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

[nutty nigel 7,535]

28 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

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

Exactly. So what are the chances of getting better? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

There will be a change of ownership at some time. I doubt Delia will hang on like the Queen until Tom is a pensioner himself.

But even the most ardent of those who believe we are still beholding to them must admit that every owner, coach, player bought is a risk and the opportunity to sell the club to a new, well meaning owner should not be labelled a risk. It is an opportunity. I do not think for one minute Delia will sell to anyone just for the sake of it.

[kenfoggo 247]

Has any Head Coach turned a season start like this into a success? Does anyone really have confidence that Farke can turn this disaster around? Surely even the Directors can see the futility of the misplaced loyalty in keeping Farke here? 

[Indy 3,300]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

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?

Because you wouldn’t get the same perks without being owners.

It would make little sense to pay for any flights when your making profits on your company! Personally I’m not driven by money so I wouldn’t be bothered by £100 million. 😉

[nutty nigel 7,535]

Perhaps there's a Facebook group somewhere who'd subsidise the flights if they flew a banner...

[Mello Yello 2,293]

I bet the whole board have their own season tickets and each bring in a packet of biscuits on match days......

[hogesar 9,672]

1 hour 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?

 

If only the worst case was a season in League One, then everything returned back to at least the norm of where we are now. Unfortunately, that's not worst-case scenario at all.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

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.

Gino Pozzo did, in fact, use to loan Watford about £70 million at about 5% + LIBOR interest from recollection. This loan has been transferred to another company amidst rumours that there are financial difficulties at Watford. Their net debt in 2020 stood at 93 million and they have had a season with no crowds and only parachute payments since then, so likely to be standing at well over £100 million. This is more than Gino Pozzo's reported wealth - no cushion here!

The Burnley owner's used the clubs cash balances (about £40 million) and money borrowed against the clubs assets to actually buy the club! Their very first act was to take $40 million out of the club!

Southampton's owner Gao Jisheng has borrowed 78.8 million from MSD at 9.14% secured against all Southampton's asset. This would cost Southampton - £7.2 million pa - but he has secured a deal whereby they don't have to start paying back until 2025, by which time the debt will have risen to nearer £120 million, which would cost £10 million a year. If this is "a cushion" it is a very spiky one! He is desperately - whoever buys the club will have to take on the loan as well

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.

The point is that a lot of the owners DON'T put money into the club. they are in it to make a profit, not to give money away. It doesn't matter how rich the owner is if they don't put any money into the club. If they take it out, which is the aim, the club is poorer. FWIW, a self-funded club could borrow money just as easily as one owned by a billionaire if the loan is secured against the assets of the club. City could borrow £75 million if they wanted to, but I don't think it would be a better idea for us, than it is for Southampton, Watford or Burnley.

(I would caveat that by saying that I feel we should and could take on long term debt to finance a new stand. This would be on long term mortgage type finance and would, I believe, be profitable - but the board has been a bit timid on this front imo.) 

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

31 minutes ago, Indy said:

Because you wouldn’t get the same perks without being owners.

It would make little sense to pay for any flights when your making profits on your company! Personally I’m not driven by money so I wouldn’t be bothered by £100 million. 😉

I don't think that Delia would miss the odd free drink and pretty sure that she would be welcome in any boardroom anyway. In any case, she should be able to generate an income of £5+ million pa from £100 million, so she could afford her own! 

Of course, I wouldn't be bothered with £100 million either - although £70-80 million would save me from checking underneath the cushions of the sofa!

 

 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour 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. 

Thanks MY.

What makes you think that an investor owner could guarantee more than one season in the premier league - or even that?

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

Thanks MY.

What makes you think that an investor owner could guarantee more than one season in the premier league - or even that?

 

They couldn’t but the chances would vastly improve. Unfortunately it just doesn’t happen with our wonderful present owners as we all know. 

[TIL 1010 4,746]

8 hours ago, Badger said:

Well you could try giving one and see? What advantages could you cite from having the owners of Southampton, Watford or Burnley?

Can you actually identify any?

Not even going to entertain you because no matter what i or others put in response to any of your posts you take nothing other than your view on board

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Exactly. So what are the chances of getting better? 

50/50. You are asking me questions you know the answers to

[Big Vince 318]

9 hours ago, Badger said:

Well you could try giving one and see? What advantages could you cite from having the owners of Southampton, Watford or Burnley?

Can you actually identify any?

They would all sack a failing manager. The Socialists don't.

[Badger 2,405]

51 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Not even going to entertain you because no matter what i or others put in response to any of your posts you take nothing other than your view on board

I'm quite happy to take other views on board, but they have to provide evidence. In fact, I think that I have agreed with more than one person on this thread (about the lack of ground development and decision-making process)

In you case, I may be wrong, but my instinct is that you don't have any evidence to back up what you say. That's fair enough, there is no reason why you should have if you are not interested in football finance, but it does mean at any view you have on this matter is unsubstantiated.

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

They couldn’t but the chances would vastly improve.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but it sounds as if this is blind hope. The vast majority of new owners fail. There is of course, the chance that we could do better and stay p for longer but equally I think that we have to acknowledge that they could also fail and do worse.

The problem then arises as to what City do with the debt that that they have taken in the club's name in the meantime.

[Badger 2,405]

4 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

They would all sack a failing manager. The Socialists don't.

I agree with you Vince - I think that they would have sacked Farke earlier. Apart from sacking managers more quickly could you identify any other advantages from the three owners identified?

[Big Vince 318]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

I agree with you Vince - I think that they would have sacked Farke earlier. Apart from sacking managers more quickly could you identify any other advantages from the three owners identified?

Those owners have clubs spending more time in the EPL than us.

[nutty nigel 7,535]

1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

50/50. You are asking me questions you know the answers to

Sorry Doc but I don't know the answer. I listed these owners on here once. There are so many. Clubs like Forest had more than one but haven't  had a sniff of the PL since. My guess is a lot less than 50/50.

 

 

 

[Highland Canary 76]

Only with significant investment might the club flourish in the PL. Obviously, if the owners are not interested in a disposal then the current business strategy will continue. It follows that there’s no point in seeking to replace the manager and/or sporting director. The supporters must be prepared to accept decline through the football pyramid as those with much richer paymasters will increasingly out perform us.

[Badger 2,405]

13 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Those owners have clubs spending more time in the EPL than us.

Certainly true of Southampton, although the owner is relatively new as is the owner of Burnley.

My question is how could they ensure that City stay up? Burnley look dodgy, Watford are far from safe and Southampton are not "nailed on." They all carry massive debt (or the clubs do) - what happens when they are relegated, which will probably happen at some stage. Is this what you want for City?

[hogesar 9,672]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

They couldn’t but the chances would vastly improve. Unfortunately it just doesn’t happen with our wonderful present owners as we all know. 

Unfortunately thats not true. If it were, Derby would have been promoted instead of us years ago, and instead of in the Premier League we would actually be challenging at the top of League One.

Thats where we are financially if we go by owners wealth. Its demonstrably false that our chances of improving where we are in the football pyramid automatically increase with richer owners. Of course, there's a chance it could but if we look at the last 25 takeovers in English football there are more (relative to the club in question) failures than successes.

[Big Vince 318]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Certainly true of Southampton, although the owner is relatively new as is the owner of Burnley.

My question is how could they ensure that City stay up? Burnley look dodgy, Watford are far from safe and Southampton are not "nailed on." They all carry massive debt (or the clubs do) - what happens when they are relegated, which will probably happen at some stage. Is this what you want for City?

We are looking for a benefactor, not a pot-tin investor who is going to take money out or rack up huge debts.

We are looking for someone where money is no object - it just flows out of the ground underneath him.

Someone like Elon Musk - worth $292 billion.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

4 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Unfortunately thats not true. If it were, Derby would have been promoted instead of us years ago, and instead of in the Premier League we would actually be challenging at the top of League One.

Thats where we are financially if we go by owners wealth. Its demonstrably false that our chances of improving where we are in the football pyramid automatically increase with richer owners. Of course, there's a chance it could but if we look at the last 25 takeovers in English football there are more (relative to the club in question) failures than successes.

The fact that we are punching massively above our weight in terms of owner wealth doesn’t make the assertion that increased owner wealth gives a ‘greater chance of success’ false. You only need to take the average wealth of owners of PL, champ, L1 & 2 to see a correlation. If you are right why on earth are 80,000 geordies floating on cloud 9 at the moment, or maybe their all wrong?

[hogesar 9,672]

2 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

The fact that we are punching massively above our weight in terms of owner wealth doesn’t make the assertion that increased owner wealth gives a ‘greater chance of success’ false. You only need to take the average wealth of owners of PL, champ, L1 & 2 to see a correlation. If you are right why on earth are 80,000 geordies floating on cloud 9 at the moment, or maybe their all wrong?

Because we arent talking about a Newcastle.

We are talking about us. Who are already over achieving in comparison to our wealth quite significantly.

People seem to think when new owners come in everything remains the same, just now there's more money. Thats rarely the case and probably a reason why most clubs end up disappointed with their takeovers and often end up going backwards. It took Leeds 3 owners all worth significantly more than ours just to even get them in the prem, despite the fact they are a much bigger club than us in the first place.

I'm arguing the assertion that new owners would give us a better chance. That's not true. They could.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Because we arent talking about a Newcastle.

We are talking about us. Who are already over achieving in comparison to our wealth quite significantly.

People seem to think when new owners come in everything remains the same, just now there's more money. Thats rarely the case and probably a reason why most clubs end up disappointed with their takeovers and often end up going backwards. It took Leeds 3 owners all worth significantly more than ours just to even get them in the prem, despite the fact they are a much bigger club than us in the first place.

I'm arguing the assertion that new owners would give us a better chance. That's not true. They could.

In that case Hogesar I think we are roughly on the same page and freely admit that much richer owners could easy make a complete balls up of our club. I still not sure I agree with the wording, as you make it sound like a club with an owner worth £1 million has the same chance of PL survival as an club owner worth £1billion. There are infinite reasons why the richer club may do worse but from the outset, with no other variables the richer club clearly has more ‘chance’ to succeed. Probably me just reading it wrong 👍

Edited November 2, 2021 by Son Ova Gunn

[Samwam27 527]

Wrexham have got Ryan Reynolds, couldnt we persuade Hugh Jackman to take the reigns?

[Big Vince 318]

5 minutes ago, Samwam27 said:

Wrexham have got Ryan Reynolds, couldnt we persuade Hugh Jackman to take the reigns?

Who?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

25 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

In that case Hogesar I think we are roughly on the same page and freely admit that much richer owners could easy make a complete balls up of our club. I still not sure I agree with the wording, as you make it sound like a club with an owner worth £1 million has the same chance of PL survival as an club owner worth £1billion. There are infinite reasons why the richer club may do worse but from the outset, with no other variables the richer club clearly has more ‘chance’ to succeed. Probably me just reading it wrong 👍

So many are saying we need a wealthy owner to compete. Probably correct in the EPL but surely not as essential in the Championship. 

So why are so many determined or convinced that we should be in the EPL? Isn't just going to matches or supporting in exile like so many of us do enough? Of course winning is important and winning gets you promoted. But then for so many, the game itself isn't enough anymore. Its about ambition and being able to bull about what a club we are.

Thing is, we have been a club for over a century no matter where we perform. Do some  supporters seriously think beating ManC was our greatest achievement? Of course not. But it was a great moment in our history and maybe we should be happy with those moments.

[Midlands Yellow 3,984]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Unfortunately thats not true. If it were, Derby would have been promoted instead of us years ago, and instead of in the Premier League we would actually be challenging at the top of League One.

Thats where we are financially if we go by owners wealth. Its demonstrably false that our chances of improving where we are in the football pyramid automatically increase with richer owners. Of course, there's a chance it could but if we look at the last 25 takeovers in English football there are more (relative to the club in question) failures than successes.

Wouldn’t it be great if the club was put up for sale though formally. Anyone is allowed to express interest (including Johnny foreigners) and all due diligence takes place. Give it 6 months, nothing happens or the right owners don’t come along and we move on with Tom. Nothing to lose and everything to gain hey.