southampton new owner

[Indy 3,286]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

From Norwich to the M25 it is around 2 hours drive, but that isn't London. It depends on which part of London you are going to. West London is another hour added to the journey and if you are going to central London, anything is possible from one hour to three hours added to the journey. If you could get to, say, Fulham in 2 hours by car, you would need Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.....

Sorry Lakey, but regularly drive from home to Newbury Park or Gants Hill, it’s 106 miles and takes around 1 hour 55. But this is a pointless debate as it has **** all to do with how attractive this club is to any future buyer. If they want to be in London they will buy a London club, lots to buy! Orient, Charlton, QPR to Wimbledon.

[canarydan23 4,060]

54 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

🤣🤣

Not sure why that would amuse you, it's a cast iron fact.

[canarydan23 4,060]

23 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That will be why all those billionaires keep trying to buy Portsmouth and Hull.

Or not.

Portsmouth isn't a great example, what with the billionaire owner they effectively actually have, but I agree with your general point.

[Foxy2600 297]

Ah the filthy rich Chinese corrupt owner rescinds his 80% ownership and accepts a feeble offer of £112m from an equally corrupt Serbian media mogul - lol! 
 

The Prem is Dead!

Looking forward to another great season in the EFL Championship.

[lake district canary 4,531]

1 hour ago, Indy said:

Sorry Lakey, but regularly drive from home to Newbury Park or Gants Hill, it’s 106 miles and takes around 1 hour 55. But this is a pointless debate as it has **** all to do with how attractive this club is to any future buyer. If they want to be in London they will buy a London club, lots to buy! Orient, Charlton, QPR to Wimbledon.

Like I said, it depends on what you class as London. Gants Hill is not really "London". It's actually in Essex.

And to do Fulham in 2 1/2 hours as @canarydan23 claims, is not really practical, unless you travel during the night when there is minimal traffic.

[Indy 3,286]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

Like I said, it depends on what you class as London. Gants Hill is not really "London". It's actually in Essex.

And to do Fulham in 2 1/2 hours as @canarydan23 claims, is not really practical, unless you travel during the night when there is minimal traffic.

But that’s irrelevant really like I said! What’s London got to do with anything? Southampton is 50 miles from London had they wanted to be in London you buy a London club?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

The point I am making is that anybody that describes Norwich as a Provincial City in the middle of nowhere is totally wrong and it doesn't make us less attractive to investors... See Newcastle, Bolton, Wolves, Bournemouth as a few examples.

Ps. Croydon to Norwich can be done in 3 hours by train. Thank you

[Indy 3,286]

5 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

The point I am making is that anybody that describes Norwich as a Provincial City in the middle of nowhere is totally wrong and it doesn't make us less attractive to investors... See Newcastle, Bolton, Wolves, Bournemouth as a few examples.

Ps. Croydon to Norwich can be done in 3 hours by train. Thank you

Yeh but as I said, it makes zero difference to any potential investors unless they live in London and if they did I’m pretty sure they would travel in style and time wouldn’t be of any issue!

I can’t see any point in saying we’re a provincial city, every city outside London is a provincial city in theory including Manchester!

[hogesar 9,618]

15 hours ago, king canary said:

I agree about waiting and seeing but I do agree with the wider point Jim and Co make that the fact other clubs have seemingly little issue finding people who want to buy them does somewhat undermine the constant insistence that nobody is out there. The fact people are now baselessly tieing this takeover to Southampton's shipping industry highlights the backflips and contortions people need to do in order to make the case our owners are actually really open minded when it comes to invesent/selling.

I think there's only a couple of posters who don't think there isn't anyone looking to buy Premier League football clubs. There are and always will be. The fact that a % of them are complete fraudsters is what puts me off, whilst others who seemingly aren't fraudsters still can't achieve what we have (i'll address that below)

15 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

I wasn’t personally bemoaning the fact we’ve not been bought out by this owner. Just making the point really that it’s just further proof that there are people out there who want to buy premier league football clubs like ours, if you look for them or make it known you are open to offers. 

Of course there are people, although if you have to make them aware that our club exists then I start to doubt if they're the right buyers.

13 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

But if our current owners are as good as we keep getting told and did due diligence then it such not be an issue. Failure of other clubs does not mean failure here...  

They already have done - they've said they've turned down options already where 90% of them were unable to actually prove they had anywhere near the funds they said they did. They've probably turned down 100 fraudsters since they first arrived into the club.

Anyway, we need to look at the reality. Here are clubs with richer owners who are above us:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Brentford
Brighton & Hove Albion
Burnley
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers

That's 19, for the record. These are the clubs with richer owners who are below us:
QPR
Stoke City
Barnsley
Fulham
West Brom
Bristol City
Preston
Reading
Blackburn 
Cardiff City
Derby County
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth
Sheffield United
Blackpool
Swansea City
Portsmouth
Sheffield Wednesday
Milton Keynes Dons
Rotherham United
Fleetwood Town
Bolton Wanderers
Sunderland
Bristol Rovers
S****horpe United
Swindon Town
Bradford City
Forest Green Rovers
Stevenage
Colchester United
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Salford City

Coventry City

Wigan

Ipswich

Peterborough 

 

There's over 40 above, without trying. The biggest problem with attracting new owners is we're already quite largely overachieving based on our financial constraints. Even with significant investment it's demonstrably proven that in all likelihood our long-term positioning as a club would be relatively similar to it is now. So where do these new owners make money? 

It's not just that either. Everyone assumes with new owners that where we are now is a base and new owners just enhance that. That is rarely how it works. New owners often have completely new ideas and therefore it is wrong to assume that all the 'good' we have now simply stays, new owners give us half a billion and we challenge for Europe forever more. It's a pipe dream.

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,251]

30 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think there's only a couple of posters who don't think there isn't anyone looking to buy Premier League football clubs. There are and always will be. The fact that a % of them are complete fraudsters is what puts me off, whilst others who seemingly aren't fraudsters still can't achieve what we have (i'll address that below)

Of course there are people, although if you have to make them aware that our club exists then I start to doubt if they're the right buyers.

They already have done - they've said they've turned down options already where 90% of them were unable to actually prove they had anywhere near the funds they said they did. They've probably turned down 100 fraudsters since they first arrived into the club.

Anyway, we need to look at the reality. Here are clubs with richer owners who are above us:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Brentford
Brighton & Hove Albion
Burnley
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers

That's 19, for the record. These are the clubs with richer owners who are below us:
QPR
Stoke City
Barnsley
Fulham
West Brom
Bristol City
Preston
Reading
Blackburn 
Cardiff City
Derby County
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth
Sheffield United
Blackpool
Swansea City
Portsmouth
Sheffield Wednesday
Milton Keynes Dons
Rotherham United
Fleetwood Town
Bolton Wanderers
Sunderland
Bristol Rovers
S****horpe United
Swindon Town
Bradford City
Forest Green Rovers
Stevenage
Colchester United
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Salford City

Coventry City

Wigan

Ipswich

Peterborough 

 

There's over 40 above, without trying. The biggest problem with attracting new owners is we're already quite largely overachieving based on our financial constraints. Even with significant investment it's demonstrably proven that in all likelihood our long-term positioning as a club would be relatively similar to it is now. So where do these new owners make money? 

It's not just that either. Everyone assumes with new owners that where we are now is a base and new owners just enhance that. That is rarely how it works. New owners often have completely new ideas and therefore it is wrong to assume that all the 'good' we have now simply stays, new owners give us half a billion and we challenge for Europe forever more. It's a pipe dream.

 

With proper investment, we'd have taken more of the opportunities we've given ourselves over the last 10 years. The board have to take credit for overseeing promotions, although I can't quite fathom how they've pulled it off, but they've been so far behind in the EPL.

We haven't grown with our opportunities - which constrains competitiveness and ultimately leads to failure. Which is where we are heading as a club.  Colney serves as a legacy for some of our recent success, but other than that, very little. Carrow Road is ageing and in desperate need of redevelopment. The value of the playing squad is plummeting... We're becoming stagnant. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[hogesar 9,618]

13 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

With proper investment, we'd have taken more of the opportunities we've given ourselves over the last 10 years. The board have to take credit for overseeing promotions, although I can't quite fathom how they've pulled it off, but they've been so far behind in the EPL.

We haven't grown with our opportunities - which constrains competitiveness and ultimately leads to failure. Which is where we are heading as a club.  Colney serves as a legacy for some of our recent success, but other than that, very little. Carrow Road is ageing and in desperate need of redevelopment. The value of the playing squad is plummeting... We're becoming stagnant. 

We might have done, but there's evidence from other clubs to suggest that's not the case.

Also, it depends when the investment would have come in. It's easily plausible that we sold out upon, let's say, the Alex Neil promotion, got relegated anyway, and the new owners didn't get us promoted again. Would that have been better than more promotions? The flipside is we could have retained our Premier League status for longer of course. What are the odds though? 

And, importantly, what's the long-term view of these new owners and proper investment? Is it to make money? How do they do that whilst keeping us competitive in the Premier League? 

I don't disagree that this season has been difficult to stomach so far but I'm careful not to assume that investment would have equalled further success. There's so many examples where that's not the case and so many significantly richer clubs who haven't been able to get close to where we find ourselves. Of the 19 richer teams above us, how many are similarly sized clubs? 6 at a push? 

We're essentially saying there's 6 clubs with more money than us who are a similar size and doing better than us.

On the flipside there's arguably 15 clubs with more money than us who are a similar size and doing worse than us.

It's no good saying "Yeah but if they get promoted they'll do a better job of staying up" because they've not been able to achieve the initial target of promotion in the first place.

Outside investment into the current structure, philosophy and ownership model would be great. Everything stays at it's current positioning but we have more flexibility in the market. I would absolutely welcome it. It just seems incredibly unrealistic.

[Indy 3,286]

48 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I think there's only a couple of posters who don't think there isn't anyone looking to buy Premier League football clubs. There are and always will be. The fact that a % of them are complete fraudsters is what puts me off, whilst others who seemingly aren't fraudsters still can't achieve what we have (i'll address that below)

Of course there are people, although if you have to make them aware that our club exists then I start to doubt if they're the right buyers.

They already have done - they've said they've turned down options already where 90% of them were unable to actually prove they had anywhere near the funds they said they did. They've probably turned down 100 fraudsters since they first arrived into the club.

Anyway, we need to look at the reality. Here are clubs with richer owners who are above us:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Brentford
Brighton & Hove Albion
Burnley
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers

That's 19, for the record. These are the clubs with richer owners who are below us:
QPR
Stoke City
Barnsley
Fulham
West Brom
Bristol City
Preston
Reading
Blackburn 
Cardiff City
Derby County
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth
Sheffield United
Blackpool
Swansea City
Portsmouth
Sheffield Wednesday
Milton Keynes Dons
Rotherham United
Fleetwood Town
Bolton Wanderers
Sunderland
Bristol Rovers
S****horpe United
Swindon Town
Bradford City
Forest Green Rovers
Stevenage
Colchester United
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Salford City

Coventry City

Wigan

Ipswich

Peterborough 

 

There's over 40 above, without trying. The biggest problem with attracting new owners is we're already quite largely overachieving based on our financial constraints. Even with significant investment it's demonstrably proven that in all likelihood our long-term positioning as a club would be relatively similar to it is now. So where do these new owners make money? 

It's not just that either. Everyone assumes with new owners that where we are now is a base and new owners just enhance that. That is rarely how it works. New owners often have completely new ideas and therefore it is wrong to assume that all the 'good' we have now simply stays, new owners give us half a billion and we challenge for Europe forever more. It's a pipe dream.

 

You’ve missed out Oxford. 
 

What I would say is in the Championship down there are controlled measures in place to prevent rich owners just buying their way through to the premiership. The EFL fair play does have an effect. The flip side is decent owners are setting up each club in terms of infrastructure, coaching and club attractiveness to potential players. It’s only when you hit the premiership you really benefit from rich owners who will back up the club to buy big and pay big. Yes most use the club as the lending platform and accrue debt on it, but that’s probably more to do with accounting practices than being dodgy owners.

The reality is after nearly 30 years and the owners being so tired recently surely it’s better for this club to move onto the next phase, the fans are slowly turning against the owners and even if it’s Toms turn, it would be a step change to a new way forwards, what we don’t want is auntie Delia dictating like a puppet master behind the scene. For me I want a full change, after all this time it’s something I’d like to see, the gamble on new owners taking us forwards, because as we are we’re now moving backwards and without promotion next year we will carry on moving backwards.

[hogesar 9,618]

2 minutes ago, Indy said:

You’ve missed out Oxford. 
 

What I would say is in the Championship down there are controlled measures in place to prevent rich owners just buying their way through to the premiership. The EFL fair play does have an effect. The flip side is decent owners are setting up each club in terms of infrastructure, coaching and club attractiveness to potential players. It’s only when you hit the premiership you really benefit from rich owners who will back up the club to buy big and pay big. Yes most use the club as the lending platform and accrue debt on it, but that’s probably more to do with accounting practices than being dodgy owners.

The reality is after nearly 30 years and the owners being so tired recently surely it’s better for this club to move onto the next phase, the fans are slowly turning against the owners and even if it’s Toms turn, it would be a step change to a new way forwards, what we don’t want is auntie Delia dictating like a puppet master behind the scene. For me I want a full change, after all this time it’s something I’d like to see, the gamble on new owners taking us forwards, because as we are we’re now moving backwards and without promotion next year we will carry on moving backwards.

1) There are, but owners have completely ignored that in the past in the gamble for promotion and taken the hit if it came their way. There's also multiple loopholes previous clubs have taken advantage of. It also doesn't really explain how we keep managing to get promoted with no money but they don't. 

2) I don't think that's really true. I've not heard any dissent towards the owners whilst in the ground for years. There's always been people complaining online, and upon our last relegation the Delia Out group were so committed and determined that they couldn't raise £1 per person towards some stupid banner.

3) To say we're moving backwards is to ignore a lot of the work that's gone on at the club, and is still going on. We've developed fantastic training facilities that are the envy of a lot of Premier League clubs. Instead of potential new signings being put off by our facilities the opposite is true - this is a long term benefit. We've shown youth a clear route into the first team and have consistently invested in younger players irrespective of our Premier League position. We've developed and enhanced a significant loan system for our young players. Even in the first team this season, we've got Omobamidele coming through, whilst we have signed young players with potential to improve in Tzolis and Sargent (both of whom I could see doing very well at Championship level - with what we paid for them they would still represent good value in todays market even if they never developed into Premier League level players).

The owners, the board and staff at the club aren't as simplistic as us fans. Or at least some. Getting relegated doesn't long-term mean 'moving backwards'. 

 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,251]

17 minutes ago, hogesar said:

We might have done, but there's evidence from other clubs to suggest that's not the case.

Also, it depends when the investment would have come in. It's easily plausible that we sold out upon, let's say, the Alex Neil promotion, got relegated anyway, and the new owners didn't get us promoted again. Would that have been better than more promotions? The flipside is we could have retained our Premier League status for longer of course. What are the odds though? 

And, importantly, what's the long-term view of these new owners and proper investment? Is it to make money? How do they do that whilst keeping us competitive in the Premier League? 

I don't disagree that this season has been difficult to stomach so far but I'm careful not to assume that investment would have equalled further success. There's so many examples where that's not the case and so many significantly richer clubs who haven't been able to get close to where we find ourselves. Of the 19 richer teams above us, how many are similarly sized clubs? 6 at a push? 

We're essentially saying there's 6 clubs with more money than us who are a similar size and doing better than us.

On the flipside there's arguably 15 clubs with more money than us who are a similar size and doing worse than us.

It's no good saying "Yeah but if they get promoted they'll do a better job of staying up" because they've not been able to achieve the initial target of promotion in the first place.

Outside investment into the current structure, philosophy and ownership model would be great. Everything stays at it's current positioning but we have more flexibility in the market. I would absolutely welcome it. It just seems incredibly unrealistic.

I suppose it ultimately depends on how much investment takes place. Most of the richer clubs below us, Blackburn for example, have rich owners but aren't investing a lot of money into their respective clubs. Perhaps that changes upon promotion to the EPL. 

We'll never have a better chance to attract significant investment whilst being in the EPL. There's all types of investment out there, some risky, some less so. And all kinds of agendas for rich owners. I don't disagree with anything you've said, by the way.

My gripe is that Delia and co are completely disinterested in actively progressing this club. Even if we stick to the self funded model, where's the outside of the box thinking from a diverse and motivated team? It looked like Webber was this, but after some high profile staff departures it looks like we're going backwards. 

Delia needs to move on. We need a fresh approach from the top - and ideally while we have the benefit of being an EPL side! I know Brentford gets banded about a lot, but it truly is refreshing and incredible to see how they're run and the success that's come from it. 

The club, Carrow Road, job lot, needs a shake up. And that's not to say there hasn't been some good work going on, there has, Colney an example. But I fear another relegation and it stagnates. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

11 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Delia needs to move on. We need a fresh approach from the top - and ideally while we have the benefit of being an EPL side! I know Brentford gets banded about a lot, but it truly is refreshing and incredible to see how they're run and the success that's come from it. 

The club, Carrow Road, job lot, needs a shake up. And that's not to say there hasn't been some good work going on, there has, Colney an example. But I fear another relegation and it stagnates. 

Irrespective of any longer-term plan there should be a new face or two in the boardroom. Ed Balls obviously had an invigorating effect, and we could do with that kind of thing again.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

I think there's only a couple of posters who don't think there isn't anyone looking to buy Premier League football clubs. There are and always will be. The fact that a % of them are complete fraudsters is what puts me off, whilst others who seemingly aren't fraudsters still can't achieve what we have (i'll address that below)

Of course there are people, although if you have to make them aware that our club exists then I start to doubt if they're the right buyers.

They already have done - they've said they've turned down options already where 90% of them were unable to actually prove they had anywhere near the funds they said they did. They've probably turned down 100 fraudsters since they first arrived into the club.

Anyway, we need to look at the reality. Here are clubs with richer owners who are above us:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Brentford
Brighton & Hove Albion
Burnley
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers

That's 19, for the record. These are the clubs with richer owners who are below us:
QPR
Stoke City
Barnsley
Fulham
West Brom
Bristol City
Preston
Reading
Blackburn 
Cardiff City
Derby County
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth
Sheffield United
Blackpool
Swansea City
Portsmouth
Sheffield Wednesday
Milton Keynes Dons
Rotherham United
Fleetwood Town
Bolton Wanderers
Sunderland
Bristol Rovers
S****horpe United
Swindon Town
Bradford City
Forest Green Rovers
Stevenage
Colchester United
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Salford City

Coventry City

Wigan

Ipswich

Peterborough 

 

There's over 40 above, without trying. The biggest problem with attracting new owners is we're already quite largely overachieving based on our financial constraints. Even with significant investment it's demonstrably proven that in all likelihood our long-term positioning as a club would be relatively similar to it is now. So where do these new owners make money? 

It's not just that either. Everyone assumes with new owners that where we are now is a base and new owners just enhance that. That is rarely how it works. New owners often have completely new ideas and therefore it is wrong to assume that all the 'good' we have now simply stays, new owners give us half a billion and we challenge for Europe forever more. It's a pipe dream.

 

Its not about making them aware we exist. Its about entering into dialogue with them if they approach or indeed letting it be known to them that the possibility of investing in/buying us exists. As opposed to stonewalling any approach.

My point is not about whether we are doing better or worse than richer clubs, its about how we have done compared to other clubs who have had the same number of recent opportunities to establish themselves in the top flight because its those wasted opportunities that really grate with me as I do not believe we will continue to get them with the same regularity (if at all). if you want evidence of this sonce the 2010-11 season only 7 clubs have been promoted more than once. West Brom (despite being seen as a comparable) aren';t actually one of them as they had 6 consecutive premier league seasons in that period before being relegated. Of those 7 clubs, 6 of them have been promoted twice. We are the only one with more than 2 promotions in that period with FOUR.

You will no doubt argue that shows we have been successful in bouncing back but i would argue it shows we have had more opportunities over this period than any other club and we have wasted/messed up them all.

Incidentally in that period 24 different teams have been promoted to the premier league. We are currently below 12 of them and above 11 of them. TEN of those promoted clubs (Leicester, Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Brentord, Wolves, Palace, Southampton, West Ham and Brighton) have stayed in the premier league and not been relegated since they were promoted if you include Brentford on the assumption they look like being ok this season. 

 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

But I do agree with you @hogesar that the ideal would be a scenario that saw the current board supplemented by someone who can bring significant investment with them. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

29 minutes ago, hogesar said:

1) There are, but owners have completely ignored that in the past in the gamble for promotion and taken the hit if it came their way. There's also multiple loopholes previous clubs have taken advantage of. It also doesn't really explain how we keep managing to get promoted with no money but they don't. 

2) I don't think that's really true. I've not heard any dissent towards the owners whilst in the ground for years. There's always been people complaining online, and upon our last relegation the Delia Out group were so committed and determined that they couldn't raise £1 per person towards some stupid banner.

3) To say we're moving backwards is to ignore a lot of the work that's gone on at the club, and is still going on. We've developed fantastic training facilities that are the envy of a lot of Premier League clubs. Instead of potential new signings being put off by our facilities the opposite is true - this is a long term benefit. We've shown youth a clear route into the first team and have consistently invested in younger players irrespective of our Premier League position. We've developed and enhanced a significant loan system for our young players. Even in the first team this season, we've got Omobamidele coming through, whilst we have signed young players with potential to improve in Tzolis and Sargent (both of whom I could see doing very well at Championship level - with what we paid for them they would still represent good value in todays market even if they never developed into Premier League level players).

The owners, the board and staff at the club aren't as simplistic as us fans. Or at least some. Getting relegated doesn't long-term mean 'moving backwards'. 

 

We don't keep getting promoted with no money. With the exception perhaps of the first farke promotion (although our wages were still pretty high then) we get promoted because the parachute payments, supplemented by the odd high value sale, enable us to retain a few premier league quality players and run a much higher wage bill than the majority of the division. 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

With proper investment, we'd have taken more of the opportunities we've given ourselves over the last 10 years.

1. How much is proper investment?

2. What evidence do you have to support this assertion? I know abut Leicester, but what about Fulham, Sheffield Utd, WBA, Bournemouth, Stoke etc. How much evidence do you have that the promoted clubs receiving "proper investment" have established themselves as premier league clubs?

[hogesar 9,618]

58 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Its not about making them aware we exist. Its about entering into dialogue with them if they approach or indeed letting it be known to them that the possibility of investing in/buying us exists. As opposed to stonewalling any approach.

My point is not about whether we are doing better or worse than richer clubs, its about how we have done compared to other clubs who have had the same number of recent opportunities to establish themselves in the top flight because its those wasted opportunities that really grate with me as I do not believe we will continue to get them with the same regularity (if at all). if you want evidence of this sonce the 2010-11 season only 7 clubs have been promoted more than once. West Brom (despite being seen as a comparable) aren';t actually one of them as they had 6 consecutive premier league seasons in that period before being relegated. Of those 7 clubs, 6 of them have been promoted twice. We are the only one with more than 2 promotions in that period with FOUR.

You will no doubt argue that shows we have been successful in bouncing back but i would argue it shows we have had more opportunities over this period than any other club and we have wasted/messed up them all.

Incidentally in that period 24 different teams have been promoted to the premier league. We are currently below 12 of them and above 11 of them. TEN of those promoted clubs (Leicester, Newcastle, Villa, Leeds, Brentord, Wolves, Palace, Southampton, West Ham and Brighton) have stayed in the premier league and not been relegated since they were promoted if you include Brentford on the assumption they look like being ok this season. 

 

I'm equally frustrated we haven't taken 'advantage' of some of our promotions. I'd argue we did take advantage of it two seasons ago, we clearly made an active decision to reinvest the Premier League money into the long-term sustainability and infrastructure of the club. There is an argument to be made that with richer owners of course, this wouldn't have been required; but in our current model I understand the decisions that were made.

I don't disagree with much of your post, it shows how close the line is between success and failure on either side though - you point to failed opportunities, I point to regular bounce-backs not matched by other clubs, you refer to other clubs who haven't needed to because they've stayed in the league, I point at a Sheffield United who were heralded and we go back and forth.

That's where I think the pendulum swing makes it far more difficult for fans overall to be decisive on it. Had we had a 10 year sustained period in the Championship I'm not sure anyone would be arguing that new owners would be a gamble generally worth making. Because we've been so close (yet so far..) with this current model and ownership it makes the gamble that much harder to warrant I think. 

[SwindonCanary 455]

2 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Anyway, we need to look at the reality. Here are clubs with richer owners who are above us:

Arsenal
Aston Villa
Brentford
Brighton & Hove Albion
Burnley
Chelsea
Crystal Palace
Everton
Leeds United
Leicester City
Liverpool
Manchester City
Manchester United
Newcastle United
Southampton
Tottenham Hotspur
Watford
West Ham United
Wolverhampton Wanderers

That's 19, for the record. These are the clubs with richer owners who are below us:
QPR
Stoke City
Barnsley
Fulham
West Brom
Bristol City
Preston
Reading
Blackburn 
Cardiff City
Derby County
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Millwall
Bournemouth
Sheffield United
Blackpool
Swansea City
Portsmouth
Sheffield Wednesday
Milton Keynes Dons
Rotherham United
Fleetwood Town
Bolton Wanderers
Sunderland
Bristol Rovers
S****horpe United
Swindon Town
Bradford City
Forest Green Rovers
Stevenage
Colchester United
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Salford City

Coventry City

Wigan

Ipswich

Peterborough 

It just shows how well we've been doing, I wonder how long it will  continue.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'm equally frustrated we haven't taken 'advantage' of some of our promotions. I'd argue we did take advantage of it two seasons ago, we clearly made an active decision to reinvest the Premier League money into the long-term sustainability and infrastructure of the club. There is an argument to be made that with richer owners of course, this wouldn't have been required; but in our current model I understand the decisions that were made.

I don't disagree with much of your post, it shows how close the line is between success and failure on either side though - you point to failed opportunities, I point to regular bounce-backs not matched by other clubs, you refer to other clubs who haven't needed to because they've stayed in the league, I point at a Sheffield United who were heralded and we go back and forth.

That's where I think the pendulum swing makes it far more difficult for fans overall to be decisive on it. Had we had a 10 year sustained period in the Championship I'm not sure anyone would be arguing that new owners would be a gamble generally worth making. Because we've been so close (yet so far..) with this current model and ownership it makes the gamble that much harder to warrant I think. 

I don’t disagree with much of what you have said either. The reality is that both of these statements are true:

1. We have wasted more opportunities in the premier league than any other club in the last decade;

2. We have been better at bouncing back to the premier league after relegation than any other club in the last decade (bar Watford and Burnley). Fulham may soon rival us in this regard. 

I suppose it depends on the degree of confidence one has as to whether we can continue that cycle indefinitely or eventually we won’t bounce back as to how much you are willing to/see the need to gamble/change  but I think it’s fair to say every norwich fan is not enjoying this latest frustrating season! 

[Wilson 62]

19 hours ago, pete said:

3 years in the championship when paraschute payments are a memory and few assets to sell.  Wiii see the folly of self funding Delia will be faced with the reality of costs far exceeding income and financial meltdown.  The model is based on periodic inputs of PL money to fund the club.  As it looks a promotion campaign seems unlikely look forward to a lengthy spell in Champs or futher down the pyramid.  Delia's train set to hit the buffers soon enough and a fire sale to follow, begging for investment.  Is Delia a real supporter?

The self funding model would’ve been on it’s **** if we hadn’t been promoted in 18/19; the pandemic would have seen to that. 

Edited January 5, 2022 by Wilson
🙁

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

28 minutes ago, Wilson said:

The self funding model would’ve been on it’s **** if we hadn’t been promoted in 18/19; the pandemic would have seen to that. 

And if your Aunty had b*lls she'd be your uncle......................

[Mello Yello 2,281]

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

And if your Aunty had b*lls she'd be your uncle......................

Well in these current times....anything is possible.....

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

This thread is all very confusing, can someone just decide if we need new owners or not!.

ultimately I just don’t see it being possible to be competitive in the PL without big backing. You can get there with either luck, rich owners or parachute payments but staying there requires PL wage structure and recruitment. Even luck only keeps you there an extra year. Should we be happy as a competitive champ side and stick by current regime, maybe, half the PL is taken up by massive clubs and we are in a group of 20 odd feeling deserving of the other 10 spots so we should be content.

except this is football and contentment doesn’t exist. New owners please. Play thing for an oil baron, pension fund, turkey farmer, don’t mind really, just a change from an aging celebrity cook with no money.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

We don't keep getting promoted with no money. With the exception perhaps of the first farke promotion (although our wages were still pretty high then) we get promoted because the parachute payments, supplemented by the odd high value sale, enable us to retain a few premier league quality players and run a much higher wage bill than the majority of the division. 

I look at all the money we have had in player sales, all the sky premiership money, a full stadium (outside covid) and we have stood still in terms of 1st team quality and competitiveness. We still have a side that looks so out of place in the top flight. 

Our model is always going to be compromised because we are constantly selling our best young players to survive and our wage bill is not going to be competitive without more investment. I get we have to look for players we can sell on in the future for profit but when are we going to be in a position to buy players for the here & now? We are a big Crewe.....

I think we have reached our level under the current owners & I'm not convinced they have the will or knowledge to do what is best for our club.

This season has been soul destroying and is seriously damaging our future. 

 

 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,078]

Southampton have been acquired for £100m.

Unlike a lot of clubs, because we are self-sustaining we are actually profitable - we dont operate at huge losses because we dont have a sugar daddy.

We are one of the current 20 elite clubs in the country and we are only 4 points off survival. We are debt free.

 

I seriously doubt there is noone out there with an interest in buying us. I've never been a 'Delia Out!' person, but at present our ownership is holding us back. We will never be able to compete at this level without money.

As long as Delia stays we are doomed to yoyo-ing between the divisions and getting pummelled each week in the Prem. And that relies on the idea we can bounce back every time, which considering we've sacked the manager who had proven he could do that is no given.

Dont bounce back and the Prem money runs out quickly and before you know it we're back stagnating in the Championship with the rest of them.

 

Delia is condemning the fans to this misery if she will not consider selling. That's her prerogative, but as fans we are also entitled to object to this

[TIL 1010 4,722]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Irrespective of any longer-term plan there should be a new face or two in the boardroom. Ed Balls obviously had an invigorating effect, and we could do with that kind of thing again.

Indeed we could Purple and before Ed Balls we had Alan Bowkett back in 2009 and apart from them nobody whatsoever so we have ended up with Zoe Ward and her husband running the club from top to bottom without a Chairman or a CEO to hold them to account. Our ' Executive Board ' of three became two once Ben Kensell left leaving us as probably the only club in the 92 operating without either a Chairman or CEO. Love them or loathe them are majority shareholders are in their 80's for goodness sake and i would be amazed if they had a full grasp of the rudder.

The AGM in November with the guy who ran it ( can't even recall his name that is how dynamic he was ) was uninspiring with Zoe Ward taking virtually all the questions asked of the top table with D & M not uttering a word. This cannot continue surely  ?

Edited January 5, 2022 by TIL 1010

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

32 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Indeed we could Purple and before Ed Balls we had Alan Bowkett back in 2009 and apart from them nobody whatsoever so we have ended up with Zoe Ward and her husband running the club from top to bottom without a Chairman or a CEO to hold them to account. Our ' Executive Board ' of three became two once Ben Kensell left leaving us as probably the only club in the 92 operating without either a Chairman or CEO. Love them or loathe them are majority shareholders are in their 80's for goodness sake and i would be amazed if they had a full grasp of the rudder.

The AGM in November with the guy who ran it ( can't even recall his name that is how dynamic he was ) was uninspiring with Zoe Ward taking virtually all the questions asked of the top table with D & M not uttering a word. This cannot continue surely  ?

I suspect Webber and Ward are in effect joint CEOs, but that is separate from the need for some freshening up at board level.