The free season ticket that Associate Directors get

[JonnyJonnyRowe 1,039]

Anybody know whether there is anything in writing which forces them to offer this season ticket in a specific part of the ground, or could they, for example, move these to the Wensum Corner where there always appears to be loads of empty seats?

Just trying to think of ways that we can fill that corner as it always looks a bit unsightly when the TV cameras pan to it.

[TIL 1010 5,297]

This thread will be one to watch.

[BurwellCanary 256]

28 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

This thread will be one to watch.

What time of the day does he normally get up?

[Peregrine Shorts 547]

could we not relocate some(one) of them to the Abbey Staduim?

[GenerationA47 868]

1 minute ago, Peregrine Shorts said:

could we not relocate some(one) of them to the Abbey Staduim?

Ah, a kind of prisoner exchange?

[essex canary 630]

49 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Anybody know whether there is anything in writing which forces them to offer this season ticket in a specific part of the ground, or could they, for example, move these to the Wensum Corner where there always appears to be loads of empty seats?

Just trying to think of ways that we can fill that corner as it always looks a bit unsightly when the TV cameras pan to it.

If it helps the 2002 Prospectus referred to 'certain seats'. I guess it therefore depends how a court would interpret the word 'certain'. We can only but hope the legal profession is still capable of demonstrating better professionalism than is normally the case in Football Clubs.

[Paul101 196]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Anybody know whether there is anything in writing which forces them to offer this season ticket in a specific part of the ground, or could they, for example, move these to the Wensum Corner where there always appears to be loads of empty seats?

Just trying to think of ways that we can fill that corner as it always looks a bit unsightly when the TV cameras pan to it.

most of the seats have view obscured 

[GMF 1,044]

1 hour ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Anybody know whether there is anything in writing which forces them to offer this season ticket in a specific part of the ground, or could they, for example, move these to the Wensum Corner where there always appears to be loads of empty seats?

Just trying to think of ways that we can fill that corner as it always looks a bit unsightly when the TV cameras pan to it.

Associate Directors were entitled to a business seat, for life, as part of the public share offer back in 2002.

Rumour has it that one person has wangled a second seat, albeit in a cheaper area of the ground.

[JonnyJonnyRowe 1,039]

16 minutes ago, GMF said:

Associate Directors were entitled to a business seat, for life, as part of the public share offer back in 2002.

So what you are telling me GMF, is that we are renaming the Wensum Corner?

[JonnyJonnyRowe 1,039]

22 minutes ago, Paul101 said:

most of the seats have view obscured 

Its a free ticket though, beggars can't be choosers?

[TIL 1010 5,297]

29 minutes ago, Paul101 said:

most of the seats have view obscured 

He isn't interested in anything to do with the football so an obscured view would go fine with his obscured view of the club in general. 

[GMF 1,044]

15 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

So what you are telling me GMF, is that we are renaming the Wensum Corner?

It’s also known as Corporate Governance Corner.

[The Raptor 1,587]

31 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

So what you are telling me GMF, is that we are renaming the Wensum Corner?

Me and my friend have always referred to it as the bear pit. I've no idea know how that started. 

[wcorkcanary 4,832]

1 hour ago, BurwellCanary said:

What time of the day does he normally get up?

Early enough to be hanging  around,outside the Webber household   when they get  up, he sometimes gets a sideview glimpse of Zoes head through the landing window when she comes downstairs, but his real treat is hiding behind the conifers and watching her get into her car , sometimes he sees her ankles. 

[wcorkcanary 4,832]

45 minutes ago, JonnyJonnyRowe said:

Its a free ticket though, beggars can't be choosers?

You really don't know Kev do you. ? 

[wcorkcanary 4,832]

35 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

He isn't interested in anything to do with the football so an obscured view would go fine with his obscured view of the club in general. 

As long as he can see Zoe during the game he'll be happy.  Can't say the same for her though. 

[essex canary 630]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Associate Directors were entitled to a business seat, for life, as part of the public share offer back in 2002.

Rumour has it that one person has wangled a second seat, albeit in a cheaper area of the ground.

I renegotiated the 2 seats in 2018 following the passing of my friend. Their sale value is only around 75% of the 1 commercial seat. My reason for doing so was I wasn't interested in the Snob culture and I wanted to assist in the context of somebody (female)who had no understanding of why they should not receive a seat benefit for 1,000 shares.

Of course if all AD'S followed my course of action there would be enough resource to play back in all inheritors and leave some overall savings for the Club. The male dominated AD Group, doubtless backed by testosterone charged networks, have no obligation to do that and are within their rights to stick to what they have got. Nonetheless the fact that the Club or supporter representatives won't challenge that is most regrettable.

[Bomber 58]

2 hours ago, Paul101 said:

most of the seats have view obscured 

Yeah by that Pylon which blocks out half the penalty area 

[TIL 1010 5,297]

1 hour ago, essex canary said:

I renegotiated the 2 seats in 2018 following the passing of my friend. Their sale value is only around 75% of the 1 commercial seat. My reason for doing so was I wasn't interested in the Snob culture and I wanted to assist in the context of somebody (female)who had no understanding of why they should not receive a seat benefit for 1,000 shares.

Of course if all AD'S followed my course of action there would be enough resource to play back in all inheritors and leave some overall savings for the Club. The male dominated AD Group, doubtless backed by testosterone charged networks, have no obligation to do that and are within their rights to stick to what they have got. Nonetheless the fact that the Club or supporter representatives won't challenge that is most regrettable.

[TIL 1010 5,297]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

 My reason for doing so was I wasn't interested in the Snob culture and I wanted to assist in the context of somebody (female)who had no understanding of why they should not receive a seat benefit for 1,000 shares.

 

Would this person be the same one who when you started your relentless campaign on her behalf declined to engage with the ombudsman ?

[essex canary 630]

2 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Would this person be the same one who when you started your relentless campaign on her behalf declined to engage with the ombudsman ?

People may have had their own good reasons for wanting to avoid confrontation.

In defence of AD'S in general though without their 40% contribution to the actual number of ordinary shares sold to the General Public in 2002, the ITV Digital crisis loss would not have been covered and that is in relation to being only 45% successful in terms of public subscription (ignoring Directors) to Ordinary Shares.

In relation to Preference Shares it was less than 10% successful and left nearly £5 million unallocated. Had they been allocated in 2018 rather than Bonds more than £1 million would have been saved. The approximate cost to date of AD seats of around £0.5 million is a bargain in comparison. With Economics and Management like that no wonder the Club got to where it did.

[Capt. Pants 5,145]

22 years free ST is a decent return on a relatively small investment. Better than any dividend.

[Fuzzar 1,870]

4 hours ago, essex canary said:

I renegotiated the 2 seats in 2018 following the passing of my friend. 

Stop making things up. 

[TIL 1010 5,297]

2 hours ago, essex canary said:

People may have had their own good reasons for wanting to avoid confrontation.

In defence of AD'S in general though without their 40% contribution to the actual number of ordinary shares sold to the General Public in 2002, the ITV Digital crisis loss would not have been covered and that is in relation to being only 45% successful in terms of public subscription (ignoring Directors) to Ordinary Shares.

In relation to Preference Shares it was less than 10% successful and left nearly £5 million unallocated. Had they been allocated in 2018 rather than Bonds more than £1 million would have been saved. The approximate cost to date of AD seats of around £0.5 million is a bargain in comparison. With Economics and Management like that no wonder the Club got to where it did.

In answer to my question i will take this extensive waffle as a yes.

[MC_NCFC 281]

ADs have always been very much inner onion. They have perks and are able to dictate terms on behalf of others. Always been a fact and one those that have nodes connecting will agree is the right one. 

[GMF 1,044]

Wowzers, it’s amazing how some people like to rewrite history to fit their own narrative.

Prior to the Companies Act 2006, companies had to specify its maximum authorised share capital within their accounts.

The number of shares actually allotted was typically far less than the maximum authorised share capital.

The restriction limited the ability of companies to raise new equity, hence why it was removed.

It would be totally wrong to judge the success, or otherwise, of a share offer based upon whether it was fully subscribed, unless you’re in stick waving mode, which most reasonable people usually are not.

No one really cares about how many shares the AD’s purchased, it was always about raising sufficient capital to cover the projected shortfall from the collapse of ITV Digital, which is what happened.

[Duncan Edwards 2,427]

11 hours ago, essex canary said:

My reason for doing so was I wasn't interested in the Snob culture and I wanted to assist in the context of somebody (female)who had no understanding of why they should not receive a seat benefit for 1,000 shares.

Is your Dad still alive?

No.

That’s why. 
 

🤷🏻‍♂️

 

And while that is obviously harsh to the limit, it was the one and only conversation that needed to be had - much more gently. 

[essex canary 630]

1 hour ago, GMF said:

Wowzers, it’s amazing how some people like to rewrite history to fit their own narrative.

Prior to the Companies Act 2006, companies had to specify its maximum authorised share capital within their accounts.

The number of shares actually allotted was typically far less than the maximum authorised share capital.

The restriction limited the ability of companies to raise new equity, hence why it was removed.

It would be totally wrong to judge the success, or otherwise, of a share offer based upon whether it was fully subscribed, unless you’re in stick waving mode, which most reasonable people usually are not.

No one really cares about how many shares the AD’s purchased, it was always about raising sufficient capital to cover the projected shortfall from the collapse of ITV Digital, which is what happened.

The inside cover of the 2002 share offer presented 3 objectives of which only the first being the £2 million ITV Digital shortfall was covered by the public subscription (40% of that by AD's). Achievement of the remainder with increased incentives or increased focus on Preference Shares must have had scope to help further with the 2004  South Stand development, the lack of which contributed to the 2009 crisis.

[essex canary 630]

10 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Is your Dad still alive?

No.

That’s why. 
 

🤷🏻‍♂️

 

And while that is obviously harsh to the limit, it was the one and only conversation that needed to be had - much more gently. 

Since most of the original purchasers were male (which given wealth distribution they would be) therefore equals indirect misogyny.

That would be shouted from the rooftops if directed at Board Members.

[Duncan Edwards 2,427]

7 minutes ago, essex canary said:

Since most of the original purchasers were male (which given wealth distribution they would be) therefore equals indirect misogyny.

That would be shouted from the rooftops if directed at Board Members.

Give over. 😂