Skint Eastwood

I am a fan of Football365.com. I recommend it if you haven''t been there before. Every weekday they have a ''Mediawatch'' feature, which disects TV, Radio and newspaper output, stupid quotes from managers, etc. It''s often very funny and incisive. I sent them an email today asking if they would feature this story tomorrow, but since the are a "subsidiary of BSkyB" I said I didn''t think they had the balls.

[quote user="canary cherub "][quote user="canary cherub "] [quote user="Skint Eastwood"] So two finance companies have been called in. By whom? For what purpose? Why assume they are "potential administrators"? [/quote] I believe McNally/Bowkett did say they''d called in KPMG and/or Ernst and Young to help restructure our finances. That was in late November/early December, when they announced that the club''s accounts were being delayed until February. [/quote] Sorry my bad, that should be AGM delayed until February, not the accounts [/quote] OK. That question was actually directed to The NOTW''s so-called journalist, berrating his total lack of detail, but thanks for the info anyway. (and apologies for above multiple posts, something effed up)

[quote user=" Baldrick"]Never is there smoke without fire. If you recall when the Burnley job come up ANY thread mentioning administration was quickly removed. [/quote] Never is there an article worth taking seriously when there are NO verifiable details in it. This so-called journalist made it up, and was soon found out. End of (non) story.

[quote user=" Baldrick"]Never is there smoke without fire. If you recall when the Burnley job come up ANY thread mentioning administration was quickly removed. [/quote] Never is there an article worth taking seriously when there are NO verifiable details in it. This so-called journalist made it up, and was soon found out. End of (non) story.

[quote user=" Baldrick"]Never is there smoke without fire. If you recall when the Burnley job come up ANY thread mentioning administration was quickly removed. [/quote] Never is there an article worth taking seriously when there are NO verifiable details in it. This so-called journalist made it up, and was soon found out. End of (non) story.

Glad to hear there were others like me who attempted to leave a less than complimentary comment below said article. Mine went like this: This article is conspicuous by its total lack of any verifiable facts. So two finance companies have been called in. By whom? For what purpose? Why assume they are "potential administrators"? No quotes from the club, from their creditors, from the ''financial experts'', or from anyone at all in fact. New investment is needed by Thursday? Why Thursday? Who has set that seemingly arbitrary deadline? Canaries on brink of administration? Or maybe Martin Hardy on brink of irresponsible journalism. My first reaction when my old man told me about this article was ''don''t believe what you read in the NOTW.'' The Murdoch media is poison. From The Sun lying on their front page to help Blair pass anti-freedom laws, to the sick propaganda being peddled on Fox ''News'' in the US, that Nazi scumbag has a lot to answer for.

[quote user="CT "][quote user="bluemike"]boards in a mess is a common thing in Norwich ![/quote]Keanos beard is becoming slightly messier...[/quote] His team too. Shame that.

LOL! Didn''t even realise the double meaning when I made the OP. Probably most people took it the wrong way!

I mean [:$]

.

[quote user="drunkunmunkey"][quote user="Skint Eastwood"]A lot of activity on here, which is great, but we need more organisation. Better subsections, more options, a post history so you can track down replies easier, that kind of thing. Please.[/quote] It does have a post history under ''My Forums'' doesnt it? [^o)] [/quote] Oh yeah! Thanks!

[quote user="Sideshow Tim"]By the way i do actually agree with you![/quote] Are you being sarcastic?

Lowest form of wit? Surely not. I think sarcasm is really really clever. I do. Really.

Well it is pretty difficult TBH. No offence intended. I was on here a few days ago and can''t find the thread I last posted on, after 20 minutes of sifting. Other sites its just one click away. Is that a "high expectation"? 53,000 threads in one section. Just a big blob of wide-ranging opinions. What''s wrong with dividing all that up a bit? Constructive criticism met with sarcasm, found on every forum!

Who''s Ray?