Ricardo's report The AGM 2015

[westcoastcanary 173]

@It''s Character Forming

I''m generally sceptical of the idea that the Abramoviches and club-owning Sheikhs of the football world are doing it for reasons of vanity and to show off their wealth. There may be the odd exception who fits that description, but for the most part these are hard-headed guys with ulterior motives mostly unconnected to football. If you were right, the prospects of finding a mega-rich buyer for NCFC would be much greater than they are. We''d offer great scope for an exhibition of wealth and vanity while being far less suited for brand-building and other forms of non-football pay-off.

[Donkey dangler 0]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]A good summary Ricardo. I agree that Neil was thoughtful and impressive in his responses.

A couple of further points on the financials: McN emphasised the staggered nature of the cash flows from the broadcasting income. His focus was on managing the cash position. At the end of this accounting period the projection was of a £7m overdraft, pointing to the return, presumably temporary, of the need for external debt. What we obviously couldn''t glean from the presentation was the timing of the cash outflows and the projected budget for the January window. Also, tonight marked the end of the CEO''s strategic wheel, which appears to have morphed into a football, but still retains the hallmarks of a classic text on strategy. I remain as unclear tonight as in previous presentations as to what the Norwic ''football DNA'' is meant to represent.[/quote]

Presumably that £7m overdraft would be needed to pay out the player (and other people) bonuses if we stay up.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@It''s Character Forming I''m generally sceptical of the idea that the Abramoviches and club-owning Sheikhs of the football world are doing it for reasons of vanity and to show off their wealth. There may be the odd exception who fits that description, but for the most part these are hard-headed guys with ulterior motives mostly unconnected to football. If you were right, the prospects of finding a mega-rich buyer for NCFC would be much greater than they are. We''d offer great scope for an exhibition of wealth and vanity while being far less suited for brand-building and other forms of non-football pay-off.[/quote]

 

But if you look around, it wouldn''t really be that hard to find a rich owner to take over City, just look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Notts Forest, Southampton, Fulham, QPR, Villa, just off the top of my head they all have wealthy owners even if they haven''t spent as much as the owners of Chelsea/Man City.  The trouble is that the club is then at the owner''s whim if he wants to change the name or the colour of the shirts, etc, which is why our owners haven''t sold up.  But it''s tricky to find a rich owner who could be trusted with City, which is the really hard part.

 

It does seem to me that plenty of hard-headed businessmen still end up getting taken to the cleaners when they get involved with football, e.g. the guy who owns QPR.

 

The theory of building up a Prem club brand to the point where it makes loads of money for the owner is just a theory, I''ve not seen anyone actually put it into practice yet and I am dubious if it would work anywhere except possibly at Man U.  Chelsea were a biggish team before Abramovich took over, his wealth pushed them up to the level where they are competing for the league title etc whereas beforehand they were more on a par with Spurs IMO.  If he stops putting money in, how long would Chelsea stay at the top level ?  In other words, has the money he''s put in led to any sustainable improvement for the club over the long term ?

 

It still seems to me the only way to make money out of owning a football club is to build it up, get it to a higher level, and then flog it to some other sucker.  It''s not like a normal business which is there to make money, so you can buy it and draw out the future profits.

 

I may be proved wrong, but at the moment that''s how I see it.

[cornish sam 942]

ICF - I won''t quote your post here but Southampton are technically owned by a trust which was left by the former owner (Marcus Liebbhur?) with something like £1bn, his daughter runs the trust but has not actually invested any of her own money, it is what was left by the estate of her late father who absolutely loved the club so I think they are in a pretty unique position finances wise.

As for the Stephen Fry discussion, whilst we as fans don''t see that much from him surely his greatest strength is going to be in working contacts and schmoozing people, be it players, agents or potential investors so his true worth will be under our radar and really come into its own should we obtain additional investment.

[......and Smith must score. 1,332]

[quote user="cornish sam"].......

As for the Stephen Fry discussion, whilst we as fans don''t see that much from him surely his greatest strength is going to be in working contacts and schmoozing people, be it players, agents or potential investors so his true worth will be under our radar and really come into its own should we obtain additional investment.[/quote]Can''t argue with any of that if it comes off but it wouldn''t do Stephen Fry''s PR any harm at all if he appeared in person a little more often than he does at present.

[Duncan Edwards 2,217]

If people are really desperate to see Stephen Fry, simply tap channel 111 into your Sky remote and you''ll find seemingly endless re-runs of QI on Dave every day.

I''m not really sure why folk are bothered whether he was at the AGM or not. Unless of course they were after a cheeky autograph and a selfie.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

Glad that you see no problem with having a director who does not attend games, AGM''s or board meetings yet we take the pee at Marcus Evans. Yes i agree it is my assumption that he does not attend Board meetings unless of course i am told otherwise.

[Duncan Edwards 2,217]

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn''t.

If he doesn''t, I reckon there''s a fair chance that they might incorporate some sort of technology into their meetings. Perhaps the ancient notion of "conference calling", perhaps they utilise videocalling or facetime - maybe they Skype him!! 

Anyway, I''m sure if there is  key "vote" he''ll be able to access all the relevant information whether he is in the room or not and offer his opinion - which apparently will be whatever Delia tells him it is anyway. [;)]

[TIL 1010 4,718]

Duncan Edwards the thinking mans Waveney. [:P]

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Don''t think he gets to many games, but did see him at Southampton. (and he did manage Wembley)....

[ricardo 7,339]

McNally and Bowkett say he makes a valuable contribution and gives us media exposure that money can''t buy.I''m happy to accept their judgement.

[westcoastcanary 173]

It''s Character Forming wrote: " ...... if you look around, it wouldn''t really be that hard to find a rich owner to take over City, just look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Notts Forest, Southampton, Fulham, QPR, Villa, just off the top of my head they all have wealthy owners even if they haven''t spent as much as the owners of Chelsea/Man City......."

Southampton aside (they are a somewhat special case, as has been pointed out), my point is that none of the owners of those clubs are in it for reasons of vanity or wealth flaunting. They all have ulterior, in the main commercial, motives, and their choice of clubs in which to invest is far from arbitrary, geared to factors such as location, population, ethnicity etc. etc. This is why IMO you can''t conclude that NCFC, while superficially comparable, must represent an equally attractive proposition for any similarly motivated investor.

[vos 155]

Purple yesterday. The point I was trying to make is that after all the hype of returning to the Premiership - including £120 m Wembley windfall etc - the facts are that this season we are projected to lose £5m and finish up with a £7.5 m overdraft. I can assure you that any normal business who doubled their turnover up to around £110 m then still lost a lot of money would not be very well regarded. Certainly in the case of a long established company. But, yes I know, its football !!!

It seems to me that everyone gets a big cut out of the game, except the Club. We will never have any spare money to develop/improve the ground, apart from a new sausage roll making machine!! Dare I say it, yes I will, most of the ground improvements were completed when Robert Chase was in charge. But I will listen to Ricardo - no more looking back.

[TIL 1010 4,718]

[quote user="vos"] Dare I say it, yes I will, most of the ground improvements were completed when Robert Chase was in charge.[/quote]That is just so wrong vos.City Stand paid for as a result of the fire by Norwich Union with insurance money.Barclay stand built with a Football League Trust grant.Jarrold stand built long after Chase had left.River End built before Chase became chairman or even on the Board for that matter.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I can''t go with that VOS. The Riverend was the late great Sir Arthur. The main stand pretty much was too But I''ll give big fat Bob the credit for the boardroom carpet and of course the Barclay. The Jarrold with all the wonderful facilities and the Community stand with all the great disabled facilities was down to ''the cook and her cohorts''...

[TIL 1010 4,718]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I can''t go with that VOS. The Riverend was the late great Sir Arthur. The main stand pretty much was too But I''ll give big fat Bob the credit for the boardroom carpet and of course the Barclay. The Jarrold with all the wonderful facilities and the Community stand with all the great disabled facilities was down to ''the cook and her cohorts''...[/quote]As i pointed out Nutty even The Barclay was built with a Football League Trust grant.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="vos"]Purple yesterday. The point I was trying to make is that after all the hype of returning to the Premiership - including £120 m Wembley windfall etc - the facts are that this season we are projected to lose £5m and finish up with a £7.5 m overdraft. I can assure you that any normal business who doubled their turnover up to around £110 m then still lost a lot of money would not be very well regarded. Certainly in the case of a long established company. But, yes I know, its football !!!

It seems to me that everyone gets a big cut out of the game, except the Club. We will never have any spare money to develop/improve the ground, apart from a new sausage roll making machine!! Dare I say it, yes I will, most of the ground improvements were completed when Robert Chase was in charge. But I will listen to Ricardo - no more looking back.[/quote]There was no £120m windfall, and to compare this season''s finances (and particularly your turnover/loss complaint) with last season''s makes no sense, because of the different divisons involved. This is why I have kept saying the season against which this one should be judged financially is 2013-14, when we were last in the Premier League. Understand that and the projections for this season do make reasonable sense.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]It''s Character Forming wrote: " ...... if you look around, it wouldn''t really be that hard to find a rich owner to take over City, just look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Notts Forest, Southampton, Fulham, QPR, Villa, just off the top of my head they all have wealthy owners even if they haven''t spent as much as the owners of Chelsea/Man City......." Southampton aside (they are a somewhat special case, as has been pointed out), my point is that none of the owners of those clubs are in it for reasons of vanity or wealth flaunting. They all have ulterior, in the main commercial, motives, and their choice of clubs in which to invest is far from arbitrary, geared to factors such as location, population, ethnicity etc. etc. This is why IMO you can''t conclude that NCFC, while superficially comparable, must represent an equally attractive proposition for any similarly motivated investor.[/quote]

 

I''m not really sure what your point is WCC to be honest.

 

If you look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull, Fulham - why would City be any less attractive to a rich investor?

 

As for these investors having "ulterior, in the main commercial, motives"... well, if you mean they hope to make a profit in some way, then fair enough. My point is that so far I am not aware of any owner of a top flight team in England who''s made money out of it, aside possibly from selling it on to someone else.  And rich investors have been buying into football for quite a long time now.  In most lines of business an incoming investor would be looking to make the money back in 3-5 years. 

 

So my view is that these rich investors either aren''t in it to make money (Chelsea, Man City, Soton...) or have an idea that they hope will make money but as yet there''s no sign of it materialising.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

If you look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull, Fulham - you have to wonder why any Norwich fan would want what they have at our club....

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If you look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull, Fulham - you have to wonder why any Norwich fan would want what they have at our club....[/quote]

None have clueless Frau bloody Delia Smith at the helm...I can happily live without that.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]If you look at clubs like Cardiff, Blackburn, Hull, Fulham - you have to wonder why any Norwich fan would want what they have at our club....[/quote]

 

That''s part of my point.  People often cherry-pick the examples that suit them, but there are plenty of rich owners who have been a nightmare for the clubs they have bought.

 

And even if you take the example of Southampton - ok if the previous owner put £1bn in trust for the club, that''s great for them, but they are still pretty much subject to the whims of his daughter and who knows how it will work out in the long term.  I remember Jack Walker had his Blackburn shares put in trust when he died, which didn''t stop the club being sold on and I''m pretty sure he''d have been horrified by that.

[Wiz 0]

Especially as their owners only knowledge is about food.......err......hang on.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

[quote user="Wiz"]Especially as their owners only knowledge is about food.......err......hang on.[/quote]There''s a headless chicken joke here that I just can''t quite muster.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Cherry picking is just what it is buddy. But the way I see it when the cherry pickers only have a few cherries to pick were doing just fine.

Wiz has made more posts on this thread than his beloved message board get in a week....

[Wiz 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Cherry picking is just what it is buddy. But the way I see it when the cherry pickers only have a few cherries to pick were doing just fine.

Wiz has made more posts on this thread than his beloved message board get in a week....[/quote]

Do I get a medal for that nutty?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I heard you''d been put forward for the Picksniffian Gold....

[Jacko 0]

Being the pessimist that I am, if we went down would we still post a £7 million loss for the year? Or would we actually break even given that presumably no bonus payments would be paid to the playing and coaching staff etc?

I am just a bit concerned about potentially entering the Championship with around £7 million of external debt again should the worst happen.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Jacko"]Being the pessimist that I am, if we went down would we still post a £7 million loss for the year? Or would we actually break even given that presumably no bonus payments would be paid to the playing and coaching staff etc?

I am just a bit concerned about potentially entering the Championship with around £7 million of external debt again should the worst happen.[/quote]We won''t go down.......

[cornish sam 942]

ICF - to address the potential ulterior motives:

Cardiff - Bought by a far eastern billionaire with aspirations of moving them up the leagues and leveraging that to increase his exposure on a worldwide scale (just look how he acted when they got promoted),

Blackburn - bought by Indian multi millionaires (or more?) as a cheap entry into the richest league in the world who they had probably been convinced were a bigger club than they are as they are one of only 5 teams to win the Premier League and also allegedly under the misapprehension that there was no relegation

Hull - Bought by a local business man to save them from bankruptcy, that local businessman just happens to have been born in Egypt but has lived in Hull for over 20 years

Fulham - Which wealthy owner do you want, Al Fahed who bought them as an ostentatious play thing as they were his local football team and p1ss cheap or the American who owns other sports teams and was buying an established London based premiership club

So, why would we be less desirable, well we''re not in London, have very little ''history'' and aren''t on the verge of bankruptcy, all we need is a mentalist like Tan and we''d be rocking!

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

[quote user="Its Character Forming"]

So my view is that these rich investors either aren''t in it to make money (Chelsea, Man City, Soton...) or have an idea that they hope will make money but as yet there''s no sign of it materialising.

[/quote]

 

I agree with what you''re saying Cornish - and it backs up my general view on rich investors buying football club.

 

Maybe the Far East angle could work - I don''t know enough about the benefit out there.  But I''d be dubious whether it''s really cost-effective.