Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Myra Hawtree

The "Delia Out" Campaign

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.[/quote]

It would suit you if I was on a wind up but I''m not. That''s just a "last resort retort" from someone who is floundering. Bottom line is Smith & Jones haven''t changed from what was said at the AGM. They would welcome investment along side their own. Or instead of their own if it came with guarantees of continued support.

As for this whole Delia Out thread being about them selling up to go.. get real! We both know it''s not. Read some of the posts again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[/quote]Mr.Carrow, I don''t think anyone doubts that Delia  - when asked at the Caps'' agm if the club was up for sale - said it wasn''t.The point is whether she is right about that. Not least because five seconds earlier her husband said it was up for sale!I reiterate what I''ve said on my website. Smith and Jones have said they are willing to let someone else take over as majority shareholders, the club has said it, Harris has said it. Those are public statements that the club is effectively up for sale. Delia may not like admitting that in a bald way, but that is what those statements mean.[/quote]

TBH Purple our little falling out has been about whether their statements are contradictory- which everyone except nutty seems to accept they are.  The confusion i think is whether you define welcoming new investment in the form of new shares which would dilute D and M`s stake to a minority one as being "up for sale".  I guess Delia and quite a few others don`t- but i accept that in effect it`s the same thing.

[/quote]Precisely. In effect it is the same thing. Accepting majority investment (which they have said they will do) equals giving up being majority shareholders equals a change of ownership equals the club being for sale.If this was any other company, a ball-bearing company or whatever, and it kept putting out statements that it would accept majority investment, then the business press would report that as being for sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

[/quote]

But you don''t, of course.

OTBC

[/quote]

Oh yes I do pinky. But only when I have preconceived ideas. For instance I missed much of what Glen Roeder said at the AGM for this very reason. Do you have preconcieved ideas when you google and then report what fits your agenda?

Do you have anything to add to the debate other than that?

[/quote]

Glad you enjoyed the pink. As you well know I do it especially for you.

Yes, if I can find the time. I didn''t do typing at school like you, y''know.

Problem is though that you''re going round and round in ever decreasing circles as usual......and........

OTBC

[/quote]

A simple "no" would have been sufficient.

[/quote]

No it wouldn''t, you asked two questions.

[:P]

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.[/quote]

Not really. He just gets hold of the wrong end of the stick and then holds on to it for dear life - especially where Delia and Worthy are concerned.

OTBC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.[/quote]

It would suit you if I was on a wind up but I''m not. That''s just a "last resort retort" from someone who is floundering. Bottom line is Smith & Jones haven''t changed from what was said at the AGM. They would welcome investment along side their own. Or instead of their own if it came with guarantees of continued support.

As for this whole Delia Out thread being about them selling up to go.. get real! We both know it''s not. Read some of the posts again.

 

[/quote]

Lol, you are absolutely priceless....."The club is not for sale" actually means they would welcome new owners as long as they gave guarantees of continued support.  Even you don`t believe that nutty.  Fantastic invention though! [Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow, I don''t think anyone doubts that Delia  - when asked at the Caps'' agm if the club was up for sale - said it wasn''t.

The point is whether she is right about that. Not least because five seconds earlier her husband said it was up for sale!

I reiterate what I''ve said on my website. Smith and Jones have said they are willing to let someone else take over as majority shareholders, the club has said it, Harris has said it. Those are public statements that the club is effectively up for sale. Delia may not like admitting that in a bald way, but that is what those statements mean.[/quote]

TBH Purple our little falling out has been about whether their statements are contradictory- which everyone except nutty seems to accept they are.  The confusion i think is whether you define welcoming new investment in the form of new shares which would dilute D and M`s stake to a minority one as being "up for sale".  I guess Delia and quite a few others don`t- but i accept that in effect it`s the same thing.


[/quote]

Precisely. In effect it is the same thing. Accepting majority investment (which they have said they will do) equals giving up being majority shareholders equals a change of ownership equals the club being for sale.

If this was any other company, a ball-bearing company or whatever, and it kept putting out statements that it would accept majority investment, then the business press would report that as being for sale.[/quote]

Do you think D and M are looking to sell their shares Purple?  And if not, will it not limit the potential for new investment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Mr.Carrow, firstly (and this is not a dig at you) there is an irony here. Delia says all sorts of things that are probably true, and is

widely disbelieved; she says something that (as far as I am concerned)

ain''t true (the club NOT being for sale) and is widely believed...

Now as to your question:

"Do you think D and M are looking to sell their shares Purple?  And if not, will it not limit the potential for new investment?"

The short answer is: It doesn''t matter, and No and Yes. To explain...

Firstly I have never met either of them, and even if I had I would not

be able to say with certainty what they are really thinking. Only THEY

would know that. What I place reliance on are public statements - if

they fit with the hard (usually financial) facts and my private

information. And vice versa.

That being said, there is very little doubt in my mind that they are

willing to hand the club over to someone who convinces them they have a

good LONG-TERM plan for the club. This tallies with what they have said

and some very hard facts - they are running out of money AND time.

Frankly, I don''t think it matters whether this happens by way of them

selling their shares (or most of them) or by them agreeing to the

issuance of enough new shares to create a majority. Either way,

majority investors (if they are genuine) will attracted.

As to minority investors they will not be put off either, unless they

are so stupid as to think they are really majority investors and are

getting the club when they are not. And, frankly, if they are that

dense, nothing will deter them.Of course, if S&J were to go back on what they have said and rule out majority investment then - by definition - that would deter majority investors. But we are not there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.[/quote]

It would suit you if I was on a wind up but I''m not. That''s just a "last resort retort" from someone who is floundering. Bottom line is Smith & Jones haven''t changed from what was said at the AGM. They would welcome investment along side their own. Or instead of their own if it came with guarantees of continued support.

As for this whole Delia Out thread being about them selling up to go.. get real! We both know it''s not. Read some of the posts again.

 

[/quote]

Lol, you are absolutely priceless....."The club is not for sale" actually means they would welcome new owners as long as they gave guarantees of continued support.  Even you don`t believe that nutty.  Fantastic invention though! [Y]

[/quote]

I believe that Smith and Jones welcome investment whether it means they retain all of their shares, some of their shares or none of their shares. Does that mean the club is for sale? Well, back in the summer of 2008 the board put a price of 36m on the club with the proviso that a further 20m was invested in the team. I believe that if anyone had enough money to get involved in such a deal then Smith and Jones would have pocketed maybe 10m of that 56m. That was what the board said it would cost to buy the club just after the Cullum story broke. But it was never a demand from Smith & Jones for their shares.

If you listen to what Smith & Jones have personally said over the years, both before and since 2008, then unless they are liars they don''t expect to see their investment back. They are more interested in securing future investment to safeguard the future of our club than getting their own investment back.

So in the end people can believe whatever they want. People can fit any quotes to mean what they want to mean. It''s up to the individual. Some folk are quite content to brand Smith & Jones to be devious liars. There is no more evidence to say they are liars than there is for me to trust what they say. And I do trust what they say. It''s a huge step for me to call someone a liar or to totally assasinate their character without any proof. To my knowledge nobody has ever shown the slightest interest in buying Smith & Jones shareholding since 18 months before they even owned them. The fact that they are not really interested in selling them is probably as much to do with this as any desire to hang on to them. Which in turn is why they don''t put the sale of their shares as a priority their attempts getting new investment into the club. That is my opinion.You are in turn entitled to yours. But why are the liar accusations not in the public domain? Surely Archant have a duty to report the lies of the devious pair. If not where''s my old mate Cam.. do you want to run the story?

I may be priceless Mr Carrow but you''re cheap as chips mate.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It''s almost amazing what you chaps know.

But if we were to pin you to the wall and say: "Right.  Now tell me who told you that?" what would you say?

[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

It''s almost amazing what you chaps know.

But if we were to pin you to the wall and say: "Right.  Now tell me who told you that?" what would you say?

[:D]

[/quote]

The truth is out there, you just have to do a little digging...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To some extent haven''t recent events already suggested that Delia is out, it''s just that she still owns the club and, I would surmise, she''s too proud/stubborn to actually admit that it''s gone and it will never be her show again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"]Well, thanks for that Rock the Boat.  A condescending history lesson, followed by an opinion on the motives of the majority shareholders, an "It''s not good enough" which forgets that football stadiums look so much nicer with 4 stands than 3 (although I''ll grant you the debt should only be twice as much, not three times), followed by a lack of realisation that you''ve already been given what you demand - D & M don''t appear to be involved in key decision making post-Gunn.  

Look back at the Capital Canaries meeting commentary on this forum, and then the events that followed.  D & M were still backing Gunn up to a day or two before the "unanimous decision" to fire him.  If that doesn''t tell you where the land lies now, then no amount of words from me can.

For the time, effort, and money of these "generous incompetents" (they may have failed but at least they have been trying) you want heads on poles, but you can''t afford the poles, the poles in this case being the price of their shares plus a guarantee on the loans.  Is that my fault ?  The tone of your post appears to suggest it might be... [:)]

As for Premiership football, who knows ?  I think most of our fans would be happy being at the top end of the Championship, Lambert should be capable of that if backed properly.  Premiership requires different money though - One day our Arabic Prince may come ?  They did for Notts County...

I look forward to your explanation of how you will bring Delia Smith to the understanding of the worthlessness of her shares.  It should be a good read.
[/quote]

Well you sparked a nice little debate there about  Smith and Jone''s plans, Blah. Do they intend to sell up or not? Plain truth is that nobody knows except the Stowmarket Two and even if you follow their public statements, Delia is so contradictory that it''s impossible to read anythng into what she says. She''s either gaga or she simply has no idea herself what she intends to do.

So that''s more evidence of lack of ability to properly run our football club. At the very least you would expect some plan to be in place to get us out of ths mess. And with a new-look board you''d expect they''d had enough time already to communicate their plans nstead of making contradictory statements.

Your question, Blah, was how to bring Delia to the understanding that her shares are worthless? Well I would have thought that if she has gone about the business of bringing new investment or looking for worthy new owners, then the question of her shareholding and it''s value must have come up time and time again. If doesn''t get it by now then she never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.[/quote]

It would suit you if I was on a wind up but I''m not. That''s just a "last resort retort" from someone who is floundering. Bottom line is Smith & Jones haven''t changed from what was said at the AGM. They would welcome investment along side their own. Or instead of their own if it came with guarantees of continued support.

As for this whole Delia Out thread being about them selling up to go.. get real! We both know it''s not. Read some of the posts again.

 

[/quote]

Lol, you are absolutely priceless....."The club is not for sale" actually means they would welcome new owners as long as they gave guarantees of continued support.  Even you don`t believe that nutty.  Fantastic invention though! [Y]

[/quote]

I believe that Smith and Jones welcome investment whether it means they retain all of their shares, some of their shares or none of their shares. Does that mean the club is for sale? Well, back in the summer of 2008 the board put a price of 36m on the club with the proviso that a further 20m was invested in the team. I believe that if anyone had enough money to get involved in such a deal then Smith and Jones would have pocketed maybe 10m of that 56m. That was what the board said it would cost to buy the club just after the Cullum story broke. But it was never a demand from Smith & Jones for their shares.

If you listen to what Smith & Jones have personally said over the years, both before and since 2008, then unless they are liars they don''t expect to see their investment back. They are more interested in securing future investment to safeguard the future of our club than getting their own investment back.

So in the end people can believe whatever they want. People can fit any quotes to mean what they want to mean. It''s up to the individual. Some folk are quite content to brand Smith & Jones to be devious liars. There is no more evidence to say they are liars than there is for me to trust what they say. And I do trust what they say. It''s a huge step for me to call someone a liar or to totally assasinate their character without any proof. To my knowledge nobody has ever shown the slightest interest in buying Smith & Jones shareholding since 18 months before they even owned them. The fact that they are not really interested in selling them is probably as much to do with this as any desire to hang on to them. Which in turn is why they don''t put the sale of their shares as a priority their attempts getting new investment into the club. That is my opinion.You are in turn entitled to yours. But why are the liar accusations not in the public domain? Surely Archant have a duty to report the lies of the devious pair. If not where''s my old mate Cam.. do you want to run the story?

I may be priceless Mr Carrow but you''re cheap as chips mate.

 

 

 

[/quote]

You trust what they say, but what they say is clearly contradictory therefore you are being selective in what you believe.  You are the only person on this message board not to accept this.  Purple has said that Delia stated that the club were not up for sale but didn`t mean it.  This is fair enough, but not accepting she even said it, or that it doesn`t contradict previous statements is just ridiculous and makes trying to have a rational debate pointless.

Also, i have not claimed anywhere that i don`t believe they wouldn`t stand aside- i`m simply trying to ascertain how realistic they are being with their demands for a new owner.  If there are too many strings and caveats we will not be taken over, simple as, and recent interviews suggest there are plenty of them ("We were not keen to sell our shares", "We need angel investors who fit in with the ethics of the club", "We are constantly talking to people, but we don`t need people who are just in it for what they can get".).  What this boils down to is that their demands on prospective new owners come down entirely to their own judgement and after the last five years i do not trust that judgement yet, presumably, you do.

As for cheap, making up a story about offering to sit beside me at the AGM and me refusing, when i have told you plenty of times that i work evenings is about as cheap as it gets.  Still, it`s one rule for nutty, one for everyone else as per usual.....[|-)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"].

Mr.Carrow, firstly (and this is not a dig at you) there is an irony here. Delia says all sorts of things that are probably true, and is widely disbelieved; she says something that (as far as I am concerned) ain''t true (the club NOT being for sale) and is widely believed...

Now as to your question:

"Do you think D and M are looking to sell their shares Purple?  And if not, will it not limit the potential for new investment?"

The short answer is: It doesn''t matter, and No and Yes. To explain...

Firstly I have never met either of them, and even if I had I would not be able to say with certainty what they are really thinking. Only THEY would know that. What I place reliance on are public statements - if they fit with the hard (usually financial) facts and my private information. And vice versa.

That being said, there is very little doubt in my mind that they are willing to hand the club over to someone who convinces them they have a good LONG-TERM plan for the club. This tallies with what they have said and some very hard facts - they are running out of money AND time.

Frankly, I don''t think it matters whether this happens by way of them selling their shares (or most of them) or by them agreeing to the issuance of enough new shares to create a majority. Either way, majority investors (if they are genuine) will attracted.

As to minority investors they will not be put off either, unless they are so stupid as to think they are really majority investors and are getting the club when they are not. And, frankly, if they are that dense, nothing will deter them.

Of course, if S&J were to go back on what they have said and rule out majority investment then - by definition - that would deter majority investors. But we are not there.[/quote]

So you accept that they are not looking to sell their shares which will limit the potential for new investment but you think it doesn`t matter?  Surely it matters quite alot if a potential new owner wants a clean sweep and doesn`t want them involved anymore?

I`m sorry Purple but reading all the recent statements i believe what they are after is a collaborative partnership with new investors similar to what they started with the Turners, not a complete sell-out.  The suggestions of the Birmingham lot coming in are interesting as there have been ties between the two clubs, but other than that remote possibility i cannot see them getting any takers given the mismanagement of recent years, can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

You trust what they say, but what they say is clearly contradictory therefore you are being selective in what you believe.  You are the only person on this message board not to accept this.  Purple has said that Delia stated that the club were not up for sale but didn`t mean it.  This is fair enough, but not accepting she even said it, or that it doesn`t contradict previous statements is just ridiculous and makes trying to have a rational debate pointless.

Also, i have not claimed anywhere that i don`t believe they wouldn`t stand aside- i`m simply trying to ascertain how realistic they are being with their demands for a new owner.  If there are too many strings and caveats we will not be taken over, simple as, and recent interviews suggest there are plenty of them ("We were not keen to sell our shares", "We need angel investors who fit in with the ethics of the club", "We are constantly talking to people, but we don`t need people who are just in it for what they can get".).  What this boils down to is that their demands on prospective new owners come down entirely to their own judgement and after the last five years i do not trust that judgement yet, presumably, you do.

As for cheap, making up a story about offering to sit beside me at the AGM and me refusing, when i have told you plenty of times that i work evenings is about as cheap as it gets.  Still, it`s one rule for nutty, one for everyone else as per usual.....[|-)]

[/quote]

Why am I being selective about what I believe. I told you what I believe. Maybe I am wrong but I also believe there is a huge difference between the club being for sale and Smith&Jones shares being for sale. You don''t seem to be able to comprehend that difference. That''s why, in order to get new investment in, selling the club is a no go. I would have thought the only way anybody could buy the club on the cheap would be from the administrators. Could you imagine the uproar if the wicked cook sold somebody''s shareholding for 20p a go? But of course their shares and the value of others shares are linked. I''m way out of my depth here but I think if the "lying cheating old witch" sold her shares for 20p then that would make other peoples shareholdings worthless. Now that probably makes little difference to you and I but for many it would.

Delia said they aren''t expecting a return and I believe her. Do you believe her Mr Carrow? I also believe the only demands she makes of any future owners is that they would match the commitment shown by her and her old man. Do you believe that?

I made the offer on here Mr Carrow. At the time I didn''t know you didn''t bother with AGMs. I also made the offer to posters who were concerned about being shouted down. I may not agree with their points of view but I agree with their right to say it. But as you seem intent on making this personal I will add that for someone who spends his life talking about accounts and the way the club is run, not being arsed to go to the AGM seems a strange way to behave. It would be like me not being bothered to go to City''s biggest game of the season.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have watched this with interest as always.

It''s a slow afternoon so....

If she can''t sell her shares for a tenner why did she say she would? Another throw away line perhaps when MWJ was not there to stop her.

In fact I think she could.(though doubt she will) Anyone then buying the club is then obliged to offer to buy all shares at the agreed price.

I do not think anyone else would/could be forced to sell theirs.

On paper their value would be that which was paid to DS/MWJ but since when has that mattered UNLESS you want to sell.

Again the value is X but nothing stops you from selling to someone else for Y if both you and they agree.

Please Nutty there is a difference between a return and their money back. Return means they make money on the investment.

What do you think the true value of the shares are now. Since relegation and reduction in income and a definite lowering of assets I would hazzard a damn sight less than the inflated £30 per share agreed at that AGM. Perhaps closer to the cheaper price they paid GW.

That''s the result of their missmanagement so perhaps all shareholders should be up in arms now at their paper loss!![:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

So you accept that they are not looking to sell their shares which will limit the potential for new investment but you think it doesn`t matter?  Surely it matters quite alot if a potential new owner wants a clean sweep and doesn`t want them involved anymore?

[/quote]Mr.Carrow, that was not what I said. It was late, so perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. For starters I did not say they were not looking to sell their shares. I don''t know, but I suspect their attitude to that might depend on the offer. But the real point is that if they are willing to stop being majority shareholders it doesn''t matter whether they do that by selling their shares or creating new shares to give someone else a majority. Either way the new person will have control. They can win every boardroom vote. And that is all that matters.The idea that a potential owner will be put off by the idea that Delia might still have a sizeable minority holding is nonsense. It didn''t put Peter Cullum off. That was exactly what he said he wanted to happen. He would buy new shares and Delia would still have her 320,000.Of course if Delia wants to stay as majority shareholder then - by definition - that will deter potential buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

You trust what they say, but what they say is clearly contradictory therefore you are being selective in what you believe.  You are the only person on this message board not to accept this.  Purple has said that Delia stated that the club were not up for sale but didn`t mean it.  This is fair enough, but not accepting she even said it, or that it doesn`t contradict previous statements is just ridiculous and makes trying to have a rational debate pointless.

Also, i have not claimed anywhere that i don`t believe they wouldn`t stand aside- i`m simply trying to ascertain how realistic they are being with their demands for a new owner.  If there are too many strings and caveats we will not be taken over, simple as, and recent interviews suggest there are plenty of them ("We were not keen to sell our shares", "We need angel investors who fit in with the ethics of the club", "We are constantly talking to people, but we don`t need people who are just in it for what they can get".).  What this boils down to is that their demands on prospective new owners come down entirely to their own judgement and after the last five years i do not trust that judgement yet, presumably, you do.

As for cheap, making up a story about offering to sit beside me at the AGM and me refusing, when i have told you plenty of times that i work evenings is about as cheap as it gets.  Still, it`s one rule for nutty, one for everyone else as per usual.....[|-)]

[/quote]

Why am I being selective about what I believe. I told you what I believe. Maybe I am wrong but I also believe there is a huge difference between the club being for sale and Smith&Jones shares being for sale. You don''t seem to be able to comprehend that difference. That''s why, in order to get new investment in, selling the club is a no go. I would have thought the only way anybody could buy the club on the cheap would be from the administrators. Could you imagine the uproar if the wicked cook sold somebody''s shareholding for 20p a go? But of course their shares and the value of others shares are linked. I''m way out of my depth here but I think if the "lying cheating old witch" sold her shares for 20p then that would make other peoples shareholdings worthless. Now that probably makes little difference to you and I but for many it would.

Delia said they aren''t expecting a return and I believe her. Do you believe her Mr Carrow? I also believe the only demands she makes of any future owners is that they would match the commitment shown by her and her old man. Do you believe that?

I made the offer on here Mr Carrow. At the time I didn''t know you didn''t bother with AGMs. I also made the offer to posters who were concerned about being shouted down. I may not agree with their points of view but I agree with their right to say it. But as you seem intent on making this personal I will add that for someone who spends his life talking about accounts and the way the club is run, not being arsed to go to the AGM seems a strange way to behave. It would be like me not being bothered to go to City''s biggest game of the season.

 

[/quote]

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine, that like you and I, she can sell her shares for whatever she likes Butler. I see no reason why she can''t sell them for a tenner. My personal opinion is if the right person had gauranteed the right future commitment to the club, they''d even waive the tenner.

I reckon there''s a lot of folk who wouldn''t like their shareholding devalued. I couldn''t care less because as you say, I would never look to sell.

I still reckon there''s a difference between selling the club and selling personal shares.

I think it would be possible for personal shares to change ownership for nothing without it affecting their paper value.

I don''t think that Smith & Jones have ever believed they would get a return on their money or their money back.

The true value of the shares now are whatever two parties agree to their valuation. Same as it ever was.

The value of the unnisssued shares the club hold I believe is £30 as agreed at AGM a couple of years ago. But this was never a personal valuation of anyones personal shares.

At the end of the day Smith & Jones can do what they like with their shares. They can give them away or keep them. I take them at their word but I also believe they won''t sell or give them to anyone they don''t want to. That is their right.

What do you think they should do Butler?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

[/quote]

They could give all 62% of their shares to you,Wiz, Smudger(god forbid) whoever they like and whoever felt like accepting them.

That would however mean that that person(s) would then in theory "own" the club.

You know over 51%

You ask what I think Nutty, I think they will grit their teeth, hang on by their nails and hope and pray that they might,at last have made a correct decision.

Then in the next year or two sell their majority to someone else and take their money back and if they have any sense retire and enjoy it.

Don''t know if it will be the Birmingham 2 or 1 a Chinese consortium or an Arab investor, but hang on they will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn''t ask what you thought they would do though. I asked what you thought they should do.

I think they should hand the club over to someone who will make a commitment to take the club forward. It''s not up to me to say what they should do with their money. But I''d be well disappointed if they let someone in who wasn''t prepared to financially back the club to at least the same extent as they have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

So you accept that they are not looking to sell their shares which will limit the potential for new investment but you think it doesn`t matter?  Surely it matters quite alot if a potential new owner wants a clean sweep and doesn`t want them involved anymore?

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow, that was not what I said. It was late, so perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. For starters I did not say they were not looking to sell their shares. I don''t know, but I suspect their attitude to that might depend on the offer. But the real point is that if they are willing to stop being majority shareholders it doesn''t matter whether they do that by selling their shares or creating new shares to give someone else a majority. Either way the new person will have control. They can win every boardroom vote. And that is all that matters.

The idea that a potential owner will be put off by the idea that Delia might still have a sizeable minority holding is nonsense. It didn''t put Peter Cullum off. That was exactly what he said he wanted to happen. He would buy new shares and Delia would still have her 320,000.

Of course if Delia wants to stay as majority shareholder then - by definition - that will deter potential buyers.[/quote]

If you read back to the previous posts you answered my "Do you think they want to sell their shares" question with a "No" Purple. 

I really can`t be bothered to repeat all the quotes again but there are enough mentions of "The right kind of person" and "Fitting in with the ethics of the club" and "More keen than ever to stick it out and gain promotion", not to mention "We weren`t keen to sell our shares" and "The club is not for sale, but we`ve tried very hard to find investment" to suggest that my belief that they are very choosy indeed about who comes on board is accurate.  So basically the future of the club is solely dependent on the judgement of two people who have been proved to be poor judges in the past.

The idea that a new owner might not want previous failed owners to be agitating on the sidelines with 20-30% of the shares is a long, long way from being nonsense.  As for Cullum, he was probably well aware that this was the only kind of deal which had the remotest chance of being accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

[/quote]

D and M have 68% of the shares.  If they sell enough to someone else to give that someone else 51% then that someone else is the owner of the club, because they have complete control of it.  No-one would buy less than that figure (unless out of pure charity) because it would hold no power.  Therefore when we discuss "D and M selling their shares" we are discussing whether or not they are prepared to sell a majority stake or not.

And no i don`t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

So you accept that they are not looking to sell their shares which will limit the potential for new investment but you think it doesn`t matter?  Surely it matters quite alot if a potential new owner wants a clean sweep and doesn`t want them involved anymore?

[/quote]Mr.Carrow, that was not what I said. It was late, so perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. For starters I did not say they were not looking to sell their shares. I don''t know, but I suspect their attitude to that might depend on the offer. But the real point is that if they are willing to stop being majority shareholders it doesn''t matter whether they do that by selling their shares or creating new shares to give someone else a majority. Either way the new person will have control. They can win every boardroom vote. And that is all that matters.The idea that a potential owner will be put off by the idea that Delia might still have a sizeable minority holding is nonsense. It didn''t put Peter Cullum off. That was exactly what he said he wanted to happen. He would buy new shares and Delia would still have her 320,000.Of course if Delia wants to stay as majority shareholder then - by definition - that will deter potential buyers.[/quote]

If you read back to the previous posts you answered my "Do you think they want to sell their shares" question with a "No" Purple. 

I really can`t be bothered to repeat all the quotes again but there are enough mentions of "The right kind of person" and "Fitting in with the ethics of the club" and "More keen than ever to stick it out and gain promotion", not to mention "We weren`t keen to sell our shares" and "The club is not for sale, but we`ve tried very hard to find investment" to suggest that my belief that they are very choosy indeed about who comes on board is accurate.  So basically the future of the club is solely dependent on the judgement of two people who have been proved to be poor judges in the past.

The idea that a new owner might not want previous failed owners to be agitating on the sidelines with 20-30% of the shares is a long, long way from being nonsense.  As for Cullum, he was probably well aware that this was the only kind of deal which had the remotest chance of being accepted.

[/quote]Mr.C, without wanting to prolong this, I suspect the exchange we had that you''re talking about is this:"Do you think D and M are looking to sell their shares Purple?  And if not, will it not limit the potential for new investment?"

The short answer is: It doesn''t matter, and No and Yes. To explain...I can see that might have been misleading. What I was trying there to say was that it wouldn''t matter HOW they gave up majority control. Which ever way they did it, that would not limit investment. The "No" refers to that, not to the basic idea of selling or not. But, just to be absolutely clear, I have certainly never MEANT to say that Smith and Jones have no intention of selling their shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

[/quote]

D and M have 68% of the shares.  If they sell enough to someone else to give that someone else 51% then that someone else is the owner of the club, because they have complete control of it.  No-one would buy less than that figure (unless out of pure charity) because it would hold no power.  Therefore when we discuss "D and M selling their shares" we are discussing whether or not they are prepared to sell a majority stake or not.

And no i don`t.

[/quote]

But the £30 per share that is used by so many, even Tangie today, to make Delia out a liar is in fact from a board statement on the official site in 2008 where the valuation of the club was made based on the price of unnissued shares set at a previous AGM. Smith & Jones personal valuation of their shares does not have to be in line with this. They could give away the majority of them for peanuts in a private deal is they so wished. I very much doubt the majority shareholding of the club has ever been sold for what it''s theoratically worth. However, I see little point in discussing whether they are prepared to sell the majority stake or not because I have never EVER heard of anyone who wants to buy it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

[/quote]

D and M have 68% of the shares.  If they sell enough to someone else to give that someone else 51% then that someone else is the owner of the club, because they have complete control of it.  No-one would buy less than that figure (unless out of pure charity) because it would hold no power.  Therefore when we discuss "D and M selling their shares" we are discussing whether or not they are prepared to sell a majority stake or not.

And no i don`t.

[/quote]

But the £30 per share that is used by so many, even Tangie today, to make Delia out a liar is in fact from a board statement on the official site in 2008 where the valuation of the club was made based on the price of unnissued shares set at a previous AGM. Smith & Jones personal valuation of their shares does not have to be in line with this. They could give away the majority of them for peanuts in a private deal is they so wished. I very much doubt the majority shareholding of the club has ever been sold for what it''s theoratically worth. However, I see little point in discussing whether they are prepared to sell the majority stake or not because I have never EVER heard of anyone who wants to buy it.

 

[/quote]

Like a circle in a spiral

 like a wheel within a wheel!

I think we all agree that they ran the board so a statement from the board came from them!

Apart from that my opinion (as you asked)is as previous post.

What they should do in my opinion......keep out of any decision about football matters.Stop interfering with anything NCFC as they have cocked it big time. Sit tight and sell as soon as they can for as much as they can get.

Oh and stop DS from making any other stupid unthought out controversial remarks!

Now back to the day job teaching pigs to use parachutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Butler"]

What they should do in my opinion......keep out of any decision about football matters.Stop interfering with anything NCFC as they have cocked it big time. Sit tight and sell as soon as they can for as much as they can get.

Oh and stop DS from making any other stupid unthought out controversial remarks!

[/quote]

Which is what they are doing (or so it appears). For the record I agree with this plan, there''s a big difference between owning a football club and running a football club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

But the £30 per share that is used by so many, even Tangie today, to make Delia out a liar is in fact from a board statement on the official site in 2008 where the valuation of the club was made based on the price of unnissued shares set at a previous AGM. Smith & Jones personal valuation of their shares does not have to be in line with this. They could give away the majority of them for peanuts in a private deal is they so wished. I very much doubt the majority shareholding of the club has ever been sold for what it''s theoratically worth. However, I see little point in discussing whether they are prepared to sell the majority stake or not because I have never EVER heard of anyone who wants to buy it.

 

[/quote]

Like a circle in a spiral

 like a wheel within a wheel!

I think we all agree that they ran the board so a statement from the board came from them!

Apart from that my opinion (as you asked)is as previous post.

What they should do in my opinion......keep out of any decision about football matters.Stop interfering with anything NCFC as they have cocked it big time. Sit tight and sell as soon as they can for as much as they can get.

Oh and stop DS from making any other stupid unthought out controversial remarks!

Now back to the day job teaching pigs to use parachutes.

 

[/quote]

Dusty Springfield[Y]

[8] Like a circle in a spiral
Like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning
On an ever-spinning reel
As the images unwind
Like the circles that you find
In the windmills of your mind

If I agree with you that they ran the board so the statement came from them then we have to agree that every board decision comes from them. We both know that''s unlikely to be true. The statement came from the CE. It actually had his name on it. It was never a personal statement valueing personal shares. It was the valuation of the club based on what the value of the unnissued shares had been set at £30 at a previous AGM and a 20m investment on the football team.

What we get is people digging for conflicting facts in order to make out Delia is a liar.. don''t fall for it!

Make a phone call to Carrow Road.. "I want to buy the club and invest 20m on the team".. "That''ll be 56m sir"... "OK, I''ll go away and think about it"

Contact Smith&Jones... "I want to buy your shares".... "OK what are your plans for the football club? What ongoing commitment will you make? .. Why would the club and fans be better off with you there?" They may even say "They''re not for sale until you prove your worth" I don''t know because those shares belong to those people. There''s a huge difference between negotiating with them and contacting the club with a view to buy.

The mindset on here is that anybody would be better than Smith&Jones. That is so far away from the truth but it''s still believed. Just like the 56m to buy out Delia is still believed. If Delia is the wicked lying old trout she is made out to be why is it only said behind a keyboard?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

 

Nutty, the club being for sale and D and M`s shares being for sale are the same thing.  For someone "way out of their depth" you don`t half have strong opinions on things.  No-one can force you to sell your shares unless someone owns 90% of the overall shares in issue.  Butler has dealt with your "return" issue nicely.

Your last paragraph is exactly why you are not worth debating with and why you are a hypocrite for frequently whining about other people making things personal.  You made no offer to meet me and i stated on here that i could not go to the AGM because i work evenings- see if you can find a post by me on here between 16.30 and 20.30 (although i did do 17.30 to 21.30 up to about a year ago).  Speaking of which, i`ve got to go....

[/quote]

Smith & Jones can make personal choices with their shares without the whole club being sold. I may be out of my depth but I''m pretty sure of that. However, if the club is sold it would affect more than just their shares. I don''t believe anyone will ever buy the shares anyway. Do you know of anyone who wants them? They''d struggle to give them away to be fair. So what is it you want them to do Mr Carrow? Maybe they should run on the pitch at the next home game and throw them at some willy nilly people in the stands!

Do you remember when the AGM was lunchtimes[:^)][O][pi][|-)]

 

[/quote]

 

 

Hole??? dug??? Back peddling springs to mind !

 

What you on about no one will buy the shares!! get a grip man, if people are prepared to invest in clubs like Southampton, Portsmouth and notts county who don''t even have  half the infrastructure we have..... then im thinking we have a shout of someone buying us out!!!

our biggest issue is Delia!!! and Jones!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...