Tonight's meeting - Well done NCISA

[T 190]

Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.

[Mello Yello 2,291]

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

[Desert Fox 0]

T,

I carefully said ''should not need''. The fact that some clubs are spending beyond their means should ultimately be to our advantage those with higher revenues and lower debts should settle into a long term equilibrum league position (which us probably means top 10 in the CCC with the odd shot at the prem and a cup run).

I also carefully said ''sustain a mid table CCC team''. This means a combination of resources and management expertise. My principal gripe is that transfer funds from sales are not being recycled back into the team. The club would have us believe that we are spending this on wages instead, but as Mr C has consistently proved, this does not add up.

[T 190]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

T,

I carefully said ''should not need''. The fact that some clubs are spending beyond their means should ultimately be to our advantage those with higher revenues and lower debts should settle into a long term equilibrum league position (which us probably means top 10 in the CCC with the odd shot at the prem and a cup run).

I also carefully said ''sustain a mid table CCC team''. This means a combination of resources and management expertise. My principal gripe is that transfer funds from sales are not being recycled back into the team. The club would have us believe that we are spending this on wages instead, but as Mr C has consistently proved, this does not add up.

[/quote]

 

I agree with the first part but I think you will find both Deloittes and Peter Cullum found that nearly all clubs  have to sell players to make ends meet. Norwich has always been a selling club as long as I can remember.

[Desert Fox 0]

T,

I dont have a problem with being a selling club - we have a role in the football food chain. My problem is that we have neglected the production line and now found ourselves with a squad which is not worth much and liitle cash to re-invest. This is precisely the point that I have been trying to make. As another potser on here has pointed out we have gone from Ashton to Earnshaw to Cureton to ? in the space of four years.

[T 190]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

 

I''ve never said that our position is satisfactory or the board is not ultimately responsible or that I would not like new wealthier owners. But saying that you should not engage in off-field activities, should not spend money ornfixed assets or that football clubs are viable economic businesses is about as correct as some of my typing/spelling on here!

[/quote]

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

[/quote]

I am a qualified steam engine driver.  Not full steam ahead lest your old inefficient boiler burst but if you are okay on the water level you can often nurse her home.  All steam engines are "her" by the way.  I am not nice or naive but I know how to nurse one home.  Frequent use of the injectors may be necessary to release some of the water but apart from that and, while tricky, it is possible.  You may only have three lumps of coal left but you already have a fire going otherwise you would not be moving at all.  You''d cut it back to a quarter regulator (which is what you appear to have done) and then nurse. 

It''s so rare I get to talk about steam driving techniques that I thought I''d let myself go a bit.[:$]

(Talyllyn Railway and Fowler 22 tons on the road steam ploughing engine.  With the latter I once did very serious damage to a recently tarred road near West Raynham on a hot day[8-|]

I have my own up to date Department of Transport annual Boiler Certificate (160lbs psq) and a hydrant key which enables me to plunder water from any passing fire hydrant anywhere in Britain. 

Also with reference to Kathy bein a "bit of all roight" I''d like to point out that in the more gracious steam age it is highly likely she would have been named "Lady Katherine"

Here is a steamy Lady Katherine:

http://www.shropshiresteamboat.co.uk/press1.htm

If you have a boiler inspection once a year, as you must, there shouldn''t be a problem.

 

 

[Camuldonum 0]

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

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

[/quote]

I am a qualified steam engine driver.  Not full steam ahead lest your old inefficient boiler burst but if you are okay on the water level you can often nurse her home.  All steam engines are "her" by the way.  I am not nice or naive but I know how to nurse one home.  Frequent use of the injectors may be necessary to release some of the water but apart from that and, while tricky, it is possible.  You may only have three lumps of coal left but you already have a fire going otherwise you would not be moving at all.  You''d cut it back to a quarter regulator (which is what you appear to have done) and then nurse. 

It''s so rare I get to talk about steam driving techniques that I thought I''d let myself go a bit.[:$]

(Talyllyn Railway and Fowler 22 tons on the road steam ploughing engine.  With the latter I once did very serious damage to a recently tarred road near West Raynham on a hot day[8-|]

I have my own up to date Department of Transport annual Boiler Certificate (160lbs psq) and a hydrant key which enables me to plunder water from any passing fire hydrant anywhere in Britain. 

Also with reference to Kathy bein a "bit of all roight" I''d like to point out that in the more gracious steam age it is highly likely she would have been named "Lady Katherine"

Here is a steamy Lady Katherine:

http://www.shropshiresteamboat.co.uk/press1.htm

If you have a boiler inspection once a year, as you must, there shouldn''t be a problem.

 

 

[/quote]

PS: Replacing a boiler is very, very expensive.  More than you paid for Cody.  Retubing is often a better option.[:D]

[Mello Yello 2,291]

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

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

[/quote]

I am a qualified steam engine driver.  Not full steam ahead lest your old inefficient boiler burst but if you are okay on the water level you can often nurse her home.  All steam engines are "her" by the way.  I am not nice or naive but I know how to nurse one home.  Frequent use of the injectors may be necessary to release some of the water but apart from that and, while tricky, it is possible.  You may only have three lumps of coal left but you already have a fire going otherwise you would not be moving at all.  You''d cut it back to a quarter regulator (which is what you appear to have done) and then nurse. 

It''s so rare I get to talk about steam driving techniques that I thought I''d let myself go a bit.[:$]

(Talyllyn Railway and Fowler 22 tons on the road steam ploughing engine.  With the latter I once did very serious damage to a recently tarred road near West Raynham on a hot day[8-|]

I have my own up to date Department of Transport annual Boiler Certificate (160lbs psq) and a hydrant key which enables me to plunder water from any passing fire hydrant anywhere in Britain. 

Also with reference to Kathy bein a "bit of all roight" I''d like to point out that in the more gracious steam age it is highly likely she would have been named "Lady Katherine"

Here is a steamy Lady Katherine:

http://www.shropshiresteamboat.co.uk/press1.htm

If you have a boiler inspection once a year, as you must, there shouldn''t be a problem.

 

 

[/quote]

PS: Replacing a boiler is very, very expensive.  More than you paid for Cody.  Retubing is often a better option.[:D]

[/quote]

[Mello Yello 2,291]

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

[quote user="T"]Exactly , just looking at one piece of selective information without looking at the bigger picture which why the argument always lacks credibility.[/quote]

It doesn''t matter one iota concerning your consistent defence of those that have allowed us to nosedive into our lowest position of professional football in 49 years....Do you suggest they carry on full steam ahead? With a nice but naive stoker, only three lumps of coal, a broken shovel - and an old inefficient boiler that wants to keep going - and refuses to be replaced....? 

[/quote]

I am a qualified steam engine driver.  Not full steam ahead lest your old inefficient boiler burst but if you are okay on the water level you can often nurse her home.  All steam engines are "her" by the way.  I am not nice or naive but I know how to nurse one home.  Frequent use of the injectors may be necessary to release some of the water but apart from that and, while tricky, it is possible.  You may only have three lumps of coal left but you already have a fire going otherwise you would not be moving at all.  You''d cut it back to a quarter regulator (which is what you appear to have done) and then nurse. 

It''s so rare I get to talk about steam driving techniques that I thought I''d let myself go a bit.[:$]

(Talyllyn Railway and Fowler 22 tons on the road steam ploughing engine.  With the latter I once did very serious damage to a recently tarred road near West Raynham on a hot day[8-|]

I have my own up to date Department of Transport annual Boiler Certificate (160lbs psq) and a hydrant key which enables me to plunder water from any passing fire hydrant anywhere in Britain. 

Also with reference to Kathy bein a "bit of all roight" I''d like to point out that in the more gracious steam age it is highly likely she would have been named "Lady Katherine"

Here is a steamy Lady Katherine:

http://www.shropshiresteamboat.co.uk/press1.htm

If you have a boiler inspection once a year, as you must, there shouldn''t be a problem.

 

 

[/quote]

PS: Replacing a boiler is very, very expensive.  More than you paid for Cody.  Retubing is often a better option.[:D]

[/quote]

[/quote]

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Camuldonum"]

PS: Replacing a boiler is very, very expensive.  More than you paid for Cody.  Retubing is often a better option.[:D]

[/quote]You''re not kidding Cam I read on a website somewhere fairly recently that the cost of one boiler replacement was estimated at £36,000,000 mind you all replacement parts had to be British, none of that  foreign malarkey for our old boiler.

[ca 1]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Yankee, the committee met briefly last night to formulate a further press statement which will be released Monday I believe. A further meeting is scheduled in the next few weeks to put together an action plan to press for change/go forward from Thursday night. In addition we are compiling a report on what was said on Thursday night which will be sent to club officials. We have someone on the committee who is qualified in accounting practices who can certainly decipher what''s been happening at the club. If you want to provide any input, and that would be most welcome, please could you email one of us, details on the NCISA website.[/quote]

 

We''re looking forward to seeing the press statement and the action plan to press for changes, well done ncisa boys and girls.

[gazzathegreat 0]

Thanks CA. I imagine it''s going to be just the start of a long hard road ahead.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

the correct version :

 

 

Yes I did attend the meeting on Thursday.

BTW the good folk who support NCFC provide sufficient recurring revenues for NCFC. As I have said before with our revenues and Preston''s cost base (adjusted for the catering operation and size of gates) NCFC would have had NO need for a subsidy during our recent Championship seasons.

For most part, I wouldn''t say the football in recent years has been great entertainment worthy of the prices we pay.

 

[/quote]

Indeed.  Our non-player wage cost base has doubled to £17m since `02- when incidently we could afford to spend far more of ordinary income on the team than we can now.  T never has addressed that point.....[^o)]

What do those five full-timers in the press office do all summer?  Perhaps the spate of brainwashed pro-Delia nonsense posted on here recently provides some explanation......Must be the cushiest post in the City.

[/quote]

Give me the detailed mgmt accounts and the deloittes report for the two years in question and I will be happy to address your issue - otherwise both are just speculating

[/quote]

So how many sets of NCFC`s accounts have you seen to have such an outspoken "qualified" opinion then T?  Quite funny that you accuse others of taking information in isolation to back up their argument, yet you don`t seem to have any informed view over a longer period.  It`s already been 100% proven that Preston can afford to spend much more of their ordinary turnover on their team and that their non-football cost base is far,far lower than ours, so that has blown your "all clubs are in the same boat" position out of the water.  You are guilty of supporting a THEORY which looks good on paper but has twice been disastrous in practise.

So here`s a challenge: get hold of say, the last ten years NCFC accounts and show how the tens of millions spent on infrastructure in that time has increased the amount available to spend on the team.  I have pointed out that the figures from `02 show that we could comfortably spend £5.2m on the team and still make a healthy overall profit, which is far better than only being able to afford £1.9m as in `08.  Now prove me wrong.

On your "average Championship player budget", i have agreed with you in the past that our player wages were about average.  The trouble is we could only afford even an average player wage bill by flogging off millions of pounds worth of talent and spending peanuts on replacements.  Profits in the transfer market have been hugely subsidising player wages since relegation- and if you can`t understand that replacing players worth millions with frees, cast-offs and loans only leads downwards you may as well not bother posting on a football message board. 

[T 190]

Mr C _ I admire your persistense and I appreciate you have a set view of the world from which it must be difficult to move from. Preston is one just one club and one club which is also dependent on player sales and cash injections if you bother to look at the cash flow statement so this argument does not fly.

I''m really not bothered to look at all a set of accounts when I know from the Deloittes report and my reseach into the acquisition of a football club that the football side of nearly every football club is dependant on selling players and cash injections. I am sorry but I find the findings of Deloittes who look at the finances of every football club and the views of Peter Cullum''s on football finance more compelling then your views. I doubt you will change your views whatever I write but then neither will the current reality of football finance change no matter how many try to deny that reality.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Preston can afford to spend far more of their ordinary income than us on their team.  This is a fact and one you have previously accepted.

I`m sure the Deloitte report is broadly accurate but to apply this as a massive generalisation to excuse poor management at individual clubs is laughable.  All clubs are in the same boat yet clubs like Preston and Burnley who focus on their football teams are doing well, whilst clubs like us, Southampton and Charlton who get massively into debt to pay for infrastructure spiral downwards. 

We chose the wrong approach and the best thing to do would be for everyone to extricate their heads from the sand and find a new one.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

By the way T, Preston got into the play-offs.  How many players have they sold this season?

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Preston can afford to spend far more of their ordinary income than us on their team.  This is a fact and one you have previously accepted.

I`m sure the Deloitte report is broadly accurate but to apply this as a massive generalisation to excuse poor management at individual clubs is laughable.  All clubs are in the same boat yet clubs like Preston and Burnley who focus on their football teams are doing well, whilst clubs like us, Southampton and Charlton who get massively into debt to pay for infrastructure spiral downwards. 

We chose the wrong approach and the best thing to do would be for everyone to extricate their heads from the sand and find a new one.

[/quote]

 

So basically you claim that you know better than Deloittes and Peter Cullum and the numerous businesses and successful clubs that have invested in infrastructure to increase their revenue base? Interesting view of the world. What about that property subsidiary Sheffield United then?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Read what i posted, think about it, and try not to be so childishly simplistic T.  Are you honestly saying that Deloitte making generalised statements about the financial state of football means that there are not clubs which are dealing with those circumstances better than others?  And that certain other clubs are not dealing with the same circumstances so well?  We are one of the latter.  No excuses, it is fact.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]By the way T, Preston got into the play-offs.  How many players have they sold this season?[/quote]

Burnley are in the play-off final.  How many players have they sold this season T?

[T 190]

Sorry Mr C but I don''t see how taking the views of the generally acknowledged experts in football finance and Peter Cullum over your good self is being childish. Which  successful club will you quote next year.There will always be diferent clubs which under or over perform although the premiership league table is fairly predictable at the start of the season because the larger disparity in budgets.  Norwich had a mid-table playing budget this year as the report by Sheff Utd showed with only the teams with playing budgets or cash injections such as qpr with a higher budget. The Board made an adequate budget available but a bad choice of manager/players was the problem not an inadequate playing budget. The irony is that people saying we should do better with our crowds but should not spend on infrastructure when it is because of the infrastructure we have the crowds that we do - you can hardly argue they come for the quality of the football! 

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="T"]Sorry Mr C but I don''t see how taking the views of the generally acknowledged experts in football finance and Peter Cullum over your good self is being childish. Which  successful club will you quote next year.There will always be diferent clubs which under or over perform although the premiership league table is fairly predictable at the start of the season because the larger disparity in budgets.  Norwich had a mid-table playing budget this year as the report by Sheff Utd showed with only the teams with playing budgets or cash injections such as qpr with a higher budget. The Board made an adequate budget available but a bad choice of manager/players was the problem not an inadequate playing budget. The irony is that people saying we should do better with our crowds but should not spend on infrastructure when it is because of the infrastructure we have the crowds that we do - you can hardly argue they come for the quality of the football! [/quote]No, I don''t think that is true. People go to football to see FOOTBALL - not infrastrucutre. In my opinion, if you are going to argue your economics on this basis you are hardly likely to agree with many football supporters T.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]Sorry Mr C but I don''t see how taking the views of the generally acknowledged experts in football finance and Peter Cullum over your good self is being childish. Which  successful club will you quote next year.There will always be diferent clubs which under or over perform although the premiership league table is fairly predictable at the start of the season because the larger disparity in budgets.  Norwich had a mid-table playing budget this year as the report by Sheff Utd showed with only the teams with playing budgets or cash injections such as qpr with a higher budget. The Board made an adequate budget available but a bad choice of manager/players was the problem not an inadequate playing budget. The irony is that people saying we should do better with our crowds but should not spend on infrastructure when it is because of the infrastructure we have the crowds that we do - you can hardly argue they come for the quality of the football! [/quote]

"Which successful club will you quote next year".  Superb!  Check the league tables T, it might shock you to know all bar two clubs in our league were more successful than us last season.  I think you`ll keep spinning the same old fixed agenda no matter where we are next season and you`ll only disapear when the current majority shareholders have.

Of course you could choose to actually do something useful in your remaining time with us, and show us how the tens of millions in infrastructure spend has freed up more money for players?  Still waiting......

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]By the way T, Preston got into the play-offs.  How many players have they sold this season?[/quote]

Burnley are in the play-off final.  How many players have they sold this season T?

[/quote]

Still waiting.....?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Read what i posted, think about it, and try not to be so childishly simplistic T.  Are you honestly saying that Deloitte making generalised statements about the financial state of football means that there are not clubs which are dealing with those circumstances better than others?  And that certain other clubs are not dealing with the same circumstances so well?  We are one of the latter.  No excuses, it is fact.[/quote]

Are we one of the former or latter clubs T?

[ca 1]

I''m really looking forward to the ncisa press statement tomorrow, hope its hits home hard [:)]

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

I''m really looking forward to the ncisa press statement tomorrow, hope its hits home hard [:)]

[/quote]

Just like Christmas CA if you go to bed and sleep father Tilly will be here all the sooner!!(sorry didn''t mean to frighten you)

Night night

[ca 1]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="cityangel"]

I''m really looking forward to the ncisa press statement tomorrow, hope its hits home hard [:)]

[/quote]

Just like Christmas CA if you go to bed and sleep father Tilly will be here all the sooner!!(sorry didn''t mean to frighten you)

Night night

[/quote]

 

Not sure I''ll be able to sleep now Butler [:)]

[Desert Fox 0]

T,

There is a big diference between infrastucture used to support attendnace at a football match (i.e. replacement of the South stand) and speculative property plays which have nothing to do with football (i.e. developing land for housing). How many housing development companies run professional football clubs in their spare time?

[T 190]

Mr C, astrodyne . Of course it is the football that matters but the high crowd levels are supported by the relatively good infrastructure NCFC has compared to say the like of Crystal Palace and Watford who have said they are now struggling because they have not spent enough on infrastructre. Numerous clubs have invested in new stadium and infrastructure in order to increase their revenue base, many successfully and some unsucessfully as they see this as the only way to compete. To say that football clubs should not seek to raise additional sources of revenue when ticket revenue is insuffecient to even cover player/manager costs and to say that clubs should not invest in fixed assets to increase their revenue base is frankly absurd. You may well as argue that the earth is flat or for the existence of father christmas or against the existence of ManU whose additional income and infrastructure investment are hugh compared to ticket revenue. It may well be a deeply held belief and therefore it is difficult to shift position but is is not based on financial reality. TFA has now moved on to question the overheads and the land deal which is reasonable as I have always said there is clearly a case to answer here but to argue against seeking to raise additional revenue and investing in increasing the revenue base is bizarre. NCFC had a competive budget supported by additoinal source of income and the crowd base using the infrastructure but as relegation undeniably shows that money was badly spent on managers/players.