It's not about the manager. The problem is the owners...

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Good debating right there

Why waste words? His post was like a joke script.

Edited November 2, 2021 by keelansgrandad

[nutty nigel 7,536]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

And therein lies part of our problem. Zero pressure on the owners who (along with their entourage) enjoy their toy and don’t want to part with it. The “model” is primarily about that. 

This always amazes me. People who put zero pressure on the owners ( Maj shareholders) year in year out then complain about zero pressure being put on them.

[Indy 3,300]

56 minutes ago, Badger said:

I would. They would get £100+ million for most of their shares and I'm sure they' be able to negotiate a "Life Presidency" or some sort of ceremonial role which would keep most of the trappings of glory. They could still go to matches in the board room etc and retain a prominent role as a club figurehead. A bit like the Queen rather than the Prime Minister!

Why would they at their age and wealth, £100 million in the bank won’t make any difference, but the ability to fly to away games in first class comfort, being in the best seats, free drinks, expenses and publicity to them is far more worth than £100 million in the bank. They’ve certainly had a good ride and I don’t blame them for not wanting to give it up, I wouldn’t either.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

4 hours ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

It’s got to be worth the risk, we are looking like we could be the worst football club in premiership history. 
We will go down and sell our assets and I’m on the fence with the recruitment now. It seems to be getting worse. So the replacements will need to be at a good level, which will come at a cost. Which we cannot guarantee we will spend the money. 
We need to make some form of a chance, before we get stuck in the champs and consistently selling.

What is the risk though?

[nutty nigel 7,536]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

Why would they at their age and wealth, £100 million in the bank won’t make any difference, but the ability to fly to away games in first class comfort, being in the best seats, free drinks, expenses and publicity to them is far more worth than £100 million in the bank. They’ve certainly had a good ride and I don’t blame them for not wanting to give it up, I wouldn’t either.

Whose values do you base this on Indy?

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

38 minutes ago, Badger said:

If this is the case, why do their owners get he club to borrow at rates in excess of 9% secured against the clubs assets rather than their own?

Surely they would put their own money in (even if they charged interest) or at least secure the clubs new borrowings against their own assets rather than the clubs ground + training ground + brand name and intangible assets?

A club taking out a loan against its own assets would still be a club able to make that business decision knowing there is a cushion behind them. Why they do it that way, could be a number of reasons but I’m sure if it was a loan from themselves with interest it would open them up to the owners taking money out of the club argument. If for whatever reason the loan money doesn’t generate additional income to cover it, the owners are a fall back position, much like Delia was a quarter of a century ago.

How they provide that safety net when the club look at things such as transfer policy or wage structures is very much a secondary point to the answer you asked for, in what way does having richer owners who don’t give millions is any better.

[Jim Smith 2,319]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

What is the risk though?

The risk is we get relegated. 
 

If we don’t do it then the risk is we get relegated.

 

The question is whether one course of action or the other makes that risk marginally smaller.

[Indy 3,300]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Whose values do you base this on Indy?

I don’t,the value was quoted by Badger.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Just now, Indy said:

I don’t,the value was quoted by Badger.

No the character values. The things you deem to be important to them.

[Indy 3,300]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

No the character values. The things you deem to be important to them.

I’m not, just quoting their life, you don’t think they drive to Manchester in a Ford or with the supporters in the coaches? They live a great lifestyle as Norwich owners and as I’ve said I don’t blame them.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

The risk is we get relegated. 
 

If we don’t do it then the risk is we get relegated.

 

The question is whether one course of action or the other makes that risk marginally smaller.

The risk being talked about is new ownership. 

In the bigfellers post he recognises it's fraught with danger. Which it is.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Just now, Indy said:

I’m not, just quoting their life, you don’t think they drive to Manchester in a Ford or with the supporters in the coaches? They live a great lifestyle as Norwich owners and as I’ve said I don’t blame them.

No, you infer that they wouldn't want to give those things up for the good of the club and go on to say you wouldn't. 

[Indy 3,300]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

No, you infer that they wouldn't want to give those things up for the good of the club and go on to say you wouldn't. 

Well they haven’t have they? I can only make judgments on what is fact, they’ve got the club control of 53% for a very good price, there’s only ever been hints of outside investment when things get very tight to the wire and after 24 years they’ve not invested any of their own money into this club for a long time, have they? 
So based on what I see they are more than happy to sit as owners with the lifestyle it brings with it as owners of the club. What they see as the future of this club is totally at their control. I don’t have an issue with it and good luck to them! I don’t know why you’re so worried with that? My view

Edited November 2, 2021 by Indy

[nutty nigel 7,536]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Well they haven’t have they? I can only make judgments on what is fact, they’ve got the club control of 53% for a very good price, there’s only ever been hints of outside investment when things get very tight to the wire and after 24 years they’ve not invested any of their own money into this club for a long time, have they? 
So based on what I see they are more than happy to sit as owners with the lifestyle it brings with it as owners of the club. What they see as the future of this club is totally at their control. I don’t have an issue with it and good luck to them! I don’t know why you’re so worried with that? My view

Based on what you see and what you'd do. So your own values Indy.

 

[Jim Smith 2,319]

12 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

The risk being talked about is new ownership. 

In the bigfellers post he recognises it's fraught with danger. Which it is.

 

 

 

Hardly “frought with danger” is it. Worst case we end up in league 1 or something where our current owners already took us once and where many of you say you are perfectly happy as the level we play at doesn’t dictate your enjoyment of watching us.

Better to die trying isn’t it?

 

[Indy 3,300]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Based on what you see and what you'd do. So your own values Indy.

 

My values? Why the attack? What are they Nutty? What have I said that isn’t what’s going on her? I’m a little confused! 
So they don’t travel to away games first class or fly? They pay for all the food drink, tickets and other game day expenses? Like I said they have an easy life here, not had any pressure like Mike Ashley has endured, and I’d certainly be happy with their situation! 

If I was in their shoes and wanted the best for the club, I’d sell for the value I’d put into the club, I’d certainly be cautious with who came in but I wouldn’t rule out foreign buyers. That’s just me, I wouldn’t have bought the club to make £100 million profit, I’d rather see that money invested into the club.

But I don’t blame them for carrying on and enjoying the highlife.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

My values? Why the attack? What are they Nutty? What have I said that isn’t what’s going on her? I’m a little confused! 
So they don’t travel to away games first class or fly? They pay for all the food drink, tickets and other game day expenses? Like I said they have an easy life here, not had any pressure like Mike Ashley has endured, and I’d certainly be happy with their situation! 

If I was in their shoes and wanted the best for the club, I’d sell for the value I’d put into the club, I’d certainly be cautious with who came in but I wouldn’t rule out foreign buyers. That’s just me, I wouldn’t have bought the club to make £100 million profit, I’d rather see that money invested into the club.

But I don’t blame them for carrying on and enjoying the highlife.

I'm not attacking you Indy. I just don't think it's fair to make those assumptions. 

 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Hardly “frought with danger” is it. Worst case we end up in league 1 or something where our current owners already took us once and where many of you say you are perfectly happy as the level we play at doesn’t dictate your enjoyment of watching us.

Better to die trying isn’t it?

 

That's not the worst that could happen.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not attacking you Indy. I just don't think it's fair to make those assumptions. 

 

Presumably the provision of hospitality for visiting directors before and after a match is paid for by the host club.  No idea whether clubs pay for the travel costs of their own directors for away games, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.

[Indy 3,300]

9 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I'm not attacking you Indy. I just don't think it's fair to make those assumptions. 

 

Why isn’t it? Your opinion of their ownership is different to mine. That’s fine but I’ve not said anything which is derogatory, they no doubt use the club as I use my company, travel and business expenses go through the company, it’s best way. I believe they enjoy their positions or they would have got out years ago! So I really would say I don’t blame them and I’m not having a go, just saying it’s a lovely position to be in, this club has a level headed fan base which doesn’t apply the over the top pressure like other clubs owners get.

Good on them I say, they’ve bought the club at the time of crises and now enjoy the good times.

Edited November 2, 2021 by Indy

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Just now, Naturalcynic said:

Presumably the provision of hospitality for visiting directors before and after a match is paid for by the host club.  No idea whether clubs pay for the travel costs of their own directors for away games, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they do.

No idea. But I don't think those things are even the slightest part of their commitment as majority shareholders.

[Naturalcynic 631]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

No idea. But I don't think those things are even the slightest part of their commitment as majority shareholders.

You were questioning the validity of Indy’s assumptions.  I was stating that in these two particular assumptions he was probably correct.

[Midlands Yellow 3,985]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

No - an answer would be much appreciated. What would you expect City gain if we swapped our owners with those of Southampton, Watford, or Burnley  - you must have some idea?

More than one season at a time in this league would be a terrific start. Savings on flights to away matches and a lower boardroom drinks bill. 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

1 minute ago, Indy said:

Why isn’t it? You’re opinion of their ownership is different to mine. That’s fine but I’ve not said anything which is derogatory, they no doubt use the club as I use my company, travel and business expenses go through the company, it’s best way. I believe they enjoy their positions or they would have got out years ago! So I really would say I don’t blame them and I’m not having a go, just saying it’s a lovely position to be in, this club has a level headed fan base which doesn’t apply the over the top pressure like other clubs owners get.

Good on them I say, they’ve bought the club at the time of crises and now enjoy the good times.

Yes I know our views are different. I don't think there's anything to suggest those 'perks' are what's important to them. Such things wouldn't be important to me either. We are all wired differently.

[nutty nigel 7,536]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

You were questioning the validity of Indy’s assumptions.  I was stating that in these two particular assumptions he was probably correct.

That wasn't what I was questioning.

[Indy 3,300]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Yes I know our views are different. I don't think there's anything to suggest those 'perks' are what's important to them. Such things wouldn't be important to me either. We are all wired differently.

No worries, but those Perks might be…..I think we’d both certainly take the club forward differently, but my assumption and yours aren’t wrong just opinions……💛💚

Edited November 2, 2021 by Indy

[nutty nigel 7,536]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

No worries, but those Perks might be…..I think we’d both certainly take the club forward differently, but my assumption and yours aren’t wrong just opinions……💛💚

👍👍

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

What is the risk though?

Change at the top. As been discussed on here many times. You just don’t know what owners you will get. 

[Mello Yello 2,294]

52 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

More than one season at a time in this league would be a terrific start. Savings on flights to away matches and a lower boardroom drinks bill. 

The board still flew to away games even in the Championship......Regarding lowering the boardroom drinks bill?.....Nah, the Moet the merrier.....

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Why would they at their age and wealth, £100 million in the bank won’t make any difference, but the ability to fly to away games in first class comfort, being in the best seats, free drinks, expenses and publicity to them is far more worth than £100 million in the bank. They’ve certainly had a good ride and I don’t blame them for not wanting to give it up, I wouldn’t either.

My understanding is that they pay for their flights  themselves, but I don't know, I am only repeating what someone else said. In any case, I don't think that having £100 million would reduce their comfort at all + as "Club Presidents," they would still get all the same perks but without the vitriol and worry.

Why would you turn down £100 million if you kept all the perks but lost all the worries and responsibilities?