Todays EDP

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="cityfc"]

Yes I have shares in Norwich but the accounts do not go into enough detail,and as far as I am concerned this board need to clarify where all the money has gone.

[/quote]

Think, non critical fixed assets!

 

[/quote]

 

While Doncaster was very quick to point out in his first EDP column of the season that Delia et al. had all put their hands in their pockets to finance this season''s transfers, what he failed to mention was that off-field activities were contributing to the transfer fund. Now why that oversight? Could it be that all these so-called revenue streams are not actually contributing anything to the transfer kitty? If they were, he would surely trumpet the fact.

Or could it be the big payment due ( I think it''s a million quid) on the second stage of the land deal is eating up all available funds?

As we''re not being told, I''d call his recent column ''spin''.

[Bury Green 0]

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"][quote user="Bury Green"][quote user="blahblahblah"]

You are correct Bury, I am not a shareholder, if another issue comes up and I find myself in the position of being able to burn a few hundred pounds, then I certainly would do so.  What percentage of your personal wealth would you loan the club with no guarantee of return, in exchange for a say in the club then ?  I''m all for an elected fan on the board, I think it would be an excellent idea, Charlton have done it, Plymouth have done it, why not us ?

It seems to me that a fair few of the people who "have a problem" with our incumbents seem to be comfortably off, intelligent people like yourself, Mello, Arthur aswell with his 2 businesses, who have done ok for themselves but haven''t made anywhere near the money that Delia and Mike have, and who think they could do better if they had the chance.  Would that be a fair assessment Bury ? 

[/quote]

 

Strange isn’t it, tell the truth about their tenure of our club and you are accused of being ‘anti club’ all very odd.  

Nothing in my last few posts has been anything other than an observation of facts laid out in accounts which, if applied to the events of the day, will happen once again. 

[/quote]

Maybe in that case you could say precisely where in the accounts it say Cullum is underwriting the loans because I must have missed that bit.

[/quote]

 

Yes that’s right you did miss that bit, well done,  because at no point did I mention it was in the accounts. 

Had you have taken the time to read what I had said you would have discovered that in the past the accounts have clearly shown that when the current majority shareholders have put money into he club it has been by way of a loan that has subsequently been converted into shares and, in all probability, this is what is happening again. 

However this time they have the added security of somebody wanting to acquire their business so with that in mind any money that is loaned to the club would, in all probability, have to be repaid to them in the event of a sale.   

Moving this not difficult to comprehend concept forward, this could be argued dilutes the risk even further and is just like having the loans underwritten, by you’ve guessed it, Peter Cullum.  Peter Cullum, the man who if you have reading this message board and local media of late wants to buy the club. 

Furthermore,  Peter Cullum’s  interest came  after (allegedly) the last set of accounts was issued and the resultant AGM so this would have needed to have more an act of God than an oversight on my part 

Here’s one for you, why do you think they increased the share price at the last AGM then?

 

[GMF 741]

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

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Wasn''t the final profit 90k after tax? Shows that the books pretty much balanced, and that profit on player transfers was necessary to avoid a loss.
[/quote]

Over the last three financial years the club have made a combined £12m pre-tax profit.  Not bad for a "loss-making" club hey?  Oh and the team on the pitch has declined in each one of those years- but then maybe, just maybe, making a profit in whatever way (selling players etc.) is now the most important thing......

[/quote]

Spin it how you want, but quoting the pre-tax figure is misleading because all Clubs have to pay tax. Avoidance may be legal, but evasion isn''t. 

[/quote]

You don`t have to pay tax if you make sure you don`t make a profit.  The treasury has benefitted from a £2m tax gift from NCFC in the last three financial years but how has the club gained from it exactly?  Munby stated in one of the recent annual reports that NCFC are "essentially a not-for-profit business" yet you can`t help but get the feeling that the club would rather gift £2m to the taxman than spend money on the team in recent years.

[/quote]

That''s a very simplistic approach you''re taking there, as you still have to pay tax on your ordinary activities (£188K on £627K profit for the last year) and take account of any deferred tax liabilities / losses b/fwd from previous years. 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

Or could it be the big payment due ( I think it''s a million quid) on the second stage of the land deal is eating up all available funds?

[/quote]

Are you thinking of the loan related to the ex LSE land? Thats £2.5m due to be repaid by December 2008 if i remember correctly from the Annual Report to the 31st May 2007.

[Big Down Under 0]

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

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Wasn''t the final profit 90k after tax? Shows that the books pretty much balanced, and that profit on player transfers was necessary to avoid a loss. [/quote]

Over the last three financial years the club have made a combined £12m pre-tax profit.  Not bad for a "loss-making" club hey?  Oh and the team on the pitch has declined in each one of those years- but then maybe, just maybe, making a profit in whatever way (selling players etc.) is now the most important thing......

[/quote]

Spin it how you want, but quoting the pre-tax figure is misleading because all Clubs have to pay tax. Avoidance may be legal, but evasion isn''t. 

[/quote]

You don`t have to pay tax if you make sure you don`t make a profit.  The treasury has benefitted from a £2m tax gift from NCFC in the last three financial years but how has the club gained from it exactly?  Munby stated in one of the recent annual reports that NCFC are "essentially a not-for-profit business" yet you can`t help but get the feeling that the club would rather gift £2m to the taxman than spend money on the team in recent years.

[/quote]

That''s a very simplistic approach you''re taking there, as you still have to pay tax on your ordinary activities (£188K on £627K profit for the last year) and take account of any deferred tax liabilities / losses b/fwd from previous years. 

[/quote]The losses from the previous two years (pre tax figures) were over 8m I think. Mr Carrow I don''t think I have said we are a loss making club, I have said many times that the traditional ways of balancing the books and funding player budgets are gate receipts and tv money. These days that just isn''t enough, so we have to find other ways to balance the books. Profiting on player sales is one of them.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]
The losses from the previous two years (pre tax figures) were over 8m I think.

[/quote]

BDU.,

Which financial years (seasons) are you referring to?

Off the top of my head as I am not located at home and therefore unable to check the Annual Reports, I thought we made a (pre tax) profit in financial years, 04/05, 05/06 and 06/07.

 

The 04/05 (Premiership season) had a big profit but this was mitigated by losses brought forward from prior years.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

 I have said many times that the traditional ways of balancing the books and funding player budgets are gate receipts and tv money. These days that just isn''t enough, so we have to find other ways to balance the books. Profiting on player sales is one of them.
[/quote]

 

Interesting comment,  trading player registrations was one if not THE ONE way of balancing the books. Just look at the Chase years and he got boo''d out for having the team finish 3rd, 4th and 5th in The Premiership and two FA Cup Semi Finals. Unlike Chase''s era, where the football managers kept refreshing the playing squad with players we could develop and trade, we have allowed the playing squad to run down and hence last seasons close call with relegation.

 

[jetstream 0]

"It is about time it was reported in accounts exactly how much was paid for each player,including breakdown of agents fees,signing on fees etc and also players wages,not just at Norwich but all clubs.This would then show exactly what is happening to money going into clubs,and as we are the ones paying week in week out it is time we knew."

I''m not sure about us having a ''right'' to know any more than I do as a customer of Sainsbury''s. However, I think it''s a good point that football club accounts ought to be more transparent to allay any concerns about possible, ahem, ''irregularities'' - eg Swindon Town and Leeds Utd in the past.

It''s still a very murky world (and I mean football in general. not NCFC in particular).

Whatever happened with Sam Allardyce''s and Harry Redknapp''s possible libel action against the BBC''s Panorama programme?

Gone very quiet on that front.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

`03 and `04 a combined £8m loss (spend on fixed assets in those two years was £16m..... ).  `01, `02, `05, `06 and `07 all profitable.  Overall profit in that period of nearly £6m.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

`01, `02, `05, `06 and `07 all profitable.  Overall profit in that period of nearly £6m.

[/quote]

May I suggest you check 04/05 (Premiership) season as I thought the profit for that season alone was hefty....more than £6m?

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]
The losses from the previous two years (pre tax figures) were over 8m I think.

[/quote]

BDU.,

Which financial years (seasons) are you referring to?

Off the top of my head as I am not located at home and therefore unable to check the Annual Reports, I thought we made a (pre tax) profit in financial years, 04/05, 05/06 and 06/07.

 

The 04/05 (Premiership season) had a big profit but this was mitigated by losses brought forward from prior years.

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Profit 2005    £9.1 million

Profit 2006     £3.06 million

Profit 2007     £627,000

These are all pre tax figures taken from page 17 of the 2006 and 2007 reports.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Thanks Ricardo.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

`01, `02, `05, `06 and `07 all profitable.  Overall profit in that period of nearly £6m.

[/quote]

May I suggest you check 04/05 (Premiership) season as I thought the profit for that season alone was hefty....more than £6m?

[/quote]

Yes it was £9.1m.  I am just making the point that between the year 2000 and 2006 the club made an overall profit before tax of nearly £6m.  Actually it`s £6.3m if you include `07s £600k profit.  Between `00 and `07 the club spent £32m on fixed assets (P.8 `06 annual report).

I think this is clear evidence that our board has two priorities: making a profit, and investing as much as possible in fixed assets.  The team comes a distant third.  But then the first two are underwriting Delias £30 per share demand........

[O.T.B.C 0]

What is it after tax though?

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]What is it after tax though?[/quote]

2005   £7.62 million

2006   £2.48 miliion

2007   £90,529

 

[O.T.B.C 0]

Cheers Ric, I do get the report, but it is too far in my closet.