Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

17/05/2008, 1:20 PM Mr.Carrow Joined on 06/12/2003 Posts 1,529 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing BF, you`re right that the securitisation does seem to be a grey area we can only speculate about, but to be honest if the board commited the club to a deal which meant the club absolutely HAD to turn a profit each year, then even more serious questions need to be asked of them.  Surely the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  I doubt it`s the case personally, and it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  The £2m tax payments make it look as though the board would rather gift millions to the treasury than "waste" it on the team....... I agree with your last sentence, but where i think i differ from you and blahx3 is that i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  The truth is that constructive criticism from the likes of you two would carry far more weight with them than the likes of me who they would just dismiss as being a negative anti-boarder.    Report

17/05/2008, 4:13 PM BigFish Joined on 26/08/2003 Posts 428 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  Mr.Carrow wrote: ... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  ... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn't think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder's borrow half a team is the future?    Report

17/05/2008, 5:23 PM Mello Yello Joined on 03/01/2004 Norwich Posts 3,791 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  BigFish wrote:  Mr.Carrow wrote: ... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  ... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn't think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder's borrow half a team is the future? Maybe we can assist with filling the 'Black Hole' with an old double decker bus? I'm slightly concerned though....because there are a few 'black holes' suddenly appearing in various roads in Norwich. Do you think 'Black Holiness' disease, is emanating from Carrow Road? Jeepers Creepers! I honestly thought I saw the Darth Donkster - driving a jet-black JCB down Newmarket Road a few nights ago. He was closely followed by the Ncfc board, clinging to a heavy-plant mobile drill - giggling and making merriment, and shouting "Let's go and dig another one!" as Delia in stitches - tried to keep it on the road....allegedly.  "Give 'em enough rope"......    Report

17/05/2008, 6:05 PM Mr.Carrow Joined on 06/12/2003 Posts 1,529 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  BigFish wrote:  Mr.Carrow wrote: ... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  ... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn't think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder's borrow half a team is the future? BF, i suppose your outlook is "we are where we are, and we have to deal with it" and mine is "we shouldn`t be where we are and those who made the decisions either need to hold their hands up, admit their cock-ups and try to rectify the situation- or go".  Ok, so it`s the blame game, but in my experience directors and C.E.`s at any company face scrutiny, difficult questions and often open shareholder revolt if they allow the performance of their core product to dramatically decline.  Why should NCFC be any different? And i don`t think things are as set-in-stone as you seem to be making out.  B.Skipper stated that there were ways for the club to raise considerable funds if so desired, there is the wild-card of the land (maybe a director loan to be redeemed on sale of?).  In theory the £3m due by the end of this year on the land/infill loans could be put back a year or two to free up a fair amount for Roeder to spend this year?  We`ve all seen what an ultra-prudent, verging on paranoid approach to team strengthening can lead to.  It is, in itself, a big gamble because if you try to stand still, more ambitious clubs jump ahead of you- and i was saying this three years ago.  Football is all about risks of different types and proportions, you can`t duck out of them.  The boards` gamble has lead to inertia and decline and they must have the courage to make a different kind of gamble to try to reverse it.    Report

18/05/2008, 6:03 PM GazzaTCC Joined on 27/08/2003 Chelmsford Posts 646 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  Mr.Carrow wrote:  BigFish wrote:  Mr.Carrow wrote: ... the only way to virtually guarantee a profit is to sell off your best playing assets to make up the inevitable losses in running the club?  .... it`s perfectly feasible that the club can pay the yearly debt repayments whilst accepting an overall loss from time to time.  ... i don`t think the board have acknowledged they have got it wrong and i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach or in 2, 5 or 10 years time we will still be having the same argument- but probably in a lower division.  Most of this makes sense. But it is not clear what the alternative approach would be over 2,5, 10 years. In the short term they are in a bind but are holding it all together. When the secured loans are paid up the club is well placed (there is the 10 year view) but that requires not screwing up the football side in that time. I acn't think what the alternative would be......maybe Roeder's borrow half a team is the future? BF, i suppose your outlook is "we are where we are, and we have to deal with it" and mine is "we shouldn`t be where we are and those who made the decisions either need to hold their hands up, admit their cock-ups and try to rectify the situation- or go".  Ok, so it`s the blame game, but in my experience directors and C.E.`s at any company face scrutiny, difficult questions and often open shareholder revolt if they allow the performance of their core product to dramatically decline.  Why should NCFC be any different? And i don`t think things are as set-in-stone as you seem to be making out.  B.Skipper stated that there were ways for the club to raise considerable funds if so desired, there is the wild-card of the land (maybe a director loan to be redeemed on sale of?).  In theory the £3m due by the end of this year on the land/infill loans could be put back a year or two to free up a fair amount for Roeder to spend this year?  We`ve all seen what an ultra-prudent, verging on paranoid approach to team strengthening can lead to.  It is, in itself, a big gamble because if you try to stand still, more ambitious clubs jump ahead of you- and i was saying this three years ago.  Football is all about risks of different types and proportions, you can`t duck out of them.  The boards` gamble has lead to inertia and decline and they must have the courage to make a different kind of gamble to try to reverse it. I don't there are many who disagree with the fact that we should be doing a lot better than we are. The often quoted aim after promotion was along the lines of, "if we do get relegated, we'll come back with a stronger team". That simply didn't happen. Football clubs do, however, differ significantly from your ordinary plc's. There isn't an open market for the shares, so there's no daily measure of share price, or dividend pay outs against which to measure corporate performance. Also, from our perspective, the main board members, Doncaster excepted, aren't involved in the day to day running of the Club. And, maybe, that's one of the reasons why they are "sheltered" from the day to day perfomance of the Club, where it really matters on the pitch. That's not intended to sound like a defence for their performance, more a reality check. Barry Skippers comments were, indeed, enligtening. Refinancing of the existing securitisation deal should not of been impossible in the past. Yes, there would have been exit penalties, but, undoubtley, there would have been cheaper deals available, certainly before summer last year. Addtionally, the limited increase in authorised share capital, whilst a step in the right direction, would only raise less than a £1M if fully taken up. If they were being truely agressive they could have doubled the authorised share capital, thereby giving the Turners, or anyone else for that matter, the opportunity to put considerably more capital into the business.     Report

18/05/2008, 7:06 PM Mr.Carrow Joined on 06/12/2003 Posts 1,529 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing GazzaTCC, but surely we have to ask why those steps were not taken?  Are the board too arrogant to admit they have got it wrong and so change course?  If so, surely they need more pressure on them, not less?  There seems to be a perception that the board are running the club out of the charitable goodness of their heart, but Doncaster is very well paid and the Smiths` loans have been converted into increasingly valuable shares (given balance-sheet growth and increasing interest in championship clubs).  I really do wonder whether "the good of the club" is the primary driving force these days........ I suppose that if some kind of financial restructuring has taken place (or new money invested) to give Roeder a fighting chance this summer the board will rightly keep it quiet and the only indication we will have will be from the calibre of player Roeder is bidding for.  Time will tell, but when the likes of Notts.Forest can come up and bid £2.5m for one Prem player you have to be worried......    Report

18/05/2008, 7:12 PM lappinitup Joined on 30/01/2007 Norwich Posts 1,330 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group. Cor blas bor thas bin hard gorn, bu thas gorta git batter.    Report

19/05/2008, 12:03 PM BigFish Joined on 26/08/2003 Posts 428 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  lappinitup wrote: Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group. Putting pressure on the board & CEO would require shareholder pressure. The majority of the shareholding would support the status quo so that is a bit of a non-starter. Customer (i.e. fans) can protest as much as they like but until someone comes up with a coherent Plan B it is all rather hopeless.    Report

19/05/2008, 1:32 PM lappinitup Joined on 30/01/2007 Norwich Posts 1,330 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing My point exactly BF, which makes me ask why Mr Carrow is repeatedly asking for pressure but failing to explain in more detail. Cor blas bor thas bin hard gorn, bu thas gorta git batter.    Report

19/05/2008, 4:46 PM Mr.Carrow Joined on 06/12/2003 Posts 1,529 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  lappinitup wrote: Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group. I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond. I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask?    Report

19/05/2008, 5:15 PM lappinitup Joined on 30/01/2007 Norwich Posts 1,330 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said..... ''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''  followed by your last post..... ''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don't really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''pressured into a change in approach'' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here. My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.   Cor blas bor thas bin hard gorn, bu thas gorta git batter.    Report

19/05/2008, 5:48 PM arrdee Joined on 16/11/2005 Posts 1,751 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  Mr.Carrow wrote:  lappinitup wrote: Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group. I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond. I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask? Now Mr Carrow , you are such a lovely old boy , and indeed one of the sweetest sugar coated barley twists ever and of course you have set yourself up as as the potentate of the Norwich City accounts which is all very laudable and splendid and I can understand your devotee's hanging on to your every utterance concerning the commerce of the club . The question I ask you is do you know anything about football at all ? arrdee. Carve their names with pride.Yankee,2,Fellas,P'boro,Mr Chops, yes Norfolkchance1 £350 for the academy.    Report

19/05/2008, 9:14 PM arrdee Joined on 16/11/2005 Posts 1,751 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  arrdee wrote:  Mr.Carrow wrote:  lappinitup wrote: Mr Carrow. I have noticed several times you have suggested putting pressure on the board but I am curious at how you think this should be done, and more importantly, if you are offering yourself as the leader of this pressure group. I answered your last post on this subject on another thread but the quote thing messed it up, so i think you might have missed it. Feel free to drag it up and respond. I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Lets face it, if the club wanted to check out supporters considered opinions would they check here or wotb toddlers association?  The answer to your last point is no.  Why do you ask? Now Mr Carrow , you are such a lovely old boy , and indeed one of the sweetest sugar coated barley twists ever and of course you have set yourself up as as the potentate of the Norwich City accounts which is all very laudable and splendid and I can understand your devotee's hanging on to your every utterance concerning the commerce of the club . The question I ask you is do you know anything about football at all ? arrdee. Well that appears to have killed this tread off . arrdee. Carve their names with pride.Yankee,2,Fellas,P'boro,Mr Chops, yes Norfolkchance1 £350 for the academy.    Report

19/05/2008, 11:48 PM Mr.Carrow Joined on 06/12/2003 Posts 1,529 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  lappinitup wrote: Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said..... ''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''  followed by your last post..... ''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don't really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''pressured into a change in approach'' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here. My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised.   If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue?    Report

20/05/2008, 9:47 AM BigFish Joined on 26/08/2003 Posts 428 Re: Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing  Mr.Carrow wrote:  lappinitup wrote: Thanks for your reply. On an earlier post on this thread you said..... ''i think they need to be pressured into a change in approach''  followed by your last post..... ''I am comfortable that posting on a board like this has an effect and the people i know around the club have told me as much.  Whilst I feel sure the club keep an eye on this site among others to guage fans opinions I don't really feel it would influence any decisions they make. So with respect, I think that statements like ''pressured into a change in approach'' are quite futile simply because voices of dissenting shareholders and fans in the ground are much louder than anything said on here. My last point was that I assumed your were calling for a pressure group of some sort and obviously it would need someone to organise it and that surely would be your next step if such a group materialised. If the majority of intelligent, thoughtful City supporters made it plain that a change in approach was required i am certain it would happen.  But really this just seems to be a pointless diversion away from the issues.  Do you want to see the approach of the last few years continue? This circles the real issue which is effectively that there is no alternative approach on the table. Until there is whether we are happy with the current approach or not is largely irrelevant. This is where we are and what we have to live with. And no, anyone who suggests the answer is throwing a lot of someone else's money at the club is not coming up with a alternative approach.    Report

Page 5 of 6 (79 items) « First ... < 2 3 4 5 6 >

pink'un » Have Your Say » Main Discussion... » Last 3 years - £19.3m transfer fees incoming - £8.6m transfer fees outgoing

(Quick links) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Have Your Say |- Announcement |- Main Discussion - Norwich City |-- Transfer Talk |- Other football |-- World Cup 2006 |-- Huckerby at San Jose |- King's Lynn and Local Leagues |- It's not just football! |- User Polls Football Community |- Looking for a club or player? |- Noticeboard |- Football Chants |- Team-mates