Sustaining the future

[nutty nigel 7,539]

I don''t think I''m missing any point. If you forget the binners and instead look at 2 investors that were lauded on here as being exactly what our club needed. Randy Lerner who left Villa to rot and Tony Fernandez who appears to be making similar progress with QPR. Many of the newer championship owners have yet to find out their investment will be a disappointment as they are left watching their millions go to players like McCormack with nothing coming back in return.

But what about Southampton I hear you ask?

I think they just got lucky....

[Hairy Canary 704]

We can all quote teams that have been un/successful after being taken over by investors. The point is that more money increases the chances of success, not guaranteeing it.

I agree with the point above that nothing is as bad as stagnating in the same division for years. A roller-coaster ride with all the ups and downs is much more fun than a continuous trek down a never ending Acle straight. If we lose the ability to be a yo-yo club it will be a long dull journey.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

I also do agree that luck plays a huge part. In no insignificant way the rebuilding of the club from its low point of relegation to league 1 came about from the impact Lambert had which frankly nobody could have predicted when he was appointed. those two promotions and the subsequent 3 year stint in the premier league basically brought us back from the abyss to a position of great strength. It is a pity that we now appear to have thrown it all away.

Before and after the Lambert appointment the current owner''s reign has generally been characterised by a number of incredibly bad decisions in terms of either appointing managers or (more often) lack of ruthlessness in getting rid of them with last season''s shambles likely to cost us for many years to come.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Jimbo, what I continually see from your posts, and a lot of others on this thread, is that when you look at other clubs you count their blessings but when you look at us you discount ours.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I don''t think I''m missing any point. If you forget the binners and instead look at 2 investors that were lauded on here as being exactly what our club needed. Randy Lerner who left Villa to rot and Tony Fernandez who appears to be making similar progress with QPR. Many of the newer championship owners have yet to find out their investment will be a disappointment as they are left watching their millions go to players like McCormack with nothing coming back in return.

But what about Southampton I hear you ask?

I think they just got lucky....[/quote]Why forget the Binners? Marcus Evans probably has as much spare cash as Lerner or Fernandez some are unfortunate in their choices others have merely purchased for the tax break. Because so few can benefit from promotion each year it is inevitable that even with big additions of outside cash not all the big spenders are going to see an immediate return but at the very minimum they are in with a chance. Those without a pot to pi$$ in will only be able to stand and watch.

[lake district canary 4,533]

People seem so quick to forget what a terrible state the club was in financially in 2009.  That has gone in no uncertain measue - and yes luck played it''s part, as well as Lambert - and Holt.   Only eight years ago we were on the brink of ruin - and yet here we are eight years later, with several years of premier league football and the promotions too.  Yes there have been some tough times along that path, but here in 2017 is NCFC, no real debt to speak of, a progressive footballing set up, a great youth set up, a good squad of players that will only improve as they gel and get used to what is required and a fan base the envy of most other clubs in the league. Spin it negatively if you wish, it''s easy to be negative - but the truth is - and people still have cottoned on to this - our position will be helped by the competition amongst those with the money to get our good players. Say Murphy has a good season, then his price is likely to go up way higher than his brother - because of the demand for good players from clubs with loads of money. Pritchard, Maddison too could be sold on for massive prices, which would then help us to keep building . That may sound terrible to people, but that is where we will be - building a way of playing based on the Dortmund/german ideology which should sustain us for years and using young players brought in who the big clubs won''t want because they need to buy immediate success.  No one likes the thought of selling any of our better players, but we always have and always will. The main thing is to be positive about the way things are and not get dragged down by the "big money" issue.  Big investment has eluded the club in it''s long history and it is unlikely to change just because we want it to. We''ve had a rough start to the season, that is all, but it''s not been all bad and I suspect a good run of games where we can put a few results together will change the atmosphere quite quickly.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Ricardo, by your reckoning if the binners didnt have bad luck they''d have no luck at all.

There is no debate to be had if it''s all a matter of chance.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I don''t think I''m missing any point. If you forget the binners and instead look at 2 investors that were lauded on here as being exactly what our club needed. Randy Lerner who left Villa to rot and Tony Fernandez who appears to be making similar progress with QPR. Many of the newer championship owners have yet to find out their investment will be a disappointment as they are left watching their millions go to players like McCormack with nothing coming back in return.

But what about Southampton I hear you ask?

I think they just got lucky....[/quote]Why forget the Binners? Marcus Evans probably has as much spare cash as Lerner or Fernandez some are unfortunate in their choices others have merely purchased for the tax break. Because so few can benefit from promotion each year it is inevitable that even with big additions of outside cash not all the big spenders are going to see an immediate return but at the very minimum they are in with a chance. Those without a pot to pi$$ in will only be able to stand and watch.[/quote]Why on earth would you stand and watch other clubs rather than enjoy supporting your own? There are more than 60 EFL clubs whose supporters, by your yardstick, can only stand and watch the 30 or fewer luckier, more privileged, usually bigger, others. Amazing that those 60 have any supporters at all!

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Am I right in thinking the June 2017 accounts have yet to be released? So all this talk of us being finally secure is surely just speculation?

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Ricardo, by your reckoning if the binners didnt have bad luck they''d have no luck at all.

There is no debate to be had if it''s all a matter of chance.[/quote]

I am still sticking pins in the doll. I can''t swear it has any effect but it can''t do any harm to hope.In a low scoring game like football, of course luck has an effect else small teams would never progress very far in knock out competitions like the FA Cup. It is by no means all a matter of chance but it would be foolish to believe that chance has no part to play.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I don''t think I''m missing any point. If you forget the binners and instead look at 2 investors that were lauded on here as being exactly what our club needed. Randy Lerner who left Villa to rot and Tony Fernandez who appears to be making similar progress with QPR. Many of the newer championship owners have yet to find out their investment will be a disappointment as they are left watching their millions go to players like McCormack with nothing coming back in return.

But what about Southampton I hear you ask?

I think they just got lucky....[/quote]Why forget the Binners? Marcus Evans probably has as much spare cash as Lerner or Fernandez some are unfortunate in their choices others have merely purchased for the tax break. Because so few can benefit from promotion each year it is inevitable that even with big additions of outside cash not all the big spenders are going to see an immediate return but at the very minimum they are in with a chance. Those without a pot to pi$$ in will only be able to stand and watch.[/quote]Why on earth would you stand and watch other clubs rather than enjoy supporting your own? There are more than 60 EFL clubs whose supporters, by your yardstick, can only stand and watch the 30 or fewer luckier, more privileged, usually bigger, others. Amazing that those 60 have any supporters at all![/quote]They do what I''ve done for more than 60 seasons, they live in hope and enjoy every single iota of success however rarely it may occur. It doesn''t prevent them from hoping for more and realising that a bigger wallet would be helpful in that quest..In the Premier League, other than once in a blue moon, only a handful have any realistic chance of success. It doesn''t prevent supporters from dreaming does it? If for instance a team like West Brom suddenly had the financial backing of say a Man City or a Chelsea it would rightly transform their supporters expectations.

[westcoastcanary 173]

But in many cases any such dream would be a mere pipe dream. Supporters of the vast majority of clubs in the EFL know that perfectly well. Had the takeover of Notts County a few years ago, with Sven Goren Ericson seemingly to be manager, been persisted with and the club transformed, such a dream would suddenly have seemed actually realisable. In the event it only served to reaffirm what the supporters of clubs like Notts County already know, that they aren''t ever going to be seriously in the sights of anyone with a wallet big enough to realise the dream of PL football. 

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

Luck is a key ingredient but it''s also how you respond that matters.  When we were thrashed by Colchester, our Board turned that to our advantage by swooping to sign up Lambert. That gave us the perfect manager for getting out of L1 and repeating the feat in the Champs the following season, and even making it look easy to survive in the Prem. Yes we were lucky to appoint Lambert at the right time, but it was a courageous gamble by the Board to respond so immediately and decisively to a disastrous result.

 

IMO there have been two major errors by the Board recently - first, allowing AN to make signings in the January window in the Prem which (from what we hear) committed us to hefty wages for those players on contracts running after the end of our parachute payments.  This means Naismith and Klose.  I can understand pushing the boat out for Klose given our defensive weakness, a quality CB was obviously essential, and if it hasn''t worked out, that is the nature of football.  Signing Naismith (on those sort of terms) only made sense if he had the ability to be the central pivot of the team in attacking terms.  I remember reading about him at the time and wondering what he would bring to the team which made it worth spending so much.  I''m still wondering.  If we''re talking about a player wage budget next season of £13m as someone mentioned on another thread (excluding anything from player sales) then if Naismith does take £2.5m/year in wages (source: pinkun messageboard), that''s a nightmare unless he''s the key player that everything revolves around in attack. And at the moment, I''d settle for him playing well enough to justify a starting position, but no sign as yet.

 

The second major error was to persist with AN after relegation from the Prem.  If he''d been sacked the following summer, or at the latest by Christmas last season - and he''d obviously lost his way well before then - a new manager would have had time for a decent assault on promotion.   Let''s face it, getting rid of a manager after relegation is pretty much standard practice, the Board would hardly have been going out on a limb.

 

As for the OP''s discussion about getting a "rich new owner", my take is that RNOs generally are willing to fund a splurge on spending for a period of time after they come on board but not indefinitely.  Take Fernandez at QPR, or say Lerner at Villa, or look at Southampton  - they were willing to splash the cash for a while but then the purse strings get tightened (obviously there''s a lot of variation because we''re talking about wealthy people and their decisions on spending, e.g. Abramovich had tightened up the spending at Chelsea but then had another splurge).   The question is whether that spending can be turned into success on the pitch.  The next question for City is where it will leave us, if we don''t get promoted this season, and we have to compete with a lot of Champs clubs that are supported by serious money (without RNOs of our own).  It''s great if you can find an RNO who will treat the club with respect over the long term - Southampton have obviously been extremely lucky after their owner died and his daughter has proved to be a very safe pair of hands since taking over .  It''s finding the right sort of RNO which is the tricky bit though, and as has been discussed above, it''s very easy to find RNOs who are capricious and meddlesome.

 

Looking back, after the ''95 relegation, until the start of the Lambert era, for most of the time we had a pretty average Champs squad and as a result were mid-table in the Champs most of the time.  It''s not the end of the world, but with the influx of RNOs you''re now competing against more spending power than you were back then.  And it wouldn''t surprise me if that''s where we end up heading now.  I just hope that the break allows Farke to get his methods across to the players well enough for things to start improving on the pitch.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

The Lambert Miracle is a wonderful tale that we never tire of hearing, though I''m afraid it is another Sacred Cow that requires a colder analysis than some can stomach.

Lambert - for all his magnificent, emotional-rollercoaster management - inherited an almost unique position in footballing terms.

Our financial failure had been so sever that we had been forced to fill the squad with loanees and had allowed assets to expire or be sold on due to repeated Championship losses. The unloved Roeder - for example - took his financial lead from Doncaster''s model and hired players so we would be saddled with contract liabilities that we couldn''t afford.

What really destroys self-sustaining or impoverished clubs is historical baggage. Players that you cannot sell that not only deplete your limited resources, but set a feeble, lazy, disaffected, expensive example to any fresh new apples in the barrel. Creating new cultures from rotten fruit is a short lived success.

Thus Lambert inherited as near to a blank canvas as it possible to get in football. He was able - and it thoroughly suited his management style - to hand pick players, place them into a virginal environment, and utterly control all aspects of their thinking and actions. They were exclusively ''his'' players and he modelled them magnificently well. The limited assets that existed were Holt, Hoolahan and Martin, Smith et al from the junior ranks, all of whom had come from nowhere, had everything to prove and then felt they owed their real success to him (which they largely did).

The point is not to limit Lambert''s success, compare the financial world of then with now, nor to compare playing resources or mentality, rather it is to emphasise that the very clean slate of a football club that Lambert inherited was a product of near catastrophic financial circumstance that had left an empty playing field to build from. We simply do not have that now and our older l, more expensive apples are highly unlikely to be the first ones out of the door if and when serious player sales are needed in winter and summer.

The maths does not come close to adding up without further investment or borrowing.

Another Lambert miracle cannot be excluded from possibility, it does indeed sustain many of ''the 60'', but it equally doesn''t preclude it happening to the other 32 either does it?

Parma

[Len 74]

We face a period of having to work off this old expensive player overhang that Parma Ham talks about. I think with Farke we can do it without another relegation.

[It's Character Forming 1,161]

It''s very true that Lambert arrived when there was an ideal combination of circumstances that suited him.  Talk about instant credibility when you join a club having thrashed that group of players just the week before.  You only have to look at his record, after he left us, to see that he''s not really the messiah.

 

It''s called "being the right person in the right place at the right time".  Not sure it''s a sacred cow really and I''d guess most of us are big enough to stomach that fact (obviously there are some exceptions who think Lambert could come back, wave a magic wand and make it all ok - bless).

 

As for Farke, I am still optimistic - but concerned.  And given our owners'' record with newish managers who don''t deliver reasonably soon, he has plenty of cause for concern too if things don''t start to turn around before too long...

[Indy_Bones 441]

There are numerous factors to consider in the whole debate, one of which is that regardless of whether or not your clubs owner is extremely wealthy, there''s no guarantee that they''re going to put that wealth into the club - and even if they do, it might still equate to very little in success terms.Since 2009, Sunderland have been owned by Ellis Short who has a personal wealth of approx 2.9 billion, they''ve spent over 210 million during his ownership (so approx 24 million per season), yet their highest league finish in this period has been 10th (way back in 10/11), and they''ve spent the past 4 years avoiding relegation by as little as 2-5 points each season until the inevitable happened and they came down this year.Since 2006, Villa have been owned by both Randy Lerner (est 1.1 billion), and Dr Tony Xia (est 1.2 billion), and they''ve spent over 330 million during both ownerships (approx 28 million per season), they had a good spell between 07/08 - 09/10 with 3 consecutive 6th place finishes, then the wheels started to come off, and their decline was even worse than Sunderland''s (despite spending more) and they went down in the 15/16 season and finished merely mid-table last year in the Champs.WBA were bought in 2014 by Guochuan Lai (est 6.2 billion), and yet despite the much higher wealth of their owner, they''ve ''only'' spent just over 100 million so far (approx 25 million per season), which has got them a 13th, 14th and 10th placed set of finishes.Stoke have twice been owned by Peter Coates and the Coates Family (est 3.1 billion), most recently taking back over in 2006, since then they (like Sunderland) have spent over 200 million on players (approx 17 million per season) , with 3 consecutive 9th place finishes in the past 4 seasons.We''ve been owned by Delia and MWJ since 1996 (est 25 million), spending approx 123 million on players (approx 5.5 million per season), with our 11/12 and 12/13 seasons giving us 11th and 12th place PL finishes, and even more interestingly, it was when we started spending big on players that it all seemed to come crashing down, as 89 million out of the 123 total spent has been over the past 5 seasons!What this illustrates to me is that we have 4 sets of billionaires, all of whom have sanctioned (or paid themselves), significant transfer funds, yet bizarrely it''s the two clubs that have spent the lowest out of the 4 that are not only still in the PL, but have had far more consistent success than the other 2 during these ownership periods. Villa''s excellent set of 6th place finishes went down the drain, and despite an incredibly high amount being spent after this, they still got relegated and didn''t look close to coming back up last season either.So where does that leave us with our owners, who aren''t even near the 50 million mark, never mind 1+ billion? It''s clear they can''t compete financially with many of their contemporaries, yet if Villa or Sunderland were the examples of owners spending good money and not being ''cheap'' owners (as some fans suggest our owners are), you only have to laugh at how little it''s actually done for them in reality, and if people think we''ve thrown our golden premier league money down the toilet - WTF have these guys done then???I also see now that Portsmouth have been bought out by Michael Eisner (est 1 billion), back in August this year, yet so far they''ve spent virtually nothing...good to see that having such a wealthy investor has meant big transfer spending for them...

[norfolkngood 1,087]

Good post indy !

The thing is though the clubs that are owner spend most of TV money on transfers it does not show that a wealthy owner can then make up short fall for wages

All those clubs you mentioned Indy have a lot high wages than us so maybe that''s the biggest advantage

that is the only thing i would want really i wouldn''t want a mega rich owner buying 30 million pound players for NCFC

i would like a Richer owner who can put say 10 million a season into the club to help out not spoil the NCFC that we all have known over the years

the one thing we can always say at Norwich is any success we have had we have earned not bought

[Len 74]

It''s a casino. The agents are the winners.

[Guest]

It seems to me the consensus is that we must have more investment but just enough to sustain any success that we might gain.

Nobody really wants a multi billionaire as it just isn''t us. But we realise that Delia has her limitations. And her judgement can be a bit too loyal or naive at times. She has had her share of good luck and some bad luck as well.

But if we have to progress under far more restrictive finances, then Farke has to be successful this or next season before it becomes a matter of luck.

[......and Smith must score. 1,345]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Ricardo, by your reckoning if the binners didnt have bad luck they''d have no luck at all.

There is no debate to be had if it''s all a matter of chance.[/quote]Born under a bad sign maybe ?

[ricardo 7,395]

Possibly with a blue moon in their eyes.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Great thread, but it is hard not to over analyse I feel, and maybe go round in circles as there are examples to support almost any theory.

I''m quite simplistic and I think that the cause of our current league position is the result of:

1. some bonkers managerial decisions (not just appointments but timing of removals) and

2. those managers being allowed to sign the wrong players.

Realising that Hughton hasn''t worked out too late, buying poorly, appointing a radio presenter, then a guy with zero experience (hoping to recreate the one-in-a-million Lambert gamble), buying badly again, now a guy with zero experience (hoping to recreate the one-in a-whatever Wagner gamble) and seemingly buying badly (just for a change).

Not sure how much of that would have changed with more money.

To me its simple- more money will increase your chances of success. But without getting the fundamentals right (ie the manager and the right players in the right positions) it won''t make any difference and could make things worse long term.

I don''t think the current Delia model is, of itself, unsustainable. But I do think it makes life more difficult. And since they accept they haven''t got the dosh, I would much rather they spent their time getting those key decisions right, on which their track record as owners has been distinctly patchy.

[ZLF 274]

as usual I find myself in Tumbleweeds camp.

Money definitely helps - but today is the 10,000th day since liverpool won the league despite having invested huge sums of money and having big investors. Proof positive that throwing money at a problem doesn''t work and highlighting why you need a strategic approach to recruitment and succession planning for both managers and players

I do like the structure we have now. We will no longer need to change the playing staff at each manager change as the DOf sets the direction. If we get the basics right (& continue to outperform the rich clubs) it means any future investment is likely to be used wisely and enable us to kick on again.

However the £100m of shares set aside for a local investor is rapidly looking too small - a nice one off injection but over the longer term?

[CANARYKING 639]

[quote user="Zimmers Left Foot"]as usual I find myself in Tumbleweeds camp.

Money definitely helps - but today is the 10,000th day since liverpool won the league despite having invested huge sums of money and having big investors. Proof positive that throwing money at a problem doesn''t work and highlighting why you need a strategic approach to recruitment and succession planning for both managers and players

I do like the structure we have now. We will no longer need to change the playing staff at each manager change as the DOf sets the direction. If we get the basics right (& continue to outperform the rich clubs) it means any future investment is likely to be used wisely and enable us to kick on again.

However the £100m of shares set aside for a local investor is rapidly looking too small - a nice one off injection but over the longer term?[/quote]

£100 million ? When did this figure appear ?

[Van wink 2,994]

Hope your right Len. There is enough strike power in our squad to get us a top six place, fingers crossed that with Klose coming back and the experience of Hanley we can turn things round.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="CANARYKING"][quote user="Zimmers Left Foot"]as usual I find myself in Tumbleweeds camp.

Money definitely helps - but today is the 10,000th day since liverpool won the league despite having invested huge sums of money and having big investors. Proof positive that throwing money at a problem doesn''t work and highlighting why you need a strategic approach to recruitment and succession planning for both managers and players

I do like the structure we have now. We will no longer need to change the playing staff at each manager change as the DOf sets the direction. If we get the basics right (& continue to outperform the rich clubs) it means any future investment is likely to be used wisely and enable us to kick on again.

However the £100m of shares set aside for a local investor is rapidly looking too small - a nice one off injection but over the longer term?[/quote]

£100 million ? When did this figure appear ?[/quote]There is a standard motion at every AGM (I think) allowing the directors to issue up to 1m new shares. If the official price is still £100 then that potentially would raise £100m. As far as I know there is no specific reason for this/investor in mind. It just a way of short-circuiting the bureaucracy if need be. For example, that enabled Foulger to buy about 80,000 new shares without the hassle of getting shareholders to approve the transaction.

[ZLF 274]

that was my understanding too purple - to allow a swift large investment (and a new majority shareholder if all taken by one entity).

Allegedly "local" is an unwritten condition for the hinvestor.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Zimmers Left Foot"]that was my understanding too purple - to allow a swift large investment (and a new majority shareholder if all taken by one entity).

Allegedly "local" is an unwritten condition for the hinvestor.[/quote]ZLF, a swift investment on the Foulger lines, yes. Not so sure about it being used to facilitate a swift change of ownership without shareholders getting to vote on it. I don''t have time to check out the details but I think there are Takeover Code rules that might come into play. Anyone who gets to 30 per cent share ownership has to make an offer for all shares, for example.

[Tumbleweed 106]

Isn''t that just listed companies, Purple? For NCFC the rules will presumably be in the articles of association somewhere, which despite being a shareholder I have never read!