Jump to content
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Where did it all go wrong Daniel, Stuart, Delia?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Norwich's timid approach to expanding the ground to 35,000 

I actually agree with you here Vince - we need to expand the ground imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Parma, much to agree with there. But with respect I think you oversimplify the Buendia situation. Roughly speaking, based on what looked like well-sourced estimates in the media, we had somewhere between £15m and £25m to spend without any sales. Keep Buendia, fill the Skipp gap with a Premier-League quality replacement, and that would have been the transfer budget pretty much used up.*

 

No cover for Krul, no new defenders, no improvement on the willing but limited Hernandez, no new striker and so on. Come early November and a bit of an injury crisis and we have only Gibson available in central defence, an unfit Bryam pressed into service at fullback, and the very blunt instrument of Idah up front.

 

Easy to imagine what the volcanic reaction of fans here would be if we found ourselves in that kind of situation.  Webber and Farke are not idiots. I am sure they knew what they would be missing by selling Buendia but they felt they had no choice.

 

As to ownership, yes, there is an alternative to either the poor but honest status quo and the cartoon-like figure of a billionaire with all eyes on the bottom line. Well over a decade ago I came up with the idea of a supporter-director with a golden share veto as part of a much more fan- and community-based model. I don't think the notion has got any less sensible or relevant to Norwich City in the intervening years.

 

*This equation still works if we loaned in a Skipp replacement but had to spend many millions on a permanent deal for, say, a new striker.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much how I see it.

Thanks Parma, by the way, a good read and I agree with large parts of it.

As Purple says though, I think Webber and Farke had to weigh up the cost benefit of keeping a wantaway Buendia vs plugging the clear gaps in the squad with a reasonable budget. That the signings may or may not be good enough is something for hindsight, they had to make the decision on the basis they believe their scouts had identified plausible options.

And in all honesty I'm not sure we should be questioning the entire methodology at this stage.

I say that because,  even taking into account the difficult fixtures and pre season (or lack of) we have truthfully looked a bit of a shadow of our former self, even in comparison to how we started the last Premier season.

Obviously confidence is going to be a huge factor particularly with new players, most of them young.

Hopefully Burnley we get our first point(s) on the board in any possible way and the confidence starts to grow.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post as always Parma. Thanks.  The juxtaposition to all this is that Norwich have done phenomenally well in recent seasons with respect to the wealth of our owners. I don't see how things could be any better, or different except with a fundamental paradigm shift. To use your health and safety metaphor, there have been a few injuries (including my pride) but there have, and never will be any deaths and for that I am grateful. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Where did it all go wrong Daniel, Stuart, Delia?
 

I had a client who - aside from other things - was a leading National risk assessor for Health & Safety accidents at work. 

When thinking about apportioning blame for any perceived failure, I often think about his firmly-held belief - borne of repeated experience - that major failures are almost always the consequence of a string of (he would say predominantly-avoidable) smaller errors occurring in collective sequence.

These errors can be broken down into the strategic, the operational-systemic and the individual. The overriding driver for assessment is learning and structural improvement where necessary. 

Much as it is with Norwich. 

In the immediate aftermath of failure, my client would consider it highly unwise to leap to find fast answers and apportion useful blame. It is something of a human instinct, though it is a poor substitute for slower, more considered thinking. 

Norwich don’t have enough money to compete on an equal footing at this level. This is undoubtedly a massive hindrance and defines a number of macro imperatives that drive subsequent sporting decisions. 

Let’s start with the obvious. There are few Norwich fans who would argue against the statement that Buendia was out best player last year and that Skipp was our most important. Buendia for pure ability to hurt the opposition and affect games, week in, week out. He cannot be ignored strategically bu the opposition, they have to change their own preferred plans to adjust to his very presence. Coaching definition: a weapon. Skipp naturally played the exact way that offered a key counterpoint to the way Farke likes to play and set up his sides. He instinctively acted as a third centre back when necessary, didn’t get sucked forward or out of shape when we were on top, smelt danger before it arrives and was fast into the fire at its outbreak. If he was not priceless to us, his role was. If not him, then someone had to bought to do that exact job. It is even more important at the top level. This is not hindsight, it was pretty clear to the vast majority of Norwich fans who watch their team regularly. 

Let us now shoot a canard or two to move the discussion forward.  It is unheard of to sell your best player and major weapon upon promotion. Une heard of. The timing of it is extraordinary. It was a huge gamble and - slightly - smells of a compulsive need-belief in ‘doing differently’ to the point where you try to reinvent the wheel in evangelical belief. 


Norwich did not have to sell Buendia. There have been thousands of footballers who pitched for a move, who got their agent to get spiky, who leaked some ‘come-and-get-me’ pleas, a thousand gentleman’s agreements in football that weren’t worth the toilet paper they weren’t wiped on. Norwich were premier League. Buendia was under contract. Promotion was fresh.

Norwich chose  to sell Buendia. 

This goes to the heart of the issue, as it combines the weaknesses of lack of finance with sporting strategy. 

It is not retrospective wisdom to note that at the top level teams are full of powerful, capable squads who have the top level nous to minimise on-field strategic weakness (and force the best to be brilliant , week-in, week-out). Weaker teams face more pressure and thus weaker players make more individual mistakes. Is this then really errors of the individual or the inevitable odds of the wheel of fortune?

Stuart Webber wisely stated that we would not try to compete with this, that we couldn’t, that we would focus on improving the first xi and not spread money around a vast squad of interchangeable (likely not-quite-as-good-as-everyone-else’s) players. 

Nevertheless the decision was made to sell Buendia - who not only a weapon in his own right, but also ensured that Pukki his compadre was at least half a weapon. That’s already good enough to trouble teams a bit. 

What has been bought are not weapons. They are good players. We are on average much better as a squad, yet conversely less dangerous to the opposition. There is the trade. It seems at odds with the early-in-pre-season statement. 

Daniel Farke can pick two good teams every week, though not an eleven that can trouble the opposition. This looks like an expensive mis-calculation. 

There may be a necessary asset investment angle to this. A Tzolis, a Sargent, a Rashica can flourish and suddenly be a valuable asset. They may stay and thrive in the Championship. This strategy may be a product of lack of finance. It would be hard to argue that it doesn’t sacrifice the here-and-now though. 

The painful truth may be that Daniel, Stuart and Delia have all done as well as they can with what they have. 

Demanding change now may be missing the point. Daniel may be wedded to a dominant footballing philosophy that flourishes exclusively against the weaker. Stuart may have ‘done different’ one too many times and succumbed to the - often wonderful - religious fervour of a new  Messiah. Delia may be right to rail against the dreadful capitalism of the whole thing….but….
 

…Maths is a terrible adversary however and all the numbers are against us with what we have. Unpicking the stitching in the dugout changes little if the over-arching fundamentals remain the same. Farke may be the lightning rod, Webber may seek pastures new and trade off well-earned previous glories, Delia may cling on with an ever-tighter grip like Miss Haversham in the crumbling manor…but what then? Does the cycle repeat….the wonderful, awful pain and joy of yo-yo greatness and awfulness? The railing against Murdoch’s millions while gobbling it up so it can be dribbled away to pay for the inevitable annual millions lost in the Championship?

Farke has an array of good players, though he has no weapons. Even Pukki is emasculated without Buendia. Of course when you have one or two weapons you are dependent. Of course you are one injury away from a real issue. Though even that wily old warhorse Steve Bruce - no-ones favourite for favourite manager of the year - essentially builds a solid, effective team then ‘gives the ball to the lad Saint-Maximin’ while the others players sit tight, watch and applaud. It is an effective strategy for the job at hand. Newcastle stay up comfortably (also not enough for fans of course, one must ever move forwards..such is top level sport). Unless you are a truly wealthy, incredible team you cannot hold many weapons for long though. Though the magpies do keep Saint-Maximin, Spurs do not sell Kane and nobody - but nobody - sells such a weapon at the point of promotion. 

Norwich are hamstrung by their ownership model. Self-sustaining to an absolutist degree is an extraordinary strategy in football. There is no money. Self-sustaining is not a philosophy or a laudable guiding principle, it is borne of necessity. Everything - selling Buendia included - flows from there. 

Unless Delia gives the shares away or bequeathes them to a group or individual, then they must be bought. They do have a value. Let us say that the club is worth £100m. To buy 65% of the club, an investor, new benefactor, lottery winner must spend £65m on a nameplate. Before anything else happens. £65m spent and not a single loan left back added yet. No wonder there ‘is no queue of investors lining Carrow Road’. 

So this is it. This is where the maths ends up and the road we tread again. Farke is a red herring. Sacking the manager changes nothing. I’m not even sure that 2 or 3 ardent fans would agree on what our best xi is, what shape it should be, where our best weapons are. I’m afraid simply railing that ‘we should get after them more’….or ‘we don’t go at teams from the off’ … or ..’we need to want it more’ is pointless, worthless nonsense.

We have spent Buendia on a lot of players who are better than we had before and a lot less not-as-good-as-everyone-else’s. Though we don’t have anything now to really hurt teams tactically with. ‘Both boxes’ as the old boys used to say. 

Our failure is a cascading collection of small weaknesses and inter-connecting sticking plasters to cover the gaping wound of lack of finance. All of it is understandable.

If we really want to ‘do different’ it is time to reach out to the SME world, to the Tifosys trading ground bond supporters, small investors, loyal individuals and create a genuinely inclusive French-Shared-Mortgage model whereby the small slices of ownership fluctuate according to investment size at any given moment. Whereby any small (vetted) investor gets a marketing share of brand usage, whereby the community and collective spirit is honourably leveraged to create a membership-style model that would truly be a fitting legacy to Delia’s wonderful era. She herself could and should be a major part going forwards. Like it or not, intended or not, the club has become a massively appreciated asset. It’s value has increased maybe tenfold from the very welcome, though contextually small investment of (anecdotally) £10m or less. 

The £100m is now Delia’s. She can hand it down to Tom. He can keep it or cash it in. Maybe it is a theoretical £100m that never sees the light of day. If you ask for that money from an investor, I would be reasonably sure it would never materialise. The ‘doors are open’ offer to sell is thus a somewhat theoretical one. It also would have no benefit to Norwich City. Not a pound would enter the club from such a share sale. Something of a circular reference self-fulfilling prophecy then….

..and so we have 20 odd good players and no Buendia. Nor any Skipp. Nor any points. 

Not really an accident at all.

Parma 

 

 

 

Great post Parma.. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Delia may cling on with an ever-tighter grip like Miss Haversham in the crumbling manor…but what then? Does the cycle repeat….

 

 

 

Parma, she was jilted at the altar. According to posters here the problem is Delia  keeps turning down suitable suitors...🤓

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why did we do so well the season after we sold Maddison?, the Murphy brothers, Pritchard, Hoolahan, Oliveira all went too, but we relied so much on Maddison. 

Buendia was not fantastic last time in the Prem and couldn't save us. It's not fair to Pukki to say that he is only half the player without Buendia, they had a good understanding but his goals were hardly tap ins. 

Replacing Skipp and Tettey was always going to be difficult but Gilmour was a good start. We are using a different formation so this will take some getting used to. 

We weren't in a great position this time last season or on  the previous promotion season, it's too early to write us off. Webber and Farke deserve more of a chance considering the state of the club when they arrived. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

It is unheard of to sell your best player and major weapon upon promotion. Une heard of. The timing of it is extraordinary. It was a huge gamble and - slightly - smells of a compulsive need-belief in ‘doing differently’ to the point where you try to reinvent the wheel in evangelical belief. 

We are on a model on the Auxerre-Ajax-Barcelona spectrum of long term methodology and philosophy. We will prefer players we have bred and talent we have schooled.

We were incredible last year. It was a wonderful unexpected miracle. We didn’t then spend any money. Other Premier teams already had lots of money and lots of great players. 

Our methodology is refreshing and will maximise our chances and improve our players based on our available parameters.

We either go into a gunfight with a knife or we try some innovative guerilla tactics that may not work, though which do not see Steven Naismith in the reserves, but rather see Godfrey, Aarons, Lewis, Cantwell et al receive an unbuyable education, likely enhancing their values (perhaps exponentially) and ‘proving’ to the world that we meant it when we said ‘come here (excellent young, underused player) and you’ll be given a fair chance and a great education.

This way the next Maddison comes to us too. And slightly better young players are attracted than even before. And so it continues. 

Or you could spend a load of cash on big lads that are a bit worse than everybody else’s big lads, with money we don’t have and putting off all the young gifted players  that we haven’t yet signed that are crucial to our sustainability under the current model.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Where did it all go wrong Daniel, Stuart, Delia?
 

Good to read Parma. Always a breath of fresh air to see such posts on here that are not just 'for' or 'against' but explore a bit deeper. Too good for the Championship, not good enough for the Premier League is an uncomfortable place. That said, whilst it appears this way (déjà vu) it might still be that we retain our status this year even though it isn't looking promising. The underlying points about ownership though I agree with. Interesting to see what happens when DS or MWJ end their role. I've  wondered if they may indeed step down soon? I very much like the idea of a mixed economy (basket?) of ownership.

On Buendia, I'm possibly in a minority who believes we got most if not all of the value for him. You never know how a footballer will develop. Many high value players (in terms of transfer fees attained) don't go on to release that value in my view (so many examples). We used his sale to bolster our squad depth (quality as yet to be determined and many would agree I believe...we will need at least half a season to assess).  On a few occasions we read stories about his ambitions and I believe they were not with us. The truth might emerge of course in time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Unless Delia gives the shares away or bequeathes them to a group or individual, then they must be bought. They do have a value. Let us say that the club is worth £100m. To buy 65% of the club, an investor, new benefactor, lottery winner must spend £65m on a nameplate.

The £100m is now Delia’s. She can hand it down to Tom. He can keep it or cash it in. Maybe it is a theoretical £100m that never sees the light of day.

What is it, £65m or £100m?

What you aren't factoring in is that should she simply leave £65m worth of shares to Tom, there is a £26m inheritance tax bill to be paid, and Tom doesn't have that money. So any succession plan cannot be that simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Monty13 said:

Can it not be both?

I personally believe they saved the club in a dire time, but I also broadly agree with Parma’s assessment of where we are now.

I believe Delia and Michael love the club but their good ownership unintentionally leaves us stuck within the current Football financial pyramid.

I have no desire for a stinking Rich owner, but there other ways that could be explored as Parma had suggested at the acceptance of a dilution of their current ownership. We could become a model for community/supporter ownership for instance.

Not even her sternest critics should doubt that Delia loves the club., that isn't in question. However there is mother's love and mother's love and sadly some never know when to let go. The danger of that is to produce a damaged child incapable of progressing in life and that is exactly what is going on.

 

The longer Smith hangs on the more limited our life chances are, so if she really cares it is time to let her child find it's own way in life with new friends and new opportunities.

Share this post


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

Parma, she was jilted at the altar. According to posters here the problem is Delia  keeps turning down suitable suitors...🤓

Some of us did GE as part of our English O Level, Purple. It remains in my brain even though I hoped to have kicked it out years ago.    Whilst correct that Miss H was Jilted , and refused to the take the damn dress off - her subsequent stubbornness is analogous of Miss Smith . 
 

I just thought,  imagine pairing off Estella and Nephew Tom . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did it go wrong?

Quite simply ... we made half an effort to adapt Farkeball after the previous relegation but have then forgotten the lesson learned.

Farkeball only works in the top tier with elite players. We can't afford them.

We need to be bigger, faster and nastier but we can't bring ourselves to evolve down that avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Uncle Fred said:

To go into the premier league with a WEAKER team than last season is completely unacceptable

Delia won’t invest or can’t invest adequately in the team so it’s time to go and go now 

That would be bad enough but it’s worse- we spent a shed load of cash and STILL ended up worse. Now that is unacceptable 

Share this post


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

What you aren't factoring in is that should she simply leave £65m worth of shares to Tom, there is a £26m inheritance tax bill to be paid, and Tom doesn't have that money. So any succession plan cannot be that simple. 

You don't pay inheritance tax if it in a Trust, so I imagine that's what would happen if this is their plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have given this post another 10 games as there's still plenty of time for a weapon to unsheethe. Be it one of the 2 new lads (playing in a new country) or even Cantwell.

Getting that first win on the board will be massive for confidence, for the whole club.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doubt very much if we had Buendia playing at the moment would have made much difference 

The square passing allows teams to regroup its all too predictable

The BOD’s Webber and Farke sold the media that we had surpassed all expectations that this season was going to be different 

It certainly is we’re worse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some excellent points @Parma Ham's gone mouldy. I've been saying similar things about Buendia for a while and been shouted down by the "buuut the player wanted to leave" brigade. 

I think the key point you make here is that we should treat the sale of our best player as a decision by the board and judge them on the outcome of it. "Buuuut, the player wanted to leave" was always a convenient excuse, and one that Webber was only too happy to repeat in order to absolve himself of responsibility for what was a always a risky move. 

Fundamentally, I think the board massively underestimated the importance of Buendia (and subsequently Skipp) to the team, and wrongly attributed most of the success to the manager. Emi and Skipp made Farke look better than he is. This is why we are where we are. 

What evidence is there for this? Well almost immediately after the season ended, Webber made barely concealed "come and get him" statements to the press regarding Buendia, and proceeded to sell him with very little hesitation for the absolute minimum we could expect. We replaced him with promising but unproven youngsters on the assumption that Farke could just work his magic again. 

The assumption seemed to be that Daniel Farke could get any group of talented youngsters to be successful, and we could always bring in new stars. Webber said as much in multiple interviews.

That was a catastrophic misjudgement.

The truth is that some players really are rare talents who don't come along very often, and football clubs need to try to hang on to such talents (and they generally do). Failure to recognise that suggests a deep-rooted misunderstanding of the game. 

Edited by The Bunny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been saying a lot of the same things for weeks now, albeit in more fractured, more rambling less eloquent takes, but the same basic points.

 

People want easy answers and quick fixes. Like in most aspects of life football supporters want the problem to be something simple and tangible that's easily replaceable such as replacing a poor manager/switching marking styles on set pieces/bringing in a defensive coach etc. But like you've highlighted that are a lot of smaller fundamental obstacles to us being competitive at this level that would require a lot of ripping up on the foundations to make right and even then it would be risky and we might destabilize the good things we have built. Plus we've already made a lot of...not mistakes, but commitments to players and a methodology and it's almost too late now to change things. This season already feels like a write off to me for all the reasons you've stated. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A good read Parma, some key points I think we can all agree on. I do however take a slight issue with the suggestion that Norwich could have dug their heels in and kept Buendia. To do that could have resulted in several situations that would have had a huge negative impact.

 

The first would be for Emi to effectively go on strike, we know from various news sources that there was a feeling of agitation throughout last season that appear to only be held at bay by the understanding that he would be moving on in the summer. Now I know you would say 'well he didn't down tools last summer'. Well, actually his behaviour meant he was left out of the start of the season and the situation got to the point where Farke had to 'out' him to apply a bit of pressure. That coupled with the fact we didn't receive a formal bid for him also left him in a position where he was going to have to bide his time another season. I think the moment a formal bid was made and Buendia was made aware, it was then impossible. I think the club have protected Emi and his legacy by perhaps not letting the fans know just how much he didn't want to be here. Its fair enough really, you don't want to sour a relationship with you player of the season from a fans point of view, but the side effect is that people likely don't know the conversations that were had where he might have said 'sell me or put me in the reserves because I won't train and I won't play for the first team'. Its speculation, but the mood music is there from the previous summer and what has been said since.

 

The other big issue with not allowing the move is the one of selling Norwich to the next 'superstar in waiting'. We are not and likely never will be a top 6 club in English football. Unfortunately Norwich is not the club or goal for 99.9% of players out there working their way up. Its winning trophies and playing in Europe. Its getting picked for England. Can we as a club realistically offer that? No. Can we offer players the opportunity to come and feature, even at the ages of 17-21, for the first team? Yes. Norwich's new model depends on getting the timing right and selling on our 'crown jewel' because its the very prospect of that which attracts talent to our ranks. If we were to dig our heels in and start stopping that, we would then be overlooked by a Tzolis or a Kabak. If you take off your yellow and green glasses for a second and discard the long forgotten concept of loyalty in football, its then easier to accept that we are a football shop window.

 

Is that a bad thing? No. So far the shop window of us playing Lewis, Godfrey and Buendia has earned us two promotions. Even Maddison could be view as having earned us the ability to carry on another season when things were looking grim. If we get young talent in who can give us 2-3 seasons before a big move then really everyone is a winner. The club prospers and attracts more top talent to the academy/first team and the player gets their side of the deal too. To have suddenly hardballed a want away player with a club record fee on the table would have torn that concept to shreds. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I actually agree with you here Vince - we need to expand the ground imo.

It’s yet another example of the lack of ambition

the are pensioners they ain’t going to be ambitious for the club the fire in their belly’s have gone 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

That would be bad enough but it’s worse- we spent a shed load of cash and STILL ended up worse. Now that is unacceptable 

Certainly not Delias fault then.

Share this post


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

I'd have given this post another 10 games as there's still plenty of time for a weapon to unsheethe. Be it one of the 2 new lads (playing in a new country) or even Cantwell.

Getting that first win on the board will be massive for confidence, for the whole club.

I’d very much like this to be true @KeiranShikari 

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very thought provoking discussion coming out of Parma's op. My concerns are that Buendia didn't want to stay a year ago and a deal was done that if he helped us get promoted, he could move on. Also, Emi proved to be a very powerful weapon in the Championship (twice) but I'm not that convinced that he was as effective in the PL where he had good stats, but much lower actual output. This is hardly surprising, Pukki scored 29 goals in the Championship, but only 11 in the PL, just as Holt dropped from 28 goals to 14.

The point has also been made that the weapon Buendia provided did not improve our defence or our squad depth, which became such a factor once the injuries, particularly to CBs, mounted. We didn't survive in the PL last time with Emi, why would his presence this time be guaranteed to make such a difference? He was, after all, ever present in that final run of 10 straight defeats.

Instead of trying the same thing again Webber and Farke decided to improve all areas of the squad with quality players and they have done so, with the possible exception of Buendia and Skipp's positions though we have yet to see what difference the new players can make. Normann, for example, is not a like for like with Skipp, but he does offer far more in the weapon category progressing the ball forward and even shooting himself. Rashica, Sargent and Tzolis may not be Buendia clones, but they all have the potential to become weapons in the PL, but only time will tell on that, or on the difference the other five new players who have been added can have. Even Emi didn't become a weapon in his first six games.

Edited by Yelloow Since 72
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

You don't pay inheritance tax if it in a Trust, so I imagine that's what would happen if this is their plan.

The Suffolk Socialists using tax avoidance measures? 

The trustees have to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries though, and that could mean selling the club. This is exactly what happened after Sir Jack Walker put Blackburn in a trust for the benefit of his children. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

The trustees have to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.

Not strictly true. The trustees have to administer the trust . Not necessarily in the “best interests” of the beneficiaries. Trusts are set up for a variety of reasons. IHT is a common one but so is a fear that the beneficiaries will not spend the subject of the trust ( usually money)  wisely . The trust may have certain criteria - coming of age , or incremental payments ie the subject of the trust does not pass all at once . 

Shares can often be left in trust with a plan to protect a company as well as providing for the beneficiaries. 

The are many  and varied reasons to set up a Trust . An interesting start would be to know who the trustees are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Not strictly true. The trustees have to administer the trust . Not necessarily in the “best interests” of the beneficiaries. Trusts are set up for a variety of reasons. IHT is a common one but so is a fear that the beneficiaries will not spend the subject of the trust ( usually money)  wisely . The trust may have certain criteria - coming of age , or incremental payments ie the subject of the trust does not pass all at once . 

Shares can often be left in trust with a plan to protect a company as well as providing for the beneficiaries. 

The are many  and varied reasons to set up a Trust . An interesting start would be to know who the trustees are. 

Do we in fact know that such a trust was set up by D&M ?

Share this post


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

Do we in fact know that such a trust was set up by D&M ?

Exactly. Why wouldn't they just put the shares in trust now, if that was the plan. 

Share this post


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

Exactly. Why wouldn't they just put the shares in trust now, if that was the plan. 

I am sure somebody will be along shortly saying it is none of our business what thery do with the shares. 😜

Share this post


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

I am sure somebody will be along shortly saying it is none of our business what thery do with the shares. 😜

I would be very surprised if that happens since plainly what they do with their majority holding is of valid interest to Norwich City fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

As to ownership, yes, there is an alternative to either the poor but honest status quo and the cartoon-like figure of a billionaire with all eyes on the bottom line. Well over a decade ago I came up with the idea of a supporter-director with a golden share veto as part of a much more fan- and community-based model. I don't think the notion has got any less sensible or relevant to Norwich City in the intervening years.

Just to expand on this a bit, I was thinking very generally of what Parma detailed here (although the French shared-mortgage model was new to me):

If we really want to ‘do different’ it is time to reach out to the SME world, to the Tifosys trading ground bond supporters, small investors, loyal individuals and create a genuinely inclusive French-Shared-Mortgage model whereby the small slices of ownership fluctuate according to investment size at any given moment. Whereby any small (vetted) investor gets a marketing share of brand usage, whereby the community and collective spirit is honourably leveraged to create a membership-style model that would truly be a fitting legacy to Delia’s wonderful era. She herself could and should be a major part going forwards.

I have never thought the Nephew Plan was set in stone. As Parma  has said (I think this is correctly remembered) it is the plan unless or until another presents itself, or is presented.

That said, even if another plan was adopted, such as some kind of community/fan scheme, unless English football is subjected to a serious attempt to level the playing field, or a financial crisis that  collapses the top clubs, we will only ever be struggling either to reach the top flight or stay there.

 

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...