THE YEAR AT CARROW ROAD

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

---

Some of you

may remember (most have

probably been trying to forget) that around February last year I set up a

website to publish an explanation of Cullumgate. A few months later I

updated

the site with new material about Cullumgate and other aspects of Norwich

City

life, focusing on financial affairs - investment and ownership and the

like.

I hadn’t planned on testing readers’ stamina any further, but it’s fair

to say

this has been as tumultuous a season as I can remember as far as

off-field

activities as concerned, both for English football generally and the

Canaries

in particular. Boardroom changes, libel actions, tribunals, s*x

scandals.

Actually, not the last, at least as far as I’m aware, sadly.

So the site

has been updated again. Mainly

to try to assess how the new board of directors has been doing. It got

off to

an admirable start with the sacking of Gunn (“If it were done when ''tis

done,

then ''twere well it were done quickly.”) but what about other decisions,

and

have there been any massive changes of policy?

The site comes

with the previous

health warning, but greatly magnified. It now has well over 10,000

words. Additionally,

it may well be of little or no interest to many fans – those sensibly

focused

on on-field stuff. But it does deal with topics that have generated a

vast

amount of traffic on this message board.

The site can be found at:

http://thecanarypurple.homestead.com/

 

[TheGoogler 604]

Some interesting stuff there, if highly speculative. I disagree with the summary that the new board has no change of policy from the old board. That is definitely true when looking at the possibility of investment. But speak to anyone in Carrow Road and you''re told it''s the more subtle things that have changed. The way they approach things.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="TheGoogler"]Some interesting stuff there, if highly speculative. I disagree with the summary that the new board has no change of policy from the old board. That is definitely true when looking at the possibility of investment. But speak to anyone in Carrow Road and you''re told it''s the more subtle things that have changed. The way they approach things.[/quote]---The Googler, you right, of course, that some (only some!) of what I''ve

written is speculative, but speculation based on following events

closely.

I''m intrigued but not surprised by your statement that there is change

in approach at Carrow Road. That tends to be the case when there is a

new broom in the form of new management. The real point for me, as I''ve

said, is whether this will lead to major policy shifts. So far there

have been no obvious changes. 

Moving on, there was an interesting comment from Bowkett on today''s

webchat about the search for investment, which, as I correctly indicated

on my website, was not yet complete:

"On the investment

front we have spent the past six months in discussions with over 50

parties in America, Europe, the Middle East and the Far East. We are now

in detailed discussions with several of those parties as to structuring

further investment. As these matters are complex, I would not expect

any further information to be available in the short-term. Therefore we

have put together a budget for next year from our own resources, which

we believe will be extremely competitive."

In the light of that I asked a follow-up about whether he was talking

about minority investment or majority investment  - ie a new owner.

Unfortunately he didn''t get round to it.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

So Purple, you honestly think someone who was highly critical of the old board would come in and stick with the same policies?  All the comments from Bowkett and McNally about cutting back costs off the pitch and making the football team the priority (against Munby`s admitted "obsession" with off-pitch development) indicates pretty clearly the club is being run very differently now- as does the fact that we were net spenders in the transfer market last season for the first time since the Prem and despite a "dire" financial situation.  Do you think we`d have kept hold of our best players in Jan. under the old board?

[blahblahblah 2]

In the web chat earlier Bowkett was certainly making all the right noises about "being good at football" being the number one priority.  But then Roeders'' Norwich had the same budget as McCarthys'' Wolves the last time we were at that level.  Supplying money to the footballing side was a lesson I think they learn post-Worthy, but the money was spent badly because they targetted the wrong managers.  The difference now,  I think, is that McNally knows what a proper football manager and coaching staff look like, and went out to find a team that could do the job.Next season will be fascinating for a number of reasons :

• If we struggle early next season, will fans and board show patience with Lambert and team at a new level for them ?
• If we are successful, will Lambert leave us if a Premiership team comes knocking, next Jan - May ?
• If we have to replace the management team, will McNally pull another iron out of the fire ?

[William Darby 0]

I''ll take a gander.  Purple''s take on Cullum was an interesting read, and quite an enjoyable one.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]So Purple, you honestly think someone who was highly critical of the old board would come in and stick with the same policies?  All the comments from Bowkett and McNally about cutting back costs off the pitch and making the football team the priority (against Munby`s admitted "obsession" with off-pitch development) indicates pretty clearly the club is being run very differently now- as does the fact that we were net spenders in the transfer market last season for the first time since the Prem and despite a "dire" financial situation.  Do you think we`d have kept hold of our best players in Jan. under the old board?[/quote]---And this, Mr.Carrow, is exactly why I stopped trying to have a debate

with you. Munby didn''t admit to an obsession with off-pitch development.

I queried this when you first came out with it and you admitted what

he''d actually said was that SOME fans THOUGHT that was the case and TO

SOME EXTENT he thought it MIGHT be true. Nothing like the blanket

admission you''d made it out to be. Now you''ve rescusitated it as a

blanket admission.

And I won''t bother asking you how we''ve now moved away from this

obsession we never had when Bowkett has just announced spending on 2,000

extra seats...

As to your main point, you''re right that Bowkett was highly critical of

the old board, but more specifically Doncaster and Munby. And if you

read his open letter you''ll find that his main complaint is this:

"We have been dissatisfied with the executive management of the club for

a number of years." And he talks about all sorts of mistakes that have

been made. But at no point does he actually itemise any policy errors,

as opposed to executive management errors, that have been made. Only an

idiot would deny that management errors were made. Specifically some bad

choices of football managers. And it may well be that the club is

better run now, on a day to day basis. That there are fewer management

errors. Frankly, I''ve no idea. We had a successful on-field season

because a good decision was made to get rid of Gunn and bring in

Lambert. That doesn''t mean everything else is being got right.

But what I was talking about on my website, and I made this quite clear,

were the big policy decisions on such things as debt and ticketing and

the criteria for any future owner. The really long-term stuff.

Nowhere in his open letter did Bowkett criticise those and so far - as I

said - there have been no obvious changes to any of those policies by a

board that has now been in place for nearly a year. And I noticed that

you didn''t point out any changes that had been made. So to answer your question, yes I do think Bowkett has stuck with the same policies, because so far they haven''t changed.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

And Purple, you do seem rather fond of criticising others for doing what you regularly do yourself, such as accusing people of "false antithesis" when your previous post had contained one. 2000 seats??  I haven`t read the interview but on the thread concerning it people are talking about 1100 [^o)].  Didn`t Bowkett say something like "The club hasn`t been sufficiently focussed on the football team" and "We`re here to win football matches, not build a property portfolio" and McNally say "The other things are all very well...." before stressing the importance of the team?  Haven`t we heard plenty of talk about cutting costs off the pitch and "loss-making ventures will not be tolerated"?  Compare that to the previous lots endless witterings about other revenue streams and it suggests a clear policy change. 

In all honesty the actions of the board in going out and getting their man (leaving behind the "nice little norwich" attitude of not treading on any toes), telling a Prem club where to go when they didn`t match our valuation of a player, actually spending money on the team instead of flogging off the family silver and claiming ambition for spending a tiny fraction of the transfer income on replacements, and stating that we wouldn`t sell anyone in Jan. because promotion was worth more, speak for themselves.  Of course, all those things would have happened under the policies of the previous board....[8-)]

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And Purple, you do seem rather fond of criticising others for doing what you regularly do yourself, such as accusing people of "false antithesis" when your previous post had contained one. 2000 seats??  I haven`t read the interview but on the thread concerning it people are talking about 1100 [^o)].

 

 

[/quote]Mr.Carrow, you are right about one thing. It is indeed a bit over 1,000 seats as opposed to 2,000. That was an unnoticed typo. I was on my way out and in a hurry. Apologies for that. But it is still, of course, off-field expenditure.I would also make the point that in his webchat Bowkett mused about how 50 per cent of season tickets were on some  kind of concession (over 60s etc) and how perhaps that should be looked at. Now if that musing ever turned into a decision, vastly cutting back on concessions as part of a retreat from affordable family football, then that would certainly count as a policy shift. But we are nowhere near that yet.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Purple, i have never said all off-field expenditure=bad as you seem to be trying to imply.  The key is that it shouldn`t be so high that a large part of the football budget has to be financed by flogging off the teams best players.  At the moment we are told that we have a very competitive football budget without selling anyone (and we`ve actually already bought someone).  If we now flog off Smith, Hoolihan and Martin for £4m whilst constructing a £2m infill in front of the hotel and then expect Lambert to replace those players for peanuts, i will entirely agree with you that not much has changed.  Do you think it`s likely to happen?

 

[canary cherub 1]

Reading that piece where Delia bemoans the state of football (again) and calling for government action, I couldn''t help wondering if she was getting her excuses in early . . . [;)]

 

[O.T.B.C 1]

The problem is that there is no direct, not press, but direct quotes from all parties, so in essence, its bollox.

[YankeeCanary 0]

PC, I''m sure it does not go without notice that when you put the meat out on the picnic table it readily attracts flies.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

PC, I''m sure it does not go without notice that when you put the meat out on the picnic table it readily attracts flies.

[/quote]Yankee, as Oscar Wilde said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about...

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Purple, i have never said all off-field expenditure=bad as you seem to be trying to imply.  The key is that it shouldn`t be so high that a large part of the football budget has to be financed by flogging off the teams best players.  At the moment we are told that we have a very competitive football budget without selling anyone (and we`ve actually already bought someone).  If we now flog off Smith, Hoolihan and Martin for £4m whilst constructing a £2m infill in front of the hotel and then expect Lambert to replace those players for peanuts, i will entirely agree with you that not much has changed.  Do you think it`s likely to happen?

 

[/quote]---Stap me, Mr.Carrow but that''s a cunning rhetorical question. I do hope

you don''t expect me to take it remotely seriously. It''s only purpose is

so that IF at the end of the summer we haven''t sold off loads of players

to pay for an Olympic-standard swimming pool you can claim that proves

Bowkett has engineered a massive shift of spending policy away from

off-field stuff to the playing budget. It will, of course, prove nothing

of the kind.

But if you want answer here it is. Bowkett is actually doing exactly

what you don''t believe he will do. He IS switching spending AWAY from

players TO the off-field stuff. How else do you explain offloading

Doherty''s wage bill to pay for 1,100 seats? The one followed the other. They therefore MUST be linked.*Smith and Jones could done the seat thing anytime since the capacity

reached 26,000, but chose instead to plough that money into the transfer

budget. Virtually Bowkett''s first act is to hack away at the playing

budget for a few lousy seats. Hard fact, Mr.Carrow. Hard facts. Lord

alone knows what is to follow.---*Of course there''re not. It''s what is called a false or "post hoc ergo procter hoc" syllogism. Always useful in an argument, though.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

Lol, ok Purple, i think the heat may have got to you a little bit.  If i didn`t keep my confidences i could elaborate as to why i`m confident that the off-field vs. on-field approach to spending has significantly changed (and as i`ve already shown, actions and events back that up).  Probably the most important policy change the club has had in recent years and could well have saved us from going under.  Just you stay bitter and keep spinning your line.  Unless events show otherwise i`m happy the club have seen sense and changed tack and feel confident for the future.

[Mello Yello 2,571]

[quote user="canary cherub "]

Reading that piece where Delia bemoans the state of football (again) and calling for government action, I couldn''t help wondering if she was getting her excuses in early . . . [;)]

[/quote]

Would Delia be ''bemoaning'' the state of football and calling for Government action...if we were comfortably mid-table in the Premiership?

[T 191]

PC talks a lot of sense as usual. I''m fully supportive of the new board as they have stronger CVs but I was also thinking the other day it is difficult to see what polices they have actually changed. Undoubtedly the key decision was the change of manager but that is not a policy change. They still believe in being prudent and investing in infrastructure. The CEO has used the prudent word on a number of occaisions and the chairman has said they would have not spent the 80% of revenue on wages to get promoted to the premiership as the previous board did so if anything they are more prudent. They have also just indicated that the policy is to continue to invest in infrastructure to increase the sustainable revenue of the football club. Yet strangely not a peep of derision for these previously much maligned policies.

So what has changed. Clearly, the manager and a team that is winning football matches. Also following the general financial crisis and the financial difficulties of previously praised clubs lile Portsmouth, Hull, Preston, Cardiff, Crystal  Palace and Watford there is maybe an increasing general realisation that the problem was not NCFC''s financial  policy but the madness of other clubs and the economy as a whole. As the Portsmouth Administrator pointed out it is time football clubs were run like other businesses on a sustainable basis. As one expert pointed out one way to encourage this is for the government to legislate against the perverse preferred creditor status of football clubs and footballers on administration. This would force the football authorities to take measures to make sure that football clubs are managed on a sustainable basis. This would lead to a limit on wages, say 60% of revenue as in division 2. Wealthy owners would still be allowed to invest  in one-off ínfrastructure but not in unsustainable recurring player wages as Platini is seeking to introduce. Running a club beyond its means is basically cheating and theft so administration should also lead to automatic 2 tier relegation as Barry Hearn suggested and elimination from cup competitions.

The manager has changed but the realities of football finance have not changed who ever the board is. Hopefully, there are some signs that some sensible financial reality is starting to be introduced to football so Norwich can play on a level playing field although I am not confident that there is the will amongst the football authorities to introduce the necessary fiscal regulation.  

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="T"]

PC talks a lot of sense as usual. I''m fully supportive of the new board as they have stronger CVs but I was also thinking the other day it is difficult to see what polices they have actually changed. Undoubtedly the key decision was the change of manager but that is not a policy change. They still believe in being prudent and investing in infrastructure. The CEO has used the prudent word on a number of occaisions and the chairman has said they would have not spent the 80% of revenue on wages to get promoted to the premiership as the previous board did so if anything they are more prudent. They have also just indicated that the policy is to continue to invest in infrastructure to increase the sustainable revenue of the football club. Yet strangely not a peep of derision for these previously much maligned policies.

So what has changed. Clearly, the manager and a team that is winning football matches. Also following the general financial crisis and the financial difficulties of previously praised clubs lile Portsmouth, Hull, Preston, Cardiff, Crystal  Palace and Watford there is maybe an increasing general realisation that the problem was not NCFC''s financial  policy but the madness of other clubs and the economy as a whole. As the Portsmouth Administrator pointed out it is time football clubs were run like other businesses on a sustainable basis. As one expert pointed out one way to encourage this is for the government to legislate against the perverse preferred creditor status of football clubs and footballers on administration. This would force the football authorities to take measures to make sure that football clubs are managed on a sustainable basis. This would lead to a limit on wages, say 60% of revenue as in division 2. Wealthy owners would still be allowed to invest  in one-off ínfrastructure but not in unsustainable recurring player wages as Platini is seeking to introduce. Running a club beyond its means is basically cheating and theft so administration should also lead to automatic 2 tier relegation as Barry Hearn suggested and elimination from cup competitions.

The manager has changed but the realities of football finance have not changed who ever the board is. Hopefully, there are some signs that some sensible financial reality is starting to be introduced to football so Norwich can play on a level playing field although I am not confident that there is the will amongst the football authorities to introduce the necessary fiscal regulation.  

[/quote]------

T, I’d go

along with that in general, although I haven’t thought through some of the

specific measures you mention.

As evidence of what you call the realities of football finance and how

difficult it is to cope, there was a recent quote from Keith Todd, the

executive director of Plymouth, who, as I mentioned, have had a season of

ambitious promises and catastrophic failure:

“At the centre of this I underestimated the challenge of running a football

club," he admitted.

This is not to say I don’t think our new board cannot run the club

better on a day to day basis than did the old board. Plainly it may be able to. The old board had got old

in the job. Changes needed to be made, and having a quasi-executive chairman probably

is a step forward. But, as you have said, there have not so far been any

changes of policy and that doesn’t surprise me. Whatever the particular

mistakes made by the old board (such as managerial choices) I believe they got

most of the big-picture stuff right.

Anyway, for

those who can’t get enough of my peerless prose (irony alert) I have now added

even more words to the last page of my website, prompted by Alan Bowkett’s informative

webchat on Friday, which touched on subjects on which I’d pontificated:

http://thecanarypurple.homestead.com/Story_Page_Four.html

 

[BigFish 2,282]

I don''t know. Mr C spent most of last season saying Preston could run a successful team on a meagre budget and we couldn''t on a much larger one. Wasn''t true (like much of his posting) as the HMRC''s winding up petition goes to show. Not only that but Blackpool have gone up with a playing budget of £6m which is impossible of course.Nevermind, we did turn down a lot of imaginary offers for our players in the Christmas break & Russell was prevented from going to a club he didn''t want to go to and didn''t really want him.[:P]

[The Butler 0]

An enjoyable read PC as always a good mix of facts and assumptions.

Anyone in any sort of contact with the "higher" echelons at Carrow Road will know how much has changed.

Cost cutting on anything not football related is a daily occurence, from dropping of open days (unless self financing), Golf buggies from the car park for the "infirm older supporter" (had to have a sponsor)

Anything that costs and does not give a good return is/has been removed.

The seats will be self financing very quickly and should (I hate saying this) have been installed a season or three sooner.

The CEO''s hand is firmly on just about every decision being taken and so far his touch appears to be a true one. That is a major difference.[:D]

We are talking to investors and admitting it now that is a change isn''t it?

 

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="The Butler"]

An enjoyable read PC as always a good mix of facts and assumptions.

Anyone in any sort of contact with the "higher" echelons at Carrow Road will know how much has changed.

Cost cutting on anything not football related is a daily occurence, from dropping of open days (unless self financing), Golf buggies from the car park for the "infirm older supporter" (had to have a sponsor)

Anything that costs and does not give a good return is/has been removed.

The seats will be self financing very quickly and should (I hate saying this) have been installed a season or three sooner.

The CEO''s hand is firmly on just about every decision being taken and so far his touch appears to be a true one. That is a major difference.[:D]

We are talking to investors and admitting it now that is a change isn''t it?

 

[/quote]------The Butler, far be it from

me to look a gift horse (in the form of praise) in the mouth! Just a few

friendly points in reply:

 “A good mix of facts and assumptions.”

True, but I always make it clear what are only assumptions.

“Anyone in any sort of contact with the "higher" echelons at Carrow

Road will know how much has changed. Cost cutting on anything not football

related is a daily occurence, from dropping of open days (unless self

financing), Golf buggies from the car park for the "infirm older

supporter" (had to have a sponsor). Anything that costs and does not give

a good return is/has been removed.”

I don’t doubt that, although it tends to

happen with a new-broom management in any kind of business. I’m not sure

cutting those golf buggies, assuming you’re right about that, isn’t a bit

draconian, though.

“The seats will be self financing very quickly and should (I hate saying this)

have been installed a season or three sooner.” But the fag-packet party line is

opposed to ANY off-field spending! I joke, but I do, like T, find it amusing

that posters who claimed the old board was obsessed with such spending don’t

seem to understand the irony of their backing this expansion...

“The CEO''s hand is firmly on just about every decision being taken and so far

his touch appears to be a true one. That is a major difference.

”

 We have to differ there. If, as I

understand was the case, McNally was the prime-mover in kicking Gunn out then

he deserves enormous credit for that. But as I have outlined in my update, I

don’t think everything since then has been perfectly handled. And – although

this is essentially trivial – it doesn’t look as if the seating/Tom Jones thing

has been a triumph. I see that EDP journalist Michael Bailey is describing it

as looking like “a right balls-up”. The management has been saying for months now it wanted

to add some seats so it does seem as if someone should have worked out the

details sooner. But, as I say, a trivial matter in the great scheme of things.

“We are talking to investors and admitting it now that is a change isn''t it?”

We’ve talked to investors in the past; the difference is only in saying so. But

there is an argument that hopes will have been raised by that. And it was

noticeable that there was no detail at all (ie are we talking about minority

investment or a new owner?). As it happens I’m not bothered about that – I

believe these things are best carried out in private, in secret. And I suspect

we won’t get much if any more detail.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="BigFish"]I don''t know. Mr C spent most of last season saying Preston could run a successful team on a meagre budget and we couldn''t on a much larger one. Wasn''t true (like much of his posting) as the HMRC''s winding up petition goes to show. Not only that but Blackpool have gone up with a playing budget of £6m which is impossible of course.

Nevermind, we did turn down a lot of imaginary offers for our players in the Christmas break & Russell was prevented from going to a club he didn''t want to go to and didn''t really want him.

[:P]
[/quote]

Based on the 2008 accounts of both clubs it was totally true in that year.  This is the trouble with most people with most of the posters on your side of the debate BF- you really on straw-man arguments because you know you`ll be found out in one based on reality. 

Nice to see you back T.  Now as you proposed selling three of our best players to buy land in January, are you now going to accept that our new chairman was right that promotion is worth far more than a quick few £mill. in transfer revenue?  Thank goodness we haven`t got your ilk running the club.....any more.....[^o)]

[BigFish 2,282]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="BigFish"]I don''t know. Mr C spent most of last season saying Preston could run a successful team on a meagre budget and we couldn''t on a much larger one. Wasn''t true (like much of his posting) as the HMRC''s winding up petition goes to show. Not only that but Blackpool have gone up with a playing budget of £6m which is impossible of course.Nevermind, we did turn down a lot of imaginary offers for our players in the Christmas break & Russell was prevented from going to a club he didn''t want to go to and didn''t really want him.[:P][/quote]

Based on the 2008 accounts of both clubs it was totally true in that year.  This is the trouble with most people with most of the posters on your side of the debate BF- you really on straw-man arguments because you know you`ll be found out in one based on reality. 

Nice to see you back T.  Now as you proposed selling three of our best players to buy land in January, are you now going to accept that our new chairman was right that promotion is worth far more than a quick few £mill. in transfer revenue?  Thank goodness we haven`t got your ilk running the club.....any more.....[^o)]

[/quote]"A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer"[;)]I think PC''s point is that policy hasn''t changed only managerial competence.More seats anyone?

[Mello Yello 2,571]

Shame about Tom Jones......Wonder how much money was lost on the big advertising ''push'' that alas....didn''t come to fruition.

More than a few quid wasted on advertising and publicity....shame really. Was it the ticket prices, or the star that wasn''t the real attraction?

Club marketing needs to look at the Blickling Hall etc, type ''gigs'' and the kind of performers (if available) that really pull the paying punters in.

George ''Wham'' and Elton did alright at Carra.....Shame Tom, couldn''t attract that kind of interest.

Maybe, the secret is to have a variation of acts that will attract a cross-section of music fans. A headliner plus quality support acts? 

Still, the club can now concentrate on fitting them profit producing plastic pews without disruption....It''ll be worth more to the Carra coffers in the long run....

 

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

“The seats will be self financing very quickly and should (I hate saying this) have been installed a season or three sooner.” But the fag-packet party line is opposed to ANY off-field spending! I joke, but I do, like T, find it amusing that posters who claimed the old board was obsessed with such spending don’t seem to understand the irony of their backing this expansion...

“We are talking to investors and admitting it now that is a change isn''t it?” We’ve talked to investors in the past; the difference is only in saying so. But there is an argument that hopes will have been raised by that. And it was noticeable that there was no detail at all (ie are we talking about minority investment or a new owner?). As it happens I’m not bothered about that – I believe these things are best carried out in private, in secret. And I suspect we won’t get much if any more detail.

[/quote]

Purple, what you choose to call "the fag packet party line" was not opposed to "ANY off-field spending".  We were opposed to EXCESSIVE non-football related spending which is a very different thing.  We did not object to the Jarrold Stand for instance, but we did object to the LSE land and its associated road systems, and especially to funding this medium to long term project with a short term loan.  The inability to turn a quick profit almost brought this club to its knees.  We also objected to spending £1m+ on the now-defunct conference venue "The Business" - this being one of the changes very rapidly made by the new regime which got little or no publicity.  The new seating may be, strictly speaking, off-field expenditure but it is football-related and in principle I have no objection, assuming of course that it will pay for itself in short order.

As far as talking to investors is concerned, I take your point about privacy but the point is that the previous regime went to great lengths to make us believe that there weren''t any potential investors out there.  What Doncaster actually said was "there is not a queue of people waiting to donate their savings".  Of course there wasn''t - but we didn''t need a queue, and weren''t looking for donations but for investment.  He carefully avoided saying whether or not there were potential investors whilst making us think there weren''t any.  I don''t think that would happen now.

 

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="BigFish"]I don''t know. Mr C spent most of last season saying Preston could run a successful team on a meagre budget and we couldn''t on a much larger one. Wasn''t true (like much of his posting) as the HMRC''s winding up petition goes to show. Not only that but Blackpool have gone up with a playing budget of £6m which is impossible of course.

Nevermind, we did turn down a lot of imaginary offers for our players in the Christmas break & Russell was prevented from going to a club he didn''t want to go to and didn''t really want him.

[:P]
[/quote]

Based on the 2008 accounts of both clubs it was totally true in that year.  This is the trouble with most people with most of the posters on your side of the debate BF- you really on straw-man arguments because you know you`ll be found out in one based on reality. 

Nice to see you back T.  Now as you proposed selling three of our best players to buy land in January, are you now going to accept that our new chairman was right that promotion is worth far more than a quick few £mill. in transfer revenue?  Thank goodness we haven`t got your ilk running the club.....any more.....[^o)]

[/quote]

"A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer"[;)]

I think PC''s point is that policy hasn''t changed only managerial competence.

More seats anyone?
[/quote]

There comes a point when denial and intellectual dishonesty get beyond a joke BF.  Both Bowkett and McNally have questioned/been critical of the balance between on and off-field expenditure and have been making off-field cuts.  They (and obviously that includes D +M) also managed to find a very decent budget for the manager which wasn`t reliant on flogging off the clubs best players (against the backdrop of one of the worst financial situations the club has faced), yet there has been no policy change!! [8-)]

On the seats, you and Purple may have scored a good point if it wasn`t for the unfortunate fact that i`ve always accepted the need to expand capacity, supported the Jarrold stand and even the hotel (I have questioned the timing of the infill).  So there is no irony- it just proves how silly people can look if they project black and white arguments onto others when they are struggling to debate sensibly.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="BigFish"]"A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer"[;)]I think PC''s point is that policy hasn''t changed only managerial competence.More seats anyone?[/quote]What about the policy of managerial incompetance.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Based on the 2008 accounts of both clubs it was totally true in that year.  This is the trouble with most people with most of the posters on your side of the debate BF- you really on straw-man arguments because you know you`ll be found out in one based on reality. [/quote]Whatever lets you sleep at night mate.  Here, I have a contextless statistic for you: 4% reduction in seat size is required to fit in extra 1,100 seats.  That should keep you going for 20 pages or so.

[PurpleCanary 6,378]

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

“The seats will be self financing very quickly and should (I hate saying this) have been installed a season or three sooner.” But the fag-packet party line is opposed to ANY off-field spending! I joke, but I do, like T, find it amusing that posters who claimed the old board was obsessed with such spending don’t seem to understand the irony of their backing this expansion...“We are talking to investors and admitting it now that is a change isn''t it?” We’ve talked to investors in the past; the difference is only in saying so. But there is an argument that hopes will have been raised by that. And it was noticeable that there was no detail at all (ie are we talking about minority investment or a new owner?). As it happens I’m not bothered about that – I believe these things are best carried out in private, in secret. And I suspect we won’t get much if any more detail.

[/quote]

Purple, what you choose to call "the fag packet party line" was not opposed to "ANY off-field spending".  We were opposed to EXCESSIVE non-football related spending which is a very different thing.  We did not object to the Jarrold Stand for instance, but we did object to the LSE land and its associated road systems, and especially to funding this medium to long term project with a short term loan.  The inability to turn a quick profit almost brought this club to its knees.  We also objected to spending £1m+ on the now-defunct conference venue "The Business" - this being one of the changes very rapidly made by the new regime which got little or no publicity.  The new seating may be, strictly speaking, off-field expenditure but it is football-related and in principle I have no objection, assuming of course that it will pay for itself in short order.

As far as talking to investors is concerned, I take your point about privacy but the point is that the previous regime went to great lengths to make us believe that there weren''t any potential investors out there.  What Doncaster actually said was "there is not a queue of people waiting to donate their savings".  Of course there wasn''t - but we didn''t need a queue, and weren''t looking for donations but for investment.  He carefully avoided saying whether or not there were potential investors whilst making us think there weren''t any.  I don''t think that would happen now.

 

[/quote]---Cherub, I did add "I joke" after that, to indicate I wasn''t being

entirely serious. Of course I understand that what I very broadly

categorised as the fag-packet party line wasn''t/isn''t opposed to all

off-pitch spending. The Jarrold Stand is the obvious example of an issue

where pretty much everyone was in agreement in general terms, although

some fans advocated going to 12,000 seats. As for investment, I

would reiterate what I said about these things being done in private and

in secret. Because football clubs - which are high-profile

organisations - are involved fans tend to expect takeovers to be carried

out in public. But the bottom line is that these are businesss deals,

and as such are best sorted out away from the glare of publicity.

As to the old regime downplaying any investment interest, you''re right

that they did. But perhaps they were right to do so. That Doncaster

quote about there not being a queue of potential investors could have

been said by the CEO of any of those clubs I''ve listed on my website as

still being up for sale despite having been on the market for a year or

more.

And there was that rather intriguing quote from McNally back in February in which he referred

to previous supposed investors (ie going back to the period of the

old board as well as the new): "We''ve had plenty of people who''ve

wasted our time in the past."

What Bowkett has done is raise expectations. Which is fine, providing

there is a positive outcome.