Should Delia Put The Club Up for Sale?

[Badger 2,421]

25 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Excellent fight back by the No vote, getting closer to that magic twenty percent. 

Ah Bless you 😘

Which tells us that that less than half of one percent of the Norwich fan base agree with the motion - although, of course, we do not know that all of those that did vote this way are actually part of the Norwich fan base.

I given you a little reading to help you.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/unrepresentative_sample.htm

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

[Badger 2,421]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Of course a buyer is going to want good 'value' when buying an asset.

When you try and buy something which isn't for sale you pay a large premium, two sides to that coin! 

 

Which is why you don't make it too obvious that you want to sell! QED

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

No - it would be totally different. 

Issuing and selling new equity means that the club is given new funds. The current owners selling their shares guarantees nothing and if the Smiths discount their sale as you suggested actually makes the club vulnerable to a bargain hunter which is the worst possible scenario.

I'm going to press you on this Jim - would you rather that new owners were brought in through

1. The creation and sale of new equity.

2. The shareholders selling their existing shares to a new owner.

The difference between the two is critical - you need to come off the fence on this.

 

I don't care either way, Nephew Tom has no real business experience, I want the club controlled by people who do.

How the board go about ensuring this happens doesn't concern me in one bit. As a shareholder myself I'd be more than happy to sell to the right buyer or to see my equity diluted if it means the club gets an influx of new money to take us to the next level. 

[wcorkcanary 4,366]

11 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

 

I don't care either way, Nephew Tom has no real business experience, I want the club controlled by people who do.

How the board go about ensuring this happens doesn't concern me in one bit. As a shareholder myself I'd be more than happy to sell to the right buyer or to see my equity diluted if it means the club gets an influx of new money to take us to the next level. 

Ever the philanthropist!! Go TuBs!!

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

Ah Bless you 😘

Which tells us that that less than half of one percent of the Norwich fan base agree with the motion - although, of course, we do not know that all of those that did vote this way are actually part of the Norwich fan base.

I given you a little reading to help you.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/unrepresentative_sample.htm

https://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html

Thanks Badger, riveting read as I knew it would be. Why is the No vote so low though no matter what spin you put on it? 

[BigFish 2,001]

16 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Of course a buyer is going to want good 'value' when buying an asset.

When you try and buy something which isn't for sale you pay a large premium, two sides to that coin!

This goes a long way to explaining many of your posts, in that it is total nonsense.

Sentence 1: You put value in single quotes which implies it is not what it means. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as value has a variety of definitions and meanings. I guess you mean monetary value, at the moment that value is an asset of the shareholders and the suggestion you make with the adjective good is that the purchaser pays a monetary value in the transaction that gives them a unrealised financial gain & the seller a realised financial loss. Not an attractive offer and would probably by open to legal challenge from the other shareholders.

Sentence 2: Any successful trade balances the desire of the purchaser and vendor. In this case the difference value is intangible. The shareholders have an emotional attachment to the club, when considering a decision to sell. Without another reason to sell, such as financial distress, that too has a monetary value. The purchaser is not paying a premium, the purchaser is paying the price at which a deal can be made. It is up to the purchaser to decide whether the club has the same intangible value to them as to the vendors.

[PurpleCanary 5,636]

21 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Thanks Badger, riveting read as I knew it would be. Why is the No vote so low though no matter what spin you put on it? 

Because the question is rather more complicated than can be answered by a simple Yes or No?🤓

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

Because the question is rather more complicated than can be answered by a simple Yes or No?🤓

It certainly is when your losing so heavily. More polls please then, but the fact is people don’t want Delia anymore. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 minutes ago, BigFish said:

You put value in single quotes

In British English I believe we call those inverted commas.

25 minutes ago, BigFish said:

them a unrealised financial gain

Perhaps you should check your own grammar before calling out others for theirs.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Because the question is rather more complicated than can be answered by a simple Yes or No?🤓

I mean that's what the reply box is for, and the point in a forum, 13 pages of mostly healthy discussion and counting.

Albeit, 3 pages of that is Nutty Nigel pretending to not have any opinions.

 

[Jim Smith 2,373]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

No - it would be totally different. 

Issuing and selling new equity means that the club is given new funds. The current owners selling their shares guarantees nothing and if the Smiths discount their sale as you suggested actually makes the club vulnerable to a bargain hunter which is the worst possible scenario.

I'm going to press you on this Jim - would you rather that new owners were brought in through

1. The creation and sale of new equity.

2. The shareholders selling their existing shares to a new owner.

The difference between the two is critical - you need to come off the fence on this.

I’m not on the fence. I’ve said point 1 on several occasions including on this thread twice. But equally you are dealing in semantics in terms of saying that both are not effectively the club (or rather a controlling stake therein) being up “for sale” and either course of action would need to be sanctioned by the current owners.

[BigFish 2,001]

17 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I’m not on the fence. I’ve said point 1 on several occasions including on this thread twice. But equally you are dealing in semantics in terms of saying that both are not effectively the club (or rather a controlling stake therein) being up “for sale” and either course of action would need to be sanctioned by the current owners.

Wasn't the case that the last time the club had a rights issue, it was undersubscribed and but underwritten by S&J which is what moved their minority stake into a majority.

What evidence is there that next time would be any different?

 

[TIL 1010 4,853]

Anybody know what time @nutty nigel is logging on today ? 😂

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

10 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Anybody know what time @nutty nigel is logging on today ? 😂

On the midday til midnight shift I think. Brunch and light stretches happening now. 

Edited March 9, 2022 by Midlands Yellow

[Badger 2,421]

1 hour ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

How the board go about ensuring this happens doesn't concern me in one bit. As a shareholder myself I'd be more than happy to sell to the right buyer or to see my equity diluted if it means the club gets an influx of new money to take us to the next level.

The only way that I can see that "ensures" that there is "an influx new money" of new money would be the sale of new equity. If the existing owners just sell their shares there is absolutely no guarantee of this at all, and indeed, it makes it far less likely.

If you want "new money," you should vote against the motion.

[Badger 2,421]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Thanks Badger, riveting read as I knew it would be. Why is the No vote so low though no matter what spin you put on it? 

Now that you have read it you understand why the vote is meaningless. 

Extra help below:

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/confounding-variables/#:~:text=A confounding variable is a,your independent and dependent variables.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

The only way that I can see that "ensures" that there is "an influx new money" of new money would be the sale of new equity. If the existing owners just sell their shares there is absolutely no guarantee of this at all, and indeed, it makes it far less likely.

If you want "new money," you should vote against the motion.

I was just missing a comma.

So...

As a shareholder myself I'd be more than happy to sell to the right buyer, or to see my equity diluted if it means the club gets an influx of new money to take us to the next level.

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten

[Badger 2,421]

54 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

I’m not on the fence. I’ve said point 1 on several occasions including on this thread twice. But equally you are dealing in semantics in terms of saying that both are not effectively the club (or rather a controlling stake therein) being up “for sale” and either course of action would need to be sanctioned by the current owners.

Apologies if I misinterpreted you, Jim. 😳

Just to clarify though, we both think that Smith and jones should keep their shares and that the club should make available new equity to the extent that that the purchased could if s/he wished, buy a majority in the club.

(Of course, as new equity, even a minority stake would mean new money.)

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

Now that you have read it you understand why the vote is meaningless. 

Extra help below:

https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/confounding-variables/#:~:text=A confounding variable is a,your independent and dependent variables.

Your spoiling me now, over eighty percent just don’t get it. How do I change my vote? 

[Badger 2,421]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

As a shareholder myself I'd be more than happy to sell to the right buyer, or to see my equity diluted if it means the club gets an influx of new money to take us to the next level.

So like Jim, you are agreed that the way forwards would be the sale of new equity rather than the current owners selling their shares?

We are in danger of having harmony on the thread 🤯

[PurpleCanary 5,636]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

It certainly is when your losing so heavily. More polls please then, but the fact is people don’t want Delia anymore. 

You are making an unfounded assumption about my views on this subject.

[Badger 2,421]

1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

How do I change my vote? 

I don't think that you can. It is just another flaw in the methodology that people make their decision before hearing evidence.

 

[hogesar 9,879]

1 hour ago, Midlands Yellow said:

It certainly is when your losing so heavily. More polls please then, but the fact is people don’t want Delia anymore. 

Weird it's not even developed a single chant or heaven forbid a protest at the ground where 25,000 fans are together, then.

If people don't want Delia but are going to sit in their armchair and just complain on here about it, then knock yourselves out 😂

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

Just now, hogesar said:

Weird it's not even developed a single chant or heaven forbid a protest at the ground where 25,000 fans are together, then.

If people don't want Delia but are going to sit in their armchair and just complain on here about it, then knock yourselves out 😂

You left early I believe on Saturday?  We’re both in Leeds on Sunday I believe. Away support is more vociferous and passionate as a rule so it could be an eye opener for you. 

[hogesar 9,879]

3 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

You left early I believe on Saturday?  We’re both in Leeds on Sunday I believe. Away support is more vociferous and passionate as a rule so it could be an eye opener for you. 

Shockingly, away games aren't a new thing to me. It's not an eye-opener. Just because you can only be bothered to venture out to a couple games a season doesn't mean we're all like that 🙂

Enjoy the experience of actually being at a game though, it might be good for you

[Jim Smith 2,373]

19 minutes ago, Badger said:

Apologies if I misinterpreted you, Jim. 😳

Just to clarify though, we both think that Smith and jones should keep their shares and that the club should make available new equity to the extent that that the purchased could if s/he wished, buy a majority in the club.

(Of course, as new equity, even a minority stake would mean new money.)

That would be the ideal yes Badger although in the alternative, a sale by the owners of their shareholding if it was accompanied by a guarantee/assurance of additional funding put into the club would also be fine with me. Contrary to what some think though I’m not dead set on getting Delia out entirely, I just think they need to be prepared to potentially relinquish control in order to genuinely attract “investment” 

[......and Smith must score. 1,379]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

Apologies if I misinterpreted you, Jim. 😳

Just to clarify though, we both think that Smith and jones should keep their shares and that the club should make available new equity to the extent that that the purchased could if s/he wished, buy a majority in the club.

(Of course, as new equity, even a minority stake would mean new money.)

It's a crying shame that Delia back-tracked when she and MJW took over after the Chase debacle. She said at the time that bearing in mind what happened with Chase she and Michael would not be taking a controlling interest.

Lo and behold they quickly bought that controlling interest.

Had that not happened we might have long been under new ownership by now.

[......and Smith must score. 1,379]

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

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by ......and Smith must score.
Duplicate post

[Midlands Yellow 4,176]

Just now, hogesar said:

Shockingly, away games aren't a new thing to me. It's not an eye-opener. Just because you can only be bothered to venture out to a couple games a season doesn't mean we're all like that 🙂

Enjoy the experience of actually being at a game though, it might be good for you

The weekend will be wonderful and could only be tainted being anywhere near you. 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

46 minutes ago, Badger said:

So like Jim, you are agreed that the way forwards would be the sale of new equity rather than the current owners selling their shares?

We are in danger of having harmony on the thread 🤯

It would be preferable to a large debt associated with loans from new directors who buy out Delia, but not all debt is particular bad, a low interest and long term debt to finance infrastructure investment (e.g. a New City stand) or a debt to a benevolent owner who ends up not being too fussed to write it off for example.

Either of these scenarios would see Nephew Tom not being the majority shareholder wouldn't they. 

Of course, the value in Delia's shareholding in her status as the majority shareholder. Nobody will want to buy her shares for a good price if she's left with 17%, she'd never agree to dilution so its a bit pointless discussing. 

The realist options are presented in my poll. 

 

Edited March 9, 2022 by TeemuVanBasten