PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted April 12, 2009 As someone said on this message board a few days ago, “That''sone down then [the mystery of Delia’s £11m contribution solved]. Now if only wecould find out what really happened with Cullum??????”Be careful what you wish for. Anyone who does want Cullumgate explained shouldlook at: http://thecanarypurple.homestead.comBut be warned – it takes 3,500 words to do the explaining. My advice is, open a bottle ofsomething first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobertMack 0 Posted April 12, 2009 I fully support this as a refereance for all those people still unsure over the whole deal to use. It provides a clarity as yet unfound and once again underlines the stark harshness of footballing finances. I read it with much sadness as any hopes that I had harbourd of a rescue mission faded dimly away.Thanks for the time, effort and resources used to provide this for us fans to use; maybe you could hand in your CV to Archant, I hear they are looking for staff... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Metatron 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Excellent read - thanks for the summaryVery useful and very balanced. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LQ 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="RobertMack"]maybe you could hand in your CV to Archant, I hear they are looking for staff...[/quote]...to unload?[:P] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ncfcstar 287 Posted April 12, 2009 A good summary, but it''s hardly the "TRUE STORY" is it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted April 12, 2009 Whilst i applaud your efforts and agree that many of the assumptions you have made seem logical it is of course still speculation. At the end of the day i would still rather have taken our chances with cullum and do not believe we would be where we are now had he taken over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Jim Smith"]Whilst i applaud your efforts and agree that many of the assumptions you have made seem logical it is of course still speculation. At the end of the day i would still rather have taken our chances with cullum and do not believe we would be where we are now had he taken over.[/quote]No. It is not assumption. It is not speculation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gerry in romania 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Have just read your article with interest,thanks for putting it all together. This is the first time for me, that I have been able to see a picture, instead of little bits and pieces picked out at random,guess there will be many people that agree or disagree with your article, but at least a clearer picture has been painted Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Chops 7 Posted April 12, 2009 This is excellent, thanks for taking the time to piece it all together. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
They need to EARN the right to play us 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Leaves one question unanswered:"In the autumn of 2007 he meets joint owners Delia Smith and Michael Wynn Jones socially, at a game. Some time after that he has business talks with Jones. Cullum outlines an infomal proposal for the company. The talks finish. Cullum makes no formal offer."Was that before or after Mr & Mrs Wynn-Jones raised the prices of shares from £25 to £30. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary02 III 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Just once in a while someone on this board puts their head above the parapet and writes something that they have had to put effort into, research into, and which makes them vulnerable because it''s so heartfelt and honest.I applaud you hugely sir.This rings true on every level, and should be exhibited on this message board in a glass case with a plaque marked "Exemplary Posts".This is a reference point for all future "Delia did us wrong coz she dint sell ta Cullum" drivel.Beware, because there will be some who want to jump on your bandwagon and graffitti it for their own self-promotion, who will attempt to pick this apart and argue the toss over tiny points in order to discredit the entire piece because it doesn''t fit with their particular viewpoint. Don''t let this discourage you. I, and I suspect many others, appreciate your efforts greatly and applaud this for what it is, a post of the very highest quality.[Y][Y][Y][Y][Y] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ca 1 Posted April 12, 2009 That made for interesting reading, thanks for taking the time to do that for us. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blofield Canary 11 Posted April 12, 2009 An excellent piece of work which hopefully will put to bed any lingering thoughts by a few individuals that Cullum was serious about the club. Most people see Cullum for what he is but a few do struggle to come to terms with the truth. I just hope seeing it all explained so clearly will finally convince the few dissillusioned posters on here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camuldonum 0 Posted April 12, 2009 It does not in any way affect your excellent summary but there is another fascinating little byway on this story. It wasn''t actually Cullum''s idea to approach Norwich City - it was not a Damascan moment. The idea that he should invest in the club came from Charles Clarke MP who spent an hour and a half at a dinner they attended persuading him that he was the right man to make an approach.Whether this was a "freelance" idea from Mr Clarke - acting just as a concerned fan, perhaps - or whether he was a "broker" for someone else we do not know and are unlikely to know as Mr Clarke steadfastly refuses to discuss his role in this. But we do know that is how the whole thing started. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
They need to EARN the right to play us 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Unfortunately my last computer blew up so I no longer have my records, but Cullum also stated soon after the story broke, might even have been in the original Downes story, that he had no intention of involving himself in the running of the club but would put a couple of his people on the board. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary02 III 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Camuldonum"]It does not in any way affect your excellent summary but there is another fascinating little byway on this story. It wasn''t actually Cullum''s idea to approach Norwich City - it was not a Damascan moment. The idea that he should invest in the club came from Charles Clarke MP who spent an hour and a half at a dinner they attended persuading him that he was the right man to make an approach.Whether this was a "freelance" idea from Mr Clarke - acting just as a concerned fan, perhaps - or whether he was a "broker" for someone else we do not know and are unlikely to know as Mr Clarke steadfastly refuses to discuss his role in this. But we do know that is how the whole thing started.[/quote]"Government Minister in huge cock-up shocker". Now I know you''re a journo Cam! [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camuldonum 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Bryan Salad Surgery"]Unfortunately my last computer blew up so I no longer have my records, but Cullum also stated soon after the story broke, might even have been in the original Downes story, that he had no intention of involving himself in the running of the club but would put a couple of his people on the board.[/quote]That is right. He said he would not be involved in the day to day running of the club but would put people in to do that. It was where he said that Delia would remain as the glorious figurehead on the prow of the good ship Norwich.The way most people do that is to buy all the shares! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,554 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Camuldonum"]It does not in any way affect your excellent summary but there is another fascinating little byway on this story. It wasn''t actually Cullum''s idea to approach Norwich City - it was not a Damascan moment. The idea that he should invest in the club came from Charles Clarke MP who spent an hour and a half at a dinner they attended persuading him that he was the right man to make an approach.Whether this was a "freelance" idea from Mr Clarke - acting just as a concerned fan, perhaps - or whether he was a "broker" for someone else we do not know and are unlikely to know as Mr Clarke steadfastly refuses to discuss his role in this. But we do know that is how the whole thing started.[/quote]"Damascus, Orenz! Damascus!!!" Well, that''s how it goes in the film, anyway. Thanks, Cam. I did know that Cullum had said that was how it started - he found himself bushwhacked by Clarke over dinner. I left it out because I was confining myself to what I knew (and could prove) to be true, and to the essentials, partly for reasons of length.However, it is, as you say, a fascinating aspect of the saga. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mello Yello 2,281 Posted April 12, 2009 Is it true? Why doesn''t the club come clean...then? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Canary02 III 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Mello Yello"]Is it true? Why doesn''t the club come clean...then?[/quote]To come clean you have to have been dirty in the first place. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mello Yello 2,281 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Canary02 III"] [quote user="Mello Yello"]Is it true? Why doesn''t the club come clean...then?[/quote]To come clean you have to have been dirty in the first place.[/quote]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4MjxRKhYCk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr.Carrow 376 Posted April 12, 2009 Purple, once again the idea of a "formal offer" to put money into the club via a new share issue does not make sense as the current shareholders have to agree to the proposal first, then vote it through at an EGM. This can only happen if the majority shareholders agree to it, so that is why no "formal offer" was made and why it is pointless to keep banging on about it.I agree that what scuppered the deal was probably uncertainty over the flotation timeline and Cullums inability to give absolute guarantees about the future, but can you honestly say you think the club is safer under its current ownership and in its current direction than it would have been under Cullum? As for the "I`m no Abramovich" statement, i see that as just sensibly playing down expections- particularly with the uncertainty with regards to his financial affairs. I think you paint a picture of someone who was deadly serious about taking over the club and indeed, made his move as soon as he`d realised enough to pay for (or so he thought.....) an initial takeover. I think also that D and M had to take his future intentions on trust and wouldn`t do it, but like so many in this saga, that is an opinion which is unproveable one way or the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlyBlyBabes 0 Posted April 12, 2009 Summaries are fine as far as they go.But the devil is usually in the details ---- the omissions --- and the unanswered questions.OTBC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]Summaries are fine as far as they go.But the devil is usually in the details ---- the omissions --- and the unanswered questions.OTBC[/quote]....such as those missing in this particular post out of left field, with no accompanying substance or purpose, other than devilment of its own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mello Yello 2,281 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] Summaries are fine as far as they go.But the devil is usually in the details ---- the omissions --- and the unanswered questions.OTBC[/quote]....such as those missing in this particular post out of left field, with no accompanying substance or purpose, other than devilment of its own. [/quote]If it''s all true, I expect it to be in tomorrow''s ''Bank Holiday'' Evening News.....But it won''t be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim Smith 2,314 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]Whilst i applaud your efforts and agree that many of the assumptions you have made seem logical it is of course still speculation. At the end of the day i would still rather have taken our chances with cullum and do not believe we would be where we are now had he taken over.[/quote]No. It is not assumption. It is not speculation.[/quote] sorry your ultimate conclusions are speculation as you admit within the accounts. It is an excellent summary of the relevant quotes and articles surrounding the saga but ultimately we are all still speculating about why the deal never happened Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Camuldonum 0 Posted April 12, 2009 [quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"] Summaries are fine as far as they go.But the devil is usually in the details ---- the omissions --- and the unanswered questions.OTBC[/quote]....such as those missing in this particular post out of left field, with no accompanying substance or purpose, other than devilment of its own. [/quote]If it''s all true, I expect it to be in tomorrow''s ''Bank Holiday'' Evening News.....But it won''t be.[/quote]No it will most certainly not be. The way Mr Cullum "delivered" his story to them will not be reported either nor their hilarious attempt to confront Smith and Jones, somewhat spoiled by the EDP refusing to tell them the details of the story just in case they rubbished it so much they couldn''t run it. Must have been a wonderful conversation (which they didn''t run).The very thought of the EDP doing a hard confrontational "doorstep" is, in itself, hilarious. This is the newspaper who sent a recently retired "very nice reporter" (which I''m not) to cover the funeral of a man who topped himself after police abuse charges concerning a then very famous Boys Choir. The local reporter was ordered not to go because, like me, he had actually reported what it was all about and (like me) had spoken with some of the parents of the children concerned.Unfortunately I had spilled the beans in The Guardian (at the time I was their man in East Anglia) but it was an awesome "damage limitation" exercise so as not to upset anyone.He successfully managed to report the funeral (without mentioning any of the controversy) which he was parachuted in to do. He could have asked himself why the TV cameras were everywhere and why the national thugs were present. But he didn''t and a suitably anodyne account duly appeared which might have baffled readers in Norwich given the length of the piece in which the sun shone out of his arris (that bit, at least, was not inappropriate).Who knows?Purple''s post is a good summary I think but if you want the detail regarding the Cullum reports I strongly suggest you send a letter to The Editor. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bundy 0 Posted April 12, 2009 It''s of really no relevance however it is dissected. You are all clutching for a straw that may or may not have ever existed. Who knows? What we do know is that we have been lied to and been run by a bunch of f*ckwits the ineptitude of which knows no bound. Simple as that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
canary cherub 1 Posted April 13, 2009 Purple has worked hard to put everything we already know about Cullumgate in one place. It suggests a degree of obsession with an issue that has been dead in the water for the past six months, but let that pass. But that''s all it is - what we already know from press reports. It''s "The True Story" only insofar as he has accurately reported what the press reported. He doesn''t claim to have any inside knowledge, so he is not in a position to judge whether it''s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and nor is anyone else (including me). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
singing canary 0 Posted April 13, 2009 i still dont think we have heard the last of him yet , and i dont think that is just wishfull thinking .i dont really know the ins and outs of buying a football club , but what gets me is , we have no one interested in our club and leave it to the green duck and co , yet southampton have many interested parties , yet they are in bigger trouble than we are how is this so , we have none southamton have about 30 interested parties .i realise the situation between the two clubs is different , so are we really for sale then , or is it just delia and hot wind again . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites