Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
colneycanary

So where's all this rebate money?

Recommended Posts

The key issue about both the Marshall fee and the rebate is that they are both non-recurring lump sums. It would be madness to committ this to wages becuase it would simply expose a funding gap the year after, unless of course the club take a gamble on getting promoted straight away. Given that the club is inherently cautious when it comes to budgeting, I would expect that most of this sum (plus receipts due on previous transfers as Buckethead righly points out) will be spent non-recurringly this year. Given the past history of our owners, this will fund further cpaital expenditure on infratsucture rather than the team - the property market is showing some sign of life and they will be despertae to sell the undeveloped land. Cue lots of smoke and mirrors giving the impresion that the money is being swallowed up by lost of agents fees and undisclosed transfers sums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"]

So as a football club needing enough players to make a team I DO NOT BUDGET FOR ALL OF THAT TEAM.

You are the one with the flawed argument, or and this is a possibility, the club is not run properly!

[/quote]You do always budget for a TEAM.  However you plan for a SQUAD based upon the budget you have.  Usually the bigger the budget the bigger the squad.  That''s why a team like Chelsea has a squad of 46 and a team like Bolton only has a squad of 27. 

You will look to see how much money you have,  factor in transfer fees and wages then plan a number of players according to how much money you have. 

Use this example.  I''ve got a £5m.  I budget for 30 players at £150k each.  However I have only got 26 players in my squad.  That''s a total of £3.9m. 

I would then budget for 4 more players.  expecting to pay £500k in transfer/signing on fees and £600k in wages.

I get in those 4.  That takes my spend up to the £5m budget.  Someone then says you have an extra £750k.  This means I can increase my squad size.  While I originally planned for 30 players, I can now have 31.  If I spend all the £750k on the transfer fee, I can''t pay the wages and signing fee. 

What we are saying is that increasing the player budget will allow up to either a) have more players in the squad or b) have better players in the squad than planned, which would mean some of the extra money goes on the transfer fee and some will go to a higher wage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dhicki,

With the Marshall money, the rebate and deferred receipts from past transfers, we probably have £1.5M non-recurring money and probably more if we sell more of the current squad (as Gunn has hinted at). If we were to spend all of this on wages, we would end up with a playing budget that was way in excess of the stated "budget appropriate for League 1" and also creating a huge liability for next season as it would require a further non-recurring lump sum to pay for next years wages. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Dhicki,

With the Marshall money, the rebate and deferred receipts from past transfers, we probably have £1.5M non-recurring money and probably more if we sell more of the current squad (as Gunn has hinted at). If we were to spend all of this on wages, we would end up with a playing budget that was way in excess of the stated "budget appropriate for League 1" and also creating a huge liability for next season as it would require a further non-recurring lump sum to pay for next years wages. Wake up and smell the coffee.

[/quote]Desert Fox, I think you are missing my point. 

People on here are saying that ALL the rebate money will be going on transfer fees.  I''m debating that it won''t. 

Foulger said that it will go to the ''player budget'', and I believe they will use some for wages and signing fees and not just transfer fees.  What they and I did not say is over how many years that will be spread.  Although the example I used only spread it over 1 year, there is a very good chance that if we buy a player, they will spread the rebate money over the term of that player''s contract, so the £750k may only but 1 player on a 3 year contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here''s an example. 

We buy a Striker for £250,000

We pay a 10% signing on fee of £25,000

We pay agents fees of of £7,000

We give him a 3 year contract at £3k/week, worth a total of £468,000

Total spend on bringing that player to the club is £750,000.  What was the rebate value?

What I''m arguing is that they probably budgeted for a squad of maybe 30 players (including promoted youth players).  The rebate money has allowed them to bring in 1 additional player as described above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dhicki,

I understand what you are saying and your argument is valid in part. However, I think the point that you are missing is that most fans are utterly fed up of year after year of transfer receipts (and now potentially the rebate money) not being spent on transfer fees. Whilst there is some merit in securing players on Bosmans at the expense of paying a signing on fee instead, we have simply not bought enough players to explain what has happened to the Earnshaw, Safri, Lewis, Green, McKenzie, Francis, Etuhu, Marshall etc money.

You only need to look at the accounts from recent years to relaise that we are largely breaking even and that we have spent a huge sum on infrastructure - much of which is not football related.  Put simply, much of the receipts from these platers has gone into property speculation. Now that we have a half developed land bank and are under pressure to clear debts, do you really think that the Board are just going to leave this land half developed and wrack up year after year of interest payments. This is why so many of us are so pessimistic about the chnaces of reinvetsment in the core business - i.e the football team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Dhicki,

I understand what you are saying and your argument is valid in part. However, I think the point that you are missing is that most fans are utterly fed up of year after year of transfer receipts (and now potentially the rebate money) not being spent on transfer fees. Whilst there is some merit in securing players on Bosmans at the expense of paying a signing on fee instead, we have simply not bought enough players to explain what has happened to the Earnshaw, Safri, Lewis, Green, McKenzie, Francis, Etuhu, Marshall etc money.

You only need to look at the accounts from recent years to relaise that we are largely breaking even and that we have spent a huge sum on infrastructure - much of which is not football related.  Put simply, much of the receipts from these platers has gone into property speculation. Now that we have a half developed land bank and are under pressure to clear debts, do you really think that the Board are just going to leave this land half developed and wrack up year after year of interest payments. This is why so many of us are so pessimistic about the chnaces of reinvetsment in the core business - i.e the football team.

[/quote]I totally agree with your point about being fed up of not seeing the investment in players, you can go through the years and see loads of examples - Sutton, Bellamy & Ashton are probably the biggest, and I am also frustrated.  However this is a different discussion. 

I am addressing the points made about the rebate money just being used for transfer fees.  People has been misquoted Foulger and saying it will ALL go on transfer fees, and none on wages.  I am addressing those points.  Here are some examples: 

Colney Canary - "that means we still have all the rebate money left plus what else we had in the transfer kitty." "Who said the rebate money was for wages? Season ticket sales are normally for players wages. The rebate money was for player transfers". 

Arthur Whittle - "Foulger said all the rebate money plus what he matched would go into the transfer kitty. Not wages, signing on fees etc, the trnasfer kitty."

kdncfc - "Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees."

Even though there are a number of explanations saying it''s going to the ''player budget'' that includes wages and fees, they still either don''t want to or are unable to understand that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt matter anyway, all the money has all ready been budgeted for!!! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"]

Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.

[/quote]The arguement of this post is so flawed I don''t know where to start...

If someone has £3m budgeted for wages and he has 20 people earning £150k each, that is the money accounted for.

If they then say you have have an additional £500k, It doesn''t mean that they can spend £500k on a player.  The reason why is the new player will also have wages.  Although the original wages were accounted for, doesn''t mean that if you increase the planned number of people their wages are all accounted for.  Those wages must come from somewhere - it will also come out of the £500k, so you may spend £350k on the player and £150 on the wages.

I hope I have dumbed it down enough for you to understand!!!

[/quote]

The argument is not at all flawed, for any business wages are an expense that should be allowed for when they calculate their expenditure for the year. NCFC have a turnover 3 or 4 times greater than the majority of the clubs they are now competing with, if they are unable to allocate enough money for wages to assemble a competetive team at this level something is very wrong. There should have been enough in the budget allowed for wages to assemble a squad of around 18 players good enough to make us competetive at this level, if they were relying on the money pledged from rebates to make up that amount they are out of order imo.

That extra 700k should give us even more of an advantage over the other teams and if spent wisely on transfer fees could make all the difference. If you ran a business you''d be in the bankruptcy courts in no time at all if you failed to allow a big enough budget to pay wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"]

Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.

[/quote]The arguement of this post is so flawed I don''t know where to start...

If someone has £3m budgeted for wages and he has 20 people earning £150k each, that is the money accounted for.

If they then say you have have an additional £500k, It doesn''t mean that they can spend £500k on a player.  The reason why is the new player will also have wages.  Although the original wages were accounted for, doesn''t mean that if you increase the planned number of people their wages are all accounted for.  Those wages must come from somewhere - it will also come out of the £500k, so you may spend £350k on the player and £150 on the wages.

I hope I have dumbed it down enough for you to understand!!!

[/quote]

The argument is not at all flawed, for any business wages are an expense that should be allowed for when they calculate their expenditure for the year. NCFC have a turnover 3 or 4 times greater than the majority of the clubs they are now competing with, if they are unable to allocate enough money for wages to assemble a competetive team at this level something is very wrong. There should have been enough in the budget allowed for wages to assemble a squad of around 18 players good enough to make us competetive at this level, if they were relying on the money pledged from rebates to make up that amount they are out of order imo.

That extra 700k should give us even more of an advantage over the other teams and if spent wisely on transfer fees could make all the difference. If you ran a business you''d be in the bankruptcy courts in no time at all if you failed to allow a big enough budget to pay wages.

[/quote]This discussion was not about whether we are or should be competetive with other team, that is a different debate.  It is about whether some of the rebate money will be used for player wages and signing on fees.

They will have already made a budget and spent that on the current team and the new signing that were planned before the 700k.  If they then want to buy more players than their original plan, they will need to find more money for wages. 

You say about running a business.  If I owned a restaurant a budgeted for 5 people, then changed my mind and decided I want 6, I would need to find more money for wages.  It is the same with players.  That''s why the rebate will go towards buying a player, but will also go towards their wages too. 

At the start of the season, they decided on a ''player budget''.  That will pay transfer fees and wages.  That player budget has increased, and the increase (the rebate money) will also be spent on transfer fees and wages. If you don''t understand that, tough.  I, and other people, have tried to explain that to you and I''m not going to spend time to try explaining it again.  I''ll just take Mark Twain''s advice - "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kdncfc"]

Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.

[/quote]By the way, if I want to be pedantic, I could tell you that all income is included in turnover - including the rebate.  And so, through your ignorance, you have undermined your own arguement!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"]

Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.

[/quote]By the way, if I want to be pedantic, I could tell you that all income is included in turnover - including the rebate.  And so, through your ignorance, you have undermined your own arguement![/quote]

Really can''t be bothered with this anymore, so far you have called me dumb stupid and ignorant just because my opinion differs from your own. Pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="colneycanary"]Who said the rebate money was for wages? Season ticket sales are normally for players wages. The rebate money was for player transfers, and any signing on fee''s for players, must be very small in Leage 1 unless we are chucking money away again![/quote]

What happened to the Earnshaw and Etuhu transfer fees?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Hucks is Legend"]if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson![/quote]

Norwich City will not spend money in January while Delia Smith remains at our club... [:$]

[/quote]

JOE LEWIS DINER ANYONE?

COME IN AND GET FED UP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="dhickl"][quote user="kdncfc"]

Wages should be paid from turnover because they are a necessary expense of any business that employs staff and therefore should already have been accounted for , the rebate was extra money on top of that and should be used for transfer fees. Very much doubt that it will be though knowing this lot.

[/quote]By the way, if I want to be pedantic, I could tell you that all income is included in turnover - including the rebate.  And so, through your ignorance, you have undermined your own arguement![/quote]

Really can''t be bothered with this anymore, so far you have called me dumb stupid and ignorant just because my opinion differs from your own. Pathetic.

[/quote]I did not call you dumb. 

I based the stupid comment on the fact that while I was providing a reasoned arguement, with examples, quoting the Chairman of the club, and explaining why I have that view.  The basis of your arguement was "There should have been enough in the budget."  This is a view without explaining the basis or reasoning.  There is no firm point to your arguement, and if you check the meaning of the word stupid (which has 7 meanings) one of them is lack of meaning / inane / pointless.  So the comment was not due to you having a different view, but due to you failing to use an intelligent areguement to back up that view. 

I used the ignorant comment, as it means lacking knowledge of or being unaware of something.  As you incorrectly used the term ''turnover'', I guessed that you were lacking knowledge of what it actually meant.  Everyone is ignorant towards different things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just wonder as to whether  the Lewis £100k (due to the Posh getting promoted to The Championship) and the Marshall transfer fee are being used to partially cover the overheads that haven''t been cut. When is the club going to realise that we are no longer a Premiership club but a Division 3 (old money) club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle OBE"]Foulger said all the rebate money plus what he matched would go into the transfer kitty. Not wages, signing on fees etc, the trnasfer kitty. We shall see..........[/quote]Check your facts - you are just making things up, so you can have another moan later. 

What he actual said was "This money will all go straight to the manager''s player budget..." http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1701057,00.html 

The player budget covers the things that have been mentioned repeatedly on this board - wages, signing fees and transfer fees.

 

 

[/quote]

I stand corrected. But surely there was money available before this rebate offer? If there wasn''t than some serious questioning must be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Hucks is Legend"]if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson![/quote]

Norwich City will not spend money in January while Delia Smith remains at our club... [:$]

[/quote]

Darren Huckerby, Dean Ashton, Robert Earnshaw...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But if we don''t have any of this money to spend then what it means is that the budget was inadequate in the first place. I expect a club of our stature to have a competitive and adequate budget in the first place and my rebate money to be the icing on the cake to maybe fund that one big signing we might otherwise not have been able to get. i did not give thme my money to plug a gap in a previously inadequate budget. If that is what has happened then we have been let down again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Voice of the Thorpe Area"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Hucks is Legend"]if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson![/quote]

Norwich City will not spend money in January while Delia Smith remains at our club... [:$]

[/quote]

Darren Huckerby, Dean Ashton, Robert Earnshaw...

[/quote]{Darren Huckerby- December 2003Dean Ashton - January 2005Rob Earnshaw - January 2006}January 2007 - ?January 2008 - ?January 2009 - ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Dr. Ink"]

We all know a significant amount of player budget money diappears into a large black hole. Always has, always will. Exactly the reason why I claimed my rebate back!

I''m still waiting to see who we will sign with the Green and Ashton money?

[/quote]I''m still waiting to see who we will sign from the Sutton money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="The Voice of the Thorpe Area"][quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="Hucks is Legend"]if gunn''s bringing in players who want to play for the club and are half decent whats the need to spend money, it''s always good to have some money to spend in the january window! however, i do think we will sign dickinson![/quote]

Norwich City will not spend money in January while Delia Smith remains at our club... [:$]

[/quote]

Darren Huckerby, Dean Ashton, Robert Earnshaw...

[/quote]

{Darren Huckerby- December 2003

Dean Ashton - January 2005

Rob Earnshaw - January 2006}

January 2007 - ?

January 2008 - ?

January 2009 - ?






[/quote]

Huckerby was paid for with money from the share issue and a large part of his wages were paid by Carl Moore so I don''t see how Smith can take any credit for that one, it took them about 4 years to tell us about it....after they had taken all the credit and milked all the adulation for our promotion of course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Wings of a sparrow"]Coming to think of it, what happened to the Kevin Reeves money?[;)][/quote]

Its called the River End stand!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×