Desert Fox

Nutty, It is my understanding that the original AGM still has to proceed. There will be an immediate motion to adjourn, which will be carried by the majority shareholders. This is why it is during the day - because it is a non-event.

Canary Cherub, I am sure that the LSE loan was rolled over for two years.  If it is a going concern issue, the commercial debt holders of the loan notes may be entitled to repayment or increased interest.

From the club''s statement today: "The football club is also delaying publication of its annual accounts until before the meeting, although they are due for submission to Companies House by the end of this month". Whilst it is good that the club have now communicated the reasons why they are deferring the AGM (why couldnt they have done this in the first place?) I dont buy why the accounts should also be delayed. They are a historic record of the year to 31 May 2008 and the current restructuring of the debt will have no impact on the accounts which will have already been completed. The fact that they do not want to publish the accounts still makea me cynical that there is some bad news in there, which we will be ''buried'' when there is some good news to be published (i.e. the debt being restructured). 

The club has until the end of this month. Even it is late the fine is tiny and often not collected.

Nutty, I am not sure the Captain has his CRB clearance - best play safe.

Canary Cherub, From the inormation provided by Simon above, the accounts may not be delayed as they are due to be filed by the end of this month. The insinuation that the accounts would be delayed was due to me not realising that the new Companies Act has just come in to force and believing that the delay was connected to the deferral of the AGM. If the accounts are published by the due date, this means that there is another reason for the deferred AGM, although it is not clear why.

Canary Purple, If the club are not going to explain to their shareholders what the reason for the deferral is they are hardly going to respond to an anonymous bulletin board poster in cyberspace.

Simon, I stand corrected. In that case we will not have to wait, so long as the club files in time. I am particulalry interested to discover whether Foulger''s mathcing contribution was a gift (as was implied) or whether this has been converted to shares or a loan, I undertsand that the AGM has been put back until 2nd of February following a recent letter issued to shareholders. I also undertsand that no explaination was given for the deferral.

T, I have no idea why it has been pushed back, which is why I have raised my concern. The point that I am trying to make is that the club could eliminate any speculation by publishing its reasons.

Simon, Thanks for the tip off, as the new Companies Act came into force last month, the deadline for filing now appears to be 7 months for a public company unless I ahve misread the attached Companies House guidance  (http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gba3.shtml#two). This means that the club should file (if it wants to avoid a paltry fine of circa £1,000) by the end of December. This makes the reason for deferring the AGM even more curious as the accounts will be in the public domain before the deferred AGM and would seem to rule out an accounting issue for the deferral. However, I am still slightly concerend by the fact that the AGM is scheduled immediately after the January transfer window closes. This may be due to being overly cynical on my part, but this could be easily countered by the club issuing a statement explaining why the AGM has been deferred. If it is an insignificant reason as T is implying above, then they should not worry about explaining their actions.

T, First of all the excuse is that the club dont want our comepitors to see our accounts. Next excuse is a small ado about nothing and now it is that AGM''s are dull. What next? - "accounts are meaningless and shareholders deserve to be kept in the dark" Why do you care so much about trying to dismiss this issue? I repeat, deferring the AGM and publication of the accounts is not normal. There is likely to be a reason for this and the directors do not wish to communicate this to the owners of the club. Something is not right here!!  

T, Glad to see that you come to the rescue as soon as there is an issue that needs to be smothered - someone might think that you used to work for the club. It is much do about nothing, why dont the club simply explain why to avoid any speculation?  

T, I am sure that Leeds and Charlton are not going to lose too much sleep over this, but I bet there are a few mystified shareholders and suppliers to the club who would welcome some explaination as to why the AGM has been deferred. This is not normal.

Simon, I would be highly surprised if the accounst were published at the end of this month. There are two reasons for this: 1. The club has until 10 months after the year end before they legally have to file, and even then, there is only a small fine for being late (see Gordon Ramsey) 2. I undertsood that the AGM has been put back to February and that the intended date for the AGM will be used simply to approve a motion to defer the AGM. As such, I would not expect them to publish the accounts at this meeting. Being cynical, you could suspect that the deferral of the AGM and the accounts may be connected in that there is something not too nice to reveal. I dont like the fact that the revised AGM is after the close of the transfer window. Only time will tell unless any of the better informed posters have any further information.

Canary Cherub, Is there a hint contained within your phrase "scotch mist"?

[quote user="england1966"]was at fulham when mcnally was there, doing well at huddesfield, would he come back??[/quote] Clark left Fulham in 2005 which is when McNally joined - so very liitle crossover between them if any. Putting this to one side, McNally has given enough hints to suggest that it is not Clark.

Personally I would not rule out young hungry managers with experience of promotion - like we had with O''Neill. In this respect, I would be interested to see whether we re looking at either of the Exeter or Brentford managers. I have heard good things from ex-pros about the latter.

[quote user="Barclay_Boy"] [quote user="jammis"]What''s that assumption based on?[/quote] the assumption is base on my opinion, exactly the same as yours is. And by fair price I mean exactly £1. That and a promise by the new investor to clear the clubs debt, and at least provide a transfer kitty without having to go cap in hand to the fans. And therin lies the problem, she won''t walk away and leave her cash behind, can''t afford to put any more in, and can''t attract anymore because who would want to invest with the track record of NCFC under her ownership? Which basically puts us where we are, in slow decline, which only a miracle or administration can get us out of. [/quote] Could Gunn getting us promoted be such a miracle?

[quote user="jimidack"]I did find it a little odd when Alnwick started on tuesday, because now he is cup tied for the rest of the competition if/when he goes back to spurs in 3 months. Maybe he will come in on loan if Theo does prove to be kinda rubbish. [/quote] Alnwick is at least third choice at Spurs behind Gomez and Cudicini

[quote user="IncH_HigH"]What ads? [/quote] The blue hyperlinks at the bottom of the post reply page which are obscuring the post button. Seems to be a problem for IE7 users.

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"] Does seem to be an IE7 problem as it works fine in IE8. Anyone having similar problems on other browsers? [/quote] Pete, I am hoping that you are not going to suggest that everyone should have to switch to IE7 to correct a problem that has been introduced by a chnage that the web team has introduced. Using IE8 hould be a matter of choice. Can you come up with a fix? By the way I am not suggesting that you should remove the adverts but is hugely tiring to have to click back and then reopen the page everytime you want to post.

BBB, If you can red past the typos - my last post was addressed to you. This is truly over and out from me

You are right - perhaps this thread has ran out of steam and migrated away from the original point. As such I will stop posting on this matter for now. However, please do not discriminate those of us that can read a balance sheet as wanabee business analysts. Speaking for myself, I am fan and I care passionately about our club. I am fed up watching us decline, which I believe is largely, but not wholly, due to the way that the club has been managed. This is not about whether Mr Carrow has a camp or is right, its about our current plight - thats why it is such a sore point. Incidentally, if Mr Dennis could at least ackinowledge the existence of these feelings, he would get a much less hard time on this board. Clearly, we will not always agree and I fully recognise the subjectivity of each individuals views - but please dont confuse deep concern about the finances of the club with some kind of cranky agenda as this issue and our on pitch performance are directly, if not wholly, linked. Furthermore, within the wide range of subjects that get posted on this baord, there is plenty of room for a whole range of subjects. I choose to avoid many of the more irrelevent subjects, but fully respect everyone''s right to contribute. What I really dislike is anyone who actively participates in (rather than ignoring) a free discussion and then implies that seemingly implies that people should not be posting. I am sure that this is not what you meant, but you do have the right to ignore the debate if it is not to your liking. Anyway, I have hopefully made my point and it is now over and out from me.

I am sorry mr carra, but not too many genuine fans will be interested in semantics. Last season we made a £3.4M profit on transfers and we got got relgated. It was painfully obvious that we needed a striker all year and looking down the gun barrels of relagation in January we did precisely what? Ah yes, we invested in Chris Killen and took a massive gamble which has probably cost us at least £5M in lost revnue. Is anyone happy about being spun or being in League 1. Clearly not, but why so many posters feel the need to play ''devil''s advocate'' in putting forward the Board''s position is beyond me. The situation stinks and I hope that we are abel to escape this league at the first attempt, as the alternative starts to look like to big a challenge to me.

BBB, Agreed for once