Anyone Caught Knapping?

[A Load of Squit 5,221]

Fifthly, as well as balancing the books, Chase bought very many good players with the money from those that were sold. Such as Gunn, Bowen, Crook, Townsend, Fleck, Linighan, Newsome, Ekoku, Newman. A little known fact is that Dave Williams was a fantastic midfielder in the short playing career he had with us before going on to be one of our best ever coaches.

In those cosy first division days you could buy Spurs reserves for £80k, it was easy, try getting one now for £8m, that would be a loan fee.

[essex canary 506]

2 hours ago, BigFish said:

 

Back to your lack of legal qualifications or understanding with which you would understand there is no such thing as the spirit of the law. The shareholders voted in favour of the waiver as is fully compliant to the Takeover code and remain free to sell their shares should they wish and if they can find a willing buyer. So what you are talking about is not a loophole in the law, it is, in fact the law.

The Majority Shareholders could have requested him to comply without seeking the waiver. A good idea considering their history in the matter.

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, BigFish said:

The minority shareholders voted for this. That's democracy.

The way Trump likes it.

[BigFish 1,988]

4 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Fifthly, as well as balancing the books, Chase bought very many good players with the money from those that were sold. Such as Gunn, Bowen, Crook, Townsend, Fleck, Linighan, Newsome, Ekoku, Newman. A little known fact is that Dave Williams was a fantastic midfielder in the short playing career he had with us before going on to be one of our best ever coaches.

Five of whom were then sold when we needed them to keep the club afloat.......who were they replaced by?

[Big Vince 319]

3 hours ago, BigFish said:

The minority shareholders voted for this. That's democracy.

In a democracy you disclose the result of the vote. Norwich City have been and continue to hide things they don't want people to know. And I don't give a monkeys what the law says.

[Big Vince 319]

13 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Five of whom were then sold when we needed them to keep the club afloat.......who were they replaced by?

But selling them did keep the club afloat because Chase's strategy all along was to balance the books, do the land and buildings and buy new players. The backdrop being 14,000 gates and no broadcasting income.

[Robert N. LiM 4,500]

On 12/10/2023 at 12:40, NewNestCarrow said:

Here are a few reasons why I rank D&M far above the Fat Controller:

Outside their initial investment D&M have given plenty of cash to NCFC (via donations & conversion of loans). Chase never put another penny into the club.

D&M have never taken a salary from NCFC. Chase paid himself for "Technical Services", as well drawing an emolument as Director.

D&M's exit strategy - as far as we can tell - is based around them turning down the opportunity to massively enrich themselves. In his last year as Director (1996) Chase pocketed around 9% of the club's entire payroll [£83,670 emolument plus  £137k "compensation for loss of office"] I am going to take a fair guess that the price he extracted from Watling for those 47,000-odd shares was higher than what he initially paid.

 

This is an excellent post.

[Robert N. LiM 4,500]

23 hours ago, Segura said:

However, in the same era Cov, Luton, Oxford and Wimbledon all won major honours. Even Oldham Athletic reached cup finals. It was simply much easier for smaller clubs to be successful than it is now.

So let's not pretend Chase was some footballing messiah performing out of the ordinary - similar sized clubs were achieving similar feats at the same time.

Exactly. Our achievement in the 80s/90s was down to the players and coaching staff. Chase had next to nothing to do with it. He did however p1ss away the extremely strong position that the club was in at the start of the PL era, which took a long time to recover from.

23 hours ago, Segura said:

The Chase v Delia debate makes for an interesting discussion, but ultimately comparing anything between different eras is futile - as much as I may miss them, the 1980s/early 90s are gone and are never coming back.

Take the point, but I think you can make a comparision as long as you adjust for the different external factors of the two eras in football.

I would say that D&M have performed miracles to keep the club's heads above water in a much more challenging financial environment than Chase ever had to deal with. What posters criticise them for on here almost always boils down to them not being rich enough. It looks like they are going to leave the club in a far stronger position than they found it, which you certainly could not say for Chase.

[BigFish 1,988]

19 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

But selling them did keep the club afloat because Chase's strategy all along was to balance the books, do the land and buildings and buy new players. The backdrop being 14,000 gates and no broadcasting income.

Ultimately Chase failed then. He left the club broke, in chaos and without any of the players you mentioned.

[Big Vince 319]

18 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Ultimately Chase failed then. He left the club broke, in chaos and without any of the players you mentioned.

No, because for the first nine years he worked a miracle with a strategy that made Norwich City one of the best teams in the land over a sustained period in the late 80s, early 90s. The club itself was not broke, nor in chaos. It was left with very substantial fixed assets and if there was any chaos it was caused by fans who managed to invoke the last cavalry charge by Norfolk Police. The transfer of power from Chase to Watling was orderly with Martin Armstrong and Gordon Bennett being pivotal. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Big Vince

[Big Vince 319]

43 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

This is an excellent post.

That post conveniently overlooks all the money Delia has wasted on compensation to managers who had to be sacked because they were the wrong appointments from the start. Not forgetting the compensation to Moxey for the same reason. Then what about Doomcaster and Munby who were scapegoated for relegation to L1?

Then there was the new contract for Farke not long before he was sacked, so more compensation money down the drain.

[essex canary 506]

1 minute ago, Big Vince said:

That post conveniently overlooks all the money Delia has wasted on compensation to managers who had to be sacked because they were the wrong appointments from the start. Not forgetting the compensation to Moxey for the same reason. Then what about Doomcaster and Munby who were scapegoated for relegation to L1?

Then there was the new contract for Farke not long before he was sacked, so more compensation money down the drain.

Quite right. The fans money paid to Moxey with more in compensation than he actually earned. That was around the time 7 years ago that she said she felt sorry for the fans. Indeed. I wonder why.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 hour ago, Big Vince said:

No, because for the first nine years he worked a miracle with a strategy that made Norwich City one of the best teams in the land over a sustained period in the late 80s, early 90s. The club itself was not broke, nor in chaos. It was left with very substantial fixed assets and if there was any chaos it was caused by fans who managed to invoke the last cavalry charge by Norfolk Police. The transfer of power from Chase to Watling was orderly with Martin Armstrong and Gordon Bennett being pivotal. 

When he took over the club was very much on the up, when he left the club was very much on the down. If that is success I would hate to see failure.

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

6 hours ago, Big Vince said:

Attanasio and his high powered and expensive legal team used the law in such a way so they didn't have to make an offer to buy out the minority shareholders. They didn't have to do it. They had other legal options. One of these was to simply buy out the minority shareholders as soon as 30% was reached. Lawyers are there to use the law to the best interests of their clients. That is why they get such inflated fees.

That is a rare accuracy. Whichever way shareholders voted, whether they wanted a chance to sell or not, they were voting against that chance. But your compliant is really with the Takeover Panel for allowing a manoeuvre that went so clearly against its key remit of looking after the interests of the minorities.

[BigFish 1,988]

52 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

That is a rare accuracy. Whichever way shareholders voted, whether they wanted a chance to sell or not, they were voting against that chance. But your compliant is really with the Takeover Panel for allowing a manoeuvre that went so clearly against its key remit of looking after the interests of the minorities.

As we know most minority shareholders never bought their shares with a view to selling them, let alone at a profit. While the approach taken was inexplicable it was never about whether they could sell them or not. They can sell at anytime they find an agreeable buyer. It was whether MA would be compelled to make them an offer. None of this suggests the Takeover Panel didn't fulfill their remit. That is to ensure  that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. This is very different from looking after their interests. Those minorities are now in exactly the same position as they where before. They cannot be said to have been disadvantaged by this. Furthermore, the majority are in agreement.

[Big Vince 319]

4 minutes ago, BigFish said:

As we know most minority shareholders never bought their shares with a view to selling them, let alone at a profit. While the approach taken was inexplicable it was never about whether they could sell them or not. They can sell at anytime they find an agreeable buyer. It was whether MA would be compelled to make them an offer. None of this suggests the Takeover Panel didn't fulfill their remit. That is to ensure  that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. This is very different from looking after their interests. Those minorities are now in exactly the same position as they where before. They cannot be said to have been disadvantaged by this. Furthermore, the majority are in agreement.

Well, those minority shareholders who did want the opportunity to sell are now disadvantaged because that opportunity was taken away. 

Secondly, where is the result of the vote?

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

11 minutes ago, BigFish said:

As we know most minority shareholders never bought their shares with a view to selling them, let alone at a profit. While the approach taken was inexplicable it was never about whether they could sell them or not. They can sell at anytime they find an agreeable buyer. It was whether MA would be compelled to make them an offer. None of this suggests the Takeover Panel didn't fulfill their remit. That is to ensure  that minority shareholders are not disadvantaged. This is very different from looking after their interests. Those minorities are now in exactly the same position as they where before. They cannot be said to have been disadvantaged by this. Furthermore, the majority are in agreement.

We will have to disagree on this, BF. Some minority shareholders were given the chance to sell at a certain price, and the TP then allowed a vote that meant no one else could follow them.

Yes, a majority approved the waiver but since voting against wouldn't have given them a chance to sell and at the same time threatened to cost the club millions of pounds that is hardly surprising.

That votre cannot be taken as a true expression of how shareholders actually felt and what they would have done if they had not been faced with such an unseemly ultimatum.

Edited October 13, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[BigFish 1,988]

Just now, PurpleCanary said:

We will have to disagree on this, BF. Some minority shareholders were given the chance to sell at a certain price, and the TP then allowed a vote that meant no one else could follow them.

True Purps on we will have to agree to disagree. As for the rest of the sentence, such is life. They cannot be said to have been disadvantaged though. It is not for the panel to ensure equality.

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

11 minutes ago, BigFish said:

True Purps on we will have to agree to disagree. As for the rest of the sentence, such is life. They cannot be said to have been disadvantaged though. It is not for the panel to ensure equality.

BF, I believe it is exactly the duty of the TP to ensure equality, of opportunity and price, in a takeover.

[Segura 84]

3 hours ago, Big Vince said:

That post conveniently overlooks all the money Delia has wasted on compensation to managers who had to be sacked because they were the wrong appointments from the start. Not forgetting the compensation to Moxey for the same reason. Then what about Doomcaster and Munby who were scapegoated for relegation to L1?

Then there was the new contract for Farke not long before he was sacked, so more compensation money down the drain.

I actually agree in part here - the current owners have made some right old rum appointments. Hamilton, Roeder and Grant were disasters, Gunn so bad that he never worked in football again. We're all wise after the event but safe to say they should never have been in the hotseat.

However, if we're having a debate over managers employed by Chase/Delia here, we can't overlook Chase appointing Deehan and then Megson. Having made that horlicks he redeems himself by appointing O'Neill, a manager on the up who could have got us back to the Prem and kept us there. We all know what happened next - once again Chase's mismanagement wasted a glorious opportunity. For me, Moxey, Doomy et al pale in comparison.

[BigFish 1,988]

25 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

BF, I believe it is exactly the duty of the TP to ensure equality, of opportunity and price, in a takeover.

That's the rub, it wasn't (yet) a takeover. Neither is it likely to be for 2+ years.

[BigFish 1,988]

51 minutes ago, Big Vince said:

Well, those minority shareholders who did want the opportunity to sell are now disadvantaged because that opportunity was taken away.

No, they can still sell at anytime.

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

2 minutes ago, BigFish said:

That's the rub, it wasn't (yet) a takeover. Neither is it likely to be for 2+ years.

No, it is officially regarded as a takeover and TO rules apply.

[BigFish 1,988]

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

No, it is officially regarded as a takeover and TO rules apply.

And the rules were applied, unless I have missed something.

[sgncfc 1,259]

I'm still not sure that anyone has addressed the issue of Attansasio effectively acquiring the club for an amount way below it's market value. I simply don't understand why the purchase wasn't accompanied by a contractual commitment to donate further funds to the club to make up at least some of the difference in value. All D & M got was two small loans to help with cashflow.

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

22 minutes ago, BigFish said:

And the rules were applied, unless I have missed something.

This is officially a takeover, so the Takeover Code rules apply. With the key remit, as stressed in the latest report by the chairman of the Takeover Panel,  to protect the rights of the minority shareholders.

This must include equality of price, otherwise there would not be the stipulaton that they have to be offered the highest price paid by the incoming investor in the last 12 months.

And has equally to include equality of opportunity to force the investor to buy them up,, although that is tempered by being subject to a majority vote. Most have to want either the chance to sell, or for others to have that chance, or simply want to protect the principle.

But for that process to be at all meaningful - to fit in with the remit - it has to include the reality that by voting against the waiver it will give shareholders the right to force a sale.

Instead the panel went directly against its remit by allowing a vote in which all those for the waiver and all those against were voting against having the chance to force a sale. If every vote had been cast against the waiver because every shareholder wanted to sell up it would have done them no good at all.Truly Orwellian or even Alice Through the Looking-Glass stuff.

And I know that shareholders can try to find a buyer, but they cannot force someone to buy their shares, or have a guarnteed price, so the Panel doesn't have the right to take that possible future solution into account. It has to ensure fairness within the takeover process with which it is dealing at the time. And it didn't.

[essex canary 506]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

This is officially a takeover, so the Takeover Code rules apply. With the key remit, as stressed in the latest report by the chairman of the Takeover Panel,  to protect the rights of the minority shareholders.

This must include equality of price, otherwise there would not be the stipulaton that they have to be offered the highest price paid by the incoming investor in the last 12 months.

And has equally to include equality of opportunity to force the investor to buy them up,, although that is tempered by being subject to a majority vote. Most have to want either the chance to sell, or for others to have that chance, or simply want to protect the principle.

But for that process to be at all meaningful - to fit in with the remit - it has to include the reality that by voting against the waiver it will give shareholders the right to force a sale.

Instead the panel went directly against its remit by allowing a vote in which all those for the waiver and all those against were voting against having the chance to force a sale. If every vote had been cast against the waiver because every shareholder wanted to sell up it would have done them no good at all.Truly Orwellian or even Alice Through the Looking-Glass stuff.

And I know that shareholders can try to find a buyer, but they cannot force someone to buy their shares, or have a guarnteed price, so the Panel doesn't have the right to take that possible future solution into account. It has to ensure fairness within the takeover process with which it is dealing at the time. And it didn't.

Why not email 'supportgroup@thetakeoverpanel.co.uk'

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

18 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Why not email 'supportgroup@thetakeoverpanel.co.uk'

Again?😛

Edited October 13, 2023 by PurpleCanary

[Big Vince 319]

4 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

This is officially a takeover, so the Takeover Code rules apply. With the key remit, as stressed in the latest report by the chairman of the Takeover Panel,  to protect the rights of the minority shareholders.

This must include equality of price, otherwise there would not be the stipulaton that they have to be offered the highest price paid by the incoming investor in the last 12 months.

And has equally to include equality of opportunity to force the investor to buy them up,, although that is tempered by being subject to a majority vote. Most have to want either the chance to sell, or for others to have that chance, or simply want to protect the principle.

But for that process to be at all meaningful - to fit in with the remit - it has to include the reality that by voting against the waiver it will give shareholders the right to force a sale.

Instead the panel went directly against its remit by allowing a vote in which all those for the waiver and all those against were voting against having the chance to force a sale. If every vote had been cast against the waiver because every shareholder wanted to sell up it would have done them no good at all.Truly Orwellian or even Alice Through the Looking-Glass stuff.

And I know that shareholders can try to find a buyer, but they cannot force someone to buy their shares, or have a guarnteed price, so the Panel doesn't have the right to take that possible future solution into account. It has to ensure fairness within the takeover process with which it is dealing at the time. And it didn't.

Agreed. Anyone who wanted to sell was denied the opportunity. And it makes a complete mockery of the 30% rule. Why even have it at all if it can be rendered meaningless?

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

On 11/10/2023 at 14:01, NFN FC said:

Waaaa why aren't we Real Madrid!?

Because the binners are.