Jump to content

nutty nigel

Members
  • Content Count

    43,953
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by nutty nigel

  1. Anyone else remember the Greenham Common protests? They lasted 19 years from 1981 to 2000. Now these women were seriously committed protesters. I had nothing but respect for them, in fact I met one when she did a talk at Trades Council back in the 80''s. Even those that didn''t agree with them still had to admire them. After 19 years the Cruise Missiles had been removed and the common land was finally back in the hands of the people with cattle grazing and a memorial to the peace campaigners. But the thing is a lot of these protesters then moved onto other projects because protesting had become a way of life for them. Now thankfully the protests against Robert Chase only lasted a few months instead of 19 years. They happened I guess because of the disappointment in results and our huge fall from grace in such a short time. Fans were disappointed and angry and Chase was totally unnaproachable and very single minded and dictatorial in the way he ran the club. (Strangely some fans want a return to that again now but as I said so many times, the grass is always greener!) The protests were very angry, spiteful and personal against him which was probably unfair but understandable because of the all singing all dancing one man band way that he ran the club. We then had a really spiteful, hurtful, and nasty protest campaign against Nigel Worthington. Again it was fuelled through disappointment of poor results, and a fall from grace, although not as far as we fell in the 90''s. The campaign against Worthington was particularly vicious because it was directed at the wrong target. It should never have been personal, If protesters wanted him sacked surely it was obvious he couldn''t sack himself. Now there is talk of protests again, this time against the board. But what are we protesting about? Surely we are not protesting because Delia Smith is a cook? Or because she once used the phrase ''Little Norwich'' on TV? As far as I can see any protests will be fuelled by poor results, an unnacceptable league position and an even further fall from grace. I have every sympathy with the view that this has been at least partly caused by the board being unable to strike the right balance between investment in the football team and the off field revenue streams. But it seems some fans have now become serial protesters. I have no problem with peoples rights to protest and freedom of speech to say what they want. The world is a better place because people have been brave enough to stand up for what they believe. But we could learn something from those gallant Greenham Common women. They were very clear about what they were protesting about and they stuck to that agenda. So any protests about the situation we are in now should surely be an attempt change the policies and invest more money into the football team and not a personal and hateful campaign against individuals.  
  2. Bly - Thats because I didn''t really understand your post. So ok, you can mock me for not understanding (but I bet I''m not the only one who doesn''t understand it), or you can explain it better. Why do you never criticise the board? [;)]    
  3. Greetings Pink Un Pickers..... alright [Y] Four points out of six away from home has seen Doncaster move up the Billboard Chart this month to No.9. Over the same period Tranmere have slipped from the top of the chart to No.8. Current form suggests Donacaster could come out top when they meet tomorrow. Doncaster V Tranmere    Home win. Do we send good luck across the pond to  ''Yankee Canary'' ..... Not ''arf [H] That''s right.... hold tight... stay bright [Y]    
  4. I seriously don''t get this post Bly... please explain to me how the club was stolen from us in 1996? Who took it from us? How did we let it happen? Was it something to do with the police horses? Or Geoffrey Watling? Or Gordon Bennett? Or Barry Lockwood? Or was it something to do with the wicked cook and her cohorts?  
  5. [quote user="a1canary"]There seems to be an inexhaustable supply of word plays on our new manager''s name for the headline writers to play with. Personally, i like the "Woe for Woeder" ones because he has a bit of a Jonathan Woss affliction in his voice doesn''t he! Then we''ve had Carrow Roed, The Long and Winding Roed, Roe Ya Boat (maybe not that one!) More please... [/quote] Howabout................ a1 G-Roeder longer nose through telling porkies about Ginger Pele [:^)][:P]  
  6. [quote user="Web Team - Pat"]It''s not the football club stopping e-mails being posted here - it''s us at Archant. So, same rules apply.[/quote] Thanks Pat You are a real star [*] I been trying to establish this since yesterday.    
  7. [quote user="gazzathegreat"]Nutty you were not alone over the issues with signing Crouch. It appears that the board didn''t have the money to do so (read Crouch''s autobiography), but he would have signed as he wanted to stay. What a miss. Just thinking of what might have been makes you sick doesn''t it? Of course had he stayed we might not have needed Ashton, we will never know. IMO we should have got rid of Worthington at the end of the first relegation season.....but as you have said, not backing your manager with cash is paramount to giving him the boot anyway. As it showed. I am almost ready to protest, one thing will push me over the edge and that''s another case of the Martin O''Neill scenerio, good manager in, not backed with cash for team building, should this not happen in January and Roeder leaves, then Smudger and co can count me in.[/quote] Gazza - I have never been quite sure about whether the board were totally to blame for not signing Peter Crouch. It seems crazy to think we couldn''t have found the money as we were about to embark on that Premiership season. But I never saw Worthy complain about it, however he did say about the board NOT signing Ashton earlier.  The one that really rankles with me though is the Steve Howard shambles in the summer of 2006. We still had good players here at that time even though a lot of fans didn''t think so. Not signing a targetman to play beside Earnshaw, for a last attempt to get back while we had money, was unforgivable.  
  8. They weren''t all planned jas.. some were but many were spontaneous during and after poor performances and results.  
  9. Serious question here and I''m not on the ''wind''- If Roeder was impressed by our set up, colney, the ground and the fan base, I wonder if he was impressed by our board of directors who he has agreed to work for?  
  10. [quote user="Pyro Pete"] Instead of whining on this message board, why don''t you simply write to Roy Blower and ask him for his personal opinion on the current situation at the club? You can find his council email address easily enough on the City Council website or via Google. [/quote] Then could you please post his reply on here for us to see.. that''s ok isn''t it.. it''s only the football club stopping personal emails being posted on here... isnt it... [*-)]  
  11. Bury Green - The points you are making on that original post are the points I have been making on this messageboard for as long as I have posted. They are also points that Nigel Worthington was loudly making during his last few months in charge. Nobody listened to him or even me at the time because they had other agendas. I have posted time and time again about not getting Crouch or Ashton earlier because it seems obvious to me that we would have comfortably stayed up if we had mainly due to the good fortune of Southampton being so poor. It was a big opportunity missed. I am still unsure about the board hanging on to Worthy for too long. Fulham would have been a good time to change, but thats with hindsight because there weren''t too many unhappy at him staying. But Worthy made two poor signings in Andy Hughes and Jason Jarrett and then got unlucky with Thorne and MLJ. The end of that season would have been another time to get rid but again they hung on to him but then for me they made the biggest mistake of all by not backing him. Having kept him for the second parachute season they virtually left him bound to fail with the only signing being Lee Croft. When he did fail they made their worst ever appointment by employing Grant. As Worthington said the board has always been reactive when it needed to be proactive. And it''s my opinion that they have never found the right balance between investing on additional revenue streams and investing in the football team. I applaud your post Bury Green. I would even protest on the grounds of this post. It''s difficult for anyone to argue against the facts. These are the real issues and it''s amazing that fans can''t be united in concentrating on them instead of trying to make it personal or make up stuff to discredit the board. Those things actually harm the cause.      
  12. Yes you are probably right Wiz. I do agree. Just like the protests that happened at the end of the Burnley game against Worthy. It''s results driven, pure and simple. But it should also be remebered that history also warns us that Chases replacement was the current board and Worthy''s replacement was Peter Grant.  
  13. [quote user="Cluck"] You have the intellect of an amoeba sunshine [/quote] We may find out soon cuz there''s talk of him coming here on loan.....  
  14. Bly - Im not going to dig up old posts but I remember quite clearly that you failed to recognise Nigel Worthingtons achievements at our club. Now if you consider the background of those achievements, especially considering your opinion of the malaise at the club from the top, Nigel Worthingtons achievements would be nothing short of remarkable and it begs the question - how much could he have achieved under one of the great benchmarking boards of yesteryear? I did nothing to Robert Chase. I took part in no protests against Robert Chase. Like with Worthington it wasn''t really the protests that did for him anyway. My view at the time was that the good had done outweighed the bad anyway. It was results that did for him. Our fall from those heady Munich days to struggling in the second division in such a short space of time. It was a bigger fall from grace than our current one under this administration. And if Roeder doesn''t turn this around then the results will do for the current board too. Just like in the end the results did for Worthy. Despite all the claims to the contrary this is a football club and success is ultimately measured by results on the football pitch. Much of the stuff thrown at Chase during the protests was disgraceful. Even worse was some of the stuff said in a very personal and spiteful campaign against Worthington. The same thing is happening as people become personal against Delia Smith. I fully expect some childish name calling for saying this but I am very uncomfortable with it all. Like I said Chase out - Smith in, Holt out - Hughes in, Worthy out - Grant in, Etuhu out - Russell in. Were they changes for the better? Now to get a full set we just need Smith out - ? in and Doherty out - ? in. Then you will presumably be happy but will we be better off?? The recent evidence doesn''t suggest we will.  
  15. Of course you are right buddhaboy and any protest should only be about the boards strategies and policies. Even that is difficult because with two new board members and a new football manager the strategies and policies of the past could have changed.  
  16. [quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="xKevin82x"] b) we have no one else who wants to buy or invest into the club and if you saw delia a few weeks ago on sky sports news she stated she was interested in selling her shares if the right buyer comes along. [/quote] Considering the stringent rules Delia has laid down about the right buyer i''m not surprised noone has stepped forward.  I am less surprised generally that Delia and co have not courted outside investment.  Thats whats known as being cleverer than the rest don''t you know... [:|] [/quote] I''d be interested to see a copy of those rules CJF.  
  17. [quote user="Royal Anglian all the way"]chrisr, i agree it probably sounds a tad sexist, but it wasnt mean to be offensive, the things is she is a very good chef and very good catering business woman, but that is the limit to her expertise and this is where it shows in the football side, because her boardroom  policies are to invest in every bit of infrastructure like hotels and restaurants it has clearly left us failing on the pitch, id say the same to gordon ramsey or gary rhodes if thy had ben in charge at norwich, the point is yes she might of had a hand in bringing the crowds to carrow road, this is why i said she should stay on at the club in some sort of capacity and unfortunately because of her expertise in the restaurants and kitchen as a chef this is what she should concentrate on, but she must be removed from the board and some other iunvestors brought in to bring new life to the club, [/quote] But this is the point that I have been trying to make.. it''s the policies. Too many posters concentrate on the personalities which, I''m afraid, points to underlying issues.  
  18. That''s an interesting post HH44 and I can see where you are coming from, but I don''t think you can measure a fan by the amount of games they attend.  I go to all home matches and as many away as I can possibly get to, which is usually 20+.  But there have been periods in my life where other commitments have made it not possible to go away and at times home games too. But during those periods I was still as much of a fan as I am now. I still loved the club and dreamed the dream. Other people who can''t go so often for various reasons love the club and dream the dream as much as me, I know that for a fact. Location, illhealth, lack of money, work commitments and so many other things stop fans getting to games but their spirit is there with ours. But what I think is unfair, and it happens on here a lot, is that posters who never go to games tell those that do go to protest. Supporters who don''t have season tickets pretend they are not renewing them. Posters claim to be boycotting games that they never had a ticket for in the first place. And however do posters manage to contribute to the player ratings and performance ratings after games they never saw!!!  
  19. [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] And if you think that the current strategy is the only way, then you must be bananas. OTBC   [/quote] I have been complaining about the current strategy as long as you have Bly, and longer than most. I see the good in additional revenue streams but not at the expense of the core of the business which is the football team. A balance needs to be found. Bottom of the second division is not acceptable so its obvious mistakes have been made. So why not post about flawed strategy''s and policies instead of personalities. I saw what happened to Worthington when we went down that route.. I wasn''t comfortable with it.. were you?  
  20. Ok then... SACK THE MAYOR!!! WE WANT BLOWER OUT [:@] Then we can get another Mayor who will maybe take a stand against that wicked wicked cook and her cohorts. And what about those MP''s? Couldn''t they make another stand against this rotten to the core board of ours? Come on Gibbo.. where are you....WHERE ARE YOU... LETS BE ''AVIN YOU [8o|] Chase out, Holt out, Worthy out, Etuhu out, Safri out, Doherty out, Grant out, and now Smith out and Blower out! Is there a plan, has there been improvement..... YOU DECIDE.  
  21. [quote user="FilletTheFishWife ."] How many transfer windows do you need to illustrate the board''s propensity NOT to invest in the playing squad. I think i''ve seen enough.   Its too late to give them another chance. [/quote] I agree with this to an extent FTFW. But we keep overlooking the fact the the board did seek investment, albeit not on the scale that has been argued for on here. The Turners invested in return for a place on the board. So this board actually have only had the summer window where Peter Grant didn''t come out and complain he didn''t get the funds he wanted, in fact I get the impression he didn''t spend all the funds available. And that may be a good thing if its true! I suggest all we can do in this case is wait and see.  
  22. [quote user="gazzathegreat"]I was told by webteam Pat and Patrick that yes, in the past the webteam have published contents of emails (including several of my emails to Neil Doncaster and letters to Delia). They cited the case of Sheff Wed sueing some messageboard fans as a reason. If only we all had the tenacity of those fans. What is so wrong with questioning what''s going on (or not) at the club we all support and contribute to financially. Some of us are even shareholders! I don''t blame the Pink Un mods (they don''t want to get involved in potential libel cases, I blame the increasingly non fan friendly board of Norwich City Football (??) Club.[/quote] So which is it, I''m still confused [*-)] Is it a policy from Archant or the non-friendly board of Norwich City Football Club. Someone must know the truth.  
  23. This would be an interesting thread if posters really did say how they would describe Norwich City Football Club. For me that description is hardly generous because I always describe us as the best club in the world.  
  24. [quote user="gazzathegreat"]Thanks guys, will get round to it over the next couple of days! To the Web team: I know it''s not your fault guys, but it just highlights the so called "listening" club for what it really is. By the way, there was nothing in the replies that could constitue offence to anyone, apart from a rather ironic opening which some of you will see. I will continue to email Mr Doncaster and invite him to meet me personally to discuss the club. Wonder if he can fit me into his packed diary.[/quote] Gazza - is it the club or archant who won''t let you post the emails. From this post I can only assume it''s the club, which to be honest surprises me.  
  25. [quote user="Fat Prophet"] I''m not sure why they''ve done this.  It certainly isn''t very clever, let alone "cleverer". The optimist in me says it shows they''re running scared and it''s like Peter Grant shutting up Colney to try and prevent team details leaking out.  If they''re half as desperate as he was, they could be out the door sooner than we think.  Far too early to get excited though. The pessimist says it''s merely the byproduct of a standoff between the club and the local press that''s been going on ever since the press started asking one or two questions that badly needed asking. The fact that they do not seem to have tried to stop other websites publishing this material tends to back up this theory, unfortunately. The realist in me says it''s probably a bit of both . . .   [/quote] Is it the football club who have done this or Archant? Web Team?? I can''t believe that Neil Doncaster would put anything in an email to a fan that he wouldn''t want anyone else to see.. In fact i would be very disappointed if he disclosed things that would have an effect on any future transfer policies or negotiations.  
×
×
  • Create New...