Is the NCFC board ready, willing and able?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="T"]the article actually says we are making bids for players so it suggests that we do have some cash but not a lot of cash. Anyway, one would have thought by now that some people would have realised that every business has to run to a budget and it is not a good idea to spend money that you do not have.[/quote]

But dont worry we have money to pour down a black hole called the ex LSE land, ex Norwich City council land......annual interest payments and the arrangement fee last December (2008) and probably another arrangement fee if we roll over the £2.5m loan again in December 2010.

[/quote]

What percentage of total income for the year would you estimate to be lost as a result of holding onto this land, Tangy ?  Are there any buyers for it in the current climate ?  Would you prefer that the club just gave the land away, or are they right to hold onto it and wait for better economic times ?

[/quote]

Blah x 3,

They shouldn''t have bought it in the first place!

Probably worth £4m now (if you could find a buyer) and come May 2010 it wouldn''t surprise me if we have £7m to date tied up in it.

How long do you think it will take for the house market to recover in order for the club to make a profit on this land?  

 

[/quote]

To be honest Tangy, that''s hardly the point.  The decision was made a long time ago, and it''s not like there''s a cheap way of solving the problem that decision created.  I would imagine that they are only too well aware of the problem too. Let''s say for a moment you''re Bowkett or McNally, and have inherited this problem - What would you do to solve it ?  You''d wait for the market to recover, wouldn''t you ?
[/quote]

Of course you would wait but thats not why i raised the issue of the land. Somebody was pointing out that we have to live within a budget and all i was pointing out was that the servicing of the loan relating to land speculation comes from the football side of the business. A couple hundred thousand or so would be of use to Lambert right now.

Furthermore given the length of recent economic cycles (except the last one), buying land 11 years into up part the cycle is far too late and despite the last economic cycle being longer than the norm the window of disposal was closed on them.  The credit crunch argument that some have is a smokescreen as they would have been in trouble earlier regarding disposal if we had had a normal length of economic cycle.

  

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

T,

If you are bored then may I suggest you stop reading this thread.

Bye, bye!

 

[Bill 1,788]

Blimey, smudger''s found someone to lie for him

"The first link Smudger gave you took you to a page of a thread where the above link was given. That is sufficent evidence for any reasonable person.

Therefore Smudger is correct."

err, no

Smiudger''s smear were NOT about what funds were available but whether the board would back the manager.

" less than two months after Swindon rejected City''s offer"

I think you''ll find that was AFTER the transfer window closed so they could not have joined us. In fact I believe that Lambert''s comments at the time were that

both clubs were asking ridiculous prices. Of course the curious might ask where City had ANY money to make a bid if Smudger''s lies were true. If they had money to make a bid then, they would still have that money for a loanee(s).

So you''ve not answered to point about smudgers lie of there not being money.

No proof of not backing Lambert either. Either there was money available and he made abid so the backing was there or there was not money and so they could only back him with what was available.

Finally the old tosh about frustration - maybe we could let Lambert speak " and it''s something I am not going to go on about ". So no proof, no quotes, nothing other than the usual lies and smears.

And here''s a suggestion try reading the post before you bleat on here again Tangi.

[shefcanary 2,439]

Tangy

The purchase of the land was in the past. This Board is new. They will do what they can to salvage the situation, but it won''t help us one bit to offload it now - it will just reduce the Bank''s debt.

As others have campaigned, better to concentrate on the pitch for now. Sort out the property portfolio when the markets have recovered (although as with this forum, commentators differ in their opinions wildly - some say we are just about there, others we may yet be several years off - takes your choice).

However if your prognosis on land speculation applied to all football clubs what price being on the Spurs board now!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]servicing of the loan relating to land speculation comes from the football side of the business.[/quote]Surely it comes from the off-pitch side of the business - if you can''t loan money to buy players or pay wages, surely this money comes from the £20m + loan, which can''t be used to buy players or pay wages ?

[nutty nigel 7,565]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]servicing of the loan relating to land speculation comes from the football side of the business.[/quote]

Surely it comes from the off-pitch side of the business - if you can''t loan money to buy players or pay wages, surely this money comes from the £20m + loan, which can''t be used to buy players or pay wages ?
[/quote]

But the whole point of Tangies argument is surely that the debt is serviced by money that should have been spent on the team.

I''m not so sure. I believe my friend Tangie is the ''real deal  accounting bod'' as apposed to the fag packet type that normally post. I''m just the ''real deal bingo calling bog cleaning bod''. But I think it all comes down to whether there was any football income left over after the 8.5m player budget last season. If there was then I guess Tangie has a point but I can''t be bothered to look it up. Shame Mr C is washing his hair[:O] (Sorry[:$] - I meant on his hols) [;)]

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]Tangy The purchase of the land was in the past. This Board is new. They will do what they can to salvage the situation, but it won''t help us one bit to offload it now - it will just reduce the Bank''s debt. As others have campaigned, better to concentrate on the pitch for now. Sort out the property portfolio when the markets have recovered (although as with this forum, commentators differ in their opinions wildly - some say we are just about there, others we may yet be several years off - takes your choice). However if your prognosis on land speculation applied to all football clubs what price being on the Spurs board now![/quote]

 

May I suggest people read my recent posts, I haven''t suggested they offload the land now. What I have said in response to a comment about living within budget is that the cost of servicing the loan re the land speculation is coming from the football side of the business just when a couple of hundred thousand could be really useful to Lambert.

 

Shefcanary -

1) I doubt the Norwich housing market is at pre crunch level!

2) Spurs land development is different from NCFC''s for two reasons: a) extra capacity, corporate boxes, ground naming  will provide such a jump in revenue as to finance the new stadium (e.g., Arsenal) and b) I would suggest (all though I stand to be corrected on this) that London housing is in tighter supply due to the green belt and the margins on land development are better.  

 

[T 190]

I very much doubt if Tangy is financially qualified given that he does not understand some very basic finance concepts which Nutty grasps using simple common sense.

[T 190]

So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]servicing of the loan relating to land speculation comes from the football side of the business.[/quote]

Surely it comes from the off-pitch side of the business - if you can''t loan money to buy players or pay wages, surely this money comes from the £20m + loan, which can''t be used to buy players or pay wages ?
[/quote]

The £2.5m Bank of Scotland loan relates to the ex LSE land etc.  BUT that land produces a bit of revenue from car parking fees but the rest of the debt servicing comes from the football side of NCFC Plc. The rest of the debt servicing does not come from other loans.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

And you are offering what exactly?

BTW.  It will be interesting to see in the next NCFC Accounts whether overheads have been cut enough or whether they need to be cut further. After all we are a Division 3 (old money) club now not a Premiership club.

 

[T 190]

If someone did know about finance they would know that cash is is a fungible asset so it is impossible to say what part of the busy the cash came from. Very basic stuff which anyone who understands anything about finance would know.

[T 190]

I offer free correction of the rubbish some people spout who obviously have not got a glue what they are talking about

[T 190]

or even clue

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]If someone did know about finance they would know that cash is is a fungible asset so it is impossible to say what part of the busy the cash came from. Very basic stuff which anyone who understands anything about finance would know.[/quote]

BUT if you are not spending the cash on servicing the debt re the loan associated with the land then anyone should be able to grasp that you can spend it on the team. Very basic indeed!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="T"]or even clue[/quote]

You are obviously looking at yourself in a mirror! Lol!

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[/quote]I''d agree with most of that, and to be fair it doesn''t just apply to Tangy.  Most adversarial posts in here, or in any forum, are more about proving who is right than they are about anything else.  Still, it''s all google food for archant.

[T 190]

The football side as you call it does not make enough money as you would put it: ncfc had a competitive budget last year according to the chairman and is also clearly competing this year - the shortfall is being made up by the owners. They and the banks have affectively financedd the land in the hope of making the club competitive in the future without constant cash injections from the owners. Given that the fans do not contribute enough - how would you fund the shortfall?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[/quote]

Cranky Yankey,

So whats your CONSTRUCTIVE proposal?

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[/quote]

I''d agree with most of that, and to be fair it doesn''t just apply to Tangy.  Most adversarial posts in here, or in any forum, are more about proving who is right than they are about anything else.  Still, it''s all google food for archant.
[/quote]

Blah x 3,

So where is YOUR constructive proposal then?

 

[T 190]

Football does not generate enough money so the only solution is to invest as much as possible in off-field activities which are profitable vis-a-vis spurs

[The Butler 0]

Like a circle in a spirral, like a wheel within a wheel!

The land at present is dead overhead. It produces NO income and costs to support the loans taken to finance it.

Thus the other ventures including the football side MUST be financing it.

Please explain to me T how this cannot be the case.

We can all try and forget what''s gone and look forward BUT whilst money is pooring down the drain it will not help Lambert acquire new players.

Yes I think the current board will try, for their sakes as well as the clubs, but those past errors MUST make it more difficult for them.

Before anyone mentions rebates I would assume Mr G. would have wasted mosy of that as well.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[/quote]I''d agree with most of that, and to be fair it doesn''t just apply to Tangy.  Most adversarial posts in here, or in any forum, are more about proving who is right than they are about anything else.  Still, it''s all google food for archant.[/quote]

Blah x 3,

So where is YOUR constructive proposal then?

 

[/quote]To raise funds for the club ?  A season ticket "plus" membership, RRP £100, payable in installments with the price of the season ticket - which gives the owner free canaries world (which costs nothing extra to produce), and membership of a block of shares which are purchased from the club with the "plus" memberships.  "Plus" members would then get to vote for one of their number to sit as a supporters'' rep on the board, representing the block of shares that the plus memberships had bought, the percentage of which would increase year on year as more memberships are bought.  Other clubs like Charlton and Plymouth give fans board spots, why shouldn''t Norwich ?  Silly me, our board members are already fans...I have no idea if there is the appetite for this from fans - but if it gets 500 k a year into the transfer budget, that would be 5000 plus memberships, or a quarter of our current season ticket holders, then it''s got to be worth a try.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="YankeeCanary"]

[quote user="T"]So tangy confirms he is just whinging about the past and has nothing constructive to offer.[/quote]

Yes, he absolutely does. He prefers to pretend that he''s clever ( although, of course, that''s delusional for Tangy and most of us when only looking to the past to service our "clever" need ) rather than get into some serious thought regarding what we should do going forward. It''s why most of us hang out on a message board rather than using our intelligence to get into positions that can influence decisions going forward. Many of us recognise that. Tangy seems to have difficulty recognising it.  

[/quote]

Cranky Yankey,

So whats your CONSTRUCTIVE proposal?

[/quote]

I''m not in a position of influence as far as the club is concerned so I don''t waste my time trying to second guess those who made past decisions at the club. However, given you do have a penchance to do so I would CONSTRUCTIVELY suggest you start to apply yourself in the manner suggested. It will make you a lot more interesting to other posters. Incidentally, I have made many CONSTRUCTIVE suggestions as to what the club should consider doing in the future but have found that this forum usually gives short shrift to posts that contain well thought out ideas impacting the future so I don''t spend my time on it much anymore. You may have more success than I did so don''t let that hold you back or.......you could go on pretending you are clever. [;)]

P.S: You could begin by getting rid of that silly question mark in your name that causes problems for all other posters. There that would be relatively clever for you and doesn''t require a lot of effort.

[T 190]

The shortfall is coming from the owners. Would they spend more money on players if they were not financing the property is unclear but the link between the 300k cost of the loan and the impact on the player budget is not straightforward. I very much doubt if the owners would have put as much money into the club as they have done to see it go out on players and agents each year but were willing to risk putting more money into tangible fixed assets to generate money to fund the club so it is not certainly not cut and dried íf you stop and think about it. To say that there would be more money if it was not for the land is oversimplistic as football clubs are not self-fiancing and are dependent on selling players and cash injections from the owners.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]The shortfall is coming from the owners. Would they spend more money on players if they were not financing the property is unclear but the link between the 300k cost of the loan and the impact on the player budget is not straightforward. I very much doubt if the owners would have put as much money into the club as they have done to see it go out on players and agents each year but were willing to risk putting more money into tangible fixed assets to generate money to fund the club so it is not certainly not cut and dried íf you stop and think about it. To say that there would be more money if it was not for the land is oversimplistic as football clubs are not self-fiancing and are dependent on selling players and cash injections from the owners.[/quote]

So to follow that through then T are you saying that the Directors have invested in land, restaurants etc and NOT in the core business of the club?

That the club would not be sustainable even without the millions spent on land and in the support of that land.

That the money taken from Chase''s land deals has been used to finance other land deals less profitable or stagnant or loss making.

Interesting. I am also waiting to see the makeup of the alledged 8.5 million spent "on the playing side" last season and what that covered in total. As an (I assume) accountant you must also await the latest accounts with not inconsiderable interest.

[blahblahblah 2]

Butler - given that Deloitte came out and said last year in their report that all championship clubs are dependent directly on hand-outs from their owners, why would you suspect that Norwich would be any different ?

[T 190]

yep - its simple - fans do not pay enough to fund the football they want so you have to put the money into other activities to fund the football. It is what most clubs do if you care to look. If you don''t like it then you are suggesting that all fans pay twice as much for their football or compete at a lower level and that we do not seek to raise funds from other activities as the majority of other clubs do. Most progressive clubs have invested substantially in tangible assets and off-field activities as football does not generate enough from the fans. Look at spurs this last week and so on and on at all the other clubs who have invested in new stadi to compete and other off-field activities. To think anything else suggests peoples only source of news is the pink un message board or you are living in a cave.

[nutty nigel 7,565]

[quote user="The Butler"]

So to follow that through then T are you saying that the Directors have invested in land, restaurants etc and NOT in the core business of the club?

That the club would not be sustainable even without the millions spent on land and in the support of that land.

That the money taken from Chase''s land deals has been used to finance other land deals less profitable or stagnant or loss making.

Interesting. I am also waiting to see the makeup of the alledged 8.5 million spent "on the playing side" last season and what that covered in total. As an (I assume) accountant you must also await the latest accounts with not inconsiderable interest.

[/quote]

Indeed Butler! Wouldn''t it be a rum''un if the new Chairman was caught out spinning the facts so early in his tenure[:^)]