Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ricardo

Ricardo's report The AGM

Recommended Posts

Well it`s nice to know that despite the current blip, normal service will apparently soon be resumed. Our best players will be sold every season for millions and we will be told that "All transfer money is reinvested in the team", despite the accounts showing huge yearly profits on player trading. We will go back to being net sellers of footballers in a big way rather than net buyers. More land and roads will be bought plunging the club further into debt and the wonderful multi-storey carpark plans will be resurrected and implimented. Non-football costs will once more eat up virtually all the clubs revenue as it did in `08 (Luckily i only imagined the huge reduction in costs in the last set of accounts). The accounts will once more show expenditure on fixed assets in the millions rather than the few £100k of the last accounts. Anyone not whole-heartedly applauding the madness and suggesting that maybe a football club should be "obsessed" with football, rather than off-field matters will be branded "anti-club" "binner" and strongly warned that we "mustn`t do a Gretna".......

The argument was done and dusted over a year ago folks. Get over it and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Well it`s nice to know that despite the current blip, normal service will apparently soon be resumed. Our best players will be sold every season for millions and we will be told that "All transfer money is reinvested in the team", despite the accounts showing huge yearly profits on player trading. We will go back to being net sellers of footballers in a big way rather than net buyers. More land and roads will be bought plunging the club further into debt and the wonderful multi-storey carpark plans will be resurrected and implimented. Non-football costs will once more eat up virtually all the clubs revenue as it did in `08 (Luckily i only imagined the huge reduction in costs in the last set of accounts). The accounts will once more show expenditure on fixed assets in the millions rather than the few £100k of the last accounts. Anyone not whole-heartedly applauding the madness and suggesting that maybe a football club should be "obsessed" with football, rather than off-field matters will be branded "anti-club" "binner" and strongly warned that we "mustn`t do a Gretna".......

The argument was done and dusted over a year ago folks. Get over it and move on.[/quote]

Did you see the slide show Mr Carrow? It stated that over the last 10 years transfers roughly balanced out at £20 million in and out.I would have thought it unlikely for fixed asset expenditure to move into the millions unless we go for the 8000 capacity increase.McNally stated that all non core assets would be sold to pay down the debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"]Did you see the slide show Mr Carrow? It stated that over the last 10 years transfers roughly balanced out at £20 million in and out.

 

[/quote]Now look at what you''ve done Ricardo. You''ll have the FPA''s scrambling for their calculators now.

 

Anyway, what did happen to all that money we got for Ron Davies? [:^)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Did you see the slide show Mr Carrow? It stated that over the last 10 years transfers roughly balanced out at £20 million in and out.

 

[/quote]Now look at what you''ve done Ricardo. You''ll have the FPA''s scrambling for their calculators now.

 

Anyway, what did happen to all that money we got for Ron Davies? [:^)]

[/quote]Yeah Lapp, bought him for 35k sold him for 50k. I reckon Lol Morgan must have spent the difference on Albert Bennets new white boots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I work evenings Ricardo so couldn`t make it. I`ve always said we were quite ambitious before promotion (hence why i bought shares and bricks in the Jarrold) and, given the fact that the share issue cash was spent on players and we spent a reasonable amount in the Prem i`m not entirely surprised if there`s an overall breakeven. There certainly isn`t since relegation as i`m sure a certain decent manager much-loved by nutty would tell you......

The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football- and what an effect it`s had!! £300k spent on new seats does absolutely nothing to change that. Personally i`m ecstatic at the way things have panned out and it could hardly have been scripted better. The fact that a few posters on here don`t seem quite so happy and still seem stuck in a long-dead argument is sad but perhaps not surprising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]I work evenings Ricardo so couldn`t make it. I`ve always said we were quite ambitious before promotion (hence why i bought shares and bricks in the Jarrold) and, given the fact that the share issue cash was spent on players and we spent a reasonable amount in the Prem i`m not entirely surprised if there`s an overall breakeven. There certainly isn`t since relegation as i`m sure a certain decent manager much-loved by nutty would tell you......

The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football- and what an effect it`s had!! £300k spent on new seats does absolutely nothing to change that. Personally i`m ecstatic at the way things have panned out and it could hardly have been scripted better. The fact that a few posters on here don`t seem quite so happy and still seem stuck in a long-dead argument is sad but perhaps not surprising.[/quote]I''m with you Mr C in being ecstaticat the way things have turned out. I don''t pretend to be an expert on the accounts but I certainly find slide show given by Bowkett and McNally far superior to the fag packet stuff we had in the past. The balance between infrastructure and football investment will always be a contentious one Mr C, but I trust these guys to get it right.Its not very often that a board is clapped when presenting a £5 million loss but I think everyone present got the feeling that we now have the right people in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football- and what an effect "

What a pile of ridiculous old tosh. Perhaps you might care to notice where the AGM was held ... the back room of a pub off Rosary Road or maybe in down Newmarket Road ?

Unfortunately our club has attracted a fair number of idiots who unable to grasp the basics have clung onto a simplistic bogeyman is the wicked board were spending all the hard earned money of trusting Norfolk folk on fraudulent property deals across the county.

The improvement on the pitch has ''far call'' to do with the money being spent - check the accounts under player wages (sorry to drag facts into the debate). It is about appointing a manager and coaching staff that have a degree of excellence - long missed at the club.

The fault for that previous failing (unsuitable managerial appointments) rests solely with the previous board. However their failings WERE NOT one of failing to provide sufficient funds. Nor were they one of maintaining and developing the infrastructure. You only have to see the precarious position that kind of failure to invest caused our impoverished neighbours.

Now, no ones expecting an apology, most of the anti investment herberts have long since disappeared, so maybe lets celebrate that we have a club wise enough to ignore their ridiculous bleats and get on with supporting the club instead of endlessly repeating these farcical lies and smears.

Norwich City Football Club is, to all intents and purposes, a business, and so has to be run accordingly, either accept it or go elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Did you see the slide show Mr Carrow? It stated that over the last 10 years transfers roughly balanced out at £20 million in and out.

 

[/quote]Now look at what you''ve done Ricardo. You''ll have the FPA''s scrambling for their calculators now.

 

Anyway, what did happen to all that money we got for Ron Davies? [:^)]

[/quote]

Yeah Lapp, bought him for 35k sold him for 50k. I reckon Lol Morgan must have spent the difference on Albert Bennets new white boots.
[/quote]

Thats a blast from the past!  Those white boots.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="ricardo"]Did you see the slide show Mr Carrow? It stated that over the last 10 years transfers roughly balanced out at £20 million in and out.

 

[/quote]Now look at what you''ve done Ricardo. You''ll have the FPA''s scrambling for their calculators now.

 

Anyway, what did happen to all that money we got for Ron Davies? [:^)]

[/quote]

Yeah Lapp, bought him for 35k sold him for 50k. I reckon Lol Morgan must have spent the difference on Albert Bennets new white boots.
[/quote]

Thats a blast from the past!  Those white boots.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="City1st"]

 

However their failings WERE NOT ................ one of maintaining and developing the infrastructure. You only have to see the precarious position that kind of failure to invest caused our impoverished neighbours. [/quote]

Funny I could have sworn that Ipswich Town FC. refurbished one end and put a top tier on that stand. They then followed it up by a new two tier stand behind the other goal.  Now I wonder what got Ipswich into Administration?

I know the facts will upset some of you...............

 

Have a nice day!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football-.[/quote]

How refreshing! 

[/quote]

....says the smelly one who waxed long and often at how well some other clubs ( now struggling precariously on the edge ) were managing their finances so much better than Norwich City FC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football-.[/quote]

How refreshing! 

[/quote]

....says the smelly one who waxed long and often at how well some other clubs ( now struggling precariously on the edge ) were managing their finances so much better than Norwich City FC. 

[/quote]

Actually if you bothered to READ what I said about Preston, it was about the rump of their overheads compared to ours, i.e., the cost of running our club seemed to be out of line with the cost of running their club. The fact that McNally has taken a knife to our costs proves that I am right on this issue.

May I suggest you spend more time contributing to the improvement of academic standards in the USA!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football-.[/quote]

How refreshing! 

[/quote]

....says the smelly one who waxed long and often at how well some other clubs ( now struggling precariously on the edge ) were managing their finances so much better than Norwich City FC. 

[/quote]

Actually if you bothered to READ what I said about Preston, it was about the rump of their overheads compared to ours, i.e., the cost of running our club seemed to be out of line with the cost of running their club. The fact that McNally has taken a knife to our costs proves that I am right on this issue.

May I suggest you spend more time contributing to the improvement of academic standards in the USA!

[/quote]

...and as I, and others, have pointed out to you many times Tangy, the fortunes of football clubs go up and down. It is the nature of the beast. Sideline wannabee football club accountants like you are filled to the brim with your own sense of importance at pointing out how well some other clubs are currently doing with better management than your own club. Let those that run football clubs run football clubs without you looking every season for someone else you can cherry pick as to why "they" are doing so much better than Norwich. Preston anyone?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football-.[/quote]

How refreshing! 

[/quote]

....says the smelly one who waxed long and often at how well some other clubs ( now struggling precariously on the edge ) were managing their finances so much better than Norwich City FC. 

[/quote]

Actually if you bothered to READ what I said about Preston, it was about the rump of their overheads compared to ours, i.e., the cost of running our club seemed to be out of line with the cost of running their club. The fact that McNally has taken a knife to our costs proves that I am right on this issue.

May I suggest you spend more time contributing to the improvement of academic standards in the USA!

[/quote]

...and as I, and others, have pointed out to you many times Tangy, the fortunes of football clubs go up and down. It is the nature of the beast. Sideline wannabee football club accountants like you are filled to the brim with your own sense of importance at pointing out how well some other clubs are currently doing with better management than your own club. Let those that run football clubs run football clubs without you looking every season for someone else you can cherry pick as to why "they" are doing so much better than Norwich. Preston anyone?   

[/quote]

BUT you cant deny that McNallys actions at cutting the costs have proved that I am right! 

Enjoy Obama!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of all the rhetoric on this thread it''s worth noting again what I believe is the greatest pearl of wisdom shared by Purple Canary, which many of us would do well to heed:

 

"Certainly the mood music now is differerent, but so far I don''t see any great changes of policy. The realities of football have indeed not changed. And it is too early to tell if the plans being mentioned (but not detailed) by the new lot are the right plans."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] The non-core assets is one of a myriad of quotes from the new board members indicating that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football-.[/quote]

How refreshing! 

[/quote]

....says the smelly one who waxed long and often at how well some other clubs ( now struggling precariously on the edge ) were managing their finances so much better than Norwich City FC. 

[/quote]

Actually if you bothered to READ what I said about Preston, it was about the rump of their overheads compared to ours, i.e., the cost of running our club seemed to be out of line with the cost of running their club. The fact that McNally has taken a knife to our costs proves that I am right on this issue.

May I suggest you spend more time contributing to the improvement of academic standards in the USA!

[/quote]

...and as I, and others, have pointed out to you many times Tangy, the fortunes of football clubs go up and down. It is the nature of the beast. Sideline wannabee football club accountants like you are filled to the brim with your own sense of importance at pointing out how well some other clubs are currently doing with better management than your own club. Let those that run football clubs run football clubs without you looking every season for someone else you can cherry pick as to why "they" are doing so much better than Norwich. Preston anyone?   

[/quote]

BUT you cant deny that McNallys actions at cutting the costs have proved that I am right! 

 

 

[/quote]With £4m less from the Football League and 1000 down on ST sales it was clear that even the old board would have cut costs Tangy.

 

So, if stating the bleedin'' obvious makes you "right" so be it! [:S]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]Sorry to cut off the point but Wilbraham couldn''t do much else than put it on a plate for R Martin.

I''m in the camp of ''He''ll come good''[/quote]

Yep, Lambert has the abilty to get players playing to their potential, why would anybody start to critisise Wilbraham after such a short time with us. IMO he got off to a slow start but has already shown improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always a good report from Ricardo. A couple of things I haven''t seen mentioned anywhere from last night..

McNally on football matters - we will always appoint a ''best in class manager'' and ''in every transfer window there will be funds available to our manager to strengthen the playing squad''

oh and - regarding concerts at Carrow Road - Rod Stewart has sold well and the club will make money from it - plus at least one more concert to come "something for the younger audience" (wouldn''t disclosed at this stage)

All in all a very positive AGM - we are in safe hands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Well it`s nice to know that despite the current blip, normal service will apparently soon be resumed. Our best players will be sold every season for millions and we will be told that "All transfer money is reinvested in the team", despite the accounts showing huge yearly profits on player trading. We will go back to being net sellers of footballers in a big way rather than net buyers. More land and roads will be bought plunging the club further into debt and the wonderful multi-storey carpark plans will be resurrected and implimented. Non-football costs will once more eat up virtually all the clubs revenue as it did in `08 (Luckily i only imagined the huge reduction in costs in the last set of accounts). The accounts will once more show expenditure on fixed assets in the millions rather than the few £100k of the last accounts. Anyone not whole-heartedly applauding the madness and suggesting that maybe a football club should be "obsessed" with football, rather than off-field matters will be branded "anti-club" "binner" and strongly warned that we "mustn`t do a Gretna"....... The argument was done and dusted over a year ago folks. Get over it and move on.[/quote]

You really should compare like with like Mr Carrow. As you so often have said the old board did ok when the club was on the up. Following the sale of Bellamy for many years we kept our best players and added good players to the squad. This brought about a play-off season and a championship season. But it was as the club was going down that we became net sellers once more. This was not because we spent money in other areas, as I hope you can now see, but because our income fell away at the same time it became obvious we didn''t have the players to get back to the Premier League.

 

Now let''s hope that we continue to spend the football budget wisely and don''t repeat the mistakes of the past. Because if we did win promotion and then get relegated we could be back in a position where we have to sell again. It''s great having good intentions but for every WBA there''s a lot of Norwich, Palace and Southamptons.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="City1st"]"that they are opposed to the old boards infrastructure-first mantra and are focussing on the football- and what an effect "

What a pile of ridiculous old tosh. Perhaps you might care to notice where the AGM was held ... the back room of a pub off Rosary Road or maybe in down Newmarket Road ?

Unfortunately our club has attracted a fair number of idiots who unable to grasp the basics have clung onto a simplistic bogeyman is the wicked board were spending all the hard earned money of trusting Norfolk folk on fraudulent property deals across the county.

The improvement on the pitch has ''far call'' to do with the money being spent - check the accounts under player wages (sorry to drag facts into the debate). It is about appointing a manager and coaching staff that have a degree of excellence - long missed at the club.

The fault for that previous failing (unsuitable managerial appointments) rests solely with the previous board. However their failings WERE NOT one of failing to provide sufficient funds. Nor were they one of maintaining and developing the infrastructure. You only have to see the precarious position that kind of failure to invest caused our impoverished neighbours.

Now, no ones expecting an apology, most of the anti investment herberts have long since disappeared, so maybe lets celebrate that we have a club wise enough to ignore their ridiculous bleats and get on with supporting the club instead of endlessly repeating these farcical lies and smears.

Norwich City Football Club is, to all intents and purposes, a business, and so has to be run accordingly, either accept it or go elsewhere.[/quote]

And what a wonderful collection of fantastical exaggeration and straw-man arguments. I think we must have had at least five comments from the new board along the lines of "cutting back on peripheral activities to concentrate on the football", along with plenty of evidence of this and a huge reduction in operating expenses stated in the last accounts. Games up i`m afraid- time to grow up and accept it. Not quite sure what you make of our current chairman who echoed many people`s concerns and even namechecked "unrest on internet message boards" in his highly critical open letter to the previous board. Was he lying and smearing? Or just being a caring supporter pointing out obvious and repeated policy errors?

The fact that i`m still having to post this stuff is just testament to certain people`s pig-headedness and ego problems. Anyone who knows anyone connected with the club knows how much has changed. Thank goodness Delia finally listened to the realists instead of some of the arrogant, puffed up "wisdom" on here because we might not now have a club to support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty Nigel wrote:

"Now one of the things from last years AGM was that McNally went out of the way to say how high our catering income was compared to other clubs. He said our catering income had been 20m while comparable Premier League clubs were only 6m. Ricardo reported it on here so I must have heard it and understood it right. But some on here indirectly accused McNally of spinning the figures and including ticket money in the catering figures. Others claimed that income didn''t mean profit. In fact many of the usual suspects were trying any argument to discredit what McNally had said. I believe Tangie also had quite strong views on this."

A slip of the keyboard, Nutty, old chum? Surely income doesn''t mean profit? Income less expenses=profit?

I think opening up two, new academy centres will have a major long-term positive impact on the club. And the PUPs have really got their work cut out now...

Fantastic news all round, long may it continue.

YH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="yellow hammer"]Nutty Nigel wrote: "Now one of the things from last years AGM was that McNally went out of the way to say how high our catering income was compared to other clubs. He said our catering income had been 20m while comparable Premier League clubs were only 6m. Ricardo reported it on here so I must have heard it and understood it right. But some on here indirectly accused McNally of spinning the figures and including ticket money in the catering figures. Others claimed that income didn''t mean profit. In fact many of the usual suspects were trying any argument to discredit what McNally had said. I believe Tangie also had quite strong views on this."

A slip of the keyboard, Nutty, old chum? Surely income doesn''t mean profit? Income less expenses=profit?  YH[/quote]

 

You''re too kind.

 

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="yellow hammer"]Nutty Nigel wrote: "Now one of the things from last years AGM was that McNally went out of the way to say how high our catering income was compared to other clubs. He said our catering income had been 20m while comparable Premier League clubs were only 6m. Ricardo reported it on here so I must have heard it and understood it right. But some on here indirectly accused McNally of spinning the figures and including ticket money in the catering figures. Others claimed that income didn''t mean profit. In fact many of the usual suspects were trying any argument to discredit what McNally had said. I believe Tangie also had quite strong views on this." A slip of the keyboard, Nutty, old chum? Surely income doesn''t mean profit? Income less expenses=profit? I think opening up two, new academy centres will have a major long-term positive impact on the club. And the PUPs have really got their work cut out now... Fantastic news all round, long may it continue. YH[/quote]

 

 

Us PUPS love a challenge Mr Hammer[Y]

 

These figures quoted from last year obviously can''t be right. According to the accounts gate receipts last year were only 6,989 as opposed to 7,763 in 2009.  Catering income was 3,757 as opposed to 3,460. Last year catering was responsible for over 22% of group turnover where as in 2009 it was responsible for nearly 20% of group turnover which is probably where the figures came from. 

 

Your post reminds me of a drowning man clinging to a piece of driftwood. Obviously income doesn''t mean profit but clinging on to your belief that the sheep fell for some sort of cover up last year just doesn''t add up to me. It''s quite likely that, as in other areas, the profit margin has been improved but it''s unlikely that last years catering income didn''t turn a healthy profit. So I''m going to send you a lifeboat - "RNLI Common Sense" - because if catering revenue is much the same as the previous year it''s unlikely that a loss has been transformed into a profit as big as some premier clubs income.

 

Income from other sources is a neccessity in todays game. Especially for clubs outside the Premier League. This is something the previous board got right. What they probably got wrong was giving this income to the wrong football manager to spend on the wrong football players.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

 

You''re too kind.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

The lifeboat would be no use to you Babes. You wouldn''t have the gumption to recognise it for what it was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

 

You''re too kind.

 

OTBC

[/quote]

 

The lifeboat would be no use to you Babes. You wouldn''t have the gumption to recognise it for what it was.

 

[/quote]

 

[8] Bingo was his name ''o. [8]

 

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutty

These figures quoted from last year obviously can''t be right. According to the accounts gate receipts last year were only 6,989 as opposed to 7,763 in 2009.  Catering income was 3,757 as opposed to 3,460. Last year catering was responsible for over 22% of group turnover where as in 2009 it was responsible for nearly 20% of group turnover which is probably where the figures came from. 

In your role(amongst your many talents) as bionic accountant can you please enlighten me:-

1. Match day and season tickets that include catering how is the split made, if at all? I did not get an answer to this last year.

2. Are the catering outlets "overhead charges" taken for premises, staff, heating lighting etc charged.

I am delighted that things are looking good AND it is NOT doubting anyones figures. Just curious as to the make up.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You''re hanging on to that driftwood by your fingernails Butler. Common sense surely tells you that this catering revenue shows a good profit. Can you give me one good reason why McNally would set so much store by it if it didn''t?

 

Catering and commercial income together amount to more than gate receipts. God help us if they represent a loss.

 

Undoubtedly McNally has increased the profitability of all areas of the club but the thing that this board has got right that the others failed for many years is in having someone who could spend the football budget to good effect.

 

The old board got a lot right off the pitch but very little right on it for their last few years.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You''re hanging on to that driftwood by your fingernails Butler. Common sense surely tells you that this catering revenue shows a good profit. Can you give me one good reason why McNally would set so much store by it if it didn''t?

 

Catering and commercial income together amount to more than gate receipts. God help us if they represent a loss.

 

Undoubtedly McNally has increased the profitability of all areas of the club but the thing that this board has got right that the others failed for many years is in having someone who could spend the football budget to good effect.

 

The old board got a lot right off the pitch but very little right on it for their last few years.

 

 

[/quote]

Not hanging on to anything Nutty.You mistake interest for crtiticism. If you read last years and this years posts on the subject I keep asking the same questions and still no answers

I am NOT doubting a profit  but would just like to know what is fact. As you seem to be reading from the accounts perhaps you can tell me.

There is an expression that goes something like "The devil is in the detail"

As long as the club have stopped haemorrhaging money at a vast rate who cares were it comes from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...