Jump to content
Hardhouse44

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

Recommended Posts

If you were a super-rich Chinaman looking to invest in a football club in East Anglia the best bet is probably Cambridge United. Admittedly not much in the way of tradition but you could probably buy the club for a quid, Cambridge as a city has a global reputation, rich, growing, close to Stansted, a hour from Central London etc.

Build them a 40,000 stadium, training ground and invest in the team and still have change from the price of buying City.

Share this post


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

Just to be clear though I still believe that even with our current owners we could and should have done more to supplement the squad this season to try and stay up without placing the club at any significant risk. That's my biggest current disappointment. 

Yes, I agree with that. As to the previous post, I take your point about Bloom's figure including getting them into the Prem as well as keeping them there.

It's a double-edged sword, though - much as any investor wouldn't have to invest anything in getting us to the Premier League, in order for their investment to be worthwhile they would need to advance the club to the next level (which is what many people unhappy with the status quo are crying out for). And if an investor takes on that challenge and we're relegated anyway (we'd need Leicester or Wolves-level investment to be anything approaching sure of staying up for a prolonged period of time), we end up in the situation of playing 'boom and bust' with parachute payments, with the added danger of getting shafted by FFP.

It's a circular argument, and I can see both sides of it. Until the club makes a statement openly welcoming new investment, we're all just guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Yes, I agree with that. As to the previous post, I take your point about Bloom's figure including getting them into the Prem as well as keeping them there.

It's a double-edged sword, though - much as any investor wouldn't have to invest anything in getting us to the Premier League, in order for their investment to be worthwhile they would need to advance the club to the next level (which is what many people unhappy with the status quo are crying out for). And if an investor takes on that challenge and we're relegated anyway (we'd need Leicester or Wolves-level investment to be anything approaching sure of staying up for a prolonged period of time), we end up in the situation of playing 'boom and bust' with parachute payments, with the added danger of getting shafted by FFP.

It's a circular argument, and I can see both sides of it. Until the club makes a statement openly welcoming new investment, we're all just guessing.

And right on cue an established Premier League club who are trying to 'advance their club to the next level' release their accounts.

One line from the report which jumped out at me: Moshiri has spent about £450m on players and changed manager four times since he took over at the club in February 2016, leading to questions from fans about the club's sustainability.

Now they've got money in from selling players too over that time period, but even so.....................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51114007

Share this post


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

If you were a super-rich Chinaman looking to invest in a football club in East Anglia the best bet is probably Cambridge United. Admittedly not much in the way of tradition but you could probably buy the club for a quid, Cambridge as a city has a global reputation, rich, growing, close to Stansted, a hour from Central London etc.

Build them a 40,000 stadium, training ground and invest in the team and still have change from the price of buying City.

I still think there is a huge upside to be had here - if you had the money to develop the ground and the team. We are a one county club with a much grown population with loads and loads of property developments going on and an already amazingly loyal fan base, who buy STs, merch and travel very well.  I am amazed that there are no investors that haven't seen this! 

Share this post


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

The club is taking advantage of income streams as and when they are available, like any other good business does, that is all.

Ashamed? Really?  Or are you talking about Binwich?

Agreed. But surely good businesses also invests a decent percentage of that money in the future growth of the club. Not just sit on it or more worryingly use it to fund the day to day running without any guarantee that it will be able to get that money again. Surely we are only in the good financial position because of a promotion that the club seems not to have expected or planned for. If so we must assume that we are working not to a reasoned plan but to Lady Luck! If she runs out that financial position will quickly deteriorate and we will be back to square one. 
How many season of missing another promotion before it’s all gone. And I question the asset values that some on here and in the media seem to believe we have. Way over valued in my opinion and at present nobody has paid or offered anything like the money some think we will get!

Share this post


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

And right on cue an established Premier League club who are trying to 'advance their club to the next level' release their accounts.

One line from the report which jumped out at me: Moshiri has spent about £450m on players and changed manager four times since he took over at the club in February 2016, leading to questions from fans about the club's sustainability.

Now they've got money in from selling players too over that time period, but even so.....................

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51114007

So where does Moshiri sit in your opinion? Is he an 'investor' looking to take money out?

Or is he a 'benefactor' that we're told doesn't really exist.

Share this post


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

Thanks Purple. Corporate law is a complex web but one further question, do you think the City Code applies if Delia and Michael (or subsequently Tom) voluntarily sold their shares to someone rather than the shares being sold as some sort of takeover bid? From what i can glean the answer appears to be yes but can;t find anything clear on it. 

Jim, if S&J sold their majority holding to another party then that would in effect be a takeover, so the new owner would have to make an offer for all shares.

And if, for example, S&J held on to some of their shares but sold what amounted to at least 30 per cent of the club's total shareholding then I would imagine the 30 per cent rule would still have to apply, on the basis that how could anyone be certain this was not the first move in a takeover, even if it was claimed to be nothing of the kind?

Some fascinating posts. I would throw one point - my long-running hobbyhorse - into the mix in terms of the motivations and actions of owners, and the feasibility or otherwise of their aims, and so how to assess whether they might be good or bad for NCFC.

There has been an influx into the Championship of risk-taking entrepreneurs, some from overseas, some homegrown, whose business culture means they expect success - defined as getting to the Premier League - and they expect it quickly, and among other questionable plans are willing to 'game' the current ill-thought-out FFP system and exploit loopholes that should never have been there. Not to be touched with a long bargepole.

Share this post


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

So where does Moshiri sit in your opinion? Is he an 'investor' looking to take money out?

Or is he a 'benefactor' that we're told doesn't really exist.

Well he had a lot of shares in Arsenal from 2007 to 2016. He then sold these and took a controlling interest in Everton so I guess he see's himself as an investor. As things stand at the moment he's probably an investor who goes to bed at night thinking "what the f**k have I done?" I imagine this feeling was particularly strong after we won 2-0 at their place. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a fan who can't always make it to games, I've enjoyed and come to expect incredible drama and engagement from every visit to Carrow Road and have rarely been disappointed.  Being a true "yo-yo club" has enabled me to always invest emotionally in what was going on, whether it be the promotion chase or relegation dogfight.  In the past decade, we've been relegated 3 times and promoted 4. I fear my expectations for intrigue are now too high.

Given the up and down nature of our recent existence, I think most fans appreciate the current willingness to change the way the club operates in a permanent way: i.e. the self-financed, youth-centric, possession-based approach that we've now taken up.  The club has matured in it's consideration for its own future, and the importance of a strong culture of development within the club.

All of this has made me expect/demand the following:

- Continued openness from the club management (Webber, Kensell, Ward, Smith & Co)

- Continued investment in our youth and infrastructure

- Continued focus on matchday access (getting ticketing right) and matchday experience (I love the lap of NCFC legends before a ig game)

- Continued commitment to possession-based football.  I'd rather be relegated than play like burnley. 

- Patience from the fans with respect to our approach, if you don't realise how good we've got it!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Jim, if S&J sold their majority holding to another party then that would in effect be a takeover, so the new owner would have to make an offer for all shares.

And if, for example, S&J held on to some of their shares but sold what amounted to at least 30 per cent of the club's total shareholding then I would imagine the 30 per cent rule would still have to apply, on the basis that how could anyone be certain this was not the first move in a takeover, even if it was claimed to be nothing of the kind?

Some fascinating posts. I would throw one point - my long-running hobbyhorse - into the mix in terms of the motivations and actions of owners, and the feasibility or otherwise of their aims, and so how to assess whether they might be good or bad for NCFC.

There has been an influx into the Championship of risk-taking entrepreneurs, some from overseas, some homegrown, whose business culture means they expect success - defined as getting to the Premier League - and they expect it quickly, and among other questionable plans are willing to 'game' the current ill-thought-out FFP system and exploit loopholes that should never have been there. Not to be touched with a long bargepole.

I don;t want someone like that either Purple (although i think with FFP you can take a calculated gamble over 3 years as the Brighton owner did). I certainly wouldn't want someone selling and leasing back the ground to distort the figures and try and get around FFP. I am just concerned that we may have missed out on the possibility of a Leicester or Wolves type owner through what i think has been an unwillingness to even entertain the thought of selling.

It has indeed been an interesting discussion. I think the only point i remain relatively unclear on is how, in a sale scenario, the proce would be fixed and thus what flexibility there is around that. For example how has that £100 per share value been arrived at and would there be scope for them to sell their shares for a lesser price if they were willing to and (I suppose) if ti were signed off by enough of the remaining shareholders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/01/2020 at 08:47, lake district canary said:

If the club is being in run in the right way, then continuation of that is a sensible strategy.  I accept that some people don't think it is being run in the right way - but it is hard to argue that the club is not in the best state it has ever been financially and throughout the club in terms of footballing philosophy and practical development from youth to first team. The Academy (the loan for which was Tom Smith's idea btw)  is developing, the coaching staff are good, the Sporting director role instead of a CEO is progressive and there is scope for selling on young successful players and bringing through others already at the club, thus allowing for more money to be put into buying further talent and seeing the young talent we already have in the wings flourish as they make the first team.

So continuation is essential - and selling the club to whoever, would be a risk to that continuity. Tom Smith is on the board to learn the ropes and get experience - and that is good policy in terms of continuity........if you accept that the club is being run right. Money, on it's own, is not the answer.

For every "investor" that is a disaster (cue Villa / Fulham) there is an investor that has been very successful (cue Wolves, Leicester, Man City)... what is indisputable is there are no and has been no successful premiership clubs spending as less as us or using our model.

Share this post


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

I don;t want someone like that either Purple (although i think with FFP you can take a calculated gamble over 3 years as the Brighton owner did). I certainly wouldn't want someone selling and leasing back the ground to distort the figures and try and get around FFP. I am just concerned that we may have missed out on the possibility of a Leicester or Wolves type owner through what i think has been an unwillingness to even entertain the thought of selling.

It has indeed been an interesting discussion. I think the only point i remain relatively unclear on is how, in a sale scenario, the proce would be fixed and thus what flexibility there is around that. For example how has that £100 per share value been arrived at and would there be scope for them to sell their shares for a lesser price if they were willing to and (I suppose) if ti were signed off by enough of the remaining shareholders?

My understanding is that the £100 is just what shares were last made available at. In reality the shares don't have a determined  value as they are not publicly traded or listed and as such any share price is agreed ad hoc between the purchaser and vendor which makes all of this talk of our club being valued at £60m inaccurate as by that measure its value hasn't changed for the last however many years despite the investments made both on and off the pitch....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

For every "investor" that is a disaster (cue Villa / Fulham) there is an investor that has been very successful (cue Wolves, Leicester, Man City)... what is indisputable is there are no and has been no successful premiership clubs spending as less as us or using our model.

I don't believe that's true buddy. I think it's more likely for every successful owner there's 2 or 3 who can't get their clubs to the level our owners have. Forest have had at least 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harsh reality is , that you need to invest and splash out occasionally to be able to stay in the PL! This has been proved a few times, although I am willing to admit that it has failed a few times too. But most of us want the club to survive in the PL for at least a few seasons and to reach that , our owners have to invest. They don't have sufficient capital to do this and therefore we will continue yo-yoing , something most of us are fed up with...

I don't see a foreign investor as the solution to everything and I admit that the club is stable now financially , but the model we are in will not bring a long run in the PL . I am quite certain of this , because the talent we will develop, will not be playing for NCFC long enough...

Selling the club to a wealthy owner might give us the afore mentioned long run in the PL... yet , the word"might" in this sentence has to be stressed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 of 12 to 14 clubs were always going to be relegated at the start of the season. Say, a 25% chance. On top of that newcomers to the PL would always be doubly disadvantaged. Big investment is a big risk. Investment needs to come in year 2 of being in the PL.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


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

If you were a super-rich Chinaman looking to invest in a football club in East Anglia the best bet is probably Cambridge United. Admittedly not much in the way of tradition but you could probably buy the club for a quid, Cambridge as a city has a global reputation, rich, growing, close to Stansted, a hour from Central London etc.

Build them a 40,000 stadium, training ground and invest in the team and still have change from the price of buying City.

Very much agree with this.

The profile of the city (and its geography) doesn't sit well with the perceived motivations of these types of investors.

That's what's starting to grate with the "Delia out, investor in brigade". They seem to think there's a huge queue of people begging to plough money into us. I just can't see the ROI being remotely attractive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, ROBFLECK said:

Harsh reality is , that you need to invest and splash out occasionally to be able to stay in the PL! This has been proved a few times, although I am willing to admit that it has failed a few times too. But most of us want the club to survive in the PL for at least a few seasons and to reach that , our owners have to invest. They don't have sufficient capital to do this and therefore we will continue yo-yoing , something most of us are fed up with...

I don't see a foreign investor as the solution to everything and I admit that the club is stable now financially , but the model we are in will not bring a long run in the PL . I am quite certain of this , because the talent we will develop, will not be playing for NCFC long enough...

Selling the club to a wealthy owner might give us the afore mentioned long run in the PL... yet , the word"might" in this sentence has to be stressed

Flecky, what evidence do you have that "most of us" are fed up with so called yoyoing.

Edited by nutty nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kirku said:

Very much agree with this.

The profile of the city (and its geography) doesn't sit well with the perceived motivations of these types of investors.

That's what's starting to grate with the "Delia out, investor in brigade". They seem to think there's a huge queue of people begging to plough money into us. I just can't see the ROI being remotely attractive.

But again, how many people are buying football clubs for the ROI? 

Share this post


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

Flecky, what evidence do you have that "most of us" are fed up with do called yoyoing.

Nutty , I had to think about that one 'cause I anticipated remarks about this... but quite a few of the fans I have met and those in my family agree with me... I know this won't stand up in court , but it's proof for me... it's not just the yoyoing like I called it...they just want to be a settled PL club... is that wrong? Or don't you want that?

Edited by ROBFLECK

Share this post


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

For every "investor" that is a disaster (cue Villa / Fulham) there is an investor that has been very successful (cue Wolves, Leicester, Man City)... what is indisputable is there are no and has been no successful premiership clubs spending as less as us or using our model.

Maybe we will be the first, if not this season, then the season after next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the definition of "settled" is very vague... How I see it: a season or 5 -6 in the PL would be a mighty achievement for City ... 

Share this post


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

Nutty , I had to think about that one 'cause I anticipated remarks about this... but quite a few of the fans I have met and those in my family agree with me... I know this won't stand up in court , but it's proof for me... it's not just the yoyoing like I called it...they just want to be a settles PL club... is that wrong? Or don't you want that?

Of course I want that. I want to win every game. I just don't believe getting rid of what we've got and replacing it with an unknown but richer alternative will get that.

When I look at comparable clubs who have that I see one in four who achieve more than us. If you find me a 4/1 shot from the weekends football that may help sway me...

Bottom line is this boils down to what we put our faith in. I always go for people above money. Proven people even more so. 

Share this post


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

I know the definition of "settled" is very vague... How I see it: a season or 5 -6 in the PL would be a mighty achievement for City ... 

Why would you not think that this isn't distinctly possible from the position we are currently in? The club have signed and developed players for peanuts who are now worth fortunes. This isn't luck, it is clever strategy which has been proven to work incredibly well. What possible reason is there not to be confidant that this won't continue; and with a much bigger pot of money to play with? Have Webber, Farke, the scouting team, the academy team left?? Have I missed something from over here in South America?

Share this post


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

Of course I want that. I want to win every game. I just don't believe getting rid of what we've got and replacing it with an unknown but richer alternative will get that.

When I look at comparable clubs who have that I see one in four who achieve more than us. If you find me a 4/1 shot from the weekends football that may help sway me...

Bottom line is this boils down to what we put our faith in. I always go for people above money. Proven people even more so. 

I get your point Nutty , "people over money" that's fair enough... yet I reacted to the post "what do you want / expect..." I agree that a rich investor might not be better than what we have in place now , but it could be better... There's examples of it working and examples where it's gone from bad to worse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mr.Carrow said:

Why would you not think that this isn't distinctly possible from the position we are currently in? The club have signed and developed players for peanuts who are now worth fortunes. This isn't luck, it is clever strategy which has been proven to work incredibly well. What possible reason is there not to be confidant that this won't continue; and with a much bigger pot of money to play with? Have Webber, Farke, the scouting team, the academy team left?? Have I missed something from over here in South America?

Well, they have done terifically well with the shoestring budget they have to work with and I stress that I don't want to see them leaving. Yet I don't agree that we are up to staying in the PL for a sustained period of time yet. It is clear to see , that not all the youngsters in the squad are quite up for it yet ... that's where the investment comes in. If you sign a few players , with PL experience , that can boost the squad , it can make those young players reach even higher! We didn't do this and I feel we are paying for that. Naturally this is not the only reason why we are rock bottom atm.
The much bigger pot will be there , but it still will be the smallest pot in the PL , even if we should survive

Edited by ROBFLECK

Share this post


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

I get your point Nutty , "people over money" that's fair enough... yet I reacted to the post "what do you want / expect..." I agree that a rich investor might not be better than what we have in place now , but it could be better... There's examples of it working and examples where it's gone from bad to worse. 

Indeed there is. But there's far more examples where it's gone worse. I would say 4/1. 

Remember the starting point won't be the club we have now but richer. The starting point will be the club the new owner wants. 

Making our owners richer would increase our chances though. Like with the Academy Bond that "all the money first posters" so disagreed with...

Share this post


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

I don;t want someone like that either Purple (although i think with FFP you can take a calculated gamble over 3 years as the Brighton owner did). I certainly wouldn't want someone selling and leasing back the ground to distort the figures and try and get around FFP. I am just concerned that we may have missed out on the possibility of a Leicester or Wolves type owner through what i think has been an unwillingness to even entertain the thought of selling.

It has indeed been an interesting discussion. I think the only point i remain relatively unclear on is how, in a sale scenario, the proce would be fixed and thus what flexibility there is around that. For example how has that £100 per share value been arrived at and would there be scope for them to sell their shares for a lesser price if they were willing to and (I suppose) if ti were signed off by enough of the remaining shareholders?

Jim, I don't want to prolong this by keeping on my hobbyhorse but it looks to me from the outside that if Bloom's gamble hadn't paid off straight away in what I think was the first year of a three-year £39m FFP cycle then the club would have found it hard to keep to FFP in the second and third years. But to be certain one would need to know how much of their £39m loss that first year was attributable to FFP.

I would happily be proved wrong and I may be doing Bloom an injustice but if I have at least in general terms got it right about the Brighton manoeuvre, then even though it broke no rules I would not want that to be replicated by any NCFC owner.

Like you I don't know either how the £100 price has been fixed (apart from McNally having said some time ago that it was assessed once a year, but that only explains the process and not the rationale for the price) or what price might be asked in a takeover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't look at me as a "money first" poster , yet I think we pay enough as NCFC fans!!! They're the ones that should have invested in players before the season started imho... Do I mean "splash out silly money" ... no preferably not , but they should and I think could have done more than they did! I find this frustrating , especially in the plight that we're in now.

Edited by ROBFLECK

Share this post


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

For every "investor" that is a disaster (cue Villa / Fulham) there is an investor that has been very successful (cue Wolves, Leicester, Man City)... what is indisputable is there are no and has been no successful premiership clubs spending as less as us or using our model.

Your quite right again. Do you think this message board is a true reflection of how most Norwich fans think ? They can go with the model but the regime must and always must stay the same. 
 

Share this post


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

Jim, I don't want to prolong this by keeping on my hobbyhorse but it looks to me from the outside that if Bloom's gamble hadn't paid off straight away in what I think was the first year of a three-year £39m FFP cycle then the club would have found it hard to keep to FFP in the second and third years. But to be certain one would need to know how much of their £39m loss that first year was attributable to FFP.

I would happily be proved wrong and I may be doing Bloom an injustice but if I have at least in general terms got it right about the Brighton manoeuvre, then even though it broke no rules I would not want that to be replicated by any NCFC owner.

Like you I don't know either how the £100 price has been fixed (apart from McNally having said some time ago that it was assessed once a year, but that only explains the process and not the rationale for the price) or what price might be asked in a takeover.

It was £55 until quite recently. Perhaps it was reassessed on promotion to reflect the prem tv monies and parachute payments that are guaranteed for the next few years!

Of course most of us (including the owners obviously) got our shares for much less than that back in the day although i'm not sure I ever even received a share certificate!

 

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

×