The Billionaire Investor Myth......

[Chunky! 0]

It seems like this point is continually coming up on this board, though questions such as:

• Why aren''t Delia and co trying to attract a rich investor
• Why doesn''t anyone want to invest

So I''m going to look at this logically in this post, first with a few truths...

1. Running a football club is generally not a profitable business - With a few exceptions, most clubs rely on cash donations (Loans with very nice terms) mainly because the cost of running the club is greater than what you get from TV money and gates combined
2. Investors generally earn their money through wise investments and good business sense.
3. Clubs who earn profits from off-field activities (Hotels, etc) use the money to invest in the team

Now, if you look at where investors are buying stakes in clubs, they can be broken down into a couple of classes, you have people like the Glaziers, Gillette, etc, who are investing in an attempt to turn a profit for themselves (so they are buying clubs like Liverpool, Man Utd) and even they are finding that the profits aren''t what they expected.  Other premiership clubs (Newcastle, Man City) are being bought in an attempt to turn a profit and I think those are chosen because they have strong fan-bases, and a not so glorious recent history, hence they are cheaper.Against that backdrop, we can say that Norwich City Football Club, in itself, is not a profitable business, if the team operated with just the "football-related" activites, the club would probably turn a pretty dire financial year.  Hence diversification into (profitable) areas such as Canary Catering and the hotel, which are seperate from the football club although they may remove £500k - £1 million from the club in one year, probably pay themselves back within 2/3 years and contribute to the long term running of the club as a business entity.BUT WAIT!  People say, the football club, should be a football club!  This is a very naive attitude, if you look at the most succesful clubs, both in terms of football and financial success, they have a balanced portfolio of business interests, the only real example of a club which functioned as a standalone business was Man Utd, which before it was purchased by the Glaziers was a public listed company which turned a profit every year, and those profits went to the shareholders, not the club itself (now the profit pays off the debt the Glaziers secured against the club and then lines their pockets).  Chelsea are an abberation to the rule, due to Abramovich''s billions, but even there the purse string is tightening.So now I believe I''ve established the need for off-field activites to help fund the club, the next logical step is to say, why can''t we get someone to fund the club from their own pockets, a Russian/American/Arab millionaire who wants to give us the millions we need to mount a challenge at the premiership?  Well, Championship clubs, particularly one which is regarded, by the national press with a small town mentality, struggle to turn a profit and an investor isn''t interested in which league we play in, he''s interested in a profit (unless he''s a Norwich fan, obviously).  The consortia which took over the reins at Sunderland, led the team to the premiership, but what would have been the consequences if the club hadn''t made it this season or next?  Leeds had investment on pitch last season, didn''t make it and now the investors are running, after already selling the ground and training facilities to make the balance sheet actually balance.So I put it forward here, that the board is actually very much more ambitious than is commonly believed on this board, it''s ambitious enough to try and make NCFC stand on its own two feet, with the expansion of the business side of the club to the point that funds are coming into the club and with the vision to see that they cannot fund the club from their own pockets forever, whilst still encouraging investors who share their vision and passion for the club to bring funds forward which can be used on the pitch rather than used to patch holes in the balance book.An investor who is not a Norwich fan would be looking at simply one thing - profit, which would be skimmed off the top of our premiership income to recoup the investment that took us there.  The club''s assets would be borrowed against to minimise the investment required which would devastate the hard work of our current board to place the club on a stable financial footing.  The club would be left on a perilous financial base to ensure that the maximum amount of money ended up in the investor''s pocket while doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the premiership, rather than the money being first use to ensure that the club''s finances are as secure as possible and then being invested on the pitch.

[dickyst220 0]

While I agree with the sentiment, surely the whole point of a football club is to play good football ???

If, the football improves & (heaven forbid) we got to the premiership then the club would get more publicity which would make the non football stuff more popular thus incresing profits.

So, investing in the team (not wasting money on nearly men) would be good for the long term future of the club?

[Chunky! 0]

I''m not defending some of the tripe that''s been purchased recently nor the quality of football being played, because we all know that it has been sadly lacking.  My point was that you can''t just have a "pure" football club, you need diversification into non-football activities to support the football, given time this income will allow us to make the investment that''s sorely needed.OTBC!Chris

[Mr.Carrow 376]

"football related activities" have earned NCFC £35million in tv revenues in the past three seasons and a £6.1million profit in the transfer market in the last financial year. Take a look at the accounts. £20million of the money earned from "football related activities" has been ploughed into fixed asset expenditure in the last three financial years leaving the squad so weak that a repeat of the success that earned the club that extra money in the first place will be almost impossible to achieve.

In your last paragraph you indicate that an investor would be "doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Premiership". Bring it on. Its that or stagnation as nice little well-meaning Norwich from the countryside gradually slide lamely from view.

[Mark .Y. 351]

Whilst I can see you have thought long and hard about this post Chunky, and I certainly am not one of the "anti-delia" brigade, I am afraid the harsh truth is that the club is already on a "perilous financial base" because it is £20 million pounds in debt. From a purely business point of view, it does not matter if the debt is "affordable" etc as the interest and capital repayments on it are a drain on the cash flow of the club each and every year. The club are counting on a certain amount of future revenue to repay the debt (hence the affordable tag) but that is not guaranteed by any means, many people on here compare it to having a mortgage and to an extent that it true. But, it is also true that if you lose your job you will not be able to afford your mortgage and your "business plan" falls apart.

The "blame" for this financial plight has to lay at the door of the current board, I don''t believe for a minute that they are crooked or have taken funds out of the club. I just think that the management, from (previous) manager to majority shareholders, have been incompetent at all levels - with the income we have received over the last 3 years we should not be in the financial position we are when you consider the squad of players we currently have (ie very few that have cost any serious money).

A for a foreign takeover, it will be interesting to see what happens at Southampton and whether that goes through - I have always considered them to be a very similar club to ours in size and footballing "status". 

Mark .Y.

      

[yellow hammer 0]

Good post Chunky, and you make some well-thoughout points.

If you consider the whole 90-odd clubs in the EPL and the Leagues, both now and in the past they have been owned mainly by the local guy who has done well financially within the local community. It is the property developer, the builder, the local industrialist who has made his millions and is at heart a local fooball fan, who has gone on to become the owners of the locqal football club. At Norwich we have had people like Geoffry Watling and Sir Aurthur South in this category. Now these guys, and traditionally it has been men, as businessmen are well-aware that football teams never makes any money. But what they get back is esteem. Owning a football club is a way of say - I have made it to the top in my local community. It''s a status symbol, even if they do genuinely care about the club.

The formation of the English Premier League changed the goalposts somewhat, if you excuse the metaphor. Because now serious money is at stake, and it is possible to make money. So people like Ken Bates and Robert Chase enter the scene. These guys can see that a lot of football grounds are located in prime development spots. They see hotels, luxury residential complexes, offices, shopping malls; but at the same time know that they need a successful football team as the draw to the area. As evidence, look at how many clubs are building brand new stadia with a view to developing the old site. We shouldn''t worry about this too much as long as football interests are not damaged. The real danger is where these guys don''t give a damn for the football but just want to get their hands on the real estate.

This is why I beleive Delia is so wrong about foreign investors. These new arrivals are just a throwback to the local guy who made good. People like Roman Abomavich at Chelsea and Taksin Shinawatr, if he takes over Man City, do so for the esteem and status of owning a Premiership Football Club, which is now a global brand. I''m pretty sure RA knows he will never get a return on his money just as Geoffrey Watling  never expected to see his money back.

However, I dont see this as the end of the storey. EPL is a global brand and I expect that in the coming years big brands such as Coke, Pepsi, Toyota, and emerging Chinese brands such as Lenovo will move from football sponsorship into football ownership. I put it to you that clubs like Norwich have to ask themselves, do they want to opt out of this: in which case our natural home will be League Division I and II, or do we want to be with the big boys, and accept that we have to open our doors to foreigners and global companies?

[Chunky! 0]

Yellow,

I think that is the problem, people such as Abrahovich and the Taksin

Shinawatr are looking for Premiership clubs so they can get the

prestige, Norwich naturally aren''t going to be targets for investors

such as these, and hence the only people who are likely to be

interested in Norwich are either local (hence a lesser investment is

possible) or looking to make money, which although possible in the

premiership, is certainly not a prospect in the short to middle term

for a club such as Norwich which would require a long term investment.Mark, Although I compared the football club to a business, it operates in very unusal conditions and I think a more fair comparison is to other clubs in our league, in a comparison such as this I think that our club is on a "stable" financial position (note, I didn''t say good!) and, yes, without some changes we could well stagnate.  However, I would defend the boards investment in off-field activities mainly because I believe that these investments will help to support the club now that the paracute payments have dried up, yes an investment may have cost £1million from our paracute payments, but that investment pay now provide a yearly income of £500k for the next 5 years?  Which is preferable?  Could you truely say that a £1 million investment in players would have changed our season?OTBC!Chunky

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"football related activities" have earned NCFC £35million in tv revenues in the past three seasons and a £6.1million profit in the transfer market in the last financial year. Take a look at the accounts. £20million of the money earned from "football related activities" has been ploughed into fixed asset expenditure in the last three financial years leaving the squad so weak that a repeat of the success that earned the club that extra money in the first place will be almost impossible to achieve.

In your last paragraph you indicate that an investor would be "doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Premiership". Bring it on. Its that or stagnation as nice little well-meaning Norwich from the countryside gradually slide lamely from view.

[/quote]

mmm I see that none of the apologist''s will pick up on this one for a good few days... excellent post Mr.CARROW

No amount of excuses or denial from those who sit in support of the board can explain that one away!!!

THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFITS MADE THROUGH FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY SHOULD BE RE-INVESTED STRAIGHT BACK IN TO THE TEAM... this clearly has not been the case for many years at Carrow Road and the results are all too evident to see  [Y]

[beelsie 0]

Chunky, nice post I have written on the same lines many time before and your points are spot-on.  I''m afraid that many on here do not equate the need to equate successful business with football with the eye on economics. If NCFC board do succeed to marry the two they will be one of the few, and they the board would deserve all the praise that we can give them. OTBC

[Mello Yello 2,273]

Most excellent posts.........and, still no replies - from those who are quick to browbeat down the ''lunatics''.....

[Branston Pickle 3,631]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"football related activities" have earned NCFC £35million in tv revenues in the past three seasons and a £6.1million profit in the transfer market in the last financial year. Take a look at the accounts. £20million of the money earned from "football related activities" has been ploughed into fixed asset expenditure in the last three financial years leaving the squad so weak that a repeat of the success that earned the club that extra money in the first place will be almost impossible to achieve.

In your last paragraph you indicate that an investor would be "doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Premiership". Bring it on. Its that or stagnation as nice little well-meaning Norwich from the countryside gradually slide lamely from view.

[/quote]

mmm I see that none of the apologist''s will pick up on this one for a good few days... excellent post Mr.CARROW

No amount of excuses or denial from those who sit in support of the board can explain that one away!!!

THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFITS MADE THROUGH FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY SHOULD BE RE-INVESTED STRAIGHT BACK IN TO THE TEAM... this clearly has not been the case for many years at Carrow Road and the results are all too evident to see  [Y]

[/quote]

I am in no way an "apologist" for anything the board does, and it is rather sad that you feel the need to pigeonhole people into categories that fit your view in this way.  There should always room for other people''s views - to cut them off and categorise them as you seem to want to do does not exactly make you appear open for debate - something that is surely the general idea of these sites. 

But as ever there are two sides to these things - for instance "Ploughed into Fixed Asset expenditure": I don''t have my Accounts to hand, but am sure that the vast majority of this increase relates to the new stand (where else would this be included other than fixed assets?), something I don''t really think you can complain too much about - unless you''d rather we continued with 3 stands and a 16,000 capacity forever?  

We also had players wages of c£9m in 2005/06 alone (the period of the last accounts) - rather high (and discussed on here previously) - but this did include the remnants of the Premiership season, players like Green, Ashton et al who must have been on decent pay to keep them here (if only for part of the season).  If that isn''t ''reinvesting it back into the team'' then I''m not quite sure what is?

The whole point is that finance in general is always a balancing act, there is not really a right and wrong most of the time, it just depends where you are coming from: as an accountant I don''t think the board has done a lot wrong financially speaking, but as a supporter I do wish we had more to spend on transfers.  

What really does amaze me though is the number of supposed financial whizzes who support our club and who post on here - it has occurred to me on more than one occasion that given the amazing foresight of some and the clarity with which they see everything, that I am surprised they aren''t multi-millionaires themselves and in a position to do something better about it than moan on here!?! 

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"football related activities" have earned NCFC £35million in tv revenues in the past three seasons and a £6.1million profit in the transfer market in the last financial year. Take a look at the accounts. £20million of the money earned from "football related activities" has been ploughed into fixed asset expenditure in the last three financial years leaving the squad so weak that a repeat of the success that earned the club that extra money in the first place will be almost impossible to achieve.

In your last paragraph you indicate that an investor would be "doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Premiership". Bring it on. Its that or stagnation as nice little well-meaning Norwich from the countryside gradually slide lamely from view.

[/quote]

mmm I see that none of the apologist''s will pick up on this one for a good few days... excellent post Mr.CARROW

No amount of excuses or denial from those who sit in support of the board can explain that one away!!!

THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFITS MADE THROUGH FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY SHOULD BE RE-INVESTED STRAIGHT BACK IN TO THE TEAM... this clearly has not been the case for many years at Carrow Road and the results are all too evident to see  [Y]

[/quote]

I am in no way an "apologist" for anything the board does, and it is rather sad that you feel the need to pigeonhole people into categories that fit your view in this way.  There should always room for other people''s views - to cut them off and categorise them as you seem to want to do does not exactly make you appear open for debate - something that is surely the general idea of these sites. 

But as ever there are two sides to these things - for instance "Ploughed into Fixed Asset expenditure": I don''t have my Accounts to hand, but am sure that the vast majority of this increase relates to the new stand (where else would this be included other than fixed assets?), something I don''t really think you can complain too much about - unless you''d rather we continued with 3 stands and a 16,000 capacity forever?  

We also had players wages of c£9m in 2005/06 alone (the period of the last accounts) - rather high (and discussed on here previously) - but this did include the remnants of the Premiership season, players like Green, Ashton et al who must have been on decent pay to keep them here (if only for part of the season).  If that isn''t ''reinvesting it back into the team'' then I''m not quite sure what is?

The whole point is that finance in general is always a balancing act, there is not really a right and wrong most of the time, it just depends where you are coming from: as an accountant I don''t think the board has done a lot wrong financially speaking, but as a supporter I do wish we had more to spend on transfers.  

What really does amaze me though is the number of supposed financial whizzes who support our club and who post on here - it has occurred to me on more than one occasion that given the amazing foresight of some and the clarity with which they see everything, that I am surprised they aren''t multi-millionaires themselves and in a position to do something better about it than moan on here!?! 

 

[/quote]

Are you just a ''highly qualified'' financial ''whizzer'', who has nothing better to do - but moan on here at those who think Dracula was an A Ccount?[:|]

[HappyhammerAndy 0]

It''s a great post, but I think that a neutral, you should ask yourself -

Why should I invest in Norwich instead of the other clubs? What do they give me as a product, that I can''t get elsewhere?

Football is now a good, profitable business, to invest in. However, it is not through games, results, or, "bums on seats." Unfortunately, that matters less each season.

Globally, how much merchandise can Norwich City sell for me on a worldwide basis and, in what numbers? How much will this investment help my core business, opening gateways into countries, that I might not otherwise, have been able to gain access? The Glaziers see a huge market in China. Pre season friendlies and a token player in the squad attracts the people''s interest. Similar situations exist with other clubs.

How much can I get from advertising, Sky money etc.

Is Norwich a more prestigous investment to me than ??? and why?

Does an investor, that loves your club, have enough money to pump millions into it, with no guarantee of success? Only seriously big investments matters these days. Even large family investors are finding it difficult to compete. Some investors,buy a club purely for the prestige that it will give him.

We now have the Russian Mafia, Triads, Mossad and God knows who else investing in Premiership clubs, (secretly of course). How much money do they bring to the table?

At my club, we now have loads of corporate entertainment, a hotel and talk of a casino. It is  probable that we will move to a new 60,000 seat stadium by West Ham station. The club believes that they can fill it and as more clubs build bigger stadiums, can clubs the likes of Norwich compete? The asset of owning the ground is potentially huge. When WHU move, how many flats, can you build on that ground. It is minutes from The City. How huge is that? Think how much the land increases year on year before it''s sold! Who needs football?

Finally, forget those teams at the top. If you were going to stay up, you would have to compete with -

Sunderland - Huge investments to come

WHU - £45m available for transfers in this windows, A new 60,000 seater stadium and money to burn.

Fulham - Mohammed whats his face.

Wigan - owner of JJB

Blackburn - The Walker family

Aston Villa - Huge takeover

Portsmouth  takeover

Man City - probable biggy

Newcastle - takeover

Birmingham - Gold, Sullivan and Brady

Everton - soon

Plus the top six and any that I can''t be bovered to think of.

Here''s a thought for you, the team that finished 4th from bottom are to pay their new player £72,000 per week and he is not even in the England squad!

Unfortunately, for me and you, the gap between the leagues, will grow massively in the years to come.

How long will it be before every club in the Premiership has a multi million pound investor? Its not far off!

 

[breaker2 0]

Man u- Glazers

Chelsea- Abramovich

Liverpool-Hicks

Arsenal-Kroeneke tbc

[7rew 0]

In reply to happyhammer/andy - I''m not sure what a neutral would see in Norwich.The team has in real terms an undistiguished history compared to other teams in the prem/champs - No FA cups, Never won the top league.The team as it is is not going to suddenly walk the league with out investment of some kind.Norwich is a nice city but it is small, isolated and with poor transport links to the outside world.Norwich doesn''t have any major international companies with it as their major european base - Except Norwich Union (owned by Cheltenham and Gloster)We have a dedicated following - but it is dedicated - we have ~28,000 who go to an average of 20 home games per season - yet having 56,000 who go to an average of 10 home games actually gives more financial clout with merchandising etc.And we have the colours and the name - The colours being the only really unique thing that would attract a neutral here - unless they really like country life!

[Mark .Y. 351]

I see where you are coming from again Chunky but for me it is not about individual cases.

For example, if any of our off-field businesses are really returning us £500,000 for a £1M  investment then I would not only be happy but extremely surprised - a return-on-capital-employed of 50% is absolutely fantastic and very rarely achieved in the real world.

No, I couldn''t say that a £1m investment in players would have changed our season. However, IMO, an investment of say £200,000-£300,000 in a top-notch scouting system (poaching other clubs scouts if they have a proven track record isn''t a problem to my conscience !!) three or four years ago could really have been changing our seasons. For a club like ourselves who now miss out on the Prem money, the greatest source of potential income (and the only way we can in effect benefit from the Prem money) is to sell players to Prem clubs (at over-the top prices !!). I would suggest that one reasonable sale a year would easily fund the scouting network and leave some spare. We have really quite good facilities, good crowd and generally have a good name in the game, attracting young lower league talent should not be a problem. Of course, other clubs might also be aiming for this, but that''s business for you and we have to do all we can to ensure we get our slice. Some years we may not sell a player, other years we may unearth a real gem (a la Gareth Bale, although I do know he came through Saints'' youth system).

Finally, as a comparison to other clubs in our league, I don''t actually know how much any of them are in debt (I''m sure somebody can find the figures !!) but I wouldn''t be surprised to find us having one of the largest debts in the league. Whilst I take your point that we are "stable", my point is that we are still £20M in debt and totally reliant on future income to meet the repayments on that debt IE fans, catering, hotel etc, if any or some of these income streams dries up we could be in big trouble. 

For me, considering the influx of money over the last three years and the squad we are left with now, the performance of the management has been extremely poor.

Mark .Y.

   

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="7rew"]In reply to happyhammer/andy - I''m not sure what a neutral would see in Norwich.

The team has in real terms an undistiguished history compared to other teams in the prem/champs - No FA cups, Never won the top league.
The team as it is is not going to suddenly walk the league with out investment of some kind.

Norwich is a nice city but it is small, isolated and with poor transport links to the outside world.
Norwich doesn''t have any major international companies with it as their major european base - Except Norwich Union (owned by Cheltenham and Gloster)

We have a dedicated following - but it is dedicated - we have ~28,000 who go to an average of 20 home games per season - yet having 56,000 who go to an average of 10 home games actually gives more financial clout with merchandising etc.

And we have the colours and the name - The colours being the only really unique thing that would attract a neutral here - unless they really like country life!

[/quote]

Norwich is indeed a smallish isolated City but it is the centre for a very large population indeed (1 million people in Norfolk and Waveney and growing fast) and its isolation means that this is pretty much a captive market for NCFC. What other top quality sports are there to compete with in this area? The transport issue is relative-its probabably quicker to drive into Norwich from Yarmouth/Lowestoft than to travel a few miles through a bigger city. The whole transport infrastructure in this area is better than its ever been.

Before promotion the club had nearly 50,000 people on a supporter database. I haven`t seen a recent figure but i should think it is now significantly higher. City will never attract regular 50,000 gates but then there are only a handful of clubs who can-the country is littered with large stadia which are hardly ever full and in my opinion W.Ham will be another one. I think City could regularly fill a 35-40,000 stadium in the prem.which would put us in the top 12 in England for crowds. How we get to that point is of course another issue......

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

"football related activities" have earned NCFC £35million in tv revenues in the past three seasons and a £6.1million profit in the transfer market in the last financial year. Take a look at the accounts. £20million of the money earned from "football related activities" has been ploughed into fixed asset expenditure in the last three financial years leaving the squad so weak that a repeat of the success that earned the club that extra money in the first place will be almost impossible to achieve.

In your last paragraph you indicate that an investor would be "doing the bare minimum to keep the club in the Premiership". Bring it on. Its that or stagnation as nice little well-meaning Norwich from the countryside gradually slide lamely from view.

[/quote]

mmm I see that none of the apologist''s will pick up on this one for a good few days... excellent post Mr.CARROW

No amount of excuses or denial from those who sit in support of the board can explain that one away!!!

THE MAJORITY OF THE PROFITS MADE THROUGH FOOTBALLING ACTIVITY SHOULD BE RE-INVESTED STRAIGHT BACK IN TO THE TEAM... this clearly has not been the case for many years at Carrow Road and the results are all too evident to see  [Y]

[/quote]

I am in no way an "apologist" for anything the board does, and it is rather sad that you feel the need to pigeonhole people into categories that fit your view in this way.  There should always room for other people''s views - to cut them off and categorise them as you seem to want to do does not exactly make you appear open for debate - something that is surely the general idea of these sites. 

But as ever there are two sides to these things - for instance "Ploughed into Fixed Asset expenditure": I don''t have my Accounts to hand, but am sure that the vast majority of this increase relates to the new stand (where else would this be included other than fixed assets?), something I don''t really think you can complain too much about - unless you''d rather we continued with 3 stands and a 16,000 capacity forever?  

We also had players wages of c£9m in 2005/06 alone (the period of the last accounts) - rather high (and discussed on here previously) - but this did include the remnants of the Premiership season, players like Green, Ashton et al who must have been on decent pay to keep them here (if only for part of the season).  If that isn''t ''reinvesting it back into the team'' then I''m not quite sure what is?

The whole point is that finance in general is always a balancing act, there is not really a right and wrong most of the time, it just depends where you are coming from: as an accountant I don''t think the board has done a lot wrong financially speaking, but as a supporter I do wish we had more to spend on transfers.  

What really does amaze me though is the number of supposed financial whizzes who support our club and who post on here - it has occurred to me on more than one occasion that given the amazing foresight of some and the clarity with which they see everything, that I am surprised they aren''t multi-millionaires themselves and in a position to do something better about it than moan on here!?! 

 

[/quote]

Branston, a quote from the last set of accounts: "The key improvements to the stadium include a new ticket office,a new Club 101 corporate facility,study support facility,tenanted office facilities for Connexions and Broadland Housing and the start of the Spaces for Sport project. In addition to stadium improvements the club has incurred expenditure on development infrastructure, such as new roads around the stadium." All this out of a £3.9million bill for fixed asset capital expenditure.

Norwich City plc is thriving. Shame about the football.

[Chunky! 0]

Mark,

My opinion would be that the scouting setup is linked to the manager more than the board, but you''re completely right, investment in a scouting and youth setup is important at this level, because in effect all clubs below the top ten in the country must be able to produce their own talent to reduce their dependance on expensive signings.  However, don''t we already have a good youth setup, and hasn''t Hunter improved our scouting and awareness of young players?

If I had more time and the inclination (of which I have neither) I''d investigate how much has been spent on the off-field activites and the team, but my gut feeling is that a substantial chunk of the £35 million thats bandied about on this board has been spent on players wages and the south stand (which doesn''t count as an off-field activity imo), and the actual investment in off-field activities is well below £10 million.  However, I''m willing to be corrected and if anyone has the actual figures I''d be interested to see them!

I''m not even sure who our scouts are?  I feel that things have improved with Grant bringing some of his own people in, because in the end, he and his assistant tell the scouts what kind of player they want and decide if a player recommended by a scout is worth the investment.

OTBC!

Chunky

[7rew 0]

The problem with the transport is not going into Norwich from

Lowestoft/Yarmouth, but the other direction - out to the rest of the

country - to attract players/away fans - Norwich is the only english

city not connected to London by dual carridgeway and try getting a

train to the north/midlands their awful! 

Part of the way international investors get higher fan bases is abroad

as well - Chelsea etc are trying to break into America - here the

isolation works seriously against us.

I didn''t think there were a million people in Norfolk/Waverney - The

figures  I  was working with were Norwich+suburbs 

~230,000, Yarmouth + Gorleston etc. ~80,000, Lowestoft ~ 60,000. 

Kings Lynn and Diss about ~50,000 each. So probably around 500,000 in

Norfolk/North Suffolk - and we must compete with Ipswich for some of

them.

My point is basically this:  Given any three criterion for buying

a club - I''m fairly sure you can find another club thats not been taken

over recently with two of them better for a neutral investor.

I''m sorry for underestimating the number of city fans - 50,000 is a

good number - but my point remains finacially it is actually better to

have a lot of plastic fans as they buy more shirts etc.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]I think City could regularly fill a 35-40,000 stadium in the prem.which would put us in the top 12 in England for crowds.[/quote]Hmm.  That would involve investing in fixed assets wouldn''t it ?  Not FOOTBALL.We must put FOOTBALL FIRST after all Mr Carrow.  Don''t you agree ? [:)]

[ricardo 7,328]

[quote user="7rew"]The problem with the transport is not going into Norwich from Lowestoft/Yarmouth, but the other direction - out to the rest of the country - to attract players/away fans - Norwich is the only english city not connected to London by dual carridgeway and try getting a train to the north/midlands their awful! 

Part of the way international investors get higher fan bases is abroad as well - Chelsea etc are trying to break into America - here the isolation works seriously against us.

I didn''t think there were a million people in Norfolk/Waverney - The figures  I  was working with were Norwich+suburbs  ~230,000, Yarmouth + Gorleston etc. ~80,000, Lowestoft ~ 60,000.  Kings Lynn and Diss about ~50,000 each. So probably around 500,000 in Norfolk/North Suffolk - and we must compete with Ipswich for some of them.

My point is basically this:  Given any three criterion for buying a club - I''m fairly sure you can find another club thats not been taken over recently with two of them better for a neutral investor.

I''m sorry for underestimating the number of city fans - 50,000 is a good number - but my point remains finacially it is actually better to have a lot of plastic fans as they buy more shirts etc.
[/quote]

The population of Norfolk in 2006 was 831,000

It is projected to reach 900,000 by 2016

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="7rew"]The problem with the transport is not going into Norwich from Lowestoft/Yarmouth, but the other direction - out to the rest of the country - to attract players/away fans - Norwich is the only english city not connected to London by dual carridgeway and try getting a train to the north/midlands their awful! 

Part of the way international investors get higher fan bases is abroad as well - Chelsea etc are trying to break into America - here the isolation works seriously against us.

I didn''t think there were a million people in Norfolk/Waverney - The figures  I  was working with were Norwich+suburbs  ~230,000, Yarmouth + Gorleston etc. ~80,000, Lowestoft ~ 60,000.  Kings Lynn and Diss about ~50,000 each. So probably around 500,000 in Norfolk/North Suffolk - and we must compete with Ipswich for some of them.

My point is basically this:  Given any three criterion for buying a club - I''m fairly sure you can find another club thats not been taken over recently with two of them better for a neutral investor.

I''m sorry for underestimating the number of city fans - 50,000 is a good number - but my point remains finacially it is actually better to have a lot of plastic fans as they buy more shirts etc.
[/quote]

The population of Norfolk in 2006 was 831,000

It is projected to reach 900,000 by 2016

[/quote]

Thanks for that RICARDO...

For the misinformed once more the population of Norfolk and Waveney was just under 1 million people in the last census...  a captive audience that NCFC has been taking advantage of in all the wrong ways for far too many years now!!!

[7rew 0]

Ok - I''ll believe you - it just surprises me abit (alot) - there are alot of people not in large towns then!Even with a captive audience of ~1,000,000 (given that it will be very hard to attract support from outside that) isn''t going to be giving a foreign investor any particular reson to choose us. - they will be planning to take most of the non-committed fans in an area they join anyway + some plastics from outside, which is who I doubt we have the capacity to attract.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I think City could regularly fill a 35-40,000 stadium in the prem.which would put us in the top 12 in England for crowds.[/quote]

Hmm.  That would involve investing in fixed assets wouldn''t it ?  Not FOOTBALL.

We must put FOOTBALL FIRST after all Mr Carrow.  Don''t you agree ? [:)]
[/quote]

Absolutely agree. Two seasons in the Prem. would pay for a second tier on the City stand with ease. Take a look at my earlier quote from the accounts. What exactly have those things got to do with football?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="7rew"]Ok - I''ll believe you - it just surprises me abit (alot) - there are alot of people not in large towns then!

Even with a captive audience of ~1,000,000 (given that it will be very hard to attract support from outside that) isn''t going to be giving a foreign investor any particular reson to choose us. - they will be planning to take most of the non-committed fans in an area they join anyway + some plastics from outside, which is who I doubt we have the capacity to attract.

[/quote]

Do we need to attract any plastics (as you put it) from elsewhere 7rew?  We have plenty of them in Norfolk and Waveney!!!

How many clubs in England can say that they have a captive audience of 1million people? 

We are one of a select few I would suggest... any kind of success here and a large enough ground and we could be top half of the premiership with crowds of 40,000 plus each and every week...

It only takes for somebody to open their eyes & show a little bit of ambition to see just how much potential is here and what a big club NCFC could be...

No chance of that happening though with the current incumbents of the boardroom is there???

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

Chunky, clearly a lot of thought has gone into your post, my feeling is that we fall between two stools, we are not cheap enough to buy like say Blackpool (who incidentally will now be playing in the same laegue as us next season) or Gretna but we are not attractive as any of the Prem sides (for obvious reasons)

[7rew 0]

As the 1,000,000 are not football fans and there are about 55,000,000 people in England -  thats about 600,000 per league club. If we remove teams whose most local rival is over 2 leagues above them (like Stockport - they barely imping on man city''s support) then that figure rises to around 800,000 - so we are on the large side.  We do need to attract those outside of Norfolk if we are to become a nationally recognised BIG team.  Especially looking at it from the point of view of a foreign investor (as all my posts in this thread have been trying to do)  a large captive audience - which isn''t really captive as global football brands intrude on it - is, eventually more of a hinderence to further growing the brand and making a larger return on their investment.You talk of ambition but you are happy to limit your horizons to those in Norfolk and North Suffolk only?  I would love Norwich as part of a Big 5 clubs, for that even the support of (the football suppoting part of) 1,000,000 people is not enough. Would you want a board that has similarly limited ambition (given what you say of this one) to say that we want to be the biggest club in Norfolk/North Suffolk?Couldn''t we be relegated 5 times and not lose that record!

[Putney Canary 0]

Mark,

My opinion would be that the scouting setup is linked to the manager more than the board, but you''re completely right, investment in a scouting and youth setup is important at this level, because in effect all clubs below the top ten in the country must be able to produce their own talent to reduce their dependance on expensive signings.  However, don''t we already have a good youth setup, and hasn''t Hunter improved our scouting and awareness of young players?

If I had more time and the inclination (of which I have neither) I''d investigate how much has been spent on the off-field activites and the team, but my gut feeling is that a substantial chunk of the £35 million thats bandied about on this board has been spent on players wages and the south stand (which doesn''t count as an off-field activity imo), and the actual investment in off-field activities is well below £10 million.  However, I''m willing to be corrected and if anyone has the actual figures I''d be interested to see them!

I''m not even sure who our scouts are?  I feel that things have improved with Grant bringing some of his own people in, because in the end, he and his assistant tell the scouts what kind of player they want and decide if a player recommended by a scout is worth the investment.

OTBC!

Chunky

Nobody has actual figures except the board. We are all presuming a lot, and some of us presume positive things about the board and some chose to presume negative things about the board.As for the scouting, it seems the manager has taken this in hand, but I feel it is something the Board should have stepped in about long ago. This is one reason why I think we should open up a new board member with football experience, someone like Stringer. The previous manager was (with hindsight) allowed to build a badly balanced squad, and seemes to have let certain things like Scouting drift. The board shouldn''t have let this happen, but didn''t understand the issues enough to step in.

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]I think City could regularly fill a 35-40,000 stadium in the prem.which would put us in the top 12 in England for crowds.[/quote]

Hmm.  That would involve investing in fixed assets wouldn''t it ?  Not FOOTBALL.

We must put FOOTBALL FIRST after all Mr Carrow.  Don''t you agree ? [:)]
[/quote]

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST at any FOOTBALL club. Just look at the quality of player and the FOOTBALL we have been playing to see where FOOTBALL comes on the boards ( NCPLC ) priority list!

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST