New owners/investors

[Badger 2,405]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

And you think our current owners haven’t got profit on their minor investment? 

I am absolutely sure that they have made a very big profit on their investment. The issue is whether someone buying their shares at market value would be able to do likewise. You are perfectly at liberty to outline to me a scenario whereby City could be worth £500 million+ in the future.

[Indy 3,283]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

I am absolutely sure that they have made a very big profit on their investment. The issue is whether someone buying their shares at market value would be able to do likewise. You are perfectly at liberty to outline to me a scenario whereby City could be worth £500 million+ in the future.

What you mean like Leicester, from Filbert street to champions league! It can be done but not under the current way of thinking! Still each to their own……

[Badger 2,405]

3 minutes ago, Indy said:

Or ask Southampton’s or Leicester or West Ham…….

1. West Ham fans have spent years protesting about Gold and Sullivan.

2. Southampton fans would love to get rid of Gao Jisheng - but not as much as he would like to get rid of Southampton!

3. I would love to have an owner like Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha. But then everybody else does too...

I notice that you didn't even try to defend the benefits of Glazers and Ashley despite saying it is "certainly a benefit." perhaps you should reconsider the original statement?

[Indy 3,283]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

1. West Ham fans have spent years protesting about Gold and Sullivan.

2. Southampton fans would love to get rid of Gao Jisheng - but not as much as he would like to get rid of Southampton!

3. I would love to have an owner like Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha. But then everybody else does too...

I notice that you didn't even try to defend the benefits of Glazers and Ashley despite saying it is "certainly a benefit." perhaps you should reconsider the original statement?

Why defend them, I’m not defending or having a dig at anyone, I like lot of others are ready to see if a new owner if they ever get the chance can move us forwards, if that means they make millions out of the club by moving us forwards great for them. You only have a single view point and that’s to stay as we are…..great let’s do that it has little impact on my life I just like to debate on here and without investment we can agree we’ll be this level at best and if we’re all happy with that then great…..it’s Delia’s club after all.👍

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

What you mean like Leicester, from Filbert street to champions league! It can be done but not under the current way of thinking! Still each to their own……

You think Leicester owners have made a profit from their investment? Dream on...

Basically, you seem to be suggesting that we could be the next Leicester and ignore all the other clubs where it hasn't been the case.

We could get a multi-billionaire donor, but it would probably be a safer bet to sell Aarons and put it all on number 35 in a casino!

[Badger 2,405]

4 minutes ago, Indy said:

Why defend them

Because you said, 

3 hours ago, Indy said:

A billionaire businessman is certainly a benefit. I can’t see how this can be anything other than positive

I pointed out examples where others felt it certainly wasn't  a benefit + wasn't "anything other than positive." I thought that you might want to defend what you said, but of course you don't have to.

 

[Indy 3,283]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

You think Leicester owners have made a profit from their investment? Dream on...

Basically, you seem to be suggesting that we could be the next Leicester and ignore all the other clubs where it hasn't been the case.

We could get a multi-billionaire donor, but it would probably be a safer bet to sell Aarons and put it all on number 35 in a casino!

There you go….ask any Leicester fan if they think like you before their change in owners! Leicester are worth more than 500 million as a club as you asked!

You are perfectly at liberty to outline to me a scenario whereby City could be worth £500 million+ in the future.

Now go and argue your mute opinion with someone who actually cares, if you’re happy with things as we are then great…….I’m not bothered either way, just pointing out that with relegation this time will probably come a prolonged championship stay…..time will tell.

[Midlands Yellow 3,924]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

You think Leicester owners have made a profit from their investment? Dream on...

Basically, you seem to be suggesting that we could be the next Leicester and ignore all the other clubs where it hasn't been the case.

We could get a multi-billionaire donor, but it would probably be a safer bet to sell Aarons and put it all on number 35 in a casino!

How much have they lost at Leicester Badger? I’m confused, I thought you’ve said they all want a return on their investments, these billionaires. 

[DraytonBoy 142]

Just like any investment/asset purchase the profit or loss will only become apparent when it is sold. 

This is from 2016 but even now I would imagine the current owners of Leicester are more than happy with their purchase 

https://www.cityam.com/leicester-citys-owner-will-be-able-to-sell-club-for-more-than-10-times-what-he-paid-for-it-if-foxes-win-the-premier-league/

Edited November 11, 2021 by DraytonBoy

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I think that there is a difference to debt to improve the infrastructure and debt to finance current operations - infrastructure improvements would generate revenue and improve profitability. This is completely different to "having a punt on a 30 year old striker." I have not seen a convincing argument against expanding the ground: to me it is just a matter of when.

I'm not disagreeing with you here Badger - I didn;t mean "you" are obsessed with not taking on debt, I meant our board/owners who have not been prepared to take on long term debt which again places us at something of a disadvantage to our competitors at time (as well as of course preserving thevalue of their asset!). It should have been done by now. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I am absolutely sure that they have made a very big profit on their investment. The issue is whether someone buying their shares at market value would be able to do likewise. You are perfectly at liberty to outline to me a scenario whereby City could be worth £500 million+ in the future.

Of course they once said words to the effect that they didn;t expect to make a profit and that someone could have the club for nothing if they were able to take it forward. You'd probably find a few takers in that scenario!

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

There you go….ask any Leicester fan if they think like you before their change in owners! Leicester are worth more than 500 million as a club as you asked!

1. So despite saying "A billionaire businessman is certainly a benefit" and "I can’t see how this can be anything other than positive" you can only identify Leicester as a place where it has benefitted. I actually think that there are more than that - I just don't agree it is certainly a benefit - often it isn't.

2. Leicester isn't worth £500 million. You wouldn't buy City for £39 million that Leicester cost.

3. I asked you for a plausible scenario where City could be worth £500 million, so that an investor could make the same sort of return buying us as they could do at West Ham.

[Badger 2,405]

18 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I'm not disagreeing with you here Badger - I didn;t mean "you" are obsessed with not taking on debt, I meant our board/owners who have not been prepared to take on long term debt which again places us at something of a disadvantage to our competitors at time (as well as of course preserving thevalue of their asset!). It should have been done by now. 

If that is the case it would certainly hold us back. I'm not sure that it is though: they did take on debt to pay for the training ground improvements.

If I believed that the club will not expand the ground in the foreseeable future I would agree with you. We need to expand the ground to give us the revenue to be prosperous in the premier league and more importantly, we need to expand the capacity to allow more seats for youngsters and family to grow the next generation of fans. The population of Norwich has expanded sharply in the last 20 years - the club needs to grow with the City.

[Indy 3,283]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

1. So despite saying "A billionaire businessman is certainly a benefit" and "I can’t see how this can be anything other than positive" you can only identify Leicester as a place where it has benefitted. I actually think that there are more than that - I just don't agree it is certainly a benefit - often it isn't.

2. Leicester isn't worth £500 million. You wouldn't buy City for £39 million that Leicester cost.

3. I asked you for a plausible scenario where City could be worth £500 million, so that an investor could make the same sort of return buying us as they could do at West Ham.

I’m not arguing with you, you have your view and no debating will change that….👍

[nutty nigel 7,509]

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think we'd be better off with Leicester's owners.

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think we'd be better off with Leicester's owners.

Regrettably there's a lot on here who think that we are likely to get similar owners rather than the vast majority of investor owners who just see the club they own as a source for profit.

[Badger 2,405]

19 minutes ago, Indy said:

I’m not arguing with you, you have your view and no debating will change that….👍

My view is that a billionaire owner does not always benefit and that it is not always positive. You are correct, I wont change my view on that as it is simply and demonstrably the case.

What is more surprising is that you will not change you view that a billionaire "certainly benefits" and is nothing "other than positive" when this so is clearly is not the case and recent football history has plenty of examples. I don't really believe that you believe this either but for some reason just don't want acknowledge the obvious.

OTBC 👍

[Fromage Frais 10]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

I am absolutely sure that they have made a very big profit on their investment. The issue is whether someone buying their shares at market value would be able to do likewise. You are perfectly at liberty to outline to me a scenario whereby City could be worth £500 million+ in the future.

This

City are well run not in much debt and make money from selling players at the moment.

If they stay in the premier league they are going to make some money from being there + selling players.

If they get relegated (likely) not so much.

I can only see a few scenarios where Norwich City become attractive.

1)  We stay in the premier league with a comfortably mid table side for another couple of seasons more prestigious and lower risk of relegation.  You might be able to sell at value but i dont see someone paying a premium esp once rates start to rise.

2)  The current owners become motivated or distressed and sell for cheap due to relegation etc

If City go down and the club goes into a bit of a tailspin the most profitable punt for a 25-100 million to spend investor is buying the club and getting promoted then potentially selling for 100m

There are a lot of folk like that and few maybe even in the area I think reports put Delia and husband putting say 10-20 million in back in the day.

However at the moment with the club in the premier league and not doing great who is going to pay the 100-200m and then roll the dice on staying up.

Your then talking about billionaires rolling the dice for what is a very low return where you are more likely to lose your money and get abused than making money.

The big reason big clubs are going for such cash is a bet on a super league and cutting teams like City loose.  We saw what the giants of Europe want to do.

At some stage they are going to try and do a premier league netflix and take control and try and get more money and at every stage the new investors and large clubs are going to try and cut out and do down the also rans like us.








 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

34 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't think we'd be better off with Leicester's owners.

It's a strange one. They exist in very hi-so circles in a country with a massive gap between rich and poor.

King Power, the company behind the family, have maintained very close contacts with successive Thai Governments, including that of the disgraced and (voluntarily) exiled Thaksin Sinawatra, who is avoiding imprisonment for corruption. 

Just how many brown envelopes were filled for them to acquire virtual control of the country's duty-free concessions is unknown, but they recently donated heavily to the unpopular military government who usurped power via a coup a few years ago and have been repressive.

They have invested heavily in the country's youth football, but just how this compares with the money that they have ploughed into Leicester City FC and the local community there is debatable.

I am not sure that they would pass the "Delia suitability" test once under scrutiny.

Edited November 11, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[essex canary 491]

22 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

If Lampard is installed as our new head coach his net worth is estimated at £66 million or so i read somewhere which outstrips D & M by some distance so you never know he might want to invest.

A manager owner, now there's a novel idea. 

Could also be a reason why he won't be coming?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

37 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

It's a strange one. They exist in very hi-so circles in a country with a massive gap between rich and poor.

King Power, the company behind the family, have maintained very close contacts with successive Thai Governments, including that of the disgraced and (voluntarily) exiled Thaksin Sinawatra, who is avoiding imprisonment for corruption. 

Just how many brown envelopes were filled for them to acquire virtual control of the country's duty-free concessions is unknown, but they recently donated heavily to the unpopular military government who usurped power via a coup a few years ago and have been repressive.

They have invested heavily in the country's youth football, but just how this compares with the money that they have ploughed into Leicester City FC and the local community there is debatable.

I am not sure that they would pass the "Delia suitability" test once under scrutiny.

I have no idea what the suitability test is.

 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

16 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

I have no idea what the suitability test is.

 

Perhaps not, but we have every reason to be aware of the 'unsuitable.' Pesky foreign investors who have no genuine interest in the club and community and range from those on "camels arriving from up the A11," to a not 'family club-orientated' family like the Srivad'prabhas. 

In fact, I can only recall one person thus far mentioned as 'suitable.'

Have you any idea of anyone else?

[Badger 2,405]

53 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Have you any idea of anyone else?

Speaking personally I would take the Leicester owners, or Brighton's or a multi-billionaire donor. I just don't think that there as many of them about as others do. For every "great" owner there are many  more poor ones and some are truly egregious. I just don't think that there is a queue of people waiting to give us money and I can't see a plausible profitable exit strategy for an "investor" who paid market value for the club. Nor, I think, does anybody else - as far as I'm aware nobody has outlined such a strategy?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

Perhaps not, but we have every reason to be aware of the 'unsuitable.' Pesky foreign investors who have no genuine interest in the club and community and range from those on "camels arriving from up the A11," to a not 'family club-orientated' family like the Srivad'prabhas. 

In fact, I can only recall one person thus far mentioned as 'suitable.'

Have you any idea of anyone else?

No idea 

Did you know Leicester's owners were interested before they appeared at Leicester? 

But it's not if I have any idea. It's if Webber has any idea and before that if Bowkett had any idea.

All I do know is the  majority of the "wish we were" owners have failed to achieve this PL established place that we demand.

 

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

12 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

No idea 

Did you know Leicester's owners were interested before they appeared at Leicester? 

But it's not if I have any idea. It's if Webber has any idea and before that if Bowkett had any idea.

All I do know is the  majority of the "wish we were" owners have failed to achieve this PL established place that we demand.

 

We were talking about the 'suitability' of potential owners, not who may or may not be interested in the task.

We wouldn't have a clue as to who might be interested in NCFC, let alone Leicester. There has been little activity/news on that front for many a year.

Potential re-placement owners might be few and far between for all we know, although Evans, when down the road, said that he had quite a few potential buyers over the years.

Perhaps he was less discerning than our Delia. O'Leary has recently stated that he was a bit "fussy" about credentials and prospects for the club though.

I suspect Delia's criteria might be stricter, if she has one at all beyond the Tom Smith bequest.

Edited November 11, 2021 by BroadstairsR

[nutty nigel 7,509]

5 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

We were talking about the 'suitability' of potential owners, not who may or may not be interested in the task.

We wouldn't have a clue as to who might be interested in NCFC, let alone Leicester. There has been little activity/news on that front for many a year.

Potential re-placement owners might be few and far between for all we know, although Evans, when down the road, said that he had quite a few potential buyers over the years.

Perhaps he was less discerning than our Delia.

You've made my point perfectly Broady.

But perhaps we did actually miss the boat with Evans. Things could have been so different.

Your obsession with Delia is "interesting"

What about dear old Wynnie?

 

Edited November 11, 2021 by nutty nigel

[BroadstairsR 2,138]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

You've made my point perfectly Broady.

But perhaps we did actually miss the boat with Evans. Things could have been so different.

Your obsession with Delia is "interesting"

What about dear old Wynnie?

 

I haven't time to be obsessed with Delia in any way shape or form.😀

It's just that now the penny has finally dropped for me regards ownership, as previously stated, I intend sticking to my guns. Until Lampard steers us to mid-table that is.

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,924]

2 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You've made my point perfectly Broadly.

But perhaps we did actually miss the boat with Evans. Things could have been so different.

Your obsession with Delia is "interesting"

What about dear old Wynnie?

 

Wynnie is good stuff, always a gaff in him when he opens his mouth. 

[shefcanary 2,383]

7 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You've made my point perfectly Broady.

But perhaps we did actually miss the boat with Evans. Things could have been so different.

Your obsession with Delia is "interesting"

What about dear old Wynnie?

 

Don't forget Foulger in all this as well, @nutty nigel