The Return of Delia's Dolls House.

[TIL 1010 4,742]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]. They will leave their shares via a trust that will protect the club even ahead of their own blood.The words of Purple and can i just ask how that vision worked out for Blackburn Rovers when Sir Jack Walker passed ? [/quote]I have said many things but I don''t recall making that categoric statement, or anything much like it. Either my memory is failing (as it is) or I was, as defence counsel say in mitigation, "in drink" (another possibility), or perhaps there is another fan/poster with that name?[/quote]Apologies as i got my Purples and Parmas muddled up.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]. They will leave their shares via a trust that will protect the club even ahead of their own blood.The words of Purple and can i just ask how that vision worked out for Blackburn Rovers when Sir Jack Walker passed ? [/quote]I have said many things but I don''t recall making that categoric statement, or anything much like it. Either my memory is failing (as it is) or I was, as defence counsel say in mitigation, "in drink" (another possibility), or perhaps there is another fan/poster with that name?[/quote]Apologies as i got my Purples and Parmas muddled up.[/quote]That''s understandable. We are both frighteningly intelligent posters who are always right about everything...

[Number9 272]

Purple Parma Said -

That''s understandable. We are both frighteningly intelligent posters who are always right about everything

I Said -

Sorry been a bit busy here, did someone call?

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="TIL 1010"]Apologies as i got my Purples and Parmas muddled up.[/quote]That''s understandable. We are both frighteningly intelligent posters who are always right about everything...[/quote]Except when you disagree [;)]

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Millionaire fans buy club they love.

Childless couple confirm intention to leave shares to nephew who is a also a lifelong fan.

Majority shareholders announce in advance creation of trust to ensure even nephew cannot act wilfully.

Using a single example of a fan dynasty club that made bad decisions, ahead of the legions of examples of mis-management at ''non-love'' owner clubs shows a lack of an empirical mind, implying a pre-determined point of view.

Perfection is not on offer, guarantees are not available. Good intentions do not automatically lead to utopia, though questioning the integrity and best intentions of the current majority owners is entirely misplaced and unfair.

Parma

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Excellent posts, Parma.

I would add though that a person''s best qualities are usually their biggest faults.

With that in mind my original point stands that Delia needs the right people around her but I''m afraid too much points to an autocracy and this is where we were pre-McNally and where it appears we are now.

Ed Balls has got an awful lot to prove as far as I am concerned and comes in as a ''mate.''

Moxey looks like a sheep in sheep''s clothing so far.

Tom is a project.

And the rest just toe the line.

The Club has lost it''s dynamism and empires tend to crumble from within. Delia re-invented Norwich City with McNally and along with the abrasive Lambert and Holt we had our own Cerberus.

Today we just have lap dogs and poodles.

[Indy 3,298]

Rudolph, you''ve summed my thoughts exactly, good post.

[Rock The Boat 1,330]

I like what Rudolph says. We need a hard-nosed CEO, similar to McNally who can drive us to the next level.

And as balance to the soft-skills of our owners.

It is in the nature of the DM types that they will eventually self combust and we shouldn''t fear re-igniting the furnace simply because at times it became uncomfortably hot.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

But Rudolph disagreed with the hardnosed McNally and Bowkett. So much so that he got on his bike and stopped going to games. It''s unbeleivable how popular people become after they''ve left.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Delia and Michael are fans. They are huge supporters of Norwich City and they own the club.

They run it with the very best of intentions and want desperately for the club to be successful and sustainable.

They are poor millionaires, but they do not use the football club as a vehicle to achieve other financial, political or strategic aims.

They employ well qualified Chief Executives, run a mutual-style financial model investing all available monies into the team and Academy.

They have a succession plan for another fan who they love and trust. They will leave their shares via a trust that will protect the club even ahead of their own blood.

They use their profile to lament the way the game has become a vehicle for television and outside interests, often without the football and the fans as their primary objective.

They have overseen the most successful period in the club''s history in terms of finance, promotions and incoming transfers, with record signings now the norm. A £5m back-up striker was signed in the summer ''on the cheap''.

The club massively over-achieve in terms of wealth-to-success ratios and routinely have a very low wages ceiling when at the top table. Due to the Yo-yoing nature of the club, there is an ongoing paradox of trying to sign quality high level players good enough to keep us in the Premier League who are conversely not necessarily ideally suited to the Championship. Conversely the players hat are suited - and perhaps too good for the more rough-and-tumble Championship - are not highly-skilled or refined enough for the top tier. After repeated trips up or down, such delineations become apparent to fans, Manager and the players themselves. Norwich are simply not in a position to bridge this overnight and the huge flux up of down widens the rift (even when moving forwards).

All of this is the nature of football in England, where £5bn deals have distorted the historic pattern. Within a very few years a mediocre club that has scraped the playoffs, found a hot striker and stayed up for 3 years can overturn a small stadium and 50 years of low level history. Conversely massive clubs can be relegated with expensive, mercenary squads of 35 and become mired outside the top tier and cut adrift. They are many historically ''small'' clubs in the Premier League and many large ''old'' clubs with half-empty stadiums in the Championship.

Distant, soulless owners now run many of them for their own motives and benefits. Dreaming of an easy win and vault upwards that they cannot - and will not - all achieve.

So there is your real choice. Not some utopian dream of perfection that is not on offer.

Parma[/quote]Having not read the entire Times piece (which might not provide an explanation anyway) I am intrigued by what looks like a significant provision being made by Smith and Jones. Is this trust purely some kind of technical legal proviso, or is it, as Parma''s wording suggests,  more of  a strict set of instructions, or even a supervisory body, perhaps of the Norfolk great and the good, that can override or at the least very strongly advise Tom Smith to do or not do such and such? Knowing more might inform and help clarify posters'' views, including my own, on the long-term significance of the Smith and Jones statement.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

A panel of trustees will be appointed as a firewall to prevent any individual acting/selling on a whim or in moments of transient drama.

Parma

[Alex Moss 2,165]

Was a big fan of David McNally myself, whom got a hell of a lot more right than he did wrong. People can say what they like about him but even a family club needs a Tony Soprano within it''s ranks. I think we''re missing this bloke behind closed doors much more than many think - there''s a gaping hole publicly too.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A panel of trustees will be appointed as a firewall to prevent any individual acting/selling on a whim or in moments of transient drama.

Parma[/quote]Thanks Parma. Amid all the sometimes unfocused rage and angst here over the Smith and Jones statement I find it odd that a nugget of what could be significant hard information - which raises all sorts of questions - got ignored.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

nutty nigel wrote: But Rudolph disagreed with the hardnosed McNally and Bowkett. So much so that he got on his bike and stopped going to games. It''s unbeleivable how popular people become after they''ve left.

Now, Nigel. I don''t actually recall saying much if anything about Bowkett but it is true I disagreed with McNally on occasion. The only comment I recall making about Bowkett was surprise at his comments on Lambert''s impatience. Well, if being impatient means you drive the board to get in the players you need before the season starts - as opposed to the last two seasons when fans have known what we needed in August but they didn''t arrive until January or were late panic buys or loans then Bowkett obviously needed driving to get on with things.

But this post is about the dynamic of working with people you might not agree with as opposed to ''yes'' men or ''forelock tuggers.'' In an ideal world you work with myriad opinions and personalities, write the hymns, print the sheets and all sing together.

I believe McNally acted poorly in his handling of Grant Holt who in turn acted unprofessionally in terms of his fitness and training but despite that, and ''Cautious Chris'' he was still far and away our best striker and a personality we have never come close to replacing.

Remember too how the loyal Wes was pushed to the edge around the same time but is still here while others mentioned have gone.

Speaking of Cautious Chris he was a major factor in stopping me going to games but not the only reason. In the end the situation with him was handled badly in that he wasn''t fired early enough we waited until it was far too late and then made ourselves a laughing stock while CC kept a relegation off his CV. Was this McNally vs Delia sentiment? Who knows?

I could go on. What about the ''Big Bad Wolf'' poster embarrassment? Talk about set up to fail. Nothing to do with the CEO?

McNally appears the kind of man who thrives on taking a hatchet to something but not too good at burying one. His obsession with Lambert''s move to Villa was a pyrrhic victory without the victory. A massive distraction for an obvious outcome and then compounded by paying too much money to get in a manager whose style was unsuitable for just about every player on the books. You don''t ask Hippos to climb trees. This was a supposed marque manager intended to make a poor point.

McNally showed his lack of soft skills with the supporters but while he was head of a successful Club that was sucked up. He was the right man at the time and maybe his personal circumstances with the loss of his father affected him but he, like most people, had his time.

And with the natural cycle of things it doesn''t pay to let friendship rule over business and there is no reason to avoid getting in another abrasive personality just because the current one got stale.

Unfortunately, Delia appears to have gone back to her default position.

[Len 74]

We''ve heard from Delia and Moxey this weekend and its clear they don''t see any great problems. Yet several happy clappers on here have turned against Delia & co presumably sensing further trouble ahead.The owners cannot see anything wrong until its too late. They''re like rabbits in the headlights when disaster strikes.

[TIL 1010 4,742]

'' You don''t ask Hippos to climb trees '' .......Love it LOL. [:D]

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A panel of trustees will be appointed as a firewall to prevent any individual acting/selling on a whim or in moments of transient drama.

Parma[/quote]Thanks Parma. Amid all the sometimes unfocused rage and angst here over the Smith and Jones statement I find it odd that a nugget of what could be significant hard information - which raises all sorts of questions - got ignored. [/quote]

I don''t think its been ignored Purple. The statement in the article was relatively clear. Some form of trust will be set up so Tom would need to get the consent of the trustees before being able to sell his shareholding. presumably to get that consent he would need to satisfy the trustees that the sale is necessary or in the clubs best interests.

I don''t have an issue with that. Its consistent with their stated intentions. The thing I have a problem with is the fact that if we don''t get promoted and thus retain the benefits of the tv money/parachute payments then the ownership model we have is probably not competitive any more, so to be completely closed to enquiries (as I personally think they have been for a long time) is potentially holding us back.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Should a loyal billionaire fan with the club''s best intention at heart appear, then the equation would naturally change and rightly so.

By all means put one forward.

Parma

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]nutty nigel wrote: But Rudolph disagreed with the hardnosed McNally and Bowkett. So much so that he got on his bike and stopped going to games. It''s unbeleivable how popular people become after they''ve left.

Now, Nigel. I don''t actually recall saying much if anything about Bowkett but it is true I disagreed with McNally on occasion. The only comment I recall making about Bowkett was surprise at his comments on Lambert''s impatience. Well, if being impatient means you drive the board to get in the players you need before the season starts - as opposed to the last two seasons when fans have known what we needed in August but they didn''t arrive until January or were late panic buys or loans then Bowkett obviously needed driving to get on with things.

But this post is about the dynamic of working with people you might not agree with as opposed to ''yes'' men or ''forelock tuggers.'' In an ideal world you work with myriad opinions and personalities, write the hymns, print the sheets and all sing together.

I believe McNally acted poorly in his handling of Grant Holt who in turn acted unprofessionally in terms of his fitness and training but despite that, and ''Cautious Chris'' he was still far and away our best striker and a personality we have never come close to replacing.

Remember too how the loyal Wes was pushed to the edge around the same time but is still here while others mentioned have gone.

Speaking of Cautious Chris he was a major factor in stopping me going to games but not the only reason. In the end the situation with him was handled badly in that he wasn''t fired early enough we waited until it was far too late and then made ourselves a laughing stock while CC kept a relegation off his CV. Was this McNally vs Delia sentiment? Who knows?

I could go on. What about the ''Big Bad Wolf'' poster embarrassment? Talk about set up to fail. Nothing to do with the CEO?

McNally appears the kind of man who thrives on taking a hatchet to something but not too good at burying one. His obsession with Lambert''s move to Villa was a pyrrhic victory without the victory. A massive distraction for an obvious outcome and then compounded by paying too much money to get in a manager whose style was unsuitable for just about every player on the books. You don''t ask Hippos to climb trees. This was a supposed marque manager intended to make a poor point.

McNally showed his lack of soft skills with the supporters but while he was head of a successful Club that was sucked up. He was the right man at the time and maybe his personal circumstances with the loss of his father affected him but he, like most people, had his time.

And with the natural cycle of things it doesn''t pay to let friendship rule over business and there is no reason to avoid getting in another abrasive personality just because the current one got stale.

Unfortunately, Delia appears to have gone back to her default position.[/quote]

Thank you for responding instead of the usual dismissive comment.

To briefly answer each of your points:-

Ive seen Bowkett nearly blow a gasket over two things. Paul Lambert was one and cheating QPR was the other. As for Bowket and the transfer windows, the "not getting on with it" seemed to be because of the players we were signing rather than the managers determination to sign them early. When you are a PL club signing players from Brighton, Peterborough, Leeds, Millwall and Huddersfield there''s a fair chance you''ll get them. It seemed to me the problem of Bowket''s and McNally''s later windows was because our club was in competition with other PL clubs for the players we wanted. These problems occur when a team tries to become established in the PL and hits the limitations of their wealth. Bowkett and McNally saw this happening before we even got to the PL and stated it publicly more than once.

If "the dynamic of working with people you might not agree with" is describing Delia with Bowkett and McNally then I don''t get it. Delia gives the Executive Directors control. you can see this right through her tenure. The problem comes when people credit what they like to the Executive Directors and what they don''t like to Delia. Then you get "Bowkett and McNally appointed Lambert but Delia appointed Adams".

Any problem you had with the employment of Cautious Chris, wasted transfer budgets and issues with Lambert, Holty and Wes are obviously down to the Executive Directors too. Although these things occur at clubs whatever the ownership model is.

Bowkett was the one with the obsession about Lambert''s move to Villa. He really was steaming about it and later commented that the lawyers had requested he cool it.

McNally''s lack of soft skills with supporters seems to be mainly hearsay. I certainly found nothing but warmth on the few occasions I met him. And he paved the way for Rays Funds to change identity from the Academy to the CSF. 

The default position here seems to be when we''re not successful it''s because of Delia and when we are it''s in spite of Delia.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A panel of trustees will be appointed as a firewall to prevent any individual acting/selling on a whim or in moments of transient drama.

Parma[/quote]Thanks Parma. Amid all the sometimes unfocused rage and angst here over the Smith and Jones statement I find it odd that a nugget of what could be significant hard information - which raises all sorts of questions - got ignored. [/quote]

I don''t think its been ignored Purple. The statement in the article was relatively clear. Some form of trust will be set up so Tom would need to get the consent of the trustees before being able to sell his shareholding. presumably to get that consent he would need to satisfy the trustees that the sale is necessary or in the clubs best interests.

I don''t have an issue with that. Its consistent with their stated intentions. The thing I have a problem with is the fact that if we don''t get promoted and thus retain the benefits of the tv money/parachute payments then the ownership model we have is probably not competitive any more, so to be completely closed to enquiries (as I personally think they have been for a long time) is potentially holding us back.[/quote]Jim, perhaps it has been discussed in posts I''ve missed, but I haven''t seen any comments or questions on who are or will be these trustrees, who has or will appoint them, and what powers they have. For example, in the case of a sale what will be their definition of "the best interests of the club"? Will they be hamstrung by a rigid definition handed down by S&J that may be outdated or not cover new circumstances (as could happen) or will they be able to use their judgment?I am particularly interested because several years ago I suggested  the idea of a supporter-director (elected by the fans, employees and shareholders) with a golden-share veto on a small number  of key issues, such as ownership. I don''t know, but it sounds as if these (presumably unelected) trustees - whoever they are- could be coming close to the basic idea - if not the democratic basis - of that concept.

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Good post, Nutty. It''s a shame you don''t share your insight more often.

It''s an interesting point about our competing for the same players with other PL Clubs and worthy of a thread of its own.

Are we all trying to sign the same journeymen?

Does the ''obvious targets'' point to a poor scouting system.

Some sides turn up gems or promote their youth effectively while we seldom see ours coming through and we buy other Clubs promising young players then loan them out.

Why under offer for the likes of Brady when others want him?

Why not go the extra mile to get in the strikers who end up at rivals?

Why pursue over weeks or months the likes of Hooper, Wolf or Naismith when they weren''t going to fit our system or just be more of the same?

And your comments about Bowkett support my point - so please let me know when you see Moxey showing some mettle, Balls living up to his name, The Prince Regent made to sit on the naughty step or Fry having a hissy fit.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Purple - no its not been discussed you are right. I assume they will be appointed by Delia and MWJ when they pass on their shareholding and presumably they will set the parameters in terms of in what circumstances Tom would be allowed to sell.

How narrow those parameters are I guess therefore depends on Delia and MWJ and could obviously be key. Will they reflect the very narrow criteria they seem to have set for any purchaser/investor in the club to date (which frankly is almost impossible to satisfy) or will there be a wider, more general power to sell if the trustees are satisfied that its in the long term interests of the club and/or necessary.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]Good post, Nutty. It''s a shame you don''t share your insight more often.

It''s an interesting point about our competing for the same players with other PL Clubs and worthy of a thread of its own.

Are we all trying to sign the same journeymen?

Does the ''obvious targets'' point to a poor scouting system.

Some sides turn up gems or promote their youth effectively while we seldom see ours coming through and we buy other Clubs promising young players then loan them out.

Why under offer for the likes of Brady when others want him?

Why not go the extra mile to get in the strikers who end up at rivals?

Why pursue over weeks or months the likes of Hooper, Wolf or Naismith when they weren''t going to fit our system or just be more of the same?

And your comments about Bowkett support my point - so please let me know when you see Moxey showing some mettle, Balls living up to his name, The Prince Regent made to sit on the naughty step or Fry having a hissy fit.[/quote]

Given that one of recent targets has signed for Chelsea, another of the centre backs was linked heavily with Chelsea and I think possibly Man City and another has gone to Inter Milan I think it perhaps suggests that in the latter years under McNally we were being a tad over ambitious with our transfers. Nothing wrong with that of course (indeed good to see us at least trying for these players) but the error seems to have been letting those players string us along right up until the deadline without having a meaningful or achievable plan B to fall back on when they decided they didn''t fancy us. Perhaps you could argue we got a bit carried away and should have stuck to the model of snapping up the best that the champ had to offer.

[JF 694]

Parma Ham''s gone mouldy wrote the following post at 07/11/2016 12:12 PM:

Should a loyal billionaire fan with the club''s best intention at heart appear, then the equation would naturally change and rightly so.

By all means put one forward.

Parma

Why should the person in question have to be a fan? I highly doubt sheikh mydidly was a fan of Manchester City before he purchased them, likewise Leicesters owner or Chelseas. This idea that outside investors are all bad news is utterly ridiculous

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

This whole thread is a bit sexist. Lots of women used to like Subbuteo.

[Mickdundee 0]

[quote user="JF"]Parma Ham''s gone mouldy wrote the following post at 07/11/2016 12:12 PM:

Should a loyal billionaire fan with the club''s best intention at heart appear, then the equation would naturally change and rightly so.

By all means put one forward.

Parma

Why should the person in question have to be a fan? I highly doubt sheikh mydidly was a fan of Manchester City before he purchased them, likewise Leicesters owner or Chelseas. This idea that outside investors are all bad news is utterly ridiculous[/quote]

Don''t forget, they won''t look at offers. So what does it matter

[Capt. Pants 4,232]

Never say never. When the parachute payments run out and the yo-yo club doesn''t yo NCFC will need a plan B.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]A panel of trustees will be appointed as a firewall to prevent any individual acting/selling on a whim or in moments of transient drama.

Parma[/quote]Thanks Parma. Amid all the sometimes unfocused rage and angst here over the Smith and Jones statement I find it odd that a nugget of what could be significant hard information - which raises all sorts of questions - got ignored. [/quote]

I don''t think its been ignored Purple. The statement in the article was relatively clear. Some form of trust will be set up so Tom would need to get the consent of the trustees before being able to sell his shareholding. presumably to get that consent he would need to satisfy the trustees that the sale is necessary or in the clubs best interests.

I don''t have an issue with that. Its consistent with their stated intentions. The thing I have a problem with is the fact that if we don''t get promoted and thus retain the benefits of the tv money/parachute payments then the ownership model we have is probably not competitive any more, so to be completely closed to enquiries (as I personally think they have been for a long time) is potentially holding us back.[/quote]Jim, perhaps it has been discussed in posts I''ve missed, but I haven''t seen any comments or questions on who are or will be these trustrees, who has or will appoint them, and what powers they have. For example, in the case of a sale what will be their definition of "the best interests of the club"? Will they be hamstrung by a rigid definition handed down by S&J that may be outdated or not cover new circumstances (as could happen) or will they be able to use their judgment?I am particularly interested because several years ago I suggested  the idea of a supporter-director (elected by the fans, employees and shareholders) with a golden-share veto on a small number  of key issues, such as ownership. I don''t know, but it sounds as if these (presumably unelected) trustees - whoever they are- could be coming close to the basic idea - if not the democratic basis - of that concept.[/quote]

Purple, it also doesn''t say when the shares will go into this trust. It could be when both Delia and Michael have passed on but I think that unlikely unless they have the unfortunate news that the event is imminent. The telling comment being ....

Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter and he will be the recipient of our shares.” “They will go into a trust first,” says Michael. So Tom cannot sell. “He could if the trustees think it’s right and proper. He can’t do it on a whim. He’s been a fan since he was eight.”

I doubt that means if Delia and Michael lived another 15 years the shares would then go into trust for a period of time as Tom would have been a director for 15 years and 50 years old. I only had the chance to read the whole piece tonight and if you haven''t been able to it''s here : -

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/supporters-are-treated-so-badly-the-government-need-to-step-in-fn9xvl7c0?shareToken=d8ac99b4f03dccd591d3ad0530e074ab

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

35?

Presuming that makes him an ''81 baby, that''s the year that the scum beat some 4th division German team to win some sort of trophy.

Surely that confirms him a Binner.

Um, hang on, I was born in ''78....

Yep, forget everything I''ve said...

Apart from the Binner bit. Bet he''s still got Aunties rosette.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="JF"]Parma Ham''s gone mouldy wrote the following post at 07/11/2016 12:12 PM:

Should a loyal billionaire fan with the club''s best intention at heart appear, then the equation would naturally change and rightly so.

By all means put one forward.

Parma

Why should the person in question have to be a fan? I highly doubt sheikh mydidly was a fan of Manchester City before he purchased them, likewise Leicesters owner or Chelseas. This idea that outside investors are all bad news is utterly ridiculous[/quote]

The trouble is, you can''t tell what they are going to be like once they buy themselves in.  They can say wonderful things beforehand and appear to be ideal candidates, but once they have control...........     Its not worth the risk.  And even if you get a "good" investor, who''s to say they wouldn''t sell up five or ten years down the line and you end up with a bad one who ruins the club forever (like appears to be happening to Cardiff and Hull amongst others).