Money to spend.....or not?

[Big Down Under 0]

I think you have to be an idiot to lose out on a land/property deal, so long as you take a long term view. All land/property values on average double in value every 7 years. If there is a depressed market right now (being on the other side of the planet I have no idea what the market in Norwich is like) we surely would only have to hold on to it for a few years (3 or 4 to turn the 7 year cycle) to see profit. But that is no good for our current relegation scrap! Another 11 days and we will get a clearer vision of what is going on regarding the immediate situation. Roeder was dropping big hints that he is still in the hunt for Tiny, and he won''t be cheap...The major reason why I advocate getting an experienced football person on the board, is to argue for better investment in the team vs off field investments. Our board are running the club like a normal business, and not as a sports business. All sporting people know you have to run as fast as your opposition just to stand still, we need to run faster to climb the table and secure a top 6 spot / Promotion we (the fans/club) warrant. A football person would know this. Long term investment plans are necessary, but not at the expense of short term ability to build a team capable of challenging. We are Norwich City, we should be minimum a Champs top 6 side.Good point about polarised opinion on here. Its good to see that despite the childish hysteria on this board (from both ''sides'') that there are still people who can debate reasonably and find middle ground.Gazza, please do keep us updated!

[Michael Starr 519]

I think the real point here is money or not... can we attract the right players to our club presently?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]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?
[/quote]

If, if, if.

If not, then..........

OTBC

 

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Of course they are presented that way in the accounts.....

[/quote]....you think the board write the accounts dont you.........?LOL

[gazzathegreat 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I think you have to be an idiot to lose out on a land/property deal, so long as you take a long term view. All land/property values on average double in value every 7 years. If there is a depressed market right now (being on the other side of the planet I have no idea what the market in Norwich is like) we surely would only have to hold on to it for a few years (3 or 4 to turn the 7 year cycle) to see profit. But that is no good for our current relegation scrap! Another 11 days and we will get a clearer vision of what is going on regarding the immediate situation. Roeder was dropping big hints that he is still in the hunt for Tiny, and he won''t be cheap...The major reason why I advocate getting an experienced football person on the board, is to argue for better investment in the team vs off field investments. Our board are running the club like a normal business, and not as a sports business. All sporting people know you have to run as fast as your opposition just to stand still, we need to run faster to climb the table and secure a top 6 spot / Promotion we (the fans/club) warrant. A football person would know this. Long term investment plans are necessary, but not at the expense of short term ability to build a team capable of challenging. We are Norwich City, we should be minimum a Champs top 6 side.Good point about polarised opinion on here. Its good to see that despite the childish hysteria on this board (from both ''sides'') that there are still people who can debate reasonably and find middle ground.Gazza, please do keep us updated![/quote]

You make some excellent points BDU. I have always thought someone on the board should be from the world of football. Not necessarily an ex manager, but someone who would as you say, turn the tide from investing in buildings to investing in the team.

Of course none of us know what personal opinions each and every board member hold on this, all we get is the "united front" from the usual AGMs, press statements etc.

My main worry at the moment is the board have made an excellent appointment in Glenn Roeder but don''t have the money to back him, or if I am being truly cynical would rather continue to put that money into yet more land development.

Will find out what I can re the land behind the ground and what the club''s involvement is as far as I am able.

[Big Down Under 0]

Gazza, I just want to make a couple of points;1. I really doubt Roeder would have signed up as manager without knowing exactly how much there is to spend. He needs to prove that long term he is a top class manager, he can really only do that by getting us promoted. Having been sacked from two clubs, he has both a reputation to rebuild and personal money in the bank - why would he join Norwich if he didn''t feel he would get the funds he needs? He isn''t an idiot and surely he has done his due diligence on this.2. Some people on the Pinkun feel that the board are investing in off field activities because they are either trying to profit from their involvement with NCFC, or trying to recoup the money they have already invested. I believe they are trying to raise additional funds for the team. There is very little evidence, aside from Skipper not taking a profit, to prove either view point. I don''t agree 100% with how they are trying to do it, but I do understand their thinking (as I presume it is). With the above two points in mind, I strongly believe that Roeder will be backed. It might not be this window, but it will happen. If the board do further invest in big land deals, unless the profit is huge and short term I won''t be happy. Surely the are learning from this season? But without huge backing from a sugar daddy, how else are we going to compete financially? We have to try and get money from somewhere. It would be totally unambitious for the board NOT to raise money from off field activities. I just think they have got the balance wrong. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I think you have to be an idiot to lose out on a land/property deal, so long as you take a long term view. All land/property values on average double in value every 7 years. If there is a depressed market right now (being on the other side of the planet I have no idea what the market in Norwich is like) we surely would only have to hold on to it for a few years (3 or 4 to turn the 7 year cycle) to see profit. But that is no good for our current relegation scrap! Another 11 days and we will get a clearer vision of what is going on regarding the immediate situation. Roeder was dropping big hints that he is still in the hunt for Tiny, and he won''t be cheap...

The major reason why I advocate getting an experienced football person on the board, is to argue for better investment in the team vs off field investments. Our board are running the club like a normal business, and not as a sports business. All sporting people know you have to run as fast as your opposition just to stand still, we need to run faster to climb the table and secure a top 6 spot / Promotion we (the fans/club) warrant. A football person would know this. Long term investment plans are necessary, but not at the expense of short term ability to build a team capable of challenging. We are Norwich City, we should be minimum a Champs top 6 side.

Good point about polarised opinion on here. Its good to see that despite the childish hysteria on this board (from both ''sides'') that there are still people who can debate reasonably and find middle ground.

Gazza, please do keep us updated!
[/quote]

I agree with you about land being a reliable investment but in the context of a football club it isn`t neccessarily the best one. Millions of the clubs` money is tied up in that land and as you have said we really need it now, not some unspecified time in the future. The club seem happy to tie millions up in deals such as this but verge on paranoid about spending much on the pitch. The reality is that it was money spent on players (from the share issues) which won us a £35m promotion and £18m or so from selling our best players which has been propping the club up financially since relegation- not land deals or other non-football ventures. Every player Worthington signed for over £500k bar Hughes was sold on for a profit or has become a valuable first-team regular, yet for some reason he was given peanuts to play with and we ended up with a team of useless cheapo`s who have contributed little whilst draining the club of cash and we have been left with a struggling team and no players of decent value to sell off. I think this is where we failed to "run as fast as your opposition just to stand still".

I completely agree that we should realistically expect to be challenging in the top 6 every season but judging from various comments i don`t think the board do. They called our promotion season "punching above our weight" and stated that City were in financial terms a mid-table Championship club. And that was when we were receiving £7m parachute payments!

But still, if the current transfer rumours come to fruition and the land can be sold and proceeds made available to the superb manager they have appointed then the vast majority will agree that we are moving forward again. Come on board, put the team first from now on and we can all start pulling in the same direction again.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"][quote user="Big Down Under"]I think you have to be an idiot to lose out on a land/property deal, so long as you take a long term view. All land/property values on average double in value every 7 years. If there is a depressed market right now (being on the other side of the planet I have no idea what the market in Norwich is like) we surely would only have to hold on to it for a few years (3 or 4 to turn the 7 year cycle) to see profit. But that is no good for our current relegation scrap! Another 11 days and we will get a clearer vision of what is going on regarding the immediate situation. Roeder was dropping big hints that he is still in the hunt for Tiny, and he won''t be cheap...

The major reason why I advocate getting an experienced football person on the board, is to argue for better investment in the team vs off field investments. Our board are running the club like a normal business, and not as a sports business. All sporting people know you have to run as fast as your opposition just to stand still, we need to run faster to climb the table and secure a top 6 spot / Promotion we (the fans/club) warrant. A football person would know this. Long term investment plans are necessary, but not at the expense of short term ability to build a team capable of challenging. We are Norwich City, we should be minimum a Champs top 6 side.

Good point about polarised opinion on here. Its good to see that despite the childish hysteria on this board (from both ''sides'') that there are still people who can debate reasonably and find middle ground.

Gazza, please do keep us updated!
[/quote] You make some excellent points BDU. I have always thought someone on the board should be from the world of football. Not necessarily an ex manager, but someone who would as you say, turn the tide from investing in buildings to investing in the team. Of course none of us know what personal opinions each and every board member hold on this, all we get is the "united front" from the usual AGMs, press statements etc. My main worry at the moment is the board have made an excellent appointment in Glenn Roeder but don''t have the money to back him, or if I am being truly cynical would rather continue to put that money into yet more land development. Will find out what I can re the land behind the ground and what the club''s involvement is as far as I am able.[/quote]

Good stuff GazzaTG. Will be really interested to hear what you can find out [Y]

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

yet for some reason he was given peanuts to play with

[/quote]That’s

absolutely not true. Worthington was given a considerable budget that summer ......stupidly made

quite public too. Hence on the last day of the transfer window both Charlton

and Portsmouth upped the asking price on the players we were after (by 50%).

Worthington was right to walk away, but the coaching staff had failed to

identify secondary targets. That was the first time the board and Worthington

had fallen out because he''d consistently been asked to submit alternative targets

as the deadline drew near to enable the appropriate bureaucracy to be taken

care of. Hence the arrival of Donkerty. So it depends on your viewpoint whether Worthington was unlucky or didn''t do his job properly as the board accused. He didn''t have a lot of luck with the players he did sign either, who suspected the Captain of Denmark was only here for the beer and the Swede would return a Chris Brown like hit rate. Both were good signings on paper.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

yet for some reason he was given peanuts to play with

[/quote]

That’s absolutely not true. Worthington was given a considerable budget that summer ......stupidly made quite public too. Hence on the last day of the transfer window both Charlton and Portsmouth upped the asking price on the players we were after (by 50%). Worthington was right to walk away, but the coaching staff had failed to identify secondary targets. That was the first time the board and Worthington had fallen out because he''d consistently been asked to submit alternative targets as the deadline drew near to enable the appropriate bureaucracy to be taken care of.

Hence the arrival of Donkerty. So it depends on your viewpoint whether Worthington was unlucky or didn''t do his job properly as the board accused. He didn''t have a lot of luck with the players he did sign either, who suspected the Captain of Denmark was only here for the beer and the Swede would return a Chris Brown like hit rate. Both were good signings on paper.


[/quote]

I`m referring more to post-relegation events. We spent about as much as i expected in the Prem season and whilst i was extremely bemused by the clubs failure to sign Crouch when Saints picked him up for a bargain £2.5m i was pretty much behind the board. What i did expect was that come the fairly predictable relegation a good portion of the parachute payments would be available for a good go at getting back up and that any player sales would simply add to the pot. What we have actually seen over two and a half years is player after player being sold for millions and being replaced by cheap, inferior players. Nearly every player signed for over £500k has been a success or sold for a profit and the majority signed for less than that have been complete wastes of money- and we have had far more of the latter than the former in recent years. The club set its stall out when it sold Jonsson, Svensson, Helveg and Francis for £3m after being relegated and replaced them with Jarrett, Thorne, Hughes and Colin for £750k and it has pretty much been the same old story ever since. Were they Worthingtons top targets or all he could afford? We both know the answer to that.

[Icecream Snow 761]

The comments from Roeder the initial Taylor bid seemed to infer that money was available, but if we matched the QPR bid, then there wouldn''t be a lot left for anyone else. I''d guess Roeder has secured a pot of around £1.5 million to spend.

[corbs 0]

What renumeration are Board members legitimately allowed to receive? Do they receive a dividend from their shares?