In The Interests Of Balance Re.Foreign Owners.

[komakino 272]

@lappinitup

All my sources on this, including a very high profile figure said the same thing - "The board" voted to have Neil sacked (which was around Xmas 2016), ''but Delia would not have it''. Not mention of MWJ, but that fact is Delia has a veto, so it doesn''t ultimately matter what the board votes, because if she doesn''t want it to happen, it doesn''t. It cannot be understated what a sad state of affairs this is.

How are you going to get outside investment for the club if one individual has total control? Answer - you don''t.

My hunch is that had Delia not got round the rules set up Watling so not one individual could own more than (I think 30%), we wouldn''t be having this conversation as she would not be here.

[Duncan Edwards 2,220]

So why did they have a vote?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"]fact is Delia has a veto, so it doesn''t ultimately matter what the board votes, because if she doesn''t want it to happen, it doesn''t......[/quote]Are you seriously suggesting that if MWJ and the rest of the board agree on something, Delia can overrule them all if she doesn''t? Was this written into an agreement when Watling sold her his shares or was it agreed at an AGM. It had to originate from somewhere.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]fact is Delia has a veto, so it doesn''t ultimately matter what the board votes, because if she doesn''t want it to happen, it doesn''t......[/quote]Are you seriously suggesting that if MWJ and the rest of the board agree on something, Delia can overrule them all if she doesn''t? Was this written into an agreement when Watling sold her his shares or was it agreed at an AGM. It had to originate from somewhere.[/quote]

Absolutely. In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood).

Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.

I''ll post more if/when I have something more concrete, but it is very easy to see why it is friends and family on the board, which is business is never a good thing. You need objective outsiders and NCFC doesn''t have any.

[FenwayFrank 2,456]

So what you’re saying is it’s not Delia veto it’s hers and mwj’s. Then you say you haven’t got anything concrete, or in other words, you don’t know.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="FenwayFrank"]So what you’re saying is it’s not Delia veto it’s hers and mwj’s. Then you say you haven’t got anything concrete, or in other words, you don’t know.[/quote]

It''s still a dictatorship whichever way you lookout it.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"]In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood).

Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.[/quote]Prior to their involvement in the football club, MWJ was a successful businessman and Delia was a TV personality. I do think his role in the club is ignored due to his wife''s public persona. I really don''t think if he and the other board members make a decision his wife can overrule them. It makes no sense.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood).

Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.[/quote]Prior to their involvement in the football club, MWJ was a successful businessman and Delia was a TV personality. I do think his role in the club is ignored due to his wife''s public persona. I really don''t think if he and the other board members make a decision his wife can overrule them. It makes no sense.[/quote]

I agree totally. It does make no sense.

[Punctured Bicycle on a hillside desolate 0]

Peeps are mixing up good corporate governance and the ownership of the stowmarket 2

The decision making at board level is clearly suboptimal the results over the past few seasons show that

Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"]I agree totally. It does make no sense.[/quote]But you still maintain she has a veto?

[komakino 272]

Yes, whether in a pure or de facto form.

[Len 74]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood).

Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.[/quote]Prior to their involvement in the football club, MWJ was a successful businessman and Delia was a TV personality. I do think his role in the club is ignored due to his wife''s public persona. I really don''t think if he and the other board members make a decision his wife can overrule them. It makes no sense.[/quote]A woman needs to be guided by the firm hand of her husband, and a husband needs to be kept on the straight and narrow by his wife.Marriage needs to be a partnership where both sides support each other, as opposed to one domineering over the other. It seems that Delia has been domineering over Wynn-Jones if these rumours are correct.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Len"]It seems that Delia has been domineering over Wynn-Jones if these rumours are correct.[/quote]Delia: How much do you love me Michael, marks out of ten?MWJ: TwoDelia: Two? That''s the sort of love you give to a dog!MWJ: The dog''s a seven![:)]

[Grumpy 122]

Do any of these questions get asked at a shareholders meeting

[nutty nigel 7,509]

Let''s see who has the credentials to judge others marriages from behind their keyboards? I married Mrs Nutty in the spring of 1976 and the sun shone everyday for months. We are still going strong today with a further two generations of Norwich fans coming up behind us. I however don''t feel qualified to comment on other couples.

Lets he havin'' your credentials...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]In theory it cannot happen, because she personally does not own the majority of shares, but with MWJ''s, she does (e.g Chase/Lockwood).

Whether she uses MWJ shares to veto anything and/or something has been agreed in writing I don''t know, but the veto was 100% played regarding the non sacking of Neil at Xmas ''16.[/quote]Prior to their involvement in the football club, MWJ was a successful businessman and Delia was a TV personality. I do think his role in the club is ignored due to his wife''s public persona. I really don''t think if he and the other board members make a decision his wife can overrule them. It makes no sense.[/quote]Of course it makes no sense, lapps. This is the poster who kept on claming, based on supposedly impeccable "sources", that the club had deliberately budgeted last season not to get promoted. A claim which the accounts, when released, showed to be, as lawyers say, "total b*ll*cks". If anything the directors erred towards recklessness in trying to go straight back up.Further proof that this poster understands nothing is provided by this latest effort, which is wrong in every significant way - Delia cannot have a veto because she doesn''t own a majority of shares but perhaps she uses MWJ''s shares to give her that majority and so have a veto?!?!?!As far as the crucial ordinary shares are concerned, Delia does not own them in her own right. Nor does MWJ. So he cannot add his to hers to do anything. They own their majority shareholding jointly. This gives them a single (majority) block vote at AGMs.It has nothing to do with voting in the boardroom, where it it one person one vote, with the number of shares held by the directors being a complete irrelevance. Delia might argue strongly against a particular course of action, and her word would carry weight as the joint owner, and perhaps sway the discussion,but she does not and cannot have a veto over a majority decision.

[komakino 272]

Ironic that you mention lawyers...

You are correct - in theory - that she cannot have a veto because she is not a majority shareholder, but the reality is very different.

As a previous poster mentioned, this is far worse than Chase, who didn''t get his way all the time.

I would have thought after the Smith''s Times arctile that would of be made my position clearer that they do not want promotion. Neil''s non-sacking at Xmas 16 is a case point. To achieve promotion without investment either from board level or an outside source is highly unlikely. The best this club can look forward to is staying in this division, which some fans are quite happy with., but the majority want us to be back in the EPL and that will not happen with the status quo.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="komakino"]Ironic that you mention lawyers...

You are correct - in theory - that she cannot have a veto because she is not a majority shareholder, but the reality is very different.

As a previous poster mentioned, this is far worse than Chase, who didn''t get his way all the time.

I would have thought after the Smith''s Times arctile that would of be made my position clearer that they do not want promotion. Neil''s non-sacking at Xmas 16 is a case point. To achieve promotion without investment either from board level or an outside source is highly unlikely. The best this club can look forward to is staying in this division, which some fans are quite happy with., but the majority want us to be back in the EPL and that will not happen with the status quo.[/quote]Oh dear, and there was me thinking I had explained the situation pretty clearly. You really really should not have tried to come up wth an explanation of this supposed veto when you are plainly clueless on the subject of shares and shareholdings and boardroom democracy et al.As to not wanting promotion, you were and are still are wrong about that as well. You kept on claiming - very specifically - that they had budgeted last season not to be promoted. The facts, laid out in the accounts, proved otherwise. And there was nothing in the Times article that backed up this nonsensical idea.

[komakino 272]

We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="komakino"]To achieve promotion without investment either from board level or an outside source is highly unlikely.[/quote]How is it unlikely when they''ve already achieved it twice in the last seven years?

[Icecream Snow 761]

Speaking of foreign owners.....[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43118695[/url]Lai has never given any interviews to explain his interest in the Baggies.But Matt Wilson, the West Brom reporter at the Express & Star newspaper, told BBC Sport: "The Chinese government were encouraging expansion and wanted their businessmen to go and buy sports teams around the world."A lot of fans think he comes to watch the glittering teams because they are the clubs he would have liked to own but couldn''t afford to."They feel he has got a penchant for the celebrity nature of the game rather than understanding what matters to people in this area and people who have supported the club for years."

[komakino 272]

Times have changed.

The West Brom model was the one that the club were basing themselves on, but that has long since been abandoned.

While I do not disagree with some of the things they are doing, fiootball is moving so fast that the club cannot compete, so the club is downsizing and consolidating.

I don''t expect Delia to pour two or three millions as that is nothing in the overall scheme of things, but if the majority shareholders do not sell, I cannot see a return to a league where they are not particularly comfortable with.

It''s austerity on and off the pitch.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="komakino"]To achieve promotion without investment either from board level or an outside source is highly unlikely.[/quote]How is it unlikely when they''ve already achieved it twice in the last seven years?[/quote]

Correction - they were McNasty''s promotions and had nothing whatever to do with the Suffolk Socialists.

McNasty + Lambert = 2 promotions

McNasty + Neil = 1 promotion

Both managerial appointments were clearly and unequivocally McNasty appointments. The more the Suffolk Socialists have to do with managerial changes the more it can be guaranteed that NCFC will slide down the league - to the point where only Southampton''s ten point penalty was keeping Norwich off the foot of L1 in 2009.

As to the dynamic within the boardroom, I would suggest that Wynnie is more influential than Delia, but his understated style contrasted to Delia''s celebrity, fools supporters and others into thinking the reverse is true. After all, Wynnie is a native whereas Delia is an outsider in Norfolk terms; and of course she formerly supported Leeds and Ipswich and so must lack credibility, even with her husband!!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="komakino"]We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.[/quote]No we won''t. You were wrong. The "sources" you claimed to have, if they existed, were wrong. Admit all that and I will happily agree with you. But not otherwise.

[komakino 272]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.[/quote]No we won''t. You were wrong. The "sources" you claimed to have, if they existed, were wrong. Admit all that and I will happily agree with you. But not otherwise.

Not being bullied by you! If any posters have sources or others they should be respected. You are fully entitled not to believe them, but abuse is not acceptable on this platform or anywhere else.

[/quote]

[Mello Yello 2,281]

I don''t suppose that those ''in the know'' could explain why Mr Bowkett really left?......

[komakino 272]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t suppose that those ''in the know'' could explain why Mr Bowkett really left?......[/quote]

Bowkett is much missed in my opinion and the only board member at the time who I could trust what he was saying.

It would appear he became marginalised and had kind of served his purpose after restructuring the finances.

He would stand up against the board and bemoaned that McNally always sided in with Delia - which is ironic as she was hardly upset at his ''resignation''.

Nobody leaves shortly after being re-elected at an AGM, so clearly there was some sort of disagreement or knew that his time was up, but we''ll probably never know.

[Big Vince 318]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]I don''t suppose that those ''in the know'' could explain why Mr Bowkett really left?......[/quote]

Both Mr Bowkett and the Turners wanted the Suffolk Socialists to take the club to the next level, but the said Socialists were unwilling to do so and so these parties resigned from the board.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="komakino"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="komakino"]We''ll agree to disagree, but don''t get your hopes up about getting promoted any time soon. I''m in business and only a complete fool would take accounts as gospel. It can paint a 1,000 pictures and be interpreted in various ways.[/quote]No we won''t. You were wrong. The "sources" you claimed to have, if they existed, were wrong. Admit all that and I will happily agree with you. But not otherwise.

Not being bullied by you! If any posters have sources or others they should be respected. You are fully entitled not to believe them, but abuse is not acceptable on this platform or anywhere else.

[/quote][/quote]Abuse? What abuse? Bullying? What bullying? I have been perfectly polite in explaining in what ways you have been wrong. I will happily respect posters who have reliable sources. Equally I will point out where posters and/or their sources are wrong. If you seriously equate being politely told you are in error with bullying and abuse then you must have led a very sheltered existence.

[Duncan Edwards 2,220]

The Turners were pretty disastrous. An initial loan to secure board positions and then scarpered when it became apparent that should they wish to take on the club (their aim) then a couple of million quid wasn’t going to suffice. Lucky escape really as all their money was “on paper” and when the arse fell out of the sub-prime lending market their “wealth” was decimated. Of course, had he sold the business to GE when they reportedly discussed a £250m deal, things might have been different. But Mr Turner felt he could push the business to be worth £1bn. I’m not sure if he’s managed that yet, if he has then perhaps we could invite them back?