Norwich WERE close to Administration....

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="Duffman"]

Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape.

City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans.

However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”.

“Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way.

“We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed.

“We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close.

“Administration was a real possibility last autumn.

“Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”[/quote]There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding

administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he

is crediting the latter with the former.Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.

[nutty nigel 7,554]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]


Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”

[/quote]

There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.

Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.

He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.

[/quote]

I think you''re probably right Purple. I can''t see where else the money came from last summer.

 

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Beauseant"]

Last night was my first experience of The Butcher Of Colney live and in the flesh and I have to say I was mightily impressed. He had all the numbers at his fingertips, answered every question fully and generally gave the impression of being in total control. I''d be happy to have him running my business!

His answer to the student was pretty solid. NCFC is a business, and one which was technically insolvent a year ago, so giving tickets away makes no economic sense. Yes, we might be encouraging future generations of support, but that will be of no relevance if the club ceases to exist. I thought that the student made his original point well, before the thrill of being on the soapbox got to him and he started to call for boycotts of games.

[/quote]
Did he say whether or not we are any closer to finding investment ?
[/quote]

 

No, but he made it very clear that part of the rationale behind Stephen Fry joining the Board was his network of contacts which may bear fruit at some point.

He also said that there was a 7 year plan to stabilise the club and get it to the point of being a Premiership regular, but that the increasing divide meant that it may need to be accelerated. He also said that the Board had agreed to every request that Lambert has made to sign a player.

[/quote]

As much as I hold Mr Fry in high esteem, I am sadly, still not that convinced that the appointment of Stephen to the board - will truly bear and attract the fruits of ''serious investment''.....

But...hopefully I will be proved wrong.....and folk can then dig out this thread - and rejoice in the failure of the cynic within me....(but I do think I''m quite safe for the forseeable future)

 

[/quote]

 

I tend to agree with you Mello. Interestingly, McNally also said that another reason for Fry joining the Board was to make use of his expertise in modern communications technology, particularly Twitter, as a means of spreading the Canary gospel!

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Next time some posters on here take it as okay that we can go to the likes of Doncaster Rovers and throw a game just remember we need to win, win, win and this has to be a season for tilting at promotion and not consolidation.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]

Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”[/quote]There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.[/quote]

I think you''re probably right Purple. I can''t see where else the money came from last summer.

 

[/quote]Nutty, you''d be amazed at some of the claims made for the Bowkett/McNally turnaround plan! No one doubts that such a plan was necessary. We couldn''t go on the way we were. But its benefits could not possibly have percolated through in time to pay for all those summer acquisitions.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Jason Shackells limp Tackle"]

[quote user="ZiggyPiggy"]@ Jason Shackell''s Limp tackle

Could say EXACTLY the same about a strategy of knocking what a poster says for everything, eventually one/some of their predictions are going to be wrong.
[/quote]

Bearing in mind I have only recently started posting, whereas Wiz has accumulated 15/16K of posts over five years, would suggest your comment to wide of the mark. In 90 odd posts I have ''reacted'' to wiz twice, BOTH times he''d made: spurious / libellous / factually incorrect / attention seeking (delete as appropriate) comments.. This is a mesage board after all..

[/quote]Err? seven years actually.

Whereas I''ve had to contend with comments from a poster from Chile who even seriously suggested I wasn''t even disabled, plus constant, almost daily jibes from the usual crew !

I was ''tipped off'' about this administration by an ''aquentence'' at a dinner in Norfolk, believe it or not, it was spot on.

And yet few today have had the grace or guts today to say a simple................sorry wiz.

[Pete Raven 276]

More on Fry''s role at the bottom of the article here

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="First Wizard"]................sorry wiz.[/quote]If you say sorry for the "Holt out until October" fiasco, maybe you''ll get some in return.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="First Jza"][quote user="First Wizard"]................sorry wiz.[/quote]

If you say sorry for the "Holt out until October" fiasco, maybe you''ll get some in return.
[/quote]I didn''t say it, I was only reporting on a rumour which said it.

Check your facts.[:|]

[whoareyou? 0]

It just goes to show that football in England as a whole is due a huge wake up call.

It can no longer afford to pay players at the rate they are currently earning and expect supporters to fund it.

It really does need a big club to go into administration to provide that wake up ..and that club could well be Liverpool from what we all keep hearing.

[Katie Borkins 1]

But weren''t you only reporting a rumour which talked about administration?

[Bill 1,788]

"And yet few today have had the grace or guts today to say a simple................sorry wiz"

The apolgy should be from you. You were wrong. You stated that it was a certain event. You firmly stated that it was happening. IT DID NOT.

McNally has not told us how close we were. so it is no more relevant or true than some one claiming they were close to being ran over by a train - it raced through the station whilst they were stood on the platform.

I did not see any dramatic rescue plan or any massive cutbacks. If we were in such dire straights then the banks would have pulled the plug. Maybe they threatened to and a number of sources were found to provide the money to pay the bills and fund further expenditure - so not really bankrupt at all.

Still, it makes for a fine scare story. A means of quietening the great unwashed and sadly a reason for you to renounce your self imposed vow of silence.

Perhaps the headline should have been

''Wiz was close to staying away from the forum for good''

ps I welcome you back .......... until the next huff !

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="First Jza"]But weren''t you only reporting a rumour which talked about administration?
[/quote]No, I was told..............big big difference.

[Katie Borkins 1]

[quote user="First Wizard"][quote user="First Jza"]But weren''t you only reporting a rumour which talked about administration?[/quote]No, I was told..............big big difference.[/quote]Not really, both are hearsay.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"And yet few today have had the grace or guts today to say a simple................sorry wiz" The apolgy should be from you. You were wrong. You stated that it was a certain event. You firmly stated that it was happening. IT DID NOT. McNally has not told us how close we were. so it is no more relevant or true than some one claiming they were close to being ran over by a train - it raced through the station whilst they were stood on the platform. I did not see any dramatic rescue plan or any massive cutbacks. If we were in such dire straights then the banks would have pulled the plug. Maybe they threatened to and a number of sources were found to provide the money to pay the bills and fund further expenditure - so not really bankrupt at all. Still, it makes for a fine scare story. A means of quietening the great unwashed and sadly a reason for you to renounce your self imposed vow of silence. Perhaps the headline should have been ''Wiz was close to staying away from the forum for good'' ps I welcome you back .......... until the next huff ![/quote]

But as my thread claimed we were close, McNally said so today.

http://www.pinkun.com/cs_pinkun/cs/forums/1671424/ShowPost.aspx

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]


Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”

[/quote]

There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.

Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.

He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.

[/quote]

 

In fairness to McNally he made it very clear that he inherited a fait accompli last season and that he has only been able to start to institute his plans from the summer onwards. He was very clear that the Directors had made the summer signings possible.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="City1st"]"And yet few today have had the grace or guts today to say a simple................sorry wiz" The apolgy should be from you. You were wrong. You stated that it was a certain event. You firmly stated that it was happening. IT DID NOT. McNally has not told us how close we were. so it is no more relevant or true than some one claiming they were close to being ran over by a train - it raced through the station whilst they were stood on the platform. I did not see any dramatic rescue plan or any massive cutbacks. If we were in such dire straights then the banks would have pulled the plug. Maybe they threatened to and a number of sources were found to provide the money to pay the bills and fund further expenditure - so not really bankrupt at all. Still, it makes for a fine scare story. A means of quietening the great unwashed and sadly a reason for you to renounce your self imposed vow of silence. Perhaps the headline should have been ''Wiz was close to staying away from the forum for good'' ps I welcome you back .......... until the next huff ![/quote]

Thanks for the welcome back City 1st, however, its a tad premature, I only intended posting on this thread because it does to some extent support my original thread which I got hammered for.

Gloating is the word I''m struggling for.

I wish everyone well, but I''m very content to just lurk from now own.

Unless its a direct question that is.

[Syteanric 1]

it just proves how much guff Doomcaster spoke... if he had stayed at the club we''d be a league 2 side now with a nice 10 point deduction.

[Bill 1,788]

It does not back your point wiz.

You repeatedly stated that WE WERE GOING INTO ADMINISTRATION FOR CERTAIN.

We did not, therefore your claim of prior knowledge was false.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]it just proves how much guff Doomcaster spoke... if he had stayed at the club we''d be a league 2 side now with a nice 10 point deduction.
[/quote]

Precisely. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]

Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”[/quote]There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.[/quote]

 

In fairness to McNally he made it very clear that he inherited a fait accompli last season and that he has only been able to start to institute his plans from the summer onwards. He was very clear that the Directors had made the summer signings possible.

[/quote]Thank you, Beau, for that corroboration. I pointed this out because there is a faction (very small but vocal) on this board that has repeatedly given all the credit to Bowkett and McNally and their turnraound plan for our summer spending when that was plainly absurd. It had to be Smith and Jones lending even more money.Perhaps now this faction will stop peddling this particular absurdity.

[Mello Yello 2,297]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]


Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”

[/quote]

There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.

Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.

He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.

[/quote]

 

In fairness to McNally he made it very clear that he inherited a fait accompli last season and that he has only been able to start to institute his plans from the summer onwards. He was very clear that the Directors had made the summer signings possible.

[/quote]

Thank you, Beau, for that corroboration. I pointed this out because there is a faction (very small but vocal) on this board that has repeatedly given all the credit to Bowkett and McNally and their turnraound plan for our summer spending when that was plainly absurd. It had to be Smith and Jones lending even more money.

Perhaps now this faction will stop peddling this particular absurdity.
[/quote]

Good on the majority shareholders, for lending even more money.......but, (and surely) they''ll also be expect a return on these loans.....? (Hopefully, without interest).

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. [/quote]

While the directors helped fund the club last season the really significant event that kept us out of Administration was the superb way Bowkett and McNally got the £2.5m holiday from servicing the debt.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"]

Last night was my first experience of The Butcher Of Colney live and in the flesh and I have to say I was mightily impressed. He had all the numbers at his fingertips, answered every question fully and generally gave the impression of being in total control. I''d be happy to have him running my business!

His answer to the student was pretty solid. NCFC is a business, and one which was technically insolvent a year ago, so giving tickets away makes no economic sense. Yes, we might be encouraging future generations of support, but that will be of no relevance if the club ceases to exist. I thought that the student made his original point well, before the thrill of being on the soapbox got to him and he started to call for boycotts of games.

[/quote]

IMHO - McNally was impressive last night.

[canary cherub 1]

I''m not sure there''s much more we can add to this until we see the accounts for 09/10.  Last year they were delayed until after Christmas, although in previous years they''ve usually been available by the end of October.  The accounts go up to 31st May but sales/purchases/loans made over the summer are usually included under "post balance sheet events". 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="City1st"]

If we were in such dire straights then the banks would have pulled the plug. Maybe they threatened to and a number of sources were found to provide the money to pay the bills and fund further expenditure - so not really bankrupt at all.

[/quote]

I have mentioned the £2.5m holiday from servicing the debts (bank and loan notes) last season for some months now in various posts. It is that which I think has kept the wolf from the door.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Duffman"]

Norwich City came close to going into administration just as manager Paul Lambert''s revolution was beginning to take shape. City chief executive David McNally said last night that City had been in “a very dark tunnel”, but had managed to finance Lambert''s plans. However, McNally said the cost of backing the manager will be revealed in financial figures which would not make “pretty reading”. “Let''s not forget where we were 12 months ago,” he said. “The realism is that when the new board took control we had £23m of debt and an income plan which would not cover costs for the coming year, no way. “We were heading for administration and we were in League One. Our £23m of debt was weighing us down and we had to think about what this great football club needed. “We put in place a business turnaround plan. We needed to ensure we survived as a football club last autumn because it did get very close. “Administration was a real possibility last autumn. “Last autumn the support that Michael Foulger, Delia and Michael Wynn Jones gave the club was sensational, in a difficult time for the business.”[/quote]There is a danger that McNally talking in the same breath about avoiding administration and then about a cost-cutting business turnaround plan makes it  look as if he is crediting the latter with the former.Actually this is a not very coded way of saying that if we were close to administration we avoided it because Smith and Jones and Foulger bankrolled us. Again. And bankrolled the promotion push. And probably most of this summer''s spending. When McNally says the next accounts will not make pretty reading he almost cerainly means they will show us more in  debt - but to directors.He is not saying, despite what some posters think, that we got back to the Championship and then spent loads in the summer because of his turnaround plan. Any benefits from that are for now and the future.[/quote]

 

In fairness to McNally he made it very clear that he inherited a fait accompli last season and that he has only been able to start to institute his plans from the summer onwards. He was very clear that the Directors had made the summer signings possible.

[/quote]Thank you, Beau, for that corroboration. I pointed this out because there is a faction (very small but vocal) on this board that has repeatedly given all the credit to Bowkett and McNally and their turnraound plan for our summer spending when that was plainly absurd. It had to be Smith and Jones lending even more money.Perhaps now this faction will stop peddling this particular absurdity.[/quote]

But dont underestimate the £2.5m debt servicing holiday and the extra revenue, £5m? from being in a higher division this season

[Jason Shackells limp Tackle 0]

Wiz dear chap. I am from Norfolk, not Chile; incidental, I know. I happen to go there often as I married a Chilena - trying to increase the gene pool and all that! I never ever said that you weren''t disabled - I just forcibly stated (and still maintain) that you should not use a disability to garner sympathy when losing an argument or to back up a claim when it was not relevant. Much like people using the ''race card'' when it is neither valid to a situation..

I have no doubt that you have a disablity, whatever it is I am sorry for you; however, how many other posters have one? We may never know because they may chose not to divulge it on a public forum in order to get a sympathy vote.

 

Welcome back - wee knew you could not stay away a month! hehe

 

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]But dont underestimate the £2.5m debt servicing holiday and the extra revenue, £5m? from being in a higher division this season[/quote]I don''t understimate the debt repayment holiday. You''re right to emphasise it.[Y] The new guard did well over that. Undoubtedly helped us stop losing money. But - although things are not this simplistic - it hardly provided NEW money to spend this summer. The main source of that was Smith and Jones (and Foulger?), as the PurpleCanary faction[8-|] has beein saying for quite some time, and as McNally has now confirmed.As to extra income from the higher division, you also have to factor in higher costs, and especially player wages. Swings and roundabouts.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Wiz wrote: I was ''tipped off'' about this administration by an ''aquentence'' at a dinner in Norfolk, believe it or not, it was spot on.

I thought the whole point of ''meals on wheels'' was home delivery?!