We want your views and support for an Ex player consortium

[Andy Larkin 15]

… and like Good News Gordon, he suddenly disappears when the important questions need answering, only to return later after he has time to think up a plausible explanation/concoction.Ho hum

[ca 1]

I would support any such takeover but I would need far more information about the consortiums intentions first

[kdncfc 0]

If this is genuine I would definitely support it, I''m not convinced that Smith and Jones really want to let go so if there has to be a hostile takeover to get rid of them then so be it.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]… and like Good News Gordon, he suddenly disappears when the important questions need answering, only to return later after he has time to think up a plausible explanation/concoction.

Ho hum
[/quote]

GNG worked at the club/colney/for ITV/the media all in the same week.. what a guy! this week he has been a butcher, baker and candlestick maker, and on monday he starts as an astronaut.

jas :)

[shefcanary 2,392]

My reaction to this splits into two:

1.   Hello Darren and Carl - get on with it; or

2.   Hostile takeover cos'' it ain''t going to be champagne in the Boardroom - what a wind up - p*ss off!

Still siding with the latter at this moment in time.

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]… and like Good News Gordon, he suddenly disappears when the important questions need answering, only to return later after he has time to think up a plausible explanation/concoction.

Ho hum
[/quote]

GNG worked at the club/colney/for ITV/the media all in the same week.. what a guy! this week he has been a butcher, baker and candlestick maker, and on monday he starts as an astronaut.

jas :)

[Coelho 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]1.   Hello Darren and Carl - get on with it[/quote]If only...

[Neil_MacLeod 0]

[quote user="Titanic"][quote user="PhatCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

If you have something genuine to offer I suggest you approach the local press.

 

[/quote]

I second that! Sorry but to many wind-ups on this site for me to take this serious.

[/quote]

Why have you jumped to the conclusion that it is a wind up. Where is your evidence to support your comment?.

[/quote]

Are you stupid enough to think this is anything but a wind up?

[ca 1]

[quote user="Coelho"][quote user="shefcanary"]1.   Hello Darren and Carl - get on with it[/quote]
If only...
[/quote]

 

Thats what I was thinking [:)]

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]… and like Good News Gordon, he suddenly disappears when the important questions need answering, only to return later after he has time to think up a plausible explanation/concoction.Ho hum[/quote]

GNG worked at the club/colney/for ITV/the media all in the same week.. what a guy! this week he has been a butcher, baker and candlestick maker, and on monday he starts as an astronaut.

jas :)

[/quote]Yeah… I know Jaz, I heard ya the first time!  (insert smiling icon here cos the ********** things don''t work on a Mac!

[WeAreYellows49 0]

If this were to be real then I would have to say yes.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="jas the barclay king"]

[quote user="Andy Larkin"]… and like Good News Gordon, he suddenly disappears when the important questions need answering, only to return later after he has time to think up a plausible explanation/concoction.

Ho hum
[/quote]

GNG worked at the club/colney/for ITV/the media all in the same week.. what a guy! this week he has been a butcher, baker and candlestick maker, and on monday he starts as an astronaut.

jas :)

[/quote]

 

I would be prepared to have a sizeable punt that this is the new incarnation of Gareth Lights, organiser of the "me and at least 100 mates will be staging a protest at the Coach and Horses" non protest.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

Just a thought, this consortium could still go to the press but the actual members could remain secret.  So I''m a bit suspicious, but that''s just me lol.

[Newbury Canary 0]

Changes need to be made financially, in order to keep in touch with the so called bigger clubs in this league. So if this consortium can offer implement and sustain financail backing for us i would be more than behind them, as the way the current board with its financial difficulties are continuing to manifest, i can see us playing league 1 football very soon, and that is not want any Norwich City fan wants to see. We should be gracing our pitch with the likes of the premiership clubs. Bring back the glory days when we had something to cheer about and support.

How long is this likely to be mulling around for, before it goes to the media, and will this mean a change of Manager.

 

[Joanna Grey 0]

Perhaps the "accountant" types on here could clarify what''s involved in a Hostile Takeover? I believed that it was a group that wished to purchase a company putting pressure on shareholders to either oust the directors or sell the shares to them. In our case I believe that Delia and MWJ own a majority shareholding thus making a Hostile takeover impossible if they do not want to sell. Additionally, i believe that the "hostility" in Hostile takeover comes from the purchasing group and disgruntled (or greedy) shareholders not from the customers (fans) of the company. That''s my take on it but I am willing to be educated by those in the know.

[Attleborough_Canary 65]

I''m afraid alot of people seem to have fallen for it DWBDD. The next thing you know it will be Mr Huckerby fronting the consortium.

[shefcanary 2,392]

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]Perhaps the "accountant" types on here could clarify what''s involved in a Hostile Takeover? I believed that it was a group that wished to purchase a company putting pressure on shareholders to either oust the directors or sell the shares to them. In our case I believe that Delia and MWJ own a majority shareholding thus making a Hostile takeover impossible if they do not want to sell. Additionally, i believe that the "hostility" in Hostile takeover comes from the purchasing group and disgruntled (or greedy) shareholders not from the customers (fans) of the company. That''s my take on it but I am willing to be educated by those in the know.[/quote]

Yep you''re right, hence why I''ve plumped for the second viewpoint I expressed in my earlier e-mail.  Hostile takeover - only if Michael and Delia are hostile to each other!!!

[shefcanary 2,392]

What other conclusion(s) are there to make!

[shefcanary 2,392]

[quote user="Attleborough_Canary"]I''m afraid alot of people seem to have fallen for it DWBDD. The next thing you know it will be Mr Huckerby fronting the consortium.[/quote]

Apologies for above - i forgot to quote!

What other conclusion(s) are there to make?

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]Perhaps the "accountant" types on here could clarify what''s involved in a Hostile Takeover? I believed that it was a group that wished to purchase a company putting pressure on shareholders to either oust the directors or sell the shares to them. In our case I believe that Delia and MWJ own a majority shareholding thus making a Hostile takeover impossible if they do not want to sell. Additionally, i believe that the "hostility" in Hostile takeover comes from the purchasing group and disgruntled (or greedy) shareholders not from the customers (fans) of the company. That''s my take on it but I am willing to be educated by those in the know.[/quote]

 

This is what I found by google.....

 

A  hostile takeover is a type of corporate takeover which is carried out against the wishes of the board of the target company. This unique type of acquisition does not occur nearly as frequently as friendly takeovers, in which the two companies work together because the takeover is perceived as beneficial. Hostile takeovers can be traumatic for the target company, and they can also be risky for the other side, as the acquiring company may not be able to obtain certain relevant information about the target company.

Companies are bought and sold on a daily basis. There are two types of sale agreements. In the first, a merger, two companies come together, blending their assets, staff, facilities, and so forth. After a merger, the original companies cease to exist, and a new company arises instead. In a takeover, a company is purchased by another company. The purchasing company owns all of the target company''s assets including company patents, trademarks, and so forth. The original company may be entirely swallowed up, or may operate semi-independently under the umbrella of the acquiring company.

Typically, a company which wishes to acquire another company approaches the target company''s board with an offer. The board members consider the offer, and then choose to accept or reject it. The offer will be accepted if the board believes that it will promote the long term welfare of the company, and it will be rejected if the board dislike the terms or it feels that a takeover would not be beneficial. When a company pursues takeover after rejection by a board, it is a hostile takeover. If a company bypasses the board entirely, it is also termed a hostile takeover.

Publicly traded companies are at risk of hostile takeover because opposing companies can purchase large amounts of their stock to gain a controlling share. In this instance, the company does not have to respect the feelings of the board because it already essentially owns and controls the firm. A hostile takeover may also involve tactics like trying to sweeten the deal for individual board members to get them to agree.

An acquiring firm takes a risk by attempting a hostile takeover. Because the target firm is not cooperating, the acquiring firm may unwittingly take on debts or serious problems, since it does not have access to all of the information about the company. Many firms also have trouble getting financing for hostile takeovers, since some banks are reluctant to lend in these situations.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Delia S. Tickers"]Perhaps the "accountant" types on here could clarify what''s involved in a Hostile Takeover? I believed that it was a group that wished to purchase a company putting pressure on shareholders to either oust the directors or sell the shares to them. In our case I believe that Delia and MWJ own a majority shareholding thus making a Hostile takeover impossible if they do not want to sell. Additionally, i believe that the "hostility" in Hostile takeover comes from the purchasing group and disgruntled (or greedy) shareholders not from the customers (fans) of the company. That''s my take on it but I am willing to be educated by those in the know.[/quote]

 

That''s pretty much correct. Our (bogus) correspondent  responded to something similar being thrown up earlier in the thread by changing his tune and stating that in this case hostile means getting the  the fans to force Delia & Michael to give their shares to the consortium for nothing,which has convinced me even further that he''s a troll.

[Green and Yellow 0]

[quote user="Anderz"]

Why does the takeover need to be hostile..?
If you have funding available, negotiate a fair deal with Delia and Michael and buy the Club outright without causing on and off field disruption. If the money doesn''t stretch to buying them out, then invest heavily on the understanding that any additional investment further down the line increases ownership of the Club to yourselves, and buy the Club over the course of the medium or long term.
Hostility will, in my humble opinion, prove to be a hugely negative influence on the team and Club as a whole, and will seal our demise to League One.
So in short - if you''ve got the cash, put it on the table and deal like the business men you suggest you are. If you don''t have the cash, or not enough, then you need to cut your cloth accordingly and see what other avenues your limited budget will permit.
Making the assumption, through my own interpretation of your various postings on the issue, that everyday football supporters of our fine Club will do your dirty work to seal the deal in your favour smacks of desperation and I find to be quite a disgusting propersition.

Norwich City supporters deserve better than we have got over recent years, and as of yet you''ve offered no evidence of better times ahead other than the ''celebrity'' who''ll be in charge won''t be a chef, but instead: an ex-player. A lot of people criticise the board for being naive with regards to footballing matters, and I find it hard to imagine many ex-players who could walk into the positon of Chairman, or CE and do a better job from the off...

Convince me further or accept that I, as a content-for-now fence-sitter want no part of your holey plans...  

[/quote]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?

[lappinitup 629]

Come on peeps. If a newbie posted a new signing NO-ONE would believe him and yet you''re prepared to believe this lol. [:D]

[WeAreYellows49 0]

To be fair I haven''t see one person on this thread who has stated they 110% believe the OP''s statment.

It''s interesting, may be huge BS but it is interesting lol.

[Green and Yellow 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]
As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?
[/quote]

If you check my previous comments on the thread I have not stated if I believe that it is a wind up or not or if I believe it to be true. But Delia doe not want to sell, that''s why Cullum moved on.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]
As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?
[/quote]

If you check my previous comments on the thread I have not stated if I believe that it is a wind up or not or if I believe it to be true. But Delia doe not want to sell, that''s why Cullum moved on.

[/quote]

Could you provide evidence to back up such a definitive statement? Genuine question as I am trying to keep an open mind until I have access to enough facts to be able to make an informed judgement.

[Green and Yellow 0]

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]
As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?
[/quote]

If you check my previous comments on the thread I have not stated if I believe that it is a wind up or not or if I believe it to be true. But Delia doe not want to sell, that''s why Cullum moved on.

[/quote]

Could you provide evidence to back up such a definitive statement? Genuine question as I am trying to keep an open mind until I have access to enough facts to be able to make an informed judgement.

[/quote]

By the criteria Delia set for any purchaser, local born and genuinely interested in the club. Not many multi millionaires with a few million to spare in Norfolk fitting the description but when one did step forward she backed down and didn''t sell.

[ncfcstar 288]

[quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?[/quote]

If you check my previous comments on the thread I have not stated if I believe that it is a wind up or not or if I believe it to be true. But Delia doe not want to sell, that''s why Cullum moved on.

[/quote]

Could you provide evidence to back up such a definitive statement? Genuine question as I am trying to keep an open mind until I have access to enough facts to be able to make an informed judgement.

[/quote]

By the criteria Delia set for any purchaser, local born and genuinely interested in the club. Not many multi millionaires with a few million to spare in Norfolk fitting the description but when one did step forward she backed down and didn''t sell.

[/quote]That''s not entirely true is it, because when Cullum then went back to the press in the summer she offered the club to him for a price.  Maybe it was unrealistic, but she offered it.  Cullum is not the saviour people make him out to be, if he really truly wanted to invest in the club then I am sure a deal would have been struck by now.

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Titanic"][quote user="Evil Monkey"][quote user="Titanic"]

Because despite what Delia states SHE DOES NOT want to sell  up. As I''ve stated previously anyone taken in by her ''good old Delia'' persona are mugs.

[/quote]As are people who blindly believe ridiculous wind-ups, eh Titanic?[/quote]

If you check my previous comments on the thread I have not stated if I believe that it is a wind up or not or if I believe it to be true. But Delia doe not want to sell, that''s why Cullum moved on.

[/quote]

Could you provide evidence to back up such a definitive statement? Genuine question as I am trying to keep an open mind until I have access to enough facts to be able to make an informed judgement.

[/quote]

By the criteria Delia set for any purchaser, local born and genuinely interested in the club. Not many multi millionaires with a few million to spare in Norfolk fitting the description but when one did step forward she backed down and didn''t sell.

[/quote]I think the abject refusal to use the words ''new owner'' yet continual usage of the words ''new investor'' are a bit of a clue.