Ricardo's report AGM 2014

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]3) Tilly''s

revelation about doubling controlled income in three years is

interesting. Assuming no increase in capacity then, apart from ticket

sales, the main sources of income are catering and commercial. In the

four years from 2009-10 to 2013-14 catering and commercial income,

despite being in the Premier League for three seasons, did not double.

It went from £7.3m to £13.2m. Nor did ticket sales double; they went

from £6.9m to £11.3m. Overall, controlled income went from £14.2m to

£24.5m, under beneficial circumstances. There are other ways of

boosting income; concerts have been tried in the past with, I believe,

mixed results. But as things stand, a doubling in three years looks a

tough ask.[/quote]Purps. I''m assuming ''controlled income'' is turnover minus TV money. Like you, I can''t see how they can increase this much let alone double it in three years, especially if we remain in this division. This recent Football League report shows that season ticket prices are actually falling so any increase there is highly unlikely.Another thing I''m struggling with is Bowkett''s comment "at some stage we would need a £3.6 million overdraft in order to manage cash flow". Why wouldn''t we just sell a player rather than borrow from the bank? With the size of our squad and the availability of loan players from the Prem for most of the season, this doesn''t seem to make much sense.

[/quote]Lapps, I too assume TV income is excluded from "controlled". As to an overdraft, I am not sure that is so surprising. Cashflow in football is a weird subject (that is code for "I don''t pretend to understand it") because of the vagaries of timing with the income and expenditure from transfers, and so it is possible to be financially well off but actually short of ready money. I believe the modish term is "Asset rich and cash poor."In the accounts for 2011-12 there was a warning that a shortfall was likely to occur in the summer of 2013, whether we stayed in the Premier League or got relegated, and that the bank was willing to provide an overdraft. Whether it was needed I don''t know.

[morty 0]

Do we get our parachute payments paid at the end of the season?Could that be the reason for the overdraft?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="morty"]Do we get our parachute payments paid at the end of the season?Could that be the reason for the overdraft?[/quote]It could well be a factor.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="morty"]Do we get our parachute payments paid at the end of the season? Could that be the reason for the overdraft?[/quote]I seem to remember the Prem TV money was paid in staged payments throughout the season Morty, so I assume the parachute payments would be the same.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Tamascanary"]Ricardo - what did you make of the bonus question and answer.[/quote]I doubt anyone would be happy at a 40% reduction.

[Highland Canary 76]

The good news is that the chief executive explained his six stage strategic wheel, one objective of which was automatic promotion at the earliest opportunity which apparently means this season. Make of that what you will.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]The good news is that the chief executive explained his six stage strategic wheel, one objective of which was automatic promotion at the earliest opportunity which apparently means this season. Make of that what you will.[/quote]They are a bit over fond of these Powerpoint presentations but actually they are an improvement on the back of a fag packet stuff we had to endure 20 or 30 years ago. The "Norwich DNA" stuff is a wee bit naff, IMO.

[Bill 1,788]

"Why wouldn''t we just sell a player rather than borrow from the bank?"

because transfer payments are not made in one go, and are spread over a few yearsthe overdraft is of no real concern, it is merely against those and other income payments, that''s all(the real concern would be were the bank not be willing to grant us an overdraft)I supect this has been mentioned by the board as a way of adding a bit of caution to some of the more exitable who might imagine that the club is awash with cash and can simply splash out willy nilly

[militantcanary 0]

Thanks Ricardo

Can I ask two questions

i) Is it true or i am missing the plot that we made a a profit of 6.7M due to not paying the players bonuses as we went down and McNally then got a bonus of 367K due to us making a profit caused in part by his role in getting us relegated. You couldn''t make it if true.

ii) Was the scouring Europe quote thrown back at the Board, if not why not??

Thanks

[Bill 1,788]

"You couldn''t make it if true."

you could, as you have just doneMcNally''s bonus is paid based on many things, which I''m sure were achieved. The fact that his bonus was far lower than before reflects the fact that we were relegated ie he was not paid the amount that related to that area.

[militantcanary 0]

Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

I''d have thought it doubtful, but without any of us knowing more details on his contract we can''t say. Surely that''s fair enough?

[Samwam27 527]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]The good news is that the chief executive explained his six stage strategic wheel, one objective of which was automatic promotion at the earliest opportunity which apparently means this season. Make of that what you will.[/quote]Was there any follow up questions to this along the lines of "and how do we expect to do that with the current downward spiral in results/performances" and "have the board learnt their lessons re: hanging onto hope Hughton would turn things round before taking action, and so what happens if Adams doesn''t start getting better results"?

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Unless we have a poster who could claim to have seen McNally''s contract I don''t suppose anyone can give a definitive answer on what his bonus was paid on. However I very much doubt if it''s paid on profit as the well publicised aim is not to make a profit. This profit only came about through having to keep the money to pay bonuses if we stayed up. So I would imagine the only connection between this profit and McNally is the bonus he lost being part of it.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="militantcanary"]Thanks Ricardo

Can I ask two questions

i) Is it true or i am missing the plot that we made a a profit of 6.7M due to not paying the players bonuses as we went down and McNally then got a bonus of 367K due to us making a profit caused in part by his role in getting us relegated. You couldn''t make it if true.

ii) Was the scouring Europe quote thrown back at the Board, if not why not??

Thanks[/quote]i. Yes, they said thaey budgeted to make about a million but made £6.7 because the bonus payments were not triggered. In fact Bowkett had a moan that because of the excess profit we had to cough up £2.3 million in tax. McNally''s bonus was not football performance related. It was due to meeting various other financial targets.2. No, and I don''t know.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Samwam27"][quote user="Highland Canary"]The good news is that the chief executive explained his six stage strategic wheel, one objective of which was automatic promotion at the earliest opportunity which apparently means this season. Make of that what you will.[/quote]Was there any follow up questions to this along the lines of "and how do we expect to do that with the current downward spiral in results/performances" and "have the board learnt their lessons re: hanging onto hope Hughton would turn things round before taking action, and so what happens if Adams doesn''t start getting better results"?[/quote]To cut a long reply short, the simple answer is that these questions were not asked.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]

what in earth are you wittering on about ?what part of

McNally get''s paid a bonusthat bonus is made up of achieving various financial targetsthat bonus was greatly reduced for season 2013/14which suggest that reduction reflected our relegationie we were relegated so he doesn''t get that part of the bonus

do you not grasp ?

and he would NOT have been given a bonus because the club did not pay the players a bonus for staying up

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]My understanding is that when they sit down to determine remuneration, targets are set for different aspects of the business be it football, retail, commercial or whatever. Bowkett said that McNally''s bonus  was lost on the football side but gained in other areas.I don''t know the truth of that but am merely stating the gist of Mr Bowkett''s explanation. You may or may not find this satisfactory and I can report that several people weren''t convinced.

[ron obvious 1,502]

Many thanks for the report, Ricardo.

[Bill 1,788]

[quote user="ron obvious"]Many thanks for the report, Ricardo.[/quote]hear hear

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]My understanding is that when they sit down to determine remuneration, targets are set for different aspects of the business be it football, retail, commercial or whatever. Bowkett said that McNally''s bonus  was lost on the football side but gained in other areas.I don''t know the truth of that but am merely stating the gist of Mr Bowkett''s explanation. You may or may not find this satisfactory and I can report that several people weren''t convinced.[/quote]According to the accounts, McNally''s bonuses have in the past consisted of two parts - for hitting financial targets and for either achieving promotion to the Premier League or maintaining it. So his bonus for 2012-13, having hit both targets, was £867,000.His bonus for last season was reduced because we got relegated, so that element was not included, but he still got a financial-target bonus of £367,500.On the face of it getting a financial bonus at all seems very strange, since relegation cuts our income at a stroke by around 50 per cent. I can think of at least two explanations. One is that without relegation his financial bonus would have been much higher.Another is that, oddly enough, we probably did hit our financial targets for that latest year, because the main effects of relegation had not started to take effect. Indeed since relegation meant we didn''t have to pay certain player bonuses we actually made more of a profit than we had bargained for. So in a looking-glass way a financial bonus is justified despite it being what McNally has just described as his own biggest business failure.The logic of that position, then, would be that McNally certainly shouldn''t receive any kind of financial bonus for the current year, since it is now that the severe effects of relegation on the accounts are being felt.

[Tamascanary 0]

No I mean McN bonus question from Mr Woolsey?

[Bill 1,788]

Iif McNally is up to the job he will paid around £1.5m annuallywhere he fails he loses money - with relegation this looks to be around £500,000if he delivers on sales of tickets, food/drink/ corporate etc he gets paid the agreed rate ie bonus

much as with playersyou get £1m for playing in the PL - that gets cut to £600,000 when in the championship

note - figures are for example only

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="Tamascanary"]No I mean McN bonus question from Mr Woolsey?[/quote]Sorry for the confusion.All I can do is refer you to Mr Bowkett''s explanation.You can either accept what he said was true or not. I certainly have no reason to believe he was fibbing.I repeat, some eyebrows were raised.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]My understanding is that when they sit down to determine remuneration, targets are set for different aspects of the business be it football, retail, commercial or whatever. Bowkett said that McNally''s bonus  was lost on the football side but gained in other areas.I don''t know the truth of that but am merely stating the gist of Mr Bowkett''s explanation. You may or may not find this satisfactory and I can report that several people weren''t convinced.[/quote]According to the accounts, McNally''s bonuses have in the past consisted of two parts - for hitting financial targets and for either achieving promotion to the Premier League or maintaining it. So his bonus for 2012-13, having hit both targets, was £867,000.His bonus for last season was reduced because we got relegated, so that element was not included, but he still got a financial-target bonus of £367,500.On the face of it getting a financial bonus at all seems very strange, since relegation cuts our income at a stroke by around 50 per cent. I can think of at least two explanations. One is that without relegation his financial bonus would have been much higher.Another is that, oddly enough, we probably did hit our financial targets for that latest year, because the main effects of relegation had not started to take effect. Indeed since relegation meant we didn''t have to pay certain player bonuses we actually made more of a profit than we had bargained for. So in a looking-glass way a financial bonus is justified despite it being what McNally has just described as his own biggest business failure.The logic of that position, then, would be that McNally certainly shouldn''t receive any kind of financial bonus for the current year, since it is now that the severe effects of relegation on the accounts are being felt.[/quote]The logic also would be that they sat down in the summer and came up with a new remuneration package commensurate with our Championship status.We won''t know until another 12 months of water has passed under Trowse Bridge. In the meantime I am quite happy to lay you big odds that his bonus will be more than nil, whatever happens.[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]My understanding is that when they sit down to determine remuneration, targets are set for different aspects of the business be it football, retail, commercial or whatever. Bowkett said that McNally''s bonus  was lost on the football side but gained in other areas.I don''t know the truth of that but am merely stating the gist of Mr Bowkett''s explanation. You may or may not find this satisfactory and I can report that several people weren''t convinced.[/quote]According to the accounts, McNally''s bonuses have in the past consisted of two parts - for hitting financial targets and for either achieving promotion to the Premier League or maintaining it. So his bonus for 2012-13, having hit both targets, was £867,000.His bonus for last season was reduced because we got relegated, so that element was not included, but he still got a financial-target bonus of £367,500.On the face of it getting a financial bonus at all seems very strange, since relegation cuts our income at a stroke by around 50 per cent. I can think of at least two explanations. One is that without relegation his financial bonus would have been much higher.Another is that, oddly enough, we probably did hit our financial targets for that latest year, because the main effects of relegation had not started to take effect. Indeed since relegation meant we didn''t have to pay certain player bonuses we actually made more of a profit than we had bargained for. So in a looking-glass way a financial bonus is justified despite it being what McNally has just described as his own biggest business failure.The logic of that position, then, would be that McNally certainly shouldn''t receive any kind of financial bonus for the current year, since it is now that the severe effects of relegation on the accounts are being felt.[/quote]The logic also would be that they sat down in the summer and came up with a new remuneration package commensurate with our Championship status.We won''t know until another 12 months of water has passed under Trowse Bridge. In the meantime I am quite happy to lay you big odds that his bonus will be more than nil, whatever happens.[;)][/quote]Ricardo, you can lay me any odds you like but that is still not a bet I would take...[:D]

[? 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="militantcanary"]Did he or did he not get a bonus based on achieving financial targets which were achieved because we underachieved.

Well I am waiting...[/quote]My understanding is that when they sit down to determine remuneration, targets are set for different aspects of the business be it football, retail, commercial or whatever. Bowkett said that McNally''s bonus  was lost on the football side but gained in other areas.I don''t know the truth of that but am merely stating the gist of Mr Bowkett''s explanation. You may or may not find this satisfactory and I can report that several people weren''t convinced.[/quote]

That''s interesting because I know that a vast majority of the full time staff received no bonuses at all despite there being portions of their agreement having no relation to the playing side! That''s very fair Mr Mcnally!

[Bill 1,788]

eh ?

[? 0]

Ah the dimwits back! Thought you''d fecked off!

McNally receives a bonus and the rest of the non playing football staff don''t

Does that make it clearer for you!

[Bill 1,788]

"Ah the dimwits back!"I should imagine the irony of that is lost on you - still it''s nice to see you ranting away in your usual semi literate, foul mouthed self.As to the bonuses perhaps a grown up could explain to you that as "the rest of the non playing football staff " do not make the decisions it would be unfair to penalise them for someone else''s failings.Rather like you losing some of your paper round money because the newsagent had wrongly numbered the papers

ps not sure if I should be flattered that you keep an idea of when I post on here - can''t say I do the same for you