Would you want Sir Jim Ratcliffe as owner of Norwich City?

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

15 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I'm guessing the reason so many owners still want to get involved with football despite it not being an obvious way to make a lot of money now is that they're looking to the future with streaming and VR experiences and how they can tap into the gigantic global market. 

While there is no money to be made from investing in us now with our revenue being purely from local fans and TV money,  if we managed to get an investor who in the short term put 30 or 40 million into the club alongside what we already get in revenue to get us up and stabilize us in the PL (Would require extremely good use of the money I admit) they could then earn that back in the future if we're earning a million a match day from our global fanbase paying £30 ish a ticket to watch the match virtually independent of what we'd get from other revenue streams. The TV money and local fans would fund the club, the owners could then use the global revenues for profit. I'm just throwing out completely random numbers here but that's why a lot of American investors are looking to get involved so they can better extract revenue from football's global fanbase. If we went up and stayed up we'd attract more fans across the globe and by signing more players from America, Africa and Asia fans over there tend to follow players over teams and would want to watch us play if we have USA or South Korean international in our team for example. There is still a lot of money to be made from football if we're looking at future technologies so the whole idea that no one would want to invest into us because they'd just be throwing away money is not true. It would be a huge gamble sure, but there's a reason why people keep investing into owning clubs. 

 

Somebody was listening to Simon Jordan today 😉

[Nuff Said 5,145]

4 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Somebody was listening to Simon Jordan today 😉

I think the important part if you could be ar5ed to read the whole thing was “I'm just throwing out completely random numbers here”.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,220]

On 01/05/2022 at 15:42, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

A simple question. You are trustees of Norwich City. 

Sir Jim Ratcliffe recently made a belated £4.25bn total bid for Chelsea. The £2.5bn asking price requested by Corporate Finance sellers the Raine Group, plus a further promised £1.75bn for Stadium upgrade and player investment. 

Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a Manchester United fan. It is a little eyebrow-raising that he made his bid - after visiting the Chelsea training ground with a view to making an offer a few years ago - after the stated deadline. It might be a ‘stalking horse’ type bid to awaken interest in his first love Manchester United and to seed further unrest there. 

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s Ineos Chemicals Group recently took over the Sky Cycling Team and Sir Ben Ainslie’s America’s Cup Yachting Team. Investment is strong and consistent. Plans are at least mid-term. He has stated his open desire to invest in British businesses, British sport and British ownership. 

Despite some thoughts to the contrary, American investors and Sports Franchise owners still see considerable scope for growth in leveraging Premier League Football club brands. The money is unlikely to fall out of the market any time soon it would appear. 

So would he be suitable for you? Wealthy, British and with a love of football and sport. A huge desire to win, plus a successful business that likes to associate with high level sporting success. 

Does he fit your criteria for a suitable owner for Norwich City?

Parma 

 

The word on the Corporate Finance street was right.

Parma 

[Barham Blitz 653]

Apologies for the sizable post but I missed Parma's thread first time round and it piqued my interest. 

Looking at what Radcliffe has done at Nice since buying the club could be indicative as to how he would treat his new plaything were he to persuade Delia to sell.

According to Transfermarket here hasn't been PSG levels of daft spending - an average transfer deficit of around £25m a season suggests steady investment but the overwhelming majority of incomings have been in the 19-23 year old age group.  Ramsey and Schmeichel appear something of an anomaly albeit for a negligible transfer outlay.

So in that sense he might fit the current model but with the scope to take slightly higher value gambles than we are currently able to.  But we wouldn't be outbidding Man City for players if he took over.

My knowledge of French football isn't encyclopaedic by any means but as far as I can see they've bobbed around mid-table for the best part of 20 years with a 3rd and two 4th placed finishes and a French cup the best they've managed in relatively recent history.   They have history as a founding member of Ligue 1 and a glory period in the 50s but even in a relatively weak league  (in comparison to the Premiership) have only made the Champions League once and the Europa League a few times without making any inroads.

The reported cost of Ineos's 80% stake was €100m.  So far so not entirely unreasonable in a Norwich comparison.  But they do have a modern 36,000 seater stadium albeit one which they only average around 22,000 gates in and are just a short helicopter ride from a Monaco where a certain Mr Radcliffe resides

So in summary, my personal opinion of him aside, Radcliffe would appear to make a reasonable potential investor in the context of giving us a bit more scope to continue the current model with a bit more oomph without the risk of asset striping us a la Burnley, but don't expect us to start breaking Premiership transfer records.  But I wonder if the proximity of Nice and the potential of achieving relative league success and a relatively regular foray into Europe without massive investment makes it a more enticing smaller scale (ie. Not United or Chelsea) hobby club than we could ever be even with the carrot of Premiership incomes. 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Barham Blitz

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

7 hours ago, essex canary said:

Has our current ownership indicated that they are willing to go as far or beyond the Crouch Report proposals?

I don't know, but at a guess I would say our current or future ownership would be willing to go as far as the Crouch Report proposals, if they ever become enacted or even just recommended to the world of English football.

And that our current or future ownership would be willing to go further than many other clubs towards putting into practice the Crouch Report proposals if, as is likely, zilch is done by this or any future government towards actually forcing them on football.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

11 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I strongly suspect that he's a tax avoider, rather than 'evader', not a huge amount of difference between the two but the former is legal.

Considering the litany of issues previously described at INEOS, I think evasion is more likely, but would agree that we're both going off suspicion.

Jim Ratcliffe: billionaire boss of INEOS - Corporate Watch

[essex canary 496]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

I don't know, but at a guess I would say our current or future ownership would be willing to go as far as the Crouch Report proposals, if they ever become enacted or even just recommended to the world of English football.

And that our current or future ownership would be willing to go further than many other clubs towards putting into practice the Crouch Report proposals if, as is likely, zilch is done by this or any future government towards actually forcing them on football.

I share you hopes on this one. At this moment though the only actions appear to be ZW being involved in discussions at Premier League meetings whilst there has been no comment on issues that would clearly impact our Club such as independent and rotating directors alongside the golden share. It would be good to see NCFC championing the proposals. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

18 hours ago, Barham Blitz said:

and are just a short helicopter ride from a Monaco where a certain Mr Radcliffe resides

Doubt he'd bother getting in the helicopter, its 30 mins in the Rolls Royce

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

Every sporting venture Ineos is involved in is a successful and reputable one. In the unlikely event that he was interested, it would be a no-brainer to welcome it with open arms.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Every sporting venture Ineos is involved in is a successful and reputable one. In the unlikely event that he was interested, it would be a no-brainer to welcome it with open arms.

True apart from the Americas Cup.

What he has done with the Cycling though is leave it to the experts. Obviously money is not really an object and Ineos have still arguably the best 30+ team in the business.

So I would suggest than Radcliffe would in terms of an ownership model, be ideal for a club like us.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

13 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

True apart from the Americas Cup.

What he has done with the Cycling though is leave it to the experts. Obviously money is not really an object and Ineos have still arguably the best 30+ team in the business.

So I would suggest than Radcliffe would in terms of an ownership model, be ideal for a club like us.

Those foiling monohulls were brand new experimental technology with a lot of divergence in approach because everybody was experimenting. 

Britannia really excelled in strong winds, which was demonstrated in how she dominated in the events running up to it; the conditions just too light for her when it came to the crunch. Luna Rossa was incredibly lucky that the conditions happened to come out in a way that suited her the best. Not to take away from what a beautiful boat she was, mind. All of those boats are magic as far as I'm concerned. 

Sorry, bit of a digression, but I loved the last Americas Cup. 😁

Edited August 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

On 02/05/2022 at 10:39, TIL 1010 said:

Referencing Delia Smith and Michael Wynn-Jones’ influence on his switch, the Norwich Sporting Director admitted: “When the opportunity came up here, my wife said you need to speak to these people, as in the owners, because she thought I would just like it.

This clearly shows ZW had an influence.

 

I seriously doubt he was 'under orders' from Zoe to take the job. It completely makes sense that her positive opinion of us as a club influenced his decision, though. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Those foiling monohulls were brand new experimental technology with a lot of divergence in approach because everybody was experimenting. 

Britannia really excelled in strong winds, which was demonstrated in how she dominated in the events running up to it; the conditions just too light for her when it came to the crunch. Luna Rossa was incredibly lucky that the conditions happened to come out in a way that suited her the best. Not to take away from what a beautiful boat she was, mind. All of those boats are magic as far as I'm concerned. 

Sorry, bit of a digression, but I loved the last Americas Cup. 😁

But Ainslie will not see that as success. There is no second or worse to him.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

But Ainslie will not see that as success. There is no second or worse to him.

Of course not. No competitive sportsman would. Every one of those boats was an engineering marvel, though; I very much doubt many people who follow the sport are that invested in success or failure of one team. Britannia was still one of a handful of true engineering marvels at the end of the day.

[Nuff Said 5,145]

I’m a little surprised at your views @littleyellowbirdie and @keelansgrandad. Have you read the article @TheGunnShow linked to? He really is an unpleasant individual who seems to value yet more personal wealth above the well-being of his employees and those who live close to his plants, despite being one of the richest people in the country (when he occasionally lives here for tax purposes). Plus he opposes environmental regulations (hence the Brexit support), his companies are responsible for numerous significant pollution incidents, he owns one of Europe’s largest plastic producers and was happy to announce investment in Saudi Arabia not long after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Given what you’ve posted elsewhere, I would have thought you would find this hard to swallow? A bit of sports washing doesn’t make it ok.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,551]

6 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m a little surprised at your views @littleyellowbirdie and @keelansgrandad. Have you read the article @TheGunnShow linked to? He really is an unpleasant individual who seems to value yet more personal wealth above the well-being of his employees and those who live close to his plants, despite being one of the richest people in the country (when he occasionally lives here for tax purposes). Plus he opposes environmental regulations (hence the Brexit support), his companies are responsible for numerous significant pollution incidents, he owns one of Europe’s largest plastic producers and was happy to announce investment in Saudi Arabia not long after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Given what you’ve posted elsewhere, I would have thought you would find this hard to swallow? A bit of sports washing doesn’t make it ok.

I can appreciate that. I must say  it was a completely superficial calculation on my part that I just love Mercedes F1, AC75s, and INEOS happens to sponsor both. But it'll never happen anyway and very happy with what we may have happening with Attanassio. 

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m a little surprised at your views @littleyellowbirdie and @keelansgrandad. Have you read the article @TheGunnShow linked to? He really is an unpleasant individual who seems to value yet more personal wealth above the well-being of his employees and those who live close to his plants, despite being one of the richest people in the country (when he occasionally lives here for tax purposes). Plus he opposes environmental regulations (hence the Brexit support), his companies are responsible for numerous significant pollution incidents, he owns one of Europe’s largest plastic producers and was happy to announce investment in Saudi Arabia not long after the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. Given what you’ve posted elsewhere, I would have thought you would find this hard to swallow? A bit of sports washing doesn’t make it ok.

I don't think I mentioned whether I liked the bloke or approved of his businesses. I said that with his sport sponsorship, he would be an ideal model owner for us. 

He wouldn't interfere. He wouldn't invest to get his money and more back. He would seek to make us the best.

Reality is he isn't going to or never will buy us.

[Nuff Said 5,145]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I don't think I mentioned whether I liked the bloke or approved of his businesses. I said that with his sport sponsorship, he would be an ideal model owner for us. 

He wouldn't interfere. He wouldn't invest to get his money and more back. He would seek to make us the best.

Reality is he isn't going to or never will buy us.

Understood, but for me it would affect the way I feel about the club, in much the same way Delia’s politics (and gender?) seem to upset others. Different for everyone I know.

Edited August 20, 2022 by Nuff Said

[Highland Canary 76]

It is an interesting to debate whether the members of this forum, and perhaps Norwich supporters more generally, have a different (higher?) ethical standard than supporters of other football clubs. It would seem supporters of clubs (lucky enough?) to receive considerable investment are pleased when it increases the likelihood of their club winning football matches. I suspect the reality would be that if our club received new investment such that we were more likely to win football matches and the club progressed as a result, our supporters, the vast majority at least, would not be unhappy with that prospect regardless of the capital source.

[Mr Angry 1,563]

11 minutes ago, Highland Canary said:

It is an interesting to debate whether the members of this forum, and perhaps Norwich supporters more generally, have a different (higher?) ethical standard than supporters of other football clubs. It would seem supporters of clubs (lucky enough?) to receive considerable investment are pleased when it increases the likelihood of their club winning football matches. I suspect the reality would be that if our club received new investment such that we were more likely to win football matches and the club progressed as a result, our supporters, the vast majority at least, would not be unhappy with that prospect regardless of the capital source.

Football isn’t everything-if we were bought by someone linked to anything unethical I would walk away, 100%.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

21 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Understood, but for me it would affect the way I feel about the club, in much the same way Delia’s politics (and gender?) seem to upset others. Different for everyone I know.

I understand that his business policies don't make scrutiny and morally he would not fit our model. 

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,189]

Ker-ching!

Loadsamoney

This could easily go in the cost of living thread, too