.18 thousand. 

8000 seats *  20 per seat = 160,000 per game.
160,000 per game * 43 league matches  = 6,880,000 per season ? 

Nearly 7 million pounds per season is a lot of money to miss out on.

[quote]Will there be further costs associated with the Hotel, phase three land development etc[/quote]

The costs of the Hotel will belong to the Hotel, which the club have a 30 % share in.  The current land price inflation will ensure that any extra property development will easily make a profit.

You have a lot of questions Mr Carrow, and I can''t help but feel that you''re not addressing those questions to people that are best placed to answer them.  The official site forum has a "questions for the club" section, or you can drop Neil Doncaster himself an email.
[/quote]

Have you any proof of your South Stand assertion Blah? My memory is that the club said that it was costing more and more to get the stand up to scratch to pass the safety inspection each season and that justified the cost of a replacement. Would a local council have financially crippled its highest profile organisation by closing its biggest stand? I very much doubt it.

I will be asking Doncaster some questions in the Q and A, but i can probably tell you95% of what the answers will consist of right now.

Costs related to the Hotel are mentioned in the accounts and the stated profit on the initial £1.1million deal was £400k. There may well be ongoing costs that the club are obliged to pay. Do you know that there are not?

Overall, the bigger picture points to the off-pitch stuff draining huge amounts away from the team, not providing money to invest.

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I know the argument will be "we had to replace the South stand" but even that is a very debatable point.[/quote]

The South Stand would not have passed another safety inspection, under any circumstances.  Not replacing it would have left us with a capacity of approx.18 thousand. 

8000 seats *  20 per seat = 160,000 per game.
160,000 per game * 43 league matches  = 6,880,000 per season ? 

Nearly 7 million pounds per season is a lot of money to miss out on.

[quote]Will there be further costs associated with the Hotel, phase three land development etc[/quote]

The costs of the Hotel will belong to the Hotel, which the club have a 30 % share in.  The current land price inflation will ensure that any extra property development will easily make a profit.

You have a lot of questions Mr Carrow, and I can''t help but feel that you''re not addressing those questions to people that are best placed to answer them.  The official site forum has a "questions for the club" section, or you can drop Neil Doncaster himself an email.
[/quote]

Have you any proof of your South Stand assertion Blah? My memory is that the club said that it was costing more and more to get the stand up to scratch to pass the safety inspection each season and that justified the cost of a replacement. Would a local council have financially crippled its highest profile organisation by closing its biggest stand? I very much doubt it.

I will be asking Doncaster some questions in the Q and A, but i can probably tell you95% of what the answers will consist of right now.

Costs related to the Hotel are mentioned in the accounts and the stated profit on the initial £1.1million deal was £400k. There may well be ongoing costs that the club are obliged to pay. Do you know that there are not?

Overall, the bigger picture points to the off-pitch stuff draining huge amounts away from the team, not providing money to invest.

[/quote]

So you actually think we could''ve left the South Stand indefinitely?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I know the argument will be "we had to replace the South stand" but even that is a very debatable point.[/quote]

The South Stand would not have passed another safety inspection, under any circumstances.  Not replacing it would have left us with a capacity of approx.18 thousand. 

8000 seats *  20 per seat = 160,000 per game.
160,000 per game * 43 league matches  = 6,880,000 per season ? 

Nearly 7 million pounds per season is a lot of money to miss out on.

[quote]Will there be further costs associated with the Hotel, phase three land development etc[/quote]

The costs of the Hotel will belong to the Hotel, which the club have a 30 % share in.  The current land price inflation will ensure that any extra property development will easily make a profit.

You have a lot of questions Mr Carrow, and I can''t help but feel that you''re not addressing those questions to people that are best placed to answer them.  The official site forum has a "questions for the club" section, or you can drop Neil Doncaster himself an email.
[/quote]

Have you any proof of your South Stand assertion Blah? My memory is that the club said that it was costing more and more to get the stand up to scratch to pass the safety inspection each season and that justified the cost of a replacement. Would a local council have financially crippled its highest profile organisation by closing its biggest stand? I very much doubt it.

I will be asking Doncaster some questions in the Q and A, but i can probably tell you95% of what the answers will consist of right now.

Costs related to the Hotel are mentioned in the accounts and the stated profit on the initial £1.1million deal was £400k. There may well be ongoing costs that the club are obliged to pay. Do you know that there are not?

Overall, the bigger picture points to the off-pitch stuff draining huge amounts away from the team, not providing money to invest.

[/quote]

So you actually think we could''ve left the South Stand indefinitely?

[/quote]

Did i say that? Read the post again.