If it wasn't for Lincoln City this would be doing my head in............

[Camuldonum 0]

Norwich City is a private PLC.  It is not a company quoted on the Stock Exchange/AIM/Ofex, the first two of which decide the current share value of a company by the MINUTE and by the brokers buying and selling.  Ofex works on a different basis and is far more risky so don''t worry your pretty heads about it - although if you strike gold on Ofex you can sometimes make a lot of money (it''s like private-public at the same time but very, very risky).  I have dabbled in it and got burned and (once) made a lot of money.

You have static shares - shares issued by Norwich City PLC itself as and when they please and at whatever purchase price they please.

The valuation of the shares of a private company in the event of an Offer are decided by the Board of that company but, in general, they usually reflect the last price at which they were traded - in the case of Norwich City PLC that''s £30 a share I believe after your AGM.

In a NON-FOOTBALL situation a Bidder for the shares of a private company would be expected to bid ABOVE the share valuation of the Company to obtain the shares - otherwise why would the shareholders sell FFS?  "Oh, I''ve got these shares.  The bloke is going to give me the same price as I paid for them. Okay, then."

In a FOOTBALL situation where everyone apparently bleeds Yellow & Green (Black away''s a prob) Mr C is being asked to meet the private company valuation of their shares. He is not being asked to bid ABOVE it but if it wasn''t football he WOULD be.

Or as Barry at Peterborough might say: "I always say: if you don''t want to pay that you''re ****** pal (sorry about the language, Gal). Yeah, okay I''ll come down a bit maybe but otherwise it''s what you say.  If they don''t want it at that price they can sod off."

Who knows?

[venta icenorum 0]

This is the one thing that doesn''t add up with what Cullum''s been saying. He claims he expects nothing other than an ''emotional'' return on his investment - in which case why not just give us some money, be a folk hero, and leave the current set up in place?

The fact he wants to take control and put in the money that may just get us back to the prem suggests in fact he wants  a financial return on his investment, as well as an emotional one.

Don''t think however that I support this current board - I would rather see Cullum take over any day, it just seems we might have reached stalemate with neither side budging. I can''t see Cullum the ''deal maker'' pay anywhere near the price they''re entitled to ask for the club, although he could afford it - so go on Peter, splash out!  It''s only about 3% of your estimated wealth to buy the club - the equivalent of me nipping down Tesco''s and buying a can of value beans!

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="venta icenorum"]

This is the one thing that doesn''t add up with what Cullum''s been saying. He claims he expects nothing other than an ''emotional'' return on his investment - in which case why not just give us some money, be a folk hero, and leave the current set up in place?

The fact he wants to take control and put in the money that may just get us back to the prem suggests in fact he wants  a financial return on his investment, as well as an emotional one.

Don''t think however that I support this current board - I would rather see Cullum take over any day, it just seems we might have reached stalemate with neither side budging. I can''t see Cullum the ''deal maker'' pay anywhere near the price they''re entitled to ask for the club, although he could afford it - so go on Peter, splash out!  It''s only about 3% of your estimated wealth to buy the club - the equivalent of me nipping down Tesco''s and buying a can of value beans!

[/quote]It could also be that he doesn''t really trust this board to do what''s best for the club with his money and as a fan wants to see the money used on players and not to pay for Delias restuarants.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="venta icenorum"]

This is the one thing that doesn''t add up with what Cullum''s been saying. He claims he expects nothing other than an ''emotional'' return on his investment - in which case why not just give us some money, be a folk hero, and leave the current set up in place?

The fact he wants to take control and put in the money that may just get us back to the prem suggests in fact he wants  a financial return on his investment, as well as an emotional one.

Don''t think however that I support this current board - I would rather see Cullum take over any day, it just seems we might have reached stalemate with neither side budging. I can''t see Cullum the ''deal maker'' pay anywhere near the price they''re entitled to ask for the club, although he could afford it - so go on Peter, splash out!  It''s only about 3% of your estimated wealth to buy the club - the equivalent of me nipping down Tesco''s and buying a can of value beans!

[/quote]It could also be that he doesn''t really trust this board to do what''s best for the club with his money and as a fan wants to see the money used on players and not to pay for Delias restuarants.[/quote]

Nail hit firmly on head. 

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="camuldonum"]

Norwich City is a private PLC.  It is not a company quoted on the Stock Exchange/AIM/Ofex, the first two of which decide the current share value of a company by the MINUTE and by the brokers buying and selling.  Ofex works on a different basis and is far more risky so don''t worry your pretty heads about it - although if you strike gold on Ofex you can sometimes make a lot of money (it''s like private-public at the same time but very, very risky).  I have dabbled in it and got burned and (once) made a lot of money.

You have static shares - shares issued by Norwich City PLC itself as and when they please and at whatever purchase price they please.

The valuation of the shares of a private company in the event of an Offer are decided by the Board of that company but, in general, they usually reflect the last price at which they were traded - in the case of Norwich City PLC that''s £30 a share I believe after your AGM.

In a NON-FOOTBALL situation a Bidder for the shares of a private company would be expected to bid ABOVE the share valuation of the Company to obtain the shares - otherwise why would the shareholders sell FFS?  "Oh, I''ve got these shares.  The bloke is going to give me the same price as I paid for them. Okay, then."

In a FOOTBALL situation where everyone apparently bleeds Yellow & Green (Black away''s a prob) Mr C is being asked to meet the private company valuation of their shares. He is not being asked to bid ABOVE it but if it wasn''t football he WOULD be.

Or as Barry at Peterborough might say: "I always say: if you don''t want to pay that you''re ****** pal (sorry about the language, Gal). Yeah, okay I''ll come down a bit maybe but otherwise it''s what you say.  If they don''t want it at that price they can sod off."

Who knows?

[/quote]

Camul why on earth are you getting so worked up when it isn''t even your club?  If it''s doing your head in, how do you think we feel?

Take a holiday is my advice.

 

[spudgfsh 0]

1. Norwich IS a public company.  It was listed when the share issue happened a few years ago.  the fans own 30%(ish) of the shares.

2.  Would you spend 20 million quid on a football club and actually let someone else decide where the money went????  anyone who did would be foolish

[Desi Rascall 0]

Norwich City is a Public Limited Company and has been stated elsewhere must comply with the regulations laid out in the by the Companies Act 1980,, not a private Limited company as some posters have eroneously claimed elsewhere.

A brief pecise can be found on the googlers friend wikipeadia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_limited_company

Now as i understand it if Callum was to make a takeover bid to buy Delia Smiths shares, the two would have to agree a price and the price agreed would have to be offered to all the other shareholders at the same price, this seems to be a regulation put in place to prevent the principle shareholder of a hypothetical company jumping ship and selling up to an asset stripper leaving the remaining shareholders with valueless shares in an empty shell company.

The minority shareholders in such a situation have the option therefore of either selling up and realising a profit/loss on their inital investment or holding on to their shares if they believe the change of ownership will have a positive/no detrimental effect on the perfrmance of the PLC.

Part of the PLCs recent strategy in declaring £56 million assumes that there will be 100% take up of shareholders selling their shares, which is by no means certain, early indications are that most small shareholders would be likely to retain their share regardless as the investment is as much emotional as it is financial.