Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Community Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. First group of Norwich came down from Roccos around 2.20, and were involved in the confrontation in front of The Angler. A second group followed around 5-10 mins later down to the ground. Lots of posturing and movement back and forth, but nothing further to note. Police were indeed appalling - had either side been more organised, there was potential for serious disorder.
  2. Maybe he should give up the taxi driving and mortgage advising and take up a career in the theatre.....
  3. Thank you, but didn''t realise our performance had been so convincing!I''m amazed you didn''t realise the ''mouthy'' one was who he was though - I can''t think of anyone who fits the definition better!
  4. Re: Betfair Market - it''s so weak that up until a few moments ago, I could have crashed his back price back down to under 3/1 just by backing back that which I layed on him yesterday. Until the volumes are greater, which is unlikely with this type of market as information will be at a premium, even Betfair represents an imprecise market. I layed him based on a hunch, and equally I could back him on a whim, and both without knowing anything at all more than is publically available.
  5. I would suggest that going concern issues are a very possible reason for the delay. The basic definition is that a company must be capable of continuing in business for the foreseeable future without the likelihood of liquidation, ceasing to trade or seeking protection from those to whom it is in debt.Not sure I''d be putting my name to any statement of the above if I were the audit partner!
  6. [quote user="BigFish"]Still, I am afraid Jim is wrong on this and has led a number of posters up the garden path on this one. It is a resonably common model to have the physical assets and debt held by a holding company while an operatational company runs the football side. There is nothing implicitly shady about this. NCFC don''t chose to do this and our friends down the A140 are just one of a number who do.[/quote]I don''t think there''s any implication that the business model is in anyway unusual, just that the application of the League rules as claimed makes this a very tempting structure to avoid administration penalties. If you have the situation, as here, where the holding company is insolvent due to being unable to service it''s debts as a result of the ''football club'' as a whole generating insufficient revenues, then it would appear inequitable that they may avoid a points deduction because of company structure.
  7. [quote user="TheMarshmallowMonkey"]Looks as if they''ll get away with it http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4251026.Football_League_says_Saints_will_not_be_deducted_points/[/quote]If that proves to be the League''s stance, then I would suggest that NCFC should be rapidly looking to restructure it''s dealings in the same manner.However.....using Derby as the example could prove spurious, as there was a consortium in place to take on the debts and obligations of the parent, and this was presumably agreeable to both the League and the Co-Op Bank. There is no evidence that Southampton have such an arrangement in place.
  8. Exactly as Jim says - if they were able avoid penalty, then every club would simply create a subsidiary that held the registration with the Football League, and merely leased assets from the holding company.
  9. [quote user="alex_ncfc"]This thread has been very quiet considering. I suppose it will get busier in the morning. Looking forward to see what some of Delia''s defenders have to say about this one. [/quote]Probably due to the lack of a sensational post title! The thing that gets me most about this quote is that, unlike others, where there have been claims of things being taken out of context, you can see how it all evolves in the interview. It''s a calm, seemingly considered, response to a national journalist, and names a figure that, although round-sum, has appeared all too much this last fortnight to surely be co-incidence.
  10. Apologies if already posted, but not showing up explicitly in the ''search'' function. This was sent to me earlier in week, but only as a Youtube link, so hadn''t bothered watching until now:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MjxRKhYCkInteresting quote is at 1:59 - "I have to face up to one thing….if somebody comes along and says I will put £20m into Norwich City Football Club, on the playing side, not just on the day to day scrabbling to survive, the supporters would not forgive me if I turned it down’"An interesting choice of figure to use.........
  11. That is one of the most fantastically misrepresented valuations I’ve ever seen!   Accepting the £20m on players, why is the share capital valued at the nominal value of £30? That’s only the issue value, it has no relation whatsoever to price. Certainly the future income streams and market asset valuations of Norwich City would not suggest that it’s value is that high, especially considering that you are purchasing c£20m of debt.   I also think it’s disingenuous to suggest that there would be an automatic debt repayment of £16m. That may be in the contract, but I’m sure if you asked the lenders who they felt to be a safer option to repay the debt, it would be NCFC under Cullum, and hence the payment would be waived. If they are actually stating that any investor must clear the debt, then why, as we are always told that it is managed and well-structured? Why impose such a cash-flow burden on any investor?   Director’s loans at £4m is fine – it’s the only bit I don’t have an issue with!!   It’s basically setting a ridiculously high bar that no one could ever feasibly want to meet unless money was truly no object, and the investor did not mind being completely mugged by the vendor……..
  12. [quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="3canaries"] Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.[/quote] NCFC Plc is NOT a listed company, so the 29.9% rule doesn''t apply!!   [/quote]As I said in another post, it''s been a long while since I looked at it, but digging a copy of the rules out:"(i) UK, Channel Islands and Isle of Man registered and traded companiesThe Code applies to all offers (not falling within paragraph (iii) below) forcompanies and Societas Europaea (and, where appropriate, statutory andchartered companies) which have their registered offices* in the UnitedKingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man if any of their securities areadmitted to trading on a regulated market in the United Kingdom or on anystock exchange in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man."Though a PLC, the shares are as said not listed on any market, and hence the rules do not apply.
  13. [quote user="fleckmatic"]According to Waghorn''s site, under PLC rules, he cannot just buy out Delia. If he''s to by more the 39% he has to offer on ALL shares in the company. So that includes all board shreholders, Turners included. And I guess all us individual 1p shareholders only who bought up in 2003-odd.[/quote]It''s been a good while since I last looked at City Rules, but I thought that if the acquisition of shares was from a single party that already held a controlling interest, then you could apply to the Takeover Panel for dispensation to not have to make a full offer. Otherwise you''d endlessly be delisting companies with controlling shareholders who sought to sell.Could be completely wrong though, as I say it''s been a good while, and I''m not even sure what level the Smiths shareholding is currently at.
  • Create New...