Takeover- Peter Cullum again.

[Ian 1,129]

Dear oh dear, yet more diversion tactics!

And as for me removing "Lighten Up" - I think you''ll find that was in a different post addressed to a different person.0/10 Bly, you must try harder.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="I. Shurmer"]Dear oh dear, yet more diversion tactics!

And as for me removing "Lighten Up" - I think you''ll find that was in a different post addressed to a different person.

0/10 Bly, you must try harder.[/quote]

You are quite right about the "Lighten up". My apologies.

However, you ought  also be aware in selecting your style of response that ''imitation is the sincerest form of flattery''!

Glad to see you lightening up though, even if you use it as a ruse to cover for losing an argument.[:D]

OTBC

 

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][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

[/quote]You are still totally ignoring the fact that the market in which they operate as a business has totally changed in the same time period. You have also ignored the fact that Deila and her husband have ammassed a personal fortune of 20m from their own business dealings, and in doing so I would suggest show much more drive and ambition than you or I. Are you one of the very top at your chosen profession?Now I understand why you and certain other posters are so hyper critical of all the board do. You just don''t understand the way in which the modern game has changed, so you don''t understand what the board are trying to achieve. You ignore the financial mess Chase left the club in, and the way he sold the team from under us all and relegated us just as the Premiership millions were kicking in. We still have our own ground. We still have our own training facilities. We have the ability to pay our loans. We have money generated from some of the best catering in Europe. We look likely to double our money on the off field investments. We have a brilliant manager. We are climbing the league. We have a full ground every week. We have comparatively cheap ticket prices. We have a club thats at the heart of our City and our County. How many clubs can tick all those boxes?And still you moan.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][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

[/quote]

You are still totally ignoring the fact that the market in which they operate as a business has totally changed in the same time period. You have also ignored the fact that Deila and her husband have ammassed a personal fortune of 20m from their own business dealings, and in doing so I would suggest show much more drive and ambition than you or I. Are you one of the very top at your chosen profession?

Now I understand why you and certain other posters are so hyper critical of all the board do. You just don''t understand the way in which the modern game has changed, so you don''t understand what the board are trying to achieve. You ignore the financial mess Chase left the club in, and the way he sold the team from under us all and relegated us just as the Premiership millions were kicking in.

We still have our own ground. We still have our own training facilities. We have the ability to pay our loans. We have money generated from some of the best catering in Europe. We look likely to double our money on the off field investments. We have a brilliant manager. We are climbing the league. We have a full ground every week. We have comparatively cheap ticket prices. We have a club thats at the heart of our City and our County. How many clubs can tick all those boxes?

And still you moan.
[/quote]

Oh and still.....we are a feeder club to....READING. Ermmm great progress!!

[Southfields Canary 0]

loaning a couple of their players hardly constitutes a feeder club and reading''s circumstances are totally different.

the delia out campaign seems to be formed of a bunch of people who believe that she and her other half should fritter away as much of their own money as is possible just to keep them happy. somehow i doubt that they do the same with their own savings and earnings...

we''d all welcome some new investment but surely people recognise that shareholders aren''t just going to give it all up to peter cullum or anyone else without getting the right deal at the right time - that is their perogative. 

[gazzathegreat 0]

Arthur, maybe we are a feeder club to Reading, Arsenal, etc etc - if that''s how you want to paint the picture.

We don''t have millions to spend, that is quite obvious. We have all debated for ages the rights and wrongs of where the investment in our club lies. The board have got a lot wrong - and they know it.

At last (after a long long time in denial) they have appointed someone with ambition, footballing know how and most of all someone who loves football and wants a bunch of winners in his squad.

I am disappointed that our own youth players don''t meet his criteria - but they don''t. It''s time for Glenn and his team to rebuild, starting with loans. He is starting to drastically change the culture at this club, where for many years we have had players who don''t have what it takes, especially their mentality, to succeed.

Arthur, what would you rather see, a team who GR can build from youth (I am pretty certain he''s going to sort out our own academy as soon as we are technically safe from relegation), young players who are hungry for success and can play with the ball at their feet

or a bunch of lethargic wasters who have been at 10 clubs in their career and see Colney as a comfort zone?

Yes the board need to back Roeder. So far it seems they are. I think he''s got enough cash for the summer to make 2 or 3 key signings and then the serious task of a total rebuild is on the cards. (He is going to lose key players in Hucks and Dion after all).

IF he can get the team to play as they did against Leicester - or better - then that will make me very happy.

In fact I believe in Glenn''s vision so much I went and renewed my season ticket yesterday after hearing about the loan player from Arsenal.

[Fat Barman 0]

Very nicely summed up my feelings Gazza.Everybody always looks for more than they have got.Under Worthy, we were begging him to ignore mediocre players in the loan market and go for the hungry, talented youngsters. We even asked why we couldn''t bring in good, experienced players who couldn''t get a game in the Prem.Now Glenn''s done just that, people are moaning that they aren''t permanent signings!I''ll take the improvement in quality for now, with the expectation that Roeder will make the right permanent buys as and when the opportunities present themselves.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Arthur, maybe we are a feeder club to Reading, Arsenal, etc etc - if that''s how you want to paint the picture. We don''t have millions to spend, that is quite obvious. We have all debated for ages the rights and wrongs of where the investment in our club lies. The board have got a lot wrong - and they know it. At last (after a long long time in denial) they have appointed someone with ambition, footballing know how and most of all someone who loves football and wants a bunch of winners in his squad. I am disappointed that our own youth players don''t meet his criteria - but they don''t. It''s time for Glenn and his team to rebuild, starting with loans. He is starting to drastically change the culture at this club, where for many years we have had players who don''t have what it takes, especially their mentality, to succeed. Arthur, what would you rather see, a team who GR can build from youth (I am pretty certain he''s going to sort out our own academy as soon as we are technically safe from relegation), young players who are hungry for success and can play with the ball at their feet or a bunch of lethargic wasters who have been at 10 clubs in their career and see Colney as a comfort zone? Yes the board need to back Roeder. So far it seems they are. I think he''s got enough cash for the summer to make 2 or 3 key signings and then the serious task of a total rebuild is on the cards. (He is going to lose key players in Hucks and Dion after all). IF he can get the team to play as they did against Leicester - or better - then that will make me very happy. In fact I believe in Glenn''s vision so much I went and renewed my season ticket yesterday after hearing about the loan player from Arsenal.[/quote]

Gazza,

I continue to hold a lot of faith in Roeder but my ultimate fear is that the board will fail to back him in the next window and we''ll see an O''Neill scenario. I''m not totally against a loan policy but what happens in the summer? We''ll have no up coming youngsters who will earn us good money in the future if we continue with a ''''worry about now'''' policy. The signing of Taylor shouldve of been sorted straight away, and the emergence of Lewis should off been top priority for the club but we sold him imo to finance short term signings. I could of course be wrong but i have a holding suspicion that this could come back and bite us very hard in the backside long term. All said,i''d much rather these hungry youngsters instead of the old wasters taking a tidy pension off us.

[gazzathegreat 0]

Arthur

Yes, of course there is always the possibility that Glenn Roeder will leave, but I think he would leave to take on a bigger challenge with a bigger (Premiership) club, not walk out as in an O''Neill situation. I admit I did wonder that at first, but GR seems hell bent on getting us to go forward and as yet has not indicated that the board haven''t backed him, in fact he''s gone on to say they have and he enjoys working with them. Personally, taking what''s gone on upstairs in the past five or so years, I find that hard to take in, but consider Mr Roeder a very honest and genuine person and most importantly one the world of football take seriously, unlike our previous managers.

The link with Arsenal in particular is vital for pointers it gives to how GR is going to change the club culture to one of bringing on youngsters and getting them to play in the right way.

From what I have heard re Taylor, it''s more Birmingham playing silly beggars rather than a lack of decision making on our part. Who would you rather believe, Glenn or Karen Brady?

Lewis leaving is a shame and perhaps will come back to haunt us. I will bow to GR''s greater judgement and consider he has someone in the academy who might be a worthy successor to Marshall. We have yet to see Gilks in action, for example.

Under this board we have allowed things to stagnate and a comfort zone to develop, Glenn Roeder has a lot to do before we can believe that every squad member (and the academy) are all winners. I wish him well, because I can see a very bright future under Mr Roeder, his first few months have been exceptional.

[Smudger 0]

[quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Arthur, maybe we are a feeder club to Reading, Arsenal, etc etc - if that''s how you want to paint the picture. We don''t have millions to spend, that is quite obvious. We have all debated for ages the rights and wrongs of where the investment in our club lies. The board have got a lot wrong - and they know it. At last (after a long long time in denial) they have appointed someone with ambition, footballing know how and most of all someone who loves football and wants a bunch of winners in his squad. I am disappointed that our own youth players don''t meet his criteria - but they don''t. It''s time for Glenn and his team to rebuild, starting with loans. He is starting to drastically change the culture at this club, where for many years we have had players who don''t have what it takes, especially their mentality, to succeed. Arthur, what would you rather see, a team who GR can build from youth (I am pretty certain he''s going to sort out our own academy as soon as we are technically safe from relegation), young players who are hungry for success and can play with the ball at their feet or a bunch of lethargic wasters who have been at 10 clubs in their career and see Colney as a comfort zone? Yes the board need to back Roeder. So far it seems they are. I think he''s got enough cash for the summer to make 2 or 3 key signings and then the serious task of a total rebuild is on the cards. (He is going to lose key players in Hucks and Dion after all). IF he can get the team to play as they did against Leicester - or better - then that will make me very happy. In fact I believe in Glenn''s vision so much I went and renewed my season ticket yesterday after hearing about the loan player from Arsenal.[/quote]

Gazza,

I continue to hold a lot of faith in Roeder but my ultimate fear is that the board will fail to back him in the next window and we''ll see an O''Neill scenario. I''m not totally against a loan policy but what happens in the summer? We''ll have no up coming youngsters who will earn us good money in the future if we continue with a ''''worry about now'''' policy. The signing of Taylor shouldve of been sorted straight away, and the emergence of Lewis should off been top priority for the club but we sold him imo to finance short term signings. I could of course be wrong but i have a holding suspicion that this could come back and bite us very hard in the backside long term. All said,i''d much rather these hungry youngsters instead of the old wasters taking a tidy pension off us.

[/quote]

It doesn''t bear thinking about does it Arthur???

7 loanees to be returned to sender, Dion retiring and Hucks on his way from an already paper thin squad.

How many pro''s will that leave on the books???

[Big Down Under 0]

Gazza, I can''t find any fault with what you say. Two good posts and I agree with you. I wish the board had focussed more on short term team spending rather than long term investments, and they need to think long and hard about investing the profits from the land deal in off pitch investments. By the way did you learn anything more about this?I wouldn''t bother trying to debate reasonably with Arthur though, he seems unwilling to discuss the points I made above, as does Bly. I think they just enjoy being miserable so much, they don''t want to see another side of the debate.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Gazza, I can''t find any fault with what you say. Two good posts and I agree with you. I wish the board had focussed more on short term team spending rather than long term investments, and they need to think long and hard about investing the profits from the land deal in off pitch investments. By the way did you learn anything more about this?

I wouldn''t bother trying to debate reasonably with Arthur though, he seems unwilling to discuss the points I made above, as does Bly. I think they just enjoy being miserable so much, they don''t want to see another side of the debate.
[/quote]

Neither do you.

Why should being fully supportive of Roeder and constructively critical of the strategic thinking and persistent small-mindedness of the NCFC owners & board make me miserable? Weird.                         

I derive considerable satisfaction blowing running uphill in my efforts to have the owners and board adopt more ambitious benchmarks.

[:D]

OTBC 

 

 

[Big Down Under 0]

Bly, I always respond to specific points make in their posts. If I agree, I say so. If I disagree, I say so and I say why. I back up what I say with examples. You aren''t constructively critical, at least you don''t come across as such. You disappear from the debate, starting new threads frequently making the same old tired points all over again. You still have responded to my points above. I don''t expect you to either, because I don''t think you can answer what I say and keep your entirely negative views of the board intact. You aren''t alone in this either.Its obvious the board aren''t 100% right in all they do, but neither are they 100% wrong.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Bly, I always respond to specific points make in their posts. If I agree, I say so. If I disagree, I say so and I say why. I back up what I say with examples. You aren''t constructively critical, at least you don''t come across as such. You disappear from the debate, starting new threads frequently making the same old tired points all over again. You still have responded to my points above. I don''t expect you to either, because I don''t think you can answer what I say and keep your entirely negative views of the board intact. You aren''t alone in this either.

Its obvious the board aren''t 100% right in all they do, but neither are they 100% wrong.
[/quote]

Your points are generally dull and fail to get to the heart of the matter. But mine are costructive, sharp as an arrow, expose the main issues facing the club at this time; and bear repetition. OK?

By the way. Are you the Antipodean cousin of a NCFC board member that I came across once? You sound like it.

OTBC

[corbs 0]

I have enjoyed reading Big Down Under and the general reasoned arguement and good sense in his posts, unless the tat from Blyth Jex.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Bly, I always respond to specific points make in their posts. If I agree, I say so. If I disagree, I say so and I say why. I back up what I say with examples. You aren''t constructively critical, at least you don''t come across as such. You disappear from the debate, starting new threads frequently making the same old tired points all over again. You still have responded to my points above. I don''t expect you to either, because I don''t think you can answer what I say and keep your entirely negative views of the board intact. You aren''t alone in this either.Its obvious the board aren''t 100% right in all they do, but neither are they 100% wrong. [/quote]

Your points are generally dull and fail to get to the heart of the matter. But mine are costructive, sharp as an arrow, expose the main issues facing the club at this time; and bear repetition. OK?

By the way. Are you the Antipodean cousin of a NCFC board member that I came across once? You sound like it.

OTBC

[/quote]Please explain how they fail to get to the heart of the matter. Trust me, you banging the same drum daily on new threads whilst totally missing the point isn''t sharp as an arrow. You only fail to respond to my points with anything resembling a reasoned argument because you can''t. You have no answer to my points at all, either because you don''t understand them (shall I use shorter words?) or you would just rather keep a blinkered view rather than address the other side of the debate. Either way, you don''t come across as being half as smart as you like to think you are.I''m not related to any board member, I''m not a friend of any board member, I don''t know any board members, past or present. And I''m certainly not a bl**dy Aussie.

[alex_ncfc 662]

Initial post turned out to be true. Guess that proves that not all "he said she said" type posts are bullsh*t. Just most of them!

[kdncfc 0]

I would never have started this post if I didn''t think it was true, I had always had a feeling there was something in the Cullum rumours and the guy who told me this would not lie. The rumours came from to many different sources for there not to be something in them, from the first time JC posted about Mr Cullum being interested I felt there was something going on behind the scenes, and so it proved.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Boot"]

Oh well another groundless rumour squashed, such a shame when someone who knows what they are talking about comes on and spoils all the fun.

On the plus side though the usual know-nothing morons have been able to have yet another ill-founded and uninformed dig at the board before the facts were known so all is not lost.

In the medium to long term we will need to stamp out people posting on this board who know what they are talking about or the resulting outbreak of good sense could make a large number of certain regular posters on here start to feel very stupid....and that would never do!

[/quote]Not such a groundless rumour after all.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="kdncfc"][quote user="Boot"]

Oh well another groundless rumour squashed, such a shame when someone who knows what they are talking about comes on and spoils all the fun.

On the plus side though the usual know-nothing morons have been able to have yet another ill-founded and uninformed dig at the board before the facts were known so all is not lost.

In the medium to long term we will need to stamp out people posting on this board who know what they are talking about or the resulting outbreak of good sense could make a large number of certain regular posters on here start to feel very stupid....and that would never do!

[/quote]Not such a groundless rumour after all.[/quote]Exactly... Who is the no nothing moron now eh boot? [^o)]

[Puzzy magnet 0]

bump

[Joanna Grey 0]

[quote user="Lol Morgan"]bump[/quote]

Why?