Wasted Money and poor club running

[Hayden 0]

At a time when we as a football club are scrapping around for every penny we can find, the latest reports are truly annoying:

£500,000 on Emblen, £200,000 on Nielsen and I can''t remember what we paid for Libbra, even add in the £50,000 paid for McGovern if you like and then look at the £700,000 spent to pay them off as reported today. That is £1,450,000.
Then you have Clint Easton who is not good enough at £100,000 and not to mention the £1.5 million ''lost'' on letting Marshall and Kenton walk for free. Heckingbottom and Briggs have come in and neither are rated. Also, Worthington has made most of these signings (scary huh) and in total you have at least £3m wasted or lost on wages, frees and pay offs.
Now I know you can''t legislate for injuries etc and some players work out (Francis, Holt) but bloody hell, talk about gutting. Worthy has done well in his time with the play offs etc and now we are second, but to sustain it you need money as we all agree on this site. We seem to be doing it arse about face; sign players cheap and give them good contracts, realise that the reason they were cheap was because they are s***e and then get rid of them at a massive cost to the club.

You get what you pay for. Pay quality money, you get quality players, do it on the cheap and you will get nowhere apart from further in debt wallowing in the lower leagues.The only way City will ever get put of debt is promotion, hence you need to go for it or accept bigger debts in the future. Norwich should not be scrapping around for frees who warm the bench, that was the Hamilton days and I don''t want to see that again.

OTBC

[MPR 0]

I see that Delia and MWJ will be contributing to the new share offer. May I venture tha, even with the release of today''s oh-so-well-timed "aren''t we hard up" numbers unless we see some degree of ambition from those at the top re the Three Amigos, the take up of share offers is likely to be lower than sales of How to Cook in the Ipswich club shop?

[Mook 0]

That''s the thing about management though, calculated gambles. Look at Redknapp when he was at West ham - he signed some complete duffers! But then there were some gems too. Villa have just lost 5.8m on Balaban and we don''t know how much yet on Crouch. Man Utd signed first Taibi then Barthez, , Ip**** signed Sereni and Finidi and all of these are "quality players". It just didn''t work out for whatever reason, and that''s the way it goes. However things are looking up - we have signed Francis and Edworthy this season who both look class acts, and Brennan to come and hopefully do the business. Nielsen was signed on the euphoria of his loan move (sound familiar) but apart from that period he never really did the business. You can''t legislate for that happening.

[Mook 0]

5.8m for Bosko Balaban is quality money. 4m for Massimo Taibi is quality money. 11m for Sergei Rebrov is quality money, as is the 11m Liverpool spent on Emile Heskey.

Money doesn''t guarantee quality, and most of all it doesn''t guarantee that the player will work out at a club. I''d rather that this kind of thing didn''t happen, but management is a series of calculated risks - if we hadn''t have signed Nielsen on the back of his loan performances then NW would have probably been chased out by the fans. But as it stood, it didn''t really work out. We have to go on trying to pick up bargains, and this season looks good with the addition of Francis and Edworthy, and hopefully Brennan too.

I think MPR your post is a bit harsh?! Delia and MWJ have helped us out a lot and will probably carry on doing so.

[GMF 736]

I''m struggling to find anything positive to take from the latest set of accounts.

I''ll be interested to see the breakdown of £16.9m expenditure, as this is a hugh amount. I''m also left wondering what the increases in turnover for catering and commercial activities actually mean for bottom line profits.

[a1canary 0]

Here''s some positivity - we''re no worse off than most in this league, and better off than many. You can only compare us to our rivals and if they''re all in the same - or worse - situation then our chances of promotion are no less.

Our debts are around 15 mil - that is comparable and far preferrable to them down the road (does anyone have a figure - 30mil?) With the new stand, it will be well within our capability to service that debt from what will be top four average gates. Remember, the binners are servicing their huge debt on an average attendance so far this season that will be very similar to ours despite their marginally bigger stadium. No point buildin it if you can''t fill it! It''s all about gate receipts and people don''t seem to realise that when the south stand is done, even without the corner, we''ll could easily be a top four or even three club for ave gates. Next time you see the paper, look at the ave gate table and the league table - remarkably similar. So, CHIN UP!

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

Hang on Hayden, you''ve contradicted yourself. How can you say "You get what you pay for. Pay quality money, you get quality players, do it on the cheap and you will get nowhere " and list players who cost money but didn''t make it.

However, you also say "some players work out (Francis, Holt) " - players we paid very little for.

You can''t have it both ways. Also, you can''t just say "I can''t remember what we paid for Libbra" but use it as an example of a player that cost money and got us nothing. In fact, he came on a free.

Ama

[Hayden 0]

Libbra may have been free but he still got a healthy contract that cost us a lot to cancel, thats what I meant. I also think we paid over the odds for Emblen and am still shocked at the lack of money we recoup on players who walk for free that could make us some cash. My points were out of frustration more than anything that now that we have the chance to get good players there is little or no money for them and I don''t believe £500k to be ''big money'' anyway. Nige has made some shrewd signings and some very poor signings and I admit I have highlighted the negatives as those are what now appear to have cost the club £700,000 to get rid off when that money could have been better used. Basically we pay off our crap plyers and get no money from our good ones and we cannot surely keep on doing that.

Green, McVeigh and Drury, and potentially Francis could be sold for a profit, but we won''t sell them so they will most likely walk on a free as eveyone would go ape on this board if they were sold so no money is going to come in there is it?

So where does the money come from for the players who could get us out of this league? you tell me? The share option?...... hopefully....I will be chipping in and hopefully so will all the other "I would put £100 in for Huckerby" people. I just hope Nige pulls off another loan master stroke as that is our best option...hired help, coz there is no chance of a big £1m etc signings unless the board rip up their own rule book or pull an Xmas pressie out early for us, and I just cannot see that happening, unless this share option is in place to cover the cost of a Crouch Huckerby swoop we no nothing about. I won''t be holding my breath.

[Carrow89 0]

Hayden - whilst understanding your frustration I suggest you reread your posts or better still rethink your ideas.

If a player leaves on a free there is very little we can do. For many reasons, though cynics might well argue one reason, they''ve refused to sign a new contract. The Bosman ruling now allows them to walk out scott free.

Likewise there is little else we can do when a player does not fit in. The best you can hope for is pay up what''s owed after trying to agree some kind of lowercost deal.

What you are seeing is not the continous bad management of the club but the expected turmoil as the club and football in general shakes itself down and clears itself of the remaining silly contracts left.

All clubs are going through this to varying degrees.

I would add that hindsight is a wonderful blessing. Given Libbra''s opening goal fans would have lynched the board if he had continued in that form and then walked out of the club because the board had failed to give him a contract tying him to the club.

Lllewellen looked the part, breaking into the Welsh squad. Much the same with Russell and Forbes (possibly) before him. In fact Coote even played for N. Ireland. Who could have foreseen how these would slip away.

There are always going to be mistakes as well as bonuses (McVeigh) and Emblem certainly hurts. But I believe with more sensible contracts/levels of pay coming in we won''t see such large sums paid out to failing players.

[Intenso 0]

While several examples have been given of poor buys, and I don''t think the majority of supporters needed hindsight to realise Steve Walsh was a one of those, there has been another side to the coin. Surely nothing is worse than the club ''giving away'' a player who was then subsequently sold for millions. Think how much better the club''s finances would now be if we had received the 8/10 million pounds for Danny Mills and Ade Akinbiyi ( I know but somebody thought he was worth £5m). Hang your head in shame Mike Walker.

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="Hayden"]At a time when we as a football club are scrapping around for every penny we can find, the latest reports are truly annoying:

£500,000 on Emblen, £200,000 on Nielsen and I can''t remember what we paid for Libbra, even add in the £50,000 paid for McGovern if you like and then look at the £700,000 spent to pay them off as reported today. That is £1,450,000.
Then you have Clint Easton who is not good enough at £100,000 and not to mention the £1.5 million ''lost'' on letting Marshall and Kenton walk for free. Heckingbottom and Briggs have come in and neither are rated. Also, Worthington has made most of these signings (scary huh) and in total you have at least £3m wasted or lost on wages, frees and pay offs.
Now I know you can''t legislate for injuries etc and some players work out (Francis, Holt) but bloody hell, talk about gutting. Worthy has done well in his time with the play offs etc and now we are second, but to sustain it you need money as we all agree on this site. We seem to be doing it arse about face; sign players cheap and give them good contracts, realise that the reason they were cheap was because they are s***e and then get rid of them at a massive cost to the club.

You get what you pay for. Pay quality money, you get quality players, do it on the cheap and you will get nowhere apart from further in debt wallowing in the lower leagues. The only way City will ever get put of debt is promotion, hence you need to go for it or accept bigger debts in the future. Norwich should not be scrapping around for frees who warm the bench, that was the Hamilton days and I don''t want to see that again.

OTBC
[/quote]

Turned out to be excellent advice & prediction. Many fans could see it coming, and for glaringly obvious reasons (some of which outlined above) - pity the board did''nt read & take heed!

 

[DEB (never forgotten) 0]

[quote user="Intenso"]While several examples have been given of poor buys, and I don''t think the majority of supporters needed hindsight to realise Steve Walsh was a one of those, there has been another side to the coin. Surely nothing is worse than the club ''giving away'' a player who was then subsequently sold for millions. Think how much better the club''s finances would now be if we had received the 8/10 million pounds for Danny Mills and Ade Akinbiyi ( I know but somebody thought he was worth £5m). Hang your head in shame Mike Walker.[/quote]

Agreed. Net debt now in excess of £20m - must be close to administration, but as Doomcaster always used to say - ''it''s all manageable''!!!

Mistake, after mistake, after mistake, after mistake................................................

[chicken 0]

Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[I am a Banana 0]

[quote user="Hayden"]At a time when we as a football club are scrapping around for every penny we can find, the latest reports are truly annoying:

£500,000 on Emblen, £200,000 on Nielsen and I can''t remember what we paid for Libbra, even add in the £50,000 paid for McGovern if you like and then look at the £700,000 spent to pay them off as reported today. That is £1,450,000.
Then you have Clint Easton who is not good enough at £100,000 and not to mention the £1.5 million ''lost'' on letting Marshall and Kenton walk for free. Heckingbottom and Briggs have come in and neither are rated. Also, Worthington has made most of these signings (scary huh) and in total you have at least £3m wasted or lost on wages, frees and pay offs.
Now I know you can''t legislate for injuries etc and some players work out (Francis, Holt) but bloody hell, talk about gutting. Worthy has done well in his time with the play offs etc and now we are second, but to sustain it you need money as we all agree on this site. We seem to be doing it arse about face; sign players cheap and give them good contracts, realise that the reason they were cheap was because they are s***e and then get rid of them at a massive cost to the club.

You get what you pay for. Pay quality money, you get quality players, do it on the cheap and you will get nowhere apart from further in debt wallowing in the lower leagues.The only way City will ever get put of debt is promotion, hence you need to go for it or accept bigger debts in the future. Norwich should not be scrapping around for frees who warm the bench, that was the Hamilton days and I don''t want to see that again.

OTBC
[/quote]

but worthy got us to the prem which paid the club £30 m!!!

[CANARY CHARGE 0]

[quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]

Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!

[chicken 0]

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]

Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy![/quote]I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?

[CANARY CHARGE 0]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]

Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy![/quote]I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?[/quote]I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]


Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!
[/quote]

I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).

The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.

I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?
[/quote]

I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!
[/quote]

 

Sorry Canary...what the hell is "hightlight"??!!

[|BA 0]

[quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

Turned out to be excellent advice & prediction. Many fans could see it coming, and for glaringly obvious reasons (some of which outlined above) - pity the board did''nt read & take heed!

 

[/quote]You''ll find advice and & prediction from every angle and viewpoint.

Digging out an old thread to back up something that only hindsight

validates is just a cheap blunderbuss shot.You''ll be trolling here next...... http://www.psychics.co.uk/prediction/predictionsfor2009.html

[drurys dodgy knee 0]

[quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]


Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!
[/quote]

I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).

The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.

I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?
[/quote]

I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!
[/quote]

 

Sorry Canary...what the hell is "hightlight"??!!

[/quote]

 

oh come on, can you not figure that out for yourself? the grammatical pedantry on this board seems to be a more common response than reasoned argument.

[|BA 0]

[quote user="DEB never forgotten"]

Agreed. Net debt now in excess of £20m - must be close to administration, but as Doomcaster always used to say - ''it''s all manageable''!!!

Mistake, after mistake, after mistake, after mistake................................................

[/quote]But.... it is manageable. Why do you suggest otherwise. Liverpool are £300m in debt, watch THAT space.List the mistakes and try to avoid the benefit of hindsight - that makes us all a smartarse

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="bleach"][quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]


Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!
[/quote]

I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).

The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.

I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?
[/quote]

I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!
[/quote]

 

Sorry Canary...what the hell is "hightlight"??!!

[/quote]

 

oh come on, can you not figure that out for yourself? the grammatical pedantry on this board seems to be a more common response than reasoned argument.

[/quote]

Yes Bleach I can figure it out...obviously you suffer from a sense of humour bypass.  Can''t appreciate a little lightheartedness?  Canary obviously can.  Incidently do you know what pedantry means...an ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning.  What the hell has that to do with a lighthearted dig at a typing error?[:P]

[Delia Out! 0]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

It was actually £6m when Smith took custody of the club.

[drurys dodgy knee 0]

[quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="bleach"][quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]


Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!
[/quote]

I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).

The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.

I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?
[/quote]

I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!
[/quote]

 

Sorry Canary...what the hell is "hightlight"??!!

[/quote]

 

oh come on, can you not figure that out for yourself? the grammatical pedantry on this board seems to be a more common response than reasoned argument.

[/quote]

Yes Bleach I can figure it out...obviously you suffer from a sense of humour bypass.  Can''t appreciate a little lightheartedness?  Canary obviously can.  Incidently do you know what pedantry means...an ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning.  What the hell has that to do with a lighthearted dig at a typing error?[:P]

[/quote]

Pedantry is the art of being pedantic which has quite a lot to do with picking up on people who mistype. I apologise - in hindsight, I guess my sense of humour didn''t pick up on the witty use of sarcasm in your quip. I''d better get that sorted quick - wouldn''t want to be missing out on any hilarious sarcasm!

In all seriousness, I''m just tired of people using other people''s spelling mistakes as a string in their bow when it comes to discussions. Granted yours may have been tongue in cheek, but it generally riles me.

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Weren''t we only £6mill in debt when Chase left?

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Paint Me Yellow"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?[/quote]

Weren''t we only £6mill in debt when Chase left?

[/quote]I am pretty sure it was more than £6million.I mean £6million is a fart - even back then. The Bellamy money would have sorted that out in a shot and it is where were told it went so I am not convinced it was only £6million.

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="bleach"][quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="bleach"][quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="OldRobert"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Hear Hear.

[/quote]


Chicken i think you will find people have the right to say what they want!!! if you dont like the ignore them!!! easy!
[/quote]

I have never said that people do not have the right to freedom of speech (or type).

The original poster has dug up several old posts for seemingly no reason when there have already been the oppertunity to discuss or indeed ongoing discussions on other threads in regards to these issues.

I am not stating that they do not have a point just that digging up old posts to try and prove something is rather futile. Somewhere in the past every single possible outcome has been stated in opinion somewhere. We know several people on here who claim to have been against the board etc for a very long time - fair play to them and if you want to state that then fine but why did up a thread from 2003?
[/quote]

I agree its pointless, but we are have the right to ignore.... plus if you didnt hightlight we would be having this correspondence on a sunday afternoon!
[/quote]

 

Sorry Canary...what the hell is "hightlight"??!!

[/quote]

 

oh come on, can you not figure that out for yourself? the grammatical pedantry on this board seems to be a more common response than reasoned argument.

[/quote]

Yes Bleach I can figure it out...obviously you suffer from a sense of humour bypass.  Can''t appreciate a little lightheartedness?  Canary obviously can.  Incidently do you know what pedantry means...an ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning.  What the hell has that to do with a lighthearted dig at a typing error?[:P]

[/quote]

Pedantry is the art of being pedantic which has quite a lot to do with picking up on people who mistype. I apologise - in hindsight, I guess my sense of humour didn''t pick up on the witty use of sarcasm in your quip. I''d better get that sorted quick - wouldn''t want to be missing out on any hilarious sarcasm!

In all seriousness, I''m just tired of people using other people''s spelling mistakes as a string in their bow when it comes to discussions. Granted yours may have been tongue in cheek, but it generally riles me.

[/quote]

Yes Bleach, mine was tongue in cheek...it generally riles me too.[:)]

[Mello Yello 2,279]

[quote user="chicken"][quote user="Paint Me Yellow"]

[quote user="chicken"]Please can you stop bringing up ages old dead threads?!!!

You are not introducing anything here that has not been said already other than you saying (and not very subtly either) ''look at me''.

As for our debt - its not the amount that it stands at that worries me - its the fact that it hasn''t got any better since then. We were rumoured to have been in around £18mil-£20mil in debt when Chase left. So the argument would be why hasn''t that sum become smaller over the years especially with the success of the promotion and play off final season and five years of incredibly good gates?
[/quote]

Weren''t we only £6mill in debt when Chase left?

[/quote]

I am pretty sure it was more than £6million.

I mean £6million is a fart - even back then. The Bellamy money would have sorted that out in a shot and it is where were told it went so I am not convinced it was only £6million.
[/quote]

Maybe it went here? Or here?

[chicken 0]

Must be delias then as the new stand was built with a loan offset against ticket sales I believe. This is the point where someone with an economic brain comes in and informs us of the clubs debts over the years.But to be honest does anyone know what our debt figure stands as? I say that because the club says that we are a proffit making club nearly every summer and yet we have no money to spend and the debts reportedly dont seem to get any smaller.