Richard Balls Hits The Nail On The Head.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

New investment needed or City could end up following the Charlton model

Richard Balls

2 hours ago

A lone voice spoke up against the Norwich City heirarchy at

the recent agm. Opposing the re-election of Delia Smith and Michael

Foulger to the board, shareholder Robin Wilson said he had absolutely no

confidence in their abilities and suggested they step down. Needless to

say, their reinstallation was approved by an almost unanimous vote and

the moment had gone.

Such acts are seen as heresy by those in Smith and Wynn Jones’ inner

sanctum and those on the terraces for whom they can do no wrong. Just

like those who refused to stay for the lap of honour in 2006 or waive

their rebate after the club crashed into League One three years later,

those who don’t sing from the official hymn sheet are made to feel

lesser supporters.

The majority shareholders are now hideously out of touch with modern

football, but they are no doubt told by those who have their ear in

expensive restaurants and the directors’ lounge to sod the begrudgers.

Those who want a change of ownership just don’t know how lucky they are

to have owners like them and would see the club flogged off to some

unscrupulous foreign investor who has never so much flown over Norwich.

Fans of so many other clubs with would give their eye teeth to have

British owners with such passion and commitment. So the argument goes.

Smith and Wynn Jones insist they remain our best bet because they

have an ethos other potential owners don’t. “We have owners who believe

in the club as a community football club,” chairman Ed Balls told the

agm. “They’ve been here a long time because they love Norwich City and

have done some great things for the club.”

Oddly, given the sharp downturn in City’s financial position, the

shareholders didn’t raise the question of possible future investment,

but the chairman did. Although the club had not been proactively seeking

investment, “if there are people who believe in this football club and

want to invest in Norwich City, our door is open,” he said.

This represents a volte-face from the position set out by Smith and

Wynne Jones in the infelicitous interview they gave to Times sports

writer Henry Winter in November 2016.  In it, Smith said. “The

supporters will be very disappointed to hear that. But no way will we

sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries.” Not content to stop there,

she added: “Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a

very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter

and he will be the recipient of our shares.”

And thereine lies the problem. Even if there is someone out there who

is prepared to pour their millions into the club, they are unlikely to

want to do that without acquiring any shares or having a significant say

in the boardroom. Yet it is clear for all to see that the current

owners are going nowhere any time soon and when they are ready to stand

aside, it will be to the one person who can be relied upon to run the

club their way.

So, in effect, we have a stalemate. The current owners are done with

investing; in fact last year the club repaid the £1,529,000 they were

owed in outstanding loans and a further £460,000 to Michael Foulger. 

But the likelihood of the club attracting a wealthy investor under the

current set-up remains slim to non-existent.

The Times interview was an own-goal of mammoth proportions,

alienating many fans. It’s timing, just before an agm, was especially

poor and the comments made in it ill-judged. Much of the piece involved

Smith bemoaning how badly fans in general were now treated and calling

on the government to cure football’s ills. “I’d love to see supporters

worshipped and respected because otherwise it’s going to end up on

television,” she said. Just weeks later, tickets to see Norwich take on

Southampton’s second-string in the FA Cup third round went on sale

priced £25 for adults and caused a furore. An apology was given along

with free travel for the replay and then chief executive Jez Moxey, who

was blamed for the fiasco, was shown the door soon after. However, the

damage was done.

Finally, if you’re all about running Norwich as a “community football

club”, why mark your 20th anniversary by giving an interview to a

national newspaper which operates an online paywall? Why not give a rare

interview to the media which actually serves the local community or –

if they are not be trusted – set out your stall about the future

direction of the club in the matchday programme or on the website?

Last summer, Ipswich wrote to all other Championship clubs offering

to cap the price of tickets for adult visiting fans at Portman Road at

£25 if Town fans were charged the same for the reciprocal fixture. Clubs

not taking up the invitation would have to pay the standard price.

Twelve clubs reportedly agreed to the arrangement, but Norwich was not

among them, leaving Smith wide open to accusations of hypocrisy.

Charity, after all, begins at home.

The number of empty seats and sombre atmosphere at Carrow Road of

late has been alarming. Seven home games without a win before the 3-1

turnaround against Sheffield Wednesday last night and some dire football

has led to some staying away and others leaving early. Last season some

decided not to renew their season tickets and other are muttering about

doing likewise this January. If prices have to go up to cover the

gaping hole in our finances, some won’t be standing or sitting next

season.

Charlton Athletic was once City’s role model and unless something

gives, we could end up following it in a way the board never intended.

[Crabbycanary3 994]

I''m sure this thread will fall away,. Nothing to see here.................

[king canary 7,605]

He''s hit on the main thing that bugs me- the constant insistence that the fans are the most important thing yet I don''t see that backed up by their actions.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

Is that the sound of someone hitchng their horse to a bandwagon?

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

Not really sure about nails being hit on the head. Concerns about finance are understandable but the supposition that a newspaper article is the reason no investment is forthcoming is no more fantastical than the belief that Tom Smith is the man to take the club forward.

What is the great alternative suggested?

There isn’t one.

Hope for an investor and hope that they’re well intentioned and hope that they have access to Theresa May’s money tree?

Imagine if that WAS the succession plan?

“So, Michael, Delia, the fans think Football ownership is a young persons game, what do you plan to do with your shares when you stand down?”

“Dunno really. Just sort of hope someone turns up and buys them.”

“Any idea who that could be?”

“Nah, if the worst comes to the worst we’ll stick them on eBay.”

“Sorry....wha....”

“Or have a raffle. Yeah. Or make it first prize on the Golden Goal Tickets for the next home game...”

Absolutely bonkers. They have to have a contingency in place and the shares will be in trust so that they CAN be sold should a would be investor turn up.

Problem being, it’s not an investor that we need. It’s a benefactor.

An injection of cash might see a short term upturn but unless there’s a subsequent willingness to at least reinvest the same amount each and every year, all you’re doing is digging a financial black hole. One that is deeper and more perilous than that which we face in our current guise because the commitments and obligations would be so much greater.

I don’t have the answers, I don’t know where we will find what/who we’re looking for or if they even exist. What I do know is that £20/30/40/50/100/200M isn’t enough, because if you buy £50m worth of players, you then commit to x in wages for four years and the demands will still be to improve the squad year on year. It just won’t happen. Unless we find a Maktoum....

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

I stopped reading after the "inner sanctum" and "hymn sheet" cliches, not to mention the inability to spell "hierarchy", unless that is a mistake introduced during the posting here.

[cornish sam 953]

Also, just to be a pedant, not listening to offers does not mean not open to investment. People can still invest, they just won''t sell them (all of) the club...

[Rogue Baboon 0]

But the pint is nobody will just give the club x amount of millions of pounds. They will want full control, which means buying Delias shares. I think this is the sticking point

You wouldn’t offer to buy somebody’s car but leave it at their house and key them drive it everyday.

[capricorn1 18]

I heard him on the Scrimmage last week, pretty much said everything in the first post here over and over over again. He clearly didn''t like The Times interview and has been holding some anger for a long while, but:-

a) It was over a year ago now, let it go!

b) Is it not possible comments could''ve been taken out of context, or at least not fully quoted to make a good sound bite?

c) Seriously, moaning about The Times being a paywall online paper? Just sounds like clutching at straws to have another stick to beat the owners up with.

People keep banging on about "Investors" but let''s be honest and Purple has touched on this, we''re not talking about an investor we''re talking about a Rich boys plaything as investors typically require a return on their investment. This is a bubble that really needs to burst for the good of the entire league.

[Herman 9,756]

Richard Hits and Nails Balls To His Head.Richard''s Head Hits Nails To His Balls.A small point to add as well, I don''t think they cn be blamed for ticket prices. I am sure there are people employed to sort that out and if they have cocked up then they should get the grief.

[Diane 500]

If you''re on twitter you can find Richard''s tweet ( about 7:30 pm ) with the link to his article there''s some interesting replies on there to read

[Herman 9,756]

Cheers Diane[Y] Was an interesting thread with a few recognisable contributors.

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I stopped reading after the "inner sanctum" and "hymn sheet" cliches, not to mention the inability to spell "hierarchy", unless that is a mistake introduced during the posting here.[/quote]

[:D]

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

This thread sort of proves Richard’s point. Anyone that speaks out against the owners gets set upon as some sort of crazy dissenter. Norwich will never be anything more than a middling Championship club under the current ownership structure and if we do go up no doubt they’ll muck it up like they have every other time we’ve been promoted. Error after error is swept under the carpet because of a fear of change.

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="Hoola Han Solo"]This thread sort of proves Richard’s point. Anyone that speaks out against the owners gets set upon as some sort of crazy dissenter. Norwich will never be anything more than a middling Championship club under the current ownership structure and if we do go up no doubt they’ll muck it up like they have every other time we’ve been promoted. Error after error is swept under the carpet because of a fear of change.[/quote]

Surely it was Richards'' initial choice of language towards those that don''t necessarily want new ownership that actually proves the opposite?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

I am a crazy dissenter, as I concur with Richard Balls......

[lake district canary 4,531]

The problem is - and I include Richard Balls in this - is that as soon as you start generalising those on the other side of the argument as deluded or whatever, you have lost the argument you were making in the first place. It''s the curse of social media that arguments disintegrate into battles of extremes, rather than just discussions.  There are decent arguments on both sides - there is a need for investment, but the kind of investment needed is the kind that has eluded our club since it was formed over 100 years ago.   That the board have made mistakes is obvious - name a football club that hasn''t made mistakes.  No one denies that is the case - including the board themselves - but the constant villifcation of them for doing what they are doing - looking after the clubs'' long term interests by cutting the cloth according to which league we are in - is not helpful to anyone.   Villyfying those that express that view, or labelling them as "fawning" or whatever is also unhelpful, actually it is just stupid.   It cheapens the argument and has nothing constructive to say.  Hurl insults out if you like - all it will do is get you insults hurled back, which might be "fun" to some, but is pretty pointless.   Actually those that want the majority shareholders to go have no solution - they have no plan - where will investors come from to take on a club in our situation?  In the current climate and situation of the club, DS and MJW are doing what is logical and sensible - planning for the future that will ensure the well being of the club they spent their money on and have put much of their lives into.  Mistakes they may have made, but all it needs is some success on the pitch and the dissenters voices will diappear into the background.  Looking forwards to that.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Wonder if the cost of season tickets will rise for 2018/19?......

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]I stopped reading after the "inner sanctum" and "hymn sheet" cliches, not to mention the inability to spell "hierarchy", unless that is a mistake introduced during the posting here.[/quote]

[:D]

[/quote]

Not to mention demonising fans who don''t share his views as being blindly loyal to Smith and Jones, when it might just be they can see both sides of an argument, and this bargain-basement jibe:The majority shareholders are now hideously out of touch with modern football, but they are no doubt told by those who have their ear in expensive restaurants and the directors’ lounge to sod the begrudgers.And wasting spleen on what looks like a failure to understand why Smith and Jones spoke to The Times. The journalist, Henry Winter, admires them (as shown from by remarks he make in his coverage of the play-off final when he was still working for the Daily Telegraph:  "They represent what owners should be...conscientious individuals who see their clubs as vehicles for local pride and passion, giving people a chance to dream, not as potential cash machines to be plundered.") and so presumably asked for the interview. There was nothing to stop the EDP doing the same.Balls makes one or two fair points, particularly about ticket prices, but overall it is just a mash-up of general complaints some fans (it is a mistake to believe those in cyberspace are representative) have made. There is nothing resembling the scarily detailed financial analyses Parma has posted here recently.He also effectively goes on to dismiss as irrelevant what he correctly describes as a volte-face by Ed Balls, about the door being open for investors. I never thought the "no sale/Tom takes over" position was set in stone, and the Ed Balls comment could be confirmation of that.Whether or not there is some scope there, if fans are as upset as Richard Balls says, what is his plan to channel that anger? He mentions that a shareholder fruitlessly called for Smith and Foulger to step down. Most years at least one director has to stand for re-election. So how about Balls finding a suitable replacement candidate (if not himself there surely must be several other such if he really is speaking for so many) and getting them to campaign between now and the next AGM on a Find Investment platform? Heck, it might even do some good.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

......Purple, with rage......

[yellowfever 17]

I fail to see how anyone could disagree with Richard Balls comments and frankly I am amazed at the lack of ambition shown by what seems to be a large number of the Club''s supporter base. Without initial and ongoing investment/speculation - call it what you will, the Club will inevitably stagnate unless draconian legislation on wage caps is introduced and enforced. There is a staggering reluctance and closed-mind approach to the thought of change at the top and a seemingly bizarre notion that any inward investor must be dodgy or investing for entirely the wrong reasons.

The current majority shareholders position was made very clear in that dispiriting interview and reinforced when an approach was made to AB at the tail end of the Hughton era on behalf of investors who were also interested in Southampton FC. The message was clear at the time that external investment was not being sought. Although Ed Balls has now stated that it is, it would be fanciful in the extreme to assume that an entity would comit substantial levels of cash, time and energy into a long-term project without overall control. A self funding model is really the only option open to the Club as it would appear that neither the current owners nor their nephew have the required level of disposable wealth to allocate to NCFC. We dont really know as the door has been slammed shut as regards any discussions concerning majority share purchase.

One ray of hope is that the owners decide to listen to potential investment strategies that could create sustainable investment income over and above revenues generated from player sales, TV revenue, gate receipts etc. The problem is that the track record of stewardship with the ever revolving management and board appointee door doesnt inspire much confidence that they would stick to a medium to long term plan.

As avid supporters it is extremely frustrating that there is no way to influence the way things are being run at present or influence what seems to be a fairy inevitable outcome. A 3 -1 result over Sheffield Wednesday whilst welcome doesn''t really paper over the cracks. I hope that Farke has now realised that the more direct approach employed during the second half is a better way to win games in this division and that Messrs Maddison and Pritchard still feature on the team sheet post the January window.

[king canary 7,605]

"The current majority shareholders position was made very clear in that dispiriting interview and reinforced when an approach was made to AB at the tail end of the Hughton era on behalf of investors who were also interested in Southampton FC"

Interesting, care to expand?

[TIL 1010 4,738]

AB must be Alan Bowkett but beyond that i am lost as well.

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

Dick Balls......love parents who just don''t think things through. [:D]

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

So Alan Bowkett slammed the door in this investors face. Interesting. Do we know if the matter was even discussed with the owners or Chief Executive?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="yellowfever"]I fail to see how anyone could disagree with Richard Balls comments and frankly I am amazed at the lack of ambition shown by what seems to be a large number of the Club''s supporter base. Without initial and ongoing investment/speculation - call it what you will, the Club will inevitably stagnate unless draconian legislation on wage caps is introduced and enforced. There is a staggering reluctance and closed-mind approach to the thought of change at the top and a seemingly bizarre notion that any inward investor must be dodgy or investing for entirely the wrong reasons.[/quote]Except that no-one on this thread has argued against any investment, or argued that all potential investors must be dodgy, or argued against change at the top.

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="yellowfever"]I fail to see how anyone could disagree with Richard Balls comments and frankly I am amazed at the lack of ambition shown by what seems to be a large number of the Club''s supporter base. Without initial and ongoing investment/speculation - call it what you will, the Club will inevitably stagnate unless draconian legislation on wage caps is introduced and enforced. There is a staggering reluctance and closed-mind approach to the thought of change at the top and a seemingly bizarre notion that any inward investor must be dodgy or investing for entirely the wrong reasons.[/quote]Except that no-one on this thread has argued against any investment, or argued that all potential investors must be dodgy, or argued against change at the top.[/quote]

Don''t let that stop him Purple. He hasn''t posted very often as it is...

[TCCANARY 263]

Hughton left in April 2014 and Bowkett was still Chairman up until he left in December 2015, you''d think that someone would''ve let the public or the shareholders know, was it mentioned at the AGM in 2014? Don''t recall any mention of investment.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="yellowfever"]I fail to see how anyone could disagree with Richard Balls comments and frankly I am amazed at the lack of ambition shown by what seems to be a large number of the Club''s supporter base. Without initial and ongoing investment/speculation - call it what you will, the Club will inevitably stagnate unless draconian legislation on wage caps is introduced and enforced. There is a staggering reluctance and closed-mind approach to the thought of change at the top and a seemingly bizarre notion that any inward investor must be dodgy or investing for entirely the wrong reasons.[/quote]Except that no-one on this thread has argued against any investment, or argued that all potential investors must be dodgy, or argued against change at the top.[/quote]

Don''t let that stop him Purple. He hasn''t posted very often as it is...

[/quote]I think you overestimate the regard in which I might be held...[:D]

[hogesar 9,658]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="yellowfever"]I fail to see how anyone could disagree with Richard Balls comments and frankly I am amazed at the lack of ambition shown by what seems to be a large number of the Club''s supporter base. Without initial and ongoing investment/speculation - call it what you will, the Club will inevitably stagnate unless draconian legislation on wage caps is introduced and enforced. There is a staggering reluctance and closed-mind approach to the thought of change at the top and a seemingly bizarre notion that any inward investor must be dodgy or investing for entirely the wrong reasons.[/quote]Except that no-one on this thread has argued against any investment, or argued that all potential investors must be dodgy, or argued against change at the top.[/quote]

Don''t let that stop him Purple. He hasn''t posted very often as it is...

[/quote]I think you overestimate the regard in which I might be held...[:D][/quote]

See this is a typical ''remoaner'' response. Always undervaluing your good old British self! [;)]