Transfer kitty?

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]What''s wrong with that? The ring-fenced £2m, that''s all I was talking about[/quote]

 

Err okay?

 

And the moon is made of green cheese my friend. [:D]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Well we''ve got £2m or so from this January unspent so that''s a start lol[/quote]We signed Vokes and Pacheco after that announcement was made, Premiership players on I assume premiership wages.

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="First Wizard"]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]What''s wrong with that? The ring-fenced £2m, that''s all I was talking about[/quote]

Err okay?

 

And the moon is made of green cheese my friend. [:D]

[/quote]

It could be [+o(]

[York Canary 28]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Well we''ve got £2m or so from this January unspent so that''s a start lol[/quote]

We signed Vokes and Pacheco after that announcement was made, Premiership players on I assume premiership wages.
[/quote]

That''s true..plus any possible loan fees. Ah well

[CambridgeCanary 0]

Piles playing up again Wiz?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Well we''ve got £2m or so from this January unspent so that''s a start lol[/quote]

We signed Vokes and Pacheco after that announcement was made, Premiership players on I assume premiership wages.
[/quote]

 

---

 

It may be more than that, blah. Or it may not![;)] When the announcement was made of Foulger''s £2m share purchase it was said the money had been available for the January transfer window. So that potentially includes the signings of Wilbraham and Barnett as well. Equally, some or all of those January deals may have been paid for by money already available. The club, perhaps sensibly, was opaque about the situation.

 

[T 190]

The board not backing the managers is a ridiculous myth as it does not explain the substantial amounts of money put into the club by the directors with no return, or the substantial debt levels, or the lack of free cash or the lack of recurring profits in the accounts.

[blahblahblah 2]

"The board not backing the managers is a ridiculous myth." - TIt is fair to say that the current owners have always backed the club with their own cash - in these inflated times it''s almost considered "the job" of championship club owners to do so.It is also fair to say that the last time Norwich acheived promotion to the premiership, an extra push from the board, in signing a striker before January etc., could have kept the team comfortably in the top flight.  Arguably any number of other things could have kept the club there too - Andy Johnsons nose dive to win a ridiculous penalty at Palace comes to mind.  The manager at the time said that he felt that he could have been given more money to play with in the Premiership, so it is natural that fans would be concerned that Lambert gets as much backing as possible within the constraints of the financial situation.

[blahblahblah 2]

"The club, perhaps sensibly, was opaque about the situation."You''re quite right PC, it does no good for everyone to know what we''ve got to spend to the penny.  If people know you''ve got money they put their prices up.  It''s a difficult balancing act though, because the people who pay for tickets need to be convinced that we''ll be competitive.  I suspect that fans will be more convinced by the names that come through the door than by the numbers the club pay for those names though.  And 50 million on Torres shows that money isn''t everything.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,560]

There has been a recent spate of people dragging up old threads on this board recently, and I''m sure if someone was to look hard enough we would find a very similar thread to this one last year.

 

The board showed last year that they are prepared to back Lambert to help him achieve as much as possible with the club. Although we didn''t spend millions last year we did add a lot of names and improved the squad greatly, also we seemed to be throwing offers of around £1m - £2m around in the January window which suggests that the powers that be aren''t adverse to spending a bit of cash when needed.

 

I''m sure we will sign somewhere between 5 - 10 players over the summer, so on loan, but we most certainly won''t know how much we have spent of transfers as they will all be "undiscolsed" fees. We will only know if the money has been spent wisely again at the end of the season.

[York Canary 28]

Random question..how long do transfer fees stay ''undisclosed'' for before they must be released publicly?

[First Wizard 0]

Correct me if I''m wrong here, but didn''t promotion trigger the repayment of the £2 million Turners loan?

 

If yes, that has to be factored into any amount going spare.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,560]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Random question..how long do transfer fees stay ''undisclosed'' for before they must be released publicly?[/quote]

They don''t ever have to be released publically, although the accounts will show the combined total of player purchases.

 

And Wiz you are correct, the Turner''s are due their money back and I''m sure there are probably lots of other loans that have been secured against us reaching the Prem. (Probably seemed a good idea when in League One)

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Random question..how long do transfer fees stay ''undisclosed'' for before they must be released publicly?[/quote]

They don''t ever have to be released publically, although the accounts will show the combined total of player purchases.

 

And Wiz you are correct, the Turner''s are due their money back and I''m sure there are probably lots of other loans that have been secured against us reaching the Prem. (Probably seemed a good idea when in League One)

[/quote]

 

---

The position with loans is as follows:

 

1. The £2.5m owed to the Turners can now be called in by them, because reaching the PL was one of three possible triggers. Up to them, of course, whether do.

 

2. The £2.1m owed to Smith and Jones does not have the PL as a trigger but cannot be called in by them, unless we now pay off all the money owed to Bank of Scotland. That is due to be done by October 31, 2013. If we pay it off before that date then S&J can call in their £2.1m. Again, up to them whether they do.

 

3. The £1.4m owed to Foulger, as with the Turner loan, has reaching the PL as a trigger but is also not payable unless we pay off Bank of Scotland.

 

4. Our biggest loan, from Axa, has to be paid off by May 2022.

 

[T 190]

PC, how much do we still owe to BoS and axa please? I''m hoping that the BoS loan will be covered by remaining land sales, the Axa loan should be covered nornal ongoing matchday revenue so that just leaves the Turner loan as an additional net cash outflow.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="T"]PC, how much do we still owe to BoS and axa please? I''m hoping that the BoS loan will be covered by remaining land sales, the Axa loan should be covered nornal ongoing matchday revenue so that just leaves the Turner loan as an additional net cash outflow.[/quote]

 

---

 

T, roughly, if I have read the accounts[8-|] correctly, £11.2m to Axa and £3.5m to BoS.

[William Darby 0]

[quote user="Jin - York Canary"]Random question..how long do transfer fees stay ''undisclosed'' for before they must be released publicly?[/quote]Not very random, btw how much is a pickled egg in Bradwell Chippy?

[T 190]

Thanks PC. The 1m pa to axa looks very sustainable and I doubt the existing directors will call their loans in a the moment so it is just the Turner money and the BoS loan to the extent it is not covered by further land sales which decreases the additional player budget available next year. These should hopefully be covered by additional matchday, sponsorship, merchandising and land sales so the sky money being fully available to Lambert does make sense.