It could be a lot worse .....

[king canary 7,578]

I like the idea of Wigan being held up as an example of what not to be.

FA Cup winners, an 8 year run in the Premier League, European football...

Nah, wouldn''t have wanted any of that in the last 10 years.

[GPs Beard 0]

This has to be the most tedious theme on this message board. Pick an agenda, then pick random clubs to support it.

Birmingham, Bolton , Portsmouth , Villa

or

Man City, Bournemouth , Chelsea , Southampton.

You can use those below you as an example, but not those above you because either a) it wont last , or b) we can never be like them.

The really interesting ones are Fulham and Wolves, who have appeared in everyone''s list at some point, and now don''t get used by anyone.

[Badger 2,405]

I agree that it can be a little tedious GP, but nonetheless revealing. It is amazing the number of posters on here who genuinely believe that all we need is a new owner and everything would be alight despite all the evidence to the contrary.Yes if we could get some super-rich fan or patron, but "investors" have a very poor success rate, because fundamentally they are hoping to take money out of the club. It would be nice to have someone that had sufficient money to put something in, without expecting a return, but failing that a neutral situation is a better hope for long-term success.

[king canary 7,578]

@GP''s beard

I''ve made the same point myself- you say Coventry, someone else says Bournemouth etc etc.

Also the good point Bethnal made that there is always going to be more bad than good investors as the good ones tend to stick around for extended periods seems to have been missed by some.

I do have an issue with the ever moving goalposts of what equals success that some have though. To me it is a complete no brainer that Southampton have been massively improved due to the investment they''ve had- they went from a League One team in administration to being in a healthy financial situation in the Premier League. Yet for some they aren''t evidence of good investment...

[Mike 0]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Mike "]Cardiff and Fulham are in the premiership last time I looked... History is a great thing but the future is what is most important. Hoping the "revolution we all wanted" is a success. Still easier to do within investment as any business CEO will tell you.[/quote]Not sure that any business CEO would tell me that, Mike. British industry is notoriously reluctant to invest and has very low investment. (Incidentally this shows the silliness of the UK''s ultra low Corporation tax, which despite what the govt says does NOT encourage investment.)A recent report from the ONS shows that the UK''s investment was the lowest of any OECD nation in the last 20 years."Between Quarter 1 1997 and Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, the UK had the

lowest average value of GFCF as a percentage of gross domestic product

(GDP) of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD) nation."GFCF = gross fixed capital formation = investmenthttps://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/aninternationalcomparisonofgrossfixedcapitalformation/2017-11-02[/quote]

Successful businesses invest and have sufficient cash flow not to have to sell key assets to buy other assets.

[Mike 0]

[quote user=" Badger"]I agree that it can be a little tedious GP, but nonetheless revealing. It is amazing the number of posters on here who genuinely believe that all we need is a new owner and everything would be alight despite all the evidence to the contrary.Yes if we could get some super-rich fan or patron, but "investors" have a very poor success rate, because fundamentally they are hoping to take money out of the club. It would be nice to have someone that had sufficient money to put something in, without expecting a return, but failing that a neutral situation is a better hope for long-term success.[/quote]

Good investors will want a return on their investment and the only way to do that is to leave a club in a better position and that is achieved by mainly improving the position on the pitch.

It''s not just about cash it''s about whether they have a plan and are successful in implementing it.

I do not believe good owners would refused to even look at potential investment offers if they had the best interests of my club at heart.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Mike "]Good investors will want a return on their investment and the only way to do that is to leave a club in a better position and that is achieved by mainly improving the position on the pitch.

It''s not just about cash it''s about whether they have a plan and are successful in implementing it.

I do not believe good owners would refused to even look at potential investment offers if they had the best interests of my club at heart.[/quote]"There''s the rub."How do we make sure that we get "good investors?" The number of "good investors" is greatly exceeded by investors that are not good.Investors, quite understandably wish to maximise their return and minimise their risk: given the volatility of football and its finances, it is not a straightforward investment and often attracts less straightforward investors. the obvious thing that investors would do is to secure their investment against the clubs assets - which is what many do. For example, they transfer the ground to separate companies. The other things that successful football investors tend to do is charge significant rates of interest for their loans to the club - e.g Gold and Sullivan charge 7% on their loans to West Ham. It is estimated that they will have made £26 million on their loans.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]To me it is a complete no brainer that Southampton have been massively improved due to the investment they''ve had- they went from a League One team in administration to being in a healthy financial situation in the Premier League. Yet for some they aren''t evidence of good investment...[/quote]

So you would want NCFC to become a complete basket case, owing millions of pounds to all sorts of people, being forced into administration and being docked points, because that is what happened before Southampton were able to get investment.  That is why the Southampton model is not desireable.....unless you want to see your club completely down and out in the process.

[king canary 7,578]

Wow, what a fucking leap you took there LDC.

No I don''t want that. A club doesn''t need to be on its knees before takeovers happen and you know that.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]Wow, what a fucking leap you took there LDC.

No I don''t want that. A club doesn''t need to be on its knees before takeovers happen and you know that.[/quote]

I know that, but that was the way Southampton were able to get the investment they did. Using them as an example is not good as those investors wouldn''t have come on board if Southampton had been in a healthy position.

[king canary 7,578]

How do you know? Have you asked them?

However my argument isn''t about how they got the investment- it is the bizarre claim that the investment has not been successful for them.

[Mike 0]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="Mike "]Good investors will want a return on their investment and the only way to do that is to leave a club in a better position and that is achieved by mainly improving the position on the pitch.

It''s not just about cash it''s about whether they have a plan and are successful in implementing it.

I do not believe good owners would refused to even look at potential investment offers if they had the best interests of my club at heart.[/quote]"There''s the rub."How do we make sure that we get "good investors?" The number of "good investors" is greatly exceeded by investors that are not good.Investors, quite understandably wish to maximise their return and minimise their risk: given the volatility of football and its finances, it is not a straightforward investment and often attracts less straightforward investors. the obvious thing that investors would do is to secure their investment against the clubs assets - which is what many do. For example, they transfer the ground to separate companies. The other things that successful football investors tend to do is charge significant rates of interest for their loans to the club - e.g Gold and Sullivan charge 7% on their loans to West Ham. It is estimated that they will have made £26 million on their loans.[/quote]

Well if Delia and co are as good as you say, it should not be a problem for them.... Failing that a thing called due diligence...

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]How do you know? Have you asked them?

However my argument isn''t about how they got the investment- it is the bizarre claim that the investment has not been successful for them.[/quote]

Well, they''ve certainly been successful, but that was at a cost and I don''t see how you can separate the two things.  If Southampton had not been a basket case going out of business, those particular investors would have looked elsewhere.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I agree with Beardo and have continually made the same point. Both sides move seamlessly from club to club to make a point that the clubs don''t consistently prove.

Kingo has settled on Southampton but that''s not really an example for the case of getting investment. On the contrary as the vast majority of similar clubs with investment also fall short of Southampton they are really a double edged sword.

My point has always been that the league system we play in always has comparable teams doing better/worse and the only time it hasn''t is one season for Leicester. If not being Leicester in that one season is not good enough then no fans of any comparable clubs will ever be happy.

So for me it boils down to "why risk all the good things we like about the club we are just to end up like we are?" But of course if you don''t think anything about the club we are is good then it''s a completely different scenario.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Are we talking about the same Southampton who escaped relegation by the skin of the their teeth last season?

Let''s wait a few more years before we hold them up as paragons of investment.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

The Liebherr investment that was so successful at Southampton sold their 80% of the club to Chinese investors at the beginning of last season. So their brush with relegation probably can’t be blamed on them.

Although they were increasingly reluctant owners sine the death of Markus Liebherr.

[Mike 0]

Ask Southampton fans if they want to swap owners ....

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I doubt Southampton would want someone who isn’t and fan and has no money in charge, probably the worst combination. But plenty of them don’t want Gao Jisheng either. An owner who hasn’t invested in the club and doesn’t attend games.

[Mike 0]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]I doubt Southampton would want someone who isn’t and fan and has no money in charge, probably the worst combination. But plenty of them don’t want Gao Jisheng either. An owner who hasn’t invested in the club and doesn’t attend games.[/quote]

"An owner who hasn’t invested in the club...." I know how they feel...

[Big Vince 318]

Norwich City require a benefactor, not an investor. Someone who is going to put money in year-on-year without expecting a penny in return.

Historically, Norwich City have typically lost £4-5m per year in this league so if someone put that amount in every year that would be a start.

What we should be looking to achieve from a benefactor is to support the wage bill to at least the extent where players can be kept here for longer without being forced to sell and thereby be in a position to build a team and club incrementally as the seasons roll by.

This cannot be achieved under the self funding model.

[king canary 7,578]

"So for me it boils down to "why risk all the good things we like about the club we are just to end up like we are?" But of course if you don''t think anything about the club we are is good then it''s a completely different scenario."

Or perhaps that ''everything we like about the club'' isn''t tied up with our current owners for some.

You do sometimes make it sound like a Norwich City without Delia and MWJ at the helm is somehow unthinkable for you, despite your years.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Kingo, a lot of the good things about our current identity are tied to the owners but not exclusively. Other owners could keep that identity or even improve it. That''s the basis of the gamble. My point remains that if you don''t like our club''s identity then you''ve got nothing to lose.

So looking at other owners over the past ten years how many would you be happy with instead of ours?

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="king canary"]"So for me it boils down to "why risk all the good things we like about the club we are just to end up like we are?" But of course if you don''t think anything about the club we are is good then it''s a completely different scenario."

Or perhaps that ''everything we like about the club'' isn''t tied up with our current owners for some.

You do sometimes make it sound like a Norwich City without Delia and MWJ at the helm is somehow unthinkable for you, despite your years.[/quote]Not me KC - I''m with Vince, I''d like a benefactor - "someone who is going to put money in year-on-year without expecting a penny in return." I''d be very happy if we could get it - I just don''t think it''s likely.What I don''t want is someone who buys NCFC primarily as a speculative investment vehicle. In simple terms, benefactor, "yes"; investor "no." In the meantime, in the absence of a benefactor a self-funding model is preferable to an investor as the investor''s raison d''etre is to take money out of the club in a speculative gamble.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Big Vince"]Norwich City require a benefactor, not an investor. Someone who is going to put money in year-on-year without expecting a penny in return.[/quote]If you find him Vinnie, tell him I could do with a few quid too. [:D]

[Mello Yello 2,279]

It''s all club history now but in reality, how actually close (if at all) were we into going into actual administration......Or maybe us doing a ''Pompey''?.....

Let''s not forget that our Delia, one half of our majority shareholding duo, said that we must get behind Gunn and support him whilst she was attending an event/social gathering in London with some NCFC support who reside in the ''smoke''......I wonder what would have ensued/occurred if a certain individual hadn''t ''intervened/overruled'' and removed the then manager, not so long after Delia''s rallying call, and then appointed his successor....?

Ah they say, but who appointed the certain individual that removed Gunn and appointed his successor?.....Well, what influenced or made her change her/their mind? Who suggested/recommended or headhunted that certain individual who soon pulled the trigger on Gunn?....Was it solely down to our majority shareholding duo?.....A close friend/associate of the majority shareholding duo?.....Or, their actual desperation and frightening realisation that it was their ''last chance saloon''?......

Anyway, I would just like an answer to my question on how close, (if at all) we actually were into going into actual administration?.....Or maybe us doing a ''Pompey''?.....

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Does anyone know?

All we can say for certain is not as close as Doncaster, Millwall, Bournemouth, Palace, Portsmouth, Hull, QPR, Bradford, Notts County, Barnsley, Leicester, Port Vale, York, Derby, ipswich, Wimbledon, Darlington, Bradford again, Wrexham, Cambridge, Rotherham, Leeds, Luton, Bournemouth again, Rotherham again, Darlington, Southampton, Stockport, Palace again, Portsmouth again, Plymouth, Darlington again, Portsmouth again again, Port Vale again, or Coventry.

So we were probably closer to staying in the PL in 2014 where one more win would have kept us up. I wanted us to stay up but wanting it isn''t enough to change history. However much we wish otherwise....

[Mello Yello 2,279]

Waffle

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

It''s all club history now but in reality, how actually close (if at all) were we into going into actual administration......Or maybe us doing a ''Pompey''?.....

Let''s not forget that our Delia, one half of our majority shareholding duo, said that we must get behind Gunn and support him whilst she was attending an event/social gathering in London with some NCFC support who reside in the ''smoke''......I wonder what would have ensued/occurred if a certain individual hadn''t ''intervened/overruled'' and removed the then manager, not so long after Delia''s rallying call, and then appointed his successor....?

Ah they say, but who appointed the certain individual that removed Gunn and appointed his successor?.....Well, what influenced or made her change her/their mind? Who suggested/recommended or headhunted that certain individual who soon pulled the trigger on Gunn?....Was it solely down to our majority shareholding duo?.....A close friend/associate of the majority shareholding duo?.....Or, their actual desperation and frightening realisation that it was their ''last chance saloon''?......

Anyway, I would just like an answer to my question on how close, (if at all) we actually were into going into actual administration?.....Or maybe us doing a ''Pompey''?.....

[/quote]

waffle

verb

1. 1.

   BRITISH

   speak or write at length in a vague or trivial manner.

   "he waffled on about his problems"

   synonyms:

   prattle, chatter, babble, ramble, jabber, gibber, gabble, gab, burble, flannel, run on, mutter, mumble, prate, drivel, bleat, cackle; More

noun

1. 1.

   BRITISH

   lengthy but vague or trivial talk or writing.

   "we''ve edited out some of the waffle"

   synonyms:

   prattle, jabbering, verbiage, drivel, meaningless talk, nonsense, twaddle, gibberish, stuff and nonsense, bunkum, mumbo jumbo, padding, flannel, verbosity, prolixity;

[TIL 1010 4,721]

The word '' guff '' is often used on here.

[hogesar 9,617]

Some of the posts on here are tragic but worth remembering Vince isn''t a serious poster.

Im with you Nutty. There is too much good about the club now, meaning for me the requirements for a new owner are high. Similar to what Badger is advocating. But equally conceding its nigh on impossible that that person exists.