back to the board again

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Blah and nutty: the previous ticket office was in the city stand and i remember Chase boasting how state of the art it was when built.  Ok, so not so state of the art now, but it did the job.  Scoreboard: i don`t remember it "having" to be replaced ie. not working any more, and i haven`t read anything in the accounts stating as such.

On "waste":   operating costs excluding player wages appear to be about £17m- nearly double what they were in `02 and about the same as when we were receiving the sky millions.  I haven`t got a clue why these costs are so vastly higher than they used to be but the way i see it they are the problem.  I also believe that the Turners role was to cut costs back to the bone.....and then they mysteriously walked out. [^o)]

[/quote]

Well see Mr Carrow, I thought the previous ticket office was round where the corner infill was built so obviously I learn something new everyday[8-)]

And I remember the old scoreboard didn''t work anymore, I also remember loads of threads on here where people who like finding fault complained about it [:O]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]On "waste":   operating costs excluding player wages appear to be about

£17m- nearly double what they were in `02 and about the same as when we

were receiving the sky millions.  I haven`t got a clue why these costs

are so vastly higher than they used to be but the way i see it they are

the problem.  I also believe that the Turners role was to cut costs

back to the bone.....and then they mysteriously walked out. [/quote]But Neil Ds'' lovely table shows costs of 8.9 million.  Now I''m confused.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well see Mr Carrow, I thought the previous ticket office was round where the corner infill was built so obviously I learn something new everyday[8-)]

[/quote]

 

The main ticket office was in the G Watling (aka City) stand facing Carrow Rd. However there was also a ticket off ice at the Community stand end of the N&P (River end) stand.  

The ticket office was then located on the ground floor of the Community stand and the former ticket office in the N&P stand was used for an office re the Holiday Hotel during its construction. As for its current use I haven''t checked.

I hope this helps! On my ''ead son!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]As 7rew has eloquently pointed out, it is not the facts that are being disputed, it is the selection, analysis and interpretation of those facts that are being disputed. i.e. selecting facts to support a pet theory rather than looking at all the facts to reach a conclusion. I suggest that you come back once you have gained an appreciation of the Deloitte report on football financing, the approaches to business valuations and investment decisions, in particular NPVs but also CAPM and Miller & Modigliani and then argue the case from a logical position with an understanding of the importance of the cash flows. I would then be intrigued to know how you suggest the club generates extra cash  given that ticket receipts are insuffecient to cover the ongoing running costs for most football clubs.[/quote]

Don''t let T bull* the good folk who support City.     Miller & Modigliani theres a hoot!

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]On "waste":   operating costs excluding player wages appear to be about £17m- nearly double what they were in `02 and about the same as when we were receiving the sky millions.  I haven`t got a clue why these costs are so vastly higher than they used to be but the way i see it they are the problem.  I also believe that the Turners role was to cut costs back to the bone.....and then they mysteriously walked out. [/quote]

But Neil Ds'' lovely table shows costs of 8.9 million.  Now I''m confused.
[/quote]

Most of the other costs are taken into account in the income section, ie. income from catering is £3.6m, costs £3m so the stated income is £600k.  Overall expenditure as stated in the accounts was £24m, take away the £6.8m player wages= £17.2m.  It is a confusing way to present the figures.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"] I would then be intrigued to know how you suggest the club generates extra cash  given that ticket receipts are insuffecient to cover the ongoing running costs for most football clubs.[/quote]

The first thing to do is use a bit of common sense and take a BIG axe to those bloated overhead costs as outlined by Neil Doncaster yesterday.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]

Still in denial? You mean the higher ticket income as a result of investment in fixed assets. Good to see that you finally accept off-field activities are profitable. [/quote]

The ex LSE / ex Norwich City Council  land is certainly not profitable. Theres an annual interest bill to pay on that.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]On "waste":   operating costs excluding player wages appear to be about £17m- nearly double what they were in `02 and about the same as when we were receiving the sky millions.  I haven`t got a clue why these costs are so vastly higher than they used to be but the way i see it they are the problem.  I also believe that the Turners role was to cut costs back to the bone.....and then they mysteriously walked out. [/quote]

But Neil Ds'' lovely table shows costs of 8.9 million.  Now I''m confused.
[/quote]

Most of the other costs are taken into account in the income section, ie. income from catering is £3.6m, costs £3m so the stated income is £600k.  Overall expenditure as stated in the accounts was £24m, take away the £6.8m player wages= £17.2m.  It is a confusing way to present the figures.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, kind of the same way you gave the impression that Norwich had income of 20 Million from Norwich player sales. Perhaps you and Neil went to the same school. 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="T"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]As 7rew has eloquently pointed out, it is not the facts that are being disputed, it is the selection, analysis and interpretation of those facts that are being disputed. i.e. selecting facts to support a pet theory rather than looking at all the facts to reach a conclusion. I suggest that you come back once you have gained an appreciation of the Deloitte report on football financing, the approaches to business valuations and investment decisions, in particular NPVs but also CAPM and Miller & Modigliani and then argue the case from a logical position with an understanding of the importance of the cash flows. I would then be intrigued to know how you suggest the club generates extra cash  given that ticket receipts are insuffecient to cover the ongoing running costs for most football clubs.[/quote]

Lower ticket income enabled us to have a £5.2m playing budget in `02 and make a tidy overall profit.  Now with ticket income much higher (although you choose to falsely spin it that it isn`t) and a supposed £1.8m profit on non-football activities we can only afford £1.9m on the team.  Come on, let`s hear your highly educated opinion as to why......

[/quote]

Still in denial? You mean the higher ticket income as a result of investment in fixed assets. Good to see that you finally accept off-field activities are profitable. We actually spent a lot more than 1.9m on wages as you well know. In order to explain the difference to 7 years ago, you would need the comparable figures and explanations which we don''t have. What we do know for sure now is that the reason is not off-field commercial activites

[/quote]

I''m still in denial about not thinking you''re connected to the club in some capacity.....

[/quote]

Agreed.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?

[gazzathegreat 0]

There were two Nutty, as you say there was one round the back of the River End, but the main one was in the City Stand, it''s still there I suppose, but not sure what it''s used for. Along with the soon to be redundant Travel Shop, there will be a few empty offices there soon.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, this has already been explained to you by me and others. I am not misrepresenting what you said. I am telling you how your comments are received by me in the context of how you communicate. I honestly don''t know if you have the ability to look at your input objectively, particularly UNLESS you are prepared to look at yourself from outside of yourself. A difficult thing for all of us, I agree. Nevertheless, I will take one more stab at it with you. Let''s take 7rew''s example that he shared with you that if a poster made a comment that Manchester City had sold 8 million pounds worth of players, if that were factual, then that''s okay but it''s not particularly relevant unless it''s put into context. Regardless of that fact, the occasional poster would have probably not received much reaction to the point. Now you, on the other hand, are not an occasional poster. You have been hammering away like a man on a mission on the same subject consistently and continuously for a long time with your criticism of NCFC as it relates to how the club money has spent money and questioning many times, on what. So, when you post the following......

"When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie."

....taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example. Now, put that into context. Readers like me have seen you hammering away for a long time on the same issue. An objective reader of so many of your posts of a continuous theme are are driven to question, indeed, whether you have an agenda. I''ll illustrate this by providing an example ( not an accusation ) that you could be a front man for Peter Cullum. Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Well yes indeed Gazza and Tangie, and well spotted, there were two ticket offices. In fact there were three if you count that little portakabin beside the old car park, with a different window for different letters of the alphabet, where people could sometimes collect their tickets on matchdays. So we had more ticket offices than you could shake a stick at! Never mind [8]"we''ve got a cathedral and got one to spare" [8]in our Norwich home we had a ticket office and had two to spare. I wonder which was actually the main one. Who can remember? Where did you used to buy your tickets Tangie and Gazza?

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, this has already been explained to you by me and others. I am not misrepresenting what you said. I am telling you how your comments are received by me in the context of how you communicate. I honestly don''t know if you have the ability to look at your input objectively, particularly UNLESS you are prepared to look at yourself from outside of yourself. A difficult thing for all of us, I agree. Nevertheless, I will take one more stab at it with you. Let''s take 7rew''s example that he shared with you that if a poster made a comment that Manchester City had sold 8 million pounds worth of players, if that were factual, then that''s okay but it''s not particularly relevant unless it''s put into context. Regardless of that fact, the occasional poster would have probably not received much reaction to the point. Now you, on the other hand, are not an occasional poster. You have been hammering away like a man on a mission on the same subject consistently and continuously for a long time with your criticism of NCFC as it relates to how the club money has spent money and questioning many times, on what. So, when you post the following......

"When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie."

....taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example. Now, put that into context. Readers like me have seen you hammering away for a long time on the same issue. An objective reader of so many of your posts of a continuous theme are are driven to question, indeed, whether you have an agenda. I''ll illustrate this by providing an example ( not an accusation ) that you could be a front man for Peter Cullum. Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[/quote]

Have you been able to look at it objectively yet Mr. Carrow?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[/quote]

Just like Y.C. was fair to the current shareholders who form the minority interest in NCFC Plc. (these posts were just after a discussion as to Delia and MWJ''s becoming a minority interest should PC invest £20m into NCFC Plc) :

 

21/11/2008, 6:15 PM
Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? Joined on 03/08/2005 Posts 2,276	Re: Lets not forget............
	YankeeCanary wrote: If 20,000 fans held a portion of those shares that would average 8 shares per fan. Maybe the real average is 25 or 5 ...I don''t know but it''s relatively small compared to Delia and Michael who own over 300,000. That''s life Canary Nut so deal with it. If YOU were in their position what "effectiveness level" would you think an individual fan should have versus your own.   YOU seem to like defending Delia & MWJ should they become a minority interest but YOU have a double standard towards the current minority interest, why is that? Are you some how associated with these directors?

 

 

 

 

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Nutty, as I said, the main one was in the City Stand, I used to queue there for pesky away tickets and cup tickets, have had season tickets for ages so no need to do it every week. I remember having to queue for hours for a cup game (it was under Chase, but can''t remember which one it was). Quite enjoyable really, we all had a good laugh - it was a nice day I seem to remember.

Depending on time of day it was a toss up between both offices. The current one is fine, but doesn''t ever seem to be used! I walk past it every evening while walking the mutley, and they all seem to know me now, some of them even wave.....lol

[7rew 0]

In response to TFAa''s last (which doesn''t quote properly).What?  I actually don''t understand how this could possibly be considered a response?   Surely you see these are different meanings of the word fair.Stop Failing the Turing Test!

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty, as I said, the main one was in the City Stand, I used to queue there for pesky away tickets and cup tickets, have had season tickets for ages so no need to do it every week. I remember having to queue for hours for a cup game (it was under Chase, but can''t remember which one it was). Quite enjoyable really, we all had a good laugh - it was a nice day I seem to remember. Depending on time of day it was a toss up between both offices. The current one is fine, but doesn''t ever seem to be used! I walk past it every evening while walking the mutley, and they all seem to know me now, some of them even wave.....lol[/quote]

Strewth Gazza!! Knock me flamin'' sideways!!![:O][;)] Chase went out of the door in 1996 and you think I live in the past when I occasionally mention Worthy[;)]

I was asking you and Tangie where you got your tickets this century but before the new ticket office was opened.

The current one is probably used more by internet and telephone customers but in anycase is quite obviously used more heavily than the equivalent one at St Andrews! [;)]

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, this has already been explained to you by me and others. I am not misrepresenting what you said. I am telling you how your comments are received by me in the context of how you communicate. I honestly don''t know if you have the ability to look at your input objectively, particularly UNLESS you are prepared to look at yourself from outside of yourself. A difficult thing for all of us, I agree. Nevertheless, I will take one more stab at it with you. Let''s take 7rew''s example that he shared with you that if a poster made a comment that Manchester City had sold 8 million pounds worth of players, if that were factual, then that''s okay but it''s not particularly relevant unless it''s put into context. Regardless of that fact, the occasional poster would have probably not received much reaction to the point. Now you, on the other hand, are not an occasional poster. You have been hammering away like a man on a mission on the same subject consistently and continuously for a long time with your criticism of NCFC as it relates to how the club money has spent money and questioning many times, on what. So, when you post the following......

"When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie."

....taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example. Now, put that into context. Readers like me have seen you hammering away for a long time on the same issue. An objective reader of so many of your posts of a continuous theme are are driven to question, indeed, whether you have an agenda. I''ll illustrate this by providing an example ( not an accusation ) that you could be a front man for Peter Cullum. Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[/quote]

Have you been able to look at it objectively yet Mr. Carrow?

[/quote]

YC, i do not have an agenda other than to try to cut through the many myths people seem so happy to repeat by posting the facts as i see them.  I don`t feel the need to spend hours spelling things out because A. i feel i`ve done that dozens of times before and it makes absolutely no difference when people clearly have totally entrenched positions, and B. i like to credit people with a bit of independance and intelligence and hope that if they feel i`ve got it totally wrong they will look into things in-depth for themselves and prove as such.

The Man.City example is just an absolutely pointless thing to bring up because anyone with any interest in the two clubs know that they have spent far more on players than they have brought in, whilst we have spent far less than we`ve brought in- as proved by the "profits on player trading" figures in the accounts i and others have posted dozens of times.  If you think we are posting lies, get hold of the facts and prove us wrong.  If you do that, and you truly are intelligent and fair-minded, you might just find yourself having to agree with us......

[YankeeCanary 0]

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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, this has already been explained to you by me and others. I am not misrepresenting what you said. I am telling you how your comments are received by me in the context of how you communicate. I honestly don''t know if you have the ability to look at your input objectively, particularly UNLESS you are prepared to look at yourself from outside of yourself. A difficult thing for all of us, I agree. Nevertheless, I will take one more stab at it with you. Let''s take 7rew''s example that he shared with you that if a poster made a comment that Manchester City had sold 8 million pounds worth of players, if that were factual, then that''s okay but it''s not particularly relevant unless it''s put into context. Regardless of that fact, the occasional poster would have probably not received much reaction to the point. Now you, on the other hand, are not an occasional poster. You have been hammering away like a man on a mission on the same subject consistently and continuously for a long time with your criticism of NCFC as it relates to how the club money has spent money and questioning many times, on what. So, when you post the following......

"When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie."

....taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example. Now, put that into context. Readers like me have seen you hammering away for a long time on the same issue. An objective reader of so many of your posts of a continuous theme are are driven to question, indeed, whether you have an agenda. I''ll illustrate this by providing an example ( not an accusation ) that you could be a front man for Peter Cullum. Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[/quote]

Have you been able to look at it objectively yet Mr. Carrow?

[/quote]

YC, i do not have an agenda other than to try to cut through the many myths people seem so happy to repeat by posting the facts as i see them.  I don`t feel the need to spend hours spelling things out because A. i feel i`ve done that dozens of times before and it makes absolutely no difference when people clearly have totally entrenched positions, and B. i like to credit people with a bit of independance and intelligence and hope that if they feel i`ve got it totally wrong they will look into things in-depth for themselves and prove as such.

The Man.City example is just an absolutely pointless thing to bring up because anyone with any interest in the two clubs know that they have spent far more on players than they have brought in, whilst we have spent far less than we`ve brought in- as proved by the "profits on player trading" figures in the accounts i and others have posted dozens of times.  If you think we are posting lies, get hold of the facts and prove us wrong.  If you do that, and you truly are intelligent and fair-minded, you might just find yourself having to agree with us......

[/quote]

Absolute spin on your part Mr. Carrow. As I said, too many of your posts reflect the same kind of misrepresentation that YOU presented in the example I responded to. If you have no agenda, as you say, and your objective is not to to be unfairly critical of NCFC then stop dancing all over the place and have the decency, in the interest of all fans of NCFC who read these posts , to admit that the example of your input that I quoted gives a worse impression of NCFC than is fair. Never mind what you claim to have written previously. Address the point that was made regarding your words and, if you find it within yourself to be honest and fair, try to follow that path on future posts.

[i,coopius 0]

YC, i really do not understand your insistence on dragging on with this one statement over and over and over and over again (maybe i am one of those who i believe you referred  to in the original topic as being (to paraphrase) so stupid they''ll believe anything that is written).the original topic was, i believe titled something(original) like ''where has all the money gone. Mr C, merely posted income we have received  since promotion (though he is at fault in not posting about 25k fans every week, all monies received from advertising, and all other forms of income - shame on you mr c for not showing the full facts).you are correct YC, he did not mention any transfer outlay, he also didn''t mention, stadium upkeep, wages, police/ steward fees, toilet paper cost, or the price of cleaning windows. "taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view,

while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in

isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is

clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money

Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich

had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw

for example"mr c: please  stop trying to ''persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of ''  whether factual or not without also qualifying it without every outlay our sainted directors must pay down to the headed letter paper.

i believe ALL fans would understand that in a topic of that name, that this was the amount of money we had incoming through those seasons (the conclusion being that the board then have the decision on what to spend this money on - to find ourselves languishing at the bottom of the division, with no money to spend on the team, after the ''prudence with ambition years'' show a lack of both, and where the boards investment priorities lie (clearly not the footballing side)) ; and the lack of examples to suggest any out goings, would not lead to people to believe that nothing has been spent on incoming transfers. in fact the lack of any examples of out lays clearly implies that there were some, surely to have listed a few ie wages etc, would have been more misleading. i think anyone who supports norwich know there has been transfer monies spent since we were promoted. i believe you would have to be a complete idiot to support this team and not know that. so are you implying some of us are complete idiots, or are those that don''t understand complete idiots. Or are you merely trying to discredit his argument by constantly taking it out of context, trying to sound reasonable, though little digs keep cropping up (ie front man for cullum, competing with doncaster for spin) , would it not be more accurate that though you accuse him of spin that you are the one who is trying to use words to facilitate your argument than facts. you stick to one example that mr c does not highlight the transfer costs, but nowhere does he claim to, you then lambast him for what would appear to be not including the entire history of ncfc ever, anywhere. yet you don''t ever counter his argument, merely point out the faults in the way he raises his. believe me i think i know which side the spin lies on, but then i''m probably one of the idiots that doesn''t understand

[7rew 0]

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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]YC, we have had £20m income from player sales since relegation, which is exactly what i stated on the other thread and was accepted as an accurate statement by the people i was debating with.  Why do you feel the need to misrepresent what i said?[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, this has already been explained to you by me and others. I am not misrepresenting what you said. I am telling you how your comments are received by me in the context of how you communicate. I honestly don''t know if you have the ability to look at your input objectively, particularly UNLESS you are prepared to look at yourself from outside of yourself. A difficult thing for all of us, I agree. Nevertheless, I will take one more stab at it with you. Let''s take 7rew''s example that he shared with you that if a poster made a comment that Manchester City had sold 8 million pounds worth of players, if that were factual, then that''s okay but it''s not particularly relevant unless it''s put into context. Regardless of that fact, the occasional poster would have probably not received much reaction to the point. Now you, on the other hand, are not an occasional poster. You have been hammering away like a man on a mission on the same subject consistently and continuously for a long time with your criticism of NCFC as it relates to how the club money has spent money and questioning many times, on what. So, when you post the following......

"When a club does it having earned £34m over 3 seasons, sold £20m of players, sold land for £6.2m, had a £1.5m loan written off and received a £1.1m down-payment for the hotel venture, you have to question just where their priorities lie."

....taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example. Now, put that into context. Readers like me have seen you hammering away for a long time on the same issue. An objective reader of so many of your posts of a continuous theme are are driven to question, indeed, whether you have an agenda. I''ll illustrate this by providing an example ( not an accusation ) that you could be a front man for Peter Cullum. Which is why I say, and have repeatedly said, if your motives are simply those of a very concerned Norwich fan who has a skill in the area of finances, then you would be well advised WHENEVER you are posting your criticisms of the Norwich Board to bend over backwards to both be fair and seen to be fair. That, in my opinion, would make you more credible and attract others like me to your point of view. I don''t think you did that here and I find that often to be the case with many of your posts. 

[/quote]

Have you been able to look at it objectively yet Mr. Carrow?

[/quote]

YC, i do not have an agenda other than to try to cut through the many myths people seem so happy to repeat by posting the facts as i see them.  I don`t feel the need to spend hours spelling things out because A. i feel i`ve done that dozens of times before and it makes absolutely no difference when people clearly have totally entrenched positions, and B. i like to credit people with a bit of independance and intelligence and hope that if they feel i`ve got it totally wrong they will look into things in-depth for themselves and prove as such.

The Man.City example is just an absolutely pointless thing to bring up because anyone with any interest in the two clubs know that they have spent far more on players than they have brought in, whilst we have spent far less than we`ve brought in- as proved by the "profits on player trading" figures in the accounts i and others have posted dozens of times.  If you think we are posting lies, get hold of the facts and prove us wrong.  If you do that, and you truly are intelligent and fair-minded, you might just find yourself having to agree with us......

[/quote]Red: That was precisely my point!  If it is a pointless figure for them it is just as pointless a figure for us, since it is the same figure. It is given relevance by the statement in blue, which is the one you missed out.At least after 10 pages of arguement you get the point!As to what the value of players sold was doing in an arguement that we didn''t need to sell players to survive (ie income without sales > reasonable costs).  Well, thats anyones guess.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

This really is taking pedantry to a whole new level 7rew.  I made a simple accurate statement assuming that people on here know enough about their club to twig that i am NOT claiming we have made a £20m profit, it is totally obvious that some of that has been spent on new players and those sums are in the public domain and have been posted on here plenty of times.  I`m sorry but if you can`t be bothered to do a little research and join the dots, you have no right to have a go at me for not doing it for you.

I have seen no full breakdown of Delias £11m she`s supposedly invested, nor all the millions our rivals are supposed to be rolling in due to them all having generous sugar-daddies, nor a breakdown of our supposed £8.5m player budget this season, so i guess you regard all these figures to be "irrelevant" and will be having a pop at anyone who posts them?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

This really is taking pedantry to a whole new level 7rew.  I made a simple accurate statement assuming that people on here know enough about their club to twig that i am NOT claiming we have made a £20m profit, it is totally obvious that some of that has been spent on new players and those sums are in the public domain and have been posted on here plenty of times.  I`m sorry but if you can`t be bothered to do a little research and join the dots, you have no right to have a go at me for not doing it for you.

I have seen no full breakdown of Delias £11m she`s supposedly invested, nor all the millions our rivals are supposed to be rolling in due to them all having generous sugar-daddies, nor a breakdown of our supposed £8.5m player budget this season, so i guess you regard all these figures to be "irrelevant" and will be having a pop at anyone who posts them?

[/quote]If they were actually irrelevant to the arguement being made, then I would yes.  It would also depend on how central to the argument they were.At the red bit: Its your argument, why should I have do do research to find out why you are right?  You are making a point, and as such it should be clear in itself why it is true.  If your arguement is not clear, or requires work by me to understand it, you have no right to have a go at me for querying your point.But I will repeat:Its not the lack of a full breakdown that annoys me. It is the choice of figures for your argument that is why I am arguing with you.  The 20m income and 16m profit figures are easily available to hand for your or anyones else''s use.  It would not exactly have been harder for you to say made 16m profit on players than sold 20m of players.  But you chose to use the larger headline figure for your argument. It makes it more impressive, but gives a less truthful impression.  Moreover it is an error I see you make repeatedly - I''ll let it go a sometimes, but repeatedly it is a problem, especially as I suspect you make it deliberately.If you bring numbers into an argument - don''t be surprised if someone criticises your methods.  After all, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics"!   The only way to keep statistics honest is through "pedantry" as you call it.

[Mello Yello 2,291]

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

This really is taking pedantry to a whole new level 7rew.  I made a simple accurate statement assuming that people on here know enough about their club to twig that i am NOT claiming we have made a £20m profit, it is totally obvious that some of that has been spent on new players and those sums are in the public domain and have been posted on here plenty of times.  I`m sorry but if you can`t be bothered to do a little research and join the dots, you have no right to have a go at me for not doing it for you.

I have seen no full breakdown of Delias £11m she`s supposedly invested, nor all the millions our rivals are supposed to be rolling in due to them all having generous sugar-daddies, nor a breakdown of our supposed £8.5m player budget this season, so i guess you regard all these figures to be "irrelevant" and will be having a pop at anyone who posts them?

[/quote]

If they were actually irrelevant to the arguement being made, then I would yes.  It would also depend on how central to the argument they were.

At the red bit: Its your argument, why should I have do do research to find out why you are right?  You are making a point, and as such it should be clear in itself why it is true.  If your arguement is not clear, or requires work by me to understand it, you have no right to have a go at me for querying your point.

But I will repeat:
Its not the lack of a full breakdown that annoys me. It is the choice of figures for your argument that is why I am arguing with you. 

The 20m income and 16m profit figures are easily available to hand for your or anyones else''s use.  It would not exactly have been harder for you to say made 16m profit on players than sold 20m of players.  But you chose to use the larger headline figure for your argument. It makes it more impressive, but gives a less truthful impression.  Moreover it is an error I see you make repeatedly - I''ll let it go a sometimes, but repeatedly it is a problem, especially as I suspect you make it deliberately.

If you bring numbers into an argument - don''t be surprised if someone criticises your methods.  After all, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics"!   The only way to keep statistics honest is through "pedantry" as you call it.
[/quote]

Why do you object to Mr Carrow''s figures? Do you readily accept and prefer to believe figures espewed from Carrow Road?

[YankeeCanary 0]

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

This really is taking pedantry to a whole new level 7rew.  I made a simple accurate statement assuming that people on here know enough about their club to twig that i am NOT claiming we have made a £20m profit, it is totally obvious that some of that has been spent on new players and those sums are in the public domain and have been posted on here plenty of times.  I`m sorry but if you can`t be bothered to do a little research and join the dots, you have no right to have a go at me for not doing it for you.

I have seen no full breakdown of Delias £11m she`s supposedly invested, nor all the millions our rivals are supposed to be rolling in due to them all having generous sugar-daddies, nor a breakdown of our supposed £8.5m player budget this season, so i guess you regard all these figures to be "irrelevant" and will be having a pop at anyone who posts them?

[/quote]

If they were actually irrelevant to the arguement being made, then I would yes.  It would also depend on how central to the argument they were.

At the red bit: Its your argument, why should I have do do research to find out why you are right?  You are making a point, and as such it should be clear in itself why it is true.  If your arguement is not clear, or requires work by me to understand it, you have no right to have a go at me for querying your point.

But I will repeat:
Its not the lack of a full breakdown that annoys me. It is the choice of figures for your argument that is why I am arguing with you. 

The 20m income and 16m profit figures are easily available to hand for your or anyones else''s use.  It would not exactly have been harder for you to say made 16m profit on players than sold 20m of players.  But you chose to use the larger headline figure for your argument. It makes it more impressive, but gives a less truthful impression.  Moreover it is an error I see you make repeatedly - I''ll let it go a sometimes, but repeatedly it is a problem, especially as I suspect you make it deliberately.

If you bring numbers into an argument - don''t be surprised if someone criticises your methods.  After all, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics"!   The only way to keep statistics honest is through "pedantry" as you call it.
[/quote]

Why do you object to Mr Carrow''s figures? Do you readily accept and prefer to believe figures espewed from Carrow Road?

[/quote]

I didn''t object to Monica Lewinsky''s figure, even though it left a lot to be desired. What I objected to was it being plastered all over the screen every day as if this was what the world was really all about.

[whoareyou? 0]

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="The Butler"]

Mr T a quick question:-

If I had invested say 3million 3 years ago in a venture and this year showed a return on my investment of say 50k. I show the return this year as a profit, is that a good investment?

If I invested the 3mil in my core business that could have returned 35million is that not a better bet/risk and more in keeping with what my business is about.

Diversification was a byword but in this economic climate it is surprising the number of companies returning to their roots.

[/quote]

Yes it "could have". It could also have generated a £3m loss - more, if you borrowed additional amounts in the vain hope of success.
It was that sort of thinking that got the world into its current financial predicament; you''re not some sort of banker, are you?


[/quote]

Actually it was predominantly the securitisation of banking debts that has caused the problem. In this country  Northern Rock failed first and most spectacularly because they had securitised mortgages since 1996 and were thus overly dependant on an inherently flawed financial structure.

Now here''s a question.

Which English League football club is the only football club to be 100% securitised?


[/quote]

 

Manchester United?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

Why do you object to Mr Carrow''s figures? Do you readily accept and prefer to believe figures espewed from Carrow Road?

[/quote]Seriously, have you actually read what I''ve been saying at all!  I don''t object to his figures, I object to which figures he uses; " It is the choice of figures for your argument that is why I am arguing with you."   I do believe the figures espewed from carrow road, in the same way that I believe the 20m sales and 16m profit figures originally posted in this thread by Mr Carrow and Bucketman respectively.  I trust that each of them will use accurate figures because they would be easily caught out in a direct lie if they didn''t.Does that mean I am compelled to accept, or do accept, anyones interpretation of the figures?  Hell no.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

This really is taking pedantry to a whole new level 7rew.  I made a simple accurate statement assuming that people on here know enough about their club to twig that i am NOT claiming we have made a £20m profit, it is totally obvious that some of that has been spent on new players and those sums are in the public domain and have been posted on here plenty of times.  I`m sorry but if you can`t be bothered to do a little research and join the dots, you have no right to have a go at me for not doing it for you.

I have seen no full breakdown of Delias £11m she`s supposedly invested, nor all the millions our rivals are supposed to be rolling in due to them all having generous sugar-daddies, nor a breakdown of our supposed £8.5m player budget this season, so i guess you regard all these figures to be "irrelevant" and will be having a pop at anyone who posts them?

[/quote]

If they were actually irrelevant to the arguement being made, then I would yes.  It would also depend on how central to the argument they were.

At the red bit: Its your argument, why should I have do do research to find out why you are right?  You are making a point, and as such it should be clear in itself why it is true.  If your arguement is not clear, or requires work by me to understand it, you have no right to have a go at me for querying your point.

But I will repeat:
Its not the lack of a full breakdown that annoys me. It is the choice of figures for your argument that is why I am arguing with you. 

The 20m income and 16m profit figures are easily available to hand for your or anyones else''s use.  It would not exactly have been harder for you to say made 16m profit on players than sold 20m of players.  But you chose to use the larger headline figure for your argument. It makes it more impressive, but gives a less truthful impression.  Moreover it is an error I see you make repeatedly - I''ll let it go a sometimes, but repeatedly it is a problem, especially as I suspect you make it deliberately.

If you bring numbers into an argument - don''t be surprised if someone criticises your methods.  After all, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics"!   The only way to keep statistics honest is through "pedantry" as you call it.
[/quote]

This has probably been the most pointless debate i`ve ever had on here.  You labelled my use of an accurate figure of £20m in player sales since relegation "irrelevant" because i hadn`t spent time i didn`t have going in-depth into all the other related figures, when i`ve already done that dozens of times.  By that logic then any figure stated in isolation such as the ones i mention above must also be irrelevant, so i expect to see you on other threads harangueing people for posting figures in isolation without a full explanatory breakdown.

Because you couldn`t find any fault with the statement i had posted, you decided to find fault with what i HADN`T posted instead.  What a pointless waste of time.

[Ooh Ahh Lee Power 2]

Investment needed will be the answer!!