EXCLUSIVE: US tycoons in Norwich City investment talks

[komakino 272]

3 hours ago, chicken said:

I think the only absurd thing here is you spouting fiction as fact.

It is obsurd, as you paint two pictures and continue to, they do not match. Why would she want to invest in Ipswich in the 1970's when you say her career was in the ascendancy, when you argued she was doing it because her career was in decline... 

Also chef vs cook. Tell me the difference.

And re book sales, indirectly? So possible a few people that hadn't before, bought her books. I think you grossly over-egg the ability of a football club to be great basis for publishing PR... Sorry, but there is muck, right now, being spread on fields in this fine county that smells sweeter. 

Delia has got far more out of the football club than she has put in. I’ve got no problem with that  - she has played a blinder as I’ve said before. But in logical terms, having owners that do not invest or attract outside investment- subject to current talks - are a complete waste of time in modern football terms. The love in from some fans has no substance as the club needs - as has needed - investment, but somehow these basic principles are somehow blinded to the misguided. 

[wcorkcanary 4,329]

5 hours ago, komakino said:

I think you're missing the point. She was still selling books well as you've mentioned, but it was clear that she was becoming the past and keeping herself in the public eye in a non food capacity was a masterstroke on her part. Very intuitive. 

When you mention her name, Norwich City would be the first thing most people would mention. If she had not got involved in the club, then it is unlikely she would have the stature she has held over the last decade to two as the world of food has moved on significantly over that period of time. 

 

Straight question K, was it you I wagered  a pound a position with over the last two seasons? If so , you owe Nuttyo Sick Squid as per the deal. If not , apologies and the who the F was it? 

[corbs 147]

But why are Joy Division such a cheesy band?

[Big Vince 318]

6 hours ago, komakino said:

Delia has got far more out of the football club than she has put in. I’ve got no problem with that  - she has played a blinder as I’ve said before. But in logical terms, having owners that do not invest or attract outside investment- subject to current talks - are a complete waste of time in modern football terms. The love in from some fans has no substance as the club needs - as has needed - investment, but somehow these basic principles are somehow blinded to the misguided. 

Agreed. Delia has brainwashed a section of the fan base known in the vernacular as numpties.

Agreed. Any director of a modern professional football club who does not put his own money into it is a complete anachronism and should be instantly despatched to room 101 without passing Go and without collecting $200.

[Herman 9,732]

28 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Agreed. Delia has brainwashed a section of the fan base known in the vernacular as numpties.

Agreed. Any director of a modern professional football club who does not put his own money into it is a complete anachronism and should be instantly despatched to room 101 without passing Go and without collecting $200.

The CIA are studying Delia's brainwashing technique. How she has managed to do this, to so many people, without many public pronouncements is a wonder to them.

[Badger 2,405]

 

11 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

As for your ascertain that NCISA did not act in the interests of the Club

I did not say that (see below) - I said that the Trust acted against the interests of the club at crucial times. Given that it was the only time in my lifetime we were ever in league One + the well-known financial constraints at the time, urging fans to claim their rebate and deprive the club of desperately needed revenue, clearly fits what I said.

In a later post, I pointed out that without the generosity of those fans who could afford it + chose to ignore the Trusts recommendation we were able to buy Grant Holt, gain two consecutive promotions followed by three years in the premier league. Had we followed the Trust's advice, such an outcome would have been highly unlikely.

19 hours ago, Badger said:

Given that the Trust has acted against the interests of the club at crucial times that could be a hard one to sell!

 

[GMF 736]

Badger, while I wasn’t personally involved with the Trust at the time, the recollections of those who were are somewhat different to yours with regards to the Trust’s position on season ticket rebates! Unless, of course, you have any evidence to the contrary! 

[Badger 2,405]

17 hours ago, kdncfc said:

Pretty sure Jack Hayward sold Wolves for a pound a few years back which is probably a bit extreme

I was interested in that and followed it up - a bit of a tragic story really - his 2 children + six of his grandchildren sued him over it claiming that he has "lost his mind" and was "frittering their inheritance away."

“It was Wolves that destroyed the family,” he reflected. “All of the children are trying to prove that I am gaga. They all grew up in homes provided by me. And this is what I get in return? To say that my children are a disappointment to me would be the understatement of the century.”

Hayward justified giving the club away, " “Asset strippers, city slickers, ­people like the Glazers, who just put ­Manchester United into debt, were what I was afraid of."

I haven't been able (yet) to find out how the case finished (or whether it was settled out of court). However, there is compelling evidence of his mental fragility - he was a leading donor to the Liberal party 😉

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/sir-jack-hayward

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/former-wolves-chairman-jack-hayward-250390

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sir-jack-hayward-q8gnz9w6f33

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/01/10/sir-jack-hayward-ive-been-demonised/

[essex canary 492]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

I was interested in that and followed it up - a bit of a tragic story really - his 2 children + six of his grandchildren sued him over it claiming that he has "lost his mind" and was "frittering their inheritance away."

“It was Wolves that destroyed the family,” he reflected. “All of the children are trying to prove that I am gaga. They all grew up in homes provided by me. And this is what I get in return? To say that my children are a disappointment to me would be the understatement of the century.”

Hayward justified giving the club away, " “Asset strippers, city slickers, ­people like the Glazers, who just put ­Manchester United into debt, were what I was afraid of."

I haven't been able (yet) to find out how the case finished (or whether it was settled out of court). However, there is compelling evidence of his mental fragility - he was a leading donor to the Liberal party 😉

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/15/sir-jack-hayward

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/former-wolves-chairman-jack-hayward-250390

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sir-jack-hayward-q8gnz9w6f33

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/2011/01/10/sir-jack-hayward-ive-been-demonised/

Have nephews got a tendency to be a great disappointment?

[Badger 2,405]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

Badger, while I wasn’t personally involved with the Trust at the time, the recollections of those who were are somewhat different to yours with regards to the Trust’s position on season ticket rebates! Unless, of course, you have any evidence to the contrary! 

The evidence is below but it seems that there are two trusts (one now defunct). The evidence applies to the defunct trust not the current one, although apparently it has a lot of the same personnel.

14 hours ago, Badger said:

 

https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/297009/Grant-some-credit-says-cut-price-Holt

https://www.pinkun.com/sport/norwich-city/supporters-group-calls-for-fans-to-claim-rebate-1778914

https://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/2009/05/28/rebate-saga-looks-set-to-run-and-run-as-trust-tonight-offers-new-home-for-that-cash/

[Badger 2,405]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Have nephews got a tendency to be a great disappointment?

I don't want to willingly make this thread an even more convoluted discussion about the entire gamut of possibilities illustrated by minimal fact and and reality, but could Tom sue D + M if they gave the club away - assuming he is a nominated beneficiary - some on here have been asserting that "The Cook" is crazy for years 😉?

Tom sues Delia over plans to give City away headlines?" Perhaps we shouldn't go there?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

The evidence is below but it seems that there are two trusts (one now defunct). The evidence applies to the defunct trust not the current one, although apparently it has a lot of the same personnel.

I am reading that you think the two Trusts have a lot of the same personnel because if so that is total nonsense ? May i also point out that the 1957 Trust has been dormant since well before the Chase era so had no part to play in the events surrrounding our plunge into League One.

Edited June 3, 2022 by TIL 1010

[littleyellowbirdie 2,518]

10 hours ago, komakino said:

Delia has got far more out of the football club than she has put in. I’ve got no problem with that  - she has played a blinder as I’ve said before. But in logical terms, having owners that do not invest or attract outside investment- subject to current talks - are a complete waste of time in modern football terms. The love in from some fans has no substance as the club needs - as has needed - investment, but somehow these basic principles are somehow blinded to the misguided. 

The only thing owners should be investing into a club, aside for paying from their initial stake, is time, thought, and action; superwealthy owners endlessly throwing more money into a football club, in spite of the huge amounts of money already floating around in the game, may be normalised in the minds of many fans, but it's absurd as a business practise. 

All football clubs could and should operate as self-sustainable activities. The fact that it doesn't simply underlines how corrupted by greed and money the game is. 

A new player investing into new equity into the club to improve its capital position is fantastic, but sustainability should always be the first priority, as it is at Liverpool. 

Edited June 3, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[GMF 736]

40 minutes ago, Badger said:

The evidence is below but it seems that there are two trusts (one now defunct). The evidence applies to the defunct trust not the current one, although apparently it has a lot of the same personnel.

Badger, the old Trust still exists and still has its own shareholding in the Club and, to the best of my knowledge, has never had the same personal as the current Trust.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

Badger, the old Trust still exists and still has its own shareholding in the Club and, to the best of my knowledge, has never had the same personal as the current Trust.

This rewriting of history is ridiculous unless there is a point i am missing somewhere along the line.

[GMF 736]

@TIL 1010 if you’re missing the point, so am I. History is something that binners prattle on about, isn’t it! 😜

[TIL 1010 4,722]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

@TIL 1010 if you’re missing the point, so am I. History is something that binners prattle on about, isn’t it! 😜

The Binfinder general on here ' outs ' more binners with a greater knowledge of our club than what i have been reading on this thread. 😂

[GMF 736]

1 minute ago, TIL 1010 said:

The Binfinder general on here ' outs ' more binners with a greater knowledge of our club than what i have been reading on this thread. 😂

Quite! 🤣🤣🤣

[essex canary 492]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

May i also point out that the 1957 Trust has been dormant since well before the Chase era so had no part to play in the events surrrounding our plunge into League One.

So the Club has had plenty of time to do something about it in the lifetime of the principal Trustee but didn't bother?

Pity they aren't a little more proactive in issues concerning fan Trust shareholder representation.

Edited June 3, 2022 by essex canary

[chicken 2,605]

26 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This rewriting of history is ridiculous unless there is a point i am missing somewhere along the line.

I don't see anyone rewriting history here, Badger hasn't said he knows this as fact and appears open to correct information which is now forthcoming.

I think it was you that said there were some members shared across groups but not all. I picked up on that which seems to be what Badger was reflecting.

In a sense, you are trying to re-write what Badger has said. To those of us not in any of the trusts/groups it isn't overly surprising that people have been a little confused about this.

The only group I knew of, and a little about was NCISA, and that's purely because one of the lads I went to middleschool with was Roy Blowers' son. 

[king canary 7,580]

I think the confusion here stems from the fact Badger keeps referring to NCISA (who were quoted about rebates) as a Trust, which is confusing them with the current Canaries Trust (which does have some overlap with NCISA in terms of key people) and another trust that apparently was started in the 50's.

Think I've got this right?

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

29 minutes ago, king canary said:

I think the confusion here stems from the fact Badger keeps referring to NCISA (who were quoted about rebates) as a Trust, which is confusing them with the current Canaries Trust (which does have some overlap with NCISA in terms of key people) and another trust that apparently was started in the 50's.

Think I've got this right?

I think so! I had no idea there was this long-dormant other trust. What is interesting is that if this old trust has several thousand shares, and Foulger has 98,200, and the current trust has some thousands, and the old Jimmy Jones shares, if I have this roughly right, amount to several thousand, that is a sizeable minority total in four hands.

Edited June 3, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Duncan Edwards 2,227]

Trust from the 50s - Dormant

Canaries Trust - Active

NCISA - Not a trust

 

The historical trust have the most shares of the three. The Canaries Trust have some shares.

NCISA wound up/folded/no longer exist so have/hold nothing. 

Some of the key personnel from when NCISA ended now hold key positions on the Canaries Trust board. 
 

 

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am reading that you think the two Trusts have a lot of the same personnel because if so that is total nonsense ?

 

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Badger, the old Trust still exists and still has its own shareholding in the Club and, to the best of my knowledge, has never had the same personal as the current Trust.

 

1 hour ago, king canary said:

I think the confusion here stems from the fact Badger keeps referring to NCISA (who were quoted about rebates) as a Trust, which is confusing them with the current Canaries Trust (which does have some overlap with NCISA in terms of key people) and another trust that apparently was started in the 50's.

Think I've got this right?

 

23 hours ago, essex canary said:

Could be a good opportunity for the Trust too in that they could ask supporters to donate all or a percentage of shares to the Trust?

 

16 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

as I previously mentioned, some of the key figures from NCISA are now in key positions at the Trust. Robin Sainty was chairman of NCISA at the “end” (if I remember correctly) and now holds the same position within the Trust. 

Right, I think that I have got some of it now?

1. There was a now defunct association which was not a trust which acted against the club after we were relegated.

2. I took Duncan to mean that that the leadership of this overlapped with Canaries Trust, which I took to be the "the Trust." However...

3. It has subsequently emerged (to me at any rate) that there is another Trust, which I now suspect was the one my Dad referred to, when a talked about a crisis in the 1950s (before my time). I think that I am right that is still in existence but I'm not sure if it is active. Is it?

4. I do not know which Trust Essex was referring to above?

5. Which is the Trust with whom City (Steve Stone) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding?

6. Why does the club have two trusts, each with their own "pooled" shareholding? (+ If the association also held some, that would be three groups!)

7. How does this related to the fans group that Wolfie is on (if at all)?

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Badger
Added point a comment, in parenthesis, to point 6

[nutty nigel 7,514]

Us PUPs watch them all come and go and carry on regardless...

🙃💛⚽💚

[TIL 1010 4,722]

I give up i really do so how about you what with wolfie and the OSP now thrown in for good measure @GMF

[Duncan Edwards 2,227]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

 

 

 

Right, I think that I have got some of it now?

1. There was a now defunct association which was not a trust which acted against the club after we were relegated.

Correct - NCISA (although I expect they’d have strongly refuted that they were acting against the club). 

2. I took Duncan to mean that that the leadership of this overlapped with Canaries Trust, which I took to be the "the Trust." However...

There was no overlap. Once NCISA folded, some committee members from NCISA joined the Trust and have subsequently taken up positions on the Trust board. (The Canaries Trust).

3. It has subsequently emerged (to me at any rate) that there is another Trust, which I now suspect was the one my Dad referred to, when a talked about a crisis in the 1950s (before my time). I think that I am right that is still in existence but I'm not sure if it is active. Is it?

It is still in existence but has been dormant for (as far as I know) a long, long time. 

4. I do not know which Trust Essex was referring to above?

You’ll have to ask someone that speaks ‘Essex Canary’ I’m afraid. 

5. Which is the Trust with whom City (Steve Stone) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding?

The Canaries Trust 

6. Why does the club have two trusts, each with their own "pooled" shareholding? (+ If the association also held some, that would be three groups!)

While they co-exist, I don’t ever believe that there has been a time when they’ve been ‘active’ together. I also believe that the Canaries Trust have at times tried to initiate contact with the dormant historical trust to see if there was any possibility of putting the shares together. I’m happy to be corrected on that. 

7. How does this related to the fans group that Wolfie is on (if at all)?

I’m not sure it relates to them at all. 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2022 by Duncan Edwards

[TIL 1010 4,722]

13 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Us PUPs watch them all come and go and carry on regardless...

🙃💛⚽💚

Ah but are you the original PUPs or a newly formed body and how many shares do you hold ? 😜

[Mengo 822]

17 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Us PUPs watch them all come and go and carry on regardless...

🙃💛⚽💚

😉🙃The Nutty carry on regardless Trust.

Best way . 

[Big Vince 318]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

 

I did not say that (see below) - I said that the Trust acted against the interests of the club at crucial times. Given that it was the only time in my lifetime we were ever in league One + the well-known financial constraints at the time, urging fans to claim their rebate and deprive the club of desperately needed revenue, clearly fits what I said.

In a later post, I pointed out that without the generosity of those fans who could afford it + chose to ignore the Trusts recommendation we were able to buy Grant Holt, gain two consecutive promotions followed by three years in the premier league. Had we followed the Trust's advice, such an outcome would have been highly unlikely.

 

Correction needed here. It was Micky Foulger who put up the money to buy Grant Holt.