The softening up has begun

[vos 155]

Sorry Ricardo - your assessment of the accounts is wrong. For the six year period ending May 2006 we made a profit of 5.7 million. This was achieved after profit on players of 12.1million and 4.6 million sale of land. I would accept that player trading is part of normal activities but basically we balanced the books because of the land sale - the name of the man responsible for this escapes me !!!!! In 2007 we broke even. Most informed opinion would suggest that in the current year we have lost about 2 million which is probably why the Turners introduced a like amount to balance the books.

We can now summarise the end result of this financial record in quite simplistic terms. At this moment in time we really have only three - would you believe it three - players who are probably automatic choices. Russell, a goalkeeper who does not come off his line, and Fotheringham who I regard as fairly average. Roeder has an almighty task to build a team on limited resources.

Come back Robert Chase - all is forgiven

[0ridgemanddMMyyyy0Falseen-USTrue 0]

The voice of the Thorpe Area! wrote the following post at 20/03/2008 11:00 PM:

As I have said before, we should reserve judgement on the board until after the summer transfer window.

All other conversation is in material until we see the actual actions of our board.

I have a feeling that sometime in the past I have heard this before perhaps over the last six or seven seasons!

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

The true story of Gretna is of a club-owner who is unable or unwilling to invest any more money into his club, for whatever reason, and as a result the club has gone from boom to bust in a very short time.

But that is exactly the same point that Doncaster goes on to make about NCFC. That the current owners have put so much of their personal finance into the club that they are now in a position where they are either unable or unwilling to put any more money into the club.

We might not expire as spectacularly as Grenta but we are every so slowly going down the plughole in a mean and miserly way ever since we were ejected from the Premiership. We can''t even afford to rebuild a permanent squad of players, and according to Doncaster, our ambitions reach as far as signing a loanee for six weeks.

We''re in this position because of the disastrous decisions taken during our Premier season to pump money into infrastructure instead of building a team. Those same policies are still in place today. Nothing has changed on that front. Doncaster is wrong in stating that we wish for the owners to dig deeper into their own pockets; what we are saying is that we want the focus to be on the football side of the club - everything else is a lesser priority.

Of course, it is understandable from the owners'' point of view that they wish to invest in bricks and mortar as it lessens their risk and provides some tangible assets when they decide to cut and run.

If our owners are unable or unwilling to invest further in the club, then rather than allowing the club to be slowly throttled to death through lack of investment, then they must stand aside and allow someone to take over who will allow us to compete at the top level. Do I worry that our great club would be at risk under foreign ownership? No I do not because NCFC is already at great risk from the current set of owners.

Like most posters, I will be very interested to see Doncaster''s finacial statement concerning the past ten years. He doesn''t have to do this, it has been said, but I think it is because he is under pressure from brave men such as Mr. Carrow who enlightens us with his financial knowledge.

 

[/quote]

Beautifully put Yellow Hammer.

Could not agree more.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="vos"]

Sorry Ricardo - your assessment of the accounts is wrong. For the six year period ending May 2006 we made a profit of 5.7 million. This was achieved after profit on players of 12.1million and 4.6 million sale of land. I would accept that player trading is part of normal activities but basically we balanced the books because of the land sale - the name of the man responsible for this escapes me !!!!! In 2007 we broke even. Most informed opinion would suggest that in the current year we have lost about 2 million which is probably why the Turners introduced a like amount to balance the books.

We can now summarise the end result of this financial record in quite simplistic terms. At this moment in time we really have only three - would you believe it three - players who are probably automatic choices. Russell, a goalkeeper who does not come off his line, and Fotheringham who I regard as fairly average. Roeder has an almighty task to build a team on limited resources.

Come back Robert Chase - all is forgiven

[/quote]

As I said, profits on player trading go into general expenses. They do not get recycled into player purchases as many would have you believe.

If you want to know where all the player trading profit has gone I suggest you look at the new road, offices and other bricks and mortar investment.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="yellow hammer"]

The true story of Gretna is of a club-owner who is unable or unwilling to invest any more money into his club, for whatever reason, and as a result the club has gone from boom to bust in a very short time.

But that is exactly the same point that Doncaster goes on to make about NCFC. That the current owners have put so much of their personal finance into the club that they are now in a position where they are either unable or unwilling to put any more money into the club.

We might not expire as spectacularly as Grenta but we are every so slowly going down the plughole in a mean and miserly way ever since we were ejected from the Premiership. We can''t even afford to rebuild a permanent squad of players, and according to Doncaster, our ambitions reach as far as signing a loanee for six weeks.

We''re in this position because of the disastrous decisions taken during our Premier season to pump money into infrastructure instead of building a team. Those same policies are still in place today. Nothing has changed on that front. Doncaster is wrong in stating that we wish for the owners to dig deeper into their own pockets; what we are saying is that we want the focus to be on the football side of the club - everything else is a lesser priority.

Of course, it is understandable from the owners'' point of view that they wish to invest in bricks and mortar as it lessens their risk and provides some tangible assets when they decide to cut and run.

If our owners are unable or unwilling to invest further in the club, then rather than allowing the club to be slowly throttled to death through lack of investment, then they must stand aside and allow someone to take over who will allow us to compete at the top level. Do I worry that our great club would be at risk under foreign ownership? No I do not because NCFC is already at great risk from the current set of owners.

Like most posters, I will be very interested to see Doncaster''s finacial statement concerning the past ten years. He doesn''t have to do this, it has been said, but I think it is because he is under pressure from brave men such as Mr. Carrow who enlightens us with his financial knowledge.

 

[/quote]

Beautifully put Yellow Hammer.

Could not agree more.

[/quote]and sure, they''ve built up the balance sheet to ensure they make a return on their investment, but what about the supporters who spent money in good faith in the share issue that was instrumental in our promotion that season.  the prudence policy has let their investment down badly - how much will they receive out??? what they put in??? wheres the profit for them??? certainly not from watching dismal performances year after year and ''enjoying'' the chronic  underinvestment and underachievements???this city board is a busted flush - and lets face it - chase went bust after having a decent and credible pop at promotion - this lot won''t go bust - but they won''t get us promoted, and based on the last 2 seasons at least - we''ve been realistically more closer to relegation than promotion.  we''ve not threatened the top 6 in 4 years, but we''ve certainly threatened the bottom 6 in the last 2.  and rightly, if we lose today (although i sure we''ll win) we''re in real danger of relegation to the 3rd tier of english football.what a poor, shameful record...in every sense.  so donny should really save it - we''ve heard it all before - the same old excuses for mediocrity!!!

[lucky green trainers 0]

btw BBFF, i would imagine most of the ole grey top grunters who frequent this pink un msg board would have double taked your headline.  softening up to them, is something that eases their chronic constipation!!!they probably thought you''d hit on a new remedy other than prunes or coffee enemas!!! lol

[ctid 0]

1. To those who state that the board should be more ambitious ! i.e. spend more of their money on players. I suggest they ring Mr  Doncaster; asking to have their admission price/season ticket doubled in order to support that ambition also.

2. To  those who point to the recent improvements in the stadium as "money having been spent elsewhere" I ask if they would prefer to sit in a three sided ground due to the loss of the fire certificate

3. To those who point to the resteraunts and state that clubs lack of funds are due to "Delia''s love of cooking". I ask them to examine the amount of revenue this generates for the clubs. I never hear of people moaning about all the other initiatives that bring money into Carrow  road. [seminars,business meetings,conferences and entertainment events].

 

If you wish to point the finger at someone for our lack of funds and worrying position, try my list

The FA/Premier league for being narrow minded. Leaving the rest of us behind whilst they grab everything,share nothing and then complain that there is not enough Englishman playing at the top level. 

The Goverment for allowing Sky to wreck everything that was good about the four divisions of English football

Bryan Hamilton,Nigel Worthington and Peter Grant for not spending the available money wisely.

The board for appointing these people in the first place and then not sacking them at the appropiate time.

 

Please do not blame a club administrator who is paid to "put a face to the media" for the   woes of our club.

 

PS.   If you are still not persuaded by my arguement; get yourself down the travel agents and book you and the wife on a "year''s round the world cruise". Buy her a six bathroomed house in the countryside and a top of the range Porshe.

Go on, show some ambition.

Worst case scenario is you will only lose you home and all you value and love !

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="JC"]

Lets imagine for a minute Doncaster said '' next season we have 4 million to give Roeder''.  What do you think would happen? 

Engage brain...must engage brain.....

[/quote]Come on mate, get a bit of realism here, We DO NOT SPEND MONEY, NEVER HAVE NEVER WILL.  Even last summers signings didnt come to even half the income from the 3.5 million Erny, 15 mil Etuhu 400K Hughes and 300K Safri deals.There is a decent sum of around 2 million to spend I am sure, but that is it I would think.I am a big fan of loaning players before buying, its a shame we didnt invest in Martin Taylor.  Hopefully the likes of Bertrand or Evans can be lured to the club for a reasonable sum.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

OI Doncaster, what happened to your previous article''s examples like Coventry, and Cardiff??http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/commentary/NeilDoncaster.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NeilDoncaster&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=NeilDoncaster&itemid=NOED13%20Dec%202007%2008%3A18%3A22%3A067

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]btw BBFF, i would imagine most of the ole grey top grunters who frequent this pink un msg board would have double taked your headline.  softening up to them, is something that eases their chronic constipation!!!

they probably thought you''d hit on a new remedy other than prunes or coffee enemas!!! lol
[/quote]

Greetings Lucky!

I would suggest that most of us ''ole grey top grunters who frequent this pink un msg board'' would''ve been more interested if the hardening up had begun. [*-)] Would prunes work for that too [:^)]

Cheers Doc'' [;)]

 

[Mello Yello 2,291]

[quote user="ctid"]

1. To those who state that the board should be more ambitious ! i.e. spend more of their money on players. I suggest they ring Mr  Doncaster; asking to have their admission price/season ticket doubled in order to support that ambition also.

2. To  those who point to the recent improvements in the stadium as "money having been spent elsewhere" I ask if they would prefer to sit in a three sided ground due to the loss of the fire certificate

3. To those who point to the resteraunts and state that clubs lack of funds are due to "Delia''s love of cooking". I ask them to examine the amount of revenue this generates for the clubs. I never hear of people moaning about all the other initiatives that bring money into Carrow  road. [seminars,business meetings,conferences and entertainment events].

 

If you wish to point the finger at someone for our lack of funds and worrying position, try my list

The FA/Premier league for being narrow minded. Leaving the rest of us behind whilst they grab everything,share nothing and then complain that there is not enough Englishman playing at the top level. 

The Goverment for allowing Sky to wreck everything that was good about the four divisions of English football

Bryan Hamilton,Nigel Worthington and Peter Grant for not spending the available money wisely.

The board for appointing these people in the first place and then not sacking them at the appropiate time.

 

Please do not blame a club administrator who is paid to "put a face to the media" for the   woes of our club.

 

PS.   If you are still not persuaded by my arguement; get yourself down the travel agents and book you and the wife on a "year''s round the world cruise". Buy her a six bathroomed house in the countryside and a top of the range Porshe.

Go on, show some ambition.

Worst case scenario is you will only lose you home and all you value and love !

[/quote]

I agree on your point concerning the weasel''s down at the FA......and the monopoly of Sky and ''Mr Rupert Mudrock'' on live games......

Regarding the board and our current situation....Funnily enough, I''m afraid I don''t concur with you. Approaching nearly 12 years of their tenure and are we really that better off? Like Worthington, I think they''ve achieved and reached their standard of running a football club.  Is the Chief Exec so concerned about our predicament, that he would willingly take a pay-cut? Will we also get a refund if relegated of our season ticket dosh - for having to watch a lower level and ''standard'' of football?

Concerning the recent improvement''s in the stadium.....all top notch construction and facilities........Did the members of the board actually spend all their personal dosh to pay for the construction of the Jarrold, and the infill between the Jarrold and the N & P, the Proton showroom, the conference and other business facilities including the furniture, decor, carpets and accessories, etc, etc? I accept that the ''fickle fan'' doesn''t even chip in enough to power a floodlight for a game with his/her contribution and occasional purchase of merchandise, pie, shirt, drinky poo''s, programme, oh, an'' a season ticket. So who then, actually funds the club and its bills and debt? Is it the Major Shareholding Hubby an'' Wifey? Who stand to lose all they''ve contributed to Carra, if and when they take a back-seat? I bet they ain''t out of pocket when they do throw in the towel......

Maybe we should return to a 3 sided stadium with a wooden fence down 1 side......A few year ago, it was a successful period for the team with 16,000 crowd''s (Mr Munby who stated that we required that attendance to break even)....Then maybe, we can ask for a voluntary contribution from the surrounding Gucci residents of those desirable lavish and affluent apartment''s - for letting them get a freebie view of a game? 

Yup, I agree we are so fortunate that Delia is a TV Celebrity cook - and a percentage of the restyrunt revenue is pumped back into stuff....whatever. I hope you''re doing your bit and eating on a regular basis in the restyrunt''s, as we certainly don''t want those mouthwaterin'' money makin'' magnets  to ''God Forbid!'' go under, lose trade and custom, and then have to be subsidised by the finance funding the football......

Anyway, it''s been nice griping to you.....Must dash, the wife''s just started the Bentley - and I''ve a game to go to.......Damn! I''ve just spilt caviar on my keyboard!!! Ciao! 

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

The true story of Gretna is of a club-owner who is unable or unwilling to invest any more money into his club, for whatever reason, and as a result the club has gone from boom to bust in a very short time.

But that is exactly the same point that Doncaster goes on to make about NCFC. That the current owners have put so much of their personal finance into the club that they are now in a position where they are either unable or unwilling to put any more money into the club.

We might not expire as spectacularly as Grenta but we are every so slowly going down the plughole in a mean and miserly way ever since we were ejected from the Premiership. We can''t even afford to rebuild a permanent squad of players, and according to Doncaster, our ambitions reach as far as signing a loanee for six weeks.

We''re in this position because of the disastrous decisions taken during our Premier season to pump money into infrastructure instead of building a team. Those same policies are still in place today. Nothing has changed on that front. Doncaster is wrong in stating that we wish for the owners to dig deeper into their own pockets; what we are saying is that we want the focus to be on the football side of the club - everything else is a lesser priority.

Of course, it is understandable from the owners'' point of view that they wish to invest in bricks and mortar as it lessens their risk and provides some tangible assets when they decide to cut and run.

If our owners are unable or unwilling to invest further in the club, then rather than allowing the club to be slowly throttled to death through lack of investment, then they must stand aside and allow someone to take over who will allow us to compete at the top level. Do I worry that our great club would be at risk under foreign ownership? No I do not because NCFC is already at great risk from the current set of owners.

Like most posters, I will be very interested to see Doncaster''s finacial statement concerning the past ten years. He doesn''t have to do this, it has been said, but I think it is because he is under pressure from brave men such as Mr. Carrow who enlightens us with his financial knowledge.

 

[/quote]

Spot on, yellow hammer, I couldn''t have argued the case more eloquently or succinctly myself.

[canary cherub 1]

At this year''s AGM, the board adopted an extremely defensive attitude right from the start, typified by Munby''s opening comment that they were only having the AGM at Carrow Road for our benefit and they could just as easily have it in London.  It sounded rather like a veiled threat.  I thought that was rather odd, and it did nothing to create a harmonious atmosphere that''s for sure. 

fwiw I think they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards and factual details were being released that they would rather keep to themselves.  They realised that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003: loss of total control over the sanitised version of events they would like the fans to believe.  The myth of "transparency" that clothes their dealings had been exposed and left them feeling naked.  They were therefore expecting some more than usually difficult questions, as exemplified by ND''s extreme reluctance to admit that the club had made a profit (declaring a profit at a shareholders'' meeting: whatever next?). 

They probably also knew that some fans planned to vote against D&M''s re-election to the board, not enough to affect the outcome but they seem unable to tolerate dissent in any shape or form.  I sense that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling or even Robert Chase used to have, and therein lies the root of the problem.  As far as Delia concerned it''s HER club, and her response to dissent is effectively "Get off my land", unlike previous owners who to a greater or lesser extent felt a responsibility to hold the club in trust for its community.  The expression "Delia''s Norwich" is only too accurate, unfortunately. 

The irony is that no one is suggesting they''ve done anything criminal, merely that they have not given football the focus and priority it deserves, with disastrous and inevitable results.  The longer they continue in denial, the worse it''s liable to get.  All we want is what''s best for OUR club. 

I do believe we''ve found their achilles heel.  Keep it up Mr Carrow. 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

The softening up began in 1996.

Any success since then has happened by accident.

OTBC

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

At this year''s AGM, the board adopted an extremely defensive attitude right from the start, typified by Munby''s opening comment that they were only having the AGM at Carrow Road for our benefit and they could just as easily have it in London.  It sounded rather like a veiled threat.  I thought that was rather odd, and it did nothing to create a harmonious atmosphere that''s for sure. 

fwiw I think they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards and factual details were being released that they would rather keep to themselves.  They realised that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003: loss of total control over the sanitised version of events they would like the fans to believe.  The myth of "transparency" that clothes their dealings had been exposed and left them feeling naked.  They were therefore expecting some more than usually difficult questions, as exemplified by ND''s extreme reluctance to admit that the club had made a profit (declaring a profit at a shareholders'' meeting: whatever next?). 

They probably also knew that some fans planned to vote against D&M''s re-election to the board, not enough to affect the outcome but they seem unable to tolerate dissent in any shape or form.  I sense that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling or even Robert Chase used to have, and therein lies the root of the problem.  As far as Delia concerned it''s HER club, and her response to dissent is effectively "Get off my land", unlike previous owners who to a greater or lesser extent felt a responsibility to hold the club in trust for its community.  The expression "Delia''s Norwich" is only too accurate, unfortunately. 

The irony is that no one is suggesting they''ve done anything criminal, merely that they have not given football the focus and priority it deserves, with disastrous and inevitable results.  The longer they continue in denial, the worse it''s liable to get.  All we want is what''s best for OUR club. 

I do believe we''ve found their achilles heel.  Keep it up Mr Carrow. 

[/quote]

The only thing you''ve "found" is the delusional spin you continue to throw in the direction of what you call OUR club. Just examine your own input here, which you appear to be making up as you go along:

• I "think" they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards
• They "realised" that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003
• sanitised version of events "they would like" the fans to believe.
• I "sense" that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling
• "As far as Delia is concerned" it''s HER club

You speak about their defensive attitude Fat Prophet. Most people find it difficult to deal with criticism even when it''s fair. When I''ve criticised your input in the past you''ve reacted like someone requiring therapy.

Of course, the attack merchants against the way Norwich City is being managed are entitled to their opinion. However, just for the record ( if you don''t believe me then check ), there were many years Geoffrey Watling was not viewed with the same reverence he was in his later years. And much of that criticism was as unfair then as what is directed at the current majority shareholders now. 

We all know Norwich had a terrible start this season. Despite that, we are only 10 points away from the final playoff spot in a division where there appear to be no teams that seem to stand out. All reports that I have seen tend to confirm that, as would the mixed results that all teams have experienced. Further, one could argue that half the clubs in this division can claim as being at least as big as Norwich, and four of them are not only below us in the standings but likely also from a financial perspective as well. If a neutral ( or dare I say objective ) person were to read the inputs from individuals such as you and Mr. Carrow, amongst others, they would get a sense that NCFC alone are burdened with the problems of the division. 

Finally, if Board critics are not even able to convince most posters on this forum of their views what on earth makes you believe you are capable of convincing Michael and Delia that you have found their achilles heel?    

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

At this year''s AGM, the board adopted an extremely defensive attitude right from the start, typified by Munby''s opening comment that they were only having the AGM at Carrow Road for our benefit and they could just as easily have it in London.  It sounded rather like a veiled threat.  I thought that was rather odd, and it did nothing to create a harmonious atmosphere that''s for sure. 

fwiw I think they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards and factual details were being released that they would rather keep to themselves.  They realised that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003: loss of total control over the sanitised version of events they would like the fans to believe.  The myth of "transparency" that clothes their dealings had been exposed and left them feeling naked.  They were therefore expecting some more than usually difficult questions, as exemplified by ND''s extreme reluctance to admit that the club had made a profit (declaring a profit at a shareholders'' meeting: whatever next?). 

They probably also knew that some fans planned to vote against D&M''s re-election to the board, not enough to affect the outcome but they seem unable to tolerate dissent in any shape or form.  I sense that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling or even Robert Chase used to have, and therein lies the root of the problem.  As far as Delia concerned it''s HER club, and her response to dissent is effectively "Get off my land", unlike previous owners who to a greater or lesser extent felt a responsibility to hold the club in trust for its community.  The expression "Delia''s Norwich" is only too accurate, unfortunately. 

The irony is that no one is suggesting they''ve done anything criminal, merely that they have not given football the focus and priority it deserves, with disastrous and inevitable results.  The longer they continue in denial, the worse it''s liable to get.  All we want is what''s best for OUR club. 

I do believe we''ve found their achilles heel.  Keep it up Mr Carrow. 

[/quote]

The only thing you''ve "found" is the delusional spin you continue to throw in the direction of what you call OUR club. Just examine your own input here, which you appear to be making up as you go along:

• I "think" they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards
• They "realised" that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003
• sanitised version of events "they would like" the fans to believe.
• I "sense" that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling
• "As far as Delia is concerned" it''s HER club

You speak about their defensive attitude Fat Prophet. Most people find it difficult to deal with criticism even when it''s fair. When I''ve criticised your input in the past you''ve reacted like someone requiring therapy.

Of course, the attack merchants against the way Norwich City is being managed are entitled to their opinion. However, just for the record ( if you don''t believe me then check ), there were many years Geoffrey Watling was not viewed with the same reverence he was in his later years. And much of that criticism was as unfair then as what is directed at the current majority shareholders now. 

We all know Norwich had a terrible start this season. Despite that, we are only 10 points away from the final playoff spot in a division where there appear to be no teams that seem to stand out. All reports that I have seen tend to confirm that, as would the mixed results that all teams have experienced. Further, one could argue that half the clubs in this division can claim as being at least as big as Norwich, and four of them are not only below us in the standings but likely also from a financial perspective as well. If a neutral ( or dare I say objective ) person were to read the inputs from individuals such as you and Mr. Carrow, amongst others, they would get a sense that NCFC alone are burdened with the problems of the division. 

Finally, if Board critics are not even able to convince most posters on this forum of their views what on earth makes you believe you are capable of convincing Michael and Delia that you have found their achilles heel?    

 

[/quote]i didn''t go to the agm, and so relied upon local media reporting.  certainly, it seemed from her ''stupid'' comments - that delia was indeed wound-up, behaving almost wounded in a way in from the criticism she received - preferring attack than defence.  thats her right - but as the top dog at carra rd - hardly befitting??? fat P, who clearly attended - is surely free to express his opinion of the mood of the meeting - which seems to tie in reasonably well with the media exposure???however much the truth hurts, its hard cash, the filthy greenback, a nice wedge, coupled with a good manager, canny transfer dealings, a good back-up team and a slice of luck - who will prosper.  and at the start of a season, every fan, board member, manager and player hopes their club has the right ingredients to create success on the pitch.  some do with higher expectations because of the money they''ve spent, the quality players they have etc.   but no side is guaranteed success.  some more fancied sides will underperform and bomb, while others will surprise and overperform.  thats the thrill for some, but also the disappointments for others as yet another season unwinds.i''d prefer NCFC to be a club, where we exhibit genuine top 6 ambition, and spend the correct level of money to demonstrate this.  has glen roeder the credentials and experience to take us up???  maybe, but maybe not.  he can certainly get players to perform to the levels of their abilities and beyond - which is always a good sign.  as roeder said recently, he has prem ambition, and NCFC is a prem club in all but name in terms of facilities, crowd etc.  but he didn''t mention prem finance.  i''ve seen nothing from mumby and doncaster that demonstrates glen will have a credible budget with prem ambition in the summer.  there''s no public commitment to it, there''s no public intent.  why is that???tony pulis moaned at the ref this weekend as his stoke team spluttered - ''and in front of 20,000 fans'' he said - i gave a wry smile.  we had 25000 watching city  take on colchester........says it all for me.the truth  is, we have a failing board, who have delivered season after season of underacheivement - and this term we''ve come close to genuine relegation to the third tier of english footy.  if they believe they are aiming for the top, then they are surely misguided and should by now recognise they are unsuited to the task.delia and the board are truly english, but the extreme competitiveness model put in place by sky and the FA is not.  in fact it is anti-english in nature, and i disagree profoundly with the way football is run in this country.  but, if you lack the skills to compete successfully in this market - which i believe this board do because they have failed to adapt to the new market conditions - then they should realise it and seek to exit it.  its not their bag.  simple as.  . 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]btw BBFF, i would imagine most of the ole grey top grunters who frequent this pink un msg board would have double taked your headline.  softening up to them, is something that eases their chronic constipation!!!they probably thought you''d hit on a new remedy other than prunes or coffee enemas!!! lol[/quote]

Greetings Lucky!

I would suggest that most of us ''ole grey top grunters who frequent this pink un msg board'' would''ve been more interested if the hardening up had begun. [*-)] Would prunes work for that too [:^)]

Cheers Doc'' [;)]

 

[/quote]difficult one - but i''d say loose bowels is preferable to constipation any day.  probably, stay off dairy, fermented products, curries and spicy foods, and artificial additives!!!live long and prosper!!!

[gazzathegreat 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

At this year''s AGM, the board adopted an extremely defensive attitude right from the start, typified by Munby''s opening comment that they were only having the AGM at Carrow Road for our benefit and they could just as easily have it in London.  It sounded rather like a veiled threat.  I thought that was rather odd, and it did nothing to create a harmonious atmosphere that''s for sure. 

fwiw I think they''d become aware that the club''s accounts were being discussed on the message boards and factual details were being released that they would rather keep to themselves.  They realised that this was the price to be paid for the fans'' support of the share issue in 2003: loss of total control over the sanitised version of events they would like the fans to believe.  The myth of "transparency" that clothes their dealings had been exposed and left them feeling naked.  They were therefore expecting some more than usually difficult questions, as exemplified by ND''s extreme reluctance to admit that the club had made a profit (declaring a profit at a shareholders'' meeting: whatever next?). 

They probably also knew that some fans planned to vote against D&M''s re-election to the board, not enough to affect the outcome but they seem unable to tolerate dissent in any shape or form.  I sense that Delia has a different attitude to ownership of the club than Geoffrey Watling or even Robert Chase used to have, and therein lies the root of the problem.  As far as Delia concerned it''s HER club, and her response to dissent is effectively "Get off my land", unlike previous owners who to a greater or lesser extent felt a responsibility to hold the club in trust for its community.  The expression "Delia''s Norwich" is only too accurate, unfortunately. 

The irony is that no one is suggesting they''ve done anything criminal, merely that they have not given football the focus and priority it deserves, with disastrous and inevitable results.  The longer they continue in denial, the worse it''s liable to get.  All we want is what''s best for OUR club. 

I do believe we''ve found their achilles heel.  Keep it up Mr Carrow. 

 

[/quote] A very good summary of the AGM and current feeling on the board FP. As far as I am concerned anyway. Sure there are compensations for having someone on board who''s a household name. Most people know who Delia is, whether they have any interest in football or not, and the inevitable money she will make from her current TV series and book will be massive. Is that all going to go towards buying players of a quality which will ensure we at least have a stab at promotion? We can all but wonder. Is there anyone in the wings ready to take over when Delia and Michael decide to call it a day? Yes, and they are already on the board. Trouble is, what state our club will be in by that time.

[YankeeCanary 0]

Gazza, if the Turner''s intend to take over the club at some point in the future, I am sure they will do so with hope, ambition, fire in the belly approach that most new owners of football clubs do. That will be followed by the tremendous challenges and ups and downs that surface for owners of all football clubs, even the top clubs in the Premiership. It''s the nature of the business and any prospective owner going into it without their eyes wide open will probably be very disappointed.

The Turners have made a success of their own business from the ground up and, if they do assume majority control of NCFC at some point, I would be very surprised if they do so underestimating the challenges. Further ( although I have no way of knowing this ), I would bet if one were intimate friends with the Turners that one would be likely to hear far less criticism of Delia Smith than from some who shoot  barbs from the outside without having any accountability or consequences for their comments.

Yes, we all want Norwich to do better than is the case currently, but to think that those who are the majority shareholders want it less is not only demeaning, it''s shortsighted.   

[gazzathegreat 0]

Yankee

I think it''s pretty common knowledge the Turners are going to take over from Delia and Michael when they stand down (due to their age more than any other reason). From what I know about them, they are very different people to Delia and Michael. No, I don''t presume they are underestimating the challenges, from what I have heard they are relishing the opportunity and are currently restructuring their own company in preparation for their eventual posts at NCFC.

I am sure Delia and Michael would wish for better for our club, who wouldn''t. However, maybe it''s now time to consider a fresh impetus and some different approaches. Make no mistake, the Turners are v ambitious.

As for us mere fans not able to make constructive comments re the major shareholders, I am afraid Yankee, that after putting themselves in the position they have, comments, whether praise or criticism are always going to happen.

Delia and Michael may react badly to criticism, most people do, but they were also grateful to acknowledge the praise and recognition on promotion. Sadly, the mistakes they have overseen (though I acknowledge they haven''t made all of them) have to be put right, starting with the main focus being on shifting emphasis from infrastructure to allowing the manager sufficient funds to allow us to compete in this division.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee I think it''s pretty common knowledge the Turners are going to take over from Delia and Michael when they stand down (due to their age more than any other reason). From what I know about them, they are very different people to Delia and Michael. No, I don''t presume they are underestimating the challenges, from what I have heard they are relishing the opportunity and are currently restructuring their own company in preparation for their eventual posts at NCFC. I am sure Delia and Michael would wish for better for our club, who wouldn''t. However, maybe it''s now time to consider a fresh impetus and some different approaches. Make no mistake, the Turners are v ambitious. As for us mere fans not able to make constructive comments re the major shareholders, I am afraid Yankee, that after putting themselves in the position they have, comments, whether praise or criticism are always going to happen. Delia and Michael may react badly to criticism, most people do, but they were also grateful to acknowledge the praise and recognition on promotion. Sadly, the mistakes they have overseen (though I acknowledge they haven''t made all of them) have to be put right, starting with the main focus being on shifting emphasis from infrastructure to allowing the manager sufficient funds to allow us to compete in this division.[/quote]

That''s fair enough Gazza. I think it''s also fair to comment that the infrastructure that has now been put in place has made it easier for the next generation to assume the reins and put money into the football side of things. Progress does not always take place in a straight line manner or one that is obvious to ready critics. 

Digressing a bit, I realise, but when watching Wigan play recently I couldn''t help but shake my head at what I was seeing. Dave Whelan, of course, is fairly wealthy. Obviously, he has chosen to put his money into the player side of things to help keep Wigan in the Premiership. The football pitch, on the other hand, looked like something you would be reluctant to send a works team out to play on. The rugby lines were still on the pitch, which contained so many bumps and ridges that you could actually see the ball take wild bounces in all directions. Frankly, it''s a joke that a club participating in the Premiership is allowed to get away with such conditions.  

 

 

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee I think it''s pretty common knowledge the Turners are going to take over from Delia and Michael when they stand down (due to their age more than any other reason). From what I know about them, they are very different people to Delia and Michael. No, I don''t presume they are underestimating the challenges, from what I have heard they are relishing the opportunity and are currently restructuring their own company in preparation for their eventual posts at NCFC. I am sure Delia and Michael would wish for better for our club, who wouldn''t. However, maybe it''s now time to consider a fresh impetus and some different approaches. Make no mistake, the Turners are v ambitious. As for us mere fans not able to make constructive comments re the major shareholders, I am afraid Yankee, that after putting themselves in the position they have, comments, whether praise or criticism are always going to happen. Delia and Michael may react badly to criticism, most people do, but they were also grateful to acknowledge the praise and recognition on promotion. Sadly, the mistakes they have overseen (though I acknowledge they haven''t made all of them) have to be put right, starting with the main focus being on shifting emphasis from infrastructure to allowing the manager sufficient funds to allow us to compete in this division.[/quote]

Its all I ever hear or read on here, what the board are doing for the future, Iv been hearing it for years, Iv been reading it in the press ever since this board took over....the future.

Iv asked before but no one on here or from the club can ever tell me. Question: When will the future be today?

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="vos"]

In 2007 we broke even. Most informed opinion would suggest that in the current year we have lost about 2 million which is probably why the Turners introduced a like amount to balance the books.

[/quote]

The Accounts may show we broke even but the club was cash generative; as you have to consider a cost such as Depreciation in the Profit & Loss Account which doesn''t result in any cash being paid out.

As for the £2m the Turners lent the club it appeared in the Balance Sheet as at 31st May 2007, i.e it was received last season.

 

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

When you think about going  to the cinema to see a film, do you expect the film producers to ask you to finance the film''s production before you can watch the film?

NO!

So it is up to the owners (and directors) of this entertainment business to provide the necessary finance to improve the squad this summer after all, 18000+ of us  have done the exceptional act (in a business sense) of paying our entrance fees (season tickets) before the current season has ended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="ctid"]

2. To  those who point to the recent improvements in the stadium as "money having been spent elsewhere" I ask if they would prefer to sit in a three sided ground due to the loss of the fire certificate

[/quote]

 

No need as the  Jarrold Stand is not part of the £7m + of non critical fixed assets that I have referred to previously. The replacement of the South stand with the Jarrold stand has always been considered a critical fixed asset expenditure.  

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

£1.3m to come from the basic fees of McKenzie and Green (see debtors on the Accounts Balance Sheet)

£0.6m to come from the profit on the Jan 08 transfers

£1.5m from the sale of Crofts player registration (hopefully)

£0.2m from the sale of the Jarvis brothers (hopefully)

Say £2m from general cashflows

and we have a transfer kitty for this summer...................

 

Didn''t the club also say that the transfer fees of Earnshaw and Etuhu would be added to the transfer budget?

 

 

 

[GMF 741]

It shouldn''t be about making a profit, rather, balancing your revenues and expenditures so you can pay your debts and put as much as possible into the playing side. That should apply equally whether your turnover is £17M or £32M pa.

 Whether Delia and Michael sell up or bequest their shares to the Club, only time will tell.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

£1.3m to come from the basic fees of McKenzie and Green (see debtors on the Accounts Balance Sheet)

£0.6m to come from the profit on the Jan 08 transfers

£1.5m from the sale of Crofts player registration (hopefully)

£0.2m from the sale of the Jarvis brothers (hopefully)

Say £2m from general cashflows

and we have a transfer kitty for this summer...................

 

Didn''t the club also say that the transfer fees of Earnshaw and Etuhu would be added to the transfer budget?

 

 

 

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha, Can''t wait to see Doomcasters next article, explaining how none of this money really exists.

How many times do you have to fall for this "just wait till the summer" bulls**t before you catch on.

We will spend peanuts again......................and with totally predictable results. Anyone who believes differently has obviously been marooned on a desert island for the past few years.

We can only hope that GR''S loaning skills will bear fruit again or it will be another difficult season in prospect. Without further outside investment (and there seems very little prospect of that) any hopes of a top six will remain pie in the sky.

 

[vos 155]

Agree with your observations Canary Nut but either way I don''t think we have much in the way of spare cash. Rather worringly at the recent supporters meeting this fact was pointed out to Roeder who did not seem to realise this was the position. He was either being canny or knows there is some sort of cash injection on the way. To find 12 - 15 players in the close season on limited funds just does not stack up.

Additionally I am not so sure we should get too excited re the Turners involvement. To their credit they have built up a good business in a very short space of time. However looking at their company website it would appear they have been very reliant on the mortgage boom which is now well and truly over.

[corbs 0]

Our relegation from the premiership was not caused by spending on infrastructure, or lack of spending on the football side, it was basically about wrong team selection, e.g selling Malkey, and bringing in players who could not adapt and did not have the heart.