PROTEST AGAINST DELIA AND THE BOARD

Big Down Under · August 5, 2008

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Some repeated questions for Neil Cluckcaster, in case he’s understandably missed them amid all this tedious techie chaos:”He’s [Peter Cullum] playing games in the short term because he knows he will pick up the club for a song when it all goes tits up for them.”1. Would you have preferred Peter Cullum to make his first offer a serious one or are you happy for him to conduct this game-playing campaign?2. Is the aim of Cullum’s game-playing campaign to destabilise the club and so reduce the amount he has to pay?3. If that is the case, given that NCFC is an unlisted company, how will this game-playing campaign reduce the amount he has to pay? 4. If that’s not the aim of his game-playing campaign, what is it?

[/quote]

I''m not really feeling particularly "serious" tonight but........

1......I''m quite happy for Peter Cullum to conduct his "game playing" in the long term interests of NCFC. As a Norwich City Football Club supporter I care nothing about the future prospects of Smith and her sidekicks, but I do care about the club I''ve followed since 1962. Many a business deal has involved similar tactics...only in this case it is far more public by virtue of the fact that it involves so many interested parties.

2.....Yes. It won''t hurt the club in the long term and there is no gain without pain. With or without Peter Cullum we nearly slipped out of Division 2 (the proper name for the league we are in)....so it is bizarre to level such an apalling position at anyone other than Smith and Co. They have failed miserably.

3.....Put simply, a League One (or Division 3 club) has far less of a "market" value and is a far less attractive business proposition for anyone other than a NCFC enthusiast. If obtained at a lower figure by Peter Cullum...more free money would likely run around in a yellow shirt than go into Smith''s pocket. This can only be a good thing for supporters and may actually return us to a proper football club as of old rather than simply a faded celebrity''s plaything.

4.......Taunting the opposition is just a bit of "fun" in business and PC will enjoy baiting those standing in his way. No doubt this is all coming slightly earlier than he intended but he was prepared to get involved with the club in order to "halt the slide"......only to find that everything being said about Smith''s obsessive seige mentality was correct. Now (and very importantly) we can/should all see it for what it is and so should act accordingly.

But of course those blindly following the blind just can''t let go. Peter Cullum equals ambition, while Delia Smith equals emotional security. Personally I don''t need those apron strings to get on in life.

[/quote]

Cluckcaster, thanks for taking the trouble to answer the questions seriously. They were carefully framed and your replies are equally clear.By your answers to 2. and 3. you are confirming that Cullum is indeed trying to destabilise the club in order to get it relegated in order to reduce the price he has to pay. So draconian a strategy may come as a slight surprise to some of your fellow supporters but I’m sure they’ll be persuaded that, as you say, it’s the best thing in the long run.It certainly reinforces the image of Cullum as a ruthless and far-sighted businessman who has a carefully-worked out scheme to take control. I confess I was at a loss to see what his plan was. I had actually momentarily considered it might be engineering relegation to lower the price but dismissed the idea out of hand. Of course it’s just that kind of out-of-leftfield genius that has made Cullum a billionaire (albeit one who apparently needs to get the price of his favourite football club right down) while I’m driving round in a clapped-out Renault Clio!Of course I suppose a dyed in the wool pessimist might see two potential problems. Both so far-fetched they’re hardly worth mentioning. But.One is that despite all Cullum’s destabilising the club annoyingly fails to get relegated. So the price doesn’t go down. And a season has been wasted. And Smith and Jones are still in charge. That might cost him the backing of a few fair-weather supporters but I’m sure the true believers like yourself would stay faithful, and have a rational explanation for what was an obviously temporary setback.The other possibility is that the destabilising works. And we get relegated. Hurrah! So good so far! But then, incomprehensibly, despite all Cullum’s millions being ploughed into transfers and all his vast experience of running football clubs, we get stuck down in the third tier. And stay stuck there. In that case even some of the true believers might start to have doubts but I’m sure you would still be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Cullum. At Walsall. Or Yeovil. Or Stockport County.

[/quote]Purple Canary I really wouldn''t waste your time here, he is just winding you up. Cullum will have a plan to get us to the Premiership that won''t be relying on starting in league one. I also very much doubt Cullum has time for childish taunting games, thats not how you build such a massive business empire. Cluck MkII is using your posts as an excuse to write his rubbish about Delia''s emotional state and he gets his kicks in two ways;1. People treating what he says seriously and taking the time to respond2. People getting angry and responding in an emotional way3. People falling for his ''argument'' and agreeing with him.Don''t feed the troll.

Mr.Carrow · August 5, 2008

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Mr.Carrow,

You are by accident or design missing all of my points. I will have one more bash at explaining them.

”How do most takeovers start? By an investor buying a minority stake to get their foot in the door.”

That’s quite true. As far as listed companies are concerned. Having a significant minority stake provides leverage in a takeover. It has no relevance in the case of an unlisted company such as NCFC. It particularly has no relevance to Smith and Jones ending up with a minority stake, since if they wanted to use that to start a takeover bid against Cullum then all they would have had to have done was not give up their majority stake in the first place!

But in any event what I was doing was demolishing the idea suggested by you and Milan Marcus that if Smith and Jones ended up with a minority stake in Cullum FC that would have some significant financial value, and indeed more value than a majority stake in Delia FC. I understand why you’re tried to make people think that; even the most fervent of the anti-Delia brigade are a bit uncomfortable with the idea that she would lose everything, so this fiction has been put forward that the shares would still effectively be worth something.

If NCFC were a listed company they would have value. It isn’t, so they wouldn’t. I don’t know whether you’ve propounded this fiction despite knowing the differences between listed and unlisted companies or because you don’t understand the differences. Either way it’s not madly impressive.

And the above – the loss of share value - was plainly what I was talking about when I said they would have no financial cushion under your plan. Of course they would not be living in poverty. You have failed to grasp a very simple idea or you’ve understood it perfectly well and clumsily twisted my words. Again, either way it’s not terribly impressive.

[/quote]

You state that a minority holding would be worthless and then in another post write that someone might want to purchase it to get on the board-exactly how the Turners did it. You are trying to dress something up as fact which clearly isn`t, but i concede that i can see why they might wonder where their "get-out" is. I don`t think either you nor i know the options available to the club and Cullum once the legal minions are on the case but as i said before, where there`s a will, there`s a way.

August 5, 2008

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Some repeated questions for Neil Cluckcaster, in case he’s understandably missed them amid all this tedious techie chaos:

”He’s [Peter Cullum] playing games in the short term because he knows he will pick up the club for a song when it all goes tits up for them.”

1. Would you have preferred Peter Cullum to make his first offer a serious one or are you happy for him to conduct this game-playing campaign?

2. Is the aim of Cullum’s game-playing campaign to destabilise the club and so reduce the amount he has to pay?

3. If that is the case, given that NCFC is an unlisted company, how will this game-playing campaign reduce the amount he has to pay?

4. If that’s not the aim of his game-playing campaign, what is it?

[/quote]

I''m not really feeling particularly "serious" tonight but........

1......I''m quite happy for Peter Cullum to conduct his "game playing" in the long term interests of NCFC. As a Norwich City Football Club supporter I care nothing about the future prospects of Smith and her sidekicks, but I do care about the club I''ve followed since 1962. Many a business deal has involved similar tactics...only in this case it is far more public by virtue of the fact that it involves so many interested parties.

2.....Yes. It won''t hurt the club in the long term and there is no gain without pain. With or without Peter Cullum we nearly slipped out of Division 2 (the proper name for the league we are in)....so it is bizarre to level such an apalling position at anyone other than Smith and Co. They have failed miserably.

3.....Put simply, a League One (or Division 3 club) has far less of a "market" value and is a far less attractive business proposition for anyone other than a NCFC enthusiast. If obtained at a lower figure by Peter Cullum...more free money would likely run around in a yellow shirt than go into Smith''s pocket. This can only be a good thing for supporters and may actually return us to a proper football club as of old rather than simply a faded celebrity''s plaything.

4.......Taunting the opposition is just a bit of "fun" in business and PC will enjoy baiting those standing in his way. No doubt this is all coming slightly earlier than he intended but he was prepared to get involved with the club in order to "halt the slide"......only to find that everything being said about Smith''s obsessive seige mentality was correct. Now (and very importantly) we can/should all see it for what it is and so should act accordingly.

But of course those blindly following the blind just can''t let go. Peter Cullum equals ambition, while Delia Smith equals emotional security. Personally I don''t need those apron strings to get on in life.

[/quote]

Cluckcaster, thanks for taking the trouble to answer the questions seriously. They were carefully framed and your replies are equally clear.

By your answers to 2. and 3. you are confirming that Cullum is indeed trying to destabilise the club in order to get it relegated in order to reduce the price he has to pay. So draconian a strategy may come as a slight surprise to some of your fellow supporters but I’m sure they’ll be persuaded that, as you say, it’s the best thing in the long run.

It certainly reinforces the image of Cullum as a ruthless and far-sighted businessman who has a carefully-worked out scheme to take control. I confess I was at a loss to see what his plan was. I had actually momentarily considered it might be engineering relegation to lower the price but dismissed the idea out of hand. Of course it’s just that kind of out-of-leftfield genius that has made Cullum a billionaire (albeit one who apparently needs to get the price of his favourite football club right down) while I’m driving round in a clapped-out Renault Clio!

Of course I suppose a dyed in the wool pessimist might see two potential problems. Both so far-fetched they’re hardly worth mentioning. But.

One is that despite all Cullum’s destabilising the club annoyingly fails to get relegated. So the price doesn’t go down. And a season has been wasted. And Smith and Jones are still in charge. That might cost him the backing of a few fair-weather supporters but I’m sure the true believers like yourself would stay faithful, and have a rational explanation for what was an obviously temporary setback.

The other possibility is that the destabilising works. And we get relegated. Hurrah! So good so far! But then, incomprehensibly, despite all Cullum’s millions being ploughed into transfers and all his vast experience of running football clubs, we get stuck down in the third tier. And stay stuck there. In that case even some of the true believers might start to have doubts but I’m sure you would still be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Cullum. At Walsall. Or Yeovil. Or Stockport County.

[/quote]

Purple Canary I really wouldn''t waste your time here, he is just winding you up. Cullum will have a plan to get us to the Premiership that won''t be relying on starting in league one. I also very much doubt Cullum has time for childish taunting games, thats not how you build such a massive business empire. Cluck MkII is using your posts as an excuse to write his rubbish about Delia''s emotional state and he gets his kicks in two ways;
1. People treating what he says seriously and taking the time to respond
2. People getting angry and responding in an emotional way
3. People falling for his ''argument'' and agreeing with him.

Don''t feed the troll.
[/quote]

I''m afraid this just shows how limited your perspective is and how small your knowledge of human thinking.....result, attack the poster rather than the line of thought which obviously catagorises you as just another multiple user name hiding in anonymity. Gutless in other words.(fantastically funny user name by the way).

Strange you weren''t around in my last incarnation yet you seem to know all about my views. Soooooo obvious sunshine.

Save it for someone who is bothered.

August 5, 2008

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Some repeated questions for Neil Cluckcaster, in case he’s understandably missed them amid all this tedious techie chaos:

”He’s [Peter Cullum] playing games in the short term because he knows he will pick up the club for a song when it all goes tits up for them.”

1. Would you have preferred Peter Cullum to make his first offer a serious one or are you happy for him to conduct this game-playing campaign?

2. Is the aim of Cullum’s game-playing campaign to destabilise the club and so reduce the amount he has to pay?

3. If that is the case, given that NCFC is an unlisted company, how will this game-playing campaign reduce the amount he has to pay?

4. If that’s not the aim of his game-playing campaign, what is it?

[/quote]

I''m not really feeling particularly "serious" tonight but........

1......I''m quite happy for Peter Cullum to conduct his "game playing" in the long term interests of NCFC. As a Norwich City Football Club supporter I care nothing about the future prospects of Smith and her sidekicks, but I do care about the club I''ve followed since 1962. Many a business deal has involved similar tactics...only in this case it is far more public by virtue of the fact that it involves so many interested parties.

2.....Yes. It won''t hurt the club in the long term and there is no gain without pain. With or without Peter Cullum we nearly slipped out of Division 2 (the proper name for the league we are in)....so it is bizarre to level such an apalling position at anyone other than Smith and Co. They have failed miserably.

3.....Put simply, a League One (or Division 3 club) has far less of a "market" value and is a far less attractive business proposition for anyone other than a NCFC enthusiast. If obtained at a lower figure by Peter Cullum...more free money would likely run around in a yellow shirt than go into Smith''s pocket. This can only be a good thing for supporters and may actually return us to a proper football club as of old rather than simply a faded celebrity''s plaything.

4.......Taunting the opposition is just a bit of "fun" in business and PC will enjoy baiting those standing in his way. No doubt this is all coming slightly earlier than he intended but he was prepared to get involved with the club in order to "halt the slide"......only to find that everything being said about Smith''s obsessive seige mentality was correct. Now (and very importantly) we can/should all see it for what it is and so should act accordingly.

But of course those blindly following the blind just can''t let go. Peter Cullum equals ambition, while Delia Smith equals emotional security. Personally I don''t need those apron strings to get on in life.

[/quote]

Cluckcaster, thanks for taking the trouble to answer the questions seriously. They were carefully framed and your replies are equally clear.

By your answers to 2. and 3. you are confirming that Cullum is indeed trying to destabilise the club in order to get it relegated in order to reduce the price he has to pay. So draconian a strategy may come as a slight surprise to some of your fellow supporters but I’m sure they’ll be persuaded that, as you say, it’s the best thing in the long run.

It certainly reinforces the image of Cullum as a ruthless and far-sighted businessman who has a carefully-worked out scheme to take control. I confess I was at a loss to see what his plan was. I had actually momentarily considered it might be engineering relegation to lower the price but dismissed the idea out of hand. Of course it’s just that kind of out-of-leftfield genius that has made Cullum a billionaire (albeit one who apparently needs to get the price of his favourite football club right down) while I’m driving round in a clapped-out Renault Clio!

Of course I suppose a dyed in the wool pessimist might see two potential problems. Both so far-fetched they’re hardly worth mentioning. But.

One is that despite all Cullum’s destabilising the club annoyingly fails to get relegated. So the price doesn’t go down. And a season has been wasted. And Smith and Jones are still in charge. That might cost him the backing of a few fair-weather supporters but I’m sure the true believers like yourself would stay faithful, and have a rational explanation for what was an obviously temporary setback.

The other possibility is that the destabilising works. And we get relegated. Hurrah! So good so far! But then, incomprehensibly, despite all Cullum’s millions being ploughed into transfers and all his vast experience of running football clubs, we get stuck down in the third tier. And stay stuck there. In that case even some of the true believers might start to have doubts but I’m sure you would still be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Cullum. At Walsall. Or Yeovil. Or Stockport County.

[/quote]

As with Delia Smith, Purple Canary...I have little or no interest in Peter Cullum the person and my wish to see him at the helm of the club is purely selfish.....I want success at Norwich City Football Club. His financial injection would be very helpful of course...but his ruthless streak and business accumen is far, far more important. Image in todays materialistic world is very important and the image of NCFC these days is little short of a joke.

It would be no good PC throwing good money after bad (and we all know how women like to spend another person''s money)....and by taunting Smith he is just telling her to enjoy what little time she has left. It''s a sport to take the p1ss at any level of society...but it is much more fun when you''ve got a sack full of money to wave around knowing it badly hurts those who wish they had. Cue Smith''s latest second rate transfer debacle to "show him"....and the entry of another wagon load of journeymen.

If it takes relegation before PC comes in then so be it and it is very much on the cards anyway.......but given that scenario I''d much rather Peter Cullum was there to bang heads and set things things right than Smith and her set of worn out kitchen utensils who have done all but destroy the hard work of her pedecessors.

Club first for me every time...and those who "own" it are wholly irrelevant unless it is suffering because of them. Emotion is getting the way of too many City supporters these days...nicely fed by their "saviour" who very much likes it that way. Never fell for it myself..........

PurpleCanary · August 5, 2008

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

Mr.Carrow,

You are by accident or design missing all of my points. I will have one more bash at explaining them.

”How do most takeovers start? By an investor buying a minority stake to get their foot in the door.”

That’s quite true. As far as listed companies are concerned. Having a significant minority stake provides leverage in a takeover. It has no relevance in the case of an unlisted company such as NCFC. It particularly has no relevance to Smith and Jones ending up with a minority stake, since if they wanted to use that to start a takeover bid against Cullum then all they would have had to have done was not give up their majority stake in the first place!

[/quote]

You state that a minority holding would be worthless and then in another post write that someone might want to purchase it to get on the board-exactly how the Turners did it. You are trying to dress something up as fact which clearly isn`t, but i concede that i can see why they might wonder where their "get-out" is. I don`t think either you nor i know the options available to the club and Cullum once the legal minions are on the case but as i said before, where there`s a will, there`s a way.

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow,

I’ll say this just one last time, not for your benefit, since you insist on either misunderstanding the point or misrepresenting what I’ve said, but in case there is anyone out there who has been confused by your nonsense.

The distinction I’ve kept on drawing is between Smith and Jones ending up with a significant minority shareholding in the unlisted company that is NCFC (a stake that would effectively be worthless) and someone having a significant minority shareholding in a listed company (a stake that would undoubtedly have value).

I have suspected all along that you simply don’t understand the difference between a listed company and an unlisted one, and how that difference affects share values and – crucially in this case – takeover tactics. Either that or you don’t want to understand.

Mello Yello · August 5, 2008

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

Mr.Carrow,

You are by accident or design missing all of my points. I will have one more bash at explaining them.

”How do most takeovers start? By an investor buying a minority stake to get their foot in the door.”

That’s quite true. As far as listed companies are concerned. Having a significant minority stake provides leverage in a takeover. It has no relevance in the case of an unlisted company such as NCFC. It particularly has no relevance to Smith and Jones ending up with a minority stake, since if they wanted to use that to start a takeover bid against Cullum then all they would have had to have done was not give up their majority stake in the first place!

[/quote]

You state that a minority holding would be worthless and then in another post write that someone might want to purchase it to get on the board-exactly how the Turners did it. You are trying to dress something up as fact which clearly isn`t, but i concede that i can see why they might wonder where their "get-out" is. I don`t think either you nor i know the options available to the club and Cullum once the legal minions are on the case but as i said before, where there`s a will, there`s a way.

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow,

I’ll say this just one last time, not for your benefit, since you insist on either misunderstanding the point or misrepresenting what I’ve said, but in case there is anyone out there who has been confused by your nonsense.

The distinction I’ve kept on drawing is between Smith and Jones ending up with a significant minority shareholding in the unlisted company that is NCFC (a stake that would effectively be worthless) and someone having a significant minority shareholding in a listed company (a stake that would undoubtedly have value).

I have suspected all along that you simply don’t understand the difference between a listed company and an unlisted one, and how that difference affects share values and – crucially in this case – takeover tactics. Either that or you don’t want to understand.

[/quote]

Control Freaks! The pair of ''em!......(Is my personal understanding)......And the reality is, the Smithy an'' the Wynny - jus'' dunna wanna letta GO!......FFFFFFFFFACT!

All cozy, snuggy, kissy luvvy an'' a huggy......an'' Donny the DarthDonkster, who''s the unofficial ''Major-Shareholding pair Lordus Protector'' duz wot he''s told.......allegedly.

Mr.Carrow · August 5, 2008

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

Mr.Carrow,

You are by accident or design missing all of my points. I will have one more bash at explaining them.

”How do most takeovers start? By an investor buying a minority stake to get their foot in the door.”

That’s quite true. As far as listed companies are concerned. Having a significant minority stake provides leverage in a takeover. It has no relevance in the case of an unlisted company such as NCFC. It particularly has no relevance to Smith and Jones ending up with a minority stake, since if they wanted to use that to start a takeover bid against Cullum then all they would have had to have done was not give up their majority stake in the first place!

[/quote]

You state that a minority holding would be worthless and then in another post write that someone might want to purchase it to get on the board-exactly how the Turners did it. You are trying to dress something up as fact which clearly isn`t, but i concede that i can see why they might wonder where their "get-out" is. I don`t think either you nor i know the options available to the club and Cullum once the legal minions are on the case but as i said before, where there`s a will, there`s a way.

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow,

I’ll say this just one last time, not for your benefit, since you insist on either misunderstanding the point or misrepresenting what I’ve said, but in case there is anyone out there who has been confused by your nonsense.

The distinction I’ve kept on drawing is between Smith and Jones ending up with a significant minority shareholding in the unlisted company that is NCFC (a stake that would effectively be worthless) and someone having a significant minority shareholding in a listed company (a stake that would undoubtedly have value).

I have suspected all along that you simply don’t understand the difference between a listed company and an unlisted one, and how that difference affects share values and – crucially in this case – takeover tactics. Either that or you don’t want to understand.

[/quote]

Ok mate. Nobody has ever paid for a minority stake in an unlisted football club. Foulger, Skipper and the Turners were all gifted their shares by the good `ol canary fairy. It`s a bit difficult to pull off being patronising when you are not engaged with reality......[8-)]

Big Down Under · August 6, 2008

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Some repeated questions for Neil Cluckcaster, in case he’s understandably missed them amid all this tedious techie chaos:”He’s [Peter Cullum] playing games in the short term because he knows he will pick up the club for a song when it all goes tits up for them.”1. Would you have preferred Peter Cullum to make his first offer a serious one or are you happy for him to conduct this game-playing campaign?2. Is the aim of Cullum’s game-playing campaign to destabilise the club and so reduce the amount he has to pay?3. If that is the case, given that NCFC is an unlisted company, how will this game-playing campaign reduce the amount he has to pay? 4. If that’s not the aim of his game-playing campaign, what is it?

[/quote]

I''m not really feeling particularly "serious" tonight but........

1......I''m quite happy for Peter Cullum to conduct his "game playing" in the long term interests of NCFC. As a Norwich City Football Club supporter I care nothing about the future prospects of Smith and her sidekicks, but I do care about the club I''ve followed since 1962. Many a business deal has involved similar tactics...only in this case it is far more public by virtue of the fact that it involves so many interested parties.

2.....Yes. It won''t hurt the club in the long term and there is no gain without pain. With or without Peter Cullum we nearly slipped out of Division 2 (the proper name for the league we are in)....so it is bizarre to level such an apalling position at anyone other than Smith and Co. They have failed miserably.

3.....Put simply, a League One (or Division 3 club) has far less of a "market" value and is a far less attractive business proposition for anyone other than a NCFC enthusiast. If obtained at a lower figure by Peter Cullum...more free money would likely run around in a yellow shirt than go into Smith''s pocket. This can only be a good thing for supporters and may actually return us to a proper football club as of old rather than simply a faded celebrity''s plaything.

4.......Taunting the opposition is just a bit of "fun" in business and PC will enjoy baiting those standing in his way. No doubt this is all coming slightly earlier than he intended but he was prepared to get involved with the club in order to "halt the slide"......only to find that everything being said about Smith''s obsessive seige mentality was correct. Now (and very importantly) we can/should all see it for what it is and so should act accordingly.

But of course those blindly following the blind just can''t let go. Peter Cullum equals ambition, while Delia Smith equals emotional security. Personally I don''t need those apron strings to get on in life.

[/quote]

Cluckcaster, thanks for taking the trouble to answer the questions seriously. They were carefully framed and your replies are equally clear.By your answers to 2. and 3. you are confirming that Cullum is indeed trying to destabilise the club in order to get it relegated in order to reduce the price he has to pay. So draconian a strategy may come as a slight surprise to some of your fellow supporters but I’m sure they’ll be persuaded that, as you say, it’s the best thing in the long run.It certainly reinforces the image of Cullum as a ruthless and far-sighted businessman who has a carefully-worked out scheme to take control. I confess I was at a loss to see what his plan was. I had actually momentarily considered it might be engineering relegation to lower the price but dismissed the idea out of hand. Of course it’s just that kind of out-of-leftfield genius that has made Cullum a billionaire (albeit one who apparently needs to get the price of his favourite football club right down) while I’m driving round in a clapped-out Renault Clio!Of course I suppose a dyed in the wool pessimist might see two potential problems. Both so far-fetched they’re hardly worth mentioning. But.One is that despite all Cullum’s destabilising the club annoyingly fails to get relegated. So the price doesn’t go down. And a season has been wasted. And Smith and Jones are still in charge. That might cost him the backing of a few fair-weather supporters but I’m sure the true believers like yourself would stay faithful, and have a rational explanation for what was an obviously temporary setback.The other possibility is that the destabilising works. And we get relegated. Hurrah! So good so far! But then, incomprehensibly, despite all Cullum’s millions being ploughed into transfers and all his vast experience of running football clubs, we get stuck down in the third tier. And stay stuck there. In that case even some of the true believers might start to have doubts but I’m sure you would still be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Cullum. At Walsall. Or Yeovil. Or Stockport County.

[/quote]Purple Canary I really wouldn''t waste your time here, he is just winding you up. Cullum will have a plan to get us to the Premiership that won''t be relying on starting in league one. I also very much doubt Cullum has time for childish taunting games, thats not how you build such a massive business empire. Cluck MkII is using your posts as an excuse to write his rubbish about Delia''s emotional state and he gets his kicks in two ways;1. People treating what he says seriously and taking the time to respond2. People getting angry and responding in an emotional way3. People falling for his ''argument'' and agreeing with him.Don''t feed the troll.[/quote]

I''m afraid this just shows how limited your perspective is and how small your knowledge of human thinking.....result, attack the poster rather than the line of thought which obviously catagorises you as just another multiple user name hiding in anonymity. Gutless in other words.(fantastically funny user name by the way).

Strange you weren''t around in my last incarnation yet you seem to know all about my views. Soooooo obvious sunshine.

Save it for someone who is bothered.

[/quote]Coming from someone calling themselves Neil Cluckcaster, surely you can see the irony?

Big Down Under · August 6, 2008

Mr Carrow, you are right on this point. But its a mute point because;- A minority holding certainly isn''t worth as much as a majority holding- Delia will want to retain control over the money she has invested so she won''t accept a minority holding anyway- the mechanism by which she would get this minority holding as suggested contravenes City Code Rule 9 anywayCan we now drop the whole Cullum thing for a while? I''m sure the issue will come back in the future, probably from some fans if we get a slow start to the season, and hopefully because of another Cullum bid in the future (I think that there is consensus that we all want him and his money in the boardroom).We are just a few days away from the new season, and I for one am getting excited about that and just who else Roeder has left to sign. OTBC!

yellow hammer · August 6, 2008

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

Mr.Carrow,

You are by accident or design missing all of my points. I will have one more bash at explaining them.

”How do most takeovers start? By an investor buying a minority stake to get their foot in the door.”

That’s quite true. As far as listed companies are concerned. Having a significant minority stake provides leverage in a takeover. It has no relevance in the case of an unlisted company such as NCFC. It particularly has no relevance to Smith and Jones ending up with a minority stake, since if they wanted to use that to start a takeover bid against Cullum then all they would have had to have done was not give up their majority stake in the first place!

[/quote]

You state that a minority holding would be worthless and then in another post write that someone might want to purchase it to get on the board-exactly how the Turners did it. You are trying to dress something up as fact which clearly isn`t, but i concede that i can see why they might wonder where their "get-out" is. I don`t think either you nor i know the options available to the club and Cullum once the legal minions are on the case but as i said before, where there`s a will, there`s a way.

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow,

I’ll say this just one last time, not for your benefit, since you insist on either misunderstanding the point or misrepresenting what I’ve said, but in case there is anyone out there who has been confused by your nonsense.

The distinction I’ve kept on drawing is between Smith and Jones ending up with a significant minority shareholding in the unlisted company that is NCFC (a stake that would effectively be worthless) and someone having a significant minority shareholding in a listed company (a stake that would undoubtedly have value).

I have suspected all along that you simply don’t understand the difference between a listed company and an unlisted one, and how that difference affects share values and – crucially in this case – takeover tactics. Either that or you don’t want to understand.

[/quote]

Purple Canary,

If the listing aspect is the stumbling block to allowing new investment into NCFC, then a solution would be to follow the example of a club such as Arsenal who allow their shares to be tradeable on the Ofex market. In this way the current board members could liquidate their shareholding with a minimum of fuss. Take the shareholding of David Dein as an example. In 1983 he bought a minority shareholding (16%) in the Gunners for around 300K. In 2007 he sold his 14% holding for 75million; proving that it is possible to hold a minority shareholding and make a profit in a successful football team.

What would be the issue for NCFC to list its shares? For the majority of fans there would be no change. For minority shareholders there would be the advantage that they could get out without making a loss (in a successful company). Further, minority shareholders would have slightly more power in a listed rather than an unlisted company because of their ability to increase of decrease their holding more easily. This is what we want, isn''t it?

In addition, organiations such as the Supporters Trust could buy shares on the Ofex market without having to come to the board, cap in hand, asking if the board might release some shares to them. Again a situation that would be in the best interests of the club.

The only people who might not benefit from freely traded shares are the majority shareholders, because in a non-listed situation, the majority shareholders have complete control over the running of the club. In a listed situation, their control might not be so absolute. This may not be in their best interests but on balance, it has to be in the best interests of the club. Who agrees with me that this is the way we should go?

Mr.Carrow · August 6, 2008

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Mr Carrow, you are right on this point. But its a mute point because;
- A minority holding certainly isn''t worth as much as a majority holding
- Delia will want to retain control over the money she has invested so she won''t accept a minority holding anyway
- the mechanism by which she would get this minority holding as suggested contravenes City Code Rule 9 anyway

Can we now drop the whole Cullum thing for a while? I''m sure the issue will come back in the future, probably from some fans if we get a slow start to the season, and hopefully because of another Cullum bid in the future (I think that there is consensus that we all want him and his money in the boardroom).

We are just a few days away from the new season, and I for one am getting excited about that and just who else Roeder has left to sign. OTBC!
[/quote]

Agreed, and i can see Purples point to an extent in that Delia and MWJ would be left with a large minority holding with no obvious get-out, but i think what Purple is missing is that a holding in a company with the potential to be floated has value.

What price a 30% stake in an established Prem club listed on Ofex, bankrolled by a billionaire? Milan marcus is correct, Delias 30% could be worth more than the current 62% but the club would probably have to float for her to realise it IMO.

Big Down Under · August 6, 2008

Then she would have even LESS control over her money! I would be 100% opposed to listing as a publicly traded company. No sane board would do it now. There was a huge flurry of clubs doing it in the 90s, then the City fell out of love with football clubs and share prices crashed. Guess what? It was the directors of the listed companies that made all the money, and fans who lost out. Most clubs have now left the stockmarket.Also, anybody could mount a bid. We would open ourselves up to the sharks out there. Those who would think nothing about turning the ground into a cinema / appartment mega complex thingy. You can''t stop it, you open up to hostile take overs. Gamble on a Championship club making the Premiership, never mind if they don''t make it they have great assets to sell.Publicly traded companies have to make a profit, else share prices fall. Arsenal profit on transfers, something nobody likes to see at Norwich. They are in a position to run a huge academy and can afford the cream of the talent, something we could never ever compete with. Do you want to see us selling players just because it is the end of the financial year and we have to show profit? Newcastles share price fell when they *bought* Michael Owen, city investors thought he wasn''t worth so much - do you want the future of the club decided by people gambling on the stock market?I know you want Delia out and Cullum / Other Investor in, but this is not the way. It would ruin the club.

PurpleCanary · August 6, 2008

I was quite happy to withdraw from the fray with my last post, but now the question of listing has come up, so just to go over one piece of old ground first…

1. My point was that in the very specific case of Smith and Jones, if Cullum took over via a share issue, then their minority holding would effectively become worthless because no-one would want to buy it.

My reasoning is this. Cullum would not need to buy, since he would have 55 or 60 per cent. Indeed, if he’d wanted to or been able to afford it he could have done so in the first place and saved all this hassle. The directors he would appoint to give himself a comfortable voting majority on the board would not need to buy. And I can’t imagine that any anti-Cullumite trying to keep the Delia flame alive would, since they would be in a permanent voting minority. They would simply be wasting their money.

It’s not the same situation as someone paying good money to join the board knowing that they are broadly in tune with the majority view. Of course that happens.

2. All along I’ve drawn the distinction between the value of minority holdings in listed and unlisted companies. If NCFC listed or even if there was a good chance it would list, then the argument would change completely. There would be the potential for the Smith and Jones stake to be valuable. However I was dealing with the situation as it is and as it seems likely to be in the foreseeable future.

i) The current board has never raised the possibility of listing. Chase mooted it in his heyday but no-one since then.

ii) Cullum has never mentioned it, although here we come up against the problem that we know virtually nothing about what he might do if he gained control.

iii) In my entirely non-expert view listing would be a barking mad idea, for all the reasons Big Down Under has given.

---------

PS. Big Down Under, thanks for the solicitude but as far as dear old Neil Cluckcaster was concerned the pleasure was all mine. Sometimes the best way to deal with an idiot – or a troll – is to take their idiocy or trollery very, very, very seriously.

August 6, 2008

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Some repeated questions for Neil Cluckcaster, in case he’s understandably missed them amid all this tedious techie chaos:

”He’s [Peter Cullum] playing games in the short term because he knows he will pick up the club for a song when it all goes tits up for them.”

1. Would you have preferred Peter Cullum to make his first offer a serious one or are you happy for him to conduct this game-playing campaign?

2. Is the aim of Cullum’s game-playing campaign to destabilise the club and so reduce the amount he has to pay?

3. If that is the case, given that NCFC is an unlisted company, how will this game-playing campaign reduce the amount he has to pay?

4. If that’s not the aim of his game-playing campaign, what is it?

[/quote]

I''m not really feeling particularly "serious" tonight but........

1......I''m quite happy for Peter Cullum to conduct his "game playing" in the long term interests of NCFC. As a Norwich City Football Club supporter I care nothing about the future prospects of Smith and her sidekicks, but I do care about the club I''ve followed since 1962. Many a business deal has involved similar tactics...only in this case it is far more public by virtue of the fact that it involves so many interested parties.

2.....Yes. It won''t hurt the club in the long term and there is no gain without pain. With or without Peter Cullum we nearly slipped out of Division 2 (the proper name for the league we are in)....so it is bizarre to level such an apalling position at anyone other than Smith and Co. They have failed miserably.

3.....Put simply, a League One (or Division 3 club) has far less of a "market" value and is a far less attractive business proposition for anyone other than a NCFC enthusiast. If obtained at a lower figure by Peter Cullum...more free money would likely run around in a yellow shirt than go into Smith''s pocket. This can only be a good thing for supporters and may actually return us to a proper football club as of old rather than simply a faded celebrity''s plaything.

4.......Taunting the opposition is just a bit of "fun" in business and PC will enjoy baiting those standing in his way. No doubt this is all coming slightly earlier than he intended but he was prepared to get involved with the club in order to "halt the slide"......only to find that everything being said about Smith''s obsessive seige mentality was correct. Now (and very importantly) we can/should all see it for what it is and so should act accordingly.

But of course those blindly following the blind just can''t let go. Peter Cullum equals ambition, while Delia Smith equals emotional security. Personally I don''t need those apron strings to get on in life.

[/quote]

Cluckcaster, thanks for taking the trouble to answer the questions seriously. They were carefully framed and your replies are equally clear.

By your answers to 2. and 3. you are confirming that Cullum is indeed trying to destabilise the club in order to get it relegated in order to reduce the price he has to pay. So draconian a strategy may come as a slight surprise to some of your fellow supporters but I’m sure they’ll be persuaded that, as you say, it’s the best thing in the long run.

It certainly reinforces the image of Cullum as a ruthless and far-sighted businessman who has a carefully-worked out scheme to take control. I confess I was at a loss to see what his plan was. I had actually momentarily considered it might be engineering relegation to lower the price but dismissed the idea out of hand. Of course it’s just that kind of out-of-leftfield genius that has made Cullum a billionaire (albeit one who apparently needs to get the price of his favourite football club right down) while I’m driving round in a clapped-out Renault Clio!

Of course I suppose a dyed in the wool pessimist might see two potential problems. Both so far-fetched they’re hardly worth mentioning. But.

One is that despite all Cullum’s destabilising the club annoyingly fails to get relegated. So the price doesn’t go down. And a season has been wasted. And Smith and Jones are still in charge. That might cost him the backing of a few fair-weather supporters but I’m sure the true believers like yourself would stay faithful, and have a rational explanation for what was an obviously temporary setback.

The other possibility is that the destabilising works. And we get relegated. Hurrah! So good so far! But then, incomprehensibly, despite all Cullum’s millions being ploughed into transfers and all his vast experience of running football clubs, we get stuck down in the third tier. And stay stuck there. In that case even some of the true believers might start to have doubts but I’m sure you would still be there, standing shoulder to shoulder with Cullum. At Walsall. Or Yeovil. Or Stockport County.

[/quote]

Purple Canary I really wouldn''t waste your time here, he is just winding you up. Cullum will have a plan to get us to the Premiership that won''t be relying on starting in league one. I also very much doubt Cullum has time for childish taunting games, thats not how you build such a massive business empire. Cluck MkII is using your posts as an excuse to write his rubbish about Delia''s emotional state and he gets his kicks in two ways;
1. People treating what he says seriously and taking the time to respond
2. People getting angry and responding in an emotional way
3. People falling for his ''argument'' and agreeing with him.

Don''t feed the troll.
[/quote]

I''m afraid this just shows how limited your perspective is and how small your knowledge of human thinking.....result, attack the poster rather than the line of thought which obviously catagorises you as just another multiple user name hiding in anonymity. Gutless in other words.(fantastically funny user name by the way).

Strange you weren''t around in my last incarnation yet you seem to know all about my views. Soooooo obvious sunshine.

Save it for someone who is bothered.

[/quote]

Coming from someone calling themselves Neil Cluckcaster, surely you can see the irony?
[/quote]

No, but it makes a hoooooooooooooj paste up!

Water off a Cluck''s back...... (blows wet raspberry).......

August 6, 2008

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

I was quite happy to withdraw from the fray with my last post, but now the question of listing has come up, so just to go over one piece of old ground first…

1. My point was that in the very specific case of Smith and Jones, if Cullum took over via a share issue, then their minority holding would effectively become worthless because no-one would want to buy it.

My reasoning is this. Cullum would not need to buy, since he would have 55 or 60 per cent. Indeed, if he’d wanted to or been able to afford it he could have done so in the first place and saved all this hassle. The directors he would appoint to give himself a comfortable voting majority on the board would not need to buy. And I can’t imagine that any anti-Cullumite trying to keep the Delia flame alive would, since they would be in a permanent voting minority. They would simply be wasting their money.

It’s not the same situation as someone paying good money to join the board knowing that they are broadly in tune with the majority view. Of course that happens.

2. All along I’ve drawn the distinction between the value of minority holdings in listed and unlisted companies. If NCFC listed or even if there was a good chance it would list, then the argument would change completely. There would be the potential for the Smith and Jones stake to be valuable. However I was dealing with the situation as it is and as it seems likely to be in the foreseeable future.

i) The current board has never raised the possibility of listing. Chase mooted it in his heyday but no-one since then.

ii) Cullum has never mentioned it, although here we come up against the problem that we know virtually nothing about what he might do if he gained control.

iii) In my entirely non-expert view listing would be a barking mad idea, for all the reasons Big Down Under has given.

---------

PS. Big Down Under, thanks for the solicitude but as far as dear old Neil Cluckcaster was concerned the pleasure was all mine. Sometimes the best way to deal with an idiot – or a troll – is to take their idiocy or trollery very, very, very seriously.

[/quote]

Nice try....... but just a tad tooooooooo late. [:)]

Mello Yello · August 6, 2008

Well, in my (and it''s only a personal opinion). I ''personally believe'' that the NCFC board do not wish, desire, or actually want to pursue outside - or even future investment. They''re all fully aware that if an individual even came in with a decent offer of a takeover - they''d all in a short amount of time, be relegated to the sub''s bench - and more than likely be shown the door......They''re just not up for the job of taking this club any further......when they did, they bottled it.

The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......

They know what they stand to lose if someone comes in and takes over the reins......No prestige, no rubbing shoulder''s with not just the Norfolk elite and affluent.....No more publicity, nothing to beef up the CV like being a Director of a mildly successful football club. Just sitting at the back like a fading MP backbencher hoping for a free sherry at halftime and a few crumbs of finger-food.

Given the option, this board are content to see us function as a Championship club.....anything else that is occasionally thrown up as a snippet of success - like a Premiership scalp in the cup, or a decent run without defeat......They''ll say it''s all down to being ambitious and that prudence with perdition works....And we all sit back, and buy it for a dollar.....

If we''re happy with what we''ve got, we deserve what we get......Not much this season I personally think. Not while this bunch of Charlatan Carrowteer''s are controlling the coffers, and the current comical Chief Excess is at the club.

Still, it''s only a personal opinion.....

August 6, 2008

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

Well, in my (and it''s only a personal opinion). I ''personally believe'' that the NCFC board do not wish, desire, or actually want to pursue outside - or even future investment. They''re all fully aware that if an individual even came in with a decent offer of a takeover - they''d all in a short amount of time, be relegated to the sub''s bench - and more than likely be shown the door......They''re just not up for the job of taking this club any further......when they did, they bottled it.

The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......

They know what they stand to lose if someone comes in and takes over the reins......No prestige, no rubbing shoulder''s with not just the Norfolk elite and affluent.....No more publicity, nothing to beef up the CV like being a Director of a mildly successful football club. Just sitting at the back like a fading MP backbencher hoping for a free sherry at halftime and a few crumbs of finger-food.

Given the option, this board are content to see us function as a Championship club.....anything else that is occasionally thrown up as a snippet of success - like a Premiership scalp in the cup, or a decent run without defeat......They''ll say it''s all down to being ambitious and that prudence with perdition works....And we all sit back, and buy it for a dollar.....

If we''re happy with what we''ve got, we deserve what we get......Not much this season I personally think. Not while this bunch of Charlatan Carrowteer''s are controlling the coffers, and the current comical Chief Excess is at the club.

Still, it''s only a personal opinion.....

[/quote]

Mello is back....and so is the good sense.

All we need now is Mystic Megson and we might start being a grown up forum again! [Y]

canary cherub · August 6, 2008

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

Well, in my (and it''s only a personal opinion). I ''personally believe'' that the NCFC board do not wish, desire, or actually want to pursue outside - or even future investment. They''re all fully aware that if an individual even came in with a decent offer of a takeover - they''d all in a short amount of time, be relegated to the sub''s bench - and more than likely be shown the door......They''re just not up for the job of taking this club any further......when they did, they bottled it.

The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......

They know what they stand to lose if someone comes in and takes over the reins......No prestige, no rubbing shoulder''s with not just the Norfolk elite and affluent.....No more publicity, nothing to beef up the CV like being a Director of a mildly successful football club. Just sitting at the back like a fading MP backbencher hoping for a free sherry at halftime and a few crumbs of finger-food.

Given the option, this board are content to see us function as a Championship club.....anything else that is occasionally thrown up as a snippet of success - like a Premiership scalp in the cup, or a decent run without defeat......They''ll say it''s all down to being ambitious and that prudence with perdition works....And we all sit back, and buy it for a dollar.....

If we''re happy with what we''ve got, we deserve what we get......Not much this season I personally think. Not while this bunch of Charlatan Carrowteer''s are controlling the coffers, and the current comical Chief Excess is at the club.

Still, it''s only a personal opinion.....

[/quote]

Mello is back....and so is the good sense.

All we need now is Mystic Megson and we might start being a grown up forum again! [Y]

[/quote]

Hellooooo Cluck!!!

It was rumoured that MM had undergone a sad demise, being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the ravenous Welsh dinosaur Lardyosaurus Hartsonii was terrorising this fair city. But I have it on very good authority that with typical quick thinking and resourcefulness she made good her escape . . . humming the Welsh national anthem sent the creature into a sentimental reverie, its vision obscured by tears, and she sprang from its clutches . . .

. . . and now she''s working undercover (whisper it) in the boardroom at Carrow Road. Disguised as a standard lamp, she is as we speak standing in the corner trying not to fart or sneeze or go "ouch" when Mumbles stubs out his fags on her shoulder, and hoping (for the first time in her life) that no one tries to turn her on . . . [I]

But that''s only what I''ve heard . . . [;)]

Did someone say "grown up" ??? [:$]

[:D]

canary cherub · August 6, 2008

I should add that her new ''mission'' is not without dangers of its own. About a month ago it was like Baghdad in there, with culinary implements flying in all directions like shrapnel and she was almost decapitated by a cast iron frying pan . . . haven''t a clue what that was all about . . . [;)]

YankeeCanary · August 6, 2008

[quote user="Fat Strawberry"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

Well, in my (and it''s only a personal opinion). I ''personally believe'' that the NCFC board do not wish, desire, or actually want to pursue outside - or even future investment. They''re all fully aware that if an individual even came in with a decent offer of a takeover - they''d all in a short amount of time, be relegated to the sub''s bench - and more than likely be shown the door......They''re just not up for the job of taking this club any further......when they did, they bottled it.

The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......

They know what they stand to lose if someone comes in and takes over the reins......No prestige, no rubbing shoulder''s with not just the Norfolk elite and affluent.....No more publicity, nothing to beef up the CV like being a Director of a mildly successful football club. Just sitting at the back like a fading MP backbencher hoping for a free sherry at halftime and a few crumbs of finger-food.

Given the option, this board are content to see us function as a Championship club.....anything else that is occasionally thrown up as a snippet of success - like a Premiership scalp in the cup, or a decent run without defeat......They''ll say it''s all down to being ambitious and that prudence with perdition works....And we all sit back, and buy it for a dollar.....

If we''re happy with what we''ve got, we deserve what we get......Not much this season I personally think. Not while this bunch of Charlatan Carrowteer''s are controlling the coffers, and the current comical Chief Excess is at the club.

Still, it''s only a personal opinion.....

[/quote]

Mello is back....and so is the good sense.

All we need now is Mystic Megson and we might start being a grown up forum again! [Y]

[/quote]

Hellooooo Cluck!!!

It was rumoured that MM had undergone a sad demise, being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the ravenous Welsh dinosaur Lardyosaurus Hartsonii was terrorising this fair city. But I have it on very good authority that with typical quick thinking and resourcefulness she made good her escape . . . humming the Welsh national anthem sent the creature into a sentimental reverie, its vision obscured by tears, and she sprang from its clutches . . .

. . . and now she''s working undercover (whisper it) in the boardroom at Carrow Road. Disguised as a standard lamp, she is as we speak standing in the corner trying not to fart or sneeze or go "ouch" when Mumbles stubs out his fags on her shoulder, and hoping (for the first time in her life) that no one tries to turn her on . . . [I]

But that''s only what I''ve heard . . . [;)]

Did someone say "grown up" ??? [:$]

[:D]

[/quote]

How sad. I''ll continue to be understanding with you in the future.

canary cherub · August 6, 2008

. . . and the prize for the most predictable response of the year, I give you . . . YANKEE!!!

[:)]

YankeeCanary · August 6, 2008

[quote user="Fat Strawberry"]

. . . and the prize for the most predictable response of the year, I give you . . . YANKEE!!!

[:)]

[/quote]

You''re forgiven for your cutting ways. I understand.

blahblahblah · August 6, 2008

[quote]The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may

be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business

dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just

haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business

acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......[/quote]Do you believe that GR has the ability to get us out of this league ? Could you see us getting out of this league "despite ourselves" ? [:)] It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that GR is calling more shots than anyone else in the club, what with the wholesale cull of backroom staff and releasing of any players not good / fit / trying hard enough to bring us forward. This seasons'' first team will be a team that I think he believes can compete at this level. If he is given time, and doesn''t get offered anything else in the mean time, next season should give us a team able to succeed at this level.What disappoints me about your position is the inability to accept that people at board level might have learnt from last seasons'' shocking experience. If you believe that they have learnt nothing, then I can understand why you would be disappointed in them. I think the last 12 months have probably shown those remaining at Carrow Road the difference between a manager who is organising for success and a manager who could only provide failure. They must be able to see the difference and support the man we have now to the best of their ability, surely ?

Mello Yello · August 6, 2008

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......[/quote]

Do you believe that GR has the ability to get us out of this league ? Could you see us getting out of this league "despite ourselves" ? [:)] It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that GR is calling more shots than anyone else in the club, what with the wholesale cull of backroom staff and releasing of any players not good / fit / trying hard enough to bring us forward. This seasons'' first team will be a team that I think he believes can compete at this level. If he is given time, and doesn''t get offered anything else in the mean time, next season should give us a team able to succeed at this level.

What disappoints me about your position is the inability to accept that people at board level might have learnt from last seasons'' shocking experience. If you believe that they have learnt nothing, then I can understand why you would be disappointed in them. I think the last 12 months have probably shown those remaining at Carrow Road the difference between a manager who is organising for success and a manager who could only provide failure. They must be able to see the difference and support the man we have now to the best of their ability, surely ?
[/quote]

It''s not just the last 3 season''s though is it, that the board ''might'' have had the opportunity to ''rectify the mistakes that have been obvious and most evident to many of the support for well over that period......I have little faith in their aspiration''s for the future, but have faith in what Roeder is attempting to achieve. This board of Directionless were brickin'' it last season, they escaped by the skin of a Durex fetherlite. They, (and I point the finger at those who have the most control), are reluctant to ''let go'' for whatever reasons, whether it be passion, fear, arrogance, irresponsibility, beyond criticism, selfishness or sheer bloody-mindedness......whatever. They escaped the last one, and I feel that they will just trundle on as usual, throwing the odd sardine to the gullible gannets when things go a bit awry......I just see a pattern for over the last decade, the squad''s have changed, the managerial appointed have been and gone - but, they''re still hangin'' on in there. One board member flogs his shares to the ''Turner Two'' and oh, I forgot the departure of Tin Tin Barnet Bob Cooper, to be replaced by Roger. Why hasn''t there been a mass clear-out at the top then? It''s a closed shop in my opinion, and they''re happy to repel all interested parties who may have the ballcocks and the finance to shake up this club. In my eye''s the current board are the problem, and have been for a period of time. They''re so set in their ways, and believe that what they''re doing is best for them (and maybe the club)......

It is my personal opinion that the board really aren''t up to it, and are quite prepared to play ''comfy easy'' on constantly betting on black/red, black/red on the roulette wheel.....No numbers involved, no chance of extreme failure and little odds on a vast loss of their personal dollar''s. They play the table, lose a little, recover it back - yet still get free drinks from the cocktail waitress and no confrontation from security - as they''re ''seen to be doing''......The punters are happy, the board is happy. That is all.

August 6, 2008

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......[/quote]

Do you believe that GR has the ability to get us out of this league ? Could you see us getting out of this league "despite ourselves" ? [:)] It seems to me, as an outsider looking in, that GR is calling more shots than anyone else in the club, what with the wholesale cull of backroom staff and releasing of any players not good / fit / trying hard enough to bring us forward. This seasons'' first team will be a team that I think he believes can compete at this level. If he is given time, and doesn''t get offered anything else in the mean time, next season should give us a team able to succeed at this level.

What disappoints me about your position is the inability to accept that people at board level might have learnt from last seasons'' shocking experience. If you believe that they have learnt nothing, then I can understand why you would be disappointed in them. I think the last 12 months have probably shown those remaining at Carrow Road the difference between a manager who is organising for success and a manager who could only provide failure. They must be able to see the difference and support the man we have now to the best of their ability, surely ?
[/quote]

It''s not just the last 3 season''s though is it, that the board ''might'' have had the opportunity to ''rectify the mistakes that have been obvious and most evident to many of the support for well over that period......I have little faith in their aspiration''s for the future, but have faith in what Roeder is attempting to achieve. This board of Directionless were brickin'' it last season, they escaped by the skin of a Durex fetherlite. They, (and I point the finger at those who have the most control), are reluctant to ''let go'' for whatever reasons, whether it be passion, fear, arrogance, irresponsibility, beyond criticism, selfishness or sheer bloody-mindedness......whatever. They escaped the last one, and I feel that they will just trundle on as usual, throwing the odd sardine to the gullible gannets when things go a bit awry......I just see a pattern for over the last decade, the squad''s have changed, the managerial appointed have been and gone - but, they''re still hangin'' on in there. One board member flogs his shares to the ''Turner Two'' and oh, I forgot the departure of Tin Tin Barnet Bob Cooper, to be replaced by Roger. Why hasn''t there been a mass clear-out at the top then? It''s a closed shop in my opinion, and they''re happy to repel all interested parties who may have the ballcocks and the finance to shake up this club. In my eye''s the current board are the problem, and have been for a period of time. They''re so set in their ways, and believe that what they''re doing is best for them (and maybe the club)......

It is my personal opinion that the board really aren''t up to it, and are quite prepared to play ''comfy easy'' on constantly betting on black/red, black/red on the roulette wheel.....No numbers involved, no chance of extreme failure and little odds on a vast loss of their personal dollar''s. They play the table, lose a little, recover it back - yet still get free drinks from the cocktail waitress and no confrontation from security - as they''re ''seen to be doing''......The punters are happy, the board is happy. That is all.

[/quote]

Norwich City these days resembles a small Ryman League level club run by local half wits for the kudos the position brings......It''s all about ego and status with Smith and the football side of things comes way down the list of priorities.

Lets see how loyal the Deliarites are when Peter Cullum rides into town and gives the place a good kick up the arse.

August 6, 2008

[quote user="Fat Strawberry"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

Well, in my (and it''s only a personal opinion). I ''personally believe'' that the NCFC board do not wish, desire, or actually want to pursue outside - or even future investment. They''re all fully aware that if an individual even came in with a decent offer of a takeover - they''d all in a short amount of time, be relegated to the sub''s bench - and more than likely be shown the door......They''re just not up for the job of taking this club any further......when they did, they bottled it.

The board aren''t in the league to get us out of this league, they may be successful people in their ''supposed'' profession and business dealings.......But, when it comes to the crux of the matter, they just haven''t got the tenacity, guts or the required aggressive business acumen to deal with what''s required to compete with ''the others''......

They know what they stand to lose if someone comes in and takes over the reins......No prestige, no rubbing shoulder''s with not just the Norfolk elite and affluent.....No more publicity, nothing to beef up the CV like being a Director of a mildly successful football club. Just sitting at the back like a fading MP backbencher hoping for a free sherry at halftime and a few crumbs of finger-food.

Given the option, this board are content to see us function as a Championship club.....anything else that is occasionally thrown up as a snippet of success - like a Premiership scalp in the cup, or a decent run without defeat......They''ll say it''s all down to being ambitious and that prudence with perdition works....And we all sit back, and buy it for a dollar.....

If we''re happy with what we''ve got, we deserve what we get......Not much this season I personally think. Not while this bunch of Charlatan Carrowteer''s are controlling the coffers, and the current comical Chief Excess is at the club.

Still, it''s only a personal opinion.....

[/quote]

Mello is back....and so is the good sense.

All we need now is Mystic Megson and we might start being a grown up forum again! [Y]

[/quote]

Hellooooo Cluck!!!

It was rumoured that MM had undergone a sad demise, being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the ravenous Welsh dinosaur Lardyosaurus Hartsonii was terrorising this fair city. But I have it on very good authority that with typical quick thinking and resourcefulness she made good her escape . . . humming the Welsh national anthem sent the creature into a sentimental reverie, its vision obscured by tears, and she sprang from its clutches . . .

. . . and now she''s working undercover (whisper it) in the boardroom at Carrow Road. Disguised as a standard lamp, she is as we speak standing in the corner trying not to fart or sneeze or go "ouch" when Mumbles stubs out his fags on her shoulder, and hoping (for the first time in her life) that no one tries to turn her on . . . [I]

But that''s only what I''ve heard . . . [;)]

Did someone say "grown up" ??? [:$]

[:D]

[/quote]

[:)]

Well....I just hope she''s doing her bit for the rest of us in there! If she needs firearms I have a friend who could probably oblige.

can u sit down please · August 7, 2008

I have a feeling that money has been invested but we are not publicising it while rebuilding our squad. Makes sense to me! It would also link back to the Delia quote for the RNS "we are not like other clubs who talk about how much money they have!" Watch this space......

Big Down Under · August 7, 2008

Mello sorry to say it but you write an awful load of emotional tosh. Fair enough, emotion is high as we love our club, but try and cut through it to look at what is actually going on.You say they aren''t looking for outside investment - based on what? Where is your evidence?You say they don''t want to get us promoted - based on what? Where is your evidence?You talk about their loss of prestige being their major reason for not wanting to lose control - based on what? Where is your evidence?If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager- Overseeing the clearout of the backroom staff- Enabling Roeder to get the players he wants (his words, not mine)We must also give them credit for their past achievements;- The Worthy years of rebuild, competitiveness, winning the league and promotion- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in. - The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets (good, sound business acumen)Why can''t you give them credit for the above? Because you don''t understand just what an achievement it all is. You seem to have very little idea of the financial environment they are working in. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.Leicester was held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. Get in an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! Thats the way to do it! Oh.Southampton were held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. They have an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! You can always sell the player ''assets'' to get your money back! Oh.Have a look around Mello, Its not anywhere near as cut and dried as you think.

yellow hammer · August 7, 2008

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Then she would have even LESS control over her money!

I would be 100% opposed to listing as a publicly traded company. No sane board would do it now. There was a huge flurry of clubs doing it in the 90s, then the City fell out of love with football clubs and share prices crashed. Guess what? It was the directors of the listed companies that made all the money, and fans who lost out. Most clubs have now left the stockmarket.

Also, anybody could mount a bid. We would open ourselves up to the sharks out there. Those who would think nothing about turning the ground into a cinema / appartment mega complex thingy. You can''t stop it, you open up to hostile take overs. Gamble on a Championship club making the Premiership, never mind if they don''t make it they have great assets to sell.

Publicly traded companies have to make a profit, else share prices fall. Arsenal profit on transfers, something nobody likes to see at Norwich. They are in a position to run a huge academy and can afford the cream of the talent, something we could never ever compete with. Do you want to see us selling players just because it is the end of the financial year and we have to show profit? Newcastles share price fell when they *bought* Michael Owen, city investors thought he wasn''t worth so much - do you want the future of the club decided by people gambling on the stock market?

I know you want Delia out and Cullum / Other Investor in, but this is not the way. It would ruin the club.
[/quote]

The main point about trading shares publically is that it makes control easier to pass from one person to another, it doesn''t influence how that person exercises that control. There is absolutely no reason why Delia, or come to that Cullum or A.N. Other, could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats regardless of how they gained control of the majority of the shares. What it takes is for the owner to act in the best interests of NCFC rather than in their own interests, and listing on Ofex neither increases nor decreases the likelihood of that happening.There is no guarantee that the majority shareholders of an unlisted company will not see the future in fixed assets rather than football. After all, isn''t this what many people said about Chase, are saying about Smith, and are now beginning to point the finger at Evans down the road? Being unlisted is no protection against those without the best interests of the club at heart.

I agree with you that listing is not going to happen, but not as you say because ''she is going to have less control over her money'' - in fact she will have more control over her money because she can move it in or out of the club more easily - but because ''she is going to have less control over the club'' - the distinction is important because it is the root cause of why many posters feel she will never let go of NCFC.

I kinda like the Arsenal model. They know the key to success is to have the best manager and then support him with the neccessary funds. Because they are in the top four, they attract money. Their new stadium was financed by Emirates money because they are successful, not the other way round. Would you rather be trading Tierry Henry for 16m to finance the new crop of talented European youngsters who actually want to play for the Gunners because they are one of the most successful clubs in the world(and therefore attract the best talent), or would you rather be flogging Lewis to Peterborough to pay the electricity bill?

mr carra · August 7, 2008

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

The main point about trading shares publically is that it makes control easier to pass from one person to another, it doesn''t influence how that person exercises that control. There is absolutely no reason why Delia, or come to that Cullum or A.N. Other, could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats regardless of how they gained control of the majority of the shares. What it takes is for the owner to act in the best interests of NCFC rather than in their own interests, and listing on Ofex neither increases nor decreases the likelihood of that happening.There is no guarantee that the majority shareholders of an unlisted company will not see the future in fixed assets rather than football. After all, isn''t this what many people said about Chase, are saying about Smith, and are now beginning to point the finger at Evans down the road? Being unlisted is no protection against those without the best interests of the club at heart.

I agree with you that listing is not going to happen, but not as you say because ''she is going to have less control over her money'' - in fact she will have more control over her money because she can move it in or out of the club more easily - but because ''she is going to have less control over the club'' - the distinction is important because it is the root cause of why many posters feel she will never let go of NCFC.

I kinda like the Arsenal model. They know the key to success is to have the best manager and then support him with the neccessary funds. Because they are in the top four, they attract money. Their new stadium was financed by Emirates money because they are successful, not the other way round. Would you rather be trading Tierry Henry for 16m to finance the new crop of talented European youngsters who actually want to play for the Gunners because they are one of the most successful clubs in the world(and therefore attract the best talent), or would you rather be flogging Lewis to Peterborough to pay the electricity bill?

[/quote]

Hard to know where to begin with this since it is so ridiculous. Obviously there is no reason Delia could not turn Carrow Road into a block of flats except for the fact that she is a fan and therefore never would. The protection that not being listed provides is that provided the club retains financial stability Delia can choose to sell when and to whom she pleases and as a fan would clearly have to satisfy herself that such a person also had the best interests of the club at heart - with a listing that control over the club''s future ownership vanishes. You raise the issue of Evans dubious intentions and Ipswich not being listed as a demonstration that beung unlisted is no protection, but the reason Ipswich''s board had to sell to Evans was because their financial situation was so bad they were no longer in a position to say no to any offer. They got in that situation by spending over their means (precisely what some people seem to believe this Board should do every year)

For all the arguments about Delia I cannot believe a single person really believes she does not have the best interests of the club at heart (different people obviously have different ideas about how to achieve that goal but let''s not doubt the we do all share a goal).

Football is an ongoing concern (over 100 years for NCFC and counting) and the long-term future fortunes of this club are governed by far more than how much we spend on players in the next 6 months as some seem to believe

PROTEST AGAINST DELIA AND THE BOARD

Recommended Posts

Big Down Under 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr.Carrow 376

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

PurpleCanary 5,562

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mello Yello 2,294

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr.Carrow 376

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Big Down Under 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Big Down Under 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

yellow hammer 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mr.Carrow 376

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Big Down Under 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

PurpleCanary 5,562

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mello Yello 2,294

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

. 0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

canary cherub 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

canary cherub 1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

YankeeCanary 0

Share this post