Arthur whittle !!

[lappinitup 629]

A letter appeared in tonights EEN accusing the board of NCFC of telling lies. No proof was offered nor were there any examples of that accusation given.

The writer then ''calculated'' that Peter Grant had £6m to spend in his transfer budget but instead chose to spend money on ''''third choice benchwarmers''''.

The letter was ended with the threat of a protest !!

Arthur Whittle.

You entered this forum saying you were going to take over the protest from Lee Oliver then you grandly announced Part 1 and part 2 of your grand scheme to have the board removed which quite frankly was a total joke.

Since then you have mellowed quite a bit and have joined in with football related posts while still  holding your anti-board views (which you are entitled to) and views which I respect even though I don''t particulary agree with them.

But the letter in tonights paper suggests to me that there is more to your efforts to de-stabilize this club than meets the eye.

There is no point in me asking you what evidence you have of the board ''lying'', or of the proof of available funds or how you are so sure that the new signings will fail because you never answer questions do you arthur, you only ask them !!

I''ll ask you a question anyway.

As a self acclaimed success in business, have you a vested interest in having this board removed or......

Are you simply a senile old git looking for a little bit of glory !!

Either way you do not come across as a Norwich City supporter Arthur.

I, along with a lot of others believe the corner has been turned, and that there are better times ahead.

I have faith in this board, manager and team and believe that Norwich City are on the way back to the top. It might not be this season but it will come.

Letters like the one in tonights evening news simply show the futility of your campaign.

If you must continue asking questions you must also provide answers Arthur.

lappinitup

 

 

 

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

A letter appeared in tonights EEN accusing the board of NCFC of telling lies. No proof was offered nor were there any examples of that accusation given.

The writer then ''calculated'' that Peter Grant had £6m to spend in his transfer budget but instead chose to spend money on ''''third choice benchwarmers''''.

The letter was ended with the threat of a protest !!

Arthur Whittle.

You entered this forum saying you were going to take over the protest from Lee Oliver then you grandly announced Part 1 and part 2 of your grand scheme to have the board removed which quite frankly was a total joke.

Since then you have mellowed quite a bit and have joined in with football related posts while still  holding your anti-board views (which you are entitled to) and views which I respect even though I don''t particulary agree with them.

But the letter in tonights paper suggests to me that there is more to your efforts to de-stabilize this club than meets the eye.

There is no point in me asking you what evidence you have of the board ''lying'', or of the proof of available funds or how you are so sure that the new signings will fail because you never answer questions do you arthur, you only ask them !!

I''ll ask you a question anyway.

As a self acclaimed success in business, have you a vested interest in having this board removed or......

Are you simply a senile old git looking for a little bit of glory !!

Either way you do not come across as a Norwich City supporter Arthur.

I, along with a lot of others believe the corner has been turned, and that there are better times ahead.

I have faith in this board, manager and team and believe that Norwich City are on the way back to the top. It might not be this season but it will come.

Letters like the one in tonights evening news simply show the futility of your campaign.

If you must continue asking questions you must also provide answers Arthur.

lappinitup

 

 

 

[/quote]

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it.

[/quote]Before the Turners came in, there was going to be a 2 million pound shortfall this season due to the loss of parachute payments, according to Roger Munby.  When the Turners arrived, we were told that we "didn''t have to sell".  We weren''t told that we had money to spend, although it was rumoured that the Turners had provided a transfer budget.Is it possible that the club realised that Earnshaw would be off to the Premiership, that they knew he would go for his release clause fee of 3.5 million, and that the money for the Sharp and Marshall bids was used in advance, on the basis that the 3.5 million was guaranteed ?I doubt that we would have signed Cureton or Strihavka if we had signed Sharp.  Maybe it''s just as well we didn''t.  Would Sharp / Brown, or Sharp / Martin have been more successful than Cureton / Strihavka ?[quote]Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle

for 2nd best.[/quote]Grant and Duffy believe that they have got good players for the money they''ve spent.  The Scots are naturally frugal as you know [:)]Grant on Strihavka : "We thought that with his quality we wouldn''t be able to get him.  There was talk of a few Premiership clubs looking at him and also top clubs in the Czech Republic were wanting him and I can understand why because he was the top league goalscorer last year."Duffy on Brellier :"Julien reads the game very well; he keeps the game simple; he doesn''t over-elaborate; he sees a danger and snuffs it out very quickly...  Julien allows other players to play and these type of players are becoming more and more invaluable."So how much do we have left to spend ?  Nobody knows.  But let''s say we had 6 million in the pot, and spent every penny available, and still came up short by Xmas.  I can guarantee that you and many others would be crying out for even more money to be spent on new players in January, even if that money wasn''t available.I can understand your frustration Arthur.  You''ve made your money, but it''s not Delia money, and certainly not Turner money.  Would you put 5 or 10 million pounds on a horse at 4-1 ?  That''s pretty much the gamble that the Premiership offers, there are 12 horses capable in this race, and 3 spots on the podium.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

I''ll give you a few reasons

David Marshall £1,000,000

Jamie Cureton £700,000

David Strihavka £800,000

Total Spent £2,5000,000

Total Available (According to Arthur Whittle) £6,000,000

Total left to spend £3,5000,000

Did you forget about our new signings???

[Carrow89 0]

Poor old Arthur. He sounds so much like a binner with his dislike of the club. Even more like a binner when you read his infantile rantings on the money side of things.Have the board lied to you Arthur ? boo hooMaybe it''s a case of them not telling you everything and you inventing the rest. What your motive for fabricating stuff is you alone know.Perhaps I should write to the EEN and complain about Arthur Whittle''s ''lies. Then perhaps not. I have a life.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. [/quote]

Before the Turners came in, there was going to be a 2 million pound shortfall this season due to the loss of parachute payments, according to Roger Munby.  When the Turners arrived, we were told that we "didn''t have to sell".  We weren''t told that we had money to spend, although it was rumoured that the Turners had provided a transfer budget.

Is it possible that the club realised that Earnshaw would be off to the Premiership, that they knew he would go for his release clause fee of 3.5 million, and that the money for the Sharp and Marshall bids was used in advance, on the basis that the 3.5 million was guaranteed ?

I doubt that we would have signed Cureton or Strihavka if we had signed Sharp.  Maybe it''s just as well we didn''t.  Would Sharp / Brown, or Sharp / Martin have been more successful than Cureton / Strihavka ?

[quote]Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best.[/quote]

Grant and Duffy believe that they have got good players for the money they''ve spent.  The Scots are naturally frugal as you know [:)]

Grant on Strihavka :

"We thought that with his quality we wouldn''t be able to get him.  There was talk of a few Premiership clubs looking at him and also top clubs in the Czech Republic were wanting him and I can understand why because he was the top league goalscorer last year."

Duffy on Brellier :

"Julien reads the game very well; he keeps the game simple; he doesn''t over-elaborate; he sees a danger and snuffs it out very quickly...  Julien allows other players to play and these type of players are becoming more and more invaluable."

So how much do we have left to spend ?  Nobody knows.  But let''s say we had 6 million in the pot, and spent every penny available, and still came up short by Xmas.  I can guarantee that you and many others would be crying out for even more money to be spent on new players in January, even if that money wasn''t available.

I can understand your frustration Arthur.  You''ve made your money, but it''s not Delia money, and certainly not Turner money.  Would you put 5 or 10 million pounds on a horse at 4-1 ?  That''s pretty much the gamble that the Premiership offers, there are 12 horses capable in this race, and 3 spots on the podium.
[/quote]

Would you not argue that had we signed Ashton at the start f the Season instead of the Jan transfer window things could of been very different? If the money is there we should be setting out a clear indication to potential targets that we mean serious buisness. It could just be that we leave it to late yet again. Its the flip side of the coin i suppose but personally i think we''ve tried the ''''hope for the best'''' scenario far to often and i think we should take the risk, yours and boards view of waiting clearly hasnt worked.

[Indy_Bones 441]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site.[/quote]No offence meant Arthur, but that''s not an example of tinted glasses, but a demonstrating of your lack of footballing knowledge.This is a real bugbear of mine, why do people always assume that if they''ve never heard of a player or don''t know how good they are - no one else does?Stop treating everyone like morons who simply watch highlights on MOTD and then offer ill-educated opinions on football, some of us actually do know about the game, some of us are involved in football or know people who are, and some of us do actually know about players other than ones who train at Colney.What''s more, if people stopped making such daft assumptions, and actually started to listen to those of us who do have a clue about players, they could possibly feel a bit more positive about the signings we have made, as there is not a turkey amongst them.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]Would you not argue that had we signed Ashton at the start f the Season

instead of the Jan transfer window things could of been very different?[/quote]Quite possibly.  If we had won the first game against Crystal Palace, things would have been different then too.  But what has happened, has happened.[quote]yours and boards view of waiting clearly hasnt worked.[/quote]Actually, I think that this is Peter Grants'' policy, and it''s based upon the belief that we very nearly have a squad good enough to compete for promotion, we certainly have attacking players capable of doing so.  In the interview published today, he seems more than content to see how the team gel together before bringing in new faces.  I''m sure the players who are already here appreciate that, as it gives them a chance to get into the managers'' thinking for the new season.  According to Shysters'' league table of squad size, we are now carrying one of the biggest squads in the league.  You would be right in saying that we need more quality in key areas, but we still have 3 weeks before we kick off.  I wouldn''t be surprised if a couple of young Premiership players were brought in on loan in defence or midfield before we start.So Arthur, I put it to you - Assuming we have this 3 million left in the pot, where would you spend the money ?

[Unlucky Fried Kitten 0]

Will the real Arthur Whittle please stand up? One Arthur joined on 13/5/07 and has posted 190 times, the other Arthur joined today and has posted 3 times. They both reside at The Coachmakers, St Stephens, however (does Roy the landlord know?) and so I assume they are both fond of the occasional wee dram. Arfa Mo! I think there is something fishy going on here! Too many Arfas spoil the broth.

[Smudger 0]

Still we have not even re-invested the Earnshaw money (see Grant''s comments in the press today).

The board have made lots of noises that money is there prior to Eanshaw being sold... true or false?

Yet we are still waiting to see any of this money... why is that???

This baord of directors make Robert Chase look like a big fat pussy cat... they are an utter joke and the way they are behaving is nothing short of ................... (again I will save the mod''s the time of editing there).

Basically our board of directors make Bruce Reynolds, Ronald Biggs & Co look like a bunch of petty ................

[megson 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,019]

Hang on a bit Angel old fruit, all of the transfers were for an "undisclosed fee", yet you quote figures as if they are fact yet Arthur is criticised for "making figures up"..........oh the irony!!

[chicken 0]

Ashton was a different time and at a different place.

That was as much to do about Worthington thinking he had a good enough strike force as it was lack of ambition by the board.

You want to moan about that then I am sorry but you must be left by the side of the road. To move forward we don''t need people to highlight and dwell on misstakes in the past we need people who are going to look forwards.

Ofcourse we need to be weary not to make the same mistakes more than once. As I have said before because we so nearly survived the premiership you could easily mention two or three completely seperate incidents. The fact is if we had turned one draw into a win we would have stayed their end of. That is one goal - thats football, and thats life move on, move forward and progress.

To question ambition is to question where they want the club to go, but all you talk about is where the club has been and that is a road we can not reverse down.

[Graham Humphrey 13]

Also, about the whole Ashton thing; it''s all very well saying we should have signed him pre-season but I doubt anyone knew he would score about 20 goals for Crewe up until January. And we only needed two extra points to stay up, for example we should have beaten Blackburn at home, that was before Ashton signed. Anyway, that''s all long since gone, there''s not a lot you can do about it now.

[In Dubious Battle 0]

[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]Hang on a bit Angel old fruit, all of the transfers were for an "undisclosed fee", yet you quote figures as if they are fact yet Arthur is criticised for "making figures up"..........oh the irony!![/quote]

Fair point, i used the figures from the evening news but they were not definate, but that works both ways we could have spent more than i stated.  

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Just thought I would point out that the wooly flock appear to be failing to answer the above question...

Did Mr ''D'' say the above or did he not???

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Just thought I would point out that the wooly flock appear to be failing to answer the above question...

Did Mr ''D'' say the above or did he not???

[/quote]

He said all of the money would be available to Peter Grant, yes.

He didn''t say how much of it would be spent.

Two separate things, although I full expect you to now twist it into something similar [;)]

[Show Me What You Gooot! 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Just thought I would point out that the wooly flock appear to be failing to answer the above question...

Did Mr ''D'' say the above or did he not???

[/quote]

He said all of the money would be available to Peter Grant, yes.

He didn''t say how much of it would be spent.

Two separate things, although I full expect you to now twist it into something similar [;)]

[/quote]

Its true, Smudger. Break the habit of a lifetime and look up the facts before posting.

Oh, and another thing. Its ironic you accuse the "wooly flock" of not answering questions when YOU ask them, yet when its the other way around you just dismiss them saying "I''ve answered that before so i''m not answering it again".

We''ve just answered your question, how about you answer some of ours in future.

[ca 1]

Why have we got two users called Arthur Whittle, thought that would be impossible on a forum.

Moderators???????????????

[Boogle 0]

[quote user="Billy Bovine"]Will the real Arthur Whittle please stand up? One Arthur joined on 13/5/07 and has posted 190 times, the other Arthur joined today and has posted 3 times. They both reside at The Coachmakers, St Stephens, however (does Roy the landlord know?) and so I assume they are both fond of the occasional wee dram. Arfa Mo! I think there is something fishy going on here! Too many Arfas spoil the broth.[/quote]

If thats seriously the best argument you can make against arthur you shouldnt even have bothered mate. I had to rejoin { i was formerly Roland } because there was a problem with my email account. Poor attempt to get at Arthur my man.

The only thing that smells fishy is your reason for this irrelevant post?

[megson 0]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Are we? are you the sole person outside of the club that knows the exact fees paid for Cureton and Dave Striker then?

Also, if we have money left, are you suggesting grant rushes out and buys the first player he sees like a kid going to the toy shop with a tenner from his nan? (not that he''d get too much for a tenner these days!).

IF he did that i''m sure you''d be moaning and whinging on here as per usual.

Could it possibly be that he''s made a number ofchanges to the squad, got in the players he saw as his priorities and wants to spend some time seeing how the team shapes up over a couple of weeks of training and some friendlies before deciding where to turn his attention next?

Just because the money is there (if it is) it doesn''t mean we HAVE to spend it.

[gazzathegreat 0]

God, another long, long thread......

Arthur, I don''t agree with most of what you have said, but I do like to see letters in the paper, whatever the viewpoint.  It keeps the city aware of the depth of feeling we all have for the club.  No doubt in a few days there will be a positive letter to balance it. 

We are all aware of you on here, but I suspect the majority of city fans don''t go on fan messageboards. 

So great stuff Arthur and keep the letters coming.  Maybe one of us "sheep" can write to Archant and answer some of Arthur''s concerns. 

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Why have we got two users called Arthur Whittle, thought that would be impossible on a forum.

Moderators???????????????

[/quote]

Two different email addresses - maybe he forgot the password to one so simply set up another account?

[lappinitup 629]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[/quote]

Depending on VAT???

oh my lord... I have heard everything now!!!

oh I''m so sorry... I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing....  [:O]

I knew that we were an apologetic bunch... but this is just beyond a joke!!!

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="mbncfc"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="megson"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]   

Yes i believe the board have lied. The figures bandered about are not being spent. We have signed 6 players and let 7 go in the process-if safri goes 8. We havent turned a corner more like a bend on a roundabout.  If you think wanting success at our club makes me a "senile old git" then yes i am, i take you are happy to remain as a mid table championship outfit. It makes me laugh that people are having a pop at leicester saying there signings are crap and unknown, because we all know about our new signings dont we, oh yes we watch czech tv and scottish footy all the while and everyones an expert on crewe and rochdale are they not? Its a prime example of the yellow and green rose tinted glasses brigade and how they operate on this site. As for being being called a senile old git i could quite easily call you a sheep who believes everything they hear but lets stop the name calling shall we? As for having a vested interest in removing the board well yes i have, do you mean in respect of investing money or pure ambition. You point out my business success well this is due to me taking risks and having ambition. Delias money has been invested how i see it is as a play thing, and as for the Turners its still hard to see what there main purpose is so we cant really call this fresh investment. Personally if i was them with there finances i would have invested a hell of a lot more. On another note-Freddy Eastwood, because we didnt pull off his signing everyone is now saying hes crap and overated and will be back at southend in 18 months yet if we had signed him he would have been labelled the new fleck. To question my Norwich fan status because im not fooled by the patronising board is unbelievable.You say theres no proof  that the transfer funds are 6m well yes there is Marshall bid was 500,000 and Sharp 2m plus before the Earnshaw transfer which we were promised would go into the team, the prof is in the Delias pudding-that makes 6m for christ sake, are you seriously questioning that fact. Give me a good reason why we dont have 6m and why we cant spend it. Grant has his tied by the board and has to wheel and deal and settle for 2nd best. Please prove me wrong! Maybe Doncaster should not have come out and said all the earnshaw transfer fee would go in the kitty!

[/quote]

What figures? Find me 1 single quote from an NCFC board member where they stipulate how much money that NCFC has to spend.

Until then you can''t acuse the board of lies because we haven''t spent what some fans believe we have in the ''kitty''.

[/quote]

Well Mr ''D'' certainly stated that ALL of the Earnshaw money would be spent didn''t he???

Well we are still waiting!!!  [:D]

[/quote]

Just thought I would point out that the wooly flock appear to be failing to answer the above question...

Did Mr ''D'' say the above or did he not???

[/quote]

He said all of the money would be available to Peter Grant, yes.

He didn''t say how much of it would be spent.

Two separate things, although I full expect you to now twist it into something similar [;)]

[/quote]

So it is Granty''s fault if all the money is not spent and we are struggling come September/October then is it mbncfc???

Just wanted to clear that little point up.

Because somebody will be to blame... and I know where myself and many others will be pointing the finger if the board and Granty haven''t seriously done their homewrok this year.

Message to Granty... If I was you mate I would turn my back on this baord of directors and hand in my notice (unless they support you fully)... because like Worthy you will soon be walking a type-rope mate... and if one things for certain it is that this board of Directors will hang you out to dry come next Jan/Feb.

[norfolkbroadslim 223]

Firstly, have any of the regulars on here actually met Arthur in person?

Secondly Arthur, who is that picture of in your avatar? 

Thirdly, Arthur, the language you use, the words you type are not those of an old man, you try to type and phrase things that way, but sometimes you slip up.

Finally, Arthur if you can prove me wrong on all of the above I apologise profusely.

But I don''t think think you can.  Which is why I tend to avoid your posts and certainly avoid replying to you directly.

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="lappinitup"]

Getting back to Arthurs letter, he assumes (along with others) that because we bid for Sharp and Marshall before we sold Earnie that £2.5m was already available in the kitty. He may well be correct but on the other hand if the board knew that Earnie was on his way, they may have given the ok to the bids knowing that £3.5m was coming in. We just don''t know !!

Does anyone know if the £3.5m included VAT or was plus VAT ? If it was included then over half a million would have to go to HM customs and excise. Again, we just don''t know !!

If the above are the facts then Arthurs £6m suddenly becomes £3m but I certainly don''t know !!

What I do know is that the board have said that the Turners money mean''t that we didn''t need to sell players and then having sold Earnie they said it would all be available for Peter Grant (£3-3.5m depending on VAT)

I don''t recall them mentioning any other figures so therefore I don''t understand where Arthur is coming from when he accused the board of lies

I''d be grateful if you can enlighten me Arthur.

 

 

[/quote]

Depending on VAT???

oh my lord... I have heard everything now!!!

oh I''m so sorry... I had to pick myself up off the floor laughing....  [:O]

I knew that we were an apologetic bunch... but this is just beyond a joke!!!

[/quote]

Come on then you lordship. Does the fee include VAT or not ?

I said I didn''t know so can you confirm either way.

P.s. can we have an answer without sheep, fools, idiots, brought into the equation

 

 

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="mbncfc"]

He said all of the money would be available to Peter Grant, yes.

He didn''t say how much of it would be spent.

Two separate things, although I full expect you to now twist it into something similar [;)]

[/quote]

So it is Granty''s fault if all the money is not spent and we are struggling come September/October then is it mbncfc???

Just wanted to clear that little point up.

Because somebody will be to blame... and I know where myself and many others will be pointing the finger if the board and Granty haven''t seriously done their homewrok this year.

Message to Granty... If I was you mate I would turn my back on this baord of directors and hand in my notice (unless they support you fully)... because like Worthy you will soon be walking a type-rope mate... and if one things for certain it is that this board of Directors will hang you out to dry come next Jan/Feb.

[/quote]

Yes Smudge, if we''re not doing well because we''re short of bodies or quality, and hasn''t spent all the money available to him because he thinks what we have is good enough, then the reason for that falls between the players and the manager. It is their responsibility.

Just like it would be Grant''s fault if he went out and bought a £3.5m centreback who was cr@p so people on here would stop going on about the money disappearing.

If PG has wanted to buy players, but the board are now telling him no money is available, then that is the board''s fault. In that instance, PG would probably feel lied to and spill the beans in a press conference in a moment of emotional blabbering post game.

But, I guess that leaves a question mark over who we blame if it all goes right.