Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Spartan

Richard Balls article in Evening News

Recommended Posts

Why?I don''t get paid by Archant to come up with this stuff? I just find it amusing that if you write like that from one perspective it''s lauded but if you do it from the other it''s slated. Surely much of it should be whether you actually enjoyed reading it and whether you came out at the other end enlightened in any way?And to Camuldonum - I thought it was common knowledge that Charles Clarke made the suggestion to Cullum that he get involved financialy with the Club. Wasn''t that in the original article? Something along the lines of "at a dinner..."? I could be wrong but I feel sure that I''ve read that somewhere in amongst all the blancmange.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Camuldonum"]

Absolutely certain.  I have been in this business for over half a century and I have never had a writ issued against me by anyone.

I repeat: it was not Cullum''s idea to approach Norwich City.  It was the idea of the Rt Hon Member for Norwich (South).

[/quote]

No kidding! And is there any substance in the rumours that the Pope is a catholic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]Hidden away? It was on the homepage of both the Evening News and the Pinkun sites, and linked to from here on the day it was published.[/quote]  Ah Pete , but it always seems to be better if (some) people on here can talk about conspirisy and Archand being delia''s lap dog / mouthpiece E.T.C.   Can''t let the truth get in the way of a bit of Media / Delia bashing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="sturgeon220"][quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]Hidden away? It was on the homepage of both the Evening News and the Pinkun sites, and linked to from here on the day it was published.[/quote]  Ah Pete , but it always seems to be better if (some) people on here can talk about conspirisy and Archant being delia''s lap dog / mouthpiece E.T.C.   Can''t let the truth get in the way of a bit of Media / Delia bashing!!
[/quote]

I thought that was a given these days?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had a post removed the other day regarding Balls (no reason given again - surely the web team aren''t that busy removing thousands of posts to not explain why?). I will not repeat what I said but the reason that I dislike Balls all harks back to the "Roeder and the boards promise that I can spend what I want" story. Epic fail on his part due to poor research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]Why?

I don''t get paid by Archant to come up with this stuff? I just find it amusing that if you write like that from one perspective it''s lauded but if you do it from the other it''s slated. Surely much of it should be whether you actually enjoyed reading it and whether you came out at the other end enlightened in any way?

And to Camuldonum - I thought it was common knowledge that Charles Clarke made the suggestion to Cullum that he get involved financialy with the Club. Wasn''t that in the original article? Something along the lines of "at a dinner..."? I could be wrong but I feel sure that I''ve read that somewhere in amongst all the blancmange.


[/quote]

LQ, there''s a world of difference between the word "suggest" and "coerce."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="sturgeon220"][quote user="Sports Desk - Pete"]Hidden away? It was on the homepage of both the Evening News and the Pinkun sites, and linked to from here on the day it was published.[/quote]  Ah Pete , but it always seems to be better if (some) people on here can talk about conspirisy and Archand being delia''s lap dog / mouthpiece E.T.C.   Can''t let the truth get in the way of a bit of Media / Delia bashing!![/quote]What truth, sturgeon? The truth that I mistook the article for a recent piece, for which I threw my hands up and apologised? Or are you suggesting that Archant already have the ''teeth'' they claimed to so many years ago and the only reason their reporters say very little bad about the club is that everything is actually okay and we''re all just making a mountain out of a molehill with this whole ''League 1'' malarky?The way I see it, Archant has a responsibility to its readers to seek the truth and pose the difficult questions to those that matter.  Instead all we see are cosy pieces about how we should all stick together and ''support the club'' whilst the walls fall down around us.  Sure, they report on stories such as the NCISA meeting, Pete''s coverage of which was second-to-none, but it doesn''t yet have the teeth to get stuck into the club, Paxman-stylee, and get to the heart of the matter.  Too scared to ruffle feathers, or under executive orders?Either way, something smells fishy to me....................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - Charles Clarke sought a meeting with Cullum over dinner to directly sugest an approach (whether that was the approach we all know about, or the previous on just before the AGM when Delia hiked the share prices and then ate as many as possible out of the trough to reinforce her position, is unclear...)

[quote user="LQ"]Why?I don''t get paid by Archant to come up with this stuff? I just find it amusing that if you write like that from one perspective it''s lauded but if you do it from the other it''s slated. Surely much of it should be whether you actually enjoyed reading it and whether you came out at the other end enlightened in any way?And to Camuldonum - I thought it was common knowledge that Charles Clarke made the suggestion to Cullum that he get involved financialy with the Club. Wasn''t that in the original article? Something along the lines of "at a dinner..."? I could be wrong but I feel sure that I''ve read that somewhere in amongst all the blancmange.

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Cullum said when he went public was this:“I had dinner with Charles Clarke and I then realised that the

sole aim of the dinner was for him to persuade me to provide some

finance for Norwich City."Since that was the sole aim, presumably it was a fish supper. Boom, boom. I''ll get my coat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, so Steve Gedge has seemingly begun the campaign with his examination of all things Carra, which I hadn''t seen before my last post (good article, note how some are dismissing it as ''history'')... is it too little, too late? Hope not...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"]What Cullum said when he went public was this:

“I had dinner with Charles Clarke and I then realised that the sole aim of the dinner was for him to persuade me to provide some finance for Norwich City."

Since that was the sole aim, presumably it was a fish supper. Boom, boom. I''ll get my coat.[/quote]

Apologies in advance for being so persistent but the word Cameldonum used was that Clarke "coerced Cullum to offer to invest." That''s a pretty strong word. What could have allowed such coercion to be applied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×