sxcanaree

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?[:)]  

[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!

Surely it has been sponsored... (a)Viva! by Bond!

[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.

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.  

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!

[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.  

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?

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.

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.

[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.  

[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.

[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.

[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

  Its in white as you want thinks in black and white!

[quote user="Snakepit boys"]It just comes across to me that the DEBT puts them in a position which them impossible to remove at a realistic price. They just want money for nothing in return bar a seat in the directors box, or in simple terms a very expensive season ticket! They are expecting Cullum to bail them out in the transfer window because they cant afford to and appealing to his nature as a fan to give them funds out of sympathy! Our only hope is that Mr Cullum is in such angry despair at the state the club is in, that he goes away raises the funds necessary and then buys them out lock stock and barrel. Leaving them to walk away in shame. He will be a true saviour of the club if he does this, otherwise, I see nothing ahead except a football club which is realistically not a fair purchase and  heading towards being a nice family run  League 1 club with  10,000 season ticket holders. Little old Norwich "Prudence with ambition" Maybe as a smaller club we will come across as more of a little country restaurant to come and visit???   [/quote] What utter drivel! The Board are not expecting Peter Cullum to bail them out - he is after a takeover on the cheap - buying £36m of assets for £20m which you retain as cash in the business. Peter Cullum = Dick Turpin. "raises the funds necessary and then buys them out lock stock and barrel. Leaving them to walk away in shame. " Legally to get control he has to do this, and he knows it but does not want to do it. I know it is difficult to see anything when your head is stuck up your own backside but surely you have at least understood some of the things that have been said.  

[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? 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.

Have cut down article to FACTS only for the average Pinkun reader:  Put in Black and white for all to see! Call to trust board after talks collapse STEVE DOWNES 12 July 2008 Norwich City''s fans were last night urged to put their trust in Delia Smith and the other board members after being left devastated by the collapse of talks over a £20m takeover. Hopes of billionaire Peter Cullum financing a tilt at the top flight were dashed when the club and the wealthy businessman issued a joint statement saying talks had been “terminated with immediate effect”. But, with some fans beginning to turn on joint majority shareholders Delia and her husband Michael Wynn Jones for a perceived lack of ambition, City chief executive Neil Doncaster strongly defended the couple. He said: “Delia and Michael have only the very best interests of the club at heart and I hope sincerely that the supporters will understand how much they''ve tried to do to bring new cash into the club.” Mr Doncaster added that all of the board had worked “tirelessly” to construct a deal with Mr Cullum, and said: “All of the board want only the very best for the club and its marvellous supporters, and will continue to welcome and actively seek new investment to give Glenn Roeder and his coaching staff the best possible chance of competing at the right end of the division this season.” The comments came as the EDP discovered new details about the stop-start negotiations, which broke off in October when Mr Cullum first indicated he wanted to put in £20m to buy new players and assume control of the club. It is understood that Mr Cullum never made a formal offer to the board, but did indicate that he wanted his £20m to buy complete control - and without that control he would not put in a penny. The proposal did not change throughout Thursday''s brief and fruitless talks. It is understood the board attempted to explore a number of alternative ways forward for Mr Cullum, including simple investment and ways of purchasing control while still having £20m to give to Glenn Roeder for players. But all of the avenues would have meant the executive chairman of Towergate having to find more millions to buy shares and pay off club debts. One of the big stumbling blocks is the £15m debt. While Mr Cullum was confident he could simply renegotiate the deal and take it on, it is believed that Axa, which financed £12m of the total sum, would insist on complete repayment of its share at any change of club ownership. Sources close to the club said there was “no way” Mr Cullum would be able to buy Norwich City for £20m. The saga hit the headlines last week when the EDP exclusively revealed that Mr Cullum had made his October offer, and that he wanted to reopen talks. He said he wanted Delia to remain as an “icon and figurehead” and was keen to have a supporter and his own representatives on the board. Britain''s 40th richest man was initially ruled offside by the board, which said his £20m would have to be topped up to at least £56m to buy up the shares at £30 each, settle the debts and pay off directors'' loans. Mr Cullum disputed the figures and, after a few days of claim and counter claim, the EDP revealed that City''s main sponsor Norwich Union had brokered a new round of talks in an effort to end the impasse. Now the impasse appears permanent after dialogue broke down again. The EDP tried to contact Mr Cullum with a series of questions about the latest twist in the tale, but he refused to comment. Among the questions asked were: 1. Why did the talks break down? 2. Did you improve the £20m offer? How? 3. If not, why not? 4. The fans see a man with a lot of money. They may ask why you didn''t simply come up with what it takes to control the club and move it forward? So why not? 5. Were any strings attached to your offer(s)? 6. Will you come back at a later date? 7. Will you still attend NCFC home matches when possible? 8. Are you prepared to give some money as a gift to buy players? How much? When? 9. How do you feel about the way things ended? I have put the last section in italics as you can ask whatever question you like when you do not get a response - What did you have for lunch? Why is the sky blue? and what colour are your underpants today would have received the same response. With the utmost of respect, if Archant had asked these questions before releasing their day one spin then we would not be in this positions with Morons calling for Delia to quit without having an alternative available. Still no doubt this board will resemble moron central again today.

Ok - my name''s Peter Cullum - I''ll give you a fiver for your fighting fund for those 7 shares. - you will not mind losing the £175 that they cost you will you?

[quote user="Loan City Fc "]Whatever the offer was it was better than the nothing Smith has to offer , what was the poll in the edp 85.5 % wanted Cullum , Smith and her coonies didnt , they are probably creaming off  to much money to want out . [/quote] Sorry the Poll in the EDP was not "Delia and her coonies out" [sic] but should Peter Cullum be allowed to invest in the club. As such it was virtually impossible for anyone to vote No because then they were saying that nobody should be allowed to invest in the club. It is impossible to "creaming off  to much money to want out" when you are a director of a Plc as your income is subject to public scrutiny and if you are found out to be doing so you end up in jail for fraud. (just ask one of Peter Cullum''s entrepreneurial Insurance contemporaries Michael Bright of Independent Insurance on that point) Delia Smith does not have to offer anything - as the club have said today if the story was as negligently presented by Archant in all their waffle "£20m for players" then Peter Cullum would have been welcomed with open arms but that story was rubbish. Indeed I have heard from a source close to the Towergate Offices (Pete) that the opportunity was there to buy the 29.9% shareholding at £30 per share (this would not give control nor trigger the need to buy 100% of the club and pay off the debts). This would have still allowed £15m to have been injected for players and leave Delia and MWJ as the largest shareholders (with 32%) but this was not taken up. Mind you the source was my mate in the Old Tea Warehouse Pub round the corner from the office this Lunchtime and neither of us works for Towergate but there is enough content in that paragraph for others to take it as fact - and that unfortunately is the scariest fact of the last week.  

[quote user="Lol Morgan"] What a pathetic argument. I can''t play football as well as Andy Hughes, but that doesn''t stop me from seeing he is a crap footballer. Slowly - sadly very slowly - people will realise the dopey old girl has lost the plot, assisted by hangers on and losers like Doncaster, Munby and Mr and Mrs Debtbuster. League One within two seasons under the current regime. Fact. [/quote] What an ignorant response - confusing Fact with Prediction. How much have you invested in the club yourself then - and by investment I do not mean buying tickets or merchandise from the club - I mean contributing cold hard cash without prospect of any investment return? How much are you willing to invest now?        

Oops that will teach me to review before posting - hurrying through the last paragraph - repeated in English for the pedants... Still it keeps the whinging doom-mongers here happy. The title of this piece is very apt "When will you lot learn that Archant''s prime aim is to sell newspapers and not run a football club?" There are never more than about 10 people viewing this site whenever I log on so it is hardly representative is it! Even the famous EDP Poll with 90% (since reduced to 86%) wanting change despite an ambiguously worded question only had just under 2300 votes - under 10% of the Season Ticket community?

From the publically available information from Peter Cullum he wanted to put £20m in for players without buying out any of the existing shareholders and ghet a 2/3 share of the club in exchange. This would have involved a lengthy process whereby the existing shareholders would have to agree to the issue of  1m new shares at £20 each - ie devalue everyone who purchased shares in the club after the ITV digital debacle and in the offer to raise funds for players shareholding by 20% of the purchase price. Whilst I did not expect a return on my investment in the club at that time I certainly did not expect that i would be asked to effectively donate this proportion of my hard earned cash to a billionaire businessman who wants a new toy. As is stated in the JOINT statement there is no legal basis on which this can happen (and Peter Cullum being the pac-man of acquisitions should have the people who can bend the rules to breaking point) then it is actually the board who have been vindicated here - Peter Cullum''s offer was speculative in the extreme and not worth the spin that Archant gave it. Archant had the opportunity to act as an honest broker between PC and the board and get the full story of the offer and the reasons why it was doomed to fail from day one but chose to sell papers and villify the board. Still it keeps the whinging doom-mongers here happy. The title of this piece is very apt "When will you lot learn thatn Archant''s prime aim is to sell nerwspapers and not run a football club?" there are never more than about 10 people viewing this site when I log on so it is hardly representative is it! Even the famous EDP Poll with 90% (since reduced to 86%) wanting change destite an amiguously worded question only had just under 2300 votes - under 10% of the Season ticket community?    

If you are so sure of Ipswich''s success why don''t you go off and follow them. Because Evans has bought debt as well as assets failure will make his investment pay just as well as he is able to manipulate the debt within his internal figures to reduce his corporate tax bill - and if the other bills get too high he can simply do a Ken Bates and sell the club back to himself at an enormous profit. "As for the long term debt, who cares, as long as it is getting paid off like a mortgage. Delia aint gonna pay it off, The Turners aren''t gonna pay it off.  Why should Cullum?" - OK you are happy with expenditure of over £1m per annum to service the debt? I am not saying that the debt should be paid off just that Ipswich''s benefactor has "loaned" them £5m at 5% interest as a debt to repay. "As for realistic chance of promotion, IMO they have a realistic chance of Top 6". Whoohoo - a chance that in the lottery of the playoffs they might just beat Wolves/Reading/Birmingham/Palace/QPR/Watford over two legs to lose to Derby in the playoff final - as at today every club in the Division realistically has that chance. "Btw just so you don''t fool yourself mate, Hull and Stoke invested money these last couple of seasons - where are they now?" Odds on favourites to beat Derby''s appalling record in the premiership next Season?

I would guess having an "economy drive" where the chairman loses his salaried position would mean that belts are being tightened. The analogy I am making is that the panacea of £12m for players has still left our neighbours struggling for cash and their debt is now all "group debt" so they are not servicing a commercial loan as part of their operational costs. In the scraps of information released today Peter Cullum has stated that he would renegotiate the loans that are in place rather than re-pay them so the costs of servicing the existing debt will remain in place at Carrow Road even if he does take over the club. I appreciate that £20m is more than nothing but I still question whether for the 2008 season this will do anything more than achieve mid table - there are too many clubs out there with much bigger fighting funds available to them who will be buying the promotion places in 2008 and this is why I believe that Ips**t are tightening their belts now because they cannot see a realistic chance of promotion this season.