Extra Tier on City Stand ...

[Big Down Under 0]

Canary Nut - I meant the business case looked compelling from my perspective, as I roughly worked out figures, I have no idea what the business case looked like to the board as I am not shown it. I''m a fan on a message board, and whilst I would welcome calls from Delia to get my advice so far it hasn''t happened. You seem to be waiting for me to say something like ''payback in 6 years at 90% occupancy'' and then pounce with a clever point, why don''t you just make your clever point and get it out of your system? I would be interested to see your other comments, why don''t you link back to your post on it?Mr Carrow - you have 5 years of accounts in front of you which you don''t fully understand. Your assumption that spend on press facilities could have been avoided and constituted spend on ''non critical assets'' has been demonstrated to be false. Who knows what other spends you assume to have been non-critical actually were, I don''t and neither do you. Maybe all of it could have been deferred, maybe 50%, 10%, or anything inbetween. As you know from reading my comments on this and other threads I am not that enamoured with the board, just not at all enamoured with the alternatives and frankly fed up with reading constant criticism from people who just don''t understand the situation.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

 As you know from reading my comments on this and other threads I am not that enamoured with the board, just not at all enamoured with the alternatives and frankly fed up with reading constant criticism from people who just don''t understand the situation.

Is it OK to bleat on about the Chief Exec then?.......I mean, I need my daily fix of griping against the NCFC Directorship.....And I''ll get real cold Turkey, tetchy pants - and horrendous withdrawal symptoms and then only take it out on poor ole Blahaha and Nutster......(an'' a few ''others'').[:(]

Quite frankly, I am not ''enema hammered'' by the board either. They''ve controlled the club for 11 years now and their philosophy at the onset of their tenure was fairly plausible.......Now, I just tire of all the predictable pretentious patronising pap and sanctimonious spin, the usual sound-bytes and cack cliche''s. Delia''s ''good cop'' and Donkster''s ''bad cop''.......Yawn![|-)] 

Nothing will change in the foreseeable future. We have a manager and coaching staff that can turn this clubs fortunes around......But only with the support from the board. We''re a Harrod''s with the Superb Stadium facilities, Restyrunts, Corporate entertainment and training ground - but sadly, a ''Pound-land'' on the pitch. And in my personal opinion, having witnessed the rise and fall - then rise and fall of this club......The NCFC board (and the current CE) are currently the core reason why ''I'' think that; whilst they insist on amending and adding to the stadium and neglecting the whole reason why supporters attend in numbers.......are guilty of poor business management of a ''football'' club. Planning for the future? The future of what?

And please don''t go into Leeds, Palarse, Charlton Aesthetic and the usual apologist droll banal analogy.......We are NCFC, it''s not an anachronism, it is now - and I care little for any other. I will continue to criticise this Directorship and I will not be swayed by other individuals who don''t concur with my opinion''s.

Now, you just carry on understanding the situation.......I''ll carry on misunderstanding it....as I''m thick.       

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Canary Nut - I meant the business case looked compelling from my perspective, as I roughly worked out figures, I have no idea what the business case looked like to the board as I am not shown it. I''m a fan on a message board, and whilst I would welcome calls from Delia to get my advice so far it hasn''t happened. You seem to be waiting for me to say something like ''payback in 6 years at 90% occupancy'' and then pounce with a clever point, why don''t you just make your clever point and get it out of your system? I would be interested to see your other comments, why don''t you link back to your post on it?

Mr Carrow - you have 5 years of accounts in front of you which you don''t fully understand. Your assumption that spend on press facilities could have been avoided and constituted spend on ''non critical assets'' has been demonstrated to be false. Who knows what other spends you assume to have been non-critical actually were, I don''t and neither do you. Maybe all of it could have been deferred, maybe 50%, 10%, or anything inbetween. As you know from reading my comments on this and other threads I am not that enamoured with the board, just not at all enamoured with the alternatives and frankly fed up with reading constant criticism from people who just don''t understand the situation.
[/quote]

Absolute rubbish Big Down Under. You have not shown any proof that the press facilities were not up to standard in the first place. They were modern (in the City Stand), nobody else has claimed this and i can`t find any mention of it in the accounts.

To claim that we are all working on assumptions and that nobody can understand the situation any better than anyone else is just a cop-out. I have had long conversations with a City-supporting accountant friend of mine about the situation and the likes of Blahblahblah, Bigfish and Ron Obvious have all made good counter-points to my argument based on knowledge of the facts. At least they`ve got a decent argument.......