What do people want in replacing Delia??

[Robert N. LiM 4,244]

14 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

we need someone with some extra ambition/

 

6 hours ago, TheBaldOne66 said:

Ambition to get to the next level

 

4 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Quite frankly, we need more ambition

Your regular reminder that, in the world of football, 'ambition' is a noun that means 'money'.

[Robert N. LiM 4,244]

6 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

The idea is that with each season of incoming premier league money, it would then put you at a head start over newly promoted clubs until such time as your'e then operating just above the relegation zone each season...i.e Brighton

Or Burnley, who are about to go down. Brighton have a squillionaire owner

[Robert N. LiM 4,244]

4 hours ago, BroadstairsR said:

Why should aspiring to change at the top necessarily mean that the so-called "model" needs to be abandoned?

We currently have an aged couple who are set in their ways, risk-averse and unambitious presiding over the club. If the "What Delia says goes" rumours are to be believed, and the 'take it or leave it' attitude to the 'keeping it in the family' intentions would confirm that they are, then this somewhat hegemonic control has become totally out of tune with the status of NCFC, and it's place within the modern game, and even within the game it'self.

We need freshness at the top rather than the quaint, dated outlook of an owner who seems content with second best to the point of seeming indifference to the likes of this season's embarrassing shambles. Quite frankly, we need more ambition, whether this emanates from a new face, a consortium or some valid  interest from overseas need not be any more risky than the current stale malaise that could see us back onto that slippery slope that led to League One ignominy.  That this change might provide more financial back-up that would see the club removed from its perpetual pauper status would likely be an inevitable bonus.

The club desperately needs younger, more vibrant ownership, wherever that might come from. Countless takeovers of countless clubs have taken place since the Smiths first graced the upper echelons of our club yet NCFC has supposedly been an uninviting prospect for even the chanciest of venturers.

It's not quite 'anybody but Delia' at the moment, but surely a change of some sort is vital. NCFC seems to stand still whilst the footballing world forever evolves. That much of this change is disagreeable cannot invite detachment because that's the way it is. 

Norwich City Football Club no more deserves perpetual Premier League status than a host of other clubs, and probably a lot less than many who currently sit in lower leagues. This doesn't mean we should give up on that ambition.

 

 

This is an excellent, measured post. The ownership debate would be a lot better if more people took this thoughtful approach.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

25 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm guessing that your friends are "of a certain age" (late middle age) so their apathy does not worry me overmuch, although I suspect that this fear of apathy has made the owners over timid about ground expansion.

What worries me far more is the generation of future supporters who may never even start the football habit if they have access to games. We need to expand the ground and fill it with many more youngsters - teenage season tickets for less than £100 quid, ditto student tickets etc. The marketing and the match experience for this age group needs to be reviewed etc to make it a better experience for the next generation.

To my mind, this has been a far bigger failure from the current owners than failing to gamble millions on signings and wages that probably would have made little difference.

Most young fans come with their "Middle Age Dads".

Kids can't afford our owners self funding model.

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

3 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

This is an excellent, measured post. The ownership debate would be a lot better if more people took this thoughtful approach.

It is but "what if they are worse" is the quote that will get rolled out...zzz 

[City 2nd 191]

14 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Google says Hugh Jackman is worth $180m. Nowhere near enough.

To add, the best player I have possibly ever seen play for Norwich we sold for £38m, he was on the bench today for a mid-table side that got tonked at home by a team nowhere near the best in the country. Putting aside the fact I think he is being wasted there, $180m isn’t going to go far. 

Hugh Jackman is worth a da** site more than the penny pinching Delia Smith and her benefactor MWJ, including nemesis Tom. Not to mention their co-hort Mr Webber, who is more intent on climbing Everest than seeing NCFC retain their PL status.

[Duncan Edwards 2,222]

4 minutes ago, City 2nd said:

Hugh Jackman is worth a da** site more than the penny pinching Delia Smith and her benefactor MWJ, including nemesis Tom. Not to mention their co-hort Mr Webber, who is more intent on climbing Everest than seeing NCFC retain their PL status.

No argument that he is richer. He is also worth about 1/2000th of Newcastle’s owners. If you want to be bankrolled as an established Premier League club, he isn’t rich enough. 

[Big Vince 318]

7 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Our owners ceased putting money into this football club some 12+ years ago.

They believe they can own a club without investing in it yet apparantly won't entertain the idea of selling to someone who might.

So people then need to ask themselves , what it is that they bring to the table to warrant them continuing in this position?

One major factor is are they appointing the right people to run the club?

Since this club decided to go down the route of the chief exec/football director route then by and large 'yes'

David McNally did more good than bad , Jez Moxey ...well?...and then there's the case of Stuart Webber....2 promotions but now 2 relegations where player recruitment this season has been disaatrous, even within the limited but big (for norwich) budget we had in the summer.

Who falls on their sword first , the sporting director or the owner?

This however will be 4 relegations in each of the last 4 seasons in the premier league.

Thats fairly conclusive proof that this 'model' cannot keep a club in the premier league and if we are to ever do that something at the top must clearly change

 

Agreed.

[City 2nd 191]

30 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

No argument that he is richer. He is also worth about 1/2000th of Newcastle’s owners. If you want to be bankrolled as an established Premier League club, he isn’t rich enough. 

 Certainly wouldn’t disagree with you, but if he isn’t rich enough, Delia and clan certainly aren’t!

[ged in the onion bag 854]

8 hours ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Our owners ceased putting money into this football club some 12+ years ago.

They believe they can own a club without investing in it yet apparantly won't entertain the idea of selling to someone who might.

So people then need to ask themselves , what it is that they bring to the table to warrant them continuing in this position?

One major factor is are they appointing the right people to run the club?

Since this club decided to go down the route of the chief exec/football director route then by and large 'yes'

David McNally did more good than bad , Jez Moxey ...well?...and then there's the case of Stuart Webber....2 promotions but now 2 relegations where player recruitment this season has been disaatrous, even within the limited but big (for norwich) budget we had in the summer.

Who falls on their sword first , the sporting director or the owner?

This however will be 4 relegations in each of the last 4 seasons in the premier league.

Thats fairly conclusive proof that this 'model' cannot keep a club in the premier league and if we are to ever do that something at the top must clearly change

 

Do you know what the Glazers have made out of Man Utd?   Supposedly fortunes!   Our owners don’t put lots in but they don’t take anything out either and we aren’t in debt.  Man Utd are!  

[CrankyCanary 32]

2 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

No argument that he is richer. He is also worth about 1/2000th of Newcastle’s owners. If you want to be bankrolled as an established Premier League club, he isn’t rich enough. 

That's an arbitrary statement though. Everyone's **** poor compared to Saudi Arabian Trillionaires, even the Citeh group and their 9 (Edit: 10) football clubs. It's bit like comparing a Monarch, and someone who's just been anointed (and chucked a farmstead and a draughty dovecote for a keep).

Edited April 10, 2022 by CrankyCanary

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

2 hours ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Or Burnley, who are about to go down. Brighton have a squillionaire owner

Thus is Burnley's 8th? consecutive season in this league. We can't survive one

[Robert N. LiM 4,244]

10 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Thus is Burnley's 8th? consecutive season in this league. We can't survive one

Absolutely. 6th, I think, but I take the point. We absolutely do need to find a way to do better. I was just making the point that the idea you can become a permanent PL fixture as a club of our size is just not true. You're only ever an injury crisis or unkind fixture list away from being a relegation candidate. Reading your original post again, I realise you might not quite have been taking the argument that far, but the "head start" you mentioned only gets you so far.

[shefcanary 2,389]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I agree that stadium expansion is long over-due.

But where would we get the money from? I'm guessing we are talking in the region of £30-50 million to create a new City Stand.

Massive bank loan? This equals big debt and big interest payments so I guess would be seen as a no-no by most.

Massive bond scheme ala Colney? Could we as a fan base even raise that kind of money? And could the club afford the repayments?

Investment from a third party? From reading many posts on the forum, it seems like we are about as attractive to investors as a shop selling dogsh*t would be.

Steal the cash? The Octogenarian Job? 🎶This is the self-preservation society!🎶 "You were only supposed to keep us out of the bottom three!" 

DDJ, it will be a combination of all these to ensure the cost of finance is as low as possible.  Given the Colney bond at £6m was over-subscribed, £10m from this should be achieved at a rate of 6%.  Not exactly third party investment,  but how about naming rights to the stadium.  I know most on here would hate it, but needs must.  Again £10m would be achievable.  Then £20m bank loan at 5%. Finally £10m "stolen" from the transfer budget / reserves (indirectly stopping Webber spunking it up the wall).  With costs of servicing all that of around £2m perfectly affordable.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

10 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

DDJ, it will be a combination of all these to ensure the cost of finance is as low as possible.  Given the Colney bond at £6m was over-subscribed, £10m from this should be achieved at a rate of 6%.  Not exactly third party investment,  but how about naming rights to the stadium.  I know most on here would hate it, but needs must.  Again £10m would be achievable.  Then £20m bank loan at 5%. Finally £10m "stolen" from the transfer budget / reserves (indirectly stopping Webber spunking it up the wall).  With costs of servicing all that of around £2m perfectly affordable.

Thanks for the reply Shefcanary.👍

It did cross my mind that some kind of 'combination' might be possible. 

OTBC

[BigFish 1,986]

24 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

 I was just making the point that the idea you can become a permanent PL fixture as a club of our size is just not true. You're only ever an injury crisis or unkind fixture list away from being a relegation candidate.

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

[Badger 2,405]

3 hours ago, Disco Dales Jockstrap said:

I agree that stadium expansion is long over-due.

But where would we get the money from? I'm guessing we are talking in the region of £30-50 million to create a new City Stand.

Mortgage-type finance - might have to wait a couple of years now because of the interest rate climate but Spurs borrowed most of the money for their stadium at about 2%. We are not Spurs and won't get it at that rate but a long term loan secured against the ground would be easily financeable imo.

We have been told that a new stand would cost iro £40 million - and provide an extra 6,000 seats - I have no idea if this is true but it "feels right." At 3% interest this would be c £1.2 million, at 4% 1.6 million - realistically, this is just one player's wages! The it should produce revenue to more than offset this - not just the extra ground capacity and extra merchandising/ food sales etc but also if it is anything like the South Stand through office space to let/ facilities space etc - with ample parking nearby, we should get a good revenue from this as well.

Stadium expansion is vital to the long-term future of the club and in my opinion and the club should have been more proactive in moving this forwards.

[Badger 2,405]

37 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Then £20m bank loan at 5%.

Do you really think that we would have to pay 5% for a secured mortgage-type loan? Spurs are paying 2% and whilst I would expect us to pay more than them, not 2 and a half times? (Obviously, the future for interest rates is a little shaky in the next couple of years but most economists expect it to settle down again).

[hogesar 9,618]

1 hour ago, CrankyCanary said:

That's an arbitrary statement though. Everyone's **** poor compared to Saudi Arabian Trillionaires, even the Citeh group and their 9 (Edit: 10) football clubs. It's bit like comparing a Monarch, and someone who's just been anointed (and chucked a farmstead and a draughty dovecote for a keep).

The point though is that Jackmans wealth wouldn't even make a dent on our ability to purchase as a football club.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Mortgage-type finance - might have to wait a couple of years now because of the interest rate climate but Spurs borrowed most of the money for their stadium at about 2%. We are not Spurs and won't get it at that rate but a long term loan secured against the ground would be easily financeable imo.

We have been told that a new stand would cost iro £40 million - and provide an extra 6,000 seats - I have no idea if this is true but it "feels right." At 3% interest this would be c £1.2 million, at 4% 1.6 million - realistically, this is just one player's wages! The it should produce revenue to more than offset this - not just the extra ground capacity and extra merchandising/ food sales etc but also if it is anything like the South Stand through office space to let/ facilities space etc - with ample parking nearby, we should get a good revenue from this as well.

Stadium expansion is vital to the long-term future of the club and in my opinion and the club should have been more proactive in moving this forwards.

Thanks for the reply Badger. 👍

I can remember talk of creating a stand that could house an additional 7k capacity (City Stand is currently about 4.5k with corners) so what you say is in the ball park.

OTBC

[shefcanary 2,389]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Do you really think that we would have to pay 5% for a secured mortgage-type loan? Spurs are paying 2% and whilst I would expect us to pay more than them, not 2 and a half times? (Obviously, the future for interest rates is a little shaky in the next couple of years but most economists expect it to settle down again).

@Badger the %age quoted is tops I'll admit, but that was to head off anyone saying that the loan interest would cripple us; even at such a high rate it wouldn't be in the context of the whole income statement.  The Spurs rate was arranged 5 or 6 years ago now, so 2% I think would be nigh on impossible.  I think unfortunately you'd have to add an allowance for increased risk as Norwich are not likely to be seen as safe as Spuds.  As you say there is also a general economic risk allowance to build in. So again somewhere between 4 & 5% is reasonable for budgeting.

[Petriix 2,834]

If we could replace her with someone young and attractive, preferably with loads of money, that would be ideal. So I guess 'Leicester model' is probably the best fit from the choices available.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

This pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Yes but it be better to be that than a “freak season” away from staying up.

Fundamentally I don’t want us to rip the whole model up and I accept a club like ours is always a bad season away from relegation. But I want “the model +” and how we get that + is open to debate. 

[CrankyCanary 32]

2 hours ago, hogesar said:

The point though is that Jackmans wealth wouldn't even make a dent on our ability to purchase as a football club.

His net worth is higher than the guy who owns Watford. If he was (theoretically prepared to invest heavily he would have more financial impetus than him), potentially. That's if the reported net worths are accurate and what is and isn't tied up in assets.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

I would imagine though that Jackman, should he be interested (doubtful mind), would have significantly more contacts of higher wealth than Delia to rustle up a pretty decent consortium, so his personal wealth wouldn't be the only plus. 

Unfortunately I'd imagine Jackman having any serious interest would be pie in the sky.