EXCLUSIVE: US tycoons in Norwich City investment talks

[Nora's Ghost 157]

Bewildering that so many bought into this nonsense.

 

Smith and Jones are going nowhere. Carrow Road is her 'dolls house' and she just moves things around when it suits her.

[essex canary 491]

50 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Essex, I've been skim reading the archives the club has just published - this has always been the way with the club from day one!  Shares were always sold to "spread the financial burden".  Directors' in the early days couldn't wait to offload guarantees on bank overdraft across shareholders and directors.  All this talk of Norwich City becoming a "community club" is a nonsense - it is the way the club has been run from the start.

The contribution to the Archive initiated by my late friend and I can be seen under 23 November 2016:

"In response to questions on the accounts it was confirmed that 2 incoming directors had each purchased 100 shares at their nominal value, rather than with a premium, in accordance with the company's articles of association. The sale was to allow those directors to meet the obligation to hold shares in the company while serving and there was no intention to create a financial benefit.'

Within 18 months the two directors concerned had used the premiums they effectively saved to buy bonds and thereby acquire a financial benefit whilst they reaffirmed that my friends shares would no longer attract any benefit following his passing.

Community Club - my rear end.

[shefcanary 2,387]

13 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Within 18 months the two directors concerned had used the premiums they effectively saved to buy bonds and thereby acquire a financial benefit whilst they reaffirmed that my friends shares would no longer attract any benefit following his passing.

Community Club - my rear end.

Point taken; the community club does have some fraying around the edges.  I think it obvious those who were "in" on the bond issue made a killing and deprived perhaps more "deserving" fans an equal chance at making some money.

This though demonstrates more the conservative nature of our Board, which again can be witnessed throughout the archive as always being there apart from say, around May to July 1935.  In their conservative view (and that is conservative with a small "c" Vinnie!) I truly believe they never really expected to see the Bond to be the success it was.  If only they had followed up the Colney Bond with a City Stand Bond, hey?

[essex canary 491]

49 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

Point taken; the community club does have some fraying around the edges.  I think it obvious those who were "in" on the bond issue made a killing and deprived perhaps more "deserving" fans an equal chance at making some money.

This though demonstrates more the conservative nature of our Board, which again can be witnessed throughout the archive as always being there apart from say, around May to July 1935.  In their conservative view (and that is conservative with a small "c" Vinnie!) I truly believe they never really expected to see the Bond to be the success it was.  If only they had followed up the Colney Bond with a City Stand Bond, hey?

Certainly it would be good to see Carrow Road and supporters being given priority over the training ground. 

The history thread is interesting. I need to take a look.

[sgncfc 1,221]

Without wishing to add to a clearly open wound, I also don't like re-writing history. I don't recall any priority being given to a select group of people on the Bond issue. I have emails which clearly state the timeline and gave ample time for registration and application.

This was an investment which, at the time, came with some risk - hardly a guaranteed money spinner. It was only after it became obvious that the team would be promoted and that the bonus would therefore be paid that people started moaning about "missing out".

Apart from all that, the Club didn't run it. It was run by Tifosy, who have since done many more and now run their own exchange. At the time though, this was their second issue and as a scheme was pretty innovative but certainly not a reliable investment for anyone who couldn't afford to lose their stake.

So I'm not sure how any opinions about the Bond can be used as an instrument with which to attack their claim to be a community club. 

[essex canary 491]

3 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Point taken; the community club does have some fraying around the edges.  I think it obvious those who were "in" on the bond issue made a killing and deprived perhaps more "deserving" fans an equal chance at making some money.

This though demonstrates more the conservative nature of our Board.

Another interesting dimension which I only became aware of recently upon Stephan Phillips departure is the existence of an Audit Committee at the Club.

The purpose of an Audit Committee is to manage risk both good and bad. It is all very well to say that the Bond was managed by an outside company but does that negate the need or responsibility for risk management by the Club itself?

Mr. Phillips has been presented by Delia as a 'fan' rather than expert so not sure about the basis for him being Chair of the Audit Committee?

If my knowledge he was the only Associate Director who didn't buy shares from his own resources yet he declared the same sum in bond purchases. Equally we don't know whether his partners investment declared on the Board at Colney was additional to his investment?

There were other Club senior officials who have never invested in shares who invested in Bonds. In a sense they were leading by example. Then again perhaps the Audit Committee should have reviewed the over achievement as to whether the 740 bondholders could be seen as reasonable in context of the 6,860 shareholders. One poster on here suggested there were institutional investors amongst the former and factually there were some larger investors amongst the latter. Surely that should have been reviewed?

I understand that Mr. Phillips subsequently became involved in the subsequent situation I described above re a substantial inheritor minority shareholder. I would have thought he would have been extremely sensitive and visible under the circumstances but he certainly was not.

Any views upon this performance?

 

 

[essex canary 491]

2 hours ago, sgncfc said:

Without wishing to add to a clearly open wound, I also don't like re-writing history. I don't recall any priority being given to a select group of people on the Bond issue. I have emails which clearly state the timeline and gave ample time for registration and application.

This was an investment which, at the time, came with some risk - hardly a guaranteed money spinner. It was only after it became obvious that the team would be promoted and that the bonus would therefore be paid that people started moaning about "missing out".

Apart from all that, the Club didn't run it. It was run by Tifosy, who have since done many more and now run their own exchange. At the time though, this was their second issue and as a scheme was pretty innovative but certainly not a reliable investment for anyone who couldn't afford to lose their stake.

So I'm not sure how any opinions about the Bond can be used as an instrument with which to attack their claim to be a community club. 

See my response to Shef. Any thoughts on the Audit Committee issue appreciated.

[lake district canary 4,531]

I really can't understand your beef with the bond situation, @essex canary. I am neither a shareholder or big investor, but I got the bond allocation I asked for, chiefly because I got in on the scheme early, as soon as it was started and possible to apply for them.  It was popular, plainly some bigger investors in there too, but it was first come first served and the fact that there were 740 people accepted on the scheme is pretty good.  It is a shame people missed out, but then that is what happens with all sorts of things that are over subscribed.  The fact that you are some kind of minor shareholder or whatever is totally irrelevant - it was a bond scheme open to all, as bond schemes have to be by law.

 

[GMF 736]

3 hours ago, lake district canary said:

I really can't understand your beef with the bond situation, @essex canary. I am neither a shareholder or big investor, but I got the bond allocation I asked for, chiefly because I got in on the scheme early, as soon as it was started and possible to apply for them.  It was popular, plainly some bigger investors in there too, but it was first come first served and the fact that there were 740 people accepted on the scheme is pretty good.  It is a shame people missed out, but then that is what happens with all sorts of things that are over subscribed.  The fact that you are some kind of minor shareholder or whatever is totally irrelevant - it was a bond scheme open to all, as bond schemes have to be by law.

 

The beef is obvious, as @essex canary has said previously, he (and many others) missed out, in his instance because of his holiday.

There’s also been a previous suggestion of his that there should have been some kind of pro-rata arrangement, based upon existing shareholdings, this despite all the pre-launch material indicating that it would be first come, first served, with the understanding that they hoped to raise £3.5m , but would cap it at £5m max.

In the event, it raised £5m in under a week, with first dibs going to anyone who had registered an expression of interest before the launch, and before it went to an open public sale to anyone.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

The beef is obvious, as @essex canary has said previously, he (and many others) missed out, in his instance because of his holiday.

There’s also been a previous suggestion of his that there should have been some kind of pro-rata arrangement, based upon existing shareholdings, this despite all the pre-launch material indicating that it would be first come, first served, with the understanding that they hoped to raise £3.5m , but would cap it at £5m max.

In the event, it raised £5m in under a week, with first dibs going to anyone who had registered an expression of interest before the launch, and before it went to an open public sale to anyone.

I have always thought if I could get a bond then anyone could. But I'd made my mind up immediately to pre-register and got in fast when it was open. I guess being on holiday could be a disadvantage however I remember buying mine on my phone whilst eating lunch in Asda's Golden Arches. 

You only need to look back at the thread on here to see what the view was on this board where the majority opinion seemed to be that posters wouldn't touch the scheme with a bargepole. It was said that we'd more likely be relegated to league one and lose our money than claim any promotion bonus...

[GMF 736]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

You only need to look back at the thread on here to see what the view was on this board where the majority opinion seemed to be that posters wouldn't touch the scheme with a bargepole. It was said that we'd more likely be relegated to league one and lose our money than claim any promotion bonus...

Anywhere with a decent mobile or Wi-Fi connection would have been sufficient - as it happens,  I did mine stood by the River Thames!

What’s also overlooked, had the club been relegated in year 5 of the scheme, the directors had the option to extend it for a sixth season. Thankfully, we were promoted after a year, so the 25% promotion bonus kicked in, making the funding expense, albeit with the upside of a £90m Premier TV windfall to fund it immediately.

[shefcanary 2,387]

21 hours ago, essex canary said:

Another interesting dimension which I only became aware of recently upon Stephan Phillips departure is the existence of an Audit Committee at the Club.

The purpose of an Audit Committee is to manage risk both good and bad. It is all very well to say that the Bond was managed by an outside company but does that negate the need or responsibility for risk management by the Club itself?

Mr. Phillips has been presented by Delia as a 'fan' rather than expert so not sure about the basis for him being Chair of the Audit Committee?

If my knowledge he was the only Associate Director who didn't buy shares from his own resources yet he declared the same sum in bond purchases. Equally we don't know whether his partners investment declared on the Board at Colney was additional to his investment?

There were other Club senior officials who have never invested in shares who invested in Bonds. In a sense they were leading by example. Then again perhaps the Audit Committee should have reviewed the over achievement as to whether the 740 bondholders could be seen as reasonable in context of the 6,860 shareholders. One poster on here suggested there were institutional investors amongst the former and factually there were some larger investors amongst the latter. Surely that should have been reviewed?

I understand that Mr. Phillips subsequently became involved in the subsequent situation I described above re a substantial inheritor minority shareholder. I would have thought he would have been extremely sensitive and visible under the circumstances but he certainly was not.

Any views upon this performance?

 

 

I've chaired audit committees as well as been secretaries to a few as well. There is nothing wrong with a "lay" person chairing an audit committee as long as they cut through jargon to ensure professionals don't hide behind technospeak.  I'm sure given his media background Phillips would have such skills. 

However Audit Committees tend to have a very dry agenda (unless something really concerning has been found). I doubt that unless the FA, EPL or EFL raised any concerns that anything controversial has been considered by Norwich's audit committee. 

Even when money looked to be a big issue, everyone knew it was an issue that was coming, the reasons for this and the risk considerations were all well rehearsed, with resolution probably found before the Committee sat. So Philip's would have shown concern but would not really have had anything to add other than effective cashflow forecasting was paramount.  Given Webber's regular comments on this the Audit Committee seem to be in control.  Which one could argue it shouldn't be, for strategic reasons, they should be risk champions not strategy champions!  For instance clarity over the replacement of the City Stand and policy over governance would be high on my agenda as Audit Committee chair, but they are not necessarily main agenda items (AOB at most).  

Without access to the conduct of meetings, I would suggest Phillips has ensured that focus has been on financial strategy, but commercial and football strategy have potentially not been covered. 

Or has Phillips resignation been caused because he has .... 🤔?  Again the archives give plenty of instances where disagreements at Board level have seen resignations occur, that publicly have been passed off as because the outgoing director cannot commit more time to the club!  🤷

You did ask... 

Edited July 6, 2022 by shefcanary

[Midlands Yellow 3,936]

9 hours ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Bewildering that so many bought into this nonsense.

 

Smith and Jones are going nowhere. Carrow Road is her 'dolls house' and she just moves things around when it suits her.

Age isn’t on her side, we can only pray she’s on her way soon enough. 

[corbs 147]

6 minutes ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Age isn’t on her side, we can only pray she’s on her way soon enough. 

Your full of sheet. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,936]

1 minute ago, corbs said:

Your full of sheet. 

And a good evening to you too Corbs. Personal friend of Delia’s or related in some way? 

Edited July 5, 2022 by Midlands Yellow

[norfolkngood 1,086]

my Personal view was the Americans thought or think ? that buying Foulgers shares then they can buy more in time taking complete control ,

thats the stumbling block in my opinion

buying foulgers shares will only make him rich not the club 

they will not  invest in money into club without any control or some Guarantee of Delias shares 

Looks like Delia and MWJ want control and will not sell their shares 

so we are back to square one where Delia will not invest and the Americans will not unless they have a say on their money 

 

 

 

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

1 hour ago, norfolkngood said:

my Personal view was the Americans thought or think ? that buying Foulgers shares then they can buy more in time taking complete control ,

thats the stumbling block in my opinion

buying foulgers shares will only make him rich not the club 

they will not  invest in money into club without any control or some Guarantee of Delias shares 

Looks like Delia and MWJ want control and will not sell their shares 

so we are back to square one where Delia will not invest and the Americans will not unless they have a say on their money 

 

 

 

Crude, but possible.

Parma

[yellowrider120 761]

14 hours ago, corbs said:

Your full of sheet. 

Spelling and grammar could be improved I'd suggest. 

[Nuff Said 5,089]

15 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Age isn’t on her side, we can only pray she’s on her way soon enough. 

Classy

[Nuff Said 5,089]

19 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Crude, but possible.

Parma

Equally, could be nonsense. Why would they have travelled over, wasting valuable time and money if it was that cut and dried?

[Jim Smith 2,314]

25 minutes ago, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

Crude, but possible.

Parma

I too suspect this is a stumbling block which is what i was alluding to about it not being made simple for them to invest. I acknolwedge that there is a degree of speculation here but the club (or someone purporting to be quoting the club) did put out some line about the owners wanting to retain their majority stake. It is that (if it is a permanent stance - i.e. they are not open to the possibility of an incremental surrender of control if things go well) which I suspect makes any investment into the club a more complex issue that it might otherwise be. 

There was an article somewhere which stated that discussions had been ongoing for some time before the visit to Carrow Road so its a little surprising if thats the case that it remains the case that nothing is imminent. 

[hogesar 9,618]

14 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Equally, could be nonsense. Why would they have travelled over, wasting valuable time and money if it was that cut and dried?

Of course, but we called at the time that if the investment didn't happen, and without any knowledge, posters like @Jim Smith would dive headfirst into it all being wicked Delia's fault because it's her "trainset".

It looks like we've actually got these posters doing it before anything even been announced, which I guess is beating my expectations.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

3 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Of course, but we called at the time that if the investment didn't happen, and without any knowledge, posters like @Jim Smith would dive headfirst into it all being wicked Delia's fault because it's her "trainset".

It looks like we've actually got these posters doing it before anything even been announced, which I guess is beating my expectations.

TBH, not beating mine. ☹️

[chicken 2,604]

3 hours ago, norfolkngood said:

my Personal view was the Americans thought or think ? that buying Foulgers shares then they can buy more in time taking complete control ,

thats the stumbling block in my opinion

buying foulgers shares will only make him rich not the club 

they will not  invest in money into club without any control or some Guarantee of Delias shares 

Looks like Delia and MWJ want control and will not sell their shares 

so we are back to square one where Delia will not invest and the Americans will not unless they have a say on their money 

Whilst possible, here's my reasoning/logic as to why it isn't the case.

The US folks were seen at a game at the end of the season. There has been media pieces since about who they are, what they represent and their history of involvement with sports teams "stateside".

We also know that this is unlikely to have been the first moment they showed any interest. We are led to believe that they have been in communication with the club for some months. At this point, it could be closer to a year.

They won't have come to a game, sat where they did, without the clubs knowledge. They are also not fools. They will know that making such an appearance was likely to draw attention to them. They also know how to take over something like a sports club. Especially one that is very much community based, as that's what they have been working on for the last 20yrs.

In short, they are no mugs. We HAVE to respect that.

In which case, if they have been around the club and in communication with the club for the last 6mths minimum, do you not think all of those conversations would have happened? If they have looked at all those options, it is likely they would have done so prior to being at the game, otherwise why bother showing your faces at all?

As I have said before, it is probably best to look at how Kroenke took over at Arsenal to see how it is likely for a slower transition to occur. Albeit over a couple of seasons.

Going in aggressive will not be their first line of approach.

If  you are buying shares to gain a stake in anything, you are not doing it to make the company your are purchasing instantly rich. If they are the only shares available, and you want that company, then that is your in.

They would then get some degree of control, a position on the board, as that's what Foulger has, and there is nothing stopping them investing in other ways either, such as infrastructure on the basis that they split profits, or that they have control over a certain percentage of whatever it is they do to create money for the club.

In short, I very much doubt they would still be in communication with the club if your theory was remotely accurate. I suspect they would have gleaned that information in less than a couple of months and would be on their way. However, they must feel something is doable or they'd not have stuck about and been at a game.

And lets face it, if the talks/communications had stopped, you can bet your money that the same media outlets that broke their attendance would be all over it.

Smith and Wyn-Jones are not daft either. If things were not progressing well, they would have stuck them in a box out of sight, out of mind. That way, no investment or whatever, no one would have been disappointed and accuse them of refusing any investment. By giving them seats in the open, they have brought more criticism on themselves if it doesn't work out.

You really think they would do that if it was the first couple of weeks of discussions?

Edited July 6, 2022 by chicken

[Nora's Ghost 157]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Equally, could be nonsense. Why would they have travelled over, wasting valuable time and money if it was that cut and dried?

Maybe they thought NCFC was a 'normal' business before arriving only to discover it was a personal fiefdom which requires surgical gloves to handle.

 

No one with any sense would put their money into the club with Smith calling the shots.

[Nora's Ghost 157]

17 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

And a good evening to you too Corbs. Personal friend of Delia’s or related in some way? 

Stockholm Syndrome...

 

It seems lots on here are severely affected.

[hogesar 9,618]

47 minutes ago, Nora's Ghost said:

Stockholm Syndrome...

 

It seems lots on here are severely affected.

We don't have a severe case of Third-Tier-Footballitus though, like you and your lot.

[yellowrider120 761]

21 minutes ago, hogesar said:

We don't have a severe case of Third-Tier-Footballitus though, like you and your lot.

Just because he / they have a different opinion on the 'owners' than you, that is their absolute right as it is yours to disagree. Pity that you always get so 'defensive' when these matters are discussed and the 'owners' are under question / scrutiny. NCFC is NOT about 'Delia and Michael' you know. It is about the 24000 or so who buy tickets and attend FCR. Without them 'Delia and Michael' would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle!   

[hogesar 9,618]

12 minutes ago, yellowrider120 said:

Just because he / they have a different opinion on the 'owners' than you, that is their absolute right as it is yours to disagree. Pity that you always get so 'defensive' when these matters are discussed and the 'owners' are under question / scrutiny. NCFC is NOT about 'Delia and Michael' you know. It is about the 24000 or so who buy tickets and attend FCR. Without them 'Delia and Michael' would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle!   

When I sad "your lot" I was referring to ITFC fans. So if you're not one of them, then it's not referencing you whatsoever. He however, is an Ipswich fan from TWTD and it's been displayed multiple times, although admittedly he's edited / deleted some posts as appropriate.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Nothing much happening in UK politics so for what it is worth…

I believe talks did indeed start some time before the Carrow Road photo opportunity and my understanding is that they are continuing.

So they probably began at least two months ago, and quite possibly before then. It takes a peculiarly looking-glass imagination to see their continuation as a bad sign, particularly with the lesson from so many other clubs of takeovers being done in a forced rush, with not enough time on either side for proper due diligence.

Attanasio is a busy man, with more interests and commitments than just the baseball club, as if that wouldn’t be enough by itself, and certainly is too experienced to waste time on a fruitless proposition.

I haven’t heard much, but what I have not heard is anything to suggest the talks have reached an impasse or thrown up some unforeseen stumbling block.

Unless Attanasio is an idiot, and he seems to be very much not an idiot, he and his team will have done their homework on the club and its finances – and the crucial significance of S&J’s shares - before even sitting down to talk.

Despite the predictably negative views from one or two posters, unsupported by anything like a fact, I would be surprised if Attanasio has been much surprised by anything he has heard in the negotiations.

My supposition, and it is only a supposition, is that there will be some kind of deal reached, and may even have been agreed in principle, and that the ongoing discussions concern the possible longer-term steps after that initial deal.

There is - or was - the Nephew Plan, but in my view that was only ever, as another poster neatly put it, the plan until a better one comes along. That better plan may be forthcoming,, but even if the original plan, for Tom Smith to inherit the controlling shares, is no longer preferred those shares and his presence are still factors to be chewed over.