Noseybonk

[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"] Apologies I am getting cranky...and sorry for the defensiveness and rudeness. I shall cease to post as my religion is celarly offensive to most everyone here. For the last year I have witnessed most of my posts digress into insult and religious debate and i only want to post about football. With thanks for a good ride...I sign off. If I re-emerge it will be under a pseudonym and you can relax in the ignorance and bliss of arrogant, anti-Christian secular fascism such as some her seem to prescribe to.  So much for respect, understanding anf tolerance. [/quote]     Vicar, I think you will find that most people on here, even complete athiests like myself, have total resect for you beliefs. What I don''t understand about religious people in general is your total lack of humour and tolerance on the subject. I found Blah''s comment to be innocuous and quite amusing. For you to sulk in such a way does you no credit. Remember how Life of Brian was banned in the seventies? Surely we''ve moved on since then?

I''ve never lived in Norwich and I moved to this poxy Island when I was five. However, all my relatives on my dads side are from Norwich and my surname is a proper Norfolk name. Therefore I felt obliged to support Norwich. When I was growing up, my dad was always raving about Liverpool so it became a way of rebeling against my dad''s perceived glory hunting. My first game was a dreadful 0-0 cup tie against Rochdale in the mid 70''s I think, I was about 7 years old. A sign of things to come but it didn''t put me off. All through school I was the only Norwich fan and I loved the attention. The Island is full of Man Utd PLC and Chelski fans. Not as many Pompey or Saints supporters as you would think. When I have my City shirt on everyone assumes I am a holidaymaker. Now my two sons are grown up and are City through and through (they had no choice). My eldest now lives in Norwich and goes to the UEA. Job done.

Absolutely right SPat. I can''t help feeling that if these anti board idiots got their heads out of their arse long enough to look at the facts, they would find that Cullum should be the one taking most of the stick. All the money he is worth and he couldn''t put in a decent offer for the club he professes to support, just 2-3% of his total wealth. Totally disrupting the clubs pre-season and with the help of Archant, stiring up the fans with spin that makes Doomcaster look like an amatuer. And yet, he walks away from the whole debacle with no criticism from the majority of fans. Don''t get me wrong, I am not a fan of the board but anyone who looks upon the events of the last two weeks with impartiality will see that neither party has come out of this very well. Cullum for his conduct and the board for their lack of communication. Stunts like posting childish insults on a website which has no relevence to NCFC do us, the fans, no credit whatsoever.

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="jbghost"] Whilst wanting investment as much as the next fan I think your comments are at best a touch misguided. "So from the offical statement made this evening Delia & Co would like £56 million for Peter Cullum to buy the club outright?" You answer this yourself - the banks want £16 million, standard financial institution practice with change in company control. Repayment of directors loans - written into loan agreements that these are repayable if the control passes from Michael and Delia (£2 million to them) Purchase of shares @ £16 million. I believe Michael and Delia hold around  60% of the shares (£9.6 million to them) So in fact Michael and Delia want around £13.6 million not £56 million. onsidering their initial investment I would say this is hardly mercenary.    Cullum can''t seriously think he can get control of NCFC plc for £20 million.  [/quote] Why does Cullum have to buy every board memeber out? As you above yourself say Delia & Michael''s shares rumoured to be approx £9.6million for a 60% share in the club. A £10million outlay for shares plus a re-financing of the existing loan should be more than enough to secure the 51% that Mr Cullum is looking for. Didn''t Delia once say that she would sell her shares for a fiver each if it meant that the club could move forwards and money be spent on the team? I am not 100% sure on the last staement I have made there.... maybe somebody else could help me out on this one??? [/quote] I really can''t believe the levels of ignorance and stupidity in the 14 pages of this thread.  Not because the average poster should understand the intricacies of company law (othwerwise I''d be out of a job) but because even when knowledgeable posters point out the legal , financial and governance realities, you still won''t listen.  Let me have another go with respect to those who have already made these points and been ignored by the "Don''t let the facts get in the way of Hating Delia" Brigade. The Board has a legal duty to act in the interests of the Club as a whole and not individuals so the personal desires and objectives of Delia and Michael are not valid considerarions for the Board to take into account. The offer to purchase  shares has to be open to every shareholder who wants to sell so it has to be sufficent to purchase 100%.  Some purchasers such as Glazer want 100% and pursue that goal.  Others are happy to buy a majority.  Smudger,Cullen offering to buy 51% is not a legal option.  Cullen has to buy the shares of everyone who wants to sell. In setting a price for shares, the Board (remember not Delia and Michael alone) has to be fair to all shareholders.   A market price of £16million has been set and no doubt can be justified on asset value. It seems clear that the share price will provide a return of investment to Delia and Michael.  They do not appear to make a profit at £30 It is standard in commercial loans for the loan to be repayable ( which means not that it will be repaid but that the lender could ask for repayment) on transfer of ownership.  A business is only as good as its owners and managers (look at GEC/Marconi after Lord Weinstock left or Marks and Spencers in the last ten years) and any lender will want to reassess its position on change.  Anyway, does anyone really see this as an issue.  I do not know Mr Cullen but cannot believe he would not be good for a £16million loan secured on the Club''s assets. The figure of £20 million  for team building comes from Cullen.  The actual potential purchase price for the Club is £36 million but in reality could be as little as £8 million It seems clear that the Board has responded in a way that is right and proper given its duties and responsibilities and more to the point it has no choice. Cue the response from DLTFGITWOHD I repeat.    There is nothing in the statement to suggest that the majority shareholders are doing anything obstructive [/quote]       At last. Someone on this thread talking sense. Well done CC but it would have helped certain posters if you had limited your explanation to words of one syllable.

It is difficult to repond to the points you make as they make no business sense whatsover.  But I will try hand over our club to this man without knowing the most basic of facts” We haven''t been told what form the money to be intoduced will take (see below) The deal will not be about Cullum buying shares it will be what value his £20 million is to Delia.  If Delia wants £10 million for her shares then if Cullum puts in £20 million he would own 2/3rds and 1/3 would be owned by Delia.  I really worry Delia is getting greedy here.  I think he wants her to stay and do the front facing stuff which she is brilliant at (unless she gets on the pitch!).  If she wants money for her shares then everything goes wrong and that’s why I think the deal has stalled.  I think Peter wants his money to be invested in players therefore if he has to buy Delia out then that leaves only £10 million for players and he therefore and rightly in my opinion would walk away.  Delia needs to accept her new role in the club with grace and if the club get promoted then she can sell her stake and maybe get double for it...that’s not a bad return! The club is a limited company -  the only way to acquire control of the club is to own 51% of the shares. Smith and Wyn-Jones own over 60% between them and the bulk of those shares would have to be purchased.  This would cost Cullum up to £16m. Of course Delia wants money for her shares - she is merely seeking to get back what she has put in.  That doesn''t seem greedy to me. "but it seems likely to be a loan as opposed to a new share issue” There are 2 ways of getting money into a Limited Company.  A loan or a share issue.  Cullum has not said how he intends to introduce the money but the most common method with football clubs is a loan - like Evans at Ipswich. The very limited information in the EDP says that Cullum isn''t expecting to get much return on his investment.  If the money is introduced by means of a share issue then a return on the investment can be taken out as a dividend - but only if the company makes a profit, which seems highly unlikely.  It is very easy, however, to take interest on a loan, in the same way that Evans is doing at Ipswich. The other advantage to a loan is that it is easier to get your money out You have really lost it here.... a loan?  This guy is worth a billion.  He is talking cash as in pound notes not some dodgy loan deal.  Loan deals are for Delia and the Turners which we vitally needed at the time but this guy is the real deal with real cash to invest. As above, you don''t and can''t just give a Limited Company money (unless you want the company to pay 30% Corporation Tax on it).  Money can be introduced by loan or by a share issue or by giving a personal guarantee on a loan from a third party..  Here is the proof that you are a very bitter about something in your life.  What a sad and shallow statement.  Here is a local guy who has achieved so much someone to aspire to and rather than celebrate success as they would do in any other country you get this drivel. I think you''re missing the point.  The guy is clearly finacially astute but has made an offer that the current owners have clearly been advised not to take. You seem keen for the current directors to take a huge hit on their investment but I doubt Mr Cullum would take a loss on his proposed investment.  That isn''t how he got to be business man of the year.   I should stress that I have no problem with Cullum - I just want to see the facts before getting too exited.  If it transpires that he has made a fair offer for the club and offered solid guarantees about the future then we should do all we can to get the current owners to accept.  From the information provided to date I have doubts that this is the case.  A businessman of his pedigree knows exactly what the club is worth.  If he is not prepared to pay that sum, why has he gone bleating to the EDP, other than to apply pressure on the directors to sell their assets for less than they are worth. By the way, is London really the world''s biggest financial centre?  I would have thought it was New York.   Excellent post Dylanisabaddog. Too much rabid anti board hysteria and not enough sensible, knowledgable posts. Calm down people.   Nothing wrong with being anti-board. It doesn''t also mean that you''re anti-NCFC.  I presently don''t seem to be  foaming from the mouth - or seem to be suffering from raging hydrophobia either.[&] You obviously prefer our current incumbents being at the helm.....Unfortunately, I don''t - and would like to see their departure (including the present Chief Exec). Woof![&]   Why is any post which urges even the slightest degree of caution met with such a response. I am neither for or against the present regime. I feel that they have worked hard for the benefit of the club and are fully entitled to try and recoup the money they have spent, maybe even make money. It''s their perogative. I would love to see fresh blood and new investment in the club. However, I do believe that we do not know enough about Cullum''s plans at this time to make an opinion as to whether it is a good or a bad deal for the club. More information will come out soon enough. Those of you ranting that we should take the money, regardless of the details (that''s where the devil tends to lurk), remind me of the QPR fans last season. The same ones that have just had the price of their season tickets doubled. If it were up to me, I would lock Cullum and the board in a room and not let them out until they agreed a price. In private, rather than this jostling for position in the public domain.  

It is difficult to repond to the points you make as they make no business sense whatsover.  But I will try hand over our club to this man without knowing the most basic of facts” We haven''t been told what form the money to be intoduced will take (see below) The deal will not be about Cullum buying shares it will be what value his £20 million is to Delia.  If Delia wants £10 million for her shares then if Cullum puts in £20 million he would own 2/3rds and 1/3 would be owned by Delia.  I really worry Delia is getting greedy here.  I think he wants her to stay and do the front facing stuff which she is brilliant at (unless she gets on the pitch!).  If she wants money for her shares then everything goes wrong and that’s why I think the deal has stalled.  I think Peter wants his money to be invested in players therefore if he has to buy Delia out then that leaves only £10 million for players and he therefore and rightly in my opinion would walk away.  Delia needs to accept her new role in the club with grace and if the club get promoted then she can sell her stake and maybe get double for it...that’s not a bad return! The club is a limited company -  the only way to acquire control of the club is to own 51% of the shares. Smith and Wyn-Jones own over 60% between them and the bulk of those shares would have to be purchased.  This would cost Cullum up to £16m. Of course Delia wants money for her shares - she is merely seeking to get back what she has put in.  That doesn''t seem greedy to me. "but it seems likely to be a loan as opposed to a new share issue” There are 2 ways of getting money into a Limited Company.  A loan or a share issue.  Cullum has not said how he intends to introduce the money but the most common method with football clubs is a loan - like Evans at Ipswich. The very limited information in the EDP says that Cullum isn''t expecting to get much return on his investment.  If the money is introduced by means of a share issue then a return on the investment can be taken out as a dividend - but only if the company makes a profit, which seems highly unlikely.  It is very easy, however, to take interest on a loan, in the same way that Evans is doing at Ipswich. The other advantage to a loan is that it is easier to get your money out You have really lost it here.... a loan?  This guy is worth a billion.  He is talking cash as in pound notes not some dodgy loan deal.  Loan deals are for Delia and the Turners which we vitally needed at the time but this guy is the real deal with real cash to invest. As above, you don''t and can''t just give a Limited Company money (unless you want the company to pay 30% Corporation Tax on it).  Money can be introduced by loan or by a share issue or by giving a personal guarantee on a loan from a third party..  Here is the proof that you are a very bitter about something in your life.  What a sad and shallow statement.  Here is a local guy who has achieved so much someone to aspire to and rather than celebrate success as they would do in any other country you get this drivel. I think you''re missing the point.  The guy is clearly finacially astute but has made an offer that the current owners have clearly been advised not to take. You seem keen for the current directors to take a huge hit on their investment but I doubt Mr Cullum would take a loss on his proposed investment.  That isn''t how he got to be business man of the year.   I should stress that I have no problem with Cullum - I just want to see the facts before getting too exited.  If it transpires that he has made a fair offer for the club and offered solid guarantees about the future then we should do all we can to get the current owners to accept.  From the information provided to date I have doubts that this is the case.  A businessman of his pedigree knows exactly what the club is worth.  If he is not prepared to pay that sum, why has he gone bleating to the EDP, other than to apply pressure on the directors to sell their assets for less than they are worth. By the way, is London really the world''s biggest financial centre?  I would have thought it was New York.   Excellent post Dylanisabaddog. Too much rabid anti board hysteria and not enough sensible, knowledgable posts. Calm down people.

This story is great. Ronaldo v Man Utd. On the one hand, everyone is seeing Ronaldo for the greedy, arrogant, self centred, ungrateful little prick he is. On the other hand, Real Madrid''s feeder club are getting a taste of thier own medicine. The kings of tapping up now know what it feels like. A win, win situation. Greedy arrogant player. Greedy arrogant club. Smug, glory hunting fans. CAN''T STAND THEM.

There is a precedent more relevent than the Leeds example. In 2003, Swansea were caught with 6 loan players in their 16 and drew the game, just like Sheff Wed. The FA let them off with a reprimand. Not saying it''s right but there is no way points will be docked on this occasion.