Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Beauseant

Looks like there are big problems at Charlton

Recommended Posts

[quote user="NIN"]personally I blame Bob Franklin[/quote]I blame Maggie Thatcher!

Share this post


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

Is this the bit where you accuse me of making stuff up because you can`t understand the point i`m making?

[/quote]

No its the bit where you bang away with one figure that independent of its original accuracy, is certainly now devoid of any context or meaning, because you lack any basic understanding of statistical methods.

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Purple and Lappin, i am refering to non-player costs which are ridiculously high at NCFC as was proved when comparing our `08 accounts with Prestons.  That has nothing to do with what you have posted so how about a relevant post?[/quote]Mr.Carrow, the relevance is this. Your broad argument, and that of other posters, if I have understood it correctly, is this:You don''t just believe it is possible to run NCFC plc financially more efficiently. In other words, to reduce losses. You believe it is actually possible to run the plc so it at least breaks even, and may even make a profit.And to bolster your argument you and other posters have held up several clubs of similar size to Norwich as examples that supposedly prove this belief. Preston being among them.The general view on Planet Football, which I share, is that you may be able to find an example of a club that for a season or two (often for particular reasons) seems to prove your belief. But that over several years even just breaking even is not possible. Without being bankrolled by a sugar daddy. Or sugar mummy.And that is the revelance of that report on Preston. You have just said the admirable thing about Preston is precisely that it hasn''t lost sight of its core product in the way Norwich supposedly has. Yet this club, with its sights firmly fixed on the core product, has just announced a loss of £9.17m and has only been kept afloat by a sugar daddy.[/quote]

PC, are we overall in the black or the red since Delia took over?  And i`m talking ordinary profit/loss which doesn`t include director investment.

Do you think it is fair and relevant to ask why a club like Preston had an affordable (ie.to break even) playing budget of £5m out of £8.5m revenue whilst our affordable budget was £1.9m out of £19m revenue?  Despite T`s predictable spin those figures do not include player sales/director investment.  Do you think that maybe if we can figure out this discrepency it may help us to understand why our playing budget has been largely funded by flogging off our best players in the last four years, leading to an inevitable decline on the pitch?

[/quote]Mr.C, re your rhetorical questions, I have never said NCFC is perfectly

run from a financial point of view. Possibly there could be

improvements to the business plan.

But I am glad to see you have not attempted to challenge the whole

point of my post, which is simply this. You have maintained all along

that clubs like Norwich can break even or even make a profit over a

long period. And you have backed up that argument by using the supposed examples of other clubs, but particularly Preston, with its emphasis on core activities that you said was the crucial difference compared with NCFC.

If cases like Hull had not already done so, then that argument has finally been blown out of the water by the Preston statement.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC, NCFC HAVE made a profit over a long period- we are still in the black during Delia`s reign, although that will probably change once last years accounts come out. 

Also i have never argued what you are saying i have argued, the crux of my argument has always been that the club is too focused on development off the pitch than on it.  This has been consistantly proved by the annual reports, statements such as admitting an obsession with off-pitch development (Munby) and now Bowketts rather barbed comments.  If there were any evidence that this policy had increased the amount available to spend on players then i guess the policy wouldn`t seem so flawed but the evidence is incontravertably the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem  with Mr C''s argument is that the accounts do indeed show that this policy has resulted in additional income and that the majority of other clubs also follow the same policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]The problem  with Mr C''s argument is that the accounts do indeed show that this policy has resulted in additional income and that the majority of other clubs also follow the same policy.[/quote]

An affordable football budget of £1.9m out of £19m revenue in `08 says otherwise and you well know it T.  As i`ve challenged you before- let`s see some figures from other clubs as bad or worse than that and you`ll have an argument.  We`ve already established that Preston could afford a healthy £5m in the same year.  I`m waiting.......[|-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
T, given that football is a business and our finances are "dire", if i could propose a course of action that would virtually guarantee the club a big profit in this financial year would you join me in proposing it to the board?

Share this post


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

An affordable football budget of £1.9m out of £19m revenue in `08 says otherwise and you well know it T.  As i`ve challenged you before- let`s see some figures from other clubs as bad or worse than that and you`ll have an argument.  We`ve already established that Preston could afford a healthy £5m in the same year.  I`m waiting.......[|-)]

[/quote]

I''ve never known you believe any other figure that Neil Doncaster produced. Why then do you hold that one as gospel?

Is it because it fits with your preconceived ideas of what the club is doing wrong perchance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can''t believe Mr. Carrow is still spouting (like some sort of mantra) his Preston 2008 rubbish.  The reason he is obsessed by their 2008 results is because that is the year they sold Nugent for loads of money and this one transaction distorts their results.

Their pre-tax loss for 2008 was £1.1m.  If you take out profit from player sales their loss was £6.8m.

Our pre-tax loss for 2008 was £2.8m.  If you take out profit from player sales our loss was only (!) £6.2m.

Their playing wage bill was no bigger than ours that season and yet they still managed to lose more money than us in normal operating activity.  Hardly an argument that they could mysteriously afford higher wages because we wasted all ours on other commercial activities.  His £5m figure for ''affordable'' wages for Preston is totally phony.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I`m looking at the figures pre-exceptional items mr carra that is the point.  So why do you think a club with less than half our ticket income and revenue could afford a similar player wage bill with a similar income from player sales and post a similar loss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Simple cash from player sales and cash injections from the owners - read the press release concerning their accounts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]Simple cash from player sales and cash injections from the owners - read the press release concerning their accounts[/quote]

They could afford £5m BEFORE exceptional items T, as you have accepted before.  We could afford £1.9m despite much higher ticket revenue and overall income.  Why such a big discrepancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As they say there are 3 reasons: cash, cash and cash. Cash is king!!! You have to look at the cash flow statement not the P+L!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]As they say there are 3 reasons: cash, cash and cash. Cash is king!!! You have to look at the cash flow statement not the P+L!!![/quote]

In relation to their revenue T, were Prestons non-football costs:

a., Significantly higher than ours?  Or,

b., Significantly lower than ours?

Do lower non-football costs:

a., Increase the amount of revenue available to be invested in the team?  Or,

b., Decrease the amount of revenue available to be invested in the team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]T, given that football is a business and our finances are "dire", if i could propose a course of action that would virtually guarantee the club a big profit in this financial year would you join me in proposing it to the board?[/quote]

Will you back my proposal T?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is that the football team is not sustainable at either club. It''s crazy holding up Preston as an example because they are losing millions in an attempt to get to the Premier League. If they get there they will more than likely lose further millions trying to stay there. There''s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I''m afraid. If they get there the players and their agents will know what their income is and will tailor their demands accordingly. Preston have obviously done some things better than us over the last couple of seasons. Maybe they will fall by the wayside soon but another club will then be the new model for comparison.

In a thread where it seems acceptable to cherry pick certain parts of each of the clubs finances to make a point I will throw something else into the mix. Is Delia Smith an investor or a benefactor? Is she greedy to have transferred her loans into shares or would we be better off paying her interest on the loans? And is Trevor Hemmings a benefactor or an investor. Would they be better off if he transferred his loans into shares rather than paying interest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[:O]Mr C - you are at it again.[:)]You start a argument from a point that makes perfect sense (in this case that City''s current balance sheet is dominated by investment in infrastructure) but when attacked try to stretch this point to something that makes no sense (the Preston comparison).Some points you may wish to consider:1) Preston''s massive £9m loss - even on their low expenditure2) The fact that without a £10m handout they would be looking at administration3) Bigger turnovers require bigger costs - I don''t think Man U look at Preston and say we should run the club on that cost base.4) If we had appointed Lambert last year there might not be much between the league positions of the club5) When the Jarrold was built the club was criticised because it wasn''t two tier

Share this post


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

The bottom line is that the football team is not sustainable at either club. It''s crazy holding up Preston as an example because they are losing millions in an attempt to get to the Premier League. If they get there they will more than likely lose further millions trying to stay there. There''s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I''m afraid. If they get there the players and their agents will know what their income is and will tailor their demands accordingly. Preston have obviously done some things better than us over the last couple of seasons. Maybe they will fall by the wayside soon but another club will then be the new model for comparison.

In a thread where it seems acceptable to cherry pick certain parts of each of the clubs finances to make a point I will throw something else into the mix. Is Delia Smith an investor or a benefactor? Is she greedy to have transferred her loans into shares or would we be better off paying her interest on the loans? And is Trevor Hemmings a benefactor or an investor. Would they be better off if he transferred his loans into shares rather than paying interest?

 

[/quote]

It strikes me that you are saying you are happy in Div 3 and no club should attempt to better it''s position.

That''s not the Nutty I have come to know[:D]

We will not know the answer to your second paragraph until such times as they leave.

Then we will have to guess, as sure as eggs is eggs you will not get the whole of the picture.

The difference could be what division and when and who.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]T, given that football is a business and our finances are "dire", if i could propose a course of action that would virtually guarantee the club a big profit in this financial year would you join me in proposing it to the board?[/quote]

Will you back my proposal T?

It depends _ I''d rather that you did not propose to sell Holt, Wes, Doc and Rusty

[/quote]

Share this post


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

The bottom line is that the football team is not sustainable at either club. It''s crazy holding up Preston as an example because they are losing millions in an attempt to get to the Premier League. If they get there they will more than likely lose further millions trying to stay there. There''s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I''m afraid. If they get there the players and their agents will know what their income is and will tailor their demands accordingly. Preston have obviously done some things better than us over the last couple of seasons. Maybe they will fall by the wayside soon but another club will then be the new model for comparison.

In a thread where it seems acceptable to cherry pick certain parts of each of the clubs finances to make a point I will throw something else into the mix. Is Delia Smith an investor or a benefactor? Is she greedy to have transferred her loans into shares or would we be better off paying her interest on the loans? And is Trevor Hemmings a benefactor or an investor. Would they be better off if he transferred his loans into shares rather than paying interest?

 

[/quote]

It strikes me that you are saying you are happy in Div 3 and no club should attempt to better it''s position.

That''s not the Nutty I have come to know[:D]

We will not know the answer to your second paragraph until such times as they leave.

Then we will have to guess, as sure as eggs is eggs you will not get the whole of the picture.

The difference could be what division and when and who.

[/quote]

That''s of course not what I''m saying. But to be fair many of your posts strike me that you think there''s no difference between the game now and the game in Big Bobs day.

But I''ll tell you something I honestly do believe - if something isn''t done soon to make football clubs become sustainable Division Three will be the least of the worries for more than a few.

 

Share this post


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

The bottom line is that the football team is not sustainable at either club. It''s crazy holding up Preston as an example because they are losing millions in an attempt to get to the Premier League. If they get there they will more than likely lose further millions trying to stay there. There''s no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow I''m afraid. If they get there the players and their agents will know what their income is and will tailor their demands accordingly. Preston have obviously done some things better than us over the last couple of seasons. Maybe they will fall by the wayside soon but another club will then be the new model for comparison.

In a thread where it seems acceptable to cherry pick certain parts of each of the clubs finances to make a point I will throw something else into the mix. Is Delia Smith an investor or a benefactor? Is she greedy to have transferred her loans into shares or would we be better off paying her interest on the loans? And is Trevor Hemmings a benefactor or an investor. Would they be better off if he transferred his loans into shares rather than paying interest?

 

[/quote]

It strikes me that you are saying you are happy in Div 3 and no club should attempt to better it''s position.

That''s not the Nutty I have come to know[:D]

We will not know the answer to your second paragraph until such times as they leave.

Then we will have to guess, as sure as eggs is eggs you will not get the whole of the picture.

The difference could be what division and when and who.

[/quote]

That''s of course not what I''m saying. But to be fair many of your posts strike me that you think there''s no difference between the game now and the game in Big Bobs day.

But I''ll tell you something I honestly do believe - if something isn''t done soon to make football clubs become sustainable Division Three will be the least of the worries for more than a few.

 

[/quote]

There''s a world and a lifetimes difference. Doesn''t make now better though! Then I would go back to living in the 60''s rather than living in the  60''s (age)

I fully agree with the last bit.

Wait until all the millionaire footballers have bought the clubs then see what happens![;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Wait until all the millionaire footballers have bought the clubs then see what happens![/quote]You''re assuming that the players we''ve got see their job as more than a job.  I''d like to think you were right...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="T"]As they say there are 3 reasons: cash, cash and cash. Cash is king!!! You have to look at the cash flow statement not the P+L!!![/quote]

 

Yes, Mr. Carrow, lets look at the cash flow.

 

Our cash went down by £2.2m in 2008 , after we took out new  loans of £300k - so without the new borrowing we were about £2.5m down.

Preston''s cash went down in 2008 by £4.9m, after they took out new loans amounting to £4.7m - so without the new borrowings their cash flow was down £9.6m (over £7m worse than our cashflow performance!!!) .

And if you check out their 2009 accounts they have had to borrow another whopping £13.4m - that''s an extra £18m of new borrowing in just 2 years!!

 

The more you look at their figures the more they look like financially they are one of the worst run clubs out there - a total basket case (if you check their balance sheet there debt, astoundingly, actually exceeds the total value of all their assets - at least we have assets far greater than the value of our debts).

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mr. Carrow - name checked you by mistake there.  It was T''s comment about the cash flow, not yours.  Humble apologies!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have to admit I have absolutely no knowledge of corporate finances, but when people are pointing out our massive "off-the-field" spend, is part of that not being spent on wages/resources for the restaurants and other profit-making ventures? If so, does it take into account the amount of profit that these off-the-field companies put back into the club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are massive financial problems everywhere in football. What other business would rationalize an increase in its core employee''s wages of 25% (as Preston just did) when facing a huge annual deficit? Player wages MUST be pulled back..

It certainly wouldn''t happen in the banking industry ....

Share this post


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

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]T, given that football is a business and our finances are "dire", if i could propose a course of action that would virtually guarantee the club a big profit in this financial year would you join me in proposing it to the board?[/quote]

Will you back my proposal T?

It depends _ I''d rather that you did not propose to sell Holt, Wes, Doc and Rusty

[/quote][/quote]

Why not?  That is how we have stemmed our losses since relegation and you`ve supported it to the hilt.  I take it you are admitting you were wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mr carra"]Sorry, Mr. Carrow - name checked you by mistake there.  It was T''s comment about the cash flow, not yours.  Humble apologies!![/quote]

You`re not allowed to be humble on here [;)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BigFish"][:O]Mr C - you are at it again.[:)]

You start a argument from a point that makes perfect sense (in this case that City''s current balance sheet is dominated by investment in infrastructure) but when attacked try to stretch this point to something that makes no sense (the Preston comparison).

Some points you may wish to consider:

1) Preston''s massive £9m loss - even on their low expenditure
2) The fact that without a £10m handout they would be looking at administration
3) Bigger turnovers require bigger costs - I don''t think Man U look at Preston and say we should run the club on that cost base.
4) If we had appointed Lambert last year there might not be much between the league positions of the club
5) When the Jarrold was built the club was criticised because it wasn''t two tier
[/quote]

BF, the only stretching being done is by people trying to deflect from my simple point about us and Preston re. `08 accounts and trying to assume from that that i am holding them up as some kind of faultless paragons of financial virtue.

So, to stick to the point-  Preston could afford in `08 to spend far more of their ordinary revenue (NOT including investment and transfer profits) on their team than we could, despite our revenue being more than twice theirs.  Now, some questions open to anyone:

Is it ok as City fans to ask why this is, and why our non-football costs were so much higher than theirs?  (And if not, why not?)

Do you think that the answer to that question may give us the reason why we have consistantly had to sell our star players since relegation leading to a devalued, demoralised team getting relegated?

Our new Chairman has stated that "We are here to win football matches, not build a property portfolio" and "We do not believe the club have been sufficiently focussed on the football side" (from memory- Bowkett and Bertrams letter last year).  Is he wrong?  Should we be campaigning against him and demanding more non-football expenditure?  Or can we just relax our egos a little bit and accept that the club got it wrong but have now invited the critics on board to sort out the mess?

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...