Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
renegade tootsie

7 Million shortfall this year - where is the money going?????

Recommended Posts

I will tell you where - look at the club accounts

Neil Doncaster is earning £175,000 per year PLUS £11,000 pension contributions.

That is absolutely disgraceful.

This club is beginning to stink.

Share this post


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

I will tell you where - look at the club accounts

Neil Doncaster is earning £175,000 per year PLUS £11,000 pension contributions.

That is absolutely disgraceful.

This club is beginning to stink.

[/quote]

Apparently Doncaster has been quoted as stating that he could earn more in the City (London). Well if that is the REAL case why does he voluntarily earn less at NCFC. Mushrooms and bulls*** come to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Norwich City chief executive Neil Doncaster admitted the club faces an

“incredibly tough” future and refused to rule out the selling off of

players to balance the books."Selling players? Who? We''ve stripped all assets... Marshall maybe? Ossy? Dave Striker? None of those are gonna make a dent really... this is an absolutely shocking situation to be in. I''m demanding answers now. No more BS! I refuse to attend another game until I get answers (except for Bristol City away as i''ve gotta goto that as my girlfriends a Bristol fan - lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe - but evidently to much for a failing club in bad debt.  Its beginning to look like all talk with no substance to me. 

[quote user="blahblahblah"]That''s quite a small amount for a Chief Executive.
[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]That''s quite a small amount for a Chief Executive.
[/quote]

But a good chunk more than David Sheepshanks last year Blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don''t understand is we went into the Premiership with a £25,000,000 ticket and a 14.5 million debt, we came out of the Premiership about 19 million in debt.

Can anyone explain that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More cowardice from the board.  They talk about a £7m "black hole" without the parachute money, which is meant to make us think that it''s caused by the loss of the parachute money.

The parachute money was effectively a bonus which most clubs don''t have.  Its original purpose was to meet the shortfall between Prem wages and Champ income, but we didn''t need most of it for that purpose because (or so they told us) they had a wage structure which took relegation into account.  Loss of the parachute money simply means we are back on a par with most other clubs in this division (but with higher gate receipts than most).

There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing.

Won''t they ever take responsibility for their actions?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]That''s quite a small amount for a Chief Executive.[/quote]Sorry err you made a mistake mate: That''s quite a small amount for a GOOD Chief Executive.Doncaster is not a good chief exec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts are:-

Where is the money going? I just dont get how other clubs with small fan bases, small grounds, less corporate activities, less past success etc survive.

We actuall dont have any assets so far Doncaster and co to say this is quite funny, perhaps we could sell the likes of brellier and brown for a packet or crisps and pack of peanuts respectively, so that we can save money as the board wouldnt have to claim food expenses at the next meeting.

The problems we have are that

  1. Our Non Footballing staff are probably double that if not more, than most clubs. We employ so many people.
  2. Despite the cuts, our wages are still i reckon 100k a week plus on footballers only, which is double that of clubs like colchester, bristol city, blackpool etc who are faring far better and playing players 2k a week. We pay Breliier probably 8k a week, when Spillane could do as good a job.

 

Share this post


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

There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing.

[/quote]What was the borrowing for? I''m genuinely interested to get the facts on this. If you''re right about "reckless and unneccessary" then those responsible for that policy should definitely resign. I don''t suppose they will, or not without extracting their money from the Club. But before we get to that, the facts please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the bit about having to sell players tickled me as well-first I thought, as everyone else has, "well who, exactly?", then I thought about how we have been playing of late and the conclusion was that the mention of selling players wasn''t a threat, couldn''t be a threat, but, rather, with some of them, a promise! So Neil-YES, plaese sell some players! Please sell at least half a dozen of them, hell, if you can get some money for those underperforming halfwits, then you''ve earnt your salary mate!

Its one thing about being all doom and gloom and saying "we might have to sell players" when you have a Green on your books, a Sutton, a Bellamy, an Eadie, Fox, or Drinkell....

But its another thing saying "we might have to sell players" when it could be a Brown, a Docherty, a Brellier, Drury or Chadwick!!! With some of those and others, we can only live in hope that we actually do manage to sell some of them!

The other amusing thing was the bewailing about losing the parachute payments, "...oh woe is us, we''ve lost that lovely £7 Million a season..." One has to think that yes, maybe, but, if you''d made more of an effort to keep us in the Premiership in the first place, then it wouldn''t have been an issue, because, come the commencement of the season following our flirtation at the top, a little bit of that ambition might have seen us looking at another helping of £25-£30 Million mimimum-which would have wiped out any extra spending made keeping us there in the first place, ...like maybe, signing Ashton that Summer for starters...rather than accepting relegation as an inevitability but being soothed by the thought of that lovely lovely parachute money.

We may have had the parachute but it seems the club neglected to open it and we have chosen to plummet to earth instead.

Lets hope the Turners will indeed be walking the walk, rather than just talking the talk, initially, it has to be said, they look like they just might do that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you read articles like this, it does make you think WTF is actually going on behind the scenes at my club? I think ultimately the state were in now boils down to the Boreds lack of ambition in the past, just like you have just touched upon there. We didn''t make a big enough effort to sign players when we got to the Premiership in 2005 and then we just did the typical Norwich City thing the second we got relegated, which is sell your best players and make knee jerk reactions with the players we signed, if the Turners ever do take over Norwich I hope they show far more ambition than our current bored. I just strugle to see how we can find ourself in this mess when in the past our Bored have always been so cautious with the money they spend and just about every decent player we have bought and then sold we have made profit on, not too mention we have one of the best home attendances in this league!

 

I find it hilarious how our bored declared that we don''t need to sell players prior to this seasons summer transfer window and now they claim we may need to sell players to balance the books? WTF? What players might that be then???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if this shortfall suddenly crept up on them from nowhere and smacked them on the back of the head.

Bah!

The same people who said in the summer we didn''t need to sell players.

Double Bah!

Why do they speak to us as if we were idiots.

YH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wheres the money gone?? Gone to pay for all the NCPLC "off the pitch" pipe dreams.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST    (But i think its far too late now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"]That''s quite a small amount for a Chief Executive.[/quote]Well, in most industries the performance ultimately stops with the chief executive, and if the company doesn''t perform well, then you''re out.

Share this post


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

There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing.

[/quote]

What was the borrowing for? I''m genuinely interested to get the facts on this. If you''re right about "reckless and unneccessary" then those responsible for that policy should definitely resign. I don''t suppose they will, or not without extracting their money from the Club. But before we get to that, the facts please.
[/quote]

I hope I''ve covered this in my reply to your post on the "Squeezing . . ." thread OB.

 

Share this post


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

More cowardice from the board.  They talk about a £7m "black hole" without the parachute money, which is meant to make us think that it''s caused by the loss of the parachute money.

The parachute money was effectively a bonus which most clubs don''t have.  Its original purpose was to meet the shortfall between Prem wages and Champ income, but we didn''t need most of it for that purpose because (or so they told us) they had a wage structure which took relegation into account.  Loss of the parachute money simply means we are back on a par with most other clubs in this division (but with higher gate receipts than most).

There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing.

Won''t they ever take responsibility for their actions?

[/quote]

I would imagine the ''taking into account'' of relegation merely reduced wages in line with the reduced tv money (ie the parachute payment), not that it wasn''t needed.  I don''t think any suggestion was ever made that the players went back to their old wages, merely that relegation was taken into consideration in ''realigning'' them - but I might be wrong.   

I have to say that a lot of what has been written on this thread seems to be rising to the rather emotive (and incorrect) term ''black hole'' which was used in the pink un article regarding the club''s accounts.   All this refers to is what was already known by everyone: that there will be a £7m reduction in revenues in the 07/08 financial year due to the loss of the parachute money.  This is not ''new'' news, and I can''t see how it can be construed a ''black hole''.  Of course it needs to be covered, but it is/was known about and has been budgeted for (per Chairman''s comments earlier this summer), so is far from being a ''black hole''.

As to whether we should be paying a CEO as much as Doomcaster is on (+ Bonus), is another thing altogether.  It does seem rather a lot for a business which is doing far from well, but in the big wide world is probably not all that much.

Share this post


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

More cowardice from the board.  They talk about a £7m "black hole" without the parachute money, which is meant to make us think that it''s caused by the loss of the parachute money.

The parachute money was effectively a bonus which most clubs don''t have.  Its original purpose was to meet the shortfall between Prem wages and Champ income, but we didn''t need most of it for that purpose because (or so they told us) they had a wage structure which took relegation into account.  Loss of the parachute money simply means we are back on a par with most other clubs in this division (but with higher gate receipts than most).

There is a black hole, but it''s due to their reckless and unnecessary overborrowing.

Won''t they ever take responsibility for their actions?

 

[/quote]

Totally agree megson.

I would love Neil Doncaster to answer the paragraph above I have highlighted in bold, actually I don''t know if I would because imho he would not answer it honestly as it would make him look stupid if he did.  The club did say we had a wage structure to take into account relegation, therefore loss of parachute money should not have a bearing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Totally agree megson.

I would love Neil Doncaster to answer the paragraph above I have highlighted in bold, actually I don''t know if I would because imho he would not answer it honestly as it would make him look stupid if he didThe club did say we had a wage structure to take into account relegation, therefore loss of parachute money should not have a bearing.

[/quote]

If it ''took relegation into consideration'' why should this mean anything other than that the players remuneration was scaled back, rather than reduced to the pre-Prem level?  We had a wage bill of >£9m last year (the club was criticised for it being this high) which backs up my possible explanation, and they have apparently reduced it by £1.5m this last year which has to be good.

I think the problem of reducing revenues due to a loss of parachute money is a fact of life, Southampton have also lost their parachute money this season and had to sell several players and are meant to be in a bit of a mess.  It can be difficult to cut the expenditure back accordingly - we all get used to having more money when our salaries increase (to a level we would have thought we didn''t need a few years ago) and I''m sure most would struggle if we then lost a large portion of that money.  I think this, in general terms, was what the FD (in her comments in the pinkun article) was talking about.

Share this post


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

I will tell you where - look at the club accounts

Neil Doncaster is earning £175,000 per year PLUS £11,000 pension contributions.

That is absolutely disgraceful.

This club is beginning to stink.

[/quote]

What about Eventguard? Hasn''t the Darth Donkster got connections to the "Green-blazer Gang Of Carra?"[:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Grumpy "][quote user="JC"]

I will tell you where - look at the club accounts

Neil Doncaster is earning £175,000 per year PLUS £11,000 pension contributions.

That is absolutely disgraceful.

This club is beginning to stink.

[/quote]

Apparently Doncaster has been quoted as stating that he could earn more in the City (London). Well if that is the REAL case why does he voluntarily earn less at NCFC. Mushrooms and bulls*** come to mind.

[/quote] So could all the players......but is Doncaster up to a job in London, if so..let''s not stand in his way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I''ve said previously...company accounts are legalised fairytales designed to put a positive spin on performance and hide bad news. If this is as positive as they can make it.......God help us in the coming years.

Remember that this lot have taken us here....so there is nowhere for them to hide. The Chase debacle is now but a distant memory so ALL of the current difficulties are laid firmly at their door along with the appalling managerial appointments and cart horses on the pitch.

It''s a joke....and one I am finding harder to laugh at as each day passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let''s not forget that when the £15M mortgage style loan was taken out to build the Jarrold Stand that the board said that this could be comfortably financed by City being a mid-table Championship club. So what has changed as that''s esentially what we are .

As has already been mentioned the loss of parachute payments is hardly a surprise. It''s been known about since relegation so the Board should have planned for it. Are they telling us that the ''big push'' for promotion was to p*ss all the money up the wall on journeymen and never have beens. After all their idea of a ''winner'' is someone with no experience of doing the job at all so I''m not really surprised that the Board''s incompetence, lack of ambition masquerading as prudence and desire to spend money on fixed assets rather than the team has led us to this.

Should make for an interesting season!! 

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...