Parma’s State of the Nation

[nutty nigel 7,554]

21 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Delia and Michael have not put any meaningful funds or investment into the club for some time. I deeply admireand respect Delia, but this is the life she has chosen. 
 

At any time really? 

So 50% of their wealth isn't significant. That's probably why the FPAs tie themselves in knots trying to devalue their investment.

Surely it would be possible to have these conversations while being truthful about the past. It's possible to be critical and honest. 

 

[Morph 19]

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy your eloquence far exceeds my own, but there are times when  I read one of your posts and feel like I’m trying to read the tea leaves at the bottom of my teacup. Football really has got itself into a ****e state if money is all there is.

Can City be self sustaining or is that a myth promoted early on by Webber to try and prove he was some kind of messiah or was he just simply a very naughty boy when he later screwed the proverbial pooch with his profligate behaviour.

Should we dream to be self sustaining or is there really no other way than to have a rich sugar daddy to survive in todays football world.

I would love to think/believe that moneyball will work for us.

Edited November 22, 2023 by Morph

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, Morph said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy your eloquence far exceeds my own, but there are times when  I read one of your posts and feel like I’m trying to read the tea leaves at the bottom of my teacup. Football really has got itself into a ****e state if money is all there is.

Can City be self sustaining or is that a myth promoted early on by Webber to try and prove he was some kind of messiah or was he just simply a very naughty boy when he later screwed the proverbial pooch with his profligate behaviour.

Should we dream to be self sustaining or is there really no other way than to have a rich sugar daddy to survive in todays football world.

I would love to think/believe that moneyball will work for us.

Top 26 should be reasonably achievable but top 17 probably not.

The fact is that our income from our supporter base is quite high by Championship standards. When in the Premier League though having less than 10% of your income base from gate money is very low and presents a huge challenge though Bournemouth, Burnley, Brentford and Luton are lower still.

Moneyball is the game Brentford have apparently played. This needs to be played very,very well. Ultimately Webber wasn't good enough and having the highest ever wage bill for a relegated club was ridiculous. Another risk is we are now paying for the sins of the recent past. Then again if Luton can get to the PL no reason why, with new life breathed in by Attanasio and Knapper, we shouldn't still be capable of achieving.

Edited November 22, 2023 by essex canary

[Midlands Yellow 4,012]

10 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So 50% of their wealth isn't significant. That's probably why the FPAs tie themselves in knots trying to devalue their investment.

Surely it would be possible to have these conversations while being truthful about the past. It's possible to be critical and honest. 

 

When running a football club of this size then no it’s not significant. 

[essex canary 497]

21 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

You've made a big assumption there. I guess no fans can help away teams. But that's a different pressure. 

All I can do is suggest that what was thought a better defence in 20/21 made more mistakes in future seasons. 

 

Some facts to go on though are 0-11 aggregate in those 5 home losses in 2019, 0-12 in the last 3 PL Home games in 2021. Since crowds have returned a Home win rate of only 30% being 15 out of 50 matches. Leaving aside 20/21 something like a pattern.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

11 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So 50% of their wealth isn't significant. That's probably why the FPAs tie themselves in knots trying to devalue their investment.

Surely it would be possible to have these conversations while being truthful about the past. It's possible to be critical and honest. 

 

Just pop into your local Ferrari dealership and insist that your Fiat money should buy one because it’s ‘50% of your wealth’…

…let me know how you get on!

Parma 

[essex canary 497]

17 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Let us not be disingenuous.

The impression that everything has some kind of fatalistic predestination and we should all just turn up at Carrow church with religious fervor and we’ll enjoy whatever communion we receive - be it David Gow or Grant Holt, Glenn Roeder or Daniel Farke - that any attempt to analyse and critique decisions made is somehow contrary to supporting or disloyal, or even somehow deleterious to player and club performance is taking things far too far. Some decisions are good and the others aren’t. 

We have done superbly well in recent history precisely because we accessed the huge Murdoch Premier wealth at the right moment in time: sums that propelled Bournemouth and other smaller teams into stratospheric financial power by worldwide standards. Rendering turnstile revenues almost meaningless. Ours is 10% compared to broadcast in a typical top level season. The Lambert miracle and the first Farke phenomenon were wonderful, unexpected roller coasters against the odds at the exact right point each time. Wonderful. 

Delia and Michael have not put any meaningful funds or investment into the club for some time. I deeply admire and respect Delia, but this is the life she has chosen. 

To equate c£8m net paid for shares to majority own a major football club over 25 years with any other ownership of a different club because it represents 50% of their wealth is to take a very warm lens to proceedings. Call it self-sustaining, call it community-focused, call the rest of the football world mad capitalist ne’er do wells all you like, Mike Ashley would not have got away with putting in so little and allowing some serious  self-inflicted sporting harm on events in the meantime. 
 

We have recently done many things wrong and it has hurt us

We had key Shakespearean fulcrum moments and we were hamstrung by lack of finances and forced into convoluted positions that forced us to make ugly compromises in a ruthlessly competitive environment to which we are rather ill-equipped..

Let us not pretend that Farke was happy to sell Buendia, that the £20m spent on two wingers was not a huge and stupid tactical mistake, that selling Buendia didn’t betray the promise ‘to come back stronger’, that the remaining players were not hugely psychologically affected, that Pukki our only other weapon was not neutered, that running a wide lower quality squad was not a poor strategic decision versus a narrow higher quality for a club like ours (for all its attendant risks), that Webber did not want to prove himself as an alchemist and so needed a big profitable sale like Buendia to polish his own buttons, that Skipp wasn’t a key role that needed filling, that maybe with some of the £30m Sargent-Rashica-Tzolis money he might not have been somehow persuaded to stay (even on an expensive loan), that some of that £30m couldn’t have gone to Buendia to keep him here an extra 12 months, that all of that wouldn’t have improved our odds and……

….that with a little more money we wouldn’t have acted differently. 

Parma 

Great post.

Religion and football won't necessarily work well together because the former in the modern world comes over as very middle class. Evangelism should certainly be off the agenda. If you want Church keep it broad.

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by essex canary

[Midlands Yellow 4,012]

12 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Just pop into your local Ferrari dealership and insist that your Fiat money should buy one because it’s ‘50% of your wealth’…

…let me know how you get on!

Parma 

That’s a great analogy, looking forward to the response. 

[shefcanary 2,426]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

That’s a great analogy, looking forward to the response. 

Indeed, so no disrespect to Delia and Michael (or Nutty & Hoggy), they have done their best but the last five years have underlined they cannot deliver the fans expectations, the EPL dealership has set out its terms and they are getting increasingly more expensive.

Smith & Jones can lower supporters expectations by dropping the Top 26 narrative (some are already arguing by getting in a "lad" like Knapper and retaining Wagner as head coach they have already), which will be acceptable to quite a large number of the older supporters who have been on the journey from Division 3 South onward, or hasten the inevitable sale to Attanasio and supporters have to accept all the risks attached to that (given the overseas ownership and corporate approach for a positive return) to appease the fans who have only ever known the Top 26 period!

Our fellow older supporters have to recognise that the latter group are growing in percentage terms. They can preach about the lessons they have learnt, but unfortunately this is a lesson those young'uns have to learn for themselves.

But what if they never have to learn it? We all, as supporters of the club, can only dream for now that could be the reality. We all want to own that Ferrari, don't we (unless of course cycling is your preferred mode of transport). 🙂 

[nutty nigel 7,554]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Just pop into your local Ferrari dealership and insist that your Fiat money should buy one because it’s ‘50% of your wealth’…

…let me know how you get on!

Parma 

If I was the only person who wanted the Ferrari I'd probably get it for less than 50%...

[nutty nigel 7,554]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

That’s a great analogy, looking forward to the response. 

The response was obvious. If you're the only bid in town.

We should keep this honest and remember that the vast majority of their shares came about because nobody else wanted them.

It's not necessary to rewrite the past in order to be critical. What's that new word I just learned...

Disingenuous

Edited November 23, 2023 by nutty nigel

[Midlands Yellow 4,012]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

The response was obvious. If you're the only bid in town.

We should keep this honest and remember that the vast majority of their shares came about because nobody else wanted them.

It's not necessary to rewrite the past in order to be critical. What's that new word I just learned...

Disingenuous

And this response trumps my obvious one. I’m glad you’ve learnt a new word, you can try the cryptic crossword page now. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Midlands Yellow

[nutty nigel 7,554]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Great post.

Religion and football won't necessarily work well together because the former in the modern world comes over as very middle class. Evangelism should certainly be off the agenda. If you want Church keep it broad.

 

world comes over as middle 

I don't know why religion is suddenly involved but the opposite of religiously turning up is religiously not turning up. That's certainly more prevalent on this thread.

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

If I was the only person who wanted the Ferrari I'd probably get it for less than 50%...

Exactly right…

….though be careful of that rabbit hole too..

I am delighted we have had Delia as owner for a number of reasons, many personal. 

However you really wouldn’t have to be much of an analyst to note that:

1. She bought a distress asset

2. Her buy in was very low 

3. She had just enough to buy in

4. She has put contextually almost nothing in since

5. Major club moments were subsequently funded by others (training ground, Huckerby, Holt, ITV Digitial)

6. c£8m over 25 years = c£5.5k per week to own , control (as desired) a major football club. 

7. The asset is now worth many, many times more what she paid for it.

8. Delia chose to buy a football club

9. Football clubs are one of the ultimate capitalist playthings 

 
 

We are indeed extraordinary as a club. Quite possibly almost unique in that for five thousand pounds a week somebody has run a football club for 25 years.

I support and have love for Delia. I think she’s done wonderful things for Norwich City in a broader, cultural sense. 

Though let us not be so one-eyed as to not note and respect that alternate viewpoints don’t have perfectly legitimate angles that indicate just how extraordinary the reign has been in context with the wider football market during this period. We are an extreme outlier. 

No Mike Ashleys get away with bumper sticker phrases like ‘self-sustaining’. 

Nobody has to buy a football club. To buy a highly expensive, luxury asset like a football club, then complain how expensive it all is and how the capitalist world has gone mad is an irony wrapped in willful self-blindness. 

Parma 

[Big Vince 318]

On 21/11/2023 at 15:30, shefcanary said:

Just to finesse this.

The corporate vehicle that has purchased 40% of the club is Norfolk LLP, which is not owned fully by Attanasio although is potentially "controlled" by him. Why only potentially, and who are the other owners? Norfolk is owned 28% by Canaries (controlled by Attanasio), 27% by Footloose (controlled by Attanasio) and 28% by Orchard (controlled by Attanasio's business partner Richard Ressler).  Attanasio is quoted as worth $0.9bn, Ressler $1.4Bn, meaning they personally may have access to a combined $2.3Bn. Sure, paper money mainly, but £200m could still be considered relatively small change out of that. 

We also know that 17% of Norfolk LLP is in the hands of a consortium of US individuals, trusts and corporate entities. Unfortunately as a Delaware inc. company we cannot identify the breakdown of this consortium as certainly as we could if it was a UK registered company. But the likelihood is it creates access to many billions of dollars although those providing it may not be passive investors. The big fear is that they will want returns for their investment, this being applied not to the club directly, but via Attanasio. 

So, I think Purple is underplaying Attanasio's financial strength here with that statement, but alternatively Nutty's worst fear of the club being taken further away from the fans, if not from Norfolk itself (franchise football for those outside the traditional Northern city clubs is going to be an ever growing feature if you ask me).   

As we have seen with his stewardship of the Brewers, Attanasio is seemingly not swayed by the views of the ordinary fans in the way he manages that outfit. I still think the creation and long term pursuit of a playing philosophy rests ultimately with Attanasio's view of life. He is still biding his time over the imposition of this at present in deference to Smith and Jones, but at some point there will be only one game in town and what we see on the pitch will be that person's preference. And who knows what kind of football philosophy that will be .... 

Well we know the John Bond inspired brand of football doesn't work at the highest level so if Attanasio is clever he will revert to the Ron Saunders attritional model and not give a monkeys about what numpty supporters think.

Financially it would make much more sense to be in the EPL with an empty stadium than in the Championship with a full house.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Big Vince

[GMF 754]

26 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

However you really wouldn’t have to be much of an analyst to note that:

1. She bought a distress asset

2. Her buy in was very low 

3. She had just enough to buy in

4. She has put contextually almost nothing in since

5. Major club moments were subsequently funded by others (training ground, Huckerby, Holt, ITV Digitial)

6. c£8m over 25 years = c£5.5k per week to own , control (as desired) a major football club. 

7. The asset is now worth many, many times more what she paid for it.

8. Delia chose to buy a football club

9. Football clubs are one of the ultimate capitalist playthings 

 

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy the bit in bold isn’t quite true, though, is it?

Back in 1996, the club had just circa 141,000 shares, with Chase owning approximately 48,000 shares (about 34%).

D&M now own almost 328,000 shares, mainly through debt for equity conversions, or acquiring via subsequent public offerings.

This is a significant increase on their original holdings and also excludes the £3,000,000 B-preference shares, plus the outstanding £900k loan, as revealed in the latest accounts.

Obviously, these sums are dwarfed by the recent loans by MA, but, to use @nutty nigel’s new word, I would suggest that it’s somewhat disingenuous to say that they’ve put in almost nothing since.

[Big Vince 318]

8 minutes ago, GMF said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy the bit in bold isn’t quite true, though, is it?

Back in 1996, the club had just circa 141,000 shares, with Chase owning approximately 48,000 shares (about 34%).

D&M now own almost 328,000 shares, mainly through debt for equity conversions, or acquiring via subsequent public offerings.

This is a significant increase on their original holdings and also excludes the £3,000,000 B-preference shares, plus the outstanding £900k loan, as revealed in the latest accounts.

Obviously, these sums are dwarfed by the recent loans by MA, but, to use @nutty nigel’s new word, I would suggest that it’s somewhat disingenuous to say that they’ve put in almost nothing since.

But we have to compare against what has been going on at other clubs of similar size or even much smaller where huge sums have been put in to make the damn thing work. For example, Marinakis at Forest.

[king canary 7,623]

56 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Nobody has to buy a football club. To buy a highly expensive, luxury asset like a football club, then complain how expensive it all is and how the capitalist world has gone mad is an irony wrapped in willful self-blindness. 

 

I have some sympathy for them in that the world of football finances has changed so much so rapidly that it is crazy. It isn't just comparing when they joined to today but even when we went up under Lambert you could sign top Championship players for £3/4m in a way that just wouldn't be possible now. Saying that you can argue that this speed of change should have made them more urgent in looking to find investment or new ownership.

I also lose a bit of sympathy when they bemoan the money and how the game treats its fans but do very little to try and be different. It does smack of hypocrisy to constantly complain about money while basing your entire ownership model around Premier League money, large transfer fees and comparatively expensive season tickets. 

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So 50% of their wealth isn't significant. That's probably why the FPAs tie themselves in knots trying to devalue their investment.

Surely it would be possible to have these conversations while being truthful about the past. It's possible to be critical and honest. 

 

Nutty, I am getting a bit confused but I think the argument is that it would have been better for the club if Delia had put in no money at all rather than 50 per cent of her wealth. And then she could have afforded a top of the range Dyson turbo-sweeper rather than the hand-pushed Bex Bissell model she gave Wynnnie for Christmas...

Edited November 23, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[GMF 754]

27 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

But we have to compare against what has been going on at other clubs of similar size or even much smaller where huge sums have been put in to make the damn thing work. For example, Marinakis at Forest.

MA has put in over £40m in the past year. How’s that going?

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

We are indeed extraordinary as a club. Quite possibly almost unique in that for five thousand pounds a week somebody has run a football club for 25 years.

[...]

Though let us not be so one-eyed as to not note and respect that alternate viewpoints don’t have perfectly legitimate angles that indicate just how extraordinary the reign has been in context with the wider football market during this period. We are an extreme outlier. 

If I were called in to choose a word to describe the desire to compete at the highest level with so little money, I would make use of the term

'Ambition'.

Though possibly in the same way that Sir Humphrey used 'courageous'.

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

1 hour ago, king canary said:

It does smack of hypocrisy to constantly complain about money while basing your entire ownership model around Premier League money, large transfer fees and comparatively expensive season tickets. 

Absolutely take the point, but it really does encapsulate the ridiculous upside-down world of the PL that to try to run a football club on the basis of the money you raise via football-related activities is somehow seen as naïve or unacceptable. Just crazy how the idea of billionaires or actual nation states just hosing money at football clubs has been normalised.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Robert N. LiM
missing word

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

1 hour ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

 

 

Nobody has to buy a football club. To buy a highly expensive, luxury asset like a football club, then complain how expensive it all is and how the capitalist world has gone mad is an irony wrapped in willful self-blindness. 

 

Their ownership came in stages, starting with not being owners. And to an extent happened accidentally. And the football world was very different when they stepped in and stepped up. It was nowhere near as crazy as it has become. The start of the real insanity can be dated to 2003, with Abramovich buying Chelsea. But even then there was still some connection to financial sense.

There is an argument that they should perhaps have realised or accepted a few years earlier than they did that their self-sufficiency time was up. But that football finance has become as  absurd as it has done is hardly something one can blame S&J for not realising back in the mid-1990s. 

[Big Vince 318]

8 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Their ownership came in stages, starting with not being owners. And to an extent happened accidentally. And the football world was very different when they stepped in and stepped up. It was nowhere near as crazy as it has become. The start of the real insanity can be dated to 2003, with Abramovich buying Chelsea. But even then there was still some connection to financial sense.

There is an argument that they should perhaps have realised or accepted a few years earlier than they did that their self-sufficiency time was up. But that football finance has become as  absurd as it has done is hardly something one can blame S&J for not realising back in the mid-1990s. 

What do you mean? They ought to be blamed for any and all adverse events whatsoever, football related or not. In any case, not seeing something coming shows lack of foresight.

[hogesar 9,704]

4 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Indeed, so no disrespect to Delia and Michael (or Nutty & Hoggy), they have done their best but the last five years have underlined they cannot deliver the fans expectations, the EPL dealership has set out its terms and they are getting increasingly more expensive.

I like Nutty, but we aren't a buy-one-get-one-free type deal on this forum ffs! 

[king canary 7,623]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Their ownership came in stages, starting with not being owners. And to an extent happened accidentally. And the football world was very different when they stepped in and stepped up. It was nowhere near as crazy as it has become. The start of the real insanity can be dated to 2003, with Abramovich buying Chelsea. But even then there was still some connection to financial sense.

There is an argument that they should perhaps have realised or accepted a few years earlier than they did that their self-sufficiency time was up. But that football finance has become as  absurd as it has done is hardly something one can blame S&J for not realising back in the mid-1990s. 

I think the deal that really broke me so to speak was seeing Palace spend circa £30m on Christian Benteke. Seeing a team that finished 15th spending a sum like that felt like a huge indication of how even lower end Premier League teams were going to have to pay those sorts of fees and wages.

[PurpleCanary 5,570]

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

What do you mean? 

Oh dear. If you can't even understand my pellucid English then life is really going to be a struggle for you.🤩

[nutty nigel 7,554]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

@Parma Ham's gone mouldy the bit in bold isn’t quite true, though, is it?

Back in 1996, the club had just circa 141,000 shares, with Chase owning approximately 48,000 shares (about 34%).

D&M now own almost 328,000 shares, mainly through debt for equity conversions, or acquiring via subsequent public offerings.

This is a significant increase on their original holdings and also excludes the £3,000,000 B-preference shares, plus the outstanding £900k loan, as revealed in the latest accounts.

Obviously, these sums are dwarfed by the recent loans by MA, but, to use @nutty nigel’s new word, I would suggest that it’s somewhat disingenuous to say that they’ve put in almost nothing since.

All I ever expect is for the facts to base the narrative rather than a narrative based on myths. 

Can we get back to those catering facilities that 'Private Jet Pet' used to suggest the Bellamy fee was used for...

[Badger 2,407]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

MA has put in over £40m in the past year. How’s that going?

And so far at least, he has charged interest on the money he has lent us, meaning that we have less money, not more.

Using the car metaphor that seems to have been introduced, not only are we still unable to buy a Ferrari, but now we are going to have to sell the Fiat because we can't afford to run it.

Can you rent mopeds?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,221]

Let me clarify 

6 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Exactly right…

….though be careful of that rabbit hole too..

I am delighted we have had Delia as owner for a number of reasons, many personal. 

However you really wouldn’t have to be much of an analyst to note that:

1. She bought a distress asset

2. Her buy in was very low 

3. She had just enough to buy in

4. She has put contextually almost nothing in since

5. Major club moments were subsequently funded by others (training ground, Huckerby, Holt, ITV Digitial)

6. c£8m over 25 years = c£5.5k per week to own , control (as desired) a major football club. 

7. The asset is now worth many, many times more what she paid for it.

8. Delia chose to buy a football club

9. Football clubs are one of the ultimate capitalist playthings 

 
 

We are indeed extraordinary as a club. Quite possibly almost unique in that for five thousand pounds a week somebody has run a football club for 25 years.

I support and have love for Delia. I think she’s done wonderful things for Norwich City in a broader, cultural sense. 

Though let us not be so one-eyed as to not note and respect that alternate viewpoints don’t have perfectly legitimate angles that indicate just how extraordinary the reign has been in context with the wider football market during this period. We are an extreme outlier. 

No Mike Ashleys get away with bumper sticker phrases like ‘self-sustaining’. 

Nobody has to buy a football club. To buy a highly expensive, luxury asset like a football club, then complain how expensive it all is and how the capitalist world has gone mad is an irony wrapped in willful self-blindness. 

Parma 

Let me clarify that I intend ‘into football club operations’ here (4) -  as opposed to implying that all the shares were bought at once.

It is in direct reference to the other points listed referring to purchase of Grant Holt, of Darren Huckerby and the Tifosys Bond that paid for the training ground upgrades et al, which remain illustrative.

The essence of the above remains unaffected.

As I have previously stated  ‘I am delighted we have had Delia as owner for a number of reasons, many personal’, though being empirical and businesslike we must look reasonably at the whole picture from a variety of standpoints.

Parma 

 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy