Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
pliff

Need For Investment

Recommended Posts

I am not an Allardyce fan but when he took over at Palace Sky did an interview with him and he said the main reason he took it was that they had investors prepared to back him and quite simply that if you are a serious football club wanting to progress without it you stand still or go backwards. So we could become another Ipswich and spend many years stagnating, quite frankly this lot are taking us there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok i agree that was a cheap shot so how do you think the club will move forward without investment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We have had investment and certainly more than most clubs in the league we are in.

How much did our bench cost in the game at Villa? Remind us all.

The decision making by those in charge on how to use this investment is our biggest problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]We have had investment and certainly more than most clubs in the league we are in.

How much did our bench cost in the game at Villa? Remind us all.

The decision making by those in charge on how to use this investment is our biggest problem.[/quote]That is not true. What you are categorising as investment is actually either Premier League TV money as a result of being in the top tier or parachute payments upon relegation from Olympus. In other words, spending money we have earned.In terms of extra money from owners over and above earnings (which is what is universally understood by "investment") in the Championship I doubt we would be ahead of most clubs. Not least because, as the accounts show, since we got promoted out of League One the owners have - at long last -  been paid back their club-saving loans rather than putting money in. And the only investment was in effect Foulger coughing up two millions pounds for new shares in 2011. As with Brexit, so with football. Facts are facts. Post-truth is a convenient fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Eh?

Money in and money out?

The latter is investment.[/quote]I believe it is generally accepted that investment is money put into an organisation. The clue being the "in..." bit at the start of the word. Money going out is referred to as expenditure (the "ex- being a clue there).  Often as a result of investment. But, as pointed out, Norwich City have, with one two million pound exception, have had no such investment. They have only spent what they have earned. Unlike, for an easy-to-hand example, our most recent opponents, who have by all accounts had serious investments from a new owner, and spent some of it on a job lot of strikers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BroadstairsR"]Surely investment is money put into the club (players etc.) whatever the source.

New owner or gate receipts.

It''s all investment.[/quote]

You''re mixing up and talking about two different things. The club invests in the players, sure, but at present it can only use money from gate receipts and parachute payments - which as PC says - is not investment, it is just income. Investment in the club itself is someone physically putting money in for the purpose of improving/developing the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me.

I am mixing up nothing.

Money used from gate receipts, tv money, or even Delia Smith when spent on the playing squad is investing (with the hope of profiteering either from promotion or player sales)

It''s a business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh! I get it now.

You are all referring to some mythical buyer to invest billions into the club.

Marcus Evans? Chinese? Arabic?

Please tell me.

Invest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''ll try Broadstairs.

What Purple and Lakey are explaining (quite well, at least I think everyone else seems to get it) is that when people refer to the club needing investment, they are referring to investment originating from outside the realms of the football club''s operations itself. So not it''s TV, Parachute, Gate receipts. But an investor, owner or otherwise physically injecting money into the club from an external source (their own wallet, for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we have never spent more on the squad so while investment would be good (is it true we very recently refused to even talk to red bull?) there is nothing to suggest extra investment in an even more expensive squad would have given us a return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZLF"]we have never spent more on the squad so while investment would be good (is it true we very recently refused to even talk to red bull?) there is nothing to suggest extra investment in an even more expensive squad would have given us a return.[/quote]

No, it''s not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What Purple and Lakey are explaining (quite well, at least I think everyone else seems to get it) is that when people refer to the club needing investment, they are referring to investment originating from outside the realms of the football club''s operations itself. So not it''s TV, Parachute, Gate receipts. But an investor, owner or otherwise physically injecting money into the club from an external source (their own wallet, for example)."

You don''t say?

What a clever little dick you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this investment relates to the extra money like Ipswich have received since 2008 rather than just the income we''ve received since 2008. Maybe what the owners take out of the club also makes a difference? Or perhaps our owners are exceptionally good at what they do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there not a difference between Marcus Evans and ''investment'' though?

Marcus Evans may own the club, but he hasn''t invested in it for several years. If he suddenly pumped in 50million, then the investment comparison would be fair.

A better example would be Wolves new owners, who are actively investing (no guarantee of success, but they are spending money they don''t have on players)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. He is an owner. He is hardly investing his money to improve Ipswich. They are not really reinvesting money from transfers either based on the Murphy sale.

As for other investors...

Wednesday, Wolves, Villa, Derby, Brighton

These all seem to be spending more money than they have coming in (in my opinion). Of course, with the 3 teams also coming down next year, and only 3 promotion places, it just shows that you can spend as much money as you like and still not guarantee promotion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right Pliff. It is lack of investment that is holding the club back. David McNally always maintained that to be a permanent member of the Premiership you must have a minimum capacity of 35,000. There clearly has been no effort by the board to seek the investment to do achieve this. The current owners have made no real effort to get investment to grow the club over the last twenty years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]Is there not a difference between Marcus Evans and ''investment'' though?

Marcus Evans may own the club, but he hasn''t invested in it for several years. If he suddenly pumped in 50million, then the investment comparison would be fair.

A better example would be Wolves new owners, who are actively investing (no guarantee of success, but they are spending money they don''t have on players)[/quote]I have never studied Ipswich Town''s finances, but my rough understanding is that Evans did invest around 12 million when he took over the club, as well as taking on a great deal of external debt. And that since then he has effectively paid for the club''s annual losses by taking them as debt owed to him rather than to an outside company. And back in 2015 that debt was getting close to 90 million. That looks to me like a kind of investment. This is from the Swiss Ramble report a couple of years back:From a cash perspective Ipswich basically balance the books, but only because Evans increases his loan each year, as the cash flow from operating activities remains stubbornly  negative. The lack of investment over the last eight years is striking with the net player purchases (in cash terms) adding up to only £2.4 million and the spend on infrastructure improvements just £0.2 million. In that period, Evans has provided £32 million of additional loans, while £13.5 million has come from increases in share capital.
Simon Clegg explained Ipswich’s dependency on the owner a couple of years ago: “We only survive because Marcus Evans can afford to put in £4 million or £5 million of his own money every year to keep the club afloat.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Simon Clegg explained Ipswich’s dependency on the owner a couple of years ago: “We only survive because Marcus Evans can afford to put in £4 million or £5 million of his own money every year to keep the club afloat.”[/quote]To bring it up to date Purps, this from McCarthy at last Thursdays presser.........."It’s

easy sat here, you guys [the media] are sat here, everybody else is sat

there, ‘Put some money in!’. How much has he put in? A hundred million?

Bought it, then £5 million a year. How long’s he had it? Ten years?

There’s £50 million. Doesn’t seem to be taking much out of it.“It’s easy for everybody else to say ‘You’ve got to

put some money in’. And I remind everybody, how many people would

actually enjoy doing it?"http://www.twtd.co.uk/ipswich-town-news/31423/
Reading TWTD, it seems the people demanding investment are the same ones who are squealing about a small increase in ticket prices, [:)]

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  

×