Delia Smith may become most hated owner in club history

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

A real lot of ignorance is being shown on this thread.

My personal opinion is that Delia and Michael are not particularly good business people, their skills are elsewhere, but they did make two brilliant appointments in bring Bowkett and McNally into the club. The result of making those good decisions has seen the value of the club rise. That can only be a good thing, and I can''t see why anybody thinks otherwise. If you were to open a whelk stall on Norwich market and in two decades that business is now worth £20 million then you should be congratulated and not derided.

A further point on the same theme is that the £20 million is only a return on investment if you sell up for that amount. And if Delia doesn''t sell up, and she says she is not going to, then she is actually facing no return on her investment. And don''t forget, you investors, the price of shares can fall as well as rise, so that £20 million today might be nothing if we suffer a couple of relegations.

So to accuse Delia and Michael of standing to make millions from their investment is utter nonsense when they have already stated that those shares will go ito a trust. And even if they were to change their minds and sell up anyway, then so what? They took the financial risk when the club was facing bankruptcy and they took the decisions to appoint Bowkett and McNally which led to us spending a few years in the Premier League, so any increase in the value of the Club is down to their stewardship of the Club.

It is stupidity to claim that Delia is putting her own interests first, when she is not selling her shareholding. If she was selling out for superbucks to some billionaire then you could accuse her of putting her own interests first but when she is transferring her shares into a trust then clearly she isn''t putting her own interests first.

Having said all of this, I believe their appointments of Balls and Moxey to replace Bowkett and McNally have weakened the Club. It would be difficult to find two replacements of the same calibre of the former board members but I think D&M should have tried harder to bring better quality at the board level.

Having read the Times article, it could be that Delia does want City to be more of a community-based club and thinks that is far more important than playing in the Premier league. She is entitled to that opinion and as a majority shareholder she is entitled to make that happen. It is not a choice I would make but I accept her right to do so. And if you don''t accept Delia right to stamp her ethos on the Club then buy her out and do it your way. If a billionaire investor steps in you can be sure that his/her ethos will be stamped on the club whether you like it or not. Ask other fans where this has happened already. So either put up or shut up.

[JF 694]

It''s fair enough in most people''s opinion. It''s just there a some people that see them as saints to the club and don''t believe they are getting anything back in return. When in reality they are sitting on an investment that''s probably more than doubled their wealth

[norfolkngood 1,086]

the tax would work like this

delia sells club she gets taxed

delia then leaves money to Tom in will that will be taxed

so by selling the club two lots of tax gets paid

if she lives the club to tom 1 x tax

[Lessingham Canary 99]

Norfolkngood;

the tax would work like this

delia sells club she gets taxed

delia then leaves money to Tom in will that will be taxed

so by selling the club two lots of tax gets paid

if she lives the club to tom 1 x tax

By setting Tom up, no tax paid until actually happens, (other than corporation tax as normal)and she will carry on taking dividends (x2) and paying it into her pension fund. No reason / incentive to sell. And when the day comes and Tom finally takes over he will get taxed.

[whistleblower 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="whistleblower"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="whistleblower"]this thread has generated a lot of closely or loosely related discussions

- has she made money from the club/her investment

- is she a misunderstood superfan

- is she a fame obsessed egomaniac clinging to her last dying embers of celebrity status that being owner of NCFC confers

- is delia really a binner

- is she trying to build a legacy

- is she an autocratic control freak

All of them are interesting thoughts, however, my focus is one question only - is her number 1 goal to make Norwich as successful as is humanly possible? or is there a caveat to that objective which is "as long as Delia or her family are still in charge"?

Previous owners always wanted Norwich to achieve the best place in the footballing world it possibly could. The motivation for achieving this could be myriad - adding to their own personal wealth upon sale, fame, love for the club, community etc The point is their goal aligned with the fans

What i believe based upon many different data points is that we now have an owner who''s ultimate goal is to have her family remain in charge of Norwich City even if this is to the detriment of what the club could possibly achieve.

I don''t think any real "fan" of the club would put their interests before that of the club. To believe that the club is only "safe" in her hands displays an almost cult-like stance or ideology.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Delia has absolute power at Norwich City......

Personally I would take the utter failure of this season and next to generate the financial conditions that would force her hand once more to take up fresh investment that would demand changes in ownership & control. Delia Smith is wealthy but nowhere near wealthy enough to endure the size of losses coming our way once parachute payments have ended and we have the mammoth wage bill making our P&L look like the Titanic and players for whom we cannot recover their transfer fees when sold. (We have a number of players who did not have relegation clauses in their contracts on our books)

The other option is to underachieve for the next 10-15 years under the current regime - I don''t want that

Maybe there are other options - a local white knight with investment appears that will satisfy Delia Smith''s conditions.

Some other option not listed may also appear but if we want Norwich successful again I''m battening down the hatches for a long 18 months of underachievement and malevolent atmosphere at Carrow Road[/quote]Just a couple of points1. The question was asked and answered at the AGM, ALL players have wage reduction written into their contracts while in the Championship.2. If I owned the club I would pass it on to whomsoever I trusted to run it in the way I had expressly wished. I would also not be canvassing any keyboard warriors as to what their thoughts might be.Football is cyclical and none of the medium sized clubs like us are going to be successful all of the time. We have no more natural right to Premier League football than Sheff Wed, Derby, Leeds etc etc etc. No owner or manager can guarantee consistent success, it comes and goes. Managers have a limited lifetime.

[/quote]

the problem with the contracts position is that neither the question at the AGM nor the answer given at the AGM is anywhere near detailed enough to give a picture as to whether the wage bill is being cut for each player as of the start of this season.

My understanding is there are very high earning players for whom the impact is nil or minimal - this itself has led to dressing room unhappiness

I''m not sure the point being made around transfer of ownership - the fact she can do something and is going to do it is a matter of fact and unarguable.

The issue is whether she is betraying her claim to be a true Norwich fan by acting in a manner that benefits herself rather than the club[/quote]

If you know things beyond what we''re told at the AGM then why not share it? But then you knew we were getting malky mackay. That''s the thing about "in the know". We have to wait so long to find out ourselves...

[/quote]

Hmmm. That''s an interesting departure.

I presume you''re referring to the thread "Malkay hints its him - Radio 5 - refers to Norwich as us" I seem to recall I posted the radio interview link, there was some debate around whether he was actually referring to Norwich as "us" and ultimately of course he didn''t join Norwich. (although with hindsight maybe he would have aligned with current thinking at the club on foreign ownership.....)

As I shared all known information as an input to a debate it is unclear to me where I ever stated I had inside or early knowledge

I''ll let others draw their own conclusions around why you''ve been using your time to dig into posts over 2 and 1/2 years ago to try to find something contentious and this is the best you could come up with!

[nutty nigel 7,513]

What dividends lessingham?

[whistleblower 0]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]A real lot of ignorance is being shown on this thread.

My personal opinion is that Delia and Michael are not particularly good business people, their skills are elsewhere, but they did make two brilliant appointments in bring Bowkett and McNally into the club. The result of making those good decisions has seen the value of the club rise. That can only be a good thing, and I can''t see why anybody thinks otherwise. If you were to open a whelk stall on Norwich market and in two decades that business is now worth £20 million then you should be congratulated and not derided.

A further point on the same theme is that the £20 million is only a return on investment if you sell up for that amount. And if Delia doesn''t sell up, and she says she is not going to, then she is actually facing no return on her investment. And don''t forget, you investors, the price of shares can fall as well as rise, so that £20 million today might be nothing if we suffer a couple of relegations.

So to accuse Delia and Michael of standing to make millions from their investment is utter nonsense when they have already stated that those shares will go ito a trust. And even if they were to change their minds and sell up anyway, then so what? They took the financial risk when the club was facing bankruptcy and they took the decisions to appoint Bowkett and McNally which led to us spending a few years in the Premier League, so any increase in the value of the Club is down to their stewardship of the Club.

It is stupidity to claim that Delia is putting her own interests first, when she is not selling her shareholding. If she was selling out for superbucks to some billionaire then you could accuse her of putting her own interests first but when she is transferring her shares into a trust then clearly she isn''t putting her own interests first.

Having said all of this, I believe their appointments of Balls and Moxey to replace Bowkett and McNally have weakened the Club. It would be difficult to find two replacements of the same calibre of the former board members but I think D&M should have tried harder to bring better quality at the board level.

Having read the Times article, it could be that Delia does want City to be more of a community-based club and thinks that is far more important than playing in the Premier league. She is entitled to that opinion and as a majority shareholder she is entitled to make that happen. It is not a choice I would make but I accept her right to do so. And if you don''t accept Delia right to stamp her ethos on the Club then buy her out and do it your way. If a billionaire investor steps in you can be sure that his/her ethos will be stamped on the club whether you like it or not. Ask other fans where this has happened already. So either put up or shut up.[/quote]

I have no issue with her making money from an investment. There is also no doubt that legally and technically she can do what she wants with the club.

What is clear to me, if not to others (and I recognise they have every right to disagree), is that Delia is betraying the generations of fans who have supported this club down through the decades by putting her desire for family control ahead of any other objective for Norwich City

At the minute the only way to exit the control she has is to continue the horrendous mismanagement of the club for another 2 years until the losses force her hand.

With the terrible investment in players in the last 12-18 months the die is already cast. It will take a hell of a lot to turn this around and with the increasing intransigency of Delia and the Board our downward spiral won''t be arrested any time soon

[norfolkngood 1,086]

By setting Tom up, no tax paid until actually happens, (other than corporation tax as normal)and she will carry on taking dividends (x2) and paying it into her pension fund. No reason / incentive to sell. And when the day comes and Tom finally takes over he will get taxed.

exactly my point Tom gets taxed once when he sells etc

that is why most clubs do not make profit better to reinvest in squad than make a profit which is then Taxed

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]A real lot of ignorance is being shown on this thread.

My personal opinion is that Delia and Michael are not particularly good business people, their skills are elsewhere, but they did make two brilliant appointments in bring Bowkett and McNally into the club. The result of making those good decisions has seen the value of the club rise. That can only be a good thing, and I can''t see why anybody thinks otherwise. If you were to open a whelk stall on Norwich market and in two decades that business is now worth £20 million then you should be congratulated and not derided.

A further point on the same theme is that the £20 million is only a return on investment if you sell up for that amount. And if Delia doesn''t sell up, and she says she is not going to, then she is actually facing no return on her investment. And don''t forget, you investors, the price of shares can fall as well as rise, so that £20 million today might be nothing if we suffer a couple of relegations.

So to accuse Delia and Michael of standing to make millions from their investment is utter nonsense when they have already stated that those shares will go ito a trust. And even if they were to change their minds and sell up anyway, then so what? They took the financial risk when the club was facing bankruptcy and they took the decisions to appoint Bowkett and McNally which led to us spending a few years in the Premier League, so any increase in the value of the Club is down to their stewardship of the Club.

It is stupidity to claim that Delia is putting her own interests first, when she is not selling her shareholding. If she was selling out for superbucks to some billionaire then you could accuse her of putting her own interests first but when she is transferring her shares into a trust then clearly she isn''t putting her own interests first.

Having said all of this, I believe their appointments of Balls and Moxey to replace Bowkett and McNally have weakened the Club. It would be difficult to find two replacements of the same calibre of the former board members but I think D&M should have tried harder to bring better quality at the board level.

Having read the Times article, it could be that Delia does want City to be more of a community-based club and thinks that is far more important than playing in the Premier league. She is entitled to that opinion and as a majority shareholder she is entitled to make that happen. It is not a choice I would make but I accept her right to do so. And if you don''t accept Delia right to stamp her ethos on the Club then buy her out and do it your way. If a billionaire investor steps in you can be sure that his/her ethos will be stamped on the club whether you like it or not. Ask other fans where this has happened already. So either put up or shut up.[/quote]

Spot on, particularly about Delia and shares and a potential return on her investment. It will only be a return if she sells and she has said she won''t do that, so unless she changes her mind there will be no mega-windfall for her.

With some posters here it has been a case of hatred trumping logic.

My only possible point of disagreement with RtB would be whether we have traded down with Ed Balls. From what I know of him I believe he has the qualities to do well as chairman.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

When posters claim to be in the know it''s useful to know if there''s any history to back up these claims. There rarely is.

If you really do know more than was said at the AGM and really do want a reasoned debate on it then tell us what it is. If its just an opinion then say so. Opinions are what this place is for. Facts should be verified. Look at Komakinos "facts". They are simply lies that originated through hatred.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

A further point. Some posters are claiming Delia is betraying the club by not aiming to make it as successful as possible, on the assumption that is the primary duty of the owner of a club. It is not.

The primary duty for the owners of any business is to safeguard its future. With football, if we are reducing this to a binary choice, then that means the owner must care more about avoiding administration or even going out of business altogether than getting to the Premier League.

I don''t know, but I suspect for Delia the spectre of any number of clubs that have ended up in administration after what was touted as a beneficial takeover is what weighs most heavily on her mind.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Nutty this thread is MY opinion but i do have many facts to share on other matters :-)

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Good Norfolk. It will help debate enormously.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]By setting Tom up, no tax paid until actually happens, (other than corporation tax as normal)and she will carry on taking dividends (x2) and paying it into her pension fund. No reason / incentive to sell. And when the day comes and Tom finally takes over he will get taxed.

exactly my point Tom gets taxed once when he sells etc

that is why most clubs do not make profit better to reinvest in squad than make a profit which is then Taxed[/quote]What dividends are these?

[nutty nigel 7,513]

I asked that but for some reason asked lessingham. It''s confusing when the board is this busy so apologies if I upset anyone.

[A Load of Squit 5,135]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="norfolkngood"]By setting Tom up, no tax paid until actually happens, (other than corporation tax as normal)and she will carry on taking dividends (x2) and paying it into her pension fund. No reason / incentive to sell. And when the day comes and Tom finally takes over he will get taxed.

exactly my point Tom gets taxed once when he sells etc

that is why most clubs do not make profit better to reinvest in squad than make a profit which is then Taxed[/quote]What dividends are these?[/quote]

Pension fund? Please explain.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]A further point. Some posters are claiming Delia is betraying the club by not aiming to make it as successful as possible, on the assumption that is the primary duty of the owner of a club. It is not.

The primary duty for the owners of any business is to safeguard its future. With football, if we are reducing this to a binary choice, then that means the owner must care more about avoiding administration or even going out of business altogether than getting to the Premier League.

I don''t know, but I suspect for Delia the spectre of any number of clubs that have ended up in administration after what was touted as a beneficial takeover is what weighs most heavily on her mind.[/quote]

That is purely subjective. Of course she must safeguard the future, but equally any business should achieve the most of what resources it has available. If the people in the position of power cannot achieve that, then they get replaced. That''s how business works.

I would say all the evidence suggests that the club is being downsized in front of our very eyes. Some may be fine with that, many are not.

I see no way back from this from the board.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Bravo Purple, plus some well chosen words from RTB.

The club and its owners are limited by lack of wealth. This necessitates a responsible cut-your-cloth financial strategy, as any any typical business must face.

Any rich Norwich fan would welcomed into the fold. Even poor paper millionaires - of which there may be many on this board - need not apply.

Alternatively make finance the sole entry criteria and exchange the current problems for a list of different problems - equally or perhaps more frustrating.

I desperately hope that the unnecessary vitriol displayed here is not actually because Delia and Michael are fans, and that the spite is not simply the bile of somebody like you living the dream you want for yourselves....that would be a sad indictment of human nature.

I also trust that those so capable of spitting critical vitriol from obtuse angles are equally merciless in addressing their own shortcomings and demand of themselves that they face up to all of their own weaknesses and flaws.

Put up or shut up indeed.

Parma

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]I also trust that those so capable of spitting critical vitriol from obtuse angles are equally merciless in addressing their own shortcomings and demand of themselves that they face up to all of their own weaknesses and flaws.

Put up or shut up indeed.

Parma[/quote]In essence.........Empty vessels make the most noise. [:)]

[Alan 0]

Delia is not mega rich and not able to fund the purchase of the top players so it is even more important to have a manager who can recruit well and get the most out of what he has.

Unfortunately we do not have that at the moment .

Virtually all the fans can see it but Delia is being too loyal and is too nice to want to Sack Neil.

It would be a great shame if she ends up being disliked or even hated for being too nice.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I have never felt or said they are in it to make money although I would be interested to know what value was attributed to the shares when they converted their loans to shares a while back. I seem to recall they said they never wanted repayment of those loans and its true that they have not been "repaid" but they have been converted into shares to Delia and MWJs benefit as those shares have a value and also increased their majority shareholding. Indeed was it not that loan to share conversion that took them over the 50% mark?

I just think the have a misguided idealism that is st odds with the modern football world and the real risk is that rather than endure the ongoing survival/stability of the club it''s going to jeopardise it because no prem football plus no wealthy benefactor is likely to mean debt and/or lack of competitiveness.

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]A real lot of ignorance is being shown on this thread.

My personal opinion is that Delia and Michael are not particularly good business people, their skills are elsewhere, but they did make two brilliant appointments in bring Bowkett and McNally into the club. The result of making those good decisions has seen the value of the club rise. That can only be a good thing, and I can''t see why anybody thinks otherwise. If you were to open a whelk stall on Norwich market and in two decades that business is now worth £20 million then you should be congratulated and not derided.

A further point on the same theme is that the £20 million is only a return on investment if you sell up for that amount. And if Delia doesn''t sell up, and she says she is not going to, then she is actually facing no return on her investment. And don''t forget, you investors, the price of shares can fall as well as rise, so that £20 million today might be nothing if we suffer a couple of relegations.

So to accuse Delia and Michael of standing to make millions from their investment is utter nonsense when they have already stated that those shares will go ito a trust. And even if they were to change their minds and sell up anyway, then so what? They took the financial risk when the club was facing bankruptcy and they took the decisions to appoint Bowkett and McNally which led to us spending a few years in the Premier League, so any increase in the value of the Club is down to their stewardship of the Club.

It is stupidity to claim that Delia is putting her own interests first, when she is not selling her shareholding. If she was selling out for superbucks to some billionaire then you could accuse her of putting her own interests first but when she is transferring her shares into a trust then clearly she isn''t putting her own interests first.

Having said all of this, I believe their appointments of Balls and Moxey to replace Bowkett and McNally have weakened the Club. It would be difficult to find two replacements of the same calibre of the former board members but I think D&M should have tried harder to bring better quality at the board level.

Having read the Times article, it could be that Delia does want City to be more of a community-based club and thinks that is far more important than playing in the Premier league. She is entitled to that opinion and as a majority shareholder she is entitled to make that happen. It is not a choice I would make but I accept her right to do so. And if you don''t accept Delia right to stamp her ethos on the Club then buy her out and do it your way. If a billionaire investor steps in you can be sure that his/her ethos will be stamped on the club whether you like it or not. Ask other fans where this has happened already. So either put up or shut up.[/quote]

Spot on, particularly about Delia and shares and a potential return on her investment. It will only be a return if she sells and she has said she won''t do that, so unless she changes her mind there will be no mega-windfall for her.

With some posters here it has been a case of hatred trumping logic.

My only possible point of disagreement with RtB would be whether we have traded down with Ed Balls. From what I know of him I believe he has the qualities to do well as chairman.[/quote]

Fair point, Purple. I think we have yet to see what Ed can do. Definitely the Chairman needs to be a strategic thinker and come up with the kind of structural plan that Parma Ham GM outlined (not sure which thread that was in). And given his background, EB could well be the right man. We do need him to come on down asap, though.

As for the CEO, he needs to up his game, its coming over in the Pinkun as a car crash at the moment.

Yes, and I do wonder why there is so much vitriol directed towards the majority shareholders. I don''t agree with many of their decisions but I don''t hate them for it, and I will praise them when they get it right (Bowkett & McNally).

I respect them for taking the risk to put their wealth into saving NCFC from bankruptcy when they could have lost everything themselves. And I admire them for their passion in wanting to keep us as a community-based club.

But if fans want a different sort of Norwich City then buy out the shareholders and have a go yourselves.