Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlyBlyBabes

Off yer bottoms & offer investors a gamble!!

Recommended Posts

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"]

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

[/quote]

Ah, but would savvy investors/gamblers have become partners in many of these kinds of  ''mistakes''? I think not.

For example, no investor would become involved in this way in a Cureton type of deal - that would be on the clubs head alone (plus input from anyone prepared to divvy up a straight ''subsidy'' Carl Moore style). On the other hand, an investor partner in Croft would surely have made sure that he was moved on before his transfer value became a big fat zero ([:D] shhh!)

OTBC

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

[/quote]

Ah, but would savvy investors/gamblers have become partners in many of these kinds of  ''mistakes''? I think not.

For example, no investor would become involved in this way in a Cureton type of deal - that would be on the clubs head alone (plus input from anyone prepared to divvy up a straight ''subsidy'' Carl Moore style). On the other hand, an investor partner in Croft would surely have made sure that he was moved on before his transfer value became a big fat zero ([:D] shhh!)

OTBC

[/quote]

While there''s merit in your idea, BBB, that external investors would choose wisely who they wanted to invest in, you''ve also highlighted the downside of the idea. That is, any good player, or one that hits a purple patch, and the investors would be looking to cash in on their revalued assets. The manager would come under pressure to sell off rising talent (or face the wrath of the investors) and we just couldn''t build a squad for the long-term.

Don''t think it could fly in reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Rock the Boat"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

[/quote]

Ah, but would savvy investors/gamblers have become partners in many of these kinds of  ''mistakes''? I think not.

For example, no investor would become involved in this way in a Cureton type of deal - that would be on the clubs head alone (plus input from anyone prepared to divvy up a straight ''subsidy'' Carl Moore style). On the other hand, an investor partner in Croft would surely have made sure that he was moved on before his transfer value became a big fat zero ([:D] shhh!)

OTBC

[/quote]

While there''s merit in your idea, BBB, that external investors would choose wisely who they wanted to invest in, you''ve also highlighted the downside of the idea. That is, any good player, or one that hits a purple patch, and the investors would be looking to cash in on their revalued assets. The manager would come under pressure to sell off rising talent (or face the wrath of the investors) and we just couldn''t build a squad for the long-term.

Don''t think it could fly in reality.

[/quote]

Virtually all clubs sell off rising talent at one point or another. Its the name of the game.

It''s a policy that NCFC have pursued for at least the last 50 years. Largely successfully under the South, Watling and Chase led administrations - and mostly unsuccessfully during the Smith regime landing us where we are now back in the third division.

The trick is - to use the term that Roger  Munby coined a couple of years ago - for us to be cleverer than the rest. And he might have added - again.

Our club needs to get up off its collective bottom and get smart - instead of ................ (You fill in the blank space).

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

[/quote]

Ah, but would savvy investors/gamblers have become partners in many of these kinds of  ''mistakes''? I think not.

For example, no investor would become involved in this way in a Cureton type of deal - that would be on the clubs head alone (plus input from anyone prepared to divvy up a straight ''subsidy'' Carl Moore style). On the other hand, an investor partner in Croft would surely have made sure that he was moved on before his transfer value became a big fat zero ([:D] shhh!)

OTBC

[/quote]

Its all a nice idea, but I think it could only work for the small man that wants to put £500 in, like 1000 shares at £500 each...... Somebody with a few million to play with would have much more fun buying a Blue Square North club for 200k and trying to get them promoted!

There is the issue of wages though. If Norwich buy a player for £1m, with 500k from club and 500k from investors..... and the sell him for £1.5m after two years..... lets say he was on 5k per week. They would get 750k back, and would have spent 500k on wages. Thus, 250k loss in reality! The investors on the other hand have walked away with 250k cash, despite not really doing anything...... Norwich would effectively be better off borrowing the money from a bank at 12% interest!

I will try and find that website though, where you can invest money in teenage brazilians (footballers that is, not wives!)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

[quote user="The Fuehrer with a Pound Shop Keyboard"]Don''t think it''s allowed.  Could be to similar to third party ownership of players, bit like Tevez
[/quote]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

There is a website somewhere where you can invest money in talented kids from Brazil, the investors collectively buy the rights and take all transfer fees and 10% of earnings.

Although I will say....... we also LOSE a lot of money on transfers. 800k for Cureton, that will be written off,  600k loss on Marshall, 600k loss on Croft, if Pattison left we would without a doubt make a loss, Drury is now worth peanuts. We paid £1m for Doherty, would be lucky to get 250k if we sold now.

I wouldnt invest a single penny in that kind of deal where our club is concerned.

[/quote]

Ah, but would savvy investors/gamblers have become partners in many of these kinds of  ''mistakes''? I think not.

For example, no investor would become involved in this way in a Cureton type of deal - that would be on the clubs head alone (plus input from anyone prepared to divvy up a straight ''subsidy'' Carl Moore style). On the other hand, an investor partner in Croft would surely have made sure that he was moved on before his transfer value became a big fat zero ([:D] shhh!)

OTBC

[/quote]

Its all a nice idea, but I think it could only work for the small man that wants to put £500 in, like 1000 shares at £500 each...... Somebody with a few million to play with would have much more fun buying a Blue Square North club for 200k and trying to get them promoted!

There is the issue of wages though. If Norwich buy a player for £1m, with 500k from club and 500k from investors..... and the sell him for £1.5m after two years..... lets say he was on 5k per week. They would get 750k back, and would have spent 500k on wages. Thus, 250k loss in reality! The investors on the other hand have walked away with 250k cash, despite not really doing anything...... Norwich would effectively be better off borrowing the money from a bank at 12% interest!

I will try and find that website though, where you can invest money in teenage brazilians (footballers that is, not wives!)

 

[/quote]

Of course Italian clubs do this already, buy an equity stake in a player that plays for another club ''co-ownership''.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. so why don''t we go in for co-ownership or link-up with a suitable feeder club in Holland or somewhere?

You know. Get creative and aggressive.

We''re too namby-pamby these days - and you all know why.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

OK. so why don''t we go in for co-ownership or link-up with a suitable feeder club in Holland or somewhere?

You know. Get creative and aggressive.

We''re too namby-pamby these days - and you all know why.

OTBC

[/quote]

Unfortunately mate I think the Norwich players would be looking for moves to the ''feeder'' clubs, rather than the other way round....... I think we would have to be the feeder club these days, unless its a non league team!

Personally I think that we should do something else, we should withdraw our reserve team from the reserves league (again) and enter a Norwich B Team into the lowest possible league in English football (wherever AFC Wimbledon started).

Play our reserve and youth players in non league football, against big lumps, youth players that didnt quite make it and old pros...... forget about this half hearted reserve stuff, get them playing competitive football and tell them to get promoted.

See how far we could get them, try and get them playing in the Blue Square South or something, and make our own bleeding Cody McDonalds.  A couple of Norwich scouts at every game, snap up every non league footballer who looks half decent and put them in our own non league team. Start giving reserve games to season ticket holders again, get the kids used to playing in front of some crowds.

Most Spanish clubs do it. Barcelona''s B Team got to the division below La Liga...... Guardiola got the managers job out of it too. Everybody is a winner out of that. 

Start bringing through our own Cody McDonalds on a yearly basis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This idea, whilst creative and maybe possible, would never survive around Norwich. Look at the stick fans gave the club when Crewe had a sell on clause in dean ashtons sale. And that only involved 25% of profit. Unfortunately, we rely heavily on these clauses to attract the players to Norfolk. Imagine this. We buy a player for 500k. Sell them for a million. 250k goes to the investor, another 125k goes to the club we bought from. That means we only make 125k from a million pound sale. The way we have to operate means we depend on player sales from time to time, and this idea would make this very difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Buzz Killington"]This idea, whilst creative and maybe possible, would never survive around Norwich. Look at the stick fans gave the club when Crewe had a sell on clause in dean ashtons sale. And that only involved 25% of profit. Unfortunately, we rely heavily on these clauses to attract the players to Norfolk. Imagine this. We buy a player for 500k. Sell them for a million. 250k goes to the investor, another 125k goes to the club we bought from. That means we only make 125k from a million pound sale. The way we have to operate means we depend on player sales from time to time, and this idea would make this very difficult.[/quote]

We wouldnt be making a profit, we would be making a big fat loss! 

People rant on about how much money we got for Ashton and Earnshaw, but we wouldnt have come out of those deals with a profit. The profit on player trading for Ashton would probably have accounted for the wages of Ashton and Earnshaw for those few years, Earnshaw was then sold at break even price. People seem to think that we had money sitting around, but the club were thought to have been paying Earnshaw 15k a week and were probably paying the same for Ashton.

If we sign a player for 500k, give him 5k a week on a three year contract, and sell him for £1m after two years..... we havent made a profit, we have simply broken even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

[/quote]

No he''s not. He''s owned by Kia Joorabchian and was loaned to Man Yoo. That is two parties. West Ham loaned him from Corinthians when he was still owned by Joorabchian. That is third party ownership and why the Hammers got fined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

Yes it is allowed, and Tevez is STILL owned by a third party.  Hence the reason that Man Utd werent willing to pay £25m to this person.

[/quote]

No he''s not. He''s owned by Kia Joorabchian and was loaned to Man Yoo. That is two parties. West Ham loaned him from Corinthians when he was still owned by Joorabchian. That is third party ownership and why the Hammers got fined.

[/quote]

No the Hammers got fined because of incorrect player registration? To me Kia is a third party.

Hoolohan (party 1) is owned by Norwich (party 2)

Tevez (party 1) plays for Man Utd (party 2) but is owned by Kia (party 3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

No he''s not. He''s owned by Kia Joorabchian and was loaned to Man Yoo. That is two parties. West Ham loaned him from Corinthians when he was still owned by Joorabchian. That is third party ownership and why the Hammers got fined.

[/quote]

To me Kia is a third party.

Hoolohan (party 1) is owned by Norwich (party 2)

Tevez (party 1) plays for Man Utd (party 2) but is owned by Kia (party 3)

[/quote]

Oh well if he''s a third party to you then that must be correct [:|][;)]

Joorabchian owns Tevez in exactly the same way as Norwich own Hoolahan. The problem West Ham had was with Corinthians who seeemed to also have some claim to ownership. They may well have been fined due to incorrect registration but this was caused by the issue of third party ownership. Tevez and Hoolahan are the commodoties here and have nothing to do with third party ownership.

We''re getting off topic here, sorry Bly [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

So does this posting tie in with your 1st July thread, I see you have the clock ticking in the title? [:^)]

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Shack Attack"]

No he''s not. He''s owned by Kia Joorabchian and was loaned to Man Yoo. That is two parties. West Ham loaned him from Corinthians when he was still owned by Joorabchian. That is third party ownership and why the Hammers got fined.

[/quote]

To me Kia is a third party.

Hoolohan (party 1) is owned by Norwich (party 2)

Tevez (party 1) plays for Man Utd (party 2) but is owned by Kia (party 3)

[/quote]

Oh well if he''s a third party to you then that must be correct [:|][;)]

Joorabchian owns Tevez in exactly the same way as Norwich own Hoolahan. The problem West Ham had was with Corinthians who seeemed to also have some claim to ownership. They may well have been fined due to incorrect registration but this was caused by the issue of third party ownership. Tevez and Hoolahan are the commodoties here and have nothing to do with third party ownership.

We''re getting off topic here, sorry Bly [:D]

[/quote]

I dont want to have an argument mate, but please trust me when I say that West Ham were fined because Joorabchian owned both Tevez and a company with a large amount of shares in West Ham Utd.  There was no problem with the Tevez Registration at all,  the only problem was a vested interest because ''Media Sports Investments'' owned the rights to Tevez and held a share in West Ham.

Tevez''s / Media Sports Investments deal with Corinthians was properly concluded, and Man Utd have exactly the same deal with Media Sports Investments (Kias company), only the company does not hold shares in Man Utd - so there is no vested interest.

In the West Ham arrangement there was a third party with a vested interest (Media Sports Investments). In the Man Utd arrangement there was a third party with no influence or vested interest (Media Sports Investments).

So as long as Delia or Foulger doesnt loan us a player that they own the rights to, then we would be fine. Hope that clarifies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"]

I dont want to have an argument mate, but please trust me when I say that West Ham were fined because Joorabchian owned both Tevez and a company with a large amount of shares in West Ham Utd.  There was no problem with the Tevez Registration at all,  the only problem was a vested interest because ''Media Sports Investments'' owned the rights to Tevez and held a share in West Ham.

Tevez''s / Media Sports Investments deal with Corinthians was properly concluded, and Man Utd have exactly the same deal with Media Sports Investments (Kias company), only the company does not hold shares in Man Utd - so there is no vested interest.

In the West Ham arrangement there was a third party with a vested interest (Media Sports Investments). In the Man Utd arrangement there was a third party with no influence or vested interest (Media Sports Investments).

So as long as Delia or Foulger doesnt loan us a player that they own the rights to, then we would be fine. Hope that clarifies.

[/quote]

About half and hour ago you told me "No the Hammers got fined because of incorrect player registration". Make up your mind.

I''ve had a very quick search and can find no mention of West Ham being fined because MSI had a share in the Hammers as well as owning Tevez.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/17/david-conn-west-ham-tevez-mascherano

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Shack Attack"][quote user="JuanVelasco"]

I dont want to have an argument mate, but please trust me when I say that West Ham were fined because Joorabchian owned both Tevez and a company with a large amount of shares in West Ham Utd.  There was no problem with the Tevez Registration at all,  the only problem was a vested interest because ''Media Sports Investments'' owned the rights to Tevez and held a share in West Ham.

Tevez''s / Media Sports Investments deal with Corinthians was properly concluded, and Man Utd have exactly the same deal with Media Sports Investments (Kias company), only the company does not hold shares in Man Utd - so there is no vested interest.

In the West Ham arrangement there was a third party with a vested interest (Media Sports Investments). In the Man Utd arrangement there was a third party with no influence or vested interest (Media Sports Investments).

So as long as Delia or Foulger doesnt loan us a player that they own the rights to, then we would be fine. Hope that clarifies.

[/quote]

About half and hour ago you told me "No the Hammers got fined because of incorrect player registration". Make up your mind.

I''ve had a very quick search and can find no mention of West Ham being fined because MSI had a share in the Hammers as well as owning Tevez.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/mar/17/david-conn-west-ham-tevez-mascherano

[/quote]

Shack Attack, sorry...... you are right. I havent slept all night, dont know what I am talking about.

Although, what Man Utd are doing are exactly the same as West Ham..... only they informed the FA of the third party and got there approval, West Ham didnt. There is a new rule now, which bans third party registration completely, which is why Tevez has to be bought outright from Kia now if he wants to stay in this country.... Man Utd either had to pay his price (£22m) or let him go.... Now its up to Chelsea or Man City or somebody to see if they can find the money to buy his registration.

Therefore, the third party (like you quite rightly said) as of last season is against the rules in England and wouldnt work...... although I will note that the Man Utd agreement for last season was simply the same as West Ham but declared to the FA, the rule has now come in to stop it happening again.

He could always go to Italy or Spain though ;-)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees. Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!Pie in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.

Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.

Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees.

Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!

Pie in the sky.

[/quote]

The Tevez style contract has now been banned in England, so it doesnt work anymore mate!  We will never have another third party ownership deal again in this country.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees. Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!Pie in the sky.[/quote]

The Tevez style contract has now been banned in England, so it doesnt work anymore mate!  We will never have another third party ownership deal again in this country.

 

[/quote]Fine then that makes your idea as I pointed out even more ridiculous than ever pal!. God sake you post drivel then get wound up when not everybody agrees it a wonderful idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.

Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.

Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees.

Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!

Pie in the sky.

[/quote]

The Tevez style contract has now been banned in England, so it doesnt work anymore mate!  We will never have another third party ownership deal again in this country.

 

[/quote]Fine then that makes your idea as I pointed out even more ridiculous than ever pal!. God sake you post drivel then get wound up when not everybody agrees it a wonderful idea.
[/quote]

It wasnt my idea or my post ?!?!? [:S] and I was agreeing with you...... crikey.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.

Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.

Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees.

Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!

Pie in the sky.

[/quote]

The Tevez style contract has now been banned in England, so it doesnt work anymore mate!  We will never have another third party ownership deal again in this country.

[/quote]Fine then that makes your idea as I pointed out even more ridiculous than ever pal!. God sake you post drivel then get wound up when not everybody agrees it a wonderful idea.
[/quote]

I love the irony of this post....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The responses to the simple kite I flew tend to reflect the leadership of our club -

..... a preoccupation with why things can''t be done as opposed to how they can be done

..... an over analysis of simple matters until people end up almost flying up their own arse.

As Yankee would no doubt confirm, American-style KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) is often the best approach in business - including professional soccer.

One love.

OTBC

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="paul ncfc"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

So does this posting tie in with your 1st July thread, I see you have the clock ticking in the title? [:^)]

[/quote][/quote]

It''s stuck, not ticking!!

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Carrow said that buying a player is a better investment than property..... so he''ll be up for it.Doubt the bank will agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="JuanVelasco"][quote user="Hardhouse44"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Offer individual investors the opportunity to co-finance key inward transfers - up to 50%

And guarantee them 50% of any profit from onward sales.

Part gamble, part investment.

I suspect there''s a few punters around.

Look at the long list of players the club has sold on at a profit over the years.

McNally is paid to work out the details!

OTBC

 

[/quote]And look at the long list of dross we''ve bought and made a loss on over the last 5 years.

Never work at this level and your proposal if I get it right doesn''t even give the investor part ownership so in that case any player who ends up doing a Croft it would mean the investor gets zilch.

Tevez works because a) they own the right to him playing football full stop and b) most importantly he''s a world class player who will always attract either massive transfer fee''s or massive signing on fees.

Who would come here that a investor could say yes I''ll pay 50% of that because he''s going to be a superstar. Nobody is my guess. If an outside investor can see the potential then so can everybody else, and just about everybody else is a more attractive option than us. Leaving any investor only wild stabs in the dark. Thats not an investment gamble that throwing your money away. Investment has to be in the club as a whole and those investors have to not expect a return for the money for many years if ever!

Pie in the sky.

[/quote]

The Tevez style contract has now been banned in England, so it doesnt work anymore mate!  We will never have another third party ownership deal again in this country.

 

[/quote]

Man City or whichever club concludes the deal will own Tevez'' contract from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="BA"]Mr Carrow said that buying a player is a better investment than property..... so he''ll be up for it.

Doubt the bank will agree.
[/quote]

Such investors wouldn''t need their banks to agree.

Woolly thinking again.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...