Why Attanasio wants to buy Norwich (and Delia must sell)

[Rottingdean canary 117]

Page 2 please 

[Addick/Canary 76]

I don't believe for one second that MA and his Real Estate sector business partners have their eyes on our lovely stadium and training ground, do you?

But then, I'm also an Addick so might be a bit cynical.

[Rottingdean canary 117]

22 minutes ago, Rottingdean canary said:

Page 2 please 

Good. That worked. 

 

[Northluck C 30]

9 minutes ago, Rottingdean canary said:

Good. That worked. 

 

Until someone quotes it again in a minute!

[Rottingdean canary 117]

1 minute ago, Northluck C said:

Until someone quotes it again in a minute!

Aaaaagh!!!! 

[RobJames 883]

30 minutes ago, Addick/Canary said:

I don't believe for one second that MA and his Real Estate sector business partners have their eyes on our lovely stadium and training ground, do you?

But then, I'm also an Addick so might be a bit cynical.

Brighton

"The then-chairman, Bill Archer, aimed to profit from the sale of the lucrative development land on which the Goldstone stood."

Edited January 22 by RobJames

[Google Bot 3,298]

Toney's in Brentford are running bets on next poster to quote it.  I don't even recognise Ivan69 on their list, though.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

Thanks @Robert N. LiM..it came through a feed in our office and I thought explained very clearly that there is a marketplace for selling sports clubs.

There are lots of Americans - many with no deep interest in soccer - buying the limited assets that are sports clubs. Football clubs being the key to a more global reach, even beyond Hockey, Basketball and NFL.

Not all of them are buying them because they love them. Lots of them are buying them because they are an appreciating asset. 

Hedge Funds are getting involved now because it was an overlooked, underappreciated asset class. Plus it did not have a structured trading market. Plus it was not recognised for leverage by institutions previously. 

Plus previously it was culturally considered a benign, almost philanthropic, culturally and commercially localized process and buying decision. Now it is none of those things. 

Some people live in the past, some in the present and some in the future. If you see what others don’t see, you have an advantage. You can use that advantage in many ways. 

As @nutty nigel has previously commented, some just treat the entire takeover of our club as ‘another transfer to get done’…frantically refresh Page 302, then queue up to be the first to post a thread complaining that it hasn’t worked. 

Others - and I predict 

@king canary

@Petriix

@BigFish

@PurpleCanary

@Don J Demorr

@shefcanary

@GMF

@MrBunce

@TIL 1010

@Christoph Stiepermann

@essex canary

@Jim Smith

@Barham Blitz

@Taiwan Canary

@Fish eye view

@Indy

@Monty13

…..will take the time to read this and will understand exactly how it relates to Norwich. 

The ownership and control of our club, all its assets, all its players, stadium, naming rights, buying and selling, academy, land, brand….is the issue in question. 

Parma 
 

Edited January 23 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[Fen Canary 853]

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

Thanks @Robert N. LiM..it came through a feed in our office and I thought explained very clearly that there is a marketplace for selling sports clubs.

There are lots of Americans - many with no deep interest in soccer - buying the limited assets that are sports clubs. Football clubs being the key to a more global reach, even beyond Hockey, Basketball and NFL.

Not all of them are buying them because they love them. Lots of them are buying them because they are an appreciating asset. 

Hedge Funds are getting involved now because it was an overlooked, underappreciated asset class. Plus it did not have a structured trading market. Plus it was not recognised for leverage by institutions previously. 

Plus previously it was culturally considered a benign, almost philanthropic, culturally and commercially localized process and buying decision. Now it is none of those things. 

Some people live in the past, some in the present and some in the future. If you see what others don’t see, you have an advantage. You can use that advantage in many ways. 

As @nutty nigel has previously commented, some just treat the entire takeover of our club as ‘another transfer to get done’…frantically refresh Page 302, then queue up to be the first to post a thread complaining that it hasn’t worked. 

Others - and I predict 

@king canary

@Petriix

@BigFish

@PurpleCanary

@Don J Demorr

@shefcanary

@GMF

@MrBunce

@TIL 1010

@Christoph Stiepermann

@essex canary

@Jim Smith

@Barham Blitz

@Taiwan Canary

@Fish eye view

…will take the time to read this and will understand exactly how it relates to Norwich. 

The ownership and control of our club, all its assets, all its players, stadium, naming rights, buying and selling, academy, land, brand….is the issue in question. 

Parma 
 

A truly depressing future for the sport is my take on all this. Maybe I’m living in the past but the thought of football clubs over a century old being used and traded by hedge fund managers like stocks and shares just brings a feeling of disillusionment.

How long before these companies want to protect their asset and end relegation from the top flight? 

Edited January 22 by Fen Canary

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

A truly depressing future for the sport is my take on all this. Maybe I’m living in the past but the thought of football clubs over a century old being used and traded by hedge fund managers like stocks and shares just brings a feeling of disillusionment.

How long before these companies want to protect their asset and end relegation from the top flight? 

Well done @fen canary …that’s a bit of passion and a genuine view. Good for you.

If one is apathetic about the very future of one’s own football club, what does that say? 

Parma 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,138]

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

Thanks @Robert N. LiM..it came through a feed in our office and I thought explained very clearly that there is a marketplace for selling sports clubs.

There are lots of Americans - many with no deep interest in soccer - buying the limited assets that are sports clubs. Football clubs being the key to a more global reach, even beyond Hockey, Basketball and NFL.

Not all of them are buying them because they love them. Lots of them are buying them because they are an appreciating asset. 

Hedge Funds are getting involved now because it was an overlooked, underappreciated asset class. Plus it did not have a structured trading market. Plus it was not recognised for leverage by institutions previously. 

Plus previously it was culturally considered a benign, almost philanthropic, culturally and commercially localized process and buying decision. Now it is none of those things. 

Some people live in the past, some in the present and some in the future. If you see what others don’t see, you have an advantage. You can use that advantage in many ways. 

As @nutty nigel has previously commented, some just treat the entire takeover of our club as ‘another transfer to get done’…frantically refresh Page 302, then queue up to be the first to post a thread complaining that it hasn’t worked. 

Others - and I predict 

@king canary

@Petriix

@BigFish

@PurpleCanary

@Don J Demorr

@shefcanary

@GMF

@MrBunce

@TIL 1010

@Christoph Stiepermann

@essex canary

@Jim Smith

..will take the time to read this and will understand exactly how it relates to Norwich. 

The ownership and control of our club, all its assets, all its players, stadium, naming rights, buying and selling, academy, land, brand….is the issue in question. 

Parma 
 

Thanks for posting this, I don't read GQ so I'd have never seen this and  it was an interesting insight into how takeovers work. People tend to think that it's just a case of a much richer person ringing the current owners and saying i'll offer x amount and promise to do right by the club and it's a done deal but in reality it's much more complicated and this was an interesting insight into how that all works. I did laugh a bit about multi millionaires not being allowed into a certain club. I think back to that Simpsons gag about Mr.Burns being kicked out of the billionaires club and being laughed at because he's not rich enough to be part of that exclusive club. It's a whole different world but it's fascinating to get an insight into it. 

It didn't need an addendum at the end but the jist is that owning a sports team has a different level of kudos to just owning a big boat or a big business. It has an emotional investment that a lot of owners get sucked into and it gives them something to be proud of. It's something to brag about and gives certain people bragging rights among their peers if their team wins or achieves something. People like Attanasio aren't rich enough to own one of the crown jewels and would get shut out of any bidding war for a glamorous club but the choice for multi millionaires (relative paupers) is be a small investor in Chelsea or be the main man here. He's rich enough to make a real difference here but what's the point in being 5% owner in Chelsea when you can have the chance to be loved here and be well known and "high fived" while he walks or drives down the street. It also highlights how  Delia and MWJ are part of the old guard and as much as we can romanticize those times the sport and all sports have left owners like that behind and operating under their model will be noncompetitive because the relentless march of capitalism has left them behind.

Plus the value of sports clubs have rocketed in the last 20 years and there's no reason to believe that it will change anytime soon so anyone investing a few 100m would have no reason to believe that the asset wouldn't be worth 10x that amount in a decade. Sorry if I over explained that for anyone else who it was also obvious to who took the time to read it 

 

Edited January 22 by Christoph Stiepermann

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

The article also shows very clearly the arc of history at Norwich City that led us to this point - and which might well inform the respective thoughts and approaches of the two parties. 

Where you have cultural clashes between (say) benign matriarchal trustees and asset-hungry agents, bandwagon-jumping and inserting themselves as an extra link in the supply chain, then you have a mis-match. 

One saying ‘I never wanted it this way’…

..and the other saying …well…

…whatever it takes of course. 

Parma 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

3 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Thanks for posting this, I don't read GQ so I'd have never seen this and  it was an interesting insight into how takeovers work. People tend to think that it's just a case of a much richer person ringing the current owners and saying i'll offer x amount and promise to do right by the club and it's a done deal but in reality it's much more complicated and this was an interesting insight into how that all works. I did laugh a bit about multi millionaires not being allowed into a certain club. I think back to that Simpsons gag about Mr.Burns being kicked out of the billionaires club and being laughed at because he's not rich enough to be part of that exclusive club. It's a whole different world but it's fascinating to get an insight into it. 

It didn't need an addendum at the end but the jist is that owning a sports team has a different level of kudos to just owning a big boat or a big business. It has an emotional investment that a lot of owners get sucked into and it gives them something to be proud of. It's something to brag about and gives certain people bragging rights among their peers if their team wins or achieves something. People like Attanasio aren't rich enough to own one of the crown jewels and would get shut out of any bidding war for a glamorous club but the choice for multi millionaires (relative paupers) is be a small investor in Chelsea or be the main man here. He's rich enough to make a real difference here but what's the point in being 5% owner in Chelsea when you can have the chance to be loved here and be well known and "high fived" while he walks or drives down the street. It also highlights how  Delia and MWJ are part of the old guard and as much as we can romanticize those times the sport and all sports have left owners like that behind and operating under their model will be noncompetitive because the relentlessness march of capitalism has left them behind.

Plus the value of sports clubs have rocketed in the last 20 years and there's no reason to believe that it will change anytime soon so anyone investing a few 100m would have no reason to believe that the asset wouldn't be worth 10x that amount in a decade. Sorry if I over explained that for anyone else who it was also obvious to who took the time to read it 

 

Perfect @Christoph Stiepermann…it is hugely important and relevant. 
 

Delia of course also famously declared that she ‘would never take a penny out’…just as her unintended investment rocketed 1000%.

Attanasio hasn’t said that of course.

Parma 

[Fen Canary 853]

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

Well done @fen canary …that’s a bit of passion and a genuine view. Good for you.

If one is apathetic about the very future of one’s own football club, what does that say? 

Parma 

This is it. It doesn’t worry me like some that we’ll likely spend our existence floating between the top two tiers, as bar a golden spell in the late 80’s/early 90’s (when it was easier for clubs our size to compete, seeing as ourselves, Luton, Oxford, Wednesday, Coventry etc all won major honours) that’s largely what we’ve done for over 50 years. The sporting ups and downs are what make the game what it is, but clubs being turned from sporting ventures into asset classes just leaves me feeling cold.

Ive always looked down on American sports due their franchise model of teams moving wherever they can make the most money, I believe it would kill my love for the professional game if football went the same way 

[Indy 3,307]

20 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

This is it. It doesn’t worry me like some that we’ll likely spend our existence floating between the top two tiers, as bar a golden spell in the late 80’s/early 90’s (when it was easier for clubs our size to compete, seeing as ourselves, Luton, Oxford, Wednesday, Coventry etc all won major honours) that’s largely what we’ve done for over 50 years. The sporting ups and downs are what make the game what it is, but clubs being turned from sporting ventures into asset classes just leaves me feeling cold.

Ive always looked down on American sports due their franchise model of teams moving wherever they can make the most money, I believe it would kill my love for the professional game if football went the same way 

Franchise can’t just up sticks and move, there has to be a set of critical circumstances before a franchise is given permission to move in US sports!

The sad thing is Fen, for twenty years I’ve been saying that one thing American sports do well is to keep all teams competing in all sports! There the worst teams get the best of the players or deals! Not in the football here! Unless the premier league and all others across the globe agree to a top flight salary cap, squad restrictions and limit the best teams approach to recruit three first teams which on any given day can beat the rest then this is the way we have to go! Parma’s long post link has far too much info in it, to simplify the sport it’s pretty easy but those at the top of every division across soccer in each country won’t give up their massive advantage!

Edited January 22 by Indy

[Fen Canary 853]

5 minutes ago, Indy said:

Franchise can’t just up sticks and move, there has to be a set of critical circumstances before a franchise is given permission to move in US sports!

The sad thing is Fen, for twenty years I’ve been saying that one thing American sports do well is to keep all teams competing in all sports! There the worst teams get the best of the players or deals! Not in the football here! Unless the premier league and all others across the globe agree to a top flight salary cap, squad restrictions and limit the best teams approach to recruit three first teams which on any given day can beat the rest then this is the way we have to go! Parma’s long post link has far too much info in it, to simplify the sport it’s pretty easy but those at the top of every division across soccer in each country won’t give up their massive advantage!

I’ve no problem with limiting squad sizes and severely reducing the amount of players a club can have out on loan, but I wouldn’t want to see a system where failure is rewarded by giving the worst team the first pick of best players. I’d still rather see success be earned if possible rather than manufactured.

You're right though, it’ll never happen. The rich clubs won’t give up their advantages and the smaller clubs are powerless to make them do so

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

5 hours ago, shefcanary said:

It's a very interesting number of articles to read Parma, but even within them there does seem to be a few contradictions and quite a lot of home truths, particularly with regards to our "own" Mark Attanasio.  So I've extracted a few choice cuts above to cogitate and refer back to our current situation.

• Attanasio reputedly wasn't looking to get involved in Norwich, but a single email turned him on to the opportunity, perhaps because he wasn't a "decabillionaire" and such chances therefore are few and far between.
• Should we be glad that another opportunity didn't show up in the meantime - he owns one "franchise" and has a full time job still after all, so his time is precious.
• Has he got his head around the game yet? This 3 year concordat with Smith & Jones is reputedly to give him the time to "learn" the game, but boy is it turning out to be a real block for some.
• I certainly get the feeling he needs to work very hard to convince the majority of supporters "he means it man!". Although perhaps only 20%?
• So far he seems not to have shelled out an awful lot to get this far in his "acquisition". Indeed has he actually used any of his own cash? Whatever, even if the current loans are converted into equity, it places a  value on the club of £120m. Expensive for the Chumps maybe, but dirt cheap in the EPL.
• Will he ever worry about what individual supporters in Norwich think of his running of the club, will it stress him out? Given the response to his fellow majority owner's minor meltdown he seems a relatively "relaxed" guy who doesn't stress easy. Or just a good poker player?
• Whatever, the club's ownership is in a different ball game. The next step after Attanasio, whether in 3 years or 30, is now fully in the corporate environment, maybe eventually in a state one! Will it be [nominal surname] Sport Group, or [Minor country] Sovereign Investment Fund? 

In conclusion, Norwich have entered this whole new ball game, albeit with very tentative steps, but we are in it. However as everyone else is doing it, will it change anything? No, not for me, I think we will remain looking on from the outside as the "decabillionaires" and "rogue" states party away. 

 

 

Very good @shefcanary…

..I’ll go back and highlight in bold the parts that I think say something specifically about our Norwich situation with Delia and Attanasio. 

Parma 

[Indy 3,307]

11 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ve no problem with limiting squad sizes and severely reducing the amount of players a club can have out on loan, but I wouldn’t want to see a system where failure is rewarded by giving the worst team the first pick of best players. I’d still rather see success be earned if possible rather than manufactured.

You're right though, it’ll never happen. The rich clubs won’t give up their advantages and the smaller clubs are powerless to make them do so

No the draft system would never work outside US, but if you limit squad size and force teams who have say 25 players then anyone over the age of 23 not named in the squad is automatically released to find another club would improve every team in that division and make things more interesting. This would still then require a club to ensure the right players are recruited and system used! But look at some of the top teams they have players not even getting into a squad who are miles better than players at Luton or Sheffield United! 

[king canary 7,645]

I think there are some interesting points here.

Firstly, people can fall into the trap of thinking rich people only do anything to make more money and that they can't genuinely have an interest or a hobby. The difference is obviously when you're super rich you can get involved in that interest or hobby by buying your way in. But it is true that not every move by a multi millionaire/billionaire is solely done with the end goal of making themselves richer, although they clearly don't aim to make themselves poorer.

I generally don't believe people buy football clubs to asset strip them. There are few businesses in the world that are more difficult to asset strip than sports teams. People always make claims about stadiums and real estate but if you want land you'll likely have much less of an issue buying up housing and evicting tennants that you would trying to evict a football club with thousands of highly dedicated followers and huge community value.

I think the concern though is always how far does that 'love of the game' take you when you do start to lose money. We've seen the owner of Sheffield Wednesday decide he's done because fans aren't grateful enough to him. Being at the whims of one very rich person is obviously not ideal for anyone but such is football right now.

[nutty nigel 7,555]

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

Perfect @Christoph Stiepermann…it is hugely important and relevant. 
 

Delia of course also famously declared that she ‘would never take a penny out’…just as her unintended investment rocketed 1000%.

Attanasio hasn’t said that of course.

Parma 

The quote I remember was that they didn’t expect to see the money again. Maybe not quite the same?

Attanasio stated in the AGM interview that he’d know what to do if this was baseball! He talked of the time it took to turn the Brewers round but there wasn’t the worry of relegation.
I think relegation is the least of his worries. A bigger problem for him is probably that only 17 clubs survive in the PL each season. Roger Munby used to say we have to be cleverer than the rest. Perhaps the baseball stats will do it…

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

I have gone back and highlighted in bold and underlined parts that I think are highly relevant to Norwich, Delia and Mark. 

I think that there are obvious questions that could and should be asked of both Delia and Mark that arise from these points.

I deliberately used a third party article that - to some degree - lifts a lid on the process and desires of buyers, plus the shifting tectonic plates of history that have economically marooned Delia and Norwich.

Some of you should think a little deeper however. 
 

Some obvious questions would be:

1. Given the lack of supply and high demand, was there no previous interest?

2. There are 92 football clubs, 35 of which are now owned predominantly by Americans. If you could buy one cheap, could you sell it?

3. If you own a Baseball Team in America why do you want a Football team in England?

4. Do brokers and traders create the market or follow the market?

5. If an owners ‘wants out’ after 25 years and promised ‘to never take a penny out’, what happens to the equity gain? Who gets it? How?

6. If somebody hasn’t engaged with the marketplace identified in the article above, then they suddenly decide it’s time to sell, do they ‘know the game’? 

7. What would you do for an unrealised £43m equity gain if you had knowledge of a market elsewhere, plus a contacts book of buyers, that others didn’t understand? 

8. isn’t that what middle men have done for centuries?
 

Parma 

Edited January 22 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[RobJames 883]

It is a club. Buying the 11 man team would be of no use.

[Fen Canary 853]

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

I have gone back and highlighted in bold and underlined parts that I think are highly relevant to Norwich, Delia and Mark. 

I think that there are obvious questions that could and should be asked of both Delia and Mark that arise from these points.

I deliberately used a third party article that - to some degree - lifts a lid on the process and desires of buyers, plus the shifting tectonic plates of history that have economically marooned Delia and Norwich.

Some of you should think a little deeper however. 
 

Some obvious questions would be:

1. Given the lack of supply and high demand, was there no previous interest?

2. There are 92 football clubs, 35 of which are now owned predominantly by Americans. If you could buy one cheap, could you sell it?

3. If you own a Baseball Team in America why do you want a Football team in England?

4. Do brokers and traders create the market or follow the market?

5. If an owners ‘wants out’ after 25 years and promised ‘to never take a penny out’, what happens to the equity gain? Who gets it? How?

6. If somebody hasn’t engaged with the marketplace identified in the article above, then they suddenly decide it’s time to sell, do they ‘know the game’? 

7. What would you do for an unrealised £43m equity gain if you had knowledge of a market elsewhere, plus a contacts book of buyers, that others didn’t understand? 

8. isn’t that what middle men have done for centuries?
 

Parma 

I’ll have a crack

1. There was probably a few questions asked but nothing concrete. It’s a fairly recent phenomenon (at least further down the football pyramid) and while the self funding model appeared to be working there would have been no great desire to actively look for outside investment. I think this changed during the last Prem season whereby even spending a lot of money by our standards we were still miles off the pace.

2. I think now the interest is there you could offload it. Everybody sees the vast sums of money in the Prem and most business leaders have an (often undeserved) confidence that they could make a success of it where numerous others have failed.

3. Money would be my guess, trying to diversify his portfolio. It’s potentially low risk high reward if he gets us promoted and sells up.

4. Can’t answer that one, don’t know enough about it. I’ll guess a little of both.

5. I hope Delia gets her money back. If it was to be left in the club then I’d happily accept it, but the thought of her giving up millions simply to see it extracted by some hedge fund a year down the track I find horrible.

6. Again, beyond my pay grade. I’d wager Delia knows very little about the type of people she’s now dealing with, or the traders world in which millions of dollars regularly change hands.

7. They’ll sell it on to the next one, who then has to try and raise it again and so on and so forth until somebody is left holding a club they’ve vastly overpaid for and has no chance of getting the money back. But like a linear Ponzi scheme.

8. Yes 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

25 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I’ll have a crack

1. There was probably a few questions asked but nothing concrete. It’s a fairly recent phenomenon (at least further down the football pyramid) and while the self funding model appeared to be working there would have been no great desire to actively look for outside investment. I think this changed during the last Prem season whereby even spending a lot of money by our standards we were still miles off the pace.

2. I think now the interest is there you could offload it. Everybody sees the vast sums of money in the Prem and most business leaders have an (often undeserved) confidence that they could make a success of it where numerous others have failed.

3. Money would be my guess, trying to diversify his portfolio. It’s potentially low risk high reward if he gets us promoted and sells up.

4. Can’t answer that one, don’t know enough about it. I’ll guess a little of both.

5. I hope Delia gets her money back. If it was to be left in the club then I’d happily accept it, but the thought of her giving up millions simply to see it extracted by some hedge fund a year down the track I find horrible.

6. Again, beyond my pay grade. I’d wager Delia knows very little about the type of people she’s now dealing with, or the traders world in which millions of dollars regularly change hands.

7. They’ll sell it on to the next one, who then has to try and raise it again and so on and so forth until somebody is left holding a club they’ve vastly overpaid for and has no chance of getting the money back. But like a linear Ponzi scheme.

8. Yes 

Well done @Fen Canary..now we’re getting somewhere. 

6. How did she judge? What did she base it on? 

7. The unrealised equity gain is cashed by the next one to sell or ‘used to look big’ as my grandmother might well have said.

So long as the asset is obtained cheaply enough, the inherent equity gain should be easy to cash or play with for free (and the ‘first buyer’ is highly unlikely to ‘leave it in the pot’ for the ‘second buyer’ as the matriarchal trustee might have originally done). 

8. Pretty important to know if that’s what he is. Or could be. Or might be of things don’t quite work out. Or the equity gain can’t be cashed quickly enough. Looks like a bit of free game to me, then - at worst - an exit strategy with a small win (as well). All upsides beyond that. 

Parma 

[Fen Canary 853]

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

Well done @Fen Canary..now we’re getting somewhere. 

6. How did she judge? What did she base it on? 

7. The unrealised equity gain is cashed by the next one to sell or ‘used to look big’ as my grandmother might well have said.

So long as the asset is obtained cheaply enough, the inherent equity gain should be easy to cash or play with for free (and the ‘first buyer’ is highly unlikely to ‘leave it in the pot’ for the ‘second buyer’ as the matriarchal trustee might have originally done). 

8. Pretty important to know if that’s what he is. Or could be. Or might be of things don’t quite work out. Or the equity gain can’t be cashed quickly enough. Looks like a bit of free game to me, then - at worst - an exit strategy with a small win (as well). All upsides beyond that. 

Parma 

6. Probably based it on little more than gut feeling and the fact he’s run a baseball side that’s probably a similar mid level team much like ourselves.

7. Pretty much. All these Americans will look to find somebody they can flog it to at a higher price, or if that isn’t an option take regular dividends from the club (Glazers) so as not to lose out financially.

8. We’ll just have to wait and see. Ultimately nobody knows their intentions or ambitions, and once he is in charge there’s little any of us can do to change it 

[Monty13 2,239]

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

Thanks @Robert N. LiM..it came through a feed in our office and I thought explained very clearly that there is a marketplace for selling sports clubs.

There are lots of Americans - many with no deep interest in soccer - buying the limited assets that are sports clubs. Football clubs being the key to a more global reach, even beyond Hockey, Basketball and NFL.

Not all of them are buying them because they love them. Lots of them are buying them because they are an appreciating asset. 

Hedge Funds are getting involved now because it was an overlooked, underappreciated asset class. Plus it did not have a structured trading market. Plus it was not recognised for leverage by institutions previously. 

Plus previously it was culturally considered a benign, almost philanthropic, culturally and commercially localized process and buying decision. Now it is none of those things. 

Some people live in the past, some in the present and some in the future. If you see what others don’t see, you have an advantage. You can use that advantage in many ways. 

As @nutty nigel has previously commented, some just treat the entire takeover of our club as ‘another transfer to get done’…frantically refresh Page 302, then queue up to be the first to post a thread complaining that it hasn’t worked. 

Others - and I predict 

@king canary

@Petriix

@BigFish

@PurpleCanary

@Don J Demorr

@shefcanary

@GMF

@MrBunce

@TIL 1010

@Christoph Stiepermann

@essex canary

@Jim Smith

@Barham Blitz

@Taiwan Canary

@Fish eye view

…will take the time to read this and will understand exactly how it relates to Norwich. 

The ownership and control of our club, all its assets, all its players, stadium, naming rights, buying and selling, academy, land, brand….is the issue in question. 

Parma 
 

Oh man I took the time to read it all and I didn’t even get a mention, now I feel seen off lol

[Taiwan Canary 144]

At Seoul museum of art today I saw an artwork entitled 'the problem is the solution'. 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,227]

10 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Oh man I took the time to read it all and I didn’t even get a mention, now I feel seen off lol

Completely forget you @Monty13….….though you know I love you 😘 

Parma 

Edited January 23 by Parma Ham's gone mouldy

[GMF 756]

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

Perfect @Christoph Stiepermann…it is hugely important and relevant. 
 

Delia of course also famously declared that she ‘would never take a penny out’…just as her unintended investment rocketed 1000%.

Attanasio hasn’t said that of course.

Parma 

I have never had an issue with her personal position on this, however, there’s a big BUT.

If, at some point in the not too distant future, she effectively “gives away” (as in a discounted / low price) her shares, she’s got to be mindful of the remaining 20% of shareholders, those who stood by her, and the Club, when she needed them most, following the collapse of ITV Digital.

On the wider issue of US investment, it seems a logical step. The US sports market is highly regulated, with nearly all franchises money making. In comparison, European football is very light touch. US investors have referred to here being “like the Wild West!” Therefore, with a growing trend towards greater regulation, and a greater emphasis on cost control, the opportunity for making money, and asset appreciation, is obvious.

[Robert N. LiM 4,439]

This is a nice companion piece to the GQ article: it's about FFP and the hypocrisy of the Premier League

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/jan/23/in-footballs-crisis-of-trust-the-premier-league-as-referee-is-hard-to-stomach
 

Quote

 

We’re fighting in 2024 the battles that should have been fought in 2014 and 2004, or even earlier. Decisions that were botched, shirked, ignored years ago are now coming home to roost. The unregulated free‑for‑all that allowed first the oligarchs, and then the venture capitalists, and then the state actors, to claim a piece of our turf. Players signed for ridiculous sums by sporting directors and owners who are now long gone. The decision to let the Super League breakaway clubs slide back into the competition with a paltry £3.7m fine for their trouble...

Football has a crisis of governance, and it has a crisis of inequality, and it has a crisis of sustainability, and it has a crisis of middle‑aged people still calling it the Premiership. But above all, it has a crisis of trust. Before the proposed introduction of an independent regulator, the Premier League is desperately trying to show the world it can regulate itself, with an urgency it should probably have shown two decades ago. It’s trying to claw back our trust. It may already be too late.

 

 

Edited January 23 by Robert N. LiM
Punctuation