Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TIL 1010

In The Interests Of Balance Re.Foreign Owners.

Recommended Posts

I think it''s pie in the sky to expect Thomas Smith who is not wealthy to be expected to run NCFC , even with auntie''s limited wealth, and gain much success.

We will become an Ipswich if this happens.

Farke has to perform a miracle of Lambertian proportions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I think it''s pie in the sky to expect Thomas Smith who is not wealthy to be expected to run NCFC , even with auntie''s limited wealth, and gain much success.

We will become an Ipswich if this happens.

Farke has to perform a miracle of Lambertian proportions.

What is it with the wealth thing?

So every team in the Championship gets a billionaire owner and only three go up but three will go down.

And the end of the day, it will be about the performance on the pitch not the wealth of the owners.

We might well flounder if Tom ever takes over. We might set the league alight. We don''t know.

We don''t even know if he would take over. It is all supposition based on people wishing we were something we are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am so sorry but have you failed to notice that even the Championship has become richer? By a lot.

Unbelievable.

It will even impact our youth system. Get it?

Without more funding we will not be able to acquire the better players.

We have to hope DF, aided by our promising youth succeeds.

What is your alternative?

Years in the second tier.

What is it about wealth. I cannot believe I just read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I am so sorry but have you failed to notice that even the Championship has become richer? By a lot.

Unbelievable.

It will even impact our youth system. Get it?

Without more funding we will not be able to acquire the better players.

We have to hope DF, aided by our promising youth succeeds.

What is your alternative?

Years in the second tier.

What is it about wealth. I cannot believe I just read that.

Well thank you for being so pompous and arrogant.

It will always be about what happens on the pitch.

As I said, if every club was owned by billionaires, do the 21 who do not get promoted get the "owner out" signs at the ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The trouble is Broadstairs, that there is little evidence that having wealthy owners brings success on the pitch. Sure Wolves with very wealthy owners are likely to get promoted but Sunderland, with wealthy owners are likely to get relegated (for a second year).This year''s evidence seems to suggest that not spending much in the transfer market is more beneficial than spending loads:
1. Cardiff''s net spend this

summer was about £3 million, with five of the eight players coming in

being free transfers.
2. Rather than being free spenders this year, Aston Villa''s net spend this summer was negative - MINUS £9.75 million. 3. Derby in fourth also have a negative spend - MINUS £9 million.
It seems on this year''s evidence that good management, with a clear game plan and a settled side is more beneficial than having potloads of money to spend at every player that becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One serious question, if we had been taken over in 1996 by a rich foreign owner who to this point only decided to buy 8 million worth of shares with a loan repaid, taken us through 16 seasons in the championship five in the premiership and on in the third tier, now decides to run the club on an even keel, would everyone be defending them for lacking investment or be thankful for saving our club back in 96?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the wealth issue, if we’re reliant on funding wages by attendance then we better hope we don’t go back to the 13,000 to 16,000 regular attendance not so long back.

If 22 teams in this division own clubs there’s a bigger chance we might be yo-yoing up and down this division rather than the premiership.

I’m not really bothered who the owners are, it’s what’s best for the club and city, we don’t know if we can get better than we have, it’s always a gamble, but this long term doesn’t fill me with any confidence. Next year will be our third in this division, will be a damn site harder to get promoted next year IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]One serious question, if we had been taken over in 1996 by a rich foreign owner who to this point only decided to buy 8 million worth of shares with a loan repaid, taken us through 16 seasons in the championship five in the premiership and on in the third tier, now decides to run the club on an even keel, would everyone be defending them for lacking investment or be thankful for saving our club back in 96?[/quote]

Delia did not ''save'' Norwich City. The nearest to anyone ''saving'' the club is Geoffrey Watling. It is the biggest falsehood that has ever been associated with the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don''t fall for the rubbish these two spout.

Here we have 11 pages and 157 posts. Not one of those posts is either praising anyone for lack of investment or claiming anyone saved the club.

The stench of bin is overwhelming....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never mentioned Delia saving the club just said had a foreign owner come in took over and had the same investment to performance would they get such an easy ride? Or would they get more pressure being rich and foreign to invest their money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose success on the pitch is what matters. Owners get an easier time when things are good, not so when things are bad (Chase being the obvious one).

Delia & Michael have had a very easy ride IMO - A love in I never understood.

A foreign owner would probably not have such an easy ride if things were how they are now. They would have to get things moving pretty fast.

Ultimately I don''t car who owns NCFC as long as they either invest or attract investment to it to move the club forward. That isn''t happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Bit early to be drinking isn''t it Broadstairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow that’s kind of you Numpty, allowing others read and chat on a forum......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A non-local or foreign owner with the same record would come in for a lot more criticism than the current owners. Delia gets slack because she’s a woman (and a nice one) and a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
I doubt there were many foreign owners in 96 Indy.

I think it is about wealth as much as where you are from.

But the fact remains that if each of the 92 clubs had billionaire owners, there would be at least at least 79 clubs who would be disappointed and no doubt critical of their owners.

Isn''t it about how you play not in what league it is?

Our last two seasons played in the Prem were some of the most miserable and invoked some of the greatest criticism on the site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KG that’s something I totally agree with you, being in the so called promised land is just rubbish, it’s not enjoyable as all you see is a manager under pressure to pick up enough points not to get relegated! Football has too big a divide across the leagues to the point where a lot of lower league and non league clubs are facing closure each season while EPL players get paid upto 400k per week, scandalous really.

How refreshing would it be to see a football revolution to spread the wealth down the divisions, limit player wages as a salary cap and limit player squads.

This will never happen but would negate the need for big foreign investment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neppers Tom may currently not have the necessary and required credentials at the moment to make this club a footballing force to be reckoned with......But, given time and when he does eventually attain those necessary and required credentials, then it''ll be wowsville, we''re then goin'' places!.....

.......Err, aren''t we?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]KG that’s something I totally agree with you, being in the so called promised land is just rubbish, it’s not enjoyable as all you see is a manager under pressure to pick up enough points not to get relegated! Football has too big a divide across the leagues to the point where a lot of lower league and non league clubs are facing closure each season while EPL players get paid upto 400k per week, scandalous really.

How refreshing would it be to see a football revolution to spread the wealth down the divisions, limit player wages as a salary cap and limit player squads.

This will never happen but would negate the need for big foreign investment![/quote]Get rid of the parachute payments and introduce a Premier 1 & 2 with 18 teams in each division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue with that is what happens to those teams not invited to these two divisions?

How do you decide who is there? Would all four Birmingham teams feature? How many London clubs and what if Norwich is a team not invited or doesn’t meet the criteria?

It’s an idea but to benefit all there should be a salary cap in each division and limit squad numbers.

More money should be spread through the divisions and less on players wages!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Limiting the size of squads would be helpful. We''re about to go into a World Cup where some of our better players can''t even get in their own side (Rashford, Sterling, Stones (ahem...), Lingard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]The issue with that is what happens to those teams not invited to these two divisions?

How do you decide who is there? Would all four Birmingham teams feature? How many London clubs and what if Norwich is a team not invited or doesn’t meet the criteria?

It’s an idea but to benefit all there should be a salary cap in each division and limit squad numbers.

More money should be spread through the divisions and less on players wages![/quote]The top 36 teams in the football pyramid at the end of the season it''s announced, on merit seems the fairest way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mad Steve"]I am not sure we should change the finances and structure of the game just because Delia hasn''t got a pot to p1ss in.

Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in[/quote]It wouldn''t be for that reason. It''s because the gap between the Premier and the Championship is too large in terms of money and playing ability. When teams get promoted to the Premier League some fans consider it a bad move as the football becomes more about not losing or not losing heavily. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Badger

That post is so wonderfully one eyed.

''Aston Villa have a net spend of minus £10m''

Yes, following on from a year where they had a net spend of plus £30m. So since they returned to the Championship they''ve had a net spent of around £20m +. This is without factoring in the ''free'' signing of John Terry who I''m sure is on some sizable wages.

Yes, Derby have made some profit this year. Yet only two seasons ago they spent £30m net despite having no parachute payments. They will have a sizable positive net spend over the last three years despite not having any Premier League money.

You''ve also ignored Fulham and Bristol (positive net spends without Premier League money), wage budgets and so much more to come to the bizarre conclusion ''this year''s evidence seems to suggest that not spending much in the transfer market is more beneficial than spending loads.''

I''d argue apart from Cardiff all of the top 6 have benefited from significant investment over recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suppose you could do that TC, but can you imagine the out cry if the season they decide to cut the divisions is the seasonwe finish 37th! I’m sure there’s loads which would be complaining the likes of Bournemouth and Huddersfield should be replaced by bigger clubs like ours!

There’s far to big a step in any division in Europe, but the top clubs keep football where they want it.

Surely if you limi each EPL club to 40 million on wage cap, including bonuses, 30 registered players others over 23 years old released or sold on it would soon become a far more competitive league.

But back to topic, it’s not about foreign or local, if you own a football you’re on a hiding to nothing, it’ll be interesting to see what happens this summer and next season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]I suppose you could do that TC, but can you imagine the out cry if the season they decide to cut the divisions is the seasonwe finish 37th! I’m sure there’s loads which would be complaining the likes of Bournemouth and Huddersfield should be replaced by bigger clubs like ours!

There’s far to big a step in any division in Europe, but the top clubs keep football where they want it.

Surely if you limi each EPL club to 40 million on wage cap, including bonuses, 30 registered players others over 23 years old released or sold on it would soon become a far more competitive league.

But back to topic, it’s not about foreign or local, if you own a football you’re on a hiding to nothing, it’ll be interesting to see what happens this summer and next season.[/quote]It was done on merit when the Premier League started, there was even a reduction in the number of teams in the top league by extra relegation.Putting restrictions on only the EPL would give the other leagues in the world an advantage, can''t see that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Surely if you limi each EPL club to 40 million on wage cap, including bonuses, 30 registered players others over 23 years old released or sold on it would soon become a far more competitive league.

Rugby league instituted wage capping as a means to try and stop the wealthier clubs like Wigan and St Helens from buying abroad and winning titles.

It has worked to a certain degree. And of course they have a Super League which has in the past introduced no relegation.

The remaining teams in the other leagues still play, they have promotion and relegation and cups to enter and I guess their supporters still have the joy of watching them, knowing they are never going to get to the Super League.

80% of the TV money goes to the Super League clubs and the bottom division gets a mere one per cent.

I would agree with a Super League type set up in football. I think it would relieve the rest of the clubs of the worry about competing and going into far too much debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Competitive leagues are not even a consideration for many people Pops. It seems there is a belief the way to success should be to decide the league table by owners wealth alone. The future of dreams would be to have no actual football played at all. As can be seen by this thread its not just football that''s seen to be secondary to money. Experience of football is also seen tpo be secondary to money. We could buy a season ticket to gaze at the directors box and their bank statements. What a world!

Share this post


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

That post is so wonderfully one eyed.

''Aston Villa have a net spend of minus £10m''

Yes, following on from a year where they had a net spend of plus £30m. So since they returned to the Championship they''ve had a net spent of around £20m +. This is without factoring in the ''free'' signing of John Terry who I''m sure is on some sizable wages.

Yes, Derby have made some profit this year. Yet only two seasons ago they spent £30m net despite having no parachute payments. They will have a sizable positive net spend over the last three years despite not having any Premier League money.

You''ve also ignored Fulham and Bristol (positive net spends without Premier League money), wage budgets and so much more to come to the bizarre conclusion ''this year''s evidence seems to suggest that not spending much in the transfer market is more beneficial than spending loads.''

I''d argue apart from Cardiff all of the top 6 have benefited from significant investment over recent years.[/quote]The facts show that they suffered from the high spends in previous years, but have prospered once they had adopted more stable policies with a manager with a clear game plan. Villa, like Newcastle last year are obvious candidates for a quick return in any championship season because of the "laws of football gravity.*" Just as clubs like WBA* have prospered short term in the premiership but will probably rejoin the Championship this year. Palace, Stoke, Swansea, Bournemouth etc will have the years in the sun, as we did and then will come down again. The money does not change much in the long term, except potentially leave a club with a legacy of long-term debt from which they struggle to escape. *Sunderland, for example, would normally fit into this category but have suffered from over-investment, leading to very high debt.

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...