We got no Cash

[norfolkngood 1,086]

perfect business is to buy assets when they become available !

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Another classic from Newton.

I find your posts entertaining after a long day of working, mainly because of the reaction you seek to cause, yes I said seek to cause.

Making a statement that ''we got no cash'' is as always simply YOUR opinion, and unless you are actually McNally you don''t actually know anything factually.

There could be lots of reasons why it didn''t happen, maybe both clubs have agreed on loans, ie Olsson goes that way until the end of the season and we get Dorrans, maybe Olsson messed about for so long it left us with no time to finalise a deal, maybe they didn''t want another big earner on the books as well as Olsson.

What is good though Netwon is that you have finally stopped banging on about us spending £17.1m, sorry meant wasting and have finally accepted that that figure does not include the money that came in.

[rondy 7]

X

Edited April 7 by rondy

[Newton 0]

Rich T The Biscuit wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 9:30 AM:

Making a statement that ''we got no cash'' is as always simply YOUR opinion, and unless you are actually McNally you don''t actually know anything factually.

There could be lots of reasons why it didn''t happen, maybe both clubs have agreed on loans, ie Olsson goes that way until the end of the season and we get Dorrans, maybe Olsson messed about for so long it left us with no time to finalise a deal, maybe they didn''t want another big earner on the books as well as Olsson.

 

Classic post Rich T and u accuse me of making things up

Please consider this:-

All reports inc refer to permanent transfers - all of a sudden u have dreamed up a loan theory ?

WBA did not want anothe rhigh earner on there books - Oh Yea - they signed Fletcher from Man U as Dorrans replacement - so they got a high earner

 

Rich T you just anothe rone of these fantasy lead story makers consider the facts man :-

 

WBA signed a permanent replacement for Dorrans - Fletcher from Man U

WBA wanted to off load Dorrans but they now stuck with him

Dorrans drove all the way to Norwich, underwent a medical & agreed personal terms

Clearly AN wanted him if thats the case why didnt we cough up the £3/4M when Olsson said no ?

 

Or do you prefer the story u made up when you were having your corflakes this morning

 

 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

For some reason the OP seems obsessed with his perception that we have no money. He consistently mentions it in many posts.The last time I looked at the most recent accounts we made a profit of £7m.The last time I aquainted myself with the parachute payments it said that we stood to receive in excess of £20mThe summer sales of Snoddy, Fer, Pilks and Surman brought in money which likely exceeded the sum of the purchases made by Adams. We have also received a few loan fees.Our wages bill is reduced due to relegation clauses.We continue to have full houses and receive some TV money.Please counter-act these points one by one or otherwise get off your hobby horse. I am currently not one of McNally''s best supporters but at the very least he has maintained a sound financial structure at the Club.

[Newton 0]

Broadstairs I agree with all your posts

The point I am making is when push came to shove & AN wanted a certain player the club were not prepared to back him with £3/4M but insisted the deal was funded by a player exchange which conviently would have also generated the balance to pay for the French guy from Accei

 

All I am asking is why did we not spend what is only a small sum bearing in mind the revenue streams you have listed

 

AN says on the front of Pinkun he would have prefered to sign permanet players rather than loans

 

[ZLF 271]

Great speculation but where does it say that we have not backed the manager with the funds?  

 

My restricted reading was the deal fell through with collapse of the Olsson move - not that the swap and then a non agreement of a fee for a sale prevented dorran moving.  

 

You may be right - but its a leap to conclude that the manager wasnt supported

 

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Newton you really need to read things properly before you start biting back, go to the library at school, find the dictionary and look up the word MAYBE.

But before you do read what I put again about wage earner, we kept Olsson, he hasn''t gone so MAYBE the club, ie Norwich didn''t want to commit to spending more on wages. It''s just as possible as ''we got no cash''.

Sometimes I wonder if you''re a journo, you sensationalise everything and seem to pick out the most contentious points without stating the whole picture.

The point I''m making is that MAYBE there are lots of reasons why it never happened, remove the blinkers of trolling, open your eyes wide, open your mind wider and you never know, you might actually enjoy it.

[Mr Grumpy 0]

Alex Neil has clearly indicated that the squad is too big for his liking, and he’s right. An oversized squad means an oversized wage bill and disgruntled players who know they aren’t going to get a game which is bad for morale and hence bad for team performance. There was always going to be a one in, one out approach to this transfer window. In this case the ‘one out’ fell through due to the player’s demands and so the ‘one in’ doesn’t happen either. It’s not that difficult to understand. To say we’ve run out of cash is ridiculous.

[Newton 0]

Rich T read your first thread I think it was you who belittled my suggestion even tho I posted the facts that lead me to my conclusion

You then dreamed up some loan theory (no facts what so ever to back it up) and then accuse me of wearing blinkers - u need to open your eyes look at the bigger picture and stop fabricating situations in an attempt to justify what you are saying

[Newton 0]

Rich T

The figures quoted on the last page of the accounts do include the money that came in from sales in the summer (less the value of the players registration - written down figure over the length of the contract -  based on original purchase price) but exclude Grabham costs (roumered £3M)  as he was already on board by then 

 

All I ever spoke about was gross spend anyway - but then u like to fabricate as we can all see - perhaps they were rearly all loans ?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Newton"]chicken wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 12:22 AM:

That''s right. I''m so dumb. I misunderstood the clubs annual financial report and thought we''d spent less than we actually had. That £17.5million that turned into £17.2million. That''s how stupid I am.

I''m also really stupid because I thought that maybe we didn''t want a larger squad and that was more of a pressing factor than need for funds.

Chicken you a complete idiot what are you talking about - the post has nothing to do with the accounts - & any way no one knows the exact figure as you have to take the value of the sold players registrations into account and they are not quoted individually in the accounts (Intangible Assets)- so how would anyone know specifically

You need to go back to the posts where u & your little troll mates play on words rather than commenting on the points being raised in the thread

If you think the transfer business in this window was good because it did not increase the head count in the squad thats your opinion - I think it could be the final nail in the coffin for our promotion hopes[/quote]No. You do not need to know anything about the value of the players sold to know the exact amount we spent on buying players. And the exact figure we spent on buying eight of those players is in the accounts. It was £13.6m, plus up to £3.5m of extras. All that is unknown is the precise amount we spent on Grabban.

[Newton 0]

I posted the thread not to suggest we were in dire financial straits because we are not but, just to empahsise the point that our transfer kitty for Jan was exceptionally limited - in the end we spent around £1M by all accounts

We were all extatic when we signed the summer 10 and even tho only 2 or 3 have been a success, causing our squad to swell to its current numbers we are all still patting each other on the back - the numbers signed and costs is a reason for our inactivity in Jan - I for one am very unhappy with what went on back then

 

For goodness sakes to even mildy critise the Board for the shambles of the last 9 mths,  upsets so many people that they wet themselves with anger - supurb

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

Ha ha, this is like having a debate with a politician.

I haven''t fabricated anything my friend, I don''t know why we didn''t get Dorrans and neither do you, unlike you I use the word maybe to make the point that there might be many reasons why deals don''t happen.

You my friend make comments as if they are fact, rather than putting ''we got no money'', MAYBE you could have put ''have we got no money'' although being educated I''d have probably put ''have we not got any money''.

So to summarise, if you don''t know and are guessing or maybe just trolling, stop sensationalising everything and making your own assumptions.

[Smeg 0]

all these theorys about not having any money, don''t want to back the manager???

how about this for a theory......

We have one of the largest squads in the league, all well paid by Champ standards, but within our BUDGET

that''s they key word, the club has set a wage budget, we are already at that budget, and to prevent messing up the financial planning, we have to stick to it, just like any business or individual.

the reason we did one in (tony) and one out (Laffs), and potentially dorrens in for Olsson, is to manage that budget, it could be argued laffs was on a large wage, by moving him on the wages could have been split between noone and tony.

that said, we dumped hoovield, I thought Bunn would go, so there must be some room left to move in the loan market next week.

just wish people would think about things with a sensible hat on before claiming conspiracies and hidden agendas....

Rant Over.....

[Newton 0]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 12:21 PM:

No. You do not need to know anything about the value of the players sold to know the exact amount we spent on buying players. And the exact figure we spent on buying eight of those players is in the accounts. It was £13.6m, plus up to £3.5m of extras. All that is unknown is the precise amount we spent on Grabban.


Thank you Purple for backing me up - while no one knows exactly how much we spent on Grabbam - it was suggested around the £3M mark (I think 1 x loan players costs are also to be added - 1 of those dodgy centre halves we accumulated ?)

What does all that add up to please - lost my calculator ?

 

Please remember that when you have added it up it is not an exact figure but a very good indication of the summer folly which is why we have an overly large squad today

[hogesar 9,618]

I absolutely love Newton.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Newton"]

PurpleCanary wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 12:21 PM:

No. You do not need to know anything about the value of the players sold to know the exact amount we spent on buying players. And the exact figure we spent on buying eight of those players is in the accounts. It was £13.6m, plus up to £3.5m of extras. All that is unknown is the precise amount we spent on Grabban.

Thank you Purple for backing me up - while no one knows exactly how much we spent on Grabbam - it was suggested around the £3M mark (I think 1 x loan players costs are also to be added - 1 of those dodgy centre halves we accumulated ?)

What does all that add up to please - lost my calculator ?

 

Please remember that when you have added it up it is not an exact figure but a very good indication of the summer folly which is why we have an overly large squad today

[/quote]Newton, you do realise this little trick of yours of saying black is white and claiming I have backed you up when what I have done is shown you to be wrong is eventually going to wear just a little thin?To keep this act of yours going - and I am sure we all want that - you will need to add a new tactic. I believe in pop music it is known as the difficult second album syndrome, but I have every confidence you will succeed. As a suggestion you might try the ploy of getting stuff right, rather like a politician deciding to tell the truth. Posters would be totally thrown by such a change of policy.

[Newton 0]

Purple - where in my calculations have I made a mistake - only working on figs u provided ?

 

You cannot expect to make a bold statement such as

 You do not need to know anything about the value of the players sold to know the exact amount we spent on buying players. And the exact figure we spent on buying eight of those players is in the accounts. It was £13.6m, plus up to £3.5m of extras. All that is unknown is the precise amount we spent on Grabban.

Without someone using those facts in another post or are your posts protected by copy right ?

 

[mrs miggins 0]

So your using someone else''s wrong information?

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

I can''t put my iPad down, this is much better than working!!

[Buh 0]

Newton, you don''t half reek of fail mate...

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

An interesting interpretation of events Newton. You never fail to amaze with your ability to stitch together a theory and beat the club over the head with it.

My interpretation of event is thus:

WBA made an offer of £x for Ollson, we said we wanted £y, WBA came back with an offer of £z + Graham Dorrans, we said yes. Ollson travelled to WBA to discuss terms, but failed to reach agreement as WBA would not accept his request for a relegation clause.

We offered Cardiff £x for Noone, Cardiff either said no or we want £y. £y was far more than we were prepared to pay so decided not to pursue the matter any further given that there is a further opportunity to bring somebody in on loan when the loan window opens.

We made Hamilton an offer of £x for Andreu, they said yes, Andreu agreed terms with Norwich and we signed him.

A lot of the rumours circulating were probably regurgited or made up by the likes of SSN, BBC to plump out their "Deadline Day" coverage on what was a very quiet night....

The evidence points to us being a well managed club that is not prepared to bring in players for the sake of it and/or not prepared to pay inflated prices when there is still an opportunity to bring in a loan or two.....

 

 

[pete 318]

This post and all the replies are what is wrong with this message board. An original post that claims to be correct and replies claiming the OP is misguided.

The truth maybe that the Board are trying to keep the club debt free which seems to be Boards be all and end all. To keep the club debt free for all time is a pipe dream unless all ambition to improve has been conceded. It is possible that is what Delia et al are trying to achieve i.e. stagnation.

[mrs miggins 0]

If we wanted stagnation we would of sold most of our players. Cardiff and Fulham can enjoy many years in the championship now that they''re sh!t.

[Maccys Back 0]

No miggins that would be RELEGATION, STAGNATION mean to STAGNATE. You baffoon

[Rich T The Biscuit 562]

That''s the point that I in particular was trying to make Pete.

To many posts on here are created to cause a stir by sensationalising the post. None of us on here will know why we never followed through on the Dorrans opportunity but for the post to be titled we got no money is a statement and doesn''t generate an interesting debate and it as always turns in to carnage.

I''m not bashing Newton but had the original post said have we got any money to spend it would have potentially opened up a debate and they we could all speculate whether we do, don''t and as per your point, maybe it is about staying debt free.

[mrs miggins 0]

Maccy''s Back wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 1:28 PM:

No miggins that would be RELEGATION, STAGNATION mean to STAGNATE. You baffoon

---------------------------------------------------

You are too illogical sir to have an open discourse. The fact that you see keeping our best players as a negative is a large problem, this is not stagnation, unfortunately you are blind in seeing this.

[Maccys Back 0]

Well they''ve done amazingly well so far haven''t they? OPEN YOUR EYES! You happy clapper

[Newton 0]

mrs miggins wrote the following post at 03/02/2015 12:55 PM:

So your using someone else''s wrong information?

 

Perhaps - not my fault if he dont understand accounts is it  ?