Delia Smith you have a lot to answer for.......

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]She has destroyed this club, I have never felt so despondent about things before and the sad thing is that the board don''t have a clue how to get us out of this mess. We will be in the conference before to long at our current rate of progress.[/quote]

Were you here in the 90s? Your dictionary obvoiusly has a different meaning for the word ''destroyed'' because last time I looked, we still had/have a club. Which is more than some fans of the big clubs consumed by corporate investors can say...

So, who should replace Delia then? I know they''ve appionted some international investor-search type people, but they are obviously not as good as the posters on this board, who have more ideas as to who should come in.... Please enlighten us.. and don''t say Cullum, as he''s already in the past few weeks said he''s not interested. So... who then?

[/quote]the chairman of preston knew the game was up last jan,,,when after another home defeat they were languishing in the bottom 6---and he arrived afterwards at the car park to find his motor covered in gob...needless to say,,,he had the sense to resign, and guess what new investors were found, and guess what,,,look where they are now???it doesn''t have to be like that and shouldn''t be...i don''t condone such behaviour - but it suggests that if you really want to sell,,,a buyer will be found...and that is a simple truth...

[0Amarillo<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>ddMMyyyy0Falseen-US<P><FONT color=#cccc00 size=4><EM> º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ Amarillo ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°<EM><FONT><P>True 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]She has destroyed this club, I have never felt so despondent about things before and the sad thing is that the board don''t have a clue how to get us out of this mess. We will be in the conference before to long at our current rate of progress.[/quote]

Were you here in the 90s? Your dictionary obvoiusly has a different meaning for the word ''destroyed'' because last time I looked, we still had/have a club. Which is more than some fans of the big clubs consumed by corporate investors can say...

So, who should replace Delia then? I know they''ve appionted some international investor-search type people, but they are obviously not as good as the posters on this board, who have more ideas as to who should come in.... Please enlighten us.. and don''t say Cullum, as he''s already in the past few weeks said he''s not interested. So... who then?

[/quote]

the chairman of preston knew the game was up last jan,,,when after another home defeat they were languishing in the bottom 6---and he arrived afterwards at the car park to find his motor covered in gob...

needless to say,,,he had the sense to resign, and guess what new investors were found, and guess what,,,look where they are now???

it doesn''t have to be like that and shouldn''t be...i don''t condone such behaviour - but it suggests that if you really want to sell,,,a buyer will be found...

and that is a simple truth...
[/quote]

A chairman can resign, and a new chairman appointed.... but that doesn''t necessarily alter the share ownership of the club. Presumably you are extending the ''Delia Out!'' message to Roger Munby then as well?

[Erik the Viking 0]

[quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]She has destroyed this club, I have never felt so despondent about things before and the sad thing is that the board don''t have a clue how to get us out of this mess. We will be in the conference before to long at our current rate of progress.[/quote]

Were you here in the 90s? Your dictionary obvoiusly has a different meaning for the word ''destroyed'' because last time I looked, we still had/have a club. Which is more than some fans of the big clubs consumed by corporate investors can say...

So, who should replace Delia then? I know they''ve appionted some international investor-search type people, but they are obviously not as good as the posters on this board, who have more ideas as to who should come in.... Please enlighten us.. and don''t say Cullum, as he''s already in the past few weeks said he''s not interested. So... who then?

[/quote]

And how close is "HMS Delia Smith" close to sinking Amarillo??, very very close one suspects.....

Appointed "Keith Harris and Orville?!" who are also looking for investement in approx four other clubs who I believe a prob a more attractive proposition than a struggling championships side with debts of approx £20 million!. More than likely way down his list of priorities one would assume.

Cullum has not ruled it out at all and said that he would not let the club go into administration, readt the article!!!!!

[Erik the Viking 0]

[quote user="lucky green trainers"][quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]She has destroyed this club, I have never felt so despondent about things before and the sad thing is that the board don''t have a clue how to get us out of this mess. We will be in the conference before to long at our current rate of progress.[/quote]

Were you here in the 90s? Your dictionary obvoiusly has a different meaning for the word ''destroyed'' because last time I looked, we still had/have a club. Which is more than some fans of the big clubs consumed by corporate investors can say...

So, who should replace Delia then? I know they''ve appionted some international investor-search type people, but they are obviously not as good as the posters on this board, who have more ideas as to who should come in.... Please enlighten us.. and don''t say Cullum, as he''s already in the past few weeks said he''s not interested. So... who then?

[/quote]

the chairman of preston knew the game was up last jan,,,when after another home defeat they were languishing in the bottom 6---and he arrived afterwards at the car park to find his motor covered in gob...

needless to say,,,he had the sense to resign, and guess what new investors were found, and guess what,,,look where they are now???

it doesn''t have to be like that and shouldn''t be...i don''t condone such behaviour - but it suggests that if you really want to sell,,,a buyer will be found...

and that is a simple truth...
[/quote]

Very true LGT but if she continues with her ignorance the likelihood is that situation will get to that stage of threats and violence.

Also this idea NCFC will no longer exsist if she trots off back south of the border is pathetic..............

[YankeeCanary 0]

There you have it folks....you can choose to accept the views ( read spin ) from Percy and disregard what  Steve Downes and, therefore, the EDP reported what Cullum said. Also, haven''t seen a denial from Mr. Cullum yet. WAY accepted this input and repeated it and Percy could hardly wait to jump down her throat to point out this was not put into direct quote form. To what end would Percy do this? Only to cast doubt one imagines. Sad.

No cash to bail out Canaries - Cullum

STEVE DOWNES

31 December 2008

Peter Cullum - recession is hitting his business, too

Norwich City supporters'' New Year dreams are in tatters today after billionaire Peter Cullum said the impact of the credit crunch meant he could not ride to the rescue of the cash-strapped Canaries

 

 

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Amarillo"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]She has destroyed this club, I have never felt so despondent about things before and the sad thing is that the board don''t have a clue how to get us out of this mess. We will be in the conference before to long at our current rate of progress.[/quote]

Were you here in the 90s? Your dictionary obvoiusly has a different meaning for the word ''destroyed'' because last time I looked, we still had/have a club. Which is more than some fans of the big clubs consumed by corporate investors can say...

So, who should replace Delia then? I know they''ve appionted some international investor-search type people, but they are obviously not as good as the posters on this board, who have more ideas as to who should come in.... Please enlighten us.. and don''t say Cullum, as he''s already in the past few weeks said he''s not interested. So... who then?

[/quote]

I apologise, I should have actually said she''s on the verge of destroying this club because if she''s here for much longer we will end up in the conference. Once she has gone I''m sure there will be someone prepared to come in and sort out the mess as there usually is, it could be Cullum but if not I''m sure someone would come forward.

[Erik the Viking 0]

"On-off negotiations with the club have since broken down, although he continues to say he would not stand by if the club went into administration."

 

Yankee!

Have you been learning the art of spin from CR?!?! because he also stated this......

But lets ignore all the facts hey just like our majority shareholder tends to do!

[canary cherub 1]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

 

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[/quote]

"Objective balance"?  Let''s nail that lie shall we?

I am not objective and have never claimed to be.  I have a particular point of view, based on my reading of the situation, which is well known to everyone.  I make no secret of it.

Equally you have your own point of view.  I may not share it 99% of the time but I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you were prepared to admit it instead of claiming to stand above the fray by being balanced and objective.  You''re not.  No one is. 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Gazza"]

Cullum has not ruled it out at all and said that he would not let the club go into administration, readt the article!!!!!

[/quote]Actually if you read the article carefully the EDP has Cullum saying, in reported speech, that he would not stand by if the club WENT into administration, not that he would not let the club go into administration; in other words he would act after the event and not before.Whether that is an accurate summation of Cullum''s position or just sloppy use of English I cannot say.Meanwhile Potless, in another thread you asked me a question and I did you the courtesy of replying straight away. Earlier on, on the same thread, I asked you a question to which you didn''t reply. It would be nice to have an answer.Just in case you need reminding the question was:Potless, you said in one of your earlier posts: "The club wanted a total buyout or nothing." I''m not quite sure what you''re basing that on, but I may have missed something.

[lucky green trainers 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Gazza"]

Cullum has not ruled it out at all and said that he would not let the club go into administration, readt the article!!!!!

[/quote]Actually if you read the article carefully the EDP has Cullum saying, in reported speech, that he would not stand by if the club WENT into administration, not that he would not let the club go into administration; in other words he would act after the event and not before.Whether that is an accurate summation of Cullum''s position or just sloppy use of English I cannot say.Meanwhile Potless, in another thread you asked me a question and I did you the courtesy of replying straight away. Earlier on, on the same thread, I asked you a question to which you didn''t reply. It would be nice to have an answer.Just in case you need reminding the question was:Potless, you said in one of your earlier posts: "The club wanted a total buyout or nothing." I''m not quite sure what you''re basing that on, but I may have missed something.

[/quote]could it be the infamous £56m quote pc???sounds rather all or nothing to me...

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[/quote]

"Objective balance"?  Let''s nail that lie shall we?

I am not objective and have never claimed to be.  I have a particular point of view, based on my reading of the situation, which is well known to everyone.  I make no secret of it.

Equally you have your own point of view.  I may not share it 99% of the time but I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you were prepared to admit it instead of claiming to stand above the fray by being balanced and objective.  You''re not.  No one is. 

[/quote]

There you go again Percy...rambling when you''re rattled, or penetrated. Try, just this one time, to stay on point as to how you reacted in this thread. My simple reaction was to point out how you use your spin to create doubt. That was your objective wasn''t it? If not, please tell us what your objective was. WAY simply repeated what Cullum was reported to have said to the media. No denial anywhere from mr. Cullum is there? That did not fit with your belief so you rather abruptly jumped on WAY''s comment. Have another look at it because I think you''re not seeing the forest for the trees. Also, I highlighted your signature in large font for you because you seem so proud of it.

  

WeAreYellows49 wrote:

Just a reminder of what was in the EDP recently Peter Cullum said the impact of the credit crunch meant he could not ride to the rescue of the cash-strapped Canaries. Percy wrote:

No he didn''t. 

That''s what the EDP says he said.  A classic case of putting words into someone''s mouth.

Look at what he is actually quoted as saying.  

"More spin than a launderette" . .

[loz h 0]

if delia loves ncfc she would have sold up long ago

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Gazza"]

Cullum has not ruled it out at all and said that he would not let the club go into administration, readt the article!!!!!

[/quote]


Meanwhile Potless, in another thread you asked me a question and I did you the courtesy of replying straight away. Earlier on, on the same thread, I asked you a question to which you didn''t reply. It would be nice to have an answer.

Just in case you need reminding the question was:

Potless, you said in one of your earlier posts: "The club wanted a total buyout or nothing." I''m not quite sure what you''re basing that on, but I may have missed something.
[/quote]

It was a reference to the events of June/July when the club set out their £56m "bill" for a buyout in response to Cullum''s proposal.

 

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

de-LIAR is trying so hard to find investment [:$]lets give her one LAST chance..... [;)]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[/quote]

"Objective balance"?  Let''s nail that lie shall we?

I am not objective and have never claimed to be.  I have a particular point of view, based on my reading of the situation, which is well known to everyone.  I make no secret of it.

Equally you have your own point of view.  I may not share it 99% of the time but I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you were prepared to admit it instead of claiming to stand above the fray by being balanced and objective.  You''re not.  No one is. 

[/quote]

There you go again Percy...rambling when you''re rattled, or penetrated. Try, just this one time, to stay on point as to how you reacted in this thread. My simple reaction was to point out how you use your spin to create doubt. That was your objective wasn''t it? If not, please tell us what your objective was. WAY simply repeated what Cullum was reported to have said to the media. No denial anywhere from mr. Cullum is there? That did not fit with your belief so you rather abruptly jumped on WAY''s comment. Have another look at it because I think you''re not seeing the forest for the trees. Also, I highlighted your signature in large font for you because you seem so proud of it.

[/quote]

Are you objective Yankee?  Is anyone?

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Potless, thanks for the reply, but I''m still not clear what you meant by: "The club wanted a total buyout or nothing."It came in this post of yours:"Can''t really be bothered to go over this yet again, but Cullum never offered a total buyout. 

He wanted new shares in exchange for £20m which would have given him an

overall majority.  The club wanted a total buyout or nothing."So you were contrasting Cullum''s aim of an overall majority with what you say was the club''s demand of a total buyout. I''m not sure what is the basis for your statement that the club would settle for nothing less than a total buyout. That is what I''m asking you to justify, because I''m not aware that the club ever made such a demand.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[/quote]

"Objective balance"?  Let''s nail that lie shall we?

I am not objective and have never claimed to be.  I have a particular point of view, based on my reading of the situation, which is well known to everyone.  I make no secret of it.

Equally you have your own point of view.  I may not share it 99% of the time but I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you were prepared to admit it instead of claiming to stand above the fray by being balanced and objective.  You''re not.  No one is. 

[/quote]

There you go again Percy...rambling when you''re rattled, or penetrated. Try, just this one time, to stay on point as to how you reacted in this thread. My simple reaction was to point out how you use your spin to create doubt. That was your objective wasn''t it? If not, please tell us what your objective was. WAY simply repeated what Cullum was reported to have said to the media. No denial anywhere from mr. Cullum is there? That did not fit with your belief so you rather abruptly jumped on WAY''s comment. Have another look at it because I think you''re not seeing the forest for the trees. Also, I highlighted your signature in large font for you because you seem so proud of it.

[/quote]

Are you objective Yankee?  Is anyone?

[/quote]

I ask a specific question and, rather than answer, you ask a general one in return. That''s okay. I''ll answer yours.

I suspect all reasonably intelligent people strive to be objective on issues they are confronted with, while recognising that they have ( in our age bracket anyway ) built in their own various levels of bias over the experiences of their lifetime.

Translating that view to NCFC, I believe it is in the best interest of NCFC to go forward under new ownership. I honestly believe Delia and Michael believe that too. However, it is for them to decide when the right circumstances are on the table to allow them to make their exit, and they will. In the interim, trying to make a football team and its manager do what you want them to do is not an easy job for any owner or Board. I''m sure that''s what Mr. Levy at Tottenham has felt over the past couple of seasons. I wonder what the Manchester City board feel at the moment. It can''t be satisfaction.  

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Potless, thanks for the reply, but I''m still not clear what you meant by: "The club wanted a total buyout or nothing."

It came in this post of yours:

"Can''t really be bothered to go over this yet again, but Cullum never offered a total buyout.  He wanted new shares in exchange for £20m which would have given him an overall majority.  The club wanted a total buyout or nothing."

So you were contrasting Cullum''s aim of an overall majority with what you say was the club''s demand of a total buyout. I''m not sure what is the basis for your statement that the club would settle for nothing less than a total buyout. That is what I''m asking you to justify, because I''m not aware that the club ever made such a demand.[/quote]

I wouldn''t stake my life on it, but that was the agenda set by the club after Cullum went public with his proposal.  Publishing their £56m "bill" for a total buyout sounds pretty much like a demand to me.  They have never acknowledged that Cullum was in fact proposing an alternative to a buyout, and even now there are plenty of fans who think he was trying to buy the club on the cheap but bottled out when it came to making an offer. 

I agree that the club never said "buyout or nothing" in so many words, but they couldn''t do that without acknowledging that there was an alternative to a buyout on offer.  

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Potless,

thanks for the second reply. I don’t want to prolong this because it’s Saturday

night and I’m sure we both have better things to do. However, because I do have

this tedious obsession with fact, I would just like to get this straight.

I normally don’t make assumptions about other people’s opinions but in this

case it might short-circuit things. I THINK the difference you were drawing was

between Cullum wanting control though a majority of the shares (theoretically

51 per cent but more sensibly 55-60 percent) and the board demanding he buy

every share. I think (I stress I “think”) that is what you mean by “total

buyout”, and that this demand of the club’s was at least one of the sticking

points.

If so, then I’m afraid you are simply wrong. The board never demanded that

Cullum buy every share. Indeed it never could have demanded such a thing.

What the board stated was that if Cullum started buying existing shares and

reach the 30 per cent threshold, then he would have to MAKE AN OFFER (apologies

for the capitals but I have no idea otherwise how to emphasise stuff) for the

rest of the shares. And that is simply true, under UK corporate law. He would have had

to have made an offer.

But the club could never make it a condition that he BUY every shares. For that

to be a condition the club would have to be in a position to force every

shareholder TO SELL to Cullum.

Since I, for one, would not consider selling my six shares to Cullum, no matter

what the club wanted me to do, that would make it an unenforceable condition.

More to the point, the club could even not force director Michael Foulger, with

his 18,200 shares, to sell to Cullum.

 

However the

real point is that you seem to think that someone buying at least 51 per cent

of the shares is not indulging in a buy-out of the club. To whit:

”I agree that the club never said ‘buyout or nothing’ in so many

words, but they couldn''t do that without acknowledging that there was an

alternative to a buyout on offer.”

But Cullum was categorically not proposing an alternative to a buy-out. Getting

a majority of the shares, whether through buying existing shares or new ones,

IS a buy-out. Is a takeover. This difference you seem to believe in, this

alternative to a buy-out, is no difference or alternative at all.

And so the implication you seem to draw from this misunderstanding of yours – namely

that Smith and Jones were somehow trying to put an unfair obstacle in Cullum’s

path – is equally false.

[ron obvious 1,497]

I know this will go on for ever, but what seemed to happen to me was:Cullum:  You''ve got control of something I''d like to improve by spending £20m on it.Board:  Fine. But don''t forget you''ll also have to find £20m to cover the debt plus £16m to buy the shares. Making £56m.And I''ve yet to hear anything different.

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]

Potless, thanks for the second reply. I don’t want to prolong this because it’s Saturday night and I’m sure we both have better things to do. However, because I do have this tedious obsession with fact, I would just like to get this straight.

I normally don’t make assumptions about other people’s opinions but in this case it might short-circuit things. I THINK the difference you were drawing was between Cullum wanting control though a majority of the shares (theoretically 51 per cent but more sensibly 55-60 percent) and the board demanding he buy every share. I think (I stress I “think”) that is what you mean by “total buyout”, and that this demand of the club’s was at least one of the sticking points.

If so, then I’m afraid you are simply wrong. The board never demanded that Cullum buy every share. Indeed it never could have demanded such a thing.

What the board stated was that if Cullum started buying existing shares and reach the 30 per cent threshold, then he would have to MAKE AN OFFER (apologies for the capitals but I have no idea otherwise how to emphasise stuff) for the rest of the shares. And that is simply true, under UK corporate law. He would have had to have made an offer.

But the club could never make it a condition that he BUY every shares. For that to be a condition the club would have to be in a position to force every shareholder TO SELL to Cullum.

Since I, for one, would not consider selling my six shares to Cullum, no matter what the club wanted me to do, that would make it an unenforceable condition. More to the point, the club could even not force director Michael Foulger, with his 18,200 shares, to sell to Cullum.

 

However the real point is that you seem to think that someone buying at least 51 per cent of the shares is not indulging in a buy-out of the club. To whit:

”I agree that the club never said ‘buyout or nothing’ in so many words, but they couldn''t do that without acknowledging that there was an alternative to a buyout on offer.”

But Cullum was categorically not proposing an alternative to a buy-out. Getting a majority of the shares, whether through buying existing shares or new ones, IS a buy-out. Is a takeover. This difference you seem to believe in, this alternative to a buy-out, is no difference or alternative at all.

And so the implication you seem to draw from this misunderstanding of yours – namely that Smith and Jones were somehow trying to put an unfair obstacle in Cullum’s path – is equally false.

[/quote]

No I am not suggesting that the club demanded he buy every share, but that he make an offer to do so and also to pay off the debt as well.  That was their definition of a total buyout as outlined in the "bill" - £20m to cover the debt, £20m new investment and £16m for the total shareholding - so that''s the definition I''m going by.

We will have to agree to disagree on the whether a majority holding necessarily involves a total buyout as defined above. 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="ron obvious"]I know this will go on for ever, but what seemed to happen to me was:Cullum:  You''ve got control of something I''d like to improve by spending £20m on it.Board:  Fine. But don''t forget you''ll also have to find £20m to cover the debt plus £16m to buy the shares. Making £56m.And I''ve yet to hear anything different.[/quote]In a nutshell Ron, that''s it.  Only this week Cullum has literally rules himself out as a result of the credit crunch, and who can blame him ?  Who else, apart from celebrities and retired businessmen, has money lying around ready to be pumped into a football club right now.  They should have added the extra 2 - 4 million they''re having to add every season to keep things at the standard they are now.  Which makes their loyalty to Glenn Roeder all the more strange - this is their money, and look at the results.  I''m all for giving a bloke time, and he had a sticky wicket, but if things don''t improve vastly in the second half of the season, there will be a new manager I reckon, possibly as early as March if we''re really in the poo.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Potless,

thanks for the reply. Unfortunately it made no sense. Unfortunately it

obviously made no sense. In particular you tried to muddy the water by

introducing the debt of £20m and the transfer fund “promise” of £20m into your

definition of “total buy-out”. These are irrelevant because Cullum would have

had to have paid for these anyway, no matter what percentage of the

shareholding he bought to gain control.

The point I come back to, which you have tried to evade by changing your

argument, is that you stated Cullum only wanted to gain a majority shareholding

while the club was demanding “a total buy-out”.

To repeat what you said: “He wanted new shares

in exchange for £20m which would have given him an

overall majority.  The club wanted a total

buyout or nothing."

You can only mean by that a total buy-out of the shares since you are contrasting it with Cullum''s desire only for a majority shareholding and since, as I have

explained, the debt and the transfer promise would apply to any deal. And, as I

have also explained, the club did not demand that Cullum buy every share

because it could not possibly demand that. It would have been a corporate

nonsense.

I understand why pro-Cullum or anti-board posters might want to believe that

the club was putting some unreasonable obstacle in Cullum’s way by way of a

demand that he buy every share. Sadly for them, the club made no such demand. It

might have wanted to but it could not and did not. So no unreasonableness.

[Paul Lamberts Disciple 0]

Why do you insist in talking sense here, PurpleCanary?

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
I know this will go on for ever, but what seemed to happen to me was:

Cullum:  You''ve got control of something I''d like to control in exchange for spending £20m improvements on it.

Board:  Fine. But don''t forget you''ll also have to find £20m to cover the debt plus £16m to buy the shares. Making £56m.

And I''ve yet to hear anything different.
[/quote]

Ron, I believe we see eye to eye on many things but, with respect, I took the liberty of a small but important change to your otherwise simple but accurate account of the issue.  

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="Potless Percy "]

Something tells me I''ve got under his skin . . . [:D]

[/quote]

I think your earlier reference demonstrated clearly whose skin has been penetrated. Like I''ve always told you  Percy, every time I see you engaged in your little game I will be there to provide objective balance.

[/quote]

"Objective balance"?  Let''s nail that lie shall we?

I am not objective and have never claimed to be.  I have a particular point of view, based on my reading of the situation, which is well known to everyone.  I make no secret of it.

Equally you have your own point of view.  I may not share it 99% of the time but I might have a tiny bit more respect for you if you were prepared to admit it instead of claiming to stand above the fray by being balanced and objective.  You''re not.  No one is. 

[/quote]

There you go again Percy...rambling when you''re rattled, or penetrated. Try, just this one time, to stay on point as to how you reacted in this thread. My simple reaction was to point out how you use your spin to create doubt. That was your objective wasn''t it? If not, please tell us what your objective was. WAY simply repeated what Cullum was reported to have said to the media. No denial anywhere from mr. Cullum is there? That did not fit with your belief so you rather abruptly jumped on WAY''s comment. Have another look at it because I think you''re not seeing the forest for the trees. Also, I highlighted your signature in large font for you because you seem so proud of it.

[/quote]

Are you objective Yankee?  Is anyone?

[/quote]

I ask a specific question and, rather than answer, you ask a general one in return. That''s okay. I''ll answer yours.

I suspect all reasonably intelligent people strive to be objective on issues they are confronted with, while recognising that they have ( in our age bracket anyway ) built in their own various levels of bias over the experiences of their lifetime.

Translating that view to NCFC, I believe it is in the best interest of NCFC to go forward under new ownership. I honestly believe Delia and Michael believe that too. However, it is for them to decide when the right circumstances are on the table to allow them to make their exit, and they will. In the interim, trying to make a football team and its manager do what you want them to do is not an easy job for any owner or Board. I''m sure that''s what Mr. Levy at Tottenham has felt over the past couple of seasons. I wonder what the Manchester City board feel at the moment. It can''t be satisfaction.  

[/quote]

and hopefully it is for us to give them some real "encouragement" to decide that in the face of the current predicament that they preside over, best they get the hell out NOW.

[Barclay_Boy 0]

[quote user="ron obvious"]
I know this will go on for ever, but what seemed to happen to me was:

Cullum:  You''ve got control of something I''d like to improve by spending £20m on it.

Board:  Fine. But don''t forget you''ll also have to find £20m to cover the debt plus £16m to buy the shares. Making £56m.

And I''ve yet to hear anything different.
[/quote]

how about this one -

Cullum:  You''ve got control of something, but I know that you do not have the funds or business skills to manage it, and I know it''s in serious decline. I can save it, in fact I will even inject £20m, where it matters, on PLAYERS. But I won''t put 20 million pounds of my money into the club and trust you muppets to run it. If you''re clever you will accept my offer, as you will have shares in a succesful club rather than one that is going to be in serious financial trouble.

Board: How dare you come and play with out toy, you horrible little man. We are not even prepared to talk to you, if you want to be allowed to play then you had better turn up with a cheque for 56 million pounds. Go to the tradesman entrance, knock and wait. We may see you then if we''re not too busy.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Peter Thorne"]Why do you insist in talking sense here, PurpleCanary?[/quote]I know, I know, I never learn! That''s just not what one is meant to do! Talk sense, stay rational, deal only in facts. But in this case, having more than made my point, I will now stop. That''s quite enough on this subject.