CULLUMGATE - THE TRUE STORY

[Mello Yello 2,280]

Personally, I just think that the Major-Shareholding Duo are more than reluctant to ''let go''....preferring someone to ''bank-roll'' the club whilst they remain on the throne and carry on as advertised....The CEO is aware, that if new owners were to take over - he''d be shown the door.....

I would dearly like to know the real reason behind the Turner Two''s departure.....I don''t think it was all down to the ''credit crunch''....

Cullum, will be back I feel.....hopefully, more sooner than later.

[The Butler 0]

For further information check who lives next door to PC (his villa not his home) and what football club he owns(owned)

More a case of keeping up with, at the expense of the Joneses.

[Shack Attack 0]

Thanks for your efforts Purple. A very interesting and balanced read [Y]

[7rew 0]

[quote user="singing canary"]

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 .

[/quote]

Its because they have a very good possibility of having little or no debts. Since we have a good possibility of paying our debts back eventually, the banks won''t offer us the same opportunity. So they are more attractive to investors than us.

Frankly, that makes me very angry. It just rewards clubs who run beyond their means. Hopefully AVIVA and the rest get some nuts and refuse to renegotiate the debts.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

This is very good Purple. Thanks for putting it all together.

[SI 0]

[quote user="Canary02 III"]

To come clean you have to have been dirty in the first place.

[/quote]

So lets not forget where all the money from selling players is gone. I would not be surprised that St Delia Ltd is invoicing NCFC for services. These details will appear in accounts only as expenses. No ketchup  just my opinion.......

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

As has been said several times above, this is really rather old news and the fact that someone who on the official website is the "champion of anti-spin" seeks to spend so long regurgitating old stories that purport their view whilst ignoring smaller side stories (Clarke, Skipper, The NU Two) that were all part of the overall thing does show an agenda that whilst not hidden is not fully displayed.

On the official board there has been a recent clamour for Purple to declare which of the regular contributors they really are (more apparent when you notice who posts soon after them on the threads here and on the official board).

It is clearly someone who has nailed their flag to a particular mast and feels they would get listened to more if they use the "purple" alias.  The fact that this website will expire in 30 days does mean that if you wish to reread old stuff you need to do it quick.

Like many people around Norwich I have heard more than got reported, several of you know people who know people and quite rightly cannot tell the whole story.  Those who really know the full facts will never say, and that it didn''t happen is sad, but inevitable.

For every takeover/investment in football that happens there are probably 49 that don''t - this was one of the 49 but one day someone else will come in.

I the meantime can we just leave this one in the past?

[Yellow Shirt 17]

[quote user="ncfcstar"]A good summary, but it''s hardly the "TRUE STORY" is it.[/quote]Wow- are you a conspiracy theorist by any chance?Good read- nice to see the data all put together so sensibly

[LQ 0]

Face, I know you like to think it''s only me who feels that way but I am NOT purplecanary. Never have been, never will be. I''ll never post as anything other than myself and I can''t understand the mentality of those who do.I''m actually flattered that you could think I was that erudite! Purple is a guy, 20 years my elder and probably wiser, who lives in France. He emails me and I reply. That''s it.

[LQ 0]

p.s. I''m sure that Gareth on the offy site and Pete on here could confirm that by virtue of IP addresses if you want legal or moral confirmation above and beyond my word. Although I''d be sorry that you do.

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Jim Smith"] 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]Correct - we''d be run by remote accountants and in deep do doSorry, but what does this tell us we didn''t already know?

[|BA 0]

[quote user="SI"]

So lets not forget where all the money from selling players is gone. I would not be surprised that St Delia Ltd is invoicing NCFC for services. These details will appear in accounts only as expenses. No ketchup  just my opinion.......

[/quote]Yeah Delia is a crook and only in this to make money....... Have you the faintest idea how stupid that sounds. So call the police. I''m sick of people firing blanks and acting like billy big bollox. If you suspect foul play DO SOMETHING and stop bleating like a child.

[ncfcstar 287]

[quote user="Yellow Shirt"][quote user="ncfcstar"]A good summary, but it''s hardly the "TRUE STORY" is it.[/quote]Wow- are you a conspiracy theorist by any chance?Good read- nice to see the data all put together so sensibly [/quote]I meant there is nothing in there that we didn''t already know.

[Smudger Appreciation Society (SAS) 0]

Someone collects newspaper clippings as a hobby

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

----Briefly, thank you to

those who took the time to read 3,500 words, and I appreciate the compliments.

As to the charge of being a tiny bit obsessed, I would probably have to plead guilty

(along with a few others!) to that.

It is fair to say the subject is, to an extent, historical, but this is the

first time, as posters have said, that the whole of Cullumgate has been covered

in a single story, as opposed to random bits and pieces, and put in context.

One poster was gracious enough to say the article “rings true on every level”.

That is because it is true, on every level, and why it may be of some help if

we go through a similar saga in the future.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]----

Briefly, thank you to those who took the time to read 3,500 words, and I appreciate the compliments. As to the charge of being a tiny bit obsessed, I would probably have to plead guilty (along with a few others!) to that.

It is fair to say the subject is, to an extent, historical, but this is the first time, as posters have said, that the whole of Cullumgate has been covered in a single story, as opposed to random bits and pieces, and put in context. One poster was gracious enough to say the article “rings true on every level”. That is because it is true, on every level, and why it may be of some help if we go through a similar saga in the future.

[/quote]

It''s only true for any given value of "true in a newspaper report"

In my experience the more reports the further from the truth they get!!

It still makes an interesting read and can remain "fact" until someone proves/disproves with another piece of Archant investigative journalism[:D]

Or can Cam come up with something clever?

[Beauseant 0]

To my shame I''ve only just got round to reading this. well done, PC for putting so much effort into collating all of the threads of the saga, and then presenting them in a balanced way.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Don''t apologise, Beauseant. You were probably having a life!

[Pete Raven 276]

[quote user="LQ"]p.s. I''m sure that Gareth on the offy site and Pete on here could confirm that by virtue of IP addresses if you want legal or moral confirmation above and beyond my word. Although I''d be sorry that you do.





[/quote]

I can, and I just have.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]----

Briefly, thank you to those who took the time to read 3,500 words, and I appreciate the compliments. As to the charge of being a tiny bit obsessed, I would probably have to plead guilty (along with a few others!) to that.

It is fair to say the subject is, to an extent, historical, but this is the first time, as posters have said, that the whole of Cullumgate has been covered in a single story, as opposed to random bits and pieces, and put in context. One poster was gracious enough to say the article “rings true on every level”. That is because it is true, on every level, and why it may be of some help if we go through a similar saga in the future.

[/quote]

 

Sorry you have no idea if the conclusions are true or not. yes it reflects accurately the press stories and quotes, yes the conclusions are plausible but you cannot claim to be revealing the "true" story behind the whole affair.

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

[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]

[quote user="LQ"]p.s. I''m sure that Gareth on the offy site and Pete on here could confirm that by virtue of IP addresses if you want legal or moral confirmation above and beyond my word. Although I''d be sorry that you do.

[/quote]

I can, and I just have.

[/quote]

 

There was no need Pete, but I''m sure LQ appreciated it. 

Contrary to public belief I don''t think Purple is LQ (far too obsessed to be LQ) but do feel that the account does nothing apart from distract from a cracking game yesterday.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Jim Smith"]

 

Sorry you have no idea if the conclusions are true or not. yes it reflects accurately the press stories and quotes, yes the conclusions are plausible but you cannot claim to be revealing the "true" story behind the whole affair.

[/quote]Jim,if ALL I had done was trawl through a few newspaper reports then you might be right. As I did far more than that, I can indeed know that I am right.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Jim Smith"]

 

Sorry you have no idea if the conclusions are true or not. yes it reflects accurately the press stories and quotes, yes the conclusions are plausible but you cannot claim to be revealing the "true" story behind the whole affair.

[/quote]

Jim,if ALL I had done was trawl through a few newspaper reports then you might be right. As I did far more than that, I can indeed know that I am right.[/quote]

 

I''m sorry mate i''m not trying to have a go at you here but you state in the actual account that:

"As to my credentials for writing this, I am a fan, a season-ticket holder, and a shareholder, but otherwise have no connection to the club. Equally, I have no connection with Towergate, Peter Cullum''s company."

 

"Nevertheless, putting together all the public comments and newspaper reports and hard financial facts, there is enough common ground to come to the following conclusions."

 

"The answer to that almost certainly lies not in the purchase price but in the club''s main desire for any new owner to be prepared to commit to the long term and to be prepared to run and bankroll the club for several years ahead."

 

On the one hand you are saying you have no connections to any of those involved and are basing your conclusions on "the common ground" gleaned from the known public material. Yet on the other hand you are proclaiming your conclusions to be "the truth." Are you saying that the "private discussions" you have had which are referred to in the footnotes have confirmed that this is "the truth" or merely that nobody has said anything to clause you to doubt your conclusions?

 

I don''t necessarily disagree with much that you say or your conclusions as to what may have happened to be honest but I do struggle to see how you can pronounce it to be "the truth."

 

 

 

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Jim, I cannot give you the full answer you deserve. I cannot refer specifically to my case and detail the people I might have talked to, and what they might have told me.However I can this say in general terms, bearing in mind that what you have read, as I think you would acknowledge, hardly seems like the slapdash outpouring of some idiot amateur keyboard warrior but more like a serious piece of work.In general terms, no-one would spend time producing such a serious (and long) piece of work unless they have also gone to the trouble of making sure they were right. And, in general terms, making sure they were right would undoubtedly involve making contact with both sides. It might even include sending a pre-publication copy of the story to both sides to confirm everything in the story was correct. That the facts were right. That the conclusions were not challenged. That neither side had any serious complaints about the story. It would also include sending the story to a libel lawyer to make sure everything was legally correct. In general terms, that is what someone producing a serious 3,500-word story would do.

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Jim, I cannot give you the full answer you deserve. I cannot refer specifically to my case and detail the people I might have talked to, and what they might have told me.

However I can this say in general terms, bearing in mind that what you have read, as I think you would acknowledge, hardly seems like the slapdash outpouring of some idiot amateur keyboard warrior but more like a serious piece of work.

In general terms, no-one would spend time producing such a serious (and long) piece of work unless they have also gone to the trouble of making sure they were right. And, in general terms, making sure they were right would undoubtedly involve making contact with both sides. It might even include sending a pre-publication copy of the story to both sides to confirm everything in the story was correct. That the facts were right. That the conclusions were not challenged. That neither side had any serious complaints about the story. It would also include sending the story to a libel lawyer to make sure everything was legally correct.

In general terms, that is what someone producing a serious 3,500-word story would do.[/quote]

I apologise PC sounds as if there was just a little more thought in this than I had realised.[;)]

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

The Butler, no need to apologise. Funnily enough, it is possible (but in a way I cannot explain, and which you must not, if you happen to realise what I''m referring to) that a previous post of yours on this board came close to playing a part in my account.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]Jim, I cannot give you the full answer you deserve. I cannot refer specifically to my case and detail the people I might have talked to, and what they might have told me.

However I can this say in general terms, bearing in mind that what you have read, as I think you would acknowledge, hardly seems like the slapdash outpouring of some idiot amateur keyboard warrior but more like a serious piece of work.

In general terms, no-one would spend time producing such a serious (and long) piece of work unless they have also gone to the trouble of making sure they were right. And, in general terms, making sure they were right would undoubtedly involve making contact with both sides. It might even include sending a pre-publication copy of the story to both sides to confirm everything in the story was correct. That the facts were right. That the conclusions were not challenged. That neither side had any serious complaints about the story. It would also include sending the story to a libel lawyer to make sure everything was legally correct.

In general terms, that is what someone producing a serious 3,500-word story would do.[/quote]

 

Fair enough Purple!  If, in general terms, someone had done that then I would have to stand corrected and would be impressed that in general terms that person had the time and inclination to put together this opus!

In general terms i might, in the nicest possible way, also have to question whether such a person may want to try taking up golf or some similar hobby to pass the time of day and take their mind of the Cullumgate saga!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

Jim, in general terms, touché! But not golf, I think. I did try that years ago and - well, let''s say I''m better at putting together 3,500-word stories and finding the truth than I was at finding the green!

[Badger 0]

I have only just found this. Can I thank you for the clearest account that I have read, which hopefully might put the issue to rest for a while until we have genuine additional information.Good work PC.

[Nuff Said 5,089]

[quote user="Badger"]I have only just found this. Can I thank you for the clearest account that I have read, which hopefully might put the issue to rest for a while until we have genuine additional information.Good work PC.[/quote]Seconded! Not only is the effort you''ve put in commendable, but the work is also valuable as a reference to calm down some of the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists too (mention no names!).