Jonncfc

How many are on the Board?  Am I right in thinking there are 7 including the Chief Executive?  My guess, based on nothing more than assumption and therefore probably completely wrong, is that they would be split 4:3 in favour of trying to broker some sort of a deal (horribly simplistic, I know) but that those who need to want to make it happen if it''s ever going to are those who are currently against it.

Can someone who understands company law explain what could and couldn''t be done with a new share issue?  For instance, let''s say there was a potential new invester who, for arguments sake, wanted to invest £20 million to strengthen the team.  Let''s also say that he/she wished to put that money into the Club by buying a new share issue whereby the Club issued sufficient new shares to give that invester just over a 50% holding (i.e. having "control").  If he/she only bought these new shares and all current shareholders kept their existing shares would there still be a requirement for him/her to offer to buy all other shares and to pay off debts etc?   In other words, would a new share issue totally negate the Club''s apparent position that any new invester would have to find £56 million?

I think the main problem is too many individuals at Carrow Road with vested interests in maintaining the status quo.  For some of those in the present hierarchy on comfortable salaries I suspect it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

I''m Gordon and so is my wife.

Although I know little about the politics of the business world I thought one of the "buzz" words these days was "engagement".  If the Board are serious about wishing to attract new investment then their apparent failure to engage with potential investors would seem bizarre in the extreme, particularly when on the face of it that investor seems to fit their stipulated requirements (i.e. local, Norwich supporter, best interests of the club, very wealthy, money for the squad etc) .  It would seem to me that either they have no real desire to break up their cosy little set-up or they have no idea how to conduct friendly negotiations.  Just who is making these decisions at Carrow Road and are all members of the Board in agreement with what seems a total unwillingness to engage? 

Perhaps it''s the return of the Fat Controller!!!!

But what does "shock and intrigue" really mean?  Not exactly the words you would use unless there was something a bit odd about it.  I guess we''ll all find out tomorrow.  Perhaps it''s Robert Mugabe!

How will we know the true Messiah if he doesn''t give us a sign?  Oh, how I wanted to be able to put my faith in Gordon but what did he ever do for us?  I''ve followed a few messiahs in my time and just for a while I thought that Gordon was the genuine article.  But what did he actually do to make him stand out from the rest?  After all, there was no "shoe"  or "gourd" for us to follow and, frankly, if he doesn''t do something pretty soon I''m going to transfer my allegiances to one of the other soothsayers that seem prevalent in these troubled times.

Yes, somewhere in a box in a cupboard behind lots of other stuff.

First game of the season in 92/93 was away at Arsenal and no-one gave us a chance.  Needless to say we were 2:0 down at half-time and it seemed a question not of whether we could get back into the game but of how many more Arsenal would score.  With 20 minutes to go Mike Walker brought-on Mark Robins on his debut and what happened after that was, frankly, astonishing.  We went on to score 4 goals in those remaining minutes with 2 of those from Robins and ended up winning 4:2.  As for the walk back to the car after the game, I shall always remember the cheery and friendly shouts of bonhomie from the locals, or perhaps I misunderstood what they were saying!   Other great memories from that season include flying up to Oldham for a midweek match to see us win and go top of the league and, bizarrely, going up to Blackburn to see us get absolutely thrashed 7:1.

Has anyone else noticed that if you record Gordon''s last posting and then play it backwards at half its normal speed it sounds like "Satan is my master and free asparagus for everyone".  Be afraid!  Don''t say you weren''t warned.

1972 or 73 away at West Ham.  We got stuffed 4:0 I think. 

The only consistent improvement since the days of Robert Chase is that the Club''s debt is better structured and is unlikely to be called-in in the short-term so we are (presumably) not threatened by iminent insolvency etc.  That said, the debt looks to be about 3 times what it was under Chase and our "squad" (5-a-side anyone?) is virtually worthless so all is definitely not rosy!  Mind you, the crowds are way above what they ever used to be (barring the odd year in the 70s) but as we are constantly reminded, the gate receipts alone are nowhere near enough to keep the club going.  So are we better or worse than we were under the previous regime?  On balance, probably about the same. 

Done it.  I note I''m not the only middle-aged prog-rocker!

When a squad is as weak as ours the big problem with multiple loan signings is that they are only a short term solution.  In order to build a good quality squad for the future with strength in depth, team spirit and a desire to wear the shirt we need to have permanent signings.

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="Wings"] except Wiz, he''s just an ageing attention seeker who lives in his old world). But resorting to ridiculous name calling, threats of protests against Roeder, calling for Roeder''s head or calling him things like a "spineless coward" is simply pathetic, unwarranted and unjustified. [/quote] Oh, the delicious taste of irony.[:D][:D] PS. apologies to ''the anonymous one'', I wrongly quoted you, sorry. [/quote] No probs.

[quote user="1st Wizard"] [quote user="The Anonymous One"] except Wiz, he''s just an ageing attention seeker who lives in his old world). But resorting to ridiculous name calling, threats of protests against Roeder, calling for Roeder''s head or calling him things like a "spineless coward" is simply pathetic, unwarranted and unjustified. [/quote] Oh, the delicious taste of irony.[:D][:D] [/quote]   Oh the delicious taste of the message board telling porkies!  Look above - your thread may have attributed that quote to me but I didn''t type it!

[quote user="ricky knight"]In your mind its unwarranted in others its warranted, what makes you right and them wrong, just wondered.[/quote] Reasonable criticism is fine by me.  No problem with that at all.  Every manager/leader has to expect to be criticised - after all, "you can''t please all of the people all of the time".  However, being blatantly abusive to him simply because you don''t agree with one of his decisions (and lets be honest, this has all come about because of "that" decision) is, in my opinion, unwarranted.  None of us know what his budget is going to be for next season but it is reasonable to assume it is going to be pathetically small.  Because of that, given that he has to rebuild virtually the entire squad, it is right and proper that he looks closely at the current players, the wage bill attributed to them and their footballing value in the future.  It would have been far easier for him to have taken the "popular" decision but all credit to him for being prepared to stick his head above the parapet.  Leaders have to be prepared to make unpopular decisions and they certainly don''t deserve to be called "Rodent" or "Ratty" just because of that.

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Hi Glen!.[:D][/quote]   Do you go out of your way to be an annoying idiot or does it just come naturally?

Absolutely sick of reading the totally unwarranted abuse directed at Glenn Roeder simply because he has had the courage to make some difficult management decisions.  Reasonable and well-argued criticism is one thing but when people start resorting to calling him childish names like "Rodent" and "Ratty" then that, frankly, is ridiculous.  Grow up and stop being so immature! 

Blimey, what a load of petulant sentimental rubbish!  So what exactly is it that Roeder has done to offend you so much?  Was keeping us in the Championship despite the fact that we were well-adrift at the bottom of the league in November such a crime?  Or is taking rational decisions on the rebuilding of our pathetic squad so unforgiveable?  Huckerby performed superbly for us for several years but a combination of age, injury and high wages meant that a difficult decision had to be made and if Roeder is to make real progress with starting again with the squad it was the right decision to take.

Don''t be an idiot!  The easy decision would have been to have caved-in to popular pressure from people like you and offered him another year despite the fact that he is now clearly well past his best and carrying a long-term injury while costing us a small fortune in wages. 

Most of the above plus the blatant obstruction by defenders on the pretext of shepherding the ball out - that really annoys me. In fact does obstruction still exist in the laws of the game?  Can''t remember the last time a ref gave a free-kick for it.    

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Mister Chops"] Oh please be quiet, oh negative one.  Roeder was the "best thing to happen to Norwich" not three weeks ago.  How quickly we change, eh?   [/quote] So because Wiz, like myself has praised Roeder or anyone for that matter in the past we are not allowed to critcise methods from that point on? Tin of milk! [/quote]   "Tin of milk"? "Tin of milk"????  What on earth does that mean? Anyway, bizarre metaphors aside, I don''t think Wiz (and you for that matter) can expect not to get responses like the one above given that about 98% of what you post is depressing pessimistic criticism.

Blimey, do the depths of your misery know no bounds?