PROTEST AGAINST DELIA AND THE BOARD

[Match Day Pie 0]

Don''t give up now! We''re just about to get on to what the thread is originally about!

 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

Been away for a couple of days and come back to the baffling appearance of the idea of listing NCFC. As far as I know the last time this was mooted by anyone connected with the club was by Chase, in his heyday, and there was no suggestion from Cullum (in as much as we knew anything about his plans) that he would list. And during the whole Cullumgate saga, I don’t recall anyone either on this message board or the club board advocating it.

The first mention was probably on this thread by some sad obsessive called Purple Canary who was banging on boringly about how Delia’s shares would be worthless if Cullum gained control by way of a share issue. And all he was doing was making the point that the situation would be different if NCFC were listed. He wasn’t arguing in favour of a change.

Now it seems all the rage. But for an odd reason. Not because it’s a good idea. Which it isn’t. It’s barking mad idea. The explanation for its sudden popularity is that some of the people who are so desperate to get Cullum in are also uneasy with the idea that Delia would lose out so completely.

To quote yellow hammer: “What listing does do is allow minority shareholders to receive the market valuation for her shares. Now isn''t that exactly what all the pro-Delia have been saying - that Delia shouldn''t walk away from the club without getting her money back? Well here is a way that allows all shareholders - and not just the majority shareholders to release the market value in their shareholding.”

Well, yes, that would be a way, but it could also be the most ruinous decision in the history of the club. If Cullum wants to do the right thing by Delia and the other shareholders without risking the club’s future there is a tremendously simple solution. Along with the £20m for transfers all he has to do is offer everybody £30 a share.

---------

PS. Mr.Carrow. Apologies. I shouldn’t have resorted to personal criticism.

PPS. Smudger. We all love you to pieces, but you really should dump that Maximo Park quote. I know you think it makes sense, but – sadly – it doesn’t, and all its presence does is to undercut the intellectual power and moral force of your otherwise universally admired and perpetually positive contributions.

[. 0]

[quote user="Fat Strawberry"]

Aaarrgghh!  Is someone trying to win a competition for "longest running thread"? 

It''s turning into the Undead, the Thing from the Black Lagoon.  Needs a stake through its heart pdq imo.

 

[/quote]

It''s always nice to see an endless string of pretentious guff as it clearly shows up those who just have to be right.....with whatever user name they are using at the time.

Nice selection of them on here....pleasantly toyed with by Mello I have to say.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]It''s always nice to see an endless string of pretentious guff as it clearly shows up those who just have to be right.....with whatever user name they are using at the time.[/quote]

The original cluck would have said "everyone who posted above my post is a twonk, apart from Mello" in a far more interesting and original way.  You need to improve your copying and pasting.

[GMF 738]

I personally don''t think listing is really an option for Football Clubs these days, if anything, there''s a move is towards taking them private.

I disagree with Purple that minority shareholdings are worthless, however, as they''re worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay for them. It''s the same for a majority shareholding. It''s up to the seller to decide whether they want to deal at the price offered by the prospective buyer.

In the absence or anything from D&M we either have to assume that no formal offer was made for their shares, or, if there was an offer, it wasn''t sufficently attractive to them to sell, or, came with condtions that weren''t acceptable to either them or the long term interests of the Club.

The reality is, we jsut don''t know. 

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="GazzaTCC"]

I personally don''t think listing is really an option for Football Clubs these days, if anything, there''s a move is towards taking them private.

I disagree with Purple that minority shareholdings are worthless, however, as they''re worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay for them. It''s the same for a majority shareholding. It''s up to the seller to decide whether they want to deal at the price offered by the prospective buyer.

In the absence or anything from D&M we either have to assume that no formal offer was made for their shares, or, if there was an offer, it wasn''t sufficently attractive to them to sell, or, came with condtions that weren''t acceptable to either them or the long term interests of the Club.

The reality is, we jsut don''t know. 

[/quote]If there had been a formal offer, the law says they would have had to inform the shareholders.

[GMF 738]

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

I personally don''t think listing is really an option for Football Clubs these days, if anything, there''s a move is towards taking them private.

I disagree with Purple that minority shareholdings are worthless, however, as they''re worth whatever a buyer is willing to pay for them. It''s the same for a majority shareholding. It''s up to the seller to decide whether they want to deal at the price offered by the prospective buyer.

In the absence or anything from D&M we either have to assume that no formal offer was made for their shares, or, if there was an offer, it wasn''t sufficently attractive to them to sell, or, came with condtions that weren''t acceptable to either them or the long term interests of the Club.

The reality is, we jsut don''t know. 

[/quote]

If there had been a formal offer, the law says they would have had to inform the shareholders.
[/quote]

Indeed, which implies the discussions were prbably along the lines of, "If I offfer you X, Y Z, would you accept?" To which we have to assume the answer would have been, "No." Hence, no formal offer.

Pure speculation, of course.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Mello sorry to say it but you write an awful load of emotional tosh. Fair enough, emotion is high as we love our club, but try and cut through it to look at what is actually going on.

You say they aren''t looking for outside investment - based on what? Where is your evidence?
You say they don''t want to get us promoted - based on what? Where is your evidence?
You talk about their loss of prestige being their major reason for not wanting to lose control - based on what? Where is your evidence?

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
- Overseeing the clearout of the backroom staff
- Enabling Roeder to get the players he wants (his words, not mine)

We must also give them credit for their past achievements;
- The Worthy years of rebuild, competitiveness, winning the league and promotion
- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in.
- The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets (good, sound business acumen)

Why can''t you give them credit for the above? Because you don''t understand just what an achievement it all is. You seem to have very little idea of the financial environment they are working in. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.

Leicester was held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. Get in an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! Thats the way to do it! Oh.
Southampton were held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. They have an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! You can always sell the player ''assets'' to get your money back! Oh.

Have a look around Mello, Its not anywhere near as cut and dried as you think.
[/quote]

If you weren''t such a patronising, condescending, egotistical, arrogant and smug git.....I''d think you were a patronising, condescending, egotistical, arrogant and smug git.....

Model yourself on the Chief Exec, perchance?

Do you assume I also think that the world is flat? And, that if I ventured out of Norfolk - I''d fall off the edge into space? OOH ERR!

I don''t care for what you say concerning our board, I stated my opinion and perception on the role of our current board, and my personal opinion and belief, is that they''re not the group of people to take this club forward. Don''t lecture me chum, on the ways and wants or what I should be taking on board by listening to you, the self appointed wise old sage from Botany Bay. Your positives are the usual dirge spouted and spewed forth, and not dissimilar to what discharges with regularity from Butt-Kiss Boardists (and the Chief Exec) who defend the Directionless - whenever supposed unfair criticism is directed at them.

Where is your concrete ''evidence'' to back up your claims then? Which hold as much credence as my opinions that ''they'' aren''t actively pursuing outside investment, and that I think that they''re content and happy to trundle along until signs of tension or revolt start to stir, then they throw a few coins to the peasants to placate them.  It''s all about opinion on this forum, I stated my opinions, and remain unconvinced after ''monitoring'' the role and performance of those in the hierarchy who''ve ruled the roost for over the last decade.

Everything other than the fixed assets has been done on the cheapy thrifty......

Why not mention Gretna?........You forgot that one. You cheeky fuggin'' bratwurst.

[/quote]

Pretty much what I was expecting in your response Mello, a personal attack and a load of over emotional guff. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but if you want to publish them you must expect them to be challenged. Shame you can''t actually back up a word of what you say. So much for the debate, hey?

[/quote]

I''m sure that you''re a well rehearsed mass debater, being ''Big Down Under''.....and certainly don''t need me to give you a helping hand.

Over emotional? Pi$te off! It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC. Shame you can''t come to the local boozers and listen to what many of the fans really think off the board and the Chief Exec.....That''s if you''re really livin'' in the outback, and not Lord Snigger Snigger, transmitting from Control Room Carra.

 

 

 

[Evil Monkey 52]

Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the

club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that

point, normally occurs straight away...

How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any

points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...

How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?

[/quote]

Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club.

So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah.

People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk).

It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Mello sorry to say it but you write an awful load of emotional tosh. Fair enough, emotion is high as we love our club, but try and cut through it to look at what is actually going on.

You say they aren''t looking for outside investment - based on what? Where is your evidence?
You say they don''t want to get us promoted - based on what? Where is your evidence?
You talk about their loss of prestige being their major reason for not wanting to lose control - based on what? Where is your evidence?

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
- Overseeing the clearout of the backroom staff
- Enabling Roeder to get the players he wants (his words, not mine)

We must also give them credit for their past achievements;
- The Worthy years of rebuild, competitiveness, winning the league and promotion
- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in.
- The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets (good, sound business acumen)

Why can''t you give them credit for the above? Because you don''t understand just what an achievement it all is. You seem to have very little idea of the financial environment they are working in. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.

Leicester was held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. Get in an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! Thats the way to do it! Oh.
Southampton were held up on here last summer as a club we should emulate. They have an ambitious chairman! Spend more money! You can always sell the player ''assets'' to get your money back! Oh.

Have a look around Mello, Its not anywhere near as cut and dried as you think.
[/quote]

If you weren''t such a patronising, condescending, egotistical, arrogant and smug git.....I''d think you were a patronising, condescending, egotistical, arrogant and smug git.....

Model yourself on the Chief Exec, perchance?

Do you assume I also think that the world is flat? And, that if I ventured out of Norfolk - I''d fall off the edge into space? OOH ERR!

I don''t care for what you say concerning our board, I stated my opinion and perception on the role of our current board, and my personal opinion and belief, is that they''re not the group of people to take this club forward. Don''t lecture me chum, on the ways and wants or what I should be taking on board by listening to you, the self appointed wise old sage from Botany Bay. Your positives are the usual dirge spouted and spewed forth, and not dissimilar to what discharges with regularity from Butt-Kiss Boardists (and the Chief Exec) who defend the Directionless - whenever supposed unfair criticism is directed at them.

Where is your concrete ''evidence'' to back up your claims then? Which hold as much credence as my opinions that ''they'' aren''t actively pursuing outside investment, and that I think that they''re content and happy to trundle along until signs of tension or revolt start to stir, then they throw a few coins to the peasants to placate them.  It''s all about opinion on this forum, I stated my opinions, and remain unconvinced after ''monitoring'' the role and performance of those in the hierarchy who''ve ruled the roost for over the last decade.

Everything other than the fixed assets has been done on the cheapy thrifty......

Why not mention Gretna?........You forgot that one. You cheeky fuggin'' bratwurst.

[/quote]

Pretty much what I was expecting in your response Mello, a personal attack and a load of over emotional guff. You are perfectly entitled to your opinions, but if you want to publish them you must expect them to be challenged. Shame you can''t actually back up a word of what you say. So much for the debate, hey?

[/quote]

I''m sure that you''re a well rehearsed mass debater, being ''Big Down Under''.....and certainly don''t need me to give you a helping hand.

Over emotional? Pi$te off! It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC. Shame you can''t come to the local boozers and listen to what many of the fans really think off the board and the Chief Exec.....That''s if you''re really livin'' in the outback, and not Lord Snigger Snigger, transmitting from Control Room Carra.

[/quote]

A quality post Mello Yello

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
[/quote]

More a case of Roeder pushing for the job and so many stating their non interest via the media.

[O.T.B.C 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
[/quote]

More a case of Roeder pushing for the job and so many stating their non interest via the media.

[/quote]

Isn''t that what most managers do?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]
We must also give them credit for their past achievements;
- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in. [/quote]

Thats how we have ended up with the ex LSE land and a related £2.5m loan as at 31st May 2007 costing the football club Base + 2%. How many seasons before the football club can make a profit on that land?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Canaries in Bed"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
[/quote]

More a case of Roeder pushing for the job and so many stating their non interest via the media.

[/quote]

Isn''t that what most managers do?

[/quote]

Are you referring to GR., the mass of managers saying no to NCFC. or both?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. [/quote]

Interesting comment....so what happened to the reduction in player wages due to division related contracts? The fall in the player wage bill in the parachute related seasons seem to occur due to the changes in the playing squad. It seems that the adjustment would happen in the third season following relegation from The Premiership (i.e. last season) according to the comment in the Annual Report for the year to the 31st May 2007. 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.

[/quote]

How many of the tier 2 (old division 1 / Championship) clubs have gone into Administration?  

Leicester, Leeds United, Ipswich Town, who else?

I think Bradford were in tier 3 when the went into Administration

 

 

[astrodyne 0]

God how I wish Mello was a 6'' 6" centre forward - he''d waste defences for fun...

''Weevil spunky'' - very funny [:D][:D] 

[. 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

[quote]It''s always nice to see an endless string of pretentious guff as it clearly shows up those who just have to be right.....with whatever user name they are using at the time.[/quote]

The original cluck would have said "everyone who posted above my post is a twonk, apart from Mello" in a far more interesting and original way.  You need to improve your copying and pasting.

[/quote]

Remember that Cluck got barred due to whingy whiney squeaky nancyboy deliarite apologists moaning to the mods that they couldn''t get their own way any more.

Maybe Neil has simply learnt to be more subtle with his asides... and anyway....who gives a flying f*** eh?.........

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="astrodyne"]

God how I wish Mello was a 6'' 6" centre forward - he''d waste defences for fun...

[/quote]

What a powerhouse!

He could supply pre match and half time entertainment too.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?[/quote]

Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club.

So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah.

People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk).

It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?

 [/quote]

Whenever the accusations ''you work for the club'' come out its a sure sign that the accuser can''t actually debate the points raised.

Mello where did I suggest you are anti club? Where have I suggested you are an untrue fans? I suggested we both love the club, you replied "It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC". Fair enough if thats how you feel, only an idiot would accuse you of being a binner or anti club and I have said or implied neither.

If you don''t want to have the debate, and prefer playground taunts thats up to you. All I have done is disagree with you. The rest you are making up.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager[/quote]

More a case of Roeder pushing for the job and so many stating their non interest via the media.

[/quote]Who was it said they would walk to Norwich to get the job? Can''t remember his name right now.If we are such a badly run club, why would Roeder come? He needed to re-ignite his career, hardly so likely to happen at a badly run club is it?

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]We must also give them credit for their past achievements;- The financial stability of the club, despite the mess it was in. [/quote]

Thats how we have ended up with the ex LSE land and a related £2.5m loan as at 31st May 2007 costing the football club Base + 2%. How many seasons before the football club can make a profit on that land?

[/quote]I don''t know, do you? Unless we know the expected return on investment and over what time period, its a bit difficult to be too critical. I am however very uneasy about our boards investment here. I would love to know more details. We all know many football clubs rely on off field investments returning a profit to balance the books and fund the squad budgets, but right now I fail to see how this deal is working in our favour.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. [/quote]

Interesting comment....so what happened to the reduction in player wages due to division related contracts? The fall in the player wage bill in the parachute related seasons seem to occur due to the changes in the playing squad. It seems that the adjustment would happen in the third season following relegation from The Premiership (i.e. last season) according to the comment in the Annual Report for the year to the 31st May 2007. 

[/quote]I don''t have a clue. I very much doubt that you could cover the entire loss in revenue upon relegation in player divisional related contracts. Watford couldn''t, Charlton couldn''t, Southampton couldn''t, Leicester couldn''t, big list of clubs couldn''t.

[Big Down Under 0]

[quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]. Over 50% of league clubs have gone into administration, but our board have avoided it. Many clubs on Premiership relegation have slipped to League 1, or lower, but our board have avoided it. Most clubs on relegation have to cut their wage bill and sell players, but you attack our board for doing it. Many clubs on relegation under perform, but you single out NCFC as the only club to have these problems.[/quote]

How many of the tier 2 (old division 1 / Championship) clubs have gone into Administration?  

Leicester, Leeds United, Ipswich Town, who else?

I think Bradford were in tier 3 when the went into Administration

 [/quote]

Do you mean clubs whilst in Champs/Div1, or clubs that were in Champs/Div1 but got relegated before going into Admin? I don''t know, but I would be interested to see. If I get a chance I will try and find out. You can certainly add Wimbledon and Bradford to that list.

Bradford went into administration immediately following relegation from Div 1 (championship). They then went into Administration AGAIN 2 years later on further relegation.

I''m not sure how relevant this is though. Administration usually follows financial mismanagement, which can happen in any division. What point are you making here?

Canary Nut thanks for taking up the debate in a reasonable manner.

[Mello Yello 2,289]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Ah the obligatory "you don''t agree with me, you therefore work for the club" comments... surprised its taken a whole 17 pages to get to that point, normally occurs straight away...

How has this thread gone on so long? Is anyone actually making any points any more or is it just a long list of words and numbers?

[/quote]

Yes Weevil Spunky......I''m first with the obligatory ''you probably work for the club!''......quote. It''s only my personal opinion, and the way that that individual writes, arouses my suspicion. Or, possibly, has personal connections to the club.

So, in your opinion, there''s no person actively involved within the walls of NCFC who contribute to this forum - and that anyone who questions or criticises ''Deals no Deals'', ''Darth Donkster'', ''Roger Rothman''s'', or ''Micky Wynn Woodbine'' must be anti-club (I''ve been called it many times) a binner (been called it many times).....But do I care? Nah.

People round on the club critics to put them in a bad light and portray them as untrue fans.....Much the same - and a role reversal, as the board and club critics round on the Butt-Kiss Boardists......(and, those of their ilk).

It''s called ''giving as good as you get''. You know all about that.....surely?

 [/quote]

Whenever the accusations ''you work for the club'' come out its a sure sign that the accuser can''t actually debate the points raised.

Mello where did I suggest you are anti club? Where have I suggested you are an untrue fans? I suggested we both love the club, you replied "It''s only a fuggin'' football club. I have other things in my life other than NCFC". Fair enough if thats how you feel, only an idiot would accuse you of being a binner or anti club and I have said or implied neither.

If you don''t want to have the debate, and prefer playground taunts thats up to you. All I have done is disagree with you. The rest you are making up.

[/quote]

Nothing wrong then, with your pseudo-intellectual ''but fortunately, not like my infantile in the playground'' taunts - regarding your assumed and supposed ability to detect the ''emotional states'' of an individual poster? (I think you''re just making that up) Or, what some understand of the machinations of running a football club - wouldn''t even fit on a postage stamp, (arrogance, smuggy and snooty-ism).You see, ''Biggest Blunder Asunder'',(tee hee) I don''t actually take myself or this forum seriously, where as the likes of you, continually climb atop your tower of imitation ivory, and feel the need to continually educate the lower masses on how we should be so damn grateful, that we have a supposedly dedicated group of individuals, who are apparently 100% dedicated to drive this club further. I continually climb on my reality soapbox, and disagree with your view, which is your continual unwavering defence of those in power at Carra, and I just feel that you have a connection or personal interest within that clique. 

They''ve served their time, the relationship is turning sour, they''re past their sell by date - and I see changes on the horizon. 

Also, all I''m doing is disagreeing with you, (in my own little lacking general business acumen, and in my sub-standard intellect but humorous kinda way). But, still personally thinking that you''ve more than a passing and general interest in those in the ''tower of power'' at NCFC.....Although, if I''m incorrect in my assumption.....I still think that you have.

I also may be diverting you away from serious discussion and debate, with those more suited to do battle with yourself.......and I''m having fun doing so, but, it certainly isn''t intentional.......much.     

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

The fact that they have achieved this stability without selling our major fixed assets [/quote]

Where have you been? 

We have been selling the player registrations relating to our major PLAYER assets, e.g., Ashton, Green, McKenzie Earnshaw, Etuhu, Jonsson.

[/quote]

Thats why I said fixed assets. If you read my posts is quite obvious that I acknowledge they have sold playing assets. Most teams on relegation have to, to balance the books. Looks like Watford might have been a bit late doing so.
[/quote]

But being pedantic, player registrations are Intagible FIXED ASSETS. You didn''t differentiate between Tangible Fixed Assets and Intangible Fixed Assets did you? You just posted Fixed Assets in the line you stated, which covers both types.

Furthermore the line you stated doesn''t say please read my other posts for the omission about player registrations as it would distract from the impression you were trying to give.

Finally how about the clubs who have been relegated but have competed following relegation, e.g., West Bromwich Albion, Birmingham, Sunderland etc.  How many clubs have been relegated in recent years and failed to finish in the playoffs in at least one of the two years (with parachute receipts) following relegation from The Premiership? We are one, how many others?

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Big Down Under"][quote user="Canary Nut"]

[quote user="Big Down Under"]

If we are to blame them for the state of the club last November, which we must as it is their responsibility, we must also give them credit for what has happened before and since;
- Hiring a well respected Premiership manager
[/quote]

More a case of Roeder pushing for the job and so many stating their non interest via the media.

[/quote]

Who was it said they would walk to Norwich to get the job? Can''t remember his name right now.

If we are such a badly run club, why would Roeder come? He needed to re-ignite his career, hardly so likely to happen at a badly run club is it?
[/quote]

What has the running of the clubs administration, catering etc. to do with the entertainment (football) side of NCFC Plc.? How well the spine road was laid shouldn''t effect the team, should it?