Ricardo's report The AGM 2015

[cornish sam 948]

Did we not try to crack the far east market when Proton took us over to Malaysia? I can remember a friend was on his honeymoon there at the time so I have a picture somewhere of a Darren Huckerby standee outside a random bar in KL.

[westcoastcanary 173]

The mistake people are making is thinking that the primary reason these wealthy guys (excluding some of the US owners who are in the business of running sports franchises) buy these clubs is to make money from the club itself. If you were to look only at the balance sheet of their investment in the football club, most would be in the red and seriously so. Which indicates that their real motives for the purchase lie elsewhere, outside of football. That''s my point.

[westcoastcanary 173]

Following up on that, you can think of such purchases as similar to a company entering into a sponsorship deal with a club or league. Why did Barclays sponsor the EPL, why is Arsenal''s stadium called the Emirates, etc. etc. ? The deal costs the company money, but it more than recoups the cost indirectly via it''s non-football business.

[westcoastcanary 173]

And, applying that to our own club, the question to ask is what does NCFC offer to a global company/wealthy internationally-orientated investor looking to grow the business via "sponsoring" a football club?

Or put another way, why is it that OUR sponsors are almost always local businesses?

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

I think the reality is there are umpteen different rich investors each with their own motives for buying a club, and people are trying to shoehorn this into a single one-size-fits-all explanation.  It''s just too simplistic.

 

Thinking more about it, I think there are a bunch of different motives which will apply to varying degrees in each case (and in some cases not at all), the ones that strike me are :

• vanity/ conspicuous consumption - that line "think I''ll buy me a football team" is from a Pink Floyd song in the 1970s (I remember when time Elton John bought Watford), so this is nothing new.  My guess is that this is Abramovich''s primary motivation.  And why not when you have so much money you can''t spend it ?
• Genuine care for the club, eg Jack Walker (and Delia).
• Hoping to make money out of the club.  American owners e.g. Man U/Liverpool, are particularly prone to this because US sports are a licence to print money for owners.
• Hoping to make money in some nebulous wider way from owning the club.  I suspect they''d be better off just paying for advertising - you don''t need to own a club to get your name on the shirt, if you are simply the sponsor, you get associated with the brand for a few years, then you move on and spend the advertising budget somewhere else (Aviva) and this is more rational for most big businesses.  We''ve all heard of the Emirates because they paid for naming rights for the stadium and most of us could name the main sponsors of Prem clubs.  How many of the businesses that are behind the owners of Prem clubs can you name without looking them up (except for ones like the Etihad where they''ve put the name to the stadium - which might appear to be simple advertising but actually it was a way for the owners to get money into the club without being caught by FFP).  The guy who owns Cardiff for example - no idea what his business is.  Maybe the advertising works for him in the Far East, but if so it seems to me it''s the exception.
• Hoping to build up the club and sell it on.  Which is probably the main way to make money realistically from buying a Champ club, if you can pull it off (just check the current league position for Notts Forest to see how hard it is).  But of course, it depends on some other sucker being willing to pay more when you''ve got promotion or whatever.
• Other reasons ?  Why the owners of Man City are pouring untold amounts into the club and that area of Manchester is a mystery to me.

 

I think the first two motives are actually more rational, because they get what they pay for.  Making money out of the club itself is a mugs game (possible exception for Man U - time will tell) and it''s amazing how many wealthy men have been suckered into it.  Making money for other activities on the back of owning the club - like I say, I''m dubious, maybe it works for some owners, but I suspect they''d be better off simply paying for advertising.

 

So throwing this all together, the model of a rich foreign investor bankrolling a club is one I''m very dubious about.  And while Norwich has some disadvantages compared to some clubs as a target for such an investor, I can''t see why it would be less attractive than say Hull or Blackburn etc, if it was up for sale.

[Jacko 0]

I''m not a businessman, I don''t pretend to understand marketing and the stuff that goes with it. So this is all a bit over my head.

However, applying that logic and criteria - what attracts a Thai Consortium to buy Leicester City over Norwich City. Seemingly, Leicester is a similar sized city to Norwich, with a similar sized football club and a very similar history.

What do they offer ''to a global company/wealthy internationally-orientated investor looking to grow the business via "sponsoring" a football club'' that Norwich City don''t.

Not a critique. I am genuinely intrigued to know what the difference is and why Leicester and not Norwich?

[vos 155]

Replying to Tilly/Nutty on 26/11. I was not 100% sure re timing of building stands and in fact still cannot see anything in black and white. But with chasey in charge from 1985/1996 I assumed he would have been involved in at least one of them, which he was. Quite happy to take your word for it.

Actually my error makes no difference to my argument as South, Watling and Chase carried out very significant ground improvements in difficult financial times. BUT my point is that with all the hype about Sky money this season it is projected that the Club will retain very little and I suspect Colney work will be delayed. What is it - 5 years - that DM has listened to criticism re catering and toilets, yet still nothing has been done. So Sky have more or less total control of English football and their business model obviously suits them very nicely. OK fairly clear that I am an unhappy Sky subscriber !!!

Purple 26/11 I never swallowed the £120 m windfall stuff. It was pure Media Hype. Yes this figure will probably be this year''s turnover but the bottom line is to make a profit, move forward and prosper. This aint going to happen because it mostly goes to Sky and crazy players salaries etc. It is completely relevant for me to base my comments on this season''s projections because I am trying to prove that the Premiership is not the promised land. Your comments tend to support my argument. It does not help that our very capable manager has little alternative but to go in to defensive mood. I want to see some entertaining football. Hope it happens on Sunday and in our favour.

[Jacko 0]

Vost, On the contrary I would say the Premiership is still the place to be. It is far from perfect but at least we''re breaking even, looking fairly competitive and investing in some infrastructure.

We just about broke even last season in the Championship because of the parachute payments. If you continue to stay in the Championship then eventually that parachute money dries up.

You are then left with two options. You either cut your cloth accordingly and become largely uncompetitive (unless you pull a Lambert miracle out of the fire). Which has happened to a lot of clubs who have been relegated including ourselves. I don''t recall that being much fun.

Or you have to make big losses to be competitive as Middlesbrough and Derby are doing this season. Even Ipswich lose £8 million a year just for the privilege of treading water each season.

I don''t think some people have quite grasped just how important getting back last year was for those reasons.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="vos"]Replying to Tilly/Nutty on 26/11. I was not 100% sure re timing of building stands and in fact still cannot see anything in black and white. But with chasey in charge from 1985/1996 I assumed he would have been involved in at least one of them, which he was. Quite happy to take your word for it.

Actually my error makes no difference to my argument as South, Watling and Chase carried out very significant ground improvements in difficult financial times. BUT my point is that with all the hype about Sky money this season it is projected that the Club will retain very little and I suspect Colney work will be delayed. What is it - 5 years - that DM has listened to criticism re catering and toilets, yet still nothing has been done. So Sky have more or less total control of English football and their business model obviously suits them very nicely. OK fairly clear that I am an unhappy Sky subscriber !!!

Purple 26/11 I never swallowed the £120 m windfall stuff. It was pure Media Hype. Yes this figure will probably be this year''s turnover but the bottom line is to make a profit, move forward and prosper. This aint going to happen because it mostly goes to Sky and crazy players salaries etc. It is completely relevant for me to base my comments on this season''s projections because I am trying to prove that the Premiership is not the promised land. Your comments tend to support my argument. It does not help that our very capable manager has little alternative but to go in to defensive mood. I want to see some entertaining football. Hope it happens on Sunday and in our favour.[/quote]

 

VOS. Winning the Play Off Final guaranteed us £120m should the worst happen and we get relegated. I think it''s 60m TV money to be paid during this season. and then if we were relegated £24m next season, 19.2m the next season, then £9.6m the following two seasons. If you add that little lot up then it comes to the £120m we were guaranteed. Of course if we stay up we will be back at the start with another ''however many million'' the new deal is. I hope that makes sense and I hope Purple will correct me if I''m wrong.

[SwindonCanary 455]

I don''t feel we need a big invester, sure I''d like a bigger/better ground and training facilties but they will come.in time. I do like like that we have a couple of fans who own us, unlike those down the road.

[daly 500]

Perhaps we could get the Puppet Man to invest from his tax free and dole money now he''s left Yarmouth for sunnier climes.

PS I think one of his puppets resemble Mr Fry

[vos 155]

NUTTY I do not question your figures at all. The point I am doing my best to put over in straightforward terms is that this massive income does not result in any profit to the Club so there is little hope in the foreseeable future of any ground improvements etc. This season we are projected to lose £5 million pounds and finish up with an overdraft of £7.5 million pounds. The latter does not quite equate with the Chairman''s continual emphasis that we are now "debt free". I wish I could see some form of a ray of sunshine in the future, but I can''t and that''s why the Board cannot commit to any ground expansion etc or indeed better toilet facilities!!.

I am amazed that some posters suggest we will be financially better off if we get relegated. What''s the point of this ?? Just as a further matter of interest just looked up the 2005 accounts and in a 10 year period we have increased the capital from £14m to £18m - estimated to come back down to £13m this season - and spent virtually nothing on improving any facilities etc. I suppose you could argue why worry about the figures if we are playing great entertaining football. But the manager himself has to admit he is restricted because we will have to scrape points to stay up. Lets be perfectly honest and say footballers are grossly overpaid. Three points tomorrow will be a good starter.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Of course we do have the choice VOS. However choosing bricks and mortar would most likely result in relegation. But thats nothing new and was pretty much the case even before Sky.

But I do see a way. Should our academy produce 30m player we could remain competitive and have the stand. But even with the Kevin Reeves stand I believe we got relegated...

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

[quote user="Jacko"]I''m not a businessman, I don''t pretend to understand marketing and the stuff that goes with it. So this is all a bit over my head.

However, applying that logic and criteria - what attracts a Thai Consortium to buy Leicester City over Norwich City. Seemingly, Leicester is a similar sized city to Norwich, with a similar sized football club and a very similar history.

What do they offer ''to a global company/wealthy internationally-orientated investor looking to grow the business via "sponsoring" a football club'' that Norwich City don''t.

Not a critique. I am genuinely intrigued to know what the difference is and why Leicester and not Norwich?[/quote]

Football is a great way to launder Far Eastern money - all that cash floating about. I assume our owners don''t want to go down that route, thus we have no buyers.

[vos 155]

Nutty - This will be my last post on this thread otherwise you will begin to think I am Robert Chase in disguise. My final line is that as fast as the Sky money comes in it more or less disappears just as quick in to players salaries etc. It would be nice for the Club and the supporters to have just a little share of the pot. I suppose in theory we should see a lot more entertaining football - but that''s another story.

[westcoastcanary 173]

It''s Character Forming wrote: "How many of the businesses that are behind the owners of Prem clubs can you name without looking them up?"

With respect ICT, I think your rhetorical question misses the point. We are not the target audience and whether we do or don''t know who or what e.g. King Power is or does is of little concern to e the owners of Leicester City. In general it seems to me this debate is being conducted through very parochial spectacles, another example being vos''s talk of "Sky money". The reality is that broadcasting rights for the EPL worldwide are held by ca. 80 different media companies serving 212 different countries/territories. To put matters in perspective, the cumulative match day attendance at EPL matches for the 2014/15 season was just under 14m (a little under 38,000 per match}, equivalent to just 0.28% of the worldwide tv audience for EPL matches (4.7 billion, one third of whom are in Asia). Naming Leicester City''s ground "The King Power Stadium", or wanting to rebrand Hull City as Hull Tigers has very little to do with you and me but everything to do with that vast Asian audience of over 1.5 billion people.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]It''s Character Forming wrote: "How many of the businesses that are behind the owners of Prem clubs can you name without looking them up?"

With respect ICT, I think your rhetorical question misses the point. We are not the target audience and whether we do or don''t know who or what e.g. King Power is or does is of little concern to e the owners of Leicester City. In general it seems to me this debate is being conducted through very parochial spectacles, another example being vos''s talk of "Sky money". The reality is that broadcasting rights for the EPL worldwide are held by ca. 80 different media companies serving 212 different countries/territories. To put matters in perspective, the cumulative match day attendance at EPL matches for the 2014/15 season was just under 14m (a little under 38,000 per match}, equivalent to just 0.28% of the worldwide tv audience for EPL matches (4.7 billion, one third of whom are in Asia). Naming Leicester City''s ground "The King Power Stadium", or wanting to rebrand Hull City as Hull Tigers has very little to do with you and me but everything to do with that vast Asian audience of over 1.5 billion people.[/quote]I''m sure that is true, but I wonder if it actually works as intended! I remember a few years ago we had a QPR fan here boasting about how being owned by Fernandes (and perhaps also the Mittals) meant they would sell a massive number of shirts and other merchandise in the Far East. Bethnal, who is an expert on Asian football, said it was nonsense. Unless you were Man Utd or Liverpool, or Barcelona or Real Madrid, it wouldn''t boost income by much at all.Perhaps there are less obvious benefits - synergies is, I think, the buzzword used by marketing people. But Asian football fans are hardly going to buy more steel from the Mittals just because they part-own QPR, or fly on FernandesAir unless his flights go where and when they want to travel at the cheapest price.The accounts for Hull for last season, when they were in the Premier League, show their income was £84m. I can''t find the specific figure for Commercial, but that overall £84m figure is a full £10m below our income for 2013-14, in the Premier League, so it doesn''t suggest Hull were boosted by massive Asian sales of merchandise. The season before, again in the PL, their commercal income was under £5m, which is half ours in the PL and still £2.3m less than we raked in last season in the Championship, without any Asian help.

[Grant Holts Moustache 105]

Interesting and a thought provoking thread. I have always wondered what the reasons are for investment in a football club for those who are not supporters. Beyond the Glazers taking over United to leach money there has never seemed to be the incentive to do so for all of these supposedly hard nosed business folk other than vanity and Kudos.

I like the theory that it is to benefit their other business interests as this would at least make some sense. However as someone mentioned sponsorship seems a far more cost effective way of doing so. The only model that is really out in the open of this working is Red Bull who have started sports and purchased teams with the aim of building their product. How ever what they have done is entirely gutted the traditions and souls of the teams to make them corporate entities first and teams second. Not something I would ever want at Norwich and would ultimately damage the product that British football is.

This for me just confirms my belief we have the right owners and model in place. Our owners actually use their name and brand to enhance the club''s commercial success and not the other way round. Delia could of easily used her name to enhance her own personal fortune and opened up her own commercial ventures across the country safe in the knowledge that brand Delia (very few people are so successful they are recognisable by just their first name) would make her fortune swell further. Instead she has used her brand and knowledge to make the football club money through catering. This is often overlooked when people talk about the finances her and Michael have put into the club. This is something that will be a lasting legacy too for ever helping us to remain competitive no matter what league we are in.

I do wonder as well as to the scope of developing this. Would be interested to hear if the club have plans to open up more restaurants across the county or in other places. This would be a great way of utilising brand Delia to increase revenue further still without as much pressure on staying in the premier league each season for TV money to maintain the club finances and give us a non football buffer so to speak.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@PurpleCanary

The perceived synergies are not necessarily the more obvious ones of directly stimulating sales in the owners'' primary businesses (or the club''s own commercial department for that matter). This is most obvious in the case of investment from the Gulf states, where you can see the involvement in football as part of a broader strategy of global outreach on the part of what are, in every aspect except oil revenue, tiny, politically and economically vulnerable countries. What we are seeing there is in effect sovereign fund investment, not just individual or company investment (most obviously in the Qatari purchase of PSG).

In other cases you can discern less direct but nevertheless real alignments (or attempted alignments) of company interests with those of governments or states. This is true in the case of Leicester City''s owners King Power (you might think you need look no further than the name). Here''s what the King Power web site has to say about its investment strategy in relation to Leicester City:

"One of Khun Vichai’s key ambitions is to develop Leicester City’s fan base internationally and particularly in Asia, while boosting Thailand’s global reputation and capabilities through the management of the Club. Through training with the Club’s soon-to-be-implemented local education and coaching programme, he hopes to put Thai footballers on the world map."

Aligning your commercial interests with government objectives is not unknown in this country either ..............

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]@PurpleCanary

The perceived synergies are not necessarily the more obvious ones of directly stimulating sales in the owners'' primary businesses (or the club''s own commercial department for that matter). This is most obvious in the case of investment from the Gulf states, where you can see the involvement in football as part of a broader strategy of global outreach on the part of what are, in every aspect except oil revenue, tiny, politically and economically vulnerable countries. What we are seeing there is in effect sovereign fund investment, not just individual or company investment (most obviously in the Qatari purchase of PSG).

In other cases you can discern less direct but nevertheless real alignments (or attempted alignments) of company interests with those of governments or states. This is true in the case of Leicester City''s owners King Power (you might think you need look no further than the name). Here''s what the King Power web site has to say about its investment strategy in relation to Leicester City:

"One of Khun Vichai’s key ambitions is to develop Leicester City’s fan base internationally and particularly in Asia, while boosting Thailand’s global reputation and capabilities through the management of the Club. Through training with the Club’s soon-to-be-implemented local education and coaching programme, he hopes to put Thai footballers on the world map."

Aligning your commercial interests with government objectives is not unknown in this country either ..............[/quote]Westcoast, the aims of countries investing in football may well be different from those of companies, and much less easy to pin down. Which may in practice translate as being so ephemeral as not to be of any practical use! You were wise to talk about "attempted alignments". And as for companies, such as King Power, that splendid piece of PR guff is reminiscent of what QPR was saying about its hopes for its Asian investment. For the few clubs that are a world brand I can see the benefits, but I remain dubious about clubs below that level, and the companies or countries investing in them, gaining much.

[westcoastcanary 173]

Re. the ME investors, all I''m saying is that, instead of asking "What does Sheikh Mansour hope to get out of his huge investment in Man City and his MLS franchise?" or "What do the companies in his Abu Dhabi United Group hope to get out of it?" you need to ask what Abu Dhabi itself is trying to do of which this involvement in football (and other sports) is part.

Re. King Power, a strategy of ingratiating yourself with government by aligning yourself with the latter''s publicly declared social and/or economic objectives (in this case the development of Thai football in line with what is happening in China and has already borne fruit in Japan and Korea) surely makes perfect sense. We simply aren''t aware of the value of this to King Power when it comes to such things as the award of contracts or licences or e.g. a monopoly on duty free shopping in Thai airports.

[cornish sam 948]

It''s also worth noting that King Power also sponsored Leicester for a few years before everyone''s second favourite serial club owner, Milan Mandric, sold them the club so they had built up a relationship with the club and the community.

But to bring the focus back on us for a moment, the fact that all of these wealthy investors seem to have ulterior motives (even if they are a bit opaque to us) is exactly why a similar size club such as Leicester (or Notts Forest, Derby, etc) are being chosen over Norwich. We have owners who have stated they only want to sell to people who have the best interests of the club at heart, which I am sure is true of the majority of fans as well.

[cornish sam 948]

Oh, and just as an aside, a corollary to this debate was happening in Carlisle recently where they were close to selling the club to a consortium of local business men when the board and current owners suddenly rejected the offer and closed off negotiations citing an approach from an unnamed, foreign billionaire. This lead to much debate about whether or not it was worth continuing to run on the brink and potentially become a play thing of some rich person who had no previous interest in the club and area or go with a far more modest (but allegedly sustainable) model proposed by local fans of the club. The fans were mainly critical of the current board.

Since then the local business offer appears to have been not as good as was being stated (by the consortium leader), the billionaire has made little visible progress (and the fans are equating it to an incident years ago when a waiter from a curry house in Glasgow tried to buy the club claiming to be a millionaire) and the board have recently talked about an investment (not sale) proposal involving local businesses.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="cornish sam"]It''s also worth noting that King Power also sponsored Leicester for a few years before everyone''s second favourite serial club owner, Milan Mandric, sold them the club so they had built up a relationship with the club and the community.

But to bring the focus back on us for a moment, the fact that all of these wealthy investors seem to have ulterior motives (even if they are a bit opaque to us) is exactly why a similar size club such as Leicester (or Notts Forest, Derby, etc) are being chosen over Norwich. We have owners who have stated they only want to sell to people who have the best interests of the club at heart, which I am sure is true of the majority of fans as well.[/quote]

You say "similar size" Sam, but I suggest that ignores significant differences, not only in terms of size. Re. size for example, while our board envisage increasing ground capacity by 3000 to 30,000, that is still 2500 below Leicester''s current capacity and 12,500 below what the Leicester board are on record as envisaging in future. Another factor distinguishing those East Midland clubs from us is, for example, the very different ethnic mix of the respective populations. If NCFC was seen as a good investment opportunity for the sort of reasons which actually weigh with potential overseas investors, I doubt if the attitude of our current major shareholders would not deter them from mounting a bid. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

Oops! Last bit should of course read "would deter them". Re. the capacity of the King Power, I''m going from memory and it may be 32000 rather than 32500, with an envisaged expansion to 42000, but the point remains valid.

[cornish sam 948]

I will stand by my statement of similar sized, Leicester as a city is about the same size as Norwich, and historically the two teams have trodden relatively similar paths, the fact Leicester currently play in a larger stadium is a bit misleading (split your difference and you''re Bob on the capacity, the 40k+ was touted when they built it). The first bit of this sounds familiar.... 20 years ago Leicester played at filbert St, an old fashioned ground with a couple of good stands and a couple of decrepit ones and a capacity of ~22k. They got promoted and looked comfortable and were selling out every match, the board decided they needed to redevelop filbert St or build a new stadium.

.. 5 years later they built the walkers crisp bowl costing them ~£35m they get relegated and go into administration. They got rescued by aa jug eared consortium of fans who then sold them to Milan who then sold them to king power. Only recently have they actually been reliably filling what had seemed a bit of an albatross so you could say that Leicester are one possible future for us should we take the gamble of ground expansion, but it was a painful route for them.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="cornish sam"]I will stand by my statement of similar sized, Leicester as a city is about the same size as Norwich, and historically the two teams have trodden relatively similar paths, the fact Leicester currently play in a larger stadium is a bit misleading (split your difference and you''re Bob on the capacity, the 40k+ was touted when they built it). The first bit of this sounds familiar.... 20 years ago Leicester played at filbert St, an old fashioned ground with a couple of good stands and a couple of decrepit ones and a capacity of ~22k. They got promoted and looked comfortable and were selling out every match, the board decided they needed to redevelop filbert St or build a new stadium.

.. 5 years later they built the walkers crisp bowl costing them ~£35m they get relegated and go into administration. They got rescued by aa jug eared consortium of fans who then sold them to Milan who then sold them to king power. Only recently have they actually been reliably filling what had seemed a bit of an albatross so you could say that Leicester are one possible future for us should we take the gamble of ground expansion, but it was a painful route for them.[/quote]

Not disputing what you say Sam, just questioning the logic that starts with "similar size" and then concludes with "equally attractive to rich overseas investors" (usually followed by "the only thing stopping a bevy of wealthy Sheikhs, Far East tycoons and Russian oligarchs mounting a take over is our current owners'' refusal to countenance any such approach).

[cornish sam 948]

I disagree Westy, I think that the main thing standing in the way IS our current owners (I am not saying this is a bad thing though). The wealthy owners with ulterior motives were generally sought out. Look at the owners before, Leicester - Mandric, Fulham - Al Fayed (or Mittal), Forest - Administration, QPR - Ecclestone, Cardiff - Sam Haman, Binners - Administration. I''ve left off the American owners who think buying into the PL is a sound investment so go searching and Blackburn who were a family trust just trying to get rid of the thing to anyone stupid enough to buy it, but the others are all either people trying to get a return on their investment, clubs in administration or dodgy people, but non of them are people who genuinely had the best interests of the club at heart.

[westcoastcanary 173]

Again, quite true that buyers were being actively sought for those clubs, but it still doesn''t follow that only the strongly-held views of our owner-fans is keeping the Eastern hordes from battering down the gates of Carrow Road.  [:)]

The debate we ought to be having though IMO is the future orientated one of what actually is "in the best interests of the club" going forward. I think we are in cloud-cuckoo land if we think that anything like the current ownership model can be maintained indefinitely.

[cornish sam 948]

I think the point I was trying to make was that the Eastern hordes aren''t battering down any gates and they''re more like Vampires than Mongol raiders in that they have to be invited in first.

You are right though that the debate should be about the future rather than the present. We can probably muddle along alright whilst we do have the Stowmarket Two, but lose one and we''ll most likely lose the other and that will happen sooner rather than later. A question that needs to be asked alongside the what is in the best interests of the club is "Do we, as fans, actually want what''s in the best interest of the club or do we want what is in the best interests of the fans and the local area?" The two are not necessarily the same thing... My personal opinion is that the ideal scenario would be the club moving to a mutual ownership model similar to German clubs (or Swansea to a lesser extent) where the fans own a majority stake in it, but that won''t give us the necessary wherewithal to compete with the benefactor owned clubs in the current system so it could be argued is not in the best interests of the club.