back to the board again

[hugoagogo 0]

ok now ans 1 question you have got what you want and delia and co are hounded out ,who is going to take over?come on a name of someone with the cash and who is gonna take the club to where we all want it???mmmmm oh er mmmm??!!

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

Good question HAGG, I''d love to hear your views on what might potentially happem if we could get Delia Smith away from our Club. [:D]

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesa. Player wages/agent''s fees/transfer fees

[/quote]Covered pretty well by ticket sales alone.

[quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesb. Infrastructure[/quote]getting warmer, very warm, hot, boiling hot![quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesc. Gone in the board''s pocket[/quote]I hate the current board but do not believe for one minute they have had the money away themselves. I put it down to incompetence.[/quote]Ok so now we have the problem defined. Only idiots believe the board have either been in for their own gain. So they''ve wasted all the money on infrastructure and everything team related could have been bought through ticket revunues.. I just don''t buy it. The money has been pissed mostly away on poor players and their fees/agents/wages. That was the responsibility of the CEO and managers. Id say they''ve gambled to make money on most of the non-player spending (maybe won some, lost some). The really crucial mistakes IMO were not to have sacked Worthy after failing to get us promoted straight back up and getting in Grant. Most other decision have been reasonable if wrong in hindsight.

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Paint Me Yellow"]

[quote]Doubt I''ll be buying a new Aston Martin this year, but it isn''t anyones ''fault'', its circumstance[/quote]

Not quite the same. In this instance Delia and Hubby already own their Aston Martin (i.e The club) but can''t afford to run it. They''re clinging to hope that nothing goes wrong with it before someone comes along to buy it off them. 

Not only that but in the time they''ve owned the Aston, rather than spending the cash on fuel, parts, servicing etc they''ve decided to spend money on the garage it sits in.

[/quote]

Hilarious AND genius! Well put.

[Houston Canary 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"]Good question HAGG, I''d love to hear your views on what might potentially happem if we could get Delia Smith away from our Club. [:D]


[/quote]

Buckethead, 

 Your Tony Blair story reminds me of a piece of footage Rush Limbaugh used to show on his short run TV program.  Bill Clinton is walking out of some bigshot''s funeral, chatting and laughing with someone.  As he looks to his left, he sees a TV camera and in a split second goes from laughing to wiping away tears of sadness with a hankie.  Caught in the act of making spin for the sake of making spin.

It was so immediate, so automatic, it was not like he was RE-acting, just instantaneously doing what he does naturally, which is put on the show he thinks that particular viewer should see to portray him in a light other than the truth.  I mean, why not be laughing when leaving a funeral if you were talking about the good times you had with the deceased?   

[Bobert 0]

[quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

And pray why should you have that "rough idea"?   One day you should take time out to talk to Delia on a one to one basis (as I have) and you would realise that not only is she a true fan but she puts her money where her mouth is.

 How about you?

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Bobert"][quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

And pray why should you have that "rough idea"?   One day you should take time out to talk to Delia on a one to one basis (as I have) and you would realise that not only is she a true fan but she puts her money where her mouth is.

 How about you?

[/quote]

I really don''t get this "Delia''s a bigger fan than you are, so put up or shut up" arguement. It''s a condescending arguement. For one thing no one disputes the fact that she is a true fan nor disputes that she has put a lot of her own money into the club. She also intends to get all her money out again, if she can.

What the arguement concerns is that she and her husband are incapable of running a football club and that her clinging on to her position as main shareholder is causing long-term damage to Norwich City. If she really cared as much as she claims, she would stand aside and let more capable people take over.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Bobert"][quote user="we beat munich in munich"]

Great result yesterday and i hope very much that we stay in this league

But will the board then try to give gunny the money for gow,mooney,betrand and to get the shacks back

I have a rough idea we will not move forward to this muppet show of smith and jones,doomcaster and munby

[/quote]

And pray why should you have that "rough idea"?   One day you should take time out to talk to Delia on a one to one basis (as I have) and you would realise that not only is she a true fan but she puts her money where her mouth is.

 How about you?

[/quote]

Have you ever just hinted at polite criticism Bobert?  Dare you to try it......

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesa. Player wages/agent''s fees/transfer fees

[/quote]Covered pretty well by ticket sales alone.

[quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesb. Infrastructure[/quote]getting warmer, very warm, hot, boiling hot![quote user="SPat"]So tell us o wise one, what has all the money gone on? As far as i can see there''s a few possibilitiesc. Gone in the board''s pocket[/quote]I hate the current board but do not believe for one minute they have had the money away themselves. I put it down to incompetence.[/quote]Ok so now we have the problem defined. Only idiots believe the board have either been in for their own gain. So they''ve wasted all the money on infrastructure and everything team related could have been bought through ticket revunues.. I just don''t buy it. The money has been pissed mostly away on poor players and their fees/agents/wages. That was the responsibility of the CEO and managers. Id say they''ve gambled to make money on most of the non-player spending (maybe won some, lost some). The really crucial mistakes IMO were not to have sacked Worthy after failing to get us promoted straight back up and getting in Grant. Most other decision have been reasonable if wrong in hindsight.[/quote]i don''t think so spat...as far back as hamilton and his ''free euro transfers'' flop policy - this board have been gambling with ''cleverer'' wheezes and strategies - which have consistently gone pear shaped and the latest bust has brought us to the verge of division 3...failure to properly and credibly invest in the team has consistently proved their undoing over the years...and i agree they are successful business people in other spheres - but it would seem their model has not translated well into in the football arena///shame - but there we are...

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="7rew"][quote][quote]

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?

We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT
[/quote]

You said it yourself!  YC was complaining about MC representing a c.16m Profit as a c. 20m Income.

The second figure is more impressive for the arguement, but much less relevant.  This is the key point of spinning / twisting the truth / lying with statistics / misrepresenting the facts whatever you want to call it.

Learning to spot these occasions is one of the most important life skills going.  If you do spot one then the credibility of the entire statement is called into question.  Either the preson doing it is doing it deliberately, in which case he is being dishonest, or he is not doing it deliberately, which makes him incompetant.  Niether of these options is good.  Especially when the point of view is supportted well without having to use these tactics.
[/quote]

Please read my post.  I said we`d "sold £20m worth of players", which is accurate.  Trying to portray that statement as something it is not is blatant twisting and spin.

[/quote]

So we''re going for the second option then?

Read my post.  I said that you stated "sold £20m worth of players", which is indeed accurate,  It is also less relevant than the profits.  To the extent that it is barely relevant at all.

Illustrative example: Manchester City have sold over 8 million pounds worth of player this season alone.

That is "how to lie with statistics" 101.  Find an impressive and vaguely related figure and repeat it ad nauseum till it means something.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

7rew, you stated that i was "representing a c.16m Profit as a c.20m Income" which is simply not true.  I stated that simple fact because frankly i`m sick of writing 3-4 paragraph posts about the same old stuff every couple of weeks because the same old posters demand i prove my point, when they have contributed to threads on which i have done just that dozens of times in the last couple of years.  We are in profit by millions on player trading since relegation as per the accounts- do i have to post the figures yet again?  This thread is basically a repetition of dozens more like it over the last couple of years and i could prove my point a million times over and some people wouldn`t accept it simply because they don`t want to.

"I said that you stated "sold £20m worth of players".  No you did not 7rew- and you have the front to accuse me of spinning and twisting things?!!

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

 For one thing no one disputes the fact that she is a true fan nor disputes that she has put a lot of her own money into the club. [/quote]

Is there anybody who reads this board on a regular basis who agrees with this point?

Surely there''s posts nearly daily accusing her of being an ipswich fan and we''ve even had posters claiming she has already re-claimed the money she invested.

 

[BigFish 1,986]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

7rew, you stated that i was "representing a c.16m Profit as a c.20m Income" which is simply not true.  I stated that simple fact because frankly i`m sick of writing 3-4 paragraph posts about the same old stuff every couple of weeks because the same old posters demand i prove my point, when they have contributed to threads on which i have done just that dozens of times in the last couple of years.  We are in profit by millions on player trading since relegation as per the accounts- do i have to post the figures yet again?  This thread is basically a repetition of dozens more like it over the last couple of years and i could prove my point a million times over and some people wouldn`t accept it simply because they don`t want to.

"I said that you stated "sold £20m worth of players".  No you did not 7rew- and you have the front to accuse me of spinning and twisting things?!!

[/quote]

Now I''ve been more than happy to argue with Mr C on a point by point basis, I still largely diagree with his conclusions but have to admit that he very consistent and makes a strong case. Now perhaps what he should do is have his argument & facts ready and just repaste this into every thread on the subject just to get this question out of the way! [:D] (........largely because I for one am too lazy to trudge back through the histories to revisit the key points).

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

7rew, you stated that i was "representing a c.16m Profit as a c.20m Income" which is simply not true.  I stated that simple fact because frankly i`m sick of writing 3-4 paragraph posts about the same old stuff every couple of weeks because the same old posters demand i prove my point, when they have contributed to threads on which i have done just that dozens of times in the last couple of years.  We are in profit by millions on player trading since relegation as per the accounts- do i have to post the figures yet again?  This thread is basically a repetition of dozens more like it over the last couple of years and i could prove my point a million times over and some people wouldn`t accept it simply because they don`t want to.

"I said that you stated "sold £20m worth of players".  No you did not 7rew- and you have the front to accuse me of spinning and twisting things?!!

[/quote]It simply is the same thing in (mildly) different words.  You used the number 20m worth of players sold, when the more relevant figure of 16m profit from player sales. This is what both me and YC were objecting to.  It is also the most basic facet of statistical spinning and it stinks.You do not need to post all the figures again, because as always I will have *exactly* the same objections to your treatment of them and we will just go around.in circles.  The objections are valid and you won''t accept them simply because you don''t want to.Btw - I agree that the board haven''t sufficiently spent on the team.  I object to flawed numerical arguements simply because they are both unnecessary and counter productive.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Oh i see 7rew.  I make a perfectly sound factual statement but it is invalid because i don`t go into a long treatise analysing the accounts as i have done plenty of times in the past.  Errr, ok.

Are you a shareholder 7rew?  Have you looked into these things for yourself?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Oh i see 7rew.  I make a perfectly sound factual statement but it is invalid because i don`t go into a long treatise analysing the accounts as i have done plenty of times in the past.  Errr, ok.

Are you a shareholder 7rew?  Have you looked into these things for yourself?

[/quote]No - You made a prefectly sound but ONLY MARGINALLY RELEVANT factual statement.  It is invalidated by its irrelevance to the arguement.  No - I was 18/19 at the time of the last share issue and didn''t have any cash with which to buy shares.  However I have tried to obtain copies of the accounts on several occasions [google searches and asking for them].  If (as I expect these days) the accounts are "paper-free" would it be possible for you (or anyone else) to make them available.   Rest assured I shall be rectifying this at the next share issue.

[T 190]

The problem is Mr C is that like a politician you are selecting facts to support your theory rather than looking at all the facts for NCFC, football finance and the championship in general in order to formulate a theory. For instance player profit is just an accounting profit. It is cash rather than profit that matters. So actually the net cash on player transfers was negative 5m from your favourite year of 2002 to 2006 per the link in this thread and this is what really matters. I think you may have a point on the level of non-players costs but the bad loan financed fixed asset decision argument has never held up to analysis based on the figures supplied by tangible fixed assets/crafty canary who is hardly a board fan. You even highlight the income from property deals and the hotel deal yourself. No-one is arguing, including the Board, that the team is not underperforming or that bad decisions have not been made. However, if you look at the big picture and see that our player budget is comparable with other clubs in our position it suggests that it is football rather than financial decisions which are the problem.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Oh i see 7rew.  I make a perfectly sound factual statement but it is invalid because i don`t go into a long treatise analysing the accounts as i have done plenty of times in the past.  Errr, ok.

Are you a shareholder 7rew?  Have you looked into these things for yourself?

[/quote]

No - You made a prefectly sound but ONLY MARGINALLY RELEVANT factual statement.  It is invalidated by its irrelevance to the arguement. 

No - I was 18/19 at the time of the last share issue and didn''t have any cash with which to buy shares.  However I have tried to obtain copies of the accounts on several occasions [google searches and asking for them].  If (as I expect these days) the accounts are "paper-free" would it be possible for you (or anyone else) to make them available.   Rest assured I shall be rectifying this at the next share issue.
[/quote]

Selling £20m worth of players since relegation is hardly irrelevant 7rew, you`ve just decided you want it to be.

And i would politely suggest that you refrain from strident opinions until you have actually looked at all the figures and thereby come to an informed conclusion.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

The problem is Mr C is that like a politician you are selecting facts to support your theory rather than looking at all the facts for NCFC, football finance and the championship in general in order to formulate a theory. For instance player profit is just an accounting profit. It is cash rather than profit that matters. So actually the net cash on player transfers was negative 5m from your favourite year of 2002 to 2006 per the link in this thread and this is what really matters. I think you may have a point on the level of non-players costs but the bad loan financed fixed asset decision argument has never held up to analysis based on the figures supplied by tangible fixed assets/crafty canary who is hardly a board fan. You even highlight the income from property deals and the hotel deal yourself. No-one is arguing, including the Board, that the team is not underperforming or that bad decisions have not been made. However, if you look at the big picture and see that our player budget is comparable with other clubs in our position it suggests that it is football rather than financial decisions which are the problem.

 

 

[/quote]

I can`t see any link on this thread T.  Yet again i have to reiterate that the core of my argument is lack of investment in the team since relegation- do you think i would have bought shares in `04 if i didn`t back the board at the time?  Most of the decisions they had made before that point were not apparent until the illuminating breakdown of the previous five years in the `06 accounts. 

T, we have made millions in profits in the transfer market since relegation whilst we received £14.2m in parachute payments and ticket income our competitors can only dream of.  Player wages have been a much smaller percentage of revenue since promotion than before it.  We have indulged in very obvious false economy in trying to replace good players for next to nothing, leading to most of those players being nowhere near good enough and having to be paid off, then replaced.  Anyone who understands football could recognise a classic downward spiral setting in, and even if we manage to stay up this season our squad will be one of the smallest we`ve ever had, therefore yet another rebuilding job will have to be done.  Can you grasp any of this?

Paying "similar wages to our competitors", given our recent income and crowds is simply not good enough.  We are not trying to punch our weight.  I have never been against the hotel.  On the property deals, yes we eventually made a profit on land the previous regime bought and as i have pointed out to you before, most people blame their spend on infrastructure for our relegation just as the sky money started to roll in.  So all in all a very poor return considering what was lost and what is happening now is virtually the same thing all over again.  Can you see the bigger picture?

Re. comparisons to the rest of the division, you still haven`t provided a link to these figures you say you have analysed? 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Oh i see 7rew.  I make a perfectly sound factual statement but it is invalid because i don`t go into a long treatise analysing the accounts as i have done plenty of times in the past.  Errr, ok.

Are you a shareholder 7rew?  Have you looked into these things for yourself?

[/quote]

No - You made a prefectly sound but ONLY MARGINALLY RELEVANT factual statement.  It is invalidated by its irrelevance to the arguement. 

No - I was 18/19 at the time of the last share issue and didn''t have any cash with which to buy shares.  However I have tried to obtain copies of the accounts on several occasions [google searches and asking for them].  If (as I expect these days) the accounts are "paper-free" would it be possible for you (or anyone else) to make them available.   Rest assured I shall be rectifying this at the next share issue.
[/quote]

7rew, thank you for the simple way you pointed out to Mr. Carrow how he could have still made his point in a more credible way. Anyone who has witnessed Mr. Carrow''s utterings of recent years know two things: 1) he is determined to use information to paint the Norwich Board in the WORST possible light and 2) he will argue until the cows come home with anyone who challenges the way he presents ( spins ) his information. In my view his purpose, which I believe is to influence as many readers as possible to be anti-Board, is best served by challenging himself to make every allowance in the Boards favour before he makes his criticisms, thereby making his more objective arguments more powerful. Contrary to this, he consistently falls into the trap of making statements that will paint the Board in the worst possible light, thereby making his comments susceptible to accusations of spin from those of us that see it for what it is. It suits my purpose if he never learns. 

 

[T 190]

Here is the link for the ncfc figures: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htm. I can''t find the link on the comparison of a our wage bill. It was posted on here recently. It was a story on sheff wed which showed a league table based on points versus wage bill - Norwich were second bottom above Charlton which suggests a football problem.

I''ve not convinced on the crowd story as given the cheap tickets it does not necessarily mean higher revenue. Besides the irony which many seems to miss is that we would not have such high crowds if we were not spending money on fixed assets so you can not have it both ways.

Some clubs have done ok on relegation, mainly those with richer owners who have subsidised maintaining the squad to get back but many clubs have also gone down hill after relegation, probably as a result of big changes in the team. Most football clubs don''t make enough revenue from tickets to cover the running costs so they are dependant on other souces of income including player sales to pay the running costs.

I totally agree we have underperformed but if it was dependant on revenue and not also on football and luck you could write the legue table at the start of the season. Has all the money been well spent, probably not but the points versus wage bill table suggests football decisions and luck are the big factor.

[YankeeCanary 0]

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

Mr. Carrow, you know that "twisting" the truth is one step from outright lying, so why do you do it? Why don''t you present your information in such a way that deducts the money that we spent on players like Ashton and Earnshaw? You can still make the point that you wish to make, except the information will be more credible.

[/quote]

Yankee could you kindly point out exactly where you think Mr. Carrow has misrepresented the facts?

We have sold £20m of players and made a healthy profit out of them, checkout the profits on player trading for the last few years (circa £16m). FACT
[/quote]

You said it yourself!  YC was complaining about MC representing a c.16m Profit as a c. 20m Income.

The second figure is more impressive for the arguement, but much less relevant.  This is the key point of spinning / twisting the truth / lying with statistics / misrepresenting the facts whatever you want to call it.

Learning to spot these occasions is one of the most important life skills going.  If you do spot one then the credibility of the entire statement is called into question.  Either the preson doing it is doing it deliberately, in which case he is being dishonest, or he is not doing it deliberately, which makes him incompetant.  Niether of these options is good.  Especially when the point of view is supportted well without having to use these tactics.
[/quote]

He quite clearly said we''d sold £20m worth of players, not that we''d made £20m profit. I see that I was not alone in recognising this but if you think he was trying to spin the facts I guess that''s fair enough.

Thanks for the advice about being able to spot spin though could be handy someday. Reminds me of the time I was in Milton Keynes train station. Must have been roundabout May 1997. I wasn''t actually after a train, just a can of coke and 20 Embassy no1. I noticed whilst walking to the station a number of ford galaxies and some dodgy looking geezers, as I walked through the door of the Station I  accidentally bumped into a man coming out folowed by a film crew. immediately I was grabbed by a bloke in a leather jacket, and two more piled on top. After a short exchange I was allowed to get up and in front of three or four machine gun toting plain clothes SO16 was able to explain that I had accidentally bumped into somebody. Confused and really pissed off I asked what the heck was happening and was told that the new PM a certain Tony Blair ( the aforementioned ''somebody'') had been trying to walk out the station so the BBC could film him entering (again) and they had suspected an assasination attempt.  Bona fides established SO16 were fairly apologetic and allowed me to spectate the pantomime of TB getting out the Galaxy (peoples car) walking into Milton keynes train station (for the second time that day but for the benefit of the BBC) and then purchasing a train ticket (sham) before waiting on the platform (sham) before boarding the train with commuters (sham since all the commuters had been taken off the train 1/2 hour before for a bomb sweep and were waiting at one end of the station for the next train), and then being filmed by the BBC travelling with the comon man (sham) on the common mans transport (sham) for the news at six. Headline news ''TB man of the people travels on train'' real news TB gets everybody off train, does tv op before getting on swept train and travelling with plain clothes MI6 etc posing as members of public.


I watched the news that day and saw it all unfold.

Don''t ever talk to me about not being able to recognise spin, I''ve a pretty goood idea thank you.


[/quote]

Buckethead, a nice little story on your part, with the emphasis being on "story". It is filled with content that you could not possibly know, but made up to embellish a story that suits your agenda. Personally, I thought the defining content of your story was when you said that you went to a train station to get a coke and a packet of cigarettes. As opposed to your little story and, in terms of defining you, that little segment sounded credible. 

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Oh i see 7rew.  I make a perfectly sound factual statement but it is invalid because i don`t go into a long treatise analysing the accounts as i have done plenty of times in the past.  Errr, ok.

Are you a shareholder 7rew?  Have you looked into these things for yourself?

[/quote]No - You made a prefectly sound but ONLY MARGINALLY RELEVANT factual statement.  It is invalidated by its irrelevance to the arguement.  No - I was 18/19 at the time of the last share issue and didn''t have any cash with which to buy shares.  However I have tried to obtain copies of the accounts on several occasions [google searches and asking for them].  If (as I expect these days) the accounts are "paper-free" would it be possible for you (or anyone else) to make them available.   Rest assured I shall be rectifying this at the next share issue.[/quote]

7rew, thank you for the simple way you pointed out to Mr. Carrow how he could have still made his point in a more credible way. Anyone who has witnessed Mr. Carrow''s utterings of recent years know two things: 1) he is determined to use information to paint the Norwich Board in the WORST possible light and 2) he will argue until the cows come home with anyone who challenges the way he presents ( spins ) his information. In my view his purpose, which I believe is to influence as many readers as possible to be anti-Board, is best served by challenging himself to make every allowance in the Boards favour before he makes his criticisms, thereby making his more objective arguments more powerful. Contrary to this, he consistently falls into the trap of making statements that will paint the Board in the worst possible light, thereby making his comments susceptible to accusations of spin from those of us that see it for what it is. It suits my purpose if he never learns. 

[/quote]It''s a message board for opinions - so what is wrong with 1) ?He doesn''t believe that his presentation of his opinions is spin - so what is wrong with 2) ?We can argue all we like over the minute details of money spent and wages etc.... But the bottom line is that our board has continued to under achieve since they were put in place, and shows no sign of or willingness to change. People like Yankee and 7Rew make me laugh - they continue to bat away the problems with mind boggling and time wasting arguments on ''how something was said'' - never facing reality or trying to come up with a viable solution or counter argument. While all of this is carrying on - our team are in one hell of a dog-fight. A place they should never be imho.

[lucky green trainers 0]

time and time again - the most successful model in this league (and probably most others) is based upon spending more money on your playing squad than you receive in income...ie via speculative investment...as long as the prem maintains its tv income money (and the new deal is 5% up on last time) and benefactors are prepared to have a punt in the champs to try and join it,,,we shall be at a relative disadvantage...

[Metatron 0]

7rew

"Rest assured I shall be rectifying this at the next share issue"

I think you can buy shares at any time simply by contacting the Club and asking to - 4 shares = £120 = entitles you to copy of the accounts and entry to the AGM.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Selling £20m worth of players since relegation is hardly irrelevant 7rew, you`ve just decided you want it to be.

And i would politely suggest that you refrain from strident opinions until you have actually looked at all the figures and thereby come to an informed conclusion.

[/quote]1)  Just as you clearly believe that spending 4 million on players when we have sold 20 million is irrelevant, Selling 20 million pounds worth of players would also irrelevant if we had brought 30 million pounds worth of players.  By a simple extension, selling 20 million pounds worth of players as a fact in isolation is irrelevant.It is the two numbers (income and expenditure) together that have relevance, not either one taken in isolation.2) I don''t have to look at the figures to have a strident opinion about your arguements - I just have to read your arguements to be informed on their content.3) May I, in turn, politely suggest that you refrain from having strident opinions on numerical or statistical matters untill you learn some basic numerical and statistical techniques and thereby are capable of coming to an informed conclusion.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Lol, 7rew this is getting absolutely ridiculous.  You blatantly misquoted me earlier in the thread then went and stated that you had written something you hadn`t.  Then you accuse me of spin by posting a statement you later accept is totally accurate!  Now you admit you do not have access to the figures but apparently my take on them is invalid because you have decided, with no evidence, that i don`t have "basic numerical and statistical techniques".  Talk about digging yourself a hole.....jeeez.

You are misrepresenting and spinning against my factual posts because you don`t want to accept my take on things.  Fair enough, but if you had some substance to back yourself up it would be far more effective.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="astrodyne"][ People like Yankee and 7Rew make me laugh - they continue to bat away the problems with mind boggling and time wasting arguments on ''how something was said'' - never facing reality or trying to come up with a viable solution or counter argument. While all of this is carrying on - our team are in one hell of a dog-fight. A place they should never be imho.
[/quote]

And people like Mr Carrow continue to chip away with their latest time wasting arguments about decisions that were made years ago, in many cases decisions they agreed with themselves at the time. They also never face reality or come up with a viable solution.

The only solution that I have seen on here is calls for other people, usually NCISA, to lead a protest to force Smith & Jones out. Now it must be obvious to all by now that nobody is prepared to lead that protest on anyones behalf. So the old saying "If you want a thing doing, do it yourself" now applies.

 

[whoareyou? 0]

The only certainty is, if the board do not change the way they run the club or get new faces on the board, we will be in exactly this position again next season, and that''s if we stay up this time!

It''s just as easy to point fingers and players and management, but the only people who choose the manager is the board itslef. If they get it worng time and time again, as they are doing, then they take the responsibilty for the inept performances we have been getting up til the last fortnight.

After all, you can''t blame the ordinary staff of RBS or HBos for getting the bank in the state it''s in, but you can blame those at the top who make the ultimate decisions.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Here is the link for the ncfc figures: http://www.football-finances.org.uk/norwich/index.htm. I can''t find the link on the comparison of a our wage bill. It was posted on here recently. It was a story on sheff wed which showed a league table based on points versus wage bill - Norwich were second bottom above Charlton which suggests a football problem.

I''ve not convinced on the crowd story as given the cheap tickets it does not necessarily mean higher revenue. Besides the irony which many seems to miss is that we would not have such high crowds if we were not spending money on fixed assets so you can not have it both ways.

Some clubs have done ok on relegation, mainly those with richer owners who have subsidised maintaining the squad to get back but many clubs have also gone down hill after relegation, probably as a result of big changes in the team. Most football clubs don''t make enough revenue from tickets to cover the running costs so they are dependant on other souces of income including player sales to pay the running costs.

I totally agree we have underperformed but if it was dependant on revenue and not also on football and luck you could write the legue table at the start of the season. Has all the money been well spent, probably not but the points versus wage bill table suggests football decisions and luck are the big factor.

[/quote]

You really don`t take in anything i post do you?  How many times have i posted that i was NEVER against the Jarrold stand which is the main reason behind growth in ticket income (up from £4.5m in `03 to £7.7m in last few years).  On wages, i have seen comparisons which indicate that as a percentage of turnover our player wages are the lowest in the division, which says alot about the priorities at the club.

However you want to spin it T, our income has been far greater than most of our rivals in recent years, yet we continually fail to reinvest the millions brought in by selling players in the team and you yourself state that our player wage bill is "average".  We are a top six club struggling in the bottom six because we have a board who are prepared to gamble and invest off the pich, but not on it.