Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Match Day Pie

PROTEST AGAINST DELIA AND THE BOARD

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]
We must also give them credit for their past achievements;
- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in. [/quote]

Thats how we have ended up with the ex LSE land and a related £2.5m loan as at 31st May 2007 costing the football club Base + 2%. How many seasons before the football club can make a profit on that land?

[/quote]

I don''t know, do you? Unless we know the expected return on investment and over what time period, its a bit difficult to be too critical. I am however very uneasy about our boards investment here. I would love to know more details. We all know many football clubs rely on off field investments returning a profit to balance the books and fund the squad budgets, but right now I fail to see how this deal is working in our favour.
[/quote]

Just to clarify for anybody who doesn''t know, it was Delia''s regime that bought the ex LSE  land. They also bought another piece of land off Norwich City Council for £900k.

The interest on the ex LSE land is costing the footbal side of the club roughly £170k per season.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?[/quote]

Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club.

So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah.

People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk).

It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?

 [/quote]

Whenever the accusations ''you work for the club'' come out its a sure sign that the accuser can''t actually debate the points raised.

Mello where did I suggest you are anti club? Where have I suggested you are an untrue fans? I suggested we both love the club, you replied "It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC". Fair enough if thats how you feel, only an idiot would accuse you of being a binner or anti club and I have said or implied neither.

If you don''t want to have the debate, and prefer playground taunts thats up to you. All I have done is disagree with you. The rest you are making up.

[/quote]

Nothing wrong then, with your pseudo-intellectual ''but fortunately, not like my infantile in the playground'' taunts - regarding your assumed and supposed ability to detect the ''emotional states'' of an individual poster? (I think you''re just making that up) Or, what some understand of the machinations of running a football club - wouldn''t even fit on a postage stamp, (arrogance, smuggy and snooty-ism).You see, ''Biggest Blunder Asunder'',(tee hee) I don''t actually take myself or this forum seriously, where as the likes of you, continually climb atop your tower of imitation ivory, and feel the need to continually educate the lower masses on how we should be so damn grateful, that we have a supposedly dedicated group of individuals, who are apparently 100% dedicated to drive this club further. I continually climb on my reality soapbox, and disagree with your view, which is your continual unwavering defence of those in power at Carra, and I just feel that you have a connection or personal interest within that clique. 

They''ve served their time, the relationship is turning sour, they''re past their sell by date - and I see changes on the horizon. 

Also, all I''m doing is disagreeing with you, (in my own little lacking general business acumen, and in my sub-standard intellect but humorous kinda way). But, still personally thinking that you''ve more than a passing and general interest in those in the ''tower of power'' at NCFC.....Although, if I''m incorrect in my assumption.....I still think that you have.

I also may be diverting you away from serious discussion and debate, with those more suited to do battle with yourself.......and I''m having fun doing so, but, it certainly isn''t intentional.......much.     

[/quote]Plenty of things are wrong Mello, the board have made many serious mistakes. The academy is a money pit when we need it to turn a profit, hiring Grant was reckless and extremely stupid, the whole ''costa del colney'' atmosphere that permeated through the club, all these things have seriously hampered us. I have no unwavering defense of the board. I have regularly criticised them on this message board. But there is a whole bunch of posters, yourself included, that criticises EVERYTHING about the club, that makes constant unfounded criticisms of the board based on personalities and perceived character flaws rather than actual facts. I would rather deal in the facts.I''m not trying to make out you are stupid, and I am genuinely sorry if you think I was. I do think however that you don''t look at what is happening at other clubs or at what is happening to the whole football economy. One major motivation of the board is to avoid what has happened at so many other clubs, namely administration, having ruthless business types take control to their benefit and the total detriment of the club, and failing as a business to such an extent that local business who supply the club go out of business. If you don''t understand the dangers, you can''t understand the board''s main motivations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.[/quote]

But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types.

Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give.

Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?

 [/quote]

Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset!

As for ''how many clubs'' do your own research. But whilst you are doing it also research HOW they are funding this, and research what happens to the clubs that over spend in a quest for the Premiership promised land.

Its obvious from our league position the last three seasons that things have been seriously wrong with the club, I invite you to read my reply to Mello above for a partial list. The land deal is one thing taking money from the player budget, but without knowing the full financial return detail (Mr Carrow and I speculated on a previous thread that it could return 5m profit for the club) we can''t really criticise - these off field investments have a full role to play in the entertainment on the pitch by helping to fund them. I doubt if one single fan is excited by the hotel or the land deals, but one day we will hopefully be excited by the players they help fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...

How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?

[/quote]

Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club.

So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah.

People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk).

It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?

 [/quote]

Whenever the accusations ''you work for the club'' come out its a sure sign that the accuser can''t actually debate the points raised.

Mello where did I suggest you are anti club? Where have I suggested you are an untrue fans? I suggested we both love the club, you replied "It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC". Fair enough if thats how you feel, only an idiot would accuse you of being a binner or anti club and I have said or implied neither.

If you don''t want to have the debate, and prefer playground taunts thats up to you. All I have done is disagree with you. The rest you are making up.

[/quote]

Nothing wrong then, with your pseudo-intellectual ''but fortunately, not like my infantile in the playground'' taunts - regarding your assumed and supposed ability to detect the ''emotional states'' of an individual poster? (I think you''re just making that up) Or, what some understand of the machinations of running a football club - wouldn''t even fit on a postage stamp, (arrogance, smuggy and snooty-ism).You see, ''Biggest Blunder Asunder'',(tee hee) I don''t actually take myself or this forum seriously, where as the likes of you, continually climb atop your tower of imitation ivory, and feel the need to continually educate the lower masses on how we should be so damn grateful, that we have a supposedly dedicated group of individuals, who are apparently 100% dedicated to drive this club further. I continually climb on my reality soapbox, and disagree with your view, which is your continual unwavering defence of those in power at Carra, and I just feel that you have a connection or personal interest within that clique. 

They''ve served their time, the relationship is turning sour, they''re past their sell by date - and I see changes on the horizon. 

Also, all I''m doing is disagreeing with you, (in my own little lacking general business acumen, and in my sub-standard intellect but humorous kinda way). But, still personally thinking that you''ve more than a passing and general interest in those in the ''tower of power'' at NCFC.....Although, if I''m incorrect in my assumption.....I still think that you have.

I also may be diverting you away from serious discussion and debate, with those more suited to do battle with yourself.......and I''m having fun doing so, but, it certainly isn''t intentional.......much.     

[/quote]

Plenty of things are wrong Mello, the board have made many serious mistakes. The academy is a money pit when we need it to turn a profit, hiring Grant was reckless and extremely stupid, the whole ''costa del colney'' atmosphere that permeated through the club, all these things have seriously hampered us.

I have no unwavering defense of the board. I have regularly criticised them on this message board. But there is a whole bunch of posters, yourself included, that criticises EVERYTHING about the club, that makes constant unfounded criticisms of the board based on personalities and perceived character flaws rather than actual facts. I would rather deal in the facts.

I''m not trying to make out you are stupid, and I am genuinely sorry if you think I was. I do think however that you don''t look at what is happening at other clubs or at what is happening to the whole football economy. One major motivation of the board is to avoid what has happened at so many other clubs, namely administration, having ruthless business types take control to their benefit and the total detriment of the club, and failing as a business to such an extent that local business who supply the club go out of business. If you don''t understand the dangers, you can''t understand the board''s main motivations.
[/quote]

Football''s a funny ole game.......I just think the board''s motivation is target fixated  and with far too much concentration (and too much emphasis) on matters which supporters feel should take a lower priority. I feel that we are skint, and that the hierarchy are in the death throes of trying to keep a brick afloat in the ocean. I''m also a bit tiddly, having returned from a meal and a few sherbets with some friends. We discussed the situation at Carra, and agreed that something is not right within the upper echelons at the club.....But, the board are still there, and who are we to criticise? After all, we''re just fans - what do we know......eh?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven''t read all the way through this thread, there is far too much of it, so I apologise if I have missed out any major points, or am just repeating stuff that has been said.My take on the situation is, the board want to be in control of this club, and for all the mistakes they have made, they have made some excellent decisions. I think Roeder was a good appointment as manager, and I think they can see this. They are, after all, fans of the club, and I think they are gambling that the combination of Roeder and the team will be successful enough this season for the fans to be satisfied.I am not saying that Cullum isn''t probably the future of this club, but if I was in Delia''s shoes, and I thought that the team was starting to take shape, would I just jump ship and let someone else take the praise. That may be selfish, but it is also a gamble. All the good work they have done at this club (and you only have to look at Watford, Southampton etc. to see that they are doing something right) will be undone in the fans eyes if they fall flat on their faces this season.I am prepared to give them a chance, and I would be more than happy for them to be right. If, and it''s a big if, we get to the Prem this year, then we will need more investment, and I don''t see how Delia could say no then. If we don''t, it will be Cullum''s turn anyway.I say give them a chance. This is the last roll of the dice. After that, who knows.OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]

Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.
[/quote]

But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types.

Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give.

Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?

 [/quote]

Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset!

[/quote]

BDU.,

May I refer you to your line: ''The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets '' It is YOU that made the first reference to fixed assets! 

It is the clubs Annual Report that refers to the players registrations (not the person) as Intangible Fixed Assets. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Football''s a funny ole game.......I just think the board''s motivation is target fixated  and with far too much concentration (and too much emphasis) on matters which supporters feel should take a lower priority.........We discussed the situation at Carra, and agreed that something is not right within the upper echelons at the club.....But, the board are still there, and who are we to criticise? After all, we''re just fans - what do we know......eh?   

[/quote]

Well said M.Y.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="mighty yellow"]I haven''t read all the way through this thread, there is far too much of it, so I apologise if I have missed out any major points, or am just repeating stuff that has been said.

My take on the situation is, the board want to be in control of this club, and for all the mistakes they have made, they have made some excellent decisions. I think Roeder was a good appointment as manager, and I think they can see this. They are, after all, fans of the club, and I think they are gambling that the combination of Roeder and the team will be successful enough this season for the fans to be satisfied.

I am not saying that Cullum isn''t probably the future of this club, but if I was in Delia''s shoes, and I thought that the team was starting to take shape, would I just jump ship and let someone else take the praise. That may be selfish, but it is also a gamble. All the good work they have done at this club (and you only have to look at Watford, Southampton etc. to see that they are doing something right) will be undone in the fans eyes if they fall flat on their faces this season.

I am prepared to give them a chance, and I would be more than happy for them to be right. If, and it''s a big if, we get to the Prem this year, then we will need more investment, and I don''t see how Delia could say no then. If we don''t, it will be Cullum''s turn anyway.

I say give them a chance. This is the last roll of the dice. After that, who knows.

OTBC
[/quote]

 

Are we not all assuming that PC stays interested? This might have been his one and only throw of the dice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Salahuddin"]

[quote user="mighty yellow"]I haven''t read all the way through this thread, there is far too much of it, so I apologise if I have missed out any major points, or am just repeating stuff that has been said.

My take on the situation is, the board want to be in control of this club, and for all the mistakes they have made, they have made some excellent decisions. I think Roeder was a good appointment as manager, and I think they can see this. They are, after all, fans of the club, and I think they are gambling that the combination of Roeder and the team will be successful enough this season for the fans to be satisfied.

I am not saying that Cullum isn''t probably the future of this club, but if I was in Delia''s shoes, and I thought that the team was starting to take shape, would I just jump ship and let someone else take the praise. That may be selfish, but it is also a gamble. All the good work they have done at this club (and you only have to look at Watford, Southampton etc. to see that they are doing something right) will be undone in the fans eyes if they fall flat on their faces this season.

I am prepared to give them a chance, and I would be more than happy for them to be right. If, and it''s a big if, we get to the Prem this year, then we will need more investment, and I don''t see how Delia could say no then. If we don''t, it will be Cullum''s turn anyway.

I say give them a chance. This is the last roll of the dice. After that, who knows.

OTBC
[/quote]

 

Are we not all assuming that PC stays interested? This might have been his one and only throw of the dice!

[/quote]

 

I said that weeks ago, however, he''s a long time NC fan and he views our frustrations as we do, he sees what we see, how close we came last season to relegation, and what''s happening to our beloved football club.  If I were him, I would wait very quietly and see how things start to work out this season.  If NC don''t do well I think you will hear once again from Peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.[/quote]

But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types.

Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give.

Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?

 [/quote]

Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset!

[/quote]

BDU.,

May I refer you to your line: ''The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets '' It is YOU that made the first reference to fixed assets! 

It is the clubs Annual Report that refers to the players registrations (not the person) as Intangible Fixed Assets. 

 [/quote]

Why are you still going on? I have made it very clear by fixed assets I wasn''t referring to players, it was clear in my previous post, but you won''t let it drop. Argue the point I was making if you can / want, not the semantics. We still own our TANGIBLE fixed assets and that is an achievement. Many teams have had to sell off their ground and facilities, we have first class facilities and thats a real achievement.

Oh btw only one in five teams relegated from the Prem bounce straight back, average position is 8th/9th, outside the playoff places. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2008/08/can_birmingham_reading_and_der.html#033728

Salahuddin, if Cullum loves the club as much as he stated, he will be back. Otherwise we will have to assume he was just trying to buy a struggling club on the cheap. He is worth 1.7b on paper, but only liquidated 60m cash. When he liquidates more, I fully expect him to be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"]We still own our TANGIBLE fixed assets and that is an achievement. Many teams have had to sell off their ground and facilities, we have first class facilities and thats a real achievement.[/quote]

BDU, this "We"?

Is that ''we'' as in NCFC or ''we'' as in Creditors?I only ask since I''m aware that we (NCFC) have assets of £51m and liabilities of £35m which implies to me that our Creditors own approx 70% of the Club whichever way you look at it and that''s quite a high percentage when you remember Chase was and still is lambasted for getting us into a huge debt of £6m. A debt incidentally which was pretty well repaid without even touching fixed assets at the time through the sale of players. This suggests to me that when Chase left we (NCFC) owned pretty well 100% of the Club and its (tangible fixed) assets and now we own approx 30% of the club and its (tangible fixed) assets the rest being owned by a collective of creditors including £5m in Directors loans and the £19m consolidation loan, a conglomerate of shorter term creditors-details disguised using the usual obfuscation of post Balance sheet transactions  year after year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was meaning we as in NCFC. Most people borrow money for their house, but call it ''my house''. Most people would say Glazer bought Man Utd, but he put the club hundreds of millions of pounds in debt to do it.My understanding was that Chase ran up loans that wern''t agreed by the bank, unofficial overdraft if you will, and as such the bank could call in the loan at any time, which they duly did. So the loan amount under Chase might have been smaller, but it wasn''t structured properly and we couldn''t pay it back, hence the criticism. Also hence the urgent scrabble for new money (at which point Delia came into the picture) and the firesale of players (both when we were in the Prem, on relegation, and when Delia first came on board). We have the capability of paying back our current loan, and it is structured so the banks can''t just call it in, any more than they can just call in your mortgage.When Chase left we were extremely close to bankruptcy. He left a real mess. Getting out of that mess, with our (tangible) fixed assets in place has been a real achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]


BDU, this "We"?

Is that ''we'' as in NCFC or ''we'' as in Creditors?
I only ask since I''m aware that we (NCFC) have assets of £51m and liabilities of £35m which implies to me that our Creditors own approx 70% of the Club



[/quote]

Which is why I believe the decision as to whether to accept any offer from Peter Cullum or anyone else is not up to those who only own 30% of the club. I could be wrong and it''s just personal opinion, but I would imagine the creditors have the final say.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]

BDU, this "We"?

Is that ''we'' as in NCFC or ''we'' as in Creditors?I only ask since I''m aware that we (NCFC) have assets of £51m and liabilities of £35m which implies to me that our Creditors own approx 70% of the Club

[/quote]

Which is why I believe the decision as to whether to accept any offer from Peter Cullum or anyone else is not up to those who only own 30% of the club. I could be wrong and it''s just personal opinion, but I would imagine the creditors have the final say.

 

[/quote]Apparently the terms of the loan state the loan would have to be repaid in full on change of ownership (including Director loans). Cullum said he could renegotiate it the main loan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do commonly as BDU states claim ownership to all intents and purposes of things which are in actuality owned by banks, houses and cars, businesses etc. and this is exactly what''s in place at FCR. Delia and Michael own the Club by virtue of their maj shareholding but assorted creditors actually own far more than they do.  To keep it simple if there were only 100 shares in Norwich and they were allocated strictly on a "who owns what" basis the breakdown would be (approx) as follows.Creditors:Misc. Creditors-60 shares (assets 51m -(liabilities £35m - directors loans £5.5m))director creditors- 11 shares (4m dir loans as of July 08 + 1.5m dir loans as of Aug 08)This leaves the other 29% (representing approx the £16m valuation as quoted on the Club website) breaking down thus:Minority shareholders- 11 sharesMajority shareholders- 18 sharesAnd it''s that bottom line figure which is the problem I think.With so much of the Club having been used to secure finance we have huge liabilities to our creditors. On a daily basis this make no difference whatsoever since although (actual) ownership of the club is vaguely along the lines of the simplistic breakdown above, the creditors either have no rights or have waived them in respect of the day to day running and football policies which leaves Delia and Michael as the maj shareholders in terms of decision making and voting if not in true pounds, shillings and pence terms. The problem is on takeover I would be very surprised if the creditors were quite happy to see someone who only holds 18% of the Clubs assets make all the decisions and then "cut and run" with their own money in their pockets and nothing in it for the creditors. I know what I''d be like if I owned 60-70% of a business and somebody with an 18% holding tried to sell it on their terms and I just can''t see it happening tbh. Pretty sure if you owned 18% of a house the building society would like a say in who you sell it to, for how much and what exactly happens to the money.With a shareholding of 61% D&M may have the decisive vote on football matters but with a stakeholding of 23.5% max financially, Delia, Michael and the Turners combined haven''t got the financial weight to make a final decision if other creditors choose to assert themselves. And that''s why I think nothing came of the "deal" not saying nothing ever will but when there are assorted creditors demands to be met it''s going to be a lot harder to reach a mutually agreeable takeover. I think D&M probably found out the hard way that they are not masters of their own destiny in the matter, but I guess that''s the price they pay for alll that borrowing but on the bright side I''ve personally cut the a bit of slack in the Cullumgate affair for this reason so I''m sure they''re really pleased about that.[8-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]

Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.
[/quote]

But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types.

Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give.

Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?

 [/quote]

Canary Nut, are you an accountant? Only an accountant could view a player as a fixed asset!

[/quote]

BDU.,

May I refer you to your line: ''The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets '' It is YOU that made the first reference to fixed assets! 

It is the clubs Annual Report that refers to the players registrations (not the person) as Intangible Fixed Assets. 

 [/quote]

Why are you still going on? I have made it very clear by fixed assets I wasn''t referring to players, it was clear in my previous post, but you won''t let it drop. Argue the point I was making if you can / want, not the semantics. We still own our TANGIBLE fixed assets and that is an achievement. Many teams have had to sell off their ground and facilities, we have first class facilities and thats a real achievement.

[/quote]

If you  had been precise in your first post there would have been no need to drag it out of you, that you only meant Tangible fixed assets would there?

As for ''Many teams have had to sell off their ground and facilities'', I can only think of Leeds United who sold and leased back their ground due to dire financial problems. Sure others have sold their old ground due to moving to a new ground. However if any reader knows otherwise please add the information to this thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Roedy Cant Fail"]


BDU, this "We"?

Is that ''we'' as in NCFC or ''we'' as in Creditors?
I only ask since I''m aware that we (NCFC) have assets of £51m and liabilities of £35m which implies to me that our Creditors own approx 70% of the Club



[/quote]

Which is why I believe the decision as to whether to accept any offer from Peter Cullum or anyone else is not up to those who only own 30% of the club. I could be wrong and it''s just personal opinion, but I would imagine the creditors have the final say.

 

[/quote]

Apparently the terms of the loan state the loan would have to be repaid in full on change of ownership (including Director loans). Cullum said he could renegotiate it the main loan.
[/quote]

Not all creditors are equal however, the majority are unsecured creditors and they are last in line after those with a secured legal charge against the Club''s assets, Preference Shareholders and oridinary shareholders.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...