Some fans know whats going on

[trev 0]

Just spotted this thread so sorry not to have contributed sooner and left John to field all the questions. I''m on the SCG too and attended last Monday''s meeting. The most important thing from the outset is to clarify that the SCG is not about representing the views of fans in the ways some posters are assuming. The SCG was established by the club, post Chase, to provide opportunities for the club to seek the views of a cohort they hoped was representative of it''s fanbase. It did this by invitation and recruits new members by advertising vacancies when they arise and interviewing applicants. The club staff and SCG are at least equally represented in this process. It''s ultimately the club''s decision as to who it invites on but we''ve never fallen out over this since I''ve been involved ( I joined the SCG in 2001 I think and have been on the selection group for the last 2 or 3 years). What all this means is that we are not a body to whom the club is held accountable. The club wholeheartedly involves the SCG and others in a range of sub groups, working in partnership on for example ticketing - and what a success that has been. In other areas though we are given the clubs perspective and asked what we think of it. We often have very robust debates but at the end of them the club is entirely at liberty to ignore whatever we say, although I can''t remember it ever really doing so!

Anyway, on the question of last Monday''s meeting, we learnt very little. Club representatives gave their (by their own admission) limited view of the discussions with PC to date and sought our views. The discussion was as diverse as it has been on any of the message boards. Some felt he ticked all the right boxes and should be in without delay. Others were suspicious as to the detail of the actual offer that had been put but we were not told it. Others again felt that the club should go public with it''s version of events and still others suggested they didn''t care what went into the press as long as there were discussions with PC and any reasonable opportunity to get his investment in was ultimately secured. The closest to a consensus amongst the fans side of the SCG was in how unhelpful the media coverage had been in GR''s team building plans. If I were any club taking a call from us right now, the price would have at least one additional zero on the end of it.

I hope this is helpful, clarifying that I didn''t learn last Monday anything I didn''t know or had seen written in conjecture somewhere else, that the SCG is more a focus group than a trade union and that I''d love to be an elite fan but unfortunately I''m not. I''ll not comment on the extent to which I may or may not worship Delia.

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

John / Trev,

if you were betting men, where would you put your money right now will the board deal or no deal (just asking for your opinion, not legally binding and all that)

Also feel the board may be manipulating the scg for it''s own ends (interesting how archant / message boards knew there was a meeting before it happened and the scg are taking the brunt of the flak today rather than the board...)

[trev 0]

I really have no idea! I don''t care who runs the club per se, I care that whoever it is, is the one willing to put most in, in the most effective manner and enables the club to be run properly. That PC is worth the most doesn''t necessarily equate to being the most generous, best operator in football and most fit. What I do have faith in with our board is that they will do their best to do the right thing, so if PC ends up on board we can be fairly sure it will be good news!

[BBFF 0]

[quote user="trev"]

Just spotted this thread so sorry not to have contributed sooner and left John to field all the questions. I''m on the SCG too and attended last Monday''s meeting. The most important thing from the outset is to clarify that the SCG is not about representing the views of fans in the ways some posters are assuming. The SCG was established by the club, post Chase, to provide opportunities for the club to seek the views of a cohort they hoped was representative of it''s fanbase. It did this by invitation and recruits new members by advertising vacancies when they arise and interviewing applicants. The club staff and SCG are at least equally represented in this process. It''s ultimately the club''s decision as to who it invites on but we''ve never fallen out over this since I''ve been involved ( I joined the SCG in 2001 I think and have been on the selection group for the last 2 or 3 years). What all this means is that we are not a body to whom the club is held accountable. The club wholeheartedly involves the SCG and others in a range of sub groups, working in partnership on for example ticketing - and what a success that has been. In other areas though we are given the clubs perspective and asked what we think of it. We often have very robust debates but at the end of them the club is entirely at liberty to ignore whatever we say, although I can''t remember it ever really doing so!

Anyway, on the question of last Monday''s meeting, we learnt very little. Club representatives gave their (by their own admission) limited view of the discussions with PC to date and sought our views. The discussion was as diverse as it has been on any of the message boards. Some felt he ticked all the right boxes and should be in without delay. Others were suspicious as to the detail of the actual offer that had been put but we were not told it. Others again felt that the club should go public with it''s version of events and still others suggested they didn''t care what went into the press as long as there were discussions with PC and any reasonable opportunity to get his investment in was ultimately secured. The closest to a consensus amongst the fans side of the SCG was in how unhelpful the media coverage had been in GR''s team building plans. If I were any club taking a call from us right now, the price would have at least one additional zero on the end of it.

I hope this is helpful, clarifying that I didn''t learn last Monday anything I didn''t know or had seen written in conjecture somewhere else, that the SCG is more a focus group than a trade union and that I''d love to be an elite fan but unfortunately I''m not. I''ll not comment on the extent to which I may or may not worship Delia.

[/quote]

Thanks trev for helping to blow away the media fog on the last meeting with the club. I thought about applying to join the SCG a long time ago but the boards/clubs policy of down grading the FOOTBALL and investing what ever there was "off the pitch" kicked in so I didn''t want anything to do with board. You must realise that members of the group are regarded as insiders or as some have said elite supporters. The very name Supporters Consultative Group says you are talking for and representing supporters views and opinions and also viewed as supporting the boards views and policys. Maybe a name change is in order.

Again thanks for saying about the meeting with the club and can you tell Mr Doncaster & Co at your next meeting that secrecy breads suspicion and we all want the same thing, what''s best for the FOOTBALL club.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[still holding out for new heroes 0]

[quote user="BBFF"][quote user="trev"]

Just spotted this thread so sorry not to have contributed sooner and left John to field all the questions. I''m on the SCG too and attended last Monday''s meeting. The most important thing from the outset is to clarify that the SCG is not about representing the views of fans in the ways some posters are assuming. The SCG was established by the club, post Chase, to provide opportunities for the club to seek the views of a cohort they hoped was representative of it''s fanbase. It did this by invitation and recruits new members by advertising vacancies when they arise and interviewing applicants. The club staff and SCG are at least equally represented in this process. It''s ultimately the club''s decision as to who it invites on but we''ve never fallen out over this since I''ve been involved ( I joined the SCG in 2001 I think and have been on the selection group for the last 2 or 3 years). What all this means is that we are not a body to whom the club is held accountable. The club wholeheartedly involves the SCG and others in a range of sub groups, working in partnership on for example ticketing - and what a success that has been. In other areas though we are given the clubs perspective and asked what we think of it. We often have very robust debates but at the end of them the club is entirely at liberty to ignore whatever we say, although I can''t remember it ever really doing so!

Anyway, on the question of last Monday''s meeting, we learnt very little. Club representatives gave their (by their own admission) limited view of the discussions with PC to date and sought our views. The discussion was as diverse as it has been on any of the message boards. Some felt he ticked all the right boxes and should be in without delay. Others were suspicious as to the detail of the actual offer that had been put but we were not told it. Others again felt that the club should go public with it''s version of events and still others suggested they didn''t care what went into the press as long as there were discussions with PC and any reasonable opportunity to get his investment in was ultimately secured. The closest to a consensus amongst the fans side of the SCG was in how unhelpful the media coverage had been in GR''s team building plans. If I were any club taking a call from us right now, the price would have at least one additional zero on the end of it.

I hope this is helpful, clarifying that I didn''t learn last Monday anything I didn''t know or had seen written in conjecture somewhere else, that the SCG is more a focus group than a trade union and that I''d love to be an elite fan but unfortunately I''m not. I''ll not comment on the extent to which I may or may not worship Delia.

[/quote]

Thanks trev for helping to blow away the media fog on the last meeting with the club. I thought about applying to join the SCG a long time ago but the boards/clubs policy of down grading the FOOTBALL and investing what ever there was "off the pitch" kicked in so I didn''t want anything to do with board. You must realise that members of the group are regarded as insiders or as some have said elite supporters. The very name Supporters Consultative Group says you are talking for and representing supporters views and opinions and also viewed as supporting the boards views and policys. Maybe a name change is in order.

Again thanks for saying about the meeting with the club and can you tell Mr Doncaster & Co at your next meeting that secrecy breads suspicion and we all want the same thing, what''s best for the FOOTBALL club.

 

FOOTBALL MUST COME FIRST

[/quote]

 

I for one don''t blame the scg for this secrecy (if I lived in Norfolk, it''s certainly something I would have applied to do), it''s the board who have called this meeting, asked members to retain confidences and moreover failed to comunicate with the majority of their customers. IMHO the board are deliberately using the scg to deflect some of the criticism over the weekend.

It''s quite a simple equation, if we turn down Cullums money and the team continue to struggle on the pitch (which given the current squad and limited transfer activity we are likely to do) the position of DS and MWJ is untenable. My biggest concern is the role of the (pointless) Turners in this, they remain uncommitted financially, secret and shadowy, perhaps they feel they will benefit from this, picking up the club on the cheap when the Stowmartket two have had enough and refuse to do business with Cullum.

[Mark .Y. 352]

I have to say I find the whole thing slightly (to say the least !!) bizarre.

There have been many postings on the legal requirements and caveats that the board have to meet as a PLC but I don''t think I have ever heard of the situation whereby the board of a company issues information in a private gathering to a group of people who may or may not be shareholders but does not keep the vast majority of shareholders informed.

Like many others on this board, I am a shareholder and I actually resent this way of doing things, it is me they should be keeping informed - not a group representing supporters.

 

Mark .Y. 

[sxcanaree 0]

[quote user="Mark .Y."]

There have been many postings on the legal requirements and caveats that the board have to meet as a PLC but I don''t think I have ever heard of the situation whereby the board of a company issues information in a private gathering to a group of people who may or may not be shareholders but does not keep the vast majority of shareholders informed.

[/quote]

I''ve just looked at the one and only statement issued by the Board - it does not say that they will be revealing more to the SCG nor does it mention the meeting. I would guess that the meeting on Tuesday was not cobbled together as a reaction to Archant''s manipulation of "public opinion" but had been arranged some time in advance.

As explained by Trev above the club staff gave as much as they knew regarding the Peter Cullum offer and the Board''s reaction and as many whingers on here have stated as they are "not a representative body" one can assume that personal opinions were proffered in response.

Having berated everyone else for conjecture I am now going to add my own, my current employers operate a policy of transparency and have a "council" where the senior management discuss the direction they want to take the company and the challenges they face in doing this. Whilst the minutes are recorded there are often points where the managers may go "off piste" and provide personal insight on the blockers to some of the changes which are not to be minuted nor repeated outside the meeting. The individuals at the meeting are trusted not to reveal that part of the meeting but are able to challenge and discuss the points. It is accepted that from the point that any one of the council members repeats that data that level of transparency will disappear and the meeting will revert to discussing the colour of the coffee cups and whether the drinks machine should sell Coke or Pepsi - my guess is that the SCG was established for the latter but has grown to encompass some of the former and we should respect that position.

As to whether the SCG is representative I do not think that that is relevant - if the prime puropse is to discuss the bells and whistles that make NCFC the "football club of choice" then it needs to be selective in its membership as it needs to encompass fans who utilise the peripheral services and not the man with the loudest voice.

We have to remember that despite the shares not being listed they are a tradeable commodity and with 32% of them in the hands of other investors the club are not allowed to release price sensitive data which would include any new investment, loan re-structure etc. as even though there is a limited market for the shares they are traded at the price that the individual investor wishes to sell for.

So my message is back off! If the SCG know anything on a confidential nature respect that confidentiality. There is obviously "something" going on and try as they might Archant cannot find it so they are spinning their one interview and email from Peter Cullum as much as they can. On Saturday "Fans eye view" takes up a whole page in the newspaper and contains not a single fact and what is more intriguing is how this quote from this "Fan" from his article of 23rd June   fits in with the rest of the article which is a review of our season and the player recruited to date:.

"We''re still well below par and there needs to be a substantial investment if we are to avoid another grim season next time around."

There is no mention of finance before or after this point yet the title of the article is "Investment needed to avoid repeat season"  beforehand the "fan" is praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams!

Perhaps this "fan" spent a week "tapping his nose, winking and dropping hints that they know more than most of us do" whilst Archant planned how far and how much they were going to spin this non story.

 

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]

Yes a few select fans know whats going on and then there''s the shareholders, 20,000  season ticket holders, members and die hard fans who haven''t got a clue whats going on.

No wonder loyal fans like me are totally pisssed off at the moment.

[/quote]

Exactly CA.

Arse lickers, the lot of them!.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

Maybe the board will let us all feel important and part of the decision process, by allowing all the ''average'' support to once again vote on whether we should have green shorts or return to yellow shorts? I do remember waving my green card with excited pride, it was so much fun......And those figure huggin'' (thanks to Delia''s chum - Bruce Oldfield) and his superbly designed footy shirts, displayed by the then catwalk model, Sarah Thomas (local girl) and Eadie and Keef O'' Neil etc, also doing their bit....We weren''t exactly flush then, but being a fan was fun!

May I suggest at the Blackpool home game, that the club install a ''clapometer'' not the type in STD clinics, but, the ''Opportunity Knocks type''? Then, at half-time, instead of the lounge lizards powering off for the best biccies, corporates off for a 30 minute quaff an'' scoff, and the ''average Joe''s drifting off to the concourse refreshment areas for a swig of liquid cardboard lager, drag on a fag - or feasting on a blister inducing and scorching the roof of their palates with an inedible smelted gravy and WTF? Collapsed ''special'' pie.

Then, the ''clapometer'' is turned on.......Our current incumbents led out by ''Our Delia'' stroll out to the centre-circle, and a klaxon burst is sounded. Applause commences for 2 minutes only, and the biggest loudest clap is recorded. The board then disappear down tunnel and out comes Mr Cullum and Co.....centre circle, klaxon, applause, clapometer records applause, and Cullum and gang disappear down tunnel.....Biggest applause, gets to be the NCFC Board!

The clapometer results are analyzed and recorded during the second half, then the clap results are given out at the final whistle.

I predict the following:

Clap result for Delia Smith and Co > (Stowmarket, Bristol, Hull and other ''Local'' areas). One pigeon flapping wings in the Jarrold, fart from the City Stand, "Daddy I need the toilet!" from the N & P, Steward scratching ar$e in the Barclay, and ''Keep the fuggin'' noise down from a ''pitch facing'' hotel window.

Clap result for Mr Cullum and Co > ( Norfolk Boy done well, Billionaire Fan and once connected as a NCFC youth player). Clapometer off the scale, applause heard from Dereham and from equivalent distance surrounding areas.....No contest.

Democracy at its finest......and, "FUN FOR FANS!" [Y] 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="sxcanaree"]

There is no mention of finance before or after this point yet the title of the article is "Investment needed to avoid repeat season"  beforehand the "fan" is praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams!

Perhaps this "fan" spent a week "tapping his nose, winking and dropping hints that they know more than most of us do" whilst Archant planned how far and how much they were going to spin this non story.

 

[/quote]In amongst your waffle and crud, two points.  1.  What is wrong with praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams!  I feel exactly the same way, he has done a great job so far, but hus treatment of Huckerby/Adams was pathetic.  You obviously only see things in black and white, well delia rose tinted spectacles and white.2. What is wrong with telling the fans about the secret meeting with the SCG where these elite fans were told stuff the rest of us are not allowed to know?  The club never told us of this meeting and I am very pleased he did tell us.Cullum In!!!!

[Fans Eye 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]I''m sure many of you are NCISA members and will know that John Tilson is a strident critic of the Club at times - hardly "in the board''s pocket". John Tilson is also on the SCG. I can''t see he would be happy to be described as a being part of a "cosy chat" with the Club about the whole Cullum affair. Not least by Adam Aiken, one of Mr Tilson''s best friends.[/quote]

You''re right - John Tilson is a friend of mine and is also on the SCG.

Just in case there''s any doubt, I have no criticism of the existence of the SCG nor of John''s (or anyone else''s, membership of it). I do have some concerns over how the SCG is run, but that isn''t my criticism here.

What I do object to (as do so many other people, if the feedback to my latest column is to be believed) is the briefing of the SCG over an issue such as this. We should all be told what the state of play is.

[Fans Eye 0]

[quote user="sxcanaree"][quote user="Mark .Y."]

There have been many postings on the legal requirements and caveats that the board have to meet as a PLC but I don''t think I have ever heard of the situation whereby the board of a company issues information in a private gathering to a group of people who may or may not be shareholders but does not keep the vast majority of shareholders informed.

[/quote]

I''ve just looked at the one and only statement issued by the Board - it does not say that they will be revealing more to the SCG nor does it mention the meeting. I would guess that the meeting on Tuesday was not cobbled together as a reaction to Archant''s manipulation of "public opinion" but had been arranged some time in advance.

As explained by Trev above the club staff gave as much as they knew regarding the Peter Cullum offer and the Board''s reaction and as many whingers on here have stated as they are "not a representative body" one can assume that personal opinions were proffered in response.

Having berated everyone else for conjecture I am now going to add my own, my current employers operate a policy of transparency and have a "council" where the senior management discuss the direction they want to take the company and the challenges they face in doing this. Whilst the minutes are recorded there are often points where the managers may go "off piste" and provide personal insight on the blockers to some of the changes which are not to be minuted nor repeated outside the meeting. The individuals at the meeting are trusted not to reveal that part of the meeting but are able to challenge and discuss the points. It is accepted that from the point that any one of the council members repeats that data that level of transparency will disappear and the meeting will revert to discussing the colour of the coffee cups and whether the drinks machine should sell Coke or Pepsi - my guess is that the SCG was established for the latter but has grown to encompass some of the former and we should respect that position.

As to whether the SCG is representative I do not think that that is relevant - if the prime puropse is to discuss the bells and whistles that make NCFC the "football club of choice" then it needs to be selective in its membership as it needs to encompass fans who utilise the peripheral services and not the man with the loudest voice.

We have to remember that despite the shares not being listed they are a tradeable commodity and with 32% of them in the hands of other investors the club are not allowed to release price sensitive data which would include any new investment, loan re-structure etc. as even though there is a limited market for the shares they are traded at the price that the individual investor wishes to sell for.

So my message is back off! If the SCG know anything on a confidential nature respect that confidentiality. There is obviously "something" going on and try as they might Archant cannot find it so they are spinning their one interview and email from Peter Cullum as much as they can. On Saturday "Fans eye view" takes up a whole page in the newspaper and contains not a single fact and what is more intriguing is how this quote from this "Fan" from his article of 23rd June   fits in with the rest of the article which is a review of our season and the player recruited to date:.

"We''re still well below par and there needs to be a substantial investment if we are to avoid another grim season next time around."

There is no mention of finance before or after this point yet the title of the article is "Investment needed to avoid repeat season"  beforehand the "fan" is praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams!

Perhaps this "fan" spent a week "tapping his nose, winking and dropping hints that they know more than most of us do" whilst Archant planned how far and how much they were going to spin this non story.

 

[/quote]

1 If your implication from this is that the latest Fan''s Eye column is part of an Archant campaign, you couldn''t be mroe wrong. No column I have ever had published has been written by anyone other than myself, and no column of mine has ever been tailored to fit in with a greater editorial position.

2 You call it a "non-story". It''s your call as to whether you agree with what has been said or whether you are at all interested in it, but it certainly isn''t a "non-story". In fact, the discussions taking place here and elsewhere suggest it''s one of the biggest Norwich City stories in a long time.

3 I don''t see how the quotes you highlighted are at all contradictory. A) Roeder achieved wonders last season. B) His treatment of Huckerby was, in my opinion, wrong. C) We need investment in the team. Three points of view that, again, you may disagree with, but that are not contradictory.

[Mark .Y. 352]

[quote user="sxcanaree"][quote user="Mark .Y."]

There have been many postings on the legal requirements and caveats that the board have to meet as a PLC but I don''t think I have ever heard of the situation whereby the board of a company issues information in a private gathering to a group of people who may or may not be shareholders but does not keep the vast majority of shareholders informed.

[/quote]

I''ve just looked at the one and only statement issued by the Board - it does not say that they will be revealing more to the SCG nor does it mention the meeting. I would guess that the meeting on Tuesday was not cobbled together as a reaction to Archant''s manipulation of "public opinion" but had been arranged some time in advance.

As explained by Trev above the club staff gave as much as they knew regarding the Peter Cullum offer and the Board''s reaction and as many whingers on here have stated as they are "not a representative body" one can assume that personal opinions were proffered in response.

Having berated everyone else for conjecture I am now going to add my own, my current employers operate a policy of transparency and have a "council" where the senior management discuss the direction they want to take the company and the challenges they face in doing this. Whilst the minutes are recorded there are often points where the managers may go "off piste" and provide personal insight on the blockers to some of the changes which are not to be minuted nor repeated outside the meeting. The individuals at the meeting are trusted not to reveal that part of the meeting but are able to challenge and discuss the points. It is accepted that from the point that any one of the council members repeats that data that level of transparency will disappear and the meeting will revert to discussing the colour of the coffee cups and whether the drinks machine should sell Coke or Pepsi - my guess is that the SCG was established for the latter but has grown to encompass some of the former and we should respect that position.

As to whether the SCG is representative I do not think that that is relevant - if the prime puropse is to discuss the bells and whistles that make NCFC the "football club of choice" then it needs to be selective in its membership as it needs to encompass fans who utilise the peripheral services and not the man with the loudest voice.

We have to remember that despite the shares not being listed they are a tradeable commodity and with 32% of them in the hands of other investors the club are not allowed to release price sensitive data which would include any new investment, loan re-structure etc. as even though there is a limited market for the shares they are traded at the price that the individual investor wishes to sell for.

So my message is back off! If the SCG know anything on a confidential nature respect that confidentiality. There is obviously "something" going on and try as they might Archant cannot find it so they are spinning their one interview and email from Peter Cullum as much as they can. On Saturday "Fans eye view" takes up a whole page in the newspaper and contains not a single fact and what is more intriguing is how this quote from this "Fan" from his article of 23rd June   fits in with the rest of the article which is a review of our season and the player recruited to date:.

"We''re still well below par and there needs to be a substantial investment if we are to avoid another grim season next time around."

There is no mention of finance before or after this point yet the title of the article is "Investment needed to avoid repeat season"  beforehand the "fan" is praising what Roeder achieved and in the next complaining of his treatment of Huckerby/Adams!

Perhaps this "fan" spent a week "tapping his nose, winking and dropping hints that they know more than most of us do" whilst Archant planned how far and how much they were going to spin this non story.

 

[/quote]

I understand what you are saying sxcanaree and I don''t have any grudge against the SCG, in fact if it helps the club improve the running of certain areas then all well and good.

However, your comparison with your works council isn''t valid. I am not an employee of the club, I own part of it and as such I want to know what my board is doing on my behalf regarding a possible cash injection/takeover. This is no different a position which I would take with other companies I own shares in.

The other part I need to pick you up on is your assertion that they must not release price sensitive data. The opposite is true, they have to release information regarding any activity that may influence the share price. ALL shareholders are entitled to know any information that could affect the value of their holding.

I think where some people are getting mixed up is they are confusing Delia/Michael with NCFC PLC, they are separate entities and need to be viewed as such.

 

Mark .Y.

 

  

[Branston Pickle 3,651]

[quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="cityangel"]

Yes a few select fans know whats going on and then there''s the shareholders, 20,000  season ticket holders, members and die hard fans who haven''t got a clue whats going on.

No wonder loyal fans like me are totally pisssed off at the moment.

[/quote]

Exactly CA.

Arse lickers, the lot of them!.

[/quote]

It appears that you have not bothered to read Trev''s comments, or perhaps you just decided to ignore them because they contradict your negative view? 

At the end of the day, all this stuff has stemmed from a very one-eyed article in the EDP, and the truth appears to be that there is little extra information for us to know at the moment.  Period.  If there are talks going on behind the scenes, all well and good, but I for one hope that it is kept out of the media as much as possible if only to avoid the very sort of thing that is happening here.

Of course, this doesn''t fit your opinion so perhaps you should just carry on being miserable....

[jetstream 0]

Fan''s Eye

I think trev above has answered some of your points and has also dismissed your claim that "everything they were told was confidential" and from what he says it would seem that the mixture of views expressed to the Board on behalf of the fans represented the same kind of cross-section as you would get on this or other forums or discussions in a pub between a group of fans.

I think you owe the SCG an apology.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="1st Wizard"][quote user="cityangel"]

Yes a few select fans know whats going on and then there''s the shareholders, 20,000  season ticket holders, members and die hard fans who haven''t got a clue whats going on.

No wonder loyal fans like me are totally pisssed off at the moment.

[/quote]

Exactly CA.

Arse lickers, the lot of them!.

[/quote]

It appears that you have not bothered to read Trev''s comments, or perhaps you just decided to ignore them because they contradict your negative view? 

At the end of the day, all this stuff has stemmed from a very one-eyed article in the EDP, and the truth appears to be that there is little extra information for us to know at the moment.  Period.  If there are talks going on behind the scenes, all well and good, but I for one hope that it is kept out of the media as much as possible if only to avoid the very sort of thing that is happening here.

Of course, this doesn''t fit your opinion so perhaps you should just carry on being miserable....

[/quote]

My opinion on this is based on my own past experiences, and not Archants and certainly, not yours.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]Fan''s Eye

I think trev above has answered some of your points and has also dismissed your claim that "everything they were told was confidential" and from what he says it would seem that the mixture of views expressed to the Board on behalf of the fans represented the same kind of cross-section as you would get on this or other forums or discussions in a pub between a group of fans.

I think you owe the SCG an apology.[/quote]Some stuff revealed in the meeting with these elite superfans was confidential from the rest of us ordinary fans and shareholders.  That is a definate fact.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="jetstream"]Fan''s Eye

I think trev above has answered some of your points and has also dismissed your claim that "everything they were told was confidential" and from what he says it would seem that the mixture of views expressed to the Board on behalf of the fans represented the same kind of cross-section as you would get on this or other forums or discussions in a pub between a group of fans.

I think you owe the SCG an apology.[/quote]Some stuff revealed in the meeting with these elite superfans was confidential from the rest of us ordinary fans and shareholders.  That is a definate fact.[/quote]From what Fans eye said, his chums on the SCG would reveal nothing about the stuff relating to the Cullum situation.  No apology due to the elite fans IMO.The SCG had a meeting with club officials this week in which they were

told a load of stuff about the Cullum situation - but everything they

were told was confidential.I have a couple of mates on the SCG, and I asked them what was said at the meeting.“Sorry,

no can do,” was the general tone of the answers. “What we were told was

in confidence, but as you can imagine things aren''t quite as clear-cut

as Cullum would have you believe.”

[Grando 260]

One of these self-styled "elite" fans should live up to the title and actually come clean to the press with what the club allege is the problem with Cullum. The EDP can then investigate whether there is anything in this.

I supsect, like the Fan''s Eye columnist, that this is a sly piece of audience manipulation on behalf of the club...

[jetstream 0]

Why can''t the EDP investigate on it''s own - the lack of journalistic questioning to Mr Cullum by Archant is at the root of the problems here because all most people read are the headlines - he wants to put £20m into the Club for players, wow, who could possibly object to that?

It''s equally possible to argue that Cullum and the EDP are indulging in "a sly piece of audience manipulation".

As a result of the piss-poor journalism on the part of Archant, all week we''ve all been arguing over what Cullum meant by his words and what the Club meant by theirs. As Camul said on another thread, why aren''t the EDP door-stepping Delia and Cullum to get comments/quotes/answers?

(And I''m in favour of them talking to Cullum by the way, I think this Board has run its'' course, but not everything they have done off the field is bad)

Adam Aiken''s Fan''s Eye column adds nothing to the debate but a great big wooden spoon. The SCG meet with the Club all year round and 90% of the time no-one wants to know what they do or put themselves forward for a dull committee meeting about disabled access on a Tuesday night in February when it''s raining.

Suddenly the people who give up their time to do some thankless work get accused of being a self-styled ''elite'' and snidey remarks about ''super-fans''.

And CJF you missed the crucial word - not "everything" they were told was confidential as Aiken says. So by definition perhaps "something" was - maybe you should read Trev''s initial post again.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]

Suddenly the people who give up their time to do some thankless work get accused of being a self-styled ''elite'' and snidey remarks about ''super-fans''.

And CJF you missed the crucial word - not "everything" they were told was confidential as Aiken says. So by definition perhaps "something" was - maybe you should read Trev''s initial post again.[/quote]From his article it states Aitken''s super fan chums told him the Cullum stuff was confidential - hence the use of the word everything with regards to the Cullum stuff.  Maybe his chums were also veering slightly the truth, or perhaps Trev is throwing a few white ones in! [;)]

[Grando 260]

I suspect if the EDP were to doorstep Delia they wouldn''t get anything whatsoever out of her...

But you''re right, they should be trying to get to the truth of this story.

[jetstream 0]

CJF

Trev says:

"Anyway, on the question of last Monday''s meeting, we learnt very little. Club representatives gave their (by their own admission) limited view of the discussions with PC to date and sought our views....[goes on to say what the SCG members said TO the Club]...I hope this is helpful, clarifying that I didn''t learn last Monday anything I didn''t know or had seen written in conjecture somewhere else"

The last bit is the important bit.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="jetstream"]CJF

Trev says:

"Anyway, on the question of last Monday''s meeting, we learnt very little. Club representatives gave their (by their own admission) limited view of the discussions with PC to date and sought our views....[goes on to say what the SCG members said TO the Club]...I hope this is helpful, clarifying that I didn''t learn last Monday anything I didn''t know or had seen written in conjecture somewhere else"

The last bit is the important bit.[/quote]Sounds like Trev is just keeping things under wraps, as was requested by the club.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

And what exactly has been achieved from this ''clandestine'' but conveniently ''publicized'' meeting between the ''Special Patrol Group'' and the ''Board of Buttress Carra Rud''? Anything?

Why have it in the first place? Delia and her Cohorts, probably testing the water and see what reaction is received, in preparation before releasing a statement for the great unwashed and smelly oiks that live in the cheap seats?

I''ll tell you what I think has been achieved.....Much the same as what the ''Butt-Kiss Boardists'' are accusing Mr Cullum of - concerning his ''real'' and not a ''passing interest'' in NCFC.

I stated when Mr Cullum came forward, that there will be those within and outside the loop at the club - who will pull out all the stops to tarnish him, his business acumen, his integrity, his credentials as a NCFC fan - and any other negatives that they can manipulate and generate. He''s called the board''s bluff, and they''re struggling to counter his genuine interest, and are looking for anything that will put them in the good light - and place ''him the outside threat'', in a bad-light. Let''s face it, this board been doing it quite successfully for many a season now.....Promising us ''The Moon on a stick'' and all we got was a stick....(or a small section of it). This NCFC board have blagged, blundered, blustered and bungled their way through the seasons for a considerable time now, and can anyone really tell me (hand on heart) if they''re going to get their act together now? 

Unusual and quite peculiar, how these articulate and most knowledgable ''lurker'' folk, have suddenly appeared after the ''Cullum V Smiths'' story broke....and have so much to say, state and quote, on how the big, ''local'' but possible big n'' bad outsider, may have a hidden agenda - and may want to do financial harm to our ''manageable debt'' and well run (off the pitch) club. Who are these critical people, and where do they source their ''facts and true info'' from? 

They''re no better than some who post on here (possibly me included) that they''re so swift to retort, mock, belittle and state that we don''t know what we''re talking about, and must be suspicious of this questionable man''s true intentions; and that we should be wary and scary because the ''Billionaire Bogey Man'' is going to throw us all in the Wensum, gobble up the club and leave a pile of debt and bones licked clean of flesh and drained clean of their marrow - and then expand his empire, by building a gargantuan business skyscraper on the pitch.

We now have a ''Golden Opportunity'' to go forward with a proven successful entrepreneur at the helm - and shouldn''t look ''a gift-horse in the mouth'' because we may be sorry and regretful - in the not too distant future.

They say you get what you ask for, if the support are more than content - with just continuing to trundle and meander along like we have since our fall from the Premiership.....Then so be it.

I personally think the major-shareholding duo don''t wish to relinquish control, or court investment.....but that is my opinion.

Let''s throw caution to the wind. I want to see change at the top.....Hopefully, more sooner, than later. 

 

 

 

 

[GMF 736]

Seems to me that PC has sounded out the possibilty of injecting £20M in to the Club for players and, all we''ve learnt so far is that the only option that has been offered to PC is an outright purchase of all of D&M''s shares. However, if D&M reallt have the best interests of the Club at heart, there must surely be some compromise option whereby PC buys some of their shares (no new captial investment in to the Club) and is given the opportunity to inject new captial in to the Club by an increase in the Authorised Share Captial of NCFC, thereby allowing PC to acquire new shares.

I personally think it''s in no one''s interest to allow any party to own more than 30% of the total shareholding, especially if it effectively means that they''d have to stump up circa £56M just to take out the majority shareholders, whose own shares are actually only worth circa £8M to £10M.

[Felixfan 53]

I am a recently appointed member of the S.C.G. (18 months) and replied in response to a request on the official website where incidentally the profiles of all members can be viewed. I was invited to send a profile was interviewed and appointed to a sub committe as well as the main group. Yes I feel priviledged and respect that priviledge by trying my best to articulate the views of fans whose opinion I seek and those on this and other websites which I read most days.

I have tremendous admiration for the members of the S.C.G. some of whom have been on for many many years dealing with issues that are not particularly fashionable and receive no recognition. I travel a round trip of about 110 miles to meetings leaving home at about 4pm and arriving back at about 11pm. I neither ask for nor receive expenses and my only freebie is a cup of coffee and a biscuit which is as it should be so that we cannot be accused of having club perks. Others travel similar distances and try to represent various fan groupings as best we can.

Last week as on other occasions we were called to an emergency meeting to discuss the present situation and has been said before the main reason was for the board to listen to us and opinions were both diverse and forthright. There could not be complete candour in discussions if certain issues were immediately public but the EDP on the day following the meeting seemed to reflect what had been discussed. We cannot make the board do anything but I feel after my short time on the SCG that they do listen and I did suggest that perhaps we the SCG could meet P.C.

The names and profiles of the SCG are on the website and we can all be contacted and from my own observations there are no "yessmen".  I do believe that the SCG could be more transparent and perhaps have a higher profile and in those circumstances would be happy to stand down if others felt they could make a more valuable contribution. This debate may have helped to have raised the profile of the SCG but it is a pity that it took something like this for all its hard work to come into focus.

[jetstream 0]

Thanks for the explanation and perspective Felixfan.

Don''t hold your breath waiting for an apology from "Fan''sEye" though...

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

And what exactly has been achieved from this ''clandestine'' but conveniently ''publicized'' meeting between the ''Special Patrol Group'' and the ''Board of Buttress Carra Rud''? Anything?

Why have it in the first place? Delia and her Cohorts, probably testing the water and see what reaction is received, in preparation before releasing a statement for the great unwashed and smelly oiks that live in the cheap seats?

I''ll tell you what I think has been achieved.....Much the same as what the ''Butt-Kiss Boardists'' are accusing Mr Cullum of - concerning his ''real'' and not a ''passing interest'' in NCFC.

I stated when Mr Cullum came forward, that there will be those within and outside the loop at the club - who will pull out all the stops to tarnish him, his business acumen, his integrity, his credentials as a NCFC fan - and any other negatives that they can manipulate and generate. He''s called the board''s bluff, and they''re struggling to counter his genuine interest, and are looking for anything that will put them in the good light - and place ''him the outside threat'', in a bad-light. Let''s face it, this board been doing it quite successfully for many a season now.....Promising us ''The Moon on a stick'' and all we got was a stick....(or a small section of it). This NCFC board have blagged, blundered, blustered and bungled their way through the seasons for a considerable time now, and can anyone really tell me (hand on heart) if they''re going to get their act together now? 

Unusual and quite peculiar, how these articulate and most knowledgable ''lurker'' folk, have suddenly appeared after the ''Cullum V Smiths'' story broke....and have so much to say, state and quote, on how the big, ''local'' but possible big n'' bad outsider, may have a hidden agenda - and may want to do financial harm to our ''manageable debt'' and well run (off the pitch) club. Who are these critical people, and where do they source their ''facts and true info'' from? 

They''re no better than some who post on here (possibly me included) that they''re so swift to retort, mock, belittle and state that we don''t know what we''re talking about, and must be suspicious of this questionable man''s true intentions; and that we should be wary and scary because the ''Billionaire Bogey Man'' is going to throw us all in the Wensum, gobble up the club and leave a pile of debt and bones licked clean of flesh and drained clean of their marrow - and then expand his empire, by building a gargantuan business skyscraper on the pitch.

We now have a ''Golden Opportunity'' to go forward with a proven successful entrepreneur at the helm - and shouldn''t look ''a gift-horse in the mouth'' because we may be sorry and regretful - in the not too distant future.

They say you get what you ask for, if the support are more than content - with just continuing to trundle and meander along like we have since our fall from the Premiership.....Then so be it.

I personally think the major-shareholding duo don''t wish to relinquish control, or court investment.....but that is my opinion.

Let''s throw caution to the wind. I want to see change at the top.....Hopefully, more sooner, than later. 

 

 

 

 

[/quote]

 

Totally agree with you, and it is amazing how many pro-board posters have suddenly emerged amongst the several pro-board posters that regularly post.

They may want to see our club dwindle and crash, but I am not one of those, I want our club to be great again, with fresh investment and move on.

[sxcanaree 0]

In response to the three respondents to my earlier posting:

Mark Y - Yes any price sensitive information should be made available but only as and when relevant. The point I am making is that when price sensitive data is released it has to be made available to all at the same time and if there was any information of this nature revealed to the SCG we should respect that it would have been provided on a confidential basis and not insist they reveal it. Especially to their mate who happens to be writing a column for the local rag! I am sure if you were to ask HBOS as a shareholder for details of how their current rights issue is progressing the Board would tell you exactly how well the take-up is progressing! There are some things that they have to reveal others that they choose to reveal and others that they choose not to - it is a business after all

I agree entirely that there is too much personalisation going on here - It is for the Board to decide whether an offer is in the best interests of all stakeholders in the business or not. If the Board make a bad decision the shareholders have the right to question this at any general meeting. If the Board decide to take up a cash injection for shares they will have to obtain the agreement of the shareholders but until they have something to present they are not compelled to say anything.

Completely separate from this is the issue of whether Delia/MWJ have had an acceptable offer to buy their stake in the club and this matter is entirely a private transaction between individuals and is none of anyone else''s business.

To Fans Eye who is the author of the article I would comment:

Point 1 - I appreciate your article is a personal opinion however whilst I do not live in Norfolk I was there yesterday and saw the paper itself - How often is your comment given a front page splash on the paper? The Front page implies that your article is full of news and not a personal view. How often does the paper devote a full page to your article? If the answer to these questions is "this is the first time" Archant have taken you for a fool to fuel the fans of their own fire and if you do not have the eye for that then I am sorry for you.

Point 2 - It may be a story in Norfolk but outside of the Archant empire it has raised less than an eyebrow - the facts on which the story are based consist of a poorly reported interview and a "statement" - no cold hard facts. The only reason why the story is being perpetuated is because of Archants message boards nothing else.

Point 3 - I only used the previous and subsequent paragraphs to highlight that someone (I assume that you do not title your articles yourself) decided that the banner for this piece should come from the 24 words that I have copied - if you had intended the article to be about investment there would probably have been more content than this - you make no comment about where this investment could come from, nor do you speculate as to the outcome if we do not get this investment. This paragraph was worthy of an article in itself but does not fit in with the remainder of the article which is an opinion of what happened last season and issues with Glenn Roeder going forward. I would hazard a guess that the sub-editor who checked your article did not reveal the full extent of his knowledge to you - he could even have lied and used you as a pawn in this sorry affair.

Now to Citizen Journalist Foghorn - Dear Pot, if you read my article I make no comment over the veracity of the two paragraphs in question, just that they do not connect to the one in the middle - you need the continuity in the story and this does not flow. For your information I do not claim that the existing status quo should remain and yes I do see things in black and white - The information to date shows that Peter Cullum has not made a bid for the club - Until he does Delia has no-one to sell her shares to. So where do the "Delia Out" brigade think she can sell her shares to?  

Regarding point 2

"What is wrong with telling the fans about the secret meeting with the SCG where these elite fans were told stuff the rest of us are not allowed to know?  The club never told us of this meeting and I am very pleased he did tell us."

I think that others have covered most of this before - but to call the meeting "secret" is laughable it was openly discussed on here and Wrath of the Barclay on Monday - so I would be careful if I were you those opaque glasses may just be a bit too strong.