" The board have resigned" - what`s the next step????

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Gazza"]

Answered above at 11:12am!

So what do yoou propose McCanary we sit on our hands and wait till we are in admin with DS & MWJ plus in league one??

[/quote]

I`m not proposing any answers as I don`t have any. I merely posed the question " what is the next step.

[/quote]

The next step will become apparent if and when it ever happens.  It will depend on what situation we are in at the time.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought for a split second it had happened.  I can''t see any point discussing it unless and until that hallowed day arrives.

 

 

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="CT "]

If Delia and the board leave in the next hour then we''re screwed, I agree with this point however-

we''re going down with them  in charge (going down will lead to admin. and a points deduction) anyway!!!

 

[/quote]

So what should the next step be??

.......and I`m not convinced that relegation would lead to administration

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

You honestly dont think that relagation would lead to admin?

Living in cloud cuckoo land mate?

 

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Potless Percy "]

The next step will become apparent if and when it ever happens.  It will depend on what situation we are in at the time.

When I saw the title of this thread I thought for a split second it had happened.  I can''t see any point discussing it unless and until that hallowed day arrives.

 

 

[/quote]

So no solution or thought about where we should look to be heading then. Just jump with no thought about where we land.

The fact that you see no point in discussing it is indicative of the way this whole debate has gone.

Put your head in the sand and when you bring it out again it will all be alright but you haven`t had to think about what the solution may be!!

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="CT "]

You honestly dont think that relagation would lead to admin?

Living in cloud cuckoo land mate?

 

[/quote]

OK then - explain to me why you are so sure that it would then?

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

I''m not ''''sure'''' that it would, I''m just quite certain it would.

For example- we''d have less season ticket holders which already loses the club money, we dont have any attractive assets (apart from maybe clingan and crofty). I can just see us having far less money to play with (than we have now).

Relagation would almost certainly lead to admin.

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="CT "]

I''m not ''''sure'''' that it would, I''m just quite certain it would.

For example- we''d have less season ticket holders which already loses the club money, we dont have any attractive assets (apart from maybe clingan and crofty). I can just see us having far less money to play with (than we have now).

Relagation would almost certainly lead to admin.

[/quote]

So what are you then CT    "sure" , "quite certain" or " almost certain"

[Berkshire Canary 12]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]I admire your persistance, McCanary, but you''ll get nowhere - I''ve been asking the likes of Smudger this very question for months - what would Delia''s sudden and immediate departure achieve without a takeover - and have simply got insults in return.  The point is, they don''t have a clue what to do next and are relying on their saviour, Mr Cullum, to step in if it happened, of which there''s no guarantee.

I dislike Delia and co. as much as the next person and feel they''re to blame for our current predicament far more than any of the 3 managers we''ve had the last few seasons, but what else can we do right now without someone willing to take over?

Nowt, is what... we''ll likely hire some has-been for the last few months of the season, maybe narrowly escape or maybe slide into League One where we''ll spend the next couple of years.  At what point will Cullum step in?  Probably when we''ve reached our lowest ebb and are at our cheapest - he doesn''t have the time or cash right now, he''s said as much himself.

I have to say I fear that, more than ever, in the words of Lappinitup: "We''re DOOOOOOOOOOOMED!"
[/quote]

Well said, with the worsening economic climate there is no guarantee that Cullum or anyone else will be prepared or indeed able to invest in something which is only going to lose money. If Delia and co were chased out would lighting strike twice? Possibly, but it is a massive gamble and something which is always going to divide opinions... The main difference is we don''t have anyone like Geoffrey Watling to act as a safety net this time around.

It is looking like a case of we could be DOOOOOOOOOOMED if we do and DOOOOOOOOOOMED if we don''t...... [:(]

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

Quite certain.

The way things are headed under the current board, we''re going down anyway. Agree?

Lets say we do go down and go into administration - deliar and the board will then want out ASAP (probably) and then we NEED a buyer.

Besides no-one knew about any potential parties while the whole chase out protests were being organised and taking place- some-one stepped in....

How do we know that if we put the current board under pressure, we wouldnt have anyone waiting to take over?

We just dont know mate and until we do we can talk and debate it til the cows come home - nothing is certain.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

Just to add- at the moment we dont need a new board .

Carry on as we are (into league 1) and we will.

 

[. 0]

[quote user="McCanary"]

So you turn on the radio and hear this statement.

Who is going to take over? Where is the next saviour of the club going to come from?

There`s no Mr Watling around now!

 

Simple questions......discuss

[/quote]

Go and get p*ssed and look forward to having our club back at long last.

It''s gonna happen in due course...and I''m just going to love those "crocodile tears" when the old cook claims she has only done the best for NCFC irrespective of her own interests.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]When I saw the title of this thread I thought for a split second it had happened.  I can''t see any point discussing it unless and until that hallowed day arrives.[/quote]Well, that''s the point though isn''t it ?  Until somebody makes it happen, it won''t.  What I''d suggest to the people who want change is that they attempt to contact rich people around the city, asking them to form a consortium.  You would need at least 5 backers putting in 5 million each initially, to buy the club and get some kind of transfer war chest together, and these backers would need the ability to put in 1 million a season each after that.  The consortium would also have to be responsible for the debts of the club, currently at 20 million.If this is beyond the people who want to stand outside the club and shout, then I''d respectfully suggest to them that they are wasting their time.  The people who are running the club might be idiots for all I know, but they are our idiots, and have put their money where their stupid mouths are.

[Match Day Pie 0]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="McCanary"]

So you turn on the radio and hear this statement.

Who is going to take over? Where is the next saviour of the club going to come from?

There`s no Mr Watling around now!

 

Simple questions......discuss

[/quote]

Go and get p*ssed and look forward to having our club back at long last.

It''s gonna happen in due course...and I''m just going to love those "crocodile tears" when the old cook claims she has only done the best for NCFC irrespective of her own interests.

[/quote]

She''s had several years of pretty terrible PR because of what''s going on. How can that be in her best interests?

Why don''t you stop being a muppet and say something useful for once?

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="CT "]

Quite certain.

The way things are headed under the current board, we''re going down anyway. Agree?

It`s a possibility but I will not give up hope until it`s mathematically impossible to stay up. That is down to the players to perform and get results. I believe that the players we have are capable of staying up based on several performances and results already this season.

Lets say we do go down and go into administration - deliar and the board will then want out ASAP (probably) and then we NEED a buyer.

If we go into administration, it is not a given that the board will have to go. The administrators will be in overall control but the board may stay

Besides no-one knew about any potential parties while the whole chase out protests were being organised and taking place- some-one stepped in....

As I replied to Mr C earlier, the financial climate is totally different both within football and in the outside world now. There just are n`t the investors out there. GW was already involved in the club when he stepped in. I can`t see Michael foulger doing the same

How do we know that if we put the current board under pressure, we wouldnt have anyone waiting to take over?

I don`t think we do know, but my  heart tells me that it is not as likely as it was when the fat bloke went.

We just dont know mate and until we do we can talk and debate it til the cows come home - nothing is certain.

[/quote]

The whole point of this thread was to try and get people to think a bit further ahead when they call to get rid of all and sundry.

It has now been viewed over 1000 times and the only answer to the original question is " we`ll wait for PC."

I would rather we had a plan B

[Mark .Y. 352]

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

All this was said when we protested against Chase.  We have no idea who might be interested, but if we make the current lot feel unwelcome then we will find out- they can`t just walk away with their money, they have to sell their shares.  In fact, we at least know the club have been approached by "several interested parties" as stated on their £56m valuation stonewall to Cullums approach, which is a damn site more than we knew in the Chase days.

[/quote]

With all due respect MrC, The financial climate was somewhat different when the fat bloke was ousted. The relative sums of money require to take on a club - any club - are massively different now as you of all people will know. The amounts of cash needed to take over are just not out there.

I think if I was jumping over a precipice, I would like to know that there was something soft to land on!! 

[/quote]

Well, first of all they are not simply allowed to resign. Director''s of companies have legal obligations and I think to achieve what you seem to be talking about would require the board to put the company into voluntary liquidation (declare it insolvent).

They would then be required to work with the appointed administrators to realize the best value possible from the company''s assets with the over-riding aim of keeping the company in business as that offers the most hope of repayment to the creditors.

At this stage the shares are, to all intents and purposes, worthless.

So, the administrators would look for a buyer for the company who could best meet the liabilities including any "re-negotiated" bank loans/securitisations. This is a financial function of the administrators, so nobody on the board could stop the administrators selling to whom they consider to be the best person (other than meeting the FA''s "right and proper person" test which doesn''t seem too difficult).

We would, therefore, be looking for somebody to take over the club at a much reduced price to that which has been previously quoted. This could make us an attractive purchase.

 

Mark .Y.

  

    

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"]

Go and get p*ssed and look forward to having our club back at long last.

It''s gonna happen in due course...and I''m just going to love those "crocodile tears" when the old cook claims she has only done the best for NCFC irrespective of her own interests.

[/quote]

Just as a matter of interest NC, have you any idea how much cash " the old cook" has put in to the club?

...and how does this compare to your financial contribution?

I really can`t see how you think that someone would deliberately put themselves through the current situation and PAY to do so?

[Mr.Carrow 376]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="Mark .Y."][quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

All this was said when we protested against Chase.  We have no idea who might be interested, but if we make the current lot feel unwelcome then we will find out- they can`t just walk away with their money, they have to sell their shares.  In fact, we at least know the club have been approached by "several interested parties" as stated on their £56m valuation stonewall to Cullums approach, which is a damn site more than we knew in the Chase days.

[/quote]

With all due respect MrC, The financial climate was somewhat different when the fat bloke was ousted. The relative sums of money require to take on a club - any club - are massively different now as you of all people will know. The amounts of cash needed to take over are just not out there.

I think if I was jumping over a precipice, I would like to know that there was something soft to land on!! 

[/quote]

Well, first of all they are not simply allowed to resign. Director''s of companies have legal obligations and I think to achieve what you seem to be talking about would require the board to put the company into voluntary liquidation (declare it insolvent).

They would then be required to work with the appointed administrators to realize the best value possible from the company''s assets with the over-riding aim of keeping the company in business as that offers the most hope of repayment to the creditors.

At this stage the shares are, to all intents and purposes, worthless.

So, the administrators would look for a buyer for the company who could best meet the liabilities including any "re-negotiated" bank loans/securitisations. This is a financial function of the administrators, so nobody on the board could stop the administrators selling to whom they consider to be the best person (other than meeting the FA''s "right and proper person" test which doesn''t seem too difficult).

We would, therefore, be looking for somebody to take over the club at a much reduced price to that which has been previously quoted. This could make us an attractive purchase.

 

Mark .Y.

  

    

[/quote]

Spot on.

[Beauseant 0]

[quote user="Match Day Pie"][quote user="Neil Cluckcaster"][quote user="McCanary"]

So you turn on the radio and hear this statement.

Who is going to take over? Where is the next saviour of the club going to come from?

There`s no Mr Watling around now!

 

Simple questions......discuss

[/quote]

Go and get p*ssed and look forward to having our club back at long last.

It''s gonna happen in due course...and I''m just going to love those "crocodile tears" when the old cook claims she has only done the best for NCFC irrespective of her own interests.

[/quote]

She''s had several years of pretty terrible PR because of what''s going on. How can that be in her best interests?

Why don''t you stop being a muppet and say something useful for once?

[/quote]

 

The clue is, in fact, in the question[:P]

[shortfatb 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]Mr Carrow, do you think that Delia and MWJ are holding out for something specific, will hang on ''til the bitter end or would be really happy to go even if meant losing a few quid but getting out with their pension intact? I honestly think that they cannot be enjoying what''s going on and would be happy to get out, but nobody has come forward since the original Cullum announcement. Is there not some more amicable way they could leave or is it necessary to have First Wizard or Smudger die under a charging police horse, a tempting but not wholly acceptable solution for Norwich in terms of resolution or moving forward?       

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Mark .Y."]

Well, first of all they are not simply allowed to resign. Director''s of companies have legal obligations and I think to achieve what you seem to be talking about would require the board to put the company into voluntary liquidation (declare it insolvent).

They would then be required to work with the appointed administrators to realize the best value possible from the company''s assets with the over-riding aim of keeping the company in business as that offers the most hope of repayment to the creditors.

At this stage the shares are, to all intents and purposes, worthless.

So, the administrators would look for a buyer for the company who could best meet the liabilities including any "re-negotiated" bank loans/securitisations. This is a financial function of the administrators, so nobody on the board could stop the administrators selling to whom they consider to be the best person (other than meeting the FA''s "right and proper person" test which doesn''t seem too difficult).

We would, therefore, be looking for somebody to take over the club at a much reduced price to that which has been previously quoted. This could make us an attractive purchase.

 

Mark .Y.

  

    

[/quote]

Thanks for that Mark.

I fully appreciate the complexities of Directors responsibilities.

The point here really is where would we go if the majority shareholders were removed/fired/resigned/sold up or whatever other way we could get rid of them as requested by numerous posters on here on a daily basis.

So far, still only one suggestion after nearly 1200 views.

Sort of says it all really! [:O]

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="shortfatb"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]

Mr Carrow, do you think that Delia and MWJ are holding out for something specific, will hang on ''til the bitter end or would be really happy to go even if meant losing a few quid but getting out with their pension intact? I honestly think that they cannot be enjoying what''s going on and would be happy to get out, but nobody has come forward since the original Cullum announcement. Is there not some more amicable way they could leave or is it necessary to have First Wizard or Smudger die under a charging police horse, a tempting but not wholly acceptable solution for Norwich in terms of resolution or moving forward?       
[/quote]

I think that they think that people who have issues with their tenure are a tiny trouble-making minority.  Have a think about their reactions to polite criticism in recent years.  Why would they think any different?  AGM`s are still tame, fawning affairs where dissenters are rounded on by fellow shareholders, "sack the board" chants were totally drowned out by anti-Roeder chants and apparently board members still walk around the ground on matchdays with little dissent forthcoming.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that whilst they believe they have the majority of supporters behind them they will stay, no matter what.

[BigFish 1,987]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]

Let''s face it your argument is......

"I don''t like them so they should go"

[shortfatb 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="shortfatb"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]Mr Carrow, do you think that Delia and MWJ are holding out for something specific, will hang on ''til the bitter end or would be really happy to go even if meant losing a few quid but getting out with their pension intact? I honestly think that they cannot be enjoying what''s going on and would be happy to get out, but nobody has come forward since the original Cullum announcement. Is there not some more amicable way they could leave or is it necessary to have First Wizard or Smudger die under a charging police horse, a tempting but not wholly acceptable solution for Norwich in terms of resolution or moving forward?        [/quote]

I think that they think that people who have issues with their tenure are a tiny trouble-making minority.  Have a think about their reactions to polite criticism in recent years.  Why would they think any different?  AGM`s are still tame, fawning affairs where dissenters are rounded on by fellow shareholders, "sack the board" chants were totally drowned out by anti-Roeder chants and apparently board members still walk around the ground on matchdays with little dissent forthcoming.

I have absolutely no doubt at all that whilst they believe they have the majority of supporters behind them they will stay, no matter what.

[/quote]I find it hard to believe that 2 people of pensionable age need this level of sh*t on a daily basis however immune they appear to what''s going on. Although I think they probably want more than their shares are worth I think they''d take a deal and get out, but as has been shown here there are few alternatives.  

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="McCanary"][quote user="Mark .Y."]

Well, first of all they are not simply allowed to resign. Director''s of companies have legal obligations and I think to achieve what you seem to be talking about would require the board to put the company into voluntary liquidation (declare it insolvent).

They would then be required to work with the appointed administrators to realize the best value possible from the company''s assets with the over-riding aim of keeping the company in business as that offers the most hope of repayment to the creditors.

At this stage the shares are, to all intents and purposes, worthless.

So, the administrators would look for a buyer for the company who could best meet the liabilities including any "re-negotiated" bank loans/securitisations. This is a financial function of the administrators, so nobody on the board could stop the administrators selling to whom they consider to be the best person (other than meeting the FA''s "right and proper person" test which doesn''t seem too difficult).

We would, therefore, be looking for somebody to take over the club at a much reduced price to that which has been previously quoted. This could make us an attractive purchase.

 

Mark .Y.

  

    

[/quote]

Thanks for that Mark.

I fully appreciate the complexities of Directors responsibilities.

The point here really is where would we go if the majority shareholders were removed/fired/resigned/sold up or whatever other way we could get rid of them as requested by numerous posters on here on a daily basis.

So far, still only one suggestion after nearly 1200 views.

Sort of says it all really! [:O]

[/quote]

Why do you think we would have any idea who might be interested?  How can we give a suggestion when in all likelihood any interested party would look at the reaction to Cullum "destabilising" the club and apparent still majority support for Delia and keep quiet?  Do you honestly think interested parties would go public when the prevelant mood is "stick with Delia"?

[PurpleCanary 5,562]

REPLY TO

McCANARY

McCanary, I understand your frustration! In December I posted a long post not

quite on what you’re asking about, but on what I wanted from a future owner,

and that too produced no new ideas.

But the truth is there are not many obvious solutions. My thoughts, for what

they are worth, are these, based not on us having no directors, but on having

the current board but with the current board looking to improve things in the

short- to medium-term and looking for a way out in the longer term:

1. Cullum has stated, as head of one plc to another, that he has no intention

of making a bid to buy the club.

2. His three most recent comments on what he might do to help bail the club out

in extremis have been ambiguous and, to an extent, contradictory. And, to be

clear, I don’t blame Cullum for that; I blame the journalists at Archant Towers for not trying to get him to be

more precise.

3. No-one with good intentions ever bought a football club to make money.

4. We are in the middle of an economic crisis.

5. The club is up for sale and/or seeking investment.

So, given the above, I can think of only one constructive suggestion, and it

may well be this is already being sought by the club. It is – assuming there is

no buyer out there – that the club try to form a consortium of “white knights” with

some disposable cash lying around to chip in with a million here or a million

there. These might well be people whose financial position (at least in terms

of spending money) is not affected by the current crisis.

The contribution of these people, probably local but not necessarily so, would

tide us over until the economic climate improved (assuming it does) and a buyer

could be found. Their reward would probably be that enjoyed by Carl Moore – sod

all in monetary terms but a place in the club’s history.

However, if among these “white knights” there was someone of talent who wanted

to join the board, possibly as a minority shareholder, then that would be

useful too.

[McCanary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Why do you think we would have any idea who might be interested?  How can we give a suggestion when in all likelihood any interested party would look at the reaction to Cullum "destabilising" the club and apparent still majority support for Delia and keep quiet?  Do you honestly think interested parties would go public when the prevelant mood is "stick with Delia"?

[/quote]

I`m not looking for names here. Just a bit of thought around what we are looking for to replace the current incumbents.

NOBODY , including you , has come up with any suggestion other than PC riding in on a charger.

You`re forward thinking seems to consist of..." Let`s get rid of them, it doesn`t matter who takes over as it must be better than what we have" as far as I can make out.

And, personally, if I was loking to take over a business, I would not conduct said business in the public eye.

 

[Mr.Carrow 376]

[quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]

Let''s face it your argument is......

"I don''t like them so they should go"

[/quote]

OMG, absolutely, totally unbelievable......of course you`re right, it`s got nothing to do with four seasons of decline, lots of expensive white elephants going up at the expense of the team, hanging on to Worthy too long (and now trying to get him back!!), big profits in the transfer market announced in each annual report whilst we are told "all money received is re-invested in the team, Grant, Roeder, "Lots of lovely investment".......it`s just that i personally don`t like them.

However hard it is for you to accept, they have proved themselves incompetent and unfit to run our club.  The first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging that there is one and it`s about time you had the guts to do that.

[shortfatb 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="BigFish"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

There really does seem to be a lack of joined-up thinking on this thread.  Had Cullum not gone to the press we would not know ANYBODY has been interested in the club in recent times.  But as it happened it flushed out the admission that they had "several" approaches whilst they had been telling us that "nobody is interested in investing in loss-making championship clubs".  Now Cullum has been widely slated for de-stabilising the club (code for exposing how dishonest our board can be....), so who is to say that other interested parties have not noted this negative reaction and decided to keep their interest well under wraps?

So we have a choice between sticking with a proven failed and clueless regime, or putting pressure on them to get out which MIGHT flush out interested parties particularly if the current shareholders become more receptive to compromise.  If pressure is applied and there is still no apparent interest then i guess we have to conclude we are stuck with them- but at least we will have let them know that we are not complete mugs, we care deeply about the club and we are not happy with the incompetant way they have run it.

[/quote]

Let''s face it your argument is......

"I don''t like them so they should go"

[/quote]

OMG, absolutely, totally unbelievable......of course you`re right, it`s got nothing to do with four seasons of decline, lots of expensive white elephants going up at the expense of the team, hanging on to Worthy too long (and now trying to get him back!!), big profits in the transfer market announced in each annual report whilst we are told "all money received is re-invested in the team, Grant, Roeder, "Lots of lovely investment".......it`s just that i personally don`t like them.

However hard it is for you to accept, they have proved themselves incompetent and unfit to run our club.  The first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging that there is one and it`s about time you had the guts to do that.

[/quote]I don''t think many actually disagree with you, it''s just that there seems no method other than driving them out and then seeing what happens. If you want to move house but can''t sell it only the criminal or insane would see the only option left as burning it down.

[kdncfc 0]

[quote user="Lol Morgan"][quote user="Beauseant"]

[quote user="kdncfc"]The first thing I''d do is jump for joy as much as I would if we had won the premiership. If that did happen I''m sure that Cullum would step in and buy the club at a knockdown price just as the Smiths did all them years ago[/quote]

 

And then you can lie on your back in the sunshine watching the herds of flying pigs while the administrators take over and start selling off the club''s assets.

[/quote]

Total mug.

[/quote]

Wrong, it''s the fans who think that nobody would step in and buy the club that are mugs.