Away Members

[essex canary 495]

11 hours ago, cornish sam said:

If they've not got his contact details then perhaps he has a point about paying the legal firm to maintain the shareholder register....

Just think how much staff time it costs to keep updating address changes and other life event changes for 6,860 people.

Given that many of them are season ticket holders or members but the shareholder database is as far as I understand it maintained separately by a legal firm, how much duplication is involved? Is any legal firm cheap?

One way or another it is the supporter who pays.

[Greavsy 2,412]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Just think how much staff time it costs to keep updating address changes and other life event changes for 6,860 people.

Given that many of them are season ticket holders or members but the shareholder database is as far as I understand it maintained separately by a legal firm, how much duplication is involved? Is any legal firm cheap?

One way or another it is the supporter who pays.

I think they should charge the shareholders, as why should I and others as season ticket holders pay for something I get no benefit from. 

Same as the away membership, I don't go to away games, so I don't pay for membership. It suits me. 

Also my lad does go to away games and pays for his own membership. 

[TIL 1010 4,737]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I think they should charge the shareholders, as why should I and others as season ticket holders pay for something I get no benefit from. 

Same as the away membership, I don't go to away games, so I don't pay for membership. It suits me. 

Also my lad does go to away games and pays for his own membership. 

I think all shareholders should pay an annual admin fee rather like when you have to pay a £1.50 fee when booking tickets online or similar to the £5 admin fee for paying by DD for a season ticket.

Waits.......

[essex canary 495]

32 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think all shareholders should pay an annual admin fee rather like when you have to pay a £1.50 fee when booking tickets online or similar to the £5 admin fee for paying by DD for a season ticket.

Waits.......

Ha,ha!

You are even funnier than Greavsy given that you are a shareholder and go to Away games.

What do you say to the idea that they offer the Sunderland game on the same basis that they offered the Wigan game 3 and a bit years ago? Five pounds a ticket. No real difference apart from the business end of the season. Still 3 points on offer and given the trade off between pound sterling and number of fans, they should back the latter on the grounds that more fans means more likely to get a better result.

How about it Tilly?

Come to that I think when a fan passes away, another family member is able to take over the ticket providing they pay. On that basis 1,000 shares should be as good a currency as £600 sterling.

Feel free to tell me how ridiculous I am being.

[Greavsy 2,412]

2 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Feel free to tell me how ridiculous I am being.

Everyone has been doing that for months...... 

[essex canary 495]

Just now, Greavsy said:

Everyone has been doing that for months...... 

Everyone? It's a bit of a lonely life being a wolf but at least we retain our senses, freedom and have a few friends.

I am concerned about the sheep.

 

[GMF 736]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think all shareholders should pay an annual admin fee rather like when you have to pay a £1.50 fee when booking tickets online or similar to the £5 admin fee for paying by DD for a season ticket.

Waits.......

The solicitors maintaining the share register are currently rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect, the opportunity to charge more fees and the joy of another incoming AGM question! Not from the shareholders, but the solicitors, wondering if it’s a job for life! 😜😉

[Greavsy 2,412]

29 minutes ago, essex canary said:

at least we retain our senses

Jury is still out on that one. 

[Greavsy 2,412]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

It's a bit of a lonely life being a wolf

I can think of other more appropriate 4 letter words to use!

[essex canary 495]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

The solicitors maintaining the share register are currently rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect, the opportunity to charge more fees and the joy of another incoming AGM question! Not from the shareholders, but the solicitors, wondering if it’s a job for life! 😜😉

They can add whether Wigan 2019 sets a precedent for Sunderland 2022. They have used that precedent before when the boot is on the other foot and double the time period.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think all shareholders should pay an annual admin fee rather like when you have to pay a £1.50 fee when booking tickets online or similar to the £5 admin fee for paying by DD for a season ticket.

Waits.......

😁😁😁😁Fcuk me sideways Tillo!!! I owe you a pint for that one!! On top of the one for the Pongo picture!! Keep it up and you could get pi55ed at my expense. 😁😁😁

[essex canary 495]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

😁😁😁😁Fcuk me sideways Tillo!!! I owe you a pint for that one!! On top of the one for the Pongo picture!! Keep it up and you could get pi55ed at my expense. 😁😁😁

Reflecting on it, it is amusing given that at the moment the arrangement is the other way round for some and NIL for most. At least they would need to get their policy sorted and it may encourage some holders  to donate to Trust arrangements instead though I guess Tilly won't be keen on the Canaries Trust being the beneficiary. Perhaps he proposes a higher fee for Trusts.

Then again as GMF implies more work for the solicitors in chasing the bad debts. Perhaps the solicitors will become wealthy enough to buy out S&J?

Edited July 10, 2022 by essex canary

[essex canary 495]

9 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I think they should charge the shareholders, as why should I and others as season ticket holders pay for something I get no benefit from. 

 

Without the shareholders you wouldn't have a ground to walk into.

On the other hand you are right that since many other Clubs have only a handful of shareholders, loading the costs of maintaining the records of 6,860 of them onto your season ticket isn't reasonable.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Reflecting on it, it is amusing given that at the moment the arrangement is the other way round for some and NIL for most. At least they would need to get their policy sorted and it may encourage some holders  to donate to Trust arrangements instead though I guess Tilly won't be keen on the Canaries Trust being the beneficiary. Perhaps he proposes a higher fee for Trusts.

Then again as GMF implies more work for the solicitors in chasing the bad debts. Perhaps the solicitors will become wealthy enough to buy out S&J?

Why don't you initiate a takeover then Mr. Bigbollix , show us all how a club should be run , or are you going to carry on sniping with your 0.16 % Holding., Which by the way, is pretty irrelevant to the other 99.84 % .  For a capitalist, you have a very poor grasp of how unimportant you ( and I) are .  Your holding is a token ,as is the club's interest in you. Get. Over. It.

[Greavsy 2,412]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Without the shareholders you wouldn't have a ground to walk into.

On the other hand you are right that since many other Clubs have only a handful of shareholders, loading the costs of maintaining the records of 6,860 of them onto your season ticket isn't reasonable.

Didn't realise you were a shareholder, you haven't mentioned that. 

Without the directors we wouldn't have a club either, but you begrudge them travel with the players to away matches and any other perceived perks. 

Bit hypocritical and self egotistical don't you think? 

[......and Smith must score. 1,341]

On 09/07/2022 at 13:47, A Load of Squit said:

3am posting there by Greavsy.
 

Fair play. Got to keep essex on his toes 😀

 

 

[A Load of Squit 5,160]

What's happened to the quote feature? ⬆️

[TIL 1010 4,737]

9 hours ago, essex canary said:

Without the shareholders you wouldn't have a ground to walk into.

 

Go on them i'll bite. What weird twist are you now going to say regarding ownership of the stadium ?

[essex canary 495]

6 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Didn't realise you were a shareholder, you haven't mentioned that. 

Without the directors we wouldn't have a club either, but you begrudge them travel with the players to away matches and any other perceived perks. 

Bit hypocritical and self egotistical don't you think? 

Compared to a Club with a 100 per cent owner they are getting the same perks for only 53% of the ownership.

They couldn't afford the rest which is why they put together a halfway house hotchpotch scheme when I bought my shares. That was designed to offer some incentives which were clearly necessary but to withdraw them as quickly as possible having obtained the money. 

16 years later they then come up with another fan finance scheme (or more accurately fan plus others) that facilitates both return of capital and substantial profits. 

Just beyond that point a fan who has no previous involvement in fan finance inherits 1,000 shares with no ongoing benefits and is obliged to pay in addition for their season ticket. In a variation of what Tilly said and feeling fragile in the circumstances they were also asked if they would pay the fees. They really were having a laugh or should that be inconsiderate beyond belief.

If you accept my point that the returns from fan finance scheme 2 are excessive we are all paying the price. We are doing so in relation to the excessive number of shareholders as well. Some are paying far more than others for their lack of joined up thinking and consistency.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by essex canary

[essex canary 495]

6 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Go on them i'll bite. What weird twist are you now going to say regarding ownership of the stadium ?

So you agree that if they were being consistent  the Sunderland arrangements would be the same as Wigan 3 and a half years ago?

[Greavsy 2,412]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

If you accept my point

I accept nothing from you, as you are only seeing things from your perceived point of hardship and not the bigger overall picture, as so many have pointed out to you, but you won't listen. 

It's tedious. 

If you don't like it, sell your shares, if you can find a buyer, and move on. If not just accept it. I don't see any other shareholder moaning, let alone to the extent you do. And that is before we mention the inheritance issue. 

[essex canary 495]

29 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

I accept nothing from you, as you are only seeing things from your perceived point of hardship and not the bigger overall picture, as so many have pointed out to you, but you won't listen. 

It's tedious. 

If you don't like it, sell your shares, if you can find a buyer, and move on. If not just accept it. I don't see any other shareholder moaning, let alone to the extent you do. And that is before we mention the inheritance issue. 

Fine Greavsy. 

When I have debated with you, unlike you, I have not made a habit out of extracting 5 insignificant words from a far more substantial piece with far more meaning.

I have no problem with sensible debate but agree it is tedious to have debates when that is the kind of technique is used.

[Greavsy 2,412]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Fine Greavsy. 

When I have debated with you, unlike you, I have not made a habit out of extracting 5 insignificant words from a far more substantial piece with far more meaning.

I have no problem with sensible debate but agree it is tedious to have debates when that is the kind of technique is used.

But you do have a problem with sensible debate. I think most, I'd even go so far as to say all people who have replied to your continuous drivel have disagreed with you, and pointed out their reasons, but you still persist. 

It's tedious, at least we agree on that. 

Looking foward to your posts on how cambridge are getting it right...... 

[essex canary 495]

18 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

But you do have a problem with sensible debate. I think most, I'd even go so far as to say all people who have replied to your continuous drivel have disagreed with you, and pointed out their reasons, but you still persist. 

It's tedious, at least we agree on that. 

Looking foward to your posts on how cambridge are getting it right...... 

I don't think the answer is 'all'. Maybe many have but in general they have taken the line of agreeing to disagree as distinct from using words like 'hypocrit'. 

[TIL 1010 4,737]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

So you agree that if they were being consistent  the Sunderland arrangements would be the same as Wigan 3 and a half years ago?

What in Gods name has that got to do with my post in response to you saying if it wasn't for shareholders we would not have a ground to walk into ?

[Greavsy 2,412]

9 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

What in Gods name has that got to do with my post in response to you saying if it wasn't for shareholders we would not have a ground to walk into ?

Selective reading methinks.. 

[TIL 1010 4,737]

3 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Selective reading methinks.. 

And to think we used to moan about City1st .

[essex canary 495]

16 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

What in Gods name has that got to do with my post in response to you saying if it wasn't for shareholders we would not have a ground to walk into ?

Maybe I got my wires crossed but I know you don't like leaving behind unanswered questions. I think that one is still outstanding and does get back or at least close to the main theme of this thread. 

[Badger 2,405]

18 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

I think all shareholders should pay an annual admin fee rather like when you have to pay a £1.50 fee when booking tickets online or similar to the £5 admin fee for paying by DD for a season ticket.

Waits.......

I don't know whether the club receives any revenue at all from selling tickets for away games. If it does, this should cover any admin fees (except postage). If it doesn't, a small handling charge would seem sensible to make sure that the club doesn't lose out - to cover postage, credit card fees etc. A booking fee seems sensible to me.

[GMF 736]

14 hours ago, essex canary said:

They can add whether Wigan 2019 sets a precedent for Sunderland 2022. They have used that precedent before when the boot is on the other foot and double the time period.

I don’t think your answer bears any relationship to my previous post! 🤷‍♂️