2013 ACCOUNTS

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

Today’s

spin from Bowkett and McNally would have fans believe everything is blooming in

our green and yellow garden. However, a close examination of the numbers reveals

a shocking tale of criminality and deceit, of sexual intrigue and dark dealings,

of over-weaning ambition and vicious boardroom infighting,  beside which the South Sea Bubble look like an

exercise in harmless charity.

I wish.

The EDP has publicised the basics, with an understandably sharply lower profit

figure than last year, because of player purchases and debt repayment, making

us – as foreshadowed – externally debt-free. What follows is aimed at explaining

the story behind some of the numbers.

1) The club has changed its financial year from ending on May 31 to ending on

June 30, so these accounts cover a 13-month rather than 12-month period, making

some precise comparisons invalid, but not, as far as I can see, the big-picture

stuff.

2) Shares. The individual holdings of the directors have not changed in the

last year.  With a minimal increase in the

number of (controlling) ordinary shares this means Smith and Jones, with their

53.1 per cent, remain the effective owners.  And in case anyone still thinks that

Smith and Jones twiddle their thumbs at board meetings while the big boys take

all the decisions we today had this quite unprompted statement from McNally:

“Having Delia and Michael as the majority shareholders is a huge competitive

advantage and I’m glad they’re here because they are very good at running a

football club.”Not just passively

owning it, but actively running it. And “very good” at it – “a huge competitive

advantage”.

3) Although this has never (as far as I know) been voted on at an AGM it seems from

recent transactions that £100 is now at least the semi-official share price

rather than the £30 which was, from memory, agreed by shareholders around 2006.

A vindication for those happy few who maintained during Cullumgate that the shares,

far from being worthless, were underpriced.

With a devilish total of 616,666 ordinary shares, a price of £100 values the

club at £61m rather than the £16m figure that obtained during Cullumgate, with

Smith and Jones’s holding worth a bit over £32m. Whether a price of £100 would be

adhered to in a takeover is a question.

4) Staff numbers.

Sounds Dullsville Arizona (thank you Reginald Perrin) but if ever there was a

set of numbers that starkly charts our fall and rise...

In 2008 we had 210 people on the payroll. The old regime, seeing trouble ahead,

started cutting, so the 2009 figure fell to 199. Then in 2010 the new regime,

as part of the refinancing, axed another 18 to a low of 181. In particular non-football

staff fell from 134 in 2008 to 102 in 2011. Just short of a 24 per cent job

loss.

With the subsequent footballing improvement so numbers have risen. Last year we

had 210 staff, and this year a massive leap to 273, with 124 (up from 85) on

the football side and 142 (from 118) on the non-football side (plus seven

directors). I assume the academy is a serious factor here.

5) Of those directors only McNally (as was Doncaster) is an employee (Bowkett,

like Munby before him, gets no pay). In the spring, during what Chris Hughton

accurately categorised as our relegation fight, there were fearful imaginings

about what might happen to McNally’s bonus if we joined Reading and QPR on the Slide

of Shame down to the Championship. Happily all theoretical. His overall pay

package increased from £1.389m to £1.64m, despite his performance-related bonuses

falling from £967,000 to £867,000. Presumably his basic salary got a

significant bump.6) The

hotel joint venture. See Tangible’s posts on the subject.

7) External debt. Some quick history. As part of the new regime’s refinancing

we had until October 2013 to pay off Bank of Scotland and seemingly until May

2022 for Axa, by far our major creditor. It later transpired (as exclusively

revealed by some nerd on this message-board) that getting to and staying in the

Premier League triggered an early repayment clause for Axa. Hence the need to

give them loads of money over the last two financial years.  All done, and ditto BoS, with the last payment

 to them in July, so after these

accounts.

So we are effectively externally debt-free, with no major projects in the near

future that would see us having to borrow. In the longer term ground expansion

would qualify as the particular pachyderm in that particular boardroom.8) Internal

debt.  Some possible confusion here. Last

year we owed Smith and Jones £2.1m and Foulger £1.4m, with them being able to

demand it back once we had – as we now have - paid off BoS. According to

Bowkett in the EDP “internal

debt with the directors is £2.1m and we would be budgeting to eradicate that in

this financial year.”That doesn’t

quite tally with the accounts, which show Smith and Jones still owed £2m and

Foulger £1.1m. Bowkett probably just got the figure wrong by one million (or it

is a misprint), unless more of that internal debt has been paid back since June

30. What is more interesting is Bowkett expecting to pay Smith and Jones and

Foulger all they are owed, and the accounts certainly show that Foulger has already

got back £323,000 and S&J £80,000.9) Turnover. The

overall figure is hardly changed, up from £74.6m to £75m. But then the individual

components – ticket sales, catering, TV money – are also little altered. The one

obvious gap is “Concert” which brought in £1.2m in 2012. Is there no more music

to be heard? Has the music died?

More seriously it does suggest that unless the club gets greater TV exposure

(by gatecrashing the top six) then we have reached a bit of a glass ceiling.

Yes, the basic TV money is greatly increased for this and the next two years,

but all PL clubs receive that.

In terms of increasing income compared with other similar clubs we are back

with that boardroom elephant (as indeed are some of those other clubs). Not for

nothing did Bowkett say a couple of years ago that without a major investor we

would need a 35,000-seat stadium to stay afloat financially in the PL.

10) The wage to

turnover ratio. This is one of the club’s key indicators. Much trumpeted. And

highly significant. Yes, we spent a record amount on transfer fees, but what

kills a club is over-extension on wages. Living permanently beyond one’s means (something that probably isn''t getting a mention in the Portsmouth section of Harry Redknapp''s memoires).One poster

here (T) frequently refers to wage spending and this ratio to show whether a

club is under- or over-performing , or punching its weight. The correlation can

be exaggerated but over time tends to be a reasonably reliable guide, although

it needs to be remembered that at any one time the figures are at least a

season out of date and sometimes  up to

two.

The problem is that the club’s indicator reflects only basic player wages against turnover

while the figure you will see for other clubs – and for NCFC in comparison with

other clubs in ratio “league” tables  –

is for all staff costs against turnover. So that is the figure I go by here.And the

figures for NCFC (like those for staff numbers) tell a story. Of a club that,

because of its rapid ascent, has been paying wages that owed something to the

division they are were in at the time and something to the (usually lower) division

they were in the season before. In particular it is taking a while for us to

reach PL wage norms for clubs of our size. But with increased pressure, as McNally

says today: “We’re looking

forward to the difficult conversations with players of, ‘we have done so well,

I want more’.”

So while the club’s figure from 2009 to 2013 vary from 34 per cent to 47 per

cent, the relevant figures to compare with other clubs are as follows:

2009 (second tier) 76.5 per cent.2010 (third tier) 72.45 per cent.2011 (second tier) 80.1 per cent.

2012 (first tier) 49.3 per cent.

2013 (first tier) 68.0 per cent.So

in 2012 we were very low, at 49.3 per cent, despite being in the Pl, because

our wages still reflected our recent Championship and even League One past. That

was the lowest ratio in the PL that season, with even fellow promotees Swansea

at 54 per cent and QPR at an eye-watering 91 per cent.

But the sharp rise to 68.0 per cent in 2013 (comparable figures for all other clubs

not yet available) is a sign that we were having to make our offers more attractive

to players.  While turnover stayed

roughly the same staff costs rose from £36.7m to £50.8m. And those expensive 2013

summer signings will not have been shy in demanding wages to match the transfer

fees. Even with the extra TV money a guess would be that our ratio for the

current season will be at least as high as 2013.

That said, another comment from McNally today suggests the Smith and Jones-run

club has no intention of saddling itself with crippling wages:

“The other thing with the

players is that they all have Championship clauses in their contracts and

anyone over a certain level or pay grade here does.”

[BroadstairsR 2,273]

Well done that man.

[crabbycanary 2]

Thanks Purple from someone who doesn''t understand all the finer points of the accounts. That made a lot of sense

[YankeeCanary 0]

 

Purple, I always enjoy reading your summaries on this subject. Where appropriate, I did the obvious math on the staff aspect but avoided making assumptions on some of your inputs, however, I wonder if I could prevail on you to fill in the gaps on the following for the sake of clarity and a good record:

                              Football Staff         Non-Football Staff         Total

 

2008                           76                                 134                        210

2009                                                                                                199

2010                                                                                                181

2011                                                                 102

2012                                                                                                210

2013                        124                                   149                        273

 

[im spartacus canary 0]

i wish bor bor bor would do a summary this was like having a tooth pulled [:D]

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"]

 

Purple, I always enjoy reading your summaries on this subject. Where appropriate, I did the obvious math on the staff aspect but avoided making assumptions on some of your inputs, however, I wonder if I could prevail on you to fill in the gaps on the following for the sake of clarity and a good record:

                              Football Staff         Non-Football Staff         Total

 

2008                           76                                 134                        210

2009                                                                                                199

2010                                                                                                181

2011                                                                 102

2012                                                                                                210

2013                        124                                   149                        273

 

[/quote]

 

I make it as follows:2007: Directors 6; Football 74; Non-football 128; Total 208.2008: Directors 6; Football 70; Non-football 134; Total 210.2009: Directors 5; Football 63; Non-football 131; Total 199.2010: Directors 6; Football 63; Non-football 112; Total 181.2011: Directors 7; Football 72; Non-football 102; Total 181.2012: Directors 7; Football 85; Non-football 118; Total 210.2013; Directors 7, Football 124; Non-football 142, Total 273.

[Bill 1,788]

" Not for

nothing did Bowkett say a couple of years ago that without a major investor we

would need a 35,000-seat stadium to stay afloat financially in the PL."

which has become even more redundant nowa 35.000 seater stadium would give 25% more income - all things being equal - which is about £3m morehowever that presumes the same ''100%'' occupancy ratesthe same high level of ticket pricesand the killer that the new stand can be built for nothing, the old stand taken down for nothing and there would be no loss of income whilst we have 4000 less seatsthe reality is that at best the club will be losing around £1.5m for at least a decade after the constructionand that subsidy wil merrly climb higher every time the attendance is less that 100% and when the lower ticket prices are factored in so we will have to continue with the idea of developing young players, be they at the level of Redmond, the level of the young keeper from Luton or the emerging FA youth Cup winning team

[Doctorsleep 0]

I certainly thank Purple, Spartacus,but to be honest I did drop off half way through. What I really need to know from our resident accountant is whether all is good in the garden! As far as I can see we are supporting a club that, to keep the garden theme going, is self sufficient, looks like we can feed ourselves from the allotment, as long as the Sky keeps the sun shining. That is what Purple said I think.

Very happy to see the £1,600,000 going to Mr Mc.( that is right isn''t it?) around £30k per week from a quick mental calculation ( probably wrong), have no problem with that. Would be interesting to get the views of other poster who seem to have a downer on him, lack of engagement with local busy body groups etc. He''s doing a fine job and deserves every penny/pound.

Yes Spartacus, would love to see bor bor produce one of his most excellent reports on the accounts!

[Canaries Utd 0]

We''re in good shape, stay up this season and we can start to save for expansion?

[T 191]

Some very nice prose but a few corrections:

Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement

Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger.

Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. 

I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football...

 

[Jonzey 0]

Once again a fantastic post Purple. Many thanks.

[Bill 1,788]

"Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11

and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the

myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics"then why have a manager if it is so pre-determined ?

ps what is Foulger owed ... I thought he bought shares ?

[Yelloow Since 72 56]

my thanks as well purple.Whilst I could get the gist of the pink''un reports, your summary made the details much clearer.

[......and Smith must score. 1,637]

Some people might think that the Chief Exec is trousering far too much at £1.6m  year but I think he''s worth every penny.He''s grabbed NCFC by the b*lls and transformed a basket case into a thriving business. I hope he stays for a while yet before the inevitable '' new challenge '' appears on the horizon.

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

[quote user="T"]

Some very nice prose but a few corrections:

Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement

Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger.

Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. 

I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football...

 

[/quote]

 

These "corrections" need correcting. In all my nice prose I didn''t mention cashflow once, so I can''t have got anything wrong on that subject. As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.Whether Foulger is yet eligible to be repaid is entirely irrelevant to the sum outstanding, which is what Bowkett and I are talking about. And it is clear from the fact that the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000 and Bowkett''s comments about the remaining debt ("We would be budgeting to eradicate that in this financial year.") that the plan is to pay it off whether strictly necessary or not.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000[/quote]Thanks Purps. You really should put these summaries on your website.Re the bit I''ve quoted, the figure mentioned sounds remarkably similar to the amount Foulger donated when he matched the ST rebates, which I took to be a gift. Couldn''t be could it?

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000[/quote]Thanks Purps. You really should put these summaries on your website.Re the bit I''ve quoted, the figure mentioned sounds remarkably similar to the amount Foulger donated when he matched the ST rebates, which I took to be a gift. Couldn''t be could it?[/quote]

 

I suspect you''re the only person who looks at that site! Sadly I have run out of space (it is a cheap deal) unless I dump existing stuff. As to that similarity, that''s all it is...

[Davo 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.[/quote]

Is it not possible that Bowkett got it right? If as he says we are budgeting to pay this debt off this year couldn''t they have already paid some of it off? Three and a half months have elapsed between the fate of the accounts and Bowkett''s interview. Whilst I would like to think that this kind of debt would only be paid off at the end of the season rather than during it could happen.

Davo

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

[quote user="Davo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.[/quote]

Is it not possible that Bowkett got it right? If as he says we are budgeting to pay this debt off this year couldn''t they have already paid some of it off? Three and a half months have elapsed between the fate of the accounts and Bowkett''s interview. Whilst I would like to think that this kind of debt would only be paid off at the end of the season rather than during it could happen.

Davo

[/quote]

 

Unless there was a very recent repayment that would have been covered in the stop-press section that deals with post-balance sheet events, and there is no such mention. There is not much doubt in my mind that this is just a simpe error - either Bowkett misspoke, or was misquoted, or the EDP reporter typed in the wrong figure. It is not a big deal.

[Waveney Canary 0]

I remember the day when this forum was here to talk about football rather than detailed and forensic accountancy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzx

[Zak Van Burger 0]

Up early Waveney guess it''s another hard day on the bins for you. [:D]

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="City1st"]" Not for

nothing did Bowkett say a couple of years ago that without a major investor we

would need a 35,000-seat stadium to stay afloat financially in the PL."

which has become even more redundant nowa 35.000 seater stadium would give 25% more income - all things being equal - which is about £3m morehowever that presumes the same ''100%'' occupancy ratesthe same high level of ticket pricesand the killer that the new stand can be built for nothing, the old stand taken down for nothing and there would be no loss of income whilst we have 4000 less seatsthe reality is that at best the club will be losing around £1.5m for at least a decade after the constructionand that subsidy wil merrly climb higher every time the attendance is less that 100% and when the lower ticket prices are factored in so we will have to continue with the idea of developing young players, be they at the level of Redmond, the level of the young keeper from Luton or the emerging FA youth Cup winning team[/quote]

You are still using that simpletons argument then, ignoring the dozens of other ways that a new city stand would increase revenue above and beyond the pro-rata increase in plastic seats. 

We could treble or quadruple the corporate hospitality seats / private boxes in a new city stand for a start. And we could fill them.

Sponsorship hoardings in the most desirable part of the ground (opposite the TV cameras), and additional facilities such as additional commercial areas (a megastore anybody?) and possible a pub where people can stop off for a quick one after or instead-of Wetherspoons.

The doors that it opens for events. Elton John and Barry Manilow don''t care what the stadium looks like, but they do know that they can make more money at Portman Road, because it has a larger concert capacity. What about boxing? Would have been nice to see David Haye knock out Tyson Fury at Carrow Road wouldn''t it?

The Boleyn Ground holds 35000 people and filled that for the Haye v Chisora fight, would be nice to have something like that in Norfolk wouldn''t it? 

The club has also said that it is short on administrative space and desperately needs more offices. A new stand could solve that problem. But I know it always has to be black or white to you and your obsession with gate receipts. 

[Juggy 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

6) The

hotel joint venture. See Tangible’s posts on the subject.

[/quote]

Where can I find these?

[Bobzilla 210]

Apart from the question of the terms of the debt. If a debt is never repayable at the holders request, it is not a debt. It is a permanent loan. The club can choose to repay it, but there is no obligation to repay it. Lawyers might consider this to still be a debt where there is a contingency upon which the debt actually becomes repayable (like liquidation), but for all intents and purposes, including accounting, there is no debt - simply investment.

Now, I don''t know the terms of the Foulger ''debt'' but it is perfectly conceivable that this is not actually a debt.

If there is a plan for a share buyback, does that turn the shares into debt? No planned payments will ever change the nature of the rights upon which payment is made (i.e. equity or debt), until such time as the right to a payment has actually crystallised - there will be a debt if (and only if) the club contractually agrees to repay Foulger.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]

Some very nice prose but a few corrections:

Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement

Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger.

Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. 

I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football...

 

[/quote]

 

These "corrections" need correcting. In all my nice prose I didn''t mention cashflow once, so I can''t have got anything wrong on that subject. As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.Whether Foulger is yet eligible to be repaid is entirely irrelevant to the sum outstanding, which is what Bowkett and I are talking about. And it is clear from the fact that the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000 and Bowkett''s comments about the remaining debt ("We would be budgeting to eradicate that in this financial year.") that the plan is to pay it off whether strictly necessary or not.

[/quote]

[PurpleCanary 6,457]

[quote user="Bobzilla"]Apart from the question of the terms of the debt. If a debt is never repayable at the holders request, it is not a debt. It is a permanent loan. The club can choose to repay it, but there is no obligation to repay it. Lawyers might consider this to still be a debt where there is a contingency upon which the debt actually becomes repayable (like liquidation), but for all intents and purposes, including accounting, there is no debt - simply investment.

Now, I don''t know the terms of the Foulger ''debt'' but it is perfectly conceivable that this is not actually a debt.

If there is a plan for a share buyback, does that turn the shares into debt? No planned payments will ever change the nature of the rights upon which payment is made (i.e. equity or debt), until such time as the right to a payment has actually crystallised - there will be a debt if (and only if) the club contractually agrees to repay Foulger.

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]

Some very nice prose but a few corrections:

Cash flow is lower as a result of player purchases and debt repayment but not the income statement as these expenses are not recorded in the income statement

Bowkett is correct about the amount of internal debt repayable as smith and jones are eligible to be repaid but not Foulger.

Correlatation between premier league wages and points was 91% in 2010/11 and 87% in 2011/12 but then lets not let reality get in the way of the myth that it is all down to CH''s tactics. 

I guess understanding finance is like uderstanding football...

 

[/quote]

 

These "corrections" need correcting. In all my nice prose I didn''t mention cashflow once, so I can''t have got anything wrong on that subject. As for saying that £2.1m figure in the quote from Bowkett for internal debt is right, no it isn''t. The correct figure, as I said, is £3.1m.. I suspect either Bowkett misspoke, as American politicians say, or it is a misprint. In a separate sidebar piece the EDP itself gives £3.1m as the right amount.Whether Foulger is yet eligible to be repaid is entirely irrelevant to the sum outstanding, which is what Bowkett and I are talking about. And it is clear from the fact that the club has already paid Foulger back £323,000 and Bowkett''s comments about the remaining debt ("We would be budgeting to eradicate that in this financial year.") that the plan is to pay it off whether strictly necessary or not.

[/quote][/quote]

 

It is definitely a debt. There is an oddity in that there is a difference in the terms as laid out in the 2012 accounts and the 2013 accounts, so the question of when repayment is due can be read two ways (a polite way of saying one is wrong).In 2012 the accounts said that, subject to us not owing BoS anything, the debt could be called in "on the earlier of  August 31, 2012 OR"...upon Smith and Jones ceasing to own at least 30 per cent of the ordinary shares. Since we are past August 31 2012 and we have paid off BoS, clearly accordng to that wording Foulger can demand his money back. The 30 per cent bit is not a dealbreaker - it is an either/or with the date of August 31, 2012, depending on which comes first.But for some reason the terms in the 2013 accounts have changed, so that the 30 per cent stipulation IS a dealbreaker. Until Smith and Jones slash their shareholding (in effect no longer control the club) Foulger cannot claim his money.Either way, either now or in the future, Foulger can claim back the dosh, so it is a debt, and, as pointed out earlier, the question is rather moot because Bowkett has said they aim to repay it this financial year.

[Bill 1,788]

"You are still using that simpletons argument then"  - yes the one Bowkett uses and the one that is based on club figures"We could treble or quadruple the corporate hospitality seats / private boxes in a new city stand for a start."  - whereas in reality we are not even selling out the ones we currently have"The club has also said that it is short on administrative space and desperately needs more offices"  - when ?but they do know that they can make more money at Portman Road, because it has a larger concert capacity - 10% extra capacity makes 10% extra revenue, that''s allSponsorship hoardings in the most desirable part of the ground (opposite the TV cameras) - have you any costed figures as to what these generate ?"and additional facilities such as additional commercial areas (a megastore anybody?) - a megastore, certainly there is plenty of space for that, and it''s not like we have a supermarket anywhere near Carrow Road is it ?a pub where people can stop off for a quick one after or instead-of Wetherspoons - yes another splendid idea .............. if only there was a pub at Carrow Road, why ever has no one ever thought of that before ?

and to think silly old Norwich City have been leaving all this stuff in the hands of McNally and Bowkett with their ''simpleton arguments'' when we have a boy genius waiting to show us how it should be done

megastore, pub,office space, boxing matches, Barry Manilow ........................... and I thought Tom Cavendish was barkingyou haven''t a clue, and by the sound of it you have visited Carrow Road about ass many times as that other serial fantasist, the one from Lowestoftnow why not contact Tom Cavendish to explain to you the wonders of that new stadium that has just been completed in Bristoland stop bothering the grown ups

[Cerberus 0]

[quote user="The New Boy"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

6) The

hotel joint venture. See Tangible’s posts on the subject.

[/quote]

Where can I find these?

[/quote]TNB,I haven''t seen Tangie post for quite a while now. He would normally have something to say about the accounts. Does anyone know what has happened to him?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Waveney Canary"]I remember the day when this forum was here to talk about football rather than detailed and forensic accountancy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzx[/quote]You can''t have been here long then. It was only about four years ago when every other post on this site was littered with C.G.F.P.A''s spreadsheets (all in widescreen) which went along the lines of.......Take a rumour............£....add a guestimate........£Deduct say................£Assume.....................£Agents fee say...........£Total.........................£. = FACT!It was this attention to detail that established important FACTS from our history which posters regularly refer to now. ie......How much Watling walleted.Why the hotel would never make money.How Delia asked Cullum £56m for her shares.How the Black Hole was discovered.Why the banks forced Bowkett on the club.Etc.Sorry Waveney, you''re much too young to remember how these people gave their all for this club.C.G.F.P.A''s. Lest we forget. [U]

[ricardo 8,098]

[quote user="City1st"]"You are still using that simpletons argument then"  - yes the one Bowkett uses and the one that is based on club figures"We could treble or quadruple the corporate hospitality seats / private boxes in a new city stand for a start."  - whereas in reality we are not even selling out the ones we currently have"The club has also said that it is short on administrative space and desperately needs more offices"  - when ?but they do know that they can make more money at Portman Road, because it has a larger concert capacity - 10% extra capacity makes 10% extra revenue, that''s allSponsorship hoardings in the most desirable part of the ground (opposite the TV cameras) - have you any costed figures as to what these generate ?"and additional facilities such as additional commercial areas (a megastore anybody?) - a megastore, certainly there is plenty of space for that, and it''s not like we have a supermarket anywhere near Carrow Road is it ?a pub where people can stop off for a quick one after or instead-of Wetherspoons - yes another splendid idea .............. if only there was a pub at Carrow Road, why ever has no one ever thought of that before ?

and to think silly old Norwich City have been leaving all this stuff in the hands of McNally and Bowkett with their ''simpleton arguments'' when we have a boy genius waiting to show us how it should be done

megastore, pub,office space, boxing matches, Barry Manilow ........................... and I thought Tom Cavendish was barkingyou haven''t a clue, and by the sound of it you have visited Carrow Road about ass many times as that other serial fantasist, the one from Lowestoftnow why not contact Tom Cavendish to explain to you the wonders of that new stadium that has just been completed in Bristoland stop bothering the grown ups

[/quote]Looks more and more like I was right when I said Stadium expansion had been put on the back burner. It was a nice idea but it just poses too many problems, both financial and logistical.I''ve gone through the accounts a few times City 1st, but can''t find anything about peppercorn rents. Who should I ask?[:D]

[ricardo 8,098]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Waveney Canary"]I remember the day when this forum was here to talk about football rather than detailed and forensic accountancy. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzx[/quote]You can''t have been here long then. It was only about four years ago when every other post on this site was littered with C.G.F.P.A''s spreadsheets (all in widescreen) which went along the lines of.......Take a rumour............£....add a guestimate........£Deduct say................£Assume.....................£Agents fee say...........£Total.........................£. = FACT!It was this attention to detail that established important FACTS from our history which posters regularly refer to now. ie......How much Watling walleted.Why the hotel would never make money.How Delia asked Cullum £56m for her shares.How the Black Hole was discovered.Why the banks forced Bowkett on the club.Etc.Sorry Waveney, you''re much too young to remember how these people gave their all for this club.C.G.F.P.A''s. Lest we forget. [U]

[/quote]Got any of them fag papers left, Lapps?[;)]