Don't blame the board

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Smudger"]I''m just waiting for the exit day of Smith and Jones when they give all of their shares that they have spent £12 million plus on to some kind of supporters trust fund or something.  As this will be the obvious course of action, rather than Smith & jones selling said shares, I think that we should put it to a vote now of who oversees these shares and has voting rights in the absence of Smith & Jones.

I am sure there are more than a few on here who will be willing to step in to the breach?

Of course they could just hand their shares over to their nephew or the church, but that would just be greedy wouldn''t it?




[/quote]

 

Well according to you whatever they do would be greedy Smudger. Because according to you they''ve already reclaimed all the money they put in. That is unless you changed your view in hindsight.

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Smudger"]I''m just waiting for the exit day of Smith and Jones when they give all of their shares that they have spent £12 million plus on to some kind of supporters trust fund or something.  As this will be the obvious course of action, rather than Smith & jones selling said shares, I think that we should put it to a vote now of who oversees these shares and has voting rights in the absence of Smith & Jones.

I am sure there are more than a few on here who will be willing to step in to the breach?

Of course they could just hand their shares over to their nephew or the church, but that would just be greedy wouldn''t it?




[/quote]

 

In that case (unless someone else bought around 500,000 new shares) this presumably penniless supporters'' trust would own the club. It would, I am pretty certain, be a first for English football. Are you sure that is what you want?

[shefcanary 2,444]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Smudger"]I''m just waiting for the exit day of Smith and Jones when they give all of their shares that they have spent £12 million plus on to some kind of supporters trust fund or something.  As this will be the obvious course of action, rather than Smith & jones selling said shares, I think that we should put it to a vote now of who oversees these shares and has voting rights in the absence of Smith & Jones.

I am sure there are more than a few on here who will be willing to step in to the breach?

Of course they could just hand their shares over to their nephew or the church, but that would just be greedy wouldn''t it?




[/quote]

 

In that case (unless someone else bought around 500,000 new shares) this presumably penniless supporters'' trust would own the club. It would, I am pretty certain, be a first for English football. Are you sure that is what you want?

[/quote]

 

Presumably yes, but only if Smudger was Chair of the trust?

[Highland Canary 76]

There is undoubtedly an issue of ownership succession that the club will have to face in the not too distant future as the current majority owners are not getting any younger. Personally - and I have no empirical evidence to support this view - I''m inclined to believe that the current owners will sell to a third party who shares the oft-stated ''community'' ethos of the club even if that means their proceeds of sale are not maximised. I agree with Purple that ownership via a supporters trust in the multi-million pound world of the PL seems unlikely.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="shefcanary"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]

[quote user="Smudger"]I''m just waiting for the exit day of Smith and Jones when they give all of their shares that they have spent £12 million plus on to some kind of supporters trust fund or something.  As this will be the obvious course of action, rather than Smith & jones selling said shares, I think that we should put it to a vote now of who oversees these shares and has voting rights in the absence of Smith & Jones.

I am sure there are more than a few on here who will be willing to step in to the breach?

Of course they could just hand their shares over to their nephew or the church, but that would just be greedy wouldn''t it?




[/quote]

 

In that case (unless someone else bought around 500,000 new shares) this presumably penniless supporters'' trust would own the club. It would, I am pretty certain, be a first for English football. Are you sure that is what you want?

[/quote]

 

Presumably yes, but only if Smudger was Chair of the trust?

[/quote]

 

I had myself in mind...[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Highland Canary"]There is undoubtedly an issue of ownership succession that the club will have to face in the not too distant future as the current majority owners are not getting any younger. Personally - and I have no empirical evidence to support this view - I''m inclined to believe that the current owners will sell to a third party who shares the oft-stated ''community'' ethos of the club even if that means their proceeds of sale are not maximised. I agree with Purple that ownership via a supporters trust in the multi-million pound world of the PL seems unlikely.[/quote]

 

HC, a solution I have suggested in the past, which would also be a first, and as such unlikely but who knows, is the following. That while the club would be owned in the current fashion, by one or more rich people, and be run as befits a business in a capitalist world, there would be a fans'' representative with a golden-share veto over a very few but crucial "heritage" issues. How amenabley the rich owners would be to even such a limited constraint on their actions is a question. But I gather that kind of supporter power exists at least to an extent at the top levels of the game in Germany.

[Highland Canary 76]

Purple - That''s an interesting suggestion. I wonder though in the German context with two tier boards, employee representation and a continental European stakeholder conception of capitalism whether such a solution would fit so easily within an Anglo-American shareholder conception of capitalism? Certainly an issue in need of further research!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="shefcanary"]

Presumably yes, but only if Smudger was Chair of the trust?

[/quote]You appear to have missed the irony in my posts.Far better candidates than me on here of being pro-active and not judging everything in hindsight.Well volunteered Purple, any more takers?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="shefcanary"]

Presumably yes, but only if Smudger was Chair of the trust?

[/quote]

You appear to have missed the irony in my posts.

Far better candidates than me on here of being pro-active and not judging everything in hindsight.

Well volunteered Purple, any more takers?
[/quote]

 

 

Well, I am game, Smudger. But would my profile of a rather shadowy and secretive tax-haven-based figure whose supposedly fabulous (and probably criminally-created) wealth is concealed in a cat''s cradle of shell companies pass the fit and proper person''s test, let alone the magisterially forensic scrutiny of yourself and the Fag Packets on this message-board?

Added to which, I do think Neil Doncaster was for a considerable time an effective CEO, and my first (apparently very foolish) act would be to rehire him.

[Smudger 0]

Well you appear to be the only person putting themselves forward for it so far Purple, so I guess that we should hope that Smith and Jones leave their shares to the church?

[Mello Yello 2,302]

Yeah, let''s get Doncaster and Worthy back......Onwards and Upwards!.....Prudence with Ambition!......

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,598]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[/quote]

 

Ha!

 

Bayer is no more Geordie Boy.

 

Just like old times with you and Smudger though. Nostalgia isn''t what it used to be but you two don''t change..

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

 

The Byrds would disagree with you, nutty:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqHb7RFpoxU

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[/quote]

 

Ha!

 

Bayer is no more Geordie Boy.

 

Just like old times with you and Smudger though. Nostalgia isn''t what it used to be but you two don''t change..

[/quote]

Change certainly doesn''t feature on your radar......and I won''t be ''Duellin'' Banjos'' with you, Eddie Bor......or, should that be Bore?

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[/quote]

 

Ha!

 

Bayer is no more Geordie Boy.

 

Just like old times with you and Smudger though. Nostalgia isn''t what it used to be but you two don''t change..

[/quote]

Change certainly doesn''t feature on your radar......and I won''t be ''Duellin'' Banjos'' with you, Eddie Bor......or, should that be Bore?

[/quote]

[Mello Yello 2,302]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[/quote]

 

Ha!

 

Bayer is no more Geordie Boy.

 

Just like old times with you and Smudger though. Nostalgia isn''t what it used to be but you two don''t change..

[/quote]

Change certainly doesn''t feature on your radar......and I won''t be ''Duellin'' Banjos'' with you, Eddie Bor......or, should that be Bore?

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Noooooo..

 

Never go back Mellow. Get shot of all those who stink of previous failures. Get new blood in. It''s about time we attracted a genuine benefactor and something seems to be putting them off..

 

 

[/quote]

Yes Numpty Niggle get ''em back I say.......let''s go back to the good ole daze....."Lesh be ''avin yoo!" "Losh of luvverly hinvestment!".....

 

This forum was certainly better for it......

[/quote]

 

Yes this forum misses all those investment bankers...

 

But at least you and Smudge are back[Y]

 

 

[/quote]

And you never went awaaaaaaaaaaaay.......You an'' the Bayer Bayer Baby Board Bootboys....

[/quote]

 

Ha!

 

Bayer is no more Geordie Boy.

 

Just like old times with you and Smudger though. Nostalgia isn''t what it used to be but you two don''t change..

[/quote]

Change certainly doesn''t feature on your radar......and I won''t be ''Duellin'' Banjos'' with you, Eddie Bor......or, should that be Bore?

[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[/quote]

 

[Big Vince 319]

[quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

The club respond to his comments by stating at least £56m would be needed to buy the club, including topping up the £20m for new players with £16m to buy up shares, £16m to pay off City''s bank debt which would be called in if a takeover went through and £4m to repay loans from directors.

 

Which bit is of the above is unrealistic?

You''ve said that £30 million was a normal valuation but Mr Cullum was talking about £20million to get control of the club.

 

[/quote]

For starters, the £20 million for new players had nothing to do with the asking price for the club. And that stricture applies equally to Mr Cullum and the Wynn Joneses. That is something that any buyer would decide upon after having bought the club. What was in question was the valuation of the shares, and, in particular, the value of the Wynn Joneses block. Considering the club was £20 million in debt, it is doubtful whether the shares would have been worth £16 million. I would have said no more than £10 million plus the £20 million to pay off the debts, so £30 million in total. You can''t expect to rack up debts of £20 million through bad stewardship then get full whack for the shares you are selling. But this is all academic now as Mr Lambert answered the Wynn Joneses prayers by proceeding to lay the golden egg.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

The club respond to his comments by stating at least £56m would be needed to buy the club, including topping up the £20m for new players with £16m to buy up shares, £16m to pay off City''s bank debt which would be called in if a takeover went through and £4m to repay loans from directors.

 

Which bit is of the above is unrealistic?

You''ve said that £30 million was a normal valuation but Mr Cullum was talking about £20million to get control of the club.

 

[/quote]

For starters, the £20 million for new players had nothing to do with the asking price for the club. And that stricture applies equally to Mr Cullum and the Wynn Joneses. That is something that any buyer would decide upon after having bought the club. What was in question was the valuation of the shares, and, in particular, the value of the Wynn Joneses block. Considering the club was £20 million in debt, it is doubtful whether the shares would have been worth £16 million. I would have said no more than £10 million plus the £20 million to pay off the debts, so £30 million in total. You can''t expect to rack up debts of £20 million through bad stewardship then get full whack for the shares you are selling. But this is all academic now as Mr Lambert answered the Wynn Joneses prayers by proceeding to lay the golden egg.

[/quote]

 

You really don''t understand this stuff, do you? The supposed £20m for new players had everything to do with the asking price, because Cullum was only willing to spend £20m for everything, including buying the club. So if he had to spend anything at all buying the club, or paying off debt, then the £20m got instantly reduced. In practice it would probably have ended up at close to zero, given that the debt was indeed £20m, and most of it would have been called in.

As to the valuation of the shares Smith and Jones were with that £16m figure only doing what they were supposed to do as majority shareholders, which was to look after the interests of minority shareholders such as myself. It is all very well to say Smith and Jones should sell their shares for less than they paid, or even give them away for a nominal 1p, but that fixes the price that will be received by all the other shareholders, many of whom will have paid £25 or £30 (on which the £16m figure was based) or £100 in the recent case of the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust.

[Big Vince 319]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

The club respond to his comments by stating at least £56m would be needed to buy the club, including topping up the £20m for new players with £16m to buy up shares, £16m to pay off City''s bank debt which would be called in if a takeover went through and £4m to repay loans from directors.

 

Which bit is of the above is unrealistic?

You''ve said that £30 million was a normal valuation but Mr Cullum was talking about £20million to get control of the club.

 

[/quote]

For starters, the £20 million for new players had nothing to do with the asking price for the club. And that stricture applies equally to Mr Cullum and the Wynn Joneses. That is something that any buyer would decide upon after having bought the club. What was in question was the valuation of the shares, and, in particular, the value of the Wynn Joneses block. Considering the club was £20 million in debt, it is doubtful whether the shares would have been worth £16 million. I would have said no more than £10 million plus the £20 million to pay off the debts, so £30 million in total. You can''t expect to rack up debts of £20 million through bad stewardship then get full whack for the shares you are selling. But this is all academic now as Mr Lambert answered the Wynn Joneses prayers by proceeding to lay the golden egg.

[/quote]

 

You really don''t understand this stuff, do you? The supposed £20m for new players had everything to do with the asking price, because Cullum was only willing to spend £20m for everything, including buying the club. So if he had to spend anything at all buying the club, or paying off debt, then the £20m got instantly reduced. In practice it would probably have ended up at close to zero, given that the debt was indeed £20m, and most of it would have been called in.

As to the valuation of the shares Smith and Jones were with that £16m figure only doing what they were supposed to do as majority shareholders, which was to look after the interests of minority shareholders such as myself. It is all very well to say Smith and Jones should sell their shares for less than they paid, or even give them away for a nominal 1p, but that fixes the price that will be received by all the other shareholders, many of whom will have paid £25 or £30 (on which the £16m figure was based) or £100 in the recent case of the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust.

[/quote]

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that both figures were wrong - the £20 million quoted by Cullum and the £56 million quoted by the Wynn Joneses. Neither stacked up, as you have pointed out with the Cullum bid.

To say the Wynn Joneses have to look after minority shareholders such as you and me is a quaint red herring. We did not invest on the basis of expecting to get any return (after all, you have not had any dividends). I put money in to get Huckerby, McKenzie and Svensson when they had the share issue in 2004.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

The club respond to his comments by stating at least £56m would be needed to buy the club, including topping up the £20m for new players with £16m to buy up shares, £16m to pay off City''s bank debt which would be called in if a takeover went through and £4m to repay loans from directors.

 

Which bit is of the above is unrealistic?

You''ve said that £30 million was a normal valuation but Mr Cullum was talking about £20million to get control of the club.

 

[/quote]

For starters, the £20 million for new players had nothing to do with the asking price for the club. And that stricture applies equally to Mr Cullum and the Wynn Joneses. That is something that any buyer would decide upon after having bought the club. What was in question was the valuation of the shares, and, in particular, the value of the Wynn Joneses block. Considering the club was £20 million in debt, it is doubtful whether the shares would have been worth £16 million. I would have said no more than £10 million plus the £20 million to pay off the debts, so £30 million in total. You can''t expect to rack up debts of £20 million through bad stewardship then get full whack for the shares you are selling. But this is all academic now as Mr Lambert answered the Wynn Joneses prayers by proceeding to lay the golden egg.

[/quote]

 

You really don''t understand this stuff, do you? The supposed £20m for new players had everything to do with the asking price, because Cullum was only willing to spend £20m for everything, including buying the club. So if he had to spend anything at all buying the club, or paying off debt, then the £20m got instantly reduced. In practice it would probably have ended up at close to zero, given that the debt was indeed £20m, and most of it would have been called in.

As to the valuation of the shares Smith and Jones were with that £16m figure only doing what they were supposed to do as majority shareholders, which was to look after the interests of minority shareholders such as myself. It is all very well to say Smith and Jones should sell their shares for less than they paid, or even give them away for a nominal 1p, but that fixes the price that will be received by all the other shareholders, many of whom will have paid £25 or £30 (on which the £16m figure was based) or £100 in the recent case of the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust.

[/quote]

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that both figures were wrong - the £20 million quoted by Cullum and the £56 million quoted by the Wynn Joneses. Neither stacked up, as you have pointed out with the Cullum bid.

To say the Wynn Joneses have to look after minority shareholders such as you and me is a quaint red herring. We did not invest on the basis of expecting to get any return (after all, you have not had any dividends). I put money in to get Huckerby, McKenzie and Svensson when they had the share issue in 2004.

[/quote]

 

Not expecting a return may be true in your case, and in mine. And in the case of others. But that is not an assumption the majority shareholders in a company can make. They are not allowed to assume that people don''t want their money back. They have to assume (unless told otherwise at an EGM, for example) that people do want their money back and act accordingly by demanding a price for shares that ensures that. That is a duty. What IS a red herring is your point about dividends. The ordinary shares, which are the ones we are talking about, since they control the company, do not pay a dividend. It is only the A and B preference shares on which a dividend may be declared.

[Big Vince 319]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="TCCANARY"]

 

The club respond to his comments by stating at least £56m would be needed to buy the club, including topping up the £20m for new players with £16m to buy up shares, £16m to pay off City''s bank debt which would be called in if a takeover went through and £4m to repay loans from directors.

 

Which bit is of the above is unrealistic?

You''ve said that £30 million was a normal valuation but Mr Cullum was talking about £20million to get control of the club.

 

[/quote]

For starters, the £20 million for new players had nothing to do with the asking price for the club. And that stricture applies equally to Mr Cullum and the Wynn Joneses. That is something that any buyer would decide upon after having bought the club. What was in question was the valuation of the shares, and, in particular, the value of the Wynn Joneses block. Considering the club was £20 million in debt, it is doubtful whether the shares would have been worth £16 million. I would have said no more than £10 million plus the £20 million to pay off the debts, so £30 million in total. You can''t expect to rack up debts of £20 million through bad stewardship then get full whack for the shares you are selling. But this is all academic now as Mr Lambert answered the Wynn Joneses prayers by proceeding to lay the golden egg.

[/quote]

 

You really don''t understand this stuff, do you? The supposed £20m for new players had everything to do with the asking price, because Cullum was only willing to spend £20m for everything, including buying the club. So if he had to spend anything at all buying the club, or paying off debt, then the £20m got instantly reduced. In practice it would probably have ended up at close to zero, given that the debt was indeed £20m, and most of it would have been called in.

As to the valuation of the shares Smith and Jones were with that £16m figure only doing what they were supposed to do as majority shareholders, which was to look after the interests of minority shareholders such as myself. It is all very well to say Smith and Jones should sell their shares for less than they paid, or even give them away for a nominal 1p, but that fixes the price that will be received by all the other shareholders, many of whom will have paid £25 or £30 (on which the £16m figure was based) or £100 in the recent case of the Norwich City Supporters'' Trust.

[/quote]

You misunderstand what I am saying. I am saying that both figures were wrong - the £20 million quoted by Cullum and the £56 million quoted by the Wynn Joneses. Neither stacked up, as you have pointed out with the Cullum bid.

To say the Wynn Joneses have to look after minority shareholders such as you and me is a quaint red herring. We did not invest on the basis of expecting to get any return (after all, you have not had any dividends). I put money in to get Huckerby, McKenzie and Svensson when they had the share issue in 2004.

[/quote]

 

Not expecting a return may be true in your case, and in mine. And in the case of others. But that is not an assumption the majority shareholders in a company can make. They are not allowed to assume that people don''t want their money back. They have to assume (unless told otherwise at an EGM, for example) that people do want their money back and act accordingly by demanding a price for shares that ensures that. That is a duty. What IS a red herring is your point about dividends. The ordinary shares, which are the ones we are talking about, since they control the company, do not pay a dividend. It is only the A and B preference shares on which a dividend may be declared.

[/quote]

I take most of your points on board, O Purple One. However, I was comparing the ordinary shares in Norwich City Plc with ordinary shares in a FTSE100 company. In the latter you would normally expect to get a dividend on ordinary shares because these companies are normally making sufficient money to be able to make an annual return to shareholders. However, in the case of football clubs they are almost always loss-making and subsidised by the directors, and so do not offer any dividend return to shareholders.

There is one thing puzzling me. Why was I not made an offer for my shares when the Wynn Joneses took over the company from Geoffrey Watling in 1996? Wasn''t that a takeover?

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Big Vince"]

There is one thing puzzling me. Why was I not made an offer for my shares when the Wynn Joneses took over the company from Geoffrey Watling in 1996? Wasn''t that a takeover?

[/quote]Is this because we weren''t a plc back then?

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Big Vince"]

There is one thing puzzling me. Why was I not made an offer for my shares when the Wynn Joneses took over the company from Geoffrey Watling in 1996? Wasn''t that a takeover?

[/quote]

Is this because we weren''t a plc back then?


[/quote]

 

It is because we were not a plc, and so were not subject to the Takeover Code.

[nutty nigel 7,598]

[quote user="Big Vince"]

I take most of your points on board, O Purple One. However, I was comparing the ordinary shares in Norwich City Plc with ordinary shares in a FTSE100 company. In the latter you would normally expect to get a dividend on ordinary shares because these companies are normally making sufficient money to be able to make an annual return to shareholders. However, in the case of football clubs they are almost always loss-making and subsidised by the directors, and so do not offer any dividend return to shareholders.

[/quote]

 

As a shareholder why would you make that comparison?

 

 

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Big Vince"]There is one thing puzzling me. Why was I not made an offer for my shares when the Wynn Joneses took over the company from Geoffrey Watling in 1996? Wasn''t that a takeover?[/quote]I don''t think the shares they bought from Watling gave them a majority shareholding at that time. And, apart from the three people involved, only one other person on the whole planet knows how much they changed hands for......