Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×

Jim Smith

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Jim Smith last won the day on June 28 2019

Jim Smith had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

213 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    Yes, thats what i thought. Keeps it simple I suppose.
  2. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    Sorry that's what I meant Til. Point remains. If the ticket priority groups are based on games attended that season then presumably there is not scope to move between groups during the season as there was with the points system?
  3. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    One query (apologies if this is obvious and i've missed it) are we all now effectively in our allocated category for the whole season given that its based solely on 2017-2018 game attended therefore cannot change? Previously with the points it was updated on a rolling basis so if you went to a lot of games you could effectively move up the ladder as it were. It does not seem that you are able to do that under this system?
  4. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    I think its fair to say the revised system is not perfect but it looks a lot better. The irony is we probably won;t really need it next season other than perhaps for a few games towards the end if we are challenging! I still fundamentally object to having to pay for the privilege of buying away tickets. I also feel sorry for those who have paid out lots of cash for away memberships this season and have been to a few only to find that those away games don;t count. However, I think that the tiered system is much improved, the pricing is fairer and the reforms to the junior canary memberships are particularly pleasing.
  5. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    I guess it depends on how many people they let pick a particular game as their Match Pick. I would assume it won;t be more than about 500 for any particular game so there should still be 1000+ tickets left by the time any sales go to group 3 and at least we are not fighting it out with anyone who has an away membership now.
  6. Jim Smith

    Membership Scheme Revamped

    you will get a ticket for anything you want with that i'm sure. Its better than the position you are in now surely?
  7. Would anyone taking up those shares be subject to the City Code for takeovers GMF? They would obviously be acquiring a share in excess of 50% of the ordinary share capital of they took them all.
  8. How many of those comparable clubs have been promoted 3 times to the premier league in the last decade Nutty but unable to stay there? I would actually accept the argument that last season shows that a rich owner is not necessarily the be all and end all to getting out of the championship. Leeds and Brentford are other decent recent examples of that - they have not spent stupid money under their current regimes either (except maybe Leeds on their coach) but one should get promoted this season.
  9. It was £55 until quite recently. Perhaps it was reassessed on promotion to reflect the prem tv monies and parachute payments that are guaranteed for the next few years! Of course most of us (including the owners obviously) got our shares for much less than that back in the day although i'm not sure I ever even received a share certificate!
  10. I don;t want someone like that either Purple (although i think with FFP you can take a calculated gamble over 3 years as the Brighton owner did). I certainly wouldn't want someone selling and leasing back the ground to distort the figures and try and get around FFP. I am just concerned that we may have missed out on the possibility of a Leicester or Wolves type owner through what i think has been an unwillingness to even entertain the thought of selling. It has indeed been an interesting discussion. I think the only point i remain relatively unclear on is how, in a sale scenario, the proce would be fixed and thus what flexibility there is around that. For example how has that £100 per share value been arrived at and would there be scope for them to sell their shares for a lesser price if they were willing to and (I suppose) if ti were signed off by enough of the remaining shareholders?
  11. Just to be clear though I still believe that even with our current owners we could and should have done more to supplement the squad this season to try and stay up without placing the club at any significant risk. That's my biggest current disappointment.
  12. But is the point not that Tony Bloom had to pay that "to get" Brighton to the premier league. A person buying Norwich from our owners would not have to spend that sort of sum because we are there (for now). Based on the current share valuations they should have to spend between £32m and £61m although I have no diea how the value of £100 per share has been arrived at. Do those who are savvy with these things think that is a realistic value having regard to the accounts/state of the club? I'm not sure anyone is advocating just tearing up completely the model of operating vaguely sustainably even if we did get a much wealthier owner. I'd still want us to focus on the academy and bringing players through plus keep the good scouting network/recruitment going. I think we are just saying that it gives you wriggle room (as well as the ability to make loans/underwrite debt it would probably see increased sponsorship deals and perhaps alleviate the need for spending on infrastructure to eat into the football budget), room for manoevre and a safety blanket that the club currently does not have when we are up at this level. Because of that we have to be ultra cautious.
  13. I think with some of these ultra rich guys its as much a project/vanity project/prestige thing as anything else to be honest. I can;t see that he is in it to make money although obviously that club is now worth a lot more than he paid for it and he does own and can sell that debt and those more versed in the financial world than me will be able to explain how such debts/losses can i think be beneficial in tax terms in a group of companies scenario as they can I think be offset against the profits from other companies. I think that may be what Evans does with the sc*m.
  14. Thanks Purple. Corporate law is a complex web but one further question, do you think the City Code applies if Delia and Michael (or subsequently Tom) voluntarily sold their shares to someone rather than the shares being sold as some sort of takeover bid? From what i can glean the answer appears to be yes but can;t find anything clear on it.