DONCASTER - Wages the cause of club's money woes

[astrodyne 0]

Scooby, how do you distinguish between a supporter and a fan - are they not the same?

[Scooby 0]

[quote user="astrodyne"]Scooby, how do you distinguish between a supporter and a fan - are they not the same?
[/quote]

Missed the point again I see Astro. (or just choosing to ignore it)

[astrodyne 0]

Yes, I have missed the point, sorry! Run it by me again.

[Mello Yello 2,294]

[quote user="astrodyne"]Scooby, how do you distinguish between a supporter and a fan - are they not the same?
[/quote]

You''re a supporter and a fan if you don''t ''Diss'' the club''s Board of Directionless and think that the Chief Exec is ''wunnerfull''.....

Otherwise - you''re just an untrue fan, dimwit, binner, anti-club, pillock.....etc, etc.....

Hope that helps?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

That''s irrelevant - who cares if the statement is true or not ?  Does it change anything ?

[/quote]

Well yes, i suppose the truth is irrelevant to someone who tries to convince people that other teams in our league are receiving £16m in parachute payments.....

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes.

However, I thought the gist of his article was that he was trying to compare like with like and, therefore, if you stip out the one offs, net transfer payments and directors loans etc, we now have the highest player budget than before.

Maybe I''ve got it wrong, but that''s how I read it?    

[/quote]

How can a player budget of £8.5m be higher than a season in which player wages alone were £9m?  Sorry but it`s just the usual deliberately misleading spin- the latest in a long line.  If you want to read more of the same, read his comments in the last annual report where he tries to claim an overall wage bill showing falling player wages, but rising non-football wages, as proving the clubs "huge investment in it`s playing squad".

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

One other point on this article, am I the only one who read this part:

"Indeed, supporters would be right to question the motives of one or two of the more outlandish names from out of left-field linked with City over the past fortnight, who appear keen to see their name in the press, but whose ability or desire to fund Norwich City going forwards is not dissimilar to their ability to play centre-forward at Carrow Road"

and thought he was referring to Cullum?  I dont recall any other potential investors named in the press recently? A bit of a catty comment from where I am sitting.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

SWP, yes i saw that and was a bit bemused as well.  Who is he referring too?  Have i missed something?

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]SWP, yes i saw that and was a bit bemused as well.  Who is he referring too?  Have i missed something?[/quote]

 

I suspect he''s referring to Jade Goody''s boyfriend''s uncle who was linked a couple of weeks ago.

[T 190]

I thought he was referring to some of the other locally based businessmen who have been mentioned in the press as clearly PC does have the financial clout.

I have a feeling that the club are talking to other parties so that they can go back to the main party in town with a better hand. Its just normal deal/negotiating practice. There is only one PC but both sides are obviously aware that there is only one NCFC. 

[GMF 744]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes.

However, I thought the gist of his article was that he was trying to compare like with like and, therefore, if you stip out the one offs, net transfer payments and directors loans etc, we now have the highest player budget than before.

Maybe I''ve got it wrong, but that''s how I read it?    

[/quote]

How can a player budget of £8.5m be higher than a season in which player wages alone were £9m?  Sorry but it`s just the usual deliberately misleading spin- the latest in a long line.  If you want to read more of the same, read his comments in the last annual report where he tries to claim an overall wage bill showing falling player wages, but rising non-football wages, as proving the clubs "huge investment in it`s playing squad".

[/quote]

As a headline figure, it clearly isn''t higher than the 2006 wage budget, but, if you want to "spin it" that way and focus purely on just that figure and totally disregard the effects of parachute payments and other one offs (as detailed earlier in the artilce) that''s clearly your choice.

Are you really having a big issue with the proposed £8.5M budget being just £0.5M less than the 2006 figure, despite the loss of over £7m turnover and a likely cash loss for the current year?

[ca 1]

I know we declared £18.2m debt last year, any idea what it will be in Oct when the accounts are sent out?

[Barclay_Boy 0]

yeah, mainly HIS wages

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes.

However, I thought the gist of his article was that he was trying to compare like with like and, therefore, if you stip out the one offs, net transfer payments and directors loans etc, we now have the highest player budget than before.

Maybe I''ve got it wrong, but that''s how I read it?    

[/quote]

How can a player budget of £8.5m be higher than a season in which player wages alone were £9m?  Sorry but it`s just the usual deliberately misleading spin- the latest in a long line.  If you want to read more of the same, read his comments in the last annual report where he tries to claim an overall wage bill showing falling player wages, but rising non-football wages, as proving the clubs "huge investment in it`s playing squad".

[/quote]

As a headline figure, it clearly isn''t higher than the 2006 wage budget, but, if you want to "spin it" that way and focus purely on just that figure and totally disregard the effects of parachute payments and other one offs (as detailed earlier in the artilce) that''s clearly your choice.

Are you really having a big issue with the proposed £8.5M budget being just £0.5M less than the 2006 figure, despite the loss of over £7m turnover and a likely cash loss for the current year?

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, the comment was Doncasters, not mine, therefore i`m not spinning anything.  It was his job to place a statement meant to be read by thousands of fans in the right context and compare "like with like".  Why didn`t he?  Well i`ve already read several posts on here saying that the club are now paying players more than they ever have in this league, so it looks like it`s job done and another myth is born.  Are you happy with this?

[lucky green trainers 0]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes.

However, I thought the gist of his article was that he was trying to compare like with like and, therefore, if you stip out the one offs, net transfer payments and directors loans etc, we now have the highest player budget than before.

Maybe I''ve got it wrong, but that''s how I read it?    

[/quote]

How can a player budget of £8.5m be higher than a season in which player wages alone were £9m?  Sorry but it`s just the usual deliberately misleading spin- the latest in a long line.  If you want to read more of the same, read his comments in the last annual report where he tries to claim an overall wage bill showing falling player wages, but rising non-football wages, as proving the clubs "huge investment in it`s playing squad".

[/quote]

As a headline figure, it clearly isn''t higher than the 2006 wage budget, but, if you want to "spin it" that way and focus purely on just that figure and totally disregard the effects of parachute payments and other one offs (as detailed earlier in the artilce) that''s clearly your choice.

Are you really having a big issue with the proposed £8.5M budget being just £0.5M less than the 2006 figure, despite the loss of over £7m turnover and a likely cash loss for the current year?

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, the comment was Doncasters, not mine, therefore i`m not spinning anything.  It was his job to place a statement meant to be read by thousands of fans in the right context and compare "like with like".  Why didn`t he?  Well i`ve already read several posts on here saying that the club are now paying players more than they ever have in this league, so it looks like it`s job done and another myth is born.  Are you happy with this?

[/quote]yeah, well - i had someone tell me today that players wages were doing the club down and were costing us more than ever,,,they quoted the £8m figure...so maybe the message got through???

[Mr.Carrow 376]

GazzaTCC, perhaps i should remind you what Doncaster said in his article:

"As part of the package of measures that we have had to take in the past few weeks, the player budget has been reduced to £8.5m- a figure that is broadly in line with actual expenditure, following the departure of Jason Shackell to Wolves, but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this league."

No caveats, no mention of parachute payments, no context- just a bold statement which is obviously untrue.  Now, how exactly am i spinning by pointing this out?!

Perhaps you should expend as much energy in questioning why the C.E. of our club continues to spout such misleading rubbish as you do questioning someone who has merely pointed it out?

[GMF 744]

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

"It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation"

Are you comparing "like with like" there, given that the season after relegation included parachute payments?

[/quote]

That`s irrelevant.  Is his statement true or not?

[/quote]

I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes.

However, I thought the gist of his article was that he was trying to compare like with like and, therefore, if you stip out the one offs, net transfer payments and directors loans etc, we now have the highest player budget than before.

Maybe I''ve got it wrong, but that''s how I read it?    

[/quote]

How can a player budget of £8.5m be higher than a season in which player wages alone were £9m?  Sorry but it`s just the usual deliberately misleading spin- the latest in a long line.  If you want to read more of the same, read his comments in the last annual report where he tries to claim an overall wage bill showing falling player wages, but rising non-football wages, as proving the clubs "huge investment in it`s playing squad".

[/quote]

As a headline figure, it clearly isn''t higher than the 2006 wage budget, but, if you want to "spin it" that way and focus purely on just that figure and totally disregard the effects of parachute payments and other one offs (as detailed earlier in the artilce) that''s clearly your choice.

Are you really having a big issue with the proposed £8.5M budget being just £0.5M less than the 2006 figure, despite the loss of over £7m turnover and a likely cash loss for the current year?

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, the comment was Doncasters, not mine, therefore i`m not spinning anything.  It was his job to place a statement meant to be read by thousands of fans in the right context and compare "like with like".  Why didn`t he?  Well i`ve already read several posts on here saying that the club are now paying players more than they ever have in this league, so it looks like it`s job done and another myth is born.  Are you happy with this?

[/quote]

Earlier in this thread I asked you specifically if you were comparing "like with like" when you picked up on the £8.5M figure and you said it was "irrelevant" but now you want him to compare "like with like." 

[GMF 744]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

GazzaTCC, perhaps i should remind you what Doncaster said in his article:

"As part of the package of measures that we have had to take in the past few weeks, the player budget has been reduced to £8.5m- a figure that is broadly in line with actual expenditure, following the departure of Jason Shackell to Wolves, but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this league."

No caveats, no mention of parachute payments, no context- just a bold statement which is obviously untrue.  Now, how exactly am i spinning by pointing this out?!

Perhaps you should expend as much energy in questioning why the C.E. of our club continues to spout such misleading rubbish as you do questioning someone who has merely pointed it out?

[/quote]

So which bit of my previous reply, quoted below, do you have an issue with?

"I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes."

I''m merely trying to put the £8.5M in context against the £9M and you''re the who''s suggesting he''s talking rubbish.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

GazzaTCC, perhaps i should remind you what Doncaster said in his article:

"As part of the package of measures that we have had to take in the past few weeks, the player budget has been reduced to £8.5m- a figure that is broadly in line with actual expenditure, following the departure of Jason Shackell to Wolves, but still the highest player budget that we have ever had in this league."

No caveats, no mention of parachute payments, no context- just a bold statement which is obviously untrue.  Now, how exactly am i spinning by pointing this out?!

Perhaps you should expend as much energy in questioning why the C.E. of our club continues to spout such misleading rubbish as you do questioning someone who has merely pointed it out?

[/quote]

So which bit of my previous reply, quoted below, do you have an issue with?

"I don''t have the Club''s accounts to hand at the mo, but, if you''re asking me (and I''m slightly puzzled by the tone of your question) were the wages higher in our first season back in the Championship (with the benefit of parachute payments) than now (without the benefit of parachute payments) , then, I suspect, the answer will be yes."

I''m merely trying to put the £8.5M in context against the £9M and you''re the who''s suggesting he''s talking rubbish.

 

[/quote]

GazzaTCC, this is like banging my head against a brick wall.  My point is that Doncaster DID NOT mention a context, caveat or parachute payments in his statement, therefore it was misleading.  Whether we put it in context for the benefit of a few hundred readers is pretty irrelevant when he couldn`t for the benefit of several thousand.

People now think that we are paying the highest wages we ever have in this league which is patently untrue.  How is it "spin" by me to point this out, but not "spin" by Doncaster in making such a misleading statement in the first place?!  I`m starting to think you`re on a wind-up.....

[YankeeCanary 0]

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

What happened to the division related player contracts?

£8.5m wage bill for a club that will do well to finish mid table!

 How do the likes of Preston North End manage?

[/quote]

It`s an £8.5m player budget, so it includes everything- not just wages.  Interesting that he states that it`s the "highest player budget we`ve had in this league" when the player wage bill alone was £9m the season after relegation......Pork scratchings Niel?

I can only assume that transfer income isn`t added to this budget- at least they`ve stopped telling us it is anyway.....

[/quote]

Rather than go off on the usual diversionary tangents can people please read the above post and point out what i`ve got wrong?  Is an £8.5m player budget the "highest we`ve had in this league" or not?  If not, why say it?  It`s called "sticking to the argument"- it`s not that difficult if you engage your braincells.....

[/quote]

It''s no longer about whether what you have to say is right or wrong Mr. Carrow. It''s the fact ( please read that again )...it''s the fact that you look for the wrong in the club at every turn. I don''t care how many matches you attend at Carrow Road. As long as you continue to criticise on virtually every post you are deluding yourself in believing you are a Norwich supporter. Have a moan on some occasions, then offer something positive on others. Try it. You may find yourself able to shake off this web that you''ve gotten yourself caught up in. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

YC, you posted something very similar to that a few weeks ago and i directed you to a post which you accepted was positive.  Pointing out a misleading statement from the clubs C.E. is not "negative" and if you think it is you are merely betraying how blinkered your inherent bias is making you.

[GMF 744]

Mr C, I wanted to send you a private message, but mine doesn''t seem to be working at the moment.

I certainly don''t think we''re now paying our highest wages we''ve had in this league, this much must surely be clear to you if you''ve actually read my previous replies on this thread?

Where we seem to have a difference of opinion is that you''re focusing on one specific part of his articule, I''m merely suggesting, if you view the whole context of his article, we''re clearly not comparing like with like.

For the avoidance of doubt, I''m not on a wind up. 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club.

I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things.

It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"

[Mr.Carrow 376]

GazzaTCC, whether we agree that we are not comparing like with like is pretty irrelevant when he didn`t feel it necessary to do that in an article read by thousands.  We may be able to see the wider context, but there is no effort to put that across in the article and what we are left with is a totally misleading statement that most will take at face value.

I take it the next time someone posts "apparently our player wage bill is higher than it`s ever been in this league", you`ll be the first in line to point out that "sorry, despite what Doncaster said, that`s actually not true...."?

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club. I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things. It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"[/quote]

Then do me a favour Gazza, because I am not on that side of the water. I think I read that Neil is at the NCISA meeting ( which I think is this coming Monday ) which I read you are attending. If he is, ask for clarification on the staement that Doncaster made and see if you can get a straight answer. I''d appreciate you advising whether he provides it or CLEARLY dodges the issue. I realise that I don''t have the exposure that many of you do in Norwich but, honestly, I do try to read and view as many reports from different executives of various football teams and, based upon that admittedly narrower perspective, I have to say that Doncaster does a relatively good job of communicating on behalf of NCFC.

[Mello Yello 2,294]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club. I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things. It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"[/quote]

Then do me a favour Gazza, because I am not on that side of the water. I think I read that Neil is at the NCISA meeting ( which I think is this coming Monday ) which I read you are attending. If he is, ask for clarification on the staement that Doncaster made and see if you can get a straight answer. I''d appreciate you advising whether he provides it or CLEARLY dodges the issue. I realise that I don''t have the exposure that many of you do in Norwich but, honestly, I do try to read and view as many reports from different executives of various football teams and, based upon that admittedly narrower perspective, I have to say that Doncaster does a relatively good job of communicating on behalf of NCFC.

[/quote]

Well I think he''s just a patronisin'' speccy nerd......so there!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club. I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things. It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"[/quote]

Then do me a favour Gazza, because I am not on that side of the water. I think I read that Neil is at the NCISA meeting ( which I think is this coming Monday ) which I read you are attending. If he is, ask for clarification on the staement that Doncaster made and see if you can get a straight answer. I''d appreciate you advising whether he provides it or CLEARLY dodges the issue. I realise that I don''t have the exposure that many of you do in Norwich but, honestly, I do try to read and view as many reports from different executives of various football teams and, based upon that admittedly narrower perspective, I have to say that Doncaster does a relatively good job of communicating on behalf of NCFC.

[/quote]

Well I think he''s just a patronisin'' speccy nerd......so there!

[/quote]

I bet you didn''t go to the same school as he did Mello. On the positive side, you know what grits are.

[T 190]

I totally agree the context and overall message of the ND''s statement is more important than any individual comment but if someone wishes to be pedantic then the statement could still be true for a number of reasons:

1. Budgeted and actual expenditure by definition are two totally different things so unless someone has access to the original NCFC budgets you could not possibly know in which year the highest budget was set. It is quite possible and normal for any business that actual expenditure turns out to be higher than the budgeted expenditure.

2. The player wages could be higher than than the player budget because the player budget includes transfer fees so you would also have to deduct any transfer fees received to arrive at the player´budget.

3. Furthermore, the published accounts are prepared on an accruals basis where as the budget would normally be prepared on a cash flow basis so they would normally be timing differences between actual actual and accrued amounts, particularly for transfer fees, which make it difficult to compare expenditure.

Consequently, without further information it is not possible to state whether the particular statement on the player budget is correct or not. However the main point of the article is that  player wages for us and the majority of other clubs have to be supplemented by other non-football generated sources of income which is true.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, if Mr Carrow is negative, then so am I. So are many people I know (and most of them don''t inhabit this message board). They do however inhabit local pubs and workplaces and most of them have been going to games for years and feel they have every right to question what is going on at the club.

I too would like some straight answers as to where certain chunks of the parachute money, Premiership money and profit from player sales has gone/being used for. I too find Doncaster''s statements misleading. I am, I confess, not an accountant. What I am is a supporter of our football club, but that does not mean as such, I agree with everything which comes out of the mouths of club employees. To be a supporter doesn''t mean accepting what everyone says as gospel truth, or even agreeing with their ways of doing things.

It means turning up and supporting your team, when you can do so, and singing your heart out in encouragement, even (as on Wednesday) when only about 10 of you are still singing. It means giving all you have in heart and soul to get behind the team on the pitch, even if they are having an off day, it does not, in my book, mean accepting that all that happens in the ivory tower Mr Doncaster inhabits is "in the best interests of Norwich City Football Club"[/quote]well said gazza - no one should be exempt from fair scrutiny,,,imo - to criticise unjustly is negative...especially as part of an attempt to control the free expression of others.,,however mostly in my experience people criticise not for malicious purposes, but merely because they are perfectionists...

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Yankee, Doncaster is the ultimate solicitor, wannabee politician, he only tells you what he wants you to hear, and as several others have pointed out, always comes out with another question in response to yours. I will do my best to ask what he (as CE) intends to do to balance the books, given we have apparently given all our earnings to greedy footballers! Investors and the seeking of will be at the top of my question wish list.