We're not skint anymore

[kdncfc 28]

After so many years of everyone saying that NCFC are skint why is it that now we finally have some cash people still keep saying we have no money.We have just earned 40 million quid plus the extra money for league placing and god knows how much in increased sponsorship money and merchandise and my guess is that this club is probably in the strongest position financially in it''s history. I think PL will be given the biggest transfer budget any manager has ever had at this club which should enable him to get in the extra bit of quality we need to enable us to push on again next year.I ''d say the future looks pretty good at this moment in time and with PL in charge and some quality players coming in during the summer I think we can look forward to an even better season next year.

[Mr Brownstone 0]

Agreed.

You''d think we were back in League One the way some are carrying on.

[lake district canary 0]

I may be wrong, but the fear is that better players means increased wages and will mean any extra money we get will disappear too quickly - and we will end up badly in debt again.    These days all businesses have to be extra careful and football is no different.   I think people are just being wary about the kinds of players we can get.    R Bennett and Howson are the kind of signings open to us and I doubt whether we will be buying anything more expensive than a 2 or 3 million pound player or two.   

 

 

The expectation that we will have millions to spend on higher profile players is not going to happen imo.     Shame, but that is the reality.  I would be happy to continue as we are - just buying in the occasional player to boost the squad and sticking to the manager''s ethos of buying younger hungry players.  

 

 

Clever and inexpensive forays into the transfer market and good management are the key - much like Everton.  I am sure we will progress under PL next year, but wholesale buying of higher profile players I don''t think is on the agenda.

 

 

[Mr Brownstone 0]

I don''t think anyone is expecting us to go and spend £10m on one player. If we bring in 3-5 players of the value and quality of Pilks, Howson and the Bennett''s I think we''ll be in a good position next year.

Spending big doesn''t always produce results as King Kenny has demonstrated this year.

[kdncfc 28]

Don''t see us spending 10 million on a single player but wouldn''t be at all surprised if we spent 5 or 6 million.

[Jacko 0]

As others have said the money may not go as far as people think. These players have proven they were good enough to survive in the top flight. The downside to this is that many of them may (quite rightly) demand top flight wages. So that may swallow some of the budget. And I am sure the players/management will also pocket decent bonuses for staying in the league which are again throughly deserved.

It is also important that we continue to service and pay off capital on the debt so that it does not continue to be a millstone around the club''s next.

I think the club should adopt a similar strategy to the one we had last year. Try to pick off the stand out players from League 1 and the Championship. If there is odd player we can raid from a relegated Premiership team then fair enough (but I am not a huge fan of that idea).

[Bury Yellow 2]

It''s not that we haven''t got any money, far from it but we will be lacking that extra cash that a major backer gives to all our competitors in this league.

Southampton and Reading are potentially much richer than us for example. Lambo, McNally and Bowkett are obviously mindful of this and I just hope they are happy with the situation and carry on their fantastic work.

[shiplee15 0]

Don''t think we''ll spend loads on one player but would like to see Rhodes and Rodriquez come in.. Unfortunately they may cos 8-12 million!

[grantroederdisaster 0]

We''ve never been as skint as its sometimes made out to be!

 

Clever cause its no good telling the world the clubs gots loads of money cause then transfer fees and wage demands go up!

[jed exodous 0]

Whilst I agree that our coffers are as full as they have ever been, I don''t expect us to splash much more than 8-10 mil this summer.  I think there will be a few of the out of contract crew leave and a few youngsters out on loan, maybe 1 or 2 like Chrissy sold on.  I''d expect us to pick up 1 or 2 bosmans and perhaps 3 players where we pay a fee, which will probably all be around 1.5-3mil. 

 

However, I think personally we should go for a proven striker, maybe 2.  This is essential for us next season, as for the second half of this season, Morrison, Wilbro and Vaughan have (I think) only got 1 goal between them.  I''d ship Morrison out, thanks for what you;ve done, but I don''t think he''s prepared to pull his weight.  I''d like us to go after either Fletcher or Doyle at Wolves.  Both have done a good job at this level for a number of years.  Doyle hasn''t had a great season, and I think is probably the more realistic of the 2, but I really think Lambo could get the best out of him.

 

Will be an intresting summer once again...

[William Darby 0]

We need Purple Canary''s opinion on this one. I''m sure I read one of his posts in the past that said under some clauses in our finances we have to pay very large sums back.   (or sumfin like that)

[kdncfc 28]

I''m pretty sure the majority of our debt was rescheduled a few years ago to be paid back over 15 years so as long as we can keep up the repayments we don''t actually have to pay any extra off the debt unless we want to. 

[Felixfan 53]

We need a sprinkle of stardust next season to give everybody a lift.

[Branston Pickle 4,150]

All debts have to be repaid at some point, but terms can always be renegotiated or new debt created should it be needed (for new city stand for example) and we are in as strong a position to do that as we ever have been. We shouldn''t have to worry about the immediate future, but won''t want to create too much risk in case it all goes wonky.

IMO we will have more cash for players than ever before, but it is all relative: we''re competing with some clubs who can pay £10m+ on a guy who warms the bench, and all players at this level will want more pay. Look at how the binners fared in their last jaunt to the PL (thankfully 10 years ago) - when in their 2nd season they spent £7m+ on what turned out to be two expensive flops in Matteo Sereni and Finidi George, which eventually led to relegation andadministration. We surely won''t follow that lead.

[PurpleCanary 6,388]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"]We need Purple Canary''s opinion on this one. I''m sure I read one of his posts in the past that said under some clauses in our finances we have to pay very large sums back.   (or sumfin like that)
[/quote]

In short, we do. Not only large sums, but large sums within a short space of time.


The longer explanation is that the situation is complicated, because there are three sorts of debt - hard, soft and in-between - and various interlocking clauses, so that if A happens that potentially triggers some more repayments. With a key clause being whether we stay up this season. If we do, that triggers an early repayment clause. Over which we have no choice. So, assuming we don''t end up back in the Championship:


1. Hard debt. Bank debt to Bank of Scotland and loans notes to Axa. This is the major part of our debt, in terms of capital and interest. The accounts ending in May 2011 show us still owing roughly £11m to Axa and £2m to the bank. But it is impossible to say how much we owe now, because we are less than two months away from the end of this financial year, and must have been repaying in the meantime. Indeed the club said late last year that it aimed to reduce debt by £6m in this financial year coming to a close.


The reason for paying off such an amount is that we now (assuming no relegation) have to pay off Axa by May 2013 and BoS by October 2013. All ot it. Capital and interest. I have seen it suggested that we might get to renegotiate that, or even arrange another loan to pay off the original loans. I would discount those ideas. Banks have a very schizophrenic attitude towards football debt. They hate it and don''t want to get into it, and want to get out as soon as possible. So I cannot believe we will not be held to those repayment dates. The schizophrenia comes in because banks hate even more putting clubs into administration. Terrible for business.


2. Soft debt. To directors. Soft because who knows if they will ever call it in. If they do, we owe Foulger £1.4m, which he can demand back in October 2013. And £2.1m to Smith and Jones, with the same repayment date.


3. In-between stuff. There are 15,000 "B" shares which can now be redeemed by their holders, at £100 each,whenever we are in the Premier League. So if everyone did, that would cost us £1.5m. With those and the "A" shares there are also potentially dividends to be paid out, but the amounts involved are not enormous. Finally there is the matter of the £2.5m owed to the Turners. The EDP said that had been repaid, but muddied the waters by claiming this was in the accounts for 2011. It isn''t. My guess is that the Turners have been repaid, but since the end of the financial year, and that the EDP reporter erroneously assumed this was in the accounts. The accounts for the current financial year should clear up this little mystery.

 

To get back to the short answer, if we stay up we have to pay off our banks (and that means lots of money) by October 2013.

 

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="The Pinkun Role Model"]We need Purple Canary''s opinion on this one. I''m sure I read one of his posts in the past that said under some clauses in our finances we have to pay very large sums back.   (or sumfin like that)
[/quote]

In short, we do. Not only large sums, but large sums within a short space of time.


The longer explanation is that the situation is complicated, because there are three sorts of debt - hard, soft and in-between - and various interlocking clauses, so that if A happens that potentially triggers some more repayments. With a key clause being whether we stay up this season. If we do, that triggers an early repayment clause. Over which we have no choice. So, assuming we don''t end up back in the Championship:


1. Hard debt. Bank debt to Bank of Scotland and loans notes to Axa. This is the major part of our debt, in terms of capital and interest. The accounts ending in May 2011 show us still owing roughly £11m to Axa and £2m to the bank. But it is impossible to say how much we owe now, because we are less than two months away from the end of this financial year, and must have been repaying in the meantime. Indeed the club said late last year that it aimed to reduce debt by £6m in this financial year coming to a close.


The reason for paying off such an amount is that we now (assuming no relegation) have to pay off Axa by May 2013 and BoS by October 2013. All ot it. Capital and interest. I have seen it suggested that we might get to renegotiate that, or even arrange another loan to pay off the original loans. I would discount those ideas. Banks have a very schizophrenic attitude towards football debt. They hate it and don''t want to get into it, and want to get out as soon as possible. So I cannot believe we will not be held to those repayment dates. The schizophrenia comes in because banks hate even more putting clubs into administration. Terrible for business.


2. Soft debt. To directors. Soft because who knows if they will ever call it in. If they do, we owe Foulger £1.4m, which he can demand back in October 2013. And £2.1m to Smith and Jones, with the same repayment date.


3. In-between stuff. There are 15,000 "B" shares which can now be redeemed by their holders, at £100 each,whenever we are in the Premier League. So if everyone did, that would cost us £1.5m. With those and the "A" shares there are also potentially dividends to be paid out, but the amounts involved are not enormous. Finally there is the matter of the £2.5m owed to the Turners. The EDP said that had been repaid, but muddied the waters by claiming this was in the accounts for 2011. It isn''t. My guess is that the Turners have been repaid, but since the end of the financial year, and that the EDP reporter erroneously assumed this was in the accounts. The accounts for the current financial year should clear up this little mystery.

 

To get back to the short answer, if we stay up we have to pay off our banks (and that means lots of money) by October 2013.

 

[/quote]

Spot on Purple that will upset a few on here,

 

[paul moy 235]

Let''s be grateful that we are in the position to repay that debt. Many clubs would dearly love to be in our financial position !!

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

Also wealth is all relative - as every team in the Premier League will recieve the same amount of money from Sky we aren''t that much better off than anyone else (in fact reading Purple Canary''s assesment we are probably still the poor cousin).

 

Hopefully Norwich can get another couple of years of Premier League football at least and become debt free, self sustaining and fairly robust to any upcoming changes in the world of football finance.

[PurpleCanary 6,388]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

Also wealth is all relative - as every team in the Premier League will recieve the same amount of money from Sky we aren''t that much better off than anyone else (in fact reading Purple Canary''s assesment we are probably still the poor cousin).

 

Hopefully Norwich can get another couple of years of Premier League football at least and become debt free, self sustaining and fairly robust to any upcoming changes in the world of football finance.

[/quote]

 

Except that if we do stay in the PL that long our genius directors then plan to plunge us back into debt by spending at least £20m on raising capacity to 35,000 for a televised game against Reading or Wigan at 8pm on a Monday...[:P][:D][:O][:D]

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 2,424]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]

Also wealth is all relative - as every team in the Premier League will recieve the same amount of money from Sky we aren''t that much better off than anyone else (in fact reading Purple Canary''s assesment we are probably still the poor cousin).

 

Hopefully Norwich can get another couple of years of Premier League football at least and become debt free, self sustaining and fairly robust to any upcoming changes in the world of football finance.

[/quote]

 

Except that if we do stay in the PL that long our genius directors then plan to plunge us back into debt by spending at least £20m on raising capacity to 35,000 for a televised game against Reading or Wigan at 8pm on a Monday...[:P][:D][:O][:D]

[/quote]

Well, if spending £20m gets Norwich another 8,000 seats and assuming each of those seats is sold at £40 a game - it will only take 30 years for the extra seats to pay for themselves (assuming no extra costs are incurred by having extra capacity).

 

Makes perfect sence to me...

[Salopian 1]

I think that we can all agree that we will not be able to compete with the big-pocket clubs for established able premiership players. We need so many that we shall probably have to be content with one very good player, and then perhaps three or four hungry younger players who can make the grade eventually.

 

There is no way we can buy sufficient quality players to be able to compete with the top six. Their resources are immense, and they have been team-building for years, perhaps spending somewhere between £20m and £40m annually. With our gate sizes, lack of world-wide commercial infrastructure and youth catchment areas we shall never be in their league.

 

So let''s rejoice, if and when we survive, at being the David who occasionally slays a Goliath, and always gives him a run for his money. Even if we can never throw off the "little old Norwich" tag, let''s rejoice that we have already frightened more than one this season, and hope to be even more feared in the future.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

Funnily enough, I was discussing this very matter with my French neighbour who is a big Lille fan. Evidently their owners have decided to fly in the face of the example set  by PSG, OM, OL etc and their policy has been to have every player in the squad on the same (reasonable) wage . Like Norwich, they have been able to attract some excellent talent from the lower leagues, Belgium and Africa, and avoided all the pitfalls of intra squad squabbles about salaries. But... after a year of relative calm, the time has come where some of their better players (eg Eden Hazard) are starting to have their heads turned by big wage deals, notably from the EPL. My neighbour is realistic enough to know that big club as they are in France, there is no way that Lille will ever be able to compete with the money at PSG or Marseille, let alone Man City, Arsenal or Barça.

 

Lambert and Mc Nally''s biggest challenge over the course of the next year will be how to balance our income with the triple demands of wages, transfer fees and debt repayment.  A real headache, because many other Prem teams have just upped their debt (and it''ll be interesting to see how the new rules affect that !), and there must be a BIG temptation to go out and do what several on this board are suggesting...ie splash big cash on 3 or 4 headline signings.

[ricky knight 0]

I feel City will have to have a bit of a punt, We have had a great season but second season is even harder and we wont be a surprise anymore and the squad wont be green and hungry after experiencing a year in the premier. I think a punt is needed to keep PL interested

and a bit of quality needs to be added for a second year, we have to spend to go to the next level imo we cant rest on our laurels we have to be ahead of the game.

[Cantiaci Canary 610]

I wouldn''t get too carried away with dreams of big name signings.

 

1. Wolves, Wigan, Bolton and West Brom have rarely brought in players we would consider to be marquee and they have been in this league longer than we have.

 

2. It''s not Lambert''s way. The team is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

Expect more lower league recruiting for a couple of million here and there.

[Rolf Harris 33]

if we pay off our debt, then doesn''t that mean then we can then take another loan out? and from what has been said it seems we our only 15-20 mill in debt were the likes of bolton are 100-200 mil in debt. So i guess we our not that poor.

[Budapest Canary 154]

Signing expensive players would also mean high wages -- what in return would probably upset the existing wage structure, doing more harm than good. I believe we signed Howson in January for 2m, with only 6 month left on his contract, rather than trying to get him on a free in the summer, because it would have inevitably meant higher wages. As others above, I don''t expect us to sign "big time Chariles" this summer, but maybe we could try to get some gems in from abroad? Keep your eyes open at the Euros! 

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Che right hand man "]if we pay off our debt, then doesn''t that mean then we can then take another loan out? and from what has been said it seems we our only 15-20 mill in debt were the likes of bolton are 100-200 mil in debt. So i guess we our not that poor.
[/quote]

 

No doubt Bolton were only £15-20million in debt once. Trying to balance repaying the clubs debts with providing Paul Lambert enough resources to continually improve the playing squad will be difficult. I very much doubt we will see any of the larger transfer fees mentioned here and fantasised over by other fans being spent. But the board have done a fantastic job in backing Paul Lambert over the past three seasons so there is no reason to suspect they will not continue to give him all available funds.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]

1. Wolves, Wigan, Bolton and West Brom have rarely brought in players we would consider to be marquee and they have been in this league longer than we have.

 

[/quote]

 

But that''s only half the story , with respect CC.   They may not have paid big transfer fees per se , but they have all (esp Bolton)  had some relatively big names on Frees over the years and have quite clearly offered them big wages instead . Ivan Campo was a good example, as was Bobic. One of the reasons why, as others have said that Bolton''s debt is HUGE.

 

On your other statement, I take your point. It has not been Lambert''s way. But he''s a smart bloke. And an ambitious one, and, if he was offered some big dosh to spend, I''ve no doubt he''d do it, particularly if it meant significantly upping the overall quality of the squad. As with a lot of others, I''m worried that another, more well heeled, club will eventually offer that extra movement in the transfer market to PL, and he''ll not want to turn the chance down.

[PurpleCanary 6,388]

[quote user="Ches right hand man "]if we pay off our debt, then doesn''t that mean then we can then take another loan out? and from what has been said it seems we our only 15-20 mill in debt were the likes of bolton are 100-200 mil in debt. So i guess we our not that poor.
[/quote]

 

But with Bolton and with other clubs much of the debt is owed to the owner, who may or may not ever want it back. If we finance the extra capacity by way of a bank loan (or similar) we will have to pay that back.

[Indy 3,471]

Time might be right to sell Carrow Road name to sponser, maybe that can fund the 8,000 additinal seating or go a long way towards it!

Time to sell our soul to the devil for money.