GMF

Should this be messaged out as a seriously generous act, or should it be more a reflection of the fact, having been repeatedly told that there were no buyers for a majority stake, that someone else sold their 16% minority shareholding which has subsequently resulted in a serious capital injection into the Club? What spin does everyone want to put on it?

I’ve been here twice before now, putting him on the ignore list. It doesn’t work, though, if others keep on quoting him. Recently, I’ve just tagged him in responses. It’s better for everyone else, but not perfect. I’m as hesitant as anyone to make an exclusion of someone from the NCFC community, even though he’s hard work. However, in the spirit of the request from @Feedthewolf, I’ll do it again. OTBC

@essex canary my understanding is that only the away members get the travel discount. Quite why you are so disrespectful to home only members, many of whom are the upcoming generation, is puzzling, but unsurprising, and seems to highlight your over inflated sense of entitlement. The gifts for STH question was a surprise and seems like a complete nonstarter, not least on cost grounds. If you have an issue with the post-event happenings, take it up with customer services. The SP’s remit is with issues of general interest to fans, not personal complaints based upon hearsay.

I always try and offer reason and logic in response to posts by others, especially when they are lacking understanding of the facts, or are being economical with the truth. Unfortunately, I’m guilty of having a low tolerance threshold towards stupidity, especially when accompanied by huge dollops of whataboutery. At this stage I’m using as guilty as anyone of taking the p155, or poking the bear!

Wishful thinking. Even when previously on ignore, he’d frequently tag me in on stuff, which I’d then see as it was more often than not still quoted by others. The ignore button is a bit like the buyback scheme, not really fit for purpose. No doubt that’s the fault of the supporters panel, too! 😉

@essex canary the away membership charge, just like the home membership fee, is a revenue source. You seem quite happy with the home membership fee being charged, presumably because you have a free season ticket, so it’s of no interest to you. However, you don’t like its concept for away membership because you’re not exempt from it? In contrast, the supposed £1.00 discount on coach travel for STH (and now members too) is nothing of the sort in reality, as the vast majority of travellers are adults, so they now receive it. The Club aims to cover the cost of the actual coach hire and drivers in the fees recharged to fans for each game. For example, if that works at, say, £35 a person then the quoted fee is £36 minus the £1.00 discount. It’s a nonsense to suggest it’s a discount, as they’re not really subsidising each traveller to the tune of £1.00 per adult.

Unsurprisingly, someone wasn’t paying attention. The query was raised by the Club, not the SP, and the discount on coach travel, which has been around for a while, was only granted to STH’s, but not members. The question was should it the discount be retained in the current format, should the discount be increased, or dropped completely. In the end the Club opted to extend the current discount to all adults, STH or not.

Fixed it for you! 😉

Let’s be absolutely clear here, the purpose of the waivers was to achieve a specific objective, namely to convert loans into equity. This has (hopefully) changed now that the primary purpose has been achieved. 🤞

Ah, but, yeah but, it’s all the Trust’s fault that the matched-bargain share trading platform doesn’t work for everyone, don’t you know! Didn’t stop MF selling his 96,000 shares, mind. 🧐

Our US owner has already put in excess of £50m into the Club, yet some people seem irritated that they’ve not yet made an offer for their shares! 😲

Personally, I have no problem with the occasional non-football thread, as long as the majority remain NCFC / football related. However, if balance flips significantly away from this, then I might not bother, as I’d be less inclined to wade through endless non-football threads, especially if certain posters make repeated posts that are contrary to the main point of this forum. OTBC.

It won’t surprise me at all, sadly. A few ‘strikes’ incoming, no doubt.

What odds that a continued repetition of non-football threads will result in this forum being completely binned off? Then those complaining about the removal of the non-football forum will really have something to moan about!

If you’re going to lecture others about how you think they should behave, you really should be exemplary yourself. Attempting to change the terms of the original share offer agreement, under the pretence of someone else’s misfortune, which would, ultimately be for your own benefit, for example. Maybe you consider that you were mentoring BK because he allowed you a second seat, when you were only entitled to one?

“I was his mentor!” 😂😂😂😂

Whatever answers are given, the response is always the same; “what about this, what about that, ah, yeah, but, it still doesn’t cross the Dackbar threshold”. The Club has in excess of 6,800 shareholders, and less than 50 of those (that’s about 0.67%) have 500 shares, or more. Yet, in the opinion of someone, a team of volunteers is still supposed to offer a share dealing service that offers everyone an easy sale. It doesn’t, simply because the more shares you have, the more difficult a sale becomes, especially given that there’s so few larger shareholdings. And, why would anyone now buy 1,000 shares, especially given the increased allotment of shares that is coming around the corner? ”Ah, yeah but, it’s all the fault of the matched bargain share platform….” Someone has the benefit of a free seat for life, he enjoy it whilst it lasts, because you never know what’s coming around the corner!

Keep throwing the shade in my direction @essex canary, but be careful what you wish for, as you never know what’s coming around the corner at you. I won’t be shedding any tears.

It’s an apples and pears comparison, but you carry on looking for someone else to blame if it makes you feel happy.

@essex canary the primary driver at the time was to raise sufficient funds to cover the ITV Digital shortfall. They achieved that, albeit, with the benefit of hindsight, they probably would have done it differently. It is what it is and there’s no point in complaining about it now.

@essex canary your synopsis is therefore, because no one has so far tried to sell more than 350 shares, it’s inadequate for your own purposes, even though you’ve never tried it yourself? Bottom line here, as I’ve frequently suggested, is the existing shareholding breakdown for the Club is the primary reason why most people are only interested in acquiring a handful of shares, rather than any inadequacy of the MBF itself?

I was going to reply, those were the days, but someone would undoubtedly call me a binner! 😉

@essex canary your opinion, or anyone else’s for that matter, on what should have been the appropriate charge rate back in 2002 is now completely irrelevant. You took a view at the time that it was worthwhile for you and accepted the terms of the offer. You should have been clear about the terms of the offer, so moaning about it retrospectively is a waste of time.

If that’s your intention, how about referring to what I actually said, rather than distorting it? I haven’t ever said that the ‘seats for life’ were underpriced. What I’ve actually suggested was that if the original intention had been for them to be capable of being transferable, then they would have been priced higher than they were. That's not the same point as you’ve suggested.

@TIL 1010 it’s all the SP’s fault that someone had been on the ST waiting list for a while. Let’s ignore the real reason why that was so, as it’s more fun to stick wave instead…. Let’s also ignore GDPR, ask the Club for details of the full waiting list and, maybe suggest that there could be a purge of existing problematical STH’s to free up some more seats for those who’ve been waiting a while?