The SCG were not the only group briefed about Peter CULLUM

[TIL 1010 4,746]

I have just been informed that the Associate Directors were invited to a meeting by the club when naughty old Archant broke the story about Peter CULLUM.Twenty four hours notice was given and i understand that of the 30 or so only half a dozen turned up.

These are the people who a few years back gave the club 25k each in return for yearly interest on their cash handed over and also the title of Associate Director.

Do not get me wrong i have absolutely no problem with these people whatsoever, the vast majority of whom are longstanding fans who came to the club''s aid when cash was needed.

What gets to me is that N.D. seems to pick and choose who is in the loop.That is not right as surely the 5000 or so shareholders have the same rights as the more financially blessed among us.

[Mangol Wurzel 0]

Did fat luvvy Stephen Fry who pretends to support Naaridge (typical Capital Canary eh!) turn up?

Wurzel

[Puzzy magnet 0]

Were you told the £5m in October was offered as a ''loan'' if we went down?

[PaulyH 0]

Life isn''t fair. When will people realise this? The more money you have the better lifes perks get. When has this ever been different. Just another stick to beat the board with huh?

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

I have just been informed that the Associate Directors were invited to a meeting by the club when naughty old Archant broke the story about Peter CULLUM.Twenty four hours notice was given and i understand that of the 30 or so only half a dozen turned up.

These are the people who a few years back gave the club 25k each in return for yearly interest on their cash handed over and also the title of Associate Director.

Do not get me wrong i have absolutely no problem with these people whatsoever, the vast majority of whom are longstanding fans who came to the club''s aid when cash was needed.

What gets to me is that N.D. seems to pick and choose who is in the loop.That is not right as surely the 5000 or so shareholders have the same rights as the more financially blessed among us.

[/quote]Is it not possible time could be a factor there John? A shareholders meeting couldn''t possibly be arranged within twenty four hours. There is also a possibility that with their investment of £25k the club were legally obliged to inform them of any potential takeover.

[sxcanaree 0]

The Associate Directors would be those most exposed to a takeover - From memory their £25K bought them 1000 shares as well as interest on half the cash - ie each owns at least 0.2% of the club - 6% in total.

As a collective they would need to be informed ahead of those of us who have far less of an shareholding and with the club having the ability to contact effectively the second tier of its owners by gathering 30 people together in a room it is eminently sensible and well worth keeping in the loop and is sound business practice.

Especially as some people are advocating that these "longstanding fans who came to the club''s aid when cash was needed." should also hand over their shareholding to Peter Cullum for free.

I would guess that if there are any other individual shareholders who have a significant percentage ownership they too will have been sounded out for their opinion.

 

[TIL 1010 4,746]

The GUNN club holds 400 people and the carpark is large so apart from a microphone what was needed to invite any shareholders to a meeting.We were not talking about a full blown AGM with all the legalities that it entails.

There are individuals and companies out there who have 25k in ordinary shares who do not hold the title of Associate Director so what about them ?

How about writing to shareholders outlining the clubs version of events or e-mail those online,after all mailshots are common practise for 20,000 season ticket holders on a regular basis.

[TIL 1010 4,746]

SXCANAREE i find it interesting that you think we have different classes of shareholder based on how many shares you hold.

Ordinary shares give you one "hand in the air"vote at the AGM whether you have 100 or 1000 shares and preference B shares which pay a dividend do not give you voting rights.

I hope you were not involved in The Northern Rock debacle with views like that.The poor old pensioners who lost their life savings not having the same say as the financial fat cats who had more invested did not seem right to me but hey ho

[sxcanaree 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

SXCANAREE i find it interesting that you think we have different classes of shareholder based on how many shares you hold.

Ordinary shares give you one "hand in the air"vote at the AGM whether you have 100 or 1000 shares and preference B shares which pay a dividend do not give you voting rights.

I hope you were not involved in The Northern Rock debacle with views like that.The poor old pensioners who lost their life savings not having the same say as the financial fat cats who had more invested did not seem right to me but hey ho

[/quote]

Nope I know that the "Associate Directors" were created from those members who dug deeply into their pockets in the 2003 share offer and received the title and other benefits for this investment. As such I would guess that their full details including contact numbers are readily available to the club whereas a traditional inherited shareholder is simply a name and address on the register.

I do not know the make up of the share portfolio so can accept that there may be others with higher numbers of shares but it would simply be impossible to pull all of them together at short notice. - I used the phrase "second tier" to denote that these guys had "bought" the honour of being called an Associate Director which in most industries implies you are one step down from being a Director not that they had any special voting rights.

As to Northern Rock - Fantastic analogy - As far as I am aware the only people who have lost money in the northern Rock example are the shareholders who had invested in the company (most simply by being in the right place in the right time and getting shares for free or speculators who bought in late at a very low price) - they too have had a benign investor (in this case the Government) step in and agree to balance the books so that the paying customer does not suffer because all the savers are getting their money back and all mortgage deals are being honoured. But the cost is that the owners of the business have no recompense for their time and effort in building up the business. Quite rightly you think that that is unfair.

Looks similar to the situation at NCFC if you ask me. Only you swap the "rash management with other peoples money" to "prudent management with your own money" because there is no need for a sale other than to boost the speculation on promotion.

Peter Cullum could easily be philanphropic and throw £10m at Norwich City without any return (he has just donated this amount to the Cass Business School) but chose not to and insist on ownership for nothing. I would guess that we will never know if and what other options were put on the table but those that have been floated to date by the pro Cullum Wizzard and chips brigade do not stand up to the simplest of examination.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

Maybe the ''Associate Directors'' stand to lose out on some juicy ''perk'' as well as their share thingy''s - if that ''Nasty Norfolk Born Beast of a Billionaire'' was to jump in the driving seat?......allegedly.[:|]

 

[O.T.B.C 0]

They should gain gain gain really. We get some new funds and they get the money they put in back.