Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mr.Carrow

Money to spend.....or not?

Recommended Posts

The last accounts showed that the club made £5.5m in recent player sales and have just made £800k more bringing the figure to £6.3m. They also show we spent £2.2m on replacements and have just taken that up to £2.6m with the signing of Pattison. Even allowing for £500k or so for the loan players thats a difference of £3.1m. 

Given that the Turners` £2m loan was supposed to cover running costs you have to wonder how big a loss the club are anticipating having to cover from player sales? To put it into context the club managed to turn a profit with smaller crowds and no transfer profit the season we got to the play-offs. Why can`t we now? Is the club run as financially astutely as we are lead to believe? And where exactly is all this supposed extra revenue from the off-pitch projects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With 7m less parachute payments last year there is a 5m cash shortfall to make up somewhere given we had 2m operating cash last year. 2m has come from the Turners and 3m from player profits. However the operating cash still has to fund 1.5m interest, 0.5m capex and also loan repayments. I can only assume the talk of new players must be being financed by a further cash injection from the Board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Carrow.I respect the fact that you are one of the few people who bother to read the accounts (not the best way to spend a Saturday night), seriously I do, but really, your constant naivity is becoming tiresome. Can you really not figure this out?If a builder comes to your house to give a quote and you''ve got a Bentley sitting in the drive and a diamond studded Rolex on your wrist, do you really think he''d give the same quote if you had a 3 year old Astra and a Casio?Its very simple, very obvious, business tactics.As soon as Chelsea, Man U, maybe even now QPR and Ipswich show an interest in a player look what happens.....Get it?The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]With 7m less parachute payments last year there is a 5m cash shortfall to make up somewhere given we had 2m operating cash last year. 2m has come from the Turners and 3m from player profits. However the operating cash still has to fund 1.5m interest, 0.5m capex and also loan repayments. I can only assume the talk of new players must be being financed by a further cash injection from the Board. [/quote]

But we had no parachute payments or profits in the transfer market the year we turned a profit in getting to the play-offs (2002). And i don`t think losing the parachute payments can really be termed a shortfall. Those were bonus sums the club received for a known finite period, over and above ordinary income and what we are doing this year is dropping back to the "normal" level of income we received in `02 albeit with higher crowd revenue, and things like player wages will drop in unison. So why is it we could make a profit in that year but we need a £2m loan and a probable £2m+ profit in the transfer market to cover costs this year (and no it isn`t player wages)? I appreciate that the debt is higher now but it is structured on better terms than back then so i don`t think it costs a great deal more to service. Some aspects of the set-up at Carrow Rd seem to be eating up far more cash than five years ago and it isn`t the football side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]Mr Carrow.

I respect the fact that you are one of the few people who bother to read the accounts (not the best way to spend a Saturday night), seriously I do, but really, your constant naivity is becoming tiresome. Can you really not figure this out?

If a builder comes to your house to give a quote and you''ve got a Bentley sitting in the drive and a diamond studded Rolex on your wrist, do you really think he''d give the same quote if you had a 3 year old Astra and a Casio?

Its very simple, very obvious, business tactics.

As soon as Chelsea, Man U, maybe even now QPR and Ipswich show an interest in a player look what happens.....

Get it?

The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

So. according to your scenario we''ll either

(a) see ''the money'' spent on new players by 31 January, or

(b) still have ''the money'' in the bank on 31 January because other clubs have called our bluff.

How does this address Mr Carrow''s question ''Money to spend, or not......?''.

1/10. Fail

You might well do better with your analyses if you were less obsessed with rich people''s bling such as Aston Martins, Rolex watches and Bentleys. Tiresome naivity.

OTBC

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]Mr Carrow.

I respect the fact that you are one of the few people who bother to read the accounts (not the best way to spend a Saturday night), seriously I do, but really, your constant naivity is becoming tiresome. Can you really not figure this out?

If a builder comes to your house to give a quote and you''ve got a Bentley sitting in the drive and a diamond studded Rolex on your wrist, do you really think he''d give the same quote if you had a 3 year old Astra and a Casio?

Its very simple, very obvious, business tactics.

As soon as Chelsea, Man U, maybe even now QPR and Ipswich show an interest in a player look what happens.....

Get it?

The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

I really can`t believe you are still banging that broken drum. People have been spouting this "board are being coy about how much we have to spend, ready to splash out at the appropriate time" for two and a half years now and it`s never happened. It`s complete b****cks mate and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]Mr Carrow.

I respect the fact that you are one of the few people who bother to read the accounts (not the best way to spend a Saturday night), seriously I do, but really, your constant naivity is becoming tiresome. Can you really not figure this out?

If a builder comes to your house to give a quote and you''ve got a Bentley sitting in the drive and a diamond studded Rolex on your wrist, do you really think he''d give the same quote if you had a 3 year old Astra and a Casio?

Its very simple, very obvious, business tactics.

As soon as Chelsea, Man U, maybe even now QPR and Ipswich show an interest in a player look what happens.....

Get it?

The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

You Sir, make Richard Branson and Bernie Eccleston seem like Del Boy and Rodney........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]Mr Carrow.

I respect the fact that you are one of the few people who bother to read the accounts (not the best way to spend a Saturday night), seriously I do, but really, your constant naivity is becoming tiresome. Can you really not figure this out?

If a builder comes to your house to give a quote and you''ve got a Bentley sitting in the drive and a diamond studded Rolex on your wrist, do you really think he''d give the same quote if you had a 3 year old Astra and a Casio?

Its very simple, very obvious, business tactics.

As soon as Chelsea, Man U, maybe even now QPR and Ipswich show an interest in a player look what happens.....

Get it?

The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

Could not agree more, we may be in the shit, but if and that is a big if, we have the money, whay would or should we tell others what we have, it has been said a million times, the prices get bumped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr C. - I''ve only seen last year''s accounts to be honest but in any case in analysing a business you normally never look beyond the last accounts and more importantly the business plan so would not normally not look at the accounts of 5 years ago. We cannot change the past so normally only look at the current situation and the future. However, I would be surprised if there is not a difference in relative player costs given the increase in TV in the football market over time.

The problem is not the off field activities though as they all make a contribution if you compare the income and expenses by category in the audited accounts. The problem is also not the money spent on fixed assets as these are financed by secured loans and you can not secure loans on players. The fixed asset investments are profitable. The only one that appears questionable is the offices which are profitable but only generate cash flows in the long term, however the impact on cash in the short/medium term is not signifigant. The off field activities and investments contribute to the income and therefore without these activities we would have less money to spend on players.

Consequently, it is the decisions on managers rather than finances which appear more critical.

I''d say that we are as potentially as big as 8 clubs in the premiership but that there are 16 clubs in the championship and 2 in league 1 where the fans could have legimate aspirations to be a premiership club so we have no divine right to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we`ve been down this complex road before T and whilst i do totally respect your opinion i don`t think it`s as straightforward as saying all the off-field activities make a contribution and all fixed asset investments are profitable. Of course they are presented that way in the accounts but a non-football wage bill of £7m would suggest otherwise. Bearing in mind that turnover is likely to fall to something like £17m from £23.8m in this financial year i would say that wage bill is crippling. As far as fixed assets being profitable, the club took out £3m in short-term loans to buy land and had to pay £1.5m to pay for a road (linked to the approval of planning permission i believe). Those debts are still being paid off (plus interest) and the land has not been sold, therefore it is currently draining the club of funds. Things like the infill/executive facilities are probably currently profitable but i doubt we will be saying that in a few years time if we stay in this league. Things like the new pitch/ticket office don`t really affect income even though they cost the club a fair bit of cash.

In `02 player wages were about the same percentage of turnover as they have been for the last two years yet the club has had to make a sizeable profit in the transfer market to turn a profit even with a £7m parachute payment in each of the last two years. The football side has not cost a great deal more to run than five years ago, yet the club seems to need massively more income to run at a profit. I don`t claim to understand it, but it clearly isn`t football expenditure which is costing so much more-if anything the profits made from selling off players have been propping up other expenditure in recent years.

Share this post


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

Well we`ve been down this complex road before T and whilst i do totally respect your opinion i don`t think it`s as straightforward as saying all the off-field activities make a contribution and all fixed asset investments are profitable. Of course they are presented that way in the accounts but a non-football wage bill of £7m would suggest otherwise. Bearing in mind that turnover is likely to fall to something like £17m from £23.8m in this financial year i would say that wage bill is crippling. As far as fixed assets being profitable, the club took out £3m in short-term loans to buy land and had to pay £1.5m to pay for a road (linked to the approval of planning permission i believe). Those debts are still being paid off (plus interest) and the land has not been sold, therefore it is currently draining the club of funds. Things like the infill/executive facilities are probably currently profitable but i doubt we will be saying that in a few years time if we stay in this league. Things like the new pitch/ticket office don`t really affect income even though they cost the club a fair bit of cash.

In `02 player wages were about the same percentage of turnover as they have been for the last two years yet the club has had to make a sizeable profit in the transfer market to turn a profit even with a £7m parachute payment in each of the last two years. The football side has not cost a great deal more to run than five years ago, yet the club seems to need massively more income to run at a profit. I don`t claim to understand it, but it clearly isn`t football expenditure which is costing so much more-if anything the profits made from selling off players have been propping up other expenditure in recent years.

[/quote]

Clear now, T?

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MR C - the accounts are audited so unless there is info. to the contrary I still believe it is reasonable to believe that the off the field activities are profitable. I agree that there is a question of where you allocate the costs but see no reason why commercial and catering activities should not be profitable and make a contribution. I think this is normal commercial behaviour for most clubs.

At the moment the infill is profitable and is making a contribution but agree this would be a problem if we continue to decline although I think we all agree things are looking better.

I agree about the land/road - it will be costing us interest of 315k a year - When can expect to sell the land and what do we expect to sell it for as potentially there is an upside going forward which could be a windfall- do you have any info?

Have not looked back to 2002 but there is a comment in the accounts that the reality is that profits on players wil be used to  finance operations which I think has always been the case for us and a good many other clubs as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Profit on players in `02 was tiny T (£120k) yet the club managed a profit of £500k. I think that year lends a lie to the idea that the club always runs at a loss and always has to sell players make up for it. By the way turnover was £9m lower in that year than last yet player wages were only £2m lower. And £7m in non-football wages out of a turnover of about £17m is quite a worrying thought don`t you think?

It seems to be widely accepted that the land could be worth over £10m, but when you look at the cost of the loan plus interest, the road, cost of planning applications, studies etc. the profit will be a much smaller figure. And alot of that has apparently been budgeted for a multi-storey carpark behind the South Stand. When you consider the impact the loan repayments has had (and is still having) on our ability to compete for the better players at our level i don`t think it has been a worthwhile venture and in many ways is a gamble of the sort the board do not seem willing to make on the pitch. After all clubs have frequently dug themselves out of financial trouble by selling off their best players. We did it under Chase and Southampton and Ipswich have done it recently. The club are now in the situation of owning a piece of land worth £10m which may well not have a buyer in the current economic unrest and a squad which is struggling and virtually worthless.

Looking at the bigger picture after receiving £35m in sky money after promotion and selling some £17m of players the club overall is probably in a worse state than before we went up and i put that down to mismanagement from the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]
The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

Primus got offered a new deal by Portsmouth????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half FFS"]
The less public our financial situation is the better off we are. Look what happened to us on the very last day of the transfer window going into the Prem season. Charlton (JJ), Portsmouth (Primus) and Shammers (Harewood) all called our bluff on our bids KNOWING we had more money. Time ran out and we were stuffed until January when it was sadly too late.
[/quote]

Primus got offered a new deal by Portsmouth????

As for the others - called our bluff???  As far as I remember we offered derisory amounts for players and got knocked back.

Share this post


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

Could not agree more, we may be in the shit, but if and that is a big if, we have the money, whay would or should we tell others what we have, it has been said a million times, the prices get bumped up.

[/quote]

17 days, a single permanenet signing, 4 players gone. 

Still 14 days to go however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mr C - I agree the land deal will have caused short term negative cash effects - probably equivalent to the wages of a player like mckenzie. If is is worth 10m, the land cost 3m and the road 1.5m that still looks like a substantial profit even with all the associated legal costs. So yes short term bad but longer term I understand that they have planning permission for the land so hopefully this will give the club a significant cash boost in the not too decent future. I don''t have enough info. to comment on the wage bill but I agree it looks like you have some valid questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="T"]Thanks Mr C - I agree the land deal will have caused short term negative cash effects - probably equivalent to the wages of a player like mckenzie. If is is worth 10m, the land cost 3m and the road 1.5m that still looks like a substantial profit even with all the associated legal costs. So yes short term bad but longer term I understand that they have planning permission for the land so hopefully this will give the club a significant cash boost in the not too decent future. I don''t have enough info. to comment on the wage bill but I agree it looks like you have some valid questions.[/quote]

Never let FOOTBALL get in the way of a good land deal. (I wonder which players transfer money bought the land, Ashton? Green?)

It all helps to bump up the share price for when the board sells out!

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="biggleyellow"]

Could not agree more, we may be in the shit, but if and that is a big if, we have the money, whay would or should we tell others what we have, it has been said a million times, the prices get bumped up.

[/quote]

17 days, a single permanenet signing, 4 players gone. 

Still 14 days to go however.

[/quote]

I keep looking at the calender too, gets closer and closer to Feb, but GR has done a couple of deals without us or even the WOTB not knowing, I suspect he does a lot more things in private than we have had before. Mind you, I still keep whacking the Tinternetweb thing on, hoping to see a few players here. We can hope and pray I suppose. Come on PR aka CJF know a lot of in''s and out''s, give us some good gossip, hey it don''t have to be true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So to summarise this very interesting thread (Thanks Mr C and T) - We don''t know how much we have to spend this transfer window, it looks like it will be whatever additional money the board put in from their personal wealth- Infills / Restaurants are generating profit for the club- We look set to double our money on at least some of the off-field investments, but we don''t know when this will be realised.- Some believe this money will only benefit the current board, though there is no evidence for this- There seems to be an extremely high wage bill for non-playing staff which the accounts don''t fully explainWe all know that this league is becoming increasingly expensive to be competitive in. Some teams buck the trend, as Colchester did last season, so having an excellent manager in Roeder might be enough over time to get us back to the Premiership. However, unless you have board mambers who are able and willing to invest multi-millions into the transfer and wages budget, usual club profits (from tv revenues and gate receipts) just aren''t enough to fund a serious promotion push. IF this additional profit from the land is made available to Roeder down the line, its a very exciting prospect. Roeder plus 5 to 10 million to spend anyone? Are we feeling the short term pain before we get the long term gain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDU- I think that is a good and fair summary, interesting times for the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much money are we going to make from the hotel this year to spend on players?

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"]So to summarise this very interesting thread (Thanks Mr C and T)
- We don''t know how much we have to spend this transfer window, it looks like it will be whatever additional money the board put in from their personal wealth
- Infills / Restaurants are generating profit for the club
- We look set to double our money on at least some of the off-field investments, but we don''t know when this will be realised.
- Some believe this money will only benefit the current board, though there is no evidence for this
- There seems to be an extremely high wage bill for non-playing staff which the accounts don''t fully explain

We all know that this league is becoming increasingly expensive to be competitive in. Some teams buck the trend, as Colchester did last season, so having an excellent manager in Roeder might be enough over time to get us back to the Premiership. However, unless you have board mambers who are able and willing to invest multi-millions into the transfer and wages budget, usual club profits (from tv revenues and gate receipts) just aren''t enough to fund a serious promotion push. IF this additional profit from the land is made available to Roeder down the line, its a very exciting prospect. Roeder plus 5 to 10 million to spend anyone? Are we feeling the short term pain before we get the long term gain?
[/quote]

Agree with most of that BDU but personally i think the land deals have to be viewed in a wider context. After all some people stick up for the Chase regime by pointing out that we made profits on the land he bought, whilst conveniently forgetting that the money spent on infrastructure back then lead to fire-sales of players, near financial catastrophy and nine years in the lower league (after twenty mostly in the top league) at a time when the big money was starting to pour into the Prem.

£2.5m of short-term debts to pay for land and the infill have to be payed back by the end of this year and i believe this fact is tieing Roeders` hands in the transfer market at a time when we should be building on his impressive start. IF we can find a buyer prepared to pay the going rate for the land in these economically uncertain times we may yet be in league one. And who is to say Roeder will see much of the money anyway? Apparently some of the money is already allocated to a multi-storey carpark behind the South Stand and Rick Waghorn has said in an article that the board are split as to whether to use the rest to repay debts or buy players. If "prudence" as usual wins out, is the club likely to be any further forward than when the board took over?

This is the second time in the clubs recent history that massive spend on infrastructure has had a drastic negative effect on the team on the pitch. You would have thought they`d have learned by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Carrow, I think we agree on a lot! Do you have a link to that Waghorn article? Was one I missed.The main differences between now and under Chase, in my view, are;1. Exactly as you state, he had to dismantle an excellent and highly successful team to fund his land purchases, and he did it at exactly the wrong time. Unforgivable.2. It was easier to build a competitive team (top end old div 2 to middle old div 1) in those days without requiring big money. These days, the gap between the top two divisions is much bigger both financially and technically. It is getting harder and harder to be competitive without big money, so most teams have to rely on off field investments (unless they get a sugar daddy). Yes these have always been around, but these days its vital. Its also a climate in which many teams (is it 42 since 1992?) fail and go into administration. Add this all up, and you see why our board is so keen on the off field activities (to raise extra revenue to fund the team) and why they act so prudently. I think they have the mix wrong, but I would personally rather they stayed prudent than risk all.The other major factor for the board, as Mick Dennis talks about in his latest Waghorn site column, is keeping the club as a centre of the community in Norwich and Norfolk. I admire this stance and fully applaud it. Doesn''t the new infill provide much better disabled facilities for example? I would hate for our club to lose this standing, I want to support a club that represents Norwich with PRIDE. Not like that shabby outfit down the road. The bottom line is that is does seem that Roeder is short of money this transfer window, and it is the board''s responsibility to properly fund transfers. I wish they had balanced more money into the shorterm transfer budget, I feel they have got this balance wrong. I also think they have communicated badly on this. Where is the vision? Why can''t they say that they have invested in off field activities to fund team activities down the line? We don''t need figures, but we do need to understand the VISION! One reason I am not a Doncastor fan.Unlike us fans though, the board can''t just look at this window, they have to look much further ahead than that. However, Roeder will know exactly how much he has to spend, and if he is happy then I am happy. We might still be surprised, if Tiny does join (and that rumour is getting louder again) and we get another striker and that midfield creative player, we will all be happy again, won''t we?

Share this post


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

[quote user="Big Down Under"]So to summarise this very interesting thread (Thanks Mr C and T) - We don''t know how much we have to spend this transfer window, it looks like it will be whatever additional money the board put in from their personal wealth- Infills / Restaurants are generating profit for the club- We look set to double our money on at least some of the off-field investments, but we don''t know when this will be realised.- Some believe this money will only benefit the current board, though there is no evidence for this- There seems to be an extremely high wage bill for non-playing staff which the accounts don''t fully explainWe all know that this league is becoming increasingly expensive to be competitive in. Some teams buck the trend, as Colchester did last season, so having an excellent manager in Roeder might be enough over time to get us back to the Premiership. However, unless you have board mambers who are able and willing to invest multi-millions into the transfer and wages budget, usual club profits (from tv revenues and gate receipts) just aren''t enough to fund a serious promotion push. IF this additional profit from the land is made available to Roeder down the line, its a very exciting prospect. Roeder plus 5 to 10 million to spend anyone? Are we feeling the short term pain before we get the long term gain?[/quote]

Agree with most of that BDU but personally i think the land deals have to be viewed in a wider context. After all some people stick up for the Chase regime by pointing out that we made profits on the land he bought, whilst conveniently forgetting that the money spent on infrastructure back then lead to fire-sales of players, near financial catastrophy and nine years in the lower league (after twenty mostly in the top league) at a time when the big money was starting to pour into the Prem.

£2.5m of short-term debts to pay for land and the infill have to be payed back by the end of this year and i believe this fact is tieing Roeders` hands in the transfer market at a time when we should be building on his impressive start. IF we can find a buyer prepared to pay the going rate for the land in these economically uncertain times we may yet be in league one. And who is to say Roeder will see much of the money anyway? Apparently some of the money is already allocated to a multi-storey carpark behind the South Stand and Rick Waghorn has said in an article that the board are split as to whether to use the rest to repay debts or buy players. If "prudence" as usual wins out, is the club likely to be any further forward than when the board took over?

This is the second time in the clubs recent history that massive spend on infrastructure has had a drastic negative effect on the team on the pitch. You would have thought they`d have learned by now.

[/quote]

Interesting stuff Mr C. Also something of relevance, residents near to the ground are all invited to a meeting next week (at Carrow Park) concerning the Laurence and Scott site. I will go and find out what I can and what this might mean to the club and the options they have concerning planning permission. Should be an interesting night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that we don''t have any substantial ''transfer'' money to spend....As we would have already spent it.... It''s''Lookey Likey Loanee''....again.

Will we have any money for the close season? No, I personally think we will not have a decent amount of money to spend.....as we have no assets in the squad or the sufficient funds ''on the football side of matters'' to purchase quality.....

Are we in a more dire financial mess than folk realise?.....Personally, I do think so......

Am I bothered? Not really.......Been like it for the last 10+ years......Ho Hum.[|-)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BDU, thinking about it i think the reference to the board being split on how to use the money from the possible land deal was in a "Man in the stands" article a few months back, not R.W. Probably carries less weight but make of it what you will......

Again i agree with pretty much everything you say. The argument tends to get polarised into prudence versus ambition but there is alot of ground in between. I don`t think Norwich will ever be the type of club to launch an all-or-nothing wild spending bid for success- we are just not that kind of club. But my argument is that not being ambitious enough is as inherently risky as being too ambitious- and i think that the last few years prove this- and that any profits made from off-pitch stuff have to be weighed against the negative impact on the team of the initial outlay.

One way to look at it is had the club spent £4.5m on players in a failed drive for promotion the board would be charged with jeapardising the future of the club, but should there be no buyer for the land in the next few years will they face the same accusations? They are both gambles. The expensive players might win us promotion or failing that may possibly be sold for a profit or next to nothing. The land may not have won planning permission and it may not find a buyer particularly when the economy takes a bad turn, leaving the club unable to realise one of its biggest assets when it needs the money.

I certainly hope your last paragraph comes true and of course i will be happy. But i will still be deeply cynical as to whether the board have got their priorities right. What would change that would be if we sold the land and it soon became apparent that Roeder had good money to spend, rather than watching a carpark go up and our "structured and manageable" debt go down and i believe that supporters should pressure the board to choose the former and not the latter.

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...