Today's EDP Yellow and Green 'un

[Yelverton Yella 0]

For those of you who have read today''s EDP- what do you think of the articles?To me, most of it is a re-hash of history with a rather pathetic attempt to be seen to be putting pressure on the Board. To write an ''open letter'' to Delia with closed questions like ''Were managers allowed to get away with too much?'' and ''Was money wasted on supposedly quality loan players last season?'' is just intellectually lazy journalism .Most of the questions are asking about history- eg The Cullum Affair and The Turners which, although interesting to satisfy our curiosity, do not really take us forward in our current predicament.Would it be too much to expect a piece of crusading journalism with the editorial staff putting forward a list of constructive demands on behalf of the fans- I am sure if they consult some of the threads on these these boards and people who were at the meeting the other night they could construct something relevant and meaningful.

[Camuldonum 0]

[quote user="Yelverton Yella"]For those of you who have read today''s EDP- what do you think of the articles?

To me, most of it is a re-hash of history with a rather pathetic attempt to be seen to be putting pressure on the Board. To write an ''open letter'' to Delia with closed questions like ''Were managers allowed to get away with too much?'' and ''Was money wasted on supposedly quality loan players last season?'' is just intellectually lazy journalism .

Most of the questions are asking about history- eg The Cullum Affair and The Turners which, although interesting to satisfy our curiosity, do not really take us forward in our current predicament.

Would it be too much to expect a piece of crusading journalism with the editorial staff putting forward a list of constructive demands on behalf of the fans- I am sure if they consult some of the threads on these these boards and people who were at the meeting the other night they could construct something relevant and meaningful.
[/quote]

[:P]

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="Yelverton Yella"]For those of you who have read today''s EDP- what do you think of the articles?To me, most of it is a re-hash of history with a rather pathetic attempt to be seen to be putting pressure on the Board. To write an ''open letter'' to Delia with closed questions like ''Were managers allowed to get away with too much?'' and ''Was money wasted on supposedly quality loan players last season?'' is just intellectually lazy journalism .Most of the questions are asking about history- eg The Cullum Affair and The Turners which, although interesting to satisfy our curiosity, do not really take us forward in our current predicament.Would it be too much to expect a piece of crusading journalism with the editorial staff putting forward a list of constructive demands on behalf of the fans- I am sure if they consult some of the threads on these these boards and people who were at the meeting the other night they could construct something relevant and meaningful.[/quote]Well put sir… totally in agreement!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

I''m probably just an old pedant, but I''d be a bit more impressed by Lakey''s piece if he knew the difference between being in the firing line and being in the line of fire.

[ACE 0]

I totally disagree,  history is what got us into this mess and answers to those historical questions would show what needs to change now.Well done to the Chris Lakey for finally directly askin specific questions of the club and signing it from "EDP" - which is a clear challenge from the paper as a whole.So before criticising it, why not read between the lines at the implications of this chane of stance?  Perhaps they are now movin in ehind the fans - will we continue to sit on our hands like good little Norfolk people do?

[Andy Larkin 15]

The thing is though Ace… there is a lot more scope for laying bare the true character of Delia and her sycophants by going down the ''Cullum'' line or ''The Turners'' line of questioning.Her celebrity status is what is underpinning a lot of the support for her… its almost like people are prepared to forgive her the bad decisions football-wise, as long as nice old Delia is still head of the club. Answering those ''football'' questions is old hat to them, they will hide behind "We''re sorry", "We made mistakes", "We will get it right", "Bryan is the right man for the job"… they can bat those off until the cows come home.If nice old Delia was shown in her true colours, people might be just that little bit less supportive of her.The whole Turners/Cullum saga has never been laid bare and the truth is probably unpalatable for the majority… but it needs to be exposed, cos when it is you might start to get a completely different picture of St Delia and The Church of Carrow.

[Yelverton Yella 0]

Just shows how opinions can differ!Just to clarify- yes, it is a good sign that the EDP are finally showing some signs of taking a position and I applaud that. I do however think that the list of questions is weak and poorly constructed.For instance and off the top of my head, instead of asking a closed question- ''Was money wasted on supposedly quality loan players last season?'' they could have asked '' Could you explain last season''s policy on loan players? Who proposed and approved it? How much was spent? What is the current policy? which, to my mind would give far more useful information than the ''yes or ''no'' answer that the original question invited.I''m really not suggesting ''sitting on our hands'', I''m actually asking our local paper to get some teeth!

[ACE 0]

Fair enough - but getting the info to "show her true colours" and then publishing it in a format that would avoid telephone calls from her legal people, would be tough.  Remember, as much as they are berated, Archant is a regional company who have to play it safe - they are not the Sun, and as much as people are asking them to be "investigative" (ie - throw loads of accusations and hope some stisk) its never going to happen.What we have had today though is for the first time DIRECT questions asked of the board and signed by the "EDP" - thats a challenge directly to the board, or rather the Smith''s.Most people with a brain know what has been going on because enough has come out to enable some readin between the lines.  Unfortunately I feel that those poor individuals who still consider Delia as a little old cook who saved the club and does her best for the club before herself, will probably remain that stupid regardless of what was revealed.

[Andy Larkin 15]

[quote user="ACE"]Unfortunately I feel that those poor individuals who still consider Delia as a little old cook who saved the club and does her best for the club before herself, will probably remain that stupid regardless of what was revealed.[/quote]About as true a statement as you''re ever likely to see.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

I agree with the comments above that asking searching questions about Cullum and the Turners still remains crucial. There are still a large number of fans out there who believe anything that our owners say and that they are doing everything they can to find "investment." I suspect a large number might change their minds if it were to transpire and I am not saying it would) that people/attempts to invest in the club were being rebuffed. I don''t know what happened with these episodes but something does not add up and the mere fact they have to have "confidentiality agreements" which endure this long after the event implies someone has something they don''t want getting out.

I don''t understand why the EDP doesn''t ask Cullum if he is prepared to waive any benefit of the confidentiality agreement so they can ask Delia and MWJ some direct questions and they will have no excuse for not answering. We don''t need to know confidential financial details about the club, just why the hell the richest Norwich fan in the world never even managed to get round the table with our owners after publically expressing a desire to invest £20m into the club!

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="ACE"]Fair enough - but getting the info to "show her true colours" and then publishing it in a format that would avoid telephone calls from her legal people, would be tough.  Remember, as much as they are berated, Archant is a regional company who have to play it safe - they are not the Sun, and as much as people are asking them to be "investigative" (ie - throw loads of accusations and hope some stisk) its never going to happen.[/quote]There is no legal reason at all why Archant can''t investigate Cullumgate. Truth is generally a pretty solid defence in defamation cases, and in any event any story they wanted to publish would be read by their libel lawyers (and the company they employ for that purpose is one of the best in the country). Even if they got it wrong, or the legal advice was unsound, libel insurance would soften the financial blow.Of course if all Archant did was to "throw loads of accusations and hope some stick" then that would be dangerous. But then that is hardly a definition of investigative journalism. It''s much more accurate as a decsripition of what gets published on message boards such as this.

[Chunky Norwich 0]

I must admit I had never considered the point about the directors failing to agree on a new manager, shortly after Doncaster and Munby get the boot and then suddenly the next day Gunn gets the job. Fair play Lakey.

I also liked the barbed comment about the club needing a bail-out from Archant the last time they were relegated to the third division

[barclay seats 4849 0]

How about the comment saying "if only city supportera had a Robert Kett among them ,a man to lead a revolt against the City" .................................well ???? Have we ??

[bloodwagon 0]

Sorry NO, hes gone on holiday to Hemsby.He will be back in late August, just in time for new season ;)