Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ca

NCISA express fears over new board appointments

Recommended Posts

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]

Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]

Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.

But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.

[/quote]

So they are going to be outvoted in a boardroom that is made up of 3 club employees plus one other person who is a significant shareholder are they?

Would you vote against your employer in such a manner?

If you did then I don''t think you would be there very long do you???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it''s decision time for NCISA.

I thought that the St Andrews Hall meeting was necessary to allow supporters to express their dissatisfaction with the clubs owners after relegation and ultimately, helped force a change of direction. To that end, they have been successful.

However, since then NCFC have made two major statements which NCISA have opposed, namely, the ticket rebates and now the board appointments. In my view, if NCISA want to take an opposition role, that''s fine. BUT, they must come out and state that fact. They have made it clear that they''re not happy with the clubs owners, the manager and now the make-up of the new board so, shouldn''t they announce that they won''t be holding any more fans forums that include any of those people. And how does raising money for the academy sit with urging people to claim their ticket rebates therefore depriving the club of income. Do they intend to sponsor the assistant manager in the forthcoming season? If NCISA want to be seen as a ''opposition party'' shouldn''t the cut all ties with the club?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]

Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]

Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.

But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.

[/quote]

So they are going to be outvoted in a boardroom that is made up of 3 club employees plus one other person who is a significant shareholder are they?

Would you vote against your employer in such a manner?

If you did then I don''t think you would be there very long do you???

[/quote]

Futhermore, I take it that the 3 new clowns we have in the boardroom agree with the Gunn managerial appointment????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]

Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]

Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.

But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.

[/quote]

Don''t think that is totally fact PC

Listed companies  yes, small owner lead companies............

It''s still something to do with who''s money they are playing with!!

I do not think for 1 minute that they would give their right of veto away do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lappinitup"]

I think it''s decision time for NCISA.

I thought that the St Andrews Hall meeting was necessary to allow supporters to express their dissatisfaction with the clubs owners after relegation and ultimately, helped force a change of direction. To that end, they have been successful.

However, since then NCFC have made two major statements which NCISA have opposed, namely, the ticket rebates and now the board appointments. In my view, if NCISA want to take an opposition role, that''s fine. BUT, they must come out and state that fact. They have made it clear that they''re not happy with the clubs owners, the manager and now the make-up of the new board so, shouldn''t they announce that they won''t be holding any more fans forums that include any of those people. And how does raising money for the academy sit with urging people to claim their ticket rebates therefore depriving the club of income. Do they intend to sponsor the assistant manager in the forthcoming season? If NCISA want to be seen as a ''opposition party'' shouldn''t the cut all ties with the club?

 

[/quote]

Do you know that they are intending to do any of those things this season Lapp??? [:$]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.And now I get Smudger wishing my company to the dogs.Nice, and so very grown up.Still, it''s nice to see him as the NCISA spokesperson on this matter. Sums it all up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"]Do you know that they are intending to do any of those things this season Lapp??? [:$][/quote]I don''t smudger, that''s why it was a question. Calm down a bit old boy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.[/quote]

So they are going to be outvoted in a boardroom that is made up of 3 club employees plus one other person who is a significant shareholder are they?

Would you vote against your employer in such a manner?

If you did then I don''t think you would be there very long do you???

[/quote]I''m sorry. Who are these THREE employees? There is only one - McNally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="lappinitup"]

I think it''s decision time for NCISA.

I thought that the St Andrews Hall meeting was necessary to allow supporters to express their dissatisfaction with the clubs owners after relegation and ultimately, helped force a change of direction. To that end, they have been successful.

However, since then NCFC have made two major statements which NCISA have opposed, namely, the ticket rebates and now the board appointments. In my view, if NCISA want to take an opposition role, that''s fine. BUT, they must come out and state that fact. They have made it clear that they''re not happy with the clubs owners, the manager and now the make-up of the new board so, shouldn''t they announce that they won''t be holding any more fans forums that include any of those people. And how does raising money for the academy sit with urging people to claim their ticket rebates therefore depriving the club of income. Do they intend to sponsor the assistant manager in the forthcoming season? If NCISA want to be seen as a ''opposition party'' shouldn''t the cut all ties with the club?

 

[/quote]

As far as I remember Lapp the ticket rebate issue was already on going at the meeting. That stance has not changed from the vote taken and is now history.

The opposition, if that is what it is, to the new directors, is something new. I can see that many people expected any board appointments to be bought (as the Turners) . As this appears not to be the case in this instance I can see some concern as to how and what new funding can be found when if PC and his voting is correct(cough cough)then anyone investing in NCFC will have an even less chance of an opinion heard than the Turners did!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''How is it practical?

We are hoping to build a team that will go straight back up aren''t we?

Are the better players in this league and their agents (plus some of

those in the CCC) going to talk to Norwich City FC when they think we

are skint and not able to offer the player what he is looking for (both

in terms of wages, agents fees and assurances that NCFC has signed a

few quality players and are showing that they have the ambition to

bounce straight back)?''Why would they not?  You think contract negotiations hang on quotes given in the local press about personal investment from our new board of directors?  Give me a break.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.

I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.

And now I get Smudger wishing my company to the dogs.

Nice, and so very grown up.

Still, it''s nice to see him as the NCISA spokesperson on this matter. Sums it all up.


[/quote]

Sums what up LQ.

Smudger has as much say for NCISA as you or I so stop trying to dig at them through him.

Other than that I completely agree with you on the tone (is that a first even)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.

I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.

And now I get Smudger wishing my company to the dogs.

Nice, and so very grown up.

Still, it''s nice to see him as the NCISA spokesperson on this matter. Sums it all up.


[/quote]

Would it go to the dogs if we went in to administration tomorrow LQ?

I think an honest answer to that would show your hidden agenda?

Why does an Arsenal fan care so mcuh about what happens in the NCFC Boardroom???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"][quote user="blahblahblah"][quote user="Mello Yello"]

[quote user="LQ"][quote user="GMF"]To suggest that the Board is in some way being defended completely misses the point. How many corporates do NOT have the CEO on the Board? Very few I would sugggest. John suggests that this was previously a mistake and the same has happened again. Is he seriously suggesting that the NCFC should be made up completely of non exectuive directors?[/quote]

That''s what you get from people who ''think'' they know how business works though.


[/quote]

Hark at Bill Gates....

[/quote]

Hark at Razz the Clown !
[/quote]

HUR HUR - THASS ME!....How many games are you gonna go to this season, you old part - timer?

[/quote]

What part of this insult-a-thon requires any knowledge of football ?  And when are you going to get a season ticket for "common sense" ?
[/quote]

I gotta season ticket coz I got a substantial rebate - and I must have common sense for reclaiming it.....Have you got a season ticket - or will you be watching on the radio again?....No tough decision on what to do with the rebate for you, eh, part-timer?

I''ll toast your absence from Carra with a pitcher of ale at the C&H....paid for by my lovely rebate...Cheers! [B][<:o)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Mr_Chimp"]

''How is it practical?

We are hoping to build a team that will go straight back up aren''t we?

Are the better players in this league and their agents (plus some of those in the CCC) going to talk to Norwich City FC when they think we are skint and not able to offer the player what he is looking for (both in terms of wages, agents fees and assurances that NCFC has signed a few quality players and are showing that they have the ambition to bounce straight back)?''

Why would they not?  You think contract negotiations hang on quotes given in the local press about personal investment from our new board of directors?  Give me a break.

[/quote]

Every player and their agent in the country knows that NCFC is skint.

Even Derby County are laughiug at us right now... "two very small bids" for Liam Dickinson.

We can''t even get to speak to player or agent because the clubs manager we are trying to buy from thinks we are a joke also... [:$]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sums up the typical kneejerk reactions I''m afraid Butler.Perhaps this quote from MWJ should have been taken into consideration?Wynn Jones said the Canaries now had a "dynamic, ambitious and very

experienced board" but there was still space for a new face. He

said: "There is room on the board for new people to the extent that

we''re looking for suitable people. The issue is not closed but for the

time being this is our working board, this is the one that''s going to

take us ahead. But by no means rule out one more."As I said, about 6 pages ago, NCISA have commented on this as a fait accompli - throwing out the assumption into the public domain (via the now heavily biased Archant Group [8-)]) that that''s it, now the Club are just going to sit on their collective behinds, twiddling their thumbs. Evidently they''re not!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.[/quote]

Don''t think that is totally fact PC

Listed companies  yes, small owner lead companies............

It''s still something to do with who''s money they are playing with!!

I do not think for 1 minute that they would give their right of veto away do you?

[/quote]Butler, that is totally factual. It is one person, one vote in the boardroom. Of course, as I acknowledged, in the real world their view as owners would be influential. But they could have been and can now be outvoted.They do have a veto, but only when it comes to a shareholder vote. As with this example. When I finally get round to putting together my PurpleCanary Consortium (with Smudger as venture capital consultant) to buy the club and that gets put to a vote in the boardroom it won''t matter if Smith and Jones vote against; if the other four are in favour (as any sensible person would be) then it will be passed 4-2. But not as a decison; as a recommendation to shareholders.And when Smith and Jones, as shareholders, get the letter from themselves recommending that they vote their shares in favour, they can tear it up and vote the shares against, and that will be the sad end of the PurpleCanary takeover...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Smudger"]

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.And now I get Smudger wishing my company to the dogs.Nice, and so very grown up.Still, it''s nice to see him as the NCISA spokesperson on this matter. Sums it all up.

[/quote]

Would it go to the dogs if we went in to administration tomorrow LQ?

I think an honest answer to that would show your hidden agenda?

Why does an Arsenal fan care so mcuh about what happens in the NCFC Boardroom???

[/quote]What the hell are you on about?The only work my company does for the Club, it does for free - I give, I don''t take. I''ve never taken a penny out of the place and I wouldn''t want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]Sums up the typical kneejerk reactions I''m afraid Butler.

Perhaps this quote from MWJ should have been taken into consideration?

Wynn Jones said the Canaries now had a "dynamic, ambitious and very experienced board" but there was still space for a new face.

He said: "There is room on the board for new people to the extent that we''re looking for suitable people. The issue is not closed but for the time being this is our working board, this is the one that''s going to take us ahead. But by no means rule out one more."

As I said, about 6 pages ago, NCISA have commented on this as a fait accompli - throwing out the assumption into the public domain (via the now heavily biased Archant Group [8-)]) that that''s it, now the Club are just going to sit on their collective behinds, twiddling their thumbs. Evidently they''re not!


[/quote]

Agree with that LQ BUT their record of finding additional funding /directors up to this week has been abysmal.

So I am not holding my breath for the next lot.

As I posted earlier I am pleased with the quality brought in IF they are allowed the influence and to direct in a way that their knowledge says they should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="LQ"]What the hell are you on about?The only work my company does for the Club, it does for free - I give, I don''t take. I''ve never taken a penny out of the place and I wouldn''t want to.

[/quote]As opposed to our old pal Smudger, who''d dearly love to take lots.Ever since the club knocked him back when he clumsily tried to get a piece of the printing action at NCFC, he''s had it in for them.Coincidence? I think not.Hell hath no fury like a moron scorned....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Herb"][quote user="LQ"]

What the hell are you on about?

The only work my company does for the Club, it does for free - I give, I don''t take. I''ve never taken a penny out of the place and I wouldn''t want to.


[/quote]

As opposed to our old pal Smudger, who''d dearly love to take lots.

Ever since the club knocked him back when he clumsily tried to get a piece of the printing action at NCFC, he''s had it in for them.

Coincidence? I think not.

Hell hath no fury like a moron scorned....
[/quote]

Thats what you get for having a 2nd rate printing establishment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep - that really sums up my hidden agenda doesn''t it, Herb!Again, on re-reading, I find this part of the NCISA statement incredible. And in appointing the managing director of Archant to the club''s board,

will there now be no medium for fans to voice their opinions and no

support for fans from local newspapers should things continue to go

wrong at Carrow Road?
Is it only me who sees the irony in the fact that this was reproduced on the Archant sites and I assume in the paper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]

Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]

Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.

But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.

[/quote]

Don''t think that is totally fact PC

Listed companies  yes, small owner lead companies............

It''s still something to do with who''s money they are playing with!!

I do not think for 1 minute that they would give their right of veto away do you?

[/quote]

Butler, that is totally factual. It is one person, one vote in the boardroom. Of course, as I acknowledged, in the real world their view as owners would be influential. But they could have been and can now be outvoted.

They do have a veto, but only when it comes to a shareholder vote. As with this example. When I finally get round to putting together my PurpleCanary Consortium (with Smudger as venture capital consultant) to buy the club and that gets put to a vote in the boardroom it won''t matter if Smith and Jones vote against; if the other four are in favour (as any sensible person would be) then it will be passed 4-2. But not as a decison; as a recommendation to shareholders.

And when Smith and Jones, as shareholders, get the letter from themselves recommending that they vote their shares in favour, they can tear it up and vote the shares against, and that will be the sad end of the PurpleCanary takeover...[/quote]

Sorry to argue with the expert but it''s that old magical 51% that governs,in the end, what happens.

All the votes can be taken as much as you like but while it is my money you are playing with I say what goes.(on anything I deem important that is)

Colour of loo rolls, carpeting, coffee, democratic vote. Big bucks investment I will listen BUT in the end the man who pays the piper calls the tune.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Smudger"]

We still have the ''Status Quo'' on the Board... what has changed?

Smith & Jones still have the casting vote don''t they???

[/quote]Oh dear, it''s Smudger having trouble with facts again. No, they don''t still have the casting vote on the board. They are now in a 4-2 minority. As opposed to a few weeks ago when they were in a 3-2 minority.[/quote]

No they have a 64% majority... but don''t let facts get in the way of a good arguement hey??? [:$]

[/quote]Don''t mistake me for you, Smudger. For starters if you mean their shareholding then it''s 61.2 per cent, not 64 per cent.But in terms of boardroom decisions the size of the shareholding doesn''t count; it is strictly one person, one vote, and they could have been outvoted on a specific issue (the choosing of a manager, for example) at any time. Of course the fact that they own the club is bound to have an influence, but they could still have been outvoted, and they could be now.[/quote]

So they are going to be outvoted in a boardroom that is made up of 3 club employees plus one other person who is a significant shareholder are they?

Would you vote against your employer in such a manner?

If you did then I don''t think you would be there very long do you???

[/quote]

Futhermore, I take it that the 3 new clowns we have in the boardroom agree with the Gunn managerial appointment????

[/quote]I don''t see currently how you can determine that they are clowns, and their views on the Gunn appointment are immaterial given that they were not at the club when the appointment was made. I really think you should see what happens before putting out such negative cr*p. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"]

Sorry to argue with the expert but it''s that old magical 51% that governs,in the end, what happens.

All the votes can be taken as much as you like but while it is my money you are playing with I say what goes.(on anything I deem important that is)

Colour of loo rolls, carpeting, coffee, democratic vote. Big bucks investment I will listen BUT in the end the man who pays the piper calls the tune.

[/quote]Butler, I don''t think we''re actually disagreeing. I have said all along that ultimately it is S&J''s trainset. Until I put together my consortium...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]Sums up the typical kneejerk reactions I''m afraid Butler.

Perhaps this quote from MWJ should have been taken into consideration?

Wynn Jones said the Canaries now had a "dynamic, ambitious and very experienced board" but there was still space for a new face.

He said: "There is room on the board for new people to the extent that we''re looking for suitable people. The issue is not closed but for the time being this is our working board, this is the one that''s going to take us ahead. But by no means rule out one more."

As I said, about 6 pages ago, NCISA have commented on this as a fait accompli - throwing out the assumption into the public domain (via the now heavily biased Archant Group [8-)]) that that''s it, now the Club are just going to sit on their collective behinds, twiddling their thumbs. Evidently they''re not!


[/quote]

Where you happy with Mr Doncaster? I wasn''t. I do think you defended him (as well as the previous board) if I seem to remember...and now he''s gone with a flea in his ear from our new Chairman.....So, like the new Chairman - I must be a good judge of character - and probably why I''m very fortunate to have a comfortable occupation and lifestyle...

Will the SCG still be continuing as a driving force, to push through what the average supporter really wants? Like more expensive season tickets? Louder tannoy announcements? More plastic lager? Increase of funny mascots? Yellow or Green shorts? Faster Golf buggies? Frequent stirring speeches from the majority shareholder at half time? (''hic'') and your favourite - more expensive season tickets if they didn''t hear the first time?

 I''m all for VFM and that?.....Value For Monkeys....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.

I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.


[/quote]

 

Why do you get so involved in the NCISA threads if you haven''t got any time for the association??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because she cant resist the childish insults and enjoys rubbing people up the wrong way I suspect...[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.

[/quote]

 

Why do you get so involved in the NCISA threads if you haven''t got any time for the association??

[/quote]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Mr_Chimp"]

''How is it practical?

We are hoping to build a team that will go straight back up aren''t we?

Are the better players in this league and their agents (plus some of those in the CCC) going to talk to Norwich City FC when they think we are skint and not able to offer the player what he is looking for (both in terms of wages, agents fees and assurances that NCFC has signed a few quality players and are showing that they have the ambition to bounce straight back)?''Why would they not?  You think contract negotiations hang on quotes given in the local press about personal investment from our new board of directors?  Give me a break.

[/quote]

Every player and their agent in the country knows that NCFC is skint.

Even Derby County are laughiug at us right now... "two very small bids" for Liam Dickinson.

We can''t even get to speak to player or agent because the clubs manager we are trying to buy from thinks we are a joke also... [:$][/quote]

Us putting in a bid they deem unsatisfactory (let''s face it, Jewell

spunked 750k that they want to make - or at the least a good chunk of -

back is not the same as us being refused the chance to talk to the

player because we''re skint.  Not remotely.  Besides, this is missing the real

issue.I''m just as p.o''d about the situation as you, Smudger, don''t think I''m a ''sheep'' or an ''apologist'' or whatever the buzzword is this week. I don''t know nor do I care if these guys have a put a penny into the club for taking on their new roles.  I hope they do, but if they don''t, so be it. What I do care about is them having the nous to put whatever money we /do/ have to the very best use.  This statement from the NCISA is complete twaddle yet again, and, moreover, is yet another attempt to splinter the fans until, I believe, they have enough of a swell to move for a board seat themselves.  It''s all a bit Napoleon and Squealer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="cityangel"]

[quote user="LQ"]I really wish I hadn''t looked at this forum again today.I''ll stop commenting now I think because quite frankly I find the childish insults pathetic. If you can''t hold a reasoned argument don''t pretend you are.

[/quote]

 

Why do you get so involved in the NCISA threads if you haven''t got any time for the association??

[/quote]Why do you get so involved in discussions regarding the board you have no time for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Why do you get so involved in the NCISA threads if you haven''t got any time for the association??"

Are only NCISA members allowed to comment now then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...