TO ALL DELIA OUTERS...

[ManchesterCanary 0]

And those seeking sugar daddies....just take a look at the pathetic laughing stock that is Newcastle United, including it''s supporters...and be very careful what you wish for!

[Syteanric 1]

[quote user="ManchesterCanary"]And those seeking sugar daddies....just take a look at the pathetic laughing stock that is Newcastle United, including it''s supporters...and be very careful what you wish for![/quote]

ok.. lets carry on as a skint football club only 2 or 3 bad results away from league 1.

jas :)

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

 

[ellis206 0]

Further more look at QPR who have raised ticket prices and season ticket prices, the latter being by quite an extortionate amount! Also look at Leicester last season with Mandaric, Man United and Liverpool seem like they are going to be shafted good and proper! Thats why it is so important to have someone take over Norwich who is a genuine fan..... Cullum!

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="ManchesterCanary"]And those seeking sugar daddies....just take a look at the pathetic laughing stock that is Newcastle United, including it''s supporters...and be very careful what you wish for![/quote]

or lets look at :

Chelsea, Manchester United, Aston Villa, Sunderland, Portsmouth or Wigan.

Newcastle''s problem is the crazy changing of manager nearly every season.

 

[nolegs 0]

Thats why it is so important to have someone take over Norwich who is a genuine fan..... Cullum!give it a rest ffs......if he wants it he''ll buy it if he doesn''t ..he won''t,I''m getting truely hacked off with Cullum "the saviour".

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="ManchesterCanary"]And those seeking sugar daddies....just take a look at the pathetic laughing stock that is Newcastle United, including it''s supporters...and be very careful what you wish for![/quote]

Newcastle are a poorly run club who have spent millions on poor to average players. We are in no way similar to them and never will be.

[The Fish Seller 0]

Any chance the Mods could stick this post in with all the other threads where somebody is trying to use the ''exception'' that is ''Noclueatall United'' to try to prove the rule? They do get a bit monotonous after the first few dozen.

[Yellow Submarine 0]

Sometimes it''s a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don''t. I think it''s pathetic so many people on here hate Delia. Can''t people see that even Delia & co realises they have taken this club as far as they can, and realise they need to let someone else take the helm! The thing that makes me laugh is there wasn''t many people with their pathetic DELIA OUT logo''s until Cullum rolled in on his "white horse" with his media hype and spin! 

[7rew 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]

How about looking at all of them and not cherry picking based on which clubs make our point?

Or are you scared you''d have to climb the big scary fence?

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]

How about looking at all of them and not cherry picking based on which clubs make our point?

Or are you scared you''d have to climb the big scary fence?

[/quote]I just did look at them all, strangely every single Premiership team is doing better than us in every respect. What point are you trying to make?

[ricky knight 0]

Anyway........................ DELIA OUT.

[First Wazzock 1,014]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

How very dare you ! [:@]

I''ve NEVER looked at Newcastle [H]

[Sludge 0]

[quote user="ricky knight"]Anyway........................ DELIA OUT.[/quote]Agree!! wicked wicked old woman!!!!![:@][:@][:@]

[Mello Yello 2,572]

Look at Gretna!

Our Chief Exec did!

"GO-NAD! GO-NAD! GO-NAD!"

[7rew 0]

[quote][quote user="7rew"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]

How about looking at all of them and not cherry picking based on which clubs make our point?

Or are you scared you''d have to climb the big scary fence?

[/quote]

I just did look at them all, strangely every single Premiership team is doing better than us in every respect. What point are you trying to make?
[/quote]

That looking at one club and taking it as a prognosticator of a future Norwich takeover is wrong whether that club is Newcastle, Leeds, Luton, Aston Villa, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Wigan, Leicester, Liverpool, QPR, Manchester United or Manchester City.  Looking at them all is the only way that we can gauge how any takeover of Norwich City is likely to fair, since No Other Club is in exactly the same position as us wrt league position, squad, who would take over, attendences, potential to attract players or any one of 100 other factors that could affect the situation.  Certainly we aren''t at the same start point as Villa or Newcastle.

That for every club that is doing better than when it was taken over (not than us - this is a crucial point, see below) there is one that is doing worse.  From this you can infer that a takeover is in fact a risky buisness that can go either way.  It can also be inferred that a change of Board is very likely to have some affect on the success of the club, since most clubs position does change after a takeover.

If we look at some examples of teams that have been recently taken over and are doing better than us, to show why doing better than us isn''t a sign of a good takeover.

• That they are both Newcastle and Aston Villa are in the premiership is not, in fact, due to their takeovers.  Its mostly due to the fact that they were established premiership teams when taken over. 

• That Manchester United have won the league since being taken over is also not really down to the Glaziers, most of the key players and the manager preceeded their involvement. 

• That Liverpool have qualified for the champions League and made a semi-final of that competition under Gillet and Hicks is much better than we are doing.  I doubt you''ll find anyonewho considers that takeover to be successful.

All this means is that you would rationally be required to take the position that (a) a takeover can result in good results and will certainly have an effect and that (b) that effect can be negative and has a roughly 50-50 chance of being so.  This obviously leads to position (c) that any take over needs to be carefully examined to see if the details contain clues as to what sort of effect it will have.  This is commonly known as the Fence, or Nutty Nigel''s Fence.

[WeAreYellows49 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote][quote user="7rew"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]

How about looking at all of them and not cherry picking based on which clubs make our point?

Or are you scared you''d have to climb the big scary fence?

[/quote]

I just did look at them all, strangely every single Premiership team is doing better than us in every respect. What point are you trying to make?
[/quote]

That looking at one club and taking it as a prognosticator of a future Norwich takeover is wrong whether that club is Newcastle, Leeds, Luton, Aston Villa, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Wigan, Leicester, Liverpool, QPR, Manchester United or Manchester City.  Looking at them all is the only way that we can gauge how any takeover of Norwich City is likely to fair, since No Other Club is in exactly the same position as us wrt league position, squad, who would take over, attendences, potential to attract players or any one of 100 other factors that could affect the situation.  Certainly we aren''t at the same start point as Villa or Newcastle.

That for every club that is doing better than when it was taken over (not than us - this is a crucial point, see below) there is one that is doing worse.  From this you can infer that a takeover is in fact a risky buisness that can go either way.  It can also be inferred that a change of Board is very likely to have some affect on the success of the club, since most clubs position does change after a takeover.

If we look at some examples of teams that have been recently taken over and are doing better than us, to show why doing better than us isn''t a sign of a good takeover.

• That they are both Newcastle and Aston Villa are in the premiership is not, in fact, due to their takeovers.  Its mostly due to the fact that they were established premiership teams when taken over. 

• That Manchester United have won the league since being taken over is also not really down to the Glaziers, most of the key players and the manager preceeded their involvement. 

• That Liverpool have qualified for the champions League and made a semi-final of that competition under Gillet and Hicks is much better than we are doing.  I doubt you''ll find anyonewho considers that takeover to be successful.

All this means is that you would rationally be required to take the position that (a) a takeover can result in good results and will certainly have an effect and that (b) that effect can be negative and has a roughly 50-50 chance of being so.  This obviously leads to position (c) that any take over needs to be carefully examined to see if the details contain clues as to what sort of effect it will have.  This is commonly known as the Fence, or Nutty Nigel''s Fence.

[/quote]

 

Especially the Liverpool fans lol

[Bury Yellow 2]

I absolutely agree 7Rew as always....... Nah not really.

Me? I''m with Mello

Prognosticator -mmm that''s a disease int it?

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="7rew"][quote][quote user="7rew"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

Actually, I''m looking at Aston Villa.

Only wazzocks look at Newcastle.

Dear oh dear oh dear.

OTBC

[/quote]

How about looking at all of them and not cherry picking based on which clubs make our point?

Or are you scared you''d have to climb the big scary fence?

[/quote]I just did look at them all, strangely every single Premiership team is doing better than us in every respect. What point are you trying to make?[/quote]

That looking at one club and taking it as a prognosticator of a future Norwich takeover is wrong whether that club is Newcastle, Leeds, Luton, Aston Villa, Ipswich, Portsmouth, Wigan, Leicester, Liverpool, QPR, Manchester United or Manchester City.  Looking at them all is the only way that we can gauge how any takeover of Norwich City is likely to fair, since No Other Club is in exactly the same position as us wrt league position, squad, who would take over, attendences, potential to attract players or any one of 100 other factors that could affect the situation.  Certainly we aren''t at the same start point as Villa or Newcastle.

That for every club that is doing better than when it was taken over (not than us - this is a crucial point, see below) there is one that is doing worse.  From this you can infer that a takeover is in fact a risky buisness that can go either way.  It can also be inferred that a change of Board is very likely to have some affect on the success of the club, since most clubs position does change after a takeover.

If we look at some examples of teams that have been recently taken over and are doing better than us, to show why doing better than us isn''t a sign of a good takeover.

• That they are both Newcastle and Aston Villa are in the premiership is not, in fact, due to their takeovers.  Its mostly due to the fact that they were established premiership teams when taken over. 

• That Manchester United have won the league since being taken over is also not really down to the Glaziers, most of the key players and the manager preceeded their involvement. 

• That Liverpool have qualified for the champions League and made a semi-final of that competition under Gillet and Hicks is much better than we are doing.  I doubt you''ll find anyonewho considers that takeover to be successful.

All this means is that you would rationally be required to take the position that (a) a takeover can result in good results and will certainly have an effect and that (b) that effect can be negative and has a roughly 50-50 chance of being so.  This obviously leads to position (c) that any take over needs to be carefully examined to see if the details contain clues as to what sort of effect it will have.  This is commonly known as the Fence, or Nutty Nigel''s Fence.

[/quote]there is no fence 7rew- we need to attract new investment...or we demise!?!  our black hole can''t be sustained, we still don''t know what''s gonna happen in jan??? sure - newky brown hasn''t worked out for ashley - this billionaire owner wants between £220-480m however, depending on what you read,,,not exactly small beer!!!  and yeah - their season has started badly,,,still plenty of time to recover...what about the other billionaires sides in the prem???man u - cr@p start by their standards - with ronny back, its a reasonable bet they''ll start to climb the table pdq - anyone prepared to bet that man u will fail to finish in the top 4???as for the rest of the billionaire owners???  reading down, they occupy the top 6 positions in the prem...so - it seems the billionaires club are doing very nicely, and sure - they come with baggage - but overall, the same truth is repeated over and over again - the best and most successful teams consistently spend the most money,  and the others maybe have to spend more just to get into the top 4...the rest try to compete by borrowing against their TV income money,,,but their race is to avoid relegation - a uefa spot measn more premprize money, not euro riches,,,the credit crunch places its own rules in the current market place - i doubt if any potential NCFC suitors can buy the club using unsecured debt - by definition, only cash rich investors can afford to get anywhere owning a footy club these days...

[Polar 0]

Don''t think its quite time for her to go... depends on where we end up at the end of the season. Come February or march, we need to look at where we are, look at what we have to spend and what we need to spend and then think about takeovers etc. Hopefully Delias policy of someone with the right interests taking over will remain so we ensure we don''t end up with some tool like Mandaric in charge.

[The Fish Seller 0]

Well if it''s a 50/50 then the law of averages says the next takeover will be good for us then seeing as how we were an established Premiership team with just a season in this div when the last takeover occurred. Said Roedy ducking for cover.....[:P]

[7rew 0]

LGT:  I realised after I posted that I needed a little addition to, it should read "(c) that while a takeover is desirable and extra investment of some kind is neccessary, any particular take over must..."

While the 6 of the 7 billionaire premiership takeovers do currently occupy the top 6:  What about the clubs with near billionaire owners? What will the table look like in 3 or 4 months?  Anyway We would not be a billionaire premiership takeover, but a billionaire championship take over.  QPR are the only team in that category - they are behind 3 teams without that kind of money, have interesting issues such as £50 tickets for derby, and don''t play the kind of football that I would pay anything to see.

There is a fence, not over the need for more money, but over its precise nature and source.

[7rew 0]

[quote] Well if it''s a 50/50 then the law of averages says the next takeover will be good for us then seeing as how we were an established Premiership team with just a season in this div when the last takeover occurred. Said Roedy ducking for cover.....[:P]
[/quote]

LOL - seriously, I actually did.

[Mr. Bump 0]

Hmm, In the Premier League with Michael Owen and Shay Given or in the Championship with Jamie Cureton and David Marshall. I know who''s position I''d rather be in.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="7rew"]

LGT:  I realised after I posted that I needed a little addition to, it should read "(c) that while a takeover is desirable and extra investment of some kind is neccessary, any particular take over must..."

While the 6 of the 7 billionaire premiership takeovers do currently occupy the top 6:  What about the clubs with near billionaire owners? What will the table look like in 3 or 4 months?  Anyway We would not be a billionaire premiership takeover, but a billionaire championship take over.  QPR are the only team in that category - they are behind 3 teams without that kind of money, have interesting issues such as £50 tickets for derby, and don''t play the kind of football that I would pay anything to see.

There is a fence, not over the need for more money, but over its precise nature and source.

[/quote]thanks for further clarification 7rew - but imo - only the superprimes can afford to compete crdibly for the top prizes in the prem - kenwright said everton needs a billionaire to compete now, even though they did well last season - it seems events are fast moving in the prem, and they may be some credit crunch surprises (imo l''pool are vulnerable) but it seems there are no shortage of superprime investors looking a slice of the prem - lets not forget - the dot com/housing bubble has taken maybe us$ 5-8 trillion outa the market - some have cleaned up nicely, while commodity owners have become minted more than ever,,,imo - lets just say there''s probably more money offshored these days than laying around the worlds central banks at the mo!!!i would say the prem table looks reasonably as expected according to squad strength - aside spurs & man u...and yeah - it was always on the cards for qpr to raise prices, they are in west london after all...narrfolk wages have always been low,,,doubtful that big rises would happen on the scale you''re alluding too...so, i''m hopeful that investors will be found - who??? i dunno - but as i''ve said, the current market suggests only a cash/asset rich investor/s could conceivably invest in dear ole naaarwich - and rich ones at that...imo even delia couldn''t afford to buy NCFC now!!!so - in these conditions, the market sets its own criteria - and therefore, there is no fence - is NCFC really in a position to turn away cash rich super wealthy investors...after all donny says no-one i queuing up,,,so how could we reject a superprime???

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr. Bump"]

Hmm, In the Premier League with Michael Owen and Shay Given or in the Championship with Jamie Cureton and David Marshall. I know who''s position I''d rather be in.

[/quote]

Back on the topic of newcastle, what odds do you reckon you would get on those two being still there in February?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"]

so - in these conditions, the market sets its own criteria - and therefore, there is no fence - is NCFC really in a position to turn away cash rich super wealthy investors...after all donny says no-one i queuing up,,,so how could we reject a superprime???

[/quote]

For NCFC to be in this position all it requires is to attract 2 such investors, with sufficient wealth they are prepared to invest to get us established in the premiership, then you choose which one is best.  This situation seems to be the one the board are attempting to bring about.

Btw... wasn''t one of the main points about Cullum (whom you seem to be making oblique reference to)  that he isn''t cash rich but asset rich. 

Also I wouldn''t trust Doncaster''s exact words ever.