2016 AGM

[? 0]

Rob Butler just tweeted he''s been given permission to tweet during the AGM.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I see Ed Balls has arrived.....

[? 0]

So Ed Balls received the £90k for acting as CEO after McNally left. Weren''t we led to believe Steve Stone was filling in as acting CEO?

[Rogue Baboon 0]

That was my first thought - I''m sure that''s what the club said.

In fact, I think this is the first time I have heard any form of link of Ed Balls covering as CEO?

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

Has anyone booed yet ?

[morty 0]

Jacob Murphy just signed new deal till 2021

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

The man from mulbarton is head of recruitment, perhaps Til will comment on this when he asks his question .....

[? 0]

Has anybody got any idea who are in the recruitment team now? Seems to change more often than one of AN''s teams.

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

Q and A now

[Rogue Baboon 0]

MASSIVE U turn on investment/selling from MWJ?

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Tony Spearing is in charge of recruitment has been since summer

[Rogue Baboon 0]

McNally seems to the main source of agitation.

Apparently he resigned, withdrew the resignation and then was paid off?

What an absolute mess

[? 0]

Norfolk, Jez just said Martin is now in charge! Confused muchly!

[norfolkngood 1,086]

so Tony Spearing who was head of European recruitment scouting at WBA and Reading has been replace by Ricky Martin with no experience of the job ! thats terrible

[Indy 3,290]

Ricky''s one of the Yes men, right for the new structure of our comfortable board set up. No challenge to the owners.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

Alex ''it''s not my fault, leave me alone'' Neil

[STAN 29]

Hit the nail on the head Baboon

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

The AGM is looming, with certain topics likely to be raised. At least four come to mind.1) The accounts show that Tom Smith and Ed Balls were allowed to buy shares at £1 when the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust, for example, had to pay £100. Even if the price has been downgraded, as the result of a re-evaluation (just as it was so decided to raise it from £30 to £100), it is inconceivable it would have been marked down that far.2) I can imagine a question on who is the director other than McNally who received £90,000 during the year. The accounts never named McNally as the one paid director, or Doncaster before him, although it was obviously them. So, by the same token, the directors may refuse to identify the lucky recipient, or explain why we now apparently have a paid executive or semi-executive director as well as the CEO.If the answer is that the money went to Steve Stone for standing in during the summer then that will kill off that as an attack issue, although raising the nerdy question of why he is described as a director in what is meant to be a scrupulously accurate document when he seems never to have been one.3) "No way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries." That seems fairly clear. Not listening to enquiries, though, would not stop someone who was not put off being not listened to making a formal offer for the club. Smith and Jones are bound by company law to pass any such on to shareholders.What shareholders would make of what seemed like a very good formal offer that hadn''t been listened to is a question. The theory is that, because NCFC is not a listed company, any hostile takeover would be bound to fail, because of the 51 per cent majority holding. Under the right circumstances the reality is that Smith and Jones or Smith junior would not be able to stand in the way. But it would have to be a demonstrably very good formal offer.4) I am more than a little intrigued by these trustees who will hold the shares for Smith junior, and would like to know much more. Unfortunately, it isn''t strictly speaking anything to do with the club and the AGM but a private matter for Smith and Jones.

[/quote]1) The short answer from Stone on shares (as given in the EDP''s rolling coverage) - that there was some kind of legal issue involved - would need to be further explained.2) It always seemed likely the money had gone to a director rather than Stone. That it went to Balls makes much more sense than it going to Tom Smith. The club had said Stone was standing in, but he also had his own job to do, so Balls helping out, and being paid for it, doesn''t strike me as unreasonable. Presumably this will be a one-off, until Moxey gets sacked...3) As Parma suggested a few days ago, this statement was not meant to be as dogmatic as it sounded, or it was but Smith and Jones have had second thoughts, prompted by the understandable outcry. Of course, what still matters is what they do rather than what they say.As to McNally and pay-offs and stuff, justified or not, executives on big salaries tend to get big pay-offs, and confidentiality clauses are the norm. Not much to see there. There was an interesting line, though, from Moxey about being surprised he had had to rebuild bridges with commercial partners. A reasonable guess would be he was talking about McNally''s famously abrasive nature having been counter-productive.4) I assume this wasn''t mentioned or asked about. It is, strictly, not NCFC AGM business, but it it is still intriguing.If someone could prepare a flowchart of the personnel changes in the recruitment/scouting departments over the last four or fve years I would be grateful, as I am getting more than a little confused.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

Re point 2 though Purple something still feels strange. One of the tweets I''ve seen says Balls was being paid £90k per annum but he was only a director for 6 months of that period and for some of that McNally was still there. He was not named as acting CEO at the time and all I recall him doing was a couple of interviews. Not to say he didn''t do more behind the scenes but £90k for helping out the club he is chairman of for a few weeks?

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]Re point 2 though Purple something still feels strange. One of the tweets I''ve seen says Balls was being paid £90k per annum but he was only a director for 6 months of that period and for some of that McNally was still there. He was not named as acting CEO at the time and all I recall him doing was a couple of interviews. Not to say he didn''t do more behind the scenes but £90k for helping out the club he is chairman of for a few weeks?[/quote]Jim, it does indeed depend on what he was doing behind the scenes. This is not quite the same argument, since this is not what the club is saying the money was apparently for, but some clubs do pay their chairman as well as their CEO.

[daly 500]

Loved the bit about Mr Balls stating he did not want to take the £90000 for 8 weeks so called work and had to be persuaded.

Must have took all of 5 seconds

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Re point 2 though Purple something still feels strange. One of the tweets I''ve seen says Balls was being paid £90k per annum but he was only a director for 6 months of that period and for some of that McNally was still there. He was not named as acting CEO at the time and all I recall him doing was a couple of interviews. Not to say he didn''t do more behind the scenes but £90k for helping out the club he is chairman of for a few weeks?[/quote]Jim, it does indeed depend on what he was doing behind the scenes. This is not quite the same argument, since this is not what the club is saying the money was apparently for, but some clubs do pay their chairman as well as their CEO.[/quote]

But he was not acting CEO

[morty 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Re point 2 though Purple something still feels strange. One of the tweets I''ve seen says Balls was being paid £90k per annum but he was only a director for 6 months of that period and for some of that McNally was still there. He was not named as acting CEO at the time and all I recall him doing was a couple of interviews. Not to say he didn''t do more behind the scenes but £90k for helping out the club he is chairman of for a few weeks?[/quote]Jim, it does indeed depend on what he was doing behind the scenes. This is not quite the same argument, since this is not what the club is saying the money was apparently for, but some clubs do pay their chairman as well as their CEO.[/quote]

But he was not acting CEO[/quote]They said he was.Or are they lying Jim?

[Crafty Canary 495]

Did anyone ask about the £1 shares?

[Crafty Canary 495]

Just read Purple''s post above and Ricardo''s report so question answered.

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]1) The short answer from Stone on shares (as given in the EDP''s rolling coverage) - that there was some kind of legal issue involved - would need to be further explained.2) It always seemed likely the money had gone to a director rather than Stone. That it went to Balls makes much more sense than it going to Tom Smith. The club had said Stone was standing in, but he also had his own job to do, so Balls helping out, and being paid for it, doesn''t strike me as unreasonable. Presumably this will be a one-off, until Moxey gets sacked...3) As Parma suggested a few days ago, this statement was not meant to be as dogmatic as it sounded, or it was but Smith and Jones have had second thoughts, prompted by the understandable outcry. Of course, what still matters is what they do rather than what they say.As to McNally and pay-offs and stuff, justified or not, executives on big salaries tend to get big pay-offs, and confidentiality clauses are the norm. Not much to see there. There was an interesting line, though, from Moxey about being surprised he had had to rebuild bridges with commercial partners. A reasonable guess would be he was talking about McNally''s famously abrasive nature having been counter-productive.4) I assume this wasn''t mentioned or asked about. It is, strictly, not NCFC AGM business, but it it is still intriguing.If someone could prepare a flowchart of the personnel changes in the recruitment/scouting departments over the last four or fve years I would be grateful, as I am getting more than a little confused.[/quote]Thanks to Ricardo for the extra detail, and his impressions, which in particular may help put to bed the idea that cronyism got Moxey the job of CEO. As to the shares, while there may be a legal requirement to pay only the nominal price of £1, it does seem odd in practice, since if the club is sold for what is (or was) the official price of £100, or even only half that, then Balls and Tom Smith will make quite a profit. But we are not talking about Trump-style millions, or even Brexit-style billions and trillions...[:P]

[Nuff Said 5,093]

Purple, I thought I read somewhere that the shares were previously McNally''s, which he also bought for a pound (each). When Moxey moves on, he will again sell them for a pound. So no profit is made.

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

[quote user="Nuff Said"]Purple, I thought I read somewhere that the shares were previously McNally''s, which he also bought for a pound (each). When Moxey moves on, he will again sell them for a pound. So no profit is made.[/quote]These were not McNally''s old shares, if indeed he has sold them. There were new shares, issued by the club, because the total number has risen precisely by 200  from 616,713 to 616,913. Whether there is any stipulation that they cannot later be sold for more than the nominal £1 I don''t know.

[GPs Beard 0]

Overall I think we need to give the Board some credit for last night. I was hugely sceptical that it would be a whitewash, with very little time allowed for questions / stage managed stooges in the audience , but I followed the whole thing via some very good coverage by various folk on twitter and was pleasantly surprised.

Purples questions , all valid, were mostly answered as well as you could expect. Balls was obviously involved with the appointment of Moxey, and the severance of DM more than we knew. What he gets paid is somewhat eronous , it does seem that his unpaid (as announced by the club) Chairmans role changed quite dramatically.

It does seem that some people struggle with the idea of a confidentiality agreement/ non disclosure . NCFC like these and have used them lots before - hence very few , if any , post departure interviews . They are standard practice. DM was watching closely I suspect to see if there was a breach, he did react at one point on Twitter.

I''m lost with the share issue aspect. Presume my few are still only worth what someone is prepared to pay.

Next question is how exactly Ricky Martin helps us sign players, but that I suspect is for another day.