Net Worth of Owners

[ged in the onion bag 857]

27 minutes ago, komakino said:

A pre requisite of any owner in modern football is that they would invest either themselves or attract investment, but we have owners that do neither. Therefore they are superfluous. 
 

 

 

Thanks, I understand that!    But there’s absolutely no evidence in those charts that those are ‘pre-requisites’ of owners!   Seems the investment is always a loan and therefore a debt!   

[nutty nigel 7,645]

47 minutes ago, essex canary said:

What is the point of having 6,863 shareholders  but an active trust owning 0.5 per cent of the shares in issue. Perhaps to ensure that the 47% have no effective influence whilst the 53 per cent are 'custodians'?

Well now, this is quite a negative attitude. When the desire has been there members of the 48% have been a catalyst for change if you believe that the open letter from Bowkett and Bertram to Neil Doncaster made a difference.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

46 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Thanks, I understand that!    But there’s absolutely no evidence in those charts that those are ‘pre-requisites’ of owners!   Seems the investment is always a loan and therefore a debt!   

So what? If progress of a football club is initially build upon debt but ultimately moves the club forward to a point where the club is in a better position and an investor makes profit then so what? If there was a choice between an owner that will put money in with the aim of taking it out later off the back of success, or an owner that buys, doesn’t put money in for 25yrs bumbles along up and down leagues and reaps the benefit of asset growth why would anyone choose the second??!! And if anyone says ‘you can’t gamble with the clubs future’ they first have to point out a club our size that’s gone to the wall because it seems there is always someone else thinking they could do better. There is just as much ‘risk’ having owners with no money than carrying debt 

[Overrated, over paid 22]

9 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Thanks, I understand that!    But there’s absolutely no evidence in those charts that those are ‘pre-requisites’ of owners!   Seems the investment is always a loan and therefore a debt!   

The objective of all businesses is to deliver value and return to its shareholders, even in football, not to splurge ££££££ they have no hope of ever seeing again. No investor would want to stick any amount of money in a football club without having a clear exit that delivered a healthy return. Unless their investment was pure vanity of course.

[Naturalcynic 677]

11 hours ago, spencer 1970 said:

From my calcapootuns I believe that the following *55 clubs have owners far richer than yows, I mean us.

Newcastle United
Manchester City
Queens Park Rangers
Chelsea
Arsenal
Aston Villa
Stoke City
Wolverhampton Wanderers
Barnsley
Fulham
Leicester City
Crystal Palace
West Ham United
Tottenham Hotspur
Manchester United
Leeds United
Everton
Liverpool
West Bromwich Albion
Bristol City
Sunderland
Preston North End
Southampton
Brighton & Hove Albion
Portsmouth
Reading
Stevenage
Burnley
Blackburn Rovers
Cardiff City
Derby County
Sheffield Wednesday
Bristol Rovers
Colchester United
Huddersfield Town
Birmingham City
S****horpe United
Hull City
Middlesbrough
Milton Keynes Dons
Swindon Town
Sheffield United
Rotherham United
Millwall
Bradford City
Watford
Fleetwood Town
Forest Green Rovers
Bournemouth
Bolton Wanderers
Blackpool
Brentford
Coventry City
Swansea City
Peterborough United

then...
Norwich City

However, We've (potentially) more money than these paupers though. Ner!

Carlisle United
Shrewsbury Town
Leyton Orient
Mansfield Town
Luton Town

...makes it seem we're over achieving a bit now ey?

*some of the data not avalible, but we know that a lot of the League one teams have more owner wealth than us, especially the 3 star wizards down the road.. Hey, I'd still prefer to be in ours shoes but it does make you wonder why we've not been bought yet.

 

 

Apparently because of our position geographically, our transport infrastructure, our lack of history, our low support base, our acceptance of mediocrity and any other number of straws some people seem desperate to clutch to, we are seemingly unique in the football league in being singularly unattractive to potential purchasers.

[komakino 275]

6 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Apparently because of our position geographically, our transport infrastructure, our lack of history, our low support base, our acceptance of mediocrity and any other number of straws some people seem desperate to clutch to, we are seemingly unique in the football league in being singularly unattractive to potential purchasers.

We would be an attractive proposition, but when you have majority shareholders who have stated for years that they would 'never sell', any suitors probably would not bother. Therefore, in the relation to Norwich City, our owners are a complete waste of time. 

Edited January 8, 2022 by komakino

[Nora's Ghost 157]

Sweet FA in the kitty and even less goodwill in the bank.

 

Voices were saying we were a 'well run club doing things the right way' not so long back. All I can hear is 'thanks for the easy 3 points' and muffled laughter nowadays.

[komakino 275]

3 minutes ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Sweet FA in the kitty and even less goodwill in the bank.

 

Voices were saying we were a 'well run club doing things the right way' not so long back. All I can hear is 'thanks for the easy 3 points' and muffled laughter nowadays.

My wife used to work at CR and the 'well run club' mantra is a myth. They were the softest of touches and probably still are. 

[Badger 2,412]

11 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

So what? If progress of a football club is initially build upon debt but ultimately moves the club forward to a point where the club is in a better position and an investor makes profit then so what?

There is a lot of weight on this "ultimately." More often, the debt leads to problems not success as we have seen so many times.

The lure of "easy solutions" is potent but for most success comes with hard work over time.

[Badger 2,412]

59 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Apparently because of our position geographically, our transport infrastructure, our lack of history, our low support base, our acceptance of mediocrity and any other number of straws some people seem desperate to clutch to, we are seemingly unique in the football league in being singularly unattractive to potential purchasers.

This is untrue.

If you could buy the club for a low price, there are ample opportunities to make a profit. As with any investment the price of purchase is vital.

[Naturalcynic 677]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

This is untrue.

If you could buy the club for a low price, there are ample opportunities to make a profit. As with any investment the price of purchase is vital.

Precisely, which is why I’ve always said that the Club is only worth what a buyer is prepared to pay for it.

[cornish sam 966]

1 hour ago, komakino said:

We would be an attractive proposition, but when you have majority shareholders who have stated for years that they would 'never sell', any suitors probably would not bother. Therefore, in the relation to Norwich City, our owners are a complete waste of time. 

Why would we be an attractive proposition? We are punching above our financial weight, we already have good infrastructure, we are practically debt free. What opportunity would there be for an investor to make money off us without a significant long term outlay and therefore risk?

[komakino 275]

I certainly think NCFC could be a good buy with the right attitude, but the majority shareholders treat the club like a family heirloom and stubbornly refuse to even listen to offers. Are they acting in the best interests of the club? No. 

[Badger 2,412]

3 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Precisely, which is why I’ve always said that the Club is only worth what a buyer is prepared to pay for it.

And what a seller is prepared to sell it for...

There are various methods of valuing assets though, to determine whether a price is "fair."

[ged in the onion bag 857]

12 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

12 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

So what? If progress of a football club is initially build upon debt but ultimately moves the club forward to a point where the club is in a better position and an investor makes profit then so what? If there was a choice between an owner that will put money in with the aim of taking it out later off the back of success, or an owner that buys, doesn’t put money in for 25yrs bumbles along up and down leagues and reaps the benefit of asset growth why would anyone choose the second??!! And if anyone says ‘you can’t gamble with the clubs future’ they first have to point out a club our size that’s gone to the wall because it seems there is always someone else thinking they could do better. There is just as much ‘risk’ having owners with no money than carrying debtYou ought to read this thread properly and associate it to the charts provided… there are many more rich owners running clubs and doing worse than us than there are doing better than us.  

 

What you all want is their money and absolute guarantees they will also make all the right decisions and evidently the two don’t often come together!    As I said earlier, you want your cake and eat it.    There is more chance (based on those charts) that rich investors will put us in a worse position whilst destroying the pretty special fabric of our club than they will improve what we already have.   
 

Your just gambling on a whim.

 

[komakino 275]

1 minute ago, cornish sam said:

Why would we be an attractive proposition? We are punching above our financial weight, we already have good infrastructure, we are practically debt free. What opportunity would there be for an investor to make money off us without a significant long term outlay and therefore risk?

The owner could potentially take the club to the next level - which our majority shareholders will not do - and sell in 5/6 years time. They could easily make a profit, but as with all ventures, there will be a risk. 

[cornish sam 966]

2 minutes ago, komakino said:

I certainly think NCFC could be a good buy with the right attitude, but the majority shareholders treat the club like a family heirloom and stubbornly refuse to even listen to offers. Are they acting in the best interests of the club? No. 

It would be a great buy for someone with a vested interest in Norwich city for Norwich city's sake, not for a return on any investment without just leveraging against the club and putting us in a worse position a la burnley

[Badger 2,412]

1 minute ago, cornish sam said:

Why would we be an attractive proposition? We are punching above our financial weight, we already have good infrastructure, we are practically debt free. What opportunity would there be for an investor to make money off us without a significant long term outlay and therefore risk?

Depends upon the price paid.

However, we must have over £100 million pounds worth of assets that could be sold + a "guaranteed" income of about £150 million over the next two years. If you could buy the club cheaply you could easily an eight figure return by selling the players and other assets and reducing wages etc.

[Naturalcynic 677]

Just now, Badger said:

And what a seller is prepared to sell it for...

There are various methods of valuing assets though, to determine whether a price is "fair."

I might want to sell my house for £900,000 whereas the estate agent has valued it at £500,000, but after marketing it for some time the best offer I’ve had is £400,000.  Therefore its worth to the purchaser is £400,000 and that’s probably also its objective value.  What I might want is largely immaterial if I want to sell it.

[komakino 275]

1 minute ago, cornish sam said:

It would be a great buy for someone with a vested interest in Norwich city for Norwich city's sake, not for a return on any investment without just leveraging against the club and putting us in a worse position a la burnley

There has to be an element of risk taken  if the club is to survive, let alone prosper from its current position. 

Delia's parochial view of football has no place in modern society. 

[Badger 2,412]

2 minutes ago, komakino said:

The owner could potentially take the club to the next level - which our majority shareholders will not do - and sell in 5/6 years time. They could easily make a profit, but as with all ventures, there will be a risk. 

Yes, absolutely "easy, peasy" - that's why so many other owners have done this successfully!

[komakino 275]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

I might want to sell my house for £900,000 whereas the estate agent has valued it at £500,000, but after marketing it for some time the best offer I’ve had is £400,000.  Therefore its worth to the purchaser is £400,000 and that’s probably also its objective value.  What I might want is largely immaterial if I want to sell it.

If somebody has a house worth £500K and want £900K, they don't want to sell their house...

[ged in the onion bag 857]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Apparently because of our position geographically, our transport infrastructure, our lack of history, our low support base, our acceptance of mediocrity and any other number of straws some people seem desperate to clutch to, we are seemingly unique in the football league in being singularly unattractive to potential purchasers.

Ahhh!  What a shame, Not!

[Naturalcynic 677]

Just now, komakino said:

If somebody has a house worth £500K and want £900K, they don't want to sell their house...

Precisely.

[komakino 275]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Yes, absolutely "easy, peasy" - that's why so many other owners have done this successfully!

Where did I say it was easy? I believe Norwich is a better buy than most clubs if it were available for sale, which it won't be. 

[Badger 2,412]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

I might want to sell my house for £900,000 whereas the estate agent has valued it at £500,000, but after marketing it for some time the best offer I’ve had is £400,000.  Therefore its worth to the purchaser is £400,000 and that’s probably also its objective value.  What I might want is largely immaterial if I want to sell it.

A sale is a contract between two parties - both have to be satisfied with the price. 

In the case of your house, I'd only sell if you need the money quickly. You're likely to get a better offer if you wait (the time will depend upon the direction that the market takes, but house prices, like football clubs have gone up in value).

[ged in the onion bag 857]

3 minutes ago, komakino said:

If somebody has a house worth £500K and want £900K, they don't want to sell their house...

Have I missed something here?    Has the club placed their valuation in the public domain or is this some pathetic way of turning someone’s point into another silly dig at the club!

[Badger 2,412]

3 minutes ago, komakino said:

Where did I say it was easy? I believe Norwich is a better buy than most clubs if it were available for sale, which it won't be. 

A few minutes ago...

10 minutes ago, komakino said:

They could easily make a profit

[Badger 2,412]

1 minute ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Have I missed something here?    Has the club placed their valuation in the public domain or is this some pathetic way of turning someone’s point into another silly dig at the club!

They are basically implying that the club should accept any offer made as it is "the best available." I'd like to sell to them 😀

[Naturalcynic 677]

2 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Have I missed something here?    Has the club placed their valuation in the public domain or is this some pathetic way of turning someone’s point into another silly dig at the club!

It’s a discussion about the hypothetical value of a football club and the suggestion that if no-one’s remotely interested in potentially purchasing it then perhaps the current owners’ valuation is unrealistically high (assuming, of course, that they ever intended selling at all).