Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Badger

  1. I don't know the specifics in this case - but normally it is another company owned by the club owner. This provides them with security as an asset against their loan.
  2.  Badger

    Derby in the doo doo.

    Which are the teams in the middle ground?
  3. You have not responded since. I am not trying to be pedantic - it is an important point. Nobody would be happier than I if we had a genuine billionaire fan prepared to invest hundreds of millions into the club - or alternatively a Sheikh (or even an oligarch) etc. However fans, naively imo, talk about "investors putting money into the club." Where are the examples of this? Where has it had a transformative effect? The "investor model" that fans claim they want is a busted flush; it doesn't work for the fans in the long-term, although the investors occasionally do ok (e.g. Sullivan and Gold @ Birmingham). If you don't agree with this, you should provide examples of where it has. I predict that there are far more examples of where it has failed. What fans want is what they have always wanted - someone to give the club money. When I was young, it was tens of thousands: today it requires hundreds of millions - it is why the "donor model," although attractive, is unlikely. This leaves us with building slowly and steadily as our best chance of regular Premier League football and the odd cup. If you disagree with my analysis, you really should be able to identify a number of examples where it has worked for clubs over the long term.
  4. I agree with most of what you say but developing youth requires more than 2 or 3 years. If we have this as an aim, we need to have a longer term perspective.
  5. So can I clarify - dos this mean that you don't want an investor either or simply that you accept that investors aim to take money out of the club?
  6. If the price were too low, we would be low hanging fruit for an asset stripper. I think that I could double my money if I managed to buy it with a spare £60 or 70 million (unfortunately my money is tied up atm).
  7. The Bournemouth story is far from finished BF. They are over £50 million in debt and get over 90% of their revenue from TV. Lets hope that their owner retains his interest in the club for their sake.
  8. There are the very rich fans - e.g. Bloom/ Gibson and to some extent the Bournemouth guy; there the mega rich Sheikhs and oligarchs, like Man City/ Chelsea and Leicester, name some of the successful investors who have successfully put more in than they have taken out. You say there are "plenty"...
  9. You stand little chance of getting a reply (of any sense anyway). 1. The consensus of many of the "investor advocates" on here is that the amount of money we need is "enough." Nothing specific 2. They caution us that the money has to be spent wisely, but without any explanation of how this objective is to be achieved and if it is so easy, why everybody doesn't spend it wisely? 3. They explain that it would lead to us becoming successful, like Leicester, carefully ignoring all the examples of other clubs that have tried, failed and have been left in the doldrums for years, even though there is an example less than 50 miles down the road. 4. They naively expect the "investor" to give us money - despite all the examples of investors lending it secured against the assets of the club. 5. They rarely acknowledge that the purpose of an investor is to take money out of the club, not put it in. 6. They naively ignore the fact that Norwich would be an asset strippers paradise, unless we were sold for well over £100 million. Blooms £200 million would be nowhere near enough in today's inflated transfer market. 7. But I can tolerate their what I perceive as their naivety and lack of understanding, and understand that they are passionate fans who want the best for the club. What really irritates me, though, is that those of us, who feel that we have some degree of financial acumen are said to be less ambitious or passionate about the future of Norwich City. I don't want an external investor because it is more likely to impede our progress than help - unless we get a Bloom or Gibson. Failing this or a Sheikh or other mega-rich donor, a long term policy of building incrementally rather than thinking short-term has to be the best way forwards. I think it was Jim Morison who said, "We want the world and we want it now." Well in Norwich's case, I want the world too, but recognise that we might have to be patient, rather than looking for easy quick-hit solutions that are more likely to fail than succeed.
  10. I would like us to be an established Premier League club; fiscally sound with long-term security. I want my children and grandchildren to have a similar level of expectation.
  11. Simply not the case - there are far more clubs that spend and fail rather than win things, Europe etc
  12.  Badger

    Delia simply never ever learns

    FTW - I have edited down just to save space. I certainly do not "support" Delia - I support NCFC. I happen to agree with the path that we have chosen recently, not because of sentimentality but for hard-headed financial and economic reasons and because it is the best way of securing the long term health of the club. The reason that we have been relatively successful for the last few years is because we have operated on a basis where we do not have an investor, but have had to be relatively self-sustaining. Other clubs of similar sizes (if not bigger - Leeds, Forest, Wednesday, to some extent Derby etc) have had prolonged absences from the premier league because they have had "ambitious investors who have tried to push the club to the next level." In doing so, they have racked up levels of debt that even billionaire investors wince at/ hit FFP rules and have failed to produce on the pitch, frequently ending up with bloated squads of older, over-paid and less ambitious "stars" as they have used the money to chase the dream: in doing so, they have damaged their clubs not helped them. If we could get an owner like Man City/ Chelsea/ Leicester etc I would love it: or even a fan like Brighton. What I do not want is an "investor:" they want to take money out of the club, not put it in. If the short-term gamble fails to work, there is years of restructuring whilst they try to get their money back. Our current model is imo, the best chance we have of attaining regular premier league football. There will, however, be periods of relegation as there are for everybody outside 7 or 8 clubs.
  13.  Badger

    Left wing ownership

    They join sides with the right wingers.
  14.  Badger

    Delia simply never ever learns

    But why do you think that there are suitors that are better? Why should somebody just want to give us money?
  15.  Badger

    Delia simply never ever learns

    1. I would be amazed if the club did not have some form of short-term loan for cash flow. I don't know why it matters who it comes from? As I understand your point, your alternative is for the club to find someone to lend them money, in the hope that they will be able to take money out in the long term. Please correct me if I am wrong.
  16.  Badger

    Delia simply never ever learns

    You can't claim a better alternative until you find one...
  17.  Badger

    Time to go Delia

    Nope 1. As Hogesar said, there is nothing that you can do about it if you wanted change. 2. It is unlikely that we would get anybody better if they did go. If you know of any multi-billionaires keen to gift us hundreds of billions, I might have a rethink!
  18.  Badger

    Not unlucky. Not clever.

    Sorry, but this is nonsense. Our turnover is far higher. It is one of the reasons why financial continence is a policy that is likely to succeed in the long term. Without the burden of debt, we are able to maximise our other advantages - good attendances a category one academy and a well-developed commercial + the very fact that we don't have to finance debt. there is a lack of financial literacy in some of the comments made on this thread and people seem to think that rich owners just "give" the clubs money. There are a few examples of this, but in most cases, investors invest to make a return in the long run - they want to take money out of the club not put it in. Birmingham's recently published account are yet another example, if needed, of the naivety of some of the posts here. despite a loss of 30 million, mainly on players (wages + amortisation) - 173% of total income, they failed to even make the playoffs. To meet the shortfall, the owners sold off 23 million pounds of Birmingham City physical assets to another company that the owners have. Clubs, like any other business, person (or even government) cannot infinitely sell off assets to meet income shortfalls.
  19.  Badger

    Poor loan signings again.

    Very good point! Part of the purpose of the squad is to provide challenge.
  20.  Badger

    Ricardo's report v Palace

    Thanks Ricardo - I can't recall a season where we have had so much bad luck, although the season where we were relegated after Gunn got injured stands out in my memory. I don't recall us playing as well with so few points though.
  21.  Badger

    Ricardo's report v Spurs

    Thanks Ricardo. I'm not sure about switching lucky scarf mid season. The old scarf is in serious luck debt - which the law of averages suggests should be repaid?
  22.  Badger

    Red card for VAR ?

    Cricket sorts it with "umpire's call." I thought that it was supposed to be this way with VAR - weren't we told "clear and obvious mistake?"
  23.  Badger

    Canary Call

    Possibly - but as you suggest, how do we know if we would have scored more? Oli McBurne cost 17.5 million rising to £20 million (twice what you specify) and has returned 3 goals from 16. It might work out for them in the long run, who knows, but most of Sheffield United's success has come with last year's players rather than because of the new purchases.