Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kdncfc

Takeover- Peter Cullum again.

Recommended Posts

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

[quote user="Salahuddin"]I am afraid that Mr Cullums position has not changed, while he is encouraged by Roeders progress, he see''s all Championship Clubs at "trading at a considerable loss" and he remains a loyal and patient fan. I know this because he told me. Make from it as you will.[/quote]

I know this is an individual opinion on the subject but as you quote him as being a ''''loyal fan'''' and one day possibly worth in the region of a billion plus [or so we are led to believe] why wouldn''t he invest a few million in the team? We as supporters who earn nowhere near in a million years are expected to part with hard earned money every year that would be better spent on famillies,debts,morgages so on, but as passionate supporters we spend it on the club. I''m sure most on here would be looking into it if we had the kind of money Mr Cullum had. If the average city fan earns around 30-40 grand a year parts with maybe grand a year following city,why wouldn''t such a passionate fan invest say 50 million?

[/quote]Using the same analogy arthur, as a self professed successful businessman here and in Hungary, one assumes that you will be investing a few thousand in this new transfer fund (as a loyal fan of course).

 

[/quote]

 

hasnt every fan already paid a few thousnad to follow the team.... Shirts, Tickets, Seaon Tickets, Programmes, Merchandise, Food, Drink.. the list goes on... True directors may have put millions in over time.. but once them and their millions have gone who''s hard earned cash will STILL be going into the club? the fans...

 We fans put more into a football club than any director ever will

jas :)

Share this post


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

I know this is an individual opinion on the subject but as you quote him as being a ''''loyal fan'''' and one day possibly worth in the region of a billion plus [or so we are led to believe] why wouldn''t he invest a few million in the team? We as supporters who earn nowhere near in a million years are expected to part with hard earned money every year that would be better spent on famillies,debts,morgages so on, but as passionate supporters we spend it on the club. I''m sure most on here would be looking into it if we had the kind of money Mr Cullum had. If the average city fan earns around 30-40 grand a year parts with maybe grand a year following city,why wouldn''t such a passionate fan invest say 50 million?

[/quote]

Interesting view Arto. I guess the distinction for me is that the money we spend as fans could be seen as spending for the sake of entertainment (although I appreciate that term does not always apply to our boys!!). The ticket, the merchandise, shirts, food and drink, programmes etc are bought through personal choice as a consumer / fan rather than as a donation or investment to the club. The expectation seems to be that richer people should go beyond the normal ''fan'' expenditure and just give the club money? What''s interesting is the apparent lack of enthusiasm and appetite for the proposed transfer kitty where we as fans are being asked the same thing i.e. to dig deep and give to the club

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="jas the barclay king"][quote user="lappinitup"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]I am afraid that Mr Cullums position has not changed, while he is encouraged by Roeders progress, he see''s all Championship Clubs at "trading at a considerable loss" and he remains a loyal and patient fan. I know this because he told me. Make from it as you will.[/quote]

I know this is an individual opinion on the subject but as you quote him as being a ''''loyal fan'''' and one day possibly worth in the region of a billion plus [or so we are led to believe] why wouldn''t he invest a few million in the team? We as supporters who earn nowhere near in a million years are expected to part with hard earned money every year that would be better spent on famillies,debts,morgages so on, but as passionate supporters we spend it on the club. I''m sure most on here would be looking into it if we had the kind of money Mr Cullum had. If the average city fan earns around 30-40 grand a year parts with maybe grand a year following city,why wouldn''t such a passionate fan invest say 50 million?

[/quote]Using the same analogy arthur, as a self professed successful businessman here and in Hungary, one assumes that you will be investing a few thousand in this new transfer fund (as a loyal fan of course).

 

[/quote]

 

hasnt every fan already paid a few thousnad to follow the team.... Shirts, Tickets, Seaon Tickets, Programmes, Merchandise, Food, Drink.. the list goes on... True directors may have put millions in over time.. but once them and their millions have gone who''s hard earned cash will STILL be going into the club? the fans...

 We fans put more into a football club than any director ever will

jas :)

[/quote]Your post is very factual jas except for one very important point. Whilst we call ourselves supporters, fans etc. the reality is we are CUSTOMERS. No more, no less.

All ninety two football clubs in the four divisions are businesses and no different to the Theatre Royal or Asda for example. And there''s the crux. If you take the missus to see a show you simply buy your ticket and away you go. Take her shopping, pay at the checkout, job sorted. You don''t then go home, get on a message board and say how you''ve invested in that company.

So why is football different ?

If you buy a shirt from the club shop for £40 and another from House of Fraser (same price, same day) why go home and look at one and think ''''I''ve supported the club'''' but no such thought towards the other.

I think it''s simply our perception as fans to think that we are more important than we really are. Every pound we spend is just as important to the Theatre Royal or Asda as it is to NCFC but as customers we  sometimes expect more back from our club than is our right.

So sorry jas, I have to disagree. We are not putting money into the club but simply buying a product. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Your post is very factual jas except for one very important point. Whilst we call ourselves supporters, fans etc. the reality is we are CUSTOMERS. No more, no less.

All ninety two football clubs in the four divisions are businesses and no different to the Theatre Royal or Asda for example. And there''s the crux. If you take the missus to see a show you simply buy your ticket and away you go. Take her shopping, pay at the checkout, job sorted. You don''t then go home, get on a message board and say how you''ve invested in that company.

So why is football different ?

If you buy a shirt from the club shop for £40 and another from House of Fraser (same price, same day) why go home and look at one and think ''''I''ve supported the club'''' but no such thought towards the other.

I think it''s simply our perception as fans to think that we are more important than we really are. Every pound we spend is just as important to the Theatre Royal or Asda as it is to NCFC but as customers we  sometimes expect more back from our club than is our right.

So sorry jas, I have to disagree. We are not putting money into the club but simply buying a product. 

[/quote]

Exactly the point I tried to make in response to Arthur''s comments.....but expressed far better

Share this post


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

[quote user="lappinitup"]

Your post is very factual jas except for one very important point.

Whilst we call ourselves supporters, fans etc. the reality is we are

CUSTOMERS. No more, no less.

All ninety two football clubs in the four divisions are businesses

and no different to the Theatre Royal or Asda for example. And

there''s the crux. If you take the missus to see a show you simply buy

your ticket and away you go. Take her shopping, pay at the checkout,

job sorted. You don''t then go home, get on a message board and say how

you''ve invested in that company.

So why is football different ?

If you buy a shirt from the club shop for £40 and another from House

of Fraser (same price, same day) why go home and look at one and think

''''I''ve supported the club'''' but no such thought towards the other.

I think it''s simply our perception as fans to think that we are more

important than we really are. Every pound we spend is just as important

to the Theatre Royal or Asda as it is to NCFC but as customers we 

sometimes expect more back from our club than is our right.

So sorry jas, I have to disagree. We are not putting money into the club but simply buying a product. 

[/quote]

Exactly the point I tried to make in response to Arthur''s comments.....but expressed far better

[/quote]

That''s outrageous! My parents took me to Sainburys from a young age and

when food is on the menu it''s Sainsburys I head towards. There''s

rumours that we''re about to be taken over by 3 Delta but Philip Hampton

hasn''t asked us, the "real" owners of Sainburys whether we want it to

happen or not. While Asda and Lidl steam ahead with their bloody

foreign food, we''re being left behind.....[:@] NCFC is no different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I attend football matches at least twice a fortnight........How many folk attend the theatre twice a fortnight.....

Yes, and the Club really care about us and they all know our first names and what our favourite colours are......Valued supporter till the end of the season ticket sales....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.[/quote]So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?[/quote]Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]
Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.
[/quote]

So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...
[/quote]

What''s wrong with Randy Lerner?

OTBC

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, those Delia ''antic''s. At the time of the Man City game I was watching in A Pub in Hackney, the pool players, and assorted others, showed no interest in the game on the T.V (which the Pub had switched on for me). I remember when Delia started her ''lets be having you'' antics, the Pool players stood rooted to the floor staring unbelievably at the Screen, then the whole Pub went silent! It was very amusing, embarassing, but afterwards I thought it was great!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]
Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.
[/quote]

So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...
[/quote]

Why?

Share this post


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

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.[/quote]So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?[/quote]Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]Why what, Arthur?Why does Norwich have a reputation as a well run club? Because it has been turned around from a near bankrupt club to a profitable business in just a few years. We still own our ground, our training facilities, our off pitch aspects generate a profit, and we handle ourselves with dignity (on the whole). Why do we have a reputation for having strong community links? Er, because we do have strong community  links? Have a read of Mick Dennis'' column http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=2437 and then research it yourself, if you don''t believe me. Delia IS central to this, every interview she gives she mentions how important this is to her and MWJ.Why do I disagree with much the board have done? Because I want to see less speculative investment in land and more investment in the team. I also recognise that I am saying this without full knowledge of the deals, on another thread we discussed the likelyhood of the club doubling their money on one land deal, but balance this with our seeming inability to spend now and it seems to me they have got the balance wrong. Off pitch investments are vital, but so is funding a competitive team.Why would I rather have Delia than the other investors I mention? Becuase to a man they are all in it 100% for the money. Delia (and the rest of the board) are in it for the good of the club. Some fans might want to see Norwich do a deal similar to Ipswich, many on this very message board cited the fact the Ipswich had done a deal as a sign of our boards lack of ambition. All these people really did was show their lack of understanding of the entire situation. Speculative investment in football is KILLING the game, and, when the bubble finally bursts, there will be a number of clubs who really hit bad times and/or disappear for good. I don''t have that worry about Norwich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]
Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.
[/quote]

So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...
[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]

Why what, Arthur?

Why does Norwich have a reputation as a well run club? Because it has been turned around from a near bankrupt club to a profitable business in just a few years. We still own our ground, our training facilities, our off pitch aspects generate a profit, and we handle ourselves with dignity (on the whole).

Why do we have a reputation for having strong community links? Er, because we do have strong community  links? Have a read of Mick Dennis'' column http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=2437 and then research it yourself, if you don''t believe me. Delia IS central to this, every interview she gives she mentions how important this is to her and MWJ.

Why do I disagree with much the board have done? Because I want to see less speculative investment in land and more investment in the team. I also recognise that I am saying this without full knowledge of the deals, on another thread we discussed the likelyhood of the club doubling their money on one land deal, but balance this with our seeming inability to spend now and it seems to me they have got the balance wrong. Off pitch investments are vital, but so is funding a competitive team.

Why would I rather have Delia than the other investors I mention? Becuase to a man they are all in it 100% for the money. Delia (and the rest of the board) are in it for the good of the club. Some fans might want to see Norwich do a deal similar to Ipswich, many on this very message board cited the fact the Ipswich had done a deal as a sign of our boards lack of ambition. All these people really did was show their lack of understanding of the entire situation. Speculative investment in football is KILLING the game, and, when the bubble finally bursts, there will be a number of clubs who really hit bad times and/or disappear for good. I don''t have that worry about Norwich.
[/quote]

So as a profitable business are we sitting at the arse end of the old Div 2 and doing jack sh@t about it? You my friend seem to miss the point about NCFC being a FOOTBALL club. You wont have that worry with Norwich,we''ll be buggered before the rest of them. People always go on about other clubs but i fail to see why? For every Leeds there''s a Wigan,Boro,Reading....do you honestly think these teams are going to disappear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]
Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.
[/quote]

So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...
[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]

Why what, Arthur?

Why does Norwich have a reputation as a well run club? Because it has been turned around from a near bankrupt club to a profitable business in just a few years. We still own our ground, our training facilities, our off pitch aspects generate a profit, and we handle ourselves with dignity (on the whole).

Why do we have a reputation for having strong community links? Er, because we do have strong community  links? Have a read of Mick Dennis'' column http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=2437 and then research it yourself, if you don''t believe me. Delia IS central to this, every interview she gives she mentions how important this is to her and MWJ.

Why do I disagree with much the board have done? Because I want to see less speculative investment in land and more investment in the team. I also recognise that I am saying this without full knowledge of the deals, on another thread we discussed the likelyhood of the club doubling their money on one land deal, but balance this with our seeming inability to spend now and it seems to me they have got the balance wrong. Off pitch investments are vital, but so is funding a competitive team.

Why would I rather have Delia than the other investors I mention? Becuase to a man they are all in it 100% for the money. Delia (and the rest of the board) are in it for the good of the club. Some fans might want to see Norwich do a deal similar to Ipswich, many on this very message board cited the fact the Ipswich had done a deal as a sign of our boards lack of ambition. All these people really did was show their lack of understanding of the entire situation. Speculative investment in football is KILLING the game, and, when the bubble finally bursts, there will be a number of clubs who really hit bad times and/or disappear for good. I don''t have that worry about Norwich.
[/quote]

So as a profitable business are we sitting at the arse end of the old Div 2 and doing jack sh@t about it? You my friend seem to miss the point about NCFC being a FOOTBALL club. You wont have that worry with Norwich,we''ll be buggered before the rest of them. People always go on about other clubs but i fail to see why? For every Leeds there''s a Wigan,Boro,Reading....do you honestly think these teams are going to disappear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.[/quote]So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?[/quote]Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]Why what, Arthur?Why does Norwich have a reputation as a well run club? Because it has been turned around from a near bankrupt club to a profitable business in just a few years. We still own our ground, our training facilities, our off pitch aspects generate a profit, and we handle ourselves with dignity (on the whole). Why do we have a reputation for having strong community links? Er, because we do have strong community  links? Have a read of Mick Dennis'' column http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=2437 and then research it yourself, if you don''t believe me. Delia IS central to this, every interview she gives she mentions how important this is to her and MWJ.Why do I disagree with much the board have done? Because I want to see less speculative investment in land and more investment in the team. I also recognise that I am saying this without full knowledge of the deals, on another thread we discussed the likelyhood of the club doubling their money on one land deal, but balance this with our seeming inability to spend now and it seems to me they have got the balance wrong. Off pitch investments are vital, but so is funding a competitive team.Why would I rather have Delia than the other investors I mention? Becuase to a man they are all in it 100% for the money. Delia (and the rest of the board) are in it for the good of the club. Some fans might want to see Norwich do a deal similar to Ipswich, many on this very message board cited the fact the Ipswich had done a deal as a sign of our boards lack of ambition. All these people really did was show their lack of understanding of the entire situation. Speculative investment in football is KILLING the game, and, when the bubble finally bursts, there will be a number of clubs who really hit bad times and/or disappear for good. I don''t have that worry about Norwich.[/quote]

So as a profitable business are we sitting at the arse end of the old Div 2 and doing jack sh@t about it? You my friend seem to miss the point about NCFC being a FOOTBALL club. You wont have that worry with Norwich,we''ll be buggered before the rest of them. People always go on about other clubs but i fail to see why? For every Leeds there''s a Wigan,Boro,Reading....do you honestly think these teams are going to disappear?

[/quote]With the greatest respect Arthur, I think you are missing some pretty vital points about the state of the modern game. The facts are that money is becoming increasingly more important to being competitive these days. Money raised via the turnstyles is not enough to fund a team capable of a sustained promotion challenge. That is why more and more emphasis is put on off field investments, to raise additional funds. On another thread, Mr Carrow (definately not a board defender!) and T worked out that the latest land deal could raise over £5m PROFIT for the club. If this does come in, that could go a long way to building a promotion capable team.Interesting that 2 out of the 3 teams you mention are bankrolled by a wealthy benefactor (Wigan and Reading). Benefactors also funded Sunderland''s and Derby''s promotion last year. There is no doubt that a similar benefactor would be great for Norwich, unfortunately they don''t grow on trees. Cullum is often muted as being a likely person, but to date he is not interested.Delia/MWJ and the Turners are the richest benefactors we have got. They aren''t rich enough to put in the right amount of capital to fund a promotion push though. The Turners may be one day, and maybe they will still pull the rabbit out of the hat this window, time will tell. However, I won''t criticise them for not being rich enough.Investors like Evans, the mob at Coventry, the Americans investing in the Premiership, they are not benefactors but financial investors looking for a profit. They will do what ever is necessary to make that profit. If this means selling the ground and building flats and supermarkets, they will do it. Ipswich were so badly off financially they had NO CHOICE so compared to Sheepshanks, our board are doing a great job.I would prefer it if football was the only interest of the board. I don''t think those days ever really existed though. However, since the FA removed rules about Directors not being allowed to profit from the game, and ignored rule breaking re football club flotation, and allowed the Premieship breakaway and the top clubs to keep a vast percentage of football''s revenues for themselves, we are in a situation where clubs have to have fancy bars/restaurants/hotels solely to raise additional revenue. I think our board have invested too much of our premiership money in off field activities, but its a balance and I recognise that they have to invest some money in these schemes.Its early days for the external financial type investments in football, but there is already one high profile Premiership team who right now, today, doesn''t exist any more. Wimbledon were the first casualty, I very much doubt they will be the only casualty. Right now football in this country is enjoying its biggest boom cycle for years, but still over half the current football league teams have been insolvent. As a business man Arthur I am sure you will recognise that ALL boom cycles end with a ''bust''. What happens to the likes of Ipswich then? Lets pray the our club aren''t in the same level of sh@t at that point. We currently have a board that do recognise the dangers and are, to date, steering very well clear of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="James Maloney"][quote user="Big Down Under"]
Just for a serious point though, right now Delia is getting very little adulation by beeing an NCFC director, and after ''that'' half time speech against Man City very little prestige either.
[/quote]

So you accept her antics have damaged the club''s reputation more than they have enhanced it?
[/quote]

Absolutely not. Norwich has a reputation for being a well run club with a strong link to the community. Delia has and continues to be central to this. Whilst I disagree with much the board have done, I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. I would far rather have Delia on the board than Evans, or Hicks and Gillett, or the Glazers, or Randy Lerner, or Abramovich...
[/quote]

Why?

[/quote]

Why what, Arthur?

Why does Norwich have a reputation as a well run club? Because it has been turned around from a near bankrupt club to a profitable business in just a few years. We still own our ground, our training facilities, our off pitch aspects generate a profit, and we handle ourselves with dignity (on the whole).

Why do we have a reputation for having strong community links? Er, because we do have strong community  links? Have a read of Mick Dennis'' column http://norwichcity.myfootballwriter.com/full_article.asp?i=2437 and then research it yourself, if you don''t believe me. Delia IS central to this, every interview she gives she mentions how important this is to her and MWJ.

Why do I disagree with much the board have done? Because I want to see less speculative investment in land and more investment in the team. I also recognise that I am saying this without full knowledge of the deals, on another thread we discussed the likelyhood of the club doubling their money on one land deal, but balance this with our seeming inability to spend now and it seems to me they have got the balance wrong. Off pitch investments are vital, but so is funding a competitive team.

Why would I rather have Delia than the other investors I mention? Becuase to a man they are all in it 100% for the money. Delia (and the rest of the board) are in it for the good of the club. Some fans might want to see Norwich do a deal similar to Ipswich, many on this very message board cited the fact the Ipswich had done a deal as a sign of our boards lack of ambition. All these people really did was show their lack of understanding of the entire situation. Speculative investment in football is KILLING the game, and, when the bubble finally bursts, there will be a number of clubs who really hit bad times and/or disappear for good. I don''t have that worry about Norwich.
[/quote]

So as a profitable business are we sitting at the arse end of the old Div 2 and doing jack sh@t about it? You my friend seem to miss the point about NCFC being a FOOTBALL club. You wont have that worry with Norwich,we''ll be buggered before the rest of them. People always go on about other clubs but i fail to see why? For every Leeds there''s a Wigan,Boro,Reading....do you honestly think these teams are going to disappear?

[/quote]

With the greatest respect Arthur, I think you are missing some pretty vital points about the state of the modern game. The facts are that money is becoming increasingly more important to being competitive these days. Money raised via the turnstyles is not enough to fund a team capable of a sustained promotion challenge. That is why more and more emphasis is put on off field investments, to raise additional funds. On another thread, Mr Carrow (definately not a board defender!) and T worked out that the latest land deal could raise over £5m PROFIT for the club. If this does come in, that could go a long way to building a promotion capable team.

Interesting that 2 out of the 3 teams you mention are bankrolled by a wealthy benefactor (Wigan and Reading). Benefactors also funded Sunderland''s and Derby''s promotion last year. There is no doubt that a similar benefactor would be great for Norwich, unfortunately they don''t grow on trees. Cullum is often muted as being a likely person, but to date he is not interested.

Delia/MWJ and the Turners are the richest benefactors we have got. They aren''t rich enough to put in the right amount of capital to fund a promotion push though. The Turners may be one day, and maybe they will still pull the rabbit out of the hat this window, time will tell. However, I won''t criticise them for not being rich enough.

Investors like Evans, the mob at Coventry, the Americans investing in the Premiership, they are not benefactors but financial investors looking for a profit. They will do what ever is necessary to make that profit. If this means selling the ground and building flats and supermarkets, they will do it. Ipswich were so badly off financially they had NO CHOICE so compared to Sheepshanks, our board are doing a great job.

I would prefer it if football was the only interest of the board. I don''t think those days ever really existed though. However, since the FA removed rules about Directors not being allowed to profit from the game, and ignored rule breaking re football club flotation, and allowed the Premieship breakaway and the top clubs to keep a vast percentage of football''s revenues for themselves, we are in a situation where clubs have to have fancy bars/restaurants/hotels solely to raise additional revenue. I think our board have invested too much of our premiership money in off field activities, but its a balance and I recognise that they have to invest some money in these schemes.

Its early days for the external financial type investments in football, but there is already one high profile Premiership team who right now, today, doesn''t exist any more. Wimbledon were the first casualty, I very much doubt they will be the only casualty. Right now football in this country is enjoying its biggest boom cycle for years, but still over half the current football league teams have been insolvent. As a business man Arthur I am sure you will recognise that ALL boom cycles end with a ''bust''. What happens to the likes of Ipswich then? Lets pray the our club aren''t in the same level of sh@t at that point. We currently have a board that do recognise the dangers and are, to date, steering very well clear of them.[/quote]

And therein lie the major parts of the current problem. 

Many, many fans are convinced that the NCFC board have not learned their lessons and are just muddling along hoping that they can strike lucky and get it right again.

There is a widely held view that they are stuck in the rut of  ''prudence with ambition'' rather than ''ambition with prudence''. Both psychologically and operationally there is a world of difference between these two philosophies. And usually it is the difference between success and failure.

People sense this, but trust ''that nice Delia who has their interests at heart''. That may be, but she''s also getting it wrong and we''re stagnating (and slowly declining, I''m afraid) in the mire of ''over-prudence''. The truth is that the board is both tired & complacent and need a good dose of optimism, ambition and drive. Yes, drive is what they have lost. Let''s hope this self-satisfied lot do not disillusion Glen and that he can remain inspired by the 25,000 Carrow Road faithful - who truly deserve far more than they are getting from the owners and board these days. 

Leaders must lead - or get out!

And for better or worse that''s the way I see it.

OTBC 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I''m sorry Bly but you are ignoring my points and keeping firmly on the emotional level. "Stuck in a rut"/"stagnating"/"tired&complacent"/"self-satisfied" these are all emotional observations and not at all based in fact. Please read again what I have said and try and come up with a realistic alternative or way forward, or point out what I have said that is untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="1st Wizard"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

 I won''t join in the anti Delia witch hunt. [/quote]

No? but I will!.[:|]

[/quote]You can''t join it Wizard, you started it! [:P]On a pointless gripe, if you others insist on hitting the ''Quote'' button to reply, try to edit out the bits of the quote you don''t need - we''re only getting two replies on a screen at the moment! [8o|]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doh! I forgot my main point!Although Delia and Michael own a majority shareholding between them, technically neither have a controlling stake.When Geoffrey Watling sold the shares he''d bought off Big Fat Bob, he said it was his firm wish that no single person hold control of his beloved Norwich City ever again.Whatever opinion you hold about the pair of them and regardless of Peter Cullum''s possible involvement, I would hope that this be honoured in Mr Watling''s memory and that Delia and Michael ensure that any new investor be restricted to a 49% maximum shareholding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''m sorry Bly but you are ignoring my points and keeping firmly on the emotional level. "Stuck in a rut"/"stagnating"/"tired&complacent"/"self-satisfied" these are all emotional observations and not at all based in fact. Please read again what I have said and try and come up with a realistic alternative or way forward, or point out what I have said that is untrue.
[/quote]

If I''m ignoring your points, it''s because they are ultimately irrelevant in turning an organisation like Norwich City into a competitive, growing and successful entity operating with vision and drive.

It is the higher level attributes of success that are missing - not the middle and lower levels.

Vision and drive are the responsibilities of the majority owners and the board.

Unfortunately the current lot just don''t have it - no matter how nice, community-oriented and prudent they may appear.

And ain''t that just the hard truth.

I suppose it''s a bit like being Big Down Under but Little Up Here.

One love.

OTBC

Share this post


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

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''m sorry Bly but you are ignoring my points and keeping firmly on the emotional level. "Stuck in a rut"/"stagnating"/"tired&complacent"/"self-satisfied" these are all emotional observations and not at all based in fact. Please read again what I have said and try and come up with a realistic alternative or way forward, or point out what I have said that is untrue.[/quote]

If I''m ignoring your points, it''s because they are ultimately irrelevant in turning an organisation like Norwich City into a competitive, growing and successful entity operating with vision and drive.

It is the higher level attributes of success that are missing - not the middle and lower levels.

Vision and drive are the responsibilities of the majority owners and the board.

Unfortunately the current lot just don''t have it - no matter how nice, community-oriented and prudent they may appear.

[/quote]But they aren''t irrelevant. Arthur puts up team names as examples of well run clubs. I point out they are where they are not because they are well run but mainly to do with their large ''sugar daddy'' style investment. You say thats irrelevant? How on earth is that irrelevant?Of course vision and drive is important for any business. You say our board don''t have it, but offer no evidence to back up your position. More pointless posturing. Lots of people on this board agree that the board are doing a good job building the off pitch side of the business up, in fact many posters seem to think they are doing such a good job on this, they are doing it purely to build up the shareprice so they can make a profit when they sell up. Are they not showing drive and vision in this area?We have missed drive and vision on the pitch, right up until the board hired Roeder. Now we are looking competitive, some posters think we can make the play offs this season, I think its realistic for next season. 10 games unbeaten. But the whinging clique on the Pinkun are still the loudest, mainly about the lack of a Tiny signing. When you were a kid, did you whinge so loudly about not getting that expensive toy for Christmas?Its so easy to be critical. Try looking at all the facts, using what you seem to think you have upstairs, and addressing the points I made. Disagree, I don''t have a problem with that, but ignoring a posters points and just continually recycling the same arguments is not the way to win a debate.

Share this post


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

[quote user="Big Down Under"]I''m sorry Bly but you are ignoring my points and keeping firmly on the emotional level. "Stuck in a rut"/"stagnating"/"tired&complacent"/"self-satisfied" these are all emotional observations and not at all based in fact. Please read again what I have said and try and come up with a realistic alternative or way forward, or point out what I have said that is untrue.
[/quote]

If I''m ignoring your points, it''s because they are ultimately irrelevant in turning an organisation like Norwich City into a competitive, growing and successful entity operating with vision and drive.

It is the higher level attributes of success that are missing - not the middle and lower levels.

Vision and drive are the responsibilities of the majority owners and the board.

Unfortunately the current lot just don''t have it - no matter how nice, community-oriented and prudent they may appear.

[/quote]
But they aren''t irrelevant. Arthur puts up team names as examples of well run clubs. I point out they are where they are not because they are well run but mainly to do with their large ''sugar daddy'' style investment. You say thats irrelevant? How on earth is that irrelevant?

Of course vision and drive is important for any business. You say our board don''t have it, but offer no evidence to back up your position. More pointless posturing. Lots of people on this board agree that the board are doing a good job building the off pitch side of the business up, in fact many posters seem to think they are doing such a good job on this, they are doing it purely to build up the shareprice so they can make a profit when they sell up. Are they not showing drive and vision in this area?

We have missed drive and vision on the pitch, right up until the board hired Roeder. Now we are looking competitive, some posters think we can make the play offs this season, I think its realistic for next season. 10 games unbeaten. But the whinging clique on the Pinkun are still the loudest, mainly about the lack of a Tiny signing. When you were a kid, did you whinge so loudly about not getting that expensive toy for Christmas?

Its so easy to be critical. Try looking at all the facts, using what you seem to think you have upstairs, and addressing the points I made. Disagree, I don''t have a problem with that, but ignoring a posters points and just continually recycling the same arguments is not the way to win a debate.
[/quote]

Dear oh dear, LUH.

Sadly, you evidently can''t see the wood for the trees.

I''m off. Got better things to do.

1/10. Fail.

OTBC

Share this post


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

Dear oh dear, LUH.

Sadly, you evidently can''t see the wood for the trees.

I''m off. Got better things to do.

1/10. Fail.

OTBC(I''m going to take my ball home and you can''t play with it!)

[/quote]Sorry Bly, but did you ever consider that for the majority of posters, a little more than cryptically worded rhetoric, and patronising insults, would be neccessary to change their opinion? Why not present some verifiable facts which support your views, rather than sulking when people don''t agree with you? For example, preciscely how do our board lack the "higher level attributes of success", as you say? If you could qualify exactly what you mean by this phrase it would also be most helpful - does it simply boil down to lack of money and/or investment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="I. Shurmer"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Dear oh dear, LUH.

Sadly, you evidently can''t see the wood for the trees.

I''m off. Got better things to do.

1/10. Fail.

OTBC(I''m going to take my ball home and you can''t play with it!)

[/quote]Sorry Bly, but did you ever consider that for the majority of posters, a little more than cryptically worded rhetoric, and patronising insults, would be neccessary to change their opinion? Why not present some verifiable facts which support your views, rather than sulking when people don''t agree with you? For example, preciscely how do our board lack the "higher level attributes of success", as you say? If you could qualify exactly what you mean by this phrase it would also be most helpful - does it simply boil down to lack of money and/or investment?[/quote]He obviously can''t answer the pont intelligently I Shurmer. As Steve Burns says, he is off to start ANOTHER whinging thread. And when the debate proper starts, he will disappear to start ANOTHER whinging thread. I also note Arthur Whittle has ignored my points, but carries on whinging on other threads anyway. Unfortunately this is so typical of the miserablists on here, not one is actually up for the debate but somehow those who are get labled as sheep.

Share this post


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

Got better things to do.

Go on - you know you want to start another thread. [:D]

[/quote]

I''m always tempted Stevie. My mind is fertile.[:D]

Should I apologise?

OTBC

 

Share this post


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

Dear oh dear, LUH.

Sadly, you evidently can''t see the wood for the trees.

I''m off. Got better things to do.

1/10. Fail.

OTBC

(I''m going to take my ball home and you can''t play with it!)

[/quote]

Sorry Bly, but did you ever consider that for the majority of posters, a little more than cryptically worded rhetoric, and patronising insults, would be neccessary to change their opinion?

Why not present some verifiable facts which support your views, rather than sulking when people don''t agree with you? For example, preciscely how do our board lack the "higher level attributes of success", as you say? If you could qualify exactly what you mean by this phrase it would also be most helpful - does it simply boil down to lack of money and/or investment?
[/quote]

Compare the South/Watling/Chase period of 1958-1995 with the Smith period of 1996-2008 and it''s as plain as day  that the current board lack the higher level attributes necessary for success. Verifiable enough for you? 

I repeat, it boils down the NCFC boards  lack of vision and drive - of which your ''lack of money and/or investment'' are but mere by-products.

You talk of my cryptic rhetoric and patronising insults. At least I don''t appoint myself, Mr/Ms I. Shurmer, as representing ''the majority of posters''.

One love.

OTBC

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="I. Shurmer"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Dear oh dear, LUH.

Sadly, you evidently can''t see the wood for the trees.

I''m off. Got better things to do.

1/10. Fail.

OTBC

(I''m going to take my ball home and you can''t play with it!)

[/quote]

Sorry Bly, but did you ever consider that for the majority of posters, a little more than cryptically worded rhetoric, and patronising insults, would be neccessary to change their opinion?

Why not present some verifiable facts which support your views, rather than sulking when people don''t agree with you? For example, preciscely how do our board lack the "higher level attributes of success", as you say? If you could qualify exactly what you mean by this phrase it would also be most helpful - does it simply boil down to lack of money and/or investment?
[/quote]

He obviously can''t answer the pont intelligently I Shurmer. As Steve Burns says, he is off to start ANOTHER whinging thread. And when the debate proper starts, he will disappear to start ANOTHER whinging thread. I also note Arthur Whittle has ignored my points, but carries on whinging on other threads anyway.

Unfortunately this is so typical of the miserablists on here, not one is actually up for the debate but somehow those who are get labled as sheep.
[/quote]

But LUH, sheep can''t think properly. So how does one debate with them?[:S]

One love.

Lighten up!

OTBC

 

Share this post


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

Compare the South/Watling/Chase period of 1958-1995 with the Smith period of 1996-2008 and it''s as plain as day  that the current board lack the higher level attributes necessary for success. Verifiable enough for you? 

I repeat, it boils down the NCFC boards  lack of vision and drive - of which your ''lack of money and/or investment'' are but mere by-products.

You talk of my cryptic rhetoric and patronising insults. At least I don''t appoint myself, Mr/Ms I. Shurmer, as representing ''the majority of posters''.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]Firstly, it''s hardly surprising to see you trying to manipulate my words (wannabe politician perhaps?); I don''t believe I ever appointed myself representative of the majority of posters, as you suggested. What I was trying to point out, perhaps in a badly phrased manner, is that I consider myself a fairly typical poster, and if you think that I buy into your truisms then you are very much mistaken. In that respect I would make the assumption that many other posters can see through your bluster as well. As to your point about the "South/Watling/Chase" periods. vs the Smith period, then frankly no, that is not what I would consider a verifiable argument. Not only are you comparing apples with oranges in terms of multiple regimes to a single regime, but you also conveniently neglect the change in the culture of football itself, or focus on any factual specifics whatsoever. If you seriously think that running NCFC in 2008 is similar to running it in the 1950s then I think you are, at best, deluded.Whilst I don''t claim to have access to any insider knowledge, only a sheep would refuse to admit that the current climate of English football has become so bloated with money that you need a "sugar daddy" investor, who is willing to risk throwing tens/hundreds of millions of their own money at a Championship club. Without one of these, the chances of becoming an established top flight team are minimal, so that teams like Norwich are left to focus on survival and making ends meet, rather than progress. I do agree that the board should certainly have been seeking major investment, but unless you have evidence that they have not, I certainly cannot feel comfortable passing judgement on them in that respect. If you think things are "clear as day", without being privy to the actual facts of the points at hand, then perhaps you are a better man/woman than I.And frankly, it''s laughable how you "see-no-evil" with regards to Chase, when it was his board that brought this club to, arguably, its lowest ebb. I''m not sure anybody would deny that the current board have made mistakes, but I also think they could have done one hell of a worse job after taking over.I repeat, your posts "boil down" to lack of substance.

Share this post


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

Compare the South/Watling/Chase period of 1958-1995 with the Smith period of 1996-2008 and it''s as plain as day  that the current board lack the higher level attributes necessary for success. Verifiable enough for you? 

I repeat, it boils down the NCFC boards  lack of vision and drive - of which your ''lack of money and/or investment'' are but mere by-products.

You talk of my cryptic rhetoric and patronising insults. At least I don''t appoint myself, Mr/Ms I. Shurmer, as representing ''the majority of posters''.

One love.

OTBC

[/quote]

Firstly, it''s hardly surprising to see you trying to manipulate my words (wannabe politician perhaps?); I don''t believe I ever appointed myself representative of the majority of posters, as you suggested. What I was trying to point out, perhaps in a badly phrased manner, is that I consider myself a fairly typical poster, and if you think that I buy into your truisms then you are very much mistaken. In that respect I would make the assumption that many other posters can see through your bluster as well.

As to your point about the "South/Watling/Chase" periods. vs the Smith period, then frankly no, that is not what I would consider a verifiable argument. Not only are you comparing apples with oranges in terms of multiple regimes to a single regime, but you also conveniently neglect the change in the culture of football itself, or focus on any factual specifics whatsoever. If you seriously think that running NCFC in 2008 is similar to running it in the 1950s then I think you are, at best, deluded.

Whilst I don''t claim to have access to any insider knowledge, only a sheep would refuse to admit that the current climate of English football has become so bloated with money that you need a "sugar daddy" investor, who is willing to risk throwing tens/hundreds of millions of their own money at a Championship club. Without one of these, the chances of becoming an established top flight team are minimal, so that teams like Norwich are left to focus on survival and making ends meet, rather than progress. I do agree that the board should certainly have been seeking major investment, but unless you have evidence that they have not, I certainly cannot feel comfortable passing judgement on them in that respect. If you think things are "clear as day", without being privy to the actual facts of the points at hand, then perhaps you are a better man/woman than I.

And frankly, it''s laughable how you "see-no-evil" with regards to Chase, when it was his board that brought this club to, arguably, its lowest ebb. I''m not sure anybody would deny that the current board have made mistakes, but I also think they could have done one hell of a worse job after taking over.

I repeat, your posts "boil down" to lack of substance.
[/quote]

I suggested that you ''Lighten up''-  but you edited it out. Talk about manipulation!

I offered you peace - ''One love". You spurned it.

Your verbosity betrays you.

OTBC

 

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...