Bobzilla

There were quite a lot of 'drinks paella, eats estrella' round me on Saturday...

Cash poor asset rich pensioners. Who won't divest of their assets and expect 'society' to pick up the tab on the cash poor bit of it. And their inability to bring themselves to divest very often puts up process for the rest of us, so their asset base increases in value at the expense of younger generations.

Nope... But you did when you launched your appeal to the ombudsman...

Your supposition that the club will unilaterally remove the AD privileges after 25 years.

Not what I implied, not at all what can reasonably have been read to be implied. If share register is maintained on a per transaction basis, of course, more transactions means more cost. However, that's not usually how this sort of thing is done. Compliance engagements are usually fixed price contracts, with the service provider taking the risk on volume. Sometimes they lose heavily, most of the time they win. You're estimates of deaths and moving house are, i suggest, way out. You're talking 20% moving. Not happening. They're likely to be older (40 plus) and probably in their last home - older people don't move until they have to. You're also massively overestimating the complexity of GG services in respect of small shareholders. Maintaining the share register is pretty easy with the software available now, meaning doing it at scale is very efficient - the expense is in the software, not the people operating the software. The biggest increased expense will be the mail shots for notifying shareholders of stuff.

That's lovely dear. You're in a distinct minority on that one. There is no way you can argue that a 'ST for life' could be confused with a 'ST in perpetuity to inheritors'. And that's been pointed out to you countless times.

What's your basis for that? I would be very surprised if the club had the unilateral right to remove this benefit without compensation, and even more surprised if the ombudsman upheld that position. That was a contractual part of the offer document for subscribing for shares, and has cleartly been upheld as such. On the contrary, it would not surprise me if there were subsequent schemes like this.

An increase in the number of shareholders would not necessarily bring about an increase in the number of share transactions, which is basically what the work is on maintenance of a share register. There might be an uptick in transactions for the first year or 2 as larger holdings get sold off, but that is short term. I would expect that in a competitive tender there wouldn't be any appreciable increase in cost, but that is a guess. I'm not a lawyer and don't do corporate governance. However, the cost of ADs is an annual cost, likely for the next 30 years.

The ords are definitely £1 shares - the accounts and companies house records match up. As for issuing, the directors can cause the company to issue at whatever price they want to whomever they want, subject to any pre-emption rights in the articles. They can ask for a premium on one issue, and not on the next. That is in no way unusual. There are companies act provisions that could assist when a company acts to prejudice other shareholders, such as diluting the stake of small shareholders as might be the case here. However, you have to be financially harmed by that act. Arguably, there is no financial harm on the basis that a NCFC plc share’s value derives from its intrinsic value as an intangible asset, i.e. an ownership stake in the club, not on a percentage basis of the total value of the club. Because realistically the value of the club is possibly nil - it is not self-sustaining and is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the fans in a pretty small geographical area - it’s not like a Man U or Real Madrid where mechandising rights overseas are huge, Certainly the value of a single share is pretty much nil. Even 250 shares are worthless save for the intrinsic value. Which isn’t going to change no matter how many shares get issued to majority shareholders. The bottom line is that the share issuances to directors serve only two purposes. One is a minimum share holding that the directors must hold. The second is simply financing for the club, so the number of shares issued is basically irrelevant save for the impact it has on who controls the club.

The B prefs can only get paid if there are profit reserves (as in accumulated). That won't be an issue for a good few years looking at the accounts for last year. One question I had that you might know the answer to. The 20/21 accounts and prior put the B prefs as par value of £1. The 21/22 and later accounts show them at £100. The articles have them at £1. Any idea what the right answer actually is? Unless they were issued at a premium of £99, so actually are £1 shares with a liability of £100 per share (plus accrued unpaid pref dividends).

You well know that dividends are only payable on any shares, even preference shares, if there are profits. That includes any premium on redemption over and above the share capital. The preference dividends get charged in the accounts as interest but they won't ever get paid, so they aren't a cost on the club in any real sense.

Is this what it's like going to a home game?

Isn't that Suffolk? Best not ask about the family briar patch...

Right. As you should know, a company is a bit of paper at companies house. It is legally deemed to be a person, but it cannot actually act on its own (it needs people to do so) and it cannot sit on a seat at carrow road. So, are you sure that he was an AD by right, or simply ex officio as a representative of the actual shareholder? Did he occupy his seat by right or because Archant, the seat holder, permitted or to happen, much as happened for the daughter of your friend when another AD couldn't attend? And, if I get this right, you're bitter because he's caused £50k to go to the club, half equity half debt? Wow. Just wow...

That’s only half the story though (and at some point the extensions will end). The bigger issue is the right to sell financial products to EU retail investors, and to market those products in the EU. Gone. And there were lots of London profits being made from that business, and London people being employed to write that business, and manage the funds from that business. Sure, you can still run a business model where work is outsourced back to London, but for how long? That business model will not survive in the long term because the EU will not permit it. They already hate it when other third countries do it - have an EU company to front business with the appropriate experienced people to manage the outsourced activities in the EU, but everything of substance happening outside the EU. It severely limits their ability to regulate conduct of the financial institutions, and that won’t be tolerated for much longer.

Not all accountants are like that. I’m not.

I can very safely say that the quality of my advice as a seasoned accountancy professional does not change dependant on what I wear on my feet, or any other part of me for that matter. I’m through to the final stage of interviews with a very serious organisation for a senior role, and I’ve worn chinos, DMs and a casual shirt for each of the previous 4 interviews (yeah, senior enough for 5 interviews). I’m wearing a suit for the next one, but that’s simply because I’m meeting with two incredibly senior partners and I’ve been advised to look the part. They probably wouldn’t care if I turned up in the same chinos/casual shirt combo, but they might, and for the money on offer I don’t want to screw it up over a suit. As for anyone who would judge the seriousness of a professional, be they male or female, based on the clothes they wear, I have only one thing to say. Welcome to the new world. We do things differently to how you did it. If you don’t like it, that’s no bother. We don’t care, and you won’t have that much longer to worry about it.

I’m sorry about your friend, but that sort of event doesn’t change the terms and conditions of the share subscription. The bottom line is that whilst the title can be inherited, the other benefits cannot, and the seat for life was seemingly clearly stated as such. I can’t see how something specifically tied to the life of an individual can be seen as extending past that person’s life. I cannot see how that could possibly be an arguable position (and it’s my job to find a way to argue the unarguable). As for Stephan Phillips (I presume that is who you are referring to), I have no idea about him - the directors have never really interested me. He’d have got access to the Director’s box anyway as a senior director at the club from 2009. Are you suggesting that he never bought any shares in the 2002(?) offer but STILL got AD benefits at that time (i.e. before 2009 when he joined the board)? Or are you suggesting that someone else gave him the £25k to buy the shares? Or that he owned the shares on behalf of someone else, or that he was the beneficiary of a trust that bought the shares? It’s really not clear what you are suggesting (past ‘It’s not fair that I and a friend signed up to something we didn’t really understand and seemingly didn’t read properly’). Regarding the bond scheme, it still isn’t clear what you are insinuating, other than he bought £25k of NCFC bonds (and his gf bought some too) and then got paid out on them, presumably in accordance with the Ts&Cs.

Phillips? The guy who made the complaint? Or was that you?

I haven’t seen City win away since Huddersfield and the injury that screwed our away season. I’m expecting a 1-1 draw because we’re better than them, but have you seen our away form?

Thanks for that. That’s an awfully long whine for someone who has £25k to throw at the club. The ‘seat for life’ is a generous offer in itself - he mentions directors who don’t hold 1,000 shares, but doesn’t mention that their heirs won’t benefit from their association with the club, and for most directors they wouldn’t get a seat at all by their own right after they left the club - do you reckon McNally gets a seat whenever he wants it, or does he need an invite from an existing director who accompanies him? When Zoe resigns, does Stuart Webber get free entry? For someone who claims to love their club, that’s quite a lot of bitter in there.

The bigger issue is players exaggerating the extent of their injuries with the intent of the other player getting carded. We need an effective solution for that so that it gets stamped out of the game. I’d advocate a system like andyc24_UK’s where a 4th official is watching only for carded incidents where someone is rolling around on the ground to see whether there is play acting or not. The ‘injured’ player can tell the referee if contact was minimal but it still ****ing hurts if they don’t think it was a carding offence, or risk getting a red card and a 4 match ban if the video ref decides that there’s faking at play. THAT would get managers stamping it out VERY quickly. Currently there are no consequences for this type of cheating.

Just out of interest, what’s an AD? I’m guessing from his other really quite salty posts that he’s one of the guys who bought 1,000 shares who got a seat for life and is triggered that it means his life, not anyone else’s, and he has to keep his shares to keep the benefit, but not sure what an AD is in relation to that.

I figured that everyone on here would know which end I meant if I didn’t explicitly use the word ‘Barclay’, and not automatically assume that I was a binner. I forgot about ‘Normal for Norfolk’ though. I can tell you tales of being sat in the Barclay for my first match in April 94, watching us leading 4-3 against Southhampton, only for Ken ****ing Monkou, a defender described by the programme as ‘extremely effective in the air’, to pop up in extra time and score with a header from a corner right in the centre of the goal right in front of me, sending me home distraught after a nerve-wracking 5-4 loss (the 4th Southampton goal was around 72 ish minutes from the notes on programme). Or watching us beat Leeds 2-1 the week after John Newsome slipped and lobbed Tim Flowers from pretty much the right touchline - still got the newspaper cutting from that one, and was gutted to not be in the stands for it. But I very much doubt that will convince you. I haven’t been to a fantastic number of games - kind of comes from living in Surrey for most of my life with a dad that had no interest in football - but I am no binner.

In the nicest possible way, **** off. 😞