Sell the Stadium?

[blahblahblah 2]

I did wonder how long it would take for either you or Buckethead to back Mr C up, foxy, 7 minutes must be a new record though.[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Mr C,

Fat chance of that happening. He has still refused to acknowledge that his claim that Bath has a bigger population than Norwich is ridiculous. Some are better at dishing out than receiving!!

[/quote]

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

I didnt know you cared so much or that I required your permission to post. What are you his minder or just someone with too much time on their hands?

Tom is very good at puting his above the parapet and he should expect a few unfriendly arrows back in his direction. Is that ok with you?

[blahblahblah 2]

I don''t object to your arrows, if you don''t mind me pointing out to Tom the direction they are coming from, and possible reasons for their direction - I''d argue that you, BH and Mr C have as much of an agenda as you claim Tom and Badger to have.[quote user="Desert Fox"]

BBB,

I didnt know you cared so much or that I required your permission to post. What are you his minder or just someone with too much time on their hands?

Tom is very good at puting his above the parapet and he should expect a few unfriendly arrows back in his direction. Is that ok with you?

[/quote]

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,017]

I would also guess that should the NDR ever be built, the "corridor" created by its construction will be filled with housing estates.

I am not against the idea of Norwich moving, I just think the OP has not really thought the "idea" through, given the current economic climate we find ourselves in.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

Just a guess but I would have thought the obvious place to put a ground would be out at Colney, if the club decided to move.  Roads could be added to improve the route from Colney to the A11, the lack of a train line would be a real minus point though.  Agree with SOB, it really isn''t the time to do this, the difference between developed land and land only prices is too low.

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

You are absolutley correct about agendas. For the simple reason of the mess we now find ourselves in (and we may have not reached the bottom yet) I want to draw attention to the mismanagememt of this club over a number of years. What I cant understand is why any City fan can be sufficiently happy with our current position to suppport the Board as Tom does or refuse to engage in any meaningful debate as to why we have arrived at this position. We are not in Division 3 through a random sequence of events!! Mind you, at least Tom is obviosuly connected to the Board, I would be keen to undertsand how much your views are aligned with his and why you feel the need to come to his defence? Is he a man or a boy? Is it any of your business if I choose to challenge him?

[blahblahblah 2]

Maybe Tom thinks it''s obvious that the reason we are in division 3 is because Auntie Delia hired the wrong bosses.  Most fans think this, don''t they ?  We didn''t have a bottom 3 playing budget last season, neither did Southampton or Charlton for that matter.  None of these clubs have ever properly adjusted to the trauma of relegation from the Premiership with the complete gutting of playing staff that occurs with relegation release contracts.  Southampton have also spent big on fixed assets (how very dare they) but Charlton didn''t.  The thing they have in common in my opinion is the loss of Premiership status.[quote]Is it any of your business if I choose to challenge him?[/quote]Is it any of your or Bucketheads'' business to back up Mr C ? I mean - "giggle" - hardly conducive to a very grown up and rational debate is it ? [:)]

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"]How would people feel if the stadium was sold (to someone like Tescos, Ikea etc.) to clear the debts and give millions for new players, and move to a new council funded stadium near to say Trowse?  [/quote]

You obviously dont have a clue about the state of local government finances.

Norwich City Council has cut millions from its revenue budget and cant seem to fund the war memorial work (opposite City Hall) from the capital account.

Norfolk County Council has £30m+ locked up in Icelandic banks.

 

May be you should tap up FLASH Gordon for a loan?

 

 

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"] Southampton have also spent big on fixed assets (how very dare they) but Charlton didn''t.  [/quote]

Charlton''s ground has changed alot since I saw that classic Bone goal at the valley.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="The Other One"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"] Southampton have also spent big on fixed assets (how very dare they) but Charlton didn''t.  [/quote]

Charlton''s ground has changed alot since I saw that classic Bone goal at the valley.

 

[/quote]Are you now claiming that the reason for Charltons'' relegation is their investment in fixed assets ?  Because if that''s the case we can just give up on the football and have a "see who spends the least on frivolity" league - it''s a cast iron way to work out who will be relegated after all.... [:/]

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

I cant comment on Bucketheads posts - clearly that is his business. Also, I was not ''backing up'' Mr Carrow, merely cross referencing my own experience with Tom to mine.

However, at last we are getting somewhere. I disagree with most of your views, and lets be honest with each other, this is what we are all arguing about.

Tom clearly believes that our position is related to our managers. There is no way any of us know what most City fans think, but I would like to believe that when the evidence finally comes out, they will be able to make their own minds up.

However, I believe that blaming the managers is way too simplistic for the following reasons:

1. The Board selected and performance managed each manager - nobody else. I personally always thought that Grant, Roeder and Gunn were not the right appointments at the time, but then I also thought that Worthy was the wrong appointment on the basis of his record at Blackpool.

2. The Board have consistently spun re transfer dealings. Our squad has got weaker (and worth less) each year since the Prem in spite of two years parachutes. However, each summer either our Chairman or CEO states that our transfer funds will be made available to the manager. Do the maths, the suns dont add up and were are being treated like mushrooms.

3. The amount of unnecessary off the pitch infrastructure (e.g. housing developmenrs, catering facilities, commercial offices) spend that has taken place over the last five years has impacted not benefitted our on the pitch expenditure. This is ''either/or'' spending. Had we not needed to service the debt for ths spending, we would have been able to spend more on the squad.

4. I am not intetested in how Southampton and Charlton got in to their own messes. It does not follow that we should ape their position. West Brom, Reading and Sheff Utd have been compeititive pst Prem without ''sugar daddy'' levels of spending. Equally, we have failed to compete with teams like Swansea, Cardiff and Burnley - hardly paragons of big spending.

5. I dont trust that our ''leopard'' of a Board will change its spots and learn from its mistakes and that we will be in for more disappointments downstream. Promotion is not a right, but should be the traget we set ourselves as every year we stay down it will get harder.

What are your views on all the above - please dont hide behind ''maybe Tom thinks''.

 

[Michael Starr 519]

lmao that''ll be right... spend x number of millions on a new stand that we''ve barely paid off... then sell the stadium rofl.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

BBB,

I cant comment on Bucketheads posts - clearly that is his business. Also, I was not ''backing up'' Mr Carrow, merely cross referencing my own experience with Tom to mine.

However, at last we are getting somewhere. I disagree with most of your views, and lets be honest with each other, this is what we are all arguing about.

Tom clearly believes that our position is related to our managers. There is no way any of us know what most City fans think, but I would like to believe that when the evidence finally comes out, they will be able to make their own minds up.

However, I believe that blaming the managers is way too simplistic for the following reasons:

1. The Board selected and performance managed each manager - nobody else. I personally always thought that Grant, Roeder and Gunn were not the right appointments at the time, but then I also thought that Worthy was the wrong appointment on the basis of his record at Blackpool.

2. The Board have consistently spun re transfer dealings. Our squad has got weaker (and worth less) each year since the Prem in spite of two years parachutes. However, each summer either our Chairman or CEO states that our transfer funds will be made available to the manager. Do the maths, the suns dont add up and were are being treated like mushrooms.

3. The amount of unnecessary off the pitch infrastructure (e.g. housing developmenrs, catering facilities, commercial offices) spend that has taken place over the last five years has impacted not benefitted our on the pitch expenditure. This is ''either/or'' spending. Had we not needed to service the debt for ths spending, we would have been able to spend more on the squad.

4. I am not intetested in how Southampton and Charlton got in to their own messes. It does not follow that we should ape their position. West Brom, Reading and Sheff Utd have been compeititive pst Prem without ''sugar daddy'' levels of spending. Equally, we have failed to compete with teams like Swansea, Cardiff and Burnley - hardly paragons of big spending.

5. I dont trust that our ''leopard'' of a Board will change its spots and learn from its mistakes and that we will be in for more disappointments downstream. Promotion is not a right, but should be the traget we set ourselves as every year we stay down it will get harder.

What are your views on all the above - please dont hide behind ''maybe Tom thinks''.

 

[/quote]

An excellent post.

That will have the Wynnies in a tizz.......

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

Regarding the other discussion, Norfolk had a population of 796,728 in 2001

Source: page 25 of The Boundary Committee for England report, ''Further draft proposals for unitary local government in Norfolk'' March 2009. Their source was The Office for National Statistics (2001 Census).

Enjoy!

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]
 Because if that''s the case we can just give up on the football
[/quote]

But we have already done that!

Enjoy the non entertaining spine road.

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]

1. The Board selected and performance managed each manager - nobody

else. I personally always thought that Grant, Roeder and Gunn were not

the right appointments at the time, but then I also thought that Worthy

was the wrong appointment on the basis of his record at Blackpool.[/quote]

I agree with this - the manager is the most important appointment in the organisation - get a good one and you save millions, get a bad one (or 2, or 3) and you lose millions.  This alone is a reason to need change at the top.

[quote]2. The Board have consistently spun re transfer dealings. Our squad

has got weaker (and worth less) each year since the Prem in spite of

two years parachutes. However, each summer either our Chairman or CEO

states that our transfer funds will be made available to the manager.

Do the maths, the suns dont add up and were are being treated like

mushrooms.[/quote]

Regarding this - I feel that there were 2 phases post Premiership - Worthington was short changed and said so to Sky Sports News, as did Drury - Not that it''s important, but I did ask questions about this at the time on this forum, nobody cared at the time as it was more important to get Worthy Out.  I thought that the board had learnt that they needed to provide money to compete with Grant, but (with hindsight) he spent badly.  Roeder seemed more pre-occupied with loans from the top table when he should have stuck with the team that gave him a 14 game unbeaten streak - how many players have been through Colneys'' revolving door this season ? 

[quote]3. The amount of unnecessary off the pitch

infrastructure (e.g. housing developmenrs, catering facilities,

commercial offices) spend that has taken place over the last five years

has impacted not benefitted our on the pitch

expenditure. This is ''either/or'' spending. Had we not needed to service

the debt for ths spending, we would have been able to spend more on the

squad.[/quote]

Spending which will, in the medium to long term, provide "free money", once the cost of the spending is covered.  At the risk of sounding like Doomy, institutions won''t lend money for footballers, so the board (rightly or wrongly) borrowed money to make money to spend on footballers.  In a different set of economic circumstances, things wouldn''t have looked so bad for them - it was a gamble that hasn''t come off yet.

[quote]4. I am not intetested in how Southampton and Charlton got in to

their own messes. It does not follow that we should ape their position.

West Brom, Reading and Sheff Utd have been compeititive pst Prem

without ''sugar daddy'' levels of spending. Equally, we have failed to

compete with teams like Swansea, Cardiff and Burnley - hardly paragons

of big spending.[/quote]

So you agree with me that a big budget doesn''t equate to the success or otherwise of a football team then.  We budgetted for mid-table, and failed to get there because none of the starting 11 seemed to know the first names of the other players half the time, and couldn''t be arsed even if they did for most matches.  Oh, and because Jamie lad could only score for Barnsley.

[quote]5. I dont trust that our ''leopard'' of a Board will change its spots

and learn from its mistakes and that we will be in for more

disappointments downstream. Promotion is not a right, but should be the

traget we set ourselves as every year we stay down it will get harder.[/quote]

Agreed, but in the absence of anyone else daft enough to put their millions into the pit, you have no option but to trust them if you wish to remain a fan of the club.  If you were serious about changing the club, you wouldn''t be on here having daft arguments with me and Tom, you''d be looking to put a consortium together.  As it it you''ve chosen a position so you can pick fights on here.  Bravo.

[Jerzy Krukowski 5]

[quote user="komakino"]This was initially looked at in the late 1980''s by Robert Chase, as a possible move to the showground, but this proved unworkable.

I live in Trowse and that is a non-starter as there is no room, but it is possible to build somewhere next to the bypass, so a potential railway station could be built on the Norwich-Ely line.

I''d much prefer us to stay at Carrow Road, but if the club started to be successful again in the future, it is definitely an option to consider. You can''t let sentimental feelings get in the way of common sense.[/quote]Sometimes those sentimental feelings are common sense, a city centre location makes us increasingly unique (though I realise that''s a non-sequitur)

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="SPat"][quote user="komakino"]This was initially looked at in the late 1980''s by Robert Chase, as a possible move to the showground, but this proved unworkable. I live in Trowse and that is a non-starter as there is no room, but it is possible to build somewhere next to the bypass, so a potential railway station could be built on the Norwich-Ely line. I''d much prefer us to stay at Carrow Road, but if the club started to be successful again in the future, it is definitely an option to consider. You can''t let sentimental feelings get in the way of common sense.[/quote]

Sometimes those sentimental feelings are common sense, a city centre location makes us increasingly unique (though I realise that''s a non-sequitur)
[/quote]

The council could allow a stadium to be built on council owned land (free land).  The football trust give millions more to a club for a new stadium than to improve an existing stadium. Councils can get their hands on grants etc. that the club can''t and lottery funding for sports facilities, plus Plus Carrow Rd must be worth quite a lot when combined with the other land the club owns. The Desso pitch could be moved, and reuse seats etc. from CR to save costs. It must be worth looking into rather than dismissed out of hand by some people.

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

That''s better, lets focus upon what the real issues, not ''he siad/she said''.

I respect your views, but do not agree with all of them, and I guess we may never see eye to eye especially in terms of the ''gamble'' (your words) that the Board took with our club - and this is not the benefit of hindsight talking.

However putting this to one side, I want to take issue with your notion that these are ''daft arguments''. I would love to put a consortium together but I dont have these kind of funds. This does not mean that my view does not count. We as fans can place enough pressure on the Board for them to take us more seriously - after all not many businesses that alienate their customer base survive very long. Ultimately, if they feel sufficient heat, this may influence how much hey hold out for on their investment and their criteria for whom they sell to. This is not daft - we re fighting for the heart and future of our club, and if we dont fight back, we will continue in a downward spiral of reducing income and less investent in the team to the point that the whole souffle collapses.

[blahblahblah 2]

For what its worth Tom, here''s my 2 bob...A large developer would only take a piece of land the size of Carrow Road on if they thought that they could sell everything they built on it.  In the current economic climate the land would end up going for a comparitive song.If we were a Premiership club we could get a big name sponsor to pay for naming rights, much like Arsenal did with the Emirates.  We are in league 1 next season, so would expect a league 1 fee.The new stadium would need to be built before the old one gets torn down, otherwise where would we play ?  Which would mean more loans the club can''t afford in the intervening period, wouldn''t it ?Like I say - In 5 years, maybe we''ll be a top 6 side in the championship, maybe the property market will be healthier.  But for me, not now.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

BBB,

That''s better, lets focus upon what the real issues. [/quote]

My point entirely [:)]

[quote]I respect your views, but do not agree with all of them, and I guess we may never see eye to eye especially in terms of the ''gamble'' (your words) that the Board took with our club - and this is not the benefit of hindsight talking.[/quote]

I don''t necessarily think that they made the right choices, but can see the motivation for making them.  They didn''t want the club to have to rely upon TV money again after the ITV Digital collapse.

[quote]However putting this to one side, I want to take issue with your notion that these are ''daft arguments''. I would love to put a consortium together but I dont have these kind of funds.[/quote]

To put a consortium together I''d argue that you need contacts who have funds.

[quote]This does not mean that my view does not count. We as fans can place enough pressure on the Board for them to take us more seriously - after all not many businesses that alienate their customer base survive very long. Ultimately, if they feel sufficient heat, this may influence how much hey hold out for on their investment and their criteria for whom they sell to. This is not daft - we re fighting for the heart and future of our club, and if we dont fight back, we will continue in a downward spiral of reducing income and less investent in the team to the point that the whole souffle collapses.[/quote]

As I say, I think they learnt the "we must spend more on the team" lesson after Worthington - but the managers they employed since then have squandered what they were given.  In order for this debate to take place, you need people like Tom and Me to argue for the dark side - threads don''t last very long when everyone agrees... [;)]

[Desert Fox 0]

Tom,

1. Council''s are not permitted to cross subsidise a commercial entity without a case where this clearly benefits the public.

2. Have you heard of the credit crunch? Is anyone lending for such schemes at present?

3. Would the Football Trust/Lottery Fund really be willing to provide free funds to a commercial entity when a suitable alternative already exists. If we moved for larger capacirty, this would be expected to be self funding over a period of time.

4. As I understood it, Carrow Road may be subject to a covenant when it it wasd orginally gifted from Colmans.

5. If we can sell Carrow Rd, there would be huge demoloition costs which would negate much of the value of the land.

6. I suspect thtat the costs of relocating the pitch seats, would not release any meaningful savings.

7. What happens to the existing secured debt on the stands?

8. How would we fill a bigger stadium in League 1? I thought that you believed that Norfolk has a low catchment area?

Having an open mind, you are correct that this should not be dismissed out of hand. However for the reasons above, it is unlikely to be a runner, but it is a nice smokescreen to throw attention away from the Board''s failures.

 

 

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

There is perhaps more common ground between us than may initially be apparent. However, can I just check a couple of issues:

1. Are you saying that because I cant persoanlly put together a consortium that I cant really have a right to object to the Board or that any debate on teh subject is daft? This is a genuine question to tease out whether there is a misunderstanding between us with no intended barbs.

2. Are you really convinced that the Board has learnt its lessons re finnancing the team. Yes, Worthy was short changed ( and I have a suspiscion that was a deliberate strategy), but the money that Grant and Roeder blew is nowhere near what we have realised in receipts from Earnshaw, Etuhu, Green, Francis, Lewis, Jonsson, McKenzie and others. I do not believe that this has been consumed in loan and agents fees and I believe that this analysis has already been done to death by the likes of Mr Carrow and TFA. I predict (yes this is nothing but a hunch) we are about to have another year where we sell what is left to sell (e.g. the likes of Marshall, Clingan etc) and replace these with Bosmans and that Tweedeldee and Tweedeldum will try to spin us the ussual mushroom routine that the manager has been given all the proceeds. This is why I believe that they are desperate to appoint a patsy manager rather than an up and comer in the Martin O''Neill mode who is not afraid to challenge the Board.

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Tom,

1. Council''s are not permitted to cross subsidise a commercial entity without a case where this clearly benefits the public.

2. Have you heard of the credit crunch? Is anyone lending for such schemes at present?

3. Would the Football Trust/Lottery Fund really be willing to provide free funds to a commercial entity when a suitable alternative already exists. If we moved for larger capacirty, this would be expected to be self funding over a period of time.

4. As I understood it, Carrow Road may be subject to a covenant when it it wasd orginally gifted from Colmans.

5. If we can sell Carrow Rd, there would be huge demoloition costs which would negate much of the value of the land.

6. I suspect thtat the costs of relocating the pitch seats, would not release any meaningful savings.

7. What happens to the existing secured debt on the stands?

8. How would we fill a bigger stadium in League 1? I thought that you believed that Norfolk has a low catchment area?

Having an open mind, you are correct that this should not be dismissed out of hand. However for the reasons above, it is unlikely to be a runner, but it is a nice smokescreen to throw attention away from the Board''s failures.

 

[/quote]

 

Aberdeen: http://www.afc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/clubNewsDetail/0,,10284~1610977,00.html

Bristol City: http://www.bcfc.co.uk/page/NewStadium/0,,10327~1439305,00.html

Colchester: http://www.colchester.gov.uk/Info_page_two_pic_2_det.asp?art_id=7511&sec_id=1040

 

[Desert Fox 0]

Tom,

Thanks for these links - I will look in to them and get back to you.

Can I ask a question. For someone that rusn his own business, how have you got the time to seemingly be on here all day and how did you manage to find these links so quickly. I syour business interest connected to footabll or stadium development - this is a genuine question.

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]1. Are you saying that because I cant personally put together a

consortium that I cant really have a right to object to the Board or

that any debate on the subject is daft? This is a genuine question to

tease out whether there is a misunderstanding between us with no

intended barbs.[/quote]I''m saying that the way from the way it looks to me, that there is a certain element of organisation in the common recurrence of finance threads posted / hijacked by what I perceive to be a group of people.  (...If there is no such group and you don''t all congregate down the pub, then I apologise for the assertion, must be getting a bit Mello in me old age...)  If that group of people (real or virtual) wanted to try to make real change, then in my opinion their time would be better spent on reaching out to the local business community to bring together people of like minds to encourage (through financial / media means ) the incumbents into making a change, than it would spent on here playing lions and zebras with Tom Cavendish.  That said, credit crunch blah blah blah...[quote]2. Are you really convinced that the Board has learnt its lessons re

finnancing the team. Yes, Worthy was short changed ( and I have a

suspiscion that was a deliberate strategy), but the money that Grant

and Roeder blew is nowhere near what we have realised in receipts from

Earnshaw, Etuhu, Green, Francis, Lewis, Jonsson, McKenzie and others. I

do not believe that this has been consumed in loan and agents fees and

I believe that this analysis has already been done to death by the

likes of Mr Carrow and TFA. I predict (yes this is nothing but a hunch)

we are about to have another year where we sell what is left to sell

(e.g. the likes of Marshall, Clingan etc) and replace these with

Bosmans and that Tweedeldee and Tweedeldum will try to spin us the

ussual mushroom routine that the manager has been given all the

proceeds. This is why I believe that they are desperate to appoint a

patsy manager rather than an up and comer in the Martin O''Neill mode

who is not afraid to challenge the Board.[/quote]Not convinced by the reciepts argument, wages account for more money than transfer fees.  I don''t consider Bosmans to be neccesarily an indication of a bad player - good players like Clingan do leave when their contracts end to get better deals from other clubs - I''m convinced that a fair portion of savings from transfer fees would end up in the players / agents'' back pockets.  Roeder seemed to have a lot of money to spend - Stefanovic wouldn''t have

been cheap - 3 or 4 other mediocre / injured players have been

suggested as 5 figure earners per week.  The impression I''m left with is that he frittered it on a high turnover of playing staff, lots of smaller transactions, which was compounded when Gunn brought his own temps in in Jan / Feb.Evidence for "learning lessons" on non-football spending ? The sale of Eventguard to the council, and closure of the travel shop suggest that revenue streams that do not make profit won''t be tolerated.  If your nightmare scenario was to occur, then every game would be attended in the same manner as the Charlton FA Cup match from October onwards.  Season ticket holders would more than likely finally give up the ghost after a mid-table or dare I say it low-table finish in league 1.  Surely the penny has dropped that they will need to "buy their way" (money isn''t everything, but it helps) out of this league to get the 5-7 million revenue back as a result of being in the championship - being in this league for more than one season isn''t an option ?

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Having an open mind, you are correct that this should not be dismissed out of hand. However for the reasons above, it is unlikely to be a runner, but it is a nice smokescreen to throw attention away from the Board''s failures.

[/quote]

Deploy the smokescreen!

 

[tom cavendish 0]

[quote user="Desert Fox"]

Tom,

Thanks for these links - I will look in to them and get back to you.

Can I ask a question. For someone that rusn his own business, how have you got the time to seemingly be on here all day and how did you manage to find these links so quickly. I syour business interest connected to footabll or stadium development - this is a genuine question.

[/quote]

I just search on google.

[Desert Fox 0]

BBB,

re your last paragraph, I hope that the penny has dropped as they will effetcively be carrying out a long drawn suiicde over the next 2 to 3 seasons.

As for your point about a conspiracy, I have no association with any other poster on this Board (I live in rural Dorset so getting to Norwich pub is quite tricky for me!). I accept that I have no proof of this other than my word, for what that is worth in cyberspace. However, your logic can be turned on its head because I truly believe that there is a co-ordinated campaign orchestrated by the club to run a dirty tricks campaign ala Wwatergate/McBridegate to try to divert a growing groundswell of opinion against the Board. This smells of Doomcaster I am afraid.

Part of my hostility towards you was that you sometime across as a ''buddy'' of this group, however, from our exchange this afternoon, I conceded that this is not the case. Whislt you are right to be wary of orchestrated posting, I wuld say that anti-Board expressions are much more understandable at the present time than pro-Board views. Perhaps what you are seeing is a growing co-alesence of frustration that has been building for a long time. For me this started when we failed to buy Ashton at the start of a prem season and I am unlikley to chnage my views until we see a regime change.

[Desert Fox 0]

[quote user="tom cavendish"][quote user="Desert Fox"]

Tom,

Thanks for these links - I will look in to them and get back to you.

Can I ask a question. For someone that rusn his own business, how have you got the time to seemingly be on here all day and how did you manage to find these links so quickly. I syour business interest connected to footabll or stadium development - this is a genuine question.

[/quote]

I just search on google.

[/quote]

That was very quick! May I ask what your business is? To reciprocate in advance, I work in healthcare consulting.