finance UK Fans Worry American Owners Will Tarnish Their Football

[Naturalcynic 628]

38 minutes ago, Badger said:

An diverse range of views, although not entirely related to football finance as I had envisaged!

The point of the article is that US investors, not unreasonably, seek to profit from their investment - either by capital growth of their asset/ taking an income or a combination oft he two.

Capital growth is far more likely if you buy an asset cheaply, which would not apply to City, at present. Even if it were, the level of investment required to ensure City were a premier league team for a sustained period (to enable a sale to profit from said capital growth) makes a profit unlikely. A regular income a la the Glazers, means taking money out of the club on an annual basis, rather than putting it in.

So do we add the US to list of countries from where a multi-billionaire investor is not desirable?*

 

*(Current list includes Saudi Arabia, Russia but not yet, for some reason other owners with links to questionable regimes).

Also add any individual affiliated to a hot dog company or other manufacturer of sausages.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

An diverse range of views, although not entirely related to football finance as I had envisaged!

The point of the article is that US investors, not unreasonably, seek to profit from their investment - either by capital growth of their asset/ taking an income or a combination oft he two.

Capital growth is far more likely if you buy an asset cheaply, which would not apply to City, at present. Even if it were, the level of investment required to ensure City were a premier league team for a sustained period (to enable a sale to profit from said capital growth) makes a profit unlikely. A regular income a la the Glazers, means taking money out of the club on an annual basis, rather than putting it in.

So do we add the US to list of countries from where a multi-billionaire investor is not desirable?*

 

*(Current list includes Saudi Arabia, Russia but not yet, for some reason other owners with links to questionable regimes).

Yes let’s write off a country of 330 million people because an article says there is a profit culture in that country.

Why we are at it let’s all buy into this narrative that only multi-billionaires are an improvement on current ownership. Or that any owner making a profit either by asset growth (hmmm) or increased turnover is automatically unsuitable. 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

20 hours ago, chicken said:

Hmmm.

1. Whilst the first part of this argument is true, the 2nd isn't so much. Without the world wide web you wouldn't be posting on here. You couldn't post on here using the internet as it was before really. This is why Tim Berners-Lee gets so much credit and why the www. led to a much bigger online revolution/evolution with forums and websites etc before social media came along and ruined the party...

2. Cell Phones... very debatable. Mobile phones were things many people were looking at and working on. The US may have patented the first "cell phone" but there is no evidence to suggest that the success of mobile phones was dependent on that as much as other inventions that were only being worked upon by one group of people etc.

3. Sad that it took US citizens fighting US citizens over slavery to get the Gatling gun. Not sure that is the best thing to brag about really. Is the world a better place for it? And again, wasn't the only person or nation working on such things, just the first one to produce it - there is a big difference.

8. The model T itself is unspectacular. The bit you missed about this was the modern production line which was so efficient that it reduced the cost of cars to be more affordable to the point that people other than the very wealthy could afford them. Other car manufacturers existed, but Ford's approach to the production line was really what was the gamechanger.

9. First Flight - incorrect. Actually, this is one of those ones that is largely misrepresented. First of all, the Wright brothers flight was claimed to be the "first powered flight". People had managed to glide, some had a decent understanding of the aerodynamics already required such as wing shape etc. Not only that but flight was also possible via hot air balloon... However, even if you correctly break it down to just "first powered flight of an aircraft" it still isn't clear cut. Just to give you an idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_the_first_powered_flight - doesn't detract from the Wright brothers at all, but again, other people were coming close to it so if they hadn't succeeded.

However despite all of that, I don't disagree entirely with the sentiment and point you are making. However, I do think it is worth noting that if you judge a country purely on their representatives you have to be willing to accept the same judgement.

The USA seems a bit marmite in England. I remember growing up with both sets of grandparents and my best mates grandmother warning us youngsters of the influence of US culture eroding our own traditions. Guy Fawkes being replaced by Halloween and trick-or-treating. US slang from the movies replacing our own terms. Us politics sneaking into our own.

Many of these are pretty much undeniable now. Bannon visited prominent vote leave campaigners both before and after the referendum. Farage was paid a great deal of money to tour the US delivering speeches to Republican gatherings for example. Even political language has crept into the UK with terms like "liberals" being used as a left wing insult which doesn't apply in the UK where the Liberals are a centric party.

I think this is somewhat unavoidable as people on both sides of the pond seem to think because our language is largely the same (we won't go on about the missing 'u's from words such as colour or the missing 'i' from aluminium 😅) the US and UK do differ a hell of a lot.

Lastly, I will just add that the vast majority of East Coast cities with any sort of real age were originally under British rule. And the chances are, if the British had not have been there, the US would most likely be either a series of different countries or split between the French in Canada and the Spanish in Mexico etc.

History is a funny thing. The victors and those who can shout loudest write it. One has to be careful to trust any of it.

Would I prefer a US owner? Not sure. I think if they came with an open mind it could work in the same way as anyone else coming in with an open mind. There have been some non success stories with US owners too, it is worth noting that Lerner at Villa really struggled and probably would have gone sooner had Lambert, Culverhouse and Karsa not worked their magic on a relative shoe string budget. Fulham have been relegated twice despite spending around three times as much as us in the process.

Edit: Just to say, I love the US as a country in terms of geography. Even the die-hard 2nd amendment brainwashed can be welcoming and great hosts. NYC is wonderful - however, it is worth noting that NYC is largely as wonderful as it is because it has remained in touch with it's roots. It knows and owns it's mixed heritage, it being the first place migrants came to. It is rich in history. It very much remains in touch with the world and whilst it may pump it's fists in the air to chants of "USA, USA, USA!" most citizens of NYC hark back to their European heritage and try and stay up to date with worldly affairs and can be humble when it comes to foreign affairs and critical of poor governance and foreign policy. 

Wow! Well done for reading the spirit of my post...

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Invented Jazz, Rock & Roll., Blues... what more do you want!

[Badger 2,405]

22 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Yes let’s write off a country of 330 million people because an article says there is a profit culture in that country.

Why we are at it let’s all buy into this narrative that only multi-billionaires are an improvement on current ownership. Or that any owner making a profit either by asset growth (hmmm) or increased turnover is automatically unsuitable. 

?? Writing off a country? Where?

Why do  think that "any owner making a profit either by asset growth... or increased turnover is automatically unsuitable? I think, and said, that it is not unreasonable that investors seek to profit from their investment and can't really understand why you think that this is not the case?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

I am sure that most American owners look for a profit but not sure all do.

If I did not live in the UK, I would definitely live in the US and preferably NYC (Williamsburg... beautiful great place)

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

12 minutes ago, Badger said:

?? Writing off a country? Where?

Why do  think that "any owner making a profit either by asset growth... or increased turnover is automatically unsuitable? I think, and said, that it is not unreasonable that investors seek to profit from their investment and can't really understand why you think that this is not the case?

The pretext of your post- Americans want profit which is likely only available by taking money out of the club annually as club isn’t available cheaply for asset growth makes the following ‘question’ a rhetorical one (or at least a loaded one!)

So do we add the US to list of countries from where a multi-billionaire investor is not desirable?*
 

This is where is appears you have written off the US as a potential pool of new owner. Forgive me if wrong but surely you can see the confusion?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, Badger said:

An diverse range of views, although not entirely related to football finance as I had envisaged!

The point of the article is that US investors, not unreasonably, seek to profit from their investment - either by capital growth of their asset/ taking an income or a combination oft he two.

Capital growth is far more likely if you buy an asset cheaply, which would not apply to City, at present. Even if it were, the level of investment required to ensure City were a premier league team for a sustained period (to enable a sale to profit from said capital growth) makes a profit unlikely. A regular income a la the Glazers, means taking money out of the club on an annual basis, rather than putting it in.

So do we add the US to list of countries from where a multi-billionaire investor is not desirable?*

 

*(Current list includes Saudi Arabia, Russia but not yet, for some reason other owners with links to questionable regimes).

The US owner who seems to come under the radar is Berylson at Millwall. I know nothing about him or the takeover back in 2007 or how he runs/funds the club or whether he is looking ultimately to make a personal profit. Perhaps the fact that he never gets mentioned is just because it is Millwall, or perhaps because he is not racking up huge debts.

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

The pretext of your post- Americans want profit which is likely only available by taking money out of the club annually as club isn’t available cheaply for asset growth makes the following ‘question’ a rhetorical one (or at least a loaded one!)

So do we add the US to list of countries from where a multi-billionaire investor is not desirable?*
 

This is where is appears you have written off the US as a potential pool of new owner. Forgive me if wrong but surely you can see the confusion?

1. it is a question, not an assertion. 

2. Clearly asking about US investors, not a country of 330 million as you state.

3. I don't see any grounds for confusion at all, if you read what is written really. In essence, the question is asking whether investors seeking a profit (as US investors sensibly do) would see NCFC as a vehicle for such an ambition. I can see better "investments" based upon the price of purchase and potential sale (capital growth) and revenue potential (attendance and brand name).

Initial investment + funds spent on improving the squad over a number of years + improvements in ground & infrastructure have to be significantly less than the value at the end of the process for the investors to realise a worthwhile profit.

(Initial investment + squad improvement + infrastructure improvement must < value of club)

Try putting some figures in that and see how it could work! 

4. There is also the broader point that if we are to be an investment project, owners are likely to take steps to secure as much as their investment as they can. 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

The US owner who seems to come under the radar is Berylson at Millwall. I know nothing about him or the takeover back in 2007 or how he runs/funds the club or whether he is looking ultimately to make a personal profit. Perhaps the fact that he never gets mentioned is just because it is Millwall, or perhaps because he is not racking up huge debts.

I don't know much about Millwall at all, but on the basis of this Berylson looks OK He seems to have given £60 million in funding in the last decade (£6 million a year on average). This is actually quite generous and you can see a scenario whereby he gets Millwall promoted and makes his money back + makes a profit.

£6 million a year isn't going to transform City into Premier league regulars though and we would cost far more than Millwall making us less attractive as an investment!

[essex canary 491]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

?? Writing off a country? Where?

Why do  think that "any owner making a profit either by asset growth... or increased turnover is automatically unsuitable? I think, and said, that it is not unreasonable that investors seek to profit from their investment and can't really understand why you think that this is not the case?

Perhaps all us Pukki lovers are fond of Scandinavia - the best socio economic system in the world?

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I don't know much about Millwall at all, but on the basis of this Berylson looks OK He seems to have given £60 million in funding in the last decade (£6 million a year on average). This is actually quite generous and you can see a scenario whereby he gets Millwall promoted and makes his money back + makes a profit.

£6 million a year isn't going to transform City into Premier league regulars though and we would cost far more than Millwall making us less attractive as an investment!

True but £6m more than our owners currently give to us?

[Badger 2,405]

52 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

True but £6m more than our owners currently give to us?

Yes, and if you compare their performance over the last 10 years and our, you will see how effective it has been.

I'd rather have it than not, but sorry KF, a few million here or there are not going to have a transformative effect.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

4 hours ago, Kenny Foggo said:

True but £6m more than our owners currently give to us?

Exactly, £6m average per year goes much further in the championship and L1, who’s to say if Millwall made the PL (not a million miles away ) that the owner wouldn’t increase his investment accordingly. 

[chicken 2,604]

34 minutes ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

Exactly, £6m average per year goes much further in the championship and L1, who’s to say if Millwall made the PL (not a million miles away ) that the owner wouldn’t increase his investment accordingly. 

I would say that Badger is using existing data, it's very hard to accurately predict what ifs unless there is evidence to suggest they would happen.

I would argue that if he is looking to invest more money, it's easier to do so now to turn Millwall into genuine promotion hopefuls than it is to spend more with success in the premier league if you are not yet there.

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

I would say that Badger is using existing data, it's very hard to accurately predict what ifs unless there is evidence to suggest they would happen.

I would argue that if he is looking to invest more money, it's easier to do so now to turn Millwall into genuine promotion hopefuls than it is to spend more with success in the premier league if you are not yet there.

6pts off playoffs, ran it close, I would say the money which is a substantial increase over their turnover otherwise has been effective already into turning them into promotion hopefuls. Of course he may not invest more if they clinched promotion, but there is a history of providing funds when needed both in L1 and championship so it could be the case in the PL also. It’s wrong to say someone only investing £6m average in lower leagues isn’t a suitable PL owner as it is a transformative amount for that club at that time.

[CowboyCanary 37]

On 18/05/2022 at 08:51, chicken said:

The American Civil War took place from 1861-1865. The Gatling gun was invented/designed in 1861 and first produced in 1862 where upon Union forces used it.

Usually, military developments come as a result of a demand for them. The American Civil War saw the first for a lot of things, sadly, not enough were taken note of elsewhere in the world, like England. If they had, they would have known come WW1 that you couldn't march massed ranks of men, or even charge them, at enemy lines that included entrenched enemy forces supported by machine guns.

So, you are saying a few of those weapons would be useful on the pitch?  😉😅

[chicken 2,604]

2 hours ago, CowboyCanary said:

So, you are saying a few of those weapons would be useful on the pitch?  😉😅

We probably could have done with a cannon or two and a cavalry manoeuvre up a flank. 😅

[Badger 2,405]

Kevin Maguire has commented on the latest Manchester United accounts.

Apparently since taking over in 2005, Man Utd have paid out £400 million in dividends and another £855 million in interest payments.  

I make that an average of £74 million a year taken out of the club. I've no issue with this personally, you make an investment, you expect a return, that's how capitalism works. I still find bemusing*, however, that so many think that investor owners just give money to the club.

* Well actually, I don't find it bemusing in all cases - some just refuse to look at evidence that doesn't fit with their prejudices.

 

[ricardo 7,339]

29 minutes ago, Badger said:

Kevin Maguire has commented on the latest Manchester United accounts.

Apparently since taking over in 2005, Man Utd have paid out £400 million in dividends and another £855 million in interest payments.  

I make that an average of £74 million a year taken out of the club. I've no issue with this personally, you make an investment, you expect a return, that's how capitalism works. I still find bemusing*, however, that so many think that investor owners just give money to the club.

* Well actually, I don't find it bemusing in all cases - some just refuse to look at evidence that doesn't fit with their prejudices.

 

Human nature.

We want it all we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it.

[Badger 2,405]

14 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Human nature.

We want it all we want it now and we want someone else to pay for it.

Is it though?

I started watching in the 60s, and I can't remember the protests because we were only in the second division + my dad said that they didn't have them in the 40s and 50s.  We may have moaned at managers, but the fashion for demanding owners to put in extra sums is quite recent - although I can remember fans being very unhappy at players being sold.

I think the demand for success - we must be successful at all costs - is a more recent phenomenon. Or am I just remembering with "rose tinted spectacles."

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

I’m not sure that those wanting change all want it all and now, as if they have been impatient or something, it’s not like our owners are in their second season is it? A quarter of a century isn’t a bad run to have. It’s about the realisation that football isn’t going to change to accommodate us no matter how loudly people bemoan the loss of the game or the unfairness of it all, it’s NCFC that will need to change not everyone else  as punching above our financial muscle while laudable isn’t a long term plan.

rather than continuing to use any example of ‘bad’ owners to discourage desire for change why not extoll the virtues of our current @Badger. You say many people believe investor owners only put money into a club.. who?.. where? I can’t remember any posts claiming that. Name these dimwitted people and I would gladly explain the premise to them of a good investment owner benefiting from a % of increased income and asset growth. 
 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Son Ova Gunn

[Badger 2,405]

12 hours ago, Son Ova Gunn said:

rather than continuing to use any example of ‘bad’ owners to discourage desire for change why not extoll the virtues of our current @Badger. You say many people believe investor owners only put money into a club.. who?.. where? I can’t remember any posts claiming that. Name these dimwitted people and I would gladly explain the premise to them of a good investment owner benefiting from a % of increased income and asset growth. 

If I understand you correctly, you are admitting that investor owners will take more money out of the club than they put in. Is that fair?

[Son Ova Gunn 165]

6 hours ago, Badger said:

If I understand you correctly, you are admitting that investor owners will take more money out of the club than they put in. Is that fair?

That’s certainly the plan yes, any good investment owner or consortium would come with a plan to make money not lose it, I’m not sure of the point?

[OTBC06 39]

On 18/05/2022 at 13:31, Kenny Foggo said:

The world without America

1. No internet - US circa 1985 (You'd not be posting this)

2.  No Cell phones = US 1973 (I guess you don't own a phone)

3. No Machine Guns 1862 /1884... er maybe not that one

4.  No Panama Canal - US 1914 (World trade)

5. Submarines - US 1900 

6. Trans-Oceanic Cable Communications - US 1858 (Making the world a village)

7. First Nuclear Reactor - US 1942 (clean cheap energy see French energy bills)

8. Model T Ford - US 1908 (owe a car?)

9. First Flight - US 1903 (Ever flown?)

10. Men on the Moon - US 1969 (ground breaking)

Mark Twain, T.S. Eliot, Tennessee Williams, Ernest Hemingway, 

Louis Armstrong, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, Stevie Wonder, Jimi Hendrix, Prince, Taylor Swift, Jay Z, Nirvana, Metallica, Miles Davis and on and on and on....

No NYC one of THE Greatest Cities in the world...

To say America is not a great Country is bizarre but hey, that just my view...

 

 

 

 

 

Point number 2. We don't use cell phones, we use mobile phones 😉

[cambridgeshire canary 6,674]

Now in hindsight.. 

[shefcanary 2,383]

41 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Now in hindsight.. 

How much do you think they want to take out of the club in the next five years then?

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,243]

American owners? Ruining football? Won't hear nothing of the sort... Great, salt of the earth types! Great to have a coalition with the great USA. 😉

[yellowrider120 761]

On 18/05/2022 at 12:15, lake district canary said:

Americanisation should be resisted as much as possible in every field of human endeavour. It is not a great country, it is not a great example on how to live your lives, it doesn't look after it's people and is responsible for a huge amount of what is bad about modern western society.  Keep them out of the structure of our football clubs.

Don't necessarily disagree. Pity your beloved Delia has a contrary view it seems!! 

[Badger 2,405]

1 hour ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Now in hindsight.. 

It isn't actually hindsight yet, CC, just a rumour.

But I can't help being a little excited if it pans out much to my surprise. If it is a new equity injection as some have suggested, rather than buying out existing shareholders, the new money would go into the club and the buyers might have a big share of us relatively cheaply. We will know more if the deal goes through - they will have to provide the shareholders with the details.