Membership Details For Next Season 2024/25.

[essex canary 497]

45 minutes ago, GMF said:

My memory isn’t as good as it used to be, but I’m sure that this point was tested somewhere before? And you lost? 

That is because the Ombudsman suffers from culture capture and an inability to interpret the English Language correctly. Besides the Articles of Association have been revised since then yet still Clause 8 remains as I attached in this thread. The words are there to be read and are not ambiguous in any way.

Edited April 5 by essex canary

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, Greavsy said:

3. The gift that keeps taking.................

Quite simply Article 8 should make reference to seats for life too whether original purchasers only or otherwise. Relative to the 1 share membership benefit, 'otherwise' would still be pro-rata a very modest return for1,000 shares. The maths would tell you that.

Edited April 5 by essex canary

[Greavsy 2,416]

10 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Quite simply Article 8 should make reference to seats for life too whether original purchasers only or otherwise. Relative to the 1 share membership benefit, 'otherwise' would still be pro-rata a very modest return for1,000 shares. The maths would tell you that.

I think you are the only person who needs 'for life' explaining. 

And given your form even if it was mentioned you'd still disagree. 

[shefcanary 2,426]

I've just seen a stat that says the Club has 495,000 followers on Instagram - if they all want a ticket so they can post a picture from Wembley, there certainly will be issues, and a certain person on here will be sweating. 😉 

[TIL 1010 4,760]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That is because the Ombudsman suffers from culture capture and an inability to interpret the English Language correctly.

' culture capture ' WTF is that all about ?

[GMF 754]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Of course there is double counting. Shareholder Members are doubtless not being counted at all and I suspect even the Club don't know the duplicate tally there given they are in a different database. 

The Club doesn’t know the headroom and could be inundated. If its claims about the worldwide diaspora is correct they should be even given that we are someway behind Leeds in this regard.

 

 

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Shareholders have to claim their free membership, so the Club will know exactly how many people are claiming it. 

[GMF 754]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That is because the Ombudsman suffers from culture capture and an inability to interpret the English Language correctly. Besides the Articles of Association have been revised since then yet still Clause 8 remains as I attached in this thread. The words are there to be read and are not ambiguous in any way.

Says the person who refuses to accept the original shares offer documents that explicitly stated that the benefits were personal to the original shareholder and would lapse if the shares were sold or passed on.

[GMF 754]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

Quite simply Article 8 should make reference to seats for life too whether original purchasers only or otherwise. Relative to the 1 share membership benefit, 'otherwise' would still be pro-rata a very modest return for1,000 shares. The maths would tell you that.

Why should it, other than for your own personal benefit?

Leaving aside the fact that if it did, that would constitute a retrospective change to the original share offer terms, which would have far greater implications for the Club, what would happen in, say, 100 years time, in 2102? That would be the equivalent of an annual cost of £250 pa. I can see why you might think that this would be acceptable, but think of it from the Club’s perspective. It was never going to happen.

[essex canary 497]

2 hours ago, shefcanary said:

I've just seen a stat that says the Club has 495,000 followers on Instagram - if they all want a ticket so they can post a picture from Wembley, there certainly will be issues, and a certain person on here will be sweating. 😉 

The Club quotes 1 million Facebook followers.

[essex canary 497]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

' culture capture ' WTF is that all about ?

That the lead Ombudsman was schooled in the Football industry so can't think outside the box. That said given sentence 2 of section 19 attached that isn't entirely true.

Edited April 5 by essex canary

[essex canary 497]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. Shareholders have to claim their free membership, so the Club will know exactly how many people are claiming it. 

Sorry the issue there was how many shareholders are neither ST holders or members (assuming they haven't claimed their free home membership which they may have forgotten about) and therefore may like a Wembley seat ahead of 1 million Facebook followers?

[GMF 754]

43 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Sorry the issue there was how many shareholders are neither ST holders or members (assuming they haven't claimed their free home membership which they may have forgotten about) and therefore may like a Wembley seat ahead of 1 million Facebook followers?

Don’t know, and don’t care. It’s not expected to be an issue. It only seems to be a matter that’s vexing you.

Maybe you should just enjoy the football and stop obsessing over the minutia.

[TIL 1010 4,760]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That the lead Ombudsman was schooled in the Football industry so can't think outside the box. That said given sentence 2 of section 19 attached that isn't entirely true.

As you no longer have access to away tickets due to no longer being an AD and because you are not an away member you appear somewhat concerned about where you will be in the pecking order for Wembley tickets.

[Greavsy 2,416]

48 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

As you no longer have access to away tickets due to no longer being an AD and because you are not an away member you appear somewhat concerned about where you will be in the pecking order for Wembley tickets.

See what you done there Tilly, mentioning pecking order after point 20 in the pic, discussing bird droppings! 

Were they taking aim at Essex too? 

[keefyboy 17]

On the rare occasions I lurk on here the same person drones on about his shareholding puts me right off his/this forum. Essex you might be a nice fellow but please.. Go away, sort out your private affairs with Norwich City Football Club  and leave the forum to talk about football- heaven forbid.

PS if anyone wants to buy membership now it's their business. If the club offers it then fans have the right to buy it. No biggie anyway as Wembley has 37,000 tickets and last time they were still on sale the day before the Middlesbrough game. Every one who wants one will get one. If we get there 🙏  OTBC!

Edited April 5 by keefyboy

[essex canary 497]

18 hours ago, keefyboy said:

On the rare occasions I lurk on here the same person drones on about his shareholding puts me right off his/this forum. Essex you might be a nice fellow but please.. Go away, sort out your private affairs with Norwich City Football Club  and leave the forum to talk about football- heaven forbid.

PS if anyone wants to buy membership now it's their business. If the club offers it then fans have the right to buy it. No biggie anyway as Wembley has 37,000 tickets and last time they were still on sale the day before the Middlesbrough game. Every one who wants one will get one. If we get there 🙏  OTBC!

Likely to include the Ipswich or Leeds fans who will buy up the Norwich memberships on offer on this basis. 

What is the difference re today when apparently a 5 year purchase history was required?

[Bobzilla 150]

On 05/04/2024 at 07:40, essex canary said:

The Articles of Association- the Club's Bible - entitles shareholders to free membership.

I will concede you have a point here.  They need to change the articles to make sure that they say ‘home membership’ now that they have split the membership.

[GMF 754]

58 minutes ago, Bobzilla said:

I will concede you have a point here.  They need to change the articles to make sure that they say ‘home membership’ now that they have split the membership.

I’m personally surprised that they have still kept this benefit, as the last time I checked on its actual usage the response was “just a handful”.

[essex canary 497]

18 minutes ago, GMF said:

I’m personally surprised that they have still kept this benefit, as the last time I checked on its actual usage the response was “just a handful”.

That is because many people have forgotten, the Club doesn't remind them in these messages and they end up paying when they shouldn't alongside the confusion the Club have created on the away issue. The other alternative is to withdraw it completely or the compromise not transferable as for the seat issue.

Going back to the Play off issue, why should the potential risk of infiltration from opposition fans be any different at Wembley to what it was yesterday when the Club appeared to be neurotic about the possibility?

As far as their own demand is concerned we all know the Club's track record for estimation is woeful. As an example the other way round the 2002 share offer was seeking sales of 214,000 to the public and achieved only 62,216, less than 30%.

The new Ombudsman is a Barrister and may take a tougher view on 'opportunity to purchase.'

Strong Fan Engagement ought to facilitate these issues being pursued and firm logical answers secured.

[Greavsy 2,416]

5 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That is because many people have forgotten, the Club doesn't remind them in these messages and they end up paying when they shouldn't alongside the confusion the Club have created on the away issue. The other alternative is to withdraw it completely or the compromise not transferable as for the seat issue.

Going back to the Play off issue, why should the potential risk of infiltration from opposition fans be any different at Wembley to what it was yesterday when the Club appeared to be neurotic about the possibility?

As far as their own demand is concerned we all know the Club's track record for estimation is woeful. As an example the other way round the 2002 share offer was seeking sales of 214,000 to the public and achieved only 62,216, less than 30%.

The new Ombudsman is a Barrister and may take a tougher view on 'opportunity to purchase.'

Strong Fan Engagement ought to facilitate these issues being pursued and firm logical answers secured.

Oh bore off Essex. 

You have had a point 6/12/18 months ago, certainly seems like a lifetime of your incessant whinging in here.

We beat our local rivals yesterday, knocked them off top spot, are in a healthy play of position, the sun is out. Cheer up man.

I'm off out for some Sunday league. 

[GMF 754]

20 minutes ago, essex canary said:

That is because many people have forgotten, the Club doesn't remind them in these messages and they end up paying when they shouldn't alongside the confusion the Club have created on the away issue. The other alternative is to withdraw it completely or the compromise not transferable as for the seat issue.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Club should write to every single shareholder each season to remind them of this benefit? Is that your idea of positive supporter engagement, or wasting money? 

[GMF 754]

26 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Going back to the Play off issue, why should the potential risk of infiltration from opposition fans be any different at Wembley to what it was yesterday when the Club appeared to be neurotic about the possibility?

You do realise that the Club will actually review the purchase history of any newbies beyond the current season? I’m sure you can work it out for yourself as to the possible consequences…

[GMF 754]

30 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The new Ombudsman is a Barrister and may take a tougher view on 'opportunity to purchase.'

Essex v IFO Part Three, incoming? Third time lucky, perhaps 🤔 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

Just now, GMF said:

Essex v IFO Part Three, incoming? Third time lucky, perhaps 🤔 

Or more hopefully, three strikes and youre out, banned, stopped from attending, posting or even talking about NCFC. forced buyout of his shares, price decided. by a tribunal. Thankyou and Toodle Pip Kev.

[Robert N. LiM 4,421]

4 minutes ago, GMF said:

Essex v IFO Part Three, incoming? Third time lucky, perhaps 🤔 

The new Ombudsman doesn't know how lucky they are.

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

8 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

The new Ombudsman doesn't know how lucky they are.

i would imagine, being an ex lawyer as ethics suggests, he/she will have an understanding of the meaning of the expression 'for life' and his (ehtics) vexatious and pathetic campaign will again, fall short, are you short as well Ethics?It might explain a few things.

Edited April 7 by wcorkcanary

[NewNestCarrow 200]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

That is because many people have forgotten, the Club doesn't remind them in these messages and they end up paying when they shouldn't alongside the confusion the Club have created on the away issue. The other alternative is to withdraw it completely or the compromise not transferable as for the seat issue.

No, no, and NO.

The vast majority of new share purchasers saw this as an altruistic transaction, and had no interest in any ROI.

Your constant & continued push for personal gain (at the expense of the football club you claim to support) marks you out as truly one-of-a-kind.

Edited April 7 by NewNestCarrow

[essex canary 497]

1 hour ago, NewNestCarrow said:

No, no, and NO.

The vast majority of new share purchasers saw this as an altruistic transaction, and had no interest in any ROI.

Your constant & continued push for personal gain (at the expense of the football club you claim to support) marks you out as truly one-of-a-kind.

Why then have they not deleted the clause?

[shefcanary 2,426]

2 hours ago, GMF said:

Are you seriously suggesting that the Club should write to every single shareholder each season to remind them of this benefit? Is that your idea of positive supporter engagement, or wasting money? 

I have to admit that this thread made me realise that I hadn't claimed my membership for a few years. Sorted now, but it is easy to forget to do it.

[TIL 1010 4,760]

3 hours ago, GMF said:

You do realise that the Club will actually review the purchase history of any newbies beyond the current season? I’m sure you can work it out for yourself as to the possible consequences…

The postcode of any applicants will be taken into consideration so i imagine any IP or LS postcodes will be frowned upon.