Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Since 1980

Maddison not going to Man U

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

That’s mainly down to the restrictions of having our ownership. You won’t find any other clubs fans in this league who would wish to do it the Norwich way. 

I'm not sure that WHU/ Newcastle Utd/ Man Utd fans amongst others, would agree with you!

+ I suspect that there are even more fans in lower that regret the "spend and bust owners" that you advocate - go for it and regret over many years! 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure that WHU/ Newcastle Utd/ Man Utd fans amongst others, would agree with you!

+ I suspect that there are even more fans in lower that regret the "spend and bust owners" that you advocate - go for it and regret over many years! 

I’m not advocating that but just spending enough to give ourselves half a chance of staying in this league for more than one season. 

Why do you think we fail more often than not in having a run in the Premiere league ? 
 

 

Share this post


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

I'm not sure that WHU/ Newcastle Utd/ Man Utd fans amongst others, would agree with you!

+ I suspect that there are even more fans in lower that regret the "spend and bust owners" that you advocate - go for it and regret over many years! 

Do you think your mentioned clubs would really like our ownership instead if and when they get rid of their own ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the1950’s NCFC have never really had any money despite always being a selling club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

but just spending enough to give ourselves half a chance of staying in this league for more than one season. 

How much is that?

How much debt would you like the club to get into? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Do you think your mentioned clubs would really like our ownership instead if and when they get rid of their own ? 

Yes. Given a choice owners that saw their team as an investment vehicle and took money out of the club or alternatively owners that were closely linked with the club and who wished to reinvest all the money that the club made they would jump at the latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Maddison, like fact he comes to watch us sometimes and I like Leicester as a club, I’d hate it, rather he went to Arsenal or Chelsea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

It will be interesting read Next season if we go down after spending very little on transfers,

the wages will go down to champs level but we still will have sky money also Players fees that leave in summer 

IF and quite possible Godfrey , lewis , Aarons , Pukki , Cantwell , Buendia leave we would have to spend and spend quite big otherwise Mr Tax man will be getting a good payout 

 

And parachute payments don't forget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Trevor Hockey's Beard said:

I'm sure the money he'd make would be tempting, so it may come down to what his ambitions are.

 Man U are not a "has-been" club exactly - with their financial clout they can buy their way out of trouble, but therein lies the problem : there "has been" no coherent plan in terms of recruitment or player development since Fergie left, as well as a run of poor managers.

So for Madders the choice may come down to whether he would be happy  to take the money to be in a dysfunctional team and club, or become the best footballer he can be.

Stay where he is or wait until Liverpool come calling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

That’s mainly down to the restrictions of having our ownership. You won’t find any other clubs fans in this league who would wish to do it the Norwich way. 

Villa fans will if they are relegated and have the book thrown at them. Bury fans definitely do as do Bolton fans. QPR were destroyed. Man U fans don’t seem happy. O how about Leeds ? They are now run like us and happy again. I know you said in the EPL but Bury aside all these sides were in the EPL when destroyed by their owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Do you think our wage bill has gone up or down this season TIL? 

It will have gone up because of promotion but will not be at anything like the level it was when Webber came on the scene and made that statement about P~~~ing £100 million up the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Badger said:

Obviously it will go towards strengthening the club - where else do you think it would go? When was the last dividend payment for shareholders?

Ordinary shares of which there are in excess of 600,000  with Delia and Michael holding 357,000 as majority shareholders do not pay a dividend Badger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

I’m not advocating that but just spending enough to give ourselves half a chance of staying in this league for more than one season. 

Why do you think we fail more often than not in having a run in the Premiere league ? 
 

 

Maybe we just prefer the Championshipe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Ordinary shares of which there are in excess of 600,000  with Delia and Michael holding 357,000 as majority shareholders do not pay a dividend Badger.

Ordinary shares CAN pay a dividend: the fact that they don't pay a dividend is my point. It means that the money obtained is put back into the business - either the physical structure (ground/ training ground) or to make the team run - a huge part of which is the playing and coaching staff. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that money raised will be invested in the club - it is not being spent elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Badger said:

Ordinary shares CAN pay a dividend: the fact that they don't pay a dividend is my point. It means that the money obtained is put back into the business - either the physical structure (ground/ training ground) or to make the team run - a huge part of which is the playing and coaching staff. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that money raised will be invested in the club - it is not being spent elsewhere. 

Where is this dividend for ordinary shares declared and shown in the accounts ? Preference A shares and Preference B shares pay a dividend every year and are shown in the last accounts under Note 11 and amounted to a mere £64,000 because of the relatively insignificant number issued compared to ordinary shares.

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Where is this dividend for ordinary shares declared and shown in the accounts ? Preference A shares and Preference B shares pay a dividend every year and are shown in the last accounts under Note 11 and amounted to a mere £64,000 because of the relatively insignificant number issued compared to ordinary shares.

They don't pay a dividend TIL, that is the point. The shareholders invest the money in the club rather than take the money out of the club like "investor owners" do.

 

Any windfall from Madison, is likely to be reinvested in the club, most likely on the playing side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Badger said:

They don't pay a dividend TIL, that is the point. The shareholders invest the money in the club rather than take the money out of the club like "investor owners" do.

 

Any windfall from Madison, is likely to be reinvested in the club, most likely on the playing side.

Badger a few posts back you asked when were the shareholders LAST paid a dividend and i have explained the shares applicable for a dividend which are Preference A and Preference B ARE paid a dividend and that ordinary shares do not and never have paid a dividend. You said that they could be and that the dividend for them is retained by the club.  I ask again where is this outlined in the accounts ?

 

Edited by TIL 1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Indy said:

I like Maddison, like fact he comes to watch us sometimes and I like Leicester as a club, I’d hate it, rather he went to Arsenal or Chelsea.

Yep, I like Maddison and it would break my tender heart if he went to that shower

Share this post


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

That’s mainly down to the restrictions of having our ownership. You won’t find any other clubs fans in this league who would wish to do it the Norwich way. 

We've just established that there are several that would! They would rather keep the money for the club than give it to investors!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

You said that they could be and that the dividend for them is retained by the club.

Any PLC can pay its shareholders a dividend. We don't, the money earned is retained in the club - mostly reinvested in other players.

As you say, there have been no dividends have ever been paid on ordinary shares - this is proof of my point - they could have been paid, but they have not. Instead of giving the profits from sales out to shareholders, they have reinvested it in the club. It is reasonable to assume that any Madison windfall will likewise be retained. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Badger said:

Any PLC can pay its shareholders a dividend. We don't, the money earned is retained in the club - mostly reinvested in other players.

As you say, there have been no dividends have ever been paid on ordinary shares - this is proof of my point - they could have been paid, but they have not. Instead of giving the profits from sales out to shareholders, they have reinvested it in the club. It is reasonable to assume that any Madison windfall will likewise be retained. 

Badger let me please point that your original post stated ' when were shareholders last paid a dividend ' and i outlined the circumstances surrounding  Ordinary , Preference A and Preference B shares and dividends paid as stated in the accounts. Proof of your point as you put it by agreeing that Ordinary shares do not and never have paid a dividend surely is at odds with ' when were shareholders last paid a dividend ' which suggests that sometime in the past they were.

Never mind have a good evening as words are obviously getting lost in translation between you and me along the line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

We've just established that there are several that would! They would rather keep the money for the club than give it to investors!

Can’t see we’ve established anything regarding that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Do you think our wage bill has gone up or down this season TIL? 

So the £35m for Maddison and other player sales did not cover the massive debt previously? Thought we were very very well run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

So the £35m for Maddison and other player sales did not cover the massive debt previously? Thought we were very very well run?

You think correctly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Badger let me please point that your original post stated ' when were shareholders last paid a dividend ' and i outlined the circumstances surrounding  Ordinary , Preference A and Preference B shares and dividends paid as stated in the accounts. Proof of your point as you put it by agreeing that Ordinary shares do not and never have paid a dividend surely is at odds with ' when were shareholders last paid a dividend ' which suggests that sometime in the past they were.

Never mind have a good evening as words are obviously getting lost in translation between you and me along the line.

Yes, I agree that it is a "lost in translation" issue. You wondered whether the money would go to the player budget and I couldn't see anywhere else it would go (except possibly training facilities or the ground). 

 

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Obviously it will go towards strengthening the club - where else do you think it would go? When was the last dividend payment for shareholders?

Some fans on here seem to think that Delia "pockets the money," which is why I asked the rhetorical question about the (lack of) dividend. It may not apply to you, but some fans seem to think that the owners seem to think that the club has money that it doesn't spend and rakes off in profit - the absence of a dividend proves that none has been "siphoned off" for shareholders.

Obviously, with "investor owners," the likelihood is that money would be taken out of the club and paid to the shareholders. As you suggest, crossed wires. Yes, have a good evening as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:
1 hour ago, Badger said:

We've just established that there are several that would! They would rather keep the money for the club than give it to investors!

Can’t see we’ve established anything regarding that .

So you think that the clubs identified would prefer their current model of the club being used as an investment vehicle for their owners to ours, where the money stays in the club?

Perhaps if you looked at the West Ham, Newcastle, Man U, Ipswich etc message boards you would have a clearer understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kenny Foggo said:

So the £35m for Maddison and other player sales did not cover the massive debt previously? Thought we were very very well run?

Regretfully, at the end of McNally's regime he did what fans like yourself tend to call for and threw caution to the wind in an attempt to stay in the division. That is why we have had the difficulties that we did and also why they have decided to move away from the all-powerful chief executive model.

For reasons that nobody has yet been able to articulate, they believe that a reversion to a "spend and bust" model is likely to be more effective. Perhaps you can explain why taking on lots of debt would secure our future nad whilst you are at it, perhaps you could suggest how much debt as well?

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...