1500 more seats or a decent signing?

[T 190]

I''ve no idea what you are talking about. I''ve only ever advocated that the club invests to increase the long term sustainable cash flows so that it can afford to spend more on players. Just standard business practice. A few quotes for you following the Portsmouth debacle:

Lord Mawwhinney: salary controls are a necessary evil becasue people leave their business brains when they enter the emotional world of football. Clubs are chasing a dream and they all want to gain promotion or win something and so the usual rules of business goes out of the window. It is worrying that I don''t anticipate any Championship club posting an operating profit in 2008/09. In 07/08 total wages compared to revenue in the championship were between 58% and 124%. It should be at worst 60 to 70%. The game is unsustainable and some clubs will end up in administration as a result.

And a football administrator: football clubs have no contingency planning and don''t have suffecient financial skills. Clubs should not spend more than 60% of their income on wages. Football clubs are run by hugely arrogant people who think normal buiness rules do not apply to them and that someone will bail them out. This will no longer happen and they need to wake up and start running their businesses properly.

These are exactly the sentiments that I have always argued. I assess every decision on whether it makes business sense and is therefore in the best long term interests of the club from a commercial and therefore a football perspective. NCFC have always appears to consider these basic principles and have been critised in comparison to clubs that have not been run sensibly. I think most people now realise this and it is surprising after the global financial economic crisis and the number of football clubs in financial difficulty if any rational person still thinks any different.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

T, i asked you- considering you seem obsessed with fixed asset spend- whether you thought the club would be best served flogging off its best players to buy more land in January and you replied "yes".  I could always be petty and drag that thread up but it would be far more noble of you just to man up and admit it.

You have never understood that football clubs are not like normal businesses.  Football is all about ambition and aspiration and if those two things are lacking, two of the most important consituents of a club- the fans and players- become disallusioned which leads to negativity and acrimony, which in turn leads to poor performance and diminishing financial returns.  Our recent history couldn`t be a more obvious example of this yet still you bang on.  Of course there is a balance to be found but as yet all the clubs the usual suspects on here have got oh-so-excited about going to the wall have found new investment.

Many of the Championship clubs you mention will make a loss, have plush new stadia which are rarely full yet often cost £20-£30million in debt, which contributes hugely to the losses and has led to administration at many clubs.

Now, considering we are highly unlikely to get promoted this season, surely it would make good standard business sense to sell off any players of value to invest in land etc. in anticipation of an economic recovery?  Straight answer please.  After all it`s what you`ve been arguing for all along so i don`t see why you should change your tune now.....

[Bill 1,788]

"I could always be petty and drag that thread up"No, it would be verifiable proof for the rest of us.

[T 190]

I don''t recall ever advocating that the club should sell its best players off to buy land. I do believe the club should be run on a long-term sustainable basis. I can understand the logic of using debt funding which is not available for players for a project costing 7m with a mkt value when the decision was made of 10m. A 3m profit would buy you a promotion winning striker. I can also see the logic that the property market was over-inflated and that clubs should stay with their core expertise. However, if the core functions don''t generate enough cash the other methods should be considered to take the club forward.  

I''ve always said it is not like a normal business. It is basically a not-for-profit organisation. However, as the previous quotes point out that does not mean that normal business principles should not apply to finances and it is exactly because of football emotions and ego that many clubs have forgotten that legally and commercially they still ahve the obligations of a business.

I would only ever advocate investment in fixed assets if they generate increased cash flows to fund the playing budget. Empty stadiums do not meet the criteria so I would never advocate investing in stadiums if the long term demand does not justify it. The directors have pointed out a 35,000 stadium with the associated crowds would be required to make the club a self-sustaining premiership club. I''m not convinced the demadn is there though.

No I would not advocate selling players to invest in land and never have done as you risk reducing your revenue streams. I would consider investing in land using debt though if we had suffecient debt capcity which we do not and knowledge of the market which I believe the Chairman would have access to. You do raise an interesting point though as to wether we should be looking to sell off the land as soon as possible or hold it in the anticipation of rising prices. I''m not a property expert but my inclination would be to hold for the time being or at least look for a deal where future profits are shared.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

T, this is what i`m referring to on the ridiculously long "McNally" thread:

T wrote:

The only overspend Mc C and Tangie has been able to substantiate in all this time is the proverbial property deal which is costing 300k a year and had an expected 3m profit when the deal was done plus some minor bits and pieces. Otherwise it is just a pet theory. That is not to say I don''t accept that the Directors are probably taking a hard look at costs such as moving the reserve games which a few people moaned about.

My reply: 

£9m non-player wage costs in `02= £6m left to be spent on the team.

£17m non-player wage costs in `08= £1.9m left to be spent on the team.

Preston non-player wage costs were about £4m in `08.  What`s gone wrong T- all that capital expenditure (a large amount which would have been available to spend on the team) and we end up with less to spend on the team than before? 

Are you going to back my proposal to sell our best players and buy more land?  You keep arguing it`s a great strategy yet when it comes to the crunch you won`t support it.....

Your reply: 

8.5m was spent on the team not 1.9m as well you know. Try again.

Preston had lower costs but lower revenues so that argument is also irrelevant.

Whilst you''re at please explain the losses of Preston; Hull, Burnley etc

Pleae explain the number of clubs that have gone into administration

Please explain why the majority of football clubs are dependant on player sales and benefactors

Please explain how you get a loan from a bank to pay player wages, agent fees and transfer fees.

Plesae explain how you would fund a football club

 .....and then you may have some credibility otherwise I suggest you join the flat earth society as I suggested earlier where your denial of reality will fit in nicely.

and yes if I was looking at a deal with an expected profit of 3m then I would support that deal  because a profit of 3m would be a huge boost to the club''s playing budget. But then I have ambition for NCFC beyond a pitch with a bit of string around it and a burger fan unlike yourself.

 

 

 

 

[City penguin 0]

anyone know what our wage to revenue %s are?

[T 190]

Not got the accounts to hand but I think it is currently considerably lower than the average: I suspect this is because of the above average catering revenue that the club has because it makes a contribution but is relatively low margin. Therefore, the wage/revenue is just a rule of thumb. What really matters and what the club does in practice is to budget the overall player budget, including transfer fees to balance the cash flows. The new chairman was reported to say said that in our premiership promotion year the figure was 80% which he would not allow to happen again which is why I said earlier that the new regime appears to be more prudent than the previous regime. 

Mr C - shock, horror I support investment if it is expected to increase the cash available for players in the long term. It is just a basic rule of business that is all. 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Not got the accounts to hand but I think it is currently considerably lower than the average: I suspect this is because of the above average catering revenue that the club has because it makes a contribution but is relatively low margin. Therefore, the wage/revenue is just a rule of thumb. What really matters and what the club does in practice is to budget the overall player budget, including transfer fees to balance the cash flows. The new chairman was reported to say said that in our premiership promotion year the figure was 80% which he would not allow to happen again which is why I said earlier that the new regime appears to be more prudent than the previous regime. 

Mr C - shock, horror I support investment if it is expected to increase the cash available for players in the long term. It is just a basic rule of business that is all. 

[/quote]

Even if a successful team loses its best players to fund it?  That is what you are saying above- my question was about selling our best players to buy land and you replied that you would back it.

So surely that applies now?  Why are you not advocating selling players to pay for more fixed assets now?  Looks like you`ve done a big u-turn as it`s finally sunk in that the policy you suggest above would have cost the club a £4m promotion.

[T 190]

How on earth do you get that I advocate selling players to buy land from that? As I''ve said many times the land was purchased using debt which would not be available to players as banks will not lend money to buy players. Basic financial principles have not changed and neither has my views. I think with the recession and the number of football clubs in financial difficulty the majority of people realise that.

[Paul 0]

Fucking hell can  you 2 get a room or take it outside.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

Not got the accounts to hand but I think it is currently considerably lower than the average: I suspect this is because of the above average catering revenue that the club has because it makes a contribution but is relatively low margin. Therefore, the wage/revenue is just a rule of thumb. What really matters and what the club does in practice is to budget the overall player budget, including transfer fees to balance the cash flows. The new chairman was reported to say said that in our premiership promotion year the figure was 80% which he would not allow to happen again which is why I said earlier that the new regime appears to be more prudent than the previous regime. 

Mr C - shock, horror I support investment if it is expected to increase the cash available for players in the long term. It is just a basic rule of business that is all. 

[/quote]

Me:  "Are you going to back my proposal to sell our best players and buy more land?  You keep arguing it`s a great strategy yet when it comes to the crunch you won`t support it....."

You:  "and yes if I was looking at a deal with an expected profit of 3m then I would support that deal  because a profit of 3m would be a huge boost to the club''s playing budget. But then I have ambition for NCFC beyond a pitch with a bit of string around it and a burger fan unlike yourself."

There in black and white T, though i`m not surprised you are desperately backtracking.

[T 190]

The point is the land deal was financed by debt not by selling players.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

P.s. T, our player wages were 29% of turnover in the Prem, not 80% as you state.  And your statement that you only support spend which brings extra revenue which can be spent on the team is ridiculous- all these clubs who built plush new stadia and now run with it half-empty and under the burden of its debt thought that, but unfortunately it`s never that simple.  There are just as few guarantees when you try to build other income streams as when you spend money on players.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]The point is the land deal was financed by debt not by selling players.[/quote]

Yes, and when i asked if you would support another such deal funded by selling our best players last January you replied positively.  I`m starting to think perhaps you own some land near the ground.....?

[T 190]

The new chairman that it was 80% in the year we got promoted, not the year we were in the premiership.

I''ve never said NCFC should build a new stadium because I don''t believe the demand is there. I do support looking at ways to increase the revenue stream and if the likelihood is that they will generate extra cash flows then it would be foolish not to consider the project. That is just plain common business sense.

 

[Bill 1,788]

"and when i asked if you would support another such deal funded by

selling our best players last January you replied positively"

and so you keep bleating, but you haven''t actually provided the quote

[Mr.Carrow 376]

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

Not got the accounts to hand but I think it is currently considerably lower than the average: I suspect this is because of the above average catering revenue that the club has because it makes a contribution but is relatively low margin. Therefore, the wage/revenue is just a rule of thumb. What really matters and what the club does in practice is to budget the overall player budget, including transfer fees to balance the cash flows. The new chairman was reported to say said that in our premiership promotion year the figure was 80% which he would not allow to happen again which is why I said earlier that the new regime appears to be more prudent than the previous regime. 

Mr C - shock, horror I support investment if it is expected to increase the cash available for players in the long term. It is just a basic rule of business that is all. 

[/quote]

Me:  "Are you going to back my proposal to sell our best players and buy more land?  You keep arguing it`s a great strategy yet when it comes to the crunch you won`t support it....."

You:  "and yes if I was looking at a deal with an expected profit of 3m then I would support that deal  because a profit of 3m would be a huge boost to the club''s playing budget. But then I have ambition for NCFC beyond a pitch with a bit of string around it and a burger fan unlike yourself."

There in black and white T, though i`m not surprised you are desperately backtracking.

[/quote]

What the hell does it say above City 1st (AKA- about the best definition of a "keyboard warrior" on these boards)?

[Bill 1,788]

more weasel wordsnow can we have both quotes in full .............................. just to avoid any misunderstanding that you may be taking quotes out of context(or even perhaps post a link to that thread so that we can all read the full thread)

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="City1st"]more weasel wordsnow can we have both quotes in full .............................. just to avoid any misunderstanding that you may be taking quotes out of context(or even perhaps post a link to that thread so that we can all read the full thread)[/quote]If you printed the McNally thread out, you would be accused of tree-ocide.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="T"]

The new chairman that it was 80% in the year we got promoted, not the year we were in the premiership.

I''ve never said NCFC should build a new stadium because I don''t believe the demand is there. I do support looking at ways to increase the revenue stream and if the likelihood is that they will generate extra cash flows then it would be foolish not to consider the project. That is just plain common business sense.

 

[/quote]

Can you provide the quote then please, because you are spouting absolute nonsense.  Player wages were about 50% of turnover in the promotion year (a turnover drastically reduced because we only had 3 stands for most of the season). 

I note you have subtly moved from "projects which will generate extra cash flows" to "likelihood of extra cash flows".  Investment in football players gives no guarantee of success, investment in other revenue streams gives no guarantee of success- but unfortunately the planning, application and ongoing costs of the latter can adversely affect the the performance of the former as we`ve seen in our case.  Why do you think we`ve lost the travel company, eventguard, some jobs, the business (so i`m told) etc. if all these things were raking in an overall profit for the club?  And as i`ve listed before, plenty of the capex spent in recent years brought in no extra revenue (land, roads, new ticket office, gym equipment, conservatory etc.).

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="City1st"]more weasel words

now can we have both quotes in full ................

.............. just to avoid any misunderstanding that you may be taking quotes out of context

(or even perhaps post a link to that thread so that we can all read the full thread)
[/quote]

If you printed the McNally thread out, you would be accused of tree-ocide.
[/quote]

Please NO!!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="City1st"]more weasel words

now can we have both quotes in full ................

.............. just to avoid any misunderstanding that you may be taking quotes out of context

(or even perhaps post a link to that thread so that we can all read the full thread)
[/quote]

I`ve already posted it`s on the "McNally" thread- about the easiest thread to find in the search as it`s 43 pages long.....

Are you from Suffolk by any chance?  You really don`t seem too bright....[8-)]

[nutty nigel 7,534]

My advice to you City 1st would be to quit before you lose the will to live....

 

[Bill 1,788]

yep. silly old ''not too bright'' me, expecting some form of evidence or proof from youinstead, no linkno verificationno evidenceno words that say ''sell player to buy land''in fact nothing

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="City1st"]yep. silly old ''not too bright'' me, expecting some form of evidence or proof from youinstead, no linkno verificationno evidenceno words that say ''sell player to buy land''in fact nothing

[/quote]-------

City1st, having been through the thread, these are the relevant comments from

T:

"If I

was looking at a [land] deal with an expected profit of 3m then I would support

that deal  because a profit of 3m would be a huge boost to the club''s

playing budget." He also made this obvious point: "The majority of

football clubs are dependant on player sales and benefactors."

He went on to say: "I would NOT [my emphasis] strip the team but I would

be very aware that every team is not suffeciently funded by the fans but

off-field activities, selling players and benefactors."

And this: "I have though always supported investing in fixed assets

and off the field activities IF [my emphasis} if they generate extra cash for

the team in the long term though as this is the only way that you can

compete."

So that is fairly clear. No asset-stripping, but investment in off-field stuff

If that makes long-term FOOTBALLING sense. However in Mr.Carrow’s mind it becomes pretty

much the opposite:

“So there you have it.  T proposes asset-stripping our team, bringing in

freebies on not more than 1k per week and buying land.  What effect do you

think that will have on the team and our chances of a promotion worth a good

£3m T?  Once we have made a profit from the land, would it not be sensible

to buy more land and roads rather than wasting it on football players?”

And then he gets even more specific:

“T 

has admitted that he supports a policy which has sent many of our

contemporaries into administration (also accepted by him).  He has also

advocated selling our five best players in January and buying land.”

Has T said anything  about selling off

five players in January to buy land? Er, no. Anything at all? No. Did T say

anything about only paying £1,000 a week? Er, no. Did T say anything about freebies?

Er, no. Welcome to the world of Mr. C, in which if someone hasn’t said what he

wishes they’d said (to prove his “case”) then he simply makes it up.

[Bill 1,788]

Many thanks Nutty and PurpleI was beginning to suspect that Carrow was a bit of a ''keyboard worrier''.Someone who favours the old forum trick of making up something and replying to that rather than engaging with any facts or the points made by others.I shall take my leave, and again express my gratitude to you both for warning me off the ''pub bore''.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

Absolutely brilliant Purple.  T responded to my suggestion of selling of our best players to buy land by saying that if it brought in £3m long-term he would support it.  No ifs, buts or maybe`s.  That is what he posted.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="City1st"]Many thanks Nutty and Purple

I was beginning to suspect that Carrow was a bit of a ''keyboard worrier''.

Someone who favours the old forum trick of making up something and replying to that rather than engaging with any facts or the points made by others.

I shall take my leave, and again express my gratitude to you both for warning me off the ''pub bore''.

Lol.  The levels of self-delusion by some on here when they`ve been proved wrong are really quite incredible.  I posted my question to T and his reply- if you want to simply pretend it doesn`t exist, go ahead.  Probably a bit more honest to engage reality though.[:D]











[/quote]

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="City1st"]Many thanks Nutty and PurpleI was beginning to suspect that Carrow was a bit of a ''keyboard worrier''.Someone who favours the old forum trick of making up something and replying to that rather than engaging with any facts or the points made by others.I shall take my leave, and again express my gratitude to you both for warning me off the ''pub bore''.

[/quote]City1st, I wouldn''t say it was a pleasure! But I had a few minutes on my hands. I''m afraid I gave up trying to debate with Mr.C months ago, precisely because you couldn''t trust him to quote or even just represent your view or anyone else''s accurately. And I see from his reply that he''s still doing it. There is nothing in my summary of what T posted that remotely supports the idea that T backs selling players for land, but according to Mr.C it''s there in black and white. Hey ho. Back to the beach.[<:o)]

[T 190]

Thanks PC, I''m sure many will be glad I''m otherwise engaged in the real world to respond further but that was a fair response. Mr C was mischieviously trying to connect 2 different quotes. Of course I don''t support selling players to buy land and I never have.