| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. 21:07 - Mar 22 with 1944 views | homer_123 |
That could be very quickly swallowed with transfer fees and player wages.
Infrastructure investment, such as Cat1 is a shrewd move as it adds assets and value to the Club in the long term and builds a much better footing for the Club to be successful over said period.
The other positive aspect is we are clearly worthy of investment and this makes it far more likely that further Investments becomes available to us.
The slight potential downside is this increases the number of interested parties who 'may' wish to get involved in day to day operations. So far we've been lucky in this regard that GC seem to be very comfortable leaving things to Ashton and KM and their respective teams.
I see huge benefits of this additional investment and how it can help further develop the Club off and on the pitch but I cannot deny a very small disquiet as well, purely for the unknown as much as anything. Too many cooks (not Paul) and all that.
However, in McKenna we trust must also translate to Ashton, Gamechanger et al
Life is no longer dull with Town is it? |  |
| |  |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:10 - Mar 22 with 1913 views | Swansea_Blue |
It is at championship level |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 with 1872 views | FrimleyBlue |
Think the only issue I have is the 40%, which is rather large. If we are to get further investment in future who's giving up their share? But that's it really. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 with 1881 views | homer_123 |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:10 - Mar 22 by Swansea_Blue |
It is at championship level |
Even at this level, you could lose that in 2 to 3 years very easily. | |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:13 - Mar 22 with 1879 views | DarkBrandon |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 by homer_123 |
Even at this level, you could lose that in 2 to 3 years very easily. |
Yes. It finances us for around 3 years |  | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:13 - Mar 22 with 1873 views | homer_123 |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 by FrimleyBlue |
Think the only issue I have is the 40%, which is rather large. If we are to get further investment in future who's giving up their share? But that's it really. |
Depends on what those shares are valued out by a prospective investor or buyer. | |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:26 - Mar 22 with 1792 views | Pinewoodblue |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 by FrimleyBlue |
Think the only issue I have is the 40%, which is rather large. If we are to get further investment in future who's giving up their share? But that's it really. |
Looking ahead would imagine any further investment would come from both major shareholders. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:30 - Mar 22 with 1767 views | WestSussexBlue |
That’s it, look for the negatives. |  | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:37 - Mar 22 with 1729 views | JammyDodgerrr |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 by FrimleyBlue |
Think the only issue I have is the 40%, which is rather large. If we are to get further investment in future who's giving up their share? But that's it really. |
They'll just sell it to a different equity firm. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:53 - Mar 22 with 1647 views | homer_123 |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:30 - Mar 22 by WestSussexBlue |
That’s it, look for the negatives. |
Not at all.
Think I was pretty clear that I see it as a positive overall. | |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:59 - Mar 22 with 1622 views | flykickingbybgunn |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:37 - Mar 22 by JammyDodgerrr |
They'll just sell it to a different equity firm. |
I had noticed that we were likely to have problems with sustainability. They have spent so much on the ground and training areas not to mention some players. This is mainly to show that the club is solvent now. Having sold 40% of itself for cash. Bit the same as selling a player. The buyers are business men. We know what they want - an asset and finally a financial return. No profit in a poor team. This is a significant event. If we are getting £150m in the premier league I have no problem with the owners taking say 5-10 % p/a as a return on their investment.
But interestingly if £105m is 40% then we are currently valued at £250m. Up from £15m when the Yanks arrived | | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 22:12 - Mar 22 with 1559 views | SWBlue22 |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:13 - Mar 22 by DarkBrandon |
Yes. It finances us for around 3 years |
That’s a long time in football. | | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 22:15 - Mar 22 with 1530 views | SWBlue22 |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:30 - Mar 22 by WestSussexBlue |
That’s it, look for the negatives. |
I know considering we have been practically invisible for the past 20 years you would have thought fans might be a little bit more enthusiastic. | | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 22:19 - Mar 22 with 1494 views | SitfcB |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:13 - Mar 22 by DarkBrandon |
Yes. It finances us for around 3 years |
Mike O’Leary said this will see us good for possibly 5 years. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 07:38 - Mar 23 with 1067 views | cressi |
I guess since coming 5th in the Premiership , this is the most exciting time to be a Ipswich fan.
We have had 20 yrs of hurt.
Now we are on the front foot forward thinking staff and a world wide known sponsor. We sell more replica shirts than half the Premiership long May it continue. | | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 08:02 - Mar 23 with 1006 views | Churchman |
I don’t see too many downsides to it tbh. There is the aspect of uncertainty. How will the high level Board actually operate? Will it work well? They’ve clearly worked this through over a long time given at least one of the new investors was at the Exeter game. This was a long time in the planning.
Then there’s the uncertainty of change itself. It’s natural to feel that way, though for people in project world it’s normal and at times exciting. Things are happening rapidly. When you think of three years ago to now the club is in an entirely different place off the field and on it. We could only dream of three years ago.
I have often wondered how long the existing owners would stay with this. That remains a worry but the second stage boost with new investors, if I can call it that, does feel planned. I’ve no idea how grand the plans are, what they see at the end of it, but from their perspective the club is clearly worth considerably more than what they paid for it, including costs.
The off field stuff is as exciting to me as the brilliant football team. I had no idea of the potential here, despite being an old git. And I’ve no idea of where it’s taking us, but i do know it is light years better than rotting our way to League Two in an unkempt, unloved old stadium.
A poor metaphor, but it feels to me like we are attached to a runaway horse at the moment. Bring it on! [Post edited 23 Mar 11:24]
|  | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 08:07 - Mar 23 with 982 views | MK1 |
This additional investment is only good news for Ipswich and Fans. Foundations being laid for now and the future. |  | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 09:03 - Mar 23 with 905 views | chicoazul |
It’s not being spent in wages or fees. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 09:13 - Mar 23 with 873 views | jayessess |
It's more or less irrelevant to wages and fees, isn't it?
As I understand it the cap on investment on the playing side has always been the EFL's financial rules rather than available cash flow from the original investors. If we wanted to spend additional wages on that, we could only do it at a rate of £13m a year.
Seems to be that this additional capital is targeted at areas that are uncapped in the EFL rules (academy and infrastructure spending). |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 09:45 - Mar 23 with 813 views | Bluebacker |
Also worth noting that it is ‘up to’ £105m, with ‘up to’ being the key part there. So a chunk of that money seems contingent on other factors, like say promotion, and so as it stands they have invested less for that 40%. | | | |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 10:42 - Mar 23 with 732 views | Guthrum |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 09:13 - Mar 23 by jayessess |
It's more or less irrelevant to wages and fees, isn't it?
As I understand it the cap on investment on the playing side has always been the EFL's financial rules rather than available cash flow from the original investors. If we wanted to spend additional wages on that, we could only do it at a rate of £13m a year.
Seems to be that this additional capital is targeted at areas that are uncapped in the EFL rules (academy and infrastructure spending). |
I think you're right about where the money is going, to an extent, but not sure that's correct about how the limits work.
In the EFL, a club is allowed (averaged over 3 years) losses of £5m per season, plus a further £8m which can be covered by investment from the owners.
However, in this case Town have brought in a much larger sum, which is now, effectively, cash in the bank. So we would be spending from reserves, not covering losses in the same way, if you get the distinction I'm making.
FFP was designed to stop owners covering losses by making vast loans to clubs, which would prove ruinous to service (e.g. interest), impossible to repay, get in the way of them being sold and result in collateral infrastructure being sold off. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 10:58 - Mar 23 with 689 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 21:12 - Mar 22 by FrimleyBlue |
Think the only issue I have is the 40%, which is rather large. If we are to get further investment in future who's giving up their share? But that's it really. |
Reading between the lines, the whole purpose of the £105m is to invest in the infrastructure of the club as a whole.
- Pay for the training ground
- Gain Cat A for the academy
- Get planning approval in place for the new Cobbold
- Complete the Exec boxes
- Few other stadium Improvements
- Couple of players to either get us into the Prem, or keep us there.
All of that increases the value of the club exponentially, if the club is valued at £300m in its current state, whats it worth after all that? £700m? £800m?
Then the club gets further investment £350m this time, this new lot take some of their investment back and reduce their share. I can't see ORG giving up control, unless selling the whole lot, and I don't think they'll do that to any old billionaire, I think they'll only let someone have it who is contractually obliged to continue its development.
Or at least thats what I hope. |  |
| |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 11:18 - Mar 23 with 652 views | jayessess |
| In footballing terms £105m isn't huge. on 10:42 - Mar 23 by Guthrum |
I think you're right about where the money is going, to an extent, but not sure that's correct about how the limits work.
In the EFL, a club is allowed (averaged over 3 years) losses of £5m per season, plus a further £8m which can be covered by investment from the owners.
However, in this case Town have brought in a much larger sum, which is now, effectively, cash in the bank. So we would be spending from reserves, not covering losses in the same way, if you get the distinction I'm making.
FFP was designed to stop owners covering losses by making vast loans to clubs, which would prove ruinous to service (e.g. interest), impossible to repay, get in the way of them being sold and result in collateral infrastructure being sold off. |
FFP in the Championship is related to revenue not cash reserves. If it weren't, there are some very rich people who own Championship football clubs would be spending massively heavier than they currently are (Stoke for one).
External investment is effectively capped at £13m per season (ie. That's the operating loss you are permitted, less is you're borrowing the money to cover it). [Post edited 23 Mar 15:38]
| |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
