The UK Angel Scene: An active angel speaks up

Next Story

Samsung Galaxy Tab Hitting Sprint On November 14th for $399 On Contract?

Permjot Valia (@permjotvalia) is a prolific angel investor and in 2008 co-founded Flight & Partners. Here he talks about his frustrations with the UK Angel investor scene, especially the anti-entrepreneur ‘pay-to-pitch’ culture.

In 2008/09, £44.9m was invested by UK Business Angels registered to Angel Networks in UK based companies. Across the 5,500 registered Angels that is less than £10,000 per Angel. These figures are very poor and do not bode well for future economic growth. So what is a UK based digital company looking for funding to do?

I have invested in 20 companies in the UK over the last six years, and three companies in Canada as a Business Angel. I am by no means an expert but with the experience I have had in Canada with Angel groups and as of recently with Seedcamp, I do find the UK ‘organised’ angel scene very depressing.

In North America, most Angel groups are run by Angels (whom for the most part have been successful entrepreneurs) for Angels. Across Europe most networks are run by administrators for the benefit of the network and not necessarily for the benefit of either the entrepreneur or the angels.

For example, when looking to raise money through a recognized angel network, an entrepreneur will have to part with a sum of money ranging from £500 to £5,000 and in many cases 5% of funds raised and some will ask for amongst other things options in the business and ‘compliance fees’. This is to pay for a member of that group to sit on your board.

This can work out as a very expensive proposition. On top of that, most of the companies, I have seen through networks have been very poor. Not companies that you would want to back. With a fixed fee element, it makes commercial sense for the network to have a large volume of presenters rather than focus on just one or two good companies.

A company that I invested in wanted to raise money so I took the company to Calgary in Canada. There we raised money at a cost of just £1,200 (for everything excluding our own expenses). We also raised money from some really smart investors who can add real value to our business.

In the West Coast, Angels making money from deals is frowned upon; yes you are expected to cover your costs but that should be it.

As an Angel, investing in something where more than 10% of your investment could go towards just paying for the cost of funding is a very bad deal. You need a 12% return just to get your original money back. As a result of this, I have tended to either back deals from my own network or in Canada where there is climate better suited to entrepreneurs.

My experience at Seedcamp, altered this view somewhat. I saw some great European companies that are very investable. And no one was seeking to take a cut or charge any fees! [Note, there are other new incubator style programmes across Europe like HackFwd, The Difference Engine and StartupBootcamp].

So what is my advice to Angels interested in the tech start up space and to entrepreneurs looking for funding?

• Go to organizations like Seedcamp – which are truly run with the best interest of the entrepreneurs in mind.
• Avoid organizations that charge a large up front fee.
• Most funders will only look to back talent. By definition, proven talent would not be seeking to pay something like 10% for funds raised. Talent will be looking to pay nothing!
• Create your own network. Angels do want to back deals. Find them yourself. And if you are an angel, join with other angels who may be slightly higher profile than you and co-invest with them. Very few Angels can and would want to be a sole investor in a deal.
• As a company, only agree to have people on your board if they can really add value to your business.

  • Azeem

    Permjot this is a refreshing take on the scene.
    We do have superstar angels emerging in London — by which I mean people who have been entrepreneurs and are not focussing heavily enough on the same class of deals, and are building ecosystems around them, and are entrepreneur friendly — but there are still not very many of them.

    And the result is capital is tighter here than elsewhere. And much capital that people can afford to grab comes with the wrong experience for an iterative technology piece.

    Seedcamp is a great start. We just need more Kleins, Coutus, Glaenzers….

  • Jens

    I agree 100%.

  • Keld


  • Philip

    Great post and, as an entrepreneur with a UK-based self-funded software business, I could not agree more. My experience of attending angel networks and pitching events is not very positive: few people in the audience actually in any position to write cheques – they are outnumbered by people looking to earn fees; and the networks’ fee structure and options demanded can tend to the greedy, with very little value-add provided.
    To illustrate the point, I received an approach only this week for the “opportunity” to pitch at this event – seeking a fee of £7,500 for the pleasure! What are they on? Many angel networks are just businesses themselves.
    So, it comes back to the basics – network your way to individual angels in any way you can. Oh, and meanwhile don’t forget to sell stuff build revenues.

    • Philip

      Nice – just been offered an “early bird discount” of £4,500! What a bargain.

      • Permjot

        Thanks – I saw the site (followed the link) if a sart up has the money to be there for £4,500 – they don’t need my money!

      • Philip

        Exactly. It seems like madness to me to even consider paying that kind of money and one would think the angels in the audience would be questioning the sanity of the pitchers.

  • Damon Oldcorn

    This is a very good piece from someone who has touched on the London scene it would appear. There are good angels out there, like any sales process they are generally not on a list and have to be winkled out by hard work. The more obvious networks are definitely weak and parasitic on the backs of entrepreneurs who probably will never get funded anyway. The Inner game of big angel names will be over loaded with companies begging them to add their names to the advisory boards and therefore set their own rules. If turned down by one of them they are like sheep most of the rest connected to them won’t touch the deal. But they are not the only game in town as I said… the people with money … real money are not on any list so network towards them. If it takes a year…. well welcome to the real world of starting companies.

    • Permjot

      I generally don’t sit on boards. Simply because it is not my skill set. I am nervous about people who are “focused and committed” to 30+ companies!

  • Chris Padfield

    I used to work for one of these angel networks (London Business Angels) before going back to being an entrepreneur so have a now, external, insiders take.

    I agree with Permjot that angel networks run by angels are better. The problem with the UK market is that there have not, until very recently, been many angels prepared to do this work (and it is work). I think it’s only recently there has been a realisation that to make the best angel investments that angels have to spend as much time networking and meeting people as the entrepreneurs do. There are some networks (London Business School for example) which charge angels lots of money to be members which is also a better model. This was tried before I worked at LBA and failed unfortunately.

    On the finance side of things – there are lots of different business models for angel networks. The standard is an up front fee of < £1000 and then 5% comission. I have already written a blog post here about my thoughts on the up front fee – but the (good) trend is that it is going lower. The comission – well if there were more angel run networks then this would not exist; but given there are not (yet) this is how the networks pay for themselves. I'd remind entrepreneurs a lot of VCs in the UK still charge arrangement fees and monitoring fees in the UK, if those are 2% each – you are paying more in fees than you are to the network.

    I think one thing I disagree with Permjot about is the quality of companies at angel network events. The problem our network had at events; was generally not one of company quality (although it did of course vary) but the amount of money the angels would/could invest. We would generlly fund 2 out of 6 of the companies that presented, but another 3 out of 6 would often get funded elsewhere. It was rare that a company we put forward didn't get funded within 6-12 months of presenting. Angel networks of course vary, I have seen some other networks run great events – and some networks who basically put forward anybody who paid them with no quality control at all. This is the hard thing for entrepreneurs – knowing which networks are better or worse – the easy answer to finding out is talking to the last 5 companies the network funded; it is amazed me how few entrepeneurs ever asked me for references.

    The other important point is that events like seedcamp have completly changed the angel/entrepreneur market (for the better of course) and I think it is now far far easier for web entrepreneurs to meet angels at all types of events than it used to be even a few years ago. Angel networks might be appropriate still for some web entrepreneurs – but I think a lot less than used to be the case. The same however can not be said for med-tech, clean-tech and other types of companies. It's still very hard for these entrepreneurs to find investors – and until there are equivalent seedcamp style programs for them (there are some starting, but still early days) or angels themselves take on a more US style role – these networks will still have a role to fill; even if it's not an ideal business model.

    That's an inside perspective; I am back to running my own software company now and we are thinking about a funding round. I know that I would not go to an angel network because I hope I am in the lucky situation of not needing to, knowing quite a few investors. Seedcamp and angelslist and other innovations are clearly forcing change – and some networks are adapting. I just hope that the same effect happens across the non-web/IT investment space as well.

    • Philip

      Very interesting comments, particularly “it amazed me how few entrepeneurs ever asked me for references.” I remember asking you about that very point when you called to invite me to pitch. I asked if any B2B tech software businesses had been backed by LBAN in the last 2 years and you were honest enough to answer “None”. This connects to your point about the relative ease of access to angel capital for web businesses as opposed to other tech. Anyway, you saved me wasting too much time to decide not to pay £1000 to pitch!

      • Chris Padfield

        Thanks. We definitely did better with B2C than B2B; but this was largely a function of the limited number of B2B companies put forward; I never saw much great deal flow for good B2B (the distinction can be a bit arbitrary) but we did fund a few early this and late last year.

      • Permjot

        Good to hear from you Chris. Great reference to your honesty and integrity. Sadly not everyone says “none”

        In fact as you know, some networks refuse to share meaningful ‘success’ data

      • Chris Padfield

        Thanks Permjot; Yup – I agree. Personally I think it should be a condition of being a member of the BBAA that information on deals is shared – and that includes how much that network invested.

  • David Hickson

    Nice post, Permjot. Might be worth mentioning that we are one of your portfolio companies, and I met you away from a formal network. The right angel is more than just cash – it is about adding value in such a way that helps us all: remember, ours is a positive-sum game. In our case, that dynamic is working in exactly the way it should.

    • Permjot

      Thank you David.

      And I am very happy to say that is one of my investments.

      Business should always be a win-win.

      Hope I can help

  • Anon

    We are going through exactly what you lay out here on our current road show. Angel fund managers as well as early stage (predominantly government backed) VC fund managers looking to add fees at every stage. It is very disappointing.

    Seedcamp is great but only for web services in general, if you are outside of their sphere you are on your own.

    We are also seeing angels look for “introduction fees”. We had one wanting 5% of funds for a single phone call. We later had a tier 1 VC make the same warm introduction for free, naturally.

    We have fees for *not* going ahead with offers, success fees (whose??), monthly management fees, board member fees, etc, etc…..

    I have consciously added 10% to our round to account for these and legal fees if we have to use them.

    As entrepreneurs we read about funding from the Silicon Valley perspective but it is a different story when we deal with the UK Angel scene. There are some great people out there and some good value added services but there are also a good number of amateurs and a rather too large number of parasites who live off fees sucked from struggling entrepreneurs.

    I dislike writing as Anon but our position is not strong enough to “come out”, I hope you understand.

    • Mike Butcher

      Feel free to email me the names of the parasites.

  • Greg

    Go to Open Angel Forum:

    They just had their first London event.

    No fees for entrepreneurs or angels. Simple. Cuts through the crap.

  • Shafqat

    The traditional angel industry/seed funding process is going to get disrupted in a major way with initiatives like AngelList (from Nivi/Naval). We are a European startup but managed to raised close to $1M in seed money from some of the best investors in the US, in less than 1 week. There is absolutely no friction, no fees, no bullshit.

    I hate to say this, but we were banging out heads against the wall with the European scene, and AngelList was a breadth of fresh air. So much so that we are moving our company to the US. I wish it turned out differently, but I can’t let emotion and my desire for Europe to succeed get in the way of building a great business.

    • Permjot

      Shafqat – interesting point. I was really impressed by the desire of Seedcamp management to grow the European Eco-system. They do not want to keep losing stuff to the US.

      I am border agnostic and think entrepreneurs should go where it makes more sense for them. I love Canada for example with a passion – but only visited the place professionally two years ago. It has now become the major source of income and dealflow for me.

      Frustration is that despite government money, UK angel scene is woefully inadequate.

      I am hoping that some angel networks go out of business and other initiatives like Seedcamp and Angel News fill that gap (I have no commercial interest in either)

      There are other great people in the space here in the UK (I won’t embarrass them) so all hope is not lost!

  • UK Angel Attacks Pay-To-Pitch Culture of Many European Angel Networks | JetLib News

    […] Read the rest of this entry » […]

  • Fergus

    Well we (@wooshii) were the company Permjot mentions he took to Canada. I have to say the environment there was so refreshing. It took days to set up meetings not weeks and almost all the angels we saw were cheque writers.

    We also experienced the other side having presented at a NWBA event (incidentally they do not charge as the fee is picked up by some government backed initiative). We picked up one investor but not from the event itself which was pretty poor.

    It would be interesting to survey these groups at the start of each meeting and ask ” how many of you have invested in a company in the last 6 months?”

    • Permjot

      Thanks for suggesting Techcrunch Fergus – I see exactly what you mean. What a great response.

      Yes, you will recall a blog I wrote about the angels who go to Angel events. It is heartbreaking to see entrepreneurs pay £1000+ to talk to a room where only 3 people have any recent history of investing.

      First Angel Network (Halifax) and Venture Alberta charge membership fees – and kick you out if you are there for any reason other than to invest!

      (other than sponsors of course)

      And I loved the response the investors gave

  • whitefawn

    Good story.
    In Israel there are often high admission fees for a chance to pitch before VCs. Angel networks are non-existent here.

    • Permjot

      Find that interesting as Israel is such a great place for tech start ups.

      Why don’t you start one?

  • Julian Ranger

    First off, an angel who knows what he is doing should want to get involved in helping and understanding a business before they may be investment ready – this is part philanthropic, but also ensures you understand a business before investing in them. Secondly there are angel networks (usually clubs acting as a loose federation of angels) that don’t charge to pitch, don’t charge a success fee and are generally helpful (I ama member of one such club) – seek them out – only way is by networking (“kiss a lot of frogs principle”).
    The important issue though is that there is no easy way of finding those angels genuinally interested in helping and investing without charge (charging someone looking for investment who has no spare cash is fundamentally wrong). I know several people trying to work this (and I am one of them), but I’ll admit there is no easy answer. Until there is a ‘system’ for such angels to get together, then it’s going to be hard legwork required if you’re looking for funding – there is no shortcut. If you feel your only option is to pay to pitch then make absolutely sure you know what you’re getting (or not getting) for your money.

    • Permjot

      Julian – I think it’s simple. Let’s have angel groups run by angels.

      First Angel Network only do four deals a year – so they don’t have to spend all the time on deal flow.

      And angels agree to pay them a fee for running it.

      And with only four deals – they carry out proper due diligence

      • Fergus

        So Perm – As I’ve suggested before… Appears that their might be an opportunity for you to set one up along those lines.

      • Chris Padfield

        To play devil’s advocate; does 4 deals per year for a whole network scale to satisfy the market? I think the velocity of deals that angel groups (formalised or not) do in the US is one on the attractions. If networks only do 4 deals – entrepreneurs are going to spend their whole life pitching.

  • Lars Hinrichs

    take a look at – it forfills all your requirements.

  • Alex Greene

    Angels are missing out on whole generations of talent, also, if they focus all of their attention on the usual crowd in London and the Home Counties. North Wales has virtually nothing here, not even if you are a fluent Welsh speaker – Welsh Angels are as common here as salmon fur.

    And as for the “depressed” areas – the North East and North West of England, the Black Country, Devon & Cornwall – forget it.

    Whole generations of talent are being wasted because they are, to date, ignored by Angels. The outlying regions of the UK are an immense, untapped field. you only have to approach universities such as Bangor, Aberystwyth, Glyndwr University in Wrexham, Manchester Metropolitan University, John Moore University to see the potential of these unsung geniuses and budding entrepreneurs.

    Universities have student and alumni associations, and you can approach them to request the possibility of having them host you in a seminar, or similar event. Also, many towns have business lines for local businesses to communicate with one another and liaise with the local Councils: a little research can yield startup companies bristling with talent which are dying for a cash injection to get them started, or guidance from a canny Angel in how to get ahead.

    Finally, the KTP (Knowledge Transfer Program) is absolutely ideal, because it allows an Angel to part-fund a registered consultant advising a business on a specific project. The Angel could be the registered consultant; KTP puts up part of the funds; and the client startup could be the project.

    The market for Angels can be hugely profitable. You only have to know where to look. Hint: Anywhere but London.

  • Ewan MacLeod

    Keep it simple, just don’t bother with UK ‘angels’. There’s a handful worth talking to, the rest are simply shocking. Go to America.

  • Robyn Scott

    Great piece. I especially like the idea of creating your own angel network.

    But, except for the most connected, this is often prohibitive time-wise.

    Getting the attention of the people who need to know about your business is where a fee can be useful – without creating perverse incentives.

    We created OneLeap, so you can pay a fee to send a short message directly to a hard-to-reach person. The recipient sets their fee. The fee shows you’re serious, and helps filter time-wasters. But the fee itself goes to charity – 80% divided between the sender’s and the recipient’s charity, OneLeap taking a 20% commission. And if they don’t reply in 10 days you get a full refund.

    • fedd

      good idea, but i think they won’t reply in 10 days.

      they are uber-busy.

      i think you should charge that celebrity for not-replying!

      • Robyn Scott

        Glad you like the model. Sure, not everyone will be able to reply in 10 days, but as we found with OneLeap alpha if messages are pitched well, many will. And we’re not just talking about celebrities; busy decision-makers in general.

  • Permjot

    Dear Robyn,

    Great model – I like it.

    My issue is always getting in front of the right people – and if you can short cut that – brilliant

    All the best

    • Robyn Scott

      Very pleased you like it, Permjot. If you add your email at we’ll send you an invite as soon as we launch the private beta.
      Best regards, Robyn

  • Permjot

    So perhaps there is the making of a new model here.

    If a business plan looks really good – we get the entrepreneur in a room with no more than five or six highly relevant people over a dinner.

    The entrepreneur picks up the cost of the dinner?

    How does that feel?

    • Robyn Scott

      That’s a great idea. A dinner for eight would be sufficiently expensive that most entrepreneurs wouldn’t do it if they weren’t serious and well prepared. It would be a good environment in which to do an initial pitch. And at the very least they’d have enough time to get valuable feedback on their concept. Paying for dinner – like giving money to charity – is something you can feel good about. It feels fairer than paying a pitch fee.

    • Fergus

      Perm – love that – really love it

      Lets talk

    • Chris Padfield

      Not sure about this. Issues are:

      * Needs to be a cheap dinner. If it’s £30/head – then pitching at paid for angel events is better value.
      * Do angels really want to give up an evening to see one company? Will they know about the company before hand? If so – why not just have a normal business meeting?

      If you want to do dinners, I think Jason’s model works better.

      • Permjot

        Chris- I would like to do something and given your credibility, knowledge and expertise – would love to have your input.

        Will keep you posted.

      • Chris Padfield

        Certainly interested in helping. Give me a shout when ready.

  • Debbie Todd

    I did an article in June on the Innovation Investment Journal titled “What’s stopping startups in the EU?”. Besides the “pay to pitch” culture that you mentioned, I came across the fact that high patent prices in the EU are driving startups to the American and Asian markets. Some of the extra costs are the result of documents needing to be made available in several languages and the translation costs that can be incurred. It seems that European beaurocracy delaying the creation of a Pan-european Patent is having a damaging effect on the innovation market in Europe. For those who’d like to have a look at the article, here’s a link:

    • Permjot

      Good insights Debbie – never thought of that. What is the difference? Can you apply for a worldwide patent through the US if you are uk based?

      • Debbie Todd

        Permjot, I’ve just emailed the US Patents Office to find out if it’s possible for UK and European residents to apply for worldwide patents using their services. Not sure how long the reply will take, but I will notify you in this thread as soon as I get one.

      • Edward Asiedu

        Hi Debbie, Permjot:

        Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a “worldwide” patent. Patents are generally restricted to a single national territory.

        A notable exception is for patents granted by the European Patent office (EPO), which can be enforced in:

        Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland & Liechtenstein, Turkey and United Kingdom.

        This is already possible without the Pan-European patent Debbie mentioned. The EPO accepts applications in any of 3 languages including English, so translations are not always necessary.

        The international Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) allows you to “syndicate” your first “home-country” (e.g. UK) patent application worldwide, but each country has the right to decide whether your patent is enforceable in their territory.

        As far as fees are concerned, legal professional fees are a killer in any country, but for European startups, we have the particular misfortune that our governments then gleefully slap on 17-20% VAT to make sure we are properly skewered!

        For people with global ambition who want “worldwide” patents by filing in several countries, the PCT application which makes this option easiest starts near a cool two grand!

        So to directly answer about what the USPTO can do, they can only issue patents covering American jurisdictions. It’s also possible to file directly for a US patent from Europe. But it’s possibly worth starting off in America just to skip the VAT!

      • Permjot

        Thank you – genuinely interesting and relevant.

        Govt’s use patents registered as a sign of innovation. You would think they would try and make it as cheap and as easy as possible.

        Go figure!

      • Debbie Todd

        Thanks for all that information – all really useful stuff.
        I’ve just received a reply to my email to the US Patents Office:

        “Thank you for contacting the USPTO Contact Center.

        The patent laws of the United States make no discrimination with respect to the citizenship of the inventor. Any inventor, regardless of his/her citizenship, may apply for a patent on the same basis as a U.S. citizen. There are, however, a number of particular points of special interest to applicants located in foreign countries.

        For more details and other general information concerning patents, please refer to the USPTO website at

        For Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) inquiries, please contact the PCT Help Desk at 571-272-4300 Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time.

        If you have any further questions or if you require additional information, please call the USPTO Contact Center at 1-800-786-9199 or (571) 272-1000 and reference the following Service Request number: 1-176992347.”

        A bit tardy, I know and nowhere near as clear as Edward’s reply.

  • R Sansom

    The Cambridge Angels ( is an angel group run by angels for angels. We don’t charge start-ups for the privilege of pitching nor do we take any fees from the investment.

  • Iqbal Gandham

    Permjot, finally a good post on twitter from someone from the ‘dark side’

    Entrepreneurs should not need to pay to pitch, and good angels should be actively looking for investments..

    Love the dinner idea, pizza on me :-)


  • Permjot

    That’s great. How would you answer critics saying what is your revenue model? Or are you all angels committed to creating a good ‘Eco-system’

  • Nick Pelling

    Permjot, great post – I’d add that anecdotal evidence suggests the 2009/2010 figure will turn out to be lower than £44.9m, perhaps even as low as £30m. But that’s just a symptom: the malaise is that there’s a big sea-change in startup finance going on, and many UK angels I’ve met seem to be somewhat adrift. ‘Broaden your portfolio’, sure, but maxing out at £20K each per deal – as seems to be commonplace in the UK now – is surely a pretty miserable way of investing for everyone.

    I agree that SeedCamp is cool, but this is also symptomatic of the narrowing of many angels’ gaze to pure software plays: one government-backed fund I talked with even pretty much equated ‘technology’ with ‘software’ (it’s not hard to work out which one).

    Finally, the whole pay-to-pitch plus ‘success fee’ commission falls only *fractionally* short of being an outright scam. Let’s get this right: they take cash from entrepreneurs who don’t have much money and convert it into canapes and fancy venues for the benefit of people who do have money. And then only 25% of them (if that) get funded. Just plain ridiculous, by any measure.

    • Permjot

      My investments have not been sector specific. However, I simply need to understand the business easily.

      My average investment is around £20k – so I am guilty of your charge above. But angel investing is so risky – you need to statistically invest a bit in many things.

      And I agree with your ‘virtually’ a scam point!

      • Nick Pelling

        As I say, £20K a pop to de-risk your portfolio is about par now: but you can’t then sensibly invest a lot of time (or board activity) in any one portfolio company.

        From the outside, this kind of low-level investing seems perilously close to the kind of ‘dumb money’ angels spent years trying to differentiate themselves from: though perhaps it might more charitably be called ‘hands-off money’.

        So perhaps Naval’s take on this whole phenomenon is wrong, and what we’re seeing is neither the rise of angels nor the rise of entrepreneurs, but the rise of hands-off money: by which I mean that perhaps the due diligence and business mentoring implicit in ‘smart money’ simply doesn’t scale for most angels. In short, maybe the steering costs of getting small investments right are too high, making probabilistic investment strategies more rational.

      • Chris Padfield

        What I saw running an angel network was a mixture of smart (we called it lead) and dumb money. Frankly there is simply not enough smart money in the UK – we have not had the huge IPOs that make hundreds of tech multi millionaires who become angels.

        So, for lots of companies – the best they can get is getting a great lead angel (who joins the board) and then filling that up with “dumb money”. Now those people are often very smart and have useful contacts – they just have not made their money building startups but maybe made their money in finance or property or something completely different and choose to invest a portion of their wealth into startups.

        This is where angel networks work – they help mix these two types of people to fund deals. But these rich people generally don’t pay to get introduced to deals (they would think of it like paying a real estate agent to be introduced to potential property purchases). Not an easy problem to resolve. There are maybe 20-30 high profile angels in the UK; they can’t fund all the deals.

      • Nick Pelling

        Chris, thanks for your comments – I think the angel scene has seen a strong shift towards (let’s not say ‘dumb’ but rather) ‘hands-off’ angels: and right now there seems to be almost no middle ground between those dwindlingly-few £80K hands-on angels who would lead and the overwhelming pack of £20K hands-off angels.

        I suspect the issue now is whether entrepreneurs can credibly structure (dare I call them) “lead-free” deals that would overcome the sales objections of hands-off angels. Herding cats, sure: but if it’s that or back to consulting, well… :-)

      • fedd

        can it be true that the more understandable business/product/service we have, the more competitive environment we are in?

        we have a simple, understandable business model – sell licences for our software, but the software itself may seem too new/complicate/risky

blog comments powered by Disqus