Ricardo's report The AGM

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ricardo"]

 

6. Catering profits exceed many Prem clubs entire catering turnover.

[/quote]

 

Is arguing about the attendance the best we can do? What about point six from my mate Rickyyyyyyyyy???

 

That can''t be right can it??

 

Can''t wait for The Butler or Mr Carrow to come and put this right!

 

The sooner the cook takes her pots and pans back to Suffolk the better[;)]

 

 

[/quote]

That''s great news. Sacking the catering manager must have had a good effect[:D]

Nutty you are getting VERY confused in you old age.

Me I am just happy things are looking good AT LAST.

Thanks Ricardo ,good report as always, pity some try to spoil it.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Canaries Utd"]Any talk on a potential signing???[/quote]Nothing concrete mate.One thing I''ve just remembered is that they said it would cost £20 million to put another 8000 on the capacity (£2,500 per seat) and it would take 9 years before it paid for itself.The other thing is that we are opening centre''s of excellence outside the county to extend our reach for young players into London and the Midlands.[/quote]Centres of excellence outside the county is a bloody dynamite move imo[Y]

[Big Slob 0]

Was the bloke with the stutter there? I remember one year he took about 10 minutes to ask, whether or not we should get rid of our green away kit as we never won in it.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="ricardo"]

 

6. Catering profits exceed many Prem clubs entire catering turnover.

[/quote]

 

Is arguing about the attendance the best we can do? What about point six from my mate Rickyyyyyyyyy???

 

That can''t be right can it??

 

Can''t wait for The Butler or Mr Carrow to come and put this right!

 

The sooner the cook takes her pots and pans back to Suffolk the better[;)]

 

 

[/quote]

That''s great news. Sacking the catering manager must have had a good effect[:D]

Nutty you are getting VERY confused in you old age.

Me I am just happy things are looking good AT LAST.

Thanks Ricardo ,good report as always, pity some try to spoil it.

[/quote]

 

Well that''s one thing we agree on, it was a great report from Ricardo. I''m with Yankee on this because when I go to games and then read Ricardo''s report we usually see the same game and the same performances. But I go further because I was at last years AGM and Ricardo''s report of that was how I understood it.

 

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.

 

So Ricardo has reported this year that McNally said profits exceed many Premiership clubs turnover. Is it really the best you can do to suggest that all this profit miraculously happened in one year. Surely you at least would like to know about the ticket/catering split?

 

I don''t think anybody has been trying to spoil Rickyyyyyy''s fine report. The best threads on here stimulate debate and it would be very dull if everyone posted how good Ricardo''s report was and left it to drift down the board.

 

 

[Yobocop 1,096]

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''

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Now on the subject of the 52 prospective sugar daddies...........

Was any mention not made of prospective sugar mummies? I mean....dear, oh dear.....old Plod will be most disappointed.

Or is it as my late GP once wisely advised me ''that two queens can''t rule'' ?

[;)]

OTBC

P.S. On a serious note though I am so delighted with the professional, hard-headed management so evidently now in place at the club, something that I had advocated for repeatedly over recent years in the face of attempted ridicule frrom the usual suspects.

The club also seem seriously prepared to  try to sustain and build on the momentum which has built up so discernably in this the second year of  the present regime. In a controlled way without going overboard. Excellent.

Will we be able to beat our 2-year benchmark in the current 7 year plan? It''s looking distinctly possible.

And as for the iniatives with the youth system. I always said that where there''s a will there''s a way around the obstacles that face us in this matter.

P.P.S. Thanks Ricardo 

 

 

 

 

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="Big Slob"]Was the bloke with the stutter there? I remember one year he took about 10 minutes to ask, whether or not we should get rid of our green away kit as we never won in it.[/quote]Yep and he asked PL a couple of questions. Amazingly, he knew how to answer as I''d got lost trying to concentrate on the questions.

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="cityangel"]

Thanks Ricardo for putting that up for those of us who couldn''t make it.[:)]

Were there really a 1000 people there, if so that must be an all time record although Archant''s report on the front page says more like 300 ??

[/quote]

Blimey Ricardo there was nothing like a thousand in that room.It was around the 300 -400 mark.There were empty seats as you entered the Norfolk lounge and there were only 20-25 tops standing at the bar as i was one of them.

Very good report as has been stated already but way off beam concerning attendance.

[/quote]I got a seat in the 4th row on the right of the stage and counted 240 people in front of me before I gave up and there were loads more behind and they were still coming in the door. Most people underestimate crowds and I assert there were far more than your 300 TIL.

[T 190]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club
• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players
• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide
• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed
• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force
• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure
• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.
• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="T"]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club

• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players

• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide

• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed

• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force

• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure

• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.

• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[/quote]

Hear we go again T having his predictable dig at NCISA.What the hell NCISA and what was said about catering got to do with this thread God above knows.

Butler sort this out will you because i cannot recall these any of these "malicious myths" under mine or Roy''s Chairmanship.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

To be fair T I don''t think singling out NCISA is really fair. I don''t think these views were vever the views of NCISA members but were the views of some individuals from NCISA as well as some who weren''t. Now we have Babes coming on here saying he was right all the time and that''s poppycock to put it mildly.

 

The truth is that the big difference now is in how the football funds have been spent by the football management. When Bowkett first came in he pointed out that we got relegated with much the same player budget as Wolves had used to win the league. Now the FPA''s would have you believe that this wasn''t the case and that we got relegated because football funds were spent elsewhere. However since we have made good use of the football budget our performances on the field have proved Bowkett right.

 

What is reported here surely destroys the myth that the cook was knocking back would be sugar daddies. And it surely destroys the myth that we would be better off if she packed up her pots and pans and went back to Suffolk.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="T"]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club

• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players

• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide

• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed

• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force

• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure

• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.

• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[/quote]

 

---

 

I agree with most of that, although I don''t think it''s helpful to namecheck NCISA. It was hardly NCISA policy that the Fag Packets (even if some were members) mistakenly believed and articlulated.

 

 

The reports from the last two AGMs do show the old regime (while making a couple of bad managerial choices) had got a great deal right, in an increasingly difficult economic climate for medium-sized clubs.

 

 

Equally, it was time for a change. You can get stale in a seasonal business such as football (the same things keep coming round) and Neil Doncaster had stayed too long in the same job. Any new regime would have freshened things up.

 

 

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.

[T 190]

I did not say the NCISA - I said its members and whether you like it or not the comments from the members and the committee members in the past reflect on the organisation. The thread is about the AGM and the AGM debunks the rubbish that many people were previously spouting so consistently for so long on this message board, many of whom are associated with the NCISA.

To be fair, under the new NCISA regime it appears that a more sensible approach is be taken on communication with the role for Beausant for instance. Also a lot of the main protagonists have mysteriously dissappeared now that the malicious myths have been exposed for the nonsense that they always were. Time for some more positve communications from NCISA about the club rejecting the NCISAs past if it wants to move forward.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club

• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players

• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide

• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed

• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force

• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure

• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.

• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[/quote]

When it comes to malicious myths T you are top of the class.

Please, if you must, and it seems you are hell bent on attacking NCISA at every turn, please:-

1. Get your facts right.

2. Don''t sully decent threads with your purile falsehoods.

3 Getting the right football manager is essential for a football club AND is down to directors appointments NOT fans.

4. Strange your current chairman seemed to express views of the nature you are putting at NCISA''s door BEFORE he became chairman.

PS. 1 year in the prem brings 90M four times NCFC turnover, investment in players or.........what brings the best return, given an equal playing field?

 

Sorry again Ricardo NCISA have not sort or asked for this type of intrusion.[:D]

[Robert N. LiM 4,246]

The police are notoriously conservative when counting crowds, Ricardo. If Tilson reckons it was about 300 then my assumption is that there were at least 1000 there.[;)]

Thanks for the report.

[Beauseant 0]

In order to head off another round of mudslinging, can I just say the following:

1.NCISA is fully behind the current management of the club on and off the field. We are clearly in good hands, although that has not always been the case, and I make no apology for the fact that NCISA performed it''s role of channeling fans views when there was widespread discontent. All we care about is that the club''s finances are strengthened, whether that be from catering, ticket sales or whatever.

2. I am not aware that NCISA, as an organisation, has ever expressed a collective criticism along the lines of the points that T makes. I acceptthat some members of the committee have done so AS INDIVIDUALS, and herein lies the problem. One of the reasons I have ceased to post, other than on the free bet and NCISA matters is that I accept that it would create confusion as to whether I am speaking as NCISA press officer or as myself. Consequently people now know that any statement I make on here reflects the views of NCISA. However, this is not something that it is reasonable to extend to all the committee, this being a public forum, after all. I accept that in the past the lines have been blurred, but I have to say that I feel that singling out NCISA for criticism on this issue is rather harsh. Personally, while I can''t change what has happened in the past, I feel that we are moving forward with improving our communication.

[T 190]

Butler I understand but I think you are taking this far too personally. My comments related to comments made by the members under the previous NCISA regime. I never said it was past or current NCISA policy. If the facts are not right or there are falsehoods then please just make a logical argument why they are false. We are all agreed including the directors themselves that the directors advised by Stringer made some bad choices on football managers. There is no evidence that the Chairman disagrees with anything I have said - under his Chairmanship they have said catering is profitable, they have invested in fixed assets, they have said there are no queue of benefactors, they have said the club should be run on a financial sustainable basis, they have said we underperformed on the basis of the football finance - my comments are merely repeating what the Chairman is saying.  Players are not an investment, they are a huge expense, just look at the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and Hull. Absolutely, you should spend as much as you can afford on players to get to the premiership but as the Chairman as said not at the risk of going bust and not meeting your financial obligations. Investing in fixed assets as the old and new regime has done allows you to generate more cash so you can afford to spend more on players to improve your chances of getting to the premiership. A lot of football clubs have got into severe financial difficulty by "investing" in players more money than they can afford to get to or stay in the premiership as you have just suggested. The Chairman and CEO clearly understand this but it is troubling that you as the acting chair of NCISA can not seem to grasp this basic business financial reality.

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

The police are notoriously conservative when counting crowds, Ricardo. If Tilson reckons it was about 300 then my assumption is that there were at least 1000 there.[;)]

Thanks for the report.

[/quote]I didn''t count them all out and count them all back Robert but it certainly seemed a bigger turn out than last year. As for TIL''s 25-25 up the bar, all I know is I couldn''t get near it. Mind you, if they had Peroni on tap I might have fought my way up there a bit harder.Seriously though, it was a very good turnout and very professionally run. When I think back to some of the AGM''s of 20-30 years ago its now a whole different ball game.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club

• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players

• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide

• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed

• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force

• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure

• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.

• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[/quote]

When it comes to malicious myths T you are top of the class.

Please, if you must, and it seems you are hell bent on attacking NCISA at every turn, please:-

1. Get your facts right.

2. Don''t sully decent threads with your purile falsehoods.

3 Getting the right football manager is essential for a football club AND is down to directors appointments NOT fans.

4. Strange your current chairman seemed to express views of the nature you are putting at NCISA''s door BEFORE he became chairman.

PS. 1 year in the prem brings 90M four times NCFC turnover, investment in players or.........what brings the best return, given an equal playing field?

 

Sorry again Ricardo NCISA have not sort or asked for this type of intrusion.[:D]

[/quote]

 

---

 

TB, if you mean Bowkett''s open letter of May 2009 that was indeed highly critical of the old regime. But only in the most general terms. Indeed it is noticeable how unspecific it is. There are certainly none of the particular Fag Packet criticisms about an over-emphasis on off-field activities. There is  no evidence that Bowkett shared those views and even if he did privately (as an outsider) all the signs are that now - having experienced what it''s like to run a football club - he certainly doesn''t.

 

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Sorry again Ricardo NCISA have not sort or asked for this type of intrusion.[:D]

[/quote]No problem Butler. The Catering and fixed assets argument has been running on this board for years. It was nice to hear McNally say that all non core assets will be disposed of in order to pay the debt down. The interest payments on the debt weigh heavy on our club and it is good to see some focus on that problem.The results on the catering side are truly remarkable and I''m in favour of anything that brings in additional income. As you may know I am a big fan of Yellows and still reckon they do the best burgers in Norwich. Blue Cheese and bacon burger, oh yes please!Now if they only had Peroni on tap.......................................

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="T"]Butler I understand but I think you are taking this far too personally. My comments related to comments made by the members under the previous NCISA regime. I never said it was past or current NCISA policy. If the facts are not right or there are falsehoods then please just make a logical argument why they are false. We are all agreed including the directors themselves that the directors advised by Stringer made some bad choices on football managers. There is no evidence that the Chairman disagrees with anything I have said - under his Chairmanship they have said catering is profitable, they have invested in fixed assets, they have said there are no queue of benefactors, they have said the club should be run on a financial sustainable basis, they have said we underperformed on the basis of the football finance - my comments are merely repeating what the Chairman is saying.  Players are not an investment, they are a huge expense, just look at the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and Hull. Absolutely, you should spend as much as you can afford on players to get to the premiership but as the Chairman as said not at the risk of going bust and not meeting your financial obligations. Investing in fixed assets as the old and new regime has done allows you to generate more cash so you can afford to spend more on players to improve your chances of getting to the premiership. A lot of football clubs have got into severe financial difficulty by "investing" in players more money than they can afford to get to or stay in the premiership as you have just suggested. The Chairman and CEO clearly understand this but it is troubling that you as the acting chair of NCISA can not seem to grasp this basic business financial reality.[/quote]

 

T, in defence of The Butler, I think that, while your point about taking it too personally is fair, it is important to appreciate that we are trying to move NCISA forward, yet spend a lot of time batting away historical criticisms. Maybe we have a developed a touch of siege mentality, but there are good reasons for that!

The fact is that, as I stated earlier, the current NCISA committee has a great deal of faith in McNally and Bowkett''s running of the club and we DO NOT support the idea of overextending the club''s finances for short term gain, nor do we suggest that a lack of diversification of assets is a good thing. Equally we can see the lunacy of ever increasing payments to players and agents which is dogging the game.

[T 190]

Beausant, don''t have a big problem with that _ I have tried to make it clear that my comments were directed at members previous posts rather than official policy. I think you will find that my posts on the new regime have generally been positive. NCISA should not give out criticism if it can not take it itself though.  I do think that that the current chairman and CEO are more heavy weight than the previous incumbents. I have no doubt they are squeezing out more revenue and costs as all regime changes tend to do but as PC notes a lot of this is that the new team are more media savy - the financial realities of football and the club have not some how magically changed - the fundamental policy is still to try to increase recurring revenue including by spending money on fixed assets and not spend money that we can not afford. The real world is not as black and white as some people would like to paint it. The club got relegated to the third division under the previous regime but also got promoted to the premiership and I do not recall any huge criticisms then - yet is was the same board with the same policies. I have no doubt the new regime and Lambert will also make mistakes - that is the nature of making decisions and I hope that the NCISA also continue to support the new regime and manager when inevitably things do not all go to plan.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="T"]Butler I understand but I think you are taking this far too personally. My comments related to comments made by the members under the previous NCISA regime. I never said it was past or current NCISA policy. If the facts are not right or there are falsehoods then please just make a logical argument why they are false. We are all agreed including the directors themselves that the directors advised by Stringer made some bad choices on football managers. There is no evidence that the Chairman disagrees with anything I have said - under his Chairmanship they have said catering is profitable, they have invested in fixed assets, they have said there are no queue of benefactors, they have said the club should be run on a financial sustainable basis, they have said we underperformed on the basis of the football finance - my comments are merely repeating what the Chairman is saying.  Players are not an investment, they are a huge expense, just look at the likes of Leeds, Portsmouth and Hull. Absolutely, you should spend as much as you can afford on players to get to the premiership but as the Chairman as said not at the risk of going bust and not meeting your financial obligations. Investing in fixed assets as the old and new regime has done allows you to generate more cash so you can afford to spend more on players to improve your chances of getting to the premiership. A lot of football clubs have got into severe financial difficulty by "investing" in players more money than they can afford to get to or stay in the premiership as you have just suggested. The Chairman and CEO clearly understand this but it is troubling that you as the acting chair of NCISA can not seem to grasp this basic business financial reality.[/quote]

I have Never stated or asked differently T so do not bend it so.

You put words in peoples mouths T , but I suppose that is your training.

Without players and a VERY GOOD manager the club does not continue as a football club for long, however good the "off field activities"

A slight change in Worthys time could have saved several years of heartache, would that investment, in hindsight, have been worth making?

I applaud this new regime at the club, I applaud the board for having made, at last, the right decisions.

I also pray that "Long may it last"  so lets put the actions of the past where they belong, both at the club and if you will allow NCISA as well.

Both sides acted, in what they thought at the time, was the "best" for the club lets leave it at that.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Beausant, don''t have a big problem with that _ I have tried to make it

clear that my comments were directed at members previous posts rather

than official policy. I think you will find that my posts on the new

regime have generally been positive. NCISA should not give out criticism

if it can not take it itself though.[/quote]There''s a really easy way of doing that T.  Simply replace "NCISA" with "Tangie and his friends", and that should sort the whole confusion out.As for does catering make money - it''s an old argument, but where there are people with money to be fed, catering will always make money.  And at the prices the Brasserie charge, they''d have to be running an opera between courses to lose it !

[T 190]

Butler, questioning technique is one of the few worthwhile and interesting business courses and you have to admit that it got the desired the response from the NCISA PR representative. Nice that you agree with Nutty and me that the manager and the players he selects just might be a crucial factor in a football club. You can''t quite resist having a dig at the past though can you. I think you will find that there are some common ingredients in the old and new regime -I think you will also find the old regime made some good decisions as well as bad decisions, eg expanding the fan base, dare I say generating extra funds from catering, the playoffs and I don''t think that hucks fellow was too shoddy a player if I recall. It is also difficult to fathom why Ashton could be afforded mid-season but not at the start of the season - the line between sucess and failure is very fine as I still recall starting watching to watch that last game at Fulham with optomism. Let''s not forget the new regime has also said they would expect relegation if they got promoted.  I think we can both agree that the last couple of seasons have been the most fun since relegation from the premiership and some of the dross that followed. I even enjoyed the relegation battles to be honest though - mid-table medicrity is dull though.

Blah I think you are being a little bit mischievous but I can see where you are coming from.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Moving away from the Fag Packets, Bowkett said some interesting things about increasing capacity:

Club chairman Alan Bowkett said after the meeting that one side of the stadium was a prime candidate for redevelopment. “The obvious route is the Geoffrey Watling City Stand and whether you throw another layer on it, or you take it down and rebuild I don’t know. I think probably the sensible thing to do is bite the bullet, take it down and build a new stand but it means 18 months, possibly two years, without revenue. Then what do you do to the people in the Geoffrey Watling Stand, who tend to be the people who have been supporters for many generations? So it’s difficult.”

Bowkett said City were confident there would be an extra 8,000 fans keen to see Premier League football. “We’ve done a lot of looking at the greater Norwich conurbation and the commuting population,” he said. “About 500,000 people are in commuting distance of Norwich, compared to what, a 150,000 population. There isn’t another club for 50 miles. There isn’t really another large scale sporting attraction like a rugby club or rugby league club, so we’ve got a captive market. We just have to make it accessible."

---

 

From memory knocking down and rebuilding the South/Jarrold Stand took about 10 months rather than 18-24. Perhaps there are particular difficulties with the City Stand.

Secondly, figures show that in the six seasons since the Jarrold Stand increased our capacity, our lowest seasonal average was for our year in the Premier League. We had more spectators last year in the third tier. I am a touch dubious about there being 8,000 extra fans out there just waiting for top tier football, although any longer-term upturn in the economy would help.

 

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Defending NCISA is a great hiding place that''s why it is a shame they were mentioned. I brought up Ricardo''s point about catering profit because this was the the point from his report last year that prompted so much discussion. The fact that McNally now seems to have addressed that discussion by clearly indicating an exceptional profit rather flies in the face of what certain posters were saying to me last year. That was my point which has nothing to do with NCISA.

 

Another point which is relevant is that the percentage of player wages to turnover is much the same as 2009. This rather points to the problem being in the way the football funds were alloctaed. And rather disproves the belief that the problem was potential football funds being spent elsewhere.

 

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="T"]

Basically a number of the NCISA members long standing malicious myths about the club have been debunked for the nonsense that they always were.

• Catering makes a considerable contribution to the club

• Investments in fixed assets make sense as they generate additional cash flows to spend on players

• There are no queues of investors eager to subsidise the club more than the 4,000 pounds every year for each of the 25;000 people attending that the directors provide

• Portsmouth, Hull and Preston and various other clubs as claimed have not somehow found some magical financial formula that the club had missed

• You need substantial additional income to be a premiership force

• The club has for a long time  already doing what UEFA is introducing in saying clubs should be run on a sustainable basis and investors money should only be allowed to be spent on investing in infrastructure

• The financial reality of football and NCFC has not suddenly dramatically changed - what has changed is we have a football manager outperforming rather than underperforming the available finances.

• Basically its getting right the football manager stupid!

[/quote]

When it comes to malicious myths T you are top of the class.

Please, if you must, and it seems you are hell bent on attacking NCISA at every turn, please:-

1. Get your facts right.

2. Don''t sully decent threads with your purile falsehoods.

3 Getting the right football manager is essential for a football club AND is down to directors appointments NOT fans.

4. Strange your current chairman seemed to express views of the nature you are putting at NCISA''s door BEFORE he became chairman.

PS. 1 year in the prem brings 90M four times NCFC turnover, investment in players or.........what brings the best return, given an equal playing field?

 

Sorry again Ricardo NCISA have not sort or asked for this type of intrusion.[:D]

[/quote]

"sought".......[:D]

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I am a touch dubious about there being 8,000 extra fans out there just waiting for top tier football, although any longer-term upturn in the economy would help.

 

[/quote]I agree with you PC. I doubt we could sustain an average of 30k let alone 35k. Ive been in many 30k plus crowds at CR in the past and indeed in 3 gates over 40K. Those gates were the exception rather than the rule and even though the population of the area has increased substantially in recent years, 35k may be wishful thinking.

[Bill 1,788]

"the fact that NCISA performed it''s role of channeling fans views when there was widespread discontent"

Only if they fitted in with a very limited perspective. The channeling was often no more than throwing petrol on a fire. A shameful period in our club''s history.

As to -

"but where there are people with money to be fed, catering will always make money. And at the prices the Brasserie charge"

That IS NOT the point being made. It is the AMOUNT of money being made - in comparison with other clubs. If it were that easy then why have other clubs not been able to post such profits ?