Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone?

Dont tell us we have no money......

Recommended Posts

when a fortune has been spent on things that have a long period before they make a profit (if any):

ex LSE LAND

bought during 02/03 season - including professional fees £2,795,904

a £2.5m loan appears in the 03/04 Accounts - so thats a minimum of 5 years interest at roughly £170k pa = £850k

theres probably another years interest or opportunity cost re the £2.5m = £170k

 

SPINE ROAD

£1.2m in the Accounts to 31/5/07 re the Spine Rd (need for planning permission).

 

So thats just over £5m tied up in land related assets that are taking money away from the playing side of the club just when we need to invest money in good strikers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven''t got the accounts so don''t know what goes out as opposed to what comes in.  We have no choice sadly but to trust what the club tell us, and what the books (accounts) say goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

I haven''t got the accounts so don''t know what goes out as opposed to what comes in.  We have no choice sadly but to trust what the club tell us, and what the books (accounts) say goes.

[/quote]

There is no coming in at the moment regarding the land and the spine road.  Instead of having the money to buy a couple of good strikers we have a piece of land a spine road that are not entertaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

I haven''t got the accounts so don''t know what goes out as opposed to what comes in.  We have no choice sadly but to trust what the club tell us, and what the books (accounts) say goes.

[/quote]

There is no coming in at the moment regarding the land and the spine road.  Instead of having the money to buy a couple of good strikers we have a piece of land a spine road that are not entertaining.

[/quote]

It''s not a good situation, especially with the financial climate as it is now.  I know the club mean well by trying to invest in the future of the club, however that won''t help us when we need decent players in as assets maybe this January when a few loan players might go back to their parent clubs.

So I gather you have the accounts?  Is there no money at all coming into the club, not from restaurants, club shops, gate receipts etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

So I gather you have the accounts?  Is there no money at all coming into the club, not from restaurants, club shops, gate receipts etc?

[/quote]

Gate receipts - yes but may I suggest this is not relevant to a discussion about off the pitch activities

Shops and restaurants - presumably yes. But these should be running at a profit in a short period of time. What you dont need to be investing in as football club in our position is things that have a long payback as we really need our resources invested in the squad.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

So I gather you have the accounts?  Is there no money at all coming into the club, not from restaurants, club shops, gate receipts etc?

[/quote]

Gate receipts - yes but may I suggest this is not relevant to a discussion about off the pitch activities

Shops and restaurants - presumably yes. But these should be running at a profit in a short period of time. What you dont need to be investing in as football club in our position is things that have a long payback as we really need our resources invested in the squad.

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Urm we are singing from the same hymn sheet, don''t know why you but come accross as very snappy [:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

I am sorry that you are reading a rather matter of fact post as being snappy.  I''m in :) mode and may I wish you happiness too.

[/quote]

 

lol happiness is only a good thing, makes the world seem a brighter place. [:)]

We are singing off the same hymn sheet though, and I totally understand the need for questions to be answered, but even I realise sometimes with our club those questions will never be fully answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I totally agree with you here CN.

From what you have said, the club used £300K of capital to purchase the land with the rest being funded by a £2.5m loan.

Since then, the club have paid £170K interest per year which comes to £850K.

A different question is to ask whether the club would have been able to get a loan from the bank to purchase a player? I very much doubt it.

The interest of £170K per year works out at £3,300 per week. Certainly wouldn''t make the player the clubs top earner.

When you look at the interest cost of £170K per year against our turnover of £23.8m, it represents 0.007%.

Finally, it is easy to total up an item like this and say it should have been better spent. If the club had spent the £300K in the 02/03 season and spent £170K p/a on wages, there is no guarantee we would be in any better position than we are now, and arguably worse as that player might have left on a free transfer whereas with the land, we could sell it - even in these bad economic times albeit at a discount to its true value.

I understand your frustration that we do not have any money, but I think the whole financial status of football has become unsustainable and will come crashing down soon. Player transfers and wages can not keep rising the way they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rethinking the future"] A different question is to ask whether the club would have been able to get a loan from the bank to purchase a player? [/quote]

But the issue is now that we need to buy two good strikers, we may have to divert £2.5m to repaying the loan by December 2008 rather than having it for the squad. If we hadn''t purchase the land we would have the £2.5m available (and avoided the interest payments).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rethinking the future"]. When you look at the interest cost of £170K per year against our turnover of £23.8m, it represents 0.007%. Finally, it is easy to total up an item like this and say it should have been better spent. .[/quote]

Rolled up over 5 to 6 years to date the interest  becomes a big figure and how many more years before they can sell this land?

 

Just shows what a good deal Chase got regarding the "mill site" :

£160k to pay per year for 5.5 years INTEREST FREE

and during the 5.5 years the club was picking up £50k from Carrow Commericals and charging people to park on the site on matchdays.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rethinking the future"]. If the club had spent the £300K in the 02/03 season and spent £170K p/a on wages, there is no guarantee we would be in any better position than we are now, and arguably worse as that player might have left on a free transfer whereas with the land, we could sell it - even in these bad economic times albeit at a discount to its true value. .[/quote]

May be so, may be not depends on whether the manager has a "good eye" for players and I think GR. has that. . Two good strikers such as Evans (and one other) are likely to retain or gain in value.

May I suggest  we are a football club that should entertain the fans rather than be a long term speculator in land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the land is potentially a problem at the moment but rethinking the future sums  up the bigger picture well. I understood from this message board that the land has a potential resale value of 10m which would come in very handy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="shefcanary"]Curiously, this amount is also close to Doomcaster''s salary![/quote]

LOL!

 

[/quote]

It wasn''t that funny (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Two good strikers such as Evans (and one other) are likely to retain or gain in value. [/quote]

You wouldn''t be able to buy Evans for 5 million.  League 1 strikers go for 2 million apiece.  And that''s why GR has relied upon loans - they get you a class of player you wouldn''t be able to buy for the same money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

when a fortune has been spent on things that have a long period before they make a profit (if any):

ex LSE LAND

bought during 02/03 season - including professional fees £2,795,904

a £2.5m loan appears in the 03/04 Accounts - so thats a minimum of 5 years interest at roughly £170k pa = £850k

theres probably another years interest or opportunity cost re the £2.5m = £170k

 

SPINE ROAD

£1.2m in the Accounts to 31/5/07 re the Spine Rd (need for planning permission).

 

So thats just over £5m tied up in land related assets that are taking money away from the playing side of the club just when we need to invest money in good strikers.

 

[/quote]

CN, they also spent £0.9m on the Kerrison Rd land:  "The Group purchased approximately one acre of land from Norwich City Council for £0.9m to facilitate the development of other land owned by the group" (`04 accounts P.4). 

I`m not sure how this was funded but seems two parcels of land + spine road + interest + other costs you are talking a £5m plus investment sitting there doing nothing for years.  What was it they said about not gambling?  At least players are liquid assets in that if you have a valuable player you can sell him quickly and easily if the need arises.  I think the real issue is that "intangibles" like players don`t boost the share price as much as having fixed assets on the balance sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article in the EDP from Mr Doom.

 

Norwich City chief executive Neil Doncaster says the club will explore every available source of money in the new year if Glenn Roeder''s side look like being involved in the Championship promotion picture.

But he admitted that if the January picture is as bleak as it was at the start of this year, then the City boss will not be given money to spend on his playing staff.

City have cut the players'' wages bill from £10m to £8.5m, but the break even point is £5m.

"The harsh reality of life in the Championship is that you cannot break even without either cutting the wage bill to the point where you are not going to compete, or without support from directors," said Doncaster at last night''s NCISA annual meeting. "There are things that can happen, but broadly it is about being supported by directors."

It means that if Roeder wants to spend he will have to rely on directors digging deep into their pockets, or by selling players or allowing them to go out on loan.

"If we are challenging and there is a real need to press on a little bit more to get into the top six or beyond, you strain every sinew and borrow every pound you can to have a go. If we are in a situation where Glenn wants to spend more, we have to look very, very carefully how we do it."

Doncaster also said work was continuing to bring new money into the club, but denied that owners Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones were "desperately clinging on" at the helm.

"Delia and Michael have made it clear their happiness to bring in other people, whether that is on a shared basis or owning the whole thing," he said. "They are not precious about it. There are some people who think they are desperately clinging on - that is just not the case. They are totally open-minded in doing what is in the club''s best interests and I hope that you can trust them and trust the board to make those judgments and hopefully move forward. But please don''t believe there is a queue of people lining up desperate to give us their cash, because that isn''t so."

Doncaster confirmed sales and marketing director Andrew Cullen, who is to join MK Dons, wouldn''t be replaced immediately and said it would be wrong to suggest the club were making redundancies in other areas.

"We were not talking job cuts and we never were," he said. "There are a number of positions that have been made redundant. I don''t rule out more, that would be wrong, but I don''t anticipate many changes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Rethinking the future"] A different question is to ask whether the club would have been able to get a loan from the bank to purchase a player? [/quote]

But the issue is now that we need to buy two good strikers, we may have to divert £2.5m to repaying the loan by December 2008 rather than having it for the squad. If we hadn''t purchase the land we would have the £2.5m available (and avoided the interest payments).

C N I think  N D was saying last night at NCISA meeting that the £2.5m loan due at the end of the year will be rolled over and not be repaid in December

OTBC

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

But he admitted that if the January picture is as bleak as it was at the start of this year, then the City boss will not be given money to spend on his playing staff.

[/quote]

So where is the money going to come from to buy a couple of good strikers that our squad needs? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Ex-greenoschin"]

C N I think  N D was saying last night at NCISA meeting that the £2.5m loan due at the end of the year will be rolled over and not be repaid in December

OTBC

[/quote]

I have been told that he said they were in negotiations with the bank......its not a done deal yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

But he admitted that if the January picture is as bleak as it was at the start of this year, then the City boss will not be given money to spend on his playing staff.

[/quote]

So where is the money going to come from to buy a couple of good strikers that our squad needs? 

[/quote]

 

lol more importantly will we even have a squad if come January we are in the lower parts of the table (god forbid)?  And as an aside will we have a manager?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is something for you to think about:

 

According to a Norwich City Council planning document 330 units have planning permission and are being developed by Taylor Woodrow.  This is known as phase 1 to the world and NCFC received £6.2m if I remember correctly so that works out as £18.8k per unit.

 

Given that NCFC have spent £5m on the ex LSE land as referred to earlier on this thread coupled to:

a) The acre of land bought from Norwich City Council for £0.9m referred to by Mr Carrow and 

b) £1m approx received by NCFC for the office block (on the ex LSE land facing the road) sold

we are at £4.9m.

 

Lets say it takes the market three years to get back to the levels that produced £18.8k per unit

£4.9m + 3 years interest (assuming we can roll over the related loan) @£170k  --> £5.4m

Planning obligations for multi storey car park  (application A1 & B1)                       £0.579m

If the debt is rolled over then I would expect the bank to charge a fee

Forecast total  costs                                                                                             £5.98m lets call it £6m.+

 

The Planning document gives the impression that application C1 & C2 relate to 328 units. If this is all whats available for development and it can be sold at a similar level to phase 1 then that will generate £6.16m (328 x £18.8k).  

 

 

 

 

                                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another boring pre-occupation and discourse by the usual suspects regarding someone else''s money. I think Abba''s lyrics covered it:

I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain''t it sad
And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That''s too bad
In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn''t have to work at all, I''d fool around and have a ball

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man''s world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man''s world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It''s a rich man''s world

A man like that is hard to find but I can''t get him off my mind
Ain''t it sad
And if he happens to be free I bet he wouldn''t fancy me
That''s too bad
So I must leave, I''ll have to go
To Las Vegas or Monaco
And win a fortune in a game, my life will never be the same

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"]

The following is something for you to think about:

 

According to a Norwich City Council planning document 330 units have planning permission and are being developed by Taylor Woodrow.  This is known as phase 1 to the world and NCFC received £6.2m if I remember correctly so that works out as £18.8k per unit.

 

Given that NCFC have spent £5m on the ex LSE land as referred to earlier on this thread coupled to:

a) The acre of land bought from Norwich City Council for £0.9m referred to by Mr Carrow and 

b) £1m approx received by NCFC for the office block (on the ex LSE land facing the road) sold

we are at £4.9m.

 

Lets say it takes the market three years to get back to the levels that produced £18.8k per unit

£4.9m + 3 years interest (assuming we can roll over the related loan) @£170k  --> £5.4m

Planning obligations for multi storey car park  (application A1 & B1)                       £0.579m

If the debt is rolled over then I would expect the bank to charge a fee

Forecast total  costs                                                                                             £5.98m lets call it £6m.+

 

The Planning document gives the impression that application C1 & C2 relate to 328 units. If this is all whats available for development and it can be sold at a similar level to phase 1 then that will generate £6.16m (328 x £18.8k).  

 

 

 

 

                                                        

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

Sorry Canary Nut, but, with all due respect, this is utter nonsense! If you showed this analysis to a property developer, he''d pee himself with laughter.

You''ve totally ignored the actual size of the land sold todate, the units built thereon and the associated captial receipt relating thereto. If you really believe we''ll get a land value equivalent to under £20K a unit, get me Doncaster''s number, cos I''m a buyer at those prices, even in this poor market!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...