Cullum (again I am afraid)

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]I believe it was Andrew Turner who was the only member of the board to have a direct contact with mr Cullum, before he left. Don''t know what that means ![/quote]

Well it justifies her statement of "not having spoken to" and perhaps explains why the Turners after their full investigation of NCFC left with the job not finished.

I don''t now what relations are like between PC and AT could that have been a problem?

[/quote]And just to throw a real spanner in the works....Wasn''t Barry Skipper charged with finding new investment and what happened when he reported back to the Board?We''ve lost three Directors involved with finding investment in just over a year, not two.

[canary cherub 1]

For all I know D&M may have had a valid reason for turning down PC''s proposal.  But they should have explained it at the AGM.  Instead they misled the shareholders with their statement about PC not offering to buy the club, since that was never his intention in the first place.

It was a shareholders meeting not a fans forum.  The shareholders had a right to know and the board had a duty to tell them.

Withholding such information is bordering on illegality imo.

 

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

For all I know D&M may have had a valid reason for turning down PC''s proposal.  But they should have explained it at the AGM.  Instead they misled the shareholders with their statement about PC not offering to buy the club, since that was never his intention in the first place.

It was a shareholders meeting not a fans forum.  The shareholders had a right to know and the board had a duty to tell them.

Withholding such information is bordering on illegality imo.

 

[/quote]

Of course the shareholders had a right to know.  So whats stopping the shareholders writing to the club if feelings are that strong?

I do feel that fans may have been more supportive of the board if the whole saga was out in the open, from both parties.  Giving bit pieces of information, or with holding does neither the club, PC, shareholders, or the fans any good.  In fact not telling the whole truth on exactly what went on has caused more upset than I have seen in my lifetime supporting NCFC.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="norfolkbroadslim"]

Little Jack Horner sat in the corner,

Eating his Christmas pie,

He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum,

And said "What a good boy am I!"

[:|]

[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Jack_Horner

[:|]

[gazzathegreat 0]

There''s nothing to stop you WAY. Or me, or anyone else. We can all try. I certainly would like to write to Mr Munby on a few points and will get round to it at the weekend. I might also drop a line to Delia. Will it achieve anything? I don''t know.

Trouble is Delia might have been telling the truth as she saw it. Only she knows the truth and the same goes for Peter Cullum. I would also like to add I have reservations about anything of this nature getting it''s real and honest meaning reported in a comprehensible fashion in the press. We all can point I am sure to stories where the facts have been spun out of all recognition from what actually happened.

Will Cullum come back and save the club, will both parties decide to sit down and talk about the most important issue, saving our club? Or will it continue to be a stand off in the long running Norwich City soap opera....cue another masterpiece from Mr Chops!

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]There''s nothing to stop you WAY. Or me, or anyone else. We can all try. I certainly would like to write to Mr Munby on a few points and will get round to it at the weekend. I might also drop a line to Delia. Will it achieve anything? I don''t know. Trouble is Delia might have been telling the truth as she saw it. Only she knows the truth and the same goes for Peter Cullum. I would also like to add I have reservations about anything of this nature getting it''s real and honest meaning reported in a comprehensible fashion in the press. We all can point I am sure to stories where the facts have been spun out of all recognition from what actually happened. Will Cullum come back and save the club, will both parties decide to sit down and talk about the most important issue, saving our club? Or will it continue to be a stand off in the long running Norwich City soap opera....cue another masterpiece from Mr Chops![/quote]

 

Thing is though I as a normal fan wouldn''t have as much clout as a shareholder would, I mean you paid for shares and in part own a part of NCFC, I only pay as a fan not as a shareholder.

I do feel that the club should have been more open, I think by being almost secretive and hushing things up they have done themselves no favours.

One thing I do know is this whole saga is a mess, the club is a mess, the fans are divided, and I have almost lost all my passion for the club.

[gazzathegreat 0]

It''s not just shareholders WAY, and I am sure if for some reason shareholders alone were party to any information, it wouldn''t be long until that information was more widely known.

IMO you have just as much right as anyone to write to anyone on the board for an explanation. Of course you will probably get something similar to that printed in Doncaster''s article. When they feel ready to release any further info I am sure they will, but don''t hold your breath.

Yes the club is in a mess and the fans divided. I want more than anything for this not to happen to any of us again, I lost more than a few friends during the Worthington Out times and I would not wish this to happen to anyone else. I fear however it will. Delia, bless her said at the AGM that she had not detected any animosity towards the club in the ground. I will invite her to come and stand up near us - I would love her to take me up on the offer for there is a wide difference of opinion within four or five rows of fans. There is no serious hatred or anything like that, but there is the start of the same sort of thing as in the Worthy Out times. Increasing disillusionment all round, what differs is who blames who or what.

I have not lost my passion for the club, I may have lost it for certain players and most certainly for some of the senior management. But the club is what holds all of us together, the club in 1977 was very different to that of 1991 and I am sure in 2015 it will be different still, but it will still be our club.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

For all I know D&M may have had a valid reason for turning down PC''s proposal.  But they should have explained it at the AGM.  Instead they misled the shareholders with their statement about PC not offering to buy the club, since that was never his intention in the first place.

It was a shareholders meeting not a fans forum.  The shareholders had a right to know and the board had a duty to tell them.

Withholding such information is bordering on illegality imo.

 

[/quote]

Of course the shareholders had a right to know.  So whats stopping the shareholders writing to the club if feelings are that strong?

I do feel that fans may have been more supportive of the board if the whole saga was out in the open, from both parties.  Giving bit pieces of information, or with holding does neither the club, PC, shareholders, or the fans any good.  In fact not telling the whole truth on exactly what went on has caused more upset than I have seen in my lifetime supporting NCFC.

[/quote]

I''d like to know what the Shareholders Trust think.  They don''t normally express a view on issues such as who the manager should be, but this is well within their remit.  Anyone from the Trust out there? 

 

[Jim Smith 2,325]

The lack of passion and disillusionment is abundantly obvious all round the ground and particularly manifests itself in the complete and utter lack of atmosphere at games at the moment. There is no hope and people know that. Half the people I know can''t be bothered to go to games anymore and those of us that are there can barely even muster up the enthusiasm to boo. We just trudge from the ground back to the sanctity of the nearest bar.We have no heroes to identify with.We have no moneyWe have no obvious way of getting out of it (even if PC was interested he may not be now)We are managed by a vile, arrogant individualAll in all hard to see how things can get much worse but I''m sure there''s a way!

[Desert Fox 0]

Whoareyou,

I am afraid that we are going to have to disagree. Unfortunately, worth is not measured by the paper value of the assets that your shares are supporting, but rather what someone is willing to pay to relieve of your shares. In my opinion, nobody with the means would buy a sizeable minority holding (for illustrative purposes, let''s say 30%) when this neither gives you any power nor any dividend income. Your share of the £16M net assets in a non-dividend loss making business would not confer any economic benefit, unless there was significant capital appreciation, which is difficult to achieve with football infrastructure assets, unless the team gets promoted to the prem and is able to sustain its position there.

On reflection, it may be harsh to say they were worthless, but they would certainly be worth nowhere near £30 a share. This is not even just my opinion, but simple economics. Where can you find any other loss making non-dividend paying busines that is trading at a premium to its net assets? I guess what I am saying is that a £30 per share valuation is pie in the sky, particularly in the current climate where money can but into profitable dividend paying business at a huge discount to net asset value. Yes sentimental value should be taken into account, but I dont think you will find there will be any takers for Delia''s minority interest stake at £30 share if she allowed the Cullum deal to go through.

[Jim Smith 2,325]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Whoareyou,

I am afraid that we are going to have to disagree. Unfortunately, worth is not measured by the paper value of the assets that your shares are supporting, but rather what someone is willing to pay to relieve of your shares. In my opinion, nobody with the means would buy a sizeable minority holding (for illustrative purposes, let''s say 30%) when this neither gives you any power nor any dividend income. Your share of the £16M net assets in a non-dividend loss making business would not confer any economic benefit, unless there was significant capital appreciation, which is difficult to achieve with football infrastructure assets, unless the team gets promoted to the prem and is able to sustain its position there.

On reflection, it may be harsh to say they were worthless, but they would certainly be worth nowhere near £30 a share. This is not even just my opinion, but simple economics. Where can you find any other loss making non-dividend paying busines that is trading at a premium to its net assets? I guess what I am saying is that a £30 per share valuation is pie in the sky, particularly in the current climate where money can but into profitable dividend paying business at a huge discount to net asset value. Yes sentimental value should be taken into account, but I dont think you will find there will be any takers for Delia''s minority interest stake at £30 share if she allowed the Cullum deal to go through.

[/quote]I have to say I agree with DF on this one. Might be different if there were 3 shareholders each with approx 30% but where one shareholder has 60% then I can''t see why anyone would want to buy a 30% share in a football club type of business. As has been said about Delia''s shares they are only really worth what someone is prepared to pay for them and why would you pay out much money if it got you little or no influence over the club.

[Tim Allman 1]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]The lack of passion and disillusionment is abundantly obvious all round the ground and particularly manifests itself in the complete and utter lack of atmosphere at games at the moment. There is no hope and people know that. Half the people I know can''t be bothered to go to games anymore and those of us that are there can barely even muster up the enthusiasm to boo. We just trudge from the ground back to the sanctity of the nearest bar.

We have no heroes to identify with.
We have no money
We have no obvious way of getting out of it (even if PC was interested he may not be now)
We are managed by a vile, arrogant individual

All in all hard to see how things can get much worse but I''m sure there''s a way!
[/quote]

In a blaze of self publicity, here''s what I wrote in the Capital Canaries Column this week - regarding the atmosphere at games.

http://www.pinkun.com/content/columns/CapitalCanaries.aspx

 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

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

And some will even now say that delia slammed the door in his face for selfish reasons.

 

[/quote]

yep, she slammed the door in his face for totally selfish reasons, Bang on.

[/quote]

OK Barclay_Boy - I''m willing to listen, what were those reasons?

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

That''s a good point Judge. If I remember rightly at the AGM Delia said that new investment was welcome whether it meant they remained majority shareholders, minor shareholders or gone completely. So this Cullum issue gets clearer and clearer doesn''t it[:S]

And Keelans Glove - To my knowledge Delia hasn''t put any value on her shares but the board valued the unissued shares at £30 in line with their 16m valuation of the club. I may be wrong about this but I''m still under the impression that individuals share holdings would still be a private sale at a price to be agreed by both parties. I doubt the private sales between Chase and Watling and then Watling and Smith&Jones were made in line with the boards valuation of the club.

I believe Bobert is right in that if Cullums offer involved a new share issue the club would have to get this ratified at the AGM or an EGM. I am not sure about the law regarding who could underwrite it. I am honest enough to say that getting much deeper into this is beyond the knowledge of this toiletcleaningbingocallingbartendering unqualified football fan.

And the other point I made is very much an issue for me. How does the club sustain the player budget that is suddenly increased by 20m in one year. We had enough problems getting over the loss of 7m parachute payments. A one off payment of 20m would be used best by paying off the debt. In my humble opinion.

[/quote]

Sorry to repeat myself but these four points to me are very relevant to the points being made by others so if I have got it wrong - where have I got it wrong?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

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

And some will even now say that delia slammed the door in his face for selfish reasons.

 

[/quote]

yep, she slammed the door in his face for totally selfish reasons, Bang on.

[/quote]

OK Barclay_Boy - I''m willing to listen, what were those reasons?

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

That''s a good point Judge. If I remember rightly at the AGM Delia said that new investment was welcome whether it meant they remained majority shareholders, minor shareholders or gone completely. So this Cullum issue gets clearer and clearer doesn''t it[:S]

And Keelans Glove - To my knowledge Delia hasn''t put any value on her shares but the board valued the unissued shares at £30 in line with their 16m valuation of the club. I may be wrong about this but I''m still under the impression that individuals share holdings would still be a private sale at a price to be agreed by both parties. I doubt the private sales between Chase and Watling and then Watling and Smith&Jones were made in line with the boards valuation of the club.

I believe Bobert is right in that if Cullums offer involved a new share issue the club would have to get this ratified at the AGM or an EGM. I am not sure about the law regarding who could underwrite it. I am honest enough to say that getting much deeper into this is beyond the knowledge of this toiletcleaningbingocallingbartendering unqualified football fan.

And the other point I made is very much an issue for me. How does the club sustain the player budget that is suddenly increased by 20m in one year. We had enough problems getting over the loss of 7m parachute payments. A one off payment of 20m would be used best by paying off the debt. In my humble opinion.

[/quote]

Sorry to repeat myself but these four points to me are very relevant to the points being made by others so if I have got it wrong - where have I got it wrong?

[/quote]

Maybe the clue is below?

nutty nigel

 
"I can dress myself."

One love.

OTBC

 

 

 

[Yellow Rider 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]The lack of passion and disillusionment is abundantly obvious all round the ground and particularly manifests itself in the complete and utter lack of atmosphere at games at the moment. There is no hope and people know that. Half the people I know can''t be bothered to go to games anymore and those of us that are there can barely even muster up the enthusiasm to boo. We just trudge from the ground back to the sanctity of the nearest bar.

We have no heroes to identify with.
We have no money
We have no obvious way of getting out of it (even if PC was interested he may not be now)
We are managed by a vile, arrogant individual

All in all hard to see how things can get much worse but I''m sure there''s a way!
[/quote]

Easy to say that from behind a keyboard mate. Care to say that to his face? Thought not somehow. You don''t hold back though do you!! Care to explain why this ''vile, arrogant individual'' publicly invited one of the shareholders to come and watch training sessions at Colney and then stay behind (with a friend) and have lunch with the manager?

BUT, for what it''s worth Jim, I did agree with the rest of your post!  

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Whoareyou,

I am afraid Canary Nut is correct about the worth of a minority interest.

Unless there is a liquid market in the shares (i.e. a good proportion of freely floating shares in a quoted market), having a minority interest is a loss making non-dividend company buys you a ticket to the AGM, but not a lot else.

The key here is liquidity. For a club like Arsenal where shares are openly traded, a potential bidder would hoover up small parcels of shares in the hope of building up a sufficiently sizeable stake to influence or gain a seat on the board. With a club like Arsenal, there is also the prospect of a dividend or at least a capital profit upon resale.

Buying illiquid minority interest shares in Norwich would effectively cost a lot of money with no real ability to counter vote against a majority shareholder nor any prospect of a dividend. Of course, this situation would change if the majority shareholders holding was broken up in to smaller parcels so that it became more worthwhile to acquire a minority stake.

In this respect, it is understandable that Delia would not want to become a minority shareholder. This is why there is surely a deal to be struck between her and Cullum. As Canary Nut has also pointed out, this could be done without the expenses of Seymour Pierce, who I would guess would be looking for somewhere between 10% and 15% of the transaction value.

[/quote]

Even a minority shareholding has a value based on the fact that the illiquidity situation COULD change- ie. the club could float.  If someone owns 30% they would be in a strong position to push for flotation and if the club was doing well a big profit could be realised.

[T 190]

You could never float NCFC - it meets none of the criteria for a flotation - a flotation needs to be sponsored by an approved bank and a bank would never back it.

[Desert Fox 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Whoareyou,

I am afraid Canary Nut is correct about the worth of a minority interest.

Unless there is a liquid market in the shares (i.e. a good proportion of freely floating shares in a quoted market), having a minority interest is a loss making non-dividend company buys you a ticket to the AGM, but not a lot else.

The key here is liquidity. For a club like Arsenal where shares are openly traded, a potential bidder would hoover up small parcels of shares in the hope of building up a sufficiently sizeable stake to influence or gain a seat on the board. With a club like Arsenal, there is also the prospect of a dividend or at least a capital profit upon resale.

Buying illiquid minority interest shares in Norwich would effectively cost a lot of money with no real ability to counter vote against a majority shareholder nor any prospect of a dividend. Of course, this situation would change if the majority shareholders holding was broken up in to smaller parcels so that it became more worthwhile to acquire a minority stake.

In this respect, it is understandable that Delia would not want to become a minority shareholder. This is why there is surely a deal to be struck between her and Cullum. As Canary Nut has also pointed out, this could be done without the expenses of Seymour Pierce, who I would guess would be looking for somewhere between 10% and 15% of the transaction value.

[/quote]

Even a minority shareholding has a value based on the fact that the illiquidity situation COULD change- ie. the club could float.  If someone owns 30% they would be in a strong position to push for flotation and if the club was doing well a big profit could be realised.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow,

Agreed in theory. However, we are not talking about an ''if'' some time in the future, but rather the reality of now if she had agreed to Cullum''s offer. Turning this around, would you let yourself become a minority interest if you were in Delia''s current position?

For the record, I do not support this continued face off and believe that we need to resolve the ownership of the club as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I believe that the club has been mismanaged during Delia''s stewardship, but this should not be confused with recognising that behaviour re Cullum is completely rational, albeit frustrating.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="Desert Fox"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Whoareyou,

I am afraid Canary Nut is correct about the worth of a minority interest.

Unless there is a liquid market in the shares (i.e. a good proportion of freely floating shares in a quoted market), having a minority interest is a loss making non-dividend company buys you a ticket to the AGM, but not a lot else.

The key here is liquidity. For a club like Arsenal where shares are openly traded, a potential bidder would hoover up small parcels of shares in the hope of building up a sufficiently sizeable stake to influence or gain a seat on the board. With a club like Arsenal, there is also the prospect of a dividend or at least a capital profit upon resale.

Buying illiquid minority interest shares in Norwich would effectively cost a lot of money with no real ability to counter vote against a majority shareholder nor any prospect of a dividend. Of course, this situation would change if the majority shareholders holding was broken up in to smaller parcels so that it became more worthwhile to acquire a minority stake.

In this respect, it is understandable that Delia would not want to become a minority shareholder. This is why there is surely a deal to be struck between her and Cullum. As Canary Nut has also pointed out, this could be done without the expenses of Seymour Pierce, who I would guess would be looking for somewhere between 10% and 15% of the transaction value.

[/quote]

Even a minority shareholding has a value based on the fact that the illiquidity situation COULD change- ie. the club could float.  If someone owns 30% they would be in a strong position to push for flotation and if the club was doing well a big profit could be realised.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow,

Agreed in theory. However, we are not talking about an ''if'' some time in the future, but rather the reality of now if she had agreed to Cullum''s offer. Turning this around, would you let yourself become a minority interest if you were in Delia''s current position?

For the record, I do not support this continued face off and believe that we need to resolve the ownership of the club as quickly as possible. Furthermore, I believe that the club has been mismanaged during Delia''s stewardship, but this should not be confused with recognising that behaviour re Cullum is completely rational, albeit frustrating.

[/quote]

It''s only rational if they have reason to think they can get a better deal elsewhere, ie. someone to buy them out at the price they want.  In the present climate administration, while by no mean a certainty, is far more likely than a buyout on their terms.  And haven''t they always pushed the "nobody wants to buy a loss making Championship club" line for all it''s worth?  "Cut off nose to spite face" is the phrase that springs to mind, as well as "half loaf better than none".

One thing seems clear: the best interests of the club come nowhere in all this.

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Potless Percy,

Completely agree. If you follow my posts throughout this thread you will see I have basically said the same thing. The Seymour Pierce exercise is probably the last throw of the dice. If this does not come up with anything in the next three months, Delia is likley to be forced to swallow her pride and sit down and negotiate with Cullum or face running a greater risk of continuing with the status quo.

[T 190]

Trying to get something for their shares or a co-investor rather than the nothing offered by PC as he has confirmed seems rationale to me. I''d agree that is probably not in the best interests of the club but then if that is how fans feel why do they not donate half their wealth to NCFC or PC as that is what they appear to be asking the Board to do. I''d be delighted to see PC takeover but I''m not hypercritical enough to expect someone to do something the majority of people and myself would not do if we are honest.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="T"]Trying to get something for their shares or a co-investor rather than the nothing offered by PC as he has confirmed seems rationale to me. I''d agree that is probably not in the best interests of the club but then if that is how fans feel why do they not donate half their wealth to NCFC or PC as that is what they appear to be asking the Board to do. I''d be delighted to see PC takeover but I''m not hypercritical enough to expect someone to do something the majority of people and myself would not do if we are honest.[/quote]

There is no reason why PC''s proposal couldn''t have formed the basis for negotiations instead of their "buyout or nothing" response.  If the will had been there to produce a deal that was in the best interests of the club and yet gave D&M something too, it could have been done (for example: D&M to run Delia''s Canary Catering and take a chunk of the profit?).

 

[T 190]

It takes two. The club starting position was 16m for the shares and PC''s was nothing so given such a fundamental difference I can''t see they was anything to discuss.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

DF, your posts on this thread have been excellent IMO and the only thing i strongly disagree with is the "If there is a new share issue Delias stake becomes worthless" line.  All investments are speculative- when i invest in an oil exploration company i don`t KNOW they will find oil, i take an educated guess.  Clubs have been floated before and they will be again, the likelihood of that happening will determine the speculative value of a 30% stake in NCFC and of course that is linked to performance on the pitch and financial.

I can see the issue D an M would have in being sidelined in that way without an obvious exit route, but they are increasingly stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea.  Who knows, if they actually engaged in meaningful dialogue with "the devil", a compromise could be reached for the benefit of the club.  At the moment it is "full buy-out or nothing" and looking at the last few years i have no faith in their judgement whatsoever.

[blahblahblah 2]

Here''s a thought, and it''s one that''s probably 6 months too late... how about a petition to Cullum asking him to offer a fee for D&Ms'' shares as part of the 20 million he was going to stump up ?  If he offered them 5 million for their shares, or even what they paid for them, then there would still be a significant sum left in the bank for squad strenthening, at least for a season or two, and with a big enough petition the current board would be aware that public opinion would be with him.

I do wonder if he was put off by the idea of having to dip into his pockets every season - something Doncaster alluded to this week.  I know he''s a billionaire, but he got to be one by having a tight control over the money he spends, everything would need to be budgetted.  Having a runaway expense like a football club could impact on his charity work / money in some way I''d guess.  Then there''s the issue of the current debt - at the moment I wonder if any bank would take it on as a new debt, which I think they would have to in the event of a takeover.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="T"]

It takes two. The club starting position was 16m for the shares and PC''s was nothing so given such a fundamental difference I can''t see they was anything to discuss.

[/quote]

T, you may have missed it but according to Archant Cullums proposal was for a new share issue, so he was not offering "nothing" for the shares.

[T 190]

PC was offering 20m for new shares but nothing to existing shareholder which is what I mean and something you would never normally see if you are taking control of a business.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

A football club is nothing like a normal business T.  And Cullum was offering "nothing" to the existing shareholders because he didn`t want their shares- you are trying to twist things.  D and M would have been left with a significant holding (which has value) in a club with £20m new capital, greatly increasing the clubs chances of being successful.  When compared with the spectre of relegation and administration it is pretty obvious which is the most sensible option for all parties.

[canary cherub 1]

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

It takes two. The club starting position was 16m for the shares and PC''s was nothing so given such a fundamental difference I can''t see they was anything to discuss.

[/quote]

T, you may have missed it but according to Archant Cullums proposal was for a new share issue, so he was not offering "nothing" for the shares.

[/quote]

 And T you haven''t addressed my point about D&M getting their money back some other way.  Try thinking outside the box occasionally.

 

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]A football club is nothing like a normal business T.  And Cullum was offering "nothing" to the existing shareholders because he didn`t want their shares- you are trying to twist things.  D and M would have been left with a significant holding (which has value) in a club with £20m new capital, greatly increasing the clubs chances of being successful.  When compared with the spectre of relegation and administration it is pretty obvious which is the most sensible option for all parties.[/quote]

Well put Mr C, the only logical reason I can think of is that Smith and Jones want a clean break and if they had accepted Cullums offer they would have still played a big part in the running of the club albeit with less control than they now have.  If they have the clubs interests at heart surely they should have accepted Cullums offer, I think they will go back to him with their tails between their legs if they don''t find a buyer quickly.