Mick Dennis article.

[PurpleCanary 5,553]

Much of that has been well-known and discussed here, such as the necessity of paying back the debt. And the misleading profit we made by being relegated. Equally so, because it has been patiently explained here recently, the context Dennis usefully gives that puts our transfer spending in a better light than some posters can bring themselves to acknowledge.Linking the sacking of Ewan Chester specifically to signing van Wolfswinkel is new, at least to me. And what seems to have been a constant changing of the guard in terms of scouting/recruitmenting (am I the only poster who doesn''t know what the difference is?) is instructive, in a worrying way. Perhaps things have finally settled.However the David Sullivan story is not a revelation. I certainly remember that quote about Sullivan not wanting (and this was before the final dualling of the A11) to have to drive up to Norwich twice a week.And much of the detail Dennis gives of Cullum''s proposal, such as the £20m being a mirage and the overall plan being dangerous rubbish, was covered (admittedly not by the EDP...) years ago. And Dennis is, strictly speaking, wrong on one point. Cullum never made a firm bid. If he had done the club would have had to inform shareholders straight away. In effect he outlined an informal proposal. Twice.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

For those who read Purple Canary''s posts on here most of that article is old news.....

[The Bristol Nest 513]

It''s a sensible riposte to the conspiracy theorists that believe that our club is deliberately sabotaging our future.

[im spartacus canary 0]

No offence morty but fu(k me that was a boring read 😔 and you just knew that purple would be adding hs two penneth , one of if not the most boring thread I have read on here in 10 years, i bet the nights fly by in your house 😂

[morty 0]

[quote user="im spartacus"]No offence morty but fu(k me that was a boring read 😔 and you just knew that purple would be adding hs two penneth , one of if not the most boring thread I have read on here in 10 years, i bet the nights fly by in your house 😂[/quote]I suspect you already hated it before you even read a word.[:)]

[Crafty Canary 495]

Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.[/quote]I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet.What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his?

[im spartacus canary 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="im spartacus"]No offence morty but fu(k me that was a boring read 😔 and you just knew that purple would be adding hs two penneth , one of if not the most boring thread I have read on here in 10 years, i bet the nights fly by in your house 😂[/quote]I suspect you already hated it before you even read a word.[:)][/quote]

I normally like mick Dennis articles and hearing him on talk sport and you have been known to write the occasional decent post but that was a complete bore fest mate !

[chicken 0]

[quote user="Glenn Medeiros "]Very very suspicious of this article

Don''t know how much of this was in the public domain. Looks like Stowmarket Duo spin from their Minister of Information[/quote]

I love stuff like this. What do you mean "Don''t know how much of this was in the public domain."?

Peter Cullum went to the papers and explained his offer from what I can remember so no surprise there - and at the time I remember people such as Purple on here pulling it apart.

Annual Financial Reports - are available every year and are not open to interpretation in terms of transfer money in and out and wage bill. Pretty black and white.

The bank loans bit with Bowkett was also pretty available information I believe - not least because for the two seasons in the prem they hammered on about it and then jumped up and down with joy when it was achieved.

So what is there left to spin?

I mean for someone so supportive of Delia and MWJ wouldn''t he say we''d be hard pushed to find better owners? That the fans should stop demanding more etc? He doesn''t.

I for one believe what he has written - whether there is more, in terms of offers etc, that he doesn''t know about is another thing.

But we have known that our club is less favoured compared to others in terms of geographical location for quite some time. That is not something new at all. For all my time supporting Norwich I can remember us losing out on players because they''d prefer other locations.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Much of that has been well-known and discussed here, such as the necessity of paying back the debt. And the misleading profit we made by being relegated. Equally so, because it has been patiently explained here recently, the context Dennis usefully gives that puts our transfer spending in a better light than some posters can bring themselves to acknowledge.Linking the sacking of Ewan Chester specifically to signing van Wolfswinkel is new, at least to me. And what seems to have been a constant changing of the guard in terms of scouting/recruitmenting (am I the only poster who doesn''t know what the difference is?) is instructive, in a worrying way. Perhaps things have finally settled.However the David Sullivan story is not a revelation. I certainly remember that quote about Sullivan not wanting (and this was before the final dualling of the A11) to have to drive up to Norwich twice a week.And much of the detail Dennis gives of Cullum''s proposal, such as the £20m being a mirage and the overall plan being dangerous rubbish, was covered (admittedly not by the EDP...) years ago. And Dennis is, strictly speaking, wrong on one point. Cullum never made a firm bid. If he had done the club would have had to inform shareholders straight away. In effect he outlined an informal proposal. Twice.

[/quote]

I seem to remember that he met with Delia and MWJ - so perhaps that whilst the offer was not formal, it was discussed?

I do remember you pulling it apart though, and a lot of people on here ending up rather insulted by Cullum''s offer as it didn''t add up.

[chicken 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]Fernandes was indeed interested but you cannot buy what isn''t for sale.

Been some more interest recently . But the door is firmly shut.[/quote]

Go on then, I''ll bite, interest from who?

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="bristolcanary"]It''s a sensible riposte to the conspiracy theorists that believe that our club is deliberately sabotaging our future.[/quote]I have certainly never accused the current board of deliberately sabotaging our future. The phrase "deliberate sabotage" would suggest that the board are certain of what they are doing.

[Crafty Canary 495]

morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM:

Crafty Canary wrote:

Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.

I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet.

What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his?

It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.

[can u sit down please 0]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]Fernandes was indeed interested but you cannot buy what isn''t for sale.

Been some more interest recently . But the door is firmly shut.[/quote]As a fan, would you sell Norwich City, if you owned it?[/quote]

If it''s good enough for Bill Kenwright and Huw Jenkins it''s good enough or me. Two men that realised football has changed and are equally as passionate about their clubs as our Delia.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM:

Crafty Canary wrote:

Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.

I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet.

What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his?

It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.[/quote]So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="Crafty Canary"]morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM:

Crafty Canary wrote:

Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.

I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet.

What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his?

It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.[/quote]So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically.[/quote]woosh

[morty 0]

[quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]Fernandes was indeed interested but you cannot buy what isn''t for sale.

Been some more interest recently . But the door is firmly shut.[/quote]As a fan, would you sell Norwich City, if you owned it?[/quote]

If it''s good enough for Bill Kenwright and Huw Jenkins it''s good enough or me. Two men that realised football has changed and are equally as passionate about their clubs as our Delia.[/quote]Would you agree that Everton are a far, far more attractive proposition?Your implication that you can''t buy whats not for sale only holds weight if we have turned people away, that have come with offers that are good ones for Norwich City. So has that happened? Is Mick lying?

[morty 0]

[quote user="Iwans Big Toe"][quote user="morty"][quote user="Crafty Canary"]morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM:

Crafty Canary wrote:

Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru.

I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet.

What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his?

It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.[/quote]So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically.[/quote]woosh

[/quote]Which bits do you not agree with then?Do you have facts that Mick doesn''t?

[Crafty Canary 495]

Iwan''s Big Toe wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:40 PM:

morty wrote:

Crafty Canary wrote:

morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM: Crafty Canary wrote: Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru. I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet. What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his? It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.

So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically.

Try reading it again. I didn''t say if I agreed or disagreed but commented on my perception of his objectivity. To extrapolate that to hypothesise that I agree it is factual and correct says much about your objectivity also.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]Iwan''s Big Toe wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:40 PM:

morty wrote:

Crafty Canary wrote:

morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM: Crafty Canary wrote: Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru. I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet. What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his? It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity.

So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically.

Try reading it again. I didn''t say if I agreed or disagreed but commented on my perception of his objectivity. To extrapolate that to hypothesise that I agree it is factual and correct says much about your objectivity also.[/quote]Your implication that he isn''t objective ergo implies that the article is somehow flawed or inaccurate.So, again, which bits do you specifically disagree with?

[nutty nigel 7,506]

[quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]Fernandes was indeed interested but you cannot buy what isn''t for sale.

Been some more interest recently . But the door is firmly shut.[/quote]As a fan, would you sell Norwich City, if you owned it?[/quote]

If it''s good enough for Bill Kenwright and Huw Jenkins it''s good enough or me. Two men that realised football has changed and are equally as passionate about their clubs as our Delia.[/quote]

CUSDP would have sold it many times over. But after the first time we''d have been stuck with Marcus Evans. What''s done would be done....

[morty 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="can u sit down please"][quote user="morty"][quote user="can u sit down please"]Fernandes was indeed interested but you cannot buy what isn''t for sale.

Been some more interest recently . But the door is firmly shut.[/quote]As a fan, would you sell Norwich City, if you owned it?[/quote]

If it''s good enough for Bill Kenwright and Huw Jenkins it''s good enough or me. Two men that realised football has changed and are equally as passionate about their clubs as our Delia.[/quote]

CUSDP would have sold it many times over. But after the first time we''d have been stuck with Marcus Evans. What''s done would be done....

[/quote][:D]

[lake district canary 4,530]

Interesting enough article, although a lot of it is in the public domain, also his new book is out soon, so probably raising his profile for the book launch.......

[Crafty Canary 495]

morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:49 PM:

Crafty Canary wrote:

Iwan''s Big Toe wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:40 PM: morty wrote: Crafty Canary wrote: morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 10:20 PM: Crafty Canary wrote: Another article from the Supreme and Great Leaders'' PR guru. I have already asked this of other people, but no answers yet. What bits do you disagree with, and what facts do you have to counter his? It''s not about agreeing or disagreeing. Dick Mennis never has anything to say about our Fuhrers other than what wonderful human beings they are. Consequently, like many others, I take his articles with a dose of cynicism about their critical objectivity. So you''re agreeing its factual and correct then basically. Try reading it again. I didn''t say if I agreed or disagreed but commented on my perception of his objectivity. To extrapolate that to hypothesise that I agree it is factual and correct says much about your objectivity also.

Your implication that he isn''t objective ergo implies that the article is somehow flawed or inaccurate.

So, again, which bits do you specifically disagree with?

It implies nothing of the sort. It states with no implication whatsoever that he is not an impartial assessor of the club.

The fact is none of us have the inside information to say what is correct or incorrect and his source of information are the majority owners whom cannot be regarded as impartial in any sense of the word.

[Jools 584]

[quote user="lake district canary"]Interesting enough article, although a lot of it is in the public domain, also his new book is out soon, so probably raising his profile for the book launch.......

[/quote][:D]

[morty 0]

Jeez, its like pulling teeth.What bits do you think are incorrect, or inaccurate?Shall we save a lot of time here and assume you''re not a Delia fan?

[Bill 1,788]

Alot a stuff that fans should know, but mostly go out of their way not to know.However this is bollox on stilts -"For instance, Matt Holland’s reluctance to leave Ipswich when they were

relegated in 2002 was a major factor in their going into administration".The transfer market was dead, that was perhaps the real reason he did not leave. Although ITFC would have had to make up the difference between his contract with them in any future contract the sums would have not come anywhere near what they defaulted on. ie even if he had left they would still have gone belly up. As well as defauting on the repayments to the then Norwich Union they also stiffed the taxman for £4.7m and a fair few million more to those involved in building their new stands.... as well as money to numerous suppliers leadng up to the bankruptcy.Outlining what really happened is always to be welcomed. But peddling silly myths to back up those views is not the best way of substantiating your points.

[nutty nigel 7,506]

So there''s a possibility that we could start tomorrow with Russ at CH. Whitts at LB. Naismith up front and Mick Dennis beside Winny in Delia''s box. I worry about people''s blood pressure.....

[Crafty Canary 495]

morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 11:06 PM:

Jeez, its like pulling teeth.

What bits do you think are incorrect, or inaccurate?

Shall we save a lot of time here and assume you''re not a Delia fan?

You are correct, it is like pulling teeth trying to get you to accept that none of us has the information to know what is correct to incorrect. Do you even accept that as his sources of information are the majority shareholders that his opinions are subjective rather than objective?

What I did find interesting is that he now confirms, presumably direct from his friends the Stowmarket two, that Bowkett saved us from administration by using his credibility with the banks to achieve a deal. Those of us who suggested this was the case at the time were abused for such a suggestion so it is satisfying to be vindicated by the horses'' mouths.

I''m ambivalent about Delia as, unlike many on here, I don''t think the sun shines from her ar$e. She has her plus points and her minus points as we all do.

[morty 0]

[quote user="Crafty Canary"]morty wrote the following post at 12/09/2016 11:06 PM:

Jeez, its like pulling teeth.

What bits do you think are incorrect, or inaccurate?

Shall we save a lot of time here and assume you''re not a Delia fan?

You are correct, it is like pulling teeth trying to get you to accept that none of us has the information to know what is correct to incorrect. Do you even accept that as his sources of information are the majority shareholders that his opinions are subjective rather than objective?

What I did find interesting is that he now confirms, presumably direct from his friends the Stowmarket two, that Bowkett saved us from administration by using his credibility with the banks to achieve a deal. Those of us who suggested this was the case at the time were abused for such a suggestion so it is satisfying to be vindicated by the horses'' mouths.

I''m ambivalent about Delia as, unlike many on here, I don''t think the sun shines from her ar$e. She has her plus points and her minus points as we all do.[/quote]Why assume anyone is lying or being deceptive?Again you are implying that it is purely propaganda of some kind that should be treated with suspicion. Apart from, of course, the bit you have decided that you want to believe lol.Most of the info is already in the public domain, theres nothing particularly new here.Who has ever said the sun shines out of her ar$e exactly? I think we''d all like her about 50 million richer.