An open letter to NCISA

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

Wow I''ve never been called one of them before, don''t tell Nutty as he thinks I''m some rabid unwashed German anarchist.

[/quote]

Me too ! Although I thought you were Austrian.  I''m disappointed now.

[ca 1]

Did anyone actually answer purplecanary''s wonderfull long post which started this thread?

[First Wizard 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]Did anyone actually answer purplecanary''s wonderfull long post which started this thread?[/quote]

I don''t think they did angel.

[renegade tootsie 0]

Which says everything you need to know about them - its a group of self-opinionated people with no mandate, structure or direction.  Waste of time.

[quote user="Soldier on"]Good post Ive continually expressed an interest in joining NCISA and offering my opinion but have received no reply to both a personal email and private message sent via this bulletin board.[/quote]

[renegade tootsie 0]

And this is the main reason the NCISA fails.  Tilson is a nasty little piece of work as demonstrated below.  All the diplomacy and leadership skills of a burger flipper.  What NCFC needs is a well structured independent fans association with some professionalism behind it.

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Based on my past experiences with them..............arse lickers.............the lot of them![/quote]

An arse licker am i ? I cannot be bothered to reply as there is some paint i have to watch dry idiot.

[/quote]

[Shack Attack 0]

[quote user="renegade tootsie"]And this is the main reason the NCISA fails.  Tilson is a nasty little piece of work as demonstrated below.  [/quote]

So it''s OK for Wiz to call Tilly an arse licker but not OK for him to respond?

[blahblahblah 2]

Everybody gets called something by Wiz.  He''s like the grumpy grand-father in the corner at Xmas.  Or Father Jack, if you will.

People who command respect in public life tend to rise above criticism, turn the other cheek ? 

I''m never going to get a go in the Quattro now, am I ? [:)]

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]

Everybody gets called something by Wiz.  He''s like the grumpy grand-father in the corner at Xmas.  Or Father Jack, if you will.

People who command respect in public life tend to rise above criticism, turn the other cheek ? 

I''m never going to get a go in the Quattro now, am I ? [:)]

[/quote]

Consider the terms used Blah you could have chosen something better than "turn the other cheek"[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

[quote user="cityangel"]Did anyone actually answer purplecanary''s wonderfull long post which started this thread?[/quote]

cityangel,

the answer is, no, no-one has responded to my original post with anything

remotely resembling a constructive thought. It is not for me to say whether the

post was as interesting as you were kind enough to say, but it has been up for

more than three days now without attracting one comment on the future of the

club.

I posted here rather than on the official site as there seem to be quite a few

NCISA people who are regulars, so the absence of any kind of response might at

first glance not seem encouraging, but perhaps they have saved all their ideas

for the questionnaire.

What was less surprisingly was the absolute cyberspace silence from some of the

most frequent posters on this site, always ready with a negative comment or doom-laden

remark but struck totally dumb when confronted with a demand for thought.

People with thousands of posts to their name, turning up on thread after thread

after thread, but strangely absent from this one.

[blahblahblah 2]

ok, let''s have a go at this - to take the 10 good requirements you made :

1.   A commitment to stay as owner for at least a decade.

I don''t see longevity as a good thing neccesarily.  What we need is someone who is willing to put the funds in to make us competitive, initially at Championship, and then at Premiership level.  If someone can come in to achieve number 1, and then recognise that they need to hand over to someone who can achieve number 2, then that would be good enough for me.

2.   A promise of an initial boost for the transfer fund.

Grant and Roeder have had reasonable sums of money for this level.  Grant more so than Roeder to be fair.  But football runs on money.  There is never enough to satisfy the demands of the audience and players, and until wage caps are set, never will be.

3.   A promise of continued and substantial financial support, including boosts for the transfer fund, throughout the 10 years or more of ownership.

Absolutely.  The current owners put in approx 2 million this season to cope with the short-fall.  So whoever buys it needs to put in at least 20 million over the next 10 years to keep us where we are.

4.   A commitment to have at least one board member with experience of running a football club.

There are a lot of badly run football clubs. I''d be pickier than this, expecting some level of success at the club, without putting that club into schtuck financially.

5.   A promise never to sell off assets such as Carrow Road or Colney.

Is there room to expand at Carrow Road now ?  If you want to compete in the Premiership, you need a 30,000 seater stadium as a minimum.  If we were in the Prem, could we fill 40 k against the top teams ?  And could you build such a stadium at Carrow Road ?   In a better financial climate, could there be a benefit in building an out-of-town stadium ?  I don''t know, but I wouldn''t rule the possibility out unless I had someone investigate it first.

6.   A promise to appoint a supporter-director with veto powers on heritage issues such as the sale of assets such as Carrow Road or Colney, and on any future sale of the club itself.

A supporter director I agree with, I''ve suggested the idea of a top-up to season tickets to give voting rights for a supporter director in the past.  10,000 supporters buying 100 top-ups would give the club a million pounds per season.  Difficult to give anyone a veto though - what if the supporter director got funny about away strips, would that be a heritage issue ?

7.   A promise to keep the club’s message board.

Does it matter that a message board is affiliated to the club, provided the club maintains clear channels of communication with supporters ?  Other organisations arrange web-chats and are available via email.

8.   A promise to keep a (reformed) SCG.

How would you reform it ?

9.   A promise to keep links with independent groups such as NCISA and to continue to hold “get shouted at by the fans” meetings such as the recent one at Banham, with senior executives and football personnel attending.

Definitely, it''s good to listen.

10.  A promise to support the current system of organic growth within English football and to campaign and vote against any proposal to remove promotion and relegation from the system.

Absolutely agree, and I think every supporter on this board does too.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

blahblahblah,Thanks for the interesting reply. Just on Point 5, the sale of assets, I should perhaps have made this clearer. I was talking about the sale and leasing-back of assets. It was suggested right at the outset of Cullumgate (actually by people broadly in favour of Cullum) that part of his plan was to sell and lease-back Carrow Road.That is what I am totally opposed to, partly because if we did ever want to move to a bigger stadium we would not have Carrow Road to sell to part-finance the move.I am not necessarily against leaving Carrow Road at some point in the future; it might, as you say, be the right thing to do.

[blahblahblah 2]

I guess the reason you haven''t had a reply about this from the NCISA is that they''re guaging opinion from their questionnaires.  Committees have to represent the views of their members, although I don''t see why individuals who are part of it haven''t put their two cents forth.

I agree that leasing back Carrow Road could be a disaster, as you rightly say it would leave us with nothing to sell if we ever had to move.  I think most would be right to be concerned about that.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]Did anyone actually answer purplecanary''s wonderfull long post which started this thread?[/quote]

cityangel, the answer is, no, no-one has responded to my original post with anything remotely resembling a constructive thought. It is not for me to say whether the post was as interesting as you were kind enough to say, but it has been up for more than three days now without attracting one comment on the future of the club.

I posted here rather than on the official site as there seem to be quite a few NCISA people who are regulars, so the absence of any kind of response might at first glance not seem encouraging, but perhaps they have saved all their ideas for the questionnaire.

What was less surprisingly was the absolute cyberspace silence from some of the most frequent posters on this site, always ready with a negative comment or doom-laden remark but struck totally dumb when confronted with a demand for thought.

People with thousands of posts to their name, turning up on thread after thread after thread, but strangely absent from this one.

[/quote]

PurpleCanary, you''re quite right that your thread deserves some input. I need to do some serious snow clearing at the moment but I will respond later. The reason I did not initially, however, is because I was curious as to how you might respond to Mr. Tilson''s somewhat critical post. Have you responded to him yet? Not my business of course but, because of the interchange on here, it was one of those things that was just left hanging.....

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

To be fair Purple I think you and I have debated most of these points over the last few months on the official site, along with jetstream and LQ to name but two.

Anyhow to get my PERSONAL response to the 10 commitments, and at a risk of sounding like BlahBlahBlah

1.   A commitment to stay as owner for at least a decade.

There is certainly no need to have that as a commitment. By the same token would you only drink where the landlord promises to stay there.  I want the best person for the time, and that can change at any point.  As such this commitment is wrong and not achievable.

 

2.   A promise of an initial boost for the transfer fund.

Certainly there is no point in change for change sake, so one assumes there has to be a benefit and the most obvious benefit is an increased transfer fund. So a "demand" that is achievable

 

3.   A promise of continued and substantial financial support, including boosts for the transfer fund, throughout the 10 years or more of ownership.

Certainly we would need a promise of financial support for their tenure, but not necessarily 10 years, see 1 above. So partly achievable.

 

4.   A commitment to have at least one board member with experience of running a football club.

This needs clarifying.  I could argue that Doncaster and Munby would claim this expertise.  What I want are several Board members with relevant experience that helps the Club (Finance, Football management, Marketing etc)

 

5.   A promise never to sell off assets such as Carrow Road or Colney.

Why?  As you said we have discussed sale and leaseback, which can work financially and of course there is still the option of ChaseDome etc.  There should be no constraints put on doing what is right for the club at the time, and again is unrealistic to expect.

 

6.   A promise to appoint a supporter-director with veto powers on heritage issues such as the sale of assets such as Carrow Road or Colney, and on any future sale of the club itself.

So let us be honest the supporter director is always going to be n the same mould as the new worker/directos that companies are recruiting.  There can be no veto but a need to abide by majority decisions (director vote, not shareholder) and the right to opinion and vote should be across all areas.  Anything else is unrealistic.

 

7.   A promise to keep the club’s message board.

Why? OK I use it but if it was the choice between the start of the golden years at Carrow Road and not, are you seriously saying you would choose the message board?

 

8.   A promise to keep a (reformed) SCG.

See above only with raucous laughter in the background.  If it wasn''t for the endless hours of fun that message board posters have had over the SCG and disappearing minutes I would probably have the reverse as a commitment.

 

 

9.   A promise to keep links with independent groups such as NCISA and to continue to hold “get shouted at by the fans” meetings such as the recent one at Banham, with senior executives and football personnel attending.

Certainly of all the "fluffy" things you have required to be kept, the only one worth fighting over is public meetings.  However one would hope that an open Club would maintain a degree of interaction with its fans, but again it cannot be a "show stopper" in a deal.

 

10.  A promise to support the current system of organic growth within English football and to campaign and vote against any proposal to remove promotion and relegation from the system.

Probably the most difficult point in your charter.  Personally I would fight tooth and nail for any further deterioration in the structure of the English game, but given that our custodians have to do what is right for the Club, there may come a time when they would have to vote for some change to the detriment of other clubs.  In that instance would we really want to have tied their hands?

 

So overall, your charter is not one that I personally can support.

 

[Mister Chops 7]

[quote user="face"]

To be fair Purple I think you and I have debated most of these points over the last few months on the official site, along with jetstream and LQ to name but two.

Anyhow to get my PERSONAL response to the 10 commitments, and at a risk of sounding like BlahBlahBlah

1.   A commitment to stay as owner for at least a decade.

There is certainly no need to have that as a commitment. By the same token would you only drink where the landlord promises to stay there.  I want the best person for the time, and that can change at any point.  As such this commitment is wrong and not achievable.

 

2.   A promise of an initial boost for the transfer fund.

Certainly there is no point in change for change sake, so one assumes there has to be a benefit and the most obvious benefit is an increased transfer fund. So a "demand" that is achievable

 

3.   A promise of continued and substantial financial support, including boosts for the transfer fund, throughout the 10 years or more of ownership.

Certainly we would need a promise of financial support for their tenure, but not necessarily 10 years, see 1 above. So partly achievable.

 

4.   A commitment to have at least one board member with experience of running a football club.

This needs clarifying.  I could argue that Doncaster and Munby would claim this expertise.  What I want are several Board members with relevant experience that helps the Club (Finance, Football management, Marketing etc)

 

5.   A promise never to sell off assets such as Carrow Road or Colney.

Why?  As you said we have discussed sale and leaseback, which can work financially and of course there is still the option of ChaseDome etc.  There should be no constraints put on doing what is right for the club at the time, and again is unrealistic to expect.

 

6.   A promise to appoint a supporter-director with veto powers on heritage issues such as the sale of assets such as Carrow Road or Colney, and on any future sale of the club itself.

So let us be honest the supporter director is always going to be n the same mould as the new worker/directos that companies are recruiting.  There can be no veto but a need to abide by majority decisions (director vote, not shareholder) and the right to opinion and vote should be across all areas.  Anything else is unrealistic.

 

7.   A promise to keep the club’s message board.

Why? OK I use it but if it was the choice between the start of the golden years at Carrow Road and not, are you seriously saying you would choose the message board?

 

8.   A promise to keep a (reformed) SCG.

See above only with raucous laughter in the background.  If it wasn''t for the endless hours of fun that message board posters have had over the SCG and disappearing minutes I would probably have the reverse as a commitment.

 

 

9.   A promise to keep links with independent groups such as NCISA and to continue to hold “get shouted at by the fans” meetings such as the recent one at Banham, with senior executives and football personnel attending.

Certainly of all the "fluffy" things you have required to be kept, the only one worth fighting over is public meetings.  However one would hope that an open Club would maintain a degree of interaction with its fans, but again it cannot be a "show stopper" in a deal.

 

10.  A promise to support the current system of organic growth within English football and to campaign and vote against any proposal to remove promotion and relegation from the system.

Probably the most difficult point in your charter.  Personally I would fight tooth and nail for any further deterioration in the structure of the English game, but given that our custodians have to do what is right for the Club, there may come a time when they would have to vote for some change to the detriment of other clubs.  In that instance would we really want to have tied their hands?

 

So overall, your charter is not one that I personally can support.

 

[/quote]It is a good response.  I think there''s a real mixture of high and low level stuff here:

3.   A promise of continued and substantial financial support, including boosts for the transfer fund, throughout the 10 years or more of ownership.

is not nearly in the same league as

7.   A promise to keep the club’s message board.

7 and 9 should be rolled up to a higher level along the lines of "improved communication with fans through a variety of media including online and face-to-face meetings".  Agree that the SCG is good in theory, weak in practice.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

Some

interesting replies, although I was more looking for people to have ideas of

their own, rather than simply agreeing or disagreeing with mine, useful though

that is.

An obvious point to make, as Mister Chops indicates, is that my charter (I hadn’t

thought of it that grandiosely, but there is an honourable tradition in British

history of charters) has more and less important points. So, of course, I

wouldn’t rule out my mythical Baluchistani bauxite billionaire if he or she fulfilled

all or most of the important conditions but wanted to scrap the SCG or the

message board (though that might make me wary).

:o) is right to say I’ve put this charter forward before on the official board,

including a supporter-director specifically with veto powers. Sadly he may be

right to dismiss the idea as a non-starter and pie in the sky, but I do take

comfort in knowing I’m not entirely alone in being in favour. I distinctly

remember when I mentioned this on the official site one of the posters there

said he’d been advocating a supporter-director for years and described my

additional notion of veto powers as a stroke of genius that would transform the

concept from being a piece of lip-service into something valuable and make it

worth fighting for. He actually used the word “genius”. I was quite flattered.

I guess it just goes to show how different people on different message boards

can have diametrically opposed views.

[TIL 1010 4,744]

[quote user="renegade tootsie"]And this is the main reason the NCISA fails.  Tilson is a nasty little piece of work as demonstrated below.  All the diplomacy and leadership skills of a burger flipper. 

What NCFC needs is a well structured independent fans association with some professionalism behind it.



[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Based on my past experiences with them..............arse lickers.............the lot of them![/quote]

An arse licker am i ? I cannot be bothered to reply as there is some paint i have to watch dry idiot.

[/quote][/quote]

Feel free to stand at the next NCISA AGM or set up this "well structured independant fans association with some professionalism behind it".

[nutty nigel 7,533]

[quote user="TIL 1010"][quote user="renegade tootsie"]And this is the main reason the NCISA fails.  Tilson is a nasty little piece of work as demonstrated below.  All the diplomacy and leadership skills of a burger flipper. 

What NCFC needs is a well structured independent fans association with some professionalism behind it.



[quote user="TIL 1010"]

[quote user="1st Wizard"]Based on my past experiences with them..............arse lickers.............the lot of them![/quote]

An arse licker am i ? I cannot be bothered to reply as there is some paint i have to watch dry idiot.

[/quote][/quote]

Feel free to stand at the next NCISA AGM or set up this "well structured independant fans association with some professionalism behind it".

[/quote]

So "stick that in yer bun and eat it" [:O]

[;)]

 

[nutty nigel 7,533]

PurpleCanary - We don''t get "a say" over who takes over the club or how they run it. We never have and we never will. The current board are the closest we have got to that with fans representation and input with regards to ticketing and other totally fans related issues. And these things have improved under the current board and are much fairer than before. But the fans don''t have a say in policy or football issues. And why should they? Could you imagine buying Smith&Jones shareholding and then investing millions more into the club and allow a nutty nigel a say in how it''s spent? If nutty want''s to call the tune he has to pay the piper I''m afraid. As for a board member with experience of running a football club - the current lot have around half a century between them!

To be fair I agree with a lot of your points but it seems to me your best option of getting new owners to fit most of your criteria would be Smith&Jones only richer.

 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

I left this

post for a few days to see if it generated any ideas on the future of the club

as the single most important decision in its history looms. I guess the

cyberspace silence indicates just how darned difficult it is to be constructive.I hadn’t, of course, been looking for any kind of official NCISA response. That

might have pre-empted its analysis of the results of the questionnaire. However

NCISA was noticeable by its irrelevance during Cullumgate; if it wants to be

more influential in the future (and perhaps that is being advocated by

respondents to the questionnaire) it needs to start thinking constructively for

itself.

As to my own charter, I deliberately didn’t make a case for each of the 10

points (partly because most of the arguments are obvious and it would also have

made the post unfeasibly long) and won’t do so here, with one exception below.

But, just to reiterate, the charter includes more and less important points.

Indeed, there are only two that are set in stone non-negotiable dealbreakers,

and only people who haven’t been paying attention during Cullumgate will fail

to realise which those are.

However I will just argue for a supporter-director with veto powers on heritage

issues.

1. The general idea of supporter-directors is gaining hold – more than 40 clubs

in this country.

2. The idea of supporter ownership is growing. It has been advocated recently

by the culture secretary. Brentford is supporter-owned, so is Barcelona, so, I think, are all the clubs in

the Bundesliga.

3. Norwich City is special. I lived for many (too

many) years in Northamptonshire when it had one league club. But there was just

not the county-wide feeling for Northampton

Town that there is in Norfolk

for Norwich City. The club is part of the heritage

and fabric of the county, along with Thomas Paine and Henry Blogg, the Quaker ethos

and the spirit of the Burston strikers.

4. What I am suggesting is not that radical. Certainly not as radical as

supporter-ownership. The club would continue to be run as a business, on

business lines, with majority voting on virtually all issues. Indeed, the

supporter-director might never be confronted with a question on which they had

to think about using the veto. But if that day came, and the future of the club

was in danger, then the power would be there.

I am not advocating the Brentford model (through it would make a change from

the Charlton model) but the system there includes a “golden share” giving veto

rights over the issue or transfer of shares, the disposal of assets over

a material level and the use of land for any purpose other than that of a

sports stadium.

To quote one of the

supporter-directors at Brentford: “Our motives are to protect the

long-term future of the club in its community.” Just so.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

Doh! Oh for an edit button! Please ignore the odd stuff at the top.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

I left this post for a few days to see if it generated any ideas on the future of the club as the single most important decision in its history looms. I guess the cyberspace silence indicates just how darned difficult it is to be constructive.

I hadn’t, of course, been looking for any kind of official NCISA response. That might have pre-empted its analysis of the results of the questionnaire. However NCISA was noticeable by its irrelevance during Cullumgate; if it wants to be more influential in the future (and perhaps that is being advocated by respondents to the questionnaire) it needs to start thinking constructively for itself.

As to my own charter, I deliberately didn’t make a case for each of the 10 points (partly because most of the arguments are obvious and it would also have made the post unfeasibly long) and won’t do so here, with one exception below.

But, just to reiterate, the charter includes more and less important points. Indeed, there are only two that are set in stone non-negotiable dealbreakers, and only people who haven’t been paying attention during Cullumgate will fail to realise which those are.

However I will just argue for a supporter-director with veto powers on heritage issues.

1. The general idea of supporter-directors is gaining hold – more than 40 clubs in this country.

2. The idea of supporter ownership is growing. It has been advocated recently by the culture secretary. Brentford is supporter-owned, so is Barcelona, so, I think, are all the clubs in the Bundesliga.

3. Norwich City is special. I lived for many (too many) years in Northamptonshire when it had one league club. But there was just not the county-wide feeling for Northampton Town that there is in Norfolk for Norwich City. The club is part of the heritage and fabric of the county, along with Thomas Paine and Henry Blogg, the Quaker ethos and the spirit of the Burston strikers.

4. What I am suggesting is not that radical. Certainly not as radical as supporter-ownership. The club would continue to be run as a business, on business lines, with majority voting on virtually all issues. Indeed, the supporter-director might never be confronted with a question on which they had to think about using the veto. But if that day came, and the future of the club was in danger, then the power would be there.

I am not advocating the Brentford model (through it would make a change from the Charlton model) but the system there includes a “golden share” giving veto rights over the issue or transfer of shares, the disposal of assets over a material level and the use of land for any purpose other than that of a sports stadium.

To quote one of the supporter-directors at Brentford: “Our motives are to protect the long-term future of the club in its community.” Just so.

[/quote]

PurpleCanary, I think many of us who like to produce a constructive well-thought out view are similarly disappointed when there is little response from others. I was about to respond with a different slant myself but hestitated because, as you had pointed out previously, you stated you were not receiving what you had expected from NCISA, but you were then invited by Mr. Tilson to forward him information. All that we see on this thread is Mr. Tilson''s input that he has not heard from you. Is this still the case or not? If it is, you can see how others might choose not to respond to you if you fail to respond to an message from organisation on which you have begun the thread by offering input that, in part, was critical of NCISA, no matter how constructive. I''d just like to see you have responded fairly to them before I build on your thread. Thanks.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

Yankee, I find myself in a slightly difficult position. I saw the comment from Mr Tilson but didn''t reply on this forum because I regarded it as a private matter. I also think that threads can get clogged up with stuff that is only of interest to the people involved and so get sidetracked. This was partly why I didn''t respond to your original post. I wanted the focus of the thread to remain constructive and general.I did send Mr Tilson an email last Thursday but haven''t yet had a reply. That may be because he thought the email didn''t demand a reply, which it didn''t, or because the email got shunted into junk mail or got lost in some other cyberspace way I don''t understand.The problem is that by explaining this in public it now looks as if I''m annoyed by not getting a reply, which is not the case. The whole point of my original post was to get people, including NCISA members, thinking about what comes next. In the course of that I made some criticisms of NCISA purely as a way of indicating how I thought the organisation could improve. That remains my motivation.

[As my login causes problems [ :o) ] 0]

Purple, I have had long debates with you in the past, and I do find myself a serial debater (no jokes please kids/students we know the ones!!).  However I have to take issue on this whole "open letter" tactic.

It is a well used practice to basically call to account an organisation by publishing an "open letter".  I personally think that it is inappropriate here as NCISA are not really a party that should be challenged.  Indeed I would argue that to challenge NCISA is deflecting criticism from those that maybe are more deserving at the Club itself.

To then put your agenda for change to NCISA again seems misdirected.

As you have seen from individual responses some points are regarded as good and some indeed have been advocated by others before you, others have not been received as well, but it is your opinion. 

To get back on the point of NCISA, once again we are faced with message board posters turning to others to carry the torch for them. It is once again a question of trying to rally posters to beat up NCISA to get change at the club.

Why look to others?

With respect John, Kathy and the rest of us have declared our true identities to the world and stood up face to face with officials from the Club.  For that we don''t expect praise but neither should we expect to be berated for not putting points of view that are unique to one or two fans.

Hence the idea of the questionaire.  It is to make sure that when NCISA speaks it does it with evidence of the wider mood.  If it is the wrong impression then that is down to the fact that people did not respond, but it means that we do not portray our own views as those of NCISA.

For the same reason we each post as individuals, and not on behalf of NCISA.  I can assure you that we do not agree on several points and that lively debate usually follows whenever we discuss football in general or the Club.

You may not like where each of us stands but then stand against us or tell us wherewe are wrong, it is a democratic organisation.

What I find hard to accept is those (and I do not specifically include you here) that just criticise NCISA without offering an alternative.

It was pointed out to me by one of the posters off here at the recent get together at the Trowel and Hammer that in every crisis a new organisation starts up.  Well fine if it offers a better alternative than NCISA but don''t shoot us down unless you have a better alternative.

As always we remain approachable and will be more than willing to meet up before a game or at some other location or to respond to points put to us.  But maybe just maybe an antagonistic "open letter" in''t the best way to go about it.

By the way this is as always MY view not the view of the other members of the committee or NCISA at large

 

[Mello Yello 2,291]

I''d have thought the SCG would be the folk for the fan-base to bend the ears of......They''re more in the face of the Directorship, including the CE....than any other supporter group.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

PurpleCanary - We don''t get "a say" over who takes over the club or how they run it. We never have and we never will. The current board are the closest we have got to that with fans representation and input with regards to ticketing and other totally fans related issues. And these things have improved under the current board and are much fairer than before. But the fans don''t have a say in policy or football issues. And why should they? Could you imagine buying Smith&Jones shareholding and then investing millions more into the club and allow a nutty nigel a say in how it''s spent? If nutty want''s to call the tune he has to pay the piper I''m afraid. As for a board member with experience of running a football club - the current lot have around half a century between them!

To be fair I agree with a lot of your points but it seems to me your best option of getting new owners to fit most of your criteria would be Smith&Jones only richer.

 

[/quote]fair comment nutty - but then isn''t also fair to say the fans rallied round and pumped money into the club via the share offer during our promotion season...which as we know was matched by the board - and this financial stimulus arguably helped us to win promotion to the prem that year...the board then decided upon the prudence with ambition charlton yo-yo model policy - and the rest is history...and so will they be in due course...

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="cityangel"]Did anyone actually answer purplecanary''s wonderfull long post which started this thread?[/quote]

cityangel,

the answer is, no, no-one has responded to my original post with anything

remotely resembling a constructive thought. It is not for me to say whether the

post was as interesting as you were kind enough to say, but it has been up for

more than three days now without attracting one comment on the future of the

club.

I posted here rather than on the official site as there seem to be quite a few

NCISA people who are regulars, so the absence of any kind of response might at

first glance not seem encouraging, but perhaps they have saved all their ideas

for the questionnaire.

What was less surprisingly was the absolute cyberspace silence from some of the

most frequent posters on this site, always ready with a negative comment or doom-laden

remark but struck totally dumb when confronted with a demand for thought.

People with thousands of posts to their name, turning up on thread after thread

after thread, but strangely absent from this one.

[/quote]i thought i did post a reply to the op in good faith - my reply was that in the current economic climate - to ask for pre-conditions is unrealistic...although i do recognise the merit of charter - at the moment it is as irrelevant as much as the club is worthless...why??? cos presently, there are no credible debt models regarding the purchase of a footy club, so a new owner would either have cash, sufficient collateral or a mix of both, in order to buy city...if a buyer of this ilk comes into view - then  by definition they will be (economically) worthy - and for anyone to consider buying into a footy club right now, we can assume they are ambitious and know of the risks they are taking...else why would a monetary successful person/s consider buying naaarwich city if they weren''t a fan (hopefully of NCFC but of footy in general at least)...to run it down??? and/or see it decline into league 1...lol!!!beggars can''t be choosers...

[nutty nigel 7,533]

So what are you saying Lucky? Are you saying that things would definitely be better if the fans had run the club since that share offer? If the decisions had been taken away from the board and made by those of us who pumped money in? I believe mistakes were made, but that''s with the benefit of hindsight and I''m not even sure I''m right now. This is still "work in progress" and not a "done deal". We may still be thankful for decisions the board have made when we look back on the last year with that precious hindsight. See that''s the thing on here, we can all be right two years after the event when we don''t have to have an opinion at the time the decisions are made.

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

So what are you saying Lucky? Are you saying that things would definitely be better if the fans had run the club since that share offer? If the decisions had been taken away from the board and made by those of us who pumped money in? I believe mistakes were made, but that''s with the benefit of hindsight and I''m not even sure I''m right now. This is still "work in progress" and not a "done deal". We may still be thankful for decisions the board have made when we look back on the last year with that precious hindsight. See that''s the thing on here, we can all be right two years after the event when we don''t have to have an opinion at the time the decisions are made.

[/quote]

Nutty, you and I are so, so compatible on this thought process that I wonder if we should take things further and build a meaningful relationship. Are you available?

[YankeeCanary 0]

PurpleCanary, while your intentions are good, your original post on this thread took over 800 words to ramble in a number of different directions, beginning with a question of what NCISA stands/should stand for, but quickly meandering off to NCFC being up for sale, the Peter Cullum episode, the inadequacy of journalists and the EDP’s role and a thought regarding the reform of SCG, without a supporting comment as to why it should be reformed, accompanied by a ten-point summary of what you believe should be required of any new owner, including a list of promises that outweighs anything ever beheld in the eyes of a young Jezebel seeking to make her way up the ladder of the world’s richest men. In other words, despite your good intentions what I think you have done is to take a shotgun approach to hit a bullseye from a naïve distance. You seek constructive input and this, therefore, must include constructive criticism of your original post, otherwise we are engaged in building on a faulty foundation. So, let''s address each of the elements:

 

NCISA

Beausant expressed it correctly in my view. If one seeks to change what an association represents then you need to do it from the inside. If you attempt that and find you are unable to persuade others to your way of thinking, or find that association is inflexible to accept change or changing leadership, then one needs to look for other means of pursuing objectives. It appears that you, like me, are prohibited by distance from taking an active role within such an association. I understand your desire to use the written path of persuasion from a distance. While that input appears to be welcomed I am sure that we realize it is nowhere near as effective as those that can run with the flag from the inside. Perhaps that’s your true intent on this thread, i.e. to seek a champion who develops ( with you ) and shares a more robust approach that will be fought for from the inside?        

 

Peter Cullum/Other Potential Owners of NCFC

First of all we have majority shareholders and a Board of Directors who are charged with the responsibility of defining what’s required of any new owners that may emerge. Some of us may wish to criticize those that currently hold that office, but they earned the right to be in their position and they are certainly more qualified than we are to know what’s required of and from those that aspire to take on the responsibility of owning a football club. My own view parallels that of Nutty Nigel in that posters/fans don’t get a say in this matter ( beyond any that is invited by the Board of any outside group ), as interesting as you may find it to discuss. Personally, I think the more interesting aspect to discuss is what do we believe a prospective new owner would be looking for before deciding to acquire a football club. What are the selling benefits of our club versus other comparable clubs and how can fans support that beyond what is presently the case?

 

The Local Press

We might be better served to ask Cameldonum for his views on the strengths and weaknesses of the local press in being able to dig into the facts of a story such as the one you referred to regarding Peter Cullum. Personally, I’ve always believed the hands of local journalists are tied to a degree. The very nature of local press requires access to club information to keep the news column filled up with something without alienating easy access or spending money on higher-priced journalistic talent or information on the basis that it may be required to cover a good story that may emerge once in a rare while.   

 

SCG

I have a general understanding of the purpose of this group. I was critical of the club for calling a meeting with this group at the time of the Peter Cullum interest, and then maintaining a position of relative silence on the matter. The required confidentiality then put the members of SCG in a difficult position relative to other fans. What is your knowledge of the purpose of SCG and how would you seek to reform it?