Jump to content
Hardhouse44

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

Recommended Posts

1. Attractive football, pleasing to watch, to be entertained

And for the following there is no particular order as they are all important:

2. To invest in the stadium and youth infrastructure

3. Good communication from board, manager, SD etc so we get to understand decisions and progress / problems / strategy of the club

4. To be competitive in order to be in the top 6 of the Championship if in the second division at the least but we need to always be preparing to play (and stay) in the EPL. It must be an expectation. And an aim to be a top 20 club.

5. To remain a 'community' club, important as an organisation in the whole region

6. To be financially shrewd e g. by buying and devoloping young talent. But also growing our global brand. I think here we always need to appraise ownership options (& including fan ownership models). I like to see and hear about plans but 5 years is too long, rather 2 or 3 years with updates & reviews.

 

And finally as a big criticism this year, to have a fairer ticketing policy. This year has been dreadful.

 

Share this post


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

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

 

Share this post


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

I didn't mention investors, I mentioned owners.

So can I clarify - dos this mean that you don't want an investor either or simply that you accept that investors aim to take money out of the club?

Share this post


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

6. To be financially shrewd e g. by buying and devoloping young talent. But also growing our global brand. I think here we always need to appraise ownership options (& including fan ownership models). I like to see and hear about plans but 5 years is too long, rather 2 or 3 years with updates & reviews.

I agree with most of what you say but developing youth requires more than 2 or 3 years. If we have this as an aim, we need to have a longer term perspective.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

By way of comparison - same source.....

image.thumb.png.91ee1a48be055ff55b7d747b27f6f9e5.png

Er.......... er.................... those figures show that we had a Net Spend of £29 million on transfers last season. Have the club been hiding information from us? Have we been far, far more ambitious in the transfer market than we were led to believe?  Should Financial Football News.com employ more proof readers? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

By way of comparison - same source.....

image.thumb.png.91ee1a48be055ff55b7d747b27f6f9e5.png

I know there are things called search engines which is where I found the £20m figure via the guardians yearly wrap up of premier League finances.

As your site states our debt free club has a debt of £22m I'm not totally sure I trust it.

Edit- just seen tha Swiss ramble stuff too, so fair enough my figure was wrong.

Edited by king canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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...

To add, what makes it harder than it otherwise would be - but not impossible, as some continue to believe - to mount a successful hostile takeover of NCFC is not PLC status but that the club/company is not listed on a stock market.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Demin - some very interesting insights in the thread, thanks.

Bournemouth's net transfer spend is £198m and the entire club was recently valued at around the £180m mark. Interestingly, it's a  similar story for Brighton. Net spend £220m and valued around £220m. Both were taken over when in a worse league (and possibly financial) position than us.

The sums required to reach these levels has obviously hugely increased as of last window. I wonder how much Luton's net spend would need to be if someone wanted to "do a Demin"?

Share this post


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

To add, what makes it harder than it otherwise would be - but not impossible, as some continue to believe - to mount a successful hostile takeover of NCFC is not PLC status but that the club/company is not listed on a stock market.

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. 

Share this post


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

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

 

16 hours 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.

 

15 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"...

13 hours ago, king canary said:

I didn't mention investors, I mentioned owners.

You have not responded since. I am not trying to be pedantic - it is an important point. Nobody would be happier than I if we had a genuine billionaire fan prepared to invest hundreds of millions into the club - or alternatively a Sheikh (or even an oligarch) etc. 

However fans, naively imo, talk about "investors putting money into the club." Where are the examples of this? Where has it had a transformative effect?  The "investor model" that fans claim they want is a busted flush; it doesn't work for the fans in the long-term, although the investors occasionally do ok (e.g. Sullivan and Gold @ Birmingham). 

If you don't agree with this, you should provide examples of where it has. I predict that there are far more examples of where it has failed. What fans want is what they have always wanted - someone to give the club money. When I was young, it was tens of thousands: today it requires hundreds of millions - it is why the "donor model," although attractive, is unlikely.

This leaves us with building slowly and steadily as our best chance of regular Premier League football and the odd cup. If you disagree with my analysis, you really should be able to identify a number of examples where it has worked for clubs over the long term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The club is using parachute payments to fund itself.  We are NOT a 'self-funded' club.  That is a lie.  Get promoted, spend the bare minimum, get relegated and receive a windfall which gives us an advantage over most other Championship clubs, thereby enabling us to repeat the process again and again.  Very clever, but as unscrupulous as any of the big beasts in football over which we like to take the moral high ground.  It makes me ashamed.

What do I realistically want, expect and demand?  A club to be proud of.  Is it too much to ask?

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play good football, bring through exciting young players and play in the Premier League for more than a season at a time. I expect the club to realise this is a sport as well as a business and aim to compete at the top level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

The club is using parachute payments to fund itself.  We are NOT a 'self-funded' club.  That is a lie.  Get promoted, spend the bare minimum, get relegated and receive a windfall which gives us an advantage over most other Championship clubs, thereby enabling us to repeat the process again and again.  Very clever, but as unscrupulous as any of the big beasts in football over which we like to take the moral high ground.  It makes me ashamed.

What do I realistically want, expect and demand?  A club to be proud of.  Is it too much to ask?

 

 

 

 

If you're so ashamed of our club best you go off and support someone else eh? To be honest it sounds as if you already do! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

If you're so ashamed of our club best you go off and support someone else eh? To be honest it sounds as if you already do! 

What's your name Stuart Webber? You'll be threatening to punch him next! 

Share this post


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

What's your name Stuart Webber? You'll be threatening to punch him next! 

My name isn't Stuart Webber and I've never threatened to punch anyone - stop being silly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, benchwarmer said:

The club is using parachute payments to fund itself.  We are NOT a 'self-funded' club.  That is a lie.  Get promoted, spend the bare minimum, get relegated and receive a windfall which gives us an advantage over most other Championship clubs, thereby enabling us to repeat the process again and again.  Very clever, but as unscrupulous as any of the big beasts in football over which we like to take the moral high ground.  It makes me ashamed.

What do I realistically want, expect and demand?  A club to be proud of.  Is it too much to ask?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, king canary said:

I know there are things called search engines which is where I found the £20m figure via the guardians yearly wrap up of premier League finances.

As your site states our debt free club has a debt of £22m I'm not totally sure I trust it.

Edit- just seen tha Swiss ramble stuff too, so fair enough my figure was wrong.

Apologies @king canary, that was a bit sharp.

Shouldn't be too hard to believe the debt figure. The club lost £38m in gaining promotion and needed bankloans just to get to the start of the season. In cash terms we started the season in debt but with the knowledge that there was £100m+ of TV money on its way.

Share this post


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

Apologies @king canary, that was a bit sharp.

Shouldn't be too hard to believe the debt figure. The club lost £38m in gaining promotion and needed bankloans just to get to the start of the season. In cash terms we started the season in debt but with the knowledge that there was £100m+ of TV money on its way.

OK but then this is what I don't get.

How is this all a grand money making scheme for Denim?

If the club is £50m in debt to him and he's already spent however much buying the club, where does he make his money? Selling the team? In that case, it is in his best interest to keep the club in the top flight.

Share this post


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

 

 

You have not responded since. I am not trying to be pedantic - it is an important point. Nobody would be happier than I if we had a genuine billionaire fan prepared to invest hundreds of millions into the club - or alternatively a Sheikh (or even an oligarch) etc. 

However fans, naively imo, talk about "investors putting money into the club." Where are the examples of this? Where has it had a transformative effect?  The "investor model" that fans claim they want is a busted flush; it doesn't work for the fans in the long-term, although the investors occasionally do ok (e.g. Sullivan and Gold @ Birmingham). 

If you don't agree with this, you should provide examples of where it has. I predict that there are far more examples of where it has failed. What fans want is what they have always wanted - someone to give the club money. When I was young, it was tens of thousands: today it requires hundreds of millions - it is why the "donor model," although attractive, is unlikely.

This leaves us with building slowly and steadily as our best chance of regular Premier League football and the odd cup. If you disagree with my analysis, you really should be able to identify a number of examples where it has worked for clubs over the long term.

 

 

Badger - I agree with you there is a distinction and in labouring this point you highlight precisely the issue with some of the statements that have come out of the club on this subject over recent years. In between the various "not for sale" statements when they have been forced to talk on this subject they always use the phrase "open to investment" and not available for purchase or for sale. What this appears to me to mean is people putting money into the club but in return for no overall control of it which i would agree is quite unlikely to happen. What most of us mean by "investors" is I think new owners with deeper pockets.

That said I can, in theory, see no reason why people "investing" in football clubs cannot be mutually beneficial for all parties. I believe Man City have just secured "investment" and possibly Palace did too a couple of years ago. I assume those investors will see a return on their capital if all goes to plan as might a new owner as well because ultimately it should be in their interests for the club to succeed.

 

1 hour ago, Badger said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

OK but then this is what I don't get.

How is this all a grand money making scheme for Denim?

If the club is £50m in debt to him and he's already spent however much buying the club, where does he make his money? Selling the team? In that case, it is in his best interest to keep the club in the top flight.

I think with some of these ultra rich guys its as much a project/vanity project/prestige thing as anything else to be honest.

I can;t see that he is in it to make money although obviously that club is now worth a lot more than he paid for it and he does own and can sell that debt and those more versed in the financial world than me will be able to explain how such debts/losses can i think be beneficial in tax terms in a group of companies scenario as they can I think be offset against the profits from other companies. I think that may be what Evans does with the sc*m.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

 

You have not responded since. I am not trying to be pedantic - it is an important point. Nobody would be happier than I if we had a genuine billionaire fan prepared to invest hundreds of millions into the club - or alternatively a Sheikh (or even an oligarch) etc. 

However fans, naively imo, talk about "investors putting money into the club." Where are the examples of this? Where has it had a transformative effect?  The "investor model" that fans claim they want is a busted flush; it doesn't work for the fans in the long-term, although the investors occasionally do ok (e.g. Sullivan and Gold @ Birmingham). 

If you don't agree with this, you should provide examples of where it has. I predict that there are far more examples of where it has failed. What fans want is what they have always wanted - someone to give the club money. When I was young, it was tens of thousands: today it requires hundreds of millions - it is why the "donor model," although attractive, is unlikely.

This leaves us with building slowly and steadily as our best chance of regular Premier League football and the odd cup. If you disagree with my analysis, you really should be able to identify a number of examples where it has worked for clubs over the long term.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think me and you differ on a few key points here.

1) I don't believe most owners taking over football clubs are doing so because it is part of some grand money making scheme. These people aren't fools and history has shown making money from owning a football club is really difficult. 

2) Owners who do want to make money are most likely to get a return on their investment by making the club successful and selling on which is where we get into one of the main contradictions in this thread. On one hand we're told these 'investors' are only taking over clubs in order to build them up and sell for profit. On the other hand we're told that nobody would buy Norwich because we're a Premier League club with good assets and thus not attractive. So who are these initial owners selling to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some great posts by Purple, Big Fish, and Jim actually to identify the realities of ownership / investment - not only what's required but how the likelihood of us getting what all fans really want is incredibly unlikely.

Share this post


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

I’d say we are at our most attractive now, the infrastructure is in place to build on, playing Man C and teams of that level weekly. I get what you are saying, the thing is, it’s hard to go from League one to the prem and with FFP in place aswell, they may just want to cut out the grind and get their name on the advertising boards for the sky cameras

I can see the point you're making, but I respectfully disagree with it. If it does happen, I'll happily hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

To quote the excellent point made by @BigFishI seem to recall Tony Bloom saying it cost him £200 million to get Brighton to where they are which gives some idea of the sums you are looking at. Who is going to pay that to come to Norwich? Who is going to splash that level of cash when one bad season puts it all at risk?

Share this post


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

OK but then this is what I don't get.

How is this all a grand money making scheme for Denim?

If the club is £50m in debt to him and he's already spent however much buying the club, where does he make his money? Selling the team? In that case, it is in his best interest to keep the club in the top flight.

You completely miss the point, which was a comparison between Bournemouth & Norwich-not an explanation of Denim's motives. Denim bought his first 50% of Bournemouth for £850k, valuing them at £1.7m. Add the £50m and you still don't get to the amount a purchaser of NCFC would need to cough up just to buy the club, let alone invest in the team.

Share this post


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

I can see the point you're making, but I respectfully disagree with it. If it does happen, I'll happily hold my hands up and admit I was wrong.

To quote the excellent point made by @BigFishI seem to recall Tony Bloom saying it cost him £200 million to get Brighton to where they are which gives some idea of the sums you are looking at. Who is going to pay that to come to Norwich? Who is going to splash that level of cash when one bad season puts it all at risk?

But is the point not that Tony Bloom had to pay that "to get" Brighton to the premier league.

A person buying Norwich from our owners would not have to spend that sort of sum because we are there (for now). Based on the current share valuations they should have to spend between £32m and £61m although I have no diea how the value of £100 per share has been arrived at.

Do those who are savvy with these things think that is a realistic value having regard to the accounts/state of the club?

I'm not sure anyone is advocating just tearing up completely the model of operating vaguely sustainably even if we did get a much wealthier owner. I'd still want us to focus on the academy and bringing players through plus keep the good scouting network/recruitment going. I think we are just saying that it gives you wriggle room (as well as the ability to make loans/underwrite debt it would probably see increased sponsorship deals and perhaps alleviate the need for spending on infrastructure to eat into the football budget), room for manoevre and a safety blanket that the club currently does not have when we are up at this level. Because of that we have to be ultra cautious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


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

You completely miss the point, which was a comparison between Bournemouth & Norwich-not an explanation of Denim's motives. Denim bought his first 50% of Bournemouth for £850k, valuing them at £1.7m. Add the £50m and you still don't get to the amount a purchaser of NCFC would need to cough up just to buy the club, let alone invest in the team.

You mentioned low outlay, large positive upside. I'm just curious how you expect him to realise this upside.

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...