Jump to content
Hardhouse44

What is it you realistically want, expect, and demand from your club

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Does it? He seemingly had to spend quite a bit to take Bournemouth up and keep them up.

Yes, pretty much. Low initial outlay with a very positive upside if successful.

Compare with if they came looking at Norwich. What would a fair price be for the stadium, Colney, supporters good will, zero debt, a number of valuable player contracts, assured revenue stream with the parachute payments. Ask you yourself what that would cost.

Now look at the upside, not very much, at best continuing Premier League membership requiring continuing financial input.

Denim has already cashed in enough of his investment to cover his costs, which with Bournemouth's current position looks very wise.

Share this post


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

You stand little chance of getting a reply (of any sense anyway). 

1. The consensus of many of the "investor advocates" on here is that the amount of money we need is "enough." Nothing specific

2. They  caution us that the money has to be spent wisely, but without any explanation of how this objective is to be achieved and if it is so easy, why everybody doesn't spend it wisely?

3. They explain that it would lead to us becoming successful, like Leicester, carefully ignoring all the examples of other clubs that have tried, failed and have been left in the doldrums for years, even though there is an example less than 50 miles down the road.

4. They naively expect the "investor" to give us money - despite all the examples of investors lending it secured against the assets of the club.

5. They rarely acknowledge that the purpose of an investor is to take money out of the club, not put it in

6. They naively ignore the fact that Norwich would be an asset strippers paradise, unless we were sold for well over £100 million. Blooms £200 million would be nowhere near enough in today's inflated transfer market.

7. But I can tolerate their what I perceive as their naivety and lack of understanding, and understand that they are passionate fans who want the best for the club. What really irritates me, though, is that those of us, who feel that we have some degree of financial acumen are said to be less ambitious or passionate about the future of Norwich City. I don't want an external investor because it is more likely to impede our progress than help - unless we get a Bloom or Gibson. Failing this or a Sheikh or other mega-rich donor, a long term policy of building incrementally rather than thinking short-term has to be the best way forwards. 

I think it was Jim Morison who said, "We want the world and we want it now." Well in Norwich's case, I want the world too, but recognise that we might have to be patient, rather than looking for easy quick-hit solutions that are more likely to fail than succeed.

Thanks Badgero for taking the time to write out yet another  reasoned explanation  that will, I fear, fall on deaf ears. Maybe if all supporters of the Newish approach took it in turns to post this same explanation again and again because , working on the other theory  of needing investment being repeated over and over somehow making it true, may, eventually  gain some traction.

Share this post


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

If a serious investor was blocked then I'd hazard a guess their next move would be to let the media know. 

Or go and buy another club like Wolves.

Share this post


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

Denim has already cashed in enough of his investment to cover his costs, which with Bournemouth's current position looks very wise.

Any evidence for that?

Share this post


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

To the Russians, who for 25 years have been buying vast tracts of real estate in Kensington and Chelsea, and the West End generally, Chelsea FC is the ultimate toy, a status symbol, and a rich man's plaything. Abramovich is not relevant to any discussion about Norwich. He is not a philanthropist and no one should ever think that football investors are philanthropists (with the notable exception of the Shivaddhanaprabha family at Leicester).

 

Agree 100% Pugin. Perhaps I didn't make it very clear, but that was exactly the point I was trying to make in mentioning the example of Abrahamovich at Chelsea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

That is rather the point though - they bought these clubs in Division 1 (in the case of The Liebeherr's at Southampton) and the Championship in the case of Denim at Bournemouth.

You point out that Denim has paid quite a lot to get Bournemouth in the Premier League, but presumably if he were now to sell the club he might well get that money back plus some more on top. (If we beat them on Saturday that plan might start looking a bit shaky 🙂 ). 

But how would he sell the club? According to people in this thread nobody buys them...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But how would he sell the club? According to people in this thread nobody buys them...

According to lots of other people on this thread there is a jostling mob of mega rich 'investors' desperate to buy them........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pugin said:

To the Russians, who for 25 years have been buying vast tracts of real estate in Kensington and Chelsea, and the West End generally, Chelsea FC is the ultimate toy, a status symbol, and a rich man's plaything

How true!! I have an uncle who has had a large house in the very desirable part of Chelsea for many many years. Last time I saw him he said that everytime the doorbell rings he thinks it's  a Russian  calling to offer substantially more for his house than the last fella  he turned down. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

That is rather the point though - they bought these clubs in Division 1 (in the case of The Liebeherr's at Southampton) and the Championship in the case of Denim at Bournemouth.

You point out that Denim has paid quite a lot to get Bournemouth in the Premier League, but presumably if he were now to sell the club he might well get that money back plus some more on top. (If we beat them on Saturday that plan might start looking a bit shaky 🙂 ). 

Sorry - I was wrong about that - Denim bought Bournemouth when they were in League One. 

Share this post


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

How true!! I have an uncle who has had a large house in the very desirable part of Chelsea for many many years. Last time I saw him he said that everytime the doorbell rings he thinks it's  a Russian  calling to offer substantially more for his house than the last fella  he turned down. 

 

Does this uncle have any interest in investing in a professional football club by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Does this uncle have any interest in investing in a professional football club by any chance?

😄 He is a  Chelsea season ticket holder, as is his son, so conflict of interest  would probably  rule him out. Hes well off but not Russian Oligarch  well off. Bought the house in the sixties as a family  home.  God knows what its worth now. 

Share this post


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

Yes, pretty much. Low initial outlay with a very positive upside if successful.

Compare with if they came looking at Norwich. What would a fair price be for the stadium, Colney, supporters good will, zero debt, a number of valuable player contracts, assured revenue stream with the parachute payments. Ask you yourself what that would cost.

Now look at the upside, not very much, at best continuing Premier League membership requiring continuing financial input.

Denim has already cashed in enough of his investment to cover his costs, which with Bournemouth's current position looks very wise.

Which brings us back to what would the owners sell the club for. I am fully aware that they are fully entitled to sell it for whatever they can get and in that world yes I get the point that when we are in the premier league, the value of the club will be higher than when we were in league 1 or the championship and thus if the owners seek full market value for the club then a sale is less likely (although to be honest we could still be bought for less than 1 seasons worth premier league tv monies).

However, if a new owner was to acquire Delia and Michaels' shareholding (or I suppose Tom's in due course) and they were to insist on full market value for their share holding they would be making a very substantial profit out of their ownership of the club which is something they have always maintained they do not expect to do. It would also be a profit generated in some part by the generosity of the clubs supporters who have for example funded the purchase of Grant Holt or put money into the bond or bought shares in various share issues that we all know are worthless but helped to keep the club afloat and helped it to survive. Such a requirement would, therefore, in my view be surprising as it would run contrary to almost everything they have ever said about why they own the football club and how they would step aside if the right person came along who could take the club forward.

I am aware its perhaps a fantasy world but I guess I just continue to harbour visions of the club going out and finding someone who is able to bring some serious financial clout for next time we make it to the premier league and that if that meant the owners having to sell for a price below what might be considered the "full market value" then they would consider doing so if it was seen to be in the best interests of the club. They could make a 50% profit on the money they have put in and frankly the club would still be an absolute bargain for someone to buy if sold as a premier league club or a club on the verge of promotion. In the alternative, unless i've got it wrong, I thought the board passed a resolution to enable the issue of up to 1 million new shares at one of the previous AGM's which presumably could be bought by a new owner. I assume, however, that the current owners would have to sanction this and as it would presumably decrease the value of their own shareholding (which would no longer be a controlling stake) it would similarly involve a sacrifice on their part.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bournemouth: Maxim Demin's company assumes full ownership

Seems like Bournmouth's Russian benefactor has retaken control. Doesn't negate the point that be bought 50% of the club for £850k and spent c£25m getting them promoted, when that wouldn't even buy him Ben Godfrey.

(Btw - it all appears to be loans rather than gifts)

Go on @king canary - what do you think the purchase price of NCFC is?

Share this post


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

Which brings us back to what would the owners sell the club for. I am fully aware that they are fully entitled to sell it for whatever they can get and in that world yes I get the point that when we are in the premier league, the value of the club will be higher than when we were in league 1 or the championship and thus if the owners seek full market value for the club then a sale is less likely (although to be honest we could still be bought for less than 1 seasons worth premier league tv monies).

However, if a new owner was to acquire Delia and Michaels' shareholding (or I suppose Tom's in due course) and they were to insist on full market value for their share holding they would be making a very substantial profit out of their ownership of the club which is something they have always maintained they do not expect to do. It would also be a profit generated in some part by the generosity of the clubs supporters who have for example funded the purchase of Grant Holt or put money into the bond or bought shares in various share issues that we all know are worthless but helped to keep the club afloat and helped it to survive. Such a requirement would, therefore, in my view be surprising as it would run contrary to almost everything they have ever said about why they own the football club and how they would step aside if the right person came along who could take the club forward.

I am aware its perhaps a fantasy world but I guess I just continue to harbour visions of the club going out and finding someone who is able to bring some serious financial clout for next time we make it to the premier league and that if that meant the owners having to sell for a price below what might be considered the "full market value" then they would consider doing so if it was seen to be in the best interests of the club. They could make a 50% profit on the money they have put in and frankly the club would still be an absolute bargain for someone to buy if sold as a premier league club or a club on the verge of promotion. In the alternative, unless i've got it wrong, I thought the board passed a resolution to enable the issue of up to 1 million new shares at one of the previous AGM's which presumably could be bought by a new owner. I assume, however, that the current owners would have to sanction this and as it would presumably decrease the value of their own shareholding (which would no longer be a controlling stake) it would similarly involve a sacrifice on their part.

How much Jim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Which brings us back to what would the owners sell the club for. I am fully aware that they are fully entitled to sell it for whatever they can get and in that world yes I get the point that when we are in the premier league, the value of the club will be higher than when we were in league 1 or the championship and thus if the owners seek full market value for the club then a sale is less likely (although to be honest we could still be bought for less than 1 seasons worth premier league tv monies).

However, if a new owner was to acquire Delia and Michaels' shareholding (or I suppose Tom's in due course) and they were to insist on full market value for their share holding they would be making a very substantial profit out of their ownership of the club which is something they have always maintained they do not expect to do. It would also be a profit generated in some part by the generosity of the clubs supporters who have for example funded the purchase of Grant Holt or put money into the bond or bought shares in various share issues that we all know are worthless but helped to keep the club afloat and helped it to survive. Such a requirement would, therefore, in my view be surprising as it would run contrary to almost everything they have ever said about why they own the football club and how they would step aside if the right person came along who could take the club forward.

I am aware its perhaps a fantasy world but I guess I just continue to harbour visions of the club going out and finding someone who is able to bring some serious financial clout for next time we make it to the premier league and that if that meant the owners having to sell for a price below what might be considered the "full market value" then they would consider doing so if it was seen to be in the best interests of the club. They could make a 50% profit on the money they have put in and frankly the club would still be an absolute bargain for someone to buy if sold as a premier league club or a club on the verge of promotion. In the alternative, unless i've got it wrong, I thought the board passed a resolution to enable the issue of up to 1 million new shares at one of the previous AGM's which presumably could be bought by a new owner. I assume, however, that the current owners would have to sanction this and as it would presumably decrease the value of their own shareholding (which would no longer be a controlling stake) it would similarly involve a sacrifice on their part.

 

 

If this potential owner paid Smith and Jones the current official price of £100 (which still only values the club at a bit over £60m) so they made a substantial profit, then the same price would have to be offered to the small shareholders, allowing them to make a massive profit if they so wanted. In this case their shares would be far from worthless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BigFish said:

How much Jim?

What how much do I think the controlling stake in the club is worth or how much do I think they should sell for?

 

 

Share this post


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

What how much do I think the controlling stake in the club is worth or how much do I think they should sell for?

Either, or both really Jim. FWIW I think the idea of selling below market value is almost certainly unlawful, unless all the minority shareholders agree.........

Share this post


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

You keep saying this but as far as I can see, plenty of football clubs are owned by people who have put in more than they take out.

There are the very rich fans - e.g. Bloom/ Gibson and to some extent the Bournemouth guy; there  the mega rich Sheikhs and oligarchs, like Man City/ Chelsea and Leicester, name some of the successful investors who have successfully put more in than they have taken out.

You say there are "plenty"...

 

Share this post


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

What how much do I think the controlling stake in the club is worth or how much do I think they should sell for?

 

 

Both for me Jimbo.

Just to add the thread title includes realistically..

Share this post


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

Both for me Jimbo.

Just to add the thread title includes realistically..

Rules Jim's opinion out then. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Bournemouth: Maxim Demin's company assumes full ownership

Seems like Bournmouth's Russian benefactor has retaken control. Doesn't negate the point that be bought 50% of the club for £850k and spent c£25m getting them promoted, when that wouldn't even buy him Ben Godfrey.

(Btw - it all appears to be loans rather than gifts)

Go on @king canary - what do you think the purchase price of NCFC is?

The Bournemouth story is far from finished BF.

They are over £50 million in debt and get over 90% of their revenue from TV. Lets hope that their owner retains his interest in the club for their sake. 

 

Share this post


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

What how much do I think the controlling stake in the club is worth or how much do I think they should sell for?

 

 

If the price were too low, we would be low hanging fruit for an asset stripper. I think that I could double my money if I managed to buy it with a spare £60 or 70 million (unfortunately my money is tied up atm). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The correct solution is to sell the club to its fan base as a self-financing concern. If that means in the Championship under actually working FFP rules so be it. We don’t need an “investor” we need a football club. 

Share this post


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

Either, or both really Jim. FWIW I think the idea of selling below market value is almost certainly unlawful, unless all the minority shareholders agree.........

Well as I understand it the club is currently valuing new shares at £100 (although not sure when that went up from £55 and seems a fair jump) so on that basis the issued share capital of the club (or I presume a new allocation of shares giving a controlling stake) would appear to be valued at just under £62m and the value of the owner's share's would be circa £32m if one ignores the potential for charging a premium for the controlling stake. 

I must confess in more general "business valuation" terms I don;t really know how you would best go about valuing a business that has such significant variation in its turnover or profits/losses from year to year dependent on what division it is in.

I am interested Purple in your point about having to offer the other shareholders the same - i.e. I assume you mean make a mandatory offer. I must confess I had not taken that into account. Is this because the City Code would apply given that we are a PLC and in that case has said PLC status actually in some ways makes us much harder to take over than was the case when we were just a limited company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of the above, allowing any new owner to purchase the unallocated shares would appear to be a better means of attracting "investment" than D&M selling their stake on the basis that the £62m (or £100m if all the shares were sold) would presumably go straight into the club?

Share this post


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

The Bournemouth story is far from finished BF.

They are over £50 million in debt and get over 90% of their revenue from TV. Lets hope that their owner retains his interest in the club for their sake. 

 

Got a link for the debt figure? Last one I saw was £20m?

Share this post


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

There are the very rich fans - e.g. Bloom/ Gibson and to some extent the Bournemouth guy; there  the mega rich Sheikhs and oligarchs, like Man City/ Chelsea and Leicester, name some of the successful investors who have successfully put more in than they have taken out.

You say there are "plenty"...

 

I didn't mention investors, I mentioned owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Well as I understand it the club is currently valuing new shares at £100 (although not sure when that went up from £55 and seems a fair jump) so on that basis the issued share capital of the club (or I presume a new allocation of shares giving a controlling stake) would appear to be valued at just under £62m and the value of the owner's share's would be circa £32m if one ignores the potential for charging a premium for the controlling stake. 

I must confess in more general "business valuation" terms I don;t really know how you would best go about valuing a business that has such significant variation in its turnover or profits/losses from year to year dependent on what division it is in.

I am interested Purple in your point about having to offer the other shareholders the same - i.e. I assume you mean make a mandatory offer. I must confess I had not taken that into account. Is this because the City Code would apply given that we are a PLC and in that case has said PLC status actually in some ways makes us much harder to take over than was the case when we were just a limited company?

Ever since the club/company became a PLC (which just stands for public limited company) some time (I think) around 2000 it has been subject to the Takeover Code.

So as soon as anyone acquires 30 per cent of the shares - which by definition would happen if they bought S&J's majority stake - they have to offer to buy all the other shares. And at the highest price they paid to get to 30 per cent. So if they paid S&J £100 they would have to offer that to all. 

Of course these other shareholders don't have to sell, unless the new owner gets to - I think - 90 per cent, in which case they have no choice but to sell.

I don't think this makes it harder or easier for the club to be taken over, as circumstances stand. In essence you take over the club by buying out S&J, and if you are willing and financially able to do that then I doubt the potential threat, which might well not materialise, or at least not entirely, of also having to buy out the other shareholders would bother you.

PS.To add, Jim, re someone buying new shares instead, I was’t quite clear from the wording what point you were making. Yes, that would be better for the club, in that the money would go to the club rather than to S&J and the other existing shareholders, if they wanted to sell.

However, not certain but I think that if done that way the 30 per cent rule would still come into play, so an offer would have to be made for the 600,000-plus existing shares, including those held by S&J, potentially costing the would-be owner more. At the extreme end, if it was £100 a share, then £160m instead of £60m?! It is late but I think that all makes sense...

Edited by PurpleCanary
  • Like 1

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

×
×
  • Create New...