Jump to content

canary cherub

Members
  • Content Count

    5,433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Everything posted by canary cherub

  1. [quote user="PurpleCanary"] As Nutty has pointed out, Smith and Jones said only hours after the Charlton defeat that changes would be made, and it was generally understood they meant boardroom/off-field management changes. It is hardly likely that in the short time between the defeat and the "things will change" statement that they held a board meeting, proposed Gunn''s reappointment, seen Munby and Doncaster vote or argue against, and so decide to sack them, as opposed to different changes they had been already envisaging. Way too far-fetched. [/quote] I think it safe to say that "things will change" would have been taken by the vast majority of fans (both pro- and anti-Gunn) to include a change of manager.  The exact opposite was what actually happened.  And when you think about it, what does "things will change" actually mean?  Of course things will change if you''ve just been relegated, whether you want them to or not.  It doesn''t necessarily mean that they had any plans in place.  We were relegated on 3rd May.  RM and ND resigned on 12th May (I can find no evidence that they were sacked - but if they were, why didn''t it happen straight away? it would have given some credibility to the "things must change" statement) and Gunn''s appointment was announced on 13th May.  There was ample time in the intervening 10 days for a split to appear in the boardroom.   
  2. [quote user="T"] ...and this is why I believe that the NCISA was very misguided on the rebate issue. I think everyone including the Board themselves agree that  aided by David Stringer they made a series of failed managerial appointments which ultimately led to relegation but that the owners continued financial support and management changes has also turned things around: The NCISA failed to recognise the changes and support the return to the championship. The best friends and supporters are there for you when things get tough. THE NCISA got that judgement call wrong and should just admit that their moves were not constructive in this matter and they make mistakes like that the owners have. That does not mean that the owners or the NCISA both do not not both have good intentions as far as the club is concerned. [/quote] I disagree.  In the first place, NCISA had little to do with the fact that two-thirds of season ticket holders asked for a rebate.  NCISA were simply reflecting a widely held view. Secondly, I believe that the widespread failure to respond to Michael Foulger''s appeal to forego the rebate was the catalyst that began to bring about change.  It sent the board a message that even they could not ignore.  Well done City fans!  
  3. [quote user="PurpleCanary"] Unless it''s changed the minimum number of directors for a UK plc is actually only two, but as far as Norwich is concerned the magic number was apparently four, not five. So when Munby and Doncaster were kicked out, taking the number in practice down to three, Doncaster stayed on in name only, to make the numbers theoretically up to four. If five had been the Norwich minimum then both would have had to have stayed on in theory until new directors were appointed.   [/quote] As I understand it, according to the NCFC constitution the minimum number of board members is five.  Four are required to make up a quorum, without which decisions cannot be taken.  According to press reports, Munby resigned as Chairman and Doncaster as CEO on 12th May 2009, they were not "kicked out".  When Bryan Gunn''s appointment was announced the following day, RM and ND were still officially registered as members of the board.  That''s not the issue. The issue is whether ND was actually present when the decision to appoint Gunn was taken, to make up a quorum.  I believe Delia made a comment at the press conference, corrected by Michael, that might have suggested he wasn''t, but who knows?  It''s quite possible of course that RM and ND were sacked.  If so, the local press, by announcing that they''d resigned, weren''t doing their job properly.  But it''s also possible that they resigned rather than split the board by voting against Gunn''s appointment.  
  4. [quote user="The Butler"][quote user="nutty nigel"] [quote user="Shyster"][quote user="Mr. Chops"]Fleetwood Mac (4-2-1 at home) to beat Cambridge United (0-2-5 away) At least, those are the rumours - but you can go your own way [H] [/quote] ALBATROSS !! What flavour is it? SEABIRD FU*CKING FLAVOUR !! ALBATROSS !! [/quote] Ahhhh young Shyster, Monty Python Live At Drury Lane! I had that on vinyl back in the 70''s. (Don''t tell Tilly about my record collection). That sketch was a favourite as was the "Four Yorkshiremen". But this was my all time favourite :- Dead Parrot Sketch Sorry Sparkos, I will now go and find a selection for you to consider.   [/quote] You are only here for an argument arn''t you? [/quote] No I''m not! [:D]  
  5. Wasn''t there a punch up between QPR and Norwich hooligans several years ago?  Seem to remember hearing about arrests.  
  6. Meant to add: even if H&G win their case, there''s no way they can meet the repayment date so administration looks like the only other option.  If that happens  they could lose even more than £140m so what''s the point?  From what I could gather, Hicks seems to be the instigator of the legal challenge and he''s just being pig headed for the sake of it.   
  7. This was discussed at length on Radio 5 Live last night.  It''s a bit complicated. Liverpool''s debt to RBS is due to be paid in full on 15th October.  This is an extension to the original repayment date and was agreed by RBS on certain conditions, which mean in effect that Hicks and Gillett can be outvoted.  Failure to make the repayment date would almost certainly result in administration.  H&G haven''t got the money, so sale of the club is the only other option.  The proposed sale would mean H&G losing £140m.  It was RBS who appointed Martin Broughton as chairman of Liverpool, and he insisted on a condition which meant that the composition of the board couldn''t be altered without his agreement.  This was to prevent H&G changing the board in order to block a possible sale of the club.  The board had 5 members - H&G, Martin Broughton, Christian Purslowe (CEO) and the commercial director (Ian something).   H&G opposed the sale but were outvoted 3-2.  They have been trying to remove the CEO and the commercial director from the board.  Broughton says that because of the conditions outlined above, they cannot do this without his consent, and H&G are challenging it in court.  It could go either way imo - the condition is there in black and white, but does it conflict with the chairman''s primary responsibility which is to represent the interests of the shareholders? It seems likely that when Norwich secured a repayment holiday from RBS last season, conditions of some sort would have been imposed.  However, the Liverpool conditions were imposed by Broughton himself as a condition of taking the job, so it''s unlikely (but not impossible) that anything similar would apply in our case, since Bowkett was already in post at the time.  What strikes me about the Liverpool situation is that there are only five board members (including the two owners) - the minimum allowed.  Things went from bad to worse at Norwich when we had only five board members (including the two owners).  Coincidence?     
  8. I seriously thought of shutting my eyes and picking at random, but instead I shall "boldly go" into the unknown once again Denmark Division 1 (division 2 in other words) Vestsjaelland  v  Hvidovre  (home win) Very best of luck Sparkos and all you PUPs [*]  
  9. [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "] So fellow PUPs, if your turn comes round when you''re on a terrible run don''t worry, perhaps it can work the other way round as well.  [Y]   [/quote] It does Cherub. And on occasions quite spectacularly.   [/quote] Cheers nutty.  I notice you didn''t include Liverpool in your list of shock results this week - well I suppose it wasn''t really, which just shows what we''re up against.   
  10. Yes I did enjoy it nutty.  It''s all a bit of a lottery at the moment, and it just goes to show that form in the PUPs league means nothing when it comes to making the final selections.  So fellow PUPs, if your turn comes round when you''re on a terrible run don''t worry, perhaps it can work the other way round as well.  [Y]  
  11. Liverpool 1 - 2 Blackpool half an hour to go  
  12. Oh toilet [:(] I was more worried about my own pick (Real Betis) than any of the others and they won 3-0, so what can you do? [:^)] Never mind, the result (and the performance) at Bristol City more than makes up for it, well done lads and well done Lambert [*][*][*][*][*]  
  13. [quote user="canary cherub "] [quote user="HazzaJet"][quote user="Mook"]I think I''m right in saying that Mr D Huckerby was, at one time in our prem season, not only the most fouled player but also the player who had committed most fouls? [/quote] I think you''re right there Mook. Hucks did commit a lot of fouls. Now it has to be Holt though - I believe he was the player with the most fouls in League One last season. [/quote] There are two reasons for that: a) he couldn''t tackle, and b) he didn''t want to tackle and probably thought that if he committed enough fouls the manager would stop trying to make him do it!   [/quote] PS.  I love Hucks but I''m not blind to his shortcomings.  
  14. [quote user="HazzaJet"][quote user="Mook"]I think I''m right in saying that Mr D Huckerby was, at one time in our prem season, not only the most fouled player but also the player who had committed most fouls? [/quote] I think you''re right there Mook. Hucks did commit a lot of fouls. Now it has to be Holt though - I believe he was the player with the most fouls in League One last season. [/quote] There are two reasons for that: a) he couldn''t tackle, and b) he didn''t want to tackle and probably thought that if he committed enough fouls the manager would stop trying to make him do it!  
  15. Evening all.  You''ve given me lots of really good picks to choose from (29 in total), and if football was played on paper it would be a doddle but as we know it''s played on grass.  There have been some very unpredictable results this season, which is great for the game but not so good for us PUPs.  But we''ll keep on rising to the challenge, and together we''ll do our best to wipe the smile off Billy''s face [;)] Here''s my final selection (all home wins): Celtic  v  Hamilton  Raith Rovers  v  Stirling Fleetwood  v  Histon   AFC Wimbledon  v  Forest Green Real Betis  v  Ponferradina KV Kortrijk  v  Eupen Bring it on! [Y]      
  16. Forgot to say - my selection this week is from the Spanish second division Real Betis  v  Ponferradina  (home win) Good luck fellow pickers [Y]  
  17. [quote user="Pboro_Canary"]If only we still had a top class journo with links to Lincoln on the board we would know all the details [;)][/quote] Where is Cameldung these days?  
  18. Evening all, thanks for the build up nutty[:$]  I''ve been looking forward to this. Good to see so many selections already in, keep ''em coming.  I''ll make the final choice on Friday evening.  
  19. [quote user="Mandie Moo"] [quote user="Gingerpele"]Did that fail to come in :( Really was a very very unlucky week for the top pickers...[/quote] Yes they lost 2-0 according to Live Scores [:(] As you say, very unlucky for the top pickers this week - I''m just glad that some of the bottom pickers have finally had a result!! [;)][:D] [/quote] Slightly more information than we really needed . . . [+o(] [:O]  
  20. [quote user="Beauseant"] We lost to a classic away performance and our profligacy in front of goal. Hull soaked up pressure really well and then took control. Bullard was outstanding in the last twenty minutes or so. I don''t accept that they were poor. they looked low on confidence, but were always organised and never wilted in the face of huge pressure. Yes, they were lucky, but they earned that. [/quote] I agree with you Beau, Hull were better than their league position suggested.  Bullard was roaming around unmarked from minute one and was a class above every other player on the field; he''s their Huckerby provided he can stay fit.  They knew how to play against the diamond so that our lack of width was exposed, with Martin and Holt spending too much time out on the flanks.  We looked a tad naive today I thought.  If Hull can recover from post-relegation syndrome I can see them finishing in the top six.   
  21. [quote user="Mr. Chops"]Gah, never saw that West Brom result coming.  Shyster probably did, but we''re not all blessed with his vision. Back to it next week - I have a good feeling about next week, in fact. [/quote] Hope you''re right as I''m the picker!  
  22. Try not to take it so seriously Zipper.  I agree that it no longer matters (for the future of the club) who''s right and who''s wrong.  Thank goodness for that, no more sleepless nights and no chance of it opening up divisions among the fans. In the absence of other idleness, I find it mildly entertaining.  Nutty''s virtuoso performance in defence of the indefensible is, as always, a class act  [;)]  
  23. [quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"] I ended my financial boycott at the Colchester game at the start of last season because i was impressed by the boardroom changes and the level of ambition shown in strengthening the team.  I posted that on here in reply to Blahx3 and joked how i`d paid £27 for the privilege of watching our biggest ever home defeat.  The new board were in place before the season started and we have been net spenders ever since.  And the results are.....? [/quote] Well you were had Mr Carrow. Because the policy for the close season, the money that was made available and the signings were sorted before Bowkett and Mcnally joined the board. So this level of ambition in strenthening the team was shown by Smith, Jones and Foulger and their ambition continued by persuading Bowkett to join the board and recruiting McNally as chief exec. And they achieved all that whilst giving refunds on what were already affordable family football prices. So unless Bowkett & Mcnally joined the board and managed to somehow magically backdate their influence to a couple of months before they came you have definitely been had! [/quote] Ambition?  Sheer panic more like.  They undermined the whole project by appointing Bryan Gunn before the new board was in place, one of the most catastrophic decisions this club has ever made.   [/quote] I disagree entirely Cherub. It would have been far more catastrophic to have recruited a new manager before the new board was in place. I would have thought even the ardent critic of the clubs owners would agree with that. [/quote] That wasn''t the alternative I had in mind nutty.  The point is, why appoint anyone before the new board was in place?  Did the old board with its five members - the bare minimum (with Doncaster still nominally on it to make up a quorum, though no longer employed by the club and unarguably the chief culprit for the mess we were in) - really have a mandate to do that?  
×
×
  • Create New...