time for a 'sugar daddy' at city?

[lucky green trainers 0]

there''s no doubt city is in a better place for delia & co imput, but the world seems to be moving on a pace and if we are really to compete at the highest level now, perhaps we need new money at the club.in our recent history,l without the ''new money'' from the share scheme - its probable we wouldn''t have gained promotion the prem. however, rather than continue with that model and get new money in before our prem adventure began,  the city board decided to  go back to their  normal business model.   the prudence with ambition policy is based on the charlton model of running a tight financial ship that stick within budgets determined by a self-supporting business - hoping that a strong business off the pitch is mirrored by success on the pitch - stable finances complementing a stable management team.  the aim was to stay in the prem, but if we couldn''t then the better quality players we had by virtue of our prem success would help us bounce straight back up. however, since then - the man u, portsmouth, villa, lpool, hammers, spurs, arsenal, sheff utd and chelski of course, all have either been taken over or had significant new money pumped in - for some money is no object, getting the right players in is the priority.  with the money injected into the prem now, and champs clubs - the smart move now is surely to follow suit - effectively the prudence with ambition policy has been overtaken by events.i not happy to see warnock spouting his soundbites in the prem, but without the new investors they attracted before the start of least season, its likely he''d still be strutting his stuff in the champs. is it time for city to follow suit and tout for new investors/sugar daddy?

[ManchesterCanary 0]

No!

[blahblahblah 2]

I''d rather have someone with local connections, who has supported the team throughout their life to be the majority shareholder than some random NFL franchise-holding Yank with his face on back-to-front, or a Bond villain oligarch for that matter, regardless of how much folding stuff they have.  I mean - could you take anyone called Randy Learner seriously ?  We''ve seen off prospective sugar daddys'' in the past, that lawyer who made his living out of defending war criminals wanted to buy in to NCFC at some point in the dim and distant, I''m sure the second word was off...

Abramovich is reported to have said in the past that if / when Chelskov win the Champions league, he''s off.  If he does that, they''ll be high and dry won''t they ?

[charlies dad 0]

Yes. If the club is to ever fulfil its potential. A huge opportunity has been squandered since promotion to the premier league, the parachute payments have dissappeared into the ether, and the decimation of the playing staff is akin to asset-stripping. I cannot understand why a club with 25,000 gates, 3 million freshly banked from player sales, a vastly reduced wage bill, parachute payments and a season in the premier league is unable to compete with bankrupt clubs with no such advantages. Thats not down to the manager, thats down to the board. Senior players (Huckerby for one) announced their disquiet about the clubs policy, and Worthington himself  expressed dissapointment at the club blocking his moves. Now the chickens are back in the hen house. We have no players. If this restaurant is pumping so much money into club funds, as we are told, where is the evidence? The first team squad is padded out with young players, half of whom, will never play a first team game for Norwich City. cheap to employ, and cosmetic display to hide the lack of numbers. Surely, any Norwich City supporter faced by these facts HAS to be worried by the situation. New money? any Money? Yes please. Norwich City is not a tool to massage media images, or promote other outside business to housewives, its a football club. Run it as such.  

[greenTshirt 2]

No thanks - not interested in the prawn sandwich brigade. A team full of expensive imports is not my idea of a football team.

No ambition? Perhaps in today''s language.

[percyvarco 0]

We have some money fron the sale of Green and McKenzie. Unfortunatly our board did not seem to want to let it out of the purse in the transfer window , thinking about it.....2 million for a panic buy kid and I would hide the purse up also.....or they are waiting for another loan deal to take us to the promised land.

When the Ruskies etc get bored or locked up there will be clubs in big trouble, we don''t want to be one of them.

We have got an excellent attendance, good off field activities these require more dynamic management by the board we have and not let the club become a trinket of a minted bored business man.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]
the prudence with ambition policy is based on the charlton model of running a tight financial ship that stick within budgets determined by a self-supporting business - hoping that a strong business off the pitch is mirrored by success on the pitch - stable finances complementing a stable management team.  the aim was to stay in the prem, but if we couldn''t then the better quality players we had by virtue of our prem success would help us bounce straight back up.

however, since then - the man u, portsmouth, villa, lpool, hammers, spurs, arsenal, sheff utd and chelski of course, all have either been taken over or had significant new money pumped in - for some money is no object, getting the right players in is the priority.  with the money injected into the prem now, and champs clubs - the smart move now is surely to follow suit - effectively the prudence with ambition policy has been overtaken by events.

[/quote]

I think you''ve not thought this one through, Charlton are still in the Premier league so following that model definately hasn''t been ''overtaken by events''.

 

[canary cherub 1]

Firstly, let''s try to stick to the facts as we know them about the Cotterill non-deal.  We were told that Wigan offered "up to" £2 million while we offered half a million less.  It wasn''t just the attraction of the Premiership, Wigan offered more money.  "Up to" - what does that mean?  Promotion for a start I would have thought.  I''d be amazed if we offered more than £1 million up front.  That''s a realistic figure imo given that he''s already playing for Wales first team. 

I''d be concerned about any business that had not tried to attract any significant inward investment in ten years and showed no signs of doing so. 

As I understand it, the club can issue shares based on its asset value.  The asset value increased dramatically in 2004/5, from just under £20 million to nearly £34 million.  I assume this was due to completion of the Jarrold Stand and NU Corner.

So there appears to be scope for a meaningful share issue.  I wonder if the club are thinking about going down that road, and if not why not?  

 

[charlies dad 0]

The Coterill deal, is something of a red herring. Since May, we have known, and the club has known, that significant strengthening needed to take place. The exact opposite has happened. To a huge degree, in terms of numbers, although not always in terms of quality. The success of Croft, proves conclusively that for around £600,000, you can significantly improve your squad/team. Therefore, three more Crofts would have been warmly received into the current squad, in varying positions where cover/strength is weak, and our continued preence in the top 6 would be almost assured. The boat has been missed, through reticence/negligence on a grand scale. Just how much we really wanted Cotterill, remains a moot point. 

[Getting off the fence 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]there''s no doubt city is in a better place for delia & co imput, but the world seems to be moving on a pace and if we are really to compete at the highest level now, perhaps we need new money at the club.

in our recent history,l without the ''new money'' from the share scheme - its probable we wouldn''t have gained promotion the prem. however, rather than continue with that model and get new money in before our prem adventure began,  the city board decided to  go back to their  normal business model.  

the prudence with ambition policy is based on the charlton model of running a tight financial ship that stick within budgets determined by a self-supporting business - hoping that a strong business off the pitch is mirrored by success on the pitch - stable finances complementing a stable management team.  the aim was to stay in the prem, but if we couldn''t then the better quality players we had by virtue of our prem success would help us bounce straight back up.

however, since then - the man u, portsmouth, villa, lpool, hammers, spurs, arsenal, sheff utd and chelski of course, all have either been taken over or had significant new money pumped in - for some money is no object, getting the right players in is the priority.  with the money injected into the prem now, and champs clubs - the smart move now is surely to follow suit - effectively the prudence with ambition policy has been overtaken by events.

i not happy to see warnock spouting his soundbites in the prem, but without the new investors they attracted before the start of least season, its likely he''d still be strutting his stuff in the champs.

is it time for city to follow suit and tout for new investors/sugar daddy?

[/quote]

Do you know anyone? I''ve got a few premium bonds!

[Getting off the fence 0]

Charlies dad - "I cannot understand why a club with 25,000 gates, 3 million freshly banked from player sales, a vastly reduced wage bill, parachute payments and a season in the premier league is unable to compete with bankrupt clubs with no such advantages."

Debt.

[charlies dad 0]

all clubs have debt. Most have more than us. We are constantly told that our debt is ''manageable''. We have no player budget. Why? If the playing side is allowed to stagnate, the crowds will drop off, and the merchandising, and the dedt will get bigger. Hence we need more money. Sugar daddy time. You answered the question in the affirmative,

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="A load of squit"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]the prudence with ambition policy is based on the charlton model of running a tight financial ship that stick within budgets determined by a self-supporting business - hoping that a strong business off the pitch is mirrored by success on the pitch - stable finances complementing a stable management team.  the aim was to stay in the prem, but if we couldn''t then the better quality players we had by virtue of our prem success would help us bounce straight back up. however, since then - the man u, portsmouth, villa, lpool, hammers, spurs, arsenal, sheff utd and chelski of course, all have either been taken over or had significant new money pumped in - for some money is no object, getting the right players in is the priority.  with the money injected into the prem now, and champs clubs - the smart move now is surely to follow suit - effectively the prudence with ambition policy has been overtaken by events.[/quote]

I think you''ve not thought this one through, Charlton are still in the Premier league so following that model definately hasn''t been ''overtaken by events''.

the point is los, that the charlton model is alive and well in the champs today ie NCFC and we''re stuggling to bounce back - the model worked for charlton then, but can it work now?  back when charlton were yo-yo  ing between the champs and prem, the competition they faced were mostly from clubs who borrowed grossly beyond their means in an attempt to buy success on the pitch, but if it all went pear shaped, faced huge debts and administarion.  the champs is littered in teams who employed such a strategy, but failed - ipswich, sunderland (now rescued by loaded investors) derby, leics, cov, forest.  if man city went down they''d be in huge trouble also.today, the prem have teams in debt, but also teams who are supported financially by money-no object investors.  charlton are a botton half team financially now, and if they lack the resources to compete, they may find their ambition is  limited to bottom 6 than top 6, which we would all agree 2-3 years back they were nearly capable of. sadly, the charlton/city - prudent financial policy is under unprecedented threat from monied barons, looking to gain rewards from the best league in the world.  this is the reality of the modern day prem, and if we are to gain a foothold in it, then perhaps we should be looking to get new money into the club to compete with them, rather than endure undersized sqauds that lack the necessary punching weight.

 

[/quote]