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?

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.

Well-written OP. We have plenty to be nostalgic about, but I think its a bit of a mistake to dwell on the past. And I don''t see this as a make or break season. What do you mean by that? Yes, we all want City to go straight back up, and we all consider League One to be beneath us, but with finances being how they are, just a ''steadying of the ship'' will do me for this season. You are right to emphasize what a big job PL has on his hands. So if we aren''t promoted will he be a failure? Surely the number one priority is just the survival of the club as a going concern. With an apparent new prfessionalism in the boardroom and management, I think we are back on course. Like you and many others I will support City all the way. City til I die. Or until City dies. But let''s look to the future. Dwelling on past glories just diminishes our appreciation of the present. Let''s try to enjoy life in League One, get behind the team, be patient, and hope that we are on an upward curve.

"A lot" is two words, by the way. Please write it out 100 times.

I agree, and I hope 99% of canary fans do. For all the slagging of the board, managers, players, etc the last few years, its time us fans really make sure we do OUR job properly. Get behind the team, make Lambert feel wanted, and be the 12th man. So let''s be ''avin'' you!

That''s a no then. What a SHAMBLES.

...and NO again.

Last word from me. Bigfeller, let me just say I appreciate you well-written and considered opinions. I think you are being too quick to praise the board for this move, but it''s good to see someone has some optimism for the future, even if I don''t share it!

OK. Seems you are saying the 4 - 0 was a fluke, and 7 - 1 a more fair reflection of Gunn''s abilities. I say its too early to judge either way. I wasn''t that impressed with Gunn towards the end of last season, but he was a new manager working in very difficult circumstances. If you let someone build a new team you should give them a chance to show what they can do with it. I re-read your OP and notice you made the same point that I''m making - Gunn''s sacking can only be judged once we know who the new man is.

If we haven''t then its a total shambles. The only other explanation of the timing of the sacking would be a "difference of opinion" between Gunn and the board since the Yeovil game. I''m hoping we have a new man already installed, someone with a proven record, and he''ll be sitting in the stands at Exeter.

So Gunn has assembled a squad ''certainly good enough'' yet he deserved only one competitive game with this squad before being sacked? You aren''t making sense now.