Ownership questions

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

I doubt that's helpful....

Oh dear. Have I said the wrong thing?😳

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,423]

I've got four shares. Or it might be 10 I really cant remember. Might tip the balance one day. I'm holding out for a big pay day.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

I've got four shares. Or it might be 10 I really cant remember. Might tip the balance one day. I'm holding out for a big pay day.

I've got 9. But I gave away 16. Nepotism.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

1 hour 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.

 

 

Yes, they hold a few shares separately, but the 327,000 shareholding, which gives them control, is held jointly. In that sense they are one person. At board meetings, as directors, they have a vote each. But at AGMs or suchlike, if it ever came to a contentious decision, based on how many shares were being being voted, their 327,000 would be counted only once.

[GMF 736]

49 minutes ago, TCCANARY said:

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

 

The inference from your previous post was that the ‘joint’ reference was as some wheeze to avoid the 50% the limit - at least that’s how I read it.

When they initially acquired GW’s 30 (something) percent, it was jointly, as have all other subsequent acquisitions.

[GMF 736]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

 

Yes, they hold a few shares separately, but the 327,000 shareholding, which gives them control, is held jointly. In that sense they are one person. At board meetings, as directors, they have a vote each. But at AGMs or suchlike, if it ever came to a contentious decision, based on how many shares were being being voted, their 327,000 would be counted only once.

The Club’s articles of association requires all  directors to have a minimum shareholding with a notional value of not less than £100. Hence why D&M have individual share holdings in their own name.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, D&M we’re actually appointed directors before GW agreed to sell his shares to them.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

11 minutes ago, GMF said:

The Club’s articles of association requires all  directors to have a minimum shareholding with a notional value of not less than £100. Hence why D&M have individual share holdings in their own name.

Also, if memory serves me correctly, D&M we’re actually appointed directors before GW agreed to sell his shares to them.

They joined the board in November 1996 and bought Watling's shares a whole year later.

[GMF 736]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

They joined the board in November 1996 and bought Watling's shares a whole year later.

Thanks for confirming 👍

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,423]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

I've got 9. But I gave away 16. Nepotism.

Nutty someone put a list of shareholders on here once . Have you got one or access? Probably  on companies house ? I’d like to know how many I’ve got. 

[GMF 736]

5 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Nutty someone put a list of shareholders on here once . Have you got one or access? Probably  on companies house ? I’d like to know how many I’ve got. 

A quick look at Companies House and a search for Norwich City Football Club and a squint on the 2013 Annual Return shows no shareholding in the name of Graham Paddons Beard 😉

[nutty nigel 7,509]

15 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Nutty someone put a list of shareholders on here once . Have you got one or access? Probably  on companies house ? I’d like to know how many I’ve got. 

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/y28Nd4sW2OReLgWfbZxzUwTdYaCGGVDH4IjsMXy0Bpc/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Content-Sha256=UNSIGNED-PAYLOAD&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3GT3F74HF%2F20191007%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20191007T163740Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=AgoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEI%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIQC4BPWlOJE%2Bt2JID%2Bcwj0iKasuDMvGyWJ3ZXbfGuoX%2B8wIgGv9ViVlCXrJEA5X1%2FJGTO2xUm%2F8M%2FAxTScudBdeTg5Aq2gMIeBACGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDHOIl14NeA9xBFWnlCq3A6F74%2FlhWZg%2B7NQncpt5mbgqijHhFN4AbXZrPWEiLeBPjvW%2FjCQ%2FK46RzhL7rutie94sbc2u24W7kC%2FL67AIv6DxZQ%2FmEnMTvz1xJeEHSTxq0lLJ%2B2zxwvYyADiEudMAEgm1ngxefUy9DkTOjl2hGA5k0UKm%2BpTl%2BlZGnGo6HV5WuF4Hiexu%2Bdwq5HAxh6DH9i%2BXZKi8zueVObDRP4SfYLowOaBqI2DXXRGCbvSThmFNVbfwm7L2FlG%2BGM3FPoBDKFBQoeKEnMaHIeD5Iv7TtupO9dtSQPF2U9HCgh1e3yZb9LnDwJXIyMxWWnqbhxJJFjfu6z4Q30LmTWG5d1O3sYZ4ONsL2AeGJDv2eYAVZ0bnKLoY2vJhillzpQgNmvbgN0447iai13RLpaAdlmNWP0%2BqL%2BVQOArbPpIFzktZYHTqlQRrbIm0aYL91K4mx177bXM2rdHzFMMRUixTFM6VuWZUrTIjD%2Bgmpop8KGI9Y8FjvhCMw5kcgypTy6AVzHEcTMxokjr4XyEj5rwJR3884Vqcddva%2FPcNwti7Qn%2Fx4K6VTr0xyQhGWEU4Q3bnu5TjXycYA3%2Bf%2FuwwtpXt7AU6tAGk79nT1IlJBMydqn7HEvB6MLe4d6pR2iQEMv4m2Hu2%2FCt2pIk8XZSmOXm%2B7Gh8XCqyZWwg43U8fvLbZmL6AJ%2FIIa3kpeMRU0JdCAbIbSFCON8ut4pV7SjPylRQMaSYM%2FfHNP%2FzhyE1UrR4nSXXTd5rvWxPFKST8gwxnBO9gGTRwkmtoLZVUo%2F5shFss4bVLABqOm3aKX%2Fx3rSFikjT7um2K1lRY2o2arLRFtWq6bXM8JocDbk%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=421dce7b2a140dee4445b7e32304f710e23c72036b8d404d50e1211572b5c57f

That was 2013. There may be a later one? Not sure how often they publish them.

[Midlands Yellow 3,924]

What’s the longest spell that Norwich have stopped in the top flight ? The promotions in the last 16 years have been fun but we’ve hardly looked like staying there for too long which is mainly down to lack of investment . 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

On this one I have 25 shares.There was an update in 2015 which showed the changes only.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

What’s the longest spell that Norwich have stopped in the top flight ? The promotions in the last 16 years have been fun but we’ve hardly looked like staying there for too long which is mainly down to lack of investment . 

These are the consecutive seasons in the top flight.

 

 

Arsenal 94

Everton 66

Liverpool 58

Man Utd 45

Tottenham 42

Chelsea 31

Man City 18

--------------------

Southampton 8

West Ham 8

Palace 8

Leicester 6

Bournemouth 5

Watford 5

Burnley 4

Newcastle 3

Brighton 3

Wolves 2

Norwich 1

Sheff Utd 1

Aston Villa 1

 

[TIL 1010 4,718]

Good job i have access to it Nutty as your link does not work. 😜

There are a few substantial shareholdings which i wonder six years on might have changed ?

A few examples being Archant 5,000 (0.57%) RG Carter 7,500(1.22%) The Company running The Pleasure Beach now owned by Albert Jones son of Jimmy 23,278 ( 3.78%).

Interesting that the original Supporters Trust set up in the late 50's still own 10,219 shares (1.66%) and are controlled by Peter Sharman.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Good job i have access to it Nutty as your link does not work. 😜

There are a few substantial shareholdings which i wonder six years on might have changed ?

A few examples being Archant 5,000 (0.57%) RG Carter 7,500(1.22%) The Company running The Pleasure Beach now owned by Albert Jones son of Jimmy 23,278 ( 3.78%).

Interesting that the original Supporters Trust set up in the late 50's still own 10,219 shares (1.66%) and are controlled by Peter Sharman.

Would have been helpful to Beardo to post it then.

It can be navigated from here...

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history?page=1

Go to.. Annual Return (made up to 11th October 2013)

Edited October 7, 2019 by nutty nigel

[ThorpeCanary 71]

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

These are the consecutive seasons in the top flight.

 

 

Arsenal 94

Everton 66

Liverpool 58

Man Utd 45

Tottenham 42

Chelsea 31

Man City 18

--------------------

Southampton 8

West Ham 8

Palace 8

Leicester 6

Bournemouth 5

Watford 5

Burnley 4

Newcastle 3

Brighton 3

Wolves 2

Norwich 1

Sheff Utd 1

Aston Villa 1

 

Goes to show unless you're one of the big clubs best not get to comfortable

Edited October 7, 2019 by ThorpeCanary
wrong

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, ThorpeCanary said:

I think Palace are on 6 like Leicester but goes to show unless you're one of the big clubs best not get to comfortable

Palace returned in 2010.

However this established nonsense is pie in the sky. Regardless of investment. And there's many clubs who have had multiple investments and can't get a sniff. People make it up to try and put a bad light on our owners and our club. Don't ask me why...

[ThorpeCanary 71]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Palace returned in 2010.

However this established nonsense is pie in the sky. Regardless of investment. And there's many clubs who have had multiple investments and can't get a sniff. People make it up to try and put a bad light on our owners and our club. Don't ask me why...

they beat Watford in the playoff final 2013? We can meet in the middle at 7!

Completely agree. 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

3 minutes ago, ThorpeCanary said:

they beat Watford in the playoff final 2013? We can meet in the middle at 7!

Completely agree. 

Apologies buddy, you are quite correct. Which makes the figures even more damning.

Stoke were looking good to be "established" but it hasn't helped them.

 

[Diane 500]

On 07/10/2019 at 17:56, TIL 1010 said:

Good job i have access to it Nutty as your link does not work. 😜

There are a few substantial shareholdings which i wonder six years on might have changed ?

A few examples being Archant 5,000 (0.57%) RG Carter 7,500(1.22%) The Company running The Pleasure Beach now owned by Albert Jones son of Jimmy 23,278 ( 3.78%).

Interesting that the original Supporters Trust set up in the late 50's still own 10,219 shares (1.66%) and are controlled by Peter Sharman.

Thanks for Nutty supplying the link for the list of shareholders, enjoyed looking through that today as was stuck indoors and didn't know it existed tbh  

Its here if anyone missed it  https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history?page=1   page 3 - 2nd item down

To add to the ones Tilly mentioned above could only find  3 others with substantial shares of 3500 +   (if the list is up to date) which means the  shareholders with 3500 + shares have nearly 80% of the shareholding, anyone with much less than 3500 have  less than 0.50% if my maths are right ?? Proud that I have a few though, wish I had thousands more lol 

3 questions - If anyone sells shares do they just issue an amendment to the list ?  if you want to buy more shares assume you have to find someone willing to sell so do the club have a list of potential sellers? 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by Diane

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

On 07/10/2019 at 15:27, ThorpeCanary said:

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.

Odd that, Delia is making it work 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

"Making it work" is the operative phrase.

[ThorpeCanary 71]

1 hour ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Odd that, Delia is making it work 

Agree completely.

But my point is what happens if that 145 million got spent in a bid to push ourselves to the next level only for us to be relegated anyway.  What happens then?

[GMF 736]

17 hours ago, Diane said:

17 hours ago, Diane said:

Thanks for Nutty supplying the link for the list of shareholders, enjoyed looking through that today as was stuck indoors and didn't know it existed tbh  

Its here if anyone missed it  https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history?page=1   page 3 - 2nd item down

To add to the ones Tilly mentioned above could only find  3 others with substantial shares of 3500 +   (if the list is up to date) which means the  shareholders with 3500 + shares have nearly 80% of the shareholding, anyone with much less than 3500 have  less than 0.50% if my maths are right ?? Proud that I have a few though, wish I had thousands more lol 

3 questions - If anyone sells shares do they just issue an amendment to the list ?  if you want to buy more shares assume you have to find someone willing to sell so do the club have a list of potential sellers?

Diane, under the old Corporate reporting regime, called Annual Returns, the Club used to provide a full list of shareholders every third year, the last one being back in 2015.

Annual Returns have now been replaced by Confirmation Statements and the Club lists just the shareholder changes when it produces its revised list each October - there’s one due shortly, but there’s no longer the obligation to provide a full list every third year.

The Club used to employ a Stock broker to deal with share transfers until circa the mid 2000’s but this became unviable for the broker following the public offerings in 2002-03, simply because the volumes traded were too low.

The majority of transfers each year are typically between family members and friends, for nil consideration, following the passing of the existing shareholder.

The Club recognised that fans occasionally wished to buy / sell shares from time to time and, whilst David McNally was CEO, he asked the Trust if we could offer what’s effectively a matched bargain basis for potential buyers and sellers via our website, which we’ve been doing for several years now.

Hope this helps?

Edited October 9, 2019 by GMF

[hogesar 9,615]

On 07/10/2019 at 18:13, nutty nigel said:

Apologies buddy, you are quite correct. Which makes the figures even more damning.

Stoke were looking good to be "established" but it hasn't helped them.

 

Yep, the idea that a billionaire owner will turn NCFC into an established premier league club is fanciful at best, damn stupid at worst.

[Woodman 92]

What does 'taking the club to the next level' actually mean - looking at that list of time in the Prem, there's no guarantee that significant investment (£100s of millions every year) will enable you to stay there - just ask Fulham and Stoke.

[king canary 7,577]

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Yep, the idea that a billionaire owner will turn NCFC into an established premier league club is fanciful at best, damn stupid at worst.

A billionaire might be able to if they were willing to plough in the amount that Abramovic or the UAE owners at Man City do then they could do it. Highly unlikely to happen though.

[Mello Yello 2,277]

A billionaire would have maybe personally paid for the Colney improvements/upgrade.....?

[nutty nigel 7,509]

10 minutes ago, king canary said:

A billionaire might be able to if they were willing to plough in the amount that Abramovic or the UAE owners at Man City do then they could do it. Highly unlikely to happen though.

I think that's one of the most relevant points to be fair. You could maybe add Leicester to your list. However it's still highly unlikely so then you have to weigh up the odds and decide if it's worth the risk through just a dislike of the owners.