Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
FramCanary

CLUB FINANCES - let's be 'avin', the Truth!!!

Recommended Posts

Following the Football Club’s recent AGM, let’s take a look at the financial situation, both by way of  reviewing comments made by Neil Doncaster (‘The Chief’), by board members at the meeting, & my assessment of  Accounts relevant to the past 12 years or so.

 

The Chief  (Neil Doncaster) Column  -  Eastern Daily Press  -  2 October 2008

 

Norwich City Football Club  -  Accounts for the Year ended 31 May 2008

 

 

“Supporters should take comfort from club`s accounts” – Neil Doncaster.

 

Once again Neil Doncaster tries to reassure fans of Norwich City that their club is in good financial shape.

 

He states that the picture is actually quite robust and for the umpteenth time makes comparisons between the current situation and that which existed in 1996, when the current regime became involved.

 

Mr Doncaster acknowledges that at that time the club had a smaller debt (actually £6.9m) but that the money was being borrowed on overdraft which was repayable on demand.

 

This was of course the case, and was (with hindsight) a mistake. Demand did in fact occur, and as a result, significant short term financial difficulties arose which were only overcome when the late Geoffrey Watling (not for the first time) came to the club`s rescue.

 

Whilst Mr Doncaster mentions in his article that earlier that year “fire” sales of players took place, I note that he fails to remind readers that later that same year the club confirmed that it rejected offers for two of its players (thought to be Eadie and O`Neill) totalling almost £10m.

 

At that time, in addition to Eadie and O`Neill, the club had other contracted players worth substantial sums, including Marshall  Mills  Johnson  Cureton  Akinbiyi  Bellamy etc.

The overall value of the squad was very considerable and it should be remembered that

it represented a sizeable intangible but liquid asset, NOT included within the club`s Balance Sheet.

 

In Mr  Doncaster`s opinion the current financial position is “a far cry” from that which the present regime inherited, and that whilst the club now has a much larger debt (actually £18.8m), it is structured and manageable.

 

This increase has arisen despite the fact that unprecedented levels of income have found their way into the club`s coffers in recent years by way of Premier League (Sky) monies (including parachute payments),  Share receipts,  Legacy funds,  Loans from Directors,  and record  Season Ticket & Gate receipts.

 

The Chief indicates that Wages and Staff Costs have been a burden, but we are all aware that substantial sums have been spent on Fixed Assets, not all of which was altogether necessary.

 

I take the view that debt (whatever the size, whether structured or otherwise) is a liability requiring repayment at some stage, be it short medium or long term.

 

At the end of the day the fact that the club now has a debt of £18.8m and rising (as evidenced by the notes within the Accounts), is ultimately as a result of the policies employed (and decisions made) by the Directors.

 

In my considered opinion, when running any business it is vitally important that particular attention is paid to liquidity and I think it is somewhat worrying that over the course of the past twelve months Net Current Liabilities have deteriorated from £3.4m to £7.8m.

 

Whilst part of the reason for this is that one of the club`s Bank Loans (an amount of £2.5m) is due for settlement this December, it does pose the question as to where precisely the required funds going to be found to meet this, and other ongoing commitments.

 

There is a note within the Accounts to the effect that since the year end further Loans totalling £1.75m have been received by the club from Directors, and that additional Loans amounting £2.0m will be made available to the club during the course of the current financial year.

 

It may well be that repayment of some or all of the Bank Loan may emanate from those sources, but I suspect that much of the new money being injected by the Directors will need to be used to cover ongoing trading losses.

 

Furthermore I should imagine that I would not be too far from the truth if I were to suggest that the Directors find themselves in a position whereby they see a need to provide further finance to the club in order to try and protect their overall investment.

 

For how long they will be able to sustain this without further help remains to be seen.

 

Unlike Mr Doncaster, I consider the financial situation to be extremely precarious. To anyone who is interested, I would say forget about all the spin and rhetoric you have heard and believed from the current regime to the effect that the club now only sells players for footballing reasons. The reality appears to me to be completely the opposite.

 

The Accounts reveal that for the third year in succession, the club made a significant profit on player transfer activity.

 

This last year the figure was £3.5m, the previous year it was £2.5m, and the year before that it was £6.2m, which means that over the course of the past three years a net total of £12.2m has been injected into the club from (dare I say it) FIRE SALES of players such as  Ashton  Green  McKenzie Earnshaw  Etuhu  Shackell  etc.

 

It seems quite clear to me that it is largely the receipt of these funds that have kept the club afloat and it is all the more concerning when one considers that (unlike 12 years ago when the club possessed a squad of players of considerable value) it now has only a few players worth nominal sums. Indeed, it has a substantially fewer number of its own contracted players, preferring to hire performers on costly loan arrangements.

 

Another development since the year end has been the resignations from the Board of Directors of Mr & Mrs Turner, the reasons for which are not known.

 

This must surely be a further worry to the club and its followers as it would appear that

before doing so they had indicated a willingness to provide further Loan assistance of a minimum of £2.0m, but they will now evidently not be doing so.

 

Whilst I am sure the news will have come as a disappointment to the other Directors and to many supporters, I have to say that I find it understandable given the club`s financial position and the current economic climate.

 

I suspect they felt it inappropriate to pour further good money into the club given the situation that currently exists, and the worrying trends that I (and I am sure many others) have already identified, but sadly seem to have been overlooked by Mr Doncaster and the remaining Directors.

 

As far as the immediate future is concerned, Mr & Mrs Wyn-Jones (the major shareholders) may or may not be able to attract “idiots such as themselves and the Turners to invest monies into the club for no return”.

 

Only time will tell, but I would be very surprised if any potential investor would be prepared to plough substantial sums of money into the club without insisting upon significant change being made with regard to policy decision making, and financial control thereafter.

 

Mr Doncaster - “ROBUST” - Are you really serious, or just having a LAUGH?

 

How contrasting were the comments of Mrs Wyn-Jones at this weeks Annual General Meeting!.

 

She described the club`s financial position as  -  “DIRE”.      

 

FramCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very well constructed post. Its nice to read a rational and realistic analysis of the current situation instead of yet another "sack the board and/or the manager" thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A very good post and very accurate I think. I would dearly like to see somebody make a financial comparison of the club now and 12 years ago including approximate (realistic) player values. Just by thinking about the total debt and squad values for the two times I suspect that we are probably far worse off now than we were then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m obviously worried like the rest of us about the state of our debt and It''s more obvious from your post that money brought into the club hasnt been spent wisely on new playing assets. But i think you''ve missed the fact that the Jarrold Stand had to be rebuilt or it was going to be shut down we would then have had attendances of around 15,000 I feel the board have mismanaged alot of things and maybe they could have built the stand more cheaply but the fact remains that it did have to be built, and this accounts for a large proportion of the increased debt levels. This would have needed to be built regardless of who was in charge.

Also I wouldnt call Ashton, Green, Etuhu or McKenzie Firesales they all wanted to leave and left the club with little choice but to sell. Mckenzie and Ashton both asked to leave, Green had earned his move with loyalty but still wanted to leave, Etuhu and Earnshaw both had contracts that allowed them to leave or they wouldnt have signed in the first place. However agreed Shackells move did have the feel of a fire sale.

The past assets you talk of in Cureton, Mills and Akinbyi were sold on the cheap, but most of the fans at the time (maybe not Cureton) thought they werent good enough for our team anyway.

I do believe the board have been incompetent but are mainly guilty indecision on managers and extremely poor recuitment often resulting in a cycle of paying off managers. Becuase of the wrong manager being hired the wrong players have been bought and also because of the poor recuitment i dread to think how many players contracts have had to be paid off because a new manager thought (probably rightly) that these players werent up to the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Yellowbeagle"]

I''m obviously worried like the rest of us about the state of our debt and It''s more obvious from your post that money brought into the club hasnt been spent wisely on new playing assets. But i think you''ve missed the fact that the Jarrold Stand had to be rebuilt or it was going to be shut down we would then have had attendances of around 15,000 I feel the board have mismanaged alot of things and maybe they could have built the stand more cheaply but the fact remains that it did have to be built, and this accounts for a large proportion of the increased debt levels. This would have needed to be built regardless of who was in charge.

Also I wouldnt call Ashton, Green, Etuhu or McKenzie Firesales they all wanted to leave and left the club with little choice but to sell. Mckenzie and Ashton both asked to leave, Green had earned his move with loyalty but still wanted to leave, Etuhu and Earnshaw both had contracts that allowed them to leave or they wouldnt have signed in the first place. However agreed Shackells move did have the feel of a fire sale.

The past assets you talk of in Cureton, Mills and Akinbyi were sold on the cheap, but most of the fans at the time (maybe not Cureton) thought they werent good enough for our team anyway.

I do believe the board have been incompetent but are mainly guilty indecision on managers and extremely poor recuitment often resulting in a cycle of paying off managers. Becuase of the wrong manager being hired the wrong players have been bought and also because of the poor recuitment i dread to think how many players contracts have had to be paid off because a new manager thought (probably rightly) that these players werent up to the job.

[/quote]

Good points. However, the new Stand was largely financed though what the press termed ''Chase''s legacy'', ie. the land investment inherited by the current board.

There is no doubt that the current board can only dowse the fire until they run out of water, & I forecast a drought is on it''s way!.

Share this post


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

I''m obviously worried like the rest of us about the state of our debt and It''s more obvious from your post that money brought into the club hasnt been spent wisely on new playing assets. But i think you''ve missed the fact that the Jarrold Stand had to be rebuilt or it was going to be shut down we would then have had attendances of around 15,000 I feel the board have mismanaged alot of things and maybe they could have built the stand more cheaply but the fact remains that it did have to be built, and this accounts for a large proportion of the increased debt levels. This would have needed to be built regardless of who was in charge.

Also I wouldnt call Ashton, Green, Etuhu or McKenzie Firesales they all wanted to leave and left the club with little choice but to sell. Mckenzie and Ashton both asked to leave, Green had earned his move with loyalty but still wanted to leave, Etuhu and Earnshaw both had contracts that allowed them to leave or they wouldnt have signed in the first place. However agreed Shackells move did have the feel of a fire sale.

The past assets you talk of in Cureton, Mills and Akinbyi were sold on the cheap, but most of the fans at the time (maybe not Cureton) thought they werent good enough for our team anyway.

I do believe the board have been incompetent but are mainly guilty indecision on managers and extremely poor recuitment often resulting in a cycle of paying off managers. Becuase of the wrong manager being hired the wrong players have been bought and also because of the poor recuitment i dread to think how many players contracts have had to be paid off because a new manager thought (probably rightly) that these players werent up to the job.

[/quote]

Good points. However, the new Stand was largely financed though what the press termed ''Chase''s legacy'', ie. the land investment inherited by the current board.

There is no doubt that the current board can only dowse the fire until they run out of water, & I forecast a drought is on it''s way!.

[/quote]

Oh i dont doubt your right on where we are heading, better dust off that loose change bucket for match days again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted on Saturday shortly after I had had a half-hour telephone conversation with Neil Doncaster,that he had told me that if HBOS would not re-schedule the repayment of the £2.5 million loan due Dec,that the club WOULD go into administration! Potless Percy accused me of a wind -up.It was no wind-up!Donc. is however,confident that HBOS would re-schedule.His EXACT words were "it will be the first case of the government forcing a football club into administration".He is of course reffering to the fact the government now has a large financial interest in HBOS. Fair enough he is confident of this outcome,but as things are somewhat precarious at that particular institution, can he really be sure?Anyone worried?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="A change gonna come..."]
I posted on Saturday shortly after I had had a half-hour telephone conversation with Neil Doncaster,that he had told me that if HBOS would not re-schedule the repayment of the £2.5 million loan due Dec,that the club WOULD go into administration! Potless Percy accused me of a wind -up.It was no wind-up!
Donc. is however,confident that HBOS would re-schedule.His EXACT words were "it will be the first case of the government forcing a football club into administration".
He is of course reffering to the fact the government now has a large financial interest in HBOS.

Fair enough he is confident of this outcome,but as things are somewhat precarious at that particular institution, can he really be sure?

Anyone worried?

[/quote]

NO because theres £4m (as at 31/5/08)  that can be squeezed out of working capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="A change gonna come..."]
I posted on Saturday shortly after I had had a half-hour telephone conversation with Neil Doncaster,that he had told me that if HBOS would not re-schedule the repayment of the £2.5 million loan due Dec,that the club WOULD go into administration! Potless Percy accused me of a wind -up.It was no wind-up!
Donc. is however,confident that HBOS would re-schedule.His EXACT words were "it will be the first case of the government forcing a football club into administration".
He is of course reffering to the fact the government now has a large financial interest in HBOS.

Fair enough he is confident of this outcome,but as things are somewhat precarious at that particular institution, can he really be sure?

Anyone worried?

[/quote]

Thanks for this. It seems as though time is running out for Smith. Indeed, ''A change is gonna come...''!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lucky green trainers"]so whats your advice to the smiths fram??? acting equally in their own and NCFC''s best interest - this has to be the only criteria hasn''t it???what would you tell them to do???

[/quote]sorry to push if you haven''t had time, but given you have proffered such an insightful expose in the clubs accounts - it would be nice to hear your personal opinion fram on perhaps where the current board and NCFC go from here??? the club as we know plan for different outcomes, so in your opinion what options do the board have to take themselves (i.e to sell from what we can gather) and NCFC forward???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Granted the players you mentioned wanted to leave, but who did we replace them with. Were their replacements at least of the same quality or even half as good. It would seem not, as since the days of the sale of Green and Ashton, less so the others mentioned where have we gone.

In one direction down - and the Directors are soley responsible for that. They have taken in £££s in sale and given ppps for the manager to replace. We end up with a team fit for nothing, buying off contracts, loaning out to other clubs - and guess what loaning in other players. And where are we?

We are were we have budgeted to be, bottom - or as near as. No ambition - no forward thinking, but as it''s been for the past few years - lurching from one crisis to the next.

Beagle, you also mention the money used on replacing managers. As I see it, this is one of the most prolific areas in charging the current board for not only complacency, but negligence.

All in all a dire situation to find ourselves in and only a few people to account for it. We can blame the managers at the time for poor selections, bizarre substitutions, but every time the real culprits are still there, promising more, and giving less.

Now they are at the very brink, if Roeder and the team don''t keep us in this division I really can''t begin to think what will happen to our club. Especially with the current crew in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Granted the players you mentioned wanted to leave, but who did we replace them with. Were their replacements at least of the same quality or even half as good. It would seem not, as since the days of the sale of Green and Ashton, less so the others mentioned where have we gone. In one direction down - and the Directors are soley responsible for that. They have taken in £££s in sale and given ppps for the manager to replace. We end up with a team fit for nothing, buying off contracts, loaning out to other clubs - and guess what loaning in other players. And where are we? We are were we have budgeted to be, bottom - or as near as. No ambition - no forward thinking, but as it''s been for the past few years - lurching from one crisis to the next. Beagle, you also mention the money used on replacing managers. As I see it, this is one of the most prolific areas in charging the current board for not only complacency, but negligence. All in all a dire situation to find ourselves in and only a few people to account for it. We can blame the managers at the time for poor selections, bizarre substitutions, but every time the real culprits are still there, promising more, and giving less. Now they are at the very brink, if Roeder and the team don''t keep us in this division I really can''t begin to think what will happen to our club. Especially with the current crew in charge.[/quote]

Spot on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first problem is Doncaster, (no, not the team)  his salary equates to all the revenue the club gets for one home game.

surely to god it would have been better spent on a players wages.

I could spin arrogance to the fans for nothing.

Get rid of him now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In your opinion Fram what are the board''s next steps? Do they have to simply stump up the money themselves and pray we are not relegated? If they find an investor do you imagine they would leave "in the best interests" or will they insist they are still in charge and only accept an investment if the status quo is maintained on the board.

Isn''t it time they took some business people (much like yourself) in their confidence and work out a much needed business strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is the board going to get to help them throw good money after bad in the middle of an economic recession? The Turners pulled out, they snubbed Cullum, who next? What next?

I mean they have no vision, no goals. They don''t benchmark and strive to emulate. Only a fool would back them with significant money as things stand.

All they do is flounder around and turn plaintively to the minor shareholders at the AGM and warble  - well, what would you do differently.

It''s all just too sad for words.

They''re living on a hope and a prayer that Roeder can turn things around on the field and give them breathing space. In fact they''re so desperate that they''re even scared to rebuke him for rudeness to minor shareholders.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Lenny-boy"]

the first problem is Doncaster, (no, not the team)  his salary equates to all the revenue the club gets for one home game.

surely to god it would have been better spent on a players wages.

I could spin arrogance to the fans for nothing.

Get rid of him now.

[/quote]

Come to think about it how about cutting back some of the other off the pitch costs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="lucky green trainers"]so whats your advice to the smiths fram??? acting equally in their own and NCFC''s best interest - this has to be the only criteria hasn''t it???

what would you tell them to do???


[/quote]

sorry to push if you haven''t had time, but given you have proffered such an insightful expose in the clubs accounts - it would be nice to hear your personal opinion fram on perhaps where the current board and NCFC go from here??? the club as we know plan for different outcomes, so in your opinion what options do the board have to take themselves (i.e to sell from what we can gather) and NCFC forward???


[/quote]

I think it is most sad that Smith & Jones (especially given the recent departure of the ''Turner''s'' & their pending £2m cash injection) are needing to plough more of their hard earned small fortune into the club so as to keep it afloat. However, the current financial situation has largely been brought about via a mis-management of the Club''s finances by their Board of Directors. Excessive wages have been rewarded to players of below par ability, & I am convinced that the Corporate entertaining/Catering income stream is (in reality) losing the club money. I suspect that their is a large inconsistency with cost analysis, cost centre''s etc. Ie. costs directly attributable to this income stream are being hidden amongst other expenditure headings within the Accounts.

The detail (or lack of it) within the Accounts (P&L a/c) is largely irrelevant - as it is the Balance Sheet at the year end date which tells us all what we need to know. We are close to the brink, especially given that it was confirmed at the AGM that the Manager will see little or nothing of the Shackell sale proceeds. With remaining contracted players being worth very little, the only way Smith & Jones can keep the Club affloat is by pumping more cash in. I could''nt care less if they bleed themselves dry, as an investor (such as Cullum) will find the asking price for ownership decline steadily as time goes on.

Share this post


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

I''m obviously worried like the rest of us about the state of our debt and It''s more obvious from your post that money brought into the club hasnt been spent wisely on new playing assets. But i think you''ve missed the fact that the Jarrold Stand had to be rebuilt or it was going to be shut down we would then have had attendances of around 15,000 I feel the board have mismanaged alot of things and maybe they could have built the stand more cheaply but the fact remains that it did have to be built, and this accounts for a large proportion of the increased debt levels. This would have needed to be built regardless of who was in charge.

Also I wouldnt call Ashton, Green, Etuhu or McKenzie Firesales they all wanted to leave and left the club with little choice but to sell. Mckenzie and Ashton both asked to leave, Green had earned his move with loyalty but still wanted to leave, Etuhu and Earnshaw both had contracts that allowed them to leave or they wouldnt have signed in the first place. However agreed Shackells move did have the feel of a fire sale.

The past assets you talk of in Cureton, Mills and Akinbyi were sold on the cheap, but most of the fans at the time (maybe not Cureton) thought they werent good enough for our team anyway.

I do believe the board have been incompetent but are mainly guilty indecision on managers and extremely poor recuitment often resulting in a cycle of paying off managers. Becuase of the wrong manager being hired the wrong players have been bought and also because of the poor recuitment i dread to think how many players contracts have had to be paid off because a new manager thought (probably rightly) that these players werent up to the job.

[/quote]Well Mills won the player of the season award before being sold to Charlton, so I doubt that anybody thought he wasnt good enough.

Share this post


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

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="lucky green trainers"]so whats your advice to the smiths fram??? acting equally in their own and NCFC''s best interest - this has to be the only criteria hasn''t it???

what would you tell them to do???


[/quote]

sorry to push if you haven''t had time, but given you have proffered such an insightful expose in the clubs accounts - it would be nice to hear your personal opinion fram on perhaps where the current board and NCFC go from here??? the club as we know plan for different outcomes, so in your opinion what options do the board have to take themselves (i.e to sell from what we can gather) and NCFC forward???


[/quote]

I think it is most sad that Smith & Jones (especially given the recent departure of the ''Turner''s'' & their pending £2m cash injection) are needing to plough more of their hard earned small fortune into the club so as to keep it afloat. However, the current financial situation has largely been brought about via a mis-management of the Club''s finances by their Board of Directors. Excessive wages have been rewarded to players of below par ability, & I am convinced that the Corporate entertaining/Catering income stream is (in reality) losing the club money. I suspect that their is a large inconsistency with cost analysis, cost centre''s etc. Ie. costs directly attributable to this income stream are being hidden amongst other expenditure headings within the Accounts.

The detail (or lack of it) within the Accounts (P&L a/c) is largely irrelevant - as it is the Balance Sheet at the year end date which tells us all what we need to know. We are close to the brink, especially given that it was confirmed at the AGM that the Manager will see little or nothing of the Shackell sale proceeds. With remaining contracted players being worth very little, the only way Smith & Jones can keep the Club affloat is by pumping more cash in. I could''nt care less if they bleed themselves dry, as an investor (such as Cullum) will find the asking price for ownership decline steadily as time goes on.

[/quote]

Uh? Is it just me or what?

Dear oh bloody dear......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="FramCanary"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="lucky green trainers"]so whats your advice to the smiths fram??? acting equally in their own and NCFC''s best interest - this has to be the only criteria hasn''t it???

what would you tell them to do???


[/quote]

sorry to push if you haven''t had time, but given you have proffered such an insightful expose in the clubs accounts - it would be nice to hear your personal opinion fram on perhaps where the current board and NCFC go from here??? the club as we know plan for different outcomes, so in your opinion what options do the board have to take themselves (i.e to sell from what we can gather) and NCFC forward???


[/quote]

I think it is most sad that Smith & Jones (especially given the recent departure of the ''Turner''s'' & their pending £2m cash injection) are needing to plough more of their hard earned small fortune into the club so as to keep it afloat. However, the current financial situation has largely been brought about via a mis-management of the Club''s finances by their Board of Directors. Excessive wages have been rewarded to players of below par ability, & I am convinced that the Corporate entertaining/Catering income stream is (in reality) losing the club money. I suspect that their is a large inconsistency with cost analysis, cost centre''s etc. Ie. costs directly attributable to this income stream are being hidden amongst other expenditure headings within the Accounts.

The detail (or lack of it) within the Accounts (P&L a/c) is largely irrelevant - as it is the Balance Sheet at the year end date which tells us all what we need to know. We are close to the brink, especially given that it was confirmed at the AGM that the Manager will see little or nothing of the Shackell sale proceeds. With remaining contracted players being worth very little, the only way Smith & Jones can keep the Club affloat is by pumping more cash in. I could''nt care less if they bleed themselves dry, as an investor (such as Cullum) will find the asking price for ownership decline steadily as time goes on.

[/quote]

Uh? Is it just me or what?

Dear oh bloody dear......

[/quote]

I could''nt care less if they bleed themselves dry, as an investor (such as Cullum) will find the asking price for ownership decline steadily as time goes on.

Share this post


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

I''m obviously worried like the rest of us about the state of our debt and It''s more obvious from your post that money brought into the club hasnt been spent wisely on new playing assets. But i think you''ve missed the fact that the Jarrold Stand had to be rebuilt or it was going to be shut down we would then have had attendances of around 15,000 I feel the board have mismanaged alot of things and maybe they could have built the stand more cheaply but the fact remains that it did have to be built, and this accounts for a large proportion of the increased debt levels. This would have needed to be built regardless of who was in charge.

Also I wouldnt call Ashton, Green, Etuhu or McKenzie Firesales they all wanted to leave and left the club with little choice but to sell. Mckenzie and Ashton both asked to leave, Green had earned his move with loyalty but still wanted to leave, Etuhu and Earnshaw both had contracts that allowed them to leave or they wouldnt have signed in the first place. However agreed Shackells move did have the feel of a fire sale.

The past assets you talk of in Cureton, Mills and Akinbyi were sold on the cheap, but most of the fans at the time (maybe not Cureton) thought they werent good enough for our team anyway.

I do believe the board have been incompetent but are mainly guilty indecision on managers and extremely poor recuitment often resulting in a cycle of paying off managers. Becuase of the wrong manager being hired the wrong players have been bought and also because of the poor recuitment i dread to think how many players contracts have had to be paid off because a new manager thought (probably rightly) that these players werent up to the job.

[/quote]

You (& the ''Chase-out'' brigade) may have held this opinion - I did''nt.

Mills left for Charlton Athletic where he was an outstanding performer, & 15 months later earned a £4.1m transfer to Leeds Utd. He went on to win 19 England caps during a very successful Premiership career.

Akinbiyi has been sold for fees totalling almost £16m. After being told by our Club that he was''nt good enough, he earned a £1.2m transfer from Gillingham (having impressed with 28 goals in just 63 games) to Bristol City. He then went on to score 21 goals in 47 games prior to a £3.5m transfer to Wolves.

Unfortunately, our Manager & his employers were unaware of the potential that these (& other) players had, and consequently missed out on utilising their ability within our team, let alone receiving substantially more in transfer funds.

Share this post


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

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="lucky green trainers"]so whats your advice to the smiths fram??? acting equally in their own and NCFC''s best interest - this has to be the only criteria hasn''t it???what would you tell them to do???

[/quote]sorry to push if you haven''t had time, but given you have proffered such an insightful expose in the clubs accounts - it would be nice to hear your personal opinion fram on perhaps where the current board and NCFC go from here??? the club as we know plan for different outcomes, so in your opinion what options do the board have to take themselves (i.e to sell from what we can gather) and NCFC forward???

[/quote]

I think it is most sad that Smith & Jones (especially given the recent departure of the ''Turner''s'' & their pending £2m cash injection) are needing to plough more of their hard earned small fortune into the club so as to keep it afloat. However, the current financial situation has largely been brought about via a mis-management of the Club''s finances by their Board of Directors. Excessive wages have been rewarded to players of below par ability, & I am convinced that the Corporate entertaining/Catering income stream is (in reality) losing the club money. I suspect that their is a large inconsistency with cost analysis, cost centre''s etc. Ie. costs directly attributable to this income stream are being hidden amongst other expenditure headings within the Accounts.

The detail (or lack of it) within the Accounts (P&L a/c) is largely irrelevant - as it is the Balance Sheet at the year end date which tells us all what we need to know. We are close to the brink, especially given that it was confirmed at the AGM that the Manager will see little or nothing of the Shackell sale proceeds. With remaining contracted players being worth very little, the only way Smith & Jones can keep the Club affloat is by pumping more cash in. I could''nt care less if they bleed themselves dry, as an investor (such as Cullum) will find the asking price for ownership decline steadily as time goes on.

[/quote]sorry fram - missed this as been off the message board for a couple of days...its clear that without smith and jones covering the clubs losses - we''d be in serious financial trouble...its more than likely these losses will increase as income falls in the recession, and i am concerned the maj shareholders will not be able to bear them indefinitely without looking to cut costs,,,if the turners review has already cut the non playing budget to a reasonable level, then my concern is the playing side budget could come under scrutiny and roedy could see his budget trimmed,,,surely the best time to act is now, before the recession fully unwinds, or isn''t that so - maybe the losses have to rack up in order to feasibly break the clubs assets up as follows...how about this for a brain-storm??? but if the maj shareholders swopped their loans (and the turners) to the club for the land assets they have built up,,,renegotiate the club debt (as bobert suggested by reducing the amount as much as possible - like ipswich did) and then try to sell the club for as much as i could get, even if this was for £1m - but to an investor/s prepared to put a significant amount of dosh into the club???in which case are we looking smiths and jones having no option (in the absence of buyers now) but to hold on, take their medicine, possibly bringing city to the economic brink, before putting such a rescue plan into action???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some points:1. Comparing the squad value now with 1996 is unfair:a) The Bosman ruling was only just coming into effectb) we weren''t subject to the same rules regarding youth as we are now - messrs Eadie, Bellamy and Cureton would not have been able to be taken into our Academy had today''s rules then applied2. Anyone who thinks that Ashton etc weren''t forced sales has not been paying attention. A week or so before Ashton went the club was forced to borrow the money to pay Carl Robinson''s wages.3. The South Stand and Infill were entirely financed by borrowing.4. Did we need to replace the South Stand? No one has ever challenged the club on this - but judging by some of the stands that get safety certificates I must admit to a degree of scepticism. And did we need to replace it to the standard we did? And is the infill necessary at all?The general financial climate has moved against us, but the Chase / Wynn-Jones prioritising of property development ahead of football and in particular the ludicrous expectations of the money that can be made have dragged this club down. Actions speak louder than weasel words The insistence that any new investor must plough moneys into the coffers of existing shareholders rather than into the football budget demonstrates clearly where the priorities lie. Interesting that Mr Di Stefano was criticised by the current regime for wanting to buy shares from an existing shareholder (Jimmy Jones) rather than investing directly into the club. Seems there is only one destination for new money that "ticks all the boxes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Reg Presley"]Some points:
1. Comparing the squad value now with 1996 is unfair:
a) The Bosman ruling was only just coming into effect
b) we weren''t subject to the same rules regarding youth as we are now - messrs Eadie, Bellamy and Cureton would not have been able to be taken into our Academy had today''s rules then applied

2. Anyone who thinks that Ashton etc weren''t forced sales has not been paying attention. A week or so before Ashton went the club was forced to borrow the money to pay Carl Robinson''s wages.

3. The South Stand and Infill were entirely financed by borrowing.

4. Did we need to replace the South Stand? No one has ever challenged the club on this - but judging by some of the stands that get safety certificates I must admit to a degree of scepticism. And did we need to replace it to the standard we did? And is the infill necessary at all?

The general financial climate has moved against us, but the Chase / Wynn-Jones prioritising of property development ahead of football and in particular the ludicrous expectations of the money that can be made have dragged this club down. Actions speak louder than weasel words The insistence that any new investor must plough moneys into the coffers of existing shareholders rather than into the football budget demonstrates clearly where the priorities lie. Interesting that Mr Di Stefano was criticised by the current regime for wanting to buy shares from an existing shareholder (Jimmy Jones) rather than investing directly into the club. Seems there is only one destination for new money that "ticks all the boxes".
[/quote]

The insistence that any new investor must plough moneys into the coffers of existing shareholders rather than into the football budget demonstrates clearly where the priorities lie.

Thank-you very much Reg. I totally agree with the above statement......

 

Share this post


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

Who is the board going to get to help them throw good money after bad in the middle of an economic recession? The Turners pulled out, they snubbed Cullum, who next? What next?

I mean they have no vision, no goals. They don''t benchmark and strive to emulate. Only a fool would back them with significant money as things stand.

All they do is flounder around and turn plaintively to the minor shareholders at the AGM and warble  - well, what would you do differently.

It''s all just too sad for words.

They''re living on a hope and a prayer that Roeder can turn things around on the field and give them breathing space. In fact they''re so desperate that they''re even scared to rebuke him for rudeness to minor shareholders.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Fully agree.

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...