Stick with current ownership/model or not

[Alex Moss 2,165]

18 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Stop moving the goal posts. I never claimed we would be top four, nor did I discuss the moral uprightness of billionaires - I was asked for examples of owners who have not asset stripped but improved the clubs. Man City - who were languishing in league 1- and Chelsea - who were also struggling - are fine examples. Now chance of landing one of those is, of course, remote. But finding someone who helps stabilise us like a Palace or Burnley isn’t out of the question 

And whilst we’re at it, Burnley’s record signing is a whopping £15mil on a certain Ben Gibson. If we get the investor in that will turn us into a Burnley or Palace, don’t expect us to be doing significant competitive work in the transfer market either, I mean have Burnley even bought anyone this window whilst we’ve brought in…?! I actually can’t believe now we’ve got down to the crux of the matter, that it finally turns out you’re so unhappy with the current model because you want us to be a Burnley or Palace, sorry but I find that quite amusing! What an exciting ride they’ve given their respective supporters in recent years! Good god! 🤦🏻‍♂️😂

[Alex Moss 2,165]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s because the sale of one (possibly two) star player after promotion brings sharply into focus the limitations.

for what it’s worth I don’t necessarily want new owners at any cost. I would obviously take a “good billionaire” but I’d also be happy with the current ownership supplemented by some extra investment (or perhaps a little more bullishness) so we could see what Webber snd Farke could really do without their hands tied behind their backs.

Well thank god your aspirations are not the same as Dean Coney’s Boots, Jim! And I don’t think many would be adverse to same ownership but with someone providing significant added financial muscle, that would of course be quite ideal, but what would the investors stand to gain from it? Nothing at all unfortunately, and that’s why I just don’t see that happening.

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

1 hour ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Stop moving the goal posts. I never claimed we would be top four, nor did I discuss the moral uprightness of billionaires - I was asked for examples of owners who have not asset stripped but improved the clubs. Man City - who were languishing in league 1- and Chelsea - who were also struggling - are fine examples. Now chance of landing one of those is, of course, remote. But finding someone who helps stabilise us like a Palace or Burnley isn’t out of the question 

You seem to have forgotten an option. How about Marcus Evans? I still fondly remember the Ipswich fans waving £10 notes at us. 

[chicken 2,640]

13 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Four years is not a long time at all when it comes to embedding a new philosophy of running a club. What is clear during this four year spell is that we've undergone quite the transformation to our facilities and become a far more professional unit, winning the Championship twice and playing a stylish brand of football that's won plenty of admirers along the way. We've sorted out a very parlous financial situation whilst improving facilities, trimming wage bills, rejuvenating an old team, and Delia and Michael have essentially taken a step back and let Webber have carte blanche.

To be honest, I think they have been wanting to do this, and have been doing this for some time. As a result though, they have given people too much trust.

So for example, McNally had free reign more or less. For the majority of his time we had relegation clauses. If rumours are to be believed, one of the reasons Lambert supposedly left was because he wasn't given cate blanche by McNally, to just sign who he wanted and to throw the relegation clauses out the window to bring them in...

And speaking of League 1. Too much faith and freedom given to Grant and then Roeder. Grant brought in a series of players who were really not up to it and then Roeder who had seemingly lost the ability to hold a squad together in any meaningful way. Some could argue that perhaps we would have been better off persevering with Worthington who had at least shown he could polish a 💩 or two and get a squad to work together.

I do think it is worth mentioning though, that Delia and MWJ wanted a set up like we have now, since at least the millennium. I am pretty sure that their plan was to have Hamilton essentially train Worthington into the role of manager and at some point step up into the Sporting Director role. There certainly were articles and interviews with Delia and MWJ where they stated they wanted to follow a more European model as they thought it more beneficial to a club like us - at around that time.

I think some have even said in the past that they have been too trusting of others and put too much faith in them. But again, I wonder if that isn't a bad thing in the world where clubs are often too eager to sack a manager. It means whenever we need to replace part of the structure perspective applicants can look and see that if they repay that faith they can have a longer career, more stable career with us.

Farke staying on for example. How many other managers would have looked to jump ship? Or gone for bigger jobs having achieved what he has done with us? He's certainly had the opportunity to.

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by chicken

[lake district canary 4,540]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

for what it’s worth I don’t necessarily want new owners at any cost. I would obviously take a “good billionaire” but I’d also be happy with the current ownership supplemented by some extra investment (or perhaps a little more bullishness) so we could see what Webber snd Farke could really do without their hands tied behind their backs.

How much extra investment would make a difference though? 

£50million?  That much could be spent on two players who don't live up top expectations and then what?  

£100 million?  Might help a bit, but then teams have spent £140 million and got relegated

£200 million?  More like it.....but then the problem is who has £200 million to give to a club and not expect a return on it somewehere along the line? Unless we can find a rich fan who would literally gift us enough money to make a real difference, investment cannot happen without a complete change - and as things stand at the club - which is on a good course at the moment - complete change is not what is required.

 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

14 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

A subject that divides opinion but what do people think? Personally I’d like the club to go in a different direction but is that too risky. We can’t avoid discussion on the matter indefinitely but please let’s keep it civil. 

I appreciate what the current ownership have tried to do, and have done for the club, but hope that when they decide that they want to stop that we look for someone who can help us make that next step forward that we need. I don't want the club being handed down like an ornament on a mantelpiece to family members.

OTBC

 

 

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

9 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Yes, a  predecessor who let the club finances go into meltdown in the process. So great success in the late 80's and early 90's, but guess what? It was unsustainable. I just can't fathom this hanging on to something that was so long ago. Are we like Ipswich, always looking back to the glory days?  My views are that people should learn to enjoy and appreiate what we've got, not what we haven't got.

 

Hmmmm, I think when debating the relative success of the current ownership it’s a fair point to compare them against other owners.. it’s not about harking back but establishing where in the football pyramid you think the club should be sitting. No club as any right to be PL of course but another step up the rung from relegation favourites is where I think that place is and in 24 out of 25yrs the current owners have been below this. I was very pro delia and grateful for the first 10yrs, satisfied for the next 10 and have felt since the last relegation it would be good to see a change. 
I don’t get the same joy as others seem to out of saying we live within our means, I just see us as overly cautious with both eyes on relegation. It’s not a view set in stone, there is still some transfer window left but ultimately can you really see a prolonged stay in the top flight without ownership changes?

[lake district canary 4,540]

2 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I appreciate what the current ownership have tried to do, and have done for the club, but hope that when they decide that they want to stop that we look for someone who can help us make that next step forward that we need. I don't want the club being handed down like an ornament on a mantelpiece to family members.

OTBC

Handing it on is not an issue if the person they are handing it on to is sufficiently caring enough about the club to be able to maintain the ethos and the self-sustaining policies - and they have been preparing the way with that with Tom Smith, giving him experience at board level.  Some people don't like that, but it can't be denied that if the current model works as it is at the moment and we carry on improving over the next four years, then stability should be maintained in that.  If the model fails and we crash down two divisions and the club starts losing money, then that would be the time to look for change.

As it is we are on a good path and we don't need to take that next step forwards through outside investment.....we are already doing that with what we've got now. If that changes, then yes, consider change, but as I said, we are on a good path.

[hogesar 9,709]

16 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I appreciate what the current ownership have tried to do, and have done for the club, but hope that when they decide that they want to stop that we look for someone who can help us make that next step forward that we need. I don't want the club being handed down like an ornament on a mantelpiece to family members.

OTBC

 

 

On this point, the reality is none of us yet know how this would be structured, nor do we know enough about Tom really to say if this would be a good decision or not.

The one thing in his favour is being around the running of the football club for the past few years will mean he will have more experience of running a football club than 90% of takeovers that happen in this country, at least.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,898]

Just now, lake district canary said:

Handing it on is not an issue if the person they are handing it on to is sufficiently caring enough about the club to be able to maintain the ethos and the self-sustaining policies - and they have been preparing the way with that with Tom Smith, giving him experience at board level.  Some people don't like that, but it can't be denied that if the current model works as it is at the moment and we carry on improving over the next four years, then stability should be maintained in that.  If the model fails and we crash down two divisions and the club starts losing money, then that would be the time to look for change.

As it is we are on a good path and we don't need to take that next step forwards through outside investment.....we are already doing that with what we've got now. If that changes, then yes, consider change, but as I said, we are on a good path.

Hello Lakey,

You describe a reactive approach - I want my club to be proactive. But each to their own - we both love our club and just want the best for it.

Anyway, time to pack. Coming down to Norfolk today to see the family for the first time in 18 months or so.

OTBC

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,827]

So basically we want a new investor that ticks the following boxes:

- Billionaire

- Prepared to make a loss 

- Knows what they're doing 

- Not dodgy 

The only examples I can think of in English football who fit all the boxes are the Srivaddhanaprabha family at Leicester or possibly the Abu Dhabi group at Man City.

It's a miracle we haven't found one of these yet.

[lake district canary 4,540]

7 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

9 hours ago, lake district canary said:

Yes, a  predecessor who let the club finances go into meltdown in the process. So great success in the late 80's and early 90's, but guess what? It was unsustainable. I just can't fathom this hanging on to something that was so long ago. Are we like Ipswich, always looking back to the glory days?  My views are that people should learn to enjoy and appreiate what we've got, not what we haven't got.

 

Hmmmm, I think when debating the relative success of the current ownership it’s a fair point to compare them against other owners.. it’s not about harking back but establishing where in the football pyramid you think the club should be sitting. No club as any right to be PL of course but another step up the rung from relegation favourites is where I think that place is and in 24 out of 25yrs the current owners have been below this. I was very pro delia and grateful for the first 10yrs, satisfied for the next 10 and have felt since the last relegation it would be good to see a change. 
I don’t get the same joy as others seem to out of saying we live within our means, I just see us as overly cautious with both eyes on relegation. It’s not a view set in stone, there is still some transfer window left but ultimately can you really see a prolonged stay in the top flight without ownership changes?

Yes, I can, but it relies on us building the finances as we go - improving the squad year on year and gradually upping the levels to a point we can sustain the challemge in the PL.

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

On this point, the reality is none of us yet know how this would be structured, nor do we know enough about Tom really to say if this would be a good decision or not.

The one thing in his favour is being around the running of the football club for the past few years will mean he will have more experience of running a football club than 90% of takeovers that happen in this country, at least.

You must know something Hoggy, surely you’ve met him at a family soirée. Are his intentions honourable and does he post on  this message board? 

[chicken 2,640]

12 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Do you think Man City fans agree or Chelsea fans? 

Actually that's inaccurate.

My family in terms of parents etc, on both sides, are from the South East. I have a cousin who supports Chelsea. When I mentioned this to him in the noughties he reminded me of this:

Chelsea were doing pretty well before Abramovic took over. In fact, here are their league finishes for several seasons before Abramovic arrived.

1996-97: 6th
1997-98: 4th
1998-99: 3rd
1999-2000: 5th
2000-2001:6th
2001-2002: 6th

Having been to some Chelsea games in the noughties with my then Chelsea supporting girlfriend (went to Uni in the South East) I also have very clear memories of murmurings of discontent from the home fans as the Russian National anthem was played to announce the arrival of Abramovic to his seat which featured bullet proof glass in front of it.

Man City is a very rare case. And although their fans are super happy, many are quite blind to the overall impact on football they have had. By that I mean, they have pushed and cajoled the rules of the game. The £400m sponsorship deal that has been the subject of numerous challenges as being "dodgy" - https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2020/07/27/manchester-citys-infamous-10-year-deal-enters-its-final-chapter/?sh=50460b1714ac

Though a lot has been done to develop Man City to be the side it is now, it is largely still reliant on "buying titles". That's "great" if you want that. And I am sure there are many fans that are super happy for it. But the way they are celebrating Foden at the moment suggests they would be happier to see more of their own being brought into the team considering the amount of money spent on their academy.

I'm surprised that very few people bring up Leicester when making these statements. Arguably the owners have managed to retain the clubs identity whilst providing more money, though perhaps not the masses at Man City, and working with the fans as much as with the business side of the club. They are arguably more the ideal in many ways.

In any case, they are by far the minority. For every club you can point at as being successful with mega rich owners you can point to at least 2-3 that haven't been going the same route. Some have fallen even further.

Villa, for example, had two mega rich owners fail them before the current owner - Lerner and Xia. Hull and Cardiff are other examples of wealthy owners taking over and trying to stamp their identity on clubs essentially stripping away the connection with the fans. Then you have the likes of Sunderland and more recently Wigan who have been incredibly mismanaged and essentially stripped of wealth. You could throw Ipswich into that group as well. That's before we mention Blackburn, Derby, even Coventry and then lower league fiasco's like Notts County, Bradford etc. 

Hell, Fulham have spent how much now? £150m+ to do exactly the same as us?

Problem is, many mega wealthy owners don't use their wealth to actually own the clubs. They tend to buy the club then put it in debt so they can get all of their money back. More or less an interest only buy to let mortgage with the club then becoming the tenants to the ownership.

The real truth of the matter is, the top 6 spots in the EPL are rarely occupied by clubs who were not already top sides before new ownership took them over. Man Utd, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool, Arsenal... Man City, Leicester - you may have a case of elevated position due to investment, but I think much more Man City than Leicester.

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

First, I would say please identify the beneficent billionaire prepared to chuck £200m plus at the club purely to bring the squad up to a standard  that would make the soubriquet "top 4 contender" not look ridiculous (they would also have to promise not to expect that money back if the project failed).

Second, I would say that if your interest in NCFC depends significantly on them achieving a top 6 finish, then you are almost certainly supporting the wrong club. I don't intend to be flippant by saying this, nor unambitious. There is a deeper point here about what it means to be the fan of any club. All fans want success for their club, and in their wildest dreams envision their success taking them into the top 6 of the PL (even Ipswich fans, really!). However, if that fantasy were to be the ultimate determinant of what constitutes ambition and success for a club, then the fans of 90% of the football clubs in the English leagues are condemned to failure and misery before a single ball has been kicked. We all want to see great results week in week out, but surely no genuine or rational fan makes their support for their club conditional on those results. Support for a club goes far deeper and is more meanigful than that sort of superficiality.

Every fan should read these famous words of Rudyard Kipling before every game:

 “If you can meet with triumph and disaster, and treat those two impostors just the same; yours is the earth and everything that's in it." 

If a genuine beneficent billionaire were to turn up bearing gifts I can assure you I would welcome them with joyfull open arms. But one hasn't, and most probably won't. We are where we are, and the present self-funding model has not only seen the club achieve financial stability for the foreseeable future, it has also seen us produce some of the best football ever witnessed at CR. 

We most probably will never achieve that list of achievements in the modern era. What would be nice is a club that’s set up to not get relegated, consolidate there after and keep adding quality season to season. With each relegation it’s continuous steps backwards and more player sales. 

[Nuff Said 5,153]

20 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Hmmmm, I think when debating the relative success of the current ownership it’s a fair point to compare them against other owners.. it’s not about harking back but establishing where in the football pyramid you think the club should be sitting. No club as any right to be PL of course but another step up the rung from relegation favourites is where I think that place is and in 24 out of 25yrs the current owners have been below this. I was very pro delia and grateful for the first 10yrs, satisfied for the next 10 and have felt since the last relegation it would be good to see a change. 
I don’t get the same joy as others seem to out of saying we live within our means, I just see us as overly cautious with both eyes on relegation. It’s not a view set in stone, there is still some transfer window left but ultimately can you really see a prolonged stay in the top flight without ownership changes?

 

13 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

People laugh at charlton fans for pushing pardew out as they could see a ceiling had been hit, I think they were right to do it, just unlucky with the result but it’s always a good thing to strive for better

Do you not think you are contradicting yourself here?
 

You think our rightful place (let’s postpone the discussion about whether such a thing is sensible) is one step above PL relegation favourites, and then say when Charlton (temporarily) achieved that, their supporters were right to want to take a further step up the ladder. I don’t believe you think we should be a club that is a few places above relegation, you’re just always going to be dissatisfied with where we are, and want more.
 

You’re ambitious, I get that, and that’s admirable (although naive IMHO), but admit it for what it is, don’t say we are underperforming against some mythical “right” to be a club somewhere around 14th in the PL.

[chicken 2,640]

22 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

I don’t get the same joy as others seem to out of saying we live within our means, I just see us as overly cautious with both eyes on relegation. It’s not a view set in stone, there is still some transfer window left but ultimately can you really see a prolonged stay in the top flight without ownership changes?

Yes.

What is more important to me is that when ownership change does happen, the baby isn't thrown out with the bathwater and that the model we have is what is invested in more and not less.

I mentioned it already but look at Leicester. Ideally that's what we want. Retention of our club identity and owners that are respectful, sensitive and engaging with that. Not owners like Hull, Cardiff, Blackburn and even Abramovic to an extent, who want to stamp their image all over the club, rebrand it, give us a new nickname and badge to suit.

Norwich Athletic Soccerball Lions, nicknamed the Roar! Roar fans all over East Anglia... Please, just no. Junior supporters referred to as Cubs... Shirt Sponsors by Africa Alive anyone?

Fulham have spanked money at getting up to the Premier League and attempting to stay there. Villa did the same and stayed up by a point. They had to flirt with breaking rules to do so as well.

Do we really want owners that come in and essentially not actually buy us and instead put us into huge debt so they get their investment back instantly? 

I'm sure Tom Cavendish would love to see his dream of a club at Postwick finally come to fruition as no doubt any new owner would sell up Carrow Road considering the land value and build a brand new stadium, likely to be one of those 10 a penny look-a-likes out of the same copy and paste design programs.

 

[chicken 2,640]

5 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

We most probably will never achieve that list of achievements in the modern era. What would be nice is a club that’s set up to not get relegated, consolidate there after and keep adding quality season to season. With each relegation it’s continuous steps backwards and more player sales. 

I would argue that is exactly how 12 of the Premier League teams see themselves, however, in reality, there are a good 6-8 involved in battling relegation every season. Some might be safe by March if they are lucky, others go down to the wire.

There isn't really such a thing as "set up not to get relegated" - unless you mean to spend like you wont be and then hope you're not... 

[Hardhouse44 261]

12 hours ago, 1902 said:

Like the owners of PSG or Man city? They are just princes or investment arms of repressive petro-states. They are not some kind of Ayan Rand fantasy land heroes.

Good yeah and look how their fans are suffering. Having to travel to all those cup finals and winning league titles. 

[dylanisabaddog 4,955]

2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Stop moving the goal posts. I never claimed we would be top four, nor did I discuss the moral uprightness of billionaires - I was asked for examples of owners who have not asset stripped but improved the clubs. Man City - who were languishing in league 1- and Chelsea - who were also struggling - are fine examples. Now chance of landing one of those is, of course, remote. But finding someone who helps stabilise us like a Palace or Burnley isn’t out of the question 

Do you seriously believe that Palace and Burnley are stable Premier League clubs!? 

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Do you seriously believe that Palace and Burnley are stable Premier League clubs!? 

It depends how you see Norwich city potentially. Those two clubs could only dream of averaging 25,000 in league one. If things ever fall together in the top flight and opportunities are taken NCFC could be quite a large club. 

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

What would be nice is a club that’s set up to not get relegated, consolidate there after and keep adding quality season to season.

That's exactly how they would describe the ambition of their current self-funding model. Your disagreement is with their judgement about how the club can reach that point. Their path to that goal accepted that without an elusive billionaire benefactor, we might have to accept a step backwards to move two steps forward (hence the "top 26 club" short-term aspiration). The last three seasons strongly suggest that's pretty much what has happened. We were promoted earlier than expected (2018/19), relegated as most people expected, and promoted again. So do we have a stronger squad than we had when we were initially promoted? For me without a doubt, and I expect that to be shown in the stats come the end of the season (feel free to come back and taunt me if by the season's end we haven't secured more points, scored more goals, and let in fewer goals than our last PL campaign). Are we financially stronger than when we were intially promoted? Absolutely! We have brought in players that would have been well out of reach in 2019, and there is very likely at least 3 more multi-million transfers to come. The trajectory and strategy of progress may be too slow for you, but for me it represents the only sane approach to ensuring we don't blow the future of the club on reckless borrowing to gamble on expensive players. Last time in the PL we could have blown £45m on Amadou and Duda, where would we be now if we had done so? I'd rather be a happy clapper than a broke sucker, but then I'm not a gambler. Thus, I think your claim that "With each relegation it’s continuous steps backwards...", is simply false. 

 

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

That's exactly how they would describe the ambition of their current self-funding model. Your disagreement is with their judgement about how the club can reach that point. Their path to that goal accepted that without an elusive billionaire benefactor, we might have to accept a step backwards to move two steps forward (hence the "top 26 club" short-term aspiration). The last three seasons strongly suggest that's pretty much what has happened. We were promoted earlier than expected (2018/19), relegated as most people expected, and promoted again. So do we have a stronger squad than we had when we were initially promoted? For me without a doubt, and I expect that to be shown in the stats come the end of the season (feel free to come back and taunt me if by the season's end we haven't secured more points, scored more goals, and let in fewer goals than our last PL campaign). Are we financially stronger than when we were intially promoted? Absolutely! We have brought in players that would have been well out of reach in 2019, and there is very likely at least 3 more multi-million transfers to come. The trajectory and strategy of progress may be too slow for you, but for me it represents the only sane approach to ensuring we don't blow the future of the club on reckless borrowing to gamble on expensive players. Last time in the PL we could have blown £45m on Amadou and Duda, where would we be now if we had done so? I'd rather be a happy clapper than a broke sucker, but then I'm not a gambler. Thus, I think your claim that "With each relegation it’s continuous steps backwards...", is simply false. 

 

 

Stay up this time and I think the protagonists of the model are winning the argument. It’s a huge season coming up for Webber, Farke and Norwich City. 

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Stay up this time and I think the protagonists of the model are winning the argument. It’s a huge season coming up for Webber, Farke and Norwich City. 

We definitely agree on that!

[chicken 2,640]

8 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

It depends how you see Norwich city potentially. Those two clubs could only dream of averaging 25,000 in league one. If things ever fall together in the top flight and opportunities are taken NCFC could be quite a large club. 

Not even remotely relevant. Once in the EPL, you don't need 25k fans. You don't even need 35k fans. It was known before the pandemic but it has just been proven to be the case over the last 18months. That's reality.

In many ways, stadium expansion for us is somewhat of a risk. Even if it costs us £30m to expand the stadium to 35k, how long would it take us to make that £30m back? At £40 per ticket for an additional 7500 fans, it works out at £300k per home game on tickets. Sure, it could be argued that it's worth more with match day spending. But even at £10 per fan that's just another £75k.

If those fans already exist, it won't result in more shirt sales or an increased business revenue really. It'd probably be better investment to buy a player from Korea/China/Japan and expand our fanbase there for example.

[Capt. Pants 4,263]

10 hours ago, Cantiaci Canary said:

To throw my hat into the ring I would say the following ...

The Webberlution is the path to take. Long term strategising rather than constant pressing of the reset button, fans at the heart of things rather than disposable consumers, clear club identity rather than a lost soul, beautiful football rather than turgid conservatism, youngsters hungry to come here and getting a chance if they cut the mustard, players in canary yellow that fans from Champions League teams recognise, praise and desire, trophy lifts over stagnation, zero debt over escalating anxiety about the club our kids and grandkids can inherit etc ....

If letting a big investor come in was like unpacking a magic wand then why the heck are Forest, Wednesday, QPR, Sunderland, Derby, Hull, Portsmouth, Wigan etc looking at us and wishing they could trade places?

It's not a simple black and white option to find a billionaire or not and let the good times roll or not.

We are EARNING everything through blood, sweat, tears and brains and I'm so enthralled by that. THIS is SPORT.

Don't take for granted what we have right now. Savour it, support it, be proud to sing its virtues to the world and enjoy the ride. 

The bold bit says it all for me. I think a lot of people are heaping praise on the ownership model when actually it's Webber running the show. He's so much more than just a DF imo. Smith & Jones are the majority shareholders, the technical owners, but are happy to sit back and let Webber set the strategy for players etc, overseen by the BOD. Credit to the owners for allowing this to happen in the first place, but it must have been a dream come true for them.

Key for me will be how the model works without Webber or how much further we can push the boundaries with it.

 

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

Just now, chicken said:

Not even remotely relevant. Once in the EPL, you don't need 25k fans. You don't even need 35k fans. It was known before the pandemic but it has just been proven to be the case over the last 18months. That's reality.

In many ways, stadium expansion for us is somewhat of a risk. Even if it costs us £30m to expand the stadium to 35k, how long would it take us to make that £30m back? At £40 per ticket for an additional 7500 fans, it works out at £300k per home game on tickets. Sure, it could be argued that it's worth more with match day spending. But even at £10 per fan that's just another £75k.

If those fans already exist, it won't result in more shirt sales or an increased business revenue really. It'd probably be better investment to buy a player from Korea/China/Japan and expand our fanbase there for example.

If that was true Carrow road would still look like it did on the 30s. 

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

We definitely agree on that!

We’ve done it! Albeit on one point, OTBC. 

[FenwayFrank 2,460]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

If that was true Carrow road would still look like it did on the 30s. 

I wasn’t about then, what did it look like ? 😉

[Midlands Yellow 4,016]

4 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

I wasn’t about then, what did it look like ? 😉

Smart, even the king turned up for one match.