Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lake district canary

Do we really need a rich investor?

Recommended Posts

I know we would all like the club to have lots of money to spend to buy ready made players, but it doesn''t look likely.  In the past, in the good old days before the Premier League, we were a club that

generally bought players cheaply and sold them on for a profit.  We look as if that may well be the way we help balance the books in the future.   So far from being without resources, we should - if we maintain our position as a club seriously competing for the PL - be able to attract good young players to come to such a good club as we have - and if they do well will eventually be old on for big kahunas. That money can be used again to buy in more young players.

Its a far cry from buying big to try and compete, but we can''t do that - we''ve tried and it hasn''t worked - and all it would do to us if we try that again is give us a few players who don''t really cut the mustard enough to make it worthwhile - and risk putting us in debt again. It may seem a backward step to those who want us to spend £xx millions on players - but it is a sustainable approach and with a manager who is good with youngsters (depending on who you talk to), should be the way forwards - and should help us maintain our position challenging for the PL, season after season and sometimes getting in there.  Is that a recipe for mediocrity?  I don''t think so, to me it looks a progressive approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reality is that players will always look to find (or be shown) their level. It has nothing to do with buying cheap selling dear.For everyone of those, there are the expensive flops.Players will expect to climb their way to the top, or as high as they can go. I doubt any of them would have joined us if we had said that they could not move on if they were offered better terms elsewhere.That will always be so. It is not some policy, just the way it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is a sustainable way forward LDC and fair play, despite all the recent criticism of the way the club is run, this is the right policy for us and will pay dividends in the future.

Is Neil Adams still involved with the monitoring our lads out on loan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Goes back to my ideal football fair play system, equal each league put by having a wage & bonus cap, limit each club to a roster of 30 players each season, all other senior players to be sold or released. Only each clubs own youth system for player under 21 to be used to supliment the squad during each season.

Salary cap the same for all clubs. This should even things out and give all clubs a better chance of being competitive, can you imagine the greed of players and those clubs who have it easy by rich owners agreeing to this? Never..........

So if you want silverware in the future yes you need a rich investor, if your happy where we are and occasionally getting up then no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!

All that glitters is not gold.

Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).

The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!

All that glitters is not gold.

Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).

The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in?[/quote]
I keep asking if anyone has a comprehensive list. We always get a current success like Bournemouth traded against a basket case like Ipswich. A comprehensive list would be interesting.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do wish people would stop saying ask Blackburn fans about having a rich owner. Blackburn won the premier league by being the first club to benefit from having such an owner!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I discussed this exact same topic in a much better thread earlier.

It had been a decent day on the forum with good debate and friendly banter until LDC turned up. A troll of the highest order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Cantiaci Canary"]Ask Forest, Blackburn, Cardiff, Hull, Portsmouth and QPR fans and you might get a different answer to that question than if you asked supporters of Bournemouth, Southampton, Watford, Leicester, Stoke and West Brom!

All that glitters is not gold.

Lambert''s 2011-2012 season proved that you can survive AND thrive without mega bucks (much as Burnley are doing now).

The question is ... in the long term will the billions being poured into the top tier make it an ever more hostile environment to reach and survive in?[/quote]I would question whether these billions will continue to be there.The pace of technology is such that it is almost becoming impossible to stop stuff being accessed ''illegally''.Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The exact scenario is the club is not for sale, it doesn''t matter, we have a set budget, set goal and we will trim our cloth to suite.

Ask Chelsea, Spurs, Arsenal and Man City fans, are they happy to have rich owners brand new state of the art facilities and new grounds.

Now look at the up and coming clubs, Brighton, great example of a club on its knees, no ground, no players ask their fans!

It''s no point though, we will all have different expectations and requirements and as such will differ on what we would like for this club.

As said this has been done to death, and I pretty sure if Red Bull take over here invest 300 million on the squad, get a top world class manager here and move us to a 60k stadium, not many people would be upset!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As said this has been done to death, and I pretty sure if Red Bull take over here invest 300 million on the squad, get a top world class manager here and move us to a 60k stadium, not many people would be upset!

Exactly. The sad thing is though that this is the type of owner that they are so set against

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports.  I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples.  The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them.  Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage.  For instance, I would probably pay  £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course people would be upset!!

The Sky generation would probably lap it up but anyone that cares about the heritage, history, values and community standing of a 115-year old football club would be bothered.

RB Norwich? No thanks. My attachment to my football club runs deeper than just winning, however much cash they threw at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports.  I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples.  The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them.  Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage.  For instance, I would probably pay  £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit.

[/quote]That totally misses the point.You can watch all this for nothing. An ever increasing number do... via websites or ''kodi'' boxes.Why would anyone pay for something that is freely available ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe a silly question for an old technophobe like me but how do you buy a daily subscription from Sky for £6.99p as my Sky Sports is a monthly subscription within my overall package ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Billy Banter"][quote user="lake district canary"][quote user="Billy Banter"]Subscribing to sky/bt is slowly becoming similarly to sticking with dial up broadband. How many fans are really interested in Champions league and championship games that don''t feature their clubs ? So why pay when you can simply access the games and sports you want ?[/quote]As time goes on, Sky will have to adapt even more to the changing way people view sports.  I buy into sky when they show a Norwich game, at present £6.99 a day. Simples.  The more Norwich games they show, the more I will buy into them.  Their best bet is to come to an agreement with clubs and the governng bodies to be able to show a lot more games throughout all the leagues, at a cost that will not discourage people from going to games, but will still attract enough people to buy into the TV coverage.  For instance, I would probably pay  £15 to watch a match live on TV, maybe more. That wouldn''t stop fans going to matches if they can. Split the proceeds with the clubs and both sky and he clubs benefit.

[/quote]That totally misses the point.You can watch all this for nothing. An ever increasing number do... via websites or ''kodi'' boxes.Why would anyone pay for something that is freely available ?[/quote]

To avoid the risk of getting virus''s, trojan horses, dubious links etc etc.  You''ll probably tell me that kodi avoids all that, but not everyone has the wherewithal or the time to set things like kodi up anyway.  If the sky ''pay as you watch'' is packaged well and fits the brief of showing a live game, it will sell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Maybe a silly question for an old technophobe like me but how do you buy a daily subscription from Sky for £6.99p as my Sky Sports is a monthly subscription within my overall package ?[/quote]

I do it with a NOW TV box, cost about £15.  You can then buy a daily pass, a weeks pass for £10.99, or a month pass.   If you don''t want to buy the box, you can access it on a PC or laptop, same cost for the passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]Til, you need Now Tv, it''s a sky based non subscription service that requires a box or smart tv, console etc. It''s basically streaming[/quote]

It''s way better than streaming. Doesn''t even compare.  The picture equality is very good, not HD, but very good - and whenever I''ve used it, totally reliable.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...