Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
canarysi

An analogy for you!

Recommended Posts

[quote user="JC"]Oh for god sake this is childish.  But to argue against this knuckle dragging rubbish, here is an alternate version.

The person owns a large house.  It was not worth much but she invested in doing it up by selling off the land that the previous owner had bought and by making a nice kitchen.  That kept the lodgers happy for a time, it was safe and warm and the food was lovely.  But recently the lodgers have been asking why such a nice house resides in such a nasty neighbourhood when most of the other nice houses are in the nice part of town.  Should''nt we move there instead?  They also wonder why the house is so lovely yet the garden has been totally neglected and is full of weeds rather than beautiful flowers.

Then a rich man comes along and says I will give you 20 K to refurbish the garden, the bit everyone sees,  but in return I want to own the whole house.  You can stay on as a prominent tenant of course. 

Think of it as a sale and rent back, you get to stay in the house you cannot afford to improve, the other tenants get a nicer garden.

The tenants waited expectantly, the owner had told them time after time that she did it for the love of the house, garden and them - not for the money or to keep an ever strengthening grip on owning a nice house in  a poor neighbourhood.  So with a bid of bargaining the expected her to sell up.  

After all, she bought the house for peanuts and would make more than she bought it for.

But the owner insisted on the highest estate agent valuation of 56K, way above what most of the estate agents valued it at.  And she insisted that the mortgage of 16k had to be paid off rather than a remo being done.

Some of the tenants stand around scratching their heads.  She bought the house for 9K, it has a 16K mortgage and she wants 56K for it?  How can this be?






[quote user="canarysi"]

Let''s say a person owns a large house and staying in it they have some lodgers.

Now, suppose a rich man comes along and says to the owner "I''ll give you £20k to refurbish the house but in return I want to own the whole property."

Not unreasonably, the owner says "Hang on, the £20k to refurbish the house is great, but the house is worth £56k - if you want to own it you can''t just buy the furniture you have to pay for the whole house!"

Then suppose the prospective buyer goes to the lodgers and says "Look at your mean old landlord, I''ve got YOUR interests at heart and only want to make things better for you."

Do you think in those circumstances it''s reasonable for the lodgers to turn on the landlord, or isn''t it fair for the property owner to get a fair value for the house?

For what it''s worth, I believe a fair price has to be reached for the whole package, and using the media and fans - whoops, the lodgers - to influence the deal would be an underhand and cheap trick.

OTBC

[/quote][/quote]

She doesnt want 56k though does she.  She only wants the 9k she put into it, and her mates who put in 4k also want there money back.  Surely Mr Buyer could see that a house valued at 56k would be a snip at just 13k.  If he spends a cool 20k on it the value could sky rocket up to 70k.

So thats 70k, minus 13k to buy, minus 20k to do up, minus 16k outstanding mortgage.  That leaves a cool 21k in salt.  Nice.

Trouble is the man is greedy and doesnt want to pay 13k to buy.  He doesnt want to touch the 16k outstanding mortgage.  So he writes a letter saying what a terrible landlady she is and how the house will only get worse.  The tenants then protest and attack the landlady verbally forcing her to accept less.

That leaves a nice lady out on her ear with less than she paid and a bitter taste in her mouth.  Nasty really considering she only wanted the best for the house.  And the fact that it was about to be repo''d just before she bought it leaving all the tenants with no home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Carlos Valderrama"][quote user="JC"]Oh for god sake this is childish.  But to argue against this knuckle dragging rubbish, here is an alternate version.The person owns a large house.  It was not worth much but she invested in doing it up by selling off the land that the previous owner had bought and by making a nice kitchen.  That kept the lodgers happy for a time, it was safe and warm and the food was lovely.  But recently the lodgers have been asking why such a nice house resides in such a nasty neighbourhood when most of the other nice houses are in the nice part of town.  Should''nt we move there instead?  They also wonder why the house is so lovely yet the garden has been totally neglected and is full of weeds rather than beautiful flowers.Then a rich man comes along and says I will give you 20 K to refurbish the garden, the bit everyone sees,  but in return I want to own the whole house.  You can stay on as a prominent tenant of course.  Think of it as a sale and rent back, you get to stay in the house you cannot afford to improve, the other tenants get a nicer garden.The tenants waited expectantly, the owner had told them time after time that she did it for the love of the house, garden and them - not for the money or to keep an ever strengthening grip on owning a nice house in  a poor neighbourhood.  So with a bid of bargaining the expected her to sell up.   After all, she bought the house for peanuts and would make more than she bought it for.But the owner insisted on the highest estate agent valuation of 56K, way above what most of the estate agents valued it at.  And she insisted that the mortgage of 16k had to be paid off rather than a remo being done.Some of the tenants stand around scratching their heads.  She bought the house for 9K, it has a 16K mortgage and she wants 56K for it?  How can this be?

[quote user="canarysi"]

Let''s say a person owns a large house and staying in it they have some lodgers.Now, suppose a rich man comes along and says to the owner "I''ll give you £20k to refurbish the house but in return I want to own the whole property."Not unreasonably, the owner says "Hang on, the £20k to refurbish the house is great, but the house is worth £56k - if you want to own it you can''t just buy the furniture you have to pay for the whole house!"Then suppose the prospective buyer goes to the lodgers and says "Look at your mean old landlord, I''ve got YOUR interests at heart and only want to make things better for you."Do you think in those circumstances it''s reasonable for the lodgers to turn on the landlord, or isn''t it fair for the property owner to get a fair value for the house?For what it''s worth, I believe a fair price has to be reached for the whole package, and using the media and fans - whoops, the lodgers - to influence the deal would be an underhand and cheap trick.OTBC

[/quote][/quote]

She doesnt want 56k though does she.  She only wants the 9k she put into it, and her mates who put in 4k also want there money back.  Surely Mr Buyer could see that a house valued at 56k would be a snip at just 13k.  If he spends a cool 20k on it the value could sky rocket up to 70k.

So thats 70k, minus 13k to buy, minus 20k to do up, minus 16k outstanding mortgage.  That leaves a cool 21k in salt.  Nice.

Trouble is the man is greedy and doesnt want to pay 13k to buy.  He doesnt want to touch the 16k outstanding mortgage.  So he writes a letter saying what a terrible landlady she is and how the house will only get worse.  The tenants then protest and attack the landlady verbally forcing her to accept less.

That leaves a nice lady out on her ear with less than she paid and a bitter taste in her mouth.  Nasty really considering she only wanted the best for the house.  And the fact that it was about to be repo''d just before she bought it leaving all the tenants with no home.

[/quote]Though in many press articles she said the money she put into the flat was a gift and she never expected to see it back, and it was all for the love of the one-bedroom flat, so many would ask when her opinion changed so radically or whether this was just more spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, no MelloYello I''m certainly not on the board. 

It sounds like a good crack though - according to Cullum all I''ve got to do is offer some money for players and some of the ''fans'' will fight to get me a seat!

It''s an interesting debate though, there must certainly be some philanthropic Norwich people out there - assuming you all give your own money away as easily as you seem to expect Delia to.  I take the point made by Chops re Delia''s earlier statements but surely she''s allowed to talk price with a prospective buyer who''s worth Billions (far more than she is)?

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="canarysi"]

Let''s say a person owns a large house and staying in it they have some lodgers.

Now, suppose a rich man comes along and says to the owner "I''ll give you £20k to refurbish the house but in return I want to own the whole property."

Not unreasonably, the owner says "Hang on, the £20k to refurbish the house is great, but the house is worth £56k - if you want to own it you can''t just buy the furniture you have to pay for the whole house!"

Then suppose the prospective buyer goes to the lodgers and says "Look at your mean old landlord, I''ve got YOUR interests at heart and only want to make things better for you."

Do you think in those circumstances it''s reasonable for the lodgers to turn on the landlord, or isn''t it fair for the property owner to get a fair value for the house?

For what it''s worth, I believe a fair price has to be reached for the whole package, and using the media and fans - whoops, the lodgers - to influence the deal would be an underhand and cheap trick.

OTBC

[/quote]

Let''s say a person owns a large house and staying in it they have some lodgers.

Now, suppose a rich man comes along and says to the owner "I''ll give you £20k to refurbish the house but in return I want to own the whole property."

Not unreasonably, the owner says "Hang on, the £20k to refurbish the house is great. My house is only worth £16k and I have a £20k mortgage on it. So to be honest I''m in negative equity by £4k and you taking the house off my hands would be a great deal for me. But I have tennants in the house who are paying me a fortune year on year and I want to keep creaming off that income, so no deal.

Then suppose the prospective buyer goes to the lodgers and says "Look at your mean old landlord, I''ve got YOUR interests at heart and only want to make things better for you."

Do you think in those circumstances it''s reasonable for the lodgers to turn on the landlord?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But doesn''t the money from the tenants all go to the upkeep and general running of the house? Or are you suggesting that the landlady is making a profit from the rental - in which case shouldn''t this be clear from the house accounts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Who knows where the money goes but when furniture in the house is replaced it is always cheaper than the furniture that was sold.[/quote]

Delia will only accept quality ''top notch'' staff in her restaurants.....So, why do we have ''below'' and ''average'' on the pitch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="I. Shurmer"]But doesn''t the money from the tenants all go to the upkeep and general running of the house? Or are you suggesting that the landlady is making a profit from the rental - in which case shouldn''t this be clear from the house accounts?
[/quote]

But the landlady is not happy plowing the rent back into restoring the lovely garden of yesteryear. She just wants to buy some new white goods for the kitchens. Unfortunately the tennants only went to the house in the first place because of the beautiful garden, the memory of which is sadly fading away. A lot of the younger tennants have never experienced the pleasures of a lovely garden and are quite content to go on paying the rent so the landlady goes on spending on her new kitchen facilities.

Meanwhile the older residents gaze out on the tangle of weeds and brambles and dream of the day when a new landlord takes over and restores the garden to its former glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PC has appeared from the woodwork and dangled a massive £20m carrot in front of the norwich fans and asked the fans to do the work for him and get him on board. But what happens when he takes control and someone else says I''ll invest £30m in the playing squad if I can have control. Would you expect him to hand over control for nothing? Do we then call PC every name under the sun because he is holding us back at that stage. Surely people can see that PC is playing with Norwich fans here. He wants to use us to add to his empire with a cut-price deal for the club. If he isn''t prepared to part with 3.3% (£56m of £1.7bn if my maths is correct) of his total wealth to own our football club, he really doesn''t care for the club all that. If I had £56million, I''d happily spend the lot on owning the club. The majority of this money will be to the benefit of the club anyway - removing debt and purchasing players.By expecting to take ownership of the club in this way, he is effectively saying the club is worthless. "I''ll take your 60-odd percent holding thanks.Sorry, you want something in return?"Whether we like it or not (we don''t like it, we all want £20m worth of new players) even if Delia and the other share holders hand over the shares for nothing, the debts still need to be repaid or refinanced. That could eat up the £20m straight away.I''m not necessarily Delia''s biggest fan - but I really think that her and her husband deserve some respect for their efforts for the clubs cause. Even if you don''t agree with her decisions, she''s worked tirelessly for the club since buying her shares. She could have been lining her own pockets for the last ten years - instead she''s been working to keep NCFC afloat. JohnP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she deserve respect for leading fans up the garden path then and her statements about fresh new investment at the RNS?  Oh and not to mention the fact she stated she didn''t expect some of the money they put in to ever be returned?

I''m all for people getting a fair price for shares etc, however why has she changed her mind regarding wanting that money back?  Is it maybe because she didn''t think there was anyone out there who would ever invest in her ''''little old Norwich''''?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Does she deserve respect for leading fans up the garden path then and her statements about fresh new investment at the RNSWell, yeh - I don''t understand that one. It doesn''t make much sense to me. Hopefully it means there is something else going on too but the club don''t want to shout about it (causing the inflated prices etc) - who knows.... I''m sure time will tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Pudd"]> Does she deserve respect for leading fans up the garden path then and her statements about fresh new investment at the RNSWell, yeh - I don''t understand that one. It doesn''t make much sense to me. Hopefully it means there is something else going on too but the club don''t want to shout about it (causing the inflated prices etc) - who knows.... I''m sure time will tell.  [/quote]I don''t think she expected us to take is seriously.Either that or it was the drink talking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×