On 29 January 2008 Norwich had a 850,000 bid rejected by Scunthorpe

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Far more important to spend £1.1m on tangible fixed assets than buy Paterson, a good striker during the 2007-08 season.

Don''t forget a good target man helps the defence because the ball is not lost (to the opposition) so quickly and the defence gets a break. 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Far more important to spend £1.1m on tangible fixed assets than buy Paterson, a good striker during the 2007-08 season.[/quote]Here we go again with the big number and the 20:20 hindsight - go on then, I''ll bite.  I''m sure you can offer a full break-down of the 1.1 million, and be able to explain with intricate detail which parts of the 1.1 million aren''t vital.  Or maybe you''ve just found a number in the accounts and thought you''d apply it to this thread...Incidentally, the 1.1 million you mention wouldn''t cover his wages as well as the fee...

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Far more important to spend £1.1m on tangible fixed assets than buy Paterson, a good striker during the 2007-08 season.[/quote]

Here we go again with the big number and the 20:20 hindsight - go on then, I''ll bite.  I''m sure you can offer a full break-down of the 1.1 million, and be able to explain with intricate detail which parts of the 1.1 million aren''t vital.  Or maybe you''ve just found a number in the accounts and thought you''d apply it to this thread...

Incidentally, the 1.1 million you mention wouldn''t cover his wages as well as the fee...
[/quote]

Couldn''t possibly consider spending the money on a striker could we? 

You dont know the spread of the cashflows regarding the transfer fee.

If necessary theres plenty of working capital to pay his wages from.

Have another try blahblahblah!

 

 

[Time to go Delia 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]He has 18 for Burnley this season , slightly better than Mr Lupoli .[/quote]

something to do with the fact that Paterson played games.. Lupoli didnt.

jas :)

[/quote] And why do you think Lupoli isnt playing ? Roeder hardly used him , Gunn got rid of him and hes not starting at Sheff Utd .Could it be he just isnt good enough .

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Couldn''t possibly consider spending the money on a striker could we? [/quote]Hey, don''t get me wrong, I''d love the money to be spent on a striker.  You have yet to convince me that the money isn''t doing anything essential.  Using a term working capital doesn''t mean diddly.[quote]You dont know the spread of the cashflows regarding the transfer fee.[/quote]And neither do you (do you ?...) - but that doesn''t stop you suggesting as fact that there is this big pot of money just sitting around going to waste while, with hindsight, this blindingly obvious purchase was waiting to be made.  There are many parts of the equation that you haven''t considered other than the wage bill / cash flow, the players'' personal circumstances / geography of the club, Glenn Roeders'' opinion of the player, and so on...

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Couldn''t possibly consider spending the money on a striker could we? [/quote]

Hey, don''t get me wrong, I''d love the money to be spent on a striker.  You have yet to convince me that the money isn''t doing anything essential.  Using a term working capital doesn''t mean diddly.

[quote]You dont know the spread of the cashflows regarding the transfer fee.[/quote]

And neither do you (do you ?...) - but that doesn''t stop you suggesting as fact that there is this big pot of money just sitting around going to waste while, with hindsight, this blindingly obvious purchase was waiting to be made.  There are many parts of the equation that you haven''t considered other than the wage bill / cash flow, the players'' personal circumstances / geography of the club, Glenn Roeders'' opinion of the player, and so on...
[/quote]

Could have been any other striker......but its obvious the club has a fixation with tangible fixed assets while the team....................

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]Could have been any other striker......but its obvious the club has a fixation with tangible fixed assets while the team....................[/quote]I think we all have a problem with tangible fixed assets![:D]

[Desert Fox 0]

Blahblahblah,

OK I will take up your challenge. Spending nearly £1M fitting out commerical offices which will not make a payback within 5 years is discretionary spending that should not take precedence over the need to ensure that we stay in a division where we are going to earn more revenue. Relgation will cost us many many many years profits from renting offices. Put simply, the board have taken some high risk gambles, probably believing that we would never get relegated.

Other discretionary proejcts with long paybacks that could have been avoided include Yellows, the costs associated with developing the land around Carrow Rd for housing, the ongoing infrastucture imporvement at Colney.

I cant undertsand why the majority of fans have not lost all patience with the Board and why you are others are so keen to defend them given what is happening to us - these events are not unconnected. I for one would be a lot less concerned about all this land development if we were doing the business on the pitch and we had a board with a sense of priority.

[T 190]

I really could not care about the board one way or the other but I do find the limited understanding of financial matters  such as references to paybacky rather than cashflows quite disturbing. It really does highlight the requirement for some basic finance training in our education system.

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

If I have to spell it out for you [8-|]

Could an extra £150,000 have kept us in The Championship this season?

 

[/quote]

tragically for some on here you do have to spell it out, I agree with your point, and you could put the same argument forward for Martin Taylor, an extra £250,000 and would we have gone down with him in defence? We are where prudence was always going to take us.

Wasn''t there also the possibility of £5 million immediately for players, around about October 2007, might just have been enough for a few players of our own?

 Still we have Delia, don''t worry, be happy!

[/quote]

Like you jumped in after he had spelt it out?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]I really could not care about the board one way or the other but I do find the limited understanding of financial matters  such as references to paybacky rather than cashflows quite disturbing. It really does highlight the requirement for some basic finance training in our education system.[/quote]

Dont mention risk to the investment bankers! 

 

[Desert Fox 0]

T,

You are hilarious. I dont know what they taught you on your MBA course but payback and cahsflow are instrinsically related.

For example pay out £2M and recieve £400K net revenue over 5 years equates to a payback of 5 years. Are you seriously suggesting that just because you receive £400K a year downstream, you should ignore the fact that you have spent £2M to earn this? Perhaps this explains why the club is in the financial mess it is in.

By the way I am a FCA.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="T"]I really could not care about the board one way or the other but I do find the limited understanding of financial matters  such as references to paybacky rather than cashflows quite disturbing. It really does highlight the requirement for some basic finance training in our education system.[/quote]

Hey, you could be describing our current board of Directionless with those above comments.....

I wonder who gives them the pertinent advice on how to run the club financially.....Not you perchance?

I do also still think that you''re connected to the club in some aspect......And, as for someone who doesn''t care about the board, you certainly take time-out to defend them....and fudging and dissing those who question the finances of NCFC....

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]By the way I am a FCA.[/quote]That''s nothing. Tangy is GOFPA so there! More letters than you for a start! [+o(]

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Mange Tout"][quote user="Barclay_Boy"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

If I have to spell it out for you [8-|]

Could an extra £150,000 have kept us in The Championship this season?

 

[/quote]

tragically for some on here you do have to spell it out, I agree with your point, and you could put the same argument forward for Martin Taylor, an extra £250,000 and would we have gone down with him in defence? We are where prudence was always going to take us.

Wasn''t there also the possibility of £5 million immediately for players, around about October 2007, might just have been enough for a few players of our own?

 Still we have Delia, don''t worry, be happy!

[/quote]

Like you jumped in after he had spelt it out?

[/quote]

Ok Mangy Toe, you sussed me out, I was faking it.  I really couldn''t see the connection between us not bidding quite enough for a striker who has scored loads in the Championship this season, and the fact that we likely to go down. It is really difficult after all.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]Put simply, the board have taken some high risk gambles, probably believing that we would never get relegated.[/quote]Thanks for a proper answer to a decent question.  I put myself forward as devils advocate for these discussions occasionally because I figure that if people hiding behind anonymous usernames are going to knock people who try to do their best for the club, the least they can do is show their working or offer an alternative.  As it happens I agree with you - I doubt that it entered anyones'' minds pre-Grant that Norwich City could get relegated to League Division 3, to give it its proper name.  The spending on offices that you are referring to occured when the Sky money was in - I''m guessing that the motivation was based upon the belief, rightly or wrongly, that the club believed that they were going to be a yo-yo club, on the West Brom model, and could afford to invest on external projects as a means of helping the club to be independent of Sky money - this I believe would have been motivated by the boards'' experience of the collapse of ITV Digital.Now - spending that I''m guessing occured in the seasons of Sky money / parachute payments on offices - how does this equate to the possible signing of a player last season ?  Am I guessing incorrectly, or have we spent 1 million on offices this season ?

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Desert Fox"]Put simply, the board have taken some high risk gambles, probably believing that we would never get relegated.[/quote]

Thanks for a proper answer to a decent question.  I put myself forward as devils advocate for these discussions occasionally because I figure that if people hiding behind anonymous usernames are going to knock people who try to do their best for the club, the least they can do is show their working or offer an alternative.  As it happens I agree with you - I doubt that it entered anyones'' minds pre-Grant that Norwich City could get relegated to League Division 3, to give it its proper name.  The spending on offices that you are referring to occured when the Sky money was in - I''m guessing that the motivation was based upon the belief, rightly or wrongly, that the club believed that they were going to be a yo-yo club, on the West Brom model, and could afford to invest on external projects as a means of helping the club to be independent of Sky money - this I believe would have been motivated by the boards'' experience of the collapse of ITV Digital.

Now - spending that I''m guessing occured in the seasons of Sky money / parachute payments on offices - how does this equate to the possible signing of a player last season ?  Am I guessing incorrectly, or have we spent 1 million on offices this season ?

[/quote]

You also hide behind an anonymous user name.....and I class you as a board apologist.

Our board are incompetent, refuse to accept any blame for our situation - and with them continuing in control - we will see no progress as a football club....

More than 3 years we have been floundering, and only escaped relegation last season, by the thickness of a fetherlite.

If you''re sympathetic for the board''s cause and wish to defend them with their really unfortunate and unforeseen excuses for failure....fair enough....But personally, I think the focus on the Delia brand, coupled with an inept, sickly smug and perpetual spinning CE - including a board of supposed astute business folk.....have driven us deep into the sh*t.

Folk can direct and apportion blame for our floundering and failure as a football club (core product).... at who, when and whatever, they do so wish....

They''ve wasted millions.....and we have nothing of real quality on the pitch to show for it - but plenty of quality around and surrounding it.

Because in my mind, those at the helm aren''t ''football first folk''...but ''business folk first.''

(But we got to choose what colour shorts we wanted)....

 

   

[singing canary 0]

so instead .. they used the money wisely on agent fees for loan players , of which were not any better than the players we got rid of !!

[T 190]

DF,

Of course paybacks and cash flows are related. However, paybacks are too simplistic to show the whole story though as they ignore the cash profile and risk element as TFA has mentioned. Having a long payback period is not necessarily a good or bad thing e.g. a house, may have along payback period but has usually been a good long term investment in the UK. I just happen to have an issue with the use of over simplistic rules of thumb such as paybacks for making decisions as one the causes of the current financial crisis is the over use of overly simplified decision rules such as banks lending to businesses based on EBITDA multiples rather than looking at the cash flows and risks e.g. a discounted cash flow approach. So for instance if you look at the cashflows for the offices, you take a loan out which would only be made available for property and not for players and the rents exceeds the loan repayments and interest payments then the transaction increases the cash available to spend on players. A football club does not make enough money from ticket receipts so it has to look at other souces of income. What is illogical, and this is my point, is to say it is wrong for a football club to spend money on fixed assets. It depends. If it generates cash for the club it it good and if it generates negative cash flows it is bad.  On the basis of an analysis of the cash flows then the key decisions of the board appear logical and the critisisms do not stand up to rational scrutiny. The one that is open to question is the property development which is costing the club 300k p.a.At the time the decision was made it had a projected profit of 3m which is clearly not the case now.

The league table speaks for itself though. Clearly, the club has underperformed for the last few seasons and the Board are ultimately responsible.TFA has indicated, that NCFC has the 8th largest player budget which suggests though the problem is football, in particular manager appointments rather than financial decisions. What does not make any sense for any business, is to say that it is wrong to spend money on fixed assets. No doubt some money could be better spent as always but ultimately it depends on the cash flows.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]You also hide behind an anonymous user name.....and I class you as a board apologist.[/quote]Funny that, I see myself as someone who seeks to understand both sides of the argument, I just choose one side of it to sit from as it tends to be the least represented.  You never know what people are going to make of you.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Desert Fox"]Put simply, the board have taken some high risk gambles, probably believing that we would never get relegated.[/quote]

Thanks for a proper answer to a decent question.  I put myself forward as devils advocate for these discussions occasionally because I figure that if people hiding behind anonymous usernames are going to knock people who try to do their best for the club, the least they can do is show their working or offer an alternative.  As it happens I agree with you - I doubt that it entered anyones'' minds pre-Grant that Norwich City could get relegated to League Division 3, to give it its proper name.  The spending on offices that you are referring to occured when the Sky money was in - I''m guessing that the motivation was based upon the belief, rightly or wrongly, that the club believed that they were going to be a yo-yo club, on the West Brom model, and could afford to invest on external projects as a means of helping the club to be independent of Sky money - this I believe would have been motivated by the boards'' experience of the collapse of ITV Digital.

Now - spending that I''m guessing occured in the seasons of Sky money / parachute payments on offices - how does this equate to the possible signing of a player last season ?  Am I guessing incorrectly, or have we spent 1 million on offices this season ?

[/quote]

You also hide behind an anonymous user name.....and I class you as a board apologist.

Our board are incompetent, refuse to accept any blame for our situation - and with them continuing in control - we will see no progress as a football club....

More than 3 years we have been floundering, and only escaped relegation last season, by the thickness of a fetherlite.

If you''re sympathetic for the board''s cause and wish to defend them with their really unfortunate and unforeseen excuses for failure....fair enough....But personally, I think the focus on the Delia brand, coupled with an inept, sickly smug and perpetual spinning CE - including a board of supposed astute business folk.....have driven us deep into the sh*t.

Folk can direct and apportion blame for our floundering and failure as a football club (core product).... at who, when and whatever, they do so wish....

They''ve wasted millions.....and we have nothing of real quality on the pitch to show for it - but plenty of quality around and surrounding it.

Because in my mind, those at the helm aren''t ''football first folk''...but ''business folk first.''

(But we got to choose what colour shorts we wanted)....

   

[/quote]

 

Well said.

Time for ND. to cut the overheads at NCFC. Its not just the player budget that needs cutting.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Time for ND. to cut the overheads at NCFC. Its not just the player budget that needs cutting.[/quote]No arguments from me on this, nor would it appear from Carra.  Eventguard shifted sideways, the travel shop closed down, austerity may well be the new prudence.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]

 The one that is open to question is the property development which is costing the club 300k p.a.At the time the decision was made it had a projected profit of 3m which is clearly not the case now.

[/quote]

The acquisition of the ex LSE land and ex Norwich City Council indicates a failure to recognise how far we were up the up part of the cycle. Furthermore to fund the purchase, £2.75m, of the ex land LSE land with a £2.5m loan has not helped the playing side of the business.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]You also hide behind an anonymous user name.....and I class you as a board apologist.[/quote]

Funny that, I see myself as someone who seeks to understand both sides of the argument, I just choose one side of it to sit from as it tends to be the least represented.  You never know what people are going to make of you.
[/quote]

A distinct habit of yours - is to with regularity, only reply to a selective piece of a post that suits your agenda - rather than the large percentage of its content......

Oh, and like me.... You still hide behind an anonymous user name....

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]

 So for instance if you look at the cashflows for the offices, you take a loan out which would only be made available for property and not for players and the rents exceeds the loan repayments and interest payments then the transaction increases the cash available to spend on players. [/quote]

But you need a rental contract(s) that is long enough to provide sufficient residual cash (i.e. after servicing the related debt) to cover the cost of providing the offices in the first place, i.e., breakeven (payback).

Otherwise you may have an initial negative cashflow due to servicing costs plus section 106 planning obligations, then some years  of positive cashflow followed by years of negative cashflow if there is no rental but a loan to service.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

A distinct habit of yours - is to with regularity, only reply to a selective piece of a post that suits your agenda - rather than the large percentage of its content......

Oh, and like me.... You still hide behind an anonymous user name....

[/quote]All this psycho-babble, and free of charge too !  You really are too kind.  I couldn''t see the value of anything else you said, it''s just the usual hot air.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]

Of course paybacks and cash flows are related. However, paybacks are too simplistic to show the whole story though as they ignore the cash profile and risk element as TFA has mentioned. Having a long payback period is not necessarily a good or bad thing e.g. a house, may have along payback period but has usually been a good long term investment in the UK. I just happen to have an issue with the use of over simplistic rules of thumb such as paybacks for making decisions as one the causes of the current financial crisis is the over use of overly simplified decision rules such as banks lending to businesses based on EBITDA multiples rather than looking at the cash flows and risks e.g. a discounted cash flow approach. [/quote]

You seem to miss the point that the payback method is a back of the envelope type calculation. You can then get a feel as to whether to spend time preparing a discounted cashflow. Both methods will indicate some feel as to when the project will breakeven. Even cashflows are subject to variation,  e.g.due to empty seats in the Community stand this season.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

A distinct habit of yours - is to with regularity, only reply to a selective piece of a post that suits your agenda - rather than the large percentage of its content......

Oh, and like me.... You still hide behind an anonymous user name....

[/quote]

All this psycho-babble, and free of charge too !  You really are too kind.  I couldn''t see the value of anything else you said, it''s just the usual hot air.
[/quote]

Pyscho babble? Hot air? For free?.....Blah Blah Wobble Babble and avoidance technique - more like.....

Will you be at the game Monday? Or, are you watching it on the telly? Other commitments?....(Delia won''t hear you give her the applause she so desperately thrives on)

You''re a ''board apologist'' and I claim my 15% refund on my season ticket - if we''re unfortunately, relegated...

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

A distinct habit of yours - is to with regularity, only reply to a selective piece of a post that suits your agenda - rather than the large percentage of its content......

Oh, and like me.... You still hide behind an anonymous user name....

[/quote]All this psycho-babble, and free of charge too !  You really are too kind.  I couldn''t see the value of anything else you said, it''s just the usual hot air.[/quote]

Pyscho babble? Hot air? For free?.....Blah Blah Wobble Babble and avoidance technique - more like.....

Will you be at the game Monday? Or, are you watching it on the telly? Other commitments?....(Delia won''t hear you give her the applause she so desperately thrives on)

You''re a ''board apologist'' and I claim my 15% refund on my season ticket - if we''re unfortunately, relegated...

[/quote]Why do you care so much about what I''m up to ?  It would be quite sweet if it wasn''t so disturbing.  You''re the one with an agenda mate, I just come on here to be among fellow fans and voice my opinion.  And mine is as valid as any other cartoon characters''.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

A distinct habit of yours - is to with regularity, only reply to a selective piece of a post that suits your agenda - rather than the large percentage of its content......

Oh, and like me.... You still hide behind an anonymous user name....

[/quote]

All this psycho-babble, and free of charge too !  You really are too kind.  I couldn''t see the value of anything else you said, it''s just the usual hot air.
[/quote]

Pyscho babble? Hot air? For free?.....Blah Blah Wobble Babble and avoidance technique - more like.....

Will you be at the game Monday? Or, are you watching it on the telly? Other commitments?....(Delia won''t hear you give her the applause she so desperately thrives on)

You''re a ''board apologist'' and I claim my 15% refund on my season ticket - if we''re unfortunately, relegated...

[/quote]

Why do you care so much about what I''m up to ?  It would be quite sweet if it wasn''t so disturbing.  You''re the one with an agenda mate, I just come on here to be among fellow fans and voice my opinion.  And mine is as valid as any other cartoon characters''.
[/quote]

You''re doing it again.....If you or any other posters for that matter, find what I type ''disturbing''.....Tell the mods and I''m sure that they''ll sort it out.

Although, it''s ok for you to dish it out.....but, when it''s flung at you....Boo Hoo...Miss! Miss![:''(] Gerrover it!