Mick Dennis- Where is your objectivity

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]By buying and developing players cheap and then selling them on for

profit - Cody is a good start, there is no way that if/when he leaves

it will be for less than we paid for him.[/quote]No reason at all - in fact with this Troy fella signing up, there''s every chance that this kind of thins is now part of the policy.  But it is harder than it used to be, players get swallowed up by the Premiership behemoth squads now, and at stupidly young ages too.[/quote]... although no. 6, isn''t one of Mr Carrows'' key criticisms of the club that it relies upon profits on transfer fees too heavily ?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]By buying and developing players cheap and then selling them on for profit - Cody is a good start, there is no way that if/when he leaves it will be for less than we paid for him.[/quote]

No reason at all - in fact with this Troy fella signing up, there''s every chance that this kind of thins is now part of the policy.  But it is harder than it used to be, players get swallowed up by the Premiership behemoth squads now, and at stupidly young ages too.
[/quote]

... although no. 6, isn''t one of Mr Carrows'' key criticisms of the club that it relies upon profits on transfer fees too heavily ?
[/quote]

The thing is blah, i understand yours and Mick`s arguments but reading through all your posts i get the impression that very little of what i have posted over the years has sunk in- either that or you are on a wind-up.  So, to correct a few things:

a., I`ve never said that "no money should be spent off the pitch" and have always accepted that the Jarrold was necessary nor have i dissed the hotel deal.

b., I`ve been on a financial boycott of the club because of their admitted "obsession" with infrastructure which i rightly said would end in tears.  I do however know lots of season-ticket holders so i go to quite a few home games (eight last year i think), several away, and have a few beers in pubs around the ground  before and after virtually every home game whether i go or not.  So i am chatting with ordinary supporters whilst MD is enjoying his free meal with MWJ......I was at the Colchester game and will be at Brentford- how about you?  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how many games MD goes to to verify your "He goes to far more games than Mr C" assumption?

c., Flogging off players and always replacing them with cheaper ones generally leads to ever-diminishing returns and an ever-weakening team.  This has been done to death over the years and has been 100% proved yet you still seem to have a problem grasping it.

d., There is no organised cabal of anti-board supporters- the only other poster on here i know is Keith Roads and he hardly ever posts.  Has it ever occurred to you that the group of supporters who tend to post similar things on here may just be very concerned supporters who have spotted the same problems and are trying to get a discussion going with people like MD, who seem to want to sweep them under the carpet?  You admit that the policy hasn`t been a success, you admit that it has lead to less money being available for the team, yet to seem to have a big problem with some of us posting what we see as the reasons why?  Very strange.

You have repeated several times that these arguments go on for pages and people never change their minds, yet you cannot tell me WHY i should have changed my mind?  You seem to be in the slightly bizarre position of not being able to challenge my argument, accepting it`s been largely correct, yet having a big problem with me sticking to my guns?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Has it ever occurred to you that the group of supporters who tend to

post similar things on here may just be very concerned supporters who

have spotted the same problems and are trying to get a discussion going

with people like MD, who seem to want to sweep them under the carpet? 

You admit that the policy hasn`t been a success, you admit that it has

lead to less money being available for the team, yet to seem to have a

big problem with some of us posting what we see as the reasons why? 

Very strange.[/quote]I don''t have a problem with that at all.  This thread would have been a lot shorter, and would be on page 2 of the forum by now if you didn''t have someone to counter-argue, in case you hadn''t noticed Mr Dennis got bored of this about 2 days ago, and to be fair, who can blame him.  You actually let him off the hook, giving him an excuse to leave by questioning his support instead of keeping the discussion to the thing that you are so concerned about.  If you had kept to Marquis of Queensbury rules, you might have been able to persuade him of some of your points, but you had to put in a low blow.  As I have said previously, I was pointing out that while other businesses, mainly American ones I grant you, or indeed other clubs, such as Sheffield Wednesday, might have got litigious about this regular flogging of the dead horse that is NCFC finances by now, it is to our clubs'' credit that they allow such forensic analysis of their finances to take place in a public forum.  You obviously also missed the bit where I said that a lot of these concerns are tied up in Doomys'' legacy, and that I believe that McNally will go a long way to addressing your concerns.[quote]So i am chatting with ordinary supporters whilst MD is enjoying his

free meal with MWJ......I was at the Colchester game and will be at

Brentford- how about you?  Perhaps you could enlighten me as to how

many games MD goes to to verify your "He goes to far more games than Mr

C" assumption?[/quote]Well, he has been a Norwich City supporter for 34 years.  To be fair I don''t know how many games he goes to, he did say he was at Yeovil, and he was at Colchester.  But then I thought you didn''t go at all, lest you risk giving Delia some of your hard-earned.  Happy to be corrected, and I hope you''re enjoying the games.[quote]Flogging off players and always replacing them with cheaper ones

generally leads to ever-diminishing returns and an ever-weakening

team.  This has been done to death over the years and has been 100%

proved yet you still seem to have a problem grasping it.[/quote]Etuhu was cheap when he arrived, 500k fee ?  He left expensive, 1.5 million to Sunderland I believe.  Was he a better player when he left ?  How does this equate with your argument that more money should be spent on buying players that will accrue value during their stay here ?   This is something which incidentally is very difficult to do in post-Bosman times, unless you get very lucky with a Walcott (Southampton) / Delph (Leeds) kind of player, most of whom are hoovered up by Premiership teams while at school - I think this is why we''re looking at non-league youngsters that may have been missed like McDonald and this Troy fella.  This i consider to be a good thing, as you lose virtually nothing in trying it.[quote]You have repeated several times that these arguments go on for pages

and people never change their minds, yet you cannot tell me WHY i

should have changed my mind?  You seem to be in the slightly bizarre

position of not being able to challenge my argument, accepting it`s

been largely correct, yet having a big problem with me sticking to my

guns?[/quote]No problem with you sticking to your guns, (did you just straw man me ? [:)] )  no.6 calls it an argument to moderation, but that doesn''t mean that the ways in which we want to see the club move forward are mutually exclusive.  We''re basically arguing from two ends of a bell curve of possible actions and results - I think that there is a place for successful businesses to run alongside the football and provide profits to put back into the club, in agreeing that the hotel is a good idea, you''re agreeing in principle with that.  We both agree that the Jarrold Stand was neccesary, if too expensive.  We both agree that unsuccessful businesses have no value to the club, that''s obvious.  If the businesses we have in place aren''t doing so well, I think we can look to McNally to trim them and make them work over time.  I think the main disagreement between us is the trade off between short and long term financial goals, I would be more willing to take a loan to try to grow company turnover / cash flow / profits than you,  you would prefer to have the money invested in players, the problem being there that you can''t get credit to buy players, you have to rely on cash flow.As a matter of interest, how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Blah, you are trying to argue that black is white and i`ve got better things to do than to go along with your wind-up.  I am happy to debate any point MD wishes to but he doesn`t seem to want to debate the points i raise- what does that tell you?  And for someone who called concerned City fans "ingrates" and described protesting fans in the national media as a blood-thirst lychmob, he seems a tad over-sensitive if he cannot handle the logic that if he offers unconditional support to owners who have made a pigs ear of things, he is putting their wellbeing over that of the club, don`t you think?  He took an easy cop-out, end of.  What`s the betting that his next article will deride "self-appointed experts" on internet forums, giving his ego a nice boost knowing that far more people will read whatever baseless tripe he chooses to write than will ever read considered, factual stuff on here?

I guess if i was posting falsehoods the club would get litigious, but i`m not- although you wouldn`t know either way would you?

Season-ticket holders go on holiday blah, it isn`t that hard to work out is it?  Do you go to games?

If you sell players and always replace them with cheaper ones you generally get stuck in a spiral of ever-diminishing returns and an ever-weakening team- particularly in the modern climate.  You know that as well as i do and an example of one player does nothing to change that.

The irony of the hotel is that whilst we got a tidy £1.1m downpayment for the land it stands on, that money went directly to......non-critical fixed assets in the shape of the corner infill.  When we eventually sell the land the money will almost certainly go to paying off loans for......non-critical fixed assets.  Can you see the problem there?

I welcome the new appointments and particularly want to hear more from Mr.Bowkett, but what we are discussing on here is what was said at the capital supporters meeting and most of that sounds like the same old misleading spin (MWJ: "No-one wants to buy football clubs".  Is this true blah?) and denial, therefore i find it worrying.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket

sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And

how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]

Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.
[/quote]

Don''t want to get in the way but that question is far too hyperthetical.

IF they had not got rid of our best players then we would not have had to spend over the top on loans.

How much in agents fees was lost because we did not have many players left worth keeping.

Are you counting the residue of money from sales of players from previous years.

Is the payoff of two bad managers included.

Over the top wages left from those managers bad decisions.

Oh and how long was that peice of string?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.[/quote]

Don''t want to get in the way but that question is far too hyperthetical.

IF they had not got rid of our best players then we would not have had to spend over the top on loans.

How much in agents fees was lost because we did not have many players left worth keeping.

Are you counting the residue of money from sales of players from previous years.

Is the payoff of two bad managers included.

Over the top wages left from those managers bad decisions.

Oh and how long was that peice of string?

[/quote]Now that''s interesting Butler, because if I recall correctly, Mr C usually puts our ills down to overspending on infrastructure, and yet here you have been able to name a number of cases of poor investment on the playing side.  It''s all been a frightful mess really, hasn''t it [:)]

[The Butler 0]

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

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]

Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.
[/quote]

Don''t want to get in the way but that question is far too hyperthetical.

IF they had not got rid of our best players then we would not have had to spend over the top on loans.

How much in agents fees was lost because we did not have many players left worth keeping.

Are you counting the residue of money from sales of players from previous years.

Is the payoff of two bad managers included.

Over the top wages left from those managers bad decisions.

Oh and how long was that peice of string?

[/quote]

Now that''s interesting Butler, because if I recall correctly, Mr C usually puts our ills down to overspending on infrastructure, and yet here you have been able to name a number of cases of poor investment on the playing side.  It''s all been a frightful mess really, hasn''t it [:)]
[/quote]

I keep away from the fixed assets argument as there are enough qualified accountants on here to deal with that. Yes I do agree that some mistakes in trying to follow a builders example(who made money from land) when no one on the board had a clue how.

That seems to have had an influence on funds available for players and hence the continued decline in quality and value.

Our ills are usually traceable to poor decisions by "the board" (that usually implies the major shareholders)

So if those decisions lead to a lack of funds that they have to find then that''s the way the cookie crumbles.

I think the expression is pay up or get out!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

So if those decisions lead to a lack of funds that they have to find then that''s the way the cookie crumbles.

I think the expression is pay up or get out[/quote]Mr Dennis would probably argue that they do pay up, and that in doing so, they are no different than any other championship or league 1 chairpeople.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]

So if those decisions lead to a lack of funds that they have to find then that''s the way the cookie crumbles.

I think the expression is pay up or get out[/quote]

Mr Dennis would probably argue that they do pay up, and that in doing so, they are no different than any other championship or league 1 chairpeople.
[/quote]

I think this is where we came in!

He says they pay because they are fans and out of the goodness of thier hearts and we are all an ungratefull rabble.

I say they pay because they have trebled our debt, made numerous bad decisions and now, if they ever want any money back (yes they do)must keep it all going and pray oh and he''s biased.

Same result different perspective.

Who''s right,each of us decides.[:D]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]

Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.
[/quote]

Blah, in `08 ticket and tv income alone was £10m.  The player wages were £6.8m largely subsidised by £3.5m transfer profit.  Ticket and tv income easily covered player wages even when we had £7m parachute payments.  Why do i have to keep repeating these things?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]how much income would an NCFC that only had TV money, season ticket sales, and shirt sales, and other Saturday only ventures make ?  And how much of that would be left to spend on the team ?[/quote]Well - it you consider everything else I say to be a wind-up, at least attempt to answer the question above.  Base it on championship figures, and I bet you that the total would be less than the playing budget for last season.[/quote]

Blah, in `08 ticket and tv income alone was £10m.  The player wages were £6.8m largely subsidised by £3.5m transfer profit.  Ticket and tv income easily covered player wages even when we had £7m parachute payments.  Why do i have to keep repeating these things?

[/quote]Ok, but even with the 10 million income you still need to pay for policing, stewarding, people to serve Bovril and pies.  You still need people in the ticket office (although I''ll grant you that you probably don''t need a refurbished ticket office).  And you would still have a pretty big debt repayment for the building of the Jarrold Stand to come out of that 10 million.  So if NCFC was a match-day only business, I don''t think it would be any better off, probably about the same I''d guess.

[mr carra 0]

what is the point of just looking at players wages?  No club could just have players wages as an expense - all clubs also need coaching staff, medical staff, administrators, a training ground, a stadium to play etc. etc.

 

The income from gate money and TV needs to pay for all those things too.

 

So saying TV and gate receipts are sufficient to cover players wages doesn''t mean anything.  The players wages you can afford are those you can afford after paying for all the other things you actually need to have an operating football club - and our TV and gate receipts are not sufficient to cover our playing budget when you take that into account.  The statement that TV and gate receipts do not cover our wages is therefore actually correct (unless you think we live in some fantasy world where football clubs do not need a ground, training facilities, coaching staff, etc. etc.)

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Blah, Preston have to pay for all of the above yet can afford £5m out of income of only £8.5m.  That is NOT including their investment which allows them to spend more than £5m (ie. take a loss).

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="mr carra"]

what is the point of just looking at players wages?  No club could just have players wages as an expense - all clubs also need coaching staff, medical staff, administrators, a training ground, a stadium to play etc. etc.

 

The income from gate money and TV needs to pay for all those things too.

 

So saying TV and gate receipts are sufficient to cover players wages doesn''t mean anything.  The players wages you can afford are those you can afford after paying for all the other things you actually need to have an operating football club - and our TV and gate receipts are not sufficient to cover our playing budget when you take that into account.  The statement that TV and gate receipts do not cover our wages is therefore actually correct (unless you think we live in some fantasy world where football clubs do not need a ground, training facilities, coaching staff, etc. etc.)

[/quote]

Which is why it`s an interesting exercise to compare us to other clubs who have all those obligations too.  Preston had 20 non-football staff in `08, we had 134.  We used to be told we needed 16k crowds to break even- what`s changed?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="mr carra"]

what is the point of just looking at players wages?  No club could just have players wages as an expense - all clubs also need coaching staff, medical staff, administrators, a training ground, a stadium to play etc. etc.

 

The income from gate money and TV needs to pay for all those things too.

 

So saying TV and gate receipts are sufficient to cover players wages doesn''t mean anything.  The players wages you can afford are those you can afford after paying for all the other things you actually need to have an operating football club - and our TV and gate receipts are not sufficient to cover our playing budget when you take that into account.  The statement that TV and gate receipts do not cover our wages is therefore actually correct (unless you think we live in some fantasy world where football clubs do not need a ground, training facilities, coaching staff, etc. etc.)

[/quote]

Which is why it`s an interesting exercise to compare us to other clubs who have all those obligations too.  Preston had 20 non-football staff in `08, we had 134.  We used to be told we needed 16k crowds to break even- what`s changed?

[/quote]In your opinion, how much is non-football taking from football ?  Can you quantify the scale of the loss ?

[mr carra 0]

Since you seem so obsessed with Preston I though I''d look up their figures on the internet.

http://www.nwcpnefc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3558&p=5849

Here is their Chairman''s Statement on the interim 6 months results to 31 December 2008:

"The operating and financial climate has been particularly challenging in the first six months of the current financial year. Whilst turnover was 5% lower than the same six month period in 2007, wages have increased by 26%. This reflects both wages of new players added to the squad at the start of this season and also contractual rises for players who were already in the squad.

This has inevitably contributed to an increased operating loss of £3.14m, £1.35m higher than the loss generated in the six months to December 2007.

In addition to the operating losses, we made cash payments of £1.4m to other clubs for players purchased both in the current and previous financial periods.

The resulting cash requirement has continued to far outweigh the income generated by the Group with the consequence that the Club has required significant further amounts of external finance from its major shareholders. The Board remain extremely grateful for this support which has also extended into the second half of the financial year."

So they made a 6 month operating loss of over £3m! -  I believe far worse than ours for a similar period - and basically survive by being bailed out by the shareholders.  So basically they don''t come anywhere near being able to afford their playing budget.

 

So can you please stop going on about them now.  You''ve been rumbled!

 

[mr carra 0]

Oh, and their accounts also include this paragraph

"Whilst the directors believe the going concern basis is appropriate, the fact that the company does not currently have facilities in place to fund all of its projected cash requirements over the next twelve months may cast significant doubt on the group and company''s ability to continue as a going concern. The company may therefore be unable to continue realising its assets and discharging its liabilities in the normal course of business but the financial statements do not include any adjustments that would result from the basis of preparation being inappropriate."

 

In short, they are (like virtually all football clubs, including - shock! horror! incompetence! - us) a financial basket case.

:

[Mr.Carrow 376]

As i`ve said blah, non-player wage costs jumped on promotion to the Prem and have stayed pretty much the same ever since (£17m plus) despite turnover falling considerably.  Trying to quantify why is a nightmare, but it does explain why i get so annoyed when i hear the old "we spend too much on player wages" chestnut.  A fair bit would be the increased debt (of which all bar the Jarrold i regard as non-essential) and a fair bit would be capital expenditure on fixed assets such as the £1m in `08 to update Yellows and buy new gym equipment for Colney- £1m which could have bought a decent striker who could have kept us up last season perhaps......

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="mr carra"]

Since you seem so obsessed with Preston I though I''d look up their figures on the internet.

http://www.nwcpnefc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3558&p=5849

Here is their Chairman''s Statement on the interim 6 months results to 31 December 2008:

"The operating and financial climate has been particularly challenging in the first six months of the current financial year. Whilst turnover was 5% lower than the same six month period in 2007, wages have increased by 26%. This reflects both wages of new players added to the squad at the start of this season and also contractual rises for players who were already in the squad.

This has inevitably contributed to an increased operating loss of £3.14m, £1.35m higher than the loss generated in the six months to December 2007.

In addition to the operating losses, we made cash payments of £1.4m to other clubs for players purchased both in the current and previous financial periods.

The resulting cash requirement has continued to far outweigh the income generated by the Group with the consequence that the Club has required significant further amounts of external finance from its major shareholders. The Board remain extremely grateful for this support which has also extended into the second half of the financial year."

So they made a 6 month operating loss of over £3m! -  I believe far worse than ours for a similar period - and basically survive by being bailed out by the shareholders.  So basically they don''t come anywhere near being able to afford their playing budget.

 

So can you please stop going on about them now.  You''ve been rumbled!

 

[/quote]

This has all been done to death on the very long Preston thread.  Feel free to read through it.  Where have i said they don`t make a loss?  What i have said is that out of ordinary income they could afford £5m but they actually spent alot more than that.  Now off to work.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]and a fair bit would be capital expenditure on fixed assets such as the

£1m in `08 to update Yellows and buy new gym equipment for Colney- £1m

which could have bought a decent striker who could have kept us up last

season perhaps.....[/quote]But there was a press release at the time that said that Yellows was paid for out of loans from D & M.  Ideally a striker could have been bought from some of that money, but I guess they saw a dwindling asset that needed improvement at that time.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]and a fair bit would be capital expenditure on fixed assets such as the £1m in `08 to update Yellows and buy new gym equipment for Colney- £1m which could have bought a decent striker who could have kept us up last season perhaps.....[/quote]

But there was a press release at the time that said that Yellows was paid for out of loans from D & M.  Ideally a striker could have been bought from some of that money, but I guess they saw a dwindling asset that needed improvement at that time.
[/quote]

Add the latest cockup to my list.

Another £xxxxx wasted by our devious duo.

By the way they could not pay for assets without showing it in the books.

Shares/loans whatever. OR they own the catering?

[Mello Yello 2,278]

[quote user="mr carra"]

Since you seem so obsessed with Preston I though I''d look up their figures on the internet.

http://www.nwcpnefc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3558&p=5849

Here is their Chairman''s Statement on the interim 6 months results to 31 December 2008:

"The operating and financial climate has been particularly challenging in the first six months of the current financial year. Whilst turnover was 5% lower than the same six month period in 2007, wages have increased by 26%. This reflects both wages of new players added to the squad at the start of this season and also contractual rises for players who were already in the squad.

This has inevitably contributed to an increased operating loss of £3.14m, £1.35m higher than the loss generated in the six months to December 2007.

In addition to the operating losses, we made cash payments of £1.4m to other clubs for players purchased both in the current and previous financial periods.

The resulting cash requirement has continued to far outweigh the income generated by the Group with the consequence that the Club has required significant further amounts of external finance from its major shareholders. The Board remain extremely grateful for this support which has also extended into the second half of the financial year."

So they made a 6 month operating loss of over £3m! -  I believe far worse than ours for a similar period - and basically survive by being bailed out by the shareholders.  So basically they don''t come anywhere near being able to afford their playing budget.

 

So can you please stop going on about them now.  You''ve been rumbled!

 [/quote]

I think you''ve been rumbled....Mr Carrow is too close to the truth and you find him ''awkward and uncomfortable''....

[blahblahblah 2]

Who cares about this crap anyway Mello, Bryan Gunns'' been sacked !

[Mello Yello 2,278]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Who cares about this crap anyway Mello, Bryan Gunns'' been sacked !
[/quote]

I don''t believe it''s crap at all.....I believe it''s got a lot to do with why and where we are - at this moment in time.

And until the ''Stowmarket Two'' are also put out to grass.....[:|]