Some shareholders get a free season ticket ticket?!?

[GMF 747]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

To be fair, I was detailing the existing situation. Some AD’s already had shares back in 2002, and then acquired another 1,000 to obtain the AD status. There are 24 names on the AD board in the City Stand, a few of whom are, sadly, no longer with us.

I should just add, in all other cases previously there seems to have been an acceptance that seat for life meant exactly that. 

[Bobzilla 145]

22 hours ago, essex canary said:

Re paragraph 1 Who knows exactly? @chicken certainly seems to disagree with your first paragraph but it wouldn't be  a great surprise if you are on sounder ground than him.

Re paragraph 2 perhaps that is just more NCFC incompetence? The answer as far as I am concerned is most definitely £100. You can't be surprised that the NCFC Directors are confused. They have been known to sell Ordinary shares to the Genersl Public at £100 and to themselves at £1 as per the question raised by my late friend and myself at the 2016 AGM.

 

The ords are definitely £1 shares - the accounts and companies house records match up.  As for issuing, the directors can cause the company to issue at whatever price they want to whomever they want, subject to any pre-emption rights in the articles.  They can ask for a premium on one issue, and not on the next.  That is in no way unusual.

There are companies act provisions that could assist when a company acts to prejudice other shareholders, such as diluting the stake of small shareholders as might be the case here.  However, you have to be financially harmed by that act.  Arguably, there is no financial harm on the basis that a NCFC plc share’s value derives from its intrinsic value as an intangible asset, i.e. an ownership stake in the club, not on a percentage basis of the total value of the club.  Because realistically the value of the club is possibly nil - it is not self-sustaining and is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the fans in a pretty small geographical area - it’s not like a Man U or Real Madrid where mechandising rights overseas are huge,  Certainly the value of a single share is pretty much nil.  Even 250 shares are worthless save for the intrinsic value.  Which isn’t going to change no matter how many shares get issued to majority shareholders.  

The bottom line is that the share issuances to directors serve only two purposes.  One is a minimum share holding that the directors must hold.  The second is simply financing for the club, so the number of shares issued is basically irrelevant save for the impact it has on who controls the club.

[Google Bot 3,278]

Is it true that there was an AD who stopped driving his Volvo in anticipation of an Ibiza being delivered as part of the seat for life initiative?

[GMF 747]

55 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

The ords are definitely £1 shares - the accounts and companies house records match up.  As for issuing, the directors can cause the company to issue at whatever price they want to whomever they want, subject to any pre-emption rights in the articles.  They can ask for a premium on one issue, and not on the next.  That is in no way unusual.

There are companies act provisions that could assist when a company acts to prejudice other shareholders, such as diluting the stake of small shareholders as might be the case here.  However, you have to be financially harmed by that act.  Arguably, there is no financial harm on the basis that a NCFC plc share’s value derives from its intrinsic value as an intangible asset, i.e. an ownership stake in the club, not on a percentage basis of the total value of the club.  Because realistically the value of the club is possibly nil - it is not self-sustaining and is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the fans in a pretty small geographical area - it’s not like a Man U or Real Madrid where mechandising rights overseas are huge,  Certainly the value of a single share is pretty much nil.  Even 250 shares are worthless save for the intrinsic value.  Which isn’t going to change no matter how many shares get issued to majority shareholders.  

The bottom line is that the share issuances to directors serve only two purposes.  One is a minimum share holding that the directors must hold.  The second is simply financing for the club, so the number of shares issued is basically irrelevant save for the impact it has on who controls the club.

Just to add a point here, as a consequence of one of the resolutions at the September 2022 general meeting, there’s no longer a requirement for a director to hold a minimum of 100 shares in the club. This legacy issue has now been resolved.

[Mr Angry 1,563]

6 hours ago, GMF said:

I should just add, in all other cases previously there seems to have been an acceptance that seat for life meant exactly that. 

As opposed to ‘in perpetuity’ in which case Essex would have a point.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

17 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

There are elections for the OSP coming up in May so can you imagine if Norwich City's No.1 fan applies to join in the belief that people would actually vote for him ?

He should be given the gig, then a mass pile on of irrelevant,spurious and ridiculous attention seeking requests should be directed at him, incessantly.  

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

I for one am delighted that Gollum is finally being  'outed' for what he really is. It's been a long time coming but i could smell him a mile off. In more proactive societies people like him are left marooned on desert islands, for the good of the rest

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

1 hour ago, wcorkcanary said:

I for one am delighted that Gollum is finally being  'outed' for what he really is. It's been a long time coming but i could smell him a mile off. In more proactive societies people like him are left marooned on desert islands, for the good of the rest

I've not paid the slightest bit of attention to it all really.

But trying to extract £400 from the club on spurious means during a pandemic which left clubs financially crippled is really low, parasitic behaviour.

I'm sure that he'll want to justify this by pointing out that two particular major shareholders take X or Y, but that's really not an excuse, is not really any different from looters in Tottenham in 2011 pinching a pair of trainers and then using "but somebody else took 10 pairs" as a defence.

What I want to know is what £ cost you'd attribute to the club having to spend dealing with his endless queries and defending ombudsmen complaints. When you factor in that he's had probably £22k worth of free season tickets (corporate price) and likely cost the club tens in thousands in resources having to deal with this muppet, he thinks he's a net positive on the club and he's clearly been the complete opposite.

Meanwhile the man on the street has spent £11k on paupers season tickets in that time without the administrative burden. 

That £400 refund thing is really really low, and if he had any support left in the room that should be enough to lose it.

Edited March 18 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[essex canary 496]

31 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I've not paid the slightest bit of attention to it all really.

But trying to extract £400 from the club on spurious means during a pandemic which left clubs financially crippled is really low, parasitic behaviour.

I'm sure that he'll want to justify this by pointing out that two particular major shareholders take X or Y, but that's really not an excuse, is not really any different from looters in Tottenham in 2011 pinching a pair of trainers and then using "but somebody else took 10 pairs" as a defence.

What I want to know is what £ cost you'd attribute to the club having to spend dealing with his endless queries and defending ombudsmen complaints. When you factor in that he's had probably £22k worth of free season tickets (corporate price) and likely cost the club tens in thousands in resources having to deal with this muppet, he thinks he's a net positive on the club and he's clearly been the complete opposite.

Meanwhile the man on the street has spent £11k on paupers season tickets in that time without the administrative burden. 

That £400 refund thing is really really low, and if he had any support left in the room that should be enough to lose it.

Thanks for that. In a sense I threw the £400 issue in a 'kitchen sink' sense. In terms of value it is the difference of value I lose every season vis-a-vis original purchaser AD's having made a proposal at least partially in regard to assisting an inheritor in response to which a senior Club official initially states he would "reach out' only to subsequently not do so in any constructive way. Given the delayed start and the pandemic and an average pricing of around £1,000, I would say your £22k is only around £18k. That doesn't take into account paying that commercial price for my then teenage son to sit beside me in the early years which I would otherwise not have done. For that inheritor the figure is probably only around £13k plus the hassle of taking on the shares.

I have written to @GMF with a proposal as to how I and for that matter ADs could disinvest to release complementary seats to shareholders. Equally though for that to happen I believe the Club needs to be more constructive about the future of minority shareholding than hitherto. There also perhaps needs to be a recognition that having so many multiple transactions of 4 shares cannot be constructive. I would hazard a guess that the ongoing admin cost of the share register for 250 substitute shareholders of 4 may well outweigh the costs of a seat for 1 holder of 1,000. In that context supporters who would otherwise buy the shares perhaps need to consider slightly larger quantities.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

55 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I've not paid the slightest bit of attention to it all really.

But trying to extract £400 from the club on spurious means during a pandemic which left clubs financially crippled is really low, parasitic behaviour.

I'm sure that he'll want to justify this by pointing out that two particular major shareholders take X or Y, but that's really not an excuse, is not really any different from looters in Tottenham in 2011 pinching a pair of trainers and then using "but somebody else took 10 pairs" as a defence.

What I want to know is what £ cost you'd attribute to the club having to spend dealing with his endless queries and defending ombudsmen complaints. When you factor in that he's had probably £22k worth of free season tickets (corporate price) and likely cost the club tens in thousands in resources having to deal with this muppet, he thinks he's a net positive on the club and he's clearly been the complete opposite.

Meanwhile the man on the street has spent £11k on paupers season tickets in that time without the administrative burden. 

That £400 refund thing is really really low, and if he had any support left in the room that should be enough to lose it.

Nicely summed up. Parasitic behaviour is a perfect description. I was beginning to think that his behaviour was being kind of ignored ....'its just Essex..he's like that'..sorta thing. It's been most gratifying to see the upsurge in disapproval for his abhorrent self interest..and whats more his insidious sniping at all and sundry purely because he cant get his own way. 

Bravo to the Club

And Bravo to the Ombudsman.

 

[A Load of Squit 5,170]

1 minute ago, wcorkcanary said:

Nicely summed up. Parasitic behaviour is a perfect description. I was beginning to think that his behaviour was being kind of ignored ....'its just Essex..he's like that'..sorta thing. It's been most gratifying to see the upsurge in disapproval for his abhorrent self interest..and whats more his insidious sniping at all and sundry purely because he cant get his own way. 

Bravo to the Club

And Bravo to the Ombudsman.

 

I think we should chant at him for moaning.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

For that inheritor the figure is probably only around £13k plus the hassle of taking on the shares.

Their doesn't need to be an inheritor, you can flog the shares and leave him the cash.

I don't understand why you should make the issue of your will and probate anybody else's concern, this is between you, your son and your executor(s), nobody else cares. 

[essex canary 496]

Thought for the day.

AD seat concessions doubtless cost the Club around £30,000 per year.

If they were to be dissolved in favour of 6,250 new shareholders each owning 4 new shares so as to increase the total number of shareholders from 6,800 to 13,000, How much extra money per annum do you think the solicitors firm would want to manage the share register?

More or less than £30,000? I don't know the answer but I would think perhaps more in which case it wouldn't be a clever move.

 

[essex canary 496]

6 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Their doesn't need to be an inheritor, you can flog the shares and leave him the cash.

I don't understand why you should make the issue of your will and probate anybody else's concern, this is between you, your son and your executor(s), nobody else cares. 

You can't flog something after you have died suddenly.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

21 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I have written to @GMF with a proposal

I bet he is thrilled.

[essex canary 496]

18 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I bet he is thrilled.

I will be thrilled if you can name a solicitor who will do twice the work for the same money.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

You can't flog something after you have died suddenly.

He can though can't he.

Or you could flog them now.

How are you claiming that this is any different to somebody who owns 4 shares then?

They pass away, their shares are transferred to their beneficiaries. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

Thought for the day.

You ought to do a little bit less of that thinking and a bit more enjoying the moment.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

Random thought for the day…

Apparently only two modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’.

 

[Mr Angry 1,563]

23 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Random thought for the day…

Apparently only two modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’.

 

ABBA? 🤣

Seriously though, ‘moped’ came from a Swede.

Edited March 18 by Mr Angry
Misspelled seriously 😧

[Robert N. LiM 4,385]

25 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Apparently only two modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’.

That's cool, no idea that ombudsman was Swedish

2 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Seriuosly though, ‘moped’ came from a Swede.

There are a few more. From this list I recognised gravlax, fartlek, orienteering and tungsten.

[essex canary 496]

54 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

He can though can't he.

Or you could flog them now.

How are you claiming that this is any different to somebody who owns 4 shares then?

They pass away, their shares are transferred to their beneficiaries. 

The person with 4 can easily sell them in one transaction. @GMF confirms that buyers are only seeking small transactions. Therefore the inheritor with 1,000 has to engage in multiple transactions. As a result the number of shareholders may increase from say 6,860 to say 7, 000 on account of 1 disinvestment. Perhaps the solicitor won't charge the Club more for that increase in activity but they might do.  Then again they certainly would when multiplied by 24. Who really wants to be bothered with that following a bereavement to get some return on your money that you should reasonably get anyway. That really does satisfy the Club's declared policy of 'respecting the self worth of each individual' doesn't it?

[Google Bot 3,278]

26 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Apparently only two modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’.

F.U.N.E.X?

[Kathy 733]

34 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

Random thought for the day…

Apparently only two modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’.

 

I think you're forgetting 'Maelstrom'.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

12 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Who really wants to be bothered with that following a bereavement to get some return on your money that you should reasonably get anyway. That really does satisfy the Club's declared policy of 'respecting the self worth of each individual' doesn't it?

So now you are expecting the club to purchase your shares back upon your death? Presumably for a sum which far surpasses the amount that you paid for them?

Your son doesn't need to sell your shares immediately, he can process his grief, get over it, and then seek to sell them. Or, he can keep them. They'll be his, and not yours, and you won't be here to worry about it. 

I honestly don't think I've ever encountered anybody who feels more entitled, online or offline, I just seriously struggle to contend with this, it is alien to me. 

Unless you list your 1000 shares for sale you will never know if there is somebody prepared to make you an offer. If you don't ask you don't get.

However I don't think you really want to sell them, as it would take away the enjoyment you get out of investing all this time and energy in conflict.

£25000 is chicken feed to a larger second tier side, why not try get £50k or £60k for your shares, and then take that money to Chelmsford City, or Braintree, or Billericay, or Maldon and Tiptree, or Cambridge City, with sone of those you'd probably have a decent chance of buying yourself onto the board of directors rather than stuck with a Mickey Mouse title and all this bitterness?

Edited March 18 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[Mr Angry 1,563]

22 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

That's cool, no idea that ombudsman was Swedish

There are a few more. From this list I recognised gravlax, fartlek, orienteering and tungsten.

Gravlax is too posh for me 😢

[essex canary 496]

16 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Is it true that there was an AD who stopped driving his Volvo in anticipation of an Ibiza being delivered as part of the seat for life initiative?

I drive a Seat, a VW product, a people's vehicle. Nothing wrong with a Spanish island or for that matter with Scandinavia.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

29 minutes ago, Kathy said:

I think you're forgetting 'Maelstrom'.

And IKEA 🙃

[Google Bot 3,278]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I drive a Seat, a VW product, a people's vehicle.

Does it have this in the back window?

[GMF 747]

32 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The person with 4 can easily sell them in one transaction. @GMF confirms that buyers are only seeking small transactions. Therefore the inheritor with 1,000 has to engage in multiple transactions. As a result the number of shareholders may increase from say 6,860 to say 7, 000 on account of 1 disinvestment. Perhaps the solicitor won't charge the Club more for that increase in activity but they might do.  Then again they certainly would when multiplied by 24. Who really wants to be bothered with that following a bereavement to get some return on your money that you should reasonably get anyway. That really does satisfy the Club's declared policy of 'respecting the self worth of each individual' doesn't it?

I would prefer not to be tagged with comments like this, unless they accurately reflect the situation.

The Club has over 6,800 shareholders, with over 5,300 of them owning ten shares or less. It should therefore come as no surprise to discover that buyers are generally only seeking a handful of shares, as that’s normally what’s offered by existing shareholders.

The biggest trade completed via our website so far was for 350 shares, although the purchaser then split the acquisition with two other friends.

There's currently over 50 fans seeking to acquire shares, and, although not all make an offer every time there’s a listing, but there are over ten people willing to acquire any amount of shares.

Similarly, it’s not uncommon for people to make offers for fewer shares than are offered.

As a general rule, unsurprisingly, smaller listings generate more interest than larger holdings, but it’s not uncommon for these to be split up anyway.