Jump to content
Bradwell canary

Is a self funding PL club truly possible?

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Not quite right. If it's investment then inherently we're likely to have more debt until we've paid back that investment. If we had new owners willing to simply gift us money, then that would be different.

How much of our owners investment in buying the club have we paid back? Genuinely don't know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No it isn't. But we can stay up for 2 or 3 years if we get everything right and get extremely lucky. My hope is that by having a few seasons in the PL and some money in the bank that Delia may get an offer she can't refuse from a decent investor to sell the club. We'll be the only PL club that you could buy for under 50m so that has to be attractive to some extent. If we keep up this model long term though no, promotion and narrow survival will forever be our ceiling and we're unlikely to keep getting it right year on year because a team like Webber and Farke don't come around often.

 

Basically if this model is seen as a platform to build on then it's a very good plan right now. If the plan long term is to turn into a Crew Alexandra at a higher level to allow the owners or their relatives to hold onto the club indefinitely then I think we're on a hiding to nothing. 

Edited by Christoph Stiepermann

Share this post


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

How much of our owners investment in buying the club have we paid back? Genuinely don't know...

I don't know either. If we have no debt then presumably we've paid it all back? Well, we've paid back anything seen as a 'loan' or 'investment' at least, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully the fans haven't gotten the taste for blood after winning this RK8 thing and we can go back to a gambling sponsorship later. I get the morals of it (although it's a drop in a **** filled ocean) but I do hope we don't handicap ourselves further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that our majority shareholding duo and Mr Foulger had been reimbursed concerning their loans to NCFC?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mello Yello said:

I was under the impression that our majority shareholding duo and Mr Foulger had been reimbursed concerning their loans to NCFC?...

So the initial fees to buy the club have been paid back? 

Share this post


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

But is it really possible to become an established PL club under that mantra.

Of course it is - unless we get a multi-billionaire willing to subsidise us tens of millions every year, it is the ONLY way we can become an "established*" (whatever that means) PL club. If we get an "investor owner" they will seek to take money out of the club in the long run, not put it in. 

Building sustainably takers patience.

*Along with at least half of the EPL we will be relegated at some stage in the next decade or so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

My hope is that by having a few seasons in the PL and some money in the bank that Delia may get an offer she can't refuse from a decent investor to sell the club.

Did I get this right? Your hope is that we can stay up for long enough in order to sell to an "investor" who will look to make a profit from us by taking out more than s/he puts in?

This would mean we have less to spend, not more!🤦‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Badger said:

Did I get this right? Your hope is that we can stay up for long enough in order to sell to an "investor" who will look to make a profit from us by taking out more than s/he puts in?

This would mean we have less to spend, not more!🤦‍♂️

Doesn’t make much sense for an investor to buy a club only to ruin it, I would expect the more usual plan would be to grow a club to the point where increased turn over or re sale value produces a profit. If our turnover grows 30% but we lose 10% to the owner we still have 20% more turnover to use. It’s almost as if a whole generation of fans has been told investment = evil so many times that we are now afraid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question, to me, is whether or not it is better or more "fun" for the fans to linger around 15-17th in the Premier League every season or to occasionally drop down and win the lower league.

For the club's financials, I imagine lingering at 17th is by far the better scenario. Keeps the PL TV money coming regularly.

I suppose my answer would be dependent on whether or not the club is competitive in the cup competitions. 

 

 

Share this post


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

So the initial fees to buy the club have been paid back? 

They bought  into the club by buying shares.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reiterate that I understand the money loaned to the club by the majority shareholding couple and including fellow board member Mr Foulger has been paid back to those 3 individuals.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 22jtp said:

The question, to me, is whether or not it is better or more "fun" for the fans to linger around 15-17th in the Premier League every season or to occasionally drop down and win the lower league.

Look what happened at Stoke though, they maintained safety for a number of years under Pulis, but the fans hated the football and eventually turned enough to force changes, which then lead to them getting relegated.

If somebody offered me only 2 options, be a yo-yo club or be like Stoke under Pulis but stay in the PL, then I'll take the yo-yo option, as Stoke played some of the worst football I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the dross Hughton served up to us in his 2nd season...

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Did I get this right? Your hope is that we can stay up for long enough in order to sell to an "investor" who will look to make a profit from us by taking out more than s/he puts in?

This would mean we have less to spend, not more!🤦‍♂️

Long term they would obviously look to take money back out. This could be done with a big player sale down the road or growing the club to the point where they can sell it for much more than they paid. I don't mind the idea of owners taking money out sometimes if they also invest at crucial times. 

If we go down and don't mange to replace Farke and Webber with equal quality replacements (An incredibly difficult and unlikely task) we will find ourselves a regular Championship club with no income beyond player sales so while money wouldn't go out into the owners pockets it would go out simply to keep the club afloat with nothing coming back in the form of investment. 

Like I said I'm happy with the ownership right now and we shouldn't sell to just anyone, but medium term this model won't work at this level and will stunt the growth of the club moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer to the original question is probably not.

Player's wages and transfer fees are too high for the likes of a  self-funded NCFC.

The finances of professional football in the English game at the moment are a phenomena probably never ever seen in the business world before.

Virtually every club loses money, many are deeply in debt or have owners who have lost millions to the extent that it makes little sense.

I have said before that I, personally, would settle for us being a yo-yo club for the next twenty years if it were on offer.

This is not defeatism, its a reality and the Stoke scenario mentioned above confirms this.There are more than a few other examples. 

In the meantime we are making a pretty good go at the self-funding model.

By making full use of our Cat. 1 status, by improving the training ground facilities beyond belief, by making a fortune from the sale of youngsters that have come from through the ranks, by employing the right people, by having an extensive scouting net and by playing some of the very best football ever seen at Carrow Road. We are on course, whilst being without debt and having a season at the top table to look forward to.

Can it be sustained? Who knows?

This last season saw four youngsters in particular suggest that it could for a while. In the performances of Barden, Omobidele, Mumba and Martin we had a strong hint of the strength of our youth policy. There are a few notable others floating around. We continue to make astute signings like Sorensen and, perhaps, Placheta and now, hopefully, Gunn. More are to come.   

Nothing much is sure in football, but one thing is:  As a club NCFC will be "there or thereabouts" for some time to come.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Doesn’t make much sense for an investor to buy a club only to ruin it, I would expect the more usual plan would be to grow a club to the point where increased turn over or re sale value produces a profit. If our turnover grows 30% but we lose 10% to the owner we still have 20% more turnover to use. It’s almost as if a whole generation of fans has been told investment = evil so many times that we are now afraid of it.

1. So how does a new investor manage to increase turnover by 30% in a way that a self-sustaining model can't achieve?

2. Investment isn't evil - there is nothing wrong with people making a profit - however, it is simple common sense that it leaves the football club worse off. Donations are another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

We're going round and round in circles again. You said:

"I don't really understand why it's not good enough for some people. Would you really rather we were Everton?"

The comparison obviously being that Everton have rich owners but can't win anything.

My counterpoint would be that there are plenty of clubs with rich owners who have won stuff, who were very recently the same kind of size and stature as us. The difference is that while those clubs have obtained rich ownership and invested, we have stuck with our owners and pursued the self-financing model.

Well there’s Leicester and err Leicester. I’m struggling to think of plenty of clubs who were the same size as us who’ve won stuff.

Share this post


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

I would suggest that can only ever be an impossible dream, it simply can’t be done.

I would suggest that Wigan of old might be a good example of how it isn't impossible. Yes they had a wealthy owner but they knew their model was one of bringing in younger players on their way up and offering them a platform to propel their careers to even greater heights.

They balanced that with some more experienced players that had fallen out of favour elsewhere or who were steady eddies for the other players to play from. N'Zogbia is a good example of that.

I would also suggest that Burnley have been operating relatively sustainably though they don't tend to develop players in the same way we do. One could argue that is part of the reason they have little transfer funds.

Not quite in the same boat but you could also argue that at least transfer fee wise, Leicester tend to spend what they make with sales, or at least have done to get themselves to where they are.

At the time, many people thought losing Kante and Mahrez would be the end of that side, so influential were they. If you had said then as well, that they would lose Maguire, you would have been forgiven for considering them as possible relegation contenders. But they invested wisely. What they made on Mahrez they could afford to offer as wages to attract the likes of Maddison. Yes they have wealthy owners which undoubtedly helps - but there is plenty of evidence out there to suggest it can work.

In summary - impossible? No, most certainly not impossible. Difficult? Yes, very much so. But also heroic. It certainly knocks spots off clubs who spend more even in the championship. Fulham and Shef Utd spent more money than us, Fulham did twice (£150m the first time) and yet they are realistically no better off. Our focus on our academy means that we have a system that will support us into the future and not just for a season or two until funds dry up.

Share this post


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

growing the club to the point where they can sell it for much more than they paid

At which point, they sell it on to someone else who also wants to make a profit?? It can't be sustained - it is similar to a Ponzi scheme: at some stage the owner makes a big loss and then...

1 hour ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

If we go down and don't mange to replace Farke and Webber with equal quality replacements (An incredibly difficult and unlikely task) we will find ourselves a regular Championship club with no income beyond player sales

No income beyond player sales?? We will have one of the largest turnovers in the Championship. We have very high average attendances and a very active commercial arm. Unlike others, we would also not be saddled with debt or the need to repay the investor as s/he try to get their money back. The self sustaining model leaves us in a permanently strong position in the championship.

1 hour ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

medium term this model won't work at this level and will stunt the growth of the club moving forward. 

Medium term it is the ONLY way to keep the club moving forwards (other than a multi billionaire donor) - there is so much evidence that this is the case, I'm amazed that people still seem attracted to "the easy way."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burnley were a self funding club and have managed quite a few years in the Premier League.

They were sold to a group of American 'billionaires' who took out a loan against the value of the club and now the team is actually poorer! Great result all round...

Southampton, Newcastle, West Ham and WBA all have owners who have taken money out of their clubs over the last 5 years. It is possible to remain in the Prem as a self financed club - but it obviously helps if you are a Newcastle or West Ham with a large stadium that generates large revenues. 

It is pretty obvious why Webber has sighted Burnley in pre-season interviews - they are a similar size to Norwich and have had no inward investment for a long time. While Norwich aren't going to start playing the same style of football, Burnley have shown that if you develop a philosophy, recruit based on it and have faith in it, then it can pay dividend in the long run. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Well there’s Leicester and err Leicester. I’m struggling to think of plenty of clubs who were the same size as us who’ve won stuff.

Don't forget Leicester as well!

The poster fails to distinguish between owners like Leicester/ Man City/ Chelsea (donor owners) who for whatever reason are happy to give money away - and investor owners who want to take money out out.

Where are the success stories with investor owners?

Share this post


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

Look what happened at Stoke though, they maintained safety for a number of years under Pulis, but the fans hated the football and eventually turned enough to force changes, which then lead to them getting relegated.

If somebody offered me only 2 options, be a yo-yo club or be like Stoke under Pulis but stay in the PL, then I'll take the yo-yo option, as Stoke played some of the worst football I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the dross Hughton served up to us in his 2nd season...

If only Stoke had billionaire owners with the clubs best interests at heart

Share this post


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

Long term they would obviously look to take money back out. This could be done with a big player sale down the road or growing the club to the point where they can sell it for much more than they paid. I don't mind the idea of owners taking money out sometimes if they also invest at crucial times.

That is not the standard model for football club takeovers by what you claim are "investors".

Step 1: "Investors" create a shell company with the funding to buy the club, usually borrowed

Step 2: Shell company buys club

Step 3: Club borrows the value of the transaction, secured against the clubs assets.

Step 4: Clubs pays this to the shell company

Step 5: Shell company repays the owners + profit

"Investors" get their cash back on day 1, if it doesn't work out the club goes under and takes the debt with it, "Investors" cash in either way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nobody's mentioned the situation down the road yet, (there is further relevance to this topic on our very doorstep after all.)

What on earh is that all about?

The club was bleeding about £5m a year (with crowds,) had few assets (in players, just a lease on the land that the delapidated stadium stands on, training ground owned by the spiv, who charged a rent etc.)

League 1. mediocrity established. Cat. 2 only and a vitually collapsed youth system. Declining support.

Yet a consortium led by an American who calls football "soccer" pays £40m for the **** show. 

With no income since the transaction and employing an army of backroom staff they surely must have lost/spent another £10m already, with nothing in return.

It is known that US pension funds do take investment risks with venture capitalists as a matter of policy but this is one hell of a punt ... and some returns will be needed sooner rather than later.

Getting out of L. 1 might be possible, even with the dinosaurial Cook as manager, but then comes the hard bit.

Yet the binners see themselves as  a future Premier League club as a matter of inevitability, whilst creaming themselves about the recent signing of a player from Accrington Stanley and the fact that season ticket sales might exceed 15, 000. 

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

There just has to be more than just the football club, ITFC, involved in this deal. Have they plans to sell the training ground or develop the Portman Road site (caveats allowing?) because many millions  more will need spending to make a silk purse out of that particular pig's ear.

Perhaps those Americans could do with reading this thread thoroghly before spending another pound note on continuing to paint the stands or making promises on a grand manner in a business environment they clearly know little about. 

No doubt Marcus Evans is having the best night's sleep these days that he has had for many a year.

Edited by BroadstairsR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The biggest issue for me is wage structure, Buendia has had his wage's more than doubled to go to a team not in Europe. He was on a reported 15k a week last season (35 after promotion) > 80k a week. On top of this to be offered a 5 year deal at 24 which probably does not include a relegation reduction, this is something we simply cannot compete with. The same will go for Cantwell, aarons & any other breakthrough player we have this season. 

the top 6 and other wealthy clubs along with a post brexit transfer market will make even average premier league players 50k plus a week. The only answer is to find the best options we can that fit into our structure and trust in the academy to produce players that we can re-sell to further invest. 

all departments need to work at 100% for us to even compete at the premier league level. on a positive note we will always be a financial heavyweight at championship level as long as we go up every 3 seasons after a relegation.

Edited by canarycat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/06/2021 at 13:49, Canary Wundaboy said:

While I understand the sentiment, I'd be hesitant to hold Byram up as a positive signing simply because he was dirt cheap. He's probably cost us that transfer fee in medical fees and consultant time over the past 2 years.

In other words, never ever buy anyone else from West Ham. Twice is enough. Jarvis must have been one our our worse buys ever. We had him on loan with a buy option……we still bought him.

Perhaps our medical staff need looking at!

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...