Peering into the distance

[Camuldonum 0]

Down here in Colchester this looks rather like an attempted takeover on the cheep (sorry!).  If Mr Cullum wishes to convince the world that he continues to bleed Yellow and Green he can make a decent offer to the Smiths, do some sort of deal if they wish to retain an interest in the catering side, settle up with the Turners and repay their alleged loan of £2m or so.

Then he either clears your debt of around £20m or so or leaves it as it is.  Then he has to decide how much money he would like to spend on players.

Assuming he leaves the debt that''s probably around £40m - £60m if he wipes the debt out.

Not for nothing is Mr Cullum known as the "Deal Junkies Junkie".  

Other news: the Press Office say they have no plans for a statement "at the moment".  (10 a.m) 

Plus The Hooligan has been away on his hols but should be back in time to put on a Norwich shirt for the first time when pre season training resumes tomorrow.

[a1canary 0]

We have to be careful with this and keep a balanced view. We''re all saying this is great, bite his hand off, and that''s exactly what the binners were saying while we laughed and said that crook Evans is only in it for the money. Cullum knows what he''s doing, buttering up the fans just like Evans did, paticularly with his talk of a fan from the supporters association on the board. It all helps to put pressure on the the current board as fans and media are already doing.

However, it''s good to see he''s come out right at the start to say there''s no intention or expectation of him making any money out of his investment. Plus he''s been watching city since the 50''s. These are the major and key differences with Evans. But there''s obviously something that''s holding the current board back and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can make a proper judgement on the whole thing. Delia has always said they''d sell their stake for the right investment so it''s not about relinquishing control. What is it about this investment that''s not right? Let''s hear it!

[The Walking Man 13]

[quote user="a1canary"]

We have to be careful with this and keep a balanced view. We''re all saying this is great, bite his hand off, and that''s exactly what the binners were saying while we laughed and said that crook Evans is only in it for the money. Cullum knows what he''s doing, buttering up the fans just like Evans did, paticularly with his talk of a fan from the supporters association on the board. It all helps to put pressure on the the current board as fans and media are already doing.

However, it''s good to see he''s come out right at the start to say there''s no intention or expectation of him making any money out of his investment. Plus he''s been watching city since the 50''s. These are the major and key differences with Evans. But there''s obviously something that''s holding the current board back and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can make a proper judgement on the whole thing. Delia has always said they''d sell their stake for the right investment so it''s not about relinquishing control. What is it about this investment that''s not right? Let''s hear it!

[/quote]

 

Further major differences between Cullum and Evans is that Evans is only worth £200m Cullum £1.7b and also Evans is based in Bermuda so gets to see a lot of games...

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Oh I think it is quite simple. Callum is indeed trying to buy the club on the cheap and- being a superb business man - has timed things to perfection. But buying on the cheap does not mean he does not have the club''s best interests at heart.

He gets the fans salivating by offering 20m. After the last three years we would all bite off his hand - especially when we look at the value of our current crop. The only losers in this deal are the current shareholders- but what do fans care about that. After near relegation the promise of glory will make them turn on the board in an instance and back his grand bid. Truth is fans want good players and care not a jot for the background details etc... My guess is that the his one nagging fear is that Delia really IS loved by many- so he butters her up publically and will offer her the meagre crumbs of being a PR puppet. In fairness it is very clever and the only potential losers are the current board. And you have to feel for them- say NO and the fans turn VERY ugly now. Say yes and sell at reduced cost. Just my appraisal.

[Loughborough Canary 0]

Completely agree with you herb. Delia doesn''t strike me as one who would cut her nose of to spite her face, so I expect there is a very good reason why the deal hasn''t as yet gone through.

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]

Oh I think it is quite simple. Callum is indeed trying to buy the club on the cheap and- being a superb business man - has timed things to perfection. But buying on the cheap does not mean he does not have the club''s best interests at heart.

He gets the fans salivating by offering 20m. After the last three years we would all bite off his hand - especially when we look at the value of our current crop. The only losers in this deal are the current shareholders- but what do fans care about that. After near relegation the promise of glory will make them turn on the board in an instance and back his grand bid. Truth is fans want good players and care not a jot for the background details etc... My guess is that the his one nagging fear is that Delia really IS loved by many- so he butters her up publically and will offer her the meagre crumbs of being a PR puppet. In fairness it is very clever and the only potential losers are the current board. And you have to feel for them- say NO and the fans turn VERY ugly now. Say yes and sell at reduced cost. Just my appraisal.

[/quote]Spot on Vicar! Don''t ever forget that Cullum is a businessman first & a benefactor second; in this World, that''s how it has to be.(BTW, sorry to nitpick, but it''s "instant" & "publicly" - forgive me father!)

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

apologies for the spelling- I type too quickly! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa ...and all that jazz.

I should have added my two outcomes:

1) Calum gets his way and takes over (but will funds be released in time?)

2) Turners and Delia rebel and scrabble round to find their own transfer fund to keep us quiet. (a bit less but with lots of PR and spin that we are in safe hands)

 

Just my guess. But either way NCFC player budget will get a big boost methinks....

P.S. - its frightening how much money is in football when most churches and voluntary charities scrape along on pennies....I am just imagining how society would benefit if the roles were reversed........and teams would still play footy!

[The Walking Man 13]

[quote user="vicar in green and yellow"]

apologies for the spelling- I type too quickly! Mea culpa! Mea maxima culpa ...and all that jazz.

I should have added my two outcomes:

1) Calum gets his way and takes over (but will funds be released in time?)

2) Turners and Delia rebel and scrabble round to find their own transfer fund to keep us quiet. (a bit less but with lots of PR and spin that we are in safe hands)

 

Just my guess. But either way NCFC player budget will get a big boost methinks....

P.S. - its frightening how much money is in football when most churches and voluntary charities scrape along on pennies....I am just imagining how society would benefit if the roles were reversed........and teams would still play footy!

[/quote]

 

Business i''m afraid, also tell me any church that gets 25,000 people through it''s doors every week...

[yellow hammer 0]

Given the timing of Cullum''s bid in October was, I suspect, no accident. He could demand the lowest possible price for Delia''s shares since we were facing relegation and the fact that Delia''s shares would be worth much less in League 1.

Also remember that we then went on a mini revival that took us up to the top half of the table, so the pressure was off Delia to sell at that time, and I guess the deal fell through in December because neither party ''blinked''.

I feel the board has been looking under the sofa for all the loose change they can find, plus freeing up Huckerby''s wages, in order to get some better players in, so as to keep Cullum at bay. I think this was what Delia was referring to at the Norfolk Show.

This latest news release to the EDP has to be Cullum''s response to the Board. Doomcaster, Munby et al, know they''ll make way for Cullum''s people if they don''t start spending on players this time around. Whether PC succeeds or not, at least it has given a kick up the b*m to the board and pushing them to invest on the field

[William Darby 0]

"P.S. - its frightening how much money is in football when most churches

and voluntary charities scrape along on pennies....I am just imagining

how society would benefit if the roles were reversed........and teams

would still play footy"If the churches were all sold off (including Mosques etc) and the money given to proper charities, we''d all be better off. 

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

more people in church on Sunday than at football on Saturday. If Norfolk had just the Cathedral and no parish churches it would have MORE than 25,000 in each week. But it would be less effective. I cannot sepak for all churches - but in my part of town it is us who provides- free pensioners lunch club, have set up a preschool for underpriveledged chldre, a mother and toddler group- invited family liason officers in, opened a youth group and visit the sick and the lonely. I am willing to bet that the person who said- sell the buildings and  give the money to chairty - gives much less away than the average Christian and does very little for their community, most champagne socialists love to run the church down- much like the present governent though- having destryed what went before they prove empty in putting anything in its place. Give me a real sincere Christian over a poltically correct secularist any day. I know who is all mouth and grand statments and who gets their sleeves rolled up!

[chicken 0]

I know I put it on another post but I think its relavent.Timing is everything - if you were Delia and MWJ you wouldn''t want to sell up when times were tough, you would want to sell up when you could still go with respect. Jumping ship in October would have been humiliating for them and considering Delias career could still yield more books etc would not be good publicity.The other thing that I don''t get is that normally the buyer has bought out other stakes first so that the amount they actually need to take over is less. Look at the Arsenal situation - the majority is actually only about 30% and the guy looking to take over already has 26.5% (or something like that).Why go straight in when he could really show his commitment and buy out another shareholder first?And then there is the fact of the debt. If you look at the other financial figures that suggest we actually make millions of pounds proffit every season then it is just as important to zap that debt to nothing. That way we have the millions the club turns over plus any money Cullun would want to throw into it on a yearly basis. Now that''s stability and the ability to be prudent with ambition and still be able to compete.As others have said there is a lot of things that don''t quite make sense at the moment.If I were to broker the deal I would give Cullen a 1% majority over Delia and MWJ so that we have them around still to make sure Cullun isn''t Chase''s evil long lost twin/cousin.I would also allow a sort of election process for the so called "fan" for the board. Personaly I would vote for Roy Blower. Infact I think he is the precise man for the job, he only stopped being the spokesperson for NCISA to concentrate on his role as mayor and has also been a politician for quite a long time now. I think he would be capable of representing the fans.But lets just see what pans out. If it is meant to be then it is meant to be - if he is a real fan Cullun could still throw some money our way, maybe even butter up the board a bit before taking over in the future after he has gained more trust.At least he isn''t that dodgey Di Stefano bloke.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="chicken"]If I were to broker the deal I would give Cullen a 1% majority over Delia and MWJ so that we have them around still to make sure Cullun isn''t Chase''s evil long lost twin/cousin.[/quote]Good point and that 68% shareholding has a "value" of approx £10,000,000 (though I can''t recall them putting in anywhere near that amount)Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.Nothing says he has to buy all the shares outright or pay off our massive debts outright. He could become major shareholder ie take over the Club if Delia and Michael sold him as little as half plus 1% of their holding and that is nowhere near £40,000,0000 plus players.

[blahblahblah 2]

Apologies if some / all of this has already been said, but for what they are worth, here are my thoughts.

Cullum has been very cute with the timing of his approach, and of this article.

• He mentions that the original idea for his involvement came from Charles Clarke, e.g. not my idea guv, just trying to help.
• He timed the move, as has been said, to coincide with our lowest league position for 40 years.
• The article hit the news-stands a couple of days before we announce new signings for the new season post-1st July.  If the signings aren''t of the quality expected, this board and others will be white-hot, which won''t change anything, but will be a decent indicator of opinion.

[quote]Whether PC succeeds or not, at least it has given a kick up the b*m to the board and pushing them to invest on the field[/quote]

I thoroughly agree with this, for the fans it should be (in the short term at least) a win-win situation, as it pushes the current board to bring in some big names to push for success - on the basis that if you can''t do it, the fans know of someone who can.  For that, Mr Cullum should be applauded, as no-one succeeds by resting on their laurels.

However- 20 million is dirt cheap when you consider the businesses that now represent NCFC, turnover this year should be around 16 million, not to mention potential TV rights.

Having said that, if we had been relegated, I''d imagine that a bid would already have been accepted.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.[/quote]

Unfortunately, he couldn''t.

From Waghorn :

Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.

It is an issue that lies at the very heart of the failed Carson Yeung takeover bid of Birmingham City last season with the Hong Kong businessman initially taking out a 29.9% stake in the St Andrews club for a £15 million ''down-payment'' with a view to then buying out the remaining shareholders as and when the finance was put in place.

[Libbra Lives in Dubai 0]

Vic!  Dont you think you may be overgeneralising just a tad?  There is no need for people to have a pop at the church, but you have failed to respond with a reasoned argument and taken the bait so that you now appear defensive.  You have created a clear dividing line between Christians and non-Christians with the inference that the former is better than the latter.  When sweeping generalisations such as this are made it exposes the culprit as somewhat narrow minded and immodest about their achievements.

[Evil Monkey 52]

How on Earth has this one turned into a thread about religion? For the

record, I think all Vic was saying was that if the Church had the kind

of money that football had, then they''d probably do a hell of a lot

more good with it (though who can argue with the "entertainment"

football offers us and how much it pervades our lives).  In that

statement, he almost certainly is correct.  He also states simply

that if you take all the church-goers on a Sunday from the same

catchment as Norwich City FC they''d at least match the numbers seen at

Carrow Road on a Saturday afternoon.  Also probably correct, let''s

face it.  So where the heck did this "dividing line" come from?

Seesh, some people look for arguments where there are none

sometimes.  Don''t get me wrong, I''m not one bit religious - sorry

Vic - but as someone with a strong interest in science I see a lot of

"religion should be scrapped because you can''t prove it" kind of

statements without regard for the good it does for millions of normal

people throughout the world, most of whom just like to have a little

bit of faith in their hearts to get them through the day.  Anyway,

soapbox rant over, to the matter at hand...

Erm, what''s this thread actually about again? There are so many about

Cullum and I''ve spent so long writing that that I''ve now forgotten what

I was going to say... ho hums... *whistles*.... seen that weather

outside? This country...

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.[/quote]

Unfortunately, he couldn''t.

From Waghorn :

Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.

It is an issue that lies at the very heart of the failed Carson Yeung takeover bid of Birmingham City last season with the Hong Kong businessman initially taking out a 29.9% stake in the St Andrews club for a £15 million ''down-payment'' with a view to then buying out the remaining shareholders as and when the finance was put in place.

[/quote]But Delia and Michael haven''t bought the whole Company have they?As I understand it they must make an offer but other shareholders are not obliged to accept that offer.The Birmingham one went bottoms up because Gold and Co didn''t want anything to do with the Club if Yeung got involved, it was an all or nothing scenario there.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.[/quote]

Unfortunately, he couldn''t.

From Waghorn :

Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.

It is an issue that lies at the very heart of the failed Carson Yeung takeover bid of Birmingham City last season with the Hong Kong businessman initially taking out a 29.9% stake in the St Andrews club for a £15 million ''down-payment'' with a view to then buying out the remaining shareholders as and when the finance was put in place.

[/quote]But Delia and Michael haven''t bought the whole Company have they?As I understand it they must make an offer but other shareholders are not obliged to accept that offer.The Birmingham one went bottoms up because Gold and Co didn''t want anything to do with the Club if Yeung got involved, it was an all or nothing scenario there.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.[/quote]

Unfortunately, he couldn''t.

From Waghorn :

Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.

It is an issue that lies at the very heart of the failed Carson Yeung takeover bid of Birmingham City last season with the Hong Kong businessman initially taking out a 29.9% stake in the St Andrews club for a £15 million ''down-payment'' with a view to then buying out the remaining shareholders as and when the finance was put in place.

[/quote]

Is Norwich actually a Plc?

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]Cullum could buy 35% holding for about £5m, continue to service the debt in the same manner as it already is and he''d still get a lot of change for building a squad out of an initial twenty million quid outlay.[/quote]

Unfortunately, he couldn''t.

From Waghorn :

Once someone bids for over 30% of the shareholding in a Plc, they are obliged under City Code Rule 9 to buy the whole company - and make every other shareholder in that business an offer.

It is an issue that lies at the very heart of the failed Carson Yeung takeover bid of Birmingham City last season with the Hong Kong businessman initially taking out a 29.9% stake in the St Andrews club for a £15 million ''down-payment'' with a view to then buying out the remaining shareholders as and when the finance was put in place.

[/quote]

Is Norwich actually a Plc?

[Libbra Lives in Dubai 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]How on Earth has this one turned into a thread about religion? For the record, I think all Vic was saying was that if the Church had the kind of money that football had, then they''d probably do a hell of a lot more good with it (though who can argue with the "entertainment" football offers us and how much it pervades our lives).  In that statement, he almost certainly is correct.  He also states simply that if you take all the church-goers on a Sunday from the same catchment as Norwich City FC they''d at least match the numbers seen at Carrow Road on a Saturday afternoon.  Also probably correct, let''s face it.  So where the heck did this "dividing line" come from? Seesh, some people look for arguments where there are none sometimes.  Don''t get me wrong, I''m not one bit religious - sorry Vic - but as someone with a strong interest in science I see a lot of "religion should be scrapped because you can''t prove it" kind of statements without regard for the good it does for millions of normal people throughout the world, most of whom just like to have a little bit of faith in their hearts to get them through the day.  Anyway, soapbox rant over, to the matter at hand...

Erm, what''s this thread actually about again? There are so many about Cullum and I''ve spent so long writing that that I''ve now forgotten what I was going to say... ho hums... *whistles*.... seen that weather outside? This country...

[/quote]

Monkey - you''re right.  It just irritates me when religious people become self righteous and display ''we''re better than them'' mentality. 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Libbra Lives"]

Monkey - you''re right.  It just irritates me when religious people become self righteous and display ''we''re better than them'' mentality. 

[/quote]

Christians aren''t better than you, they''re just going to heaven, that''s all [:)].  To be fair to the vic, I don''t think that was the intention.

[Dean Coneys boots 1,400]

Sorry Libra lives, let me offer an explanation:

If I am a little defensive it is because people on this site so often throw abuse my way simply becuase I am  a priest...and it is that self- righteousness that got my goat - it does get a little tedious when one out of every five of my posts ends up with an attack on my faith. I was- as has been pointed out- merely offering a thought as to how the obscene amount of money we are all talking about could do a massive amount of good in society by those who do good- and for the record I oringinally stated CHARITY AND CHURCH- hence both Christians and non-Christians alike (though there is ofeten an overlap). Then (surprise, suprise) someone had to pipe up with all churches should be sold, religion root of evil, blah blah modern secular claptrap and it got my goat. I then wanted to challenge this as -in my experience- those who verbally dismiss the contribution of Christians tend to do little in the way of good communal work themselves and if I do not defend the church who will?! I am defensive because I know first hand how much very hard work is done by Christian volunteers in this country and it is often un-noticed. Truth is that if the Church pulled out of Britain tomorrow the economy would go into meltdown as social services had to step into the breach. (Yet we recieve no income from state at all- depsite caring for the nations most expensive heritage buildings)

As it happens this is not a religion thread- nor was that my desire- so back to football?

[PurpleCanary 5,556]

Norwich City is a plc but is not listed on the stock market. Seem to remember Chase musing publicly about listing during his heyday but nothing came of it.

[SWP = Poor Mans Ruel Fox!! 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Norwich City is a plc but is not listed on the stock market. Seem to remember Chase musing publicly about listing during his heyday but nothing came of it.[/quote]

That makes more sense, I thought the Waghorn article would only apply if we were listed, but company law is not exactly my bag [:D]

[Hog 0]

Of course some people might argue that football is a religion....

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]merely offering a thought as to how the obscene amount of money we are all talking about could do a massive amount of good in society by those who do good[/quote]

In terms of Cullums'' "doing good", I believe his daughters run a trust which works with childrens'' charities, and the amount the trust has to use is more than his proposed bid amount for NCFC.  But I agree with your comments on football in general - the money has got ridiculous.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

We have to be careful with this and keep a balanced view. We''re all saying this is great, bite his hand off, and that''s exactly what the binners were saying while we laughed and said that crook Evans is only in it for the money. Cullum knows what he''s doing, buttering up the fans just like Evans did, paticularly with his talk of a fan from the supporters association on the board. It all helps to put pressure on the the current board as fans and media are already doing.

However, it''s good to see he''s come out right at the start to say there''s no intention or expectation of him making any money out of his investment. Plus he''s been watching city since the 50''s. These are the major and key differences with Evans. But there''s obviously something that''s holding the current board back and the sooner we find out what it is the sooner we can make a proper judgement on the whole thing. Delia has always said they''d sell their stake for the right investment so it''s not about relinquishing control. What is it about this investment that''s not right? Let''s hear it!

 

 

Further major differences between Cullum and Evans is that Evans is only worth £200m Cullum £1.7b and also Evans is based in Bermuda so gets to see a lot of games...

 

The big difference that i can see is that Cullum is not a reclusive tax exile who won''t allow his face to be seen, has not tried to buy three or four other football clubs and is a Norwich lad who by common consensus is a Norwich City fan.

[Libbra Lives in Dubai 0]

Ok Vic - (sheesh - such a preacher)  :) Just kidding - back to the footy.  Cullum seems to be an opportunist, but I cant see the board surrendering a controlling interest for 20m knicker''s worth of players.  What about the value of the shares themselves?