NCFC Shareholders - A Warning

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]LIU, how can we "look beyond the accounts to see whether D and M`s £11m claim was correct"?  Any "gifts" to the club not reported in the accounts would be illegal.  Is this what you are implying?

Also, i have never said i`m boycotting games, i am financially boycotting the club.  But i generally do 8-10 games a season.[/quote]Mr Carrow. One of my other hobbies is fishing and over the years I have caught many eels, but I have never caught one as slippery as you appear to be.[;)] We were discussing a ''missing'' £3.5m difference between TFAA''s figures and Delia''s statement. I suggested loans had been made since the end of that financial year and now, as a possibility. I did not mention "gifts" nor any other illegal activities so why put the words in my mouth? Now I wonder what ''eel say to that! [:D] 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="lappinitup"]

I didn''t ask a question at the NCISA meeting as I didn''t realise it was compulsory. [/quote]

But you did have a good BITCH at me about asking a question without first asking whether I was going to do so. As I said to you I intended to ask a question which I did.

The attendance comment was aimed at YC.[/quote]LOL.[:D] And I applaud you for that. So many on here moan and ask questions of the board but are not prepared to get off their asses to do anything about it.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

....

7. Increase of Ordinary Share Capital (ordinary resolution)

8. Directors authority to allot shares (ordinary resolution)

9. Disapplication of pre-emption rights (special resolution)

Of course those with tangible fixed views could argue that these resolutions themselves were greedy personal demands from the majority shareholders but surely if that was the case that point would have been argued at the time or even brought up at the next AGM or one of the various question & answer evenings since.

Anyway, that’s me for a while because the bogs won’t clean themselves [+o(]

[/quote]

Resolutions 7, 8 and 9 are standard resolutions that are seen at company AGMs (not just NCFC Plc''s AGM). So Nutty Nigel you have misfired with your pop at other people.

Have a nice day!

 

[/quote]

Now Tangie, I am quite willing to learn from those who understand better than me so could you explain to me what you mean about resolutions 7, 8 & 9 and while your about it tell me where in that post I was having a"a pop at other people".

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Nutty Nigel,

7, 8 and are all basicaly connected and almost standing items in capital hungry small to medium sized companies. Basically 7 is asking for new shares to be created, 8 is giving the directors the authority to decide who to sell them to and 9 enables 8 by waiving the obligation to offer the shares to all shareholders.

There is nothing sinister in any of this (nor was I suggesting you had implied this). In pratice, theybhave cresated a pool of shares which can be sold to anyone who wants to invset in the club at the stated price of £30. Given that the market price is likley to be below this level, it is unlikely anyone would want to purchase new shares from the club rather than existing ones on the market.

Shareholders are required to vote on the above as this could dilute their holding.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

I will accept that the statement issued by the board was not Delia and MWJ setting a price for their shares if you will admit that by the same token it is also not consistent with the several statements she has now made about not expecting any money for her shares. I think those are the points both of us have been trying to make. Deal?

As to the Cullum approach we will just have to agree to disagree but i am obviously a more cynical individual than you!

 

[/quote]

No I won''t agree Jim. The reason I won''t agree is because I see them as two completely seperate issues. The board of directors have a responsibity to all shareholders. It''s not just about the majority shareholders. This gets forgotten among all arguements on here. Everyone just seems to think that all the shares are owned by Smith&Jones. Now there were nearly 5000 individual applications to the share issue in 2002. And if I remember rightly there were around 20 who invested the £25,000 or more required to become an associate director. Delia might well be content never to see her 11m again but I would imagine some of these people feel differently.

As for the Cullum approach - I never mentioned it. As for being a cynical individual - you''re right, I am the total opposite and trust anybody until they prove to me they are untrustworthy.

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Yes Desert Fox, but 7,8 & 9 were how the unissued share price was changed from £25 to £30 which is where the boards valuation of the club came from. I posted its relevance simply to show that £30 per share was not a figure dreamed up by Delia Smith as a price for her shareholding. I certainly wasn''t suggesting there was anything sinister or using it to have a pop at people and neither was I trying to show that the shares are worth £30. When I read resolution 9 it did occur to me that it could be a way of diluting the majority shareholding without having to buy shares from them. But obviously as things stand at the moment there''s unlikely to be many takers at £30 per share.

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Personally I doubt any of the minority shareholders have invested in NCFC over the years with a view that they were likley to make money out of it or receive anything back. I have £300 worth of shares. I''m never expecting to see that money again. I would not require a new owner to buy them off me if they took over. I would not give a t**s if Delia and MWJ devalued my holding by selling for £1. In essence I wrote off that money as soon as I sent the cheque. I would be amazed if any of those associate directors were anything other than wealthy fans who viewed the £25K as a donation to their club but thats just my view!

I don''t regard the two as seperate. People can dress it up however they want and hide behind corporate law requirements but I will not change my view that that statement was either (i) the opening gambit of a negotiation over share price or (ii) a "hands off" to Cullum. Personally I regarded it as the latter. It was certainly not the sort of statement I would expect to see from a club "actively" looking to encourage investment.

I guess, therefore, we shall just have to disagree on that!

[nutty nigel 7,527]

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

Look Nutty nobody here has denied that the notional value of the shares is £30 but that is an entirely different issue to what they are worth. As I have said countless times before the statement put out by Delia and MWJ was technically correct. It is technically correct to state that valued at £30 a share if you wanted to buy all of the issued share capital in NCFC it would cost you £16 million. However it is also completely irrelevant and in my mind a statement that would only be likely to deter investors because nobody is going to pay that!

The truth is that a buyer of the club could buy out Delia and MWJ for whatever they are prepared to accept for their shares. They are not obliged to seek £30 a share. They could sell for £1 or 10p a share if they wanted to! The only relevance of the City Code is that if soemone offered them £1 a share for their shares that person would have to offer all the rest of us £1 a share for all our shares but we wouldn''t have to accept that offer if we didn''t want to.

You can bang on about the shares being fixed at the AGM at much as you like but its completely irrelevant as to the issue of what Delia and MWJ''s shares are worth.

As for the value of Delia''s investment I don''t for one minute think she is deliberately stating wrong figures and it is corect to say that if you take £30 a share as the value for their shares then their stake in NCFC is worth approx £11 million but thats not the same thing as the amount of money they have put in. As stated above they got the first 42% of their shares for approx £700K and converted some loans at £25 a share so it doesn''t take a genius to work out that the actual figure is slightly lower.

 

[/quote]

Now Jim.. despite the look nuttying you are exactly making my point for me. If you have read the posts I have been making, I have never tried to justify that 30 quid is the right price of a fair price. The only point I have been trying to make for two days now is that comparing Delia''s point of not expecting anything back for her shares and then quoting the 16m club valuation as proof by some people that she''s lying and others that she is being inconsistent, is totally wide of the mark. This is not assumption, which is why I quoted the paragraphs from the Annual Report for 2007. The point I originally made, and that I have continually defended is that the statement from the club is no more a price set by Delia for her shares than it is a price set by me for mine. Do you now agree with that or not? For the implications of the club setting an over all price nominal price please see Purples points above, especially the bit about Foulgar and other shareholders with larger investments than my paltry 25 shares.

As for whether Smith&Jones have put in 11m or not I have no idea. But they would know. They might lose the odd few shillings down the sofa but not the odd few million. If they say they have and you say they haven''t then it boils down to what I said to Tangie yesterday :-

One of you is crying
One of you is lying
Look at what''s been said
Is it eleven million
Or is it maybe something else instead
If Delia is fibbing
Or you are only cribbing
One is heading for a fall
Sorry for yourselves, feeling stupid feeling small
Wishing you had never lied at all
[8]

 

[/quote]

So it doesn`t boil down to the figures shown in the fully audited accounts then nutty?  That is a very serious allegation.

What this argument boils down to is that you are prepared to take as gospel the word of a lady whose expertise in life is cooking (not business or high finance) and has a bit of a reputation for saying daft/innacurate things, over the official figures.  And you wonder why phrases like "in denial" are bandied about?

[/quote]

What is a very serious allegation Mr Carrow? I have made no allegation only an observation. The observation is that Delia can''t have put around 11m into the club and not put around 11m into the club. One has to be true and one not. As I said yesterday honesty is very important to me. So as for whether Smith&Jones have put in 11m or not I have no idea. But they would know. They might lose the odd few shillings down the sofa but not the odd few million. If they say they have and you say they haven''t then it boils down to what I said to Tangie yesterday and Jim today :-

One of you is crying
One of you is lying
Look at what''s been said
Is it eleven million
Or is it maybe something else instead
If Delia is fibbing
Or you are only cribbing
One is heading for a fall
Sorry for yourselves, feeling stupid feeling small
Wishing you had never lied at all
[8]

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

Personally I doubt any of the minority shareholders have invested in NCFC over the years with a view that they were likley to make money out of it or receive anything back. I have £300 worth of shares. I''m never expecting to see that money again. I would not require a new owner to buy them off me if they took over. I would not give a t**s if Delia and MWJ devalued my holding by selling for £1. In essence I wrote off that money as soon as I sent the cheque. I would be amazed if any of those associate directors were anything other than wealthy fans who viewed the £25K as a donation to their club but thats just my view!

I don''t regard the two as seperate. People can dress it up however they want and hide behind corporate law requirements but I will not change my view that that statement was either (i) the opening gambit of a negotiation over share price or (ii) a "hands off" to Cullum. Personally I regarded it as the latter. It was certainly not the sort of statement I would expect to see from a club "actively" looking to encourage investment.

I guess, therefore, we shall just have to disagree on that!

[/quote]

Yes Jim, and you may be right. But, and I''m not sure about the legal implications so I will use the word moral. You are an individual who can state an opinion where as the board have a moral duty to protect the interests of the shareholders.

 

[The Butler 0]

We are now getting down to the nitty gritty of how much has actually been invested.

In the blue corner is Nutty/lapp at al saying they believe unequivacably in DS''s 11mill and in the red corner TFA /Mr Carrow etc saying they cannot find the evidence of such.

Is it not possible, as this SHOULD be a matter of record, for the club to show were and when this money was invested and in what form it is now held.

That statement would stop ALL the doubters and insinuations that now abound.

Transparency along with prudence I believe were the watch words.Is it not about time that this became true.

 

[nutty nigel 7,527]

You''ve got me wrong Butler. No where on this thread or any other have I said that I believe unequivacably in DS''s 11million.

This thread was started by a poster who claimed "Delia has always put a high price on her shares". Mine was the second post saying that I had never seen her put any price on her shares. We then all argued the toss for an eternity but still nobody has shown me where she has put a high price on her shares. Then over 2 days later our friend Tangie completely changed the tac of the thread to question whether Smith&Jones had put in 11m or not. That''s a fair point to which I replied "Well Delia thinks around 11m of their money has gone to the club and they don''t expect to see a penny back. Tangy thinks it''s much less. Nutty doesn''t know." That''s right - I don''t know if she has or hasn''t. And I don''t understand why it''s important. The only thing she can legally get back is what''s rightfully hers and if she has lied about a few million she won''t be able to get that back will she? Surely all she can get back is loans with the required paperwork to back up her claim and anything she may get for the shares she has certificates for. But of course she would lose my respect and I''d be making sure the world knew she was a liar.

 

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

You''ve got me wrong Butler. No where on this thread or any other have I said that I believe unequivacably in DS''s 11million.

This thread was started by a poster who claimed "Delia has always put a high price on her shares". Mine was the second post saying that I had never seen her put any price on her shares. We then all argued the toss for an eternity but still nobody has shown me where she has put a high price on her shares. Then over 2 days later our friend Tangie completely changed the tac of the thread to question whether Smith&Jones had put in 11m or not. That''s a fair point to which I replied "Well Delia thinks around 11m of their money has gone to the club and they don''t expect to see a penny back. Tangy thinks it''s much less. Nutty doesn''t know." That''s right - I don''t know if she has or hasn''t. And I don''t understand why it''s important. The only thing she can legally get back is what''s rightfully hers and if she has lied about a few million she won''t be able to get that back will she? Surely all she can get back is loans with the required paperwork to back up her claim and anything she may get for the shares she has certificates for. But of course she would lose my respect and I''d be making sure the world knew she was a liar.

 

 

[/quote]

I still don''t think it''s that simple.

Lets say for arguments sake they sold the club and recieved 11million.

IF they had put in 11million then I for one would say OK fair do.

IF they had only invested 9.5Mil then I would say "************"

Delia has a habit of making unsubstantiated off the cuff remarks that many take verbatim.(investment statement at Royal show that started most of the current unrest)

If her statement on national radio was proved to be err hyperthetical then perhaps some of the other statements might just be of the same quality.

If it was proven correct then perhaps we can all believe her other statements and get on with more important issues like staying up (I still stick by my prediction of 18TH)[;)]

[nutty nigel 7,527]

Well I have no idea how any of us can find out what proportion of their personal wealth has gone into our football club. I remember a million got them a seat on the board in 1996. Then I remember they bought the shares from Watling a couple of years later when nobody else wanted them. I can remember when they talked about having invested 4m and 7m and 9m and now 11m. I can''t remember exactly when those figures changed or what each investment was. But having said all of that I will be amazed if they ever get anything like 11m when they leave the club. To be honest I will be amazed if they get anything at all but as you say, time will tell so we will see.

But this is all so tiring because it''s all just a sideshow. I still enjoy everything about being a Norwich fan but that''s not to say that I don''t get disappointed by results. This season never felt as hopeless as the last few matches under Peter Grant but in early games we didn''t get the rub of the green and didn''t have enough character either on the pitch or in the technical area to deal with it. There is very little between the all the sides in this league which is why it''s difficult to predict and why we have picked up points in games we were tipped to lose and lost points in games we were tipped to win. So your prediction of 18th could well be right as could mine of 52-55 points. Difference will be that nobody said you needed a logic refit when you made yours. I made my prediction in our darkest hour and I made it stating that we would get the points but maybe not in the games we were expected to get them. I still believe we will and I have been proved right about the games but I don''t expect those who tried to rub my nose in it to come forward and acknowledge anything. Are you going to prove me wrong Crafty, Gazza and Bly?

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Nutty, my concern is with what''s happening to our club, not trying to prove anyone wrong, let''s face it, in the grand scheme of things each of us means practically nothing to the club. Together in number yes, but individually no.

As I have pointed out, my concern is that there are just so many theories, so much spin and let''s face it, mostly everybody can make their opinions stand up with associated facts. The facts I can''t deal with is this club is still in decline, it has spent a lot of money but sadly the results speak for themselves. Still in a relegation fight. Survive or not, the facts remain, we have been fed spin by Doncaster for years, I can just about accept that - he''s paid to come up with excuses as to why we seemingly can''t compete with the mighty clubs who are all above us in the table. What I would like to hear is HOW the board are going to first stem the seemingly bottomless pit of money maintaining our debt and how they will channel the income we do receive - from Directors or whoever, and put it to good use. And for me that means concentrate on the team.

Let''s say we keep the present management team. Fine, I can accept that. So wherever we are in the close season I want to see Gunn backed with not only money but ideas, plans and most of all 100% determination to take this club forward. No more of this wait to see what everyone else is doing and all that rubbish about no one doing any business in May and June. Let''s be proactive for once, not reactive.

Delia and her appearance on Womans'' Hour, fine. If she can''t remember how much money she''s put in she is either just not saying in public or she needs a better financial advisor. I still would love to know what that 11m has gone towards, is it the team, her shares or dare I say it, has most of it gone to cover the debts. IF so, then she needs to take a long look at why these debts are getting larger. Maybe it is the same for all clubs, but as Doncaster keeps pointing out, some have sugar daddies, well so do we, 11m is not an unsubstantial sum.

I am still alarmed from the boards'' performance at the AGM where all present seemed both defeated and clueless. Despite their best intentions, they are too far out of their comfort zone and we as a club are on the brink of falling into yet more trouble if we are relegated. I have no confidence in the any of the present crew turning us around and therefore I am eager to hear that they are firstly seeking some professional people to join the board to help and two, that Munby and Doncaster on Delia''s behalf are forming plans and making decisions on where the club is going in the foreseeable future and beyond.

As for acknowledging that you may have got the points count right, fine, if you are right, good for you. Sadly though Nutty, our problems go a bit deeper than which one of us can correctly predict a few results.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty, my concern is with what''s happening to our club, not trying to prove anyone wrong, let''s face it, in the grand scheme of things each of us means practically nothing to the club. Together in number yes, but individually no. As I have pointed out, my concern is that there are just so many theories, so much spin and let''s face it, mostly everybody can make their opinions stand up with associated facts. The facts I can''t deal with is this club is still in decline, it has spent a lot of money but sadly the results speak for themselves. Still in a relegation fight. Survive or not, the facts remain, we have been fed spin by Doncaster for years, I can just about accept that - he''s paid to come up with excuses as to why we seemingly can''t compete with the mighty clubs who are all above us in the table. What I would like to hear is HOW the board are going to first stem the seemingly bottomless pit of money maintaining our debt and how they will channel the income we do receive - from Directors or whoever, and put it to good use. And for me that means concentrate on the team. Let''s say we keep the present management team. Fine, I can accept that. So wherever we are in the close season I want to see Gunn backed with not only money but ideas, plans and most of all 100% determination to take this club forward. No more of this wait to see what everyone else is doing and all that rubbish about no one doing any business in May and June. Let''s be proactive for once, not reactive. Delia and her appearance on Womans'' Hour, fine. If she can''t remember how much money she''s put in she is either just not saying in public or she needs a better financial advisor. I still would love to know what that 11m has gone towards, is it the team, her shares or dare I say it, has most of it gone to cover the debts. IF so, then she needs to take a long look at why these debts are getting larger. Maybe it is the same for all clubs, but as Doncaster keeps pointing out, some have sugar daddies, well so do we, 11m is not an unsubstantial sum. I am still alarmed from the boards'' performance at the AGM where all present seemed both defeated and clueless. Despite their best intentions, they are too far out of their comfort zone and we as a club are on the brink of falling into yet more trouble if we are relegated. I have no confidence in the any of the present crew turning us around and therefore I am eager to hear that they are firstly seeking some professional people to join the board to help and two, that Munby and Doncaster on Delia''s behalf are forming plans and making decisions on where the club is going in the foreseeable future and beyond. As for acknowledging that you may have got the points count right, fine, if you are right, good for you. Sadly though Nutty, our problems go a bit deeper than which one of us can correctly predict a few results.[/quote]

As always a good post, your posts normally are like words from my own mouth.

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

As always a good post

[/quote]

Yes indeed WAY49 another good post but why it''s directed at me I don''t know. Too many people seem to think that just because I don''t agree with spin against the board that I agree with everything they do. That''s far from the case and if you read all my posts that would be obvious. The opening post of this thread stated that Delia had always put a high price on her shares. I don''t believe she ever put any price on her shares and in fact the only thing she has ever said on the matter seems to be that she doesn''t expect to see that money again. Two days later despite my views being attacked nobody could show me any reason why I should change my mind. So having not proved that point we changed to an attack on Delia''s claims that they had put around 11m into the club. Now I have no idea if she has or hasn''t but really don''t understand that attack on her as we are surely all City fans. The only observation I can make is that she either has or hasn''t put that money in. Either she is lying or those who say she hasn''t are doing all they can to make her appear a liar. Either way I find it disappointing to say the least. Now GazzaTG''s post, good though it is, has done nothing to throw any light on the two points being discussed on this thread.

GazzaTG - It''s not about trying to prove anyone wrong it''s about treating people in the way you would like to be treated yourself. Delia Smith is a Norwich fan and to be honest you wouldn''t treat an ipswich fan in the way some people treat her on here. We had the same thing when Worthy became a scapegoat and I would not stand back and leave that unchallenged either. I have no problem with her being criticised if it''s fair. But much of it isn''t. All I have done on this thread is point out that she did not put a high price on her shares. I don''t want to be proved right or wrong. But I will continue to have my say.

Now as for your final comment about the points tally and the games and how deep our problems go  you should try being me! Because I won''t buy into the latest "end of the world" scapegoat posting on here I get all kinds of stick. I am big enough to take it but you can be sure I will give it back. Now Gazza, as a Norwich fan, would you like to come home after another disappointing defeat and come on this message board to find a thread entitled "FAO Gazza" and open it to see a clutch of "so called" Norwich fans trying to rub your nose in it because your team had been beaten? Saying things like "you need a logic refit". Or if you made a prediction on a thread and every time we lost that thread was dragged back up to point score against you but when your predictions started to come true those threads were left alone  and some of the posters disappeared. Yes Gazza, Crafty and Babes - I''m talking about you.

I will give as good as I get on this board GazzaTG and I will stand up for what I believe to be right.

 

[GMF 736]

I don''t, unfortunately, have copies of the accounts for the years from 1996 to 2001. (If anyone does, I''d be delighted to know).  However, I do have copies of the filed accounts from Companies House for the year ended 31st December 2005. Therein, a certain R. Chase was listed as having 48,063 Ordinary Shares and the Allocated Ordinary Shares totalled 141,000. This equates to the often mentioned 34% shareholding of the former chairman.

We also know that GW had an 8% shareholding (say 11,280 Ordinary Shares) before he purchased RC''s shares. This gives the often reported initial shareholding for D&M of 42%. Whilst I don''t know the exact number of Ordinary Shares purchased by D&M from the combined RC and GW holding, a 42% shareholding would equate to circa 59,434 Ordinary Shares.

We know that D&M owned 327,309 Ordinary Shares as at the 31st May 2008 and TFA''s analysis of D&M''s purchases from 2002 to 2008 correctly identifies they purchased 131,949 Ordinary Shares during that period. However, that still leaves circa 195,360 Ordinary Shares missing from the analysis?

Now, whilst I don''t know what price was actually paid for these shares, if it was £15 a share this would be £2.442M and at £25 a share this would be £4.884M

As for the £11M figure, I thought this was given in a radio interview and has never been given broken down? However, here''s a suggestion:-

Initial GW holding (circa 59,434 shares) £700K. Widely reported, but never been verified.

Pre 2002 share purchases (circa 195,360 shares) at, say, £25 per share. Say £4.884M.

2002 to 2008 oridnary share purchases 131,949 at £25 per share. £3.26M. (I appreciate that there were 1,531 shares purchased in 2007 that weren''t new shares).

Loans outstanding as at 31 May 2008. £196K. (Page 36 of 2008 accounts).

Loans committed after 2008 Year End (from Page 3 of the 2008 accounts) £3M. (This won''t actually be verified until the 2009 accounts are published).

That lot includes a number of assumptions, but actually totals approximately £12M.

[Desert Fox 0]

Gazza,

An excellent post, however some on here are so convinced that the Board walk on water that they cant see what is happening to our club - not even relegation is likley to change their minds.

Lets hope that our majority shareholders are not as clueless as they appear and they do something to turn this situation around - even of just for the sake of protetcting their own investment.

[GMF 736]

What''s certain is that there were approximately 33,000 unallocated Ordinary Shares at the last year end. The previous option of converting loans to shares is limited and the overall debt will increase in the next reported accounts.

Whilst the existing major shareholders are undoubtedly "do their bit" I''m not sure they can actually protect their investment as such, as there is no active market for NCFC shares. You can issue new shares at £30 a pop to buyers who are willing to pay that price, but, if someone wants to sell their existing investment, they''re only worth whatever someone else is willing to pay for them, which is likely to be somewhere between £0 and £30 a go. 

[king canary 7,599]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

An excellent post, however some on here are so convinced that the Board walk on water that they cant see what is happening to our club - not even relegation is likley to change their minds.

[/quote]Its this sort of statement that frustrates the hell out of me. Nobody here says the board walk on water, nobody claims them to be perfect or have not made mistakes but some of the clainms made on here about them are ridiculous, such as the one that started this thread which seemed to suggest Delia would rip off the average shareholder to get a big cut of any takeover dosh herself.

[Desert Fox 0]

King Canary,

I am sorry to disagree with you, but there are a number of people who post on here regularly that will accept no criticism of the Board whatseover and question why a supporter would wish to be disloyal by criticising them at all. I would go further by saying the passion they put in to defending the failure of our off the field activity based strategy borders on the highly suspiscious.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Who is it who has to sign-off on anything of significance at NCFC?

Answer that question, think about it and apply then apply basic logic.

You may be surprised at how simple those apparently complex matters often really are.

One love.

OTBC

 

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Who is it who has to sign-off on anything of significance at NCFC?

Answer that question, think about it and apply then apply basic logic.

You may be surprised at how simple those apparently complex matters often really are.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

Razz & Auntie Pearl ?  The Stowmarket Two?  Or is it Mr Chuckles?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Who is it who has to sign-off on anything of significance at NCFC?

Answer that question, think about it and apply then apply basic logic.

You may be surprised at how simple those apparently complex matters often really are.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

Razz & Auntie Pearl ?  The Stowmarket Two?  Or is it Mr Chuckles?

[/quote]

I''ll break it down for you.

The Stowmarket Two live in Suffolk and Deals (shhhhhhhhhhhh...) was born in Surrey and......

Mr Chuckles was born and bred in Brizzle - and wants to work in London town..............

Razz and Auntie Pearl can both be found in deepest Norfolk (Cromer, so I''m told).........

Hope that helps.[:)]

OTBC

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

I don''t, unfortunately, have copies of the accounts for the years from 1996 to 2001. (If anyone does, I''d be delighted to know).  However, I do have copies of the filed accounts from Companies House for the year ended 31st December 2005. Therein, a certain R. Chase was listed as having 48,063 Ordinary Shares and the Allocated Ordinary Shares totalled 141,000. This equates to the often mentioned 34% shareholding of the former chairman.

We also know that GW had an 8% shareholding (say 11,280 Ordinary Shares) before he purchased RC''s shares. This gives the often reported initial shareholding for D&M of 42%. Whilst I don''t know the exact number of Ordinary Shares purchased by D&M from the combined RC and GW holding, a 42% shareholding would equate to circa 59,434 Ordinary Shares.

We know that D&M owned 327,309 Ordinary Shares as at the 31st May 2008 and TFA''s analysis of D&M''s purchases from 2002 to 2008 correctly identifies they purchased 131,949 Ordinary Shares during that period. However, that still leaves circa 195,360 Ordinary Shares missing from the analysis?

Now, whilst I don''t know what price was actually paid for these shares, if it was £15 a share this would be £2.442M and at £25 a share this would be £4.884M

As for the £11M figure, I thought this was given in a radio interview and has never been given broken down? However, here''s a suggestion:-

Initial GW holding (circa 59,434 shares) £700K. Widely reported, but never been verified.

Pre 2002 share purchases (circa 195,360 shares) at, say, £25 per share. Say £4.884M.

2002 to 2008 oridnary share purchases 131,949 at £25 per share. £3.26M. (I appreciate that there were 1,531 shares purchased in 2007 that weren''t new shares).

Loans outstanding as at 31 May 2008. £196K. (Page 36 of 2008 accounts).

Loans committed after 2008 Year End (from Page 3 of the 2008 accounts) £3M. (This won''t actually be verified until the 2009 accounts are published).

That lot includes a number of assumptions, but actually totals approximately £12M.

[/quote]

You state RC had 48k shares at end 2005 is this correct as I am sure these were sold to GW way before then?

I don''t think £25.00 a share was relevant at prior to 2002 (like you a guess)

Are the loans year end 2008 DS/MWJ''s (Turners?/ Moore)

Just checking as the difference could be as much as 3mil.

Thanks for your efforts that is the FIRST attempt at reconciliation[:D]

[gazzathegreat 0]

Nutty, I have obviously struck a blow somewhere painful. I can''t for the life of me recall having a go at you for predicting results or disappearing if you had correctly predicted one or two. Disappearing, is that when some of us don''t post for a day or two maybe? Well Nutty, as a family man yourself I am sure you will concede that there are not enough hours in the day for spending every waking hour on this messageboard. I don''t always appear on here after games as I am out with the family or friends. Saturday is my only day off in the week, so it''s precious time to me. If you have been blasted by insensitive posters then I am sorry. We all suffer from it at some time or another. It''s one of the disadvantages of having an opinion and stating it. Most of the time there will be those who don''t agree. I fully support that we should all be civil about our disagreements, but life''s not always as you would wish.

As I said on the previous post though, what you, and I and every individual thinks is only relevant in the smaller scheme of things.

[CambridgeCanary 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

King Canary,

I am sorry to disagree with you, but there are a number of people who post on here regularly that will accept no criticism of the Board whatseover and question why a supporter would wish to be disloyal by criticising them at all. I would go further by saying the passion they put in to defending the failure of our off the field activity based strategy borders on the highly suspiscious.

[/quote]

Easy to say but I have no idea who or what you are talking about because I have not seen posts like that.  Quote some specific examples please

[nutty nigel 7,527]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty, I have obviously struck a blow somewhere painful. I can''t for the life of me recall having a go at you for predicting results or disappearing if you had correctly predicted one or two. Disappearing, is that when some of us don''t post for a day or two maybe? Well Nutty, as a family man yourself I am sure you will concede that there are not enough hours in the day for spending every waking hour on this messageboard. I don''t always appear on here after games as I am out with the family or friends. Saturday is my only day off in the week, so it''s precious time to me. If you have been blasted by insensitive posters then I am sorry. We all suffer from it at some time or another. It''s one of the disadvantages of having an opinion and stating it. Most of the time there will be those who don''t agree. I fully support that we should all be civil about our disagreements, but life''s not always as you would wish. As I said on the previous post though, what you, and I and every individual thinks is only relevant in the smaller scheme of things.[/quote]

GazzaTG, the point I was making, obviously poorly, was that I don''t post on here to be right I post on here with my opinion. Of course I believe my opinion is right but then surely do all posters. My point wasn''t about people who don''t post for a day or two, a week or two, a month or two or even ever again. My point was about those posters, and I named them, who taunted me when our team lost (Babes) but either dropped the threads (Crafty) or disappeared completely (Gazza after starting a thread specifically to rub in defeat).

You and I see things differently, I disagree that as individuals we mean nothing to the club. The fans are the most important part of the club. Without the fans we would have no club. Players and managers come and go, kissing our badge one day and another clubs the next, but us fans stay loyal. With a lot of clubs this loyalty is a one way street but at least with our club there is some 2 way traffic. This is because we have fans on the board which means, even though many won’t agree, we are all on the same side. As a group we are important but individually we are too, and I will stand up for any City fan who I feel is being treated unfairly whether it’s Delia or you.

Now if you read through this thread I wonder if you disagree with any points I made about Smith&Jones shares or the amount they have put in. Or is it just a reaction because you believe that I am pro-board so must be of a different view to you. I ask this because if you read what’s written I stated three times that I had no idea whether they had put in 11m or not before my good friend The Butler stated that I believed it unequivocally.

GazzaTG, I believe that the board have made mistakes. The biggest and most costly was Peter Grant and many current problems stem from his year in charge. Fans seem to want them to pay for that, they want their pound of flesh. It’s understandable but it’s not going to happen. They own the club so they have to deal with their mistakes and try and put it right. I don’t see anyone coming in to replace them, contrary to what some would have you believe there hasn’t ever been people queuing up to invest in the club. The only reason they have such a large shareholding is because nobody else wanted those shares. It’s not ideal, it would be better if the shares were distributed among more people but it’s not Delia’s fault that nobody else wanted them and while we don’t have to be grateful for her money, being ungrateful is the thin end of the wedge in my view.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty, I have obviously struck a blow somewhere painful. I can''t for the life of me recall having a go at you for predicting results or disappearing if you had correctly predicted one or two. Disappearing, is that when some of us don''t post for a day or two maybe? Well Nutty, as a family man yourself I am sure you will concede that there are not enough hours in the day for spending every waking hour on this messageboard. I don''t always appear on here after games as I am out with the family or friends. Saturday is my only day off in the week, so it''s precious time to me. If you have been blasted by insensitive posters then I am sorry. We all suffer from it at some time or another. It''s one of the disadvantages of having an opinion and stating it. Most of the time there will be those who don''t agree. I fully support that we should all be civil about our disagreements, but life''s not always as you would wish. As I said on the previous post though, what you, and I and every individual thinks is only relevant in the smaller scheme of things.[/quote]

GazzaTG, the point I was making, obviously poorly, was that I don''t post on here to be right I post on here with my opinion. Of course I believe my opinion is right but then surely do all posters. My point wasn''t about people who don''t post for a day or two, a week or two, a month or two or even ever again. My point was about those posters, and I named them, who taunted me when our team lost (Babes) but either dropped the threads (Crafty) or disappeared completely (Gazza after starting a thread specifically to rub in defeat).

You and I see things differently, I disagree that as individuals we mean nothing to the club. The fans are the most important part of the club. Without the fans we would have no club. Players and managers come and go, kissing our badge one day and another clubs the next, but us fans stay loyal. With a lot of clubs this loyalty is a one way street but at least with our club there is some 2 way traffic. This is because we have fans on the board which means, even though many won’t agree, we are all on the same side. As a group we are important but individually we are too, and I will stand up for any City fan who I feel is being treated unfairly whether it’s Delia or you.

Now if you read through this thread I wonder if you disagree with any points I made about Smith&Jones shares or the amount they have put in. Or is it just a reaction because you believe that I am pro-board so must be of a different view to you. I ask this because if you read what’s written I stated three times that I had no idea whether they had put in 11m or not before my good friend The Butler stated that I believed it unequivocally.

GazzaTG, I believe that the board have made mistakes. The biggest and most costly was Peter Grant and many current problems stem from his year in charge. Fans seem to want them to pay for that, they want their pound of flesh. It’s understandable but it’s not going to happen. They own the club so they have to deal with their mistakes and try and put it right. I don’t see anyone coming in to replace them, contrary to what some would have you believe there hasn’t ever been people queuing up to invest in the club. The only reason they have such a large shareholding is because nobody else wanted those shares. It’s not ideal, it would be better if the shares were distributed among more people but it’s not Delia’s fault that nobody else wanted them and while we don’t have to be grateful for her money, being ungrateful is the thin end of the wedge in my view.

[/quote]

Nuts, if you post to the extent of over 6000 posts in around 2.5 years you must expect to get some ribbing from time to time - particularly if you seem to claim to have a photographic-type memory of our clubs'' history and blast as liars those who do not, and make the odd mistake.

But ribbing - as in ''logic refit'' say - is a long way from ''rubbing it in''.

And even you must admit. for example, on the ownership qualification issues that Auntie is fair game - being born in Surrey and living in Suffolk.

But still. One love.

OTBC

 

[GMF 736]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

I don''t, unfortunately, have copies of the accounts for the years from 1996 to 2001. (If anyone does, I''d be delighted to know).  However, I do have copies of the filed accounts from Companies House for the year ended 31st December 2005. Therein, a certain R. Chase was listed as having 48,063 Ordinary Shares and the Allocated Ordinary Shares totalled 141,000. This equates to the often mentioned 34% shareholding of the former chairman.

We also know that GW had an 8% shareholding (say 11,280 Ordinary Shares) before he purchased RC''s shares. This gives the often reported initial shareholding for D&M of 42%. Whilst I don''t know the exact number of Ordinary Shares purchased by D&M from the combined RC and GW holding, a 42% shareholding would equate to circa 59,434 Ordinary Shares.

We know that D&M owned 327,309 Ordinary Shares as at the 31st May 2008 and TFA''s analysis of D&M''s purchases from 2002 to 2008 correctly identifies they purchased 131,949 Ordinary Shares during that period. However, that still leaves circa 195,360 Ordinary Shares missing from the analysis?

Now, whilst I don''t know what price was actually paid for these shares, if it was £15 a share this would be £2.442M and at £25 a share this would be £4.884M

As for the £11M figure, I thought this was given in a radio interview and has never been given broken down? However, here''s a suggestion:-

Initial GW holding (circa 59,434 shares) £700K. Widely reported, but never been verified.

Pre 2002 share purchases (circa 195,360 shares) at, say, £25 per share. Say £4.884M.

2002 to 2008 oridnary share purchases 131,949 at £25 per share. £3.26M. (I appreciate that there were 1,531 shares purchased in 2007 that weren''t new shares).

Loans outstanding as at 31 May 2008. £196K. (Page 36 of 2008 accounts).

Loans committed after 2008 Year End (from Page 3 of the 2008 accounts) £3M. (This won''t actually be verified until the 2009 accounts are published).

That lot includes a number of assumptions, but actually totals approximately £12M.

[/quote]

You state RC had 48k shares at end 2005 is this correct as I am sure these were sold to GW way before then?

I don''t think £25.00 a share was relevant at prior to 2002 (like you a guess)

Are the loans year end 2008 DS/MWJ''s (Turners?/ Moore)

Just checking as the difference could be as much as 3mil.

Thanks for your efforts that is the FIRST attempt at reconciliation[:D]

[/quote]

My apologies The Butler, and thanks for poiting out the error. Maybe the large G&T numbed the fingers and / or the brain, as I didn''t mean to type "31st December 2005, it should read "31st December 1995."

I used £25 a share as a maximum figure, but it was probably less. As I said before, if anyone has copies of the accounts for the period 1996 to 2001, please feel free to email me or send a personal message.