AGM Tuesday night

[Kathy 746]

Will Stephen Fry be at the AGM. He tweeted he is in Norfolk today.

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="The Great Drinkell"]Wits

I can''t make tonight - a meeting at grass roots level for me - but If mr Fry''s there can you ask him if they will be bringing back Kingdom as I don''t really like Wild at Heart.

Thanks[/quote]lol I will if I get chance to speak to him but somehow this doesn''t quite appear to be appropriate business for the agm, although from a few previous posts, it sounds like some other attendees don''t worry about that anyway.Back to the matter of the agm, I forgot to ask a couple of things yesterday.Roughly how long does the agm last?Is it ok to park in Carrow Road?ThanksMay see some of you later

[Kathy 746]

He is coming. He just tweeted. Lots of press there methinks.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

WITS.

 

Do you own any ordinary shares of NCFC Plc or are you gate crashing?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Kathy"]He is coming. He just tweeted. Lots of press there methinks.[/quote]

It wouldn''t look good if he didnt turn up considering he is standing for relection!

Mind you he could be listening to Baldricks latest cunning plan......

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

As I can''t make it tonight (I am still recovering from my illness) I wonder if someone can ask whether:

The increase in Accruals and deferred income per note 17 (page 20) of the NCFC Plc Accounts to the 31st May 2010, from £1057 thousand to £4120thousand or £4.1 million as at 31st May 2010 is the result of the holiday in servicing the debts last season? 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

WITS.

 

Do you own any ordinary shares of NCFC Plc or are you gate crashing?

[/quote]I have a letter that says I need to bring it to get in [;)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

PurpleCanary

The second resolution scraps the right of existing shareholders to have first refusal on buying any new shares - such as the ones mention in Res. 7. So S&J, for example, or Foulger, would no longer be able (if they wanted to) to snaffle the lion''s share.

-----------------------------

Having a resolution to ignore preemption rights is not an usual for company AGM.''s.  Don''t forget that if someone wants to acquire 30% (technically just under) or more of the ordinary shares of NCFC Plc then the takeover code may come into play.

You mention the potential to issue £30m of new ordinary shares (if valued at £30 each), is PC. coming back on the scene?

 

[TIL 1010 4,824]

[quote user="Til Seeker"][quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="Sports Desk Pete"][quote user="Woman in the Stands"][quote user="Sports Desk Pete"]I might pop along if there''s nothing on the TV.
[/quote]

That''s mighty encouraging Pete [:S]
[/quote]

AGMs are quite dull when everything''s going well.

One tip though - if you do ask a question in the Q&A at the end make sure you tell everyone just how long you''ve been following City when you introduce yourself and make sure the question lasts 10 minutes long, then you''ll fit right in...
[/quote]

If i did not know better Pete i would think you are talking about Peter i''ve been a supporter since 1946 Wolsey assisted by the two stooges Cameron Newark and David Batley.By the way i have yet to hear a question from any of them since i became a shareholder back in 1995 and bear in mind they somehow mange to take the floor every ruddy year.

[/quote]

As many people have said about you before, if you cannot say something constructive then try saying nothing at all.

With comments such as this about one of your former NCISA committee members, it''s no surprise that the NCISA committee are having a much happier time since your departure.

[/quote]

The boring and predictable comment concerning me yet again from the idiot lately calling himself Til Seeker.I do believe you have the exclusive rights on the " if you cannot say something constructive then try saying nothing at all" remark.

Thankyou Butler for clarifying CA''s post regarding Vice President.Good to see that my stalker is not as informed as he thinks.

Now Til Seeker this former committee member you refer to,would this be the same person who like me was prepared to stand as Chairman when Roy Blower stood down to become Lord Mayor?Remind me again who was elected by the Committee back in May 2007.If i was held in such low regard by the rest of the Committee it does not say too much about the other candidate now does it.

I shall be at the AGM tonight so as you are the Til Seeker please feel free to make yourself known to me.I shall listen out for the high pitched voice as i suspect you have no balls.Go on spoil yourself and prove me wrong.

[......and Smith must score. 1,368]

WITS - you asked how long an AGM lasts. I''ve no idea re NCFC but other AGM''s I''ve attended seem to run to about 90 mins/2 hours inc the Q & A session.Regarding parking you can park anywhere in the club car park .....at least that''s never been a problem for me at any of the forums I''ve been to up to now.

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

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

The second resolution scraps the right of existing shareholders to have first refusal on buying any new shares - such as the ones mention in Res. 7. So S&J, for example, or Foulger, would no longer be able (if they wanted to) to snaffle the lion''s share.

-----------------------------

Having a resolution to ignore preemption rights is not an usual for company AGM.''s.  Don''t forget that if someone wants to acquire 30% (technically just under) or more of the ordinary shares of NCFC Plc then the takeover code may come into play.

You mention the potential to issue £30m of new ordinary shares (if valued at £30 each), is PC. coming back on the scene?

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

Tangible:

1. I have cautioned all along against reading too much into any of this. I think this is just the board prudently catering for all eventualities, some of which are more likely than others.

2. I''m deeply shocked you might even think I''ve forgotten the Takeover Code and any of its many clauses and sub-clauses. The threshold at which someone who has acquired shares has to make a bid for all the shares is indeed below 30 per cent. It is 29.99 per cent.

 

3. Having (if agreed) the potential to issue shares valued at £30m is not such a dramatic step. The current potential figure is £26.7m.

 

4. Does this all suggest Peter Cullum (I take it you mean him rather than PurpleCanary?) is hoving into view again? I have not the slightest reason to think these planned changes are aimed at him. Whether they are aimed at attracting me and my consortium of Siberian palladium magnates is quite another matter, but one on which I am bound to stay silent.

 

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

[quote user="......and Smith must score."]WITS - you asked how long an AGM lasts. I''ve no idea re NCFC but other AGM''s I''ve attended seem to run to about 90 mins/2 hours inc the Q & A session.Regarding parking you can park anywhere in the club car park .....at least that''s never been a problem for me at any of the forums I''ve been to up to now. [/quote]Thanks [:)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

PurpleCanary:

2. I''m deeply shocked you might even think I''ve forgotten the Takeover Code and any of its many clauses and sub-clauses. The threshold at which someone who has acquired shares has to make a bid for all the shares is indeed below 30 per cent. It is 29.99 per cent.

--->  I wouldn''t expect a professional like yourself to forget the Takeover Code!  I just mentioned it for the benefit of others.

 

 

4.  Whether they are aimed at attracting me and my consortium of Siberian palladium magnates is quite another matter, but one on which I am bound to stay silent.

----> So you are into PGM''s too!  Lol!

 

 

[city till i die 0]

Live commentary of the meeting on wotb.........

[Woman in the Stands (WITS) 0]

FAO The Great Drinkell - Stephen Fry left early because he has to be in Israel tomorrow so I didn''t get chance to ask your question I''m afraid.

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

 

I did post a while back that one (note the "one") possible (note the "possible") explanation is that the board is simply being prudent. Preparing the ground in the unlikely (note the "unlikely") event that there was some idiot potential investor (minority or majority) out there who wanted to buy new shares rather than existing one.

What I had said was:

"Removing a potential obstacle to new investment. Although obstacle is probably too strong a word. And I don''t off hand see what other reason there might be. But I still wouldn''t read too much into this. I think this is just a prudent change in case it might facilitate future investment, and I suspect it is symbolic as much as anything, at least for now."

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

---

 

Bowkett''s explanation tonight pretty much chimes with those posts:

 

"At present, if we were able to find a substantial investor in the football club, we would have to offer similar terms to all investors. That would firstly cost a lot of money, secondly take a lot of time and thirdly would only generate a small amount of money compared to that from a major investor. We would like to change this process to give us greater flexibility should we be able to find a new investor. It iss perfectly normal procedure for a PLC and I should stress that there is no new substantial investor on the horizon at present.”

 

[Bill 1,788]

As with "However I don''t really see anything sinister in this as were it to be damaging to any larger shareholdings then the Smiths* would simply vote it down via their majority holding.

I suspect it''s just a bit of company ''housekeeping'' that will allow any future investment (via shareholding) to be facilitated far quicker and at less cost"

What has not been clarified is what would a ''substantial investor'' be expecting in return for that substatial investment. A guaranteed return as in a dividend, an interest payment - made only when financially suitable ie in the Premier League

Would that investor have any say in how the money is used, if so would that say mean they would need to be the majority shareholder or would any investment be accepted if it was conditional ie it can only be used for players fees/wages and not used to repay debts ?

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="City1st"]As with "However I don''t really see anything sinister in this as were it to be damaging to any larger shareholdings then the Smiths* would simply vote it down via their majority holding. I suspect it''s just a bit of company ''housekeeping'' that will allow any future investment (via shareholding) to be facilitated far quicker and at less cost" What has not been clarified is what would a ''substantial investor'' be expecting in return for that substatial investment. A guaranteed return as in a dividend, an interest payment - made only when financially suitable ie in the Premier League Would that investor have any say in how the money is used, if so would that say mean they would need to be the majority shareholder or would any investment be accepted if it was conditional ie it can only be used for players fees/wages and not used to repay debts ?[/quote]

Reading between the lines today in the EDP they are therefor going to raise the funds to give Lambert that extra help to push for promotion this season, and McNally wants to increase the seats to 35000.  

[Bill 1,788]

Putting it bluntly, my question is would a supposed ''hinvestor'' be happy to hand over x number of millions then

a) let the club spend as it saw fit

b) want some say in how it is spent

c) want control of the club via majority shareholding

On each point how would this ''hinvestor'' expect to see a return on the money ?

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

[quote user="City1st"]Putting it bluntly, my question is would a supposed ''hinvestor'' be happy to hand over x number of millions then a) let the club spend as it saw fit b) want some say in how it is spent c) want control of the club via majority shareholding On each point how would this ''hinvestor'' expect to see a return on the money ?[/quote]

 

---

 

You are assuming all investors buy into football in order to get a return on their money, and that simply isn''t the case. People do it for all sorts of reasons, such as acquiring influence or standing in the community, or good old-fashioned altruism. At the AGM last night McNally instanced two people who have put hundreds of millions of pounds into their clubs without much hope or expectation of a profit:

Some Premier League clubs managed on much smaller gates, but survived thanks to big benefactors such as Dave Whelan at Wigan and Mohamed Al Fayed, who had put £200m into Fulham, he said.

 

And at Norwich it is hard to see  Smith and Jones or Foulger ever making money on what they''ve put in. And equally hard to think they ever expected to.

[Bill 1,788]

I think you may have contradicted yourself purple.

My point was an open question. You chose to read as I was saying that any return would be financial. I did not.

What I was attempting to point out was that anyone putting money in a football club does it in return for something - be that money of some form of ''greater good''.

Unfortunately far too many folk simply believe that there are an almost unlimited number of the the latter. Kindly old chaps with a twinkle in their eye. They have also convinced themselves that a failing to allow these well wishes to fill the coffers at Carrow Road is down to any manner of wickedness by the club and Delia Smith specifically.

On the presumption that we would be open to money from the former - someone looking for a financial return then the original points stand. What would they want ? Speculation welcome.

ps I would suggest that there are far deeper reasons for Al Fayeds involvement in Fulham.

[Til Seeker 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="cityangel"][quote user="Til Seeker"]

As many people have said about you before, if you cannot say something constructive then try saying nothing at all.

With comments such as this about one of your former NCISA committee members, it''s no surprise that the NCISA committee are having a much happier time since your departure.

[/quote]

Hiya Truthseeker, why the change of name?

As for Tilly he hasn''t departed ncisa, he''s now vice chairman so is still involved plus its always a happy time for ncisa with nothing to do when Norwich are flying high [:)]

[/quote]

Small correction CA Tilly accepted the post of "Vice President" not a committee member as such anymore. Although his vast knowledge of all things NCFC is always available to us.

Til seeker your attempts at causing problems within NCISA are a futile waste of time.

[/quote]

Yes, I see that now. Thanks for the heads-up.

It should have been quite clear to everyone from the start that the Chairman and Vice President of NCISA are more than able to cause their own problems: http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/forums/21/2395433/ShowPost.aspx#2395433

Priceless. You couldn''t make it up, could you?

[PurpleCanary 5,601]

[quote user="City1st"]I think you may have contradicted yourself purple. My point was an open question. You chose to read as I was saying that any return would be financial. I did not. What I was attempting to point out was that anyone putting money in a football club does it in return for something - be that money of some form of ''greater good''. Unfortunately far too many folk simply believe that there are an almost unlimited number of the the latter. Kindly old chaps with a twinkle in their eye. They have also convinced themselves that a failing to allow these well wishes to fill the coffers at Carrow Road is down to any manner of wickedness by the club and Delia Smith specifically. On the presumption that we would be open to money from the former - someone looking for a financial return then the original points stand. What would they want ? Speculation welcome. ps I would suggest that there are far deeper reasons for Al Fayeds involvement in Fulham.[/quote]

---

City1st, I''ve only just seen this reply of yours. I haven''t contradicted myself. Not generally in the habit of doing that. I was commenting on this post of yours and specifically the bit in red:



Putting it bluntly, my question is would a supposed ''hinvestor'' be happy to hand over x number of millions then a) let the club spend as it saw fit b) want some say in how it is spent c) want control of the club via majority shareholding On each point how would this ''hinvestor'' expect to see a return on the money ?

 

I did indeed take "a return on their money" to mean a financial return. That is the comonsense way of reading that paragraph and that sentence particularly. If you had meant a return other than purely financial (moral, emotional or whatever) then it would have been helpful if you had said so.

 

Indeed you have argued that they are very few investors out there precisely because such people would want a financial return (in this thread you suggested they might expect a dividend) and would know the chances of such a return were slim. That has been your argument all along when posters here have been optimistic about investment. You have been sometimes a touch on the dismissive side.

 

If you are now saying that there are other reasons for investing in football clubs then we are in agreement. I have always argued that people invest in football clubs for all sorts of reasons and expecting a financial return on their money is probably not the most common. That is why people ARE willing to invest in football.