Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
canarytim

Mick Dennis- Where is your objectivity

Recommended Posts

[quote user="The 4th Official"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

... `08 showed an income of £19m and player wages of £6.8m largely funded by a £3.5m transfer profit. ..

 

[/quote] This figure of £6.8m for player wages has been mentioned several times. I can''t find it in the 2008 Annual Report. Could you tell me where it comes from please? Also, is the figure inclusive of social security costs? Thanks.[/quote]

There was actually no breakdown of the £14m wage bill but Doncaster stated a player wage bill of £6.8m in his "easy accounts" article for Archant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"Good points Mr Carrow.

I wonder if Mick is really up for a rational discussion?"

 

 

 

 

Well in the interests of promoting it Tangie i will retract my allegation of lies being told and apologise unreservedly as it was based on an understandable error in Micks report. 

I will not however apologise for saying that Mick "purports to care about the club", because from where i am standing he seems to care more for the current majority shareholders than the club itself. 

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]Given the tone of some of the comments, there seems no point in my continuing to try and have a rational discussion here, so I''ll stop now. OTBC.[/quote]

Oh dear Mick, putting down your fellow City fans yet again I see?

You then have the audacity to question why you are insulted by certain sections of our support... [:$]

[/quote]I''ll stick my neck out now and say,  he''ll be spunking his load over Talksport or a national column on how he tried to have a reasonable debate with the Norwich boo boys on a message board,  and they just abused and ''dissed'' him[;)]

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]Given the tone of some of the comments, there seems no point in my continuing to try and have a rational discussion here, so I''ll stop now. OTBC.[/quote]

Oh dear Mick, putting down your fellow City fans yet again I see?

You then have the audacity to question why you are insulted by certain sections of our support... [:$]

[/quote]

I''ll stick my neck out now and say,  he''ll be spunking his load over Talksport or a national column on how he tried to have a reasonable debate with the Norwich boo boys on a message board,  and they just abused and ''dissed'' him[;)]
[/quote]

 

Can''t wait for that edition lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered.

Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd.

The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous.

There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments.

Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s)

I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments.

Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="canaryfan68"]Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered. Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd. The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous. There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments. Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s) I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments. Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.[/quote]

If Gunny gets booted out you lot won''t be agreed on who is "the best person to manage this club" if the recent track record is anything to go on.

So if you lot can''t agree why should they be any better?

[:|]

Share this post


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

[quote user="canaryfan68"]Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered. Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd. The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous. There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments. Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s) I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments. Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.[/quote]

If Gunny gets booted out you lot won''t be agreed on who is "the best person to manage this club" if the recent track record is anything to go on.

So if you lot can''t agree why should they be any better?

[:|]

[/quote]

"Cam", you know they will never be happy with ANYONE, so waste your time.

Sometimes i wish the bloody club WOULD go to the wall, as Everyones into name slaging and belittling everyone else.

Maybe if theres no club (like "smudger" wants) everyone will get off there high horse, and we can all go down and watch Ips**t

Share this post


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

[quote user="canaryfan68"]Having read Mick Dennis''s posts I have to make a few points which I find never seem to get answered. Firstly. I feel that the behavior of some should be aimed in MD''s direction if they are not happy with him than anyone in his crowd. The objectivity I am looking for is how this so well run club keeps on getting it so wrong! The managerial appointments have been so comedic it begs belief. The waisted money on loan signings and the dependence on them again was scandulous. There are the events when Gunn was appointed,did they not learn from their previous appointments. Whilst you mention Mrs Gunn and the look on her face after saturday,how is that down to NCFC supporters. To be appointed manager with no previous experience doesn''t happen in too many well paid jobs. (apart from MP''s) I wish at times Mick could see how the fans see it,especially the last few years when their has been little ambition to get the best person to manage this club and then the fans have to deal with the inept appointments. Lastly I want to say its good to have different viewpoints but sometimes its good to consider it from different perspectives rather than think that somebody who doesn''t agree with you is some kind of muppet or a worsedescription.[/quote]

If Gunny gets booted out you lot won''t be agreed on who is "the best person to manage this club" if the recent track record is anything to go on.

So if you lot can''t agree why should they be any better?

[:|]

[/quote]

"Cam", you know they will never be happy with ANYONE, so waste your time.

Sometimes i wish the bloody club WOULD go to the wall, as Everyones into name slaging and belittling everyone else.

Maybe if theres no club (like "smudger" wants) everyone will get off there high horse, and we can all go down and watch Ips**t

[/quote]

It is just a football message board.  Try as it might it doesn''t do the team selection.  It might be better sometimes at same but unfortunately no one takes any bleedin'' notice of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]Hello again Yes, I am a shareholder. Yes, I had a copy of the accounts. I can read a balance sheet but I also showed them to my son, an accountant at Deloitte. He said that in any other business, he''d be worried about the viability of the company, but that it was fairly typical for a football club -- i.e. it was relying on the generosity of the owners to remain solvent. I was a bit sloppy in quoting Delia about the gate receipts. What she said was that gate receipts alone are not sufficient to run the club. The running costs include everybody''s wages of course, plus grounds and buildings maintenance, fuel bills, travel and hotel bills for the team, insurance, and so on and so on. But the biggest outgoing at any club is the cost of the players -- which includes transfer fees, signing on fees, wages, bonuses, agents fees, benefits in kind and so on. So I simplified my point, for the sake of brevity, and said our income from attendances do not cover the players. I should have said that income from attendances do not cover the outgoings. They don''t. Nor do they at any club whose accounts I have studied -- and I look at several every year. In addition to my job as a football writer and broadcaster I chair a funding panel for the Football Foundation. The Foundation, a charity, goes through football clubs'' accounts very, very closely and often demands spot checks on the books, because it gives clubs hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the cost of community schemes. The books of one or two clubs give the Foundation cause for concern. Norwich City''s accounts are always held up as a model of transparency and probity. Also, the Football League do their own scrutiny of accounts. And of course, the NCFC accounts are independently auditted. There is no mystery. There is no missing money. Year after year our club sets a "player budget" and tell the manager he can spend that total on transfer fees, loan fees, wages, agent fees and so on. And year after year, that total includes money Michael and Delia have effectively given the club. The facts about our club this season are that Michael Foulger''s donation and the money from those season ticket holders who did not take their rebate combined to pay for Grant Holt -- his fee and his wages. But, from what David McNally said at the meeting, it sounded to me as if Delia and Michael had also put some more money in this summer. Now, I know many posters want D & M out. I understand that opinion, even if I don''t share it, but let''s not start calling them crooks or liars. That is very unfair and completely untrue. They don''t take anything out of the club. They don''t pay themselves a wage, like Sheephanks used to at Ipswich. They give their time, money and effort for free. As an tiny example, Michael settled our table''s Gunn Club bill on Saturday. I know, because I had already paid for a round of drinks when D & M got there, and later there was a discussion about them when Michael was paying for the meal and drinks. You will say; "And so he should pay!" But my point is, he does, always. Finally, I am sorry that some posters still think I am scum. I am even sorrier that some say things like I "purport" to care about the club. I had hoped that we could at least all agree that we all care, even if we come to different conclusions about the way forward. Given the tone of some of the comments, there seems no point in my continuing to try and have a rational discussion here, so I''ll stop now. OTBC.[/quote]

The big mistake you made was having actual "facts" along with reasonable opinions..............

Some of the morons on here actually think its a good idea that we drive the club into liquidation so we can get rid of virtually the only people willing to put money into the club........

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="Mick Dennis"]Hello again Yes, I am a shareholder. Yes, I had a copy of the accounts. I can read a balance sheet but I also showed them to my son, an accountant at Deloitte. He said that in any other business, he''d be worried about the viability of the company, but that it was fairly typical for a football club -- i.e. it was relying on the generosity of the owners to remain solvent. I was a bit sloppy in quoting Delia about the gate receipts. What she said was that gate receipts alone are not sufficient to run the club. The running costs include everybody''s wages of course, plus grounds and buildings maintenance, fuel bills, travel and hotel bills for the team, insurance, and so on and so on. But the biggest outgoing at any club is the cost of the players -- which includes transfer fees, signing on fees, wages, bonuses, agents fees, benefits in kind and so on. So I simplified my point, for the sake of brevity, and said our income from attendances do not cover the players. I should have said that income from attendances do not cover the outgoings. They don''t. Nor do they at any club whose accounts I have studied -- and I look at several every year. In addition to my job as a football writer and broadcaster I chair a funding panel for the Football Foundation. The Foundation, a charity, goes through football clubs'' accounts very, very closely and often demands spot checks on the books, because it gives clubs hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the cost of community schemes. The books of one or two clubs give the Foundation cause for concern. Norwich City''s accounts are always held up as a model of transparency and probity. Also, the Football League do their own scrutiny of accounts. And of course, the NCFC accounts are independently auditted. There is no mystery. There is no missing money. Year after year our club sets a "player budget" and tell the manager he can spend that total on transfer fees, loan fees, wages, agent fees and so on. And year after year, that total includes money Michael and Delia have effectively given the club. The facts about our club this season are that Michael Foulger''s donation and the money from those season ticket holders who did not take their rebate combined to pay for Grant Holt -- his fee and his wages. But, from what David McNally said at the meeting, it sounded to me as if Delia and Michael had also put some more money in this summer. Now, I know many posters want D & M out. I understand that opinion, even if I don''t share it, but let''s not start calling them crooks or liars. That is very unfair and completely untrue. They don''t take anything out of the club. They don''t pay themselves a wage, like Sheephanks used to at Ipswich. They give their time, money and effort for free. As an tiny example, Michael settled our table''s Gunn Club bill on Saturday. I know, because I had already paid for a round of drinks when D & M got there, and later there was a discussion about them when Michael was paying for the meal and drinks. You will say; "And so he should pay!" But my point is, he does, always. Finally, I am sorry that some posters still think I am scum. I am even sorrier that some say things like I "purport" to care about the club. I had hoped that we could at least all agree that we all care, even if we come to different conclusions about the way forward. Given the tone of some of the comments, there seems no point in my continuing to try and have a rational discussion here, so I''ll stop now. OTBC.[/quote]

Like many on here i`m pleased you are prepared to enter the debate so will try to keep it civil, but perhaps you could have a think about your "ingrates" comment and "lychmob" article before getting indignant about my choice of words?

The biggest outgoing at our football club is not the players Mick, and hasn`t been for several years.  You say you`ve perused the accounts but i struggle to see how you can make such a comment when `08 showed an income of £19m and player wages of £6.8m largely funded by a £3.5m transfer profit.  It also showed that for the club to break even it could only afford to spend 10% of its income on its squad and comparison with Preston shows they could afford over 60% of their income.  Comparison with `02 shows that back then we could afford 35%.  Do you not think that concerned supporters should question why this is?  Why was our player wage bill £6.8m whilst the overall wage bill was £14m?  Who are all these people and how exactly are they contributing to the "success" of recent years?  Why can Preston get by with 20 non-footballing staff whilst we have 134?  Where the land/spine roads/new ticket offices/facilities at Colney etc.,etc. money well spent?  If not who`s idea were they?  I honestly believe an informed, caring supporter would be looking into these things.

Also, no-one has even hinted at "missing money" or "crooks" on this thread so why do you feel the need to bring it up?  And ONE poster called you "scum" (not so different from "ingrates" or trying to portray concerned supporters as a baying lychmob IMO.....) and several rounded on him for it, yet you refer to it in the plural......[^o)] 

 

[/quote]

Perhaps Mick could give his opinion on the facts above USA, then at least we`d know he can appreciate both sides of the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess the difference of opinion stems from the definition of what the club is.  For the majority of supporters the club is the shirt, the squad, the stadium, the match-day experience.  For the majority shareholders the club has also become about the wider community, with offices, restaurants, extra bits for sports for all, academy, colney etc.  With hindsight I''d say that the majority shareholders have been spending too much time on the community, while hoping that if they get a football man in and give him some money, he''ll take care of the rest.  The pressure cooker also seems to have been missing an escape valve, namely that if things start to creak under the manager, there has been no obvious link between players and board.  Things go unchecked for too long when it goes bad, and to be honest I think the attitude of a lot of players is 50% to blame for our current situation.  I think McNally will re-focus D & Ms'' / the clubs efforts towards the pitch, so that we might see some decent championship football in the next few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="corbs"]Thanks for your comments Mick, and for the way you have promoted our Club over the years.[/quote]Promoted by reinforcing the impression of our club as a small-time, easily-contented, weak, forgiving community in thrall to a minor celebrity chef, presumably?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously though, to the ones who thinks Mick is just a lovable chap who defends his friends.  Why didn''t you question him on calling us all hypocrites over the the death of Bobby Robson?  Oh hang, that was aimed more at Newcastle because he loves shiite stirring them up as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Fair play to Mick for taking the time out to reply... he doesnt hide and that should be respected

jas :)

[/quote]

Indeed, Jas.  I don''t agree with his articles, nor his closeness to the board (his hysteria about our manager''s wives and children borders on the cries of Helen Lovejoy - won''t someone please think of the children?!), but fair play to him for coming on here to respond to criticism.  Probably not doing himself any favours in the eyes of many, though, so he''d probably be best to stay out of it and just get on with his job (whatever that is...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I guess the difference of opinion stems from the definition of what the club is.  For the majority of supporters the club is the shirt, the squad, the stadium, the match-day experience.  For the majority shareholders the club has also become about the wider community, with offices, restaurants, extra bits for sports for all, academy, colney etc.  With hindsight I''d say that the majority shareholders have been spending too much time on the community, while hoping that if they get a football man in and give him some money, he''ll take care of the rest.  The pressure cooker also seems to have been missing an escape valve, namely that if things start to creak under the manager, there has been no obvious link between players and board.  Things go unchecked for too long when it goes bad, and to be honest I think the attitude of a lot of players is 50% to blame for our current situation.  I think McNally will re-focus D & Ms'' / the clubs efforts towards the pitch, so that we might see some decent championship football in the next few years.
[/quote]

I have no problem with the community stuff per se blah, i simply have a major problem that the `08 accounts showed that we had become a club with a £19m income which could scarcely afford a professional football team- perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year?  It would certainly strengthen their argument.  I also have a problem with the fact that the clubs majority shareholders seem bemused and bewildered by the position we are in.  Just who has been making the strategic decisions in recent years?

It seems that Mick does not want to debate these points because i said he "purports" to support the club.  Well i`m sorry but his stance has come across to me as that no matter how many mistakes are made and no matter how far we fall, he will support the majority shareholders.  That is putting two individuals above the good of the club in my eyes, and i don`t see what is unfair or unreasonable in saying so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]I guess the difference of opinion stems from the definition of what the club is.  For the majority of supporters the club is the shirt, the squad, the stadium, the match-day experience.  For the majority shareholders the club has also become about the wider community, with offices, restaurants, extra bits for sports for all, academy, colney etc.  With hindsight I''d say that the majority shareholders have been spending too much time on the community, while hoping that if they get a football man in and give him some money, he''ll take care of the rest.  The pressure cooker also seems to have been missing an escape valve, namely that if things start to creak under the manager, there has been no obvious link between players and board.  Things go unchecked for too long when it goes bad, and to be honest I think the attitude of a lot of players is 50% to blame for our current situation.  I think McNally will re-focus D & Ms'' / the clubs efforts towards the pitch, so that we might see some decent championship football in the next few years.
[/quote]

I have no problem with the community stuff per se blah, i simply have a major problem that the `08 accounts showed that we had become a club with a £19m income which could scarcely afford a professional football team- perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year?  It would certainly strengthen their argument.  I also have a problem with the fact that the clubs majority shareholders seem bemused and bewildered by the position we are in.  Just who has been making the strategic decisions in recent years?

It seems that Mick does not want to debate these points because i said he "purports" to support the club.  Well i`m sorry but his stance has come across to me as that no matter how many mistakes are made and no matter how far we fall, he will support the majority shareholders.  That is putting two individuals above the good of the club in my eyes, and i don`t see what is unfair or unreasonable in saying so.

[/quote]

Good points Mr C

Don''t you ever get fed up with the brick marks on your forehead?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an

affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year? [/quote]Not many clubs would go to the lengths of providing profit and loss accounts in the local press either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Carrow,

 

What is your obsession with playing budget as a % of total income - this is such a totally and utterly meaningless statistic that it makes me doubt everything else you say..

For example, take 2 clubs:

 

Club A generates £5m income from football activities and has no other activities so it can spend £5m on its playing budget and still break even.

 

Club B also generates £5m income from football activities but also has other non-football commercial activites that cost £5m but generate income of £6m.  This means it can spend £6m on it''s playing budget while still breaking even.

Club B is clearly doing a better job, because it has generated an extra £1m for its playing budget but by your spurious measure it is doing worse, because its playing budget is 55% of its income (£6m/£11m) while Club A''s is 100% (£5m/£5m).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]It seems that Mick does not want to debate these points because i said

he "purports" to support the club.  Well i`m sorry but his stance has

come across to me as that no matter how many mistakes are made and no

matter how far we fall, he will support the majority shareholders. 

That is putting two individuals above the good of the club in my eyes,

and i don`t see what is unfair or unreasonable in saying so.[/quote]Isn''t that just following the club through thick and thin ?  In other words, what most supporters do ?

Share this post


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

Mr Carrow,

 

What is your obsession with playing budget as a % of total income - this is such a totally and utterly meaningless statistic that it makes me doubt everything else you say..

For example, take 2 clubs:

 

Club A generates £5m income from football activities and has no other activities so it can spend £5m on its playing budget and still break even.

 

Club B also generates £5m income from football activities but also has other non-football commercial activites that cost £5m but generate income of £6m.  This means it can spend £6m on it''s playing budget while still breaking even.

Club B is clearly doing a better job, because it has generated an extra £1m for its playing budget but by your spurious measure it is doing worse, because its playing budget is 55% of its income (£6m/£11m) while Club A''s is 100% (£5m/£5m).

 

 

[/quote]To be fair to Mr Carrow, the problem with the other businesses appears to be that they don''t appear to make a lot of money.  Indeed, wasn''t this why the travel shop was closed and Eventguard was sold ?I think a few of Mr Cs'' issues will be addresses over time by the new CEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year? [/quote]

Not many clubs would go to the lengths of providing profit and loss accounts in the local press either.
[/quote]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]perhaps someone could find a few examples of other clubs who had an affordable playing budget of 10% or less of their income in that year? [/quote]

Not many clubs would go to the lengths of providing profit and loss accounts in the local press either.
[/quote]

Not many clubs would continually spin msitruths to its fans such as every year since we left the prem "the manager will be given all the proceeds of transfers to reinvest in the team". The accounts quite clearly show that every year we make a big profit on transfers and that our wage bill is not growing (to counter the claim that it is all getting spent on wages instead).

I can see why the club has had to do it, but the what really sticks in my throat is that the club has attempted to continually con its customer base. This can only end in tears at some point.

Share this post


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

Not many clubs would continually spin msitruths to its fans such as every year since we left the prem "the manager will be given all the proceeds of transfers to reinvest in the team". The accounts quite clearly show that every year we make a big profit on transfers and that our wage bill is not growing (to counter the claim that it is all getting spent on wages instead).

I can see why the club has had to do it, but the what really sticks in my throat is that the club has attempted to continually con its customer base. This can only end in tears at some point.

[/quote]Isn''t this the difference between an intention and financial reality though ?  I don''t think that we were told that every year.  We were probably told that in the season after the Premiership, I grant you.  I don''t think anyone would have the affrontery to try that on after it was clear that we needed to make a transfer profit to balance the books.  The fact is both Grant and Roeder had mid-table budgets to work with, and produced inferior results.  If people above the manager had taken time to inspect the "mood of the dressing room", for want of a better phrase, could problems have been averted ?  We''ll never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBB,

I am sorry but your memory is failing you. This is the first season since the prem that we have not been told this - spot the common denominator (Doomy!!). Surely I am not the only one that remembers this or have I been transported to some parallel universe where things look similar but are not quite the same!!!

I repeat again, I can understand why the club took the course of action (i.e. to bank the profits) but this does not excuse their strategy of knowingly trying to hoodwink their paying customers. Not many businesses that attempt to do this prosper - think Hoover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

BBB,

I am sorry but your memory is failing you. This is the first season since the prem that we have not been told this - spot the common denominator (Doomy!!). Surely I am not the only one that remembers this or have I been transported to some parallel universe where things look similar but are not quite the same!!!

I repeat again, I can understand why the club took the course of action (i.e. to bank the profits) but this does not excuse their strategy of knowingly trying to hoodwink their paying customers. Not many businesses that attempt to do this prosper - think Hoover.

[/quote]Ok, we''ll say my memory is failing on the basis that neither of us wants to go through Doomys'' columns and interviews to prove otherwise [:)].  Is it fair to tar McNally with Doomys'' brush ?  I think you and Mr C will be pleased if he delivers what he says he intends, which is to get as much money into the playing budget as possible.  I also get the impression that he will not tolerate a failing management, which is why Team Gunn need to get results quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing that gets with with the transfer profit thing is not that it isn''t going into the playing budget because I think it is - most of the other costs are pretty predictable (rent, rates, non player wages, interest payments etc) and the playing budget is the big variable from what is left at the end, so I think if we make, say, a £3m transfer profit then our playing budget will be £3m more than would otherwise be the case (in which case the "transfer profits are available to the manager" quotes are strictly speaking correct.)

 

However, I suspect they are already budgeted in (the club generally have a pretty good idea which players will leave).  So fans think that "we had a playing budget and now we have sold Earnshaw for £3.5m so we should be able to spend another £3.5m extra on players" when in fact the playing budget has already assumed Earnshaw will leave for about that amount so a) the manager does have it in his budget to spend (as claimed) but b) in practice he has already spent it so it doesn''t give him anything extra to play with (as, you could say, implied).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me Mick you lack of objectivity is a cause of the problems we face as a club. As a whole, that includes you, the media of Norwich have created a layer of opaque-ness to the dealings in and around Carrow Road. Your "chumminess" with Delia, and the board of directors in the past has meant that extremely important questions have not been asked. Now I wouldn''t mind so much if you are not the journalist that asks questions of people but your ability to turn so ruthlessly on fellow Norwich fans and question then so hastly really rings alarm bells for me.

As an ambassador of the club in the national media you do great work in representing the club, however you have done not doine such great work in representing it''s fans. On seperate occasions you have described them as a "mob", fickle and simplistic. This is despite clear and perfectly visible mis-management at the club.

How do you feel about this article, your own, Mick? http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=4693&w=12&a=0&part=0

Here is an extract:

"I had a chat with Keith Harris recently. He is the chairman of stockbrokers Seymour Pierce, the man who has brokered most of the football club takeovers of recent years and the guy Norwich turned to for help when Andrew and Sharon Turner quit.

Harris never says never. So he''s still looking for someone to transform City''s finances. Still searching. But he has not found anyone vaguely interested.

Nobody."

Perhaps maybe some stern questioning of them (instead of the fans (particularly this message board), which seems the usual fare with you), like that seen at the Capital Canaries meeting monday, would have resulted in us knowing long before the position of Delia and Michael with regards to the potential sale of the club. However it fell to a fan to ask, and as I gather from reports, persist in asking to reveal a long shrowed truth. A truth which would have easily been resolved by some simple inquisitive journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry mr carra, but not too many genuine fans will be interested in semantics.

Last season we made a £3.4M profit on transfers and we got got relgated. It was painfully obvious that we needed a striker all year and looking down the gun barrels of relagation in January we did precisely what? Ah yes, we invested in Chris Killen and took a massive gamble which has probably cost us at least £5M in lost revnue.

Is anyone happy about being spun or being in League 1. Clearly not, but why so many posters feel the need to play ''devil''s advocate'' in putting forward the Board''s position is beyond me. The situation stinks and I hope that we are abel to escape this league at the first attempt, as the alternative starts to look like to big a challenge to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People saying they respect Mr Dennis for coming on here and defending his views is a bit silly when he''s run away as soon as the questions got vaguely difficult for him. Especially when his reason is "waaah people are being mean to me" - if one''s viewpoint is robust then the tone of one''s opponents shouldn''t matter, only the content of their arguments.

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...