Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Lessingham Canary

Ed Balls tweet...........

Recommended Posts

Did he buy them for a £1 or was he given them as you claim ? If shares are being given away i would have thought that would have to have shareholder blessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"]Did he buy them for a £1 or was he given them as you claim ? If shares are being given away i would have thought that would have to have shareholder blessing.[/quote]It amounts to pretty much the same thing, a £1 is a token amount.So how is it morally corrupt exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
morty wrote the following post at 2017-01-15 4:12 PM:

TIL 1010 wrote:

morty wrote:

Nonsense.

Wasn''t he given the shares as a token gesture, because his position insists he is a shareholder?

How is it morally corrupt?

I think you should really clarify your second sentence is correct before claiming my post was nonsense.

How is him being given shares, as terms of his employment, morally corrupt?

Was the question too difficult?

He was not given the shares, he WAS OFFERED the shares at a price of £1 each share, as his tenure as Chairman I''d said FC in their own regulations state such position has to be held by a shareholder. Not a majority shareholder, but a shareholder. So you don''t think such a practice is corrupt when more recent shareholders have had to pay £100 per share? That isn''t corrupt?

Definition of corrupt:

having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain.

I souod suggest the definition relates to more than one of those involved in the allocation of shares to the Chairman, and let''s face it, he came from a house full of corrupt individuals!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are claiming he was '' given '' those shares as a gesture as a requirement of becoming a director so why was Tom Smith who was appointed at the same time also the recipient of 100 shares when he was already an existing shareholder ?Morally corrupt in that anybody else obtaining shares has to pay the going rate at the time of purchase from NCFC. If i may be so bold as to mention the Trust last year they paid £100 per share from NCFC.You don''t see it as a problem but i will stick with my thoughts on the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corrupt? Probably not. Questionable? I''d agree.

If there is any fan who could afford to buy those 100 shares at the standard price then it would be Ed Balls. It does reek of the board giving their mate a preferential deal to get him on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"]Corrupt? Probably not. Questionable? I''d agree.

If there is any fan who could afford to buy those 100 shares at the standard price then it would be Ed Balls. It does reek of the board giving their mate a preferential deal to get him on the board.[/quote]Seriously?Also wasn''t it stated that it is purely a gesture, and that he will give the shares back to the club, if he was no longer chairman?Honestly there is enough going on right now without the need to try and manufacture a drama, where there isn''t one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"]It really is not "morally corrupt" in the slightest though, is it?You''re waffling.[/quote]What i have said regarding the obtaining of those shares is correct even more so now i have researched about Tom Smith which you conveniently side stepped but hey if i said The Queen was 90 you would put a different slant on it by saying 91 this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="morty"]It really is not "morally corrupt" in the slightest though, is it?You''re waffling.[/quote]What i have said regarding the obtaining of those shares is correct even more so now i have researched about Tom Smith which you conveniently side stepped but hey if i said The Queen was 90 you would put a different slant on it by saying 91 this year.[/quote]Read the post above, you''re just trying to manufacture drama where there is none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two fold, if the shares have been diluted and sold to Ed Balls at £1 then its deffinately morally questionable as others have paid upto £100 per share for the same category and done to allow him to join the board. If those shares are from Delias own pile then she''ll have that right to sell at what price she wants and not morally questionable.

What is far worse in my view was the way it''s been cast as an unpaid role then to be given £90k for his services, really poor but heyho others will defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]Two fold, if the shares have been diluted and sold to Ed Balls at £1 then its deffinately morally questionable as others have paid upto £100 per share for the same category and done to allow him to join the board. If those shares are from Delias own pile then she''ll have that right to sell at what price she wants and not morally questionable.

What is far worse in my view was the way it''s been cast as an unpaid role then to be given £90k for his services, really poor but heyho others will defend it.[/quote]He was given the 90k for fulfilling a completely different role though.Would you work for free?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not having that, it was touted as a non payment role, it wasn''t regardless how you paint it.

Had he actually done something to contribute to earning that that''s fine, but really struggling to see what he''s actually done to earn 90k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]Not having that, it was touted as a non payment role, it wasn''t regardless how you paint it.

Had he actually done something to contribute to earning that that''s fine, but really struggling to see what he''s actually done to earn 90k.[/quote]He stood in, in the role of CEO. The money was given to him by the club, in recognition of the long hours he put in doing so. He didn''t ask to be paid, but the club insisted he was paid the going rate. Which was actually less than they would have paid McNally to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For a politiation he really should know when to keep his trap shut..Some of those replies on his twitter feed are hillarious tho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Indy"]Not having that, it was touted as a non payment role, it wasn''t regardless how you paint it.

Had he actually done something to contribute to earning that that''s fine, but really struggling to see what he''s actually done to earn 90k.[/quote]He stood in, in the role of CEO. The money was given to him by the club, in recognition of the long hours he put in doing so. He didn''t ask to be paid, but the club insisted he was paid the going rate. Which was actually less than they would have paid McNally to do it.[/quote]

Which is totally contradicting the press at the time on the city web Stone was appointed interim CEO, funny that at the AGM it changed to suite the 90k payment.

We can all read into things what we want to see, my view is different to yours on this one Morty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Indy"]Not having that, it was touted as a non payment role, it wasn''t regardless how you paint it.

Had he actually done something to contribute to earning that that''s fine, but really struggling to see what he''s actually done to earn 90k.[/quote]He stood in, in the role of CEO. The money was given to him by the club, in recognition of the long hours he put in doing so. He didn''t ask to be paid, but the club insisted he was paid the going rate. Which was actually less than they would have paid McNally to do it.[/quote]

Which is totally contradicting the press at the time on the city web Stone was appointed interim CEO, funny that at the AGM it changed to suite the 90k payment.

We can all read into things what we want to see, my view is different to yours on this one Morty.[/quote]But thats what happened, it was stated at the AGM.Facts, not views.Are you saying the club has lied to us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can make your own mind up!

Canaries web .

image: http://www.canaries.co.uk/cms_images/other/general-norwich-city-5-4-3132-213330_613x460.jpg

PUBLISHED

09:30 9th May 2016

by Norwich City Football Club

Chief Executive resigns from position

DAVID McNally has resigned from his position as Chief Executive of Norwich City Football Club PLC.

The Board of Directors has unanimously agreed to accept his resignation and would like to place on record their sincere gratitude for David''s game-changing contribution to the Football Club since he joined in the summer of 2009.

David played a leading role as the Club erased crippling debts and rose from the lower reaches of League One to the Barclays Premier League.

Everyone at Carrow Road wishes him all the very best for the future.

Director of Finance Steve Stone has been appointed Interim Chief Executive and the Board and everybody at the Club is totally focused on supporting Alex and the players, as we head in to Wednesday night''s vital Premier League game against Watford at Carrow Road.

Read more at http://www.canaries.co.uk/news/article/club-statement-david-mcnally-3103980.aspx#ULQ6lWrwjSr9FLQZ.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I understand that press release but what did they say at the AGM? If it''s a complete contradiction to the above press release then fair enough, I understand your view Indy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Indy"]Which point did this change Morty?[/quote]It changes nothing.Ed did work for the club, and was paid accordingly.Climb off your drama llama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="hogesar"]OK I understand that press release but what did they say at the AGM? If it''s a complete contradiction to the above press release then fair enough, I understand your view Indy.[/quote]I can only assume Steve Stone was either not up to the job, or needed help in the role.I don''t think the club, or Ed Balls has done anything untoward here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice to see you''re open to being wrong sometimes, Morty.

I''ll leave it there, like I said morally wrong or right depends where the shares were purchased from.

Back Balls, the club needs to be run as professional business as we don''t have mega rich owners and as such there should be a full time chairman working in conjunction with the CE to build the clubs future stability, that''s just my view, it''s a vey important role and should be funded as a full time position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Indy"]Nice to see you''re open to being wrong sometimes, Morty.

I''ll leave it there, like I said morally wrong or right depends where the shares were purchased from.

Back Balls, the club needs to be run as professional business as we don''t have mega rich owners and as such there should be a full time chairman working in conjunction with the CE to build the clubs future stability, that''s just my view, it''s a vey important role and should be funded as a full time position.[/quote]I''m not wrong though, am I?The club has been honest and open about the entire thing.Theres nothing morally wrong here in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But hang on, firstly you''re moaning about Ed being paid the going rate for fulfilling a role, then in the next sentence saying his role should be a paid one?[:|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly, paid for what Morty? Two interviews and appearing on Strictly? As pointed out the club appointed Stone as interim and that never changed, until they had to cover the 90k.

It''s not my money but unlike others I don''t believe the board are whiter than white.

Yes that role in this club should be a full time position, what''s wrong with that? Balls isn''t the man to drive this club forward IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"]Is it really just because Ed is Labour?Is that it?[/quote]Just remember Chase was a Conservative so no not really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="morty"][quote user="Indy"]Not having that, it was touted as a non payment role, it wasn''t regardless how you paint it.

Had he actually done something to contribute to earning that that''s fine, but really struggling to see what he''s actually done to earn 90k.[/quote]He stood in, in the role of CEO. The money was given to him by the club, in recognition of the long hours he put in doing so. He didn''t ask to be paid, but the club insisted he was paid the going rate. Which was actually less than they would have paid McNally to do it.[/quote]Yes at the AGM he did in fact say that he didn''t ask to be paid but the club insisted so let me just throw this into the mix, why did he not buy £90K in unissued shares then everybody would have won by Balls having 900 shares even at £100 a throw and the club getting their £90K back in the coffers.I will be honest and say and you can believe me or not that if i was his position that is what i would have done. Big fan not short of a bob or two so why not ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...