Leaderboard

We even have to score their goal.

Angus has had a good game, despite the scoreline.

Just over a week on, some things are clear and some are not. To try to sum up without muddying the waters, with apologies for the likely length and the repetition of some previously made arguments. One. The waiver and the Takeover Panel. This is a bit of a multi-faceted subject, and I confess I have made great play about it (in part to compensate for the singular failure to highlight it by the EDP, either simply because of a lack of understanding, or an unwillingness to upset the club and threaten the rapprochement that has taken place) but I am not alone. As shef said: “You would have to believe the TP were party to some other documentation over future strategy, otherwise I struggle to see why they have agreed to the waiver on the basis of what is presented in the circular.” Perhaps they did see stuff not available to shareholders, but hardly helpful in terms of knowing how to vote on October 2. Either way, the upshot is straightforward. Any minority shareholders who either want Attanasio to buy them out, or at least want to have the chance to force him to do that, or even just want to uphold the principle of having that chance, lose out no matter how they vote For, Against or Abstain the result is the same – Attanasio will not have to offer the buy them out. On the face of it this goes clearly against the remit of the Takeover Code, as summed up in the Panel’s latest annual report: “The Code is designed principally to ensure that shareholders in an offeree company are treated fairly and are not denied an opportunity to decide on the merits of a takeover and that shareholders in the offeree company of the same class are afforded equivalent treatment by an offeror.” Foulger and some other minority shareholders have been given – and taken - the chance to sell out no fewer than 130,000 shares, apparently including at £25, but that is being denied to the rest. So shareholders of the same class are not getting equal treatment. I can understand the Panel might in general terms decide that it is only giving approval for a vote for or against, but in this case, in this case the vote is meaningless. The term Catch-22 is frequently misused, describing what is just a vicious circle, but here what is happening is very close to the real definition, of an act which is the only way out of a bad situation actually taking you right back in. Vote against the waiver because you want a chance of selling and you are voting against having that chance. So why has the Panel approved what Mr Bunce correctly describes as an ultimatum to vote a particular way when it seems to run directly counter to the Takeover Code? As shef says above, a possible explanation is that the Panel has seen evidence that in the long run the remaining minority shareholders will be treated fairly. And Parma has said this: “The issue of the waiver is another hurdle to be overcome, though no one need fear that it will somehow be used to penalise-undervalue-disenfranchise minority shareholders (6k odd fans). The desire - from both purchaser and seller - is for minority shareholders-fans to ‘win’ comfortably regardless of mechanism.” Which if true is heartening, although it would need to be something more legally binding than a desire, but in voting shareholders can only go on the facts that have been presented to them. One of which is that in the here and now the waiver IS being used to penalise them. And it seems clear, given that all the documents have now been read by posters professionally qualified to understand them, that nowhere is there anything that even hints at a good deal later on for the minorities, let alone a hard-fact promise. And not only now. I cannot remember either the club or Attanasio ever hinting at such. If there was tucked away in the available documents a cast-iron guarantee from Attanasio to waive the waiver in three years’ time and offer the minorities £120 a share that would be bankable. But none of the experts here has noticed such a thing. OK, but does this matter? I have seen the argument that very few would want to sell up anyway, and the price for many would in effect represent a loss. Yet the owners of those 130,000 shares decided to take Attanasio’s private pre-waiver offer. Leaving aside the principle of the thing, a lack of take-up cannot be assumed, or used as an argument. A few days back I did suggest an alternative plan which seemed workable. It probably would have cost the club a bit of money but would have had the virtue lacking in the real plan of treating the minorities fairly. However we are where we are. Two. The report of the “independent directors”. The Code requires that shareholders are provided with a copy of the “… competent independent advice to the board of the offeree company regarding the transaction, the controlling position which it will create and the effect which this will have on shareholders generally.” “Independent” has to mean independent of the club. A disinterested analysis and assessment from an outside company. Instead the club has pulled a fast one by describing Tom Smith and Zoe Webber as “independent directors” when they are nothing of the kind. Truly independent directors, even with their connection to the company concerned, are disinterested by way of not being beholden to it and can offer unbiased advice. Smith and Webber are independent only in the strict sense that they are not regarded as being in concert with S&J and Attanasio because they are not the active creators of the deal. But Smith is the nephew of the owners and a potential inheritor, while Webber is the paid CEO of the club. They both have a significant stake in this deal and are not independent of the board, let alone of the club. Yet the Takeover Panel allowed them to be presented as such. Surprise, surprise, their “independent” advice to the board, but more importantly to shareholders, is to vote for the waiver. At the risk of appearing to want to keep on bashing the EDP (along with the Panel), this fake independence has not been challenged. Rather it seems the journalists have relied heavily, perhaps even exclusively, on club briefings. The first Davitt piece, last Monday was a clearly written explanation, and fine as far as it went, but of the ultimatum, which had to be prominently covered, there was no mention. And I know I am not I am not the only poster who has been aware of its existence for months. To be fair to the Panel, it seemingly did eventually act to limit the club’s spin. Mr Bunce said last week he understood the club had wanted to put out an extra explanation but that was blocked, and with good reason.. And yesterday Southwell said this, presumably backing up Mr Bunce’s information: “The club asked the Takeover Code [sic] if they could publish a Q&A with more information and that wasn't allowed.” Certainly if the Q&A, as was likely, would have been the club asking its own questions and answering them, rather than a genuine session with informed shareholders, then it is not surprising the Panel draw a line in the sand. Again, does any of this matter? Yes. Some shareholders, including some here, will be professionally trained to understand. Some others may hire such to explain it. But most, myself included, are amateurs. As Mr Bunce put it: “I'm unimpressed (even if there is principled negation) as it leaves ‘mom and pop’ investors having to make a call on something we can't possibly hope to understand.” And the bizarre situation is that there is more information and informed discussion here than there is coming out of the club or the EDP. Three. But, big-picture time, does any of this really matter? There are all the financial plans, including loans, that shef and others have so usefully detailed, albeit with significant caveats about a distinct lack of clarity and certainly. But on the face of it the October 2 vote is pretty limited. As I understand it, the only direct financial consequence would be that the club lost out on £5m, by way of Attanasio not buying the 195,012 new Ordinary shares. Those big loans etc would not be automatically cancelled. But S&J would then stay as majority owners, and Attanasio might take umbrage and alter his plans, either to speed up a takeover (perhaps with the aim of getting rid of pesky shareholders by taking the club private) or start to walk away. Several posters have pointed out, especially in terms of those loans, and what and who are Attanasio’s companies and colleagues in all this, that a suspension of cautious cynicism is required. As Badger posted: “I am most certainly not a conspiracy theorist but as I understand it, we are being asked to put a very great deal of trust in Attanasio's good faith.” There is an argument that this is a usefully salutary lesson to anyone who thought Attanasio was just all cuddly avuncularity, but most here already knew that anyone who had been successful in the US financial sector was also steely-hearted. And as Big Fish has suggested, in his to-the-point fashion, do shareholders really have any choice? “Ultimately, shareholders would be foolish to vote against this. It is the only game in town and yes there would be repercussions should the motions be unsuccessful, while on the other hand their actual financial position remains unchanged. Should the waiver be voted down I would understand, because this has been badly handled, but it achieves nothing. MA would come back with a different approach, one that may not be quite so gentle as this one.” Arguably that is right. But if S&J and Attanasio had not fixed on this symbolic parity at 40 per cent, and allowed some wiggle room either side (while still keeping both below 50 per cent) then shareholders might not have found themselves boxed into a corner and having to take a very great deal on trust.

A search is on tonight for the "world class" footballer Billy Gilmour, who was supposed to have starred in the inevitable Scotland victory over England at Hampden Park, but has since gone missing. Only one person was concerned for his welfare, known locally as "the Dark Knight", and he too appears to have gone missing. Our prayers are with them both at this difficult time. 🫣🤭😅 Apples

Dark Knight looking for his torch.

I think it's really interesting that this thread (and the '55 years' one) has developed alongside all the speculation about the Attanasio takeover. Both threads make it clear that for all the talk of the takeover, our (lack of) ambition and our prospects of competing at PL level, what is most important about supporting a football club is that sense of community and a shared history. Whether we're conscious of it or not, I think we're all hoping that those things persist in the brave new era. One of the things I love about this forum is that there are so many people who have a memory of the club that goes back beyond my own (and I'm not far from the 40-year mark myself now). Love that sense of an institutional memory.

Nothing defeats the myth that the remaining movement is driven by a "liberal metropolitan elite" better than a Liberal display of flags at an "elite" event in London.

Yes. We will.

I think this is a George Plunkett one from 1935.

Personally, I remain sceptical that this is at the insistence of the TP, far more likely, in my opinion, is that the solicitors acting for the Club & / or Attanasio, advised against it.

Beautifully put. Another important thing is that whatever changes we go through in life, Norwich City is one of the few constant things from the day of our first game to the day when we finally stop dodging the coffin. It will probably be the longest constant thing in most of our lives. I'm often baffled that some people don't have something like that.

Not seen this one before @nutty nigel. 1959 v Man Utd.

Going against the grain here perhaps, but after careful reconsideration, I feel that the £25 season ticket cancellation charge is quite a reasonable proposition should it ever be needed.

Billy and DK have gone missing at the same time you say??? Couldn't be.......could it??

Billy walks into that side

One of these players got an assist for England in tonight's match. The other is Harry Kane.

I've found @TheDarkKnight !!

He's basically Moritz Leitner without the terrible attitude. Good for a team who will have a lot of the ball and like to dictate tempo, plays short passes well, recycles the ball etc. He's not going to rip teams apart or create loads. He was exactly the wrong player at the wrong time for us though.

Scotland should bring on Gilmour - get some control in the midfield...😂

And, finally, one of the burnt out City Stand in 1986.

And another one

Having criticised the lack of "really" helpful information included in the paperwork despite knowing of presentations to OSP and the TP of further information about the future, I am nevertheless of the mind to trust Attanasio. I can see how he has managed the Brewers, he has a similar philosophy to Delia and Mike about retaining a "community club" vibe without pumping millions of his own money in. Despite this it is clear he has more nous about how to leverage more money out of the all-round performance of the club, to reinvest into the club to get even more out of the assets, be it the real estate or the playing staff. I still see him as a good "bet" to secure the club's future and success on and off the pitch. It is to be hoped that the football world comes to its senses and stops this billionaire and State plaything that it has become and evens up the playing field. But that is perhaps for another thread.

If I pay my £5 to bring a stick to Carrow Road would that be for life? Or could I pass it on to the next generation?

I very much view this as Norwich v Ipswich ....unbeaten againt them in years and will never hear the last of it if we lose to them....

Not sure English football has ever really made its peace with players passing the ball to each other.

I was going to ask this. Do any England fans really care about this game? Agree with @splendidrush that it means much more to Scotland. Personally I can't remember the last time I watched an England friendly. Even WC and EC qualifiers are pretty tedious now the tournaments have so many teams that qualification is virtually assured from the start.

A cobbled together piece of cloth that pretends there is some sort of Union of equals which misses out one country altogether. Anyway, enough about the Union Jack, here's some nice blue and gold ones.

June 2018, although it was a massive faff to get the thing going again. Apparently, IIRC, it almost wiped out the money gained in selling the ship that they moved through it as the delay incurred costs further down (at the Breydon Bridge, I think).

Also as proved again far superior. Spent half the second half taking the ****. Let’s hope it’s the same when we play the scummers.

The dinner was hosted by the NCFC directors with FONCY committee as guests. Only about 12 people in total in an executive box. I think it was 12years before McN made it untenable. Yes we liked to host the AGM’s at either youth or reserve matches.

I knew you were joking about the get some control in the midfield comment, but thought you were being serious with the bring Gilmour on. I tuned in after 5 minutes and genuinely didn't know he had started.

What was this thread about, I’ve forgotten

Here's one I took of the re-build of the River End.

The thing is mate, what choice do we have? At some point we're going to have to take the jump. At least this guy has been patient enough to be vetted by Delia and Michael for a while. Of course, he's not doing this for the love of Norwich. He wants to make money. But I can't see how he can generate anything worthwhile without making us (relatively) successful. Personally, my dream has always been for a Tony Bloom (Brighton) owner. He is basically Delia, but with 500x the amount of available finance. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a billionaire life-long NCFC fan so we're working with what we've got.

I’m assuming these tickets were in the Snakepit…

Tend to agree with this. In buying a season ticket you enter into an agreement to pay ‘ x ‘ number of pounds for ‘ y ‘ number of matches. The admin fee is there in the Ts & Cs although most people, including me, barely glance through them. With almost 100% attendances the argument that the club can currently sell any season tickets that become available seems a good one but what if the situation was reversed ? Most Championship clubs have huge swathes of unsold seats so it would be unreasonable to expect clubs in that situation not to impose some sort of exit fee when repaying what was initially guaranteed income. Unfortunately we now live in a world of charges, levies and fees, unfair or not. One that does seem unfair in one way is the £1.50 levied on casual ticket sales. Fair enough if the ticket has to be posted but a bit rich when you buy the ticket in person.

Billy boy will run England ragged, he is the Scots messiah, the greatest since Denis Law. Or reality will prevail and boredom will set in.

I watched most of the match. Idah generally played very well against some top centre backs. He took his penalty really well. The big question marks for me were over the two occasions when he laid the ball off to Ogbene to take a shot at goal and both shots were blocked. On both occasions, I wondered if a more confident (selfish?) striker would have taken a shot themselves - it looked to me as though Idah was in a good enough position to do so. Of course, if Ogbene had scored then we would have praised Idah for the assist. Duffy seemed to be calling the shots as captain - constantly directing other players. He also made some strong challenges to stop Dutch attacks and generally looked a formidable defender. On the down side, as paddycanary said, it seems he played the goalscorers onside for both Dutch goals. Good that both players now have six days off before the Stoke game - they must both have been exhausted. Rare for Idah to play a full 90 minutes +