sxcanaree

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="sxcanaree"] Lets go back to the annual report again shall we? Neil Doncaster is the only executive director ie gets a salary. As such his salary is revealed in the accounts and is around the same amount he received as the Chief Executive where his salary was not disclosable. The remaining directors are all non executive so are entitled to charge fees for their services - the total in 2006 and 2007 was nil. There is one director whose company charges a fee for the time that he spends away from the company on Football business which is only £10,000 per annum. So - in addition to the cash investment all the time, energy and effort supplied by Delia has been for free, and don''t even start to think that she has only done it for the publicity as the income "lost" by withdrawing from a lucrative TV career at the time of the cooking boom is immeasurable. By the way old Sheepshanks down the road at Ips**t is still being paid £125K per year for his services - despite running the club into administration! [/quote] Actually not true. It was reported in the EDP last week that Sheepshagger has been stripped of his salary in a recent Poorman road economy drive. Apparantly he still does the same job but no longer recieves any pay. [/quote] He is still overpaid but they are now getting value for money! As stated before I do not see the EDP so if this is true it reveals that the injection of £12m of capital from Marcus Evans and the freedom from making repayments on their original debt has done nothing for Ipswich so the addition of £20m to Norwich''s funds and retaining the debt in place will not be enough for a sustained challenge in order to get in to the premiership.  

OK but why not use his name he is a freelance writer- perhaps he is ashemed of being associated with Archant!      

How is it that the "Man in the stands" is a completely ananymous/shady character who refuses to reveal his identity but Peter Cullum gives him an exclusive? "In an exclusive interview with The Man In The Stands, weekly columnist for the Evening News'' Saturday football paper The Pink ''Un, he also spoke of his fears the club faces another relegation dog-fight without a fresh injection of cash." Whilst the news is good you cannot help feeling that this is yet another dose of Archant Spin. from an "independent" columnist who happens to be a journalist who works for them.  

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] A surplus of income over direct expenses does not necessarily = profit at the bottom line. The accountants can explain it best. I repeat - maybe the restaurants are a concern. What would happen to them if Delia sold out completely, for example. They would probably only remain viable (profitable?) as long as Delia is still part-owner - or at least a ''figurehead''. OTBC   [/quote] But if they are declared as a profit in the report and accounts then they are profitable. If you are making money by doing something then why would you close it down? This thread is a clear example of the number of idiotic posters that have assembled on this board - full of self interest and complete ignorance. - Even when they launch a wild speculation such as this and are presented with the facts which are there for all to see they answer "perhaps the facts are actually wrong"  

Not being local my matchdays are crammed with two hours of travel to Norwich, an hour of non football family business, a swift pint, watch the match, spend thirty minutes trying to get back out of the city and then a two hour drive home - as a consequence my Gunn Club membership has been pretty redundant for the past couple of seasons. But I have colleagues who are not city fans who have visited Norwich and specifically pre-booked meals in a restaurant at Carrow Road because of the Delia branding.

Lets go back to the annual report again shall we? Neil Doncaster is the only executive director ie gets a salary. As such his salary is revealed in the accounts and is around the same amount he received as the Chief Executive where his salary was not disclosable. The remaining directors are all non executive so are entitled to charge fees for their services - the total in 2006 and 2007 was nil. There is one director whose company charges a fee for the time that he spends away from the company on Football business which is only £10,000 per annum. So - in addition to the cash investment all the time, energy and effort supplied by Delia has been for free, and don''t even start to think that she has only done it for the publicity as the income "lost" by withdrawing from a lucrative TV career at the time of the cooking boom is immeasurable. By the way old Sheepshanks down the road at Ips**t is still being paid £125K per year for his services - despite running the club into administration!

[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="sxcanaree"] Profits in the 2007 annual report from catering activities was, I believe, something in the order of £500K. [/quote] Of the approx. £500k, how much came from matchday bar takings ?    [/quote] The £500K was actually £600K on a turnover of £3m - 20% profit. There is no further breakdown however after grants from the FA and league contributions, and Season Ticket sales it was the third highest revenue generator for the club. Catering accounted for 20% of the net profit in 2006 and for 2007 the small profit would have been a substantial loss. Still want to close them down?

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"] Sxcanaree, i haven`t really kept up with this thread but to be honest all this "why did they tell them and not us" smacks of egos and jealosy to me...... I am just posting to comment on the last paragraph of point 3 where you state that Cullum has made no bid for the club and ask "where do the "delia out" brigade think she can sell her shares to".  Cullum has said that he doesn`t "want to buy Delias` shares" but that he wants "a majority stake for the £20m" and that the money is for new players.  The only deal which fits this criteria is the issue of £20m worth of new shares, not a total buy-out of the existing share-holders.  I`m not having a pop, just pointing out that there are other avenues open to getting this funding into the club and that the possibility of compromise is (or "should be"....) there. [/quote] I am not an expert on these things but issuing new shares is not easy: As I understand it from the threads on the solvency or otherwise of the club it appears that the "share value" has to be tied to the net asset value - currently that is £16m - which is where the £30 per share comes in.  There are £1m of unallocated shares and £15m issued. For the capital to be increased to £36m by the addition of new shares the club has to seek shareholder approval - by reason of an EGM which describes why they are doing this and the intention of the action anyone who has shares in HBOS has seen the mountain of paperwork they have issued lately in order to seek new investment. - Theoretically this could be defeated but as the company is controlled by a single joint shareholder therefore if recommended by the board this would go through. Once added to the share capital of the Company the Company can offer these shares to investors but the "value" will be tied to the net asset value and, as the value of players are not included in the accounts, the use of the capital to buy players will decrease the individual share price to half of the price paid (i.e. each share would now be worth £15) so the new investors have to recognise that they are buying something for £30 which is only worth £15 and the existing investors who may have only paid £25 will also lose 40% of the value of their shares. If the £20m is sold to a single investor then as £20m/£36m is more than 30% of the share capital then they have to make an offer to buy 100% so financing needs to be available to cover the possibility that you have to buy an additional £15m of shares. If any investor is serious about investment then there will be ways of doing this by nominee shareholdings and the like and because of the way Towergate has grown Peter Cullum should either know or employ people that know the way to do this so the ball is well and truly in his court over this. The point I was making is that until there is an offer all there is is spin and Archant are perpetuating this.  

Profits in the 2007 annual report from catering activities was, I believe, something in the order of £500K. I cannot understand why people keep popping off at the "off field" activities of the club - they ensure that the ground is not simply used during the Season for Footballing activity and during the close season for the odd rock concert (but not too late or too loud) but is a revenue generating part of the club. I assume these detractors would prefer that the ground is simply mothballed in the close season and acts as a drain on the clubs finances?    

In response to the three respondents to my earlier posting: Mark Y - Yes any price sensitive information should be made available but only as and when relevant. The point I am making is that when price sensitive data is released it has to be made available to all at the same time and if there was any information of this nature revealed to the SCG we should respect that it would have been provided on a confidential basis and not insist they reveal it. Especially to their mate who happens to be writing a column for the local rag! I am sure if you were to ask HBOS as a shareholder for details of how their current rights issue is progressing the Board would tell you exactly how well the take-up is progressing! There are some things that they have to reveal others that they choose to reveal and others that they choose not to - it is a business after all I agree entirely that there is too much personalisation going on here - It is for the Board to decide whether an offer is in the best interests of all stakeholders in the business or not. If the Board make a bad decision the shareholders have the right to question this at any general meeting. If the Board decide to take up a cash injection for shares they will have to obtain the agreement of the shareholders but until they have something to present they are not compelled to say anything. Completely separate from this is the issue of whether Delia/MWJ have had an acceptable offer to buy their stake in the club and this matter is entirely a private transaction between individuals and is none of anyone else''s business. To Fans Eye who is the author of the article I would comment: Point 1 - I appreciate your article is a personal opinion however whilst I do not live in Norfolk I was there yesterday and saw the paper itself - How often is your comment given a front page splash on the paper? The Front page implies that your article is full of news and not a personal view. How often does the paper devote a full page to your article? If the answer to these questions is "this is the first time" Archant have taken you for a fool to fuel the fans of their own fire and if you do not have the eye for that then I am sorry for you. Point 2 - It may be a story in Norfolk but outside of the Archant empire it has raised less than an eyebrow - the facts on which the story are based consist of a poorly reported interview and a "statement" - no cold hard facts. The only reason why the story is being perpetuated is because of Archants message boards nothing else. Point 3 - I only used the previous and subsequent paragraphs to highlight that someone (I assume that you do not title your articles yourself) decided that the banner for this piece should come from the 24 words that I have copied - if you had intended the article to be about investment there would probably have been more content than this - you make no comment about where this investment could come from, nor do you speculate as to the outcome if we do not get this investment. This paragraph was worthy of an article in itself but does not fit in with the remainder of the article which is an opinion of what happened last season and issues with Glenn Roeder going forward. I would hazard a guess that the sub-editor who checked your article did not reveal the full extent of his knowledge to you - he could even have lied and used you as a pawn in this sorry affair. Now to Citizen Journalist Foghorn - Dear Pot, if you read my article I make no comment over the veracity of the two paragraphs in question, just that they do not connect to the one in the middle - you need the continuity in the story and this does not flow. For your information I do not claim that the existing status quo should remain and yes I do see things in black and white - The information to date shows that Peter Cullum has not made a bid for the club - Until he does Delia has no-one to sell her shares to. So where do the "Delia Out" brigade think she can sell her shares to?   Regarding point 2 "What is wrong with telling the fans about the secret meeting with the SCG where these elite fans were told stuff the rest of us are not allowed to know?  The club never told us of this meeting and I am very pleased he did tell us." I think that others have covered most of this before - but to call the meeting "secret" is laughable it was openly discussed on here and Wrath of the Barclay on Monday - so I would be careful if I were you those opaque glasses may just be a bit too strong.    

[quote user="Mark .Y."] There have been many postings on the legal requirements and caveats that the board have to meet as a PLC but I don''t think I have ever heard of the situation whereby the board of a company issues information in a private gathering to a group of people who may or may not be shareholders but does not keep the vast majority of shareholders informed. [/quote] I''ve just looked at the one and only statement issued by the Board - it does not say that they will be revealing more to the SCG nor does it mention the meeting. I would guess that the meeting on Tuesday was not cobbled together as a reaction to Archant''s manipulation of "public opinion" but had been arranged some time in advance. As explained by Trev above the club staff gave as much as they knew regarding the Peter Cullum offer and the Board''s reaction and as many whingers on here have stated as they are "not a representative body" one can assume that personal opinions were proffered in response. Having berated everyone else for conjecture I am now going to add my own, my current employers operate a policy of transparency and have a "council" where the senior management discuss the direction they want to take the company and the challenges they face in doing this. Whilst the minutes are recorded there are often points where the managers may go "off piste" and provide personal insight on the blockers to some of the changes which are not to be minuted nor repeated outside the meeting. The individuals at the meeting are trusted not to reveal that part of the meeting but are able to challenge and discuss the points. It is accepted that from the point that any one of the council members repeats that data that level of transparency will disappear and the meeting will revert to discussing the colour of the coffee cups and whether the drinks machine should sell Coke or Pepsi - my guess is that the SCG was established for the latter but has grown to encompass some of the former and we should respect that position. As to whether the SCG is representative I do not think that that is relevant - if the prime puropse is to discuss the bells and whistles that make NCFC the "football club of choice" then it needs to be selective in its membership as it needs to encompass fans who utilise the peripheral services and not the man with the loudest voice. We have to remember that despite the shares not being listed they are a tradeable commodity and with 32% of them in the hands of other investors the club are not allowed to release price sensitive data which would include any new investment, loan re-structure etc. as even though there is a limited market for the shares they are traded at the price that the individual investor wishes to sell for. So my message is back off! If the SCG know anything on a confidential nature respect that confidentiality. There is obviously "something" going on and try as they might Archant cannot find it so they are spinning their one interview and email from Peter Cullum as much as they can. On Saturday "Fans eye view" takes up a whole page in the newspaper and contains not a single fact and what is more intriguing is how this quote from this "Fan" from his article of 23rd June   fits in with the rest of the article which is a review of our season and the player recruited to date:. "We''re still well below par and there needs to be a substantial investment if we are to avoid another grim season next time around." There is no mention of finance before or after this point yet the title of the article is "Investment needed to avoid repeat season"  beforehand the "fan" is praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams! Perhaps this "fan" spent a week "tapping his nose, winking and dropping hints that they know more than most of us do" whilst Archant planned how far and how much they were going to spin this non story.  

The lights in Towergate''s office in Fenchurch Street (London) - circle with green, claret and blue. - No yellow! - So that''s a failure to tick that particular box!    

Just highlighting the speculation expressed as fact in West London''s article...(not criticising but illustrating my point) If it''s true that the Board will only speak to PC if he makes a formal offer for Delia''s and Michaels shares in the club then that too is just ridiculas, they don''t know exactly what Petter Cullum is prepared to offer this time round untill they atleast speak with him, I see no reason as to why he should have to make an offer for Delia''s and Michael''s shares just to start any kind of discussions with the Norwich Board, it''s nonsense. The fact of the matter is Peter Cullum has offered the board to begin talks with him to see if they can come to some kind of a deal, and the Board should be well aware of the ever increaseing pressure they are becoming under since the story first came out, and they are only makeing things worse for themself by refuseing to even talk to Peter Cullum. I don''t normally slate Delia and Co like some people on here do but untill I hear some kind of reasonable explanation (that I don''t see coming) then I along with others can only question their tactics here. How do you know? Your key and best point is "they don''t know exactly what Petter Cullum is prepared to offer this time round"  Until he makes an offer there is no point in sitting round a table cos you need something to discuss - not "What''s in todays paper?"

[quote user="colneycanary"]Sorry sturgeon220 but your talking rubbish. As someone already said when someone has expressed interest in your business you at the very least arrange a meeting to discuss all the options. Our board should be bending over backwards to get more investment and not trying to scare it off. The way our board is reacting is pathetic![/quote] How do you know how the board are reacting? The article says that Peter Cullum has spoken to Andrew Turner and are saying make a formal offer and we will talk. The Board have put out publically how much finance you would have to have available if yo want control and put £20m in to the club - all that Peter Cullum''s statement says is "I''ve got £20m can we talk next week?" If he were saying I could re-finance the loans (bank and Directors) and put £20m if we can agree on a price and what control means then there is something to talk about but he isn''t saying that.

[quote user="West_London_Canary"] This whole saga just get''s thicker and thicker http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=NewsSplash&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=News&itemid=NOED03%20Jul%202008%2020%3A53%3A02%3A453 Cullum Quote: “I''m surprised and at a loss as to why the Norwich City board has not accepted my offer to sit down with them next week to progress this matter further. My offer of investment was focused on buying new players to give Norwich City a fighting chance of returning to the Premiership." “This was a potential lifeline for the club coupled with a great opportunity to be a contender for next season. The alternative is the prospect of another season fighting against relegation to the First Division. With the new season just around the corner, it''s vitally important that we conclude this matter soon for the sake of the manager and fans who deserve better in general.”   What on earth are the board playing at, I can not see any reason as to why the Norwich board don''t want to sit down and talk to Peter Cullum about his potential investment. I understand that the last time he spoke to Delia back in October, herself and the rest of the Norwich Board deemed his offer as unacceptable, but that''s no reason to refuse to meet up with him now and see if they can arrange a deal. If this is true then the Board are only putting more pressure on themself by refuseing to talk to the very man who could be the key to a strong promotion bid next season. Sort it out Delia!!! Your thoughts...   [/quote] Cullum Quote is in "a statement" - not an interview - As he has only made contact with a board member and not made any sort of formal approach why would the board want to sit down with him? How about the following quotes from the EDP article: "City chiefs remained unwilling to speak publicly about the increasingly complex saga last night - but the EDP understands no discussions will be held with him until he makes a formal offer for Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones'' shares." It is only increasingly complex because the EDP says so. "The news of the growing impasse will be met with disbelief by tens of thousands of City fans who had seen the “Cullum cash” as the only real chance of getting the shot in the arm needed to challenge in today''s mega bucks football world." Tens of thousands eh? Who do they think we are? Some of us live in the real world. All of them are pretty shrewd financial managers are they? And £20m will be enough to get us out of the Championship next Season? There are no other options available? All complete and utter speculative tosh! "They are asking: “Where else is the money going to come from?”" Admittedly I am not in Norwich to hear the question being asked but for this question to be raised there is a need for the amount involved to be taken as a given that it is required. And there needs to be a back up for this statement. My reading of the message boards other than the wrath of the barclay which has remained sane is not "where else is the money coming from" but "this man is god why won''t you simply stand aside and let him take over" a totally different question.- At the moment one of the people not publically asking this question is Glenn Roeder - so if he is happy with the cash he has available then so should the fans be. Message boards have been flooded with hundreds of postings since the EDP broke the news of Mr Cullum and almost 90pc of fans have voted on an EDP24 poll to get him involved with the club. Now to take the "tens of thousand to its lowest possible number of two (20,000) and taking 90% of that we get 18,000 so 20,000 fans have voted on the EDP poll and 18,000 want him involved with the club? I would think not. 90% of the votes (and if you are quoting facts you need to advise the sample size) have indicated "involvement" - this is not 90% want him to have control. As an excercise in Spin Archant have done very well on an interview and an email - even by drip feeding the story onto the net the day before and then blocking the Internet until 9.00am to create a speculative splash on the net - note this story was available on the net at 6.00am Cue up another day of idle ignorant stabbing of the board ignoring totally the key and probably only truthful paragraph in the "report" "City chiefs remained unwilling to speak publicly about the increasingly complex saga last night - but the EDP understands no discussions will be held with him until he makes a formal offer for Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones'' shares." The EDP has not been able to make contact with the board but they have not made any public statement so we are spinning this as much as we can. We understand that they are saying put up or shut up. Peter Cullum has not put up merely "had a friendly arm wrestle" in october last year which he obviously lost and is not prepared to increase his offer. The rest is all SPIN.      

By matter of interest the 32.7% shareholder in Watford who is selling his shares Lord Ashcroft is a Norwich boy (went to the proper Norwich School not the Cows National S***house like Cullum). Perhaps the reason why he is selling is so that he can invest in Norwich! After all he ticks all of the Archant boxes and whats more he has the experience of investing in a club down on their luck, riding through the goodtimes and walking away as the going gets tough! Surprised thta Smudger and First Wizard haven''t already called for Delia to do a share swap![:D]

ARCHANT Spin Warning - "Industry sources" = bloke in the pub

Lets knock these ducks down one by one... "Exclusive: The Moment of Truth" As a headline for an ex director''s view of a formula to negotiate a settlement - no moment or truth in it just speculation of a collection of "what ifs" Two days of "stand-offs" for a stand off there has to be a confrontation - all that has happened is that there has been intensive press speculation over an unsubstantiated and badly reported set of discussions between the club and a suitor who has only revealed that he would want control and the club have simply published the factual detail of how much it would cost to take control. The clubs statement is not even from the Directors nor does it state that the individuals concerned will be doing or not doing any of the actions listed. "both club officials and Mr Cullum went to ground yesterday" - means "we have nothing to report" so we''ve wheeled out someone else to put in his two penn''orth "City fans have called for both parties to sit down and thrash out some kind of a deal" - would those City fans be Smudger, First Wizard and anyone else who hates the current board? There are others who believes that Archants intervention is the biggest hindrance of any kind of a deal as they are simply spinning everything they can. All credit to Barry Skipper by stating that - This is what I think but not to Archant for reporting it as if it is a commandment from God. "Fair value for the shares" - yes agreement can be made to sell at any price but as the £30 figure was agreed by resolution at the Shareholders meeting the shares that are not allotted by the club can only be sold for a lower figure once shareholder approval is received so without that approval you are stuck at £30 for those shares and as you have to offer to buy at the same price by default the "fair price" is also £30. The point re the securitised loan is fair - the club have only stated that these are the rules not that the debt cannot be rearranged/sustained by a continued arrangement with the lender - just the rules are that it has to be repaid. I would take issue with "no reason to roll over these loans as well" to "with a persuasive argument it would be possible to" Then we are into fantasy land - to buy the shares from the club without shareholder approval would be £1m. If you want to keep the other directors loans they will not sell their shareholding in the club and simply let you play with the loan without having some say in the running of the club so this is a fantasy. Buying the balance of the shares - "many have only 100 shares" so do most of the board who you have just told to sell! "Could safely calculate" - he still has to have the potential to reach 100% covered in his bid - he cannot make a bid without proving he has a worst case scenario covered. "because we supporters held back the board can negotiate his offer up to £25m" - sorry but Archant''s story is £20m for players - buying the club would be expected to be in addition not part of the £20m. "One third of the club is owned by supporters at the moment" - sorry but MWJ is first and foremost a fan and Delia by conversion also... Now for the EDP article - (if I can stop it spinning) "The facts behind the Canary money talk" This article has been provided with the help of "financial experts" - not named but speculative. "If, as has been indicated, Mr Cullum wanted his £20m investment to be converted into shares, an extraordinary meeting of shareholders would have to be called to seek their approval to issue them." Where other than Archant has it been indicated? "All of this taken at face value appears to add up. But, with industry sources suggesting the shares are actually worth between £10 and 15, the price to Mr Cullum could be between £5m to £8m." - Where are these "industry sources" - which industry would that be? The well known "Source close to Towergate" could be the man drinking in "the Old Tea Warehouse" pub round the corner from the office. The worth of the shares is only the price that the individual is prepared to sell them at and at the AGM it was agreed that the club can only sell for £30. "The rationale behind the lower valuation of shares is that the value of Championship clubs is tumbling because of falling equity and property prices. There are also suggestions the value of City''s fixed assets is less than the overall debt, raising the question of whether the club could technically be insolvent." That must be one hell of a tumble in equity prices - last years annual report valued the fixed assets at £37.7m with the net debt at £20m - Pure idle speculation - the value of Championship clubs is rising as the potential return on equity on promotion to the premiership for even one year could give a 500% return on an investment of £20m. "But it is doubtful whether a man valued at £1.7bn would have the same problem getting a loan as us mere mortals". so Peter Cullum is immortal is he? After all these are FACTS. "All of the loans have clauses stating that they must be settled if City''s ownership changes hands. But it is understood Mr Cullum intends that the directors'' loans would stay in place." It is not his choice - as above if someone takes away your ball why do would you leave the goalposts for them to play with. I just wish that Archant would stop spinning this non story and let the parties involved move at their own speed - this will either happen or not and no amount ofd sensationalist speculation from Archant will make it happen any quicker - in fact it probably has a detrimental effect on the progress of any discussions.      

SPIN SPIN SPIN - One "spokesman" (the telephonist at reception) and two "fans" =  1 headline article. It''s just Archant SPIN  

Smuger wrote: A short term blip??? Have we or have we not just had 3 seasons of utter **** with in most peoples minds the promise of another one yet to come? If Delia & Co stay in control this coming season will make the last 3 look like a fairytale. Anybody who stands by the current board members is obviously more a Delia fan than a fan of NCFC. Smuger, I do not know how many seasons of utter **** Ipswich have had in a row, being an ardent fan of theirs you could perhaps enlighten us. - As you are a well known armchair fan I''m not sure on what basis you make this judgement - seeing a game live as 20,000 Season Ticket holders do every week gives them the right to call the games, second hand reviews of Chris Goreham''s commentary do not!  

Timeline probably goes like this Football Club falls out with local Journos over poor reporting of targets and negative reaction to recent decisions of manager. There is "something" going on at the club and local Journos cannot find out what it is. Peter Cullum gives interview to Independent on business philosophy and training/education issues that contains throw away line about his favourite football team which is different from his stance last year. Principal shareholder speaks a bit too freely in an interview hinting at investment. Local Journo thinks its Peter Cullum. Local journo arranges interview to discuss "local boy dun good" type article with Peter Cullum and in interview discovers that there was and is an informal offer on the table. Editor decides to concentrate on the Football side of the interview in paper and develops interest by revealing teasers the day before. Editor requests comment from Club majority shareholder without revealing content of article to get negative response. Article is released and stooges encouraged to respond in anti club way - adding extra Spin. Because there is "something" going on at the club the responses have been formal and carefully worded - they and Peter Cullum have to comply with stock market rules if there is a formal bid and there are timelines that are triggered if anything goes public. Peter Cullum has not commented any more than the one interview so he is probably not the "something" going on and is therefore not that interested in a hostile bid - his deal (if there is one) is probably a "take it or leave it"  offer. There is no available follow up from Peter Cullum or the club which leaves Archant with a problem of how to close the story.    

[quote user="Webbo118"]No reasonable person would expect to know everything but I would most certainly expect to be made aware of a potentially major event such as the one under discussion where a fundamental change in the business could well be the result which, in turn, could produce a significant change in investments made. I believe that if we were a PLC there would be a legal obligation for such a proposal to be revealed. I can''t help feeling that the lack of information/communication shows what the true feelings are towards the minority shareholders.   [/quote] Good point - I think if  there is a formal approach to buy the club then as a Plc they have to reveal it to the public but "a friendly arm wrestle over the value of the club" is not a formal approach. All that Peter Cullum has been quoted as saying is that he has £20m available for a player budget should he gain control - not that he has made a bid and been rebuffed by the club. Everything else is just Spin.

Sorry the club statement is not an invitation to treat but a statement of facts: If you want to put £20m in the club and become the majority shareholder you have to find ways of financing £56m - despite the fancy footwork you still have £33m-£40m to find as you have to be able to fund a 100% take up of your offer - even if you can close on 60%. It would appear that Peter Cullum did not want to raise the cash in October and Archant have twisted an innocent conversation into an all out bid for ownership.  The article makes it clear that there is no disharmony here other than over price. If I want to buy something and the stalling point is the price I talk to the vendor to see if there is another opportunity by changing my bid - the opportunity is there for Peter Cullum to do that. We should all  be checking our callenders to see if it is April 1st - This whole debacle is simply journalistic spin and twaddle!  

[quote user="Fat Prophet"] From 2007 Annual Report: As at 31.05.07 D&M owned 327,309 Ordinary shares and 3,025 ''B'' Preference shares.  No ''A'' Preference shares. At that date Ordinary shares were valued at £25 each and their holding was therefore worth £8,182,725 At the 2007 AGM the value of ordinary shares was raised to £30 each ie. 20% increase, so their shares became worth £9,819,270.  (It is worth noting that this increase was voted through after PC made his "informal" offer in October.) When the Preference shares were issued in 2002 they cost £100 each.  No further Preference shares have been issued since then so I assume the valuation remains the same. [8-|]   [/quote] From the 2007 copy of the annual report however as I understand it Delia and Michael Wynn Jones own 61.2% of the issued share capital, the Turners 1%, Mike Foulger 3.5% and the fans own a substantial proportion of the remainder. Should anyone  wish to obtain a majority shareholding but leave Delia as the figurehead this would mean a need to leave them with a substantial shareholding which would need to be in the range of 25-29% which would enable them to regain control if things went awry by reason of a takeover bid. Peter Cullum is not asking to be the major shareholder but the majority shareholder  ie 50% plus one share - 60% - 50% does not leave 25% so there would be a need either for more shares to be issued (which cannot be achieved without agreement from the majority of shareholders) or someone from outside the directors group selling their shares. The 2007 report also stated something along the lines of the Turners £2m loan to the club was repayable immediately if Delia/MWJ ceased to be the majority shareholders in the club. Bearing in mind that there is no reason for a fire-sale here, - The club is a well run and respected business, it may flirt in the lower reaches of the Championship however there is no reason to suggest that last years position was anything more than a blip and whilst promotion to the premiership will not arrive, relegation may be equally remote - there is no reason to suggest that the owndership of 50% of the shares should be secured for any price less than the £30 "value" which was agreed at the AGM [with the benefit of hindsight I would guess that this would be Delia winning the arm wrestle] So with 535,235 alloted shares (plus 0.5 to give majority)50% = 267,618 = £8,028,540 [which would be paid to whoever already owns the shares] And if the available shares are 33,333 allowed to be created are triggered to allow the Jones''s to retain 25% - 50% of these need to be purchased too - 16,667 = £500,000 to the club. Plus repaying the Turner''s £2m Total outlay to gain majority share £10,528,540 - This is if Delia/MWJ agree to reduce to 10-15% shareholding - extra if they go for "All or Nothing" and does not take into account any preference shares (£3m value) or loans that they may want re-paid as a result of the reduction of their role or any incentive to walk away quietly. Say £17.5m for cash. Whilst I appreciate that Peter Cullum ticks all the relevant boxes to be an investor in the club and I have no reason to doubt or challenge his intent - he is and remains a businessman first and foremost and has not built Towergate by being the nice guy in business transactions so I would guess that the offer in the "Arm Wrestle" would probably be around half that for Delia/MWJ shareholding and Turner''s loan. I know that we are dealing with the heart rather than the head in all of the posts on this issue but ultimately the cash for players is only a short term fix - £20m will not be enough this season. Reading, Birmingham, Watford, Derby, QPR, Wolves and Ipsh*** have their war chests for the coming Season in place - only three clubs can be promoted and at least two of those are buying it next year. No-one knows what the majic formula is - the reality is that the actual cost of buying a majority shareholding may make this too expensive for Peter Cullum and the capital offered could be too little to secure anything more than administration in a few years when the gloss wears off. I believe that ultimately there will be a compromise here - with Peter Cullum having nailed his flag to the mast there will need to be a response - it may be a similar solution to what has happened down the road, where the Plc sells 75% of the Football club to a new investor and the Plc retains ownership of all the non football assets - (stadium, training facilities, catering etc) but the Footballing side itself is majority owned by the investor [down the road they have no non footballing assets] - I do not know exactly how these things work but I think there is some kind of cross sharing agreement whereby the "Football Club" would own a significant part of the Plc - say 30% which gives sufficient leverage for the two businesses revenues to be consolidated... I''m sure someone will know this is bollox but I work in insurance so what do I know about running a football club (oops!) Lets see what tomorrow brings!

"Can you name one example of a gang of ''fanatical PC people'' (as you call them) beating up a person simply on the basis that they have different racial or cultural origins." You are twisting the point here - too often there is a zeal* for words to be censored because of the fear of offence when those who are being protected will quite happily use the words to describe themselves. I want the rich tapestry of the English language back - One of my Mothers favourite phrases was "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" an adage that the PC brigade could do well to adopt. It comes to something when the film of one of the greatest actions in the second world war is PC edited because the name of the jet black labrador dog that is used as a code word for success is now not acceptable - the word applied to the colour before it was applied to humans - the dog is a key part of the story as is his grave which is still tended to this day. Getting back to the original subject Mr Singh is a crap referee - Period Mr Singh was crap when he refereed the game against Charlton where, if you watch the highlights you can see that at the point of the second penalty his body langauge and behaviour clearly show that he is feeling intimidated and has lost the plot. I believe that it is at this point that he decides that if Dion does anything at all later in the game he will send him off - which is done some two minutes later for an innocuous foul. I think since then Mr Singh has watched the replay of the Charlton game and decided that he may have been too strict hence the reason why he "saw no evil"** for the whole of Saturdays game.  For me the worst part of his display came near the end where a goal kick had been awarded and Marshall was waiting for the players to leave the area before taking the kick and he signalled that Marsh should hurry up and not timewaste...the delay was about 2 seconds...Fozzy gave him a lecture for it though! This is nothing to do with his religion or ethnic origin its his behaviour on the pitch. PC statements *I apologize to any Zealots who are reading this I have no desire to belittle or demean your culture and values - its just that the word is part of the English langauge and I do not wish to offend. **also just in case there are any any devil worshippers reading this, I am not stating that evil is necessarily wrong just that it is part of a phrase that is available within the lexicon.