Four ordinary NCFC shares for sale

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

I guess you can enlighten us on how a Group with 4 (16%) female members plus an ex- Club Chairman now Vice President could possibly be labelled as 'misogynistic' by the Club hierarchy?

You have a short memory Gollum, i've told you before , i do not answer your assinine ,goalpost shifting,irrelevant riddles. Go sew your poisonous seed elsewhere.

[essex canary 496]

48 minutes ago, wcorkcanary said:

You have a short memory Gollum, i've told you before , i do not answer your assinine ,goalpost shifting,irrelevant riddles. Go sew your poisonous seed elsewhere.

How stupid! The word is 'asinine' with only 1 S but a perfectly apt description for such a statement from the Club's Supporter Relations Officer.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

6 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How stupid! The word is 'asinine' with only 1 S but a perfectly apt description for such a statement from the Club's Supporter Relations Officer.

Not as if there was such a post as Supporter Relations Officer he/she would put up with your nonsense.

[Google Bot 3,278]

5 hours ago, essex canary said:

I guess you can enlighten us on how a Group with 4 (16%) female members plus an ex- Club Chairman now Vice President could possibly be labelled as 'misogynistic' by the Club hierarchy?

Not that I have a clue what this relates to, i'd like to point out that misogyny isn't just a property of men.   You're aware of that, right?

[norwich canary 73]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

How stupid! The word is 'asinine' with only 1 S but a perfectly apt description for such a statement from the Club's Supporter Relations Officer.

Do not bite he is not of our own 

[essex canary 496]

45 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Not as if there was such a post as Supporter Relations Officer he/she would put up with your nonsense.

What is it then? Head of Supporter Relations is probably the title though not very senior.

[essex canary 496]

41 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Not that I have a clue what this relates to, i'd like to point out that misogyny isn't just a property of men.   You're aware of that, right?

Maybe not but simply thinking that, for example, Liz Truss was a poor PM does not constitute it. It is equally possible to believe that Theresa May was a far better PM than Boris Johnson.   A group of 24 people cannot reasonably exhibit collective hatred towards women which is what the statement made would imply. Just because females are subject to criticism doesn't entitle them to play this card. Ditto for anyone on their behalf. It is a gross distortion of the English Language with no purpose other than to attempt to constrain freedom of expression 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

How stupid! The word is 'asinine' with only 1 S but a perfectly apt description for such a statement from the Club's Supporter Relations Officer.

The second s was deliberate you Donkey. Ye gods you are slow on the uptake. So caught up in your own BS.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

47 minutes ago, norwich canary said:

Do not bite he is not of our own 

Happy not to be one of you , if that 'you' is Waveney and Gollum.

[Google Bot 3,278]

24 minutes ago, essex canary said:

A group of 24 people cannot reasonably exhibit collective hatred towards women which is what the statement made would imply.

I haven't a clue what statement this was, or when it was made(?).  As I see it misogyny does not always to equate to 'hate', but more commonly is an ideology based around the traditions of a previously male dominated society.   Like most things, i'd say it's more related to age, rather than gender.

What an earth does this refer to anyway?  Is this related to your continual attacks on Zoe, which to be honest, do come across as very misogynistic when you're using her choice of feminine footwear in an attempt to belittle her?

Edited March 14 by Google Bot

[GMF 744]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

Not as if there was such a post as Supporter Relations Officer he/she would put up with your nonsense.

I suspect that they’d also have to join the back of a long queue… 

[TIL 1010 4,748]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

What is it then? Head of Supporter Relations is probably the title though not very senior.

Supporter Liaison Officer. It is on the website.

Edited March 14 by TIL 1010

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, Google Bot said:

I haven't a clue what statement this was, or when it was made(?).  As I see it misogyny does not always to equate to 'hate', but more commonly is an ideology based around the traditions of a previously male dominated society.   Like most things, i'd say it's more related to age, rather than gender.

What an earth does this refer to anyway?  Is this related to your continual attacks on Zoe, which to be honest, do come across as very misogynistic when you're using her choice of feminine footwear in an attempt to belittle her?

The Supporter Liaison Officer advising me that the Club have broken off relations with the Associate Directors Group on account of an alleged misogynistic communication from same. The Group doesn't currently include me but is predominantly, but not exclusively, an old boys network.

As for the last comment, women tend to benefit from more liberal dress opportunities than men in professional life but I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest there are limits. 

Perhaps misandry creeps into the equation at times too? No-one seems to mention that.

[TIL 1010 4,748]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Supporter Liaison Officer advising me that the Club have broken off relations with the Associate Directors Group on account of an alleged misogynistic communication from same. 

I am sure he will be delighted you have put this on a public forum.

[essex canary 496]

1 hour ago, TIL 1010 said:

I am sure he will be delighted you have put this on a public forum.

With 6,800 shareholders we should be the most open Football Club in the world. Why aren't we? Isn't that what S&J promised, the very best in openness and transparency etc?

[Google Bot 3,278]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Supporter Liaison Officer advising me that the Club have broken off relations with the Associate Directors Group on account of an alleged misogynistic communication from same. The Group doesn't currently include me but is predominantly, but not exclusively, an old boys network.

How the hell were we to guess that one then?! 🙂

I just support the team so don't really know about all these little cliques and old boys networks, but if ties were cut for such a reason then could suggest the club were looking for an excuse and there's far more to it than that?  Again, I have no knowledge on any of this and neither do I care a great deal, sorry.

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

As for the last comment, women tend to benefit from more liberal dress opportunities than men in professional life but I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest there are limits. 

I'm really not sure that a limit is being crossed when a woman wears sandals at a Q&A session.  And this idea that women can be more liberal is very much an old school belief as society is heading towards the ideal that a man can turn up in a dress and not be negatively stereotyped as you are doing with Zoe.

If Wagner sat in sandals and a skirt at the forum would you question his ability?  I think most of us would raise an eyebrow, and many would laugh - and that just shows how far off we are at reaching such a balance.

So, surely today we can allow women to demonstrate some liberal clothing without it reflecting bad on them as a professional, eh?

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps misandry creeps into the equation at times too? No-one seems to mention that.

Misandry and ageism, sure, very common.  Seems that the more dominant groups are being deliberately weakened or silenced as a tactic to create what is being defined as a more balanced society.  Luckily I don't have a dog in either fight, but if you're holding on to traditions I can appreciate what a tough ride this is, and will be.

[essex canary 496]

9 hours ago, GMF said:

Clearly, yes, as the beneficiary was NOT the original subscriber to the shares. 

I believe that sentence 'the benefits are personal to the subscribers and cannot be transferred' also appeared in the Bond documentation. In that context,which would undoubtedly have been experienced with 740 subscribers, its' application would have meant that no Interest or Bonus could have been paid beyond the date of death. I wonder if that was the interpretation applied? I asked the previous Company Secretary. He didn't respond. I wonder why? (or perhaps not).

[GMF 744]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I believe that sentence 'the benefits are personal to the subscribers and cannot be transferred' also appeared in the Bond documentation. In that context,which would undoubtedly have been experienced with 740 subscribers, its' application would have meant that no Interest or Bonus could have been paid beyond the date of death. I wonder if that was the interpretation applied? I asked the previous Company Secretary. He didn't respond. I wonder why? (or perhaps not).

I haven’t checked, and have no intention of doing so, as it’s irrelevant in the context of this particular thread.

The share offer documentation was explicit and left no room for debate, at least in the eyes of a reasonable person… 

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

I believe that sentence 'the benefits are personal to the subscribers and cannot be transferred' also appeared in the Bond documentation. In that context,which would undoubtedly have been experienced with 740 subscribers, its' application would have meant that no Interest or Bonus could have been paid beyond the date of death. I wonder if that was the interpretation applied? I asked the previous Company Secretary. He didn't respond. I wonder why? (or perhaps not).

I have it on good authority that you didn’t get a response because the club think you are a pain in the **** and your incessant whining is like a perma-migraine. It was whispered that if they had their time again they’d have told you to stick your 25k right up your balloon knot. 

Edited March 14 by Duncan Edwards

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,431]

So anyway, about these shares. Whatyareckon? 

[The Canaries Trust 36]

1 hour ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

So anyway, about these shares. Whatyareckon? 

Thanks for trying to get this back on track.

I reckon that the bidding window closes at 5.00 pm on Wednesday. 😉

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

21 hours ago, essex canary said:

Because I would saturate the market, likely to take 10 years or so and lose my ongoing benefit as soon as selling the first tranche.

If I ever win the lottery jackpot the first thing I'm doing is giving you £80,000 for your shares so you can stop whinging and buy yourself and your heirs some Southend United season tickets.

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

19 minutes ago, The Canaries Trust said:

Thanks for trying to get this back on track.

I reckon that the bidding window closes at 5.00 pm on Wednesday. 😉

The whole point of you lot is supposed to be acquiring shares, there are 4 here and Essex has a thousand he wants to shift… stump up!!! 🙂

[Canary Pie 25]

@Essex Canary

When I first started looking on here a couple of years ago I thought you were like a cranky old stopped clock - right a couple of times a day. In your case you were right that the club's finances were not well controlled.

Lately, however I have come to the conclusion that you are just a bitter old cnut:

1) You are obsessed about wanting to transfer your season ticket even though it is just a perk of your investment in the club – You above everyone else.

2) You took the time and effort to make a new thread just to take the p155 out of a genuine new fan from overseas who came here because of the club’s positive mental health awareness efforts.

3) You are constantly negative in everything you say about how the club is operated.

Frankly point 2 is beyond the pale and should have earned you a ban from here for life.

Becoming obsessed and miserable are both signs of dementia for your own sake and that of your family visit your GP and get checked out.

For the sake of the rest of us just check out from this site – for ever.

[essex canary 496]

11 hours ago, GMF said:

I haven’t checked, and have no intention of doing so, as it’s irrelevant in the context of this particular thread.

The share offer documentation was explicit and left no room for debate, at least in the eyes of a reasonable person… 

Except of course that the new owner of 4 shares will presumably be entitled to a free home membership if he/she wants one seemingly in contradiction of the 2002 offer clause but because it is quoted (in contradiction) in the Articles of Association? 

Clearly that breaks the apparent initial deal of a free membership for 4 and a free seat for 1,000.

The first point isn't irrelevant because it demonstrates using the same clause differentially rather than consistently. 

[Feedthewolf 4,846]

9 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I have it on good authority that you didn’t get a response because the club think you are a pain in the **** and your incessant whining is like a perma-migraine. It was whispered that if they had their time again they’d have told you to stick your 25k right up your balloon knot. 

That's true. He took the club to the Football Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman found against him and said the club should not feel it necessary to respond to him any further, such was the amount of club employees' time he had wasted.

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

If I ever win the lottery jackpot the first thing I'm doing is giving you £80,000 for your shares so you can stop whinging and buy yourself and your heirs some Southend United season tickets.

He's been very excitable on here about his lovely Cambridge United season ticket, but sadly not excited enough to drop his tedious one-man crusade against NCFC.

[The Canaries Trust 36]

1 hour ago, Duncan Edwards said:

The whole point of you lot is supposed to be acquiring shares, there are 4 here and Essex has a thousand he wants to shift… stump up!!! 🙂

Tempting though it is, Duncan, for us to have a whip round to buy you a wooden spoon for your birthday, all flippant thoughts aside, the reality is that if a seller wants to list their shares, to test the market, that is, of course, their prerogative. It would also be inappropriate for us to bid on any listing, not least because we would probably be open to an accusation of insider trading. 

[GMF 744]

50 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Except of course that the new owner of 4 shares will presumably be entitled to a free home membership if he/she wants one seemingly in contradiction of the 2002 offer clause but because it is quoted (in contradiction) in the Articles of Association? 

Clearly that breaks the apparent initial deal of a free membership for 4 and a free seat for 1,000.

The first point isn't irrelevant because it demonstrates using the same clause differentially rather than consistently. 

Contradiction, or not, there’s your answer, right there in the Articles of Association, so why bleat about it? If it’s all the same to you, it’s not a hill I’m personally interested in dying on.

[hogesar 9,675]

31 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

That's true. He took the club to the Football Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman found against him and said the club should not feel it necessary to respond to him any further, such was the amount of club employees' time he had wasted.

He's been very excitable on here about his lovely Cambridge United season ticket, but sadly not excited enough to drop his tedious one-man crusade against NCFC.

That's great and all but now he's wasting ours 😭

[essex canary 496]

5 minutes ago, GMF said:

Contradiction, or not, there’s your answer, right there in the Articles of Association, so why bleat about it? If it’s all the same to you, it’s not a hill I’m personally interested in dying on.

Can you find me 2,000 people who want to buy 1 share each at £80 per share in the Football Club for a lifetime home membership? 

All 2,000 can be £20 in profit after 4 years. Myself and my late friends family could take £55,000 profit each on our initial investment now. I am quite happy to do so on account of the Club's naff policies in disrespecting loyal supporters.

After 4 years the Club would be around £190,000 down on the deal relative to the seating arrangement regardless of whether they saved on 1 of them or 2 of them.

Whether you can or can't it demonstrates the point.