£3.5m Academy Fund - who's in?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

Stuart Webber:“So that’s when we got to the point of this bond and it was actually Tom

Smith who had the idea of (sports investment firm) Tifosy as he’d seen

that in action with the Stevenage stand project.

[Year of the tiger 54]

Interesting

https://www.tifosy.com/en/campaigns/invest-in-the-canaries-bond-and-help-build-our-future

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

Looks like the club won’t need your money Vince

[Van wink 2,994]

Maybe some will not get all that they asked for.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="hogesar"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="norfolkngood"]Good post Buncey !

if you own a football club you have to find the money if not let someone else invest to me the board are saying they can not afford to run the club

now Delia and Husband are multimillionaire''s maybe on paper maybe invested i do not know but they had a lot of money Repaid to them over the years by the club why are they not reinvesting it back into the club ? for them to keep other investments or their money tied up elsewhere is selfish in my eyes[/quote]I think most of the money Smith and Jones have put into the club has been by way of buying shares, including when one share offer fell short. Back in 2008 the loan outstanding to then was just under 200,000 pounds. They then put an extra 2m into the club because of the financial crisis (Foulger added 600,000 pounds). So the amount paid back to S&M over the last 10 years is only 2.1m pounds. Not a vast amount they could now put back in.But in any event the plan, whether fans like it or not, is for the club to be self-sustaining financially. You don''t achieve that by the owners covering up shortfalls, especially if they would quite soon run out of the money to do that.[/quote]

[Y]

I''m also not too sure how you can refer to Delia and co as ''selfish''.

[/quote]To add a few points. I suspect the great majority of Smith and Jones'' wealth is represented by their stake in Norwich City. Based on what I assume is still the current share price of 100 pounds that comes to around 32m (always supposing someone would pay that much). And they cannot in effect liquidate any of that without losing control of the company.Secondly, they are pledged to put money into the bond, and it would not be out of character (they did it before with that share issue) to help make up a shortfall if the 3.5m figure is not reached (my guess is that the club took soundings before launching the bond to see what high-end demand there might be).Thirdly, as to why, and why now, and why all in one go, one factor could be the regular review (due next year, I think) the academy/Colney has to pass to keep Category 1 status.[/quote]Getting at least to 3.5m doesn''t that much surprise me. It is normal practice to see what high-end demand there is for schemes like this, to ensure they don''t fall flat. But it now seems likely the upper limit of 5m will be reached. Heck, it is almost as if there is some financial nous in the boardroom...

[Van wink 2,994]

Its ticking over like a good un now, recon it could hit the £5M today

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

I’m sure someone will be along soon to try and put a negative spin on it

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="FenwayFrank"]I’m sure someone will be along soon to try and put a negative spin on it[/quote]Well now that the myth of board members aren''t willing to invest their own money has been dispelled I suspect they will change tact to "board members lining their own pockets"

[Icecream Snow 761]

Doh - looks like the campaign has closed and the £5million has been hit, with 735 investors.

Didn''t think it would fill up that quickly

[ricardo 7,385]

That was quick, all done and dusted.

[Badger 2,405]

I just tried to invest and got this:"Sorry, you were unable to complete your investment as the raise has now ended. You have not been charged."I think that I may have left it too late [:(]Anybody else had this?

[Badger 2,405]

Campaign closed.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user=" Badger"]Campaign closed.[/quote]I blame Austerity[:D]

[Ginja 26]

[quote user=" Badger"]I just tried to invest and got this:"Sorry, you were unable to complete your investment as the raise has now ended. You have not been charged."I think that I may have left it too late [:(]Anybody else had this?[/quote]It''s full Badger, campaign closed unfortunately

[king canary 7,604]

Wow, that is pretty impressive.

Out of interest was it ever made public how much the board members were putting in?

[Ginja 26]

There is a possibility of people changing their minds and backing out given there is a 14 day cooling off period so if you''ve missed out then maybe they will re-open for new investors.

[ricardo 7,385]

[quote user="king canary"]Wow, that is pretty impressive.

Out of interest was it ever made public how much the board members were putting in?[/quote]I hope not, else people will be on here complaining that the posho''s snaffled all the goodies[;)]

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Ginja"][quote user="FenwayFrank"]I’m sure someone will be along soon to try and put a negative spin on it[/quote]Well now that the myth of board members aren''t willing to invest their own money has been dispelled I suspect they will change tact to "board members lining their own pockets" [/quote]

How has that myth been dispelled? i''m pleased that this bond seems to have been a success but surely the bond route is being used precisely because board members are not willing to put their own money into the club?

That said it would be interesting to know how much board members have invested in the bond. It would not surprise me if some of the previous loans have gone back into this instead to make sure it is not undersubscribed.

[ricardo 7,385]

We await the Conspiracy Theorists.[:D]

[Branston Pickle 3,656]

Ah pants - been busy and was going to do this today, looks like I''ve missed out.

If we''ve reached the £5m with just 700-odd investors it does look like people have been using it as a ''proper'' investment rather than just a way to help out the club (as most supporter motive would have been) - the return of 8% (even with part of it being linked to spending with the club) + 25% promotion bonus is a lot better than the pitiful interest rates available elsewhere, even if there is more risk.

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Ginja"][quote user="FenwayFrank"]I’m sure someone will be along soon to try and put a negative spin on it[/quote]Well now that the myth of board members aren''t willing to invest their own money has been dispelled I suspect they will change tact to "board members lining their own pockets" [/quote]

How has that myth been dispelled? i''m pleased that this bond seems to have been a success but surely the bond route is being used precisely because board members are not willing to put their own money into the club?

That said it would be interesting to know how much board members have invested in the bond. It would not surprise me if some of the previous loans have gone back into this instead to make sure it is not undersubscribed.[/quote]As I suspected, when certain fans demand investment from the board and owners what the really mean is hand over the cash and get nothing in return a situation that is never going to occur not with these owners and not with any other potential owner and to top it off is the obligatory negative spin to try and paint it as somehow we are being cheated...

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="king canary"]Wow, that is pretty impressive.

Out of interest was it ever made public how much the board members were putting in?[/quote]I hope not, else people will be on here complaining that the posho''s snaffled all the goodies[;)][/quote]Well - I''d be pretty annoyed! I know it was my fault for leaving it too late, but was trying to check if it was SIPPable. If we get promoted during the term I will mourn the £2,500 promotion bonus that I would have got [:(]

[king canary 7,604]

@Ginja

You''ve kind of ignored his question there. I''m with Jim in that I don''t see how this bond dispels the idea that the board aren''t willing to invest their own money.

[Badger 2,405]

Ginja - "As I suspected, when certain fans demand investment from the board and

owners what the really mean is hand over the cash and get nothing in

return a situation that is never going to occur not with these owners

and not with any other potential owner and to top it off is the

obligatory negative spin to try and paint it as somehow we are being

cheated..."It is amazing the number of fans that think that all investors just put their money in for free! I''m sure there are examples of those that do but most that I am aware of charge or take security.e.g. The West ham owners charged 7% on their loans; Southampton''s 5% etc

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Good news......and good luck to those who''ve invested......

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="king canary"]@Ginja

You''ve kind of ignored his question there. I''m with Jim in that I don''t see how this bond dispels the idea that the board aren''t willing to invest their own money.[/quote]They''ve dispelled the myth that they won''t invest by... well.. investing... I''m not really sure how else to spell it out...but as I suspect, the real issue here is that you don''t understand what the word "invest" means and I''ll give you a clue, it does not mean give up all of your money and expect nothing in return.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="king canary"]@Ginja

You''ve kind of ignored his question there. I''m with Jim in that I don''t see how this bond dispels the idea that the board aren''t willing to invest their own money.[/quote]What money? I don''t suppose Tom Smith, Balls and Phillips have any money lying around they could invest. Foulger might have the odd hundred thousand he could lay his hands on, but I suspect the bulk of his wealth is tied up in his company, and so out of bounds.As to Smith and Jones, one would have to know much more about their finances, but it is likely much of their wealth is represented by their shareholding in Norwich City, none of whch can be liquidated without them losing ownership of the company. It is possible they could fund the club for some millions, but not for long. It would be a short-term solution. If you want to argue we should have richer owners, fine, but we have the owners we have, and they cannot bankroll the club in the way others do.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

I don’t care if the board want to make a return on their investment whether through this bond of through charging reasonable interests on loans provided they are not taking advantage of their position.

However, Ginja you said that the notion that the board are not prepared to invest their own money has been dispelled and I queried how when this bond scheme has been implemented precisely because the owners/board were unwilling/unable to fund the academy improvements themselves.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user=" Badger"]Ginja - "As I suspected, when certain fans demand investment from the board and

owners what the really mean is hand over the cash and get nothing in

return a situation that is never going to occur not with these owners

and not with any other potential owner and to top it off is the

obligatory negative spin to try and paint it as somehow we are being

cheated..."It is amazing the number of fans that think that all investors just put their money in for free! I''m sure there are examples of those that do but most that I am aware of charge or take security.e.g. The West ham owners charged 7% on their loans; Southampton''s 5% etc[/quote]

Many owners of football clubs do to be honest. Others speculate and invest money on the basis that it will ultimately help increase the overall value of their asset. Many owners have funded training ground improvements and other infrastructure improvements themselves because it falls outside of the FFP restrictions.

I’m not having a go at the owners here they are not in a position to do it for us but it’s not true that other owners do not do it.

You could of course argue that Delia and Michael have been very handsomely rewarded for their investment in the club because they now own a majority stake which is worth way more than they ever “paid” for it but that of course only applies if they ever look to sell it and they have made clear that they won’t.

[Ginja 26]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]However, Ginja you said that the notion that the board are not prepared to invest their own money has been dispelled and I queried how when this bond scheme has been implemented precisely because the owners/board were unwilling/unable to fund the academy improvements themselves.[/quote]The board are investing in the academy bond scheme.. I''m not sure how else I can spell it out that the board actively investing in a bond for the club''s acedemy and training ground dispells the idea that they are unwilling to invest... having the bond scheme simply allows us to reach beyond the pockets of the board and seek outside investment, which I thought is what everyone is clammering on here for anyway?