GMF

Or their representatives… 😉

That’s not right @shefcanary on two accounts. First, look at any other club that’s issued shares recently, and you will see that they are usually allotted for a premium, which is specified on the SH01 form. Second, I’ve checked with the club and another form will be available shortly.

The SH01 form has to show the nominal value, in this case £1.00, and the amount paid, again £1.00, together with any amount unpaid, in this instance £0.00. It’s either correct, or an administrative c0ck up. I suspect it is the latter and a revised form will be sent in shortly.

Someone’s going for maximum capital appreciation…. 😉

Did you waiver before posting this? That’s relatable… 😆

No, CH receives the documentation, it doesn’t draft them. That’s the responsibility of the company, or its representatives. Either the form is drafted correctly, or it’s an administrative c0ck up.

Is it 2016 revisited, the Ed and Tom show? @essex canary will have something to say, if it’s true…

It’s just too easy and predictable…

Are you including the executive director’s bonus in that? 😜

Ultimately, it’s not about the size of the debt / liabilities, it’s about the ability to repay, or refinance them, when they become due. It’s perfectly feasible, although maybe not desirable, to have £100m of debt, with a £35m annual revenue stream, and still be able to trade on.

Anyone who lets their leasehold title reduce to just two years unexpired is bonkers, but they also have statutory rights to an automatic extension, so probably not relevant in this context. Nevertheless, the Club appears to be technically insolvent, based purely upon the accounts, and requires owner support, at least in the short term. In this context we’re now similar to the majority of other clubs.

This is true, but the point to remember is that players are listed at cost, less depreciation on any transfer fees paid. It also means that academy players, such as Max and Andy O, had values attributed to them of zero. Their sales therefore represent 100% profit in this season’s accounts.

Similar to a seat for life then?

As you suggest, it’s the existing share owners who set the asking prices. Of course, potential buyers are free to choose their own offer price, which may be lower, at the asking price, or above the asking price. Ultimately, however, the sellers decide which offer to accept.

As sure as night follows day…

Maybe some of the pant wetting will now cease? 😉

Coventry City v Manchester United - United to win.

I have no idea what you are referring to with your first paragraph, nor, for that matter, any interest whatsoever in your point. As for your second paragraph, this has already been answered in private email correspondence. You’ve either ignored the reply, or failed to understand the context of the answer given. Quelle surprise!

Also ignoring the fact that the trust was run by trustees, not the Club. But let’s ignore the hard facts, especially when there’s a big stick to be waved repeatedly in the direction of the Club…

Yet another classic example of whataboutery from @essex canary. 😡

That is where the loyalty stress tests manifestly fails in your opinion. The point is that not everyone’s personal circumstances are identical. Not everyone is able to be a season ticket holder, whether it’s due to affordability, or work, or family, or personal circumstances, maybe they live miles away from Norwich. Using your example, if a student is away at university, in Birmingham or Yorkshire, but they decided last year to get an away membership to see a few games local to them throughout the season, why should they be penalised by your proposal? You chose not to get an away membership in the first place. Fair play if you still obtained tickets for three games that went to general sale, but your home season ticket only entitles you to attend games at Carrow Road.

The main purpose of the AGM is to approve the annual accounts, typically done in November, which would have been completely impractical from a timing perspective, as the season had already started. Notwithstanding that, there’s circa 6,850 shareholders, yet over 21,000 season ticket holders. Why give exclusivity on such things to just one subset of a much wider fan base? You really do need to think these things through properly before waving your club bashing stick around…

Someone is either being forgetful, or uneconomical with the truth… Yes, the paid away membership scheme was introduced in 2019, without consultation, however the current scheme, with groupings and match picks, was revised for the 2020/21 season, after lengthy consultations during the autumn 2019. Additionally, there’s been at least one, if not two, tweaks to the groupings since.

A huge thank you for keeping this going for so long @nutty nigel. It’s been a privilege to be part of this almost from the start, and those honours boards are a testament to all your selfless hard work for the benefit of others. My pick is Man City v Luton Town - home win. Norwich pick is a Borja banger from outside the box.