CANARY CHARGE

To get this party started................COME ON YOU YELLOWS!!!!!

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] It`s interesting that bigfellers superb explanation of the boards litany of failures hasn`t even really been argued against (and i actually think he left some of the biggest ones out!).  I think that the argument is done and dusted on here and even the usual suspects know the board have failed and for the good of the club should go.  But...... ......Will we get a chorus of "delias barmy army" tomorrow even if we lose and she comes out to applaud our support?  I wouldn`t bet against it [:S]  [+o(]. [/quote] Bigger failures, Mr C? Please tell! I assume you''re referring to Cullumgate? I restricted myself to remarking that the board had "made a complete mess of his approach" because I never felt it was clear-cut in one direction or another. Thanks to it being mentioned on this thread, I''ve also just read PurpleCanary''s superb account of what happened - which I have to say I found extremely plausible, and hard to differ from. [/quote] It wasn''t bad as far as it goes.  But by his own admission he leaves out some fairly vital bits of the story "so as not to break confidences" or some such guff.  I  also don''t believe that he has a more complete picture than anyone else except those directly involved.  There are probably things he doesn''t even know he doesn''t know. He also seems to think it''s perfectly reasonable for D&M to insist on long term investment in the club before they will sell.  Either it''s a deliberate ploy to deter prospective buyers or they''re living in a dreamworld.  It is not up to them to set conditions relating to the running of the club after they''re no longer here and no investor in their right mind would dream of agreeing to it.      [/quote] there will be fat cats sniffing out norwich, its set up for the right person, just shame our havent the buisness no how to use what they have!!!

would you risk it in london?

I had a friend who phoned charlton, to get ticket, unless you have been to a match this season, you wont be able to get in....

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="sgncfc"] The scary thing is that the article indicates yet again that the players still think they will get out of it. I am convinced that at no point so far have they truly believed they were going to be relegated, and they still don''t. When bookies have you as 1/12 to go down it''s time you started thinking it was more than a possibility, but just like at Fulham 4 years ago, the team will turn up thinking all will be well. I have little hope..... [/quote] Did you see Doherty''s comments after we won three out of four in March? "That''s promotion form", he beamed. No Gary: promotion form is when you do it over 46 games, not four! I almost chucked my computer through the window when I read it. [/quote] be strong in the face of adversity, but thats taking the piss! lol

yeap..... its screaming at us, just a shame 170 grand a year doesnt buy you common sense!

i got one for my brother last night around 10ish............just stay on they are coming up, also try main site!

[quote user="CT "]I think replacing Otsemobor is a must! Most of the goals we''ve conceded this year have been down to him [/quote] im unsure about otsemobor, i think he needs managing, i see real potential.......... if he could stop this half way line block he seems to have!

[quote user="sgncfc"][quote user="silver fox"] If Russell put as much effort into trying to mark players, make tackles, closedown opponents, track back, support the forwards, as he does in providing storylines for the Pink Un he might actually contribute something towards the team staying up.  I watched him closely on Monday and for the majority of the game he marked open space, he didn''t close their players down, he strolled around midfield as though he was out for a Sunday walk.  He writes that we shouldn''t be where we are and cannot understand it, well quite simply Russell it is because we have had too many players like you in the team all season. I felt sorry for Clingan as he didn''t have a midfield partner.  Gunn should have put young Korey Smith in and he would have put in a better performance. Whatever happens on Sunday Russell must be one of those we ship out at the end of the season, and he can easily be replaced by either Spillane or Smith. [/quote] The scary thing is that the article indicates yet again that the players still think they will get out of it. I am convinced that at no point so far have they truly believed they were going to be relegated, and they still don''t. When bookies have you as 1/12 to go down it''s time you started thinking it was more than a possibility, but just like at Fulham 4 years ago, the team will turn up thinking all will be well. I have little hope..... little hope being the main point! [/quote]

[quote user="Mushroom"]CA, he didn''t specify whether it was for the game or the beam back. We''ve had a few people wanting tickets for both - and I genuinely have a ticket for the beam back if anyone wants one. Nice research skills but I''ve no reason to lie...[/quote] furry muff!   either way lets hope we enjoy it!

Mushroom was on here there other day, talking about going to the beamback!! as the ticket were application only, i dont very much if he comes up with the goods!

[quote user="maldini"]marshallleijer shackell doc bertrandrussell clingan lappinmooney gow mcdonaldATTACK ATTACK ATTACK[/quote] I would play shackell and macdonald up front, the two, to have passion on monday night! (shackell was joke!!)

[quote user="CT "]a) I chanted ''sack the board'' at the Scum away and Reading home games only to be looked at with derision and contempt from fellow supportersb) I have planned numerous protests with numerous people (watch this space)would you like me to continue?[/quote] CT no need to respond, actions speak louder then words........we just need to stick together, after all we are all norwich fans!

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="Beauseant"] 3 I am not criticising those who cling to the belief that he will buy the club in the face of all evidence and logic, although I think they''re wrong. We all need something to hope for, because the prospect of lurching onward under the current regime is not a comfortable one.However, I believe our salvation must be found elsewhere. [/quote] Regardless of the economic situation I don''t believe there''s any chance of Peter Cullum stepping in unless the club goes into administration.  Why?  Because the present owners have done everything possible to keep him out and there''s no reason to think that''s going to change.  Should the club go into admin and matters were taken out of the board''s hands, and PC was in a financial position to step in (possibly as part of a consortium) then there''s reason to hope that he might, but administration is the price we''d have to pay. People have wondered why he waited until the beginning of July, with the start of the season only just over a month away, to make his second approach.  Fwiw I have a growing feeling that he''d already made it and they''d turned it down flat some time before it became public knowledge, probably before the RNS in fact.  If so, Delia''s comment about "lots of lovely new investment, everything''s fine" looks more and more like using the media to make a two fingered gesture in his direction.     [/quote] All of which is possible, none of it provable, which brings me back to my original point. We all pin our hopes to different things and, human nature being what it is, we then start to interpret information in particular w ays. You see the board as spurning PC''s offer, I  see no serious offer having being made. Maybe one of us 100% right, or maybe,as I suspect, the truth lies somewhere in between. [/quote] I believe the board when they say Peter Cullum didn''t made a "formal offer".  But what is a formal offer?  It''s what you do when you want to buy a house, after you have made an informal offer.  You tell the estate agent what you''re willing to pay, he speaks to the vendor and once an agreement is reached you get your solicitor to put it in writing, but there''s no point making a formal offer until an informal offer has been accepted.    As for interpreting information, yes clearly there are different ways of looking at almost any situation.  But the Guardian unequivocally states that D&M rejected Peter Cullum before preliminary talks were announced shortly after the whole thing went public last July.  It is stated as fact and either it''s correct or it isn''t, but it''s not open to interpretation as far as I can see.   [/quote] I don`t believe PurpleCanary included that little snippet in his "truth about Cullumgate" gate piece did he?  Funny that..... [/quote]Thanks for the plug, Mr Carrow! I have been thinking about writing a kind of afterword to my story, when the dust has settled on this miserable season, and may do so next week.However just on the point you raise, there was no bias in leaving that out of the chronological part of my account of Cullumgate. I restricted myself to what happened when, without delving into the reasons why.I think it is widely believed, with some reason, that the directors were not overly keen to talk to Cullum after he went public, and it was public and private pressure that persuaded them to change their minds. But to have tried to explain why they were reluctant (if that was indeed the case) would have meant me going beyond what I knew to be true and involved making assumptions about what was in the minds of the directors.Instead I stuck in the chronology to the what and when, since they were what really mattered. However those talks in the summer came about, they did happen.[/quote] Good point purple, it is rather annoying how they stay quiet, there may a good reason, talks stalled....but at this stage they arent winning fans by hiding away!!!!

Doomcasters vision was to fill the ground, as we discovered on monday night, there are many people there for a day out, which is fair enough!! but the when they defend the board and there actions its a sad day! cheap  tickets is always going to be a winner...... and Norwich have discovered that!It was only a few seasons ago when we had 14000 every game!

[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]I`m not sure what you mean Beau.  But i`m sure you don`t mean that because Delia waited until the club was on it`s knees before getting the club on the cheap and has screwed things up, it means a much wealthier businessman who is doing the same having been rebuffed twice will inevitably do the same?[/quote]   Nor does it mean that he won''t, Mr C. Any new owner is a gamble, whether it''s Cullum or A N Other. For all I (or you ) know PC could be a fantastic owner or a disastrous one. We will only find that out if he buys the club, which seems pretty unlikely. I know you''ll say it isn''t, but, to repeat my point yet again, it''s all in the interpretation! Let''s shake hands and call it quits here, shall we?[:D] [/quote]Gamble or not i would rather have some one with  money, with good investment and a little bit of buisness sense, everything is in place to play top flight footy, just we have been blind by a great ground, 1st class training ground and media profile..............I would rather norwich played at kings lynn if they were in the premiership!! A good football team will save you and not a blinding ground!

[quote user="lynn canary"]Im feeling confident but also very nervouse tomorrow. I feel that if we do get relegated then i will not be able to hold the tears back but if we stay up i will be running naked around my village lol. Come on city !!! [/quote] sorry i wont be able to see that, ill in the valley! come on you yellows!

just sums it up, i have taylor every day of the week [quote user="singing canary"]a certain martin taylor wanted to stay here as well .. guess he was too good for us ,[/quote]

[quote user="Death by Chocolate Starfish"][quote user="CANARYCHARGE"]Norwich city is on its knees due to our board!!!people like wrighty boy giving them false support has got us into this mess!!the board has to go, or administration is a real threat![/quote]Everyone knows we''re in the sh*t. Who do you have lined up as a replacement?[/quote] Thats the million dollar question... i dont think cullum is a million miles away, if we do go down, people will come knocking, thats 1 thing delia and co has got right and thats the profile of Norwich!

[quote user="thebigfeller"][quote user="Camuldonum"] There may be much nonsense talked about continuity but there is also some sense in the idea because unless you give any Manager the chance to build up a squad over a reasonable length of time you risk the chain reaction that Norwich (and hundreds of other clubs over the years) have experienced and are still experiencing.  I say two full seasons is the minimum time but that is a matter of opinion, of course. Grant arrived, made all his changes (most of them deemed unsuccessful) and then lumbered Roeder with them.  Roeder made his changes, many not inspiring to the fans on here, and went on to lumber Gunn with them.  Roeder talked about his three year plan which is fine if you are going to be around for three years but as it has turned out he isn''t.  As well as costing any club a fortune in offloading players the "new man" does not like you have absolutely no chance - unless you are remarkably lucky - in getting any sort of consistent team used to playing as a unit, still the best chance of clubs (famous or otherwise) at least spending season after season without being haunted by the fear of relegation.  For success you probably need a bit of luck on top of that but consistency is still the base, in my view. Curbishley said the other day that between you, Charlton and Southampton you had got through 21 managers in five years (including the temps) and this season, between you, had fielded 111 players.  I have no idea if his figures are right but if they are it certainly does not seem helpful in the "consistency" and "unit" stakes if that model is correct.  We can all speak about the ugly football of both Stoke and Hull but, for a time at least, it has got them where they want to be: we could be unkind and say they kicked their way out of a division with the hoofball take-no-prisoners approach that they adopted.  But we cannot argue that it didn''t work. And had it worked for you Roeder would not have been a problem, his "arrogance" and delightful habit of "telling it like it is" would have been subsumed  by a good push up the table this season, perhaps even in or in the running for the playoffs.  Indeed, he might even have become a "no nonsense" character.  Clough told it like it was (and smacked a few fans, literally, and privately held many of those adoring followers in general contempt as "know nothing plonkers") but because he was successful he merely turned into a legend.  What a thin line it is! Two full seasons is  the minimum mark for me but, of course, that is merely an opinion.    [/quote] I don''t entirely disagree, Cam. When Grant was appointed in Oct ''06, I felt he had until Xmas ''08 to show he was making real progress; and May ''10 to get us up. The trouble was we were going down with him in charge - as he himself recognised when stepping down with dignity, something I''ll always give him credit for. Relegation is so catastrophic in financial terms that clubs can''t afford to mess around with a clearly failing manager. It was the same with Roeder: his prior record foretold that he''d make a short-term impact before getting horribly found out in his second year, which is precisely what happened. The slump under him actually started in the final ten or twelve games of last season, and just continued this: and he was so arrogant he lost the support of the board, fans and dressing room. It''s ironic: I''ve always wanted a nasty bastard to become Norwich boss, because someone like that could cut through the complacency and really change the entire club''s mentality for the better. That''s what Ron Saunders did for us in the early 70s; what Nigel Worthington (albeit, he was never a nasty bastard) did to an extent when he took over; and also what I expect Roy Keane to do at Ipswich. But that nasty bastard has to be a decent manager too: and Roeder palpably was not, not just here, but with West Ham, Watford and Gillingham too. Every time a club changes its manager, it has to start afresh again: as you say, it costs big bucks to pay off the previous incumbent and bring in new players and a new coaching staff; and takes considerable time to turn things round. But if you''re heading down, what do you do? Which is what makes the appointment in the first place so important. You''re a Lincoln fan. If Lincoln''s manager took you down to the Blue Square Premier, would you stick with him? If you then struggled in the BSP, would you still stick with him? But that could all happen within the two year minimum you''ve stated: which is why the whole "continuity" thing is just not that simple. The right appointment and continuity are the key here - and even then, if the manager passes his sell by date, you have to act. Ipswich did in George Burley''s case; we didn''t in Worthington''s case. And look where it got us. [/quote] If the board are never going to invest in there managers properly then they are always going to fail, I think worthington did run his course, and the club were right to let him go, but the fact is if he had more money would it have been a different story........... we will never know!!!!, but mistakes don''t seem to be seen, they contiue to follow up there mangerial appointmets with more mistakes. Not learning from Grant they employee Gunn, and like wise with roeder!! Because there lack of money to invest we have seen them appoint the cheaper option.Our managers dont even seem to do the basic''s right, like investing in the youth set up, Norwich has always been a club that sells players to reinvest, this has happened, but the money being gobbled by the new stand!  Know we are in the situation where we have no players to sell, no money to invest and a team full of loanee''s......What a mess....................

Norwich city is on its knees due to our board!!!people like wrighty boy giving them false support has got us into this mess!!the board has to go, or administration is a real threat!

simple question wrighty boy................ ask any member of the public who Delia smith is??? what would the answer be.............Well Norwich city and cooking...Fact!the publicity bandwagon rolls on!!!! [quote user="WrightyBoy"]Ha ha nice one TCF.....canary charge is talking out of his arse!!   Delia did not need any more publicity....infact in my opinion she boosted the publicity of our club!!!   And you all may well argue over how much of her own money gets pumped in but at the end of the day she has put more in than she should have to and a dam more than any of us have!! I doubt very much she will get it back as this club is worth fcuk all at the mo... [/quote]

Please let there be some light at the end off the tunnel!

[quote user="thebigfeller"]Hunter and Duffy''s inclusions are, of course, daft. I do hope they make it ten - except everything we know about them should tell us they''ll just get it wrong. Again. A lot of nonsense is talked about continuity or its lack of being key to whether a club succeeds or fails. Of course we want continuity - but only if you appoint the right manager in the first place! Do we think Arsenal would''ve persisted with Wenger had he failed in his first two or three seasons? Do we think with football the way it is now, Man Utd would persist with a manager who endured Ferguson''s first four years of mediocrity? No, on both counts. They''ve persisted with them because (albeit belatedly in Fergie''s case) they''ve been successful. The continuity excuse is trotted out by those who seem to think any manager, no matter how poor or ill qualified, should be maintained regardless - yet if they''re poor and ill qualified, chances are they''ll just take you ever further downwards. Meanwhile, the powers that aren''t at NCFC sacked Walker prematurely, treated Rioch disgracefully, made four ludicrous appointments in Hamilton, Grant, Roeder and Gunn, and left the one man who enjoyed success under them for a time in charge miles too long. Can you believe we''ve not appointed a manager with a decent track record since 1998?! And people wonder why we are where we are. That''s the Norwich City board I''m afraid. Whenever faced with a decision which should be glaringly obvious, they do the opposite. Or to put it another way: they never miss an opportunity...  to miss an opportunity. [/quote] Spot on big fella, the board are scared to invest and thats why they get Yes managers! They simply havent got the funds to back a half decent manager!!!!What has our club become!

I find it hard to get my head around, how we can celebrate if we go down....for 90 minutes i wont except it, and yes let the carnival begin.   But celebrate if we go down, im not to sure!!!!!! board step down to give us a chance!