essex canary

It turned out different for Burnley's minorities didn't it. They were still high risk when bought.

Good to hear from a sensible poster. An ironic moniker since that is what I spend my time doing to the Beano and Dandy readers on here. Any thoughts about how you are going to vote? I just think it is completely inept that Mrs. Webber is apparently going to vote albeit that she has no shares. Tom Smith - the nephew of one of the majority owners - is apparently going to vote with 104 shares, 100 of which he purchased for a nominal £1 whilst most of us paid a £24 premium and some up to £99. Furthermore the circular refers to a 'poll' with no definition of what it is. Unlike the last 2 times it means that the vote will be determined by number of shares held rather than per head. For Resolutions 1 and 2 it is minority shareholders only and there are no clear quorate rules. Turnout last time was very low and whilst it is likely to improve this time, I am thinking that as one of the larger minorities I could easily represent 2% of the poll. So what to do? I am thinking 'for' for Resolution number 1 on the grounds that we clearly need fresh blood in the Boardroom and this is the only game in town. 'Against' for Resolution number 2 on the grounds that we don't know enough about Norfolk Groups intentions longer term re debt management and attitude to minority shareholding going forwards including the original concept of it being the foundation stone of fan engagement. Perhaps an opportunity to make a point here. Why not take it?

Presumably he walked away with far more than £60k for his 34%? £60 million plus now would be £100 per share pre dilution. Why isn't it on the table now for existing shareholders?

Always under consideration, always.

Look Baldrick I told you I was Blackadder a long time ago. What do you want to do? Get bitten and disappear up your own fundamental orifice perhaps?

Shows what a good businessman Robert Chase was then albeit much denigrated amongst certain parties on here. The £60 valuation seems about right to me. Pity then that we haven't got an exit option based on it.

I would give far more credit to Allan Bowkett or David McNally (first half) in terms of what you are referring to here. If the Webbers have built on it further that should also be reflected in the Share price.

I can recall some other instances. Would you like them taken into consideration? Just another case of not practising what we preach.

A little like the politicians network where they get multiple consultancy jobs for themselves, recommend that the rest of the senior population retrain as white van delivery drivers and the fabric of society collapses due to inequalities of income and wealth. And I guess the share prices of these medium sized companies haven't increased in 21 years?

Yes. You were mooting it some time ago. It costs about the same as a Daggers ticket on Saturday week. You get a far higher quality set of minutes than the OSP and gets you into the ranks of shareholding, at least indirectly. Hopefully you can then promote sensible pricing policy at Carrow Road. Seems just the ticket for a smart guy like you.

Are we talking about 1 salary here or 2 in the case of the Webbers? The context is the Club can have a magnificent season on a £34 million Turnover or an abject one on £134 million Turnover, both of which have occurred recently. The £100 million difference is substantially constituted by a block allocation of TV money paid by football fans in general or hiking prices onto the Club's loyal fans whose economic position hasn't changed. What exactly is the definition of the service we are talking about in allocating Club income to its essential support services together with appropriate incentives?

That was entirely my point. When purchasing shares in 2002 the club salary bill was £8 million with the ITV Digital crisis being the driver. Last set of accounts £118 million when swimming in TV money for a rock bottom Premier League season. Meanwhile apparently our club share price is the same as 21 years ago and as I posted earlier a Club like King's Lynn could have their very existence threatened over a £500,000 Covid Loan. Some people on here just want to get abusive because they don't like the viewpoints and think the re-emerged sea of debt is fine.

You are not saying he is the only one are you? I remember you making a similar allegation against @wcorkcanary You seem to be best pals lately.

We have clearly done better than the likes of Derby and Charlton over 20 years. There has been a very clear problem when in the Premier League. Football League World has listed the following as being our top paid players in Premier League seasons- Mbokani £40k per week, Drmic £50k, Williams £65k. If Zoe's contact is similar to everyone else's it is unclear how much is paid for being in the PL rather than top 17. Turn up, finish bottom. get paid. Where is the incentive? No wonder our salary bill is so much higher in that position than other Clubs. Watford's for example doesn't gear up anything like as much. That is why our finances are where they are.

Broadly the same as Zoe if true and surely far more in the Premier League. Surely Stu would earn more but given club structure and Equalities issues, who knows?

Playground fisticuffs. Perhaps best to turn a blind eye.

I'll opt for the lyrics of Bob Dylan in the loving tongue of Spanish.

Meanwhile the attached shows the details of Norfolk's 2nd clubs trails with its Covid loan and general finances. Seeing as NCFC got £3 million plus for Covid it wouldn't be unreasonable for Lynn to get £0.5 million then again the taxpayer would have to pay. Their owner likes ours ( in our case not quite but substantially) doesn't take money out the Club. Then again his matchday experience is a little different and his administrative salaries doubtless minimal. The Boston fan disruption didn't turn out well either with a £3,500 fine.

In relation to Geoffry Watlings comment post Chase that no one party should be dominant, it will still happen whether the ownership percentage is 34%,53%,40% or 46% unless the Norfolk Group has diverse opinions within itself.

Why, according to Ben, were the Board strongly committed to pegging home casual PL tickets to the same price as visitors in 2019/20 but not so committed in 2021/22? Perhaps the pandemic but not a fair consideration from the casual fans viewpoint.

And beyond 2026 alongside Resolution 2?

A constructive post. In relation to person specification 'attention to detail' should be a core component. Whilst accepting we are in a different situation to 21 years ago and there maybe some good reasons there nevertheless appears to be a huge gap on how Zoe shapes up against Neil Doncaster on that criteria aside from the vast difference in reward. We just seem to lurch from one style to another without entirely clear reasoning. This is one good reason why we do need change at the top. The lack of flexibility in seeing fans perspectives following on from over weighty and poorly focused documentation is another.

He said that Delia was strongly in favour. Why was there such a void and then an announcement 1 day before the fixture list came out? He has to follow the club line but equally we can read between the lines.

Seems like a reverse Ponzi.

Haven't you joined the Canaries Trust yet?