Why do people hate Delia so much?

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

3 minutes ago, komakino said:

I have read different things regarding this, including articles from Delia herself, but assuming MWJ's account is correct, surely selling 14% of their shares would have had a much better feel about it. 

Chase became a target when his shareholding went from around 36% to a majority after - and someone can correct me here - he bought Barry Lockwood's shareholding. That meant Chase could no longer be outvoted at board level, so he could buy things such as the land around the ground and not Dean Windass 🙂 

The 90's was a long time ago, but I am sure that nobody was allowed to own more than half the club. Maybe that was the ideal, rather than a rule? 

Clearly Watling thought Delia & MWJ had the clubs best intentions at heart, but what does that really mean - then as now? 

 

But if S&J only got to 63 per cent because several significant shareholders  did not buy in the first place what would be the chances of these shareholders deciding to buy this 14 per cent? The other point, irrespective of how this happened, is that the vast majority of clubs in England are majority-owned, with many 100-per cent owned, so this is the norm.

[komakino 272]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

But if S&J only got to 63 per cent because several significant shareholders  did not buy in the first place what would be the chances of these shareholders deciding to buy this 14 per cent? The other point, irrespective of how this happened, is that the vast majority of clubs in England are majority-owned, with many 100-per cent owned, so this is the norm.

That is true, but ours do not invest! Hence my point about what purpose do they serve?

[BigFish 1,986]

Just now, king canary said:

And how would you suggest outers break the stalemate? 

I am not convinced they can, it may be a case that they need to learn to live with it.

But if someone was going to attempt it you would need a strategy. Start by focussing the outers, marketing the idea of regime change. Taking surveys of the fans (there is a suspicion that it currently is only a vocal minority), build a social community of Outers. Organise a cohort of Shareholders, rather than just fans. Then educate the Outers in what it would take to change the ownership of the club, both legally and financially. Simple question to answer is what is City (the full 100%, not just Delia's shares) worth. Then take that out and find the money, or someone with the money. Finally sit down with Delia/MWJ and work out a solution.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

They don’t lie Nutty, I’m sure they are open to investment, just the type of investment that won’t be forthcoming as it does not involve relinquishing control.

as for the Chase quote they definitely said that nobody should have the sort of control over the club he did again, before going on to take a controlling interest. Dress it up in semantics if you like but they have done what they said shouldn’t happen so now they can do pretty much as they like. 

At last!

But once again I see telling the truth is semantics and making stuff up doesn't matter.

It was about control, nothing about shareholdings. The quote was something about Chase being the all singing, all dancing owner, they wouldn't allow that to happen, they'd put a team in place. They have done that. You day differently because you believe that when we win they take a step back and when we lose they've got their mits all over it. A similar concept to the man in my old nan's weather house.

BTW the majority shareholding came about because they had underwritten share issues so had to buy the shares others didn't want. 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

4 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

They don’t lie Nutty, I’m sure they are open to investment, just the type of investment that won’t be forthcoming as it does not involve relinquishing control.

as for the Chase quote they definitely said that nobody should have the sort of control over the club he did again, before going on to take a controlling interest. Dress it up in semantics if you like but they have done what they said shouldn’t happen so now they can do pretty much as they like. 

At last!

But once again I see telling the truth is semantics and making stuff up doesn't matter.

It was about control, nothing about shareholdings. The quote was something about Chase being the all singing, all dancing owner, they wouldn't allow that to happen, they'd put a team in place. They have done that. You day differently because you believe that when we win they take a step back and when we lose they've got their mits all over it. A similar concept to the man in my old nan's weather house.

BTW the majority shareholding came about because they had underwritten share issues so had to buy the shares others didn't want. 

 

 

[Bill 1,788]

20 minutes ago, BigFish said:

I am not convinced they can, it may be a case that they need to learn to live with it.

But if someone was going to attempt it you would need a strategy. Start by focussing the outers, marketing the idea of regime change. Taking surveys of the fans (there is a suspicion that it currently is only a vocal minority), build a social community of Outers. Organise a cohort of Shareholders, rather than just fans. Then educate the Outers in what it would take to change the ownership of the club, both legally and financially. Simple question to answer is what is City (the full 100%, not just Delia's shares) worth. Then take that out and find the money, or someone with the money. Finally sit down with Delia/MWJ and work out a solution.

That presumes these numpties have more as their agenda than some ridiculous

'oh look at me, I care about the club more than you'  posturing

It has always been the bleat of the witless "we need han hinvestor"

a simple minded believe that there is already some kindly old chap who will rub the head of the manager while slipping him a few million " and there's plenty more if you need it"

professional football is littered with clubs who found it to be different, most who don't look like they will have a second chance to get it right

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

I am not convinced they can, it may be a case that they need to learn to live with it.

But if someone was going to attempt it you would need a strategy. Start by focussing the outers, marketing the idea of regime change. Taking surveys of the fans (there is a suspicion that it currently is only a vocal minority), build a social community of Outers. Organise a cohort of Shareholders, rather than just fans. Then educate the Outers in what it would take to change the ownership of the club, both legally and financially. Simple question to answer is what is City (the full 100%, not just Delia's shares) worth. Then take that out and find the money, or someone with the money. Finally sit down with Delia/MWJ and work out a solution.

BF has pre-empted much of what I was going to post. But to add a bit, this would involve hard work, but nothing that could not be achieved in the age of cyberspace and instant global communications.

Like-minded fans would have to get organised, and I mean really organised, with a website (heck, if I can create a website then that really should not be a problem) and then put together a manifesto for change. No good calling for S&J to quit without providing the alternative future.

The manifesto would have to include a thought-out long-term financial plan, but it ought to be possible either to have in the group someone with that kind of expertise or someone who knew someone who did. This would be crucial. Any such manifesto would stand or fall on the credibility of its finances.

There are other bullet points the manifesto might contain, depending on the views of the group. I would at least want any would-be owner to pay for an independent audit of their personal and business finances, and their plan for the club, since I have less than zero faith in the fit and proper person test. I would also want legal binding pledges on some core ‘heritage’ questions. But that is just me, as someone who needs to know a great deal more about Tom Smith and how he would run the club before he gets my (tiny) vote.

Once that had been accomplished then there would be various options for the group. They could approach S&J and/or they could write an open letter to all shareholders. If no headway was made there then they could decide the only solution was to try to find a new owner, and so go much more public.

The idea of a 'Please consider buying our club' ad in the international edition of the FT is perfectly serious, as a final step if nothing else had worked. It would get a fair bit of publicity, because other media would pick it up (or the group would make certain they did) and potentially alert filthy rich sports fans outside the UK to the jewel that is Norwich City Football Club, just waiting to be cherished and swamped in money.

[Indy 3,297]

This thread was aimed at why people Hate Delia, safe to say no one hates anyone.
 

May I point out, this summer as brief as it will be will be financially stronger for us than any we’ve had in a long time. Even with Covid, we’ve cleared debt, have funds and if we sell well definitely buy too, there’s little point in massive profits to pay tax on.

 

Even if we do lose Buendia, Cantwell and Godfrey, we’ve already bought in replacements for the wing areas, we certainly need a decent number ten to play behind Pukki or Idah.

 

We have the strongest under 23 squad I can remember ever having and Webber already set out in his statement yesterday we need to get better quality in. I’m very happy with the way we’re set up, how we’re working in a financial structure all football should be restricted too. Whoever’s in charge I hope we carry on down this road, I’ve always said players and agents take far too much money out of football clubs.

 

I’m impressed with Webber , hopefully Farke will continue to improve as a manager and get us back into the top side next season.

Edited July 14, 2020 by Indy

[king canary 7,604]

18 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The manifesto would have to include a thought-out long-term financial plan, but it ought to be possible either to have in the group someone with that kind of expertise or someone who knew someone who did. This would be crucial. Any such manifesto would stand or fall on the credibility of its finances.

 

You're going to have to enlighten me on how this is possible without having an actual new owner lined up.

How do you create a credible long term financial plan without both access to the clubs current finances and an idea of the finances of the new owner?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 hours ago, king canary said:

I think you need to be a bit careful in wording here.

I was too young at the time but I've heard people say that they didn't want a single figure having control like Chase did again but as far as I'm aware that was never formalised into any rule so it isn't right to say they broke the rules. You can argue they broke the spirit of an agreement but saying they circumnavigated the rules suggests an amount of skulduggery that I don't think was actually there.

It isn’t or wasn’t a rule but it’s certainly hypocritical to have acquired a majority shareholding in the way they have and taken “control” of the club after what they said post Chase. 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

4 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're going to have to enlighten me on how this is possible without having an actual new owner lined up.

How do you create a credible long term financial plan without both access to the clubs current finances and an idea of the finances of the new owner?

It is a point about the absolutely up to date finances but in general I doubt there are any really nasty surprises lurking unseen. There is little or no debt, for example, and the club has sorted out the previous problem of being stuck with ageing players on inflated long-term contracts.

The long-term plan would not need to be absolutely specific down to the last million, but would explain the overall strategy (which might be similar to the current model of buying cheap and young and selling on after a few years or it might be different) and how the snakes and ladders game of promotion and relegation would be coped with.

The point would be to outline what kind of owner you were looking for to finance whatever strategy you wanted them to implement and then see if there were potential owners out there who thought on the same lines and had enough money into the bargain. Of course there might be a compromise or two along the way.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

4 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It isn’t or wasn’t a rule but it’s certainly hypocritical to have acquired a majority shareholding in the way they have and taken “control” of the club after what they said post Chase. 

They have totally always run the club in the way they stated and never in the way chase did. That's why you and others change what they actually said.

The shareholding has never affected how the club has been run. Likewise chase not having a majority never affected the way the club was run in his time.

 

[TIL 1010 4,738]

2 hours ago, komakino said:

 

Chase became a target when his shareholding went from around 36% to a majority after - and someone can correct me here - he bought Barry Lockwood's shareholding.

 

 

That is not correct as Chase never had a majority shareholding and he also never bought Barry Lockwood's shares because if you remember Lockwood stood in as chairman when Chase quit and to this day you will find the Lockwood's on the shareholders register.

The shareholder register submitted to Companies House in October 2019 shows Barry and Thelma Lockwood holding slighlly in excess of 3,000 shares.

Edited July 14, 2020 by TIL 1010

[Jim Smith 2,317]

48 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

BF has pre-empted much of what I was going to post. But to add a bit, this would involve hard work, but nothing that could not be achieved in the age of cyberspace and instant global communications.

Like-minded fans would have to get organised, and I mean really organised, with a website (heck, if I can create a website then that really should not be a problem) and then put together a manifesto for change. No good calling for S&J to quit without providing the alternative future.

The manifesto would have to include a thought-out long-term financial plan, but it ought to be possible either to have in the group someone with that kind of expertise or someone who knew someone who did. This would be crucial. Any such manifesto would stand or fall on the credibility of its finances.

 

There are other bullet points the manifesto might contain, depending on the views of the group. I would at least want any would-be owner to pay for an independent audit of their personal and business finances, and their plan for the club, since I have less than zero faith in the fit and proper person test. I would also want legal binding pledges on some core ‘heritage’ questions. But that is just me, as someone who needs to know a great deal more about Tom Smith and how he would run the club before he gets my (tiny) vote.

Once that had been accomplished then there would be various options for the group. They could approach S&J and/or they could write an open letter to all shareholders. If no headway was made there then they could decide the only solution was to try to find a new owner, and so go much more public.

The idea of a 'Please consider buying our club' ad in the international edition of the FT is perfectly serious, as a final step if nothing else had worked. It would get a fair bit of publicity, because other media would pick it up (or the group would make certain they did) and potentially alert filthy rich sports fans outside the UK to the jewel that is Norwich City Football Club, just waiting to be cherished and swamped in money.

Or alternatively, they should just acknowledge that they cannot fund a successful premier league football club and publically announce that they will listen to serious offers. If nothing/nobody  came forward then it would knock the debate on the head. 

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

Or alternatively, they should just acknowledge that they cannot fund a successful premier league football club and publically announce that they will listen to serious offers. If nothing/nobody  came forward then it would knock the debate on the head. 

Who then determines what is a serious offer ?

[king canary 7,604]

10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

It is a point about the absolutely up to date finances but in general I doubt there are any really nasty surprises lurking unseen. There is little or no debt, for example, and the club has sorted out the previous problem of being stuck with ageing players on inflated long-term contracts.

The long-term plan would not need to be absolutely specific down to the last million, but would explain the overall strategy (which might be similar to the current model of buying cheap and young and selling on after a few years or it might be different) and how the snakes and ladders game of promotion and relegation would be coped with.

The point would be to outline what kind of owner you were looking for to finance whatever strategy you wanted them to implement and then see if there were potential owners out there who thought on the same lines and had enough money into the bargain. Of course there might be a compromise or two along the way.

But again, how can you lay out a long term strategy for something you don't own? The long term strategy for the club would have do be decided by the actual owner, the idea a purchasers is going to sign up to a random fan groups plan of action with 'one or two compromises along the way' just doesn't strike me as realistic. 

Again, I'd love to know of any examples of this actually happening at another club.

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

46 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It isn’t or wasn’t a rule but it’s certainly hypocritical to have acquired a majority shareholding in the way they have and taken “control” of the club after what they said post Chase. 

 

39 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

They have totally always run the club in the way they stated and never in the way chase did. That's why you and others change what they actually said.

The shareholding has never affected how the club has been run. Likewise chase not having a majority never affected the way the club was run in his time.

 

At the real risk of being trapped on Nutty’s hamster wheel for ever and a day the argument isn’t about how well run the club is or otherwise.

The point was Delia and MWJ said they did not think it would be healthy for one party to have a controlling interest but then went on to acquire that interest. If they did end up doing so only because no one else was interested in the available shares what’s prevented them from actively trying to dispose of some in the intervening 20-odd years ? 

I’d say they got used to being in charge and actually quite like it.

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by ......and Smith must score.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

10 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

That is not correct as Chase never had a majority shareholding and he also never bought Barry Lockwood's share because if you remember Lockwood stood in as chairman when Chase quit and to this day you will find the Lockwood's on the shareholders register.

Spot on Tilly

At the time, and you'll remember this, the Chase Out group weren't too pleased about some of the Chase board carrying on.

Lockwood was chairman of the new board because the N&P wouldn't allow Watlings first choice Martin Armstrong to do it.

I think Watlings and Chases shares together amounted to 42%. Jimmy Jones I think had 20%and was a 'player' at that time. 

Disclaimer: This isn't semantics.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

2 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

 

At the real risk of being trapped on Nutty’s hamster wheel for ever and a day the argument isn’t about how well run the club is or otherwise.

The point was Delia and MWJ said they did not think it would be healthy for one party to have a controlling interest but then went on to acquire that interest. If they did end up doing so only because no one else was interested in the available shares what’s prevented them from actively trying to dispose of some in the intervening 20-odd years ? 

I’d say they got used to being in charge and actually quite like it.

 

 

Hamster wheel. 

Semantics.

Truth? Nah that will never catch on...

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

36 minutes ago, Bill said:

Who then determines what is a serious offer ?

Surely if Delia and Michael are serious about doing the best for the club and they are as great as you all think they are, they would?

The simple point is they do not want to sell and that is they only way to get any serious investment.

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

22 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Hamster wheel. 

Semantics.

Truth? Nah that will never catch on...

Riddle me this, riddle me that. They either said it or they didn’t. They did.

Bored with this constant spinning round and round and getting nowhere

Over to you for the last word.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by ......and Smith must score.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

1 minute ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Riddle me this, riddle me that. They either said it or they didn’t. They did.

Bored with this constant spinning round and round and getting nowhere

Have a good afternoon.

 

 

 

Hamster wheel

Semantics

Riddles

Plus the next condescending claptrap you can think of

Truth? Nah that will never catch on.

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

17 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Surely if Delia and Michael are serious about doing the best for the club and they are as great as you all think they are, they would?

The simple point is they do not want to sell and that is they only way to get any serious investment.

 

Or they've never received a serious offer. 

[king canary 7,604]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Or they've never received a serious offer. 

This is the real hamster wheel.

Have they not received a serious offer because nobody has any interest of because they don't entertain anyone long enough or on reasonable terms for it to become serious. 

We'll honestly never know. 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Who then determines what is a serious offer ?

The Snake Pit......

[nutty nigel 7,531]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

This is the real hamster wheel.

Have they not received a serious offer because nobody has any interest of because they don't entertain anyone long enough or on reasonable terms for it to become serious. 

We'll honestly never know. 

Yes that's the hamster wheel. It's an unknown do there will always be different opinions. That particular hamster wheel has been turning for over 15 years.

The points I made to Smiffy and others is not a hamster wheel. They're just being condescending.

 

[......and Smith must score. 1,342]

9 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Riddle me this, riddle me that. They either said it or they didn’t. They did.

Bored with this constant spinning round and round and getting nowhere

Over to you for the last word.

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Hamster wheel

Semantics

Riddles

Plus the next condescending claptrap you can think of

Truth? Nah that will never catch on.

Truth never was in plentiful supply on here.

Last word to you. Would we ever want it any other way ? 🙃

 

 

[Midlands Yellow 3,980]

15 minutes ago, ......and Smith must score. said:

Riddle me this, riddle me that. They either said it or they didn’t. They did.

Bored with this constant spinning round and round and getting nowhere

Over to you for the last word.

 

 

 

 

He got to you didn’t he, headache or just losing the will to live debating with the riddle master? 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Midlands Yellow

[Bill 1,788]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

This is the real hamster wheel.

Have they not received a serious offer because nobody has any interest of because they don't entertain anyone long enough or on reasonable terms for it to become serious. 

We'll honestly never know. 

And there hangs the flaw in the numpties whining

There is no certainty that any serious offer, if follows through to a sale, guarantees what said numpties demand - a permanent PL place

As that is what is being put out.

That Delia et al are holding the club back from that guaranteed place by not selling.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

21 minutes ago, Bill said:

And there hangs the flaw in the numpties whining

There is no certainty that any serious offer, if follows through to a sale, guarantees what said numpties demand - a permanent PL place

As that is what is being put out.

That Delia et al are holding the club back from that guaranteed place by not selling.

Put it this way, a serious offer is more likely to be forthcoming if the club is up for sale/available than it is if “we will never sell, we don’t even listen to enquiries.”

if someone enquiring can’t even get through the door then it’s unlikely things will ever proceed to the “serious offer” stage.

The price it would/could be made available for is obviously another key factor.