Numbers Again

[KeelansGlove 0]

Sorry to bring spin up again at this difficult time but why is it when anything comes out in the press the numbers dont add up.

Firstly we are told that the Turners departure has left a 1.5-2 Million hole in the budget for this season as this is the figure they were due to put in this year. We are also told that Delia has ridden to the rescue by putting another 2 million in personally (god bless her)

But the article by Steve Downes also states that this still leaves us with a 1.5 Million Black hole.

Given that we didn''t sign the striker we were all promised with names like Ameobi etc thrown around (although I guess we all hoped we would be able to at least buy someoene for between 500K & 1M) add to this the sale of Shackell which was "Not Neccesary" for a figure originally turned down at 1M and the numbers come back to bite them in the ass again.

It really does strike me that the Carrow Rd spin doctors couldn''t lie straight in bed.

So we had enough money to buy Iversson last week and suddenly the Turners walk and do not put in 2 Million and we are suddenly 4M in the hole.

It has been clearly stated that the Turner loans would not be repayable anytime soon so how do we come up with figures that so clearly have not been thought through and dont add up.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

Is Steve Downes a Carrow Rd spin doctor?

 

[KeelansGlove 0]

No but the information he reports is given to him by them

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]No but the information he reports is given to him by them[/quote]

Or he could be a journalist who''s not very good at maths. If its information given to him then he could quote that person otherwise you are guilty of being a bit silly by blaming the wrong person(s) for you confusion.

 

 

[KeelansGlove 0]

Not sure if this makes me a conspiracy theorist or you gullable, I very much doubt however slap dash archant journos can be that they make up the numbers themselves.

I heard Munby on TV say that the Turners were due to put an additional 1.5 M into the club which would now not be forthcoming.

He also said this would leave a 1.5M hole in the budget for the coming year.

Delia has been widely reported as having put an additional 2M into the club

The article clearly states this still leaves a 1.5M hole in the budget

This is taking into account the alledgedly Unneccesary sale of Shackell and the non arrival of the promised striker.

The only think not a guarenteed fact stated above is the continued hole in the budget all the other things have happened quite clearly showing we never had the money to sign Iversson or anyone else for that matter

so if Delia put in 2 million and this still leaves the budget 1.5M short despite selling Shackell and not signing a striker that shows a deficit on the basic figures of alledgedly having a budget in place to buy a striker and not sell Jason Shackell

0 Budget Balance

-1.5M Turners non investment

+2M Delia Investment

+2M Shackell Sale and Striker Purchase

-----------------------------------------

2.5M Balance

Actual still -1.5M showing 4M not available to fulfill the budget

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]

Not sure if this makes me a conspiracy theorist or you gullable, I very much doubt however slap dash archant journos can be that they make up the numbers themselves.

I heard Munby on TV say that the Turners were due to put an additional 1.5 M into the club which would now not be forthcoming.

He also said this would leave a 1.5M hole in the budget for the coming year.

Delia has been widely reported as having put an additional 2M into the club

The article clearly states this still leaves a 1.5M hole in the budget

This is taking into account the alledgedly Unneccesary sale of Shackell and the non arrival of the promised striker.

The only think not a guarenteed fact stated above is the continued hole in the budget all the other things have happened quite clearly showing we never had the money to sign Iversson or anyone else for that matter

so if Delia put in 2 million and this still leaves the budget 1.5M short despite selling Shackell and not signing a striker that shows a deficit on the basic figures of alledgedly having a budget in place to buy a striker and not sell Jason Shackell

0 Budget Balance

-1.5M Turners non investment

+2M Delia Investment

+2M Shackell Sale and Striker Purchase

-----------------------------------------

2.5M Balance

Actual still -1.5M showing 4M not available to fulfill the budget

 

[/quote]This is about as correct mathematical reasoning as this:Three people go to a hotel.  They pay for a £30 room with 10 pounds each. When they have gone up tio the room the manager reaise he has mis charged them by £5.  So he sends the bell boy up with a £5 refund.  The bell boy doesn''t know how to refund the money, so gives each man £1 and pockets the other £2.So each man has paid £9 for the room and the Bell boy has two pounds.  This makes £29.  Where has the other pound gone?Still you are right that Steve Downes clearly states that there is still a 1.5 million gap in the budget.  He doesn''t say why he has decided that the money announced today fills a different hole to the one left by the Turners departure, or why is so neatly fits the new money.  Apart from this article there is no evidence that the gap he says this money makes up exists.What I think happened is that he has his past and future tenses confused. He seems to think that DS/MWJ have put this money in, meaning the hole caused by the departure of the Turners is not covered.  The announcement however refers to future money - therefore not included in the budget that the Turners put a 1.5m dent in.As to the extra money from Shackell and not managing to buy a striker, there is no evidence that money is not still there.  You were assuming that there being a 1.5m hole in the budget from the lack of the Turners money meant that there was a 1.5m budget defecit.  This is not neccesarily true.  Currently I am increasing my savings - running with a budget surplus in buisness terms - If I was expecting to sell my bike next week for £150 and it got stolen tomorrow, with no insurance, then I would have a £150 hole in my budgeting.  Would it mean that I was only breaking even? No.  Would it mean that I needed to get £150 from other means (ie do more overtime etc) yes, if I wanted to get back to the same situation I was in prior to the set back (Bike leaving).All in all, I expect we are actually 500k up, or even depending on whether the Turners 2 million was the total or remainder of this years investment.

[Bobzilla 207]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]

Not sure if this makes me a conspiracy theorist or you gullable, I very much doubt however slap dash archant journos can be that they make up the numbers themselves.

I heard Munby on TV say that the Turners were due to put an additional 1.5 M into the club which would now not be forthcoming.

He also said this would leave a 1.5M hole in the budget for the coming year.

Delia has been widely reported as having put an additional 2M into the club

The article clearly states this still leaves a 1.5M hole in the budget

This is taking into account the alledgedly Unneccesary sale of Shackell and the non arrival of the promised striker.

The only think not a guarenteed fact stated above is the continued hole in the budget all the other things have happened quite clearly showing we never had the money to sign Iversson or anyone else for that matter

so if Delia put in 2 million and this still leaves the budget 1.5M short despite selling Shackell and not signing a striker that shows a deficit on the basic figures of alledgedly having a budget in place to buy a striker and not sell Jason Shackell

0 Budget Balance

-1.5M Turners non investment

+2M Delia Investment

+2M Shackell Sale and Striker Purchase

-----------------------------------------

2.5M Balance

Actual still -1.5M showing 4M not available to fulfill the budget

 

[/quote]

This is about as correct mathematical reasoning as this:
Three people go to a hotel.  They pay for a £30 room with 10 pounds each.
When they have gone up tio the room the manager reaise he has mis charged them by £5.  So he sends the bell boy up with a £5 refund.  The bell boy doesn''t know how to refund the money, so gives each man £1 and pockets the other £2.
So each man has paid £9 for the room and the Bell boy has two pounds.  This makes £29.  Where has the other pound gone?
[/quote]

There is no other pound. The £2 pocketed by the bell boy is the difference between the £25 that the business has got and the £27 that the customers have paid.

However, your point is that we are all assuming stuff about the finances. Incorrectly, it appears. We don''t know, and its useless speculating.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

I agree that the numbers don''t stack up, I''m just saying that in this case you''re blaming the wrong person(s) for your confusion.

 

[Tim Allman 1]

My take on it, sorry for all the words here -

This additional £3.5 million (made up as far as I can see from £2 mill D&MWJ and £1.5 mill from the Turners) would explain the player budget being increased to around £10 million, quite a large increase on the previous season.

I suspect the budget was agreed quite some time ago and would account for Delia’s inappropriate comments at the Norfolk show about funding.

But now the Turners business is now not looking quite as rosy as it was a few months ago. Two weeks ago, they pulled out of pre-agreed funding for this season. As far as I know , the previous £2 mill loans were from Central Trust, not them.

This huge row in the boardroom (which may or not have been huge or even a row) takes place as we have promised GR cash for players and wages, funded by Turners and D&MWJ and a good proportion of this cash will now not be forthcoming.

Turners position as directors of NCFC is now untenable and they resign. The immediate budget for players is now much reduced, we only get Siebierski on loan.

Of course the reasons for the Turners resignation are personal and relate to Central Trust. The Turners could never publicly admit that Central Trust could not afford to make the loans.

The lower budget would may also explain the confusing recent comments in the EDP and also from Rosenborg re Steffen Iverson as we could now not afford him. Whether he would have been released from his contact is another issue entirely

The EDP stated today that Delia has put up £2 million, and my heartfelt hanks go to her and MWJ yet again.

BUT I THINK IS ALREADY BUDGETED INCOME (having been agreed before the start of the season) and will NOT cover the Turners shortfall and the decision to donate/loan this money was made quite some time ago. Obviously, news regarding the additional funding into the playing budget would not be published by NCFC before or coming up to the transfer window, hence the news coming out now.

So where are we going to get the extra £1.5 million from? If we need to sell players in the next transfer window it may well be in a fire sale and prices will be rock bottom. Just remember bargain basement fees that Ipswich got for Bent, Holland and co a few years ago

Time for a new investor with new money. But the difference between now and October last year is that last October we needed the points more than the money. I think it’s a little different now.

 

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Tim Allman"]

The EDP stated today that Delia has put up £2 million, and my heartfelt hanks go to her and MWJ yet again.

BUT I THINK IS ALREADY BUDGETED INCOME (having been agreed before the start of the season) and will NOT cover the Turners shortfall and the decision to donate/loan this money was made quite some time ago. Obviously, news regarding the additional funding into the playing budget would not be published by NCFC before or coming up to the transfer window, hence the news coming out now.

So where are we going to get the extra £1.5 million from? If we need to sell players in the next transfer window it may well be in a fire sale and prices will be rock bottom. Just remember bargain basement fees that Ipswich got for Bent, Holland and co a few years ago

Time for a new investor with new money. But the difference between now and October last year is that last October we needed the points more than the money. I think it’s a little different now.

 

 

[/quote]Again, its the difference between have put up £2 million and are going to put up as the staement says.  That is what leads me to the opposite3 conclusion re it being in the budget.

[KeelansGlove 0]

Ah so I get it the 2M put in by Delia is not extra money to cover the shortfall that the Turners put in but an amount they had already agreed to put in, its just being spun that way and thats why the hole remains.

Of course as stated it is as I didnt suggest possible that the remainder of the player budget is still available and unspent although given the belt tightening spin it is unlikely this would be the case if we had a couple of million hanging around

[Albyella 0]

I''m still trying to work out where the pound has gone........

[Tim Allman 1]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Tim Allman"]

The EDP stated today that Delia has put up £2 million, and my heartfelt hanks go to her and MWJ yet again.

BUT I THINK IS ALREADY BUDGETED INCOME (having been agreed before the start of the season) and will NOT cover the Turners shortfall and the decision to donate/loan this money was made quite some time ago. Obviously, news regarding the additional funding into the playing budget would not be published by NCFC before or coming up to the transfer window, hence the news coming out now.

So where are we going to get the extra £1.5 million from? If we need to sell players in the next transfer window it may well be in a fire sale and prices will be rock bottom. Just remember bargain basement fees that Ipswich got for Bent, Holland and co a few years ago

Time for a new investor with new money. But the difference between now and October last year is that last October we needed the points more than the money. I think it’s a little different now.

  

[/quote]

Again, its the difference between have put up £2 million and are going to put up as the staement says.  That is what leads me to the opposite3 conclusion re it being in the budget.
[/quote]

Mick Dennis seems to have drawn the same conclusion as me. that the funding was already agreed and in place. Here''s a quote from his article

"......She knew by then that she and Michael were stumping up £2 million and expected the same amount from Andrew and Sharon Turner. So she said, on camera, that City were all right, thank you. She added that she couldn''t give details because it would alert other clubs and push up the price of players we might want to buy......"

Link to the whole article here

http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=4086&w=12&a=0&part=1

 

 

 

[canary cherub 1]

The real question is, why is there''s a shortfall?  The fact that the club has failed to sell the LSE land that they bought in 2003, and the loan they took out to purchase it is due for repayment by the end of 2008, probably has a lot to do with it.

Therefore they have brought this situation on themselves.  They should never have bought the land in the first place.  If they have to shell out of their own pockets to pay back the loan it serves them bloody well right.  Let that be a lesson to them.

The good thing is that it''s a one-off shortfall and should not occur again unless they''ve done something else equally stupid that we don''t know about.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Strawberry"]

The real question is, why is there''s a shortfall?  The fact that the club has failed to sell the LSE land that they bought in 2003, and the loan they took out to purchase it is due for repayment by the end of 2008, probably has a lot to do with it.

Therefore they have brought this situation on themselves.  They should never have bought the land in the first place.  If they have to shell out of their own pockets to pay back the loan it serves them bloody well right.  Let that be a lesson to them.

The good thing is that it''s a one-off shortfall and should not occur again unless they''ve done something else equally stupid that we don''t know about.

 

 

[/quote]

Thing is, i pencilled the £3m or-so profit made on Earnie/Etuhu/Lewis in the last financial year was cover for the loan (the figures fit and Doncaster said the loan would be settled in May for some reason), but as usual, who knows.....?

"It`s a one-off shortfall".  Only if they haven`t gone and got more loans out for more land, offices etc.!  Wasn`t there a new £1.2m short-term loan announced in the last accounts for office fit-outs?  Lets hope that with the credit crunch, the banks won`t lend them any more money to waste on non-essentials......[:S]

One thing which hasn`t really been debated is why the Turners had to do an apparently ruthless root and branch review of the whole operation, although looking at the loss the club would have made without the parachute payment and profit on players in `06-`07 i don`t think it`s too hard to guess.....