Full refund scheme - Get your donations in

[essex canary 492]

35 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

What on earth are you on about for goodness sake ? Shares now equate to seats, yeah righto whatever. How exactly you own something that is sold every year to whoever buys it and you retain ownership is way beyond me.

Why does a self funding football need Shareholders? Answer: Because the Ground itself isn't self funding therefore someone needs to own it in much the same way someone owns a car park. 

Suppose - hypothetically- the Club said to me we don't want to give you that £1400 seat anymore but instead you can collect £30 each year per seat from each of your 45 seat renters on the same logic as a Car Park charge therefore I would raise my £1,400 that way to pay for my commercial seat. 

To answer Nigels question if you are in the habit of paying Car Park fees when you turn up at Carrow Road then the Car Park owner dies would you expect to park for free next time? 

There is a logical case for why an inheritor should be no different from an original purchaser. 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,223]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Why does a self funding football need Shareholders? Answer: Because the Ground itself isn't self funding therefore someone needs to own it in much the same way someone owns a car park. 

Suppose - hypothetically- the Club said to me we don't want to give you that £1400 seat anymore but instead you can collect £30 each year per seat from each of your 45 seat renters on the same logic as a Car Park charge therefore I would raise my £1,400 that way to pay for my commercial seat. 

To answer Nigels question if you are in the habit of paying Car Park fees when you turn up at Carrow Road then the Car Park owner dies would you expect to park for free next time? 

There is a logical case for why an inheritor should be no different from an original purchaser. 

 

No, there isn’t. 
 

Two people cannot share one lifetime. Unless they’re a conjoined twin and even that is a grey area as presumably it would depend how and where they were conjoined. 
 

The fact is that the person who made the investment got their 1000 shares and their ST for life sweetener. 
 

They died. The friend/relative/charity/local cats home that they left the shares to in their will, gets the shares. All 1000 presumably. They become the shareholder. 
 

They DO NOT become the person that made the investment, they themselves have invested nothing, the sweetener dies with the original investor. 
 

I suppose the inheritor person could sell them, then approach the club with the proceeds of the Sale as a lump sum and propose to buy some shares for that lump sum and see if the club offer them a season ticket for life but where would the extra shares come from? 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

I have two questions. Firstly, does anyone have the faintest idea what this is all about? If so they have my admiration but to be clear I very much do not want an explanation. Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

Honestly just let this thread die,like the credibility of some of those who have posted here.

[Terminally Yellow 2,448]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I have two questions. Firstly, does anyone have the faintest idea what this is all about? If so they have my admiration but to be clear I very much do not want an explanation. Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

Question 2 seems counter intuitive to the statement made after question 1.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I can see exactly why you got no takers from either the Club, the ADG or the Football Ombudsman with your slant on this crusade of yours.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

3 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I have two questions. Firstly, does anyone have the faintest idea what this is all about? If so they have my admiration but to be clear I very much do not want an explanation. Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

It was a 1,000 Ordinary shares priced at £25 each Purple.

[nutty nigel 7,510]

Clearly nobody knows what it's about. Just as I thought I'd started to understand a carpark suddenly appeared out of nowhere. If only I could still lift the receiver from the cradle and call Bert...

[essex canary 492]

47 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I have two questions. Firstly, does anyone have the faintest idea what this is all about? If so they have my admiration but to be clear I very much do not want an explanation. Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

They were 1,000 shares priced at £25 each purchased on a permanent basis. There was no requirement to buy Preference Shares though I did so. I withdrew the last of these four months ago which was my earliest opportunity to do so following the Bond Sceme as in the context of that I objected to earning only 4.5% for my long term loan.

As a comparison 2 Directors of the Football Club own only 100 shares issued at £1 nominal value and held on a temporary basis and of course enjoy their Directors Box seat each week.

 

[nutty nigel 7,510]

Curiouser and curiouser...

Is this the bond scheme that you tried to take part in but dithered and delayed for too long?

[lake district canary 4,531]

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

They were 1,000 shares priced at £25 each purchased on a permanent basis. There was no requirement to buy Preference Shares though I did so. I withdrew the last of these four months ago which was my earliest opportunity to do so following the Bond Sceme as in the context of that I objected to earning only 4.5% for my long term loan.

I feel sorry for you that you feel so hard done by.  But the facts are still the same - the canary bond was not the same as buying shares.  It was a way of raising cash quickly and cheaply for a specific project which would otherwise have been either difficult to get finance for or prohibitively expensive because of the interest it would have to pay on any bank type loan.  

The interest rate was 5%, not hugely bigger than your 4.5% -  AND bond buyers had to tie up their money for five years - whereas you could sell your shares at any time.  That tieing up of money is why the interest rate was good - people don't just tie up their money for five years for nothing.  I think I've alread said this before, but the PL windfall, which you seem to have so much ansgt about, was there to partly to compensate people for the fact that their commitment to a five year plan was curtailed and the loss of interest that they could not get because upon getting to the PL the bond scheme would be cancelled.  

It was a Bond scheme not a Share scheme. The clue is in the name of the product.

[essex canary 492]

17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Curiouser and curiouser...

Is this the bond scheme that you tried to take part in but dithered and delayed for too long?

Yes Nigel. But I have no desire to have any further debate about the Preference Share  issue albeit that I wasn't happy about that either and that is not an AD group matter. I was simply responding to Purples question. 

Dithered and delayed possibly though I was abroad in the relatively slim window.

[essex canary 492]

32 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

I feel sorry for you that you feel so hard done by.  But the facts are still the same - the canary bond was not the same as buying shares.  It was a way of raising cash quickly and cheaply for a specific project which would otherwise have been either difficult to get finance for or prohibitively expensive because of the interest it would have to pay on any bank type loan.  

The interest rate was 5%, not hugely bigger than your 4.5% -  AND bond buyers had to tie up their money for five years - whereas you could sell your shares at any time.  That tieing up of money is why the interest rate was good - people don't just tie up their money for five years for nothing.  I think I've alread said this before, but the PL windfall, which you seem to have so much ansgt about, was there to partly to compensate people for the fact that their commitment to a five year plan was curtailed and the loss of interest that they could not get because upon getting to the PL the bond scheme would be cancelled.  

It was a Bond scheme not a Share scheme. The clue is in the name of the product.

Fyo. Preference Shares are only redeemable in any January when we are in the Premier League so no option to redeem there. My redemption was in the end later than the bond scheme at a rate of 4.5% compared to 25% annual average for the bond scheme.

The main issue for me was not myself but the approach towards the inheritor following a sudden death of a comparatively young person one week after the bond closed.

Edited May 21, 2020 by essex canary

[GMF 736]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Yes Nigel. But I have no desire to have any further debate about the Preference Share  issue albeit that I wasn't happy about that either and that is not an AD group matter. I was simply responding to Purples question. 

Dithered and delayed possibly though I was abroad in the relatively slim window.

Were you trekking in the Himalayas, or somewhere similar with no Wi-fi?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

It was a 1,000 Ordinary shares priced at £25 each Purple.

Thanks, although it seems from essex’s later reply  that there was a choice, and he opted for preference shares. I asked because Stephan Philips used to be an associate director, and so presumably at one time had to have bought 1000 shares at £25 each, but now as a proper director is listed as having only 100 ordinary shares.

So there seemed to be a disconnect there, with the possible explanation that he had bought preference shares, or later sold 900 ordinary shares on joining the board, which would seem a bit odd.

[essex canary 492]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Thanks, although it seems from essex’s later reply  that there was a choice, and he opted for preference shares. I asked because Stephan Philips used to be an associate director, and so presumably at one time had to have bought 1000 shares at £25 each, but now as a proper director is listed as having only 100 ordinary shares.

So there seemed to be a disconnect there, with the possible explanation that he had bought preference shares, or later sold 900 ordinary shares on joining the board, which would seem a bit odd.

No on both counts.

Originally I bought £25,000 ordinary shares plus £10,000 preference shares.  All Associate Directors bought £25,000 ordinary shares either themselves or by their employer. Preference Shares were not a requirement. 

Stephan Phillips was an Associate Director as a representative of his employer, Archant Newspapers at the time with Archant being the share purchasers.

Unlike almost all the others he did not buy with his own money. The maximum he has ever paid out for shares is £100 if that upon joining the Board long after leaving Archant. At one point the AD Group was redefined to exclude corporates.

[essex canary 492]

3 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

No, there isn’t. 
 

Two people cannot share one lifetime. Unless they’re a conjoined twin and even that is a grey area as presumably it would depend how and where they were conjoined. 
 

The fact is that the person who made the investment got their 1000 shares and their ST for life sweetener. 
 

They died. The friend/relative/charity/local cats home that they left the shares to in their will, gets the shares. All 1000 presumably. They become the shareholder. 
 

They DO NOT become the person that made the investment, they themselves have invested nothing, the sweetener dies with the original investor. 
 

I suppose the inheritor person could sell them, then approach the club with the proceeds of the Sale as a lump sum and propose to buy some shares for that lump sum and see if the club offer them a season ticket for life but where would the extra shares come from? 

I can't see the word 'sweetner' in the share document.

I can see the phrase 'encouragement to retain.' 

Why would an inheritor require any less such encouragement? 

[Duncan Edwards 2,223]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

I can't see the word 'sweetner' in the share document.

I can see the phrase 'encouragement to retain.' 

Why would an inheritor require any less such encouragement? 

Semantics. 
 

Something “for life” ends with death. It’s that simple. 
 

you obviously have some beef with the club or perhaps an issue with the majority shareholders but this really isn’t the weapon to go to war with. You just come across as looking like you’re deliberately trying to be a **** to the club you supposedly support. 
 

The motive for that must be personal and it seems pretty unhealthy. I’d probably sell up and move on if I were you. Take up crown green bowls or something. Indoor. 🐦

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Duncan Edwards

[TIL 1010 4,722]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

No on both counts.

Originally I bought £25,000 ordinary shares plus £10,000 preference shares.  All Associate Directors bought £25,000 ordinary shares either themselves or by their employer. Preference Shares were not a requirement. 

 

You stated that you disposed of your preference shares in January but i assume you had already had got rid of some prior to this falling out with the club, the ADG and the IFO ?

An annual interest rate of 4.5% with absolutely no risk is and has been a generous return for many years now in the financial world which you of all people know is a fact.

Edited May 22, 2020 by TIL 1010

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

10 hours ago, essex canary said:

No on both counts.

Originally I bought £25,000 ordinary shares plus £10,000 preference shares.  All Associate Directors bought £25,000 ordinary shares either themselves or by their employer. Preference Shares were not a requirement. 

 

Except that account of your share dealings is a direct contradiction of your previous post and on which I based my reply which you are now saying is wrong. I asked:

Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

Your reply as to what you did was:

They were 1,000 shares priced at £25 each purchased on a permanent basis. There was no requirement to buy Preference Shares though I did so.

In other words; given I was specifically asking about whether when one bought £25,000 worth of shares did they had to be ordinary, or preference, or indeed was there a choice, your reply said you chose to buy £25,000 worth of the preference. That there was a choice, and you plumped for the latter. That is the only way to read those two sentences together.

Now I can see what you meant to say, which was that to qualify you bought £25,000 worth of ordinary shares, presumably because it had to be that category of share, AND £10,000 worth of preference share.

But if you cannot explain something as simple and factual as that without getting it wrong it is little wonder your attempts to pursue more complicated arguments founder. But do carry on. I only asked about associate directors and how they qualified as such because I was hazy on the details. Less so now.

[essex canary 492]

9 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Except that account of your share dealings is a direct contradiction of your previous post and on which I based my reply which you are now saying is wrong. I asked:

Secondly, if the associate directors had to buy 25,000 shares to qualify as such, were these Ordinary or Preference shares?

Your reply as to what you did was:

They were 1,000 shares priced at £25 each purchased on a permanent basis. There was no requirement to buy Preference Shares though I did so.

In other words; given I was specifically asking about whether when one bought £25,000 worth of shares did they had to be ordinary, or preference, or indeed was there a choice, your reply said you chose to buy £25,000 worth of the preference. That there was a choice, and you plumped for the latter. That is the only way to read those two sentences together.

Now I can see what you meant to say, which was that to qualify you bought £25,000 worth of ordinary shares, presumably because it had to be that category of share, AND £10,000 worth of preference share.

But if you cannot explain something as simple and factual as that without getting it wrong it is little wonder your attempts to pursue more complicated arguments founder. But do carry on. I only asked about associate directors and how they qualified as such because I was hazy on the details. Less so now.

 

I think perhaps we had better round this up.

I guess as one of I believe the top 10 contributors in 2002 I just wanted to share some insights. At the end of the day we are where we are. As David McNally used to say we all have different opinions.

Would I contribute if there were to be more fund raising at the end of this? Well I have green and yellow blood in my veins with purple rage in my head so who knows. Maybe some of you folks will come forward. My advice is always bear in mind the phrase ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune’ at the time of making any donations and that nobody has the memory of an elephant.

All that remains is to allocate the prize of buying the next round of drinks. As we went along, I thought there were 2 strong candidates but like all good horse races you have always got to watch out for the fast and late finishers on the rails. Step forward ‘keep your voice down to a roar’ Duncan Edwards. I bet the incentives weren’t sweet enough for him in 2002 and I doubt whether they will be this time. Mine is a Whisky Sour. Better make that a double. Lord knows what has happened to TVB. Best get one in for him too. He’ll be back.

Whatever happened to Aunt Erica. Toodle pip.        

[nutty nigel 7,510]

Aunt Erica was last seen blowing over Boulton and Paul into the sunset. You may well bump in to her...

[TIL 1010 4,722]

6 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Aunt Erica was last seen blowing over Boulton and Paul into the sunset. You may well bump in to her...

Looks like somebody has flounced off Nutty.

[Mr Angry 1,547]

Is this another spoof account? Nowhere near as funny as Waveney, True Grit or TVB.

[GMF 736]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

Is this another spoof account? Nowhere near as funny as Waveney, True Grit or TVB.

Nope, this one is genuine... 

[GMF 736]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Looks like somebody has flounced off Nutty.

No doubt gone in search for 1,000 NCFC fans looking to make a single share purchase, entitling them to free memberships for life... 🤣🤣🤣

[The Raptor 1,199]

21 hours ago, Terminally Yellow said:

Honestly just let this thread die,like the credibility of some of those who have posted here.

I'm OK then. Im a 42 year old named after a dinosaur and a Canadian sports mascot. All credibility I had went out of the window years ago! 

[FenwayFrank 2,457]

2 hours ago, Mr Angry said:

Is this another spoof account? Nowhere near as funny as Waveney, True Grit or TVB.

You think Waveney is funny?

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

18 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

You think Waveney is funny?

Peculiar funny,not ha ha funny. 

TvB never really tickles my funny bone  either.

[Mr Angry 1,547]

58 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

You think Waveney is funny?

No, just using these two to make my point.