Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220 Posted September 13, 2021 (edited) On 04/09/2021 at 18:17, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said: I think @Kenny Foggo is getting a rough ride here. There is an asset and it is worth vastly more than the outlay to purchase that asset, covering by many multiples any costs incurred in the process of doing so and since. Sustainability means that no further shareholder funds need to be injected. As pointed out, that is particularly unusual for football. One of the main reasons nobody comes to invest or buy out Norwich is that it would cost such a significant sum to obtain ownership of the shares necessary to ‘own’ the club - before a penny is spent on players, training grounds, stadiums et al. Even if you ‘loved’ the club and Delia and Michael saw you as a good custodian, you basically have to hand over £50m to change the name over the door without having any impact (yet) on the field. This is a very material position. Parma Well done @BigFish 👍🏽…It is an unusual situation. The facts and the overall narrative also demonstrate why there is no ‘hinvestor’ or even a great deal of credible interest. It doesn’t fit asset stripper, cheap punt or ego inflater models in any way. A fan lottery winner, a fan-owned hyper-Tifosys Training Ground model or multiple local business consortium would likely receive warm reception and might - quite conceivably - be able to discuss a handover that did not involve a fortune to merely change the nameplate over the door. I would like to think that. Tom Smith is the plan until another plausible plan materialises I suspect. Succession planning might well be higher on the agenda than we believe. Parma post script: in the interim, the bequest of a reasonable package of shares to Webber-Ward might not be a foolish move. Edited September 13, 2021 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
