Nomadic Canary

The Norwich City Supporter''s Trust seems to have been formed with a notion that they could somehow safeguard the club against becoming the next Portsmouth. That seems fair enough in terms of intent but what real purpose does it serve in the here and now? Until recently there was an aim to place a fan on the board; for the Trust to have a representative of the fans as a whole sat at the table with the guys tasked to run the club. An idealistic concept that is completely impractical. How could anyone ever decide who should be that person? We have all sorts and shapes and sizes of supporters but I don''t know a single one that could represent the fans in general. How can you please everybody? How can you provide a voice that represents all the people? Look at last season and the divide created by hapless Hughton, at best any fans representative in such a scenario is going to represent one half of the support and alienate/ignore/dismiss the other. That will all come down to this superfans opinion and who says that their opinion is anymore valid than yours or mine? Perhaps the idea is that the Trust will vote prior to board meetings in order that an opinion can be created democratically prior to the event? Again, this would only ever represent a portion of the people (Trust members) that have assumed the position (I never voted for them) to represent the fans as a whole. Perhaps a more salient point is that we already have fans on the board in Delia, the Michaels and Fry. Not only are they fans but they, with the exception of Fry, have experience of running a multi-million pound football business. I''m not sure that Norwich have another fan - trust member or not - that boasts that on their CV which begs the question why ANY fan would think that they, as an individual or as a representative of a group, should have some sort of input at that level of the business. It seems that the Trust have made a conscious decision to distance themselves from that concept. Perhaps that''s a realisation that the idea is flawed, perhaps it''s an acceptance that they are never going to accumulate the level of shares required to even make it an idea that would warrant any serious form of consideration. If the Trust have accepted that the Board is beyond them, what is their ''goal'' now? Their aim is to accrue shares to make the fans one of the biggest shareholders in the club but that is already the case - I doubt that there are many shareholders of Norwich City that support another club or are apathetic towards football. The shares themselves, while given a nominal value, are worthless to anyone but a fan and as is the norm with such a commodity, are only worth what somebody is willing to pay. I doubt anyone would EVER see a return of th quoted £100 a pop. Maybe it''s to cobble together enough shares to be regarded as a voice or mouthpiece for the fans but that brings us full circle to the obvious flaws associated with sticking a fan on the board. The trust will never be able to accurately represent all the fans. I reckon that there is a degree of acceptance with regard to that too. They''ve tended to remain politically neutral, not involving themselves in any in/out shenanigans or coming out and making any statements that would ruffle any feathers one way or the other. With the way things have been over the last few years, maybe that too is inevitable. Perhaps they don''t feel that there is any need to pass comment while things are going well - to a point - and the truth will out if things took a sizable dip. However, relatively recent history (St Andrews Hall and last season with clueless) suggest that the Trust will remain safely below the parapet even when things are deemed to be on a downturn. So when will/would they pipe up and be heard? In fairness, it isn''t necessarily a negative that they have remained largely silent, the road to ruin is littered with the opinions of folk that thought they knew best but at what point do the trust make their shareholding heard? If it''s not when things are going well and not when things are going badly, then when? In the event of a proposed takeover? Is it''s very existence a "just-in-case" insurance policy against a Gaydamak or an Evans? If that is the case then what exactly are they and their 1300 shares going to do? They don''t have a voice now so any amount of tubthumping and foot-stamping should a fake-sheikh come along will seem a bit after the Lord Mayors Show; that''s why we need to know what they are and what they stand for and what they do NOW. On one Norwich forum there is a pretty open exchange between members of that forum and the trust secretary. In this conversation it seems that the aim is to accumulate as many shares as possible to have a respected input but in the same breath, it seems that there is an acceptance that they will struggle to accrue the necessary shares to have such an input. Perhaps one of the reasons is that, as the secretary confirms, many members of the Trust Board retain their own shareholding. Apparently this allows the Trust to have a broader representation at the AGM, except it doesn''t does it? These people are at the AGM representing their own shares, not those of the Trust, and, more importantly, who on earth is going to leave or gift shares or even pay a £10 annual payment to a group who has the aim of raising as many shares as possible but who''s Board members don''t have enough belief in the message they represent to gift their own personal shares? There''s also some inference that they are involved in other wider footballing matters such as safe standing and ticket-pricing. What isn''t clear is in what capacity they are involved. By their own admission they have a relatively small shareholding and don''t seem to have a voice that is audible to the club. Presumably this makes their input one of limited value, sure they can offer an opinion on such matters but having no influence at all at decision level, it''s not really any more valuable than asking you, me or the racists thrown out at Wolves. We''re all City fans after all. So, what do they do? What is their reason for being? Is there a purpose being served or is it little more than a social for fans with ideas of grandeur, for those that think they know best? If they truly have aspirations of providing some form of fans representation, it might be an idea to appear more inclusive to the fan on the street. There''s an impression of elitist aloofness at present and that has to work against them. I want to know a lot more before I put my ten pound in that''s for sure.

Incredible.   We''re top of the league and yet one of "ours" elects to start a thread about how good the scum are?   One of ours my foot. Obvious binner is obvious, Lincoln Binner.

Real Ale? Opposite the Cop Shop?   So a pub full of beards, sandals and rozzers....sounds awesome...[;)]

We were distinctly second best against Liverpool too. The game was over after 10 minutes.

They can''t all be binners or Arsenal fans, can they? Nope. But you are. Organise your little protest, make sure you wear your Arsenal shirt. I''ll be interested to see how much interest you can drum up, will you need St Andrew''s Hall or a telephone box?

Arsenal fan, go and protest at the Emirates.

[quote user="ricky knight"]i manage on a saturday now so dont go much, the couple of time i have been, its not the Carrow Road i remember, all sitting eating picnics, in a library, telling me we are only a small club we short be happy with our lot, if the crap the team were playing did not put me off, City supporters of 2014 certainly did happy clapping sheep, praising cant do no wrong Queen Delia and her useless cronies. Oneday you never know the club might show a bit of guts and ambition.[/quote] Arsenal fan. One trophy in 9 years despite spending crazy sums of money and Wenger is still in charge. The Happiest of all Happy Clappers, your lot.

It would appear that the: Callous Unfunny Needless Trolling award goes to Crafty Canary.

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Wiz"][quote user="morty"][quote user="A Load of Squit"][quote user="Wiz"] [quote user="Gingerpele"]To us? Firstly what makes you think you even represent 5% of the Norich fans. Secondly it''s not his job to listen to us. Thirdly why would we want to keep half the players?[/quote]   I''ve renewed my membership so that gives me a small say, whether you or anyone else likes it or not!   Okay not a season ticket holder but I spend the same on other City goodies over a season. [/quote] Wow, you spend £340 on "other City goodies over a season", that''s very impressive or a lie [/quote] Indeed. And it would actually be more logical to buy the season ticket. I call bull$hit. [/quote]   Fancy a meet up in Yellows mortia?................my treat. [/quote] You save your money for football tickets. Lol. [/quote]   His money...lol....dining out on the East Coast Canaries I reckon....    

[quote user="Matt Juler"]As I''ve said many times before I''m just Matt Juler, a lad from Suffolk [/quote]   Binner.   Might have known.

What about the Canary Fairy? Is he still around? Or those two that threw their season tickets at Gunn? They wouldn''t wear any crap. Whereas the Canary Fairy would wear anything. Literally it would seem.    

[quote user="Matt Juler"]The love that many on here have for Snodgrass typifies the general level of intelligence of Norwich fans. [/quote]   You Capital Canaries don''t half fancy yourselves.   You''re what my dear old Mum would have called a smug ****.   And she had O''Levels.    

[quote user="nutty nigel"]But there''s no point in voting for Nash if you don''t publicise it somewhere else... like on here... How did they collect the votes for fan of the year[:^)] [/quote] Bloke with a clipboard at some Belgian markets

Saw this on Twitter, don''t know how to do a link on here, sorry. Must be mental. wp.me/p3SPMz-j1

[quote user="SeattleCanary"][quote user="Francis The Farmer"]The team inherited was fulla lore league players, Tearney, Ward, that Fox and all the rest on em. Your proper thick if you think that lot are better than what were got now.[/quote]Yeah, you''re right those players were awful scoring more goals than their replacement ''upgrades'', and gaining more points than the players brought in by the current management that also replaced them. Well done *clap clap*If the players we replaced were lower league, then what standard are the ones that have been brought in? They are achieving less in every department in the stat charts. And what''s more, if the current lot aren''t good enough, why were they brought in? Surely there is no need to bring players in that weren''t and upgrade on the team of the first season.][/quote] You must be on that crystal broth, that dornt not even make no sense. I also see your admitted to Nigel that you dornt watch harf the games. That about sum it up. An peeple reckon that Hughton is clueless, christ alive. Wossa stat chart? Wears Tearney in the current stat chart? Or that Fox or Morrisons? Mate? Yorll be lucky, if you had mates you wont be on hear at all times of the middle of the night an that. My ol''man allus said that yanks dint know diddly squat about nuthin. Mother thort different in the war an that but thats a different tale. I agree with Dad.