Ownership questions

[king canary 7,562]

Just looking for factual answers here ideally, not a debate...

1) Does anyone know what % of shares are currently owned by Delia/MWJ? My understanding is it is over 50% but I don't know exactly how far over.

2) I've seen mention before of someone (Geoffrey Watling?) talking about not letting the club be owned by one person to avoid a repeat of the Chase situation- is this the case and if so where may I be able to find a reference to it?

Thanks in advance for any help.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,776]

For question one, the official site says they have 53%.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/Company-Details/

[king canary 7,562]

Just now, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

For question one, the official site says they have 53%.

https://www.canaries.co.uk/Company-Details/

Thanking you.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

My recollection is that Delia and MWJ themselves said once at the AGM that they didn't believe any one person should hold over 50% of the shares so as to avoid a repeat of the Chase situation. This was before conversion of loans into further shares took their shareholding over the 50% mark. However, Purple is generally the man for these types of queries so I am sure he can confirm if this is the case or correct me if not and I apologise if its incorrect.

[Branston Pickle 3,632]

If I win the euromillions draw I promise to lob quite a few £million into the club and take them back below the 50%, job done!

[lappinitup 629]

22 minutes ago, king canary said:

Just looking for factual answers here ideally, not a debate...

🤣

[Mello Yello 2,273]

This thread could get interesting......Hopefully, not long to wait.......

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

26 minutes ago, king canary said:

Just looking for factual answers here ideally, not a debate...

1) Does anyone know what % of shares are currently owned by Delia/MWJ? My understanding is it is over 50% but I don't know exactly how far over.

2) I've seen mention before of someone (Geoffrey Watling?) talking about not letting the club be owned by one person to avoid a repeat of the Chase situation- is this the case and if so where may I be able to find a reference to it?

Thanks in advance for any help.

At the time of the last accounts, just under a year ago, it was still 53 per cent. To put that in context, the figure has fallen over the last decade or so, from above 60 per cent.

I am not sure who made the 'not one owner' comment (may have been Smith and Jones), but it is unusual not to have one owner, or at least a close-knit duumvirate or triumvirate in control. In the Premier League this season some clubs are 100 per cent-owned by an individual or company, while you have Sullivan and Gold at West Ham with 86 per cent and similarly Parish and two US billionaires at Crystal Palace.

The only owner below 50 per cent is Garlick at Burnley, with 49 per cent, but there is what looks like a co-owner listed with 27 per cent. If so, and bearing in minds the partnership owners at other clubs, it looks as if Smith and Jones have a smaller controlling percentage of shares than anyone else in the division.

It is a similar sitation in the Championship, with either 100 per cent or very substantial ownership control, although Tan at Cardiff and Hemmings at Preston have only 51 per cent.

[king canary 7,562]

2 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

At the time of the last accounts, just under a year ago, it was still 53 per cent. To put that in context, the figure has fallen over the last decade or so, from above 60 per cent.

I am not sure who made the 'not one owner' comment (may have been Smith and Jones), but it is unusual not to have one owner, or at least a close-knit duumvirate or triumvirate in control. In the Premier League this season some clubs are 100 per cent-owned by an individual or company, while you have Sullivan and Gold at West Ham with 86 per cent and similarly Parish and two US billionaires at Crystal Palace.

The only owner below 50 per cent is Garlick at Burnley, with 49 per cent, but there is what looks like a co-owner listed with 27 per cent. If so, and bearing in minds the partnership owners at other clubs, it looks as if Smith and Jones have a smaller controlling percentage of shares than anyone else in the division.

It is a similar sitation in the Championship, with either 100 per cent or very substantial ownership control, although Tan at Cardiff and Hemmings at Preston have only 51 per cent.

Thanks for that.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

Euromillions was up to 170m last week, what are Delia’s shares actually worth?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

At the time of the last accounts, just under a year ago, it was still 53 per cent. To put that in context, the figure has fallen over the last decade or so, from above 60 per cent.

I am not sure who made the 'not one owner' comment (may have been Smith and Jones), but it is unusual not to have one owner, or at least a close-knit duumvirate or triumvirate in control. In the Premier League this season some clubs are 100 per cent-owned by an individual or company, while you have Sullivan and Gold at West Ham with 86 per cent and similarly Parish and two US billionaires at Crystal Palace.

The only owner below 50 per cent is Garlick at Burnley, with 49 per cent, but there is what looks like a co-owner listed with 27 per cent. If so, and bearing in minds the partnership owners at other clubs, it looks as if Smith and Jones have a smaller controlling percentage of shares than anyone else in the division.

It is a similar sitation in the Championship, with either 100 per cent or very substantial ownership control, although Tan at Cardiff and Hemmings at Preston have only 51 per cent.

Presumably Purple the decrease in their % is due to the additional shares that were issued a year or so ago which have not yet been purchased by anyone?

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

11 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Presumably Purple the decrease in their % is due to the additional shares that were issued a year or so ago which have not yet been purchased by anyone?

Jim, it was mainly Foulger buying 80,000 new shares back in 2010/11 to put some money into the club.

[GMF 735]

As has been mentioned, Delia & Michael own over 53% and Michael F, just over 16%, so, between the three of them, it’s approximately 69%.

As Purple mentioned, D&M previously owned over 60%, having underwritten the share issues back in 2002/03, of the then total equity until Michael F underwrote the season ticket rebates, following relegation to League One, back in 2009. His loan was subsequently converted to equity.

Incidentally, the reason why D&M more recently had their remaining loans repaid was precisely because, had there been further debt to equity conversions, their total percentage share holdings would have increased even further.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

38 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

The only owner below 50 per cent is Garlick at Burnley, with 49 per cent, but there is what looks like a co-owner listed with 27 per cent. If so, and bearing in minds the partnership owners at other clubs, it looks as if Smith and Jones have a smaller controlling percentage of shares than anyone else in the division.

It is a similar sitation in the Championship, with either 100 per cent or very substantial ownership control, although Tan at Cardiff and Hemmings at Preston have only 51 per cent.

I doubt that's helpful....

[Capt. Pants 4,194]

So will nephew Tom get the 53%? If so how does that square with the no single person should have more than 50%?

[king canary 7,562]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

I am not sure who made the 'not one owner' comment (may have been Smith and Jones), but it is unusual not to have one owner, or at least a close-knit duumvirate or triumvirate in control. In the Premier League this season some clubs are 100 per cent-owned by an individual or company, while you have Sullivan and Gold at West Ham with 86 per cent and similarly Parish and two US billionaires at Crystal Palace.

The only owner below 50 per cent is Garlick at Burnley, with 49 per cent, but there is what looks like a co-owner listed with 27 per cent. If so, and bearing in minds the partnership owners at other clubs, it looks as if Smith and Jones have a smaller controlling percentage of shares than anyone else in the division.

It is a similar sitation in the Championship, with either 100 per cent or very substantial ownership control, although Tan at Cardiff and Hemmings at Preston have only 51 per cent.

Interesting- only caveat I'd add is this is the norm in the English leagues but less so aborad.

[wooster 134]

1 hour ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Euromillions was up to 170m last week, what are Delia’s shares actually worth?

I have a note that there were 616,688 shares a year or so ago and I don't know if that figure has changed since.  Also that Delia & Michael owned 327,509 shares, which is 53% so consistent with comments above. 

It's hard to know what the price would be to acquire majority ownership but presumably considerably above the level being sought on the Supporters' Trust site (between £30-£80 each) for small trades (under 1,000 shares).  Those prices would make D&M's shares worth £10m - £26m.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

170m might not get you those shares. The owners are not motivated by money.

Thank the Lord for that.. 

[TCCANARY 263]

1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

So will nephew Tom get the 53%? If so how does that square with the no single person should have more than 50%?

There was talk of a trust being involved, not exactly sure how it works.

 

[TCCANARY 263]

2 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

I am not sure who made the 'not one owner' comment (may have been Smith and Jones)

 

Isn't that why they are always described as 'joint majority shareholders'?

Individually they have a few shares and the bulk of their shares are held jointly.

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

5 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

170m might not get you those shares. The owners are not motivated by money.

Thank the Lord for that.. 

What I’m saying Nutty, is Delia says she won’t sell. She wants the club to be owned by a Norwich fan, and right now she’s the only Norwich with the means and the will to own the club. She has said in the past that she’s sell if it was better for the club, but that she’s not willing to sell to a non-fan for the money.

If, hypothetically a Norwich fan wins 170m on the Euromillions and offers Delia 25m for her shares, do you think that person would have support and do you think Delia would sell?

Hypothetically.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

There's no way I can ever see D&M selling their shares for 25m. What do they want with 25m? They are not motivated by money so have no desire to build a personal fortune.

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

Also this Geoffrey Wating quote about one person owning shares, (Can't remember the exact words) resulted in him making the shares available in seven per cent parcels. Nobody took them up.

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

There's no way I can ever see D&M selling their shares for 25m. What do they want with 25m? They are not motivated by money so have no desire to build a personal fortune.

Ok, so what about taking the club to the next level? What about being able to compete in the top tier? What about being able to fund stadium expansion without debt? What about all the stuff that we need money for that Delia can’t afford? 
 

She’s not motivated by money. Sure. I get that. I can even respect her decision and understand that she doesn’t want to sell to someone who doesn’t have the best interest of the club at heart. But at what point does the argument have to be made that (in this hypothetical scenario) she should stand aside and sell the club so we can progress?

[GMF 735]

32 minutes ago, wooster said:

I have a note that there were 616,688 shares a year or so ago and I don't know if that figure has changed since.  Also that Delia & Michael owned 327,509 shares, which is 53% so consistent with comments above. 

It's hard to know what the price would be to acquire majority ownership but presumably considerably above the level being sought on the Supporters' Trust site (between £30-£80 each) for small trades (under 1,000 shares).  Those prices would make D&M's shares worth £10m - £26m.

 

 

As the shares aren’t actively traded on any authorised Stock Market, they’re only worth whatever someone is willing to offer for them, always presuming a willing buyer and willing seller.

Someone can quote whatever they want for shares, but a deal will only happen if someone is willing to match that price. Hence why some of those shares have been listed for some time. 

[ThorpeCanary 71]

To take that scenario a little bit further (deal of the century btw, premier league club that owns it's ground for 25m!) how would you spend that 145million? Assuming you're not going to keep any to yourself how far would it go? Sign a couple of 10-20 million pound players on nice big contracts. Perhaps upset the apple cart a little either in terms an unexpected European push or simply ruining your own team harmony. Maybe survive for a season or two but what if you don't? What Happens when you do eventually drop?

Not having a go but you need an awful lot of money to play with a football club nowadays. That 145M won't last long.

[BroadstairsR 2,137]

The ''majority shareholding" issue doesn't really bother me,and certainly didn't concern many once last season became  the success it did.

The total dedication of the "owners" then is a plus point along with their unrelenting dedication towards attempting to always do what is best for the club.

The fact that this is aligned with the fact that they are not they are not the wealthiest owners on the scene is a minus and easily picked upon by their critics. Most of us seem to have accepted this though and the fact that it is mitigated against by the so-called "self-sustaining" model which has involved, most of all, by investment in the academy. This same academy has borne fruit and promises to continue to do so, and promises to get better

Nobody can dispute that this needs time to bear fruit to achieve the full, despite the bounty it has already currently producing.

Even though the prospect of a third one-season stay, out of four attempts, at the top table will be a massive, massive disappointment the liklihood of this seems to be facing us all sooner than expected and critics can readily blame lack of investment when required. There is some truth in this and, even though Stewart Webber made the decisions for the squad over the Summer and I recall expressed pleasure with the outcome of the dealings, the Delia/W-J stalkers have re-appeared in force.

It's been a mixed start to the season but we are probably a couple of points less than satisfaction. That's not enormous and the injury situation has been unkind to us in buckets full to boot.

Personally, I have seen enough in our play to be confident we can (when fully up and running) have sufficient to survive ... just. Another decent defender in the Winter window would be essential though.

Like most, I have been a Deli "in" and a Delia "out" protagonist in equal portions over the last two decades as I reserve my right as a football team supporter to be fickle.

Her "take it or leave it" mantra in the press regarding Tom's future involvement put my back up. Nothing personal, I just thought it against the best interests of the club considering all the other options available, including selling those/some of those shares to wealthier investors.

We seem to have a top notch operator in Stewart Webber and it could well continue.It might not and McNally went from hero to villain in shortish time after all (as did Robert Chase incidentally in a somewhat different scenario.)

The demand for a richer owner has predictably been resurrected as the shortcomings of our current approach have been exposed by some poor results.

Delia's so-called nepotism is extreme though and invites counter-reaction with equal extremity.

When this dignified (for the most part) elderly woman finally relinquishes her shareholding perhaps she might please more supporters by a more widespread approach to it's allocation. Wouldn't a third sold to 'wealth,' a third to the family and a third to Stewart Webber (and spouse)make good sense.

Of course this is none of my business and I have no right whatsoever to even suggest to this successful lady how she eventually disposes of her assets.

However, she always makes a lot of doing what is in the best interests of the club.

As a supporter of many years the best interests of the club are allowed to be my concern also.

 

[GMF 735]

20 minutes ago, TCCANARY said:

Isn't that why they are always described as 'joint majority shareholders'?

Individually they have a few shares and the bulk of their shares are held jointly.

 

This is a complete red herring. They’ve always held the shares jointly and the existing percentage is the consequence of their initial purchase, converting previous loans to equity and underwriting the share sales back in the early noughties 

[nutty nigel 7,506]

5 minutes ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

Ok, so what about taking the club to the next level? What about being able to compete in the top tier? What about being able to fund stadium expansion without debt? What about all the stuff that we need money for that Delia can’t afford? 
 

She’s not motivated by money. Sure. I get that. I can even respect her decision and understand that she doesn’t want to sell to someone who doesn’t have the best interest of the club at heart. But at what point does the argument have to be made that (in this hypothetical scenario) she should stand aside and sell the club so we can progress?

If you invested the money into the club, not their bank account,  and had a viable plan to "take the club to the next level" with no risk then you'd be better negotiating with them.

Remember D&M refused to invest while the option was buying someone's shares. They didn't come on board until the deal had been done and their investment went into the club.

[TCCANARY 263]

14 minutes ago, GMF said:

This is a complete red herring. They’ve always held the shares jointly and the existing percentage is the consequence of their initial purchase, converting previous loans to equity and underwriting the share sales back in the early noughties 

I don't know why it's a red herring, I was just stating what's in the accounts.