“We’ve come through without the need for outside investment”

[Jim Smith 2,319]

And he’s proud of that. I wonder if Webber gets a bonus for the club avoiding having to find/look for outside investment. Certainly sounds like it’s part of the brief.  
 

But of course we remain hugely open to outside investment. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

And he’s proud of that. I wonder if Webber gets a bonus for the club avoiding having to find/look for outside investment. Certainly sounds like it’s part of the brief.  
 

But of course we remain hugely open to outside investment. 

To be honest I think Webber is deserving of any bonus given. The man has delivered and the clubs still counting the money. 

Next season though is one of the biggest ever for Norwich. The model thrives or dies it’s as simple as that. I want it to be the former and this time I believe it will be. 
 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,720]

Sunderland once had stonking rich owners. Portsmouth too. Bolton also as it happens.

 

Grass- Greener etc

Edited July 23, 2021 by cambridgeshire canary

[Jim Smith 2,319]

4 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Sunderland once had stonking rich owners. Portsmouth too. Bolton also as it happens.

 

Grass- Greener etc

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

[Capt. Pants 4,234]

It's our business plan, and whether you agree with it or not, it should be applauded we have been so successful sticking to it.

Waiting for the opposition to fail is not a bad strategy to be honest.

The point remains that no one wants to invest in Norwich City.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

1 minute ago, Capt. Pants said:

It's our business plan, and whether you agree with it or not, it should be applauded we have been so successful sticking to it.

Waiting for the opposition to fail is not a bad strategy to be honest.

The point remains that no one wants to invest in Norwich City.

The point remains that your last sentence is complete unproven and frankly not credible.

how successful would a business plan based on sustainable spending but supplemented by external investment to increase the finances be? We will never know because we can’t possibly have anything diluting the majority shareholding that the owners said nobody should ever be allowed to hold can we?

[hogesar 9,674]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

No, I think you're missing the point. Generally speaking, outside investment expects repaying - and profiting from what they put in. During a pandemic where football has been hit hard it should be absolutely celebrated that we've remained financially competitive and stable during this time.

[Hairy Canary 704]

I think you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick and that Webber was referring to not needing to borrow capital from Banks etc. to cover the cash flow problem that resulted from the income reduction (season tickets +) caused by COVID

[Jim Smith 2,319]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

No, I think you're missing the point. Generally speaking, outside investment expects repaying - and profiting from what they put in. During a pandemic where football has been hit hard it should be absolutely celebrated that we've remained financially competitive and stable during this time.

I’m pleased we’ve remained solvent snd cone through it ok. I’m fine with the live within our means approach, but those means should include considering sensible borrowing or extra investment. 
 

let’s put the bed the notion that the club/owners are “open to investment.”

[Cantiaci Canary 557]

The argument over ownership will rage on until the current project reaches its conclusion.

If we continue to find it too challenging to stick in the top flight and eventually fail to bounce back and begin to stagnate (especially minus Farke and SW) do the powers that be bow to the cruel capitalist world of 21st century football and urgently seek a major investor (who doesn't tick all / any of the criteria that our current custodians possess)?

If we eventually stick, consolidate and flourish in the top tier do the calls for greater external investment fade away entirely?

Either way ... there's little point getting too wound up at the minute as we're only a couple of steps down the long path that is the current project and still making short term sacrifices (Emi) for long term, projected, glory.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Cantiaci Canary

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

That's a stonking non sequitur. Irrespective of whether the club is seeking outside investment it plainly has in the meantime to run itself as a self-financing club.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

22 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Sunderland once had stonking rich owners. Portsmouth too. Bolton also as it happens.

 

Grass- Greener etc

Wouldn't say Eddie Davies at Bolton was stonking rich compared to many club owners by any means. He was definitely worth £60m in 2004. Probably went up a fair bit by 2016 when he left the club, but compared to the billionaire at Bournemouth, he was relatively small-fry.

He did write off loans including interest that were £175 million. Not sure what the rate of interest was, but considering the mismanagement going on, I suspect a lot of compound was paid.

Edited July 23, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Ian 1,129]

6 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I’m pleased we’ve remained solvent snd cone through it ok. I’m fine with the live within our means approach, but those means should include considering sensible borrowing or extra investment. 
 

let’s put the bed the notion that the club/owners are “open to investment.”

Come on Jim, that's just nonsense. The line has been pretty consistent over the year - open to outside investment if it's the right investment.

I am surprised you don't see that is very different to requiring outside investment to survive and operate, which is where clubs end up being subject to less that favourable terms...

[lake district canary 4,531]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

It's not an aim though - it's a policy.  It's not avoiding outside investment, it's simply pursuing a policy consistent with the reality of the situation. The right investor might materialise at some point, but whoever did want to invest would have to fit the criteria of the club and that is the sticking point - there are few, if any, investors who could do that - and the problem with even a good investor is that they could then sell on to someone who could ruin the good work done up to now.

So it's not an aim, it's a policy - and a good one too, because the values that go with it are admired across the board, with many clubs and their fans wishing they could emulate what we are doing.

 

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

41 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

And he’s proud of that.

Should he be ashamed to have achieved the success he has had, whilst competing with other clubs that have had far more (wasted) resources?

He's done a phenomenal job and should rightly be proud.

[Badger 2,405]

22 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

Depends what you mean by "investment." In most cases, it means borrowing.

I have loads of time for Mr W: he is obviously and understandably proud of the fact that we have achieved what we have done without risking the future and having a little boast! 😀 (And I don't blame him.)

[TIL 1010 4,748]

22 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

 

The point remains that no one wants to invest in Norwich City.

Source or link please to that statement of fact.

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

“So of course we know we will have to sell and we would rather have £40m for Max than the money from a Sheikh or oligarch. (Delia this year) 

Or any other investor that ever came calling as they’d never pass the impassable test. 

[Badger 2,405]

10 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Wouldn't say Eddie Davies at Bolton was stonking rich compared to many club owners by any means. He was definitely worth £60m in 2004. Probably went up a fair bit by 2016 when he left the club, but compared to the billionaire at Bournemouth, he was relatively small-fry.

He did write off loans including interest that were £175 million. Not sure what the rate of interest was, but considering the mismanagement going on, I suspect a lot of compound was paid.

Well he must have been worth a lot more than the £60 million you quote for 2004 if he was able to write off loans of £175 million!

BTW, you wouldn't describe someone able to write off loans of £175 million as "stinking rich?" How would you describe them - "mildly affluent," "slightly rich" or perhaps "just comfortable?"

[horsefly 4,300]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

That's a stonking non sequitur. Irrespective of whether the club is seeking outside investment it plainly has in the meantime to run itself as a self-financing club.

Spot on Purple! It would be existential insanity for a club like Norwich to depend on outside investment given that we can't guarantee that it would be forthcoming from a source that has the best interests of the club at heart. But it does not follow at all that the club is not open to outside funding where that would boost the club's finances without compromising its survival as a viable business. I don't know how many times one needs to repeat the names of clubs like Sunderland, Portsmouth, Charlton, OPR, Derby, Bury etc, etc, etc to remind people that in football the old adage "beware Greeks bearing gifts" is all too apposite.

Edited July 23, 2021 by horsefly

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Just now, Badger said:

Well he must have been worth a lot more than the £60 million you quote for 2004 if he was able to write off loans of £175 million!

BTW, you wouldn't describe someone able to write off loans of £175 million as "stinking rich?" How would you describe them - "mildly affluent," "slightly rich" or perhaps "just comfortable?"

By the standards of many club owners he wasn't exactly a financial powerhouse. In terms of wealth he'd be a Norwich City whilst your average Qatari sheikh would be Manchester City. Certainly nowhere near a billionaire. Not to mention those loans were including interest.

I did also say his worth probably went up a fair bit by 2016 when he sold the club, but don't know the terms of the loans. I do suspect that Anderson's mismanagement afterwards probably made things a hell of a lot worse.

[Badger 2,405]

19 minutes ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

If we continue to find it too challenging to stick in the top flight and eventually fail to bounce back and begin to stagnate

The whole point is that we are most likely to stagnate if we borrow as you suggest is the way forwards. (We could actually do this under the current ownership anyway but have rightly imo decided not to.)

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

By the standards of many club owners he wasn't exactly a financial powerhouse. In terms of wealth he'd be a Norwich City whilst your average Qatari sheikh would be Manchester City. Certainly nowhere near a billionaire. Not to mention those loans were including interest.

I did also say his worth probably went up a fair bit by 2016 when he sold the club, but don't know the terms of the loans. I do suspect that Anderson's mismanagement afterwards probably made things a hell of a lot worse.

Sorry TGS - I was trying to be tongue in cheek! He was pretty rich but not a multi-billionaire as you say. And let's be honest, you need a multi-billionaire with no desire to get his/ her money back for the alternative model to ours to work in the long term.

[hogesar 9,674]

10 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Source or link please to that statement of fact.

That's not how it works. If there was someone incredibly keen to invest in Norwich City, and, for arguments sake evil Delia refused to acknowledge it - why on earth wouldn't they go public about it?

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

Sorry TGS - I was trying to be tongue in cheek! He was pretty rich but not a multi-billionaire as you say. And let's be honest, you need a multi-billionaire with no desire to get his/ her money back for the alternative model to ours to work in the long term.

Ah, don't worry Badger, I suspected it was tongue-in-cheek but that's always the issue with forums. By definition, without the body language and only the most rudimentary prosody, communication can unwittingly become a bit Aspergian and literal as there's not much else to go off. 🙂

And absolutely right with the second sentence. Transfer fees and wages have gone stratospheric over the last ten years or so.

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

1 minute ago, hogesar said:

That's not how it works. If there was someone incredibly keen to invest in Norwich City, and, for arguments sake evil Delia refused to acknowledge it - why on earth wouldn't they go public about it?

I’m not Delia’s biggest fan but please don’t call her that. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,024]

37 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not an arbitrary choice between stinking rich owners and paupers. My point really is that it appears that avoiding the need for outside investment (by relying on player trading) is one of the clubs aims. This is not consistent with a club who say they are open to investment. 

I do not think it is as black and white as that, personally I see it as being glad that we did not have to rely on just anybody for investment but I believe if an offer comes from the right sort of investor, somebody who has a serious proposal, is either a Norwich fan or has the best interests of Norwich City at the core of their proposal then it will be considered.........

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

43 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Sunderland once had stonking rich owners. Portsmouth too. Bolton also as it happens.

 

Grass- Greener etc

So do Leicester , Villa and Wolves. And Southampton. 
This argument has been going on for years . Pick your position and then find a few clubs to support the case . 



 

[TIL 1010 4,748]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

That's not how it works. If there was someone incredibly keen to invest in Norwich City, and, for arguments sake evil Delia refused to acknowledge it - why on earth wouldn't they go public about it?

Capt Pants posted that nobody wants to invest as a statement of fact.

 

[cambridgeshire canary 6,720]

8 minutes ago, hogesar said:

That's not how it works. If there was someone incredibly keen to invest in Norwich City, and, for arguments sake evil Delia refused to acknowledge it - why on earth wouldn't they go public about it?

'evil Delia' 🤦