The Phantom Investor

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

[quote user="JF"]Yes I get that but that’s what I mean. Swansea have spent 7 consecutive seasons there and their time may well be up for now. With money behind them there is no reason a Barnsley couldn’t do the same. Without the money they would have little chance[/quote]Have you ever actually been to Barnsley??It''s tiny compared to Swansea and the rest of the list above, in fact its only 2/3 of the population of Kings Lynn, and I can''t think of anything that''s there, other than inflated wages, that would be a to draw good players.

[Guest]

Burnley, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brighton, Leicester, Southampton, Bournemouth. Why couldn’t a club like Barnsley with money follow in their footsteps???

These clubs haven''t had to rely on massive amounts of cash to get promoted. Yes some have wealthy owners but in real terms they don''t spend any more than we did. Brighton and Huddersfield spent over £30 million each but the money has gone for being in the Prem. Some like Burnley actually made money.

[JF 694]

Have you ever actually been to Barnsley??

It''s tiny compared to Swansea and the rest of the list above, in fact its only 2/3 of the population of Kings Lynn, and I can''t think of anything that''s there, other than inflated wages, that would be a to draw good players.

What exactly has population got to do with anything? If the club has money then they can pay the required salaries to get the players in. Why would a player give a shit how many people live there? Eiber play in Spain’s La Liga, the city has a population that would fit inside Carrow Road, it means the square root of fuck all!

[JF 694]

I can picture the scene now, Us and Barnsley both have bids accepted for the same player, our wage ceiling is set at 10k a week, they are prepared to pay 15k. He’s thinking, on one hand Barnsley are offering me 5k a week more, but on the other hand more people do live in Norwich, tough call.....

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

This article from 2014 may, or may not answer your question Rhubarb.......http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26365955

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="JF"]Have you ever actually been to Barnsley??

It''s tiny compared to Swansea and the rest of the list above, in fact its only 2/3 of the population of Kings Lynn, [/quote]The population of the Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley is about 240,000.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Borough_of_Barnsleyhttp://population.city/united-kingdom/barnsley/http://localstats.co.uk/census-demographics/england/yorkshire-and-the-humber/barnsleyOf course, the population of the town centre is smaller, just as the population of Norwich city is smaller than the Norwich urban area.

[JF 694]

I didn’t write that, I was replying to it.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="JF"]I didn’t write that, I was replying to it.[/quote]Sorry JF

[shefcanary 2,388]

[quote user="Creative Midfielder"][quote user="JF"]Yes I get that but that’s what I mean. Swansea have spent 7 consecutive seasons there and their time may well be up for now. With money behind them there is no reason a Barnsley couldn’t do the same. Without the money they would have little chance[/quote]Have you ever actually been to Barnsley??It''s tiny compared to Swansea and the rest of the list above, in fact its only 2/3 of the population of Kings Lynn, and I can''t think of anything that''s there, other than inflated wages, that would be a to draw good players. [/quote]

Sheffield is just down the road - that''s where most Barnsley players end up living!!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Some general points.1) I would not assume the Smith and Jones succession/no investment plan is set in stone. Balls went out of his way at the AGM to say they would talk to investors. Of course he should have been asked by Archant, then or later, whether he meant minority investment or a takeover.2) Following on, I would not assume all the directors are entrenched in their views on the future, or that even if they are now they cannot be persuaded to change their minds later, in the face of events and impending realities.3) Apparently a trust of some kind is part of the succession plan. This raises almost too many questions, none of which, as far as I am aware, has been put by Archant to Smith and Jones. Does this trust already exist? If so, who chose the members, and who are they? Is it a temporary body to oversee an interregnum between Smith and Jones stepping down and Tom Smith taking over, or will it carry on, as some kind of permanent guardian? What powers will it have? Can it, for example, stop Tom Smith selling out, or - conversely - force him to sell?4) I don''t know why the debt to Smith and Jones was paid off. A few explanations spring to mind, one being that the books were being tidied up ready for a takeover. Of course it was, in comparison to the kind of debts many clubs owe to their owners, a minuscule amount. It was hardly a bar to a takeover. But then Foulger was paid off as well, which might support the tidying-up idea.5) It is a mistake to think all would-be owners have the same overall  and sole aim, of maximising a profit. Some do, but there are other, less purely capitalist, motivations. Southampton, who were on the brink of being taken over  by a company,  strongly backed by legend Le Tissier, that in retrospect might well not have been a terribly sound choice, got lucky with the at least partly philanthropic Liebherr, whose interest was supposedly piqued only because his company made cranes for the local docks.6) Norwich City''s future self-sustaining model is not a recipe for disaster. It is actually a way of avoiding the chance of disaster. The pain of switching from a model that includes either PL cash or parachute payments will be tremendous, but once - painfully - achieved should produce a rational existence in the Championship, with occasional drops into League One and rare glimpses of the PL. It avoids the risk of spending money the club lacks. Barnsley, it has been said, now have a 50 per cent chance of their takeover not improving their position, and a 50 per cent chance of it very much improving their position. Not so, because that omits the chance - say 15 to 25 per cent - that the takeover will go very bad and Barnsley will be far worse off as a result.7)  The Smith and Jones majority shareholding is not an anomaly. Most clubs are majority-owned and some are 100-per cent owned by one person or company. Nor is it an an absolute bar to a takeover bid for NCFC succeeding. They - or Tom Smith - would not be able to stand in the way of a well-presented, obviously beneficial bid.

[sgncfc 1,223]

[quote user="JF"]keelansgrandad wrote the following post at 21/12/2017 9:38 PM:

I''m sorry but improves their chances of what.

All the top clubs are in the big cities with not only football to offer.

Burnley, Swansea, Huddersfield, Brighton, Leicester, Southampton, Bournemouth. Why couldn’t a club like Barnsley with money follow in their footsteps???[/quote]

They could. But all of those clubs are only temporarily in the PL. They will all come back down again at some point in the near future. That''s football.

[Badger 2,405]

Interesting post Purple.Re Southampton:1. Their model is in some respects at least the type of situation that our self-sustaining model with an emphasis on recruitment and developing players could produce. They have made profits for several years now due to player sales.2. Their owner, Katharina Liebherr (who inherited the club - another similarity) is not quite as philanthropic as you suggest. Her £31m  loan receives 5% interest, which is above market rates in the current environment.http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/southampton-with-or-without-you.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club

[Dean Coneys boots 1,398]

Two posts above claims Ed Balls went out of his way to say the board would like to hear from investors.

I say look carefully at what he actually said "We would always welcome a helping hand..."

Let me translate that for you.

We are going nowhere but if you want to help- by giving us your money to spend- yes please!

A long way from ''we would sell for the good of the club''. That wont happen because it is a nice little nest egg for nepotism Tom....

And only a moron would give the investment minus the control.

[Badger 2,405]

DCB - "And only a moron would give the investment minus the control.

"Separation of ownership and control is the norm in modern business - it allows skilled managers to conduct complicated business affairs. Far from being moronic, it is normal. A model where new equity was issued to dilute current shareholding rather than purchase of existing shares would probably be the most beneficial to the club were it to occur.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Dean Coneys boots"]Two posts above claims Ed Balls went out of his way to say the board would like to hear from investors.

I say look carefully at what he actually said "We would always welcome a helping hand..."

Let me translate that for you.

We are going nowhere but if you want to help- by giving us your money to spend- yes please!

A long way from ''we would sell for the good of the club''. That wont happen because it is a nice little nest egg for nepotism Tom....

And only a moron would give the investment minus the control.[/quote]Not true. He never said "We would always welcome a helping hand." The "helping hand" phrase was used by the EDP not as a quote but as a questionable assumption in trying to summarise what Balls had said. Balls never specified that he was talking only about minority investment. I took a note of what he said and it went like this:"If there are people out there who believe in this football club who want to invest in Norwich City our doors are open. We aren''t in any way close-minded about new investment. If someone came along who believed in the club and its values and wanted to invest in this football club we would engage without any hesitation. Although we would want to know if it was going to work for the long-term benefit of Norwich City FC."

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user=" Badger"]Interesting post Purple.Re Southampton:1. Their model is in some respects at least the type of situation that our self-sustaining model with an emphasis on recruitment and developing players could produce. They have made profits for several years now due to player sales.2. Their owner, Katharina Liebherr (who inherited the club - another similarity) is not quite as philanthropic as you suggest. Her £31m  loan receives 5% interest, which is above market rates in the current environment.http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/southampton-with-or-without-you.htmlhttps://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club[/quote]Badger, I should have been clearer. I was talking about Markus Liebherr, who instigated the takeover, although he may also have been taking out interest. As you indicate, Katharina inherited the club when he died.

[Fromage Frais 10]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"]Two posts above claims Ed Balls went out of his way to say the board would like to hear from investors.

I say look carefully at what he actually said "We would always welcome a helping hand..."

Let me translate that for you.

We are going nowhere but if you want to help- by giving us your money to spend- yes please!

A long way from ''we would sell for the good of the club''. That wont happen because it is a nice little nest egg for nepotism Tom....

And only a moron would give the investment minus the control.[/quote]Not true. He never said "We would always welcome a helping hand." The "helping hand" phrase was used by the EDP not as a quote but as a questionable assumption in trying to summarise what Balls had said. Balls never specified that he was talking only about minority investment. I took a note of what he said and it went like this:"If there are people out there who believe in this football club who want to invest in Norwich City our doors are open. We aren''t in any way close-minded about new investment. If someone came along who believed in the club and its values and wanted to invest in this football club we would engage without any hesitation. Although we would want to know if it was going to work for the long-term benefit of Norwich City FC."[/quote]

I agree why the hell would you ever by a minority share in a loss-making business in a high-risk market.

Its not really an investment unless you own the whole thing or at least a % so can do as you like.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Fromage Frais"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dean Coneys boots"]Two posts above claims Ed Balls went out of his way to say the board would like to hear from investors.

I say look carefully at what he actually said "We would always welcome a helping hand..."

Let me translate that for you.

We are going nowhere but if you want to help- by giving us your money to spend- yes please!

A long way from ''we would sell for the good of the club''. That wont happen because it is a nice little nest egg for nepotism Tom....

And only a moron would give the investment minus the control.[/quote]Not true. He never said "We would always welcome a helping hand." The "helping hand" phrase was used by the EDP not as a quote but as a questionable assumption in trying to summarise what Balls had said. Balls never specified that he was talking only about minority investment. I took a note of what he said and it went like this:"If there are people out there who believe in this football club who want to invest in Norwich City our doors are open. We aren''t in any way close-minded about new investment. If someone came along who believed in the club and its values and wanted to invest in this football club we would engage without any hesitation. Although we would want to know if it was going to work for the long-term benefit of Norwich City FC."[/quote]

I agree why the hell would you ever by a minority share in a loss-making business in a high-risk market.

Its not really an investment unless you own the whole thing or at least a % so can do as you like.[/quote]Possibly so, but you need to bear in mind that Dean Coneys Boot invented that "quote" to make it look as if Balls was definitely only talking about minority investment, presumably so they could spin their own very partial interpretation on what the chairman was saying. There is nothing in Balls''s statement that specifies what kind of investment the club would welcome and what might or might not be ruled out.

[Essjayess 307]

All indicators point to a phantom investor indeed heading to NCFC..on the very same day that a phantom Motorway is finally opened in Norfolk.

[Jack Flash 13]

"Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins has admitted new manager Carlos Carvalhal will have to rely on money raised from player sales if he wants to make new signings in the January transfer window". And we all thought the Swansea model was a good one.

[Duncan Edwards 2,222]

The exact reason that we shouldn’t want to be Swansea anymore. So last season.

Much rather be Watford now. Or Burnley.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

I think the current PNE is a model we should actually follow......or strive to be.......No money, average squad and a youngish manager who is grinding out results in a transitional period.......

[Guest]

I think the current PNE is a model we should actually follow......or strive to be.......No money, average squad and a youngish manager who is grinding out results in a transitional period.......

But that isn''t far off where we are at the moment. They are doing better on the pitch at the moment is about the only difference. Apart from the style of football of course.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

Only ten points.......we''ll soon make that up.......

[Guest]

Only ten points.......we''ll soon make that up.......

Must admit I did watch last night''s game and whether Cardiff are on a run of poor form or that is their style, it was an awful game to watch and it was all the bull from the commentators that appeared to make it worth watching.

Lots of balls launched up front from both sides.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

[quote user="Jack Flash"]"Swansea chairman Huw Jenkins has admitted new manager Carlos Carvalhal will have to rely on money raised from player sales if he wants to make new signings in the January transfer window". And we all thought the Swansea model was a good one.[/quote]I don''t know where your quote is from but in the full article he said this.

Is the money left from summer there to spend in January?

“Yes.

Despite what some may say, no-one goes into Swansea City’s accounts and

takes money out for any reason apart from ourselves running the club

and trying to operate within the parameters we have got. That is it.

“The thing you are missing is the position we were in financially before we sold Sigurdsson and how that works out.

“That’s

why taking the risk of signing players before you sell is the same

position as we have been in for the last two or three years.

“Each

summer is the same problem, the risk of signing before selling is too

great for us as a football club. The answer to that is to make sure you

sell earlier and then things would be different.”

So, is the money available to strengthen in January?

“There is money available for January and it will be the money left over from the summer. That money has not gone anywhere.”

But, beyond that, any signings would have to be funded by sales?

“If we wanted to go beyond that, it’s what we have always done and how we have always worked.

The risks are less because of those financial bits that are covered and they are important.”

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/full-transcript-huw-jenkins-interview-14092556

[Highland Canary 76]

Pleasing to note above that some above are aspiring to emulate PL clubs rather than simply accepting our decline to tier three, again. What a fiasco.

[A Load of Squit 5,134]

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11731/11188646/huw-jenkins-admits-there-is-no-money-for-new-swansea-signingsSky Sports using a bit of journalistic licence to twist the facts. Jenkins definitely says that there are funds (left over from the summer transfer window) for new signings.

[Badger 2,405]

When Swansea get relegated - be it this year or later - they will face big problems in the same way that we have - "investors" will not protect them from that and may indeed worsen the problem.Their wage bill for 2016-17 was reported have been reported as £92 million. (https://talksport.com/football/every-premier-league-club-ranked-their-total-wage-bill-2016-17-171109261432?p=9). Unless they get an instant return to the Premier League, they will need to sell players - it is a football reality. Equally, Swansea have only managed to sustain the model that they have due to regular player sales. Dreams that an investor would create football Nirvana for us do not stand serious scrutiny except in the highly unlikely event of us finding a benefactor willing to puts funds into the club without any expectation of their return.

[Mello Yello 2,281]

If NCFC raises the price of season tickets 2018/19 then we''ll be the FANtom Investors......