Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blahblahblah

If Fans come first, surely it's time to speculate to accumulate ?

Recommended Posts

It looks like I have an apology to make to Mr. Carrow. Looking at the 06/07 accounts, NCFC appears to be run at a short term annual profit, to the longer term detriment of revenue.  How long will people "be happy to pay to watch the grass", as Neil Warnock once said of Sheffield Wednesday supporters ?From the accounts story on the official site :
  • A small after tax profit of £0.1 million.
  • Expenditure decreased from £26.3million to £24.1million.
  • Turnover was marginally down by £0.3million, from £24.1million to £23.8million.
So we''ve spent what we made in the last season of parachute payments.  But was it on the players ?
  • A £1.6million reduction in player wage costs.
  • Overall the player wage ratio (ie the ratio of player wages to income) decreased from 36% to 31%.
From the Annual Review of Football Finance (adobe reader document here), The average wages / turnover ratio for a championship club in 05 / 06 was 72%, average wage bill of 9 million.  If 05/06''s wage bill was 9 million, then we  would have spent 7.4 million in wages last season, 1.6 million below average for the championship. On the basis of our league position last season, I''d say we got what we paid for.  It should be pointed out that Deloitte and Touche consider 72% on wages to be

too high a percentage of turnover, that said, how do we compete with

clubs that are willing to spend over the odds to get promotion ?Shaun O Hara, Director of Finance :2007/2008 will be a very challenging year financially, as will every year the Club remains in the Championship. The financial gulf between the Premier League and the Championship continues to grow and relegated teams are dropping into the Championship with much more financial muscle than ever before.Chairman Roger Munby As a football club, our philosophy that "fans come first" remains unshakeable and has been the bedrock of our unparalleled success in season ticket sales and total attendances.Peter GrantI am desperate to bring better players and we have always tried to do that, but the best players cost you money.  The board are desperate to help, but I go to them sometimes and it beggars belief what they are on. I can''t legislate for it at times because I''m thinking, ''there is no way he is worth that''.  So

it is not the board saying you can''t get him - I am just thinking, ''no

way is he worth that''. And that is something maybe I have to change.Surely then, it''s now time to speculate to accumulate ?Most fans won''t care where the money comes from, if it needs to be raised.  Offer preference shares to local wealthy businessmen, give them a bonus on the shares if we get promoted, sell the naming rights to Carrow Road and Colney, whatever it takes, just give the manager and his team a fighting chance to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My argument for months has been speculate to accumulate and have been shouted down on here but it is the only way forward, that and give the money to a new and experienced manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

blah have you any idea what "retained profit" is, and what it means [:^)]

on p.37 it states:

"Retained profit at 31 May 2007 £6,556,432 (Group), £8,284,924 (Company)." 

To the uninitiated it sounds like they''ve got all this money hidden away, but it can''t mean that surely?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]blah have you any idea what "retained profit" is, and what it means[/quote]Not a clue [:)], but I googled it, no wonder exams are getting easier to pass these days.  From here :
Retained Earnings
The percentage of net earnings

not paid out in dividends, but retained by the company to be reinvested

in its core business or to pay debt. It is recorded under shareholders

equity on the balance sheet.Calculated by adding net income to

(or subtracting any net losses from) beginning retained earnings and

subtracting any dividends paid to shareholders.
Notes:
Should a net loss be greater than beginning retained earnings, then retained earnings can become negative, creating a deficit.Also known as the retention ratio or retained surplus. See also: Balance Sheet, Dividend, Income Statement, Retention Ratio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By all means speculate, but with debts not far short of £20m, how much further do we borrow or raise from share distribution? I suspect that if we want to pay the kind of money that Charlton are paying (wages and transfer fees), you would need to raise something like another £20m, and that would buy you  three or four good players to play among the average ones. This would be no guarantee of promotion. For the local population, our crowds are excellent but will struggle to provide enough revenue to achieve much, and our catchment area, circumscribed by the FA, is too thinly populated  to produce many outstanding players.History is strewn with examples of clubs who with debt finance overreached themselves in ground development  and player acquisition - you only have to think of Leeds or Ipswich. Ipswich managed to wriggle out of much of their debt but these escape hatches are no longer available.Sadly, given the astronomical figuires in the Premiership, we have two options for promotion and consolidation, - either to find a wealthy billionaire, or to attempt the long road of careful team building. Having seen the behaviour of some billionaire owners, some fans may not prefer this route, but at the moment many seem to be rejecting the other option, in wanting Grant out within a year in the belief that some out-of-work manager may be found somewhere who can deliver instant success.The options are not many and none is univesally attractive, however strong our desires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]blah have you any idea what "retained profit" is, and what it means[/quote]

Not a clue [:)], but I googled it, no wonder exams are getting easier to pass these days.  From here :

Retained Earnings
The percentage of net earnings not paid out in dividends, but retained by the company to be reinvested in its core business or to pay debt. It is recorded under shareholders equity on the balance sheet.

Calculated by adding net income to (or subtracting any net losses from) beginning retained earnings and subtracting any dividends paid to shareholders.


Notes:

Should a net loss be greater than beginning retained earnings, then retained earnings can become negative, creating a deficit.

Also known as the retention ratio or retained surplus. See also: Balance Sheet, Dividend, Income Statement, Retention Ratio
[/quote]

I wonder if retained profit is the same as retained earnings?

In a nutshell it does sound as though they''ve been stashing this money away for a while.  It hasn''t all come out of this year''s trading - last year the respective amounts were £6,465,903 (Group) and £8,155,777 (Company). 

Looking back to the 2006 AR, the whole of the last two seasons net profit has been retained.  That''s right.  100% of our profits (which incidentally have all came from selling players) have been stashed away to pay our debts.  50% I could accept albeit reluctantly. 

It is impossible to overemphasise how serious this is.  It looks very much as though the club is squeezing the football side dry to pay off our debts.  Is this a condition of the securitisation I wonder?

I''m going to start another thread on this.  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this Blah - very imformative reading.  As I said elsewhere, it does appear (as I think we suspected pre-season) that cash is available - but Grant has chosen not to spend it because of vlaue for money issues.  Is the speculate to accumulate issue actually the boards or the managers - people are blaming the board but is this correct?

[quote user="blahblahblah"]It looks like I have an apology to make to Mr. Carrow. Looking at the 06/07 accounts, NCFC appears to be run at a short term annual profit, to the longer term detriment of revenue.  How long will people "be happy to pay to watch the grass", as Neil Warnock once said of Sheffield Wednesday supporters ?

From the accounts story on the official site :

  • A small after tax profit of £0.1 million.

  • Expenditure decreased from £26.3million to £24.1million.

  • Turnover was marginally down by £0.3million, from £24.1million to £23.8million.
So we''ve spent what we made in the last season of parachute payments.  But was it on the players ?

  • A £1.6million reduction in player wage costs.

  • Overall the player wage ratio (ie the ratio of player wages to income) decreased from 36% to 31%.
From the Annual Review of Football Finance (adobe reader document here), The average wages / turnover ratio for a championship club in 05 / 06 was 72%, average wage bill of 9 million.  If 05/06''s wage bill was 9 million, then we  would have spent 7.4 million in wages last season, 1.6 million below average for the championship.

On the basis of our league position last season, I''d say we got what we paid for.  It should be pointed out that Deloitte and Touche consider 72% on wages to be too high a percentage of turnover, that said, how do we compete with clubs that are willing to spend over the odds to get promotion ?

Shaun O Hara, Director of Finance :

2007/2008 will be a very challenging year financially, as will every year the Club remains in the Championship. The financial gulf between the Premier League and the Championship continues to grow and relegated teams are dropping into the Championship with much more financial muscle than ever before.

Chairman Roger Munby

As a football club, our philosophy that "fans come first" remains unshakeable and has been the bedrock of our unparalleled success in season ticket sales and total attendances.

Peter Grant

I am desperate to bring better players and we have always tried to do that, but the best players cost you money.  The board are desperate to help, but I go to them sometimes and it beggars belief what they are on. I can''t legislate for it at times because I''m thinking, ''there is no way he is worth that''.  So it is not the board saying you can''t get him - I am just thinking, ''no way is he worth that''. And that is something maybe I have to change.

Surely then, it''s now time to speculate to accumulate ?

Most fans won''t care where the money comes from, if it needs to be raised.  Offer preference shares to local wealthy businessmen, give them a bonus on the shares if we get promoted, sell the naming rights to Carrow Road and Colney, whatever it takes, just give the manager and his team a fighting chance to compete.
[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good question JC - one that only a few can answer.[quote user="Peter Grant"] I can''t legislate for it at times because I''m thinking, ''there is no way he is worth that''.[/quote]Well Peter, if "he" is the difference between 6th and 7th at the end of the season, "he" is worth it.  the play-offs are worth a million easily in ticket sales and TV money if you get to the final.  Is this the kind of thinking that brought Huckerby, Crouch and Harper to the club ?  I guess not.Mind you, all the money in the world matters not a jot if we keep getting performances like last Saturdays'', the players need to come out of their bivouacs.  You could have put a 1962 Pele in that team and still lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If fans come first why is there not a fans representative on the board?

Maybe NCPLC don''t want us to know what really is going on?

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]By all means speculate, but with debts not far short of £20m, how much

further do we borrow or raise from share distribution? I suspect that

if we want to pay the kind of money that Charlton are paying (wages and

transfer fees), you would need to raise something like another £20m,

and that would buy you  three or four good players to play among the

average ones. This would be no guarantee of promotion. For the local

population, our crowds are excellent but will struggle to provide

enough revenue to achieve much, and our catchment area, circumscribed

by the FA, is too thinly populated  to produce many outstanding players.[/quote]Derby did it last season by finding a consortium of local businessmen, who admittedly replaced their chairman. Derby had a ridiculous amount of debt at the time of the take-over, something over 50 million. If I recall correctly Derby spent 4 million on transfer fees over the season, and their wage bill would have been around 12 million if it was above average for the league.  We spent just over a million on transfers, and 7.4 million on wages.  So the difference between their football spending and ours would have been about 7 million for the season.  Key to Derbys'' success were veteran signings or proven championship winning players, and loans from Premiership clubs.  Their board backed the signing of Steve Howard, a player we wouldn''t touch because of his age.  He was their player of the year last season.  If we could find a group of local businessmen willing to invest, as the fans did a few seasons ago, either for board seats or in Preference shares for a war-chest, and offered them a percentage upon promotion, or even upon player sales if we failed to be promoted, I''m sure there would be a few super-rich fans out there willing to take that risk for the reward.I had hoped that when the Turners came on board, that the price of their arrival was investment in the team.  If they do what Delia and Michael did last season, and turn their loan into shares, then what have they brought to the table ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]
If fans come first why is there not a fans representative on the board?

Maybe NCPLC don''t want us to know what really is going on[/quote]To be fair BBFF, Norwich are probably the most transparent club in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think retained Profit is the amount of money we have made that is being kept as residual cash....

 So if we had £1 in the bank... and went out and spent 2p but made 4p... we''d put 1p towards a debt and keep 1p of the profit? thats how i understand it.

jas :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The definitions of retained earnings quoted are technically correct  but in reality it is a balancing figure which is a function of double entry booking and does not give any indication of the funds available. In fact it is a figure which professional accountants do not look at very often. The key driver is the debt figure and ensuring there are suffecient funds to pay the interest and repay the capital or otherwise the business goes bust. The debt agreements will normally contain covenants with P&L and balance sheet ratios which restict the funds available for the business. Furthermore, the directors will have a fiduciary duty to ensure that they they do not enter agreements (eg transfer deals and player contracts) which results in them being unable to repay their creditors eg the debts. I''m afraid it is more complicated than speculate to accumulate and simply looking at the balance of the transfer fees. The bottom line is that commercially and legally the directors must ensure they can repay their debts going forward. It is the same as making sure that you have enough money going forward to repay the mortgage otherwise you risk you losing your house. The nil profits suggests there are a limit on funds available.Whilst the conspiracy theories and talks of incompetence are more exciting the far more likely boring accounting truth is that the directors are making as much money as is sensibly commercially and legally available. The grim economic reality is that we are a mid-table championship side in terms of funds. The solutions are for the manager/players to outperform as when we got promoted, new investment or gamble on being one of the three out of twent-four teams getting promoted and risk going bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How have the club been able to accumulate a debt that is now twice the size that is was prior to promotion to the Premiership. With all the money that generated, although I fully appreciate that costs also went up. What the club are telling us, the fans, is that without promotion to the Premiership in 2004 the current debt would be something close to 30 million. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah, i recently heard a good quote: "It is the preserve of the intelligent to change their minds....."

As far as retained profit goes i think it is crucial to understanding what is happening at the club but i am none the wiser as to its significance. The last time i checked the 05/06 accounts the retained profit was some £6million, yet "cash at hand and in the bank" was about £1million. If you are reading this and have a good understanding of these things please post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can accept the position of the club if someone comes out and tells me that they are working to a timescale plan and that the first part of the plan is reducing the debt to X figure. 

What pains me is all this talk of promotion and the premier league being where we want to be.  The board knows as well as anyone else that you need to spend decent money on quality players to get there.  The last few promotions have taught us that.  At the moment we are probably sitting about 6-8 places below where we expect to be, 2/3 wins could rectify this.  We cant realistically expect to get any higher than that with the squad we have.

What I really want is for the board to say this is the plan, presently we are here, what you want (ambition, spending) will happen at this point. 

I say this because surely they have a business plan.  My company has plans for the next three years, turnover expectations, order books, marketing strategy, recruitment, expansion etc etc.  I would imagine that the football club is run in the same way.

So Mr Doncaster, how long is the plan, where are we presently and what can we expect to happen over the next three seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

Accountant here. Retained profit is just an accounting thing. Basically, in the income statement every year there will be a profit after tax figure, any dividends will be paid out of this. The result is a figure that is transferred into retained profit which is in the balance sheet. This is not cash it is a reserve. Reserves are what are used to finance the business be that in the form of working capital, (i.e. the payment of wages, rates etc) or the purchase of assets such as the development of the stadium etc. The retained profit figure is an accumulation of all profits not distributed to shareholders since the formation of the company, there are also other ways it can accumulate. It may be that they are using it to pay off debt, however, if you want to know what they have done with it then the cashflow statement will provide the answer.

Hope that helps in some way, I''m not sure it really adds anything. If you''ve got any questions I''d be happy to help as much as I can.

Simon

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]The bottom line is that commercially and legally the directors must ensure they can repay their debts going forward. It is the same as making sure that you have enough money going forward to repay the mortgage otherwise you risk you losing your house. The nil profits suggests there are a limit on funds available.[/quote]Thanks for your reply T, I agree with a lot of your points.  However, my understanding of the debt is that 1.8 million per year is required to meet repayments, please correct me if I am wrong on this.  We made 24 million last season, I assume we will make 17 million this season after the loss of the Sky money.  If my mortgage was approx.11% of my income, I''d be very comfortable.
  • We spent 31% of our turnover on player wages last season, against the average of 72% for the league.
  • We spent 7.4 million pounds on player wages, against a league average (05 / 06) of 9 million.
  • At least 11 Championship clubs have a net debt of more than 10m - Deloitte & Touche 05/06.
At least some of these 11 equally indebted clubs are out-spending us.  Are they over-reaching themselves, or are we being over-cautious ?In your opinion T, is the inherited position (replacing the south stand etc.), and subsequent securitisation a cause of the lack of funds available for playing staff ?[quote user="T"]Whilst the conspiracy theories and talks of incompetence are more exciting the far more likely boring accounting truth is that the directors are making as much money as is sensibly commercially and legally available. The grim economic reality is that we are a mid-table championship side in terms of funds.[/quote]I agree that the truth is probably more boring than any consipracy theory, and to spend money the club don''t have would be reckless.  Is there any reason why the club can''t look at alternative means of investment that could be ring-fenced for the team though, such as preference shares sold to super-rich fans (a pipe-dream ? probably) or extra sponsorships ?   I''d be happy to call Carrow Road the Bernard Matthews Stadium, or rename Colney the Toys R Us Academy for 5 years if the money that came in as a result paid for players that got us to the Premiership.Mr Carrow, sadly I don''t understand much more than I''ve already posted on retained profit, except to say that I think that most plcs retain profit to keep shareholders interested and the share price up - NCFC probably do it to keep the securitisation company happy, which might explain why the few big purchases are on guaranteed earners, I''m guessing that they have to be to ensure future retained profit ?  I''d be more than happy to be corrected on anything that looks wrong here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the informative posts T and SimonOTBC. Haven`t got time to post much now but T, you state that we are financially a mid-table club but how many others in our league have a turnover of £24million+ in our league? The club have received £12million "bonus" parachute money in the last two financial years yet have still made millions of profit in the transfer market-and despite what the club say player wages are far from high. Many are coming to the conclusion that the bonus money has basically gone on infrastructure and building up a large reserved profit. In your opinions, would this be accurate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the accounts in front of me Mr Carrow I can''t really give you a firm opinion, additionally I''m not entirely familiar with accounting for football clubs.

However, as a general rule an increase in retained profit in a business is considered to be a good thing, as it is an indicator of future growth, of reinvestment in the business. In the case of a football club however this in my eyes is less certain. I struggle to see how players meet the definition of an asset and therefore they would not be capitalised on the balance sheet, as such investment in players would go through retained earnings (reducing it) and therefore the it is unreliable to base any expectations on the companys future performance on this balance. Something certainly worth looking at is the cashflow statement. Profit bares no relation to cash, profit is simply an accounting construct. As such it would be interesting to see how the club has employed the cash, and how the cash position of the business has changed over the year. The survival of a business is only linked to its ability to meet its obligations as they fall due, (i.e pay cash to creditors), essentially profit is irrelevant, (although profit is likely to be a driver of cashflow).

Based on what I have read, I would say that it seems the club as they have said are being prudent. They are likely to be concerned about there future cash position. It is desirable for companies to have a certain amount of debt on their balance sheet. Debt is a cheap source of finance.

Additionally, as mentioned above, it is likely that there are restrictive covenants in place limiting the clubs ability to do certain things. It was mentioned that some clubs have greater debt than us, however it is possible that due to the nature of our debt at the time the secure loans were negotiated (i.e. when we were on the point of meltdown) the lenders have imposed extremely harsh covenants.

In conclusion, if I were analysing these accounts and was unaware that they were for a football club it looks reasonably rosey, the only issue is that future cashflows will be hit hard due to a lack of investment on the football pitch and that in addition to that cash inflows will be reduced dramatically.

I appreciate that''s quite a wishy washy answer. Essentially this is because I don''t have the accounts in front of me, and furthermore because accounting is a relatively subjective matter, and in the case of a football club a large amount of information remains concealed.

SimonOTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Thanks for the informative posts T and SimonOTBC. Haven`t got time to post much now but T, you state that we are financially a mid-table club but how many others in our league have a turnover of £24million+ in our league? The club have received £12million "bonus" parachute money in the last two financial years yet have still made millions of profit in the transfer market-and despite what the club say player wages are far from high. Many are coming to the conclusion that the bonus money has basically gone on infrastructure and building up a large reserved profit. In your opinions, would this be accurate?[/quote]

 

Thats certainly what I read from this latest set of accounts.

It looks to me that the reserve has been built up to meet the financial gap that will appear when the parachute payments disappear from the accounts. In other words it will be frittered away as the club try to tread water. Had the directors been more ambitious with their player purchases we might now have been sitting pretty and back in the Prem. Or looking at it negatively we might now be doing a Leeds. The choice is yours.

The truth is that the directors had this "Charlton" plan in their minds. They fully expected relegation after one season in the Prem but never committed enough cash for the bounce back.

It looks like prudence is going to take this club back to where it started when I first became a supporter. Third tier here we comw.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="T"]The bottom line is that commercially and legally the directors must ensure they can repay their debts going forward. It is the same as making sure that you have enough money going forward to repay the mortgage otherwise you risk you losing your house. The nil profits suggests there are a limit on funds available.[/quote]

Thanks for your reply T, I agree with a lot of your points.  However, my understanding of the debt is that 1.8 million per year is required to meet repayments, please correct me if I am wrong on this.  We made 24 million last season, I assume we will make 17 million this season after the loss of the Sky money.  If my mortgage was approx.11% of my income, I''d be very comfortable.

  • We spent 31% of our turnover on player wages last season, against the average of 72% for the league.

  • We spent 7.4 million pounds on player wages, against a league average (05 / 06) of 9 million.

  • At least 11 Championship clubs have a net debt of more than 10m - Deloitte & Touche 05/06.

At least some of these 11 equally indebted clubs are out-spending us.  Are they over-reaching themselves, or are we being over-cautious ?

In your opinion T, is the inherited position (replacing the south stand etc.), and subsequent securitisation a cause of the lack of funds available for playing staff ?

[quote user="T"]Whilst the conspiracy theories and talks of incompetence are more exciting the far more likely boring accounting truth is that the directors are making as much money as is sensibly commercially and legally available. The grim economic reality is that we are a mid-table championship side in terms of funds.[/quote]

I agree that the truth is probably more boring than any consipracy theory, and to spend money the club don''t have would be reckless.  Is there any reason why the club can''t look at alternative means of investment that could be ring-fenced for the team though, such as preference shares sold to super-rich fans (a pipe-dream ? probably) or extra sponsorships ?   I''d be happy to call Carrow Road the Bernard Matthews Stadium, or rename Colney the Toys R Us Academy for 5 years if the money that came in as a result paid for players that got us to the Premiership.

Mr Carrow, sadly I don''t understand much more than I''ve already posted on retained profit, except to say that I think that most plcs retain profit to keep shareholders interested and the share price up - NCFC probably do it to keep the securitisation company happy, which might explain why the few big purchases are on guaranteed earners, I''m guessing that they have to be to ensure future retained profit ?  I''d be more than happy to be corrected on anything that looks wrong here.
[/quote]

Just to put some of your points in to context

  • whilst other clubs were spending 72% of turnover on players wages, the average revenue for Championship Clubs in 2005/06 was only £13M against our turnover of £24M.
  • NCFC''s wages in 2005-06 matched the then Championship average of £9M pa.
  • Our debt position is much the same as other Clubs in the Championship.
  • Our turnover for 2007-08 is still likely to be ahead of the average for other Championship Clubs.

Clearly, the Club can''t continue to incur expenditure at current levels unless they pursue a combination policy of further player sales (highly unlikely to be substaintial anyway given the current squad), increased borrowing or further outside investment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]

  • whilst other clubs were spending 72% of turnover on players wages, the average revenue for Championship Clubs in 2005/06 was only £13M against our turnover of £24M.

  • NCFC''s wages in 2005-06 matched the then Championship average of £9M pa.

  • Our debt position is much the same as other Clubs in the Championship.

  • Our turnover for 2007-08 is still likely to be ahead of the average for other Championship Clubs[/quote]
  • Thanks for the clarification Gazza.  However, wouldn''t you expect a club with almost double the average money at its'' disposal to spend more than its'' rivals in an attempt to bounce back to the Premiership ?

    For the 06/07 season, we spent 7.4 million on player wages.  The new TV deals came in last season.  On that basis, I''d expect the 05/06 championship average of 9 million to go up, probably by a million or so.  Admittedly I''m speculating, but why didn''t NCFC spend as much last season on player wages as other clubs ?  Why did they only spend an average amount the season before ?   Is there any guarantee that we''ll spend as much as other clubs we are trying to compete against this season ?  Given our recent past, I think there is sufficient reason to doubt that we will.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    There are some good points here. It might seem dull but obviously funds available are a key driver of our position in the league. I totally agree with Simon when he says the answer should be in the cash flow statement. In addition I also look at the P&L statement as there can be some short term timing differences in the cash flow statement. BBB - thinking about the interest as a percentage of your income is absolutely the right way to go: The lenders though rather than looking at turnover usually look at the forecast earnings before depreciation, interest and tax (EBITDA) compared to the debt. A standard figure is that debt should not be higher than 5 times EBITDA although the figures have been higher in the last few years.. Comparing these ratios between clubs would start to give an objective answer to the long standing prudence v. ambition debate. However, studying cash flow statements in detail as I''m sure the board do is the only way to have a true picture.

    Wages versus turnover is also clearly a critical ratio. However, the board would have to be think about what they would most likely be earning going forward not what they are currently earning. Given that we only more or less broke even suggests that the board were being as agressive as they could be on the wages bill.

    Our attendance figures do suggest that we deserve better although I understand our revenue per customer is lower than other clubs?! You would need to see all the accounts but I do agree that the timing of investment in facilities is that we have suffered compared to other clubs. This does not mean that it was a wrong decision. Furthermore, other clubs have either parachute payments or higher receipts from private nvestors which is why I believe mid-table would be par for the course. Consequently, I agree raising additional funds/new investors is the way forward. Alternatively lets hope Delia''s new book is an amazing sucess and the Turners decide to sell up.

    Whilst cash is critical, the other factor as an investor I look for in businesses is the management. Accordingly, I would look for the best chief executive and manager I could afford. Unlike some of the comments earlier today I would be looking to spend more not less here. However, if Nigel Doughty, one of the wealthiest and most respected businessmen in the UK, has not managed that at Forest, it is far easier said that done.

    A final thought, criticising people, who let''s face it far more talenteded and sucessful than the majority of the people who criticise them will not acheive anything. Getting more behind the team might.

    Share this post


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

  • whilst other clubs were spending 72% of turnover on players wages, the average revenue for Championship Clubs in 2005/06 was only £13M against our turnover of £24M.

  • NCFC''s wages in 2005-06 matched the then Championship average of £9M pa.

  • Our debt position is much the same as other Clubs in the Championship.

  • Our turnover for 2007-08 is still likely to be ahead of the average for other Championship Clubs[/quote]

    Thanks for the clarification Gazza.  However, wouldn''t you expect a club with almost double the average money at its'' disposal to spend more than its'' rivals in an attempt to bounce back to the Premiership ?

    For the 06/07 season, we spent 7.4 million on player wages.  The new TV deals came in last season.  On that basis, I''d expect the 05/06 championship average of 9 million to go up, probably by a million or so.  Admittedly I''m speculating, but why didn''t NCFC spend as much last season on player wages as other clubs ?  Why did they only spend an average amount the season before ?   Is there any guarantee that we''ll spend as much as other clubs we are trying to compete against this season ?  Given our recent past, I think there is sufficient reason to doubt that we will.

    [/quote]
  • Indeed I would blahblahblah.

    It seems to me that you can take any one of a number of comparison stats (take your pick from any of the following, average home attendance, number of season ticket sales, percentage of home sell outs or turnover, to name but a few) for NCFC against our Championship rivals and I bet you, time and again, we''re probably top six for each category within the relevant comparison ranking. However, the most frustrating thing is, the performances on the pitch just doesn''t match. 

    Share this post


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

    If fans come first why is there not a fans representative on the board?

    Maybe NCPLC don''t want us to know what really is going on
    [/quote]

    To be fair BBFF, Norwich are probably the most transparent club in the league.
    [/quote]In what way blahbla.....? I dont see it at all!

    FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    T wrote "Given that we only more or less broke even suggests that the board were being as aggressive as they could be on the wages bill".

    Or it could be that the money was spent on other things? Which is the reason why people are so concerned (and angry). The figures show that in the last five financial years a total of £28.5million has been spent on fixed assets and i think this gives an idea of the priorities the board have. Also football wages fell to 31% of turnover but non-football wages rose yet again. The whole picture seems to me to be one of the team on the pitch being a sideline to the stuff going on off it.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    I have to admit I have struggled to keep up with this thread, accounts are hard work!!

    Mr Carrow, thanks for putting it so well. All that money being spent on fixed assets and the non-playing staff wages increased.

    Hell, this lot are more like Chase then anyone realised!

    Time for a change.

    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...