Richard Balls Hits The Nail On The Head.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

Sounds like a done deal Squit. MWJ makes it look as though it has been sorted and just the dots need joining up.

[A Load of Squit 6,205]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]Sounds like a done deal Squit. MWJ makes it look as though it has been sorted and just the dots need joining up.[/quote]No, he makes it sound like they have a plan.

[TIL 1010 5,159]

Hence why i said just the dots need joining up.

[norfolkngood 1,172]

i imagine it is done anything could happen to anyone at anytime Delia will have her house in order will wise and Knowing her like we do she will hand pick the Trustee''s

[nutty nigel 7,870]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]i imagine it is done anything could happen to anyone at anytime Delia will have her house in order will wise and Knowing her like we do she will hand pick the Trustee''s[/quote]

I''m sure she will. I will choose what I do will wise too. Will you let someone else choose yours? If you''ve got a few bob I can help with suggestions...

[norfolkngood 1,172]

well Nigel the thing is TOM will have to work with the trustee or trust so maybe not in this case

everything else in the will yes i understand house money etc but business is slighty different just say Tom does not get on with the trust once his auntie has gone what happens then and who hires and fires within the trust ?

i have my own business and who i leave it to makes the choices not me ,

you might get a phone call for the job nutty !

[nutty nigel 7,870]

[quote user="norfolkngood"]well Nigel the thing is TOM will have to work with the trustee or trust so maybe not in this case

everything else in the will yes i understand house money etc but business is slighty different just say Tom does not get on with the trust once his auntie has gone what happens then and who hires and fires within the trust ?

i have my own business and who i leave it to makes the choices not me ,

you might get a phone call for the job nutty ![/quote]

Bog cleaners are incapable of owning businesses. So I wouldn''t be able to own yours buddy.

But I do find it strange that as a business owner you seem unable to credit the most experienced football club owners in the country to know what they''re doing as they make provisions for the future of their football club. Who do you think would be better placed to make these decisions?

[norfolkngood 1,172]

Like i said its hard

Tom and new board and who ever is left will have their own ideas

i can not see how trust / trustees decide things without their own money at stake

and anyone i leave my business to i will trust to do as they wish and to sell to who they feel as i will trust them not a board of people who i do not know like family

Also if Delia hand picks the trust then do will get the same as if she was alive instead of fresh ideas

[Baldyboy 1]

On what basis do you consider them to be the most experienced football owners in the country? There are definitely people who have owned clubs longer than Smith and Jones have owned Norwich, so it certainly isn’t on how long they’ve owned us is it?

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Not sure tbh Baldy. I should think it''s close between them and Steve Gibson. Maybe Sullivan and Gold have longer but with different clubs. I don''t have a clue about the lower divisions though. Who were you thinking of?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

Whilst it is entirely reasonable that a childless couple should leave their assets to a nephew who they have brought into the business, in a public-facing, sensitive community entity like Norwich City Football Club, anything that implies a personal fiefdom (a hereditary heirloom to be handed down the generations) does contradict the brand ethos and impression created that majority shareholders and Directors are (mere) custodians for something that belongs to its fans and the wider community, if not financially, then spiritually. There is something of a contradiction in the two positions.

In practical terms such a handover would likely be well into the future and need not have been so publicly identified, as it is a somewhat theoretic outcome at this stage. Our stated wedding to a sustainable model will see significant cuts to wages and playing asset sales effected shortly. The likelihood is that this will necessitate and facilitiate new investment and the watering down of the current majority position, unless the current owners find a way to amortise new debt, find new funds or generate greater revenues over the next very few years. Alternatively the necessary sale of desirable assets such as (say) Maddison, Oliveira, Pritchard and Murphy does not lead to a significant sporting drop or major discontent, the the sustainable model will be able to build from that point (and particularly after the expiry of expensive contracts such as Pinto, Naismith, Klose, Jarvis should they not be able to be sold in the interim period).

The question is not whether all of that can be done in theory, rather it is what does the club look like at that point, is the sporting level acceptable to the customers, and how easily can such assets truly be replaced at a commensurate level?

Parma

[Baldyboy 1]

You made the statement not me but there is Peter Coates at Stoke for one, so I’m curious as to why you imply they are the most experienced? What criteria are you basing it on when it’s not length of time clearly is it? I would hazard a guess there would be maybe 10 clubs or more with longer owners, and Gibson is one of them too, so what do you base it on?

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Agreed Parma. But this is the case whichever way the club moves forward. The proof of the pudding will always  be in the eating. 

[nutty nigel 7,870]

[quote user="Baldyboy"]You made the statement not me but there is Peter Coates at Stoke for one, so I’m curious as to why you imply they are the most experienced? What criteria are you basing it on when it’s not length of time clearly is it? I would hazard a guess there would be maybe 10 clubs or more with longer owners, and Gibson is one of them too, so what do you base it on?[/quote]

Not sure about Peter Coates tbh. His is an interesting story though. The foreign owners brought the club from him then sold it back to him. Imagine that. You get your 20 year wish and then within a few years the cook is back....

Like I said there maybe clubs in the lower divisions and Gibson probably has longer. What point are you trying to make?

[Duncan Edwards 2,395]

There probably are Baldy although I’m struggling to think of too many off the top of my head. Dave Whelan at Wigan would have a similar longevity, Steve Gibson at Boro has been there a while and Bill Kenwright is still involved at Everton but I don’t know when he came in or if he still holds a controlling shareholding. Daniel Levy has been at Spurs for quite a while too but, again, I’m not sure if he is still a majority shareholder. Other than that...?

So, even if they might not be “the” most experienced, they certainly won’t be far off. With over twenty years in the bag it does make some of the “well meaning amateurs” criticism seem a bit daft to me. They’ve also overseen some particularly difficult periods in football history, especially the ITV digital collapse, and have managed to do so without ever resorting to administration, paying our dues and demands when it might have been easier not to.

I understand that many people see them as relics of a bygone era and are eager for the “next thing” to happen, it’s very much the way of a world in which everything is available at the touch of a screen to think everything is that simple and that newer is better. However, I also think that you can want that but still respect what they’ve done, what they’ve committed, what they’ve sacrificed and their values without denigrating them or belittling their achievements.

I’m proud of the fact we battled through “the right way” and didn’t stiff local businesses or the St Johns Ambulance. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve got a CSF that is the envy of clubs all over the country and I’m proud of the fact that we have made a commitment to youth development in - what may turn out to be a vain attempt - to keep doing things “right”.

Of course, they aren’t beyond criticism, by their own admission they have made mistakes. Moxey being the most obvious recent example. We, the fans, also get things wrong all the time but we don’t have to stand by our mistakes or live by them. Those that wanted Worthington out and instigated that glorious run of managers....those that wanted Evans and Keane....those that wanted Cullum....at all these junctures and many more, the board were criticised for not listening to the fans, for being so blind that they could not see what we all could. Yet, sacking Worthington (the fans wanted this) was a disaster, Evans had been a disaster, Cullum would have been a disaster, so would the Turners etc etc

But rather than credit them with NOT listening to 25,000 well meaning amateurs, we fans can simply forget that we were wrong and that if they’d followed our lead the club could be on its uppers - we can just move on to the next “best thing”, the next “new clothes”. They can’t. They have a football club and a responsibility to every single one of the fans to do whatever they can to secure the long term existence and sustainability - a one off injection of cash won’t do that. It’s short termist in the extreme. Anyone that wants to stump up needs to be willing to do so year after year after year, just to maintain the status quo an initial injection would create.

Ultimately, it would be easier for them just to stick a for sale board outside the Snake Pit and take the first offer that came along. It’s testament to their resolve and their obvious love of the club that they haven’t done so and stuck two fingers up to the “all-knowing” well meaning amateurs. When it does happen, there’ll be no going back. Maybe it’ll be for the best. Like Brexit, eh?

[Duncan Edwards 2,395]

Peter Coates was at Stoke in the 80s I think but had a period away and then returned about ten years ago?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

Nutella,

It isn’t quite the case ‘whichever way the club moves forward’.

It is no secret that I have worked for the club and the current owners. Nevertheless the sustainability plan -as about to be operated - will necessitate some sales and decisions that current owners and director sales would not make if more money was available.

This is not the same thing as choosing to operate a sustainable cost-neutral model and embracing a philosophy of promoting home-grown youthful assets.

It means being forced to keep expensive non-performing assets and selling against your Will assets that would naturally and desirably form part of your sustainable philosophy, purely based on lack of finance.

Again this is not the same as Manchester United getting an offer they can’t refuse for Ronaldo, it means selling the family silver through lack of money and pressing debts.

Parma

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

Excellent post, Duncan. You sum up how many fans feel.

[PurpleCanary 6,276]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Whilst it is entirely reasonable that a childless couple should leave their assets to a nephew who they have brought into the business, in a public-facing, sensitive community entity like Norwich City Football Club, anything that implies a personal fiefdom (a hereditary heirloom to be handed down the generations) does contradict the brand ethos and impression created that majority shareholders and Directors are (mere) custodians for something that belongs to its fans and the wider community, if not financially, then spiritually. There is something of a contradiction in the two positions.

In practical terms such a handover would likely be well into the future and need not have been so publicly identified, as it is a somewhat theoretic outcome at this stage. Our stated wedding to a sustainable model will see significant cuts to wages and playing asset sales effected shortly. The likelihood is that this will necessitate and facilitiate new investment and the watering down of the current majority position, unless the current owners find a way to amortise new debt, find new funds or generate greater revenues over the next very few years. Alternatively the necessary sale of desirable assets such as (say) Maddison, Oliveira, Pritchard and Murphy does not lead to a significant sporting drop or major discontent, the the sustainable model will be able to build from that point (and particularly after the expiry of expensive contracts such as Pinto, Naismith, Klose, Jarvis should they not be able to be sold in the interim period).

The question is not whether all of that can be done in theory, rather it is what does the club look like at that point, is the sporting level acceptable to the customers, and how easily can such assets truly be replaced at a commensurate level?

Parma[/quote]Parma, early morning so my maths may be off, but I think there is limited scope for someone  buying new ordinary (ie controlling) shares as a minority investment without watering down Smith and Jones'' holding beyond the point at which it is still represents a majority, unless they also buy new shares.Their holding (327,000 out of 617,000) stands at 52.9 per cent, so a minority investor could only buy around 30,000 such before affecting the balance of power. Unless, for example, Foulger, with his 98,000 shares, became in effect a member of a triumvirate with S&J. That would great enlarge the scope of minority investment to about 200,000 shares. Or the new investor was intended as a member of a quadumvirate. And so on...

[norfolkngood 1,172]

well said Parma

exactly what gets me so annoyed we are selling the players that are good players to fund the Naismith and Jarvis etc contracts Murphy Madision Pritchard Klose could all be sold to fund debts or short fall

what we will be left with after this is anyone''s guess

it is going to take a few years to sort this mess out to get the high earners contracts run out or someone to take them on for us

Matt Jarvis has no value for selling and Naismith we would be lucky to get 2 mill for

[Baldyboy 1]

The point I’m making is you are factually incorrect! You made a statement which you can’t back up with the facts! This from the person who always has a go at people for getting facts incorrect or not backing up what they say with facts!

So once again I ask what do you base this quote on that they are the most experienced owners, because I’m intrigued as to what it is, or is it just your blind loyalty to Smith and Jones?

[FenwayFrank 2,657]

“It is no secret that I have worked for the club and the current owners. “

One sugar please 😉

[king canary 8,644]

@duncan

Sacking Worthington was a disaster because the board appointed a succession of poor managers- that is on them, not on the fans. Just because the decisions made subsequently were poor doesn''t mean sacking him was wrong.

How do you know Cullum would have been a disaster?

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,437]

‘Our stated wedding to a sustainable model will see significant cuts to wages and playing asset sales effected shortly. The likelihood is that this will necessitate and facilitiate new investment and the watering down of the current majority position, unless the current owners find a way to amortise new debt, find new funds or generate greater revenues over the next very few years‘

Purple, I did not intend that the phrase ‘watering down of the current majority position’ should exclude it becoming a minority - or indeed being sold altogether..

Parma

[Keith Scott 293]

[quote user="Duncan Edwards"]There probably are Baldy although I’m struggling to think of too many off the top of my head. Dave Whelan at Wigan would have a similar longevity, Steve Gibson at Boro has been there a while and Bill Kenwright is still involved at Everton but I don’t know when he came in or if he still holds a controlling shareholding. Daniel Levy has been at Spurs for quite a while too but, again, I’m not sure if he is still a majority shareholder. Other than that...?

So, even if they might not be “the” most experienced, they certainly won’t be far off. With over twenty years in the bag it does make some of the “well meaning amateurs” criticism seem a bit daft to me. They’ve also overseen some particularly difficult periods in football history, especially the ITV digital collapse, and have managed to do so without ever resorting to administration, paying our dues and demands when it might have been easier not to.

I understand that many people see them as relics of a bygone era and are eager for the “next thing” to happen, it’s very much the way of a world in which everything is available at the touch of a screen to think everything is that simple and that newer is better. However, I also think that you can want that but still respect what they’ve done, what they’ve committed, what they’ve sacrificed and their values without denigrating them or belittling their achievements.

I’m proud of the fact we battled through “the right way” and didn’t stiff local businesses or the St Johns Ambulance. I’m proud of the fact that we’ve got a CSF that is the envy of clubs all over the country and I’m proud of the fact that we have made a commitment to youth development in - what may turn out to be a vain attempt - to keep doing things “right”.

Of course, they aren’t beyond criticism, by their own admission they have made mistakes. Moxey being the most obvious recent example. We, the fans, also get things wrong all the time but we don’t have to stand by our mistakes or live by them. Those that wanted Worthington out and instigated that glorious run of managers....those that wanted Evans and Keane....those that wanted Cullum....at all these junctures and many more, the board were criticised for not listening to the fans, for being so blind that they could not see what we all could. Yet, sacking Worthington (the fans wanted this) was a disaster, Evans had been a disaster, Cullum would have been a disaster, so would the Turners etc etc

But rather than credit them with NOT listening to 25,000 well meaning amateurs, we fans can simply forget that we were wrong and that if they’d followed our lead the club could be on its uppers - we can just move on to the next “best thing”, the next “new clothes”. They can’t. They have a football club and a responsibility to every single one of the fans to do whatever they can to secure the long term existence and sustainability - a one off injection of cash won’t do that. It’s short termist in the extreme. Anyone that wants to stump up needs to be willing to do so year after year after year, just to maintain the status quo an initial injection would create.

Ultimately, it would be easier for them just to stick a for sale board outside the Snake Pit and take the first offer that came along. It’s testament to their resolve and their obvious love of the club that they haven’t done so and stuck two fingers up to the “all-knowing” well meaning amateurs. When it does happen, there’ll be no going back. Maybe it’ll be for the best. Like Brexit, eh?[/quote]Well of course Delia was crazy to listen to the fans. I remember the chants vividly.. "We want Worthy out! We want him replaced with a succession of cheap, second rate, non entities!"Problem was it was just so damn catchy.

[nutty nigel 7,870]

Short memory. The chant was "we want him replaced by the Newell, Tilson or Parkinson non entities....

[norfolkngood 1,172]

They have done well over the years but time and money has moved on

our owners have one of the least amounts of wealth in the in the championship never mind the PL

there is a very thin line to being loyal Fan and good owner for the club or holding the club back for the future

i think so far they have been loyal fans who have tried to do their best

will they hold us back in my opinion yes

money does not buy success but it can make life a lot easier

Madison prime example will be sold as soon as some money is flashed at us be nice to have a bit in the kitty to keep some of these youngsters

[corbs 147]

Wow. I was just about to give up (once again) on this website with its ghastly sense of entitlement, when along came Duncan Edwards. Only criticism, would of preferred the name to be ''Barry Butler''.

[nutty nigel 7,870]

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

It isn’t quite the case ‘whichever way the club moves forward’.

It is no secret that I have worked for the club and the current owners. Nevertheless the sustainability plan -as about to be operated - will necessitate some sales and decisions that current owners and director sales would not make if more money was available.

This is not the same thing as choosing to operate a sustainable cost-neutral model and embracing a philosophy of promoting home-grown youthful assets.

It means being forced to keep expensive non-performing assets and selling against your Will assets that would naturally and desirably form part of your sustainable philosophy, purely based on lack of finance.

Again this is not the same as Manchester United getting an offer they can’t refuse for Ronaldo, it means selling the family silver through lack of money and pressing debts.

Parma[/quote]

Agreed Parma. But that''s where we are. Our dealings were compromised last season on a smaller scale through players like Turner getting extended contracts because we won the play off final in 2015. Let alone players Neil inherited such as Lafferty. I wonder if the future will really rid us of this sort of baggage. Somehow I doubt it. There will always be successes and failures in the transfer market. The successes are wanted by other clubs but the failures rarely are. So investors like Randy Lerner realise they are putting in their money to carry on giving players they don''t want enough money to live life as they have become accustomed. They get disillusioned and bail out. Which is ok if they leave the football club in tact. But if they have borrowed against the club you can easily lose a Colney in the process.

[It's Character Forming 1,203]

People talk about "keeping expensive non-performing assets"... it''s because they''re non-performing that no one else is willing to pay to take them from us.  Realistically for players like Naismith, why would someone else be willing to match his current salary level for the rest of his contract when he has done nothing to show that he is worth it ?  The idea of actually getting paid a transfer fee for him is a fantasy TBH, it''s more likely we''d just find someone who''d be willing to pay some of his wages for the rest of his contract with us making up the balance.  The massive mistake was to give him (and clearly some others) contracts which ran beyond the end of our parachute payment coverage ,which is going to make next season very difficult if, as seems very likely, we''re not promoted.

 

So yes it does come down to whether the existing owners stay - which means another round of belt-tightening next season and a decline in squad quality unless we''re able to pull of the very difficult trick of signing good replacements for lower wages/fees - or finding an "investor" AKA fairy godmother who''s willing to pour money in, which plenty of clubs have gone for and as we''ve seen with no guarantee of success (although it does work, some of the time...).

 

I''m increasingly resigned to the club being back where we were (relatively) in the late 90s...