Divided- supporters vs unbelievers !!

[S_81 816]

22 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

Indeed it is. You.

Irony lost on you too

[essex canary 501]

All who went last night should feel like winners. We won the match and at those prices Hull paid a good contribution, if not all, of your transport costs.

[The Real Buh 3,446]

Sorry I wasn’t on here last night to post and have you all hang on my every word but it was Friday night and I had some other stuff to do.

Jesus, every other post is about me. Can you freaks of nature actually just chill out for a second about me please. It’s weird as hell.

For me, it’s short term people v long term people

You've got the short term 80%ers who live from goal to goal with the “See! Everything’s alright!” Every time we win a throw in. Let’s face it, these are really low intelligence people. They are easily distracted, swindled and manipulated in life outside of football and they take that into football. They are often spotted being way too into party politics and ruining social gatherings or being surprised a £200 holiday to Majorca has ended in disaster.

Then you have the long term 20%ers. They support the club indeed they recognise the club as a bastion of Norfolk, a jewel in the crown if you like but they aren’t fooled by one off goals performances. They look at derby or Charlton or Bolton or any number of these clubs that just sort of slid away for one reason or another and they look at the rest of the fanbase in horror as they cheer on low standards and give people in charge a pat on the back for the slow degradation of the club and it’s standards.

Frankly, the club means more to the 20%ers and the 80%ers know it. The 80%ers are happy to see a trickle effect degredation on standards and standing of the club because they just turn up and scowl because the dancing monkey 20%ers aren’t chanting correctly.

If there’s to be a civil war for the soul of this club the 80%ers will lose they should know that in advance.

Edited January 13 by The Real Buh

[Corbs1 90]

4 hours ago, S_81 said:

Wow, 7am on a Saturday, after a win, and you wake and feel the need to write that rant. It’s clear who the whinger is. 

Pot kettle black

[Corbs1 90]

25 minutes ago, The Real Buh said:

 

For me, it’s short term people v 

Then you have the long term 20%ers.

100% crud. Every sensible person tries to plan for long term in a business, in our case a 3 year transition medium term plan is a start. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I do honestly think your overarching obsession with football club ownership over following the fortunes on the pitch and appreciating what we have is singularly stupid.

Yeah, not as though both are intrinsically linked or anything, is it.

You’re a decent poster LYB. I think quite intelligent actually, but occasionally you post complete nonsense.

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

4 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

Voicing displeasure is one thing, but during a game is a step up and IMHO that’s a step too far (before you say it, I’m not talking about a booing as a game finishes). If you’re not singing for our team and willing them on, why are you there?

 

 

I mean, literally 99% of all clubs do the same. What better way to get a message across than at a game?

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,289]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

Especially as she is no longer the biggest shareholder - MA is (her holding is shared with her husband). Assuming a 50-50 split between Smith and Jones, he has twice as many shares?

Even more importantly, the club is tens of millions in debt to MA as well. People who think that Delia could win in any disagreement with MA are deluded. He who pays the piper, calls the tune! But some of these display their "understanding" by calls to "sack the board!" 🤣

That’s a fair point. But we need her out of all decision making sooner than 2 years. It’s holding us back.

[Badger 2,407]

2 minutes ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

That’s a fair point. But we need her out of all decision making sooner than 2 years. It’s holding us back.

The reality is that any important decision will have to have MA's approval. For example, he was involved in Knapper's recruitment process and interview. If he doesn't want something (or somebody) , it won't happen. The club is totally dependant on his money and he can't be outvoted unless a majority of the smaller shareholders, like the Canary Trust, vote against him, and even then he could let it be known that he would recall his loans if the club takes a direction of which he disapproves.

De facto, he already has control of decision making.

[essex canary 501]

36 minutes ago, Badger said:

The reality is that any important decision will have to have MA's approval. For example, he was involved in Knapper's recruitment process and interview. If he doesn't want something (or somebody) , it won't happen. The club is totally dependant on his money and he can't be outvoted unless a majority of the smaller shareholders, like the Canary Trust, vote against him, and even then he could let it be known that he would recall his loans if the club takes a direction of which he disapproves.

De facto, he already has control of decision making.

Probably very true. The question then becomes how did this creep up on S&J without them knowing? Then again, not a difficult question.

[The Bunny 310]

I'm hardly one of Delia's 80%ers but I'm with the OP on this. Abusing individual players during a match is utterly braindead.

I was at the Millwall away game and the amount of abuse Ben Gibson was getting from our fans was just unreal. Gibson has committed a few howlers lately, but do you really think booing him when he touches the ball is going to improve things? More likely it'll have the opposite effect. 

If you're going to a match then get behind the team or stay at home. Seems like a lot of fans are just going in the hope they can have a good whinge. 

[baldy09 158]

One win and Rhino on a stampede -must be that drop of whiskey in his flask of tea

[shefcanary 2,435]

On 13/01/2024 at 10:41, Badger said:

Especially as she is no longer the biggest shareholder - MA is (her holding is shared with her husband). Assuming a 50-50 split between Smith and Jones, he has twice as many shares?

Even more importantly, the club is tens of millions in debt to MA as well. People who think that Delia could win in any disagreement with MA are deluded. He who pays the piper, calls the tune! But some of these display their "understanding" by calls to "sack the board!" 🤣

Hate to say it Badger, but you are a bit previous. The agreed share issue hasn't happened yet as the EFL has not given its assent. There is also the issue of the 3 year concord agreement between the would be joint majority shareholders. We are experiencing a degree of stasis until we get the EFL's ruling. People are impatient, but perhaps they should direct their anger at the EFL?

As for Hoggy's view of the youngsters, we were all like that once. They'll learn.

[essex canary 501]

On 13/01/2024 at 14:58, The Bunny said:

I'm hardly one of Delia's 80%ers but I'm with the OP on this. Abusing individual players during a match is utterly braindead.

I was at the Millwall away game and the amount of abuse Ben Gibson was getting from our fans was just unreal. Gibson has committed a few howlers lately, but do you really think booing him when he touches the ball is going to improve things? More likely it'll have the opposite effect. 

If you're going to a match then get behind the team or stay at home. Seems like a lot of fans are just going in the hope they can have a good whinge. 

The Club introduced the Away Members Scheme to give the younger supporters more opportunities to attend and too make a little more money. Then when the youngsters make noise including booing they don't like it. Away support is expensive and people will express their opinion and there is a learning curve here. 

Perhaps the Club prefers the Carrow Road Morgue 

[RobJames 883]

16 minutes ago, essex canary said:

The Club introduced the Away Members Scheme to give the younger supporters more opportunities to attend and too make a little more money. Then when the youngsters make noise including booing they don't like it. Away support is expensive and people will express their opinion and there is a learning curve here. 

Perhaps the Club prefers the Carrow Road Morgue 

What learning curve is that ? The club should discourage these idiots ? Or that the idiots will eventually learn their squeaks are detrimental to the team on the day ? If it is the latter, then is not part of that learning curve having real supporters pointing out the detrimental effect those insults have ?

[By Hook or Ian crook 917]

On 13/01/2024 at 10:59, hogesar said:

The problem with the kids and their Delia Out poster etc is they're just too mentally weak, as Buh would say. We look like we might lose and they sort of tentatively hold it in the air then we score and they scurry and sit on it and pretend it never happened. Then Hull score one and they sort of start to bring it out  again but we win and they jump up and  down on it in celebration instead.

I wouldn't be happy with the following, because I think it would be at a detriment to on field performance but if they were persistent and consistent in their views and demonstrated that i'd at least have a little respect for it.

The problem is as Rhino says, they're the same one's who for some reason love to lay into our own players 10 minutes into a difficult away game.

Fans wanting owners out is nothing new at any club it’s part and parcel of the game really. Before Delia it’s was chase out. Wasn’t a single Chase out chant when we were fighting to win the prem and beating Bayern Munich away. Football goes like that, you’re either the best thing since sliced bread or the anti christ. Delia has done a good job shepherding the club for as long as she has. She’s probably stayed a season or two too long which is a shame for her legacy at the club. 
 

I think fans / supporters whatever people want to call them. Have a right to criticise how they feel things could be done better the same people though should be humble enough and self aware enough to acknowledge if they are wrong in the future or pleased with things the club does do. You can be pleased about some aspects of the club and disappointment about other simultaneously which is also fair in any relationship with things in life. 

[Indy 3,307]

On 13/01/2024 at 14:16, Badger said:

The reality is that any important decision will have to have MA's approval. For example, he was involved in Knapper's recruitment process and interview. If he doesn't want something (or somebody) , it won't happen. The club is totally dependant on his money and he can't be outvoted unless a majority of the smaller shareholders, like the Canary Trust, vote against him, and even then he could let it be known that he would recall his loans if the club takes a direction of which he disapproves.

De facto, he already has control of decision making.

So it’s all been ratified and official then, great to know we can now point the finger at MA, the 20% will be happy…

Edited January 14 by Indy

[......and Smith must score. 1,349]

On 13/01/2024 at 11:23, essex canary said:

All who went last night should feel like winners. We won the match and at those prices Hull paid a good contribution, if not all, of your transport costs.

At £54 a pop on Cabbage every little helps

[Badger 2,407]

12 hours ago, Indy said:

So it’s all been ratified and official then, great to know we can now point the finger at MA, the 20% will be happy…

Well, yes, it has, hasn't it? MA has the same amount of shares as Smith and Jones put together, so at least twice as many as any individual shareholder.

The only way he could be "defeated" in a clash of wills, is if a majority of independent shareholders, sided with both Smith and Jones against him. Of course, this also leaves the issue that the club owes him tens of millions of pounds which he could use as leverage to get his own way if he needs to. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

As I said, 

12 hours ago, Indy said:

The reality is that any important decision will have to have MA's approval

I don't think the 20% will ever be happy - that is why they are "the 20%." When in time, they realise the situation, I'm sure that they will turn their opposition onto the new owner.

[Badger 2,407]

13 hours ago, shefcanary said:

Hate to say it Badger, but you are a bit previous. The agreed share issue hasn't happened yet as the EFL has not given its assent. There is also the issue of the 3 year concord agreement between the would be joint majority shareholders. We are experiencing a degree of stasis until we get the EFL's ruling. People are impatient, but perhaps they should direct their anger at the EFL?

As for Hoggy's view of the youngsters, we were all like that once. They'll learn.

I'm assuming the EFL is just a formality. Given MA's background compared to some of those that they have approved, it is unimaginable that they will veto it?

In the meantime, given the concordat, and especially the fact that we owe MA tens of millions, means that, de facto, nothing will happen if MA doesn't want it to. A couple of aphorisms spring to mind,

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune" or my favourite,

"When you've got the by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

[essex canary 501]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I'm assuming the EFL is just a formality. Given MA's background compared to some of those that they have approved, it is unimaginable that they will veto it?

In the meantime, given the concordat, and especially the fact that we owe MA tens of millions, means that, de facto, nothing will happen if MA doesn't want it to. A couple of aphorisms spring to mind,

"He who pays the piper, calls the tune" or my favourite,

"When you've got the by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."

The EFL ought to consider whether the 40:20:40 sandwich is fair in relation to the supporters 20% with no effective Board representation.

[shefcanary 2,435]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

I'm assuming the EFL is just a formality. Given MA's background compared to some of those that they have approved, it is unimaginable that they will veto it?

In the meantime, given the concordat, and especially the fact that we owe MA tens of millions, means that, de facto, nothing will happen if MA doesn't want it to. A couple of aphorisms spring to mind,

On the first point, the complicated structure MA has set up for the acquisition means it is far from a formality. Who are the 17% of US corporate and individuals and what are their expectation from the deal - is MA really in full control of this? We are now, due to past failings, in a different ball game now as far as the Directors' & Owners' test is concerned - you cannot go by past decisions. It's slightly different, but 777 Consortium's takeover of Everton is in doubt, their lead person has admitted they don't have the track record now to prove to the EPL they can be trusted.

On the 2nd, as a lot of people will no doubt highlight, we are talking Delia and Michael here - if it doesn't feel right they can dig their heels in.

[Badger 2,407]

57 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

On the first point, the complicated structure MA has set up for the acquisition means it is far from a formality. Who are the 17% of US corporate and individuals and what are their expectation from the deal - is MA really in full control of this? We are now, due to past failings, in a different ball game now as far as the Directors' & Owners' test is concerned - you cannot go by past decisions. It's slightly different, but 777 Consortium's takeover of Everton is in doubt, their lead person has admitted they don't have the track record now to prove to the EPL they can be trusted.

On the 2nd, as a lot of people will no doubt highlight, we are talking Delia and Michael here - if it doesn't feel right they can dig their heels in.

I bet you 10p that MA does pass the owner's test! Assuming he does, the ex-owners can dig in their heels as much as they like, it would be down to the minority owners like the caries Trust, myself and you (?) to side with Smith and Jones, against MA to stop him getting his own way in the full knowledge that this could plunge us into financial crisis. I suspect that this is highly unlikely and that de factor control now rests with MA.

[shefcanary 2,435]

Just now, Badger said:

I bet you 10p that MA does pass the owner's test! Assuming he does, the ex-owners can dig in their heels as much as they like, it would be down to the minority owners like the caries Trust, myself and you (?) to side with Smith and Jones, against MA to stop him getting his own way in the full knowledge that this could plunge us into financial crisis. I suspect that this is highly unlikely and that de factor control now rests with MA.

I note the size of the bet, but am also confident he will pass it, just that I doubt it will before 31 January unfortunately, so any sign of him financing a significant addition to the squad has gone.

[Badger 2,407]

1 minute ago, shefcanary said:

I note the size of the bet, but am also confident he will pass it, just that I doubt it will before 31 January unfortunately, so any sign of him financing a significant addition to the squad has gone.

10p is a big bet for me! And seeing you didn't take me, I assume that my bluff was successful 😁

[shefcanary 2,435]

2 minutes ago, Badger said:

10p is a big bet for me! And seeing you didn't take me, I assume that my bluff was successful 😁

I'm a crap poker player too! 🙂 

[Indy 3,307]

So as I said it’s not official and we still have joint majority shareholders in charge with a very large loan! Officially!

[essex canary 501]

2 hours ago, Indy said:

So as I said it’s not official and we still have joint majority shareholders in charge with a very large loan! Officially!

Perhaps that is a good reason for the EFL to turn it down. Delia, you have effectively ceded control so it is not possible to imply otherwise.