Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
sturgeon220

see its easy really (If you want it to be!!)

Recommended Posts

"If anyone wishes to put money into the transfer budget they can," said

Doncaster. "They just need to write a cheque - and we can give that

straight to the manager."The issue comes when it''s a case of a

change of control," he added. At which point all manner of hurdles have

- by law - to be jumped. And that''s before you get down and dirty with

the banks for whom any change of ownership is a perfect time to get

their millions out of football.  What bit of the above is so hard to understand?  Cullum could (at any time) have offered to put money in to the playing side with no strings. Instead he has bug*ered off back to Kent because the second paragraph WAS a problem he was not willing to solve. This is fine for him but HE has left one almighty mess here which he and no one else has created. To blame the Smiths is easy as some on this message board have a unhealthy hatred for them bordering on paranoia. They had a man with a reported wealth of £1.7 billion tying to force them to give him their £9 million pound investment and step aside. Why the hell should they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why the hell should he just give us £20m and forget about it?

Doncaster''s statement there proves the endemic that has hit the club, we are stuck with Delia whether we like it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying that:Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.Great argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mister Chops"]So you are saying that:Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.Great argument.[/quote] No, But you and many others have been saying that Cullum should have been given the club in return for the £20 mil . THAT would have meant the Smiths would have got no return. That would have been wrong. Cullum said he wanted to help the playing side (all he had to do was sign the cheque0. BUT for that he wanted control (shares) without paying the present owners. Now I am sure you can see that was and is a problem? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mister Chops"]So you are saying that:Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.Great argument.[/quote]he must pay for his shares then??? what is hard to understand about that Chops? If he wants to put money in and he wants control he has to pay SOMETHING!! we have debts, shareholders have shares? So Cullum gets the club for nothing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He''s rich enough to buy the shares and pay off the debt if he was so philanthropic. It makes me a tad suspicious of him that he appears to not have negotiated slightly on this issue - perhaps as Barry Skipper outlined. After turning us into a successful Premier league club with his money and business nous I''m sure he''d get all his money back if he wanted to sell in the future.

You cannot expect Dela and MWJ to walk away with nothing considering they have outstanding loans to the club and have poured so much money in - they are not in Cullums league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mister Chops"]So you are saying that:

Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.

But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.

Great argument.
[/quote]

At last somebody has clearly and concisely summed up most of the arguments for and against that have been posted on here over the last few days!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="sturgeon220"][quote user="Mister Chops"]So you are saying that:

Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.

But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.

Great argument.
[/quote] No, But you and many others have been saying that Cullum should have been given the club in return for the £20 mil . THAT would have meant the Smiths would have got no return. That would have been wrong. Cullum said he wanted to help the playing side (all he had to do was sign the cheque0. BUT for that he wanted control (shares) without paying the present owners. Now I am sure you can see that was and is a problem? 
[/quote]

Have you ever thought that the offer was for the club to create £20mill of NEW shares? If they did that the money would go to the club and into the transfer kitty and PC would probably become majority shareholder (or at least have a say regarding where the money hes just invested goes)

Just because hes rich doesn''t mean he has to just throw money around and give it away to anything or anyone. I wouldn''t hand £20mill to our current regime because it would reach Glenn roeder as a shadow of its former self (i.e about £26.50)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="sturgeon220"][quote user="Mister Chops"]So you are saying that:Delia and MWJ should expect something back from the money they''ve put into the club and shouldn''t feel they''ve handed it over without getting anything.  That would be wrong.But Peter Cullum can hand over £20 million for players without getting anything in return.  That would not be wrong.Great argument.[/quote] No, But you and many others have been saying that Cullum should have been given the club in return for the £20 mil . THAT would have meant the Smiths would have got no return. That would have been wrong. Cullum said he wanted to help the playing side (all he had to do was sign the cheque0. BUT for that he wanted control (shares) without paying the present owners. Now I am sure you can see that was and is a problem?  [/quote]I haven''t said he should have the club for £20m.  Find a post where I have.But don''t you find it interesting that...---------

She and husband Michael have put at least £9million into the club.

Delia

admitted: "It''s mad, but I don''t regret it. The money is probably lost

but all we want is for our club to be successful. What else could we

have done with the money that meant so much?
"

-------The independent from 2002: The

couple invested pounds 1m in 1996 to bail out Norwich and take seats on

the board. Two years later, they upped their investment to about pounds

3.5m, buying 61 per cent control. "We knew we''d never see the money

again, so we asked each other if there was anything we''d rather do with

it. And we said no, Norwich was the greatest passion of our lives and

we wanted to help."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In fairness to Delia, Chops, I think that it''s poor phrasing from Delia rather than a statement of intent that all of her investment was to be considered a freebie.

Otherwise one could ask why she bothered buying shares and giving loans to the club, rather than simply writing a cheque. Why did fans fork over money for shares rather than simply donating £30 to the club? How many people do we know of have simply written a cheque for the Norwich City transfer kitty for any amount?

Perhaps her statements at the time were more an indication that she never saw herself selling the shares, and thus never sees the money again because she never cashes in on them - I''m sure there are a lot of people on this board who never intend to sell their shares in Norwich City, let alone just give them away for free. One might rephrase her statements as ''we''d never see a lot of the money again'' (personally I don''t believe that she''s out to make a profit from Norwich since there are FAR better places to stick several million).

Finally in Delia''s defence we are dealing with a man whose personal wealth dwarfs that of Delia''s. He can buy her out with no real problems and I think that adds to Delia''s position. She neither wants to leave or needs to, so to hand it all over for nothing seems somewhat of a bizarre request. I don''t think back in 2002 anyone would have forseen an interest in Norwich from the 40th richest man in Britain.

But I also don''t think he should simply hand over £20 million to the club no strings attached, since the current administration has made some very poor financial choices in the past few years.

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  

×