What would be a fair offer ?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="dhickl"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

Very hard to say.  "T" values companies for a living apparently and until a few months ago he was telling me that based on forward earnings/profits the shares were virtually worthless.  I disagreed with him then and i still do now, but valueing a football club on its "break-up value" is unrealistic as clubs are never broken up.  Basically the standard model of valueing businesses can be thrown away when it comes to football clubs IMO.

[/quote]

There are a number of ways of valuing companies.  If you use discounted cash flow for valuation it would appear to be worthless, as would other income base methods like DVM or PER.  That is why on the posts I have refered to value of asset on the balance sheet.  That is the estimate of the money you would get if you decided to close the business and sell all the assets.

[/quote]

Yes but my point is that realistically you can`t value a club on break-up value.  It`s been tried but never, to my knowledge, succeeded (Wrexham, Cambridge etc.).  No-one would risk being lynched by 30,000 supporters so it`s a non-starter IMO.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

dhickl, are you going to answer my question re. share value/cost by the way?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

[quote user="dhickl"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

I''ve read on here and the official site that people think that they should give it away, sell it for £5m, but I haven''t heard anyone give a robust arguement for a figure other than £16m (£30/share). 

[/quote]

Dhickl

 

My view would be that if Delia and MWJ are genuine in terms of not wanting to make money out of NCFC then they should be open to offers that see them recover what they have put in - by that I mean what they have paid for the shares plus repayment of their loans (if they want them repaid now) and possibly with a bit on top to reflect interest they would havemade had their money been invested elsewhere. The buyer would obviously also have to show he is able to pay/refinance the debt and that he has enough back up capital to enable him to purchase other shareholders shares at the same price should they take him up on the offer (which most will not do IMHO.)

With a hard nosed business head on Delia and MWJ are entitled to wait for someone to offer them what the shares are worth. That is their right and perogative but would go againts numerous statements they have made over the years and if that amount is £30 per share could conceivably see them make a fairly significant profit out of their time at the club as they themselves did not pay that for most of their shares (in fact i''m not sure they paid £30 for any of them as my recollection is that the value was only out up from £25 to £30 at the last AGM but if they did convert the last loan at £30 per share then i stand corrected).  I don''t know if £30 a share is a fair price or not (although if I sold mine I would be surprised if they had much value) as I am not an accountant and don''t really understand how one arrives at these figures.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

Very hard to say.  "T" values companies for a living apparently and until a few months ago he was telling me that based on forward earnings/profits the shares were virtually worthless.  I disagreed with him then and i still do now, but valueing a football club on its "break-up value" is unrealistic as clubs are never broken up.  Basically the standard model of valueing businesses can be thrown away when it comes to football clubs IMO.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow - If the share valuation in 2003 was £25, and nobody complained, and thousands in fact bought at that price, then surely £30 is about right now. Over the years many people, not just Smith&Jones, have invested quite considerable amounts of money into club shares  and surely  the board has to consider all shareholders interests.

You keep asking what Smith&Jones paid for Geoffrey Watlings 42% stake in December 1997 and I''m not sure you will get an answer. Just like I doubt you will get an answer as to how much Watling paid Chase in May 1996. I haven''t bothered looking it up because I assume they were private sales with the price agreed between the parties concerned. All Chase had to say on the matter was he''d found the right person with the right offer''. But in the same way Smith&Jones could find the right person with the right offer to sell some or all of their shares and this wouldn''t neccessarily have anything to do with the boards valuation of the football club.

It seems many posters (not neccessarily you) seem to confuse personal opinions about what individuals should do with their assets and their money with a valuation of the football club set by the board.

 

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="dhickl"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

I''ve read on here and the official site that people think that they should give it away, sell it for £5m, but I haven''t heard anyone give a robust arguement for a figure other than £16m (£30/share). 

[/quote]

Dhickl

 

My view would be that if Delia and MWJ are genuine in terms of not wanting to make money out of NCFC then they should be open to offers that see them recover what they have put in - by that I mean what they have paid for the shares plus repayment of their loans (if they want them repaid now) and possibly with a bit on top to reflect interest they would havemade had their money been invested elsewhere. The buyer would obviously also have to show he is able to pay/refinance the debt and that he has enough back up capital to enable him to purchase other shareholders shares at the same price should they take him up on the offer (which most will not do IMHO.)

With a hard nosed business head on Delia and MWJ are entitled to wait for someone to offer them what the shares are worth. That is their right and perogative but would go againts numerous statements they have made over the years and if that amount is £30 per share could conceivably see them make a fairly significant profit out of their time at the club as they themselves did not pay that for most of their shares (in fact i''m not sure they paid £30 for any of them as my recollection is that the value was only out up from £25 to £30 at the last AGM but if they did convert the last loan at £30 per share then i stand corrected).  I don''t know if £30 a share is a fair price or not (although if I sold mine I would be surprised if they had much value) as I am not an accountant and don''t really understand how one arrives at these figures.

[/quote]

If you look at my earlier post I put a link to the summary of the last published accounts which catagorically states that Delia & MWJ converted one of their loans to shares at the value of £30/share, so you can stand corrected [;)]

 

[dhickl 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Their current 62% plus £2m loan is WORTH some £11m at £30 per share.  If you accept that the initial 42% stake cost them £700k and most of the loans have been converted to shares at a lower price, how can the 62% possibly have COST £11m?[/quote]

What I said is that they have lent the club £11m.  Most of that has been converted to shares.  If they have put in £11m and received nothing back other than increased equity, then that must be what it has cost to take, and also very importantly, to maintain ownership.  Some of that money will be included in the £4m of directors loans and some of it will be above that, as since *that* statement from the club they have put another £2m. 

Although none of the figures mentioned (except in the official statement about the buyout and the £2m loan) have been validated by anyone - these include the £700k, £11m, etc.  They are all speculation and message board folk lore.  But I was using them to make the points above.

Just a note, even though I posted the link, and have mentioned it a few times, there has been another post saying that they did not buy shares for £30.  For those who didn''t see it before (http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1119712,00.html) 

"Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones converted their outstanding loan to the Club of £0.8million into Ordinary Shares at £30 per share, bringing their total holding of shares up to 327,509, representing 61.2% of the shares in the Club"

[Jim Smith 2,317]

If you look at my earlier post I put a link to the summary of the last published accounts which catagorically states that Delia & MWJ converted one of their loans to shares at the value of £30/share, so you can stand corrected [;)]

 

 

 

Fair enough - I happily stand corrected. I presume however that the rest of their holding was acquired at a less than £30 per share. my basic point though is that there is a distinction between what the shares are worth in a pure business deal context and what sort of offer I think it is fair to expect Delia and MWJ to consider seriously. They are entitled, should they wish to do so to seek to get as much money as the possibly can out of any sale of the Club. I would however be disappointed if they chose to do so to the detriment of the club given the statements they have made previously. I do not however think it is fair to expect them to walk away out of pocket.

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="dhickl"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Their current 62% plus £2m loan is WORTH some £11m at £30 per share.  If you accept that the initial 42% stake cost them £700k and most of the loans have been converted to shares at a lower price, how can the 62% possibly have COST £11m?[/quote]

What I said is that they have lent the club £11m.  Most of that has been converted to shares.  If they have put in £11m and received nothing back other than increased equity, then that must be what it has cost to take, and also very importantly, to maintain ownership.  Some of that money will be included in the £4m of directors loans and some of it will be above that, as since *that* statement from the club they have put another £2m. 

Although none of the figures mentioned (except in the official statement about the buyout and the £2m loan) have been validated by anyone - these include the £700k, £11m, etc.  They are all speculation and message board folk lore.  But I was using them to make the points above.

Just a note, even though I posted the link, and have mentioned it a few times, there has been another post saying that they did not buy shares for £30.  For those who didn''t see it before (http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/NewsDetails/0,,10355~1119712,00.html) 

"Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones converted their outstanding loan to the Club of £0.8million into Ordinary Shares at £30 per share, bringing their total holding of shares up to 327,509, representing 61.2% of the shares in the Club"

[/quote]

So are you saying that some of Delias loans have been written off or paid back?  As i have said, if we accept that they got Chase`s shares relatively cheaply because of the clubs financial problems, and converted the other loans at £25 per share surely there is no way their 62% can have cost them £11m (even adding on the new £2m)?

The only evidence of loans being paid back in the accounts i have (from `03-`04) is £500k to New Crane Publishing (MWJ`s company) at base rate plus 4% repayable in December `04....[^o)]  (P.35 2004 Annual Report).

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

Very hard to say.  "T" values companies for a living apparently and until a few months ago he was telling me that based on forward earnings/profits the shares were virtually worthless.  I disagreed with him then and i still do now, but valueing a football club on its "break-up value" is unrealistic as clubs are never broken up.  Basically the standard model of valueing businesses can be thrown away when it comes to football clubs IMO.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow - If the share valuation in 2003 was £25, and nobody complained, and thousands in fact bought at that price, then surely £30 is about right now. Over the years many people, not just Smith&Jones, have invested quite considerable amounts of money into club shares  and surely  the board has to consider all shareholders interests.

You keep asking what Smith&Jones paid for Geoffrey Watlings 42% stake in December 1997 and I''m not sure you will get an answer. Just like I doubt you will get an answer as to how much Watling paid Chase in May 1996. I haven''t bothered looking it up because I assume they were private sales with the price agreed between the parties concerned. All Chase had to say on the matter was he''d found the right person with the right offer''. But in the same way Smith&Jones could find the right person with the right offer to sell some or all of their shares and this wouldn''t neccessarily have anything to do with the boards valuation of the football club.

It seems many posters (not neccessarily you) seem to confuse personal opinions about what individuals should do with their assets and their money with a valuation of the football club set by the board.

 

[/quote]

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

As I keep saying - I think the share value at £30 is about right.

What do those who disagree think it should be?

 

[/quote]

Very hard to say.  "T" values companies for a living apparently and until a few months ago he was telling me that based on forward earnings/profits the shares were virtually worthless.  I disagreed with him then and i still do now, but valueing a football club on its "break-up value" is unrealistic as clubs are never broken up.  Basically the standard model of valueing businesses can be thrown away when it comes to football clubs IMO.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow - If the share valuation in 2003 was £25, and nobody complained, and thousands in fact bought at that price, then surely £30 is about right now. Over the years many people, not just Smith&Jones, have invested quite considerable amounts of money into club shares  and surely  the board has to consider all shareholders interests.

You keep asking what Smith&Jones paid for Geoffrey Watlings 42% stake in December 1997 and I''m not sure you will get an answer. Just like I doubt you will get an answer as to how much Watling paid Chase in May 1996. I haven''t bothered looking it up because I assume they were private sales with the price agreed between the parties concerned. All Chase had to say on the matter was he''d found the right person with the right offer''. But in the same way Smith&Jones could find the right person with the right offer to sell some or all of their shares and this wouldn''t neccessarily have anything to do with the boards valuation of the football club.

It seems many posters (not neccessarily you) seem to confuse personal opinions about what individuals should do with their assets and their money with a valuation of the football club set by the board.

 

[/quote]nutty, i read recently that arsenals shares are valued at over £8000 each!!! and i believe the club is valued at over £200m...pre-prem, in the late 80''s - i don''t know - but we can assume a hell of a lot less - even at £500 each then would show a huge rise has occured from then to now - and its all due to arsenals status as one of the big 4 in the prem...meanwhile, narrwich is probably on paper a bottom half champs side, with walking directors, and a reported £1.5m blackhole...the shares could well be valued at £30 each - but at the present time, imo they would be considerably less is quoted publically on the stock exchange...so on paper - the carra rd board could well say their shares are valued at £30 each - but if they tried to sell at this price, imo they would struggle to get anywhere near this price...lets hope all parties get what they want from any sale/,.

in short - arsenal is an attractive takeover proposition, if you''re

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Lucky - If the shares were worth £25 in December 2003 after we had been in this league for over 8 years I can''t see why they are not worth £30 now. It''s not like we were looking certain to get promoted at that time. In fact at that time everyone was full of doom and gloom (just by way of a change) about the loan players going back.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Lucky - If the shares were worth £25 in December 2003 after we had been in this league for over 8 years I can''t see why they are not worth £30 now. It''s not like we were looking certain to get promoted at that time. In fact at that time everyone was full of doom and gloom (just by way of a change) about the loan players going back.

 

[/quote]

How many shareholders do you know nutty?  I know plenty and i don`t know anyone who even thought about what the shares were "worth" when the share issues came about, and i don`t know one supporter who ever thought they would get their money back.  As for "doom and gloom", back then the board were virtually above questioning and i don`t know anyone who seriously questioned their motives.  Maybe we were naive, but some of us have certainly learned our lesson.....

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Lucky - If the shares were worth £25 in December 2003 after we had been in this league for over 8 years I can''t see why they are not worth £30 now. It''s not like we were looking certain to get promoted at that time. In fact at that time everyone was full of doom and gloom (just by way of a change) about the loan players going back.

 

[/quote]

How many shareholders do you know nutty?  I know plenty and i don`t know anyone who even thought about what the shares were "worth" when the share issues came about, and i don`t know one supporter who ever thought they would get their money back.  As for "doom and gloom", back then the board were virtually above questioning and i don`t know anyone who seriously questioned their motives.  Maybe we were naive, but some of us have certainly learned our lesson.....

[gazzathegreat 0]

Mr Carrow, no I don''t expect anyone who bought shares then expected a return, if they were like me they bought shares to have a sense of belonging to the club, to help fund the purchase of players and to find a way into the AGM (and therefore experience something previously unknown to them). Those experiences haven''t disappointed!

As for questioning the board, yes I think you will find that some did - me for one. At a forum in Acle I questioned the boards'' ambition - and would it not be a safe bet to buy Huckerby, as he was surely the best chance we had to secure promotion? I was told in no uncertain terms the club wouldn''t do anything to put the club at risk (which included buying players we couldn''t afford), he then asked the audience of several hundred whether we, as a club, should put the club at risk? I think you can safely say from that point I have questioned some of their motives, and certainly the way they have run the club.

[yellow hammer 0]

Going back to the original poster''s question ''What is a fair offer?'', I take a much more bullish view than most posters on here.

If you invest your life savings in a government bond you will receive a low return because it is seen as a very safe investment with very low risk. Should you decide to invest that money in the stock market your risk increases but the possibility of making a greater return is there. However, there is no ''fairness'' about it. You pick the wrong companies to back - you lose. Pick the right ones - you win. It might be luck or good judgement on your part, but by going into the stock market rather than a government savings bond you cannot complain about fairness or not. You know the risks.

At the moment, about the riskiest venture one could get involved in, is a Championship football club. If you do get involved then you sure as hell know that the risk of losing a lot of money is very high; but there is always the small chance  of getting promoted and seeing the value of the club rocket overnight and selling out to an oil billionaire. There can''t be anyone who doesn''t know the risk involved and so the question of ''fairness'' just doesn''t enter the equation, in my mind.

If Delia thinks we''re heading to League 1 then from an investment point of view, she''d be better to cut her losses and get out now. On the other hand, if she thinks we''re in with a shout of the Prem then her best choice would be to hang on to her shares in the hope that the value increases. It''s an investment decision in one of the most speculative games in town. Fairness isn''t a concept in these conditions.

So to answer the OP, ''what is a fair offer?'' It is an irrelevant question.

[KeelansGlove 0]

Thanks YH at least you are trying to address the question other than going off at a tangent.

Yes the key here is the perception of the club and its potential, as you say if it is perceived to be a candidate for relegation rather than promotion and longer term prospects of either.

I am interested the perception of success over the last 12 years as I have detailed in previous postings on this thread I would like to understand why as a snap shot people consider the club of more worth in 2008 compared to 1996.

Yes Delia has invested a sum of money between 6-11M but the quantity of Fixed and player assets has reduced.Not to mention the debt has trebled over that period.

I dont know if the fixed assets of Colney and Carrow Rd have appreciated significantly but I would be interested to know what they were valued at as of 1996. Yes we have a shiny new south stand and corner infill but how much of the 13M increase in debt does this account for especially in the light of the sales of the land around the ground.

I could understand this situation if we had a negative transfer balance but everything I have seen is that we have consistantly had a nett transfer income , whilst not spending as much in transfers as most of our competitors in this league. Has our wage bill been higher than our competitors over the last 12 years ?

Are our season tickets quite simply priced too low ?

Maybe I am being overly negative but even if you consider that GR has now put together a squad that has some chance of competing in this league (which in my opinion may still be one player short hopefully Sib can do the trick) if we were to be in the top six at the end of the season it would be unlikely we could afford to buy any and certainly not all the players we currently have on loan so without further investment by somebody retaining our championship status is the best we can hope for.

Maybe I have been very lucky to be born when I was, to support NCFC through the 70s 80s and 90s but my expectation have never been lower.

To equate this with an increase in the value of the club and share value seems very strange.

I do not doubt that Delia and MWJ generally have the best interests of the club at heart and want it to be successful but it would appear that serious errors have been made along the way.

[nutty nigel 7,531]

You make some very good points KeelansGlove and yes a lot of posters have gone off at a tangent. But it''s difficult to know what would be a fair offer. Obviously you believe that the boards valuation of the club is too high. I have no idea if that''s the case or not. But surely it''s not a figure plucked out of the air? The board must have to justify that price. Can anyone who was at the last AGM remember how they justified raising the share price by £5?

The point that most people are missing is that what the club value the shares at isn''t neccessarily what an individual shareholder would be prepared to sell their own shareholding for. And even this may vary between shareholders and their personal circumstances. And it may well be that they paid differing amounts for them. Does anyone know, for instance, how much Barry Skipper sold his shares to the Turners for? Or how much Mr Foulger paid for his considerable holding? No, and no one cares. The question you are really asking is how much should Smith&Jones sell their shares for. And it''s impossible to answer. If they decide to sell then I would imagine they will choose who they sell them to. Just in the way Robert Chase did in 2006 when he said ''he had received the right offer from the right person''. That person turned out to be Geoffrey Watling. Someone who Chase obviously trusted to do right by the club.

Can I ask what you would consider to be a fair offer? And would that same offer be fair to all the shareholders.

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You make some very good points KeelansGlove and yes a lot of posters have gone off at a tangent. But it''s difficult to know what would be a fair offer. Obviously you believe that the boards valuation of the club is too high. I have no idea if that''s the case or not. But surely it''s not a figure plucked out of the air? The board must have to justify that price. Can anyone who was at the last AGM remember how they justified raising the share price by £5?

The point that most people are missing is that what the club value the shares at isn''t neccessarily what an individual shareholder would be prepared to sell their own shareholding for. And even this may vary between shareholders and their personal circumstances. And it may well be that they paid differing amounts for them. Does anyone know, for instance, how much Barry Skipper sold his shares to the Turners for? Or how much Mr Foulger paid for his considerable holding? No, and no one cares. The question you are really asking is how much should Smith&Jones sell their shares for. And it''s impossible to answer. If they decide to sell then I would imagine they will choose who they sell them to. Just in the way Robert Chase did in 2006 when he said ''he had received the right offer from the right person''. That person turned out to be Geoffrey Watling. Someone who Chase obviously trusted to do right by the club.

Can I ask what you would consider to be a fair offer? And would that same offer be fair to all the shareholders.

 

[/quote]imo nutty - a fair market value is the only way the club can be valued, arrived at through normal accounting and company law procedure,,,and £30 per share would appear to be the going rate...however, as i''ve already suggested on another thread, new investors will likely keep the club intact, rather than asset strip - although they could in theory raise cash by selling the ground and colney to other investors and then rent back, but again - this would be unlikely in the current credit strapped business world...or on prohibitive terms,,,leaving new investors with financing a £17m? debt, with a dubious value upon the other assets - cos as above, what else could they do with a footy ground and training complex??? meaning the club''s debt is more than the assets - and imo therefore only an ''idiot/s'' (to coin a phase) would pay top whack for the shares - would you pay £16m for a debt laden company, with assets that have little value in the real world, other than their intended purpose...remember how much the mill dome cost, and how little it sold for??? sure its a great arena now - but stood idle for yonks after...the smiths hands has weakened since the turners walked - and as is the same for everyone, if you need to sell, or want to, then you''re less likely to get the price you want than if you are approached...i hope all the parties involved (whoever they may be) can settle on a fair and realistic figure that gets the club on a sound footing fromthe off, and looking forward, not back - imo the chase ''baggage'' haunted the club for far too long in the 90''s...cos back then - instead of a local builder, we got a local millionaire, and as kenwright recently said - now clubs need a billionaire!!!  

 

[nutty nigel 7,531]

Thing is Lucky and I know I keep saying it, nobody knows what Smith&Jones or most other shareholders paid for their shares and nobody knows what Smith&Jones or other shareholders would be prepared to sell them for. I very much doubt if significant shareholdings have ever been sold at the value the club put on the individual shares. And if they don''t want to sell, to Cullum or anyone else, then that''s their choice.

Consider this - back in 1996 Smith&Jones were offered a place on the board in return for a million quid loan. I''m not even sure if they bought any shares, if they did it wasn''t many. At that time Geoffrey Watling held 42% of the shares and made it plain he wasn''t looking to sell. Watling then observed how the club was run, watched the board get us back on our feet and 18 months later sold his shares to Smith&Jones who he obviously considered were the right people with the right offer. Now I don''t know what that million quid was as a percentage of their wealth but it was a commitment made by the couple and 18 months later Smith, Jones and the club had more idea if they were right for eachother.

Then consider the Turners. A similar scenario last year but in the following 18 months, for whatever reason, they found they were not right for eachother.

Now why can''t the board and Cullum get to know eachother a bit in the same way. Why can''t they work out a package where Cullum makes a commitment and works with the board. He will only find out from the inside if he is right for the club and the club is right for him. He may be a succesfull businessman but football won''t be like any business he has ever run. Watling, South, Chase and Smith&Jones found that out from the inside, why can''t he?

 

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Thing is Lucky and I know I keep saying it, nobody knows what Smith&Jones or most other shareholders paid for their shares and nobody knows what Smith&Jones or other shareholders would be prepared to sell them for. I very much doubt if significant shareholdings have ever been sold at the value the club put on the individual shares. And if they don''t want to sell, to Cullum or anyone else, then that''s their choice.

Consider this - back in 1996 Smith&Jones were offered a place on the board in return for a million quid loan. I''m not even sure if they bought any shares, if they did it wasn''t many. At that time Geoffrey Watling held 42% of the shares and made it plain he wasn''t looking to sell. Watling then observed how the club was run, watched the board get us back on our feet and 18 months later sold his shares to Smith&Jones who he obviously considered were the right people with the right offer. Now I don''t know what that million quid was as a percentage of their wealth but it was a commitment made by the couple and 18 months later Smith, Jones and the club had more idea if they were right for eachother.

Then consider the Turners. A similar scenario last year but in the following 18 months, for whatever reason, they found they were not right for eachother.

Now why can''t the board and Cullum get to know eachother a bit in the same way. Why can''t they work out a package where Cullum makes a commitment and works with the board. He will only find out from the inside if he is right for the club and the club is right for him. He may be a succesfull businessman but football won''t be like any business he has ever run. Watling, South, Chase and Smith&Jones found that out from the inside, why can''t he?

 

[/quote]in an ideal world, then alot of what you say is perfectly reasonable, and yeah - if a new investor/s could be persuaded onto the board in a similar way to the turners, with the intention of taking over the reins in due course, then if thats what the smiths want - everyones a winner...but as mention before, the footy world is a different animal these days, and maybe such courting of new potential owners is rather old fashioned, and more appropriate to an age when local small businessman ruled clubs...today, maybe its a luxury NCFC can''t afford.,.because, if suitable cash rich investors could be found, then in light of the turners ''turn-around'' and the prevailing economic conditions - maybe it would be preferable for these new investors to take over the club asap - as brum found out also last season - intentions and invites onto boards don''t always lead to takeovers - and arguably, the distraction and uncertainty contributed to their relegation from the prem, as conceded by gold afterwards...with a black-hole in our accounting, and with roedy still searching (vainly) for another striker - the last thing NCFC need this season is financial/boardroom uncertainty - imo, the best interest of NCFC will be best served by either the club being sold lock stock and barrel, or a new majority shareholder/s coming on board asap, with the smiths remaining as minority shareholders...whether this is in their best interests however, i don''t know...probably not/,.