This season the club have taken a chance. They are using the mojority of the money coming into the club to clear the debt. this has meant a low (by PL standards) playing budget is available to CH. Is this a gamble? I dont think so. It is a win-win and what should have happened when we were promoted in 2005. We have a squad at Norwich who have a good chance of staying up. Succeed in that and we will reap the benefits of being debt free next season. The playing budget will be bigger and the club can push on. If the worst were to happen and we were to go down this year, is that the end for us? Of course not. we would enter a championship season with no need to sell our best players unless it suits us. With parachute payments that are now a massive advantage in that league and a real pulling power to attract players to our club and challenge for an immediate return. So no, no gamble there. If our great club does need to take one step backwards to take 2 forwards then so be it. And that is the worst case scenario. Personally, I think we will survive this year and really push on next.
Why do you assume the club had any choice in this? Are you privy to the details of the agreement between the club and its major external creditors? If not, does it really help to fuel the absurd criticism that the board are not showing enough "ambition"? If the fact is that the external debt HAS to be paid off this year, there has been no "gamble", just a facing of the facts, and no need to argue that it isn't a gamble.
Why not? I think that was an excellent summation of why we weren't too involved in the hysteria of clubs who were in admin not too long ago but now going out and lashing out small fortunes. Some of these clubs cannot be serious. They didn't have two halfpennies to rub together before big foreign egomaniacs came along. We are doing it our way which is financially risk free. 8 signings is ambitious but not suicidal.
I think we've done everything we could signing wise, we've got some good players, we are still under-estimated(which is a big deal, the "Swansea-Effect") I just don't like talking about moving anywhere other than the premier league as I believe we've got enough to stay up. The QPR chairman or chief Exec or whatever last night tweeted something along the lines of "Where all in, we're **** or bust" I think he actually used the term "**** or bust" Now if David McNally signed a 10 million striker last night and then tweeted "we're **** or bust people" just imagine how you'd feel lol I'd be terrified, and furious. As it turns out we're a team in the same mould as last year but with a bit more quality. We'll be okay.
I assumed the club have chosen to wipe the debt as quickly as reasonably possible following promotion to the prem. There is no way we would have been paying of the debt by the end of this season if we had stayed in the champ.
As I remember it, we promised to pay off the remainder of the debt at the end of our second year in the Premiership! That was part of the Seven Year Plan!
Spot on Dave. The 7 year plan which some people conveniently forget about when it suits especially when reference is made to to the plan allowing for a temporary return to the Championship or requiring prudence in the transfer market to pay off the debt. I also think that some people forget how well we have done in relation to that plan.
I think you are right. We will be OK. I think we have maybe our best midfield squad ever and the signing of Kane calmed my nerves about the striking department. We have one of the best keepers in the league. And haven't **** or bust. And we have a good manager and backroom staff don't forget. I've seen the future and its yellow. That's probably put the jinx on this afternoon.
Well, as Dave has pointed out, you assumed wrongly, hence my complaint. Far too much jumping to conclusions on here; you can't have good sensible debate if it is ill-informed. Not griping at you in particular Kenny, just a general one.
it was indeed, and imo the correct way to go. But it was still a choice made by the club. As far as I am aware there was nothing in the terms of the borrowing to say we HAD to pay it off by May 2013. In fact, come May 2013 we will be 3 years ahead of the 7 year plan regadless of what happens. AND on top of that we are not going to get relegated
I dont think I did assume wrongly. It was the clubs decision to pay off the debt at the end of the second prem season. In fact, that second prem season has come 3 or 4 years ahead of the original plan. There was nothing concrete stating that the debts must be paid off by May 2013. Dont get me wrong, as per my OP, this is the correct thing to do imo, was just exploring the fact that there was another way the club could have gone and whether the correct path was taken. I believe it was as (again per my OP) I dont see this as a gamble. I was interested as to whether there were alternate views to mine and if so, were they based on facts or ideas I hadn't thought of.
Kenny, I ask you again. Are you privy to the details of the undertakings given by the club to their major external creditors when the debt was restructured? Have you inside knowledge of that? Are you telling us definitively that the club did have the option to further delay paying off the external creditors beyond a second season in the top division? Do you actually KNOW that? I accept there was no commitment to pay off the debt by the end of the 2013 season. The question is whether there was an undertaking to pay off the debt after a second season in the top flight. Is there any club statement in the public domain which explicitly states that to do so was a "choice" made by the board?
come off it, do you seriously believe anyone would lend money on the basis that it be paid back when an event occurs which might not have actually happened at all? I am not privvy to the actual loan agreements. Basically the club came up with a 7 year plan to rid themselves of debt and to bring PL football to Norwich. we are entering our fourth year of that plan and so a couple or 3 years ahead of schedule. The creditors are being paid at least 2 if not 3 years ahead of when they expected and thus losing out on interest (where aplicable). I feel quite certain that had the club wished, they would have been able to have delayed paying off some of the debt at the end of this season and therefore freed up some extra funds for the playing budget. I will say again that I do not think this would have been the correct thing to have done, but wanted to explore that possiblity with others of differing opinion. Is that not what this forum is for?
Of course not, and I didn't suggest it. The debt was rescheduled to be cleared by 2020. However, that does not preclude agreement to repay certain creditors earlier in the event that certain conditions are met. I'm asking you whether you actually know that there was no such condition related to achieving a second season in the top flight?
No I dont, but I think it unlikely and even if there was, the course of events that have occured could not have been predicted and I am sure the creditors would have welcomed re-negotiation of this clause should the club have wished. Lets face it, our success has cost them money in lost interest. Therefore, my original question stands. Had the board wished, they could have freed up more money. The question is about whether they should have. I believe no, but I am interested in whether some think yes and if so why.
ok, this is what i know, and this is definitely true. when the banks bailed us out in 2009, the club made an agreement with the lenders that ALL external debt will be paid to them in full on completion of our second season in the premier league. this was ambitious because we were in league one but this, as stated, was part of the 7-year plan which was drafted in order to appease the banks. i do not know if this agreement was merely a verbal agreement or written, but it was made. had we not been promoted until 2030 and then spent two years, that is when it would have kicked in. due to our extraordinary rise through the leagues, we have now assured ourselves of a second season of premier league football. last year, the club paid off around £4m of the £12m external debt. i am assured, although i've never seen it for obvious reasons, that the interest on these loans were at a minimum and extremely generous to our club, so hopefully this will mean we have around £8m to pay off this term. the club have stuck to their agreement for blatant reasons: we need a new stand. we will need the banks to look upon us as a club which sticks to their word in order to give us the flexibility we shall need in the future. the 7-year plan is still applicable to us and the banks because we haven't got to where we want to be just yet, which involves us becoming a self-sufficient club - this means we need a bigger capacity so the banks will play a major part in the funding of that project. the creditors ARE being paid earlier than expected BUT they ARE being paid on deadline for what the club stated as part of the bailout package. it could not have been delayed - it would risk future spending, even if it is at the expense of spending today. i'm not sure what the argument is here - we all want the club to be debt free - this is what we are getting. we all want the club to be able to compete in the transfer market - the club have managed this (maybe not to the extent that some wanted, but thats due to unrealistic expectations).
we all are kenny! our board have done an astonishing job to get us to this stage and keep us competitive on the pitch.
This debt has been like a cancer to our club for too long and this time next year it will be all but gone. Amen to that. I suppose though that as you say, if we want a new stand then there will have to be some further bank financing to achieve it. I firmly believe it will be done in a way that has minimal impact on the future finances of the club. The current board must not (and I believe will not) repeat the failures of previous regimes.
