Ipswich Takeover | Vital Football

Ipswich Takeover

IF they make a success of this investment , then perhaps those who love the Smiffs will eventually realise how much ambition our owners have .... which is zero
 
Last edited:
If binners get promoted and then start climbing the table, that will send a message.

If, however, promotion doesn't come quickly, the self funding model is reinforced.

May you live in interesting times.
 
Last edited:
Agreed YB.
Self funding will never work in the premier league.
I want Norwich to be the best they can and for me that is the premier league, even with its faults.
Self funding relies on selling all the best players and not buying good replacements even when in the premier league.
After the last promotion we retained all the best players and did not buy any players good enough to even sell after relegation and it was, as YB says, a complete and utter humiliation.
IF we go up this season, Smiff has already flogged Aaarons, so even if we keep hold of Cantwell and Buendia, the failure to sign good players to go with them will lead to the same again. Maybe even worse.

There will come a time, when stuck in Championship with the failing self funding experiment ( or as should be known ' Owners refusing to sell ' policy ), even clubs such as Binners being considerably richer will overtake us.
We are already close to being poorest club in the league in terms of wealth.

We all find the Binners scenario funny but if they get back to championship and with good funding, they will be buying players we want.
It does not take long for fortune to change in football.
 
Those that support the self funding model and I am neutral in this respect, would say that promotion and relegation are an integral part of the plan with increasing periods of time in the top flight.

The idea being that eventually the income earned in the top flight will be sufficient to fund increasingly able players to make progress beyond mere survival.

However, you would need patience and a recognition that you can go down as well as up.

The external funded model, which many top flight teams use cuts out the yoyo effect if the funding is used effectively. The down side is that the club develops a new persona based on the preferences of the new owner. That could lead to name changes of the club, stadium etc. Team colours, which may have been a tradition for a hundred years or more could go as well as alteration to the look and feel of the club.

Some would argue that it would be a price worth paying for top flight success. Others might argue that a benign investor is possible without compromising the values that form an integral part of the club we have followed for decades.

Clearly there are many more sides to the argument, which have not been included but the stark choice much simplified is for patient adherence to a policy that may or may not bear fruit in the long term or for more or less instant funding with the promise of rapid success but with potential compromises that may be too hard too swallow.

I do not know the answer but, when I suggested the possibility of exploring relocating the stadium to somewhere more access friendly and the possibility of providing top team capacity, the suggestion was shot down in flames. That suggests to me that significant compromises may not be tolerated and that 'better the devil you know' could prevail.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with calls for change without deep consideration of all the consequences. The reality is that what will happen will happen whether I like it or not and I would venture that goes for all of us.
 
Tuckster said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1365306549980303360
Click to expand...


This has been rumoured about for a while. Some questions I have is:

1) Have the new owners made an offer for the shareholding not owned by Evans and his companies?

2) How much of Ipswich's debt in the accounts the responsibility of the new shareholders, i.e., is it all of what is owned to Evans and his companies or has Evans really written it off? VERY BIG ISSUE.

Just a side issue, I suspect the debt includes approx £32m of debt bought from Aviva for £8m (they ended up having a loan to Ipswich thanks to a merger with General Accident if I remember correctly) . So £24m of the debt wasnt the result of Evans providing the cash to Ipswich.

3) Am I right in thinking that Evans and his companies bought Ipswich's training ground from the football club a few years back. So Ipswich's only real assets are their players as presumably they still rent their ground from the council on the cheap.

4) If the new owners are not assuming any responsibility for the accumulated debts to Evans then it looks like this is not a leveraged buyout (LBO.) that Burnley were subject to. Based on what is known in public about that Burnley deal it does not look good.

The Glazers did a LBO. of Man Utd but they rode the wave of rising TV money and Man Utd for commericial / merchandising revenues are in a different league compared to Burnley.

When it comes to takeovers, the structure of the deal is critical. The football authorities should not allow LBO.'s for clubs outside say the top few as they will not have the cashflow to service the debt load.

5) Presumably the new owners of Ipswich are going to try and put some cash in and sign some new players in the hope of getting promoted to the Championship (that alone will add £5m to the TV revenues).

No wonder Ipswich won the other night against Hull (near the top of League 1) 3-0!!

Indeed it makes it interesting for the Binners!!

BTW. Sunderland had a change of majority ownership to a son of a Billionaire recently.
 
Last edited:
IMHO., ownership and ground location should not be mixed.

All the ground needs is the Geoffrey Watling Main Stand to be redeveloped to say 35,000 if possible (DG may have some idea if thats feasible in the space).

With maybe the possibility of another tier on the South Stand if we need it and the area can take it. The idea of a double tier South Stand was looked at decades ago but my father was told the area couldnt take the foundations then. Since then the dyke running under the South Stand was filled in during the Chase regime and building methods have changed.

The current location has the advantage of being close to the railway station and a major bus stop there. There are also three main car parks nearby (County Hall, Riverside and Mountergate) and the city centre is in walking range.

As for somebody on the website associated with a colour suggesting the UEA as alternative a year or so ago has no understanding of the land use and transportation issues of the area. In addition a new stadium would cost a fortune compared to redeveloping the Geoffrey Watling Main Stand.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid I am neutral on very few subjects.
Opinionated yes and often wrong.

I totally understand Rex, his neutral stance and sensibly looking from both sides of the fence. However I do think that changing the colours and traditions of a club are extremely rare. In fact I think it has only been cardiff and hull with both being resisted.
Most stadiums and virtually all stands have sponsored driven names already.

The argument of any fan will point out the failures of the opposite point of view to theirs and the fans of Smiff and her selfish ownership over success policy always use one of the few failures as an example ( Blackburn ) as oppose to Manchester City, Chelsea and Villa to name a few of the many success stories.

We all have a strong feeling of tradition and personally if the ground moved to for example the Norfolk Showground I would probably stop going as the current location is good for access and would be perfect if a local and talented Architect had been in charge of the Riverside Development instead of the appalling mess created by whoever it was in charge.
Opportunity to bring football into the heart of an area was completely lost.

I would be very interested in a show of hands for the choice of Smiff or good and rich owner taking over after what we hope will be promotion this Spring.

As far as I am concerned it would be a choice of failure v having a chance.
 
I don’t accept failure and relegation for my club ( those who do dress it up miserable failure as a Yo-yo club ) . I want my club to win every game they start , and it’s a strange sort of fan who doesn’t want that . My vote would be for a good and rich owner who could move us forwards to succcess instead of two old unambitious pensioners who try to con us that failure , losing games and relegation is somehow acceptable just so they can cling to on to ownership for their own selfish family ends
 
Rex said:
Those that support the self funding model and I am neutral in this respect, would say that promotion and relegation are an integral part of the plan with increasing periods of time in the top flight.

The idea being that eventually the income earned in the top flight will be sufficient to fund increasingly able players to make progress beyond mere survival.

However, you would need patience and a recognition that you can go down as well as up.

The external funded model, which many top flight teams use cuts out the yoyo effect if the funding is used effectively. The down side is that the club develops a new persona based on the preferences of the new owner. That could lead to name changes of the club, stadium etc. Team colours, which may have been a tradition for a hundred years or more could go as well as alteration to the look and feel of the club.

Some would argue that it would be a price worth paying for top flight success. Others might argue that a benign investor is possible without compromising the values that form an integral part of the club we have followed for decades.

Clearly there are many more sides to the argument, which have not been included but the stark choice much simplified is for patient adherence to a policy that may or may not bear fruit in the long term or for more or less instant funding with the promise of rapid success but with potential compromises that may be too hard too swallow.

I do not know the answer but, when I suggested the possibility of exploring relocating the stadium to somewhere more access friendly and the possibility of providing top team capacity, the suggestion was shot down in flames. That suggests to me that significant compromises may not be tolerated and that 'better the devil you know' could prevail.

Personally, I am uncomfortable with calls for change without deep consideration of all the consequences. The reality is that what will happen will happen whether I like it or not and I would venture that goes for all of us.
Click to expand...
When you talk about the new
persona based on the preferences of the new owner Rex then straight away Cardiff springs to mind.
 
Bolshie Budgie said:
This has been rumoured about for a while. Some questions I have is:

1) Have the new owners made an offer for the shareholding not owned by Evans and his companies?

2) How much of Ipswich's debt in the accounts the responsibility of the new shareholders, i.e., is it all of what is owned to Evans and his companies or has Evans really written it off? VERY BIG ISSUE.

Just a side issue, I suspect the debt includes approx £32m of debt bought from Aviva for £8m (they ended up having a loan to Ipswich thanks to a merger with General Accident if I remember correctly) . So £24m of the debt wasnt the result of Evans providing the cash to Ipswich.

3) Am I right in thinking that Evans and his companies bought Ipswich's training ground from the football club a few years back. So Ipswich's only real assets are their players as presumably they still rent their ground from the council on the cheap.

4) If the new owners are not assuming any responsibility for the accumulated debts to Evans then it looks like this is not a leveraged buyout (LBO.) that Burnley were subject to. Based on what is known in public about that Burnley deal it does not look good.

The Glazers did a LBO. of Man Utd but they rode the wave of rising TV money and Man Utd for commericial / merchandising revenues are in a different league compared to Burnley.

When it comes to takeovers, the structure of the deal is critical. The football authorities should not allow LBO.'s for clubs outside say the top few as they will not have the cashflow to service the debt load.

5) Presumably the new owners of Ipswich are going to try and put some cash in and sign some new players in the hope of getting promoted to the Championship (that alone will add £5m to the TV revenues).

No wonder Ipswich won the other night against Hull (near the top of League 1) 3-0!!

Indeed it makes it interesting for the Binners!!

BTW. Sunderland had a change of majority ownership to a son of a Billionaire recently.
Click to expand...
It should never be forgotten that very recently ITFC went into administration and then straight back out again whilst all of the surrounding smaller companies ( many self employed) that were owed money NEVER got a any they were owed and some went out of business.
 
People are aware who these potential new Ipswich owners are right? They’re pension fund managers in the US, who are taking out a loan from that fund (against the football club) in the hope of turning a quick few million quid and selling it onto whoever fancies paying a bit more. They’ll be hoping to just get them promoted into the Championship and then sell them on, not some sort of American owner dynasty who’s going to vault them through the leagues...they’re in fact much less wealthy than Evans is. Sure they could invest properly next year and get up and turn that quick buck, but if they don’t that loan against the club is pulled in and that’s where many many football league clubs get ultimately fucked over (mainly because the EFL/FA let this stuff happen without any consequences for the investors, it’s the fans and local businesses who ultimately suffer)

I’d personally never want my club to be put into such a perilous position
 
I recall being at The Valley on 02 May 2009 as Smiffs took us down to third tier since 1960 ( just after I was born ) and apparently close to bankruptcy.
My view is that as they have been very lucky to date when most things have clicked together for promotion but each time there has been no attempt to stay in the premier league. They are flirting with financial problems at any time as soon as players worth a lot of money run out and income will be far less than outgoings.

We are in a totally different position to the Binners in terms of owning ground, being without huge debt and having several good players and hopefully being in premier league so do not need to sell to an asset stripper.
There has been plenty of time to find a good new owner but they simply have not been looking as crave control.
 
DRAYTON GREEN said:
I recall being at The Valley on 02 May 2009 as Smiffs took us down to third tier since 1960 ( just after I was born ) and apparently close to bankruptcy.
My view is that as they have been very lucky to date when most things have clicked together for promotion but each time there has been no attempt to stay in the premier league. They are flirting with financial problems at any time as soon as players worth a lot of money run out and income will be far less than outgoings.

We are in a totally different position to the Binners in terms of owning ground, being without huge debt and having several good players and hopefully being in premier league so do not need to sell to an asset stripper.
There has been plenty of time to find a good new owner but they simply have not been looking as crave control.
Click to expand...

They were lucky that Alan Bowkett negotiated a deal with AXA regarding the Loan Notes, so the club avoided Administration.

After Alan Bowkett had left the club, Alex Neil & Co. were allowed to buy Naismith, Windschult, Jarvis etc. , resulting in a financial mess. Fortunately we avoided Administration due to the stream of player sales, e.g.,: Pritchard (£11m) Jacob Murphy (£12m), Josh Murphy (£12m) and the one that saved the club, Maddison (£24m + £1m England add on).

Then when Covid 19 struck they were lucky that we could absorb the lost revenue in 2019-2020 due to being in The Premiership and they absorbed the lost revenue again this season due to the Parachute money or the sales of Godfrey and Lewis (you can take your choice on that one).

What do you think would have happened to this club, if it had not been in The Premiership last season (with the parachute money this season) and if we had no players to sell that other clubs wanted? Do you think our current majority owners could fill in £25m of lost revenues from their own resources? We were very lucky again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.