Pete Raven 276 Posted May 18, 2009 http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/sport/football/columns/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=FinalWord&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED18%20May%202009%2009%3A29%3A59%3A827 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
yellow hammer 0 Posted May 18, 2009 It just doesn''t bear thinking about it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offeredthe club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pete Raven 276 Posted May 18, 2009 http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/sport/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=Sport&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED18%20May%202009%2009%3A23%3A30%3A387 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Thank you![:)]It''s a good piece (apart from a few of the questions which are a bit pointless*)*come on - there had to be a proviso!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 So then who wrote this bit as it has not name attached???http://www.pinkun.com/content/ncfc/story.aspx?brand=PINKUNOnline&category=Norwich&tBrand=PinkUnOnline&tCategory=Norwich&itemid=NOED18%20May%202009%2009%3A20%3A36%3A003Quite an interesting "you ain''t gonna walk the walk" piece aimed at the fans.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Chris Lakey''s piece is excellent (although dwelling a bit long on Doomcasters history).The questions, signed by the EDP are pretty direct and a straight challenge to the club on several points - excellent stuff and a sign that the sports desk are now backing the right horse at last.[quote user="LQ"]Thank you![:)]It''s a good piece (apart from a few of the questions which are a bit pointless*)*come on - there had to be a proviso!![/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="LQ"]How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offeredthe club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete?[/quote]No need for the word ''apparently'' whatsoever LQ.PC did offer the club £20,000,000 in return for becoming the majority shareholder.Thing is he offered it in return for £20m of NEW shares and not for the purchase of Delias shareholding so that the money could go into the club and not to Delia. (This is loosely known to the club as investment ie. PC was willing to invest £20m in the club).A £20m shareholding would of course have made PC majority shareholder displacing the Stowmarket two.It is apparent that Delia/MWJ either wanted out completely or investment which they could control by retaining their positions.PC''s offer was too big for the latter and being in return for new shares did not allow Delia/MWJ to cut and run.We lost £20m of fresh investment secured against nothing more than shares in the club because it did not suit Delias/MWJ''s agenda.So all those carefully worded statements of ''he didn''t make an offer'' are technically correct but could quite easily and just as accurately be expanded to ''he didn''t make an offer for Delia and Michaels shareholding but he did make an offer of £20m in exchange for new shares which would by the very mathematics of the share issue make him the majority shareholder at the club''.Effectively we turned down an investor because he offered too much.This article from the football economy website does clear up the ''he didn''t make an offer'' issue.Peter Cullum subsequently confirmed that he did not offer to buy theshares of the majority shareholders. He explained the £20m he offeredwould have been in return for new shares and that money would have beenused to buy players, but he had never offered to buy out the majorityshareholders. He added, ''From my perspective, discussions have beenterminated and I shall watch anxiously, as a lifelong supporter, at thedisappointing results on the pitch.'' One view would be that a gifthorse has been looked in the mouth, but there is no definitive view onwhy the negotiations, brokered by club sponsors Aviva, broke down. Asthings stand, the AGM heard that the club''s ''dire'' situationfinancially meant that the transfer chest is empty and manager GlennRoeder will have to rely on selling players and donations fromsupporters to boost the playing squad in January. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Bloody hell it''s not like archant to pose a threat to Delia an Co! What was put in their coffee this morning? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigFish 1,986 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="LQ"]How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offered the club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete?[/quote]No need for the word ''apparently'' whatsoever LQ.PC did offer the club £20,000,000 in return for becoming the majority shareholder.Thing is he offered it in return for £20m of NEW shares and not for the purchase of Delias shareholding so that the money could go into the club and not to Delia. (This is loosely known to the club as investment ie. PC was willing to invest £20m in the club).A £20m shareholding would of course have made PC majority shareholder displacing the Stowmarket two.It is apparent that Delia/MWJ either wanted out completely or investment which they could control by retaining their positions.PC''s offer was too big for the latter and being in return for new shares did not allow Delia/MWJ to cut and run.We lost £20m of fresh investment secured against nothing more than shares in the club because it did not suit Delias/MWJ''s agenda.So all those carefully worded statements of ''he didn''t make an offer'' are technically correct but could quite easily and just as accurately be expanded to ''he didn''t make an offer for Delia and Michaels shareholding but he did make an offer of £20m in exchange for new shares which would by the very mathematics of the share issue make him the majority shareholder at the club''.Effectively we turned down an investor because he offered too much.This article from the football economy website does clear up the ''he didn''t make an offer'' issue.Peter Cullum subsequently confirmed that he did not offer to buy the shares of the majority shareholders. He explained the £20m he offered would have been in return for new shares and that money would have been used to buy players, but he had never offered to buy out the majority shareholders. He added, ''From my perspective, discussions have been terminated and I shall watch anxiously, as a lifelong supporter, at the disappointing results on the pitch.'' One view would be that a gift horse has been looked in the mouth, but there is no definitive view on why the negotiations, brokered by club sponsors Aviva, broke down. As things stand, the AGM heard that the club''s ''dire'' situation financially meant that the transfer chest is empty and manager Glenn Roeder will have to rely on selling players and donations from supporters to boost the playing squad in January. [/quote]This hearsay with no evidence to back this up. It doesn''t matter how often you say it, doesn''t make it true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoareyou? 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Both articles make depressing reading really.In effect, since Smith and Jones took control of the club, aside from the play-off final and the promotion season, the club has been riddled with failure time and again.It''s a rudderless ship, sinking fast with no leadership at the top at all to prevent us falling further and further down. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Fish Seller 0 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="BigFish"]This hearsay with no evidence to back this up. It doesn''t matter how often you say it, doesn''t make it true.[/quote]BigFish the football economy website is a reputable website not prone to gossip and rumourmongering but factually accurate.The article uses the terms ''He explained'' and ''He added'' which quite clearly implies the statement came from PC himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACE 0 Posted May 18, 2009 And Big Fish proves the point that there are some who will dismiss the blindingly obvious until it smacks them in the head.There was nothing in that reply that was "heresay". Every bit of the response by buckethead has been confirmed by various sources as true. It is also true that Cullum sought talks, and was rebuffed without those talks ever taking place, and after he signed a non-disclosure agreement.To dismiss it as heresay shows a breathtaking ability to ignore reality.[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="LQ"]How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offered the club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete?[/quote]No need for the word ''apparently'' whatsoever LQ.PC did offer the club £20,000,000 in return for becoming the majority shareholder.Thing is he offered it in return for £20m of NEW shares and not for the purchase of Delias shareholding so that the money could go into the club and not to Delia. (This is loosely known to the club as investment ie. PC was willing to invest £20m in the club).A £20m shareholding would of course have made PC majority shareholder displacing the Stowmarket two.It is apparent that Delia/MWJ either wanted out completely or investment which they could control by retaining their positions.PC''s offer was too big for the latter and being in return for new shares did not allow Delia/MWJ to cut and run.We lost £20m of fresh investment secured against nothing more than shares in the club because it did not suit Delias/MWJ''s agenda.So all those carefully worded statements of ''he didn''t make an offer'' are technically correct but could quite easily and just as accurately be expanded to ''he didn''t make an offer for Delia and Michaels shareholding but he did make an offer of £20m in exchange for new shares which would by the very mathematics of the share issue make him the majority shareholder at the club''.Effectively we turned down an investor because he offered too much.This article from the football economy website does clear up the ''he didn''t make an offer'' issue.Peter Cullum subsequently confirmed that he did not offer to buy the shares of the majority shareholders. He explained the £20m he offered would have been in return for new shares and that money would have been used to buy players, but he had never offered to buy out the majority shareholders. He added, ''From my perspective, discussions have been terminated and I shall watch anxiously, as a lifelong supporter, at the disappointing results on the pitch.'' One view would be that a gift horse has been looked in the mouth, but there is no definitive view on why the negotiations, brokered by club sponsors Aviva, broke down. As things stand, the AGM heard that the club''s ''dire'' situation financially meant that the transfer chest is empty and manager Glenn Roeder will have to rely on selling players and donations from supporters to boost the playing squad in January. [/quote]This hearsay with no evidence to back this up. It doesn''t matter how often you say it, doesn''t make it true.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="LQ"]How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offered the club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete?[/quote]No need for the word ''apparently'' whatsoever LQ.PC did offer the club £20,000,000 in return for becoming the majority shareholder.Thing is he offered it in return for £20m of NEW shares and not for the purchase of Delias shareholding so that the money could go into the club and not to Delia. (This is loosely known to the club as investment ie. PC was willing to invest £20m in the club).A £20m shareholding would of course have made PC majority shareholder displacing the Stowmarket two.It is apparent that Delia/MWJ either wanted out completely or investment which they could control by retaining their positions.PC''s offer was too big for the latter and being in return for new shares did not allow Delia/MWJ to cut and run.We lost £20m of fresh investment secured against nothing more than shares in the club because it did not suit Delias/MWJ''s agenda.So all those carefully worded statements of ''he didn''t make an offer'' are technically correct but could quite easily and just as accurately be expanded to ''he didn''t make an offer for Delia and Michaels shareholding but he did make an offer of £20m in exchange for new shares which would by the very mathematics of the share issue make him the majority shareholder at the club''.Effectively we turned down an investor because he offered too much.This article from the football economy website does clear up the ''he didn''t make an offer'' issue.Peter Cullum subsequently confirmed that he did not offer to buy the shares of the majority shareholders. He explained the £20m he offered would have been in return for new shares and that money would have been used to buy players, but he had never offered to buy out the majority shareholders. He added, ''From my perspective, discussions have been terminated and I shall watch anxiously, as a lifelong supporter, at the disappointing results on the pitch.'' One view would be that a gift horse has been looked in the mouth, but there is no definitive view on why the negotiations, brokered by club sponsors Aviva, broke down. As things stand, the AGM heard that the club''s ''dire'' situation financially meant that the transfer chest is empty and manager Glenn Roeder will have to rely on selling players and donations from supporters to boost the playing squad in January. [/quote]If new shares were issued to Cullum, wouldn''t that make all other shareholders shares worth hardly anything? Can Delia issue out new shares or does she need the backing form all other shareholders?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,557 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="West_London_Canary"]If new shares were issued to Cullum, wouldn''t that make all other shareholders shares worth hardly anything? Can Delia issue out new shares or does she need the backing form all other shareholders?...[/quote]Effectively, WLC, yes. Issuing around 650,000 new shares to Cullum (which is roughly the necessary number) would render all existing shares worthless, including Smith and Jones''s 330,000-odd shares, and my six shares. Shares only have a value if someone wants to buy them, and under those circumstances no-one would want to buy them.That would only change if NCFC ever listed on a stock market and the shares performed well. Then owning shares in the plc might be worthwhile.As to who can authorise the issuance of new shares, that is effectively in the hands of Smith and Jones, since they are the majority shareholders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wembley_Canary 0 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="West_London_Canary"] If new shares were issued to Cullum, wouldn''t that make all other shareholders shares worth hardly anything? Can Delia issue out new shares or does she need the backing form all other shareholders?...[/quote]Effectively, WLC, yes. Issuing around 650,000 new shares to Cullum (which is roughly the necessary number) would render all existing shares worthless, including Smith and Jones''s 330,000-odd shares, and my six shares. Shares only have a value if someone wants to buy them, and under those circumstances no-one would want to buy them.That would only change if NCFC ever listed on a stock market and the shares performed well. Then owning shares in the plc might be worthwhile.As to who can authorise the issuance of new shares, that is effectively in the hands of Smith and Jones, since they are the majority shareholders.[/quote]Thanks for clearing that up Purplecanary, so in effect Delia had the option to rejuvenate the club at the price of losing several million pounds of her own wealth? I guess you could easily look at this with different views, but with hindsight it may now appear that it would have been better for Delia and the club to take Cullum up on that offer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="West_London_Canary"] If new shares were issued to Cullum, wouldn''t that make all other shareholders shares worth hardly anything? Can Delia issue out new shares or does she need the backing form all other shareholders?...[/quote]Effectively, WLC, yes. Issuing around 650,000 new shares to Cullum (which is roughly the necessary number) would render all existing shares worthless, including Smith and Jones''s 330,000-odd shares, and my six shares. Shares only have a value if someone wants to buy them, and under those circumstances no-one would want to buy them.That would only change if NCFC ever listed on a stock market and the shares performed well. Then owning shares in the plc might be worthwhile.As to who can authorise the issuance of new shares, that is effectively in the hands of Smith and Jones, since they are the majority shareholders.[/quote]So if, as it seems, PC wanted to invest his money in new shares as described above, would there be a "formal offer" as such which is circulated to shareholders? I think not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,557 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="Mr.Carrow"]So if, as it seems, PC wanted to invest his money in new shares as described above, would there be a "formal offer" as such which is circulated to shareholders? I think not.[/quote]That is wrong. Such an offer to Smith and Jones to acquire new shares would definitely have to be circulated to shareholders as soon as it was made, because - apart from anything else - it would mean a change in ownership of the plc. Shareholders would also have to be told what the offer price was for the new shares. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yellow Submarine 0 Posted May 18, 2009 Thanks for putting that link up Pete. It pretty much sums up how i''m feeling about the whole situation! We will be in an even bigger mess if the Gunn regime fails and some young hungry manager has to come in (out of the transfer window potentially) and try and put it right. Also on the subject of PC. Had his ''unofficial'' offer been taking up, and he became majority shareholder, would our excisting 20m+ debt of been made repayable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,557 Posted May 18, 2009 Yellow Submarine, as for the debt, £18m of the £20m would have become automatically repayable, and the other £2m could have been demanded back.That is not to say Cullum could not have renegotiated some or all of the £16m of bank debt, and the Turners might not have asked for their £2m back. But in theory all of the £20m Cullum was talking about investing would have gone on paying debt, and in practice a good chunk of it might well have done. It is generally thougth that Axa would have wanted its £12m back, for starters. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ca 1 Posted May 18, 2009 Guess Steve Gedge is keeping his rebate [:D][quote]My club desperately needs my unclaimed rebate, and I ought to leave it with them, but what other way do I have of showing my utter disbelief at this decision other than to ask for a refund? At a time when we needed at least a small injection of new blood and thinking into Colney, we went for the ''better the devil you know'' option. Again. This all smacks of Gary Megson, last time around, and Bryan Hamilton. And we all know how long both those appointments lasted.If this board had any ounce of responsibility to supporters by now they would have written to the likes of me to (a) apologise for having to be present at both Fulham and Charlton (once was fair enough, these things happen, but you shouldn''t get two in a lifetime, never mind the space of five years) and (b) to at least have the decency to make a case for why they should hold on to a previously freely-offered refund.[/quote] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taxing 0 Posted May 18, 2009 [quote user="Buckethead"][quote user="LQ"]How many more articles do we need focussing on history? We seriously need to move forwards - what''s done is done and no amount of berating can change that.The Chris Lakey piece about the present and the future, however, is great - apart from the omission of the word ''apparently'' in this sentence: "The first came last summer when insurance tycoon Peter Cullum offered the club £20m in return for becoming the majority shareholder."Could you put a link to it in here Pete?[/quote]No need for the word ''apparently'' whatsoever LQ.PC did offer the club £20,000,000 in return for becoming the majority shareholder.Thing is he offered it in return for £20m of NEW shares and not for the purchase of Delias shareholding so that the money could go into the club and not to Delia. (This is loosely known to the club as investment ie. PC was willing to invest £20m in the club).A £20m shareholding would of course have made PC majority shareholder displacing the Stowmarket two.It is apparent that Delia/MWJ either wanted out completely or investment which they could control by retaining their positions.PC''s offer was too big for the latter and being in return for new shares did not allow Delia/MWJ to cut and run.We lost £20m of fresh investment secured against nothing more than shares in the club because it did not suit Delias/MWJ''s agenda.So all those carefully worded statements of ''he didn''t make an offer'' are technically correct but could quite easily and just as accurately be expanded to ''he didn''t make an offer for Delia and Michaels shareholding but he did make an offer of £20m in exchange for new shares which would by the very mathematics of the share issue make him the majority shareholder at the club''.Effectively we turned down an investor because he offered too much.This article from the football economy website does clear up the ''he didn''t make an offer'' issue.Peter Cullum subsequently confirmed that he did not offer to buy the shares of the majority shareholders. He explained the £20m he offered would have been in return for new shares and that money would have been used to buy players, but he had never offered to buy out the majority shareholders. He added, ''From my perspective, discussions have been terminated and I shall watch anxiously, as a lifelong supporter, at the disappointing results on the pitch.'' One view would be that a gift horse has been looked in the mouth, but there is no definitive view on why the negotiations, brokered by club sponsors Aviva, broke down. As things stand, the AGM heard that the club''s ''dire'' situation financially meant that the transfer chest is empty and manager Glenn Roeder will have to rely on selling players and donations from supporters to boost the playing squad in January. [/quote] Of course, Delia Smith could not accept this putative offer. No company owner is going to accept their shares being significanlty diluted AND loss of control. This is nothing to do with whether or not I support Delia it''s simply commonsense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted May 18, 2009 And once again the assumption that it was £20 million and that it was all in one go with no stipulations raises its head! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites