Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vlad666

Buendia “come and get me”

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

There being a financial level and a sporting level is something I've never thought about.

Mostly it seems beliefs are governed by financial level which can be worked out by a league table of of clubs owner's wealth. I believe that puts us yo-yoing between champs and league one.

If that's our mean then obviously we've absolutely smashed it for ten years but I guess we're expected to sink there sooner rather than later.

But what is our sporting mean? Is that what we actually achieve? Or something else?

This is indeed the essence of it @nutty nigel

Any reasonable analysis of resources vs output (sporting success) has us over-performing. Doing better, Sky money, clever models, luck, collective purpose, positivity generated by inherent decency, cultural uniqueness, geography,  may all have contributed. 

As others have pointed out, growing money - buying players cheap (or developing) and selling assets high - is not unique to Norwich as a thought pattern or wish list.

The reality for many clubs is often not quite as elegant. The Championship quickly becomes a loss-making prison of drudgery, whereby survival and dreaming go hand in hand with wage over spends, dramatic revenue drops and ennui.

Single benefactor models expect the figurehead to endlessly and willingly fill the loss-making annual hole, whilst simultaneously showing sufficient ambition to reach out to the promised land. You are in sport to reach as near to the top as you can. You can always do better. It’s exhausting - perhaps unrealistic - but that is the life you have chosen. 

Only fans or those with a vested interest - an engagement beyond the rational, just like top sportspeople themselves - would continue to fund such a dream. Self-sustaining principles remove the need - or the obligation you might argue - to continue to provide these funds. 

What then is a benefactor under a self-sustaining model?

A wonderful legacy - rather more than the currently proposed heirloom model - would be to restructure the Share model to allow for an influx of liquidity. Trading ownership - just buying out  the majority shares - changes nothing for the club itself as Delia and Michael have stated. It just changes the ‘benefactor’ name over the door. 

It is in what could come next that could be interesting.

There is no further money in the current model. The Club generates what it generates (or doesn’t) and there is nothing further to inject. Murdoch money parachuting from the sky makes a significant difference. The model aims to obtain it reasonably regularly. It openly needs it. 

Combining ‘the French mortgage’ model with the transparent German Government spending pie-chart model (showing where every penny of your pound goes) - in effect not ‘selling’ the Club at all, rather allowing new money to take a proportionate ownership share (vid A and B preference shares and their different  power ‘value’) and directing it straight into operations.

The result would be massive and diffused ‘ownership’ akin to a socio model, though with fluid input, combining individual fans, businesses, investors. People would indeed have to put their money where their mouth is. The bond showed the way. 

It would be a wonderful legacy gesture by Delia and Michael, though the alternative is the heirloom handing down of shares. If this were effected it might somewhat tarnish the wonderful original rescue. The Club would have become an owner asset, much like any that Abramovich or Glazer enjoys.

It is the elephant in the room, though £11m of rescue money over 25 years has seen its own returns for two wonderful people and genuine fans with a deep love for the Club. All leant monies have been paid back, including the last tranche of c£1.5m upon the previous  promotion. 

It is precisely when there is some (Sky money) breathing space that broad direction-of-travel analysis should be undertaken at any business. There can be huge gains made in difficult times (in terms of market share, resilience for the future, addressing structural weakness). 

We are doing the best we can with the parameters we have (well done Webber, Farke et al). Can the parameters change?

Parma

 

Edited by Parma Ham's gone mouldy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

This is indeed the essence of it @nutty nigel

Any reasonable analysis of resources vs output (sporting success) has us over-performing. Doing better, Sky money, clever models, luck, collective purpose, positivity generated by inherent decency, cultural uniqueness, geography,  may all have contributed. 

As others have pointed out, growing money - buying players cheap (or developing) and selling assets high - is not unique to Norwich as a thought pattern or wish list.

The reality for many clubs is often not quite as elegant. The Championship quickly becomes a loss-making prison of drudgery, whereby survival and dreaming go hand in hand with wage over spends, dramatic revenue drops and ennui.

Single benefactor models expect the figurehead to endlessly and willingly fill the loss-making annual hole, whilst simultaneously showing sufficient ambition to reach out to the promised land. You are in sport to reach as near to the top as you can. You can always do better. It’s exhausting - perhaps unrealistic - but that is the life you have chosen. 

Only fans or those with a vested interest - an engagement beyond the rational, just like top sportspeople themselves - would continue to fund such a dream. Self-sustaining principles remove the need - or the obligation you might argue - to continue to provide these funds. 

What then is a benefactor under a self-sustaining model?

A wonderful legacy - rather more than the currently proposed heirloom model - would be to restructure the Share model to allow for an influx of liquidity. Trading ownership - just buying out  the majority shares - changes nothing for the club itself as Delia and Michael have stated. It just changes the ‘benefactor’ name over the door. 

It is in what could come next that could be interesting.

There is no further money in the current model. The Club generates what it generates (or doesn’t) and there is nothing further to inject. Murdoch money parachuting from the sky makes a significant difference. The model aims to obtain it reasonably regularly. It openly needs it. 

Combining ‘the French mortgage’ model with the transparent German Government spending pie-chart model (showing where every penny of your pound goes) - in effect not ‘selling’ the Club at all, rather allowing new money to take a proportionate ownership share (vid A and B preference shares and their different  power ‘value’) and directing it straight into operations.

The result would be massive and diffused ‘ownership’ akin to a socio model, though with fluid input, combining individual fans, businesses, investors. People would indeed have to put their money where their mouth is. The bond showed the way. 

It would be a wonderful legacy gesture by Delia and Michael, though the alternative is the heirloom handing down of shares. If this were effected it might somewhat tarnish the wonderful original rescue. The Club would have become an owner asset, much like any that Abramovich or Glazer enjoys.

It is the elephant in the room, though £11m of rescue money over 25 years has seen its own returns for two wonderful people and genuine fans with a deep love for the Club. All leant monies have been paid back, including the last tranche of c£1.5m upon the previous  promotion. 

It is precisely when there is some (Sky money) breathing space that broad direction-or-travel analysis should be undertaken at any business. There can be huge gains made in difficult times (in terms of market share, resilience for the future, addressing structural weakness). 

We are doing the best we can with the parameters we have (well done Webber, Farke et al). Can the parameters change?

Parma

 

I'd personally love to see the club going down the 'socio' route and agree it would be an excellent legacy for Dela & MWJ to leave behind- they'd also still be able to keep enough shares to give nephew Tom a decent inheritance.

The problem is it would require mass fan buy in to sustain and probably an acceptence of the potential competetitive limitations of the model in England. As far as I'm aware AFC Wimbledon are the highest placed 'fan-owned' club in the English leagues. Swansea and Portsmouth both gave it a good go but ended up selling out. The 50+1 rule works wonderfully in Germany but mainly because every club has to do it.

As the old slogan at UEA said, there is a joy in 'doing different.' Would enough of our fans be happy to embrace that in a trade off competitive limitations?

Share this post


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

I'd personally love to see the club going down the 'socio' route and agree it would be an excellent legacy for Dela & MWJ to leave behind- they'd also still be able to keep enough shares to give nephew Tom a decent inheritance.

The problem is it would require mass fan buy in to sustain and probably an acceptence of the potential competetitive limitations of the model in England. As far as I'm aware AFC Wimbledon are the highest placed 'fan-owned' club in the English leagues. Swansea and Portsmouth both gave it a good go but ended up selling out. The 50+1 rule works wonderfully in Germany but mainly because every club has to do it.

As the old slogan at UEA said, there is a joy in 'doing different.' Would enough of our fans be happy to embrace that in a trade off competitive limitations?

I think the answer is yes, and no. The negative comes from the cohort who genuinely do believe the best future is through "the stinking rich Chinese owner" approach. The argument on this is not even worth repeating. A social model is a neat way of moving to the post-Delia world and there is a fanbase of "happy clappers" that would sign-up for that. It is not a fanbase that is numerous or wealthy enough to move the dial on the clubs asperations though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'd personally love to see the club going down the 'socio' route and agree it would be an excellent legacy for Dela & MWJ to leave behind- they'd also still be able to keep enough shares to give nephew Tom a decent inheritance.

The problem is it would require mass fan buy in to sustain and probably an acceptence of the potential competetitive limitations of the model in England. As far as I'm aware AFC Wimbledon are the highest placed 'fan-owned' club in the English leagues. Swansea and Portsmouth both gave it a good go but ended up selling out. The 50+1 rule works wonderfully in Germany but mainly because every club has to do it.

As the old slogan at UEA said, there is a joy in 'doing different.' Would enough of our fans be happy to embrace that in a trade off competitive limitations?

In principle I would like to see some future arrangement roughly on socio lines, although some of the devil would be in the detail.  When the idea was to switch to a continental-style sporting director/head coach model Ed Balls did  the investigative spadework by visiting other clubs and getting advice on how to proceed. Damien Comolli, then at Liverpool, was certainly one advocate he talked to.

The question that occurs is whether in a similar way S&J have already been taking soundings, perhaps in Germany and elsewhere, and in financial circles, on how to make that kind of model work.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

Some really good points made in this thread, has inspired me to sign up! Hello all!!!!

Run while you still have the chance!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

The question that occurs is whether in a similar way S&J have already been taking soundings, perhaps in Germany and elsewhere, and in financial circles, on how to make that kind of model work.

@PurpleCanary Precisely that (Bowkett)👌

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My fear is that we can't keep outperforming our financial means forever, sooner or later we will fail to get promoted before our parachute payments run out and we won't have a miracle season like we had two years ago. We're one of the poorest clubs in the Championship, our mean financial level is between bottom Championship/ the top of L1. If we revert to floating around the middle of the Championship for a few seasons we're just a bad managerial appointment and a few bad windows away from being threatened by relegation to L1 and our owners could't offer any finances to help bail us out. 

 

This is the worry for our model with me, not so much that we cannot compete in the PL, it's that without parachute payments or another Maddison coming through we can't realistically compete even at this level anymore. With the new wage caps and growing chasm of quality between the Championship and L1 nowadays getting relegated from the Championship actually would be a fate worse than death as it would take us a decade or more to recover from the emaciation at all levels the club would suffer should that happen. 

 

I like the idea of the ownership model Parma is proposing, isn't that similar to what they have at Burnley? seems to be working well for them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

This is indeed the essence of it @nutty nigel

Any reasonable analysis of resources vs output (sporting success) has us over-performing. Doing better, Sky money, clever models, luck, collective purpose, positivity generated by inherent decency, cultural uniqueness, geography,  may all have contributed. 

As others have pointed out, growing money - buying players cheap (or developing) and selling assets high - is not unique to Norwich as a thought pattern or wish list.

The reality for many clubs is often not quite as elegant. The Championship quickly becomes a loss-making prison of drudgery, whereby survival and dreaming go hand in hand with wage over spends, dramatic revenue drops and ennui.

Single benefactor models expect the figurehead to endlessly and willingly fill the loss-making annual hole, whilst simultaneously showing sufficient ambition to reach out to the promised land. You are in sport to reach as near to the top as you can. You can always do better. It’s exhausting - perhaps unrealistic - but that is the life you have chosen. 

Only fans or those with a vested interest - an engagement beyond the rational, just like top sportspeople themselves - would continue to fund such a dream. Self-sustaining principles remove the need - or the obligation you might argue - to continue to provide these funds. 

What then is a benefactor under a self-sustaining model?

A wonderful legacy - rather more than the currently proposed heirloom model - would be to restructure the Share model to allow for an influx of liquidity. Trading ownership - just buying out  the majority shares - changes nothing for the club itself as Delia and Michael have stated. It just changes the ‘benefactor’ name over the door. 

It is in what could come next that could be interesting.

There is no further money in the current model. The Club generates what it generates (or doesn’t) and there is nothing further to inject. Murdoch money parachuting from the sky makes a significant difference. The model aims to obtain it reasonably regularly. It openly needs it. 

Combining ‘the French mortgage’ model with the transparent German Government spending pie-chart model (showing where every penny of your pound goes) - in effect not ‘selling’ the Club at all, rather allowing new money to take a proportionate ownership share (vid A and B preference shares and their different  power ‘value’) and directing it straight into operations.

The result would be massive and diffused ‘ownership’ akin to a socio model, though with fluid input, combining individual fans, businesses, investors. People would indeed have to put their money where their mouth is. The bond showed the way. 

It would be a wonderful legacy gesture by Delia and Michael, though the alternative is the heirloom handing down of shares. If this were effected it might somewhat tarnish the wonderful original rescue. The Club would have become an owner asset, much like any that Abramovich or Glazer enjoys.

It is the elephant in the room, though £11m of rescue money over 25 years has seen its own returns for two wonderful people and genuine fans with a deep love for the Club. All leant monies have been paid back, including the last tranche of c£1.5m upon the previous  promotion. 

It is precisely when there is some (Sky money) breathing space that broad direction-or-travel analysis should be undertaken at any business. There can be huge gains made in difficult times (in terms of market share, resilience for the future, addressing structural weakness). 

We are doing the best we can with the parameters we have (well done Webber, Farke et al). Can the parameters change?

Parma

 

Great post again Parma.

Improve rather than replace.

There is a belief that if we replace our model we can get a level beyond it and become established in the PL. 

My belief has always been that if we replace our model we won't have it to build on. So then we realistically revert to mean which would be the new owners position in that wealth table.

Unfortunately we are unlikely to attract an owner who sits in the top 15 or even top 20. So the dream of replacing our current owners with richer ones and going beyond the level we have been for the last ten years would not necessarily be a reality.

As I've pointed out countless times we have consistently out performed the very type of new owner we are likely to get. So we get back to needing all those things that have taken the current model to the point we are at now to get that little bit further in the future.

So to change the parameters we need to make the current model richer. We did this to a degree with the bond issue for Colney. Taking in that debt would not be viable very often though. But the principle remains that we improved the 'model' without replacing it.

I remember back in the 70s when Sir Arthur took over the reigns from Geoffrey Watling. One of the first things he said was along the lines of 'you say Watling must go but I say Watling must stay'. He realised we needed to build on what we already had in order for the club to progress through what was becoming it's best ever days.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/09/2020 at 17:37, PurpleCanary said:

To summarise, if Parma is correct then not only is the Nephew Plan far from set in stone, it is more like the plan if nothing better materialises. And to emphasise that, there has actually been an attempt quite recently to sell the club. How far that got is certainly a question. As it happens I have been saying that about the Nephew Plan ever since it was announced, and that S&J would be willing to sell if the offer was right, but that was based on a general assessment rather than on inside knowledge.

To amend that summary, if Parma is correct then not only is the Nephew Plan far from set in stone, it is more like the plan if nothing better materialises. To that end  the club, through Alan Bowkett, has been investigating possible models that might well retain some kind of community link under new ownership, and in the not distant past there has been a move to seek an outside offer.

Various questions arise. Does Parma know what he is talking about? I don't know, but I strongly suspect, with his past (and perhaps even current) connections to the club and his business interests, that he does. How serious or far-advanced was this recent move? No idea, but just the fact, if it is a fact, that S&J have been looking above and beyond the Nephew Plan is significant in itself.

I am a trusting soul so I am sure there is a simple explanation for the lack of comment from really quite a few posters who are usually admirably forthright not only on the supposed failings of the Nephew Plan but also on how it will never be changed because S&J are totally set on it.

At the least, perhaps, comments made some years back will not now go on being taken as their final word on the subject on ownership.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably the worst example of Delia tainted glasses I have seen

over the 20 years of ownership we have mostly had mediocre seasons, a brush with administration when we went down to the 3rd tier and £10 millions wasted on poor players like Naismith 

chelsea ownership is a great example of getting a sugar daddy owner that helps transfer a club. The sugar daddy model works the key is the ensure you find the right sugar daddy 

I wouldn’t trust the current owners decision making to find that right owner 

Share this post


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

Probably the worst example of Delia tainted glasses I have seen

over the 20 years of ownership we have mostly had mediocre seasons, a brush with administration when we went down to the 3rd tier and £10 millions wasted on poor players like Naismith 

chelsea ownership is a great example of getting a sugar daddy owner that helps transfer a club. The sugar daddy model works the key is the ensure you find the right sugar daddy 

I wouldn’t trust the current owners decision making to find that right owner 

Binner

Share this post


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

To amend that summary, if Parma is correct then not only is the Nephew Plan far from set in stone, it is more like the plan if nothing better materialises. To that end  the club, through Alan Bowkett, has been investigating possible models that might well retain some kind of community link under new ownership, and in the not distant past there has been a move to seek an outside offer.

Various questions arise. Does Parma know what he is talking about? I don't know, but I strongly suspect, with his past (and perhaps even current) connections to the club and his business interests, that he does. How serious or far-advanced was this recent move? No idea, but just the fact, if it is a fact, that S&J have been looking above and beyond the Nephew Plan is significant in itself.

I am a trusting soul so I am sure there is a simple explanation for the lack of comment from really quite a few posters who are usually admirably forthright not only on the supposed failings of the Nephew Plan but also on how it will never be changed because S&J are totally set on it.

At the least, perhaps, comments made some years back will not now go on being taken as their final word on the subject on ownership.

I don't think it unreasonable to give more weight to comments that have come directly from the owners than to hints from a random person on a message board, no matter how connected that person might be.

My understanding is Parma worked in football and for NCFC in some capacity. However that doesn't automatically mean he's going to have the inside track on long term plans for the ownership model of the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Uncle Fred said:

Probably the worst example of Delia tainted glasses I have seen

over the 20 years of ownership we have mostly had mediocre seasons, a brush with administration when we went down to the 3rd tier and £10 millions wasted on poor players like Naismith 

chelsea ownership is a great example of getting a sugar daddy owner that helps transfer a club. The sugar daddy model works the key is the ensure you find the right sugar daddy 

I wouldn’t trust the current owners decision making to find that right owner 

Medicore seasons? 

Relegstions, promotions, play offs. Only about 3 dull seasons in 20 years. 

Most clubs would kill for that excitement and to currently be one of the richest championship clubs holding 100 million of player assets. 

You sir are an absolute idiot. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2020 at 10:25, king canary said:

Run while you still have the chance!

Binner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 17/09/2020 at 10:46, Christoph Stiepermann said:

My fear is that we can't keep outperforming our financial means forever, sooner or later we will fail to get promoted before our parachute payments run out and we won't have a miracle season like we had two years ago. We're one of the poorest clubs in the Championship, our mean financial level is between bottom Championship/ the top of L1. If we revert to floating around the middle of the Championship for a few seasons we're just a bad managerial appointment and a few bad windows away from being threatened by relegation to L1 and our owners could't offer any finances to help bail us out. 

 

This is the worry for our model with me, not so much that we cannot compete in the PL, it's that without parachute payments or another Maddison coming through we can't realistically compete even at this level anymore. With the new wage caps and growing chasm of quality between the Championship and L1 nowadays getting relegated from the Championship actually would be a fate worse than death as it would take us a decade or more to recover from the emaciation at all levels the club would suffer should that happen. 

 

I like the idea of the ownership model Parma is proposing, isn't that similar to what they have at Burnley? seems to be working well for them!

What you seem to be saying is that if things go really really badly then we will do badly? I don’t know any team that doesn’t apply to, no matter who their owner is.
 

Surely one of the points of the model, which always goes down poorly with the “I want to be an ‘established’ PL club, and I want it now” camp is that the model by necessity has to be designed for the long-term. Investing in the academy, both physically and in scouting wider and deeper, means it will take some time for the seeds to grow, but once they do, it will be a continuous process. Not all academy products/purchases will come to fruition at the same time - as we’ve seen with McCallum, sometimes there won’t be a place for a promising youngster. As long as we keep investing in the longer term future, rather than spunking money in a desperate attempt to get promoted/avoid relegation in the current season, the model should be insulated against shorter term shocks like a poor manager (or another Moxey). The big picture is what matters.

Share this post


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

I don't think it unreasonable to give more weight to comments that have come directly from the owners than to hints from a random person on a message board, no matter how connected that person might be.

My understanding is Parma worked in football and for NCFC in some capacity. However that doesn't automatically mean he's going to have the inside track on long term plans for the ownership model of the club.

I don't disagree but my point is that there has been a rather noticeable total silence from those posters who are usually all over the question of ownership and the Nephew Plan.

Share this post


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

I don't disagree but my point is that there has been a rather noticeable total silence from those posters who are usually all over the question of ownership and the Nephew Plan.

Well, apart from Waveney of course.

Share this post


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

Probably the worst example of Delia tainted glasses I have seen

over the 20 years of ownership we have mostly had mediocre seasons, a brush with administration when we went down to the 3rd tier and £10 millions wasted on poor players like Naismith 

chelsea ownership is a great example of getting a sugar daddy owner that helps transfer a club. The sugar daddy model works the key is the ensure you find the right sugar daddy 

I wouldn’t trust the current owners decision making to find that right owner 

So they are damned either way!    JerryKerry was very generous when describing you earlier but spot on!
 

You’ve undoubtedly got no problem if a rich sugar daddy wastes £10m on the likes of Naismith as so often happens!    
 

You wouldn’t trust a sugar daddy either!   Your thirst for a whinge would never allow it!

Edited by ged in the onion bag

Share this post


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

To amend that summary, if Parma is correct then not only is the Nephew Plan far from set in stone, it is more like the plan if nothing better materialises. To that end  the club, through Alan Bowkett, has been investigating possible models that might well retain some kind of community link under new ownership, and in the not distant past there has been a move to seek an outside offer.

Various questions arise. Does Parma know what he is talking about? I don't know, but I strongly suspect, with his past (and perhaps even current) connections to the club and his business interests, that he does. How serious or far-advanced was this recent move? No idea, but just the fact, if it is a fact, that S&J have been looking above and beyond the Nephew Plan is significant in itself.

I am a trusting soul so I am sure there is a simple explanation for the lack of comment from really quite a few posters who are usually admirably forthright not only on the supposed failings of the Nephew Plan but also on how it will never be changed because S&J are totally set on it.

At the least, perhaps, comments made some years back will not now go on being taken as their final word on the subject on ownership.

Assuming one of the posters you are referring to is me Purple I would obviously welcome it if it is the case that Delia and Michael have been actively looking at plans/ideas beyone the Nephew Tom hand down, particularly if any of those plans give greater potential for (or render more likely) injections of new capital into the club to help us compete or give us improved cashflow at key moments such as in the summer windows post promotions. 

If by a "socio" model you mean a greater element of fan ownership (given that it has been the fans of late who have really funded the club) then I would also broadly welcome that although I have my doubts as to whether a true "supporter owned" model could have the financial clout given the recent expereinces of portsmouth fans. 

Share this post


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

Well, apart from Waveney of course.

He doesn't count, too boring, repetitive and no imagination at all.

Share this post


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

I don't disagree but my point is that there has been a rather noticeable total silence from those posters who are usually all over the question of ownership and the Nephew Plan.

Could be because this is (was) a thread about Emi Buendia. 

Share this post


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

I don't disagree but my point is that there has been a rather noticeable total silence from those posters who are usually all over the question of ownership and the Nephew Plan.

As @Dr Greenthumb says, it is a throwaway comment at the bottom of a long post in a thread about Buendia. 

I'm sure you can start a new thread if you want to.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, king canary said:

As @Dr Greenthumb says, it is a throwaway comment at the bottom of a long post in a thread about Buendia. 

I'm sure you can start a new thread if you want to.

Good idea, dont think we've ever discussed ownership before. Maybe Cambridgeshire can start one, I think he needs practice.

Share this post


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

Good idea, dont think we've ever discussed ownership before. Maybe Cambridgeshire can start one, I think he needs practice.

Sassy.

Share this post


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

As @Dr Greenthumb says, it is a throwaway comment at the bottom of a long post in a thread about Buendia. 

I'm sure you can start a new thread if you want to.

That is a nonsense argument. Threads change their subject matter all the time, and this was hardly a throwaway comment but a long post that provoked several other long posts, in effect taking over the thread.

Share this post


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

Assuming one of the posters you are referring to is me Purple I would obviously welcome it if it is the case that Delia and Michael have been actively looking at plans/ideas beyone the Nephew Tom hand down, particularly if any of those plans give greater potential for (or render more likely) injections of new capital into the club to help us compete or give us improved cashflow at key moments such as in the summer windows post promotions. 

If by a "socio" model you mean a greater element of fan ownership (given that it has been the fans of late who have really funded the club) then I would also broadly welcome that although I have my doubts as to whether a true "supporter owned" model could have the financial clout given the recent expereinces of portsmouth fans. 

I wasn't actually thinking of you, Jim, because you are nowhere near as one-eyed on the subject as several others.

Share this post


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

That is a nonsense argument. Threads change their subject matter all the time, and this was hardly a throwaway comment but a long post that provoked several other long posts, in effect taking over the thread.

It isn't an argument, just a hypothesis on why people might not of seen it. No need to get so snappy.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...