Jump to content

Recommended Posts

ARGH !!!!! Here we go again.... in the news article about the stadium capacity, the article then goes on to quote Neil Doncaster over a few things, mainly finances. Here are some of them:

“We will give it a go and we will give the manager what we can afford.

asked why, when so much Sky TV money was coming into the club, only £1.2 million was being given to manager Nigel Worthington for new players in the transfer window.

“I cannot say too much about accounts which will be published in the next fortnight. There were a fairly bleak set of financial circumstances last year and the accounts will not include the Sky money.

There will be “fairly significant” net debts and net losses.

He added: “If people expect us to make a substantial cash profit this year they may be disappointed"

why is it that any question on this subject, is met with an unconvincing answer?

Any question that relates to money is either met with the irrelevent spin of "last years accounts" (already 11 months out of date and don''t reflect the current situation of the club) or is met with bland statements about "not risking the future", "significant debts" etc. but nothing that actually details what the current situation is and nothing with any substance behind it at all.

Everyone agrees with the need to not get relegated with millions of external debt, but it''s such a cop out to trot out that pacifying line as an excuse for absolutely everything. £1.2m in the transfer window?? you''re right that''s not risking the club''s future, it''s almost guaranteeing that it''ll be in the championship but until someone gets some decent answers from the Chief Executive to direct questions we''ll never know. How about these for a start:

The accounts were bleak last year, and don''t reflect the Sky money - OK so what''s the situation now, WITH the Sky money?

Mr.Doncaster - given the stadium is sold out, increased advertising revenue, over £200k for a televised home game, an admittedly thrifty board - would YOU not be disappointed if you couldn''t turn a profit from that (Pre transfers) in 2004? (or were you talking about 2003 AGAIN?)

Are you really risking the clubs future by giving the manager say £3m in January, when in Robert Green you have a saleable asset worth around £4m which you sell, if need be, in May?

The significant debts - what is the liklihood of this ever being called in? i.e does this include the redeemable shares? investment from the board? what is the true level of external debt i.e to banks and financial houses?

Then maybe, with a bit more clarity we can possibly understand how our club is being run.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]ARGH !!!!! Here we go again.... in the news article about the stadium capacity, the article then goes on to quote Neil Doncaster over a few things, mainly finances. Here are some of them: “We will g...[/quote]

How long Camberwick Green, have I ''banged'' on about our bloody tight fisted board?.

I know its only my opinion here, but I don''t trust them, and have ''never bought'' into the type of garbage which seems to be coming from old Doomcaster''s mouth at the present.

Your questions are very reasonable, but you won''t get a straight answer I''m afraid. You may as well p**s into the wind mate.

If anyone is the cause of us being relegated, IMO it will be them, for caution read timid.

I''m getting that damn headache again, and total despair is setting in.

I don''t care what figure''s are written on their paper, in my book, the sums don''t add up!.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

doomcaster strikes again

why is so much space in the EDP given over to him, he just repeats the same old stuff every time?

yes, we are in debt, we know that

yes, gloom and doom(caster) we have heard it all before

when you have something new to say and can stop patronising the fans (who give a lot of money to the club) we might start taking you seriously - a lot of your support are in fact in executive roles, run their own businesses and are successful themselves, yet you treat us all like peasants

until then, just drone on to the shareholders and yes, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the annual AGM meeting (how many of you on here are shareholders and are going?)

but to have a column in the EDP every week?  zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Wizard, I''m with you 100%. I agree, the board are phenomenally timid and excessively cautious at times and I also agree that, in my opinion, some of the sums or spin you hear around issues such as transfer budgets etc. just don''t add up.

A while back on the NCFC board I also raised the question that we''re almost being mis-informed over things. For example the soon to be published accounts - they''re now almost totally irrelevant. In no other company could you get away with publishing your accounts to your shareholders that late, the club really are trying it on. Which makes the spin and unsupported comments over debt, and losses even more unacceptable.

We''re not saying that we should announce precisely all the club''s business but currently on any key question we get flanelled all the time and our Chief Executive is the king of spin.

Doomcaster - Like it !! Nice one !!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but maybe he is playing his cards close to his chest so not too many other clubs are worried about any spending that we might have planned.  How many boards do you know in the Premiership that tell anyone that will listen that they have £millions to spend when the transfer window opens?   Thats the optimistic view.

The realistic view is that we will only have £1.2M, but still think long term success is better than a short term chance of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CG - I believe the club''s financial year runs until the 31st May, so this set of accounts will cover the year end to May 2004. No Sky money was received until July / August, so there will be no figures in the accounts for this.

1st W -  How do the figures not add up?

Gazzathegreat - yep, I''m a shareholder and, yes, I will be going to the AGM.

We spent 2/3rds of last season with a three sided ground so income would have been lower. We made a loss the previous season with higher attendances, so I fail to see how Doncaster''s comments are patronising or treating us like peasants ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]CG - I believe the club''s financial year runs until the 31st May, so this set of accounts will cover the year end to May 2004. No Sky money was received until July / August, so there will be no figure...[/quote]

Agreed GazzaTCC.

Your 1st point is very valid. I would also like to point out to the other poster that all businesses have a certain amount of time for their accounts to be prepared and submitted to everyone including Companies House, not sure of the exact time scale but I believe it will be 12 months (will check with my accountant sometime) before any penalties come into effect.

As we are showing such a loss from the last years accounts, to spend a large amount of money without looking to reduce losses could amount to fraudulently trading (I know a lot of clubs have done this, but they are still basically breaking the law).

As I run my own business I am quite looking forward to seeing the clubs accounts when they are published and going through them with a fine tooth comb. Up until then all this speculation of how much money the club has got this season to spend is really not relevant. I have faith in the board that they will do the right thing for the club, and if we haven''t the funds to bring in a saviour then so be it. All this speculate to accumulate is ok, but we do not have the 5 million available to get someone half decent in. We only got Hucks because a private individual is still funding half his weekly wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Time to come clean and time for a tragic admission .  I am a qualified chartered accountant.... there I''ve said it. My work (exciting as it is) involves auditing FTSE100 companies and their financial statements.

Private companies have 10 months from their account reference date (i.e their year end) to file accounts with Companies House, public companies have 7.

The fines associated with late filing are not particularly significant (about £300). recently Nottingham Forest delayed their publishing of their accounts for 2 years (in order to avoid disclosing details of a loan agreement with the council).

I thought the NCFC year end was 31 December, hence I thought it was taking the mick slightly to issue accounts relating to 2003 at the end of November 2004. If it is a May year end, then we''re still in an acceptable time frame. Obviously whatever the year end the Sky money will not be in the accounts, I don''t remember suggesting that it would be. My point was that accounts are historic and backward looking, whereas the relevant question now is - what is the current situation? the facts are that now the stadium is selling out, TV money through the roof etc. the picture has changed significantly from the date of the accounts, you can''t use them as a basis for evaluating any decision for how much money the manager should be given.

Man Utd et al being publically listed companies give full discolsure of their accounts to the city because they have to. Norwich do not have to comply with this, who is in the weaker position regarding other clubs knowing your finances?

Finally, I would argue that Norwich DO have the £4m to give Nigel in January if they wanted to. The club has saleable assets (I''m talking players, not buildings). Green will go if Norwich get relegated, why not use the £4m that his sale would bring now? If you go down, he goes, you get your money back, if you stay up, another year in the premiership, increased advertising, TV appearance money etc. 

The fun world of accounting eh? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]CG - I believe the club''s financial year runs until the 31st May, so this set of accounts will cover the year end to May 2004. No Sky money was received until July / August, so there will be no figure...[/quote]

GazzaTTC

you have never obviously been personally treated to Doomcaster and Munby ''live'', an experience i don''t wish to ever repeat

and yes, they do patronise people, i may not be a managing director of a multi-national company but i do know when we are being treated like simple yokels - different story when they need our money in february i think you will find .... good luck with the AGM, let us all know (in plain english!) how it went

it seems funny looking back on it now, but we were told this time last year that bringing huckerby to the club would ruin us and be too  much of a risk ....  would it be too much of a risk to ask doomcaster to come out with his anti-relagation plan?

As to the figures running from one part of the year to another and not including future monies to be earnt, have they never heard of forward planning? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing that is bugging me is what is going to happen to the 6 million land deal money. Originally that money was earmarked to pay for the new stand but now they''re paying for that over 15 years. Have to say that I to am not 100% convinced that our board are as honest as many seem to believe, 10 years ago fans were up in arms because of a lack of investment in the playing staff and I''m amazed at how tolerant people are at the moment. But if we do go down that tolerance will disappear and will be reflected in season ticket sales and overall attendances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said all of you (except two I think).

Thanks for the clarity Camberwick Green. A forward thinking commercially minded accountant. I wish I could employ you but I''m sure you''re in high demand and I know I couldn''t afford your salary!!

It really is heartening to read these, what might be described as, ''suspicious board'', comments from regular intelligent posters.

I too have always had the feeling that they think they are dealing with country yokels. Do they think they can get away with stupid platitudes on the one side and hand ringing pathos on the other? Well if they do I think they are going to be in for a mighty shock.

I will be at the shareholders meeting but it is a waste of time making any comment. I can assure you from personal experience they do not like any form of criticism and take any constructive comments as personal insults.

Onwards and Upwards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]OK. Time to come clean and time for a tragic admission . I am a qualified chartered accountant.... there I''ve said it. My work (exciting as it is) involves auditing FTSE100 companies and their finan...[/quote]

Camberwick.

I see that tou are a self-confessed qualified chartered accountant.

Are there be any unqualified chartered accountants around? If so Bury may be able to afford one of those!

Don''t take offence. I jest.

Good marketing though! 

All together now, after three. 1 2 3 - OTBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don''t get it!!

We have a 15million long term loan, 6 million for the new stand and the rest was to secure the existing debt, is this correct??

I thought the first rule of finance was to never have any savings if you have debt. Therefore, are the club really spending the money from the prem on last years bonuses and this years costs. This seams unreal, we go up, we don''t spend on players and we don''t clear any debts. Could someone please clear the situation as to where the 15million pounds is going!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Camberwick. I see that tou are a self-confessed qualified chartered accountant. Are there be any unqualified chartered accountants around? If so Bury may be able to afford one of those! Don''t take ...[/quote]

They say that admitting it is the first step to recovery !!

I think I''ve probably blown my chances of working for the club now though !!! or if I haven''t already, I may well do at the AGM !

No offence taken !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Camberwick is right, of course, any set of accounts are a "snapshot" at the Year End, looking backwards and are, therefore, almost out of date as soon as they are written.

There is no end of talk of budgets, so I don''t believe for one moment that there isn''t any forward planning Gazzathegreat. As with any company, however, you are never going to get access to the management accounts that detail the present situation and that''s the hub of the problem. They are never going to disclose the accurate financial position for a whole host of reasons.

No, I''ve never met Neil Doncaster, but have met Andrew Cullen and I can say that both will also respond to certain email queries, if approached reasonably. They will not, however, disclose confidential information and nor should they, that''s just common corporate governance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am a qualified chartered accountant and am waiting for my call to work for the club.

If we spend the £4m potential Green money in January (ahead of actually getting it) and he then breaks his leg and Arsenal decide not to buy him and we get relegated, we just may be in trouble.

I didn''t think you should recognise gains before they happened! - remember Bradford........ they sold 3 and 5 year season tickets when they went up spent all the cash, got relegated and are now rubbish and have huge financial problems.

I think everyone should lay off the board - since 1996:

they (in one form or another)

  • got rid of Chase
  • saved the club
  • got us academy status
  • got us to the play-off final
  • built us a lovely new stand
  • got us the title and into the premier 
  • are building us another new stand
  • are doing their best to ensure we have a club for evermore

Granted there have been mistakes but the stability we have is something we have not had for 12 years.  We have had the same manager for 4 years, we are not a selling club, we have an excellent ground and have a very, very good chance of staying as one of the best 20 clubs in the land.

I think that some people like to moan and seem to pick on one person a week - last week it was Holty and this week DONCASTER (see how it is spelt).  I think I will call him:

"Neil  DonRealisticandprobablyoneoftheonlypeoplewhoactuallyknowshowmuchmoneyanddebtswe
haveatanyonetimeandnotsomeonewhogoesoffononebecauseheputscertainswords
beforeothersinaninterviewCaster"

Pretty much in the same way that for some people the players that aren''t playing are always the answer - Safri, Jarvis and Shackell were the answer before we won last week.  In the same way that Leon, Phil, Svensson, Helveg, Bentley have all been the answer at some stage - especially when they have just been dropped for being rubbish.

Bingo! and back to work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright so lets say the doomsday scenario bites and Green breaks his leg, gets run over by a bus, and his hands fall off.... There are other saleable assets at the club - Francis, Huckerby, Jonson.  So providing there isn''t a mass outbreak of broken legs, or players being run down by buses the theory is still sound.

If Green breaks his leg, you can always sell him when he''s fit, look at Van Nistlerooy. A temporary setback doesn''t mean he''s worthless.

I also don''t think that you''re necessarilly recognising a gain before its happened. In Green I''d say that you were holding an "investment held for sale". There''s no shortage of buyers and the market price is currently £3-4m. I see no problem funding acquisitions as long as you have the current assets to cover them.

As for Bradford, well there is a crystal clear example of how not to do it. Again i''m not advocating that norwich borrow £20m and enter absurd long-term contracts for the likes of Carbone.

I''m saying that the scope is there for a mitigated gamble in buying a £3 or 4m player to make the difference. Ultimately businesses that are excessively risk averse will fold. The opportunity is there to take a limited gamble, I think it should be taken. Just like I thought the chance to sign Huckerby just COULD NOT be passed up, here again is a critical moment: the transfer window, will you do the same again?

Agreed. The board have moved the club forward, I think the point is over lack of clarity and the same tired broken record responses being trotted out by the Chief Executive.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, i would like to look at this from a footballing point of view.

Saying a £3/4m player will make the difference is ABSURD!!

He might. He might not. And if we did buy him, what happens if we can''t get him the ball? We haven''t exactly been making chances in abundance have we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have I missed something? Is anyone suggesting we have to sell before we buy? Has anyone suggested there will not be further purchases? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Alright so lets say the doomsday scenario bites and Green breaks his leg, gets run over by a bus, and his hands fall off.... There are other saleable assets at the club - Francis, Huckerby, Jonson. S...[/quote]

I thought for a moment you said Jonson was a saleable asset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my view on it was that we are creating some chances, but not finishing them off. No-one would expect to create as many chances as you get in the first division but if you get 4 or 5, you have to take 1 or 2 of them.

I''m not saying that if you sign one player, everything is solved, all problems sorted, cats and dogs living together in harmony, that type of thing... I was trying to say that there is one key position where the team is struggling, centre forward. I think that''s pretty obvious to everyone. I was trying to say that an opportunity exists to improve that, but that this will involve a limited risk (just like crossing the road) and it''s a critical decision that needs making.

Agreed, we don''t HAVE to sell to buy someone in, but of you could add £3m to your transfer kitty whatever that is, knowing that in all liklihood if the risk fails you''ll get the cash back, it''s something you should do. That then would also improve your chances of signing someone that might make the difference.

Finally, i didn''t want to include Jonson as a liability !! so included him as a saleable asset .....  although, I still think he''s a forward not a midfielder. He''s  an international so must have some sell on value???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a depressing view, and I hope to be wrong but -

I believe that to stay up we would need investment in SEVEN positions, and with just one (or even two) quality additions we are still going to struggle.

Why?

Because NW has no clue tactically, and isn''t really that adept in the transfer market.

I am a big Worthy fan, when we are on a budget. BUT, like Peter Taylor before him (£5m on Akinbiyi, £3m on Trevor Benjamin) and many others, I think he will struggle to identify the perfect player we need given large funds.

Personally, I wouldn''t trust him if it was my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Each to their own opinion, but I do take issue with the ''facts'' that some people put out.

If NW is so crap tactically and we need 7 new players, how is it we''re sitting 18th, just a couple of points off mid-table? If we can''t create any chances, how is it we created more chances against Southampton than half the other teams playing last weekend did in their games. Look at the stats. The "best" player in the Prem last weekend was a Norwich midfielder.

The finances aren''t rosy overnight just cos we went up, the 15m we borrowed was to pay off other debts (consolidation? better rate of interest?) and to pay for the new stand ahead of getting the 6m from the land deal, half of which we haven''t even actually got yet.

Last year we ran at a huge loss. The club gambled on promotion and got it... there''s ambition for you. However it does mean that several million of the sky money went straight away to paying off last year''s operating loss... thus keeping the debts steady and manageable.

Its more the case that had we not been promoted we''d have been in fairly deep financial trouble. The club play their cards close to their chest in terms of how much there is to spend in Jan, and rightly so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Each to their own opinion, but I do take issue with the ''facts'' that some people put out. If NW is so crap tactically and we need 7 new players, how is it we''re sitting 18th, just a couple of points ...[/quote]

I''ve been following this debate with much interest, and can see all the poster''s arguments, all well put, even if I don''t agree with some of them.

But if I could address this question to Amarillo. Surely the quickest and best way to clear any debts, and keep them manageable, would be for City to stay in the premiership, yes?.

The best, if somewhat risky way I agree, for that to happen, City must invest now, and not later when the money won''t be there.

Because sure as hell, there won''t be the money about to do s*d all in the ''fizzy pop'' league, yes?.

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...