To be the majority shareholders of a football club can be a tough gig at times, even more so if as well as wielding the power you’re fans of that same football club.
When defeats and bad runs come along not only are you feeling the pain of a supporter, you’re also bracing yourself for those same old questions being asked – that’s how it tends to work.
While the sailing is plain any questions and concerns are suppressed but when the waters get choppy, depending on the height of the waves, they are unleashed. And the big question for our own majority shareholders is obviously around their ambitions for the club and their apparent reluctance to invite anyone in with deeper pockets.
It comes up constantly and is a question that’s never going to go away until (or if), for better or worse, the self-funding model is declared no longer fit for purpose.
What isn’t clear to me however is what the majority of fans feel. There are vocal groups of ‘loyalists’ who support Delia and Michael’s take on the club remaining very much part of the community and being self-financing, and other equally vocal elements who crave change and an influx of cash. In a flawed attempt to gauge opinion I foolishly attempted a Twitter poll. The upshot was thus:
Serious question… if it was purely an A or B choice (which it isn't) what type of #ncfc would you prefer?
— MyFootballWriter (@NorwichCityMFW) November 2, 2017
In the world of Nigel Farage and Theresa May those 54% may represent the ‘will of the Yellow Army’ but to normal people the key figure here is 235 votes. It was a plan. It failed. And I’m no further forward.
Fellow columnist, Stewart Lewis, in his fine Canary Call piece yesterday touched on the thorny issue of external investment and picked up on something said by Ed Balls in the post-accounts round of interviews, where he alluded to the fact that Delia and Michael are open to outside investment but aren’t actively seeking it.
Stew’s take on it was that he’d prefer the club to sound more proactive and welcoming. I agree. But I’d take it a step further and ask if their raison d’etre is to protect the long-term future of this club then why aren’t they actively seeking ways and means by which its future progress can be enhanced?
I love that this club is at the heart of its community and how through the work of the CSF, and the club itself, Norwich City FC extends far beyond the reaches of your average professional football club. That’s something to be extremely proud of – and we are – but the idea that this all goes to rat ‘do do’ just because someone, or something, with deeper pockets takes a controlling stake in our club is, in my eyes, wrong.
I respect that Delia wishes to retain an element of control – it’s a right that her and Michael have earned – and that she sees Tom as the heir apparent to her financial interests in the club, but their clear reticence to invite in any form of external investment seems underpinned by a desire to retain this community ethos – as if the two are mutually exclusive. They’re not.
It’s an argument my dad and I have had on numerous occasions. He too loves that the club seeps into all the hard to reach crevices of Norfolk and North Suffolk but struggles with how this would fit in with a club that has been buoyed by what he would deem filthy lucre. Again, I disagree.
What I want is for Norwich City FC to be the best it can possibly be; to strain every sinew and explore every avenue in search of footballing glory. I accept that’s something that could – and probably is – said by every fan of every club but right now it feels like for us there are one or two avenues that are being completely ignored.
I also accept that for every example of a successful benefactor or external investment there are two or three horror stories but still that shouldn’t preclude us being out there exploring the possibilities. I also accept there isn’t a queue of billionaires forming, all fighting and jostling for a stake in Norwich City, but still this is not a reason to offer the prospect the palm of the hand.
The end of the parachute payments in May next year won’t see our world cave in. Plans and processes are already being pulled together to cope with that particular well drying up but Carrow Road and Colney will have a very different look and feel once those plans are implemented.
There will likely be no James Maddison, Alex Pritchard or Tom Trybull. Josh Murphy too will probably be sold. We’ll be left with a shell of a squad; one bolstered by some of our talented young crop of youngsters. And that’s fine – that doesn’t mean we can’t still be competitive in this division – but it does mean the financial advantages of the Premier League years will have been blown. Back to square one. And there’s no way a squad shorn of its individual talent will be as good as one with it.
That’s not to say the Premier League money was wasted, aside from those few dodgy and costly appointments. The theory that entry to the EPL cures all financial ills is a flawed one. It just means you have more money to spend to try and survive there, usually to no avail. The money is soaked up like a giant sponge as, predominantly, players’ wages ensure that cash is haemorrhaged at the rate of Vegas slot machines.
There are of course a few good examples of how to do it – Stoke, Southampton, West Brom and Swansea being those most akin to ourselves – but there are naturally more examples of it not working because three teams have to be relegated. Yet all of the above already had significant financial backing or have gone down that route since making it to the big time. Standing still isn’t an option and while the self-funding model appears very worthy I’m unsure of its sustainability, certainly if there is a continued desire to move in an upward direction.
Steve Stone and Stuart Webber are both convinced our existing financial model can lead us back to the Promised Land – Stuart having witnessed it almost first-hand at Huddersfield – but there can be little debate over it being a significantly more difficult task when the purse strings are getting increasingly tightened. And few can have enjoyed watching the impact of Wolves’ extra financial muscle 12 days ago; a better example of its impact you’d be unlikely to find.
So, while I love this club for what it it and what it represents – and would do so whatever its form – there is for a me a glass ceiling that needs to be shattered; a brake that needs to be released. It may lead us forward or it may not, but until we at least entertain the prospect we will never know.
It needs to be pointed out that huddersfield fc owner is actually wealthier than ours
14
Another thoughtful and informed contribution to the debate, Gary.
You’re right, of course, that foreign owners wouldn’t necessarily dismantle the things we value in our club. But there’s surely a likelihood. Norwich City’s commitment to, and involvement in, the community is exceptional. The Community Sports Foundation is, I believe, now the third biggest in the country. Much of that comes from the personal involvement of our owners – initially Delia & Michael, now carried on by Tom.
It’s possible that new owners would sustain that commitment. History, however, suggests that it’s unlikely. And would they feel the same commitment as we do towards the colours or On the Ball, City?
These things may not seem very important when we’re focussed on winning the next games – but we might appreciate them when it’s too late.
6
Interesting article but, personally, I think you are stopping short of a genuine proposition or definition of what it is you want or don’t want.
To me, Ed Balls comments mean that the Board would consider any genuine offer of investment in the event One was delivered to them, ie it is a test of whether the investor already has an interest in NCFC, which doesn’t seem unreasonable to me in the context of trying to protect the best interests of the club.
The alternative is trying to sell the idea of the club to investors, which effectively means showing them how they can make a return on their investment, regardless of whether that return is financial or not.
The greater the investment required, the greater the return the investor will be looking for. Watching an episode of Dragons Den or reading any history of diplomacy will provide ample evidence of this.
Therefore there is a need to define what sort of investor is desired, which will come with different implications, ranging from a seat on the board through to full control of the club. Anything else would be a benefactor or philanthropist rather than an investor.
So, presuming that the desire is for Premiership membership on a long term basis, as soon as possible, it is likely that this would require a willingness to invest substantially on the assumption of returns in future years. On this basis, I think, investors would be looking for control of the club.
We already know that investment in the playing staff doesn’t guarantee results, looking at last season and the last under Chris Hughton in particular, so is it really that impractical and/or unambitious that the Board are concentrating upon what they can directly control, as opposed to putting all of their energies into ifs, buts and maybes?
Ultimately it is a matter of an appetite for risk, do you bet everything on red or do you take a more prudent approach?
As the saying goes, you pays your money and takes your choice.
6
Good post Alistair. Agree with most of that (including me stopping just short of committing myself either way). There is clearly risk involved if, as it were, the floodgates were opened by the board but I guess my point was that having parameters so narrow that it almost precludes and chance of external funds coming in, it effectively limits our scope to thrive. Also agree however that big spending doesn’t automatically equate to success.
4
This seems to be the ‘hot topic’ at the moment, as to whether D&M should be willing to listen to possible investors, but the main issue seems to be how much control would an investor want and that would most likely be in direct proportion as to how much they were investing in the club.
As has been said on many occasions, money was squandered on signing Naismith 2 seasons ago and now we have one who cost approximately half of what he cost and I’m sure his salary is also less than half, but his contribution to NCFC is beyond measure by comparison.
0
We don’t need to bet everything on red, we’re in it by 2m quid.
1
There is so much wrong with using dragons den in this comparative context, I can’t even bring myself to rant at you. “Sell the idea of the club”…have you watched any football in the last 20 years? The very sniff of premier league football makes foreign investors go all giggly. If there are filthy rich Russians purchasing Bournemouth or Wolves etc etc, there is absolutely no doubt they have enquired about norwich city fc. It doesn’t take a genius.
8
The board is getting like the resy of us older by the day and the Smiths have nailed their successor to the mast in one Tom Smith now we have the other major share holder in Micheal Folger of Banham we all hope the he lives long and continues his support of city but the burning question is what happens to his shares does he have family willing to step in to the void or will they be sold to the highest bidder.
As been alluded to in this and similar articles on the same subject investers will want to know what is in it for them either short or long term, anyone that might be willing has earned his money by being a sharp invester know the ins and outs before showing their hand.
Ed Balls announced when he took over that the club wasn’t looking for investers now he has changed his view and said that they are willing to look at possible investment surely it is up to him and the club to convince possible investers that city is the right place for their money.
Not being involved in that world I would have thought the club would have had a prospectus with all that the invester would get ie share holding, seat on the board, if it was to be a major investment would they control the club.
Have they circulated to the right people that they are looking, last time they said they were looking the conditions put possible invester off will this do the same again????
1
An interesting discussion Gary, and of course this debate will continue to run.
About half way through, you made this statement, ‘but right now it feels like for us there are one or two avenues that are being completely ignored’, and then didn’t expand on it. Were there any avenues that you were particularly thinking of? When you made the statement, I was expecting you to then illustrate it, and when you didn’t was struggling to think of what these avenues might be myself…
This is really because in terms of more philanthropic local investment, I think Delia and Michael have explored most avenues… And that leaves only external (ie non East Anglian) investment, which as Alastair in his good comment notes would come with many more strings attached. It is those strings that I think many of us are worried about, especially regarding overall control of the club.
0
I’m loathe to comment, since my perceived bias provokes such opprobrium. But your thoughtful and entirely understandable position, Gary, ignores the context in which Delia and Michael have reached their current view on ‘outside investment’.
There are two elements of the context. The first is their own experience, the second what they have seen happen elsewhere.
Let me deal with their experiences first.
They spent decades seeking a ‘succession plan’. The closest they got was probably the idea of handing over to the Turners, but there was also a period when football’s best deal-maker at the time , Keith Harris, was looking for a buyer/investor on their behalf — to no avail, because of the club’s indebtedness.
At other times our majority shareholders have had to deal with charlatans and chancers making bids, sometimes with the support of the Norwich media, which had the potential of causing catastrophic damage.
Now let me turn to what they’ve seen happen elsewhere. They speak to folk at other clubs, and don’t rely on media coverage, so they know about the pain and heartache at so many clubs bought by one or more wealthy individuals. So do I.
Let me tell you the Notts County story when you’ve got half a day. Or let me chart the amount of money QPR have gone through to be exactly where they were when they started spending.
Let me tell you about why the Venkys seemed a perfect way forward for Blackburn, or about the joy with which Blackpool first embraced Owen Oyston.Etc, etc …
So, having dealt with real and phoney would-be investors at Norwich for so long and heard countless horror stories from elsewhere, D & M then reached a stage where their position is the one enunciated by Ed Balls.
Remember, D & M do not have the wherewithal to investigate the probity (financial or otherwise) of bidders. They have to hire experts to do that. And they’ve decided not to do that any more unless an apparently genuine, feasible and beneficial offer lands on their table.
That seems to me to be perfectly reasonable — especially as it sits alongside their other position, which is to support the fundamental reorganisation of Norwich City they instigated and give Stuart Webber and Steve Stone every opportunity to make the self-funding model work.
6
Very understandable Mick the way you explain things but at no time have you memtioned where Micheal Folger stands in all this.
0
Michael Foulger supports Delia and Michael wholeheartedly.
0
I believe Michael Foulger (not Folger) has 15 per cent of the shares and backs D & M completely.
0
“Remember, D & M do not have the wherewithal to investigate the probity (financial or otherwise) of bidders. They have to hire experts to do that. And they’ve decided not to do that any more unless an apparently genuine, feasible and beneficial offer lands on their table.”
That makes zero logical sense.
8
I’m sorry you think so. It just means they’ve decided not to pay for time-consuming checks on every chancer that comes along.
2
“So the Gospel truth is that Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones have only ever received one firm bid from someone wanting to buy the club: Peter Cullum”
…
Mick Dennis
“Every chancer that comes along”
…
Mick Dennis
11
There’s no contradiction in those two statements you quote. Only Peter Cullum put together a firm, detailed bid, with proof of funding etc. But those details included wanting his money back if we were relegated to `League One, and that would have plunged the club into liquidation. There have been chancers and charlatans who have talked to third parties and so-on, but no other firm bids. Not one. I’m sorry if that doesn’t fit with your jaundiced beliefs, but it’s the truth.
0
For every Notts County, Blackburn & Blackpool I’ll give you Swansea, Stoke, Bournemouth and of course Leicester. All clubs that City have been level (or ahead) with in recent years. Having dissected the accounts sent out recently I seriously cannot see us EVER competing with them again under the current regime. Any decent team that is out together will be broken and sold in order to stay afloat,not to move forward……..
10
One question Mick. In light of subsequent comments regarding overseas owners, did Keith Harris actually have “a blank piece of paper” when he did his search, or was there conditionality attached which may have inhibited that search?
2
I don’t know the details of his brief, but Keith Harris was tasked with finding a buyer or buyers. He told me, to my face, that the problem was the level of indebtedness.
0
Excellent article Gary.
Reading between the lines – that’s all we can do following the comments from Ed Balls – there’s certainly no appetite to sell by the majority shareholders, but they’re certainly open to talking to anyone who wanted to put in new investment. That said, they’re not going out of their way to find potential interested parties. It’s that bit which grates for many..
I’m guessing a lot will depend upon exactly where the self-funding model takes us. Will it be robust enough to keep us in regular playoff contention and sustain significant losses, or will it require regular promotions to the Premier League in order to prevent a drift toward mid table Championship mediocrity?
0
If we turn into a mediocre championship club we will possibly not be self financing and start to a club that accumulate debts.
1
For a long time I liked having Delia and Co. as owners of the club. That changed around five years ago when they become liabilities, rather than assets. Let’s look at Delia’s involvement.
– Almost oversaw the club going into administration.
– About to have a 20-30m revenue gap which will lead to asset stripping.
– Three failed attempts to establish ourselves in the Prem, along with almost zero to show for it.
– Meddling in football matters, leading to players and managers failing in their positions far longer than acceptable.
– For a decade hasn’t provided any infusion of cash and has taken all money invested back out of the club.
– Stands as a blocker for investors and the succession plan will lead to another generation of non-investment.
– Believes the fans should pay towards the betterment of the club, she shouldn’t. “fan funded’ would be a better phrase than self-funded.
If she wanted to be a figurehead or community director, that’s one thing. But a non-investing owner is a massive opportunity cost.
17
Success is a strange topic. Never more so than in the present situation we are witnessing at NCFC.
On the one hand You have a core of people who see financial security, community engagement and the family feeling of our club as a success.
You also have a core of people who see purely what happens on the pitch and the football being played which determines success.
Many (like myself) take pride in the first and crave the second!
We seem to have an ownership who it appears would also like both. However their model of achieving this would I have no doubt have seen us as a success 30 years ago.
Unfortunately as you have illustrated Gary, times have changed and money, like it or loath it is the new god.
Ill be honest, I was pleasently surprised by the new set up
Implemented in the summer, however as in any system it’s only as good as the parameters you place on it and what ultimately your definition of success actually is.
Due to the now infamous Times interview where D and M declared their obhorence to all things Premier League what our present owners want I believe, is a self funded team who flirts with promotion but doesn’t actually achieve it. I really believe they think that will be enough for the good people of Norfolk to remain interested.
In this present football climate there is flaw to the present plan. Like any new business venture a large amount of start up capitol is required to achieve a long term gain. This is missing from the new direction the club is taking. Are the owners looking to stick when seeking a reasonable twist in the form of investment is now required?
3
Got to admit I’m a little distressed at Dave Bowers’ post getting five ticks.
Yes, let’s look at Delia’s involvement:
. She and her husband saved the club, Without a high proportion of their wealth going to it, and Delia returning to work to raise even more money to put in, we wouldn’t have a club
. Since Ipswich’s takeover by Marcus Evans and their fans waving fivers at us, Delia has facilitated us reaching the Premier League three times. We remain far better equipped to return to it than our Suffolk neighbours
. She has given the club an interest-free 15-year loan, always being content to be repaid long after other creditors. She’s also put countless hours into the club, unpaid (unlike other owners who take a salary out of their clubs for their time)
. She has not been a blocker for investors (see Mick’s factual post, in contrast to Dave’s unsubstantiated slurs)
. She has shown appreciation for the fans in numerous ways – including sacking the Chief Executive who treated them badly last year. She’s never believed ‘fans should pay for the betterment of the club’; she’s been delighted for them to benefit from her generosity
I think I understand one of Dave’s points. When he says Delia has “meddled in football matters”, I can only think he means she’s failed to meddle (ie overrule her managers on transfers, or sack them) when she should have done. Well, perhaps. As Gary said at the start of his piece: it’s a tough gig, especially if you’re a fan as well as an owner.
Dave’s determination to put a negative spin on everything is misery personified. It also says much, much more about him than it does about Delia.
8
For me I think Webber represents a last chance saloon in my belief D&M can do anything but hamper any hopes of City progressing.
Yes they saved us, yes they are well meaning fans, but they have also presided over some truly stupifying decisions. Managerial appointments, managerial non-sackings or at least far too delayed, Moxey and actually buying Naismith!
I hope this works, I even feel moderately optimistic that it could. Webber looks on face value like a smart footballing operator, I don’t see how they could have got him If they are content to languish in the championship.
With Webber I feel the self sustaining model has a chance, Delia et al initiated getting Webber so if it works then credit to them. It is impossible to conceive that we could do a Leicester, a stoke, Burnley or Swansea, maybe. And there in lies the question for us all, is that enough? It seems distant but attainable, ambitious even. But is it enough for those extolling the virtues of a wealthy investor? because to even stabalise in the PL you need to have outrageous wealth or be very well run, to be top 6 consistently look at what those top clubs are spending! Can an unfashionable mid sized club like us attract that level of obscene backer? I have my doubts.
Would I like to see someone pour untold millions in? Yes, if we are well run with it and the club itself is not holding all the liabilities if they get bored of their toy.
Bit here’s the flip side, worst of worst case scenarios, we get bought, cash is thrown around but no success comes, we go into admin, the club folds.
We start again, at what ever level, afc wimbledon, have risen from no where, with 26000+ fans we could to, it would be an adventure not one we want and we would certainly all be angry and ashamed but our support would go on. A club would go on.
So I say give the Weberlution some time, if it fails then let’s hope that they will be a little more proactive in finding some investment
Bah!
1
If city is unfashionable to investers how come Barnsley has become fashionable in getting investment?????
6
Thanks Gary! I’ve been mulling over a few words of my own for everyone’s perusal and you’ve gone and aced it for me. Your article has drawn out some of the boards heavyweights to join in the debate.
The lack of football ( and hopefully the recuperative and restorative break will act in our favour this Saturday, )has brought into focus the elephant in the room.
The current mood seems to be a wait and see, perhaps in the hope that Farke can work some magic and get us to where most of us want to be. The peace could be broken by an extension of the losing run or by some serious downgrading in the transfer window in January.
Whatever transpires, I get the feeling that the fractures of last season and the drawn out Neil saga will be repeated on a much larger scale when the proverbial hits the fan.
Like it or not the issue is forming a head and will not go away.
10
its a difficult one but as the modern game, is most about money or lack of it the sad reality is the self funded model will work if u want to stay in the lower leagues. delia smith has done alot for ncfc so people keep saying but i dont think she likes the premier league and mentions in her times interview that fans will not like what she is saying, i think while 26000 turn up every fortnight the owners think everything is rosy so i say thanks delia smith for everything but time to hand it to tom as thats the best option as you dont want to sell otbc.
0