Fundraise for Delia Out plane banner.

[TIL 1010 4,722]

5 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Because it's a conversation piece relating to the club and whilst your investigating skills seem to be lacking today i'll let you in on a well known secret - this is a Norwich City discussion forum.

I thought others might like to discuss it.

I thought I might like to discuss it with others. 

You know, a little like a forum.

But keep trying Til, keep trying. 🙂

Well my investigating skills have revealed this morning that this plane banner was mooted at least a couple of weeks ago and as you spend every waking hour on social media i thought you would have been quicker off the mark and if your opening post was to open it up for discussion i see it otherwise as all i saw was you trashing the idea out of hand.

Resorting to your usual sarcastic put downs towards posters....how novel for you.

Edited July 14, 2020 by TIL 1010

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

4 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well my investigating skills have revealed this morning that this plane banner was mooted at least a couple of weeks ago and as you spend every waking hour on social media i thought you would have been quicker off the mark and if your opening post was to open it up for discussion i see it otherwise as all i saw was you trashing the idea out of hand.

Resorting to your usual sarcastic put downs towards posters....how novel for you.

Posting it on a football forum is by definition opening it up for discussion, isn't it? As evidenced by the four pages of discussion on the subject?

[TIL 1010 4,722]

9 minutes ago, Duncan Edwards said:

I'm sure Hoggy doesn't need me to reply on his behalf but I'm not sure if this was a response to me so...

You could always just say, "yeah, I got the wrong end of the stick, sorry"🙂

I mean, I'm not sure why you want to dwell on a throwaway and, pretty obviously, tongue in cheek inference to not caring about some folk losing their money or why it is such a big deal and while some might consider the idea 'tinpot', it does highlight the mood of the angrier end of our supporter spectrum. They are fans too and so it would seem a worthy enough subject for discussion, as has been highlighted by the fact that it has run to three pages of responses, including your own!

Christ on a bike there really is the high ground being claimed here by the predicable few ( there you go a new collection of certain posters 😜 ) . This whole thread was started to merely trash the idea and nothing more.

[lake district canary 4,531]

29 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

You're overly pessimistic, and Lakey's overly optimistic. The truth is somewhere in the middle ground.

Just sayin' 🙂

It's not overly optimistic to look at the club, it's history, it's management structure, it's coaching facilities and youth set up  and judge the wellbeing of it and think, yep, it's as healthy as it ever has been, with a development plan that will see us increase wealth gradually and sustainably, rather than just selling to balance the books.

If people want to take a negative view to that, then they are welcome, but it's not an overly positive view. If you set something up at a club that is progressive as well as sustainable, which is what the owners have finally achieved, then there should be no need or reason to change that.  It isn't perfect - nothing is in football and there will always be ups and downs, but get the structure right and you won't go far wrong.

We have been relegated, boo hoo, I'm over that already and looking forwards to next season. That is what all fans could think of doing, rather than wallowing in their self pity and trying to fix something that isn't broken.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,287]

On my 'Just like the real thing' Microsoft Cessna flight simulator, I've just done a simulated dry run towing a banner with "DELIA OUT! TIME FOR CHANGE!" emblazoned along the banner length ....I did five circuits around Carrow Road at around 85 knots and at an altitude of 800 feet....I glanced out to my port side on my final circuit and it was so absolutely hysterical to see.

Right there as I flew along the Wensum and as I passed over between the Railway station and the 'The Nelson Hotel', I espied and it was totally surreal, really unexpected.....but as clear as day! 

Because right there gathered on the Nelson's Riverside outside seating area, were about half a dozen plus blokes of all shapes an' sizes, all clearly furious, totally enraged and spitting feathers....They were jumping up and down, spinning around, pointing up at me, waving and gesticulating with 'V' and vvanker signs.....I also saw draped along the Nelson's outside tables a large horizontal band frieze type thing, and on its length written in large capital letters...."TOM'S THE FUTURE, KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY!".....

Well what could I do? I'm flying a simulator. So I cranked it around over the Post Office Depot in my Cessna....dropped down to 100 feet and aimed for the gathered dong throng. I just cleared the top o' the Station by inches then rolled the cessna upside down, stuck my hand and wrist out of the cessna canopy perspex sliding fresh air vent and gave the gathered dong throng the single digit 'bird' and shouted "UP YOURS INNER CIRCLE!"

I then quickly flipped the plane back level throttled and pulled up as I whistled low over the Nelson.....I gained altitude and air speed and headed back to Norwich International....guffawing all the way...... 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

1 minute ago, lake district canary said:

It's not overly optimistic to look at the club, it's history, it's management structure, it's coaching facilities and youth set up  and judge the wellbeing of it and think, yep, it's as healthy as it ever has been, with a development plan that will see us increase wealth gradually and sustainably, rather than just selling to balance the books.

If people want to take a negative view to that, then they are welcome, but it's not an overly positive view. If you set something up at a club that is progressive as well as sustainable, which is what the owners have finally achieved, then there should be no need or reason to change that.  It isn't perfect - nothing is in football and there will always be ups and downs, but get the structure right and you won't go far wrong.

We have been relegated, boo hoo, I'm over that already and looking forwards to next season. That is what all fans could think of doing, rather than wallowing in their self pity and trying to fix something that isn't broken.

You are overly optimistic, whatever you say.

[Duncan Edwards 2,227]

5 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Christ on a bike there really is the high ground being claimed here by the predicable few ( there you go a new collection of certain posters 😜 ) . This whole thread was started to merely trash the idea and nothing more.

Predicable few?

You're playing the man not the post. Whatever the intentions behind the thread, it has sparked some conversation, what harm is there in that? 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

1 minute ago, Duncan Edwards said:

Predicable few?

You're playing the man not the post. Whatever the intentions behind the thread, it has sparked some conversation, what harm is there in that? 

Exactly that. Opinions are put forward, and discussed.

We've even had someone who appears to be very pro-club (BigFish) putting together a really comprehensive plan of how people might go about displaying their dissatisfaction in a more productive way.

I think this is a great thread, and I'm intrigued to see how it pans out. As I've said elsewhere, I am all for the section of the fanbase that's dissatisfied with the current ownership doing something about it. I'm just saying that if this is what they decide to do about it, I believe they are shooting themselves in the foot.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 hour ago, Feedthewolf said:

They've already done that, they said in the (admittedly cringeworthy) Times interview that Tom would be the recipient of those shares. They have softened the "we don't even listen to offers" that Delia said in that same interview, though. She said on the ACN podcast that Ben, Zoe and Stuart are in charge of assessing any offers of investment and presenting them to her/Michael if they believe they are worthy.

This implies that the status quo is that they aren't actively looking for potential buyers. But, as has been said many times elsewhere, if a very rich investor was interested in taking over, all they'd have to do is leak their interest to the press and then we'd have a conversation on our hands.

Sorry but shareholders, fans and other stakeholders learning of these plans after she happened to mention it in an interview with a national newspaper which hides being a paywall, and then never mentioning it again is exactly what I'm criticising and why I am calling for Delia and hubby to open up about their plans for the future. I'd suggest an interview on the subject with local media and then discussing it with shareholders at an AGM would have been much more appropriate! 

Its as if she has regrets about mentioning it to the Times journalist and the club has stayed silent hoping that it would all go away and be forgotten about. I feel that if Webber were being full and frank about the future of this club he'd be talking about the plans for transition of ownership. The one that Delia told the Times about but hadn't told other shareholders about. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by TeemuVanBasten

[C.I.D 302]

2 hours ago, TIL 1010 said:

Does anybody know this chap Adam Potter who is heading up this much ridiculed project ?

No .....but I used to quite like his sister Pansy when I was a mere babe 😁

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, TeemuVanBasten said:

Sorry but shareholders, fans and other stakeholders learning of these plans after she happened to mention it in a national newspaper which hides being a paywall, and then never mentioning it again is exactly what I'm criticising and why I am calling for Delia and hubby to open up about their plans for the future. I'd suggest an interview on the subject with local media and then discussing it with shareholders at an AGM would have been much more appropriate! 

Its as if she regretted mentioning it to the Times journalist and the club has stayed silent hoping that it would all go away and be forgotten about. I feel that if Webber were being full and frank about the future of this club he'd be talking about the plans for transition of ownership. The one that Delia told the Times about but hadn't told other shareholders about. 

That's all fair comment. I see nothing wrong with them being asked to open up about their plans for the future, although I doubt we'd hear anything new. I would imagine they'd say they plan to pass their shareholding to their nephew, and any approaches to invest in and/or buy the club would be considered by the executive triumvirate, as they said on the podcast last year.

I've never wavered in my belief that the Times interview was ill-advised, ill-executed and rather cringeworthy.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 hours ago, hogesar said:

Currently being planned on Facebook. 

I kid you not. 

That's a bit high risk, if the TV cameras don't notice it or choose not to capture and broadcast it then that's a complete waste of money in the absence of a crowd.

Could make themselves look a bit silly. 

[king canary 7,580]

10 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's not overly optimistic

🤔🤔🤔

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, C.I.D said:

No .....but I used to quite like his sister Pansy when I was a mere babe 😁

I thought it was Dorothy you were more a friend of 😉

[C.I.D 302]

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

I thought it was Dorothy you were more a friend of 😉

Never had the pleasure .....

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

That's all fair comment. I see nothing wrong with them being asked to open up about their plans for the future, although I doubt we'd hear anything new. I would imagine they'd say they plan to pass their shareholding to their nephew, and any approaches to invest in and/or buy the club would be considered by the executive triumvirate, as they said on the podcast last year.

I've never wavered in my belief that the Times interview was ill-advised, ill-executed and rather cringeworthy.

Perhaps she would say that, but its been four years since she mentioned it, hasn't mentioned anything since and the only evidence we have that she ever said it is locked away behind this Murdoch paywall...

is locked away:

 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just to clarify, four years since she mentioned what, specifically?

She's talked about investment and ownership on the ACN podcast and the Gary Neville interview.

Just for the record, I'd be very interested to hear their thoughts, so I'm not trying to stifle your suggestion at all.

[hogesar 9,619]

29 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Well by investigating skills have revealed this morning that this plane banner was mooted at least a couple of weeks ago and as you spend every waking hour on social media i thought you would have been quicker off the mark and if your opening post was to open it up for discussion i see it otherwise as all i saw was you trashing the idea out of hand.

It's certainly a good job that I'm not one to be too bothered by this sort of thing but your behaviour generally on anyone you take a disliking towards is actually not far from bullying. Again, not a concern for me personally but it does worry me slightly that if another poster who isn't quite so comfortable gets on the wrong side of you they might feel like they can't post on here anymore and that would be awful.

You're not in the force anymore Til.

 

[Mello Yello 2,287]

11 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That's a bit high risk, if the TV cameras don't notice it or choose not to capture and broadcast it then that's a complete waste of money in the absence of a crowd.

Could make themselves look a bit silly. 

I think the local media (and wider) would grab it by the horns.....

[king canary 7,580]

3 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Perhaps she would say that, but its been four years since she mentioned it, hasn't mentioned anything since and the only evidence we have that she ever said it is locked away behind this Murdoch paywall...

is locked away:

 

This is the main controversial quote in question I believe.

I've been told by folks on twitter that Delia & Michael feel like the quotes weren't given context or fairly represented what they actually meant but when I've asked what that context might be I've not had anything.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

15 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

I would imagine they'd say they plan to pass their shareholding to their nephew, and any approaches to invest in and/or buy the club would be considered by the executive triumvirate, as they said on the podcast last year.

What they say to a podcast and what they mean may differ somewhat, that's the only logical conclusion one can draw from what they said to a national newspaper in 2016.

Quote

They will never sell. “No,” says Michael. “We can’t on one hand [protest] that football’s being run from Dubai and Wall Street and then give into it.” Delia grins. “The supporters will be very disappointed to hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries. Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter and he will be the recipient of our shares.”

 

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

16 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

Just to clarify, four years since she mentioned what, specifically?

That they would never sell and don't even listen to enquiries.

[Bill 1,788]

The context is the full paragraph, which suggests they will not simply sell the club to whoever to 'get their money back'. The highlighted line shows it is about what the supporters want - not them behaving as an hinvestor most probably would

"They will never sell. “No,” says Michael. “We can’t on one hand [protest] that football’s being run from Dubai and Wall Street and then give into it.” Delia grins. “The supporters will be very disappointed to hear that. But no way will we sell. We don’t even listen to any enquiries. Our nephew, Tom, is now a board director. He’s 35. He’s a very good board director. He’s a very passionate Norwich City supporter and he will be the recipient of our shares.” “They will go into a trust first,” says Michael. So Tom cannot sell. “He could if the trustees think it’s right and proper. He can’t do it on a whim. He’s been a fan since he was eight.”

And it is a nonsense to say this is behind a paywall, or that there are any implications to that.

Simply use Firewall browser and use the 'Bypass paywalls' add-on

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

If I interpret what you're saying correctly, then the obvious answer is that after the Times interview they realised they had annoyed people with what appeared a very narrow-minded and parochial approach, and realised they would need to soften their stance. Therefore, in the intervening period, they tasked Webber/Ward/Kensell with being responsible for analysing any approach and then reporting back to them if they felt it was viable.

But ultimately this is all conjecture, and it certainly wouldn't do any harm for them to clarify their position on succession planning as they move towards their 80s.

[Bill 1,788]

2 minutes ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

That they would never sell and don't even listen to enquiries.

whereas we both know they mean unilaterally

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

And it is a nonsense to say this is behind a paywall, or that there are any implications to that.

Simply use Firewall browser and use the 'Bypass paywalls' add-on

Oh, just Bill casually suggesting I break the law by circumventing copyright protection measures.

[king canary 7,580]

3 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

If I interpret what you're saying correctly, then the obvious answer is that after the Times interview they realised they had annoyed people with what appeared a very narrow-minded and parochial approach, and realised they would need to soften their stance. Therefore, in the intervening period, they tasked Webber/Ward/Kensell with being responsible for analysing any approach and then reporting back to them if they felt it was viable.

But ultimately this is all conjecture, and it certainly wouldn't do any harm for them to clarify their position on succession planning as they move towards their 80s.

Their inconsistent messaging on the issue is what actively causes the conjecture. 

What they said in that Times interview and what the said to ACN are almost opposites so it leads to confusion. If you are pro Delia and MWJ then you'll likely suggest the ACN interview is a clear marker of their position. If you're someone who wants them gone you'll look at the Times.

My personal feeling is they realised the Times interview pissed off quite a few fans so now are more careful in what they say publicly. What none of us can really know is if they mean it.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

whereas we both know they mean unilaterally

It seems to suggest that they have had enquiries that from people who have subsequently been ignored Bill.

Not only extremely rude but a clear indication that they aren't prepared to sell. 

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, king canary said:

Their inconsistent messaging on the issue is what actively causes the conjecture. 

What they said in that Times interview and what the said to ACN are almost opposites so it leads to confusion. If you are pro Delia and MWJ then you'll likely suggest the ACN interview is a clear marker of their position. If you're someone who wants them gone you'll look at the Times.

My personal feeling is they realised the Times interview pissed off quite a few fans so now are more careful in what they say publicly. What none of us can really know is if they mean it.

Yep, that pretty much tallies with what I said. Some clarity would be beneficial.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

7 minutes ago, Feedthewolf said:

If I interpret what you're saying correctly, then the obvious answer is that after the Times interview they realised they had annoyed people with what appeared a very narrow-minded and parochial approach, and realised they would need to soften their stance. Therefore, in the intervening period, they tasked Webber/Ward/Kensell with being responsible for analysing any approach and then reporting back to them if they felt it was viable.

But ultimately this is all conjecture, and it certainly wouldn't do any harm for them to clarify their position on succession planning as they move towards their 80s.

Any prospective owner can't indicate how much they are prepared to pay for a club without being given open access to current financial data etc. 

If they haven't even entertained enquiries then they've made it impossible for anybody to ever make an offer. Think about the practical implications. 

As for leaving this up to three club employees, who have a vested interest in ownership not changing because it would highly likely bring about change which would see the structure adapted and them all out of a job... no comment.