1996 - ?.. Is it all down to the Wicked Cook?

[Dicky 0]

Good post Nutty. There will always be some on here though that will put all of the blame on Delia - mainly because they are too thick or too lazy to look at all of the factors that have contributed.

[gazzathegreat 0]

Nutty - firstly if you are at the reserve game tonight I can bore you senseless for 90 mins with some (not very) lively debate! But in brief -

Firstly, it remains (unless we are related to Mr Chase) an urban myth as to exactly what made him go. Was it the pressure of a long standing anti Chase campaign, did he really face up to the realities of running a football club and realise he could no longer do it ( as you ask?) or was it simply the demands of family/business associates?

Bosman - some of those we sold for large amounts were our own products, so if you deduct ‘running costs’ we made large profits on all of them. Yes, Chase was very good at selling big and buying cheaper replacements, something we don’t appear to have learnt from, given the obvious decline in standards on the field (and the benefits to the current board of hindsight) we have carrried on with that mantra with the resulting decline in our league position.

Fans protested because their heroes were sold. Damn right, and add to that the greatest sin of all, allowing a very capable and potentially great manager leave (Mr O’Neill), in no small part due to a few untruths about the size of the kitty on his appointment.

Did we get over it, depends on who you are thinking about. Don’t think I will ever forgive Mr Chase spending/concentrating on concrete rather than players, for not backing Mike Walker after Milan and for the above re Martin O’Neill. Yes, we had great times under Chase, but (as the current set up) at crucial times we didn’t move forward, we were not brave, we were myopic. Like you with Mr W, I have never, nor am I likely to, get over the loss of Martin O’Neill. Again, all this is personal and ‘benchmarking’ if you want.

Things change, yes right Nutty, the trick is to change also and to embrace change for the better. We stood still, at crucial times, most poignantly on reaching the Premiership, the board didn’t seek investment. It seems only realtively recently have we finally learnt our lesson, but look at the way we have had to do so and the consequences of many years of ill judged policies (from both regimes).

The academy, yes sure it’s difficult having half your catchment area full of cod and haddock, but there are ways around every rule. I am sure if we had been more successful we could have attracted youngsters of greater talent, and then there are the more mundane issues such as coaching standards. Have they got better or worse over the past 20 or so years?

Chase largely balanced the books buying and sellling players, as you say, the traditional methods, but again, once we hit the top of the league he sold. Didn’t invest in the team (which could have gone on to even greater things). Now of course we have restaurants and conventions, matchday packages.......and an increasingly large amount of “non playing staff” to facilitate all of this. What benefits does it all bring to the club? We have increased our debt from approx 6m to 20million. Our crowds are higher than in our succesful times. Are we just running a bigger company but forgetting what we are supposed to be?

Since Chase’s day we have increased the crowd, season ticket base etc. Still not enough to balance the books, we have made some disastrous mistakes, consolidating debts and not repaying them (and don’t forget the infamous land behind the South Stand) while forgetting we are a football club first and foremost. Strikingly, like Chase there seems to be on accountability (at least pre McNally) with Doncaster being the biggest culprit of all. Just how many years and millions were wasted as that board blundered from season to season, the mere fact a major shareholding duo keeping them all immune lasted until our last relegation when there were some inevitable sacrifices alongside some ill judged managerial appointments.

Was the releagation at Charlton, or drop from grace to a position of over 50 years ago the first touch wirh reality they had faced. No, they didn’t apologise enough, because they thought they never had to. Years of underfunding the squad, a series (not just one or two) mangerial appointments ending in disaster, all the time relying on 20,000 die hard fans turning up to bankroll it all. And in all this time, the scapegoats have been the managers, sacked, walking, over and over, but the real ‘culprits’, they stay exactly were they are. We can’t touch them.

I don’t call you a Delia lover/apologist/anything. You are a fan, we are all fans. Trouble is Nutty, has NCFC been run for the fans over the past years or simply as an extension of the main player’s ego - Chase or Delia, you take your pick.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty - firstly if you are at the reserve game tonight I can bore you senseless for 90 mins with some (not very) lively debate! But in brief - Firstly, it remains (unless we are related to Mr Chase) an urban myth as to exactly what made him go. Was it the pressure of a long standing anti Chase campaign, did he really face up to the realities of running a football club and realise he could no longer do it ( as you ask?) or was it simply the demands of family/business associates? Bosman - some of those we sold for large amounts were our own products, so if you deduct ‘running costs’ we made large profits on all of them. Yes, Chase was very good at selling big and buying cheaper replacements, something we don’t appear to have learnt from, given the obvious decline in standards on the field (and the benefits to the current board of hindsight) we have carrried on with that mantra with the resulting decline in our league position. Fans protested because their heroes were sold. Damn right, and add to that the greatest sin of all, allowing a very capable and potentially great manager leave (Mr O’Neill), in no small part due to a few untruths about the size of the kitty on his appointment. Did we get over it, depends on who you are thinking about. Don’t think I will ever forgive Mr Chase spending/concentrating on concrete rather than players, for not backing Mike Walker after Milan and for the above re Martin O’Neill. Yes, we had great times under Chase, but (as the current set up) at crucial times we didn’t move forward, we were not brave, we were myopic. Like you with Mr W, I have never, nor am I likely to, get over the loss of Martin O’Neill. Again, all this is personal and ‘benchmarking’ if you want. Things change, yes right Nutty, the trick is to change also and to embrace change for the better. We stood still, at crucial times, most poignantly on reaching the Premiership, the board didn’t seek investment. It seems only realtively recently have we finally learnt our lesson, but look at the way we have had to do so and the consequences of many years of ill judged policies (from both regimes). The academy, yes sure it’s difficult having half your catchment area full of cod and haddock, but there are ways around every rule. I am sure if we had been more successful we could have attracted youngsters of greater talent, and then there are the more mundane issues such as coaching standards. Have they got better or worse over the past 20 or so years? Chase largely balanced the books buying and sellling players, as you say, the traditional methods, but again, once we hit the top of the league he sold. Didn’t invest in the team (which could have gone on to even greater things). Now of course we have restaurants and conventions, matchday packages.......and an increasingly large amount of “non playing staff” to facilitate all of this. What benefits does it all bring to the club? We have increased our debt from approx 6m to 20million. Our crowds are higher than in our succesful times. Are we just running a bigger company but forgetting what we are supposed to be? Since Chase’s day we have increased the crowd, season ticket base etc. Still not enough to balance the books, we have made some disastrous mistakes, consolidating debts and not repaying them (and don’t forget the infamous land behind the South Stand) while forgetting we are a football club first and foremost. Strikingly, like Chase there seems to be on accountability (at least pre McNally) with Doncaster being the biggest culprit of all. Just how many years and millions were wasted as that board blundered from season to season, the mere fact a major shareholding duo keeping them all immune lasted until our last relegation when there were some inevitable sacrifices alongside some ill judged managerial appointments. Was the releagation at Charlton, or drop from grace to a position of over 50 years ago the first touch wirh reality they had faced. No, they didn’t apologise enough, because they thought they never had to. Years of underfunding the squad, a series (not just one or two) mangerial appointments ending in disaster, all the time relying on 20,000 die hard fans turning up to bankroll it all. And in all this time, the scapegoats have been the managers, sacked, walking, over and over, but the real ‘culprits’, they stay exactly were they are. We can’t touch them. I don’t call you a Delia lover/apologist/anything. You are a fan, we are all fans. Trouble is Nutty, has NCFC been run for the fans over the past years or simply as an extension of the main player’s ego - Chase or Delia, you take your pick.[/quote]

Good job you didn''t mention those other smaller clubs who have found a way to succeed in the post-1996 reality, and contrast the failureof the NCFC owners to create and apply an equally successful strategy. You''d have been ruled irrelevant by the OP.

I didn''t know that you were conflicted about the reasons underlying the departure of Robert Chase. Unless I am wrong I seem to remember your expresssed pride at being a heroic and active part of the protests which you claimed drove Chase from office and out of the club - with the highlight being the brave confrontaion with those terrible mounted police with their pawing hooves. But, if that was a different Gazza then my sincere apologies in advance.

OTBC

 

[O.T.B.C 0]

Any one in the financial world know what 6 million in 1995 is now worth, not the debt we have but what is the equivalent value.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]Any one in the financial world know what 6 million in 1995 is now worth, not the debt we have but what is the equivalent value.[/quote]

6 million in ''95'' would probably get you an extension on an established football stand, a restaurant with a state of the art cooking range....

With sufficient money to spare - to buy quality crockery, cutlery and delightful decor...and employ quality foody type chefs''.....or, something like that.

[O.T.B.C 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]Any one in the financial world know what 6 million in 1995 is now worth, not the debt we have but what is the equivalent value.[/quote]

6 million in ''95'' would probably get you an extension on an established football stand, a restaurant with a state of the art cooking range....

With sufficient money to spare - to buy quality crockery, cutlery and delightful decor...and employ quality foody type chefs''.....or, something like that.

[/quote]

Oooooooooooook.

[William Darby 0]

£6m in 95 would have bought you Andy Cole.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"]Any one in the financial world know what 6 million in 1995 is now worth, not the debt we have but what is the equivalent value.[/quote]Well if you add up the inflation rates from January 1995 - Jan 2009, knock 1 % off for this years deflation, you get 39 %.  But that doesn''t include the cumulative effect of year on year rates, where 1 pound in 95 becomes worth 1 pound 3 p in 96, and so on.  As a rough fag-packet guess, I''d say that 1 pound in 1995 would be worth about 1 pound 50 now, which would make the 6 million worth 9 million.  And then of course, we had to build a stand too.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

So NN i take it we must be the only team to be effected by such rules and changes? Do these rules not apply to the likes of Blackpool, Stoke, Plymouth.................?[:|]

[nutty nigel 7,534]

 

Sorry Gazza, I would loved to have been at the reserve game but had to work. But when I''m unemployed, unemployable or retired I''ll get to every one. There were less than 1000 people there for the last one I went to and I find that incredible. I can understand the country boys not travelling but for us city boys who have ST''s it''s good value as it''s free. And you can usually meet up with other fans for a chat if the football isn''t captivating! Maybe we can meet up next time I can go.

 

Robert Chase - Well my comments were tongue in cheek. The changes re Bosman and schoolboy travelling time weren''t really known when he went. If I remember rightly we thought we''d be exempt in this country when Bosman first came up. We thought it would only apply to players moving across Europe. And the FA''s travelling time rules didn''t come in until 1998 anyway.

 

I was going to answer your points one by one but time won''t allow it. Like always you make sense and it''s a pleasure to debate with you but I just feel that you like many others who have responded aren''t making any comment about the point I am trying to make. We go over the same old ground daily on here and I tried looking at things from a different angle. While I agree that we are concerned with our club and not others we can''t ignore the others can we? I was moved to make this post, to start a discussion (which, like you, is something I rarely do) because some posters continually benchmark periods in our past as a stick to beat the present with. The date usually used as a watershed is 1996 and the blame is usually put firmly put at Delia''s door.

 

But I took a step back to say what else happened at that time? Because the mid-nineties was also when a lot of other things changed throughout the game, not just at our club. So I had a little look and two big changes that would have certainly affected our club were Bosman and the FA''s 90 minute travelling time for schoolboys rule.

 

But while I had a little look I noticed something else which I commented on in the OP. In the 80''s and early 90''s (pre Bosman or pre Smith whichever floats your boat) 25 different clubs finished in the top six of the top tier. I''ll list them: Liverpool(15) Man.Utd(12) Arsenal(11) Forest(6) Spurs(6) Everton(5) Villa(4) Leeds(4) Blackburn(3) Chelsea(3) Ipswich(3) Norwich(3) QPR(3) Southampton(3) Man.City(2) Newcastle(2) Sheffield Wed(2) Wimbledon(2) Derby(1) Palace(1) Swansea(1) Watford (1) West Brom(1) West Ham (1).

 

Of that list I would say that Forest, Leeds, Ipswich, QPR, Southampton, Sheffield Wednesday, Palace, West Brom and Derby are our contemporaries. Since being relegated from the Premier League these 9 clubs have managed to return for 13 seasons between them. They have spent a combined total of 74 seasons in the 2nd tier and have spent a combined total of 12 in the 3rd. This mirrors pretty much exactly what we have done. Now these clubs haven''t been owned by Smith&Jones so I think it fair to look for other reasons for their failure even if we blame Smith&Jones for ours.

 

Gazza, in my book it''s too easy to find a scapegoat and then fit all the blame around their actions. This was done to death with Worthy. At least humour me for a while and help me find out why these contemporaries of ours from those glorious benchmarking years seem to have found exactly the same pitfalls as us.

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Dicky"]Good post Nutty. There will always be some on here though that will put all of the blame on Delia - mainly because they are too thick or too lazy to look at all of the factors that have contributed.[/quote]

And all those other clubs? Are the likes of the mighty Burnley or Stoke, or even those Galaticos at Blackpool, does the Bosman and the likes of what Nutty uses as excuses not apply?

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Sir Arthur Whittle"]So NN i take it we must be the only team to be effected by such rules and changes? Do these rules not apply to the likes of Blackpool, Stoke, Plymouth.................?[:|][/quote]

Of course they do. Maybe if we find out why our contemporaries from those glorious benchmarking years fare no better than us we may find out why these other clubs do. I''m not saying it''s not relevant, I''m just saying that those clubs who were regularly in the top six with us back then are well below their glorious benchmark too.

Are you suggesting that Blackpool, Stoke and Plymouth are doing OK because they haven''t got Delia Smith[:^)]

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Sir Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Dicky"]Good post Nutty. There will always be some on here though that will put all of the blame on Delia - mainly because they are too thick or too lazy to look at all of the factors that have contributed.[/quote]

And all those other clubs? Are the likes of the mighty Burnley or Stoke, or even those Galaticos at Blackpool, does the Bosman and the likes of what Nutty uses as excuses not apply?

[/quote]A lot of the clubs that have moved up the ladder have put a lot of money into the team to get into the Premiership - the rationale being that they will recoup the money when they get there.  Quite often they find, as Portsmouth just have, as a team with small attendances, that they need to pour even more money into the bottomless pit than they are given by Sky once they get there, just to maintain their status.  Eventually all Premier league teams will have to be owned by sugar daddies, the most recent addition of Sheiks considered to be among the richest men in the world to the mad circus of club ownership being the cherry on a vastly overloaded cake.Football isn''t an economy any more - it''s a glorified rich mans'' slave auction.

[William Darby 0]

The answer to it all without getting bogged down with, ''Chase did this in the 80s/early 90s''. Bosmans this Bosmans that.  Other clubs this other clubs that.  ''Delia did this or that''.  Or even getting stat books out to labour points. Delia is not responsible for the way football has turned into a massive commercial enterprise.  She can''t be held responsible for not having a magic wand and ''magicing''  £30m into City''s coffers.  She can''t be held responsible for rule/law changes in football. Chase bailed out when he saw what was coming, he made his cash and passed his shares on to Mr Watling.Delia imo is guilty of not admitting she''s come to the point where she can''t take the club further.  She appears to have too many ''strings attached'' to investment/possible sale. So the answer to the question, it is not all down to the wicked cook, but it is her fault we limp on.  Yes but the old question will be asked, ''she needs to sell to somebody''.  Yes she does, she needs to lesson the amount of strings, and maybe she''ll get more phone calls.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Yes she does, she needs to lesson the amount of strings, and maybe she''ll get more phone calls.[/quote]Thoroughly agree with this, but I feel it''s unlikely when she refers to the club as the child she never had.  The problem is that all the other boys and girls grew up, and this kid is still in short trousers.

[nutty nigel 7,534]

[quote user="Slow The Bgger Down"]
So the answer to the question, it is not all down to the wicked cook, but it is her fault we limp on.  Yes but the old question will be asked, ''she needs to sell to somebody''.  Yes she does, she needs to lesson the amount of strings, and maybe she''ll get more phone calls.
[/quote]

But we''ve been getting bogged down with this point for months. You could be right but we don''t really know the amount of purse strings there are. It''s my opinion that you may be surprised. But let''s forget about it just for a while. Let''s see if we can, between us, shed any light on why those contemporaries of ours, from those glorious benchmarking days of the 80''s and early 90''s, have really fared no better than us.

 

[First Wazzock 902]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="1st Wazzock"]

Very good post.

I am sure there are still those who will twist it round to suit their own agenda though.

[/quote]

Actually Wazzy it''s twisted already.

Somebody will have to sort it out.

Wish I had the time, but needs must.......

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Trouble is Bly, you are instantly going to disagree with Nutty no matter what he puts. If he has some elements of truth in what he says it is still not going to be enough for you. Perhaps you should try taking the blinkers off once in  a while and realise that sometimes other people do have valid points to make. They are not going to be right all the while, but then again nor are you.

The world and his wife are watching me type this, so I better do my other tasks for today...needs must and all that. [8-)]

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Slow The Bgger Down"]

Delia imo is guilty of not admitting she''s come to the point where she can''t take the club further.  She appears to have too many ''strings attached'' to investment/possible sale. So the answer to the question, it is not all down to the wicked cook, but it is her fault we limp on.  Yes but the old question will be asked, ''she needs to sell to somebody''.  Yes she does, she needs to lesson the amount of strings, and maybe she''ll get more phone calls.[/quote]Another in the long line of posts that says Smith and Jones are attaching too many strings to a possible investment and/or sale, and then doesn''t actually list any of these supposed strings.As a sad obsessive who has made a teeny bit of a study of this subject, I can say I know of only one string upon which Smith and Jones insist, and that is that any would-be buyer must promise to fund the club far into the future.As a shareholder I would be up in arms if they DIDN''T insist on such a string. And I know of no others. If there are posters out there who do know of other strings, please list them. Again, as a shareholder, I have a vested interest in knowing what they might be.

[T 190]

Excellent post from NN - no-one is saying the owners have not made mistakes by any means, in particular the failed managerial appointments, but the vitriol comes from those who completely ignore the wider developments in football such as those pointed out by NN as well as the impact of sky and wealthy benefactors, and who clearly don''t have the most basic grasp of financial reality.

I do suspect a string attached is that they would like to get their money back which is not unreasonable when you look at the net assets of the club and what other clubs are sold for. Furthermore, until a critic pledges half their wealth to the club then it is pure hypocriscy to ask the owners to give their shares away for free.

[B-ru 0]

NN- Thank you for openiing such a lively debate on this issue, and although I was a young lad in 1996, tehre are a few things that stuck in my mind. I am fully aware of all of the points put on this thread, and some other issues that have been put to one side in the past have been thrown back into the ring...eg Bosman

I would like to add my two pence to this though.

Firstly, I have a very reliable source that was very high up in the club at this time, and although he is not involved any more, he does still get to rub shoulders in the director''s box. He is a very shreud man in all parts of his life and has a graet career away from the football club.

Anyway, just want to pass on some facts/opinions that he ahs shared with me over time.

When Delia arrived at the doors, she was quite open in letting the board know that her vision for the club was to put create other, non-football assets ie Restaurants, bars, comedy clubs etc. and as we all know this is what has happened. There are not many Premiership clubs let alone the Chaionship that can say they have a Comedy Club!! Incidentally, we now have "The Club Shop", The Mall Club Shop and Match Day Shop at the back of the Jarrold stand.

I digress... There were plenty of grumblings from board members that were present during the cross over from Chase to Smith and they made their feelings known. They wanted to concentrate on being a football club, not a business. And while I understand the books have to balance, they wanted to spend money on the squad, not the "assets", recognising that the Premier League was were the money was at.

Delia took no notice and forth with put her plan into action. Smith and MWJ knew what they wanted to do and were going to do it anyway. I am sure most people will agree that are facilities are of a high standard, but what is the point in having them if we are in League 1?!!! People don''t support a team to see a Holiday Inn next to some flat grass on a Saturday. While I realise that Doncaster may have to pick some blame up off of his door step.

I am not saying that this is the only reason why our club is where it is, but it was being run by people that don''t understand how to run a football club. I am merely adding fact and circumstance to the picture being painted.

McNally has been there, and done it, and is stripping down the guff that is in and around Carrow Road and trying to rescue our club whether Delia likes it or not. He has shown to be shrewd, have his goals clearly set out in his mind and with the appointment of a manager comes the war cry. (Come one... Gunn wasn''t really a manager was he?)

Lastly, I want to illustrate why I feel Delia doesn''t know how to run a football club. When Worthy left, the board were all set to sign Steve BRuce up for the Manager''s post. MWJ and Delia took him out for a meal afterwards, but no documetns had been signed. They asked Bruce what he would do first with the squad, to which he replied that he would take them out for a drink and get to know them on a personal level and find out who are the potential trouble makers. Which to me seemed like a reasonable thing to do, get to know them in a relaxed scenario, getting to know his squad. The club announced the next day that Peter Grant was the new manager... So not only did they show that they didn''t have a clue taht this would be a good team building exercise, with some purpose, but went against the rest of the boards decision from the night before. Just look at what Steve Bruce is doing now, and where Norwich are...

[T 190]

.....as if to demonstrate my point......without the off-field activities which all football clubs engage in we would have even less money available for football as the amount fans pay for tickets does not generate anyway enough to fund the football

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="T"]

Excellent post from NN - no-one is saying the owners have not made mistakes by any means, in particular the failed managerial appointments, but the vitriol comes from those who completely ignore the wider developments in football such as those pointed out by NN as well as the impact of sky and wealthy benefactors, and who clearly don''t have the most basic grasp of financial reality.

I do suspect a string attached is that they would like to get their money back which is not unreasonable when you look at the net assets of the club and what other clubs are sold for. Furthermore, until a critic pledges half their wealth to the club then it is pure hypocriscy to ask the owners to give their shares away for free.

[/quote]T, I hesitate to take issue with you, because I agree entirely with your first paragraph. However, as far as your suspicion of a "money back" string is concerned, it is just that, a suspicion. And, indeed, the way you phrase it ("they would like...) suggests you don''t actually regard it as a a hard and fast insistence on their part but something they would prefer in an ideal world.And that may well be true. But my understanding is that they have never insisted, and are not now insisting, that any takeover deal includes a proviso that they get their money back. There is no such string to any takeover deal. There is only one string, and that is the long-term funding string.

[B-ru 0]

I have not seen the officical accoutns, but I am sure that the hotel, restaurants etc cost money (loans?) to build, and I doubt we have made even on those ventures. I realise that other clubs have off-field ventures and this is to try and generate funds if successful, but I can''t see Burnley, Stoke, Hull having anything like what we have...

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]my understanding is that they have never insisted, and are not now

insisting, that any takeover deal includes a proviso that they get

their money back. There is no such string to any takeover deal. There

is only one string, and that is the long-term funding string.[/quote]If I may wear Mr. Carrows'' hat for a moment, it seems rather ironic that they insist on this, when it was their funding off the pitch to the detriment of funding on the pitch that resulted in our failure to stay in the Premiership.  Maybe they have learnt their lesson there.If someone buys a club, surely it''s in their interests to fund it long term - to keep topping it up ?  Otherwise, why buy a club ?  Surely nobody is that naieve to think that these days they can run without financial help ?  It''s like expecting an The Royal Opera house to run without lottery funding...

[First Jedi 0]

"Just look at what Steve Bruce is doing now"

What...? Jumping clubs every season for greener pastures...?

[T 190]

[quote user="B-ru"]

I have not seen the officical accoutns, but I am sure that the hotel, restaurants etc cost money (loans?) to build, and I doubt we have made even on those ventures. I realise that other clubs have off-field ventures and this is to try and generate funds if successful, but I can''t see Burnley, Stoke, Hull having anything like what we have...

[/quote]

The financial information provided by the club shows that the off-field activities generate additional funds for the club without which the club would be even worse off. If that was not the case you would not do it. The off-field story on this board is just a long running myth on this message board which is contradicted by all the available evidence. Financially, the club is mid-table championship, partly due to the off-field money without which we would have an worse fianacial position. The problem as the owners have admitted is that they appointed the wrong managers. 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"][quote user="B-ru"]

I have not seen the officical accoutns, but I am sure that the hotel, restaurants etc cost money (loans?) to build, and I doubt we have made even on those ventures. I realise that other clubs have off-field ventures and this is to try and generate funds if successful, but I can''t see Burnley, Stoke, Hull having anything like what we have...

[/quote]

The financial information provided by the club shows that the off-field activities generate additional funds for the club without which the club would be even worse off. If that was not the case you would not do it. The off-field story on this board is just a long running myth on this message board which is contradicted by all the available evidence. Financially, the club is mid-table championship, partly due to the off-field money without which we would have an worse fianacial position. The problem as the owners have admitted is that they appointed the wrong managers. 

[/quote]

Surely the answer is to arrive at an even balance of commercial/football investment.

I believe that the football side over years has been neglected to the advancement of the commercial.

We are now in a position where football income cannot fund football affairs because we have dropped below a level of league/tv/sponsorship input.

The gap will now continue to grow without significant investment in the playing side to allow a rise in leagues back to the gravy train that is the premiership.

Our major shareholders are now "out of the game" both in money and ability to deal with the situation,hence the belated recruitment of McNally and Bowkit.

I am still not sure, at this point, if it is not a little late.

Major investment is needed and one way or another Delia and Michael found a way of exit with money and their dignity in tact.

If they want to do that is another question that only they and their actions will show.

Regardless of Bosman, academy recruitment policy or other outside factors, it is their decisions (contol of the board) that has led this club to the position it now finds itself.

If other clubs have made similar or unrelated mistakes then that is their problem. Each club runs in a slightly different way that reflects the policies of their owners. You may or may not learn from their mistakes. What we need rapidly to do is learn from ours.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"][quote user="B-ru"]

I have not seen the officical accoutns, but I am sure that the hotel, restaurants etc cost money (loans?) to build, and I doubt we have made even on those ventures. I realise that other clubs have off-field ventures and this is to try and generate funds if successful, but I can''t see Burnley, Stoke, Hull having anything like what we have...

[/quote]

The financial information provided by the club shows that the off-field activities generate additional funds for the club without which the club would be even worse off. If that was not the case you would not do it. The off-field story on this board is just a long running myth on this message board which is contradicted by all the available evidence. Financially, the club is mid-table championship, partly due to the off-field money without which we would have an worse fianacial position. The problem as the owners have admitted is that they appointed the wrong managers. 

[/quote]

"Off-field activities" have always made additional money for football clubs- merchandise, sponsorship, corporate, matchday catering etc. but the issue is whether the current regimes admitted "obsession" with pumping tens of millions into fixed assets has yealded any financial benefit and the evidence is clear that we can afford to spend less on our team (despite higher than ever sell-out crowds) because of the doubling of non-football costs since 2002.

"Ticket income does not cover the cost of running a football team".  In 2008 the club received over £10m from ticket and tv income alone and our affordable football budget was £1.9m.  In the same year Preston`s total income was £8.5m yet they could afford £5m on their football team- as you accepted- and that nicely explains why they are vying for the Premiership whilst we are mid-table in the third division.

I`ve already suggested that to significantly bolster your argument you could always find some comparable clubs who can only afford to spend 10% of their income on their core product like us, yet you don`t seem to want to......[^o)]

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,415]

I hadn''t heard the Steve Bruce story before - I wonder how different things would be at the club had he been took on.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]but the issue is whether the current regimes admitted "obsession" with pumping tens of millions into fixed assets...[/quote]You have figures to back that up of course.  If you''re including the cost of the Jarrold Stand in that you''re being disingenuous in my opinion.