GMF

Yes, of course they’ve changed, but the original concept was the offer to pay £25,000, for a 1,000 shares, with the benefit of a seat for life, that being the life of the share purchaser, not their beneficiaries. No one in their right mind would offer such an open-ended commitment, effectively in perpetuity, for £25,000. If the purchaser was unfortunate to pass away a few years later, then, arguably, the seat would have been considered a relatively expensive investment. But we’re now twenty-two seasons later. Like every other seat in the ground, those business seats are more expensive than they were back in 2002, when the shares were acquired. For those who took up the option, I tip my hat to them, but to expect someone else to pay them back all their money, they would argue that it should be considerably more, just seems unrealistic, especially since they have had free use of their seats in the intervening years. Those shares are unlisted securities and are still worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for them.

His gripe, despite the original share offer document clearly stating that any prescribed benefits (in the instance of a 1,000 share holding, a seat for life) being personal to the original shareholder, which would cease on a share sale or the passing of the shareholder, he believes that the benefit should be changed retrospectively, and capable of being transferred to an inheritor.

@essex canary the Club procures the services of a wide range of external companies for various purposes. Quite why you think that they should disclose the costs of a particular service is baffling, but equally unsurprising. “Clearly my portion is more substantial than yours”. Whilst factually correct, it does make you sound like a pompous idiot, with an enormous sense of entitlement. Ultimately, if it bothers you that much, make your own enquiries directly. Good luck with that, given the Club’s stance on communications with you! If you were excluded from discussions with the AD’s, then that’s also on you, given your own previous actions and behaviour.

@essex canary nothing to be suspicious about. I was simply advised in private, having asked the question a couple of years ago. We’ve been here before on inheritors, they’re all treated the same, with any benefits being personal to the original shareholder. The only person who thinks that the original share offer document was contradictory is you. There’s no need for the “white knight” act, everyone knows that you’re trying to wangle an alteration to the original offer terms for your own personal benefit.

The consequences of allowable expenditure is that a Club can actually lose significantly more than the £105m, or £39m, over a rolling 3-year period. A quick dip into the two Everton and single Forest PSR adjudications confirms this. Another point to consider is the consequences of recent academy player sales, as they are banked immediately as a total profit. The Godfrey and Jamel sales in 2020 would have given us significant headroom, ditto the sales of Max and Andy O in 2022. Also, another nuance, we wouldn’t have done any player impairments in 2024, had we been close to the threshold. Impairments increase your current loss figure, but also has a benefit of reducing your amortisation recharges in future seasons. Not significant in this instance, but still a factor that would have been influenced by our current PSR headroom figure.

@dylanisabaddog if you want to believe that it was solely down to that, you fill your boots! 😉

I’d forgotten about that, but, yes, they would have inflated the figures further.

The 2020-21 accounts relate to the Covid season behind closed doors. Match receipts were minimal, and, like you say, promotion bonuses and additional transfer fees would have been due at the end of the season due to promotion. The wages figure for 2022 (£118m) also includes the significant loan fees payable to other clubs for Gilmour, Brandon Williams, plus Normann and Ozan Kabak! Throw into the mix the £47m in player additions, and you can see why MF bailed out. He recognised the need for additional working capital to keep things going…

He’s picked it up from a reference within the NCFC archive and, suddenly, the rationalisation of the Club’s shareholder register has become the latest stick to be waved at the Club. The pretence is that it must be costing the Club a fortune to maintain it, but there’s almost an ulterior motive, namely a hope that he will receive an offer from the NG. And we all know, should it happen, as sure as night follows day, whatever buyback price is selected, it won’t be enough to him.

The relevant KPI here isn’t the Dack performance barometer, which seems to flip flop between whataboutery and the school of nonsense and BS!

Less than 24 hours ago you were throwing shade at those directly involved with fan engagement, now you’re requesting action on a specific issue. And then you wonder why you are being ignored by others, including the Club. Unbelievable!

I thought he claimed to be an accountant? Whether that’s Chartered, or Turf, I’m not sure 🤔 😉

So what if Chase did? Would seem churlish to retrospectively begrudge someone for doing well from a share transaction. As for your second point, it seems to have escaped your attention that D&M are no longer running the show and the current incumbents are in the process of acquiring another 2.3m shares at an equivalent rate of £5.32 a share. If you were so minded to write to them, suggesting such a proposal, always assuming that they haven’t joined the multitude of Club employees who have already blocked you, I suspect that they would probably p155 themselves laughing at the stupidity of your proposal.

I’m pretty sure that two things actually happened here. First, shareholders approved resolutions to enable the Club to buyback untraceable shareholders. This fact is reflected in both the archive comments and, subsequently, under note 12 of the 1996 accounts. However, and this is where the slight of hand by RC occurred (referred to by @TIL 1010 and others) those existing (traceable) shareholders who were prepared to sell out their shares at £12.00 a pop, subsequently found out that the purchaser was none other than RC himself. The consequences of both actions was a reduction in the number of overall shareholders.

I’m not sure if even he knows, but I suspect I know that would make most on here happy (and the Club!)

That’s exactly what happened. Everyone thought at the time it was a share buyback by the Club, but it wasn’t. Slight of hand by RC.

Do you understand the concept of a share buyback, which is what you were suggesting? Chase didn’t actually do a buyback, he, subversively, under the pretence of a buyback, made a share offer to other shareholders.

Isn’t the concept of a rationalisation to reduce something, rather than increase it? If so, your first paragraph is absolute garbage. As for your second paragraph, it adds nothing to the debate - yet more unsubstantiated waffle from you.

I’ve dipped in and out of this thread with a combination of interest and amusement. However, one thing that struck me, for all the whataboutery relating to potential differences between the P&L, balance sheet and cash flow statement, the bottom line total, Change in cash for the year (505k) is the same figure. Is that the equivalent of different witness statements for a crime, in this instance the compilation of financial statements, where there’s differences in the recollection of events, but the critical point is the final outcome, not how you got there?

Perhaps the primary focus of any rationalisation should be on associated freebies, like free memberships or free seats? 😉

As a rail user regular, I opted to drive up today, but I can understand why some wouldn’t, if that’s not a possibility for them.

I believe that the game is on Sky? No doubt any gaps that are down to STH who decide to stay at home will be blamed solely on the failings of the buyback scheme, by someone, rather than anything else??? 🤷‍♂️

Maybe the buyback scheme works okay after all? 😉

Without wanting to disparage the departed, you’re heaping praise towards a man who implied a share buyback by the Club, who then sent out cheques from his own company. I don’t recall any forthright explanations from him for overseeing police horses charging towards fellow fans down Carrow Road, either, such was the discontent about what was happening, both on and off the pitch at the time!

These shares are unlisted securities and they’re worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for them. It has always been thus, and it’s not really for someone else to decide if a seller has done well, or not. Not that it didn’t stop you from making endless posts that MF had undersold back in 2022. 🤦