EXCLUSIVE: US tycoons in Norwich City investment talks

[Greavsy 2,413]

6 hours ago, essex canary said:

I hope everyone will be having a paddy.

But this thread is only for shareholders...... You said so yesterday Essex. 

[essex canary 496]

6 hours ago, Greavsy said:

But this thread is only for shareholders...... You said so yesterday Essex. 

I said no such thing not least because many people have never had a reasonable opportunity to become shareholders.

Nonetheless I don't believe it to be reasonable for non-shareholders to take sides in a debate about potential differential terms of settlement to 2 existing individual shareholders. Not that "debate' was reasonably the appropriate word, more like unprovoked attack.

Edited June 7, 2022 by essex canary

[essex canary 496]

10 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Oh dear. Citizen journalist does the job of real journalists. 😳

Citizen journalist was more capable with a calculator.

[essex canary 496]

13 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was aware of the corruption of names essex so i always check names thoroughly by christain names and surnames when looking at anything at Companies House.

It is amazing what you can find out about people.

Given that we would like a little more openness about what our Football Club is trying to achieve at the moment, would you like to oblige about your intentions here?

Meanwhile I am still trying to work out how the Clubs supporter engagement processes could be deemed to have been revolutionised by a limited election in which supporters eliminated 7 candidates whilst the Club themselves eliminated more than 80 at the same time as seemingly ignoring an MoU it had set up with another organisation albeit that admittedly the latter operates from a low base and unclear democracy?

[Naturalcynic 631]

14 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I was aware of the corruption of names essex so i always check names thoroughly by christain names and surnames when looking at anything at Companies House.

It is amazing what you can find out about people.

Having had a look on the Companies House website I’ve failed spectacularly to find any list of shareholders relating to NCFC PLC, which is disappointing considering I’m a shareholder.  Where can I find this document as I’d very much like to confirm that I’m actually on it!

[hogesar 9,671]

37 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Having had a look on the Companies House website I’ve failed spectacularly to find any list of shareholders relating to NCFC PLC, which is disappointing considering I’m a shareholder.  Where can I find this document as I’d very much like to confirm that I’m actually on it!

Available here:

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/K105hr880Q2S1Cl8p66NFlhchIR4_MJBz_fJxQbWAfY/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3DJ436MMZ%2F20220607%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220607T073557Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjENj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIGgeDND%2BNIF%2By8Mxz8I7ZNQH5aA51SsXIA6EBc%2Fv3lC4AiEArZ5uYnfwQaa%2FLGnQ4NWPPzyn97kl7ebSHrPqOBjUsUEq3AQI0f%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDKpEb37y7ZEqBDQitiqwBFkl8iabmRAsJpLDl0irx5zq0fXJip3U5fZdIZ%2BW2eQtJA4KJCxlcl3m7ddk9dalfur9e5nZAk4ZoMncUaS%2BcXoiOOfQYD8cWR%2FcU2fhylE18al7%2BVW7vQtF%2B1Dn%2FpQFioz47NwceD4RpuTjUHTKSjlHlRSVaE59q7roGRfsGQz%2F%2B%2FL7Gs1oKqD7scRJK16%2F2U%2FDKlKEM5ECnUYGBw2XQ6T%2FC9TNFoVSbCfOeriJkCvL5pzi%2FCrVlN1O%2FZQuxhh4mj7TjvbbYWiMhII5BVeYPV5O4tIPd%2FiBHUP%2FQBKJYxOvSRM%2FCzuLqXo0mQ8pdkYrEgtHpMsoDqeX%2B8U3iIGXKZJ8jKvgqOu%2Fvg78jsI26pQBv2mpUUaPg5p0Rvis006%2BJ3aOQvpg%2BR456D5iiNTuli3ovqgp%2FSZbxOb29PhC127skLIrzRGxkmaXDc3JGp1Q02A7NvcSzlIouyl7JWP%2FbiIx1zKtUlewQb6QfaPEn%2B8TljaEW54Mg8%2BoruGEXzmWdOXMXqFsvuZPP2%2BEZ7l5MzyKoW5x1Oj51lYylmXgwm8vx5WlZCj%2FgaYb1BiLyKdTLsQ6B3B9n4rir80YNtyX%2Fe2dmudu2Z06KFS3jba2iCLsdQGbbcccGIS1OATJa%2BZbAp7Si1bOdhhc35WcL70SkqTihalYF6vzK53Rg7esT3gGo7xCCMp6VEzU7EgbhaYx%2FT5ayhvVZdlBpWlbmGIjJyPMacBXSuRBNOUObPG8Kea9MKP8%2B5QGOqkB6Ep1rl%2BAy2L389cmpEn5yWiUUflHegW3X%2FcGlIfKpakjZI%2B5Q9XSzXSuvAkZz0Ywh5ysNakgg2aaRNj0nV2J2wvu9I256zhMENeaHgxLqBgz5ZIYWUApCy879VMYHwDBa3zuhw0hjtivArMSv79%2B8g3Sb%2B%2FyHer3nuZu%2BkbS5PUdLVM9Q8e9LmV23%2FL4ZsO7o5xJd%2F593deBZmVEH%2BcRgxKcujsWxBqzRw%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D"companies_house_document.pdf"&X-Amz-Signature=e223654c709e0906e142fb99c00f641f56a8813e2e1561d832b4d1722a8acfee

 

Note its Oct 2019

[CANARYKING 638]

22 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Available here:

https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/K105hr880Q2S1Cl8p66NFlhchIR4_MJBz_fJxQbWAfY/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3DJ436MMZ%2F20220607%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20220607T073557Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjENj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJHMEUCIGgeDND%2BNIF%2By8Mxz8I7ZNQH5aA51SsXIA6EBc%2Fv3lC4AiEArZ5uYnfwQaa%2FLGnQ4NWPPzyn97kl7ebSHrPqOBjUsUEq3AQI0f%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FARAEGgw0NDkyMjkwMzI4MjIiDKpEb37y7ZEqBDQitiqwBFkl8iabmRAsJpLDl0irx5zq0fXJip3U5fZdIZ%2BW2eQtJA4KJCxlcl3m7ddk9dalfur9e5nZAk4ZoMncUaS%2BcXoiOOfQYD8cWR%2FcU2fhylE18al7%2BVW7vQtF%2B1Dn%2FpQFioz47NwceD4RpuTjUHTKSjlHlRSVaE59q7roGRfsGQz%2F%2B%2FL7Gs1oKqD7scRJK16%2F2U%2FDKlKEM5ECnUYGBw2XQ6T%2FC9TNFoVSbCfOeriJkCvL5pzi%2FCrVlN1O%2FZQuxhh4mj7TjvbbYWiMhII5BVeYPV5O4tIPd%2FiBHUP%2FQBKJYxOvSRM%2FCzuLqXo0mQ8pdkYrEgtHpMsoDqeX%2B8U3iIGXKZJ8jKvgqOu%2Fvg78jsI26pQBv2mpUUaPg5p0Rvis006%2BJ3aOQvpg%2BR456D5iiNTuli3ovqgp%2FSZbxOb29PhC127skLIrzRGxkmaXDc3JGp1Q02A7NvcSzlIouyl7JWP%2FbiIx1zKtUlewQb6QfaPEn%2B8TljaEW54Mg8%2BoruGEXzmWdOXMXqFsvuZPP2%2BEZ7l5MzyKoW5x1Oj51lYylmXgwm8vx5WlZCj%2FgaYb1BiLyKdTLsQ6B3B9n4rir80YNtyX%2Fe2dmudu2Z06KFS3jba2iCLsdQGbbcccGIS1OATJa%2BZbAp7Si1bOdhhc35WcL70SkqTihalYF6vzK53Rg7esT3gGo7xCCMp6VEzU7EgbhaYx%2FT5ayhvVZdlBpWlbmGIjJyPMacBXSuRBNOUObPG8Kea9MKP8%2B5QGOqkB6Ep1rl%2BAy2L389cmpEn5yWiUUflHegW3X%2FcGlIfKpakjZI%2B5Q9XSzXSuvAkZz0Ywh5ysNakgg2aaRNj0nV2J2wvu9I256zhMENeaHgxLqBgz5ZIYWUApCy879VMYHwDBa3zuhw0hjtivArMSv79%2B8g3Sb%2B%2FyHer3nuZu%2BkbS5PUdLVM9Q8e9LmV23%2FL4ZsO7o5xJd%2F593deBZmVEH%2BcRgxKcujsWxBqzRw%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D"companies_house_document.pdf"&X-Amz-Signature=e223654c709e0906e142fb99c00f641f56a8813e2e1561d832b4d1722a8acfee

 

Note its Oct 2019

Doesn’t work

[hogesar 9,671]

1 minute ago, CANARYKING said:

Doesn’t work

Try clicking the attachment to this post, best I can do! 🙂

Alternately, go to: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history

And look for the Oct 2019 confirmation statement.

 

companies_house_document.pdf

Edited June 7, 2022 by hogesar

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

6 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Try clicking the attachment to this post, best I can do! 🙂

Alternately, go to: https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00154044/filing-history

And look for the Oct 2019 confirmation statement.

 

companies_house_document.pdf 14.57 MB · 0 downloads

So I think it's the one that says "752 pages".  Good luck finding yourself @Naturalcynic. I should be on the list, but I can't be bothered looking TBH.

[horsefly 4,300]

17 minutes ago, CANARYKING said:

Doesn’t work

The link or the board?

[Badger 2,405]

11 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

So I think it's the one that says "752 pages".  Good luck finding yourself @Naturalcynic. I should be on the list, but I can't be bothered looking TBH.

I found it on the 2019 Confirmation statement (thanks Hoggy).

It doesn't take that long - three or four minutes (find the right share type first - it starts with preference shares).

[king canary 7,606]

13 minutes ago, It's Character Forming said:

So I think it's the one that says "752 pages".  Good luck finding yourself @Naturalcynic. I should be on the list, but I can't be bothered looking TBH.

Does control + f not work on it?

[ricardo 7,395]

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

I found it on the 2019 Confirmation statement (thanks Hoggy).

It doesn't take that long - three or four minutes (find the right share type first - it starts with preference shares).

Yes, I found mine quite easily. 

[BigFish 1,986]

15 minutes ago, king canary said:

Does control + f not work on it?

Looks like it is a scanned image of a physical document, so no.

[Greavsy 2,413]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Not that "debate' was reasonably the appropriate word, more like unprovoked attack.

Im confused Essex, forgive me. 

Who are accusing of making a unprovoked attack and on whom? 

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

I didn't realise I had that many. I expect a call from Attanasio any day now...😎

[TIL 1010 4,746]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Given that we would like a little more openness about what our Football Club is trying to achieve at the moment, would you like to oblige about your intentions here?

Meanwhile I am still trying to work out how the Clubs supporter engagement processes could be deemed to have been revolutionised by a limited election in which supporters eliminated 7 candidates whilst the Club themselves eliminated more than 80 at the same time as seemingly ignoring an MoU it had set up with another organisation albeit that admittedly the latter operates from a low base and unclear democracy?

Don't quite get what you are on about in that first sentence other than you mean what were my intentions in looking at the share register. That is simple as i have sold two parcels of my shares and was checking the current status with regard to the two people i had sold them to and before you ask i am not telling you how much i sold them for.

I kept the link to the register for future reference.

With regared to your second paragraph my observation is that ' limited election ' that you refer to was anything but as anybody could have been put forward for nomination and literally all of the fanbase could have voted for 3 of those who made the final cut. Please don't tell me you expected in excess of 80 to be put up for election ? I would hope whoever sorted out the applicants was looking to cover all demographics including age ranges and representing various parts of the ground for starters.

As for the MOU your post received a reaction from the Trust secretary so they would be best placed to answer that.

Edited June 7, 2022 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 496]

38 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Im confused Essex, forgive me. 

Who are accusing of making a unprovoked attack and on whom? 

You piggybacked on somebody else's message when they were very clearly stirring.

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

This message-board needs a "Long-running spats that are incomprehensible to all but the two or three posters involved" sub-section.

[essex canary 496]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

 

With regared to your second paragraph my observation is that ' limited election ' that you refer to was anything but as anybody could have been put forward for nomination and literally all of the fanbase could have voted for 3 of those who made the final cut. Please don't tell me you expected in excess of 80 to be put up for election ? I would hope whoever sorted out the applicants was looking to cover all demographics including age ranges and representing various parts of the ground for starters.

As for the MOU your post received a reaction from the Trust secretary so they would be best placed to answer that.

Admit there are practicalities with over 100 applicants. Nonetheless that is still a lot that the Club dismissed. Note that the Trust MoU says that both parties will publish the Minutes. So it appears that it is the Club that is not satisfying it's own commitment in that regard? If it was in the act of doing that and addressing all the Terms of Reference in the Trust's MoU, the need for the Supporters Panel would not be obvious other than perhaps to have sort a little more clarity from the Trust on the issue of openness of its processes and more proactive encouragement of fans to join.

[ncfcstar 292]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Admit there are practicalities with over 100 applicants. Nonetheless that is still a lot that the Club dismissed. Note that the Trust MoU says that both parties will publish the Minutes. So it appears that it is the Club that is not satisfying it's own commitment in that regard? If it was in the act of doing that and addressing all the Terms of Reference in the Trust's MoU, the need for the Supporters Panel would not be obvious other than perhaps to have sort a little more clarity from the Trust on the issue of openness of its processes and more proactive encouragement of fans to join.

But the Trust is independent of the club, it's not a function of it.

[essex canary 496]

Getting back to the share issue. The Club has 6,751 of it's 6,863 shareholders owning 200 shares or less for a grand total of 75,538 shares. To transfer these to the Americans , at the same time and price as Foulger if that is the plan, would reduce total number of shareholders to 112, give the Americans 28% of the shareholding, other shareholders (who may like some relatively short term assurances) 19% in addition to S&J's 53%. Sounds like a good plan?

[essex canary 496]

2 minutes ago, ncfcstar said:

But the Trust is independent of the club, it's not a function of it.

Isn't 'independence' a strong desirable feature of fan representation?

[A Load of Squit 5,162]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

Getting back to the share issue. The Club has 6,751 of it's 6,863 shareholders owning 200 shares or less for a grand total of 75,538 shares. To transfer these to the Americans , at the same time and price as Foulger if that is the plan, would reduce total number of shareholders to 112, give the Americans 28% of the shareholding, other shareholders (who may like some relatively short term assurances) 19% in addition to S&J's 53%. Sounds like a good plan?

No, it just sounds like a maths homework question.

 

[Google Bot 3,275]

16 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

This message-board needs a "Long-running spats that are incomprehensible to all but the two or three posters involved" sub-section.

Or could someone please maintain a list somewhere... I see there's plenty of subliminal digs being made, but they go right over my head.  Maybe such info is behind the pinkun + paywall?

[PurpleCanary 5,560]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Getting back to the share issue. The Club has 6,751 of it's 6,863 shareholders owning 200 shares or less for a grand total of 75,538 shares. To transfer these to the Americans , at the same time and price as Foulger if that is the plan, would reduce total number of shareholders to 112, give the Americans 28% of the shareholding, other shareholders (who may like some relatively short term assurances) 19% in addition to S&J's 53%. Sounds like a good plan?

No, it doesn't sound like a good plan. It would involve a great deal of tedious bureaucracy for the Americans and those with only a small number of shares are generally the ones who have them for sentimental reasons and would not want to sell.

Far simpler to approach the nine (as I make) people (including Foulger) or organisations (including Archant) who have 3000 shares or more, totalling around 157,000, and see how many of them would be willing to sell up.

[Greavsy 2,413]

33 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

This message-board needs a "Long-running spats that are incomprehensible to all but the two or three posters involved" sub-section.

Agreed Purple. I'm confused where this unprovoked attack came from, hence sought clarification from Essex for his comments.. 

Not sure I'm any the wiser following his reply. 

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

14 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Page 585?!  Is it an extra large font or something!?  I had no idea that there were that many entries.  Blimey orally!

This threads going that way 🤣

[CANARYKING 638]

Found mine ( eventually )

[Dr Greenthumb 749]

12 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

What's the latest from Sexy Bennett anyone ?

Nothing since