'Prudence with ambition'

[Badger 2,404]

[quote user="king canary"]Yes they probably won''t have entirely selfless motivations but clearly the owners of teams like Sheffield Wednesday or similar are getting something out of their ownership. I don''t even think we need a billionaire but someone with the wealth of a Steve Gibson can allow a team to be competitive.[/quote]I think Gibson is a fan isn''t he?In any case, Middlesborough have spent 7 of the last 8 years in the Championship and relegated first season up, so it is hardly a great advert for wealthy owners?I looked up the figures - they lost 31million in their promotion year and are £99 million in debt, albeit internal debt to their parent company. I''m not sure how rich he is*, but I think that they will struggle going forwards if they don''t get promotion this year.Sorry King - I just can''t see it working.http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/staggering-wage-spending-power-debt-12877242*Sunday Times rich list estimates £165 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Gibson_(businessman))

[BroadstairsR 2,135]

May be we need a compromise in the form of a wealthy local who is willing and able to buy some of the shares owned by the two (50%) and have an ability to put some cash in and in return assumes a place on the Board.

Is there likely to be a Euro lottery winner from Sprowston who can sing "On the ball City" backwards and wears the City strip in his/her kinkier moments in the foreseeable future?

I don''t quite know the set-up at Carrow Road though (does anybody really?) I''m a shareholder in many companies but I don''t have a seat in any of their boardrooms, just a representative.

Is ''majority shareholder'' just another term for owner, omnipotent, dictator, investor, profiteer or just ardent fan?

[king canary 7,558]

@badger

Alternatively, since Gibson took over in 94 they''ve spent 12 years in the Premier League, won the League Cup and made multiple finals including the Europa League. But this wasn''t suppose to be a ''who is the better owner'' debate.

The point I''m making is that his wealth allows Boro to remain competitive without Premier League money. For instance despite only spending one year of the last 8 at the top level they can poach one of our best midfielders despite us being up there more regularly. Also they were able to sign Jordan Rhodes to help complete their promotion push despite having not been in the Premier League in the previous few seasons.

With our current ownership model we''ll struggle to poach anyone from Championship rivals as we don''t have the money. Which is why our new set up makes sense as we need to be smarter and look for bargains elsewhere. But I think it''s indisputable that an owner who can put in an extra £5-10m for transfers a season would help us be more competitive.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="king canary"]@badger

Yes, investors probably isn''t the right word. But I''m fairly sure most owners of clubs realise they aren''t making money off it.

I don''t see any point in naming individual takeover that went wrong though - for everyone you name, someone else can probably name one that did work out.[/quote]

This is my pet hate Kingo. Someone chucks in Portsmouth and they''re immediately countered by Southampton. And on we go...

But I doubt there''s an equal amount of takeovers which are successful/unsuccessful. I would think there''s more unsuccessful. But that shouldn''t be what we look at. We should want what''s best for our club. So to my thinking the question should be asked is how many of these takeovers at similar clubs have been more successful than our current owners. Obviously we would not get a Manchester City investment. And by the same token we will get better than say Brentford. So Im thinking about Leicester, Wolves, Forest, binners, Southampton, Portsmouth, the sheffield clubs etc. The sample size would probably be large enough maybe 30 clubs? Then if we ended up with 15 more successful the chances of us improving would be 50/50. It''s not ideal but surely better than what gets bandied about at present. We should also note that many of those clubs have had more than one of these ownership models and somehow take that into account too. 

[7rew 0]

Nigel, I looked at doing that at one point.

In terms of similar sized clubs I went for 50%-150% stadium capacity. You need to go that wide to get both Bournemouth and Sunderland.

There are 50 such clubs, with only 7 or so bigger. Which is what put me off doing more in-depth work.

On the other hand there are more of those below us than above us.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Great to see you posting 7rew[Y]

I have thought about doing it before too. Maybe I will get round to it one day.

I just think that any comparison should include the positives of what we have. If there''s one bit of advice I''m thankful for it''s to always count my blessings. It''s so easy for us to hanker for things others have but if we were them we''d get all their faults as well as the things we hankered after. 

[Baldyboy 0]

Nutty, what do you class as a successful takeover though? One like Man City which wins the Premier League almost immediately or one like Bournemouth which stabilises the club and builds gradually?

Also, what do you class as an unsuccessful takeover?

You say there are probably less successful takeovers but as I say what do you actually class as unsuccessful?

The list of successful takeovers is a lot larger than people seem to think in my opinion, I''m not trying to get in an argument I am genuinely curious that''s all, especially as if the truth be told we were taken over by a foreign investor and became like Man City or Chelsea I''d be very surprised if people wouldn''t want that success

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I''ve got no idea what a successful takeover is and don''t pretend to. However I do know that Southampton have done better than us and the binners have done worse. 

[Baldyboy 0]

So how can you say as you did earlier there have been more unsuccessful ones, if you now claim to not know what a successful takeover is?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Well because I can count the teams who haven''t done as well as us some of which had more than one take over. However I didn''t say there had been more unsuccessful ones and I wish you''d use the quote facility because you never quote what I actually post. And you do it every time.

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

But I doubt there''s an equal amount of takeovers which are successful/unsuccessful. I would think there''s more unsuccessful. But that shouldn''t be what we look at. We should want what''s best for our club. So to my thinking the question should be asked is how many of these takeovers at similar clubs have been more successful than our current owners. Obviously we would not get a Manchester City investment. And by the same token we will get better than say Brentford. So Im thinking about Leicester, Wolves, Forest, binners, Southampton, Portsmouth, the sheffield clubs etc. The sample size would probably be large enough maybe 30 clubs? Then if we ended up with 15 more successful the chances of us improving would be 50/50. It''s not ideal but surely better than what gets bandied about at present. We should also note that many of those clubs have had more than one of these ownership models and somehow take that into account too. 

[/quote]

[Baldyboy 0]

The point I was making was that if as you say you don''t know what a successful takeover is, how the hell can you think there are more unsuccessful ones, because if you don''t know what a successful one is then surely you can''t define an unsuccessful one can you? Whether you think it or said it, or are you going to deny saying that?

[Baldyboy 0]

And what do you define as doing as well as us? How can you measure how well we have done, and over what period are you using?

[Essjayess 307]

Was thinking, what kind of reaction Binners fans would have if we were taken over by a big rich Chinese consortium, or similarly our reaction if Portaloo road got a massive Oriental shake up. When we look at whats happened to the Birmingham area, with many clubs there  now under Chinese ownership, i find it quite strange that the Anglia region has hardly been touched by rich foreign ownership, considering to that we are not really that far from London, thou sometimes it may as well be a thousand miles away.Looking at the last couple decades at two relatively similar clubs, looking at the performances on the pitch, the grounds, the training grounds, passion levels etc, i form the opinion that for City, its "Prudence with ambition, as and when required".  For Town its "Prudence".

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]The point I was making was that if as you say you don''t know what a successful takeover is, how the hell can you think there are more unsuccessful ones, because if you don''t know what a successful one is then surely you can''t define an unsuccessful one can you? Whether you think it or said it, or are you going to deny saying that?[/quote]

Do you know what Baldy? I think you''ve got something there. If it''s ok for me to think that. I also think in some cases it''s better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. But then all actions result from thoughts so it''s thoughts that matter. Learning without thought is labour lost but thought without learning is perilous. But then a little thought and a little kindness are often worth more than a great deal of money. 

A minute of thought is greater than an hour of talk so I''m off to think some more.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]And what do you define as doing as well as us? How can you measure how well we have done, and over what period are you using?[/quote]

Was thinking about using the period before there were all these investor owners. Do you think that would work? Or should I go back to the drawing board?

[simmo_2 6]

[quote user="Barnacle Bill"][quote user="Essjayess"][quote user="Barnacle Bill"]Whenever people mention the need for more investment we get the fear mongering start. Are assured the current board are the good and noble owners with anyone else cast as club wrecking nasties. Yet so many clubs around us are thriving under new ownership because, surprise, surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well.

The current board are owed a debt of thanks for saving the club in an era long gone. But it is time for a fresh wind of change at that level. Like the managers they employ- they are hanging around too long...And so many are nottake our impoverished neighbours they have one of these so called ''hinvestors''all he does is take whatever isn''t nailed downI''m quite happy as we are[/quote]Agree with Bill totally. Also the "many that are not" will only increase to, as the clubs with these so called "rich owners" are increasing quite rapidly, but now far outweighing any positions available in the upper tier which would deem a club to be "successful". As for "surprise , surprise, most owners want their clubs to do well", you think Delia does not?..a more fervent at heart ardent supporter you are likely never to meet than herself.Talk of "fresh wind of change", i think Delia is giving that to our club right now, and same time responsibly responding financially to our state of affairs. That both things are happening, yet i personally feel quite excited and optimistic about whats happening, especially after 4 or so years of Hughton / AN, excepting ANs initial 6 months, is no mean feat in my eyes. [/quote]totally agreeI don''t want us to be another plastic club, in a souless plastic ground with distant owners who regard as nothing more than their play thing or money laundering facility.Would we get the meetings of last week, where fans could talk to directors/coach etc  ? Would we still really have the type of supporters who would put the tremendous effort to arrange such great nights ?There is a togetherness'' in this club that you would go along way to find elsewhere ?And I heed the wise words of one of those now seeing out his last few days in the ''blankets'' young master Nigel. "It is often a lot more fun getting into the PL than being there''So stop upsetting yourself because yours isn''t the shinest newest bike on the street. Maybe a few ups and downs are better than the stagnation of clinging onto a PL place. just as a play off place and stuffing the binners before a brilliant day out at Wembley was better than automatic so another tilt at the title this season will be a helluva lot more fun than appearing last on MOTD every Sat night.So we are who we are. So why not enjoy it and stop friggin'' whining.[/quote]

This club is a plaything for a Celebrity chef who got bored cooking.

To prove this, she brings her useless nephew on board.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

It''s not just about what has worked in the past though but what will be competitive in the future.

It''s absolutely 100% right that we should be looking to improve the quality of our coaching (been sub standard for a while now in my view), bring through our own academy boys and see more improvement in the players we have and look to pick up young and oversees talent for better value. I.e. Operate on a more sustainable level. I therefore agree with the current exercise being undertaken albeit I think it''s a late reaction to last seasons shambles.

However when you look at the championship it is becoming (and will become more so) increasingly hard for teams without very rich owners to compete and my concern is that once we no longer have parachute payments, our current ownership model means that a club like ours operating on a truly sustainable level is just going to find it massively hard to challenge for promotion because the curcumstances will always be that we get beaten to players in wages or if we get anyone decent they will be bought within 18 months by more wealthy clubs or alternatively we will not be able to sustain the infrastructure we need to stay competitive. The sc*m may well be the subject of much mirth but they have a rich owner who enables them to run at a loss and remain vaguely competitive. We won''t even have that so really if the owners are going to maintain their current stance then we need to get back up again as a matter of urgency. This is why last season was such a frustrating, almighty waste.

[king canary 7,558]

Agree with all of that Jim apart from the bit about Ipswich - they''re owner just allows them to keep functioning but they are not competing.

Previously as a Championship club we couldn''t resist when Premier League teams came in to take our players. My concern is that in a year or two we won''t be able to fight off interest from richer clubs in our own league.

[Baldyboy 0]

Some of the comments on here about how Delia and co saved us and how people would rather we were run how we are really amaze me!

If a rich investor bought the club, pumped in say 300 million or something stupid like that and we won a few trophies would they really say oh no we don''t want that we want little old Delia and her family back!

I''m sure they''d protest that we were successful wouldn''t they?

[Badger 2,404]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Some of the comments on here about how Delia and co saved us and how people would rather we were run how we are really amaze me!

If a rich investor bought the club, pumped in say 300 million or something stupid like that and we won a few trophies would they really say oh no we don''t want that we want little old Delia and her family back!

I''m sure they''d protest that we were successful wouldn''t they?[/quote]I sure that nearly everyone would be delighted if a rich investor bought the club and pumped in £300 million and we won a few trophies as long as the long term future of the club was assured as well. It''s just that many suspect that the scenario that you outline is unlikely to be forthcoming.

[Badger 2,404]

King - Agree with all of that Jim apart from the bit about Ipswich - they''re

owner just allows them to keep functioning but they are not competing.I imagine that he is trying to get his money back. Keep hold of the club in the hope that a football miracle takes place and they get to the PL giving him access to al that cash. Alternatively, a super rich investor comes along and wants to buy a club and is prepared to buy up the debts etc.With all this talk of a queue of super rich investors wanting to pump hundreds of millions of pounds into the club, some seem to believe that it is a current alternative to us rather than a pipe dream. Ipswich would be just as viable an alternative to us - probably more so as it is closer to London, but nobody seems to be beating down the door of Marcus Evans, who I am sure would be open to offers.

[Baldyboy 0]

From the comments on here Badger I don''t think so, as many won''t accept anything other than St Delia and her disciples, as for it never happening, not whilst she owns us as she doesn''t want any investment it seems

I''m sure I''ll get slated for the comments against her I''ve just made also

[Badger 2,404]

BB - I think that they are sceptical about people wanting to offer us 100s of millions of pounds and wanting nothing in return.

[A Load of Squit 5,108]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Baldyboy"]Some of the comments on here about how Delia and co saved us and how people would rather we were run how we are really amaze me!

If a rich investor bought the club, pumped in say 300 million or something stupid like that and we won a few trophies would they really say oh no we don''t want that we want little old Delia and her family back!

I''m sure they''d protest that we were successful wouldn''t they?[/quote]I sure that nearly everyone would be delighted if a rich investor bought the club and pumped in £300 million and we won a few trophies as long as the long term future of the club was assured as well. It''s just that many suspect that the scenario that you outline is unlikely to be forthcoming.[/quote]

When has that happened? Hardly ever, probably only Man City.If it were to happen then I expect most supporters would want to know what the intentions of they new owner are.

[A Load of Squit 5,108]

Oh yeah, forgot Chelsea.

[TIL 1010 4,717]

Maybe Leicester ?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user=" Badger"]BB - I think that they are sceptical about people wanting to offer us 100s of millions of pounds and wanting nothing in return.[/quote]

What''s the problem with someone wanting something in return provided its mutually beneficial? Course we don''t want an asset stripper but by the same token if someone benefits financially from bankrolling us back to the prem then I wouldn''t have a problem with that either.

[Baldyboy 0]

Aren''t our assets already being stripped?

[xxxx 0]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]Aren''t our assets already being stripped?[/quote]Of course they are , we are having to sell any player worth anything because the owners cannot afford to run a football club and the longer they cling on the worse it will get  , they took us to League 1 before and they will do again only next time there may not be a genius like Lambert on hand to turn things around .

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]It''s not just about what has worked in the past though but what will be competitive in the future.

It''s absolutely 100% right that we should be looking to improve the quality of our coaching (been sub standard for a while now in my view), bring through our own academy boys and see more improvement in the players we have and look to pick up young and oversees talent for better value. I.e. Operate on a more sustainable level. I therefore agree with the current exercise being undertaken albeit I think it''s a late reaction to last seasons shambles.

However when you look at the championship it is becoming (and will become more so) increasingly hard for teams without very rich owners to compete and my concern is that once we no longer have parachute payments, our current ownership model means that a club like ours operating on a truly sustainable level is just going to find it massively hard to challenge for promotion because the curcumstances will always be that we get beaten to players in wages or if we get anyone decent they will be bought within 18 months by more wealthy clubs or alternatively we will not be able to sustain the infrastructure we need to stay competitive. The sc*m may well be the subject of much mirth but they have a rich owner who enables them to run at a loss and remain vaguely competitive. We won''t even have that so really if the owners are going to maintain their current stance then we need to get back up again as a matter of urgency. This is why last season was such a frustrating, almighty waste.[/quote]A lot to agree with there, with one caveat. Assuming our pauper owners carry on, I think there are two separate points to make. What Jim and others have said about how we are now poor relations even in the Championship is true. With the danger that we will get stuck there, bearing in mind that would still mean we would be somewhere around what has historically (over the last 50 or so years) been our natural level.What I question is the "...if only..." argument. If only we had stayed up that year under Chase, or that Worthington season, or the Hughton season. Or the Neil season. If only we had gone back up this last season, with the new TV deal coming on stream. As if that would have made a big difference. That we could have solidified our position in the Premier League.The reality is that the TV money is a bit of a mirage. Everyone gets it, and we have always got less than most. And it disappears, particularly on higher wages. It does not guarantee anything beyond the short-term. The recent questions about why we are not better off financially because of four years out of six in the Premier League are based on a misapprehension.Because of our financial position we will always be at risk from one poor managerial choice, or one badly-handled transfer window, in the way richer clubs are not. And this has applied - and will again - to most of the similarly-sized clubs with which we are unfavourably compared at any time. Yes, we could have stayed up one time, or gone straight back up another, but we would have fallen back down again, sooner or later, and probably sooner.So the "solidify" arguement is also a mirage. The only time Norwich City can be said to have solidified its place in the top flight was from the mid-70s to the early ''90s. And that was because of a fundamental - and to us beneficial - change in the economics of English football. The creation of the Premier League and then, crucially, the arrival of the mega-rich owner replaced that beneficial environment with one much less amenable to us.