Objectives of NCISA

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Badger, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, all this posting is turning into a full time job!!

[/quote]Gazza, you''re doing a quite splendid job, but I''m not quite clear why YOU are doing it, given that NCISA has just appointed a press officer.In particular I''m surprised there has ben no official statement from the PRO here (unless I have missed it) or on the official site or - most importantly - on the NCISA website following your committee meeting on Thursday which discussed the Foulger offer. It is, after all, now Sunday afternoon.Fans have got their rebate letter. They know what was NCISA''s pre-Foulger stance. They know what was the apparently pre-emptive opinion of the NCISA chairman expressed before the committee meeting. It would be useful to know what was actually discussed and decided at the meeting. I am technologically illiterate, but if I can update a website then surely so can the PRO?I should say I have no axe to grind for or against NCISA in general or on its stance over the rebate, and I have always been loath to criticise it because I live too far away

from Norfolk to be an active member. I entirely understand the constraints on people''s time. However what I said in a post-Cullumgate post in December seems

still pertinent:"What, if anything, is NCISA looking for at this critical

point in the club’s history? If it is content to be just a social club,

and an independent version of the SCG, then it can stay on the

sidelines. If it wants to be more than that – and crucially has

the talent to be more than that – then it needs to think about what it

wants from a new owner. It also needs to be ready – again, if it has

the ability - to keep its members better informed if we get sucked into

a saga."There seem to be signs (talk of links with other groups, for example) that NCISA does want to increase its influence, and that is admirable. There is a need for that kind of pressure group. But the keeping people informed bit is crucial.

[T 190]

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

[quote user="T"]You are perfectly entitled to your rebate as I''ve already said as that was clearly the terms that you bought your ST under. What is also perfectly clear is that you and some others on here expect others to subsidise you and that you have a problem with people being richer and more sucessful than yourself.[/quote]

Again you miss the point.

With the money from player sales, prem and parachute payments, plus crowds in excess of 20,000 for every home game, there should be no reason, if the club is managed properly, for anyone to be subsidised.

You quote general, average figures,as your bible. Our location,crowds,support, corporate sponsorship, puts our income way above the average for most Championship clubs, never mind the first division.

If this board cannot manage that income properly,is that the fault of the fans. If they set prices too low, if they make rash promises,is that the fault of the fans?

The board would have been better advised to repay ALL the promised rebates and then asked for donations via shares, to be equalled by board input, for player purchases. That is something most fans could have understood and perhaps would have caused less split within the fan base and would have allowed those better off at present to have done something.

Targetting the loyal supporters in this way shows a total lack of respect to their clients.

Just a final T I have paid the club many tens of thousands over the years, sponsorship, tickets etc etc. I don''t think they have ever subsidised me. I continue to support this club now out of loyalty alone. The sooner this divisive set leaves the happier, I for one will be.

Before any of our American friends leap to the long range defence, I am well aware that there is not a long line of people waiting to invest. I am also aware that that line is a few less because of the attitude of the present encumbants.

[/quote]

Deloittes who are the acknowledged financial experts on football found that football clubs including premiership clubs with the notable exceptions of ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are dependent on either selling players or are subsidised by wealthy benefactors to make ends meets. Peter Cullum, who no doubt did some research, before expressing an interest has also stated similar views as has the chairman of the football league. Numerous clubs have gone into administration and many more are not meeting their tax obligations. The directors of the clubs have put millions into the club without any return. I also know for a fact that potential investors were only interested in a high profile club because of the property not the football. I can only think that the only reason that people can''t accept the generally accepted views of experts  is that it conflicts with their own emotional believes and therefore they deny the financial reality. 

[/quote]

So by selling players "on" clubs balance the books and show a profit.(break even)

Is this not what City have always done?

Only the profit has been wasted over the years by inept management.

To have a product to sell you need to buy in the first place. This club has downgraded it''s player assets to a state were we have little left to sell and nobody of any true value to try and sell. (as we have had in the past).

How much of Director input has been used to finance projects that bear no resemblence to football?

IT training classes are a classic example. Land speculation with no knowledge on the board to deal with it. The list can go on.......

It is not the Duo that are subsidising the club but the fans subsidising their broken toy!

[/quote]

You will be telling me that the sky is pink and giraffes are short necked creatures that can fly next. It really is that bizarre an argument.

Nobody is saying that the money has been well spent on managers and players as relegation clearly shows that is not the case.

Clearly, also the directors have put millions into the club to subsidise your entertainment just as wealthy benefactors have at numerous other clubs.  These are the views of Deloittes and Peter Cullum and anyone else who understands finance who has looked at football clubs. It seems for some reason that some people on here think they are wiser than professionals and know more than Peter Cullum in which case it should be no problem for you to form a consortium to take over the football club. In the meantime I will carry on believing the generally accepted wisdom of people who actually understand these things rather than the preconcieved views of people who can not look at any part of the argument in an informed and objective manner

I also think you will find that the sky is blue and giraffes have long necks and can''t fly. However, I would not be surprised if the good people of Norfolk struggle with those concepts as well.

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="T"]

You will be telling me that the sky is pink and giraffes are short necked creatures that can fly next. It really is that bizarre an argument.

Nobody is saying that the money has been well spent on managers and players as relegation clearly shows that is not the case.

Clearly, also the directors have put millions into the club to subsidise your entertainment just as wealthy benefactors have at numerous other clubs.  These are the views of Deloittes and Peter Cullum and anyone else who understands finance who has looked at football clubs. It seems for some reason that some people on here think they are wiser than professionals and know more than Peter Cullum in which case it should be no problem for you to form a consortium to take over the football club. In the meantime I will carry on believing the generally accepted wisdom of people who actually understand these things rather than the preconcieved views of people who can not look at any part of the argument in an informed and objective manner

I also think you will find that the sky is blue and giraffes have long necks and can''t fly. However, I would not be surprised if the good people of Norfolk struggle with those concepts as well.

[/quote]No, I think its your argument that it as fault. Club owners have been putting money into football clubs to protect their own investments, not to subsidise supporters entertainment. The whole credit crunch thing has caught several wealthy people out - and unfortunatley they have only themselves to blame, and themselves to find a way out.

[gazzathegreat 0]

Purple - I am trying to answer points, most of them are my own personal views, unless I have specifically said so. There are five of us I think on this message board, mostly at different times of day, who try to give out as much information as we can. Again, there are many NCISA members who also give their opinions. Official statements are given to the press/media (and posted on here as such).

Again, there is only so much a committee can do in a relatively small space of time, especially at this time of year when naturally enough people take their holidays. As I have said before a press statement is imminent, as is the report containing details of the public meeting, which will be presented to the directors (and a meeting with them to discuss its findings asked for).

NCISA has canvassed other supporter groups on the rebate issue amongst others, but again, can only react if there is something to react to.

I have not seen anything on the Official Site, but regard Foulger''s letter as an ''official'' response, forgive me if that is an opinion rather than fact.

I can''t say what NCISA are trying to be in a collective sense as it''s only me answering you. I have said many times that NCISA needs to represent its members, particularly relating to the current state of the club. However it all takes time.

[T 190]

[quote user="astrodyne"][quote user="T"]

You will be telling me that the sky is pink and giraffes are short necked creatures that can fly next. It really is that bizarre an argument.

Nobody is saying that the money has been well spent on managers and players as relegation clearly shows that is not the case.

Clearly, also the directors have put millions into the club to subsidise your entertainment just as wealthy benefactors have at numerous other clubs.  These are the views of Deloittes and Peter Cullum and anyone else who understands finance who has looked at football clubs. It seems for some reason that some people on here think they are wiser than professionals and know more than Peter Cullum in which case it should be no problem for you to form a consortium to take over the football club. In the meantime I will carry on believing the generally accepted wisdom of people who actually understand these things rather than the preconcieved views of people who can not look at any part of the argument in an informed and objective manner

I also think you will find that the sky is blue and giraffes have long necks and can''t fly. However, I would not be surprised if the good people of Norfolk struggle with those concepts as well.

[/quote]

No, I think its your argument that it as fault. Club owners have been putting money into football clubs to protect their own investments, not to subsidise supporters entertainment. The whole credit crunch thing has caught several wealthy people out - and unfortunatley they have only themselves to blame, and themselves to find a way out.
[/quote]

 

It gets ever more bizarre. Please tell me that you don''t actually believe what you have just posted. Football is not an investment. I''m starting to wonder if people might really believe what they post or if they really are that deluded. I think you will find that every football owner got rich outside of football not through football. The only way to make more is if the next person is willing to pay more for the club than you did which is the same a pyramid selling or the market in CDOs - it is fine apart from the underlying asset has no economic value because the owners always put more cash in but the club does not generate cash for the owners. 

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="T"][quote user="astrodyne"][quote user="T"]

You will be telling me that the sky is pink and giraffes are short necked creatures that can fly next. It really is that bizarre an argument.

Nobody is saying that the money has been well spent on managers and players as relegation clearly shows that is not the case.

Clearly, also the directors have put millions into the club to subsidise your entertainment just as wealthy benefactors have at numerous other clubs.  These are the views of Deloittes and Peter Cullum and anyone else who understands finance who has looked at football clubs. It seems for some reason that some people on here think they are wiser than professionals and know more than Peter Cullum in which case it should be no problem for you to form a consortium to take over the football club. In the meantime I will carry on believing the generally accepted wisdom of people who actually understand these things rather than the preconcieved views of people who can not look at any part of the argument in an informed and objective manner

I also think you will find that the sky is blue and giraffes have long necks and can''t fly. However, I would not be surprised if the good people of Norfolk struggle with those concepts as well.

[/quote]No, I think its your argument that it as fault. Club owners have been putting money into football clubs to protect their own investments, not to subsidise supporters entertainment. The whole credit crunch thing has caught several wealthy people out - and unfortunatley they have only themselves to blame, and themselves to find a way out.[/quote]

It gets ever more bizarre. Please tell me that you don''t actually believe what you have just posted. Football is not an investment. I''m starting to wonder if people might really believe what they post or if they really are that deluded. I think you will find that every football owner got rich outside of football not through football. The only way to make more is if the next person is willing to pay more for the club than you did which is the same a pyramid selling or the market in CDOs - it is fine apart from the underlying asset has no economic value because the owners always put more cash in but the club does not generate cash for the owners. 

[/quote]So if football is not an investment, why do rich people put money into football clubs, even when things are seemingly dire as in the case of Southampton?

[T 190]

please tell me you are making this up.

People buy football clubs because they have more money than they know what to do with and owning a football club is a desirable hobby.

I think you will find that Abramovich has been able to pump loads of money into Chelsea because he is an oil oligarch not that he became a rich oil mogul because he owned Chelsea football club.

I think you will find that Delia  has been able to put loads of money into ncfc because of the money she has made out of her cookery business not that she has made loads of money out of football.

....and so it is for every owner of a football club out there. ManU, Arsenal, Liverpol and Spurs are the only football clubs that you could argue could represent a financial investment.

[PurpleCanary 5,561]

Gazza, thanks for the reply. I understand entirely the constraints on an amateur organisation like NCISA. That is why I have always tried to make any criticisms constructive.However I find it quite baffling that now, nearly three days on, a press release or cyberspace statement has still not been issued on the outcome of Thursday night''s meeting to discuss the Foulger offer. What is the point of having a PRO if they are not going to issue press statements when they are needed?And in this case one (even if simply to confirm NCISA''s stance) was called for straight away. People who (pre-Foulger) may well have been persuaded by NCISA to claim the rebate have now had their letters. In the wake of the Foulger offer they may be changing their minds, or may even have changed their minds and sent off replies explaining that they would waive the rebate but demanding improvements at Carrow Road. NCISA, by its silence, has missed the chance to influence such people.

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="T"]

please tell me you are making this up.

People buy football clubs because they have more money than they know what to do with and owning a football club is a desirable hobby.

I think you will find that Abramovich has been able to pump loads of money into Chelsea because he is an oil oligarch not that he became a rich oil mogul because he owned Chelsea football club.

I think you will find that Delia  has been able to put loads of money into ncfc because of the money she has made out of her cookery business not that she has made loads of money out of football.

....and so it is for every owner of a football club out there. ManU, Arsenal, Liverpol and Spurs are the only football clubs that you could argue could represent a financial investment.

[/quote]So in your eyes, rich people put money into their hobby of subsidising the entertainment of poorer people?

[T 190]

In practise yes. Name me one person who made their money out of owning football clubs? Name me one football club that is owned by a private equity house who are in the business of investment.

I''m not saying that football owners do it out of a sense of philantrophy although some may genuinely see it as giving back to their local community but it is a good way of burning up a load of money for no financial reward as Cullum and many other have said. Cullum would be far better off giving his money to his charitable trust, especially if he ever read this message board.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="T"]

In practise yes. Name me one person who made their money out of owning football clubs? Name me one football club that is owned by a private equity house who are in the business of investment.

I''m not saying that football owners do it out of a sense of philantrophy although some may genuinely see it as giving back to their local community but it is a good way of burning up a load of money for no financial reward as Cullum and many other have said. Cullum would be far better off giving his money to his charitable trust, especially if he ever read this message board.

[/quote]

So, when the ''Dynamic Duo'' do eventually depart.....they will be out of pocket?.....Somehow, I don''t think so.....

[T 190]

I think they migth get some or all of their money back but at the moment I don''t think there is anyone willing to pay them anything for their shares. PC for one was not willing to pay anything for their shares. . But you must be mad to think football is a sound financial investment. If you want to make money the last thing you should do is put money into football it eats money rather than makes money for its owners. That is just common knowledge outside the parallel universe of this message board.

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="T"]

In practise yes. Name me one person who made their money out of owning football clubs? Name me one football club that is owned by a private equity house who are in the business of investment.

I''m not saying that football owners do it out of a sense of philantrophy although some may genuinely see it as giving back to their local community but it is a good way of burning up a load of money for no financial reward as Cullum and many other have said. Cullum would be far better off giving his money to his charitable trust, especially if he ever read this message board.

[/quote]

Well, we got there at last... football is most certainly a hobby for its rich owners, just as some rich people prefer to burn up their money by owning race horses. But it is nonsence to suggest they do so to subsidise the entertainment of others. However, more to the point is why do you and the club keep banging on about bringing in new investors and when it is patently clear the all football clubs do not make money - and probably cannot make money - in the same way that most businesses do? Football doesn''t require investors, it is misleading of you and Deloittes to suggest that they do. Football needs rich people with money to burn to put their money into football in the full knowledge that they will not see any return on that money. It''s the way football works, always has done, probably always will. It''s what Delia Smith seems to fail to understand, that it is all lost money. In return she has had thirteen years of rollercoaster fun. But her money is all gone and she has to step off the ride and let someone else spend their money.

So are you a financial advisor to the club, or Ms. Simth, T. Becuase whoever is advising the major shareholders is acting in a very disengenuous fashion, if they think that either the club will find investors, or that Smith and Jones can get their stakeholding back. As you state football ownership is a hobby for the rich, therefore neither of those two objectives are possible.

 

[The Butler 0]

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

[quote user="T"]You are perfectly entitled to your rebate as I''ve already said as that was clearly the terms that you bought your ST under. What is also perfectly clear is that you and some others on here expect others to subsidise you and that you have a problem with people being richer and more sucessful than yourself.[/quote]

Again you miss the point.

With the money from player sales, prem and parachute payments, plus crowds in excess of 20,000 for every home game, there should be no reason, if the club is managed properly, for anyone to be subsidised.

You quote general, average figures,as your bible. Our location,crowds,support, corporate sponsorship, puts our income way above the average for most Championship clubs, never mind the first division.

If this board cannot manage that income properly,is that the fault of the fans. If they set prices too low, if they make rash promises,is that the fault of the fans?

The board would have been better advised to repay ALL the promised rebates and then asked for donations via shares, to be equalled by board input, for player purchases. That is something most fans could have understood and perhaps would have caused less split within the fan base and would have allowed those better off at present to have done something.

Targetting the loyal supporters in this way shows a total lack of respect to their clients.

Just a final T I have paid the club many tens of thousands over the years, sponsorship, tickets etc etc. I don''t think they have ever subsidised me. I continue to support this club now out of loyalty alone. The sooner this divisive set leaves the happier, I for one will be.

Before any of our American friends leap to the long range defence, I am well aware that there is not a long line of people waiting to invest. I am also aware that that line is a few less because of the attitude of the present encumbants.

[/quote]

Deloittes who are the acknowledged financial experts on football found that football clubs including premiership clubs with the notable exceptions of ManU, Arsenal, Liverpool and Spurs are dependent on either selling players or are subsidised by wealthy benefactors to make ends meets. Peter Cullum, who no doubt did some research, before expressing an interest has also stated similar views as has the chairman of the football league. Numerous clubs have gone into administration and many more are not meeting their tax obligations. The directors of the clubs have put millions into the club without any return. I also know for a fact that potential investors were only interested in a high profile club because of the property not the football. I can only think that the only reason that people can''t accept the generally accepted views of experts  is that it conflicts with their own emotional believes and therefore they deny the financial reality. 

[/quote]

So by selling players "on" clubs balance the books and show a profit.(break even)

Is this not what City have always done?

Only the profit has been wasted over the years by inept management.

To have a product to sell you need to buy in the first place. This club has downgraded it''s player assets to a state were we have little left to sell and nobody of any true value to try and sell. (as we have had in the past).

How much of Director input has been used to finance projects that bear no resemblence to football?

IT training classes are a classic example. Land speculation with no knowledge on the board to deal with it. The list can go on.......

It is not the Duo that are subsidising the club but the fans subsidising their broken toy!

[/quote]

You will be telling me that the sky is pink and giraffes are short necked creatures that can fly next. It really is that bizarre an argument.

Nobody is saying that the money has been well spent on managers and players as relegation clearly shows that is not the case.

Clearly, also the directors have put millions into the club to subsidise your entertainment just as wealthy benefactors have at numerous other clubs.  These are the views of Deloittes and Peter Cullum and anyone else who understands finance who has looked at football clubs. It seems for some reason that some people on here think they are wiser than professionals and know more than Peter Cullum in which case it should be no problem for you to form a consortium to take over the football club. In the meantime I will carry on believing the generally accepted wisdom of people who actually understand these things rather than the preconcieved views of people who can not look at any part of the argument in an informed and objective manner

I also think you will find that the sky is blue and giraffes have long necks and can''t fly. However, I would not be surprised if the good people of Norfolk struggle with those concepts as well.

[/quote]

I assume from that derogatory statement that you are not from Norfolk. You do realise that the string on the bottom of our trousers is to stop rats. I think it failed in your case.

I am not saying that a lot of clubs do not run at a loss, what I am saying is that ours did not need to. Is that OK with your superior interlect?

Many years ago the "superior wisdom" thought the sun revolved round the earth, wisdom that was proven wrong.

If I believed everything that was spoken as truth I would end up thinking Gordon Brown was doing a good job.

Cut the clever it does not suite you, and stick to the point.

How many millions have NCFC wasted over the past 10 years. How many ten''s of thousands in bad decisions as payoffs etc.

Perhaps the myth of dear Delia paying for my football might not seem so certain to you if you looked closer at the facts. By the way my tickets cost me over a £1000.00 each, every season. Not subsidised I would say!

Mr. Cullum is a shrewd business man, in insurance. He wanted the club for very little (it''s true worth now) he would hardly say it was a going concern making millions would he, well not if he was as shrewd as you seem to think.

Just admit that the present encumbants have run this club badly and cost it dearly, then perhaps you can clearly look at the situation rather than through Delia coloured blinkers.

[Mister Chops 7]

It''s an interesting question.Did Delia and MWJ have to subsidise the club and sink their own money into making the Worthington payoff?   What about making the Roeder payoff?  I''m sure they did.  But isn''t that only right and proper?

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="T"]I think they migth get some or all of their money back but at the moment I don''t think there is anyone willing to pay them anything for their shares. PC for one was not willing to pay anything for their shares. . But you must be mad to think football is a sound financial investment. If you want to make money the last thing you should do is put money into football it eats money rather than makes money for its owners. That is just common knowledge outside the parallel universe of this message board.[/quote]

W.T.F.Hell - are you rambling on about? [:|] I''ve never said that football is a sound investment. I''m not as foolish to think that the club will survive on fan income alone, or compete without other viable and alternative investment and income....If Burnley didn''t have a desirable catchment area for their pristine and most enviable Turf Moor 25,000 seater stadium - that''s filled to the rafters every home game, a supposed profitable restaurant or food outlet in every stand, hotel complex in an infill, local land and property purchased as investment, colossal corporate facilities, comedy clubs and entertainment evenings, cookery events, annual religious gatherings, a plethora of rich and local business folk pumping finance into the club, selling players for a profit and reinvesting on similar or proven quality, a sugar daddy - and a continuous stream of Claret fans filing through their 2 club shops daily......They''d never ever make it to the Premiership without that additional income, finance & huge wedges of wonga!

Hang on a minute, Burnley don''t - and actually haven''t had much of the above, have they?....But, we at NCFC have had everything bar a really rich sugar daddy and a minimal gathering of local rich business folk as fans.....and we sold players on for a profit.....but brought what? - in as their replacements?

See where I''m coming from? What Burnley and its board have done, is get their football act together..... acquired a decent football manager, who astutely assembled a squad of decent and committed professional footballers - and a club who reward their loyal season ticket holders for sticking by them.....Our Directionless here at NCFC, want us to bail them out for their abject incompetence, business failure and arrogance.   

I''m keeping my rebate as I don''t trust those who may purportedly be a success in their chosen fields in business, but haven''t got a bloody clue on how to run a fuggin'' football club.....  

[T 190]

Its desperate. That would be the Burnley that was in the forth division for a while. That would be the Burnley that is funded by a multi-millionaire. Kind of ironic that the success of Burnley has been funded by property development as has Sheffield United isn''t it? It wasn''t funded by people that made money out of football thats for sure. Yet another example when you look below the surface that only supports the financial reality of football.

 

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="T"]

Its desperate. That would be the Burnley that was in the forth division for a while. That would be the Burnley that is funded by a multi-millionaire. Kind of ironic that the success of Burnley has been funded by property development as has Sheffield United isn''t it? It wasn''t funded by people that made money out of football thats for sure. Yet another example when you look below the surface that only supports the financial reality of football.

[/quote]

What about Gretna?

[blahblahblah 2]

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

Its desperate. That would be the Burnley that was in the forth division for a while. That would be the Burnley that is funded by a multi-millionaire. Kind of ironic that the success of Burnley has been funded by property development as has Sheffield United isn''t it? It wasn''t funded by people that made money out of football thats for sure. Yet another example when you look below the surface that only supports the financial reality of football.

[/quote]

What about Gretna?

[/quote]What about ''em ?  A tacit admission of a lost argument if ever I saw one [;)]

[T 190]

Sorry MY as much as I enjoy our banter I''m not eloping with you.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="T"]Sorry MY as much as I enjoy our banter I''m not eloping with you.[/quote]

Wise move T, as I don''t think there would be much chance of the marriage being consumated. Not unless you were to take some biscuits along. [:D]

[astrodyne 0]

All good arguments but I still think that rich people do not invest in football clubs simply as a hobby. There is also a financial element too. At the moment we are looking at a host of owners who have lost out because of the credit crunch - but it has not always been this way, and whilst things were good, I''m sure plenty of unknown investors returned a bang for their buck.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

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

Its desperate. That would be the Burnley that was in the forth division for a while. That would be the Burnley that is funded by a multi-millionaire. Kind of ironic that the success of Burnley has been funded by property development as has Sheffield United isn''t it? It wasn''t funded by people that made money out of football thats for sure. Yet another example when you look below the surface that only supports the financial reality of football.

[/quote]

What about Gretna?

[/quote]

What about ''em ?  A tacit admission of a lost argument if ever I saw one [;)]
[/quote]

Is it?....

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="T"]

Its desperate. That would be the Burnley that was in the forth division for a while. That would be the Burnley that is funded by a multi-millionaire. Kind of ironic that the success of Burnley has been funded by property development as has Sheffield United isn''t it? It wasn''t funded by people that made money out of football thats for sure. Yet another example when you look below the surface that only supports the financial reality of football.

 

[/quote]

I don''t think so... the success of Burnley came from re-investing every single penny from selling the likes of Kyle Lafferty and Richard Chaplow back in to the team and finding decent managers to spend that money.  How much have they made from the promotion they have gained from putting football first?

Sureloy if their owner chose to sell up now or after a year of keeping them iu the top flight he would make a profit wouldn''t he???