Delia should get nothing for her shares.

[yellow hammer 0]

Ok, so hands up who wants to be a millionaire?

I see that''s most of you.

Now keep your hand up if you think that Delia should get a fair price for her shares?

A few hands went down, I see. Now to the vast majority with your hands still up, I have to sadly inform you that, unless your lottery numbers come up, you will never become a millionaire, let alone a billionaire.

The reason is that to make a lot of money you have to let go of the idea of fairness - you have to buy cheap and sell high - if you do this then you''ll become wealthy and can afford to buy up our lovely football club.

Delia has hoovered up all the shares she can and we assume will only offload them if she at least gets back what she paid for them and preferably for a bit more. That might be fair - but where does fairness come into it? Delia''s taken a punt that we will get into the premiership - in which case the value of her shareholding goes up a lot. On the other hand she wants to avoid dropping into League 1 because the value of her shareholding will surely fall.

It just the same if you were to invest in a company on the stock market. The share price may go up or it may go down. If you make the right call then you make a profit - fairness doesn''t come into the equation.

So we have got to drop this fairness thing. If Peter Cullum has the right credentials and can move us forward, then let him have control of the club for whatever price it takes. It''s not *nice* that Delia will lose money but it''s not my money or your money and she was the one who took a punt. We really need a little bit more *nastiness* in us, or we''ll be forever the gallant losers.

 

[Blofield Canary 11]

Oh dear.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

I feel that even those who have a dislike for the board agree she should get a fair price and not walk away with nothing.

[TheCardinal 0]

She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.[/quote]

I bet the holders of Northern Rock shares feel the same.

The thrust of this thread is perfectly correct, you can only get what someone is prepared to pay and if it''s value is downgraded you get a lower price.

Simple realy, fairness dosen''t come into the equation.

[canary cherub 1]

I agree with most of what you say YH.  But that''s not the real problem imo.

I don''t think Delia simply wants the best price for her shares.  She doesn''t want to sell at any price.  It''s about control not money.  She''s named a price that she thinks no one in their right mind would pay and is refusing to negotiate.

PC may be a City fan but that doesn''t mean he''ll let his heart rule his head.  He has taken his opportunity to get the best possible value for money because he sees we are a failing club, footballwise.  And why are we failing?  Because for at least the past three seasons the club have put investment in infrastructure before investment in football.  They''ve brought this on themselves 100%.

Now he''s gone away to let them stew in their own juice.  He knows as well as we do that as things stand we''re relegation fodder.  D&M can do it the hard way or the harder way and they appear to have chosen the latter.  Bring it on . . .

 

 

[TheCardinal 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.[/quote]

I bet the holders of Northern Rock shares feel the same.

The thrust of this thread is perfectly correct, you can only get what someone is prepared to pay and if it''s value is downgraded you get a lower price.

Simple realy, fairness dosen''t come into the equation.

[/quote]

You don''t seem to understand the notion that the shareholder does not have to sell if they get an offer. If she doesn''t want to sell, she doesn''t have to - and unless you''re prepared to pay what the seller wants, you don''t go home with the goods.

I think she deserves to get at least what she paid for them and think that she would be happy to sell them on for that price range.

[kdncfc 0]

Normally I would say she should get a decent price for them but after what she said about not wanting money for herself she should at least be talking to Cullum with a view to taking far less than she paid for them. After all it was Delia herself who said she didn''t want money, she probably said that because she didn''t expect anybody would come forward. I''m afraid that by saying what she said she has left herself wide open, easy to say things like that but these things have a habit of coming back and biting you on the bum.

 

[TheCardinal 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

I agree with most of what you say YH.  But that''s not the real problem imo.

I don''t think Delia simply wants the best price for her shares.  She doesn''t want to sell at any price.  It''s about control not money.  She''s named a price that she thinks no one in their right mind would pay and is refusing to negotiate.

PC may be a City fan but that doesn''t mean he''ll let his heart rule his head.  He has taken his opportunity to get the best possible value for money because he sees we are a failing club, footballwise.  And why are we failing?  Because for at least the past three seasons the club have put investment in infrastructure before investment in football.  They''ve brought this on themselves 100%.

Now he''s gone away to let them stew in their own juice.  He knows as well as we do that as things stand we''re relegation fodder.  D&M can do it the hard way or the harder way and they appear to have chosen the latter.  Bring it on . . .

[/quote]

Totally disagree, FP and the evidence against this is everywhere.

It sounds as if the current board put forward a number of propositions to allow Cullum to buy into the club - whether or not they included selling Delia''s majority to him, I don''t know. However, as we''re all aware, Cullum wanted majority shareholding in exchange for the £20mil transfer budget.

Sounds to me far from the "refusing to negotiate" position you allude to.

[Badger 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.[/quote]

I bet the holders of Northern Rock shares feel the same.

The thrust of this thread is perfectly correct, you can only get what someone is prepared to pay and if it''s value is downgraded you get a lower price.

Simple realy, fairness dosen''t come into the equation.

[/quote]

Differences being that

1. I don''t think that the original investment was made as a means of making money but to help the football club.

2. She doesn''t have to sell until she wants to. So if there isn''t a fair offer, why on earth should she take it?

But I don''t disagree with the point about fairness in general - any item is only worth what someone else is prepared to pay for it and the holder is prepared to sell for. But this works both ways - it could mean that we don''t feel that Delia should wait for a fair offer or equally that she might not feel that she has to sell when she gets an offer generally deemed fair.

That is why, in my rather naive way, I am attracted to the idea of "fairness" being a guiding principle.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

I agree with most of what you say YH.  But that''s not the real problem imo.

I don''t think Delia simply wants the best price for her shares.  She doesn''t want to sell at any price.  It''s about control not money.  She''s named a price that she thinks no one in their right mind would pay and is refusing to negotiate.

PC may be a City fan but that doesn''t mean he''ll let his heart rule his head.  He has taken his opportunity to get the best possible value for money because he sees we are a failing club, footballwise.  And why are we failing?  Because for at least the past three seasons the club have put investment in infrastructure before investment in football.  They''ve brought this on themselves 100%.

Now he''s gone away to let them stew in their own juice.  He knows as well as we do that as things stand we''re relegation fodder.  D&M can do it the hard way or the harder way and they appear to have chosen the latter.  Bring it on . . .

[/quote]

Totally disagree, FP and the evidence against this is everywhere.

It sounds as if the current board put forward a number of propositions to allow Cullum to buy into the club - whether or not they included selling Delia''s majority to him, I don''t know. However, as we''re all aware, Cullum wanted majority shareholding in exchange for the £20mil transfer budget.

Sounds to me far from the "refusing to negotiate" position you allude to.

[/quote]

"It sounds as if" is not evidence MM. 

At the end of the day there''s an awful lot none of us know.  But we do know Aviva had to step in to get the two sides together, and it wasn''t Cullum who didn''t want to talk.  Then the very next day it was all off.  That IS evidence, but as always it depends how you interpret it.

 

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

I agree with most of what you say YH.  But that''s not the real problem imo.

I don''t think Delia simply wants the best price for her shares.  She doesn''t want to sell at any price.  It''s about control not money.  She''s named a price that she thinks no one in their right mind would pay and is refusing to negotiate.

PC may be a City fan but that doesn''t mean he''ll let his heart rule his head.  He has taken his opportunity to get the best possible value for money because he sees we are a failing club, footballwise.  And why are we failing?  Because for at least the past three seasons the club have put investment in infrastructure before investment in football.  They''ve brought this on themselves 100%.

Now he''s gone away to let them stew in their own juice.  He knows as well as we do that as things stand we''re relegation fodder.  D&M can do it the hard way or the harder way and they appear to have chosen the latter.  Bring it on . . .

[/quote]

Totally disagree, FP and the evidence against this is everywhere.

It sounds as if the current board put forward a number of propositions to allow Cullum to buy into the club - whether or not they included selling Delia''s majority to him, I don''t know. However, as we''re all aware, Cullum wanted majority shareholding in exchange for the £20mil transfer budget.

Sounds to me far from the "refusing to negotiate" position you allude to.

[/quote]

"It sounds as if" is not evidence MM. 

At the end of the day there''s an awful lot none of us know.  But we do know Aviva had to step in to get the two sides together, and it wasn''t Cullum who didn''t want to talk.  Then the very next day it was all off.  That IS evidence, but as always it depends how you interpret it.

[/quote]

I meant to add:  This is a woman who went on live radio and said that "the fans would never forgive us" if they turned down an offer of £20 million on the playing side - having just done exactly that!  (A typical Delia-ism btw - she didn''t say they wouldn''t turn it down, just that we''d never forgive them if they did - and of course she''s absolutely right!)  More evidence - but once again, it depends how you interpret it.  How would you interpret it, MM?

 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

I am going to jump off the fence (briefly), I think Delia should get at least what she has paid in from her own money, I would dispute the silly figures bandied around that she has ploughed in £9M of her own money. I am not going to sleight/praise Delia/MWJ until I have heard all of the facts in respect of the Peter Cullum offer.

[steakbearnaise 0]

I don''t know whether Marshmallowman is right or not in saying that the board gave Cullum a number of options, but the fact is this:

We are not bankrupt as a club and the board do not have to sell their shares because of their own financial situation(s). There is therefore no need for an emergency sale or offloading of the shares.

Accepting that, there are then two issues that are being bundled as one, deliberately by some: more investment into the club for players and change of control of the club. Everyone wants to see the first happen and many want the second as well. But change of control can only happen if an offer is made for the club that values it at something near what it''s worth. Cullum is combining the two issues to appeal to fans - but there''s no suggestion from anyone, least of all Cullum himself, that he''s made a fair offer for majority control of the club. Therefore there is no (moral or otherwise) obligation on the current shareholder (and remember it isn''t just Delia and hubby) to sell, and they would be fools to give up something that is worth something for nothing. The original post on this thread suggests they should give it away because they''ve taken a punt and failed. Well they haven''t - the truth is the club is still in the Championship, it''s financially ok but certainly not flush with cash - so why should they give it up for nothing?

The question of investment for players is separate - it may be that we can only get more cash in by control changing, but in that case a fair offer has to be made first.

I just don''t think anybody involved (Cullum, Delia and the board, most of the posters on here) look good in the current situation, but I do wonder why all those bashing Delia and co don''t ask the other obvious question, which is: Peter Cullum - why don''t you offer fair money for the club and then invest in players when you easily have the cash to do so? You say you love the club so much, so why not put the money in? Or are you just looking to make a quick buck by investing a bit, getting NCFC into the prem and selling on quickly for a massive profit (after all, you have said you would only be prepared to make an initial, not ongoing, investment)...

 

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

So Delia should get nothing, rubbish.  She should hold out for the best price she can get, in her shoes I would do exactly the same. 

This isnt quite the same as FTSE stocks and shares, the valuations are dealt with completely differently.  This is all about negotiation, Delia has pitched high, Cullum has pitched low, its the same technique whether you are buying a £50m football club or a £5 fake armani belt from a street trader in Ibiza.  If PC is serious about buying, and Delia is serious about selling these two will throw this back and forward for a while yet.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="steakbearnaise"]

I just don''t think anybody involved (Cullum, Delia and the board, most of the posters on here) look good in the current situation, but I do wonder why all those bashing Delia and co don''t ask the other obvious question, which is: Peter Cullum - why don''t you offer fair money for the club and then invest in players when you easily have the cash to do so? You say you love the club so much, so why not put the money in? Or are you just looking to make a quick buck by investing a bit, getting NCFC into the prem and selling on quickly for a massive profit (after all, you have said you would only be prepared to make an initial, not ongoing, investment)...

 

[/quote]

PC''s comments when rumours first circulated back in the autumn throw some light on this I think.  He indicated that he''d like to take over the club in a few years time when he has retired, but not now.  He has come in sooner than planned because the club are in a mess and need money for players NOW.  Naturally he wants control over how the money is spent - especially given the current board''s recent track record. 

You could argue that improving the club''s fortunes now is is not in his best interests financially, if it makes the club more expensive when he eventually does want to buy it out.

No one knows exactly how he planned to get control without a total buyout.  But some of the financial bods suggested he could buy into a new share issue.  A new share issue would presumably be at the current price of £30.  So (if true) it suggests he''s prepared to pay full price for new shares not get them on the cheap.  But at the end of the day we don''t really know do we?

 

[BigFish 1,988]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"][quote user="Fat Prophet"]

I agree with most of what you say YH.  But that''s not the real problem imo.

I don''t think Delia simply wants the best price for her shares.  She doesn''t want to sell at any price.  It''s about control not money.  She''s named a price that she thinks no one in their right mind would pay and is refusing to negotiate.

PC may be a City fan but that doesn''t mean he''ll let his heart rule his head.  He has taken his opportunity to get the best possible value for money because he sees we are a failing club, footballwise.  And why are we failing?  Because for at least the past three seasons the club have put investment in infrastructure before investment in football.  They''ve brought this on themselves 100%.

Now he''s gone away to let them stew in their own juice.  He knows as well as we do that as things stand we''re relegation fodder.  D&M can do it the hard way or the harder way and they appear to have chosen the latter.  Bring it on . . .

[/quote]

Totally disagree, FP and the evidence against this is everywhere.

It sounds as if the current board put forward a number of propositions to allow Cullum to buy into the club - whether or not they included selling Delia''s majority to him, I don''t know. However, as we''re all aware, Cullum wanted majority shareholding in exchange for the £20mil transfer budget.

Sounds to me far from the "refusing to negotiate" position you allude to.

[/quote]

"It sounds as if" is not evidence MM. 

At the end of the day there''s an awful lot none of us know.  But we do know Aviva had to step in to get the two sides together, and it wasn''t Cullum who didn''t want to talk.  Then the very next day it was all off.  That IS evidence, but as always it depends how you interpret it.

[/quote]

I meant to add:  This is a woman who went on live radio and said that "the fans would never forgive us" if they turned down an offer of £20 million on the playing side - having just done exactly that!  (A typical Delia-ism btw - she didn''t say they wouldn''t turn it down, just that we''d never forgive them if they did - and of course she''s absolutely right!)  More evidence - but once again, it depends how you interpret it.  How would you interpret it, MM?

[/quote]

Listen here fatty, seeing as you are so keen on evidence there doesn''t appear to be be any anywhere that PC is particularly unhappy with being turned down. In fact he is politeness itself after the meet they had - this would seem to imply that the offer made didn''t stack up.

[SuperWesIrishWizard 0]

"The reason is that to make a lot of money you have to let go of the idea of fairness - you have to buy cheap and sell high - if you do this then you''ll become wealthy and can afford to buy up our lovely football club."

Forgive me if I am wrong, but didnt Delia make her money presenting a tv show and selling cookery books? Or did she buy aprons cheap?

[canary cherub 1]

BigFish . . .

Of course he''s polite, I don''t see how a public hissy fit would help his case in any way.  Not his style in any case.

He''s gone away to consider his next move imo.  This isn''t over by a long way.  It isn''t even half time yet.

 

[ricardo 7,395]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.[/quote]

I bet the holders of Northern Rock shares feel the same.

The thrust of this thread is perfectly correct, you can only get what someone is prepared to pay and if it''s value is downgraded you get a lower price.

Simple realy, fairness dosen''t come into the equation.

[/quote]

You don''t seem to understand the notion that the shareholder does not have to sell if they get an offer. If she doesn''t want to sell, she doesn''t have to - and unless you''re prepared to pay what the seller wants, you don''t go home with the goods.

I think she deserves to get at least what she paid for them and think that she would be happy to sell them on for that price range.

[/quote]

MMM, finally you''ve got it!

They don''t want to sell do they?

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Carlos Valderrama"]

So Delia should get nothing, rubbish.  She should hold out for the best price she can get, in her shoes I would do exactly the same. 

This isnt quite the same as FTSE stocks and shares, the valuations are dealt with completely differently.  This is all about negotiation, Delia has pitched high, Cullum has pitched low, its the same technique whether you are buying a £50m football club or a £5 fake armani belt from a street trader in Ibiza.  If PC is serious about buying, and Delia is serious about selling these two will throw this back and forward for a while yet.

[/quote]

"She should hold out for the best price she can get".  Can i just ask where the good of the club stands in all this?  Are you people seriously saying that more turmoil, struggle and very possible relegation scrap is fine as long as someone worth £22m who has done a poor job running our club walks away minted? 

I don`t hate Delia and i would HOPE that she would get her money back, but if it is in the best interests of the club for her to cut her losses and take a financial hit then that is what she should be "encouraged" to do.  We then get the new broom and new investment we crave and she walks away as a benign benefactor who acted in the best interests of the club rather than desperately clinging on whilst the ivory tower crumbled around her.

[KeelansGlove 0]

It really isn''t as simple as people make out just a couple of questions.

The value of Norwich City ? I have no idea but it would be very convenient if it actually were 32M

Is Norwich City really worth more now than when they took over ?

If not in general terms the shares should be worth less not more just because they say so.

Can they afford to keep the club running and competative in this league with more investment ?

If not the clubs value will continue to reduce.

20 Million would be between 2-3 times the amount invested in any way from Delia et al

I dont want Delia out at any cost, in fact I would much rather have her in but it would appear clear she is one of those poor millionaires who really cant afford to run a football club and there is no sign of the Turners putting hands in pockets to make a difference.

Worst finish for 50 Years, smaller squad than last year, no decent strikers

Any significant investment in the squad came with the Dean Ashton, too late to make any real difference, then Earnshaw and that 3.5 million was never to be seen again.

I honestly can''t see what they have done to make the club better over the last 10 years, sold off Mr Chases land purchases and improved the stadium. Sold off any decent players we had (which wasn''t that many) tripled the debt. Mr Chase would be so proud.

You obviously should make a big fat profit for all your hard work.

The only significant thing they have done is to spin up the concept of a family club and all in it together which allows them to serve up crap football and still get 25,000 per game.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="TheMarshmallowMan"]She should get at least what she paid for them, IMO.[/quote]

I bet the holders of Northern Rock shares feel the same.

The thrust of this thread is perfectly correct, you can only get what someone is prepared to pay and if it''s value is downgraded you get a lower price.

Simple realy, fairness dosen''t come into the equation.

[/quote]

You don''t seem to understand the notion that the shareholder does not have to sell if they get an offer. If she doesn''t want to sell, she doesn''t have to - and unless you''re prepared to pay what the seller wants, you don''t go home with the goods.

I think she deserves to get at least what she paid for them and think that she would be happy to sell them on for that price range.

[/quote]

MMM, finally you''ve got it!

They don''t want to sell do they?

[/quote]All the evidence actually says is "They don''t want to take the current offer".   You can splice and spin anyway you like (by pretending that not sell now = not sell ever) but that is all we know.   As such what will have to happen is that the two parties meet somewhere between their current position.

[ron obvious 1,514]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]

The only significant thing they have done is to spin up the concept of a family club and all in it together which allows them to serve up crap football and still get 25,000 per game.

[/quote]I think that is the crux of the matter - & why she does not HAVE to sell.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="KeelansGlove"]

The only significant thing they have done is to spin up the concept of a family club and all in it together which allows them to serve up crap football and still get 25,000 per game.

[/quote]

I think that is the crux of the matter - & why she does not HAVE to sell.
[/quote]

Very true ron.  Season ticket holders have become part of the problem, sadly.  They''re so desperate to hang on to their little bit of plastic that they''ve sat on since time immemorial that they won''t let go any more than Delia will. 

(That should get them going . . . [6]

 

[steakbearnaise 0]

Fat Prophet - (my ability to quote your post has failed me, but you say:

PC''s comments when rumours first circulated back in the autumn throw some light on this I think.  He indicated that he''d like to take over the club in a few years time when he has retired, but not now.  He has come in sooner than planned because the club are in a mess and need money for players NOW.  Naturally he wants control over how the money is spent - especially given the current board''s recent track record. 

You could argue that improving the club''s fortunes now is is not in his best interests financially, if it makes the club more expensive when he eventually does want to buy it out.

No one knows exactly how he planned to get control without a total buyout.  But some of the financial bods suggested he could buy into a new share issue.  A new share issue would presumably be at the current price of £30.  So (if true) it suggests he''s prepared to pay full price for new shares not get them on the cheap.  But at the end of the day we don''t really know do we?

However, the problem is that Cullum himself made clear in public statements that he had made an offer of 20m, but that 1) ALL of that cash was to go to players, 2) he wouldn''t invest any more, and 3) he wanted control of the club in exchange for this investment.

In other words, no new share issue, no full payment for shares - the shareholders were simply expected to hand over at least 51% of the shares to him for nothing.

That''s what we know - becuase he said it himself. Everything else is speculation, but presumably his argument was that if every current shareholder gave up just over half of their shares, his investment would improve the value of the club and that in the long term they might be able to get some or most of their money back. Quite reasonably, the current shareholders didn''t see that as a fair deal, and pointed out that a financial offer could not be structured like that under the rules governing the loans owed by the club, as well as those on assuming control of a company such as NCFC. If Cullum has made a better/differently structured offer, nobody knows - but the one he made seems to be clearly heavily weighted in his own favour and I don''t see why the current shareholders should hesitate in rejecting it. Of course they should negotiate with him, but that has to come from both sides. One or both were too rooted to their position to negotiate, and there''s no evidence that Cullum was being flexible at all, so I don''t see why 80% of the posters here are idolising him like some sort of second coming of Christ. (But, as I''ve said before, I don''t think Delia and co look good either - it''s a mess all round).

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

(That should get them going . . . [6]

 [/quote]

Yes indeed.  Not closing your parentheses. Honestly.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

Steakbearnaise: "he wouldn`t invest any more".  He did not say this, he said he didn`t want to be an English Abramovich.

"In other words, no new share issue....".  A new share issue would have given him a majority stake and allowed his £20m to go straight into the squad so there is absolutely no evidence that "the shareholders were simply expected to hand over at least 51% of the shares to him for nothing".

[canary cherub 1]

steak I agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentences - summed up in a nutshell in my signature

A couple of points in response to your post:

PC is offering £20 million FOR NOW - he has never said there won''t be any more, ever - or that there will - so I don''t know where you get that from.

You presume that he''s asking current shareholders to give up half their shares?  For nothing??  That''s the only way he''d be able to put all the money into the playing side.  Very very implausible imo.  The scenario of buying into a new share issue (at full price btw) seems much more likely.  But since no one on either side has said how he planned to go about it, I think we''re heading down a blind alley.

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"]

steak I agree wholeheartedly with your last two sentences - summed up in a nutshell in my signature

A couple of points in response to your post:

PC is offering £20 million FOR NOW - he has never said there won''t be any more, ever - or that there will - so I don''t know where you get that from.

You presume that he''s asking current shareholders to give up half their shares?  For nothing??  That''s the only way he''d be able to put all the money into the playing side.  Very very implausible imo.  The scenario of buying into a new share issue (at full price btw) seems much more likely.  But since no one on either side has said how he planned to go about it, I think we''re heading down a blind alley.

 [/quote]

What is the difference between these two secenarios really? 

In both cases the current shareholders have half the number of shares (as a percentage of the company) and no money.  The only difference in out come is the numbers on the shares themselves.  The club wouldn''t suddenly become more valuble if the £20 million were spent on players, as player costs aren''t counted.