Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
followthegreenandyellow

HoteL B*ll*cks!

Recommended Posts

[quote user="blacko"][quote user="jas the barclay king"]

Ralph Wright, we own a stake in the hotel.. the value of a stake goes down as well as up technically what BBFF says is true.. we could make millions from the hotel but we could make absolute zip.... where as a corner infil would guarentee revenue for the club

 

jas :)

[/quote]

Jas, where would the money come from to but the corner infill?

If we had an infill it would only be used if the rest of the ground was full, on Saturday there were loads of seats free.

We were paid £1,000,000 fro the land so that the hotel could be built and we have a right to 1/3? of the profit.

Even pointing these facts out I would have rather had a block of seats there, but a) we could not afford it, b) many of the seats, on both sides would not have been available for use because of segregation. Extra stewards would have been needed to keep the segregation on the Barclay side, which is not currently necessary. c) By building the extra seats we would have had a smaller transfer budget. So the club made a decision which has merit. They have also saved the capital expenditure until it is really necessary and the money can then be spent on a top tier in the City or Jarrold stand which per seat will be cheaper plus far more would be actually available for use.

[/quote]

Now, now Blacko, you''re being unfair and using logic in debate. Many posters are not equipped to deal with this type of approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m not too sure what you mean by this endless bleat about football must come first. If by football you mean the game played by professional players then it is inevitable that every method possible will be used to generate income to pay higher wages.The modern game wouldn''t exist on the revenue generated through the turnstile, nor would clubs attract the attendances they do now if they didn''t have these so called "off the pitch" schemes". Odd that you don''t gripe about the "off the pitch" bar (only the prices). Perhaps the club should have saved the money on building those and used the money for '' football first''.Even more hypocritical is your suggestion that the club should have waited until we got back into the Premiership before putting seats in. Aside from the silliness of planning on that basis, it is the reasoning behind that suggestion that is at fault. The Premiership derives it''s income from TV. That income is paid by advertisers. Advertisers, who dictate as and when games are played. It''s not football first when games are played sunday lunchtime or monday night. It is that very Premiership money that has cranked up the wage levels right across the board. Clubs are now obliged to seek out more and more ways to keep themselves afloat. Rather than endlessly griping, why not try and understand the circumstances the club has to deal with.  Clubs are having to fund wage bills that a few years back would have been equal to their total income.Finally if you feel so principled and upset about these "off the pitch" schemes" here''s a suggestion. Next time you are at Carrow Road, why not get up and walk out a bit before halftime, as that''s as much of the game you have paid for with your ticket. The rest of the game is paid for by the "off the pitch schemes" you so disapprove of.I shan''t hold my breath though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Peter Grunt"]

The hotel is a joke and looks completely out of place. We will have the laughing stock of stadiums because of this.

They could have still built a hotel in that corner with rooms overlooking the tyre shop but also used it as foundations for a good steeply tiered corner infill. Hotel guests pay no more on match days so why should they, and their mates, see the game for free?

Bad, bad  business. I''d like to meet the person responsible.

[/quote]Totally agree! it''s as out of place as a supermarket, it''s a complete joke, our stadium which had potential now looks Mickey Mouse, lets tear it down and make it into a proper stadium!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ralph if you dont think FOOTBALL should come first at Norwich City FOOTBALL Club what do you think should? Oh and Im glad you are not going to hold your breath we need all the fans we can get...for the income you know.

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can''t really understand why we are having this debate yet again (but am not surprised). 

Some will never see the sense in the hotel, others see it as a no brainer.  I am in the latter group, as I think most people with any financial nous would be.  I suppose in an ideal world the ''romantic'' thing to do would have been to build an infill and take the financial hit, but it is not an ideal world and it is a fact of life that we do need to have reliable sources of external revenue. 

The fact is that the hotel cost us nothing, we got £1.1m cash upfront and own a 1/3 share with apparently no financial risk (in that if it makes a loss it doesn''t cost us).   I do find it rather strange that those who state that ''football must come first'' seem to have wanted us to further increase the club''s debt to spend £2m-3m on building another stand which would take years to pay its way.  It seems to me that this option is far removed from "putting football first" as it ties up our finances even further and would be putting infrastructure rather than football first, ie the opposite of the intention.  Taking £1.1m in cash upfront which could be invested in the team right now, together with a share of future profits, is surely a much better ''fit'' to this "putting football first" notion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, to build a hotel but.... A lot of modern stadiums have other facilities underneath, but why sacrifice the potential to have corner seats? A decent architect could have designed a great modern building allowing passage for emergency vehicles, somewhere for the groundsman to keep his mower, a decent sized hotel, and potential for corner seating. The hotel is a bland cardboard box and looks completely out of place in a football stadium.

Also I object to the no banners, etc rule. For Christ''s sake it''s inside our football stadium, and if it has to stay as is, it should be painted in yellow and green with a giant video screen on top, and advertisments all over it and the screen to make some extra money for the club.

It is a "monsterous carbuncle" as Charlie once said! I feel the need to protest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you''re flogging a dead horse here Mr Pickle. The BBFF lad seems to have learned a catchphrase and no rational argument is going to dissuade him from bleating it out at every opportunity.Unfortunately like many hypocrites he''s not prepared to put his money where his mouth is. I bet the next time he goes to Carrow Road he will expect there to be a bar, seats, toilet, roof, lights. He will expect there to have been some outside source subsidising his afternoon out.Maybe like one of the sheep in Animal Farm he might soon modify his bleat.Football must come first, as long as someone else is paying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on Relph if FOOTBALL should not come first at Corrow Rd what should??????

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ralph Wright"]I''m not too sure what you mean by this endless bleat about football must come first. If by football you mean the game played by professional players then it is inevitable that every method possible will be used to generate income to pay higher wages.

The modern game wouldn''t exist on the revenue generated through the turnstile, nor would clubs attract the attendances they do now if they didn''t have these so called "off the pitch" schemes". Odd that you don''t gripe about the "off the pitch" bar (only the prices). Perhaps the club should have saved the money on building those and used the money for '' football first''.

Even more hypocritical is your suggestion that the club should have waited until we got back into the Premiership before putting seats in. Aside from the silliness of planning on that basis, it is the reasoning behind that suggestion that is at fault. The Premiership derives it''s income from TV. That income is paid by advertisers. Advertisers, who dictate as and when games are played. It''s not football first when games are played sunday lunchtime or monday night.

It is that very Premiership money that has cranked up the wage levels right across the board. Clubs are now obliged to seek out more and more ways to keep themselves afloat. Rather than endlessly griping, why not try and understand the circumstances the club has to deal with.  Clubs are having to fund wage bills that a few years back would have been equal to their total income.

Finally if you feel so principled and upset about these "
off the pitch" schemes" here''s a suggestion. Next time you are at Carrow Road, why not get up and walk out a bit before halftime, as that''s as much of the game you have paid for with your ticket. The rest of the game is paid for by the "off the pitch schemes" you so disapprove of.

I shan''t hold my breath though.
[/quote]

Whilst i have to agree that the hotel option was the right one to take at this moment in time- with the caveat that, as has been suggested, i fail to see why it could not have been built with the option for adding seats in the future- the fact is that the off the pitch projects have been a major drain on the clubs resources over the last few years and the hoped-for returns are as speculative as signing a decent young player with sell-on potential.

The uncomfortable truth for those with your outlook is that the massive growth in turnover and profit at the club in recent years has been created almost solely by success on the pitch through Sky money and big profits on our better players. By choosing to fritter this "bonus" money away on two new stands, a new pitch, a new box office, a £1million stand refit, offices to let out, subsiduary companies etc,etc, the club has basically given us little chance of seeing a repeat of this. The "circumstances the club has to deal with" are that the money to be made through having a successful team on the pitch makes any income from a hotel, catering etc. look like kiddies pocket money.

In the last 3 financial years £20million has gone on fixed asset expenditure (its in black and white in the accounts), it is the major reason for the clubs expensive debt and why despite £35million in tv revenue and millions of profit on players we couldn`t afford a competitive football team last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points in here Mr Carrow, however, one of those new stands was an absolute necessity - the old South Stand was draining money away from the club faster and faster, while the capacity was being reduced year on year through safety issues.  Basically, the club had little choice about replacing this one - the alternative was to close that side of the ground completely, which is what would have happened by now.  And this is by far the single biggest ''off-field'' expenditure the club has made in recent years.

Also, while you are correct about the Sky money, you have to remember this club has been stung before by the collapse of ITV Digital and have since tried to manouevre themselves into a position where the loss of TV money wouldn''t bankrupt the club.  Hence why we are in the position we are now, rather than that of Southampton, say.  The loss of parachute payments may be significant, but it is not terminal for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beggars belief at time. If BBFF''s "speak your weight machine" b;eating wasn''t dim enough up pops another to prove that ypou can have no argument - this time stretched over loads of words.Apparently this candidate for village idiot thinks the club is frittering away money on the infrastructure. The growth in turnover has nothing to do with added sales in the bars, restaurants in his eyes. Nothing to do with the club having facilities that match fans expectations. Maybe they would wish to stand on some windswept park bleating out ''football must come first'' at any suggestion that the team had spent money on a sponge and bucket, nets for the goal or even a ball.But hark there''s more. The massive groth in turnover is due, it seems, to success on the pitch. Well forgive me Mr Football First I don''t believe we''ve had much success on the pitch recently. For someone who appears to be locked into BBFF''s simple mantra you are more easily pleased than I am.No suggestion that these so called drains on the club''s resources might be actually adding to the coffers. No suggestion that one of the reasons some fans turn up is the quality of the off field services. No suggestion that virtually every other club has embarked on this kind of expenditure. The club is getting the infrastructure in place to enable it to survive. Or should we follow the example of the binners who after donkeys years of neglect were finally obliged to uprade their ramshakle collection of cowsheds. With subsequent disasterous results. If the language is a bit robust I make no apologies. The club has had a small minority of malcontents attach itself to it for whom no lie, slander or misrepresentation is not suitable to be used to attack it.When these hypocrites stop making use of the facilities, stop expecting the off field activities to subsidise them then I might say they have at least a principled stand. I would suggest that they don''t sit in the seats but perch on the roof instead, but then that is part of the " major drain on the clubs resources".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that was quite a funny read Ralph. I`ll assume you`re not being entirely serious.....

I think you know well enough that the vast majority of the increased turnover in recent years has been because the £35million Sky money was spread over 3 years and has only just finished, and that the club have made millions in profit on Ashton, Francis, Green et al since relegation. A £3million transfer profit was stated in the last accounts.

If the club are making large sums from off pitch projects on top of this, then why on earth do you think that the squad has been "ridiculously small"(quote: Adam Drury) and we couldn`t even re-invest the sums received from selling top players whilst receiving the parachute payments? I assume player wages will be the response but the last accounts show them to be only 36% of turnover which is low by footballing standards.

I would be interested if you could point out where i have lied, slandered or misrepresented as that would mean we would be getting towards a factual debate rather than relying on blathering rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the hotel was a good bit of business by the club, as has already been pointed out it would have been far too expensive and impractical to build an infill, particularly given its proximity to the seating for away fans.

I am begining to wonder if Mr Ralph Wright is a director/official of Norwich City Football Club as he seems very knowlegeable about the breakdown of the cost of season tickets, the in and outs of negotiations with players/agents, the financing of the infrastucture/hotel etc. I have also noticed that he buzzes about this board at the beginning of each season and then disappears as the season progresses......isn`t it about time you came clean Ralph and tell us who you really are?

Of course he could just be just another poster who seems to think that it is his opinions that are fact, now that would be a real shock wouldn`t it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Sons of Boadicea"]

I think that the hotel was a good bit of business by the club, as has already been pointed out it would have been far too expensive and impractical to build an infill, particularly given its proximity to the seating for away fans.

I am begining to wonder if Mr Ralph Wright is a director/official of Norwich City Football Club as he seems very knowlegeable about the breakdown of the cost of season tickets, the in and outs of negotiations with players/agents, the financing of the infrastucture/hotel etc. I have also noticed that he buzzes about this board at the beginning of each season and then disappears as the season progresses......isn`t it about time you came clean Ralph and tell us who you really are?

Of course he could just be just another poster who seems to think that it is his opinions that are fact, now that would be a real shock wouldn`t it!!

[/quote]

I wont drop down to Ralph''s level of debate SoB apart from saying he''s the epitome of the prawn sandwich supporter "what''s FOOTBALL?" and maybe he''s had a little too much bubbly, confusing Mr Carrow''s comments with mine.  Thanks for the "lad" tag Ralph really made my day.......I retire in 3 years.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think every NCFC fan wishes the hotel corner would of been filled in with seats. In a perfect world it would of done with a hotel bolted onto the back and I''m sure it would of done had we of lasted longer than one season in the Premiership.

But the harsh reality is that financial common sense kicked in and the money we made from the sale of the land actually helped to finance the Jarold/River end infill and didn''t drain money out of the club which putting around 1700 extra seats in this corner of which I suspect nearly half would of been out of bounds due to segregation issues would of done!

Anyway as it is the ground capscity could be (after a few years consolidation in the premiership) increased to 35,000+ with upper tiers added to the Jarold stand and City stand. Also with the growing calls for a return to standing areas its possible the ground capacity could increase further this way if the Barclay lower tier and River End lower tiers were converted back to terraces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another point Ralph. You seem to assume the club has bestowed a great favour on its supporters by all this expensive investment in facilities, but neither i nor anyone i know who goes to Carrow Rd has ever asked for these things. I go to cheer my team on to victory on the pitch, i have the occasional pint at half time and an occasional pee in the toilets. And yes i would be 100% happy to still be peeing into a concrete trough so no hypocrisy here. And i would much prefer to stand-but then "those who know best" have taken that choice away haven`t they?

If you honestly believe that facilities are a major factor for most football supporters then i hope you are happy in your little dream world. Remember that nasty old South Stand the club used to have? Well it used to be pretty full every game despite there always being spaces in the newer stands. In fact, there used to be spaces nearly every game in every stand until........the surge to the play-offs then an 8th place finish, then promotion- ie. success on the pitch. Its not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And another point Ralph. You seem to assume the club has bestowed a great favour on its supporters by all this expensive investment in facilities, but neither i nor anyone i know who goes to Carrow Rd has ever asked for these things. I go to cheer my team on to victory on the pitch, i have the occasional pint at half time and an occasional pee in the toilets. And yes i would be 100% happy to still be peeing into a concrete trough so no hypocrisy here. And i would much prefer to stand-but then "those who know best" have taken that choice away haven`t they?

If you honestly believe that facilities are a major factor for most football supporters then i hope you are happy in your little dream world. Remember that nasty old South Stand the club used to have? Well it used to be pretty full every game despite there always being spaces in the newer stands. In fact, there used to be spaces nearly every game in every stand until........the surge to the play-offs then an 8th place finish, then promotion- ie. success on the pitch. Its not rocket science.

[/quote]

Facilities like Heartbreak Hotel and Delias Sad Cafe are whats known as additional revenue streams. We didn''t ask for them but we ask for what they are designed bring us. It''s not just Norwich City who have these additional revenue streams but I do think we are a little ahead of some who are just beginning to realise they need additional revenue to survive. The alternative is to find a huge outside investor but this is not as easy as some people seem to think. Southampton have been actively seeking/begging investment for a long time now but still havent found anyone.

Mr. Carrow, you and I agree that the board were too cautious in the summer of 2004 because if we had pushed the boat out to sign Ashton before September there''s a good chance we would have stayed up. They didn''t and January was too late. But we can''t keep dragging up what might have been, its gone and we have to move on.

There are 20 places in the Premiership and possibly more than 35 clubs who believe they should be one of the twenty. That leaves at least 15 clubs aiming for the promised land every season. If all 15 of those clubs risk everything in a huge gamble to get promoted 3 will make it while the other 12 will probably go into administration or at least have to sell just to keep the wolf from the door like Southampton have this summer. This season Norwich, Palace and Southampton are still in this league after relegation in 2005 and all three are facing a season without parachute money. It will be interesting to compare the clubs seasons to see which boards policy is the most succesfull.

What I find so frustrating is that we don''t know if these additional revenue streams are making money for the football side or not. We won''t know about the hotel for probably 18 months because any revenue we get now won''t make the Annual Report until December 2008. The only thing thats made the Annual Report that we have seen so far is the adiitional costs to the club because of the extra money spent on infrastructure. to make the projects viable.

Anyway, it''s nice to chat once more Mr. Carrow [8-|][*] Can I take it from you post that you are going to games again this season?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all these additional "revenue streams" and yet we get deeper and deeper into debt. Something does not add up does it?

could it be the lack of success on the football side that is causing this debt i wonder?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

And another point Ralph. You seem to assume the club has bestowed a great favour on its supporters by all this expensive investment in facilities, but neither i nor anyone i know who goes to Carrow Rd has ever asked for these things. I go to cheer my team on to victory on the pitch, i have the occasional pint at half time and an occasional pee in the toilets. And yes i would be 100% happy to still be peeing into a concrete trough so no hypocrisy here. And i would much prefer to stand-but then "those who know best" have taken that choice away haven`t they?

If you honestly believe that facilities are a major factor for most football supporters then i hope you are happy in your little dream world. Remember that nasty old South Stand the club used to have? Well it used to be pretty full every game despite there always being spaces in the newer stands. In fact, there used to be spaces nearly every game in every stand until........the surge to the play-offs then an 8th place finish, then promotion- ie. success on the pitch. Its not rocket science.

[/quote]

Facilities like Heartbreak Hotel and Delias Sad Cafe are whats known as additional revenue streams. We didn''t ask for them but we ask for what they are designed bring us. It''s not just Norwich City who have these additional revenue streams but I do think we are a little ahead of some who are just beginning to realise they need additional revenue to survive. The alternative is to find a huge outside investor but this is not as easy as some people seem to think. Southampton have been actively seeking/begging investment for a long time now but still havent found anyone.

Mr. Carrow, you and I agree that the board were too cautious in the summer of 2004 because if we had pushed the boat out to sign Ashton before September there''s a good chance we would have stayed up. They didn''t and January was too late. But we can''t keep dragging up what might have been, its gone and we have to move on.

There are 20 places in the Premiership and possibly more than 35 clubs who believe they should be one of the twenty. That leaves at least 15 clubs aiming for the promised land every season. If all 15 of those clubs risk everything in a huge gamble to get promoted 3 will make it while the other 12 will probably go into administration or at least have to sell just to keep the wolf from the door like Southampton have this summer. This season Norwich, Palace and Southampton are still in this league after relegation in 2005 and all three are facing a season without parachute money. It will be interesting to compare the clubs seasons to see which boards policy is the most succesfull.

What I find so frustrating is that we don''t know if these additional revenue streams are making money for the football side or not. We won''t know about the hotel for probably 18 months because any revenue we get now won''t make the Annual Report until December 2008. The only thing thats made the Annual Report that we have seen so far is the adiitional costs to the club because of the extra money spent on infrastructure. to make the projects viable.

Anyway, it''s nice to chat once more Mr. Carrow [8-|][*] Can I take it from you post that you are going to games again this season?

[/quote]

Nutty. Revenue streams from non-core activities are of little benefit in and of themselves unless they are profitable revenue streams. And as you rightly point out we simply don''t know if they are profitable - and there''s the rub for many of us ''negatives'' (realists).

I can assure the club that many small shareholders and other supporters of  impeccable good will are likely to think three times before contributing to any future new share offer unless the club is more transparent with its acounts and football philosophy. And that''s the hard truth.

Maybe you could pass on our message to the seat of power?[:)]

Now, if you respond to me Nutty, you should be very careful not to include any ''unnecessary jibes'' about benchmarks and so on, because we have a new housemother - Auntie Pat - who not only frowns on such frivolity but applies the censor''s blue pencil sending one''s whole post to the great graveyard in the sky.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Remember that nasty old South Stand the club used to have? Well it used

to be pretty full every game despite there always being spaces in the

newer stands. In fact, there used to be spaces nearly every game in

every stand until........the surge to the play-offs then an 8th place

finish, then promotion- ie. success on the pitch. Its not rocket

science.[/quote]That would be the nasty old South Stand that you agreed needed replacing in previous threads then...If you''re feeling nostalgic for the old days, Selhurst Park will always be a cow-shed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Nutty and i think your analysis of where the club is at this moment is spot on. I appreciate that it is a bit pointless raking over past mistakes, i suppose i tend to rise to the bait when people are ridiculed for pointing out that the club has seemingly learned nothing from the Chase debacle, and have once again thrown away a great position due to this "obsession" with infrastructure. Ralph seems quite happy to simply assume that the other revenue streams are adding millions to the coffers and belittle anyone who points out that in reality this may not be the case. Without a bit of pressure to concentrate on the team, whose to say the same thing won`t happen in 2,5 or 10 years time? Any bets that the next "bonus" cash the club receives (say a big fee for a player or good cup run) won`t be put towards a new tier on the City Stand whilst the team struggles?

It should be the case that most of the capital outlay has already been made on the off-pitch stuff, so hopefully we will see the benefits in the next few accounts. I would still hazard a guess that the sums we are talking about will seem a bit silly compared to the money the club made through having a decent team-Sky/Ashton/Francis etc. And whose to say any extra money will go into the team anyway? Obsessions are notoriously hard to give up......

Yes, i have a ticket for the Palace game. Most of my mates have given up their season tickets this year, but it seems to have galvanised us into getting blocks of seats in different parts of the ground for a change. Should be fun to wake up the inhabitants of the River End and Jarrold Stand anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A simple question must be asked. With all this supposed land we own, and that huge car park and all that land by the river, why the hell did we build the hotel in the corner?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Now, if you respond to me Nutty, you should be very careful not to include any ''unnecessary jibes'' about benchmarks and so on, because we have a new housemother - Auntie Pat - who not only frowns on such frivolity but applies the censor''s blue pencil sending one''s whole post to the great graveyard in the sky.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

Is this your way of telling me you had a post meant for me to read that got censored?[:#] A whole post? [N]

What could we have missed out on?[:^)] I think I must be the loser on this deal![:''(] Howabout you send it by email,[E] I could do with a laugh! [;)]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Now, if you respond to me Nutty, you should be very careful not to include any ''unnecessary jibes'' about benchmarks and so on, because we have a new housemother - Auntie Pat - who not only frowns on such frivolity but applies the censor''s blue pencil sending one''s whole post to the great graveyard in the sky.

OTBC

[/quote]

Is this your way of telling me you had a post meant for me to read that got censored?[:#] A whole post? [N]

What could we have missed out on?[:^)] I think I must be the loser on this deal![:''(] Howabout you send it by email,[E] I could do with a laugh! [;)]

[/quote]

Unfortunately, Nutty, when posts get deleted they disappear within Archant''s bins somewhere in cyberspace, so as far as I know I can''t email them to you. And quite frankly I don''t recall if any of those in question involved you at all.

You know it''s interesting. When I checked I had posted 1,368 times in nearly 4 years on this board and had, I think, 2 posts deleted by the moderators in that time. Now in 5 days between 16-20 August I suddenly had 4 posts deleted by one moderator (''Auntie'' Pat) - 3 of them on one day.

One was classified ''potentially libellous'', one was classified as an ''unnecessary jibe'' and for the other two ''no reason given''. I know that one of the latter related to the use of the acronym for ''French Connection'' which half the British population wear on their clothes. And I don''t really know much about the internet, but when was anybody successfully sued for libel over posts published on the internet. Anyway, to classify the post involved as ''potentially libellous'' is just downright small-minded & ridiculous.

I really can''t remember much more about any of the posts than this.

Oh, I just remembered, there was another case in the same timeframe where a two line post of mine had the first line removed by the (self-same??) moderator. Can''t remember what it was.

I have continued posting on this site for the time being, but if this kind of unintelligent interference continues, I shall be off. I don''t like small minds.

Maybe there is a  new aim is to make this board WI-friendly. If so, the Pink''Un should say so and let us men move on. Thereagain, ''they'' may consider this last remark as ''potentially gender divisive'' - and strike it out forthwith with all the power invested in their pens.

Rant over. Sorry it had to be you Nutts, but that''s just the way the cookie crumbled.

OTBC

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]Remember that nasty old South Stand the club used to have? Well it used to be pretty full every game despite there always being spaces in the newer stands. In fact, there used to be spaces nearly every game in every stand until........the surge to the play-offs then an 8th place finish, then promotion- ie. success on the pitch. Its not rocket science.[/quote]

That would be the nasty old South Stand that you agreed needed replacing in previous threads then...

If you''re feeling nostalgic for the old days, Selhurst Park will always be a cow-shed.
[/quote]

I was being honest in stating that i was pleased when the club took the decision to build a new, bigger South Stand based on a projected cost of £7million supposedly largely covered by the £6.5million TaylorWoodrow land deal. It has since transpired that the actual cost (as stated by Doncaster) was £10million with ongoing related costs. The projected cost of the infill was £3million which has since been revised to £4million.

If the board are that bad at financial planning i would simply suggest that they get back to focussing on what has brought in the vast sums (that they have so profligately wasted) in the first place- a successful team on the pitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...