GMF

Remind me whose idea it was to ask a question about this topic at last year’s AGM….

The crowd wasn’t in the mood for a Q&A, which is probably the politest way to put it. Someone got hold of the microphone, supposedly to ask a question, only to start shouting / singing into it.

Once met, never forgotten. 😶

Funny how the families of the other three or four AD’s who’ve since sadly passed away, fully understood the meaning of “subscriber benefits being for life”, as prescribed in the original share offer document. However, there’s always one person who thinks that they’re the exception to the original offer terms, and can’t understand why they don’t get any support from fan representatives, who don’t agree with their views, not least because there’s no credible evidence to support their position. 🤦‍♂️

Wowzers, it’s amazing how some people like to rewrite history to fit their own narrative. Prior to the Companies Act 2006, companies had to specify its maximum authorised share capital within their accounts. The number of shares actually allotted was typically far less than the maximum authorised share capital. The restriction limited the ability of companies to raise new equity, hence why it was removed. It would be totally wrong to judge the success, or otherwise, of a share offer based upon whether it was fully subscribed, unless you’re in stick waving mode, which most reasonable people usually are not. No one really cares about how many shares the AD’s purchased, it was always about raising sufficient capital to cover the projected shortfall from the collapse of ITV Digital, which is what happened.

It’s also known as Corporate Governance Corner.

Associate Directors were entitled to a business seat, for life, as part of the public share offer back in 2002. Rumour has it that one person has wangled a second seat, albeit in a cheaper area of the ground.

The logistics of this would be a nightmare, especially given the high traffic volumes on Bracondale, King Street and Koblenz Avenue, both pre-match and post-match.

It’s a change of policy in relation to future share purchases, rightly communicated out to members first, with wider messaging out to all to follow. Crazy logic, I know, but it doesn’t not stop certain people from throwing out false information in the meantime! 😩

I often wonder what planet some posters are on at times. You’re definitely not the message board’s Mercury. Mind Uranus is quite large…. 😉

At last. Someone who can read and understand the mail out….

If they own it, rather than rent, which is likely given the time they’ve been there, I suspect that alternative accommodation would be expensive, whether to rent or buy.

Kieran Maguire has previously estimated the number at £30m, too.

Let’s see how long those posts last….

Guilty in the past, admittedly, but you’re preaching to the converted on this. Content is being ignored by me at least.

Biggest problem with the ignore button is that it has little effect if other people keep quoting the person who you’re trying to ignore.

Laurence Scott Group. Involved with engineering and electrical motors, I believe.

Maybe! 😉

Don’t presume you were picking from a list of just one! 😉

The original shareholder agreement referred to pre-existing inheritance provisions would take precedence. However, my bet would be a further debt-for-equity swap which would render all that irrelevant. Like I’ve always believed, retaining public limited status was unlikely in the long term.

Whatever I said, there’s always someone else who’ll say, yeah but, what about…. 😉

If I recall correctly, the Club still has the freehold of the land upon which the hotel stands. However, they granted a long leasehold interest to the developers of the hotel. Out of this interest they have granted a management agreement with the hotel operator. So, at least two legal interests to deal with.

The Club already owns the landscape strips between Carrow Road and Koblenz Avenue behind the City Stand, together with the larger landscaped area behind the Barclay Stand, between Carrow Road and Canary Way.

Just for context on this, the Club needed £3.5m to upgrade the academy, due to its lack of investment over a long time. That funding came from the fans, who stepped up and contributed £5m in less than a week. It proved a worthwhile, albeit an expensive exercise for the Club, but only because of promotion less than 12 months later. In contrast, we now have an ownership group that is investing its own money into the Club, rather than being fan reliant.

It was completely disingenuous to blame Covid for the £30m loss, as happened at last year’s AGM. For starters, because NCFC start their ST renewals so early in comparison to other clubs, by the time of the first lockdown, in March 2020, the renewal process had begun, and was continued during the 2020-21 Championship season. This gave the Club a £10m cash receipt that others didn’t have during that season. Furthermore, by the time promotion was secured the following May, the end of lockdown was in sight and the Club was expecting to receive record revenues from promotion for the 2021-22 season. Bottom line, by the time promotion was secured, the Club would have already been aware of the extent of its revenue losses, and, having subsequently sold Emi Buendia, should have been able to make appropriate budget adjustments to reflect all these factors. Instead, someone was permitted to proceed with the 11th highest transfer spend in Europe. Nothing wrong with that transfer spend in principle, the issues were that the majority of it was on players not fit-for-purpose in the Premier League, and, secondly, there seemed to be the lack of a clear exit plan following relegation.