Should Adults Expect Their Toys To Be Paid For By Others?

[T 190]

Yes the audited accounts do show that the catering business makes a profit. Besides I understood that Delia has funded the catering business personally. Seems likes someone needs to to put his toys back in the pram, gain a basic understanding of finance and look at the facts before throwing a tantrum. That way they might be convincing rather than displaying their ignorance.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="T"]Yes the audited accounts do show that the catering business makes a profit. Besides I understood that Delia has funded the catering business personally. Seems likes someone needs to to put his toys back in the pram, gain a basic understanding of finance and look at the facts before throwing a tantrum. That way they might be convincing rather than displaying their ignorance.[/quote]

I think you are right but I wouldn''t hold my breath!

Whilst in the real world, did you see the post about Reading by AndyJR - see link below. It started of in it''s own thread but got merged which is a great shame as it is one of the more sensible things tht I have seen on here recently (including my own posts!) Worth a look if you haven''t seen it.

http://new.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1365050/ShowPost.aspx

[corbs 0]

Reasons to be cheerful. 1. We are not run like Man U, Chelsea, L''pool or Man City 2. We are ''little'' Norwich and do different.

[T 190]

Cheers Badger for the reference and the original poster. Nice to know there is still some interesting stuff on here amongst the dross - I actually do not blame the players or sky for that matter but think it is the distribution of the TV money that is creating a distorted playing field. That is the real underlying issue and that will not change who ever is on the board.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="T"]

...or to play devil''s advocate everyone could  increase the amount that they pay for their tickets three fold so that we have the same income as those clubs with parachute payments and then the fans could justifiable say that they DESERVE to be competing in the top 6. But to answer the original question it does appear that they are many who expect others to put far much more money in than they do in relative and absolute terms. If they detest those who contribute more than themselves I wonder what they think about themselves?

 

[/quote]

 

I have already stated that I would happily pay more on top of my season ticket IF the board had it written in legally that the extra revenue would go to the playing squad.  It would have to be written legally because I don''t trust this lot as far as I can throw them.

[KeelansGlove 0]

Talking about facts and then saying "I understood" is a contradiction to say the least !

I must admit I haven''t searched the club accounts regarding the new kitchens restuarants and refirbishments. I would be very pleased if these were all finaced by Delia but I somehow doubt it unless it was yet another loan to be converted inot overpriced shares at some point.

Also the other question is ahilst the accounts may show that the Catering department makes a profit it is all relative to the costs and the period of depreciation

Ie if you spent a million and it took ten years to get back the original investment but you spread the cost over 20 years to show a profit.

 

[T 190]

Not having a go just pointing out that keep seeing posts saying that we deserve better with our big crowds which I totally sympathise with but unfortunately for us league position depends far more on the amount of TV money and how much rich sugar daddies are willing to throw away on football clubs (e.g. the quote of the Reading chairman about the best way to make a million is to put 10m into a football club is particularly apt.)

 

 

[Badger 0]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]

Also the other question is ahilst the accounts may show that the Catering department makes a profit it is all relative to the costs and the period of depreciation

Ie if you spent a million and it took ten years to get back the original investment but you spread the cost over 20 years to show a profit.

[/quote]

True - depreciation periods are relevant but still must be a net revenue generator (after initial outgoing).

It''s years since I studies any accountancy, but as accounts are externally audited, there can''t be too much dodgy dealing or people would end up in prison! Isn''t it governed by principles of "fair and accurate," consistency and other conventions?

It needs someone better qualified in this field than myself but I suspect that the profit figures are genuine.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

...or to play devil''s advocate everyone could  increase the amount that they pay for their tickets three fold so that we have the same income as those clubs with parachute payments and then the fans could justifiable say that they DESERVE to be competing in the top 6. But to answer the original question it does appear that they are many who expect others to put far much more money in than they do in relative and absolute terms. If they detest those who contribute more than themselves I wonder what they think about themselves?

 

[/quote]

T, the fact that we didn`t have a realistic go for promotion when we had parachute payments is one of the main factors which has lead people to doubt the board.  And predictably enough it`s now "how can we compete with the clubs with parachute payments?".....you couldn`t make it up.

By the way, there are only 6 clubs with parachute payments, so with our superior crowds and mythical profits from off-pitch activities (you ignore the enormous wage bill) we should easily be competing in the top 10 with a decent chance of nicking a play-off spot at the end of the season, right?  Has that been the case in the last three seasons?  Is it likely this season?

As far as price rises go, the board have already demonstrated their unwillingness to spend reasonable amounts on the pitch when gifted millions in parachute payments and player sales, so why on earth should we give them more money to buy more land or the planned multi-storey carpark?

[T 190]

KG and that is why I said "I understood" which means that is my understanding from other posts but I do not know hat for a fact where as profitability is a fact. You are quite right that there are a difference between cash flows and profits and it is the cashflows that matter but in the end they by definition equate over time and it is just a question of when you recognise the cash as profit. But having studied the accounts the whole catering discussion is much a do about not a lot. Far more significant is the amount of TV money or not and the amount of money or not that the owners inject into football clubs.

[T 190]

Mr C - pretty much agree with you on your main points -  we badly underperformed when we had the parachute payments  and I would also guess that we are now about 10th in the league in financial terms. Probably after the 6 with parachute payments and qpr there are another 10 clubs in fairly similar financial position

[T 190]

...and I don''t ignore the enomous wage bill - a couple of million was for the mgmt team but as I''ve said before you raise a valid question as it did surprise me when you pointed out how much the other wage costs are in comparison in the players staff costs last year.

If a car park generates net income so that we can spend more on players it is a good thing - if it generates negative cash flows it is a bad thing.

[YankeeCanary 0]

I appreciate that Badger provided the shortcut above ( thanks Badger ) but I think this excellent post fits on to this thread in its own right.

Strange what some people think of Doncaster, for instance most people would agree with what''s written below, yet if he was to say it, he would be slated.  Just an observation.

Madejski right to hit out at wages

• Paul Fletcher

• 19 Aug 08, 08:49 PM

Reading chairman John Madejski once said that the best way to make a million in football is to invest 10 million, the suggestion being that for whatever reason the other nine disappears along the way.

It would be a fair assumption that the Royals chairman had players'' wages in mind to at least some degree.

After all, as far back as May 2003 he opined from his luxury home: "There are three things wrong with football: players'' wages, players'' wages and players'' wages. If you sort that out, you sort football out as far as I''m concerned."

As such I guess nobody should have been all that surprised when the 67-year-old recently told BBC Radio Berkshire that footballer''s wages are "obscene".

"I think players are paid quite enough already and they don''t need to be as high as they are," said the man who made his substantial fortune as the founder of Auto Trader.

"I''m pleased they get good salaries - that''s only right - but it''s gone off the Richter scale."

I''ve spoken to a couple of Reading fans about this and I wouldn''t say it was exactly the news they wanted to hear. They are more than familiar with Madejski''s fiscal prudence and his theories on the salaries of his key assets.

What they what to hear is that most of the £8.5m raised from the sale of David Kitson to Stoke and Nicky Shorey to Aston Villa will be reinvested in the transfer market.

It isn''t going to happen.

Reading received a parachute payment of £11m but Madejski reckons relegation from the Premier League cost his club £22m. What''s more, he has made it clear that plenty of funds have been used in extensive "remedial work" on the stadium. Add to that the large squad of players at the club and reduced season ticket sales of 14,000 and the owner has a strong case for suggesting that the club need to "cut our coat according to our cloth."

I''ve been told that the staff at the club took a substantial pay cut as a consequence of relegation, while the cash raised from the sale of players will be used to underpin the deficit incurred as a result of Reading dropping out of the Premier League.

I think there is a lot to admire in a chairman running his club with a very definite eye on the bottom line. Football is littered with tales of boom and bust, ridiculous overspending and chronic mismanagement. Fans want to hear about exciting new arrivals, though surely not as much as they don''t want to hear about their club entering administration.

But is Madejski correct when he suggests that the biggest problem in football is players'' wages?

I have trouble computing the supposed figures involved in Frank Lampard''s new contract at Chelsea. Can any sportsman be worth a reported £150,000 per week?

Some would suggest that football is now entertainment, not to mention a business of supply and demand. Footballers are the stars of the show, the reason people pass through the turnstiles and buy replica shirts and all the other merchandise that is now available, and if a club is generating huge sums of money as they mine ever-expanding markets then why shouldn''t players be paid their slice of the pie?

And to an extent I think the aforementioned argument holds water. The top players in the Premier League are the faces of global brands, superstars. Whether they are cosseted, pampered and spoilt with no idea of what it is to be a normal human being is another argument entirely.

But what about wages in the Football League?

A survey in 2006 revealed that the average Championship footballer earns £195,750 per year, or to put it another way £3,764 a week. The figure dropped to £67,850 in League One and £49,600 in League Two.

I would be absolutely staggered if there were no footballers in the Championship earning at least £20,000 per week - just over £1m each year.

You could argue that if your club brought in a top player who made the difference between promotion and a near miss, then he would certainly be worth every penny of a £1m a year contract. But how many of these are there in the Championship? Not many.

And as I have read story after story over the summer months of managers talking about their frustrations in the transfer market because players are waiting on deals, hoping something better will come along, it underlines the belief that for most footballers, or their agents or a combination of the two, cash is a prime motivation. Yes, footballers have short careers and must look after their own interests, but the relationship between club and cash is one that often ruptures a player''s loyalty.

Looking at the bigger picture can it really be right that a footballer in the second tier of the English game earns so much for playing football when so many other people in unquestionably important professions, people who save lives, or educate children or serve the public in so many other ways, earn a pittance in comparison? It is part of the reason why my Dad no longer bothers to watch the team he supports, the price of admission being another key factor. The argument sounds a bit worthy but that doesn''t mean it isn''t right.

I think Madejski is right when he says that salaries have gone off the Richter scale. Do you?

[YankeeCanary 0]

I should have stated that the above opost was supplied by AndyJR. Thanks Andy. Great input.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

I appreciate that Badger provided the shortcut above ( thanks Badger ) but I think this excellent post fits on to this thread in its own right.

Strange what some people think of Doncaster, for instance most people would agree with what''s written below, yet if he was to say it, he would be slated.  Just an observation.Madejski right to hit out at wages

• Paul Fletcher

• 19 Aug 08, 08:49 PM

Reading chairman John Madejski once said that the best way to make a million in football is to invest 10 million, the suggestion being that for whatever reason the other nine disappears along the way.

It would be a fair assumption that the Royals chairman had players'' wages in mind to at least some degree.

After all, as far back as May 2003 he opined from his luxury home: "There are three things wrong with football: players'' wages, players'' wages and players'' wages. If you sort that out, you sort football out as far as I''m concerned."

As such I guess nobody should have been all that surprised when the 67-year-old recently told BBC Radio Berkshire that footballer''s wages are "obscene".

"I think players are paid quite enough already and they don''t need to be as high as they are," said the man who made his substantial fortune as the founder of Auto Trader.

"I''m pleased they get good salaries - that''s only right - but it''s gone off the Richter scale."

I''ve spoken to a couple of Reading fans about this and I wouldn''t say it was exactly the news they wanted to hear. They are more than familiar with Madejski''s fiscal prudence and his theories on the salaries of his key assets.

What they what to hear is that most of the £8.5m raised from the sale of David Kitson to Stoke and Nicky Shorey to Aston Villa will be reinvested in the transfer market.

It isn''t going to happen.

Reading received a parachute payment of £11m but Madejski reckons relegation from the Premier League cost his club £22m. What''s more, he has made it clear that plenty of funds have been used in extensive "remedial work" on the stadium. Add to that the large squad of players at the club and reduced season ticket sales of 14,000 and the owner has a strong case for suggesting that the club need to "cut our coat according to our cloth."

I''ve been told that the staff at the club took a substantial pay cut as a consequence of relegation, while the cash raised from the sale of players will be used to underpin the deficit incurred as a result of Reading dropping out of the Premier League.

I think there is a lot to admire in a chairman running his club with a very definite eye on the bottom line. Football is littered with tales of boom and bust, ridiculous overspending and chronic mismanagement. Fans want to hear about exciting new arrivals, though surely not as much as they don''t want to hear about their club entering administration.

But is Madejski correct when he suggests that the biggest problem in football is players'' wages?

I have trouble computing the supposed figures involved in Frank Lampard''s new contract at Chelsea. Can any sportsman be worth a reported £150,000 per week?

Some would suggest that football is now entertainment, not to mention a business of supply and demand. Footballers are the stars of the show, the reason people pass through the turnstiles and buy replica shirts and all the other merchandise that is now available, and if a club is generating huge sums of money as they mine ever-expanding markets then why shouldn''t players be paid their slice of the pie?

And to an extent I think the aforementioned argument holds water. The top players in the Premier League are the faces of global brands, superstars. Whether they are cosseted, pampered and spoilt with no idea of what it is to be a normal human being is another argument entirely.

But what about wages in the Football League?

A survey in 2006 revealed that the average Championship footballer earns £195,750 per year, or to put it another way £3,764 a week. The figure dropped to £67,850 in League One and £49,600 in League Two.

I would be absolutely staggered if there were no footballers in the Championship earning at least £20,000 per week - just over £1m each year.

You could argue that if your club brought in a top player who made the difference between promotion and a near miss, then he would certainly be worth every penny of a £1m a year contract. But how many of these are there in the Championship? Not many.

And as I have read story after story over the summer months of managers talking about their frustrations in the transfer market because players are waiting on deals, hoping something better will come along, it underlines the belief that for most footballers, or their agents or a combination of the two, cash is a prime motivation. Yes, footballers have short careers and must look after their own interests, but the relationship between club and cash is one that often ruptures a player''s loyalty.

Looking at the bigger picture can it really be right that a footballer in the second tier of the English game earns so much for playing football when so many other people in unquestionably important professions, people who save lives, or educate children or serve the public in so many other ways, earn a pittance in comparison? It is part of the reason why my Dad no longer bothers to watch the team he supports, the price of admission being another key factor. The argument sounds a bit worthy but that doesn''t mean it isn''t right.

I think Madejski is right when he says that salaries have gone off the Richter scale. Do you?[/quote]if you''re relying on the support of big john to prove your point, then imo you''re argument is as weak as i thought...raddy is a serial moaner - he moaned about players wages in the champs, then moaned about players wages when he got in the prem, and famously wanted to be bought out there and then, he''s now moaning - guess what, about players wages!!! he''s more of a drama queen than our own culinary queen imo...fraid big john did ok when he was a big fish in a small pond, investing just enough more than his rivals to attain success, but after their first and best season in the prem, they sold the heartbeat of the team, sidwell, failed to replace him and went down...his moaning is a smokescreen imo for failing to properly invest in the prem 2nd season, and now this time around after relegation - and it seems the reading fans have seen through him and voting their feet, unlike the loyal carra rd crowd...big john will find it going in the champs this season, there''s more teams with more investors prepared to spend to match their prem ambition...btw - isn''t NCFC''s player wage bill one of the lowest in the league, when compared as part of their turnover???  prudent yeah - but ambitious - no...

[Morph 19]

So LGT and others on this thread, should the directors continue to throw their own money into the pot in the pursuit of attaining the Premiership?How much? At what point do they consider the money you want them to put in, a bad investment?There seems to be an undercurrent of feeling that somebody with deep pockets has to underwrite the pursuit of success. Why do people feel that? If it was a venture capitalist they would want some percentage of the company and some hope of seeing a return on their investment. Why do people think that people investing in a football club are any different?If any of you had £20M to throw into the pot would you simply hand it over to City without any hope of some return?The club is £20M in debt - how much is that costing the club per year to maintain?. Up to 50% of the club''s turnover goes into funding the playing and non-playing staff at the club. See: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_norwich.htm. Or: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/

[KeelansGlove 0]

As I said before I am not an accountant but I would be very interested to know how much money has been invested into catering and refurbishment at carrow road and if has been suggested by some that this has been somehow finaced by Delia herself (although I presume this is unlikely unless in a similar way to other investments it is in the form of loans that continue to be applied to the club)

Whilst the catering may "be showing a profit" it all depends on the original outlay and how long the "profit" from catering enterprises will take to pay off the costs

ie if a million pounds was spent and depreciated over 10 years we would need to continue the same level of income for that period to show the profit suggested otherwise it becomes a loss. certainly as i have stated on other threads if Delia sold out the likelyhood would be that without the Delia brand catering incomes would reduce probably making these investments white elephants.

Compare this with spending a million on a good striker (if you have a decent manager to pick one) that can improve revenues short term and even if success is not achieved would be an asset that could be realised bringing in funds for future rebuilding.

I really think this is where things have gone wrong over the last 10 years.

Whilst I am the first to admit Mr Chase had a great run of luck during the eighties we bought decent players to replace the ones we sold for good money and invariably they were then available to sell on a season or two down the road.

The 2 major playing investments we have made Ie Ashton and Earnshaw did not work out too badly whereas the cheap options of Thorne Brown etc were just money down the drain.

I would dearly love to be able to walk away and forget it but of course football is a drug and not easy to wean yourself off despite the dissapointments. This is a major factor in the fact that the board can still sell 20,000 season tickets but serve up dire football.

It isnt about the money its about the frustration and dissapointment the success or failure of Norwich city affects my whole mood, a good win at the weekend and im on top of the world. humiliating loss and I will be in a bad mood all weekend.

I would equate Delia more to a drug dealer where we need to get our fix regardless of the quality but there is a chance more and more of us will kick the habit if she doesn''t improve the supply.

All we expect is hope and right now I cannot find any I do believe we are close to having a squad capable of keeping us in this division comfortably but without the balls to put the final piece of the jigsaw in all Roeders work on defence and midfield will count for nothing.

I am not one of the we must be in the premiership types I would be happy to be competative in this league but I fear we may be sliding to a repeat of our premiership season but one league lower.

If you cant stand the heat Delia get out of the kitchen and dont expect a profit on your 4 Million investment as we are worse off than when you took over in almost every way.

Bigger Debt , Poorer players no more of Mr Chases investments to sell off to improve team or facilities.

People talk about being worried that some foriegn investor would come in and asset strip the club , no fear of that its been done already

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

My life is not perfect but I try to focus on all the things I have to thankful for. This is not difficult given what some of my fellow human beings around the globe have to endure in their daily lives. Far too many in the world still have to focus on whether they will have enough food the next day in order to ensure their survival. Most of us in our parts of the world have no such difficulty. We have more than enough to feed ourselves with money left over to provide us with the "toys" in life.

One of my toys is to play golf, which I love for a lot of reasons. Another is to pay for premium cable so that I can watch my beloved game of football from England and other countries. These are my responsilities to pay for. Sometimes my golf game is not so great, on infrequent occasions some of my playing partners display lack of anger management on the course. There are also days when the weather does not cooperate after starting the round. Some of the football games I watch are dull, while others are filled with excitement. Regardless, I accept the ups and downs along with the costs of "my toys" and, if I reach the point where I am dissatisfied with my choices, then there are lots of other pursuits I can choose to follow.

Like most of you, I am disappointed that NCFC are not yet where we would like them to be. However, one of the things that most disappoints me about my fellow Norwich fans posting on this forum is when their words suggest that their "toys" should be subsidized by someone else''s money almost as an entitlement. I mostly abhor the negativity thrown at Delia and Michael because they are running the club under its own steam power financially. I see some of the frustrated comments that Ipswich can afford to buy Ameobi where Norwich cannot. I wonder how the small business merchants who lost their money in the last Ipswich financial meltdown feel about the matter. The fury, on the part of some, in believing that Peter Cullum''s money should be courted so it can be spent on high quality "toys". Not all posters are cut from the same cloth, but there are more than enough that just want their football club to move to a higher level, irrespective of whose money is used to fund it. I understand when I see the young posting such comments. I am most disappointed when it''s the older fans calling for someone else''s money to pay for their toys. Yes, I know, for those of you that buy your season ticket you feel you''ve already done your bit, but you''ve done it at Championship cost. There will be up seasons and down seasons and, for the past three, you''ve been paying for a down cycle. But you had the choice. You still do. That''s your right. What is not your right is to expect that someone else will pay for what you want. It is your right to hope that a hard-nosed business person takes the reins at Carrow Road, and pushes the club to greater heights. However, it would be foolhardy to believe that this will be accomplished without those more expensive toys putting a big dent in your own pocket. 

    

[/quote]if you can''t  beat ''em - join ''em...and delia and co have shown that they are unable to compete...sorry to say you''re  a good 15 years or so behind the times - no one likes the crazy world of footy finances, but they are a fact, just as is our steady decline under the smiths tenure...and those on this message board who support your line of reasoning are clearly also ignoring the realities of these pervailing economic conditions......when the chips are down, the need to be flexible in the face of changing market conditions is vital to be successful - make no mistake,,,those who are crying in their beer cos the world is such a foolish,imperfect and nasty place will not get us competing credibly for the prem, not now, not next or by the end of our ''3 year plan...'' under these current market conditions, its reasonable to assume  a champs club could go bust this season - cos many are chasing the prem dream with only 3 places available - they all can''t win...but surely, many of the new breed of footy club owners already knew they could lose their dosh before they signed their first cheque - but i presume the ''toys'' (footy clubs) of the super rich are viewed rather as race-horces and other such gambling hobbies - they could uncover a gem and be ultra-succesful, whilst equally, they could bomb - its a risk they are prepared to accept as ''adults'' - unlike our club owners - sure the smiths have invested a limited amount in the club, but they want a full return plus profit (valuing the club at £53m)??? and in the normal world of economics, this is of course quite right and proper behaviour - but in the footy world of economics as is, many it seems are perepared to lose...but the businessman who invests in a racehorse of good breeding, is  reasonably  hopeful of some race success - in a direct relationship to how much they spend - the more expensive the horse, the better its breeding, the more credible its chance of winning races...and this example is also true of football players - its irrational to believe otherwise...if you spend nowt - your expectation must reasonably and rationally be based on little more than ''hope'',,,and the ''chance'' of upsetting the odds and being successful - imo, this is where NCFC resides presently - in the catagory of ''hopeful'' - nothing more, nothing less - so lets all ''hope'' we surpass our rational expectations of where we will finish this season, and that roedy produces another miracle and we get into the top 6!!!   its clear roedy has had a meagre budget from the city board for this window - it looks like we''ve spent £2-3m and i doubt if wages will be more than last season...roedy has done well with these resources, but he hasn''t assembled a credible promotion team - in any commentators opinion...and the fact that lampard has secured a £36m 5 year contract is nauseating from a NCFC perspective - bully for him, but imagine if roedy had such a transfer budget for the next 5 years!!! it just goes to show that we are a universe away from the world of the prems top4 - as are many of the teams in the prem...yet the top 4 spend the most to get the quality players they need to stay there/// the miserly wenger may find others overtake him this year, we shall see!!!so - even in the prem, man city have borrowed £35m - set against future TV income - to which a man city spokesman suggested 15 other prem clubs were doing the same.,/ but they do it in order to compete - hoping the money they spend will keep them from relegation into the champs,,,yep its a twisted situaaasshun to the normal rational mind, but if the sky money went west - this pack of cards would collaspe in the blink of an eye...i''m not asking the smiths to dig deeper - they''ve had a good go in the past, but its blatantly obvious they are way outa their depth in the current market conditions - they should admit they are ill prepared to operate in this market, to move aside and let those who are prepared to speculate to accumulate have a punt - and to put a fair value on the club to attract such interested parties...whats so unreasonable about expecting NCFC to be in the prem - as roedy says, we have a prem ground, prem set-up, prem facilites, a prem standard pitch, a prem crowd - but also he never mentions - a realsitic and credible ''prem budget???''[/quote]no takers - thats a shame...[/quote]I''ll be taker, LGT, because I think your arguement comparing owning a racehorse to owning a football club is a very valid one.Even before the days of the Prem, football clubs always lost money. Watling, South, Chase all put their own money, and then more, into NCFC, and the fans were always crying it wasn''t enough. Owning a football club has always been a rich man''s plaything and it has always cost him cash to be at the helm. It is not a new phenonenom.Exactly in the same way as owning a racehorse will lose you money.But there was alway somebody who wanted the prestige to go with owning a football club - and that''s what they got in return for the money they''d lost. Even Peter Cullum has admitted that he''ll never see his money back.So by that token, I say the fans are very justified to expect the Directors to put up the cash or stand aside and let someone else do it if they don''t have the funds. We''re a football club and not a burger bar.Delia got all the bouquets ten years ago when she put up the cash. If she can''t or won''t do the same today, then she deserves all the brickbats that come her way.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Morph"]So LGT and others on this thread, should the directors continue to throw their own money into the pot in the pursuit of attaining the Premiership?[/quote]Yes, absolutely they should. It is the role of the directors to do so.[quote user="Morph"]How much? At what point do they consider the money you want them to put in, a bad investment?[/quote]The return on their investment is not a financial return, the return is their standing in the community. They need to put in extra funds to at least maintain their status among their peers. [quote user="Morph"]There seems to be an undercurrent of feeling that somebody with deep pockets has to underwrite the pursuit of success. Why do people feel that? [/quote]It is very expensive these days to be the owner of a football club. The financial bar to entry has been raised because of the wealth of the Premiership.[quote user="Morph"]If it was a venture capitalist they would want some percentage of the company and some hope of seeing a return on their investment. Why do people think that people investing in a football club are any different?[/quote]Venture Capitalists wouldn''t touch a football club with a barge pole. However a very rich venture capitalist might want to impress his mates by owning a football club. He wouldn''t do it for financial reasons.[quote user="Morph"]If any of you had £20M to throw into the pot would you simply hand it over to City without any hope of some return?[/quote]

Would depend on the state of my ego at the time.

[quote user="Morph"]The club is £20M in debt - how much is that costing the club per year to maintain?. Up to 50% of the club''s turnover goes into funding the playing and non-playing staff at the club. See: http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats2/eng_norwich.htm. Or: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/[/quote]Interest payments on the debt can be found in the published accounts.

[GMF 736]

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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]There is a big difference between expecting or demanding something and turning that thing down when it is offered to you on a plate.[/quote]

These are cheap words Mr Carrow.

The reality is that D&M have loaned the Club somewhere north of £8M over the years (most of which probably hasn''t been directed purely towards footballing activities) which have now been converted from debt to equity. If PC wants a majority shareholding then he has to make a sensible offer for it.

You are now suggesting that just because PC has suggested he is willing to "offer" £20M towards the team that D&M should accept it whatever conditions he''s attached to his offer?

[/quote]

That isn`t the reality, that is the myth.  Press reports posted on here at the time stated that they payed £700k for Chase`s shares and figures from the accounts provided by Canary Nut show that the loans converted to shares on top of that amount to £4.3m.

Read the statements made at the AGM and on 5live about not being interested in money for their shares and it being all about money for the team- and let me know why Cullum shouldn`t expect Delia to be a woman of her word.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow (or Canary Nut for that matter) I have to confess I didn''t see Canary Nut''s figures on the previous share purchases, so a reference link would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Morph 19]

yellow hammer, are you of the opinion then that if said directors no longer have the financial clout to continue to back the club, said directors should step aside to let others who do?I think this is where the "prudence with ambition" came from. The directors have given as much as they financially want to give to the club and maybe want to see something for it. So the "ambition" has gone and it''s now simply "prudence".The fans want "ambition" and to hell with the prudence. As YCs thread title intimated, there''s a large segment of fans that want to see somebody paying for their toy.Even Cullum wanted something for the money he wanted to put in. He did not appear to be putting in money to buy an expensive toy to play with. Perhaps other posters on here think he was.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Morph"]yellow hammer, are you of the opinion then that if said directors no longer have the financial clout to continue to back the club, said directors should step aside to let others who do?I think this is where the "prudence with ambition" came from. The directors have given as much as they financially want to give to the club and maybe want to see something for it. So the "ambition" has gone and it''s now simply "prudence".The fans want "ambition" and to hell with the prudence. As YCs thread title intimated, there''s a large segment of fans that want to see somebody paying for their toy.Even Cullum wanted something for the money he wanted to put in. He did not appear to be putting in money to buy an expensive toy to play with. Perhaps other posters on here think he was.[/quote]Yep, Morph, that is exactly what I expect them to do. Owning a football club, a racehorse, a luxury yacht has always been a rich man''s toy. Football clubs are now very rich men''s toys.

[Stevo 0]

[quote user="Morph"]

The fans want "ambition" and to hell with the prudence. As YCs thread title intimated, there''s a large segment of fans that want to see somebody paying for their toy.

[/quote]

With all due respect Morph, I think it''s YC''s reference to ''toys'' that is the issue here. In simplistic terms, people will spend their time and money on pursuits that they enjoy whether that is going out for a meal, going to the cinema, watching sports etc. However for a lot of people, supporting Norwich City goes way beyond what you''d call a hobby or a toy.

If you visited a restaurant, and found that it was badly decorated, had poor service and the food was awful, you wouldn''t go again and try somewhere else. However, football fans can''t and won''t entertain the thought of turning their backs on ''their'' club. The bond is too strong. We don''t see ourselves as casual consumers or customers - we feel like we are part of the club. That is why people feel so passionately about how the club is run and the direction it is taken in.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]However, football fans can''t and won''t entertain the thought of turning their backs on ''their'' club. The bond is too strong. We don''t see ourselves as casual consumers or customers - we feel like we are part of the club. That is why people feel so passionately about how the club is run and the direction it is taken in.[/quote]

With a 400 pound a year season ticket, you''re getting that on the cheap, though aren''t you ?  These folks that you seem to think you can tell what to do have invested millions.

[Stevo 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

With a 400 pound a year season ticket, you''re getting that on the cheap, though aren''t you ?  These folks that you seem to think you can tell what to do have invested millions.

[/quote]

It''s a valid point Blah but I guess money is relative to wealth. Abromovich seems to treat Chelsea like a ''toy'' because the millions he''s spending on it are relatively meaningless to him. The Chelsea fans probably pay £1000 for their season tickets but have grown up supporting the side and invested alot of their lives in supporting the side and would feel (perhaps justifiably) that the club belongs to them.

To go back to analogies and the golf course from the original post. If you played at a course where the greens were sub standard, you might complain and ask something to be done about it. If it didn''t improve, you''d play elsewhere. We can''t do that as fans.

With regards to your last point, I think it''s in the nature of the football fan to feel entitled to ''tell them what to do''. The crowd will chant "Roeder, roeder sort it out" or sing a player''s name or chant for delia to ''sign him up'' or ''get her chequebook out''. Are we wrong to do that?

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Bingo"][

The Chelsea fans probably pay £1000 for their season tickets but have grown up supporting the side and invested alot of their lives in supporting the side and would feel (perhaps justifiably) that the club belongs to them.

[/quote]

That''s not the case according to some Chelsea fans I have spoken to. They believe a lot of these season ticket holders only started supporting the side when it became fashionable to do so.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

With regards to your last point, I think it''s in the nature of the football fan to feel entitled to ''tell them what to do''. The crowd will chant "Roeder, roeder sort it out" or sing a player''s name or chant for delia to ''sign him up'' or ''get her chequebook out''. Are we wrong to do that?[/quote]

Absolutely not.  Everyones entitled to their opinions.  Not everyone is entitled to make decisions though.  Where would we be if they were ?

[KeelansGlove 0]

Do we have a choice ?

I would gladly pay more for my season ticket if that value were reflected on the pitch and it doesnt matter how cheap something is if its rubbish its not value for money.

also its all relative. yes they may have invested millions but the money hasnt gone away, as we know the loans have been converted to more share and they want twice the amount they paid before considering selling up. Anyone want a season ticket for £800 thought not.

Its all relative, if i had a few million in the bank i might consider buying Norwich City but if I couldn''t make it work I would certainly be happy to pass it on to someone with more money to play with without making a profit if I could get assurances of investment in the team.

Especially if I hadn''t added any value during the time I had been in charge ie sold off any saleable fixed or playing assets and couldnt fund a team the fans could see had a chance to compete at this level.

Im not sure if my 50 shares compare in terms of relative wealth ie how much £1500 is to me compared to how much the interest on 4 million might be over a ten year period but I''d give them to Cullum tomorrow if he put £20 into the team and Id be happy to pay double for my season ticket.

[Morph 19]

Bingo, you''re dead right. If we go a restaurant and pay money for crap service and food, we sure as hell won''t go back. By the same token if the restaurant manager has complaints about his staff or his staff don''t fit in it''s easier for him to get rid of them. Plus it''s not such a financial risk to bring in replacements.As football supporters we don''t follow the restaurant scenario. We stick with the club through thick and thin. But should we really expect our directors to keep digging into their pockets to put money into the club? yellow hammer clearly thinks we should.However, if there is no more money to be had, and the vitriol begins to spew forth what happens then if MWJ and DS want to get out but want something back for what they''ve put in? Do we as fans have the right to give them abuse for their lack of investment?It''s like a kid that gets the flashy remote control car for Christmas. Mum & Dad got all the flashy bits on the outside but the engines a bit naff. Couldn''t you pay just a little more? Sorry kid, we didn''t have a little more.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

That''s not the case according to some Chelsea fans I have spoken to. They believe a lot of these season ticket holders only started supporting the side when it became fashionable to do so.

[/quote]

Surely it can''t be fashionable to support Chelsea???