In the end, who's club is it?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Notts Canary"]Wait... So are you saying, cluck, that in order to be a supporter or what you''d consider a "true" supporter of Norwich City you must be born and bred in Norwich/Norfolk and also currently residing there?[/quote]That would be ironic if true, doesn''t Cluck live in Bournemouth ?

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Badger"]
Legally it is the shareholder''s club and we are paying customers.

Morally, emotionally and culturally it goes far deeper than this of course. It is an interesting question however, and imo, explains some of the angst and debate expressed on this site about issues such as the rebate.

If the "customer model" fully applied, the whole rebate issue would have been a "no brainer" even to people like me. I wouldn''t make a contribution to Tescos in the hpe that they would use this money to shorten queues! The fact that some won''t claim their rebate and others even contemplated it but rejected it on principled grounds (cf NCISA stance) shows that the simple customer model does not apply.
[/quote]

A very interesting insight, Badger.

Morally, emotionally, culturally outscores legally 3-1 in my book.

OTBC 

 

[OldRobert 38]

[quote user="blahblahblah"]FC Barcelona is owned by its'' fans.  "Our" club is currently owned by a moderately rich couple, who consider themselves one of "us".  When they tire of throwing their money into the pit, they will hopefully find another rich mug who will be happy to throw more money into the pit.  While all this goes on, "we" will continue to pay our admission and attend on Saturdays and Tuesdays.  Most of the "we" that I am referring to don''t spend "our" non-attending time and energy worrying about Tangible Fixed Assets, "we" go to a game on a Saturday or Tuesday for entertainment, have a moan in the queue in the car on the way home then get on with our week.  "We" don''t have to find extra money for players, fixtures, or fittings, "we" don''t have to work an 80 hour week to get players in at the end of August.  "We" don''t have the keys, we pay to enter their space.

Most football clubs in the UK only exist because of rich mugs who are willing to throw good money after bad chasing an impossible dream, and are encouraged by 10 or 15 per centers and Rupert Bleedin Murdoch to do so.

The current "owners" of Liverpool are about to reap what they have sown - 300 million worth of debt ( more than likely, the debt they used to get the fans to buy the club for them, long term ), needs to be re-negotiated.  Who wants a club with 300 million worth of debt ?  Nice red shirts, mind you...


[/quote]

Good post Bbb.

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

In the end, who''s club is it?

Ours or theirs?

When we start to think seriously about this and come to the correct conclusion, then it will become far more likely that Norwich City Football Club will re-discover it''s soul and rise again.

Think about it.

I challenge you all.

OTBC

 

[/quote]who ever owns the most shares.....simples

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

In the end, who''s club is it?

Ours or theirs?

When we start to think seriously about this and come to the correct conclusion, then it will become far more likely that Norwich City Football Club will re-discover it''s soul and rise again.

Think about it.

I challenge you all.

OTBC

[/quote]who ever owns the most shares.....simples[/quote]

''Simples''?

What else are you missing, I wonder.

OTBC

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

In the end, who''s club is it?

Ours or theirs?

When we start to think seriously about this and come to the correct conclusion, then it will become far more likely that Norwich City Football Club will re-discover it''s soul and rise again.

Think about it.

I challenge you all.

OTBC

[/quote]who ever owns the most shares.....simples[/quote]

''Simples''?

What else are you missing, I wonder.

OTBC

[|BA 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

In the end, who''s club is it?

 [/quote]You need to define your ownership criteria otherwise its just a pointless debateNCFC PLC is ''owned'' by the shareholders, the spirit of a football club is, very obviously and I''m surprised you need to ask, the property of a community, nothing to do with money or names

[Chabal 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

 

 

[/quote]

 

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

 

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[|BA 0]

[quote user="Cluck is God"]

Sad that you sit on your fat arse across the Atlantic (?) commenting on things which only a trivial mind would concern himself with. But then that''s you pious Yanks all over isn''t it?

[/quote]Yet speaks as much common sense as anyone on this board. I''ve never lived within 150 miles of the fine city, so what? Its easy to slam your door at 2.30 on a saturday afternoon and stroll down to your seat. Takes a bit more dedication than that from an awful lot of very loyal fans who it would seem you deem unworthy

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

[/quote]

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[/quote]

Would you say that the opponents who eventually forced out Robert Chase were occupying the moral high ground - or merely losers thinking they were?

OTBC

 

[Mello Yello 2,293]

Their''s..........so there!

[city-till-i-die 7]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="city-till-i-die"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

In the end, who''s club is it?

Ours or theirs?

When we start to think seriously about this and come to the correct conclusion, then it will become far more likely that Norwich City Football Club will re-discover it''s soul and rise again.

Think about it.

I challenge you all.

OTBC

[/quote]who ever owns the most shares.....simples[/quote]

''Simples''?

What else are you missing, I wonder.

OTBC

[/quote]it was that good you replied twice....lol....simples

[Yobocop 1,099]

Whoever is majority shareholder is the majority owner of the club, all shareholders own a stake in the club

We as fans, support the club

[. 0]

[quote user="refjezhitchin"]

Whoever is majority shareholder is the majority owner of the club, all shareholders own a stake in the club

We as fans, support the club

[/quote]

Wrong........

It isn''t like a corner shop... NCFC is an institution which belongs to the people of the area.  I repeat... NCFC would rise again following whatever Smith and her cowboys did with it...which proves "ownership" by an individual impossible.

No Smith....the club still exists. No supporters.... it''s dead.

[Chabal 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

[/quote]

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[/quote]

Would you say that the opponents who eventually forced out Robert Chase were occupying the moral high ground - or merely losers thinking they were?

OTBC

 

[/quote]

 

I certainly wouldn''t say they occupied any MORAL high ground. What an arrogant thought. Like I said, look up what ''moral'' means before you use it in relation to a football club.

 

And yes, they made life unpleasant enough for him that he sold his shares - TO A NEW OWNER, not to the fans.

 

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

[/quote]

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[/quote]

Would you say that the opponents who eventually forced out Robert Chase were occupying the moral high ground - or merely losers thinking they were?

OTBC

[/quote]

I certainly wouldn''t say they occupied any MORAL high ground. What an arrogant thought. Like I said, look up what ''moral'' means before you use it in relation to a football club.

And yes, they made life unpleasant enough for him that he sold his shares - TO A NEW OWNER, not to the fans.

[/quote]

Does moral have a particular meaning when used in relation to a football club, then?

And.no. Robert sold his shares to Geoffrey Watling as I remember. Hardly ''a new owner''.

OTBC

[Chabal 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

[/quote]

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[/quote]

Would you say that the opponents who eventually forced out Robert Chase were occupying the moral high ground - or merely losers thinking they were?

OTBC

[/quote]

I certainly wouldn''t say they occupied any MORAL high ground. What an arrogant thought. Like I said, look up what ''moral'' means before you use it in relation to a football club.

And yes, they made life unpleasant enough for him that he sold his shares - TO A NEW OWNER, not to the fans.

[/quote]

Does moral have a particular meaning when used in relation to a football club, then?

And.no. Robert sold his shares to Geoffrey Watling as I remember. Hardly ''a new owner''.

OTBC

[/quote]

 

I''m saying you don''t understand what moral means, aptly illustrated by your use of the word in this thread.

 

And Watling WAS a ''new owner'' because after Chase sold him the shares he then owned the club. Either way ''the fans'' didn''t own the club any more than they do now.

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="Chabal"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="johnjohnjohnnyjohn"]Us. But, being here after administration doesn''t make us the owners in any way, shape, or form. Delia and MWJ are the owners, legally its there club. You could argue that "morally" its ours but sadly that''s not going to make a difference.[/quote]

Legally theirs but morally (and thus effectively ours - in the end)?. Now that''s an interesting channel to explore.

OTBC

[/quote]

Morally, and thus effectively?! Sorry but the two terms couldn''t be more different.

[/quote]

Maybe you''ve never enjoyed occupying the moral high ground?

It''s often a wonderfully empowering place. And sometimes powerful to boot.

OTBC

[/quote]

No, it''s what people say when they don''t occupy the ACTUAL high ground, but still want to. It is a place that only exists in the mind of the losers.

And I think you could do with looking up what ''moral'' means!

[/quote]

Would you say that the opponents who eventually forced out Robert Chase were occupying the moral high ground - or merely losers thinking they were?

OTBC

[/quote]

I certainly wouldn''t say they occupied any MORAL high ground. What an arrogant thought. Like I said, look up what ''moral'' means before you use it in relation to a football club.

And yes, they made life unpleasant enough for him that he sold his shares - TO A NEW OWNER, not to the fans.

[/quote]

Does moral have a particular meaning when used in relation to a football club, then?

And.no. Robert sold his shares to Geoffrey Watling as I remember. Hardly ''a new owner''.

OTBC

[/quote]

I''m saying you don''t understand what moral means, aptly illustrated by your use of the word in this thread.

And Watling WAS a ''new owner'' because after Chase sold him the shares he then owned the club. Either way ''the fans'' didn''t own the club any more than they do now.

[/quote]

moral   • adjective 1 concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour and the goodness or badness of human character. 2 conforming to accepted standards of behaviour. 3 psychological rather than physical or practical: moral support.   • noun 1 a lesson about right or wrong that can be derived from a story or experience. 2 (morals) standards of behaviour, or principles of right and wrong.   — DERIVATIVES morally adverb.   — ORIGIN Latin moralis, from mos ‘custom’.

 

Happier now?

OTBC

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Cluck is God"][quote user="refjezhitchin"]

Whoever is majority shareholder is the majority owner of the club, all shareholders own a stake in the club

We as fans, support the club

[/quote]

Wrong........

It isn''t like a corner shop... NCFC is an institution which belongs to the people of the area.  I repeat... NCFC would rise again following whatever Smith and her cowboys did with it...which proves "ownership" by an individual impossible.

No Smith....the club still exists. No supporters.... it''s dead.

[/quote]You need rich idiots as well as supporters these days, most clubs would be wound up within a season without them.  The rich idiots change, but then so do the supporters for any number of reasons, dads and mums bring their kids, kids grow up and go with their mates, mum and dad retire and the cycle continues.  Just because the rich idiot cycle is usually shorter than the fan cycle, doesn''t mean that you don''t need the rich idiots - whoever they are.If you look long term enough you could say that "ownership by an individual is impossible" when you talk about any business.  Positions within companies and shareholdings change all the time, but that doesn''t mean the the general public own all businesses, does it ?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="OldRobert"]

Good post Bbb.

[/quote]Cheers Robert - sometimes when I don''t get responses I wonder whether it''s just that no-one can argue with what I''ve said, or whether I''m just boring people [:)]

[The Butler 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="OldRobert"]

Good post Bbb.

[/quote]

Cheers Robert - sometimes when I don''t get responses I wonder whether it''s just that no-one can argue with what I''ve said, or whether I''m just boring people [:)]
[/quote]

Sorry just woke up, you were saying something Bla?

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="OldRobert"]

Good post Bbb.

[/quote]Cheers Robert - sometimes when I don''t get responses I wonder whether it''s just that no-one can argue with what I''ve said, or whether I''m just boring people [:)][/quote]

Sorry just woke up, you were saying something Bla?

[/quote]Don''t tell me, that passes for a sense of humour where you come from [:)]

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="OldRobert"]

Good post Bbb.

[/quote]

Cheers Robert - sometimes when I don''t get responses I wonder whether it''s just that no-one can argue with what I''ve said, or whether I''m just boring people [:)]
[/quote]

Sorry just woke up, you were saying something Bla?

[/quote]

Don''t tell me, that passes for a sense of humour where you come from [:)]
[/quote]

[|-)]

OTBC

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[|-)]

OTBC

 [/quote]

Well that was too easy Bly - which is why nobody else bothered I guess...

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[|-)]

OTBC

 [/quote]

Well that was too easy Bly - which is why nobody else bothered I guess...

[/quote]

OTBC