Leaderboard

Always great to write off players before we’ve even seen them kick a ball. Way to go!

This brings back a memory of mine. Many years ago, I was at an orchestra practice in one of the warehouses in King Street that backed on to the river. One of these large boats came past the window. It seemed to take up the whole river, like you could step on it from one side and climb out the other. I had the idea to blow my trombone directly at it, imitating a ship's hooter. I thought it was funny at the time, but it caused mayhem on the ship, people running backwards and forwards looking to see what had made that horrendous noise and what they were going to collide with.....

Boulton and Paul’s Riverside Works 1939, just before it was bombed in the Blitz. The stadium of Norwich City FC can be seen to the right

I do feel a bit sorry for him. I get Southgate has his guys he trusts but in a friendly where we were winning 2-0, un total control and with Colwill and Tomori on the bench there was no reason to bring Maguire on at half time. He's been put in the firing line when it was easily avoidable.

@PurpleCanary An excellent summary. You've set out, in a more eloquent way, the same thoughts I have reached having read through all the documents today. I have very little to add. I will briefly add that, if the club/'independent directors' wanted to provide the shareholders with further factual information they could do so through the prescribed format of the documents shareholders have been sent out. The reason for that prescribed format (in general) is to prevent shareholders being provided with misleading or incomplete information. Arguably the most famous case (albeit under different laws) is the RBS rights issue case where shareholders claimed they were mislead as the bank teetered into the abyss. For what it's worth, these issues are actively litigated and I have personally worked on one myself, albeit in a different jurisdiction. So as @GMF says, the lawyers would likely have kiboshed it. That leads me to the conclusion that this information or Q&A or whatever it was, is likely not factual or legal agreements (i.e. Attanasio has represented X) rather 'intentions' or 'wishes' that are not binding. That would certainly explain the vague promises that the Pink'un Boys were setting out. This leads me to my conclusion on the matter. I, like @shefcanary, trust Attanasio. However, for me that is not enough to vote 'yes' to a proposal that would effectively spell the 100+ year fan ownership of the club I support. Jeff Bezos has spoken about 'regret minimisation' when making decisions. This is a framework I have often used as well. Given that there is, as @PurpleCanary points out, not a great deal at stake if the waiver fails, the possibility of regret from my voting that way is minimal. However, there is a possibility (however remote) that I could come to deeply regret voting for the waiver. For example, if it turns out the club had relevant information it did not pass on, or Attanasio / Delia goes back on 'their word' or that this transaction is the precursor to a third-party owner who I would not like to own the club. Ultimately, I suspect it doesn't really matter.

My thoughts are increasingly that the current board have actually got us into a slightly scary financial position with these loans and arrangements with MA and he effectively has everyone over a barrel. Whilst he may well be a good guy so it all turns out ok in the end once this is voted through, I’m far from convinced that what has been going on is good governance.

@shefcanary - No worries, thank you for having a look at the numbers. I heard the figure from the journalists but couldn't reconcile it from what I had seen so wanted to crack excel out and add it up for myself. @GMF - my 1.55 is a "made up" figure in the sense that if you convert those loans at that FX rate it will sum up to the £33m in the circular. So a lot of big assumptions going on but seems broadly similar to the FX on the loans where we have a USD and GBP value. @nutty nigel - that is so very kind of you and it means an awful lot. Thank you!

Not life size, Rishi is a bit shorter than figure sold.

Glad I could share some information ! Not much of a sad end IMO though. It's still floating and still in use. Unlike the sad demise of the Golden Galleon that was in Yarmouth as a day trip boat after seeing service in WW2 but then sadly ended up being scrapped.

The issue is that if the waiver doesn't pass the club will have to repay twice the principal of the loan in Feb 2024, that is $12m. Bear in mind also that the first £31m repayment of the secured lending on parachute payments is due in March 2024 (assuming it hasn't been refinanced, though I'd question why you refinance loans at 5.75% to those at 11% with the same maturity). That is a significant cash crunch. As I've mentioned before, however you cut it, Attanasio is getting a great deal.

Well i think you have hit nail on head question , Depends how much he pays , if MA buys it cheaply then turn instant profit i agree , but Delia must know round about how much the club is worth why not hand that wealth for family instead of making a Rich American Richer ? if MA Pays a lot of money he would have to invest to make a profit as only get a profit if successful and in PL , Delia & MWJ said she has never wanted to make money out of club but she deserves it more than someone who walks in buys it cheap and sells for a profit ( if that is what he does we do not know yet )

Even though I've blocked Essex, I still keep seeing so much of his incessant whining in other people's quotes. It's a real drag. I think Duncan has summarised the collective thoughts really well. Sadly Essex will never have the self-awareness to be able to act; he is too obsessed with money and getting people's attention. I have long since realised that he is incapable of 'reading the room' or modifying his tiresome anti-club invective, which is why I blocked him. If more of us could bring ourselves to simply ignore him (like the club do nowadays, after the independent football ombudsman told them they had no case to answer and could just let him carry on shouting into the void), he might eventually just go and support Cambridge. Although, sadly, I fear that dividing his time between Cambridge and Norwich would simply offer him two sets of clubs and fans to spread his misery to. What a truly sad, joyless and unfulfilled individual he is.

I suspect that the advice has been that de-facto Delia and Michael are making - and indeed have made - a decision on the very future of the club. It cannot be avoided that Delia and Michael are driving, directing and re-directing this train. So those who accused them of ‘playing with the train set’ ironically, eventually, do have something of a point. It is uncomfortable for them and not what they ever really wanted. However now they have no choice. They are in an invidious position for them. They are also somewhat forced by timing. Delia does also love a new messiah. Someone sniffing around football clubs might have had an algorithmic set of criteria in mind, they might have had fat unrealised equity gain, owned fixed assets, low debt levels, low investment expectations, low leverage as some of the factors on their list (maybe). Delia unfortunately no longer would like another Delia partner, she needs an exit. She wants to believe it’s Attanasio. Americans are buying football clubs. He is only too happy to help. He doesn’t have awful credentials. He’s not a fan. He’s Mr Right Now. Delia and Attanasio have had a period of Internal Due Diligence, though Corporate Finance deals are often long old processes. What looks like decency and patience is actually pretty par for the course when a £43m unrealised equity gain is on hand. Michael Foulger wanted to sell, Delia is waiting, though ‘events, dear boy’ start to make it all a fait accompli. It’s generally about at this point that some little indicators appear. Maybe the U$D non-currency-converted loan is one such? (See previous post). That Delia is throwing her weight, trust and legacy in to this deal is a comfort for some as trust in Delia is high - though it has also lead to a situation whereby a rather imperfect presentation has occurred, with something of the ‘back-me-or-sack me’ moment about it with the vote. Other documents would show the real intention to favour minority shareholders - the crux of Delia discounting her own equity gain - though the advice is I suppose that ‘it’s all on your shoulders anyway Delia, so you are only asking for a technical vote of trust on the waiver, whilst the real vote of trust comes via backing Attanasio to take over (which is already the case and you are already making that choice for 6,800 or all 50,000 fans anyway)’ This is the cold truth of it. The truth - of favouring minority shareholders in due course - will out not far from now, though ultimately Delia is deciding it all. Nature or nurture. Culture or vulture? Mr Right or Mr Right Now. You decide. Or rather you don’t. Parma

Indeed GMF. Unless I have misunderstood that is Carteret saying it is happy with what Smith and Webber have written, and endorsing it to that extent, as opposed to Carteret or a firm unconnected to the club having produced a truly independent report. Crucially, the report bears the names of Smith and Webber rather than Carteret's. As said above, I don't doubt what Smith and Webber have written is factually correct, but in my view it leaves out some points an independent voice would have made.

I'm interested to hear what he has to say. I'm almost certain he's the next manager.

Norwich City Football Club plc Approval for Waivers of Obligations under Rule 9 of the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers and Approval for Issuance and Allotment of New Ordinary Shares and Notice of General Meeting The Independent Directors have confirmed that they are happy with the contents of the final version of the Circular which was forwarded to us on 24 August 2023, and Carteret Group Limited (as the Company’s Financial Advisor) hereby gives its consent to the issue of this Circular and the inclusion of its name in the form and context in which it appears. Above @PurpleCanary is the report from the Independent Directors. Almost certainly factually correct and, no doubt, legally compliant…

Thanks MrBunce. Indeed. Just to clarify, since one poster queried what looked like a contradiction in what I was saying, the club did indeed have the chance to provide shareholders not just with factual information but with factual information in the form of an truly independent analysis/assessment. Instead it was allowed to use two unindependent directors. Again to be clear, I am not suggesting their report was factually wrong. No-one has pointed out any errors. But there can be sins of omission. For example, a truly independent analysis would surely have highlighted this near-Catch-22 situation in terms of voting, resulting in shareholders in the same class being treated unequally. So it is hard to believe a Q&A session - almost certainly the club asking itself the questions it wanted answering - would have remedied this lack of independent information.

Yes. We will.

Dark Knight looking for his torch.

Don't get injured. Don't get injured. Don't get injured.Don't get injured.

Is this an air raid shelter near the tower bottom left area?

I try, but it still sounds a bit like a foghorn........

I really can't imagine every shareholder is going through this incredible amount of detail!

I'd forgotten about that. Small steps and God help anyone trying to walk towards the Barclay!

Every now and then I open this thread, read the obviously very thoughtful posts with lots of important info, stroke my chin and react like this.

@shefcanary and @MrBunce I’m not clear where you’ve picked up your US $ conversion rates, at $1.58 and $1.55 respectively, but, in the context of the wider picture, it’s clearly unhelpful that some of the loans are referred to in $US and others in £GBP. Anyway, in an attempt to distill this down, it seems like there’s four loans outstanding, plus a credit line with a spend limit of £21m, albeit no indication of the extent of the drawdown. This drawdown facility has a maturity date 1/9/23. First Promissory Note, dated 14/12/22, expressed at US$ 2,109,360. No redemption date specified. Second Promissory Note, dated 19/12/22, expressed at US$ 7,692,300. Again, no redemption date stated. Loan Agreement £1,634,700, dated 20/1/23. Maturity date 1/9/23. Interest at 11% (compounded monthly). Loan Agreement £4,862,800, also dated 20/1/23. Maturity date 6/2/23, some 17 days later. This has two repayment options (mentioned in my previous post). Twice the loan amount, or capitalisation for 194,512 ordinary shares at £25.00. This is the Relevant Loan for the purpose of subsequent documents, as others have mentioned. The Senior Unsecured Promissory Note, dated 9/6/23, is expressed in US$ 6,020,146.41, and seems to relate to the Relevant Loan (4 above). This extends the maturity date to the 1/9/23, however, there’s a Relevant Loan Amendment Agreement, dated 21/8/23, extending the maturity date to February 2024, as confirmed by @MrBunce above. The Terms Sheet also confirms that the First Promissory Note, the Second Promissory Note and the Loan Agreement, dated 20/1/23, were due for repayment on 1 September 2023. There’s no clarity on these loan repayments, or the extent of the drawdown on the Credit Line. However, it seems that the self funding mantra, the underlying tenet of D&M’s reign, is well and truly “in the bin”. A parting “gift” from our mountaineering SD, perhaps?

Ah ha. I think my reconciliation was motivated to try and attempt to support Paddy Davitt's comment in his "explainer" on the deal on the table that Attanasio had contributed £70m! I think as Purps has reported elsewhere I may have over thought this. It looks like I have double counted due to different dates being attributable to to the same loans. I can see this more clearly now from the work you have done. My oversight has been that £33,637,200 was made available on 13/9/22 at the time of the first GM, whilst there was then mention of £27,495,500 being made available on 20/1/23, which I took as a completely new loan. From your work I can see that this figure is actually part of the £33,637,200. So, if the waiver is passed, Attanasio will pay out £8m for his 40% of shares, whilst providing loan finance (which may or may not have all been fully drawn) of £39m. Why Davitt has mentioned a figure of £70m I am now further from understanding, but presumably he picked this up during his briefing? If only some interim accounts, or draft year-end financial figures had been provided, my confusion would not have occurred.

Yes. Thus my reference to the 'ultimatum' - if the waiver is not granted, the loan won't be capitalised and therefore the Club will have to pay back £9.7m. Effectively asking 'mom and pop' investors to give up their rights or the club financially suffers. The repayment date was extended as set out in the Relevant Loan Agreement to September 2023 and further in the Amendment to February 2024. Now if you want to really put your tin foil hat on, note that: the Term Sheet makes no reference to the necessity of the Takeover Panel Waiver and in 10(d): "Delia/Michael shall vote in favor of any such shareholder resolution to give full effect to the Proposed Share Issue and, together with the Club, shall use best efforts to procure other shareholders of NCFC vote in favor of the relevant shareholder resolution". Emphasis mine.

I thought he spoke well, clearly ambitious. Mainly working with the defenders and also doing research on upcoming opposition. Hard to say for sure, but he seems to have added to the missing link we may have had last year, in terms of coaching.

The TP have allowed the detail within the Circular as being reviewed by them and to include true statements. I'm going off Purps reservations about the process as well as my own knowledge. More importantly a layman reading the circular would question the naming of Tom as an independent director; there must be a reason why the TP were happy for a family member of one of the parties to be deemed an independent Director and so assume that Delia and Mike must have given assurances to the TP that Tom would not benefit directly from the transaction - being previously publicly named as the main beneficiary of their shares would definitely go against that, so logically the assurance the TP received was that Tom was no longer in line to inherit the shares. This is also borne out by the fact both parties no longer see a trigger event happening, one of those being the question of inheritance of shares forming one of those.

72 with potential of 77

Look, Maguire may be a decent player. There's no doubt he would slot into most midtable teams perfectly. But was he worth 80 million? Is he worth playing in a top six or top three side? No. Is he worth somehow gettig to start almost every match for England? No. Is he the worst player the world has ever seen? No, there are far worse. Fact is hes super low on confidence and Southgate chucking him on at half time presumably for a confidence boost during a heated scotland england match was bizzare and does him no favours If you ask me Maguire would probably be better off making a move, presumably to another country and a new club for a fresh start away from, well; everything that's going on

There goes the old senility again - I stand corrected. It was the QPR match on 27 October 1984.

No he is not and everybody on here no matter what drivel your reply contains is in complete agreement with every single word of the post.

Soooo... How am I filling this here voting form in? (Semi-serious question)

Admit it. You’re Parma’s second account.

Brian,Brian, Reg, Stan, Stan, Brian, Reg, Reg, Brian, Brian's wife (not Kathy) and Stan (maybe, could be Reg.) Window. Brian, Reg, Reg, Brian, Stan and Peter (?).

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

Got sent this today. What a cracker! Don't think I've ever started a thread before. Cherry popped.

Thankfully it's nothing about national anthems. I will tune in and out of it I suspect, whilst the Scot's have probably arranged a public holiday for the match.

I think the majority of England supporters would like an English anthem. It's been discussed at length on this forum in the past. Unfortunately the heir to the throne is the President of the FA and I very much doubt anyone within that organisation would have the guts to bring it up. We should really have an English Parliament as well......

I'm shocked too, but this is the way of the world. Many businesses rip off customers in the way of admin charges but I would expect better from NCFC. This is bad PR for the club and I'm surprised - it's not as if there is any shortage of takers to buy them again. We live in an age of being ripped off, it's been like it for years, but it's getting worse - just look at the way banks fall over themselves to put up interest rates for lenders, but don't do it for savers, which always used to happen. £25 doesn't seem much to some people, but it is a lot if you are struggling to pay bills, which many people are. I'm disgusted, frankly. The club needs to make money, but admin charges are often just another way to make a few quid - and in this case, out of hard up fans.

wasn't it the Jolly Maltsters on the opposite corner?

What is sports washing? I like to categorise the clothes when hanging them out to dry but it's really more of a personal game to me rather than a sport.

Not an unrelated topic to the above.... Daily Mail health guide #1 How to wipe your árse properly We are just one small wipe away...

I’ll hold my hands up and say how wrong I was about Barnes, thought he was just using us as a last payday, but he’s bought his full on attitude with him and looks like he’s been here for years, credit to the guy! Genuine beast with a brilliant attitude which can only help the likes of Sarg and Idah! These are the characters we need not Gilmour who believed in the hype and almost looked as though we should just be thankful he came here to play!