We never get those "Investment needed" threads anymore

[norfolkchance1 0]

Like we used to when we were in the championship and League 1.

Have people finally realised and accepted that the grass is not greener on the other side. Those threads every time a new major owner arrived at another club and immediately flashed the cash - only shortly afterwards to see the start of a financial mess or that things weren''t as they were promised.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

We''re not particularly short of cash any more it doesn''t seem.

If we stay up this year, it might just take a new owner to come in to have any chance on reaching the next level though (consistent top half finishes away from relegation)

[Move Klose 303]

We can push for top half with our current owners and financial position, its the manager thats holding us back.

[Tetteys Jig 830]

I don''t think we could sustainably. We''ve got the 19th biggest budget in the league. When the likes of Southampton and West Ham can spend £15m on a player and Villa can pay theirs nearly £100k, we''re lagging behind that little bit.

[Move Klose 303]

Yer true, maybe we do need someone to take us to next level but thats investment and managerial wise. We are nowhere paying spmeone £70k a week or spending £15m on one player, but then again alot of teams arent.

[ZLF 271]

Is this the right time for an "Investment will get us relegated" thread?

[Bury Green 0]

Glass Ceilings I think, to finsih much beyond tenth in the Prem would almost certainly require an enormously wealthy benefactor to act as an adjunct to the Sky monies.

To be able to fund a squad of twenty five top rate players all of whom would most probably be on £70k + per week goes way beyond existing income levels. Don''t get me wrong, these last three years have secured the clubs financial future for a generation I hope, it''s just the reality of pushing on much further.

The next hurdle which isn''t likely to be very popular, a sense of reality and perspective on the players we could every sensibly hope to attract even if the current majority shareholders sold to some oligarch or similar?

I''m not sure the true footballing elite are ever going to give up living in London, Paris, etc to sample life in a part of the world we all love, I know Zlatan came to FCR with Ajax but could be ever attract such players to play for us?

So that''s my 2p, investment now would be great make no mistake and thank god the days of rebates, share issues and suchlike are long gone.

[T 190]

At least the topic would be relevant to the teams success unlike the CH discussions

[iron_stan 0]

norwich were the 9th biggest spenders before the jan windowtruth is if the club wants to be anything other than contenders for 8th downwards it needs to be bought by someone with very deep pocketsor stay in the division surviving each season, not spending, and bringing through high quality youth players until its built up a huge transfer/wage kitty to play withthe latter is pretty unlikely

[T 190]

...and the 19th largest overall budget...the best players go for the highest wages so it is wages that matter

[Oz Canary 0]

Why is it that when ever the investment threads appear it''s always a - negative about any new owners would plunge us into financial trouble. How do you know that?

[Oz Canary 0]

And you can''t tell me that a premier league club with no debt is not receiving approaches from potential investors? I would bet money that we are approached regularly. I think the real story is the fact that we are in a positive financial position allows our majority owners the luxury to sit back and not worry about any new owners or partnership offers.

Not all purchases end up in tears. Chelsea, Man Utd, and Man City seem to be doing OK to me.

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

Man Utd ?i think their Chickens are coming home to roost now, all this stuff takes a few years to show its real colours....they really aint in such good shape. Corporate debt is strangling the progress of Man U....why do you think Fergie really baled out?

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Oz Canary"]And you can''t tell me that a premier league club with no debt is not receiving approaches from potential investors? I would bet money that we are approached regularly. I think the real story is the fact that we are in a positive financial position allows our majority owners the luxury to sit back and not worry about any new owners or partnership offers.

Not all purchases end up in tears. Chelsea, Man Utd, and Man City seem to be doing OK to me.[/quote]I know. I think that''s strange as well. If Smith and Jones accepted one of these offers they must, as you say, be getting they would rake in £32.7m. Pretty much trebling their investment of £11m or £12m. And I think we have always suspected they were only in it for the profit. So it is a bit of a mystery as to why they haven''t taken the money and run.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

I''m amazed that there are still people who feel that investment (or the lack of it) is the core issue in our current predicament.

[T 190]

It''s even more amazing that people can''t grasp that the amount you spend is far more significant than the manager. It is difficult to believe people are stupid enough not to understand this so I would rather believe that the CH outers are multi user name trolls but why they bother to do it who knows.

[norfolkchance1 0]

Oz Canary, the vast proportion of takeovers have not delivered what they have promised. The Championship , Leagues 1 and 2 contain many examples. There are far too many Portsmouth''s and Coventry''s for my liking.

I would need an enormous amount of convincing to welcome a new investor for a takeover with open arms without having serious questions about motives. We should be very thankful that we have had Delia and the board who have had the clubs best interests at heart.

I accept your point that there have been good examples, and Fulham under Al Fayed and Wigan under Whelan are two examples you could add but I believe they are a minority.

I think football as a whole should regulate things far more closely and make the rules far far tougher than they have been.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

the Football club would be mad not to encourage offers of investment, it can after all say no if it so choses. Whether Delia actually wants to sell is another matter all together .

 

Looking at the two likely teams to come up from the Championship, both have received heavy investment. The teams that came up last year ditto.

 

To progress , as you would have to say Stoke, Fulham and Wigan did for many years, you need cash. Yes they are a few Disasters, but no many skint teams go up let alone stay up.

 

We mustn''t get too carried away with debt or lack of it. Man City, Man Utd and Chelsea have huge debts in one form or another.

 

However debt can be a disaster if you go down, as several teams have shown.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,421]

PS does anyone know how to run a auto spell checker on this site? You know, the one with the red lines under words?

[Oz Canary 0]

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]Oz Canary, the vast proportion of takeovers have not delivered what they have promised. The Championship , Leagues 1 and 2 contain many examples. There are far too many Portsmouth''s and Coventry''s for my liking.

I would need an enormous amount of convincing to welcome a new investor for a takeover with open arms without having serious questions about motives. We should be very thankful that we have had Delia and the board who have had the clubs best interests at heart.

I accept your point that there have been good examples, and Fulham under Al Fayed and Wigan under Whelan are two examples you could add but I believe they are a minority.

I think football as a whole should regulate things far more closely and make the rules far far tougher than they have been.[/quote]

Norfolk, your point is well made however as we progress through the years the promoted clubs (like last years and certainly this years) have all been bought and well funded and look to be gaining promotion(Leicester & QPR). Yes, we have a board and majority ownership who seem to have the clubs best interests at heart. But I would submit that if they have been receiving offers (and I find it heard to believe they wouldn''t be receiving them regularly) why wouldn''t Delia & the board(if they have the best interests of the club in mind) accept a partner who could provide some bigger funding opportunities and agree that after a two or three year period the new partner who have the first right of refusal to purchase at whatever is the righful value of the club at that time. That way the "partner" has been at our club for a period of time, they would have passed our own due diligence or "respectable person" test and ownership and fans would feel more comfortable with that transition than just selling to a bunch of wealthy blokes who have time and money to waste without the real passion for football and NCFC more importantly. 

My view is if we do not continue to move with the "times" we will be left behind and I mean in terms of relegation and if the trend continues that well funded clubs are the only ones with the financial muscle to crack the EPL, we may never get back if the current stance is continued.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Oz Canary"]

[quote user="norfolkchance1"]Oz Canary, the vast proportion of takeovers have not delivered what they have promised. The Championship , Leagues 1 and 2 contain many examples. There are far too many Portsmouth''s and Coventry''s for my liking.

I would need an enormous amount of convincing to welcome a new investor for a takeover with open arms without having serious questions about motives. We should be very thankful that we have had Delia and the board who have had the clubs best interests at heart.

I accept your point that there have been good examples, and Fulham under Al Fayed and Wigan under Whelan are two examples you could add but I believe they are a minority.

I think football as a whole should regulate things far more closely and make the rules far far tougher than they have been.[/quote]

Norfolk, your point is well made however as we progress through the years the promoted clubs (like last years and certainly this years) have all been bought and well funded and look to be gaining promotion(Leicester & QPR). Yes, we have a board and majority ownership who seem to have the clubs best interests at heart. But I would submit that if they have been receiving offers (and I find it heard to believe they wouldn''t be receiving them regularly) why wouldn''t Delia & the board(if they have the best interests of the club in mind) accept a partner who could provide some bigger funding opportunities and agree that after a two or three year period the new partner who have the first right of refusal to purchase at whatever is the righful value of the club at that time. That way the "partner" has been at our club for a period of time, they would have passed our own due diligence or "respectable person" test and ownership and fans would feel more comfortable with that transition than just selling to a bunch of wealthy blokes who have time and money to waste without the real passion for football and NCFC more importantly. 

My view is if we do not continue to move with the "times" we will be left behind and I mean in terms of relegation and if the trend continues that well funded clubs are the only ones with the financial muscle to crack the EPL, we may never get back if the current stance is continued.

[/quote]That is a highly questionable assumption.

[Oz Canary 0]

Yes I know Purple however common sense would tell me that an EPL club, no or little debt, would have to be of interest to potential investors, I may be wrong but we would have to bf just about the only club that is debt free right. One team city. Marketing possibilities are endless plus the attractiveness of living in Norfolk. If I had billions I would be more interested in a NC rather than Leicester, Watford, Notts Forest, Notts County or QPR .

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

[quote user="Oz Canary"]Yes I know Purple however common sense would tell me that an EPL club, no or little debt, would have to be of interest to potential investors, I may be wrong but we would have to bf just about the only club that is debt free right. One team city. Marketing possibilities are endless plus the attractiveness of living in Norfolk. If I had billions I would be more interested in a NC rather than Leicester, Watford, Notts Forest, Notts County or QPR .[/quote]According to reports, the Italian Massimo Cellino is only having to pay £25m for a 75 per cent stake in Leeds United. It would cost him £46.5m to buy the same sized stake in Norwich City. And Leeds United are a bigger and more famous club.

[Oz Canary 0]

That''s the difference between an EPL team vs buying into a lesser team in a lower division.

My original point was though, I don''t care whose being bought and for how much. I still firmly believe that NCFC board would be reguarly fielding enquiries. You can''t tell me that if someone has $25m to spend, they would look at a team in a lower division before and EPL team with little or no debt. I would enquire if I was in that position, but what response you get once you enquire would be the interesting bit of information.

[norfolkchance1 0]

I think football clubs as a whole are best served when the owners have a genuine affinity and feel for a club rather than some of these venture capitalist style takeovers with several parties all set to drop money in - they seem far to reliant on trust and when someone defaults on their commitment things seem to either end up in a collapse or a fire sale to someone that isn''t wanted and wouldn''t have ordinarily been chosen but just happens to be in the right place at the time.

I think comparing the values of Leeds and Norwich is difficult, it would be wrong to belittle Leeds''s history and undoubted potential but the situations of the club are quite different.

You''d think because of which division Norwich are in and the realistic potential of how high we can generally go we probably would be more likely to get more genuine fans and people interested in buying or investing for the right reasons rather than chancers just trying to make a swift shilling, but then you see examples where Premier League clubs have been bought for prestige reasons for businesses - and you hear quotes about not understanding the concept of relegation.

I still believe to get it right needs an enormous amount of work delving into peoples motives and past and making sure that as a Football club you don''t end up being a story of ridicule in the media for several years later.

[Syteanric 1]

been a while since I was a share holder but i beleive the annual accounts always hinted that the constitution of the club states share holders must retire their position permanently at 75....

I would suspect in the next 18-24 months we might see a new face on the board.... Delia and MWJ arent going to be in charge much longer due to age...

the club will change hands... for better or worse?