The complex paradox of supporting a "self-funding" model

[shefcanary 2,465]

7 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

It is a shame James Dyson, a Norfolk boy, isn't into his football really.

I recently discovered that Tim Martin is from Norwich, could turn yellows into a Spoons?

Oh ****, no!  Nothing to do with either of those twats please - great businessmen but both complete arseholes.  

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

41 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I believe the limit is 30% in a Plc.  And NCFC is a PLC.  

Hmmmm I’m not sure the PLC rules apply as shares are not publicly traded Sheff , but I could be wrong .  

[Ian 1,136]

4 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Oh, you wanted an apology? An apology to you? What for? 

Or you are demanding an apology for somebody else? On their behalf? At their request as their representative, or unsolicited? So many questions about this. 

I personally don't care if a troll on the internet apologises or not, but most people with some sort of moral compass would express regret for knowingly libelling somebody as racist.

6 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

In my OP I clearly said xenophobic, that's what I meant and I stand by it. 

Racist is something else, and I don't believe Delia and her husband to be racist, merely a bit 'old fashioned' and 'small town'.

Xenophobia isn't not really all that different to racism though is it? It's hatred/prejudice towards people because of their country of origin as opposed to their skin colour. I don't think that has much to do with being old fashioned at all, but feel free to carry on trying to justify your views as thoughtful and intellectual.

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I don't think we can flog a country billions of pounds worth of weapons whilst then refusing to allow them the same access to our economy that other countries enjoy. I'd personally not want to be owned by Saudi's, although I'd personally prefer we didn't flog them weapons either.

Lets not pretend their previous owner, a British man, didn't make billions of pounds flogging goods made in sweatshops by exploited people to British people who wouldn't have thought twice about the origin of his products though. There isn't a single billionaire who hasn't exploited something, even when JK Rowling was briefly a billionaire you could question whether she has been involved in any serious reforestation projects couldn't you, 500 million physical books is a hell of a lot of trees which could be capturing carbon and soaking up water. 

Talking of old-fashioned sayings, two wrongs don't make a right do they TVB? Or are you saying that because our Government choose to sell them arms, therefore everybody should accept the PIF takeover at Newcastle as "fit and proper". Are you really trying to conflate JK Rowling printing books to the human rights abuses of certain regimes? Either there's no hope for you, or you're just a contrarian.

[Naturalcynic 670]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Oh ****, no!  Nothing to do with either of those twats please - great businessmen but both complete arseholes.  

No, don’t tell me, it’s something to do with supporting Brexit isn’t it?

[Midlands Yellow 4,083]

Time for lunch? 

[Ian 1,136]

Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Time for lunch? 

How did you hack my office CCTV?!

[Midlands Yellow 4,083]

Just now, Ian said:

How did you hack my office CCTV?!

Maybe have a salad? 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

Xenophobia isn't not really all that different to racism though is it?

Yes, substantially.

Xenophobia brings us silly things like comments about camels, and jokes about the welsh sh*gging sheep. 

Xenophobia did not bring us this:

End of conversation, I'm communicating with an imbecile.

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

I thought I'd made it clear that she is a champagne socialist / Labour hypocrite.

Why can't socialists drink champagne? In your totalitarian right-wing society would you determine who can eat and drink which food and drink. Would only right wingers be able to enjoy the finer things in life whilst the rest have to eat what they are told?

Right-wing extremists like you want o deny people basic freedom of choice.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

9 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Hmmmm I’m not sure the PLC rules apply as shares are not publicly traded Sheff , but I could be wrong .  

Might also be further confused by things like share preferences, we have different share classes don't we?

[Ian 1,136]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Yes, substantially.

Xenophobia brings us silly things like comments about camels, and jokes about the welsh sh*gging sheep. 

End of conversation, I'm communicating with an imbecile.

Oh dear.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Badger said:

Why can't socialists drink champagne? In your totalitarian right-wing society would you determine who can eat and drink which food and drink. Would only right wingers be able to enjoy the finer things in life whilst the rest have to eat what they are told?

Right-wing extremists like you want o deny people basic freedom of choice.

'Right wing extremists' like me who have no plans to avoid inheritance tax because I don't have a problem with paying my way towards public services, particularly the NHS and other emergency services.

 

Edited October 28, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[shefcanary 2,465]

1 minute ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

Hmmmm I’m not sure the PLC rules apply as shares are not publicly traded Sheff , but I could be wrong .  

To use PLC in the name of the club, it is deemed "Public" whether traded on a recognised exchange or not, and thus the 30% limit applies.  The shares in Norwich City FC PLC are traded publicly, you can walk into any share dealer today and ask them to source some shares for you, it just may be a bit of a while until they found a willing seller.  It is this lack of "liquidity" in the shares that means they are not traded on a recognised market.

So anyone can buy or sell the shares in the club, but as deemed public, anyone exceeding a 30% share has to declare their intentions and offer to buy shares from all shareholders at the same price they have offered someone else.  Neither party has any obligation to complete a sale, but full due diligence and information would be required.  That is the main point of making a company Public; freedom of information on intention and all shareholders are equal, albeit based on their holding.

[shefcanary 2,465]

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why can't socialists drink champagne? 

Especially as in yesterday's budget, duty on champagne has been reduced so ordinary folk are no longer penalised according to Rishi, although better of course if English fizz! 

[Ian 1,136]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Maybe have a salad? 

Not if it's any of that foreign guff.

[shefcanary 2,465]

13 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

No, don’t tell me, it’s something to do with supporting Brexit isn’t it?

Not entirely, both are guilty of exploiting Brexit to meet their own ends.  As said, great businessmen.  😉

 

[shefcanary 2,465]

9 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Might also be further confused by things like share preferences, we have different share classes don't we?

Possibly, but minimal impact really as the Preference Shares (i have a few) have no real voting rights.

[Badger 2,412]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

3 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why can't socialists drink champagne? In your totalitarian right-wing society would you determine who can eat and drink which food and drink. Would only right wingers be able to enjoy the finer things in life whilst the rest have to eat what they are told?

Right-wing extremists like you want o deny people basic freedom of choice.

'Right wing extremists' like me who have no plans to avoid inheritance tax because I don't have a problem with paying my way towards public services, particularly the NHS and other emergency services.

Noticeable that you accept without challenge that you want to deny people basic freedom of choice.

Now you are suggesting that left-wingers should pay inheritance tax whilst right-wingers are free to avoid it! Personally I feel that the tax laws give loads of advantages to the better off and I have voted against it consistently. However, I lost the vote and recognise the will of the people and therefore organise my tax affairs in the way that the people have voted for. This includes using my full ISA allowance every year + Pension allowance + the £12,500 tax free on capital gains tax (when I have money left over). I have also used trust arrangements and company tax to reduce my personal and inheritance tax. All completely legal.

I voted against it, but I'd be a fool to give my money away to the state if the state doesn't ask everybody else to do the same. I don't think that you've quite sussed out how this democracy thing and rule of law works have you?

[Badger 2,412]

8 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Especially as in yesterday's budget, duty on champagne has been reduced so ordinary folk are no longer penalised according to Rishi, although better of course if English fizz! 

It's not the real thing if it's from England - Champagne has to come from France (Champagne).

I think Rishi did it as a political gesture to try to win votes from all us champagne socialist across the country!

[Herman 9,829]

21 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

No, don’t tell me, it’s something to do with supporting Brexit isn’t it?

Funnily enough for me, yes, but also because they are a pair of twats. I'm uncertain what lead to what though. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,450]

13 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

To use PLC in the name of the club, it is deemed "Public" whether traded on a recognised exchange or not, and thus the 30% limit applies.  The shares in Norwich City FC PLC are traded publicly, you can walk into any share dealer today and ask them to source some shares for you, it just may be a bit of a while until they found a willing seller.  It is this lack of "liquidity" in the shares that means they are not traded on a recognised market.

So anyone can buy or sell the shares in the club, but as deemed public, anyone exceeding a 30% share has to declare their intentions and offer to buy shares from all shareholders at the same price they have offered someone else.  Neither party has any obligation to complete a sale, but full due diligence and information would be required.  That is the main point of making a company Public; freedom of information on intention and all shareholders are equal, albeit based on their holding.

I stand corrected Shef. Thanks for replying 👍

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

30 minutes ago, Ian said:

Talking of old-fashioned sayings, two wrongs don't make a right do they TVB? Or are you saying that because our Government choose to sell them arms, therefore everybody should accept the PIF takeover at Newcastle as "fit and proper". Are you really trying to conflate JK Rowling printing books to the human rights abuses of certain regimes? Either there's no hope for you, or you're just a contrarian.

Interesting that you are spinning this into a debate about the 2021 PIF takeoever, when we're talking about comments Delia and her husband made between 2007-2019.

Very disingenuous.

I've already said that I would rather the club not be owned by Saudi's. and yes it is due to their human rights record, my point about access to our economy is that access is usually reciprocated. When a government sells billions of pounds of something to any country, there is usually quid pro quo. The government would not block a takeover of Newcastle by Saudi's because we want to continue to sell them billions of pounds worth of weapons.

In the process this implicates us in those human rights abuses, British made weapons are being used to slaughter in Yemen. One could by extension argue that, I dunno, the Icelandic people could refuse to allow UK companies to take over Icelandic companies because we are involved in enabling human rights abuses?

What's your opinion on exploitation of Uighur muslims in China Ian? Do you, or have you recently, consumed any goods produced by the 83 major brands (mainly Western) that have been implicated in a report on the use of forced labour in China? 

Because I have.... although I'm not comfortable with that thought at all. 

Interestingly a lot of sports brands included in that 83 which were stocked by Mike Ashley's Sports Direct. So when you talk about the "human rights abuses" linked to the Saudi Arabian regime, well I'm merely pointing out that the same applied to the previous ownership at Newcastle (white, English), and that you might be walking about with a phone containing components made by forced labour, or wearing forced labour on your feet, without knowing it, or even knowing it but choosing to ignore it.

Your pension fund is probably invested in many of these companies.

Edited October 28, 2021 by TeemuVanBasten

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

Noticeable that you accept without challenge that you want to deny people basic freedom of choice.

Yes, I want Labour voters to be branded with a cattle iron and refused champagne in Tesco's.

Very tedious line of questioning. 

[Ian 1,136]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Interesting that you are spinning this into a debate about the 2021 PIF takeoever, when we're talking about comments Delia and her husband made between 2007-2019.

Very disingenuous.

I've already said that I would rather the club not be owned by Saudi's. and yes it is due to their human rights record, my point about access to our economy is that access is usually reciprocated. When a government sells billions of pounds of something to any country, there is usually quid pro quo. The government would not block a takeover of Newcastle by Saudi's because we want to continue to sell them billions of pounds worth of weapons.

In the process this implicates us in those human rights abuses, British made weapons are being used to slaughter in Yemen. One could by extension argue that, I dunno, the Icelandic people could refuse to allow UK companies to take over Icelandic companies because we are involved in enabling human rights abuses?

What's your opinion on exploitation of Uighur muslims in China Ian? Do you, or have you recently, consumed any goods produced by the 83 major brands that have been implicated in a report on the use of forced labour in China? 

Because I have.... although I'm not comfortable with that thought at all. 

Interestingly a lot of sports brands included in that 83 which were stocked by Mike Ashley's Sports Direct. So when you talk about the "human rights abuses" linked to the Saudi Arabian regime, well I'm merely pointing out that the same applied to the previous ownership at Newcastle (white, English), and that you might be walking about with a phone containing a phone made by forced labour, or wearing forced labour on your feet, without knowing it, or even knowing it but choosing to ignore it.

Your pension fund is probably invested in many of these companies.

Bloody long post for a conversation that's over. 👋

[wcorkcanary 4,341]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

You are choosing to focus entirely on one element of my OP for some reason.

Although personally I consider this comment to be really quite nasty and vindictive: "we truly need some foreign investor to go belly up and everybody will go back to normal", quite a nasty thing to wish upon somebody just for being foreign isn't it? 

Even if they weren't averse to foreigners, it absolutely reeks that they aren't repaying furlough cash, and their "self funded" model is wholly reliant on flogging our playing assets to dodgy billionaires. 

Their plan to leave their shares in a trust to Tom Smith will be a disaster, its a flawed model, and they need to sell. One day our academy will have a barren run and we'll run out of players we can get £15m/£25m for and that's the end of the road. 

Well it might be the end of that road but not necessarily THE road. But your soundbite writing is top top work TuB, ever thought of a career in advertising, or politically divisive spin?  

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,153]

I do find it funny how Delia and the other board members get accused of being lefties, socialists and woke when if you look at the actions and  actual facts of how the club has and is being run it is extremely conservative in nature. I agree with a lot of the OP actually,  I too have a big problem with how the self funding model basically exists to keep the club in the Smith family to the benefit of her privileged heirs and how we exploited help from the government aimed at keeping small business afloat and how the owners have been paid back so they have never invested a penny into the football club in real terms, especially compared to how much of their own personal wealth supporters regularly invest. 

It isn't too dissimilar to how Mike Ashley ran Newcastle (minus the cronyism, short term thinking and despicable way his wealth was acquired) and is a million miles away from some Marxists wet dream like certain people like to imagine. It relies on wealth generated from the poorest members of it's community (the fans) to the benefit of the richest and most powerful parts (the owners) who invest nothing themselves and have decided to keep their asset in their family to the potential detriment of the clubs wellbeing and are asking supporters to basically like it or lump it. The model is very conservative in nature and that the club supports anti racism initiatives and that players take the knee before games etc doesn't somehow make it radically leftist. I think people forget that social politics and economic/business political views and actions are very different things and don't have to be mutually exclusive. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, Ian said:

Bloody long post for a conversation that's over. 👋

Cool, read it on an Apple or Samsung phone did you? Both on the list of 83.

[Ian 1,136]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Cool, read it on an Apple or Samsung phone did you? Both on the list of 83.

No, I'm at my desk pretending to work. Also, I detest Apple so there's no chance of me ever owning a piece of their hardware.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

14 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I do find it funny how Delia and the other board members get accused of being lefties, socialists and woke when if you look at the actions and  actual facts of how the club has and is being run it is extremely conservative in nature. I agree with a lot of the OP actually,  I too have a big problem with how the self funding model basically exists to keep the club in the Smith family to the benefit of her privileged heirs and how we exploited help from the government aimed at keeping small business afloat and how the owners have been paid back so they have never invested a penny into the football club in real terms, especially compared to how much of their own personal wealth supporters regularly invest. 

It isn't too dissimilar to how Mike Ashley ran Newcastle (minus the cronyism, short term thinking and despicable way his wealth was acquired) and is a million miles away from some Marxists wet dream like certain people like to imagine. It relies on wealth generated from the poorest members of it's community (the fans) to the benefit of the richest and most powerful parts (the owners) who invest nothing themselves and have decided to keep their asset in their family to the potential detriment of the clubs wellbeing and are asking supporters to basically like it or lump it. The model is very conservative in nature and that the club supports anti racism initiatives and that players take the knee before games etc doesn't somehow make it radically leftist. I think people forget that social politics and economic/business political views and actions are very different things and don't have to be mutually exclusive. 

Very well put. And in terms of the foreigners discussion I don't think our owners are xenophobic but I do think they are against foreign ownership (and all other things being equal would wouldn't prefer a life long fan to own the club) and not being foreign is just one of a long line of criteria that any would be buyer has to meet that are essentially impossible for anyone to ever meet, because deep down they have never wanted to or been interested in selling. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

10 minutes ago, Ian said:

No, I'm at my desk pretending to work. Also, I detest Apple so there's no chance of me ever owning a piece of their hardware.

Me too, I'm an Android man, but I do own a Samsung Galaxy!