Stinking rich Chinese owner!

[Grando 260]

Whatever your personal opinion of how good as owners Delia and Michael have been, I think it''s hard to argue that things are unlikely to improve at the point when the club is in the hands of Tom. He doesn''t, as far as I''m aware, have a large amount of disposable income he can draw on to supplement the club, and so our financial (and therefore probably footballing) situation is likely to either deteriorate or, at best, stagnate. I foresee a situation at some point not far down the line after inheriting the club where, in a much worse position, he is forced to sell to any bidders who will have us.

It would be much better if Delia and Michael were actively looking for responsible long-term investors now, ones who have a decent amount of wealth behind them that can take the club forward. Of course they are perfectly entitled to leave the proceeds of that sale to their nephew - or whoever else they want to at that point. However, in the event that Tom does inherit the club as leading share owner then I can only see this resulting in a fire-sale sooner-rather-than-later down the line.

Who knows though, maybe D&M think this too and are looking around for new investment? But I live in hope more than expectation.

[Mike 2]

[quote user="Grando"]Whatever your personal opinion of how good as owners Delia and Michael have been, I think it''s hard to argue that things are unlikely to improve at the point when the club is in the hands of Tom. He doesn''t, as far as I''m aware, have a large amount of disposable income he can draw on to supplement the club, and so our financial (and therefore probably footballing) situation is likely to either deteriorate or, at best, stagnate. I foresee a situation at some point not far down the line after inheriting the club where, in a much worse position, he is forced to sell to any bidders who will have us.

It would be much better if Delia and Michael were actively looking for responsible long-term investors now, ones who have a decent amount of wealth behind them that can take the club forward. Of course they are perfectly entitled to leave the proceeds of that sale to their nephew - or whoever else they want to at that point. However, in the event that Tom does inherit the club as leading share owner then I can only see this resulting in a fire-sale sooner-rather-than-later down the line.

Who knows though, maybe D&M think this too and are looking around for new investment? But I live in hope more than expectation.[/quote]

Spot on...

[king canary 7,607]

As people say every time someone brings this up with a specific club- there will always be good and bad examples.

You say Coventry, they say Man City

You say Portsmouth, they say Bournemouth

Etc etc etc.

I''m surprised by what more by the speed of these issues at Villa I must say but if this £5m a month figure is correct then maybe I shouldn''t be.

However these is sensible halfway house between our set up and what is happening at Villa.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Mike "]Clearly running a club at a £5m deficit every week is just plain stupid and no one in their right mind would want this. £120m in 2 years and they did not get promoted. WOW! Mismanagement on an epic scale.

Doesn''t change my view one iota.

Good & bad owners, investment will 100% make you more likely to succeed. Delia, Tom not good for our future...[/quote]

A month, according to this report. Even so, of course it is stupid, although I doubt Villa fans were unhappy at being taken over by someone who seemed to have a great deal of money, or unhappy that he then took the highly-risky (barking mad would be another way of describing it) decision (and this is not hindsight) to go on spending silly money this season.At the least it demonstrates the need for the current owners of any club to carry out the most rigorous due diligence possible, and to ensure safeguards against this kind of craziness. If that equates to Smith and Jones being seen as imposing overly difficult conditions on any sale that is fine by me.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Grando"]Whatever your personal opinion of how good as owners Delia and Michael have been, I think it''s hard to argue that things are unlikely to improve at the point when the club is in the hands of Tom. He doesn''t, as far as I''m aware, have a large amount of disposable income he can draw on to supplement the club, and so our financial (and therefore probably footballing) situation is likely to either deteriorate or, at best, stagnate. I foresee a situation at some point not far down the line after inheriting the club where, in a much worse position, he is forced to sell to any bidders who will have us.

It would be much better if Delia and Michael were actively looking for responsible long-term investors now, ones who have a decent amount of wealth behind them that can take the club forward. Of course they are perfectly entitled to leave the proceeds of that sale to their nephew - or whoever else they want to at that point. However, in the event that Tom does inherit the club as leading share owner then I can only see this resulting in a fire-sale sooner-rather-than-later down the line.

Who knows though, maybe D&M think this too and are looking around for new investment? But I live in hope more than expectation.[/quote]

Whether it is Delia/MJW or Tom in charge makes little or no difference, the club is to be run on a sustainable basis whichever of them hold the shares.  People seem to be panicky about the idea of sustainability, but it means the club is safe from any fire sale or speculators forcing their way in. 

We still have good players, we''re largely debt free,  we have a progressive management system, we own our ground, have a good academy that is developing and have a good sized fanbase.  All positive things and will help us to be sustainable over many years. The hankering after investment is just wishful thinking - and though it would be good to get some extra investment along the way, it is not the main thing that will make our club successful.  All the things I have listed are just as important. 

"Money" - on it''s own is not the answer. Ask Villa.......

[king canary 7,607]

People aren''t stupid- I don''t think most people think money on its own is the answer.

But no money is also not the answer. Simply put, the ''self funding'' model put us at a competitive disadvantage. That is just the way it is. How possible it is to overcome this disadvantage with coaching, scouting, tactics etc etc is open to debate.

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="king canary"]People aren''t stupid- I don''t think most people think money on its own is the answer.

But no money is also not the answer. Simply put, the ''self funding'' model put us at a competitive disadvantage. That is just the way it is. How possible it is to overcome this disadvantage with coaching, scouting, tactics etc etc is open to debate.[/quote]

It happened in 2011, 2015 & 2017 so it''s definitely possible.

[king canary 7,607]

Which teams are you referring to?

[Big Vince 318]

The situation at Villa is clearly very shocking.

I have always argued that it is more about sound decision-making than just money on its own. The Suffolk Socialists failings have been down to repeating the same mistakes over and over.

Clearly a lot of due diligence needs to be done before any new owner takes over. They have to be in it for the long haul and use their wealth to build the club incrementally. The boy Xia went in with a big bang approach and it has backfired spectacularly. Now he wants to cut and run.

If we could have another Sir Arthur, but with money, I would be delighted.

[hogesar 9,674]

I still maintain theres been more unsuccessful foreign and rich owners than there have been successful particularly in relation to similarly sized clubs of ours.

Most bite the bullet and go for a rich investor when the club has little other choice. A few have felt it was an opportunity to really progress and move onto the next step. That has worked wonders for similarly sized clubs Swansea and West Brom.

I get that there will always be a section of our support, as with every supporter base, where the idea of something different to what we have is better. Until we do actually get it, because if its not better then they''ll be the first to complain.

Thankfully the majority of our support is fairly sensible and that''s evidenced by the only real noise of Delia Out is within the realms of the internet and social media. The concept of a protest or whatever clearly attains little from our fan base which is a good sign.

[ZLF 274]

I see dr tony is now promoting a sustainable model...

[Yellowbeagle 0]

I heard on the radio (not looked into it myself) that the Chinese government are stopping money leaving the country, so while the owner may wish to put money into Villa, apparently he''s being prevented from doing so as he''s prevented from accessing it.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="king canary"]People aren''t stupid- I don''t think most people think money on its own is the answer.

But no money is also not the answer. Simply put, the ''self funding'' model put us at a competitive disadvantage. That is just the way it is. How possible it is to overcome this disadvantage with coaching, scouting, tactics etc etc is open to debate.[/quote]

Some people are plainly obsessed that we don''t have huge amounts to spend and regularly use that as a stick to beat the club with.  Having money to spend is always nice, but it dosn''t grow on trees and if a football club gets money from someone, it is rarely free from some kind of catch - as Villa have found out.

When you don''t have money, the emphasis is on stuff other than money - good things - like togetherness, young player development programmes, good coaching ethos and progressive management. Having money doesn''t mean you can''t have those things too, but so often, clubs think they can buy their way to success - and that leads to an expectation of instant success which becomes the focus at the expense of the better things.  Very few clubs get it all right.  To me it has been interesting seeing Cardiff succed.  It has taken them 8 years to get to the PL once they got Tan aboard  - and that only because he had changed his approach in the last couple of years.

The most important thing is having a healthy club with a good ethos and everyone pulling in the same direction. Get that and anything is possible.  Competitively disadvantaged? It''s all in the mind.

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="hogesar"]I still maintain theres been more unsuccessful foreign and rich owners than there have been successful particularly in relation to similarly sized clubs of ours.

Most bite the bullet and go for a rich investor when the club has little other choice. A few have felt it was an opportunity to really progress and move onto the next step. That has worked wonders for similarly sized clubs Swansea and West Brom.

I get that there will always be a section of our support, as with every supporter base, where the idea of something different to what we have is better. Until we do actually get it, because if its not better then they''ll be the first to complain.

Thankfully the majority of our support is fairly sensible and that''s evidenced by the only real noise of Delia Out is within the realms of the internet and social media. The concept of a protest or whatever clearly attains little from our fan base which is a good sign.[/quote]

I couldn''t quantify it, hoggy, but that may well be true, particularly with clubs trying to get back to the Premier League, and overspending in the attempt. Because there is a kind of inevitable bad logic to it - if you have all this money, or seem to have lots of money, you pretty much have to (over-?) spend it. Otherwise fans will ask what''s the point of you. I posted on this, not thinking of Aston Villa necessarily, last September:Leaving Norwich City to one side for a moment, why not have a

self-sustaining model? It is playing within the rules. It is keeping the

club tied to its roots. It does not exclude the chance of success. It

is also potentially prudent, given that the prime duty of the owners of

any business, including football clubs, is not to be successful. It is

to stay afloat. Only then is success (which is not defined only by being

in the PL) possible. If you have little to spend there is probably less

temptation to spend what you don''t have than for a club owned by

someone with  pots of money who will always want to go that bit further

than they can afford.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

So has Tony Xia been removed from the list of good owners to the list of bad owners in just 4 months? Has someone replaced him my moving in the other direction?

[nutty nigel 7,536]

By moving 🙃

[Mike 2]

Somebody are clearly obsessed with Delia... It''s a pity we as a progressive club are not allowed to see who potential owners are and that it is being kept as a family play thing.

I always want the best for my club and I understand how somebody are scared of change.. different views.. spice of life and all that...

[Mike 2]

[quote user="king canary"]People aren''t stupid- I don''t think most people think money on its own is the answer.

But no money is also not the answer. Simply put, the ''self funding'' model put us at a competitive disadvantage. That is just the way it is. How possible it is to overcome this disadvantage with coaching, scouting, tactics etc etc is open to debate.[/quote]

Spot on....

[Bonzo 198]

This wealthy Chinese owner has apparently been contributing about £4m a month to Villa if the rumours are to be believed. Getting this type of money out of China is not a straightforward exercise. If he can’t continue to do this or can no longer afford to do this given that Villa will be a Championship club next season perhaps those here who are hankering after a wealthy owner willing to pay over the odds to buy a promotion will finally put a sock in it.

As for the accusations of “casual racism” that have been levelled at many posters “casual racism” refers to racism conducted whilst wearing chinos and or an open necked shirt/ polo shirt. I’m not sure why there is now a dress code for racists but there you go. Such is the modern world.

[Mike 2]

[quote user="Bonzo"]This wealthy Chinese owner has apparently been contributing about £4m a month to Villa if the rumours are to be believed. Getting this type of money out of China is not a straightforward exercise. If he can’t continue to do this or can no longer afford to do this given that Villa will be a Championship club next season perhaps those here who are hankering after a wealthy owner willing to pay over the odds to buy a promotion will finally put a sock in it.

As for the accusations of “casual racism” that have been levelled at many posters “casual racism” refers to racism conducted whilst wearing chinos and or an open necked shirt/ polo shirt. I’m not sure why there is now a dress code for racists but there you go. Such is the modern world.[/quote]

Oh dear.... Oh a serious note I wonder why people keep refering to "foreign" owners as bad or "stinking rich Chinese" rather than just bad owners? If your view is that all foreigners are bad owner then I would question why that is the case...?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

[quote user="Mike "][quote user="Bonzo"]This wealthy Chinese owner has apparently been contributing about £4m a month to Villa if the rumours are to be believed. Getting this type of money out of China is not a straightforward exercise. If he can’t continue to do this or can no longer afford to do this given that Villa will be a Championship club next season perhaps those here who are hankering after a wealthy owner willing to pay over the odds to buy a promotion will finally put a sock in it.

As for the accusations of “casual racism” that have been levelled at many posters “casual racism” refers to racism conducted whilst wearing chinos and or an open necked shirt/ polo shirt. I’m not sure why there is now a dress code for racists but there you go. Such is the modern world.[/quote]

Oh dear.... Oh a serious note I wonder why people keep refering to "foreign" owners as bad or "stinking rich Chinese" rather than just bad owners? If your view is that all foreigners are bad owner then I would question why that is the case...?[/quote]

I may be wrong, but wasn''t "stinking rich Chinese owner" started as a catch-all slogan by one of our much-loved multi-named trolls, and then got taken up as a kind of reverse joke.against that poster. As to Chinese in particular, there has always been a doubt about verifying how real their wealth is, because there is much less transparency than in the western world.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="king canary"]However these is sensible halfway house between our set up and what is happening at Villa.[/quote]What is a sensible halfway house between self-sustaining (breaking even in long term) and losing £5million a month? Obviously it is a bit trite to say losing £2.5 million a month, but any model which assumes regular ongoing losses means that debt piles up. As it does so, interest payments to owners increase (most don''t lend it for nothing) and ends up with less going on to the pitch.The borrow to invest model ("speculate to accumulate") is inherently more risky in football than in other businesses, because the assets that you are "investing" in, are human and unpredictable: they are short-term and if unsuccessful, with little resale value. If the rumours are correct, the Ross McCormack deal for example, will cost about 20 million over the course of 4 years and will have no resale value!This risk is magnified by the person buying (spending the investment) - i.e. the manager by most traditional models have a very short-term time horizon because of their life expectancy in the role if unsuccessful. Our current model of financial sustainability and Sporting Director/ Head Coach looks far more likely to be in the long-term interests of the club. Please explain how you think it could work.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Big Vince"]Clearly a lot of due diligence needs to be done before any new owner takes over. They have to be in it for the long haul and use their wealth to build the club incrementally. The boy Xia went in with a big bang approach and it has backfired spectacularly. Now he wants to cut and run.

If we could have another Sir Arthur, but with money, I would be delighted.[/quote]1. Who would do the due diligence - it''s normally the purchaser not the seller! But in this case as I understand it, you are suggesting it would be the current owners.In the first place, it is unlikely that you would accept the judgement of the "Suffolk socialists," as to what is in the best long term interests of the club and would assign other motives to any refusal (cf the Cullen investment). Secondly, once the club is sold, there is little that you can do about it.2. Who is the Sir Arthur with money? As far as I can recall, there were no local billionaires in the recent Sunday Times rich list. The idea of a local owner with the money to tolerate regular multi-million pound losses is unlikely. You are then looking at owners without a local connection who are less likely to have strong feelings for the club and more likely to see it as a business and consequently looking to take money out of the club in the long term, rather than out it in.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Cov and Portsmouth are probably the worst case scenarios and both of them probably have a decent chance of being above us in a few years time.[/quote]The most recent set of accounts how Coventry to have revenue of about £6 million. They do not own their ground - why do you think that they will be above us soon?I think that you are a bit naive about the downside to your gamble.

[Mike 2]

When will Archant be running the -

Has Fulham, Wolves & Cardiff being promoted changed your view on investment helping a club get promoted.

and the

Would you want the current owners to be open to listening to potential new owners or investors, if it helped the club improve.

Asking for a friend...

[TCCANARY 263]

[quote user="Mike "]When will Archant be running the -

Has Fulham, Wolves & Cardiff being promoted changed your view on investment helping a club get promoted.

and the

Would you want the current owners to be open to listening to potential new owners or investors, if it helped the club improve.

Asking for a friend...[/quote]

http://www.pinkun.com/norwich-city/canaries-agm-2017-ed-balls-on-ownership-fresh-investment-1-5301648

You can tell your friend that the answer to your second question has already been answerd by the chairman.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

[quote user=" Badger"][quote user="king canary"]However these is sensible halfway house between our set up and what is happening at Villa.[/quote]What is a sensible halfway house between self-sustaining (breaking even in long term) and losing £5million a month? Obviously it is a bit trite to say losing £2.5 million a month, but any model which assumes regular ongoing losses means that debt piles up. As it does so, interest payments to owners increase (most don''t lend it for nothing) and ends up with less going on to the pitch.The borrow to invest model ("speculate to accumulate") is inherently more risky in football than in other businesses, because the assets that you are "investing" in, are human and unpredictable: they are short-term and if unsuccessful, with little resale value. If the rumours are correct, the Ross McCormack deal for example, will cost about 20 million over the course of 4 years and will have no resale value!This risk is magnified by the person buying (spending the investment) - i.e. the manager by most traditional models have a very short-term time horizon because of their life expectancy in the role if unsuccessful. Our current model of financial sustainability and Sporting Director/ Head Coach looks far more likely to be in the long-term interests of the club. Please explain how you think it could work.[/quote]

Its about cash flow, having a bit of a buffer, having the ability to underwrite a certain degree of debt and also fund improvements to the club so that other income can be focussed on the football team really.

Many of the better owners have funded new training grounds, stadium improvements, the academy or other improvements so that other club income does not need to be used for those purposes. Some have out extra monies into their clubs through sponsorship deals thus increasing the monies the club can spend under FFP rules, others just ignore those FFP rules of course!

Its about being able to perhaps hang on to your key player (s) for an extra season (and build a more settled team in the process) because you are not desperate for cash. Its about finding £1m in January for that loan signing (such as Mitrovic) who might make all the difference.

Of course the ideal is for the club to run sustainably and I don''t think anyone sensible wants to see our club run at a £5m loss every month because clearly, long term, that is not sustainable.

Manchester City are actually now sustainable. Theu make a profit because the investment provided by their owners in the club over a number of years (when obviously they were making huge losses) has enabled the club''s income and revenue streams to be increased massively to the extent that it can now cover its own costs.

[sgncfc 1,228]

Most clubs in the Championship next season will be owned by far richer people than Delia. They will also be adopting the self sustainable model because FFP requires them to, once parachute payments are over.

But FFP works a year (or two, depending on when your FYE is) in arrears, so you can have a gamble if you''re prepared to.

So the level playing field, so to speak, is almost upon us - with one or two exceptions every year like Wolves who took the gamble and won. Villa took the gamble and lost so now they are back in the pack with the rest of us. But for both of those clubs it was a gamble which wouldn''t destroy the clubs if it failed, because their owners could afford the losses.

It looks like Derby and Stoke will be taking that gamble next year. Again, they have owners who can afford to make that call. We don''t, so I''m glad we''re not gambling.

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Its about cash flow, having a bit of a buffer, having the ability to underwrite a certain degree of debt and also fund improvements to the club so that other income can be focussed on the football team really.

You seem to be under the impression that the owners GIVE the money to the club. Whilst I''m sure that there may be examples of this, far more CHARGE the club interest for the loans - e.g. Southampton, West Ham (at 7%!), Bournemouth etc. Very often it is secured against assets and there are all sorts of arrangements that take place, for example, the holding company separates the Football club from the ground and some other assets - makes them separate legal entities, so that their money is secured.Many of the better owners have funded new training grounds, stadium improvements, the academy or other improvements so that other club income does not need to be used for those purposes. Some have out extra monies into their clubs through sponsorship deals thus increasing the monies the club can spend under FFP rules, others just ignore those FFP rules of course!

Its about being able to perhaps hang on to your key player (s) for an extra season (and build a more settled team in the process) because you are not desperate for cash. Its about finding £1m in January for that loan signing (such as Mitrovic) who might make all the difference.

It worked for Fulham, but the loans of Snodgrass, Grabban, Tuanzebee, Johnstone, Onomah + short-term signing of Terry, didn''t work for Villa - just made things worse in the long term. It''s a short term gamble against the long-term future based on highly unpredictable "human assets."

Of course the ideal is for the club to run sustainably and I don''t think anyone sensible wants to see our club run at a £5m loss every month because clearly, long term, that is not sustainable.

Manchester City are actually now sustainable. Theu make a profit because the investment provided by their owners in the club over a number of years (when obviously they were making huge losses) has enabled the club''s income and revenue streams to be increased massively to the extent that it can now cover its own costs.I think that the Manchester City model would be great and I would welcome it - I also think that it is a bit of a fantasy, unfortunately [:(]You raised a point earlier about the seller exercising due diligence - it is normally the other way round! How would that work - how could you trust what the buyer says - what guarantees would you seek? Who would do the "due diligence" - would it be the current owners - and how do you think that some fans would react if they smelt a rat in the deal?As far as I can see, "due diligence" in the sense that you suggest, may seem superficially plausible but totally impracticable - I think that the idea provides you with false security. [/quote]

[Bill 1,788]

some excellent points there Mr Badger