Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
king canary

Amazing what investment can do

Recommended Posts

[quote user="king canary"]Fulham take a gamble in January and look to strengthen an already good squad with a loan deal for Aleksander Mitrovic from Newcastle. I''d imagine the wages and loan fee aren''t cheap.

In return, he''s scored 5 goals in 5 starts (with 2 more appearances off the bench) with Fulham winning 5 and drawing 2 of those 7 games. This was a team who was already scoring goals but opted to strengthen and had the finance to do it.[/quote]I don''t think that Mitovic loan shows what you seem to think it does.1. A six month loan and wages is only a relatively small financial outlay.2. The loan needs to be in the context of the purchases this year by Fulham of other strikers Rui Fonte (£8.2 million) and Aboubakar Kamara £5.4 million. Between them they have scored 10 games from 47 games. Whilst Kamara is young and shows promise, I''m not sure that this is so far the greatest of returns on nearly £14 million. The very fact that they needed to borrow Mitrovic suggests that their expensive purchases are not judged as successful as their cheap ones. Hopefully for Fulham, Fonte and Kamara will come good but if they don''t they are saddled with bigs wages fo ryears to come in the same way that Villa are with Ross McCormack.3. In the last 3 years, Fulhams net transfer spend has been negative - minus 5.9m (15-16); minus £7.95m (16-17); plus 3.25 million this year - about  10 million more in sales than purchases. http://www.transferleague.co.uk/fulham/english-football-teams/fulham-transfers4. Having established that Fulham''s operations are currently subsidised through player sales, it probabaly pertinent to observe that their most profitable business, which will subsidise future transfer business will be the sale of Ryan Sessegnon at some stage - of course, he is a home grown product! The benefits of revenue from his sale will to some extent be limited by expensive purchases who have not delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cairney will also go for big money from Fulham soon. However, look at Southampton - they''ve brought in tens of millions over the last couple of years in player sales, yet they look destined to be relegated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Badger

With due respect I think you''ve again got an extremely one eyed view of things.

Transfer fees are actually not that important in the grander scheme of things- wages are what clubs spend money on.

Fulham (from their last accounts) run at a wages to turnover ratio of just over 100%. So even just their wage budget needs subsidy from an outside owner. A £5m profit in transfers over 3 years does not come close to ''subsidizing their operations'' as shown by the fact they lost £12m in one year (a decrease from the £28m in losses the year before) according to their last accounts. In this context their profit in transfer fees is a drop in the ocean.

So from this I''m assuming they didn''t have a bunch of spare cash burning a hole in their pocket, yet the owner still financed the deal to bring in Mitrovic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Only Birmingham, Burton and Bolton have scored fewer goals this season than Norwich.

It''s down to bad recruitment AND the utterly slow & pedestrian build up to everyone of our attacks, and that is down to coaching.

We are so far off a top 6 side and with the summer transfer dealings approaching, I for one do not see it changing anytime soon.

It is SOOOOOO dull watching us, I''d rather a visit to ikea & I hate furniture shopping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Badger

With due respect I think you''ve again got an extremely one eyed view of things.

Transfer fees are actually not that important in the grander scheme of things- wages are what clubs spend money on.

Fulham (from their last accounts) run at a wages to turnover ratio of just over 100%. I agree that wages are more important than transfer fees but of course the issue is that big transfer fees almost always involve big wages as well - when you buy multi-million pound players, they tend to come with large pay packets as well take Ross McCormack for example, that so many fans on here wanted us to buy - the transfer fee was c£12m but the wages were rumoured to be 2/12 million per year for 4 years - a further £10 million. That''s why "ambitious" clubs often get lumbered - they over pay players that don''t deliver and sit there on big contracts draining resources. The subsidy to which you refer below, often just covers past mistakes.So even just their wage budget needs subsidy from an outside owner. A £5m profit in transfers over 3 years does not come close to ''subsidizing their operations'' as shown by the fact they lost £12m in one year (a decrease from the £28m in losses the year before) according to their last accounts. In this context their profit in transfer fees is a drop in the ocean.

So from this I''m assuming they didn''t have a bunch of spare cash burning a hole in their pocket, yet the owner still financed the deal to bring in Mitrovic.Impossible to tell really without access to the accounts - an as I say, it''s really not a big risk.With regards to be one-eyed, I think I am pretty balanced on the issue but feel the need to point out facts to some who have a completely simplistic view on the matter (not you) - that it can only be good for us. The evidence is that mega rich owners with huge injections of capital benefits some clubs; makes not difference to others (except leave them with a debt and therefore an over-hanging risk) and leaves other clubs worse off. Other than Chelsea and Man City, I am not sure that it has had a truly transformative effect on an English club in the long term - a few years in the sun perhaps, before football gravity reasserts itself.Finally, and I know this annoys some, for a number of reasons I think that we are less likely to attract the interest of a billionaire (unless they have a prior interest in the area). In Fulham''s case the reason is easy - where would you rather hold real estate - Fulham or Norwich? Of course, the cautious might recognise a potential threat here![/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]@Nutty

Yes they were- those would be included in their turnover though.[/quote]
But they will be classed as football income. As I understand it from this season they have to be more careful how much they spend. Or to put it another way the more they gamble this season the more they have to cut their cloth over the next two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''Other than Chelsea and Man City, I am not sure that it has had a truly transformative effect on an English club in the long term''

Bournemouth? I believe they were in League 2 when their investor took over.

Leicester- One of only 6 teams to win the Premier League, a Championship team beforehand.

Southampton- In administration in League One, now in their 6th straight season in the Premier League.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KC - Bournemouth potentially - I did think about including them in the list but I thought it too soon to judge. Their current capacity is only about 11,000, although I believe they are looking to expand upon this. Staying in the Premier league will be pretty crucial to their  finances and they remain one of the vulnerable teams. But yes, I agree, I can''t see them spending much time in League One in the future, which has been their most frequent historic League.Leicester will always have the glory of their PL league win. However, they are not fully established as a top PL team and may soon be operating in their "normal level" which is "mainly Premier (Top) league with visits to second level." Whilst they may have been in the second tier when taken over, they have more frequently operated in the top tier. They have tended to have bigger attendances to us and have spent far more time in the top league. I see no evidence yet that the change is transformative in terms of being better than one of the also runs in a normal year - but they always have the title win!!Southampton - are performing at around their normal level for the last few years. It is to be seen whether they will be able to sustain the success that they had in the last quarter of the 20th Century. Apart from their "disastrous decade" in the early 21st Century, they were pretty much an established top tier side, it''s not clear that they will be able to maintain their traditional position in the top tier. They have also traditionally had bigger attendances than us. In summary, the change with Bournemouth may well be transformative in the long run, but too early to say as yet - let''s see what happens when they get their new ground; Leicester had the greatest of all seasons, but otherwise are in line with their historic standing. Southampton, if anything are under-performing in comparison with their history. Regression to the mean? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.F.C._Bournemouth#/media/File:AFC_Bournemouth_League_Performance.svghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_City_F.C.#/media/File:Leicester_City_FC_League_Performance.svghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_F.C.#/media/File:Southampton_FC_League_Performance.svg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So investment is only successful if it is permanent?

Leicester won the league- that is something Leicester fans will always have. Even if they return to the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol Kingo

Leicester winning the title will be the stick their fans beat the club with everytime they are disappointed by a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Wow.

What a negative view you have Nutty- so unlike you.[/quote]
It''s what I have come to expect on here Kingo. It''s the same with us and 92/93. We enjoyed it in 92/93 but I don''t let the memory of that enjoyment spoil other seasons. I have an inner joy supporting our club that transcends the temporary highs and lows of each season. That''s probably why I am called a happy clapper. It seems for others the temporary is all there is. Each to their own buddy.
My view is unchanged. I look forward to the next game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Herman"]How long have Fulham been in the Championship now?[/quote]
They were relegated with us in 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="king canary"]So investment is only successful if it is permanent?

Leicester won the league- that is something Leicester fans will always have. Even if they return to the Championship.[/quote]Investment is only transformative if it is permanent - i.e. it has made a real difference. Otherwise, it is just part of the normal statistical patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really Badger, financing new grounds, training facilities and development of the clubs infrastructure transforms clubs who will no doubt get relegated but will be long term better off, not all about where in the league you are but about the facilities too.

I’m sure Brighton who played footy at a hockey stadium are far better placed now with a spanking new ground and facilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]Not really Badger, financing new grounds, training facilities and development of the clubs infrastructure transforms clubs who will no doubt get relegated but will be long term better off, not all about where in the league you are but about the facilities too.

I’m sure Brighton who played footy at a hockey stadium are far better placed now with a spanking new ground and facilities.[/quote]Leicester and Southampton do not have new grounds and their current league positions are about their historic trend. There is no evidence to suggest that there position has been transformed by their new ownership, although Leicester had the seasons of all seasons which will be remembered by their fans in the same way Ipswich remember Alf Ramsay and Bobby Robson.Brighton are another case entirely and I would welcome an offer of financial support in similar circumstances. The owner, Tony Bloom is Brighton-born and a long-term Brighton fan, whose Grandad had been vice-chairman of Brighton ion the 1970s. Bloom also has a strong record of supporting Charities and has set up the Bloom Foundation supporting local and national charities. A very interesting character! (http://uk.businessinsider.com/inside-story-star-lizard-tony-bloom-2016-2)Bloom fits into another category - he is not an investor but a benefactor/ patron - he is not looking to make money from an investment but using his great wealth to fund his passions and charitable causes. If there was a similar Norwich supporting multi-billionaire, I would grab their hand off if they offered financial support. Do you know of anyone who fits the bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But why would a benefactor have to already be a Norwich fan?

Was Abramovic a Chelsea fan?

Was Maxim Denim a Bournemouth fan?

Was Liebher a Southampton fan?

People seem unable to understand the idea that sometimes rich people like sport and want to be involved in some way shape or form. Billionaires like to have fun too, not everything they spend money on is designed to deliver a return.

In a previous post you mentioned the idea of Khan wanting to own Fulham for the ''real estate value.'' Yet I can''t think of a single example of an owner buying a club and demolishing the ground to make money. You just have to look at the situation with Dulwich Hamlet to see how very difficult it is for a company to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]But why would a benefactor have to already be a Norwich fan?

Was Abramovic a Chelsea fan?

Was Maxim Denim a Bournemouth fan?

Was Liebher a Southampton fan?

People seem unable to understand the idea that sometimes rich people like sport and want to be involved in some way shape or form. Billionaires like to have fun too, not everything they spend money on is designed to deliver a return.

In a previous post you mentioned the idea of Khan wanting to own Fulham for the ''real estate value.'' Yet I can''t think of a single example of an owner buying a club and demolishing the ground to make money. You just have to look at the situation with Dulwich Hamlet to see how very difficult it is for a company to do that.[/quote]Liebher got a 5% return on the loans made to the club! I wish I could get a safe 5% on my savings. His holding company bought the club for £12-15m and sold 80% of the club for £210m (https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/14/southampton-sell-80-stake-to-chinese-businessman-gao-jisheng). This is a very good return on a safe investment secured by real estate.Maxim Denim paid £850,000 for Bournemouth and charged 3% on loans made to them. He sold 25% for an undisclosed amount (as far as I can see) - I''m sure that it was at a very healthy profit. However, as I suggested above - Bournemouth and Chelsea are two of the clubs for whom ownership by mega-rich owners has worked on a seemingly long-term basis. These can be offset by the cases where it has not worked. In both cases, the investors bought assets at rock-bottom prices which won''t apply to us. Your substantive point about it being "fun" rather than finance driving these decisions seems difficult to substantiate.I''m not sure what your point is re Dulwich Hamlet - could you explain? As far as I know they forced the club out of the ground and despite fuss from local politicians, they will end up profiting from the sale of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but both Liecester and Southampton have had a huge upgrade on their stadiums, filbert street and the dell were both shitholes.

Bournemouth now, Bristol and like I said Brighton all have moved ahead of where we were thanks to money, while I agree that not every club can go forward with investment but it helps to get funding to improve the clubs infrastructure and facilities for long term.

You can add Boro, Sunderland to that list, both their old rounds were awful.

Now we’re looking at our club to see a Delia dip back into that repaid loan to update Colney, or is that too much to ask for? Even if it’s another loan!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if Club Director Micky Foulger could donate some old pre-fabricated chicken sheds for Colney as a stop gap instead of those dreadful portakabins? Hopefully it''ll be just until we''re able to obtain sufficient self funding. Oi! No flash furriners, and also ''without that unwanted outside investment''.....We can hopefully raise or source the required rebuilding wonga from somewhere, however, or from wherever?....Erm y''know maybe us the loyal support could intially have a masseeve whip-round for starters so as the club are able to start an'' refurbish the old outdated an'' dilapidated Colney training ground........?

Wait, hey! There must be loyal and true supporters amongst the Carrow fan faithful, who are draughtsman, builders, electricians, truckers, brickies, plumbers, carpenters, drainage engineers etc - and so many others who have the necessary experience, skills and abilities, who could offer themselves in their spare time (and for free), to get Colney up to date? R U Skilled but retired maybe?......If we could source and get the building materials charitably donated, that would be so much better!......

Now''s the time to get the collapsing Colney DIY ball rollin''......I suggest the work''s carried out close-season whilst the poor players are away on their holibobs and on their well earned break. Work to be carried out in the summer whilst the Norfolk weather''s decent and long hot days.....Sacrifice your hols this summer you loyal true skilled support - and become part of the Colney Constructors!......The NCFC board and their chums could also relinquish their summer hols by leading the way and with encouraging example, donning reflective jackets, overalls, hard hat an'' safety footwear. They could do some serious labouring.....humpin'' an'' dumpin an'' some scrapin'' & shovellin'' and by generally assisting the skilled supporters......Delia will obviously be keeping the workforce fed an'' watered and for just a small fee.....

C''mon our Ed, Webbo, Micky Fo, Micky Wynno, Neppers Tommo, Stephan pornstar tashmano, Stevey Stoneyo, Joe Ferrario, Mick Denniso and all their other NCFC board chums and not forgetting all those employed behind the scenes in the corridors of Carra.......

Volnteer for the Colney Constructors!.......Be there, or be square!.......Motto is......Doin'' it all, and for nowt.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
king canary wrote the following post at 08/03/2018 8:47 AM:

But why would a benefactor have to already be a Norwich fan?

Because a lot of our fans have been brainwashed by the owners opinions on outside investment/ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy"]Sorry but both Liecester and Southampton have had a huge upgrade on their stadiums, filbert street and the dell were both shitholes.

Sorry Indy but both the clubs had their new grounds BEFORE they got their new mega rich owners - they had nothing to do with it.

Bournemouth now, Bristol and like I said Brighton all have moved ahead of where we were thanks to money, while I agree that not every club can go forward with investment but it helps to get funding to improve the clubs infrastructure and facilities for long term.

You can add Boro, Sunderland to that list, both their old rounds were awful.

Now we’re looking at our club to see a Delia dip back into that repaid loan to update Colney, or is that too much to ask for? Even if it’s another loan![/quote]Boro have a mega rich owner who has local links and is a fan, which I would welcome - having said that despite the huge amount of money that Steve Gibson has pumped into the club, they have spent much less time in the Premier league in the last 10 years than we have!Sunderland are a basket case - would you really want to be them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JF"]king canary wrote the following post at 08/03/2018 8:47 AM:

But why would a benefactor have to already be a Norwich fan?

Because a lot of our fans have been brainwashed by the owners opinions on outside investment/ownership.[/quote]It''s very easy to say things like that but the evidence suggests otherwise. Lots of the "money at all costs" crew of football club ownership seem to accept the benefit without any thought at all. hardly any are able to offer sustained evidence to support their case.Huge injections of cash have been transformative in a very few cases. It has given a short-term boost in other cases. It has made little difference in some cases and has been very damaging in others. I don''t think that we would be far off some sort of normal distribution curve if looking at the impact of large cash injections - suggesting that we are just as likely to suffer from the injection and prosper from it.If you don''t agree provide evidence, but most of the evidence that has been provided doesn''t stand scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So with investment we may prosper

We may struggle

It may transform the club

It may destroy the club

But we will probably just join the other 15 or so teams in this league all thinking that ‘this is our year’

The alternative is what we have at the minute where we stay where we are, trying to do it different. The problem is I don’t really see us getting to a point where we can challenge for more than 6th place at a push

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rogue Baboon"]So with investment we may prosper

We may struggle

It may transform the club

It may destroy the club

Just about sums it up - though "destroy" is perhaps a bit strong.

But we will probably just join the other 15 or so teams in this league all thinking that ‘this is our year’

The alternative is what we have at the minute where we stay where we are, trying to do it different. The problem is I don’t really see us getting to a point where we can challenge for more than 6th place at a pushI think that what we do on the pitch/ training ground is more important than what goes on in the boardroom. I am more optimistic about our medium term prospects than you seem to be. We all know the improvements (defence) and the area of concern (scoring): if Farke and the squad can improve the latter without damaging the former, we will be there or thereabouts. It may well be that Farke has to think about different tactics for home games - particularly against "lower" teams - my impression was that we were more direct in the first half against Forest.

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Badger

You seem to only consider change ''transformational'' if it establishes you in the top 4 of the Premier League.

Leicester have been transformed by their owners. They are currently building a new £80m training complex, have plans in place to significantly expand the stadium capacity and have won the Premier League. If they got relegated this season I''d back them to bounce straight back up.

Bournemouth have been transformed- they were close to going out of business in League Two and now are playing in the Premier League for the first time in their history.

Southampton were a League One club in Administration when they were taken over. They''ve now just completed a £40m training ground upgrade, have one of the most successful academies in English football and are playing their 6th straight season in the top flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...