JohnoBono 0 Posted September 2, 2008 Feel free to shoot me down for this, but this is from my useual reliable contact.From what I have been told some major stuff kicked off among the powers that be at Carrow Road late Tuesday afternoon and rumbled through the evening when things did not conclude on good terms. This continued Wednesday morning when atempts were made to smooth things over. Apparently some things got nasty. Before lunch time the Turners had decided to go there separate ways calling in their 2 million loan with imediate effect. Out of desparation Jason Shackell was then offered to Wolves following up on their inquiries and subsequent offer from the summer. We now needed to sell, Wolves were in the stronger bartering position. £750,000 was the price finally agreed after Norwich offered Shackell to Wolves for the 1.6million that they had bid in the summer. Glenn Roeder was suddenly left without the leverage he was expecting to have at his disposal going up to the close of the transfer window. He wanted permanent signings this window. He was left with no choice. He is not a happy man. All the stops were pulled out over the weekend to make things look rosey at Carrow Road. But things are continuing to rumble. There is some major discontent among some very major figures. We could now be ripe for takeover? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted September 2, 2008 If this is true JohnoBono then it just sums up the dire state our club is currently in, yet''s just hope every cloud has a silver lining, i.e this opens the door for someone like Peter Cullum Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted September 2, 2008 I have to say that I agree. The quicker the exit the better for all concerned. New broom and all that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Bump 0 Posted September 2, 2008 What has your reliable contact got right in the past then? I will shoot you down. Considering the loan was 2.5 million not 2 million. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tipster101 0 Posted September 2, 2008 its only tuesday today. what are you looking into the future?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnoBono 0 Posted September 2, 2008 In reply to Mr Bump.The arrival of the Turners at Carrow Road for a start. For any who care to remember I posted about the incoming investment a couple of days before it was announed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cambscanary 0 Posted September 2, 2008 I''m confident about this one, I''m sure there was a Tuesday last week!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnoBono 0 Posted September 2, 2008 Tuesday last week!!!!!Thought that would be clear! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ron obvious 1,498 Posted September 2, 2008 If true, they couldn''t have picked a worse time to demand their money back. They have well & truly shafted the club. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hog 0 Posted September 2, 2008 Johno you have ben right in the past so I will believe you again now, I just hope that this can become good news somehow with a new investor waiting in the wings! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BGG&YPOS 0 Posted September 2, 2008 If this is true, could answer any questions why Delia took to the pitch on saturday, maybe putting out feelers to see reaction of the crowd? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="JohnoBono"]Feel free to shoot me down for this, but this is from my useual reliable contact.From what I have been told some major stuff kicked off among the powers that be at Carrow Road late Tuesday afternoon and rumbled through the evening when things did not conclude on good terms. This continued Wednesday morning when atempts were made to smooth things over. Apparently some things got nasty. [/quote]Any idea what it was all about Johno? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Smith 0 Posted September 2, 2008 If this is true then why did the Turners say they left 2 weeks ago, not last week? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
renegade tootsie 0 Posted September 2, 2008 This guy has been right on several things in the past I would suggest not shooting him down.[quote user="Mr. Bump"]What has your reliable contact got right in the past then? I will shoot you down. Considering the loan was 2.5 million not 2 million.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
William Darby 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="ron obvious"]If true, they couldn''t have picked a worse time to demand their money back. They have well & truly shafted the club.[/quote]Well not quite true is it. Fans have been getting shafted for a few years now. Why not wonder why we were so desperate for their cash in the first place? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="ron obvious"]If true, they couldn''t have picked a worse time to demand their money back. They have well & truly shafted the club.[/quote]The Turners have been and still are the stalking horse for Cullum. It is all part of a long term plan that is now comimg to the end game. Turners were and still are the people to open the door for Cullum. Watch this space. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kevin brighton 0 Posted September 2, 2008 So its a pain that they have gone but while 2M at this point in time will hurt I say good riddance given the money now required in the Championship they clearly did not have the stomach for it or they are simply posturing in an effort to cause more unrest and uncertainty amongst the fans and possibly trying to force the remainder of the board into a deal with Mr Cullum which I believe will ultimately be a bad thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Great Wall Of Tettey 0 Posted September 2, 2008 we rejected 1,000,000we didnt need to sell himso why accept less than that ?doesnt make sense ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CaptnCanary 0 Posted September 2, 2008 Anyone know the terms of the Turners loan? Would they be within their rights to demand immediate repayment or has the club protected itself (as it should have done) by insisting on a period of notice? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blahblahblah 2 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote]The Turners have been and still are the stalking horse for Cullum. It is all part of a long term plan that is now comimg to the end game. Turners were and still are the people to open the door for Cullum. Watch this space. [/quote]If this is the case, then why, for the third time of asking today, oh why, did Mr Turner stand in front of the AGM last year and say that he had never bloody met Cullum !?!?!?! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]The Turners have been and still are the stalking horse for Cullum. It is all part of a long term plan that is now comimg to the end game. Turners were and still are the people to open the door for Cullum. Watch this space. [/quote]If this is the case, then why, for the third time of asking today, oh why, did Mr Turner stand in front of the AGM last year and say that he had never bloody met Cullum !?!?!?![/quote]This is a kick in the teeth or stab in the back for the fans, Turners, ego trip over take money and run so called life long Norwich fans leave us with less now than when they came and in deeper trouble money wise, Anyone got P,C''s phone number. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="CaptnCanary"]Anyone know the terms of the Turners loan? Would they be within their rights to demand immediate repayment or has the club protected itself (as it should have done) by insisting on a period of notice?[/quote]This is from memory:The £2m loan is interest free and is due for repayment a) if we get promotedb) if the Turners'' shareholding reaches 30%c) in 2016 if neither a) nor b) happen in the meantimeApparently they''ve lent another 500k since then which may be on different terms, but on the face of it we look ok. However, the devil may be in the detail, of which I have no knowledge. b) is what interests me. Under plc regulations, acquisition of a 30% stake would have triggered a total buyout (and possibly an opening for Peter Cullum??). Is the 30% clause standard practice in loan agreements such as this, or did the Turners plan to acquire a 30% stake by converting their loans into shares but were thwarted by D&M? Only a theory (one among many). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Green and Yellow 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]The Turners have been and still are the stalking horse for Cullum. It is all part of a long term plan that is now comimg to the end game. Turners were and still are the people to open the door for Cullum. Watch this space. [/quote]If this is the case, then why, for the third time of asking today, oh why, did Mr Turner stand in front of the AGM last year and say that he had never bloody met Cullum !?!?!?![/quote]Because in business you don''t have to be friends or know each other. Connections and contacts is all that is needed Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]The Turners have been and still are the stalking horse for Cullum. It is all part of a long term plan that is now comimg to the end game. Turners were and still are the people to open the door for Cullum. Watch this space. [/quote]If this is the case, then why, for the third time of asking today, oh why, did Mr Turner stand in front of the AGM last year and say that he had never bloody met Cullum !?!?!?![/quote]If Barry Skipper acted as the intermediary they wouldn''t have had to meet each other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ellis206 0 Posted September 2, 2008 All the papers have said that we sold Shackell for 1 million, thats in about 4 different papers, so 1 million it is! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Polar 0 Posted September 2, 2008 I believe the term ''Trojan horse'' was used to describe the turners, a trojan on behalf of Cullum... if that is the case they may well have completly screwed Delia over, in whih case Job is nearly done.... if its not the case, then they have still screwed Delia over and still job nearly done.Looks like the game is still on... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
First Wazzock 902 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="Polar"]I believe the term ''Trojan horse'' was used to describe the turners, a trojan on behalf of Cullum... if that is the case they may well have completly screwed Delia over, in whih case Job is nearly done.... if its not the case, then they have still screwed Delia over and still job nearly done.Looks like the game is still on...[/quote]We all have our own theories on this and mine is exactly the same as yours Polar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WilliamG 0 Posted September 2, 2008 Re: the loans - in ''cullum-gate'' it was said that all director loans could be recalled at any time by the directors. This is presumably what has happened. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lazza 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="Strawberry"]The £2m loan is interest free and is due for repaymentb) if the Turners'' shareholding reaches 30%b) is what interests me. Under plc regulations, acquisition of a 30% stake would have triggered a total buyout (and possibly an opening for Peter Cullum??). Is the 30% clause standard practice in loan agreements such as this, or did the Turners plan to acquire a 30% stake by converting their loans into shares but were thwarted by D&M? Only a theory (one among many). [/quote]I thought the rule was that if you want to buy out a club you had to pay off the full clubs debts - which in this case would mean paying off the debt to themselves, effectively writing it off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mark Smith 0 Posted September 2, 2008 [quote user="Strawberry"]b) is what interests me. Under plc regulations, acquisition of a 30% stake would have triggered a total buyout (and possibly an opening for Peter Cullum??). Is the 30% clause standard practice in loan agreements such as this, or did the Turners plan to acquire a 30% stake by converting their loans into shares but were thwarted by D&M? Only a theory (one among many). [/quote]My guess is that they weren''t ''thwarted'' in their attempt. In fact, this was probably planned all along. Delia and MWJ must know that they can''t go on forever, they need to find an heir. Everything about the Turners points to them being lined up for that role, but with the current financial climate the situation has obviously changed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites