Credit to the board

[Mello Yello 2,277]

But your logic is still your own assumption  - and is really just ''making it up''....and therefore, your logic actually, isn''t fact.....But keep pretending you''re someone in the know of the inner sanctum secrecy''s in the board-room - and your personally privy to the financial workings of  ''buttress Carrow Road''...Keep them myths and fables coming.....Secreting ''Effluent'' - at its finest.[|-)]

I command a ''reasonable salary''....Not bad, for someone who doesn''t understand your ''logic''....[:|]

[lappinitup 629]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] And who put us in this position to begin wiith?

The board.

Numpty.

Dear oh dear, what won''t you people tug forelocks and apologise for?

OTBC[/quote]Poor Bly finally finds someone to have a debate with him and immediately resorts to bold and colourful language.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Dear, oh dear, oh dear!

Oh dear! [:''(]

[? 20]

Again, excuse me if i''m wrong, but where, exactly, did i imply that my opinion was fact?

Of course it is an opinion, but my conclusion of where that money has gone makes far more sense than the majority of the posts added to this thread.

But logical thought and argument is clearly not as important to some of you as a good old whine is. So you ignore it, and come to your own half-formed, illogical opinions.

It''s a sorry state of affairs.

[? 20]

''And although i understand that your head must be hurting from all this logic by now, let''s just push on a bit. We ARE no where near administration. Keeping hold of your best players, y''know, the ones who can actually command reasonable transfer fees, is just about the surest sign of this that we could ask for.

But as i said, let''s not let the truth get in the way of a good old moan, now.''

Hmm, on second thoughts, i suppose that THIS is implying that my opinion is fact. So i stand corrected, by myself.

However, my points stand.

Debate away!

[Mello Yello 2,277]

Feel free to ''Mass-debate'' all by yourself....(That''s an ''Oxy.....moron.'')

[? 20]

Incapable of standing in the face of logical debate, eh, Mello?

I''m disappointed, i thought you were better than that.

As i stated, it''s a sorry state of affairs when one feels the need to ignore common sense and just strives to push their own illogical agenda.

[Mello Yello 2,277]

Don''t be disappointed with what people type on this forum....Be disappointed with the decline of NCFC.

If you''d said "I personally believe that the money from Shackle''s sale - was used to offset the loss of finance due to the Turner Two''s departure.... I would have found it more acceptable.....But you didn''t.

And insults don''t/won''t encourage or stimulate debate - as you can''t debate with numpties.....for those that don''t concur with your opinion. Catch my drift? So why shouldn''t those in disagreement with you - reciprocate with insults?

Or isn''t that logic?[:|]

 

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="Question Mark"]

''And although i understand that your head must be hurting from all this logic by now, let''s just push on a bit. We ARE no where near administration. Keeping hold of your best players, y''know, the ones who can actually command reasonable transfer fees, is just about the surest sign of this that we could ask for.

[/quote]

But you just said on the previous page of this thread that the Shackell money was obviously used to prevent the imminent danger of going into administration.I believe the exact phrase you used was ''It couldn''t have been used to help build the squad without putting us in fear of administration''So in the space of two pages you state both that we are and that we are not in danger of entering administration.Perhaps you should clarify which of your statements you believe to be true in order to help Mello, myself and others continue this debate with you since your logic appears somewhat illogical to me.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user=""]

''And although i understand that your head must be hurting from all this logic by now, let''s just push on a bit. We ARE no where near administration. Keeping hold of your best players, y''know, the ones who can actually command reasonable transfer fees, is just about the surest sign of this that we could ask for.

But as i said, let''s not let the truth get in the way of a good old moan, now.''

Hmm, on second thoughts, i suppose that THIS is implying that my opinion is fact. So i stand corrected, by myself.

However, my points stand.

Debate away!

[/quote]

You and Ellis are frantically debating away  - egged on by prophets of doom. Carry on.

The rest of us are for the most part just stating uncomfortable facts.

But continue tugging those forelocks if that''s what turns you on.[:$]

OTBC

 

 

[Thecanaryfan 0]

[quote user="question mark"]

The board did well, and deserve credit, for their dealings in THIS transfer window.

[/quote]

So basically you''re happy to see the club sell off its already thin compliment of players to pay off the clubs debts? You''re happy to see the squad become weaker? [:S]

[? 20]

Buckethead, times have changed. I would suggest that one of the reasons we''re on such a shoe-string budget in terms of transfers, and that we''re limited to loanees, is that the board feel it necessary to further plug the gap left by the Turners. This, hopefully, will have changed the financial situation from that when it was necessary to sell Shackell to keep us afloat. Us not selling our best players in January supports this theory. Again, not rocket science.

Bly, address the points made, for once. You''re clearly an intelligent fellow, if a little slow, and i do so enjoy a nice debate on a Saturday afternoon.

Mello, the ''numpties'' comment was made for those who ignore simple common sense and logic in their quest to moan and whinge about anything and everything. I stand by it. And i never said you couldn''t reply in kind, but it would be nice to see some actual debate about the issues popping into the equation from the panicky masses, as well. Unfortunately this seems a tad too much to ask. Silly me.

It seems many of you can only stoop to illogical arguments which you can''t back up, putting words in my mouth, as such, and giving insults. I, on the other hand, stoop to insults, and logical debate. Try and join in, it could even be fun!

As for your other point, of course it''s my opinion. I''m stating it on a messageboard, am i not? Should i preceed every comment i make with ''in my opinion..'' or can we suggest that it is a given? Maybe for the benefit of the slow-witted amongst us, i should clarify my posts with the former. Thank you for the suggestion.

With regards to the Shackell money, i never said it was a concrete fact. On the contrary, i even invited you to draw your own conclusions about where it had been spent. But as i''ve stated numerous times by now, my conclusion makes far more sense and relies far more heavily on logical thought than many of the posts on this thread, Mello.

And TheCanaryFan, if that is what''s called for the keep the club afloat, then yes, i am. I''d rather a weak, lowly Norwich, than no Norwich at all.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user=""]

Buckethead, times have changed. I would suggest that one of the reasons we''re on such a shoe-string budget in terms of transfers, and that we''re limited to loanees, is that the board feel it necessary to further plug the gap left by the Turners. This, hopefully, will have changed the financial situation from that when it was necessary to sell Shackell to keep us afloat. Us not selling our best players in January supports this theory. Again, not rocket science.

Bly, address the points made, for once. You''re clearly an intelligent fellow, if a little slow, and i do so enjoy a nice debate on a Saturday afternoon.

Mello, the ''numpties'' comment was made for those who ignore simple common sense and logic in their quest to moan and whinge about anything and everything. I stand by it. And i never said you couldn''t reply in kind, but it would be nice to see some actual debate about the issues popping into the equation from the panicky masses, as well. Unfortunately this seems a tad too much to ask. Silly me.

It seems many of you can only stoop to illogical arguments which you can''t back up, putting words in my mouth, as such, and giving insults. I, on the other hand, stoop to insults, and logical debate. Try and join in, it could even be fun!

As for your other point, of course it''s my opinion. I''m stating it on a messageboard, am i not? Should i preceed every comment i make with ''in my opinion..'' or can we suggest that it is a given? Maybe for the benefit of the slow-witted amongst us, i should clarify my posts with the former. Thank you for the suggestion.

With regards to the Shackell money, i never said it was a concrete fact. On the contrary, i even invited you to draw your own conclusions about where it had been spent. But as i''ve stated numerous times by now, my conclusion makes far more sense and relies far more heavily on logical thought than many of the posts on this thread, Mello.

And TheCanaryFan, if that is what''s called for the keep the club afloat, then yes, i am. I''d rather a weak, lowly Norwich, than no Norwich at all.

[/quote]

?

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

And that''s the main trouble with the board too.

The incoherent bluster that you masquerade as ''logic'' will get you nowhere - not even with your (heaving) ''masses''.

Still. One love.

OTBC

 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,423]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

I can only assume you are a Binner. Or Delia.  

[The Fish Seller 0]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!![/quote]

Credit to the Board for getting shot of the Clubs highest goalscorer still with us by January and replacing him with a ''fan'' who couldn''t buy a goal in a penalty competition run by Bruce Grobelaar.

Credit to the Board for buying a non league striker when a Prem quality striker was what we all know we needed.

[Arthur Whittle 0]

[quote user="ellis206"][quote user="Arthur Whittle"]

[quote user="ellis206"]As the board seem to come under a lot of stick on this message board, I think they deserve praise for their dealings in the January Transfer window, despite many people on here claiming that we are on the brink of administration, and how our board lack ambition, I think it speaks volumes that we turned down bids for Crofty (Who could potentially go for free now) and point blank rejected an approach from Fulham for Sammy Clingan. So well done Delia and the board for showing ambition and hurry up and get Croftys contract signed!!
[/quote]

Complete tripe! Im starting to think you are just on a wind up on this site Ellis. We sold Bell, for 150,000 profit, we sign cody for £20,000. How could we have sold anymore players-we wouldnt have been able to field a bloody team! We also get the highest loan wage off the books in Luopli. We turn down a bid of 200,000 from forest, well its fair to say had they accepted that selling one of the few players we own to a relegation rival then the lynch mob would have been outside the city stand with a noose. And wheres your rumour we turned down a bid for semmy? First ive heard of it-wheres the link? So had they sold these players then pray tell me how we would have lined up in the league? You are only allowed a certain amount of loanees on the pitch at 1 time. Delia and the board showed ambition? Ever thought that Croft doesnt want to move till the summer and hes a free agent? Oh yeah by spending 20k and getting a few more loans. If thats your idea of ambition, Im glad you dont work for me.

[/quote]

Sammy Clingan, Not Semmy. Your getting confused Arthur :) . I''m also intrigued to know how you seem to know all of our figures, you say we turned down 200k bid from Forest, but I thought it was nearer the 400k Bid, and the Bell and Cody transfers were undisclosed, and how do you know that Lupoli was the highest earner? And Croft might want to move in the summer, and that is exactly my point, he will go for free, so can you not give the board credit for not selling him now and risking losing him for nothing in the summer? does that not show that they do have our best intentions at heart? Because we are hell of a lot more likely to stay in this league with Crofty in the team, and it is common knowledge that we are in contract talks with Crofty and he has said himself he wants to stay, so we will just see whats happens. I don''t understand your argument because your basically agreeing with everything I''ve said, just shying away from giving the board credit though. x
[/quote]

Sorry I meant sammy, got carried away, but still show me the link to prove this? My guesses on what the transfers were are as what has been said on radio, tv and paper. The point i made about Croft is really a no-win situation for the board to be fair. If he wants to leave on a free and they did accept a bid, he wouldnt have gone if he wants a big money cash in, in the summer, yet if they had sold him they would have been lynched so ill let you off there. My main gripe is you are claiming they are showing ambition, well ambition to me is not a couple of loanees and a 20k player which may rise to 35k-not that ive anything against that as he may turn out to be a bargain, but showing ambition is speculating to accumulate, we may go down this season and what ambition did the board show in the last chance saloon? { transfer window } 1 permanat player for pittence. sorry but if we go down, there lack of ambition and investment and recruiting investment has taken us down to league one. I pray that Gunny and co can pull something out of the bag and keep us up despite being given a scrooge transfer budget. At the end of the day we have got Lupoli { who I still believe was the highest wage} off the pay roll in january, made a profit on Bell, and spent 20k. that to me is poor ambition and deserves no respect.