A reply from Mr Cullum

[Empty Mirror 0]

As these exchanges show, most of us don''t know what went on.   But there are a few facts:

1.   The club has insufficient unallocated shares for Mr Cullum to be able to take control without buying existing shares.  A company can''t just create new shares whenever it feels like it.

2.   That being the case, if Mr Cullum wants control, he has to buy existing shares.  To those who say it was an offer for new shares, perhaps they would like to explain how that would work under the terms of the Companies Act 2006 when there are insufficeint unallocated shares.

3.   Therefore, if Mr Cullum wants a controlling shareholding he is legally obliged to make an offer to all shareholders.

4.   If an offer were to be made to the existing shareholders, we''d all know the truth about what was on the table pdq as there are enough small shareholders (I''m one) to make any offer public immediately.

5.    No such offer has been made.  

I''m not in Ms Smith''s camp at all.    But I don''t understand Mr Cullum.  If he is genuine, and I hoped (and still hope) he is, then at some point he would have to make an offer for the existing shares.  Until he makes an offer him saying that Ms Smith doesn''t want to sell is meaningless.   Conducting megaphone diplomacy through the media may make good business sense as it weakens Ms Smith''s public position with the fans, and has the side effect of possibly undermining our position in the transfer market by driving up prices, which in turn means we can''t buy players and that in turn undermines Ms Smith''s position still further.   And megaphone diplomacy through the media aslo has the advantage that one doesn''t have to answer questions about exactly what one is offering for the existing shares. But undermining the position only goes so far:  if Mr Cullum really wanted the club, he would have needed to make an offer.   He chose not to. 

He may have implied to some posters that Ms Smith does not want to sell.   I don''t see why Ms Smith''s wishes prevent someone who rejoices in the nickname "the King of Deals" from making an offer.  The right offer - indeed any serious offer for the existing shares - could have made Ms Smith''s position untenable.

As it is, the only certainty we have is that someone with the financial ability to make an offer that would have made Ms Smith''s position untenable has elected to make no offer for the exisiting shares.   Not one penny.  

And in the mean time we the new season is just around the corner and the squad is the thinnest I can remember.  Troubling times indeed.

[Hog 0]

A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.

[Fat Barman 0]

[quote user="Fat Pineapple"]

Oh lord, not another one.

How did D&M obtain their shareholding?  By converting loans into (new) shares.  Common sense would therefore suggest that this is the most likely scenario for Peter Cullum too - to convert £20 million into a new share issue, which would be enough to give him majority control.  It''s standard practice.

Granted no one has said that in so many words.  But "this is a holdup, gimme your shares"?  Please, stop this now.  It''s making us all look like thick peasants. [:$]

 [/quote]

Look, neither you, nor I, know what was proposed. I previously posted several messages along the lines of the ''new shares to be issued'' argument. I no longer believe that was the deal PC was after - we will have to disagree on that point.

D&M bought most of their shares from Geoffrey Watling. The shares, which they gained through converted loans, came from previously authorised, unissued share capital (the same stock which Norwich City Supporter''s Trust buys it shares from).Perhaps the ''financial types'' would care to explain how ''standard practice'' it is for companies to authorise the issue of new shares totalling more than the current worth of the company? I am fully conversant with ''rights issues'' and they could offer new shares to existing shareholders. Such an issue could be underwritten by Towergate (it would be highly irregular to have an individual underwrite it) and buy the shares not taken up by the rights holders, but that pre-supposes that nobody exercises their rights to buy those shares - otherwise PC wouldn''t be left with a majority, much less the two-thirds (66%) he says he wants.Creditors, like AXA, would have a claim to be repaid monies owed out of funds raised in this way - certainly the change of ownership would trigger the repayment option, a scenario we have been told is likely, despite some people preferring to ignore that information.Calling for the majority shareholders to leave, as a result of some slick media manipulation, is IMO more of a ''thick peasant'' reaction than questioning the motives and financial details of a peculiarly shapeless and foggy offer. Without any clearer statement being forthcoming from either the club, or Mr Cullum, we are talking in circles. It seems most have made up their minds one way, or the other. I''ve said what I know and what I suspect - precious little of one and too much of the other, probably - I doubt there''s any more mileage in this. Good luck to us all this season.OTBC [:)]

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.[/quote]

 

Ohhhhhh throw out the maggot on the line and then snatch it out the water again lol, darn it I wanna know what''s going on, I''m getting seriously hacked off with the silence from the board.

No amount of signings will make me 100% happy, gone past that point now with the board.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]

As these exchanges show, most of us don''t know what went on.   But there are a few facts:

1.   The club has insufficient unallocated shares for Mr Cullum to be able to take control without buying existing shares.  A company can''t just create new shares whenever it feels like it.

2.   That being the case, if Mr Cullum wants control, he has to buy existing shares.  To those who say it was an offer for new shares, perhaps they would like to explain how that would work under the terms of the Companies Act 2006 when there are insufficeint unallocated shares.

3.   Therefore, if Mr Cullum wants a controlling shareholding he is legally obliged to make an offer to all shareholders.

4.   If an offer were to be made to the existing shareholders, we''d all know the truth about what was on the table pdq as there are enough small shareholders (I''m one) to make any offer public immediately.

5.    No such offer has been made.  

I''m not in Ms Smith''s camp at all.    But I don''t understand Mr Cullum.  If he is genuine, and I hoped (and still hope) he is, then at some point he would have to make an offer for the existing shares.  Until he makes an offer him saying that Ms Smith doesn''t want to sell is meaningless.   Conducting megaphone diplomacy through the media may make good business sense as it weakens Ms Smith''s public position with the fans, and has the side effect of possibly undermining our position in the transfer market by driving up prices, which in turn means we can''t buy players and that in turn undermines Ms Smith''s position still further.   And megaphone diplomacy through the media aslo has the advantage that one doesn''t have to answer questions about exactly what one is offering for the existing shares. But undermining the position only goes so far:  if Mr Cullum really wanted the club, he would have needed to make an offer.   He chose not to. 

He may have implied to some posters that Ms Smith does not want to sell.   I don''t see why Ms Smith''s wishes prevent someone who rejoices in the nickname "the King of Deals" from making an offer.  The right offer - indeed any serious offer for the existing shares - could have made Ms Smith''s position untenable.

As it is, the only certainty we have is that someone with the financial ability to make an offer that would have made Ms Smith''s position untenable has elected to make no offer for the exisiting shares.   Not one penny.  

And in the mean time we the new season is just around the corner and the squad is the thinnest I can remember.  Troubling times indeed.

[/quote]

 

For me this whether he has made a formal offer or not issue is irrelevant. I should imagine that the way these things usually work (and would work in this instance) is that agreement is reached with the board/existing majority shareholders first and then once the heads of terms of any deal have been agreed the purchaser will come in with a formal offer that reflects those discussions. He would then presumably be obliged to extend the same offer to the rest of the shareholders who would have the choice as to whether to refuse or accept. I simply refuse to believe though that there are not ways and means of structuring a deal if all parties are willing.

Having said that I agree that none pf us know the ins and out of precisely what has or has not been offered informally so it is difficult to comment as to who is at fault.

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="Empty Mirror"]

He may have implied to some posters that Ms Smith does not want to sell.   I don''t see why Ms Smith''s wishes prevent someone who rejoices in the nickname "the King of Deals" from making an offer.  The right offer - indeed any serious offer for the existing shares - could have made Ms Smith''s position untenable.

As it is, the only certainty we have is that someone with the financial ability to make an offer that would have made Ms Smith''s position untenable has elected to make no offer for the exisiting shares.   Not one penny.  

[/quote]But if Delia and MWJ were holding out for their profit making £30 a share (A cynical 20% increase from £25 in October when we were bottom of the league)  would you pay that? The price tag for 20 million investment and control of NCFC has been set by the club at £56 million.  Therefore, barring relegation this is never ever going to happen.

[Midlandcanary 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.[/quote]

Can you PM me the message atall or can''t you tell anyone it? I won''t post it on the boards. Thanks [:P]

[Green and Yellow 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.[/quote]

Would involve administration?. The truth is out there Delia is just hiding it. 

[yellow hammer 0]

<quote>

A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.

</quote>

Why would the Cullum boys release info to a trusted and regular poster on the Pinkun forum?

I wonder if they are not manipulating you, Sal, in the knowledge that you''ll post this stuff onto the forum and keep the fires fanned and the heat on the board?

I welcomed PC''s offer at the outset but now I am wondering whether the current offer is just intended to wind up Delia after her rambling comments at the RNS, given that the board rejected his offer last year. Maybe he is simply p****d off with Delia and he knows that he has the power to make her squirm in the light of her less than honest statements.

It could all be very easily resolved if PC were to come out and make a public statement, responding to the questions that Archant wanted to ask, but that he refused to answer. I don''t think we''ll hear much from Carrow Road because they must all be covered in embarrasement right now after all the dodgy revelations that have come to the surface; and they''re so lacking in credibility very few would believe them anyway.

So the ball is very much in Cullum''s court as far as I can see to make clear exactly what the deal was, and why it was rejected. If he doesn''t think it necessary to make a statement then we can read into that whatever we wish.

Just saying ''Delia doesn''t want to sell'' isn''t enough. If no one is prepared to break silence then neither party comes out of this smelling of roses, and we fans may be forgiven for thinking we''ve just been dumped on.

[. 0]

[quote user="yellow hammer"]

<quote>

A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.

</quote>

Why would the Cullum boys release info to a trusted and regular poster on the Pinkun forum?

I wonder if they are not manipulating you, Sal, in the knowledge that you''ll post this stuff onto the forum and keep the fires fanned and the heat on the board?

I welcomed PC''s offer at the outset but now I am wondering whether the current offer is just intended to wind up Delia after her rambling comments at the RNS, given that the board rejected his offer last year. Maybe he is simply p****d off with Delia and he knows that he has the power to make her squirm in the light of her less than honest statements.

It could all be very easily resolved if PC were to come out and make a public statement, responding to the questions that Archant wanted to ask, but that he refused to answer. I don''t think we''ll hear much from Carrow Road because they must all be covered in embarrasement right now after all the dodgy revelations that have come to the surface; and they''re so lacking in credibility very few would believe them anyway.

So the ball is very much in Cullum''s court as far as I can see to make clear exactly what the deal was, and why it was rejected. If he doesn''t think it necessary to make a statement then we can read into that whatever we wish.

Just saying ''Delia doesn''t want to sell'' isn''t enough. If no one is prepared to break silence then neither party comes out of this smelling of roses, and we fans may be forgiven for thinking we''ve just been dumped on.

[/quote]

With all due respect...do you really think someone of Peter Cullum''s stature gives a toss about a small bunch of Saddo-s who post on a football forum?  Leaking information and manipulating posters?

Come come......let''s get real eh?

[Gentleman Jim 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.[/quote]

Hi Sal,

Is this the same Barry Brockes that said this on here on June 17th ?  :-

" Peter MAY invest in NCFC at some stage in the future but this will not be until he retires from business life in two or three years'' time at the earliest "

If so may indicate that PC''s bid was not genuine, just a precurser to a real bid in three years time maybe. Or of course that PC is not feeding Barry correct info. What do you think ?

[yellow hammer 0]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="yellow hammer"]

<quote>

A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.

</quote>

Why would the Cullum boys release info to a trusted and regular poster on the Pinkun forum?

I wonder if they are not manipulating you, Sal, in the knowledge that you''ll post this stuff onto the forum and keep the fires fanned and the heat on the board?

I welcomed PC''s offer at the outset but now I am wondering whether the current offer is just intended to wind up Delia after her rambling comments at the RNS, given that the board rejected his offer last year. Maybe he is simply p****d off with Delia and he knows that he has the power to make her squirm in the light of her less than honest statements.

It could all be very easily resolved if PC were to come out and make a public statement, responding to the questions that Archant wanted to ask, but that he refused to answer. I don''t think we''ll hear much from Carrow Road because they must all be covered in embarrasement right now after all the dodgy revelations that have come to the surface; and they''re so lacking in credibility very few would believe them anyway.

So the ball is very much in Cullum''s court as far as I can see to make clear exactly what the deal was, and why it was rejected. If he doesn''t think it necessary to make a statement then we can read into that whatever we wish.

Just saying ''Delia doesn''t want to sell'' isn''t enough. If no one is prepared to break silence then neither party comes out of this smelling of roses, and we fans may be forgiven for thinking we''ve just been dumped on.

[/quote]

With all due respect...do you really think someone of Peter Cullum''s stature gives a toss about a small bunch of Saddo-s who post on a football forum?  Leaking information and manipulating posters?

Come come......let''s get real eh?

[/quote]

Definitely not, Cluck.... but he might be totally juiced off with Smith and wants to put a spanner in her works. He would not be the first.

[ca 1]

[quote user="rtfm"]

Not having seen the what was in cityangels email the point about even if he had offered £56m she wouldn''t sell would indicate that he has not made such an offer, and so what has he offered?  The worrying thing is that being a long time browser I would also trust what cityangel says

I am still firmly on the fence with this, I would love nothing more than for Cullum to plough his hard earned into the club, but only if the deal was right. 

[/quote]

 

Can I just make something very clear,  my email from Peter Cullum said ''''that sadly Delia has no intention of selling or letting go'''' The line that I added to my original post which said that even if someone offered Delia £56m she wouldn''t sell was my opinion and not in Peter''s email.

I''ve been on here for 4 years and never post rumours  so please believe that I haven''t invented the email or its contents - honest.

 

[Hog 0]

Barry Brockes went to school with Peter Cullum, but I am sorry I cannot pass his message on to anyone, that would be unfair. If he wants to post it himself all the better.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

If this Brockes fellow''s information is so fantastic, why is it that he posted totally contrary information on here several months ago (as located by Gorleston Jim)?

[Hog 0]

No idea, he contacted me as a result of my original post, up to that point I had never had contact from him before.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]Barry Brockes went to school with Peter Cullum, but I am sorry I cannot pass his message on to anyone, that would be unfair. If he wants to post it himself all the better.[/quote]

So, rather than all exchanging messages on things that cannot be revealed ( which most intelligent observers would regard as boring ) why don''t you reveal Barry Brockes relationship to you and/or why he chose you to reveal something to so that, in turn, you can play tease with the rest of the posters?

[Hog 0]

Barry Brockes Joined on 13/07/2005 Posts 184	Peter''s Reply
	Hi I can''t be bothered to post on the message board as most postings turn into a vitriolic slanging match but I did speak with Peter over the weekend and the e-mail he sent to you was indeed an abridged version of the events of last week. I don''t think there was a meeting from the way he spoke - it was all done over the phone. He is under no doubts that Delia will only sell up over her dead body. She sees NCFC has a huge ego trip and will go down with her boots on. Peter is sure she really thinks the vast majority of fans worship her. He isn''t daft you will not be surprised to learn and went in with an overall offer which he thought was reasonable although he was prepared to negotiate upwards a bit more. However, he stressed this is not a business venture - he was doing it because he is a true fan of NCFC but the terms set out by Delia''s representatives made it quite clear to Peter that she didn''t want to know. She is not selling her stake. Full stop. End of. Peter has walked away and is not going back with another offer but will wait to see what happens. Of course, no other investment, no more signings and a poor start to the season might see a change but Delia will need to go cap in hand to Peter next time. Basically he is a nice bloke although as you can imagine very sharp and not afraid to make tough calls. He likes to get things done on an amicable basis but in his line that clearly isn''t always possible. However, you only cross Peter once! Barry       Report

Yesterday, 4:56 PM Salahuddin Joined on 12/01/2007 Berkshire Posts 2,113 Re: Peter''s Reply Thanks for that, I kind of wish I hadn''t posted it at all now! I just hope that Delia realises that she has gone too far this time, with Mr Cullum going public every game and every purchase is going to be under the spotlight and if things don''t go well I can see things getting rather ugly.

[Hog 0]

Hopefully he won''t be upset as he did say he couldn''t be bothered to post not that I had to swear to secrecy or anything.  Sorry Barry but they wouldn''t let it go...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="yellow hammer"]

<quote>

A poster named Barry Brockes contacted me personally yesterday, I cannot repeat what he told me but it is even worse then we thought! I really hope that Barry can post his information, but like many he is fed up with the slanging matches and accusations of falsehood which inevitably follow.

</quote>

Why would the Cullum boys release info to a trusted and regular poster on the Pinkun forum?

I wonder if they are not manipulating you, Sal, in the knowledge that you''ll post this stuff onto the forum and keep the fires fanned and the heat on the board?

I welcomed PC''s offer at the outset but now I am wondering whether the current offer is just intended to wind up Delia after her rambling comments at the RNS, given that the board rejected his offer last year. Maybe he is simply p****d off with Delia and he knows that he has the power to make her squirm in the light of her less than honest statements.

It could all be very easily resolved if PC were to come out and make a public statement, responding to the questions that Archant wanted to ask, but that he refused to answer. I don''t think we''ll hear much from Carrow Road because they must all be covered in embarrasement right now after all the dodgy revelations that have come to the surface; and they''re so lacking in credibility very few would believe them anyway.

So the ball is very much in Cullum''s court as far as I can see to make clear exactly what the deal was, and why it was rejected. If he doesn''t think it necessary to make a statement then we can read into that whatever we wish.

Just saying ''Delia doesn''t want to sell'' isn''t enough. If no one is prepared to break silence then neither party comes out of this smelling of roses, and we fans may be forgiven for thinking we''ve just been dumped on.

[/quote]

With all due respect...do you really think someone of Peter Cullum''s stature gives a toss about a small bunch of Saddo-s who post on a football forum?  Leaking information and manipulating posters?

Come come......let''s get real eh?

[/quote]

Is this why you decided to start posting again, because you felt that your stature in life is suitably matched to join a small bunch of Saddo-s on a football forum? If Peter Cullum doesn''t give a toss about such a group then why do you suppose he sent an e-mail to cityangel, or do you doubt the truthfulness of that? Further, with respect to getting real, can you advise what other leverage Mr. Cullum has other than making a firm and higher offer?

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Salahuddin"]Hopefully he won''t be upset as he did say he couldn''t be bothered to post not that I had to swear to secrecy or anything.  Sorry Barry but they wouldn''t let it go...[/quote]

For what it''s worth we spoke to Mr Cullum''s lot on Monday afternoon (not him personally) and the guidance, a bit vacuous, was: "He doesn''t want to say anything more about the Norwich City situation at this time."  Which, of course, doesn''t rule out him saying something in the future....all a bit vague.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

Hope you don''t get in ''trouble'' for posting that!!  Is an interesting e-mail, but it unfortunately doesn''t really add anything more to the mix.  It is ultimately one person''s take on another person''s side of a story, that''s all.   What I mean is that I''m sure there could be an equally valid alternative view of proceedings, but no one seems to have said anything from that camp.

 

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

...damn, I was replying to Sal''s posting of the e-mail, which now seems to have been deleted rather sharpish!  Looks like you did get in trouble for it after all!!

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

...oops, it is still there.  I''ll shut up. [:$]

[Gentleman Jim 0]

No disrespect intended Sal, I feel your initial thread has lost it''s apparent shock effect and indeed all credibility,

I think you have been used mate. Sorry

[Hog 0]

By who?

[ricardo 7,395]

Sal, I think your communication from Barry Brockes needs to stay at the top of the post list. All posters should read this.

It confirms what a lot of us have believed for a long time now. How on earth the apologists can go on making excuses for her is beyond me.

There will be no change to our fortunes without some blood on the floor.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

[quote user="ricardo"]

Sal, I think your communication from Barry Brockes needs to stay at the top of the post list. All posters should read this.

It confirms what a lot of us have believed for a long time now. How on earth the apologists can go on making excuses for her is beyond me.

There will be no change to our fortunes without some blood on the floor.

[/quote]

No, it doesn''t "confirm" any such thing.  Yes it might be true, but could also be a pile of crap. 

I trust Sal to have been honest, but we have no idea at all of the legitimacy of the person who e-mailed him.  I could tell you now that I am Sean Connery.  Do you believe me?  No, probably not.  And you''d be right to as that is a complete lie.  But why should you believe this as being 100% kosher?  Given that this Barry Brockes posted a while ago saying that Cullum wasn''t interested in investing in NCFC, why should we suddenly believe him as having 100% cast iron information?

Even if it is totally legitimate, it is nothing more than hearsay - it is one person''s take on one side of the story.  As such, the scope for it to be biased is tremendous. 

Either way, unfortunately we can''t really trust it.  But I''m sure that won''t stop people from doing so.

 

[Mello Yello 2,296]

[quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ricardo"]

Sal, I think your communication from Barry Brockes needs to stay at the top of the post list. All posters should read this.

It confirms what a lot of us have believed for a long time now. How on earth the apologists can go on making excuses for her is beyond me.

There will be no change to our fortunes without some blood on the floor.

[/quote]

No, it doesn''t "confirm" any such thing.  Yes it might be true, but could also be a pile of crap. 

I trust Sal to have been honest, but we have no idea at all of the legitimacy of the person who e-mailed him.  I could tell you now that I am Sean Connery.  Do you believe me?  No, probably not.  And you''d be right to as that is a complete lie.  But why should you believe this as being 100% kosher?  Given that this Barry Brockes posted a while ago saying that Cullum wasn''t interested in investing in NCFC, why should we suddenly believe him as having 100% cast iron information?

Even if it is totally legitimate, it is nothing more than hearsay - it is one person''s take on one side of the story.  As such, the scope for it to be biased is tremendous. 

Either way, unfortunately we can''t really trust it.  But I''m sure that won''t stop people from doing so.

[/quote]

And what do you believe? The moon''s a balloon?......

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Branston Pickle"][quote user="ricardo"]

Sal, I think your communication from Barry Brockes needs to stay at the top of the post list. All posters should read this.

It confirms what a lot of us have believed for a long time now. How on earth the apologists can go on making excuses for her is beyond me.

There will be no change to our fortunes without some blood on the floor.

[/quote]

No, it doesn''t "confirm" any such thing.  Yes it might be true, but could also be a pile of crap. 

I trust Sal to have been honest, but we have no idea at all of the legitimacy of the person who e-mailed him.  I could tell you now that I am Sean Connery.  Do you believe me?  No, probably not.  And you''d be right to as that is a complete lie.  But why should you believe this as being 100% kosher?  Given that this Barry Brockes posted a while ago saying that Cullum wasn''t interested in investing in NCFC, why should we suddenly believe him as having 100% cast iron information?

Even if it is totally legitimate, it is nothing more than hearsay - it is one person''s take on one side of the story.  As such, the scope for it to be biased is tremendous. 

Either way, unfortunately we can''t really trust it.  But I''m sure that won''t stop people from doing so.

[/quote]

And what do you believe? The moon''s a balloon?......

[/quote]

There has been many a poster on this forum who believed precisely that with respect to Neil Armstrong''s little adventure.