Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Pi$$ed As A Mattress

Difference between a fan and supporter?

Recommended Posts

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Also WAY when I tell him the truth he conveniently ignores it.[/quote]

 

That''s the thing isn''t it, you can tell them all you like but they don''t ever listen, oh well, let them get on with it and enjoy their dreams lol [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Also WAY when I tell him the truth he conveniently ignores it.[/quote]

 

That''s the thing isn''t it, you can tell them all you like but they don''t ever listen, oh well, let them get on with it and enjoy their dreams lol [:)]

[/quote]

Blind to the truth, what a woman you must be to argue with......Believe what suits you, not whats true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Lord Norwich"][quote user="WeAreYellows49"]

[quote user="CaptnCanary"]Also WAY when I tell him the truth he conveniently ignores it.[/quote]

 

That''s the thing isn''t it, you can tell them all you like but they don''t ever listen, oh well, let them get on with it and enjoy their dreams lol [:)]

[/quote]

Blind to the truth, what a woman you must be to argue with......Believe what suits you, not whats true.

[/quote]

Sleeping

 

Oops sorry did you say something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks Ian. You are spot on. The truth (whether they like it or not) is the truth. Amazing how you can be so slated just by telling the truth. For the record, I am NOT a Delia fan, just that I face up to facts. Rather than slag me off, why not tell me how the club was saved. Geoffrey Watling put in how much?

 

Ian''s his mum by the way....

Just thought I''d clear that little point up for you...... [Y]

 

Carry on..... don''t mind me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="The Butler"][quote user="7rew"][quote user="St. Cluck"]

A condensed view here....I am a club supporter rather than a team supporter....

Individual teams and players come and go according to which particular clown is in charge.... whereas the club is the rock on which everything stands. Despite the temporary and hysterical accolades at the time... do the likes of Fotheringham and his pitiful ilk have any relevance whatsoever to NC the club in the long run?

I feel this is where the main difference lies. It takes waaaaaay more than a simple yellow shirt to get me excited I''m afraid.... and the bulk of what has happened over the past 12 years has been detrimental to the club while the facade of a team plays on....

Club/team?..... Different animals altogether.

 

[/quote]

And I''m a vegetarian except for chickens and pigs.
[/quote]

That would be canabalism![:D] (only kidding honest)

[/quote]

 

And now you bring goats into it! I thought this had become a thread about NCFC urban myths?

[/quote]

Sssorry young matthter!

Just peed off with another St.Delia thread.

It''s a pity the guy at the Norfolk Show didn''t cannonise her!

Very soon it will be a known fact that Old Shuck was the NCFC mascot but only came when DS whistled and fed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="St. Cluck"]

 

 

Thanks Ian. You are spot on. The truth (whether they like it or not) is the truth. Amazing how you can be so slated just by telling the truth. For the record, I am NOT a Delia fan, just that I face up to facts. Rather than slag me off, why not tell me how the club was saved. Geoffrey Watling put in how much?

 

Ian''s his mum by the way....

Just thought I''d clear that little point up for you...... [Y]

 

Carry on..... don''t mind me...

[/quote]

Thanks for that Cluck  [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.I may be completely wrong, and will gladly be put right, but this has always been my understanding...Chase,

whatever his virtues, messes up the debt. Even allowing for anti-Chase

spin, he endangers the club. His position (especially having fallen out

with former ally Jimmy Jones) becomes untenable.Someone has to

take over. Enter revered Geoffrey Watling. But ONLY as an interim

measure. He is at this point (May, 1996) 83 years old. And Watling''s

younger business partner, who may have been in for the longer term,

resigns from the board after only 10 days. And none of the other board members is a potential owner.So a permanent owner

is still needed. Step forward Smith and Jones, who join the board in

November and become owners by buying out Watling some months later, as

well as backing a rights issue.In other words BOTH Watling and

Smith and Jones saved the club. The interesting question is whether, as some people believe,

Smith and Jones were part of Watling''s plan from the outset. If so then

it would be churlish to deny them even more credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"].

I may be completely wrong, and will gladly be put right, but this has always been my understanding...

Chase, whatever his virtues, messes up the debt. Even allowing for anti-Chase spin, he endangers the club. His position (especially having fallen out with former ally Jimmy Jones) becomes untenable.

Someone has to take over. Enter revered Geoffrey Watling. But ONLY as an interim measure. He is at this point (May, 1996) 83 years old. And Watling''s younger business partner, who may have been in for the longer term, resigns from the board after only 10 days. And none of the other board members is a potential owner.

So a permanent owner is still needed. Step forward Smith and Jones, who join the board in November and become owners by buying out Watling some months later, as well as backing a rights issue.

In other words BOTH Watling and Smith and Jones saved the club. The interesting question is whether, as some people believe, Smith and Jones were part of Watling''s plan from the outset. If so then it would be churlish to deny them even more credit.

[/quote]

It would if they hadn''t engineered it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that makes no sense. Watling had all ready saved the club and was then looking for a long term solution. The club was in no danger when Smith & Jones come on the scene. If they had not come along then Watling would have sold to someone else who would also not have rescued the club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="PurpleCanary"].

I may be completely wrong, and will gladly be put right, but this has always been my understanding...

Chase, whatever his virtues, messes up the debt. Even allowing for anti-Chase spin, he endangers the club. His position (especially having fallen out with former ally Jimmy Jones) becomes untenable.

Someone has to take over. Enter revered Geoffrey Watling. But ONLY as an interim measure. He is at this point (May, 1996) 83 years old. And Watling''s younger business partner, who may have been in for the longer term, resigns from the board after only 10 days. And none of the other board members is a potential owner.

So a permanent owner is still needed. Step forward Smith and Jones, who join the board in November and become owners by buying out Watling some months later, as well as backing a rights issue.

In other words BOTH Watling and Smith and Jones saved the club. The interesting question is whether, as some people believe, Smith and Jones were part of Watling''s plan from the outset. If so then it would be churlish to deny them even more credit.

[/quote]

Geoffrey Watling financially floated what was an otherwise successful club  .... Smith and Jones grabbed an investment opportunity on the cheap and then cynically manipulated the brand to suit. The "Saviour" myth was wholly contrived for media consumption.

Brief but factual.

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"].I may be completely wrong, and will gladly be put right, but this has always been my understanding...Chase, whatever his virtues, messes up the debt. Even allowing for anti-Chase spin, he endangers the club. His position (especially having fallen out with former ally Jimmy Jones) becomes untenable.Someone has to take over. Enter revered Geoffrey Watling. But ONLY as an interim measure. He is at this point (May, 1996) 83 years old. And Watling''s younger business partner, who may have been in for the longer term, resigns from the board after only 10 days. And none of the other board members is a potential owner.So a permanent owner is still needed. Step forward Smith and Jones, who join the board in November and become owners by buying out Watling some months later, as well as backing a rights issue.In other words BOTH Watling and Smith and Jones saved the club. The interesting question is whether, as some people believe, Smith and Jones were part of Watling''s plan from the outset. If so then it would be churlish to deny them even more credit.[/quote]

It would if they hadn''t engineered it in the first place.

[/quote]Butler, I''ve seen this hinted at before. Any chance of you expanding on this?!

Share this post


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

[quote user="PurpleCanary"].

I may be completely wrong, and will gladly be put right, but this has always been my understanding...

Chase, whatever his virtues, messes up the debt. Even allowing for anti-Chase spin, he endangers the club. His position (especially having fallen out with former ally Jimmy Jones) becomes untenable.

Someone has to take over. Enter revered Geoffrey Watling. But ONLY as an interim measure. He is at this point (May, 1996) 83 years old. And Watling''s younger business partner, who may have been in for the longer term, resigns from the board after only 10 days. And none of the other board members is a potential owner.

So a permanent owner is still needed. Step forward Smith and Jones, who join the board in November and become owners by buying out Watling some months later, as well as backing a rights issue.

In other words BOTH Watling and Smith and Jones saved the club. The interesting question is whether, as some people believe, Smith and Jones were part of Watling''s plan from the outset. If so then it would be churlish to deny them even more credit.

[/quote]

It would if they hadn''t engineered it in the first place.

[/quote]

Butler, I''ve seen this hinted at before. Any chance of you expanding on this?![/quote]

Check previous threads when I gave chapter and verse. Was then told I had "made it up" being polite!!

I was involved at the time and along with senior staff employed by the club (I was not) knew what was going on in the background.

Sorry Purple but I get fed up with being told I am lieing about it as if I have something to gain.

So just let the smif mif continue.[:D]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"And you want Wizard Out...............Grow Up"

Wizard, at least, for all his faults, can recognise a joke... maybe you could learn from his example... :)

Share this post


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

Check previous threads when I gave chapter and verse. Was then told I had "made it up" being polite!!

I was involved at the time and along with senior staff employed by the club (I was not) knew what was going on in the background.

Sorry Purple but I get fed up with being told I am lieing about it as if I have something to gain.

So just let the smif mif continue.[:D]

[/quote].Butler, the reason for my post was to provoke replies like yours,

precisely because I don''t have any great inside knowledge on what went

on then.You will forgive me if I remain agnostic on this. I am

not doubting you word (I know you''re a serious poster) but I would need

really hard evidence to convince me.However I would make two

points, one serious, one not so. If Smith and Jones did engineer

Chase''s downfall, it can only be because they were able to manipulate a

perilous position that Chase had created. If the club had been

financially healthy then S&J could not have undermined it. There is

a relevant quote from a club official from that time that we had "the

expenditure of Inter-Milan and the income of Southend".The less

serious point is that the kind of Machiavellian scheming you are

suggesting does rather blow a hole in the image of S&J as business

incompetents!

Share this post


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

Check previous threads when I gave chapter and verse. Was then told I had "made it up" being polite!!

I was involved at the time and along with senior staff employed by the club (I was not) knew what was going on in the background.

Sorry Purple but I get fed up with being told I am lieing about it as if I have something to gain.

So just let the smif mif continue.[:D]

[/quote]

.
Butler, the reason for my post was to provoke replies like yours, precisely because I don''t have any great inside knowledge on what went on then.

You will forgive me if I remain agnostic on this. I am not doubting you word (I know you''re a serious poster) but I would need really hard evidence to convince me.

However I would make two points, one serious, one not so. If Smith and Jones did engineer Chase''s downfall, it can only be because they were able to manipulate a perilous position that Chase had created. If the club had been financially healthy then S&J could not have undermined it. There is a relevant quote from a club official from that time that we had "the expenditure of Inter-Milan and the income of Southend".

The less serious point is that the kind of Machiavellian scheming you are suggesting does rather blow a hole in the image of S&J as business incompetents![/quote]

Banks and overdrafts. Repayable on demand was Chases downfall. Helped by a "friendly" bank manager who had " the knowledge" that someone was pushing in the wings.GW brokered the deal as they would not deal with RC.(Although he put the shares up for sale surprisingly they were the only takers at a price) A lot of what got said about him ,was like now, urban myth.

The wages of the players and Manager were on a perfomance basis, we did well and so did they. Not a bad method.

The quote from Gordon came, after Chase, when he took the reigns as a temp measure. (the best guy we have had).

Never be fooled by the Duo you do not get in their position by being daft or nice. That does not mean they are good at running a club however.

Personally I don''t think they will leave, regardless again of myths, until they get at least their money back as percieved by the 11million statement. (investment I think closer to 9mil)

Share this post


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

Check previous threads when I gave chapter and verse. Was then told I had "made it up" being polite!!

I was involved at the time and along with senior staff employed by the club (I was not) knew what was going on in the background.

Sorry Purple but I get fed up with being told I am lieing about it as if I have something to gain.

So just let the smif mif continue.[:D]

[/quote]

.
Butler, the reason for my post was to provoke replies like yours, precisely because I don''t have any great inside knowledge on what went on then.

You will forgive me if I remain agnostic on this. I am not doubting you word (I know you''re a serious poster) but I would need really hard evidence to convince me.

However I would make two points, one serious, one not so. If Smith and Jones did engineer Chase''s downfall, it can only be because they were able to manipulate a perilous position that Chase had created. If the club had been financially healthy then S&J could not have undermined it. There is a relevant quote from a club official from that time that we had "the expenditure of Inter-Milan and the income of Southend".

The less serious point is that the kind of Machiavellian scheming you are suggesting does rather blow a hole in the image of S&J as business incompetents![/quote]

Banks and overdrafts. Repayable on demand was Chases downfall. Helped by a "friendly" bank manager who had " the knowledge" that someone was pushing in the wings.GW brokered the deal as they would not deal with RC.(Although he put the shares up for sale surprisingly they were the only takers at a price) A lot of what got said about him ,was like now, urban myth.

The wages of the players and Manager were on a perfomance basis, we did well and so did they. Not a bad method.

The quote from Gordon came, after Chase, when he took the reigns as a temp measure. (the best guy we have had).

Never be fooled by the Duo you do not get in their position by being daft or nice. That does not mean they are good at running a club however.

Personally I don''t think they will leave, regardless again of myths, until they get at least their money back as percieved by the 11million statement. (investment I think closer to 9mil)

[/quote]

Butler you are a true star - and long may you post on here [Y]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Butler"]

Personally I don''t think they will leave, regardless again of myths, until they get at least their money back as percieved by the 11million statement. (investment I think closer to 9mil)

[/quote]Thanks for that, Butler. Filed away now for future (still agnostic) reference. Finally, though, you had better be wrong about the getting the money back thing, because I have a £100 bet for charity that they won''t! But then we are venturing on to a subject where I am slightly surer of my ground...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="IncH_HigH"][quote user="Beauseant"][quote user="1st Wazzock"]

[quote user="Mello Yello"] < Fan < Supporter.....Simples [/quote]

 

Exactly Mello, not rocket science is it ?

If I''m feeling hot, I don''t plug  a supporter in, do I ?

[/quote]

 

Ah, now I get it. You fan yourself with a meerkat, right?

[/quote]

No,no,no,  you put the supporter on, pop the meerkat inside the supporter, and then turn the fan on.[;)]
[/quote]

Now now Beau and Inch, I don''t think you guys are taking this seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="PurpleCanary"]
Butler, I''ve seen this hinted at before. Any chance of you expanding on this?![/quote]

Check previous threads when I gave chapter and verse. Was then told I had "made it up" being polite!!

I was involved at the time and along with senior staff employed by the club (I was not) knew what was going on in the background.

Sorry Purple but I get fed up with being told I am lieing about it as if I have something to gain.

So just let the smif mif continue.[:D]

[/quote]

Well I would never call you a liar Butler but I have questioned this on various threads before. I don''t doubt your word but I also don''t believe it could have happened without the other big players engineering it at the time. Specifically Geoffrey Watling who must have set up the whole thing. Watling, along with Martin Armstrong invited Smith & Jones onto the board in return for 1m. Later Watling sold them his shares after they had been available to buy in smaller amounts for some considerable time with no takers.

I would be very interested to learn the truth about what happened between December ''95 and December ''97. These two years had more to do with Watling, Armstrong and Bennett than Smith & Jones. I have read many articles about those years and as a shareholder at the time can remember some of the correspondence including letters sent out by Big Bob. Unfortunately threads such as this always end up in argument rather than discussion.

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-

In the early spring of 1996, Norwich City Football Club almost ceased to exist. The fact that, come the late autumn, the club is gently knocking on the door of the FA Premiership''s promised land is a remarkable tale -- a story of a stricken club lifted off its knees by a handful of individuals; a story in which one person is key, the club''s new chief executive, Gordon Bennet. In his first major interview virtually since he arrived as the club''s youth development officer in 1989, the man who quietly assumed day-to-day control of the ailing First Division club earlier this summer puts the record straight.

Like all good doctors, Gordon Bennett mingles the good with the bad; the tears with the hope; the promise of a brighter future with the dark recollections of a troubled past. For as he arrived back at Carrow Road from his youth development role at the club''s Colney training HQ, Bennett discovered a broken club on the very brink of the abyss; a club whose very existence hung on the generosity of an 84-year-old Norwich businessman. "I was brought in in the last week of March and I realised within three days that the club was technically insolvent. To be honest I did not think that it would even fulfil its fixtures last season," admitted Bennett, as the administration of ex- chairman Robert Chase began to fall apart.

Indeed, by the first week of May, Chase had gone. "Probably the only reason that the club is still in existence is the fact that Mr Watling bought those shares and put up seven-figure guarantees at the bank," added Bennett, as Geoffrey Watling''s crucial purchase of Chase''s shareholding kept the wolves from the door. A club that, in the words of one senior official "had the income of a Southend and the expenditure of Real Madrid" had been saved. Just.

"From a position of relative crisis in the summer, we are now inching towards safety," said Bennett, introducing the next great player in the unfolding drama -- newly-appointed director Martin Armstrong. "Since then there have been a number of turning points, the first in June when Mr Watling said that he''d like Mr Armstrong to become chairman. Mr Armstrong, as chief executive of the Norwich and Peterborough Building Society, couldn''t do it because the board of his building society were not prepared to sanction it.

"But in a board meeting that month, he made a very powerful speech in which he laid out what he would do if he were the chairman; how he thought the club could trade its way back, not to safety, but to prosperity. First, as Gary Megson was clearly not universally popular, something that was already showing in low season-ticket sales, that the board should consider replacing him with Mike Walker. Secondly, that we should do our absolute utmost to avoid selling any of our better players to improve our chances of Mike having a reasonably successful team and thirdly, we had to organise adequate long-term finance to be able to fund the previous two aspects.

In the shorter term, however, it was Bennett who was charged with the task of slashing costs -- "down-scaling" to economists, making long-time friends and colleagues redundant as the club''s new axe man. "It seemed to me that last spring, with my experience at both Bristol Rovers and West Brom, that as a hatchet job was necessary, it was best done by someone who knew where there were still fresh twigs that could flourish as time went on," said Bennett, formerly club secretary at The Hawthorns and youth development officer and chief executive in 13 years at Rovers. "But it was extremely difficult -- these were people that had been very kind and made me feel very much at home since I first arrived. It''s not a job that I particularly enjoy -- I''d much prefer to be with the kids."

As principal architect of the club''s youth system, Bennett was overseeing a Colney production line that had the likes of Chris Sutton, Darren Eadie, Andy Johnson and Keith O''Neill at its head. It is the defence of that achievement, those talents that drives Bennett on. And with the returning Walker matching the club''s slow financial restructuring with equal achievement on the field, so Bennett can launch a fierce defence of the club''s greatest assets.

The following will be music to thousands of supporters'' ears. "Mike Walker has been absolutely magic -- he has already repaid the faith shown in him many times over," said Bennett. "And I can state quite categorically that there is absolutely no way any of our coveted younger players will leave the club for financial reasons. They will only leave if Mike Walker decides they can go for footballing reasons.

"I would not be here now if I thought there was any doubt about that whatsoever," added Bennett, who turned down a 10-year youth development contract at another club to help steer City to safety. "I was youth officer at Bristol Rovers for six years, chief executive for seven and all the good, young players there were sold off to pay off debts. It was a soul-destroying experience and if I thought I''d wasted the last seven years at Norwich City Football Club just to see players flogged off I would have gone last summer. Indeed, one of the principal factors in me staying at Norwich City was the reasonable prospect of the younger players being kept at the football club and them forming the nucleus of a successful Premiership team."

Equally, Bennett has inherited a successful middle-management team, suddenly freed to manage once the shackles of the old regime were torn away. "One of the main reasons that everything off the field is going so well is that in club secretary Andrew Neville, commercial manager Trevor Bond and company accountant Ray Housego you''ve got three very able and experienced backstage managers and without them it would have been incredibly difficult to have progressed with Mike as far as we have," said Bennett. Armstrong''s fellow directors earn every credit from their new chief executive. "Mr Munby''s initiative in taking the club out to its fans and repairing the bonds between the club and its supporters has been an enormous plus. Mr Lockwood, Mr Nicholls and Mr Paterson should be admired for the way they''ve stuck at their posts and helped steer the club out of trouble -- it would have been the easiest thing in the world last May for them to walk away. To their credit, they didn''t."

Come the New Year, all the major players will begin to discuss installing a new business plan for the 1997-98 season and it is a sign of the club''s growing confidence that two plans will be on the table. "In January and February we will be producing two business plans for next season -- one to cope with the challenge of winning the Nationwide First Division championship and the other to cope with the challenge of a provincial football club thriving and surviving in the Premier League," said Bennett, offering a whole new policy and priority to the club''s future direction. "The football team has got to come first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth -- the new South Stand is a long way away. At least five years in my opinion," said Bennett, as the beloved bricks and mortar of the old regime are abandoned in favour of investments in flesh and blood.

"My guiding principle is that I will do whatever is in the best interest of those 12,000 hard-core supporters out there and for as long as I''m here there will be constant downward pressure on all non-football costs," said Bennett, whose day-to-day powers even extend to the fact that he is the only person at the club able to authorise expenditure over £50. As for his own future, that could still rest with the make-up of a still-awaited boardroom shake-up. But for many people''s money, Bennett is a breath of fresh air, a no-nonsense football man fast returning Norwich City to whom it rightfully belongs -- the fans. "I don''t know how long my tenure of office might be. A new board might decide it wants to get rid of a cantankerous, dictatorial, bad-tempered old chap like me! But it proves that if you look hard enough there are better answers to financial difficulties than simply selling a player -- that should be the last option not the first."

 

Share this post


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

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-

[/quote]Nutty, thanks for your view of that period and the interview. They both look interesting, and I will take a closer look tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crystal palace 0 norwich city1. absolutely ludicrous result, we must get delia out now. it is all her fault that we didnt score more. i am fuming.

Share this post


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

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-


[/quote]

Nutty, thanks for your view of that period and the interview. They both look interesting, and I will take a closer look tomorrow.[/quote]

Do that Purple.

Then ask why the Middle management were all got rid of and replaced by...............?

As I stated earlier I now stop talking about it as again veiled or not my honesty is called into question by someone who had no involvement and learnt his knowledge from papers and gossip.

Make you own mind up.

Share this post


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

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-


[/quote]

Nutty, thanks for your view of that period and the interview. They both look interesting, and I will take a closer look tomorrow.[/quote]

Do that Purple.

Then ask why the Middle management were all got rid of and replaced by...............?

As I stated earlier I now stop talking about it as again veiled or not my honesty is called into question by someone who had no involvement and learnt his knowledge from papers and gossip.

Make you own mind up.

[/quote]

It''s like watching a skin form on your custard isn''t it Butler?.......Two nerds back scratching for mutual gratification in a world of their own.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="The Butler"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-

[/quote]Nutty, thanks for your view of that period and the interview. They both look interesting, and I will take a closer look tomorrow.[/quote]

Do that Purple.

Then ask why the Middle management were all got rid of and replaced by...............?

As I stated earlier I now stop talking about it as again veiled or not my honesty is called into question by someone who had no involvement and learnt his knowledge from papers and gossip.

Make you own mind up.

[/quote].Butler, as someone with no axe to grind, having read your stuff and Nutty''s, I''d say this...You

both seem to agree that Chase had messed up the debt, and so made

himself - and the club - vulnerable. And I can believe there were

secret discussions (which may have included Smith and Jones) as to how

to get rid of him. That is the way these things happen.Where I

struggle with your version is the idea that Chase could have ridden out

the storm and done a deal on the debt if the particular bank manager

had not been "got at" by the plotters. We''re not talking about some

small-town Captain Mainwaring figure. This was a high-profile loan and

any decision would have been scrutinised by superiors.

Furthermore, if it was Smith and Jones who engineered this, it seems

strange that they didn''t even join the board until six months later and

didn''t buy the club until December 1997 - 18 months after they''d got

rid of Chase.But just to play devil''s advocate with myself,

even if you''re right, so what? Chase was a busted flush and had to go.

Does it matter how? And finally, isn''t there an irony here? I

cannot remember the details but did not Chase come to power by 

engineering the downfall of Sir Arthur South (who would get my vote as

our best-ever chairman) by manufacturing what looked like a spurious row over the

contract to rebuild the main stand? It had, as usual, gone to RG

Carter, and Chase, a builder himself, said it hadn''t properly gone out

to tender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no axe to grind over this. And certainly none with my friend The Butler. But the post immediately above Purples quite succinctly shows how these divisions appear on this board just to satisfy the trolling of sad individuals who have no relevant input of their own.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ONLY way a statement such as "Delia saved the club" can be remotely true is if:

a.,  You believe no-one else was interested in taking the club over from Watling.

Or....

b.,  You believe that with no other investors G.Watling would have wound the club up.

a., is unknoweable but at least plausible-if unlikely.  b., given the playing assets and land bank which could have been sold off to keep the banks at bay, simply would not have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be so Mr Carrow. And saviours are extremely rare. Are they really likely to pop up every so often at our own little Carrow Road sanctuary. Was the great Bob the Builder a saviour when he ran Sir Arthur out of town all those years ago? And did we need salvation after the wicked reign of Big Bad Bob anyway? If you believe we did then who was that saviour? If you believe we were saved by Watling from Big Bad Bob and the wicked Smith & Jones were orchestrating it from behind the scenes it can only be true is if:-

a) You believe that Smith & Jones rode into town, took Geoffrey Watlings family hostage for 18 months until he met their demands to sell them the club on the cheap despite the huge interest from half the county to pay more.

Or....

b) Smith, Jones, Watling and Armstrong were in cahoots and set the whole thing up.

a) is extremely unlikely but b) is a possible.

 

[8]Here''s to the god of the present
Here''s to the god of the past
Here''s to the hope in the future he brings
We will sing to him, sing to him
On the savior''s day

 

Share this post


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

crystal palace 0 norwich city1. absolutely ludicrous result, we must get delia out now. it is all her fault that we didnt score more. i am fuming.

[/quote]

What the .....has that got to do with this discussion.

Either contribute something worhwhile,if you can, or at least keep to the point.

Share this post


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

Purple.. here is an interview with Gordon Bennett from that time :-


[/quote]

Nutty, thanks for your view of that period and the interview. They both look interesting, and I will take a closer look tomorrow.[/quote]

Do that Purple.

Then ask why the Middle management were all got rid of and replaced by...............?

As I stated earlier I now stop talking about it as again veiled or not my honesty is called into question by someone who had no involvement and learnt his knowledge from papers and gossip.

Make you own mind up.

[/quote]

.

Butler, as someone with no axe to grind, having read your stuff and Nutty''s, I''d say this...

You both seem to agree that Chase had messed up the debt, and so made himself - and the club - vulnerable. And I can believe there were secret discussions (which may have included Smith and Jones) as to how to get rid of him. That is the way these things happen.

Where I struggle with your version is the idea that Chase could have ridden out the storm and done a deal on the debt if the particular bank manager had not been "got at" by the plotters. We''re not talking about some small-town Captain Mainwaring figure. This was a high-profile loan and any decision would have been scrutinised by superiors.

Furthermore, if it was Smith and Jones who engineered this, it seems strange that they didn''t even join the board until six months later and didn''t buy the club until December 1997 - 18 months after they''d got rid of Chase.

But just to play devil''s advocate with myself, even if you''re right, so what? Chase was a busted flush and had to go. Does it matter how?

And finally, isn''t there an irony here? I cannot remember the details but did not Chase come to power by  engineering the downfall of Sir Arthur South (who would get my vote as our best-ever chairman) by manufacturing what looked like a spurious row over the contract to rebuild the main stand? It had, as usual, gone to RG Carter, and Chase, a builder himself, said it hadn''t properly gone out to tender?[/quote]

Just rememeber it was several years ago when Barclays bank managers could actualy make decisions[:D]

The sums under discussion were not realy that big, but as they were on overdraft could be recalled "on demand"

RC had become very unpopular and the possible decline in support would have made a bank nervous. Therefore to be approached by someone(s) who had a great deal of credibility and national fame would have seemed attractive. Particulaly if that someone had a greater personal wealth.

If you look closely why else would the bank have asked for repayment so quickly with the security that the club had in players and assets.

12-18 months to finally tie the deal is not excessive if the seller and buyer are in agreement.

That''s it from me.

I will not raise the subject again and everyone can believe what they wish. It certainly will not effect  me in the slightest.

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...