EXCLUSIVE: US tycoons in Norwich City investment talks

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

16 hours ago, Pete Raven said:

The only Archant employee who looks at this messageboard is me, sorry to disappoint.

So that percentage change just a complete coincidence then, Pete?!🤩

[Pete Raven 276]

11 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

So that percentage change just a complete coincidence then, Pete?!🤩

Afraid so.

[shefcanary 2,402]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

What other choice could be placed on you?  Can you be forced to sell and handed what is the expected 'going rate'?

There would only be one scenario that I would sell and that is the one under the plc takeover code where an incoming investor reached the magic 90% figure and was able to take up their option to buy the remaining minority shareholders at the best price they had paid for shares up to that point.  At that point you could argue that the best price to that date was no longer the "going rate", but below the latter, but under Companies Act law it would be the only rate payable. 

[hogesar 9,658]

38 minutes ago, king canary said:

One of the right is Delia, middle is clearly MWJ so who is on the left? Webber?

Neil Doncaster is always happy to return for a photo-opportunity with Delia and Michael!

[Nuff Said 5,131]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

So that percentage change just a complete coincidence then, Pete?!🤩

[Whispers] Come on, who’s going to be Colleen Rooney and post a transfer rumour we can then see appear on the PinkUn site?

[Nuff Said 5,131]

1 hour ago, hogesar said:

Delia in Vince's eyes:

I think the problem for Vince is him in Delia’s eyes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by Nuff Said

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

6 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

[Whispers] Come on, who’s going to be Colleen Rooney and post a transfer rumour we can then see appear on the PinkUn site?

It would have to be a poster we all look up to, someone with gravitas............. Cambridgeo perhaps, it might encourage him to post a bit more. 😇

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

22 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

[Whispers] Come on, who’s going to be Colleen Rooney and post a transfer rumour we can then see appear on the PinkUn site?

Archant would put the Pinkerton Detective Agency on the case...🧐

[essex canary 496]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

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.

I take your point about the tedious bureaucracy.

If you deduct Foulger’s figure from the 157,000 it leaves around 59,000 or just under 10% of the existing shareholding. Around half of this is Pleasure and Leisure and the Turners. Just over 10,000 are the dormant Trust - don't understand who would claim the money on that? Wouldn't it be better anyway to strengthen Trust arrangements as could be rendered far more robust than small sentimental fan holdings in defending supporters interest from excessive American profiteering hopefully backed up in due course by the Government's  Fan Led Review legislation?

[essex canary 496]

2 hours ago, The Raptor said:

I've only got a couple of shares. It might be 4 I can't remember! I think I paid £200 at the time.  I like the fact that I'm a shareholder in the club and don't want to give it up unless forced to. However. If I was offered  a silly amount for them. I'd sell on the condition that the buyer invested the same sum in the club. May be a way of the club getting some. I doubt this would happen tho as like others have said it wouldnt be too practical for an investor

I think you paid £100 for 4 shares. Your proposal seems reasonable to me. Sources suggest the Club is worth approaching £150 million so why not say £60 million old money and £90 million new money. That would be a return of around £100 per share.

See also my previous response to Purple. Of course many other people may see it differently and it is very challenging to put the numbers that are flying around in a clear context.

 

 

[CowboyCanary 37]

On 27/05/2022 at 08:44, The Real Buh said:

Let’s get one things straight before we start here guys. Before anything.

American Sports are Lame.

I want some of whatever you're smoking.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

I take your point about the tedious bureaucracy.

If you deduct Foulger’s figure from the 157,000 it leaves around 59,000 or just under 10% of the existing shareholding. Around half of this is Pleasure and Leisure and the Turners. Just over 10,000 are the dormant Trust - don't understand who would claim the money on that? Wouldn't it be better anyway to strengthen Trust arrangements as could be rendered far more robust than small sentimental fan holdings in defending supporters interest from excessive American profiteering hopefully backed up in due course by the Government's  Fan Led Review legislation?

Essex, the flip answer if that John Tilson and I agree on something then we are probably right! More seriously, I am not sure what you mean by strengthening Trust arrangements, but if you are talking about the Canaries Trust keeping and increasing its shareholding, and using that to claim to have a more powerful voice, then that might be a good idea.

The Crouch Report certainly talks about a shadow board of supporters, and the Trust could so argue for a place on that, along with the likes of Capital Canaries. 

But unless there is some kind of golden-share veto then the best guarantee of new owners running the club in a community-orientated way and not just profiteering is for the sale agreement to have relevant legally-binding clauses.

[The Raptor 1,206]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

I think you paid £100 for 4 shares. Your proposal seems reasonable to me. Sources suggest the Club is worth approaching £150 million so why not say £60 million old money and £90 million new money. That would be a return of around £100 per share.

See also my previous response to Purple. Of course many other people may see it differently and it is very challenging to put the numbers that are flying around in a clear context.

 

 

Is that enough to buy that new cowbell I want? Or am going to insist on posting **** 90s covers on this thread till the end of time!?

 

 

[essex canary 496]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

Essex, the flip answer if that John Tilson and I agree on something then we are probably right! More seriously, I am not sure what you mean by strengthening Trust arrangements, but if you are talking about the Canaries Trust keeping and increasing its shareholding, and using that to claim to have a more powerful voice, then that might be a good idea.

The Crouch Report certainly talks about a shadow board of supporters, and the Trust could so argue for a place on that, along with the likes of Capital Canaries. 

But unless there is some kind of golden-share veto then the best guarantee of new owners running the club in a community-orientated way and not just profiteering is for the sale agreement to have relevant legally-binding clauses.

Seems like we are moving in the right direction which would be good if we get an EGM or perhaps something wider to which non- shareholders can also contribute.

A thought is that if existing shareholders donated a quarter of their shareholding to a souped up Trust arrangement allied to the existing trusts we would have more than 10% of the 1.6 million shares authorised for issue. If that could be secured in some form of Trust arrangement with Board representation surely we would be in a much better position than with all these small shareholders and avoid the 90% rule coming into play?

When we purchased our shareholding 20 to 25 years ago it was clearly a community investment. In the interim though football seems to have inflated substantially in financial terms with massive rewards for footballers, officials, agents etc. and little thought for the fan. Norwich City are not the worst culprits but nonetheless seems to have suffered from Directors box and Executive Team blinkers in recent times. I would like to see that balance redressed somewhat in favour of fans in general. As I reflected to Raptor there may well be scope to do that in relation to rewarding individual shareholders for their commitment over the past 20 plus years and getting a substantial new cash injection into the Club whilst most importantly securing a Golden Share arrangement.

I feel somewhat frustrated by opinions such as we should simply wait for the Club to determine everything when they haven't as much as issued a holding statement and/or the understanding of the issues from a general supporter perspective without taking on board the shareholder dimension. From my perspective both these issues have driven the spats. I agree that should not be happening.

A stronger together approach seems like the best recipe for the way forward.

 

 

 

[Greavsy 2,413]

1 minute ago, essex canary said:

perhaps something wider to which non- shareholders can also contribute

It's like the hokey cokey.

[GMF 736]

14 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

It's like the hokey cokey.

🎼🎶🎵

”You put your minority shareholders in,

Your majority shareholders out, 

Yanks in, locals out,

You shake it all about,

You do the Hokey Cokey 

And it’s a seat for life,

That’s what it’s all about.”

🎶🎵😉

 

Edited June 7, 2022 by GMF
Correction

[Greavsy 2,413]

17 minutes ago, GMF said:

🎼🎶🎵

”You put your minority shareholders in,

Your majority shareholders out, 

Yanks in, locals out,

You shake it all about,

You do the Hokey Cokey 

And it’s a seat for life,

That’s what it’s all about.”

🎶🎵😉

 

Quality. Appreciate the effort in that.

But what about the kids..... You've missed them out. 

[Well b back 3,203]

I see Walsall have just been taken over by a US tycoon and are set for a massive injection of cash.

If only we were Walsall

[shefcanary 2,402]

26 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

But what about the kids..... You've missed them out. 

You just make it bigger ..... and hope they can afford to buy a seat....

[essex canary 496]

8 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Quality. Appreciate the effort in that.

But what about the kids..... You've missed them out. 

As it is at present they inherit the right to subsidise non-shareholders for no return (effectively owning 44 seats at Carrow Road) with no get out option at a rate that they may reasonably consider to be fair.

Didn't stop the Club finding the money to pay very handsomely returns for the training ground though many of which went to institutional investors according to one poster and some of which certainly went to Director and Executive Board members and their families who have shown no enthusiasm themselves for the permanent token shareholding of which many posters are fond.

All very community oriented?

Edited June 8, 2022 by essex canary

[Greavsy 2,413]

55 minutes ago, essex canary said:

As it is at present they inherit the right to subsidise non-shareholders for no return (effectively owning 44 seats at Carrow Road) with no get out option at a rate that they may reasonably consider to be fair.

Didn't stop the Club finding the money to pay very handsomely returns for the training ground though many of which went to institutional investors according to one poster and some of which certainly went to Director and Executive Board members and their families who have shown no enthusiasm themselves for the permanent token shareholding of which many posters are fond.

All very community oriented?

Can I ask how much of that particular axe do you have left to grind?

Asking for a friend! 

[essex canary 496]

9 hours ago, shefcanary said:

You just make it bigger ..... and hope they can afford to buy a seat....

Absolutely and ensure that ground expansion includes sufficient seats at affordable prices rather than padding out the prawn sandwich brigade still further.

[TIL 1010 4,738]

I am really beginning to think somebody on here has no love whatsoever for Norwich City !

[GMF 736]

13 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am really beginning to think somebody on here has no love whatsoever for Norwich City !

The irony is, should this deal happen, with the purchasers subsequently making an offer to all existing shareholders at greater than £25 a share, the mood music would probably change.

On second thoughts, perhaps not, because it’s not; £50, £100, £150, £200 (*delete as appropriate) a share…

[essex canary 496]

10 minutes ago, GMF said:

The irony is, should this deal happen, with the purchasers subsequently making an offer to all existing shareholders at greater than £25 a share, the mood music would probably change.

On second thoughts, perhaps not, because it’s not; £50, £100, £150, £200 (*delete as appropriate) a share…

I would happily do it for NIL providing 2 conditions are met.

1. Clear transparency that every other shareholder is doing the same on the principle of  'we are all in this together'.

2. A clear intellectual and justifiable case as to why the new investors should acquire near £40 million of the Clubs physical assets and whatever other associated  infrastructure and goodwill applies for free.

[Google Bot 3,275]

11 hours ago, Well b back said:

If only we were Walsall

Indeed, that IKEA on the outskirts would be so handy. 😞

 

[essex canary 496]

56 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am really beginning to think somebody on here has no love whatsoever for Norwich City !

As 1 or 2 other posters on here have pointed out  you seem to be very persistent in asking other people questions but not quite so committed to supplying clear answers yourself in the same spirit.

Can I ask again how is it that, having shown such an apparently committed approach to 'independent' supporter representation and engagement in the past, you now believe that a non- independent' approach such as the Supporters Panel is the best way forward as distinct from a Trust approach?

[TIL 1010 4,738]

41 minutes ago, essex canary said:

As 1 or 2 other posters on here have pointed out  you seem to be very persistent in asking other people questions but not quite so committed to supplying clear answers yourself in the same spirit.

Can I ask again how is it that, having shown such an apparently committed approach to 'independent' supporter representation and engagement in the past, you now believe that a non- independent' approach such as the Supporters Panel is the best way forward as distinct from a Trust approach?

Just watching from the sidelines from now on in until the exact details of any investment/takeover is known as i have absolutely no doubt whatsoever it will not be to your liking and the new thread on the matter will be littered with your posts morning, noon and night for weeks.

Whatever i post in response to your questions do and will not provide the answers you are looking for. What your agenda is in all this other than your obsessive self interest is completely lost on me and i suspect numerous others from  the tone i read on here.

[Badger 2,405]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Absolutely and ensure that ground expansion includes sufficient seats at affordable prices rather than padding out the prawn sandwich brigade still further.

To be successful in the long term, we will need both. the expansion of the ground to provide cheaper seats for the next generation is "long overdue" but we shouldn't be sniffy about the "prawn sandwich brigade" that bring in revenue.

[DAVID SEWELL 24]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

As 1 or 2 other posters on here have pointed out  you seem to be very persistent in asking other people questions but not quite so committed to supplying clear answers yourself in the same spirit.

Can I ask again how is it that, having shown such an apparently committed approach to 'independent' supporter representation and engagement in the past, you now believe that a non- independent' approach such as the Supporters Panel is the best way forward as distinct from a Trust approach?

I can probably help here. It's a personal vendetta against somebody from the Trust (possibly dead now), who said or did something he didn't like about thirty years ago.