Explain this......

[Mr.Carrow 376]

In the 2002 season NCFC had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we did well, got to the play-offs and the club made an overall profit for the year without any big player sales. In 2004 the club had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble and we got promoted and the club made a big loss-mainly down to having a three-sided ground.

We have since promotion received about £32m in tv money. We have also sold players for the sum of about £18m. Yet we still have a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we are struggling and apparently need a £2m loan plus millions in profit on selling players to keep afloat. Doesn`t really paint a picture of a very well-run club does it?

[ricky knight 0]

Well said that man, brave on here but well said.

[Carrow89 0]

paints a far better picture of your simplistic approach to running a club

[Bovril 215]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

In the 2002 season NCFC had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we did well, got to the play-offs and the club made an overall profit for the year without any big player sales. In 2004 the club had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble and we got promoted and the club made a big loss-mainly down to having a three-sided ground.

We have since promotion received about £32m in tv money. We have also sold players for the sum of about £18m. Yet we still have a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we are struggling and apparently need a £2m loan plus millions in profit on selling players to keep afloat. Doesn`t really paint a picture of a very well-run club does it?

[/quote]

haha! im sorry, but you really cant possibly sum up a multi-million business by looking at those very basic figures and assumptions... i can see where you and alot of fans are annoyed at the ''apparent'' lack of funds, but without knowing the ins and out of a business, you simply cant judge whether the club is well ran or not... im not saying your wrong or right, just saying you need to know the income and expenses of the business a little more to know

[spm2866 0]

Its good to see there are some Norwich fans who will express their opinions, but alas there are only a few of us, if this club is to go forward which everyone wants, then it has to take all of us to stand up, PRUDENCE WITH AMBITION is hearby banned from now on ......

C''mon Glenn bash the boardroom door down and make some serious demands

OTBC

[7rew 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Well said that man, brave on here but well said.[/quote]Brave on here?  WTF, I mean seriously the man has 814 posts of the same fag packet calculations.... He''s also said it better in the past.He can also count on the support of several posters, every time. Brave would be posting the same stuff on an unmoderated forum.Repetitive yes, brave no, well said no.

[spm2866 0]

Stand up and be counted and allow people to express their opinions...

[Big Down Under 0]

Come on Mr Carrow, you know you are making some big assumptions in there, just as you know we are now very unlikely to get relegated this season, just as you know we are even more unlikely to get promoted this season, just as you know we therefore have no reason to pay over-inflated prices this January window. What would be the point? 10 games unbeaten, in what way are we struggling?We are not a rich club, and we have a huge debt. The fact that we still own our own facilities and we haven''t gone into administration show we aren''t nearly as badly run as some would suggest. Things aren''t perfect, far from it, but things could be a WHOLE lot worse and you know it!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

In the 2002 season NCFC had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we did well, got to the play-offs and the club made an overall profit for the year without any big player sales. In 2004 the club had a squad which cost about £4m to assemble and we got promoted and the club made a big loss-mainly down to having a three-sided ground.

We have since promotion received about £32m in tv money. We have also sold players for the sum of about £18m. Yet we still have a squad which cost about £4m to assemble, we are struggling and apparently need a £2m loan plus millions in profit on selling players to keep afloat. Doesn`t really paint a picture of a very well-run club does it?

[/quote]You''re taking slices of a very complicated picture to make an argument, although I can see the point you''re trying to make.  In my opinion you have to look at the late 90s to see why off-field investment has become so important to Norwich.  NCFC have attempted to make themselves independent of TV money, as a direct result of the collapse of ITV Digital.  There was no way that the directors were going to allow the club to be that vulnerable again - hence the catering, renting of offices, the travel company, the Savings accounts with Norwich & Peterborough etc.  In order to make money in the future, sometimes you have to spend it now.  Had Andy Johnson not performed a triple somersault with a double toe-loop in the penalty box at Selhurst Park some years ago now, I doubt we would be having this conversation, we''d still be in the Premiership, or bouncing back in the style of West Brom with all that lovely TV money accrued from a few seasons in the top flight.  Speaking of Selhurst Park, Palace, Simon and Colin are above us in the league, but they don''t pretend to be concentrating on anything other than football - posters always complain about the lack of facilities there, their stands resemble cow sheds, which might go some way to explaining their 59% of capacity attendances, 18th best attended in the league but 6th in the league, their existance depends on TV money and the whims of Simon Jordan.  The question is - what happens if / when football ceases to be fashionable, a marketable commodity ?   What happens if the TV money, for whatever reason, dries up ?  NCFC would still have other sources of income to rely upon.  If football became unfashionable, it wouldn''t suit Simon Jordans'' ego any more, and Palace would be left high and dry.  If our current board left the club tomorrow, whoever took it over would still have an income to fall back on.I''d rather be a Norwich fan than a Palace one.  Wouldn''t you ?

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="ricky knight"]Well said that man, brave on here but well said.[/quote]

Brave on here?  WTF, I mean seriously the man has 814 posts of the same fag packet calculations.... He''s also said it better in the past.
He can also count on the support of several posters, every time. Brave would be posting the same stuff on an unmoderated forum.

Repetitive yes, brave no, well said no.
[/quote]

"Fag packet calculations" - have you looked at the accounts with any sort of depth, like Mr Carrow? Thought not.

If he''s posted the same message so many times, and is clearly an intelligent and articulate person, do you think he may actually have a trong conviction in hie beliefs? Or that he may have actually checked and rechecked the figures to arrive at this same conclusion?

You make him sound like an idiot spouting ill informed drivel, which patently isn''t true, yet it allows you and others to dismiss his well reasoned and backed up opinions. Tough questions from Mr C again, and you don''t like it, one bit.

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I can''t explain it Mr Carrow. Last time you explained it to me I understood it was because all the money had gone on off the field projects and we pretty much agreed that the team had suffered as a result. Has something changed I should know about?

Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football??

 

 

[7rew 0]

[quote]

[quote][quote]Well said that man, brave on here but well said.[/quote]Brave on here?  WTF, I mean seriously the man has 814 posts of the same fag packet calculations.... He''s also said it better in the past.He can also count on the support of several posters, every time. Brave would be posting the same stuff on an unmoderated forum.Repetitive yes, brave no, well said no.[/quote]

"Fag packet calculations" - have you looked at the accounts with any sort of depth, like Mr Carrow? Thought not.

If he''s posted the same message so many times, and is clearly an intelligent and articulate person, do you think he may actually have a trong conviction in hie beliefs? Or that he may have actually checked and rechecked the figures to arrive at this same conclusion?

You make him sound like an idiot spouting ill informed drivel, which patently isn''t true, yet it allows you and others to dismiss his well reasoned and backed up opinions. Tough questions from Mr C again, and you don''t like it, one bit.

 [/quote]

He may have looked into the accounts with some sort of depth, I admit I haven''t seen them. (And I don''t have access to the accounts because I''m not a shareholder

due to age and finaces at the time of the last share issue.  If the

accounts are in electronic formatm could someone e-mail me a set, then I would be quite happy to become as well informed as mr Carrow).  However I can recognise a when someone is cherry picking a set of statistics and what he has posted in this thread are Fag packet calculations! They are the the breifest and most simplified income/outgoings calculations, ignoring a good 90% of what happens at the club, for example players wages (6 years worth, one at PL levels, and that were 9m in one of the championship seasons) and double count (or being generous, mearly invite one to double count) the original value of the squad (Inviting it to be considered as the same £4m as the current squad, which it isn''t) and since he only mentions player sales (rather than transfer profit) seem to ignore the money that has been spent on players.  It also ignores gate reciepts, income and outgoings from related buisnesses or sponsorship of other varieties.  Anyway my problem was with Ricky''s sycophancy rather than the actual calculations and alegations themselves.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football?

[/quote]

Because many fans doubt the board has that focus either.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="A list of the fans that care about the accounts"]

Because many fans doubt the board has that focus either.

[/quote]Many fans is it ? How many exactly ?  From my deadlings on here,  I would say it was about 4, maybe 5...

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Peter Grants Contact Book"][quote user="nutty nigel"]Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football?

[/quote]

Because many fans doubt the board has that focus either.

[/quote]

Well I guess that makes sense to you.... [;)]

 

 

[BBFF 0]

Look at the threads nutty very little real FOOTBALL threads there.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="BBFF"]

Look at the threads nutty very little real FOOTBALL threads there.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[/quote]

I know... but I stumble across some occasionly [;)][:P]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I can''t explain it Mr Carrow. Last time you explained it to me I understood it was because all the money had gone on off the field projects and we pretty much agreed that the team had suffered as a result. Has something changed I should know about?

Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football??

 

 

[/quote]

Pretty pointless responding to that Nutty, but i can only assume that when Chase was bringing the club to its knees you were one of the ones insisting that the most vital thing for the club was who played left-back in the next game.......[8-)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I can''t explain it Mr Carrow. Last time you explained it to me I understood it was because all the money had gone on off the field projects and we pretty much agreed that the team had suffered as a result. Has something changed I should know about?

Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football??

 

 

[/quote]

Pretty pointless responding to that Nutty, but i can only assume that when Chase was bringing the club to its knees you were one of the ones insisting that the most vital thing for the club was who played left-back in the next game.......[8-)]

[/quote]That''s the whole point though isn''t it ?  In creating businesses that make money, the board have made the club less financially vulnerable than it has ever been.   Towards the end of the last days of Chase, nobody knew who the left back for the next game was going to be, because you didn''t know who was going to be sold to make ends meet.  It staggers me that you can''t see the difference.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Pretty pointless responding to that Nutty, but i can only assume that when Chase was bringing the club to its knees you were one of the ones insisting that the most vital thing for the club was who played left-back in the next game.......[8-)]

[/quote]

I don''t think it''s relevant now because I don''t believe the current board are bringing the club to it''s knees, in fact I think we are on the way back up.

Oh... and it was Mark Bowen mostly but maybe a touch of Ullathorne towards the end [;)]

 

[BBFF 0]

"Back up"....Is that on or off the pitch nutty? Do you think this board has stumbled in the past? ;))

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="BBFF"]

"Back up"....Is that on or off the pitch nutty? Do you think this board has stumbled in the past? ;))

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[/quote]

On the pitch for sure. Three away wins out of four! It''s been a long time since we saw that.

 

 

[Carrow89 0]

" You make him sound like an idiot spouting ill informed drivel "no, his posts amply do that

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]" You make him sound like an idiot spouting ill informed drivel "

no, his posts amply do that
[/quote]

LOL. And one of these days you`ll answer a question rather than run and hide oh wise one.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]paints a far better picture of your simplistic approach to running a club
[/quote]

Perhaps the "simplistic" approach applied in `02 when spend on infrastructure was minimal, no players were sold for big money, the team were successful and the club made a healthy profit indicates where the club have gone wrong in recent years? I know it`s awkward for you to face up to, but try and have an unbiased think about it.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

I can''t explain it Mr Carrow. Last time you explained it to me I understood it was because all the money had gone on off the field projects and we pretty much agreed that the team had suffered as a result. Has something changed I should know about?

Why do all the posters who continually shout about football coming first never post about football??

 

 

[/quote]

Pretty pointless responding to that Nutty, but i can only assume that when Chase was bringing the club to its knees you were one of the ones insisting that the most vital thing for the club was who played left-back in the next game.......[8-)]

[/quote]

That''s the whole point though isn''t it ?  In creating businesses that make money, the board have made the club less financially vulnerable than it has ever been.   Towards the end of the last days of Chase, nobody knew who the left back for the next game was going to be, because you didn''t know who was going to be sold to make ends meet. 

It staggers me that you can''t see the difference.
[/quote]

You know very well the point i am making. Some supporters no matter what the situation will always say "just concentrate on the football". No doubt plenty of Leeds fans were saying that when people were getting concerned as to Ridsdales antics. It`s a cop-out and in the wider scheme of things who happens to pull on the no.5 jersey this week is quite trivial.

Where is your evidence that the club is less financially vulnerable than it`s ever been? Surely the points in my headline post indicate otherwise? People on here glibly state "off-pitch activities are profitable" yet everything points to this being far from the case. £7m in non-football wages last year, not too serious when you have a £7m parachute payment but income is likely to fall to about £17m this year. Doesn`t look too pretty does it? As for the £2.5m loans due this year......

I do however agree with your take on the mentality of the board. I think they have been expecting a downturn in football with lots of clubs in major financial trouble and reasonably sound clubs such as us "taking advantage" by picking players up on the cheap. They called it wrong.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Where is your evidence that the club is less financially vulnerable than it`s ever been? Surely the points in my headline post indicate otherwise? People on here glibly state "off-pitch activities are profitable" yet everything points to this being far from the case. £7m in non-football wages last year, not too serious when you have a £7m parachute payment but income is likely to fall to about £17m this year. Doesn`t look too pretty does it? As for the £2.5m loans due this year......[/quote]

It''s not looking pretty, but I don''t see vultures like the Marcus Evans group floating over the horizon.  Debt collectors will always want to buy debts that the debtor can''t manage - there is leverage there.  I guess we can''t have much leverage, vultures don''t want our club yet.

[quote]

I do however agree with your take on the mentality of the board. I think they have been expecting a downturn in football with lots of clubs in major financial trouble and reasonably sound clubs such as us "taking advantage" by picking players up on the cheap. They called it wrong.

[/quote]So far they have - the sheer number of loans in the January window suggests tough times ahead, a recession is overdue and too many have been living on other peoples'' money - it''s the same in football too.  If the man in the street can''t afford Sky Sports any more, where does that leave the next football TV deal ?  Interesting times...

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Where is your evidence that the club is less financially vulnerable than it`s ever been? Surely the points in my headline post indicate otherwise? People on here glibly state "off-pitch activities are profitable" yet everything points to this being far from the case. £7m in non-football wages last year, not too serious when you have a £7m parachute payment but income is likely to fall to about £17m this year. Doesn`t look too pretty does it? As for the £2.5m loans due this year......[/quote]

It''s not looking pretty, but I don''t see vultures like the Marcus Evans group floating over the horizon.  Debt collectors will always want to buy debts that the debtor can''t manage - there is leverage there.  I guess we can''t have much leverage, vultures don''t want our club yet.

[quote]

I do however agree with your take on the mentality of the board. I think they have been expecting a downturn in football with lots of clubs in major financial trouble and reasonably sound clubs such as us "taking advantage" by picking players up on the cheap. They called it wrong.

[/quote]

So far they have - the sheer number of loans in the January window suggests tough times ahead, a recession is overdue and too many have been living on other peoples'' money - it''s the same in football too.  If the man in the street can''t afford Sky Sports any more, where does that leave the next football TV deal ?  Interesting times...
[/quote]

Maybe BlahX3 but i think the policy is starting to look like it is based on false premises. There have been threads on here crowing about Southampton, Coventry and ipswiches financial state yet all three clubs have been taken over and seem to be able to compete better than us in the transfer market. Remember the "nobody wants to buy loss-making Championship sides" statement only a few months back? It doesn`t make them look too sharp does it?

You asked me if i would prefer to be like Palace which is a difficult question to answer. IMO Palace have always had ideas above their station and put simply, we have more potential than them therefore can "think bigger". If you are using the fact that Palace is an old-fashioned ground to excuse their poor crowds then i simply need to point to the dozen or so nice,modern grounds in this league that are often only two-thirds full. Facilities make little difference to crowd numbers. Also of course there is Jordans` ego which is always going to cause problems. However, i would say Palace are the sort of club who would push the boat out a bit if they thought they had a chance of success whilst our board are too paranoid to even give us a chance.

IMO the clubs direction in the next few years hinges on whether or not it can sell the land for the mooted £10m+ in very shaky times economically. That land has cost the club £5m+ in a period when the team has been on the slide and in need of investment. No doubt had we spent that £5m on players some would be accusing the board of being reckless and risking the future of the club. The question is, if we can`t sell the land now we obviously need the money, will those people make the same accusations of the board? And if not, why not?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Come on Mr Carrow, you know you are making some big assumptions in there, just as you know we are now very unlikely to get relegated this season, just as you know we are even more unlikely to get promoted this season, just as you know we therefore have no reason to pay over-inflated prices this January window. What would be the point? 10 games unbeaten, in what way are we struggling?

We are not a rich club, and we have a huge debt. The fact that we still own our own facilities and we haven''t gone into administration show we aren''t nearly as badly run as some would suggest. Things aren''t perfect, far from it, but things could be a WHOLE lot worse and you know it!
[/quote]

But things could be a WHOLE lot better. And that''s what you continually fail to see, preferring to embrace the small-minded view of the club.

The owners and board need to adopt more challenging benchmarks. They need to get out of the rut of the self-imposed ''prudence with ambition'' and move into that higher psychological gear - ''ambition with prudence''.

Until the top adopts a more expansive 21st century vision and generates a real drive to achieve it we will continually struggle.

If they cannot reinvent themselves they should step aside for others.

OTBC