So fed up with with Ncisa and Trust

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="GMF"]

[quote user="The Butler"]

The trust are concerned with keeping the value of the shares up for their members. They can never hope to challenge the majority shareholding as it stands.

[/quote]

This is utter nonsense, the Trust has never been concerned with maintaining share value, it''s focus has always been on increasing it''s percentage shareholding in the Club. Furthermore, it has always recognised that this will be a long term game.

[/quote]

So the value of the shares is not important?

Then I wonder why the board bothered to increase the value from £25.00 to £30.00. I assume that is the value of the shares the trust is purchasing at present.

I would also assume that to see the value of the holdings decrease would not be to the benefit of the trust members?

Unless some very large sums are invested via the trust (like 5-6million) then the trust can never hope to challenge the 62% holding of Smith and Jones.

Anything wrong with the above?

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="Bexley"][quote user="GMF"]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

The debt under this Board has risen steadily to around £20 million from approximately £6 million.

[/quote]

The primary reason for this is, of course, that the Club has built the Jarrold Stand and the Aviva Community Stand, rather than some form of implied financial mismanagement!

[/quote]

The South Satnd HAD to be replaced, didn''t it? afety cert & all that 

[/quote]

Yes and part financed by the Football Trust I believe. Thou my memory is not what it used to be.

[Keith Roads 0]

No need to justify John - but as a former NCISA committee member I know NCISA''s feeling towards the Trust used to be so negative - so good to see things have changed.  As far as the Trust is concerned it seems their only aim is to be a board member.  Good luck to them.  NCISA got the St Andrews meeting well organised quickly - but having spoken to David Clayton from BBC Radio Norfolk I don''t think the voting reflected overall opinion.  David said without being biased that it definitely was a 50/50 split in favour of Gunn as manager.  I think that is much more likely as well. 

 

No criticism of NCISA - but the recent meeting did not represent all supporters.  I know everyone was invited - but of course a large majority of attendees were going to protest.- putting many people off, those I do appreciate this not NCISA''s fault.

 

I feel that the Trust and NCISA should base its public statements based solely on to its own membership.  The turn out at St Andrews hall was impressive - but what % were NCISA members I wonder?

[GMF 741]

:o)

That''s an excellent post and touches on some interesting points. I have no direct interest in NCISA, but I''m always keen to see what you''ve got to say about NCFC.

Reflecting back, the inital press statement, with the benefit of hindsight, must be considered to be poorly drafted.

The call for a public meeting was a step in the right direction, but the time delay always gave the Club the chance to "grab back the initative" and I was left wondering why the meeting wasn''t called for an earlier date? It wasn''t as if relegation came as a surprise out of the blue?

The press comment from John Tilson, in advance of the committee meeting was poor timing. If he was asked for comment from the press, why didn''t he simply say something like, "I''ll give you opinion tomorrow after tonight''s committee meeting?"

Of course, NCISA can only reflect the views of the people that turned up for the meeting, but there was no formal head count of the attendees, or a breakdown of figures for NCISA members who turned up and non members. This data collection information is common practice for corporate AGM''s and would have added credence to your mandate.

Of course, it has to be placed in the context that circa 500 people turned up and the Club has over 18,000 season ticket holders and circa 25,000 members!

Is it right that certain committe members seem to be "at war" with certain other posters on this site? No one is suggesting that members can''t have personal opinions, but I''m left wondering whether the public interface isn''t always as professional as it should be? Rightly or wrongly, members personal performance will be judged to reflect on NCISA as an organisation.

Until reading this latest thread, there hasn''t been an apparent link up by NCISA with other interested groups. This should be actively encouraged, but they shouldn''t be "knocked" if, for their own personal reasons, they didn''t want to be active in the NCISA public forum. If there has been resistance from certain groups, NCISA should still follow this through and report progress accordingly. 

Overall, going forward, this is a period of substaintal change for the Club and, as an outsider looking it, it seems that NCISA haven''t always been up to speed for reasons outlined above. There are no presonal vendattas here, I''ve tried to be as constructive as possible with my comments. The Club has f**ked up big time with many of it''s decisions, but, NCISA haven''t been too clever either. Just being the biggest fans group doesn''t in itself give you a mandate. If the group raises it''s game and becomes more professional in it''s approach, the Club will have to take the organisation more seriously.

The Club needs some tough love at the moment, but so does NCISA.

[GMF 741]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="GMF"]

[quote user="The Butler"]

The trust are concerned with keeping the value of the shares up for their members. They can never hope to challenge the majority shareholding as it stands.

[/quote]

This is utter nonsense, the Trust has never been concerned with maintaining share value, it''s focus has always been on increasing it''s percentage shareholding in the Club. Furthermore, it has always recognised that this will be a long term game.

[/quote]

So the value of the shares is not important?

Then I wonder why the board bothered to increase the value from £25.00 to £30.00. I assume that is the value of the shares the trust is purchasing at present.

I would also assume that to see the value of the holdings decrease would not be to the benefit of the trust members?

Unless some very large sums are invested via the trust (like 5-6million) then the trust can never hope to challenge the 62% holding of Smith and Jones.

Anything wrong with the above?

[/quote]

Firstly, just to be clear, I''m not a NCST member, so I''m certainly not speaking on their behalf.

Secondly, the share price is only of importance if you''re buying or selling. However, the shares aren''t actively traded, determining a fair the share price is impossible and the value concept is of little relevance to most shareholders.

The concepts of Share price/value and share worth are only relevant in a takeover situation and, as I said before, the focus of the Trust is securing a larger percentage holding, not making a profit from having their shareholding, which would, in any event, be difficult, given the reason outlined above. They realise that it''s a long term game.

The board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the interest of shareholders, rather than for personal gain. If there are unallocated ordinary shares available, they have a duty of care to maximise the capital raised from the issuing of new shares.

 

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

GMF thanks for the detailed reply and an attempt to dialogue to help both NCISA and the Club.  Can I try and respond to some of your points?

The initial press statement, with the benefit of hindsight, must be considered to be poorly drafted.   I think this touches on issues that we will return to.  The committee is made up of a group of disparate individuals who give up some of their personal time to work for/as NCISA. In "quiet times" this is sufficient and we could meet and go over things and leave some matters to John or Kathy to handle themselves.  Alas recent months have been far from quiet!  As such it was important that everyone was consulted quickly and that statement was perhaps rushed. Myself I saw an emailed version between three work meetings that day and made a couple of comments but felt that the substance was right.  The statement was then reworded to take in various views and ended up as maybe not the best one ever issued.  If it had just gone to an EDP journalist to tidy up no one would have been any the wiser, but hey this is the ago of instant information and we were rightly criticised.  We took it on board and we now have the help of an expert to tidy things up for the future.

The call for a public meeting was a step in the right direction, but the time delay always gave the Club the chance to "grab back the initative" and I was left wondering why the meeting wasn''t called for an earlier date? It wasn''t as if relegation came as a surprise out of the blue?

Tricky one.  The meeting was discussed at virtually every committee meeting from about half way through Grant''s reign!  I may exagerate slightly but you will appreciate that it was always an option but expensive and if held as a "mass meeting" was a gun that could only be fired once.  We had the forum with Munby and Doncaster at a very timely stage and I think that was the right move and it wasn''t until relegation had come that we could justify the step of the mass meeting. With respect given the need of getting a large venue that was central and not booked already I would challenge anyone else to have done it quicker. (Although I suppose we could try a provisional booking for the first Wednesday after the season ends evry year just in case.

The press comment from John Tilson, in advance of the committee meeting was poor timing. If he was asked for comment from the press, why didn''t he simply say something like, "I''ll give you opinion tomorrow after tonight''s committee meeting?"

Something you may not appreciate is that my email inbox contains about (and I just checked back) 12 emails a day from committee members to the rest of us.  Some are copies of correspondence from fans/members/other groups to NCISA.  Given that we also have phones, John is fairly up to date with our latest views. 

The statements are what they say at the top - something from all of us but quotes/interviews have to be the individual reflecting our views.

Of course, NCISA can only reflect the views of the people that turned up for the meeting, but there was no formal head count of the attendees, or a breakdown of figures for NCISA members who turned up and non members. This data collection information is common practice for corporate AGM''s and would have added credence to your mandate.

Formal headcounts were taken (one by a little clicky thing!) and all were in the same range.  It was felt better to generalise than say an exact number that people would inevitably challenge, the scale is the important factor. It was a general meeting and whether you were in NCISA, joined that night, were lapsed, or a member of the anti-NCISA brigade was irrelevant.

Of course, it has to be placed in the context that circa 500 people turned up and the Club has over 18,000 season ticket holders and circa 25,000 members!

Why? That comes from the school of stating the obvious, and is like saying the 34% turnout in a election negats the election.  We reflected the mood of the meeting that was all we could do.  At the Worthington meeting a substantial number of people attended who wanted Worthington to stay, why would people who care passionately about the Club and want to support Delia not attend?I

Is it right that certain committe members seem to be "at war" with certain other posters on this site? No one is suggesting that members can''t have personal opinions, but I''m left wondering whether the public interface isn''t always as professional as it should be? Rightly or wrongly, members personal performance will be judged to reflect on NCISA as an organisation.

I''m not sure what you mean here, but we are individuals and it is not easy to turn the other cheek when you are continuously berated by the same poster. I had a run in with Nutty Nigel and we seemed to be at war, but as time moved on we kissed and made up and he is not a bad lad really (If you ignore his dubious assesments of past managers)

Until reading this latest thread, there hasn''t been an apparent link up by NCISA with other interested groups. This should be actively encouraged, but they shouldn''t be "knocked" if, for their own personal reasons, they didn''t want to be active in the NCISA public forum. If there has been resistance from certain groups, NCISA should still follow this through and report progress accordingly. 

This is slightly contradictory as you appearto want to allow these other groups to be private but we should report what they say.  We have always said that we would approach the other groups and Kathy has sent numerous emails.  They have been largely unanswered and there have been issues over the different aims and personalities involved in the groups.

Some are adamant that they should not be "political" as they feel it will split them and that is fair enough. If you are a travel group, or a drinking group you may want to stay out of this.

Overall, going forward, this is a period of substaintal change for the Club and, as an outsider looking it, it seems that NCISA haven''t always been up to speed for reasons outlined above. There are no presonal vendattas here, I''ve tried to be as constructive as possible with my comments. The Club has f**ked up big time with many of it''s decisions, but, NCISA haven''t been too clever either. Just being the biggest fans group doesn''t in itself give you a mandate. If the group raises it''s game and becomes more professional in it''s approach, the Club will have to take the organisation more seriously.

A bit of a quantum leap in my opinion.  I have tried to address the specifics but it has been for two reasons that we may have not been as good as we should.  Firstly we have jobs and other interests.  I got into trouble with Joe Ferrari over a comment that it took me "only" two days to put the last press statement on the NCISA web site as I had been at work and the out straight after and didn''t fancy doing it when I got home at 1.30am.  Whereas it took NCFC a week to do something with a fulltime media staff of five.  The trouble is that everyone on these message boards lives NCFC and wants instant information and action. Unfortnately NCISA can''t give you that, just the best we can do.

Secondly we are not professionals at this PR/Propoganda business.  We are learning, and getting better.  However we do play with passion and pride and put in all possible effort so as our work ethic is right we should do alright !!

The Club needs some tough love at the moment, but so does NCISA.

I''ll settle for any love as NCISA hasn''t had much on here lately

[ca 1]

Its post like this one from David (face) and several from Jane(gazzathegreat) over the past few weeks which make me glad that I stuck with NCISA when I''d maybe lost a bit of faith in them.

They now have some new passionate committee members onboard and I''m confident that as a group they will toughen up and do their best to represent us members anf fight for all fans to get this club back to the one we all love.

Remember the more members they have the more say they will have.

[Norfolk Dumpling 14]

Thank you Keith for starting one of the most interesting threads in the last few weeks.

There has been considerable light thrown on the actions of various interested parties in the well being of NCFC.

What I do not understand is the impression that NCISA Statements have change individual views of fans about claiming their rebate.

It is more likely that fans have made their own minds up from watching the matches at the end of the season and their view of the offer by a Board member to double the amount of rebate not claimed instead of putting the desired money into the players fund when needed in January.

My own view is that by October fans and fan groups will have to make a judgement about the future of NCFC.

A poor start or good start will bring more unity of purpose.

We can all fear for a middle of the table start with us all just guessing how things are likely to pan out.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="TIL 1010"]

The dramatic expression "financial meltdown" has appeared again with the finger of responsibilty pointed at NCISA.The debt under this Board has risen steadily to around £20 million from approximately £6 million.

What part may i ask has NCISA played in this?The "financial meltdown" has been caused by a catalogue of ill conceived judgements made both on and off the field by the current board which is why we are in this hideous position but hey we the fans are just expected to turn the other cheek are we?

I am sure a lengthy response from across the pond will be forthcoming and as sure as night follows day it will be along the lines.........Tilson.....................NCISA.............Tilson..................NCISA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[/quote]

And yet............ you still fail to answer the question relating to NCISA.......... while continuing your personal irrelevent jibes.

 

 

 

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="The Butler"]

Of course it was biased, do you think those who were happy or were indifferent to our plight were going to turn up.

The result absolutely 100% reflected that meeting. I never said it didn''t. Again we have to be smarter than this.

 The NCISA supporters were not saying that, They are saying it was representative of ALL supporters..

Its ironic that the vast majority of supporters groups do NOT agree with NCISA stance.

So much for that!

So, let me get this bit straight.

500-600 people bother to turn up at an evening open meeting.

The meeting was advertised and all other supporters groups contacted.

All who wished were allowed to speak, and various votes taken. I was in attendance and that to my knowledge was what happened.

As other people could not be bothered or could not  attend are those 500+ then not allowed, through the "caller" of that meeting, to express the wishes of that meeting?

Democracy says we are all allowed our opinions, if we wait for the silent majority then NO opinions will ever get expressed as they will do what they always do, wait for someone else to do something. Thats why at election times only 50-60% of the populace turn out to vote at best.

NCISA collated the meetings opinions and then released a press statement based on those facts.

All they can do is pass an opinion, we are to my knowledge still a free country, or I am sure Bush would have invaded us sometime over the last few years!!

Freedom of speech and action.

Now USA draw that long neck in and concentrate on matters closer to your own home and allow the ticket buying suffering fans of this club to try and sort the mess out the current board has got us into. Because unless you have a season ticket to cross the Atlantic twice a week, you have only second hand information to go on at best.

[/quote]

Its very telling that you add in totally irrelevant bullsh-- about the USA to bolster your weak argument.

 

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="USAcanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

Of course it was biased, do you think those who were happy or were indifferent to our plight were going to turn up.

The result absolutely 100% reflected that meeting. I never said it didn''t. Again we have to be smarter than this.

 The NCISA supporters were not saying that, They are saying it was representative of ALL supporters..

Its ironic that the vast majority of supporters groups do NOT agree with NCISA stance.

So much for that!

So, let me get this bit straight.

500-600 people bother to turn up at an evening open meeting.

The meeting was advertised and all other supporters groups contacted.

All who wished were allowed to speak, and various votes taken. I was in attendance and that to my knowledge was what happened.

As other people could not be bothered or could not  attend are those 500+ then not allowed, through the "caller" of that meeting, to express the wishes of that meeting?

Democracy says we are all allowed our opinions, if we wait for the silent majority then NO opinions will ever get expressed as they will do what they always do, wait for someone else to do something. Thats why at election times only 50-60% of the populace turn out to vote at best.

NCISA collated the meetings opinions and then released a press statement based on those facts.

All they can do is pass an opinion, we are to my knowledge still a free country, or I am sure Bush would have invaded us sometime over the last few years!!

Freedom of speech and action.

Now USA draw that long neck in and concentrate on matters closer to your own home and allow the ticket buying suffering fans of this club to try and sort the mess out the current board has got us into. Because unless you have a season ticket to cross the Atlantic twice a week, you have only second hand information to go on at best.

[/quote]

Its very telling that you add in totally irrelevant bullsh-- about the USA to bolster your weak argument.

 

[/quote]

Thanks for that typical rejoiner.

As far as Bull goes I think the USA and Texas in particular produces far more methane that anyone else.

So as your expressions go I believe "blow it out your ear" is most fitting.

[Daphne 0]

Spot on CA! NCISA will never please everyone - but we try as a committee to listen to everyone.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="USAcanary"][quote user="The Butler"]

Of course it was biased, do you think those who were happy or were indifferent to our plight were going to turn up.

The result absolutely 100% reflected that meeting. I never said it didn''t. Again we have to be smarter than this.

 The NCISA supporters were not saying that, They are saying it was representative of ALL supporters..

Its ironic that the vast majority of supporters groups do NOT agree with NCISA stance.

So much for that!

So, let me get this bit straight.

500-600 people bother to turn up at an evening open meeting.

The meeting was advertised and all other supporters groups contacted.

All who wished were allowed to speak, and various votes taken. I was in attendance and that to my knowledge was what happened.

As other people could not be bothered or could not  attend are those 500+ then not allowed, through the "caller" of that meeting, to express the wishes of that meeting?

Democracy says we are all allowed our opinions, if we wait for the silent majority then NO opinions will ever get expressed as they will do what they always do, wait for someone else to do something. Thats why at election times only 50-60% of the populace turn out to vote at best.

NCISA collated the meetings opinions and then released a press statement based on those facts.

All they can do is pass an opinion, we are to my knowledge still a free country, or I am sure Bush would have invaded us sometime over the last few years!!

Freedom of speech and action.

Now USA draw that long neck in and concentrate on matters closer to your own home and allow the ticket buying suffering fans of this club to try and sort the mess out the current board has got us into. Because unless you have a season ticket to cross the Atlantic twice a week, you have only second hand information to go on at best.

[/quote]

Its very telling that you add in totally irrelevant bullsh-- about the USA to bolster your weak argument.

 

[/quote]

Thanks for that typical rejoiner.

As far as Bull goes I think the USA and Texas in particular produces far more methane that anyone else.

So as your expressions go I believe "blow it out your ear" is most fitting.

[/quote]

More totally irrelevent nonsense with added personal insults.

I want to talk issues regarding NCFC and NCISA....... yet certain NCISA board members and its supporters want to talk about irrelevent subjects and hurl personal insults.

I will not stoop down to your level.

I think you are mistaken if you think such weak tactics will convince the more inteligent readers that your point of view is right.

 

 

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

[quote user="USAcanary"]

More totally irrelevent nonsense with added personal insults.

I want to talk issues regarding NCFC and NCISA....... yet certain NCISA board members and its supporters want to talk about irrelevent subjects and hurl personal insults.

I will not stoop down to your level.

I think you are mistaken if you think such weak tactics will convince the more inteligent readers that your point of view is right.

[/quote]

 

So go on then and discuss sensibly the issues rather than hurtling your own insults.  As of yet you have failed to articulate them as well as say GF.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote]

Spot on CA! NCISA will never please everyone - but we try as a committee to listen to everyone. [/quote]

OK, well if you are listening....... then please answer the simple question.

Would you/NCISA personally be in favor of boycotting food/drink vendors at the club? (or other specific boycotts that would deprive the club of revenue)

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

I personally think that the catering prices at ALL football grounds are excessive and so in these times of financial hardship would expect them to suffer.  I would hope that the Club would look at ways of providing good value catering or else face the consequences. I think that the corporate entertaining has been done well, but I know that on here it has been suggested that the previous Finance Director had complained that the catering operation was costing money rather than making money.

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote]

I personally think that the catering prices at ALL football grounds are excessive and so in these times of financial hardship would expect them to suffer.  I would hope that the Club would look at ways of providing good value catering or else face the consequences. I think that the corporate entertaining has been done well, but I know that on here it has been suggested that the previous Finance Director had complained that the catering operation was costing money rather than making money.

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[/quote]

What you discussed is somewhat irrelevent. My question had nothing to do with the value of catering.

My point is I want to know if NCISA as a group supports actions/boycotts that deprive the club of revenue, mainly as a way to remove the current board and manager through "financial meltdown".

I have asked this question many times without a reply. I think its only fair that all supporters know NCISA''s current agenda.

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="USAcanary"]

What you discussed is somewhat irrelevent. My question had nothing to do with the value of catering.

My point is I want to know if NCISA as a group supports actions/boycotts that deprive the club of revenue, mainly as a way to remove the current board and manager through "financial meltdown".

I have asked this question many times without a reply. I think its only fair that all supporters know NCISA''s current agenda.

[/quote]

Presume you''re a member of NCISA asking them all these questions??

[astrodyne 0]

[quote user="USAcanary"][quote]

I personally think that the catering prices at ALL football grounds are excessive and so in these times of financial hardship would expect them to suffer.  I would hope that the Club would look at ways of providing good value catering or else face the consequences. I think that the corporate entertaining has been done well, but I know that on here it has been suggested that the previous Finance Director had complained that the catering operation was costing money rather than making money.

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[/quote]

What you discussed is somewhat irrelevent. My question had nothing to do with the value of catering.

My point is I want to know if NCISA as a group supports actions/boycotts that deprive the club of revenue, mainly as a way to remove the current board and manager through "financial meltdown".

I have asked this question many times without a reply. I think its only fair that all supporters know NCISA''s current agenda.

 

[/quote]You are an interesting character USAcanary, whats your history with NCFC? Born here - or always supported them from afar?

[Crafty Canary 495]

As a member of NCISA my understanding is that they have recommended to fans that they accept the rebate offered by the club (not demanded by NCISA). I''m not aware that they have made any comment on boycotting merchandise or catering products although my personal view is that these too should be boycotted until the trout takes notice.

So far as I know NCISA''s agenda is to represent the views of its members and other fans whose opinions were canvassed at the St Andrew''s Hall meeting and relay these to fans in general and the Stowmarket Two more specifically. 

[Crafty Canary 495]

PS these are my personal views as I don''t hold any position with NCISA and thus cannot speak in any official capacity for them.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="USAcanary"][quote]

I personally think that the catering prices at ALL football grounds are excessive and so in these times of financial hardship would expect them to suffer.  I would hope that the Club would look at ways of providing good value catering or else face the consequences. I think that the corporate entertaining has been done well, but I know that on here it has been suggested that the previous Finance Director had complained that the catering operation was costing money rather than making money.

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[/quote]

What you discussed is somewhat irrelevent. My question had nothing to do with the value of catering.

My point is I want to know if NCISA as a group supports actions/boycotts that deprive the club of revenue, mainly as a way to remove the current board and manager through "financial meltdown".

I have asked this question many times without a reply. I think its only fair that all supporters know NCISA''s current agenda.

[/quote]

USAcanary, it appears to me that, after lengthy and persistent input from you ( good for you ), you finally got someone who was good enough to answer your question. The poster addressed your question in a very civil manner and told you both his personal view and that the association has not stated a position on the matter at this stage. For you to then respond the way that you did is, quite frankly, disappointing. You could have had an ally willing to address any future questions you have. Instead, you give a response that appears obtuse and possibly alienates the individual. Not smart.     

[USAcanary 0]

[quote user="YankeeCanary"][quote user="USAcanary"][quote]

I personally think that the catering prices at ALL football grounds are excessive and so in these times of financial hardship would expect them to suffer.  I would hope that the Club would look at ways of providing good value catering or else face the consequences. I think that the corporate entertaining has been done well, but I know that on here it has been suggested that the previous Finance Director had complained that the catering operation was costing money rather than making money.

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[/quote]

What you discussed is somewhat irrelevent. My question had nothing to do with the value of catering.

My point is I want to know if NCISA as a group supports actions/boycotts that deprive the club of revenue, mainly as a way to remove the current board and manager through "financial meltdown".

I have asked this question many times without a reply. I think its only fair that all supporters know NCISA''s current agenda.

[/quote]

USAcanary, it appears to me that, after lengthy and persistent input from you ( good for you ), you finally got someone who was good enough to answer your question. The poster addressed your question in a very civil manner and told you both his personal view and that the association has not stated a position on the matter at this stage. For you to then respond the way that you did is, quite frankly, disappointing. You could have had an ally willing to address any future questions you have. Instead, you give a response that appears obtuse and possibly alienates the individual. Not smart.     

[/quote]

That was not my intention but the problem is that so many of the agenda driven posters are trying to derail these threads with pointless irrelevent personal questions.

I am trying to get to the crux of the issues.

I ask relevent questions relating to NCISA and NCFC and all I get is " are you drunk?" " do you have a facebook page?" " where were you born?" "are you a woman?"  " are you and LQ the same person or friends?"

The mistake I made was answering these questions honestly, hoping I would get honesty in return. All I get are more irrelevent questions (see above)

The geographical racism in this thread is also pretty sad and again totally irrelevent.

Especially when a lot of the newest and biggest current investors in football clubs are not British.

I have stated many times the REASON I wanted to know what NCISA''s agenda is.

If they are going down the path of trying to remove the board by "financial meltdown" with no investors in place to mop up the mess then thats not something I can support.

Its very very dangerous in the current economic times. Things could get MUCH worse.

The irony is that I think the board has been totally horrible and would support removal If other investors were in place.

Plus I am not at all sure about Gunn''s ability to manage.

But I love the club and I want it to do well.

 

 

[Daphne 0]

I am listening, and also reading this messageboard frequently, and I know your question:

"Would you/NCISA personally be in favor of boycotting food/drink vendors at the club? (or other specific boycotts that would deprive the club of revenue)

has been answered"

has been answered at least twice!

The food/drink vendors boycott was suggested by a speaker from the floor at the St Andrew''s Hall meeting. No-one else supported this from the floor or the platform. It did not appear in NCISA''s subsequent press statement - and is not NCISA policy.

If by "other specific boycotts" you include the reclaiming of money owed to season-ticket holders - you know this WAS in the press statement, and you and I have discussed this on another thread.

In terms of any other possible boycotts - restaurants/club shop/programmes/match tickets etc etc this has not as yet been discussed at a NCISA committee meeting. My own view on this is that this is not something NCISA would promote at this time.

I hope this is clear. The answer to your question is NO.

[USAcanary 0]

[quote]I am listening, and also reading this messageboard frequently, and I know your question: "Would you/NCISA personally be in favor of boycotting food/drink vendors at the club? (or other specific boycotts that would deprive the club of revenue) has been answered" has been answered at least twice! The food/drink vendors boycott was suggested by a speaker from the floor at the St Andrew''s Hall meeting. No-one else supported this from the floor or the platform. It did not appear in NCISA''s subsequent press statement - and is not NCISA policy. If by "other specific boycotts" you include the reclaiming of money owed to season-ticket holders - you know this WAS in the press statement, and you and I have discussed this on another thread. In terms of any other possible boycotts - restaurants/club shop/programmes/match tickets etc etc this has not as yet been discussed at a NCISA committee meeting. My own view on this is that this is not something NCISA would promote at this time. I hope this is clear. The answer to your question is NO.[/quote]

Thank you for your own personal point of view it''s much appreciated.

I know you personally don''t speak for other members of the commitee or for NCISA as a whole.

If you personally say that further economic action has NOT been discussed by NCISA then fair enough. I accept your word on the matter.

I know you don''t speak for other commitee members but its a shame they have could not have answered the simple question when they had numerous oppotunities to do so.

None of them answered directly as you did. Full credit to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gazzathegreat 0]

USA Canary - the reason you might assume people are boycotting the catering areas of NCFC ( I have to assume you do travel to Norwich on occasions to witness this for yourself) is that there is a very cheap supermarket directly opposite the ground which (sadly for NCFC) does pies and other eatables better and cheaper.

I know quite a few people who work in Morrisons, including a manager, and the profits soar on matchdays. What does this say to you? That all Norwich fans are boycotting the bars and food areas out of spite/because they disagree with anything to do with NCFC or is is simply the food and drink is better/cheaper and they are ''voting'' with their feet/wallets?

I haven''t bought much inside the ground for years for this reason alone. £1.50 for a bottle of water in the ground, or 15p for a bottle of water in Morrsions. You do the maths!

The only area NCFC do triumph over Morrisons in is alcohol as we are not permitted to bring alcohol into the ground. Therefore the bars are packed at half time. Beer is terrible though. Pubs around the ground also say that the matchday trade far exceeds any other day for them. Again, this is not anything to do with fans'' opinions on NCFC just having a beer at a pub or bar is preferable to that on offer inside the ground.

As far as I know a boycott of merchandise from NCFC is not official policy with anyone.

[Daphne 0]

Gazza is absolutely right about Morrison''s.

In fact, queueing with other canary fans for my fish and chips before midweek matches - food and drink for 2 for a tenner - I have often regretted out loud that Mr Morrison is not from Norfolk.

In contrast, Yellows will serve me - a tenner for burger and chips + drink for one. Why would I go there?

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

[quote user="Face"]

As such change needs to happen but I personally would not promote a boycott as a good course of action.

As for NCISA that is not something we have said at this stage either.

[/quote]

 

I would have thought that was a pretty clear answer as well USACanary. 

I apologise if I left the door open for NCISA to advocate such a course of action in say the season 2029/30 but I thought a committee at that time might appreciate making the decision themselves.

[nutty nigel 7,533]

Gazza - too right the food is cheaper in Morrisons than at the club. It''s cheaper than most places, you can get an all day breakfast for about £3. Not that I''d eat that sort of rubbish[:O] Well only everytime I go in there[:$] Drinks are cheap too. But I can honestly say it never crossed my mind that people go there as a form of protest. The fact that the club get''s 20,000+ crowds every game must make a huge difference to the pubs and shops close by. I would imagine that in these increasingly difficult times this income would be a lifeline to many businesses and if we dropped to the 13,000 gates of old it could be a real problem for them. Yes the clubs own facilities are much dearer in comparison to Morrisons but are not compared to other football grounds around the country. It''s all a matter of personal choice though and I choose Morrisons.[;)]

As I have stated before I''m not a member of ncisa. That''s personal choice too. When there are big issues like we have now many fans turn to ncisa and scream for them to be independent of the club. I think this is because that way it feels like they are not part of failure. These fans can blame those in charge, in many cases with good reason, and disassociate themselves from those people. But I don''t feel pulling away from the club really helps. My first reaction is to confirm my support and wish there were ways to help. Like it or not we have to accept that we are part of this failure. Not to blame, but we are fans of a club which has failed for the last 3 years and has just been relegated to League One. I think a lot of fans do recognise this and I also think that your committee are in a very difficult position right now. Fans are not happy and the more militant are going to want you to become more independent. To burn the bridges if you like. But football is a strange game and strange things happen. Just say Gunn, Butterworth & Crook get lucky with some players and the team start winning games next season. Many fans will suddenly not want to be independent anymore. They will want to be part of the success and will want those happy clappy forums where they can meet their heroes. Can you be all things to all men though?

 

[ca 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I think a lot of fans do recognise this and I also think that your committee are in a very difficult position right now. Fans are not happy and the more militant are going to want you to become more independent. To burn the bridges if you like. But football is a strange game and strange things happen. Just say Gunn, Butterworth & Crook get lucky with some players and the team start winning games next season. Many fans will suddenly not want to be independent anymore. They will want to be part of the success and will want those happy clappy forums where they can meet their heroes. [/quote]

You''ve hit the nail on the spot there Nutty[:)] yes ncisa are in a difficult position which is why people need to get behind them rather than continually pick holes in them which doesn''t achieve anything.