Appeal Fund Trust funding

[GMF 756]

https://www.canaries.co.uk/content/appeal-fund-trust-agree-to-additional-norwich-city-women-funding
 

Old Trust to utilise share sale funds to Norwich City Women’s team.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

That 200K will be a welcome boost to the ladies and put an end to the mystery of what happened to the monies from the sale of over 10,000 shares that were purchased by MA from the 1957 original Trust.

[essex canary 498]

46 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

That 200K will be a welcome boost to the ladies and put an end to the mystery of what happened to the monies from the sale of over 10,000 shares that were purchased by MA from the 1957 original Trust.

Indeed. Good stuff. Pleased to see this. Again a communication issue though in terms of being slow off the mark but we get there in the end.

[shefcanary 2,435]

As a charity advocate I hope there is a good audit trail of how the money is spent and the benefits it produces.

[essex canary 498]

2 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

As a charity advocate I hope there is a good audit trail of how the money is spent and the benefits it produces.

No Capital Growth in the past 20 years would be a good starting point on that one.

[GMF 756]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

No Capital Growth in the past 20 years would be a good starting point on that one.

It’s probably stating the obvious, but a shareholder has to actually sell their shares in order to achieve a capital gain.

The Trust was formed back in 1957, then the allotment price was lower than £25.00.

Other shareholders have also sold their shares recently, many achieving higher prices than their purchase price.

You, on the other hand haven’t, but keep waving the same stick without be prepared to do anything about it.

[essex canary 498]

The significance of this is though that the Trustees have clearly a signed off on the £25 - same price as 2002 -  when they presumably had an obligation to get the best price.? Perhaps that is the financial reality but interesting that the Club ED announces that without comment whilst herself having been closely associated with the financial crash.

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

The significance of this is though that the Trustees have clearly a signed off on the £25 - same price as 2002 -  when they presumably had an obligation to get the best price.? 

Like any shareholder, they are free to accept whatever price they like. 

[essex canary 498]

45 minutes ago, GMF said:

Like any shareholder, they are free to accept whatever price they like. 

Surely a Trust normally needs to be able to justify to those who contributed initially that they got the best price albeit that donations into a blanket in 1957 may know prove to be a practical challenge?

[Kathy 735]

Brilliant news.

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Surely a Trust normally needs to be able to justify to those who contributed initially that they got the best price albeit that donations into a blanket in 1957 may know prove to be a practical challenge?

Best of luck with this. 

[chicken 2,640]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

Surely a Trust normally needs to be able to justify to those who contributed initially that they got the best price albeit that donations into a blanket in 1957 may know prove to be a practical challenge?

For the very love of life itself, please give it a rest already. Even in good news you desperately squirm at trying to find something in which you can rile against in your own obsessive and selfish way. It has nothing to do with your shareholding - if you want to argue something, s0d off for a bit and research it instead of thinking you are looking clever by making assumptions or assumptive questions which are nothing but hollow.

It not only insults any intelligence you might have, but continues to insult the collective intelligences of the fine folk of this forum.

[shefcanary 2,435]

21 hours ago, essex canary said:

Surely a Trust normally needs to be able to justify to those who contributed initially that they got the best price albeit that donations into a blanket in 1957 may know prove to be a practical challenge?

That's a poke too far. The Trust would have acquired many of those shares well below the £25 per share they received from Attanasio. Under Charity Law regs the Trustees would have had to gauge whether they could have got more elsewhere, but given all the public pronouncements on what the club and Attanasio had agreed plus the evidence gained from elsewhere, they can rightfully discharge their role as Trustees on the basis that they would be unlikely to gain any better price in the forseeable future because of the size of the holding.  

[essex canary 498]

11 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

That's a poke too far. The Trust would have acquired many of those shares well below the £25 per share they received from Attanasio. Under Charity Law regs the Trustees would have had to gauge whether they could have got more elsewhere, but given all the public pronouncements on what the club and Attanasio had agreed plus the evidence gained from elsewhere, they can rightfully discharge their role as Trustees on the basis that they would be unlikely to gain any better price in the forseeable future because of the size of the holding.  

Thanks for your thoughts. The last sentence is quite informative and ADs and other shareholders might have liked to have been informed of that in terms of making a judgement on their own exit strategy but I guess that wasn't forthcoming. Still puzzling as to why a Trust stays dormant for so long and,  as you stated, how this ringfenced money will be accounted for going forwards. Probably will need to await the AGM for any answers.

[chicken 2,640]

22 hours ago, shefcanary said:

That's a poke too far. The Trust would have acquired many of those shares well below the £25 per share they received from Attanasio. Under Charity Law regs the Trustees would have had to gauge whether they could have got more elsewhere, but given all the public pronouncements on what the club and Attanasio had agreed plus the evidence gained from elsewhere, they can rightfully discharge their role as Trustees on the basis that they would be unlikely to gain any better price in the forseeable future because of the size of the holding.  

It's funny isn't it? Just like any other shareholder they could have turned it down and held out for more. Someone really aught to point this out to someone else...

Or I suppose we could shout and scream at MA for not paying out more?!! 

[essex canary 498]

4 minutes ago, chicken said:

It's funny isn't it? Just like any other shareholder they could have turned it down and held out for more. Someone really aught to point this out to someone else...

Or I suppose we could shout and scream at MA for not paying out more?!! 

In a sense it ought to be disappointing that the amount now allocated to women's football hasn't received any capital gain in the past 22 years.

Nevertheless taking on board that it hasn't, communication of the principles behind that decision could also have resulted in the relinquishing of the 1,000 share Club such that the original purchasers (though only the originals) would no longer be claiming those seats despised by many. Not to mention the no brainer for the, generally younger and more likely female, inheritors.

Do you want to maintain your cake or eat it now?

Hopefully you have learned something from the slaphead saga.

[GMF 756]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

In a sense it ought to be disappointing that the amount now allocated to women's football hasn't received any capital gain in the past 22 years.

Nevertheless taking on board that it hasn't, communication of the principles behind that decision could also have resulted in the relinquishing of the 1,000 share Club such that the original purchasers (though only the originals) would no longer be claiming those seats despised by many. Not to mention the no brainer for the, generally younger and more likely female, inheritors.

Do you want to maintain your cake or eat it now?

Hopefully you have learned something from the slaphead saga.

I’m not aware of any other fan who actually despises these seats (they all reasonably understand the terms of the original share offer). Just a wild guess, but, maybe, any angst aired in relation to this matter is derived for an associated matter? 

[essex canary 498]

2 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m not aware of any other fan who actually despises these seats (they all reasonably understand the terms of the original share offer). Just a wild guess, but, maybe, any angst aired in relation to this matter is derived for an associated matter? 

@JonnyJonnyRowe started a whole thread on it last week. 

[TIL 1010 4,776]

35 minutes ago, essex canary said:

@JonnyJonnyRowe started a whole thread on it last week. 

Oh look essex dragging other posters into a thread they have played no part in with an attempt at deflection.

 

[essex canary 498]

21 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Oh look essex dragging other posters into a thread they have played no part in with an attempt at deflection.

 

I was answering @GMF s question.

Upon reflection though perhaps a better reference point would be the Directors of the Football Club themselves who in 2018 arrived at the judgement that ADs had 'hugely benefitted' from their seating arrangement. In S&Js case that comes across as them.questioning the veracity of their own decision.

 

[GMF 756]

24 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Oh look essex dragging other posters into a thread they have played no part in with an attempt at deflection.

 

I’ve been tagged three times recently, none of which I’d previously been involved with.

One person starting a thread about it rather misses the point I’d made.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

4 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I was answering @GMF s question.

Upon reflection though perhaps a better reference point would be the Directors of the Football Club themselves who in 2018 arrived at the judgement that ADs had 'hugely benefitted' from their seating arrangement. In S&Js case that comes across as them.questioning the veracity of their own decision.

 

What in Gods name has that got to do with the Ladies receiving £200K which in the eyes of everybody except you is great news ?

ADs this, ADs that, ADs the other ! Everybody is sick to the back teeth of you and this continual rambling of yours.

[GMF 756]

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

I was answering @GMF s question.

Upon reflection though perhaps a better reference point would be the Directors of the Football Club themselves who in 2018 arrived at the judgement that ADs had 'hugely benefitted' from their seating arrangement. In S&Js case that comes across as them.questioning the veracity of their own decision.

 

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense in this context.

All the Trustees are obliged to do is comply with the terms of the original trust deed, dispose of any proceeds (and liabilities, if any) as directed, whilst having regards to any appropriate legal obligations.

There's absolutely no need for you to make any reference to the comments of the majority shareholders, which are hearsay, in this context. The thread isn’t about your personal interests.

[essex canary 498]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense in this context.

All the Trustees are obliged to do is comply with the terms of the original trust deed, dispose of any proceeds (and liabilities, if any) as directed, whilst having regards to any appropriate legal obligations.

There's absolutely no need for you to make any reference to the comments of the majority shareholders, which are hearsay, in this context. The thread isn’t about your personal interests.

I am not sure what is 'hearsay'. It was a reported comment in writing which is simply not true in absolute terms though could be argued to be true in relative terms eg. relative to shareholders with 400 shares but then there aren't any of those anyway though it would have been a good decision in 2002.

What has clearly emerged is that MA was willing to pay off AD'S which would have cost around £750k which begs the question as to why we didn't simply get an explanatory letter through our door to that effect instead of all the garbage we did get. Better still why didn't the 5,300 or so shareholders who own around the same number of shares in total an average of 6 each get such a letter? It would surely have been cheaper to pay them off given all the ongoing admin.

It also suggests that it wasn't MA who wanted the Rule 9 waiver but more likely S&J. That is because without they would have had to find £2.5 million new money for their portion of the new share issue which is why they want some minorities locked in. Therefore the Club paid out on all those legal fees etc. whilst S&J found the best part of £1 million for a new pub.

[TIL 1010 4,776]

Would this be a good time to mention the thread title is Appeal Fund Trust Funding ?

[JonnyJonnyRowe 451]

3 hours ago, essex canary said:

@JonnyJonnyRowe started a whole thread on it last week. 

Yeah but I'm not really bothered about it, was just fishing because I knew you'd bite, after finding out you'd tried getting a £400 refund against a ticket you'd paid £0 for! 

Edited March 26 by JonnyJonnyRowe

[GMF 756]

@essexcanary this is getting ridiculous, you hijacking threads with your endless questions and personal agenda.

I’ve still got the emails from July / August 2022, but they are private, so won’t be disclosed. Needless to say, some of what you say above simply doesn’t reflect the reality of events. I can say that because I know exactly what happened, at least in part.

However, there’s no mileage in going back over old ground, as, unlike some, I don’t have any desire to try to rewrite history.

[essex canary 498]

4 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

What in Gods name has that got to do with the Ladies receiving £200K which in the eyes of everybody except you is great news ?

ADs this, ADs that, ADs the other ! Everybody is sick to the back teeth of you and this continual rambling of yours.

Actually I believe my late friend was once manager of Norwich City Ladies. They could have released those shares in relation to a non-operational trust way back then for ladies football  when the proceeds would have been worth more then than they are now.

[essex canary 498]

2 hours ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Yeah but I'm not really bothered about it, was just fishing because I knew you'd bite, after finding out you'd tried getting a £400 refund against a ticket you'd paid £0 for! 

Fine but just to clarify if they paid my investment back I could buy an ISA in the Nationwide Building Society and get enough back to pay for my season ticket arrangement. That would be a no brainer for an inheritor who doesnt get the seat as it stands and never in their own right signed up to S&J's schemes in the first place yet MWJ in 1998 promised 'the best in family involvement.' 

[essex canary 498]

29 minutes ago, GMF said:

@essexcanary this is getting ridiculous, you hijacking threads with your endless questions and personal agenda.

I’ve still got the emails from July / August 2022, but they are private, so won’t be disclosed. Needless to say, some of what you say above simply doesn’t reflect the reality of events. I can say that because I know exactly what happened, at least in part.

However, there’s no mileage in going back over old ground, as, unlike some, I don’t have any desire to try to rewrite history.

I am unclear why someone who I don't believe is a shareholder in their own right should have superior access to documents over one who is never mind one with 1,000 shares,