I found this on another site

[Donkey dangler 0]

I found this on another site:

http://www.norwich.vitalfootball.co.uk/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=18548&posts=5

It seems that somebody has managed to buy shares for a £1 each while other people paid £100 per share.

[Lessingham Canary 108]

Think you will find that was a certain Mr Stone.

Didn''t you have to buy so many "ordinary shares" at £1.00 to be able to buy some "preference B shares", i bought some at the time but can''t remember the workings.

[Donkey dangler 0]

Whoever bought these shares for £1 each, why are they not paying £100 per share like other people?

[Lessingham Canary 108]

last person to buy any shares is Steve Stone, if you can make the link work (can''t do clicky''s) you will see he bought 200 at £1.00 each in January this year.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/WftAkYoZndh1Sgo-LkhAVx2OBhPSVxE4na3CuS7n1LY/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJPAGGSF6TGAQD7FA&Expires=1472939895&Signature=eD05ayaP8gHZlYqI%2B%2Bj3BGP4JxI%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEJX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDAPZ4mV766rVlq872iKcA2M%2B4HiabgiiqGwvXFqtzTTpDs9HPBhJnriiyZCGGpUvn4p4Qz614jStYY4ux1Q3Zue3V9xVwduv%2B87mtO3391SoAQYofgL%2FwBKfRCeiGZr0SWU2ULsP7%2FH7HfSxBF0X3Og7RUMWt0nut3yfshDaRtZUyiQBnicqa%2BTDyyJmTJhdjnzvqgni%2F2iMRnGmbz95MROQVT8kTml9dVfrx5MItlNkvD4yFaW1CMe7kCf6ThHf3xaukXV7nwTt%2F8cFEZR9qjzJEUOKeUYCeDKniwJ%2BrgMB%2FZkLbrgP7ViCud7jFgZrGEQuxwQVgebD%2BihW6QtYfkF2mqxNEiPe96FgbeUfPf382md4d%2FAvKguO86T%2FhcTEpKVsthpTulxx0jT5lXK%2F%2F9Z5MPyBDvDu3H0U7OMCS%2BxMy7A2Qm0lOt54OOaRc5b6D0xH2AFo1Hlopb8PBW642c4eL9jzbXsw8ll%2FC58yQZCz4d%2FyuriWrWVsVapskZza6psbATdxR43OmhXLzUm3LYZHjZHauXxgaKvI3Yfw7B%2B5UpfrI98IBSulEXMopdisvgU%3D

[Lessingham Canary 108]

Whoops that didn''t work. sorry, but the information can be seen at Companies house.

[Lessingham Canary 108]

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history

Try this one !

[Donkey dangler 0]

Lessingham Canary,

I have looked at that link and I can see some information "presented" by Steve Stone on behalf of the company. However there is nothing to indicate that he was the person who bought the 200 ordinary shares for £1 each.

It seems odd to me that somebody has been allowed to buy these shares for £1 each while they normally cost about £100 per share.

[? 0]

Tom the Nephew???

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="Ron Manager"]Tom the Nephew???[/quote]Announced as a director on 18th January so it fits with the info at Companies House. You have to have a shareholding to become a director and if you look beyond Delia,Michael and Foulger the shareholding in the boardroom as at 30th June 2015 it stood at Fry 300,McNally100,Philips 100 with Bowkett being the odd one at 1137.If it is Tom Smith and he has only paid a £1 a share a good question to ask at the AGM.

[dylanisabaddog 6,133]

The value of £1.00 is the par value of the shares when they are issued. So they are £1.00 shares but that doesn''t mean he paid £1.00 for them

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="dylanisabaddog"]The value of £1.00 is the par value of the shares when they are issued. So they are £1.00 shares but that doesn''t mean he paid £1.00 for them[/quote]Amazing that you had to point this out. A dog clearly has a much bigger brain than a donkey [:D]

[Lessingham Canary 108]

Tilly wrote;

Announced as a director on 18th January so it fits with the info at Companies House. You have to have a shareholding to become a director and if you look beyond Delia,Michael and Foulger the shareholding in the boardroom as at 30th June 2015 it stood at Fry 300,McNally100,Philips 100 with Bowkett being the odd one at 1137.

If it is Tom Smith and he has only paid a £1 a share a good question to ask at the AGM.

You don''t have to be a shareholder to be a director, as an employee you can have a role that gives you title of director, and while having daily responsibilities for the business it ends there. But to become a section 228 director you have full legal responsibilities as a director and would be expected to be present AGM''s etc, at least that is my understanding, and something i have been through with a recent sale of a business and the setting up of a new business.

[A Load of Squit 6,260]

It depends on the articles of the company but commonly you don''t have to be a shareholder to be a director of a company.

[Branston Pickle 4,149]

It does rather seem that this thread shows how a little bit of knowledge can make you jump to any number of (wrong) conclusions.

When the club was seeking funds and we all paid our £100s over that £99 extra was the Premium. Ordinary £1 shares are always valued at £1, any extra is shown in the share premium account - you''d need that information to work out the value paid.

[GMF 1,010]

All the information is actually on the SH01 form (page 3) for those who are interested.

Section 3 - Shares allotted has a table with several boxes.

Number of shares allotted - 200

Nominal value of each shares - £1

Amount paid (including share premium) on each share £1

Amount (if any) unpaid (including share premium) on each share £0

As an aside, as most directors typically seem to acquire 100 shares upon election to the Board I''d take a guess that both Tom and Ed acquired 100 shares each back in January

[Crafty Canary 547]

Exactly GMF, these 200 shares were bought for £1 each. Whilst you and I would have to pay £100 per share somebody or some bodies have paid £200 for 200 shares I.e. £1 per share. Now I was under the impression that that the directors of the company have a duty to all shareholders to protect the values of their shares. Selling shares at their nominal value does not appear to meet the legal requirements of that duty.

Westcoastcanary appears to have a brain even smaller than that of a donkey.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]Exactly GMF, these 200 shares were bought for £1 each. Whilst you and I would have to pay £100 per share somebody or some bodies have paid £200 for 200 shares I.e. £1 per share. Now I was under the impression that that the directors of the company have a duty to all shareholders to protect the values of their shares. Selling shares at their nominal value does not appear to meet the legal requirements of that duty.

Westcoastcanary appears to have a brain even smaller than that of a donkey.[/quote]I know nothing about shares but - are you saying the club have acted illegally and if so, can they be sued or prosecuted by other shareholders or the police even?

[nutty nigel 7,902]

I know nothing about shares but good to see you posting again GMF. The lost sheep are coming home :)

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Crafty Canary"]Exactly GMF, these 200 shares were bought for £1 each. Whilst you and I would have to pay £100 per share somebody or some bodies have paid £200 for 200 shares I.e. £1 per share. Now I was under the impression that that the directors of the company have a duty to all shareholders to protect the values of their shares. Selling shares at their nominal value does not appear to meet the legal requirements of that duty.

Westcoastcanary appears to have a brain even smaller than that of a donkey.[/quote]I know nothing about shares but - are you saying the club have acted illegally and if so, can they be sued or prosecuted by other shareholders or the police even?[/quote]Owners have what is called a fiduciary duty that, in essence, is meant to ensure they do the best for the company and the shareholders. If they don''t they can be taken to a civil court. As to whether seemingly selling shares at £1 is a breach of fiduciary duty is a question. I made this point more than once when posters were gaily saying Smith and Jones should sell their controlling stake for a nominal sum of 10p or a £1, that such a move would devalue to virtually nothing the shares of everyone else who had paid £25 or £30, or now even £100.The club, unless it has changed its policy, reviews the value of the company every year, and decides whether the share price needs adjusting. Hence the rise a few years ago from £30 to £100. But it is hard to imagine there has been such a perceived devaluation of the company''s worth that £1 is now seen as a fair reflection, since it would value the company at around £600,000.

[daly 551]

Unless the company is listed on the AIM market when the Company Chairmen do what they like

[Felixfan 53]

Surely the nominal value of a share is always £1 in the company''s accounts irrespective of the market value which is reflected by the perceived value of the company. Your shares may then be worth X but in the company''s balance sheet they are still £1 shares irrespective of how much you paid for them.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Owners have what is called a fiduciary duty that, in essence, is meant to ensure they do the best for the company and the shareholders. If they don''t they can be taken to a civil court. As to whether seemingly selling shares at £1 is a breach of fiduciary duty is a question. I made this point more than once when posters were gaily saying Smith and Jones should sell their controlling stake for a nominal sum of 10p or a £1, that such a move would devalue to virtually nothing the shares of everyone else who had paid £25 or £30, or now even £100.The club, unless it has changed its policy, reviews the value of the company every year, and decides whether the share price needs adjusting. Hence the rise a few years ago from £30 to £100. But it is hard to imagine there has been such a perceived devaluation of the company''s worth that £1 is now seen as a fair reflection, since it would value the company at around £600,000.

[/quote]However, surely this doesn''t preclude a person gifting some of their shares or selling a few at a nominal price should they so wish?

[Van wink 2,994]

Poundland, mmmm.......oh dear!

[Herman 11,136]

What else can we find faulty with this club??

[Katie Borkins 1]

I read this thread and lit a torch, but now i don''t know whether to march on Carrow Road or put the torch out again. Can anyone offer some clarity please?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Kunst"]What else can we find faulty with this club??[/quote]HERMAN!  I''d recognise that double question mark anywhere. [:D]

[Herman 11,136]

I would have got away with it if it wasn''t for those pesky question marks[:@]

[PurpleCanary 6,381]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]Owners have what is called a fiduciary duty that, in essence, is meant to ensure they do the best for the company and the shareholders. If they don''t they can be taken to a civil court. As to whether seemingly selling shares at £1 is a breach of fiduciary duty is a question. I made this point more than once when posters were gaily saying Smith and Jones should sell their controlling stake for a nominal sum of 10p or a £1, that such a move would devalue to virtually nothing the shares of everyone else who had paid £25 or £30, or now even £100.The club, unless it has changed its policy, reviews the value of the company every year, and decides whether the share price needs adjusting. Hence the rise a few years ago from £30 to £100. But it is hard to imagine there has been such a perceived devaluation of the company''s worth that £1 is now seen as a fair reflection, since it would value the company at around £600,000.

[/quote]However, surely this doesn''t preclude a person gifting some of their shares or selling a few at a nominal price should they so wish?[/quote]No. Neither of those scenarios is precluded. Individuals can offer or ask as much or as little (down to zero) as they like.

[TIL 1010 5,246]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I know nothing about shares but good to see you posting again GMF. The lost sheep are coming home :)[/quote]Their shepherd took them to what was believed greener pastures but all they found was tumbleweed.