Tonight's meeting - Well done NCISA

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

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?

[/quote]

This is a quote from the `06 accounts:

"The group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow Rd, committing a further £3.9m.  The key improvements to the stadium include a new ticket office, a Club 101 corporate facility, study support facility, tenanted office facilities for Connections and Broadland housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project.  In addition to the Stadium improvements the club has incurred expenditure on development infrastructure, such as new roads around the stadium."

From `08:

"During the year the group has incurred expenditure of £947k on improvements to the stadium and training facilities including the refurbishment of Yellows, updating the gym at Colney and a new scoreboard".

Perhaps T (or anyone else) would like to list the items totalling nearly £5m above which were absolutely vital to a club clearly in a downward spiral on the pitch?  I would also like to know how this expenditure is going to help us get out of the third division....?

[blahblahblah 2]

We didn''t have a bottom 3 playing staff budget for last year - the managers that the board hired to buy / loan the players should have been capable of keeping us in the league - the players themselves could have kept us in the league if half of them actually gave a rats arse, and if they had been given the appropriate direction from the managers.  Every other club in the top 2 levels of the country makes investments in fixed assets, probably 10-15 clubs spent less than us on the pitch in the championship last season and managed to stay up.This is the old "can''t get lending for players, so we have to borrow to make things to make money for players" argument that we''ve had 58 times in the last 2 years Mr C.  Maybe the penny will drop with the board now that they should be getting the lending down a bit.

[T 190]

Thank you Blah. Mr C we just go round in circles - all those items have debated before and it goes back to the core argument that I set out above.If we had your way we would have a piece of rope around around a dodgy pitch and a burger stand. The main contentious issue is all related to the land deal which costs the club 300k a year in interest, which no doubt made sense based on the projections when the decison was taken, doesn''t make sense in the current market but may make sense again when the property market picks up which is unfortunately not until 2012 according to the market report in front of me. So in conclusion you are saying if we had ignored the chance to make a few million profit and had a playing budget of 8.8m rather than a budget of 8.5m which was average for the league everything would have been OK. I think it is more complicated than that and there was other factors not least the choice of manager and players which you quite rightly seem to think are so critical .

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Ignoring the question again T.  Which of the items listed above were vital to a football club in a downward spiral on the pitch, and which of them will help us gat promoted from division three?

From 2007:

"The group continued the improvement in the facilities and infrastructure at Carrow rd committing a further £2.4m".

You and i both know that much of this cash could have gone on the team if so wished, therefore this expenditure is partly culpable in our demise on the pitch.

[T 190]

Ok so you using your figures the problem was 192k of interest ignoring any related income. I still think it''s a little more complicated than that.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]We didn''t have a bottom 3 playing staff budget for last year - the managers that the board hired to buy / loan the players should have been capable of keeping us in the league - the players themselves could have kept us in the league if half of them actually gave a rats arse, and if they had been given the appropriate direction from the managers.  Every other club in the top 2 levels of the country makes investments in fixed assets, probably 10-15 clubs spent less than us on the pitch in the championship last season and managed to stay up.

This is the old "can''t get lending for players, so we have to borrow to make things to make money for players" argument that we''ve had 58 times in the last 2 years Mr C.  Maybe the penny will drop with the board now that they should be getting the lending down a bit.
[/quote]

If you take player wages less transfer profit for flogging off the family silver i would think we have easily been in the bottom half of the table since relegation Blah.  Flogging off your best players year-on-year, replacing them with freebies and loans whilst putting the money towards paying a player wage bill (and non-vital fixed assets) which isn`t competetive anyway is a route to disaster.  Sorry, but i`ve been consistently saying that for at least 3 years, and i`ve been right.

Also, as a percentage of income we have clearly been in the bottom half of the league on player wages since the prem- as i believe you have acknowledged before.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]Ok so you using your figures the problem was 192k of interest ignoring any related income. I still think it''s a little more complicated than that.[/quote]

T, much of the figures above came out of ordinary cashflow.  The interest is only relevant for the loans which were mainly for the Jarrold, infill and land.  You seem to be trying to lump all of the clubs recent spend on fixed assets into one small loan! [^o)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

If you take player wages less transfer profit for flogging off the family silver i would think we have easily been in the bottom half of the table since relegation Blah.  Flogging off your best players year-on-year, replacing them with freebies and loans whilst putting the money towards paying a player wage bill (and non-vital fixed assets) which isn`t competetive anyway is a route to disaster.  Sorry, but i`ve been consistently saying that for at least 3 years, and i`ve been right.

Also, as a percentage of income we have clearly been in the bottom half of the league on player wages since the prem- as i believe you have acknowledged before.

[/quote]I agree that we could have spent more on the pitch, any club could.  But what was spent wasn''t spent particularly well, or at least the players that were brought in weren''t managed particularly well, and that is why we were relegated, not because we built a conservatory or bought a scoreboard [:)]

[T 190]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="T"]Ok so you using your figures the problem was 192k of interest ignoring any related income. I still think it''s a little more complicated than that.[/quote]

T, much of the figures above came out of ordinary cashflow.  The interest is only relevant for the loans which were mainly for the Jarrold, infill and land.  You seem to be trying to lump all of the clubs recent spend on fixed assets into one small loan! [^o)]

[/quote]

Again, another very elementary error in logic which demosnstrates a little knowlege is a dangerous thing. Anyone with the remotest understanding of finance understands that cash is an amorphous asset. I think you also find that the money came from shareholder cash injections who were understandably looking to increase the revenue base. Given that we had an average player budget this suggests the problem was manager and players rather than finance. You seem to be suggesting it all a money issue and forgetting that it is a football club and therefore that the choice of mangers and players might have something to do with our performance.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

So shareholders injected £7.5m between `06 and `08 directly to pay for fixed assets then T!?  My god it just gets better and better.....[8-)]

As for your last few sentences, can i suggest you have the good grace to refrain from setting out a straw man argument because i have never said that there havn`t been footballing mistakes (talk about stating the bleeding obvious) or that it is all down to money.  Just that sums which could have been spent on the team have been diverted elsewhere which has had a hand in our demise on the pitch, and the club does not seem to be financially better off in any way for this expenditure.  You have not set out an argument as to how i am wrong because you can`t.

It seems that the only advantage has been to the majority shareholders as more fixed assets boost the core value of their holding.....Again, accept it or prove otherwise.

I`m off to work now so have a nice day.

[T 190]

so if you ignore the loans which would have only been available for tangible assets then, ignore the other sources of income, ignore that it might make sense to spend infrastructure on facilities for players and fans, ignore the experts on football finance, ignore the views if peter cullum, ignore we had an average playing budget then you might have a case.

[Canary 1]

So from this we can say there was a minority of season ticket holders/supporters at the meeting.

NCISA seem to want to make hostile comment about the board and the club, trying to get season tickets holders to reclaim monies back, which will result in Bryan Gunn have less money to buy players with, the player who will help us get back to the Championship.

Get behind the team on on off the pitch.

OTBC

 

 

 

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[|-)]

[ACE 0]

So the fact we are in league one means we should blindly continue to chuck cash at the club and hope it is used for on pitch assets, despite ALL historical evidence to the contrary.Sucker.

[quote user="Canary"]

So from this we can say there was a minority of season ticket holders/supporters at the meeting.

NCISA seem to want to make hostile comment about the board and the club, trying to get season tickets holders to reclaim monies back, which will result in Bryan Gunn have less money to buy players with, the player who will help us get back to the Championship.

Get behind the team on on off the pitch.

OTBC

 

 

 

[/quote]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Canary"]

So from this we can say there was a minority of season ticket holders/supporters at the meeting.[/quote]

Therewas never going to be a majority - St Andrews Hall just isn''t that big, and I can hardly see the club allowing everyone into the ground so that the NCISA could issue a no confidence vote !

[quote]NCISA seem to want to make hostile comment about the board and the club, trying to get season tickets holders to reclaim monies back, which will result in Bryan Gunn have less money to buy players with, the player who will help us get back to the Championship.[/quote]

The issue here is one of confidence.  Normal, Joe Average punters are losing / have lost confidence in the people who make the decisions at the club, and feel that their opinions are not being listened to.  Bryan Gunn I''m sure is a lovely bloke, and I really hope he can turn us around next season, but the bald fact of the matter is that he, and his coaching team were appointed on the back of 5 wins out of 19 games, and a pathetic capitulation against the worst team in the Championship.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Canary"]

So from this we can say there was a minority of season ticket holders/supporters at the meeting.

NCISA seem to want to make hostile comment about the board and the club, trying to get season tickets holders to reclaim monies back, which will result in Bryan Gunn have less money to buy players with, the player who will help us get back to the Championship.

Get behind the team on on off the pitch.

OTBC

 

Where you at the meeting?

Are you a member of NCISA?

Do you know what the full suggestion at the meeting was with regards to the use of the rebates?

Or do you not care, as it''s easier for you to assume that a group of sensible people who don''t agree with you are fifth columnists intent on destroying the club?

 

 

 

[/quote]

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Bless, this meeting certainly seems to have ruffled a few feathers...

[ca 1]

[quote user="Canary"]

So from this we can say there was a minority of season ticket holders/supporters at the meeting.

NCISA seem to want to make hostile comment about the board and the club, trying to get season tickets holders to reclaim monies back, which will result in Bryan Gunn have less money to buy players with, the player who will help us get back to the Championship.

Get behind the team on on off the pitch. [/quote]

What hostile comments are they then?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Bartholomew Bumpkin BSc Hons"]Mr Smudger - you seem to confuse supporting the team with supporting the board. They''re not the same thing. I''m glad I''ll never see Doncaster''s smug grin again, I can''t stand the sherry sloshing cook or her acolytes. But I definitley DO support the team, am glad I renewed my season ticket of many, many years standing and will be cheering the lads on come first game of the season. In your view, anyone who doesn''t wrap themselves in a "dirty protest" blanket and chain themselves to a Morrison''s trolley in stead of going to the game is a "Pro-Boarder". You sir, are wrong and possibly a wrong''un. I am intrigued though, what does success for your protest look like. The club a thing of the past, the ground truned into another backstreet car park? What on earth would you find to whine about then? Would your life have any meaning without your eternal struggle against South/Chase/Smith/Whoever? Love Bartholomew[/quote]

They are exactly the same thing and you Sir are an utter tit!

Have you not realised that we do not have a team yet and that we are not likely to have one until we get rid of your beloved cook??? [:$]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Disturbed"]

[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]"Yawn!!!!! A huge cross section of fans who just all happened to share exactly the same view as you and your mates. And that''s supposed to be representative of the views of the whole fan-base? Perhaps a little deluded? Who agrees that the board must be sacked, raise your hand! Up they go, like an old school union mass vote. Last night''s meeting was a bit of joke and tomorrows chip paper"

Everyone was invited and encouraged to turn up, whatever their views.
It was made clear throughout the meeting that every point of view was to be respected and every personal allowed to speak uninterrupted.
You cannot blame NCISA that only a small few of the supposed ''majority'' who support Gunn turned up.
What are they supposed to do, go out into the streets, interrogate fans about their viewpoint and then drag them into the hall?
The vote could only be taken of the people who turned up, and of those who turned up only 7 supported Gunn, and precisely zero voted in favour of the board.

If you can think of a better way to poll the entire Norwich City supporter base, then please, enlighten us.
Otherwise, shut your trap.
[/quote]

18000  season ticket holders indicates soething rather important

[/quote]

So will approx 75% of those claiming their rebate you fool.

It''s just a shame that they do not have the balls to go the whole hog and actually send their season tickets back.

[Canary 1]

Beauseant.

You are so right!!!

How could anyone even question the comments and actions of NCISA,

We are all entitle to a view, and I am not suggesting anything about them being fifth columnists wanting to undermine and destroy the club.

OTBC

Get behind the club