Well said, GOB.
A lot of people appear to have had their heads turned at the mention of money when, to be honest, a fortnight ago we were all happy with the signings of Clingan and Hoolahan and were looking forward to who might be signed next.
LOL, no MelloYello I''m certainly not on the board.
It sounds like a good crack though - according to Cullum all I''ve got to do is offer some money for players and some of the ''fans'' will fight to get me a seat!
It''s an interesting debate though, there must certainly be some philanthropic Norwich people out there - assuming you all give your own money away as easily as you seem to expect Delia to. I take the point made by Chops re Delia''s earlier statements but surely she''s allowed to talk price with a prospective buyer who''s worth Billions (far more than she is)?
Mmm, childish and knuckle dragging.... an interesting and constructive view point. If that''s your reaction to anyone who disagrees with your view there''s really no point pursuing this.
I was interested to float the analogy and see what people think, I suppose polite and reasoned conversation was a tad optimistic.
All I''ll say is that those of you who are turning on Delia and Michael WJ should hang your heads in shame. They spent a lot of their own money in turning this club around after the Chase era and have helped to create a stable and well run club with a good national profile and excellent facilities. I for one believe that if the deal was right for the club then Delia and MWJ would go for it, until then I trust them to do what''s best.
I consider loyalty to be an important virtue, maybe I''m just a bit old fashioned.
Let''s say a person owns a large house and staying in it they have some lodgers.
Now, suppose a rich man comes along and says to the owner "I''ll give you £20k to refurbish the house but in return I want to own the whole property."
Not unreasonably, the owner says "Hang on, the £20k to refurbish the house is great, but the house is worth £56k - if you want to own it you can''t just buy the furniture you have to pay for the whole house!"
Then suppose the prospective buyer goes to the lodgers and says "Look at your mean old landlord, I''ve got YOUR interests at heart and only want to make things better for you."
Do you think in those circumstances it''s reasonable for the lodgers to turn on the landlord, or isn''t it fair for the property owner to get a fair value for the house?
For what it''s worth, I believe a fair price has to be reached for the whole package, and using the media and fans - whoops, the lodgers - to influence the deal would be an underhand and cheap trick.