Delia should get nothing for her shares.

[Mr Whiz 0]

Ok so say for example you brought a house and invested a vast sum of money on improving it and building it up. Then one day some one comes along and say to you ill take your house off your hands but i wont give you any money for it but i will instead invest more money into improving the house further. How many posters out there would take up such an offer?

Now obviously its not the same situation but something similar, so how many people would honestly take such an offer?

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="7rew"][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.

[/quote]

I''m not quite sure what you''re getting at 7rew.  Spending the money on players would not in itself make the club more valuable.  But if spending the money on players improved the club''s fortunes then potentially it would.

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Mr Whiz"]

Ok so say for example you brought a house and invested a vast sum of money on improving it and building it up. Then one day some one comes along and say to you ill take your house off your hands but i wont give you any money for it but i will instead invest more money into improving the house further. How many posters out there would take up such an offer?

Now obviously its not the same situation but something similar, so how many people would honestly take such an offer?

[/quote]

It''s not a valid comparison.  D&M have not bought a house.  NCFC does not belong to them.  They do not own the ground, or Colney or anything else.  They own a 61.2% shareholding. 

 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Fat Prophet"][quote user="7rew"][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.

[/quote]

I''m not quite sure what you''re getting at 7rew.  Spending the money on players would not in itself make the club more valuable.  But if spending the money on players improved the club''s fortunes then potentially it would.

 [/quote]

So in fact the current shareholders should all gamble half their current investment on Cullum''s £20 million more than doubling the worth of the club?  Is that what you are saying?  Cos expensive players are never flops.  The point I was making was that if Cullum''s millions go on players tomorrow then the club is worth the day after the same as it is worth today and they have half the percentage of the club.

I still want to know the difference between a share issue and handing Cullum half each persons'' shares?   And why the investors should hand over there shares for a potential return?

[steakbearnaise 0]

Fat P - I think we pretty much agree on this. But on the share issue (and to answer Mr Carrow''s earlier post as well) - Cullum has said he wanted control of the club in exchange for the 20m player investment but made clear he wasn''t putting up more cash for control of the club. If that''s through a new share issue or handing over 51% of existing shares it makes no difference - a new share issue would effectively make the exising shares worth slightly less than half of their current value.

To use a variation on Mr Whizz''s example , it''s as if he''s said - you have a house, give me 51% ownership of that house, for which I will invest money doing it up and then your 49% share will be worth considerably more. The question is whether 49% of something with investment is worth as much as 100% of something without that investment. Possible, but perhaps unlikely, in our case.

FatP - I think you''re right about Cullum saying he wouldn''t invest more, though. But he did say he wanted to use his investment to finance NCFC, after which the premiership millions could be used carefully to keep the club there. So he did suggest he wouldn''t invest more. But in any case that seems a little irrelevant if he doesn''t make a better offer...

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="7rew"]

So in fact the current shareholders should all gamble half their current investment on Cullum''s £20 million more than doubling the worth of the club?  Is that what you are saying?  Cos expensive players are never flops.  The point I was making was that if Cullum''s millions go on players tomorrow then the club is worth the day after the same as it is worth today and they have half the percentage of the club.

I still want to know the difference between a share issue and handing Cullum half each persons'' shares?   And why the investors should hand over there shares for a potential return?
[/quote]

I agree that either scenario (buying new shares or getting half the existing shares for nothing) would produce the same result in terms of money for players.  But that''s not my point. 

My point is that the idea of PC expecting people to hand over their shares for nothing is so implausible it makes me laugh out loud.  I didn''t want to be rude to steakbearnaise, but frankly I don''t understand why anyone would imagine that such a scenario is even faintly possible.  It''s so laughable that you can rest assured if he''d done that the board would have given it full publicity and made PC look an absolute idiot.

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 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]

The share value went up 20% when we were bottom of the league in October!  Worried about a potential aggressive takeover on relegation?  Most probably.

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Fat Pineapple"][quote user="7rew"]

So in fact the current shareholders should all gamble half their current investment on Cullum''s £20 million more than doubling the worth of the club?  Is that what you are saying?  Cos expensive players are never flops.  The point I was making was that if Cullum''s millions go on players tomorrow then the club is worth the day after the same as it is worth today and they have half the percentage of the club.

I still want to know the difference between a share issue and handing Cullum half each persons'' shares?   And why the investors should hand over there shares for a potential return?[/quote]

I agree that either scenario (buying new shares or getting half the existing shares for nothing) would produce the same result in terms of money for players.  But that''s not my point. 

My point is that the idea of PC expecting people to hand over their shares for nothing is so implausible it makes me laugh out loud.  I didn''t want to be rude to steakbearnaise, but frankly I don''t understand why anyone would imagine that such a scenario is even faintly possible.  It''s so laughable that you can rest assured if he''d done that the board would have given it full publicity and made PC look an absolute idiot.

 

[/quote]It depends, If the board are hoping that he will eventually see reason and make an offer for the shares as well then I don''t think they would.

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][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.

[/quote]

The good of the club has got nothing to do with this.  If that were all it was about then I would volounteer to drive the removal van to help get her out.  And she wont walk away minted, she will walk away with her ''mint'' back in her bank account, and not tied up in allegedly worthless football club shares.  My original point was that if I were in her shoes I would be holding out for the best price I can.  Wouldnt you?

Sorry silly question that last one.  I suppose you and the holier than thou brigade will all spout crap along the lines of I would give every spare penny, if I were in her shoes I would write the money off etc.etc.

[T 190]

The share value did not go up in October - all they did was change the nominal price of the shares which means absolutely nothing. The price printed on a share certificate has not do to with the value of the shares.

My understanding of what has been written is that PC offered to pay 20m for majority control but did not offer to buy the shares or repay the shareholder loans. In which case the current shareholders would be left without control with a minority interest with no obvious exit.

[Chrisr 0]

[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]

Damn, I knew £50M for that belt was expensive.

[steakbearnaise 0]

[quote user="Fat Pineapple"][quote user="7rew"]

So in fact the current shareholders should all gamble half their current investment on Cullum''s £20 million more than doubling the worth of the club?  Is that what you are saying?  Cos expensive players are never flops.  The point I was making was that if Cullum''s millions go on players tomorrow then the club is worth the day after the same as it is worth today and they have half the percentage of the club.

I still want to know the difference between a share issue and handing Cullum half each persons'' shares?   And why the investors should hand over there shares for a potential return?
[/quote]

I agree that either scenario (buying new shares or getting half the existing shares for nothing) would produce the same result in terms of money for players.  But that''s not my point. 

My point is that the idea of PC expecting people to hand over their shares for nothing is so implausible it makes me laugh out loud.  I didn''t want to be rude to steakbearnaise, but frankly I don''t understand why anyone would imagine that such a scenario is even faintly possible.  It''s so laughable that you can rest assured if he''d done that the board would have given it full publicity and made PC look an absolute idiot.

 

[/quote]

 

I agree that it''s implausible, but that''s what Cullum himself says he offered, and why the board rejected it, coming out with their somewhat hamfisted response to say that 56m would be needed to take control and invest 20m in players. If Delia and co had a better understanding of PR, they might have done what you suggest - but to be fair, Cullum had already publicised his "offer" himself...

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

It strikes me from this thread that alot of people place far more significance on the well-being of one wealthy individual than the well-being of our football club.  I think some people should examine their priorities.

IMO Delia faces a fairly straight choice: carry on without the neccesary funds for a push for promotion with a divided fanbase knowing that the spectre of Cullums` cash is always hovering in the background; with the very real possibility of relegation, financial turmoil and the possibility of her shares being worthless and her being run out of town by an angry mob.  Or a compromise with Cullum halving the value of her shareholding, but with a united fanbase, renewed confidence and feel-good factor, a strengthened squad far more likely to secure a promotion which will make everyone happy and very likely boost the value of her shares to more than the current worth.  And her status in the eyes of City fans as a well-meaning benefactor would be secure.

Two gambles, one negative, the other positive in my book.  Which one would be best for the club?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mr Whiz"]

Ok so say for example you brought a house and invested a vast sum of money on improving it and building it up. Then one day some one comes along and say to you ill take your house off your hands but i wont give you any money for it but i will instead invest more money into improving the house further. How many posters out there would take up such an offer?

Now obviously its not the same situation but something similar, so how many people would honestly take such an offer?

[/quote]

The house analogy is frankly ridiculous.  A house cannot win a promotion worth £50m.

The only way i can improve it slightly is to consider that the house sits on considerable oil reserves but the current owners can`t afford to drill them out.  A wealthier person comes along and asks for a majority stake in the house to drill the oil out which will, if successful, make both parties wealthy and happy.

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,023]

Mr Whiz apparently there is a credit crunch and the value of houses is falling month on month so people with large mortages might be tempted. It would also depend on what the money to "build up" the house has been spent on, money might have been spent on a very nice kitchen but the fabric of the house may have been allowed to deteriorate such that it is almost beyond repair.....

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The house analogy is frankly ridiculous.  A house cannot win a promotion worth £50m.

[/quote]

No, but it could win the Norwich in Bloom competition (Cottage Garden

category)... that investment would come in handy for buying new

geraniums....

[Mr Whiz 0]

Obviously house was a poor choice then but for those who can look beyond the physical example and understand the prinicple behind it all i was saying is delia bought into NCFC and invested her money and for PC to say i want control but im not prepared to pay you for it only to put up some money for players is i feel slightly unreasonable.

[T 190]

The question is who would want to buy a minority interest in the club - unless PC agreed to pay out the minority interest at a future date the current shareholders  do have have an obvious exit so for them it is a lot less than halving their shares value as they do not only get any return on the shares - the only return is when you exit which would be difficult as a minority. And the only way for the shareholders to make money out of promotion is to take money out - its 50m of revenue for the club and still premiership clubs don''t make a profit as all the money goes back into running the club. Nice for the club but then so would it be nice for the club if all fans donated a substantial part of their wealth to the club.In all normal deals the new controller of the business offers to buy the esisting shareholder out which does not appear to have happened here so it is hardly surprising that no deal was done. Ultimately how many people can honestly say that you would transfer a substantial part of your wealth and lose control of the money you have invested to someone worth 1.7bn for free? That is the problem.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

T, the club is in obvious decline and all evidence suggests we don`t have the funds to pull it around.  In a few years time we could be entrenched in the lower divisions with financial problems and fans in revolt.  In that situation no-one can be a winner, least of all Delia, so everyone needs to be realistic and bite the bullet for the sake of the club and that means Delia accepting that her holding might have to be de-valued by a new share issue.  After all, "the good of the club" has been one of her favourite phrases over the years yet bizzarely many posters on here seem more concerned with the good of Delia.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

The house analogy is frankly ridiculous.  A house cannot win a promotion worth £50m.

[/quote]
No, but it could win the Norwich in Bloom competition (Cottage Garden category)... that investment would come in handy for buying new geraniums....
[/quote]

Funnily enough i was working yesterday in a garden being entered into Norwich in Bloom in the grounds of a plush new complex of flats, one of which is apparently owned by......Delia Smith......

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="Fat Pineapple"]

 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]It also wasn''t Cullum who approached the Club. The only people he approached, since last October, were EDP journalists. Tell me, if Aviva/Andrew Turner hadn''t brokered a meeting, would Peter Cullum even have asked for one? It''s all very well bleating "They won''t talk to me!", but if you haven''t even made an approach, why would they? Thousands of people don''t talk to me, every time I visit the city centre, but that''s because I don''t know them and I haven''t tried to speak to them myself!I think it was a very shabby little way to try to initiate such an important discussion - a bit like Real Madrid trying to buy Cristiano Ronaldo through unsettling paper talk.

[T 190]

With 7.6m gate receipts when 6 clubs are getting an additional 12m parachute payments and the financial backers of the likes of QPR I agree it will be difficult without financial input to get promoted but then also we have gate receipts which are probably larger than many other clubs in the league. Also I suspect that our commercial income of 3.8m and catering income of 3m is larger than many clubs I suspect that we are upper mid-table financially so we should not normally  be relegation candidates either.

If the current shareholders are left with a minority interest their shares have very limited value as it does not generate dividends so the only value is in selling the shares which is difficult as a minority - who would want to buy a minority when PC is in control. The value is in the control. I want PC to take over but I can understand that the shareholders want to negotiate to get their money out when PC is said to be worth 85 times more than Delia/MWJ. I don''t see any income in the accounts from donations so whilst most of us want PC to take over we are asking the current shareholders to do something that other people are not willing to do themselves.  

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Fat Barman"][quote user="Fat Pineapple"]

 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]
 The only people he approached, since last October, were EDP journalists.

[/quote]

He said he "had a friendly arm wrestle over the valuation of the club" in January.

 

[Carlos Valderrama 0]

Mr Carrow most people dont really care about the good of Delia, but can understand her stance in doing what is best for her.  I would do exactly the same in her shoes as would you...

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

It strikes me from this thread that alot of people place far more significance on the well-being of one wealthy individual than the well-being of our football club.  I think some people should examine their priorities.

IMO Delia faces a fairly straight choice: carry on without the neccesary funds for a push for promotion with a divided fanbase knowing that the spectre of Cullums` cash is always hovering in the background; with the very real possibility of relegation, financial turmoil and the possibility of her shares being worthless and her being run out of town by an angry mob.  Or a compromise with Cullum halving the value of her shareholding, but with a united fanbase, renewed confidence and feel-good factor, a strengthened squad far more likely to secure a promotion which will make everyone happy and very likely boost the value of her shares to more than the current worth.  And her status in the eyes of City fans as a well-meaning benefactor would be secure.

Two gambles, one negative, the other positive in my book.  Which one would be best for the club?

[/quote]The reason for that is that pretty much everyone agrees that a takeover is in the best interests of the club, so it boils down to what kind of deal needs to be struck to get rid of Deals and bring in Deal Junky.  As such the important point is in what the two parties disagree over, which is how much Delia recieves for her part of the club.  You may think of it a straight choice and there being no possibility of Delia actually being paid for what she owns, others think that there is, or should be, a possibility of her coming out with some or all of her investment intact given that (I have heard) she hasn''t taken a salary despite 12 years work for the club.I think that both sides should be prepared to compromise and that is in the best intrest of the club.  This means that Cullum would have to buy the club from Delia, but Delia take say half the full value of the club from Cullum or take the full value and give half to the acadamy (or similar).   I don''t care how much of a hard-nosed-businessman/celebrity-chef you are, waiting is not in the best intrests of the club and that is what I want you to be thinking about at all times if you are in charge or aiming to be.

[ZLF 274]

[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]

 

Likewise you can hold onto those shares if you dont want to sell or the price is not what you want.   Thats a right/privilige you get when you own those shares.

[ron obvious 1,502]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

 

Likewise you can hold onto those shares if you dont want to sell or the price is not what you want.   Thats a right/privilige you get when you own those shares.

[/quote]Sanity at last! Hallelujah!!!!

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"][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]

 

Likewise you can hold onto those shares if you dont want to sell or the price is not what you want.   Thats a right/privilige you get when you own those shares.

[/quote]

You are just stating the obvious ZLF, but the argument is when she SHOULD sell for the greater good of the club, not whether she has to or not.

[corbs 0]

Why not see how we get on without PC''s millions. Probably more interesting this way. Delia and more importantly (Wynn) need time to adjust to loosing control of their Club, and that''s understandable. PC will be here next year, and life goes on.   

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="corbs"]Why not see how we get on without PC''s millions. Probably more interesting this way. Delia and more importantly (Wynn) need time to adjust to loosing control of their Club, and that''s understandable. PC will be here next year, and life goes on.   [/quote]

So it`s more "little norwich", shoulder-shrugging complacency all round is it.....?[8-)]

It`s exactly this kind of lethargy and inertia which leads to underachievement IMO, and it will continue until the club kicks it into touch.