Jump to content
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma’s State of the Nation

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

It’s the same old story and the same old narrators every time we hit a rough period.

When things are going well, Delia has taken a back seat and allowed professionals like McNally or Webber take control and run the club. As soon as that particular regime hits the skids, the omnipotent octogenarian has once again seized control like a power hungry harridan.

It’s remarkable really. When we do we’ll she’s somehow been cowed into a corner and as soon as we enter a rough period, she is desperately clinging to her Doll’s house in order to facilitate Tom’s Train Set.

Every bad thing that happens is because of her, every good thing is in spite of her. And she only “runs the club” when things are belly up.

Now, I’m not against investment, new ownership, none of it. But if you truly believe - as so many appear to - that she only has involvement when things are bad, I’m surprised that some of you manage to cross a road, tie your shoelaces or don’t make toast in the bath.

The club is in a serious period of transition throughout the back of house. Id have already sacked Wagner but I can at least see why they haven’t. I can also understand the handover periods. It’s important for Attanasio to understand the finances and community responsibilities and Knapper walking in to this without a handover would be much like when Cameron chucked the keys to No 10 in the air following the Brexit referendum.

We all know it’s shoite at the moment, but surely people can appreciate the complexities of the bigger changes happening? 

I get that Dunc. Nothing against Delia & Michael in the past really, been good times and bad, a veritable rollercoaster and great fun at times. I am curious though as to the current arrangement with Attanasio, they have backed themselves into a corner, there is only one way out. The real test surely of Attanasio is taking leadership? So why the delay, what more can Delia and Mike show Mark? None, I'd argue, he's been involved for 21 months in one way or another, potentially also on his 3rd manager. How many more lessons does he need?

Gerronwiit!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I get that Dunc. Nothing against Delia & Michael in the past really, been good times and bad, a veritable rollercoaster and great fun at times. I am curious though as to the current arrangement with Attanasio, they have backed themselves into a corner, there is only one way out. The real test surely of Attanasio is taking leadership? So why the delay, what more can Delia and Mike show Mark? None, I'd argue, he's been involved for 21 months in one way or another, potentially also on his 3rd manager. How many more lessons does he need?

Gerronwiit!

I suspect it’s as much an insurance for him?

I remember when the Turners were co-opted onto the board for the price of a loan, Andy was excited at the time to be involved and they were instrumental in a managerial appointment. Yet once the numbers became apparent, Andy wasn’t so keen. Football is a bonfire for money. As it turned out, with the collapse of Lehmann Brothers and the financial crash, it was probably best for all that they went when they did. The amount of compensation they had to pay for mis-sold PPI was mind boggling.

My gut feeling is that the current arrangement suits all parties - if I was MWJ I’d want to be chilling on a comfortable porch with a decent whisky and a smoke of my choice. And, clearly, I don’t buy into the despotic Delia rhetoric. Why? I’m not clever enough for that I’m afraid. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

It’s the same old story and the same old narrators every time we hit a rough period.

When things are going well, Delia has taken a back seat and allowed professionals like McNally or Webber take control and run the club. As soon as that particular regime hits the skids, the omnipotent octogenarian has once again seized control like a power hungry harridan.

It’s remarkable really. When we do we’ll she’s somehow been cowed into a corner and as soon as we enter a rough period, she is desperately clinging to her Doll’s house in order to facilitate Tom’s Train Set.

Every bad thing that happens is because of her, every good thing is in spite of her. And she only “runs the club” when things are belly up.

Now, I’m not against investment, new ownership, none of it. But if you truly believe - as so many appear to - that she only has involvement when things are bad, I’m surprised that some of you manage to cross a road, tie your shoelaces or don’t make toast in the bath.

The club is in a serious period of transition throughout the back of house. Id have already sacked Wagner but I can at least see why they haven’t. I can also understand the handover periods. It’s important for Attanasio to understand the finances and community responsibilities and Knapper walking in to this without a handover would be much like when Cameron chucked the keys to No 10 in the air following the Brexit referendum.

We all know it’s shoite at the moment, but surely people can appreciate the complexities of the bigger changes happening? 

Indeed, the only things I can really criticise the old majority share holders is two fold one having far too much loyalty to personnel in key areas and not making changes quick enough, they are loyal and unfortunately it’s a business and in business if it starts to decline because those in key positions start to fail they need to be replaced and quickly! Doncaster, McNally and now Webber, it’s not earthy to form a bond with people working for you it’s not personal it’s business! Webber with his statement of being begged to stay and give it less than 100% focus is a point in case!

I too like Sheffield can’t see why the process should take so long, maybe it’s driven from MA maybe not we just don’t know! But the sooner the board is updated and a person taking charge to drive the club forwards we might just tread water! Looking forward to Knapper coming in to freshen things up.

Edited by Indy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately the footballing side has had ample funding;  that its been spent in a haphazard manner, disproportionately in players without residual value and failing to provide any midfield defensive capability is an issue for the footballing side.  The length of the experienced contracts is a potential blocker for new and emerging talent 

The debt is large but not insurmountable.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2023 at 23:21, Parma Ham's gone mouldy said:

——————

‘So farewell then Stuart Webber,
aged 34 and a half.

Ignore the noise you said
And then you didn’t.

Came with free weapons in your pocket 
Left with expensive ankle weights.

Pissed higher up the wall than anyone before you
Left all your friends behind after you. 

Built the training ground with the fan’s money
Then never got any more from anyone else.

Left for mountainous challenges
What remains is mostly flat.

So farewell then Stuart Webber
All the new looks like the old’

É.J.Thribb

————

This hasn’t aged at all. 

6 months of what?

Parma 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/11/2023 at 23:13, nutty nigel said:

So I post what's I've seen, read and heard over the time I supported our club. That's not good enough for you. You want me to put myself into the minds of folk who made disgraceful chants to Watling and surmise what's in their minds when, assuming they're not brown bread, they're not making disgraceful chants against Delia. Kindest thing I can do is suggest that they realised the errors of their ways.

As for why Delia and Michael haven't had Chase levels of abuse. From what I've seen, read and heard it could be because they only put money into the club whereas your Uncle Bob only took money out. It may not be that but there are Chase Out veterans on here so you could ask them?

 

The Socialists had all their loans repaid. They could have written them off if they love the club so much. Given that Delia was Ipswich in 1978 how can she love us?

Chase on the other hand earned every penny of his salary. He was at the ground by 7am every morning and did the job of 150 staff that Delia employs. In Watling's day the owner cut the grass as well. As a socialist, Delia is classic spend and waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Big Vince said:

The Socialists had all their loans repaid. They could have written them off if they love the club so much. Given that Delia was Ipswich in 1978 how can she love us?

Chase on the other hand earned every penny of his salary. He was at the ground by 7am every morning and did the job of 150 staff that Delia employs. In Watling's day the owner cut the grass as well. As a socialist, Delia is classic spend and waste.

So when were all these loans repaid? And what of the gifts? How much money do you say Delia and Michael have put into the club but not had back and may never get back? If you can''t be honest then please don't continually engage your nonsense with me. Find someone else to have fun with. There's plenty to choose from...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So when were all these loans repaid? And what of the gifts? How much money do you say Delia and Michael have put into the club but not had back and may never get back? If you can''t be honest then please don't continually engage your nonsense with me. Find someone else to have fun with. There's plenty to choose from...

They were repaid after Lambert got promotion to the EPL. There was a loan repaid to Delia and Wynnie and another one to Micky Foulger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

They were repaid after Lambert got promotion to the EPL. There was a loan repaid to Delia and Wynnie and another one to Micky Foulger.

All of them? Whatabout the ones converted imto shares and the underwriting of share issues/rights issues?

You know Vincey, I think people like you will either get rinsed by AI or be doing the rinseing. Can't quite make my mind up which...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

All of them? Whatabout the ones converted imto shares and the underwriting of share issues/rights issues?

You know Vincey, I think people like you will either get rinsed by AI or be doing the rinseing. Can't quite make my mind up which...

Yes, all of them. Neither loan was converted into shares. The last share issue/underwriting pre-dated the Lambert era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/11/2023 at 00:03, Duncan Edwards said:

It’s the same old story and the same old narrators every time we hit a rough period.

When things are going well, Delia has taken a back seat and allowed professionals like McNally or Webber take control and run the club. As soon as that particular regime hits the skids, the omnipotent octogenarian has once again seized control like a power hungry harridan.

It’s remarkable really. When we do we’ll she’s somehow been cowed into a corner and as soon as we enter a rough period, she is desperately clinging to her Doll’s house in order to facilitate Tom’s Train Set.

Every bad thing that happens is because of her, every good thing is in spite of her. And she only “runs the club” when things are belly up.

Now, I’m not against investment, new ownership, none of it. But if you truly believe - as so many appear to - that she only has involvement when things are bad, I’m surprised that some of you manage to cross a road, tie your shoelaces or don’t make toast in the bath.

The club is in a serious period of transition throughout the back of house. Id have already sacked Wagner but I can at least see why they haven’t. I can also understand the handover periods. It’s important for Attanasio to understand the finances and community responsibilities and Knapper walking in to this without a handover would be much like when Cameron chucked the keys to No 10 in the air following the Brexit referendum.

We all know it’s shoite at the moment, but surely people can appreciate the complexities of the bigger changes happening? 

Excellent post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Yes, all of them. Neither loan was converted into shares. The last share issue/underwriting pre-dated the Lambert era.

As of 2017...

Smith and Jones hold 327,309 ordinary shares in Norwich City Football Club Plc and 3,025 B Shares. 

268,456 of the ordinary shares were allotted to them in various share issues between 1998 and 2007 for a total cost of approximately £5,953,000. Michael and Delia bought Mr Watling's stake of 58,653 shares in 1998 for an undisclosed figure as well as 200 of Mr Lockwood's shares in 1997 for an undisclosed figure. Assuming these were purchased as the prevailing price of £18.50 per share, these shares would have cost an additional approx. £1,089,000. Bringing the total cost of c.£7,042,000. 

The 3,025 B Shares were issued at a cost of £100 per share. Giving a total cost of £302,500. 

This gives a total cost for all the shares (and excluding any loans/debts written-off etc.) of c.£7.3m. 

These figures have been sourced from publicly available information at beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. 


So how much did you're Uncle Bob invest again? Although Chase Builders did write out a few cheques when trying to raise the dead. 

I think you will get rinsed Vincey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

As of 2017...

Smith and Jones hold 327,309 ordinary shares in Norwich City Football Club Plc and 3,025 B Shares. 

268,456 of the ordinary shares were allotted to them in various share issues between 1998 and 2007 for a total cost of approximately £5,953,000. Michael and Delia bought Mr Watling's stake of 58,653 shares in 1998 for an undisclosed figure as well as 200 of Mr Lockwood's shares in 1997 for an undisclosed figure. Assuming these were purchased as the prevailing price of £18.50 per share, these shares would have cost an additional approx. £1,089,000. Bringing the total cost of c.£7,042,000. 

The 3,025 B Shares were issued at a cost of £100 per share. Giving a total cost of £302,500. 

This gives a total cost for all the shares (and excluding any loans/debts written-off etc.) of c.£7.3m. 

These figures have been sourced from publicly available information at beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. 


So how much did you're Uncle Bob invest again? Although Chase Builders did write out a few cheques when trying to raise the dead. 

I think you will get rinsed Vincey.

Thought you were leaving it 5 hours ago!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Midlands Yellow said:

Thought you were leaving it 5 hours ago!!! 

You wish.

Have you ever posted something that you or someone else hasn't made up?

I wonder if you know more than a couple of Octogenerians? Vincey doesn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, nutty nigel said:

You wish.

Have you ever posted something that you or someone else hasn't made up?

I wonder if you know more than a couple of Octogenerians? Vincey doesn't...

Again, that makes a lot of sense. Do you understand yourself when you post? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Again, that makes a lot of sense. Do you understand yourself when you post? 

You had the translator. Use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

You had the translator. Use it.

The man who calls himself Nutty is quite apt, you’re barking. 

Edited by Midlands Yellow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

As of 2017...

Smith and Jones hold 327,309 ordinary shares in Norwich City Football Club Plc and 3,025 B Shares. 

268,456 of the ordinary shares were allotted to them in various share issues between 1998 and 2007 for a total cost of approximately £5,953,000. Michael and Delia bought Mr Watling's stake of 58,653 shares in 1998 for an undisclosed figure as well as 200 of Mr Lockwood's shares in 1997 for an undisclosed figure. Assuming these were purchased as the prevailing price of £18.50 per share, these shares would have cost an additional approx. £1,089,000. Bringing the total cost of c.£7,042,000. 

The 3,025 B Shares were issued at a cost of £100 per share. Giving a total cost of £302,500. 

This gives a total cost for all the shares (and excluding any loans/debts written-off etc.) of c.£7.3m. 

These figures have been sourced from publicly available information at beta.companieshouse.gov.uk. 


So how much did you're Uncle Bob invest again? Although Chase Builders did write out a few cheques when trying to raise the dead. 

I think you will get rinsed Vincey.

So what you are saying is they dont have any loans outstanding they just have the value of their shares in the club?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mastoola said:

So what you are saying is they dont have any loans outstanding they just have the value of their shares in the club?

No

If loans are converted into shares are they paid back?

 

 

Edited by nutty nigel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

No

If loans are converted into shares are they paid back?

 

 

well yes?   they have bought assets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mastoola said:

well yes?   they have bought assets?

I'm not sure they were assets. They may be today. They may not be tomorrow. I doubt they were in 2008. Our club certainly preferred to convert them into shares.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if she holds the shares that she paid for with a loan then it is an asset. if its worth anything is another question. When the day of reckoning comes the share can be converted into cash. its like you owe me a tenner and i agree for your debt to give me a vase  i now have that vase  you no longer owe me the debt 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, mastoola said:

if she holds the shares that she paid for with a loan then it is an asset. if its worth anything is another question. When the day of reckoning comes the share can be converted into cash. its like you owe me a tenner and i agree for your debt to give me a vase  i now have that vase  you no longer owe me the debt 

Ah....but did you urn it?.....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, mastoola said:

if she holds the shares that she paid for with a loan then it is an asset. if its worth anything is another question. When the day of reckoning comes the share can be converted into cash. its like you owe me a tenner and i agree for your debt to give me a vase  i now have that vase  you no longer owe me the debt 

It's more like...

We're happy to put a huge chunk of our wealth into our club but don't expect anything back.

But a vase would be nice I guess.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's more like...

We're happy to put a huge chunk of our wealth into our club but don't expect anything back.

But a vase would be nice I guess.

 

i actually agree with you but its not a debt and the vase could pay out more money than you ever believed when it gets sold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

It's more like...

We're happy to put a huge chunk of our wealth into our club but don't expect anything back.

But a vase would be nice I guess.

 

Indeed but what is puzzling is:

1. Why, in the event that the Club is successful that is surely the objective, they wouldn't want anything back?

2. Why they are now entertaining MA whose philosophy is somewhat different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mastoola said:

no1   they should   wouldn't you?

no2  i have no idea

I agree. Thats why I posed the questions to Nutty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...