It is happening again

[horsefly 4,310]

38 minutes ago, king canary said:

It is always a bit foolish to try and judge a transfer window a month before it shuts. Lots can change between now and then.

However...I don't blame some for lacking confidence right now. Our track record of summer windows in the Premier League isn't great. Our last attempt lead to our lowest points total ever, the one before led to a terrible combo of failing to strengthen the squad and January panic buying. 

Webber has generally done a good job of keeping our targets under wraps in the past but the noise getting out on the ones we are after isn't the most promising.

Take Ajer- based on what seems to be known, we were willing to pay £10m but wouldn't go higher. Fine in isolation- we have a limit for a player and wouldn't go over it. What we don't know is why- did we just decide there wasn't value for money past that number? Or did we feel paying an extra £4m would damage our ability to fill other positions of need? Both are understandable reasons. However if we get to the close of the window and we haven't signed another central defender and we haven't used that money elsewhere then questions will be asked- and if we struggle and Ajer looks good for Brentford then the question will be 'would spending an extra £4m have kept us up and generated an extra £100m+ next year?'

I don't have any issue with your very balanced scepticism there KC. All I would add is that your final point about Ajer is one faced by every club for every transfer involving disagreement over valuation. Clubs are inevitably faced with the question concerning how much further they are willing to go beyond their ideal "maximum" transfer fee for a player. For example, when Liverpool bid for Lewis they made it clear they were not prepared to bid one quid more than their valuation. Subsequent performance by Lewis will have many claiming they were "proved" right in that stance, but of course they couldn't know that at the time.  Even after the fact there are considerable problems in attempting to establish any sort of uncontroversial truth about the matter; who knows how well Lewis may have performed if he had gone to Liverpool instead of Newcastle. In the end all transfers are intrinsically a gamble and the extent to which you are perpared to up your stake on a particular  gamble has to be significantly a function of how much that potentially impacts on the club's welfare. A multi-millionaire punting two quid on a lottery ticket is taking no risk with her future welfare, but the poor person with a couple of quid left to buy his food for the next three days would be reckless beyond belief to blow that money on a 1 in 45 million chance of winning the jackpot. We clearly aren't paupers as a football club, but if the reported fee paid for Ajer is correct then, including add-ons, Brentford have agreed to pay £8m more than our valuation, and that for me puts him in the bracket of potentially reckless punts that threaten the welfare of the club. Let's all hope we find ourselves a few more bargains of genuine quality so that we can begin the season in the belief that the club really has done the best it possibly could in the current transfer market.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

7 hours ago, hogesar said:

This is key. This is why I always say the gamble of new owners doesn't make sense to me and I can't fathom how it does to some on here, other than the fact the world is based all around instant gratification and that's what they're chasing from football now.

If we were regularly performing equal to our owners wealth - i.e around the bottom of the championship, top of league one; i'd kind of understand the clamour for some.

Instead, we are massively over-performing based on the owners wealth, there's a chasm between us and a lot of richer clubs lower down.

Therefore, the chances of some random billionaire coming in and taking over the club, and then out-performing our current owners, is actually very slim. And that's evidenced further when you look at the number of billionaire takeovers and how many have actually led to a consistent improvement for that club on the pitch.

It's worth noting that the criteria given by @Dean Coneys boots and @Jim Smith make Derby County a far more ambitious club than us...

I haven’t actually said it has to be new owners. I want the club to look at ways of bringing in additional investment.

Some of the above posts are right, it’s not just about money.

Well run club with pauper owners = Norwich

Rich owner but badly run club = Ipswich, Derby, Shef Weds etc etc.

But what could happen if you combined a well run club like ours with owners or investors who can also add the extra resource to make a difference in terms of retaining and/or signing players?

[Mello Yello 2,302]

Just now, wcorkcanary said:

Yawn, boring,  not even vaguely  amusing,  you have done your  best and it wasn't great. done with you now. Please go away,  I can only lower  my intellect  for a short while,  after all who'd  want to get stuck at your level  . Peace ✌. 

Are you Bamber Gasket from Universally Challenged?.....

[king canary 7,668]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I don't have any issue with your very balanced scepticism there KC. All I would add is that your final point about Ajer is one faced by every club for every transfer involving disagreement over valuation. Clubs are inevitably faced with the question concerning how much further they are willing to go beyond their ideal "maximum" transfer fee for a player. For example, when Liverpool bid for Lewis they made it clear they were not prepared to bid one quid more than their valuation. Subsequent performance by Lewis will have many claiming they were "proved" right in that stance, but of course they couldn't know that at the time.  Even after the fact there are considerable problems in attempting to establish any sort of uncontroversial truth about the matter; who knows how well Lewis may have performed if he had gone to Liverpool instead of Newcastle. In the end all transfers are intrinsically a gamble and the extent to which you are perpared to up your stake on a particular  gamble has to be significantly a function of how much that potentially impacts on the club's welfare. A multi-millionaire punting two quid on a lottery ticket is taking no risk with her future welfare, but the poor person with a couple of quid left to buy his food for the next three days would be reckless beyond belief to blow that money on a 1 in 45 million chance of winning the jackpot. We clearly aren't paupers as a football club, but if the reported fee paid for Ajer is correct then, including add-ons, Brentford have agreed to pay £8m more than our valuation, and that for me puts him in the bracket of potentially reckless punts that threaten the welfare of the club. Let's all hope we find ourselves a few more bargains of genuine quality so that we can begin the season in the belief that the club really has done the best it possibly could in the current transfer market.

That is all fair although I'd add one qualifier- I'd imagine the add ons involved in the Brentford deal are heavily based on them staying up, in which case an extra £3 or 4m in add ons is relative chicken feed.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

Agree that a multi-billionaire would have made themselves know - an ordinary billionaire would probably not be rich enough.

Watford, as we have seen are well over £100 million in debt. About 3/4 of this is to the owners, who charge them just over 5% pa. Therefore the net effect of having investor owners is that they are £5 million a year worse off than they would otherwise have been. The Pozzos are only worth about £90 million, so there is no way that they will be writing it off! TBF, the Pozzos have links to the Italian game as well, and bring a lot of expertise.

Palace follow similar model to our own. They were very close to extinction a few years ago, after their own experience of  ambitious owners. There was a deal struck by the administrators to sell Selhurst Park which was stopped at the last minute by a consortium of fans. They run the club on a similar breakeven model and as I've  shown above, rely heavily on player sales. There is a good documentary series on them on Prime. They are now planning to build a new stand to add an extra 8,000 to capacity.

It is the sort of steady sustainable growth that we should be aiming for  (although the football hasn't been great).

Palace are similar aside from the bit where their lifelong fan owner, Steve Parish, went out and found minority co-owners in return for a £50m investment because he knew they needed extra resources. 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

That is all fair although I'd add one qualifier- I'd imagine the add ons involved in the Brentford deal are heavily based on them staying up, in which case an extra £3 or 4m in add ons is relative chicken feed.

Or maybe a mouthful of sausage?......

[Jim Smith 2,339]

5 hours ago, hogesar said:

I really, really hope that isn't who @Jim Smith was using as the Delia alternative, or we really are doomed...

I’m talking about a bloke called Jim Anderson who has just joined the Hearts board and who bailed out Scottish football last year.

look him up. Would meet every single one of Delia’s criteria (and the criteria for any “community club” really) although I will admit there’s nothing to indicate whether he has ever had any desire to put money into Norwich City. 

I would though be very interested to know if he’s ever been spoken to or invited to the club to see if he is interested in getting involved alongside the current owners. Somehow I doubt it and now I would imagine it’s too late as he’s getting more involved at Hearts. 

[horsefly 4,310]

19 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

although I will admit there’s nothing to indicate whether he has ever had any desire to put money into Norwich City. 

Precisely!

[horsefly 4,310]

36 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I haven’t actually said it has to be new owners. I want the club to look at ways of bringing in additional investment.

Some of the above posts are right, it’s not just about money.

Well run club with pauper owners = Norwich

Rich owner but badly run club = Ipswich, Derby, Shef Weds etc etc.

But what could happen if you combined a well run club like ours with owners or investors who can also add the extra resource to make a difference in terms of retaining and/or signing players?

Don't think a single person here would disagree with any of that. Now find us those investors.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,449]

7 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

12 years 3 months 8 days😊

Thanks to you, Hogesar and GPB for adding some sense to the discussion! 

The pile ons are getting pathetic . 

Debate is absolutely dead on here . Complete waste of time . 
 

 

[dylanisabaddog 4,982]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

I haven’t actually said it has to be new owners. I want the club to look at ways of bringing in additional investment.

Some of the above posts are right, it’s not just about money.

Well run club with pauper owners = Norwich

Rich owner but badly run club = Ipswich, Derby, Shef Weds etc etc.

But what could happen if you combined a well run club like ours with owners or investors who can also add the extra resource to make a difference in terms of retaining and/or signing players?

Sorry, but that's about as far detached from reality as is possible. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to spend a huge amount of money buying a minority interest in a football club? 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

4 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, but that's about as far detached from reality as is possible. Do you seriously think that anyone is going to spend a huge amount of money buying a minority interest in a football club? 

https://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/crystal-palace-agrees-major-us-investment-to-develop-first-class-facilities/
 

I don’t know the in and ours of how the deal is structured but I assume that no one party owns a majority stake. 

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Palace are similar aside from the bit where their lifelong fan owner, Steve Parish, went out and found minority co-owners in return for a £50m investment because he knew they needed extra resources. 

Crystal Palace are similar to us in that they rely on player sales to fund their day-to-day activities. As Swiss Ramble says:

"The prudent approach in last two years may not have enthused fans, but it will help protect the club during the pandemic, though player sales continue to be important."

They have issued new equity to fund a the stadium plan that I mentioned in my post, where they are planning to add another 8,000 to capacity and are talking of spending £130 million on the project! Such a level of expenditure could not reasonably come from player sales whilst remaining competitive. However, I have no objection to borrowing on sensible capital expenditure which increases physical capacity and the possibility of generating extra revenue + we have done this in the past, most recently with the £5m improvement to the training ground at a time when resources were far shorter than they are now. It is borrowing money to pay for players and their wages which is foolish.

£130 million for a ground expansion is an eye-watering amount though, especially as it adds only 8,000 to capacity - I would not support us doing likewise for the foreseeable future. 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

8 minutes ago, Badger said:

Crystal Palace are similar to us in that they rely on player sales to fund their day-to-day activities. As Swiss Ramble says:

"The prudent approach in last two years may not have enthused fans, but it will help protect the club during the pandemic, though player sales continue to be important."

They have issued new equity to fund a the stadium plan that I mentioned in my post, where they are planning to add another 8,000 to capacity and are talking of spending £130 million on the project! Such a level of expenditure could not reasonably come from player sales whilst remaining competitive. However, I have no objection to borrowing on sensible capital expenditure which increases physical capacity and the possibility of generating extra revenue + we have done this in the past, most recently with the £5m improvement to the training ground at a time when resources were far shorter than they are now. It is borrowing money to pay for players and their wages which is foolish.

£130 million for a ground expansion is an eye-watering amount though, especially as it adds only 8,000 to capacity - I would not support us doing likewise for the foreseeable future. 

Although we wouldn’t need anything like as much since our ground isn’t such a monumental sh*thole.

[horsefly 4,310]

53 minutes ago, Badger said:

Crystal Palace are similar to us in that they rely on player sales to fund their day-to-day activities. As Swiss Ramble says:

"The prudent approach in last two years may not have enthused fans, but it will help protect the club during the pandemic, though player sales continue to be important."

They have issued new equity to fund a the stadium plan that I mentioned in my post, where they are planning to add another 8,000 to capacity and are talking of spending £130 million on the project! Such a level of expenditure could not reasonably come from player sales whilst remaining competitive. However, I have no objection to borrowing on sensible capital expenditure which increases physical capacity and the possibility of generating extra revenue + we have done this in the past, most recently with the £5m improvement to the training ground at a time when resources were far shorter than they are now. It is borrowing money to pay for players and their wages which is foolish.

£130 million for a ground expansion is an eye-watering amount though, especially as it adds only 8,000 to capacity - I would not support us doing likewise for the foreseeable future. 

Good work again Badger! I suspect it's a damn sight easier to find funding for real estate development than it is squad development. 

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Although we wouldn’t need anything like as much since our ground isn’t such a monumental sh*thole.

True, but at some stage it is a bullet we will have to bite and it likely to cost us tens of millions. (Mind you wouldn't mind putting a lump sum into bond scheme that we had last time at 5%).

 

[Badger 2,412]

I found this whilst looking for something else. If I  were a Southampton fan, I +would d be worried, especially when we know that they are paying over 9% on nearly half of this.

[chicken 2,642]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I found this whilst looking for something else. If I  were a Southampton fan, I +would d be worried, especially when we know that they are paying over 9% on nearly half of this.

Amazing! You can see why so many of the big teams are bricking it a bit... and also what lengths they go to, to win things.

What's worrying is that that is the 2019/20 season, when covid hit towards the end. Last season without fans can only have made that worse.

Barcelona having spent so much more than Atletico and miles more than Real... and yet they still struggled and they still persist in trying to keep a world class player well past his best on big wages...

[cornish sam 962]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I found this whilst looking for something else. If I  were a Southampton fan, I +would d be worried, especially when we know that they are paying over 9% on nearly half of this.

How can spurs owe the tax man nearly £100m?!? Just from the half dozen clubs there the govt are owed a quarter of a billion pounds!!! Unless I'm misunderstanding 'tax debt'

[chicken 2,642]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Although we wouldn’t need anything like as much since our ground isn’t such a monumental sh*thole.

No, but I believe the proposed next expansion would be over Carrow Road itself but retaining the road running under the stand. That isn't going to come cheap - especially right now.

I bet there are a fair number of folks that have had work done on their house over the last year - being one that had to have something done without a choice (everyone needs a roof sadly) it is well known that the combined impact of the pandemic and Brexit has pushed prices of materials high. Not to mention an increase in demand for such projects means that prices have increased in general too.

[Ian 1,136]

5 minutes ago, chicken said:

No, but I believe the proposed next expansion would be over Carrow Road itself but retaining the road running under the stand. That isn't going to come cheap - especially right now.

I bet there are a fair number of folks that have had work done on their house over the last year - being one that had to have something done without a choice (everyone needs a roof sadly) it is well known that the combined impact of the pandemic and Brexit has pushed prices of materials high. Not to mention an increase in demand for such projects means that prices have increased in general too.

Totally agree with those last couple of sentences...to almost eye watering levels.

[ged in the onion bag 857]

7 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I haven’t actually said it has to be new owners. I want the club to look at ways of bringing in additional investment.

Some of the above posts are right, it’s not just about money.

Well run club with pauper owners = Norwich

Rich owner but badly run club = Ipswich, Derby, Shef Weds etc etc.

But what could happen if you combined a well run club like ours with owners or investors who can also add the extra resource to make a difference in terms of retaining and/or signing players?

But we have these owners..... they took the club on, simple as that.... us fans don't 'deserve' other owners or investors, we definitely deserve these owners as they have done an exceptional job.     Bottom line is they invested in and own the club and as long as they run it well, which they do and some, we needn't complain or wish for more money that would potentially destroy the ethos.     We could wish for something else but likely get much, much worse.

They might be paupers in comparison financially, but ethically, morally, and sportingly, they are what most football clubs aspire to be.

[dylanisabaddog 4,982]

11 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

https://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/crystal-palace-agrees-major-us-investment-to-develop-first-class-facilities/
 

I don’t know the in and ours of how the deal is structured but I assume that no one party owns a majority stake. 

The biggest stakeholder is Steve Parrish who owns less than 20% and obviously didn't mind diluting his shareholding. To bring in a large amount at Norwich, the majority shareholders would have to give up a controlling interest which they won't do

[dylanisabaddog 4,982]

5 hours ago, cornish sam said:

How can spurs owe the tax man nearly £100m?!? Just from the half dozen clubs there the govt are owed a quarter of a billion pounds!!! Unless I'm misunderstanding 'tax debt'

VAT and/or PAYE

[cornish sam 962]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

VAT and/or PAYE

That's what I assumed, the question was more how are they allowed to owe that much!

[dylanisabaddog 4,982]

15 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Palace are similar aside from the bit where their lifelong fan owner, Steve Parish, went out and found minority co-owners in return for a £50m investment because he knew they needed extra resources. 

Parrish was not the owner. He has around 20% of the shares in the club. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,982]

5 minutes ago, cornish sam said:

That's what I assumed, the question was more how are they allowed to owe that much!

The Government gave companies a tax holiday around that time due to Covid. I think our tax debt around the same time was £25m

[Badger 2,412]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Parrish was not the owner. He has around 20% of the shares in the club. 

The accounts suggest that he has been paying himself over £2 million a year to run the club, so he is doing pretty well out of it.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

2 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Parrish was not the owner. He has around 20% of the shares in the club. 

I think the precise details are unclear because  the company is registered in Delaware, and so doesn't have to reveal them. But the two Americans who came in were not minority investors in the usual sense of the word as it is applied to what could happen at Norwich City. They didn't put in millions for no control over the club. Their millions bought them each a stake about equal to Parrish's.

[Badger 2,412]

On 27/07/2021 at 00:37, Midlands Yellow said:

Could you do one on us next, I know we’ve split out time between the 2 top divisions but it would be interesting. 

There is a very detailed thread on this by Swiss Ramble. This shows that following our premier season our net debt feel from 22.6 million to a cash positive position of 29.5 million (later in the thread it is pointed out that this misleading as the club needed ££10 million to pay a short term loan and £18 for a deferred tax bill - covid, I  presume). Other details in the thread:

Wage bill rose from £51 million to  £90 million. (Higher that Watford's btw, despite what someone said earlier)

We had a short-term bank loan (£10.5 million at 5.2%) which had to be paid back in May 2021.

We spent 18.5 million on transfers (the average 16-20 was £19.8million, but this is skewed by he 34.8 million we spent in 15-16 to guarantee that we did not get relegated!)

Our profit on player sales was the lowest in the EPL that year, although it will be higher this year after selling Godfrey and Lewis. The same season Palace made £46 profit on player sales, Watford £22 million, Southampton 21 million, Burnley £7, Brighton £5 million, for example. Profiting on player sales is very much the model for all clubs.

We had no paid directors (the same year Steve Parish at CPFC received 2.6 million -beaten only by Spurs and Man Utd).

Our commercial income was very good for a club our size - credit to Ben Kensall - £21 million - better that Southampton, Fulham, Burnley , Palace, Watford, Brighton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield (not all clubs had published their accounts at this stage, so previous years clubs were used for the table).

There is a very detailed thread on Swiss Rambles twitter thread which will tell you more (need to go back to Novemeber 2020 so takes some finding - hence the delay) - worth looking at.