Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
king canary

Ownership questions

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Although would you admit Nutty, that if we become the club that has been relegated from the premier league the most times of any club (which would be the case if we go down this season) then we will have failed to grasp the opportunity provided by premier league football more times than any others?

Is this for real Jimbo? The kindest thing I can think here is that you're trolling me🙃

Just in case you're serious I would say it's better to keep being promoted than to be relegated and not return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, JF said:

This thread looks more like a debate than factual answers to me...

There were some factual answers early on but it seems they may not have been the right factual answers...😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

There were some factual answers early on but it seems they may not have been the right factual answers...😎

As the person who asked for the answers, I'm perfectly happy with the answers I got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Is this for real Jimbo? The kindest thing I can think here is that you're trolling me🙃

Just in case you're serious I would say it's better to keep being promoted than to be relegated and not return.

Better still not to get relegated so often. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 14:39, Mello Yello said:

Makes you wonder why those big clubs don't also try the self-funding model?.....Close a few club shops and get their support to chip in to improve their training ground facilities and stuff?......Probably missing a trick?..... 

The "big" clubs are generally held by investors seeking to make a profit (e.g. Man Utd; Newcastle) or as a "plaything" by those for whom money is no object (e.g. Man City; Chelsea).

Investors are seeking to take money out of the club in the form of profit or selling the club for a higher price. The money no object multi-billionaire "plaything model"  is possibly more attractive (although I fear it could be highly volatile) but not that easy to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 19:47, Jim Smith said:

Quite simply Nutty I believe that the financial clout of the owners of the other clubs increased their chances of staying up whilst the financial clout of ours counts against us.

Taking on debt, which is essentially what you are suggesting, can work in the short term (but is not guaranteed), but tends to be unsuccessful in the long term and often leads to teams spending prolonged periods in the wilderness.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Badger said:

The "big" clubs are generally held by investors seeking to make a profit (e.g. Man Utd; Newcastle) or as a "plaything" by those for whom money is no object (e.g. Man City; Chelsea).

Investors are seeking to take money out of the club in the form of profit or selling the club for a higher price. The money no object multi-billionaire "plaything model"  is possibly more attractive (although I fear it could be highly volatile) but not that easy to find.

I'd suggest right now the former category is outweighed by the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's a case of risk / reward? If you have terrible owners like we've seen with Bolton and Bury you obviously take the risk as the chances of getting better owners is pretty high.

For us, the chances of getting better than what we have and thus achieving better than we have is realistically slim. Of course it's possible, but it's slim. Just look at similar sized clubs to us, and bigger, and it's patently clear that there's a bigger chance we go backwards than forwards. The odds are stacked against us because our current owners have done exceptionally well with limited wealth. There's not too many similar examples.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Success for a club like us is difficult to define objectively. You can make an argument that clubs like Wigan, Birmingham, Fulham and Middlesbrough have been more successful than us in the past 20 odd years, you can also argue they've been less so. It depends on what you value. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're still only naming a few clubs and even then I dont know about others but I certainly wouldnt swap Wigans last 20 years with ours 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, hogesar said:

You're still only naming a few clubs and even then I dont know about others but I certainly wouldnt swap Wigans last 20 years with ours 😂

You may see it as ridiculous but it isn't hard to make the argument they've done better than us.

- More seasons in the top division

- A longer sustained run in the top division than we've managed

- Their highest finish in that spell is 10th, compared to our 11th.

- An FA Cup win and the chance to play in Europe

On the flip side...

- They've spent far more time in League One than we have in that time spell

- Since they were last relegated from the Premier League they've not looked likely to bounce back up.

I wouldn't swap them either but I don't think it is a clear cut thing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

You may see it as ridiculous but it isn't hard to make the argument they've done better than us.

- More seasons in the top division

- A longer sustained run in the top division than we've managed

- Their highest finish in that spell is 10th, compared to our 11th.

- An FA Cup win and the chance to play in Europe

On the flip side...

- They've spent far more time in League One than we have in that time spell

- Since they were last relegated from the Premier League they've not looked likely to bounce back up.

I wouldn't swap them either but I don't think it is a clear cut thing.

 

Especially given that they are a tiny club really who are not comparable with us in terms of supporter base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Especially given that they are a tiny club really who are not comparable with us in terms of supporter base.

There are probably 12 clubs bigger than us in terms of supporter base.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle, Everton, West Ham, Villa, Leeds, Sunderland.

After that I would say we're in a group of 20 comparably sized clubs. We probably have the poorest owners of all 32 and yet have finished in the top 23 in 9 of the last 10 seasons.

What are the odds that an owner with more financial clout would better that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There are probably 12 clubs bigger than us in terms of supporter base.

Man Utd, Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Newcastle, Everton, West Ham, Villa, Leeds, Sunderland.

After that I would say we're in a group of 20 comparably sized clubs. We probably have the poorest owners of all 32 and yet have finished in the top 23 in 9 of the last 10 seasons.

What are the odds that an owner with more financial clout would better that?

Odds on . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Odds on . 

Impossible to say.

I'm confident that if you gave a £50m transfer budget to Webber he'd do a great job with it. However give that same budget to Alex Neil and I think we could have got ourselves into some real trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This blind optimism that more money means more chance is as daft as saying less money means more chance.

Surely the only fair way to judge is comparing performance. Not just throwing up Leicester or Portsmouth but taking the 20 or so comparable clubs and measuring that way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a club of our size, we've had a great time of it over the last decade or so. Four promotion seasons, five years in the Premier League and lots of great moments.

Compare that to several clubs of a similarish size who have just languished in the Championship (or worse) like Ipswich, Forest, Derby, Sheffield Wednesday and Leeds, plus the disasters of Portsmouth and Bolton. Many of them have had several rich overseas owners and it has just seen them lurch from one abject disappointment to another.

I think we're better off with our current stable regime rather than risking it with some billionaire basket case from god-knows-where who could destroy the solid foundations of the club within a couple years. That's more likely than becoming a Premier League regular.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, king canary said:

Impossible to say.

I'm confident that if you gave a £50m transfer budget to Webber he'd do a great job with it. However give that same budget to Alex Neil and I think we could have got ourselves into some real trouble.

But then you're wondering if these new billionaire owners would have ever employed Webber. The likely answer is no because we did and seemingly none of the billionaire owners in the prem or champ wanted him or they'd likely have got him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hogesar said:

But then you're wondering if these new billionaire owners would have ever employed Webber. The likely answer is no because we did and seemingly none of the billionaire owners in the prem or champ wanted him or they'd likely have got him.

Well they may have employed someone else who is as good as Webber- I'm just thinking from a hypothetical Norwich perspective. The point I'm making is that money is only useful in the right hands. Whoever has been running Wolves transfer strategy for instance clearly knows what he's doing, while Tony Khan at Fulham made a total ****-up of his transfer budget. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, king canary said:

Well they may have employed someone else who is as good as Webber- I'm just thinking from a hypothetical Norwich perspective. The point I'm making is that money is only useful in the right hands. Whoever has been running Wolves transfer strategy for instance clearly knows what he's doing, while Tony Khan at Fulham made a total ****-up of his transfer budget. 

Yep, which is why it's pointless just to look at owners who have lots of money.

Jim seems to advocate having any owner who has a lot of money, whereas that has a ridiculously high % of failure. There are obviously billionaires who are good owners & have lots of money and that's a dream-day scenario. I think if you look at the top two leagues of English football they're a minority, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hogesar said:

Yep, which is why it's pointless just to look at owners who have lots of money.

Jim seems to advocate having any owner who has a lot of money, whereas that has a ridiculously high % of failure. There are obviously billionaires who are good owners & have lots of money and that's a dream-day scenario. I think if you look at the top two leagues of English football they're a minority, though.

In terms of net worth 16 of the 20 Premier League clubs are worth over $1bn. Of those billionaire owners, I think only Mike Ashley and the Glazers are considered particularly unpopular.

In the Championship it seems less clear about net worth of owners although Barnsley, Bristol, QPR, West Brom, Stoke and Fulham all have billionaires owning them. I believe our current owners would rank near the bottom of in terms of net worth in the top two leagues. Ownerships like ours are much more of a minority than the 'benevolent billionaire' types.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have access to "Business Experian" that shows a breakdown of financial informaiton for the last 3 years, shows P&L, Balance, Cash flow etc... Not sure if i'm allowed to just copy and paste it here though, wouldn't have thought so?

It does also have a Directors section, the "Resigned Directors" is a long read 😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Yep, which is why it's pointless just to look at owners who have lots of money.

Jim seems to advocate having any owner who has a lot of money, whereas that has a ridiculously high % of failure. There are obviously billionaires who are good owners & have lots of money and that's a dream-day scenario. I think if you look at the top two leagues of English football they're a minority, though.

I have never advocated “any” owner who has lots of money. Far from it. I would expect a degree of due diligence to be done to ensure the new owner was not a fly by night cowboy. However I do not subscribe to the view that all those with lots of money who would want to own a top flight football club would do a bad job, screw the club into the ground or indeed not perhaps run it even better. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I have never advocated “any” owner who has lots of money. Far from it. I would expect a degree of due diligence to be done to ensure the new owner was not a fly by night cowboy. However I do not subscribe to the view that all those with lots of money who would want to own a top flight football club would do a bad job, screw the club into the ground or indeed not perhaps run it even better. 

But the point where we disagree is that you think if they were not a flyby night cowboys they'd do better than our owners. Where is the evidence for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/10/2019 at 15:27, wcorkcanary said:

Think a little and you'll answer your own question. Man u owners are only interested in profit, so closing club shops if they are profitable is daft.  Man City have shedloads of Money and have invested in their academy and training facilities. This is not about polar opposites, this is about what works for NCFC. Sure Delia and Co. have a few quid, but not enough to be splashing out on Premier League quality players, i have no idea of her net worth but i doubt its enough to buy and pay many Eden Hazards or Kevin de Bruins.  the Colneys Share offer was put in place long before we looked likely for promotion and by my reckoning worked well, job done, by people that wanted to help the Club and make a few quid, Happy Days. 

Sure, if we managed to source an NCFC loving Billionaire who wanted to invest, without meddling in player affairs, and who was happy to see his/her money being used by a competent management structure, i would have no problem with that. Names on a postcard please to.... Delia and Co. Carrow Rd. Naaarich.

We are now financially stable, two and a half years ago we were in trouble , that in itlelf is money well spent. We trimmed and secured a decent playing squad and have numerous promising youngsters in the Academy. Not bad so far i'd say.

I was being facetious......but, you weren't to know that.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Don’t question the ownership at Norwich ! 

Or don't be happy with the ownership at Norwich.

Thankfully we have the freedom to do both on here.

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

×