The Return of Delia's Dolls House.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][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 Will they be hamstrung by a rigid definition handed down by S&J that may be outdated or not cover new circumstances (as could happen) or will they be able to use their judgment?I am particularly interested because several years ago I suggested 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

[/quote]Thanks for that, nutty. The precise wording of that trust section is ambiguous. It is not clear (at least to me) whether this power the trustees have  to prevent a sale exists only while they hold the shares in trust for Tom or continues once he has got his hands on them. If the latter then that would be a sort-of version of the golden-share veto idea, and would potentially prevent what happened recently at Swansea, where, as I understand it, the club was sold without the supporter-director even  knowing the deal was being done, let alone being able to stop it.PS. TB, good to see you back. I am flattered you think I know everything about testacy law...

[The Butler 0]

It just seems obvious that having paid their tax all their lives that finding a way to protect some of it when they leave it to someone on their death is just being prudent!

[nutty nigel 7,527]

The people wanting to be Swansea are the same as those wanting to be Ipswich years before. Anybody watching MOTD2 this week will have heard protesting at the liberty far more vociferous than anything Delia has ever had to tolerate.

The ambiguity of the wording regarding the shares in trust, it doesn''t seem to me to say a genuine offer of investment would be turned away, would be something Archant could investigate if they really were interested in journalism rather than faffing about with sensationalism in order to generate traffic on the website.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Well done Nutty, common sense as usual.

There is too much unchallenged conspiracy-r!theorist nonsense here. Delia and Michael make a statement about passing on their shared to blood, adding the caveat that he will not be able to sell on a whim and there will be a panel of trustees. The intention and spirit of the statement - and making it public - indicates the direction of travel and shows transparent decency. To infer or interpret negative implications from this is unnecessary reaching.

It is also nonsense to interpret the spirit of what Delia and Michael have long-stated and oft-repeated - that they would welcome anyone with the club''s best interests at heart to invest or buyout - as blanket rejecting all conceivable offers is also nonsense.

The current options are Fosun, Fenway or Fernandes et al. When a more credible, fan-centric option presented itself - Cullumgate - the club absolutely did explore the option. Indeed following Cullumgate Delia and Michael and the whole club went on an active buyer/investor due diligence process. This proved a futile and distracting sideshow.

Delia and Michael''s place in Norwich''s history is assured. Selling their shares would only see them given a suite and a stand named after them and grateful access to Carrow Road for life. They have risked all of their limited wealth to preserve and build the club.

Should a richer Norwich fan come forward, they would of course be welcomed with open arms. Being a fan matters for Norwich, which is an isolated club rooted in its place and community. It is not just another London property vehicle.

Parma

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

The sentiment of this thread must be even clearer now.

In most cases the manager would be the target of discontent but Alex Neil only gets stick for his team selections and one dimensional game play.

The reason is that he can''t help his own limitations and is a Ryman league manager promoted well above his level of incompetence but the reason he stays and struggles is down to a Board for whom favouritism and nepotism are long standing characteristics.

We are like a pantomime: we hope to reach the sky with a handful of beans; find a prince by kissing a frog and suffer a confused fairy godmother who for some unknown reason allowed the Balls to come to us.

The players clearly have no appetite to play for Alex Neil - we''ve all had bosses who disenfranchise the workforce - but the supporters also have no faith in the owners, board and management. The whole thing has gone stale and the last time that happened it took a relegation to League One to sort it out.

[morty 0]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"]The sentiment of this thread must be even clearer now.

In most cases the manager would be the target of discontent but Alex Neil only gets stick for his team selections and one dimensional game play.

The reason is that he can''t help his own limitations and is a Ryman league manager promoted well above his level of incompetence but the reason he stays and struggles is down to a Board for whom favouritism and nepotism are long standing characteristics.

We are like a pantomime: we hope to reach the sky with a handful of beans; find a prince by kissing a frog and suffer a confused fairy godmother who for some unknown reason allowed the Balls to come to us.

The players clearly have no appetite to play for Alex Neil - we''ve all had bosses who disenfranchise the workforce - but the supporters also have no faith in the owners, board and management. The whole thing has gone stale and the last time that happened it took a relegation to League One to sort it out.[/quote]

Ohhhhhh no we''re not.....

[TIL 1010 4,737]

Oh yes we are and Rudolph he is behind you.

[morty 0]

Brb, just off to the N&N to get these sides stitched up....

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="RUDOLPH HUCKER"] - but the supporters also have no faith in the owners, board and management.[/quote]Don''t you mean "some supporters"?

[Rudolph Hucker 0]

Perhaps a few shouts of ''He''s behind you!'' would help our defenders out?

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

It is all very well clinging on to the fact that Delia and MWJ are fans but the cold hard truth remains that they are not wealthy enough to allow Norwich City FC to progress. I have absolutely nothing against Delia and MWJ and I genuinely thank them for everything that they have done for the club, but, if the genuine aim is for us to become an established Premiership team then it is time for them to step aside and allow somebody with more wealth to take the project to the next phase.......

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]Well done Nutty, common sense as usual.

There is too much unchallenged conspiracy-r!theorist nonsense here. Delia and Michael make a statement about passing on their shared to blood, adding the caveat that he will not be able to sell on a whim and there will be a panel of trustees. The intention and spirit of the statement - and making it public - indicates the direction of travel and shows transparent decency. To infer or interpret negative implications from this is unnecessary reaching.

It is also nonsense to interpret the spirit of what Delia and Michael have long-stated and oft-repeated - that they would welcome anyone with the club''s best interests at heart to invest or buyout - as blanket rejecting all conceivable offers is also nonsense.

The current options are Fosun, Fenway or Fernandes et al. When a more credible, fan-centric option presented itself - Cullumgate - the club absolutely did explore the option. Indeed following Cullumgate Delia and Michael and the whole club went on an active buyer/investor due diligence process. This proved a futile and distracting sideshow.

Delia and Michael''s place in Norwich''s history is assured. Selling their shares would only see them given a suite and a stand named after them and grateful access to Carrow Road for life. They have risked all of their limited wealth to preserve and build the club.

Should a richer Norwich fan come forward, they would of course be welcomed with open arms. Being a fan matters for Norwich, which is an isolated club rooted in its place and community. It is not just another London property vehicle.

ParmaParma how do you reconcile your statement in the above post with their statement from The Times interview?They will never sell. “No,” says Michael. “We can’t on one hand

[protest] that football’s being run from Dubai and Wall Street and then

give into it.” Delia grins. “The supporters will be very disappointed to

hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any

enquiries.

[morty 0]

Delia was trolling y''all.Hook, line and sinker.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="OldRobert"][quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]Well done Nutty, common sense as usual.

There is too much unchallenged conspiracy-r!theorist nonsense here. Delia and Michael make a statement about passing on their shared to blood, adding the caveat that he will not be able to sell on a whim and there will be a panel of trustees. The intention and spirit of the statement - and making it public - indicates the direction of travel and shows transparent decency. To infer or interpret negative implications from this is unnecessary reaching.

It is also nonsense to interpret the spirit of what Delia and Michael have long-stated and oft-repeated - that they would welcome anyone with the club''s best interests at heart to invest or buyout - as blanket rejecting all conceivable offers is also nonsense.

The current options are Fosun, Fenway or Fernandes et al. When a more credible, fan-centric option presented itself - Cullumgate - the club absolutely did explore the option. Indeed following Cullumgate Delia and Michael and the whole club went on an active buyer/investor due diligence process. This proved a futile and distracting sideshow.

Delia and Michael''s place in Norwich''s history is assured. Selling their shares would only see them given a suite and a stand named after them and grateful access to Carrow Road for life. They have risked all of their limited wealth to preserve and build the club.

Should a richer Norwich fan come forward, they would of course be welcomed with open arms. Being a fan matters for Norwich, which is an isolated club rooted in its place and community. It is not just another London property vehicle.

ParmaParma how do you reconcile your statement in the above post with their statement from The Times interview?They will never sell. “No,” says Michael. “We can’t on one hand

[protest] that football’s being run from Dubai and Wall Street and then

give into it.” Delia grins. “The supporters will be very disappointed to

hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any

enquiries.[/quote]

I guess this depends on how long they are in a position to sell. Does this great handover to Tom and that trust happen upon their death or is it imminent? If it''s upon their death then, unless they''ve both had some very bad news recently, there''s really no point in the announcement. Tom could be 60 before it happens.

It''s my view that a more relevant piece in the interview is the bit that says the club could be sold by the trustees under the right conditions. You''d think someone like Archant might want to investigate these details. or not.....

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Old Robert,

Please refer to my earlier post on Cullumgate.

A heralded billionaire fan was entertained and engaged with a view to a potential takeover.

A period of exploratory due diligence on potential purchasers and wider investors in football then followed. This included third party agencies.

Any similar scenario would be explored, though the club is not ''for sale'' (and indeed the MWJ statement would be equally valid if it were).

Selective editing of interviews often does not give a true flavour of the essence of the discussion.

Parma

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I guess this depends on how long they are in a position to sell. Does this great handover to Tom and that trust happen upon their death or is it imminent? If it''s upon their death then, unless they''ve both had some very bad news recently, there''s really no point in the announcement. Tom could be 60 before it happens.

It''s my view that a more relevant piece in the interview is the bit that says the club could be sold by the trustees under the right conditions. You''d think someone like Archant might want to investigate these details. or not.....

[/quote]I know, nutty. I would have thought delving into and explaining this frustratingly vague reference to the trustees and their potential powers would have represented an opportunity for what I believe journalists call "a news story" but apparently not.

[? 0]

Parma, the Cullum debacle occurred in 2008, with a club in somewhat of a financial mess. Circumstances have changed considerably and the Club is now a major financial asset for the majority shareholders. Times change, and as you no doubt know, in football sometimes at an alarming rate. Delia and Michael said what they said, I have yet to see them say that ''well, when we said we don''t entertain inquiries we weren''t being serious and if someone comes along with a bit of money we''ll sell.'' In fact they made it quite clear that the future of the club will be in Nephew Toms hands and we were told that we won''t like it!

Perhaps if we continue in the downward spiral we seem to be in and with that the reduced value of the club they may well change their minds but in the meantime I see nothing changing even if some of the fans would like to see it.

If I''m quite honest I am surprised that they haven''t sold up, especially last year when our value was even greater but I guess that would go against the values that they believe in. However I will say that whilst they hold the reigns we will never be competitive enough to establish ourselves in the Prem and in fact see a long term stay in the Championship at best being the likely outcome.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Is it journalism to take material from an interview with The Times and put the emphasis on the parts that will create most hits on the website for their advertisers. Nobody has tried to establish anything whatsoever about the whole content. For example when will the shares leave D&M? Is it upon both their deaths? If so why the announcement now? 

Oh and Ron Manager. The most likely scenario is championship football whoever owns the club. Do the maths. At least these owners have had 4 out of the last 6 seasons in the PL.

[? 0]

And with a little bit of investment and foresight it could have been 6 out of 6!

[king canary 7,599]

You could also say it might be good for the majority shareholders to release a statement giving some much needed clarity. Maybe it''ll be further explored at the AGM. I''m not a shareholder but I imagine if I was I''d be a bit annoyed finding out the future direction of a company I own a part of via a Sunday Times interview.

[Indy 3,297]

Remind me nutty, how many seasons did we have in top flight under Chase? Why did it go so wrong, trying to hold onto a club without the finances, leading to debt.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Ron Manager"]And with a little bit of investment and foresight it could have been 6 out of 6![/quote]

Like if we''d got Fernandez. That worked well for QPR. The biggest problem is trying to fit 40 teams into 20 places. Crack that and we''ll be well away...

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="king canary"]You could also say it might be good for the majority shareholders to release a statement giving some much needed clarity. Maybe it''ll be further explored at the AGM. I''m not a shareholder but I imagine if I was I''d be a bit annoyed finding out the future direction of a company I own a part of via a Sunday Times interview.[/quote]

You could say that Kingo. I said what I said. I actually think the Times is a pretty good medium to make public their intentions. What one would you have preferred?

[? 0]

Well we had a bloody good head start on the rest of them and as I said with a bit more investment and foresight we''d still be there. I''m not talking about QPR I''m talking about Norwich.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

I know you''re talking about Norwich. But the maths still applies. Which teams have done better than 4/6?

[? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]I know you''re talking about Norwich. But the maths still applies. Which teams have done better than 4/6?[/quote]

I don''t know Nigel, please enlighten me.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Ron,

You will have noted that following the post-tax profit in the latest accounts that historic outstanding debts were paid back to Delia and Michael Foulger.

These debts were around a decade old and whilst over £2m, not an enormous sum in the grand scheme of things. Repayment was not previously pressed for.

It might be interesting at the AGM to follow up on why such debts have been repaid now.

Parma

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Ron Manager"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I know you''re talking about Norwich. But the maths still applies. Which teams have done better than 4/6?[/quote]

I don''t know Nigel, please enlighten me.[/quote]

Anything to oblige. These are the consecutive seasons in the top flight. Now unless you believe Sunderland are "established" there are only seven that are. Three from the rest will be relegated this season. Being replaced by three wanting to become established. What are the chances?  

Arsenal

91

Everton

63

Liverpool

55

Man Utd

42

Tottenham

39

Chelsea

28

Man

City 15

--------------------

Sunderland

10

Stoke 9

WBA 7

Swansea

6

Southampton

5

West

Ham 5

Palace

4

Leicester

3

Bournemouth

2

Watford

2

Burnley

1

Middlesboro

1

Hull 1

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Ron,

You will have noted that following the post-tax profit in the latest accounts that historic outstanding debts were paid back to Delia and Michael Foulger.

These debts were around a decade old and whilst over £2m, not an enormous sum in the grand scheme of things. Repayment was not previously pressed for.

It might be interesting at the AGM to follow up on why such debts have been repaid now.

Parma[/quote]

My guess, and it is a pure guess, is because we made that profit through not having to pay bonuses the moneymen decided paying off the debt then was preferable to having that money taxed. 

[king canary 7,599]

I''d expect it to be addressed at the AGM first or the shareholders be written to. Also some form of official club statement. I was genuinely a bit taken aback that such a sizeable piece of news was just buried in the middle of a random interview in a paper that most don''t read (with an online paywall) and not followed up by anything from the club.

I also didn''t like the tone (''the fans won''t like this'') clearly realising this was a big piece of info that fans would have strong opinions on. Just my take though.