Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The Butler

McNally

Recommended Posts

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

This thread gets more and more ridiculous every day. Just a few observations since I was last here.

I said The Butlers copy and pasted "T.V. cook Delia Smith and husband Michael Wynn-Jones took over the majority of Norwich City''s shares, and Mike Walker was re-appointed as the club''s manager"  was not correct and that it was Watling who bought those majority shares. Smith and Jones joined the board for investment straight into the club. I then get told that all my knowledge is heresay where as those who copy and paste from google are the oracle. Just as I pointed out about the football economy website, and is proved by the rubbish posters get away with putting on here, following the club through google is a dangerous thing. Was there anything else incorrect in Butlers article? Well yes there was. At the end of the 97/98 season we weren''t mid-table. We had just escaped relegation. We weren''t safe until we won those two final home games and finished the season on 55 points. The same sort of total that we did under Hamilton, Grant and Roeder. According to The Butler in 2000 we had 20 points from 20 games and were in real danger of relegation while in 97/98 a similar total was mid-table. This is of course spin. I believe The Butler now accepts my original post that Smith&Jones joined the board in 1996 but didn''t own the club until 18 months later. Although somehow the majority shareholders are only to blame for decline when it''s them. If they are not majority shareholders they are to blame anyway. I stand by what I said the decline that Smith & Jones are responsible for is that from the bottom of the Premier League to Division Three in the last four seasons. Prior to that they had taken us from the bottom of the Second Division to the Premier League in six seasons. The Butler accuses me of re-writing history but where have I done that? The decline from the top of the Premier League to the relegation zone in the Second Division in the 90''s was wholly during the time that Robert Chase and geoffrey Watling owned our club.

 

Now Mr Carrow - I listed those sales and sell on fees earlier in the thread and I am not going to do it again. If you believe they are wrong then please feel free to list my mistakes in reply. I am not at all misunderstanding your points about 16k gates I am just saying that it''s irrelevant without knowing what figure is used to break even against. Or indeed what income those 16k gates bring in.

 

P9 of the 06 accounts? Is that the one where Shaun O''Hara states "Over the last six years the Club has succesfully managed to balance the books with creative re-financing, share offers, property sales, player sales and importantly the support of the fan base. However financing football outside the Premier League is very challenging if the club intends to be competetive. The table below summarises the trading performance of the club since 2001 and clearly demonstrates the difficulty of generating profits from regular activities." Now in that table I can see nothing about non-player wage costs. All I can find is operating costs. Please point me to where these non-player wage costs are actually listed.

 

 

[/quote]

If you can`t figure it out for yourself nutty i`m not going to help you.  Playing dumb to avoid having to address difficult questions- as i`ve said before, mentality of a 12-year old. 

You tell us that a perfectly reputable website can`t be trusted and then tell me i should trust completely figures you`ve got off the top of your head.  Wonderful. 

I ain`t playing musical chairs with you any more nutty- i look forward to the gloating post where you metaphorically puff out your chest and strut around like a proud pigeon whilst giving your ego a good tug, but as i`ve posted before you can`t rationalise with the irrational and i`m not going to continue wasting my time.

Share this post


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

This thread gets more and more ridiculous every day. Just a few observations since I was last here.

I said The Butlers copy and pasted "T.V. cook Delia Smith and husband Michael Wynn-Jones took over the majority of Norwich City''s shares, and Mike Walker was re-appointed as the club''s manager"  was not correct and that it was Watling who bought those majority shares. Smith and Jones joined the board for investment straight into the club. I then get told that all my knowledge is heresay where as those who copy and paste from google are the oracle. Just as I pointed out about the football economy website, and is proved by the rubbish posters get away with putting on here, following the club through google is a dangerous thing. Was there anything else incorrect in Butlers article? Well yes there was. At the end of the 97/98 season we weren''t mid-table. We had just escaped relegation. We weren''t safe until we won those two final home games and finished the season on 55 points. The same sort of total that we did under Hamilton, Grant and Roeder. According to The Butler in 2000 we had 20 points from 20 games and were in real danger of relegation while in 97/98 a similar total was mid-table. This is of course spin. I believe The Butler now accepts my original post that Smith&Jones joined the board in 1996 but didn''t own the club until 18 months later. Although somehow the majority shareholders are only to blame for decline when it''s them. If they are not majority shareholders they are to blame anyway. I stand by what I said the decline that Smith & Jones are responsible for is that from the bottom of the Premier League to Division Three in the last four seasons. Prior to that they had taken us from the bottom of the Second Division to the Premier League in six seasons. The Butler accuses me of re-writing history but where have I done that? The decline from the top of the Premier League to the relegation zone in the Second Division in the 90''s was wholly during the time that Robert Chase and geoffrey Watling owned our club.

 

Now Mr Carrow - I listed those sales and sell on fees earlier in the thread and I am not going to do it again. If you believe they are wrong then please feel free to list my mistakes in reply. I am not at all misunderstanding your points about 16k gates I am just saying that it''s irrelevant without knowing what figure is used to break even against. Or indeed what income those 16k gates bring in.

 

P9 of the 06 accounts? Is that the one where Shaun O''Hara states "Over the last six years the Club has succesfully managed to balance the books with creative re-financing, share offers, property sales, player sales and importantly the support of the fan base. However financing football outside the Premier League is very challenging if the club intends to be competetive. The table below summarises the trading performance of the club since 2001 and clearly demonstrates the difficulty of generating profits from regular activities." Now in that table I can see nothing about non-player wage costs. All I can find is operating costs. Please point me to where these non-player wage costs are actually listed.

 

 

[/quote]

If you can`t figure it out for yourself nutty i`m not going to help you.  Playing dumb to avoid having to address difficult questions- as i`ve said before, mentality of a 12-year old. 

You tell us that a perfectly reputable website can`t be trusted and then tell me i should trust completely figures you`ve got off the top of your head.  Wonderful. 

I ain`t playing musical chairs with you any more nutty- i look forward to the gloating post where you metaphorically puff out your chest and strut around like a proud pigeon whilst giving your ego a good tug, but as i`ve posted before you can`t rationalise with the irrational and i`m not going to continue wasting my time.

[/quote]

Lovely old job. That''s both of you took your balls home[Y]

This is not from the top of my head, or a dodgy website. It''s from p9 of the signed off annual report that you sent me to.

Musical chairs[:^)]

You too have a good afternoon.

 

Share this post


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

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence but as usual, it is not as black and white as that.  We are an absolute one-off as football is littered with expensive new stands which are never filled.  Do you think the club expected to sell out in the Third division when we built the stands?  We have been very lucky.

Yes, excellent decision- a bit late in the day though.  You supported the previous regime 100% who had a certain approach, we now have a different regime who were highly critical of the last and have changed approach and you want to support them too, without admitting to any contradiction!  It`s a bit like me campaigning for Labour and then, when the Tories win the election, going around with a blue rosette telling people i`ve always been a Tory.  Be consistant man!

Lol.  Cheap shots when you`ve lost the argument.  Nothing new there then....

[/quote]

So if something goes well, it''s luck, if badly, it''s criminal mismanagement?

[/quote]

So are you telling me you think anyone connected with the club thought we would be selling out 25k in the third division?

Share this post


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

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem.[/quote]

All that tells me is that you have money.
[/quote]

Everybody has money.

By the way, are you really a woman?

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[/quote]

Thanks for that. Is your cupboard under the stairs full of balls you took home[:|]

And I will guarantee I have more to do this afternoon than you. I fill my entire life with things I have to do. Again you get personal because you have no answer to the point I make.

When is a majority shareholder not a majority shareholder?

When The Butler says so.

[/quote]

Personal ? Classic you call me a liar and then say I''m getting personal!!

When is a fact a fact when Nutty says so?

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem. Lots and lots of NCFC stuff all got from Google of course.[;)]

Have a good afternoon

[/quote]

I see it''s your turn now Butler.

[:D]

OTBC

 

Share this post


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

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem.[/quote]All that tells me is that you have money.[/quote]

Everybody has money.

By the way, are you really a woman?

OTBC

[/quote]If I was, you still wouldn''t be my type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep nutty, we`ve both taken our balls home as i think we`ve both realised you`d rather be left alone to play with your imaginary one.....Enjoy. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Yep nutty, we`ve both taken our balls home as i think we`ve both realised you`d rather be left alone to play with your imaginary one.....Enjoy. [:D][/quote]

If only that were true.

But you''ll be back on another thread when you''ve regrouped.

Bet you won''t be sending folk to p9 again in search of those mysterious non-player wage costs that are mysteriously missing from my copy [:)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]

I have though always supported investing in fixed assets and off the field activities if they generate extra cash for the team in the long term though as this is the only way that you can compete and based on the accounts and the info from Tangie they do. [/quote]

T,

Could you please explain what information from me you are referring to?

Thanks,

Tangy!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

I really can''t be bothered Nutty.

As you are only too aware of the true nature of the takeover stop bulls****

DS became a director in 96 with .5m investment without any intention of buying Chases shares! Cuckoo land again!

The points totals are facts not fictions. I don''t deal with spin you do.

Following the club via Google is not my way but yours. Or is your NCFC Library of Nutty facts that big?

At this point I am now stopping posting on this. I have far more important things in my life than trying to convince someone who you know will NEVER believe what you tell them anyway.

Just so you have something to do this afternoon I would recommend Googling Nigel Worthington. Absolute pages of articles, videos, pictures. you could have an afternoon to remember. Oh don''t believe it all though!

[/quote]

Thanks for that. Is your cupboard under the stairs full of balls you took home[:|]

And I will guarantee I have more to do this afternoon than you. I fill my entire life with things I have to do. Again you get personal because you have no answer to the point I make.

When is a majority shareholder not a majority shareholder?

When The Butler says so.

[/quote]

Personal ? Classic you call me a liar and then say I''m getting personal!!

When is a fact a fact when Nutty says so?

The cupboard under my stairs has footballs signed by the ''59 team, the championship winning team, whisky decanters and whisky (NCFC)

Special crystal NCFC bowls, photographs, programs from Munchen and Milan and  Arnhem. Lots and lots of NCFC stuff all got from Google of course.[;)]

Have a good afternoon

[/quote]

I see it''s your turn now Butler.

[:D]

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Again I will repeat that I wasn''t aware I called The Butler a liar[:|]

 

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Yep nutty, we`ve both taken our balls home as i think we`ve both realised you`d rather be left alone to play with your imaginary one.....Enjoy. [:D][/quote]

If only that were true.

But you''ll be back on another thread when you''ve regrouped.

Bet you won''t be sending folk to p9 again in search of those mysterious non-player wage costs that are mysteriously missing from my copy [:)]

 

[/quote]

They are there if you choose to see them.  I really can`t make it any clearer for you.  Just keep up the tunnel-vision if it makes you feel better.  Yes, i`ll probably be on other threads but i`ve got a nine-week trip to Argentina coming up soon, so to be honest i`ve got much more interesting things to concentrate on than spoon-feeding a bored, myopic OAP.  All the best [:D]

Share this post


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

 

 

Question 3. Look at P.9 of the `06 accounts.  Are you not concerned that we had non-player wage costs of £9m in `02 leaving £6m of our revenue available for the team, but that in `08 we had non-player wage costs of £17m leaving £1.9m available for the team?  Can you please explain how that shows our infrastructure spend increasing the amount available to be invested in the team?

[/quote]

But I don''t have to work it out for myself because you''ve already done it here.

Or have you?

Maybe it''s just a figure cherry picked from the accounts but renamed to suit your agenda.

No doubt you''ll cherry pick another figure, rename it, and post it on another thread in due course[:|]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="lappinitup"]It''s a simple question that you didn''t answer before and obviously won''t answer now.

Let''s try another one. If the credit crunch hadn''t happened and this land had been sold off at a large profit, would you have been on here constantly praising the board for their actions, in the way that you use the land deal now in an attempt to discredit them?[/quote]Lets try another one Capt. Ludd.......before you asked the question the other day, I had already stated my position. Hence the response you got from Blah x3.  May I suggest you find the relevant post and read it.[/quote]Obviously I missed your previous post but I don''t intend wading through your old posts again in an attempt to find it, as the crayons you use hurt my eyes. So, if you''ll be kind enough to tell us again, what would you advise the board to do with the land in the current economical climate? Would you sell it now or sit on it until prices recover?

Ps. Were you taught to call people clever names at WC? Perhaps a year at EHS may have matured you a bit! [:^)]

Share this post


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

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence but as usual, it is not as black and white as that.  We are an absolute one-off as football is littered with expensive new stands which are never filled.  Do you think the club expected to sell out in the Third division when we built the stands?  We have been very lucky.

Yes, excellent decision- a bit late in the day though.  You supported the previous regime 100% who had a certain approach, we now have a different regime who were highly critical of the last and have changed approach and you want to support them too, without admitting to any contradiction!  It`s a bit like me campaigning for Labour and then, when the Tories win the election, going around with a blue rosette telling people i`ve always been a Tory.  Be consistant man!

Lol.  Cheap shots when you`ve lost the argument.  Nothing new there then....

[/quote]So if something goes well, it''s luck, if badly, it''s criminal mismanagement?[/quote]

So are you telling me you think anyone connected with the club thought we would be selling out 25k in the third division?

[/quote]I don''t know, do you? Perhaps Delia knows her audience better than you do?

Share this post


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

 

 

Question 3. Look at P.9 of the `06 accounts.  Are you not concerned that we had non-player wage costs of £9m in `02 leaving £6m of our revenue available for the team, but that in `08 we had non-player wage costs of £17m leaving £1.9m available for the team?  Can you please explain how that shows our infrastructure spend increasing the amount available to be invested in the team?

[/quote]

But I don''t have to work it out for myself because you''ve already done it here.

Or have you?

Maybe it''s just a figure cherry picked from the accounts but renamed to suit your agenda.

No doubt you''ll cherry pick another figure, rename it, and post it on another thread in due course[:|]

 

[/quote]

Yes, i`ve had an agenda all along- an agenda to make clear the reasons why we have spent so little on our team despite unprecidented income and player sales and give the other side of the story to Doncasters spin (to quote you "they all lie").  If you read Bowketts letter last year it could have been written by one of your adversaries on here- Buckethead or Tangie.  All i can say is that in her favour Delia clearly hasn`t got her own head wedged as firmly up her backside as you clearly have, and has at least stepped to one side to allow a change of approach.

Still haven`t seen my questions above addressed [^o)]

Share this post


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

Does Mr C honestly believe we would have such good crowds if we hadn''t invested in good facilities and that this aspect had been well managed by the club?

And do you think hte owners made a good decision to get the new Chairman and CEO on board?

 

You are a troll as if you know as much about business as you claim you would never state the views that you do.

 

 

[/quote]

I agree with your first sentence but as usual, it is not as black and white as that.  We are an absolute one-off as football is littered with expensive new stands which are never filled.  Do you think the club expected to sell out in the Third division when we built the stands?  We have been very lucky.

Yes, excellent decision- a bit late in the day though.  You supported the previous regime 100% who had a certain approach, we now have a different regime who were highly critical of the last and have changed approach and you want to support them too, without admitting to any contradiction!  It`s a bit like me campaigning for Labour and then, when the Tories win the election, going around with a blue rosette telling people i`ve always been a Tory.  Be consistant man!

Lol.  Cheap shots when you`ve lost the argument.  Nothing new there then....

[/quote]

So if something goes well, it''s luck, if badly, it''s criminal mismanagement?

[/quote]

So are you telling me you think anyone connected with the club thought we would be selling out 25k in the third division?

[/quote]

I don''t know, do you? Perhaps Delia knows her audience better than you do?

[/quote]

I`m asking for a reasonable educated opinion ron.  Yes i know people connected to the club and no, none of them thought we`d sell out in this league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

 

Question 3. Look at P.9 of the `06 accounts.  Are you not concerned that we had non-player wage costs of £9m in `02 leaving £6m of our revenue available for the team, but that in `08 we had non-player wage costs of £17m leaving £1.9m available for the team?  Can you please explain how that shows our infrastructure spend increasing the amount available to be invested in the team?

[/quote]

But I don''t have to work it out for myself because you''ve already done it here.

Or have you?

Maybe it''s just a figure cherry picked from the accounts but renamed to suit your agenda.

No doubt you''ll cherry pick another figure, rename it, and post it on another thread in due course[:|]

 

[/quote]

Yes, i`ve had an agenda all along- an agenda to make clear the reasons why we have spent so little on our team despite unprecidented income and player sales and give the other side of the story to Doncasters spin (to quote you "they all lie").  If you read Bowketts letter last year it could have been written by one of your adversaries on here- Buckethead or Tangie.  All i can say is that in her favour Delia clearly hasn`t got her own head wedged as firmly up her backside as you clearly have, and has at least stepped to one side to allow a change of approach.

Still haven`t seen my questions above addressed [^o)]

[/quote]

Well that''s all lovely Mr Carrow. But your figures don''t add up. I''ve gone back to p9 of the 2006 accounts, where even my copy seems to open on its own now, and I can find "player wages and related costs" and "other operating costs". But I can''t find non player wage costs. However, if I do a bit of creative fag packet accounting alongside p25 of the ''06 accounts I can only get non player wage costs to 6.3m and not the 17m that you have laid out in your post. But it really is "flying a kite" so to speak. Maybe you could tell us where your figure of 17m for non player wage costs was drawn from and how you arrived at the figure of 9m for 2002.

Have we spent little on our team? Didn''t Bowkett say the problem was not the 8.5m we had to spend but the way in which it was allocated. Didn''t he say we had a player budget of 8.5m while Wolves had one of 9.5m

What has Delia done differently with Bowkett and McNally that she didn''t do with Munby and Doncaster?

You''d have been better off taking your ball home when you first said you would. You''re beginning to look incredibly stupid now.

 

Share this post


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

 

So if something goes well, it''s luck, if badly, it''s criminal mismanagement?

[/quote]

So are you telling me you think anyone connected with the club thought we would be selling out 25k in the third division?

[/quote]I don''t know, do you? Perhaps Delia knows her audience better than you do?[/quote]

I`m asking for a reasonable educated opinion ron.  Yes i know people connected to the club and no, none of them thought we`d sell out in this league.

[/quote]I''d be inclined to believe you, except that various people have posted about their access to priveleged information concerning the club which has subsequently turned out to be false.Whatever, anybody''s credibility rests on their ability to predict the course of future events. At the moment you just look like someone with the gift of 20/20 hindsight.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh I cant beleive that this is upto 14 pages of stuff again but included nothing that has  not been re-regurgitated for 15 or more previous threads over the last 2 to 6 seasons with about 1% of content being factual and the rest conjecture, supposition and accusations to detractors that apply as much to accusers as those disagreeing.

Given the persistent nature of these threads perhaps they need their own little padded white cell sub forum so that the debate can continue to rage?  Its a immovable object v irrepressibel force discussion and I have given up watching as nothing happens or changes.  

A team can be successful on a budget.  Our team has not been as successful as our player budget should have ensured.  We may or may not have been able to allocate more of our resources to the players side.  Had we allocated more to the player budget there is no evidence that we would not be playing in league one this season

We are where we are.  The rest is pointless guesswork, raising individuals temperatures so therefore adding to the global warming.  Or is it?? [;)]

    

 

 

Share this post


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

Sheesh I cant beleive that this is upto 14 pages of stuff again but included nothing that has  not been re-regurgitated for 15 or more previous threads over the last 2 to 6 seasons with about 1% of content being factual and the rest conjecture, supposition and accusations to detractors that apply as much to accusers as those disagreeing.

Given the persistent nature of these threads perhaps they need their own little padded white cell sub forum so that the debate can continue to rage?  Its a immovable object v irrepressibel force discussion and I have given up watching as nothing happens or changes.  

A team can be successful on a budget.  Our team has not been as successful as our player budget should have ensured.  We may or may not have been able to allocate more of our resources to the players side.  Had we allocated more to the player budget there is no evidence that we would not be playing in league one this season

We are where we are.  The rest is pointless guesswork, raising individuals temperatures so therefore adding to the global warming.  Or is it?? [;)]

 

Great post Zipper. What''s really sad is that, in the process of achieving absolutely nothing, people that I know and like are falling out with each other.

    

 

 

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

Share this post


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

Sheesh I cant beleive that this is upto 14 pages of stuff again but included nothing that has  not been re-regurgitated for 15 or more previous threads over the last 2 to 6 seasons with about 1% of content being factual and the rest conjecture, supposition and accusations to detractors that apply as much to accusers as those disagreeing.

Given the persistent nature of these threads perhaps they need their own little padded white cell sub forum so that the debate can continue to rage?  Its a immovable object v irrepressibel force discussion and I have given up watching as nothing happens or changes.  

A team can be successful on a budget.  Our team has not been as successful as our player budget should have ensured.  We may or may not have been able to allocate more of our resources to the players side.  Had we allocated more to the player budget there is no evidence that we would not be playing in league one this season

We are where we are.  The rest is pointless guesswork, raising individuals temperatures so therefore adding to the global warming.  Or is it?? [;)]

 

Great post Zipper. What''s really sad is that, in the process of achieving absolutely nothing, people that I know and like are falling out with each other.

    

 

 

[/quote][/quote]

I posted on another thread what i thought was a pretty conciliatory post suggesting that we all relax our egos and accept that the board got it wrong but are doing their best to undo the damage by bringing in more experienced people.  One response.  I think Delia has accepted they got it wrong by bringing in a big critic as Chairman.  Why can`t posters on here do the same and we can all concentrate on our improving situation?  Entrenched opinions and huge egos getting in the way imo.

Share this post


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

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

[/quote]

It would probably be easier if you bang your head on the nearest wall, Mr Carrow,

Share this post


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

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

[/quote]

It would probably be easier if you bang your head on the nearest wall, Mr Carrow,

[/quote]

Well really! So in whose world other than Mr Carrow''s and Pete''s are other operating costs remotely the same as non-player wage costs? I''m sure everyone except Pete can now see what you have been doing here Mr Carrow.

Even your usual supporters have bailed out on this one. What do you personally gain from making stuff up to discredit our club?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

I posted on another thread what i thought was a pretty conciliatory post suggesting that we all relax our egos and accept that the board got it wrong but are doing their best to undo the damage by bringing in more experienced people.  One response.  I think Delia has accepted they got it wrong by bringing in a big critic as Chairman.  Why can`t posters on here do the same and we can all concentrate on our improving situation?  Entrenched opinions and huge egos getting in the way imo.[/quote]

Just to be clear if you read my post again I am targetting both sides of the imaginary line here,  not singling out one or  the other. 

Fair plays Mr C - I have not seen that and I agree thats what needs to happen. 

 

Share this post


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

Sheesh I cant beleive that this is upto 14 pages of stuff again but included nothing that has  not been re-regurgitated for 15 or more previous threads over the last 2 to 6 seasons with about 1% of content being factual and the rest conjecture, supposition and accusations to detractors that apply as much to accusers as those disagreeing.

Given the persistent nature of these threads perhaps they need their own little padded white cell sub forum so that the debate can continue to rage?  Its a immovable object v irrepressibel force discussion and I have given up watching as nothing happens or changes.  

A team can be successful on a budget.  Our team has not been as successful as our player budget should have ensured.  We may or may not have been able to allocate more of our resources to the players side.  Had we allocated more to the player budget there is no evidence that we would not be playing in league one this season

We are where we are.  The rest is pointless guesswork, raising individuals temperatures so therefore adding to the global warming.  Or is it?? [;)]

[/quote]

Great post Zipper. What''s really sad is that, in the process of achieving absolutely nothing, people that I know and like are falling out with each other.

    

[/quote]

I agree it''s a great post but it basically only says what I have been saying all along. This message board doesn''t have to be factual because it''s all about opinion. But if posters blatantly make up "facts" to back up that opinion surely it makes a mockery of the whole thing.

As for falling out, well I''d hope I would never fall out with anyone for stating an opinion on a messageboard. I treat this place the same as I do "real life". That''s the ultimate respect for this community.

 

 

Share this post


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

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

[/quote]

It would probably be easier if you bang your head on the nearest wall, Mr Carrow,

[/quote]

Well really! So in whose world other than Mr Carrow''s and Pete''s are other operating costs remotely the same as non-player wage costs? I''m sure everyone except Pete can now see what you have been doing here Mr Carrow.

Even your usual supporters have bailed out on this one. What do you personally gain from making stuff up to discredit our club?

 

[/quote]

Nutty, i`m trying to be nice here- you misunderstood something, fair enough.  But it really would be better to stop digging.  The figures on P.9 are split between "Player wages and related costs" and "Other operating costs".  If i posted the figures as "Other operating costs" no-one would know what the hell i was talking about, so i called them "Non-player wage costs" ie. all costs except player wages.  I would have thought it would have sunk in when i quoted the actual figures, but there you go [:^)].

P.S. If anyone else was confused by my phrasing, please post as such as i thought i was making myself clear.

Share this post


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

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

[/quote]

It would probably be easier if you bang your head on the nearest wall, Mr Carrow,

[/quote]

Well really! So in whose world other than Mr Carrow''s and Pete''s are other operating costs remotely the same as non-player wage costs? I''m sure everyone except Pete can now see what you have been doing here Mr Carrow.

Even your usual supporters have bailed out on this one. What do you personally gain from making stuff up to discredit our club?

 

[/quote]

Nutty, i`m trying to be nice here- you misunderstood something, fair enough.  But it really would be better to stop digging.  The figures on P.9 are split between "Player wages and related costs" and "Other operating costs".  If i posted the figures as "Other operating costs" no-one would know what the hell i was talking about, so i called them "Non-player wage costs" ie. all costs except player wages.  I would have thought it would have sunk in when i quoted the actual figures, but there you go [:^)].

P.S. If anyone else was confused by my phrasing, please post as such as i thought i was making myself clear.

[/quote]I was confused - it makes sense now. Still don''t agree with your argument though[:D]

Share this post


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

Nutty,  non-player wage costs mean all costs except player wages- in other words "Other operating costs" on P9.  I didn`t refer to them as other operating costs because the obvious response would be "other than what?".  If you couldn`t figure that out then that says it all- but i actually think you are just doing your awkward time-wasting thing again.

I`ve addressed the Wolves player budget comparison before- we were down to 14 pros with several kids having lost our three best players at the start of that season, Wolves had a big, valuable, settled squad to build on.  And you accuse me of cherry-picking! [:D]

[/quote]

It would probably be easier if you bang your head on the nearest wall, Mr Carrow,

[/quote]

Well really! So in whose world other than Mr Carrow''s and Pete''s are other operating costs remotely the same as non-player wage costs? I''m sure everyone except Pete can now see what you have been doing here Mr Carrow.

Even your usual supporters have bailed out on this one. What do you personally gain from making stuff up to discredit our club?

 

[/quote]

Nutty, i`m trying to be nice here- you misunderstood something, fair enough.  But it really would be better to stop digging.  The figures on P.9 are split between "Player wages and related costs" and "Other operating costs".  If i posted the figures as "Other operating costs" no-one would know what the hell i was talking about, so i called them "Non-player wage costs" ie. all costs except player wages.  I would have thought it would have sunk in when i quoted the actual figures, but there you go [:^)].

P.S. If anyone else was confused by my phrasing, please post as such as i thought i was making myself clear.

[/quote]

OK Mr Carrow. In the interests of this new spirit of good will that you''ve suddenly found, could you tell us what persentage of the 17m you claimed to be non-player wage costs actually was wage costs and what the rest of the "other operating costs" is made up of?

I thank you[Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not quite sure where i got that goodwill from after being called "incredibly stupid" and being told i was making things up.  As i`ve said before, you would have more right to take the moral high ground when things get personal if you didn`t so readily resort to it yourself....

And no, this thread has taught me once more how pointless it is trying to rationalise with people who only see what they want to see- so i`m not getting embroiled in more debating of figures.  Non-player wage costs being £9m in `02 leaving £6m from revenue to spend on the team, to the same costs being £17m in`08 leaving £1.9m to spend on the team clearly shows that far too much was being spent running the non-football side of the club- leaving us virtually unable to afford a team at all without transfer profits to pay for it.  If you don`t think that indicates a big problem then there is nothing more i can say to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...