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

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="T"]

There is no substances to your posts. It is just a pet theory. I have previously given the details and I do have the accounts as they are readily accessible from companies house for a nominal fee.

Preston is just one club which is reliant on benefactors per the accounts for which you can not give substantive details to explain the difference. The Deloitte report covers all football clubs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with debt per se - Man U has huge debts and they seem to be doing OK.

If we had the way of TFA and you then there would be you a piece of string around the pitch and you and TFA would be stood there with your dog getting your refreshments from the nearest burger van. Perhaps that explains the vitriol - has the investment in infrastructure put your burger van out of business as your arguments are not based on any financial logic? It seems you have absolutely no ambition for NCFC.

[/quote]

So you''re not a shareholder?

OTBC

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="T"]

There is no substances to your posts. It is just a pet theory. I have previously given the details and I do have the accounts as they are readily accessible from companies house for a nominal fee.

Preston is just one club which is reliant on benefactors per the accounts for which you can not give substantive details to explain the difference. The Deloitte report covers all football clubs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with debt per se - Man U has huge debts and they seem to be doing OK.

If we had the way of TFA and you then there would be you a piece of string around the pitch and you and TFA would be stood there with your dog getting your refreshments from the nearest burger van. Perhaps that explains the vitriol - has the investment in infrastructure put your burger van out of business as your arguments are not based on any financial logic? It seems you have absolutely no ambition for NCFC.

[/quote]

So you''re not a shareholder?

OTBC

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="T"]

There is no substances to your posts. It is just a pet theory. I have previously given the details and I do have the accounts as they are readily accessible from companies house for a nominal fee.

Preston is just one club which is reliant on benefactors per the accounts for which you can not give substantive details to explain the difference. The Deloitte report covers all football clubs.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with debt per se - Man U has huge debts and they seem to be doing OK.

If we had the way of TFA and you then there would be you a piece of string around the pitch and you and TFA would be stood there with your dog getting your refreshments from the nearest burger van. Perhaps that explains the vitriol - has the investment in infrastructure put your burger van out of business as your arguments are not based on any financial logic? It seems you have absolutely no ambition for NCFC.

[/quote]

So you''re not a shareholder?

OTBC

 

[blahblahblah 2]

T - At times you have to just come out and say that you''ve cocked things up.  The land deal has proven, with the benefit of hindsight, to be a cock up. At 300k per year, how long will they have to hold onto it to make it earn what holding onto it has cost them ?  You can''t get everything right all the time.  I broadly agree with you that investment off-pitch is a good thing, as it promotes independence from TV money - I would rather be in our shoes than Crystal Palaces'', even though we are further down the league than them at the moment - if that blonde twunt gets bored then they are royally screwed.  Unfortunately, the combination of cutting our cloth too tightly in the short-term post-Prem, in search of longer-term profits, coupled with the employment of Grant, Roeder (good at first then terrible), and then Gunn, has resulted in our current position - but we all know this I think...I''m not sure, but I think WBA try to operate as a championship club in the premiership - effectively hoarding their nuts while they are in the top tier for harsh winters in the 2nd.  How long before they get bored of record low points totals every other season, I have no idea [:)]

[blahblahblah 2]

Cheers Metatron, I''ll give it a look !

[T 190]

There is no dount the land deal is "underwater" but as I''ve said before how many people on here sold at the property peak, pocketed the proceeds and bought back in at the bottom of the market?  A mistake yes but I think you will find that nearly everyone hs got burnt to some degree in the last couple of years.

[T 190]

No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. I previously asked for the contact details so I could buy some shares but got no reply. Minority shares are worthless but then everyone knows football is an emotional rather than financial investment.

[William Darby 0]

and you''ll find there''s just as many winners cleaning up the mess.

[T 190]

...I think you will find that there were just a few winners who left the majority to pick up the mess...

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="T"]No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. I previously asked for the contact details so I could buy some shares but got no reply. Minority shares are worthless but then everyone knows football is an emotional rather than financial investment.[/quote]

Lol, have a look at the recent interviews with David Sullivan.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="T"]

...you ignore the accounts which show the off-field activities are profitable and without which we would be worse off.

...the arguments that clubs should look to raise funds from other sources applies regardless of size. You can''t just exclude something because it deos not suit your narrow view of the world.

[/quote]

Are you being deliberately stupid T?  How many times have i got to repeat that football clubs always have made money from off-field activities, but that the projects instigated since `02 have lessened the amount available to invest in the team rather than increased it?  It`s a triple whammy of outlay from ordinary cashflow (such as the roads), debts with associated costs, and increased maintenance/staff costs- meaning that we could scarcely afford a football team at all in `08.  The only thing which has prevented the club going into administration already has been selling the family silver on the pitch- and we can all see the result.  I`ve heard that we have £1m on the securitisation and £2m for the infill and land to pay before the end of the year so i`d empty your piggy-bank to help your heroes out if i were you.....

Many,many outlays other than the land do not bring in extra revenue for the club (i`ve already listed some on another thread but as per usual you ignored it) but are basically cosmetic, and even things like the offices and catering are debatable.

Please do yourself a favour, get hold of the last few years accounts and educate yourself because the approach you advocate and support has crippled many non-Prem clubs including our own.  I`m still waiting for an answer to my question:  What were the debts for which sent many of our contemporaries into administration?

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

T, the heading is "Fixed Assets" followed by "Capital expenditure" and the year-by-year breakdown above.

Underneath that is a breakdown of that years £3.9m expenditure on things like "New ticket office, new Club 101 corporate facility, study support facility, tenanted offices for Connections and Broadland Housing and the start of Spaces for Sport project"  Also "developmental infrastructure, such as new roads around the stadium".

All absolutely vital and a wonderful help to a declining football team i`m sure.....[8-)]

[/quote]

T, can you give me your opinion as to how much the expenditure highlighted above is providing the club to invest in a team capable of winning promotion?

[T 190]

Mr C - all been debated ad nauseum before. It is the land which is questionable and again that has been debated a number of times. I''ve seen the accounts and they show the off-field activites are profitable apart from the land which may or may not come good. We had a competitive championship playing budget but we didn''t perform bacause of poor choice of managers. Most successful clubs also have great facilities to draw additional punters and additional revenue in. Watford and CP are struggling to compete financially because they have not made that investment. I''m sure you would still turn up if the facilities were poor but you should not assume that everyone else has your values. The reason we have the large crowds is becasue we have such good facilities which enable us to generate extra revenue. We have to spend money on better that average facilities for players becasue Norwich is in the middle of no where. I''ve never said that some money could not be better spent or that the land deal is open to question but I would love to know your proposals for generating additional revenue to cover the gap that most clubs experience between fan revenue and operating costs. The bottom line is clubs have to invest in infrastrucure to compete. That was the whole reason that Arsenal moved to the Emirates. The arguments may be on a different scale but Arsenal realised they had to invest in infrstructure if they were ever to compete with Man U in the long term who had a larger infrastructure. I know you would love to pour money down the pan on players every year but the money has to come from somewhere.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="T"]No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. No I''m not a shareholder. I previously asked for the contact details so I could buy some shares but got no reply. Minority shares are worthless but then everyone knows football is an emotional rather than financial investment.[/quote]

I think it''s reasonable to conclude from the above that you have little emotional investment in Norwich City - and of course no financial investment.

So what''s your angle?

Spinning?

OTBC

[Mr.Carrow 378]

There are many other questionable things other than the land T, that is the point and i have quoted some above which you have again ignored. 

I accept that with a bit of luck, with the right expertise, decisions and management and within the right framework, pumping money into infrastructure CAN work.  Now can you be gracious enough to accept that for us and several similar clubs who have gone into administration because of debt for infrastructure, it hasn`t worked?  It`s a bit like spending millions on players- it`s a gamble with no guaranteed outcome.

Right, got to go to work....

[T 190]

If the stadium was empty as in the case of Southampton I would indeed concede that you would be absolutely correct Mr C but as that is not the case you may have to stop ignoring that the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]If the stadium was empty as in the case of Southampton I would indeed concede that you would be absolutely correct Mr C but as that is not the case you may have to stop ignoring that the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.[/quote]

But Southamptons wasn''t always empty.

A crap team , disalusionment with the board and direction the club was being taken under Lowe drove the supporters away in droves.

It could easily happen here (ok unlike Soton we cant pop to watch other teams) but "fans" will only take so much rubbish.

Once the corporate users (there are boxes empty now) desert and their money goes with them then all your extras will amount to very little.

Your average punter might buy a pie and a pint but will not pay for the restaurants etc that need people pigging at the corporate trough.

A succesful team will attract from all levels, an unsuccesfull one relies on the core supporters. This club has counted on them and their loyalty for far to long.

[T 190]

I thought Delia, came 17th in the championship in terms of wealthiest owners according to a survey in 442 so, given that no-one including PC made an offer to buy her out, the only way to compete was to seek to increase revenue and speculate on land. Hence the strategy. Given the increase in the fan base and the profits from off-field activities the strategy has been successful apart from the land deal which may still come good.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="T"]the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.[/quote]Have they turned an overall profit across their total lifecycle to date, including planning and construction costs, as well as interest repayments on any loans secured against them?

[T 190]

I did some detailed calculations a while back and the answer is yes apart form of course the land.

[The Butler 0]

Turning in a profit as well as increasing the debt by at least 14 million.

Now that is creative accounting!!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Turning in a profit as well as increasing the debt by at least 14 million.

Now that is creative accounting!!

[/quote]Pssst - don''t forget the Jarrold Stand...

[The Butler 0]

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

Turning in a profit as well as increasing the debt by at least 14 million.

Now that is creative accounting!!

[/quote]

Pssst - don''t forget the Jarrold Stand...
[/quote]

Who could forget it.

A great place to watch crap football from.

Oh I did mention corporates and troughs and declining attendances if this keeps up.[:D]

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

[quote user="T"]

I did some detailed calculations a while back and the answer is yes apart form of course the land.

[/quote]Well I guess that''s the end of the matter, then. No need to look any further into that 14 million pound increase in debt.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="T"]If the stadium was empty as in the case of Southampton I would indeed concede that you would be absolutely correct Mr C but as that is not the case you may have to stop ignoring that the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.[/quote]

Jeez, i try for a compromise and all i get is more pig-headed spin.  T, the stadium is full, the off-field activities are just about profitable thanks to the old perenials advertising, merchandising, match-day catering, sponsorship etc., propping up the disastrous projects of recent years.  Money which could have been spent on the team has been diverted into non-cash-generative things like land, roads, new pitch, ticket office, conservatory at Colney, gym equipment etc.etc. (yet in your usual dishonest way you only acknowledge one of these),leading to a financially disastrous relegation and according to our CE our financial situation is "dire" and one of our majority shareholders "We are fighting a fire called finance".

We have loans for infrastructure to pay back soon and we both know what will happen if we can`t find the cash- we`ll go the same way as Saints. 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Fernando Derveld"][quote user="T"]the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.[/quote]

Have they turned an overall profit across their total lifecycle to date, including planning and construction costs, as well as interest repayments on any loans secured against them?
[/quote]

In 2002- income £15m    Non-player costs £9m

In 2008- income £19m    Non player costs £17m

T is spinning bull**it, to what end i really don`t know.....

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="Fernando Derveld"][quote user="T"]the accounts show that off the field activities are profitable.[/quote]

Have they turned an overall profit across their total lifecycle to date, including planning and construction costs, as well as interest repayments on any loans secured against them?
[/quote]

In 2002- income £15m    Non-player costs £9m

In 2008- income £19m    Non player costs £17m

T is spinning bull**it, to what end i really don`t know.....

[/quote]

The only thing you get spinning Bull is brown candyfloss for the brain!

It is sticky and causes confusion[:D]

[nutty nigel 7,554]

So........

Are we saying we should we now be using where this club was under Worthington as a benchmark instead of the 80''s and early 90''s?

Is West brom now the model we should aspire to? What can we learn from them? Last season at this time it was Hull. Hull have now caught that nasty disease. They want the manager sacked. I saw a fan on TV last night saying Brown had done really well but they needed a new manager to take the club forwards....

Where do they think they''re going[:^)]

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So........

Are we saying we should we now be using where this club was under Worthington as a benchmark instead of the 80''s and early 90''s?

Is West brom now the model we should aspire to? What can we learn from them? Last season at this time it was Hull. Hull have now caught that nasty disease. They want the manager sacked. I saw a fan on TV last night saying Brown had done really well but they needed a new manager to take the club forwards....

Where do they think they''re going[:^)]

 

[/quote]

Stop jumping the gun (or is that Gunn)

Before we use any club to aspire to we need figures and facts. You know the things that T doesn''t make up.

I would like to see some analysis of West Broms accounts as to how they are managing to at least yo yo.

Hull ...back to Rugby league perhaps!

I for one will NEVER EVER EVER agree to bench mark our achievements by, what was his name, can''t think, it''s been that long since anyone mentioned him.Unless of course we are really going to have to settle for third best from now on. Then that period will look reasonable.(Now time for me to lay down in a dark room and sob)[li]

[William Darby 0]

I reckon that IF we''d have stayed in the Prem League for the past five years, even if we finished fourth  from bottom each time.  You wouldn''t be calling it a disease now.  Anyway according to you, anybody who have been in the Prem League whether they are still there or have been relegated have the disease.  The disease analogy is gay, it has a shitness rating of 1.6.This thread gets dafter by the minute.  Why not just have a sliding scale of shitness from 1-10 for football teams?  The shitness of the club is formulated by team performance and board performance.We have a shitness of around 2.5, which recently has risen from an earlier 2.4  Hull''s shitness rating is 8, they were 8.5 so the fans feel that they are slowly become more sh*t, and they want to stop the shitometer sliding.