Why do people hate Delia so much?

[Uncle Fred 526]

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we had club ownership that we could all get behind rather than the divisive stowmarket 2.

wouldnt it be good if we had owners who had ambition for the club rather than top 26 and a future under nepotism Tom

Wouldnt it be good if we had owners that could properly fund the club in difficult times

none of the above apply to the stowmarket 2 hopefully they will finally see the reality of the situation soon 

Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in 

 

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

7 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

No they didn't.

Chase never had anything like a controlling stake. He only had just over 30% of the shares. When Watling sold those and his own to D&M it still only amounted to 42%. They were referring to the controlling way he ran the club. The phrase Delia used was "all singing all dancing".

As for your comment that D&M lie to the fans all I can say is it's on the right thread.

Do you look deep into your soul when you accuse other people of such dishonesty?

 

 

They don’t lie Nutty, I’m sure they are open to investment, just the type of investment that won’t be forthcoming as it does not involve relinquishing control.

as for the Chase quote they definitely said that nobody should have the sort of control over the club he did again, before going on to take a controlling interest. Dress it up in semantics if you like but they have done what they said shouldn’t happen so now they can do pretty much as they like. 

[king canary 7,605]

11 hours ago, Duncan Edwards said:

It’s that attitude that stinks. Of course something CAN be done, it’s just nobody will actually step up and front a group to try and bring it about. Whether that be by directly raising funds, purchasing a shareholding or highlighting the passion for change and attracting one of the many investors that Delia has turned away. Get one of those on board and fed out into the public domain and surely the whole thing will snowball. Unless they don’t Really believe that these investors exist and they’ve just made stuff up..
 

And these people reckon that Delia and MWJ have no ambition..🤷‍♂️

You're right that fans can do more if they want to affect change- pressure groups, social media, winning other fans round etc etc- basically make life uncomfortable for Smith and Jones so they decide to be more proactive with selling.

Where I get lost is when folks like yourself and Purple start claiming that it is on those fans to find said investor. Now maybe I'm wrong here but the argument seems to be that before saying they want a change of ownership fans need to...

1. Organise
2. Identify potential new owners
3. Vet them financially (wouldn't want just any old owner)
4. Convince them that they want to invest their money in a Championship football club that the current owner doesn't seem to want to sell
5. Get them to make a concrete offer for said club

While I don't know for sure, I'm not sure the multi millionaires of the world will decide to spend a huge amount of time and money on something because some fans sent them emails or (my favourite suggestion) took out a full page ad in the Financial Times.

Maybe I'm wrong and this happens all the time but I'm skeptical.... 

 

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

2 hours ago, Uncle Fred said:

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we had club ownership that we could all get behind rather than the divisive stowmarket 2.

wouldnt it be good if we had owners who had ambition for the club rather than top 26 and a future under nepotism Tom

Wouldnt it be good if we had owners that could properly fund the club in difficult times

none of the above apply to the stowmarket 2 hopefully they will finally see the reality of the situation soon 

Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in 

 

 

Wouldn’t it be good if you stopped posting bullsh1t all the time

[king canary 7,605]

5 minutes ago, FenwayFrank said:

Wouldn’t it be good if you stopped posting bullsh1t all the time

It would also be good if you blocked him.

I did, the only reason I see his posts is that you keep quoting them!

[FenwayFrank 2,459]

2 minutes ago, king canary said:

It would also be good if you blocked him.

I did, the only reason I see his posts is that you keep quoting them!

Ok I’ll give it a go but I’ve forgotten how to do it, help me out please

[A Load of Squit 5,161]

3 hours ago, Uncle Fred said:

Wouldn’t it be lovely if we had club ownership that we could all get behind rather than the divisive stowmarket 2.

wouldnt it be good if we had owners who had ambition for the club rather than top 26 and a future under nepotism Tom

Wouldnt it be good if we had owners that could properly fund the club in difficult times

none of the above apply to the stowmarket 2 hopefully they will finally see the reality of the situation soon 

Delia out stinking rich Chinese owner in 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be good to be in your shoes
Even if it was for just one day?
Wouldn't it be good if we could wish ourselves away?
Wouldn't it be good to be on your side?
The grass is always greener over there
Wouldn't it be good if we could live without a care?

 

 

[norfolkngood 1,086]

I am sure some posters are right 

just say I inherited 1 billion 

I went to the press and said as a fan from a boy I have followed NCFC and I know want to buy and invest in the club 
the pressure for Delia and MWJ To sell would be unbelievable 

the truth would come out then as she would either say sorry not for sale it is going to Tom or this is the offer we have been waiting for 

until we get a firm good offer we do not know which Delia we are working with 

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

37 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're right that fans can do more if they want to affect change- pressure groups, social media, winning other fans round etc etc- basically make life uncomfortable for Smith and Jones so they decide to be more proactive with selling.

Where I get lost is when folks like yourself and Purple start claiming that it is on those fans to find said investor. Now maybe I'm wrong here but the argument seems to be that before saying they want a change of ownership fans need to...

1. Organise
2. Identify potential new owners
3. Vet them financially (wouldn't want just any old owner)
4. Convince them that they want to invest their money in a Championship football club that the current owner doesn't seem to want to sell
5. Get them to make a concrete offer for said club

While I don't know for sure, I'm not sure the multi millionaires of the world will decide to spend a huge amount of time and money on something because some fans sent them emails or (my favourite suggestion) took out a full page ad in the Financial Times.

Maybe I'm wrong and this happens all the time but I'm skeptical.... 

 

That’s not the fans responsibility and you know it. 
 

Nobody is expecting the fans to carry out some sort of due diligence test but being an organised and publicly visible group for change with clearly defined objectives would alert potential investors to the swell of public feeling and passion for regime change.

It would also destabilise the club and leave them more susceptible to a take over, which while possibly damaging in the short term will help facilitate the long term goal. 
 

To suggest that fans vet them financially, some glib rubbish about the owners and convince the prospective new owners to table a concrete offer is daft. I’m WAY too thick to be responsible for anything like that as are probably 95%+ of our fans (not necessarily you, you always seem like a bright chap). The good/bad owner thing is a risk that we’d have to take, the proof would be in the pudding. We might get a Mansour, we might get a Marcus. All we can do as fans is plant the seed and then once the investor steps forward, militantly support their takeover bid. Essentially, the fans are there to get organised, propose change and to build the pressure to force it. Basically, banging in a For Sale board and shouting loudly and pointing at it. If, as claimed, there are plenty of investors out there that would view Norwich as a great opportunity, it shouldn’t take long for one to latch on. 

Getting some respected local business-heads on board would probably help get the conversation heard in certain circles. If it’s just plebs like me I don’t think we’ll find a new owner in Ladbrokes or the local ‘spoons. 
 

 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Duncan Edwards

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

50 minutes ago, king canary said:

You're right that fans can do more if they want to affect change- pressure groups, social media, winning other fans round etc etc- basically make life uncomfortable for Smith and Jones so they decide to be more proactive with selling.

Where I get lost is when folks like yourself and Purple start claiming that it is on those fans to find said investor. Now maybe I'm wrong here but the argument seems to be that before saying they want a change of ownership fans need to...

1. Organise
2. Identify potential new owners
3. Vet them financially (wouldn't want just any old owner)
4. Convince them that they want to invest their money in a Championship football club that the current owner doesn't seem to want to sell
5. Get them to make a concrete offer for said club

While I don't know for sure, I'm not sure the multi millionaires of the world will decide to spend a huge amount of time and money on something because some fans sent them emails or (my favourite suggestion) took out a full page ad in the Financial Times.

Maybe I'm wrong and this happens all the time but I'm skeptical.... 

 

Two quick points on my way out. The fans would not do the vettng. The would-be owner would pay for an independent firm of accountants to do the vetting, and I would not trust any would-be owner who wasn't willing to accept that as a prerequisite.

That was me, and it was at most a quarter-page ad, which would probably cost no more than the price of hiring a light aircraft to fly a banner over an empty Carrow Road that calls for a change without seemingly offering any alternative.

Edited July 14, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[king canary 7,605]

4 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

That’s not the fans responsibility and you know it. 
 

Nobody is expecting the fans to carry out some sort of due diligence test but being an organised and publicly visible group for change with clearly defined objectives would alert potential investors to the swell of public feeling and passion for regime change.

It would also destabilise the club and leave them more susceptible to a take over, which while possibly damaging in the short term will help facilitate the long term goal. 
 

To suggest that fans vet them financially, some glib rubbish about the owners and convince the prospective new owners to table a concrete offer is daft. I’m WAY too thick to be responsible for anything like that as are probably 95%+ of our fans (not necessarily you, you always seem like a bright chap). The good/bad owner thing is a risk that we’d have to take, the proof would be in the pudding. We might get a Mansour, we might get a Marcus. All we can do as fans is plant the seed and then once the investor steps forward, militantly support their takeover bid. Essentially, the fans are there to get organised, propose change and to build the pressure to force it. Basically, banging in a For Sale board and shouting loudly and pointing at it. If, as claimed, there are plenty of investors out there that would view Norwich as a great opportunity, it shouldn’t take long for one to latch on. 

Getting some respected local business-heads on board would probably help get the conversation heard in certain circles. If it’s just plebs like me I don’t think we’ll find a new owner in Ladbrokes or the local ‘spoons. 
 

 

You're right I'm being a bit glib but fundamentally I don't believe fans can put a 'for sale' sign up on something they don't own.

For me, the limits of the fans options are to make life uncomfortable for the current owners but I wish that wasn't the case.

I don't desperately want Delia & Michael to leave ASAP, I don't want to force them out and I don't think you can fit 'thanks for all you've done for the club but I think you should proactively look for new owners rather than hand the club to your nephew' on a plane banner (also not the catchiest chant).

 

[king canary 7,605]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Two quick points on my way out. The fans would not do the vettng. The would-be owner would pay for an independent firm of accountants to do the vetting, and I would not trust any would-be owner who wasn't willing to accept that as a prerequisite.

That was me, and it was at most a quarter-page ad, which would probably cost no more than the price of hiring a light aircraft to fly a banner over an empty Carrow Road that calls for a change without seemingly offering any alternative.

The cost wasn't what I found so odd about that- it was the idea that someone would do a multi million pound business deal based on an advert in the FT. Is this often how businesses of this value get sold? I doubt it.

I also agree any interested party should submit to a vetting process. The reason I mentioned it at point 2 was because if fans are going out to convince a new investor/owner that they should be purchasing Norwich City that you'd want to make sure they were actually financially viable. Otherwise you've just got a fan group encouraging everyone who says they can afford it to go ahead which clearly wouldn't be in anyone's best interest.

I doubt we'll agree on this but in my opinion it is on the current owners to actively engage in a way that brings new investment/ownership in, not on the fans. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

34 minutes ago, king canary said:

I doubt we'll agree on this but in my opinion it is on the current owners to actively engage in a way that brings new investment/ownership in, not on the fans. 

But the same people that want the change are adamant that the current owners are 100% against it and are rebuffing suitors at the door. If that IS the case (I don't think it is) then to facilitate the change they want they HAVE to take it upon themselves to force it. 

 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

2 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

But the same people that want the change are adamant that the current owners are 100% against it and are rebuffing suitors at the door. If that IS the case (I don't think it is) then to facilitate the change they want they HAVE to take it upon themselves to force it. 

 

Which is why I'm so puzzled by the scornful backlash on the banner thread....that's exactly what some fans are trying to do. 

[king canary 7,605]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

But the same people that want the change are adamant that the current owners are 100% against it and are rebuffing suitors at the door. If that IS the case (I don't think it is) then to facilitate the change they want they HAVE to take it upon themselves to force it. 

 

Yeah they probably need to force the owners to be more proactive, not go out and find a potential new owner.

This is the catch 22 though- someone on the thread about the 'Delia out' plane banner mentioned the campaign needs to be run in a respectful manner and I think plenty (including myself) agree that they don't want to be part of a campaign to essentially bully the owners into moving on. So how do you force change while staying respectful?  

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

Yeah they probably need to force the owners to be more proactive, not go out and find a potential new owner.

This is the catch 22 though- someone on the thread about the 'Delia out' plane banner mentioned the campaign needs to be run in a respectful manner and I think plenty (including myself) agree that they don't want to be part of a campaign to essentially bully the owners into moving on. So how do you force change while staying respectful?  

I think you're taking the "find a new owner" a little (lot) too literally. Organising a movement to remove the current regime, presenting it professionally (local professionals or high profile fans on board), stamping of feet and dissent from the fans, local and national press coverage etc is, as I said, essentially destabilise the current status quo, kick at the foundations. The argument is that there are investors out there champing at the bit to get their hands on a club like ours, this noise and furore will no doubt alert them and see them seize upon the opportunity and ride the wave of discontent into Carrow Road, no?

As for staying respectful? Not sure that's going to happen. Still, we're fed up with being Nice Little Norwich, aren't we? 

[komakino 272]

16 minutes ago, king canary said:

Yeah they probably need to force the owners to be more proactive, not go out and find a potential new owner.

This is the catch 22 though- someone on the thread about the 'Delia out' plane banner mentioned the campaign needs to be run in a respectful manner and I think plenty (including myself) agree that they don't want to be part of a campaign to essentially bully the owners into moving on. So how do you force change while staying respectful?  

You don't. Chase - who was infinitely more successful than Delia - needed Riots, Mugs, Vocal Sway to get him to sell up. 

I wanted Chase to step aside as football had outgrown him, which I think deep down he knew. However, he was eventually replaced with a pair whose vision of the club was from a previous era from his own. As I've previous stated, the worst thing that ever happened to the club. We needed people who could see which way football was going, not stuck to a parochial vision. 

The public need to be reminded that they circumnavigated the rules so they owned the majority of shares, something which was made clear would never be allowed (Chase owned around 36% shares for most of his tenure and famously got outvoted on the hiring of Martin 'O Neill)

It's funny how many fans wanted rid of Chase after relegation, yet many fans now seem to embrace it. As Webber said, 'We were going to go down and guess what, we went down.' Disgraceful attitude. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by komakino

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

7 minutes ago, komakino said:

We needed people who could see which way football was going, not stuck to a parochial vision. 

The public need to be reminded that they circumnavigated the rules so they owned the majority of shares, something which was made clear would never be allowed (Chase owned around 36% shares for most of his tenure and famously got outvoted on the hiring of Martin 'O Neill)

 

Go on, I'll indulge you.

Firstly, well, where were they then? Why did Watling sell to Smith and Wynn-Jones? Was it Geoffrey that was short-sighted?

As for the circumnavigation of the rules, I'll wait for your explanation. At best, I'd say it is poorly worded but, in the interest of fairness, I'll wait for your explanation surrounding their increased shareholding, how it came about and how it was a deliberate dodging of "the rules". 

[king canary 7,605]

23 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I think you're taking the "find a new owner" a little (lot) too literally. Organising a movement to remove the current regime, presenting it professionally (local professionals or high profile fans on board), stamping of feet and dissent from the fans, local and national press coverage etc is, as I said, essentially destabilise the current status quo, kick at the foundations. The argument is that there are investors out there champing at the bit to get their hands on a club like ours, this noise and furore will no doubt alert them and see them seize upon the opportunity and ride the wave of discontent into Carrow Road, no?

As for staying respectful? Not sure that's going to happen. Still, we're fed up with being Nice Little Norwich, aren't we? 

You're probably right and it is a shame. I think if we have an extended (3 year + spell in the Championship) it will all come to a messy head. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

You're probably right and it is a shame. I think if we have an extended (3 year + spell in the Championship) it will all come to a messy head. 

I hope not. Not for Delia and Michael but because it will mean that the plan has failed and I really want to see Webber and Farke have an opportunity to have another crack at the PL using this model but with a bit of cash to spend. I still wouldn't be expecting them to hit the market and 'make it rain' but with a vastly superior budget to that they were limited to this time around. 

If not, obviously just sell it to whoever and throw money at it...😉

[king canary 7,605]

4 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I hope not. Not for Delia and Michael but because it will mean that the plan has failed and I really want to see Webber and Farke have an opportunity to have another crack at the PL using this model but with a bit of cash to spend. I still wouldn't be expecting them to hit the market and 'make it rain' but with a vastly superior budget to that they were limited to this time around. 

If not, obviously just sell it to whoever and throw money at it...😉

Now who is being glib...

I do agree- I think the model can work and I don't actually think it needs a Man City level of investment to get it to work but we can't do it if we think spending £7-8m on a player is risking the future of the club.

I also think Bethnal made a good point in the thread about what people will miss about the Premier League- people think the self funding model ensures our financial security in the Championship but all it takes is a bad couple of years and we're reliant on selling players to stay afloat again.

[komakino 272]

8 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Go on, I'll indulge you.

Firstly, well, where were they then? Why did Watling sell to Smith and Wynn-Jones? Was it Geoffrey that was short-sighted?

As for the circumnavigation of the rules, I'll wait for your explanation. At best, I'd say it is poorly worded but, in the interest of fairness, I'll wait for your explanation surrounding their increased shareholding, how it came about and how it was a deliberate dodging of "the rules". 

From memory, Delia was offered a seat on the board for £500K, but asked for two. She got her wishes. 

The gap between Watling buying Chase out and Delia buying Watling out is too close for coincidence.

The reason they got around the rules is that strictly speaking, nobody does own a majority share as their shares are split between Delia and MWJ. 

I've always held the view, right or wrongly, that Delia/MWJ would not be part of a set-up that meant they owned less than 50% of the shares.  They never 'saved' the club as that line often gets trotted out when there is critical analysis against them. 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

1 minute ago, komakino said:

From memory, Delia was offered a seat on the board for £500K, but asked for two. She got her wishes. 

The gap between Watling buying Chase out and Delia buying Watling out is too close for coincidence.

The reason they got around the rules is that strictly speaking, nobody does own a majority share as their shares are split between Delia and MWJ. 

I've always held the view, right or wrongly, that Delia/MWJ would not be part of a set-up that meant they owned less than 50% of the shares.  They never 'saved' the club as that line often gets trotted out when there is critical analysis against them. 

When did their shareholding breach the 50% mark?

[king canary 7,605]

1 minute ago, komakino said:

From memory, Delia was offered a seat on the board for £500K, but asked for two. She got her wishes. 

The gap between Watling buying Chase out and Delia buying Watling out is too close for coincidence.

The reason they got around the rules is that strictly speaking, nobody does own a majority share as their shares are split between Delia and MWJ. 

I've always held the view, right or wrongly, that Delia/MWJ would not be part of a set-up that meant they owned less than 50% of the shares.  They never 'saved' the club as that line often gets trotted out when there is critical analysis against them. 

I think you need to be a bit careful in wording here.

I was too young at the time but I've heard people say that they didn't want a single figure having control like Chase did again but as far as I'm aware that was never formalised into any rule so it isn't right to say they broke the rules. You can argue they broke the spirit of an agreement but saying they circumnavigated the rules suggests an amount of skulduggery that I don't think was actually there.

[Uncle Fred 526]

2 hours ago, FenwayFrank said:

Wouldn’t it be good if you stopped posting bullsh1t all the time

Hilarious 

[Duncan Edwards 2,231]

Back in 1956 the crisis was averted by a new board under Geoffrey Watling and a public fund orchestrated by Arthur South. In 1996 the issues were more complicated. The debts this time were in a different league, the club was in a state of civil war, and the bank would offer no leeway while the old regime was in place.

Chase agreed to sell his shares but could come to no arrangement with the one or two consortia that had been hastily assembled. Finally the president, Geoffrey Watling, stepped in – yet again – and salvaged the wreckage with an undisclosed offer, which Chase accepted.

While this opened the door to a settlement, the crippling debt remained, of course. Martin Armstrong, chief executive of the Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, had joined the emergency board and was tirelessly scouring the City for any kind of help, but football clubs were definitely not flavour of the month with financial institutions just then; they surveyed the wave of administrations lapping over the League (Hartlepool, Exeter, Gillingham, with Millwall and Bournemouth teetering on the brink).

With a matter of days to spare, Martin invited Delia and myself out to dinner (Thai, if you want to know) to ask if we could help. If we could make the required loan we would get two seats on the board. We’d think about it, we said.

So we did for a few minutes. We thought of all the things we would prefer to do with the money than help to safeguard Norwich City’s future and, do you know, we couldn’t come up with a single one, even though we honestly never expected to see the cash again.

That was a conclusion reinforced by our very first board meeting: the scale of the economies was draconian – redundancies and job-sharing throughout the club, all meals for the squad at Colney cancelled, no expenditure over £5 permitted unless signed off by the new chief executive, Gordon Bennett … and so it went on.

A year later, with Geoffrey Watling well into his eighties and in indifferent health, we were urged by Martin Armstrong to try to buy his shareholding, which proved easier said than done.

Courteous as ever, Geoffrey invited Delia and myself to dinner, served us with sherry and escorted us into his study. Facing him across an enormous desk, containing a solitary notepad, it felt for all the world like an interview with the headmaster (which I suppose it was in a way).

We mentioned a figure, he scribbled a note, then stood up impassively and said ‘let us dine’. Was that all then? As it happened, yes it was, apart from a tour of his Norwich City museum at the top of the house, which contained among many other things ancient and forgotten trophies, a gilded music-box with a revolving canary on top and – most perplexing of all – silver replicas of Duncan Forbes’ football boots.

Then he went off on a cruise, but not before writing to inform us he was not selling his shares at this time. So we were staggered to receive another letter a week or two later saying he would sell the shares to us after all. The reasons for this change of heart he took to his grave, but we remained on excellent terms with him for the rest of his life.

On the field, Norwich were still struggling to play their way out of the bottom half of the division; off the field the finances were, if anything, even more precarious. The board’s response was to sanction the issue of a shedful more shares and to embark on a one-for-one share subscription.

For legal reasons (Norwich City at that time being a private company) this was restricted to existing shareholders who, in effect, would have to buy their shares all over again to maintain their percentage shareholding – which included ourselves as newly-fledged 30 per cent shareholders!

In what feels in retrospect like a somewhat cavalier moment, Delia and I also agreed to underwrite the share issue, and hope that enough shareholders would take the altruistic view and pay up.

In the event many did, but quite a few, including some with significant shareholdings, did not and the unforeseen outcome was that by the end of 1998 our own percentage had increased to 63 per cent!

 

So this is the circumnavigation of 'the rules'?

[BigFish 1,986]

The problem with this debate is that there is no offer on the table, indeed that is not even any public expression of interest from anyone with the funds to seriously consider an offer. The Delia outers argue that this is because she and MWJ have made it clear that the club isn't for sale. The pro-Stowmarket Two posters say this wouldn't prevent a serious prospective purchaser. So it is stalemate, unless someone comes up with an answer to this conumdrum the status quo reigns.

It is odd that somehow the Outers think it is for DS/MWJ to break this stalemate, when it is clear that they have no intention of doing so, and a large number of fans support that. It seems the best that the Outers can come up with is that if they post enough, on enough PinkUn threads somehow this will change the situation.

Madness

[komakino 272]

I have read different things regarding this, including articles from Delia herself, but assuming MWJ's account is correct, surely selling 14% of their shares would have had a much better feel about it. 

Chase became a target when his shareholding went from around 36% to a majority after - and someone can correct me here - he bought Barry Lockwood's shareholding. That meant Chase could no longer be outvoted at board level, so he could buy things such as the land around the ground and not Dean Windass 🙂 

The 90's was a long time ago, but I am sure that nobody was allowed to own more than half the club. Maybe that was the ideal, rather than a rule? 

Clearly Watling thought Delia & MWJ had the clubs best intentions at heart, but what does that really mean - then as now? 

 

[king canary 7,605]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

The problem with this debate is that there is no offer on the table, indeed that is not even any public expression of interest from anyone with the funds to seriously consider an offer. The Delia outers argue that this is because she and MWJ have made it clear that the club isn't for sale. The pro-Stowmarket Two posters say this wouldn't prevent a serious prospective purchaser. So it is stalemate, unless someone comes up with an answer to this conumdrum the status quo reigns.

It is odd that somehow the Outers think it is for DS/MWJ to break this stalemate, when it is clear that they have no intention of doing so, and a large number of fans support that. It seems the best that the Outers can come up with is that if they post enough, on enough PinkUn threads somehow this will change the situation.

Madness

And how would you suggest outers break the stalemate? 

[komakino 272]

6 minutes ago, BigFish said:

The problem with this debate is that there is no offer on the table, indeed that is not even any public expression of interest from anyone with the funds to seriously consider an offer. The Delia outers argue that this is because she and MWJ have made it clear that the club isn't for sale. The pro-Stowmarket Two posters say this wouldn't prevent a serious prospective purchaser. So it is stalemate, unless someone comes up with an answer to this conumdrum the status quo reigns.

It is odd that somehow the Outers think it is for DS/MWJ to break this stalemate, when it is clear that they have no intention of doing so, and a large number of fans support that. It seems the best that the Outers can come up with is that if they post enough, on enough PinkUn threads somehow this will change the situation.

Madness

 

We will never know what serious offers have been made to Delia & MJW. However, as they have made it very clear that the club is not for sale, I doubt whether their telephone is red hot with enquires...   

My view has never changed about them. I'm sure they are very nice people, but I do not see what purpose they serve at NCFC. How is the club benefiting by their lack of investment? As long as they remain, it will be a frustration for a proportion of the fans that have more ambition than them.