Some shareholders get a free season ticket ticket?!?

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, Bobzilla said:

No they don’t.  They encourage subscription by offering the seat for life.  They encourage holding by making that seat for life conditional upon retention of the 1,000 shares.  They don’t incentivise heirs as a result of the offer document - I believe the incentive for heirs became the inheritability of the title of AD, whatever that’s worth.

Why then should anyone believe that the latter is adequate incentive? In theory as per the current regulations that person could sell 1,000 shares to 1,000 separate individuals each seeking a complementary home membership to create an annualised liability for NCFC of £25,000. Wouldn't Commonsense dictate that renewing the seat incentive for the inheritor at an annualised coat of around £1,250 would be a the recommended course of action?

[Bobzilla 141]

8 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Why then should anyone believe that the latter is adequate incentive? In theory as per the current regulations that person could sell 1,000 shares to 1,000 separate individuals each seeking a complementary home membership to create an annualised liability for NCFC of £25,000. Wouldn't Commonsense dictate that renewing the seat incentive for the inheritor at an annualised coat of around £1,250 would be a the recommended course of action?

I don’t know.  I’m not the guy that sunk £25k into the club without properly reading the share offer document.  The terms of what you bought were clear, if you’d been bothered to read them.  If you did read them and are still arguing this horse-**** then that says far more about you than the club.

I’ve got some beans for sale.  They’re magic.  I’ll even do you a special price…. They’re yellow and green…

Edited March 20 by Bobzilla

[Google Bot 3,278]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

In theory as per the current regulations that person could sell 1,000 shares to 1,000 separate individuals each seeking a complementary home membership to create an annualised liability for NCFC of £25,000

The legislation would change should that get out of hand though.  It's like saying that if everyone took handfuls of free napkins from the restaurant when they visited they may as well give you free chips for not doing so.

But in reality, they would just stop giving out free napkins.

Edited March 20 by Google Bot

[Bobzilla 141]

It’s not an annualised liability though.  It’s potential lost revenue, but no liability.  

In any event, the membership rights derive from the articles of association, and to the extent that there were promises in the offer document re free membership, the club could only have any form of obligation to the original subscribers for the shares, not to subsequent purchasers.  The club could change the articles subject to approval by the shareholders (i.e. DS, MS and MA), such that the membership offer was changed to include a minimum shareholding, or removed altogether (subject to maintaining the rights of original subscribers).

If the shareholder base gets too wide, the club might opt to do that.  That said, at £80 a share (seems to be the going rate), you only need 4 seasons of membership to be given out to get back your initial outlay on a single share.  That’s the gamble you’d take for buying a share in the secondary market.

[essex canary 496]

33 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

I don’t know.  I’m not the guy that sunk £25k into the club without properly reading the share offer document.  The terms of what you bought were clear, if you’d been bothered to read them.  If you did read them and are still arguing this horse-**** then that says far more about you than the club.

I’ve got some beans for sale.  They’re magic.  I’ll even do you a special price…. They’re yellow and green…

The original T&C's were documented on here and to me they are ambiguous as I have previously argued.

[essex canary 496]

33 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

The legislation would change should that get out of hand though.  It's like saying that if everyone took handfuls of free napkins from the restaurant when they visited they may as well give you free chips for not doing so.

But in reality, they would just stop giving out free napkins.

Perhaps my best way forward would be to lay down that challenge to the Company Secretary. They would then face the choice.

[Google Bot 3,278]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Perhaps my best way forward would be to lay down that challenge to the Company Secretary. They would then face the choice.

Do you actually want to sell, though?  I think that's the first question you need to ask yourself.

[essex canary 496]

16 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Do you actually want to sell, though?  I think that's the first question you need to ask yourself.

I think I would retain at least 100 or so. There isn't necessarily a point in retaining 1,000 other than the seat issue. On the latter point I simply don't think it is in the spirit of NCFC's avowed family values and to respect the values of the individual to deny an heir. The payoff even if I can't change the latter would perhaps to get some younger people involved in the AGM and whether the club make a net financial gain or loss depends on how many take up complementary home membership.

[Google Bot 3,278]

34 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I simply don't think it is in the spirit of NCFC's avowed family values and to respect the values of the individual to deny an heir

The seat for life for your friends daughter, you mean?  I think there's the morality aspect, and the business aspect to consider here. 

Even if the club wanted to do certain favours beyond what is legally agreed, over-stepping the line is simply is a no-no in modern day.  The only way to over-turn it is to change legislation, or agreements in place across the board.

This reminds me of managing staff, and back to a time where people would come to me, ask for a few hours off to take their dad to the hospital, whatever, and they'd make it up the following day.  As a manager this was a really important part of building trust with people as you could do something personal for them to demonstrate some compassion.

And then HR came in and it was no longer allowed due to the effect it would have on other people.  So what we have today is a workforce that will simply down tools, and clock-out on the dot when it's end of day or lunch/break and they're so engrained into this 'one rule for all' system. 

You just can't go do anyone a favour, and it's frustrating being the one spreading that policy, as it is to be told it.

I don't know really know what you're asking for (i.e. a change in policy for all, or just in your friends case), but please be careful that it isn't through bereavement that you're left feeling it's your duty to stand up on this point.  I'm sure you friend would prefer if you weren't stressing and making enemies, but instead enjoying the club, having that seat and remaining an AD.

I'd love to be in that position in the future.

Edited March 20 by Google Bot

[GMF 744]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

The original T&C's were documented on here and to me they are ambiguous as I have previously argued.

Sadly for you, the IFO disagreed with your view, not once, but twice, and so does everyone else on here.

You can shout about it forever and a day, but, unless you can find some compelling evidence to support your argument, specifically within the share offer document, namely that the shareholder benefits are transferable (save for the free membership benefits, which clearly are) then you’re in danger of being considered a vexatious complainer. 

[Bobzilla 141]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

The original T&C's were documented on here and to me they are ambiguous as I have previously argued.

To anyone else considering shelling out £25k on a vanity asset, they are not.

Edited March 21 by Bobzilla
Typo

[essex canary 496]

10 hours ago, Google Bot said:

The seat for life for your friends daughter, you mean?  I think there's the morality aspect, and the business aspect to consider here. 

Even if the club wanted to do certain favours beyond what is legally agreed, over-stepping the line is simply is a no-no in modern day.  The only way to over-turn it is to change legislation, or agreements in place across the board.

This reminds me of managing staff, and back to a time where people would come to me, ask for a few hours off to take their dad to the hospital, whatever, and they'd make it up the following day.  As a manager this was a really important part of building trust with people as you could do something personal for them to demonstrate some compassion.

And then HR came in and it was no longer allowed due to the effect it would have on other people.  So what we have today is a workforce that will simply down tools, and clock-out on the dot when it's end of day or lunch/break and they're so engrained into this 'one rule for all' system. 

You just can't go do anyone a favour, and it's frustrating being the one spreading that policy, as it is to be told it.

I don't know really know what you're asking for (i.e. a change in policy for all, or just in your friends case), but please be careful that it isn't through bereavement that you're left feeling it's your duty to stand up on this point.  I'm sure you friend would prefer if you weren't stressing and making enemies, but instead enjoying the club, having that seat and remaining an AD.

I'd love to be in that position in the future.

I have the Lieutenant Columbo style dog with a bone mentality. Nothing wrong with that. So let's go round the circuit one final time. Perhaps @GMFcan tune in.

Let's digress first onto dress sense. 25 or so years ago I worked within an accounts team on the second floor with other teams on other floors working for the same organisation. We considered that as an accounting team we had a higher standard of dress sense than the rest of the organisation. A new member joined who started wearing faded jeans with holes in the knees. When challenged they (female as it happens) refused to modify their behaviour. HR took the overall organisational view. As an Accounting Team we weren't happy. Our thoughts were she didn't dress like that for the interview so should have continued as she presented herself at the outset.

So back to my core issue. Suppose I had bought my shares on day 1 and dropped dead on day 2. Would the Club have told my wife that she had to keep the shares or arrange for disposal herself but the seat offer would not be open to her? Maybe another context to that is that over 80% of the original applicants were male. In consideration of the answer is day 10,000 any different from day 2? Obviously it is different if the shares were actively transferred as distinct from act of God. 

Perhaps the point to pick up from the title of this thread is given the Club is giving out free(?) tickets to the likes of myself, it ought to have codified that in the Articles of Association? As I have also pointed out they have retained ambiguity here in terms of the more recently introduced away membership for which there has been no AA update but perhaps ought to have been?

Any further thoughts?

[chicken 2,625]

I always attend an interview in a suit. I've done landscape maintenance and worked for companies with a uniform.

What you wear to an interview has nothing to do with every day work wear. The very concept of that is absolutely baffling.

Not unlike continuing to argue that 'for life' doesn't mean 'for life' at all. Whether tha life be 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years or 2 decades.

[essex canary 496]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

I always attend an interview in a suit. I've done landscape maintenance and worked for companies with a uniform.

What you wear to an interview has nothing to do with every day work wear. The very concept of that is absolutely baffling.

Not unlike continuing to argue that 'for life' doesn't mean 'for life' at all. Whether tha life be 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 years or 2 decades.

Try working on-board within the airline industry. United Emirates perhaps.

[Greavsy 2,415]

31 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Try working on-board within the airline industry. United Emirates perhaps.

Try spinning your argument to a different, more general view, that presents the bigger overall picture and not just to suit your self centered  and opinionated, hard done by agenda. 

I'm sure the Emirates staff didn't turn up for their interview in their employers provided uniforms. 

Tedious. 

[essex canary 496]

25 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Try spinning your argument to a different, more general view, that presents the bigger overall picture and not just to suit your self centered  and opinionated, hard done by agenda. 

I'm sure the Emirates staff didn't turn up for their interview in their employers provided uniforms. 

Tedious. 

@SouthwellC

Could I politely suggest that this is the kind of behaviour that should be curtailed. 

[chicken 2,625]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Try working on-board within the airline industry. United Emirates perhaps.

We're not talking about exceptions to the rule are we? We're not talking about other businesses or systems either.

Otherwise I'll counter that with the UK legal term of 'life' in sentencing. 25yrs. Or until you are too ill and frail for prison life. Your family can't serve in your place.

You want more examples of systems that done't line up with your entitled view?

Lifetime warranty. The length of life of the product. Or until you no longer own it.

There are more.

[essex canary 496]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

We're not talking about exceptions to the rule are we? We're not talking about other businesses or systems either.

Otherwise I'll counter that with the UK legal term of 'life' in sentencing. 25yrs. Or until you are too ill and frail for prison life. Your family can't serve in your place.

You want more examples of systems that done't line up with your entitled view?

Lifetime warranty. The length of life of the product. Or until you no longer own it.

There are more.

Which side of the line that falls on in terms of acceptable communication is open to interpretation.

Many thanks to @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and @debbie does norwich for their supportive communications of yesterday.

Perhaps my mental health complex, if that is what it is, is an aversion to the human form of chameleon behaviour.

[essex canary 496]

@TIL 1010 @JonnyJonnyRowe

In fairness in a sense I do owe an apology to Jonny because his OP is politely expressed and his question in some senses reasonable in that any such concession should be codified in the Articles of Association. 

Nevertheless his inference that (any) shareholder should be obliged to both pay a full season ticket price and support the holding of 1,000 shares could be classed as unreasonable and as I have does not guarantee net financial benefit to the Club

The Chameleon reference comes in paragraph 13 of the Ombudsman Report in which the Club response states 'Even if indirect discrimination could be proven...'. At that point their commitment to fair treatment of females should have given priority to the indirect discrimination issue rather casting it off in that way. Misogynistic policy in action.

Edited March 21 by essex canary

[nutty nigel 7,536]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

@SouthwellC

Could I politely suggest that this is the kind of behaviour that should be curtailed. 

👀

[Greavsy 2,415]

3 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

👀

Isn't that what you've called "running to teacher" before?

Hypocrite.   

[nutty nigel 7,536]

Interesting…

👀

[GMF 744]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

I have the Lieutenant Columbo style dog with a bone mentality. Nothing wrong with that. So let's go round the circuit one final time. Perhaps @GMFcan tune in.

So back to my core issue. Suppose I had bought my shares on day 1 and dropped dead on day 2. Would the Club have told my wife that she had to keep the shares or arrange for disposal herself but the seat offer would not be open to her? Maybe another context to that is that over 80% of the original applicants were male. In consideration of the answer is day 10,000 any different from day 2? Obviously it is different if the shares were actively transferred as distinct from act of God. 

Perhaps the point to pick up from the title of this thread is given the Club is giving out free(?) tickets to the likes of myself, it ought to have codified that in the Articles of Association? As I have also pointed out they have retained ambiguity here in terms of the more recently introduced away membership for which there has been no AA update but perhaps ought to have been?

Any further thoughts?

The difference between you and Columbo couldn’t be more stark. For starters, he relies on compelling supporting evidence to solve his problems, you don’t.

You didn’t “drop dead on day two” (to use your reference) of your share ownership, nor did any of the other AD’s for that matter, so you’ve all had the benefit of being able to use your seat at no further charge, in your case for 22 years, others, sadly , for not as long as you.

In essence, you want to be able to sell your shares for £80.00 each, bemoan the fact that it’s not easy to do so, and still pass on your seat to your spouse or family, despite no compelling evidence within the share offer documentation. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Interesting…

👀

Very sad really - especially when you have repeatedly said you have me on ignore.

Don't you have some fund raising to do? 

ill leave you to it - before the descends into another farce. 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,536]

4 minutes ago, Greavsy said:

Very sad really - especially when you have repeatedly said you have me on ignore.

Don't you have some fund raising to do? 

ill leave you to it - before the descends into another farce. 

 

 

👀

[Google Bot 3,278]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

So back to my core issue. Suppose I had bought my shares on day 1 and dropped dead on day 2. Would the Club have told my wife that she had to keep the shares or arrange for disposal herself but the seat offer would not be open to her?

As I see it, the seat for life offer was related to the payment, not the ownership of existing shares?  So on that basis, true, there would be no offer there.

To put more simply it's like your wife going to the supermarket and receiving free spa weekends for herself for spending £50 on food.  Then, you returning in asking where your spa weekend is, as the food is now yours.

I'm in no way informed on the subject though, and only go off what i've read on here and that IFO document.

What I struggle most with is understanding that when you ask such questions, Who are you asking and what is it that you seek from posting it here?   We're just not equipped to help in any manner, but maybe what you post isn't for someone like me to respond to, and i'm accidentally being hooked along in the conversation?

Edited March 21 by Google Bot

[chicken 2,625]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Which side of the line that falls on in terms of acceptable communication is open to interpretation.

Many thanks to @Parma Ham's gone mouldy and @debbie does norwich for their supportive communications of yesterday.

Perhaps my mental health complex, if that is what it is, is an aversion to the human form of chameleon behaviour.

No it isn't. It's clear in the clubs terms. You are arguing it's unclear because some other business model does it differently.

If your argument against a sentance in a UK court is because somewhere else in the world is more lenient/generous, it'd fall down flat. Rightly so.

You've found one exception to the rule elsewhere, one where I suspect you still remain a paying customer and not on a free ticket, and feel that interpretation should apply to you, not the clubs.

That's all there is to this. Please just stop now and accept that there is no one else seeing this as you want it to be seen. It's just about you. No one else.

[chicken 2,625]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Try working on-board within the airline industry. United Emirates perhaps.

They have uniforms... I doubt you'd turn up to an interview in their uniform. Nor would you just wear any old suit to go to work on board.

I already covered this anyway. I wore a uniform in landscape maintenance. It just wasn't the suit I wore to the interview.

[Duncan Edwards 2,237]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

So back to my core issue. Suppose I had bought my shares on day 1 and dropped dead on day 2.

Edited March 21 by Duncan Edwards

[GMF 744]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

 

Don’t go there, Duncan… 😉