What is it with this Delia obsession?

[Cheerio 0]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[/quote]  With respect, that is not entirely correct.  I agree with your general point.  I read that you were a professional footballer.  Undoubtedly, you know more about playing football than I do.  I am a corporate lawyer and a consultant in corporate governance (that''s how to run a company legally and properly for those who have not come across the phrase before).

The club is owned by its shareholders.  A majority shareholder controls the vote and therefore has overall ownership and ultimate control.  In that sense, Delia and Michael do own the Club.  What so many posters fail to understand is that they own those shares until they decide to sell them and so, sack the board is nonsense. 

But, ownership and management are two seperate things.

Where you are right, this cannot be overemphaised, is that the Board runs the Club.  Shareholders have little practical power though in a small company, they have influence of course.   All directors have an equal vote and all directors have a duty to act in the best interests of the club and not in their personal interest when they are sitting as directors.

You are also right that a great deal of sacrifice and personal investment goes on beind the scenes.  I know people in football though none are involved with City.  This Club has a reputation for being well run by people who want it to succeed and not wanting to make money from it.  There are other clubs where directors pay themselves a fortune.  Here, they even pay for their own seats.#

Still, its easy spending other people''s money isn''t it???????

[Hotdog 0]

yes if i had the money i would

[nutty nigel 7,513]

Well said CambridgeCanary.[Y]

That''s quite impressive for a Saturday job [*-)] When I was still at school I only had a paper round [&]

Is your dish always served cold? [;)]

 

 

[Cheerio 0]

C.C.Is it not true that Michael owns more shares than Delia?I thank you......

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[/quote]

So a majority shareholder does not own the club.

I''m sure she''ll be upset to hear that.

[Dr Terrible 0]

Its simple mate, we want her to sell her shares to ambitious investers.

[Cheerio 0]

She''s not majority shareholder. Nobody is. Google is a marvelous thing. She wont be upset at all, she''s not a moron.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[/quote]

Obnoxious, I think, is the word for your little tirade.

Why don''t you explain clearly and unambiguously to us naive, teenage, extremist, finance experts - for a start - how shareholder value has rocketed in recent years in the face of dismal performances on the field.?

And what that substantial increase in shareholder value means to the major shareholders when they sell up and retire to the ceremonial presidency on reaching compulsory retirement age.

Bet you won''t do it.

OTBC

 

OTBC

[ricardo 7,349]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]She''s not majority shareholder. Nobody is. Google is a marvelous thing. She wont be upset at all, she''s not a moron.
[/quote]

In conjunction with her husband she is.

Page 45 of the latest accounts, please read note 36 entitled ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE COMPANY.

At 31 May 2006 Ms D.A.Smithand her husband and co-director E.M.S.Wynn Jones owned 57.4% of the issued capital of the Company. In accordance with Finanacial reporting standard 8 "Related Party Disclosures" the Board have concluded that ultimate control of the company vests in these related parties.

2006 Accounts is a wonderful thing.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]She''s not majority shareholder. Nobody is. Google is a marvelous thing. She wont be upset at all, she''s not a moron.
[/quote]

if u dont know that she is then u really are out of touch with the club

jas :)

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well said CambridgeCanary.[Y]

That''s quite impressive for a Saturday job [*-)] When I was still at school I only had a paper round [&]

Is your dish always served cold? [;)]

 

 

 

[/quote]Sorry. I don''t quite follow.  If your point is that I was bumptious then I apologise.  I was just establishing my particular credential for this thread before I was accused of knowing nothing about the subject.  

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]C.C.

Is it not true that Michael owns more shares than Delia?

I thank you......
[/quote]

To be honest, I haven''t checked.  The couple own some 58% of the shares and there has never been any suggestion of them not acting as a single unit.  It you are correct - and I''m sure you are - then Delia as an individual is not the majority shareholder and is not the owner in the controlling sense.  But, the reality is that the aggregate shareholding seems to operate as a unit.

[nutty nigel 7,513]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well said CambridgeCanary.[Y]

That''s quite impressive for a Saturday job [*-)] When I was still at school I only had a paper round [&]

Is your dish always served cold? [;)]

 

 

 

[/quote]Sorry. I don''t quite follow.  If your point is that I was bumptious then I apologise.  I was just establishing my particular credential for this thread before I was accused of knowing nothing about the subject.  [/quote]

That wasn''t my point.. it was just something that stuck in my mind from a thread the other day about captains and you being still at school. Same poster too. I didn''t mean any offence, it just appealed to that little receptor  in my little brain that finds random stuff funny!

 

 

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

It you are correct - and I''m sure you are - then Delia as an individual is not the majority shareholder and is not the owner in the controlling sense.  But, the reality is that the aggregate shareholding seems to operate as a unit.

[/quote]Woohoo!!!!Respect CC. Almost correct!!At ******* last

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Well said CambridgeCanary.[Y]

That''s quite impressive for a Saturday job [*-)] When I was still at school I only had a paper round [&]

Is your dish always served cold? [;)]

 

 

 

[/quote]Sorry. I don''t quite follow.  If your point is that I was bumptious then I apologise.  I was just establishing my particular credential for this thread before I was accused of knowing nothing about the subject.  [/quote]

That wasn''t my point.. it was just something that stuck in my mind from a thread the other day about captains and you being still at school. Same poster too. I didn''t mean any offence, it just appealed to that little receptor  in my little brain that finds random stuff funny!

 

 

[/quote] LOL  Sorry, I had forgotten that barb from our patronising friend!!!!  I see the joke now.  Thanks.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"]

It you are correct - and I''m sure you are - then Delia as an individual is not the majority shareholder and is not the owner in the controlling sense.  But, the reality is that the aggregate shareholding seems to operate as a unit.

[/quote]

At ******* last
[/quote]

Dead giveaway....Craig Bellamy?

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="Wayne Gardner"]

Its simple mate, we want her to sell her shares to ambitious investers.

[/quote]

Oh well, if YOU want her to sell her shares then she better get on with it then. After all you have been elected as head spokesman of all NCFC fans......haven''t you?

[GMF 736]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[/quote]

Obnoxious, I think, is the word for your little tirade.

Why don''t you explain clearly and unambiguously to us naive, teenage, extremist, finance experts - for a start - how shareholder value has rocketed in recent years in the face of dismal performances on the field.?

And what that substantial increase in shareholder value means to the major shareholders when they sell up and retire to the ceremonial presidency on reaching compulsory retirement age.

Bet you won''t do it.

OTBC

 

OTBC

[/quote]

Shareholder value has "rocketed", as you put it, primarily because the Club has incurred well over £10M building the Jarrold Stand and infil, so the Freehold land & buildings aspect of Tangible Fixed Assets has risen accordingly. It''s that simple really.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Attack Barclay 2nd Half"]

Once and for all for you teenage finance experts out there she is NOT the owner of the club. The Club is run by a board.... a committee if you like. These decisions are made by people who give up FAR more than any of you ever could and with the best intentions of the club at heart (rightly or wrongly). I know of one director a few years ago re-mortgaged his house to help finance the signing of a player that turned out to be a disaster (a signing cried out for by many on this board) Would YOU do that. I wouldn’t.

Really, you are staggering in your naive attitude, condescending in the extreme. FFS GROW UP

[/quote]

Then more fool him/her is all I can say!!!

This club needs people with the money and more importantly AMBITION to take it forwards...

Delia & Co scrabbling around for loose change is absolutely pathetic... none of our directors have enough money to invest in a club of this size... and if that is the case they should pack up and move out of town!!!

[Cheerio 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Obnoxious, I think, is the word for your little tirade.

Why don''t you explain clearly and unambiguously to us naive, teenage, extremist, finance experts - for a start - how shareholder value has rocketed in recent years in the face of dismal performances on the field.?

[/quote]Dismal performances in recent years including play off final and promotion? I assume you mean since then.......Its not really based on ''on the field'' performance unless that results in relegation or promotion, anything that would affect revenue projection.

Fundamentally

its supply and demand obviously. Shares also increase due to assets, corporate governance,  land acquisition, land sales,

investment in parallel businesses, site facilities, projected revenue stream, consistency

of growth revenue,

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

crease in shareholder value means to the

major shareholders when they sell up and retire to the ceremonial

presidency on reaching compulsory retirement age.

[/quote]It means they quite rightly get a return on their investment,  pay 40% capital gains unless they sideways the investment and free up their shares to new investers.[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

u won''t do it.

[/quote]Really?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

Why don''t you explain clearly and unambiguously to us naive,

teenage, extremist, finance experts - for a start - how shareholder

value has rocketed in recent years in the face of dismal performances

on the field.?

And what that substantial increase in shareholder value means to the

major shareholders when they sell up and retire to the ceremonial

presidency on reaching compulsory retirement age.[/quote]

This question will only be answered when the D & M sell their shares.  If they do a Barry Skipper, and sell their shares for the price they bought them, then the purchaser of those shares would benefit massively, and would be expected to put the benefit back into the club.Didn''t Delia say at the AGM that she would be happy to sell shares, if the people who bought them were looking to invest in the team ?It''s all down to whether you consider the board to be philanthropic.  I think that they are, and are working within the limitations of their budgets to do as much as they can.

[Cheerio 0]

Of course its largely philanthropic at this level. There was one director a couple of years ago who took a second mortgage on his house to raise funds to bring a player in. How many of you have that sort of commitment?

[T07 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

This club needs people with the money and more importantly AMBITION to take it forwards...

Delia & Co scrabbling around for loose change is absolutely pathetic... none of our directors have enough money to invest in a club of this size... and if that is the case they should pack up and move out of town!!!

[/quote]

Yes and allow that massive queue of zillionairs to move in

eh? If their contribution is loose change whats yours? Mouthing off and stating

stereotypical bandwagon rhetoric ?

Sounds like that fella who sold his house had more passion for the club than this entire board put together.Anyone want to start a forum whip round? most of you wouldn''t even stick a tenner in never mind several million in "loose change"You got one word right - pathetic