Our 30-year transfer income/expenditure record is +26m!!

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

	Norwich City England -

Transfer revenue and expenditures

Season	Revenue	Departures	Expenditure	Arrivals	Total
2010/2011	-	15	4.171.500 £	13	-4.171.500 £
2009/2010	810.000 £	27	1.269.000 £	33	-459.000 £
2008/2009	1.935.000 £	36	1.575.000 £	32	360.000 £
2007/2008	9.157.500 £	31	1.665.000 £	29	7.492.500 £
2006/2007	3.577.500 £	19	2.092.500 £	23	1.485.000 £
2005/2006	12.141.000 £	21	5.242.500 £	20	6.898.500 £
2004/2005	405.000 £	15	7.672.500 £	18	-7.267.500 £
2003/2004	166.500 £	11	1.575.000 £	14	-1.408.500 £
2002/2003	-	10	-	6	-
2001/2002	81.000 £	5	1.728.000 £	11	-1.647.000 £
2000/2001	8.325.000 £	12	607.500 £	11	7.717.500 £
1999/2000	4.050.000 £	5	607.500 £	6	3.442.500 £
1998/1999	117.000 £	2	1.147.500 £	4	-1.030.500 £
1997/1998	3.307.500 £	4	2.362.500 £	8	945.000 £
1996/1997	1.750.500 £	7	607.500 £	7	1.143.000 £
1995/1996	3.843.000 £	4	-	2	3.843.000 £
1994/1995	9.540.000 £	5	2.587.500 £	4	6.952.500 £
1993/1994	-	1	225.000 £	5	-225.000 £
1992/1993	675.000 £	1	-	3	675.000 £
1990/1991	-	-	207.000 £	2	-207.000 £
1989/1990	-	1	360.000 £	1	-360.000 £
1988/1989	-	1	-	-	-
1987/1988	1.080.000 £	1	-	-	1.080.000 £
1986/1987	1.665.000 £	3	-	-	1.665.000 £
1985/1986	-	1	-	-	-
1984/1985	-	1	243.000 £	2	-243.000 £
1983/1984	-	1	-	1	-
1982/1983	-	2	-	2	-
1981/1982	-	2	202.500 £	2	-202.500 £
1980/1981	-	-	364.500 £	4	-364.500 £
Total	62.626.500 £	244	36.513.000 £	263	26.113.500 £

[dhickl 0]

I guess you have just found this website, which would be the reason why you are posting loads of rubbish from it.

Their figures are NOT based upon facts. 

E.g. How do they know that we paid exacly £1,530,000 for Simeon Jackson and that we paid exactly £1,507,500 for Andrew Surman.  Both these were undisclosed, so they wouldn''t know the actual price.  Also the reports at the time suggest that the figures are significantly different to their quoted prices.

Do you think in 2002/3 we did not spend or receive a single penny on transfers?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="dhickl"]

I guess you have just found this website, which would be the reason why you are posting loads of rubbish from it.

Their figures are NOT based upon facts. 

E.g. How do they know that we paid exacly £1,530,000 for Simeon Jackson and that we paid exactly £1,507,500 for Andrew Surman.  Both these were undisclosed, so they wouldn''t know the actual price.  Also the reports at the time suggest that the figures are significantly different to their quoted prices.

Do you think in 2002/3 we did not spend or receive a single penny on transfers?

[/quote]

What are stated are the sites estimated ''market values'', not what we paid for them.

OTBC

[morty 0]

[quote user="dhickl"]

I guess you have just found this website, which would be the reason why you are posting loads of rubbish from it.

Their figures are NOT based upon facts. 

E.g. How do they know that we paid exacly £1,530,000 for Simeon Jackson and that we paid exactly £1,507,500 for Andrew Surman.  Both these were undisclosed, so they wouldn''t know the actual price.  Also the reports at the time suggest that the figures are significantly different to their quoted prices.

Do you think in 2002/3 we did not spend or receive a single penny on transfers?

[/quote]Glad you said it, I''m not allowed to say Bly posts utter crap because apparently it means I''m a bully.[:)]

[TIL 1010 5,246]

Total tosh but i suppose it is another excuse to start yet another thread.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="dhickl"]

Do you think in 2002/3 we did not spend or receive a single penny on transfers?

[/quote]I don''t remember who the other signings were, but we signed Keith Briggs that season - for £65,000 while the website said we didn''t spend anything (http://www.skysports.com/football/player/0,19754,11762_182655,00.html). I don''t think that website can really be taken seriously.

[norfolkbroadslim 225]

Agent''s fees, admin fees, training costs etc etc?[:^)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Total tosh but i suppose it is another excuse to start yet another thread.[/quote]By rights, there should be a roaring trade in these from Norfolk, if this forum is anything to go by.Don''t like it ?  Ignore it - if all agree it disappears.  As if by magic.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="dhickl"]

I guess you have just found this website, which would be the reason why you are posting loads of rubbish from it.

Their figures are NOT based upon facts. 

E.g. How do they know that we paid exacly £1,530,000 for Simeon Jackson and that we paid exactly £1,507,500 for Andrew Surman.  Both these were undisclosed, so they wouldn''t know the actual price.  Also the reports at the time suggest that the figures are significantly different to their quoted prices.

Do you think in 2002/3 we did not spend or receive a single penny on transfers?

[/quote]

What are stated are the sites estimated ''market values'', not what we paid for them.

OTBC

[/quote]

Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]Agent''s fees, admin fees, training costs etc etc?[:^)][/quote]But that doesn''t account for them saying we spent nothing when we know there was a fee (see Briggs example above!)

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?[/quote]It''s a German website.  If you search the archive for transfermarkt you will see that someone stumbles across the website every few months then posts the rubbish that they find on it as if it is true (E.g. Bly''s 3 new threads today)

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?[/quote]It''s a German website.  If you search the archive for transfermarkt you will see that someone stumbles across the website every few months then posts the rubbish that they find on it as if it is true (E.g. Bly''s 3 new threads today)

[/quote]

So according to you, I say it''s ''true'' and you say it''s ''rubbish''.

Black or white.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?[/quote]It''s a German website.  If you search the archive for transfermarkt you will see that someone stumbles across the website every few months then posts the rubbish that they find on it as if it is true (E.g. Bly''s 3 new threads today)

[/quote]

So according to you, I say it''s ''true'' and you say it''s ''rubbish''.

Black or white.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

I remember the Daily Star years ago claiming Elvis was seen in a supermarket and that a B52 bomber had landed on the moon. What do you make of that then Bly or do you take everything you read to be true and at face value.?

Dreary oh dreary you.

Still one love.

 

[Scottlarock 12]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?[/quote]It''s a German website.  If you search the archive for transfermarkt you will see that someone stumbles across the website every few months then posts the rubbish that they find on it as if it is true (E.g. Bly''s 3 new threads today)

[/quote]

So according to you, I say it''s ''true'' and you say it''s ''rubbish''.

Black or white.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

[/quote]regardless of whether it''s true or not or is totally accurate or not - what is the point of your thread??Is it that it proves we are a selling club? - we already know that and as you''ve used 30 years worth of spurious data it sort of suggests that we''re not much of one really ie a shade under a million each year but is rendered pointless due to the thirty year span.Or are you suggesting we should be in a better financial position based on your post - what happened in the eighties or nineties has no bearing on present day (apart from when you were obviously dropped on your head and now you bore lots of people to tears).

[blahblahblah 2]

There''s a fair point being made here Bly, what is the point of this particular thread ?

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I remember the Daily Star years ago claiming Elvis was seen in a supermarket and that a B52 bomber had landed on the moon. What do you make of that then Bly or do you take everything you read to be true and at face value.?

Dreary oh dreary you.

Still one love.

 

[/quote]

I think you will find that that was The Daily Sport but that''s besides the point, which is; bbb posts crap. End of.

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Your thread title indicates + £26 million is a fact and who has estimated these market values?[/quote]It''s a German website.  If you search the archive for transfermarkt you will see that someone stumbles across the website every few months then posts the rubbish that they find on it as if it is true (E.g. Bly''s 3 new threads today)

[/quote]

So according to you, I say it''s ''true'' and you say it''s ''rubbish''.

Black or white.

Dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]You posted it as a a statement implying it is a fact - as pointed out by Til.

I then posted evidence that their figures are incorrect - giving the example of them claiming we spent nothing in 2002/3 season, but showing we did make a purchase of Keith Briggs.   

Therefore, as they are claiming it is factual, yet evidence clearly shows that it is wrong, I am calling it rubbish.  To me that is clearly black and white.  When you are talking numbers it is easier to be black and white - either the number is correct or it is not and in this case evidence shows it is not.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

If you look at the site and its depth, detail and complexity it''s quite obvious that their information comes from somewhere and that it''s not just made up out of thin air. The fact that there may be gaps (e.g. a particular years data hard to locate?) doesn''t necessarily invalidate the whole

Annual reports?

Agents?

FA/Football League filings?

Companies House?

Retired/sacked/former club functionaries?

There''s a great deal of information available today in the public domain with all the access to information laws and regulations that have flooded the world.

It would be interesting, for example. for one of our fag packet accountants to do a trace on the NCFC Annual Reports and let us know the result. Anybody game?

OTBC 

 

 

[Drazen Muzinic 1,502]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

If you look at the site and its depth, detail and complexity it''s quite obvious that their information comes from somewhere and that it''s not just made up out of thin air. The fact that there may be gaps (e.g. a particular years data hard to locate?) doesn''t necessarily invalidate the whole

Annual reports?

Agents?

FA/Football League filings?

Companies House?

Retired/sacked/former club functionaries?

There''s a great deal of information available today in the public domain with all the access to information laws and regulations that have flooded the world.

It would be interesting, for example. for one of our fag packet accountants to do a trace on the NCFC Annual Reports and let us know the result. Anybody game?

OTBC 

 

I''m game for a lot of things but I will now be too busy trying to recover the last 3 minutes of my life that I''ll never see again after reading this thread. I''ll have to smoke 3 less fags tonight now.

 

 

[/quote]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Drazen Muzinic"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

If you look at the site and its depth, detail and complexity it''s quite obvious that their information comes from somewhere and that it''s not just made up out of thin air. The fact that there may be gaps (e.g. a particular years data hard to locate?) doesn''t necessarily invalidate the whole

Annual reports?

Agents?

FA/Football League filings?

Companies House?

Retired/sacked/former club functionaries?

There''s a great deal of information available today in the public domain with all the access to information laws and regulations that have flooded the world.

It would be interesting, for example. for one of our fag packet accountants to do a trace on the NCFC Annual Reports and let us know the result. Anybody game?

OTBC 

I''m game for a lot of things but I will now be too busy trying to recover the last 3 minutes of my life that I''ll never see again after reading this thread. I''ll have to smoke 3 less fags tonight now.

[/quote][/quote]

Drazen, the club could do with recovering some of that record transfer fee we wasted on you.

I mean with accrued interest we may well be able to buy our way into the Premiership.

[;)]

OTBC

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

If you look at the site and its depth, detail and complexity it''s quite obvious that their information comes from somewhere and that it''s not just made up out of thin air. The fact that there may be gaps (e.g. a particular years data hard to locate?) doesn''t necessarily invalidate the whole

Annual reports?

Agents?

FA/Football League filings?

Companies House?

Retired/sacked/former club functionaries?

There''s a great deal of information available today in the public domain with all the access to information laws and regulations that have flooded the world.

It would be interesting, for example. for one of our fag packet accountants to do a trace on the NCFC Annual Reports and let us know the result. Anybody game?

OTBC 

[/quote]

Nobody willing?

OTBC

[lappinitup 629]

I''ll check it out for you Bly. [Y]

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="lappinitup"]I''ll check it out for you Bly. [Y][/quote]

Oh dear.

Do you feel a [|-)] coming on Lapp?

[lappinitup 629]

Sorted Bly! Yep, it was definitely The Sunday Sport! [H]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Ah, the inner circle luvvies and The Sunday Sport, you really deserve one another.

[:)]

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Anybody used to take a ride on the City Circle? I remember it used to stop for what seemed an eternity on Martineau Lane. Of course that used to go around the Outer Circle. I remember when they built the Inner Circle which spawned the Magdalen Street Flyover amongst other changes to our fine City. Is this what the luvvies did for us?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Ah, the inner circle luvvies and The Sunday Sport, you really deserve one another.[/quote]No need to be like that Bly! Only trying to be helpful. Anything to keep awake on one of your threads! [|-)][|-)][|-)]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Ah, the inner circle luvvies and The Sunday Sport, you really deserve one another.[/quote]No need to be like that Bly! Only trying to be helpful. Anything to keep awake on one of your threads! [|-)][|-)][|-)][/quote]

The best way is not to visit then innit!

But, of course, you find my contributions so irresistable.

[:D]

One love.

OTBC 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Anybody used to take a ride on the City Circle? I remember it used to stop for what seemed an eternity on Martineau Lane. Of course that used to go around the Outer Circle. I remember when they built the Inner Circle which spawned the Magdalen Street Flyover amongst other changes to our fine City. Is this what the luvvies did for us?

[/quote]

Flyover?

Looks more like a lumpover to me.

But still.

OTBC

 

[TIL 1010 5,246]

All this inner circle stuff is doing my head in.Nobody has mentioned the magic circle yet and i know for sure some people who are in it.....Tommy Cooper,David Nixon,Paul Daniels to name but three.

Come on Bly do keep up.

One Love.