BigFish

Starting from you last point @sgncfc, if the owners got an offer they couldn't refuse, they wouldn't refuse it. Many on here have argued that we don't get offers because S&J are seen as unwilling to sell. I never subscribed to this, but unlike you I don't think that any sensible investor would consider NCFC as having massive potential. Football in its Elite form is about content creation for virtual consumption, and yes that is lucrative if you look at the aggregate numbers and likely to grow. But it is an all or nothing game with the number of clubs capped at 17 surviving EPL teams every year, 3 in the smaller Euro competitions and 4 Champions League. As we are finding the cost of admission even to get to a top 17 club is enormous and risk of sporting failure or just being outspent is likely ruin. One finish of 18th and investors are likely to lose their shirt. The investors who acquired Burnley are certainly not stupid, but neither are they investors. Like the Glazers at Man U they didn't use their own money, they used Burnley's and their own leverage in the financial markets. They took money out, rather than put it in. The old owners are happy because they got paid out, the new owners make money on the deal but the fans will be left with a club that once had cash in the bank that now is heavily in debt. If, as seems likely, they go down this year they could well be the next Derby. If an investor wanted an East Anglian EPL club I have long thought the best option is Cambridge United, or possibly even City. Globally renowned City, rich, growing, close to Stansted & London. OK, not much of a football tradition but as you point out the money is global now and you might get change from £10 million when buying control. £100 millions gets you a 40,000 seat ground that the Mayor would probably fund a train station and transport for and an academy. Another £100 million on the team gets you to the doors of the EPL. Much cheaper than buying NCFC and better foundations at the end of the journey as well. Even then though, one relegation and money is pretty much gone. And that is why it won't happen and NCFC won't get sold. P.S. Newcastle is different because the sight of 52,000 Geodies every other week is a marketing man's dream.

I don't think @Badger thinks you are, KC. But others continue to make the point that investors could make money by making NCFC an established EPL club. It is this argument that Badger takes issue with. Khan may well hang about at Fulham, or he may not, but the case remains he has sunk half a billion pounds into a club that currently yoyos between the EPL & the Chumps. @sgncfc made the argument that a similar benefactor could make NCFC an established EPL with £340 million. Evidence would seem to indicate that this would be an unlikely outcome, even if someone with that amount of loose change could be found.

What is interesting about this debate is the argument in favour of football as an investment is treated, like many Internet Unicorn companies, more like a giant Ponzi scheme. No one, as far as I can see, suggests that football clubs actually make a profit, instead it is argued that if a billionaire invests £xxxmillion they can take a club to what is described as the "next level". They can then make a modest profit by selling this on to another billionaire/consortium. Although it is unclear what the secondary investor gets for buying a football club at a premium. The first flaw in the argument is that the status of the "Next Level" is not what economists call elastic, it is fixed. At its largest extent the status of becoming an established EPL club is limited to only 17 clubs (being relegated by definiton removes the status). If 20 billionaires buy into the dream 3 will be disappointed and lose much of their £xxxmillion. It is an even more acute situation at the "Superclub" level, only 4 places in the Champions League means that there is always a club or two with aspirations who miss out and pay the financial cost that is "Superclub" expenses on EPL income. Secondly, football remains a competition and although increasingly unlikely there is the chance of unpredictable, statistical outliers like Leicester winning the title, taking a Champions League place and therefore edging out a Superclub for a season. Equally, a club like Huddersfield, Sheffield U, Watford, Brentford, Burnley, Bournemouth etc taking one of the precious 17 survival places for a season or two before reverting to that clubs mean performance. It is this that drives the European Super League dreams. Next season could see the spending arms race escalate further with the owners of Villa and Necastle looking to get to the "Next Level", Man United seeking to return, Arsenal in posession of a precious place and its revenue streams and new owners at Chelsea. If Fulham invest enough to stay up, at least one of this years 17 will miss out. Some billionaires/consortiums are going to lose out.

In the Summer the loans end on 2 Midfielders & 2 Defenders. Probably also time for Max to move on. Its also fair to say that we have also been pretty poor in these positions this year. Not really sure that another striker will be the priority, probably be a loan.

You are right @TIL 1010, I don't believe it. It all seems pretty much rumour and hearsay. You have come up with 5 who have left, and of course there may be more, and inferred from this that morale is low. That maybe true, but a churn of less than 2% would hardly seem to back that up.

It is more than that @Jim Smith, is anyone able to name or even number this supposed mass exodus?

Not really the same, Chelsea owe that money to Roman Abramovich. He was underwriting the club, pretty much as the Qataris are with Man City. The Glazers forced United to borrow on the money markets, often at high interest rates. The Glazers didn't use any of their own money to buy or support United, they only take money out.

United are nearly half a billion pounds in debt, not difficult to see where the Glazer's have made their money. Not through football, through financial engineering.

Like the idea of "donor owner" @Badger - it sums it up perfectly. Donor owners get intangible benefits from owning clubs, sports washing being the obvious or money laundering being another. Occasionly, like with Tony Bloom it is the self realisation of a long term fan.

We did, as it happens the evidence is that our "crown jewels" were pretty much over rated by the fans. Mirror image of what the despair of relegation does to perspective in that the current squad is probably underrated. Still not good enough for the Prem, mind.

Agree with this, don't be sensible. Posters have every right to repeat threads in the hope that this time there might be a different answer.

Sadly, this is very true

That role doesn't really need to be a ball winner in the modern game, at least not in the old fashioned sense of crunching tackles. It is all about positional discipline, filiing space, reducing overloads, getting on the ball and giving to players who make things happen. It is also surprisngly difficult.

True, in all contexts

Perhaps TVB could post up a poll and we all vote on who we want banned?

Wasn't the case that the last time the club had a rights issue, it was undersubscribed and but underwritten by S&J which is what moved their minority stake into a majority. What evidence is there that next time would be any different?

This goes a long way to explaining many of your posts, in that it is total nonsense. Sentence 1: You put value in single quotes which implies it is not what it means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as value has a variety of definitions and meanings. I guess you mean monetary value, at the moment that value is an asset of the shareholders and the suggestion you make with the adjective good is that the purchaser pays a monetary value in the transaction that gives them a unrealised financial gain & the seller a realised financial loss. Not an attractive offer and would probably by open to legal challenge from the other shareholders. Sentence 2: Any successful trade balances the desire of the purchaser and vendor. In this case the difference value is intangible. The shareholders have an emotional attachment to the club, when considering a decision to sell. Without another reason to sell, such as financial distress, that too has a monetary value. The purchaser is not paying a premium, the purchaser is paying the price at which a deal can be made. It is up to the purchaser to decide whether the club has the same intangible value to them as to the vendors.

And billionaires

It wasn't a reflection on those who are pro sell, it is a reflection on this message board. The idea that a majority here in an online poll, on a debate that crops up every few months with identical arguments and has done for the last twenty years indicates anything is foolish in the extreme.

Fixed it for you

To tell the truth I think that genuine premiership qualitity isn't a useful metric. There are levels of this, I would suggest along the lines of 1) Big 6/7 Starter 2) Big Six squad member 3) Starter at the next 6/7 clubs 4) Squad player at next 6/7 5) Starter at bottom 6. On that scale I would think at best Aarons is a 4, and we probably have half a dozen (take you own pick) at 5.

So what is it that you are going to do about it then? I was going to say sweet **** all, but that is a little unfair. You are going to start an online poll on a site read by about 100 largely mature, largely male posters. Yeah right, that'll will show the Stowmarket two.

That said I bet everyone can guess where this thread is going. You do you, (See I have learnt something, wasn't expecting that fropm the OP).

Well I never, you live and learn, thanks guys. Obviously not common down me way.