essex canary

They didn't do particularly well by their standards in the years in which the process was unfolding.

With the industrial revolution our nation set the ball rolling. In that sense it is our problem to solve. A key component of that was Railways, pity then we set out to destroy them 60 years ago. A much better transport option than heaps of electric cars which doubtless involve heaps of CO2 in their production cycle plus other horrible environmental considerations and apparently require heaps more water to extinguish a fire and 2 fire engines rather than 1 in attendance.

Following on from this vote increase enhancements in the event of potential Preference Share defaults are A shares from 616,913 votes to 626,588 votes B shares from 616,913 votes to 631,099 votes C shares from 616,913 votes to 10,616,913 votes. Does anyone see a potential problem here? Perhaps the TP does?

The words in the AA's are that he gets one vote for each C preference share on 'a(ny) resolution directly or adversely affecting or abrogating the rights or privileges attached to the C preference shares'. No mention of the Trigger event in that section. see also my previous response to Purple.

Difference is though that B preference share holders get their vote per £100 share on matters pertaining to same whereas for the C preference share holder it is per £1 share. The base for A and B preference shares is much smaller anyway with multiple owners so the dominance of one person in such a vote with A and B wouldn't occur in the same way as with C where MA's vote is in vast majority.

How many clubs of similar status to Norwich are public? £2 million raised from the public in 2002 seems to be the only reason. Page 5 of the Articles Association (the last section of the voting paragraph) suggest that MA has 10 million votes in certain circumstances. Surely that must be a mistake?

Really! The quickest way being to invoke the equivalent of VAR for 5 months plus. If he had offered £30 or perhaps a little more would probably have acquired 60,000 or so and have solved the problem with plenty of head room for new investment.

Accepted that £30 per share is probably achievable. Not potentially for everyone at the same time though. Equally most purchasers want small holdings so not easily achieved in 1 transaction or even a reasonably modest number of transactions with my holding so in a sense I don't have the same exit rights with remotely the same convenience.

None of that is really the problem for minority shareholders.

...and maybe a preoccupation for the TP given that had the deal have gone ahead as apparently planned this spring, other shareholders ought to have had the same exit rights as Pleasure and Leisure?

Page 5 of the Articles of Association appears to give MA 10 million votes in any poll concerning C Preference Shares. Can anyone see a potential problem?

When we started out the minorities including Foulger amounted to 47%. Why couldn't MA simply have offered to buy them all out? What subsequently happens with S&J and new money could surely have simply followed on?

I could conceivably reach the verdict of 'fair enough'. I would remain disappointed that having raised funds in 2002 based on being starved of TV monies the Club has then spent wildly in recent times on wages when hugely benefitting from TV money with a disregard for other considerations. Nonetheless at the end of the day agreement can only be reached by compromise. At £60 per share they would have provided an exit option at Purchasing Power rate as measured by their own season tickets.

Any customer of any business is effectively paying the wages of the employees of same. Shouldn't really be the case for shareholders though football may to an extent be an exception.

Then again perhaps the reason for not voting for it, a bit like Brexit, is that it wasn't capable of being done properly? Could there be parallels between the Northern Ireland Protocol and C Preference Shares? The latter, after all, could give additional voting rights in certain circumstances. How would the Takeover Panel view that? Delighted to point out I didn't vote for either. Besides the champion Suffolk Socialist is George Orwell.

Once indisputable fact number 2 has been actioned indisputable fact number 1 no longer applies hence the complication which may be viewed more as such by D&M rather than necessarily MA.

He can. Anything to increase his posting statistics.

Agents, Coaches, Administrators etc.

Perhaps 5.1(b) below covers that situation and appears to indicate 'no'?

Why do people wish to be stingy with journalists but not footballers and their hangers on?

Based on Purchasing Power Parity with a season ticket in 2002 I would say £60. Interesting to reflect though on what the Takeover Panel debate may be. Under the circumstances surely the TP would be very defensive about smaller shareholders getting the £30 offer? Could be that the debate then is whether the Club can depart from its previous precedent of allotment price and fair value price being the same by means of the waiver procedure?

it did feature in one of the EDP discussion pages at one point. Rightly or wrongly based on £100 million divided by 811,425 times 194,512.

One press suggestion was that the 194,512 shares would raise £24 million. If they are issued at £30 per share to raise under £6 million I don't think I will be the only one who will be disappointed especially in view of the amount of money that has been ditched in recent years.

Fair Value of an NCFC share was £18.50 in 1998 and £30 in 2008 with only one PL season in-between and little change in the financial standing of the Club other than inflation. In the last 15 years no change in Fair Value despite radical variations in the Club's finances arising from 6 PL seasons. How Fair is Fair according to the Club's definition?

Following on from my last response 2008 seems to be the relevant year of revaluation to £30. Presumably P&L would have received an official notification from NCFC. Then again that was during Neil Doncaster's tenure which had higher Corporate Governance standards than what has followed.