What to expect under Delia/Michael/Nephew Tom's ownership

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Indy"]That’s the sox million dollar question Lakey......is it broke? Or not?

We’re moving to cut costs and run on a very small budget, the gates are slowly falling and the slow death of the championship is having an effect.

So you can blame the current state of football and carry on or you accept financial risk by out or new investment/ owner. Both are ways forward for our club but you can’t say it’s not broke?[/quote]

Some people plainly think it is broken because they cannot get their heads around the present situation being how it needs to be unless we find the right kind of investment.  New investment may be something that might happen at some stage, but it does not necessarily mean it will move the club forwards.  Possibly it could do quite the opposite.

[GMF 736]

Is the implication here, King Canary, that Tom shouldn’t have passed the Premier League’s / EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’s test - that the level of scrutiny was somewhat deficient?

[Indy 3,297]

But that’s the thing, it’s not set in stone either way.

I do think most City fans are accepting that we have a way forward, it’s being done, but we still have a belief we might be good enough to challenge top six at an outside chance.

Next season if we are forced to sell Onel & Godfrey while further cutting wages as our gates go down, is that really a position which isn’t broke?

It might not happen, we might just have a decent season and not have too much of a hit on attendance, we might sell Klose, Pinto and get money for Oliviera and build on the potential quality.

But if there’s an opportunity for a new owner isn’t it worth a gamble after this downturn? Is it now such a big gamble?

I don’t know like I said it’s a good discussion point but from my point of view not one I care much about anymore.

I really enjoyed this week’s game and I’ve got tickets for Leeds, so looking forward to that too.

[king canary 7,604]

@GMF

Errrm, what?

Yes, the ''fit and proper person test'' has proven itself to be deficient on many occasions but that isn''t what I meant.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,430]

king canary wrote:

Tom should be under the same scrutiny as any potential new owner would be- yet being related to our current owners and shaking hands at fans forums seems to be enough for a fair few.

PurpleCanary

I have never seen anyone here suggest otherwise. If anything some posters have already made a negative assessment just by assuming he is not qualified precisely because he is related.

I would say people have made an assessment on Tom because it isn''t at all clear WHAT qualification he has to a Director of a Business that happens to be a football club based on the information that we have. Its all far too vague, and the time since his joining leaves us none the wiser.

Lets revisit his statement on joining

Lifelong fan and former Civil Servant joins City Board

NEW Norwich City Director Thomas Smith is eager to combine career experience and a long-held affection for the Canaries in his latest role.

Tom, the nephew of majority shareholders Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, brings a wealth of knowledge to the Canaries boardroom having spent over a decade in the Civil Service both in the UK and abroad.

During that time, he worked in a variety of roles at the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, in addition to undertaking employment within the Commonwealth Office.

Upon returning to the UK in late 2014, the lifelong City fan left the public sector to launch his own photographic business, ahead of joining the Norwich Board earlier this month.

"I’ve been a fan for as long as I can remember so am deeply proud and honoured to be able to give something back. Delia, Michael and myself are very close and one thing that binds us together is our love for Norwich City.

"They are passionate about this Club and the area, and I completely share those ideals. We’ve spent many hours discussing our vision for the Club, which has to be to listen and serve the fans in order to add to the local community.

"Most of my experience is about helping people make decisions, often in tough circumstances with an awful lot at stake," he explained.

"For much of my career this was in military operations, but I have a diversity of experience in a variety of roles. The single strand that runs through all of that however is the ability to inform decision-making in challenging conditions.

"I hope the principles I’ve learned are going to now benefit Norwich City, and that I will be here for many years to come."

City Chairman Ed Balls added: "Tom has been coming to Norwich for many years, and has spent more hours than me in the Directors’ Box.

"He’s a real known quality to the Board, and the Board always has to think several years in advance. The experience Tom brings in strategic planning means he will be a great addition to the Club, while we’re also delighted Stephen Fry will continue with us in the role of Norwich City Ambassador."

Lets just say that if I was interviewing for the job, I would want to know a lot more about this strategic planning he has been involved with , what the "variety of roles" were and how he "helped people make decisions" with a view to seeing just how relevant and helpful they are to direct the company.

"over a decade" , "wealth of experience" , "uk and abroad" and this obscure photographic business are all just too filipin'' vague!

He was James Bond then tell us. We wont tell anyone.

[king canary 7,604]

Underneath it all the main thing I want to see is the owners of this club doing everything they can in the best interests of Norwich City.

The Tom situation feels like our owners getting ''what is best for the club'' and ''what is best for their family'' mixed up.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]Underneath it all the main thing I want to see is the owners of this club doing everything they can in the best interests of Norwich City.

The Tom situation feels like our owners getting ''what is best for the club'' and ''what is best for their family'' mixed up.[/quote]

The two are totally intertwined.  The best thing for the club - as they see it - is a continuation of the policy they are pursuing, so to be able to pass that on to a willing and sincere family member is the best possible outcome.  It may not please everyone, but it should ensure we stay financially secure as a club - and anyone who has forgotten or is too young to remember that our history is chequered with periods when the club has struggled for it''s very existence through not being financially secure (including up to 2008/9), should read up on it and appreciate that being stable and self-sustainable is huge.   Easy to wish for more money, different owners, a rich benefactor etc etc, but in reality, what the club has is something it has rarely had over the years - sustainability.  And we can still attract and afford good players.

 

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]king canary wrote:

Tom should be under the same scrutiny as any potential new owner would be- yet being related to our current owners and shaking hands at fans forums seems to be enough for a fair few.

PurpleCanary

I have never seen anyone here suggest otherwise. If anything some posters have already made a negative assessment just by assuming he is not qualified precisely because he is related.

I would say people have made an assessment on Tom because it isn''t at all clear WHAT qualification he has to a Director of a Business that happens to be a football club based on the information that we have. Its all far too vague, and the time since his joining leaves us none the wiser.

Lets revisit his statement on joining

Lifelong fan and former Civil Servant joins City Board

NEW Norwich City Director Thomas Smith is eager to combine career experience and a long-held affection for the Canaries in his latest role.

Tom, the nephew of majority shareholders Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones, brings a wealth of knowledge to the Canaries boardroom having spent over a decade in the Civil Service both in the UK and abroad.

During that time, he worked in a variety of roles at the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office, in addition to undertaking employment within the Commonwealth Office.

Upon returning to the UK in late 2014, the lifelong City fan left the public sector to launch his own photographic business, ahead of joining the Norwich Board earlier this month.

"I’ve been a fan for as long as I can remember so am deeply proud and honoured to be able to give something back. Delia, Michael and myself are very close and one thing that binds us together is our love for Norwich City.

"They are passionate about this Club and the area, and I completely share those ideals. We’ve spent many hours discussing our vision for the Club, which has to be to listen and serve the fans in order to add to the local community.

"Most of my experience is about helping people make decisions, often in tough circumstances with an awful lot at stake," he explained.

"For much of my career this was in military operations, but I have a diversity of experience in a variety of roles. The single strand that runs through all of that however is the ability to inform decision-making in challenging conditions.

"I hope the principles I’ve learned are going to now benefit Norwich City, and that I will be here for many years to come."

City Chairman Ed Balls added: "Tom has been coming to Norwich for many years, and has spent more hours than me in the Directors’ Box.

"He’s a real known quality to the Board, and the Board always has to think several years in advance. The experience Tom brings in strategic planning means he will be a great addition to the Club, while we’re also delighted Stephen Fry will continue with us in the role of Norwich City Ambassador."

Lets just say that if I was interviewing for the job, I would want to know a lot more about this strategic planning he has been involved with , what the "variety of roles" were and how he "helped people make decisions" with a view to seeing just how relevant and helpful they are to direct the company.

"over a decade" , "wealth of experience" , "uk and abroad" and this obscure photographic business are all just too filipin'' vague!

He was James Bond then tell us. We wont tell anyone.[/quote]

Beardo, I can''t get my head around this idea of you judging his suitability to own the club. It''s fine to have all these parameters if that''s truly what you believe is needed. But it would be very hard to go back on such things if you decided for example a stinking rich Chinese bloke was suitable. If they didn''t need to pass "your tests" it would mean that for you people''s worth is the size of their wallet.... 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,430]

Tom doesn’t own the club. Nor is he Chinese. Other than that it made perfect sense . Enjoy the rest of your evening bud. 😀

[nutty nigel 7,528]

So we don''t have to worry about what to expect under Delia/Michael/Nephew Tom''s ownership.

Phew!!

Glad that''s cleared up.

I''ll sleep sweet tonight...

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Majority Shareholder Auntie ''Deals No Deals'' said the support may not like it, but.....it''s her decision that Neppers Tom is being handed the reins of the wagon - (although who''s gonna be ridin'' shotgun for him, is anyone''s guess?).......

If it all unfortunately goes "Balls Up" during NepoTominism''s tenure......He in my opinion won''t be displayed the same ''ho hum acceptance, patience, loyalty and tolerance, that was shown to our adored matriarch when things on occasion, went awry at the club......Oh well, and anyway, it''s "Horses for Courses" and if Tom can''t control ''em excitable equines - or a wheel unfortunately comes off the wagon.....it could get very interesting, indeed......YEEEE HAAAAH!.....an'' that thar boy....he sure can clap!.....

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"]

He was James Bond then tell us. We wont tell anyone.[/quote]

If they tell they''d then have to kill you.

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

Nephew Tom or a rich Chinese investor?

As we don''t have a crystal ball into the future, we have to weigh up the possible risks and see how far the downside goes.

It would not be too difficult for the current owners to set up a series of tests that a potential investor would have to pass, in order to filter out likely vultures and other nere-do wells, though any tests don''t necessarily guarantee success. And we could increase our chances of getting an investor that is ''good'' for the club.

The problem, as far as I see, is that what happens when said investor has sunk millions into the club only to find that Norwich hasn''t reached the Premier League (because every other Championship is pumping in money), and they get to the point when they want out and their money back. You can be sure that any sort of ''good investor'' tests will go out of the window, and the club will be old for whatever is the best outcome for the original investor and not what is best for NCfC. Once we''ve lost the club to one of the bad guy it maybe impossible to get it back again. That, for me is the real danger.

What risk is it in going down the family route, and Tom not being the man to take us forward?

The risks here are putting all your eggs in one basket, as in having an all-singing, all-dancing owner who has a hand in every single part of the club and who may not be good enough for the job.

Well seems to me that the club has taken the correct steps to mitigate this risk by separating the main functions: Stone - Finance and Admin, Webber: Football strategy, Farke: Coaching, so that you''ve got a self-checking structure in place . You''ve also got Ed Balls in an over-seeing role to mentor Tom over the short term.

That seems a pretty good setup to me.

What Tom will need is a strong personality (which I think his Aunt probably has) because he will have to stand up to Stone/Webber/Farke who will all be fighting their own corners. Whether he has this or not, I don''t know, bu I think this will determine whether Tom can be a success or not.

One thing is clear, the club have at least been proactive in getting this structure in place, and not sitting on their hands and waiting for events to dictate action. I commend the owners for that.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Solar panels must be installed on the stadium stand roofs....

Get the bills down......

[Dicky 0]

Seems to be a lot more discontent after Saturday''s loss but I am amazed that so many fans are still happy with the direction we are being taken. It was very hard to take seeing Madders shine for Leicester and then watch Brighton''s game against Man Utd. That should be US - or at least we should be aiming for this. It''s the hope that keeps us going. Wonder how the mood will change if we lose to Ipswich. Really hope it doesn''t happen but for the first time in years, I am not confident.

[hogesar 9,657]

I wondered when you''d mention Brighton''s win.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]Nephew Tom or a rich Chinese investor?

As we don''t have a crystal ball into the future, we have to weigh up the possible risks and see how far the downside goes.

It would not be too difficult for the current owners to set up a series of tests that a potential investor would have to pass, in order to filter out likely vultures and other nere-do wells, though any tests don''t necessarily guarantee success. And we could increase our chances of getting an investor that is ''good'' for the club.

The problem, as far as I see, is that what happens when said investor has sunk millions into the club only to find that Norwich hasn''t reached the Premier League (because every other Championship is pumping in money), and they get to the point when they want out and their money back. You can be sure that any sort of ''good investor'' tests will go out of the window, and the club will be old for whatever is the best outcome for the original investor and not what is best for NCfC. Once we''ve lost the club to one of the bad guy it maybe impossible to get it back again. That, for me is the real danger.

What risk is it in going down the family route, and Tom not being the man to take us forward?

The risks here are putting all your eggs in one basket, as in having an all-singing, all-dancing owner who has a hand in every single part of the club and who may not be good enough for the job.

Well seems to me that the club has taken the correct steps to mitigate this risk by separating the main functions: Stone - Finance and Admin, Webber: Football strategy, Farke: Coaching, so that you''ve got a self-checking structure in place .

You''ve also got Ed Balls in an over-seeing role to mentor Tom over the short term.

That seems a pretty good setup to me.

What Tom will need is a strong personality (which I think his Aunt probably has) because he will have to stand up to Stone/Webber/Farke who will all be fighting their own corners. Whether he has this or not, I don''t know, bu I think this will determine whether Tom can be a success or not.

One thing is clear, the club have at least been proactive in getting this structure in place, and not sitting on their hands and waiting for events to dictate action. I commend the owners for that.[/quote]

Very, very good post.

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="hogesar"]I wondered when you''d mention Brighton''s win.[/quote]

Oh did you? Did it not sadden you, even a little bit, to see what an owner with ambition (and money) has achieved with a "Norwich reject" manager. I desperately wanted Brighton to lose heavily, but then again, having spent £62 million in the summer (as opposed to our -£40million spent by our club) they will do well in certain games.

Anyway, head back in the sand and God Bless Delia.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Dicky"][quote user="hogesar"]I wondered when you''d mention Brighton''s win.[/quote]

Oh did you? Did it not sadden you, even a little bit, to see what an owner with ambition (and money) has achieved with a "Norwich reject" manager. I desperately wanted Brighton to lose heavily, but then again, having spent £62 million in the summer (as opposed to our -£40million spent by our club) they will do well in certain games.

Anyway, head back in the sand and God Bless Delia.[/quote]

We will do well in certain games too. Evey club does. Didn''t Alex Neil win at Old Trafford?

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="hogesar"]I wondered when you''d mention Brighton''s win.[/quote]

Oh did you? Did it not sadden you, even a little bit, to see what an owner with ambition (and money) has achieved with a "Norwich reject" manager. I desperately wanted Brighton to lose heavily, but then again, having spent £62 million in the summer (as opposed to our -£40million spent by our club) they will do well in certain games.

Anyway, head back in the sand and God Bless Delia.[/quote]

We will do well in certain games too. Evey club does. Didn''t Alex Neil win at Old Trafford?

[/quote]

He did - if my memory is right, that was before our lovely owners embarked on our self funding, no-ambition, keep it in the family policy. When we stood a chance of actually being in the Premier League.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Dicky"][quote user="nutty nigel"]We will do well in certain games too. Evey club does. Didn''t Alex Neil win at Old Trafford?[/quote]

He did - if my memory is right, that was before our lovely owners embarked on our self funding, no-ambition, keep it in the family policy. When we stood a chance of actually being in the Premier League.[/quote]

No club is purely self-funding - all clubs get some money from TV rights. When in the PL you can spend according to what money is coming in - which we did. Now in the championship we are doing the same thing, so in the PL the policy was no different to what it is now, it is merely that there is less TV money involved for being in the championship.

So this self-funding, self sustaining or whatever you want to call it policy hasn''t changed since we got out of debt in the first place.  It is a common sense policy, it is pragmatic, it is protective of the status of the club - and the steps taken in doing away with a CEO and getting a sporting director and head coach have been progressive and things are developing as they have to. It is not lack of ambition, it is totally sensible......and the family thing is quite normal - people pass on their assets to their relatives.  Why is it so hard for people to understand??

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Dicky"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="hogesar"]I wondered when you''d mention Brighton''s win.[/quote]

Oh did you? Did it not sadden you, even a little bit, to see what an owner with ambition (and money) has achieved with a "Norwich reject" manager. I desperately wanted Brighton to lose heavily, but then again, having spent £62 million in the summer (as opposed to our -£40million spent by our club) they will do well in certain games.

Anyway, head back in the sand and God Bless Delia.[/quote]

We will do well in certain games too. Evey club does. Didn''t Alex Neil win at Old Trafford?

[/quote]

He did - if my memory is right, that was before our lovely owners embarked on our self funding, no-ambition, keep it in the family policy. When we stood a chance of actually being in the Premier League.[/quote]

Ok, I''m lost now. How were we funded before our lovely owners embarked on our self funding policy. What outside funding got them promoted to the Premier League on those three occasions?

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

Were we not self-funded in the Premier League?

[nutty nigel 7,528]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]Were we not self-funded in the Premier League?[/quote]

Obviously not.

Although I can''t remember what funding we had. Perhaps the investors remained anonymous?

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]Were we not self-funded in the Premier League?[/quote]

Obviously not.

Although I can''t remember what funding we had. Perhaps the investors remained anonymous?

[/quote]

I''ll give it a few weeks and we''ll see if you''re still happy with the direction of the club then? Or January when we sell another top player (or 2) to keep the "self funding" model (aka no ambition model). I simply do not understand how anyone can be happy to see their club rot under the current ownership. I think the catalyst will be if we lose to that lot down the road and fans finally wake up to the fact that we are no longer a better team than them? The quality and the exciting players have largely been sold (whilst we are still getting parachute payments). Can you imagine the quality of what we will have next year.

[nutty nigel 7,528]

Top stuff Dicky.

Just to help me make up my mind could you tell me why you were happy and even actively defended the self funding model for over 20 years?

[hogesar 9,657]

Ah, so you''re not going to answer Nutty''s point. So presumably your own point was, well, pointless.

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Can’t anybody say anything disparaging about the owners, without being hounded in packs by the Delia fans?

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Dicky"]Can you imagine the quality of what we will have next year.[/quote]

Next season will bring about some changes of course, we will lose more of the big contracts off the books, maybe sell one or two and buy one or two in, but not the number of changes we have seen the last two close seasons.   Our financial model will be more secure as a result of balancing the books, which will mean there will be no pressure to sell beyond what we want to sell.

The good players that we have that stay next season - and most of them will - will be the springboard for another assault on the league (unless we get promoted) and we will be able to attract one or two quality young loanees because the club has such a good reputation for bringing on players - and we will be as healthy in the league as we are this season - and we do have a good squad which will prove itself this season as it settes down.  We''ve only had three games and a lot of new players in - a whole new front line to start with.

Frustrated we all are at the start we''ve had, but it will improve, so no need to throw everything away just because of a little temporary hardship.

[Dicky 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Top stuff Dicky.

Just to help me make up my mind could you tell me why you were happy and even actively defended the self funding model for over 20 years?[/quote]

It wasn''t self funding - we had debts. We speculated a bit which largely paid off. We even had a little bit of new funding when Delia and Co came in, rather than taking money out of the club (owed or not) as has been the case recently according to McNally