Some shareholders get a free season ticket ticket?!?

[Robert N. LiM 4,385]

23 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Does it have this in the back window?

That is magnificent. You might as well delete your account. You'll never top that.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

1 hour ago, nutty nigel said:

Random thought for the day…

Apparently only  about two hundred modern Swedish words have made it to the English language. ‘Ombudsman’ and ‘Smorgasbord’...........and roughly198 others

 

Fixed that Nutttyo

Edited March 18 by wcorkcanary

[CirclePoint 204]

On 16/03/2024 at 11:22, essex canary said:

Whilst an American multimillionaire earns interest on money for shares that ought to have been bought out if only our majority shareholders would only let him whilst they waste money on lawyers to frustrate the process and themselves claim £13,612.50 Imterst each year on lower risk Preference Shares.

Get lost!

Any rich person will tell you that making £13,612.50 a year on their investments is an utter waste of time and a loss of money. I know a moderately rich person who makes that kind of return simply by getting out of bed.

I’m always bemused why people are so keen to point a disdainful or disgruntled finger at those who are more fortunate or smarter with their money.

[Capt. Pants 4,246]

I've invested more in insurance company shares, but I don't get free car insurance.

[essex canary 496]

6 hours ago, Google Bot said:

Does it have this in the back window?

I need to own up to it being a Toledo. I have tried to account for all the plundered gold located there but it is a big challenge.

 

 

[essex canary 496]

5 hours ago, CirclePoint said:

Any rich person will tell you that making £13,612.50 a year on their investments is an utter waste of time and a loss of money. I know a moderately rich person who makes that kind of return simply by getting out of bed.

I’m always bemused why people are so keen to point a disdainful or disgruntled finger at those who are more fortunate or smarter with their money.

Indeed. There is plenty of evidence look at the pandemic PPE for example. Then they ask why no one works anymore.

[essex canary 496]

The good news is @wcorkcanary was right in that I didn't receive the MA offer that others did.

The bad news is that nobody seems to have accepted it.

The other news (good, bad or indifferent) is that the only other bus is likely to be the 4 share enthusiasts. We only need 6,000 of you, maybe 5,000 without inheritors.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

On 16/03/2024 at 17:05, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

I can't believe you when asked for a £400 refund for games you couldn't attend due to lockdown, a refund for tickets you didn't pay for, did you really expect a favourable outcome here?

Is that actually true, by the way? It's so ridiculous that it borders on satire. 

[essex canary 496]

4 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Is that actually true, by the way? It's so ridiculous that it borders on satire. 

I answered the point re the £400. In effect I did pay for a season ticket for life albeit in 2002 that is a very long payment in advance.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,821]

55 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I answered the point re the £400. In effect I did pay for a season ticket for life albeit in 2002 that is a very long payment in advance.

So it is true?

Wow.

[chicken 2,627]

"In effect".

If that means "I want it to mean" then yes, but otherwise no. You bought shares. Shares that came with the incentive of a free season ticket for life (of the investor clearly) as a thank you to those that invested in over 1000 shares.

If I were them, I would have offered you a refund on the price you paid for the shares. Then hoped you'd grabbed it. Then they'd not only have you off the books but also could claim they were a greener club for saving you the round trips from Essex for all of those years and the many trees felled for you to write your complaints onto the paper of... your carbon footprint alone in that regard probably accounts for at least five other people... Good grief.

[essex canary 496]

16 minutes ago, chicken said:

"In effect".

If that means "I want it to mean" then yes, but otherwise no. You bought shares. Shares that came with the incentive of a free season ticket for life (of the investor clearly) as a thank you to those that invested in over 1000 shares.

If I were them, I would have offered you a refund on the price you paid for the shares. Then hoped you'd grabbed it. Then they'd not only have you off the books but also could claim they were a greener club for saving you the round trips from Essex for all of those years and the many trees felled for you to write your complaints onto the paper of... your carbon footprint alone in that regard probably accounts for at least five other people... Good grief.

That is quite a good argument. Unfortunately though you are not them. My 9 year old gold coloured Seat Toledo is a very ostentatious car in it's own way. The big question is what would I do with the money if I got it back? I could buy one of them new fangled electric things. People say they are greener but they are very heavy, can catch fire requiring gallons of water to put out and all that lithium mining is environmentally horrible. Surely it is better to opt out of this throwaway society and make things last? I paid for my car 9 years ago, my season ticket 22 years ago. I am just a 'seat for life' 'say-at for life' quiet life principled kind of guy. 

Edited March 18 by essex canary

[Bobzilla 145]

12 hours ago, essex canary said:

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?

An increase in the number of shareholders would not necessarily bring about an increase in the number of share transactions, which is basically what the work is on maintenance of a share register.  There might be an uptick in transactions for the first year or 2 as larger holdings get sold off, but that is short term. I would expect that in a competitive tender there wouldn't be any appreciable increase in cost, but that is a guess. I'm not a lawyer and don't do corporate governance.

However, the cost of ADs is an annual cost, likely for the next 30 years.

[essex canary 496]

1 minute ago, Bobzilla said:

An increase in the number of shareholders would not necessarily bring about an increase in the number of share transactions, which is basically what the work is on maintenance of a share register.  There might be an uptick in transactions for the first year or 2 as larger holdings get sold off, but that is short term. I would expect that in a competitive tender there wouldn't be any appreciable increase in cost, but that is a guess. I'm not a lawyer and don't do corporate governance.

However, the cost of ADs is an annual cost, likely for the next 30 years.

250 shareholders for the price of 1 means 250 more deaths will occur resulting in the need for more transfers which all need to be administered. 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

1 hour ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

Is that actually true, by the way? It's so ridiculous that it borders on satire. 

Unfortunately so.

I just saw that another poster, I believe it was Feedthewolf (forgive if I'm wrong), made reference to an ombudsmen verdict, and I know that ombudsmen tend to publish the result of investigations as I used to work in a tightly regulated industry and had to help defend against them a few times.

So I found and read these 8 pages: https://www.theifo.co.uk/associate-director-issues-at-norwich-city/

Edited March 18 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[chicken 2,627]

11 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That is quite a good argument. Unfortunately though you are not them. My 9 year old gold coloured Seat Toledo is a very ostentatious car in it's own way. The big question is what would I do with the money if I got it back? I could buy one of them new fangled electric things. People say they are greener but they are very heavy, can catch fire requiring gallons of water to put out and all that lithium mining is environmentally horrible. Surely it is better to opt out of this throwaway society and make things last? I paid for my car 9 years ago, my season ticket 22 years ago. I am just a 'seat for life' 'say-at for life' quiet life principled kind of guy. 

You didn't though did you. You paid for shares, not for your ticket, unless you are saying your shares are actually worth less? Clearly if it's the season ticket you paid for, you're shares are actually worth a lot less than you keep banging on about?

If MA does offer to buy your shares, does he also get your season ticket? Do you get to keep it? Or neither of those things?

How much did you pay for your season ticket for the last 22years? 

Re electric cars, probably best you do a bit more research than scraping the bottom of the barrel press that is backed by oligarchs and oil companies. Funny how lithium mining is environmentally horrible but drilling for oil and then refining it is somehow all flowers and green grass.

[Google Bot 3,278]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

In effect I did pay for a season ticket for life albeit in 2002 that is a very long payment in advance.

If you don't mind me asking, when considering the investment did you factor in the equivalent savings of having that season ticket and the potential that it would only increase in value due to inflation each season which could potentially pay for near half the investment over 20-30 years?

That's the only way I can make logical sense to you feeling that a refund was due to you, as it effectively puts you a year back on the justification for this investment to start with(?).   Or am I way off the mark here?

I'm trying not to add to the witch hunt that we're bordering on as it makes me a little uncomfortable, but reading the IFO report and having a bit more background into your grievances does have me intrigued and it's less of a riddle to understand your perspective when posting on other subjects.

Edited March 18 by Google Bot

[chicken 2,627]

6 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Unfortunately so.

I just saw that another poster, Feedthewolf, made reference to an ombudsmen verdict, and I know that ombudsmen tend to publish the result of investigations as I used to work in a tightly regulated industry and had to help defend against them a few times.

Read these 8 pages: https://www.theifo.co.uk/associate-director-issues-at-norwich-city/

He's admitted it is... 

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

1 minute ago, chicken said:

He's admitted it is... 

Is there any wonder that with these sort of fanciful requests the club instructed their legal team to stop replying to him.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 446]

The club should just post him a seat from the ground and say "here you go, a seat for life that you can pass on to your son".

[TIL 1010 4,750]

9 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Is there any wonder that with these sort of fanciful requests the club instructed their legal team to stop replying to him.

It is not just the legal team.

[essex canary 496]

10 hours ago, chicken said:

You didn't though did you. You paid for shares, not for your ticket, unless you are saying your shares are actually worth less? Clearly if it's the season ticket you paid for, you're shares are actually worth a lot less than you keep banging on about?

If MA does offer to buy your shares, does he also get your season ticket? Do you get to keep it? Or neither of those things?

How much did you pay for your season ticket for the last 22years? 

Re electric cars, probably best you do a bit more research than scraping the bottom of the barrel press that is backed by oligarchs and oil companies. Funny how lithium mining is environmentally horrible but drilling for oil and then refining it is somehow all flowers and green grass.

First of all I didn't say the last bit at all. Not everything in life is that binary. It is a balanced debate.

The ex Company Secretary sent me a substantial text concerning how the Club had in a sense granted a Season Ticket for 25 years albeit modified to fit the life span of the original purchaser which could be more or less than 25 years. That is quite convenient as the scheme is unlikely to last more than 25 years anyway. In that context the modification is a one way solution for the Club on both the issues of inheritance and pandemic compensation which it otherwise would not be.

Notwithstanding the previous paragraph I agree with you. Free gift must be the verdict. Nonetheless you can't give a free gift and deny it's usage. In this case perhaps they had no viable alternative but should they still compensate? Also the Club owners said at the outset that they would stay away in solidarity with the fans. They didn't maintain that promise. This was again a bit of a throwaway on my part relative to the main issue but not without foundation.

I understand recently the question was as to whether an AD could sell his shares and keep his free gift seat. Perhaps not an entirely unreasonable question as anyone could always buy a magazine and sell it on whilst retaining the free gift that came with it. The answer though is 'No'. Quite rightly so as that point was spelt out very clearly in the original T&C's.

On my point of contention though I still believe the decision regarding inheritors in particular should have been and still should be in my favour.  @GMF  (Canaries Trust Treasurer) confirms that he can't understand why inheritor shareholders of 1,000 shares haven't sold albeit that the only potential buyers are only interested in small holdings. @Bobzillaimplies that the Club has no ongoing costs re the latter bar original set up. This is simply not true. If you have 250 new shareholders 40 or so of them are likely to move house each year. Suppose it costs £25 for that solicitors firm to process each transaction. That is £1,000 per year before the impact of more deaths has been considered  and people who fancy trying their luck at £80 per share for which the larger inheritor will on average have no chance. Then you can add on the goodwill potential feelgood factor for that larger shareholder who as a consequence may be prepared to spend more in the Club Shop etc. It is therefore a no brainer for the Club if they tuned into the issue seriously which is in accordance with their claim in the 2002 Prospectus that  'Shareholders are encouraged to retain shares.'  

[Bobzilla 145]

19 minutes ago, essex canary said:

First of all I didn't say the last bit at all. Not everything in life is that binary. It is a balanced debate.

The ex Company Secretary sent me a substantial text concerning how the Club had in a sense granted a Season Ticket for 25 years albeit modified to fit the life span of the original purchaser which could be more or less than 25 years. That is quite convenient as the scheme is unlikely to last more than 25 years anyway. 

 

What's your basis for that?  I would be very surprised if the club had the unilateral right to remove this benefit without compensation, and even more surprised if the ombudsman upheld that position.  That was a contractual part of the offer document for subscribing for shares, and has cleartly been upheld as such. 

On the contrary, it would not surprise me if there were subsequent schemes like this.

[Bobzilla 145]

24 minutes ago, essex canary said:

On my point of contention though I still believe the decision regarding inheritors in particular should have been and still should be in my favour.  @GMF

That's lovely dear.  You're in a distinct minority on that one.  There is no way you can argue that a 'ST for life' could be confused with a 'ST in perpetuity to inheritors'.  And that's been pointed out to you countless times.

[shefcanary 2,410]

30 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The ex Company Secretary sent me a substantial text concerning how the Club had in a sense granted a Season Ticket for 25 years albeit modified to fit the life span of the original purchaser which could be more or less than 25 years.

Ah, I get it now. Delia is only holding on now to ensure that the club doesn't have to deal with the aftermath of what happens when the conditions for your "free seat with the large shareholding" are no longer applicable. 

[essex canary 496]

8 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

What's your basis for that?  I would be very surprised if the club had the unilateral right to remove this benefit without compensation, and even more surprised if the ombudsman upheld that position.  That was a contractual part of the offer document for subscribing for shares, and has cleartly been upheld as such. 

On the contrary, it would not surprise me if there were subsequent schemes like this.

Sorry. I am not understanding the question. The basis of what? 

[essex canary 496]

7 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

That's lovely dear.  You're in a distinct minority on that one.  There is no way you can argue that a 'ST for life' could be confused with a 'ST in perpetuity to inheritors'.  And that's been pointed out to you countless times.

You have conveniently avoided the remainder of the paragraph.

[Bobzilla 145]

28 minutes ago, essex canary said:

@Bobzillaimplies that the Club has no ongoing costs re the latter bar original set up. This is simply not true. If you have 250 new shareholders 40 or so of them are likely to move house each year. Suppose it costs £25 for that solicitors firm to process each transaction. That is £1,000 per year before the impact of more deaths has been considered  and people who fancy trying their luck at £80 per share for which the larger inheritor will on average have no chance. Then you can add on the goodwill potential feelgood factor for that larger shareholder who as a consequence may be prepared to spend more in the Club Shop etc. It is therefore a no brainer for the Club if they tuned into the issue seriously which is in accordance with their claim in the 2002 Prospectus that  'Shareholders are encouraged to retain shares.'  

Not what I implied, not at all what can reasonably have been read to be implied.  If share register is maintained on a per transaction basis, of course, more transactions means more cost.  However, that's not usually how this sort of thing is done.  Compliance engagements are usually fixed price contracts, with the service provider taking the risk on volume. Sometimes they lose heavily, most of the time they win.

You're estimates of deaths and moving house are, i suggest, way out. You're talking 20% moving. Not happening. They're likely to be older (40 plus) and probably in their last home - older people don't move until they have to. 

You're also massively overestimating the complexity of GG services in respect of small shareholders. Maintaining the share register is pretty easy with the software available now, meaning doing it at scale is very efficient - the expense is in the software, not the people operating the software.  The biggest increased expense will be the mail shots for notifying shareholders of stuff.

[Bobzilla 145]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Sorry. I am not understanding the question. The basis of what? 

Your supposition that the club will unilaterally remove the AD privileges after 25 years.

[Bobzilla 145]

3 minutes ago, essex canary said:

You have conveniently avoided the remainder of the paragraph.

Nope...  But you did when you launched your appeal to the ombudsman...