What to expect under Delia/Michael/Nephew Tom's ownership

[nutty nigel 7,531]

I''ll try again Dicky. Didn''t McNally say directors loans were repaid and certainly not what you claimed he stated "Delia and Michael have already taken money out of the club". Those are two very different scenarios I''m sure you''ll agree. One is factual. The other is bending the truth to fuel hatred.

As I remember it the loans were roughly .5m to Michael Foulger and 1.5m to Delia and MWJ. These we''re old loans that we''re supposed to be short term but had turned into long term loans and no interest had been paid on them.

This was above board and part of the statements at the AGM and press reports of that AGM. Some posters on here were present and didn''t seem to think anything untoward had happened. But I guess if it had been reported that Delia and Michael had started taking money out of the club something would have been said. That''s probably why we have to wait a couple of years before the facts are spun in deceitful way.

As for McNally, I really like the bloke but don''t think he mixes well with Saturday nights and Twitter. I believe re resigned on Twitter one Saturday night and then managed to get 1.4m out of that same years accounts as compensation for loss of office. I guess all the "ins and outs" of that will never be known.

[norfolkngood 1,086]

Well explained Nigel

Delia and Mwj were owed the money they loaned the club but i think if i was them with their wealth and how much the club if sold would earn them in profit at their age and with the fact they do not want to sell and give their shares to Tom

i would have just given the club the 1.5 million back

i am not saying they were wrong they were owed the money

but that money back then instead of going back to them could of been used for Colney

Like i said they were good enough to loan the money in the first place but i think if i was owed the money and could afford it i would have just used it for other things the club needed easy to say with other peoples money i know

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Unsure about that Norfolk. To me it sounds a bit like "I''m going to moan about it anyway."

[norfolkngood 1,086]

No not a moan just saying what i personal would do

bit like saying i loaned my niece money for a house i do not need the money and i have no kids so when she offered to pay it back i would state it will be yours when i have gone so keep it and use it for something else

not a stick to beat Delia honest just saying what i would do if i was them

like i said it was their money it was owed to them they can do as they wish

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Good for your niece buddy. I have kids and give them things rather than loan to them. Looks like Delia''s going to give her nephew a football club. Lucky Tom. I gave my kids shares. Obviously that''s a tiny minute percentage of Tom''s club. But it meant the same to them. They understand the value of stuff more than the cost.

[JF 694]

Highlights how hindered we are by having in football terms poor owners. I wonder if Abramovic is going to call in his £1 billion? They are more than entitled to it being paid back, it was always a loan. But we’re travelling on horse and cart whilst others are on concord.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="JF"]Highlights how hindered we are by having in football terms poor owners. I wonder if Abramovic is going to call in his £1 billion? They are more than entitled to it being paid back, it was always a loan. But we’re travelling on horse and cart whilst others are on concord.[/quote]

Might get further on a horse and cart.  Concorde no longer flies.

[JF 694]

It’s a metaphor...

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Dicky"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Dicky"]To the people being nostalgic about Leicester etc - my whole point and that of the Brighton chairman is that football has moved on massively, we have not and under current ownership we will continue to fall back and back. We will not compete where we should without some investment, I think that is the crux of it and with Delia and MWJ taking money OUT of the club (as stated by McNally last week), the message is clear. I do want my club to be able to compete at a good level, attract players (would Maddison come to Norwich now? Not a chance) and give us some hope along the way, but with Madders, Pritchard, Murphys, Reed, Gunn all gone, the quality in the team is massively reduced. As a supporter, it is your right to be happy with that but not for me thanks. And, if you look back on my posts, I am generally an optimist and pro board kind of person, but reached the point where I just don''t think it''s working any more.[/quote]

They were only taking out money they had loaned, interest-free, years ago when the club really needed it. And my memory, which I seem not to be able to confirm, but I think correct, is that they didn''t want to be repaid and had the money effectively forced on them by the other directors.

[/quote] Forced on them? You sure? Why would the club do that and they wouldn''t have to accept.[/quote]

I said I am not absolutely sure about this, but I believe that is what happened. I would not have posted otherwise. As to why the other directors would press S&J to take the last bit of debt owed to them (about £1.5m), you would have to ask them, bearing in mind Foulger was also paid off (about half a million), and with him it may also have been the wish of the others.It could have been in effect an expression of thanks, or to do with clearing the last remaining debt to tidy the books up as part of the move towards the time when S&J are no longer the owners. Of course S&J, and Foulger, could have refused, but then again if the argument for them to be paid off was soundly based, in terms of the club''s future, then that might have been decisive.I cannot say who the other directors were at the particular time, since there were several boardroom changes in that financial year.time, apart from Phillips, who was a constant, and Foulger. Bowkett, Fry and McNally stepped down during the year and Balls and Tom Smith arrived. One would need to know, which I don''t. just when the decision to repay was made to work out who was on the board then.

[/quote]

There seems a touch of surprise that Smith and Jones may well have been argued into getting their money back. Given that there was no repayment date, I can think of three reasons why this happened.That S&J asked to be repaid; that the other directors thought it was about time they were, and presumably that it wouldn''t particularly hurt the club; that the directors thought it was a good idea generally to make the club-debt-free, again on the basis it wouldn''t hurt.

Of those, the second and third strike me as just as likely as the first, and arguably more, and especially the third, since Foulger was repaid as well.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Not fact then, just your assumption?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

The third one, sounds ''nicer''.......

[cornish sam 953]

Could there also be a fourth option that it made financial sense for the club to pay them back for tax reasons, FFP or some such?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="cornish sam"]Could there also be a fourth option that it made financial sense for the club to pay them back for tax reasons, FFP or some such?[/quote]

Cornish, I was sort of refering to that kind of consideration in:but then again if the argument for them to be paid

off was soundly based, in terms of the club''s future, then that might

have been decisive.

...although truthfully I was thinking more long-term. Perhaps ensuring Tom Smith had a debt-free unheritance, or even making the club just that bit more attractive in terms of potential outside investment.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,557]

I remember seeing an interview with Ed Balls where he said the board voted to repay Delia/MWJ/Foulger and it came across that it wasn’t something they had asked for and potentially they had voted against it or abstained. I’ve had a look and can’t find it, possible in a video interview which is haven’t gone through or was said at the AGM.

Anyway, being debt free does make the club a more attractive proposition to buy for someone else and I also like the theory it would have helped reduce the clubs tax burden.

McNally was being very naughty when he suggested that repayment was the reason Norwich couldn’t afford a new striker and defender though (especially as his bonus for achieving promotion was larger than that I recall).

[Highland Canary 76]

My recollection of the discussion at the AGM was that at the previous balance sheet date we had an overdraft of £3m and the budgeted debt position at the end of this financial year was some £5m overdrawn. The narrative about being ‘debt free’ appears to longer to be relevant.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Beth, it may we''ll have been at an AGM and may well have been Ed Balls who said it. But the decision to pay these loans was driven by Alan Bowkett well before the days of Ed. They paid some of it back when the rest of the debt was cleared. At that time Bowkett said the remainder (2m being spoke about here) would be paid in the next accounting year. I don''t know why that didn''t happen. Maybe because we were relegated. But it wasn''t actually repaid until we were promoted again.

[Dicky 0]

Whatever the situation, Delia and MWJ took money from the club (regardless of whether it was a loan repayment or not) when McNally thought it would have been better used to help the club in terms of players etc. Kind of kills of the "benevolent owners" opinion many people have of them. Virtually every other club has owners that put money into the club (with little prospect of a financial return) rather than take money out. That is my big point and why, in my opinion having them and Nephew Tom (who as I see it brings nothing to the party, other than nepitism) at the helm will stop our club keeping pace with the changes affecting all football clubs. Little ol'' Norwich seems to be the aim.

[corbs 147]

Nepitism, eh Docky; sounds painful! Good to see support for a Greater Norwich.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Dicky"]Whatever the situation, Delia and MWJ took money from the club (regardless of whether it was a loan repayment or not) WHEN [my emphasis] McNally thought it would have been better used to help the club in terms of players etc. Kind of kills of the "benevolent owners" opinion many people have of them. Virtually every other club has owners that put money into the club (with little prospect of a financial return) rather than take money out. That is my big point and why, in my opinion having them and Nephew Tom (who as I see it brings nothing to the party, other than nepitism) at the helm will stop our club keeping pace with the changes affecting all football clubs. Little ol'' Norwich seems to be the aim.[/quote]

So you are saying McNally was on the board at the time this decision was taken and spoke and voted against it, arguing at the time the money should have gone on players?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Dicky"]To the people being nostalgic about Leicester etc - my whole point and that of the Brighton chairman is that football has moved on massively, we have not and under current ownership we will continue to fall back and back. We will not compete where we should without some investment, I think that is the crux of it and with Delia and MWJ taking money OUT of the club (as stated by McNally last week), the message is clear. I do want my club to be able to compete at a good level, attract players (would Maddison come to Norwich now? Not a chance) and give us some hope along the way, but with Madders, Pritchard, Murphys, Reed, Gunn all gone, the quality in the team is massively reduced. As a supporter, it is your right to be happy with that but not for me thanks. And, if you look back on my posts, I am generally an optimist and pro board kind of person, but reached the point where I just don''t think it''s working any more.[/quote]

They were only taking out money they had loaned, interest-free, years ago when the club really needed it. And my memory, which I seem not to be able to confirm, but I think correct, is that they didn''t want to be repaid and had the money effectively forced on them by the other directors.

[/quote]

Yeah, right. Just like Balls didn''t want that £90K he got for making dreadful decisions for 3 months that cost us millions. They had to practically force that on him as well!

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Dicky"]To the people being nostalgic about Leicester etc - my whole point and that of the Brighton chairman is that football has moved on massively, we have not and under current ownership we will continue to fall back and back. We will not compete where we should without some investment, I think that is the crux of it and with Delia and MWJ taking money OUT of the club (as stated by McNally last week), the message is clear. I do want my club to be able to compete at a good level, attract players (would Maddison come to Norwich now? Not a chance) and give us some hope along the way, but with Madders, Pritchard, Murphys, Reed, Gunn all gone, the quality in the team is massively reduced. As a supporter, it is your right to be happy with that but not for me thanks. And, if you look back on my posts, I am generally an optimist and pro board kind of person, but reached the point where I just don''t think it''s working any more.[/quote]

They were only taking out money they had loaned, interest-free, years ago when the club really needed it. And my memory, which I seem not to be able to confirm, but I think correct, is that they didn''t want to be repaid and had the money effectively forced on them by the other directors.

[/quote]

Yeah, right. Just like Balls didn''t want that £90K he got for making dreadful decisions for 3 months that cost us millions. They had to practically force that on him as well![/quote]

So Smith and Jones did tell the other directors they wanted to be repaid then and there? It was their idea and they pushed it through, even though other directors, such as McNally, if he was on the board then, may have argued against it?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="Dicky"]Whatever the situation, Delia and MWJ took money from the club (regardless of whether it was a loan repayment or not) when McNally thought it would have been better used to help the club in terms of players etc. Kind of kills of the "benevolent owners" opinion many people have of them. Virtually every other club has owners that put money into the club (with little prospect of a financial return) rather than take money out. That is my big point and why, in my opinion having them and Nephew Tom (who as I see it brings nothing to the party, other than nepitism) at the helm will stop our club keeping pace with the changes affecting all football clubs. Little ol'' Norwich seems to be the aim.[/quote]

In the interest of fairness I think you need to say "took money back out" not "took money out." The latter makes it sound like they are profiteering whereas they simply were repaid what was owed to them. For all my thoughts on their stance on new ownership I think its important to be accurate. Those who bang on about Delia and MWJ taking money from the club or in some way making money out of the club undermine the perfectly valid arguments out there as to why they should be selling up.

I also think Mcnally got his timings slightly wrong in that I think those loans were paid back around the time of our relegation from the premier league (or possibly at the start of last season) not in the summer we went up but I am sure someone better informed will correct me if that is not the case. It would be interesting to know how much may have been reinvested in the academy bond instead.

They have of course accumulated a significant equitable wealth in the club as a consequence of the increased value of their shareholding which it appears Tom will be the one to benefit from.

[GPs Beard 0]

Yes there appears to be a lot of money being reluctantly accepted but various folk. And if anyone wants to pay me a few quid please feel free. I promise I wont mind.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Dicky"]To the people being nostalgic about Leicester etc - my whole point and that of the Brighton chairman is that football has moved on massively, we have not and under current ownership we will continue to fall back and back. We will not compete where we should without some investment, I think that is the crux of it and with Delia and MWJ taking money OUT of the club (as stated by McNally last week), the message is clear. I do want my club to be able to compete at a good level, attract players (would Maddison come to Norwich now? Not a chance) and give us some hope along the way, but with Madders, Pritchard, Murphys, Reed, Gunn all gone, the quality in the team is massively reduced. As a supporter, it is your right to be happy with that but not for me thanks. And, if you look back on my posts, I am generally an optimist and pro board kind of person, but reached the point where I just don''t think it''s working any more.[/quote]

They were only taking out money they had loaned, interest-free, years ago when the club really needed it. And my memory, which I seem not to be able to confirm, but I think correct, is that they didn''t want to be repaid and had the money effectively forced on them by the other directors.

[/quote]

Yeah, right. Just like Balls didn''t want that £90K he got for making dreadful decisions for 3 months that cost us millions. They had to practically force that on him as well![/quote]

So Smith and Jones did tell the other directors they wanted to be repaid then and there? It was their idea and they pushed it through, even though other directors, such as McNally, if he was on the board then, may have argued against it?

[/quote]

I have no idea Purple but I find the notion that they were "forced" to take the money back very hard to accept. It may not have been their idea but they clearly could have refused to accept the repayment or have just gifted it back to the club if they felt that strongly on it. Perhaps though some of it has been reinvested in the bond scheme.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

If McNally got his timings wrong then what on earth was he talking about anyway.

But he didn''t.

I can''t believe how many people on here claim to be shareholders yet have no idea what goes on. Or perhaps they revisit something, that they previously supported, and deny all knowledge.

Well done Dicky for managing to whip up hatred over something that certainly doesn''t deserve it. I hope at some point the internet requires the same basic decency that is required elsewhere.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Dicky"]Whatever the situation, Delia and MWJ took money from the club (regardless of whether it was a loan repayment or not) when McNally thought it would have been better used to help the club in terms of players etc. Kind of kills of the "benevolent owners" opinion many people have of them. Virtually every other club has owners that put money into the club (with little prospect of a financial return) rather than take money out. That is my big point and why, in my opinion having them and Nephew Tom (who as I see it brings nothing to the party, other than nepitism) at the helm will stop our club keeping pace with the changes affecting all football clubs. Little ol'' Norwich seems to be the aim.[/quote]

In the interest of fairness I think you need to say "took money back out" not "took money out." The latter makes it sound like they are profiteering whereas they simply were repaid what was owed to them. For all my thoughts on their stance on new ownership I think its important to be accurate. Those who bang on about Delia and MWJ taking money from the club or in some way making money out of the club undermine the perfectly valid arguments out there as to why they should be selling up.

I also think Mcnally got his timings slightly wrong in that I think those loans were paid back around the time of our relegation from the premier league (or possibly at the start of last season) not in the summer we went up but I am sure someone better informed will correct me if that is not the case. It would be interesting to know how much may have been reinvested in the academy bond instead.

They have of course accumulated a significant equitable wealth in the club as a consequence of the increased value of their shareholding which it appears Tom will be the one to benefit from.[/quote]

Jim, as nutty indicates, you are quite happy to brush over what you think is a mistake of fact in a Saturday night tweet but accept the basic and highly contentious complaint? You don''t see a contradiction there? To sort ou the chronology and other bits. A tweeter says:Any reason we didn''t properly strengthen the Striker/Centre back

positions when we were promoted David? We were always going to be

relegated with Jerome/Martin/Bassong in those key positions....

McNally''s response is:Yes . Cash . & yet directors loans were repaid. Bizarre,

By his own on the record account, that isn''t true. I don''t know about a tsriker but the money for the transfer and the wages was made available for a high-class upgrade in central defence and the deal fell through because Napoli or whichever Italian club it was could not find a replacement at the last minute. That looks very much like a failure of planning by McNally, with him now trying to shift the blame away from himself on to Smith and Jones.

As to the chronology, S&J (and Foulger) were repaid in the financial year starting on July 1 2015 and ending on June 30 2016, although it is possible the decision was made in a/the previous financial year and the repayment held back until 2015/16. For the dealings in that summer transfer window the tweeter is referring to to be affected by the repayment of 2m pounds the decision at least must have been made in a previous year or very early in that one. Now McNally was the CEO then, and in effect the footballing director. Assuming his attitude now, that it was a crazy decision to repay at that point that led to relegation, was the same then you end up with this scenario:That S&J, who put a vast proprotion - possibly 50 per cent - of their personal wealth into the club years ago, have kept it in, interest free, when they could have been making money out of it, for much longer than they expected, suddenly ask for the remainder back, the CEO/footballing director argues against that, saying every penny is needed for the summer window, and S&J, after years of selfessness, ignore McNally''s plea and insist on repayment.

Honestly, Jim, whatever you think about S&J in terms of competence, or a desire to hold on to the club, as far as their commitment goes does that ring true to you? And if repaying S&J meant there was no money that summer how come we found eight or nine million for Klose and ditto for Naismith a few months later? That makes no sense. Isn''t it more likely that was money we had failed to spend in the summer, at least in part because of bad executive planning rather than any lack of cash? Or that the decision to repay was made after the winter window and so could have had zilch effect on us getting relegated?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

.....nice.......

[Mello Yello 2,289]

......Some folk seem to apparently know a lot of NCFC ''behind the scenes'' stuff.....Anyone actually know why Mr Bowkett left?.......

[Badger 2,405]

[quote user="Dicky"]Virtually every other club has owners that put money into the club (with little prospect of a financial return) rather than take money out. That is my big point..... [/quote]This simply isn''t the case though Dicky, although I quite understand you believing that it is because of the number of times this myth is repeated.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Perhaps he left because McNally didn''t like his idea of paying loans back.

Anyone know why the Purists disbanded?

I miss them...