Football assets sit uneasily with financial investment

[sgncfc 1,264]

7 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

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". 

And, just to add, what is the owner of Fulham currently doing? Increasing the capacity, improving their facilities and entering into partnerships in Asia. He'll still need to spend another £100m on players to stay in the EPL but I guarantee you he is doing this to make money ultimately, which he will. It's really not that relevant to subscribers/followers in Asia that Fulham is on the outskirts of London, or that Norwich is 100 miles away.

[Badger 2,417]

2 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

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.

 

I couldn't get in on the Academy Bond - it was a great deal 5%, promotion bonus (25%, I recall) and other privileges - end of year awards evening etc. I tried on the first morning having pre-registered and it sold out whilst I was trying to move the money😣

Something like this may be a good way to build the new stand, although I suspect that they could probably get a lower rate. Spurs are getting under or about 2% for a lot of their borrowing for their stadium! Obviously, slightly different interest rate environment a couple of years ago, but presumable at some stage they will target inflation again although the unmentionable decision of 6 years ago will I suspect make us prone to wage inflation for some time!

[Badger 2,417]

10 minutes ago, sgncfc said:

And, just to add, what is the owner of Fulham currently doing? Increasing the capacity, improving their facilities and entering into partnerships in Asia. He'll still need to spend another £100m on players to stay in the EPL but I guarantee you he is doing this to make money ultimately, which he will. It's really not that relevant to subscribers/followers in Asia that Fulham is on the outskirts of London, or that Norwich is 100 miles away.

It will still only have a capacity of 30,000 so he will be largely dependant upon TV revenue. 

I'm sure he wants to make money and he may do so, but he has a long way to catch up! Swiss Ramble said that he has given Fulham £410 million by the end of the 20-21 season. He will have lost more this season + the new stand + Fulham still owe £86 million on transfers (but are owed £18 million so £68 million net). He paid over £200 million for Fulham as well!

Randy Lerner got fed up of throwing good money after bad and quit Villa so who know what will happen to Fulham? He is 71, and at some stage his kids are likely to have their say! He has been remarkably generous to Fulham, but I don't think is the norm and he may well have miscalculated. Presumably he wants to turn Fulham into a Chelsea, but I'm not sure that he hasn't missed the boat - he may have arrived too late in the cycle. It depends upon whether you think that TV revenue will continue to grow abroad exponentially - not surprisingly he was very outspoken about the European Super League - I think he was having nightmares about all his money being burned.

Anyway, a good owner, probably better than we might expect (?) but in the final analysis, he has spent over half a billion pounds and Fulham FC are in a lower league position than when he bought them!

He has spent over £500,000,000 to turn Fulham from an established Premier league team into a yoyo club! He may be successful, by I won't be rushing to buy any shares if he choses to issue some new ones!

 

[king canary 7,705]

10 minutes ago, Badger said:

It will still only have a capacity of 30,000 so he will be largely dependant upon TV revenue. 

I'm sure he wants to make money and he may do so, but he has a long way to catch up! Swiss Ramble said that he has given Fulham £410 million by the end of the 20-21 season. He will have lost more this season + the new stand + Fulham still owe £86 million on transfers (but are owed £18 million so £68 million net). He paid over £200 million for Fulham as well!

Randy Lerner got fed up of throwing good money after bad and quit Villa so who know what will happen to Fulham? He is 71, and at some stage his kids are likely to have their say! He has been remarkably generous to Fulham, but I don't think is the norm and he may well have miscalculated. Presumably he wants to turn Fulham into a Chelsea, but I'm not sure that he hasn't missed the boat - he may have arrived too late in the cycle. It depends upon whether you think that TV revenue will continue to grow abroad exponentially - not surprisingly he was very outspoken about the European Super League - I think he was having nightmares about all his money being burned.

Anyway, a good owner, probably better than we might expect (?) but in the final analysis, he has spent over half a billion pounds and Fulham FC are in a lower league position than when he bought them!

He has spent over £500,000,000 to turn Fulham from an established Premier league team into a yoyo club! He may be successful, by I won't be rushing to buy any shares if he choses to issue some new ones!

 

Staying out of this one but I'd not expect to see the Khans walking away any time soon from Fulham- Tony Khan (the owners son) is basically living the dream being involved in running Fulham, the Jacksonville Jaguars and his AEW wrestling promotion. The only reason I could see him moving on is that he gets overstretched.

[nutty nigel 7,669]

There seems to be a lot of nepotism with these owners...

[essex canary 516]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I couldn't get in on the Academy Bond - it was a great deal 5%, promotion bonus (25%, I recall) and other privileges - end of year awards evening etc. I tried on the first morning having pre-registered and it sold out whilst I was trying to move the money😣

Something like this may be a good way to build the new stand, although I suspect that they could probably get a lower rate. Spurs are getting under or about 2% for a lot of their borrowing for their stadium! Obviously, slightly different interest rate environment a couple of years ago, but presumable at some stage they will target inflation again although the unmentionable decision of 6 years ago will I suspect make us prone to wage inflation for some time!

What gross return could be made on a new stand? I am assuming around 10% which raises the question of how much of a share they could give to fans?

A promotion bonus of 25% wouldn't seem to make sense in this context as it can't be related to the revenue stream. Perhaps that is also why a good reason why such an over generous bonus shouldn't have been applied to a non revenue raising asset such as the training facilities.

Nonetheless a way needs to be found to do the development which may well involve fan finance.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by essex canary

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

What gross return could be made on a new stand? I am assuming around 10% which raises the question of how much of a share they could give to fans?

A promotion bonus of 25% wouldn't seem to make sense in this context as it can't be related to the revenue stream. Perhaps that is also why a good reason why such an over generous bonus shouldn't have been applied to a non revenue raising asset such as the training facilities.

Nonetheless a way needs to be found to do the development which may well involve fan finance.

 

About 4 years ago the figures quoted were that we would need to sell 90% of the additional seating for 20 years in order to pay back the loan. I suspect that would have been a loan at around 5% above base. There are 2 big issues

- Interest rates have gone into an upward cycle

- The strong possibility of a European Super League may mean our biggest selling games won't be happening. 

It's a real pain because I think the capacity at the moment holds the club back in several ways. I've stood at Carrow Road in a 37,000 crowd and I'd love to be a part of a crowd that size in the future. Sadly I think the club will now see it as too much of a risk. 

If the club did go ahead with a bond it would be looking to borrow £3,000 each from 10,000 people. Is the money out there? 

Edited March 23, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[BigFish 1,990]

What is interesting about this debate is the argument in favour of football as an investment is treated, like many Internet Unicorn companies, more like a giant Ponzi scheme. No one, as far as I can see, suggests that football clubs actually make a profit, instead it is argued that if a billionaire invests £xxxmillion they can take a club to what is described as the "next level". They can then make a modest profit by selling this on to another billionaire/consortium. Although it is unclear what the secondary investor gets for buying a football club at a premium.

The first flaw in the argument is that the status of the "Next Level" is not what economists call elastic, it is fixed. At its largest extent the status of becoming an established EPL club is limited to only 17 clubs (being relegated by definiton removes the status). If 20 billionaires buy into the dream 3 will be disappointed and lose much of their £xxxmillion. It is an even more acute situation at the "Superclub" level, only 4 places in the Champions League means that there is always a club or two with aspirations who miss out and pay the financial cost that is "Superclub" expenses on EPL income.

Secondly, football remains a competition and although increasingly unlikely there is the chance of unpredictable, statistical outliers like Leicester winning the title, taking a Champions League place and therefore edging out a Superclub for a season. Equally, a club like Huddersfield, Sheffield U, Watford, Brentford, Burnley, Bournemouth etc taking one of the precious 17 survival places for a season or two before reverting to that clubs mean performance. It is this that drives the European Super League dreams.

Next season could see the spending arms race escalate further with the owners of Villa and Necastle looking to get to the "Next Level", Man United seeking to return, Arsenal in posession of a precious place and its revenue streams and new owners at Chelsea. If Fulham invest enough to stay up, at least one of this years 17 will miss out. Some billionaires/consortiums are going to lose out.

 

[Badger 2,417]

13 hours ago, king canary said:

Staying out of this one but I'd not expect to see the Khans walking away any time soon from Fulham- Tony Khan (the owners son) is basically living the dream being involved in running Fulham, the Jacksonville Jaguars and his AEW wrestling promotion. The only reason I could see him moving on is that he gets overstretched.

TBH, I have no idea about what Tony Khan might do. However, I would suggest that being a yoyo club as Fulham now are is hardly "living the dream;" to many on here is is the ultimate nightmare. 

My questioning of whether Tony Khan will stay indefinitely after his father hands over control is based on the fact that Khan is only worth £6 billion and he has two kids. If he shares it equally, they will only get £3 billion each! I don't expect anybody to rush to get their hankies out, but the scale of losses and investment would seem less sustainable for someone with fewer assets.

If Tony Khan "only" has three billion how can he continue the current rate of investment - well over 1/2 billion in less than 10 years - to turn Fulham from an established premier league team into a yoyo club?

Either way, I don't see how he can be described as an investor owner as there is little prospect that I can see that he will get his money back, let alone a viable return.

[Badger 2,417]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

...

Next season could see the spending arms race escalate further with the owners of Villa and Necastle looking to get to the "Next Level", Man United seeking to return, Arsenal in posession of a precious place and its revenue streams and new owners at Chelsea. If Fulham invest enough to stay up, at least one of this years 17 will miss out. Some billionaires/consortiums are going to lose out.

I think that this sums it up well. It is why the Super clubs want a European super league and would have preferred qualification to be automatic: they want the extra TV revenue to gain a sufficient return from their investment. The chances of breaking into the super clubs are increasingly small, especially for those with smaller grounds (who therefore generate less revenue).

Newcastle have a chance because of the super wealth of their owners but also because of their ground capacity. Clubs like Fulham and us stand no chance as far as I can see. FIFA's proposed changes to FFP (here will be a new name) will make it even harder even for those with great wealth.

[shefcanary 2,503]

@dylanisabaddog

To acquire the level of control a "non-fan" might want they would have to acquire upwards of 75% of the shares (they would need to feel they could raise a special resolution and get it passed to feel totally in control).  To acquire the additional 24% is not an easy task.  If they managed to get I think 90%, effectively they could buy out the rest of the shares without objection. 

Edited March 23, 2022 by shefcanary

[Badger 2,417]

4 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

About 4 years ago the figures quoted were that we would need to sell 90% of the additional seating for 20 years in order to pay back the loan. I suspect that would have been a loan at around 5% above base.

I'm not a banker, but surely 5% above base is a very higher figure for what is essentially mortgage-style finance? Most of Tottenham's finance for their new ground is about 2% (albeit in a better interest rate scenario than we have at present). I would also be interested in the payback period on which the assumption was made.

I'm guessing that they didn't give details?

[Monty13 2,293]

On 22/03/2022 at 09:34, Badger said:

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. 

Yes we are broadly agreeing I think.

The only point of perhaps contention is there’s X number of potential premier league clubs as playthings for X number of rich people who want playthings.

I don’t know what those numbers are but the first one is not likely to change, there’s maybe around 40 clubs in England and Wales with true potential to be a PL club?

Any outside London and maybe Manchester as the two major attractive metropolitan hubs immediately lose appeal.

Therefore it’s not an investment issue for me more a supply and demand one and while I’m pretty certain on the supply I have no real idea personally on the demand, particularly for NCFC. I don’t think any of us do.

[Badger 2,417]

4 minutes ago, Monty13 said:

Therefore it’s not an investment issue for me more a supply and demand one and while I’m pretty certain on the supply I have no real idea personally on the demand, particularly for NCFC. I don’t think any of us do.

I agree - I think that it's both factors, but if you start talking about our location etc, you get others making value judgement saying that we have some of the nicest beaches in the UK etc and that we are just as attractive!

It is very difficult to argue logically with this argument as it starts with an internal value judgement. The investment case, however, is much more objective. Therefore, it is easier to demonstrate that there is no investment case unless there are huge unpredicted changes to the market. Most of the predicted changes to the market, make the investment case even weaker (Economy, TV deal growth slowing down; Super league; new FFP rules on the horizon etc).

[Nuff Said 5,251]

17 hours ago, sgncfc said:

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". 

But that’s not the point you were making (unless my comprehension skills are worse than I think). You argued that for £340 million (and the numbers are highly debatable), Norwich could be turned into a “viable” PL club. Without some tedious searching I don’t know what the owners of those clubs have spent, maybe they haven’t put in anything like £340 million, but they are clearly not yet viable PL clubs. Which *is* my point, money in no way guarantees success.

Scarcity of suitable clubs for a buyer looking to elevate a club to the PL club long-term is another argument, and I would suggest there are plenty of candidates in that pool, both in the Championship and League 1.

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

5 hours ago, Badger said:

I'm not a banker, but surely 5% above base is a very higher figure for what is essentially mortgage-style finance? Most of Tottenham's finance for their new ground is about 2% (albeit in a better interest rate scenario than we have at present). I would also be interested in the payback period on which the assumption was made.

I'm guessing that they didn't give details?

I think it was 20 years. Tottenham Hotspur may be able to borrow at 2%. I'm afraid Norwich City is a different proposition altogether. Lenders will just look at our neighbours and laugh. 

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

@dylanisabaddog

To acquire the level of control a "non-fan" might want they would have to acquire upwards of 75% of the shares (they would need to feel they could raise a special resolution and get it passed to feel totally in control).  To acquire the additional 24% is not an easy task.  If they managed to get I think 90%, effectively they could buy out the rest of the shares without objection. 

Sorry, but where are you getting this information? NCFC is an unlisted company. From my understanding all that a 51% shareholder has to do is raise their hand and they can do what they want. Am I wrong @Badger@Badger?

[king canary 7,705]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

TBH, I have no idea about what Tony Khan might do. However, I would suggest that being a yoyo club as Fulham now are is hardly "living the dream;" to many on here is is the ultimate nightmare. 

My questioning of whether Tony Khan will stay indefinitely after his father hands over control is based on the fact that Khan is only worth £6 billion and he has two kids. If he shares it equally, they will only get £3 billion each! I don't expect anybody to rush to get their hankies out, but the scale of losses and investment would seem less sustainable for someone with fewer assets.

If Tony Khan "only" has three billion how can he continue the current rate of investment - well over 1/2 billion in less than 10 years - to turn Fulham from an established premier league team into a yoyo club?

Either way, I don't see how he can be described as an investor owner as there is little prospect that I can see that he will get his money back, let alone a viable return.

I'm not making the point he's an investor owner, I'm simply saying I don't think Shad Khan's kids will be walking away in the near future. TK is a massive sports nut, that is why I'm saying he's living the dream- right now he's involved in NFL, football and pro wrestling which by all reports are his three biggest passions. 

He's not doing it to make money- the Khan family have a massive auto parts company with revenues in the many billions and owns and NFL franchise which are laregely profitable enterprises. Tony and, to a lesser extent Shad, aren't involved with Fulham for savy financial reasons, they are largely their because they enjoy it.

[shefcanary 2,503]

24 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Sorry, but where are you getting this information? NCFC is an unlisted company. From my understanding all that a 51% shareholder has to do is raise their hand and they can do what they want. Am I wrong @Badger@Badger?

No, you are correct up to a point especially for day to day running of the club, but under UK Company Law there are some key governance issues that require a Special Resolution which needs 75% of shareholders votes to pass.  So if the new majority shareholder wanted to issue new shares, raise certain types of borrowing secured on assets, change certain governance arrangements (Memo & Articles of Association for instance), hold a General meeting at short notice, they may not necessarily be able to unless they can persuade 24% of the rest of the shareholding to agree.  Sure, they may not need to do this all the time, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they wanted to do something controversial or radical they would need that 24%.  

[BigFish 1,990]

24 minutes ago, king canary said:

I'm not making the point he's an investor owner, I'm simply saying I don't think Shad Khan's kids will be walking away in the near future. TK is a massive sports nut, that is why I'm saying he's living the dream- right now he's involved in NFL, football and pro wrestling which by all reports are his three biggest passions. 

He's not doing it to make money- the Khan family have a massive auto parts company with revenues in the many billions and owns and NFL franchise which are laregely profitable enterprises. Tony and, to a lesser extent Shad, aren't involved with Fulham for savy financial reasons, they are largely their because they enjoy it.

I don't think @Badger thinks you are, KC. But others continue to make the point that investors could make money by making NCFC an established EPL club. It is this argument that Badger takes issue with. Khan may well hang about at Fulham, or he may not, but the case remains he has sunk half a billion pounds into a club that currently yoyos between the EPL & the Chumps. @sgncfc made the argument that a similar benefactor could make NCFC an established EPL with £340 million. Evidence would seem to indicate that this would be an unlikely outcome, even if someone with that amount of loose change could be found.

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

6 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

No, you are correct up to a point especially for day to day running of the club, but under UK Company Law there are some key governance issues that require a Special Resolution which needs 75% of shareholders votes to pass.  So if the new majority shareholder wanted to issue new shares, raise certain types of borrowing secured on assets, change certain governance arrangements (Memo & Articles of Association for instance), hold a General meeting at short notice, they may not necessarily be able to unless they can persuade 24% of the rest of the shareholding to agree.  Sure, they may not need to do this all the time, but you can bet your bottom dollar that if they wanted to do something controversial or radical they would need that 24%.  

I don't really see any of the following being an issue for Smith & Jones (excuse the bold print, I can't turn it off!) 

A special resolution is one passed by at least 75% of the shareholders present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at a general meeting.

Notice of not less than 21 days’ notice must be given to the members, specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution.

It follows that shareholders holding more than 25% of the shares may block the others from passing a special resolution.

The following are examples of matters for which a special resolution is required by the Companies Act 2006.

• amendment of the articles of association

• changing the company’s name

• changing the country of registration of the company from Wales to England and Wales

• reduction of the share capital of the company, for example, in connection with the re-domination of shares

• disapplication of pre-emption rights by the directors of the company where there is only one class of shares; where the directors act in general authority; or by the directors to a specified allotment of equity securities or application with modification of an allotment

• re-registration of a company as a new type, for example, an unlimited company as a private limited company or a private limited company as a public limited company

• authorising certain off-market purchases by the company of its own shares, and varying, revoking and renewing that authority

• varying class rights

• using capital to pay for the redemption and purchase of the company’s own shares

[shefcanary 2,503]

6 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I don't really see any of the following being an issue for Smith & Jones (excuse the bold print, I can't turn it off!) 

A special resolution is one passed by at least 75% of the shareholders present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at a general meeting.

Notice of not less than 21 days’ notice must be given to the members, specifying the intention to propose the resolution as a special resolution.

It follows that shareholders holding more than 25% of the shares may block the others from passing a special resolution.

The following are examples of matters for which a special resolution is required by the Companies Act 2006.

• amendment of the articles of association

• changing the company’s name

• changing the country of registration of the company from Wales to England and Wales

• reduction of the share capital of the company, for example, in connection with the re-domination of shares

• disapplication of pre-emption rights by the directors of the company where there is only one class of shares; where the directors act in general authority; or by the directors to a specified allotment of equity securities or application with modification of an allotment

• re-registration of a company as a new type, for example, an unlimited company as a private limited company or a private limited company as a public limited company

• authorising certain off-market purchases by the company of its own shares, and varying, revoking and renewing that authority

• varying class rights

• using capital to pay for the redemption and purchase of the company’s own shares

You have read from the same script, except I paraphrased it.  There may be other things specifically within the club's own governance set up as well, but nothing else in the Mem & Arts so probably limited to the above.  What it does stop happening is what has happened at Burnley, and ManUre before them, where the money used to purchase the club is raised against the shares of the company.  It's why I reiterate again that any chance of an investor coming in to purchase just Smith & Jones shares is unlikely unless that person is a fan (or people are....).

Edited March 23, 2022 by shefcanary

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

14 hours ago, shefcanary said:

You have read from the same script, except I paraphrased it.  There may be other things specifically within the club's own governance set up as well, but nothing else in the Mem & Arts so probably limited to the above.  What it does stop happening is what has happened at Burnley, and ManUre before them, where the money used to purchase the club is raised against the shares of the company.  It's why I reiterate again that any chance of an investor coming in to purchase just Smith & Jones shares is unlikely unless that person is a fan (or people are....).

Leveraged take overs are rare in football (I can only think of Burnley and United) but I very much doubt that Smith and Jones would allow that to happen anyway. It would be nigh on impossible with the way the club is structured at the moment anyway. 

What this thread seems to have worked out is that it is possible to control Norwich City by buying the shares belonging to Smith and Jones, although I assume you would also have to buy from anyone else who wanted to sell at the same price. But if they were in it for the money they would have sold by now. 

The only chance we seem to have is finding a Norwich fan (or group of fans) who have not far short of £500m to burn. That is what it would cost to turn us into a club capable of staying in the Premier League and includes share purchase, ground expansion and most expensive of all, 15 players who are capable of holding their own at that level. However much we discuss it on this forum that's the uncomfortable fact. 

That figure proves the point that Badger made in his opening post. Anyone daft enough to buy our club with a view to making a profit would have to be mad. 

[shefcanary 2,503]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Leveraged take overs are rare in football (I can only think of Burnley and United) but I very much doubt that Smith and Jones would allow that to happen anyway. It would be nigh on impossible with the way the club is structured at the moment anyway. 

What this thread seems to have worked out is that it is possible to control Norwich City by buying the shares belonging to Smith and Jones, although I assume you would also have to buy from anyone else who wanted to sell at the same price. But if they were in it for the money they would have sold by now. 

The only chance we seem to have is finding a Norwich fan (or group of fans) who have not far short of £500m to burn. That is what it would cost to turn us into a club capable of staying in the Premier League and includes share purchase, ground expansion and most expensive of all, 15 players who are capable of holding their own at that level. However much we discuss it on this forum that's the uncomfortable fact. 

That figure proves the point that Badger made in his opening post. Anyone daft enough to buy our club with a view to making a profit would have to be mad. 

You, @Badger, me and a few others are at least on the same page on this - there is no point hoping for an investor to luck upon Norwich (and carping on about it on here), it is down to fans to "find and persuade" a rich benefactor to open those discussions with Smith & Jones.   

We are where we are .......

[Mengo 826]

13 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

You, @Badger, me and a few others are at least on the same page on this - there is no point hoping for an investor to luck upon Norwich (and carping on about it on here), it is down to fans to "find and persuade" a rich benefactor to open those discussions with Smith & Jones.   

We are where we are .......

It is what it is

Used often in the business world, this incredibly versatile phrase can be literally translated as "f*ck it."

[dylanisabaddog 5,062]

7 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

You, @Badger, me and a few others are at least on the same page on this - there is no point hoping for an investor to luck upon Norwich (and carping on about it on here), it is down to fans to "find and persuade" a rich benefactor to open those discussions with Smith & Jones.   

We are where we are .......

I think the fact that the Saudis paid £300m for Newcastle tells us all we need to know. They spent £100m on players in January and now appear to have a team capable of finishing around 14th. They also have a huge modern stadium and enormous supporter base. £400m would get you that at Norwich but with a 35,000 stadium and a much smaller supporter base. It would take a huge amount of love from a fan or group of fans to make sense of those figures. 

To make matters worse, if Burnley go down this season and don't come straight back there is a danger they could go under. That would put a lot of people off buying a football club 

[Badger 2,417]

17 hours ago, king canary said:

I'm not making the point he's an investor owner, I'm simply saying I don't think Shad Khan's kids will be walking away in the near future.

Sorry KC, I should have been clearer. The reason Fulham came up was that someone suggested that Fulham were an example of a club where the owner was in it to make money (an investor owner). I think that this is unlikely, given the scale of the losses he has made against any increase in value in the side if they were ever to attain "established" status - which they had before he took over.

I agree with you, he is a donor owner: essentially it's a very expensive hobby. Whether he can continue subsidising them at the same rate will be interesting (and unlikely imo) - it will be interesting to see what happens next season.

[Badger 2,417]

On 22/03/2022 at 21:56, nutty nigel said:

There seems to be a lot of nepotism with these owners...

Yes, it is one of the most stupid of all the slurs that are thrown against the current owners. People tend to leave assets to close rivals in their wills! There are so many examples of this family-type arrangement.

[Badger 2,417]

16 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It's why I reiterate again that any chance of an investor coming in to purchase just Smith & Jones shares is unlikely unless that person is a fan (or people are....).

Is there any sort of majority required to transfer the assets of the club into other companies - e.g. the ground/ training ground which some owners have tended to do as some security in their investment in the club?

[essex canary 516]

On 23/03/2022 at 06:54, dylanisabaddog said:

About 4 years ago the figures quoted were that we would need to sell 90% of the additional seating for 20 years in order to pay back the loan. I suspect that would have been a loan at around 5% above base. There are 2 big issues

- Interest rates have gone into an upward cycle

- The strong possibility of a European Super League may mean our biggest selling games won't be happening. 

It's a real pain because I think the capacity at the moment holds the club back in several ways. I've stood at Carrow Road in a 37,000 crowd and I'd love to be a part of a crowd that size in the future. Sadly I think the club will now see it as too much of a risk. 

If the club did go ahead with a bond it would be looking to borrow £3,000 each from 10,000 people. Is the money out there? 

Spain have announced a system whereby Clubs are receiving advances against future TV receipts to invest primarily in infrastructure. For example Valencia to complete their new stadium and new training facilities for Real Betis. The 2 Madrid clubs and Barcelona are in opposition.

In England the Government has said it wants to level up and has produced the Crouch Report. 

If people want football to be of major importance in provincial cities, they and their leaders need to stand up for it.

Delia - let's be 'avin you.