Football assets sit uneasily with financial investment

[Badger 2,745]

https://www.ft.com/content/046f23d1-1ac8-4495-99a3-df32d8a3b423?shareType=nongift

More evidence, were it needed, hat there is not really an investment case to buy football clubs (unless as a bargain forced by a distressed seller). Private equity prefers to lend money to football (debt financing) rather than club ownership.

It is interesting (to me anyway) that private equity companies are doing deals with Leagues rather than clubs and are therefore guaranteed a share of future TV revenues. So much safer than investing in clubs.

Premier league by 201-20 had nearly £4 billion of cumulative debt* at a time when TV deal growth is slowing. Even companies as big as BT got their fingers burnt and were looking for an escape route. Be interesting to see if its a bubble that bursts or a slow puncture in a tyre that slowly deflates. Either way, it is a good time to stay solvent and provides hope for City in the medium term as long as they do not do anything silly.

(*not all of it bad - Spurs use their new stadium to generate a lot of extra income)

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,960]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Be interesting to see if its a bubble that bursts or a slow puncture in a tyre that slowly deflates.

I can't see it ever bursting -  it survived the financial crisis of the late 2000s and Covid and still keeps plodding on. Some of the TV rights are starting to stagnate (domestically at least) and it's possible that interest might wane (slow puncture) but with so many companies interests entwined in it's success they are going to keep pushing it as hard as they can. Sky change the narrative on a daily basis to create 24/7 news and content for the ever willing public even though it's really just the same regurgitated sh*t every year. Who's in crisis today? Who's the bell of the ball? Who's for the sack? A few games later and it's all change.

OTBC

Edited March 20, 2022 by Disco Dales Jockstrap

[Badger 2,745]

19 minutes ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I can't see it ever bursting -  it survived the financial crisis of the late 2000s and Covid and still keeps plodding on. Some of the TV rights are starting to stagnate (domestically at least) and it's possible that interest might wane (slow puncture) but with so many companies interests entwined in it's success they are going to keep pushing it as hard as they can. Sky change the narrative on a daily basis to create 24/7 news and content for the ever willing public even though it's really just the same regurgitated sh*t every year. Who's in crisis today? Who's the bell of the ball? Who's for the sack? 1 game later and it's all change.

OTBC

You could be right DDJ, nobody could claim to know for certain. However, in business terms you would look at a product and it's rate of revenue growth, when it starts to slow (as it has) the best judgement might be that the product has reached maturity and that rapid growth going forwards is unlikely and even some decline.

We have both noted the relative stagnation of the domestic TV deal and the threatened European Superleague hangs over lie a spectre. If, or is when, this comes about, it is quite likely that it will impact upon the money spent on the Premier League by TV companies abroad, especially as domestic leagues across Europe, Premier league included, are becoming so predictable and boring as you say "it's really just the same regurgitated sh*t every year."

This could impact severely amongst some of the PL teams that many of us would regard as "similar" to City. If they have maintained their position in EPL by taking on debt as some have done they will be faced with a very different challenge. It's fine borrowing money if you capacity to pay is increasing (increased TV deals) but if this stops, you are no longer able to continue to borrow. Instead you are just left with the debt, with interest to pay and the capital hanging over you. Newly promoted clubs coming up with no debt will actually have a current financial advantage (no interest payments). Although the established team may have a stronger squad, over time this advantage will diminish as they are faced with the persistent need to finance football operations whilst at the same time paying big interest payments.

Going back to the business analogy, you would advise caution if a business were thinking about borrowing heavily in a mature market. 

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

The big issue with football finance, and why people are prepared to pay silly money for Chelsea, is the European Super League. Like it or not it's going to happen and it will change football finance forever. The clubs involved in that League will protect their interests and there will be no relegation. 

How that leaves Norwich City is arguable. As things stand we could sell out a 40,000 stadium 6 or 7 times a year. If you take out the big 6 a bigger stadium would perhaps be a millstone round our necks for many years. 

On the plus side, we should be able to maintain a place in the top division. But I take the view that any capital expenditure at the moment would be foolhardy.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Yes it survived the pandemic despite so many people realising it needed a reset in the spring of 2020. But surviving the war, especially if it escalates, may not be so easy. We've already seen what's happened at Chelsea. The same thing could happen with the state owned clubs. And what of the fans? Will they chant the names of their owners despite what's going on in the world?i

Will it survive the recession? Will the people still support the obscene amounts of money deciding sporting achievements while they are suffering wondering whether to heat their homes of feed their kids?

It's not sport and it's not sustainable.

 

[sgncfc 1,330]

So, whilst noting all the above, and having some sympathy with the article it is written from the viewpoint that PE doesn't like "trophy" assets. That's not really a surprise because often they are indeed just for ego/PR/brand involvement.

However, the point being made about Chelsea doesn't prove the argument against vanity investment. Abramovitch bought the club for £140m from Ken Bates. He didn't buy the ground in that which is owned by the Chelsea Pitch Owners registered trust/charity (no one seems quite sure), but the club has the right to play there in perpetuity. He has since invested about £1,500m, so a total outlay of £1,640m.

Of the 20 or so offers received to buy the club, not one is below £2,000m. Some are (apparently) close to £3,000m. Let's take the middle and say that it goes for £2,500m which would represent a profit of £860m or 52% over the 19 years of ownership. Not particularly good as an investment (certainly not for a PE firm) but from a standard investing viewpoint he would have made a decent return and also had a great time personally.

The most interesting thing about the bids for Chelsea is that they are all from consortia. The days of mad individuals committing billions appear to be gone. Some of those bidders have specifically stated that the club will never join a Super League and have given that as a guarantee to support their bid. They don't see the end of TV money or the end of the EPL. Nor do I. Whatever the morality of it may be, what we think in the UK is almost completely irrelevant; we have less than 10m paying viewers - PanAsia has 600m, increasing at about 25m a year. There are 2.3 billion households with a TV, increasing at 100m a year. If the braodacsters maintain their current "share" of 25% (or even increase it) there is zero chance of any kind of "reset".

Relating that back to Norwich, let's say you could buy the club outright (including the ground) for £100m. If you then invest £40m into turning the ground into a 35,000 seater and another £200m in players and salaries you could make it a viable EPL club. Would the club and all it's assets then be worth more than £340m? Probably. Any "business" with a £150m+++ turnover and assets of £2-300m (players and property) should be generating vanity investment interest. There are a huge number of ways to increase that turnover - none of which the current Board seem bothered about, incidentally.

There is a huge opportunity at Norwich for someone.

[shefcanary 2,955]

With the spending squeeze about to hit, many will have to choose between heating, eating & boozing, live football and Sky subscriptions.  If it is the latter that is chosen then much will depend on how long the squeeze continues; if it starts to overlap with the next broadcast deal you can see it being less of a slow deflation and more of a mini explosion.  

However I think I'll be alright, I'll just pop into my local non-league football club where I can be warmed up, get some grub, have a few pints, watch a bit of footie then see what Sky has to offer whilst having a few more pints.  You know it makes sense 😉 

[Badger 2,745]

20 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

Relating that back to Norwich, let's say you could buy the club outright (including the ground) for £100m. If you then invest £40m into turning the ground into a 35,000 seater and another £200m in players and salaries you could make it a viable EPL club. Would the club and all it's assets then be worth more than £340m? Probably. Any "business" with a £150m+++ turnover and assets of £2-300m (players and property) should be generating vanity investment interest. There are a huge number of ways to increase that turnover - none of which the current Board seem bothered about, incidentally.

1. I  don't think that you could buy the club outright for £100 million. I don't think that it covers the value of its assets + guaranteed revenues, for example c£100 million in TV revenue over the next two years. You might be able to in a few years time if the less optimistic forecasts of our fellow posters turn out to be true.

2. It is possible that £200 million might turn the club into a viable EPL club, but it would be a very high risk investment, and as far as I can see (on the basis of the figures you provide) no return?

3. You would not get £340 million for City, which in any case would not give a return on the basis of the figures you provide (and in real terms would be a significant loss). Burnley sold last year for £200 million, but they used a lot of Burnley's own cash reserves to do it + borrowed most of the rest against Burnley's assets. Newcastle sold for £300 million quite recently. Southampton sold this year for £100 million. All three have multi-year records in the EPL. I think that the £340 figure is hopelessly optimistic and even then would not be attainable until we had been in the EPL for several years - which could see the £200 million spread very thinly (which is why clubs of similar size to us run up big debts staying up at all).

I can't see the case for an investor.

I can see obvious ways to increase turnover by ground expansion and increased commercial activities related to it. What others did you have in mind?

[Badger 2,745]

22 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

With the spending squeeze about to hit, many will have to choose between heating, eating & boozing, live football and Sky subscriptions.  If it is the latter that is chosen then much will depend on how long the squeeze continues; if it starts to overlap with the next broadcast deal you can see it being less of a slow deflation and more of a mini explosion.  

However I think I'll be alright, I'll just pop into my local non-league football club where I can be warmed up, get some grub, have a few pints, watch a bit of footie then see what Sky has to offer whilst having a few more pints.  You know it makes sense 😉 

I agree. With a possible recession round the corner and an increase in interest rates, I'd say it was a good time to be lowly geared!

[If wed kept Howie.. 300]

if you think the cost of living squeeze in the UK is going to hit football revenues, wait until we see the effects of a full on global recession has on football..

kiss goodbye to those Chinese viewers for a start.

[If wed kept Howie.. 300]

actually recession is the wrong word - think more dissection

[sgncfc 1,330]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

1. I  don't think that you could buy the club outright for £100 million. I don't think that it covers the value of its assets + guaranteed revenues, for example c£100 million in TV revenue over the next two years. You might be able to in a few years time if the less optimistic forecasts of our fellow posters turn out to be true.

2. It is possible that £200 million might turn the club into a viable EPL club, but it would be a very high risk investment, and as far as I can see (on the basis of the figures you provide) no return?

3. You would not get £340 million for City, which in any case would not give a return on the basis of the figures you provide (and in real terms would be a significant loss). Burnley sold last year for £200 million, but they used a lot of Burnley's own cash reserves to do it + borrowed most of the rest against Burnley's assets. Newcastle sold for £300 million quite recently. Southampton sold this year for £100 million. All three have multi-year records in the EPL. I think that the £340 figure is hopelessly optimistic and even then would not be attainable until we had been in the EPL for several years - which could see the £200 million spread very thinly (which is why clubs of similar size to us run up big debts staying up at all).

I can't see the case for an investor.

I can see obvious ways to increase turnover by ground expansion and increased commercial activities related to it. What others did you have in mind?

That's all perfectly understandable, but possibly explains why I'm an investor and maybe (I'm guessing) you're not - and I don't mean that unkindly, but I think it's a very different mindset. Lots of investments (especially vanity ones, which I've acknowledged this would be in my post) don't produce what you would describe as a return until they are sold. Unfortunately I'm not in this league of investment otherwise I'd be very happy to give it a try!

I was really only using figures as a simple guide rather than with any accuracy. The point I make regarding the opportunity is still valid in relation to the example of Chelsea I provided. Ground expansion and some more, shall we say, inventive worldwide commercial activities  could have a huge impact on turnover. Many sports clubs around the world have very innovative, and very lucrative partnerships - I was surprised at which ones do well at this when I researched it.

[duke63 739]

Ive noticed a fair few games recently in the EPL with empy seats in the stands. Villa on Satuirday v Aresenal, there were quite a lot of seast with no bums on them. You would think Stevie G, Coutinho etc would gaurantee a full house but it seems not.

Its not only Villa tho, Southampton and Brighton have had similar and even worse some Champs teams, noticeably WBA, have had huge numbers of empty seast in recent matches.

 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by duke63

[Badger 2,745]

1 hour ago, sgncfc said:

That's all perfectly understandable, but possibly explains why I'm an investor and maybe (I'm guessing) you're not - and I don't mean that unkindly, but I think it's a very different mindset. 

Depends what you mean by investor. I have a portfolio of shares in companies, ITs, REITs and private equity companies, which whilst I'm not rich, has enabled me to retire early. I do not invest directly into small companies like in "Dragon's Den."

I was really only using figures as a simple guide rather than with any accuracy. The point I make regarding the opportunity is still valid in relation to the example of Chelsea I provided.

I don't think Chelsea is at all a good example.

1. It is much more appealing to vanity purchasers - they are after all, Champions of Europe and the world!
2. Secondly, we don't know the final price for Chelsea, but given that he has held the asset  for 20 years, I suspect that he will have a pretty low rate of return, if he makes a profit in real terms at all. (Before you even consider opportunity cost!)
3. Thirdly, they have a better brand than us (partly related to point one) which is always likely to make them more attractive.
4. Fourthly, despite what some potential investors might say, they are better protected than  us if a European Super league changes the landscape drastically.
5. Finally, the profit has come during a period of huge growth in the TV market. Even if the market does not collapse, which is unlikely, the chances of it continuing to grow at anything like the same rate are small.

Ground expansion and some more, shall we say, inventive worldwide commercial activities  could have a huge impact on turnover. Many sports clubs around the world have very innovative, and very lucrative partnerships - I was surprised at which ones do well at this when I researched it.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here?  NFTs?

I really cant see an investment case for buying Norwich, certainly at what would be a fair market price atm. A few years down the line and it might be. As I said, other clubs that might be seen as more attractive than us have been on the market for a long while before selling for lower prices than the owner had hoped for - Southampton £100 million, far less than he paid for it and Newcastle, a much bigger club for just over £300 million. Both are much better established in the EPL, have bigger grounds and probably better brands. I'd really advise you to invest elsewhere!

 

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

I've said it in a post above and sorry, but I'll say it again. Anyone thinking of investing a huge amount in Norwich City (or any other club of our size) needs to think very carefully. The European Super League is coming whether you like it or not and it will change football finance in this country forever. The big 6 are going to make a fortune and everyone else gets their game back. I can't wait. 

[Monty13 2,736]

On 20/03/2022 at 11:34, Badger said:

https://www.ft.com/content/046f23d1-1ac8-4495-99a3-df32d8a3b423?shareType=nongift

More evidence, were it needed, hat there is not really an investment case to buy football clubs (unless as a bargain forced by a distressed seller). Private equity prefers to lend money to football (debt financing) rather than club ownership.

It is interesting (to me anyway) that private equity companies are doing deals with Leagues rather than clubs and are therefore guaranteed a share of future TV revenues. So much safer than investing in clubs.

Premier league by 201-20 had nearly £4 billion of cumulative debt* at a time when TV deal growth is slowing. Even companies as big as BT got their fingers burnt and were looking for an escape route. Be interesting to see if its a bubble that bursts or a slow puncture in a tyre that slowly deflates. Either way, it is a good time to stay solvent and provides hope for City in the medium term as long as they do not do anything silly.

(*not all of it bad - Spurs use their new stadium to generate a lot of extra income)

While I agree to a certain extent Badger, there’s a finite number of clubs that are capable of being Rich playthings and a good number of rich people who like playthings.

There’s only a handful of clubs that could truly be notably profitable if run the right way although there’s always the expensive long odds gamble of making a Championship (or lower) a PL club to make money that way.

The way I see it the only real buyers are ones that see a PL football club like a racehorse, or expensive art. Yes there’s potential to make money but it’s more of a rich plaything for the excessively wealthy who want everything. And that’s extremely sad but inevitable IMO.

[Badger 2,745]

12 hours ago, Monty13 said:

The way I see it the only real buyers are ones that see a PL football club like a racehorse, or expensive art. Yes there’s potential to make money but it’s more of a rich plaything for the excessively wealthy who want everything. And that’s extremely sad but inevitable IMO.

If I have understood you correctly I think that we tend to agree. I can see no investment case to buy us atm* and that what we are really looking for in a new buyer would be a "rich person's plaything." However, if they wanted to see us as an established premier league club, they would have to be very rich and have to prepared to exceptionally indulgent in their hobbies. If they have no geographical attachment to East Anglia, there might be better options elsewhere to a hobby buyer (Donor owner).

* The only investment case for us would be for things to get far worse than they are at present, both in footballing terms and financially which would see the value of the club decline and the chance to profit from improvement. Even then though, if we  continue to eschew debt, we are unlikely to be in the position where our owners are distressed sellers. 

[crispeduk 282]

It hasn’t been a conscious decision but this season I’ve often found myself more interested in lower league or even non-League to European nights on tv. I’m honestly unsure who’s doing well apart from Liverpool and what stage the competitions are at, although I expect the usual suspects are up there. I don’t think I’m typical but as I’m largely an armchair football follower now I wonder how many others can’t be bothered to switch channels and to what extent this will influence decision making. Sadly the ‘super clubs’ will likely be allowed to have their cake in any breakaway competition and eat in the Prem as the latter will be faced with fishing for tv money in the same pond as the Championship if they chuck them out. I’d be a happy man if they themselves just decided to pi** off out of it, but I can’t see their investors’ greed allowing it and so I fear the misery will just go on and on for the majority of decent football folk.

[king canary 8,758]

1 minute ago, crispeduk said:

It hasn’t been a conscious decision but this season I’ve often found myself more interested in lower league or even non-League to European nights on tv. I’m honestly unsure who’s doing well apart from Liverpool and what stage the competitions are at, although I expect the usual suspects are up there. I don’t think I’m typical but as I’m largely an armchair football follower now I wonder how many others can’t be bothered to switch channels and to what extent this will influence decision making. Sadly the ‘super clubs’ will likely be allowed to have their cake in any breakaway competition and eat in the Prem as the latter will be faced with fishing for tv money in the same pond as the Championship if they chuck them out. I’d be a happy man if they themselves just decided to pi** off out of it, but I can’t see their investors’ greed allowing it and so I fear the misery will just go on and on for the majority of decent football folk.

I've found this season that I've actually watched more Champions League than in previous years (although this might just be because I'm free on those evenings) but I'm less fussed about watching other Premier League matches. I feel pretty tuned out to the rest of the league.

[crispeduk 282]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

I've found this season that I've actually watched more Champions League than in previous years (although this might just be because I'm free on those evenings) but I'm less fussed about watching other Premier League matches. I feel pretty tuned out to the rest of the league.

This must be a rich field for research by media academics  😊

[king canary 8,758]

10 minutes ago, crispeduk said:

This must be a rich field for research by media academics  😊

In all honesty I think its just that I've got a kid now- so watching evening games after he has gone to bed is much easier than trying to convince him or the wife that I should be left alone for two hours on a Sunday to watch something like Villa v Chelsea. 

Got to pick your battles!

[crispeduk 282]

3 minutes ago, king canary said:

In all honesty I think its just that I've got a kid now- so watching evening games after he has gone to bed is much easier than trying to convince him or the wife that I should be left alone for two hours on a Sunday to watch something like Villa v Chelsea. 

Got to pick your battles!

See your point, but MotD could still be useful to you  if the young'un plays up. Shearer and the other drones get me off to sleep no bother.

[Nuff Said 5,966]

22 hours ago, sgncfc said:

So, whilst noting all the above, and having some sympathy with the article it is written from the viewpoint that PE doesn't like "trophy" assets. That's not really a surprise because often they are indeed just for ego/PR/brand involvement.

However, the point being made about Chelsea doesn't prove the argument against vanity investment. Abramovitch bought the club for £140m from Ken Bates. He didn't buy the ground in that which is owned by the Chelsea Pitch Owners registered trust/charity (no one seems quite sure), but the club has the right to play there in perpetuity. He has since invested about £1,500m, so a total outlay of £1,640m.

Of the 20 or so offers received to buy the club, not one is below £2,000m. Some are (apparently) close to £3,000m. Let's take the middle and say that it goes for £2,500m which would represent a profit of £860m or 52% over the 19 years of ownership. Not particularly good as an investment (certainly not for a PE firm) but from a standard investing viewpoint he would have made a decent return and also had a great time personally.

The most interesting thing about the bids for Chelsea is that they are all from consortia. The days of mad individuals committing billions appear to be gone. Some of those bidders have specifically stated that the club will never join a Super League and have given that as a guarantee to support their bid. They don't see the end of TV money or the end of the EPL. Nor do I. Whatever the morality of it may be, what we think in the UK is almost completely irrelevant; we have less than 10m paying viewers - PanAsia has 600m, increasing at about 25m a year. There are 2.3 billion households with a TV, increasing at 100m a year. If the braodacsters maintain their current "share" of 25% (or even increase it) there is zero chance of any kind of "reset".

Relating that back to Norwich, let's say you could buy the club outright (including the ground) for £100m. If you then invest £40m into turning the ground into a 35,000 seater and another £200m in players and salaries you could make it a viable EPL club. Would the club and all it's assets then be worth more than £340m? Probably. Any "business" with a £150m+++ turnover and assets of £2-300m (players and property) should be generating vanity investment interest. There are a huge number of ways to increase that turnover - none of which the current Board seem bothered about, incidentally.

There is a huge opportunity at Norwich for someone.

But why Norwich? Why not at West Brom, Fulham, Sunderland or any number of similar size clubs with recent PL experience and/or a reasonably sized fan base?  And for most of these, factors like geography or financial distress make them more attractive.
 

There are numerous owners of clubs (I can think of an American pension scheme for one 😉) who seem to have thought there was a good potential investment to be had who have completely failed to realise any upside and have probably lost a significant chunk on top of their original purchase price.  These “investors” (in general) aren’t idiots, most of them have professional experience in managing businesses for growth, but they fail to repeat the success they’ve had elsewhere when they try and apply their expertise to a football club.

 

Yes, you could argue the likes of Leicester, Leeds or Palace have delivered, but for how long? Ten years ago it would have been Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan and the rest who were the examples of investment made good and where are they now? 
 

tl;dr - many have tried, most have failed.

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I've found this season that I've actually watched more Champions League than in previous years (although this might just be because I'm free on those evenings) but I'm less fussed about watching other Premier League matches. I feel pretty tuned out to the rest of the league.

Me too. I don't actually think it's that great. I rarely watch a Premier League game that excites me. There are perhaps 3 or 4 teams that make me want to watch. And the Championship is really dire although strangely League 1 is quite exciting.

I've had a season's Covid break from Carrow Road and although I'm going back next season I've really enjoyed the year watching local football. 

PS congratulations KC on your newborn!

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

2 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

There are numerous owners of clubs (I can think of an American pension scheme for one 😉) who seem to have thought there was a good potential investment to be had who have completely failed to realise any upside and have probably lost a significant chunk on top of their original purchase price.  These “investors” (in general) aren’t idiots, most of them have professional experience in managing businesses for growth, but they fail to repeat the success they’ve had elsewhere when they try and apply their expertise to a football club.

 

Is that because they fall to recognise that the most important thing an owner does is identify and appoint a good quality coach/manager? 

The trouble they all have is that the number of people capable of doing that job well is remarkably small and many of them, Marcus Evans being a good example, don't have the faintest idea of where to look. 

[shefcanary 2,955]

1 hour ago, Nuff Said said:

But why Norwich? Why not at West Brom, Fulham, Sunderland or any number of similar size clubs with recent PL experience and/or a reasonably sized fan base?  And for most of these, factors like geography or financial distress make them more attractive.

And there is the rub.  Norwich are not distressed financially, just solvent.  There is nothing for an investor to leverage against.  In addition, the spread of shareholding is along the lines of a community company; to acquire the club to allow for control (NB: despite what is said Smith & Jones do not own enough shares to do everything that is possible in a company) will take a lot of time, energy and adviser fees.  Norwich is not attractive unless it is being purchased by a fan consortia; I've asked many times on here for volunteers living in Norfolk to start the process but alas there seems no-one motivated enough to do this.  Until they present themselves we will just have to muddle along under the existing model, however frustrating people find it.  

[dylanisabaddog 6,148]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

And there is the rub.  Norwich are not distressed financially, just solvent.  There is nothing for an investor to leverage against.  In addition, the spread of shareholding is along the lines of a community company; to acquire the club to allow for control (NB: despite what is said Smith & Jones do not own enough shares to do everything that is possible in a company) will take a lot of time, energy and adviser fees.  Norwich is not attractive unless it is being purchased by a fan consortia; I've asked many times on here for volunteers living in Norfolk to start the process but alas there seems no-one motivated enough to do this.  Until they present themselves we will just have to muddle along under the existing model, however frustrating people find it.  

You'll have to explain that. Smith and Jones have clearly been told that 51% gives them ultimate control. Why do you think that someone buying their shares would not enjoy the same position? I'm not looking for an argument, I genuinely don't know 

[Badger 2,745]

1 hour ago, shefcanary said:

Norwich is not attractive unless it is being purchased by a fan consortia; I've asked many times on here for volunteers living in Norfolk to start the process but alas there seems no-one motivated enough to do this.  Until they present themselves we will just have to muddle along under the existing model, however frustrating people find it.

Whilst a fan consortium might be potential purchasers, there  is no reason to assume that they will have the sort of money that would be required to make us an established PL club. Instead of "wasting" their money on buying S and J's shares City would be better off if they bought new shares. As a consortium, none of them would have overall control anyway, except in concert with other shareholders.

[sgncfc 1,330]

6 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

But why Norwich? Why not at West Brom, Fulham, Sunderland or any number of similar size clubs with recent PL experience and/or a reasonably sized fan base?  And for most of these, factors like geography or financial distress make them more attractive.
 

There are numerous owners of clubs (I can think of an American pension scheme for one 😉) who seem to have thought there was a good potential investment to be had who have completely failed to realise any upside and have probably lost a significant chunk on top of their original purchase price.  These “investors” (in general) aren’t idiots, most of them have professional experience in managing businesses for growth, but they fail to repeat the success they’ve had elsewhere when they try and apply their expertise to a football club.

 

Yes, you could argue the likes of Leicester, Leeds or Palace have delivered, but for how long? Ten years ago it would have been Blackburn, Bolton, Wigan and the rest who were the examples of investment made good and where are they now? 
 

tl;dr - many have tried, most have failed.

Well, it may have passed you by but all 3 of those clubs you mention (as in West Brom, Fulham and Sunderland) are currently owned by billionaires, which kind of proves my point. Norwich are one of the few clubs in the two top divisions still available. We are a bit like the last house in the road which is still a "do-up". 

[sgncfc 1,330]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

And there is the rub.  Norwich are not distressed financially, just solvent.  There is nothing for an investor to leverage against.  In addition, the spread of shareholding is along the lines of a community company; to acquire the club to allow for control (NB: despite what is said Smith & Jones do not own enough shares to do everything that is possible in a company) will take a lot of time, energy and adviser fees.  Norwich is not attractive unless it is being purchased by a fan consortia; I've asked many times on here for volunteers living in Norfolk to start the process but alas there seems no-one motivated enough to do this.  Until they present themselves we will just have to muddle along under the existing model, however frustrating people find it.  

As you know I completely disagree that there is nothing for an investor to leverage against, but I have also advocated for a community shareholder takeover or at least a much more widespread investment opportunity. The Academy Bond showed what was possible with a bit of innovative thinking.