Jump to content
TeemuVanBasten

Delia is 78, MWJ's is 78

Recommended Posts

Loads of people really defensive of their ownership and against new ownership.

But let's get real, they can't carry on forever and a change in ownership will have to come in the foreseeable whether we like it or not. 

What does the future look like? How and when do they dispose of their shareholding? 

I've seen a few people mention Tom Smith but any individual obtaining in excess of 30 percent of the shares has to pass a fit and proper person test, and John Ryan failed one at Doncaster for simply not being deemed to have enough capital to fund the running of the club. The FL appears to require evidence of personal wealth (capital). 

Simple question... Where do we go from here? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is against new ownership at all. The fact is that many of us defend the current owners record when it comes to success for the club.

I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can deny that they haven't achieved success.

And any new owner must not be an asset stripper or money launderer. 

Yes, we would all like a philanthropic Canary loving multi billionaire to come along. But it would have to be at least any two of those qualities.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we've had this on here for the last 15 years. At some point they'll probably die. But what if they'd never been born at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Loads of people really defensive of their ownership and against new ownership.

But let's get real, they can't carry on forever and a change in ownership will have to come in the foreseeable whether we like it or not. 

What does the future look like? How and when do they dispose of their shareholding? 

I've seen a few people mention Tom Smith but any individual obtaining in excess of 30 percent of the shares has to pass a fit and proper person test, and John Ryan failed one at Doncaster for simply not being deemed to have enough capital to fund the running of the club. The FL appears to require evidence of personal wealth (capital). 

Simple question... Where do we go from here? 

 

As I read it the would-be owners needed to raise £2m to take control (rather than needing to prove they could continue to fund in future years) and fell a million short. That doesn't seem applicable to NCFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wedding photographers earn quite well ya know! I’m sure he’ll pass it just fine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

So we've had this on here for the last 15 years. At some point they'll probably die. But what if they'd never been born at all?

Only probably! What sort of demon are we dealing with here 😳

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know why this subject keeps being brought up again and again....this time with ageism attached to it.  It's ok for people to dream of a rich person coming in and taking the club to some dreamed of land of milk and honey, but that isn't likely, given the way the club is set up.  Tom Smith will no doubt eventually take on the responsibility, but that is fine - he will have had years of experience on the board and will be well versed in the way of things.

The complaint is always "money", but then as many people point out, money or a rich investor is not necessarily a good thing - and has the potential to ruin a club, which would be criminal seeing as how we have a thriving well run and financially stable for the foreseeable future.

As for the age of the majority shareholders, there are some who are in their seventies who are still young in their hearts and full of energy and I know people in their thirties and forties who act as if they are in their seventies. Each to their own, but with the football side taken care of by football people, the majority shareholders can stay there until they are into their 100's as long as they want to be there. As figuregheads for our club, there is no-one better.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JF said:

Only probably! What sort of demon are we dealing with here 😳

Perhaps they don't pay their taxes either ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Bristol Nest said:

It's quite an unnecessary point that you make. It has an unpleasant tone to it.

Op btw.

Agreed. I can understand people having all sorts of opinions but to some people the owner of our club is becoming somewhat of an obsession. A shame that this becomes the focus. Why not enjoy the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Hillhead said:

Agreed. I can understand people having all sorts of opinions but to some people the owner of our club is becoming somewhat of an obsession. A shame that this becomes the focus. Why not enjoy the moment

The moment  would be more enjoyable if we had a different  owner with more money, oh , and younger. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Delia's mum reached her century this year, if I'm not mistaken, and she still goes to games. There's no reason why Delia hasn't got another 20 years in her yet. 

Don't panic, Mr Mainwaring! We're well set for the next two decades under Delia. Long may she reign.

Plenty of time for her to win the Euromillions 👍

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, keelansgrandad said:

I don't think anyone is against new ownership at all. The fact is that many of us defend the current owners record when it comes to success for the club.

I cannot for the life of me see how anyone can deny that they haven't achieved success.

I haven't done that, ever. In fact just two weeks ago I praised Delia and hubby.

But 23 years ago when they bought the club they were 55. 

And in 23 years time they'll be 101.... 

So its safe to say that we're nearing the end of their guardianship, and something has to come next, and the point in my thread is to have a debate about what that may look like and how and when they might dispose of their shares, because at some stage in the not too distant future it is going to have to happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Bristol Nest said:

It's quite an unnecessary point that you make. It has an unpleasant tone to it.

Op btw.

Its facing up to reality The Bristol Nest.

They were 55 when they bought the club from Watling, they were 62 when we went up under Worthington, they were 70 when we went up under Lambert, 77 when we went up under Farke. 

I think its a fair discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I really don't know why this subject keeps being brought up again and again....this time with ageism attached to it.  

As for the age of the majority shareholders, there are some who are in their seventies who are still young in their hearts and full of energy

It isn't ageism to accept mortality as a fact of life and I'm certainly not questioning Delia's energy, which she seems to still have in abundance.

And I'm not putting a specific timeframe on this. 

As it happens I wasn't thinking about death in office, although leaving the club in a will would be one way of passing ownership.

I think what I'm essentially asking is whether people think that Delia & Hubby will:

a). Decide an appropriate point to sell their entire stake.

or..

b). Decide a point at which to reduce their shareholding and become minority shareholders?

or..

c). Pass their stake on to a member of their family.

I'm not necessarily talking about them just pegging it, although that is an unfortunate inevitability for all of us and I suspect most 78 year olds will think about that now and again. 

The future of our club depends on them making the right decision, I like them both as people and believe that they genuinely care about this club, it is probably something which they do think about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Bristol Nest said:

It's quite an unnecessary point that you make. It has an unpleasant tone to it.

Op btw.

Bit of an OTT reaction, he’s not wishing them dead or anything, just a curious discussion as to what happens when they retire!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps "endangered species" would be an appropriate way to describe them in relation to club ownership, when it applies to Premier League existence.

Not brought about by global warming this time though, more the increasing heat of the Premier League.

Let's hope then that the "can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" maxim doesn't apply to the current mentality of our current majority shareholders.

Didn't Delia say in her newspaper interview (Daily Telegraph?) words to the effect that it was to be "Tom, like it or lump it?"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

It isn't ageism to accept mortality as a fact of life and I'm certainly not questioning Delia's energy, which she seems to still have in abundance. And I'm not putting a specific timeframe on this.

That's fair enough, but to title a thread with their ages doesn't look great.  "At what point do they retire/stand down" would have been more apt, but then that is too similar to so many other threads we have had on the subject of them selling the club.  We get it, some of you want her to sell the club to a rich investor, but then most of you who want that, don't accept that the self sustainability model will work.  

The self-sustainability model does buck the trend of football, but then doing something different to everyone else is always going to attract critics and irritate those who are more comfortable with doing what everyone else is doing.  There is an obvious attraction in getting someone with "loads a' money" in, but then there are pitfalls to that as we see so many clubs now that have rich owners who are not getting anywhere and in some cases c*cking their clubs up completely.

We are in a good state structurally football wise and financially stable, have a defifinte plan and good people putting that plan into action.  If either or both DS/MJW decide to step aside at 78/88/98 or whatever, the obvious plan is that they would want to do so to someone who will develop the club under the same plan, with no rich investor required, no big changes needed.  That is why TS is there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Perhaps "endangered species" would be an appropriate way to describe them in relation to club ownership, when it applies to Premier League existence.

Not brought about by global warming this time though, more the increasing heat of the Premier League.

Let's hope then that the "can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" maxim doesn't apply to the current mentality of our current majority shareholders.

Didn't Delia say in her newspaper interview (Daily Telegraph?) words to the effect that it was to be "Tom, like it or lump it?"

No need to lump it Broado, I like it.  Love the declaration of succession  by Delia.  Continuity,  stability and a new man at the helm to carry on her and Michael's  good works.

What about bournemuff ? I bet there's  people on their forums crying out for a bigger ground, more investment  etc etc.,  after all if their owner was just a little ( big) bit richer  they could really move forward,  or get someone richer in, that should guarantee  success for years to come. It's so simple.....or should that be simplistic ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I really don't know why this subject keeps being brought up again and again....this time with ageism attached to it.  It's ok for people to dream of a rich person coming in and taking the club to some dreamed of land of milk and honey, but that isn't likely, given the way the club is set up.  Tom Smith will no doubt eventually take on the responsibility, but that is fine - he will have had years of experience on the board and will be well versed in the way of things.

The complaint is always "money", but then as many people point out, money or a rich investor is not necessarily a good thing - and has the potential to ruin a club, which would be criminal seeing as how we have a thriving well run and financially stable for the foreseeable future.

As for the age of the majority shareholders, there are some who are in their seventies who are still young in their hearts and full of energy and I know people in their thirties and forties who act as if they are in their seventies. Each to their own, but with the football side taken care of by football people, the majority shareholders can stay there until they are into their 100's as long as they want to be there. As figuregheads for our club, there is no-one better.

 

 

Tom Smith is fine, good grief. I want to live in your happy world 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

Tom Smith is fine, good grief. I want to live in your happy world 

I find it a bit weird that people back somebody that we know so little about, who has no track record in business, no wealth that we know of, and we have heard so little from... Just because he shares a surname and a little bit of DNA with our current owner. 

The argument seems to be that rich people tend to not take clubs forward so let's get somebody skint because that's the left field anti-football thing to do. 

The Queen has done an excellent job of being our head of state, but thank the gods that Prince Andrew isn't the succession plan. 

Is there any precedent for this type of inheritance of a big football club? Blackpool possibly the only one I can think of.

At Blackpool Owen Oyston was always of dubious character, but it was Karl Oyston who went to war with the clubs fans, let the ground fall into a state of disrepair and took them down 3 divisions. 

Leicester different because the son inherited the entire business empire and was already running half of it. 

Edited by TeemuVanBasten
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

What about bournemuff ? I bet there's  people on their forums crying out for a bigger ground, more investment  etc etc.,  after all if their owner was just a little ( big) bit richer  they could really move forward,  or get someone richer in, that should guarantee  success for years to come. It's so simple.....or should that be simplistic ?  

I believe Bournemouth are planning to build a new stadium and just got approval for building new training facilities.

I think you'll find very few Bournemouth fans claiming they need a richer owner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I find it a bit weird that people back somebody that we know so little about, who has no track record in business, no wealth that we know of, and we have heard so little from... Just because he shares a surname and a little bit of DNA with our current owner. 

The Queen has done an excellent job of being our head of state, but thank the gods that Prince Andrew isn't the succession plan. 

Is there any precedent for this type of inheritance of a big football club? 

At Blackpool Owen Oyston was always of dubious character, but it was Karl Oyston who went to war with the clubs fans, let the ground fall into a state of disrepair and took them down 3 divisions. 

I agree. I have no idea whether him as the successor is a good idea. But it very much also cuts the other way. There is no way of knowing that it will be a bad idea.

There are any number of questions I would need to have the answer to in order to have an opinion either way. One certainly would be how much will he have learnt about running a football club by the time he takes over. Another would be whether there is an experienced director (Foulger?) still there. They are just for starters. But I would need to know just as much about any alternative successor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...