Wolves sold for £45m

[Hairy Canary 667]

Morty said: I think he could do a lot better for himself, am surprised that he has stayed so long.

Agreed Morty. Much as it pains me to say it, he''s done a reasonable job there considering what he has to work with.

I really though he would go at the end of last season as they had taken a backward step and virtually no investment on the horizon. If it doesn''t happen this year I think he''ll be off.

Be interesting to see what happens when he does go.

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

If Norwich don''t go up this season, to financially compete, I think this club will need fresh investment

[Erik the Viking 0]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/west-brom-closing-150million-takeover-8434124

West Brom next, getting left behind with the Jones

[morty 0]

[quote user="Paris aint German"]If Norwich don''t go up this season, to financially compete, I think this club will need fresh investment[/quote]And regardless of any anti Delia bellendery, I don''t think anyone would disagree.We all know we would like investment, but the issue is the control of the club, not the money.

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

Hopefully "nephew Tom" the lifelong fan, can give them an update on how modern day football works. I can see the club getting left behind

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

I''m holding fire on this one being more or less in favour of the current cosy set-up whereby we have precious little Norwich City Football Club run by a national treasure whose home-spun approach is as comfortable as her home-spun cooking.

It is a simple, homely model that is becoming unique within the highly financed, Sky-high world of modern day football whereby the have nots are gradually falling by the wayside. Unique, but some might say obsolete.

As has been pointed out we will be competitive for the next couple of seasons because our recent Premier League participation has provided us with a transfer-rich squad and the parachute payments.

Should we fail, should we drift into mid-table Championship mediocrity or worse due to being inward looking and under-funded, I for one, would desire change ... and big time.

.

A club wrapped up in it''s self makes a very small club and we cannot really expect another "Messiah" after all.

Neither does it make much sense quoting examples of the experiences of others as a means to promote any side of this debate. Some situations work, like Manchester City, Chelsea, Leicester and now even Bournemouth it seems, some fail from Blackburn, through to Ipswich.

It''s called risk and nothing is proven either way, even though it is somewhat alarming to witness the number of nouveau riche clubs we may now encounter in what will be probably our most favourable two seasons for regaining our place at the top table.

Should the Norwich model start to fail again then it will surely and finally need discarding, some way or another. Necessity will be the mother of taking chances.

I don''t suppose many Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters are that unhappy this morning

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]I''m holding fire on this one being more or less in favour of the current cosy set-up whereby we have precious little Norwich City Football Club run by a national treasure whose home-spun approach is as comfortable as her home-spun cooking.

It is a simple, homely model that is becoming unique within the highly financed, Sky-high world of modern day football whereby the have nots are gradually falling by the wayside. Unique, but some might say obsolete.

As has been pointed out we will be competitive for the next couple of seasons because our recent Premier League participation has provided us with a transfer-rich squad and the parachute payments.

Should we fail, should we drift into mid-table Championship mediocrity or worse due to being inward looking and under-funded, I for one, would desire change ... and big time.

.

A club wrapped up in it''s self makes a very small club and we cannot really expect another "Messiah" after all.

Neither does it make much sense quoting examples of the experiences of others as a means to promote any side of this debate. Some situations work, like Manchester City, Chelsea, Leicester and now even Bournemouth it seems, some fail from Blackburn, through to Ipswich.

It''s called risk and nothing is proven either way, even though it is somewhat alarming to witness the number of nouveau riche clubs we may now encounter in what will be probably our most favourable two seasons for regaining our place at the top table.

Should the Norwich model start to fail again then it will surely and finally need discarding, some way or another. Necessity will be the mother of taking chances.

I don''t suppose many Wolverhampton Wanderers supporters are that unhappy this morning[/quote]Great bit of sneering about the club you support[Y]

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]are we an attractive proposition?[/quote]In the respect that we are very well run, no.A club who is desperate for money is a lot easier to take over.[/quote] It isn''t crucial whether a club is well-run or badly run, or even how much debt there is, or whether the current owners are resistant to take over; what matters is the potential to achieve the investors'' objectives. If you want a serious answer to the question of how attractive NCFC is to outside investors you need to look in depth at the take-overs that have occurred and ask how many of the factors which made those clubs attractive to those buyers actually apply in Norwich''s case. A lot of people on here seem just to assume we are ripe for plucking and it''s only the reluctance of the owners to sell that puts buyers off. There is no shortage of buyers out there, and there is no shortage of agencies constantly analysing the ''market'' ready with short lists of potential take-over targets. The conclusion I draw is that we come pretty low down on their scales of relative attractiveness. 

[DDD In The Fine City 1]

Vincent Tan is doing a great job at Cardiff, wouldn''t it be great if we played in blue

[morty 0]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]are we an attractive proposition?[/quote]In the respect that we are very well run, no.A club who is desperate for money is a lot easier to take over.[/quote] It isn''t crucial whether a club is well-run or badly run, or even how much debt there is, or whether the current owners are resistant to take over; what matters is the potential to achieve the investors'' objectives. If you want a serious answer to the question of how attractive NCFC is to outside investors you need to look in depth at the take-overs that have occurred and ask how many of the factors which made those clubs attractive to those buyers actually apply in Norwich''s case. A lot of people on here seem just to assume we are ripe for plucking and it''s only the reluctance of the owners to sell that puts buyers off. There is no shortage of buyers out there, and there is no shortage of agencies constantly analysing the ''market'' ready with short lists of potential take-over targets. The conclusion I draw is that we come pretty low down on their scales of relative attractiveness. [/quote]How well the club is run is linked to how much debt there is, so they are one in the same really. And if you are in good shape, then why would they want to sell? If everyone would just stop getting jealous of everyone else, we are actually in pretty good nick. And saying all this "Ah but what if we don''t get promoted, what happens then?" Well, what if we do get promoted? Which we realistically have every chance of doing.And they don''t need to sell, so why should they?

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"Great bit of sneering about the club you support."

Come up with something sensible in retort then rather than shallow one liners and barbed insults..

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"Great bit of sneering about the club you support."

Come up with something sensible in retort then rather than shallow one liners and barbed insults..[/quote]You think your comments were sensible, and promoting sensible debate?Seriously any time anyone mentions "Little old Norwich, Delias doll house, or Nephew Tom" then we are a long way from rational and informed debate.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@ Marty

A well-run club can actually carry a lot of debt; it''s not "how much" but ''how sustainable".

But anyway, I''m not taking a view on what''s best for NCFC. I''m pointing out that people need to have a more realistic view of how real the possibility of a takeover comparable to Leicester, Wolves etc. actually is. 

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"You think your comments were sensible, and promoting sensible debate?

Yes, I most certainly do actually especially within the context of the entire posting and despite the fact that you rise up in arrogant defence of a somewhat tongue in cheek opening paragraph; which nevertheless seems to have hit home.

Times change whether you want them to or not.

[93vintage 16]

The prime reason people want investment or a takeover is that the club has gone backwards under the Stowmarket Two. Normally that would make us vulnerable to a takeover, so they in effect prevent one from happening. It''s widely believed that in future it would be down to Nephew Tom to keep Norwich a locally-controlled club.If the terrible twosome were really acting in the best interests of fans then they''d give away half or less of the club to their nephew, and the rest to the fans via some kind of trust arrangement. At least this way the fans would have a big say in how the club was run, and we''d be protected from both the vultures and the possibility of Nephew Tom selling up after inheriting ownership.Investment is the wrong solution to the problem of under-performance. If we were run properly then we wouldn''t need it. Fan-ownership, as opposed to the short-termism that has blighted the Stowmarket Two''s stewardship, might provide the stability to help achieve the aim of being a well run club.

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"You think your comments were sensible, and promoting sensible debate?

Yes, I most certainly do actually especially within the context of the entire posting and despite the fact that you rise up in arrogant defence of a somewhat tongue in cheek opening paragraph; which nevertheless seems to have hit home.

Times change whether you want them to or not.[/quote]Ah, tongue in cheek, the old "I was joking" defence.[Y]

[morty 0]

[quote user="93vintage"]The prime reason people want investment or a takeover is that the club has gone backwards under the Stowmarket Two. Normally that would make us vulnerable to a takeover, so they in effect prevent one from happening. It''s widely believed that in future it would be down to Nephew Tom to keep Norwich a locally-controlled club.If the terrible twosome were really acting in the best interests of fans then they''d give away half or less of the club to their nephew, and the rest to the fans via some kind of trust arrangement. At least this way the fans would have a big say in how the club was run, and we''d be protected from both the vultures and the possibility of Nephew Tom selling up after inheriting ownership.Investment is the wrong solution to the problem of under-performance. If we were run properly then we wouldn''t need it. Fan-ownership, as opposed to the short-termism that has blighted the Stowmarket Two''s stewardship, might provide the stability to help achieve the aim of being a well run club.[/quote]Jesus Christ, the very last thing we would want is fans having any kind of say in how the club is run.(I forgot to add "Stowmarket two" to my list of $h1t argument bingo, too)

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"Arrogant offence." Arrogant being the operative word.

And more:-

"As soon as someone mentions Little old Norwich, Delias doll house, or Nephew Tom" then we are a long way from rational and informed debate."

I mentioned none of those, but would be interested in exactly why such mention is "a long way from rational debate."

Not saying it is or isn''t, more interested in the reasoning behind your statement.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"Ah, tongue in cheek, the old "I was joking" defence"

Another silly meaningless one-liner.

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"Arrogant offence." Arrogant being the operative word.

And more:-

"As soon as someone mentions Little old Norwich, Delias doll house, or Nephew Tom" then we are a long way from rational and informed debate."

I mentioned none of those, but would be interested in exactly why such mention is "a long way from rational debate."

Not saying it is or isn''t, more interested in the reasoning behind your statement.[/quote]"I''m holding fire on this one being more or less in favour of the current

cosy set-up whereby we have precious little Norwich City Football Club

run by a national treasure whose home-spun approach is as comfortable as

her home-spun cooking"You think thats an accurate description of a club that has spent 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premiership, turning over hundreds of millions in the process?

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

Sorry Morty, forgot you are the guru of Norwich, didn''t mean to knock your pedestal

[morty 0]

[quote user="Paris aint German"]Sorry Morty, forgot you are the guru of Norwich, didn''t mean to knock your pedestal[/quote]Great stuff fella[Y]You have any actual debate at all, or you just going to throw in buzz words like "Nephew Tom"If you owned a football club, and were considering retiring, would you pass it onto your children / nephew? I know I would.

[can u sit down please 0]

Has anyone got any statistics to show how many takeovers there have been? How many clubs have gone into admin? How many clubs have stabilised after a takeover? How many were saved? How many clubs league position has suffered? How many clubs league positions have improved?

Just adds a bit more substance than a throw away comment of "Leeds and Portsmouth"

Personally I think football has changed and as a result we are being left behind.

I would welcome "investment" (whoever invests would like a say on matters) but keep our tradition of S&J involved.

You know it''s time for change when Bill Kenwright steps aside. He is very much still involved though.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

"You think thats an accurate description of a club that has spent 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premiership, turning over hundreds of millions in the process?"

You didn''t actually read my posting did you?

I stated quite clearly that, and words to the effect, if we have drifted into Championship mediocrity after these two seasons when we have the advantage then I would want change.

It helps when you embark upon debate to actually read the views of those that you do not agree with.

You seem to have been clumsily tripping over yourself in your haste to expound your blind faith in the current set up.

Times change whether you like it or not.

[hogesar 9,611]

Pretty much agree with everything Morty''s said.

Which is good, as I certainly CBA to write arguments for myself today.

[morty 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Has anyone got any statistics to show how many takeovers there have been? How many clubs have gone into admin? How many clubs have stabilised after a takeover? How many were saved? How many clubs league position has suffered? How many clubs league positions have improved?

Just adds a bit more substance than a throw away comment of "Leeds and Portsmouth"

Personally I think football has changed and as a result we are being left behind.

I would welcome "investment" (whoever invests would like a say on matters) but keep our tradition of S&J involved.

You know it''s time for change when Bill Kenwright steps aside. He is very much still involved though.[/quote]No, nobody likely has those stats.But as I said earlier in the thread, for every Leicester, theres 5 or 6 Birminghams / Portsmouths.So anyone touting outside investment as some kind of golden egg, is chasing some fairly long odds.Obviously the ideal is either another Norwich City fan, or as you say some kind of investment, but sticking to our values. Perhaps because this combination is so difficult to achieve, that is the reason it hasn''t happened yet, rather than assume we are being lied to, or knocking back suitors.

[morty 0]

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]"You think thats an accurate description of a club that has spent 4 of the last 5 seasons in the Premiership, turning over hundreds of millions in the process?"

You didn''t actually read my posting did you?

I stated quite clearly that, and words to the effect, if we have drifted into Championship mediocrity after these two seasons when we have the advantage then I would want change.

It helps when you embark upon debate to actually read the views of those that you do not agree with.

You seem to have been clumsily tripping over yourself in your haste to expound your blind faith in the current set up.

Times change whether you like it or not.[/quote]Blind faith lol.Any other buzz words? You haven''t used "Happy clapper" yet.I''ll worry about Championship mediocrity if it happens, rather than assume or predict it.

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

I wasn''t debating, I was putting my opinion. Not everyone spends all day on forums arguing with people

[morty 0]

[quote user="Paris aint German"]I wasn''t debating, I was putting my opinion. Not everyone spends all day on forums arguing with people[/quote]Yes they do.

[The Walking Man 13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_football_club_owners#Football_League_Championship

The above list is slightly out of date now but what strikes me is the amount of takeovers of clubs by people who are not necessarily fans of said clubs but therefore it would be reasonable to assume they are there for non altruistic reasons. But what is also startling is the amount of those clubs who have been taken over for ''investment purposes'' and haven''t actually improved and even in a number of cases have regressed.

So whilst I would rather Delia has several more noughts on the end of bank account and Tom had made billions in selling Cromer Crabs I don''t think we should be desperate to sell. If we are to stagnate (which is precisely what many of our fellow Championship teams have done) I would rather we stagnate with genuine fans in charge rather than some faceless man (because they are pretty much exclusively men) who is clinging on like a bad gambler hoping one day he''ll get this money back.