canary cherub

My nap this week is from the Croatian league Hajduk Split  v  Hrvatski Dragovoljac  (home with) Very best of luck Statto and all you PUPs [Y]  

[quote user="nutty nigel"] I think we could get used to it in time. But I don''t think my computer will. It doesn''t like it and it doesn''t run smoothly on it. I have the same problem with some other sites. Is anybody else experiencing this?   [/quote]   Agree 100% nutty.  I can get used to the layout, but the old site was a smooth ride while this is like an old banger.   

My selection this week is from the Bulgarian league Lokomotiv Sofia  v  Vidima-Rakovski  (home win) Very best of luck Trent and all you PUPs [<:o)]  

[quote user="morty"][quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"].......on Tuesday vs Palace. Remember we have Scots in the team and managing the side and it will be a stupid thing to do because it will just sound like we have an attitude to Burley and his race.[/quote] I think we should sing it, its all about Burley, and not about Scots in general. [/quote] That''s a copout, the word "Scottish" is used as an insult. I''m with Rude Old on this one but don''t hold out much hope of success.  

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="CharlieFarlie"] Schizophrenic? Born again Christian ?   Surprisingly complementary interview and even funny, very unexpected.   What’s happened to you Neil?. Are you trying to win over the 3200 city fans invading Loftus road Saturday or is this preparation for loosing your unbeaten record.       [/quote] No great change. Warnock has always been an interesting interviewee, and I''ve never understood the antagonism towards him. Anyway, the best bit of the interview is this: Warnock said: “In general I enjoy Norwich. I nearly took over once. I wasn’t offered it. I had the interview but obviously I wasn’t good enough. It was funny. I remember one of the old guys on the board asking me, ‘Do you think your style of football would go down well with the Norwich fans?’ and I just took a deep breath, looked around the table and said, ‘What do you mean, winning? Yeah, I think they’d enjoy winning games.'' I thought there and then, ‘Well, I haven’t got the job this time’. They didn’t ring me back.” I wonder who the "old guy" was... [/quote] I wonder who got the job instead . . .  

[quote user="YankeeCanary"] So, now Cherub confirms her real interest on this thread: "Purple, when Cullum came on the scene the club had already been making a profit season after season!  In 2004/5 we made £9.1m (where the hell did that go??) and £750,000 to £3m for four or five seasons before and after that, mostly based on profits from selling players. We weren''t a loss making club despite what Doncaster would have had us believe.  So (in those pre-credit crunch times) it wasn''t exactly rocket science to suggest that this pattern could continue. All that was really needed was to restore the balance between football-related and non football-related expenditure, which is what his cash injection was designed to do.  I agree that he said he wasn''t going to keep putting money in, but that was because he didn''t want people to think he was like Abramovitch who keeps piling money into Chelsea so that they can make a huge loss every season and get away with it.  I thought he was making it clear he wasn''t going to be a sugar daddy, and a good thing too." Even the least intelligent amongst us knows that the business of football, particularly as it is conducted in the UK, is not a profitable one. That doesn''t stop Cherub from pulling a couple of numbers out in isolation in yet another attempt to denigrate NCFC owners. This subject, including the Peter Cullum matter has been done to death. Regarding Cullums'' interest, there was no "cash injection", there was a promise of a cash injection in exchange for control of the club. Those that owned the club said "No thanks." End of story. Let it go Cherub. You can take this animosity with you to the  grave and it will change nothing. NCFC is doing okay at the moment. Do you remember your past input ( repeated several times ), that you would be content if Norwich City were challenging in the top six of the Championship. Well? [/quote] Yankee, where is the animosity in venturing to suggest that the balance between football and non-football expenditure was out of whack?  If you consider it so, you''re the one with the problem.   As for moving on, I suggest you have a word with Purple.  He''s the one who brings up the subject of Peter Cullum on every conceivable occasion.  He stated an opinion as if it were fact and I challenged him on it, that''s all.  

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"] [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]The difference is that Liverpool along with only Arsenal, Spurs and Man U are the only football clubs that are a viable financial investment so what is happening at Liverpool has no relevance to NCFC.[/quote] The question raised by this thread was whether a club (and particularly one that owes a big percentage of its debt to a bank) can find the bankers imposing their will over a possible takeover, irrespective of what the owners want. More specifically could Norwich, which owes most of its debt to banks, find itself subject to these Liverpool-style undertakings. That has got nothing to do with the size and viability of a club. There is at the least a possible relevance here between events at Liverpool and our club, although it is admittedly only a slim possibility. [/quote]   The commercial reality is that the situation is entirely different. Liverpool is a fiancially viable business and by that I mean able to generate returns for its owners from its operations and therefore it makes sense to sell the business on the open market as you will find potential buyers willing to pay for the business if it is struggling to pay its debt. Norwich like nearly every other football club is effectively a non-profit making business which does not make any return for its shareholders so there would be no open market buyers for the business as you may as well let the business go into administation and buy it from the administrators for a much reduced price. The banks know this and the buyers know this so whilst your scenario is ttheoretically correct in the real business world it does not happen. The other person that knows this is your old friend PC which is why he never offered the owners anything for their shares and the deal never happened as he is thinking why pay the shareholders something for the shareholders when the club could potentially go into administration  leaving nothing to pay to the shareholders and a very reduced return to the banks. This is exactly why the banks rolled the NCFC and interest over. The business has no value on the open market and if you let it go into administration they also make a substantial loss. Much better to keep the club ticking over and wait to get your money back when the land is eventually sold. [/quote] 3. Some people do buy football clubs in the hope (hope, mind) that they will make money. And that was indeed the aim of Peter Cullum. But most would-be buyers are not that naive. For many such people football clubs are trophy assets and commercial reality, as you describe, is not the main factor in their cvalculations. [/quote] Oh go on then, I''ll bite . . . EVIDENCE PLEASE   [/quote] Cherub, it was late and I was rushing through that post to make several points. What, to be precise, I should have said was that Peter Cullum''s business plan was that after a very few seasons the club would at the very least break even and ideally (probably?) make a profit. Evidence for that? He said it himself. He said in public that after his initial investment he would not keep on putting money in. And I know that what he was saying in public he was also saying in private. That can only mean that in his mind he would not need to, because the club would at the least have stopped losing money. Unless, of course, his business plan involved driving the club further into debt and into administration. But that would be a rather strange business plan for a lifelong fan who''d invested £20m in the club. [/quote] Purple, when Cullum came on the scene the club had already been making a profit season after season!  In 2004/5 we made £9.1m (where the hell did that go??) and £750,000 to £3m for four or five seasons before and after that, mostly based on profits from selling players. We weren''t a loss making club despite what Doncaster would have had us believe.  So (in those pre-credit crunch times) it wasn''t exactly rocket science to suggest that this pattern could continue. All that was really needed was to restore the balance between football-related and non football-related expenditure, which is what his cash injection was designed to do.  I agree that he said he wasn''t going to keep putting money in, but that was because he didn''t want people to think he was like Abramovitch who keeps piling money into Chelsea so that they can make a huge loss every season and get away with it.  I thought he was making it clear he wasn''t going to be a sugar daddy, and a good thing too.  

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"] [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="T"]The difference is that Liverpool along with only Arsenal, Spurs and Man U are the only football clubs that are a viable financial investment so what is happening at Liverpool has no relevance to NCFC.[/quote] The question raised by this thread was whether a club (and particularly one that owes a big percentage of its debt to a bank) can find the bankers imposing their will over a possible takeover, irrespective of what the owners want. More specifically could Norwich, which owes most of its debt to banks, find itself subject to these Liverpool-style undertakings. That has got nothing to do with the size and viability of a club. There is at the least a possible relevance here between events at Liverpool and our club, although it is admittedly only a slim possibility. [/quote]   The commercial reality is that the situation is entirely different. Liverpool is a fiancially viable business and by that I mean able to generate returns for its owners from its operations and therefore it makes sense to sell the business on the open market as you will find potential buyers willing to pay for the business if it is struggling to pay its debt. Norwich like nearly every other football club is effectively a non-profit making business which does not make any return for its shareholders so there would be no open market buyers for the business as you may as well let the business go into administation and buy it from the administrators for a much reduced price. The banks know this and the buyers know this so whilst your scenario is ttheoretically correct in the real business world it does not happen. The other person that knows this is your old friend PC which is why he never offered the owners anything for their shares and the deal never happened as he is thinking why pay the shareholders something for the shareholders when the club could potentially go into administration  leaving nothing to pay to the shareholders and a very reduced return to the banks. This is exactly why the banks rolled the NCFC and interest over. The business has no value on the open market and if you let it go into administration they also make a substantial loss. Much better to keep the club ticking over and wait to get your money back when the land is eventually sold. [/quote] 3. Some people do buy football clubs in the hope (hope, mind) that they will make money. And that was indeed the aim of Peter Cullum. But most would-be buyers are not that naive. For many such people football clubs are trophy assets and commercial reality, as you describe, is not the main factor in their cvalculations. [/quote] Oh go on then, I''ll bite . . . EVIDENCE PLEASE  

PS.  It seems that the third bidder is Mill Financial, a hedge fund which in effect controls Gillette''s 50% stake in Liverpool because he''s defaulted on the loan he took out with them to buy the club.  I think I''m losing the will to live . . . [:|]  

Oh my gawd, apparently there''s THREE bids not two [:O] - the other one is from an organisation called Mill Holdings or some such [8-)]  afaik the court hasn''t explicitly told them to accept the US bid rather than one of the others, but it''s difficult to be sure without seeing the precise wording of the judgement.  The Liverpool board is due to meet at 8pm to finalise the sale, with H&G participating via a video link from the US.  Now modern technology is a wonderful thing, but if they can''t even be bothered to turn up in person . . . [:S]  

A trip to Russia for me this week Zenit St Petersburg  v  Amkar Perm  (home win) very best of luck Meth and all you PUPs [*]  

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "] Any chance of getting this thread back on topic?   [/quote] OK Sportsdesk Cherub...   [/quote] lol [:)] Told you so, I''ve just heard the 5pm news and it HAS changed - or, more than likely, I didn''t understand it properly in the first place [:$]  It now appears the court has NOT decided which bid should be accepted - only that the club can, in principle, be sold without the consent of the owners.  I must say that''s what I would have expected - it''s not the court''s place to decide which bid to accept.  

Any chance of getting this thread back on topic? Well it appears that there were two court cases not one - the first one on Monday where RBS got an injunction to stop H&G changing the composition of the Liverpool board, and the second one today where a decision was made on the sale of the club over the heads of the owners.  In the interim, a billionaire from Singapore popped up with what looked on the surface to be a better offer.  Now a Liverpool supporting acquaintance of mine tells me that said Singapore billionaire owns a chain of Manchester United themed sports bars in the Far East so he wasn''t at all keen, understandably so.  It also raises legitimate concerns about a potential conflict of interests.  Anyway, it now appears that the Singapore offer has been rejected and the American one accepted.  Mind you, it''s been at least 10 minutes since I checked the latest news so it could all have changed by now . . .  I trust that''s clear  [8-)]  

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "] I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple. On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)?    [/quote] Cherub, this is what Broughton has said: "When I took the role they gave A COUPLE [my emphasis] of written undertakings to Royal Bank of Scotland - that I was the only person entitled to change the board and that they would take no action to frustrate any reasonable sale," Broughton said. I assume by "take no action to frustrate a reasonable sale" he means vote against as shareholders, irrespective of what the board might recommend. And this is what I mean about a judge having to decide who owns Liverpool. A judge is going to have to decide (assuming H&G gave that second undertaking) whether the US proposal is reasonable. Would we want that with Norwich? [/quote] Thanks Purple.  My interpretation the second undertaking is, given that H&G have agreed to the first undertaking about changing the board, they will take no other action to frustrate a reasonable sale.  I''m still unclear whether the second undertaking is the subject of the court case or only the first, but my understanding is that H&G (mostly H it seems) have applied to the court to get the first undertaking overturned so that they can bring their own people onto the board.   This action would clearly be designed to frustrate a sale, but I think it''s very unlikely that a judge would be called upon to decide whether this particular sale (or indeed any other) is "reasonable".  I expect the adjudication to be confined to the first undertaking - which presumably overrides the club''s constitution.  So which takes precedence, the undertaking or the constitution?  As posted above, I suspect that the main reason H&G have gone to court is to play for time - hoping that either the new buyers will pull out, or that if a decision has not been made by 15th October RBS will blink and extend the loan yet again instead of calling it in.  If in the meantime the first undertaking is upheld, no doubt they will apply for leave to appeal thus wasting even more time . . .  

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="GMF"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="GMF"] Broughton was brought in by the Bank to give credabilty to the whole sale process and, as part of his requirements, he insisted on signed legal undertakings from the owners that they would sell if a reasonable bid was received. The present fall out seems to be centred on differences in opinion as to what RBS and the owners think is "reasonable" hence the reason why it''s going to the High Court to be settled. [/quote] GMF, that is the fascinating - and perhaps worrying - point. The High Court is not being asked to judge a point of law, but to make a subjective judgment on who should own a football club, based on some vague notion of reasonableness. [/quote] Not really Purple, it would depend on the detail contained within the undertakings signed. From what I can gather, Broughton thinks H&G are wasting their times, but it''s the last throw of the dice by two desperate men! [/quote] As I understand it, the court case is not to do with who owns the club.  When Broughton took over as chairman, he demanded (and was given) a written undertaking that the composition of the board could not be changed without his consent.  This was to prevent H&G blocking a potential sale that might be in the club''s best interests but not their own, by filling the boardroom with their own people. Last week H&G attempted to change the board by removing the CEO and commercial director and replacing them with two of their own people (Hicks''s son is one of them, I believe).  Now they''ve gone to court to challenge the undertaking given to Broughton.  That''s what the court has to decide - whether the undertaking given to Broughton holds water, ie. whether it takes precedence over the wishes of the club''s owners.  If it does then H&G can be outvoted by the existing board and the sale can go ahead.  If it doesn''t then H&G can block the sale by changing the composition of the board. Next Friday (15th) Liverpool are due to repay the RBS loan in full.  If the sale goes through this week they''ll have the money, if it doesn''t they won''t.  Administration looks like the only other option - unless RBS blink and agree to extend the loan yet again.  I think that''s what H&G are ''banking'' on, so to speak.    [/quote] Cherub, unless I have misunderstood the situation, it IS to do with who owns the club. There are (assuming what Broughton says is true) TWO undertakings at issue. The first, as you say, is whether Hicks and Gillett could change the make-up of the board. You''re right that the aim was to prevent Hicks and Gillett going back to a position where they controlled the board. The second undertaking - and the one that really matters -  is whether, irrespective of the make-up of the board, Hicks and Gillett AS MAJORITY SHAREHOLDERS can stand in the way of a reasonable offer. The point is that the board, whatever its make-up, can only recommend to shareholders to accept or reject an offer. Broughton is saying he was given an undertaking by the duo that they would not use their shareholder majority to reject a reasonable offer if one came along. [/quote] I wasn''t aware that it went any further than the issue of the first undertaking, but you may be right Purple. On a slightly different tack, do you think Liverpool (and by implication Man U who are also leveraged up to the hilt) are too big to fail?  Can the banks afford to let them go into admin, or will they have to go on extending the debt until the market in football clubs improves (if it ever does)?   

PS.  Are Liverpool "too big to fail"?  Can RBS afford to let the club go into admin, or do they owe so much that RBS will have to "bail them out" in effect, by extending the loan repayment date once again?  How ironic would that be - a bailed out bank bailing out a customer [:S]  

[quote user="GMF"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="GMF"] Broughton was brought in by the Bank to give credabilty to the whole sale process and, as part of his requirements, he insisted on signed legal undertakings from the owners that they would sell if a reasonable bid was received. The present fall out seems to be centred on differences in opinion as to what RBS and the owners think is "reasonable" hence the reason why it''s going to the High Court to be settled. [/quote] GMF, that is the fascinating - and perhaps worrying - point. The High Court is not being asked to judge a point of law, but to make a subjective judgment on who should own a football club, based on some vague notion of reasonableness. [/quote] Not really Purple, it would depend on the detail contained within the undertakings signed. From what I can gather, Broughton thinks H&G are wasting their times, but it''s the last throw of the dice by two desperate men! [/quote] As I understand it, the court case is not to do with who owns the club.  When Broughton took over as chairman, he demanded (and was given) a written undertaking that the composition of the board could not be changed without his consent.  This was to prevent H&G blocking a potential sale that might be in the club''s best interests but not their own, by filling the boardroom with their own people. Last week H&G attempted to change the board by removing the CEO and commercial director and replacing them with two of their own people (Hicks''s son is one of them, I believe).  Now they''ve gone to court to challenge the undertaking given to Broughton.  That''s what the court has to decide - whether the undertaking given to Broughton holds water, ie. whether it takes precedence over the wishes of the club''s owners.  If it does then H&G can be outvoted by the existing board and the sale can go ahead.  If it doesn''t then H&G can block the sale by changing the composition of the board. Next Friday (15th) Liverpool are due to repay the RBS loan in full.  If the sale goes through this week they''ll have the money, if it doesn''t they won''t.  Administration looks like the only other option - unless RBS blink and agree to extend the loan yet again.  I think that''s what H&G are ''banking'' on, so to speak.   

[quote user="canary cherub "] I seriously thought of shutting my eyes and picking at random, but instead I shall "boldly go" into the unknown once again Denmark Division 1 (division 2 in other words) Vestsjaelland  v  Hvidovre  (home win) Very best of luck Sparkos and all you PUPs [*] [/quote] That was tough Sparkos - a tremendous effort in a really difficult week. Vestsjaelland won 3-0!  They sound like my sort of club - play at a stadium called Slagelse, and all their players seem to be called Jesper except for the goalkeeper whose name is Mads (I kid you not) [:D]  

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Charles"] No further than 18 City players past or present playing in League One today. Not a bad line up for this level either!! Joe Lewis Jon Otsemobor, Micky Spillane, Gary Doherty, Rhoys Wiggins Lee Croft, Owain Tudor - Jones,  Matt Gill, Luke Chadwick Alan Lee, David Mooney Subs: Archibald-Henville, Omusuzi, Jimmy Smith, Jason Jarrett, Jamie Cureton, Ryan Jarvis, Ian Henderson [/quote] Not forgetting Tom Adeyemi who scored for Bradford today [Y]   [/quote] That''s League 2 but you know what I mean . . .  

[quote user="Charles"] No further than 18 City players past or present playing in League One today. Not a bad line up for this level either!! Joe Lewis Jon Otsemobor, Micky Spillane, Gary Doherty, Rhoys Wiggins Lee Croft, Owain Tudor - Jones,  Matt Gill, Luke Chadwick Alan Lee, David Mooney Subs: Archibald-Henville, Omusuzi, Jimmy Smith, Jason Jarrett, Jamie Cureton, Ryan Jarvis, Ian Henderson [/quote] Not forgetting Tom Adeyemi who scored for Bradford today [Y]  

[quote user="El Choppo"]Doc got the assist for the 91st minute Charlton equaliser. [/quote] He was also at fault for the Plymouth goal . . . some things never change [;)]  

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="norfolkbroadslim"] Senegal vs Mauritius - home win   Good luck everyone[:)][Y] [/quote] [:O] For f*cks sake, what is this? National Anus Day! [/quote] It must be if you''re here . . . [;)]  

[quote user="YankeeCanary"] The initial thread from Yellow Hammer described the situation that is occurring at Liverpool, a club that is having all sorts of difficulties both off and on the pitch currently. Yellow Hammer then quite reasonably floats the notion that if any ruling goes against Hicks and Gillett it could have future repercussions up and down the land. Is it really necessary for the usual suspects to engage in speculation about what occurred with Norwich City 18 months ago, speculation that has already been done to death on numerous threads in the past. Norwich City are doing okay at the moment. Even you, Cherub, have said your expectation of Norwich punching its weight is to be competing in the top six of the Championship. We are not the club going through what Liverpool is, so why not give it a rest and enjoy our current situation. You know, after reading the thread reviewing some of the past memories of Norwich City FC ( particularly the memories of the players of past decades ) I personally find it sad that some fans have to look for the opportunity to turn over old stones with nothing other than sheer speculation. I can''t recall whether it was Ricardo who said it but, whoever it was, was correct in stating we spent time in earlier days enjoying the players and what occurred on the pitch (good and bad ), paying little attention to other matters. I realise idle speculation seems to be a way of life today but, speaking for myself, I''m glad I enjoyed the time that I did without the level of spitefulness I believe exists today.  [/quote] lol irony Paragraph 1: Yankee wants to move on from 18 months ago Paragraph 2: Yankee wants to go back to 50 years ago [8-)]  

It beggars belief that anyone can defend the appointment of Bryan Gunn.  It was 13th May and the new season was nearly 3 months away.  There was absolutely no need to appoint ANYONE at that particular time.  It made no sense at all.  

There''s a phone in on Radio 5 Live right now Mostly older hooligans saying "I''m fighting for my club/country" [:S]