The "Delia Out" Campaign

[The Butler 0]

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

 

The club is like a man with a gangrene leg.

Surgery is needed or he will die, but he puts it off because he is also frightened how he will manage with just one leg and if the replacement will work.

The devious duo have become like that leg, slowly poisoning our club.

Bandages and ointment are applied to disguise the infection but it is still there.

Bits of the leg have been removed, but the main infection still exists and while it does the whole is in danger.

At some point the surgeon is going to be needed or the whole body will die just because of fear of the removal of one part.

How the infection was caught or how good the leg has been becomes irrelevant.

 

[/quote]

If I had an infection in my leg I think I''d get professional advice Butler[:-*] I  don''t think I''d have the leg off on the advice of a consultant wannabe messageboard bod [:O][;)]

 

[/quote]

That must be one of your most obtuse answers yet!

Unless of course I am missing your point entirely which is also very possible.

Sometimes I think you are far to deep for me[;)]

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

[quote user="blahblahblah"][quote]If enough supporters make it clear that their time is up, it needn`t come to "hounding out" but as you apparently have a "fear of the known" i`m still waiting to hear what you know will happen if they are persuaded to leave?  Come on, no need to be shy......[/quote]If enough fans do want them out, then there should be no problem with arranging a "red card" demonstration against them at a home match then.  That would be your acid test I would venture.  Only thing is, who would be willing to organise such a thing ?  And would people be willing to object so openly to a board who have just provided a new manager with a decent record at this level ?[/quote]

I`ve already accepted your "bimbling along" prediction blah and there will be no mass demonstrations and no red cards- even if we get relegated again or go into administration.  "Nice" is all that counts in these parts and in general life this is a positive thing i find- but my football club means more to me than excusing ego-centric incompetents for ruining it on the basis that they "meant well". 

Incidently, would you hold up a red card given the chance?

[/quote]If Lambert fails, I probably would.  I think most accept that this a last throw of the dice, a step back from the precipice of "Team Gunn", if you will.

[blahblahblah 2]

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

 The club is like a man with a gangrene leg.

Surgery is needed or he will die, but he puts it off because he is also frightened how he will manage with just one leg and if the replacement will work.

The devious duo have become like that leg, slowly poisoning our club.

Bandages and ointment are applied to disguise the infection but it is still there.

Bits of the leg have been removed, but the main infection still exists and while it does the whole is in danger.

At some point the surgeon is going to be needed or the whole body will die just because of fear of the removal of one part.

How the infection was caught or how good the leg has been becomes irrelevant.

 

[/quote]

If I had an infection in my leg I think I''d get professional advice Butler[:-*] I  don''t think I''d have the leg off on the advice of a consultant wannabe messageboard bod [:O][;)]

 

[/quote]

That must be one of your most obtuse answers yet!

Unless of course I am missing your point entirely which is also very possible.

Sometimes I think you are far to deep for me[;)]

[/quote]And there was me thinking that nutty was predicting the future for NHS Direct...

[Dronny Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Nutty, Delias answer to the question was "Not for sale, no" as replicated in Purples latest Cullum report, but just ignore it- i know you`re well practised at that.

Your last paragraph is basically an admission that you are scared of change and the unknown.  We will NEVER truly know the plans and motives of any owner and that applies to Delia as much as anyone else, but the fact that you admit that what happens depends on "who buys them out" but that the club would "surely go into administration" shows the usual bizarre logic and paranoia. 

[/quote]

As I read Purple''s account the position appears to be in a nutshell - Are you selling up your shares and leaving?  NO.  Are you prepared for someone else to put capital in (in return for new shares) so that they become the majority shareholder instead of you? YES

Again, according to Purple''s excellent analysis of other clubs with similar scenarios, who in their right mind would buy a football club at the moment?

[7rew 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Fair questions and tbh i really don`t know.  I THINK Bates took over after Leeds went into administration and he got in on the cheap.  I doubt going into admin. would be a viable tactic for any new owner as they would basically lose control over their investment, but i don`t really know what rules and regs kick in once the administrators are in.  In theory it seems to me that going into administration is basically proof that the owner cannot afford to keep the club afloat therefore perhaps the administrators have a duty to find new owners who can?  But then i doubt they can force anyone to sell their shares.....

[/quote]Wiki is your friend!

"The board finally sold the club to Ken Bates for £10 million. Blackwell stabilized the team by signing players on free transfers and low wages and Leeds finished the 2004–05 season mid-table in the Championship. In the 2005–06 season Leeds finished in the top 6 and made the promotion playoff final, which they lost to Watford. On 10 September 2006, Kevin Blackwell announced that within a year the club would be debt-free. However, the 2006–07 season started badly and on 20 September 2006 Kevin Blackwell''s contract as manager of Leeds United was terminated. Dennis Wise

was eventually installed as his replacement after a month without a

permanent manager, but was unable to lift the team out of the

relegation zone for much of the season, despite bringing a number of

experienced loan players into the squad. With relegation virtually

assured, Leeds entered a Company Voluntary Arrangement (administration)

on 4 May 2007, thus incurring a league imposed 10 point deduction which

officially relegated the club to the third tier of English football.

The CVA was due to end on 3 July 2007 which would have allowed Bates to regain full control of the club. However HM Revenue & Customs challenged the CVA, a decision which could ultimately have resulted in the liquidation of the club.

Under league rules, if the club were still in administration at the

start of the next season, Leeds would have been prevented from starting

their campaign by the Football League. Following the challenge by HMRC, the club was put up for sale by KPMG, and once again Ken Bates'' bid was accepted.

The league eventually sanctioned this under the "exceptional

circumstances rule" but imposed a 15 point deduction due to the club

not following football league rules on clubs entering administration. On 31 August 2007 HMRC decided not to pursue their legal challenge any further."iirc there were concerns about the voting process on the CVA, with large debts to foreign companies that were widely suspected of being controlled by Bates. There certainly were other bidders which these companies opposed.  Certainly voting was on the CVA was on a debt basis, with currant and former players all voting for the CVA which gave them 100% of the debt owed as per football league rules and other creditors 1p to the pound.  Only David Healy abstained from this vote.Also as far as I know/can summise (from following football based administrations only) the shares effectively become the property of the admninistrators who sell them and give the money to the creditors.  This is summise from sentances like "Ken Bates'' bid was accepted", which suggest that he was, in effect, forced to re-buy the club.

I do agree with you, in that I don''t understand why the previous owners, having proved themselves incapable of servicing the debts, are allowed to bid to take over the company out of administration.  Surely if they have money to take over a second time, they would have been able to keep the company afloat and service their debts for longer.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Btw, 7rew, I have to say that your tag-line is absolutely hilarious [:D][:D]

[Mr.Carrow 378]

In that case Dronny, why did she answer the question "is the club for sale" with the reply "not for sale, no"?  How can that be a true statement?  They had also said earlier in the same meeting "we are not keen to sell our shares". 

I have a terraced house and i`m about to put it up for sale for £500k and the buyer must be a local professional with a perfect track record who is prepared to commit to extensive renovations for the next ten years.  So my house is "for sale", but will it be sold?

As for your last sentence, please give it a rest- Pompey are the latest in a long line of clubs about to be taken over today.

[nutty nigel 7,638]

Mr Carrow, your last paragraph is basically an admission that you would be happy for the club to go into administration just as long as it got rid of Smith & Jones. Either that or you can''t read what''s written. I didn''t say the club would go into administration if they were bought out. I said if they were hounded out. I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward.

Quotes from page one of this thread : -

" Administration. Please God let it happen."

"A new owner could do no worse"

"Most people would jump at going into administration just to get her to sod off"

Let''s get this clear. Are you sayng that Delia''s quote at the AGM that they welcome investment whether they retain all of their shares, some of their shares or none of them is no longer true? Or has it just been worded differently.

I''m still looking for a report of what was said at Capital Canaries because, as I have found out reading this board after the AGM, hearsay on a message board  is very often tainted by what the poster read into the comments they heard.

I made you the offer to sit with me at last years AGM so that we heard the same thing but you declined. You didn''t bother to go at all if I remember correctly[:O] I''ll make you the same offer for this years and also will ask an agreed question about the club being for sale if this has not been resolved.

 

 

 

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="The Butler"]

 

That must be one of your most obtuse answers yet!

Unless of course I am missing your point entirely which is also very possible.

Sometimes I think you are far to deep for me[;)]

[/quote]

Is obtuse the same as truculent or am I both today[^o)]

 

[The Butler 0]

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

 

That must be one of your most obtuse answers yet!

Unless of course I am missing your point entirely which is also very possible.

Sometimes I think you are far to deep for me[;)]

[/quote]

Is obtuse the same as truculent or am I both today[^o)]

 

[/quote]

It means you have put on weight and Lapp pushes you round in a wheelbarrow[:D]

PS Thanks for Friday night thoroughly enjoyed it!

[nutty nigel 7,638]

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

 

That must be one of your most obtuse answers yet!

Unless of course I am missing your point entirely which is also very possible.

Sometimes I think you are far to deep for me[;)]

[/quote]

Is obtuse the same as truculent or am I both today[^o)]

 

[/quote]

It means you have put on weight and Lapp pushes you round in a wheelbarrow[:D]

PS Thanks for Friday night thoroughly enjoyed it!

[/quote]

I had a great weekend. Friday was really good but I find it so hard because I have got to know all of you and never get enough time to chat. The evening just flies by. Thanks for coming and supporting it. It''s not even like a messageboard meet it''s like a friends get together[Y]

 

[Dronny Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

In that case Dronny, why did she answer the question "is the club for sale" with the reply "not for sale, no"?  How can that be a true statement?  They had also said earlier in the same meeting "we are not keen to sell our shares". 

I have a terraced house and i`m about to put it up for sale for £500k and the buyer must be a local professional with a perfect track record who is prepared to commit to extensive renovations for the next ten years.  So my house is "for sale", but will it be sold?

As for your last sentence, please give it a rest- Pompey are the latest in a long line of clubs about to be taken over today.

[/quote]

To use your analogy - she''s not wanting to sell her house (ie move out) but would be happy for someone to buy a majority share of it (and allow her to stay on in a granny flat!).  "Selling" implies disposing of the whole thing which she doesn''t want to do.  The two statements from Delia and MWJ aren''t necessarily contradictory - even though you obviously prefer to interpret them that way.  As for your last statement - if a life-long City fan with pots of dosh won''t take it on then who will? Get real!!

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Mr Carrow, your last paragraph is basically an admission that you would be happy for the club to go into administration just as long as it got rid of Smith & Jones. Either that or you can''t read what''s written. I didn''t say the club would go into administration if they were bought out. I said if they were hounded out. I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward.

Quotes from page one of this thread : -

" Administration. Please God let it happen."

"A new owner could do no worse"

"Most people would jump at going into administration just to get her to sod off"

Let''s get this clear. Are you sayng that Delia''s quote at the AGM that they welcome investment whether they retain all of their shares, some of their shares or none of them is no longer true? Or has it just been worded differently.

I''m still looking for a report of what was said at Capital Canaries because, as I have found out reading this board after the AGM, hearsay on a message board  is very often tainted by what the poster read into the comments they heard.

I made you the offer to sit with me at last years AGM so that we heard the same thing but you declined. You didn''t bother to go at all if I remember correctly[:O] I''ll make you the same offer for this years and also will ask an agreed question about the club being for sale if this has not been resolved.

 

 

 

[/quote]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="face"]

[quote user="gazzathegreat"]Face, may I make a plea? Would you NOT include me in your statement that women over 50 in Norfolk are non footballing fans. Kindly remember I am now sadly included in that category. [/quote]

I refuse to believe that gazzathegreat you look years younger than me !

 

You may have realised that it was slightly tongue in cheek and aimed at the ladies of Englad that now are Norwich City supporters purely because of that awfully nice lady Delia and as such cannot consider for a second that the woman''s well meaning incompetence (together with her appointees) has got us where we are today.

 

PS I have to mention Mr Worthington (such a nice family man) to highlight the recipe that got us where we are today, and to make sure Nutty keeps posting !

[/quote]

To quote Tangie (where are ya by the way - why are you ignoring me[:''(] )

WELL SAID!!

[/quote]

Lol!

Nutty N. I am not ignoring you mate, I have answered you at the foot of page 8.  :) How are you doing?

BTW., I remember the days of Alan Black, Mal Lucas, Bill Punton, Mike Sutton, Terry Allcock, Laurie Sheffield. When I was a wee nipper my late dad use to seat me on the fold up bench seats of the Main Stand enclosure.....close to the action. Fond memories. Then there were the flying green cushions.....

 

 

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="Dronny Canary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

In that case Dronny, why did she answer the question "is the club for sale" with the reply "not for sale, no"?  How can that be a true statement?  They had also said earlier in the same meeting "we are not keen to sell our shares". 

I have a terraced house and i`m about to put it up for sale for £500k and the buyer must be a local professional with a perfect track record who is prepared to commit to extensive renovations for the next ten years.  So my house is "for sale", but will it be sold?

As for your last sentence, please give it a rest- Pompey are the latest in a long line of clubs about to be taken over today.

[/quote]

To use your analogy - she''s not wanting to sell her house (ie move out) but would be happy for someone to buy a majority share of it (and allow her to stay on in a granny flat!).  "Selling" implies disposing of the whole thing which she doesn''t want to do.  The two statements from Delia and MWJ aren''t necessarily contradictory - even though you obviously prefer to interpret them that way.  As for your last statement - if a life-long City fan with pots of dosh won''t take it on then who will? Get real!!

[/quote]

Apologies Dronny, i misread your post.  I see the point you are making, but i don`t believe that D and M have any right to demand to stay involved given the mess they`ve made and i don`t think anyone will even consider buying in on their terms.  This is about ego and control IMO and none of us know what strings and demands they are attaching.  Given their judgement with managers, do you trust their judgement to call the shots in relation to new investment?

[Dronny Canary 0]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="Dronny Canary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

In that case Dronny, why did she answer the question "is the club for sale" with the reply "not for sale, no"?  How can that be a true statement?  They had also said earlier in the same meeting "we are not keen to sell our shares". 

I have a terraced house and i`m about to put it up for sale for £500k and the buyer must be a local professional with a perfect track record who is prepared to commit to extensive renovations for the next ten years.  So my house is "for sale", but will it be sold?

As for your last sentence, please give it a rest- Pompey are the latest in a long line of clubs about to be taken over today.

[/quote]

To use your analogy - she''s not wanting to sell her house (ie move out) but would be happy for someone to buy a majority share of it (and allow her to stay on in a granny flat!).  "Selling" implies disposing of the whole thing which she doesn''t want to do.  The two statements from Delia and MWJ aren''t necessarily contradictory - even though you obviously prefer to interpret them that way.  As for your last statement - if a life-long City fan with pots of dosh won''t take it on then who will? Get real!!

[/quote]

Apologies Dronny, i misread your post.  I see the point you are making, but i don`t believe that D and M have any right to demand to stay involved given the mess they`ve made and i don`t think anyone will even consider buying in on their terms.  This is about ego and control IMO and none of us know what strings and demands they are attaching.  Given their judgement with managers, do you trust their judgement to call the shots in relation to new investment?

[/quote]

Like a number of other people on here I think this is as much about saving face.  It''s sad because they seem basically nice people who genuinely care about the club but events suggest that they''ve just been out of their depth.  I would hope that the others involved would have a say in relation to new investment in which case I would be more optimistic.  If it was just left to Delia and MWJ I would be much less so!

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Nutty - my evidence is the overwhelming vote of no confidence in the NCFC Plc board (including the Stowmarket Two) at the St. Andrews Hall meeting.

The vote was - confidence in the board         a BIG zero!

                     - abstained                              5

                     - no confidence                       495

 

Enjoy!

[/quote]

Sorry Tangie.. I missed this post. "My bad" I think is the modern expression I should use here.

I was  one of the 495 and as I posted at the time "I would have had more confidence in the board including Munby and Doncaster than the one with just the 3 members left.

But please don''t confuse this with  a vote of no confidence in the current board. That particular vote is now surely irrelevant because we have a new board.

I believe it''s time that Delia outers came out of the closet. Let''s have a bit of clarity. Howabout a vote which names them personally? A vote to find out if the majority are behind the witch hunt. This is all so cloak and dagger. The official line has always been we musn''t let the unrest become personal against the majority shareholders. When nCIsA backed the Worthy Out demostrations the official line was not to let any protest include Smith&Jones. Since then there''s never been a public change of focus. It''s time to front up and call a spade a spade. If fans groups, not just nCIsA but any fans groups, want Smith & Jones to stand down then isn''t it time they publically said so. The way I see it you have your big chance coming up. You Tangie could be the hero. You could put a proposal to your AGM that the members vote on a resolution for the Association to demand Smith & Jones step down. It''s time to put up or shut up[:O][:#]

 

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

 

[Tangible Fixed Assets anyone? 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Nutty - my evidence is the overwhelming vote of no confidence in the NCFC Plc board (including the Stowmarket Two) at the St. Andrews Hall meeting.

The vote was - confidence in the board         a BIG zero!

                     - abstained                              5

                     - no confidence                       495

 

Enjoy!

[/quote]

Sorry Tangie.. I missed this post. "My bad" I think is the modern expression I should use here.

I was  one of the 495 and as I posted at the time "I would have had more confidence in the board including Munby and Doncaster than the one with just the 3 members left.

But please don''t confuse this with  a vote of no confidence in the current board. That particular vote is now surely irrelevant because we have a new board.

[/quote]

IMHO., we only have HALF a new board, so the public vote of no confidence (in my opinion) still applies to half of the board

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

[/quote]

But you don''t, of course.

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

[/quote]

But you don''t, of course.

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Oh yes I do pinky. But only when I have preconceived ideas. For instance I missed much of what Glen Roeder said at the AGM for this very reason. Do you have preconcieved ideas when you google and then report what fits your agenda?

Do you have anything to add to the debate other than that?

 

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Tangible Fixed Assets anyone"]

Nutty - my evidence is the overwhelming vote of no confidence in the NCFC Plc board (including the Stowmarket Two) at the St. Andrews Hall meeting.

The vote was - confidence in the board         a BIG zero!

                     - abstained                              5

                     - no confidence                       495

 

Enjoy!

[/quote]

Sorry Tangie.. I missed this post. "My bad" I think is the modern expression I should use here.

I was  one of the 495 and as I posted at the time "I would have had more confidence in the board including Munby and Doncaster than the one with just the 3 members left.

But please don''t confuse this with  a vote of no confidence in the current board. That particular vote is now surely irrelevant because we have a new board.

[/quote]

IMHO., we only have HALF a new board, so the public vote of no confidence (in my opinion) still applies to half of the board

[/quote]

Tangie mate.. that''s a cop out and you know it. The board has changed and surely the vote of confidence no longer stands. 

I have always said I would never join nCIsA. I have a lot of time for you guys personally but it''s not for me. However, if I join could I put forward the proposal?

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

[/quote]

But you don''t, of course.

OTBC

[/quote]

Oh yes I do pinky. But only when I have preconceived ideas. For instance I missed much of what Glen Roeder said at the AGM for this very reason. Do you have preconcieved ideas when you google and then report what fits your agenda?

Do you have anything to add to the debate other than that?

[/quote]

Glad you enjoyed the pink. As you well know I do it especially for you.

Yes, if I can find the time. I didn''t do typing at school like you, y''know.

Problem is though that you''re going round and round in ever decreasing circles as usual......and........

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="BlyBlyBabes"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

[/quote]

But you don''t, of course.

OTBC

[/quote]

Oh yes I do pinky. But only when I have preconceived ideas. For instance I missed much of what Glen Roeder said at the AGM for this very reason. Do you have preconcieved ideas when you google and then report what fits your agenda?

Do you have anything to add to the debate other than that?

[/quote]

Glad you enjoyed the pink. As you well know I do it especially for you.

Yes, if I can find the time. I didn''t do typing at school like you, y''know.

Problem is though that you''re going round and round in ever decreasing circles as usual......and........

OTBC

 

[/quote]

A simple "no" would have been sufficient.

 

[billionairenorwichfan 0]

Delia and Michael WJ have put a lot into the finances of NCFC and for that we must all be grateful - HOWEVER they do not know how to run a football club.  They can still be shareholders, but they need to let people with experience run the club.  The reality is that without significant finance we will continue to struggle, and until we lose this small club mentality absolutely nothing will change.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

 

[/quote]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[nutty nigel 7,638]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"][quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

Playing silly games yet again.  I could claim that you are relying on hearsay over what you heard at the AGM but i am honest and i know what they said and i also know that it was contradicted at the CC meeting- as well you do.  Grow up.

"I have no problem with them selling up to someone who would take the club forward", well i hope you get your personal veto- someone who KNOWS what will happen in the future surely deserves one.  And being "hounded out" means they would have to sell to someone else- they either own the shares or someone else does, there is no inbetween.

I have told you several times why i can`t make AGM`s or nearly all night games- something else you`ve clearly ignored- there really is no point carrying on with someone so pig-headed.

[/quote]

I don''t doubt you''re honest Mr Carrow but I''m afraid I stand by what I said. People go to these meetings with preconceived idea''s. They then listen to part of the answer and report what their agenda suits. What was Delia''s quote from CC meeting? I have repeated the one from the AGM which to your credit you don''t argue with. So in return tell me her quote from the Capitals. Not what people have read into it but what the quote was. If it was really that the club was not for sale full stop then I am prepared to pursue this at the next available meeting because I don''t like being lied to.

As for being hounded out meaning selling the shares, well I''m afraid that''s not what I''ve been reading. My opinion is that unfortunately nobody wants to buy them. That''s what Cullum said too wasn''t it? Unless you have a contradictary quote.

 

[/quote]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[/quote]

Mr Carrow. Thank you for providing that quote but where is that any different from the AGM quote I used? I thought Delia had always maintained that their shares were not for sale unless the deal included an investment and agreement to ongoing investment into the football club. They welcomed investment whether it meant them retaining all their shares, some of their shares or none of them. Does that amount to the same thing or not?

I didn''t say any report wasn''t accurate, I just reported what I heard rather than hearsay.

I thought Cullum said he didn''t want to buy their shares?

If you have a problem with hairpulling I suggest you copy another of our friends on here and wear a bucket[:-*]

 

[PurpleCanary 5,582]

[quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[/quote]Mr.Carrow, I don''t think anyone doubts that Delia  - when asked at the Caps'' agm if the club was up for sale - said it wasn''t.The point is whether she is right about that. Not least because five seconds earlier her husband said it was up for sale!I reiterate what I''ve said on my website. Smith and Jones have said they are willing to let someone else take over as majority shareholders, the club has said it, Harris has said it. Those are public statements that the club is effectively up for sale. Delia may not like admitting that in a bald way, but that is what those statements mean.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

You are clearly on a wind-up nutty.  Well done, it worked for a while but i ain`t playing along any more.

[Mr.Carrow 378]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mr.Carrow"]

*Pulls hair out*  I`ve already given you the quote nutty.  I`m afraid i don`t know how to do the link thing but here is a quote by Delia from the evening news article dated 11 of Aug. by Peter Walsh:  "The club is not up for sale but we have tried very hard to find new investment".  There is a direct link to the article on the "Re:Capital Canaries AGM....." thread started by .....and Smith must score.  I suppose you`ll claim that whilst the reports of the AGM you attended were 100% accurate, this one must be inaccurate now will you?

Where did Cullum say no-one wants to buy their shares?  How exactly do you define them being "hounded out" if don`t sell their shares to someone else?

[/quote]

Mr.Carrow, I don''t think anyone doubts that Delia  - when asked at the Caps'' agm if the club was up for sale - said it wasn''t.

The point is whether she is right about that. Not least because five seconds earlier her husband said it was up for sale!

I reiterate what I''ve said on my website. Smith and Jones have said they are willing to let someone else take over as majority shareholders, the club has said it, Harris has said it. Those are public statements that the club is effectively up for sale. Delia may not like admitting that in a bald way, but that is what those statements mean.[/quote]

TBH Purple our little falling out has been about whether their statements are contradictory- which everyone except nutty seems to accept they are.  The confusion i think is whether you define welcoming new investment in the form of new shares which would dilute D and M`s stake to a minority one as being "up for sale".  I guess Delia and quite a few others don`t- but i accept that in effect it`s the same thing.

IMO they don`t want to sell their shares and are making that quite obvious, which must surely limit the options in terms of a new owner?