essex canary

The Good Friday Notes from the Boardroom was certainly a classic.

Based on the last OSP meeting that shouldn't be anymore than a halfpenny.

Another interesting reference point is WBA's recent sale for apparently £20 million plus debt repayment. Assuming S&J only want the same £25 per share as Foulger that leaves headroom for at least something of a return settlement to minority shareholders. That said in many ways it may be good to see the minority shareholding of 19.2% carried forward but only if it is modernised rather than being a generation behind it's time. Maybe our newly unified Board could work on that?

But Shef did suggest it and mentioned Burnley who settled honourably with their minority shareholders. What surprises me a little about Shef's reference points is the price he quotes since what must unfortunately matter in a sense is the failed Webberlution gamble which minority shareholders had no say in and which perhaps renders the price sought by trading shareholders as more realistic. That is assuming we can rely on S&J doing the right thing for minority shareholders who they relied upon for money they didn't have.

The bricks will also start to look a little outmoded eventually. At least mine has got my son's name on it too.

If the shares you are referring to were quoted shares you would know what their value was at any point in time. Of course the position with NCFC is they are unquoted. Nonetheless it still must logically reflect the value of an underlying business which is a little different from the brick in the wall analogy which can never confer any value on any prospective purchaser.

If we become Brighton or Brentford Mark 2 then fine. Could be Watford Mark 2 though. From where we are we I guess we have to take the risk. The problem with S&J has been their volte-face from the inclusive responsible finance Football Club to the secrecy surrounding the Webber gamble.

Real stadium attendance is clearly a real issue for NCFC at midweek matches where I think we all know it tends to fall below 90%. A good initiative there would be to provide a ST opt out option for those who can't make those games with some monetary compensation then sell with a competitive promotion as at the margin these games aren't attractive. An element of speculate to accumulate in terms of atmosphere creation and new fans.

Perhaps he is the member of Norfolk Group that the EFL is having difficulty with?

If you take those specific lines end column table 2 your conclusion is correct for the Cities alone. At County level though you would need to include row 67 for Leics which reads far more favourably than rows 96 & 97 which would need to be included for Norfolk.

Where are the Norfolk specific figures there? East Anglia is not a reliable measure for Norfolk since Suffolk and Cambridgeshire especially the latter are much higher than both Leicestershire and Norfolk.

Perhaps Liz Truss is economics adviser to all Football Clubs?

Wikipedia GVA by English County - Leicestershire 35,172 dollars, Norfolk 31,806 dollars. Convert to £ sterling. Minimum season ticket price 1.4 pence in the pound for Leicester compared to 2.1 pence in the pound for Norwich. That is why NCFC have to rely on so many out of county ST holders and why the Norfolk public won't hoover up casual seats at even more expensive prices for run of the mill matches.

Perhaps we can do the same next time with fresh management in place or even better like Brentford.

Professional Football spectating is clearly much more affordable as a proportion of wealth in Leicestershire than in Norfolk

@Well b back FYi Leicestershire GDP is around 10% higher than Norfolk GDP

That is a liberty too. At least note though their baseline ST price even with the increase is about 25% less than NCFC and Leicester is a reasonably thriving City.

The Ticket Office staff member said only Ipswich and Birmingham were complete sell outs. Maybe that is pre-ST holders though.

Good to know the Club looked after their loyal fans by not selling them a ticket for this match. I take it all back.

Another fact from the Ticket Office today was that the away membership scheme has only come into play for 2 matches this season. Seeing as 7,000 apparently joined up when the scheme was first started, either scheme membership has fallen away significantly or well over half this seasons members have achieved nil return for their £25. Either way we can bet that in general away support has dropped over the 5 years. There stands the pernicious impact of the scheme which the Club should be alive to alongside fan consultation groups.

So presumably then the 2,000 figure would be fairly accurate as a measure of season ticket holders trying to access tickets? Delighted to hear that 1 successful applicant this morning was a guy who has a home season ticket, makes 200 mile round trips to Carrow Road but often misses out on account of child care responsibilities. goes to away games as well sometimes but when on a tight budget doesn't want to pay an extra £25 because it may or may not be necessary once in a blue moon.

The original concept of offside was 'seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position'. We should go back to that, accept that at least to some extent it is a subjective assessment on the referee's part. A 100% objectivity approach is not possible or appropriate.

I managed to get a sales banner without a sold out sign then I attempted to make the click for the 2 tickets required only to get the sold out sign so not sure how that gets registered. Ditto a phone call that said there were too many callers please call back later. 2,000 could be the number of disappointed ST holders missing out in favour of single figure away attendees who have paid £25 albeit that some of those ST holders could equally have been to as many away games.

Just been told that on the phone by the ticket office. Don't know how they know that though unless there is a count of unsuccessful phone calls and unsuccessful attempted log-ins and even if there was I would count twice or maybe three times on that basis and they wouldn't know how many tickets people were seeking so must be conjecture to some extent.

It is quite simple really. The referee should review any controversial offside decisions with a camera, without lines and with the clear daylight principle.