Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. A good story but I would question part of your sage''s thinking - a good deputy does not necessarily make the leap into being the best in the top job. There are several well known assistant managers within football who are extremely well respected for their abilities/skills/leadership who recognise this and have stayed in that position - the best example is Terry McDermott at Newcastle although with green and yellow specs Mark Bowen, Ian Crook and Mike Phelan all seem to fall into that category. I also believe that from the way that Glenn is tackling the role at Norwich he has learnt from what has happened in his previous clubs and the "second season crisis" will not happen here.  Perhaps the Sage could consider the position that the management/leadership at Norwich were in at the time of his appointment - having waited too long to ask a man with no more ideas to move on they had had their fingers burnt by experimenting with an untried number 2 who was at least honourable enough to know that it had failed. At this stage the Board needed a manager rather than a leader - and an experienced, disciplinarian not afraid to speak his mind at that to build empathy with the fans. To that extent Glenn fitted the bill perfectly. The reason why the Sage and his company exists is because Leaders have to learn to manage (as they tend to have a dream but no knowledge/interest in the detail) and Managers need to know how to lead (as they have a plan but no interest in inspiring/driving the team) and there is a need for balance. To this extent what I have seen so far in the two home games this season we now have that balance. The team is not built around one/two prima donnas any more and the approach of the management with Glenn only on the touchline in the second half works as it allows fresh ideas to be injected and plans B, C and D to be developed if needed. At the moment we have no heroes but they will emerge - Hux made an instant impact and I think the latest players will slowly win the confidence of the fans and become legends in their own right and that too helps develop the team. I appreciate the sage was simply in conversation rather than analysis but I think that the club is getting there - if he is paid "thousands" for his services he will be worth loadsamoney - perhaps he has a spare £1.5m that he can loan for a live management experiment?[:)]  
  2. [quote user="fleckmatic"]Is the "Delia considers future" and "for sale'' speculation or do they know something? [/quote] No its just the usual Archant Spin on half a story - taking a negative view of everything and "this could" open the door for Peter Cullum but "Last night there was no comment from Mr Cullum" - it does not even say that they made any attempt to contact him let alone look for a "source close to Towergate" - perhaps they couldn''t stump up the cash for another expensive rail trip to London to sup ale in "The Pump House" (the pub opposite his offices) whilst making up this drivel!
  3. Surely it has been sponsored... (a)Viva! by Bond!
  4. [quote user="TIL 1010"] SXCANAREE i find it interesting that you think we have different classes of shareholder based on how many shares you hold. Ordinary shares give you one "hand in the air"vote at the AGM whether you have 100 or 1000 shares and preference B shares which pay a dividend do not give you voting rights. I hope you were not involved in The Northern Rock debacle with views like that.The poor old pensioners who lost their life savings not having the same say as the financial fat cats who had more invested did not seem right to me but hey ho [/quote] Nope I know that the "Associate Directors" were created from those members who dug deeply into their pockets in the 2003 share offer and received the title and other benefits for this investment. As such I would guess that their full details including contact numbers are readily available to the club whereas a traditional inherited shareholder is simply a name and address on the register. I do not know the make up of the share portfolio so can accept that there may be others with higher numbers of shares but it would simply be impossible to pull all of them together at short notice. - I used the phrase "second tier" to denote that these guys had "bought" the honour of being called an Associate Director which in most industries implies you are one step down from being a Director not that they had any special voting rights. As to Northern Rock - Fantastic analogy - As far as I am aware the only people who have lost money in the northern Rock example are the shareholders who had invested in the company (most simply by being in the right place in the right time and getting shares for free or speculators who bought in late at a very low price) - they too have had a benign investor (in this case the Government) step in and agree to balance the books so that the paying customer does not suffer because all the savers are getting their money back and all mortgage deals are being honoured. But the cost is that the owners of the business have no recompense for their time and effort in building up the business. Quite rightly you think that that is unfair. Looks similar to the situation at NCFC if you ask me. Only you swap the "rash management with other peoples money" to "prudent management with your own money" because there is no need for a sale other than to boost the speculation on promotion. Peter Cullum could easily be philanphropic and throw £10m at Norwich City without any return (he has just donated this amount to the Cass Business School) but chose not to and insist on ownership for nothing. I would guess that we will never know if and what other options were put on the table but those that have been floated to date by the pro Cullum Wizzard and chips brigade do not stand up to the simplest of examination.
  5. The Associate Directors would be those most exposed to a takeover - From memory their £25K bought them 1000 shares as well as interest on half the cash - ie each owns at least 0.2% of the club - 6% in total. As a collective they would need to be informed ahead of those of us who have far less of an shareholding and with the club having the ability to contact effectively the second tier of its owners by gathering 30 people together in a room it is eminently sensible and well worth keeping in the loop and is sound business practice. Especially as some people are advocating that these "longstanding fans who came to the club''s aid when cash was needed." should also hand over their shareholding to Peter Cullum for free. I would guess that if there are any other individual shareholders who have a significant percentage ownership they too will have been sounded out for their opinion.  
  6. Utter tosh and Archant Spin. Comment on the "behaviour" of the club - note this is from an anonymous hack: "But the impression I get is that Cullum has been chased out of Norfolk, with the Stowmarket Two and Neil Doncaster gloriously waving their pitch-forks behind him. Now, before I get shot down for daring to question the judgement of Ayatollah Delia, let me restate that I would still choose them over Cullum, as things stand. But what is clear is that there is an almost unhealthy fundamentalism that surrounds the Stowmarket Two, which brands anyone an infidel for questioning their judgement. One of their supporters, an experienced national sports journalist, even said he did not need to speak to Peter Cullum to know whether he was right for Norwich, because Delia would instinctively work out what''s best for the club. Holy moly! This is the woman, and board, who appointed Bryan Hamilton and Peter Grant…everyone makes mistakes, it is not being disloyal or ungrateful to question the actions of our current regime, even though they don''t take criticism very well. They may think they are always acting in the “best interests of the football club”; but we have a duty to question that sometimes. " Then has the gall to say "And to this end, a certain amount of mud has been slung Cullum''s way since the talks were “officially” cancelled - miraculously emerging on message-boards and in reports." And the first part is not raking out an industrial size muckspreader? have you such rose tinted glasses on that you cannot see the amount of balderdash and piffle that has been slung around by the "Peter Cullum is god brigade" If you are a journalist who has the ear of Peter Cullum get us some facts will you - as you have had an interview with Peter Cullum surely you can at least follow it up! Just admit is you are upset because another "national journo" has been credited with your scoop!
  7. [quote user="CaptnCanary"][quote user="T"] Yes the total assets less the current liabilites are actually 38m at 31 may last year per the accounts so yes after you deduct the debt and other items you get 16m of net assets.Most of the value comes from the freehold value of land and buildings of 34m. [/quote] Hmm I suspect that figure of 34m is dropping rapidly in the current housing market [/quote] You may not have noticed but the assets are a football stadium, training facilities and other associated functions - I have not got the accounts to hand but I think you will find that the Property is amortised (ie counted) at cost value rather than market value therefore the value will be pretty constant. The remainder of the "debt" i think you will find relates to pre payments on Season tickets (20,000 x £300 = £6m) aand other short term creditors included in the accounts which are covered by similarly liquid assets. The fact of the matter is that the offer on the table was a sum of £0 for control of the club. Basically Cullum is reported as effectively saying I will willingly pay to have your car filled up with petrol - on the proviso that when it is full it will become my car.  
  8. So why didn''t you put the £56m figure in your article? The £20m figure is quoted but not the £36m valuation of the club. I appreciate you''ve got to sell your article but couldn''t it have been a bit more balanced?
  9. Feel big now do we? Don''t think the article presents your message or campaign in a positive light nor reflects well on the NCFC community at large. But then you lot have never let the facts get in your way anyway.
  10. CaptnCanary wrote the following : How do you arrive at £36m of assets? I make £16m of shares minus £20m of debt = -£4m So £20m cash for a company with £4m negative equity dont sound too bad does it? The Assets of the club are £36m - effectively covered by £20m of securitised debt and £16m in shares. The problem is that to buy the shares you do not pay the club you pay the shareholders and this is what it is alleged Peter Cullum was not prepared to do.
  11. [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="sxcanaree"] [quote user="Mister Chops"] It should have read: “Delia and Michael have only the very best interests of themselves at heart." Their "best efforts to bring in cash" have been - The Turners.  £2m.  Well done. No other club will ever have a true supporter and billionaire knock on its door and treat him so crappily.  It beggars belief. [/quote] And you have brought in precisely how much? [/quote] That''s a constructive line of argument.  Why, how much have you put in?  Could your dad beat up my dad?  Grow up, saddo. [quote user="sxcanaree"] I cannot see how you call presenting the facts to a businessman and then the businessman admitting that he does not want to pay that much as "crappily" - if he wants control it costs £36m and anything above status quo costs more - Peter Cullum was not prepared to pay that - end of. Archant spun a massive web out of absolutely nothing. [/quote] Um... First they didn''t want to talk... and released a passive-aggressive £56m statement then Aviva brokered talks That''s the "treated crappily" bit, Einstein. And shall we start on Delia''s quotes about investment and how they want money in the club and aren''t interested in their own cash?  Well well well.. Try again. [/quote] To answer point 1 - am a shareholder in the club and as such would not want to have to surrender my shares because someone cannot agree to take a smaller stake than a "controlling one" and the offer of new shares would dilute the value of the ones I have purchased. The club needs cash the Smiths have obtained £2m from the Turners - at no point has it been said that the Smith shareholding is the stumbling block - it is that to take control it is "all or nothing" and if all accept then the £20m cash will disappear. The task is to find an investor who wishes to put money in without going above the 29% threshold for a full takeover - if you''re so clever you find them. Point 2 - I don''t think that they did not want to talk but the onus was on the bidder to pick up the phone. The staement was amongst all the tosh a simple statement of facts but don''t let that get in the way of your fiction - who knows who brokered the talks and whether it actually got to the bit about the price of Delais shares as the price she sells at will be the price that all will be offered - I''m sure the small shareholders would be happy with 50p a share that you are advocating.  
  12. [quote user="Blainsey"] I cant read the font in white. Sorry but i cant help but feel we have been given a raw deal here. Therefore I must be from moron central. Didnt realise my BA (hons), PGCE (exon) and MA qualified me as a moron though. [/quote] Either a) find the article on the EDP site b) read the item marked "humble pie" c) or highlight the entire article in this posting and the words will be visible. obviously that does qualify you.
  13. [quote user="Blainsey"] I cant read the font in white. Sorry but i cant help but feel we have been given a raw deal here. Therefore I must be from moron central. Didnt realise my BA (hons), PGCE (exon) and MA qualified me as a moron though. [/quote] Either a) find the article on the EDP site b) read the item marked "humble pie" c) or highlight the entire article in this posting and the words will be visible. obviously that does qualify you.
  14. [quote user="Mister Chops"][quote user="sxcanaree"] Still no doubt this board will resemble moron central again today. [/quote] (A) I like how you confuse "facts" with "quotes from Neil Doncaster". (B) Your editing is subjective, not factual. (C) We''ve been saying for years that this board is moron central. (D) Yes, I know. [/quote] (A) I am not citing the quote itself as fact merely the fact that Neil Doncaster said it which is a different thing. (B) Possibly but the subjective points are factual - eg "some fans" are saying x is a fact - whether x is true or not is subjective. this is why the talks were fruitless is a fact but that they were brief is not as there is no information on the length of times the discussions took. (C) and (D) res ipsa loquita
  • Create New...