Heart FM tomorrow morning between 6 and 9

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

Icoopius, if you are asking if £20m would be enough to buy a majority of the shares then, yes, it would. It would be enough to buy a majority holding, whether of existing shares or new shares. For existing shares it would actually mean paying well over the current £30 price. How much over would depend on how many you bought. In the case of new shares, £20m would roughly get you 660,000 shares at £30 each - enough for a reasonable majority.

[i,coopius 0]

of course, i would imagine whether, they were new or old shares, paid for over the odds or not would largely be irrelevant if the majority shareholder, who''s authorisation would be needed to acquire a controlling interest, is not interested in selling, all or part of their shares, or recommending issuing new shares for the interested party to purchase.which is why i would agree with anyone who suggests it is a good idea (thereby creating a healthy basis for strength and success)for no one to have a controlling share percentage of any company that could be said to be of close interest, and with integral ties to a community, (especially anyone who says this circa 1995)

[gazzathegreat 0]

Whoever is in charge, past, present or future, we simply cannot have a majority shareholder again. Taking Chase as our benchmark we know have Delia going the same way, her stance on doing all she can to prevent investment is backfiring on the club she claims to love. IF she was sincere in her wishes to bring in investment she would have listened to Cullum, and perhaps many others unknown to us.

We don''t know if Cullum, or anyone else would run the club any better, but at least, we as fans (and in many cases shareholders) should at the very least be respected enough to be afforded the truth and be told just exactly what is going on. At present we have nothing more than a dictatorship (again) at Carrow Road, with Delia and her husband using an expensive shield in Doncaster to continue to attempt to put us all off the scent and pacify the rest.

Congratulations all round to all of those still doing the digging on this, may the truth come out someday, hopefully very soon.

[Soldier on 160]

Lets hope so and not a day too soon.  We need the truth and Archant should be doing far more to get it rather than cosying up to the club.  I couldnt care less if we never here a norwich player interviewed again so long as the club is doing well

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Whoever is in charge, past, present or future, we simply cannot have a majority shareholder again.[/quote]Gazza, it was Cullum''s stated intention to be exactly that - the majority shareholder. Just as he is at his own company, Towergate.Moreover, it would be surprising if anyone else contemplating a serious financial offer for the club would want anything less.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="gazzathegreat"]Whoever is in charge, past, present or future, we simply cannot have a majority shareholder again.[/quote]

Gazza, it was Cullum''s stated intention to be exactly that - the majority shareholder. Just as he is at his own company, Towergate.

Moreover, it would be surprising if anyone else contemplating a serious financial offer for the club would want anything less.[/quote]

If somebody is putting in significantly more finance than others then of course we are going to have a majority shareholder and rightly so.

It does not mean that we should have all the lies, spin and bull that constantly comes out of Carrow Road though.

If Cullum invested £20 million and somebody a few years down the line came in wanting to invest £50 million then Cullum should need to match that or shift on over.

Being a plc the club should be far more open with it''s other shareholders.

The facts have now found their way out that we have been lied to twice... how many more times???

 

[Smudger 0]

I have seen Archant''s very weak article by Dan Grimmer today.

A very weak story which seems to contradict what the messageboards Pete posted on here yesterday.

Where are the links to the full story that was supposedly published last year by the EDP?

Also have Archant reporters spoken to Mr Tweed in person?  This article just gives the impression that they have stolen Heart FM''s story without trying to get any futher facts themselves.

Heart FM spoke to Mr Tweed last Thursday (no today).  What have Archant done in the last week to follow up this story???

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Whoever is in charge, past, present or future, we simply cannot have a majority shareholder again. Taking Chase as our benchmark we know have Delia going the same way, .[/quote]

Chase never had a majority shareholding only Delia & MWJ.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Smudger"]If Cullum invested £20 million and somebody a few years down the line came in wanting to invest £50 million then Cullum should need to match that or shift on over.[/quote]Writing off his £20m as you want the Smiths to? Yep, that should encourage him to invest in the first place. You really ''aint too bright are you smudger! [:(]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"]If Cullum invested £20 million and somebody a few years down the line came in wanting to invest £50 million then Cullum should need to match that or shift on over.[/quote]Writing off his £20m as you want the Smiths to? Yep, that should encourage him to invest in the first place. You really ''aint too bright are you smudger! [:(][/quote]

Is exactly the way that all businesses work Lapp... if you think otherwise then you are not too bright old fella.

You said in our meetings at the pub that you have previously ran businesses?

Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?

I am sure Mr Cullum realises the way business works by now... [;)]

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="gazzathegreat"]Whoever is in charge, past, present or future, we simply cannot have a majority shareholder again.[/quote]

Gazza, it was Cullum''s stated intention to be exactly that - the majority shareholder. Just as he is at his own company, Towergate.

Moreover, it would be surprising if anyone else contemplating a serious financial offer for the club would want anything less.[/quote]

If somebody is putting in significantly more finance than others then of course we are going to have a majority shareholder and rightly so.

It does not mean that we should have all the lies, spin and bull that constantly comes out of Carrow Road though.

If Cullum invested £20 million and somebody a few years down the line came in wanting to invest £50 million then Cullum should need to match that or shift on over.

Being a plc the club should be far more open with it''s other shareholders.

The facts have now found their way out that we have been lied to twice... how many more times???

 

[/quote]

BUMP!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Smudger"]If Cullum invested £20 million and somebody a few years down the line came in wanting to invest £50 million then Cullum should need to match that or shift on over.[/quote]Writing off his £20m as you want the Smiths to? Yep, that should encourage him to invest in the first place. You really ''aint too bright are you smudger! [:(][/quote]

Is exactly the way that all businesses work Lapp... if you think otherwise then you are not too bright old fella.

You said in our meetings at the pub that you have previously ran businesses?

Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?

I am sure Mr Cullum realises the way business works by now... [;)]

[/quote]

PS... Everything I said above and double it for struggling businesses LAPP... which you no doubt will agree NCFC have been for quite some time now???

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Smudger"]Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?[/quote]Now read that sentence again smudger because you have it factually correct for once. Congratulations. [Y]

Only problem as I see it, Cullum didn''t actually offer D&M anything but simply asked them to sign over the business to him whereas you are implying that he had actually offered them that money. He generously offered to keep Delia as a "figurehead" knowing that if she was still around, the catering enterprise would remain profitable. How kind.

I guess he was "hopeful" that they were "gullible".

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user=Shifty Sid]You don''t need to listen to the station, listen to the interview here: http://mediaweb.musicradio.com/player/default.asp?s=15&e=92764[/quote]

well worth a listen [Y]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="Smudger"]Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?[/quote]Now read that sentence again smudger because you have it factually correct for once. Congratulations. [Y]

Only problem as I see it, Cullum didn''t actually offer D&M anything but simply asked them to sign over the business to him whereas you are implying that he had actually offered them that money. He generously offered to keep Delia as a "figurehead" knowing that if she was still around, the catering enterprise would remain profitable. How kind.

I guess he was "hopeful" that they were "gullible".

[/quote]

PLease read again Lapp, because you haven''t quite grasped it yet have you?

I never said that he offered Delia & Michael anything for their shares and he SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EITHER.

He offered twice the amount of investment in to NCFC as Delia & Michael have ever done, therefore new shares should of been crerated or whatever needed to be done should of been done to ensure that Peter Cullum''s £20 million did not remain in his bank account but was used to better the fortunes of NCFC.

It has nothing to do with Delia & Michael being gullible as I am sure they are not.  What it does mean though is that they clearly put their business interests ahead of the interests of NCFC and it''s fans.

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="Smudger"]Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?[/quote]Now read that sentence again smudger because you have it factually correct for once. Congratulations. [Y]

Only problem as I see it, Cullum didn''t actually offer D&M anything but simply asked them to sign over the business to him whereas you are implying that he had actually offered them that money. He generously offered to keep Delia as a "figurehead" knowing that if she was still around, the catering enterprise would remain profitable. How kind.

I guess he was "hopeful" that they were "gullible".

[/quote]

PLease read again Lapp, because you haven''t quite grasped it yet have you?

I never said that he offered Delia & Michael anything for their shares and he SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EITHER.

He offered twice the amount of investment in to NCFC as Delia & Michael have ever done, therefore new shares should of been crerated or whatever needed to be done should of been done to ensure that Peter Cullum''s £20 million did not remain in his bank account but was used to better the fortunes of NCFC.

It has nothing to do with Delia & Michael being gullible as I am sure they are not.  What it does mean though is that they clearly put their business interests ahead of the interests of NCFC and it''s fans.

[/quote]

Delia and Co aren''t gullible it''s they that have made the fans so gullible, and PC''s £20 million would very probably have put us into the Premier League instead of being relegated so, in the end relegation and our current plight is down to the owners of this club without a shadow of a doubt. And I think the offer of £20 million is a lot more than twice the amount the current owners have ever put in. Several times in recent history we have been at a crossroad and each time we have turned the wrong way. Failure to back the 1993 team with funds resulting in relegation 2 years later. Failure to back the team that went up in 2004, resulting in relegation a year later,and failure to realise that we were in serious decline and accept investment/sell up in 2007

[Smudger 0]

BUMP

I see that Arhcant and a vast majority of fans are still trying to ignore this thread?

Well it will keep on being pushed under your noses until something is actually done about it.

[bloodwagon 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]BUMP

I see that Arhcant and a vast majority of fans are still trying to ignore this thread?

Well it will keep on being pushed under your noses until something is actually done about it.[/quote]Sorry "Done about it "  ????Like what may i ask

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

[quote user="Smudger"]Now if somebody was to of offered you twice as much money as you had of invested in each of your businesses yourself would you not expect them to become a majority shareholder of that business?[/quote]Now read that sentence again smudger because you have it factually correct for once. Congratulations. [Y]

Only problem as I see it, Cullum didn''t actually offer D&M anything but simply asked them to sign over the business to him whereas you are implying that he had actually offered them that money. He generously offered to keep Delia as a "figurehead" knowing that if she was still around, the catering enterprise would remain profitable. How kind.

I guess he was "hopeful" that they were "gullible".

[/quote]

Perhaps he was just "hopeful" that they`d be prepared to compromise for the greater good of the club?  Apparently not.....

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Perhaps he was just "hopeful" that they`d be prepared to compromise for the greater good of the club?  Apparently not.....[/quote]More like he was "hopeful" that the more "gullible" fans wouldn''t see through him, and put pressure on the club for the greater good of Peter Cullum!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Woof! Woof!

[LQ 0]

"...done about it..."?What do you ''do'' exactly about a total and complete non-story? Other than debunk it with a statement from the Club as Archant did last week?

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="Shifty Sid"]You don''t need to listen to the station, listen to the interview here: http://mediaweb.musicradio.com/player/default.asp?s=15&e=92764[/quote]

[G 0]

Any of you seen the pink un news. Already said this.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]Perhaps he was just "hopeful" that they`d be prepared to compromise for the greater good of the club?  Apparently not.....[/quote]More like he was "hopeful" that the more "gullible" fans wouldn''t see through him, and put pressure on the club for the greater good of Peter Cullum![/quote]

I was actually hoping that some of the fans who have seen the light with many things regarding Delia Smith lately could also see what was going on here too???

But there are none so bline as those that will not see hey Lapp???  [H]

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="LQ"]"...done about it..."?

What do you ''do'' exactly about a total and complete non-story? Other than debunk it with a statement from the Club as Archant did last week?


[/quote]

What another story which yet again shows our club owners up to be utter liars?

How is that a non story???

Also followed on from the Simon Mayo intervoew and the Cullum affair, Archant have plenty to work with but are too busy arse licking like you.

[bloodwagon 0]

I just LOVE how your spending other peoples money, Smudger.Just wonder if you had the odd 100 mill sitting about, what you would do with it, (as i know for sure you wouldn''t put it into N.C.F.C.)I wonder if you would be so open if you did own (or part own) a firm with shareholders   ( I guess we will never know)

[LQ 0]

It has shown nothing of the sort Smudger. Oh how I wish I could sink to the level that you (and others) seem to find appropriate - that is to describe fans who they don''t agree with as a** lickers and such. Does that make it all sound better for you? Oooh you''re just a Cullum/Tweedy/Di Stefano a** licker - Gosh I feel better for that! Sorry but it''s as pathetic as the sheep/happy clappy claptrap that gets thrown around whenever there''s a non-story to argue or indeed a non-argument to be had. Get a grasp of some of the business and politics involved, you''ll find it helps.Overall though it''s all a bit silly if you ask me. It''s like you''ve run out of things to actually say to counter a point.And Bloodwagon is spot on - how would you (or anyone, this isn''t the "All About Smudger Show") behave if you had the money, or the obligations, or perhaps as was mentioned previously if your company was one that could be affected by administration for example? Other than castigating the Club for using the wrong suppliers that is! What''s up? Gutted that they don''t use you?

[canary cherub 1]

I really don''t know why you bite . . . it takes two to have an argument

 

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="LQ"]"...done about it..."?

What do you ''do'' exactly about a total and complete non-story? Other than debunk it with a statement from the Club as Archant did last week?


[/quote]

What another story which yet again shows our club owners up to be utter liars?

How is that a non story???

Also followed on from the Simon Mayo intervoew and the Cullum affair, Archant have plenty to work with but are too busy arse licking like you.

[/quote]

So why do you automatically assume that the Club are lying? Tweed said he tried to contact the Club to talk about commercial ventures (not about the Indian Investors), the Club said that he did not contact them. Unless you have detailed records (Tweed''s or the Club''s phone/mobile statements would do) you can not say for a "fact" who is lying. Likewise with the Cullum affair, you know as much as anyone on this Forum, unless you were personally involved or have documented evidence you only have Cullum''s and the Club''s statements and the Archant reports to go by. I will believe that the Club has lied if you can back up your "facts" with real facts...