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

[Mr.Carrow 378]

BF, you`re right that the securitisation does seem to be a grey area we can only speculate about, but to be honest if the board commited the club to a deal which meant the club absolutely HAD to turn a profit each year, then even more serious questions need to be asked of them.  Surely the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  I doubt it`s the case personally, and it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  The £2m tax payments make it look as though the board would rather gift millions to the treasury than "waste" it on the team.......

I agree with your last sentence, but where i think i differ from you and blahx3 is that i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  The truth is that constructive criticism from the likes of you two would carry far more weight with them than the likes of me who they would just dismiss as being a negative anti-boarder.

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time. 

... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division. 

[/quote]Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn''t think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder''s borrow half a team is the future?

[Mello Yello 2,303]

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

... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time. 

... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division. 

[/quote]

Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn''t think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder''s borrow half a team is the future?
[/quote]

Maybe we can assist with filling the ''Black Hole'' with an old double decker bus? I''m slightly concerned though....because there are a few ''black holes'' suddenly appearing in various roads in Norwich. Do you think ''Black Holiness'' disease, is emanating from Carrow Road? Jeepers Creepers! I honestly thought I saw the Darth Donkster - driving a jet-black JCB down Newmarket Road a few nights ago. He was closely followed by the Ncfc board, clinging to a heavy-plant mobile drill - giggling and making merriment, and shouting "Let''s go and dig another one!" as Delia in stitches - tried to keep it on the road....allegedly.[:P] 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

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

... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time. 

... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division. 

[/quote]

Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn''t think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder''s borrow half a team is the future?
[/quote]

BF, i suppose your outlook is "we are where we are, and we have to deal with it" and mine is "we shouldn`t be where we are and those who made the decisions either need to hold their hands up, admit their cock-ups and try to rectify the situation- or go".  Ok, so it`s the blame game, but in my experience directors and C.E.`s at any company face scrutiny, difficult questions and often open shareholder revolt if they allow the performance of their core product to dramatically decline.  Why should NCFC be any different?

And i don`t think things are as set-in-stone as you seem to be making out.  B.Skipper stated that there were ways for the club to raise considerable funds if so desired, there is the wild-card of the land (maybe a director loan to be redeemed on sale of?).  In theory the £3m due by the end of this year on the land/infill loans could be put back a year or two to free up a fair amount for Roeder to spend this year? 

We`ve all seen what an ultra-prudent, verging on paranoid approach to team strengthening can lead to.  It is, in itself, a big gamble because if you try to stand still, more ambitious clubs jump ahead of you- and i was saying this three years ago.  Football is all about risks of different types and proportions, you can`t duck out of them.  The boards` gamble has lead to inertia and decline and they must have the courage to make a different kind of gamble to try to reverse it.

[GMF 757]

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

... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time. 

... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division. 

[/quote]

Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn''t think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder''s borrow half a team is the future?
[/quote]

BF, i suppose your outlook is "we are where we are, and we have to deal with it" and mine is "we shouldn`t be where we are and those who made the decisions either need to hold their hands up, admit their cock-ups and try to rectify the situation- or go".  Ok, so it`s the blame game, but in my experience directors and C.E.`s at any company face scrutiny, difficult questions and often open shareholder revolt if they allow the performance of their core product to dramatically decline.  Why should NCFC be any different?

And i don`t think things are as set-in-stone as you seem to be making out.  B.Skipper stated that there were ways for the club to raise considerable funds if so desired, there is the wild-card of the land (maybe a director loan to be redeemed on sale of?).  In theory the £3m due by the end of this year on the land/infill loans could be put back a year or two to free up a fair amount for Roeder to spend this year? 

We`ve all seen what an ultra-prudent, verging on paranoid approach to team strengthening can lead to.  It is, in itself, a big gamble because if you try to stand still, more ambitious clubs jump ahead of you- and i was saying this three years ago.  Football is all about risks of different types and proportions, you can`t duck out of them.  The boards` gamble has lead to inertia and decline and they must have the courage to make a different kind of gamble to try to reverse it.

[/quote]

I don''t there are many who disagree with the fact that we should be doing a lot better than we are. The often quoted aim after promotion was along the lines of, "if we do get relegated, we''ll come back with a stronger team". That simply didn''t happen.

Football clubs do, however, differ significantly from your ordinary plc''s. There isn''t an open market for the shares, so there''s no daily measure of share price, or dividend pay outs against which to measure corporate performance. Also, from our perspective, the main board members, Doncaster excepted, aren''t involved in the day to day running of the Club. And, maybe, that''s one of the reasons why they are "sheltered" from the day to day perfomance of the Club, where it really matters on the pitch.

That''s not intended to sound like a defence for their performance, more a reality check.

Barry Skippers comments were, indeed, enligtening. Refinancing of the existing securitisation deal should not of been impossible in the past. Yes, there would have been exit penalties, but, undoubtley, there would have been cheaper deals available, certainly before summer last year. Addtionally, the limited increase in authorised share capital, whilst a step in the right direction, would only raise less than a £1M if fully taken up. If they were being truely agressive they could have doubled the authorised share capital, thereby giving the Turners, or anyone else for that matter, the opportunity to put considerably more capital into the business. 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

GazzaTCC, but surely we have to ask why those steps were not taken?  Are the board too arrogant to admit they have got it wrong and so change course?  If so, surely they need more pressure on them, not less?  There seems to be a perception that the board are running the club out of the charitable goodness of their heart, but Doncaster is very well paid and the Smiths` loans have been converted into increasingly valuable shares (given balance-sheet growth and increasing interest in championship clubs).  I really do wonder whether "the good of the club" is the primary driving force these days........

I suppose that if some kind of financial restructuring has taken place (or new money invested) to give Roeder a fighting chance this summer the board will rightly keep it quiet and the only indication we will have will be from the calibre of player Roeder is bidding for.  Time will tell, but when the likes of Notts.Forest can come up and bid £2.5m for one Prem player you have to be worried......

[lappinitup 629]

Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group.

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group.[/quote]

Putting pressure on the board & CEO would require shareholder pressure. The majority of the shareholding would support the status quo so that is a bit of a non-starter.

Customer (i.e. fans) can protest as much as they like but until someone comes up with a coherent Plan B it is all rather hopeless.

[lappinitup 629]

My point exactly BF, which makes me ask why Mr Carrow is repeatedly asking for pressure but failing to explain in more detail.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group.[/quote]

I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond.

I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask?

[lappinitup 629]

Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said.....

''''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''''  followed by your last post.....

''''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much. 

Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don''t really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''''pressured into a change in approach'''' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here.

My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.

 

[arrdee 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group.[/quote]

I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond.

I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask?

[/quote]

Now Mr Carrow , you are such a lovely old boy , and indeed one of the sweetest sugar coated barley twists ever and of course you have set yourself up as as the potentate of the Norwich City accounts which is all very laudable and splendid and I can understand your devotee''s hanging on to your every utterance concerning the commerce of the club .

The question I ask you is do you know anything about football at all ? arrdee.

[arrdee 2]

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

[quote user="lappinitup"]Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group.[/quote]

I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond.

I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask?

[/quote]

Now Mr Carrow , you are such a lovely old boy , and indeed one of the sweetest sugar coated barley twists ever and of course you have set yourself up as as the potentate of the Norwich City accounts which is all very laudable and splendid and I can understand your devotee''s hanging on to your every utterance concerning the commerce of the club .

The question I ask you is do you know anything about football at all ? arrdee.

[/quote]

Well that appears to have killed this tread off . arrdee.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said.....

''''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''''  followed by your last post.....

''''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much. 

Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don''t really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''''pressured into a change in approach'''' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here.

My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.

 

[/quote]

If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue?

[BigFish 1,988]

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

Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said.....

''''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''''  followed by your last post.....

''''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much. 

Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don''t really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''''pressured into a change in approach'''' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here.

My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.

[/quote]

If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue?

[/quote]

This circles the real issue which is effectively that there is no alternative approach on the table. Until there is whether we are happy with the current approach or not is largely irrelevant. This is where we are and what we have to live with.

And no, anyone who suggests the answer is throwing a lot of someone else''s money at the club is not coming up with a alternative approach.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said.....

''''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''''  followed by your last post.....

''''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much. 

Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don''t really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''''pressured into a change in approach'''' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here.

My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.

[/quote]

If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue?

[/quote]

This circles the real issue which is effectively that there is no alternative approach on the table. Until there is whether we are happy with the current approach or not is largely irrelevant. This is where we are and what we have to live with.

And no, anyone who suggests the answer is throwing a lot of someone else''s money at the club is not coming up with a alternative approach.

[/quote]

So was Barry Skipper lying then BF?  In terms of restructuring the finances to free up some money, where there`s a will there`s a way- and i think you know it.  The problem is that taking such a drastic step would be a tacit admission on the boards` part that they have got it wrong, and they are too arrogant to go there.

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said.....

''''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''''  followed by your last post.....

''''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much. 

Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don''t really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''''pressured into a change in approach'''' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here.

My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.

[/quote]

If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue?

[/quote]

This circles the real issue which is effectively that there is no alternative approach on the table. Until there is whether we are happy with the current approach or not is largely irrelevant. This is where we are and what we have to live with.

And no, anyone who suggests the answer is throwing a lot of someone else''s money at the club is not coming up with a alternative approach.

[/quote]

So was Barry Skipper lying then BF?  In terms of restructuring the finances to free up some money, where there`s a will there`s a way- and i think you know it.  The problem is that taking such a drastic step would be a tacit admission on the boards` part that they have got it wrong, and they are too arrogant to go there.

[/quote]

I wouldn''t suggest that for a moment but I think it plays to optimism that something can be done easily. The current approach has included regular financial restructuring such as the conversion of loans to shares and many of these have freed up "some money". It is very much what you would expect from any PLC. What I don''t see it giving you is what you want or even that it is in fact a tacit admission.

[GMF 757]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, but surely we have to ask why those steps were not taken?  Are the board too arrogant to admit they have got it wrong and so change course?  If so, surely they need more pressure on them, not less?  There seems to be a perception that the board are running the club out of the charitable goodness of their heart, but Doncaster is very well paid and the Smiths` loans have been converted into increasingly valuable shares (given balance-sheet growth and increasing interest in championship clubs).  I really do wonder whether "the good of the club" is the primary driving force these days........

I suppose that if some kind of financial restructuring has taken place (or new money invested) to give Roeder a fighting chance this summer the board will rightly keep it quiet and the only indication we will have will be from the calibre of player Roeder is bidding for.  Time will tell, but when the likes of Notts.Forest can come up and bid £2.5m for one Prem player you have to be worried......

[/quote]

Absoultely right Mr Carrow, that was exactly what Barry Skipper was doing, and, if you read my posts, I''m endorsing.

Firms usually refinance because, either, their exisitng deals are approaching expiry and / or because finance markets have moved in the right direction and cheaper deals are available.

Do I think they''ve missed an opportuinty? Yes, probably they have. Could they refinance now and get the same deal as twelve months ago? No, almost certainly not. I don''t think I''ve said anywhere that that''s a reason to exert less pressure on the Board, but message boards like this aren''t the way to do it.

[Mello Yello 2,303]

I wonder if we''d be having this discussion/thread - if we had been relegated?