NCFC Shareholders - A Warning

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][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

[/quote]

Just look through T''s posts over time.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][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

[/quote]

Just look through T''s posts over time.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][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

[/quote]

Just look through T''s posts over time.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][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

[/quote]

Just look through T''s posts over time.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="CambridgeCanary"][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

[/quote]

Just look through T''s posts over time.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Ok which group of Wynnies has taken over this PC?  Lol!  The Chinese branch of the Wynnies fan club? Lol!

[lappinitup 629]

Repeating yourself is a sure sign of old age! I said "repeating yourself is a sure si........

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]Repeating yourself is a sure sign of old age! I said "repeating yourself is a sure si........[/quote]

Lol! 

[Mark .Y. 352]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Yes indeed Butler, another great post from Gazza and I agree with much of it too. Thing is, you two are both friends of mine but you both reply to my posts personally but not to their content. I agree that Munby and Doncaster are here as employees of the club, and know they are not fans like us three or even the other three directors. But they are fans who go all over the country and support the team. Maybe that''s part of being a director, but it''s a sure bet I never saw the Turners on my travels. I made two points about this on my previous post. One was that their qualifications for being a fan were at least as impressive as Darren Huckerby''s and the second one was that in order to have a proper scapegoat it seems to be neccessary to remove the fan status and get them onto a different side.

The point I was making about the shareholding was that they have them because nobody else wanted them. As I remember it before Watling sold them his shares they had been available in smaller parcels but there were no takers so he later sold them on bulk to Smith&Jones. Having brought those shares they from time to time put their money into the in the form of loans which they continually state they never expect to see again. I bet they think it would be nice if they did but wouldn''t you or I be the same?  This in these loans in turn have been transfered into shares, maybe somebody more clued up than me can tell me the difference between a loan you are unlikely to see again rather than shares you are unlikely to ever sell. Now I heard Delia say at last years AGM that they welcome investment whether it means buying all their shares, some of their shares, or none of their shares. It seems to me that the shareholding they have was not obtained through personal greed but through the best interests of the club. Would we rather they hadn''t loaned the club the money in the first place? The point about the few shares that Munby and Doncaster hold is a valid one but shares are available to buy, so someone could come along and buy those shares in return for a seat on the board but I guess nobody wants them just like they didn''t in the 90''s. So having criticised Munby and Doncasters place on the board because of a small shareholding are we now suggesting that we should have people on the board with no shares at all? It''s very inconsistent if that''s the case. I personally would have no problem with fresh faces and fresh ideas on the board, shares or no shares. But of course if they want voting rights above that then they would have to buy shares which are for sale.

Peter Grant had plenty of money Gazza. He just chose to spend it where he did. Worthy told it straight a few months before he was sacked. He said he could buy half a dozen strikers at a hundred grand each but they wouldn''t be good enough to take the club forward. He was shamefully not backed by the board. But he always managed to find a way of getting quality into the club despite the financial constraints hence his final signing of Dion Dublin. Peter Grant blew £800,000 and a huge 3 year contract on Jamie lad. Now forget who he is for a moment, he was nearly 32 years old at the time. Should the board have stepped in and blocked the transfer? Quite possibly but having appointed Grant to run the football side they had to back him. A few months later we found ourselves staring relegation in the face and Grant was sacked. Yes for me Grant was the biggest mistake, it was a shame because I met the guy and he seemed a good man. But those two transfer windows cost the club dearly in my opinion.

As for being grateful to Smith&Jones. For the umpteenth time - I didn''t say we should be grateful, it''s up to them what they do with their money. I am not grateful either. What I said was that being ungrateful was the thin end of the wedge.

Now what part of my post do you two not agree with?

 

[/quote]

I guess the answer to that Nutty, is that by converting them to shares you increase your precentage of the shares issued and therefore eventually get over 50% and, broadly speaking, complete control over the club.

Mark .Y.

  

[nutty nigel 7,555]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Shares and loans is a subject that our tame accountants NO DOUBT will tell you about. Basicaly it is down to assets and liabilities. (a loan is a liability however often you say I don''t want it back!) Shares are not (I think)

I personaly like Roger as you know I know him personaly so ......He is a fan beleive me, can''t say about Doncaster.

Neither of them or Foulger has a hope in hell of going against anything that DS/MWJ wish to push through (I assume they discuss things before a board meeting,in bed or over the morning coffee! that DS/MWJ NOT Munby and Doncaster perish the thought)

Apart from Thorne and one or two others Worthy did all right, Grant is a nice guy but was totaly out of his depth, Roeder they admitted at the recent NCISA they knew was a one off wonder!!

Just bad appointment mistakes. As was phoning to get Worthy back (ignore that please)

Still not sure if the 11 Mil is right or not but can''t find out.

Still don''t know if she will/wont get any money back.

So nothing to argue about then Nutty.

Don''t know why you started all this in the first place[:D][;)]

[/quote]

I''m confused Butler. You said Gazza''s was a great post but it''s my post you agree with [*-)][;)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

[quote user="Mark .Y."]

I guess the answer to that Nutty, is that by converting them to shares you increase your precentage of the shares issued and therefore eventually get over 50% and, broadly speaking, complete control over the club.

Mark .Y.

  

[/quote]

I guess Mark, but they pretty much have that control anyway. What I was trying to get to was where is the advantage in transferring loans into shares? Who does it benefit?

Let''s just say someone loans the club 2 million. The club gets the money and the lender I assume gets a piece of paper with the repayment terms on it. The piece of paper probably say''s that the loan is repayable under certain conditions. Possibly if the club changes ownership or at the end of a given period of time or even upon promotion to the Premiership. Now what is the advantage of converting that loan into shares? Especially shares that nobody will ever want to buy? Which option is more likely to see a return on the investment? The loan or the shares? I am happy to be corrected if I''m wrong because I could be using skewed logic but it seems to me converting the loan into shares at the ridiculously high price they are set at is tantamount to writing much of that money off.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="The Butler"]

Shares and loans is a subject that our tame accountants NO DOUBT will tell you about. Basicaly it is down to assets and liabilities. (a loan is a liability however often you say I don''t want it back!) Shares are not (I think)

I personaly like Roger as you know I know him personaly so ......He is a fan beleive me, can''t say about Doncaster.

Neither of them or Foulger has a hope in hell of going against anything that DS/MWJ wish to push through (I assume they discuss things before a board meeting,in bed or over the morning coffee! that DS/MWJ NOT Munby and Doncaster perish the thought)

Apart from Thorne and one or two others Worthy did all right, Grant is a nice guy but was totaly out of his depth, Roeder they admitted at the recent NCISA they knew was a one off wonder!!

Just bad appointment mistakes. As was phoning to get Worthy back (ignore that please)

Still not sure if the 11 Mil is right or not but can''t find out.

Still don''t know if she will/wont get any money back.

So nothing to argue about then Nutty.

Don''t know why you started all this in the first place[:D][;)]

[/quote]

I''m confused Butler. You said Gazza''s was a great post but it''s my post you agree with [*-)][;)]

[/quote]

Oh dear.

Confused. Again.

Dear oh dear.

Here we go round the mulberry bush
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush
Here we go round the mulberry bush
So early in the morning

This is the way we wash our clothes
Wash our clothes, wash our clothes
This is the way we wash our clothes
So early Monday morning

This is the way we iron our clothes
Iron our clothes, iron our clothes
This is the way we iron our clothes
So early Tuesday morning

This is the way we mend our clothes
Mend our clothes, mend our clothes
This is the way we mend our clothes
So early Wednesday morning

This is the way we sweep the floor
Sweep the floor, sweep the floor
This is the way we sweep the floor
So early Thursday morning

This is the way we scrub the floor
Scrub the floor, scrub the floor
This is the way we scrub the floor
So early Friday morning

This is the way we bake our bread
Bake our bread, bake our bread
This is the way we bake our bread
So early Saturday morning

This is the way we go to church
Go to church, go to church
This is the way we go to church
So early Sunday morning

OTBC

 

 

 

[The Butler 0]

I said Gazzas was a great post. YES

Then read the rest Nutty

Just because I said it was a great post didn''t mean I agreed with it all ,just understood how she felt.

I did not say I agreed with you just that we seem to have arrived at a good point to say...............?

We all seem to be heading in the same direction but with different views of how we arrive, thats life.

Delia will do what she wants to do and no one is in a position to say yes or no or................

Lets just wait and see.

17th sounds good to me Nutster should be nearly safe by then.

One Nutty, one Bly one love!!

[GMF 756]

For anyone who''s interested in the £11M claim, I''ve just realised that my original post excluded the Preference Shares owned by D&M, so here''s a revised version.

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 1995. 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% following their purchase of GW''s shareholding. 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 TFAA''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, £15 to £25 per share. Say £2.442M to £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).

Preference shares purchased in 2003/04 - 3,000 at £100 each equals £300K.

Preference shares purchased in 2006/07 - 25 at £100 each equal £2.5K.

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).

Range somewhere between £9,900,500 and £12,342,500, so take your pick.

Any comments or further input welcomed.

[The Butler 0]

Thanks for that Gazzatcc but you realise that we will need at least 25 verifications of those figures[;)]

That does look from that as if the 11mil throw away figure was as close as a glass of sherry will get you.

That''s one down then. Now if only we could find out what realy happened with Cullum??????

[GMF 756]

I thought only TFAA''s verification was required here? [;)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,555]

That''s fair comment Butler. I understand how she feels too. I feel it too. I feel the same disappointment that she does. It''s a long journey home from Burnley after another defeat. It''s hard come back and face a bit of "gentle ribbing" after midweek trip to Bury and another humiliating FA Cup exit. And I understand how Munby feels after making those trips and coming back to accusations that he is not a Norwich fan. And I understand how Smith&Jones must feel when they get back and find some outrageous accusations made against them on here. But we are all football fans so it seems the normal courtesies of life don''t apply.

It''s been a pleasure to debate this with you and Gazzathegreat. Although I don''t really agree that we are headed for the same place. I think we have all come from the same place which is bitter disappointment. But we have taken our own roads from there.

In the end wait and see is all any of us can do.

I see the accountants have deserted us now. Where are they when we need them? Is GazzaTCC right with his figures? Am I right to assume the club are in a stronger position when Smith&Jones convert their loans into shares? Am I right in thinking that convertion makes it less likely they get their money back?

What happened with Cullum? I have no idea. But why can''t the newspaper that teased us so much last summer make an effort to find out?

 

 

[Camuldonum 0]

Given who Mr Cullum telephoned in the Archant organisation I really don''t think there will be any "finding out."[;)]

 

[Mark .Y. 352]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mark .Y."]

I guess the answer to that Nutty, is that by converting them to shares you increase your precentage of the shares issued and therefore eventually get over 50% and, broadly speaking, complete control over the club.

Mark .Y.

  

[/quote]

I guess Mark, but they pretty much have that control anyway. What I was trying to get to was where is the advantage in transferring loans into shares? Who does it benefit?

Let''s just say someone loans the club 2 million. The club gets the money and the lender I assume gets a piece of paper with the repayment terms on it. The piece of paper probably say''s that the loan is repayable under certain conditions. Possibly if the club changes ownership or at the end of a given period of time or even upon promotion to the Premiership. Now what is the advantage of converting that loan into shares? Especially shares that nobody will ever want to buy? Which option is more likely to see a return on the investment? The loan or the shares? I am happy to be corrected if I''m wrong because I could be using skewed logic but it seems to me converting the loan into shares at the ridiculously high price they are set at is tantamount to writing much of that money off.

 

[/quote]

Just for the record Nutty, I am not a Delia hater or anything like that - I strongly believe that she/MWJ have made many mistakes but have always thought that they have been incompetent rather than devious (or even bordering on the criminal as some seem to think).

As for the shares/loans business - I''m afraid, despite having owned my own limited company, I don''t really know enough about corporate law/governance to fully understand the implications.

What I would say is that I believe (although I stand to be corrected) that before they began converting loans to shares they owned less than 50% so, if that is the case, they have gained complete control over the club by this method. I''m not sure whether that was a "planned" strategy but that is what has happened.

I believe they have also "set" a nominal value of £30 per share which I think would give them a decent return on their investment if they could find a buyer at that price. Given the current financial situation it would appear they are unlikely to find a buyer but that was certainly not the case two-three years ago.

Apart from the control issue, I''m not actually sure that there is much difference between loaning the money and converting it to shares. The reason being that if they had left the money as loans and then decided they wanted it back NCFC would be unable to pay and they would end up writing off the money anyway as we descended into administration. In fairness, it is probably a no-win situation for them. The only realistic way of getting their money back is by selling the club or establishing it in the Premiership where there would at least be much more potential to sell some/all of their shares at the right price for them.  

 

Mark .Y.

      

[Jim Smith 2,325]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

That''s fair comment Butler. I understand how she feels too. I feel it too. I feel the same disappointment that she does. It''s a long journey home from Burnley after another defeat. It''s hard come back and face a bit of "gentle ribbing" after midweek trip to Bury and another humiliating FA Cup exit. And I understand how Munby feels after making those trips and coming back to accusations that he is not a Norwich fan. And I understand how Smith&Jones must feel when they get back and find some outrageous accusations made against them on here. But we are all football fans so it seems the normal courtesies of life don''t apply.

It''s been a pleasure to debate this with you and Gazzathegreat. Although I don''t really agree that we are headed for the same place. I think we have all come from the same place which is bitter disappointment. But we have taken our own roads from there.

In the end wait and see is all any of us can do.

I see the accountants have deserted us now. Where are they when we need them? Is GazzaTCC right with his figures? Am I right to assume the club are in a stronger position when Smith&Jones convert their loans into shares? Am I right in thinking that convertion makes it less likely they get their money back?

What happened with Cullum? I have no idea. But why can''t the newspaper that teased us so much last summer make an effort to find out?

 

 

[/quote]

 

I guess for the main part yes converting the loans to shares helps the club because they are not a creditor who can call in their loan whenever they want. The only way they can get that money back out is by finding someone who is prepared to buy their shares.

Conversely though what it has done has given them complete control of the club and in many ways made it much harder for someone to come in and take us over so there is a a degree of swings and roundabouts.

I don''t subscribe to the theory they have always been in it to make money or there was some sort of sinister motive behind the conversion of the loans into shares. I think they did it for genuine reasons which were to help the club. I think people that make accusations otherwise end up looking a bit stupid. Similarly i don''t believe they have deliberately made any of the well documented mistakes that have led us to the state we are in now.

My concern is, and has been for some time now, whether they are clinging on to their position/have not been receptive to investment to the detriment of the club. Whether that be because they want to see some money back or simply don''t want to give up "their baby" I don''t know but thats my concern. They may be receptive now (although i would still like to know on what terms harris has been told to seek investment - not convinced its for a new owner) but I certainly get the impression that they have not been and fear it is now too late.

 

[GMF 756]

Nutty, to answer your question, "Are GazzaTCC''s figures right?" the answer is almost certainly "no" because I''ve had to make a number of assumptions along the way. If someone had accounts for 1996 to 2001 it would clear up some of the uncertainties, but still wouldn''t give the complete answer.

The reason why I did the exercise in the first place was because I was surprised at the £11M figure. When I then looked at TFAA''s figures I realised that there was a gap in his analysis and I was only last weekend that I stumbled upon the historic accounts, lurking in the depths of my home office, for the period to 31st December 1995.

Armed with this information, I drafted out the figures I''ve given and was surprised to learn that indeed it is possible to get to £11M, if the various assumptions are correct. The exercise is not intended to be the gospel of NCFC accounts and I''d welcome any comments or further analysis thereof.   

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

This has been a truly great read, with some of the finest posts I''ve ever seen from Nutty, Gazza and others.And Nutty, although I don''t entirely agree with you, over time the dignity and logic with which have hallmarked your posts since I''ve read this board, have singlehandedly forced me to see more than my own agenda, and take a more balanced position. Such that now, as Ive said in previous threads, I''ve come to disown my previous ire towards the board as people, with disappointment and actually, real sorrow for them. In their football roles, they are well meaning amateurs who have had a succession of decisions fall through on them, when they could have each paid off, and although this still leaves them here in 2009 with a legacy of failure (and FWIW I would just like to hear you agree with that basic analysis one day Nutty) I too, like you, find much of the abuse, anger and even hatred toward them as people totally irrational and unacceptable.What is certain, now, is that new ideas and fresh input are needed at the top level of NCFC, be they internal or externally sourced.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Peter Thorne"]This has been a truly great read, with some of the finest posts I''ve ever seen from Nutty, Gazza and others.

And Nutty, although I don''t entirely agree with you, over time the dignity and logic with which have hallmarked your posts since I''ve read this board, have singlehandedly forced me to see more than my own agenda, and take a more balanced position. Such that now, as Ive said in previous threads, I''ve come to disown my previous ire towards the board as people, with disappointment and actually, real sorrow for them. In their football roles, they are well meaning amateurs who have had a succession of decisions fall through on them, when they could have each paid off, and although this still leaves them here in 2009 with a legacy of failure (and FWIW I would just like to hear you agree with that basic analysis one day Nutty) I too, like you, find much of the abuse, anger and even hatred toward them as people totally irrational and unacceptable.

What is certain, now, is that new ideas and fresh input are needed at the top level of NCFC, be they internal or externally sourced.
[/quote]

Just read the whole thread again (help!!)

I can''t find one * or nasty insult or........ just reasoned adult (sorry mello) discussion on a subject we all hold close to our hearts.

The whole point of debate is to listen to arguments and with an open mind, arrive  perhaps at a different destination than the one you set out for.

I have enjoyed the jousting and will enjoy the pint with Nutty even more!! Particularly if we are in a safer league position[:D]

[nutty nigel 7,555]

I’ve enjoyed this thread too Butler my friend. Despite a couple of distractions(that I’m often too willing to get involved in) the thread has moved along and certainly opened up some new angles. I reckon the reason why we have got this far is because there was no game last weekend to take us to either the heights of euphoria or the depths of despair.

Mark Y and Jim Smith - I know you are no Delia haters or anything like that. I agree that the conversion of loans into shares has taken their majority holding to a ridiculous level. I just don’t believe it makes a lot of difference in their case. As I understand it all decisions in the boardroom are taken one man one vote rather than by the shareholdings.

Going back to the 90’s Big Bob did not have total control of the club via his shares but he was a big strong character who took hold of the club through his personality. This was eventually what got him into trouble I guess, because although he had his advisors, I am given to understand that in the Boardroom what Big Bob wanted Big Bob got. So not having a majority shareholding couldn’t stop the mistakes he made just as having that holding hasn’t stopped the mistakes Smith&Jones have made. Strangely I think one of the things lacking now is that big strong personality at the top but back then it was his downfall. Out of the five we have there is nobody you’d really want to lead the troops over the top is there? All nice honest people who have my respect but not a real leader amongst them. Anyway, their shareholding is not a real issue to me because in truth they only hold those shares because nobody else wants to buy them.

In fact the way I remember it Watling only sold them all his shares because when they were for sale in smaller amounts there were no takers. As has been pointed out their subsequent conversion of loans into shares has certainly not been for their gain and was in fact the best option for the club. I don’t believe they set the price of the shares at £30 either. The way I understand it is that at some point the club was valued at 16m. This figure is then divided by the number of shares and resulting price is £30 per share but I am happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. So if we have wanted their loans and given that nobody else stepped forward in the first place I think it’s pretty safe to assume that their actions have always been in the best interests of the club and never for personal gain. As I keep saying - they chose to do it and we don’t have to be grateful, but some of the stuff levelled at them on here is downright ungrateful which is shameful in my opinion.

GazzaTCC - I know your figures are just a shot in the dark but good on ya for trying. Too many people seem to think everything pre 2002 is The Old Testament and been over written. I wish I’d kept things from way back too. I remember the letter Robert Chase sent to all shareholders in 1996 when he reckoned we could still make the play-offs. It was fantasy land for sure but proof if you ever wanted it that Big Bob was a fan like us.

Peter Thorne - Thank you for that post because I’m glad to know that my posts make some sense. They are a reflection of me because I don’t come on this board pretending to be anyone else. (‘cept Alf Stewart and Maggie at times). To answer your point I won’t accept that Smith&Jones are well meaning amateurs now although the have admitted they were when they started out just like we all would be. They are now experienced football club owners who have guided the club through an extremely difficult 12 years including the meteoric rise of the Premiership to where it is now, the collapse of ITV Digital that sent Championship Clubs to the wall, the advent of the transfer window (which I don’t believe we handled too well at first) and the changes to players contracts and the loan market (which we haven’t done too well at either). Far from being amateurs they are probably now as experienced as it gets. I never have said they haven’t made mistakes but I don’t blame them for everything that goes wrong. They will hold their hands up to Grant being a mistake and he was, I think, their biggest. But Roeder did what he was brought in to do last season and because that I guess he deserved his chance this. But all boards make mistakes when appointing managers because it’s not an exact science. The place to look for your proof in that is our good friend and every ones favourite wealthy football knowledgeable owner Milan Mandaric who, for all his knowledge and wealth has only ever had success with ‘arry. In fact without ‘arry Portsmouth were where we are year in year out under a succession of dud managers and he repeated the trick with Leicester. We better hope that our board can get lucky more then their one Worthy time.

I agree we need new ideas. We have a fresh management team so a fresh couple of faces in the boardroom would be good but don’t expect them to want to buy any shares!

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I’ve enjoyed this thread too Butler my friend. Despite a couple of distractions(that I’m often too willing to get involved in) the thread has moved along and certainly opened up some new angles. I reckon the reason why we have got this far is because there was no game last weekend to take us to either the heights of euphoria or the depths of despair.

Mark Y and Jim Smith - I know you are no Delia haters or anything like that. I agree that the conversion of loans into shares has taken their majority holding to a ridiculous level. I just don’t believe it makes a lot of difference in their case. As I understand it all decisions in the boardroom are taken one man one vote rather than by the shareholdings.

Going back to the 90’s Big Bob did not have total control of the club via his shares but he was a big strong character who took hold of the club through his personality. This was eventually what got him into trouble I guess, because although he had his advisors, I am given to understand that in the Boardroom what Big Bob wanted Big Bob got. So not having a majority shareholding couldn’t stop the mistakes he made just as having that holding hasn’t stopped the mistakes Smith&Jones have made. Strangely I think one of the things lacking now is that big strong personality at the top but back then it was his downfall. Out of the five we have there is nobody you’d really want to lead the troops over the top is there? All nice honest people who have my respect but not a real leader amongst them. Anyway, their shareholding is not a real issue to me because in truth they only hold those shares because nobody else wants to buy them.

In fact the way I remember it Watling only sold them all his shares because when they were for sale in smaller amounts there were no takers. As has been pointed out their subsequent conversion of loans into shares has certainly not been for their gain and was in fact the best option for the club. I don’t believe they set the price of the shares at £30 either. The way I understand it is that at some point the club was valued at 16m. This figure is then divided by the number of shares and resulting price is £30 per share but I am happy to be corrected if I’m wrong. So if we have wanted their loans and given that nobody else stepped forward in the first place I think it’s pretty safe to assume that their actions have always been in the best interests of the club and never for personal gain. As I keep saying - they chose to do it and we don’t have to be grateful, but some of the stuff levelled at them on here is downright ungrateful which is shameful in my opinion.

GazzaTCC - I know your figures are just a shot in the dark but good on ya for trying. Too many people seem to think everything pre 2002 is The Old Testament and been over written. I wish I’d kept things from way back too. I remember the letter Robert Chase sent to all shareholders in 1996 when he reckoned we could still make the play-offs. It was fantasy land for sure but proof if you ever wanted it that Big Bob was a fan like us.

Peter Thorne - Thank you for that post because I’m glad to know that my posts make some sense. They are a reflection of me because I don’t come on this board pretending to be anyone else. (‘cept Alf Stewart and Maggie at times). To answer your point I won’t accept that Smith&Jones are well meaning amateurs now although the have admitted they were when they started out just like we all would be. They are now experienced football club owners who have guided the club through an extremely difficult 12 years including the meteoric rise of the Premiership to where it is now, the collapse of ITV Digital that sent Championship Clubs to the wall, the advent of the transfer window (which I don’t believe we handled too well at first) and the changes to players contracts and the loan market (which we haven’t done too well at either). Far from being amateurs they are probably now as experienced as it gets. I never have said they haven’t made mistakes but I don’t blame them for everything that goes wrong. They will hold their hands up to Grant being a mistake and he was, I think, their biggest. But Roeder did what he was brought in to do last season and because that I guess he deserved his chance this. But all boards make mistakes when appointing managers because it’s not an exact science. The place to look for your proof in that is our good friend and every ones favourite wealthy football knowledgeable owner Milan Mandaric who, for all his knowledge and wealth has only ever had success with ‘arry. In fact without ‘arry Portsmouth were where we are year in year out under a succession of dud managers and he repeated the trick with Leicester. We better hope that our board can get lucky more then their one Worthy time.

I agree we need new ideas. We have a fresh management team so a fresh couple of faces in the boardroom would be good but don’t expect them to want to buy any shares!

[/quote]

The problem is that morphing from ''amateurs'' into ''experienced football club owners'' has not made them into leaders with the desirable drive and force of character.

In my humble view what is needed is leadership & drive with a vision for our club that is at once ambitious, rooted in the determined & visible pursuit of realisable goals, and validated by astute and resolute benchmarking. Unfortunately this will not happen by the substitution (or addition) of a couple or so of non- or minority- shareholding board members.

Our best chance of success with Smith & Jones in place is to convince them to replace Neil Doncaster as Chief Executive with a  man/woman oozing character, leadership skills and competence who they can trust and leave alone to get on with it - bound only by policy.

Then, if Team Gunn can save us from the drop and gel the parts together in what I like to term the Norwich way, we may have a fair chance of soaring again - even without a new sugar daddy (or mummy).

At least ambition would become visible, thus restoring unity. 

OTBC

P.S. This is in no way an attack on Neil Doncaster who I believe in general has done a fairly solid job. But........I think he''s had his time and should move on as he is just not the man for this new paradigm. 

As I wrote above, if Smith & Jones can''t provide the leadership style and substance that is needed in our current circumstances, then the only other alternative is via a suitable, new Chief Executive.

 

  

[gazzathegreat 0]

Well, apart from the figures, which I don''t pretend to understand I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. As has been said by a few, it''s good to debate and argue without throwing personal insults at one another. IMO to do that is a sign of weakness. We can use opinions, even facts to back up our views, but calling someone we don''t agree with insulting names doesn''t make our own point of view anymore valid, in fact it makes it less so.

Nutty, re the democracy in the boardroom, this was part of a question I asked Munby and Doncaster recently (NCISA forum) and while they answered that indeed it was one person one vote, the five of them don''t give me any confidence, whatever way that vote may come out. At the end of it, it comes down to two of them having total control over whatever decision has to be reached. Again I still don''t agree that D and M hold 62% of the shares because they are the only people who want to buy, as I have said before it''s all about terms and conditions. There are plenty of us who bought them during the two most recent share issues, but sadly all of us can''t afford to buy £100,000 worth at one go. And where do you stand with Doncaster and Munby on the board with just over 100 shares each? I know quite a few people who have more shares than those two who never get to make decisions about the club. As I said and will continue to say, the board of directors are not democratic. They are not fit to run the club, they maybe well intentioned, but they have not taken the club forward, despite their best efforts and sadly we have gone backwards due to a catalogue of their errors and costly mistakes. Changes must be made at the top, wherever we find ourselves next season.

Smith and Jones well meaning amateurs yes. Experienced club owners? Okay they are experienced at presiding over the club but have not learned from their mistakes. Again and again appointing managers (mainly failing to stay the course or progress) and where are we? Are we better off for their tenure. Club in league, club debt? You decide.

As for new people on the board - again, two of them have hardly any shares and they are there making decisions this club lives and dies by. So why not appoint four or five more? Someone (please, I am on bended knees) that is strong, resolute and has some idea of financial planning, someone with some history in football management perhaps who can oversee the management team. And most of all someone proactive. I wonder, am I alone is being heartedly sickened by one season after another of just stumbling from one crisis to the next?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Well, apart from the figures, which I don''t pretend to understand I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. As has been said by a few, it''s good to debate and argue without throwing personal insults at one another. IMO to do that is a sign of weakness. We can use opinions, even facts to back up our views, but calling someone we don''t agree with insulting names doesn''t make our own point of view anymore valid, in fact it makes it less so. Nutty, re the democracy in the boardroom, this was part of a question I asked Munby and Doncaster recently (NCISA forum) and while they answered that indeed it was one person one vote, the five of them don''t give me any confidence, whatever way that vote may come out. At the end of it, it comes down to two of them having total control over whatever decision has to be reached. Again I still don''t agree that D and M hold 62% of the shares because they are the only people who want to buy, as I have said before it''s all about terms and conditions. There are plenty of us who bought them during the two most recent share issues, but sadly all of us can''t afford to buy £100,000 worth at one go. And where do you stand with Doncaster and Munby on the board with just over 100 shares each? I know quite a few people who have more shares than those two who never get to make decisions about the club. As I said and will continue to say, the board of directors are not democratic. They are not fit to run the club, they maybe well intentioned, but they have not taken the club forward, despite their best efforts and sadly we have gone backwards due to a catalogue of their errors and costly mistakes. Changes must be made at the top, wherever we find ourselves next season. Smith and Jones well meaning amateurs yes. Experienced club owners? Okay they are experienced at presiding over the club but have not learned from their mistakes. Again and again appointing managers (mainly failing to stay the course or progress) and where are we? Are we better off for their tenure. Club in league, club debt? You decide. As for new people on the board - again, two of them have hardly any shares and they are there making decisions this club lives and dies by. So why not appoint four or five more? Someone (please, I am on bended knees) that is strong, resolute and has some idea of financial planning, someone with some history in football management perhaps who can oversee the management team. And most of all someone proactive. I wonder, am I alone is being heartedly sickened by one season after another of just stumbling from one crisis to the next?[/quote]

Again there are many points I agree with Gazza

Some fresh blood, with or without shares, might bring a more dynamic thought process to the board.

I don''t think there is the money out there at present that would be risked on a "mass" purchase of shares so what are we left with.

Perhaps DS/MWJ will stay as figure heads with their large share base intact and perhaps appoint a trusted one or two new people to run the club while they bask in the new glory!

We can but hope and dream.

At present most businesses are tightening down and looking to maintain as much as they can whilst they ride out this economic storm. Our club, perhaps needs to do the same. maintain status , while building a base for the future via new signings (some) and some very good youth products.

If we can do that, then the present although far from good, will at least give us hope for the future.

[Mello Yello 2,298]

[quote user="The Butler"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Well, apart from the figures, which I don''t pretend to understand I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. As has been said by a few, it''s good to debate and argue without throwing personal insults at one another. IMO to do that is a sign of weakness. We can use opinions, even facts to back up our views, but calling someone we don''t agree with insulting names doesn''t make our own point of view anymore valid, in fact it makes it less so. Nutty, re the democracy in the boardroom, this was part of a question I asked Munby and Doncaster recently (NCISA forum) and while they answered that indeed it was one person one vote, the five of them don''t give me any confidence, whatever way that vote may come out. At the end of it, it comes down to two of them having total control over whatever decision has to be reached. Again I still don''t agree that D and M hold 62% of the shares because they are the only people who want to buy, as I have said before it''s all about terms and conditions. There are plenty of us who bought them during the two most recent share issues, but sadly all of us can''t afford to buy £100,000 worth at one go. And where do you stand with Doncaster and Munby on the board with just over 100 shares each? I know quite a few people who have more shares than those two who never get to make decisions about the club. As I said and will continue to say, the board of directors are not democratic. They are not fit to run the club, they maybe well intentioned, but they have not taken the club forward, despite their best efforts and sadly we have gone backwards due to a catalogue of their errors and costly mistakes. Changes must be made at the top, wherever we find ourselves next season. Smith and Jones well meaning amateurs yes. Experienced club owners? Okay they are experienced at presiding over the club but have not learned from their mistakes. Again and again appointing managers (mainly failing to stay the course or progress) and where are we? Are we better off for their tenure. Club in league, club debt? You decide. As for new people on the board - again, two of them have hardly any shares and they are there making decisions this club lives and dies by. So why not appoint four or five more? Someone (please, I am on bended knees) that is strong, resolute and has some idea of financial planning, someone with some history in football management perhaps who can oversee the management team. And most of all someone proactive. I wonder, am I alone is being heartedly sickened by one season after another of just stumbling from one crisis to the next?[/quote]

Again there are many points I agree with Gazza

Some fresh blood, with or without shares, might bring a more dynamic thought process to the board.

I don''t think there is the money out there at present that would be risked on a "mass" purchase of shares so what are we left with.

Perhaps DS/MWJ will stay as figure heads with their large share base intact and perhaps appoint a trusted one or two new people to run the club while they bask in the new glory!

We can but hope and dream.

At present most businesses are tightening down and looking to maintain as much as they can whilst they ride out this economic storm. Our club, perhaps needs to do the same. maintain status , while building a base for the future via new signings (some) and some very good youth products.

If we can do that, then the present although far from good, will at least give us hope for the future.

[/quote]

I personally believe that Delia desires further investment  - but that she also wishes to remain as the ''figurehead'' of NCFC.....I don''t actually believe that her and Micky want to relinquish the reins.......and, that they also want everything on their terms, and even before the ''credit crunch'' transpired, they had (and have) no immediate wish to stand-down or move aside.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Well, apart from the figures, which I don''t pretend to understand I have enjoyed contributing to this thread. As has been said by a few, it''s good to debate and argue without throwing personal insults at one another. IMO to do that is a sign of weakness. We can use opinions, even facts to back up our views, but calling someone we don''t agree with insulting names doesn''t make our own point of view anymore valid, in fact it makes it less so. Nutty, re the democracy in the boardroom, this was part of a question I asked Munby and Doncaster recently (NCISA forum) and while they answered that indeed it was one person one vote, the five of them don''t give me any confidence, whatever way that vote may come out. At the end of it, it comes down to two of them having total control over whatever decision has to be reached. Again I still don''t agree that D and M hold 62% of the shares because they are the only people who want to buy, as I have said before it''s all about terms and conditions. There are plenty of us who bought them during the two most recent share issues, but sadly all of us can''t afford to buy £100,000 worth at one go. And where do you stand with Doncaster and Munby on the board with just over 100 shares each? I know quite a few people who have more shares than those two who never get to make decisions about the club. As I said and will continue to say, the board of directors are not democratic. They are not fit to run the club, they maybe well intentioned, but they have not taken the club forward, despite their best efforts and sadly we have gone backwards due to a catalogue of their errors and costly mistakes. Changes must be made at the top, wherever we find ourselves next season. Smith and Jones well meaning amateurs yes. Experienced club owners? Okay they are experienced at presiding over the club but have not learned from their mistakes. Again and again appointing managers (mainly failing to stay the course or progress) and where are we? Are we better off for their tenure. Club in league, club debt? You decide. As for new people on the board - again, two of them have hardly any shares and they are there making decisions this club lives and dies by. So why not appoint four or five more? Someone (please, I am on bended knees) that is strong, resolute and has some idea of financial planning, someone with some history in football management perhaps who can oversee the management team. And most of all someone proactive. I wonder, am I alone is being heartedly sickened by one season after another of just stumbling from one crisis to the next?[/quote]

 

No, you''re not alone in that Gazza. I think most of us are being ground down by the constant struggle to halt the slide rather than moving forwards. While I accept that much of what goes on within the club is not for public consumption, I do feel that a little more transparency in the summer could have saved a lot of grief later on with regard to Cullumgate. In my business life I have developed a pretty clear view of Peter Cullum and his modus operandi, and accept that he is a very shrewd manipulator of the media. Unfortunately, I believe that he has been able to garner a great deal of positive PR at the expense of the club, while giving nothing back. In fact, I believe that he may well have caused a fair amount of damage, particularly with regard to the breakdown of the Gow deal, if reports of Gow''s agent jacking up the asking price on the basis that we were about to become wealthy are correct. One can only speculate as to what we could have achieved had we had Gow for the whole season.

The board seem to have developed a siege mentality, making their occasional public appearances more torrid than necessary, but their real failing is the disastrous appointments of Grant and Roeder, although the lack of sufficient finance would have been a handicap to any manager. I did not welcome the appointment of Gunn but have to accept that, thus far, he has got us moving in the right direction, but if we stay up we have to move towards the development of a team of our own, rather than the constant revolving door of the loan system (although ironically it will be loans, in the form of Mooney, Gow and Lee, who are likely to get the goals we need to survive).

At the end of the day, I''m just a fan, I don''t have any real insight into the inner workings of the club, and wouldn''t claim that my opinions carry as much validity as someone like Nutty, for example. However, I would like to see a fans'' representative on the board, which in itself would improve public relations.At the end of the day, the fans are vital to the club''s progress and I would welcome another share issue as a means of increasing the democratisation of the club. I also feel that we need to see change in the Chief Executive position. Neil Doncaster has no charisma and is clearly intent on building his career at the FA. I do not believe that his heart is truly in NCFC, and feel that we need more dynamism in that position. As for Delia and Michael, they have put huge amounts of money into the club and do not deserve the personal abuse that they often get on here, but I cringe at some of Delia''s media comments. Having said that, do I want a fan at the head of the club or a corporate chancer? The answer is clearly the former, but perhaps as a figurehead, rather than as someone who calls all the shots. The only thing I am sure of is that I don''t want to continue this Groundhog Day of struggle and backsliding.

[nutty nigel 7,555]

I wasn''t going to come back to this thread because I was happy where it was left. I accept that us fans see things differently. Some get more angry although the hurt is the same. Some feel the need to blame more than others. But Beaus my friend, your opinion, in fact anyones opinion is surely as valid as the next posters. I would never challenge anyones opinion unless I felt it was being backed up by myths as I believed some were on here. Where I came into the thread was to refute the claim of the opening poster who said that Delia had always put a high price on her shares. There were then claims that Delia had made misleading statements about her input into the club so we debated that. And we debated whether she had lied when she said she didn''t expect to see her money again. We debated whether the board were fans because I felt those allegations were wrong. Now I guess where me and Gazza are is the same place but with different levels of anger and blame. I can live with that. Although I still feel that Smith&Jones are the only people prepared to buy shares in large quantities. Even back in the 90''s nobody else wanted those shares. And did they not underwrite two subsequent share issues?

It seems these days that business is as important as football to a lot of fans. I guess it has to be that way now that administration has become part of the consideration for league placings. Most football clubs owners are hardnosed business people or they have to put a business team in place. It''s where we are and we have to live with it. But my heart lives in another age, an age where we could have a real peoples man in charge of the club. A Labour Councillor who became the City''s youngest Lord Mayor. As Mayer he launched a public appeal and raised the money to save the club. A Knight of the Realm who had the Freedom of the City and was Chairman of our club at a time when we could even buy players who scored in World Cup Finals. I doubt Sir Arthur could have afforded Delia''s shares, or could have operated in todays big business environment, but he always gave us a football team to be proud of.