Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
singing canary

the board have taken ncfc fans as fools again !!!

Recommended Posts

right where do i start .

we all know the player wage budget would have dropped after relegation .

now the players who have remained at the club would have taken a drop in salary i would have thought .

several loan players returned to owning clubs free up wages spent .

so if our budget was 8 million with everthing i have mentioned this must have reduced the wage budget by where we need to be in line with the division we are in.

futher to that the sale of marshall and clinigan and maybe russell plus rebate plus foulgers money should run to a total of around nearly 2 million pound .

i would guess if we spent 500k we would be lucky .

if we dont spend at least 700k on players as promised by the board i think miss leading people like this is shamefull to say the least .

my thoughts are the people who did not claim the rebate and are paying more to watch a football club than any other team in that division should be asking questions .

i may be wrong and we may spend some money yet considering we have been outbid by brighton for players of which the fan has put money towards questions need answering .

i hope you see my point ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps they are in more trouble than they are letting on?  Why has Foulger suddenly gone so quiet along with the rumoured (well confirmed) local business investment efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singing canary"]right where do i start . we all know the player wage budget would have dropped after relegation . now the players who have remained at the club would have taken a drop in salary i would have thought . several loan players returned to owning clubs free up wages spent . so if our budget was 8 million with everthing i have mentioned this must have reduced the wage budget by where we need to be in line with the division we are in. futher to that the sale of marshall and clinigan and maybe russell plus rebate plus foulgers money should run to a total of around nearly 2 million pound . i would guess if we spent 500k we would be lucky . if we dont spend at least 700k on players as promised by the board i think miss leading people like this is shamefull to say the least . my thoughts are the people who did not claim the rebate and are paying more to watch a football club than any other team in that division should be asking questions . i may be wrong and we may spend some money yet considering we have been outbid by brighton for players of which the fan has put money towards questions need answering . i hope you see my point ...[/quote]

 

 

the board have been misleading fans for years!!! what makes u think they will change now????  welcome to delias world!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="rjwc22"]

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

[/quote]

 

The fact is the board need to invest to recoup, but would trust Gunn with 2 million??? thats the worrying fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="rjwc22"]

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

[/quote]

 

The fact is the board need to invest to recoup, but would trust Gunn with 2 million??? thats the worrying fact!

[/quote]

If you mean to say you do not think the board will trust Gunn with £2m in transfer funds, I do not really have a problem with that.  It is not as though he has a huge successful history in the transfer market which would give them confidence in his ability to spend wisely.  I think there is nothing wrong with having a bit of control on our purse strings - as long as they can be loosened when necessary.  Think this is one of the things that McNally has to add.

Most clubs do not ''give'' money to the manager, they let him identify targets he thinks can add to the squad and then the directors or ceo etc speak to the clubs in question and see if they can get the values to match. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rebate =350.000

pledge by foulger=350.000

marshall=400k -500k

clingan =650.000.

russell = at a guess (150.000)

roughly 2 million .

8.5 spent on wages last season

returned shackell, lee, and many many more loan players free up wages .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is all very well having one set of figures, but you also need the other target set - how much we can afford to spend on the playing squad.

If we can only afford £4-5M this year and have only taken 2 or 3 off the £8.5m total then things do not look so good still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="rjwc22"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="rjwc22"]

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

[/quote]

 

The fact is the board need to invest to recoup, but would trust Gunn with 2 million??? thats the worrying fact!

[/quote]

If you mean to say you do not think the board will trust Gunn with £2m in transfer funds, I do not really have a problem with that.  It is not as though he has a huge successful history in the transfer market which would give them confidence in his ability to spend wisely.  I think there is nothing wrong with having a bit of control on our purse strings - as long as they can be loosened when necessary.  Think this is one of the things that McNally has to add.

Most clubs do not ''give'' money to the manager, they let him identify targets he thinks can add to the squad and then the directors or ceo etc speak to the clubs in question and see if they can get the values to match. 

[/quote]

 

you might, but the board wont..... this is the whole problem, if you wont believe in the manager u have thne you shouldnt have them!! either these muppets want to get back up and get some money back or they will fail and we will be stuck in this league..

have any lessons been learnt from last year?? do it on the cheap u genreally get cheap!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="rjwc22"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="rjwc22"]

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

[/quote]

 

The fact is the board need to invest to recoup, but would trust Gunn with 2 million??? thats the worrying fact!

[/quote]

If you mean to say you do not think the board will trust Gunn with £2m in transfer funds, I do not really have a problem with that.  It is not as though he has a huge successful history in the transfer market which would give them confidence in his ability to spend wisely.  I think there is nothing wrong with having a bit of control on our purse strings - as long as they can be loosened when necessary.  Think this is one of the things that McNally has to add.

Most clubs do not ''give'' money to the manager, they let him identify targets he thinks can add to the squad and then the directors or ceo etc speak to the clubs in question and see if they can get the values to match. 

[/quote]

 

you might, but the board wont..... this is the whole problem, if you wont believe in the manager u have thne you shouldnt have them!! either these muppets want to get back up and get some money back or they will fail and we will be stuck in this league..

have any lessons been learnt from last year?? do it on the cheap u genreally get cheap!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="rjwc22"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="rjwc22"]

I think the Dickinson thing is a bit misleading as whilst Brighton signed him I do not think this is because we could not match their bid, rather that we were unwilling to do so.

I am also not sure about some of your maths but do agree that we should have money to spend and will question why we have not done so if that is still the case come the end of August.

[/quote]

 

The fact is the board need to invest to recoup, but would trust Gunn with 2 million??? thats the worrying fact!

[/quote]

If you mean to say you do not think the board will trust Gunn with £2m in transfer funds, I do not really have a problem with that.  It is not as though he has a huge successful history in the transfer market which would give them confidence in his ability to spend wisely.  I think there is nothing wrong with having a bit of control on our purse strings - as long as they can be loosened when necessary.  Think this is one of the things that McNally has to add.

Most clubs do not ''give'' money to the manager, they let him identify targets he thinks can add to the squad and then the directors or ceo etc speak to the clubs in question and see if they can get the values to match. 

[/quote]

 

you might, but the board wont..... this is the whole problem, if you wont believe in the manager u have thne you shouldnt have them!! either these muppets want to get back up and get some money back or they will fail and we will be stuck in this league..

have any lessons been learnt from last year?? do it on the cheap u genreally get cheap!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have not seen one signing that signals we are going for promotion , no money spent on transfer fees at all , still no striker worth the name at the club , this club never learns and never will .At least we should have the cheapest squad on paper in the division , and lets be honest thats the reason Gunn was given the job in the first place , a yes man whatever the situation .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an echo in here?

I do not think it is a simple case of all or nothing in terms of backing your managerial team.  In any other job you would be subjected to a probation period during which time your responsibilities would be limited.

Why should football be any different with an inexperienced manager?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="singing canary"]rebate =350.000

pledge by foulger=350.000

marshall=400k -500k

clingan =650.000.

russell = at a guess (150.000)

roughly 2 million .

8.5 spent on wages last season

returned shackell, lee, and many many more loan players free up wages .[/quote]Actually the players you want to refer to no longer being here on big wages are:Fotheringham and then probably Lita and Sibierski whose wages could easily be as high as those we would pay for a season for another of our players. I think Lupoli must have been on a fair bit too.Other than the fact we cant spend the money we are yet to recieve which is getting on for half of you total then I can sort of see where you are coming from.But at the same time if some of these freebies turn out to be really good then who cares - why do we have to pay stupid money to make people happy? Isnt that exactly what has happened the last few seasons? Grant given money too easily which ended in us spending silly money on players really not worth it? Roeder allowed to spend silly money on wages of players that were really not worth it (fotheringham and Sibierski to name but two)?Perhaps spending loads of money isnt the answer - we did well in the play-off season and the promotion season but we never paid over the odds for a player and were never held to ransome over one either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singing canary"]rebate =350.000 pledge by foulger=350.000 marshall=400k -500k clingan =650.000. russell = at a guess (150.000) roughly 2 million . 8.5 spent on wages last season returned shackell, lee, and many many more loan players free up wages .[/quote]

 

Do you actually know how the transfer payment system works?  Very rarely will you see a complete payment for a player - it is usually up to 50 per cent down although more commonly 25 per cent and the rest in dribs and drabs.  For example Palace still owe Ipswich £400k for Lee and we are nearly in the next season.  If you sell Clingan for £650k you''d be very lucky to see £300k of that immediately.  When you sell a player it does not immediately swell a club bank account by the amount quoted in newspapers or by a club.   For Marshall, depending on the sale terms, you may only have received £100-150k so far.

You cannot make calculations without knowing the precise detail of the sale terms and none of us know that.  In the same way when you buy a player it does not mean you have to shell out ALL the money immediately.  You''ll have to find it eventually but very few deals - except those involving very small sums for non League and League Two players - include a full payment at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="singing canary"]right where do i start .

we all know the player wage budget would have dropped after relegation .

now the players who have remained at the club would have taken a drop in salary i would have thought .

several loan players returned to owning clubs free up wages spent .

so if our budget was 8 million with everthing i have mentioned this must have reduced the wage budget by where we need to be in line with the division we are in.

futher to that the sale of marshall and clinigan and maybe russell plus rebate plus foulgers money should run to a total of around nearly 2 million pound .

i would guess if we spent 500k we would be lucky .

if
we dont spend at least 700k on players as promised by the board i think miss leading people like this is shamefull to say the least .

my thoughts are the people who did not claim the rebate and are paying more to watch a football club than any other team in that division should be asking questions .

i may be wrong and we may spend some money yet considering we have been outbid by brighton for players of which the fan has put money towards questions need answering .

i hope you see my point ...[/quote]Where do you start? By making a bucketload of assumptions, making up "promises" from the board and forgetting the fact that we''ve also seen our income drop significantly because of relegation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cam,

I dont buy your argument for two reasons.

1. We will be due to receive cashflow from players we have sold previously

2. Just in the same way that payment for Marshall/Clingan may be deferred, we would also expect to defer our payments on any prospective signings.

Surely you are not saying that we buck the system by always paying 100% up front and letting other clubs pay us in arrears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singing canary"]they need to tell the fans that ,i feel the least norwich fans deserve is a bit of honesty for once[/quote]

 

I think we all know it''s not a transparent board.  Or maybe they don''t want to show their hand in the TW for fear of prices being hiked?  Who knows?

But harking on about it won''t get us the answers we desire.

As for Mr Foulger he has money, and we all know how he got that ready money, as it was widely published at the time, but because we don''t hear anything doesn''t mean thing''s aren''t happening.

Just playing devils advocate here.

I would love nothing more than to know exactly how much money is/has to be spent, but realisitcally we won''t get to know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i see your point but my anger is towards the board for making pledges to fans foulger will match unclaimed rebates now rumour has it we wont buy anyone untill someone is sold .

so what has happened to the 700k? the board made a point of "matching" unclaimed rebate matching "what" exactly ?? for what as none has been spent at all .

so why didnt foulger say i will put 350 into the players wages>? because that is all thats happened .

i should imagine the money has gone towards debts of which is a different matter and fooling the fans which is simply very very low .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="singing canary"]i see your point but my anger is towards the board for making pledges to fans foulger will match unclaimed rebates now rumour has it we wont buy anyone untill someone is sold . so what has happened to the 700k? the board made a point of "matching" unclaimed rebate matching "what" exactly ?? for what as none has been spent at all . so why didnt foulger say i will put 350 into the players wages>? because that is all thats happened . i should imagine the money has gone towards debts of which is a different matter and fooling the fans which is simply very very low .[/quote]

I totally understand where you are coming from, as these are all question we (hubby and I) have asked ourselves.

I really don''t think the club dare put the rebate money towards the debt, and if it has then they better be prepared for what will happen at the club lol.  When the next set of accounts comes out then is the time to judge.  Or even if they divulge after the TW shuts?

None of us know exactly how much of that money has been spent so far, it''s all specualtion at the moment, no hard facts that I have seen from officials and accountants at the club.

Share this post


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

Cam,

I dont buy your argument for two reasons.

1. We will be due to receive cashflow from players we have sold previously

2. Just in the same way that payment for Marshall/Clingan may be deferred, we would also expect to defer our payments on any prospective signings.

Surely you are not saying that we buck the system by always paying 100% up front and letting other clubs pay us in arrears.

[/quote]

I am simply saying that without knowing the precise details none of us ever have a clue as to how much a club has available to spend.  Never, ever. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAY49,

We will never find out unless shareholders can force the club to release the information, because it sure as hell wont be extractable from the accounts if they stick to their previous pattern of reporting (i.e. there is one single pot for wages including non-footballing staff).

My frustration is not so much that we dont have any money, but more the dishonesty of the club and their apparent lack of lesson learning regarding how to rebuild bridges with the fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Nuff Said"][quote user="singing canary"]right where do i start . we all know the player wage budget would have dropped after relegation . now the players who have remained at the club would have taken a drop in salary i would have thought . several loan players returned to owning clubs free up wages spent . so if our budget was 8 million with everthing i have mentioned this must have reduced the wage budget by where we need to be in line with the division we are in. futher to that the sale of marshall and clinigan and maybe russell plus rebate plus foulgers money should run to a total of around nearly 2 million pound . i would guess if we spent 500k we would be lucky . if we dont spend at least 700k on players as promised by the board i think miss leading people like this is shamefull to say the least . my thoughts are the people who did not claim the rebate and are paying more to watch a football club than any other team in that division should be asking questions . i may be wrong and we may spend some money yet considering we have been outbid by brighton for players of which the fan has put money towards questions need answering . i hope you see my point ...[/quote]

Where do you start? By making a bucketload of assumptions, making up "promises" from the board and forgetting the fact that we''ve also seen our income drop significantly because of relegation.

[/quote]

 

I don''t think our income will have dropped that significantly to be honest. other than the rebate money our crowds won''t be that far down on last year and TV money in the championship was b**ger all anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="dhickl"][quote user="singing canary"]if we dont spend at least 700k on players as promised by the board[/quote]the 700k includes wages, it was to be added to the ''player budget'', not just for transfer fees.  This has been discussed many time on here before (http://www.pinkun.com/cs/forums/1751704/ShowPost.aspx)[/quote]So when Wynn Jones said Gunn would have a competitive transfer fund what he really meant was Gunn will get nothing apart from the rebate money, because what we have spent for a side looking to win promotion is shocking . Its everything as cheap as possible and rip those mugs off for as much as possible once again , and still some were stupid enough to fall for it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Smith,

You have to be joking - I would guess that we would lose at least £5M in revenue through a combination of the following:

- TV money (circa £2.6M last year - so not bugger all)

- Reduced away attendnances from away fans

- Possible reduction on home casual attendnaces (if we perform poorly) and consequent knock on effect on catering and merchandise

- Reduced commercial income (many contracts will have built in decreases)

- Redecued net profit on player transfers (was £3.6M lasy year)

- Loss of event guard income which was £0.7M last year

I would assume that the club will cover this by halving the football budget from the reported £8.5M and reducing some overheads, but we have not heard any news about the latter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loan City,

One thing you cant knock the club for is being careful with their words.

Wynn Jones said something to the effect of a budget appropriate for League 1. As this is a subjective value and that we will never know, it enables them to say that all the rebate money and transfer receipts will be added to the playing fund.

One man''s appropriate may be another man''s laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norwich city fans ..... this is where your unclaimed rebate has gone ...

not on transfers or player budget .

they would have to pay footballers anyway rebate or not .

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  

×
×
  • Create New...