With nearly half the season gone and City languishing in mid-table, it would take extreme levels of optimism (or pessimism) to consider anything other than a third consecutive season in the Championship next year and with it, a parachute payment-sized hole on the balance books.
Not insignificant for a club which is seeking to buck the footballing trend by developing a sustainable self-financing model.
For without the hand-outs from the Premier League and media companies, it’s a model that relies on the sale of prized assets, which invariably means the players who have provided the all too rare moments of magic and excitement in an otherwise turgid season.
Little wonder perhaps that discussions have again centred on the architects of our current position and the self-funding strategy; namely the board of directors and majority shareholders.
It’s a debate that is vaguely reminiscent of the canvassing that surrounded the Brexit referendum.
The disillusioned on one side, desperate for change. Their counterparts quick to point out the dangers and pitfalls that any change could bring.
It’s a futile argument.
Football is littered with both success stories and failures that allow us to simply choose the examples that validate our own views and, as such, I’ll try to resist the temptation of citing specific cases to support what follows.
But ultimately, it’s pointless because there is no referendum. The owners have bought their shares and with it an entitlement to do as they so wish, and we already know exactly what their intentions are.
No chance of ‘Dexit’ for the foreseeable future.
The ‘remainers’ amongst us will cite the Board’s ‘party line’ by insisting that there are no investors queuing up to plough their cash into a club like Norwich City.
It’s a hard argument to refute as I can’t provide a list of potential candidates, however, I also can’t believe that we’re such an unattractive proposition that it can be discounted completely.
We’re also told that we should be grateful to the current owners for saving the club from extinction and that we’re lucky to have genuine fans in charge.
With regards the former, it may (or may not) be true but should that gratitude extend to the point that we blindly accept the status quo twenty years later?
I’m not convinced but it’s the second point that intrigues me – how important is it that those who run any football club can call themselves genuine fans and what benefits does it bring in real terms?
It’s worth noting that I’ve only met Delia and Michael once. It was following a Southampton away game, in which they had swapped the Director’s box for the away end and afterwards stopped for a chat and a selfie with my lad.
They couldn’t have been nicer and so I can’t advocate any form of personal abuse or criticism aimed at them as people or as fans.
However, I’d have happily swapped that whole experience in favour of having some aloof owner with both the means and the will to throw pocket loads of cash at the club.
Simply put, I struggle to see the tangible value in having fans in charge when those fans are not able to compete with the riches enjoyed elsewhere.
Currently, it feels ‘nice’, but little more than that.
I’m sure it could be argued that the investment made by Delia and Michael has come at a personal cost; that their interest-free loans benefitted the club to their own detriment and that their money could have been better spent elsewhere. Hearts of fans, ruling the heads of successful business people.
But we could all make a similar argument for the money (and time) that we’ve ‘invested’ over the years, traipsing around the country in support of the football club.
It’s at an entirely different level of course, but even Delia and Michael’s millions are not at the level needed to sustain a football club in the modern era. Or at least not one which hopes to eat anywhere close to the ‘top table’ in the current climate.
And it’s those hopes and aspirations which lie at the heart of the debate surrounding current and future ownership.
I don’t believe that there’s a right or wrong answer – just different personal expectations.
Unlike some, I struggle with the notion that we should simply accept our place in football’s hierarchy. The league table has nothing to do with a club’s history or fanbase and everything to do with its ability to attract the best coaches and players. And while investment doesn’t guarantee success, it sure as hell gives you a better chance of finding it.
As for the argument that we shouldn’t consider alternative investment in case it goes sour, it’s akin to ordering the same dishes off the takeaway menu in case you try something new which you don’t like. Or going to the same holiday destination each year because you already know the resort.
There’s nothing wrong in that but it’s not for everyone.
With the Club’s future already mapped out, those of us who crave change or something different are in for disappointment and unfortunately left with a stark choice.
As we approach season ticket renewal time, it will be interesting to see what choices are made.
A very fair and balanced perspective, Steve.
For anyone prepared to look at the facts, it’s clearly true that Delia & Michael saved the club from a dreadful, if not fatal, position. Also that they’re genuine fans, and that they’ve ploughed a remarkable proportion of their time and wealth into Norwich City.
It’s also fair to say that’s the past. It gives them the right to dispose of their majority shareholding as they wish – but it doesn’t put them above debate or (justified) criticism. As I’ve said before: I’m happy with them being picky over potential new owners, but I wish the public message to potential investors was more encouraging.
There isn’t a queue of desirable investors at our door, and Delia & Michael have wasted (as it turned out) time on previous possibilities. But I think we’d all want them to be open to a good prospect which could genuinely help the club. Knowing their love for Norwich City, I suspect they are; I’d just like to hear it more positively.
I suppose that the argument might be, would the fans be happier supporting a moderately to very successful team in the Championship, or cringing at an embarrassing succession of losses as we are hopelessly financially outgunned at the bottom of the Premiership.
Is the short term ecstasy of a promotion, worth the almost inevitable humiliation that has historically followed in the last 10 years or so?
Yes
Bruce, I believe the option you present aren’t the only ones. For example, i would say that the bulk of our Championship existence hasn’t been hugely successful and led to near bankruptcy.
Based on a comment on my post yesterday saying how do we compare to comparable clubs, I started to dig into other club’s financial records.
Leeds appear to stay afloat based on 5M investments from their owners, an extremely youthful squad, and flogging their better players. Their numbers look remarkably like ours will, except we won’t have investment. The irony being that for many years people have been saying “we don’t want to end up like Leeds”.
Shy of promotion we’re about to be exactly like Leeds.
I think you perhaps misunderstand the point about Leeds, Dave.
It’s that we don’t want to underperform like Leeds – a club with a natural catchment crowd of 45,000, a long history of being one of the giants and enriched by the Champions League. Leeds being where they are now is the equivalent of Norwich being in League 2.
If it is the case that Leeds place in the championship is akin to us being in the fourth division then by that logic Bournemouth being in the premier league is the equivalent of us being in the Sunday league. You can’t have it all ways.
Hi Steve
A good read and I am with you on the debate about cities income.
Delia and Co have in the past financed the club to stave of possible bankruptcy and it has always been hailed in the local papers what good owners they are yet it seems to go under cover when they reclaim their loans as soon as the club hits the premiership.
If their stance is no outside investments required let them either put some money into the club to stop immenent sales of the best players or come out and say how the club can afford to stay solvent in these difficult times.
The theme is they are poor millionaires but they have an abundance of credit at the moment with the banks as the club has no outstanding depts of they could do as before intrest fee loans to save the club money as before once in the Premiership again recall the loans possibly over a couple of years to ease the payments.
Foreign owners hasn’t always made clubs a success as with Leeds previously but then not all local owners are good for their club as their owm emotions get in the way, then there is nepotism that will be the big downfall for city, when the pipers nephew takes over what conditions with the Smiths have in place????.
Better the devil you know doesn’t work ask Manchester City fans their middle east owners have financed the whole club to rival Manchester United, We don’t need that amount of investment but a smsll portion would be nice, no investors interested B S that is due to them announcing it isn’t needed.
1) City Stand needs up dating and an increase capacity
2) Colney needs an up grade to the next level
3) team investment for a promotion push
The argument about investers buying clubs indept rubbish Ashley paid £140m for Newcastle then paid another similar amount to the banks to clear loans now he is reaping the benifit by selling at a profit to PDC plus what ever he made over the last 10 years.
No abuse to the Smiths but they need to step up or get out for the good of the club they say they love.
Just to mention that Delia & Michael didn’t “reclaim their loans as soon as the club hit the premiership”. Far from it: the club repaid their (interest-free) loans in our last Premier League year, long after all other creditors had been paid.
That is correct. They pulled out their money, as did foulger, the moment the club was relegated. The precise time the club needed every penny.
Still doesn’t answer the point wether they will loan the club money to invest in the squad to help either this season or next to try for promotion? ?????
For the second time a week or so, I can categorically say this is the best article I’ve ever read on MFW! It is in no doubt that D&M saved NCFC back in the 90s, I can tell you exactly where I was and what time it was that I heard Mr Chase had left the club and sold to Geoffrey Watling, with the Smiths then buying his share. I think they were indirectly responsible for an amendment to clubs Articles of Constitution stating that no one person can control more than 30% of NCFC meaning between them I believe they held 58% of the shares (a figure that has increased over the years?). However, this does not mean they can live off this deed forever. Football is a very different beast now compared with 1996, money (mainly due to TV companies and Oil Oligarchs) has changed the game we all love – some things for the good, some for the bad. I love the comparison in the article with holiday destinations or takeaways – I wonder how many people experiencing a new country are warned “Be careful what you wish for”. For every Blackpool & Blackburn I give you Leicester (Premier League Champions and free beer and pies for supporters) and Wolves (50m spent well in August, predicted 30m in January. Upgraded stadium and training facilities and running away with the Championship with exciting, entertaining football). Whilst the current owners give soundbites through the media friendly Chairman, I do wonder whether the story given to any prospective investor is rather different……….
We have no propestive investors so there is nothing to tell them.
There was an invester at leicester who improved the club before selling it at a small profit to the Thai family that owns it now he then went on to save Sheff Wed before selling it on at a small profit there must be some one that is interested in city at the right price that can improvr our luck.
“We have no prospective investors so there is nothing to tell them”. You know that for a fact then, and can provide proof? Please put it on MFW or withdraw this comment. I can’t categorically guarantee that investors have inquired, therefore I would never state it in a public environment. And I’ll ignore the spelling mistake on this occasion………
Ed Balls was saying in the EDP that there has been no enquiries of late so unless that has changed ????
Sorry about the spelling didn’t notice it whilst reading back.
The one thing that seems to get missed time after time when talking about external investment is that by its very nature the person/people/company investing will all but likely want to see a return on investment – ie taking money back out of the club in exactly the same way that D&M are being vilified for doing so.
The whole ‘1p5wich’ concept that debt isn’t debt because it is owed to an owner is absolute rubbish, the short term may well seem rosey when the likes of Wolves are flashing the cash in the Championship but even if they get promoted that influx of revenue won’t balance the books so the debt will continue to climb.
For me the long terms stability of the club is more important than chasing the dream and ending up spending a considerable amount of your income on debt repayment than on players and facilities.
Some good points, Paul – except that other investors wouldn’t be quite like D&M. They really would want a return on their investment, unlike D&M who were happy to give a long-term interest-free loan to the club (ie giving up a lot of money).
Other owners also charge their clubs for the time they spend. D&M have given their time for nothing – another reason we don’t have the debt which is crippling other clubs.
Good article Steve.
Regarding renewal of season tickets it’s a straight choice between division one or competing in the championship.
All the points you make Steve are spot on.
Especially about hopes and aspirations. I don’t expect the type of Man City investment, but I’ve said for sometime that this self sustainable model although refreshing and outwardly admirable is flawed if sufficient cash is not forthcoming to cover shortfalls during the set up period.
I’m not naive enough to believe that we won’t sell players when the right offers come along. Every club have their price point even the big ones. My concern is when we have to sell just to stay afloat. A constant stream of talent is not guaranteed along with the fact that if a buying club knows you have to sell, the price is deflated.
I know we are in for a period of belt tightening but it’s the perceived climate of settling for mediocrity which erks me the most from our owners and the board.
It’s not only money that’s required it’s a freshness of outlook and ideas and recognising the football world has and is changing.
This new model is a start and is applauded by me but it’s been implemented in a desperate way at a time when it needs to work rather than a time when mistakes can affordably be made.
This fire fighting method of running this club has been witnessed far too often during the present incumbents reign.
Thanks for all you’ve done but for the sake of the club you profess to love, protect the legacy you wish to leave and move aside now with our thanks and not our recriminations.
Another little reported fact,around 2011 The Board increased the value of each share from 25 to 100 pounds
The ‘Delia & Michael’ Saved Norwich City’ myth has to stop. They’ve been dining out that since the 90’s and it simply isn’t true. Watling is the nearest the club has seen as a ‘saviour’,
Delia was asked for £500K for a seat on the board. She famously asked ‘Can I have two?’.
This was the biggest mistake the club ever made, as I will explain.
Many felt Chase had too much control – although for most of his tenure he owned just 36% of shares – so it was agreed that nobody could own more than 30%. to become democratic… My Delia AND Michael having both sets of shares, they got over this rule and had control, much to the chagrin of fans like me. I warned many of what could happen.
Has this rule not been abused, would Delia have accepted just one seat? She would not have been able to play her infamous ‘Delia Veto’ on things she didn’t like. Vetoing the sacking of Neil last Xmas was one. Ed Balls also wished for Neil to be sacked after relegation, but Delia would not hear of it.
Chase has been much maligned in history, some justified, some not, but Delia & Michael have ultimately run NCFC how they see fit regardless of anyone else opinion on the board. Even Chase got outvoted (on the appointment of Martin O’Neil for example) and had to accept the result.
The bottom line is Delia has always needed NCFC more than the club has needed her and she has done very well out of it, keeping a fading cook in the public eye. You cannot put a price on publicity. Mingling with fans may seem genuine, but there is always more to it than that.
NCFC are not benefitting from their majority shareholding and I would suggest they are better ploughing their efforts into a local football side with limited ambitions, because without their removal, we will never be more than at absolute best a middling Championship club with a fan base that deserves so much better,
Great stuff inside right. Did Balls really want Neil sacked following his relegation?
The whole mingling with fans in a restaurant thing is as pathetic reason as I can think of for supporting the smiths continuing involvement with the club. Tom smith once spoke to somebody at a quiz apparently, why not give him the club as a reward? The whole situation is farcical and plays into the hands of the ridiculous stereotypes we suffer whenever the club is spoken of nationally,