deluded ingrates

[Infamy, Infamy 0]

Quote from Mick Dennis article on Faghorns site:

"Nobody has ever given a bigger proportion of their savings, yet still, after all this time and all that money, there are deluded ingrates among the fans who are suspicious about the motives of Delia and Michael - or think they could have done or given more."

Well said mate. Just couldn''t have summed it up any better[Y]

[ncfcstar 287]

Mick is that you? Mick how can I put it nicely, would bow down in front of Delia, you can hardly call him impartial.

[lucky green trainers 0]

they haven''t GIVEN it, they''ve LOANED funds to their business...yeah, and that makes them beyond scrutiny apparently...

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]they haven''t GIVEN it, they''ve LOANED funds to their business...

yeah, and that makes them beyond scrutiny apparently...
[/quote]

 

lol agreed, if they had donated or given the money to the club then I would be down on my knees praising the board, but it''s just a loan which at the end of the day has to be paid back to them.

[Infamy, Infamy 0]

He admits he is biased. Doesn''t make it less true though!

[ncfcstar 287]

Yes it does because he isn''t being objective.

[Mr_Chimp 0]

To be fair, it is an opinion piece.

He makes some decent points, actually, but I think his acerbic tone does him no favours at all.

[Mello Yello 2,278]

I bet ''Dicky Menace'' borrowed Micky Wynn''s laptop to write that piece on.....That''s before he sat down with Delia and the rest of the board for a slap up noshy banquet - with ''Waggy tail Raghorn'' the NCFC board''s feral puppy - snivellin'' an'' shiverin'' an'' a cowering under the boardroom table, hopefully waiting for a few scraps and some tit-bits....and yelpin'' from an occasional sly kick from the Donkster....just to keep ''Waggy'' in his place.......

 

[Infamy, Infamy 0]

LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]they haven''t GIVEN it, they''ve LOANED funds to their business...

yeah, and that makes them beyond scrutiny apparently...
[/quote]

Someone correct me if I''m wrong, but I believe the loaning of money is a tax avoidance measure. If they donated the money it would show up in the club''s profits and be taxed. If they loan it, it doesn''t. Loans can later be converted to shares and although this dilutes the value of existing shares, gets round the tax issue.

So I really think we should move on from that one. The money''s been put in. I don''re recall the club repaying any loans to individuals in the last few years, only to financial institutions, they have all been written off or converted to shares. Thus far, the Turners have not, and don''t plan to recall their loan. They are still shareholders like you and I, but they no longer have a seat on the board, like you and I.

I think Mick''s article is spot on. Sure, it may be that a more wealthy investor could or should buy the club and put more money in than Delia & Michael can, and thereby ''take us forward'', but that''s not to say that Delia hasn''t done everything she can to move the club forward, and for that I am grateful to her.

[Mark .Y. 351]

[quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]they haven''t GIVEN it, they''ve LOANED funds to their business...

yeah, and that makes them beyond scrutiny apparently...
[/quote]

Someone correct me if I''m wrong, but I believe the loaning of money is a tax avoidance measure. If they donated the money it would show up in the club''s profits and be taxed. If they loan it, it doesn''t. Loans can later be converted to shares and although this dilutes the value of existing shares, gets round the tax issue.

So I really think we should move on from that one. The money''s been put in. I don''re recall the club repaying any loans to individuals in the last few years, only to financial institutions, they have all been written off or converted to shares. Thus far, the Turners have not, and don''t plan to recall their loan. They are still shareholders like you and I, but they no longer have a seat on the board, like you and I.

I think Mick''s article is spot on. Sure, it may be that a more wealthy investor could or should buy the club and put more money in than Delia & Michael can, and thereby ''take us forward'', but that''s not to say that Delia hasn''t done everything she can to move the club forward, and for that I am grateful to her.

[/quote]

You are wrong Amarillo, I just can''t be bothered to explain it all as I''m just going to have my tea. Suffice to say that Mr. Doncaster has always said that he would more than welcome somebody coming along and donating a large sum of money directly to the transfer budget with no strings attached...........and he wouldn''t say that if it wasn''t the best thing for the club, would he.

 

Mark .Y.

   

[SNAP 0]

I don’t suppose anyone can doubt the guy’s passion for our club and I admire his loyalty to Delia and Michael. I’ll bet a lot of us will read his article on the Waghorn site and nod in agreement. Then I hit a snag…..

He went on to say “Then, at the Norfolk show, when Delia helped launch the new kit, she was asked about the need for outside investment. She knew by then that she and Michael were stumping up £2 million and expected the same amount from Andrew and Sharon Turner. So she said, on camera, that City were all right, thank you. She added that she couldn''t give details because it would alert other clubs and push up the price of players we might want to buy. The EDP thought she was talking about a new investor, phoned Cullum to see if it was him and he recounted a selective version of events of more than six months earlier.”

Now, I’m no big Archant fan and I think the way they are exploiting the situation to boost sales. But I hav eto defend them a bit here by saying that my recollection of what she babbled out at The Show was a bit different to Mick’s version. I too was left in no doubt that she was referring to new investment and I assume she knew what she was implying.

Any views?

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]they haven''t GIVEN it, they''ve LOANED funds to their business...yeah, and that makes them beyond scrutiny apparently...[/quote]

Someone correct me if I''m wrong, but I believe the loaning of money is a tax avoidance measure. If they donated the money it would show up in the club''s profits and be taxed. If they loan it, it doesn''t. Loans can later be converted to shares and although this dilutes the value of existing shares, gets round the tax issue.

So I really think we should move on from that one. The money''s been put in. I don''re recall the club repaying any loans to individuals in the last few years, only to financial institutions, they have all been written off or converted to shares. Thus far, the Turners have not, and don''t plan to recall their loan. They are still shareholders like you and I, but they no longer have a seat on the board, like you and I.

I think Mick''s article is spot on. Sure, it may be that a more wealthy investor could or should buy the club and put more money in than Delia & Michael can, and thereby ''take us forward'', but that''s not to say that Delia hasn''t done everything she can to move the club forward, and for that I am grateful to her.

[/quote]sure, watling gave money away to the club when he died - did skipper walk with nowt - or did the turners buy his shares???so is nothing stopping the smiths, or turners, or whoever, from converting loans to shares and then selling these to PC or whoever...will the current board members all decide to do a ''watling'' and give their loans back to the club when an investor comes knocking - would make us more attractive???  you tell me which is more likely...lets all hope sense prevails, and the right (fair and reasonable) deal is done in the best interest of NCFC...

[paul ncfc 0]

Waghorn''s ramblings at the moment seem to defend Delia at any cost and I think him and his cronies need to deliver a few more facts and alot less opinion.

[AndyJR 0]

What goes on behind closed doors.  Kinky.

[William Darby 0]

Mick Dennis'' view is flawed IMO.  He says that Delia could earn X

amount of interest on £2m etc etc. But the fact that she owns the Club

should be looked at a different way.  Meaning if It were a House do you

pay out for up keep or not do maintenance and Bank the money?  Delia is

majority Share Holder she has the greatest responsibility to maintain

the club,  so you can''t ignore that responsibility and just keep your

money in the bank while your business is going tits up.  Likewise sit

on your money while your house is falling to bits.

[Mark Smith 0]

Delia''s comments at the RNS were suitably vague enough to potentially have many different interpretations, and I don''t know if we''ll ever find out what she was talking about. The thing that gets me about Mick Dennis''s article is that if he''s so supposedly close to Delia then perhaps he ought to ask her about those important questions referring to Cullum and his sincerity. Surely of all people she is the one who knows if Cullum''s money would be repayble on relegation. And perhaps if he did ask, he could let everyone else know.

[Mark Smith 0]

Or in fact, he could ask Cullum himself. He is a journo himself after all, supposedly.

[Mister Chops 7]

Mick Dennis is a sycophant who lacks any semblance of the neccessary objectivity to lay claim to the title "journalist".  He''s basically part of the Delia and Michael spin machine and should be ignored by all those seeking anything like a true version of events.  I can''t stand him or anything he writes.

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="Infamy Infamy"]LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?[/quote]Interest free loans converted into shares secured against most of the club''s off-field assets.  They are only losing money because property values are going down the toilet - if we were still in boom times, they''d be making money on it.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Mick Dennis is a sycophant who lacks any semblance of the neccessary objectivity to lay claim to the title "journalist".  He''s basically part of the Delia and Michael spin machine and should be ignored by all those seeking anything like a true version of events.  I can''t stand him or anything he writes.

[/quote]

 

I have to say I quite liked reading some of his stuff, but recently he''s gone too far to the boards side that when and if I read an article I just laugh.

[The Butler 0]

So then selling the shares at an increased value does not equal interest?

It''s called speculate to accumulate and if you can get some quodos and pleasure as well then great.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Infamy, Infamy" - LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?

 

You assume far too much IMHO. 

I''m not daft enough to believe they don''t have to pay money on them, however I just wish some people would stop trying to intimate that they GAVE the club anything, they LOANED the club money and will get it back if and when they leave.

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

whilst there''s a lot I agree with in Dick Mennis'' article look carefully next time Delia bends over and you might see the soles of his shoes...

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

Infamy, Infamy" - LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?

 

You assume far too much IMHO. 

I''m not daft enough to believe they don''t have to pay money on them, however I just wish some people would stop trying to intimate that they GAVE the club anything, they LOANED the club money and will get it back if and when they leave.

[/quote]

Have you lent much less given the club between 1/20th and 1/15th of your worldy wealth?   Didn''t think so.

Only someone who has done so has the right to critise the owners.  That is a commitment none of us would dream of and you all have the audacity to attack them because it is only a loan.

It is still vastly more than any of us would do.  If they are letting the club down what does that make the fans????!!!!

[Joanna Grey 0]

It''s kind of comical that the people who think it is OK to call a woman all the names under the sun get irritated when they are exposed for what they really are. Someone does not like a taste of their own medicine.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

Infamy, Infamy" - LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?

 

You assume far too much IMHO. 

I''m not daft enough to believe they don''t have to pay money on them, however I just wish some people would stop trying to intimate that they GAVE the club anything, they LOANED the club money and will get it back if and when they leave.

[/quote]

Have you lent much less given the club between 1/20th and 1/15th of your worldy wealth?   Didn''t think so.

Only someone who has done so has the right to critise the owners.  That is a commitment none of us would dream of and you all have the audacity to attack them because it is only a loan.

It is still vastly more than any of us would do.  If they are letting the club down what does that make the fans????!!!!

[/quote]

As according to the accounts no loans have been written off in recent years other than Watlings (they have largely been converted to shares), i think it`s only fair to point out that on the face of it, your average season-ticket who buys merchandise etc has actually "given" more to the club than Delia and MWJ.......

[Mr.Carrow 376]

"Quote from Mick Dennis article on Faghorns site:

"Nobody has ever given a bigger proportion of their savings, yet still, after all this time and all that money, there are deluded ingrates among the fans who are suspicious about the motives of Delia and Michael - or think they could have done or given more."

Well said mate. Just couldn''t have summed it up any better[Y]"

 

"Given" that the bloke has told a deliberate lie by using the word "given", fortunately we don`t have to take this clown too seriously......but of course, some deluded ingrates will.......

[ellis206 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="CambridgeCanary"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

Infamy, Infamy" - LGT and WAY49, why do you ignore the FACT that they are interest free loans and therefore costing the Smiths hundreds of thousands of pounds?

 

You assume far too much IMHO. 

I''m not daft enough to believe they don''t have to pay money on them, however I just wish some people would stop trying to intimate that they GAVE the club anything, they LOANED the club money and will get it back if and when they leave.

[/quote]

Have you lent much less given the club between 1/20th and 1/15th of your worldy wealth?   Didn''t think so.

Only someone who has done so has the right to critise the owners.  That is a commitment none of us would dream of and you all have the audacity to attack them because it is only a loan.

It is still vastly more than any of us would do.  If they are letting the club down what does that make the fans????!!!!

[/quote]

As according to the accounts no loans have been written off in recent years other than Watlings (they have largely been converted to shares), i think it`s only fair to point out that on the face of it, your average season-ticket who buys merchandise etc has actually "given" more to the club than Delia and MWJ.......

[/quote]Its clever that they''ve converted all those loans into shares, this way Norwich City FC doesn''t owe Delia £11 million yet it has received 11 million from her, an investor who wants to buy Delia out will have to buy out her shares, therefore Norwich have had £11 million from Delia Smith and Norwich won''t have to pay a penny back, its a genius idea!

[Billabong Willytickle 0]

[quote user="Mister Chops"]Mick Dennis is a sycophant who lacks any semblance of the neccessary objectivity to lay claim to the title "journalist".  He''s basically part of the Delia and Michael spin machine and should be ignored by all those seeking anything like a true version of events.  I can''t stand him or anything he writes.[/quote]Should it be ignored any more so than the Archant crap? their version of events is equally biased, Shirley?