Canaries tie up new deal with property developers

[Syteanric 1]

yep.. this land deal will score a hat trick vs QPR and keep us in the division.. well done Board.. clueless Fools!

jas :)

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="bunny"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

"Last year the club received more than £400,000 from its brand affinity partnerships"

That will be monopoly money then?

[/quote]

£400,000 received does not mean profit mate.  I could "receive" £3000 for my car but if i bought it for £6000 i`ve lost out haven`t i?  Please try harder.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

£400,000 received does not mean profit mate.  I could "receive" £3000 for my car but if i bought it for £6000 i`ve lost out haven`t i?  Please try harder.

[/quote]

It is good for the club, I have no doubt about that.  However its a shame the club failed to tie up a deal for Martin Taylor.....

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I think what''s naive is to assume what others may or may not know about business without facts at hand, and I think it''s, at best, naive on your part ( at worst devious ) to question that such ventures do not make money ( unless you have evidence that they do not ), particularly when there are a number of Premiership clubs that have pursued virtually the same kind of initiatives. Adding items on to your anti Norwich Board list just because you can only serves to weaken any credibility you may establish by the use of valid points.    

[/quote]

YC, i`m sure you don`t "assume" that these ventures are guaranteed to make money do you?  Of course they are not.

The club made a healthy profit in `02 when we got to the play-off final with no player sales.  Last season we struggled to break even with a £7.1m parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.  I have put my case forward that this is largely down to off-pitch spending and no-one has been able to prove otherwise because it is obvious from the accounts.  But i would be interested to read your take on them YC.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I think what''s naive is to assume what others may or may not know about business without facts at hand, and I think it''s, at best, naive on your part ( at worst devious ) to question that such ventures do not make money ( unless you have evidence that they do not ), particularly when there are a number of Premiership clubs that have pursued virtually the same kind of initiatives. Adding items on to your anti Norwich Board list just because you can only serves to weaken any credibility you may establish by the use of valid points.    

[/quote]

YC, i`m sure you don`t "assume" that these ventures are guaranteed to make money do you?  Of course they are not.

The club made a healthy profit in `02 when we got to the play-off final with no player sales.  Last season we struggled to break even with a £7.1m parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.  I have put my case forward that this is largely down to off-pitch spending and no-one has been able to prove otherwise because it is obvious from the accounts.  But i would be interested to read your take on them YC.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I''m sure you understand what "spin" is because, as you do here again, you frequently engage in it. It was your comments that question the idea that such ventures are guaranteed to make money that was being challenged, not the other way round, do you see? I was not stating any such guarantee, but simply pointing out that this type of initiative must have legs because a number of Premiership clubs have pursued it. Rather than back up your suggestion ( not mine ) with facts you turn the question around in one short sentence and then digress off into a completely different point in the ensuing paragraph. That, Mr. Carrow, is "spin" pure and simple and, furthermore, you realise it. Ergo, the credibility issue you have with those that can see through such game playing to serve the interest of your underlying agenda of anti-Board criticism come hell or high water.

[Felixfan 53]

I think fans need to realise that ticket sales do not even pay the players wages so the more off field activity that can be generated is essential to the success and viability of the club.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="bunny"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

"Last year the club received more than £400,000 from its brand affinity partnerships"

That will be monopoly money then?

[/quote]

£400,000 received does not mean profit mate.  I could "receive" £3000 for my car but if i bought it for £6000 i`ve lost out haven`t i?  Please try harder.

[/quote]

If, if, if.... If you had 20 years good service out of that car and similar age models were fetching £1500 then you would have got a good deal, but that''s like comparing apples to eggs. In your case however, you are offering no evidence to suggest that the cost of our "brand affinity partnerships" outweighed the £400,000 received, thus making a loss. You are in fact comparing apples to nothing....

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Just for your information, I run a very successful business that I started 18 years ago, so I would like to think that I do know quite about business - what makes you so knowledgeable on business then?

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I think what''s naive is to assume what others may or may not know about business without facts at hand, and I think it''s, at best, naive on your part ( at worst devious ) to question that such ventures do not make money ( unless you have evidence that they do not ), particularly when there are a number of Premiership clubs that have pursued virtually the same kind of initiatives. Adding items on to your anti Norwich Board list just because you can only serves to weaken any credibility you may establish by the use of valid points.    

[/quote]

YC, i`m sure you don`t "assume" that these ventures are guaranteed to make money do you?  Of course they are not.

The club made a healthy profit in `02 when we got to the play-off final with no player sales.  Last season we struggled to break even with a £7.1m parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.  I have put my case forward that this is largely down to off-pitch spending and no-one has been able to prove otherwise because it is obvious from the accounts.  But i would be interested to read your take on them YC.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I''m sure you understand what "spin" is because, as you do here again, you frequently engage in it. It was your comments that question the idea that such ventures are guaranteed to make money that was being challenged, not the other way round, do you see? I was not stating any such guarantee, but simply pointing out that this type of initiative must have legs because a number of Premiership clubs have pursued it. Rather than back up your suggestion ( not mine ) with facts you turn the question around in one short sentence and then digress off into a completely different point in the ensuing paragraph. That, Mr. Carrow, is "spin" pure and simple and, furthermore, you realise it. Ergo, the credibility issue you have with those that can see through such game playing to serve the interest of your underlying agenda of anti-Board criticism come hell or high water.

[/quote]

Are these ventures guaranteed to make money or not YC?  If not then my point is perfectly valid isn`t it?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Just out of interest Yankee Canary, how many times a season do you see NCFC. play?

[YankeeCanary 0]

Mr. Carrow, any business venture cannot be GUARANTEED to make money, so the point you make is a "perfectly valid LAME point." It''s kind of like predicting that, regardless of what the weather is like tomorrow, there''s blue sky up there somewhere. As I''ve said many times to you, if you want to be taken seriously and allow your points to influence others, then a more balanced approach is called for.

[astrodyne 0]

And there endeth your lesson for today Mr Carrow - more balance boy, more balance..........[:S]

As for you Canary Nut....revenge is all the more sweeter with time.......[;)]

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

Mr. Carrow, any business venture cannot be GUARANTEED to make money, so the point you make is a "perfectly valid LAME point." It''s kind of like predicting that, regardless of what the weather is like tomorrow, there''s blue sky up there somewhere. As I''ve said many times to you, if you want to be taken seriously and allow your points to influence others, then a more balanced approach is called for.

[/quote]

YC, if you look back at my original post it was aimed at people who have expressed comments such as "it`s going to make money for the club, so it must be a good thing".  As you agree that you cannot guarantee a profit from these ventures then surely you agree that simply assuming they will is naive and a tad ignorant?  I don`t see what we are arguing about.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Dicky"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Just for your information, I run a very successful business that I started 18 years ago, so I would like to think that I do know quite about business - what makes you so knowledgeable on business then?

[/quote]

I have invested in dozens of very different businesses for years Dicky and have never seen an example of a cast-iron guaranteed profit.  If it were that simple you would just invest in whichever company had the biggest guaranteed profit!  It doesn`t work like that mate.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="astrodyne"]

Surely the opposite to your statement Dicky, is that if it doesn''t make money for the club then it does harm?

The club has probably employed a non-playing person to negotiate this deal. What does that person do for the rest of the year? By the time these non-playing people are paid, their offices are lit and refurbished once in awhile - said profit for the club is negligable - probably in the red. The club should stick to FOOTBALL, the thing it once did best.

[/quote]

Yeah, your logic gets more bizarre.  What an absolute load of old tosh.  Why on earth would the club do something like this for a loss?  Any money coming into the club from commercial ventures is good news for the club and essential in this day and age. 

[/quote]

Have you ever wondered why the more the club get involved with these sorts of operations, the more income they seem to need to break even?  And the people simply assuming these ventures are guaranteed to make money are naive and understand nothing about business.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, I think what''s naive is to assume what others may or may not know about business without facts at hand, and I think it''s, at best, naive on your part ( at worst devious ) to question that such ventures do not make money ( unless you have evidence that they do not ), particularly when there are a number of Premiership clubs that have pursued virtually the same kind of initiatives. Adding items on to your anti Norwich Board list just because you can only serves to weaken any credibility you may establish by the use of valid points.    

[/quote]

YC, i`m sure you don`t "assume" that these ventures are guaranteed to make money do you?  Of course they are not.

The club made a healthy profit in `02 when we got to the play-off final with no player sales.  Last season we struggled to break even with a £7.1m parachute payment and a large profit in the transfer market.  I have put my case forward that this is largely down to off-pitch spending and no-one has been able to prove otherwise because it is obvious from the accounts.  But i would be interested to read your take on them YC.

[/quote]

Are one of you experts going to have a go at replying to the second paragraph of my post above, or is it easier to ignore it because it doesn`t fit in with your argument?

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Mr Carrow"][quote user="Dicky"]

Just for your information, I run a very successful business that I started 18 years ago, so I would like to think that I do know quite about business - what makes you so knowledgeable on business then?

[/quote]

I have invested in dozens of very different businesses for years Dicky and have never seen an example of a cast-iron guaranteed profit.  If it were that simple you would just invest in whichever company had the biggest guaranteed profit!  It doesn`t work like that mate.

[/quote]So who''s got the bigger winkle then [:P]

[The Fish Seller 0]

Good day for bad news anyone?

 Seems this monster "property" deal has deflected attention from the fact that we''ve just lost our main Sponsor. As I type four pages on this thread and just nine posts on the other. Talk about spin! I know it was released as news a day or two earlier but it''s not like the flybe thing was out the blue, the Club knew about both for some time so I just think this was a calculated action taken by the Club press office and simply goes to prove how they regard us the fans.

 

BTW the property deal is probably just one of those endorsement things like this one. http://www.thevillagespain.com/endorsements.php

 When Polarisworld was mentioned I couldn''t help but conjure up a vision of the Club wanting us to holiday at Westworld. Guess Smudger would get Yul Bryners part, the first of the automatrons to go "wrong"..........

[Mello Yello 2,297]

But the Board of Directionless absolutely love the fans.......and hold us in the highest regard. We are the priority in their eyes, and they have ''their'' best interests at heart. I REALLY LUVS ''EM ALL!

I do think I''ve had a few too many slugs of Glenfiddich......[:|]

Should be very interesting, come 16:55 tomorrow.......

[nutty nigel 7,542]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]Just out of interest Yankee Canary, how many times a season do you see NCFC. play?[/quote]

Why is that relavent Canary Nut?

I''m not saying it isn''t I just wondered why you thought it was.

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]Just out of interest Yankee Canary, how many times a season do you see NCFC. play?[/quote]

Why is that relavent Canary Nut?

I''m not saying it isn''t I just wondered why you thought it was.

 

[/quote]

I am just curious to know how much of the rubbish football over the years,Yankee Canary has watched with the rest of us ? 

It may have tainted his views about the current board and some posters he deems to have an anti board stance.