Reasons you support the current Board

[garyspruce 0]

   I think if you go back you will find when we had the share issue delia put in half a million and

that we only raised about 1.5 million, delia wanted hucks as much as anybody.

It would be nice if some one could show us the loss for the year we got promoted because i do

not see how we could have only lost 1million after the share issue was taken into acount.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="garyspruce"]

   I think if you go back you will find when we had the share issue delia put in half a million and

that we only raised about 1.5 million, delia wanted hucks as much as anybody.

It would be nice if some one could show us the loss for the year we got promoted because i do

not see how we could have only lost 1million after the share issue was taken into acount.

[/quote]

The figure i have in front of me is £3.265m loss for that financial year Gary. The figures are significantly affected by £9.1m being spent on fixed assets (South stand i assume) and the £4m profit on the TaylorWoodrow land.

 I honestly can`t remember how much the share issues (there were two) raised but i thought the first one was about £1.5m and the second about £1m? Yes Delia did contribute £500k but the majority came from the fans. Don`t forget that that money isn`t a gift, it paid for shares which have a value.

[T 190]

The 9.1m spent on fixed assets hits the balance sheet rather than the profit and loss account other than by an increase in the depreciation charge. The profit on the land is a one off so it look like the underlying loss for that year was €7.265m which suggests that the profits in subsequent years may have been partly to cover the previous losses.

[garyspruce 0]

So we would have lost 7 million the season we got promoted if it was not for the sale of the land ,funny this is never mentioned in the wheres the money gone threads .Would most of the anti board protesters on here have been happy if the board had given grant five million to spend at the start of the season, [ most wanted billy sharp or eastwood] , so that would have been the five million spent and i cann''t see where we would be alot better off.

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager ,and a lot of supporters thought  he would do well,so hardly a reason to protest against them.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="garyspruce"]

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager[/quote]

And Rioch... and Hamilton... and keeping Worthy for a year too long... their record of on-field activity is atrocious.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="garyspruce"]

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager[/quote]

And Rioch... and Hamilton... and keeping Worthy for a year too long... their record of on-field activity is atrocious.

[/quote]But no worse than, ohh, I don''t know, let''s see Simon Jordan at Palace, the Southampton board, the boards of Cardiff, Leicester and Coventry, all of who have been through several managers and not managed to get much further than we have, although the last 3 haven''t had the parachute money we''ve had to be fair.  Sheff Utd have had that money and more, and they''ve struggled this season.  I''m sure you''ll agree that our board are doing better than Ken Bates has done at Leeds, or the Luton board for that matter.  One of the few chairmen who seems to get praise for his on-pitch activity is Milan Manderic, who was arrested for fraud a couple of days ago.  Funny old game.I''d say that there are only 3 clubs who have actually got the hang of staying at the top of this league for any length of time, and they''re Watford, West Brom, and Wolves.  The rest of us are just thrashing around wildly through the same group of B and C list players and trying to stay above water.

[T07 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="garyspruce"]

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager[/quote]

And Rioch... and Hamilton... and keeping Worthy for a year too long... their record of on-field activity is atrocious.

[/quote]Actually Rioch was a great appointment. He was very close to bringing in Ray Parlour and had that gone through it would have been a different story. Great tactital man, best I''ve met.He resigned over the impending sale of Bellamy, though later publicly conceded it was the only solution to the clubs financial plight and expressed his regret at leaving.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

I think everyone should take a look at Southampton, on the verge of administration despite selling 2 players for a combined 22m last season.  Its not always black and white.

The board have backed the manager with cash, 2.5m of it this summer if my maths are correct, is it there fault that the manager bought badly, no.  Is it there fault that Grant was here in the first place, no, lets be fair to them PG ticked all the right boxes on paper.  Who would have foreseen how badly it has turned out.  Sure they could have pressed the button quicker with Worthy and PG but is that really worth a protest.  Have they got it right this time?  Only time can answer that, seems right at the moment, could go horribly tits up tomorrow.

Do I support the board.  Yes and No, they could have done a lot of things differently, but I reckon that applies to most people these days.  We could all have done things differently with the benefit of hindsight.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="garyspruce"]

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager[/quote]

And Rioch... and Hamilton... and keeping Worthy for a year too long... their record of on-field activity is atrocious.

[/quote]

But no worse than, ohh, I don''t know, let''s see Simon Jordan at Palace, the Southampton board, the boards of Cardiff, Leicester and Coventry, all of who have been through several managers and not managed to get much further than we have, although the last 3 haven''t had the parachute money we''ve had to be fair.  Sheff Utd have had that money and more, and they''ve struggled this season.  I''m sure you''ll agree that our board are doing better than Ken Bates has done at Leeds, or the Luton board for that matter.  One of the few chairmen who seems to get praise for his on-pitch activity is Milan Manderic, who was arrested for fraud a couple of days ago.  Funny old game.

I''d say that there are only 3 clubs who have actually got the hang of staying at the top of this league for any length of time, and they''re Watford, West Brom, and Wolves.  The rest of us are just thrashing around wildly through the same group of B and C list players and trying to stay above water.
[/quote]

But we have done worse than all those clubs (bar Leeds and Luton). Amongst 92 league clubs there will always be a handful who have a spell of royally screwing up and we are in that group. To point out that we are not alone is not much of an excuse.

The point is that if i was a fan of any one of the Championship sides you list, i would at least know that despite all the problems my club was making every effort to be successful on the pitch. They`ve all got players who would walk into our team. Our attitude to squad investment recently has been "it might not work so we`d better not try" and that is inexcusable. And the irony is that it is also false economy as the club now have to spend more than it can likely afford to stave off a disastrous relegation.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]But we have done worse than all those clubs (bar Leeds and Luton).[/quote]Last time I checked, Sheff Utd, Southampton, Cardiff, Leicester, Palace and Coventry were on our fixture list.  We are currently doing worse than all of them this season, I grant you.  But I''d guarantee that they''ll on be on next seasons'' fixture list too, unless one of them gets relegated.  Coventry are on the edge of administration, Southampton also.  We might be in a position to cherry pick their best players in January.  Palace play in a cow shed and have serious debts, and aren''t that much further up the league than us.[quote]Our attitude to squad investment recently has been "it might not work

so we`d better not try" and that is inexcusable. And the irony is that

it is also false economy as the club now have to spend more than it can

likely afford to stave off a disastrous relegation.[/quote]Do you believe that this attitude has changed, with the arrival of Roeder and his management team ?  It appears to have from where I''m sitting.[quote]The point is that if i was a fan of any one of the Championship sides

you list, i would at least know that despite all the problems my club

was making every effort to be successful on the pitch.[/quote]Actually, you wouldn''t.  The Deloitte report for last year pointed out that "over the past decade the top 92 professional clubs have each year, on average, spent 20m more on stadium investment than they have on net player transfer fees."So yes, we''ve probably been one of the most "prudent" clubs, but we''re not alone in prioritising investment in facilities above transfers.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]But we have done worse than all those clubs (bar Leeds and Luton).[/quote]

Last time I checked, Sheff Utd, Southampton, Cardiff, Leicester, Palace and Coventry were on our fixture list.  We are currently doing worse than all of them this season, I grant you.  But I''d guarantee that they''ll on be on next seasons'' fixture list too, unless one of them gets relegated.  Coventry are on the edge of administration, Southampton also.  We might be in a position to cherry pick their best players in January.  Palace play in a cow shed and have serious debts, and aren''t that much further up the league than us.

[quote]Our attitude to squad investment recently has been "it might not work so we`d better not try" and that is inexcusable. And the irony is that it is also false economy as the club now have to spend more than it can likely afford to stave off a disastrous relegation.[/quote]

Do you believe that this attitude has changed, with the arrival of Roeder and his management team ?  It appears to have from where I''m sitting.

[quote]The point is that if i was a fan of any one of the Championship sides you list, i would at least know that despite all the problems my club was making every effort to be successful on the pitch.[/quote]

Actually, you wouldn''t.  The Deloitte report for last year pointed out that "over the past decade the top 92 professional clubs have each year, on average, spent 20m more on stadium investment than they have on net player transfer fees."

So yes, we''ve probably been one of the most "prudent" clubs, but we''re not alone in prioritising investment in facilities above transfers.
[/quote]

Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.......[:P]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.....[/quote]If that''s your only comeback, Mr Balls, then I must be close to winning the argument.

[SouthamptonCanary 0]

I''m not to sure about the board at the moment, i can see the point of view that a lot of money has been spent on off the field projects which would be better spent on players on the pitch.  I believe that you have to find the right balence because football is a business now and you can''t soley plough all your money into the team wether you like it or not. 

The major mistake the board made was the appointment of Grant, he is the reason we are in our current position not the board.  They gave him money and he went out and got players in, but he bought cr@p. Thats not the boards fault.  It appears in Glenn that they have now got the right manager and in January I am positive they will back him in the transfer market.  They won''t back him with millions and millions because we simply don''t have that kind of money but they will back him with some. 

Now look at the teams that came down with us, now they are doing better in the league at the moment but not that much better and its not even xmas yet. Both Palace and Southampton will have to sell before the they buy unlike us.  We will buy before we sell.  When it comes to wasted money imagine how the Southampton fans feel with all the money they bought in through player sales Crouch £7.5m, Walcott £12m, Bale £5m, Baird £3m, Jones £7m plus others and they are very close to administration unlike us.

I don''t want to go on about Southampton but they had protests to get Rupet Lowe out which were successful in the end.  Now they are starting to relise that the grass isn''t always greener on the other side.  They have no money a very average squad, attendences falling and no investers either and they are openly and public seeking investment which they can''t get.  Our crowds are still good, the squad is looking like it is coming together, we will have some money to spend, we have potenital investor in the Turners and we are on the up. 

Maybe thinks aren''t so bad..........

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.....[/quote]

If that''s your only comeback, Mr Balls, then I must be close to winning the argument.
[/quote]

I think that you''re more Mr Wronghorn - than I''m Mr Balls.......[:|]

[One Flew Over... 33]

[quote user="SouthamptonCanary"]

They gave him money and he went out and got players in, but he bought cr@p. Thats not the boards fault.  It appears in Glenn that they have now got the right manager and in January I am positive they will back him in the transfer market.  They won''t back him with millions and millions because we simply don''t have that kind of money but they will back him with some. 

[/quote]

In fairness to Grant Cureton, Fotheringham, Chadwick, and Otsemobor are all still in the first team. He just didn''t get enough cover in / work the loan market / motivate the squad / have decent tactics...etc. etc.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.....[/quote]If that''s your only comeback, Mr Balls, then I must be close to winning the argument.[/quote]

I think that you''re more Mr Wronghorn - than I''m Mr Balls.......[:|]

[/quote]And yet you won''t give me the respect of telling me why you think I''m wrong.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="SouthamptonCanary"]

I''m not to sure about the board at the moment, i can see the point of view that a lot of money has been spent on off the field projects which would be better spent on players on the pitch.  I believe that you have to find the right balence because football is a business now and you can''t soley plough all your money into the team wether you like it or not. 

Maybe thinks aren''t so bad..........

[/quote]

Good post, well argued points, and I see where you are coming from.

However I cant lose sight of the fact we are rock bottom of the second tier of English football and have been for a month, on the back of  a season in the premiership and 2 seasons of parachute payments, and the ongoing best support and attendances in the league - things the other "comparable clubs" you and others mention either/or do not and have not had - and the fact we have now, finally, put a couple of wins together is largely due to players from other clubs, NOT our own, i.e. NOT those bought with the wisdom/consent/funding of our own board.

[gazzathegreat 0]

[quote user="waveneyblockc"][quote user="SouthamptonCanary"]

I''m not to sure about the board at the moment, i can see the point of view that a lot of money has been spent on off the field projects which would be better spent on players on the pitch.  I believe that you have to find the right balence because football is a business now and you can''t soley plough all your money into the team wether you like it or not. 

Maybe thinks aren''t so bad..........

[/quote]

Good post, well argued points, and I see where you are coming from.

However I cant lose sight of the fact we are rock bottom of the second tier of English football and have been for a month, on the back of  a season in the premiership and 2 seasons of parachute payments, and the ongoing best support and attendances in the league - things the other "comparable clubs" you and others mention either/or do not and have not had - and the fact we have now, finally, put a couple of wins together is largely due to players from other clubs, NOT our own, i.e. NOT those bought with the wisdom/consent/funding of our own board.

[/quote] We will soon find out if the board are going to back Glenn Roeder so enabling the team to recover and survive relegation. Should they not do so the consequences are dire. I am sure the significance of the loan signings will be well spelt out to the board. We have to hope they learn from previous errors of judgement.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="T07"][quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="garyspruce"]

The mistake the board made was to choose grant as manager[/quote]

And Rioch... and Hamilton... and keeping Worthy for a year too long... their record of on-field activity is atrocious.

[/quote]

Actually Rioch was a great appointment. He was very close to bringing in Ray Parlour and had that gone through it would have been a different story. [/quote]

So nearly a great appointment, then.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.....[/quote]

If that''s your only comeback, Mr Balls, then I must be close to winning the argument.
[/quote]

I think that you''re more Mr Wronghorn - than I''m Mr Balls.......[:|]

[/quote]

And yet you won''t give me the respect of telling me why you think I''m wrong.
[/quote]

I haven''t got a ginger barnet.......in fact I''ve got limited follicles. Do you wear spectacles and have an ''unkempt mop'' of dark hair?[8-|]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Thankyou for that most informative post, Mr Wighorn.....[/quote]If that''s your only comeback, Mr Balls, then I must be close to winning the argument.[/quote]

I think that you''re more Mr Wronghorn - than I''m Mr Balls.......[:|]

[/quote]And yet you won''t give me the respect of telling me why you think I''m wrong.[/quote]

I haven''t got a ginger barnet.......in fact I''ve got limited follicles. Do you wear spectacles and have an ''unkempt mop'' of dark hair?[8-|]

[/quote]Damn.  Rumbled.  I''m also Truthseeker.Fooled yer [;)]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="waveneyblockc"][quote user="SouthamptonCanary"]

I''m not to sure about the board at the moment, i can see the point of view that a lot of money has been spent on off the field projects which would be better spent on players on the pitch.  I believe that you have to find the right balence because football is a business now and you can''t soley plough all your money into the team wether you like it or not. 

Maybe thinks aren''t so bad..........

[/quote]

Good post, well argued points, and I see where you are coming from.

However I cant lose sight of the fact we are rock bottom of the second tier of English football and have been for a month, on the back of  a season in the premiership and 2 seasons of parachute payments, and the ongoing best support and attendances in the league - things the other "comparable clubs" you and others mention either/or do not and have not had - and the fact we have now, finally, put a couple of wins together is largely due to players from other clubs, NOT our own, i.e. NOT those bought with the wisdom/consent/funding of our own board.

[/quote]

Phew, someone`s put it much better than i could have......[Y][B] Can you accept that as my response please Blah!?

On whether things have changed, i think that financially we are still going for players at around the same level as the failures of the last few years, but that maybe Roeder has better judgement and contacts and is getting better value for money and 100% commitment from those coming in. Of course if this is the case the board deserve great credit for a good decision in appointing him and should have no excuse not to back his judgement to the hilt in January.......But again it could come down to caution/prudence versus ambition. Prudence would say that there is still a likelihood of relegation therefore the club needs to tighten it`s financial belt in readiness for the hit it will take on going down, ambition will say that going on a good run with a strengthened squad will unite the club and breed confidence and boost season-ticket sales for next season. I`d say it`s on a knife-edge, but if it comes down on the side of ambition i will be the first to congratulate the board.

[gazzathegreat 0]

I ask you Mr Carrow, as I have not got an answer from Mr D re the possibility of going into admin should we be relegated, you are the one who understands all the accounts, what is the possibility that administration could well be our fate if we go down?

Like you, I remain sceptical, but can''t help being hopeful that at last we have a cleverer manager than we do a board. If they don''t back him well, do any of us want to even think about the consequences?

[T 190]

The lending banks will normally impose covenants which will contractually limit the amount that the club has to spend. In the event that the club breach the limits then the banks would have the right to put the club in administration which would put probably result in the club being relegated. Therefore, it is likely that the banking agreements will ultimately dictate how much can be spent in January. The only other way is for the directors to risk more of their own money. It is unlikely that there is some money that can be suddenly released or that it is about being prudent/not being prudent or backing/not backing the manager. Normal practice would be to review the future cash flow forecasts in comparison with the banking agreements and deciding how much the club can afford to spend without risking going into administration. There is clearly some amount of subjective judgement and the directors would probably feel they can risk more money with Roeder than Grant but it is unlikely to make a huge difference. Furthermore the directors have a legal duty not to engage in wrongful trading. Entering into players contracts which the club cannot afford would breach the directors legal obligations.

I''m not sure that there is a huge amount of TV money that would be lost if we were relegated which would suggest the wage bill that the club could sensibly afford without risking administration would depend on the amount of season tickets sold.

[gazzathegreat 0]

Thanks for your response T, I appreciate your knowledge in this area, so what you are saying is the board really have to gamble on Glenn Roeder buying well and saving us from relegation?

If they don''t speculate and let him have a workable budget, we could go down and therefore be subject to some, if not all the restrictions you mention. I understand what you mean about cashflow, but if they were to give him only a very meagre budget, what price a bit of speculation? Not an easy decision to make, I know what I would do, but then I am not on the board or knowledgable of all the numbers involved.

As for season tickets, I would be prepared to buy one, even if by February it was looking pretty bleak for us. Don''t know if the board could count on enough others to do likewise. It really isn''t a great future to look forward to if we don''t survive is it?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]The 9.1m spent on fixed assets hits the balance sheet rather than the profit and loss account other than by an increase in the depreciation charge. The profit on the land is a one off so it look like the underlying loss for that year was €7.265m which suggests that the profits in subsequent years may have been partly to cover the previous losses.[/quote]

I think we might be getting into "smoke and mirrors" territory here T. NCFC have made a profit in five of the last seven years. The two years they made big losses coincided with a massive jump in fixed asset expenditure-2003:£6.6m, 2004:£9.1m. In 2002 the club made a profit of £494k with no major land or player sales and fixed asset expenditure of just £1.6m. I think that this proves that the club can be run at a profit if it isn`t throwing millions at fixed assets.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]I ask you Mr Carrow, as I have not got an answer from Mr D re the possibility of going into admin should we be relegated, you are the one who understands all the accounts, what is the possibility that administration could well be our fate if we go down? Like you, I remain sceptical, but can''t help being hopeful that at last we have a cleverer manager than we do a board. If they don''t back him well, do any of us want to even think about the consequences?[/quote]

I wish i did fully understand the accounts Gazza[:S]. One thing i find strange is that the club said that the £2m loan from the Turners was to cover the anticipated shortfall created by the ending of the parachute payments and they then said the same thing about the £3m profit in the transfer market over the summer. One worry i have is that the club may be so worried about the financial implications of relegation that they won`t dare to commit enough cash to avoid it.

It seems that the club have short-term loans of about £3m (taken out to pay for land and the infill) which have to be paid back by the end of next year and it wouldn`t suprise me if the board are panicking about how to pay them back if we get relegated.

The two wildcards in all of this are that the club owns land reputedly worth £10m+ should someone be willing to buy it, and the possibility of more money being loaned by the Turners or Delia. The former could see the clubs financial problems largely sorted-but will the club get full value for the land if a buyer knows it is desperate for cash? Will there be any interested parties in the current uncertain economic climate? The latter, well i think another cash injection to pay for re-enforcements in January couldn`t be more timely.

[gazzathegreat 0]

I am hoping the same Mr Carrow. I am sure the land values will be stable enough for them to risk letting Mr Roeder have sufficient money to loan/buy who he wants in the transfer window.

If not, the money from other means, ie personal loans from Delia or the Turners becomes even more vital. Speculate we must, to give only a very small amount to the transfer fund will not work with a manager who is hell bent on success.