The Canaries Trust 36 Posted March 1 An existing NCFC shareholder has recently listed four ordinary shares for sale on our website. The vendor is seeking offers at £80.00 per share. To make an offer, you will first need to register as a buyer using the below link. https://www.canariestrust.org/ncfc-shares The offer period closes at 5.00 pm (GMT) on Thursday, 7th March. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,750 Posted March 1 At that price essex will have more than trebled his money and had a free seat for over 20 years and counting. 😀 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,300 Posted March 1 (edited) Not worth it, I’d consider purchasing at £5 per share! That’s all the clubs worth with the level of debt against it! 😉 Edited March 1 by Indy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 496 Posted March 1 All good entertainment. Doubtless it is profitable for the legal firm maintaining the Share Register every time a transfer of 4 shares takes place with a marginal addition to the Club's debt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,750 Posted March 1 6 minutes ago, essex canary said: All good entertainment. Doubtless it is profitable for the legal firm maintaining the Share Register every time a transfer of 4 shares takes place with a marginal addition to the Club's debt. Have we an outside legal firm maintaining our share register which i read it is what you are implying ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 496 Posted March 1 Just now, TIL 1010 said: Have we an outside legal firm maintaining our share register which i read it is what you are implying ? That is my understanding. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,750 Posted March 1 Just now, essex canary said: That is my understanding. Source or maybe @GMFcould confirm one way or the other ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 496 Posted March 1 3 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said: Source or maybe @GMFcould confirm one way or the other ? The latter for the precise detail. If the Club did it themselves it would make sense to include shareholding on the one log-in system. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 747 Posted March 1 40 minutes ago, essex canary said: The latter for the precise detail. If the Club did it themselves it would make sense to include shareholding on the one log-in system. As always, it’s not quite as simple as you suggest, if is doing a lot of heavy lifting there… Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greavsy 2,415 Posted March 1 (edited) Duplicate post. Edited March 1 by Greavsy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Greavsy 2,415 Posted March 1 1 hour ago, GMF said: As always, it’s not quite as simple as you suggest, if is doing a lot of heavy lifting there… Have you me Essex ? 😃 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 747 Posted March 1 18 minutes ago, Greavsy said: Have you met Essex ? 😃 Yes. Do I get a prize? 🏆 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,750 Posted March 1 54 minutes ago, GMF said: Yes. Do I get a prize? 🏆 No you get our sympathy. 😀 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards 2,237 Posted March 1 Is there a reason the Trust haven’t bought them? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indy 3,300 Posted March 1 18 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said: Is there a reason the Trust haven’t bought them? Over priced? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Duncan Edwards 2,237 Posted March 1 1 minute ago, Indy said: Over priced? Would be my assumption. So I’ll also pass, I think. 😉 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 496 Posted March 1 29 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said: Would be my assumption. So I’ll also pass, I think. 😉 Wise decision. @GMF 's posting history as well as Foulger's now known sale price tells you that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Canaries Trust 36 Posted March 2 9 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said: Is there a reason the Trust haven’t bought them? As interesting as the subsequent replies to your question are, Duncan, the simple answer is that this is an executor sale. The shares were listed because they wanted to “test the market” in order to ensure best value for the estate’s beneficiaries. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 747 Posted March 2 (edited) 9 hours ago, essex canary said: Wise decision. @GMF 's posting history as well as Foulger's now known sale price tells you that. Irrespective of my personal views, as I’ve said before, they’re effectively worth whatever a willing buyer is prepared to offer, and a willing seller is prepared to accept for the shares. In this context, and your own observation highlighted above, do you now accept that your previous criticisms of the Foulger’s share price as being “cheap” were misguided, as you can’t run that argument both ways? Edited March 2 by GMF Typo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
essex canary 496 Posted March 2 44 minutes ago, GMF said: Irrespective of my personal views, as I’ve said before, they’re effectively worth whatever a willing buyer is prepared to offer, and a willing seller is prepared to accept for the shares. In this context, and your own observation highlighted above, do you now accept that your previous criticisms of the Foulger’s share price as being “cheap” were misguided, as you can’t run that argument both ways? I was initially of the opinion that Foulger had 'tested the market" to his personal advantage ahead of others. In terms of price we now know he didn't. I am of the opinion that to have put that information in the public domain at the earliest opportunity would have been the Board's most honourable strategy. It looks like having 4 shares gives far better 'test the market' opportunities than larger holdings and exit opportunities too which, of course, Foulger obtained. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TIL 1010 4,750 Posted March 2 40 minutes ago, essex canary said: I was initially of the opinion that Foulger had 'tested the market" to his personal advantage ahead of others. In terms of price we now know he didn't. I am of the opinion that to have put that information in the public domain at the earliest opportunity would have been the Board's most honourable strategy. What on earth is the private sale of a shareholding to an individual the business of the board and any requirement to put it out in the public domain at the earliest opportunity. Are you suggesting the sale of the family company shares of Albert Jones should have been made public also by the board at the earliest opportunity ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 747 Posted March 2 That’s nonsense @essex canary, as any shareholder is free to test the market at any time, yourself included, if you / they so wished. They’re also entitled to do so in confidence, if they so desired, which he did. The point of disclosure, legally, would be on completion of the sales, and the fact that they were opaque on the precise details for some time thereafter, showed a lack of transparency, and certainly grounds for fair criticism, in my opinion, not that they see it quite that way! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,562 Posted March 2 When Attanasio and I float the club on the Nasdaq, with a three-for-one offer for shareholders with current holdings under 10,000, you are all going to think £80 was a snip...😍 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GMF 747 Posted March 2 9 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said: What on earth is the private sale of a shareholding to an individual the business of the board and any requirement to put it out in the public domain at the earliest opportunity. Are you suggesting the sale of the family company shares of Albert Jones should have been made public also by the board at the earliest opportunity ? There’s an EFL requirement for all Clubs to publish on their website details of the directors and / or persons that own 10% or more of the Club. NCFC were tardy in this regard, although they suggest otherwise. That would, of course, only apply at completion, so, you’re right, otherwise there is no such requirement. I suspect that someone is just beefy because he wasn’t also approached… 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
