Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing

[Mello Yello 2,303]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Yes, but where''s the ''Sky'' money GONE!.......[:^)][/quote]

"Sky money, where''s it gone".....Anyone?......Anyone?......No?......"Oh well".......[^o)]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Yes, but where''s the ''Sky'' money GONE!.......[:^)][/quote]

"Sky money, where''s it gone".....Anyone?......Anyone?......No?......"Oh well".......[^o)]

[/quote]Sobvious Mello, ''The Black hole''. I thought everybody knew that !  [:S]

 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[/quote]

NCFC`s player wages as a percentage of turnover have been reduced from 50% in the promotion season, to 29% in the Prem, then 36% the following season, and 31% last season.  That is way below average.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[/quote]

NCFC`s player wages as a percentage of turnover have been reduced from 50% in the promotion season, to 29% in the Prem, then 36% the following season, and 31% last season.  That is way below average.

[Trent Canary 0]

According to the stats from the thread, 45% in the prem, 62% the year after. With highs of 80/90% in the late 90s. But yes the last few years it appears we are under control. But im sure many would argue we dont invest enough in players, but thats another arguement for another day.

Not sure which stats are right however.

[lappinitup 629]

You are repeating yourself Mr Carrow. That''s not like you !   [:)]

 

[Tetteys Jig 830]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Yes, but where''s the ''Sky'' money GONE!.......[:^)][/quote]

Without trying to completely defend the board on this, i do believe our season in the prem saved us from a real financial struglle like so many former prem clubs like us have suffered, like leicester and coventry before investment, and now southampton. So i can see where a fair amount has gone, we''ve put some into long term investment, i.e ground maintainence, the hotel... however, without all the facts and figures, none of us can do the sums, only the board can.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]

According to the stats from the thread, 45% in the prem, 62% the year after. With highs of 80/90% in the late 90s. But yes the last few years it appears we are under control. But im sure many would argue we dont invest enough in players, but thats another arguement for another day.

Not sure which stats are right however.

[/quote]

No, that`s the overall wage bill, not the "football" wage bill.  The non-football wage bill is the only one which has continued to rise year on year and indeed last year it was nearly as big as the football one.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Jimmy Smith"]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]Yes, but where''s the ''Sky'' money GONE!.......[:^)][/quote]

Without trying to completely defend the board on this, i do believe our season in the prem saved us from a real financial struglle like so many former prem clubs like us have suffered, like leicester and coventry before investment, and now southampton. So i can see where a fair amount has gone, we''ve put some into long term investment, i.e ground maintainence, the hotel... however, without all the facts and figures, none of us can do the sums, only the board can.

[/quote]

Which is exactly why they can get away with spinning things however they want and the vast majority just accept it.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Which is exactly why they can get away with spinning things however they want and the vast majority just accept it.[/quote]

Don''t take it lying down Mr Carrow - you obviously care enough about this issue to post about it at 7:24 am, when most of us are trying to work out how to tie our shoelaces or getting toothpaste down our shirts.

What I suggest you do is get together a dossier of the facts of the situation, all in one place.  Then publish them in a location on the information-super-hard-shoulder. A thread here, a facebook group - wherever, you don''t need to be a programmer to get stuff online these days.  Then you can approach this newspaper and other media outlets on the back of your dossier ( I''m sure the East Anglian Daily Times hasn''t had a story about fed-up Norwich fans for a couple of weeks), and ask them to write a hard-hitting piece about "where all the money has gone".  I believe that the evening news has run similar stories in the past.  You can also point people to your dossier (once it''s created) when arguments like this come up, which they seem to regularly. 

Once all the facts are in place ( and I mean facts, not double-counting of transfer fees or the fag packet calculations we''ve both been guilty of in the past ), people can make their own minds up as to whether your opinion is correct.  Unless, of course, you believe that your opinion isn''t based on facts ?  Maybe that''s why you take this "drip-drip", piecemeal approach to "converting the masses" (well, I say masses, I mean 40 bored office workers and the Magical Dave from Lowestoft ) ? 

I guess my point here is - what are you trying to acheive, what is your motivation ?  Why do you financially boycott the club ?  And why do you post so regularly about the same financial stuff ?  Do you seek to remove the incumbents ?  Or do you just want to point them to past errors (which I am fairly certain they are already aware of, just keeping schtum about them and concentrating on not making further errors ) ? 

The sheer bald fact of the matter is that 99.5% of people don''t care about stuff like this unless they can believe that it directly effects them.  Most of the supporters are just getting on with their day, they''re not getting wound up about some other companys'' financial situation.   They pay their money on a Saturday afternoon, shout or doze for 90 minutes with 15 minutes in the middle for a beer or a waz, and then go back to their lives.  

Create a dossier, and you might convince more people of your opinion, which obviously means a lot to you.  Deloitte (who know a few things about football accountancy) would hold Norwich up as a shining example of how to run a club properly though, in a time when 40 football league clubs have gone into administration in the last 15 years.

[GMF 757]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[/quote]

NCFC`s player wages as a percentage of turnover have been reduced from 50% in the promotion season, to 29% in the Prem, then 36% the following season, and 31% last season.  That is way below average.

[/quote]

There was also a significant element of stand building and non football related costs (which we all love to hate) to add into the mix as well, thereby reducing the football spend.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Trent Canary"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

[quote user="Trent Canary"]I blame the wages. Someone a while ago posted our wages/turnover ratio, to say its unhealthy is an understatement. But then so is the vast majority of clubs. Im surprised the sport as a whole gets away with it.[/quote]

There was an interested quote in the paper (I''ve been surfing and can''t find it) a week or so back, from Deliottes, as part of their annual football survey, suggesting that professional clubs should aim for an ideal scenario where players'' wages should be a maximum of 50% of the clubs turnover.    

[/quote]

Thats the general rule for any business Gazza IMO. The stats I read recently had Norwich up around 80% some years, and ive heard that some premiership clubs are the same. Ive always been convinced that the money issues in the game is down to player wages, and its going to take a widespread initiative to curb it, but it wont happen.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1182016/ShowPost.aspx  -Heres the thread here infact, last year Ipswich had a whopping 95% wages to turnover ratio! Now someone please explain to me how thats sustainable? (There is an answer, but its a very unfair and unethical one)

[/quote]

NCFC`s player wages as a percentage of turnover have been reduced from 50% in the promotion season, to 29% in the Prem, then 36% the following season, and 31% last season.  That is way below average.

[/quote]

There was also a significant element of stand building and non football related costs (which we all love to hate) to add into the mix as well, thereby reducing the football spend.

[/quote]

And look at the effect it`s had on the most important thing, the team.  They have had their priorities wrong and it`s time the boards` "obsession" was switched back to creating a competitive football team.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Which is exactly why they can get away with spinning things however they want and the vast majority just accept it.[/quote]

Don''t take it lying down Mr Carrow - you obviously care enough about this issue to post about it at 7:24 am, when most of us are trying to work out how to tie our shoelaces or getting toothpaste down our shirts.

What I suggest you do is get together a dossier of the facts of the situation, all in one place.  Then publish them in a location on the information-super-hard-shoulder. A thread here, a facebook group - wherever, you don''t need to be a programmer to get stuff online these days.  Then you can approach this newspaper and other media outlets on the back of your dossier ( I''m sure the East Anglian Daily Times hasn''t had a story about fed-up Norwich fans for a couple of weeks), and ask them to write a hard-hitting piece about "where all the money has gone".  I believe that the evening news has run similar stories in the past.  You can also point people to your dossier (once it''s created) when arguments like this come up, which they seem to regularly. 

Once all the facts are in place ( and I mean facts, not double-counting of transfer fees or the fag packet calculations we''ve both been guilty of in the past ), people can make their own minds up as to whether your opinion is correct.  Unless, of course, you believe that your opinion isn''t based on facts ?  Maybe that''s why you take this "drip-drip", piecemeal approach to "converting the masses" (well, I say masses, I mean 40 bored office workers and the Magical Dave from Lowestoft ) ? 

I guess my point here is - what are you trying to acheive, what is your motivation ?  Why do you financially boycott the club ?  And why do you post so regularly about the same financial stuff ?  Do you seek to remove the incumbents ?  Or do you just want to point them to past errors (which I am fairly certain they are already aware of, just keeping schtum about them and concentrating on not making further errors ) ? 

The sheer bald fact of the matter is that 99.5% of people don''t care about stuff like this unless they can believe that it directly effects them.  Most of the supporters are just getting on with their day, they''re not getting wound up about some other companys'' financial situation.   They pay their money on a Saturday afternoon, shout or doze for 90 minutes with 15 minutes in the middle for a beer or a waz, and then go back to their lives.  

Create a dossier, and you might convince more people of your opinion, which obviously means a lot to you.  Deloitte (who know a few things about football accountancy) would hold Norwich up as a shining example of how to run a club properly though, in a time when 40 football league clubs have gone into administration in the last 15 years.

[/quote]

Blah, i have probably started less than 10 threads since i`ve been a member.  I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former.

I financially boycott the club because i don`t believe that the boards` priorities are the same as mine- doing everything possible to create a successful football team- and i will not financially back people who are slowly stifling the competitive spirit of the club in favour of nice corporate facilities, restaurants, land speculation etc.

But to be fair Roeder has competitive spirit by the bucketload so it`s an interesting appointment and should be an interesting few months ahead.....

If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example, but then it`s not that difficult to make profits for a few years by selling off your best players and replacing them with cheaper, inferior players.  But then the performance on the pitch declines, player and fan unrest grows, and you end up with a massively devalued squad with no gems to sell for millions struggling against relegation.  Sound familiar?  I`m pretty sure we had exactly this debate over two years ago........[^o)]

[mr carra 0]

"I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former."

But you never provide anything to back up your claims (the key phrase in all that is of course "what I see") and never have any positive suggestions - you just make stuff up and moan.  Because of course its more fun to complain and find somebody to blame (and far far easier than putting things right). 

"If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example"

City DO NOT make massive profits.  This can easily be seen by looking at the actual financial figures.  But you wouldn''t do that of course because facts are the mortal enemy of fantasists like yourself.

 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="mr carra"]

"I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former."

But you never provide anything to back up your claims (the key phrase in all that is of course "what I see") and never have any positive suggestions - you just make stuff up and moan.  Because of course its more fun to complain and find somebody to blame (and far far easier than putting things right). 

"If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example"

City DO NOT make massive profits.  This can easily be seen by looking at the actual financial figures.  But you wouldn''t do that of course because facts are the mortal enemy of fantasists like yourself.

 

[/quote]

What on earth are you wittering on about?  I provided the turnover/player wage percentages above as printed in the accounts.  I would say £12m profit over three financial years is "big" for football clubs wouldn`t you?.  Do you want the exact figures?  Or would you prefer to ignore the facts that you don`t like?

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="mr carra"]

"I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former."

But you never provide anything to back up your claims (the key phrase in all that is of course "what I see") and never have any positive suggestions - you just make stuff up and moan.  Because of course its more fun to complain and find somebody to blame (and far far easier than putting things right). 

"If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example"

City DO NOT make massive profits.  This can easily be seen by looking at the actual financial figures.  But you wouldn''t do that of course because facts are the mortal enemy of fantasists like yourself.

 

[/quote]

What on earth are you wittering on about?  I provided the turnover/player wage percentages above as printed in the accounts.  I would say £12m profit over three financial years is "big" for football clubs wouldn`t you?.  Do you want the exact figures?  Or would you prefer to ignore the facts that you don`t like?

[/quote]Did the club really make £12million over the last three years or is this the "player trading profit".

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="mr carra"]

"I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former."

But you never provide anything to back up your claims (the key phrase in all that is of course "what I see") and never have any positive suggestions - you just make stuff up and moan.  Because of course its more fun to complain and find somebody to blame (and far far easier than putting things right). 

"If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example"

City DO NOT make massive profits.  This can easily be seen by looking at the actual financial figures.  But you wouldn''t do that of course because facts are the mortal enemy of fantasists like yourself.

 

[/quote]

What on earth are you wittering on about?  I provided the turnover/player wage percentages above as printed in the accounts.  I would say £12m profit over three financial years is "big" for football clubs wouldn`t you?.  Do you want the exact figures?  Or would you prefer to ignore the facts that you don`t like?

[/quote]

Come on know-all, lets be `avin ya........

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="mr carra"]

"I almost always post in response to what i see as misunderstandings, misinformation or, bluntly, bulls**t propoganda.  For example, the assumptions on wages above are probably the former."

But you never provide anything to back up your claims (the key phrase in all that is of course "what I see") and never have any positive suggestions - you just make stuff up and moan.  Because of course its more fun to complain and find somebody to blame (and far far easier than putting things right). 

"If the main point of football clubs is to make big profits then City can indeed be held up as a shining example"

City DO NOT make massive profits.  This can easily be seen by looking at the actual financial figures.  But you wouldn''t do that of course because facts are the mortal enemy of fantasists like yourself.

 

[/quote]

What on earth are you wittering on about?  I provided the turnover/player wage percentages above as printed in the accounts.  I would say £12m profit over three financial years is "big" for football clubs wouldn`t you?.  Do you want the exact figures?  Or would you prefer to ignore the facts that you don`t like?

[/quote]Foul Mr Carrow and I suspect you are bright enough to know it. The £12 million figure is both slightly inaccurate and heavily weighted towards the Premiership season. Also it does not reflect the cash account figure that you choose to ignore. It also ignores the significant loss made in the promotion season and the year before.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

SKY MONEY?

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]Had it, spent it.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]

Had it, spent it.
[/quote]

Where?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]

Had it, spent it.
[/quote]

Where?

[/quote]

That would have been the barbeque last season ?  Or the correct answer would be "It''s in the accounts"...

[Mello Yello 2,303]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]

Had it, spent it.
[/quote]

Where?

[/quote]

That would have been the barbeque last season ?  Or the correct answer would be "It''s in the accounts"...

[/quote]

Yes, but I don''t actually have a copy of the "It''s in the accounts".... So therefore, can those who do have a copy, please (and if possible) explain to me where the SKY money''s gone?....Thank You.

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[/quote]

Damn.

Rumbled.

However, in the midst of all this misery, moaning and shuffling along by all the 40-somethings in here, isn''t it good to have a bit of a counter-point ?

[Mello Yello 2,303]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[/quote]

Damn.

Rumbled.

However, in the midst of all this misery, moaning and shuffling along by all the 40-somethings in here, isn''t it good to have a bit of a counter-point ?

[/quote]

I try not to create a midst of misery, preferring instead, to create mirth and friviolity amongst the forlorn, depressed and general malaise ridden forumististist''s....Because I care....and even if I do actually talk a load of $hite an'' bollox.....It does make me feel good about myself.

Now, do you have a copy of the accounts, Waghorn?  

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]Had it, spent it.[/quote]

Where?

[/quote]

That would have been the barbeque last season ?  Or the correct answer would be "It''s in the accounts"...

[/quote]

Yes, but I don''t actually have a copy of the "It''s in the accounts".... So therefore, can those who do have a copy, please (and if possible) explain to me where the SKY money''s gone?....Thank You.

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[/quote]Mello, I don''t think the accounts will actually tell you this as you can witness from Mr Carrow efforts. The only people who really know are the finance dept at Carrow Road. Some of the money has undoubtedly gone in fixing the balance sheet - we did after all lose £8million in the two years before promotion. Some has gone on fixed assets as Mr Carrow will readily point out. A lot has gone on wages - the so called lucrative Prem season only actually gave a profit of £7.6 million which actually only amounted to £700k in cash - the rest going elsewhere on the balance sheet. Some has gone on debt servicing, effectively paying the mortgage.A good illustration of this is 2005/2006 in which City reported a £2.5 million profit. However, that translated to having £1.5 million LESS cash at the end of the year. This indicates that City needed to make a minimum of £4 million before any additional expenditure could be funded. Where this £4 million went is difficult to tell but is likely to be fixed assets & debt repayment.To put this into context this is actually more every year than Marcus Evans paid to buy Ipswich. And this largely explains why no one is actually going to turn up and try and buy out Smith & Jones anytime soon. So the only way out of this is for Roeder to play a blinder, it is all about the football in the end.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Now, do you have a copy of the accounts, Waghorn?  [/quote]

No, I genuinely don''t.  And BigFish explains it better than me anyway.  I bever said I was the chief board butt-kisserer, I''m just a cheerleader me.

And another thing, one minute I''m Doncaster, the next I''m Stinkhorn, make your freaking mind up man [:)]

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]

Had it, spent it.
[/quote]

Where?

[/quote]

That would have been the barbeque last season ?  Or the correct answer would be "It''s in the accounts"...

[/quote]

Yes, but I don''t actually have a copy of the "It''s in the accounts".... So therefore, can those who do have a copy, please (and if possible) explain to me where the SKY money''s gone?....Thank You.

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[/quote]

Mello, I don''t think the accounts will actually tell you this as you can witness from Mr Carrow efforts. The only people who really know are the finance dept at Carrow Road. Some of the money has undoubtedly gone in fixing the balance sheet - we did after all lose £8million in the two years before promotion. Some has gone on fixed assets as Mr Carrow will readily point out. A lot has gone on wages - the so called lucrative Prem season only actually gave a profit of £7.6 million which actually only amounted to £700k in cash - the rest going elsewhere on the balance sheet. Some has gone on debt servicing, effectively paying the mortgage.

A good illustration of this is 2005/2006 in which City reported a £2.5 million profit. However, that translated to having £1.5 million LESS cash at the end of the year. This indicates that City needed to make a minimum of £4 million before any additional expenditure could be funded. Where this £4 million went is difficult to tell but is likely to be fixed assets & debt repayment.

To put this into context this is actually more every year than Marcus Evans paid to buy Ipswich. And this largely explains why no one is actually going to turn up and try and buy out Smith & Jones anytime soon. So the only way out of this is for Roeder to play a blinder, it is all about the football in the end.
[/quote]

BF, in the years from 2001 to 2007 the club have made an overall £9m pre-tax profit (see p.9 of 2006 a.r.).  Ok so thats only about £1.5m per year but most of that has been recent and £2m has been totally wasted in tax.  Can you tell me what is so wise about throwing £2m away?

In 2005/2006 the infrastructure spend was £3.9m which i think answers your point and included a "new ticket office, a new club 101 facility, study support facility, tenanted office facilities for connexions and broadland housing and the start of the spaces for sport project".  Oh, and a new road.  £3.9m well spent when the team is stuck in a downward spiral eh?

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mello Yello"]SKY MONEY?[/quote]Had it, spent it.[/quote]

Where?

[/quote]

That would have been the barbeque last season ?  Or the correct answer would be "It''s in the accounts"...

[/quote]

Yes, but I don''t actually have a copy of the "It''s in the accounts".... So therefore, can those who do have a copy, please (and if possible) explain to me where the SKY money''s gone?....Thank You.

Now Bleurgh, do you have a copy of the accounts, or do you just leap on the boardwagon, holding court with us ''average Joe''s'' with your astounding and infinite wisdom ''of all things Carra'' - in a Waghornesque style....[|-)]

[/quote]Mello, I don''t think the accounts will actually tell you this as you can witness from Mr Carrow efforts. The only people who really know are the finance dept at Carrow Road. Some of the money has undoubtedly gone in fixing the balance sheet - we did after all lose £8million in the two years before promotion. Some has gone on fixed assets as Mr Carrow will readily point out. A lot has gone on wages - the so called lucrative Prem season only actually gave a profit of £7.6 million which actually only amounted to £700k in cash - the rest going elsewhere on the balance sheet. Some has gone on debt servicing, effectively paying the mortgage.A good illustration of this is 2005/2006 in which City reported a £2.5 million profit. However, that translated to having £1.5 million LESS cash at the end of the year. This indicates that City needed to make a minimum of £4 million before any additional expenditure could be funded. Where this £4 million went is difficult to tell but is likely to be fixed assets & debt repayment.To put this into context this is actually more every year than Marcus Evans paid to buy Ipswich. And this largely explains why no one is actually going to turn up and try and buy out Smith & Jones anytime soon. So the only way out of this is for Roeder to play a blinder, it is all about the football in the end.[/quote]

BF, in the years from 2001 to 2007 the club have made an overall £9m pre-tax profit (see p.9 of 2006 a.r.).  Ok so thats only about £1.5m per year but most of that has been recent and £2m has been totally wasted in tax.  Can you tell me what is so wise about throwing £2m away?

In 2005/2006 the infrastructure spend was £3.9m which i think answers your point and included a "new ticket office, a new club 101 facility, study support facility, tenanted office facilities for connexions and broadland housing and the start of the spaces for sport project".  Oh, and a new road.  £3.9m well spent when the team is stuck in a downward spiral eh?

[/quote]Mello''s question was where has the money gone and I ma sure the infrastructure spend you mention gives him some indication. We have had this debate before and probably will again but you remain ignorant of any convenants the club has entered around the securitisation deal as these are commercially confident and none know or are entitled to know this. The idea that NCFC PLC could be run either as profit neutral or at a loss is naive in the extreme. The debt must be repayed and it must be repayed from profits/cash and tax must be paid on those. Hence the fact that the Prem season only produced £700k of cash that you have ignored though I am sure you can find it in the relevant accounts. The answer to the spiral lies on the pitch not in the accounts.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Now, do you have a copy of the accounts, Waghorn?  [/quote]

No, I genuinely don''t.  And BigFish explains it better than me anyway.  I bever said I was the chief board butt-kisserer, I''m just a cheerleader me.

And another thing, one minute I''m Doncaster, the next I''m Stinkhorn, make your freaking mind up man [:)]

[/quote]

You''re the Chameleon......I''m the ''supposed'' Comedian......Let''s just keep it that way.