NCFC board, wheres the INVESTMENT? Don't anyone blame GR.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Transfer fees since GR joined us:

PLAYERS OUT

Brown        £400k

Lewis         £400k

Gilkes         £100k

TOTAL      £900k.

 

PLAYERS IN

Hooli          £250k

Bell            £450k

Pattison      £200k

TOTAL     £900k

 

So where''s the INVESTMENT? 

 

 

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

Where did you get the £100k for Gilks from. And Pattison was £400k I thought.

[barclayboy1902 6]

lets not split hairs, only 300k out,stll no investment,thats just on players sold in the last 12months

[Songwriter 0]

I agree there has been little money spent but...you''ve missed out signing on fees and wages for Dejan Stefanovic and Clingan.

Evans, Gibbs, OJ, Berty, Lupoli, Kennedy, Omozusi all cost money too...there were all from top flight clubs.

 

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Songwriter"]

I agree there has been little money spent but...you''ve missed out signing on fees and wages for Dejan Stefanovic and Clingan.

Evans, Gibbs, OJ, Berty, Lupoli, Kennedy, Omozusi all cost money too...there were all from top flight clubs.

 

[/quote]You can''t really count wages as money spent, the wages of the new players will be covered by the savings on the wages of departed players. We have been paying that money out anyway so it can hardly be classed as money spent on players.

[steve b 0]

Ashton 7.5m

Green 2m

earnshaw 3.5m   

McKenzie 1m

Etuhu 1.5m            =15.5m

Thats in the last 3 seasons, nobody can tell me we''ve invested all that money back into the playing squad, and as our club debt has got even bigger they obviously haven''t paid any off, what the hell have our board done with our money, they are incapable of running a football club,

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Songwriter"]

I agree there has been little money spent but...you''ve missed out signing on fees and wages for Dejan Stefanovic and Clingan.

Evans, Gibbs, OJ, Berty, Lupoli, Kennedy, Omozusi all cost money too...there were all from top flight clubs.

 

[/quote]

and you have missed the wage budget freed up as a result of all those players that have left since GR took over.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="steve o"]

Ashton 7.5m

Green 2m

earnshaw 3.5m   

McKenzie 1m

Etuhu 1.5m            =15.5m

Thats in the last 3 seasons, nobody can tell me we''ve invested all that money back into the playing squad, and as our club debt has got even bigger they obviously haven''t paid any off, what the hell have our board done with our money, they are incapable of running a football club,

[/quote]

Would Yankee Canary, care to comment?

 

[lappinitup 629]

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

I agree there has been little money spent but...you''ve missed out signing on fees and wages for Dejan Stefanovic and Clingan.

Evans, Gibbs, OJ, Berty, Lupoli, Kennedy, Omozusi all cost money too...there were all from top flight clubs.[/quote]and you have missed the wage budget freed up as a result of all those players that have left since GR took over.[/quote]And you''ve missed the £7m parachute payments that we no longer receive.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

And you''ve missed the £7m parachute payments that we no longer receive.[/quote]

And you''ve missed the point that we are told so often that we are a well run club. Presumably  we have already planned for a reduction in receipts?

What happened to those division based player contracts?

[missing in action? 0]

[quote user="steve o"]

Ashton 7.5m

Green 2m

earnshaw 3.5m   

McKenzie 1m

Etuhu 1.5m            =15.5m

Thats in the last 3 seasons, nobody can tell me we''ve invested all that money back into the playing squad, and as our club debt has got even bigger they obviously haven''t paid any off, what the hell have our board done with our money, they are incapable of running a football club,

[/quote]trying to cover wages and debts, covering the 7m parachute loss etc. were left with nout.

[T 190]

and also missed all the other operating costs. 7m of gate receipts and 14m of wages and other operating costs just may also help explain the difference....To just comment on one aspect of the finances eg transfers and ignore all the factors just says that someone either knows absolutely nothing about finance or they are choosing to ignore all the other factors to try to make a particular biased point.

[Barclaybred 0]

But at the same time as,you have to factor in season tickets,shirts and other NCFC related articals...which tips the scale again

[steve b 0]

I''m not trying to ignore any factors thankyou very much T but Mumby and Doomcastor have said on many occasions that any money recieved from player sales will be put straight back into the managers transfer pot,

[ricardo 7,339]

Delia lost her purse at the Ryal Norfolk Show.

[ricardo 7,339]

Sorry, Royal.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Damn that cider tasting tent!

[T 190]

I agree ND did indicate that transaction money would be put back - not sure he said all. The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs. Just saying looking at one set of numbers is a gross over simplification. The where has all the money gone and need to invest some money out of nowhere posts are just incredibly tedious and naive.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

[quote user="T"]The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs.[/quote]

Wasn''t it said that we no longer needed to do this????

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="T"]I agree ND did indicate that transaction money would be put back - not sure he said all. The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs. Just saying looking at one set of numbers is a gross over simplification. The where has all the money gone and need to invest some money out of nowhere posts are just incredibly tedious and naive.[/quote]

 

As tedious as you find the ''''where has all the money gone'''' comments are, they are real concerns from real fans, and have been for 2 or 3 years now, and until the club can offer answers the fans won''t be satisfied.  If the board can''t fund the team any longer they need to find an investor very quickly IMO that can, for the good of the club and for the loyal fans.

So in your opinion how is the problem to be solved?  Seeing as we minions are too naive to even think up solutions. [;)]

[T 190]

re  use of transfer fees: p8 of the accounts "however it must be accepted that player trading is a fact of life in football and will be used to support the business and the development of the team"

re where has all the money gone the accounts can be downloaded from the companies house website for a minimal fee.

I like the solutions comment. The are plenty on here who criticise having done little or nothing for the club and do not offer any realistic solutions. Problem is admittedly realistic solutions are hard to find.

It is difficult for Norwich to compete now that parachute payments for relegated club are 12m for the relegated clubs on top of their gate receipts compared with our gate receipts of 7m. So at best we are 8th (6 relegated clubs + qpr + probably a few others with rich benefactors) when it comes to competing for players financially. So one solution is to compaign for the end of parachute payments to make a more level playing field in the championship and then we would benefit from out higher crowds and then the we deserve better with our crowds demands would square with the financial reality. The financial reality  is not going to change unless supporters pay substantially more for their tickets or stop subscribing to sky TV. Neither of which is going to happen.

Investing in more off-field activities to generate additional long term revenue also makes sense where viable. Attracting more money is difficult as football clubs are financial dogs and therefore not a good financial investment but continuing to seek investment from local supporters like the Turners is also worthwhile.

Ultimately, I think that we have to wait for Cullum to sell his business, get bored and make a sensible offer for the club as the previous offer did not make any sense as he was apparently  not willing to buy the existing shareholders out and the problem is a minority is worthless.

In the meantime hope that we get lucky, we get a new striker that works out and the team gels and enjoy the ups an downs of being a football supporter rather than wasting time gettng angry as you sit watching sky which is the real underlying cause of the financial disparities in football which make it difficult for us to compete despite our crowds.

 

 

 

 

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="T"]

re  use of transfer fees: p8 of the accounts "however it must be accepted that player trading is a fact of life in football and will be used to support the business and the development of the team"

re where has all the money gone the accounts can be downloaded from the companies house website for a minimal fee.

I like the solutions comment. The are plenty on here who criticise having done little or nothing for the club and do not offer any realistic solutions. Problem is admittedly realistic solutions are hard to find.

It is difficult for Norwich to compete now that parachute payments for relegated club are 12m for the relegated clubs on top of their gate receipts compared with our gate receipts of 7m. So at best we are 8th (6 relegated clubs + qpr + probably a few others with rich benefactors) when it comes to competing for players financially. So one solution is to compaign for the end of parachute payments to make a more level playing field in the championship and then we would benefit from out higher crowds and then the we deserve better with our crowds demands would square with the financial reality. The financial reality  is not going to change unless supporters pay substantially more for their tickets or stop subscribing to sky TV. Neither of which is going to happen.

Investing in more off-field activities to generate additional long term revenue also makes sense where viable. Attracting more money is difficult as football clubs are financial dogs and therefore not a good financial investment but continuing to seek investment from local supporters like the Turners is also worthwhile.

Ultimately, I think that we have to wait for Cullum to sell his business, get bored and make a sensible offer for the club as the previous offer did not make any sense as he was apparently  not willing to buy the existing shareholders out and the problem is a minority is worthless.

In the meantime hope that we get lucky, we get a new striker that works out and the team gels and enjoy the ups an downs of being a football supporter rather than wasting time gettng angry as you sit watching sky which is the real underlying cause of the financial disparities in football which make it difficult for us to compete despite our crowds.

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Who is getting angry watching sky?  lol not everyone can afford that luxuary. 

[steve b 0]

I agree ND did indicate that transaction money would be put back - not sure he said all. The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs. Just saying looking at one set of numbers is a gross over simplification. The where has all the money gone and need to invest some money out of nowhere posts are just incredibly tedious and naive

 

Yes these posts are incredibly tedious but things need to be said, last year the turners gave us a 2 million pound loan so we didn''t have to sell players to help with the clubs finances, i accept that Earnshaw and Etuhu had buy outs in their contracts thats fair enough, the point is the board say a completely different thing every couple of months, all monies from player sales goes to the manager, well i''m afraid that just hasn''t happened, we haven''t paid off any of the clubs loan which had we have i could accept a little easier the board not putting all player sales money back into the transfer pot, Now we get the same old spin about how we cant compete with Hull Stoke Burnley,

[pak mei 0]

carefull guys this is turning out to be an intelligent debate, a nice change from the usual unsubstantiated rhetoric

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="steve o"]

I agree ND did indicate that transaction money would be put back - not sure he said all. The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs. Just saying looking at one set of numbers is a gross over simplification. The where has all the money gone and need to invest some money out of nowhere posts are just incredibly tedious and naive

 

Yes these posts are incredibly tedious but things need to be said, last year the turners gave us a 2 million pound loan so we didn''t have to sell players to help with the clubs finances, i accept that Earnshaw and Etuhu had buy outs in their contracts thats fair enough, the point is the board say a completely different thing every couple of months, all monies from player sales goes to the manager, well i''m afraid that just hasn''t happened, we haven''t paid off any of the clubs loan which had we have i could accept a little easier the board not putting all player sales money back into the transfer pot, Now we get the same old spin about how we cant compete with Hull Stoke Burnley,

[/quote]

Exactly Steve

[Crafty Canary 495]

Look at total wages/salaries in the accounts and compare to the players/football management wages/salaries (direct labour costs). The indirect labour costs (i.e. those of people eho don''t play, manage or coach the players) is greater than the direct labour costs. A surefire business recipe for financial disaster. Is the profit generated by the non-football activities sufficient to make thos outlay worthwhile or would the money have better been spent keeping us in the Premiership so picking up £30M or so per season?

[steve b 0]

[quote user="foggo7"]carefull guys this is turning out to be an intelligent debate, a nice change from the usual unsubstantiated rhetoric
[/quote]

Yes agreed it makes a change for me to post something and get a reasonable response, most times i get told how i know nothing about football (even though i''m coming up to 30) just because someone doesn''t agree with what i''ve posted

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="T"]I agree ND did indicate that transaction money would be put back - not sure he said all. The accounts also do say the reality is that profits from transfers would always be needed to finance operating costs. Just saying looking at one set of numbers is a gross over simplification. The where has all the money gone and need to invest some money out of nowhere posts are just incredibly tedious and naive.[/quote]Oh he did say "all".(from the official site).Neil: "Firstly, profit is only partly relevant - it''s mainly about

cash. We did in fact make a profit on the sale of Earnshaw. However,

more relevantly, we have £3.5m which has been added to Peter''s playing

budget. Your question about a sell-on clause is a slight red herring in

relation to buy-out clauses. These cannot include a sell-on. If the

buy-out sum is met, we must accept the offer without negotiation. That

was the case in relation to both Dickson and Earnie."Neil: "It''s not just

Andrew and Sharon Turner who are keen to reduce the losses that the

Club incurs. Everyone here is doing all they can to bring in additional

revenue to assist our ambition to return to the Premier League. All

monies raised from the sale of Dickson are available to Peter''s player

budget."

And why are we constantly hearing about lack of parachute paymrents as an excuse?As a Club we have had these payments two times in our entire history. Everyone else involved in running the club has had to manage without these BONUS payments.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="crafty canary"]Look at total wages/salaries in the accounts and compare to the players/football management wages/salaries (direct labour costs). The indirect labour costs (i.e. those of people eho don''t play, manage or coach the players) is greater than the direct labour costs. A surefire business recipe for financial disaster. Is the profit generated by the non-football activities sufficient to make thos outlay worthwhile or would the money have better been spent keeping us in the Premiership so picking up £30M or so per season?[/quote]

The likes of T want to harp on about all the extra income the club is making from off pitch activity on the one hand, but then blame increasing running costs for eating up transfer profits the board promised would be spent on the pitch on the other.  Very disingenuous T, as is quoting a £14m wage bill only half of which is the footballing staff.