Badger

Yet again leaving aside the obvious exaggeration ("discriminatory hellhole" are of course, your words), let's take the main issues they raise - do you think that the UK has no questions to answer on racism and LGBT issues? The UK clearly has contravened the human rights of others at times - this is not a party political issue - Blair had a very shady record. Surely the fact that Amnesty International raises it for western countries as well as others is evidence of its impartiality rather than the opposite as you suggest?

Your insult is because you will never back up what you say and end up deny saying it. It is not "nitpicking" if you say in the first place that owners give loads of money, but then secondly that they don't give money. I am merely pointing out that what you are saying is all over the place and lacks coherence. You have now provided a third separate argument - again without any evidence to back up your assertion. If I were to provide evidence that you were incorrect, you would no doubt call it pedantic. 🤦‍♂️

Don't put words into your mouth? So who was it that said the following? I know the umpteen billions was deliberate exaggeration, but what did you mean the following if it's not what giving it away? "it’s the fact that they’re willing to throw their umpteen billions at a football club that is the basic point."

And they all chip in for the use of the training ground 😀

I don't know the answer for certain but would hazard a guess that he percentage of non white managers in the Football League/ EPL is lower than the percentage of non white players. If I am correct, is there another explanation that you would like to suggest other than discrimination?

Of course investment can be beneficial to both sides by the inappropriately named Naturalcynic (along with many others) are constantly saying that they give the money - it is a naïve myth that needs correcting if we are to ever have a sensible debate on the question. Once it is accepted that investor owners (not the mega rich billionaires who have other reasons - political/ hobby etc) are in the game to make a profit, we can then have a sensible discussion about the pros and cons of this - the potential advantages and pitfalls of having an investor owner - but we never get that far because there are still loads of people who think that investors come in and give away their money. The truth is that in most (not all) cases they take pretty stringent measures to ensure that they don't lose out - it's why you often see grounds sold to their owners (through a holding company) or loans taken out against the football club - not using the owners money.

Umpteen billions - leaving aside the obviously deliberate exaggeration - it just isn't accurate that they throw their money at the club. Try telling this to a Southampton fan for example, or Newcastle under Ashley. Other fans like Man Utd, West Ham etc will point to how the owners have taken money out of the club, not put it in. Others still may have spent more on players but not through the largesse of owners but through borrowing at high rates of interest e.g. Southampton £75 million at 9.25% and £75 million loan by Wolves from the "Vampire Kangaroo" Macquarie Group. They don't just give the money, they are invested to make a profit - their aim is to take money - that's what investors do. For someone who proclaims himself to be a "natural cynic," you are amazingly naïve!

This is total nonsense. Whilst many football clubs in the Premier League have billionaire owners, few of them are beneficent and as many others are egregious!

Agree - we really should expand the ground.

I agree with much of this and share your pride in the City. I certainly want us to be successful in the top flight and don't think that we are far off if we maintain the current sensible approach of building steadily rather than "going for it" and spending years having to rebuild. With regards ownership, obviously a multi-billionaire would be handy and I wouldn't turn one down if s/he tried to buy my shares, but I am acutely aware that there are many more bad owners than good ones. The current owners are not perfect and have made mistakes, but are well-intentioned and genuine. I would very much prefer this type of owner to the ones that come in simply to make a profit. I wouldn't rule out a mega rich individual buying the club but nor would I hold my breath. The relative geographic isolation, which is actually one of the City's strengths (hence the regional cultural centre etc) will put of many potential owners and the fact that we solvent means that we would not be cheap to buy.

I'd take the Leicester/ Brighton/ Bournemouth owners if we had a choice. I'd also be attracted to several of the multi-billionaires, as long as there weren't really big ethical issues in their backgrounds. Some of the ones that I'd be very wary of are the investor owners (e.g. Glazers + Henry) who have shown they don't give a fig about the club or its supporters ("legacy fans") and would do anything to maximise their profits.

This is the average position since the start of the premier league. Newcastle are 7th, we are 20th. I think that they may be considered a bigger team than us by criterion as a measure. Similarly, their attendances are nearly double ours. Historically, Newcastle have won the title 4 times compared to our 0 and the FA cup 6 times to our 0. I think that it is rather a skewed view to say that they are only a "slightly" bigger club than us. They are of a size whereby they should never be outside the premier league if they were properly managed (and indeed rarely have been). At £305 million, I think that the new owners have obtained something of a bargain. Our market value would be closer to £200 million than £100 million if you compare to the sale price of other clubs and their relative assets. I don't know why you feel downtrodden - is it psychological? https://www.givemesport.com/1629431-man-united-arsenal-liverpool-who-finishes-top-of-the-alltime-premier-league-table

Gino on his own, I believe.

Thanks sgncfc. I found the wording of the refinancing a bit confusing - am I correct that the loan seems to be with XXIII capital now, having previously been with Hornets Investments Limited. I have read it both ways and am not clear what they mean. It says, that XXIII are "the senior creditor and have no connection to the group." (p33) It also says that XXIII have a "fixed and floating charge secured against all assets and undertakings of the company" (which is exactly the same wording as for Hornets Investments Limited) (p34). So I'm not clear about the big loan - in essence, it occured to me that they might be refinancing using other money, which gives them potential to add their own on top? Barclays have first legal charge over the freehold at Vicarage Road.

I shall buy one of course but expect all the usual crowd to complain about "virtue signalling."

https://www.watfordfc.com/storage/40495/2020-Financial-Report.pdf As a matter of interest, how do you interpret the change in loans om page 33 - I wasn't quite sure.

You are almost certainly correct. Watford are heavily indebted and the Pozzos are not rich enough to ride it out. (Their owner's net worth was valued at £93 million.) According to Swiss Ramble. at the end of 2020 their net debt was £93 million but they are also had a net transfer debt of £64 million (they were owed £15 million on transfers, but owed £79 million). I can only imagine a year in the Championship and Covid will have made this worse. Interestingly, they value their total assets at £242 million (with the ground + training ground etc at over £million). I don't recall anything similar in the NCFC accounts.

Obviously I would much rather be us. It is an interesting question though: the extent to which fans would put p with hoofball and/ or ultra defensive tactics to stay up. It is not just Burnley, the other great survivors, Crystal Palace have done so by being very defensive + very tightly organised. It wil be interesting to see how that develops under Vierra, who, perhaps mistakenly, I thought had been brought in to "up the football content." The other issue is that Burnley are likely to be in big trouble when they are relegated - and it will happen at some stage. The deal used their own cash (£40 million+) + heavy borrowing (believed to be at rates of around 9%) just to finance the purchase of the club. The old owners walked away with around £200 million though!

3 points off 17th (+ goal difference), not 5

Thank goodness that's the run of losses finally over!

Do you really not know why? Or are you just being silly.

... and the need for a billionaire investor😀

It's men of "a certain age" that are the most vociferous booers when the knee is taken, as far as I can see.

OK - but don't overdo it - we need his influence to get us a multi-billionaire!