Norwich & Luton - Poles Apart, Or Not?

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[/quote]

Yes Luton are "smaller in every sense" Chicken, which is why it is inexcusable that we have made a similar huge profit on players despite vastly bigger crowds,parachute payments and no looming relegation to deal with. I asked if you could do a quick tally of ins and outs since relegation-have you? If not i`ll do it for you. I`ve always found that to form a strong opinion on something it is better to accept and understand the reality of the situation first.

I do however agree with your response to GazzaTCC-every club has to deal with agent/league fees and it is generally about the same percentage per deal, and if the "headline figure" for an outgoing transfer includes money payable over time/appearances then the same applies to incoming transfers-again the percentages will be similar. So as we have not received the full headline figures for Green/Mckenzie yet,we have not paid out the full headline figures for Brown/Chadwick/Lappin either.

"For whatever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad". Quite. Check the figures and then tell me where the difference is between the approaches of the Luton and Norwich boards.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, while not wishing to interfere with your interchange with Chicken, do bear in mind that, in dealing with transfer an/out costs at a selective point in time ( as you are ), you are only dealing with a part of the total picture that represents these two very different football clubs. As I indicated at the outset, Norwich are clearly a much larger club operating on a larger scale. That has been clearly demonstrated over many, many years and does not take a high level of intelligence to understand. The amount of total expense our club has dealt with in all respects over the past several years far exceeds anything Luton has experience. Yes, we also have a larger support base, but it is entirely within the jurisdiction of our board to decide when they need to risk at a higher level again. As I clearly pointed out earlier, our league status over the past several seasons has been at far loftier heights than Luton experienced, which should have been the case given our larger club. And it has been. Isn''t that the essence of the comparison between the two clubs? If we had toiled at the same level as Luton has over many seasons, given that we are a larger club, then there would be a greater basis for complaint. That''s not the case however. 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[/quote]

Yes Luton are "smaller in every sense" Chicken, which is why it is inexcusable that we have made a similar huge profit on players despite vastly bigger crowds,parachute payments and no looming relegation to deal with. I asked if you could do a quick tally of ins and outs since relegation-have you? If not i`ll do it for you. I`ve always found that to form a strong opinion on something it is better to accept and understand the reality of the situation first.

I do however agree with your response to GazzaTCC-every club has to deal with agent/league fees and it is generally about the same percentage per deal, and if the "headline figure" for an outgoing transfer includes money payable over time/appearances then the same applies to incoming transfers-again the percentages will be similar. So as we have not received the full headline figures for Green/Mckenzie yet,we have not paid out the full headline figures for Brown/Chadwick/Lappin either.

"For whatever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad". Quite. Check the figures and then tell me where the difference is between the approaches of the Luton and Norwich boards.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, while not wishing to interfere with your interchange with Chicken, do bear in mind that, in dealing with transfer an/out costs at a selective point in time ( as you are ), you are only dealing with a part of the total picture that represents these two very different football clubs. As I indicated at the outset, Norwich are clearly a much larger club operating on a larger scale. That has been clearly demonstrated over many, many years and does not take a high level of intelligence to understand. The amount of total expense our club has dealt with in all respects over the past several years far exceeds anything Luton has experience. Yes, we also have a larger support base, but it is entirely within the jurisdiction of our board to decide when they need to risk at a higher level again. As I clearly pointed out earlier, our league status over the past several seasons has been at far loftier heights than Luton experienced, which should have been the case given our larger club. And it has been. Isn''t that the essence of the comparison between the two clubs? If we had toiled at the same level as Luton has over many seasons, given that we are a larger club, then there would be a greater basis for complaint. That''s not the case however. 

[/quote]

Are you sure you ain''t the Doomcaster in disguise Yankee?

Those words are exactly like those that trip off his tongue with clockwork regularity!!!!

You make it sound that it is totally okay for the board to sit there happily twiddling their thumbs while we battle against relegation or fumble along in the lower reaches of this division to mid-table.

Yet again another disgusting statement that shows the disease that our club is currently ridden with... 

IT IS THE FANS CLUB not the board of directors.

To me it is absolutely hilarious that people can even consider comparing our rabble to the board of directors at that mighty footballing giant Luton Town and say that "oh well at least we haven''t got their board" etc etc etc. 

It just about sums it all up for me...

City fans are all too happy to accept whatever c**p is served up to them week in week out, and Delia & Co are quite happy to keep taking their money without offering anything better.

[ricardo 7,333]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[/quote]

Yes Luton are "smaller in every sense" Chicken, which is why it is inexcusable that we have made a similar huge profit on players despite vastly bigger crowds,parachute payments and no looming relegation to deal with. I asked if you could do a quick tally of ins and outs since relegation-have you? If not i`ll do it for you. I`ve always found that to form a strong opinion on something it is better to accept and understand the reality of the situation first.

I do however agree with your response to GazzaTCC-every club has to deal with agent/league fees and it is generally about the same percentage per deal, and if the "headline figure" for an outgoing transfer includes money payable over time/appearances then the same applies to incoming transfers-again the percentages will be similar. So as we have not received the full headline figures for Green/Mckenzie yet,we have not paid out the full headline figures for Brown/Chadwick/Lappin either.

"For whatever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad". Quite. Check the figures and then tell me where the difference is between the approaches of the Luton and Norwich boards.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, while not wishing to interfere with your interchange with Chicken, do bear in mind that, in dealing with transfer an/out costs at a selective point in time ( as you are ), you are only dealing with a part of the total picture that represents these two very different football clubs. As I indicated at the outset, Norwich are clearly a much larger club operating on a larger scale. That has been clearly demonstrated over many, many years and does not take a high level of intelligence to understand. The amount of total expense our club has dealt with in all respects over the past several years far exceeds anything Luton has experience. Yes, we also have a larger support base, but it is entirely within the jurisdiction of our board to decide when they need to risk at a higher level again. As I clearly pointed out earlier, our league status over the past several seasons has been at far loftier heights than Luton experienced, which should have been the case given our larger club. And it has been. Isn''t that the essence of the comparison between the two clubs? If we had toiled at the same level as Luton has over many seasons, given that we are a larger club, then there would be a greater basis for complaint. That''s not the case however. 

[/quote]

Are you sure you ain''t the Doomcaster in disguise Yankee?

Those words are exactly like those that trip off his tongue with clockwork regularity!!!!

You make it sound that it is totally okay for the board to sit there happily twiddling their thumbs while we battle against relegation or fumble along in the lower reaches of this division to mid-table.

Yet again another disgusting statement that shows the disease that our club is currently ridden with... 

IT IS THE FANS CLUB not the board of directors.

To me it is absolutely hilarious that people can even consider comparing our rabble to the board of directors at that mighty footballing giant Luton Town and say that "oh well at least we haven''t got their board" etc etc etc. 

It just about sums it all up for me...

City fans are all too happy to accept whatever c**p is served up to them week in week out, and Delia & Co are quite happy to keep taking their money without offering anything better.

[/quote]

IT IS THE FANS CLUB not the board of directors.

Well that''s the most naive statement you''ve made yet Smudger. The club belongs to the shareholders. We all as supporters feel emotionally involved with the club but that doesn''t mean we own it or have any right to a say in how its being run. Shareholders on the other hand can attend meetings and press for change should they feel so inclined (and obtain enough support).

The only right you hold is to withdraw your physical and financial support (which you have already done) and moan about the board. At the end of the day you will only be able to force the board to your way of thinking if enough people agree with you.

Quite plainly, and much to your annoyance, the vast majority don''t agree with you.

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="GazzaTCC"]

All these comparisons on transfers are largely irrelevant as they tend to focus on just headline fees (where they are actually given) ignore any add ons for agents fees or number of appearances etc and, perhaps most crucially, make no reference as to when the money actually changes hands between clubs, which is often spread over two or three years.

What''s important to us is, due to the loss of parachute payments, that the current level of transfer activity can''t be maintained without player sales.  

[/quote]

I am not sure that you are correct here Gazza. I mean this because we are comparing two clubs positions and although what you are suggesting is accurate I think the fact that both clubs probably behave similarily when it comes to agents fees etc it probably balances out in proportion in that aspect. What I am saying here is that if Norwich are signing more players then we are also paying out more money in fees as a result. So although not an accurate figure of how much is spent in total I think the quoted transfer amounts probably do reflect, if only proportionaly, the amount of money committed by either club.

In fact if public statements are anything to go by I would go as far as to suggest that our clubs are quite "tight" when it comes to those fees.

"People like you and me can see that SOB.... and I see that neither Yankee or anybody else has put up any kind of arguement against what are CLEARLY THE FACTS (stated in the post above your post on this thread)."

Its interesting that you agree with SOB and then also state you agree with the post above his post you quote which states that the club as outlayed about as much as it has taken in!!!!! If you haven''t noticed this defeats your argument and completely contradicts you agreeing with SOB.

I think you will find that Luton is nothing like Norwich at all. It is smaller in every sence. For what ever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad.

As for last summer - there were people including you and me Smudger that were asking that Nigel Worthington was given little or no money over the summer to force him to make the best of the money he had already spent. I think it is a tad harsh to now say that we should have spent more of the McKenzie/Green cash then.

[/quote]

Yes Luton are "smaller in every sense" Chicken, which is why it is inexcusable that we have made a similar huge profit on players despite vastly bigger crowds,parachute payments and no looming relegation to deal with. I asked if you could do a quick tally of ins and outs since relegation-have you? If not i`ll do it for you. I`ve always found that to form a strong opinion on something it is better to accept and understand the reality of the situation first.

I do however agree with your response to GazzaTCC-every club has to deal with agent/league fees and it is generally about the same percentage per deal, and if the "headline figure" for an outgoing transfer includes money payable over time/appearances then the same applies to incoming transfers-again the percentages will be similar. So as we have not received the full headline figures for Green/Mckenzie yet,we have not paid out the full headline figures for Brown/Chadwick/Lappin either.

"For whatever reason the players have been sold and very little of the money has been put back into the squad". Quite. Check the figures and then tell me where the difference is between the approaches of the Luton and Norwich boards.

[/quote]

Mr. Carrow, while not wishing to interfere with your interchange with Chicken, do bear in mind that, in dealing with transfer an/out costs at a selective point in time ( as you are ), you are only dealing with a part of the total picture that represents these two very different football clubs. As I indicated at the outset, Norwich are clearly a much larger club operating on a larger scale. That has been clearly demonstrated over many, many years and does not take a high level of intelligence to understand. The amount of total expense our club has dealt with in all respects over the past several years far exceeds anything Luton has experience. Yes, we also have a larger support base, but it is entirely within the jurisdiction of our board to decide when they need to risk at a higher level again. As I clearly pointed out earlier, our league status over the past several seasons has been at far loftier heights than Luton experienced, which should have been the case given our larger club. And it has been. Isn''t that the essence of the comparison between the two clubs? If we had toiled at the same level as Luton has over many seasons, given that we are a larger club, then there would be a greater basis for complaint. That''s not the case however. 

[/quote]

Are you sure you ain''t the Doomcaster in disguise Yankee?

Those words are exactly like those that trip off his tongue with clockwork regularity!!!!

You make it sound that it is totally okay for the board to sit there happily twiddling their thumbs while we battle against relegation or fumble along in the lower reaches of this division to mid-table.

Yet again another disgusting statement that shows the disease that our club is currently ridden with... 

IT IS THE FANS CLUB not the board of directors.

To me it is absolutely hilarious that people can even consider comparing our rabble to the board of directors at that mighty footballing giant Luton Town and say that "oh well at least we haven''t got their board" etc etc etc. 

It just about sums it all up for me...

City fans are all too happy to accept whatever c**p is served up to them week in week out, and Delia & Co are quite happy to keep taking their money without offering anything better.

[/quote]

IT IS THE FANS CLUB not the board of directors.

Well that''s the most naive statement you''ve made yet Smudger. The club belongs to the shareholders. We all as supporters feel emotionally involved with the club but that doesn''t mean we own it or have any right to a say in how its being run. Shareholders on the other hand can attend meetings and press for change should they feel so inclined (and obtain enough support).

The only right you hold is to withdraw your physical and financial support (which you have already done) and moan about the board. At the end of the day you will only be able to force the board to your way of thinking if enough people agree with you.

Quite plainly, and much to your annoyance, the vast majority don''t agree with you.

[/quote]

Would the club survive, with just the shareholders - and  no fans?

Shareholders are the true fans, they get to see the game and have a portion of ownership in the company.

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........[:''(]

If I could, Roger M, Skipper and Doncaster wouldn''t get my vote.........of continence.[N]  

[Cluck 0]

We would survive and thrive quite nicely without Delia Smith...but she would sink like a rock without the paying supporters. The fans own the spirit of the club...DS just owns the bricks and mortar.

 

[ricardo 7,333]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[ricardo 7,333]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha Loved it

Don''t know about the furry mitten massage though, but perhaps I don''t need one seeing as how I''m a sheep.

I''m not keen on the loudhailer but I might have a T shirt printed up with the slogan on it. Look for me in the Upper N&P at the next home match, I might be wearing it.

Ho Ho Ho

Sorry to report this but my big shareholding amounts to a massive 20 shares (I won''t admit that on the Tshirt though)

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha Loved it

Don''t know about the furry mitten massage though, but perhaps I don''t need one seeing as how I''m a sheep.

I''m not keen on the loudhailer but I might have a T shirt printed up with the slogan on it. Look for me in the Upper N&P at the next home match, I might be wearing it.

Ho Ho Ho

Sorry to report this but my big shareholding amounts to a massive 20 shares (I won''t admit that on the Tshirt though)

[/quote]

Won''t admit it on a T-shirt, but you couldn''t stop - or help yourself announcing it on this forum.......and, ''Wahay!'' those 20, will surely get you in the first 3 ''true followers'' rows of the AGM, and within adoring touchin'' distance (wearin'' your furry mit) of the Queen and her subservient Demi-Gods - that ''in hindsight'' can ne''er do wrong......or, are certainly never humble enough to admit it.

 It''s 20 more shares than I''ll ever purchase whilst the ''current'' charlatan NCFC board are in control. Wouldn''t mind a new T-shirt though......I can afford one of them. (If I sell my council house).

In the N&P, do you sit in a ''Box'' or slum it with the ''oiks''?[:P]

Vagrant Mello, a frequent occupier of a ''plastic pile pusher'' in the "Haemorrhoid''s ''r'' Us City Stand".

[ricardo 7,333]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha Loved it

Don''t know about the furry mitten massage though, but perhaps I don''t need one seeing as how I''m a sheep.

I''m not keen on the loudhailer but I might have a T shirt printed up with the slogan on it. Look for me in the Upper N&P at the next home match, I might be wearing it.

Ho Ho Ho

Sorry to report this but my big shareholding amounts to a massive 20 shares (I won''t admit that on the Tshirt though)

[/quote]

Won''t admit it on a T-shirt, but you couldn''t stop - or help yourself announcing it on this forum.......and, ''Wahay!'' those 20, will surely get you in the first 3 ''true followers'' rows of the AGM, and within adoring touchin'' distance (wearin'' your furry mit) of the Queen and her subservient Demi-Gods - that ''in hindsight'' can ne''er do wrong......or, are certainly never humble enough to admit it.

 It''s 20 more shares than I''ll ever purchase whilst the ''current'' charlatan NCFC board are in control. Wouldn''t mind a new T-shirt though......I can afford one of them. (If I sell my council house).

In the N&P, do you sit in a ''Box'' or slum it with the ''oiks''?[:P]

Vagrant Mello, a frequent occupier of a ''plastic pile pusher'' in the "Haemorrhoid''s ''r'' Us City Stand".

[/quote]

Slum it with the ''oiks I''m afraid Mello. Now I''m redundant It''s a bit expensive but luckily I''m now over 60 so I get it at Pensioners prices (£218) so there are some advantages to getting old.

I got my 20 shares by buying a building bond in the 80''s when they were financing the building of the River End Stand. Instead of getting the cash back they offered me shares in exchange. I thought, why not, at least I can attend the AGM and have a moan if I want too (and I have more than once).

Perhaps I can sell a few T shirts at the next AGM to supplement my meagre pension.

I was going to have my name put on my plastic seat but there wasn''t room for "Ricardo the furry mit wearing worshiper of Queen Delia" so I may settle for "Ricky Redundant"

Love your style Mello, keep smiling.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha Loved it

Don''t know about the furry mitten massage though, but perhaps I don''t need one seeing as how I''m a sheep.

I''m not keen on the loudhailer but I might have a T shirt printed up with the slogan on it. Look for me in the Upper N&P at the next home match, I might be wearing it.

Ho Ho Ho

Sorry to report this but my big shareholding amounts to a massive 20 shares (I won''t admit that on the Tshirt though)

[/quote]

Won''t admit it on a T-shirt, but you couldn''t stop - or help yourself announcing it on this forum.......and, ''Wahay!'' those 20, will surely get you in the first 3 ''true followers'' rows of the AGM, and within adoring touchin'' distance (wearin'' your furry mit) of the Queen and her subservient Demi-Gods - that ''in hindsight'' can ne''er do wrong......or, are certainly never humble enough to admit it.

 It''s 20 more shares than I''ll ever purchase whilst the ''current'' charlatan NCFC board are in control. Wouldn''t mind a new T-shirt though......I can afford one of them. (If I sell my council house).

In the N&P, do you sit in a ''Box'' or slum it with the ''oiks''?[:P]

Vagrant Mello, a frequent occupier of a ''plastic pile pusher'' in the "Haemorrhoid''s ''r'' Us City Stand".

[/quote]

hehehe Fantastic stuff MELLO!!!

[nutty nigel 7,506]

I have got 25 shares Ricardo. They were my dads before I got my furry mits on them, he bought them way back in the 50''s, I think when Geoffrey Watling first saved the club with the help of then Lord Mayor Arthur South. That was when Watling was loved by all and before he was hated and the zigger zagger chants rang out of the Barclay. Which was before he was loved again for saving the club from that nasty Robert Chase!! He will always be remembered fondly now because nothing else can go wrong for him. Football really does go round and round in circles and whoever is in control of the club can only be as good as the team are performing at the time! Where was I?? Oh yeah, my shares, I got offered £17 each for them once but I wouldn''t sell!! I been to only one meeting though, that was the EGM at St. Andrews Hall after Ken Brown was sacked. I didn''t speak though, there''s not a lot of football talked at those meetings.

Nearly forgot, I really slum it with the oiks, standing at the back of E Block in the Lower Barclay.

 

 

[Mello Yello 2,273]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="ricardo"]

Mello wrote

I just get to watch the game and, I aren''t privy to the accounts an'' stuff, or able to attend certain meetings and get-togethers an'' applaud Delia an'' vote with my twelve fingered hands......."Oh well, maybe one day, eh?".........

 

In which case Mello you need to save your money up and do two things

1 Buy 10 shares

2 Have 2 fingers amputated

[/quote]

I accept 1 and 2 are a requisite requirement to be a true fandabidozy shareholder.......but, I''ll draw the line at No 3 (which you failed to mention). That wearing a furry mitten to massage one''s ego and holding a loudhailer in the other hand and announcing: "LOOKA ME EVERYONE! I''M AN NCFC SHAREHOLDER DON''T YA KNOW!"

[/quote]

Ha Ha Ha Loved it

Don''t know about the furry mitten massage though, but perhaps I don''t need one seeing as how I''m a sheep.

I''m not keen on the loudhailer but I might have a T shirt printed up with the slogan on it. Look for me in the Upper N&P at the next home match, I might be wearing it.

Ho Ho Ho

Sorry to report this but my big shareholding amounts to a massive 20 shares (I won''t admit that on the Tshirt though)

[/quote]

Won''t admit it on a T-shirt, but you couldn''t stop - or help yourself announcing it on this forum.......and, ''Wahay!'' those 20, will surely get you in the first 3 ''true followers'' rows of the AGM, and within adoring touchin'' distance (wearin'' your furry mit) of the Queen and her subservient Demi-Gods - that ''in hindsight'' can ne''er do wrong......or, are certainly never humble enough to admit it.

 It''s 20 more shares than I''ll ever purchase whilst the ''current'' charlatan NCFC board are in control. Wouldn''t mind a new T-shirt though......I can afford one of them. (If I sell my council house).

In the N&P, do you sit in a ''Box'' or slum it with the ''oiks''?[:P]

Vagrant Mello, a frequent occupier of a ''plastic pile pusher'' in the "Haemorrhoid''s ''r'' Us City Stand".

[/quote]

Slum it with the ''oiks I''m afraid Mello. Now I''m redundant It''s a bit expensive but luckily I''m now over 60 so I get it at Pensioners prices (£218) so there are some advantages to getting old.

I got my 20 shares by buying a building bond in the 80''s when they were financing the building of the River End Stand. Instead of getting the cash back they offered me shares in exchange. I thought, why not, at least I can attend the AGM and have a moan if I want too (and I have more than once).

Perhaps I can sell a few T shirts at the next AGM to supplement my meagre pension.

I was going to have my name put on my plastic seat but there wasn''t room for "Ricardo the furry mit wearing worshiper of Queen Delia" so I may settle for "Ricky Redundant"

Love your style Mello, keep smiling.

[/quote]

When your furry mitten has pups...can I have one?...please? But, only if it''s pedigree, chum.[&]  I''ll give you some of my dole for it, once I''ve explained to the council about the sale of one of their houses. I just thought I was being an entrepreneur, especially after also selling the Guildhall to a group of Russian businessmen.  

I''ll always have style, even if folk try to cramp it. I''m the one in the City Stand.........totally devoid of shares or megaphone, an'' wavin'' my large inflatable tube of anusol. Give me a wave, and I''ll give you a squirt.

I''ve got my name on my ''plazzy pew''. I actually wrote it on with a large felt tipped permanent marker.......I''m not that daft though, I used someone else''s name instead of mine. You can borrow my felt pen if you want to write on yours? (For a small fee, that is). I''ve got a few T-Shirts that I can push your way if you''re interested Rickhardon. I''ve written "Neil Doncaster for Chairman!" on the front of them (with my felty), and on their reverse side it''s got, "Of Accrington Stanley!".........I think they''ll be popular amongst the club''s "Cynical Recreant Apathy Party" of which I''m the unofficial self-appointed Chief. We have a rather healthy membership, there''s me, and my 3 legged, incontinent and myopic dog, Lucky. But, loads of supporters have shown some real disinterest in what we are doing........I think.

Look after your shares, they could be worth something - when our culpable, incapable, inadverdent and incumbent board - do a runner........to Accrington.

Equal rights for pensioners!

Entente'' Ginger Cordial'' Rickhardon!

Now, what was this thread about again?

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

Actually, Mello, the trhread was about Poles but, like most migrating posters, you''ve satrted to talk about the Russians.

[ricardo 7,333]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I have got 25 shares Ricardo. They were my dads before I got my furry mits on them, he bought them way back in the 50''s, I think when Geoffrey Watling first saved the club with the help of then Lord Mayor Arthur South. That was when Watling was loved by all and before he was hated and the zigger zagger chants rang out of the Barclay. Which was before he was loved again for saving the club from that nasty Robert Chase!! He will always be remembered fondly now because nothing else can go wrong for him. Football really does go round and round in circles and whoever is in control of the club can only be as good as the team are performing at the time! Where was I?? Oh yeah, my shares, I got offered £17 each for them once but I wouldn''t sell!! I been to only one meeting though, that was the EGM at St. Andrews Hall after Ken Brown was sacked. I didn''t speak though, there''s not a lot of football talked at those meetings.

Nearly forgot, I really slum it with the oiks, standing at the back of E Block in the Lower Barclay.

 

 

[/quote]

25 shares! thats a major holding NN. Perhaps we should get together as a voting block.

Yes I had forgotten all about the old "Zigger Zagger Zigger" chant. Funny how Demons and Hero''s seem to change places as time passes. I remember the night when the main stand crowd chucked their green cushions on the pitch in a protest to get Watling out. Now people want to put up a statue to him. We now seem to be going through a similar scenario with the rehabilition of Big Bob Chase.

Aint perspective a wonderful thing?

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

Open wide Smudger me old son, I''ve got a little medicine for you...

Luton are doing wonderfully now and great to see that the overspending by them wasn''t to their detriment.

Hindsight.............Don''t you just love it?.

 

[Buncey 1]

[quote user="Alex"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

Open wide Smudger me old son, I''ve got a little medicine for you...

Luton are doing wonderfully now and great to see that the overspending by them wasn''t to their detriment.

Hindsight.............Don''t you just love it?.

 

[/quote]Alex. Luton haven''t overspent on anything. Luton''s position as a football club was untenable. They sold near enough all their players and didn''t bring any in for any real sums of money. The way things are going there isn''t going to be a Luton Town football club for too long. I just think that the damage the former chairman and board did to the club is un-repairable.

[Alex Moss 2,165]

[quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Alex"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

Open wide Smudger me old son, I''ve got a little medicine for you...

Luton are doing wonderfully now and great to see that the overspending by them wasn''t to their detriment.

Hindsight.............Don''t you just love it?.

 

[/quote]

Alex. Luton haven''t overspent on anything. Luton''s position as a football club was untenable. They sold near enough all their players and didn''t bring any in for any real sums of money. The way things are going there isn''t going to be a Luton Town football club for too long. I just think that the damage the former chairman and board did to the club is un-repairable.
[/quote]

The point of the matter is really just a ''hindsight'' lesson to Smudger, he was very happy to trawl through an old thread yesterday and knock those who hoped for good things from Brown. But although i didn''t want to slip to his juvenile standards, i thought maybe he''d like to see how he gets things wrong too (not to mention telling us we''d be relegated last season no question - I don''t recall anyone digging up his old ''relegation'' gloating comments but then maybe most people on this forum quite rightly felt no need to rub his nose in it...Everyone knew!). Overspent may be the wrong term but their board (Luton) have obviously done something wrong financially, as they didn''t end up doing better than our board in the end did they?....Divvy 1 is their league. And now they''re facing the gutter, which is a shame really. So yes, the way Norwich City Football Club is run IS poles apart from Luton Town Football Club imo.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Alex"][quote user="Fellas"][quote user="Alex"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="chicken"][quote user="Smudger"]

hahaha who gives a monkey if Newell is a "loose cannon" Yankee???

A certain Brian Clough was also a loose cannon as is Martin O''Neill.... lets for our sake hope that Granty is a loose cannon too... because unless a manager with the balls demands some serious money from Delia & Co then we will continue to struggle in this league at best.

In my opinion there is no difference between where Luton currently find themselves and where we are (when things such as attendances and other streams of income are taken in to account).  Luton should be struggling to play in the same league as us FULL STOP.  What Mike Newell has done there is nothing short of Granty having Norwich in Europe in a couple of years (and we all know that is not going to happen don''t we).

[/quote]

O''Neill a loose cannon? I beg your pardon?!!! Sorry but thats rediculous. Had you put Souness in there I would have to agree but Martin O''Neill is anything but a loose cannon.

As for Brian Clough - he was a one off, I would not compare him to Newell who is just an arrogant t**t!

Do you actually read what you write? I ask because its not that I find it difficult to believe (which actually I do) but I can see no basis what-so-ever to your opinion.

I see a big difference between us and Luton. They sell players and provide very little to re-invest. If we sell players we get money to pump back in. Maybe not huge transfer sums but surely in wages at the very least.

[/quote]

Yes and so have Luton Chicken.... read the original thread on this Topic...  Taking the Earnie Transfer out of the equation Luton have had a similar amount to ourselves come in by the way of transfer fees and have also re-invested a similar amount as ourselves back in to the team (this is despite us getting crowds that are more than 3 times bigger than theirs and having parchute payments).

There is no difference between Luton''s board and ours (if anything I would say that Luton''s board could be considered marginally better than ours considering they are going to have to partly finance their new stadium on top of the things that I have just mentioned).

Our board are c**p and to see the majority of NCFC fans willing to accept such c**p is the reason that I don''t attend any more!!!

[/quote]

Open wide Smudger me old son, I''ve got a little medicine for you...

Luton are doing wonderfully now and great to see that the overspending by them wasn''t to their detriment.

Hindsight.............Don''t you just love it?.

 

[/quote]

Alex. Luton haven''t overspent on anything. Luton''s position as a football club was untenable. They sold near enough all their players and didn''t bring any in for any real sums of money. The way things are going there isn''t going to be a Luton Town football club for too long. I just think that the damage the former chairman and board did to the club is un-repairable.
[/quote]

The point of the matter is really just a ''hindsight'' lesson to Smudger, he was very happy to trawl through an old thread yesterday and knock those who hoped for good things from Brown. But although i didn''t want to slip to his juvenile standards, i thought maybe he''d like to see how he gets things wrong too (not to mention telling us we''d be relegated last season no question - I don''t recall anyone digging up his old ''relegation'' gloating comments but then maybe most people on this forum quite rightly felt no need to rub his nose in it...Everyone knew!). Overspent may be the wrong term but their board (Luton) have obviously done something wrong financially, as they didn''t end up doing better than our board in the end did they?....Divvy 1 is their league. And now they''re facing the gutter, which is a shame really. So yes, the way Norwich City Football Club is run IS poles apart from Luton Town Football Club imo.

[/quote]

Considering we get twice the crowds that Luton get and have had twice the money at our disposal your comparison is about as feesable as comparing our own position to that of Man Utd''s and wondering why we are not up their challenging for the Premiership (as I was pointing out initially in this thread).