The figures dont lie. 97.53% of city supporters favour Gunn

[AJ 1,224]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Just thought CA, perhaps the club, or Archant would commission me to do a research project on this polling ALL season ticket holders and members, might get some idea of the figures then either wayso if you are reading this Gunny or Delia or anyone from Archant feel free to get in touch[/quote]Surely if the club/board actually cared, they would have asked/considered our opinion anyway.

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="ncfcstar"][quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="kdncfc"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire supportGoing on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunnysee its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

So what you are saying is that only people who are anti Gunn and Board turned up tonight and if the 20 odd thousand who weren''t at the meeting had been there they would all have voted in favour of Gunn and the board.

[/quote]im not saying that at all and if you read my other posts you would see this BUT we will never know as no one can be trusted to do a completely impartial poll of ALL fans[/quote]Even a general election doesn''t cover EVERYONE, it would impossible to poll ALL fans.  Come on, get a grip.[/quote]thats true it would be impossible to poll ALL fans, but would be quite easy to poll all season ticket holders and members thoughfind it funny though that you think i should get a grip when im just pointing out how easy it is to manipulate figures to support your viewpoint compared to the weird things that have been posted on here the last couple of weeks!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]Ok well you keep looking for excuses, but in my opinion I don''t think a poll of season ticket holders or members would be much different.  The fact that Gunn doesn''t realise he is a pawn in Delia''s game, and is another attempt at getting a fall guy is unbelievable.[/quote]im not looking for excuses at all and i think that Gunn does realise this but is also hurting at ''his'' club going down and wants the chance to put things right. Surely if you believe in something so strongly you would do it regardless of whether other people are using you, wouldnt you?

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="AJ"][quote user="matt crowhurst"]Just thought CA, perhaps the club, or Archant would commission me to do a research project on this polling ALL season ticket holders and members, might get some idea of the figures then either wayso if you are reading this Gunny or Delia or anyone from Archant feel free to get in touch[/quote]Surely if the club/board actually cared, they would have asked/considered our opinion anyway.[/quote]perhaps they couldnt afford to, i dont know

[Rustys 1st Touch 0]

Couldn''t afford to do it or couldn''t care?

[AJ 1,224]

BANG - the nail is hit on the head [;)]

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="Lupo Loop"]Couldn''t afford to do it or couldn''t care?[/quote]possibly both who knows OR perhaps they did and people are upset because they didnt consult them or this message board which i keep get getting told is the majority view of city supporters

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="AJ"][quote user="matt crowhurst"]Just thought CA, perhaps the club, or Archant would commission me to do a research project on this polling ALL season ticket holders and members, might get some idea of the figures then either wayso if you are reading this Gunny or Delia or anyone from Archant feel free to get in touch[/quote]Surely if the club/board actually cared, they would have asked/considered our opinion anyway.[/quote]as i mentioned earlier i am far from happy with the board but is that Gunnys fault who his employers are? i haven''t liked all my employers but if its a job i have enjoyed i have stayed regardless of who has employed me

[Canary Wundaboy 1,359]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]Actually, 494 voted against Gunn, 19506 abstained.So Gunn''s support is very low indeed.[/quote]And you think that those in Favour of Gunn were going to turn up tonight knowing that it was going to be a hatchet job on him? And i guess in some peoples eyes, because they didn''t turn up, means they are not proper fans as well?[/quote]Oh nice try, but I ain''t buyin''.It was publicised by NCISA that ANYONE could come down and air their views.Those who did voice a pro-Gunn point of view were not heckled or yelled at, the atmosphere was polite as anything.If those supporters felt strongly enough, why didn''t they turn up?And of those who couldn''t turn up, there were 48 emails sent to Tilly, only 3 in favour of Gunn''s appointment.So if you couldn''t come, which one was your email, if you could come, why didn''t you?I''m often blamed for not being a true supporter due to my lack of season ticket, but at least I attended and made my feelings known!

[Rustys 1st Touch 0]

The OP is a flagrant attempt to agitate loyal and passionate fans who took the time and effort to express their views about how the club is run and provide possible solutions to the problem.Your estimation that 97.53% of City supporters favour Gunn is not based on any factual evidence.What is a fact is that 494 fans are against the appointment of Gunn.

[city4eva 213]

[quote user="Lupo Loop"]The OP is a flagrant attempt to agitate loyal and passionate fans who took the time and effort to express their views about how the club is run and provide possible solutions to the problem.

Your estimation that 97.53% of City supporters favour Gunn is not based on any factual evidence.

What is a fact is that 494 fans are against the appointment of Gunn.

[/quote]

 

I guess the board will be worried that 494 fans are against the appt. But happy in the thought that the other 24000 didnt vote either way

[Graham Humphrey 13]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]And you think that those in Favour of Gunn were going to turn up tonight knowing that it was going to be a hatchet job on him?[/quote]Of course if you went then you''d know it was nothing of the sort. Although it was discussed, more towards the start, it was certainly not a ''hatchet job'' and in any case the focus was a lot more on the people running (ruining?) the club.

[Canary Pirate 0]

[quote user="cityangel"]There were more than 500 fans in there tonight, if it holds seasting for 800 it was more than 3/4 full so I''d guess at 650 ish of which 6 thought Gunny was the man for the job, says it all really![/quote]

What does need to be taken into consideration is, other than the 6 who thought Gunny was the man for the job, who would the rest have as the manager ??? Assuming that there would be a vast range of opinion and disagreement, Gunny''s 6 votes might not turn out so bad ! Its easy to say that we don''t want someone as manager, but not quite so easy to agree on an alternative !

[CANARY CHARGE 0]

[quote user="Canary Pirate"]

[quote user="cityangel"]There were more than 500 fans in there tonight, if it holds seasting for 800 it was more than 3/4 full so I''d guess at 650 ish of which 6 thought Gunny was the man for the job, says it all really![/quote]

What does need to be taken into consideration is, other than the 6 who thought Gunny was the man for the job, who would the rest have as the manager ??? Assuming that there would be a vast range of opinion and disagreement, Gunny''s 6 votes might not turn out so bad ! Its easy to say that we don''t want someone as manager, but not quite so easy to agree on an alternative !

[/quote]

 

I might add. we sat near 4 of the voter''s for Gunn. 3 off them was a family!!!! 1 was very strong advocate but clearly hated the board!

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="Canary Wundaboy"][quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="Canary Wundaboy"]Actually, 494 voted against Gunn, 19506 abstained.So Gunn''s support is very low indeed.[/quote]And you think that those in Favour of Gunn were going to turn up tonight knowing that it was going to be a hatchet job on him? And i guess in some peoples eyes, because they didn''t turn up, means they are not proper fans as well?[/quote]Oh nice try, but I ain''t buyin''.It was publicised by NCISA that ANYONE could come down and air their views.Those who did voice a pro-Gunn point of view were not heckled or yelled at, the atmosphere was polite as anything.If those supporters felt strongly enough, why didn''t they turn up?: perhaps they were like ma and at work or had other committments or thought it would be a htachet job and stayed away, though i am glad to hear it wasnt so full respect to everyone that wentAnd of those who couldn''t turn up, there were 48 emails sent to Tilly, only 3 in favour of Gunn''s appointment.So if you couldn''t come, which one was your email, if you could come, why didn''t you?I''m often blamed for not being a true supporter due to my lack of season ticket, but at least I attended and made my feelings known!: that was the point i was trying to make earlier, a lot of people seem to think that because they dont have season tickets, i do by the way, or cant attend meetings that they arent proper fans[/quote]

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="Lupo Loop"]The OP is a flagrant attempt to agitate loyal and passionate fans who took the time and effort to express their views about how the club is run and provide possible solutions to the problem: not at all Lupo, the OP was an attempt to show that the figures can be manipulated to ''support'' anyones point of view in response to some posters pointsYour estimation that 97.53% of City supporters favour Gunn is not based on any factual evidence: its based on season ticket sales and casual fan numbers who didnt vote last nightWhat is a fact is that 494 fans are against the appointment of Gunn: true but that is only 494 out of at least 20,000 fans minimum[/quote]

[Hairy Canary 705]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire support

Going on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunny

see its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable.

[Chabal 0]

margin of error would be +/-  1.9%

 

some people need to go away and study sampling techniques I think!

http://www.teacherlink.org/content/math/interactive/flash/marginoferror/marginoferror.html

 

 

[Blofield Canary 11]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire support

Going on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunny

see its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable.

[/quote]

Sorry but your interpretation is just as laughable. Last night was not a cross section of the Norwich Support.  It was a sample of 500 people who were of a similar mind, hence their attendance at the meeting. It''s a bit like having a vote in a prison of 500 prisoners asking if they believe all jail sentences should be reduced by 90%. Guess you would get 100% vote but hardly means 100% of the population agrees with letting them all out.

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire supportGoing on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunnysee its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable: but only of those that were present not NCFC supporters as a whole

[/quote]Hi Hairy, yeah i do know all of that as i teach research methods and have a degree in Psychology, was just trying to show that figures can be manipulated however to suit whoever and that i wished people on here would stop claiming to be the majority when they may well not be

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="jbghost"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire supportGoing on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunnysee its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable.

[/quote]

Sorry but your interpretation is just as laughable. Last night was not a cross section of the Norwich Support.  It was a sample of 500 people who were of a similar mind, hence their attendance at the meeting. It''s a bit like having a vote in a prison of 500 prisoners asking if they believe all jail sentences should be reduced by 90%. Guess you would get 100% vote but hardly means 100% of the population agrees with letting them all out.

[/quote]very good point

[CANARY CHARGE 0]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire support

Going on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunny

see its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable: but only of those that were present not NCFC supporters as a whole

[/quote]

Hi Hairy, yeah i do know all of that as i teach research methods and have a degree in Psychology, was just trying to show that figures can be manipulated however to suit whoever and that i wished people on here would stop claiming to be the majority when they may well not be
[/quote]

 

 

I think people on here are fully aware they are in the  minority as only a few hundred reguarly reply, but we cant over look the fact that Bryans appointment is worrying, i hope he succeed''s but this doesnt solve the problem Smith and Jones are killing this club!!!

 the fact was 500 people turn up and made a point, Im not sure of NICSA''s level of memebership, but it would be interesting to see the poll from there members.

I dont think any Norwich fan can be happy with the situation, if we continue to battle with each other the club will go under, its all very well having a nice place to take the kids, but Norwich city is part of our blood and the fact this has gone on for so long is a shame, we need to stand united and not continue to split hairs over small statements.

[Hairy Canary 705]

[quote user="jbghost"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire support

Going on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunny

see its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable.

[/quote]

Sorry but your interpretation is just as laughable. Last night was not a cross section of the Norwich Support.  It was a sample of 500 people who were of a similar mind, hence their attendance at the meeting. It''s a bit like having a vote in a prison of 500 prisoners asking if they believe all jail sentences should be reduced by 90%. Guess you would get 100% vote but hardly means 100% of the population agrees with letting them all out.

[/quote]

I think you need to read my last paragraph again. I''ve accepted that the attendees at a public meeting would not be representative. Your analogy of a prison population is unfair as quite clearly they are not a random cross section of the population, where as a public meeting is open to all.

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="CANARYCHARGE"][quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire supportGoing on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunnysee its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!![/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable: but only of those that were present not NCFC supporters as a whole

[/quote]Hi Hairy, yeah i do know all of that as i teach research methods and have a degree in Psychology, was just trying to show that figures can be manipulated however to suit whoever and that i wished people on here would stop claiming to be the majority when they may well not be[/quote]

 

 

I think people on here are fully aware they are in the  minority as only a few hundred reguarly reply, but we cant over look the fact that Bryans appointment is worrying, i hope he succeed''s but this doesnt solve the problem Smith and Jones are killing this club!!!

 the fact was 500 people turn up and made a point, Im not sure of NICSA''s level of memebership, but it would be interesting to see the poll from there members.

I dont think any Norwich fan can be happy with the situation, if we continue to battle with each other the club will go under, its all very well having a nice place to take the kids, but Norwich city is part of our blood and the fact this has gone on for so long is a shame, we need to stand united and not continue to split hairs over small statements.

[/quote]very nicely put CC and i wholeheartedly agree, its time that we all stood together over smith and jones and backed Gunny 100% as he is the man in charge

[NoweguRouge 0]

Oh dear, and I thought I attended an open public meeting held by the Independent Supporters Association. I had no idea that I could only attend if I was ''of a like mind'' with all the anonymous individuals also attending and that somehow we were all magically linked as part of a Norfolk ''borg'' collective.

The only other such meeting I attended was the one called a few years back to discuss Nigel Worthington''s continuation as manager. Of course, the 500+ that turned up and voted against him that night were also pre-vetted, and proved so wrong by subsequent events.

Not.

[matt crowhurst 0]

[quote user="NoweguRouge"]Oh dear, and I thought I attended an open public meeting held by the Independent Supporters Association. I had no idea that I could only attend if I was ''of a like mind'' with all the anonymous individuals also attending and that somehow we were all magically linked as part of a Norfolk ''borg'' collective.

The only other such meeting I attended was the one called a few years back to discuss Nigel Worthington''s continuation as manager. Of course, the 500+ that turned up and voted against him that night were also pre-vetted, and proved so wrong by subsequent events.

Not.[/quote]that wasn''t the point of this thread as i am sure you are well aware

[Hairy Canary 705]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="Hairy Canary"]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"]Interesting reading about tonight''s meeting but it still makes me laugh that people are so adamant that this board and the meeting tonight is representative of the the entire support

Going on another threads figures roughly 500 voted, 6 in favour of Gunn, 494 against, meaning only 2.47% of our 20,000 support are against Gunn or to put another way 97.53% of city supporters in favour of Gunny

see its amazing what figures can do!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[/quote]

Sorry Matt but this is a laughable interpretation of the figures and I guess you probably know that.

When statistisions want to gauge opinion on subjects such as these (or general election results etc) they use a sampling technique. The larger the sample the less the margin of error which can be calculated by the number of standard deviations from the mean. To give you an example MORI will quite often poll a couple of thousand people to predict a general election result with an error of +/- 2%. Thats 2000 people from an electorate of many millions. Last night around 500 people voted from an electorate of thousands. That is a massive sample and would statistically have a very, very, very small margin of error.

The main concern about extrapolating last nights figures to City supporters as a whole is that the sample should be strictly controlled to make sure it was representative of the overall "population" and obviously a public meeting cannot do that. It may we be that only angry negative supporters feel the urge to attend a public meeting for example but with such an over whelming vote the views of NCFC''s supporters are indisputable: but only of those that were present not NCFC supporters as a whole

[/quote]

Hi Hairy, yeah i do know all of that as i teach research methods and have a degree in Psychology, was just trying to show that figures can be manipulated however to suit whoever and that i wished people on here would stop claiming to be the majority when they may well not be
[/quote]

Funnily enough Matt I agree with that point and have often made it in the past when views on this forum and then taken as being similar to the views of all supporters. Having said that the meeting last night was nothing to do with this forum or their views. It was a much larger, diverse audience with the only thing in common being that they were Norwich supporters. Agreed they still may not be a fair representation but the over whelming vote cannot be dismissed that easily

[NoweguRouge 0]

[quote user="matt crowhurst"][quote user="NoweguRouge"]Oh dear, and I thought I attended an open public meeting held by the Independent Supporters Association. I had no idea that I could only attend if I was ''of a like mind'' with all the anonymous individuals also attending and that somehow we were all magically linked as part of a Norfolk ''borg'' collective.

The only other such meeting I attended was the one called a few years back to discuss Nigel Worthington''s continuation as manager. Of course, the 500+ that turned up and voted against him that night were also pre-vetted, and proved so wrong by subsequent events.

Not.[/quote]that wasn''t the point of this thread as i am sure you are well aware[/quote]

It may not have been the original point of the thread, but it was a constant theme in your posts on this thread. As I''m sure you are also aware.