Jump to content

GMF

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3,868

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by GMF

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Committed fans spending their hard earned money travelling away to watch their team, going to the only well advertised designated away pub to have a beer and let of some steam. They have nothing to be ashamed about, attempting to hold a Q&A event with the suits was a silly idea, as others said it should have been at the pub used by the Capital Canaries. Those who were interested could have gone there, those who weren't could then have continued to have a few beers in Belushis. 

    The playing staff on the other hand... they do after that performance.

    Just for clarity, a lot of pubs around Shepherd’s Bush are home fans only, and the Belushis Bar was advertised on social media as the Capital Canaries destination for yesterday’s game.

    It’s easy to say, whether with foresight or hindsight, that the choice of venue was poor, nevertheless, when proceedings began, I’m personally struggling with the suggestion that fans had nothing to be ashamed of.

    For context, on the two or three occasions Neil Adams tried to start the Q&A, was it really justified to respond with, “who’s the w**ker with the mic”, or, “shove the f**king microphone up your ar53”. It wasn’t just a few people, it was a significant number.

    It’s hard to condone such behaviour, and, as my dear old grandmother used to say, “judge people by what they say and do.”

    Hate on me if you want, but that was embarrassing on so many levels.

    • Like 3

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, debbie does norwich said:

    The forum has been cancelled. Drowned out by the crowd. No idea what Zoe & co had to say but now we will never know.

    I feel very ashamed at being a ncfc fan at the moment.

    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. 

    • Haha 1

  5. Posted

    20 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

    We wouldn’t be so aware of this ridiculous deal ADs get if it wasn’t for a certain poster on here. They are people who could afford to take advantage of benefits from a share issue over 20 years ago.

    It probably could be argued that people who bought less shares gave a bigger proportion of their personal wealth and got no benefits except the knowledge that they helped the club they love.

    I would guess the other ADs understand this and gratefully enjoy their tickets supporting the club they love.

    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.

    🤦‍♂️

  6. Posted

    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.

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

    Anybody know whether there is anything in writing which forces them to offer this season ticket in a specific part of the ground, or could they, for example, move these to the Wensum Corner where there always appears to be loads of empty seats?

    Just trying to think of ways that we can fill that corner as it always looks a bit unsightly when the TV cameras pan to it.

    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.

  9. Posted

    17 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

    Good to see a new stick has been found in the form of transport on a matchday to and from County Hall and Carrow Road. 

    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. 

  10. Posted

    3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

    Why should the Trust tell the world about a communication that was quite rightly restricted to their membership ?

    Rather a strange statement to make regarding the Club encouraging the Trust to be more consultative with its members unless you have evidence to back it up.

    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! 😩

    • Thanks 1

  12. Posted

    3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

    I cannot access OUTLOOK at the moment (are other posters having the same problem or is it just me?!) but the email I received from the Trust said it was not going to buy any more shares. Understandable given that the deal taking Attanasio to 85 per cent significantly dilutes everyone else's holdings, that of the Trust included. Not really a change of the Trust's focus on core issues concerning fans.

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

  13. Posted

    On 20/11/2024 at 10:33, Feedthewolf said:

    Thanks for that. Can't imagine either of those firms would be in any hurry to sell up and shift out, then!

    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.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    15 minutes ago, king canary said:

    You can still just ignore them! It isn't that hard! You're not compelled to click the post button.

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

  17. Posted

    33 minutes ago, SouthwellC said:

    Hello. I'm slightly disappointed to see this thread, and it's not the first in the last few days, descend into mud-slinging and unnecessary abuse of posters. Can we please act like grown-ups and treat each other with some respect. I really would not want to be issuing bans, so let's avoid that. Thanks in advance. 

    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. 

    • Like 1

  19. Posted

    4 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

    While we're on the subject of land around the ground, does anyone know anything about any of the land/facilities outlined in yellow on the image below? Obviously I can see a lot of the warehouses contain existing businesses, but do we think there's any scope for purchase/development of any of this land for additional club-related infrastructure?

    1846629267_Screenshot2024-11-19122837.thumb.png.e17c9884baf543f19f70d0b32b905be2.png

     

    Maybe! 😉

  21. Posted

    4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

    S&J have been rightly praised for not using this takeover to cash in, but in reality they have only done - so far - exactly what they said they would do. Which was not to profit. And I imagine the plan to gift their shares to nephew Tom is still in place. Which if enacted potentially prevents Norfolk Group being in a position to forcibly buy out the minorities. For that it needs 90 per cent and the current plan will leave it short, at about 85 per cent.

    Some of the clauses in the latest deal are relevant here, if I have understood right. Norfolk will have the first right of purchase if S&J decide to transfer or sell some or all of their shares, unless the transfer/sale is to Tom Smith. And Norfolk can argue against those shares being sold to anyone else.

    Those provisions are interesting in relation to the 90 per cent threshold. Since buying the whole stake would easily take Norfolk past 90 per cent. And it is not obvious why Norfolk would want to do that if its intention was not to take the company private.

    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.

  23. Posted

    3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

    What Attanasio said recently, if I remember right, was that they were trying to buy it back, possibly to use as some base for the club, but were having trouble contacting the Chinese owners!

    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. 

    • Thanks 1

  24. Posted

    13 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

    Not sure which pockets of land you are talking about ?

    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.

  25. Posted

    14 minutes ago, MC_NCFC said:

    Time for some of us to remember the Academy bond and how it brought returns

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...