Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Big Vince

Pointy Finger

Recommended Posts

[quote user="......and Smith must score."][quote user="Big Vince"].....

Big Vince is going to be watching the boy Farke very closely to see if he is indeed his own man, or a puppet....... [/quote]With your track record on finding anything good at all to say about NCFC why not save yourself some time and call him a puppet right now before a ball''s been kicked ?[/quote]

Puppet.

No good will come of NCFC so long as it is owned by bleeding heart, sentimental, lifelong socialists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"]No good will come of NCFC so long as it is owned by bleeding heart, sentimental, lifelong socialists.[/quote]Sir Arthur was a bleeding heart, sentimental, lifelong socialist and we did ok when he was here.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Big Vince"]No good will come of NCFC so long as it is owned by bleeding heart, sentimental, lifelong socialists.[/quote]Sir Arthur was a bleeding heart, sentimental, lifelong socialist and we did ok when he was here.....[/quote]

Listen, there is no comparison between Sir Arthur and the Stowmarket Two.

Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a leader and a businessman with a real feel for football who struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented. Sir Arthur left a lasting legacy and was the first to establish Norwich as a top flight club.

The same cannot be said of the Stowmarket Two. Their legacy is Championship football and no cups as the default position. They don''t have a clue so how can they possibly lead? They have held the club back for 20 years during which time it ought to have won the Champions League 5 times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand
.[/quote]I don''t know that is wrong but it certainly is not the generally accepted version, which is that Chase, who was a builder, raised questions over the contract going to Carter''s when South was married to a Carter. I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities. And it was Chase who emerged as chairman and de facto chief executive. That said, I think Chase and Jones were allies, with the latter becoming vice-chairman, so he may have played a part. Later on, I believe, Jones very much distanced himself from Chase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"]I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities.[/quote]Jones ran Great Yarmouth’s Pleasure Beach Purps (I think his son still does)......

http://images.archant.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.1333078.1332955600!/image/1242193506.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/1242193506.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimmy Jones owned and ran the Pleasure Beach at Great Yarmouth. Passed away in 2012, and it''s now run by his son Albert I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A family friend a old man now owned a very large car dealership

he told me a funny story about Arthur South

Arthur ordered a brand new jag and asked the garage to deliver it for him

when the owner of garage dropped it off Arthur refused to pay full price trying to knock the price down because he said that as it had been driven on roads it was now second hand car !!!!!!

he was some business man ha !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand
.[/quote]I don''t know that is wrong but it certainly is not the generally accepted version, which is that Chase, who was a builder, raised questions over the contract going to Carter''s when South was married to a Carter. I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities. And it was Chase who emerged as chairman and de facto chief executive. That said, I think Chase and Jones were allies, with the latter becoming vice-chairman, so he may have played a part. Later on, I believe, Jones very much distanced himself from Chase.[/quote]

Well, Chase did not exactly distance himself from Carter''s because they duly completed the City Stand and went on to do the Barclay and the two corner infills under Chase''s chairmanship.

As for Sir Arthur being ousted by Chase, if that would be the case, it would be ironic as it was Sir Arthur who invited him onto the Board in about 1984.

My understanding is that it was Jones who made the greater fuss over the issue that led to Sir Arthur resigning, but whoever was the greater culprit, we really are getting into the realm of counting the number of angels dancing on the end of a pin, especially after all this time.

Jones did distance himself from Chase later on. Martin O''Neill was very much Jones'' appointment which may explain why he fell out with Chase, or the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand
.[/quote]I don''t know that is wrong but it certainly is not the generally accepted version, which is that Chase, who was a builder, raised questions over the contract going to Carter''s when South was married to a Carter. I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities. And it was Chase who emerged as chairman and de facto chief executive. That said, I think Chase and Jones were allies, with the latter becoming vice-chairman, so he may have played a part. Later on, I believe, Jones very much distanced himself from Chase.[/quote]

Well, Chase did not exactly distance himself from Carter''s because they duly completed the City Stand and went on to do the Barclay and the two corner infills under Chase''s chairmanship.

As for Sir Arthur being ousted by Chase, if that would be the case, it would be ironic as it was Sir Arthur who invited him onto the Board in about 1984.

My understanding is that it was Jones who made the greater fuss over the issue that led to Sir Arthur resigning, but whoever was the greater culprit, we really are getting into the realm of counting the number of angels dancing on the end of a pin, especially after all this time.

Jones did distance himself from Chase later on. Martin O''Neill was very much Jones'' appointment which may explain why he fell out with Chase, or the other way round.[/quote]Thanks for the info about Jones, lapps. Big Vince, you were the one who raised the question of who was to blame and started the angel-counting, in what looked (and still looks) like an attempt to clear your sainted Chase of the responsibility generally laid at his door for the ousting of one of the most respected and successful figures in the club''s history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand
.[/quote]I don''t know that is wrong but it certainly is not the generally accepted version, which is that Chase, who was a builder, raised questions over the contract going to Carter''s when South was married to a Carter. I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities. And it was Chase who emerged as chairman and de facto chief executive. That said, I think Chase and Jones were allies, with the latter becoming vice-chairman, so he may have played a part. Later on, I believe, Jones very much distanced himself from Chase.[/quote]

Well, Chase did not exactly distance himself from Carter''s because they duly completed the City Stand and went on to do the Barclay and the two corner infills under Chase''s chairmanship.

As for Sir Arthur being ousted by Chase, if that would be the case, it would be ironic as it was Sir Arthur who invited him onto the Board in about 1984.

My understanding is that it was Jones who made the greater fuss over the issue that led to Sir Arthur resigning, but whoever was the greater culprit, we really are getting into the realm of counting the number of angels dancing on the end of a pin, especially after all this time.

Jones did distance himself from Chase later on. Martin O''Neill was very much Jones'' appointment which may explain why he fell out with Chase, or the other way round.[/quote]Thanks for the info about Jones, lapps. Big Vince, you were the one who raised the question of who was to blame and started the angel-counting, in what looked (and still looks) like an attempt to clear your sainted Chase of the responsibility generally laid at his door for the ousting of one of the most respected and successful figures in the club''s history.[/quote]

Chase was not to blame.

My late uncle was a shareholder and personal friend of Sir Arthur''s. Jimmy Jones was the main mover in ousting Sir Arthur.

And the main dispute on the Board at the time (of which Jones and Chase were members) was not so much Sir Arthur''s marriage to a Carter, but the precise scope of the work that Carter''s were going to carry out on the new City Stand. The original drawings contained a lot of space at the back of the stand that was not being put to any use and it was this that caused the dispute between Jones and Sir Arthur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="lappinitup"]"Sir Arthur was in many ways a model chairman because he was forthright, a

leader and a businessman with a real feel for football"
Yer man Chase ousted him......"struck up a great rapport with John Bond during which time the Norwich passing game was invented"Archie McCauley had the 58/59 team playing a great passing game so I don''t think that''s entirely true.And as for the rest of your nonsense.......[:''(][/quote]

It was actually Jimmy Jones that brought down Sir Arthur.

They had a falling out over the construction of the City Stand
.[/quote]I don''t know that is wrong but it certainly is not the generally accepted version, which is that Chase, who was a builder, raised questions over the contract going to Carter''s when South was married to a Carter. I don''t know what business Jones was in, but unless he was also a builder it would seem more plausible that it was Chase who made an issue of the supposed irregularities. And it was Chase who emerged as chairman and de facto chief executive. That said, I think Chase and Jones were allies, with the latter becoming vice-chairman, so he may have played a part. Later on, I believe, Jones very much distanced himself from Chase.[/quote]

Well, Chase did not exactly distance himself from Carter''s because they duly completed the City Stand and went on to do the Barclay and the two corner infills under Chase''s chairmanship.

As for Sir Arthur being ousted by Chase, if that would be the case, it would be ironic as it was Sir Arthur who invited him onto the Board in about 1984.

My understanding is that it was Jones who made the greater fuss over the issue that led to Sir Arthur resigning, but whoever was the greater culprit, we really are getting into the realm of counting the number of angels dancing on the end of a pin, especially after all this time.

Jones did distance himself from Chase later on. Martin O''Neill was very much Jones'' appointment which may explain why he fell out with Chase, or the other way round.[/quote]Thanks for the info about Jones, lapps. Big Vince, you were the one who raised the question of who was to blame and started the angel-counting, in what looked (and still looks) like an attempt to clear your sainted Chase of the responsibility generally laid at his door for the ousting of one of the most respected and successful figures in the club''s history.[/quote]

Chase was not to blame.

My late uncle was a shareholder and personal friend of Sir Arthur''s. Jimmy Jones was the main mover in ousting Sir Arthur.

And the main dispute on the Board at the time (of which Jones and Chase were members) was not so much Sir Arthur''s marriage to a Carter, but the precise scope of the work that Carter''s were going to carry out on the new City Stand. The original drawings contained a lot of space at the back of the stand that was not being put to any use and it was this that caused the dispute between Jones and Sir Arthur.[/quote]
Jimmy Jones resigned over this issue days before that years AGM. In his resignation letter he said that the board meeting where two tenders for the new stand were considered had been regrettably and inadvertently conducted in an irregular manner. That was probably a technicality but Jimmy Jones main bone of contention was that the rejected tender was for a completed scheme while the one accepted left space for further development at a later date. This rumbled on past the AGM and work on the new stand was already started when the rest of the board resigned a couple of months after Jones saying there had been a procedural error at the board meeting where Carter''s tender had been accepted.even though this was rectified later. The error was believed to be Sir Arthur''s presence at the meetings which led to the award of the contract to Carters.
In truth Sir Arthur wasn''t really ousted. He simply did not stand for reelection to the new board.. He was 70 by then and had intended to resign the following season anyway. Of course the controversy wasn''t the best note for the great man to leave on but he seemed to value the good of the club above personal feelings. Sir Arthur was a man of the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, nutty. I am happy to acknowledge that - for once and only once - Big Vince may actually have got something right about Norwich City...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don''t think there was any real wrong doing by the late great Sir Arthur Purple. Even Jimmy Jones said it was inadvertent. What Vinnie boy would do well to acknowledge is that in the end Sir Arthur put what was in the best interests of the club before himself. Something his beloved Chase wouldn''t do even in his totally embarassing last 2 seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]I don''t think there was any real wrong doing by the late great Sir Arthur Purple. Even Jimmy Jones said it was inadvertent. What Vinnie boy would do well to acknowledge is that in the end Sir Arthur put what was in the best interests of the club before himself. Something his beloved Chase wouldn''t do even in his totally embarassing last 2 seasons.[/quote]

Just to set the record straight, Big Vince was very happy with all the chairmanships/ownerships prior to 1996.

It is the current ownership that Big Vince totally deplores.

And yes, I am very happy to acknowledge that Sir Arthur stepped down for the most honourable reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I struggle to see how Minnie Vinnie can have been happy with all those owners. Especially Geoffrey Watling who made sure Vinnie''s beloved Big Fat Bob was chased out and then invited the current owners onto the board before selling them the shares to make them owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]I struggle to see how Minnie Vinnie can have been happy with all those owners. Especially Geoffrey Watling who made sure Vinnie''s beloved Big Fat Bob was chased out and then invited the current owners onto the board before selling them the shares to make them owners.[/quote]

Watling was not an owner until he bought Chase out and he only offered his shares to the current owners after his first choice, Jimmy Jones, turned him down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I struggle to see how Minnie Vinnie can have been happy with all those owners. Especially Geoffrey Watling who made sure Vinnie''s beloved Big Fat Bob was chased out and then invited the current owners onto the board before selling them the shares to make them owners.[/quote]

Watling was not an owner until he bought Chase out and he only offered his shares to the current owners after his first choice, Jimmy Jones, turned him down.[/quote]
Well on that technicality we didn''t have an owner until Smith and Jones had a majority shareholding. Big Fat Bob didn''t have sufficient shares even after he wrote to shareholders to find out if they were still alive.
Jimmy Jones wasn''t first choice. Geoffrey Watling initially wanted to sell those shares in seven lots but there were no takers. After Delia nd Wynnie had been on the board 18 months he sold the lot to them saying he was quite happy to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Big Vince"][quote user="nutty nigel"]I struggle to see how Minnie Vinnie can have been happy with all those owners. Especially Geoffrey Watling who made sure Vinnie''s beloved Big Fat Bob was chased out and then invited the current owners onto the board before selling them the shares to make them owners.[/quote]

Watling was not an owner until he bought Chase out and he only offered his shares to the current owners after his first choice, Jimmy Jones, turned him down.[/quote]
Well on that technicality we didn''t have an owner until Smith and Jones had a majority shareholding. Big Fat Bob didn''t have sufficient shares even after he wrote to shareholders to find out if they were still alive.
Jimmy Jones wasn''t first choice. Geoffrey Watling initially wanted to sell those shares in seven lots but there were no takers. After Delia nd Wynnie had been on the board 18 months he sold the lot to them saying he was quite happy to do so.
[/quote]

Jimmy Jones was first choice. I stand by it 100%. But he didn''t fancy the asking price and to this day how much Watling walleted from S & J is a matter of speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Vince"]to this day how much Watling walleted from S & J is a matter of speculation.[/quote]You mean - even you don''t know?Turn up to the forum and I''ll introduce you to Tangy - the only person who claims to know. [:''(]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]So what was stopping Jimmy Jones cutting out the middle man? There was no need for Watling to be involved at all.[/quote]

Perhaps he simply didn''t have the £600,000 that Chase walleted from Watling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Vince"]how much Watling walleted from S & J is a matter of speculation.[/quote][quote user="Big Vince"]

Perhaps he simply didn''t have the £600,000 that Chase walleted from Watling.[/quote]Contradiction or what? You are definitely my favourite poster Vinnie boy. [:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×