CaptnCanary

I posted on the ITV F1 forum: Was Hamiltons Penalty even legal? I''m hoping somebody will be able to answer this quoting official FIA rules. It is my understanding that a stop go penalty will usually be applied within something like 3-5 laps of an offense taking place. The reason for this being that they need to minimise the impact of somebody being ahead of another car or cars having got in front illegally. Now, if the offense takes place towards the end of the race then they may not be able to apply the penalty during the race. However, surely the stewards must still be limited to a few minutes to make their decision to apply a stop go penalty or not. That way within a short time of the race ending the time penalty would be applied and the correct ''winner'' would stand on top of the podium. However, in Belgium it is my understanding that the stewards spoke to every man and his dog about the Hamilton/Raikonnen incident and took a couple of hours before applying the stop go penalty. Surely this is too long a period for a stop go penalty to legally be applied? Had the event took place with 10 laps to go would they still have made the same decision and applied the penalty during the race? I doubt it very much. I think maybe McLaren approached this from the wrong angle and should have appealed that the penalty itself was inadmissable!     And another thing. During the race last week the ITV commentators were going on about the drivers now having to wait until after the next corner before challenging for a position if they cut a corner. Pointless Drivel! Dozen''s of times in the past something has given a driver an advantage that has led to him overtaking maybe 5 or 6 corners later. Everyone knows Hamilton, firstly was forced to cut the corner by Raikonnen, secondly did his best to ensure compliance with the rules by letting Raikonnen back in front, thirdly gained no slip stream advantage, forthly only overtook at the next bend because it was wet and he was good enough to brake much later than Raikonnen, and fifthly the incident had no bearing on the final outcome of the race! Absolutely garbage penalty ruining the best finish to a race I remember watching.

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"][quote user="Belaugh Yellow"]   Yeah we want an update, or a cat, i don''t care which but we better get one by tomorrow   [/quote]   I hate cats, the only animal I can''t stand, the spray up your plants and kill them and then have a tom tit in your boarders and on your grass, claw open bin bags gggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr [:@]   Just an update will do lol [:D] [/quote] At least cats have the decency to try and bury their crap, unlike dogs who shit all over the pavements and grass verges right where people can stand in it. Unless of course their owners scoop it up and put it in a bin. [/quote]   Yes it''s wonderful them burying it so that when I try to put bedding plants in I get cat poop all over my hands and under my finger nails, at least with dogs you see it, it''s not buried and any responsible dog owner will pick up after their dogs, in fact you can get heavily fined if you get caught not doing so.  No law against cats sadly or their owners, those that have cats don''t normally suffer what I do, being surrounded by them they all used to think it was ok to use my garden as a toilet, not anymore, I have found a way to deter them mwahhhhh hahahaha  [:D] [/quote] Oh come on then, tell us your method of deterring the cats??? My cat loathing colleague from where I used to work had a good one - he made a mix of Vaseline and chilli flakes which he applied to the tops of the fence around his garden. So when the furry critters climbed up on his fence they first got a yucky sticky substance on their paws and then when trying to clean if off they got steam coming out their ears from the heat!

I''ve never accused anyone on here before of being a binner but there is a first time for everything....... BINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Just to add Worthy, that in all the years I stood on the terraces I was never hurt, and that was starting at the age of 11. Incidentially I have been pushed about over seats (not at CR but at a couple of away grounds). I know this is the experience of only one fan, but I really can''t see that seats are any safer. The numbers are more easily controlled, but surely in this day and age a sensible system for admitting standing supporters can be introduced. I know the club (Neil Doncaster has mentioned it a couple of times) are interested in looking into this, should legislation be introduced to allow it.[/quote] I and friends of mine have ended up 3 or 4 rows down over seats after getting pushed during exhuberant goal celebrations. The seats just cause you to trip if you get accidentally pushed.

Utterley ridiculous club policy. Why turn down the cash just cos its not a Norwich shirt ffs??? Email Neil Doncaster about it and ask him why the club are turning down such income.

[quote user="ron obvious"][quote user="CaptnCanary"] [quote user="ron obvious"] Mr. Carrow, how about this for an analogy? Say, (a few years ago!) I was thinking about selling my rather dilapidated tenanted house. It''s been valued at about £36k & you have a £20k mortgage on it.. Along comes a nice man & says "I want to spend £20k on your house to bring it into tip-top condition!"  The tenants are all jumping for joy at this & so are you, until you ask him what conditions are attached; he says "well, the tenants can stay, but you & your husband will have to move out" "So we get nothing then? What about the mortgage?" Silence. You then feel a mite upset & point out to him that, if he wants you out AND make the promised improvements, he''ll have to find a total of £56k. More silence. To be continued ........ [/quote] Not this stupid analogy again. Firstly the house (or shares) are valued at £16k. The £20k mortgage figure is correct. So the owner is in negative equity by £4k. So an offer to take ownership of the house and mortgage payments is actually a great deal for the current owners! [/quote] Who/s valuing the club at £16k? You? Why not £10k? £1k? Would you sell under these conditions? If you like, I''ll come round & make you a ''reasonable offer'' for your house. I bet you don''t accept it. Remember: if you don''t have to sell if you don''t want to sell then why the Hell should you sell. And I would imagine that''s the position you''re in at the moment. Why any different for the Board? [/quote] The 16k figure comes from the fact that the club themselves declared the 100% share value to be $16m. The difference between me accepting a market value bid on my house and the NCFC board accepting a reasonable offer on their shares is that I have not previously stated that I only own my house for the good of the community and will gladly give away my house should an investor come along who wants to plough money into the area and make it a much more flourishing and beautiful are for the the residents to live in. My house also does not run at a substantial loss year on year unless I sell various items of furniture to make the books balance.

beatus es magnus noses

[quote user="ron obvious"] Mr. Carrow, how about this for an analogy? Say, (a few years ago!) I was thinking about selling my rather dilapidated tenanted house. It''s been valued at about £36k & you have a £20k mortgage on it.. Along comes a nice man & says "I want to spend £20k on your house to bring it into tip-top condition!"  The tenants are all jumping for joy at this & so are you, until you ask him what conditions are attached; he says "well, the tenants can stay, but you & your husband will have to move out" "So we get nothing then? What about the mortgage?" Silence. You then feel a mite upset & point out to him that, if he wants you out AND make the promised improvements, he''ll have to find a total of £56k. More silence. To be continued ........ [/quote] Not this stupid analogy again. Firstly the house (or shares) are valued at £16k. The £20k mortgage figure is correct. So the owner is in negative equity by £4k. So an offer to take ownership of the house and mortgage payments is actually a great deal for the current owners!

Delia and MWJ''s shares are currently valued on paper at around £10m. That is based on a share price of £30 each which is more than was originally paid for them. Delia has always said that she knows that the money she puts into the club is effectively dead money and she does not expect to get it all back. She says that she is in it for the love of the club and success for NCFC is all she wants. She has even said she would give her shares away for free if some billionaire came along wanting to plough millions into the club! On that basis I think that a fair sale price for their shares would be around £6m. I know that Delia paid £25 for alot of her shares but paid less for some at the beginning too? £6m may even represent a profit on what she paid in total. If her previous statements can be taken as the truth she cannot reasonably expect to sell her shares at £30 each. If Delia agreed to sell for £6m then Cullum would have to offer to buy the rest of the shares at about £18 each. I suspect that most share holders would not wish to sell their shares at any price. Cullum could even make it public that he would prefer people do not take up the offer as he will then be willing to put more money into playing staff in order to discourage takeup of the offer. I reckon that it would then cost him no more than £0.5m to buy the shares from those who accepted the £18m offer. The £20m of debt would of course need to be dealt with. I am certain that Cullum could speak to the existing lenders about continuing the loans under the existing terms prior to him taking over. I see little reason why they would not agree to this. Even if they did not agree I am sure that a man of Cullum''s stature could re-finance the loans with other lenders so that he had no more capital outlay in taking over the club. So on that basis I''d say a fair offer would be £6m for control of the club (i.e. Delia and MWJ''s shares)

You should contact David Lee from the Hong Kong Footy blog (there is a link on the pinkun mainpage to his blog). He lives in Hong Kong and may be able to give you some good advice.

Once whilst at Uni in Coventry I was in a busy pub waiting to order when the barmaid came over and said ''that guy over the other side of the pub wants to buy you a drink''. So I very quickly ordered a pint with a big smile on my face. It was only shortly after that when I started to worry about who this guy was and what his motives were. It suddenly occurred to me that he could be gay and that accepting this pint could become very embarassing. Fortunately I then realised I was wearing my Norwich scarf and that this was obviously a fellow canary fan. Phew!

My thoughts also are that its just another loan. She isnt ''giving'' away anything. She will expect it back. Whilst it is still a generous act as she could keep the money earning interest for herself it is unfortunate that this just adds another £2m to the bill for anyone wishing to take control of the club.

I''d take it as a starting point from which to haggle

[quote user="Bobzilla"] My point is that if you look at the billionaires who have been investing in football, there are two types. First, you have the ''liquid'' billionaires - like Abramovich and ADUG, who actually have serious money generating activities, or have sold themm for present value to get serious amounts of cash. Cold, hard cash. These types have ploughed (their) money into the club like there is no tomorrow, treating the club like a favorite child. Then there are the captains of industry - Lerner, Glazers, Shiwanatram, Gillet, Hicks. They have serious wealth, but most of it is tied up in the shares they own in the companies they founded. They do not actually have the money to invest in the club, and have borrowed significantly to purchase the club - look at the financial dancing that Gillet and Hicks have had to do to keep Liverpool afloat, and how insecure their tenure has seemed over the last 2 years (and incidentally, the impact this has had on the club). My impression is that Cullum is in the second bracket. Whilst he is worth more than all together of us could ever hope to be, his money is largely illiquid (a problem I speculate the Turners faced, and ultimately led to their downfall). Whilst he has, as liquid funds, more money than any single one of us could ever hope for, I do not believe he has the funds to be the messiah that you are all crying out for, and I don''t believe he has any intention of being that man. I believe he could bring the club stability, and probably a role yo-yoing between the bottom of the Prem and the top of Championship. However, he does not have the funds to return us to the heights of 1993. His interests will lie in making the club self sufficient, rather than continuously pumping millions in to make us successful to that level. And as such, I believe he will ultimately disappoint a great many of us who are less realistic. [/quote] Just something to think about. Cullum I believe is 57 years old. I doubt he intends to work for much longer. He is rich enough as it is so why not retire and enjoy the remaining years of his life. That could mean selling up on some of his shares etc. So what is he going to do with all his aquired wealth? Just let it grow and finally leave to his family far more money than they could ever need? I doubt it. He could realistically but a few 100 million into NCFC without making too much of a dent in his wealth or his families inheritence. I guess it all depends how big a fan he is. I would guess that most serious fans in his position at his time of life would think it a worth while exercise to pump money into the club he has supported all his life in a bid for some glory before his life ends. Also, the best way to make a club self-sustaining is to first get into the premiership and then survive. Then to budget accordingly to survive within the clubs means.

[quote user="Peter Maidstone"][quote user="Beauseant"] [quote user="Peter Maidstone"]I would not worry too much, I think Mr Cullum will buy the club.[/quote]   Keep taking the medication. [/quote] So Mr Cullum would not be interested in buying a club that was offered for £57 million a couple of months ago, and is now for sale at £42.5 million including the debt? [/quote] People continually going on about the club being valued at £56m (not £57 as u said) really gets my goat. Firstly, the figure of £56m included £20m to put into the team so that brings us down to £36m. Then there is £20m of debt which could be refinanced and brings us down to £16m. Finally that figure of £16m is based upon buying 100% of shares at £30 each. Control would only require 50% of shares and could probably be bought for less than the £30 nominal value put on each share. So that means that buying control of the club will cost £8m maximum but require refinancing of loans. So stop blooming going on about the club being valued at £56m!!!!!!!

Whilst I am sure that Delia does not turn up in the kitchen and cook every dish herself, her name must certainly be a draw for customers to go to the restaurants. People assume that she has some influence over the food and menus and I''m sure she does. So if Delia were to leave it would certainly impact revenues to some extent but I suspect not to any serious extent as most of the customers would continue to use those facilities as long as the quality did not drop off.

[quote user="Jim Smith"] Well if waht you say is true then lets hope it prompts Delia and MWJ to re-assess whether they should be having soem negotiations with Peter Cullum. At the end of the day I have met Andrew Turner and all he did was talk about cutting costs at NCFC. He came across to me as a penny pincher to be honest. [/quote] I would imagine if you pinched all the wasted pennies at carrow road and then optimised sales (such as that of half time beer and pies which are not served quickly enough and often run out) then you would end up a very rich man. Running things efficiently without demoralising staff can only be a good thing.

[quote user="Paint Me Yellow"] [quote]In today''s papers it states that Abramovich is worth 11.7bn. The new owner of Man City is worth AT LEAST 555bn.[/quote] HOLY SWEET BALL BUSTING JESUS!!!!!!!!!! "Excuse me, I''d like to make a total withdrawal...." must be the most terrifying sentence his bank manager could ever here. It would take me years just to count to that figure. [/quote] They could just write him a cheque

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]In a good game of cards you never reveal your hands [;)][/quote] Thats not strictly true. I was watching an episode of High Stakes Poker just the other day. One guy had gone all in and the other guy revealed his hand to try to get a ''read'' on the guy who was all in. Sometimes its a good idea to reveal your hand just to see what kind of a reaction you get!

[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]In a good game of cards you never reveal your hands [;)][/quote] Thats not strictly true. I was watching an episode of High Stakes Poker just the other day. One guy had gone all in and the other guy revealed his hand to try to get a ''read'' on the guy who was all in. Sometimes its a good idea to reveal your hand just to see what kind of a reaction you get!

Anyone know the terms of the Turners loan? Would they be within their rights to demand immediate repayment or has the club protected itself (as it should have done) by insisting on a period of notice?

[quote user="ncfcstar"]So Strawberry, if Turner acted as spokesman (and I know this is wishful thinking beyond hope) could the departure be because Delia actually wanted to sell to Cullum but Turner was blocking it? Now they have gone Delia has got her way and Cullum can be brought in?[/quote] Unfortunately I think you probably have hit the nail on the head only from the wrong side. I suspect the Turners wanted the deal with Cullum and have now left in objection to Delia and MWJ not making the deal happen.

Surely there are so many loan players now that Roeder is going to be under alot of pressure from other managers to play their boys? He cant play them all every game so something is going to have to give isnt it?

I feel sorry for CannyCanary. He must get very annoyed with people slagging the idea after all the effort he has made and is making. I can only say keep up the effort as everyone will appreciate it if it works out. Also, I just had another idea to help protect the Kitty funds somewhat. Perhaps the Kitty should limit their maximum invested to say 50% or 75% of a players purchase fee and insist on being paid back first should that player later be sold. That protects the Kitty against depreciation of some players fees. Also, I''d suggest an age limit on any players that the Kitty should invest in.

I fail to see how anyone can genuinely be ''anti'' the ''idea''. The idea can only be a good thing. Whether it will or wont be successful is a completely different matter but if you dont try you will never know...