i,coopius

Exactly. the whole cullum offer scenario, is nothing different from how smith & jones have gone from owning 30 odd% to owning 63% of the club - putting money/loans into the club, and then converting this loan to shares.  what''s good enough for the cook is good enough for the insurer. surely.unless of course someone has a problem with the man himself, which i understand many do. but then this becomes personal, and the clubs need gets bypassed by opinions and pre-conceived ideas.and to say  "I imagine the board weren''t enamoured with his statement to the press without speaking to them"how is someone supposed to talk to someone else, when one party refuses to meet. however i do believe that the first 9 words of what you sat here is correct

can i put my name forward, cheers!

gotta love the woman, her forward planning is immense"We enjoy our football, we will be going to football even if we are in the Conference"and there are those on here who says she knows nothing of football, pa!

i understand (it was just meant slightly jovially) , and agree chicken (i sound like that bloomin woman off big brother something.)just been on SFC page on 606, and there''s a portsmouth fan saying he hopes they don''t disappear. made me realise how our lives would be slightly emptier without those from the south.who would we feel superior to whatever the table may sayalthough i would say that madrid are merely the culmination of the extravegance of the italian transfer policy in the late 80''s and 90''s (not impling madrid is in italy btw obviously they''re german)

..put together three hundred years after the fact...(this is fun, who''s go next)

i wouldn''t wish them out of business, if they lose 10 pts (as, i believe they should) and are relegated, and this ultimately saves us, then good. i don''t care how we stay up, just stay up. but i wouldn''t wish folding completely on anyone,...well...maybe one teamas hairy said i do find it quite ironic that this whole situation, played out fully, could result in luton (norwich reserves) - who were punished for the previous incumbents failings. - being saved from going out of the league.does this mean the anglian combination will be one short next year. if so can we enter norwich reserves (no, the real ones)on religion, live and let live. but i believe chris rock said it best in dogma "it''s good to have an idea, you can change an idea, but a belief..."

YC, i really do not understand your insistence on dragging on with this one statement over and over and over and over again (maybe i am one of those who i believe you referred  to in the original topic as being (to paraphrase) so stupid they''ll believe anything that is written).the original topic was, i believe titled something(original) like ''where has all the money gone. Mr C, merely posted income we have received  since promotion (though he is at fault in not posting about 25k fans every week, all monies received from advertising, and all other forms of income - shame on you mr c for not showing the full facts).you are correct YC, he did not mention any transfer outlay, he also didn''t mention, stadium upkeep, wages, police/ steward fees, toilet paper cost, or the price of cleaning windows. "taking selective pieces of information to support your point of view, while your "sold 20MM of players" comment may be factually correct in isolation, it is inserted in a sentence the overall purpose of which is clearly intended to persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of, without speaking to what Norwich had spent to secure the services of players like Ashton and Earnshaw for example"mr c: please  stop trying to ''persuade readers of the large amount of money Norwich has come into possession of ''  whether factual or not without also qualifying it without every outlay our sainted directors must pay down to the headed letter paper. i believe ALL fans would understand that in a topic of that name, that this was the amount of money we had incoming through those seasons (the conclusion being that the board then have the decision on what to spend this money on - to find ourselves languishing at the bottom of the division, with no money to spend on the team, after the ''prudence with ambition years'' show a lack of both, and where the boards investment priorities lie (clearly not the footballing side)) ; and the lack of examples to suggest any out goings, would not lead to people to believe that nothing has been spent on incoming transfers. in fact the lack of any examples of out lays clearly implies that there were some, surely to have listed a few ie wages etc, would have been more misleading. i think anyone who supports norwich know there has been transfer monies spent since we were promoted. i believe you would have to be a complete idiot to support this team and not know that. so are you implying some of us are complete idiots, or are those that don''t understand complete idiots. Or are you merely trying to discredit his argument by constantly taking it out of context, trying to sound reasonable, though little digs keep cropping up (ie front man for cullum, competing with doncaster for spin) , would it not be more accurate that though you accuse him of spin that you are the one who is trying to use words to facilitate your argument than facts. you stick to one example that mr c does not highlight the transfer costs, but nowhere does he claim to, you then lambast him for what would appear to be not including the entire history of ncfc ever, anywhere. yet you don''t ever counter his argument, merely point out the faults in the way he raises his. believe me i think i know which side the spin lies on, but then i''m probably one of the idiots that doesn''t understand

                                   woodsculverhouse       watson       bruce        bowenfox            crook                goss          huckerby                   fleck               bellamy