Investment

[Ambitious]

I think it’s most likely a rumour based on him being at the game Saturday, but I’d welcome Niall’s input. I think his presence and input could be invaluable commercially and he’s clearly got a lot of clever people around him who he could bring along for the ride to the benefit of the club. We need to be incredibly well run to be successful, in order to be well run you need very smart people in every department working like their life depended on it being ahead of curves and trends that don’t even exist yet. 

Successful football clubs are very rarely about the manager and players anymore, even the spending power some teams have, it comes down to the processes in place and the decision makers hired from the top downwards. Niall might not be that guy, but the people he has surrounded himself with could well be. 

[Foreveram]

2 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Fella in town who sells flowers is involved in the consortium, is what I have heard.

 

Consortium or chrysanthemum.🙂

[MackworthRamIsGod]

44 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Consortium or chrysanthemum.🙂

Not sure petal.

[Grumpy Git]

51 minutes ago, Foreveram said:

Consortium or chrysanthemum.🙂

Bloomin marvelous innit.

[Wignall12]

13 hours ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Fella in town who sells flowers is involved in the consortium, is what I have heard.

 

Corm off it , that sounds a bit seedy. Though we could climber the league with his help

[Old Spalding Ram]

Looking for investment?………….for those of a nervous disposition turn away now!
 

The Sunday Times gaming rich list.  19/8/24

Three names on the list owe their fortunes to tile-matching game Candy Crush, with Riccardo Zacconi, Mel Morris and Sebastian Knutsson, of its producer King, all featuring in the top 10.

Zacconi placed third with a fortune of £410 million while former Derby County owner Morris came seventh with a £312 million fortune, and Knutsson featured in ninth with a worth of £225 million.

[superfit]

In terms of investment do people think the club is worth more now than when Clowes bought the club?
 

If the answer is no then why would anyone pay more than the face value of shares in the club? 

If Clowes sold a tranche of shares at face value and put the money back into the club then he would be even more out of pocket, something he said he wouldn’t do. 
 

I realise we are now back in the championship so that’s more attractive but the value of the squad is arguably less than when we had 5 contracted players. Fans talk about our history and infrastructure and fan base. Our history is ancient history and has no monetary value anymore, we get circa 30k fans and a nice modern ground and training facilities but what’s that actually worth?
 

I read somewhere that two or three seasons ago Bournemouths match day revenue was 3.8% of their total 130-140m turnover. That was before the new Sky deal. In addition clubs like Bournemouths corporate and advertising revenue will be close to our current total turnover. 
 

The point being fan base, facilities and history mean very little in the grand scheme of things for potential investors, it’s all about how far away we are from being able to seriously challenge for a place in the land of milk and honey and we’re miles away. 
 

[RoyMac5]

7 minutes ago, superfit said:

In terms of investment do people think the club is worth more now than when Clowes bought the club? If the answer is no then why would anyone pay more than the face value of shares in the club? 

If Clowes sold a tranche of shares at face value and put the money back into the club then he would be even more out of pocket, something he said he wouldn’t do. 
I realise we are now back in the championship so that’s more attractive but the value of the squad is arguably less than when we had 5 contracted players. Fans talk about our history and infrastructure and fan base. Our history is ancient history and has no monetary value anymore, we get circa 30k fans and a nice modern ground and training facilities but what’s that actually worth?
I read somewhere that two or three seasons ago Bournemouths match day revenue was 3.8% of their total 130-140m turnover. That was before the new Sky deal. In addition clubs like Bournemouths corporate and advertising revenue will be close to our current total turnover. 
The point being fan base, facilities and history mean very little in the grand scheme of things for potential investors, it’s all about how far away we are from being able to seriously challenge for a place in the land of milk and honey and we’re miles away. 

 

"The point being fan base, facilities and history mean very little in the grand scheme of things for potential investors, it’s all about how far away we are from being able to seriously challenge for a place in the land of milk and honey and we’re miles away. "

Yep, unfortunately it's true. We need to look to the future and dwell less on the past. The Club is still losing money so the decision has to be where does Clowes want it to be, and if it is the Prem then all the talk of sustainability won't wash, at least not until the club got there. Just my opinion, okay.

Edited August 20 by RoyMac5

[Animal is a Ram]

1 minute ago, superfit said:

In terms of investment do people think the club is worth more now than when Clowes bought the club?
 

If the answer is no then why would anyone pay more than the face value of shares in the club? 

If Clowes sold a tranche of shares at face value and put the money back into the club then he would be even more out of pocket, something he said he wouldn’t do. 
 

I realise we are now back in the championship so that’s more attractive but the value of the squad is arguably less than when we had 5 contracted players. Fans talk about our history and infrastructure and fan base. Our history is ancient history and has no monetary value anymore, we get circa 30k fans and a nice modern ground and training facilities but what’s that actually worth?
 

I read somewhere that two or three seasons ago Bournemouths match day revenue was 3.8% of their total 130-140m turnover. That was before the new Sky deal. In addition clubs like Bournemouths corporate and advertising revenue will be close to our current total turnover. 
 

The point being fan base, facilities and history mean very little in the grand scheme of things for potential investors, it’s all about how far away we are from being able to seriously challenge for a place in the land of milk and honey and we’re miles away. 
 

A stable club will always be worth more than an unstable one - let alone one nearly going out of business.

Why do you think the squad of 5 would be worth less than the current squad?

The facilities will be worth something, it means you don't have to spend anywhere near as much money on infrastructure projects. Moor Farm is consistently said to be up there with the best in the Championship.

I agree the 'fan base' and 'history' is a much less tangible benefit - but would you rather invest in a club at the same level where you have an audience of 15,000 or 30,000?

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, Animal is a Ram said:

A stable club will always be worth more than an unstable one - let alone one nearly going out of business.

Why do you think the squad of 5 would be worth less than the current squad?

The facilities will be worth something, it means you don't have to spend anywhere near as much money on infrastructure projects. Moor Farm is consistently said to be up there with the best in the Championship.

I agree the 'fan base' and 'history' is a much less tangible benefit - but would you rather invest in a club at the same level where you have an audience of 15,000 or 30,000?

Plus external debt free according to DC which is a massive incentive 

[RoyMac5]

22 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

A stable club will always be worth more than an unstable one - let alone one nearly going out of business.

Why do you think the squad of 5 would be worth less than the current squad?

The facilities will be worth something, it means you don't have to spend anywhere near as much money on infrastructure projects. Moor Farm is consistently said to be up there with the best in the Championship.

I agree the 'fan base' and 'history' is a much less tangible benefit - but would you rather invest in a club at the same level where you have an audience of 15,000 or 30,000?

Didn't stop Luton, infrastructure or fan base.

As for stable what does that mean? We're losing money. 

[Animal is a Ram]

6 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

Didn't stop Luton, infrastructure or fan base.

As for stable what does that mean? We're losing money. 

We aren't going out of business, our owner doesn't want out, we don't have any points deductions hanging over us.

It didn't, but equally, they're now back in the same league as us. I didn't say it couldn't be done

[Macintosh]

John Textor put it out there he was interested in purchasing or investing in a club, disappointed that Palace were not interested in utilising players he had at other clubs he owned and that he had little influence at Palace. He has several interests: Sims Snowboards, Wyndcrest, JesterDigital, Virtual Bank/Lydian Trust Company, BabyUniverse, FuboTV, Digital Domain and Pulse Evolution. He invested £86million for 40% ownership in Crystal Palace Football Club, also interest in Lyon, Botafogo de Futebol e Regatas, Olympique Lyonnais and RWD Molenbeek. He is now attempting to buy Everton. He had previously tried to purchase Brentford, Newcastle and Watford.

That would be an investor I would chat to, its the only way we will ever be on equal terms with clubs like Brighton, Crystal Palace and Burnley, able to compete in the transfer market and make it to the Premier League again. You need to own clubs in other countries, like Forest does.

The problem Morris had was he had little income coming in from elsewhere, his eggs were placed solely in our basket, getting promoted was all he cared for and it possibly cost him way over £250m of his fortune. He needed to have kept half his shares still in CandyCrush as a back-up plan for black times. People like Textor, Tony Bloom, they continue adding to their fortune elsewhere. Clowes will add to his fortune with his property company and inheritance, he's as stable as it comes to having a good owner.

Edited August 20 by Macintosh

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

We aren't going out of business, our owner doesn't want out, we don't have any points deductions hanging over us.

It didn't, but equally, they're now back in the same league as us. I didn't say it couldn't be done

No. And I said:

40 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

The Club is still losing money so the decision has to be where does Clowes want it to be, and if it is the Prem then all the talk of sustainability won't wash, at least not until the club got there. Just my opinion, okay.

 

[Animal is a Ram]

I never quoted that post, not sure why you think I'm arguing against you. If you have a problem with me and think I talk nonsense, then put me on ignore.

I'm against the point that somehow, we aren't more appealing to investors while we're out of admin, than we were in it.

Yes, we are losing money, but we're operating as a normal, stable, football club just now. Do you disagree? 

[RoyMac5]

3 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

I never quoted that post, not sure why you think I'm arguing against you. If you have a problem with me and think I talk nonsense, then put me on ignore.

I'm against the point that somehow, we aren't more appealing to investors while we're out of admin, than we were in it.

Yes, we are losing money, but we're operating as a normal, stable, football club just now. Do you disagree? 

I'm sorry I thought you were putting me on ignore? The first time ever a post on this board may have been misinterpreted? 😄

'a normal, stable, football club' that is losing money. How long will it be stable then do you think? We become less appealing the longer our footballing exploits are in the past and the price of investment stays the same, again just my opinion. 

[superfit]

24 minutes ago, Animal is a Ram said:

A stable club will always be worth more than an unstable one - let alone one nearly going out of business.

Why do you think the squad of 5 would be worth less than the current squad?

The facilities will be worth something, it means you don't have to spend anywhere near as much money on infrastructure projects. Moor Farm is consistently said to be up there with the best in the Championship.

I agree the 'fan base' and 'history' is a much less tangible benefit - but would you rather invest in a club at the same level where you have an audience of 15,000 or 30,000?

I’m not advocating financial mismanagement so let’s be clear. But talking about debt, it’s only bad if you can’t service it or don’t have assets worth more than the debt. Most businesses have debt, it’s how they grow. Most owners of football clubs are owed millions and millions but the ambition is that the club will be worth a lot more than the money invested. It’s a risk. As long as they work within their financial limitations then that’s fine. It’s how they made their money in the first place.
 

But that doesn’t mean I’m advocating for Clowes to put more money into the club and I imagine it was always the plan to look for external investment at some point but that’s not now. The numbers don’t work. 
 

In terms of the value of the 5 contracted players coming out of administration and the value of the current squad. I would imagine Knight, Bird and Sibley were worth more at the time than our entire current squad. I’m not including Cashin who signed very soon afterwards although his value may have plummeted for now. 
 

I would argue that apart from Wilson we haven’t bought a player that’s been here for any extended time that could be worth more than we paid, happy to be corrected ? 
 

As for your final point about the difference between a club having 15k and 30k fans is fair but it’s loose change in the overall picture compared to the other revenue streams, namely the sky money and the worldwide exposure of a club in the premiership translating into sponsorship and advertising. So a club millions in debt but with assets on the pitch, a progressive football philosophy that would transition at a higher level and with a bit of investment could make it into the Premiership will always be worth more. 

It’s sad but that’s football now. 
 

One final point, Peter Teale the billionaire tech entrepreneur (the first investor in Facebook) believes businesses should grow at rapid speed and therefore along the way they leave the competition in their wake. He believes constant  investment is the key to achieving this goal. Football is no different. 

[Comrade 86]

17 hours ago, Dave Mackay Ate My Hamster said:

Niall Horan and Kieran Lee?  One D'erection Group?

And with one fell swoop, DMAMH won the internet 🤣

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, superfit said:

In terms of investment do people think the club is worth more now than when Clowes bought the club?
 

If the answer is no then why would anyone pay more than the face value of shares in the club? 

If Clowes sold a tranche of shares at face value and put the money back into the club then he would be even more out of pocket, something he said he wouldn’t do. 
 

I realise we are now back in the championship so that’s more attractive but the value of the squad is arguably less than when we had 5 contracted players. Fans talk about our history and infrastructure and fan base. Our history is ancient history and has no monetary value anymore, we get circa 30k fans and a nice modern ground and training facilities but what’s that actually worth?
 

I read somewhere that two or three seasons ago Bournemouths match day revenue was 3.8% of their total 130-140m turnover. That was before the new Sky deal. In addition clubs like Bournemouths corporate and advertising revenue will be close to our current total turnover. 
 

The point being fan base, facilities and history mean very little in the grand scheme of things for potential investors, it’s all about how far away we are from being able to seriously challenge for a place in the land of milk and honey and we’re miles away. 
 

Like most things in life, the “value” of something isn’t just based on its physical assets. It’s also based such things as potential and supply v demand. If I want to sell my house, I might get a better price if there is more than one person interested even though the actual house hasn’t changed.
 

When DC saved us and bought the club, there weren’t many/any genuine bidders and we were in a desperate survival rather than growth/development phase. Some investors may be more interested now that we are back in the Championship (hopefully not returning to League 1 any time soon) and looking to take the club forward rather than just keeping the doors open.

[Foreveram]

57 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I'm sorry I thought you were putting me on ignore? The first time ever a post on this board may have been misinterpreted? 😄

'a normal, stable, football club' that is losing money. How long will it be stable then do you think? We become less appealing the longer our footballing exploits are in the past and the price of investment stays the same, again just my opinion. 

Normal, is losing money, virtually every club is losing money, it only becomes a problem when the owner stops servicing the debt as we found out.

Last season no championship club made a profit without player sales.